Who You Callin' Third World?

[zzaa09]

Nice, draw your conclusions then design a survey that supports it. May I suggest adding a few other questions? GDP per person, literacy rate, live expectancy, vague things like freedom of speech and minimal corruption?

That's how it looks to me. The squalor that people live in here is hidden but can be found easy enough if you want to find it. Most people from western countries seem to only see the not so filthy living standards of the poor people of this country. Just as bad as the Indian slums & shanty towns of the world.

Tunnel vision perhaps or just the refusal to see anything that dosent fit into thier cosy life

Have you been to West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennesee?

....even Manchester or Darwin might suffice as well.

[chachachacha]

The United States used to be 1st world. Then it squandered it's wealth on pointless wars and now it's currency is trash.

Let me ask you a question. How many Americans travel to Thailand each year? And how many Russians travel to Thailand? I see more Russians around. Now who's got more money? Seems the 1st world and 3rd world countries are changing places.

I would much rather live in a "3rd world" country these days then a "1st world" country. The "1st world" has become impoverished through socialism and government spending. Defininitely not where's it's at anymore.

Socialism ? I think you will find that capitalism is what has got us to where we are today in the west. THE BANKS DONE IT Along with right wing Governments .

[WarpSpeed]

FIJI:

Well developed infrastructure and a free enterprise economy

POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LINE: 25.5%

GDP GROWTH RATE: 1.8% (2010)

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: 7.6%

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION GROWTH RATE: N/A

PUBLIC DEBT: 7% OF GDP

Long-term visas are tricky, though.

Yes and your answer is?? Still it's utopia for some who don't share your criteria which is WHY it's so flawed....

You know, you and a couple of others are like politicians on the campaign trail. You criticize and mock and yet, oddly, you seem unable to come up with any of your own criteria, although you certainly want everyone to believe you are in possession of it and that it is absolutely flawless. This despite numerous opportunities to provide it for all to see.

To refresh your memory, my original post included: It would be interesting to learn what reader's personal definitions are of 1^st and 3^rd world countries, and, What other factors determine 1st or 3rd world status?

Are you on some kind of mission to attempt to antagonise?

Like water off a duck's back, bud.

I guess you missed this bit then?

What has a country like Thailand contributed to the good of the world market for example? Medicines? Cures, treatments for major illnesses? Vaccines maybe? Technology perhaps?? There's a whole lot of factors besides the minor ones you put up for discussion that make the determination.. You scope is far too narrow and specifically defined..

One major reason countries like Thailand are not in the financial condition that many 1st world countries are is because those countries put far more funding towards resources and the environment, pollution control etc.. The list is endless it's easy to avoid debt and such when you don't even have a first rate health care or EMS service for example, numbers skewed for sure..

Thailand doesn't even have free education.. Apples and oranges..

Besides that I wouldn't even have brought up the comparison because of all the mitigating factors that have to be considered to make a cogent analysis..

Edited March 23, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[PingManDan]

Nice, draw your conclusions then design a survey that supports it. May I suggest adding a few other questions? GDP per person, literacy rate, live expectancy, vague things like freedom of speech and minimal corruption?

On the last two thoughts, Thailand is a total "NOT no freedom of speech and corruption, s_hit the wole country is on the take, especially from us Farangs.

Edited March 23, 2011 by PingManDan

[geriatrickid]

Is it really fair or accurate to attempt to broadly label countries? If one uses access to health care, then Thailand which is considered "developing" is on par with the USA, which is 1st world country. There are tens of millions of Americans without access to basic health care.

If we use potable water as an indicator, Canada which consistently ranks in the top 5 countries to live in has regions where there is no sanitation or potable water. In the EU there are regions with contaminated water supplies or high concentrations of lead in the water distribution system.

One can drink the tap water in Singapore, but is it fair to compare a small city state with a country as large as Malaysia?

Until Norway made a bundle from the North Sea oil, it was a nation on par with former east bloc countries. Can one even call a country that still engages in the illegal barbaric slaughter of whales a developed nation? How is Norway that more developed than Laos where the state does not sanction killing endangered species? Can one really consider some of the European nations developed when their cities are crumbling, when basic infrastructure is obsolete? Is Cuba 3rd world or developed?Cuba has an excellent health care system and educational system, yet it is incapable of allowing basic political freedoms or in building anything hitech.

