Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Bhutanese Single Female Poverty
COMPARE
Immigrants from Hong Kong
Bhutanese
Single Female Poverty
Single Female Poverty Comparison
Immigrants from Hong Kong
Bhutanese
16.5%
SINGLE FEMALE POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
3rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
17.7%
SINGLE FEMALE POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
9th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Bhutanese Single Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 250,865,263 people shows a mild negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Hong Kong and poverty level among single females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.338 and weighted average of 16.5%. Similarly, 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%, a difference of 7.1%.
Single Female Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Immigrants from Hong Kong | Bhutanese |
| Minimum | 2.9% | 1.3% |
| Maximum | 30.8% | 41.4% |
| Range | 27.8% | 40.1% |
| Mean | 14.5% | 15.9% |
| Median | 14.1% | 15.1% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 11.3% | 10.2% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 16.7% | 19.9% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.3% | 9.7% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.6% | 7.8% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.6% | 7.8% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Hong Kong and Bhutanese by Single Female Poverty
In terms of single female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Hong Kong are Immigrants from Taiwan (16.4%, a difference of 1.1%), Immigrants from India (16.8%, a difference of 1.7%), Chinese (16.1%, a difference of 2.4%), Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac (17.0%, a difference of 2.6%), and Filipino (17.0%, a difference of 2.8%). Similarly, 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%).
| 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% |