Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Tongan Male Poverty
COMPARE
Immigrants from Hong Kong
Tongan
Male Poverty
Male Poverty Comparison
Immigrants from Hong Kong
Tongans
9.6%
MALE POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
19th/ 347
METRIC RANK
9.7%
MALE POVERTY
99.5/ 100
METRIC RATING
31st/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Tongan Male Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 253,850,467 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Hong Kong and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.101 and weighted average of 9.6%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 102,857,132 people shows a mild negative correlation between the proportion of Tongans and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.360 and weighted average of 9.7%, a difference of 1.6%.
Male Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Immigrants from Hong Kong | Tongan |
| Minimum | 1.3% | 2.9% |
| Maximum | 15.8% | 21.0% |
| Range | 14.5% | 18.2% |
| Mean | 8.4% | 9.1% |
| Median | 8.6% | 8.5% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 6.6% | 6.7% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 9.6% | 11.2% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 3.0% | 4.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 2.9% | 3.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 2.9% | 3.5% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Hong Kong and Tongans by Male Poverty
In terms of male poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Hong Kong are Latvian (9.6%, a difference of 0.10%), Lithuanian (9.5%, a difference of 0.18%), Norwegian (9.5%, a difference of 0.35%), Immigrants from Scotland (9.6%, a difference of 0.36%), and Luxembourger (9.5%, a difference of 0.48%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Tongans are Polish (9.7%, a difference of 0.020%), Greek (9.7%, a difference of 0.10%), Immigrants from Korea (9.7%, a difference of 0.14%), Macedonian (9.7%, a difference of 0.21%), and Danish (9.7%, a difference of 0.22%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Male Poverty |
| Bhutanese | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 9.5% |
| Luxembourgers | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 9.5% |
| Norwegians | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 9.5% |
| Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 9.5% |
| Immigrants | Hong Kong | 99.7 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 9.6% |
| Latvians | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 9.6% |
| Immigrants | Scotland | 99.7 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 9.6% |
| Croatians | 99.7 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 9.6% |
| Italians | 99.7 /100 | #23 | Exceptional 9.6% |
| Swedes | 99.7 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 9.6% |
| Eastern Europeans | 99.6 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 9.6% |
| Burmese | 99.6 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Danes | 99.6 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Immigrants | Korea | 99.6 /100 | #28 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Greeks | 99.6 /100 | #29 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Poles | 99.5 /100 | #30 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Tongans | 99.5 /100 | #31 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Macedonians | 99.5 /100 | #32 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Immigrants | Northern Europe | 99.5 /100 | #33 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Immigrants | Poland | 99.5 /100 | #34 | Exceptional 9.8% |
| Iranians | 99.4 /100 | #35 | Exceptional 9.8% |