Is Russia, a country with a strong space program that is a world leader, but with a level of corruption on par with Africa, a crumbling health care system and a fractured industrial base developed or developing? Has Japan gone from developed to 3rd world?

I think what you need is a category for country that is worn out.

[happyrobert]

Is it really fair or accurate to attempt to broadly label countries? If one uses access to health care, then Thailand which is considered "developing" is on par with the USA, which is 1st world country. There are tens of millions of Americans without access to basic health care.

If we use potable water as an indicator, Canada which consistently ranks in the top 5 countries to live in has regions where there is no sanitation or potable water. In the EU there are regions with contaminated water supplies or high concentrations of lead in the water distribution system.

One can drink the tap water in Singapore, but is it fair to compare a small city state with a country as large as Malaysia?

Until Norway made a bundle from the North Sea oil, it was a nation on par with former east bloc countries. Can one even call a country that still engages in the illegal barbaric slaughter of whales a developed nation? How is Norway that more developed than Laos where the state does not sanction killing endangered species? Can one really consider some of the European nations developed when their cities are crumbling, when basic infrastructure is obsolete? Is Cuba 3rd world or developed?Cuba has an excellent health care system and educational system, yet it is incapable of allowing basic political freedoms or in building anything hitech.

Is Russia, a country with a strong space program that is a world leader, but with a level of corruption on par with Africa, a crumbling health care system and a fractured industrial base developed or developing? Has Japan gone from developed to 3rd world?

I think what you need is a category for country that is worn out.

Excellent! Reading your post this far into the thread was like that first few sips of ice-cold beer at the end of a rough day.

[CMNightRider]

Quotes are out of whack - sorry.

JimBeam:

Well, then allow me to rephrase my statement. You want to see poverty? Then go to AMERICA (a country) and spend some time driving the back roads of West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennesse.

Maybe not Mumbai, ooops, I mean India, but severe poverty nonetheless in a country that loudly proclaims prosperity for all its citizens.

What do you do, get up every morning and have a bowl of stupid for breakfast? This for all you posers who think Americans are so bad. "Americans are the most generous people in the world, measured by charitable giving as a percent of GDP. Americans give twice as much (1.67% of GDP) as the next most charitable country, the U.K. at 0.73%, according to this study by the Charities Aid Foundation (chart above is taken from the study). Americans give almost 12 times as much as the French and almost 8 times as much as the Germans. In fact, Americans give more as a percent of GDP than France, Germany, Turkey, New Zealand, Singapore and the Netherlands COMBINED!

Edited March 24, 2011 by craigt3365
Tried to fix some font errors

[happyrobert]

Quotes are out of whack - sorry.

JimBeam:

Well, then allow me to rephrase my statement. You want to see poverty? Then go to AMERICA (a country) and spend some time driving the back roads of West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennesse.

Maybe not Mumbai, ooops, I mean India, but severe poverty nonetheless in a country that loudly proclaims prosperity for all its citizens.

What do you do, get up every morning and have a bowl of stupid for breakfast? This for all you posers who think Americans are so bad. "Americans are the most generous people in the world, measured by charitable giving as a percent of GDP. Americans give twice as much (1.67% of GDP) as the next most charitable country, the U.K. at 0.73%, according to this study by the Charities Aid Foundation (chart above is taken from the study). Americans give almost 12 times as much as the French and almost 8 times as much as the Germans. In fact, Americans give more as a percent of GDP than France, Germany, Turkey, New Zealand, Singapore and the Netherlands COMBINED!"<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 12px; "><br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 12px; ">

Uhm, the thread's about what constitutes 1st and 3rd world countries, not about charitable contributions, although Americans are famed for their generosity, yes.

And nowhere have I bashed the American people. Nor will I.

Try again.

[mstribling]

Excellent post by geriatrickid.

[CMNightRider]

Quotes are out of whack - sorry.

JimBeam:

Well, then allow me to rephrase my statement. You want to see poverty? Then go to AMERICA (a country) and spend some time driving the back roads of West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennesse.

Maybe not Mumbai, ooops, I mean India, but severe poverty nonetheless in a country that loudly proclaims prosperity for all its citizens.

