Eradicating child poverty a priority

[Clamball]

Government bringing in family friendly polices, promoting two-parent families and discouraging lone parenthood...

If the definition of childhood poverty is children of households with lowest income then education of potential parents in those income brackets to make them aware and understand that any child born into the household will live in poverty and the parents should think long and hard on whether they should have children or on the size of their family.

Many dual income families debate the financial impact of going from 1 to 2 children or 2 to 3 children extensively due to childcare costs, the financial impact of one parent stopping work, etc etc. But if your family income is less than 60% of the national median should your debate be on going from 0 to 1 child.

This report uses both the household income model and the Material deprivation model, which are 5 items, arrers on bills, inability to keep the home warm, unable to take a 1 week holiday away from home, unable to replace old furniture, and having no money to spend on yourself. This report also says the number of children living in poverty is stable (unlike Niall Muldoon in the summer school).

The first report I mentioned says childhood poverty is costing the state €4.5 billion so I would definitely be pushing the education of delaying having children until you can afford it. There have been great strides in this, teenage pregnancies are way down, free contraceptive pill for women etc. and then when kids are born, free medical care, hot school lunches, etc.

But maybe more potential parents should be educated on the potential of their child being born into poverty and they not being able to go on an annual holiday among other things? If I had been asked to define childhood poverty I would have thought that hunger, lack of adequate clothing, and lack of shelter, and lack of health care and access to education would be the criteria but it is not my area of expertise. Families can have adequate income but addiction by the parents can still result in child neglect and poverty.

 

[Purple]

But maybe more potential parents should be educated on the potential of their child being born into poverty and they not being able to go on an annual holiday among other things? If I had been asked to define childhood poverty I would have thought that hunger, lack of adequate clothing, and lack of shelter, and lack of health care and access to education would be the criteria but it is not my area of expertise. Families can have adequate income but addiction by the parents can still result in child neglect and poverty.

Given our levels of social transfers there is no economic reason why any child should live in poverty as measured using the material deprivation model. Where it occurs it is entirely down to the choices made by the parents. A good example is smoking; a packet of cigarettes costs €18. That is enough to provide breakfast for a family of 4 for a week or two evening meals for the same family. If you choose to prioritise smoking (or drinking) ahead of adequately feeding or clothing your children then their deprivation is not down to household income but bad parenting.
In my experience (and I have some in this area) most cases of real deprivation are down to addiction and mental health issues. If there's a failure by the State it's a failure of the medical/mental health industry rather than the social welfare system.

 

[Annieindublin]

Bad parenting or lack of education? Or choices they make?

I see my mother’s home help affording to buy cigarettes, they go on holidays abroad at least once a year and have a car. Not any definition of poverty. But one of her kids needs a tutor as she’s dyslexic and possibly ADHD but their view is that the state should provide it. And while they wait the girl falls further behind and is unlikely to catch up now at about 14 so will probably leave school with limited opportunities. This is the states fault and nothing could be done apparently. Other families would cancel the holliers and fags and get her the help she needs. A pack a day is over €6k pa. Even half that would buy some extra tuition while the state system is slow and overwhelmed

Her mum cares about her lack of assistance in school and rants about it. But doesn’t see the link.

 

[Purple]

Bad parenting or lack of education?

Chicken and egg.
I work with people from socially deprived areas who left school young and have low levels of education but are great parents and whose children will do well and are doing well in life because of the choices their parents made and the priorities they have. I hate the paternalistic and offensive narrative that there are lower classes who lack the ability and agency to fend for themselves. If people are equal and equally intelligent then they are equally responsible for their own decisions. The State should aspire to create equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The former is desirable, the latter is downright evil.

Or choices they make?

Part parental choices = bad parenting. Every parent had made bad parental choices (I've made lots of them) but when it's habitual then it's bad parenting.

I see my mother’s home help affording to buy cigarettes, they go on holidays abroad at least once a year and have a car. Not any definition of poverty. But one of her kids needs a tutor as she’s dyslexic and possibly ADHD but their view is that the state should provide it. And while they wait the girl falls further behind and is unlikely to catch up now at about 14 so will probably leave school with limited opportunities. This is the states fault and nothing could be done apparently. Other families would cancel the holliers and fags and get her the help she needs. A pack a day is over €6k pa. Even half that would buy some extra tuition while the state system is slow and overwhelmed

Her mum cares about her lack of assistance in school and rants about it. But doesn’t see the link

Great example.

 

[BIG-notorious]

I hate the paternalistic and offensive narrative that there are lower classes who lack the ability and agency to fend for themselves.

Just say that you hate any scientific research which contradicts your preexisting and firmly held beliefs. Or be honest and say you hate science because it amounts to exactly the same thing.

If people are equal and equally intelligent then they are equally responsible for their own decisions.

And children should also be responsible for their parents decisions? That's your version of equality of opportunity?

 

[Purple]

Just say that you hate any scientific research which contradicts your preexisting and firmly held beliefs. Or be honest and say you hate science because it amounts to exactly the same thing.

That's rather Trumpian; I disagree with calling relative income inequality poverty and you accuse me of hating science.

Using the rationale of relative income poverty on a single village of 200 people if one person in he village wins €200 million in the Euromillions then everyone else in the village is then living in poverty, even if the winner gives everyone else in the village €500,000. Does that make sense to you?

And children should also be responsible for their parents decisions?

No.

That's your version of equality of opportunity?

No. What makes you think that it does?
Is the problem here your preconceptions of what motivates my views?

