A Crazy Fact You Need To Know When Arguing Politics

[Playinghardball]

This chart shows rates of child poverty among developed countries. Err, American exceptionalism, anyone? (Hint: scroll to the bottom.)


Found on MoveOn.org

[corkhead]

1. apparently Mexico, Brazil, and China are not "developed countries"?

[Warpy]

2. Not really

While parts of the countries are industrialized and modern, much of the rest of the countries exist the same way they did 500 years ago.

[corkhead]

3. Luxenbourg and Romania is on the list, but Russia and India are not.

This chart appears to have been "Fox'd" by Moveon imho.

[Scootaloo]

5. Because 23% of Americna children living in poverty is perfectly okay...

So long as you can look at China and say "well, they're doing worse!"

[corkhead]

9. That's not my point. It is a misleading chart.

I am not defending the US record on child poverty, to see the list of countries that are doing better is appalling. I just happened to notice that none of the countries I imagined might be worse than the US are even on the list. I hate it when the right skews charts and hate it even more when our side does it. We're supposed to be better than that.

Moveon came up with some sort of parsed data to make sure the US was at the very bottom of the list to make their point. Its bad enough that there are 34 countries doing better than the US, but I find it disingenuous that there are numerous countries not listed, and every one of them I can think of are probably worse than the US and none of them I can think of are likely to be better.

My beef is with Moveon looking like a left leaning version of Fox news by distorting this data. It makes it difficult to refute "both sides do it"

[Scootaloo]

11. I'm sorry, but that IS your point.

If nations that are doing worse than the US were on the chart, they would be... well... Lower than the US on the chart. Our ranking would stay the same. That Malawi is doing worse does not improve our situation at all, does it? No, it just lets you go "whew, those motherfuckers are still way behind us!" and feel better about our own miserable position.

This is not "parsed" data, constructed to convey an eeeeeeeevil liberal plot against America. The data is what it is - Our child poverty rate is 23.1%. Period. End of story, that's all you need to know. Yes, Bolivia has a 69% child poverty rate, and that's really fucking bad, but prancing that number out with the sole agenda of making ourselves look better by comparison - which is exactly what you are asking for - is cynical in the extreme, in addition to missing the entire fucking point.

Your "beef" still looks like you getting sniffy about how the story isn't about what a shitty job someone else is doing, and is instead about what a shitty job you're doing.

[corkhead]

12. the OP says "(Hint: scroll to the bottom.)" which implies we are at the bottom

Moveon distorted the chart for shock value.

"Our child poverty rate is 23.1%. Period. End of story, that's all you need to know."

perhaps that is true, but the chart wasn't designed that way. It makes Billo Riley look correct for constantly billowing about Moveon.

You STILL don't seem to get my fucking point.

[Scootaloo]

14. How is it distorted?

I mean, aside from not sufficiently soothing your jingo-ego? If anyone's sounding like Billo, it's... not the graphic from moveon.

it would be a distortion if the US were artificially lower (or higher) than it is placed. The data puts us at #34. if we included EVERY NATION ON EARTH from Albania to Zimbabwe, we would still be #34 (unless some unlisted nation actually has lower child poverty than we do; that's right, we can only move down from the position that graph has us at.) There would be over a hundred nations below us, of course which I suppose would make you feel better, but it wouldn't alter our position.

[tkmorris]

16. You seem VERY determined...

to not hear what is being said to you.

The chart illustrates something that is quite true, which is that the rate of poverty amongst children in the United States is appalling. No one is arguing that point.

What you adamantly refuse to acknowledge is that the chart also deliberately is constructed to make that comparison worse than it actually is. Our child poverty rate is plenty awful enough, it doesn't NEED to be exaggerated (through selective comparisons to other countries) to make it seem worse.

What's more you apparently think it's acceptable, when someone points out that they are not comfortable with this sort of thing, to accuse them of having a "jingo-ego", and sounding like Bill O'Reilly. Really? This is the way you speak to fellow Democrats who have a different perspective than you? I think you need to settle down and remember that we are all on the same side here.

[corkhead]

22. Thank you. It appears you understand the point I was trying to make.

Paul Simonon also understands.

[Scootaloo]

23. I'm hearing it; it's just what I'm hearing is completely meaningless

And not in the least based on reality. Others beside myself have been explaining this, and it's seeming like the only person not paying attention is the fellow you are rushing to back up.

