16 ms·

MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

• kristofferR 9y ago
  Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution/democratic system? The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness. [1] [2] Since the American system forces people into two camps/parties based on ideology instead of the delivered results, the results suffer while the ideological conflict is enhanced. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
  • unityByFreedom 9y ago
    > while the US constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness. Disagreement is a human condition, not a democratic one. Democracy is just a way to let some ideas win some of the time. There isn't a system in the world that's freed people from disagreement. Humans like disagreement. We want to be creative, original, and unique at times. That requires setting your own path.
    • yorwba 9y ago
      Disagreement != divisiveness. E.g. I disagree with you on that point, but I'm not using my hypothetical army of sock puppets to downvote every single of your comments into oblivion from now to eternity. Sometimes, US politics feels more like the latter.
      • unityByFreedom 9y ago
        You're splitting hairs. They're related terms I have no control over an army. I just have me and my own opinion
  • MichaelBurge 9y ago
    > it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness. It doesn't have anything about parties in it at all, and leaves it up to the states to decide how to choose their electors. If California or any other state wanted a different system, it could decide to use ranked choice voting right now just like Maine chose last election.
    • lyschoening 9y ago
      That could make a difference in the House, but not in the Senate.
      • jacobush 9y ago
        Still, pretty nice though?
      • mcv 9y ago
        I think it could be reasonable to have system where the House represents the people (making proportional representation necessary) while the Senate represents the states. As long as the role of the Senate is sufficiently limited and not the core of the legislative process, that could be very reasonable. But it's vital that the people are more important than the states. For example, the House could decide on the laws, with the Senate only deciding whether this is an issue that belongs on the federal level at all. And maybe double checking whether the law is constitutional and in line with existing treaties. If they do the same thing, it makes no sense to have them both.
  • 324343245 9y ago
    > Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed constitution/democratic system? Almost certainly. The US was doing fine for most of the 20th century. Globalism is what has brought wages down. Globalism combines the economies of the richest countries with the economies of the poorest in an attempt to "help" poor countries. As rich countries and poor countries combine economies, they move toward economic-equilibrium, which means the people from the poor country get brought out of poverty at the expense of the people in the rich countries. This is fine for the "1%" on the coasts of the united states, but if you're part of rural America you're getting hit very hard by globalism.
    • jameshart 9y ago
      The idea that globalism is an attempt to 'help' poor countries needs evidence to support it - I think there are plenty of ways in which globalism has benefitted wealthy countries at the expense of poor ones. In fact, the idea that globalism is 'an attempt' to do something, i.e. a conscious agenda to change the world, rather than just something which just emerged out of commercial activity, also seems a bit of a leap.
      • ptaipale 9y ago
        I think that we can once again be reminded that there is only one thing that is worse for poor nations than being exploited by global capitalism. It's that poor nations are not exploited by global capitalism. Then you can look up TED talks by Hans Rosling, and the follow-up reports for UN millennium development goals.
        • Karellen 9y ago
          Can you give a few examples of poor nations that are not being exploited by global capitalism?
          • flerchin 9y ago
            Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea.
  • phkahler 9y ago
    I think most of the division in US politics comes from the way representatives are influenced. By co-locating them all in Washington we enable destructive lobbying while keeping them away from the people they are supposed to represent. The party system is also destructive - I advocate against any legal recognition of political parties and against campaign ads funded by anyone outside the state a person is running in. These issues will not be addressed by the people in power though because they are part of the structures that need to be eliminated.
    • unityByFreedom 9y ago
      > By co-locating them all in Washington we enable destructive lobbying while keeping them away from the people they are supposed to represent Representatives do spend time in their own states. They also need a central place to meet. No country or system does this differently. > The party system is also destructive - I advocate against any legal recognition of political parties and against campaign ads funded by anyone outside the state a person is running in. I think rolling back Citizens United, which allowed corporations to donate unlimited amounts to candidates' [unaffiliated] campaigns, would be a big practical step in this direction.
      • alistairSH 9y ago
        In addition to rolling back Citizens United would be to re-introduce pork-barrel spending. With changes to the legislative process in the 90s, Congressional leaders lost a strong carrot to keep the rank-and-file members playing along. In the current system, with no carrot, legislators are more inclined to follow the wishes of their constituents. And with extreme gerrymandering, those constituents can be very extreme.
        • unityByFreedom 9y ago
          Pork barrel spending is special interest funding. It's not viewed as a good thing
          • 9y ago
  • jasonlfunk 9y ago
    The constitution we have now isn't the first version. It was created with the ability to be changed with the process of amendments. We have 27 of them so far. More could be added to change the voting system or whatever else, if there was political will to do so; but currently there isn't. (And this is ignoring the idea of the judiciary reading into the constitution new rights that weren't there to begin with.)
