Other: No-one in the field actually seriously uses this ridiculous outdated classification scheme anymore.
Well, yes and no. The World Bank needs some kind of crisp statistic they can use for cross-country comparisons and global poverty analyses, so they are currently using $1.90/day as “extreme poverty.” But this isn’t always applicable; I just finished working on a GIZ paper that deliberately used an older figure ($1.25/day) because it fit better with the Sustainable Development Goal under discussion. (GIZ is the German agency roughly analogous to the United States Agency for International Development [USAID], for those unfamiliar with the organization.)
Further, you can do a lot better on $1.90/day in some places than in others. Assuming no social protection schemes were in place, I’d actually prefer to live in a place like Indonesia on $1.90/day rather than in the US. Your standard of living would be abysmal, but you would at least be able to eat, if you bought the cheapest available food. And in most of the country you wouldn’t need to spend any money on trying to stay warm. That’s a reality of poverty, not a “perception.”
Anyway, the definition of poverty is quite the political issue within nations. My husband is a development economist who has decades of experience analyzing poverty, so I’ve been listening to stories about this for years. By changing the definition in use, poverty levels can miraculously rise or fall. The question is, what’s a legitimate definition that applies to the people being counted? If you base it on the price of a basket of essential goods relative to income (as is often the case), inflation will instantly drive more people into poverty, statistically speaking, even if there is a clear possibility of substitute goods. Accurately defining poverty is extremely complicated and any definition is subject to controversy, exacerbated when the reliability of basic data collection is suspect.
Finally, as someone who has lived for over 20 years in places like Mozambique, Egypt, and Indonesia, I can confidently add my voice to those who are assuring the OP that s/he has ZERO understanding of what a “third world”(*) country looks like.
(*) I am among those who find that term outmoded and condescending. “Developing country” is more accurate and respectful. However, we’ve had this discussion before on the SDMB, and it’s clear there are reasonable arguments to be made that “third world” is not offensive.
Yeah, have you not been on this board for a decade plus now? Its hard enough to convince people here that people from outside N America/Europe/Oceania/Japan are fully realized human beings, I think you are fighting a losing battle on the classification score.
This is what I thought as well … the United States, NATO countries and other countries politically aligned with the USA are the First World … USSR, China, Warsaw Block countries and other communist countries are the Second World … and all the rest of the world were the Third World, and typically countries so poor as to not be worth fighting over …
These definitions have changed over the decades to what the OP gives … however, trying to compare the USA, in it’s entirety, to other first world nations can be problematic … with the current political problems currently being experienced by the EU I think the economies of scale don’t work with democracy … sure, the best of Europe compares quite favorably with the best States in the USA … but now compare the worst in Europe (like The Ukraine) with the worst State and we see where the EU is complete and utter failure …
Does the UK tax her people to feed the hungry in Bessarabia? No, but sure as shit California taxes are used to feed the hungry in rural Mississippi … So maybe the best of Europe isn’t so good after all …
In what world is Venezuela a capitalist country?
The EU =/= Europe.
Ukraine is not in the EU. So a closer analogy in fact might be comparing the best of US states to Haiti.
The UK has been pretty generous however in terms of foreign aid, which is what giving food to Bessarabia would come under. Much more so than the US, as a percentage of GDP.
<missed edit window>
In fact I just checked and the answer is yes, since Moldova (where most of Bessarabia overlaps) has received 782 million euros in aid from the EU since 2007, despite not being in the EU. This is separate to the UK’s foreign aid budget.
Anyone who thinks America is a third world country is really dumb, really slow and has never been to a 3rd world country.
Check out The First World Problems Rap on YouTube.
What current classification scheme is seriously used by anyone in the field now? Or has political correctness also inundated that field, so nobody dares to classify anything, with Luxembourg and Timor-L’este just taking their place on an amorplhous alphabetical list of nations, in which everyone just gets a participant trophy, so as not to let any whiners lose their precious self-esteem?
There are poor countries. What do we call them?
I think we are saying the same thing. “Poverty” is a defined income level, both at the UN level and at the country level, so that comparisons can be made. The UN poverty threshold is much different than the US poverty threshold, but both are defined. OTOH, “being poor” is relative and not really related to poverty. In some places in the US one can earn $35k per year and live in relative comfort, while in other places that income level would be considered “poor”.
However, “extreme poverty” should not be a defined income level but rather a defined standard of living. This is different from saying that “being poor” can mean different standards of living in different places. $1.90 a day will not buy you the exact same bare minimum things in America that it would in some other countries. I’m not sure exactly what you’d need in America, it would probably depend on how little housing you can legally get away with.
I do not trust the international banking cartel with its PPP to rank countries by anything except how faithfully they serve the interests of the banking cartel. On the PPP scale, Kazakhstan is 25,000 and neighboring Kyrgyzstan is 3,500 – an 8:1 ratio. But if you cross the border from one to the other, you do not see any difference at all in the lifestyle or well-being of the people.
Countries like Moldova and Kyrgyzstan have PPP in range with places like Nicaragua, Laos and Sudan, but that measure only counts one type of wealth. Moldova and Kyrgyzstan have “third world” GDP, but in 1990, with their Soviet legacy, they entered the global economy with a base infrastructure already in place that provided for universal literacy, high quality education and health care, adequate housing and food processing, and a working network of utilities, energy and transportation, at levels that Nicaragua, Laos and Sudan can’t even dream of.
If they’re developing, developing countries.
If they are basically stagnant, there are a bunch of terms you can use, often this group somewhat overlaps failed states, but the UN uses for example Least Developed Country.
Yes, developed, developing and least developed basically ends up with a trifurcation. The difference is though, there is no historical baggage or misunderstanding about what the terms mean, and the “middle” term is useful (unlike Second World).
“Least Developed” if you’re doing development work, “Global South” if you want to get political.
Because the old definitions are no longer as neat and clear as they once were.
“Third World” includes space faring nuclear powers and countries with advanced technological infrastructure as well as extremely poor and backward countries.
“Industrialized Countries” ; was once another term for rich countries. However, some “developing countries” have much higher industrial output than ostensibly rich “industrialized” countries and many of these have no longer large industry; infact the world’s industrial centers are now most located far from rich countries.
“Rich Countries” is also a misnomer, some countries not seen as rich or developed in the classical sense, are actually very wealthy with high levels of human development; the GCC countries, some of the Far Eastern nations for example.
With this thread, I think this is more or less the point I was trying to make:
With this thread, I think this, more or less, is the point I was trying to make:
Least developed? You mean like “Least smart” for retarded children, or “Least svelte” for Obese? Or “least fast” for runners that come in last? How about “Least opulent”, which is exactly the criteria by which they are being judged. Or is the whole thing a politically correct exercise in stroking the underachievers so we don’t harm their self-esteem and inspire them to join that other subset, “Rogue nation”, which stands by itself thumbing its nose at the banking cartels who so single-mindedly try to exploit them?
I won’t even comment on how uselessly undescriptive “Global South” is.
How the fuck is the term “least developed” politically correct? Sounds pretty goddamned negative to me, like “least likely to succeed.”