Skip to comments.US, UK 'worst places for children'
Posted on 02/14/2007 3:56:18 AM PST by Tulsa Ramjet
Britain and the United States are the worst places in the industrialised world for children to live, according to a report by the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef).
They ranked among the bottom third in the study which looked at overall well-being, health and safety, education, relationships, risk and their own sense of well-being.
The study said that child poverty - defined as the percentage of children living in homes with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median - remains above the 15 per cent mark in Britain, the US and Ireland, as well as Spain, Portugal and Italy.
"The evidence from many countries persistently shows that children who grow up in poverty are more vulnerable," the report said, especially in terms of academic underachievement, chances of unemployment and low self-esteem.
Child well-being was rated highest in northern Europe, with the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark leading the list.
"All countries have weaknesses that need to be addressed and no country features in the top third of the rankings for all six dimensions," David Bull, the UK executive director of Unicef, said.
Britain lived up to its reputation for "binge-drinking," hazardous sexual activity and drug use, with the report putting the country at the bottom of the rankings for risk behaviours "by a considerable distance".
(Excerpt) Read more at english.aljazeera.net ...
When do we see some rock star begging for money for poor kids in Alabama.What a bunch of commie bs.
So, this reporter and the UNICEF folks have never been to a third world country other than for a vacation. Thinks that make you say hmmmmm!
yeah bono, howsabout a bone in ol' allybammy?
"So, this reporter and the UNICEF folks have never been to a third world country other than for a vacation."
What? and step off that plane to get struck by the unbearable heat and stench of dead bodies, burning tires, and murderous flies? Maybe for a night or two for the ol resume', but otherwise all other nations beside the US and UK are doing well. I guess that's why so many mexicans are trying to sneak in with their kids. It is soooo horrible here.
Mexico had better immediately take steps to seal its borders.
US, UK are worse than Sudan?
Oh. Oh, it's Al Jizm. "To be a slave in Islam is noble."
The bottom 2% in the US still live better than 90% of the global population.
This study is just a waste.
The study said that child poverty - defined as the percentage of children living in homes with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median
That is about the dumbest measure of poverty I have ever encountered. On this basis the kids in Mexico and any poor country are much better off than the kids in the US.
Time to audit UNICEF's books.
Probably a rice-voucher-cash-for-positive-child-reviews scandal brewing.
some UNICEF staffer had been drinking hard when they wrote this.
Poor people in the United States have cars, cable TV, cell phones, iPods, and are often fat. Show me another country where they have fat poor people with new iPods. (Hint: Ryhmes with "the UK")
I've been all over the world. Most Americans can't grasp what real poverty is. Many happy, middle class people in other countries live with less material comfort than our own poor. UNICEF should be embarassed to release such a crock. Who gives a rat's ass what the 'median' is? By definition, half of the people will be living under the fifty percent mark, anyway. If America was half billionaires and half millionaires, then by this idiotic study, millioniaires would be living below the poverty line. That doesn't take into account what you can buy with that million dollars.
Remember those long-ago Halloweens collecting UNICEF money for the poor kids of the world? It turns out that those little bastards should have been collecting money for us instead!!
Best to be raised in a loving place like Palastine where Mom kisses your illiterate noggen while buttoning up your adolescent bomb vest /sarc
That damned Scrappleface is at it again :-)
"Who gives a rat's ass what the 'median' is?"
Yeah. Besides, at least in America if you don't have it, you can 'jack someone down the street and take it. What do you get bustin a AK cap in a mullah in Tehran?.....a diseased goat and a stinky head wrap?
US out of the UN
UN out of the US
They still haven't carried the Anna Nicole story. They got nothing on Greta.
the world will not end with a bang, or whimper, or cleavage, but a JDAM focused on a group sharing a hooka pipe.
That's pretty funny! Many of those "poor" kids have cell phones, TVs, ipods, computers, toilets in the house, houses, schools, LeBron James shoes, etc. Poor people in other parts of the world have a piece of cloth. The better off ones might have a drinking cup.
As far as binge drinking goes, it's much harder to do in Muzzle'em countries. Their solution to a lot of vices is death.
Then their are the rapes by UN personnel.
I agree this report is flawed, but dump the Iran, Congo, Mexico etc comparisons. The report only includes industrialised actions.
Judging by the list here industrialised apparently means Europe and the US:
Don't ask me why they couldn't manage to get enough data from those economic backwaters (!) Japan and Australia.
When the little kids come around and try to collect for UNICEF, I tell them the UN is filled with filled with communists and Nazis who barbecue small African children on spits. They looked shocked and don't know what to say.
The goofy lefty parents, however, go into cardiac arrest, throw little Johnny in the car and speed off at 60 MPH.
50% of 0 is 0.
