Canada ranked 18th out of 35 in child poverty report

[mentalfloss]

Canada ranked 18th out of 35 in child poverty report

Child poverty in Canada is more prevalent than the overall national poverty rate, according to a new report that ranks 18th among 35 industrialized nations when it comes to the gap between the two figures.

The country falls even further behind when it comes to the number of children who are actually considered poor, the report released by UNICEF Canada found.

The "Measuring Child Poverty" report ranked Canada 18th for countries with a higher child poverty rate than its overall rate and 24th in terms of the number of children actually growing up poor.

The child poverty rate in Canada is 13.3 per cent in contrast to the country's overall poverty rate of 11.4 per cent, the study found.

The report, released Tuesday, said about 30 million children in the 35 countries studied are poor.

"We know we can do a better," UNICEF executive director David Morley told CTVNews.ca Tuesday.
Morley said improving Canada's child tax benefit would go a long way in dealing with income disparity for poor families.

But it's also critical that a child commissioner's position be created so that governments are reminded of the problem every time they consider their budgets or policies, he said.

Morley said such a commissioner would give governments the ability for "looking at the budget through the eyes of children."

Municipalities can also play a major role in improving the lives of poor children by raising their lifestyle standards through good libraries, playgrounds and ensuring their bylaws take the needs of children into consideration.

They can also make sure recreation opportunities are available for kids who otherwise couldn't afford them.

"It's an important part of child development," Morley said.

Canada also lacks an official definition poverty, he added, which makes it difficult to understand the severity of the problem.

He credited various levels of government for getting the country's child poverty level below that of the United States, but said a lot more can be done.

The report found Nordic countries and the Netherlands had the lowest child poverty rates, while Japan, the United States as well as southern and eastern European countries had some of the highest.

Child poverty rates by nation varied in the report from five per cent in Iceland to 25 per cent in Romania.

Ten of the 35 countries measured had lower child poverty rates than their overall poverty level, including Australia, Japan and Germany.

In Canada, children in Quebec and Manitoba fared better in the report, partly because these provinces have more effective early childhood education programs, Morley said.

Ontario is also moving forward in addressing early childhood education through policies such as full-day kindergarten.

Morley said Canada needs to establish a national poverty reduction strategy that includes a focus on children.

The report based its findings on what it termed a "child deprivation index" that includes items like clothing, books and the ability to participate in school trips and birthdays.

Relative child poverty is defined in the study as living in a household in which disposable income is less than 50 per cent of the national median net income of $63,800, based on 2009 figures.

Canada ranked 18th out of 35 in child poverty report | CTV News
​

 

[JLM]

Canada ranked 18th out of 35 in child poverty report

Child poverty in Canada is more prevalent than the overall national poverty rate, according to a new report that ranks 18th among 35 industrialized nations when it comes to the gap between the two figures.

Canada ranked 18th out of 35 in child poverty report | CTV News​

So what? You obviously get sucked in by misleading headlines? It says :"among industrialized nations" - which might include such nations as Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Germany, Japan etc. Hardly news worthy and probably isn't among reputable publications!

 

[mentalfloss]

So what? You obviously get sucked in by misleading headlines? It says :"among industrialized nations" - which might include such nations as Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Germany, Japan etc. Hardly news worthy and probably isn't among reputable publications!

The story just broke, and it's also on BBC and Globe and Mail.

Anyway, just because it's "among industrialized nations" doesn't mean the report is without merit. The standard for ranking 18 is still a fairly low bar.

 

[JLM]

The story just broke, and it's also on BBC and Globe and Mail.

Anyway, just because it's "among industrialized nations" doesn't mean the report is without merit. The standard for ranking 18 is still a fairly low bar.

Actually it's a "fairly high bar" as there are about 200 countries in the world............based on that we are in the TOP 9%. But as the old adage goes "figures can lie and liars can figure". :lol:

Actually it's a "fairly high bar" as there are about 200 countries in the world............based on that we are in the TOP 9%. But as the old adage goes "figures can lie and liars can figure". :lol:

Oooooooh me bad, I just checked only 195 countries!

 

[mentalfloss]

Actually it's a "fairly high bar" as there are about 200 countries in the world............based on that we are in the TOP 9%. But as the old adage goes "figures can lie and liars can figure". :lol:

So what?

You don't like to improve?

 

[SLM]

Here's the actual report.

http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf

The key component in determining actual merit of the report is to first determine what it all really means.

Aside from a newspaper headline that is.

 

[JLM]

So what?

You don't like to improve?

Absolutely, that will happen when the waste and greed is reduced!

 

[mentalfloss]

Absolutely, that will happen when the waste and greed is reduced!

Right. Now I'm not saying that the only thing to focus on is the ranking. And it's not like we're in some dire situation here, but there is room for improvement.

