Guess What Percentage Of American Children Are Living In Poverty.

Wow America, the problems are really deep aren't they?

This chart came from UNICEF study.



Pretty damn shocking.

A friend a mine made a good point.

At one point, with numbers like these, do we stop considering the US to be a "developped" nation?

~Tenth

At least we beat Romania.

If you want to clarify the image even more you could post a similar list measuring academics. =]

Wow. The US appears to have somehow topped even the crap holes in Eastern Europe. Quite an achievement.

Define poverty

Technically, the only way to have no-one living in poverty in Britain is for everyone to earn exactly the same. Taking poverty as being determined as a percentage of the mean national income (as govts do, in order to crate the false impression many are in poverty when they most emphatically are not) is a) an insult to those living in real poverty and b) an insult to those thus determined as living in pverty when in fact they have everything they need.

According to the British govt I have spent the past 13 years living in abject poverty*. I consider an insult and feel I should sue them for deframation - if I win, I'll never live in poverty again

But seriously: how many described as living in poverty cannot afford to feed and clothe themselves? And how many simply can't afford a new iPod or a ski-ing holiday every year?


Edit * I earn only about 30% of the UK mean income. Despite which, I seem to have a laptop and internet access. Or I'd not be posting here. I eat and drink and smoke too much. And also own my own business. How can I live in poverty?!!!!!!!!!!

I wish it were shocking, but I am not shocked on bit.

Fact though there is a lot of lazy people out there, there are a lot of people working two or three jobs just to put food on the table. Parents who honestly try to make ends meat these days do not have time for their family's, are barely putting food on the table, and still have clothes and school supplies and housing bills to pay for.

Many times, in family's with Mothers and Fathers, both have to work 60 plus hours a week just to get by.

reply to post by AndyMayhew

The first measure is a Child Deprivation Index, taken from data European Union’s Statistics on Income and Living Conditions from 29 European countries that includes for the first time a section on children. Report Card 10 defines a child as “deprived” if he or she lacks two or more of a list of 14 basic items, such as three meals a day, a quiet place to do homework, educational books at home, or an Internet connection. The highest rates of deprivation are found in countries that include Romania, Bulgaria and Portugal (with more than 70%, 50% and 27% respectively), though even some richer countries, such as France and Italy, have deprivation rates above 10%. The Nordic countries have the least deprivation among children, all with rates below 3%.

www.unicef.org...

It explains how they classify in the link. I think it's worth remembering it is about relative poverty. we are not talking starving children in Africa poverty. But, do we really want to start our comparison there?

No matter what side of the political spectrum your on, America being the Richest nation on earth, should not be so low in these types of rankings. There is no excuse.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


That's a proper definition of poverty IMO.

And you're right, there is no excuse.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I'm not really shocked at all. Children are so expensive nowadays that anyone that has a child before age 30 is likely in poverty. No one ever realizes it because the last thing a poor person wants to admitt is that they are poor. Chances are the middle aged guy wearing torn blue jeans and worn out shoes is more wealthy than the person wearing nice clothing.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Yes, but my point is that relatively speaking I live in "abject poverty", Because I have a very low income compared with everyone else.

Which I find offensive*

And about as correct as saying an elephant is the smallest insect every found.

That's not to say that there are not people who are poor. But the figures are deliberately manipulated by the govt (and charities) to create the impression many people who live quite comfortable lives are in "poverty". A meaningless term.


* edit: I don't find having a low income offensive, I find being called poor offensive.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Define poverty

Very good point. In the US "poverty" includes cable-TV, a large screen TV set, running hot & cold water, indoor plumbing, a running vehicle, though perhaps not brand new, free food stamps not counted as income, free schooling K-12, eligibility for any number of free college rides, public housing with air conditioning, etc. In short, the buying power of someone listed as living in poverty is far more than their annual income.

Now let's define poverty for Uganda. Sod hut with earthen floor. A public well with unsanitary water. No schools to speak of. No electricity. Latrines dug in the dirt. Scarce firewood. Zero medical care. Average lifespan less than 30.

A "poverty stricken" American earns more in a day than a poverty stricken Ugandan does in a year. Beware of bureaucratic definitions. They always favor the bureaucracy.

reply to post by schuyler


That's relative to the economy of the country though. Ofcourse our definition of poverty is different than that of Uaganda's and for good reason.

The point of this is that a 1st world developped nation has more children living underneath the proverty line than a host of other nations whose GDP combined is probably less than the states is.

It's a matter of where are your priorities as a nation as far as I'm concerned.

~Tenth

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

The Nordic countries have the least deprivation among children, all with rates below 3%.

www.unicef.org...

So, once again, all those dirty, evil, controlling, conniving, slavemongering, twisted and monstrous [color=gold]SOCIALIST countries come out on top and looking rosy.

Fascinating.

reply to post by Kryties


Crazy isn't it?

Mind you, that seems to only work for small populations. Large populations like the US would never be able to handle the costs for those social programs to the extent they exist in those nations.

However the idea of hybrid systems for large populations is certainly feasable.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Agreed, it's a crying shame that any mention of policies that might even remotely sound socialist gets booed down and crushed by a throng of patriots.

This world could be such a better place if not for nonsense like that.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Agreed, it's a crying shame that any mention of policies that might even remotely sound socialist gets booed down and crushed by a throng of patriots.

This world could be such a better place if not for nonsense like that.

edit on 10/7/2012 by Kryties because: (no reason given)

That problem happens on either side. Socialists are beating a dead horse when they say Capitalism has failed and Capitalists are doing the same when they talk Communism or Socialism..

It's matter of the rhetoric and controlling the message. Most people are moderates and if it could be proven to work, a hybrid system would be embraced almost over night.

~Tenth

reply to post by AndyMayhew


Thank you for being the one poster in this thread who was smart enough to see the abject BS being reported here.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

Thank you for being the one poster in this thread who was smart enough to see the abject BS being reported here.

If you want to compare yourself to third world countries, go ahead.

Personally I'm going to make relevant comparisons against the wealth spectrum of developed nations.

My favorite part about poverty in America is that all those children have iPods.

I think it's even worse here in the US. In many of those higher ranking countries the government provides much better general benefits. There is usually paid maternity leave and health insurance (including dental care) for the entire family. In addition, the low income housing isn't as run down and crime ridden as here in the US.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


What do you expect? We have one of the poorest nations in our hemistphere sitting just to the south of us, and a joke of an immigration policy.

Any idea how many poor hispanic children live in my small West Texas town? These aren't 3rd generation Americans here. Most of them are from families that arrived here right about the time that we took everyone we could find and threw them into the welfare system.

This is why Texas has such horrible numbers. The reality is not what it seems statistically. "Poor" is a relative term related to monies claimed in the tax system. There is a lot of money changing hands around here that is completely off the books.