The new research, published in the first UNICEF Innocenti Report Card, provides the most comprehensive estimates so far of child poverty across the member countries of the OECD. Despite a doubling and redoubling of national incomes in most OECD nations since 1950, a significant percentage of their children are still living in families so materially poor that normal health and growth are at risk. A far larger proportion remain in relative poverty. Their physical needs may be catered for, but they are painfully excluded from the activities and advantages that are considered normal by their peers.
The report reveals a wide range of child poverty rates in countries at broadly similar levels of economic development - from under 3 per cent in Sweden to a high of over 22 per cent in the USA. By comparing data from different countries, the new research asks what can be learned about the causes of child poverty and examines the policies that have contributed to the success of lower rates in some countries. In particular, it seeks to explain the situation by exploring the impact on poverty rates of lone parenthood, unemployment, low wages and levels of social expenditures.
childcarecanada.org/policy/polstudies/int/UNICEFleague.html
Could this possibly be true? Is the US bottom of this particular league?
It would probably help to read the entire report instead of looking for a a quick beat-up.
What is relative poverty? It sounds terrible but the definition is households with median income below 50% of the national medium. Does it mean American children in relative poverty are starving? Nope. Does it mean they are homeless? Nope. Does it mean they have a lower income than other countries with higher ratings? Nope.
What exactly does it show?
The figue for 2.6% for Sweden is very low and is usually be achieved by vey large social welfare payments. Experience in my country shows this often results in third generation dependency and government handouts are necessary but have to be budgeted.
Originally posted by steerpikeThis is a very good point. It would be more interesting to hear the statistics on the rate of absolute poverty in the US and other industrialized countries. Absolute poverty is defined as that level of income or lower where it is impossible to meet basic needs like food, water, clothing, shelter, etc.
It would probably help to read the entire report instead of looking for a a quick beat-up.
What is relative poverty? It sounds terrible but the definition is households with median income below 50% of the national medium. Does it mean American children in relative poverty are starving? Nope. Does it mean they are homeless? Nope. Does it mean they have a ...[text shortened]... rd generation dependency and government handouts are necessary but have to be budgeted.
Originally posted by bbarrReaders may also be interested to know that the United States is one of the few countries that now attempts to define its own "poverty line" for domestic purposes in something like the way Pogge et al. suggest—and moreover, that this practice has fallen under widespread criticism. The US Census Bureau recently reported that the number of Americans living in poverty rose from 31.6 million in 2000 to 32.9 million in 2001, thereby reversing the downward trend that had begun in 1994. These reports hinge on a set of specific poverty lines, updated each year to allow for changing consumer prices. (For a family of two adults and two children, the 2001 poverty line was an annual income of $17,960.) The Census Bureau's original method for deriving these poverty lines was to calculate what it cost the "standard" family to buy the largest single component in its basket of necessities, namely food; then multiply by three (because the research on which the Census Bureau relied showed that poor families spent about one third of their total budget on food); and then figure in adjustments, either up or down, for families of different sizes. This procedure is presumably less accurate than directly calculating the cost of the full basket of consumer necessities, as Pogge et al. suggest, but the underlying idea is the same. (www.nybooks.com/articles/15827)
This is a very good point. It would be more interesting to hear the statistics on the rate of absolute poverty in the US and other industrialized countries. Absolute poverty is defined as that level of income or lower where it is impossible to meet basic needs like food, water, clothing, shelter, etc.
US median income was about $65000 in 2001 on average. This would put the US Government poverty line at about 28% of Median income. THe population in 2000 was about 280 million. This would put the percentage of people living in poverty by this definition at 11%. In the UK the percentage of people living in households with less than 40% of Median income was 4.5%(www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?More=Y).
Clearly people in the US are not starving, but I think that you will agree that there is room for improvement for the richest country in the world. Do you agree?
Originally posted by ianpickeringOf course there is room for improvement. Do have any particular suggestions?
Readers may also be interested to know that the United States is one of the few countries that now attempts to define its own "poverty line" for domestic purposes in something like the way Pogge et al. suggest—and moreover, that this practice has fallen under widespread criticism. The US Census Bureau recently reported that the number of Americans liv ...[text shortened]... ll agree that there is room for improvement for the richest country in the world. Do you agree?
Originally posted by steerpikeA comparison of various 'wealth and social indicators' is given on the following website - /www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/olympic/indicators.htm
It would probably help to read the entire report instead of looking for a a quick beat-up.
What is relative poverty? It sounds terrible but the definition is households with median income below 50% of the national medium. Does it mean American children in relative poverty are starving? Nope. Does it mean they are homeless? Nope. Does it mean they have a ...[text shortened]... rd generation dependency and government handouts are necessary but have to be budgeted.
This compares Canada, the US and Sweden. On the basis of awarding Gold, Silver and Bronze in various categories the result was as follows :
Sweden 20 Gold 2 Silver 2 Bronze
Canada 4 Gold 19 Silver 2 Bronze
US 2 Gold 3 Silver 20 Bronze
I'm sorry, but New Zealand wasn't included. I'm sure if it was you would have come out top in 'The highest number of sheep per square mile' category.
So - relative poverty is below 50% of the median income, right? So a poverty stricken US child lives in a household with an income of up to $32 500 US?
US median income was about $65000 in 2001 on average.
Let us put that figure in UK pounds. At June 2001 exchange rates of 1.40 so that is about 23 000 sterling. How does that compare with the pay rate for a UK teacher? So you are worried about poor people who have mor money than you?
In case you are ready with the put-down - few people in NZ would earn $US32500. And that is my point. I don't believe you have the slightest intention of helping poor people.
Originally posted by steerpikeThe 'Sheep line' was a joke. Where's your sense of humour?
So - relative poverty is below 50% of the median income, right? So a poverty stricken US child lives in a household with an income of up to $32 500 US?
Let us put that figure in UK pounds. At June 2001 exchange rates of 1.40 so that is about 23 000 sterling. How does that compare with the pay rate for a UK teacher? So you are worried about poor people w ...[text shortened]... y point. I don't believe you have the slightest intention of helping poor people.
US Government defined poverty level is 28% of median income (approx £14000). Around 11 % of people (30million!) are below that ,which is nothing to be proud of.
You are wrong about my salary by the way! It's around £31000. I wouldn't class myself as poor - far from it (my wife earns a reasonable wage also).
"I don't believe you have the slightest intention of helping poor people."
How do you know?
What I really want to know is WHY the richest country on earth has such a high level of relative poor and there appears to be no political party developed to represent them as happened in most other western countries.
An Aussie journalist was in New Zealand doing stories where he saw a Kiwi farmer doing unnatural things with a sheep. He approached the Kiwi and firstly asked, "What sort of sheep is that?" He scribbled down the farmer's reply - "a Merino". The next question was, "Do you shear them?" The farmer replied hastily, "No! Go and find yer own!"
This was the cleanest one I could find.
