Yay Capitalism! America is #2 WORST for Child Poverty in the First World

LJ_Reloaded

バクスター の
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
21,217
Even other SOCIALIST countries do better than this.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/346943/20120530/childhood-poverty-u-s-second-highest-rate.htm

US Has Second-Highest Rate Of Childhood Poverty In Developed World, Only Romania Is Worse

By ASHLEY PORTERO: Subscribe to Ashley's RSS feed
May 30, 2012 12:59 PM EDT

The United States has the second-highest rate of childhood poverty in the developed world, according to a new report from the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), which concluded that nations with comprehensive government programs designed to protect vulnerable children had the lowest rates of child poverty and deprivation.

Out of the 35 wealthiest countries analyzed by UNICEF, only one, Romania, had a child poverty rate above the 23 percent rate recorded in the U.S. The rate is based on the definition of relative poverty used by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which states a child is living in poverty if he or she is growing up in a household where disposable income, when adjusted for family size and compensation, is less than 50 percent of the median disposable income for the country in question.

By this standard, more than 15 percent -- about 30 million -- of the 200 million children across the 35 countries studied are seen to be living in relative poverty.

"The data reinforces that far too many children continue to go without the basics in countries that have the means to provide," said Gordon Alexander, director of UNICEF's Office of Research. "The report also shows that some countries performed well -- when looking at what is largely pre-crisis data -- due to the social protection systems that were in place. The risk is that in the current crisis we won't see the consequences of poor decisions until much later."
 
Yes, I know, BB, CHILD POVERTY US A FEATURE, NOT A BUG!!!!! in your universe. :rolleyes:
 
I'm guessing vetteman's response is "they deserve to be poor" or "they're not poor... there's plenty of well-filled American dumpsters for the little tykes to dive into!"

Am I close?
 
I've traveled all over the world and have seen real child poverty, nothing like what I've seen exists in the United States. Period.

yup

define poverty as NO 66' TV and IPODS etc

then there are PVERTY STRICKEN KIDS


so easy to SHIT on AMERICA


Get teh FUCK OUT, SKYE

GET THE FUCK OUT
 
I've traveled all over the world and have seen real child poverty, nothing like what I've seen exists in the United States. Period.

And you helped to ameliorate it by buying starving prostitutes with cans of corn.
 
I've traveled all over the world and have seen real child poverty, nothing like what I've seen exists in the United States. Period.

So, discussion closed because you've traveled the world? Be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us on 'real' child poverty, as opposed to the fake child poverty I've seen in the South Bronx, Appalachia, East St. Louis, North Philadelphia. Thanks:rolleyes:
 
These statistics are meaningless. They only measure relative poverty within a country, not by any international standard.

If the median income is x dollars, then half the population will be at or above that median, and half will be at or below that median.

That applies if x dollars is 2000 dollars per year, or 50,000 dollars per year.

Children in families below the median in a country where the average annual income is 2000 dollars will be really poor.

Children below the median in a country where the average income is 50,000 dollars could be rich beyond the dreams of most of the people in the 2000 dollars-a-year country.
 
I've traveled all over the world and have seen real child poverty, nothing like what I've seen exists in the United States. Period.

I believe its not talking about poor countries or third world nations, only the 35 richest developed countries.
 
I believe its not talking about poor countries or third world nations, only the 35 richest developed countries.

Would you please stop with the facts?:rolleyes: We're only interested in unsubstantiated claims around here!
 
So, discussion closed because you've traveled the world? Be so kind as to enlighten the rest of us on 'real' child poverty, as opposed to the fake child poverty I've seen in the South Bronx, Appalachia, East St. Louis, North Philadelphia. Thanks:rolleyes:
In other words, our kids aren't poor, since they have access to the world's finest dumpster diving cuisine! :rolleyes:
 
Ah, you make a simple mistake.. its not hunger that counts.. its the 'median' oh and vettemans sex fantasies including canned corn.
 
Our UK politicians frequently don't understand statistics.

For example, they often claim that they want to improve education for those with below average academic achievements.

They can't see that what they are suggesting is impossible.

