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?

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because of their modern and huge airforce and army, along with all the big tech companies, and Hollywood.

    The PR image of America is quite nice. The reality, not that great.

  • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup, it does change. It was attempted to mean “poor” and it’s been reappropriated since

      If you’re trying to use modern language, it’s “developed” and “developing”

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You mean global north/ global south.

        Developing and developed are considered negatively.

        But in terms of laypeople words, that are used every day, 1st and 3rd world mean the same thing.

        • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          North/south imply certain regions can’t improve and is far worse than developed/developing

          If layperson words didn’t have an issue with 1st/3rd world, you wouldn’t see so many comments about it

  • Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Several reasons.

    1. The US is largely responsible for defining what 1st, 2nd, and 3rd World countries are.
    2. It has the largest economy in the world.
      (I think? That may have gone to China by now. Not sure. But it was true recently.)
    3. Even with everything you said being true. It’s still the wealthiest country in the world, by a large margin. Epically when you compare incomes, lifestyles, and infrastructure to actual 3rd world countries. It’s not even close.
  • hotpot8toe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s obvious you don’t know anything about third world countries and probably have never been to one. I am sure that there are problems in your country to complain about, but coming from an actual third-world country, calling the US third world is just plain naive. The average monthly wage in my country is 25$ a month, not to mention the war and corruption. The US usually ranks 25-50 on world corruption indices. Third world countries rank 100-200. If you think US has corruption. You haven’t seen shit

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • hotpot8toe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Interesting, I didn’t know that. I just remember my country being at the bottom that’s why I said it that way.

        I just looked it up, corruption index: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023 places most corrupt at the bottom. But I think you are right because corruption ranking should have the most corrupt on the top. I.e you are 1st at corruption

        • otp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because “first world” means NATO, not having a high standard of living.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • dch82@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I 100% agree; the thing is they measure this stuff by the mean so a few outliers (rich districts or billionaires) make things look reasonable by number.

    • markr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • mecfs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, the “developed” vs. “developing” terminology doesn’t really have a category that fits a country that was previously developed and is now declining.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s mostly the stable government, infrastructure, currency and tech.

    Pretty much why I’ve been calling the US a 2nd world country for years.

    Your"IMO" aren’t opinions; those are the facts, jack

    IMO, no country that primarily uses toilet paper instead of a bidet is 1st world.

    • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The country most famous for the bidet trend is France and currently swimming in the Seine is still looking impossible. If my infrastructure is so shitty and 3rd world here at least my lakes, rivers and water ways are all clean enough for me to use.

      Every country has its problems, but calling the US 3rd world is just your brain being full of straight negative propaganda. Simultaneously not every French River is unusable or every country filled with Bidets an actual mark of their progress. Go experience a country first before just talking shit.

      Also, stable government?? Literally our biggest problem is that our government has been so stable that it has changed for 240 years.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those are points.

        None of them are particularly relevant or accurate, but at least you wrote them out.

        The US has the clean water act - correct.

        “at least my lakes, rivers and water ways are all clean enough for me to use”. - very, very wrong.

        Many of your waterways are so polluted that they regularly catch fire and are linked to higher cancer rates

        Then there’s “The country most famous for the bidet trend is France and currently swimming in the Seine is still looking impossible”,

        which, if we

        1. ignore Japan

        2. pretend fecal matter is only unsanitary if you clean yourself with water(incorrect)

        3. and follow your implication that because bidets were popularized in one country, part of a single river in their country is historically dangerously polluted(incorrect),

        makes as much sense as

        “The country most famous for TP is the US and currently the Mississippi, Ohio River and Savannah are and will be polluted for decades to come, plus the Cuyahoga river and their drinking water catches on fire sometimes.”

        How about

        “If my infrastructure is so shitty”

        No “ifs” about it, American infrastructure is crumbling. Your power grids regularly fail and are vulnerable because of their age, your bridges are collapsing, people can’t easily travel the country because of undeveloped mass transit, your health care system has failed its population, and you can’t house or feed even your veterans, let alone large parts of your population.

        Those are all direct evidence of a critical failure in US infrastructure.

        “Also, stable government??” Putting aside that your standard for stability is

        “our government has been so stable that it has changed for 240 years.”(I have no idea what you’re going for here),

        Your corrupt presidents, senators, congressmen, governors and citizens regularly cry out for secession and civil war, regularly attempt to defraud your electoral system and literally attempted a violent coup to overthrow your governmental seat of power just three years ago.

        Trump, liable for rape and treason, constitutionally prohibited from running for president, might be re-elected, despite his admiration for and aspiration to emulate authoritarian regimes(and so many other faults).

        Not the picture of stability. The picture of instability, in fact.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        My guess is Lemmy skews young.

        so many of these revelations and showerthoughts are pretty banal coming of age stuff.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pretty much why I’ve been calling the US a 2nd world country for years.

      FYI, “second world” means communist – or more specifically, Warsaw Pact. Only delusional MAGAs would call the US that.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Done with my business!

        Should I use my own hand covered by a strip of absorbent tissue paper to smear waste over my skin?

        Or wash it away with water without touching my waste with my hand?

        What a dilemma.

  • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

        • MissJinx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Except that doesn’t apply anymore. Words change meaning over time and this expression has definitely changed. You cannot use the same definition as 50 years ago because it no longer applies. Yes, currently US is a third world country and the only reason it’s not “seen as it” os because of propaganda and old people power/money.

          As a non american we 100% see america as 3rd world. And you guys have no idea how much propaganda you get bombarded by daily

            • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              We literally did come up with new terms after the cold war. We now say Developing and Developed nations.

              • Deceptichum@quokk.au
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

          • NotNotMike@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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…

      • ZephrC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Languages evolve over time

      All dictionaries now have OPs use of thee word as the first definition.

            • Grimy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

      • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess I still go by the original definition. There are other words that offer more detail anyway - kakistocracy, gerontocracy, corporatocracy, kleptocracy, etc.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Developing countries would be the synonym for third world in the definition used by OP.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because the majority of old people are rich and there are still the echoes of a real middle class. Let’s see if Trump gets elected and everyone with the cash to do so flees his outrageous proposed tariffs.