Chickasaw vs Iroquois Male Poverty
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Iroquois
Male Poverty
Male Poverty Comparison
Chickasaw
Iroquois
13.5%
MALE POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
273rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
13.2%
MALE POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
264th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Male Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,660,855 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.047 and weighted average of 13.5%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 207,214,183 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Iroquois and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.608 and weighted average of 13.2%, a difference of 2.1%.
Male Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
Minimum | 2.2% | 3.6% |
Maximum | 33.0% | 100.0% |
Range | 30.8% | 96.4% |
Mean | 15.0% | 19.1% |
Median | 14.0% | 14.9% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 11.6% | 11.5% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 18.0% | 19.1% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 6.4% | 7.5% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.6% | 16.8% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.5% | 16.6% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Iroquois by Male Poverty
In terms of male poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from West Indies (13.5%, a difference of 0.070%), Immigrants from Bahamas (13.5%, a difference of 0.29%), Barbadian (13.6%, a difference of 0.70%), Immigrants from Latin America (13.6%, a difference of 0.89%), and Bangladeshi (13.6%, a difference of 1.0%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Iroquois are Jamaican (13.2%, a difference of 0.020%), Immigrants from Guyana (13.2%, a difference of 0.16%), Immigrants from Jamaica (13.3%, a difference of 0.28%), Subsaharan African (13.3%, a difference of 0.30%), and Central American (13.2%, a difference of 0.36%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Male Poverty |
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% |
Spanish American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 13.1% |
Central Americans | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 13.2% |
Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 13.2% |
Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 13.2% |
Immigrants | Guyana | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 13.2% |
Immigrants | Jamaica | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 13.3% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 13.3% |
Guyanese | 0.0 /100 | #269 | Tragic 13.3% |
Cree | 0.0 /100 | #270 | Tragic 13.3% |
Spanish Americans | 0.0 /100 | #271 | Tragic 13.4% |
Immigrants | Bahamas | 0.0 /100 | #272 | Tragic 13.5% |
Chickasaw | 0.0 /100 | #273 | Tragic 13.5% |
Immigrants | West Indies | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 13.5% |
Barbadians | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 13.6% |
Immigrants | Latin America | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 13.6% |
Bangladeshis | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 13.6% |
Belizeans | 0.0 /100 | #278 | Tragic 13.6% |