# UK (and US...) accused of failing children



## jess oh seven

* The UK has been accused of failing its children, as it comes bottom of a Unicef league table for child well-being across 21 industrialised countries, with the United States following closely behind. * 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6359363.stm

What are your impressions of this? In all honesty, I'm not really surprised.


----------



## maxiogee

jess oh seven said:


> * The UK has been accused of failing its children, as it comes bottom of a Unicef league table for child well-being across 21 industrialised countries, with the United States following closely behind. *




I never see the point of these 'league tables' - why 21? There are more than 21 industrialised countries, all of them have children, all of them are affiliated to the UN (and therefore UNICEF) - sop why was the league limited to 21?
These surveys just consume paper! They are pointless and tell us very little about how life is lived by those they purport to survey and compare.


----------



## badgrammar

I read this ame article and it is interesting.  France also is pretty far down on the list, with French chilldren being generally more unhappy than their counterparts elsewhere, and the education system is noted as a real disadvantage.  
It is interesting, in light of recent forum debates on whether or not socialism is good for a country, that the countries highest on the list o child happiness and well-being have "socialist" governments (Sweden, Denmark, Finland...).


----------



## Lombard Beige

Yes, this was mentioned on the Italian news too. Apparently, Italy would be even higher in the table if it were not for the shocking state of the school system. Perhaps the idea of falling behind in the children-caring league will spur the Italian politicians to take their hands out their pockets. (Actually their hands are usuallly in other people's pockets, but that's another matter).

regards


----------



## invictaspirit

I have two opinions!

Opinion 1: It's a deserved slap in the face for Blair. The worst thing about the UK is the grotesque inequality of experience here. As a teacher, I would very strongly argue that 80% of British children have an *extremely* nice life, materially. 20% live in the sh*t. 80% are generally switched-on, pleasant, happy kids. 20% are brainless, badly-educated and moronic. (Note: these are not necessarily the same 20% of kids in the last example, although there certainly is some overlap.) I'm unsure to what extent we can blame just them and their parents for that...don't we all have some responsibility?

Opinion 2: Having said all of that...these surveys are often extremely faulty, and in the case of UNESCO and UNICEF, are often thought to be politically-motivated. I'm with maxiogee to an extent. I can show you international surveys that show the UK education system to be simultaneously one of the best and one of the worst in the developed world. I can point to EU statistics that show most of the Top 10 richest regions in Europe to be British and others that show dire social problems. The most annoying surveys to me are those 'Happiness' leagues. There are always several a year. Every year I read them, the UK appears as one of the most happy, and one of the least happy, of all developed nations, depending on whcih survey you read.

The pinch of salt aside, I broadly agree with these findings. Too many people assume that plenty of money solves everything. We are not taking enough notice of our kids and parenting by some parents here really stinks.


----------



## TRG

As it is in the nature of organizations such as UNICEF to issue self-serving reports, I tend to view them quite skeptically. The list could just as well have been titled "The 21 best countries for children to live in".


----------



## cuchuflete

When "Rich" nations pay their UN dues, is it with the intent that organizations such as UNICEF will spend money on things like these reports about reports, or that the funds will be spent to improve the lot of children?


----------



## winklepicker

As Churchill said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. 

One point worth making is that the measurement of poverty is not an absolute: it is relative to the average income in the country involved. It is possible therefore for a starving person in Upper Volta NOT to be classed as in poverty (because everyone else is starving too) while a well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed child in the West IS classed as in poverty because the household income is below a certain percentage of average salary.

That makes poverty a measure of the differential between the haves and have-nots - and on that basis these figures are shaming to the countries near the bottom.


----------



## cuchuflete

winklepicker said:


> That makes poverty a measure of the differential between the haves and have-nots - and on that basis these figures are shaming to the countries near the bottom.



