So, the US has a high proportion of children in poverty, where "poverty" is defined as inequality. (Specifically, earning half or less the median income makes you "poor", no matter how much money you have or don't have.)
The solution is, naturally, to give each child a fixed amount of money! Nobody in the article seems to notice that this conflicts with the definition of "poverty" they want to be using.
If you think it's necessary that all children be "guarantee[d] a minimum level of well-being", perhaps we should evaluate whether they're already getting it, as opposed to whether some other children are getting even more.
The solution is, naturally, to give each child a fixed amount of money! Nobody in the article seems to notice that this conflicts with the definition of "poverty" they want to be using.
If you think it's necessary that all children be "guarantee[d] a minimum level of well-being", perhaps we should evaluate whether they're already getting it, as opposed to whether some other children are getting even more.