British and American Children most Disadvantaged

[Macs.]

UNICEF REPORT ON CHILDREN'S WELL-BEING

British and American Children most Disadvantaged

A new UNICEF report on children's well-being in rich countries found that the UK and the US are the worst places to grow up while northern European countries are the most children-friendly.

American and British youngsters have a more troublesome childhood than their European counterparts, according to a United Nations study presented in Berlin on Wednesday. They're poorer, get on worse with their parents and take more risks. In comparison with children living in other rich countries, those growing up in the USA and the UK have the lowest quality of life, the study says.

The UNICEF report compared the level of children's well-being in 21 economically advanced countries. Despite being among the richest, Britain and the USA occupied the last two places in the list, with the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark taking the top three slots.

The findings suggest that national wealth does not correspond directly to quality of childhood: the Czech Republic, for example, outranked richer countries like the USA, Japan or Germany.

The level of children's well-being was assessed through measuring six factors: Material well-being; health and safety; education; peer and family relations; behaviors and risks; and self-perceived subjective well-being.

Although northern European countries like the Netherlands did well on the overall score, "all countries have weaknesses that need to be addressed," said David Bull, director of UNICEF UK. "No country features in the top third of the rankings for all six dimensions," he said, referring to the factors considered.

There are, however, clear losers. "The United Kingdom and the United States find themselves in the bottom third of the rankings for five of the six dimensions reviewed," UNICEF said in a summary of the report. Britain got the lowest overall score and ranked worst in family and peer relationships -- measured by single-parent rates and the frequency of family meals -- and behaviors and risks. This means that British children are more likely to use drugs, drink alcohol or be ******ly active than children elsewhere.

The findings come as a blow to the UK government which has defended itself by saying that the data used in the study was outdated. "In many cases the data used does not reflect more recent improvements such as the continuing fall in teenage pregnancy rate or in the proportion of children living in workless households", a spokeswoman for the Department for Education and Skills said.

The USA came second to last on the overall score and fared worst for health and safety, which was measured by rates of infant mortality, low birth weight, immunization, and deaths from accidents and injuries. Germany achieved a middle-of-the road result and was ranked 11th in the overall league -- a disappointing performance in the eyes of German policy-makers. "Germany doesn't look very good at all," said Heide

Simonis who is the director of UNICEF Germany and a former governor of Schleswig-Holstein. She was particularly critical of the finding that German children are world champions when it comes to smoking. Another worrying finding for the country is that almost 40 percent of the youngsters reported that their parents only rarely found time to talk to them.

The study's director, Marta Santos Pais, said that future reports would incorporate more measures on children's self-perceived well-being. "Very often we base our assessment on what adults feel the policy measures are achieving," she said " It's always important to see how the beneficiaries of those policies are assessing their impact."


http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,466443,00.html

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l314/Macs3000/UNICEFblabla.jpg

"The findings suggest that national wealth does not correspond directly to quality of childhood: the Czech Republic, for example, outranked richer countries like the USA, Japan or Germany."

I don't get that part of the article, Germany scored better than the Czech Republic according to the official summary, and Japan didn't even take part ?

[joe mama]

So basically UNICEF spends money tracking how often kids in 1st world countries have family meals? Excellent. Here I was thinking the UN should focus on improving things in countries where people jump to their deaths off roofs when they hear the monkey man with his mechanical claw and red eyes that flashed gold before he turned into a cat is attacking and places where entire tribes of people are being macheted into chum by other tribes and stuff like that. I'm glad they make time to check on if John J Spoiledbrat had dinner with both mommy and daddy often enough.

[dedgod]

The UNICEF is just one part of the UN..

UNICEF and WHO has helped millions of children worldwide, and specifically, in third world countries. They probably helps feed and protect kids more than anyone else...
So do some research before you diss it..

[seraosha]

Why are there no stats from the US on "subjective well-being"?

[Laworkerbee]

Christ I'd like to slap each and every person involved in this "study" in the face with my *****, and thats really only because of my so unhappy childhood :roll:

[joe mama]

The UNICEF is just one part of the UN..

UNICEF and WHO has helped millions of children worldwide, and specifically, in third world countries. They probably helps feed and protect kids more than anyone else...
So do some research before you diss it..

And you don't think time and money spent counting how many family meals kids in the richest countries in the world have couldn't be better spent trying to get people in Africa to stop raping babies to prevent aids or teaching people in Sh1tstainistan how to grow enough food so their kids don't starve (or whatever could be better)?

[EsoognomEhT]

Yeah but this needs to be addressed. So much for our great achievements \:E they're all well and good but we can't even give our kids a decent start to life?


I propose a complete ban on chav parents having chav babies, should lessen the percentages a bit

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I propose a complete ban on chav parents having chav babies, should lessen the percentages a bitAgreed, plus we could ban prep schools as I have had it up to here ^ with these emotionally retarded thumb sucking muppets just cos they got anally fingered in their first week away from Mummy does not mean we (close friends and family) should suffer their perpetual unhappiness.

[dedgod]

And you don't think time and money spent counting how many family meals kids in the richest countries in the world have couldn't be better spent trying to get people in Africa to stop raping babies to prevent aids or teaching people in Sh1tstainistan how to grow enough food so their kids don't starve (or whatever could be better)?