What do you do, get up every morning and have a bowl of stupid for breakfast? This for all you posers who think Americans are so bad. "Americans are the most generous people in the world, measured by charitable giving as a percent of GDP. Americans give twice as much (1.67% of GDP) as the next most charitable country, the U.K. at 0.73%, according to this study by the Charities Aid Foundation (chart above is taken from the study). Americans give almost 12 times as much as the French and almost 8 times as much as the Germans. In fact, Americans give more as a percent of GDP than France, Germany, Turkey, New Zealand, Singapore and the Netherlands COMBINED!"<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 12px; "><br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 12px; ">

Uhm, the thread's about what constitutes 1st and 3rd world countries, not about charitable contributions, although Americans are famed for their generosity, yes.

And nowhere have I bashed the American people. Nor will I.

Try again.

Okay then, here is a map of what is considered !st, 2nd, and 3rd World Countries.

<snip>

Edited March 24, 2011 by craigt3365
unrecognizable URL removed

[Richb2004v2]

Nice, draw your conclusions then design a survey that supports it. May I suggest adding a few other questions? GDP per person, literacy rate, live expectancy, vague things like freedom of speech and minimal corruption?

That's how it looks to me. The squalor that people live in here is hidden but can be found easy enough if you want to find it. Most people from western countries seem to only see the not so filthy living standards of the poor people of this country. Just as bad as the Indian slums & shanty towns of the world.

Tunnel vision perhaps or just the refusal to see anything that dosent fit into thier cosy life

Have you been to West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennesee?

....even Manchester or Darwin might suffice as well.

Come on! How many people are living in homes made from old packing crates and sheets of corrugated iron in Manchester and Darwin?

[thaihome]

I think the terms 1st or 3rd world country is obsolete these days as it was used to define so called non-aligned countries during the cold war. It just so happened these countries tended to be South America, Africa, and parts of Asia and were not very well developed at that time.

It is much more accurate to classify countries as developed, developing, or undeveloped based on their social-economic progress.

The OP was trying to show that many developed countries have lower economic growth rates and as much income disparity as many developing countries. He couldn't put the GDP per person in as that would make it obvious what he was trying to do.

TH

I agree to a degree. It is the old system but the terms are still in common usage. But are the new terms truly much more accurate?

So would the States be underveloped or developing because of their staggering debt (and crumbling infrastructure)? Is Thailand developed because of low unemployment and low per capita national debt along with strong industrial growth?

Maybe we need new factors defined and new terms?

Suggest you go live in the US, Bangladesh, and Thailand for 6 months each and then come back and tell us which one is developed, underdeveloped, and developing.

As others say, you are just trolling.

TH

[craigt3365]

One off topic and ridiculous post removed from view.

[DP25]

Suggest you go live in the US, Bangladesh, and Thailand for 6 months each and then come back and tell us which one is developed, underdeveloped, and developing.

For the most part, but depending on where exactly you were in the US and Thailand it wouldn't be so easy to tell

[happyrobert]

I think the terms 1st or 3rd world country is obsolete these days as it was used to define so called non-aligned countries during the cold war. It just so happened these countries tended to be South America, Africa, and parts of Asia and were not very well developed at that time.

It is much more accurate to classify countries as developed, developing, or undeveloped based on their social-economic progress.

The OP was trying to show that many developed countries have lower economic growth rates and as much income disparity as many developing countries. He couldn't put the GDP per person in as that would make it obvious what he was trying to do.

TH

I agree to a degree. It is the old system but the terms are still in common usage. But are the new terms truly much more accurate?

So would the States be underveloped or developing because of their staggering debt (and crumbling infrastructure)? Is Thailand developed because of low unemployment and low per capita national debt along with strong industrial growth?

Maybe we need new factors defined and new terms?

Suggest you go live in the US, Bangladesh, and Thailand for 6 months each and then come back and tell us which one is developed, underdeveloped, and developing.

As others say, you are just trolling.

TH

I've lived in both countries for years. Never been to Bangladesh but that's a moot point as anyone in their right mind would classify it as 3rd world.

From the very start I asked YOU how YOU defined 1st and 3rd world. Then, above, I confessed maybe we needed new factors defined and new terms. Why not comment on that with an opinion of what you think the factors or terms would be?

Me trolling? No, either you can not comprehend the purpose of the thread as stated, or you are seeking conflict for some reason. Another one who can't accept the invitation to coherently state an opinion, rather can only attack someone else's.

[craigt3365]

OK, calm down guys.... :jap:

[JPPR2]

Is it really fair or accurate to attempt to broadly label countries? If one uses access to health care, then Thailand which is considered "developing" is on par with the USA, which is 1st world country. There are tens of millions of Americans without access to basic health care.

