Reasons for moving to a Third World country

[Eulogy]

I get that some former citizens of a First World country move to a Third World country due to the fact that they are either fugitives or they are in the military/spies. However, given that the Third World is generally not all that great a place to live in (relative to the First World), why would someone who is a lawful civilian living in a First World country, want to move and live in a Third World one?

[Solauren]

If you have sufficient banked resources, you can move to a third world country, and in some areas, live VERY comfortable for the rest of your life.

[Broomstick]

Keep in mind the Third World countries we hear most about are those that get in the news for being shitholes. The ones you don't hear about aren't (I'm told) that bad if you don't mind living a bit rough. Sure the roads suck, the infrastructure is spotty at best, the toilet might not be of the flushing variety, and you might be more familiar with kerosene lamps lighting your house after dark than incandescent bulbs but that doesn't mean it's a hell hole. Particularly with a healthy First World childhood/vaccinations enabling you to reach a healthy adulthood, and the fact that First World money can stretch sooooo much farther in such places that a typical ex-pat resident might nearly always be on the wealthy end of the local society, life might not be bad at all.

Some people have reason to work in such places (archeologists, geologists, linguists, other types of scientist), some people have social ties (there's a Washington DC officer worker who was in the news recently for having been elected king in the African village she had emigrated from), some might go there on adventure type vacations or while doing some sort of medical/missionary/disaster relief work and wind up falling in love with the people/culture/whatever. There are probably more reasons I haven't thought of.

While the infrastructure and technology of the First World, and its creature comforts, are definitely appealing they aren't the only things to be valued in life. For some people, what they find in the Third World matters more than those "toys".

[HMS Conqueror]

Third world countries don't tend to have the petty governmental micromanagement of life that is infecting the West. The down side is that this is only due to lack of ability, not lack of will, so they often can't enforce the few useful laws either.

If you already have a lot of capital, the best quality of life is probably offered by the upper-tier third world/lower-tier second world nations, which have low cost of living and often great de-facto personal freedom (not necessarily political freedom, but you're not a citizen anyway). If you need to work for a living, cut in salary usually far outweighs decrease in cost of living and all other factors. Only exception here is if you're working for a first world company on first world salary.

[fgalkin]

Yeah, you can live VERY comfortably on a first world salary, especially since you would usually get a bonus for working overseas. Also, keep in mind that in all but the worst of African shitholes, there is a segment of wealthy locals who use Western-style conveniences. So, you will probably be living in a Western-style house or apartment with the local upper class, usually gated to keep the poor people out, shopping at Western-style malls, etc.

On the negative side, third world nations are generally pretty corrupt, and extorting bribes from expats is a favorite source of income for government officials who can and usually WILL make your life a living hell if you don't pay up.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ultonius]

It's also worth pointing out that even in First-World countries there are people whose lifestyles are fairly close to the Third-World ones described by Broomstick. In some cases they have little choice due to poverty or rural isolation, while others seek to follow a sustainable lifestyle, or live this way for religious reasons.

[madd0ct0r]

I'm out in Vietnam because the recession crashed the construction industry in the UK, Vietnam was booming and I had family out here.

My quality of life here is higher then it would be in the UK. I have a house with a garden and a large disposable income, and I'm not even on the typical expat pay scale.


Other expats:

Come out to teach English for a few years to shelter from the recession, are dedicated ecologists / archeologists, geologists ect, are USA vets who are still dealing with their past, are out here working for charities (long and short term) or are upper level management because the international company doesn't trust the locals.

[Skgoa]

I am going to cast my vote in the "not as bad as you think" box. What Broomstick described is what I would see as a third world shithole. Most "third world" (emerging or developing would be a better term) countries are on par with what you would expect in the less economically advanced regions of many western countries. The value of "less" depends on the country in question, of course.
edit: I have seen those "third world" conditions in rural Germany and France or on remote greek islands. But even in the middle of a cuban slum they had running water and electricity. (Illegally taken from the network but still...)

[cadbrowser]

I've always wanted to emulate the idea behind The Mosquito Coast with Harrison Ford. Not to bring about a culture change per se, but show whatever culture some urbanized concepts and let them choose for themselves if they'd want to include them.

