When most people think of the phrase “Child Poverty” they conjure up the image of emaciated children in rags and feel an emotional urge to “do something” to eliminate such a terrible thing.
Well according to the OECD, we should apparently be concerned because we are losing the battle against child poverty.
However, if you look closely at how the OECD define child poverty:
“A child living in a home with less than half the median disposable income”
You will see immediately, that this is not a measure of child poverty, it is a poorly disguised measure of income equality.
For example, if everyone in one country, let’s call it “Socialist Paradise”, has absolutely nothing. Nothing to eat, no clothes, no homes and no income, absolute destitution with everyone starving to death, then according to the OECD definition, the child poverty rate is 0%. (The median income is zero and nobody has an income less than 50% of this)
If another country, let’s call it “Free Market Hell”, has 51% of the population with an annual disposable income of £2,000,000 and 49% of the population with an annual disposable income of £999,999 then according to the OECD definition they have the maximum possible rate of 49% child poverty!! (The median income is £2M and 49% have less than half this).
Those with a disposable income of almost £1M a year are in “Child poverty”!
By the OECD’s crazy definition, a country like the USA has the worst child poverty rate in the world and the lowest child poverty would be in a country like Zimbabwe.
This is a great example of socialist double-speak.
Take an emotive set of words and define them to mean something completely different.