Chinese vs Norwegian Married-Couple Family Poverty
COMPARE
Chinese
Norwegian
Married-Couple Family Poverty
Married-Couple Family Poverty Comparison
Chinese
Norwegians
3.6%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
3.7%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
3rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Norwegian Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,670,469 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.040 and weighted average of 3.6%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 522,229,251 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Norwegians and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.355 and weighted average of 3.7%, a difference of 1.9%.
Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chinese | Norwegian |
| Minimum | 0.44% | 1.2% |
| Maximum | 17.1% | 50.0% |
| Range | 16.7% | 48.8% |
| Mean | 4.2% | 5.1% |
| Median | 3.3% | 3.4% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 2.2% | 2.7% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 4.1% | 4.4% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 1.9% | 1.7% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.4% | 7.2% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.4% | 7.1% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Norwegians by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Immigrants from India (3.6%, a difference of 0.18%), Slovene (3.8%, a difference of 5.6%), Swedish (3.9%, a difference of 5.7%), Luxembourger (3.9%, a difference of 6.4%), and Latvian (3.9%, a difference of 6.9%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Norwegians are Immigrants from India (3.6%, a difference of 2.1%), Slovene (3.8%, a difference of 3.6%), Swedish (3.9%, a difference of 3.8%), Luxembourger (3.9%, a difference of 4.4%), and Latvian (3.9%, a difference of 4.9%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 3.6% |
| Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 3.6% |
| Norwegians | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 3.7% |
| Slovenes | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 3.8% |
| Swedes | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Luxembourgers | 100.0 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Latvians | 100.0 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Thais | 100.0 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Croatians | 100.0 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Carpatho Rusyns | 100.0 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 3.9% |
| Lithuanians | 100.0 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Bulgarians | 100.0 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Czechs | 100.0 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Slovaks | 100.0 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Poles | 100.0 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Germans | 100.0 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Italians | 100.0 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 4.1% |
| Maltese | 99.9 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 4.1% |