This comes as a suprise to me!

[Lazul]

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=427111&previousRenderType=1

In swedish, Sorry!

I knew that the poverty rate was higher in the US then in Sweden but:
in 1999 around 10% of the families had foodshortage
in 2003 that number reached 11,2%.
Doctors in the US are now worried that Bush's economical politics will increase the number even further when he cuts down on social wellfare and so on.

So, anyone have more information? (About other countries and so on) :bow:

[Al Khalifah]

That's pretty high when you consider that the urban Poverty Rate in China is only 4.7%

[econ21]

It very much depends how you define poverty. Are you sure your reference uses the same poverty line for both the US and Sweden? Beyond a certain point, country's poverty lines tend to vary proportionately with their average incomes. For example, China is likely to adopt a "$1 a day" poverty line, under which definition only around 0.5% of Chinese will be poor. But even for contemporary urban China that seems a ridiculously low line and certainly any poverty lines used for the US will be vastly higher than this. However, it would not surprise me at all that poverty, consistently measured, is higher in the US than in Sweden (presumably due to the difference in the welfare systems).

[Lazul]

Well the article doesnt say what the line for poverty is. But it did talk about "undernärda barn"... not sure how to translate it. Something like children who actually are harmed by the lack of food, their bodies are not well fed so to speak.

[Al Khalifah]

Remember the wealth distribution curve is very steep in America.

5% of the population own 95% of the capital. Do the math on Americas GDP and you soon discover that if you look outside the super wealthy, the rest of the population are relatively quite poor compared to Western European standards.

[doc_bean]

There were similar reports in articles over here. Not enough money to buy decent food for the children. Some compared it to situations found in sub-saharan Africa.

And Bush wants to cut spending on the food stamps program.

.

[Ldvs]

"undernärda barn"...
Undernourished children I guess. ~;)

There also many poor here too, although they're given enough to survive. I agree with Simon anyway. One always hears: they live with less than $1 per day, without saying what it actually represents there.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

5% of the population own 95% of the capital. Do the math on Americas GDP and you soon discover that if you look outside the super wealthy, the rest of the population are relatively quite poor compared to Western European standards.

Your out of your ever lovin mind. The average american lives better than the average european.

[Pindar]

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=427111&previousRenderType=1

In swedish, Sorry!

I knew that the poverty rate was higher in the US then in Sweden but:
in 1999 around 10% of the families had foodshortage
in 2003 that number reached 11,2%.
Doctors in the US are now worried that Bush's economical politics will increase the number even further when he cuts down on social wellfare and so on.

So, anyone have more information? (About other countries and so on) :bow:

Have you ever been to the U.S.?

[sharrukin]

The Poor and starving are not America's only problem!

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/diet/fastfood.htm

[Lazul]

Your out of your ever lovin mind. The average american lives better than the average european.

Eastern or Western Europe? usually Huuuge differences. :bow:

[Lazul]

Have you ever been to the U.S.?


whats with the smartass comment?

First of all, yes ive been there 4 times, hence the reason I wrote "This comes as a suprise to me!".

satisfied?

[_Martyr_]

Your out of your ever lovin mind. The average american lives better than the average european.


On the contrary...

American living standards are, and have been dropping for some time now. Especially when compared with Western Europe, Japan or Canada. Take a look at the following links for some idea.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

http://across.co.nz/qualityofliving.htm


These studies and comparisons are pretty damn comprehensive! If we want to address the issue brought up by Lazul, then I think this set of statistics, taken from the links above, speaks most clearly (1991):

Deaths from malnutrition (per million):

Men Women
United States 7 13
France 4 9
Canada 5 7
Japan 2 1
United Kingdom 1 2
Norway 0 1

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):

United States 10.4
United Kingdom 9.4
Germany 8.5
Denmark 8.1
Canada 7.9
Norway 7.9
Netherlands 7.8
Switzerland 6.8
Finland 5.9
Sweden 5.9
Japan 5.0

Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people):

United States 5.8 years
Denmark 4.9
Finland 4.8
Canada 4.5
Germany 4.5
United Kingdom 4.4
Norway 4.3
Switzerland 4.1
Netherlands 4.0
Sweden 3.8
Japan 3.3