True dat..but this kind of survey can also spur /help direct government spending...I mean these are the kids that will be donating to UNICEF 25 years from now...must think about them too :-)

[Kaapeli]

Why are there no stats from the US on "subjective well-being"?

I'm guessing they didn't do a questionaire for children there.

[joe mama]

True dat..but this kind of survey can also spur /help direct government spending...I mean these are the kids that will be donating to UNICEF 25 years from now...must think about them too :-)

Again, poor use of UN resources. These countries can afford to study their own damn children and decide if they need more welfare or less tv or a kick in the @ss or whatever.

[joe mama]

Yeah but this needs to be addressed. So much for our great achievements \:E they're all well and good but we can't even give our kids a decent start to life?


I propose a complete ban on chav parents having chav babies, should lessen the percentages a bit

And you need the UN to tell you that?

lol @ the chav comments :)

[joe mama]

Agreed, plus we could ban prep schools as I have had it up to here ^ with these emotionally retarded thumb sucking muppets just cos they got anally fingered in their first week away from Mummy does not mean we (close friends and family) should suffer their perpetual unhappiness.

you just killed me with this one...
:)

[szr]

Christ, how the hell are we ever going to get our kids to harden the **** up when they've got the UN telling them that their lives should be even easier?

[RMRcallum]

Shouldnt the UN be doing something useful like peacekeeping or solving world hunger?

[Kaapeli]

Shouldnt the UN be doing something useful like peacekeeping or solving world hunger?

Can't it do both?

[RMRcallum]

Can't it do both?

true it could indeed.

[szr]

Can't it do both?
History would indicate not, unfortunately. But, hey, respect for trying.

[Macs.]

Some people seem to have a problem with some critic.

If you have nothing to say, don't bother to post no-brainers like "Shouldn't the UN be peacekeeping" etc.

[Smersh]

Seems like you guys are scared of the findings and as a response attack the UN instead of what the study actually says.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Ah yes, the vaunted Scandinavian model. Well, yes I suppose if one uses purely subjective data, and includes a part of the world that, by design, depends heavily on the rest of us unwashed, underprivileged scum for it's prosperity (and some would argue, it's very survival), I suppose the results are a foregone conclusion. They're enlightened, sophisticated, and responsible, and we're all douchebags.

The problem with all that however, is that the world could not survive, were were we all to try to live like the top 5% - therefore using them as a model of behavior to emulate hardly seems logical. I'm satisfied with our knuckle-dragging yet self-determined mediocrity, thank you very much.

[Macs.]

Ah yes, the vaunted Scandinavian model. Well, yes I suppose if one uses purely subjective data, and includes a part of the world that, by design, depends heavily on the rest of us unwashed, underprivileged scum for it's prosperity (and some would argue, it's very survival), I suppose the results are a foregone conclusion. They're enlightened, sophisticated, and responsible, and we're all douchebags.

The problem with all that however, is that the world could not survive, were were we all to try to live like the top 5% - therefore using them as a model of behavior to emulate hardly seems logical. I'm satisfied with our knuckle-dragging yet self-determined mediocrity, thank you very much.

Er, according to this study there is no obvious relationship between levels of child well-being and GDP per Capita.

[Smersh]

Czech Republic and Hungary rated higher then the USA and UK. I don't think anyone is calling them the top 5% cultured economic elites, Sheds.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well now I didn't say anything about money. It's what they are considering "important" in the study that defines the social model, for the study, right? I'm talking about the top 5% of the study. Which, not coincidentally, pretty much mirrors the top 5% of any UN study based on subjective criteria. It's always the same, with the Scandinavian states leading the pack due to a set of criteria (which may or may not include $) - these are the criteria that the UN obviously find important.

My point is, that the Scandinavian states (which, as a person who's forefathers were Vikings, I like just fine) are able to top these studies only because they have a social model that is unsustainable, and depends upon the rest of us not having that social model. Like including Beverly Hills and Odessa Texas in the same study of driving habits. Beverly Hills wins, partially because their cars are so much more expensive and groovy. But they can only drive at all, because of the oil pumped out of Odessa. And if everybody in Odessa gave up working the oil fields to go work better jobs, Beverly Hills would lose it's spot. I've now given myself a headache.

[Smersh]

That's how the international economy works. Our (in the developed world) standard of living is only possible because of the Chinese and Indians and other third world "factories" and "service centers". I imagine some people in those countries think like you, when they see statistics about the USA.

[Thor]

:cantbeli: I'm not going to start that discussion again. Though feel free to pick up the basics by learning about comparative and absolute advantage.


And for the record, we (Swe) are heavily dependent on export and one few countries that has a trade surplus with Asia.

[Macs.]

My point is, that the Scandinavian states (which, as a person who's forefathers were Vikings, I like just fine) are able to top these studies only because they have a social model that is unsustainable,

So its unsustainable ? Then how the hell does it work for them since decades ?


and depends upon the rest of us not having that social model.

All our economies in the western world depend for a part on the guy far away doing the easy work for a little money. (Or on the guy sitting at the other side of the world buying our stuff.) We couldn't afford all these people in the flashy offices sitting on their ass all day, a veterinary that is better equipped than the best hospital in Uzbahomostan, or people who study things like dance-neurotalistic-history.

