NZ - poverty myth.
Nov 28th 2005, 3:14 pm
#31
Memetchi
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 201
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
Originally Posted by Apollo10
The thread started is called NZ Poverty Myth. It is not a myth. There is poverty in NZ.
Originally Posted by apollo10
Pointy fingers at the UK ... will not make the problem here disappear.
Nov 28th 2005, 7:28 pm
#32
Nice Tats
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: PARADISE DARN SARRF
Posts: 819
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
Originally Posted by tottefan
Everyone knows that NZ isn't a third world country. The life expectancy, literacy rates, average salaries etc. prove this. Of course, that doesn't mean that having to support a family there is probably easy, but children there don't die of malnutrition, poor health etc.
Children probably don't have as many toys, nice clothes, and it's probably harder for parents to pay the bills, but I don't think people there suffer the effects of 'serious' poverty.
In other words, of course there's poverty, but nothing too serious. People do not live in tiny little huts with no electricity, running water etc. That is what I call poverty!
tottefan.
Children probably don't have as many toys, nice clothes, and it's probably harder for parents to pay the bills, but I don't think people there suffer the effects of 'serious' poverty.
In other words, of course there's poverty, but nothing too serious. People do not live in tiny little huts with no electricity, running water etc. That is what I call poverty!
tottefan.
Nov 28th 2005, 7:33 pm
#33
Nice Tats
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: PARADISE DARN SARRF
Posts: 819
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
Originally Posted by cypherpunk
Good, because the UK child poverty level is within statistical noise distance of the NZ child poverty level, three places up the league table at 15.4% vs 16.3% (before housing costs I assume). http://www.unicef.org/brazil/repcard6e.pdf
Nov 28th 2005, 8:36 pm
#34
`
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 38,612
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
I doubt that Unicef or Save the Children use hype.
Its an interesting point, well made IMO, Pompey Paul.
Its an interesting point, well made IMO, Pompey Paul.
US high in UN child poverty table
Higher government spending on families is needed, the UN says
The US has one of the highest rates of relative child poverty among the world's wealthiest countries, according to a report by the UN.
The US, which is second only to Mexico in the UN children's agency report, is nonetheless one of few countries to see a recent decline in child poverty.
In total, Unicef says up to 50 million children are living in poverty in rich nations and the figure is rising.
Children in Nordic countries are best off, due to higher social spending.
Unicef looked at 24 of the 30 states in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) - a Paris-based group of the world's wealthiest nations.
The figures refer to relative poverty defined as households with income per head below 50% of the national average.
Its Child Poverty in Rich Countries report found that the number of children living in poverty had risen in 17 of those countries over the past decade.
"No matter which of the commonly used poverty measures is applied, the situation of children is seen to have deteriorated over the last decade," the report says.
National wealth
Even in the few countries where deprivation is declining the rate can remain high - as is the case in the US, where about 22% of those aged under 18 are still living in relative poverty.
Similarly, the UK still has 15% of the child population below the poverty line despite government campaigns which have led to a 10% drop.
Unicef regional director Philip O'Brien stressed that the figures were relative to the average household income of the countries involved, rather than their national wealth.
Higher government spending on family and social benefits is very clearly associated with a lower level of child poverty
Philip O'Brien
Unicef regional director
"The child living in poverty in the US is clearly not as badly off as the child in Mexico," he said.
Top of the table are Denmark and Finland, where child poverty levels are less than 3%, while Norway and Sweden follow close behind.
Unicef praised the Nordic nations for their social spending on families.
"Higher government spending on family and social benefits is very clearly associated with a lower level of child poverty," said Mr O'Brien.
He said market forces could not on their own lift children out of poverty and urged direct intervention through greater government spending.
Only the US, the UK, Australia and Norway have had significant drops in child deprivation, according to the figures supplied to the OECD over the past 15 years.
Higher government spending on families is needed, the UN says
The US has one of the highest rates of relative child poverty among the world's wealthiest countries, according to a report by the UN.
The US, which is second only to Mexico in the UN children's agency report, is nonetheless one of few countries to see a recent decline in child poverty.
In total, Unicef says up to 50 million children are living in poverty in rich nations and the figure is rising.
Children in Nordic countries are best off, due to higher social spending.
Unicef looked at 24 of the 30 states in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) - a Paris-based group of the world's wealthiest nations.
The figures refer to relative poverty defined as households with income per head below 50% of the national average.
Its Child Poverty in Rich Countries report found that the number of children living in poverty had risen in 17 of those countries over the past decade.
"No matter which of the commonly used poverty measures is applied, the situation of children is seen to have deteriorated over the last decade," the report says.
National wealth
Even in the few countries where deprivation is declining the rate can remain high - as is the case in the US, where about 22% of those aged under 18 are still living in relative poverty.
Similarly, the UK still has 15% of the child population below the poverty line despite government campaigns which have led to a 10% drop.
Unicef regional director Philip O'Brien stressed that the figures were relative to the average household income of the countries involved, rather than their national wealth.
Higher government spending on family and social benefits is very clearly associated with a lower level of child poverty
Philip O'Brien
Unicef regional director
"The child living in poverty in the US is clearly not as badly off as the child in Mexico," he said.