Well maybe.  If you are against anybody being in the bottom 10%, or would prefer a more uniform
frequency distribution by income within a country, that's just fine.  I too would like less disparity between the richest and poorest.  That said, being in the lower quartile or whatever defined group
at the bottom of the economic order does not, in itself, constitute an abuse of children by any common sense measure.

Once upon a time, the poorest kids in my country either didn't have bicycles, or had old and oft-repaired bikes.  Today it may be iPods or some other gismo.  Lack of the more fashionable toys does not constitute abuse so much as an unfulfilled desire.  Such desires are not needs; they are wants.  

One source of the UNICEF study was the kids themselves.  If one tracks down the studies, and looks at the methods used to compile the final rankings, one will not be infused with a calm sense that logic and reason have prevailed.

I expect that each and every one of the 21 nations has lots of private and governmental agencies that identify problems of the young, and suggest solutions.  These include better education, more parental involvement, etc.   I wonder what the value added of the UNICEF report purports to be.


----------



## .   1

Samuel Clements and Benjamin Disraeli agree.
It would appear that there is an almost genetic distrust of statistics.
My average life span increases as I age.
Statistically speaking, the difference between my current age and my expected age at death increases as I age but then statistics always speak through the mouth of the statistician.

.,,
A good scorer beats a good player


----------



## winklepicker

cuchuflete said:


> That said, being in the lower quartile or whatever defined group at the bottom of the economic order does not, in itself, constitute an abuse of children by any common sense measure.
> 
> Once upon a time, the poorest kids in my country either didn't have bicycles, or had old and oft-repaired bikes. Today it may be iPods or some other gismo. Lack of the more fashionable toys does not constitute abuse so much as an unfulfilled desire. Such desires are not needs; they are wants.
> 
> One source of the UNICEF study was the kids themselves. If one tracks down the studies, and looks at the methods used to compile the final rankings, one will not be infused with a calm sense that logic and reason have prevailed.


 
Cuchu, we are in full accord. After you with the honey...


----------



## Setwale_Charm

May I very politely disagree with you as a UN person (I understand I am not goung to be given much credit). The surveys and reports of various UN agencies are the only ones whom I really trust when I search for statistical data for my own research. And I am not saying that out of some pride or corporate spirit. UN surveys may not be the Bible, of course, and may contain inexactitudes like any sociological study but it is a myth about them being politically-motivated and containing lies determined by politics (I am talking at least about the "humanitarian" agencies, not the military ones). The structure of the process and control over the process of preparation of these reports is so organised that it is impossible for any person, fraction or country to impose their own politically conditioned view and opinion, let alone forge anything. 
It is just about the way these reports are compiled, they would go through a wide range of polar opinions and parties and there is no way one side could control or influence the contents. 
In general, no agency is dominated by one political course or vision and the work on every report is so very tedious precisely because you have to check every word which might cause quarrell with someone and you must be ready to be able to prove everything you write, almost as if this was the court. The only thing that might arise is avoiding sharp criticism at times. 
Nevertheless, whenever the results are not favourable for some nation, party or organisation, people tend to blame the "political motivation". "genetical distrust" of statistics is a nice way of avoiding the necessity to accept some unpleasant truths about yourself.
  Sorry for this off-top, mods , but I had to explain why I disagree with the general opinion about surveys.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

As for the subject of discussion, to me, on the contrary, these results appear to be rather plausible, since they are very much in tune with the findings which I have been reading with regard to the UK recently and with what I have been finding myself. The UK has lamentably suffered a major setback in the recent years with regard to psychological and reproductive health, the health of children and youth, families, a rise in violence, divorce rates and a really bad demographic slump, all this aside from the very last couple of years. 

