As I stated, If my assumption was incorrect... I apologized....
That said, here is the problem with table 3
Notes. The symbol ”—“ indicates that no suitable survey question has been identified. Further information about national surveys
used is provided in Annex
1. For European countries, data in italics are based on ESQL rather than ECHP. Data for New Zealand and
United States refer to shares of individuals (rather than households) living in households reporting different types of deprivation. Data
from ECHP and the US "Survey on Income and Program Participation" (SIPP) are weighted with normalized cross-sectional
households’ weights. Data for New Zealand are from Jensen et al. (2002); they are weighted to take into account the probability of
selection, of non-response and sample stratification. Data for Japan from the "Survey on Living conditions" are not weighted.[/quote]
There is no standard. Thus, there to try and compare them is not necessarily accurate.
1. Data refer to respondents that occasionally could not heat their home because of lack of money in Australia; that could not afford to
heat their home in European countries; that are not satisfied with the warmth of their house in winter in the United States; to the
average of the shares responding affirmatively to four questions ("household members often feel cold to save heating costs";
"household members often stayed in bed longer to save heating costs"; "household could not afford heating in all main rooms";
"household cannot afford warm bedding in the winter") in New Zealand; that could not afford heating and cooling devices in Japan.
Do you see the problem in the above? For Australia and Europe it is 'can't afford to heat my home'.... in the US it is 'not satisfied with how warm my house is'....
2. Data refer to people declaring that they could not afford to eat meat or chicken every second day if they wished so in Europe; that
they did not eat the quality or variety of food that they wanted because of a lack of money in Canada; that they were not able to have
at least one special meal once a weak in Australia; to the average of the shares responding affirmatively to three questions ("the
household could not afford a special meal at home at least once a week"; "the household bought cheaper cuts of meat or eat less
meat than would like to keep costs down"; "the household went without fresh fruit and vegetables to help keep costs down") in New
Zealand; and to the average of those who "had enough but not always the kind of the food they want to eat" and "who could not afford
balanced meals" in the United States.
1) The US criteria in now way can be compared to Europe. Had enough food, but 'it wasn't what they WANTED'? THAT somehow shows that level of people not eating enough/starving/etc???
2) Those who said they can't afford a balanced meal simply need to be shown what to buy. Education on the topic is likely the back drop to this... OR it goes back to the 'its not what I WANT to eat'
3. Data refer to individuals who "occasionally ran out of money to pay for food" in European countries; to the average of shares
responding affirmatively to four questions ("sometimes or often the food did not last"; "household has cut the size of the meals or skip
meals because of shortage of money"; "household has eaten less because of shortage of money"; "household has not eaten for a
whole day because of a shortage of money") in the United States; to persons declaring that "they did not have enough food to eat
because of a lack of money" in Canada; to persons who "went without meals because of a shortage of money" in Australia.
Here, for the US... the first three are completely subjective. Why did the food not last? Is it because you didn't have enough money or because you ate more than you needed to earlier in the week? Cutting the size? From WHAT to WHAT? Does this mean you just didn't super size your McD's? Eaten less? THAN WHAT? The last one is where our concern should lie....
4. Data refer to respondents that "bought second-hand clothes because they could not afford to buy new ones" in European countries
and Australia; to the average share of respondents declaring that "family bought second hand clothes instead of new to help keep
costs down" and that they "continue to wear worn-out clothing because of lack of money" in New Zealand; and to the average of
respondents indicating that that could not afford buying new underwear once per year and clothes for special occasions in Japan.
Obviously we either didn't have a problem or we felt the problem was so minimal it wasn't worth addressing?
5. Data refer to respondents declaring that "on the last occasion they needed to see a doctor or a medical specialist, the cost of it
made it difficult to do so" for European countries; to the average of shares of respondents declaring that "they occasionally could not
see a doctor despite needing one because of lack of money" and that "they could not see a dentist despite needing one because of
lack of money" in the United States; to the average share of respondents declaring that "they postponed/put off visits to doctor"; "they
postponed/put off visits to the dentists"; "they did not pick up prescription"; "they went without glasses" in New Zealand; and to those
who could not afford visiting a doctor when needed in Japan.
While these are closer... they are still very different questions. If I limit the Europeans to their LAST visit vs. the US being 'I occasionally can't afford it'.... BIG difference.
6. Weights vary inversely to the square root of the share of the population lacking a given item (i.e. forms of deprivation which affect
only a small share of the population are given a larger weight than those that are more common). Weights are scaled to sum to 1
across items. Weights for new European countries, Luxembourg and Sweden use data from ESQL rather than ECHP.
7. Average of the countries listed above, weighted by the number of households in each country.
Ok, I admit... they lost me in the above.... WHAT?