You might want to pick your horses a little better - just 'cause they shit in the same stable doesn't mean they can all run equally well.

[corkhead]

21. My jingo ego? You are not comprehending what I have written.

They distorted the chart by leaving everyone off the list that is worse than the US except for Romania for some reason. Why didn't they just number the list and show the US as number 35? That would make the same point without misleading the reader. They deliberately designed the chart to make it look like the US is the second worst in the world.

I have the impression that you feel that the "ends justify the means" to make a point and I disagree. They could have easily made the same point without distorting the chart.

I will say it again, I am not defending the US record on child poverty, or rationalizing it by wanting to see the list of countries that are worse. I am commenting specifically on Moveon's propagandistic tactics, which are usually only in the right wing toolbox. I am sorry I have not been able to articulate that in a way that you would be able to understand this nuance.

[Scootaloo]

24. I'm comprehending just fine; I just think your point is dumb

And I'm telling you why I think this, since I'm not a fan of just going "that's dumb," and leaving it at that.

Other posters have explained to you that this list compares developed countries. Now your holdup seems to be your belief that this is an arbitrary distinction; it's not, educate yourself. No, Mexico, Brazil, India and China are not counted as developed countries. They are counted as developing countries.

Interestingly, Romania is not classed as a developed country. So how about we take that one out... oh dear, that puts the US at the bottom of the list, doesn't it? Maybe someone had the same conniption as you and felt bad about the US being rock-bottom among developed countries, and decided to give it a little padding from an underdeveloped country?

Which brings us to where you and I are having our problem. Your argument amounts to you simply wanting to pad out the bottom of the chart in a purely cosmetic effort to make the US look better. We could toss India and Ghana and Tajikistan and Papua-New Guinea on that list, sure. And it would make a nice bundle of long stripes at the very bottom. But it wouldn't actually change the US' position, would it?

While you are (ignorantly) griping about "distortion" and "propaganda" - tellingly, in a snivelly "BOTH SIDES DO IT!!!!!" manner - you are actually asking for distortion and propaganda; you want irrelevant statistics added, for no reason other than to make the US look better by comparison against underdeveloped countries.

So yes. Your jingo ego.

[corkhead]

26. I have made the mistake of engaging you on what I meant to be a relatively small point

and I have blown it way out of proportion by trying to defend something I didn't even say. I regret trying to discuss it with you. You are just an instigator. Have you enjoyed your uncivil name calling and provocation?

no, don't answer that, I am not interested in your answer.

[Scootaloo]

40. Your small point was the thrust of your entire post

That the numbers are "distorted" and thus moveon is "just like fox news."

I haven't called you any names. I've stated that your arguments are dumb and ignorant. I've pointed out the basis of your posting is that you are unhappy that the US is not - falsely - being cast in a better light is jingoism. I understand you don't like this, but it's not me throwing insults and name-calling at you.

Next time you want to rant about how someone is engaged in lies and propaganda and is "just like fox news" maybe you'll remember this and decide to inform yourself before going off half-cocked.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. You're talking rubbish. The list is a standard one of developed countries

It is:
27 EU members
3 out of 4 EFTA members (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland)
USA
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Japan

So the nearest to a 'missing' country is the other ETFA member - microstate Liechtenstein. Being a prosperous state of about 35,000 in between Switzerland and Austria, without anything that could be called a 'slum' or 'sink estate', I bet they are above the USA too:

Since 2002, Liechtenstein's rate of unemployment has doubled. In 2008, it stood at 1.5%...Liechtensteiners have an average life expectancy at birth of 80.31 years, male: 76.86 years, female: 83.77 years (2011 est.). The infant mortality rate is 4.64 deaths per 1,000 live births, according to recent estimates. The literacy rate of Liechtenstein is 100%. The Programme for International Student Assessment, coordinated by the OECD, currently ranks Liechtenstein's education as the 10th best in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein

You claim "I am not...rationalizing it by wanting to see the list of countries that are worse". Yes. Yes, you are. That's exactly what you say you want. You say "They deliberately designed the chart to make it look like the US is the second worst in the world.". No. It says "developed countries", right at the top of the OP. Go back and check. This is an eminently reasonable list of 'developed countries'. If I were to add more, I'd suggest Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore ...