A few years ago all our scientists were predicting a complete collapse what with the way our youth were developing, with the rate they are contracting various physiological diseases and developing psychological pathologies and there were also some really ominous trends with regard to relationships in the families and society. This has improved slightly, parly due to the efforts which were taken as a result of that panic but the UK is still considered to be among the most unfavourable places in this regard. Sad
The worst thing that can happen in such cases is precisely the reluctance of the population to admit the presence of the problem and attempts to carry on as before. If the society seriously takes the problem and realises the need to do something it is most often able to tackle it and improve the situation.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Taking the statistics at their face value, the main thing the UK and the US have in common is the language ("we are divided by a common language"). But the Republic of Ireland is also mainly English-speaking. Any explanations as to why the ROI is so high in the list, following Italy ...?

regards


----------



## Brioche

ROI is higher on the list because its *first* official language is Gaelic, and English is the only the second official language.

If the Scottish Assembly made Scots and Gaelic first and second official languages, with English as third, there would be an immediate improvement in things. Similar things could be done in Wales and Cornwall.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Brioche said:


> ROI is higher on the list because its *first* official language is Gaelic, and English is the only the second official language.
> ...



Although I am a supporter of smaller languages, and I honestly think it is advantageous for children to be multilingual, I don't see how in this particular case this makes ROI children different from say children from Northern Ireland, who would come under the UK classification. What is the difference between children in say in the Ulster counties of Donegal (ROI) and Down (UK)?

I don't think the study of Irish would improve/worsen their quality of life more than, for example, the study of Urdu or Chinese, which apparently are now offered in the UK alongside French, German, etc If anything, from a practical standpoint, Chinese would offer a definite monetary advantage, but I assume that knowledge of, for example, Urdu would be comparable to knowledge of Irish. There must be other factors. 

regards


----------



## Sallyb36

I am not at all surprised, it's because of the increased amount of children having children.  Girls having babies aged 16, 17 and 18 is becoming more and more common, and people of that age are not mature enough to be parents.  It is therefore no surprise to me at all when thier children grow into delinquent teenagers (and younger).


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Lombard Beige said:


> Taking the statistics at their face value, the main thing the UK and the US have in common is the language ("we are divided by a common language"). But the Republic of Ireland is also mainly English-speaking. Any explanations as to why the ROI is so high in the list, following Italy ...?
> 
> regards


 
 But that is still a very different culture. The British society does have certain strata similar to the Irish. However, Ireland is an exceptional country in many respects. To begin with, it is one of the only two who have got over the demographic transition without actually suffering major difficulties in re-adapting itself. Most of its indicators hardly changed.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Sallyb36 said:


> I am not at all surprised, it's because of the increased amount of children having children.  Girls having babies aged 16, 17 and 18 is becoming more and more common, and people of that age are not mature enough to be parents.  It is therefore no surprise to me at all when thier children grow into delinquent teenagers (and younger).



That's a common age to begin raising a family in many developing countries, and used to be the standard almost everywhere.  

It isn't the age; it's the maturity, skill sets and community supports which are missing in this equation.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Setwale_Charm said:


> But that is still a very different culture. The British society does have certain strata similar to the Irish. However, Ireland is an exceptional country in many respects. To begin with, it is one of the only two who have got over the demographic transition without actually suffering major difficulties in re-adapting itself. Most of its indicators hardly changed.



Well, I think that's an interesting answer, and as I said before in response to Brioche I don't think the Irish language has much to do with the question. If anything it's a built-in element of cultural richness and diversity, but I don't think that alone it would account for the great difference observed. 

regards


----------



## jess oh seven

Lombard Beige said:


> Although I am a supporter of smaller languages, and I honestly think it is advantageous for children to be multilingual, I don't see how in this particular case this makes ROI children different from say children from Northern Ireland, who would come under the UK classification. What is the difference between children in say in the Ulster counties of Donegal (ROI) and Down (UK)?
> 
> I don't think the study of Irish would improve/worsen their quality of life more than, for example, the study of Urdu or Chinese, which apparently are now offered in the UK alongside French, German, etc If anything, from a practical standpoint, Chinese would offer a definite monetary advantage, but I assume that knowledge of, for example, Urdu would be comparable to knowledge of Irish. There must be other factors.
> 
> regards


I agree. I really don't think it has all that much to do with competence in more than one language.

