Reasons Unbeknownst

One of the main arguments of the left is that the wealth divide is growing. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. “Child Poverty Rising in Richest Countries” and “Forgetting Kids: Child Poverty in Germany and the US“. But there are two huge problems with the definition of poverty: It’s relative to the wealth of the country and that relativity is based on the average, not median income.

“The Florence-based Innocenti Research Centre of UNICEF, which carried out the study, says children are in poverty when they live in households with an income per head that is 50 percent or less of the national average for their country. “

You read that right. If the average national income was $500,000 then a household making a whopping $250,000 would be considered impoverished. They might grow morbidly obese eating deep fried caviar and cruise, ashamed, in their used Mercedes’. The director of UNICEF said it best.

“The child living in poverty in the U.S. is clearly not as badly off as the child in Mexico,” he said in a statement Tuesday (Mar. 1).”

A child starving to death in Zimbabwe could be living above the poverty level because everybody else in his country is too.

Here’s another perspective on the problem of poverty in wealthy nations:

“The poorest in Britain are the unemployed. They receive free housing, free medical care, free education for their children and small cash sums to pay for food, clothing and transport. Most own televisions, refrigerators, ovens, and stereos. Many even own cars. That isn?t poverty. ”

Our bizzare, shifting definition of poverty diverts our attention to the people in our country instead of those starving to death. That’s not a problem if you think one American life is worth fifteen Africans’ but then we need to amend the Declaration of Independence to read “All Americans are created equal.”

Related posts:

1. Wheat, Chaff
2. Healthcare and Corporate Migration