
MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations - SoMuchToGrok
https://theintellectualist.co/study-mit-economist-u-s-regressed-third-world-nation-citizens/
======
prawn
Another story about the same person and topic that I found insightful:
"America is Regressing into a Developing Nation for Most People" \-
[https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-
is-r...](https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-is-
regressing-into-a-developing-nation-for-most-people)

I have visited the US most years out of the last 5-10, including a trip
through 25ish US states a couple of years ago. It's easy to get the impression
that competing interests maintain a problematic or worsening status quo -
infrastructure that has to be OK until it collapses because no one wants to
prioritise the money to fix it (many roads in California are shocking). A
voting system (as mentioned by @kristofferR) that makes it difficult for a
viable third party to emerge. Health, education, private prison industries,
etc.

There are parts of the United States that feel like they are struggling to
survive - including areas that are quite eye-opening like Bombay Beach and
Wonder Valley.

In Australia, we see lobbying groups dictate terms increasingly often too and
I don't know that our country is better for it.

~~~
tptacek
Bombay Beach? Wonder Valley? I had to look both of those places up, and both
are places with tiny populations. Can you help me understand why I should be
thinking about places like those and not, say, Youngstown Ohio?

~~~
tryitnow
Good question. I had never heard of Bombay Beach but it's a fascinating story:
[http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/salton-
sea](http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/salton-sea)

Having said that, I think it has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

Wonder Valley also has an interesting story:
[https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/12/the-last-
homesteads-o...](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2014/12/the-last-homesteads-
of-wonder-valley-california/383372/)

There's a theme here of Southern California desert wastelands.

------
nirav72
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.

~~~
CuriouslyC
I've seen places in Mississippi, Arkansas and West Virginia that looked every
bit as third world as rural Philippines/Vietnam.

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.

~~~
nandemo
That's such BS. Have you actually lived in a developing country?

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...](http://www.rappler.com/move-
ph/issues/hunger/141134-philippines-children-malnutrition-stunting-study)

~~~
blackguardx
The US Census says the US has a literacy rate of 86%. This is a controversial
metric, though. The CIA factbook defines literacy as having completed 5 years
of schooling. By that definition, the US is at 97.9% literacy. Better than
your 95% number, but not Nordic country levels.

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.

~~~
nandemo
> Better than your 95% number, but not Nordic country levels.

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....](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2015/cb15-97.html)

~~~
blackguardx
There are no goalposts. I'm just trying to add nuance to the discussion.

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."

------
accountyaccount
I definitely support paying more taxes to improve the infrastructure/rural
areas of the country, but I also start to think that maybe the country is just
too big.

Are there any countries that are nearly this large that have a consistent
quality of infrastructure for everyone? I live in a large city and it seems
that even we have trouble maintaining up our roads/bridges/grid/telecom
systems and we pay a lot of state taxes comparatively — I can't imagine how a
much larger, less dense, less wealthy area filled with people staunchly
against taxes could even begin to keep up.

~~~
nightski
It's amusing there is so much misinformation on rural America on HN. You'd
think it was mostly 3rd world by reading most of the comments on this post. I
come from ND, which is an extremely sparsely populated state. However, don't
let the rural nature fool you - per capita tax revenue was one of the highest
in the nation. It's filled with rich farmers making more than many engineers
here on HN. Most of the income comes from Oil & Farming but that excess money
is being invested in developing a growing technology scene.