Although the way of living in Ireland is comparable with that of the UK, it is not identical by any means. From all my Irish flatmate has told me, Ireland is much more environmentally friendly and economical than the UK, for starters. Children should be raised to consider the effects of their actions on the world around them, definitely. Perhaps that is one of the contributing factors for a better life for children in Ireland...? I think it was also recently voted one of the top ten countries to live in in the world...


----------



## morrison

Ireland is an amazing place, but it certainly isn't that environmentally friendly. It has very little public transport infrastructure and so there are a lot of cars and major traffic problems in places like Dublin. And wasn't there some scandal about the Irish government illegally dumping waste into the see last year?

The reason why countires like Ireland scored better on the UN list is because it's much more family orientated.


----------



## Kajjo

> It is just about the way these reports are compiled, they would go through a wide range of polar opinions and parties and there is no way one side could control or influence the contents.


I agree with you that there is no direct influence by people involved in the study or after the study. The influence takes place earlier in the process. The _center mainstream political opinion _controls such things. All highly-positioned politicians do not dare to contradict current mainstream political correctness. They define terms, they define which questions to ask and not to ask, they define which problems are important and which are not.



Setwale_Charm said:


> The structure of the process and control over the process of preparation of these reports is so organised that it is impossible for any person, fraction or country to impose their own politically conditioned view and opinion, let alone forge anything.


Well, think about how _definitions_ and issues of _political correctness_ influence the outcome of surveys. For example, _poverty_ is in my personal view a state of _having too little_ _to live on_, but not a state of _having less than the majority_. Talking about poverty in Germany is a farce and a slap into the face of all people in the world who suffer by real poverty. They should ask:

_ Are you often hungry because there just is not enough to eat?
Are you thirsty because there is not enough fresh water to drink?
Have you got a sheltered place to live and sleep in?
Have you got enough clothes to protect you from environmental influences?_

Who on earth decided that having "below 60% of median income" is poverty? Absolutely random, but it could have extreme influence on the outcome of the study.

There are actually statistics in Germany that claim that 10-15% of German children live in poverty. They refer to children having more than enough to eat, to drink, to wear, and whose parents have a small flat with TV, radio and their own WC, and those children attend regular schools, have unlimited access to health services, most probably their own bedroom and might be quite happy after all. They call these children _living in poverty_ because their parents earn significantly less then the average citizen does. This definition is very strange and it is absolutely politically motivated.

Other examples of random bias in this study:

_Accidents to children under age of 19. Why on earth 19? Why not 6, 12, 14, 16, 18 years?

Breast feeding at the age of 6 months as indicator. Why 6 and not 4 months?

Who decided that "educational software" on "computers available for schoolwork" is material well-being? _I am quite opposed to educational software. I would ask how many parents help with their homework?  _

Percentage of children eating the main meal together with their parents __at least once a week. _How awful! Only once a week? Why not "5 out of 7 days" or "usually every day"? 

Kajjo


----------



## jess oh seven

morrison said:


> Ireland is an amazing place, but it certainly isn't that environmentally friendly. It has very little public transport infrastructure and so there are a lot of cars and major traffic problems in places like Dublin. And wasn't there some scandal about the Irish government illegally dumping waste into the see last year?
> 
> The reason why countires like Ireland scored better on the UN list is because it's much more family orientated.


I wasn't aware of that, but I suppose I should have mentioned that I had their ban on plastic bags in mind.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Kajjo said:


> _Accidents to children under age of 19. Why on earth 19? Why not 6, 12, 14, 16, 18 years?_



Perhaps they chose 19 because in many countries minors legally become adults at 18. Maybe some countries count from the end of the year and some from the beginning. 

regards


----------



## french4beth

Setwale_Charm said:


> May I very politely disagree with you as a UN person (I understand I am not goung to be given much credit). People can be naive at any age - please don't be offended, Setwale_Charm


Have you ever heard of the book "How to Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff? I read it at university. More info here :





> how to look a phoney statistic in the eye and face it down; and no less important, how to recognize sound and usable data in [the] wilderness of fraud...


