Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
UNICEF: The U.S. Ain't the Kind of Place to Raise Your Kids
NPR isn't afraid to tell it to us straight:
A new report from the U.N. Children's Fund says the United States and Britain are the worst countries in the industrialized world in which to be a child. UNICEF says an examination of 40 factors, such as poverty, deprivation, happiness, relationships, and risky or bad behavior puts the United States and Britain at the bottom of a list of 21 economically developed nations.
.........The United States fared worst of all 21 countries in health and safety, measured by rates of infant mortality and accidents and injuries.
Some doubts about the comparison of U.S. infant mortality stats with the rest of the developed world here. And perhaps our 15 year olds, as degenerate as they are, (the surveyed age group for most of the following categories) might not agree with UNICEF's counting the following against our great nation:
The United States and Britain were lowest overall in the category of behavior and risks, meaning that American and British children are more likely to use drugs, drink alcohol and be sexually active than children elsewhere.
The full UNICEF report [PDF].
Nick Gillespie's 1997 Reason classic on the true, and nifty, status of the kids in America.
Simmons|2.14.07 @ 7:58PM|#
That's probably incorrect. While some of America is not a decent place to live, for parts of the country that's not true.
|2.14.07 @ 8:08PM|#
Those differences in counting live births don't seem to account
for more than a fraction of the differenc.
Tip for political junkies: When someone trying to debunk the
statement "A is less than than B" asserts that, under their
alternate way of calculating the numbers, "A is similar to B," that
means that A is still less than B.
|2.14.07 @ 8:15PM|#
Hard to believe that American kids have alcohol more available than German, French or Spanish kids. Hopefully the availabilty of sex hasn't been lost because an ocean separates them from us. For drugs, try Holland.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.14.07 @ 8:28PM|#
But, we libertarians don't care anyway because our motto is let them starve in the streets.
|2.14.07 @ 8:33PM|#
The way the UN rates things, if Chad, Somalia & Zimbabwe had been included, the US would have been #23 and Britain #24.
|2.14.07 @ 9:02PM|#
FROM THE REPORT:
"We've failed to invest in child health, in child education, in
child care," Bradshaw says.
Let me get this straight...
A libertarian rag that revels in how we've sucked at these very
things for quite some time finally has a report confirming this
delivered by - of all sources - UNICEF...and now suddenly the
attitude is, "don't dis the u.s."?
Typical
|2.14.07 @ 9:04PM|#
We should translate this report into Spanish and blanket Mexico
with copies! That'll keep the illegals out!
As far as poorer countries faring better, I suspect that kids who
are busy working to keep their families from starving are less
likely to get involved with drugs, alcohol, and sex.
Professor Jonathan Bradshaw from the University of York in
England led the research into the project. He was scathing about
the failures of successive British governments. "We've failed to
invest in child health, in child education, in child care,"
Bradshaw says. "It's the result of neglect, which other countries
have not done… they've just spent more on their children, despite
the fact they're not as rich as we are."
Sounds like he wasn't biased at all going into the study, doesn't
it?
|2.14.07 @ 9:08PM|#
madpad,
We suck at those things because of too much govt involvement, not
due to too little (as the report insinuates). Furthermore, I would
agree that we shouldn't dis the US; it may not be a libertarian
paradise, but it is the freest nation on earth.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.14.07 @ 9:10PM|#
Sounds like he wasn't biased at all going into the study,
doesn't it?
NO! You are! Who is paying you?
|2.14.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Surprisingly, one of the biggest hits that the US takes is on
"material well-being". The major component of this index is
relative poverty, that is, the percentage of children living in a
household with below the nation's median income. Thus, Hungary
scores better than the US in this category, despite the fact that
its median income is $7,000 compared to $24,000 in the US. So a
Hungarian child growing up in a family bringing in $10,000 a year
is materially better off than an American child in a family making
twice as much.
Got it?
|2.14.07 @ 9:28PM|#
"we're the kids in America! (oh whoa ho)"!
Hard to believe that American kids have alcohol more available
than German, French or Spanish kids. Hopefully the availabilty of
sex hasn't been lost because an ocean separates them from us. For
drugs, try Holland.
How so hard to believe? they have access to alcohol, but use it
responsibly (at that age at least)... while we regulate it more
strongly, creating a social taboo that teens naturally turned into
rituals of communal drunkenness.
Our puritan instinct is exactly what promotes a stronger degree of
degredation. In Am-dam, there are clearly junkies in streets at
times and places, but their very presence in the city partly repels
the natives from uptake of their own liberal laws towards
intoxicants. All the Dutch i ever spoke to there were pretty bored
by the drug scene, but tolerant of it the way we are of vulgar or
agressive people.