    • kristofferR 9y ago
      My initial instinct were to agree that while changing the voting system is obviously theoretically possible, it would never happen. Why would the parties vote for solutions that would destroy the duopoly they currently enjoy? Then I actually researched it a bit, and it turns out that quite a few countries have actually moved away from FPTP. [1] That's interesting, and something to be hopeful about. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#List_of_former_FPTP_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Lis...
      • unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > it turns out that quite a few countries have actually moved away from FPTP Yeah, to bring alternative ranked voting to the US, it needs to happen at the local level first, as done in Maine.
      • sqeaky 9y ago
        > Why would the parties vote for solutions that would destroy the duopoly they currently enjoy? One can a imagine a situation where Democrats think the change will be safe for them and Republicans will be cast into chaos and in that same situation Republicans think they will be safe and Democrats will be cast into chaos.
  • xg15 9y ago
    Not a US citizen, but my understanding is that the two-party system is not mandated by the constitution, or even encouraged. It's something that developed on top of it, as a consequence of some bad rules (first-past-the-post as you say) but also other factors (campaign financing) Because the beneficiaries of the system get to make the rules, there is also a push to change regulations more and more to favor the two-party system. There are other parties (e.g. greens) it just doesn't make any practical sense to vote for them.
    • kristofferR 9y ago
      Your first and your last sentence contradicts each other, in my view. The reason why it doesn't make sense to vote for the greens is the system laid out in the constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
  • H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
    I feel like this is a more general symptom of attempting to apply a democracy where every citizen's is valued equally in a very large population. At some point, it's simply impossible to have a whole population which is both properly educated and able to voice it's opinion. This line of reasoning is a large part of the reason that Rousseau suggested that societies would be best served by an educated aristocracy[1]. America has an aristocracy emerging in it's political/business class, but it still attempts to have every voice heard in elections, and as a result you'll always have people who feel hardly done by attempting to rebel against the status quo. I'm also going go take the opportunity to share CGP Grey's videos on First Past the Post voting[2] and the electoral college[3], and the issues with those. He also has videos directly the electoral college, without his opinions, if you need some background[4]. [1]http://www.bartleby.com/168/305.html http://www.bartleby.com/168/305.html [2]http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-problems-with-first-past-the-post-voting-explained.html http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-problems-with-first-past-the... [3]http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-trouble-with-the-electoral-college.html http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-trouble-with-the-electoral-c... [4]http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/how-the-electoral-college-works.html http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/how-the-electoral-college-works....
    • unityByFreedom 9y ago
      > At some point, it's simply impossible to have a whole population which is both properly educated and able to voice it's opinion Are, it's impossible to have that at all points. The point is to strive for it, not achieve perfection. If we don't strive, then with people like DeVos in charge of federal funding, public schools will be gutted and the problem worsens.
      • makosdv 9y ago
        The vast majority of education funding comes from the states, so cutting federal funding won't really have much impact. "That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 8 percent" - https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html It really makes me wonder what we need the Department of Education for...
  • vorotato 9y ago
    Ah but you're assuming that the problem is not enough wealth when actually America is incredibly wealthy. The problem isn't the democratic system, it's income inequality.
    • kristofferR 9y ago
      How did I even imply that the problem is the America doesn't have enough wealth? My comment didn't touch on anything of the sort. My point was actually this: In a better democracy the people who believed income inequality was a big problem would vote for the "Bernie Sanders Party" instead of being forced to vote for Clinton. Let's say that just 20% voted for the BSP while 31% voted for the Hillary Party. They would be forced to govern together, and create the best solutions in order to retain or grow their parties. The constantly changing dynamic between all the different parties would in turn lead to better solutions for the voters instead of the current solution in the US - where people on the left are practically forced to vote democratic and the people on the right are forced to vote republican, no matter the job performance. Since the US forces people into camps based on ideology instead of the delivered results, the results suffer while the ideological conflict is enhanced.
  • vacri 9y ago
    > The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US constitution The US is not the first democracy or democracy-style entity. The US constitution was certainly something interesting and with new stuff for its day, but democracies had been around in various forms for a while. But yes, a large part of the problem in US politics is the inevitable two-parties, which engenders a 'with us or against us' mindset. I wouldn't lay the blame for 'most of the problems' on that, but it seems to be significant.
  • jhbadger 9y ago
    There's nothing in the Constitution about political parties, two or otherwise. In fact, the initial idea at the time was that the US wasn't going to have political parties and that voters would focus on individuals instead.