I don't really see how that argument is applying here... Neither the UK or US are 3rd world countries which are full of people sewing T-Shirts or producing new Toys for McDonalds.


And last but not least its not like all these western countries are producing air - The money for those social systems/high standards of living is obviously being made... Somehow.

[Hydro]

It might also have something to do with a rising lazy underclass of chavs that get knocked up at 16 and try and sustain a single parent family on welfare money. Sweet F/A to do with the economy, just lazy people.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

So its unsustainable ? Then how the hell does it work for them since decades ?

Well for one thing - just simple math on this one, take a look at their birth vs death rate, stir, wait 100 years and revisit. For another, their system depends upon stability, prosperity, and a worldwide economy which they have for the most part been unwilling to fight for. If it were not for other nations willing to spend their blood and fortune to ensure things ran smoothly, anybody so dependent on the rest of the world buying high-end technology would be in trouble IMHO. I say that's non-sustainable, because if the rest of us acted that way, nobody's economy would be prosperous enough to go around buying PDAs for their dogs. :)



All our economies in the western world depend for a part on the guy far away doing the easy work for a little money. (Or on the guy sitting at the other side of the world buying our stuff.) We couldn't afford all these people in the flashy offices sitting on their ass all day, a veterinary that is better equipped than the best hospital in Uzbahomostan, or people who study things like dance-neurotalistic-history.

I don't really see how that argument is applying here... Neither the UK or US are 3rd world countries which are full of people sewing T-Shirts or producing new Toys for McDonalds.


And last but not least its not like all these western countries are producing air - The money for those social systems/high standards of living is obviously being made... Somehow.

Agreed - but what is it made on? I see a large difference between the manufacture of something like, I dunno...Happy Meal toys, and growing food. Scandinavia imports almost all of it's food. Farmers can't afford to live the life -as you say, like the metero******, flashy office, doing no real work all day. If farmers gave that up, Scandinavia would either starve to death, or everybody punching out Nokias all day would have to give up the corner office and put on the overalls.

IMHO, studies like these lack balance because they fail to look at a big enough picture. Great - Scandinavia is the best place for children. They don't have to do manual labor, they can be embraced by a large extended family or cared for by government agencies in place of their parents who are most likely not married, they can look forward to a liberal lifestyle of plenty. Woo. Also, they are totally dependent upon others for food, and their society will cease to exist in a short period of time due to the values making all this good stuff possible. It's a package deal - one causes the other. It just seems to me that it's kind of stupid to put such extreme, unusual examples of human society at the top of the list. Surely they don't suck, but using them as examples to follow doesn't make much sense to me.

[khukuri]

Seems like you guys are scared of the findings and as a response attack the UN instead of what the study actually says.


such a good post. i laugh at people who get personally offended by stuff like this.

[i_heart_menthols]

I think it's hilarious that we're (the U.S.) not at the bottom of this list. I mean, how screwed up does your country have to be to lose out to us? For Christ's sake, this is the place that invented McDonald's and the high school rampage killer.

I was born and raised in an upper middle class area, and went to a "good" school (lots of kids whose parents worked at large technology firms, etc.) and even we had metal detectors at every entrance / exit and security guards prowling the campus throughout the school day, because the presence of guns and ethnically fuelled gun violence had become sadly common. Our graduation rate was approximately 60% (I graduated in 2003), and of those 60%, I'd say at least 1/3 were and most likely still are functionally illiterate -- and that number doesn't include the Asian and Latin American legal and illegal immigrants, who made up about 20% of our student body. Very few of them learned or even attempted to learn English, and the majority of them dropped out as soon as they were old enough to do so. Teen pregnancy was probably the biggest problem, though -- equalled only by violence. I personally know of at least fifteen girls who had abortions between the ages of 15 - 18, and quite a few more who became mothers before school ended. Probably the t saddest moment in my life was listening to my 13-year-old brother tell his friends that one of his female classmates offered to give him a blowjob in exchange for "a little bit of weed and, like, ten bucks."

I really don't know what happened to this country, but I don't doubt the veracity of this study one bit. And if Britain really is worse or as bad as the U.S., well ... at least we'll be able to keep each other company at the bottom, as globalization spreads and more and more of us are forced to compete with Indians, Eastern Europeans, and the Chinese for work. Misery loves company, at least.

[Covert_US]

UN, Lol.....

[justagoodolboy]

I'm a child living in the U.S. and I'm doin just fine.

[Hunterhr]

I'm a child living in the U.S. and I'm doin just fine.

Move to the Czech Republic and say that!

:)

[Hollis]

LOLOL............ Ok UN reports USA and UK unhappy place. UN reports, Palestians are peaceful loving people, UN reports Saddam was not so bad.

UN reports........... LOLOL

I would like to see, UN reports, UN moving it's headquarters out of repressive and terrible place of USA to happy land N. Korea.

[Klatuu]

Er, according to this study there is no obvious relationship between levels of child well-being and GDP per Capita.

Er, according to me, you can have it. The murder rate in a well-run prison might be very low, but you're still in a prison.

This is like one of those short-sighted studies that exalts the high rate of literacy in some place like Cuba, while completely overlooking the fact that the reason behind the desirability of literacy in the first place, to improve the human condition and nourishing the human spirit, is completely obviated in a totalitarian state where what one can read and write is proscribed by the state.

