fuzzy wuzzy wuz an economist

A long time ago economists moved from measuring wealth in absolute terms to relative terms. This allowed them to tell scary stories to frighten children into asking the government for more money. We're given another example today by the BBC, who tells us (Gasp in horror, scary music) we're almost at the same level of child poverty as Mexico. The horror, the horror, the, wait a second, why are so many Mexicans coming here then?

Well, the opening paragraph gives the game away if we read closely.

The US has one of the highest rates of relative child poverty among the world's wealthiest countries, according to a report by the UN.{italics added}

We have to drop down to paragraph six for the definition,

"The figures refer to relative poverty defined as households with income per head below 50% of the national average."

That's right, poverty is related to income inequality and is not an absolute measure. After all, as UNICEF regional director Philip O'Brien concedes way down in paragraph 13,

"The child living in poverty in the US is clearly not as badly off as the child in Mexico," he said.

well, duhhhh. So what is the intent of those promoting this study?

"Higher government spending on family and social benefits is very clearly associated with a lower level of child poverty," said Mr O'Brien.

He said market forces could not on their own lift children out of poverty and urged direct intervention through greater government spending.

So remember, when you contribute to UNICEF, you're not saving those kids in Africa. You're saving the children of America. Or at least the economists who study them.