Immigrants from China vs Slavic Poverty
COMPARE
Immigrants from China
Slavic
Poverty
Poverty Comparison
Immigrants from China
Slavs
11.6%
POVERTY
90.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
114th/ 347
METRIC RANK
11.5%
POVERTY
93.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
101st/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from China vs Slavic Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 456,587,979 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from China and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.259 and weighted average of 11.6%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 270,786,783 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Slavs and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.645 and weighted average of 11.5%, a difference of 0.91%.
Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Immigrants from China | Slavic |
| Minimum | 3.0% | 0.14% |
| Maximum | 26.5% | 44.1% |
| Range | 23.5% | 43.9% |
| Mean | 11.4% | 11.4% |
| Median | 10.8% | 10.1% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 8.8% | 7.4% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 12.3% | 13.2% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 3.5% | 5.8% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.1% | 8.2% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.1% | 8.1% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from China and Slavs by Poverty
In terms of poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from China are Immigrants from Southern Europe (11.6%, a difference of 0.020%), Immigrants from Belarus (11.6%, a difference of 0.020%), French Canadian (11.6%, a difference of 0.090%), Albanian (11.7%, a difference of 0.14%), and Welsh (11.6%, a difference of 0.26%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Slavs are Scottish (11.5%, a difference of 0.31%), Laotian (11.6%, a difference of 0.34%), Okinawan (11.6%, a difference of 0.34%), Immigrants from Indonesia (11.5%, a difference of 0.42%), and Native Hawaiian (11.6%, a difference of 0.45%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Poverty |
| Immigrants | Egypt | 94.6 /100 | #97 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Immigrants | Latvia | 94.5 /100 | #98 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Immigrants | Indonesia | 94.2 /100 | #99 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Scottish | 94.0 /100 | #100 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Slavs | 93.3 /100 | #101 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Laotians | 92.4 /100 | #102 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Okinawans | 92.4 /100 | #103 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Native Hawaiians | 92.1 /100 | #104 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Portuguese | 92.1 /100 | #105 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Immigrants | Zimbabwe | 92.1 /100 | #106 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Palestinians | 91.8 /100 | #107 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Canadians | 91.7 /100 | #108 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Immigrants | Turkey | 91.7 /100 | #109 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Welsh | 91.6 /100 | #110 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| French Canadians | 91.0 /100 | #111 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Immigrants | Southern Europe | 90.8 /100 | #112 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Immigrants | Belarus | 90.8 /100 | #113 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Immigrants | China | 90.7 /100 | #114 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Albanians | 90.3 /100 | #115 | Exceptional 11.7% |
| Immigrants | Russia | 89.7 /100 | #116 | Excellent 11.7% |
| Sri Lankans | 89.4 /100 | #117 | Excellent 11.7% |