Child Poverty

[BC-Maura]

I find the U.S. track record on child poverty to be appalling....

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eur...overty?mode=PF

"U.N.: Nordics have lowest child poverty
By Bradley S. Klapper, Associated Press Writer | March 1, 2005

GENEVA --Nordic countries have the lowest levels of child poverty in the developed world, due in large part to their generous public spending on social benefits for families, according to a report released Tuesday by the U.N. Children's Fund.

On the other end of the spectrum, the United States and Mexico had the worst rates of child poverty in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- a Paris-based group of the world's wealthiest countries.

At least one-fifth of U.S. and Mexican children live under the national poverty line, according to the study undertaken by UNICEF's Innocenti Research Center in Florence, Italy.

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

Some 40 million to 50 million children in rich countries live in relative poverty, UNICEF estimates. Statistics were available for only 24 of 30 OECD states and represented figures through 2001.

The report acknowledged difficulty in setting a global standard for poverty because it varies from country to country. It said it based its findings on the number of children growing up in households with an income less than half the national median.

Rated the best were Denmark, at 2.4 percent; Finland, at 2.8 percent; Norway, at 3.4 percent; and Sweden, at 4.2 percent. UNICEF praised the Nordics for their commitment to social spending on families -- including family allowances, disability and sickness benefits, day care, unemployment insurance and other social assistance.

"There is a history of social transfers in the Nordic countries, which is a very strong history," O'Brien said. "It's a government policy that's attempted to even out the unevenness generated in the market."

At the bottom end of the table were Mexico, at 27.7 percent, and the United States, at 21.9 percent. Both countries spend less than 5 percent of their GDP on government support for families.

"It cannot just be left to market forces alone," O'Brien said. "Any OECD country that spends more than 10 percent of their gross domestic product on social transfers, (has) a child poverty rate that is less than 10 percent."

In the United States, child poverty "dropped significantly" in the 1990s, when many families benefited from an employment boom and higher wages for single mothers, but the problem continues there, the report said.

Such disparity in wealth leaves many children, by no fault of their own, at a social disadvantage and provides "an unambiguous contradiction of equality of opportunity," according to the report.

"There is a close correlation between growing up in poverty and the likelihood of educational underachievement, poor health, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, criminal and anti-social behavior, low pay, unemployment, and long-term welfare dependance," the Innocenti study found."

++++++++++++++++++
Maura

[Sym]

Quote: "There is a close correlation between growing up in poverty and the likelihood of educational underachievement, poor health, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, criminal and anti-social behavior, low pay, unemployment, and long-term welfare dependance," the Innocenti study found."

Duh! They need a survey to figure this out?? Please, I live in a small city, and I can see this 6 blocks away.
They need only take a stroll thru the "wrong" area of any city, and save the taxpayers money to be spent on what they see!
I see this every day, and it is a shame.
Canada has to be #3 on this list.

Yes, we see many countries child poverty problems on the television thru Unicef and Childrens service organizations, and we are encouraged to help/sponsor them, but our own governments will not see ours and help/sponsor our own countries children.

I personally know, probably 20 families who live below the poverty line. They survive pay to pay, and the parents eat one meal a day when work is short.
My own relative once ate dinner rolls only for 3 months! when she was laid off, because she didn't want anyone to know how hard she was struggling.She left the meals for her dd so she didn't know as well.
I of course, gave her mighty (loving) crap, making sure she called me if she ever needed a thing again in tough times, but she is too proud. Now I have to look in her fridge/freezer when she is away and we help her whenever we can. Oh...I cried and cried when I learned this! I thought...what kind of a country do we live in when a working class family cannot afford to eat a meal for 3 months!

I am just about as ashamed of our governments turn-your-head attitude and practices as a person can be.
If it doesn't generate national publicity making them look like heros, it gets swept under the rug with all the other important issues!


Sym....wanting suddenly to turn off my avitar!

[AngelaM]

Originally posted by mod-Maura
Such disparity in wealth leaves many children, by no fault of their own, at a social disadvantage and provides "an unambiguous contradiction of equality of opportunity," according to the report.

Can someone please explain this nonsense to me?

With WIC, welfare, and medicaid, I'm surprised to hear we still have children living in poverty. So, in our case, it seems that despite having government programs in the US to alleviate poverty conditions for children and to help with the care of children for low income families, our children are still not being cared for properly and some are still living in poverty. That tells me more government programs isn't the answer either.

Like Sym, I know lots of families who are poor...many are part of my own family. I also have to say that I see how they squander their money away (the parents that is). And, I even knew people who sold food stamps below their value for cash so they could use them for cigarettes and alchohol. And, let me ask this question, if you can't afford one child (i.e., you require WIC or some other form of government assistance), why do people have more children? Again, it goes back to personal responsibility and making sound fiscal decisions. I don't want to see any child suffer. And, I can't for the life of me understand why someone who can't afford medical care for themselves or is barely making ends meet will have children or have more children.
It seems that for every government program, there is someone who will abuse it. And, no amount of government programs will erase child poverty. Only responsible parents can do that.

