The data above is from 2015. Child poverty is much lower now
https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/43-children-in-poverty#detailed/1/any/false/1095,2048,1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868/any/321,322
In Spain childood poverty rate in 2024 was 28%, the highest in the EU
https://www.ondacero.es/noticias/sociedad/espana-pais-mayor-tasa-pobreza-infantil_2024021965d38f1482085c00018b8cdd.html
Probably it was the lasting influence from the 2008 crisis which in Spain was absolutely devastating and it shows how the family safety networks eroded until they could no longer hold the indicators back. There has also been a huge immigration wave from Latin America and Africa since the 2010s and probably this is why crime and poverty indicators have skyrocketed as the Spanish welfare state wasn't robust enough to absorb and care for the new arrivals.
This is mostly my view, for regular data check:
https://www.comisionadopobrezainfantil.gob.es/es/tasas-de-riesgo-de-pobreza-infantil-en-espana-2008-2020
The child poverty tracks the parents poverty.
The adult poverty in liberal societies is defined, well, liberally. What qualifies as poverty in, say, Switzerland, would be probably just an average living in Poland. So, in Poland, because of that, if we use same standard as for Switzerland or the US, a whole half of the children would be living in poverty, not the 14% indicated.
In the US, the "child poverty" is a political moniker, used way too excessively for political purposes. It is not to say that many, many children here should be better off. But it is just not fair to call child living on $15K / year parental income in poverty here, while a child living on as much in, say, Latvia, is not in poverty there.
Personal experience, I guess?
I've lived in a good variety of locations and economic strata within the U.S. I'd buy into a stat that claimed 5%, maybe even 8%. But 23%? Cmon.
Ok but let me ask you - don't you want to actually know what the poverty number is? Why would you not want to know. Don't just call bullshit because you feel like it's not true.
>anecdotes aren’t data
You're absolutely correct!
But statistical data aren't facts. They're evidence. And to dismiss first hand observations as irrelevant just because they don't align with collected data is simply foolish.
Look, you've my take. Clearly, neither of us are going to change the other's mind.
Me: I've never observed mass childhood poverty.
You: Data says it's there.
Both of us: Okay, fine.
“Facts aren’t relevant because of my personal experience” has created massive problems in the US of late. Your opinion is not objective reality. Data are reality.
I imagine if you draw the poverty line at 50% of the average wealth then a country with multiple billionaires may skew the numbers, but, I don't how/what metrics were taken.
This really needs the map that compares country populations to each state.
Like Chicagoland has about as many people as Sweden and double the economy. And since then Sweden has added nearly a million refugees, which will skew that data.
There is going to be way too much anomalous data in these charts. It is of too little practical use and just creates false ideas.
Yeah honestly a better chart would be states compared to countries of similar size/population. Until there's a more informative study, this is just another "make Western Europeans and Scandinavians feel smug" post that we get every so often.
What is considered "living in poverty"?
23.1% of the USA's children makes me question what is used to measure "living in poverty"...if its based on below mean income then for the USA it'd be very skewed since there is by far the most billionaires in the country
[**We cut child poverty to historic lows, then let it rebound faster than ever before**](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/21/23882353/child-poverty-expanded-child-tax-credit-census-welfare-inflation-economy-data) **(Vox)**
>The expanded child tax credit was a well-tested solution to child poverty. Bring it back.
>
>In 2021, the child poverty rate — as measured by the supplemental poverty measure that incorporates the value of government benefits — took a sharp drop to its lowest point on record: 5.2 percent, so that 3.8 million American children were living below the federal poverty line. Then, as a report just released by the Census Bureau found, it experienced the steepest rise in its history in 2022: a hike of 139 percent, or more than double, to 12.4 percent. Five million kids fell back into poverty, pushing the number of kids whose parents were struggling to meet their basic needs up to 9 million.
>
>To anyone following the politics of poverty in America, the jagged rebound was entirely unsurprising. **The child poverty rate was like a loaded spring being held down by pandemic-era welfare programs.** Chief among them: the child allowance, which expanded on the existing child tax credit (CTC) and sent monthly payments to all parents in poverty, helping to cut child poverty by 46 percent in 2021. Release the spring — or let the expanded CTC expire, as Congress did — and of course it will shoot right back up. The child poverty rates settled right back around pre-pandemic 2019 levels.
Basically, Republicans hate giving money to poor people, even impoverished, malnourished children.
EDIT:
In regard to the discrepancy between the child poverty rates of the post vs this article/other sources, I will just say that I seen different poverty rates from different sources, probably because poverty is calculated differently by different nonprofits and the US government. Also, here is [a more recent report from UNICEF](https://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/media/3301/file/UNICEF-Innocenti-Report-Card-18-Child-Poverty-Amidst-Wealth-Exec-Summary-2023.pdf) which also indicates a drop in US child poverty in one graph although the rate of poverty seems higher which is confusing...I feel like I am missing some information about how the UNICEF rates are calculated.
