[Newsbot]

Title: Canada falling behind in well-being of poorest children: Unicef
Category: Political
Posted By: Curtman
Date: 2010-12-03 05:13:50
Canadian

[Choban]

Lets stop feeding regimes in Africa and worry about home, I'v felt this way forever

[BartSimpson]

More class envy BS.

If you read carefully, it doesn't conclude that Canada has a problem with poverty, oh no, it's a problem with income equality.

What's unsaid is that the poorest children in Canada still enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the entire world.

[andyt]

http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/recastin.htm

$1:

For the first time in Canada, hard statistical evidence is now both abundant and compelling that family income has a major effect on child well-being. There are two new national longitudinal surveys [National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth; and the National Population Health Survey] that we are using at the CCSD to examine the linkages between income [and other factors] and the well-being of children. To date, we have examined 31 outcomes and living conditions, and in each case we have found a statistical association with family income levels. I will show you only seven today. The remainder will be included in the fuller CCSD report when completed.

... there is the weighing of the costs of doing something today to equalize opportunity against the later costs of not doing much. The lower the cut-off, the greater the inequality of outcome, and the larger the economic and social costs tomorrow as fewer children make successful transitions to adulthood. A dollar saved today by not maximizing opportunities is simply a dollar of spending delayed until later. It is ironic that while we piously speak about the need and urgency to bring down the fiscal deficit because we do not want to burden future generations, we don't consider the "social deficit" we are passing on as services and programs, and social assistance benefits are slashed. One child in neo-natal intensive care costs the health-care system $8,400 a week. If the child is there because the mother was malnourished and the baby was low birth weight, how much money did we save by depriving the mother of a level of social assistance adequate to feed her properly during her pregnancy?

Our research using the statistics shows clearly that the 1.5 million children living below the LICO in 1996 are at a disadvantage. Their opportunity to succeed is signficantly lower than children in higher income families.

http://www.ccsd.ca/pr/oped99.htm

$1:

Recent research I conducted with colleagues shows that poverty has serious negative consequences for children's development. Poor families are more likely than others to experience stress in the home, they are less likely than others to live in safe neighbourhoods and are less likely to enjoy access to the cultural and recreational activities that most Canadians take for granted. Our report, called Income and Child Well-being, examined the effects of family income on 27 aspects of child development using data from a large, national Statistics Canada survey. The results showed a clear and disturbing pattern: from their health and academic achievement to their behaviour and the types of friends they find, children living in families whose income is $30,000 or less display consistently poorer outcomes in every facet of their development.

For example: nearly 35 per cent of children in low-income families live in sub-standard housing, compared to 15 per cent of children in high-income families. More than one-quarter of low-income children live in problem neighbourhoods, compared to one-tenth of children in high-income families. Nearly 40 per cent of very low-income children demonstrate high levels of indirect aggression (such as starting fights with peers or family members), compared to 29 per cent of children in families with incomes of $30,000 or more. And children in low-income families are over two and one-half times more likely than children in high-income families to have a problem with one or more basic abilities such as vision, hearing, speech or mobility. Four- and five-year-olds from poor families are twice as likely to exhibit delayed vocabulary development compared to children from middle-income families and are twice as likely to be enrolled in remedial special education classes.

Left unchecked, more Canadian children are likely to suffer poorer outcomes, because income inequality between Canadian families is getting worse. In 1973, the poorest 20 per cent of families with children earned only 5 per cent of all market income - that is, earnings from employment and private investments. By 1996, that percentage had dropped to 2 per cent. At the same time, the richest 20 per cent of families with children saw their share of market income rise from 38 per cent to 43 per cent. This disparity lessened somewhat after adjusting for government taxes and transfers such as welfare payments, unemployment insurance and child benefits, however the poorest families still received a vastly smaller share of the total family income than did the ones with the highest incomes. But since 1973, even this situation has worsened due to cutbacks.

