7 ms·

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 anytim

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
    - raverbashing 9y ago
      Yes, through the original conception But today it mostly means "developing countries" (which is actually an euphemism for "stuck in underdevelopment")
      - mcv 9y ago
        "Developing countries" is a much better term. "Third world" is vague, outdated, and means something completely different. Not that the US is a developing country; it was developed, and is currently degenerating. It's still very rich, though. So instead of trying to catch this in a single ill-fitting word, perhaps it would be better to simply discuss the actual issues: the rise of poverty, lack of social mobility, crumbling infrastructure, etc.
    - skocznymroczny 9y ago
      you mean non-communist aligned states. First world = NATO, second world = communist bloc, third world = everyone else
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Rural does not mean poor/3rd world Yes, but parent compared places in the US to rural AND poor/3rd world places.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Not just there. In many states, one can see third-world scenery from interstates and railroad lines.
- throwasehasdwi 9y ago
  They might look terrible but the utilities work. Biggest differentiator in 3rd world is poverty AND non functioning government. The water, sewer, and electricity work well enough to be relied upon even in the poorest most remote parts of the US. This is not so in any 3rd world country
  - foldr 9y ago
    The water used to get turned off for a few hours quite often when I lived in a project in DC. I mean, it was never a serious health issue, but utilities aren't as reliable for poor people in the US as you might think.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      This may be the case, and be a serious problem, while still coming nowhere close to validating the comparison made upthread to the third world, where toilets are effectively a luxury.
      - sqeaky 9y ago
        But is does dismantle any objective attempt at asserting American Exceptionalism. We are not exceptional when it comes to water delivery, and there is no reason we couldn't be, like we once had been.
      - estebank 9y ago
        I guess it depends on where the "third world" stops being third world (beyond the original definition of "any nation that isn't aligned with either NATO or URSS"). If third world is used as "developing nations", not every country that would fall under that label is necessarily a failed state. Not all Latin American countries are Venezuela, and not every county in California is San Mateo. In LA and SF I've seen huge amount of people in homeless encampments, to the point where family from Latin America pointed it out, and where European family and friends were completely horrified. I completely understand your point, and a rich person in the US is in a better situation than in other countries, but I wouldn't say that the poorest among the population US are _that_ much better than in other countries. My guess is that the people pushing for the view "parts of US == third world country" might be looking at the top of the list for those countries, while you and others that seem against this comparison are looking at either the average or lower half of countries considered third world. I personally found it horrifying to see a Lamborghini waiting for the traffic light to change while a legless homeless veteran coughing up blood was on that intersection asking for food. Worst part of it though, is that once you live in that environment, very quickly it fades in the background and turns into "just the way things are". Poor people in this country have access to more goods than poor people in other countries, that's true, that doesn't mean that services are up to the task for them.
- nandemo 9y ago
  That's such BS. Have you actually lived in a developing country? If you're American and you care about poverty -- as in relative poverty -- in your country and you want to do something about it, more power to you. It's not like someone being much poorer elsewhere prevents you from caring about a problem in your country. But please don't trivialize abject poverty by implying that the American working class have it as hard as the lower classes in the developing world. It doesn't matter what some parts of the US anecdotally and subjectively "look like", they don't measure nowhere near as poor as rural Philippines or Vietnam. Or urban Philippines/Vietnam for that matter. In those countries, the literacy rate is around 95%. Imagine 5% of people around you are illiterate. Even in Brazil, a so-called "emergent" country or "upper-middle income" country, the literacy rate is only 92%. So 8% are illiterate; not "functionally illiterate" as in unable to correctly interpret certain texts, mind you, but actually unable to read. You cannot get a fast-food job or work as a Walmart greeter if you're illiterate! In contrast, in developed countries the literacy rate is >99%. In the Philippines, 1 in 3 children are malnourished.[0] This isn't some vaguely defined "food insecurity" concept; it's actually malnourishment, kids being severely underweight and stunted. In the US millions of people can take advantage of welfare benefits. So even the non-working poor in the US have much, much better living standards than the working poor in the developing world. Also, when exactly did the US bulldoze a shantytown? And so on. [0] http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/141134-philippines-children-malnutrition-stunting-study http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/141134-philippi...
  - spir 9y ago
    This econtalk episode featured an interesting comparison between US rural poverty and 3rd world countries. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/10/chris_arnade_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/10/chris_arnade_on.htm...
  - blackguardx 9y ago
    The US Census says the US has a literacy rate of 86%. This is a controversial metric, though. The CIA factbook defines literacy as having completed 5 years of schooling. By that definition, the US is at 97.9% literacy. Better than your 95% number, but not Nordic country levels. Also, shantytowns aren't really allowed to exist in the US. They are becoming more common in progressive cities like San Francisco and Seattle, but even there the cops sweep through and make everyone leave every few months. There is no "bulldozing" because the structures are highly temporary, being made of old tents and tarps. You just don't see the multi-generational shantytowns common in developing nations. Public benefits aren't very easy to get in the US. There is a lot of beaurocracy to work through and there really isn't any push to help people sign up.
- rabboRubble 9y ago
  Try visiting Portland, Oregon. A small shanty town has formed in the last year about a block from my home. In the last 2 years there has been a marked spike in homeless encampments along freeways and on public land owned by the OR Department of Transportation. There has been a persistent downtown homeless encampment, I think called Right2Dream. Protests are afoot to find new / additional / different places for permanent encampments. If these aren't shanty towns, I don't know what is. Other Portlanders beside myself have taken to calling them shantytowns.
xg15 9y ago
Read the article. The title is click-bait, but the actual claim is that the social and economic structure has changed in such a way that, increasingly, it fits economic models reserved so far for third-world countries. ("dual economy", power imbalance, etc.) That's a more nuanced but imo not less worrying claim.
coldtea 9y ago
Being born in a third world country probably blinds one to some issues though, as they don't have a historical basis within the US for comparison -- they only compare with their own country. Of course the US wont be a "third world country" anytime soon. But it can regress closer to one than it was before. That said, there are places in Mississippi, South Dakota, Alabama, Colorado, the Appalachia, etc. that are not that better of (if at all) than some developing nations.
tmaly 9y ago
I remember my first trip to the Philippines back in 2003. I saw these little children about the age of 5 wandering around at night trying to sell these little flowers. I ended up giving them some food instead of money as any money would be taken from them. Again on a recent trip this year, I met two young children that were selling shells on an island near the food market. They should have been in school, but they were not. There has been an effort by the government to get all children in larger cities to attend school. The rural areas still have plenty of children who never see a classroom. I think the US is very far from developing countries. Yes I have seen some extreme poverty in the mountains of West Virginia, but nothing like the Philippines.
mr_overalls 9y ago
I've ridden with a Mexican friend through the poorer parts of my Mississippi hometown, and he said, "Wow, this looks just like Mexico. . . The cars are a little nicer, though."
subterfudge44 9y ago
Trump's election slogan was "Make America Great Again" implying that USA is at the bottom and we need him to bring it up. But then so was the campaign of Hillary or Bernie or any one else (Perhaps except Garry Johnson). I think this is a standard trick employed by elites. That to make a very serious claim that paints USA in a bad light and then propose themselves as the "problem solver". > The antidote, as prescribed by Temin, is likely a tough sell in today’s political climate. Expanding education, updating infrastructure, forgiving mortgage and student loan debt, and overall working to boost social mobility for all Americans are bound to be seen as too liberal by many policy makers. At the risk of being down-voted I think the MIT economist is playing political games here. In the absence of stronger contrary evidence I would simply call him a shill.

