IMO, The US has crumbling infrastructure, corrupt government, dangerous cities, and a lot of homelessness, among so many other problems. Hell, millions of people in the US don’t even have power right now.
What’s the difference?
deleted by creator
The US usually ranks 25-50 on world corruption indices. Third world countries rank 100-200.
That would mean that the US is more corrupt. I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant, so I’m just adding this to help.
I don’t know if it’s a language thing or a regional thing (or just a regular mistake), but “rank” usually means that 1 is the most, 2 is the second most, and 100th would be less corrupt than 1, 2, etc.
deleted by creator
You’re right, they’ve ordered it that way, but they’ve specified that their scale is…
[scored] on a scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean)
So you weren’t wrong about what you read.
But without that context there, being “in the top ten of a corruption ranking” would usually mean the country is very corrupt, haha
Removed by mod
Yes, the scale they used was just a bit counter-intuitive.
It wasn’t a rank from most to least corrupt, it was more of a “corruption score”, where higher numbers means more corrupt. But they ordered it like ranks, so #1 (least corrupt) would be first.
Removed by mod
Have you ever lived in an actual third world country? Here’s some from my home country for each of your examples:
-
Corruption in government is worse and more blatant than what you see in the US. It happens at the top all the way down to the lowest levels. You sometimes have to bribe people just to get some services done. I once had to have a police report done for an auto accident. The officer had the report typed up and they just needed to click the print button. He then said I can pay a quick process “fee” to get the report now, or come back to get the report in 3 days. It was an hour drive to the station, but I didn’t want to pay a bribe, so I came back after 3 days.
-
Infrastructure is crumbling not just because of lack of maintenance, but because the cheapest materials are used and infrastructure is not built up to code. Every step of the process means a cut for someone’s own pockets, so you end up with a tiny amount compared to what was initially funded. Perfectly functioning roads are destroyed and rebuilt in perpetuity because contractors are in cahoots with local government to implement “projects” where they fleece funds by agreeing on a budget then switching materials to substandard quality and pocketing the remaining amount, with the politician getting a % of course. A section of the street in my childhood home is still unpaved 30+ years later just because no one bothered to finish it.
-
Homeless people in the US may still have access to food banks, shelters, charities, etc. Homeless people in thrid world countries may have nothing at all.
-
People lose power in the US due to catastrophies. We had random 12 hour blackouts and water shut-offs several times a month for no reason at all. Water isn’t potable in the entire country and you have to boil or buy water from filter stations if you want to be safe.
You’ve doctored your first two points to avoid the fact that widespread corruption and crumbling infrastructure are in fact a feature of the USA. That said, obviously we are not a ‘third world’ country, nor a ‘developing or under-developed’ country. We are, instead in our own special category of fucked. We have an absolutely giant economy, but as we have decided politically to disinvest in all of our public sectors, either by privatization or under-funding, we are rapidly becoming dysfunctional. Add to that the huge global reclaiming of surplus value from workers wages to plutocrats profits, and we are, as is obvious, in a political crisis shared by the rest of the neoliberal democracies.
Nope, my first two points did not change from my edits. I never said corruption or crumbling infrastructure isn’t widespread in the US. I just said that not only do both exist in third world countries as well, but it’s even worse.
Love the privilege on display
Americans want to be from a third world country so bad
-
1.2. and 3. worlds are terms from the cold war.
Languages evolve over time, all dictionaries now have OPs use of the word as the first definition.
What definition and what dictionary?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/third world
Maybe saying all dictionaries is a bit much, I only checked a few.
USA doesn’t fit any of those definitions anyway.
I know what OP means, 3rd world is just not the right word.
USA is a banana republic
america makes banana republics. america is an empire
Oh 100%, I’m just saying his use of the word is in no way wrong like half the comments seem to imply. Everyone knew exactly what he meant and the definition is in most dictionaries.
This seems to pop up everytime the word is used and it’s a major pet peeve of mine.
My comment is only aimed at those that think third world only means the historical definition when that hasn’t been the case for at least two decades. The word third world is almost always used to mean developing country in day to day conversation.
I agree language is descriptive and not prescriptive, but it sounds like comparing two categories developing vs developed may be more apt and not three like an updated 3 world model would entail. Or maybe I just find it unsettling to call something a third without referencing a third of something.
Just because a lot of people use a phrase incorrectly doesn’t mean that it should be the accepted meaning.
A good example is “have your cake and eat it, too”. As the Unabomber famously fixated on, the phrase was originally “you can’t eat your cake and have it, too”. That saying actually makes sense and has meaning.
After a while people began to jokingly say it backwards, as “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too”. That was dandy, until people forgot that it was a joke. Now, years later, we’re all left with a saying that is fucking ridiculous sounding and but we keep saying it because we need the original phrase in our language.