If we use potable water as an indicator, Canada which consistently ranks in the top 5 countries to live in has regions where there is no sanitation or potable water. In the EU there are regions with contaminated water supplies or high concentrations of lead in the water distribution system.

One can drink the tap water in Singapore, but is it fair to compare a small city state with a country as large as Malaysia?

Until Norway made a bundle from the North Sea oil, it was a nation on par with former east bloc countries. Can one even call a country that still engages in the illegal barbaric slaughter of whales a developed nation? How is Norway that more developed than Laos where the state does not sanction killing endangered species? Can one really consider some of the European nations developed when their cities are crumbling, when basic infrastructure is obsolete? Is Cuba 3rd world or developed?Cuba has an excellent health care system and educational system, yet it is incapable of allowing basic political freedoms or in building anything hitech.

Is Russia, a country with a strong space program that is a world leader, but with a level of corruption on par with Africa, a crumbling health care system and a fractured industrial base developed or developing? Has Japan gone from developed to 3rd world?

I think what you need is a category for country that is worn out.

Excellent post GK.

I also understand what Happy Robert is asking. I am one that finds labeling things a form of wanting to bucket them ultimately making it easier to chastise or place yourself higher up then the next person. I am an American. I have lived coast to coast. This thread will have no definitive answer. The scope of how to determine its 1st or 3rd world status is HUGE. I will feel no different if Thailand is a 1st world or 3rd. Same as the US.

I will say this about the US, It is no longer a place people are dieing to try and get too. What was once probably the most desirable countries to live in is now just another country with significant political, financial, corruption and greed issues as all of them. The area just happens to look and be cleaner. "Its like a car with nice paint..Looks good but hows the engine?"

I do not think this is a troll post, it is an honest question with a narrow scope. This would need a huge spread sheet to really determine what is 3rd or 1st world. I will ask "Why does it matter?"

[happyrobert]

Is it really fair or accurate to attempt to broadly label countries? If one uses access to health care, then Thailand which is considered "developing" is on par with the USA, which is 1st world country. There are tens of millions of Americans without access to basic health care.

If we use potable water as an indicator, Canada which consistently ranks in the top 5 countries to live in has regions where there is no sanitation or potable water. In the EU there are regions with contaminated water supplies or high concentrations of lead in the water distribution system.

One can drink the tap water in Singapore, but is it fair to compare a small city state with a country as large as Malaysia?

Until Norway made a bundle from the North Sea oil, it was a nation on par with former east bloc countries. Can one even call a country that still engages in the illegal barbaric slaughter of whales a developed nation? How is Norway that more developed than Laos where the state does not sanction killing endangered species? Can one really consider some of the European nations developed when their cities are crumbling, when basic infrastructure is obsolete? Is Cuba 3rd world or developed?Cuba has an excellent health care system and educational system, yet it is incapable of allowing basic political freedoms or in building anything hitech.

Is Russia, a country with a strong space program that is a world leader, but with a level of corruption on par with Africa, a crumbling health care system and a fractured industrial base developed or developing? Has Japan gone from developed to 3rd world?

I think what you need is a category for country that is worn out.

Excellent post GK.

I also understand what Happy Robert is asking. I am one that finds labeling things a form of wanting to bucket them ultimately making it easier to chastise or place yourself higher up then the next person. I am an American. I have lived coast to coast. This thread will have no definitive answer. The scope of how to determine its 1st or 3rd world status is HUGE. I will feel no different if Thailand is a 1st world or 3rd. Same as the US.

I will say this about the US, It is no longer a place people are dieing to try and get too. What was once probably the most desirable countries to live in is now just another country with significant political, financial, corruption and greed issues as all of them. The area just happens to look and be cleaner. "Its like a car with nice paint..Looks good but hows the engine?"

I do not think this is a troll post, it is an honest question with a narrow scope. This would need a huge spread sheet to really determine what is 3rd or 1st world. I will ask "Why does it matter?"

Thanks for your reasonable and insightful post. I was never trying to elevate one country above another, but people will always see what they want to see.

If anything, I believe Thailand, regardless of what anyone labels it, would come out ahead of some "powerful" countries in a worldwide crisis or conflict. I am here because I like it here. I still love my country, but the bad now outweighs the good there, and the good still outweighs the bad here. For me, it's that simple.

As to your two questions, allow me to venture an answer:

1. It is badly in need of a tune-up. But, like a Ferrari, it is a complex engine and few mechanics have the capabilty to do the job. And it will cost an arm and a leg.