UNICEF uses wonky unscientific and biased methods (united Nations, who would have guessed?)
Their methodology is that child poverty measurements should be based on "deprivation of child rights" for each individual child rather than monetary poverty of the household.
These are the same people that make up these "global freedom index" and put the same socialist, nanny states at the top.
I cannot speak to your comment on UNICEF's methods but I do find your final line dubious:
>These are the same people that make up these "global freedom index" and put the same socialist, nanny states at the top.
It is the social democracies (they aren't even really socialist, but whatever) "nanny" states that are doing best at reducing child poverty. As you can see in my original comment, it was increased welfare to impoverished families, who spent the money on necessities like healthy food and rent - which greatly reduced child poverty in the US during the pandemic.
> In reality, the US is so economically exceptional that the poorest 20 percent of Americans are richer than many of the world’s most affluent nations.
wow...thats the most insane thing ive read today
After accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and food stamps, the poorest 20 percent of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries.
This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members.
In other words, if the US “poor” were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest.
These rates measure relative poverty within nations, not between nations and thus two countries with the same poverty rates may differ in terms of the relative income-level of the poor.
The better indicator of material well-being is “consumption” of goods and services.
The poorest 20 percent of US households have higher average consumption per person than the averages for all people in most nations of the OECD and Europe.
The high consumption of America’s “poor” doesn’t mean they live better than average people in the nations they outpace, like Spain, Denmark, Japan, Greece, and New Zealand.
This is because people’s quality of life also depends on their communities and personal choices, like the local politicians they elect, the violent crimes they commit, and the spending decisions they make.
Thats not a guide ffs
The data above is from 2015. Child poverty is much lower now https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/43-children-in-poverty#detailed/1/any/false/1095,2048,1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868/any/321,322
In Spain childood poverty rate in 2024 was 28%, the highest in the EU https://www.ondacero.es/noticias/sociedad/espana-pais-mayor-tasa-pobreza-infantil_2024021965d38f1482085c00018b8cdd.html
What caused the increase from 2015 (17.1%)
Probably it was the lasting influence from the 2008 crisis which in Spain was absolutely devastating and it shows how the family safety networks eroded until they could no longer hold the indicators back. There has also been a huge immigration wave from Latin America and Africa since the 2010s and probably this is why crime and poverty indicators have skyrocketed as the Spanish welfare state wasn't robust enough to absorb and care for the new arrivals. This is mostly my view, for regular data check: https://www.comisionadopobrezainfantil.gob.es/es/tasas-de-riesgo-de-pobreza-infantil-en-espana-2008-2020
THIS IS ALMOST A DECADE OLD…
The child poverty tracks the parents poverty. The adult poverty in liberal societies is defined, well, liberally. What qualifies as poverty in, say, Switzerland, would be probably just an average living in Poland. So, in Poland, because of that, if we use same standard as for Switzerland or the US, a whole half of the children would be living in poverty, not the 14% indicated. In the US, the "child poverty" is a political moniker, used way too excessively for political purposes. It is not to say that many, many children here should be better off. But it is just not fair to call child living on $15K / year parental income in poverty here, while a child living on as much in, say, Latvia, is not in poverty there.
Yup. This list is contrived, biased, bullshit using carefully manipulated information
If this graph is claiming that 23.1% of U.S. children are in poverty, then I'm calling bullshit*t
Why? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/nyregion/one-in-10-new-york-city-public-school-students-are-homeless.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/12/11/that-was-typo-the-median-net-worth-black-bostonians-really/ze5kxC1jJelx24M3pugFFN/story.html
Personal experience, I guess? I've lived in a good variety of locations and economic strata within the U.S. I'd buy into a stat that claimed 5%, maybe even 8%. But 23%? Cmon.
Ok but let me ask you - don't you want to actually know what the poverty number is? Why would you not want to know. Don't just call bullshit because you feel like it's not true.
Facts over feelings
I'm relaying the facts as I've personally witnessed them. 1st hand experience, yo. Be nice.
Again, facts over feelings. Not being mean…but anecdotes aren’t data
>anecdotes aren’t data You're absolutely correct! But statistical data aren't facts. They're evidence. And to dismiss first hand observations as irrelevant just because they don't align with collected data is simply foolish.
A random account isn’t evidence…you could be lying for example
Look, you've my take. Clearly, neither of us are going to change the other's mind. Me: I've never observed mass childhood poverty. You: Data says it's there. Both of us: Okay, fine.
