Burmese vs Norwegian Poverty
COMPARE
Burmese
Norwegian
Poverty
Poverty Comparison
Burmese
Norwegians
10.7%
POVERTY
99.6/ 100
METRIC RATING
26th/ 347
METRIC RANK
10.5%
POVERTY
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
17th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Burmese vs Norwegian Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 464,896,901 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Burmese and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.173 and weighted average of 10.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 532,786,336 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Norwegians and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.117 and weighted average of 10.5%, a difference of 1.5%.
Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Burmese | Norwegian |
| Minimum | 1.6% | 0.40% |
| Maximum | 37.7% | 41.5% |
| Range | 36.2% | 41.1% |
| Mean | 9.3% | 10.4% |
| Median | 8.4% | 9.8% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.8% | 8.1% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 10.8% | 11.2% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.9% | 3.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 6.2% | 5.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 6.1% | 5.0% |
Demographics Similar to Burmese and Norwegians by Poverty
In terms of poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Burmese are Croatian (10.6%, a difference of 0.31%), Immigrants from Northern Europe (10.7%, a difference of 0.36%), Immigrants from Korea (10.7%, a difference of 0.42%), Italian (10.6%, a difference of 0.50%), and Greek (10.7%, a difference of 0.52%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Norwegians are Latvian (10.5%, a difference of 0.10%), Lithuanian (10.5%, a difference of 0.37%), Immigrants from Scotland (10.6%, a difference of 0.49%), Immigrants from North Macedonia (10.6%, a difference of 0.60%), and Bolivian (10.4%, a difference of 0.67%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Poverty |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.9 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 10.3% |
| Bhutanese | 99.8 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 10.4% |
| Immigrants | Hong Kong | 99.8 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 10.4% |
| Immigrants | Bolivia | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 10.4% |
| Bolivians | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 10.4% |
| Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 10.5% |
| Norwegians | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 10.5% |
| Latvians | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 10.5% |
| Immigrants | Scotland | 99.7 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Immigrants | North Macedonia | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Luxembourgers | 99.7 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Eastern Europeans | 99.7 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Swedes | 99.7 /100 | #23 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Italians | 99.7 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Croatians | 99.6 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Burmese | 99.6 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 10.7% |
| Immigrants | Northern Europe | 99.6 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 10.7% |
| Immigrants | Korea | 99.5 /100 | #28 | Exceptional 10.7% |
| Greeks | 99.5 /100 | #29 | Exceptional 10.7% |
| Danes | 99.5 /100 | #30 | Exceptional 10.7% |
| Poles | 99.5 /100 | #31 | Exceptional 10.7% |