Something I’ve noticed is when untraveled people in the USA try to contextualize themselves with other countries they pick the worst examples they can think of. Favelas in Brazil or slums in South Africa for example. We do this to the point where our entire conception of countries (or in the case of Africa, continents) is the worst imagery we can think of. I think they genuinely don’t believe that, for all their troubles India, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, etc also have smartphones and big buildings and libraries and universities and laboratories, and educated people living decent lives.
They also can’t see how the overcrowded jails full of pretrial prisoners, the barefoot children carrying buckets for water in Appalachia, the rundown schools full of illiterate kids, the impunity of rich private interests, the corrupt sheriffs and judges, and on and on, puts us in the company of the “third world countries”. Yes we have nice places too, but SO DO THEY. A broken society in the 21st century isn’t people living in mud huts, it’s children shitting in the street next to a glass skyscraper with LEED Platinum certification.
And it’s not just “overcrowded jails full of pretrial prisoners, the barefoot children carrying buckets for water in Appalachia” but the grad students in LA living out of their cars, or grandpa sleeping on a bus stop, or people in the Rockies surviving off roadkill and forage.
Seattle tent cities/tiny homes make some Favelas look real swanky.
Logically, it’s not about how much money you make, it’s about purchasing power. It is irrelevant if you earn only $400 a month when you can eat well for $1 and pay $100 for your housing, you have free health care and education. That is the reality in some third world countries.
Strictly, technically every other way China is still third world. This concept of third world being poor seems to have originated from the common charity ads in the 90s and 2000s who loved the phrase, and from the American exceptionalism that thinks everything not American is dirty and poor.
Being poor is the only way a country is third world or not. Being politically related to America is not relevant to the present definition. So no, it is not “technically in every other way”. It just is not a third world country, period.
You’re right that they either never learned what 1st-2nd-3rd world really means, or they forgot what they were taught in history class. Unfortunately it still is the main term to refer to poor countries even though it’s incorrect. Language seems to be biased towards the common meaning over the technically correct meaning.
Spain isn’t third world, it already had shown the middle finger to Trump and also has few to do with Rusia. Third world countries don’t certainly mean people starving, the people there often have all what they need, but this, you’ll see few Ferraries there and chalets with swimming pool. Someone is rich, not necesarly because a lot of money, but because he need only few. We often enter in a rabbit hole of the consumism, spending a lot of money in things we really don’t need, we work like a dog to have enough money to pay a journey to Hawaii to recover us from the burnout, which we wouldn’t have working less, no needing this journey.
If you can eat well for $1 then it is definitely a poor country relative to the US. Differences in purchasing power are a direct result of differences in wealth.
I think that the US is a third world country, it’s rich but most money is used for weapons and to make richer the billonairs and big corporations, in the social and cultural sphere, it is one of the most backward in the world. Now with Trump the US is turning in a running gag for the most countries. A country where 40 milloncof citizen don’t have enough to eat at least 2 times a day, isn’t a rich country.
USA is an total dystopic country, any Banana Republic has more culture. US is only powerfull because use all the money for weapons, developed by foreigner scientifics. First world is anything else.
You will say that the US is a first world country, it’s better for your health
Not really. Poverty rates are higher, yes, but many middle income third world countries do have sizeable and growing middle classes. They’re called developing countries for a reason. The image of war-torn African countries where everyone works in mines isn’t really representative.
I genuinely think that in some third world countries, as part of the middle class, you can have a better life than in the USA.
Something I’ve noticed is when untraveled people in the USA try to contextualize themselves with other countries they pick the worst examples they can think of. Favelas in Brazil or slums in South Africa for example. We do this to the point where our entire conception of countries (or in the case of Africa, continents) is the worst imagery we can think of. I think they genuinely don’t believe that, for all their troubles India, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, etc also have smartphones and big buildings and libraries and universities and laboratories, and educated people living decent lives.
They also can’t see how the overcrowded jails full of pretrial prisoners, the barefoot children carrying buckets for water in Appalachia, the rundown schools full of illiterate kids, the impunity of rich private interests, the corrupt sheriffs and judges, and on and on, puts us in the company of the “third world countries”. Yes we have nice places too, but SO DO THEY. A broken society in the 21st century isn’t people living in mud huts, it’s children shitting in the street next to a glass skyscraper with LEED Platinum certification.
And it’s not just “overcrowded jails full of pretrial prisoners, the barefoot children carrying buckets for water in Appalachia” but the grad students in LA living out of their cars, or grandpa sleeping on a bus stop, or people in the Rockies surviving off roadkill and forage.
Seattle tent cities/tiny homes make some Favelas look real swanky.
Logically, it’s not about how much money you make, it’s about purchasing power. It is irrelevant if you earn only $400 a month when you can eat well for $1 and pay $100 for your housing, you have free health care and education. That is the reality in some third world countries.
Third world doesn’t mean poor, it just means not aligned with US or Russia
Espousing an old no longer relevant definition to sound smarter and be “right” is peak lemmy/reddit behavior. Third world does mean poor now.
It doesn’t. It never did.
It does. Strictly it does. Why do you think china is no longer considered third world?
Strictly, technically every other way China is still third world. This concept of third world being poor seems to have originated from the common charity ads in the 90s and 2000s who loved the phrase, and from the American exceptionalism that thinks everything not American is dirty and poor.
Being poor is the only way a country is third world or not. Being politically related to America is not relevant to the present definition. So no, it is not “technically in every other way”. It just is not a third world country, period.
Wrong. That’s not what it means, no matter what anyone says on here.
No one really uses that word in its Cold War context anymore. It’s the common term for “developing countries” and the like.
People believe that only because they haven’t learned what it actually means.
You’re right that they either never learned what 1st-2nd-3rd world really means, or they forgot what they were taught in history class. Unfortunately it still is the main term to refer to poor countries even though it’s incorrect. Language seems to be biased towards the common meaning over the technically correct meaning.
Spain isn’t third world, it already had shown the middle finger to Trump and also has few to do with Rusia. Third world countries don’t certainly mean people starving, the people there often have all what they need, but this, you’ll see few Ferraries there and chalets with swimming pool. Someone is rich, not necesarly because a lot of money, but because he need only few. We often enter in a rabbit hole of the consumism, spending a lot of money in things we really don’t need, we work like a dog to have enough money to pay a journey to Hawaii to recover us from the burnout, which we wouldn’t have working less, no needing this journey.
If you can eat well for $1 then it is definitely a poor country relative to the US. Differences in purchasing power are a direct result of differences in wealth.
I think that the US is a third world country, it’s rich but most money is used for weapons and to make richer the billonairs and big corporations, in the social and cultural sphere, it is one of the most backward in the world. Now with Trump the US is turning in a running gag for the most countries. A country where 40 milloncof citizen don’t have enough to eat at least 2 times a day, isn’t a rich country.
Usa is the hub of first world. Russia is the second. Thirds is everyone else.
USA is an total dystopic country, any Banana Republic has more culture. US is only powerfull because use all the money for weapons, developed by foreigner scientifics. First world is anything else.
You will say that the US is a first world country, it’s better for your health
I really should just put a full block on lemmy.ml. Thanks for the reminder!
There’s a reason countries like Vietnam are so popular with digital nomads.
My dream would be to get a remote nightshift job and live in a house by the beaches of south Thailand
It’s also much harder to become a middle class in those countries.
Not really. Poverty rates are higher, yes, but many middle income third world countries do have sizeable and growing middle classes. They’re called developing countries for a reason. The image of war-torn African countries where everyone works in mines isn’t really representative.