Sure, language evolves and changes. Sometimes though, it’s a good idea to be sticklers about the rules.
It’s not rocket appliances
I guess I still go by the original definition. There are other words that offer more detail anyway - kakistocracy, gerontocracy, corporatocracy, kleptocracy, etc.
Developing countries would be the synonym for third world in the definition used by OP.
Third World is an outdated term to refer to neutral countries in the cold war.
Unless there was a sudden dramatic shift in US geopolitical policy it would literally be impossible for it to be considered third world, as the very definition of third world as the definition inherently implies that the country in question is not allied with the US and the broader Western World.
Austria and Switzerland were third world, technically Yugoslavia was too. China became third world for a decent stretch after the sino-soviet split since the other half of the definition relies on not being allied with the Soviets in particular.
The use of third world as an insult for poor countries is a neo-colonial mindset that just takes for granted that anyone who isn’t an outright ally of the west or of the Russians must just be too poor to be worth considering as anything but uneducated people in dirt houses living subsistence lifestyles and who’s main interaction with an apparatus of state is occasionally seeing a humvee loaded up with the child soldiers of this warlord or that drive by.
Because “first world” means NATO, not having a high standard of living.
Because the actual definition of a 3rd world country doesn’t define the USA as one…that’s why. You’re adding things that don’t fall into the definition.
I’m not trolling, I’m genuinely asking. What doesn’t fall into the definition of a third world country?
It’s a cold war term - basically, first world is the US and capitalist countries, second world is the Soviet and communist countries, and third world are the unaffiliated.
It’s slightly more nuanced than that, but that’s the basic summary.
Or maybe we come up with a new word instead of just using old words incorrectly?
We literally did come up with new terms after the cold war. We now say Developing and Developed nations.
Nope that was apparently too confusing, now we say global north and global south.
It’s a much better system, see Australia in the south of the globe, is in the global north for instance. It just makes perfect sense.
Well there you go! Problem solved!
I’m sorry but that’s still the meaning of the term. I know it is colloquially understood to mean a “poor” country, but we shouldn’t ignore the original intent.
Also, please don’t tell me how my country is. I quite literally live here. I can read every article online that you can, plus I can go outside and see it for myself. We know we have problems, we aren’t ignorant to them - at least not all of us - and they’re nowhere near as bad as some commentors on this post believe they are.
As a non american we 100% see america as 3rd world.
Speak for yourself. I see it as fucked up, but definitely not third-world…
- 1st world = US, NATO, and their allies.
- 2nd world = USSR, China, the Warsaw Pact, and their allies.
- 3rd world = everyone else.
e.g. Switzerland would be a 3rd world country by the original definition.
Third world actually came from the cold war. There were the two major sides, but then there was a whole bunch of countries that weren’t really on either side. A whole “third world”. Of course, a lot of those countries were poor, so the term came to be associated with that, but there really isn’t a coherent definition of what it means to be a third world county. It has never really been about the standard of living for the average citizen though. More about whether a country is a bully or the bullied on the international stage, and we all know where the US falls on that spectrum.
It’s a term rooted in geo-political alliances and power standings, not economic status
If you mean “developped” vs “develloping”.
The HDI of the US is significantly lower than canada or northern europe, but still much higher than the world average.
Here’s an Inequality Adjusted version of the Human Development index, the US comes 27th, below Estonia and Cyprus, but 27th out of nearly 200 is counted as “develloped”.
Also, the “developed” vs. “developing” terminology doesn’t really have a category that fits a country that was previously developed and is now declining.
Neoliberal hubris
Because the definition of “first world” is “aligned with the US during the Cold War”, second world was aligned with the USSR, third world were countries not significant on the global stage. It correlates with but does not require poverty or dictatorships.
Because the “third world” doesn’t mean what people think it means. It’s cold war terminology. First World is western aligned nations, Second World is Eastern bloc, Third World is nonaligned with the eastern or western nations. FBFW it meant nations that generally weren’t powerful or wealthy enough to be of interest to either East or West, and that poverty often meant they really had a lot of infrastructure and other problems. That’s why we’re not “Third World”, it’s a geopolitical alignment, not a quality of how we treat our citizens and infrastructure. So we’re First World even if our country is turning into a shithole in some ways.
Because of their GDP. People are incredibly rich there. But one false move and there are no safety nets. You can get bankrupt in an instant.
Because of very high GDP per capita. It’s another discussion whether GDP is a reliable measure of economy output.
Where are you getting this from?
deleted by creator
The Gucci belt
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1629536?v=pdf UN report from 2018 so pre-pandemic.