    • PeterisP 9y ago
      Given the "rules of the game" set in US Constitution, a two-party system is a natural outcome, all other situations and fluctuations converge back to that - as shown both by game theory and practical historical evidence. Intent doesn't matter here - if you want different systemic outcomes, you have to change the rules.
    • stult 9y ago
      The parent comment was referring to mathematical properties of the voting system itself which tend to give rise to a two party system almost automatically (specifically, the combination of a first past the post voting system and single-representative districts)[1]. The Founders were not aware of these effects and could not compensate for them, so their vision of a party-free democracy did not prove relevant to how the system actually functions in practice. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
    • tom_mellior 9y ago
      Whether or not the Constitution says anything about political parties, it establishes a "winner takes it all" voting system that has the effect described above. The Republican party should long ago have split into a loony Tea Party fraction and a conservative fraction, and half of the Democrats would politically be more at home in the Green party. But these things are not realistic with a first-past-the-post system, so there are two large, internally divided, dysfunctional parties that "represent" a lot of people whose voices are ultimately not heard and whose interests are not represented by anyone.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • arethuza 9y ago
    The UK seems to having similar problems - so I don't think it is related to the specifics of the constitution/democratic system.
    • s_kilk 9y ago
      And what's the common denominator? Neoliberal Capitalism.
      • arethuza 9y ago
        Indeed, and a slavish adherence to Neoliberal Capitalism as the ideological answer to all questions.
    • kristofferR 9y ago
      The UK also has first-past-the-post though.
    • DarkKomunalec 9y ago
      But the UK also has a first past the post system.
  • danieltillett 9y ago
    This is a bit of a hobby horse of mine, but the reason is the number of elected representatives has not kept pace with the population growth. When the USA was founded there were about 20,000 electors per representatives and now in some seats there are over a million. If you want representation you need to be able to meet and talk to your rep - more importantly they need to be able to acquire your vote without the need for advertising. Remove the need for advertising and you remove the need for money and the corruption that flows.
    • anovikov 9y ago
      How about starting from the other side? Decreasing the number of electors to be more the way it was when USA was founded? So people with no income earning property ('passive income' as it is called here), do not vote? Before 1820s, they didn't.
      • nkohari 9y ago
        If you're interested in fixing the problem the article discusses, this is pretty much exactly the wrong approach. You would actually be hard-pressed to find a solution more diametrically opposed to fixing the problem.
        • anovikov 9y ago
          My belief is that post-scarcity society with very high technological unemployment and universal democracy are fundamentally incompatible. People who are net recipients from the government, should not vote, or they will vote the society into collapse. Can they ever vote for anything but more free stuff? Other problems are fixable with more attention/funding to law enforcement, and yes using all the AI toys: crime prediction, drones, etc.
          • noxToken 9y ago
            Never mind that most people who have to use welfare for cash assistance actually hate it, and they would rather earn their own living wages via work. Welfare queens are very few and far in between.
  • adrianN 9y ago
    I agree that first past the post is stupid, but the strong divide between Repulicans and Democrats seems to be fairly recent.[1] They used to vote less along party lines. So maybe the rise of mass media is to blame? http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
    • rbanffy 9y ago
      At some point someone discovered that reporting on a fictional version of reality that confirms the audience's biases was more profitable than reporting on actual facts.
  • pmorici 9y ago
    Two party system isn't in the constitution. If you go back and look at us history politics have always had periods that look nutty and disfunctional.
  • adamnemecek 9y ago
    There's also a cultural aspect. E.g. Note how people in the us don't protest much, much to their detriment.
    • bcook 9y ago
      Aren't there better ways than protesting to affect change?
      • adamnemecek 9y ago
        There actually aren't. Not as immediate and direct. Occupy Wall Street made a lot of people in power really uncomfortable. Also see the recent president Park protests in South Korea.
  • jstewartmobile 9y ago
    Our problem is the rural/urban split, and how the rural areas have a much more powerful per-person sway over policy and election outcomes. Two senators per state is pretty kick-ass if you live in North Dakota.
    • wtbob 9y ago
      Our problem is the cities, and how they have many more people. Representation in proportion to population is pretty kick-ass if you live in New York. It's a little less kick-ass if you live in North Dakota, and wonder why a few coastal congressmen are able to pass laws which interfere with your lifestyle. More seriously, our problem is a metastasised federal government. Very little should actually be a federal issue (read the enumerated powers of the United States in the Constitution!), and yet almost everything now is. As a result, every issue becomes winner-take-all: the entire country must comply with me, or the entire country must comply with you. There's no room to allow Massachusetts to go wrong and right in its ways, and to allow North Dakota to go wrong and right in its ways.
      • unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > Very little should actually be a federal issue (read the enumerated powers of the United States in the Constitution!), and yet almost everything now is. As a result, every issue becomes winner-take-all: the entire country must comply with me, or the entire country must comply with you. There's no room to allow Massachusetts to go wrong and right in its ways, and to allow North Dakota to go wrong and right in its ways Saying everything is this way is too much. More like, a few issues such as gay rights and abortion pissed off enough church-going folk to the point they began to rally against federal government overreach. There are plenty of other things that are managed by states. You don't hear about many differences between state and federal because they aren't contentious. States and the fed are happy with plenty of state laws.
      • gnaritas 9y ago
        > It's a little less kick-ass if you live in North Dakota, and wonder why a few coastal congressmen are able to pass laws which interfere with your lifestyle. And which laws would those be? I'm curious because the fact is a vote in North Dakota is worth several votes in New York so you're already getting far more power than you deserve in any fair system and the only issues that tend to go federal are issues of civil rights which affects the lifestyle of the oppressed, it isn't oppressing you or anyone else in North Dakota.
  • Kaizyn 9y ago
    First of all, it is a republic and not a democracy. The difference is quite important. Secondly, to attribute the problems to the constitution is mistaken. That founding document is the only thing standing in the way of a complete and total disaster for the country. Nearly all the problems can be traced back to where politicians are ignoring the constitution in part or in full and thereby eroding the public protections built into the republic.
    • Brakenshire 9y ago
      On the other hand, the US has a legalistic style of politics which you could blame on people relying too much on the constitution. The US is like an oppositional court room, with each side tearing at each other to get as much benefit as they can. It does diminish the shared duty to do what is right and good for the country and the democracy. Although of course the US is also a relatively fractured country by its nature, so perhaps can't rely on a vague, shared sense of what is good and decent, in the same way as a small European country, with more or less a common ethnic and cultural identity.
      • Kaizyn 9y ago
        The purpose of the constitution is to protect the public from the tyranny of the government. And within the public, to protect the minorities from the majority.
    • Pulcinella 9y ago
      First of all, a republic is a type of democracy...
      • gnaritas 9y ago
        No, ours is, but not all republics are democracies. Republic just means we don't have a monarchy and leaders are chosen by some other means. It doesn't mean that means is a democracy.
        • Kaizyn 9y ago
  • lordnacho 9y ago
    It's a big piece of it, seemingly. The US has an interesting constitution: - First past the post. Such systems tend to favour fewer parties. The UK (also FPTP) barely has more than two parties. In most of continental western europe, there's considerably more, due to proportional representation. On the continent you end up having a bunch of different opinions, and you don't have to squish every issue onto a liberal/conservative axis. For instance you get socially conservative big state parties. Or socially liberal big state parties. Or socially liberal small state. And there's other axes too. - A separate executive. In the UK even though they have FPTP, they have a government formed by the leader of one of the parties, and they "whip" the MPs to vote according to the party line, subject to various forms of sanction depending on how important an issue is. In the US, you choose two legislatures and a separate president. If they're not in agreement, it de facto entrenches the existing status quo by making it hard to change the law.
    • joveian 9y ago
      I think the seperate executive could be more a strength than a weakness in that it could allow a congressional system where stable coalitions are unnecessary and different issues could result in different coalitions. Possibly this happens more than I would think in systems that require coalitions, but it seems to me like not needing them would be more likely to change the simplistic us vs them narrative. The other issue is which system to change to. There doesn't seem to be a single ideal system. IMO, in terms of the voting itself, ability to resolve an election in one ballot, limiting the usefulness of strategic voting, and getting at least close to a Condorcet winner would be the most useful properties. I recently started to try to put together something based on five value range voting but I'm not sure it is even possible to derive a system from that which has the above properties. I haven't found any existing methods that seem to fit the above properties well, although some are much closer than others. Another option, easier in a lot of ways but more expensive, would be two ballot elections. There is also the structural part. IMO, a parallel system has more appeal than mixed member proprotional, but it has some significant disadvantages as well. Anytime a significant change is proposed there will be strategic maneuvering for a system that benefits particular interests. As someone else mentioned, states need to change first. The west coast in general would be a great place for that and I think Oregon may be taking the lead in political disfunction at this point (well, on the west coast at least, even though California is very innovative in that area)...
  • vowelless 9y ago
    I generally agree with your point but it is worth pointing out that almost any democratic system will have flaws which can lead to unexpected results. See Arrows impossibility theorem.
  • pjc50 9y ago
    Don't forget the racism. Some of the weird structural elements date from the "three-fifths compromise", like the electoral college.
