Latvian vs Greek Male Poverty
COMPARE
Latvian
Greek
Male Poverty
Male Poverty Comparison
Latvians
Greeks
9.6%
MALE POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
20th/ 347
METRIC RANK
9.7%
MALE POVERTY
99.6/ 100
METRIC RATING
29th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Latvian vs Greek Male Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 220,591,162 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.296 and weighted average of 9.6%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 481,993,852 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Greeks and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.790 and weighted average of 9.7%, a difference of 1.4%.
Male Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Latvian | Greek |
| Minimum | 1.5% | 0.65% |
| Maximum | 34.6% | 95.7% |
| Range | 33.2% | 95.1% |
| Mean | 9.2% | 15.6% |
| Median | 8.1% | 8.4% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.8% | 6.7% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 11.6% | 18.1% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.8% | 11.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.7% | 16.7% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.7% | 16.5% |
Demographics Similar to Latvians and Greeks by Male Poverty
In terms of male poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Latvians are Immigrants from Hong Kong (9.6%, a difference of 0.10%), Immigrants from Scotland (9.6%, a difference of 0.26%), Lithuanian (9.5%, a difference of 0.28%), Norwegian (9.5%, a difference of 0.45%), and Croatian (9.6%, a difference of 0.51%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Greeks are Immigrants from Korea (9.7%, a difference of 0.040%), Polish (9.7%, a difference of 0.080%), Tongan (9.7%, a difference of 0.10%), Danish (9.7%, a difference of 0.12%), and Burmese (9.7%, a difference of 0.25%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Male Poverty |
| 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% |
| Macedonians | 99.5 /100 | #32 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Immigrants | Northern Europe | 99.5 /100 | #33 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Immigrants | Poland | 99.5 /100 | #34 | Exceptional 9.8% |