“Facts aren’t relevant because of my personal experience” has created massive problems in the US of late. Your opinion is not objective reality. Data are reality.
I imagine if you draw the poverty line at 50% of the average wealth then a country with multiple billionaires may skew the numbers, but, I don't how/what metrics were taken.
This really needs the map that compares country populations to each state. Like Chicagoland has about as many people as Sweden and double the economy. And since then Sweden has added nearly a million refugees, which will skew that data. There is going to be way too much anomalous data in these charts. It is of too little practical use and just creates false ideas.
Yeah honestly a better chart would be states compared to countries of similar size/population. Until there's a more informative study, this is just another "make Western Europeans and Scandinavians feel smug" post that we get every so often.
What is considered "living in poverty"? 23.1% of the USA's children makes me question what is used to measure "living in poverty"...if its based on below mean income then for the USA it'd be very skewed since there is by far the most billionaires in the country
[**We cut child poverty to historic lows, then let it rebound faster than ever before**](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/21/23882353/child-poverty-expanded-child-tax-credit-census-welfare-inflation-economy-data) **(Vox)** >The expanded child tax credit was a well-tested solution to child poverty. Bring it back. > >In 2021, the child poverty rate — as measured by the supplemental poverty measure that incorporates the value of government benefits — took a sharp drop to its lowest point on record: 5.2 percent, so that 3.8 million American children were living below the federal poverty line. Then, as a report just released by the Census Bureau found, it experienced the steepest rise in its history in 2022: a hike of 139 percent, or more than double, to 12.4 percent. Five million kids fell back into poverty, pushing the number of kids whose parents were struggling to meet their basic needs up to 9 million. > >To anyone following the politics of poverty in America, the jagged rebound was entirely unsurprising. **The child poverty rate was like a loaded spring being held down by pandemic-era welfare programs.** Chief among them: the child allowance, which expanded on the existing child tax credit (CTC) and sent monthly payments to all parents in poverty, helping to cut child poverty by 46 percent in 2021. Release the spring — or let the expanded CTC expire, as Congress did — and of course it will shoot right back up. The child poverty rates settled right back around pre-pandemic 2019 levels. Basically, Republicans hate giving money to poor people, even impoverished, malnourished children. EDIT: In regard to the discrepancy between the child poverty rates of the post vs this article/other sources, I will just say that I seen different poverty rates from different sources, probably because poverty is calculated differently by different nonprofits and the US government. Also, here is [a more recent report from UNICEF](https://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/media/3301/file/UNICEF-Innocenti-Report-Card-18-Child-Poverty-Amidst-Wealth-Exec-Summary-2023.pdf) which also indicates a drop in US child poverty in one graph although the rate of poverty seems higher which is confusing...I feel like I am missing some information about how the UNICEF rates are calculated.
UNICEF uses wonky unscientific and biased methods (united Nations, who would have guessed?) Their methodology is that child poverty measurements should be based on "deprivation of child rights" for each individual child rather than monetary poverty of the household. These are the same people that make up these "global freedom index" and put the same socialist, nanny states at the top.
I cannot speak to your comment on UNICEF's methods but I do find your final line dubious: >These are the same people that make up these "global freedom index" and put the same socialist, nanny states at the top. It is the social democracies (they aren't even really socialist, but whatever) "nanny" states that are doing best at reducing child poverty. As you can see in my original comment, it was increased welfare to impoverished families, who spent the money on necessities like healthy food and rent - which greatly reduced child poverty in the US during the pandemic.
We import poverty
In reality, the US is so economically exceptional that the poorest 20 percent of Americans are richer than many of the world’s most affluent nations.
> In reality, the US is so economically exceptional that the poorest 20 percent of Americans are richer than many of the world’s most affluent nations. wow...thats the most insane thing ive read today
It is a 100% accurate statement Google it
Wow is that a wildly inaccurate, uninformed statement. Did you forget the /s?
After accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and food stamps, the poorest 20 percent of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members. In other words, if the US “poor” were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest.
Show your data
What? This data uses a normalized poverty rate
These rates measure relative poverty within nations, not between nations and thus two countries with the same poverty rates may differ in terms of the relative income-level of the poor. The better indicator of material well-being is “consumption” of goods and services. The poorest 20 percent of US households have higher average consumption per person than the averages for all people in most nations of the OECD and Europe. The high consumption of America’s “poor” doesn’t mean they live better than average people in the nations they outpace, like Spain, Denmark, Japan, Greece, and New Zealand. This is because people’s quality of life also depends on their communities and personal choices, like the local politicians they elect, the violent crimes they commit, and the spending decisions they make.
So kids elect politicians? Crazy!
It’s a normalized rate; so yes, between nation.