Burmese vs Norwegian Male Poverty
COMPARE
Burmese
Norwegian
Male Poverty
Male Poverty Comparison
Burmese
Norwegians
9.7%
MALE POVERTY
99.6/ 100
METRIC RATING
26th/ 347
METRIC RANK
9.5%
MALE POVERTY
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
17th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Burmese vs Norwegian Male Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 464,653,022 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Burmese and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.097 and weighted average of 9.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 532,206,209 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Norwegians and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.183 and weighted average of 9.5%, a difference of 1.6%.
Male Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Burmese | Norwegian |
| Minimum | 1.3% | 2.4% |
| Maximum | 23.5% | 50.0% |
| Range | 22.2% | 47.6% |
| Mean | 8.2% | 9.8% |
| Median | 8.0% | 8.9% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.0% | 7.5% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 10.0% | 10.1% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.1% | 2.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.7% | 6.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.7% | 6.1% |
Demographics Similar to Burmese and Norwegians by Male Poverty
In terms of male poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Burmese are Danish (9.7%, a difference of 0.13%), Immigrants from Korea (9.7%, a difference of 0.21%), Greek (9.7%, a difference of 0.25%), Polish (9.7%, a difference of 0.33%), and Tongan (9.7%, a difference of 0.35%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Norwegians are Luxembourger (9.5%, a difference of 0.13%), Lithuanian (9.5%, a difference of 0.17%), Immigrants from Hong Kong (9.6%, a difference of 0.35%), Latvian (9.6%, a difference of 0.45%), and Bhutanese (9.5%, a difference of 0.65%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Male Poverty |
| Bolivians | 99.9 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 9.4% |
| Immigrants | Bolivia | 99.9 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 9.4% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.9 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 9.4% |
| Immigrants | North Macedonia | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 9.4% |
| 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% |