For a rich country, the U.S. has an unusually high child-poverty rate

[AthenaAwakened]

One measure of how much governments prioritize children and families is how much they spend on things like child allowances, daycare, and child-tax credits. Inside a longer report on global child well-being, out this week from the nonprofit Child Trends, lies this surprising tidbit: The U.S. has a higher proportion of children living in poverty than most other high-income countries, and it spends just 0.7 percent of its GDP on benefits for families—a fraction of what other middle- and high-income countries spend.

“Among 21 countries in the study,” the organization writes in an accompanying statement, “the U.S. ranks second-to-last in the percentage of its GDP spent on benefits for families, despite one of the highest relative child poverty rates of the comparable high-income countries.” (Turkey technically ranks last, but only because its data is missing.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/childcare-spending/407035/

And still some complain that too many tax dollars go to programs that help the poor. Perhaps we should eliminate poverty problems totally and ask billionaires to volunteer to ride through poor neighbors and toss dimes to the poor once a month.

 

[skepticalbip]

One measure of how much governments prioritize children and families is how much they spend on things like child allowances, daycare, and child-tax credits. Inside a longer report on global child well-being, out this week from the nonprofit Child Trends, lies this surprising tidbit: The U.S. has a higher proportion of children living in poverty than most other high-income countries, and it spends just 0.7 percent of its GDP on benefits for families—a fraction of what other middle- and high-income countries spend.

“Among 21 countries in the study,” the organization writes in an accompanying statement, “the U.S. ranks second-to-last in the percentage of its GDP spent on benefits for families, despite one of the highest relative child poverty rates of the comparable high-income countries.” (Turkey technically ranks last, but only because its data is missing.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/childcare-spending/407035/

And still some complain that too many tax dollars go to programs that help the poor. Perhaps we should eliminate poverty problems totally and ask billionaires to volunteer to ride through poor neighbors and toss dimes to the poor once a month.

That is a really strange study. I don't see that it even makes an attempt to actually compare living standards of the poor in various countries. It is about the percent of the various country's GDP spent on children by the governments. A country with very low GDP that spends 4% of its GDP on children compared to a country with very high GDP that spends 1% of its GDP could will mean that the country with high GDP spends a hell of a lot more per child in aid.

 

[barbos]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/childcare-spending/407035/

And still some complain that too many tax dollars go to programs that help the poor. Perhaps we should eliminate poverty problems totally and ask billionaires to volunteer to ride through poor neighbors and toss dimes to the poor once a month.

That is a really strange study. I don't see that it even makes an attempt to actually compare living standards of the poor in various countries. It is about the percent of the various country's GDP spent on children by the governments. A country with very low GDP that spends 4% of its GDP on children compared to a country with very high GDP that spends 1% of its GDP could will mean that the country with high GDP spends a hell of a lot more per child in aid.

Yes, they don't compare total amount of money child gets. they just compare how much government spends as if it was the only source of income for children, in fact I know one 14 year old in Texas who is doing quite well, getting income from all over the US.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And to make a comparison, you have to define poverty as something that means something.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

A link to the actual report

http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-39WorldFamilyMap2015.pdf

Starting on page 22 you will find the socioeconomics portion of the study.

And coloradoatheist, they define poverty both absolute and relative.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A link to the actual report

http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-39WorldFamilyMap2015.pdf

Starting on page 22 you will find the socioeconomics portion of the study.

And coloradoatheist, they define poverty both absolute and relative.

And the report had absolute poverty in the US as not showing up, and higher relative poverty. That doesn't define poverty. They had a section of undernourished and again the US didn't have it.

 

[skepticalbip]

A link to the actual report

http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-39WorldFamilyMap2015.pdf

Starting on page 22 you will find the socioeconomics portion of the study.

And coloradoatheist, they define poverty both absolute and relative.

That study may be useful for some understanding of social and economic structures around the world but I don't see that it has anything to do with the article you originally linked as far as the title "Why Being a Poor Kid in America Is Particularly Awful" and apparent point of the article.


From the study's definition of absolute poverty, you would be hard pressed to find any measurable percentage of the US population living in poverty. And from their definition of relative poverty, approximately half the population of any country is living in poverty no matter how affluent the "poor" are.

From the linked study:
• In this study, poverty is calculated as absolute poverty (the percentage of the population living on less than 1.25 U.S. dollars per day) and as relative child poverty (the percentage of children living in households earning less than half their country’s median household income).

 

[barbos]

That study may be useful for some understanding of social and economic structures around the world but I don't see that it has anything to do with the article you originally linked as far as the title "Why Being a Poor Kid in America Is Particularly Awful" and apparent point of the article.


From the study's definition of absolute poverty, you would be hard pressed to find any measurable percentage of the US population living in poverty. And from their definition of relative poverty, approximately half the population of any country is living in poverty no matter how affluent the "poor" are.

From the linked study:
• In this study, poverty is calculated as absolute poverty (the percentage of the population living on less than 1.25 U.S. dollars per day) and as relative child poverty (the percentage of children living in households earning less than half their country’s median household income).

actually no, but their whole study is just essentially income inequality, has nothing to do specifically with children. US has higher income inequality than the rest of developed countries, that's not news.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It should be news, though. It's a very bad thing.

 

[barbos]

It should be news, though. It's a very bad thing.

Everybody knows it, therefore it's not news.
And study is useless from scientific point of view.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It should be news, though. It's a very bad thing.

Everybody knows it, therefore it's not news.
And study is useless from scientific point of view.

It's also been the rallying cry for the Democrats for the last 30 years.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Everybody knows it, therefore it's not news.
And study is useless from scientific point of view.

It's also been the rallying cry for the Democrats for the last 30 years.

Correction: it's been the rallying cry of democratic VOTERS for the past 30 years.

Democratic politicians don't give a shit.