2. It doesn't.

[JPPR2]

Agreed, The fact is thats why most Ferrari's sit in the garage. HAHAHAHAHA. Easier to showcase then actually drive it to fix it.

So there is no misunderstanding, I was very general about the status identifying statement. I did not think your post was doing that at all. I found the specific data interesting.

[Payboy]

I think the numbers, as reported in India, are grossly under reported:

http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/news/infectious-diseases/single-article/india-s-malaria-deaths-grossly-underestimated/c97e582e2e.html

It's possible, but I would bet a fortune on accuracy of the Thai reporting either.

[Max2010]

Is it really fair or accurate to attempt to broadly label countries? If one uses access to health care, then Thailand which is considered "developing" is on par with the USA, which is 1st world country. There are tens of millions of Americans without access to basic health care.

If we use potable water as an indicator, Canada which consistently ranks in the top 5 countries to live in has regions where there is no sanitation or potable water. In the EU there are regions with contaminated water supplies or high concentrations of lead in the water distribution system.

One can drink the tap water in Singapore, but is it fair to compare a small city state with a country as large as Malaysia?

Until Norway made a bundle from the North Sea oil, it was a nation on par with former east bloc countries. Can one even call a country that still engages in the illegal barbaric slaughter of whales a developed nation? How is Norway that more developed than Laos where the state does not sanction killing endangered species? Can one really consider some of the European nations developed when their cities are crumbling, when basic infrastructure is obsolete? Is Cuba 3rd world or developed?Cuba has an excellent health care system and educational system, yet it is incapable of allowing basic political freedoms or in building anything hitech.

Is Russia, a country with a strong space program that is a world leader, but with a level of corruption on par with Africa, a crumbling health care system and a fractured industrial base developed or developing? Has Japan gone from developed to 3rd world?

I think what you need is a category for country that is worn out.

Excellent post GK.

I also understand what Happy Robert is asking. I am one that finds labeling things a form of wanting to bucket them ultimately making it easier to chastise or place yourself higher up then the next person. I am an American. I have lived coast to coast. This thread will have no definitive answer. The scope of how to determine its 1st or 3rd world status is HUGE. I will feel no different if Thailand is a 1st world or 3rd. Same as the US.

I will say this about the US, It is no longer a place people are dieing to try and get too. What was once probably the most desirable countries to live in is now just another country with significant political, financial, corruption and greed issues as all of them. The area just happens to look and be cleaner. "Its like a car with nice paint..Looks good but hows the engine?"

I do not think this is a troll post, it is an honest question with a narrow scope. This would need a huge spread sheet to really determine what is 3rd or 1st world. I will ask "Why does it matter?"

Excellent posts. As a former resident of USA and a citizen of an underdeveloped nation and a developed one, here's my 2 cents.

You can live a very high class in poor nations, especially in Africa. As a businessman in east Africa. I could afford maids, own houses next to the ocean, eat at five star hotels everyday and afford an international education for my children. However, there are no rule of laws. Business contracts mean nothing, courts are useless to look for justice, government never lose a case because judges and prosecutors are working at the mercy of the government. If governments lose, they never pay compensation. My parents had their properties nationalized TWICE. This does not mean that everyone is running away to find another paradise. Most of my western educated friends who were studying/living in Canada, Europe and America went back. They tolerate corruption, lack of electricity and clean water and insecurity to make millions of dollars in the shortest possible time. There is very little competition, For eample, profit margins on most goods in supermarkets are over 100% unlike 3-6% in Western supermarkets. My friends want to live there because of a slower pace of life, more time with their kids and a chance to be part of their country's development. Their number is growing as opportunities in the West diminishes and Xenophobia increase.

I, on the other hand, have no interest in living in developing nations. A First World Country to me, is where I can sleep comfortably knowing that my life and liberty is fully protected. I might not have had equal opportunities as my fellow native Canadians, but it was better than living the life of a rich man in Africa where the state can nationalize, rape or kill my family at any time. That is why you will never see a drop of number of people who want to live in developed countries. There are billions of people who want a quieter and safer life regardless of job opportunities or welcome mattress. Some just want an opportunity to be able to eat 3 square meals a day and are ready to do anything for it. No laws can stop that.

