Polish vs Bhutanese Male Poverty
COMPARE
Polish
Bhutanese
Male Poverty
Male Poverty Comparison
Poles
Bhutanese
9.7%
MALE POVERTY
99.5/ 100
METRIC RATING
30th/ 347
METRIC RANK
9.5%
MALE POVERTY
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
15th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Polish vs Bhutanese Male Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 558,970,133 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Poles and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.290 and weighted average of 9.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 454,976,396 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Bhutanese and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.078 and weighted average of 9.5%, a difference of 2.6%.
Male Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Polish | Bhutanese |
| Minimum | 1.8% | 2.8% |
| Maximum | 46.0% | 31.2% |
| Range | 44.2% | 28.3% |
| Mean | 10.3% | 8.9% |
| Median | 8.8% | 8.0% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 7.0% | 5.9% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 11.9% | 11.0% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.9% | 5.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 6.5% | 4.9% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 6.5% | 4.8% |
Demographics Similar to Poles and Bhutanese by Male Poverty
In terms of male poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Poles are Tongan (9.7%, a difference of 0.020%), Greek (9.7%, a difference of 0.080%), Immigrants from Korea (9.7%, a difference of 0.12%), Danish (9.7%, a difference of 0.20%), and Macedonian (9.7%, a difference of 0.23%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Bhutanese are Immigrants from North Macedonia (9.4%, a difference of 0.29%), Luxembourger (9.5%, a difference of 0.52%), Norwegian (9.5%, a difference of 0.65%), Immigrants from Lithuania (9.4%, a difference of 0.67%), and Immigrants from Bolivia (9.4%, a difference of 0.79%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Male Poverty |
| 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% |
| Macedonians | 99.5 /100 | #32 | Exceptional 9.7% |