Suppose that the current average academic achievement is 5 examination subjects passed. Then about half of the students will achieve that or better; and half will achieve that or fewer subjects.


Assume that education is improved so that the average rises to 6 examination subjects passed. Then about half of the students will achieve that or better; and half will achieve that or fewer subjects.


Those who were below average are STILL below average. The average has improved but there are still and always will be half of all students who are at or below average. That is a function of averaging...
 
Our UK politicians frequently don't understand statistics.

For example, they often claim that they want to improve education for those with below average academic achievements.

They can't see that what they are suggesting is impossible.

Suppose that the current average academic achievement is 5 examination subjects passed. Then about half of the students will achieve that or better; and half will achieve that or fewer subjects.


Assume that education is improved so that the average rises to 6 examination subjects passed. Then about half of the students will achieve that or better; and half will achieve that or fewer subjects.




Those who were below average are STILL below average. The average has improved but there are still and always will be half of all students who are at or below average. That is a function of averaging...

Are you on drugs? serious hallucinogenic ones?
 
Are you on drugs? serious hallucinogenic ones?

Nope. Irritated by meaningless statistics.

If there is an average, some will always be below it and some above.

The figures could change but those "below average" will remain "below average".

The post that started this thread is based on a misunderstanding of statistics.

The US is 2nd because the gap between the incomes of the richest and those of the poorest is much greater than in other countries. It is a function of capitalism that those who can earn most will do so. If what they earn is 50 times the median wage, a higher percentage of children will be 'poor'.
 
Children below the median in a country where the average income is 50,000 dollars could be rich beyond the dreams of most of the people in the 2000 dollars-a-year country.
Yeah, but that ignores another factor.

Cost of living in different countries follows, give-or-take, similar ratios.
 
Nope. Irritated by meaningless statistics.

If there is an average, some will always be below it and some above.

The figures could change but those "below average" will remain "below average".

The post that started this thread is based on a misunderstanding of statistics.

The US is 2nd because the gap between the incomes of the richest and those of the poorest is much greater than in other countries. It is a function of capitalism that those who can earn most will do so. If what they earn is 50 times the median wage, a higher percentage of children will be 'poor'.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should launch a nuclear attack on usOFa to re balance the statistical power balance of hunger?
 
Works for me.

me too, but egg basher may have a mathematical option, such as lets move all the mexicans to canada and let them eat the french speakers so thatthe mean modian drops.
 
Yeah, but that ignores another factor.

Cost of living in different countries follows, give-or-take, similar ratios.

It ignores many factors and just uses disposable income.

It doesn't count hunger, deprivation, access to services but it is an official OECD measure.

They might as well ask "When did you stop beating your wife?" and expect a sensible answer.
 
that cuz people like you are too lazy to work and sit around with your hand out. if people would take a dump in your hand, well that might force you to do something.

add value, stop being a slacker





Even other SOCIALIST countries do better than this.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/346943/20120530/childhood-poverty-u-s-second-highest-rate.htm

US Has Second-Highest Rate Of Childhood Poverty In Developed World, Only Romania Is Worse

By ASHLEY PORTERO: Subscribe to Ashley's RSS feed
May 30, 2012 12:59 PM EDT

The United States has the second-highest rate of childhood poverty in the developed world, according to a new report from the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), which concluded that nations with comprehensive government programs designed to protect vulnerable children had the lowest rates of child poverty and deprivation.

Out of the 35 wealthiest countries analyzed by UNICEF, only one, Romania, had a child poverty rate above the 23 percent rate recorded in the U.S. The rate is based on the definition of relative poverty used by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which states a child is living in poverty if he or she is growing up in a household where disposable income, when adjusted for family size and compensation, is less than 50 percent of the median disposable income for the country in question.

By this standard, more than 15 percent -- about 30 million -- of the 200 million children across the 35 countries studied are seen to be living in relative poverty.

"The data reinforces that far too many children continue to go without the basics in countries that have the means to provide," said Gordon Alexander, director of UNICEF's Office of Research. "The report also shows that some countries performed well -- when looking at what is largely pre-crisis data -- due to the social protection systems that were in place. The risk is that in the current crisis we won't see the consequences of poor decisions until much later."
 
Back
Top