  • 9090local 9y ago
    The problem is not the constitution or the existing system. The problem is there is a privileged class that don't follow the rules of the law. And privilege is one of most inefficient thing in a system!
    • mac01021 9y ago
      Who is not following the rules of the law? Which rules?
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • usmeteora 9y ago
    "results suffer while the ideological conflict is enhanced" exactly. The most disconcerting part about the state of American politics is the focus on a predecided ideology of the other party being wrong. proving the other party wrong is apparently worth everyone suffering over. When each party is increasingly controlled by less people, then we now have a country where 300million people are willing to shoot themselves in the foot in the name of their party, with the ruling groups of each party having the interests of neither in mind. Now youve just created an ideology of sacrificial progress in the name of a party. There is more loyalty in this country to ones party than there is to the country and the progress of the country. The emotions and irrationality of attachment, and continual degredation of the other party just to be in the right, approaches religion. The only thing more demoralizing than this is the fact that this conversation is continually broadcast on two news stations each owned by billionaires, who curate the "news" themselves. The biggest progress I've seen in news lately is Bill Oreily being fired for 11 pending and accumulating harrassment lawsuits. Must be nice to get paid $75million to be fired. True journalism shines through again. It's extremely....disconcerting.
  • TorKlingberg 9y ago
    It's not something we like to hear, but I think most people prefer to keep first past the post elections. The U.K. had a referendum to change it and 68% voted "no".
  • JediWing 9y ago
    > The first version of something is rarely the best version Second, actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation As another comment mentioned, it's arguably greater if you include subsequent amendments. The US Constitution has its share of flaws, but it ignores quite a bit to call it a first version.
• tom_wills 9y ago
  That's not what 'third-world' means... we're still part of NATO
  • czechdeveloper 9y ago
    But it's how it's used now. But yes, it's not in original meaning of a word. But based on original meaning Switzerland is third world country which also does not sound right.
    • herbst 9y ago
      On the other side swiss people seem aware of that and don't use the term so loosely like everyone else.
  • JohnGB 9y ago
    The general usage of "third-world" has changed over time to be focused more on development than on whether a country was pro-USA or pro-Soviet. If one were to hold to the original meaning of "third-world", then one would have to class Namibia and Angola as "first-world" countries while classing Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden, and Finland as "third world". Something that clearly goes against the current general usage of the term.
    • celticninja 9y ago
      They are better described as developing nations however I agree that people tend to understand that third world means this, rather than the political definition.
  • iaskwhy 9y ago
    I wasn't aware of the original meaning. From Wikipedia[0]: "The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the First World, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies represented the Second World. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political and economic divisions." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
• nunez 9y ago
  While I don't think the US is, de jure, a third-world country, I completely believe that it is, de facto, for many. I am on my way back from Memphis and onto Detroit, and both of these cities and their home states have plenty of areas that look unbelievably impoverished. Based on what I've seen from my years of traveling the country, it would not surprise me if most of the country had this problem. It's really sad.
  • joelrunyon 9y ago
    As I stated above: 3rd world means non-NATO aligned states (or communist aligned states). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World Unless the US turns communist, it can not be a 3rd world country.
    • kristofferR 9y ago
      Did you even read the link you posted? It states that the definition of what the "third world" is is changing, right in some of the first paragraphs.
  • 324343245 9y ago
    What countries don't have any impoverished neighborhoods?
    • mxtt 9y ago
      https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-slums-in-Switzerland https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-slums-in-Switzerland
      • seppin 9y ago
        how is comparing a small affluent country to a large and econ diverse one even remotely fair?
    • herbst 9y ago
      i would not be aware of one in switzerland
• K0SM0S 9y ago
  The facts are piling up to support this view. However I don't see it as mere regression, insofar as time doesn't flow backwards, and it is still quite unfair to developing countries to say their condition is 'as good' as that of even lower-class US citizens. It looks more to me, as I had somewhat theorized a decade ago, as the emergence of a 'new medieval age' politically and economically. The US being one of the most advanced countries on earth, it seems quite logical that they would pave the way forward towards new social orders in this century. Sadly not a desirable change, but history is made of ups and downs in quality of life.
  • meric 9y ago
    Middle class people in developing countries, e.g. Small business owners, have much better quality of life than the lower class US. Much more likely to have emotional healthy families, low cost of living allow high rate of savings, can afford electronics and broadband internet, support family of 3-5 kids with good enough tertiary education, and maybe even a car. Compare that to some of the places in the US riddled with drug addictions...
• nirav72 9y ago
  I'm thinking MIT economists haven't lived in a third world. (I was born in one) The U.S is not even remotely close to being a third-world or will be one anytime soon.