Franklin Harris|2.14.07 @ 9:29PM|#
crimethink, "Surprisingly" isn't the word I'd use. This is a UNICEF study. Why be surprised by a hatchet job on the slightly more capitalistic countries?
|2.14.07 @ 9:34PM|#
American and British children are more likely to use drugs,
drink alcohol and be sexually active than children
elsewhere.
That's actually not in the report; the US ranked among the lowest
percentage using tobacco or alcohol, and for some reason wasn't
included in the rankings for sexual behavior. It was highest in
cannabis usage and teen pregnancy rates (though the latter goes all
the way up to 19 years old, a popular technique used to inflate
such stats).
|2.14.07 @ 9:38PM|#
I suspect we got ranked last in the categories where we weren't surveyed; in the risk behavior, the only category in which the US did badly was cannabis usage, yet we would up near the bottom in the category rankings.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.14.07 @ 9:44PM|#
Surprisingly, one of the biggest hits that the US takes is
on "material well-being". The major component of this index is
relative poverty, that is, the percentage of children living in a
household with below the nation's median income. Thus, Hungary
scores better than the US in this category, despite the fact that
its median income is $7,000 compared to $24,000 in the US. So a
Hungarian child growing up in a family bringing in $10,000 a year
is materially better off than an American child in a family making
twice as much.
Do poor kids in Hungary have cable?
|2.14.07 @ 9:44PM|#
So a mostly free-market helathcare system and a totaly socalist one rank at the bottom. Something other then the "system" accounts for the higher infant mortality.
Guy Montag|2.14.07 @ 9:46PM|#
Of course, Russia ans the Eastern European countries are the best places for tall lanky young women when guys with US dollars are milling about.
|2.14.07 @ 10:22PM|#
A new report from the U.N. Children's Fund says the United
States and Britain are the worst countries in the industrialized
world in which to be a child.
As someone who's been to several other countries in the
industrialized world. That doesn't even pass the laugh test.
|2.14.07 @ 10:31PM|#
Sorry, joe. When someone shows me statistics that show that the infant mortality rate in a wholly corrupt and bankrupt country that prominently features health care statistics in its propaganda (read: Cuba) is higher than in the US where even the poorest mother's 24 week-old preemie stands a good chance of survival, I am going to doubt the data gathering first and foremost. Communism especially and socialism in general have consistently underdelivered in every category in every country in the world where comparable comparisons can be made. It would be truly odd to attribute these superior numbers to socialized medicine, when their historical superiority with falsehood is a far more likely explanation.
|2.14.07 @ 10:49PM|#
Rimfax,
Don't be fooled into thinking that joe will be "fooled" by your
blatant attempt to explain away those numbers. The experts at
UNICEF understand the world better than the rest of us laymen ever
could. Didn't you hear that they are EXPERTS? Those numbers were
gathered by UNICEF EXPERTS whose bias should never be questioned
and whose authority must never be challenged.
What were you thinking, man?!?
(For the record, Warren nailed it at 10:22 pm.)
|2.14.07 @ 11:14PM|#
"When someone trying to debunk the statement 'A is less than
than B' asserts that, under their alternate way of calculating the
numbers, 'A is similar to B,' that means that A is still less than
B." - joe
Of course, if you're the one massaging the numbers to get the
false, partisan conclusion you're looking for, then sometimes
actually looking at the numbers more closely reveals something
contradictory to the "A is less than B" claim.
For example, when someone (like joe) claims that the majority of
the Democratic members of Congress voted against the Resolution to
authorize military force against Iraq is countered by someone (like
me) who points out that a majority of Dems in the Senate voted FOR
it, it shows you to be incorrect about at least one of the two
chambers of Congress. Further examination of the numbers shows a
relatively slim margin between House members who voted FOR and
those who voted AGAINST, which certainly sheds more light on the
state of the Democratic Party than certain partisans are
comfortable with. (The fact that Repubs voted in lock-step isn't my
idea of a good thing, either, because I certainly don't believe
they did so out of noble principle but for political gain.)
Just because you aren't blatantly lying when you make a claim that
- on the face of it - the numbers seem to support, it doesn't mean
that you aren't guilty of shamelessly manipulating the numbers to
prop up a false conclusion: namely that a significant majority of
the Democratic Party opposed the Resolution and that this proves
that the Dems were right on Iraq all along.
Manipulating the numbers like, for example, lumping both chambers
of Congressional votes together when the House has many more
members, making it an apples to oranges comparison.
Tellingly, only ONE of the FIVE Democrats who are currently
presidential hopefuls voted against the Resolution, and it's not
like Dennis Kucinich has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the
nomination against the other 4 who voted FOR the Resolution (Biden,
Clinton, etc.)
Sorry for the thread-jack, but joe is really working over-time on
this one... Running to another thread and making references about
the thread you've just gotten pummeled on is just plain WEAK.
|2.14.07 @ 11:18PM|#
Or, for an example that brings me back to the topic of the thread: UNICEF manipulating the numbers to reach conclusions that are so blatantly false as to be a source of amusement...
