Interesting #'s: 22% of children under 18 live in Poverty

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
US high in UN child poverty table
Tuesday, 1 March, 2005, 13:29 GMT

The US has one of the highest rates of relative child poverty among the world's wealthiest countries, according to a report by the UN.

The US, which is second only to Mexico in the UN children's agency report, is nonetheless one of few countries to see a recent decline in child poverty.

In total, Unicef says up to 50 million children are living in poverty in rich nations and the figure is rising.

Children in Nordic countries are best off, due to higher social spending.

Unicef looked at 24 of the 30 states in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) - a Paris-based group of the world's wealthiest nations.

The figures refer to relative poverty defined as households with income per head below 50% of the national average.



Its Child Poverty in Rich Countries report found that the number of children living in poverty had risen in 17 of those countries over the past decade.

Mexico comes bottom of the table with a figure of 28%.

"No matter which of the commonly used poverty measures is applied, the situation of children is seen to have deteriorated over the last decade," the report says.

National wealth

Even in the few countries where deprivation is declining the rate can remain high - as is the case in the US, where about 22% of those aged under 18 are still living in relative poverty.

Similarly, the UK still has 15% of the child population below the poverty line despite government campaigns which have led to a 10% drop.

Unicef regional director Philip O'Brien stressed that the figures were relative to the average household income of the countries involved, rather than their national wealth.

"The child living in poverty in the US is clearly not as badly off as the child in Mexico," he said.

Top of the table are Denmark and Finland, where child poverty levels are less than 3%, while Norway and Sweden follow close behind.

Unicef praised the Nordic nations for their social spending on families.

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


He said market forces could not on their own lift children out of poverty and urged direct intervention through greater government spending.

Only the US, the UK, Australia and Norway have had significant drops in child deprivation, according to the figures supplied to the OECD over the past 15 years.

Soure: BBC NEWS
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#3
Like the article said, there is really no comparison between here and the children in Mexico. I've been there many times and from personal experience think they live under the worst enviroments for children of any semi or fully developed nation. Always thought of most European countries as still realing from WW2 and the cold war, I guess those are just assumptions with no basis though.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#4
MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
Like the article said, there is really no comparison between here and the children in Mexico. I've been there many times and from personal experience think they live under the worst enviroments for children of any semi or fully developed nation. Always thought of most European countries as still realing from WW2 and the cold war, I guess those are just assumptions with no basis though.
Actually there is a comparison. The article says that Mexico "comes bottom of the table with a figure of 28%". We have 22%. Being that we are the wealthiest country in the world you would think we wouldn’t be second to the last of the "rich" countries.
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#5
2-0-Sixx said:
Actually there is a comparison. The article says that Mexico "comes bottom of the table with a figure of 28%". We have 22%. Being that we are the wealthiest country in the world you would think we wouldn’t be second to the last of the "rich" countries.
What I mean is the actual enviroment. The dollar to peso ratio is somewhere at 11 pesos for every dollar. A 3 Liter bottle of Coke (They don't sell 2 liter bottles) was somewhere around 17 pesos.

My point is that this [USA] is still a "rich" country. Mexico is also a VERY VERY VERY rich country. 10th in the world and 4th in the number of billionaires. Yet I have family down there that makes about 300 a month. American kids here have shelters, charities, laws to protect them, etc. Whereas orphans in Mexico have to live in the sewers, 4 year old children are forced to work to support their parents, underage girls are left with no choice than to go to sell themselves publicly in the streets (I know as I was propositioned. Imagine a strip about 2 miles long full of prostitutes soliciting sex).

I would love to take most Mexican-Americans down there so they can see what they have to change [change here not there. the problems in mexico are mostly American made) but I would also like those who go to Mexico City (Tourists) to go some place other than the Zocalo and the Presidential Palace, like maybe to some of the colinas and barrios. I guess I over-exaggerated when I said there is no comparison, but i truly feely that the comparisons are superficial at best. I guess I would rather be a bum here than a lower class resident over there, and this is not be denouncing my country but the way it's been raped is horrible.
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
43
#7
MEXICANCOMMANDO: I've seen it man. I have only been to Mexico once, Rosarito to be exact. I know this town is bulked up for [American] tourists, but it is disheartening nonetheless. We stayed at the Corona Plaza, and if you have been there you know that this hotel is over a mile to where the clubs are. So every day, maybe 3-4 times a day, we walked down the strip. There were kids on the streets (with their mother close by) coming up to us, literally with their hands out, not saying a word. They would pull down on my shirt, sometimes two and three at a time, begging me to give them something, anything. Yet they never spoke a word (not that I would have understood it). This incident wasn't isolated either, it would happen all the way up and down the strip, just during the day time. I never gave them anything, though I really wish I would have.

The sad thing is I know I have yet to see the bottom of this pit. Rosarito is pretty run down, and there are a lot of families sitting on the street begging (because of the tourists and the money they bring) but I know in my heart it gets much worse in that country.

Immagrants running rampid through the streets of America selling light flashing magnets and decayed, aged roses. I've botten many of these things even though I have no use for them. Shit, I used to buy my ex roses from them (believe me I had plenty of money to get her proper ones) and I would just tell her, we all gotta eat. She never said a word about how they looked.

If coming to America is to escape from such poverty, then I'm all for opening the gates.
 
May 17, 2002
1,016
6
38
46
www.xianex.com
#8
I did a paper on the OECD and the World Bank last week. The control of capital is the problem. Think of it like this. the rich don't want other adults to be rich they definitely aren't concerned how this affects children unless it looks like the children are a threat to their wealth. the SS reform comes to mind.

Rhetorical Question: have any of you examined the differences in the OECD and World Bank's perspective on FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) and Global development (international business landscape reform)?