The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODOJapan doing poorly in ending child poverty among developed nations: UNICEF
NEW YORK©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
18 Comments
Login to comment
presto345
This country spends huge money on big projects, remember the next Olympics, but there are many more examples. But for the future of the nation, our children, the priorities lag far behind. Think of how this paints Japan as a developed country. Semi-developed? Asian-developed? What a shame. The government has to coordinate assistance for the families in need. There must be enough people and companies who wish to donate to a funds. Let's please do something.
bruinfan
Continue to support the LDP and this trend will get worse.
Aly Rustom
Japan ranks very low on A LOT of issues when it comes to developed countries.
Of course. They are in way over their heads.
Very true.
drlucifer
Third largest economy with a standard of living worse than that of some developing
countries.
Enough with the brainwashing.
Christopher Smith
Cancel the Olympics and use the money instead to help those in need.
Cricky
Japan should just leave the OECD it's not fair to compare to developed nations.
noriyosan73
Japan and the USA can't pay all of the UN programs.
Striker10
"It's your duty to your country to have many children! Don't expect any real support though..."
borscht
Since "social transfers" is so vague and misunderstood, I looked it up. It means welfare or social security payments.
Japan has a lot of low income housing, for example, which could be considered a social transfer (transfer meaning taxes support the low income housing - from the working class to the poverty class).
Other social transfers would include food stamps, free or very low cost medical insurance, and free meals at schools.
jcapan
Seriously though, there's no reason why minor issues like lack of childcare, poverty, bullying or suicide should stop Japanese from reproducing.
Wealthy 3rd-generation politicians to the proles: Come on people, do your part! Let's boost our population first and worry about all the messy social problems you face later.
AgentX
The gap between rich and poor is growing really fast here, and in other developed countries. It's quite sad to see that a lot of the work in building equality from the last century (be as it was..) is being undone so quickly this century with no real desire coming from our leaders at bridging it anytime soon.
Cricky
But own a company tax breaks, if tax at all Toyota! Have children and you are in for a very difficult time, but shogani.
mulan
Another arrow by Abe, right on target.
NZ2011
If you ended up with a parent trying to provide and living on a salary or wages near to minimum I honest don't know how you would survive.
It saddens me
some14some
...and five years of Abe govt. must have broken all previous (worst) records.
TheGodfather
Does this mean taking poor kids and giving them to rich families?
Yubaru
No kidding? "Been", you and everyone else that does research like this should be applauded for your work, yet I would suggest that you stop sugar coating it and make it a national issue!
The children are the future of this country, there should be no excuse for this here!
Just what the hell is a "Social Transfer?" supposed to mean? Taking from the rich and giving to the poor? Adoptions? Taking children away from their parent or parents and putting them under state care?
I hope to god NOT. Give these parents the means to have gainful employment and quit playing games with statistics and tell the truth to the world.
Which in effect means that there are a hell of a lot more children living under the poverty rate (inexcusable) than being reported, as Japanese government "statistics" are notoriously off the mark.
Unbelievable.....that means that in an average classroom of lets say 40 kids 4 (roughly) of them are BELOW the poverty line? Which also means that more than likely up to half are living close to, at, or a little above?
None of these statistics bode well for the future when you have a government here hell bent on taking care of the elderly first. (Because THEY have a vote themselves, and it's also known that lower income people tend to NOT participate in the election process because most are too damn busy trying to feed their families)