Gosh, you don't think this was a conclusion looking for a study to support it, do you? Nah, not from the UN. No agenda there.

People with easy childhoods grow up to be weak-minded, flacid-willed lackeys who run and get coffe and snacks for people who learned to struggle and work hard to achieve when they were kids.

People who equate economic competition with biological competition a couple breaths after lamenting the sorry educational state of their fellows are a hoot. "Oh no, more freedom and economic prosperity, but I have to give up crappy, hard labor jobs to people in foreign countries so they can have more freedom and prosperity, too. Waaaaaaaa".

A bird in a cage is no less a captive simply because he has lost his desire to fly.

[Smersh]

Cuba and N. Korea are not the on the list...

(neither are bird-cages)

According to you logic and standards, growing up in Africa will give you the best childhood i.e a real struggle to survive, lots of hard work ,etc. No working in a sissy office, or drinking coffee either.

[dedgod]

I'm a child living in the U.S. and I'm doin just fine.
well then obviously you don't know jacksh$$

[justagoodolboy]

well then obviously you don't know jacksh$$

If the UN is now the premier source of wisdom then I don't mind knowing "jacksh$$"

[chuckster]

I'm seeing a pattern here. The UN or some other Socialist/Globalist institution do some kind of study and no matter what the study is, they conclude the Scandanavian countries with their strongly Socialist model is the superior system and the USA and Britain with their more Capitalis systems rank at the bottom. I wonder sometimes if the results aren't in before the study takes place.

Another note, I wonder if Britain decided to move away from the American camp and closer to the European camp it wouldn't suddenly show an improvement in its 'scores'.

[Smersh]

the UN blackmailing countries with studies and reports? :)

But if you use the anti-USA UN conspiracy model for interepreting UN reports, why are countries like France, Austria, and Portugal on the bottom of the list, in this case? Are they in the "American Camp" too?

[Olybrius]

I think it's hilarious that we're (the U.S.) not at the bottom of this list. I mean, how screwed up does your country have to be to lose out to us? For Christ's sake, this is the place that invented McDonald's and the high school rampage killer.

I was born and raised in an upper middle class area, and went to a "good" school (lots of kids whose parents worked at large technology firms, etc.) and even we had metal detectors at every entrance / exit and security guards prowling the campus throughout the school day, because the presence of guns and ethnically fuelled gun violence had become sadly common. Our graduation rate was approximately 60% (I graduated in 2003), and of those 60%, I'd say at least 1/3 were and most likely still are functionally illiterate -- and that number doesn't include the Asian and Latin American legal and illegal immigrants, who made up about 20% of our student body. Very few of them learned or even attempted to learn English, and the majority of them dropped out as soon as they were old enough to do so. Teen pregnancy was probably the biggest problem, though -- equalled only by violence. I personally know of at least fifteen girls who had abortions between the ages of 15 - 18, and quite a few more who became mothers before school ended. Probably the t saddest moment in my life was listening to my 13-year-old brother tell his friends that one of his female classmates offered to give him a blowjob in exchange for "a little bit of weed and, like, ten bucks."

I really don't know what happened to this country, but I don't doubt the veracity of this study one bit. And if Britain really is worse or as bad as the U.S., well ... at least we'll be able to keep each other company at the bottom, as globalization spreads and more and more of us are forced to compete with Indians, Eastern Europeans, and the Chinese for work. Misery loves company, at least.


thxs, very interesting

[martinexsquaddie]

I may be a wimp but having metal detectors in schools and armed security guards at a school that is not in a country in the midst of a civil war is frankly scary.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I may be a wimp but having metal detectors in schools and armed security guards at a school that is not in a country in the midst of a civil war is frankly scary.My mate went to school in one of the nicer parts of Long Island NY just at the start of the bussing scheme in the 80's where they brought in kids from the less nice parts of Queens, he reckons all those knife fights with the boys from the hood were the making of him.

[ren0312]

:cantbeli: I'm not going to start that discussion again. Though feel free to pick up the basics by learning about comparative and absolute advantage.


And for the record, we (Swe) are heavily dependent on export and one few countries that has a trade surplus with Asia.

The trade balance depends on whether your people save enough, provided the savings is above the investment rate, then a positive trade balance will occur, as was the case for the US from the end of World War 2 up to 1976, since the country is not saving enough to fund its investments if the savings rate is below the investment rate, the funding has to come from foreign countries, which explains the trade and current account defecits.

[cbreedon]

My point is, that the Scandinavian states (which, as a person who's forefathers were Vikings, I like just fine) are able to top these studies only because they have a social model that is unsustainable, and depends upon the rest of us not having that social model. Like including Beverly Hills and Odessa Texas in the same study of driving habits. Beverly Hills wins, partially because their cars are so much more expensive and groovy. But they can only drive at all, because of the oil pumped out of Odessa. And if everybody in Odessa gave up working the oil fields to go work better jobs, Beverly Hills would lose it's spot. I've now given myself a headache.

Odessa Texas!!! I actually grew up there.

I have had a real problem with the UN since when, back in the 90's? maybe the 80's, they put Libya in charge of the Commission for Human Rights for a while.

