Comments 23

不平等性与美国儿童

Dec 11, 2014 Joseph E. Stiglitz

纽约—我们早就知道，儿童是一个特殊群体。他们无法选择父母，更不用说更广义的出生环境了。他们没有如同成人那样的保护或照看自己的能力。因此，国际联盟在1924年通过了日内瓦儿童权利宣言，国际社会也在1989年实施了儿童权利公约。

悲哀的是，美国没有在履行义务。事实上，它甚至没有批准儿童权利公约。美国向来以机会之地的形象自豪，它本应该成为公正、开明地对待儿童的榜样。相反，它却成了失败的象征——为儿童权利在国际经济场上的全球颓势做出了“贡献”。

普通美国儿童也许不是全世界境况最糟糕的，但美国财富和儿童条件之间的反差大到无与伦比。大约14.5%的美国总人口属于穷人，但19.9%的儿童——大概相当于1,500万人——生活在贫困中。在发达国家中，只有罗马尼亚的儿童贫困率更高。美国的儿童贫困率比英国高三分之二，比北欧国家高三倍。某些群体的状况更是恶劣得多：38%的黑人儿童和30%的西班牙裔儿童是穷人。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

Defining Diplomacy Down

Oct 22, 2018 Richard N. Haass
What Has Google Ever Done for Us?

Oct 19, 2018 Yanis Varoufakis
Why a Sino-American Cold War Won’t Happen

Oct 22, 2018 Ngaire Woods
The High Cost of High Finance

Oct 18, 2018 Howard Davies
The Big Blockchain Lie

Oct 15, 2018 Nouriel Roubini

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 20 in all 20 Comments on this article

Edward Ponderer Dec 28, 2014

World-wide integral education is ultimately the answer--fundamental work on human relationship and mutual responsibility. Piecemeal subsystem approaches that do not address this are doomed from the start. Two reasons: (1) hypocritical paradox rightly leading to, (2) cynical use of the limitless loop holes in any plan that the unscrupulous--anyone not educated/convinced concerning interdependence that have the brains, resources, and opportunity (a plentiful minority)--can and will use to torpedo any such piecemeal reform.

To explain:

(1) Is income disparity between children in different countries, far wider, “fair”? If a child is beyond Romania, living in a continuous desperate situation in a country beyond the “developed” pale—is that, then, the child’s fault that only income disparity within a country is considered? If so, perhaps income equality within states/provinces, within communities, or just within families should be considered?

(2) Guaranteed, without an intangible good will that can only arise out of a global society attuned to basic human relations of mutual responsibility, there are always loopholes. Specifically, beyond the fact that there is an outside to the national system (that’s why we have multinational corporation’s!), in any set of laws, there are always actions that can be expressed and taken within the context of these that can neither be demonstrated to be legal or illegal. This is mathematically guaranteed, not opinion—so when there is a will, there will be a way—no matter how many previous ways get plugged up by new legislation. Of course, the key is that you don’t have to keep the law, but just not violate it—one being innocent until proven guilty, not until proven “not innocent.”

In short, anything real must be global, and begin at the grass-roots of human relationships. Now just how do you do that in a world of corrupt politicians and other power brokers (the tragicomedy under the misnomer “United Nations” being the poster child)?

Here, one can begin directly at the grassroots where countries are open too it, and those who haven’t learned at a higher system level the important of global interdependence—let it filter by osmosis while leaders there sweat bullets over the inevitable. While an abysmal failure in its goals, one thing such things as the Arab Spring, is how unstable the growing socioeconomic chaos is becoming and how unstable the futures of governments that don’t do something about it. Look how frightened Kim Jong-un is about a comedy film.

Doing something about it isn't scapegoating or waving religious ideologies or promising conquests. The circus is getting too ho-hum for people growing daily in their wants and expectations not to notice that the bread is getting thinner. It is going to hit the fan as interdependence coupling growing in strength, non-linearity, and complexity steers civilization into deterministic chaos. The only “something,” is what works in natural communities—mutual-responsibility/altruism matching the chaos’s signature “fractal orbit” through phase space (structural and functional variation), using it to communicate across organizational scales to sense, analyze, and react holistically in real time to establish a new civilization—being if you would—in homeostasis.

The alternative is to be alternatively torn to pieces and crushes as the machinery of chaos spins unchecked—mercilessly.

Deterministic chaos in all its infinite complexity can arrive from very simple self-referential equations. Surviving and thriving to a better and greater day will also require such to match and overtake the meat grinder. It is ironic hearing the somewhat odd entry into other comments of the Creationist/Evolutionist debate. Because ironically those equations of survival required by God or Nature, as you prefer, are actually, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow,” and “Love your fellow as yourself.”