You think this is MoveOn doing something satanically left wing and America-hating? OK, let's look at recent figures from the OECD. 40 countries (34 OECD members, plus 6 EU members that aren't in the OECD - Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania) - those that aren't in MoveOn's list are South Korea, Chile, Turkey, Mexico and Israel. Wey-hey, the USA managed to do better than Chile, Turkey, Mexico and Israel. Do that really make you feel better? USA now 35th. But not as bad as Mexico! America, fuck yeah!

[corkhead]

31. I concede I did not understand THIS definition of "developed countries" when I started

if that had been clearer to me, I wouldn't have had to waste so much time on this thread defending myself against things I didn't say.

[hfojvt]

15. the OP says "among developed countries"

tiny little Luxembourg is one of the richest countries in the world - per capita. The IMF puts them second only to Qatar.

Russia I would consider to be a developed country, at least as much as Estonia, Hungary and Czechia but India is one of the poorest countries in the world - having a per capita GDP of about $3,500 compared to $20,000 for Russia, $23,000 for Slovakia, $34,000 for France, $47,000 for the USA and $86,000 for Luxembourg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

I mean, isn't it pretty sad that as a society we have an extra $13,000 per person to divide up than France and yet our child poverty rate is 23% and theirs is only 9%?. Because we have so many people in this country, apparently, who make over $90,000 a year and they say "fuck the poor, I want more for ME, ME, ME!!!"

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Look it up. The standards such as they are for such things

place Russia and India in the 'Developing Economies' category. Luxembourg is one of the most developed nations and has a staggering per capita income. Number One GDP in fact. Not sure what other than size would lead you to think that it is undeveloped or developing....
The MoveOn list is accurate and up to date....sorry.

[corkhead]

10. the "standards" appear to be suspiciously designed to suit Moveon's point.

please read my redundant post above...

[DanTex]

20. To be honest, your "concern" here is bordering on preposterous.

I've never seen China, India, Russia, or Mexico considered a developed nation for the purpose of this kind of study. On the other hand, Luxembourg is a very wealthy nation, by some measures the single wealthiest nation in the world. Romania is not, so arguably it shouldn't be on the list, but you'll notice that if Romania isn't included, then the US holds last place rather than second-to-last, so the inclusion of Romania in fact hurts your argument that the data has been "FOX'd"

But the biggest flaw in your argument is that the chart actually comes from a UNICEF report on child poverty, not moveon. Do you think UNICEF "FOXed" up their data? Or maybe you need to let go of some of that "both sides do it" suspicion...

http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf

[corkhead]

28. OK the data came from UNICEF.

It is comprised mostly of countries that are members of the EU (+ Norway & Iceland) plus 6 others that happened to have data available. I am not at all surprised that the US is at the bottom of this list and it is shameful. IMHO I think they could have made their point more honestly by making that more clear. The resulting chart and the OP comments implied that it was a an all inclusive list and I was mislead by it. That was all I was trying to say.

Here is a quote from the PDF you referenced. The selection of the additional 6 that included the US could be interpreted as being a bit arbitrary, but I am tired of being accused of being a jingoist for pointing that out.

Which countries
are included?
Data on child deprivation rates
are drawn from the 2009 round
of the European Union Statistics
on Income and Living Conditions
and are therefore available for 29
countries, i.e. all 27 countries of
the European Union plus Norway
and Iceland. Most of these (23
out of 29) are also members of
the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development
(OECD). The exceptions are
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta and Romania,
which are EU member states,
but not members of the OECD.
Data on relative child poverty
rates are also available for six
additional OECD countries
(Australia, Canada, Japan,
New Zealand, Switzerland, and
the United States). The analysis
of relative child poverty therefore
includes the following 35
countries:
Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malta, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom,
United States.

[hfojvt]

37. well, teacher that I am (formerly)

I tried to explain things, but my post was seemingly ignored (not replied to).

In the internet discussion world vinegar (snark) draws more flies (replies) than honey (civil discussion).

I still think that Russia and perhaps some others should be on the list. Otherwise the defintion of "developed" seems to be somewhat arbitrary.

[corkhead]

41. Agreed, and thank you.

I was too busy responding to what I felt were personal attacks to pay more attention to your original post. Sorry about that. I made what I thought to be an honest observation about what my own definition of "developing countries" was, but giving the benefit of the doubt, it was either interpreted as being jingoistic, or I was dealing with people just set on picking a fight.

