Tongan vs Luxembourger Male Poverty
COMPARE
Tongan
Luxembourger
Male Poverty
Male Poverty Comparison
Tongans
Luxembourgers
9.7%
MALE POVERTY
99.5/ 100
METRIC RATING
31st/ 347
METRIC RANK
9.5%
MALE POVERTY
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
16th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Tongan vs Luxembourger Male Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 102,857,132 people shows a mild negative correlation between the proportion of Tongans and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.360 and weighted average of 9.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 144,631,125 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Luxembourgers and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.298 and weighted average of 9.5%, a difference of 2.1%.
Male Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Tongan | Luxembourger |
| Minimum | 2.9% | 1.5% |
| Maximum | 21.0% | 17.8% |
| Range | 18.2% | 16.3% |
| Mean | 9.1% | 6.7% |
| Median | 8.5% | 6.1% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 6.7% | 3.2% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 11.2% | 8.4% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.5% | 5.2% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.5% | 4.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.5% | 4.0% |
Demographics Similar to Tongans and Luxembourgers by Male Poverty
In terms of male poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Tongans are Polish (9.7%, a difference of 0.020%), Greek (9.7%, a difference of 0.10%), Immigrants from Korea (9.7%, a difference of 0.14%), Macedonian (9.7%, a difference of 0.21%), and Danish (9.7%, a difference of 0.22%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Luxembourgers are Norwegian (9.5%, a difference of 0.13%), Lithuanian (9.5%, a difference of 0.30%), Immigrants from Hong Kong (9.6%, a difference of 0.48%), Bhutanese (9.5%, a difference of 0.52%), and Latvian (9.6%, a difference of 0.58%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Male Poverty |
| 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% |
| Macedonians | 99.5 /100 | #32 | Exceptional 9.7% |
| Immigrants | Northern Europe | 99.5 /100 | #33 | Exceptional 9.7% |