I'm thinking MIT economists haven't lived in a third world. (I was born in one) The U.S is not even remotely close to being a third-world or will be one anytime soon.
What the US lacks is urban poverty in the form of shantytowns. This is because unlike most third world nations, we quickly raze them when and find excuses to incarcerate the people who live there. If we were more permissive, we'd certainly have them too.
In the same way there's a lot of wealthy places in let's say Mexico City and other capitals of 3rd world countries
But today it mostly means "developing countries" (which is actually an euphemism for "stuck in underdevelopment")
Not that the US is a developing country; it was developed, and is currently degenerating. It's still very rich, though. So instead of trying to catch this in a single ill-fitting word, perhaps it would be better to simply discuss the actual issues: the rise of poverty, lack of social mobility, crumbling infrastructure, etc.
Yes, but parent compared places in the US to rural AND poor/3rd world places.
The water, sewer, and electricity work well enough to be relied upon even in the poorest most remote parts of the US. This is not so in any 3rd world country
I completely understand your point, and a rich person in the US is in a better situation than in other countries, but I wouldn't say that the poorest among the population US are _that_ much better than in other countries. My guess is that the people pushing for the view "parts of US == third world country" might be looking at the top of the list for those countries, while you and others that seem against this comparison are looking at either the average or lower half of countries considered third world.
I personally found it horrifying to see a Lamborghini waiting for the traffic light to change while a legless homeless veteran coughing up blood was on that intersection asking for food. Worst part of it though, is that once you live in that environment, very quickly it fades in the background and turns into "just the way things are". Poor people in this country have access to more goods than poor people in other countries, that's true, that doesn't mean that services are up to the task for them.
EDIT - Please reply if you don't like my comment. Just downvotes do not tell me anything. Also, please consider that I just asked questions, I made no statements and I did it that way because I actually seek answers.
If the water in Flint is perfectly fine, then please tell me and explain how public perception got so out of sorts. I would appreciate sources.
I also don't think we are a 3rd world country, but we clearly have more problems than people who believe in American Exceptionalism are willing to accept.
I don't see how a single small city whose water supply was tainted by incompetence of local water utilities is representative of the US as a whole. 99.99% of us have access to drinkable water.
Flint is not an isolated case, it's distinctive because it got bad relatively quickly due to clear mismanagement (with a big serving of partisan politics on top). How's this for a headline? "Reuters finds lead levels higher than Flint's in thousands of locales." [0] All it took was searching for "lead worse than flint."
[0] http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-lead-...
Flint would challenge that claim. http://time.com/4634937/flint-water-crisis-criminal-charges-...
If you're American and you care about poverty -- as in relative poverty -- in your country and you want to do something about it, more power to you. It's not like someone being much poorer elsewhere prevents you from caring about a problem in your country. But please don't trivialize abject poverty by implying that the American working class have it as hard as the lower classes in the developing world.
It doesn't matter what some parts of the US anecdotally and subjectively "look like", they don't measure nowhere near as poor as rural Philippines or Vietnam. Or urban Philippines/Vietnam for that matter.
In those countries, the literacy rate is around 95%. Imagine 5% of people around you are illiterate. Even in Brazil, a so-called "emergent" country or "upper-middle income" country, the literacy rate is only 92%. So 8% are illiterate; not "functionally illiterate" as in unable to correctly interpret certain texts, mind you, but actually unable to read. You cannot get a fast-food job or work as a Walmart greeter if you're illiterate! In contrast, in developed countries the literacy rate is >99%.
In the Philippines, 1 in 3 children are malnourished.[0] This isn't some vaguely defined "food insecurity" concept; it's actually malnourishment, kids being severely underweight and stunted.
In the US millions of people can take advantage of welfare benefits. So even the non-working poor in the US have much, much better living standards than the working poor in the developing world. Also, when exactly did the US bulldoze a shantytown? And so on.
[0] http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/141134-philippi...
Also, shantytowns aren't really allowed to exist in the US. They are becoming more common in progressive cities like San Francisco and Seattle, but even there the cops sweep through and make everyone leave every few months. There is no "bulldozing" because the structures are highly temporary, being made of old tents and tarps. You just don't see the multi-generational shantytowns common in developing nations.
Public benefits aren't very easy to get in the US. There is a lot of beaurocracy to work through and there really isn't any push to help people sign up.
People were talking about the US being "third world", you're clearly moving goalposts.
> Also, shantytowns aren't really allowed to exist in the US.
... so? You're essentially saying that the US government doesn't allow poverty to exist. Virtually all of the US lower class lives in places with a proper roof, proper running water and electricity. Might not sound much but the point is: there's no part of the US that is like a 3rd world country.
> Public benefits aren't very easy to get in the US.
21% of the US participates in governments assistance programs.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97....
Also, governmental assistance varies wildly in the US. I was part of the reduced price school lunch program, but my family never received raw cash like is often conjured up by the term "governmental assistance."
I wouldn't go as far as to say parts are third world, but in terms of danger, some parts of the US are close to third world (Detroit, Chiraq, etc).
India's literacy rate is 74.04%.
That's high! 95% literacy rate isn't really worth mentioning when many countries are in the 30-40% range
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_...
If these aren't shanty towns, I don't know what is. Other Portlanders beside myself have taken to calling them shantytowns.
Of course the US wont be a "third world country" anytime soon. But it can regress closer to one than it was before.
That said, there are places in Mississippi, South Dakota, Alabama, Colorado, the Appalachia, etc. that are not that better of (if at all) than some developing nations.
Again on a recent trip this year, I met two young children that were selling shells on an island near the food market. They should have been in school, but they were not. There has been an effort by the government to get all children in larger cities to attend school. The rural areas still have plenty of children who never see a classroom.
I think the US is very far from developing countries. Yes I have seen some extreme poverty in the mountains of West Virginia, but nothing like the Philippines.
I think this is a standard trick employed by elites. That to make a very serious claim that paints USA in a bad light and then propose themselves as the "problem solver".
> The antidote, as prescribed by Temin, is likely a tough sell in today’s political climate. Expanding education, updating infrastructure, forgiving mortgage and student loan debt, and overall working to boost social mobility for all Americans are bound to be seen as too liberal by many policy makers.
At the risk of being down-voted I think the MIT economist is playing political games here. In the absence of stronger contrary evidence I would simply call him a shill.