  • celticninja 9y ago
    The US is a large and varied place.
  • davewritescode 9y ago
    No, but this is a certainly hallmark of unstable governments. The big difference between Mexico and Canada is a strong middle class. Happy people who can feed their families and educate their children tend to stay quiet and go about their lives without stirring the pot. Once you've completely lost faith in government, why not look the other way when a drug cartel sets up shop in your town?
  • CuriouslyC 9y ago
    I've seen places in Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia that looked every bit as third world as rural Philippines/Vietnam. What the US lacks is urban poverty in the form of shantytowns. This is because unlike most third world nations, we quickly raze them when and find excuses to incarcerate the people who live there. If we were more permissive, we'd certainly have them too.
    • raverbashing 9y ago
      Rural does not mean poor/3rd world In the same way there's a lot of wealthy places in let's say Mexico City and other capitals of 3rd world countries
      • joelrunyon 9y ago
        3rd world means non-NATO aligned states (or communist aligned states). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
• esteves_ 9y ago
  I see the race card was played again.
• 324343245 9y ago
  Notice how things start to get worse and worse as globalism progresses? Things were great in the 90's, then we signed NAFTA and that's when everything started going to shit. Globalism is what has brought wages down. Globalism combines the economies of the richest countries with the economies of the poorest in an attempt to "help" poor countries. As rich countries and poor countries combine economies, they move toward economic-equilibrium, which means the people from the poor country get brought out of poverty at the expense of the people in the rich countries. This is fine for the "1%" on the coasts of the united states, but if you're part of rural America you're getting hit very hard by globalism.
  • RamenJunkie_ 9y ago
    What else became big starting in the 90s? Hmm, maybe technology and the internet, and the ability for quick and easy communication on a global scale? A massive shift in job types to more technical fields, and less jobs of a hazardous and dangerous nature brought by new technologies from these new technology tools? Globalization isn't necessarily the enemy here, and frankly, it's inevitable for us to survive as a species. There is going to have to be cooperation across the globe as more 3rd world countries start to rise because the planet and the environment simply can't support 6 billion people living at at a higher lifestyle level.
  • golergka 9y ago
    > Notice how things start to get worse and worse as globalism progresses? Not for the actual third world countries. I completely agree with your description of the facts on the ground, just completely disagree with what you consider 'bad' or 'good'. Everybody's talking about US' inequality problem like US is a closed system. It's insane. US elites are _world_ elites, and inequality should be considered in the world scale, not a country scale - and suddenly, the Occupy protesters and american middle class are the rich ones.
    • jacobush 9y ago
      Wait what? So because there are even poorer people on the other sides of the ponds, some of which might actually benefit in some tangential way from globalism, it's OK for the 0.01 % to rob their closest neighbours blind?
• fiatpandas 9y ago
  How long until we see favelas in the US? Low income areas completely devoid of economic opportunity, more or less ceded by local municipalities, with lawless informal economies and virtually no basic city services? Or do we already have them by another name?
  • jlebrech 9y ago
    Ghettos, the projects?
    • fiatpandas 9y ago
      But they don't really function like favelas.
  • realo 9y ago
    Not quite there yet... but ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint,_Michigan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint,_Michigan
    • maxerickson 9y ago
      Flint has a bunch of abandoned housing. It's sort of the opposite of a favela, people left housing behind because of the lack of economic opportunity (whereas a favela is people dealing with poor housing in order to seek economic opportunity).
  • dpierce9 9y ago
    Visit West Baltimore. It isn't a favela in the sense of either density or construction but in terms of missing economic opportunity, informal economy, very weak city services.
• arjie 9y ago
  I don't buy it. The last election saw relatively wealthy cities voting to increase taxes, increase equity, and make life better for the poor. And rural areas voting the opposite way with national identity, lower taxes, and lower community spending being their important things. This is very different from third world nations where the middle class wants lower taxes and the poor vote for more spending but don't succeed.
  • bigeasy 9y ago
    Rather than setting up your own straw man, why not respond to some of the arguments made in the article? > In the developing countries Lewis studied, people try to move from the low-wage sector to the affluent sector by transplanting from rural areas to the city to get a job. Occasionally it works; often it doesn’t. Temin says that today in the U.S., the ticket out is education, which is difficult for two reasons: you have to spend money over a long period of time, and the FTE sector is making those expenditures more and more costly by defunding public schools and making policies that increase student debt burdens. The article focuses on education is a class divider that is becoming increasingly unobtainable or when obtained, burdened with debt. This is strike against social mobility. Do you buy that?