 

[Machjo]

The issue I have with rankings is taht if we all competed to be in first place, the race would never end and would become absurd.

Instead, is let's compare Canada now to Canada before. If we've improved, then who cares if we're not the best. As long as tehre's been improvement.

 

[Walter]

There is a very simple cure for child poverty: poor, single women stop having babies.

 

[mentalfloss]

Another thing that would help would be to look at the poverty rates themselves. If there is a low degree of variability, then we can pretty much assume there's not much left to do, or possibly that some agreed standard is accepted. If there is a high degree of variability, then it could be that someone is doing something very right about this issue, or the nation is simply very lucky resource wise.

Here is one set of figures:

I have to say now looking at the standard for measuring poverty (thank you SLM for the official report).. can having lower than 50% of an average household income qualify as being poor?

Essentially, poor, in this case is being in the lowest 25% of the population. Not what I would necessarily think of as poor, but who knows..

 

[Machjo]

There is a very simple cure for child poverty: poor, single women stop having babies.

I'm sure there are a few poor couples with babies too, along with poor single women being raped. Are you proposing forcing them all to have abortions?

Or what about the comfortable couple that has children and is then hit by misfortune later, whether owing to loss of employment, accident, death of the spouce, etc.

Are you proposing that if the spouce dies that you give up your kids for adoption? Or that if all of a sudden you lose the job you thought was secure that you give up your kid for abortion?

Or are you proposing that no one have children until they have enough cash in the bank to cover pretty well all eventualities?

Were you thinking when you typed what you typed?

Another thing that would help would be to look at the poverty rates themselves. If there is a low degree of variability, then we can pretty much assume there's not much left to do, or possibly that some agreed standard is accepted. If there is a high degree of variability, then it could be that someone is doing something very right about this issue, or the nation is simply very lucky resource wise.

Here is one set of figures:

I have to say now looking at the standard for measuring poverty (thank you SLM for the official report).. can having lower than 50% of an average household income qualify as being poor?

Again, comparing countries is useless here except for the purpose of learning best practice.

Also, we need to distinguish between poverty and destitution. Nothing wrong with poverty, but not one single person ought to be living destitute, especially children.

At the same time though, we don't help by giving hand outs, but ratehr by giving hand-ups.

 

[Walter]

I'm sure there are a few poor couples with babies too, along with poor single women being raped. Are you proposing forcing them all to have abortions?

I see that you're not too bright. Forcing women to have abortions is abominable and only tyrants do such things. A good example of tyranny is the Chinese guvmint.
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia (US stats, emphasis added).

By race/ethnicity and family status, based on data from 2007

Among married couple families: 5.8% lived in poverty.[23] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
5.4% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[24]
9.7% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[25] and
14.9% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[26] living in poverty.

Among single parent (male or female) families: 26.6% lived in poverty.[23] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows"
22.5% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[24]
44.0% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[25] and
33.4% of all Hispanic persons (of any race) (of any race)[26] living in poverty.

 

[Machjo]

How does that remotely relate to what I said.

So poor single women who are raped ought to have an abortion?

And what about poor married women who have babies and then the husband dies?

What about the wealthy couple who have children and then misfortune hits?

What's your proposal?

 

[SLM]

I have to say now looking at the standard for measuring poverty (thank you SLM for the official report).. can having lower than 50% of an average household income qualify as being poor?

Essentially, poor, in this case is being in the lowest 25% of the population. Not what I would necessarily think of as poor, but who knows..

They are assessing poverty as it applies to mean average household income, which means it's relative poverty not necessarily actual poverty. Very big difference. Not to say that real poverty doesn't exist in this or other first world nations, it does. But if the objective is to provide a solution does it not help to know what the yardstick is being used to measure the problem?

Again, comparing countries is useless here except for the purpose of learning best practice.

You have to start with a level playing field before you can make comparisons. The way they measured make the comparison apples to oranges. Being "poor" in Canada is a very different thing from being "poor" in another nation, sometimes it can be a big difference.

Also, we need to distinguish between poverty and destitution. Nothing wrong with poverty, but not one single person ought to be living destitute, especially children.

Also, in the case of this report I believe, disadvantage. While they were unable to include Canada or the U.S. in the first survey, it was interesting that the determining factor of poverty was that two or more items from a predetermined list be missing from a child's life. The items listed range from 3 meals a day and lack of shelter, (something I would use to determine poverty) to internet access in the home and whether the clothes were hand me downs. Not to say that a child who is missing the last two items would not be at a disadvantage in this day but comparing that to hungry and homeless and saying they qualify as the same thing? That's very questionable in my opinion.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

The study compares industrial nations in most of which living standards and national wealth are relatively equal. I think, therefore that the results are validated by the method.