The Wine Commonsewer|2.14.07 @ 11:31PM|#
NPR isn't afraid to tell it to us straight
BTW, great line Brian.
Paul|2.15.07 @ 1:15AM|#
This report is more about being poor in America, vs. being poor
in, say, a Scandanavian country with cradle-to-grave welfare
benefits. When looking at the report this way, the conclusions, as
ridiculously broad and vague as they are (considering the NPR
taglien for the report-- which I heard this morning) one could at
least partially understand the conclusion, even if one disagreed
it.
To suggest that kids fitting into the lower-middle classes on up
get a raw deal as compared to other developed nations? Color me
skeptical.
wayne|2.15.07 @ 1:55AM|#
It's George Bush's fault. His war against the friendly, unassuming Iraqis has taken up all the money that might otherwise have been spent on "the children". If the Supreme court had not stolen the election in 2000, we would not have this child abusing, inconvenient truth to deal with. Al Gore won the popular vote.
|2.15.07 @ 2:23AM|#
Yet another argument for ending foreign aid (we're the ones that need help, apparently). Thanks, U.N.!
|2.15.07 @ 4:40AM|#
In the UK where I live this report has created an intelligent national debate about why we are failing our children. The US is nearly as bad and yet the comments about on on here are mostly glib, jingoistic bullshit from brainless American college students. What a sad bunch you are over the pond, no wonder you kids are so screwed up.
Muttley|2.15.07 @ 4:59AM|#
The report examines only industrialized countries: no Cuba, no
Zambia, no Haiti. It seems a fair comparison to me. To dismiss it
on a purely jingoistic basis is out of place.
kids fitting into the lower-middle classes on up get a raw deal
as compared to other developed nations
That was the point of the report, I guess. And it does not seem
that far-fetched.
|2.15.07 @ 8:08AM|#
the percentage of children living in a household with below
the nation's median income.
Since half the population of any country is below the median income
(by definition) that percentage of children would generally be very
close to 50 for each country.
Something other then the "system" accounts for the higher
infant mortality.
Demographics - but PC-ness precludes mentioning it. The "white"
infant mortality rate in the US is about the same as the white
infant mortality rate in the best countries in the report. (Same
thing for educational achievement, BTW).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5127a1.htm#tab1
The report's socialist definition of a government's role in
peoples' lives was interesting:
"The infant mortality rate (IMR) is a standard indicator of child
health 5 and reflects a basic provision of the Convention on
the Rights of the Childwhich calls on all countries 'to ensure
the child's enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health,
including by diminishing infant and child mortality'.
|2.15.07 @ 9:27AM|#
F.Le Mur, I think more than half of the population of children
in the US would be below the median income owing to:
1. Older people have more money.
2. Poor people have more kids.
|2.15.07 @ 9:45AM|#
Lars,
You so nailed us. I am so ashamed. I'll totter off to my underwater
basketweaving and beer bong making class now.
rob,
I think that you missed the point about who is cooking the books,
so to speak. While some folks at UNICEF are very likely like Lars
and are revelling in any data that makes the US and the UK look
bad, I seriously doubt that they are cherry picking numbers.
The far more likely cause is that the countries with socialized
medicine have significant political pressure on the hospitals to
select policies that "improve" their numbers regardless of any
actual improvements in care. I don't think that this is any kind of
dishonesty on anyone's part. I think that it is an indirect effect
of misguided reward systems. To some degree, the same effects can
be seen to a lesser degree in the US when Medicare and Medicaid
influence the health care system.
|2.15.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Median just means "the middle value", as opposed to average
which is the sum over the count of values. The mean of { 1, 2, 9,
10, 13 } is 9. The average is 7.
So, the percentage below the median really tells you nothing
meaningful about your population other than whether your
distribution is more bottom heavy than another. It is essentially
meaningless.
|2.15.07 @ 9:59AM|#
I find it hard to believe that the UN can conclude that a teenager in America with access to drugs, sex and booze is "worse off." I didn't have access to those things in high school and my peers all concluded that I was worse off.
|2.15.07 @ 10:19AM|#
"Running to another thread and making references about the
thread you've just gotten pummeled on is just plain WEAK."
Then why did you?
And please, Rob, don't lecture us on math.
|2.15.07 @ 10:21AM|#
So this means, doesn't it, that the UN will be pulling up stakes in New York so as to no longer subject the children of diplomats to the indecencies and poverty of life as a kid in the United States?
|2.15.07 @ 10:22AM|#
Rimfax,
Cuba? Where? I didn't see anything about Cuba in the report.
Anyway, it would be nice if you had something other that your
feelings to add to the debate.
Anything on the methodology? Anything on the link that addresses
the different methods of counting live births?
