US high in UN child poverty table

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
The US has one of the highest rates of relative child poverty among the world's wealthiest countries, according to a report by the UN.
The US, which is second only to Mexico in the UN children's agency report, is nonetheless one of few countries to see a recent decline in child poverty.

In total, Unicef says up to 50 million children are living in poverty in rich nations and the figure is rising.

Children in Nordic countries are best off, due to higher social spending.

Unicef looked at 24 of the 30 states in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) - a Paris-based group of the world's wealthiest nations.

The figures refer to relative poverty defined as households with income per head below 50% of the national average.



Click here to see child poverty rates in industrialised countries
Its Child Poverty in Rich Countries report found that the number of children living in poverty had risen in 17 of those countries over the past decade.

Mexico comes bottom of the table with a figure of 28%.

"No matter which of the commonly used poverty measures is applied, the situation of children is seen to have deteriorated over the last decade," the report says.

National wealth

Even in the few countries where deprivation is declining the rate can remain high - as is the case in the US, where about 22% of those aged under 18 are still living in relative poverty.

Similarly, the UK still has 15% of the child population below the poverty line despite government campaigns which have led to a 10% drop.

Unicef regional director Philip O'Brien stressed that the figures were relative to the average household income of the countries involved, rather than their national wealth.

"The child living in poverty in the US is clearly not as badly off as the child in Mexico," he said.

Top of the table are Denmark and Finland, where child poverty levels are less than 3%, while Norway and Sweden follow close behind.

Unicef praised the Nordic nations for their social spending on families.

"Higher government spending on family and social benefits is very clearly associated with a lower level of child poverty," said Mr O'Brien.


He said market forces could not on their own lift children out of poverty and urged direct intervention through greater government spending.

Only the US, the UK, Australia and Norway have had significant drops in child deprivation, according to the figures supplied to the OECD over the past 15 years.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4307745.stm

How the hell did poland beat out the u.s. and canada? Also, Mexico is suprisingly close to us (28% to 22%). Finland, sweden and norway ran away with this though, 2.5-4% for the three. Finland 2.5, u.s. 22.
 
This study though is flawed. I have no doubt that the statistics used in it are not universal measures of poverty but however the respective countries Census or Interior bureaus/departments measure their national standards.

For example, if we declare a family of 4 in poverty if they make $22,000 a year or less (I don't know what our poverty line is for a family of 4.) and then say that 22% of children live below the poverty line live in those families that's what's reported to the study. However look at the poor in the U.S. versus the poor in Mexico.

We don't have shanty downs, ditch style waste management, no running water etc. for large slums like they do in Mexico City. Now outdoor plubming surely exists in parts of Appalachia or other scattered areas of the country. However we don't have masses of huddled poor that would distress a moral nation.

I've talked to phone company workers and cable installers that go into bad areas of Pittsburgh to install cable, cable modems, DSL and say that people have shitty homes, dirty dishes and food everywhere but a $3,000 PC or giant screen TV for gaming. That's not poor, that's stupidity.

How about the times I've gone grocery shopping on a Friday night after work and watched families in front of me pay for two grocery carts full of food, pay for it in $300 worth of food stamps then take their groceries out to a waiting Jaguar. My ex-GF worked for a non-profit charity that worked with at risk teenage girls. When they'd get pregnant they'd refuse to go to the Salvation Army, Goodwill or the like to shop for a used crib or baby stuff. Why? Because the state welfare and child services offices gave them huge sums of money to buy new baby stuff.

How is it if you look at statistics that 95%+ of Americans have a TV, VCR, phone service, electricity and running water yet 22% of us are below poverty. How is it that 80% or more of us have cable TV if 22% of us are poor? Where are the reports of our old and sick dying by the hundreds or thousands because of poor sanitation, lack of environmental service (Heating/AC) or lack of food?

These things are not widespread in America.

We don't have videos of children with distented bellies, flies buzzing around their heads, emaciated and lying on a cot in a charitable organizations tent waiting to die.

