Slavic vs Czechoslovakian Poverty
COMPARE
Slavic
Czechoslovakian
Poverty
Poverty Comparison
Slavs
Czechoslovakians
11.5%
POVERTY
93.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
101st/ 347
METRIC RANK
11.4%
POVERTY
95.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
89th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Slavic vs Czechoslovakian Poverty Correlation Chart
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%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 368,518,810 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Czechoslovakians and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.060 and weighted average of 11.4%, a difference of 1.2%.
Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Slavic | Czechoslovakian |
| Minimum | 0.14% | 0.33% |
| Maximum | 44.1% | 27.8% |
| Range | 43.9% | 27.5% |
| Mean | 11.4% | 12.1% |
| Median | 10.1% | 11.4% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 7.4% | 8.7% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 13.2% | 16.8% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.8% | 8.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 8.2% | 6.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 8.1% | 6.4% |
Demographics Similar to Slavs and Czechoslovakians by Poverty
In terms of poverty, 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%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Czechoslovakians are Belgian (11.4%, a difference of 0.040%), Immigrants from Denmark (11.4%, a difference of 0.17%), Jordanian (11.4%, a difference of 0.18%), Northern European (11.4%, a difference of 0.18%), and Immigrants from England (11.4%, a difference of 0.30%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Poverty |
| Immigrants | England | 96.2 /100 | #85 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Jordanians | 96.0 /100 | #86 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Northern Europeans | 96.0 /100 | #87 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Belgians | 95.8 /100 | #88 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Czechoslovakians | 95.7 /100 | #89 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Immigrants | Denmark | 95.5 /100 | #90 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Finns | 95.2 /100 | #91 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| British | 95.0 /100 | #92 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Romanians | 94.9 /100 | #93 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Paraguayans | 94.9 /100 | #94 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Australians | 94.9 /100 | #95 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Immigrants | South Africa | 94.7 /100 | #96 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| 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% |