Really!! Due to the way in which peoples earnings change over time the only reason this number would not be ~50% is that most elderly with grown children do not have large incomes.
Don't ask me why they couldn't manage to get enough data from those economic backwaters (!) Japan and Australia.
Politically incorrect results maybe?
Regarding Japan I haven't a clue but I have no reason to suspect Austrlia would be finish than either the US or UK. I'm just puzzled by its ommission.
PS - how did I manage to spell 'nation' as 'action'? Must be my hopeless upbringing!
" The bottom 2% in the US still live better than 90% of the global population "
That's probably wrong.
Bangs head on desk.
What do they want? That everyone lives in a home with income above the national average?
If only 15% of the children live in homes that are below the national average, I'd say that's pretty good.
Let's reword it: 85% of the children live in homes with incomes above 50% of the national median. Harder to criticise, isn't it?
I am not going to defend the report. But many on here need to read. Where are you getting third world countries.
"in the industrialised world "
They did not include third world countries. So attack the report where it deserves to be attacked. The use of irrelevant statistics and non measurable feel good ones.
I would say that anything associated with the United Nations reports the polar opposite of the correct findings. Looks like a continuation of the leftist conspiracy to discredit/destroy the USA and Great Britain! Why do we give those folks a penny? The UN should exist on donations, not government money! We are fools to support such vermin!
That must be why so many refugees are seen fleeing this country!! (end sarcasm)
Truthfully I have no clue either, however given the political criteria they were using, it seemed plausible.
I have amateur's interest in history and one of the things that is striking for most of history is the lack of fecundity of the truly wealthy throughout most of history.
Ok, it looks like about 3 of the posters here read the linked article.
One of the factors in the determination was "relationships." That discussion focused on the effect of single parent families. It noted that the US and the UK had the highest rate of single parents, which had a negative effect on the kids. In addition, the focus group is made up of a bunch of European nanny states -- life there isn't bad now . . . its the future that is dicey.
Sorry folks, whether the conclusion of the report is correct or not (its an entirely subjective matter), things like single parenthood and its having a negative impact on our kids makeup are true problems in this country. And the mass of the country just accepts it now as hunky-dory.
What a silly definition. Totally meaningless WRT their brainiac conclusions.
Whenever I read this drivel, it gets my blood boiling. It's not just the Congo or Iran. I've traveled to many nice places and I don't think they're anything so great either. Just ask the Jewish kids in France, for example. But more importantly, the only reason these "numbers" are what they are is because there is a certain element in our society here in America that are such horrible parents, the 5 or 6 kids they seem to have apiece (because other than getting their nails done, weaves, grilles, or whatever, all they know how to do is reproduce and of course they have time to do this because they don't work either) are skewing the stats.
This is how mere numbers can mess up the true facts. You made excellent points, especially the remark about child mortality in other countries. If you read this story and decide to move based on their info, then you'd be heading for Venezuela before you'd come here (yeah, right).
I found this part of the report interesting.
Britain and the US were also found to have the worst rankings in terms of children's relationships with their families and peers.
Unicef noted the sensitivity of this field, but said "at the statistical level, there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being," including dropping out of school, leaving home early, poorer health and low pay.
The US, Britain and Sweden had the highest proportion of children living in single-parent families, while Italy, Greece and Spain had the lowest.
Im clearly having brain-to-keyboard issues today :o/
I almost can't bear it,driving to work each day in my C-Class Mercedes. Coming home to my 4 bedroom house. This place is horrible! Oh the humanity!
Oops, my bad. I'm still trying to master the English language.
Let's see - a home with no father versus a home with a murderous jihadist father ... hmmmm
Which might be more detrimental to a kid's welfare ?
No kidding - this is another B.S. report from the U.N. I wonder how many tax dollars went to create this?
That skewed ratio occurred to me as well. What about countries where a greater number of people are wealthy, like Kuwait? Would someone be considered living in poverty if they couldn't afford two luxury yachts?
Sooooooooooooo does this mean the UN will start giving us money instead of taking it??
It's for the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren
Uh, my math is a bit fuzzy, but isn't this definition sort of like what Garrison Keillor says about the children who live at Lake Woebegon - they are all above average!
The name of UNICEF official in charge of this report is David BULL. Enough said.
I'm sure that if you've ever been to India or China (or Indonesia, or most of Africa) you'd probably be less quick to dismiss the idea.
That wasn't my point.
The whole study in this article is about industrial nations. The comparison didn't touch India or Angola.
It's neither about wealth alone - it's about education (own desk - time to learn etc. etc.) health and so on.
I've always had the idea that scandinavian nations are just a better place to bring up kids. There's more help organized in the neighborhoud either. The UK people tend to live apparrt from their neighbours. So do we germans.
Certainly that's not for every individual but that's the tendency.
How about your neighborhoud - are your kids been looked after by the neighbours time by time ?