Countries with as much child poverty as Canada and the United States shouldn’t be surprised when their testing results don’t improve. This is pretty fucking basic science yet I’ve been fighting this battle for over twenty years and quite literally nobody in power gives enough of a fuck to fix it.
What... does that mean?
I see how someone who cannot (legally) work yet can be poorer than other age groups, but I am sure that’s not what is meant. But is a child somehow deemed poorer than its caregivers? Or perhaps is the child as poor as its poorest caregiver? Or how does that fact appear?
/shrug
The answer is that in child poverty research, a child is considered to live in poverty if that child lives in a household with an income below the statistical low income cutoff.
I don’t think people have difficulty with the concept of child poverty, but your original assertion sounds super weird (and yet it sounds official, not a personal opinion, so a paper detailing that would be a better answer).
I agree it's very confusing.
> there are a lot of kids with low household income
I think maybe you meant to reply to someone else.
Using that measure, in the United States 1/6 children live in poverty. Half of those live in statistically defined ‘extreme poverty’. That 1/6 has some interesting geographical and race based components that worth a read. There is a metric shit tonne of research on this and if you’re interested in a reading list, my email is in my profile! :)
I really don't expect my kids to have more disposable income than I do.
Finally, we are talking about child poverty - a little bit of respect and perhaps some research would be a far better complement than lowbrow snark.
How would we make children not the poorest age group? First poor families are more likely to have more kids than well to do ones, and kids raise the income you need to be above the poverty line.
Better statistics revolve around specific needs that children have and what percentage of those are satisfied.
Consequently, we’re stuck with statistical measures based on deviations from income and cost of living.
The black panthers used to serve free breakfast to schoolkids for a reason.
Unfortunately the infrastructure of school meals in the US is, like so much else, political. A sensible approach would be free (both removing the complex billing infrastructure and removing stigma of "free" vs "paying") nutritious meals for all students.
Incredibly, both "free" and "nutritious" are contentious.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21456242/joe-biden-povert...
I have a lot of hope for the United States now but if my own country’s difficulty is a guide, this will be a tough slog!
If a child is struggling at the basic needs level of this pyramid then hitting the self fulfillment bit at the top is excruciatingly difficult
Sometimes, welfare can cause more problems than it creates. So what should "people in power" do? Setup welfare programs, and in turn welfare dependence?
Education was seen a cure for poverty, which in turn is why Johnny isn't fed.
The longer answer is that you don’t necessarily need welfare programs to help people out of poverty. Rather, a more efficient system would have ‘welfare’ programs for people in crisis that lead into a series of help up services that eventually lead to full independence.
Edit - Also, fuck no, it’s not a teach a man to fish argument. We’re talking about child poverty.
But that's a different plan from "the government" in general.
> a more efficient system would have ‘welfare’ programs for people in crisis that lead into a series of help up services that eventually lead to full independence.
You are describing "safety-net" welfare, but how do you ensure any form of welfare remains a safety-net, and doesn't become a norm? welfare for those not in poverty is much more likely to work this way. If you specifically set out to tackle poverty, the most important thing are educational programs, and limited welfare programs.
I'm not against welfare in any case, but I see it as a double-edged sword that is too often seen as a "throw money at the problem" solution.
> Also, fuck no
It's a metaphor, the difference between men and children aren't relevant. The abstract meaning is dependence vs self-dependence. Giving a child food solves their food, but not their poverty.
The way it was originally stated:
what if instead of spending so much time wondering why ‘Johnny’ can’t add, we spent that money and effort on making sure that Johnny was fed properly
Feeding children so that they can be stable adults is one of the most long-term policies I can think of.
Children can be fed by their parents, or by the government. long-term, it is better that it be the former, short-term it might need to be the latter.
It's not sustainable or desirable to have multiple generations dependant on the government. If children become "stable" adults, but their children still require the government to feed them then nothing has been solved. The adults need to be both "stable" and educated to escape government dependence.