Percent of people with normal body mass:

Men Women
Germany 53% 37
Finland 51 37
United Kingdom 46 38
Canada 52 29
Switzerland 49 30
France 44 30
Denmark 44 25
United States 47 22
Sweden 44 25

Average hours worked per year:

Japan 2,173
United States 1,890
Sweden 1,808
United Kingdom 1,771
Netherlands 1,756
Finland 1,744
Norway 1,725
Denmark 1,699
Germany 1,668

Average paid vacation per year:

Finland 35.0 days
Germany 30.0
France 25.5
Denmark 25.0
Sweden 25.0
United Kingdom 25.0
Netherlands 24.0
Switzerland 22.0
Norway 21.0
United States 12.0

Average hours spent watching TV per day:

Japan 9:12
United States 7:00
Canada 3:24
United Kingdom 3:10
Germany 2:13
Sweden 2:00
Finland 2:00
Denmark 1:54
Netherlands 1:42
Switzerland 1:34

News as a percent of all TV programming:

Denmark 43%
Sweden 35
Canada 32
Netherlands 25
Germany 20
United Kingdom 17
Japan 6
United States 2


Worldwide Rankings for standards of living based on 39 quality of living factors (from a seperate set of statistics than the previous ones). Ive taken the top sample.

Vancouver 106
Zurich 106
Vienna 106
Bern 106
Sydney 105.5
Geneva 105.5
Auckland 105.5
Copenhagen 105.5
Helsinki 104.5
Amsterdam 104.5
Frankfurt 104
Munich 104
Melbourne 104
Honolulu 104
Dusseldorf 103.5
San Francisco 103.5
Oslo 103.5
Perth 103.5
Brussels 103.5
Toronto 103.5
Adelaide 103
Luxembourg 103
Stockholm 103
Paris 102.5
Nurnberg 102.5
Brisbane 102.5
Montreal 102.5
Tokyo 102.5
Berlin 102
Hamburg 102
Wellington 102
Ludwigshafen 102
Lyon 102
Atlanta 101.5
London 101.5
Calgary 101.5
Kobe 101.5
Lexington 101
Seattle 101
Dublin 101
etc...

[Kagemusha]

Reality bites... ~;)

[asilv]

Longer English version (http://www.rednova.com/news/health/155543/more_us_babies_malnourished/) of same article, I think.
It seems that malnourishment is more caused by feeding kids with junk food than poverty, which swedish version does not mention.
edit: link should work now

[_Martyr_]

That link is broken Silvouz.

[GoreBag]

Whoa whoa whoa. 5.7 Million deaths in Canada by malnutrition? Is this a yearly number, or a count from a certain point? That's a very significant portion of Canada's population.

[Ser Clegane]

Whoa whoa whoa. 5.7 Million deaths in Canada by malnutrition? Is this a yearly number, or a count from a certain point? That's a very significant portion of Canada's population.

No, it's 5 deaths per million for the male population and 7 deaths per million for the female population.

Would be a bit scary otherwise ~;)

[GoreBag]

No, it's 5 deaths per million for the male population and 7 deaths per million for the female population.

Would be a bit scary otherwise ~;)

Ohhh. Man, I should have figured that one out on my own.

[Tribesman]

Your out of your ever lovin mind. The average american lives better than the average european.
Yes but this issue deals with the numbers of people whose lives are well below average .

[Pindar]

Originally Posted by Pindar
Have you ever been to the U.S.?


whats with the smartass comment?

First of all, yes ive been there 4 times, hence the reason I wrote "This comes as a suprise to me!".

satisfied?

Smartass comment?

A little emotional are we? If you have been to the U.S. what do you find compelling about the quoted study. (Is this another smartass comment?)

[Laridus Konivaich]

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. (http://su.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics) ~Benjamin Disraeli :wink:

If you see what I/he mean(s). :wink:

_Martyr_:

The first thing that I notice when reading statistics that you posted is that the countries listed vary between categories. Hmm... can we say, incomplete data?

Also, notice that mostly people defend the living conditions from wherever they live, which I would say demonstrates that living conditions are largely based on perception, political/social beliefs, and the like.