-- Then again, is that really so strange…
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Enrique Woll Battistini Dec 22, 2014

Before a country presents itself as an example for the rest, it must align with humanity and correct its most unfair injustices at home...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard Stewart Dec 21, 2014

A leading cause of poverty among black and brown children is the racist War on Drugs. Smoke a joint, become a felon, lose your right to food stamps and Section 8 housing, not to mention a Pell grant and Federal student loans and a whole host of other poverty reducing opportunities. Not to worry if you are white - your chances of smoking a joint and becoming a felon are minuscule in comparison. Stigilitz knows this, but won't talk about it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Pu Dec 21, 2014

But if we keep saying that "all men are created equal" some may believe it. Oh, we have and many did. My bad!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Carlos Zapata Dec 15, 2014

An aide memoire of the most needed public goods and services for children that the market and the state have been unable to provide. And a call for all the required reforms, first of all, to overcome the old litany of the extreme market economy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nathan W Dec 14, 2014

The situation is more stark with respect to inequality in education and health outcomes, which are presumably both linked strongly to income, for schools through finding formulas and for health through the lack of universal services which leads more fortunate people to insist on higher quality services. More stark because it's hard to say what "poverty" means, and social Darwinists aside, it's a lot easier to sink ones teeth into differentials in education and health outcomes than "poverty" because a lot of readers will be predisposed to assume that it is defined in some biased manner.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jake Mauch Dec 13, 2014

How you can blame the violation of the rights and protection on a lack of taxes on the concentration of wealth baffles me. You cannot honestly believe that the protection of children is a matter of taxation and income. The rights of children is a moral issue that cannot be blamed on the inequality of wealth in America. Inequality of wealth is inevitable, but the violation of children's rights is not. Maybe if Democrats would abide by real moral standards, such as the protection of life itself in stopping abortion, the United States could advance in the protection of children outside of higher taxes for social programs. If you want a real violation of children's rights, you can look no further than the issue of abortion.
I am disgusted by the accusation that the lack of taxation on the rich, and the policies of the Republican party, are the cause of violations of children's rights. Economics is not the crux of society and social rights. People are.
- Nathan W Dec 14, 2014
  
  Jake,
  
  I agree that it is not correct to blame the one on the other as you say he does. I think they are both more generally a result of poorly distributed access to influence on matters of public policy, which itself is caused by inequality in the first place (stuff is easier when you have money).
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dallas Weaver, Ph.D. Dec 13, 2014

Your statement: "unequal opportunities translate into unequal lifelong outcomes by the time children reach the age of five. That should be a spur to policy action." which appear to be true. But this requires policies that include cultural information not just physical/economic opportunities.

Opportunities are only useful in the correct cultural context. For example, the opportunity for a biological science education and well paid employment is excluded to all "creationist" believers. Providing children's books to cultures who don't believe in reading is not an "opportunity".

Once you are past the basic food/shelter issues, culture becomes a dominant consideration. That is why in my area we had a massive immigration of flat broke, very poor, non-english speaking Vietnamese whose children have become successes from the same schools in the poor Latino areas.
- Nathan W Dec 14, 2014
  
  I have never heard of any science lab that would refuse an otherwise talented researcher who believes that some univerally conscious being started everything.
  
  I think it is unlikely that a fervent creationist would be able to so easily cultivate a strong interest and dedication toward s microbiology, for example, because there are many smoking guns for evolutionary processes at that level and may feel uncomfortable with some of the material. And also if they felt a need to push their creationist views on their colleagues, probably they would find themselves on the defensive altogether too often to find it an appealing career option.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kevin Remillard Dec 13, 2014

My barber is a Laotian who came to the U.S. 30 years ago. As an Iowan his children were safely educated in our public school system, attended college in Iowa, and have good jobs in the financial services industry. One child is married to an Italian and the other single.
It is fully understandable why Mr. Stiglitz would have this hued perception of America living and teaching in New York. Paul Hudson on your city:
“Most people won’t think twice about taking advantage of you.
“I’d like to believe that most people are good people at their cores. However, many people have skewed ideas of what is ethically permissible and what is not. Life teaches us all the same lessons, but we interpret them differently. What it comes down to is that everyone is looking out for themselves first. If someone feels that they can benefit from you and can somehow justify doing so, then they will.”
The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jimbo Slicey Dec 12, 2014

The reason that poverty appears to be so high in America is because it is measured differently here - it is based purely on income, and does not take into account government welfare. Whereas in europe government welfare is taken into account. So you are comparing apples and Oranges, which is why you end up with the result that only Romania has worse poverty than America. America may have worse relative poverty, but the absolute standard of living for the poor is quite high compared to most developed countries.

