US & UK are worst places for childrens' well-being

[DanaC]

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.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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.

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.