|
Author
|
Topic: I hate the term "child poverty".
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 27 November 2007 01:40 PM
I've seen the latest report today about BC having the highest rates of "child poverty".I think that's such a meaningless term. It smacks of the whole "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor" thing. Children, of course, deserve not to be poor. But who gives a shit about their parents' poverty, even though the reason children are poor is because their PARENTS are poor? Nothing meaningful can be said or done about poverty when we only talk in terms of children who are poor. "Child poverty" is directly about adult poverty. Or, perhaps, "family poverty". Now, if we want to talk about certain demographics who are more likely to be poor, like women, or people of colour, or younger workers, that's meaningful, because then it's possible to explore systemic reasons why poverty happens to those people more than it happens overall, and to think about targeted solutions. But "child poverty" isn't about that, because there's no way of making targeted solutions for children who live in poverty without targeting their parents as well. Which is why "child poverty" is such a misnomer. I guess it was coined because we're supposed to feel bad abut poor children, but not for poor parents of children.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 27 November 2007 02:14 PM
I dunno. I dislike the term 'working poor', so I see what you're getting at. But we all know that children's education outcomes depend a great deal on what they have to deal with at home, and that education is a huge indicator for lifetime income. And the older you get, the harder it becomes to acquire new skills. If resources are limited, it makes sense to think about where they would be most likely to reduce poverty. Hauling a child out of the poverty trap means that her children and their descendants will have a decent chance of staying out of it. It's much, much harder to do the same for an adult. None of which means that a Guaranteed Annual Income wouldn't be a good idea (and one I support). But it does suggest that focusing on getting children out of poverty is still a good idea.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 27 November 2007 03:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by E.Ripley:
I thought this thread was about what's best for the kids. Who cares if the parents feel embarassed?
No-one. But parents are generally best-suited and most-motivated to decide what is best for their kids. Not always, and we should keep an eye out for those cases. But generally. [ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126
|
posted 27 November 2007 07:37 PM
quote:
I think one of the reasons for defining child poverty, is because it's viewed like this: if people don't give a shit about the welfare of children, then where will a line be drawn? The next step backward in time is child labour. Because at that point, children can be paid a lot less than adults. And don't think the bastards would not be(pardon the pun) as small minded. Child poverty should always be viewed as the most despicable level of deprivation and not to be tolerated in a civilized society.
I would not be surprised if there was a child "workfare" program somewhere in North America. And I know many people whose kids' paper routes contribute to the family economy. ETA: There is also unpaid labour, like older kids picking up childcare duties while parents are at work. [ 27 November 2007: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]
From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 27 November 2007 08:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
I would not be surprised if there was a child "workfare" program somewhere in North America.
You are absolutely correct. There are child labourers in Mexico stitching jeans and other clothing items for GAP, Tommy Hilfiger and more. And in Central America, Salvadoran children as young as five and six are cutting sugar cane with machetes under the tropical sun all day. And many school aged children in El Salvador spend long days at landfill sites rummaging through garbage, human excrement and medical waste looking for trinkets to sell. These are gross violations of children's rights happening right here in this hemisphere and within a few day's drive of president dubya's home state of Texas.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
