Yep, when I think about the difference in whether I’d be American or Mexican depending on the luck of a few hundred soldiers, I wonder what the difference would be between living in Mexico and the USA. I’d say that in day-to-day life, the corruption of the average official would be the most noticeable difference.
And I’m not entirely sure how some countries end up being corrupt at the lowest levels, while other countries have an aversion to it. Perhaps it’s low pay for the officials, perhaps it’s the fact they had de facto one-party rule for around a century.
Apparently it was not that hard. Once Trump forces Mexico to build the wall it will be alot harder.
Actually, you can get a replacement passport at a US consulate.
Indeed, we could have a most interesting thread about corruption and its causes and effects. Does poverty cause corruption? Or does corruption prevent poor countries from becoming wealthier?
I’d say there is a noticeable gap between the UK and Switzerland.
No, they are not. Southeast Asia goes from Tawian and Singapore to Lagos and Cambodia. North America goes from Canada to Mexico. Africa goes from South Africa to Somalia. Europe goes from Norway and Switzerland through Greece and Portugal to Albania and Moldova.
Yeah a US passport isn’t required to enter Mexico via land borders between the US and Mexico, and the standard fee for a tourist visa is 200 pesos (about 20 dollars) - so that story isn’t much of an indicator of anything.
In general answer to the OP - UNICEF defines the poverty line at 60% or less of a country’s median income. In Mexico this constitutes 28% of the population. In the US it is 22% of the population. The US doesn’t do much better of a job than Mexico in terms of the division between the rich and poor.
Of course the US median income is higher than that of Mexico so the poor of the US still have more than the poor of Mexico. But both are terrible compared to the EU countries mentioned in the OP - France, Switzerland, Germany, etc. are all are below 10% poverty. A better question, then, would be why are the US and Mexico both such dumps compared to the rest of the richest countries in the world.
Being a US born citizen who has elected to live in Mexico I can’t really say I agree it’s a dump compared to the US or anywhere. Mexico has the 15th largest economy in the world, some of the world’s most beautiful natural beaches, rainforests, mountain ranges and it is extremely rich in natural resources - oil, minerals, precious metals, etc. Some of the nicest places on earth that I’ve visited have been in Mexico. It’s a huge country and most of what we see on US television, apparently considered by some to be a substitute for actual travel, only highlights the problematic areas.
Somewhere between 80-90% of Mexicans are Catholic while Protestants and Evangelicals are only about 5-10% depending on who you count beyond Protestants. So, even if there is such a thing as a Protestant work ethic, I doubt Mexico has it.
The question “why did some countries develop and some not” is the stuff of endless scholarship. You could spend a lifetime trying to unravel it. The main theories are:
History: Two things are really critical here, and both are intimately tied to colonialism: the role of the country during the Industrial Revolution and how borders were drawn as we entered the modern political era (which is critical to the strength of the government, which determines corruption). This is where you can also put Cold War/post-Colonial dictator backing and the modern neo-liberal debt system.
Geography: landlocked countries, mountainous countries, places with sharp ethnic divisions, infectious diseases, countries in bad neighborhoods and poor soil are all thought to be factors.
Prominence of extractive resources; Extractive resources tend to be difficult to harness for positive development, and can incentivize corruption and poor governance.
It’s probably a mix of these things, blended with an ample does of being in the right or wrong place at a particular time.
FWIW, Mexico isn’t particularly “dumpy”. It is the 15th largest economy in the world and rapidly growing. It has some geographic advantages, very good industrial infrastructure, and a large, well-educated and increasingly skilled work force. Rural areas are very poor, but that’s true in most places. The contract between Tijuana and San Diego may be striking, but San Diego is one of our richest cities.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time in both (as well as have lived nearly five years in various parts of Mexico).
South Africa and Mexico have nothing on India. It’s hard to find a non-touristy area of India that’s not rich that’s not an absolute shithole. Given that, yes, I’ve been to very nice places in India as a tourist, but as a business traveller South Africa is just a fairly nice place (but be careful and don’t go to the townships), whereas India is just smelly and dirty and unpleasant in general.
I think that’s kind of my point. In India, you know what you can expect to find most of the time-- a pretty poor place, with a few very rich enclaves that are fairly removed from most people’s lives. It’s a middle-income developing country and for the most part feels like one.
In South Africa, if you magically transport to some random point on the map, you could be anywhere. An exclusive gated community of ranch homes? Maybe. A rural village where a family share a room and uses a communal latrine down the block? Maybe. An urban shopping street that feels like San Francisco? Maybe. A teeming urban shanty town? Maybe. It’s not just that there are very rich people and very poor people, it’s that there is a huge group of people living completely developed-world lifestyles, complete with espresso bars and pilates classes and whatever else, and then another huge group of people that are living very much developing world lifestyles.
It may be indicative of something that Slim exploited connections to make big money from privatization, while Gates got rich forcing people to buy products that they hate.
I’ve never been to Mexico or S. Africa but have lived for a total of about two years in various parts of India. I’m puzzled by your description, because I’ve lived in ordinary middle-class houses in various cities and they weren’t “shitholes” in the least. These neighborhoods had working electricity, plumbing, internet, occasional cars and lots of motorcycles, etc. Perhaps that’s what you mean by “rich”, i.e., rich by the standards of an Indian poor person, not rich globally?
India does tend to have more garbage and animals and homeless people on the streets, even in middle-class neighborhoods, than many other natiions in approximately the same economic bracket. But my definition of “absolute shithole” for a locality that’s not literally in a war zone, considering that it starts with places like North Korea, Chad and Republic of the Congo, stops way before it gets to someplace like India.
Just following that up with the above-cited Human Development Index listing, on which Mexico (#71) is in the “high human development” category while South Africa (#118) and India (#135) are both in the “medium” category. Both are well above countries in the “low” category where my definition of “absolute shithole” would top out.
As of this summer, pedestrians need to show a passport to cross into Mexico on foot from San Ysidro, the busiest US/Mexico border crossing, as well as fill out a form. You don’t need any papers to drive across though.
I’ve never been to Mexico or S. Africa but have lived for a total of about two years in various parts of India. I’m puzzled by your description, because I’ve lived in ordinary middle-class houses in various cities and they weren’t “shitholes” in the least. These neighborhoods had working electricity, plumbing, internet, occasional cars and lots of motorcycles, etc. Perhaps that’s what you mean by “rich”, i.e., rich by the standards of an Indian poor person, not rich globally?