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 ?
It also ignores the fact that it's the propensity of government stepping in to handle the basic necessities of life that has contributed to the dismantling of broader society and the family. There is no need for a father if the state is willing to fill that role, but when the state does take on that role there are consequences which the study doesn't mention.
It's just more short sighted liberalism, explaining to all us idiots how we'd be better off if we just shut up and let them make all our decisions.
"It's neither about wealth alone - it's about education (own desk - time to learn etc. etc.) health and so on."
The mere fact that the "study" uses such a politically loaded and *face it* silly definition of poverty means that the whole study is suspect. It doesn't matter that it is only of "industrialized nation" another foggy concept. They lost any credibility with me with that ridiculous and class warfare prompting definition.
Fifty years ago, yes. We couldn't get away with anything without the neighbors blabbing to the folks (darn). Now, you don't even see people outside their homes! Folks used to sit on their front porches and talk to people, get together for coffee klatch's, watch out for neighbors' kids; kids don't even play outside much now. It's changed a LOT.