UNICEF Report a Waste of Paper

In response to the hysteria coming from the far left, Josh Forman of slightlyleftofcentre.co.nz writes the following:

"According to UNICEF our child poverty rates have stagnated, falling only 0.4% since 2008.

The report, which tracks rates of child poverty in 41 OECD and European Union nations found that while several countries of a size comparable to New Zealand had reduced their rates of child poverty, New Zealand had barely managed to reduce the levels at all.

At nzherald.co.nz it is being reported in a way that suggests that New Zealand is doing worse than the rest of the developed world when it comes to dealing with out rate of child poverty, while thegaurdian.com is reporting that more than half of the countries measures have experienced an increase in child poverty. Surely both of these things cannot be true at the same time.

Don’t get me wrong, our rate of child poverty, neglect and abuse is appalling. But are these figures being represented accurate, useful or meaningful? Or is hysteria taking hold because poverty is a hot button topic at the minute?

According to the report itself, 23 of the 41 countries involved experienced an increase in child “poverty” since 2014 – in my mind, this means that we have done better than most. -0.4% isn’t a big fall, but it is a fall against the trend, especially where the average median income of the country has increased as it has in New Zealand, according to official statistics.

On reading the full report, I cannot help but think that the definition of child poverty uses is somewhat less than useful.

The report states the following:

"Poverty in affluent countries is usually measured using a relative
poverty line defined at either 50 per cent or 60 per cent of median
annual income. Using this approach, changes in poverty over time
reflect changes in income and changes in the distribution of income.
This report, however, uses a fixed reference point, anchored to the
relative poverty line in 2008, as a benchmark against which to
assess the absolute change in child poverty over time. This measure
is particularly useful for assessing impacts of the recession, when
incomes of the entire population may be changing, and when
individuals compare their income to that of their neighbours, as well
as to their own circumstances before the crisis.
Using a relative poverty line each year obscures the impact on
poverty of the overall decline in median income. In the United
Kingdom, for example, relative child poverty decreased from
24 per cent in 2008 to 18.6 per cent in 2012 due to a sharp decline
in median income and the subsequent lowering of the relative
poverty line. Using the anchored indicator, it actually increased from
24.0 per cent to 25.6 per cent from the start of the recession.”

In New Zealand, the median income from all sources went from $27,224pa in the June 2014 quarter to 29,120. Because, on average, we got richer between ’08 and ‘12

This measure includes benefits, wages, dividends, salaries etc. ALL sources.

The increase for salary and wage earners in this time was even higher, which gives credence to the Centrist economic view that getting beneficiaries into work is the best way of reducing poverty.

I want to see hard data that defines the actual level of poverty in this country. Arbitrary numbers such as the ones provided by UNICEF are not helpful. Praising a country for having a decrease in the overall income of its citizens, resulting in a lowering of the poverty bar is pointless. Just because everyone got poorer, it doesn't mean that those on the cusp of “poverty” who suddenly rose above the falling line are any better off.

In the New Zealand example, just because the average income went up, raising the “poverty” bar slightly and therefore bringing more people under the poverty umbrella it doesn't mean that there are any more, or any fewer poor kids out there.

This report is not worth the paper it is written on. It provides statistical ambiguity and nothing in the way of solutions."

ends

© Scoop Media