Top of the table are Denmark and Finland, where child poverty levels are less than 3%, while Norway and Sweden follow close behind.
Unicef praised the Nordic nations for their social spending on families.
"Higher government spending on family and social benefits is very clearly associated with a lower level of child poverty," said Mr O'Brien.
He said market forces could not on their own lift children out of poverty and urged direct intervention through greater government spending.
Only the US, the UK, Australia and Norway have had significant drops in child deprivation, according to the figures supplied to the OECD over the past 15 years.
Nov 29th 2005, 12:24 am
#35
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 91
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
You're right the person that started this thread just wanted to start a big squabble on the board.
For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying that NZ doesn't have poverty, I just contest what some people have said on here about NZ being practically a third world country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End of discussion.
tottefan.
Nov 29th 2005, 12:27 am
#36
Banned
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,467
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
Originally Posted by tottefan
What a load of cra*. I clearly stated that NZ has a worse standard of living than the UK at least 2 or 3 times.
For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying that NZ doesn't have poverty, I just contest what some people have said on here about NZ being practically a third world country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End of discussion.
tottefan.
For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying that NZ doesn't have poverty, I just contest what some people have said on here about NZ being practically a third world country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End of discussion.
tottefan.
Nov 29th 2005, 12:31 am
#37
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 81
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
Originally Posted by tottefan
What a load of cra*. I clearly stated that NZ has a worse standard of living than the UK at least 2 or 3 times.
For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying that NZ doesn't have poverty, I just contest what some people have said on here about NZ being practically a third world country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End of discussion.
tottefan.
For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying that NZ doesn't have poverty, I just contest what some people have said on here about NZ being practically a third world country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End of discussion.
tottefan.
Some aspects would be considered being like that of the third world...or have you not read those posts....have you changed your opinion at all or are you still entrenching in the fact that NZ is first class all the same.
Anyway what is it you have set out to achieve by this post....
Nov 29th 2005, 12:35 am
#38
Banned
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 20
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
I have never been happy with the definition of 'poverty' as a level of income some way below the median. Poverty can easily be measured in more absolute terms, eg a definition that would look at the number of people without adequate shelter, nutrition, education etc.
As far as the UK, NZ or any of the OECD countries are concerned, virtually NOBODY lives in poverty unless through choice.
cheers - Quackers
As far as the UK, NZ or any of the OECD countries are concerned, virtually NOBODY lives in poverty unless through choice.
cheers - Quackers
Nov 29th 2005, 12:52 am
#39
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 81
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
Originally Posted by auldduck
I have never been happy with the definition of 'poverty' as a level of income some way below the median. Poverty can easily be measured in more absolute terms, eg a definition that would look at the number of people without adequate shelter, nutrition, education etc.
As far as the UK, NZ or any of the OECD countries are concerned, virtually NOBODY lives in poverty unless through choice.
cheers - Quackers
As far as the UK, NZ or any of the OECD countries are concerned, virtually NOBODY lives in poverty unless through choice.
cheers - Quackers
...
Nov 29th 2005, 9:17 pm
#40
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 91
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
No you were trying to imply that the poverty in NZ wasn't " real poverty" by your standards......
to say that poverty is rife in NZ is a load of cra*. After all, it is a first-world country with very little 'serious' poverty.
Another of my old quotes;
In other words, of course there's poverty, but nothing too serious
tottefan.
Nov 29th 2005, 9:52 pm
#41
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: I'm a Brit who's lived in Auckland for the last 2 years
Posts: 136
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
In reply to Tottefan:
Yeah but you also said that no-one lives in tin huts with no water or electricity which was an incorrect statement so what do you know?
Yeah but you also said that no-one lives in tin huts with no water or electricity which was an incorrect statement so what do you know?
Nov 29th 2005, 10:22 pm
#42
Don't let me get me....
Joined: May 2005
Location: Teetering on the edge...
Posts: 1,964
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
Originally Posted by NZ Climber
In reply to Tottefan:
Yeah but you also said that no-one lives in tin huts with no water or electricity which was an incorrect statement so what do you know?
Yeah but you also said that no-one lives in tin huts with no water or electricity which was an incorrect statement so what do you know?
Nov 29th 2005, 11:27 pm
#43
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: I'm a Brit who's lived in Auckland for the last 2 years
Posts: 136
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
Originally Posted by Pinkie Pie
No, no, he said 'tiny huts' not 'tin huts'...
Nov 29th 2005, 11:35 pm
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
Not to be confused with NZ's Tinny houses.
Nov 29th 2005, 11:57 pm
#45
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 81
Re: NZ - poverty myth.
Originally Posted by tottefan
Incorrect. Using my previous quotes:
Notice the use of 'severe'. I was implying that poverty does exist in NZ (as in other countries as well), but not on the same level as the third world.
Another of my old quotes;
I think that should clarify that melting point.
tottefan.
Notice the use of 'severe'. I was implying that poverty does exist in NZ (as in other countries as well), but not on the same level as the third world.
Another of my old quotes;
I think that should clarify that melting point.
tottefan.
Well if thats what you think...YOU MUST KNOW YOU ARE RIGHT....even if that isn't the findings of what you have read on the other posts here.
Last edited by melting pot; Nov 29th 2005 at 11:59 pm.