No?
Didn't think so.
|2.15.07 @ 10:43AM|#
I know, I shouldn't rise to the bait.
A lot of people launch personal attacks on for the sin of
disagreeing with them, and it's difficult to always take the high
road.
|2.15.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Joe sez: "A lot of people launch personal attacks on for the sin
of disagreeing with them, and it's difficult to always take the
high road."
must...not...let...head...explode :^)
|2.15.07 @ 12:51PM|#
"The US out of the UN. The UN out of the US."
We'll show the world that we can do everything unilaterally. There
aren't any drawbacks either, except that all of our dictionaries
have replaced the word "success" with "unilateral."
|2.15.07 @ 12:57PM|#
A useless appendage such as the UN is not required for a nation
to act multilaterally.
Far as I can tell, the UN has become little more than a dumping
ground for playboy elites from the Third World, as well as a
circle-jerk party for pretentious NGOs. That real estate in
Manhattan could be put to far more productive use in private
hands.
|2.15.07 @ 1:27PM|#
joe,
That was a cute little conversation you just had with me all by
yourself. Can you juggle, too?
Anyways, I wasn't referring to this report in my Cuba reference. I
was referring to the legendary claim that serves as an obvious
precursor to this report that has been circulating for well over 20
years that Cuba is a far better place for children and has a much
lower infant mortality rate. I apologize for giving you the benefit
of the doubt. I'll try not to overestimate your intelligence
again.
I'll also be much more likely to actually get my feelings hurt by
your jibes about references when you provide one.
|2.15.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Whatever.
"Far as I can tell, the UN has become little more than a dumping
ground for playboy elites from the Third World, as well as a
circle-jerk party for pretentious NGOs."
The UN is effective to the extent that the United States picks it
up and uses it as a tool to advance our foreign policy goals.
Otherwise, it does some good church-lady type work, but doesn't do
much of major political importance.
Look at the American/French resolution about the Syrians in
Lebanon, then tell me the UN is useless.
|2.15.07 @ 5:22PM|#
"A lot of people launch personal attacks on for the sin of
disagreeing with them, and it's difficult to always take the high
road." - joe
I'd say that you taking the high road is a rare enough occurence
with most of the people you engage on these boards that your
complaints certainly generate surprise and laughter (ESPECIALLY
coming from you).
And joe, as for not lecturing you on math, you're the guy who
thinks that 8% more than half of all Democrats shows a significant
majority in your party that proves your political point. Puh-leeze!
You should watch the pot more carefully when you're cooking the
numbers, otherwise it boils over and ruins your credibility. (Then
again, I guess that worrying about your credibility at this late
date is like a former president trying to reform his "legacy" once
he's out of office - all the revisionism one can muster can't save
a ruined reputation.)
|2.15.07 @ 5:28PM|#
"The UN is effective to the extent that the United States picks
it up and uses it as a tool to advance our foreign policy goals.
Otherwise, it does some good church-lady type work, but doesn't do
much of major political importance." - joe
That's the first reasonable thing I can remember reading from joe
in weeks. In fact, I can't imagine a more accurate depiction of the
organization's utility. Well done!
However, that doesn't mean that ChrisO's evaluation of the UN isn't
ALSO correct, tho he kindly omitted the rampant corruption in the
organization: "Far as I can tell, the UN has become little more
than a dumping ground for playboy elites from the Third World, as
well as a circle-jerk party for pretentious NGOs."
It's not an either/or situation, IMO.
"Look at the American/French resolution about the Syrians in
Lebanon, then tell me the UN is useless." - joe
Well, if you insist: "The UN is useless."
I mean, let's face it, if it hadn't been the US and France doing
the pushing, the UN resolution would have been (like most UN
resolutions) so toothless as to be utterly pointless.
dhex|2.15.07 @ 10:38PM|#
so what are the other explanations for why two countries, both industrialized and both with different approaches to healthcare (one mostly-state, one semi-private) have such high infant mortality rates? (i don't know one way or the other)
|2.19.07 @ 11:11AM|#
rob,
16%, you twit. When the majority gets 58% of the vote, the minority
doesn't get 50%. My god, are you really this stupid? It's second
grade subtraction!
|2.21.07 @ 3:20PM|#
50% would be half of the vote. When you get 58% of the vote,
that's 8% more than 50% - hence 8% more than half of all total
voters.
Even if you look at it from the "16-point spread" perspectictive,
it's not a big spread. It doesn't show that your pet party is the
party of principle on this issue by any common sense
standard.
Maybe a 16-point spread would be something to crow about in an
election - but it's damn sure nothing to crow about WITHIN A SINGLE
PARTY.
You understand exactly what I am saying, you just refuse to concede
the point under any circumstance so you're trying to make out like
I'm too stupid to comprehend the numbers.
You're pathetic.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245