So to be fair it doesn't include Somalia or N Korea.United States and Britain at the bottom of a list of 21 economically developed nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortalityThe World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.
The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers, some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s, which are used throughout the European Union. However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation. However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.
9. Republic of Ireland
15. Czech Republic
20. United States
21. United Kingdom
Obviously the problem is English -
Bottom two countries speak English
Ireland and Canada are bilingual and come half way up
We must stamp out English in our schools now.
Their financial well-being is based on 3 criteria, one of which is relative income: fraction of children living in houses below the median income.
Understood/agreed.Regarding infant mortality, it is only one factor of the many that the UNICEF study examined. While it is likely to be weighted fairly highly, I think correctly comparing infant mortality rates would not change the results too much (while the US might not be 2nd to last, it certainly would not rise to near the top).
Agreed.A larger confounding variable in the analysis is immigration. A much larger proportion of the US's population consists of immigrant from poor countries with very low socioeconomic status, whereas many of the countries on the top of the list likely lack large populations of immigrants from poor countries.
Agreed - that's something I mentioned.Furthermore, the list may reflect fundamental philosophical differences between the US and most European nations.
Demographics of the parents informs you about the conditions the kids live under, so that is understandable - it's just using relative poverty as a measure of it that irritates me.That is truly bizarre. That tells you about the demographics of the parents more than anything else.
Both US and Canada (bit more) are multilingual in aspect that you do not need to know English to perform business/most of the daily life tasks in both countries IMO.
It is the extreme measures that are taken in the US to try to bring non-viable pregnancies to term that significantly alter the infant mortality stats for the US. Most of those pregnancies would have spontaneously aborted in other countries, so are never counted. I had posted the article previously, but I don't have the time to do so right now.Regarding infant mortality, it is only one factor of the many that the UNICEF study examined. While it is likely to be weighted fairly highly, I think correctly comparing infant mortality rates would not change the results too much (while the US might not be 2nd to last, it certainly would not rise to near the top). Indeed, Sweden, which was mentioned as counting infant mortality rates in a similar way to the US, is 2nd on the list, indicating that the US's position on the list is due to much more than infant mortality rates. Taken together with the statement that the US's low infant mortality ranking is not primarily due to problems with how infant mortality is counted, I don't think the US's ranking can be so easily discounted.
Demographics of the parents informs you about the conditions the kids live under, so that is understandable - it's just using relative poverty as a measure of it that irritates me.
Actually that should be below 50% of the national median, not just below the national median. But that mostly means that large countries like the USA gets punished since they have more diverse populations. The USA having large differences in income do not mean much for the median income so I wouldn't say that it is the reason, instead just that the population is more diverse compared to for example Denmark.[reading the study]
-Their financial well-being is based on 3 criteria, one of which is relative income: fraction of children living in houses below the median income. In other words, a child in the US who'se family makes $27,000 per year is considered less well off than a child in the Czech Republic who'se family makes $20,000 (estimate). Based on inequality it has the lowest poverty rate in Europe at around 9% while ranking 56th in per capita income (note: I couldn't find actual median income stats). The Czec Republic is 7th in this category - the US is last by quite a wide margin.
Nope, the third criteria lists a few things and it makes its point based on that:[reading the study]
-The third criteria of the fianancial well being category is self-reported complaints. Being complainers is practically a source of national pride in the US.