I am sure that Scandinavia is a nice place and that life is good. But I grew up in a decent town (Odessa Texas). There wasn't alot of "real" problems... and no metal detectors! My son now has every want taken care of. Hey, I even hug the guy :-).

So what if the UN thinks that we're number 20 or so, that means we're ahead of 300 or so other places. In the relative scheme of things... who cares if you're number 1 or 20. We all have food, healthcare, assorted electronics and availablity of good beer. Lighten up..

[kosse]

Well for one thing - just simple math on this one, take a look at their birth vs death rate, stir, wait 100 years and revisit. For another, their system depends upon stability, prosperity, and a worldwide economy which they have for the most part been unwilling to fight for. If it were not for other nations willing to spend their blood and fortune to ensure things ran smoothly, anybody so dependent on the rest of the world buying high-end technology would be in trouble IMHO. I say that's non-sustainable, because if the rest of us acted that way, nobody's economy would be prosperous enough to go around buying PDAs for their dogs. :)


Birth rates in all nordic countries are above European Union mean. So we are definitely not the first ones to disappear. There are not so much immigrants either in other countries except in Sweden (so you can't say it's only immigrants making babies). For example in Finland women give birth to 1,73 children..in US it's 2.09 but that's because it's under artificial respiration by hispanic immigrants and blacks! Our population won't change much in the future other than in terms of small decline..let's see how you are kicking around in 2050 when whites become a minority in US. I know we'll be fine ;-)

As for making business with other countries..war against the terrorism hasn't helped that one bit but only created more misery and suffering so far.




Agreed - but what is it made on? I see a large difference between the manufacture of something like, I dunno...Happy Meal toys, and growing food. Scandinavia imports almost all of it's food. Farmers can't afford to live the life -as you say, like the metero******, flashy office, doing no real work all day. If farmers gave that up, Scandinavia would either starve to death, or everybody punching out Nokias all day would have to give up the corner office and put on the overalls.


IMHO, studies like these lack balance because they fail to look at a big enough picture. Great - Scandinavia is the best place for children. They don't have to do manual labor, they can be embraced by a large extended family or cared for by government agencies in place of their parents who are most likely not married, they can look forward to a liberal lifestyle of plenty. Woo. Also, they are totally dependent upon others for food, and their society will cease to exist in a short period of time due to the values making all this good stuff possible. It's a package deal - one causes the other. It just seems to me that it's kind of stupid to put such extreme, unusual examples of human society at the top of the list. Surely they don't suck, but using them as examples to follow doesn't make much sense to me.
I bet there is as much manual labor to do as in US. I'm quite sure too that we have smaller proportion of flashy offices than US because unlike there, thriving in this frozen land actually takes something. And do remind me which country has the fattest kids in the world. In addition, we are so liberal here that over 80% of men (and many women) go to army even if they could choose to do civil service. That truly must be the liberalism at work that ends our civilisation :roll:.

About the foodstuff self-sufficiency.. It's currently 82-85% in Finland (I doubt it's different in Sweden, they export food to here after all). Practically all staple food are domestic products. Only thing we really need to import are fruits and vegetables that don't grow too well here and that is what drops the self-sufficiency rate so much. We could propably produce food for many times bigger population than we are now - large portion of the fields are growing alder because there is no need for them because of the advanced farming methods.

[justagoodolboy]

I may be a wimp but having metal detectors in schools and armed security guards at a school that is not in a country in the midst of a civil war is frankly scary.


I live in a middle class Virginia suburb of Washington D.C. There's a lot of gang activity around my school, but I don't have metal detectors or armed guards at my school. Every school in the county has one police officer assigned to their school, that's it. We have one, maybe two fights at our school (If we're lucky) a year. I feel completely safe at my school and where I live. This is partly because I sleep with a Mossberg 12 gauge next to the bed. That's one thing I have on those top countries on the list. I have the ability to control my safety and well being. I don't have to depend on the police.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

To my Nordic friends - let me be clear that I'm not finding fault with Scandinavia - I'm questioning the usefulness of this "study". Scandinavia is free to do whatever it wants - their system obviously works for them, they obviously make money and everything is groovy. Where I have the problem, is the UN using them as a model for the rest of us to emulate.

That's the purpose of these "studies", is it not? They find a system they like, point at it, and say "we should all be more like this". IMHO, pointing at Scandinavia and saying that is pointless, because they are such an unusual society.

It's like saying - everybody should have a corner office. Of course having the corner office is best - you come in, sit down with a nice view, drink coffee and never get your hands dirty. But who's making the coffee? They guy making the coffee can't have a corner office, because nobody could afford the coffee. And who's growing the food? They guy in the corner office is dependent upon a myriad of other people who can't have a corner office.

The UN, over and over, hammers home the Scandinavian social model as being superior, and the way forward for all human society. I disagree with that, because in my view, it is too dependent upon "lesser" systems for it's very survival. If the UN was going to be in the career planning business, it should not be telling everybody in the world that they can have a corner office, because that's a lie. And if they're going to be in the society planning business - which they like to think they are, they shouldn't be telling everybody that they should emulate the Scandinavian model. They should be aiming somewhere in the middle of the pack.

Even though Kofi is no longer the premiere of the UN, I would still punch him in the neck, just for good measure.

