Chinese vs Latvian Family Poverty
COMPARE
Chinese
Latvian
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Chinese
Latvians
6.5%
FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
7.1%
FAMILY POVERTY
99.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
9th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Latvian Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,784,795 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.039 and weighted average of 6.5%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 220,290,550 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Latvians and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.048 and weighted average of 7.1%, a difference of 8.8%.
Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chinese | Latvian |
| Minimum | 1.3% | 1.4% |
| Maximum | 19.1% | 26.1% |
| Range | 17.8% | 24.7% |
| Mean | 6.8% | 6.7% |
| Median | 6.3% | 6.0% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 3.5% | 4.7% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 9.0% | 8.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.5% | 3.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.1% | 4.2% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.1% | 4.2% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Latvians by Family Poverty
In terms of family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Immigrants from Taiwan (6.6%, a difference of 1.6%), Filipino (6.6%, a difference of 2.2%), Thai (6.7%, a difference of 2.8%), Immigrants from India (6.2%, a difference of 4.3%), and Norwegian (6.9%, a difference of 5.9%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Latvians are Bulgarian (7.1%, a difference of 0.25%), Immigrants from Singapore (7.1%, a difference of 0.27%), Bhutanese (7.0%, a difference of 0.44%), Maltese (7.1%, a difference of 0.55%), and Swedish (7.1%, a difference of 0.60%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Family Poverty |
| Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 6.2% |
| Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 6.5% |
| Immigrants | Taiwan | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 6.6% |
| Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 6.6% |
| Thais | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 6.7% |
| Norwegians | 99.9 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 6.9% |
| Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 7.0% |
| Bhutanese | 99.9 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 7.0% |
| Latvians | 99.9 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Bulgarians | 99.8 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Immigrants | Singapore | 99.8 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Maltese | 99.8 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Swedes | 99.8 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Iranians | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 7.2% |
| Immigrants | South Central Asia | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 7.2% |
| Luxembourgers | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 7.2% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 7.2% |
| Eastern Europeans | 99.7 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 7.2% |
| Immigrants | Hong Kong | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 7.3% |