Bhutanese vs Chinese Single Female Poverty
COMPARE
Bhutanese
Chinese
Single Female Poverty
Single Female Poverty Comparison
Bhutanese
Chinese
17.7%
SINGLE FEMALE POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
9th/ 347
METRIC RANK
16.1%
SINGLE FEMALE POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
1st/ 347
METRIC RANK
Bhutanese vs Chinese Single Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 446,564,428 people shows a mild negative correlation between the proportion of Bhutanese and poverty level among single females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.334 and weighted average of 17.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,651,041 people shows a weak negative correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among single females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.244 and weighted average of 16.1%, a difference of 9.7%.
Single Female Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Bhutanese | Chinese |
Minimum | 1.3% | 1.3% |
Maximum | 41.4% | 43.0% |
Range | 40.1% | 41.7% |
Mean | 15.9% | 16.1% |
Median | 15.1% | 16.1% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 10.2% | 9.3% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 19.9% | 20.3% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 9.7% | 10.9% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 7.8% | 9.1% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 7.8% | 9.1% |
Demographics Similar to Bhutanese and Chinese by Single Female Poverty
In terms of single female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Bhutanese are Immigrants from Ireland (17.8%, a difference of 0.41%), Immigrants from Lithuania (17.8%, a difference of 0.50%), Immigrants from South Central Asia (17.8%, a difference of 0.56%), Immigrants from Bolivia (17.8%, a difference of 0.82%), and Bolivian (17.9%, a difference of 1.3%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Immigrants from Taiwan (16.4%, a difference of 1.3%), Immigrants from Hong Kong (16.5%, a difference of 2.4%), Immigrants from India (16.8%, a difference of 4.2%), Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac (17.0%, a difference of 5.0%), and Filipino (17.0%, a difference of 5.2%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Single Female Poverty |
Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 16.1% |
Immigrants | Taiwan | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 16.4% |
Immigrants | Hong Kong | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 16.5% |
Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 16.8% |
Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 17.0% |
Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 17.0% |
Thais | 100.0 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 17.3% |
Immigrants | Iran | 100.0 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 17.5% |
Bhutanese | 100.0 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 17.7% |
Immigrants | Ireland | 100.0 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 17.8% |
Immigrants | Lithuania | 100.0 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 17.8% |
Immigrants | South Central Asia | 100.0 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 17.8% |
Immigrants | Bolivia | 100.0 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 17.8% |
Bolivians | 100.0 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 17.9% |
Indians (Asian) | 100.0 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 17.9% |
Iranians | 100.0 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 18.0% |
Immigrants | Korea | 100.0 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 18.1% |
Immigrants | Eastern Asia | 100.0 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 18.1% |
Immigrants | China | 100.0 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 18.1% |
Immigrants | Greece | 100.0 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 18.3% |