[_Martyr_]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. ~Benjamin Disraeli
"
To a certain extent I agree. On the other hand I would also point out that this argument is usually tauted by people who do not agree with what the statistics suggest, and that their disagreement is usually as, if not more biased in motivation than the party that provided the statistics rather than out of a genuine desire for ubiquitous justice and correctness... ;) I would challenge you to find a better tool than statistics to prove an argument.

"The first thing that I notice when reading statistics that you posted is that the countries listed vary between categories. Hmm... can we say, incomplete data?"

Of course its not a complete list of data, the comparison deals with North America and Western/Northern European countries (with Japan thrown in also...) I cant really answer for the scientists who compilled this data, but I would guess that if a country is not in a specific category, it is because the data was not available for that country. Even if it were a case of them leaving out data, the trend remains VERY clear... the US is pretty alarmingly ahead in certain undesireable categories, and very far behind on certain desribles when compared with other nations of similar wealth. The intention of providing these statistics was not to make any other point except to counter Gawain's rather unsupported, and as far as I can gather, incorrect assertations, and to bring some quantifiable benchmark to the table, rather than mere speculation. Dont read too deep into what I am saying.


"Also, notice that mostly people defend the living conditions from wherever they live, which I would say demonstrates that living conditions are largely based on perception, political/social beliefs, and the like."

Well yes, as demonstarted above... People will make claims about their relative living standards ranking based on their own anicdotal "perception, political/social beliefs, and the like" without having looked at the data. However, when data is provided that goes against their own perceptions, the data is attacked. So which are we to believe now, your perceptions or my data!!? :)

[bmolsson]

Have you ever been to the U.S.?


Isn't that the country where people can be divided in to two categories:

1. Home-less and poor
2. US Army in training for the large invasion

:charge:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Even if it were a case of them leaving out data, the trend remains VERY clear... the US is pretty alarmingly ahead in certain undesireable categories, and very far behind on certain desribles when compared with other nations of similar wealth. The intention of providing these statistics was not to make any other point except to counter Gawain's rather unsupported, and as far as I can gather, incorrect assertations, and to bring some quantifiable benchmark to the table, rather than mere speculation. Dont read too deep into what I am saying.

Those stats are pretty much meaningless. Im speaking of how much stuff the average american has versus the average european. We have more , its that simple. Bigger houses, bigger cars and the like. What we call poor is considered well to do in many countries.

[Laridus Konivaich]

Well yes, as demonstarted above... People will make claims about their relative living standards ranking based on their own anicdotal "perception, political/social beliefs, and the like" without having looked at the data. However, when data is provided that goes against their own perceptions, the data is attacked. So which are we to believe now, your perceptions or my data!!? :)
Thank you for proving my point, which was that the Europeans think that Europe has better living conditions, and the Americans say that America has it better. Not having been to these places, I do not intend to make any unsubstantiated claims about which is better, maybe they are just different. Also notice that I did not say that either one was better, which would indicate that the perceptions belong to other people.
:bow:

I would also like to add that people who want to prove that the US has better living conditions could easily present statistics to support that position.

This statistic bothers me:

"News as a percent of all TV programming:

Denmark 43%
Sweden 35
Canada 32
Netherlands 25
Germany 20
United Kingdom 17
Japan 6
United States 2"

What it fails to take into account is the number of channels. It just does not make sense to have this as a percent, because the number of channels will vary between countries. If There are 10 channels, and 4 of them run just news, that is 40% news, while if there are 100 channels and 4 run only news, that would appear as 4% news. As you can see, the amount of news in the two places is equal, while one has a much high percentage of its broadcasting as news. -- "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." ~Thomas Jefferson --

:bow:

[Pindar]

Isn't that the country where people can be divided in to two categories:

1. Home-less and poor
2. US Army in training for the large invasion

:charge:

"What's with the smartass comment?"

I think that's the common refrain.

[Papewaio]

Considering the title was:

This comes as a suprise to me!

IMDHO Lazul was surprised at the statistics as he had already visited the US and the stats did not mesh with his visits.