    • arjie 9y ago
      A bit harsh, that accusation, especially when I can't find any of your quoted sentences in the linked article. For what it's worth, I was talking about this following excerpt: > In the Lewis model of a dual economy, much of the low-wage sector has little influence over public policy. Check. The high-income sector will keep wages down in the other sector to provide cheap labor for its businesses. Check. Social control is used to keep the low-wage sector from challenging the policies favored by the high-income sector.
      • BoiledCabbage 9y ago
        > Social issues are used to keep the low-wage sector from challenging the policies favored by the high-income sector. Yet change two words and suddenly things align again. Particularly if you take high-wage sector to be that demographic of the republican party. (Obviously this isn't exclusive to the republican party, but what's present in the party matches the form in developing countries). Another way to look at the thesis is this: The republican party's politics and functioning/platform execution matches that of a developing country. While they aren't they only party, their views/framework have been taking over American politics since Clinton's triangulation of the 90s (and arguably since Reagan's arrival in the 80s).
• StevePerkins 9y ago
  Has any one actually read this book, and can confirm how substantive it is? You see a post with a title like, "Study by MIT Economist: U.S. Has Regressed to a Third-World Nation for Most", and you naively assume that the link will take you to... a study. By an MIT Economist. With actual data, about how the average or mean American has recently crossed some number of economic metric thresholds. Instead, it's a book review. Really just a collection of mushy factoids (e.g. social mobility is lower today than it was just after WWII)... and political talking points worthy of a Facebook or Reddit comment (e.g. rich people are awful, and putting criminals in jail is racist). Is the actual book a bit more data-oriented, or is the whole thing just ideological comfort food?
• prawn 9y ago
  Another story about the same person and topic that I found insightful: "America is Regressing into a Developing Nation for Most People" - https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-is-regressing-into-a-developing-nation-for-most-people https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-is-r... I have visited the US most years out of the last 5-10, including a trip through 25ish US states a couple of years ago. It's easy to get the impression that competing interests maintain a problematic or worsening status quo - infrastructure that has to be OK until it collapses because no one wants to prioritise the money to fix it (many roads in California are shocking). A voting system (as mentioned by @kristofferR) that makes it difficult for a viable third party to emerge. Health, education, private prison industries, etc. There are parts of the United States that feel like they are struggling to survive - including areas that are quite eye-opening like Bombay Beach and Wonder Valley. In Australia, we see lobbying groups dictate terms increasingly often too and I don't know that our country is better for it.
  • tptacek 9y ago
    Bombay Beach? Wonder Valley? I had to look both of those places up, and both are places with tiny populations. Can you help me understand why I should be thinking about places like those and not, say, Youngstown Ohio?
    • tryitnow 9y ago
      Good question. I had never heard of Bombay Beach but it's a fascinating story: http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/salton-sea http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/salton-sea Having said that, I think it has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Wonder Valley also has an interesting story: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/12/the-last-homesteads-of-wonder-valley-california/383372/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/12/the-last-homesteads-o... There's a theme here of Southern California desert wastelands.
    • prawn 9y ago
      They were just two that I could easily remember driving through and with easy-to-Google names for anyone who wanted to see. We were driving through 25 states in two months with a couple of toddlers, so details are all over the place. Obviously as a visitor, you are taking in a whole range of things - ruinporn, state of urban areas (footpaths, cleanliness), retail, etc - rather than relying on data.
• jlebrech 9y ago
  developing is good no? rich and developing should be a goal
• bhouston 9y ago
  Is this just happening in the US or is it also happening across many other "Western/European" nations? I wonder if it is isolated or widespread in part because there will be some equalization as other developing nations rise -- like China and India.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • VLM 9y ago
    Demographics is destiny, so yes. Particularly demographics of the youth. If you import your population from 1800-Ireland and 1800-Germany in the 1800s, in 2017 you end up with a country like 2017-Ireland or 2017-Germany. In other words, pretty nice. If you demographically replace the existing population (and what, precisely, was wrong with the existing population, such that we have to replace them, other than their race?) then you end up with the immigrant's country, but located here. Surely Somali in 2117 is not going to be a paradise, likewise USA in 2117 will be the same as Somalia, no paradise, thats for sure. There is no magic dirt. Anglos taking over Hawaii didn't turn anglos into Hawaiians. Anglos taking over the midwest USA didn't turn the anglos into native americans. Likewise the replacement of native cultures with imported cultures means the annihilation of the former cultures and replacement by the invaders. The USA will be a moderately poor Spanish speaking hispanic nation. Europe will be a moderately poor Muslim caliphate.
    • sctb 9y ago
      Hacker News is not a site for ideological battle—especially involving inflammatory handwaving—and you've often used it as such. Please stop.