[Kaapeli]

This is partly because I sleep with a Mossberg 12 gauge next to the bed. That's one thing I have on those top countries on the list. I have the ability to control my safety and well being. I don't have to depend on the police.

The thing is we don't have to arm ourselves with firearms for protection. Kids with guns is almost unheard of here. I can't remember a single case.
Even the entire Finnish police force fire only 1-4 shots in anger each year.

The Wild West gun culture that has you carrying guns for protection is also the same one you have to arm yourself against.

[SBL]

^But you're also talking about a wealthy, culturally homogenous society. Naturally, crime is going to be low.

[kosse]

To my Nordic friends - let me be clear that I'm not finding fault with Scandinavia

Ok, no hard feelings :hug:


I'm questioning the usefulness of this "study". Scandinavia is free to do whatever it wants - their system obviously works for them, they obviously make money and everything is groovy. Where I have the problem, is the UN using them as a model for the rest of us to emulate.

That's the purpose of these "studies", is it not? They find a system they like, point at it, and say "we should all be more like this". IMHO, pointing at Scandinavia and saying that is pointless, because they are such an unusual society.
Well, at least in this study the criteria in dimensions 1-6 are quite universal to general well-being. If you read the actual report you'll notice that they are not pointing fingers at anyone. They even admit the deficiencies in the study methods that makes US seem worse in some tables than it should be. It's sensational news reporting that is making US look bad and tables taken out of context.




It's like saying - everybody should have a corner office. Of course having the corner office is best - you come in, sit down with a nice view, drink coffee and never get your hands dirty. But who's making the coffee? They guy making the coffee can't have a corner office, because nobody could afford the coffee. And who's growing the food? They guy in the corner office is dependent upon a myriad of other people who can't have a corner office.
Like said, it's pretty much the same in all western industrial nations.


The UN, over and over, hammers home the Scandinavian social model as being superior, and the way forward for all human society. I disagree with that, because in my view, it is too dependent upon "lesser" systems for it's very survival. If the UN was going to be in the career planning business, it should not be telling everybody in the world that they can have a corner office, because that's a lie. And if they're going to be in the society planning business - which they like to think they are, they shouldn't be telling everybody that they should emulate the Scandinavian model. They should be aiming somewhere in the middle of the pack.
I agree that we are dependant on many things but for small countries like us it's the only way forward. We can't just take what we want so we have to play nice. There isn't really an option, at least not a smart one.

In my opinion UN isn't pushing our model - and shouldn't - but you have to admit that it has some good features that many countries in the world could learn from. I don't see why some of it could not work inside US? It doesn't make you any more dependant from other countries. It's a misconstruction originating from our international standing because we are - like said - rather weak mostly because we are so small.


Even though Kofi is no longer the premiere of the UN, I would still punch him in the neck, just for good measure.
roflYou are relentless p-)

[justagoodolboy]

The thing is we don't have to arm ourselves with firearms for protection. Kids with guns is almost unheard of here. I can't remember a single case.
Even the entire Finnish police force fire only 1-4 shots in anger each year.

The Wild West gun culture that has you carrying guns for protection is also the same one you have to arm yourself against.

I didn't say there was a vying need for me to arm myself. There aren't daily gun battles in the neighborhoods surrounding my house. My house has never been burglarized or vandalized. I've never even had property stolen. However, I would much rather be prepared, and be able to depend on myself to protect my body and my family and my property from injury. Police solve crimes, they don't prevent them.

[Laworkerbee]

Police solve crimes, they don't prevent them.

"There are going to be situations where people are going to go without assistance. That's just the facts of life."

Los Angeles Chief of Police, Darryl Gates, 1993 referring to the L.A. Riots

[bluey]

'A turning point in our history - or kids' stuff?
By Charles Moore

One of the great skills in modern life is knowing how to get your own view about anything entrenched in people's minds. This is what academics are always trying to do. Generally, they fail, because almost no one reads their work.

The answer, therefore, is to produce a "report", which sounds much better than a mere expression of opinions, and to push it out under the aegis of some organisation that people have heard of. The media then read and regurgitate the report's "executive summary" (the first page) and a couple of charts, and what started life as a lonely little PhD suddenly becomes universal "fact".

This week's "Report Card", An Overview of Child Wellbeing in Rich Countries, produced by Unicef, is, in this narrow sense, a work of genius. It became, in headlines, a "UN report", and, in no time at all, the press was stating as fact that Britain is (I quote from the Independent) "the worst country in the Western world in which to be a child".

Add the coincidence of the shocking shooting of teenagers in south London and you quickly had hundreds of hand-wringing articles about the state of British children, to which this column is a modest addition.

If you look more closely at the Report Card, you notice a couple of things. First, it contains no new facts; indeed, it contains entirely old facts, using data that are several years out of date. Second, although it is based on comparisons with OECD countries, it is a British piece of work. As far as I can see, all the authors are British, or British-based.

Indeed, when you pursue the footnotes, you see that the report contains no research of its own. It rehashes the work of something called the Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York. In 2005, J. Bradshaw and E. Mayhew produced a document there called The Wellbeing of Children in the UK, full of sentences such as, "In interacting with the different systems and subsystems children and their families encounter both barriers and facilitators". What the Report Card does is to translate their work into English.

Thus do two obscure dons grab control of the national policy agenda. Yesterday David Cameron said that the Report Card should "mark a turning point in the history of our country"!

