Israeli vs Chinese Married-Couple Family Poverty
COMPARE
Israeli
Chinese
Married-Couple Family Poverty
Married-Couple Family Poverty Comparison
Israelis
Chinese
5.3%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
33.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
188th/ 347
METRIC RANK
3.6%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Israeli vs Chinese Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 209,909,824 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Israelis and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.538 and weighted average of 5.3%. 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 46.0%.
Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Israeli | Chinese |
| Minimum | 0.81% | 0.44% |
| Maximum | 38.6% | 17.1% |
| Range | 37.8% | 16.7% |
| Mean | 7.9% | 4.2% |
| Median | 5.0% | 3.3% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 3.5% | 2.2% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.7% | 4.1% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.1% | 1.9% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 9.4% | 3.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 9.2% | 3.4% |
Similar Demographics by Married-Couple Family Poverty
Demographics Similar to Israelis by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Israelis are Immigrants from Albania (5.3%, a difference of 0.090%), South American Indian (5.3%, a difference of 0.090%), Hungarian (5.3%, a difference of 0.20%), Ugandan (5.3%, a difference of 0.20%), and American (5.3%, a difference of 0.28%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Immigrants | Chile | 38.8 /100 | #181 | Fair 5.3% |
| Immigrants | Vietnam | 37.7 /100 | #182 | Fair 5.3% |
| Peruvians | 37.6 /100 | #183 | Fair 5.3% |
| Immigrants | Nonimmigrants | 35.8 /100 | #184 | Fair 5.3% |
| Americans | 35.4 /100 | #185 | Fair 5.3% |
| Hungarians | 34.7 /100 | #186 | Fair 5.3% |
| Immigrants | Albania | 33.8 /100 | #187 | Fair 5.3% |
| Israelis | 33.1 /100 | #188 | Fair 5.3% |
| South American Indians | 32.5 /100 | #189 | Fair 5.3% |
| Ugandans | 31.6 /100 | #190 | Fair 5.3% |
| Immigrants | Cabo Verde | 30.9 /100 | #191 | Fair 5.3% |
| Cape Verdeans | 30.7 /100 | #192 | Fair 5.3% |
| Malaysians | 29.5 /100 | #193 | Fair 5.4% |
| Immigrants | Israel | 27.8 /100 | #194 | Fair 5.4% |
| Immigrants | Azores | 27.5 /100 | #195 | Fair 5.4% |
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% |