• bobbington 9y ago
  The problem is that America has become a socialist country which is a recipe for poverty. It wastes such an insane amount of money paying people to not work, to not contribute to society. we pay well over 200 billion dollars a year in just interest on the debt "The inherent flaw of capitalism is that some are rich and some are poor. The inherent flaw in communism is that all are poor"
• cmrdporcupine 9y ago
  It's capitalism continuing to return to its "normal" after the exceptional post-WWII era where strong unions, social democracy, and the threat of the USSR forced generous accomodations for the working class at home while a large stable and rapidly developing economic sphere ensured a few decades of prosperity. But an abnormal period, and we are now returning to the normality of capitalism described by critics like Marx or Dickens over 100 years ago. The distinction between "developing" and "developed" is a dubious distinction anyways especially now. "Developing" implies that liberal capitalism has a linear narrative towards something (presumably something that looks like "the west"). There's a lot of hubris in that statement, and I don't think it is supported by any evidence.
• jefe_ 9y ago
  The difference being, here we don't let the commoners engage in bribery, it is only reserved for the higher levels, and even then measures are taken to conceal the nature of the transactions. In many developing countries, everyone gives and receives bribes for many things. It is acceptable (and there are limits). I think it's healthy, if the system is corrupt, everyone should be able to exploit its corruption.
  • atomi 9y ago
    > everyone should be able to exploit its corruption disgusting.
  • sharemywin 9y ago
    Except if it's the justice system and the victim doesn't get justice. Oh and the taxpayers which are overpaying for an inferior product/service so someone can line their pockets. OR the person that gets sick or injured because someone isn't properly trained. I could go on but I'm starting to get little sick...
  • saint_fiasco 9y ago
    Bottom-up corruption has its advantages. If people like Michael Brown could bribe cops, there would have been no Ferguson scandal. However the top-down approach allows corruption to be managed and ensures that important business isn't derailed because some random bureaucrat has a drug habit or is in a bad mood. You might be interested in this article http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/08/the_nature_of_the_grift.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/08/the_nature_of_the_gri... which tries to explain the difference between corruption in first and third world countries. I don't know if his thesis is true because I only know the third world kind. If the article is of interest to you, can you tell me what you think of part VI? Does the story with Sally at AT&T sound true? I only have experience with what the author says happens in Hungary, and that part is spot on.
• ENTP 9y ago
  Everything must start again anew, Everything just goes that way my friend, Every king knows it to be true, That every kingdom must one day come to an end, - Ben Howard, Everything
• accountyaccount 9y ago
  I definitely support paying more taxes to improve the infrastructure/rural areas of the country, but I also start to think that maybe the country is just too big. Are there any countries that are nearly this large that have a consistent quality of infrastructure for everyone? I live in a large city and it seems that even we have trouble maintaining up our roads/bridges/grid/telecom systems and we pay a lot of state taxes comparatively — I can't imagine how a much larger, less dense, less wealthy area filled with people staunchly against taxes could even begin to keep up.
  • tuna-piano 9y ago
    Yes, it would be great if we could sub divide the large country into smaller areas, and give each of those areas control over most of the roads / bridges / etc. If spending and benefits are primarily local, shouldn't the decisions be as well?
    • accountyaccount 9y ago
      I'd also imagine this could calm a lot of the "all our taxes go to the coastal elites" mentality and drum up support for local taxes (even though it's generally an errant stance).
    • dcdanko 9y ago
      You mean like the States?
      • accountyaccount 9y ago
        Sure, but there's no regional intermediary. Government scales from city, to county, to state... then straight to federal.
        • Balgair 9y ago
          Not always true. SF is both a city and a county, for example. Also, different states do it differently. Colorado has many cities that span county lines. Yes, going across the street in the same city means you now are under different laws. This isn't all that different than, say, a school district and it's tax base. We do also have regional systems, like the Mississippi/Colorado river watershed districts that help manage and maintain water usage in those areas. These inter-state issues have been cropping up for a long time (Bleeding Kansas, for an extreme example) and we mostly manage them pretty well and pretty silently. Turns out, the constitution actually does work alright.
• yodsanklai 9y ago
  And I'm afraid that Europe is shifting to be more similar to the US...
• scott_s 9y ago
  Another article on the same book, "Escaping Poverty Requires Almost 20 Years With Nearly Nothing Going Wrong", https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/economic-inequality/524610/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/economi...
• justforFranz 9y ago
  You mean a banana republic?
• Paradigma11 9y ago
  http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/05/french-fracture http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/05/frenc... This article comes from a french/european side but it is the most insightful take on current economic and social developments that i have read.