3 ms·
That’s a wicked program but as of 2018, children were still the poorest age group in the United States. We have an incredibly long ways to go and while that pro
by hluska 6y ago
That’s a wicked program but as of 2018, children were still the poorest age group in the United States. We have an incredibly long ways to go and while that program is a start, it’s barely a drop in the bucket.
- harperlee 6y ago> children were still the poorest age group What... does that mean? I see how someone who cannot (legally) work yet can be poorer than other age groups, but I am sure that’s not what is meant. But is a child somehow deemed poorer than its caregivers? Or perhaps is the child as poor as its poorest caregiver? Or how does that fact appear?
- jhardy54 6y agoI'm curious about this too. My best guess is that they're measuring household income and there are a lot of kids with low household incomes (more than adults with low household incomes, especially when you have more kids than adults in a household). /shrug
- emteycz 6y agoPoor households tend to have many kids, and the parent/s are often very young, sometimes even under 18. It's not unseen to have 32-year old parents living with their 16-year old daughter and her two babies, a 14-year old child and another ~12-year old child. Of course these are extremely poor compared to even most of low income households. Perhaps that's what was meant by the comment.
- hluska 6y agoWith all due respect, there are quite literally hundreds of well written papers that explain this. The number isn’t controversial in the slightest and it’s based on one of the most basic statistical observations in economics. Honestly, I can’t understand why HN is having so much trouble with this. The answer is that in child poverty research, a child is considered to live in poverty if that child lives in a household with an income below the statistical low income cutoff.
- harperlee 6y agoThat does not answer how the child is poorer than its parents, though. I don’t think people have difficulty with the concept of child poverty, but your original assertion sounds super weird (and yet it sounds official, not a personal opinion, so a paper detailing that would be a better answer).
- hluska 6y agoTry OPM and SPM - they’re both published by the US Census Bureau.
- fpig 6y agoThe child is probably not poorer than its parents, but instead, I'm guessing households with children are poorer on average, and even more so the more children they have. This would then mathematically result in children being poorer on average if this is determined by the household they live in. If poor people have more children, then children are going to be poor overall. I agree it's very confusing.
- fpig 6y agoSo a much less confusing way to say the same thing would be that people in households with children are poorer than people in households without children? Or even simply "poor people have more children than average"?
- jhardy54 6y agoWith all due respect, that's quite literally exactly what I said: > there are a lot of kids with low household income I think maybe you meant to reply to someone else.
- hluska 6y agoIt’s a measurement based on the statistical low income cutoff (the “poverty line”). In child poverty research, a child is considered to live in poverty if they live in a family whose income falls below the low income cutoff. Using that measure, in the United States 1/6 children live in poverty. Half of those live in statistically defined ‘extreme poverty’. That 1/6 has some interesting geographical and race based components that worth a read. There is a metric shit tonne of research on this and if you’re interested in a reading list, my email is in my profile! :)
- JamesBarney 6y agoHow weird would it be if they weren't the poorest age group? I really don't expect my kids to have more disposable income than I do.
- hluska 6y agoIn anti-poverty research, a child is considered to live in poverty if that child lives in a home whose income falls below the statistical low income cutoff point. That’s ‘the poverty line’ that you’ve hopefully heard of. Finally, we are talking about child poverty - a little bit of respect and perhaps some research would be a far better complement than lowbrow snark.
- JamesBarney 6y agoChild poverty isn't a laughing matter, but weird statistics are. How would we make children not the poorest age group? First poor families are more likely to have more kids than well to do ones, and kids raise the income you need to be above the poverty line. Better statistics revolve around specific needs that children have and what percentage of those are satisfied.
- hluska 6y agoYour last paragraph is completely true but better statistics are expensive. And you might be shocked by how little money there is in the anti-poverty racket...:) Consequently, we’re stuck with statistical measures based on deviations from income and cost of living.
- Minor49er 6y agoAre more food programs a solution to what you're proposing?
- hluska 6y agoI think food programs are part of a solution, but a more realistic solution will require investments in mental health, addictions services, adult education, housing and child care.
- JamesBarney 6y agoAlso if you make it really easy to build lots of housing that drives down one of their biggest expenses.