Someone mentioned about the poverty in India. As a frequent visitor, I agree that the poverty in India is nothing I have ever seen in my life, even as an African national. However, you must give credit to a nation which tries hard to feed a billion plus people with limited means. However, when it comes to education, IT and medicare, Indians are at par or better than the so called developed nations. When Americans and Europeans call their toll-free numbers to troubleshoot IT problems or pay their medical bills, they're serviced by Indians. Most Ivy league universities are taught by Indian Professors. Indian companies such as TATA are busy buying western brands such as Land Rover and Steel companies. When I went to India to treat my father, I met patients from all over the world, including America. Someone mentioned the Indians in Uganda. They did not escape poverty, but were brought by the British for their skills in building roads and rails. Recent arrivals from India and China are taking advantage of low competition for their skills and services. Chinese contractor in Africa can build your house in 3 months against 2 years if you use local ones. If you have a college education in Africa, it is possible to earn US$5000-10000 a month with little work experience and provided with a car, maid, children education and a house. I am currently renting my simple 4 bedroom house fro US$70000 and I am paid 12 months in advance. These kind of opportunies are hard to find anymore in the West.

Max2010

[happyrobert]

Agreed, The fact is thats why most Ferrari's sit in the garage. HAHAHAHAHA. Easier to showcase then actually drive it to fix it.

So there is no misunderstanding, I was very general about the status identifying statement. I did not think your post was doing that at all. I found the specific data interesting.

Bless you, my son.

[happyrobert]

Is it really fair or accurate to attempt to broadly label countries? If one uses access to health care, then Thailand which is considered "developing" is on par with the USA, which is 1st world country. There are tens of millions of Americans without access to basic health care.

If we use potable water as an indicator, Canada which consistently ranks in the top 5 countries to live in has regions where there is no sanitation or potable water. In the EU there are regions with contaminated water supplies or high concentrations of lead in the water distribution system.

One can drink the tap water in Singapore, but is it fair to compare a small city state with a country as large as Malaysia?

Until Norway made a bundle from the North Sea oil, it was a nation on par with former east bloc countries. Can one even call a country that still engages in the illegal barbaric slaughter of whales a developed nation? How is Norway that more developed than Laos where the state does not sanction killing endangered species? Can one really consider some of the European nations developed when their cities are crumbling, when basic infrastructure is obsolete? Is Cuba 3rd world or developed?Cuba has an excellent health care system and educational system, yet it is incapable of allowing basic political freedoms or in building anything hitech.

Is Russia, a country with a strong space program that is a world leader, but with a level of corruption on par with Africa, a crumbling health care system and a fractured industrial base developed or developing? Has Japan gone from developed to 3rd world?

I think what you need is a category for country that is worn out.

Excellent post GK.

I also understand what Happy Robert is asking. I am one that finds labeling things a form of wanting to bucket them ultimately making it easier to chastise or place yourself higher up then the next person. I am an American. I have lived coast to coast. This thread will have no definitive answer. The scope of how to determine its 1st or 3rd world status is HUGE. I will feel no different if Thailand is a 1st world or 3rd. Same as the US.

I will say this about the US, It is no longer a place people are dieing to try and get too. What was once probably the most desirable countries to live in is now just another country with significant political, financial, corruption and greed issues as all of them. The area just happens to look and be cleaner. "Its like a car with nice paint..Looks good but hows the engine?"

I do not think this is a troll post, it is an honest question with a narrow scope. This would need a huge spread sheet to really determine what is 3rd or 1st world. I will ask "Why does it matter?"

Excellent posts. As a former resident of USA and a citizen of an underdeveloped nation and a developed one, here's my 2 cents.

You can live a very high class in poor nations, especially in Africa. As a businessman in east Africa. I could afford maids, own houses next to the ocean, eat at five star hotels everyday and afford an international education for my children. However, there are no rule of laws. Business contracts mean nothing, courts are useless to look for justice, government never lose a case because judges and prosecutors are working at the mercy of the government. If governments lose, they never pay compensation. My parents had their properties nationalized TWICE. This does not mean that everyone is running away to find another paradise. Most of my western educated friends who were studying/living in Canada, Europe and America went back. They tolerate corruption, lack of electricity and clean water and insecurity to make millions of dollars in the shortest possible time. There is very little competition, For eample, profit margins on most goods in supermarkets are over 100% unlike 3-6% in Western supermarkets. My friends want to live there because of a slower pace of life, more time with their kids and a chance to be part of their country's development. Their number is growing as opportunities in the West diminishes and Xenophobia increase.

