US and UK worst places in developed world to be a child

  • 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
You may or may not find this surprising...

:::
:::
16 February 2007

The United States and Britain are the worst places in the major industrialised nations to be a child, according to a new report produced by Unicef. The organisation, which usually highlights the plight of child soldiers and children living in poverty in the so-called developing world, has turned the spotlight on 21 wealthy OECD countries. Its findings have exposed the appalling results of growing social inequality in both the UK and US. The report thoroughly refutes the claims of both governments to be reducing child poverty.

“It’s a pretty bleak picture,” said Professor Jonathan Bradshaw. Bradshaw, a leading social scientist at York University in the UK, compiled the report and was speaking at its launch.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the report is the high level of unhappiness reported in children living in the US and Britain. Bradshaw ascribed this to the “dog-eat-dog” attitude that prevails. “In a society which is very unequal, with high levels of poverty, it leads on to what children think about themselves and their lives. That’s really what’s at the heart of this,” he said.

For the first time, this report has drawn the link between the widening levels of social inequality in the UK and US and the extremely high levels of risk-taking behaviour such as substance abuse and underage sex in both countries. Its statistical tables reveal a picture of misery worthy of Hogarth. Throughout its pages, the authors are at pains to point out that they are dealing with relative poverty, and that in comparison with the past, educational standards and living conditions have improved. But the statistics speak for themselves. The report is all the more horrifying for the measured tone that it takes.

The UK and US have the highest percentage of children living in relative poverty, which is defined as less than 50 percent of the national median. By this measure, more than 20 percent of American children and around 16 percent of British children are growing up in poverty.

[...]

As Bradshaw says about the US and Britain, “What they have in common are very high levels of inequality.... They don’t invest as much in children as continental European countries do.”

The poverty the report exposes is the result of a massive shift in wealth to the richest members of society, partly, but by no means solely, due to the elimination of welfare programmes.

[...]

Nor is child poverty the result of unemployment. Fewer than 8 percent of UK children live in households without at least one working parent. In the US, the figure is even lower, with fewer than 2 percent of poor children having no working parent. The Unicef report reveals the true scale of the working poor in both these countries and the toll it is taking on the quality of young lives.

Britain and the US move up the scale when poverty is measured in terms of material possessions such as cars, televisions, computers, etc. More children in the UK and US live in families that have these consumer goods, but that still does not raise them from the bottom of the scale when the child’s total well-being is measured. The actual deprivation experienced is perhaps better expressed in terms of the high proportion of 15-year-olds in both these countries who report fewer than 10 books in their homes.

When it comes to the health and safety of children, the US is down at the bottom of the league table, with the UK well below average. The US has one of the highest levels of death from accidents and injuries.

These figures were based on some of the most fundamental health indicators. They include the health of infants under one year old, immunisation rates from 12 to 23 months, and the number of accidents to children under the age of 19.

Both the UK and US are in the bottom third of the scale for infant mortality, which is one of the most widely accepted standards for social development internationally. Compared to other OECD countries, the UK and the US have extremely high rates of infant mortality.

Similarly, they have among the highest levels of low-birth-weight babies. A low birth weight is associated with an increased risk to life and health among infants and to impaired cognitive and physical development throughout childhood. It is also indicative of deprivation in the mother. The birth-weight figures for the US and UK point to two generations in poverty. These low birth weights chart the decline in living standards for the mass of population in these countries since the gains of welfare programmes began to be attacked.

[...]

Children’s educational well-being was assessed on the basis of average achievements in reading literacy, mathematical literacy and science literacy, the percentage of children remaining in education between the ages of 15 to 19, the percentage of 15- to 19-year-olds not in education, employment or training, and the percentage of this age group expected to find low-skilled employment. Scored on this basis, the US comes in below average and the UK well below average. France and Austria also do badly, while Poland, one of the poorest of the OECD countries, is the third highest.

It is when the figures are broken down into their component parts that the true extent of social inequality in the US and UK is revealed. They both rank among the lowest for the proportion of 15- to 19-year-olds in full-time or part-time education. These figures mean that a high proportion of children in the UK and the US are being excluded from all but the lowest-skilled and lowest-paid jobs.

