15 ms·
With 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 base
by hluska 6y ago
With 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.