It would not be exactly true to say that this report only tells us what we all know already. I certainly did not know, for example, that 30 per cent of young Japanese agree with the proposition "I feel lonely", whereas only five per cent of British children do so (footnote: the report keeps speaking about UK children, but mentions sotto voce that all its data come from England alone).

I was also interested to learn that as many as 15 per cent of Belgian children say "I feel awkward and out of place". Thirty-eight per cent of Norwegian children, but only seven per cent of Finns, say "I like school a lot", and 80 per cent of Swiss children find their peers "kind and helpful", while only 42 per cent of the British say the same of theirs. Eighty per cent of Norwegian babies are still being partially breast-fed at six months, but only 10 per cent of those awkward and out-of-place Belgians (who also, strangely, come top of the chart for the educational wellbeing of children). Fascinating.

But in essence the Report Card is based on the usual social democratic view that high levels of public spending on things to do with children make society better, whereas the increase in the personal wealth of the population does not. In other words, more money is good, but not if people are allowed to choose what to do with it.

The Report Card castigates the effect of poverty, but looks at poverty almost solely in relative terms. Its key figure is "the percentage of children living in homes with equivalent incomes below 50 per cent of the national median". This allows it to take no account of how rich a country actually is, and so America, the United Kingdom and low-tax, booming Ireland come at the bottom of its table of material wellbeing, even though that figure of 50 per cent of median income is more than three times higher in America than in Hungary.

It is true that people do feel the pain of difference if their neighbours seem richer than they, but is that really worse than a situation in which you are, literally, getting poorer? If your annual income is, say, £20,000, it is surely worse when it falls to £19,000 than when it goes up to £21,000, while your neighbour, who was previously on £40,000, goes up to £43,000.

"The cutting edge of poverty," the report says, "is the contrast, daily perceived, between the lives of the poor and the lives of those around them." This would appear to endorse the view, castigated by the very same people, that children can only feel properly valued if they have the same expensive trainers as their peers.

So what the report ends up saying is that Scandinavian and northern countries, such as Holland, are good because they spend lots of public money on childcare. Southern European countries are good, too, because, although they don't spend enough money on childcare, they are warm-hearted and eat meals together.

Guess who's terrible? The English-speakers of course, the beastly, heartless Anglo-Saxons who, until now, have paid so little attention to the opinions of the Social Policy Research Unit of the University of York.

I think the out-datedness of the material is seriously relevant here. All Northern European countries are now encountering deep problems with their welfare states, and are reining them in. All Southern European countries now have very small families, and so are facing the loneliness known for longer in the north.

The report clucks its tongue at the fact that OECD welfare spending is rising much faster on healthcare and pensions than on children, but does not ask why. It is because very few children are being born now compared with 30 years ago, and lots of people are growing old.

The plight of children in Europe today is closely related to our collective decision to stop having them. One consequence is a decline of hope. But population trends are not considered in the report. Nor does the word "marriage" appear in it, as far as I can see, at all. It really isn't a very helpful document.

Perhaps this doesn't matter. Perhaps the important thing is that the public conversation is now on the right subject. It certainly fits with Mr Cameron's desire to concentrate more on the quality of life than the quantity of money.

He said yesterday: "If it comes to a collision between our wealth as a nation and the wellbeing of families - I choose families." The Conservatives, he says, once produced an economic revival: now they must produce a social one.

He is right about where our anxieties lie, and right, in a rather unspecific sort of way, about how the answers have to do with more personal responsibility, more common sense, more society and less state.

But why frame the argument as a "collision" between economic success and family life? There are many ills in the upbringing of children in Britain today, and some of them certainly have to do with the false idea that anything you can buy is better than anything you cannot. I cannot think of any society, however, which has helped its most vulnerable members by choosing to get poorer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/17/do1701.xml

[Sharkattack]

"There are going to be situations where people are going to go without assistance. That's just the facts of life."

Los Angeles Chief of Police, Darryl Gates, 1993 referring to the L.A. Riots


This should be the South African Police Service motto.

Our citizens have to rely on private security companies to react to intruders on their property as the cops arrive days later.

[Laworkerbee]

This should be the South African Police Service motto.

Our citizens have to rely on private security companies to react to intruders on their property as the cops arrive days later.

Same here in Los Angeles

[cbreedon]

This should be the South African Police Service motto.

Our citizens have to rely on private security companies to react to intruders on their property as the cops arrive days later.

are you serious... days????

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Socialism is the answer.

[cbreedon]

Socialism is the answer.


Workers paradise, eh comrade.. :-)

it has worked so well in the past.

[sferrin]

Shouldnt the UN be doing something useful like peacekeeping or solving world hunger?

Why when it's so much more fulfilling to say "America and her best friend the UK suck"?

[chuckster]

'A turning point in our history - or kids' stuff?
By Charles Moore

One of the great skills in modern life is knowing how to get your own view about anything entrenched in people's minds. This is what academics are always trying to do. Generally, they fail, because almost no one reads their work.

The answer, therefore, is to produce a "report", which sounds much better than a mere expression of opinions, and to push it out under the aegis of some organisation that people have heard of. The media then read and regurgitate the report's "executive summary" (the first page) and a couple of charts, and what started life as a lonely little PhD suddenly becomes universal "fact".