I regularly visit CA/SF as I have clients there. It's a beautiful place, but
many things about living in ND are much more attractive.

~~~
BoiledCabbage
That's not a very good analogy. If you're going to compare ND and it's oil
boom, then you need to contrast it with somewhere like Saudi Arabia which has
very little economically except for it's oil production.

Or more accurately compare any of the non-oil related rural areas in the
country. Or any of the particularly poor rural areas of the black or white
southern US.

------
StevePerkins
Has any one actually read this book, and can confirm how substantive it is?

You see a post with a title like, " _Study by MIT Economist: U.S. Has
Regressed to a Third-World Nation for Most_ ", and you naively assume that the
link will take you to... a study. By an MIT Economist. With actual data, about
how the average or mean American has recently crossed some number of economic
metric thresholds.

Instead, it's a book review. Really just a collection of mushy factoids (e.g.
social mobility is lower today than it was just after WWII)... and political
talking points worthy of a Facebook or Reddit comment (e.g. rich people are
awful, and putting criminals in jail is racist).

Is the actual book a bit more data-oriented, or is the whole thing just
ideological comfort food?

------
arjie
I don't buy it. The last election saw relatively wealthy cities voting to
increase taxes, increase equity, and make life better for the poor. And rural
areas voting the opposite way with national identity, lower taxes, and lower
community spending being their important things.

This is very different from third world nations where the middle class wants
lower taxes and the poor vote for more spending but don't succeed.

~~~
bigeasy
Rather than setting up your own straw man, why not respond to some of the
arguments made in the article?

> In the developing countries Lewis studied, people try to move from the low-
> wage sector to the affluent sector by transplanting from rural areas to the
> city to get a job. Occasionally it works; often it doesn’t. Temin says that
> today in the U.S., the ticket out is education, which is difficult for two
> reasons: you have to spend money over a long period of time, and the FTE
> sector is making those expenditures more and more costly by defunding public
> schools and making policies that increase student debt burdens.

The article focuses on education is a class divider that is becoming
increasingly unobtainable or when obtained, burdened with debt. This is strike
against social mobility. Do you buy that?

~~~
arjie
A bit harsh, that accusation, especially when I can't find any of your quoted
sentences in the linked article.

For what it's worth, I was talking about this following excerpt:

> In the Lewis model of a dual economy, much of the low-wage sector has little
> influence over public policy. Check. The high-income sector will keep wages
> down in the other sector to provide cheap labor for its businesses. Check.
> Social control is used to keep the low-wage sector from challenging the
> policies favored by the high-income sector.

~~~
BoiledCabbage
> Social __issues are __used to keep the low-wage sector from challenging the
> policies favored by the high-income sector.

Yet change two words and suddenly things align again. Particularly if you take
high-wage sector to be that demographic of the republican party. (Obviously
this isn't exclusive to the republican party, but what's present in the party
matches the form in developing countries).

Another way to look at the thesis is this: The republican party's politics and
functioning/platform execution matches that of a developing country. While
they aren't they only party, their views/framework have been taking over
American politics since Clinton's triangulation of the 90s (and arguably since
Reagan's arrival in the 80s).

------
kristofferR
Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its flawed
constitution/democratic system?

The first version of something is rarely the best version, and while the US
constitution contained a lot of fantastic elements and freedoms that every
educated American knows about, it also contained a democratic system (first
past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed
divisiveness. [1] [2]

Since the American system forces people into two camps/parties based on
ideology instead of the delivered results, the results suffer while the
ideological conflict is enhanced.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)

~~~
324343245
> Am I wrong in attributing/connecting most of Americas problems with its
> flawed constitution/democratic system?

Almost certainly. The US was doing fine for most of the 20th century.

Globalism is what has brought wages down. Globalism combines the economies of
the richest countries with the economies of the poorest in an attempt to
"help" poor countries. As rich countries and poor countries combine economies,
they move toward economic-equilibrium, which means the people from the poor
country get brought out of poverty at the expense of the people in the rich
countries. This is fine for the "1%" on the coasts of the united states, but
if you're part of rural America you're getting hit very hard by globalism.

~~~
jameshart
The idea that globalism is an attempt to 'help' poor countries needs evidence
to support it - I think there are plenty of ways in which globalism has
benefitted wealthy countries at the expense of poor ones. In fact, the idea
that globalism is 'an attempt' to do something, i.e. a conscious agenda to
change the world, rather than just something which just emerged out of
commercial activity, also seems a bit of a leap.

~~~
ptaipale
I think that we can once again be reminded that there is only one thing that
is worse for poor nations than being exploited by global capitalism.

It's that poor nations are _not_ exploited by global capitalism.

Then you can look up TED talks by Hans Rosling, and the follow-up reports for
UN millennium development goals.