Further, America already has a progressive tax system. Unlke European countries which have high VAT and 'sin taxes', which disproportionately hit the poor, America relies more on income taxes- which means that the rich pay comparatively more than the poor into the state coffers.
- Nathan W Dec 14, 2014
  
  I don't think he is comparing apples and oranges. It isn't his first road show.
  
  Monetary poverty is a relative thing. If you want to start to define various basic goods and services which people should generally expect that all children should have easy access to, then it becomes easier to hone in on more fruitful areas of policy targeting, for example.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Walter Gingery Dec 12, 2014

Support for a just and decent society has been on the wane ever since apostles of selfishness like Peter Drucker started preaching the doctrine that business has no responsibilities except to its shareholders. Today, American business serves no morality except money.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Dec 12, 2014

You Sir are a beacon of light in this days of shadows.

A sincere thank you for your articles.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Dec 12, 2014

Hi Joseph,

I see this as a problem with political roots.

It's not an 'American' problem, it's a Republican policy outcome problem.

I would be in agreement with American conservatives, IF, IF, there were enough jobs to go around, and if jobs paid a living wage.

Then, their 1950's Ward Cleaver worldview would be correct. 'Study hard in school, work hard while going through college, the 'harder workers' will obviously be going through university, then work hard during your career -- and you will live the American Dream til the day you die. God Bless America!

And really, wouldn't that be quite wonderful.

Except that world does not exist for at least 50% of the American population.

The U.S. has *25 million more people unemployed and looking for work* -- than there are jobs available.

Even more millions have simply given up looking for work and are no longer counted on the unemployment rolls and have exhausted their unemployment benefits.

And, mostly, there is no minimum wage that any normal person can live on and get ahead in life. There are some bright spots and recent moves in this regard. But it's far from a panacea. At least one order of magnitude less than what is required just to fix that particular problem.

The conservatives 'study hard, work hard, and thereby get ahead' is a wonderful programme to reward individuals.

But it fails utterly when the country has shipped 25 million jobs to Asia and no living wage exists for some very hard working people, who work as hard, or even harder, than their upper-middle class neighbours across town.

The solution is zero taxation for less-than-$50,000./yr households (or in the case of individuals, less-than-$25,000./yr income) and a national living wage, and free vocational college or academic college education for all citizens with a better than average high school abstract (but not free university).

These measures would bring the bottom third (economically speaking) into the middle third class -- and then, just watch incarceration rates drop, watch policing and court costs fall off a cliff, and watch illegal drug use and depression plummet.

Society would again function, not only for the top 50%, but for all citizens.

To use the automobile analogy, the U.S. would again be firing on all 8 cylinders, not just 4 out of 8 cylinders.

As always, best regards, JBS
http://johnbrianshannon.com
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Wayne Davidson Dec 11, 2014

So called democratic nations have institutionalised class inequity and racial inequality. That our societies condone the loss of future human capital inherent in all children shows what little value we place on our children. Equality in education and self determination should be a fundamental human right.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Matheus Romariz Dec 11, 2014

Mr Stiglitz, I share your concerns for the well being of American children and believe you are calling for the right general policies. That said, it does seem you forgot to mention a child's greatest handicap in the American system: they only acquire a right to life after they've exited the womb. But maybe that's because you support this particularly odious policy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Dec 11, 2014

The comments here about children and inequality are correct, but they're separate problems that require separate answers. For children, the best solution is to extend the franchise at birth and allow parents to act for their children at the polls as they already do in the courts and in business. This would give children and their parents power directly, and leave them less dependent on the charitable impulses of others. It's a measure that would also unite social conservatives with liberals, since it would increase the political power of heads of household, including single mothers.
- Nathan W Dec 14, 2014
  
  Interesting idea, but I don't understand how that would change anything. Parents with children would still very often find themselves shortchanged somewhat and with too many balls in the air for many to get around to being informed enough to be remotely knowledgeable in matters of political advocacy unless in rare cases where it's their specific area of activity.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/HqRCmcL/zh;

不平等性与美国儿童

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

Defining Diplomacy Down

What Has Google Ever Done for Us?

Why a Sino-American Cold War Won’t Happen

The High Cost of High Finance

The Big Blockchain Lie

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The End of Germany’s Two-Party System

Theresa May Could Back a New Brexit Referendum

America’s Midterm Mess

America’s Plutocrats Are Winning

The Untapped Potential of EU-Africa Trade

Taming Capital Flow Volatility

Why a Sino-American Cold War Won’t Happen

The End of America’s China Fantasy

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register