As for bmolsson that was rather tongue-in-cheek

[Fragony]

America is a much larger country, you are bound to have some less then fortunate places. Living conditions in (northern) europe may be better, but are also much easier to manage. Funny how Sweden is always at least number 3, doing a good job over there.

[Lazul]

Originally Posted by Pindar
Have you ever been to the U.S.?



Smartass comment?

A little emotional are we? If you have been to the U.S. what do you find compelling about the quoted study. (Is this another smartass comment?)


mehe, wops, ok I think I overreacted... I do that sometimes, sorry!

But anyway, I mean, when I visited the US I never noticed any poverty directly, wich I would say means that the rich and poor live far away from each other.
And I mean, the fact that the amount of poor is growing is very alarming in the country a.t.m on a war to spread their way of life.

[Al Khalifah]

Those stats are pretty much meaningless. Im speaking of how much stuff the average american has versus the average european. We have more , its that simple. Bigger houses, bigger cars and the like. What we call poor is considered well to do in many countries.
But if we look at what the poorer American has compared to the poorer European, the American has so much less due to the much weaker welfare system.
Also look at what poor Americans don't have.

I wasn't debating that the average American is richer than the average European. What is true is that the poor of America are much worse off than those of Europe because of the more socialist system in place.

[Fragony]

Well about the bigger houses he sure has a point, damn it is cheap over there. If I sold my 4 walls and a roof and take the money to america I would have a villa with a friggin swimming pool. All about space, you won't find any cheap appartments in Manhattan. We live here with 16 million, more then the whole of Canada. Now look at how big canada is, and then look at Holland :help: No wonder it is so bloody expensive over here.

[bmolsson]

Well about the bigger houses he sure has a point, damn it is cheap over there. If I sold my 4 walls and a roof and take the money to america I would have a villa with a friggin swimming pool. All about space, you won't find any cheap appartments in Manhattan. We live here with 16 million, more then the whole of Canada. Now look at how big canada is, and then look at Holland :help: No wonder it is so bloody expensive over here.

I have to admit, that I never really understood why everyone is crowding upon each other in Holland. I mean it's even below sea level..... ~;)

[Fragony]

I have to admit, that I never really understood why everyone is crowding upon each other in Holland. I mean it's even below sea level..... ~;)

We are all below sea level from time to time ~D

[KukriKhan]

Extract from US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/overview.html) on how it determines those 'in poverty'. Different, I think, both in computation, and definition, from the thread-starter.

------------------------------------

Example:
Family A has five members: two children, their mother, father, and great-aunt.

Their threshold was $22,509 dollars in 2003. (See poverty thresholds for 2003)


Suppose the members' incomes in 2003 were:

Mother: $10,000
Father: 5,000
Great-aunt: 10,000
First child: 0
Second child: 0

Total family income: $25,000


Compare total family income with their family's threshold.

Income / Threshold = $25,000 / $22,509 = 1.11




Since their income was greater than their threshold, Family A is not "in poverty" according to the official definition.


The income divided by the threshold is called the Ratio of Income to Poverty.


Family A's ratio of income to poverty was 1.11.


The difference in dollars between family income and the family's poverty threshold is called the Income Deficit (for families in poverty) or Income Surplus (for families above poverty)

-- Family A’s income surplus was $2,491 (or $25,000 - $22,509).
------------------------------------------

Kukri's note: at $25K income, I can only hope Family A does not live in California (for their sake). Housing alone would eat up 2-thirds of that amount.

[Goofball]

Well about the bigger houses he sure has a point, damn it is cheap over there. If I sold my 4 walls and a roof and take the money to america I would have a villa with a friggin swimming pool. All about space, you won't find any cheap appartments in Manhattan. We live here with 16 million, more then the whole of Canada. Now look at how big canada is, and then look at Holland :help: No wonder it is so bloody expensive over here.

Your numbers are a bit off. 16 million is actually less than half of Canada's population.

[Pindar]

mehe, wops, ok I think I overreacted... I do that sometimes, sorry!

But anyway, I mean, when I visited the US I never noticed any poverty directly, wich I would say means that the rich and poor live far away from each other.
And I mean, the fact that the amount of poor is growing is very alarming in the country a.t.m on a war to spread their way of life.


