YASHIKA GUPTA
14th October 2009 |
THE SITE IS HELPFUL BUT SOME RECENT DATA RELATED TO POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT SHOULD B THERE |
Fiona (Switzerland)
8th April 2009 |
This statistic is not relevant. As far as I understand using these metrics, in any country there is child poverty where there are people who make half of the median income.
It should be updated somehow using more relevant metrics.
Fiona - www.discoverlausanne.com |
Leo Stewart
5th April 2009 |
Why this is misleading (quoted from the UNICEF study):
"Nonetheless an international comparison based on a poverty line drawn at 50% of the median national income presents only a partial picture in that it makes no allowance for differences in national wealth. It shows, for example, that the child poverty rate in the United States is higher than in Hungary, but fails to show that 50% of median income (for a couple with two children) is approximately $7,000 in Hungary and $24,000 in the United States. The fact that a smaller percentage of children are growing up poor in the Czech Republic than in France, or in Poland than in Italy, does not mean that Czech or Polish children are more affluent but that their countries have a more equal distribution of income. In other words Figure 1.1 tells us much about inequality and exclusion but little about absolute material deprivation." |
Nancy (Boston USA)
12th November 2008 |
So by this definition, only the richest half of any country should be having children. It doesn't matter how wealthy that country is, anyone making less than the median income who gives birth is contributing to child poverty. That seems very elitist to me.
-------
Now that is a mouthful and a half, but truth is that is how a majority see it. In my mind that is why women in this country are having abortions, they simply can't afford to have a family. If you don't make median income you don't have a business having a family. Values have certainly changed. There is no more family foundation anymore. In my mind you can't build anything without a strong foundation. |
Tina Beacock (Chicago)
6th October 2008 |
As you can see in the definition, the definition of poverty is based on a relation to the NATIONAL median -- i.e.. it changes with each country. The usual interpretation of "family" is family of four. (Two parents, two kids) |
M (London)
12th March 2008 |
I don't think the list is meaningless and the argument 'only upper or middle class people should have children' is only used by people who have no interest in understanding the complexity of social policy and social change. Child poverty is an index which should be used to assess the amount of child benefits needed in a given country. It should also be used to assess other policies which might have affected households, single mothers etc...
It can also be seen as an index of social mobility in relative and national terms, particularly becasue it's based on the national income median not national mean. |
jimbo (canada)
26th February 2008 |
someone wrote that Children in the US aren't poorer than those in Spain.
And how the hell do you know that?
Have you done any research into poverty that exists in either country?
Or is your statement based on an uninformed bias that you have of Spanish society?
Do you even know which part of the Globe Spain is on? Have you ever been to Spain?
I want to see numbers and references, otherwise, think before you post. |
Yony Nutman (Israel, Jerusalem)
16th August 2007 |
hello (shalom),
I'm a student for economics and doing a seminar about poverty. I couldn't find historical information. What I'm looking for is data about poverty rate and GINI index in Ireland, United stats, England and France between 1990-2005
please e-mail me this information or tell me where i could find it. my mail is yonynutman@yahoo.com or vgshani@gmail.com
thank you very much
yony |
Mondy Dia Stone (United States)
9th January 2007 |
im doing a paper in my history class, and i need to know how the poverty in the U.S and the poverty in Pakistan compare. PLease help |
Bruce
15th February 2006 |
So by this definition, only the richest half of any country should be having children. It doesn't matter how wealthy that country is, anyone making less than the median income who gives birth is contributing to child poverty. That seems very elitist to me. |
James Nickerson
4th October 2005 |
It is worth calling attention to the definition of child poverty used here, listed as "the share of the children living in the households with income below 50% of the national median."
This statistic is only partially useful in determining what countries it is better, from a general material standpoint, to be a child in. Just because there are a lot of very, very rich people in a country doesn't mean that a family who is getting by in a lower middle class sense should necessarily be considered impoverished.
I know we all have strides to make in combatting this issue, but I would argue that a good portion of those defined as technically poor in some countries are the envy of the destitute millions living in many other nations. I hope they will succeed in pulling themselves up, and that the rest of us will succeed in helping them do so. I also hope that we will not fail to recognize and be grateful for the marvelous situation nearly everyone in many privileged, deterministic countries are in. |
Jonathan Seeley
12th July 2005 |
I see that you have set the poverty line at US$10,500 family income per year. Is this regardless of how many children in the family? How has this been decided on as a good measure of poverty, given the wide range of family circumstances that exist? Were the statistics for other countries also computed using this US$10,500 figure? |
Jen
5th July 2005 |
do u have child poverty numbers, but for ALL countries. thanks. |
David Okech
6th February 2005 |
I am a PhD student in the U.S and planning to carry out a dissertation research on child poverty at an international level. Please send me anything that can help in this project.
Thanks |
Feeds |
Contact