 
Or here : 





> Tie one data set to an earlier one, implying causality _100% of all crack addicts drank water before becoming addicted to crack. Water kills!_ The more interesting (and likely truthful) statistic is "How many water drinkers become addicted to crack?" By tying together two unrelated (or even semi-related) groups together, nearly anything can be proved.


In other words, don't take statistics for granted. Answers depend on number of respondents, how the questions are worded, etc. Nothing is carved in stone.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

french4beth said:


> Have you ever heard of the book "How to Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff? I read it at university. More info here :​


 Oh yes. But I also got suspicions about the author since many of these "scandalous truth-divulging" personalities are really keen on showing everybody that "this is all a pack of lies that we are given", in reality, there is a lot of show-off in it.
I know how a lot of statistic is made and it really depends rather on your ability to read between the lines. As a person working with statistics, I probably see different things than many others cos I am aware of the traps.


----------



## John-Paul

It's interesting that the results of this report are interpreted as an "accusation". 

I also think it's nonsense to group individual children by nation instead of, for instance, age group. What bothers me most however is that presenting happyness of children as a national effort, which is being rewarded first, second and third price, implies that the responsibility of the child's happyness is the responsibility of the political powers. The only comments you see after reports like these are presented, are the sound bites of politicians and so-called experts. A child is first and foremost the responsibility of its parents. If the parents are clueless, lots of them are nowadays, they should be addressed.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

John-Paul said:


> It's interesting that the results of this report are interpreted as an "accusation".
> 
> A child is first and foremost the responsibility of its parents. If the parents are clueless, lots of them are nowadays, they should be addressed.


 

 Do you seriously think it is something recent?
And I disagree that it is only parents who are responsible.


----------



## Outsider

Setwale_Charm said:


> Oh yes. But I also got suspicions about the author since many of these "scandalous truth-divulging" personalities are really keen on showing everybody that "this is all a pack of lies that we are given", in reality, there is a lot of show-off in it.
> I know how a lot of statistic is made and it really depends rather on your ability to read between the lines. As a person working with statistics, I probably see different things than many others cos I am aware of the traps.


I have read the book. It's good, though pretty old by now. As for the statistics currently under discussion in this thread, I see no reason to doubt their accuracy. You can discuss whether the questions they asked and the rankings they made are _important_, but I see no reason to doubt the results.

P.S. I have read some misleading reports of those results in the media, though.


----------



## cuchuflete

Follow the BBC links to methadology and read a bit about how this "analytical" report was constructed.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the stats themselves.  The research design and analysis are another matter entirely.  I have been rather thoroughly trained in statistics, and spent many years designing research, so I too am aware of the traps.  

The "studies" underlying the report can be perfectly accurate, statistically, and still offer little useful insight.
The report itself is based on a dog's breakfast of studies conducted with different methods, different sampling techniques, over a period of years.  Some were partially excluded for a variety of reasons.  

When all is said and done, this kind of ranking is a total waste of time and taxpayer money.  Each of the named countries has plenty of equally objective government agencies and academics conducting their own research into the same topics.  The problems are real and well-known.  They will be dealt with, however well or badly, on a national and local and family level.  There is no value added by the re-compilation of reports, both old and new, by an international agency whose objectivity is often doubted.  Should we doubt the objectivity of UNICEF?
Perhaps not.  It may be among the few UN agencies that is not politically driven.  Still, its time and effort would be better spent helping children, instead of publishing sweeping generalities with lots of factual and logical holes in them.  
Follow the links to astonishing enlightenment such as this:



> Kids were asked if they had their own bedroom, how many computers were in their homes and how often they had holidays with their families as part of the research into how many children were living in poverty.