~~~
Karellen
Can you give a few examples of poor nations that are not being exploited by
global capitalism?

~~~
maxerickson
North Korea and Cuba have been pretty well isolated from capitalism.

You could also look at countries in Africa that don't have extensive resource
extraction (compared to those that do).

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
As an asside North Korea does ship workers abroad to work as slave laborers.

~~~
ptaipale
Partially that scheme seems to be an attempt to engage DPRK in some kind of
dialog to prevent an unstable dictatorship with nuclear weapons and a lot of
artillery that can reach Seoul from causing bad damage.

But given that utilising or even tolerating slave labourers on the ground in
democratic nations is such a shameful thing, it might be better to actually
let DPRK be completely isolated from global economy and not allow any of these
arrangements. Even if that results in more misery for the people in DPRK.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
iirc a bulk of these workers find themselves in Russia or China so hardly on
democratic lands.

If you know of other instances of this that'd be a fascinating topic to read
up on.

------
cmrdporcupine
It's capitalism continuing to return to its "normal" after the exceptional
post-WWII era where strong unions, social democracy, and the threat of the
USSR forced generous accomodations for the working class at home while a large
stable and rapidly developing economic sphere ensured a few decades of
prosperity.

But an abnormal period, and we are now returning to the normality of
capitalism described by critics like Marx or Dickens over 100 years ago.

The distinction between "developing" and "developed" is a dubious distinction
anyways especially now. "Developing" implies that liberal capitalism has a
linear narrative towards something (presumably something that looks like "the
west"). There's a lot of hubris in that statement, and I don't think it is
supported by any evidence.

------
fiatpandas
How long until we see favelas in the US? Low income areas completely devoid of
economic opportunity, more or less ceded by local municipalities, with lawless
informal economies and virtually no basic city services? Or do we already have
them by another name?

~~~
realo
Not quite there yet... but ...

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint,_Michigan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint,_Michigan)

~~~
maxerickson
Flint has a bunch of abandoned housing.

It's sort of the opposite of a favela, people left housing behind because of
the lack of economic opportunity (whereas a favela is people dealing with poor
housing in order to seek economic opportunity).

------
K0SM0S
The facts are piling up to support this view. However I don't see it as mere
regression, insofar as time doesn't flow backwards, and it is still quite
unfair to developing countries to say their condition is 'as good' as that of
even lower-class US citizens.

It looks more to me, as I had somewhat theorized a decade ago, as the
emergence of a 'new medieval age' politically and economically. The US being
one of the most advanced countries on earth, it seems quite logical that they
would pave the way forward towards new social orders in this century. Sadly
not a desirable change, but history is made of ups and downs in quality of
life.

~~~
meric
Middle class people in developing countries, e.g. Small business owners, have
much better quality of life than the lower class US. Much more likely to have
emotional healthy families, low cost of living allow high rate of savings, can
afford electronics and broadband internet, support family of 3-5 kids with
good enough tertiary education, and maybe even a car. Compare that to some of
the places in the US riddled with drug addictions...

------
jefe_
The difference being, here we don't let the commoners engage in bribery, it is
only reserved for the higher levels, and even then measures are taken to
conceal the nature of the transactions. In many developing countries, everyone
gives and receives bribes for many things. It is acceptable (and there are
limits). I think it's healthy, if the system is corrupt, everyone should be
able to exploit its corruption.

~~~
saint_fiasco
Bottom-up corruption has its advantages. If people like Michael Brown could
bribe cops, there would have been no Ferguson scandal.

However the top-down approach allows corruption to be _managed_ and ensures
that important business isn't derailed because some random bureaucrat has a
drug habit or is in a bad mood.

You might be interested in this article
[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/08/the_nature_of_the_gri...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/08/the_nature_of_the_grift.html)
which tries to explain the difference between corruption in first and third
world countries.

