Tsimshian vs Cherokee Male Poverty
COMPARE
Tsimshian
Cherokee
Male Poverty
Male Poverty Comparison
Tsimshian
Cherokee
12.8%
MALE POVERTY
0.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
244th/ 347
METRIC RANK
13.1%
MALE POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
259th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Tsimshian vs Cherokee Male Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 15,624,889 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Tsimshian and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.352 and weighted average of 12.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 493,122,545 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Cherokee and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.361 and weighted average of 13.1%, a difference of 2.2%.
Male Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Tsimshian | Cherokee |
| Minimum | 8.5% | 3.6% |
| Maximum | 21.8% | 54.2% |
| Range | 13.2% | 50.6% |
| Mean | 13.7% | 17.8% |
| Median | 13.1% | 16.3% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 10.7% | 13.4% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 16.3% | 20.6% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.6% | 7.2% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.7% | 7.8% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.6% | 7.8% |
Demographics Similar to Tsimshian and Cherokee by Male Poverty
In terms of male poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Tsimshian are Liberian (12.8%, a difference of 0.010%), Alaskan Athabascan (12.8%, a difference of 0.11%), Nepalese (12.8%, a difference of 0.14%), Sudanese (12.8%, a difference of 0.31%), and Immigrants from El Salvador (12.8%, a difference of 0.32%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Cherokee are Ottawa (13.1%, a difference of 0.11%), Trinidadian and Tobagonian (13.1%, a difference of 0.13%), Cape Verdean (13.1%, a difference of 0.16%), Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago (13.1%, a difference of 0.29%), and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar (13.0%, a difference of 0.55%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Male Poverty |
| Sudanese | 0.3 /100 | #241 | Tragic 12.8% |
| Nepalese | 0.3 /100 | #242 | Tragic 12.8% |
| Alaskan Athabascans | 0.3 /100 | #243 | Tragic 12.8% |
| Tsimshian | 0.3 /100 | #244 | Tragic 12.8% |
| Liberians | 0.3 /100 | #245 | Tragic 12.8% |
| Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.2 /100 | #246 | Tragic 12.8% |
| Immigrants | Western Africa | 0.2 /100 | #247 | Tragic 12.9% |
| Immigrants | Sudan | 0.2 /100 | #248 | Tragic 12.9% |
| Potawatomi | 0.2 /100 | #249 | Tragic 12.9% |
| Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.2 /100 | #250 | Tragic 12.9% |
| Immigrants | Cuba | 0.2 /100 | #251 | Tragic 12.9% |
| Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.2 /100 | #252 | Tragic 12.9% |
| Immigrants | Ghana | 0.2 /100 | #253 | Tragic 12.9% |
| Mexican American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #254 | Tragic 13.0% |
| Immigrants | Liberia | 0.1 /100 | #255 | Tragic 13.0% |
| Immigrants | Burma/Myanmar | 0.1 /100 | #256 | Tragic 13.0% |
| Immigrants | Trinidad and Tobago | 0.1 /100 | #257 | Tragic 13.1% |
| Cape Verdeans | 0.1 /100 | #258 | Tragic 13.1% |
| Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #259 | Tragic 13.1% |
| Ottawa | 0.1 /100 | #260 | Tragic 13.1% |
| Trinidadians and Tobagonians | 0.1 /100 | #261 | Tragic 13.1% |