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
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    Yes, through the original conception But today it mostly means "developing countries" (which is actually an euphemism for "stuck in underdevelopment")
    - mcv 9y ago
      "Developing countries" is a much better term. "Third world" is vague, outdated, and means something completely different. Not that the US is a developing country; it was developed, and is currently degenerating. It's still very rich, though. So instead of trying to catch this in a single ill-fitting word, perhaps it would be better to simply discuss the actual issues: the rise of poverty, lack of social mobility, crumbling infrastructure, etc.
  - skocznymroczny 9y ago
    you mean non-communist aligned states. First world = NATO, second world = communist bloc, third world = everyone else
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Rural does not mean poor/3rd world Yes, but parent compared places in the US to rural AND poor/3rd world places.
mirimir 9y ago
Not just there. In many states, one can see third-world scenery from interstates and railroad lines.
throwasehasdwi 9y ago
They might look terrible but the utilities work. Biggest differentiator in 3rd world is poverty AND non functioning government. The water, sewer, and electricity work well enough to be relied upon even in the poorest most remote parts of the US. This is not so in any 3rd world country
- foldr 9y ago
  The water used to get turned off for a few hours quite often when I lived in a project in DC. I mean, it was never a serious health issue, but utilities aren't as reliable for poor people in the US as you might think.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    This may be the case, and be a serious problem, while still coming nowhere close to validating the comparison made upthread to the third world, where toilets are effectively a luxury.
    - sqeaky 9y ago
      But is does dismantle any objective attempt at asserting American Exceptionalism. We are not exceptional when it comes to water delivery, and there is no reason we couldn't be, like we once had been.
    - estebank 9y ago
      I guess it depends on where the "third world" stops being third world (beyond the original definition of "any nation that isn't aligned with either NATO or URSS"). If third world is used as "developing nations", not every country that would fall under that label is necessarily a failed state. Not all Latin American countries are Venezuela, and not every county in California is San Mateo. In LA and SF I've seen huge amount of people in homeless encampments, to the point where family from Latin America pointed it out, and where European family and friends were completely horrified. I completely understand your point, and a rich person in the US is in a better situation than in other countries, but I wouldn't say that the poorest among the population US are _that_ much better than in other countries. My guess is that the people pushing for the view "parts of US == third world country" might be looking at the top of the list for those countries, while you and others that seem against this comparison are looking at either the average or lower half of countries considered third world. I personally found it horrifying to see a Lamborghini waiting for the traffic light to change while a legless homeless veteran coughing up blood was on that intersection asking for food. Worst part of it though, is that once you live in that environment, very quickly it fades in the background and turns into "just the way things are". Poor people in this country have access to more goods than poor people in other countries, that's true, that doesn't mean that services are up to the task for them.
nandemo 9y ago
That's such BS. Have you actually lived in a developing country? If you're American and you care about poverty -- as in relative poverty -- in your country and you want to do something about it, more power to you. It's not like someone being much poorer elsewhere prevents you from caring about a problem in your country. But please don't trivialize abject poverty by implying that the American working class have it as hard as the lower classes in the developing world. It doesn't matter what some parts of the US anecdotally and subjectively "look like", they don't measure nowhere near as poor as rural Philippines or Vietnam. Or urban Philippines/Vietnam for that matter. In those countries, the literacy rate is around 95%. Imagine 5% of people around you are illiterate. Even in Brazil, a so-called "emergent" country or "upper-middle income" country, the literacy rate is only 92%. So 8% are illiterate; not "functionally illiterate" as in unable to correctly interpret certain texts, mind you, but actually unable to read. You cannot get a fast-food job or work as a Walmart greeter if you're illiterate! In contrast, in developed countries the literacy rate is >99%. In the Philippines, 1 in 3 children are malnourished.[0] This isn't some vaguely defined "food insecurity" concept; it's actually malnourishment, kids being severely underweight and stunted. In the US millions of people can take advantage of welfare benefits. So even the non-working poor in the US have much, much better living standards than the working poor in the developing world. Also, when exactly did the US bulldoze a shantytown? And so on. [0] http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/141134-philippines-children-malnutrition-stunting-study http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/141134-philippi...
- spir 9y ago
  This econtalk episode featured an interesting comparison between US rural poverty and 3rd world countries. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/10/chris_arnade_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/10/chris_arnade_on.htm...
- blackguardx 9y ago
  The US Census says the US has a literacy rate of 86%. This is a controversial metric, though. The CIA factbook defines literacy as having completed 5 years of schooling. By that definition, the US is at 97.9% literacy. Better than your 95% number, but not Nordic country levels. Also, shantytowns aren't really allowed to exist in the US. They are becoming more common in progressive cities like San Francisco and Seattle, but even there the cops sweep through and make everyone leave every few months. There is no "bulldozing" because the structures are highly temporary, being made of old tents and tarps. You just don't see the multi-generational shantytowns common in developing nations. Public benefits aren't very easy to get in the US. There is a lot of beaurocracy to work through and there really isn't any push to help people sign up.
rabboRubble 9y ago
Try visiting Portland, Oregon. A small shanty town has formed in the last year about a block from my home. In the last 2 years there has been a marked spike in homeless encampments along freeways and on public land owned by the OR Department of Transportation. There has been a persistent downtown homeless encampment, I think called Right2Dream. Protests are afoot to find new / additional / different places for permanent encampments. If these aren't shanty towns, I don't know what is. Other Portlanders beside myself have taken to calling them shantytowns.