Equality of opportunity requires a high level of expensive social engineering, particularly in the area of education. Thankfully we do this through the DEIS school system, an excellent and cost effective way of treating one of the main root causes of inequality of opportunity. More can and should be done but it's certainly better than not investing in children in order to compensate for the shortcomings of their parents, be those limitations caused by intellectual or educational limitations, mental health issues, addiction, laziness or otherwise.
I'd like to see children's allowance taken away from well off people (like me) and the money spent well on targeted programs to level the playing field for kids from socially deprived areas. I'm also unsure about third levels being fully state funded as I don't think the taxes of poor people should be used to send the children of rich people to college (like mine).
I'd also massively increase property tax (the only wealth tax worth a damn) and use that money to build social housing. I'd also be hit by that tax.

I don't like poverty traps, I don't like elitism, I don't like the assumption of privilege and I don't like the condescension of smoked-salmon socialists who are happy to live in the cossetted safety of economic apartheid while preaching at and talking down to people they claim to be concerned about.

I'm often reminded of the line that Guardian readers don't really care about poor people, they just hate rich people. There's a lot of that going on in Ireland.
Most of all I don't like it when people are happy to treat the symptoms of the problem without addressing the root causes. That's what long term welfare is and nonsense like relative income poverty is a manifestation of that Guardian readers syndrome.

 

[Clamball]

Well said @Purple. Intelligence can be IQ or EQ, and those with high EQ will be superb parents with or without the book learning. My friend has an autistic child and it was observing her deliberately parenting her child, breaking down tasks into simple steps, using now verbal cues to aid communication etc that made me realise parenting is a skill that could be learned and I learned a lot from her before I had my own kids.

Most mothers learn from their mother, sisters, & peer group and by targeted schemes and initiatives in these important maternal settings new mothers can be set up for success. Take breastfeeding as an example. For decades Ireland has been trying to increase its breastfeed rate. I know when my oldest was born I was only one of 2 mothers in the hospital that was breastfeeding, and I hadn’t a clue. When my child was 8 weeks old I discovered I had breastfed longer than any of my mother, sisters or peer group. I still hadn’t a clue but the lack of peer support was a bit of a shock. When my second kid was 7 days old I was there at the support groups, and felt much more supported, educated and relaxed about the whole thing. Nowadays the breastfeeding rate is >60% on discharge from hospital but only 15% by the time the kid is 6 months old. So the rate has improved but a long way to go to the target of 100% rate at 6 months old.

Ireland has decades long policies to improve equality of opportunity as @Purple says, and we can all rattle off loads of them. Just handing over money to parents will never eradicate poverty but should be a safety net for some. That
Is what social housing does also, and I think there are great arguments to be made to offering family units social housing for a fixed term, say 5 years to allow them to get on their feet and sort out their own housing. Having social houses in a family for decades and being passed on to the next generation does no one any good in the long term.

 

[Purple]

Intelligence can be IQ or EQ, and those with high EQ will be superb parents with or without the book learning

The Heritability of IQ is a thorny question. The paternalistic Victorian attitude was that the "Lower Classes" were inherently less intelligent than the "Upper Classes", much in the same was as dark skinned people were less intelligent than those of white European stock. The same mindset segregated people into Professionals an Workers etc.
If environmental conditions are exactly the same for everyone then IQ differentials are 100% accounted for by inherited factors (genetics). The more environmental variation there is the less heritability is a factor. The objective of the State should be to minimise the environmental factors. There is a tendency for well educated people with high IQ's to think that their intellect is all down to their genetics; they were born smart. That's at the root of the corrosive Victorian Mindset. The truth is that it's way more complex than that and giving charity to the "lesser orders" is not a virtue and no way to run a society. If we work on the assumption that all people are equal then we should be aspiring to level the playing field, not rig the game.

 

[ClubMan]

The Heritability of IQ is a thorny question.

As is the usefulness of IQ as a reliable measure of general intelligence.

 

[Dr Strangelove]

IQ as a reliable measure of general intelligence.

IQ is literally the best predictor of all sorts of life outcomes better than any other psychological measure.

I take climate change deniers more seriously than I do IQ deniers.

 

[BIG-notorious]

IQ is literally the best predictor of all sorts of life outcomes better than any other psychological measure.

Except there's this study showing that measured IQ can be increased through structured training which essentially shreds that suggestion, given that if IQ isn't stable it's effectively useless as a predictor.

Smart software: can a computer program really boost IQ?

A program developed by researchers at NUI Maynooth that they say can increase IQ has been bought by schools around the country – but are the claims too good to be true?

www.irishtimes.com

The best predictor of life outcomes is parental wealth. The second best predictor is the ability to delay gratification, which can also be trained.

 

[Purple]

Except there's this study showing that measured IQ can be increased through structured training which essentially shreds that suggestion, given that if IQ isn't stable it's effectively useless as a predictor.

It's a good indication of intelligence but the brain is like a muscle and training literally changes it shape. See Eleanor Maguire for details.

The best predictor of life outcomes is parental wealth. The second best predictor is the ability to delay gratification, which can also be trained.

Parental wealth may be indicative of parental IQ, parental education and the value parents place on education, parental work ethic, and their ability to delay gratification. If those characteristics, as well as a financial advantageous starting point, are passed on to their children then they will likely also be wealthy. My point is that the parental wealth may be an outcome, an indicator of other traits, rather than a root cause.

 

[Purple]

IQ is literally the best predictor of all sorts of life outcomes better than any other psychological measure.

Yes, but how much of it is inherited and how much of it is learned? If someone has the self discipline to study, exercise and eat well then their IQ will increase so it high IQ a predictor or an outcome?
Some people are naturally athletic but if they never exercise they won't be as good as running as someone with below average natural ability who trains every day.
Someone with a high level of inherited IQ who never goes to school will have a lower IQ than an average person who studies all the time.