Welcome back to less passionate converstation. The reason I asked my first question and the follow up is because I'm a fairly well traveled fellow and have noted that a lot of the tauted cross-country stats to prove a particular point X don't seem to fit with my experience. Given the girths of so many Americans, particularly among the poorer swaths of the nation, a lack of food doesn't seem to be an issue.

[Husar]

Well about the bigger houses he sure has a point, damn it is cheap over there. If I sold my 4 walls and a roof and take the money to america I would have a villa with a friggin swimming pool.

From what I know(and that may be wrong, of course ~;) ) a lot of their walls are wooden, while our walls are usually made of stone. I prefer living in a house that can withstand some storms, just look at some tornado-videos in the news, all wooden and collapsed. I was always wondering how people in Tornado regions can afford building new houses all the time. Guess that proves that either Americans aren´t poor or their houses are really cheap. ~D

[Tribesman]

Given the girths of so many Americans, particularly among the poorer swaths of the nation, a lack of food doesn't seem to be an issue.
But Pindar malnutrition doesn't neccasarily mean lack of food , someone that eats to much (or only) cheap processed food is also malnourished even if they weigh as much as a car .

Im speaking of how much stuff the average american has versus the average european. We have more , its that simple. Bigger houses, bigger cars and the like.
But the issue isn't the average is it , it is the below average . Or would it be right to say that the head of the British state has more money , more property bigger houses , more servants and does less work than the head of the American state so British people must be better off than Americans .

[Pindar]

Given the girths of so many Americans, particularly among the poorer swaths of the nation, a lack of food doesn't seem to be an issue.
But Pindar malnutrition doesn't neccasarily mean lack of food , someone that eats to much (or only) cheap processed food is also malnourished even if they weigh as much as a car .


If my country is being condemned then for the mass of "cheap processed food" being eaten then I don't think there is any possible retort.

[Proletariat]

Is it being implied that it's cheaper to eat fast food than healthy foods from a grocery store?

[Byzantine Prince]

Average hours spent watching TV per day:

Japan 9:12
United States 7:00
Canada 3:24
United Kingdom 3:10
Germany 2:13
Sweden 2:00
Finland 2:00
Denmark 1:54
Netherlands 1:42
Switzerland 1:34

They watch 9 hours a day!?!? ~:eek:
This is the average!??!? ~:eek:
I find this figure disturbing.

[Tribesman]

Is it being implied that it's cheaper to eat fast food than healthy foods from a grocery store?
Yes and no , if I wanted to feed my kids a burger I could go to the supermarket and buy a pack of frozen economy burgers and the cheapest buns and feed them . Or I could go to the butchers and buy some steak and mince it , then go to the grocers and buy some chillies and onions add some mustard and make my own . Perhaps make my own bread (though I normally leave that to the missus she has to know that her place is in the kitchen) or go to the bakery and buy fresh bread .
My burgers would be far better in nutritional value than the shop bought ones , they would be more expensive ,but you can economise on the ingredients to a certain degree .
So it can be cheaper to eat shite , but you can also eat decent food cheaply if you can be bothered to get off your arse and make an effort .
If someone is doing a crap job , working long hours to get enough money , then when they get home they just want something convenient that they can throw in the oven or microwave and bung it on a plate .

[econ21]

I've done a little digging and I suspect the original figures referred to in this thread were from the OECD and defined poverty as having less than half median income for the country. In otherwords, it is relative and telling you about one dimension of inequality. To compare two countries, it might be better to use an absolute definition of poverty. Since the US has much higher median income than Sweden, the relatively poor in the US may be better off in absolute terms than those in US (in fact, that does not seem to be true).

The same raw OECD data can be used to calculate poverty in various countries using a poverty line that is consistent across countries - for example, that adopted by the US. On this definition, it turns out that the US still has more child poverty (14% children in poverty in 1995) than Sweden (5%). However, it has less than my country (the UK with 29%). Here's the full text as a pdf file:

http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard1e.pdf

IMO, the relevant league table is Figure 2. Its fascinating stuff although not too suprising - the Scandanavian countries are at the top, with the Anglophone and South European countries being in the lower middle. The former communist countries are at the bottom, though.