It seems to me that relative poverty is the onl fair indicator. Absolute poverty in any one of those nations should be a crime. Relative poverty, in itself, is deprivation that cuts most children a child out of any prospect for a fulfilling future.

 

[Machjo]

We should not get too caught up with the distinction of developed and developing nation. For example, if we compare two families with the same amount of money, one living in a developed country and one in a developing country, chances are the ones in the developing country are better off.

To elaborate further. Imagine you live in a developing nation where you're poor by Canadian standards but so is everyone else in your country, you can bet that accommodation is built accordingly, small, simple and low-cost. You can bet the city is built accordingly, more bicycle friendly with a higher population and business districts closer to residential, etc.

Take the same family, with the same money, and put them in a wealthy country, and all of a sudden the city is built for relative wealth, more spread out, residential and business more separated, fewer bicycle lanes, more roads and highways, much nicer but more expensive accommodation, etc.

In short, wealth can be relative in the sense that a poor family living in a country where the cities and government policy revolve around a more affluent population will find life to be much more difficult than the same poor family living in a poorer country where city infrastructure, government policy, etc. do in fact revolve around a poorer population.

The study compares industrial nations in most of which living standards and national wealth are relatively equal. I think, therefore that the results are validated by the method.

It seems to me that relative poverty is the onl fair indicator. Absolute poverty in any one of those nations should be a crime. Relative poverty, in itself, is deprivation that cuts most children a child out of any prospect for a fulfilling future.

Again, we need to distinguish between moderate poverty and extreme poverty (i.e. destitution). Definitely extreme poverty ought to be outlawed. As for universal compulsory education, everyone ought to get a quality education, maybe even with schools offering three squares a day on school days, etc.

However, as long as poverty is moderate and access to quality universal compulsory education is guaranteed, then no issue there.

Moderate wealth and poverty are not problems, it's only the extremes thereof that we need to worry about.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

We should not get too caught up with the distinction of developed and developing nation. For example, if we compare two families with the same amount of money, one living in a developed country and one in a developing country, chances are the ones in the developing country are better off.

To elaborate further. Imagine you live in a developing nation where you're poor by Canadian standards but so is everyone else in your country, you can bet that accommodation is built accordingly, small, simple and low-cost. You can bet the city is built accordingly, more bicycle friendly with a higher population and business districts closer to residential, etc.

Take the same family, with the same money, and put them in a wealthy country, and all of a sudden the city is built for relative wealth, more spread out, residential and business more separated, fewer bicycle lanes, more roads and highways, much nicer but more expensive accommodation, etc.

In short, wealth can be relative in the sense that a poor family living in a country where the cities and government policy revolve around a more affluent population will find life to be much more difficult than the same poor family living in a poorer country where city infrastructure, government policy, etc. do in fact revolve around a poorer population.



Again, we need to distinguish between moderate poverty and extreme poverty (i.e. destitution). Definitely extreme poverty ought to be outlawed. As for universal compulsory education, everyone ought to get a quality education, maybe even with schools offering three squares a day on school days, etc.

However, as long as poverty is moderate and access to quality universal compulsory education is guaranteed, then no issue there.

Moderate wealth and poverty are not problems, it's only the extremes thereof that we need to worry about.

I did distinguish between relative and absolute poverty. Since that survey is of developed nations, then the standards in all are rouhly equal and that gives substance to the rankings.

I would disagree with you on the lack of danger (social danger) in relative poverty and, as I wrote, absolute poverty is a crime or should be treated as so. It is deliberate neglect by government.

Relative poverty is what matters. When one is poor relative to the norm for any society it removes virtually all opportunity for participation in society and for a life compatible with social activity. It is estimated that about one third of Canadian children are not able to participate in those athletic and cultural programmes that the CPC gives tax credits for because the families are too poor to allow it.

That is dangerous territory for any society.

 

[Machjo]

I did distinguish between relative and absolute poverty. Since that survey is of developed nations, then the standards in all are rouhly equal and that gives substance to the rankings.

I would disagree with you on the lack of danger (social danger) in relative poverty and, as I wrote, absolute poverty is a crime or should be treated as so. It is deliberate neglect by government.

Relative poverty is what matters. When one is poor relative to the norm for any society it removes virtually all opportunity for participation in society and for a life compatible with social activity. It is estimated that about one third of Canadian children are not able to participate in those athletic and cultural programmes that the CPC gives tax credits for because the families are too poor to allow it.

That is dangerous territory for any society.

I would certainly be in favour of increased funding for education (which is provincial of course except on reserve which is federal). This could thus allow for education to broaden beyond academics only to include extracurricular courses, whether music, martial arts, etc. etc. etc. on their days off such as weekends and holidays.

I could also see schools providing free lunch.

Universal compulsory education is one area where we ought to be generous.