[robine]

what Angela said...Geesh..if you are having trouble making ends meet and you are already receivng a handout, WHY would you have more children??????????

[BC-Tracik]

Speaking for a friend from church who had 2 kids, was married to a her high school sweetheart who became an alcoholic while on a 10 mo navy tour.... got home and kept drinking. She finally left him and moved home with her boys. He is on somesort of mimial duty to finish out his career in the navy (he got in a car accident, drunk and now has vertigo)... so he makes very little, rarely sends child support, and she is having difficulty getting the Gov to garnish his wages for her. She is going to school part time, living in one room with her boys at her parents house, and working full time. She did not plan to be below the poverty line.... but she spent 1 year receiving assistence. However, when she got her current job (one in her field she is studying in school) she made 2k a year above the poverty line (they count the child support she never see's as income whether she gets it or not) she didn't get any more assistance... luckily our church and her parents help her out. She admits how lucky she is have these supports in her life or she would be living in her car and definately not going to school trying to improve herself and her kids lives.

I think it is not fair to blame people on WIC, etc... for having too many kids etc.... you don't know their story or how they got there. They may have had illness that wiped out the family savings, lost jobs, or maybe they have been in the cycle of poverty since they were kids (just like the cycle of violence in domestic abuse.... it is a cycle).

Personally I think we should look at many of these countries to see what they are doing that we are not, just like we should be looking at other countries, like Chile, as we look at changing our SS program. We can learn from others but to learn we have to admit we don't do everything the "best" and open our minds to look at what we can learn and what we can apply to our country with out throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[robine]

traci..if you read WHAT I said, it was the ADDITIONAL children people have while on public assistance thaqt gets in my craw...

[AngelaM]

Originally posted by mod-Tracik
I think it is not fair to blame people on WIC, etc... for having too many kids etc.... you don't know their story or how they got there. They may have had illness that wiped out the family savings, lost jobs, or maybe they have been in the cycle of poverty since they were kids (just like the cycle of violence in domestic abuse.... it is a cycle).

Personally I think we should look at many of these countries to see what they are doing that we are not, just like we should be looking at other countries, like Chile, as we look at changing our SS program. We can learn from others but to learn we have to admit we don't do everything the "best" and open our minds to look at what we can learn and what we can apply to our country with out throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As Ann already pointed out, I think you misread our posts. We said we didn't understand why people had "more" children or had "a" child if they were already living from one paycheck to another. I don't think this applies to your example.

I don't have any problems finding a better way of doing things. My point is that we already have government programs to alleviate poverty and guess what....they evidently aren't working or we would not be having this discussion, right? So, maybe we need to open our minds to something else other than more government programs?

And, if you really think that I think that the U.S. is the model for everyone to follow with government programs, I have definitely given you the wrong impression. The key here is finding something better---I haven't seen anything better yet. I'm not trading our flawed system for another flawed system that causes higher taxes.

I'm really watching Russia's implementation of the flat tax with great interest. There may be some lessons to learn there for the U.S.

[BC-Maura]

Originally posted by AngelaM
With WIC, welfare, and medicaid, I'm surprised to hear we still have children living in poverty. So, in our case, it seems that despite having government programs in the US to alleviate poverty conditions for children and to help with the care of children for low income families, our children are still not being cared for properly and some are still living in poverty. That tells me more government programs isn't the answer either.

.....

It seems that for every government program, there is someone who will abuse it. And, no amount of government programs will erase child poverty. Only responsible parents can do that.

Yes, parents need to be more responsible and it's undeniable that certain parents make very poor choices. But I can't believe that there aren't irresponsible parents in the Nordic countries as well.

Maybe we don't need *more* government programs than we currently have, but perhaps we should allocate more funding to them to make them work the way they're supposed to. And if part of the social services money goes toward educating parents to make better choices, great.

+++++++++++++++
Maura

[Suebee]

Originally posted by mod-Maura
[The report acknowledged difficulty in setting a global standard for poverty because it varies from country to country. It said it based its findings on the number of children growing up in households with an income less than half the national median.]


If I understand this part of the article correctly the US isn't doing as badly as it looks. The national median is higher in the US then most nations. So what is below the poverty level in the US is not even close to how low the poverty levels are in countries like Mexico and not even in the same reality as third world countries.

After traveling in a few third world countries my attitude about poverty has changed. We do have poverty in the US but not to the extent of 98% of the rest of the world.

Sue

[BC-Tracik]

In my first read, with kids helping ... That is how I read it. I can see Angela may not have ment it that way. But it could be read that way....so that is how I interpreted it. Sorry if it was not how it was ment, that is one of the problems with email/posts... interpretation of meaning.