I don't know if his thesis is true because I only know the third world kind.
If the article is of interest to you, can you tell me what you think of part
VI? Does the story with Sally at AT&T sound true? I only have experience with
what the author says happens in Hungary, and that part is spot on.

------
nunez
While I don't think the US is, de jure, a third-world country, I completely
believe that it is, de facto, for many. I am on my way back from Memphis and
onto Detroit, and both of these cities and their home states have plenty of
areas that look unbelievably impoverished. Based on what I've seen from my
years of traveling the country, it would not surprise me if most of the
country had this problem. It's really sad.

~~~
324343245
What countries don't have any impoverished neighborhoods?

~~~
oblio
Developed ones.

A more serious answer: each country has impoverished neighborhoods. The
difference between developed countries and developing ones is the magnitude of
the impoverished neighborhoods.

So far I haven't seen any really big slums in Germany, for example.

~~~
maze-le
Then you obviously havent been to Halle/Silberhöhe. But as you said, the
difference is the magnitude. The scale of informal economies is certainly
higher in Brazil, Honduras or Colombia. While here, even in problematic spots
of certain cities, you will have the occasional criminal, the economic
situation of a whole city is not dependent on it.

------
Paradigma11
[http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/05/frenc...](http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/05/french-
fracture) This article comes from a french/european side but it is the most
insightful take on current economic and social developments that i have read.

------
scott_s
Another article on the same book, "Escaping Poverty Requires Almost 20 Years
With Nearly Nothing Going Wrong",
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/economi...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/economic-
inequality/524610/)

------
bhouston
Is this just happening in the US or is it also happening across many other
"Western/European" nations? I wonder if it is isolated or widespread in part
because there will be some equalization as other developing nations rise --
like China and India.

~~~
VLM
Demographics is destiny, so yes. Particularly demographics of the youth.

If you import your population from 1800-Ireland and 1800-Germany in the 1800s,
in 2017 you end up with a country like 2017-Ireland or 2017-Germany. In other
words, pretty nice.

If you demographically replace the existing population (and what, precisely,
was wrong with the existing population, such that we have to replace them,
other than their race?) then you end up with the immigrant's country, but
located here. Surely Somali in 2117 is not going to be a paradise, likewise
USA in 2117 will be the same as Somalia, no paradise, thats for sure.

There is no magic dirt. Anglos taking over Hawaii didn't turn anglos into
Hawaiians. Anglos taking over the midwest USA didn't turn the anglos into
native americans. Likewise the replacement of native cultures with imported
cultures means the annihilation of the former cultures and replacement by the
invaders. The USA will be a moderately poor Spanish speaking hispanic nation.
Europe will be a moderately poor Muslim caliphate.

~~~
sctb
Hacker News is not a site for ideological battle—especially involving
inflammatory handwaving—and you've often used it as such. Please stop.

------
yodsanklai
And I'm afraid that Europe is shifting to be more similar to the US...

------
ENTP
Everything must start again anew,

Everything just goes that way my friend,

Every king knows it to be true,

That every kingdom must one day come to an end,

    
    
      - Ben Howard, Everything

------
justforFranz
You mean a banana republic?

------
jlebrech
developing is good no? rich and developing should be a goal

------
tom_wills
That's not what 'third-world' means... we're still part of NATO

~~~
iaskwhy
I wasn't aware of the original meaning. From Wikipedia[0]: "The term "Third
World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned
with either NATO or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Canada, Japan,
South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the First
World, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies represented the
Second World. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the
nations of the Earth into three groups based on political and economic
divisions."

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World)

~~~
phkahler
Wow, that's really lame. It's like dividing middle school into the "cool kids"
the "delinquents" and everyone else. If you're not part of a faction though
you're a "third world" loner.

~~~
ptaipale
Cold war wasn't such a lame thing. As a third-worlder (Finland), I'm quite
happy that the US was there to help with the "cool kids".

~~~
phkahler
I just meant the characterization was lame. How do you like Finland being a
3rd world country given the negative connotations that have since been
assigned to the term? You may just say "that doesn't fit" like I did when I
learned that Finland is a 3rd world country.