----------



## cuchuflete

Statistical accuracy≠insight, ≠"fact"



> The bars show the percentage
> of children living in ‘relative’
> poverty, defined as households
> with income below 50 per cent
> of the national median income


 So, mixing apples and oranges, the % of children living "in poverty" is a function of national per capita income frequency distribution, not any absolute measure of material well-being.
Good stats and fuzzy thinking are not mutually exclusive.  

The UNICEF report cited states, "...relative income poverty may tell us very little about
actual material standards of living."  Well, yes, now that you mention it....


----------



## John-Paul

Last time I looked the first years of a child's development are essential for its future well being and success. The schools, later on, are dealing with creatures in further states of development. So, yes, the parents are responsible, because the development of a consience is only possible though a steady relationship with a person who loves you, protects you and guides you. What you see nowadays is that parents are trying to program their kids just like in Huxley's Brave New World. Flashcards, sign language, Mozart, 'smart' toys, kids' computers,  kids's TVs. I don't think these parents understand that in order for the child to be succesful it needs to be grounded and have some self esteem. Have you ever been among a group of these so-called mothers who are boasting about their kids? Why is it so important that a child is potty trained at a certain age, or is able to walk? Why does everything have to be a competition? And yes, I do think this is a fairly recent development, because people, in my point of view, used to be more relaxed about their lifes and their success. I am really worried, there's a whole generation of spoiled rotten kids to take over power in a couple of years.


----------



## .   1

Kajjo said:


> I agree with you that there is no direct influence by people involved in the study or after the study. The influence takes place earlier in the process. The _center mainstream political opinion _controls such things. All highly-positioned politicians do not dare to contradict current mainstream political correctness. They define terms, they define which questions to ask and not to ask, they define which problems are important and which are not.
> 
> 
> Well, think about how _definitions_ and issues of _political correctness_ influence the outcome of surveys. For example, _poverty_ is in my personal view a state of _having too little_ _to live on_, but not a state of _having less than the majority_. Talking about poverty in Germany is a farce and a slap into the face of all people in the world who suffer by real poverty. They should ask:
> 
> _Are you often hungry because there just is not enough to eat?_
> _Are you thirsty because there is not enough fresh water to drink?_
> _Have you got a sheltered place to live and sleep in?_
> _Have you got enough clothes to protect you from environmental influences?_
> 
> Who on earth decided that having "below 60% of median income" is poverty? Absolutely random, but it could have extreme influence on the outcome of the study.
> 
> There are actually statistics in Germany that claim that 10-15% of German children live in poverty. They refer to children having more than enough to eat, to drink, to wear, and whose parents have a small flat with TV, radio and their own WC, and those children attend regular schools, have unlimited access to health services, most probably their own bedroom and might be quite happy after all. They call these children _living in poverty_ because their parents earn significantly less then the average citizen does. This definition is very strange and it is absolutely politically motivated.
> 
> Other examples of random bias in this study:
> 
> _Accidents to children under age of 19. Why on earth 19? Why not 6, 12, 14, 16, 18 years?_
> 
> _Breast feeding at the age of 6 months as indicator. Why 6 and not 4 months?_
> 
> _Who decided that "educational software" on "computers available for schoolwork" is material well-being? _I am quite opposed to educational software. I would ask how many parents help with their homework?
> 
> _Percentage of children eating the main meal together with their parents __at least once a week. _How awful! Only once a week? Why not "5 out of 7 days" or "usually every day"?
> 
> Kajjo


I agree with every single word you wrote.



cuchuflete said:


> Statistical accuracy≠insight, ≠"fact"
> 
> So, mixing apples and oranges, the % of children living "in poverty" is a function of national per capita income frequency distribution, not any absolute measure of material well-being.
> Good stats and fuzzy thinking are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> The UNICEF report cited states, "...relative income poverty may tell us very little about
> actual material standards of living." Well, yes, now that you mention it....