I, on the other hand, have no interest in living in developing nations. A First World Country to me, is where I can sleep comfortably knowing that my life and liberty is fully protected. I might not have had equal opportunities as my fellow native Canadians, but it was better than living the life of a rich man in Africa where the state can nationalize, rape or kill my family at any time. That is why you will never see a drop of number of people who want to live in developed countries. There are billions of people who want a quieter and safer life regardless of job opportunities or welcome mattress. Some just want an opportunity to be able to eat 3 square meals a day and are ready to do anything for it. No laws can stop that.

Someone mentioned about the poverty in India. As a frequent visitor, I agree that the poverty in India is nothing I have ever seen in my life, even as an African national. However, you must give credit to a nation which tries hard to feed a billion plus people with limited means. However, when it comes to education, IT and medicare, Indians are at par or better than the so called developed nations. When Americans and Europeans call their toll-free numbers to troubleshoot IT problems or pay their medical bills, they're serviced by Indians. Most Ivy league universities are taught by Indian Professors. Indian companies such as TATA are busy buying western brands such as Land Rover and Steel companies. When I went to India to treat my father, I met patients from all over the world, including America. Someone mentioned the Indians in Uganda. They did not escape poverty, but were brought by the British for their skills in building roads and rails. Recent arrivals from India and China are taking advantage of low competition for their skills and services. Chinese contractor in Africa can build your house in 3 months against 2 years if you use local ones. If you have a college education in Africa, it is possible to earn US$5000-10000 a month with little work experience and provided with a car, maid, children education and a house. I am currently renting my simple 4 bedroom house fro US$70000 and I am paid 12 months in advance. These kind of opportunies are hard to find anymore in the West.

Max2010

Thoughtful points. Thanks.

[raylo]

Nice, draw your conclusions then design a survey that supports it. May I suggest adding a few other questions? GDP per person, literacy rate, live expectancy, vague things like freedom of speech and minimal corruption?

That's how it looks to me. The squalor that people live in here is hidden but can be found easy enough if you want to find it. Most people from western countries seem to only see the not so filthy living standards of the poor people of this country. Just as bad as the Indian slums & shanty towns of the world.

Tunnel vision perhaps or just the refusal to see anything that dosent fit into their cosy life

Go into the backstreets of any major 1st world city and look at the homeless, the squalor / slums / dirty streets etc. 1st world cities hide the shit behind a facade 3rd world dont always bother.

An interesting aspect is crime rate and safety. It is safer to walk the streets of Bangkok at 2am than most western countries. try St Louis recently rated one of the most crime infested in the USA, Vienna, London, Brisbane. The last 3 only from personal observation of course.

I would universally rate by observed standard of living not from UN statistics and then see where I want to live and forget about labels.

One poster in another thread recently rated 3rd world countries as ones where fluorescent lights dominate. Good thing he never went into any office complex in any major city world wide

Edited March 27, 2011 by raylo

[samjaidee]

I think the terms 1st or 3rd world country is obsolete these days as it was used to define so called non-aligned countries during the cold war. It just so happened these countries tended to be South America, Africa, and parts of Asia and were not very well developed at that time.

It is much more accurate to classify countries as developed, developing, or undeveloped based on their social-economic progress.

The OP was trying to show that many developed countries have lower economic growth rates and as much income disparity as many developing countries. He couldn't put the GDP per person in as that would make it obvious what he was trying to do.

TH

I agree to a degree. It is the old system but the terms are still in common usage. But are the new terms truly much more accurate?

So would the States be underveloped or developing because of their staggering debt (and crumbling infrastructure)? Is Thailand developed because of low unemployment and low per capita national debt along with strong industrial growth?

Maybe we need new factors defined and new terms?

A developed country is a country that has become too expensive to manufacture goods at home. When countries reach this point they become dependent on the developing countries for manufacturing output.

A developing country is a country that is indispensable to developed countries.

Developed countries have economies producing on paper rather than real products.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

To paraphrase Forrest Gump: third-world is as third-world does.

The phrase never had "objective" meaning other than the one later taken over by the "non-aligned" movement during/as a result of the Cold War. Nowadays it's basically just used to denigrate those countries that don't live up to my expectations, in my case usually on rule-of-law and sanitation issues. Regarding Thailand, I'd say that although macro-economics and basic human survival stats might place it somewhere in the middle of the pack (with quite a few pretty awful places above it in most ranking lists), I'd have to point out that the economic benefits of its recent decades' growth has been limited to a very small elite, and WRT both sanitation and rule of law issues it's still pretty barbarous.

