Russian vs Chinese Married-Couple Family Poverty
COMPARE
Russian
Chinese
Married-Couple Family Poverty
Married-Couple Family Poverty Comparison
Russians
Chinese
4.3%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
52nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
3.6%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Russian vs Chinese Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 502,513,768 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Russians and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.691 and weighted average of 4.3%. Similarly, 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%, a difference of 18.5%.
Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Russian | Chinese |
| Minimum | 1.6% | 0.44% |
| Maximum | 64.7% | 17.1% |
| Range | 63.1% | 16.7% |
| Mean | 8.7% | 4.2% |
| Median | 4.1% | 3.3% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 3.3% | 2.2% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 8.3% | 4.1% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.0% | 1.9% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 11.4% | 3.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 11.3% | 3.4% |
Similar Demographics by Married-Couple Family Poverty
Demographics Similar to Russians by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Russians are Immigrants from Lithuania (4.3%, a difference of 0.030%), Burmese (4.3%, a difference of 0.040%), Turkish (4.3%, a difference of 0.13%), Welsh (4.3%, a difference of 0.15%), and Australian (4.3%, a difference of 0.21%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Serbians | 99.8 /100 | #45 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| British | 99.8 /100 | #46 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Immigrants | South Central Asia | 99.8 /100 | #47 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Australians | 99.7 /100 | #48 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Turks | 99.7 /100 | #49 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Burmese | 99.7 /100 | #50 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.7 /100 | #51 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Russians | 99.7 /100 | #52 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Welsh | 99.7 /100 | #53 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Austrians | 99.7 /100 | #54 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| French | 99.7 /100 | #55 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Immigrants | Zimbabwe | 99.7 /100 | #56 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Immigrants | Netherlands | 99.7 /100 | #57 | Exceptional 4.3% |
| Czechoslovakians | 99.7 /100 | #58 | Exceptional 4.4% |
| Immigrants | Sweden | 99.6 /100 | #59 | Exceptional 4.4% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese 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%), Norwegian (3.7%, a difference of 1.9%), Slovene (3.8%, a difference of 5.6%), Swedish (3.9%, a difference of 5.7%), and Luxembourger (3.9%, a difference of 6.4%).
| 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% |