[BartSimpson]

Okay, so the 'income inequality' is NOT a problem.

Because that phrase is loaded with a lot of assumptions, not the least of them being the proposition that reducing incomes for some will improve incomes for others.

Poor people are best helped with a sound education and then they're also helped by government policies that don't stifle the creation of entry level jobs.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Okay, so the 'income inequality' is NOT a problem.

Because that phrase is loaded with a lot of assumptions, not the least of them being the proposition that reducing incomes for some will improve incomes for others.

Poor people are best helped with a sound education and then they're also helped by government policies that don't stifle the creation of entry level jobs.

As he clearly states, income inequality is a problem. Nobody I've ever heard has recommended reducing incomes, it's about raising those at the bottom. But that certainly will reduce the effective income of those at the top - my heart bleeds

A sound eduction is about a lot more than just providing teachers. You need kids who don't go to school hungry. You need parents that are able to engage their kids in learning. You need kids that feel safe.

Poor people need more than entry level jobs, especially if those jobs pay shit wages like you advocate. And some poor people will always need support, they don't have the ability to work, yet they still can have children. Unless you want a national sterilization or abortion program for poor people, you have to help those kids out.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

As he clearly states, income inequality is a problem. Nobody I've ever heard has recommended reducing incomes

Really? What do you think raising tax rates on top tier earners does? And that's what keeps getting proposed over-and-over to resolve 'income gaps' and 'income inequalities'.

How many times have YOU posted something decrying the issue of 'the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer'? Hmmm?

The underlying commentary is that wealthy people obtain their wealth via trickery, corruption, crime, luck, black magic, and other kinds of dishonesty so therefore it's justifiable to take it away from them.

When the topic is poverty then poverty is the problem.

Someone else's income has NOTHING TO DO WITH POVERTY.

'Income inequality' is a class warfare term and it is utter BS.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

You need kids that feel safe.

Because feeling safe is so much more important than actually being safe.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Unless you want a national ... abortion program for poor people

The USA already has that. Since 1973 approximately forty million low-income urban blacks and Hispanics have been aborted in the USA.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

As he clearly states, income inequality is a problem. Nobody I've ever heard has recommended reducing incomes

Really? What do you think raising tax rates on top tier earners does? And that's what keeps getting proposed over-and-over to resolve 'income gaps' and 'income inequalities'.

Oh, when you put it that way, sure, reduce their earnings. They're using the infrastructure of the society and the labor of others to earn that money, so it's good if they give some of it back to keep all that going - actually in their own best long term interests.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

You need kids that feel safe.

Because feeling safe is so much more important than actually being safe.

Are you trying to make a point here?

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

Unless you want a national ... abortion program for poor people

The USA already has that. Since 1973 approximately forty million low-income urban blacks and Hispanics have been aborted in the USA.

By force?

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The USA already has that. Since 1973 approximately forty million low-income urban blacks and Hispanics have been aborted in the USA.

By force?

According to your own logic, yes.

If the poor are poor due to external forces (like 'income inequality' and devilish actions by them effin' rich people) then it would follow that they are compelled to abort their children because of the economic status they've been forced into.

Therefore, tax payer funded abortion is an act of class warfare by the rich intended to wipe out the lower class poor.

(It's your game, I'm just playing it. )

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

You need kids that feel safe.

Because feeling safe is so much more important than actually being safe.

Are you trying to make a point here?

Obviously, it eludes you.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The USA already has that. Since 1973 approximately forty million low-income urban blacks and Hispanics have been aborted in the USA.

By force?

According to your own logic, yes.

If the poor are poor due to external forces (like 'income inequality' and devilish actions by them effin' rich people) then it would follow that they are compelled to abort their children because of the economic status they've been forced into.

Therefore, tax payer funded abortion is an act of class warfare by the rich intended to wipe out the lower class poor.

(It's your game, I'm just playing it. )

Nah, you're just playing with yourself here.