This week's "Report Card", An Overview of Child Wellbeing in Rich Countries, produced by Unicef, is, in this narrow sense, a work of genius. It became, in headlines, a "UN report", and, in no time at all, the press was stating as fact that Britain is (I quote from the Independent) "the worst country in the Western world in which to be a child".

Add the coincidence of the shocking shooting of teenagers in south London and you quickly had hundreds of hand-wringing articles about the state of British children, to which this column is a modest addition.

If you look more closely at the Report Card, you notice a couple of things. First, it contains no new facts; indeed, it contains entirely old facts, using data that are several years out of date. Second, although it is based on comparisons with OECD countries, it is a British piece of work. As far as I can see, all the authors are British, or British-based.

Indeed, when you pursue the footnotes, you see that the report contains no research of its own. It rehashes the work of something called the Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York. In 2005, J. Bradshaw and E. Mayhew produced a document there called The Wellbeing of Children in the UK, full of sentences such as, "In interacting with the different systems and subsystems children and their families encounter both barriers and facilitators". What the Report Card does is to translate their work into English.

Thus do two obscure dons grab control of the national policy agenda. Yesterday David Cameron said that the Report Card should "mark a turning point in the history of our country"!

It would not be exactly true to say that this report only tells us what we all know already. I certainly did not know, for example, that 30 per cent of young Japanese agree with the proposition "I feel lonely", whereas only five per cent of British children do so (footnote: the report keeps speaking about UK children, but mentions sotto voce that all its data come from England alone).

I was also interested to learn that as many as 15 per cent of Belgian children say "I feel awkward and out of place". Thirty-eight per cent of Norwegian children, but only seven per cent of Finns, say "I like school a lot", and 80 per cent of Swiss children find their peers "kind and helpful", while only 42 per cent of the British say the same of theirs. Eighty per cent of Norwegian babies are still being partially breast-fed at six months, but only 10 per cent of those awkward and out-of-place Belgians (who also, strangely, come top of the chart for the educational wellbeing of children). Fascinating.

But in essence the Report Card is based on the usual social democratic view that high levels of public spending on things to do with children make society better, whereas the increase in the personal wealth of the population does not. In other words, more money is good, but not if people are allowed to choose what to do with it.

The Report Card castigates the effect of poverty, but looks at poverty almost solely in relative terms. Its key figure is "the percentage of children living in homes with equivalent incomes below 50 per cent of the national median". This allows it to take no account of how rich a country actually is, and so America, the United Kingdom and low-tax, booming Ireland come at the bottom of its table of material wellbeing, even though that figure of 50 per cent of median income is more than three times higher in America than in Hungary.

It is true that people do feel the pain of difference if their neighbours seem richer than they, but is that really worse than a situation in which you are, literally, getting poorer? If your annual income is, say, £20,000, it is surely worse when it falls to £19,000 than when it goes up to £21,000, while your neighbour, who was previously on £40,000, goes up to £43,000.

"The cutting edge of poverty," the report says, "is the contrast, daily perceived, between the lives of the poor and the lives of those around them." This would appear to endorse the view, castigated by the very same people, that children can only feel properly valued if they have the same expensive trainers as their peers.

So what the report ends up saying is that Scandinavian and northern countries, such as Holland, are good because they spend lots of public money on childcare. Southern European countries are good, too, because, although they don't spend enough money on childcare, they are warm-hearted and eat meals together.

Guess who's terrible? The English-speakers of course, the beastly, heartless Anglo-Saxons who, until now, have paid so little attention to the opinions of the Social Policy Research Unit of the University of York.

I think the out-datedness of the material is seriously relevant here. All Northern European countries are now encountering deep problems with their welfare states, and are reining them in. All Southern European countries now have very small families, and so are facing the loneliness known for longer in the north.

The report clucks its tongue at the fact that OECD welfare spending is rising much faster on healthcare and pensions than on children, but does not ask why. It is because very few children are being born now compared with 30 years ago, and lots of people are growing old.

The plight of children in Europe today is closely related to our collective decision to stop having them. One consequence is a decline of hope. But population trends are not considered in the report. Nor does the word "marriage" appear in it, as far as I can see, at all. It really isn't a very helpful document.

Perhaps this doesn't matter. Perhaps the important thing is that the public conversation is now on the right subject. It certainly fits with Mr Cameron's desire to concentrate more on the quality of life than the quantity of money.

He said yesterday: "If it comes to a collision between our wealth as a nation and the wellbeing of families - I choose families." The Conservatives, he says, once produced an economic revival: now they must produce a social one.

He is right about where our anxieties lie, and right, in a rather unspecific sort of way, about how the answers have to do with more personal responsibility, more common sense, more society and less state.

But why frame the argument as a "collision" between economic success and family life? There are many ills in the upbringing of children in Britain today, and some of them certainly have to do with the false idea that anything you can buy is better than anything you cannot. I cannot think of any society, however, which has helped its most vulnerable members by choosing to get poorer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/17/do1701.xml

Amen to that! The 'researchers' decide ahead of time what they think is important and then build an index emphasizing just that. Then, surprise, surprise, the results of their study say they are exactly right!

[Smersh]

and so continues the UN conspiracy to ruin nations with reports and studies.