Poverty is relative.
 
This is how poverty was determined
The figures refer to relative poverty defined as households with income per head below 50% of the national average.
Click to expand...
.

Yes, mexicos poor are poorer, but do you wanna talk about finlands, swedens, frances, canadas etc. Those countries poor aren't starving, covered with flies etc. either.
 
I didn't say they were. We can say that about Japan, Germany, Switzerland etc. That's why I say poor is relative.

If our national average income is $32-36K, based on GDP figures, that 50% makes it $18,000. On $18,000 a year I could pay my rent, buy food, pay my utilities (Electric, cable, phone, DSL.) and still have $500 in income with which I could raise a child.

That would still put me below the poverty line according to this study. Doesn't sound terribly horrible to me.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I didn't say they were. We can say that about Japan, Germany, Switzerland etc. That's why I say poor is relative.

If our national average income is $32-36K, based on GDP figures, that 50% makes it $18,000. On $18,000 a year I could pay my rent, buy food, pay my utilities (Electric, cable, phone, DSL.) and still have $500 in income with which I could raise a child.

That would still put me below the poverty line according to this study. Doesn't sound terribly horrible to me.[/quote]

18,000 is the poverty line in the u.s. That's the amount that is always used as the poverty line in the u.s. Though it should vary (but doesn't) on where you are, you can do a lot more with 18,000 a year outside of chicago than you can outside of boston.
 
I saw this report some place else, though it seems left out ot this report (or I just missed it), I found Germany's over double increase in child poverty to be kind of suprising.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I saw this report some place else, though it seems left out ot this report (or I just missed it), I found Germany's over double increase in child poverty to be kind of suprising.[/quote]

Also in todays news, Germany's unemployed rises to 12.6% (~5.3 million).
 
Agreed, but then again in those two metropolitan areas there are gigantic government programs for housing, health care, education, nutrition and heating. That's why income alone does not define poverty in this country.

Now it's more than likely that the programs in Kentucky, West Virginia or Mississippi are not as elaborate as those in Illinois or Massachusetts. However due to the incredibly disparate cost of living $18,000 goes a lot further. You don't see $1,000 a month apartments in those states as being normal.

I see poverty as relative to the rest of the world. It's great that our standards are so much higher and being poor in America is not like being poor in India, Bangledesh or Somolia. However when our poor have food, housing, electricity, phone, TV, a chance at an education, more than likely a car, and medical care I think we need to really consider how our poverty relates to the UN and worldwide definition of poverty.

The developed world is far and away a different class, not just this nation.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Bu But But Saddam viotlated UN resolutions! Thats why we had to take him out!

/Sarcasm[/quote]

Sarcasm or no, true or untrue, what does that have to do with this topic?
 
[quote name='Scrubking']The real question is: why should we give a shit what the UN says?[/quote]

OMG!! THE UN SAID IT!! Who cares. You want to argue that it isn't a credible argument, fine. You want to (somehow) argue we have less child poverty, fine. You want to argue there isn't a problem, fine. You haven't done anything except to (apparently) suggest you don't care unless the u.s. said it. This isn't anything new, it's just in a convenient package.

Also PAD, I am going to guess that you don't know anybody who is in real poverty, otherwise you wouldn't say it's not so bad. The type of people who have gotten evicted due to they couldn't afford to pay rent (due to low wages, or job loss, resulting in lack of money, not being irresponsible), or the type of people who have to save every penny just to afford food. It also has a major effect on women too, often keeping them in abusive relationship due to the belief (often correct) they they will not be able to make enough money to survive on there own, especially if they have children (granted this deals with child poverty, but the two are not mutually exclusive). I can also assume you have never paid much attention to the results of poverty, decreased intelligence (most cases of minor retardation are from impoverished homes, not true with severe retardation, which is evenly distributed), crime etc.

Though even if it was not so bad, why are our rates so much higher than the rest of the developed world? You can't blame welfare, countries such as finland (2.5) wouldn't be so low. We wouldn't be so high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top