Live data from Hacker News

MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

theintellectualist.co

221–230 of 279 posts

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but there's no regional intermediary. Government scales from city, to county, to state... then straight to federal. There are only 50 states. The median state is larger than Greece. The true problem is that the federal government is responsible for spending three times as many tax dollars as all the states put together. The county government knows they need to fix the bridge, but the feds took all the money t…

How many of those federal dollars spent are for the military?

Roughly 16% of Federal expenditures go towards the military.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#225
post #38

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... 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…

I don't know about Bombay Beach but I was just in Wonder Valley in January and that town is a unique place with a self-selecting population that values isolation.

There are larger towns and cities in the U.S. which more accurately depict the broader economic challenges the country is facing.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

I've lived in a developing country and parts of US are indeed similar or worse than a developing country.

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).

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> 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%.

India's literacy rate is 74.04%.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#228

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 t…

Canada is bigger and with just 30 million people and the infrastructure is good. I live in a small city of 30k and sometimes I'm surprised how deteriorated the infrastructure is in big cities like Montreal (I also lived there for some years).

Having lived in both Canada and the US, it's a reasonable counter-argument, but I'm not sure "bigger" is really applicable to this argument. Most of Canada is empty, the population lives on a narrow strip of land near the US border. And having driven most of the trans-Canada, I'm not really convinced the infrastructure is good.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#229

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 t…

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 come…

ND is in a weird place thanks to the oil fields. I grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and while it was a pretty good living and I never felt like I was in a developing region, there were places that was closer to reality.

Re: MIT economist believes U.S. is shifting to be more similar to developing nations

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

right - there have been massive improvements in poverty in developing countries as a result of globalization. But that doesn't mean that Rosling-style improvements in life outcomes for people in the poorest nations were a goal of globalization; just a side effect. And benefits have accrued to wealthy nations too - cheap gas, cheap electronic devices, expanding investment markets. If policy supporting globalization ha…

The unpleasant, unintended side effects of many "good" policies often surprise activists: protectionism and orthodox equality leads to decreased trade and removes incentives to increase productivity. This is a surprise to many people who then try to deny the existence of these side effects because they think they are only advocating "good" policies so the bad results are someone else's fault.

The pleasant, unintended side effects of globalist capitalism and economic liberalism are in fact not that much a surprise. Just look at the track record. Is it bad if good outcomes follow as unintended consequences?

Arbor ex fructu cognoscitur.

Post reply on HN