Relative income poverty. So the daughter of a Third World Prince is considered to be well off because she is not actually starving like the rest of her generation and the son of a First World millionaire could be said to be living in relative poverty if he has only one butler.
What's that about damned lies?

.,,


----------



## invictaspirit

Perhaps Setwale can clear this up for us.

Many comparative surveys of this sort simply follow *each country's own definition of poverty. *In the UK, the line we set for poverty is 60% or below of average household income. As average UK household income is £28,000 ($52,000/Euro 42,000) a household income of £16,800 ($32,000/Euro 25,000) is a poverty income. I may be wrong about this, but I believe that UK and EU definitions of household income are *NET* of tax too.

£16,800 is not very much money, I agree. It doesn't go far in the UK. But is it *poverty?* Would it be poverty in Portugal or Greece? Surely these figures merely describe relative poverty within each country? Not actual poverty measured in the same way internationally. Do you lament the fact that 16% of British kids live in a home that has an income of £16,800 or less, or do you celebrate the fact that 84% of British kids have more than £16,800 at their family's disposal? (A figure which would be among the highest internationally.)

I dunno. Our income distribution in the UK sucks. I'd be the first to admit it. We come near the bottom of the distribution tables every time. Our rich are extremely rich and the distance between them and the poorest is huge.

However. In terms of income, most Brits come at or near the top of the EU. Would this 16% reduce if the whole EU measured poverty at the same rate?

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_DS_REGION/PGE_DS_REGION_1/CHAPTER_3.PDF


----------



## Kajjo

John-Paul said:
			
		

> A child is first and foremost the responsibility of its parents.


I agree.



Setwale_Charm said:


> And I disagree that it is only parents who are responsible.


I agree, too. While I strongly believe that parents have the foremost and dominant responsibility for their children, of course the society has to provide an environment of safety and security, an excellent health system and proper education by well-educated teachers. We cannot expect parents to compensate for everything -- but...

...but I expect parents to love and care for their children. And part of "caring for" _must include _to regularly talk to and spend _a lot of time _with your children, to offer an environment of trust, love and reliability. Unfortunately, for many people, it seems, these values are old-fashioned and incompatible to the modern world.

Kajjo


----------



## winklepicker

> ...measurement of poverty is not an absolute: it is relative to the average income in the country involved. It is possible therefore for a starving person in Upper Volta NOT to be classed as in poverty (because everyone else is starving too) while a well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed child in the West IS classed as in poverty because the household income is below a certain percentage of average salary.
> 
> That makes poverty a measure of the differential between the haves and have-nots


 


invictaspirit said:


> Our income distribution in the UK sucks. I'd be the first to admit it. We come near the bottom of the distribution tables every time. Our rich are extremely rich and the distance between them and the poorest is huge. However. In terms of income, most Brits come at or near the top of the EU. Would this 16% reduce if the whole EU measured poverty at the same rate?


 
Exactly. We Kentish persons (or persons of Kent  ) are in full accord.


----------



## invictaspirit

Kajjo said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> I agree, too. While I strongly believe that parents have the foremost and dominant responsibility for their children, of course the society has to provide an environment of safety and security, an excellent health system and proper education by well-educated teachers. We cannot expect parents to compensate for everything -- but...
> 
> ...but I expect parents to love and care for their children. And part of "caring for" _must include _to regularly talk to and spend _a lot of time _with your children, to offer an environment of trust, love and reliability. Unfortunately, for many people, it seems, these values are old-fashioned and incompatible to the modern world.
> 
> Kajjo


 
Kajjo, I could not agree more. 

As a high school teacher, when thinking really rationally and objectively, I feel that most kids I teach are quite remarkable and wonderful individuals.  Collectively they _can_ be as remarkable, but are sometimes not.  A minority seem to be a product of a perfect mix of parental incompentence and social neglect.  Both society and individual parents, not to mention individual kids, need to be convinced that this is a partnership.


----------