There are certainly many many local places within the US where its citizens are basically in third-world conditions, but a huge difference is the greater possibility for an intelligent and motivated individual to get out and upgrade their lot in life.

[raylo]

To paraphrase Forrest Gump: third-world is as third-world does. Very true and apt

The phrase never had "objective" meaning other than the one later taken over by the "non-aligned" movement during/as a result of the Cold War. Nowadays it's basically just used to denigrate those countries that don't live up to my expectations, in my case usually on rule-of-law and sanitation issues. Regarding Thailand, I'd say that although macro-economics and basic human survival stats might place it somewhere in the middle of the pack (with quite a few pretty awful places above it in most ranking lists), I'd have to point out that the economic benefits of its recent decades' growth has been limited to a very small elite, and WRT both sanitation and rule of law issues it's still pretty barbarous.

There are certainly many many local places within the US where its citizens are basically in third-world conditions, but a huge difference is the greater possibility for an intelligent and motivated individual to get out and upgrade their lot in life.

Hold on are you sure?? You are talking the US here. An intelliegnt and motivated individual would be an oxymoron by location?

[Nonja]

This is an interesting topic.

I like the idea of looking outside official figures. As indicators, tapwater quality, sewerage, and beer are all valid.

My informal system includes postal services and libraries. Like canaries in the mines, these two services can usually tell you in what direction a country is going. For example, anyone who has tried to post a parcel in Mexico knows that there is no hope for that country whatsoever, while Fiji, which seems to have its fair share of problems, has an efficient and entreprenurial service. On the other hand, Fiji's library system is defunct. So far I have found Thai post offices very good but service (home delivery) not so good. One hundred percent loss of mail in Chiang Mai, but perfect home delivery @ Chiang Rai. I really don't know what to make of Papua New Guinea, where you have very few services (such as roads and hospitals) but you can do your banking using a mobile phone.

I would also add the provision and efficiency of reasonably priced wireless communication systems as a Performance Indicator. Australia does not pass this test. So far, my experience in Thailand regarding wireless broadband has been excellent.

[raylo]

This is an interesting topic.

I like the idea of looking outside official figures. As indicators, tapwater quality, sewerage, and beer are all valid.

My informal system includes postal services and libraries. Like canaries in the mines, these two services can usually tell you in what direction a country is going. For example, anyone who has tried to post a parcel in Mexico knows that there is no hope for that country whatsoever, while Fiji, which seems to have its fair share of problems, has an efficient and entreprenurial service. On the other hand, Fiji's library system is defunct. So far I have found Thai post offices very good but service (home delivery) not so good. One hundred percent loss of mail in Chiang Mai, but perfect home delivery @ Chiang Rai. I really don't know what to make of Papua New Guinea, where you have very few services (such as roads and hospitals) but you can do your banking using a mobile phone.

I would also add the provision and efficiency of reasonably priced wireless communication systems as a Performance Indicator. Australia does not pass this test. So far, my experience in Thailand regarding wireless broadband has been excellent.

Postal Service is an interesting concept for measurement but that is your feeling for identification.

Libraries are a social servicer and I have been waiting to see someone mention social services as I see them as a means for a country to go from 1st to 3rd status even though we havent defined the 2.

Look at the UK, Canada & Australia as an example where social services have primarily meant large demographics of the population are now being discriminated against. Where refugees are an allotment and they are seen as being treated better than the countries citizens. You only have to live in those countries for a short while to see the results and all 3 of them are classified as 1st world but the (semi) hidden aspects e.g crime, squalor and debt are increasing.

What about a definition of first world being countries more affcted by global financial crises? Yes I remember the Asian one which was regional.

[vranish]

A reminder that Bangkok does not accurately represent Thailand. Pattaya and Phuket do not come much closer. Statistically, the average Thai lives in the Northeast region, works in agriculture, makes 90,000 baht per year, and has between six and seven years of education. Also, Thailand may have a very low unemployment rate, but those motorbike drivers you see hanging around on Bangkok street corners with their buddies who might make two or three fares a day are technically 'on the job.'

The problem with the 'third world' label is that it is too broad. Thailand is clearly on a different level than Laos or Cambodia, but it is not even close to claiming status on par with the USA or Western Europe.