I am still not sure I agree with how the list of "developed countries" was created, but I have lost my taste for discussing further. I have learned my lesson.

I find it ironic that all of this hostility was on a thread about something caring people care about: child poverty.

Live and learn I guess.

[Logical]

25. Lol, you realize how any countries are better than us? You sound....

More like fox with your "well, we are better than china! Go USA", lol, what a joke!

[corkhead]

27. You know I didn't come anywhere close to saying that. Read the rest of what I said.

First I will answer your question; 34 were listed in the graph and perhaps there are more that are not listed. That number was stated in one of my earlier posts if you would have read it before you put imaginary words in my mouth.

I wish you and others on this thread would redirect your energy toward the real enemies instead of distorting a minor point I made about how the way the graph was presented.

I stand by what I said and I am sorry I got baited into this ridiculous argument.

What a bunch of jackals.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. YOU got baited?

You wrote reply #1! Everyone has just had to spend this time explaining to you the concept of 'developed country', which was in the OP.

[corkhead]

32. along with personal attacks and quotations of things I never said.

I bow to your superior intellect.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. By reply #3, you had accused MoveOn of behaving like Fox

without having tried to see how the list of countries was drawn up, or by whom. No-one 'baited' you into that. You leapt to the conclusion that this was 'propaganda'. You actually said this makes it look like "both sides do it".

Seriously, are you surprised that people reacted to a bunch of right wing talking points like that?

[corkhead]

35. In hindsight I see it, but I obviously didn't realize it was flamebait at the time.

I admit to being a rube when it comes to this specific definition of "developed countries". I think that was apparent from my very first post on this thread. I still believe however that to a casual reader like myself who isn't aware of this specific definition, the chart looks distorted, hence the ill advised "fox'd" comment. It was honestly how it looked to me.

I do believe however that it would have been far more productive if someone had tried to be more civil in educating me about this before now, but instead I was attacked and had words put into my mouth. Thanks for taking a minute to be helpful in my understanding instead of being just another one poking me with a stick.

I sure hope everyone on this thread is fighting Republicons with the same passion and vigor.

[Logical]

38. Lol, defending 34th! Classic!

[corkhead]

42. .

[Left Coast2020]

43. From the statistics I've seen, China is not a developed country.

I also lived there. So I can say that Shenyang (Liaoning Province) is not developed. Although they are trying to develop, but the nasty costs of living seem to be getting in the way.

[ashling]

4. Obviously, all of those poor children have chosen to live in America

because America is so exceptional. Its the free market at work.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. BUT....we have the world's mightiest military...that can't win wars.

An achievement that requires hungry kids to finance it.

[spanone]

8. america in a nutshell

[dinopipie]

13. The Majority of Americans are Exceptionally Ignorant when it comes to politics

Which is the very definition of American Exceptionalism

[Swede]

17. How the USA sees Europe.

[a la izquierda]

36. My European friends always get a kick our of this.

Especially the Spaniards.

[bhikkhu]

18. The method seems a little screwy

...poverty is certainly a problem here, and I don't think we do enough for the children - especially when it comes to education (poor areas have poor schools and poor results, perpetuating poverty, as an example) -

But look at the standard - the "median" is more or less the middle. 50% of the median more or less divides the lower half into half, so you could say the method divides the whole into quarters. Then, you could read the result as saying that 23.1% of the children in the US live in households in the bottom 25% of income?

Isn't that a bit like the legendary * statement of shock that 50% of the people in the country are below average?

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. No; the median is the income level with half of the population above, half below

This then says "halve that income", not "halve that number of people".

Look at any distribution of income of a country, and you see that very few households have almost no income - you don't get many households with under $1,000, for instance (because it's impossible to run a household with that little - people with that small an income end up homeless). So the distribution of people is not even. There is typically a large number of people with modest incomes, that tails away as income gets higher. In most developed countries, the median is close to the large bunch, in income terms - most people are within striking distance of it. In the USA, a large number of children are in families well below that median - they'd need to double their income, or more, to reach it. It's an indication of high inequality, as it affects children - who cannot do anything to alter their circumstances.

Example:

[bhikkhu]

39. But if every economy can be divided similarly

doesn't it say more about the birth rates within the income divisions than it does about the poverty itself?

[whatchamacallit]

19. This is why it's hard for me to care who rules this dumbass nation

Wrong is in our DNA.