4 ms·

You are right about most of that being available in the US (except emergency response - but I don't know how quickly you will get rescued in rural US places, or

You are right about most of that being available in the US (except emergency response - but I don't know how quickly you will get rescued in rural US places, or even parts of NYC if you read the papers) But you are wrong about most of this not being available in most places in India. Maybe sewage isn't great and emergency response sucks, and phone is wireless not landline. But there is definitely postal service and TV! You must be kidding. But the main point --> a few bits of infrastructure like what you list does not make people happy, comfortable or rich. You can be very poor and miserable here in the US and many millions of people would be much better off if they lived in Mumbai, where at least stuff is cheaper to buy

byoung2 15y ago
First, you are absolutely right, though you may have access to the same basic set of services whether you are in rural Mississippi or New York, the quality of those services are different. I'd rather be rushed to the hospital in New York than in Mississippi. But it is far better to have those services than not. Second, I wasn't suggesting that only the US has all of these services, and cities in India do not. I was saying that every city (even the poorest) in the US has all of these services, whereas there are many cities and villages in India and China who are lacking some or most of these services. Outside of the major cities in India, would most small villages have these services? I don't think so. I have driven across the United States, and seen towns of 1000 people that have all of the services I have in Los Angeles.