They are a lot like the US whether they want to admit it or not so yes.

I doubt anybody would deny our cultural similarities. I do doubt that the UN despises us enough to trump up a fake report about how happy our children are.

Dana, I've a report on my desk that says you haven't fed the sheep.
The fact you don't have any sheep does not make my report inaccurate or trumped up.
The value of the report depends on the parameters used to gather data.
I think the UN uses the wrong parameters (and methodology, but that's another case), to determine the results. :(

I don't doubt that they use the wrong parameters....my point is I doubt it's out of malicious intent. UNICEF, who conducted this study, have an ulterior motive, but I suspect their ulterior motive is more to with trying to shock the wealthy nations into action, rather than to slander us out of malice.

"Happy" what a fucking joke... you don't see them moving out of the US and UK to Uganda en-mass do you?
THINK people!

Bad science is malicious by definition. Always view with suspicion the scientist with an agenda. Real science doesn't have agendas or biases other than determining and describing objective truth.

Now having read the report in detail, I find it to be junk science of the tallest order. Ignoring cultural biases, relying on children's self-reporting, telling half the story, examining only a few measures that might or might not be meaningful.

There are some real WTF points in there. As part of material well-being, they actually measure whether a child is in a home that's under their country's national median of income. Thus, a child in the 51st percentile of income in the Czech Republic counts as well-off, while a child in the 49th percentile in the US or UK is at risk.

Minor differences in certain figures are given more meaning. In almost all richer countries, between 8-12% of children report having smoked tobacco. Are the 12% countries really so much worse off, or is it just statistical noise? The UK gets a huge nudge in the "risky behaviors" section because 38% of its 15-year-olds have gotten laid and 32% have gotten drunk. Perhaps, but in a cultural context does it really mean the children are more at risk, or is it simply allowing riskier behavior in a safer environment?

When I was a lad of 14, the parental strategy in America was to not allow any drinking at home, while the strategy in England was to allow drinking ONLY at home. I think the Brits wound up more sauced but more healthily sauced, more safely sauced, with fewer binge drinkers, fewer driving drinkers, and a better overall notion of alcohol. (I'm sure things have changed and this is only an example.) These kinds of cultural subtleties are lost on the report.

As we all instinctively understand, whether children have "well-being" or not is probably very difficult to measure, and picking measurements here and there wouldn't tell us as much as living in the culture and seeing how much children are valued.

By focusing on the children in the cultures where they are valued the most highly, UNICEF has chosen NOT to advocate for the children who are really the worst-off in the world. Watching the UN, you do notice that this is its modus operandi. Pick the "low-hanging fruit" of criticizing the rich countries -- because it's easy and everybody is in favor of doing that -- and not the harder work of getting clean water to the children of Africa, a huge number of whom will die for lack of that simple commodity.

So does UNICEF value children? You have to doubt it.

What about considering the differences between the countries at the top and the ones lower down the list instead of arguing about why the US and UK are where they are in isolation?

What are the cultural and or social differences that influence the results?

Maybe there's something to be said for more liberal societies which is what we see in many western european countries. The same ones that seem to have done well in this study.

The study is identically flawed for all positions. It doesn't matter whether you consider it from the point of view of the bottom or the top.

That may be so UT. I think it's important for everyone to recognise that even if this study were perfect (and of course, no study is ever completely flawless) there aren't any third world countries listed anyway, so arguments about jealousy etc are really pointless because most of these affluent nations listed would generally be considered desirable places to raise children in comparison to the alternative.

And anyway, when they were doing this study, we here in Australia decided not to participate. That's why there's not enough data for us. We did this intentionally so that everyone wouldn't want to move here to bring up their kidliwinkses. Since you're all so wonderful though, I thought I'd share this little secret with you. ;)

A Brit by the name of Neal Asher commented on this report.

That's the first paragraph which sets the tone.
It's worth reading.;)

Yeah, nothing like a bit of anti-poor, thatcherite bile to put one in a good mood.

Hmmmm. Blahblahblah - there are only poor these days because of the current government.... blahblahblah things are worse than they have ever been blahblahblah.....

Obviously never read Dickens or the Bible - the poor are always with us.

It was worth reading though.

That really pissed me off. Yeah, a lot of people living on council estates are unemployed, but not all. Not even most on many estates. Nor are all families broken, all parents dishevelled or all children hopeless. That sort of shit really really aggravates me. It's as prejudiced as saying all black men abandon their children. Prejudice against someone because of their race or colour is unacceptabe in modern western society, but prejudice against people on low incomes is somehow still acceptable.

Dana, have you been living under a rock? Poor people WANT to be poor!*

*The above is total sarcasm