Some of the most disturbing data in the report relates to the more qualitative areas of social life. When children were asked about the quality of their relations with their family and friends, the US and UK were at the bottom of the scale. The UK’s score can barely fit on the same scale as the rest of the table. These cold statistics point to a truly terrible social situation and suggest that a remarkable number of children in the US and UK do not enjoy satisfying and supportive social relations, either in the family or outside of it.

[...]

[C]hildren’s health behaviours were worst in the US. The UK has one of the lowest proportions of children who eat fruit every day. The US has the highest proportion of overweight children, although it has one of the highest physical activity levels. It is, however, difficult to make much of this because the question asked of children was how many were “physically active for one hour or more in the previous/typical week.”

What is beyond dispute is that the level of obesity in the US pushes the overall figure for poor health behaviours so far above average. In both countries, children’s diet is dominated by the products of the major food manufacturers and fast food outlets. Simple activities such as walking or cycling to school have declined. Even organised physical activities cannot combat the unhealthy imbalance that has been created in these children’s lives.

source
 
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#2
Some of the most disturbing data in the report relates to the more qualitative areas of social life. When children were asked about the quality of their relations with their family and friends, the US and UK were at the bottom of the scale. The UK’s score can barely fit on the same scale as the rest of the table. These cold statistics point to a truly terrible social situation and suggest that a remarkable number of children in the US and UK do not enjoy satisfying and supportive social relations, either in the family or outside of it.
I wonder how this is affected by our addiction to medication like anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, and other "quick fix" pills. I'm very naive on this subject but it seems like our culture promotes the idea that things don't have to be bad if we don't want them to be bad, so we fix the surface (immediate emotions) without paying attention to any long-term solutions. It seems we create an illusion of well-being which again perpetuates the use of more quick fixes since the "real" problem in "nonexistant". I'd be interested to see how other countries deal with issues like depression.
 
Apr 25, 2002
3,970
15
38
41
#4
This doesn't surprise me b/c I think this is simply an overlay of immigration (i.e. if Finland was right next to Mexico and was receiving thousands of them every month, they wouldn't look so good).

In otherwords, it's not our fault. When you're where it's at, everybody's gonna try and come and not all of those folks are going to make it, and that's not the US's fault.

(I do know there are millions of people who've been in the US for centuries who are still struggling, but I think what pushes the statistics for US & England over the top is still immigration)
 
Feb 9, 2003
8,398
58
48
50
#9
xpanther206 said:
This doesn't surprise me b/c I think this is simply an overlay of immigration (i.e. if Finland was right next to Mexico and was receiving thousands of them every month, they wouldn't look so good)
You do happen to know what countries are right next to Finland right?
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#10
isnt media influence abnormally high in these two places? while our media portrays people living perfect lives, we compare our lives to those on TV and think, wow, i have it bad. sweeet 16!!!!!!!!!!
 
Apr 25, 2002
3,970
15
38
41
#11
MEXCOM said:
You do happen to know what countries are right next to Finland right?
Yes

But Finland is an extremely homogenous country, only 2% of the population is foreign born. The corresponding number for the US is 12.4%, and I couldn't find England's number but I know it is also much much higher than that miniscule 2%.

These numbers don't bother me at all, not that I think it's OK for a child to grow up in poverty in America, but b/c it is perfectly logical that we should always lag behind several Northern European countries and Japan in this matter b/c we attract people from the 2nd/3rd world, they do not.

Don't judge without understanding the demographics behind all of this.
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#12
xpanther206 said:
Yes

But Finland is an extremely homogenous country, only 2% of the population is foreign born. The corresponding number for the US is 12.4%, and I couldn't find England's number but I know it is also much much higher than that miniscule 2%.

These numbers don't bother me at all, not that I think it's OK for a child to grow up in poverty in America, but b/c it is perfectly logical that we should always lag behind several Northern European countries and Japan in this matter b/c we attract people from the 2nd/3rd world, they do not.

Don't judge without understanding the demographics behind all of this.
^I'd have to actually agree with that. Another reason being that America is very capitalistic compared to a lot of these other mixed economic societies..