4 ms·

Child poverty is the real problem. https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/02/16/americas-bizarre-income-distribution-for-children/ https://peoplespolicyproject.

Child poverty is the real problem. https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/02/16/americas-bizarre-income-distribution-for-children/ https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/02/16/americas-bizarre...

Waterluvian 8y ago
Geez, that article really felt light on examination, then bam, "the solution is obvious, tax the rich more!" And why wouldn't they compare the US to other countries like Canada, Germany, UK, France, etc. ? We all already know that the Nordic countries really have their act together and are effectively a cherry picked example. Maybe I'm being paranoid but is this what fake news looks like? The whole point of the article seems to be to further the "tax the rich" argument.
- notadoc 8y ago
  > Maybe I'm being paranoid but is this what fake news looks like? Fake news is literally made up nonsense, usually that appeals to emotion or existing political bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
- awinder 8y ago
  No, you are trying to lump state-sponsored attacks on democratic institutions in with opinion pieces that you disagree with, which is not only disengenous but also very very dangerous.
  - cabaalis 8y ago
    Fake news may not be the correct term. Astroturfing? Either way, no need to attack the person asking the question.
    - awinder 8y ago
      Faciciously asking that question is very much an active strategy to downplay & dilute the term. And astroturfing is monied interests dressing up as grassroots. An article in a paper expressing an opinion, accompanied by some body of research, is journalism. I also didn’t really mean that to be attacking, I possibly attributed malice to misunderstanding so if that’s what happened I apologize
      - Waterluvian 8y ago
        Nope not being malicious. You're right. This isn't fake news. But it's something. I guess astroturfing fits better!
    - econochoice 8y ago
      It's called bias.
- walshemj 8y ago
  No sure how taxing the rich is going to solve the nanny state problem here and I am probably more left wing that the average HN reader.
closeparen 8y ago
> "20 percent of US children live in families with incomes below 50 percent of the national median income" This is a bizarre metric. If richer families started having children at a higher rate, or poorer families slowed down, the problem would be fixed? What if we simply cut the pay of the upper 50%, not even redistributing the income? That would lower median income, and therefore shrink the "less than 50% of median income" demographic, "solving" child poverty.
- golergka 8y ago
  > If richer families started having children at a higher rate, or poorer families slowed down, the problem would be fixed? This does sound like a great idea.
- taeric 8y ago
  Well, yes, if richer families started having children at a higher rate, this would almost fix itself. Two major problems, though. a) By and large, rich people don't have more children and b) having a child is a good way to destroy your wealth. That is, many that are just barely in the "rich" category won't be once they have children. More, most wealth in the US does not survive generations. (And this is generally agreed to be a good thing, I believe.) For the second, ok. Cut the pay. How? That sort of suggestion is literally "wishful thinking." If everyone could get by with less money, everyone would. Folks do grab for the advantages they can get, though, and most rise in costs and pay are ascribable to scarcity. Only wishful thinking will make housing and energy costs flat across the board. Same for social mobility. Or physical mobility.
  - anonymouskimmer 8y ago
    "b) having a child is a good way to destroy your wealth." I'd like to see a comparison between childless families and families with children, economic starting point held constant. There is the fatherhood bonus and motherhood penalty after all.
    - taeric 8y ago

Child poverty is the real problem. https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/02/16/americas-bizarre-income-distribution-for-children/ https://peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/02/16/americas-bizarre...

Waterluvian 8y ago

Geez, that article really felt light on examination, then bam, "the solution is obvious, tax the rich more!" And why wouldn't they compare the US to other countries like Canada, Germany, UK, France, etc. ? We all already know that the Nordic countries really have their act together and are effectively a cherry picked example. Maybe I'm being paranoid but is this what fake news looks like? The whole point of the article seems to be to further the "tax the rich" argument.

notadoc 8y ago
> Maybe I'm being paranoid but is this what fake news looks like? Fake news is literally made up nonsense, usually that appeals to emotion or existing political bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
awinder 8y ago
No, you are trying to lump state-sponsored attacks on democratic institutions in with opinion pieces that you disagree with, which is not only disengenous but also very very dangerous.
- cabaalis 8y ago
  Fake news may not be the correct term. Astroturfing? Either way, no need to attack the person asking the question.
  - awinder 8y ago
    Faciciously asking that question is very much an active strategy to downplay & dilute the term. And astroturfing is monied interests dressing up as grassroots. An article in a paper expressing an opinion, accompanied by some body of research, is journalism. I also didn’t really mean that to be attacking, I possibly attributed malice to misunderstanding so if that’s what happened I apologize
    - Waterluvian 8y ago
      Nope not being malicious. You're right. This isn't fake news. But it's something. I guess astroturfing fits better!
  - econochoice 8y ago
    It's called bias.
walshemj 8y ago
No sure how taxing the rich is going to solve the nanny state problem here and I am probably more left wing that the average HN reader.

closeparen 8y ago

> "20 percent of US children live in families with incomes below 50 percent of the national median income" This is a bizarre metric. If richer families started having children at a higher rate, or poorer families slowed down, the problem would be fixed? What if we simply cut the pay of the upper 50%, not even redistributing the income? That would lower median income, and therefore shrink the "less than 50% of median income" demographic, "solving" child poverty.

golergka 8y ago
> If richer families started having children at a higher rate, or poorer families slowed down, the problem would be fixed? This does sound like a great idea.
taeric 8y ago
Well, yes, if richer families started having children at a higher rate, this would almost fix itself. Two major problems, though. a) By and large, rich people don't have more children and b) having a child is a good way to destroy your wealth. That is, many that are just barely in the "rich" category won't be once they have children. More, most wealth in the US does not survive generations. (And this is generally agreed to be a good thing, I believe.) For the second, ok. Cut the pay. How? That sort of suggestion is literally "wishful thinking." If everyone could get by with less money, everyone would. Folks do grab for the advantages they can get, though, and most rise in costs and pay are ascribable to scarcity. Only wishful thinking will make housing and energy costs flat across the board. Same for social mobility. Or physical mobility.
- anonymouskimmer 8y ago
  "b) having a child is a good way to destroy your wealth." I'd like to see a comparison between childless families and families with children, economic starting point held constant. There is the fatherhood bonus and motherhood penalty after all.
  - taeric 8y ago