xg15 9y ago

Read the article. The title is click-bait, but the actual claim is that the social and economic structure has changed in such a way that, increasingly, it fits economic models reserved so far for third-world countries. ("dual economy", power imbalance, etc.) That's a more nuanced but imo not less worrying claim.

coldtea 9y ago

Being born in a third world country probably blinds one to some issues though, as they don't have a historical basis within the US for comparison -- they only compare with their own country. Of course the US wont be a "third world country" anytime soon. But it can regress closer to one than it was before. That said, there are places in Mississippi, South Dakota, Alabama, Colorado, the Appalachia, etc. that are not that better of (if at all) than some developing nations.

tmaly 9y ago

I remember my first trip to the Philippines back in 2003. I saw these little children about the age of 5 wandering around at night trying to sell these little flowers. I ended up giving them some food instead of money as any money would be taken from them. Again on a recent trip this year, I met two young children that were selling shells on an island near the food market. They should have been in school, but they were not. There has been an effort by the government to get all children in larger cities to attend school. The rural areas still have plenty of children who never see a classroom. I think the US is very far from developing countries. Yes I have seen some extreme poverty in the mountains of West Virginia, but nothing like the Philippines.

mr_overalls 9y ago

I've ridden with a Mexican friend through the poorer parts of my Mississippi hometown, and he said, "Wow, this looks just like Mexico. . . The cars are a little nicer, though."

subterfudge44 9y ago

Trump's election slogan was "Make America Great Again" implying that USA is at the bottom and we need him to bring it up. But then so was the campaign of Hillary or Bernie or any one else (Perhaps except Garry Johnson). I think this is a standard trick employed by elites. That to make a very serious claim that paints USA in a bad light and then propose themselves as the "problem solver". > The antidote, as prescribed by Temin, is likely a tough sell in today’s political climate. Expanding education, updating infrastructure, forgiving mortgage and student loan debt, and overall working to boost social mobility for all Americans are bound to be seen as too liberal by many policy makers. At the risk of being down-voted I think the MIT economist is playing political games here. In the absence of stronger contrary evidence I would simply call him a shill.