Things like running water, and stuff like that. Honestly I could see it turning into more of a self edifying ego trip; but good intentions are there nonetheless.

If the goverment corruption is as bad as has been implied (which I have no doubts that they are), I could see that putting a major kink in someone who would want to live amongst the upper class of "that" third world society. Could a person then come in "under the radar" and live comfortable and possibly encourage a village to utilize the resources around them to improve their areas themselves?

Would possibly a tricky notion in my humble opinion...but possible...no?

[Skgoa]

I am not entirely sure what you were trying to say but...

Most places that don't have running water genuinely don't have running water available, it's less a problem of culture and more a problem of physical availability. And well, your idea seems to be exactly what hundreds of millions of dollars are getting spend on all around the world: building infrastructure and economy in these impoverished regions. If you want to volunteer with an NGO and go to a third world country to help dig wells and build schools, that would be a great thing to do, of course.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I lived in Madagascar for a while, and absolutely loved it. A lot depends on your type of personality, and exactly what part of the "Third World" you go to. The area I was living in was remote; there was no infrastructure, if it rained you were separated entirely from anything outside the immediate village, no toilets, little electricity, no amenities, etc. However, it was safe, the people were friendly, the food was fresh, and the wilderness mountains/forests were amazing.

I am the type of person who enjoys "roughing it", so to speak. I will gladly give up luxuries in order to live in a place that I find to be fascinating. Not everyone is willing to do that. In fact, it has many downsides. For example, when I got sick, the only options I had were to drink a lot of water and hope my condition stayed stable. Also ... hand-washing your clothes after a case of dysentery is ... not something I would wish on my worst enemy.

[AniThyng]

If you are working for a multinational corporation and are based in the capital, on an expat salary you can live very very well. But I guess this is the definition of third world that does not include mine or even say the more upper c lass parts of say, Manila because my middle class city existence seems better than some of what I read of conditions in some parts of America.

[Broomstick]

I am going to cast my vote in the "not as bad as you think" box. What Broomstick described is what I would see as a third world shithole. Most "third world" (emerging or developing would be a better term) countries are on par with what you would expect in the less economically advanced regions of many western countries. The value of "less" depends on the country in question, of course.
edit: I have seen those "third world" conditions in rural Germany and France or on remote greek islands. But even in the middle of a cuban slum they had running water and electricity. (Illegally taken from the network but still...)

I have in-laws in Appalachia that still don't have flush toilets or electricity... there are still remote parts of the US with little to no infrastructure. However, a significant difference is that those same in-laws could move to a place with such infrastructure and amenities if they really wanted to, they just prefer to remain where they are and do without as they don't see it as much of a hardship (there are also issues about the family having been there a couple thousand years and they will not be moved from their territory, but that doesn't apply to all of them). That's a major difference between First World and Third World - while both have places so primitive, in the First World it's much easier for poor people to either obtain or move to a place where they can have flush toilets and running water.

[K. A. Pital]

One of the reason might be teaching guerillas (or training to be one yourself) in military and paramilitary organizations, or playing in local politics, participating in pro- or anti-government movements and in general being not indifferent to the fate of a certain Third World country you happened to be in.

There's a whole lot of reasons to move. Humanitarian. Ethnographic. Cultural. Political.

[madd0ct0r]

I also got told off by the wife for using the term 3rd world. Apparently it's just a side from the cold War.

Undeveloped nations vary hugely though. I'm in a reasonably well developed small city, with great bridges, roads, cinemas, soft toilet roll ect. Go into the highlands a hundred kms or so, and you'll get to a village where the kids had to swim the river twice a day to go to school after the bridge collapsed. Here we just get angry newspaper articles about it.

EDIT: Also, OP, that's a fine idea, but do it via a charity such as EWB or such. It's too big a problem to simply go - hey, this crop works better and sit back in a deckchair. Most places now will have an internet cafe. Some places don't.

[cadbrowser]

I am not entirely sure what you were trying to say but...

Most places that don't have running water genuinely don't have running water available, it's less a problem of culture and more a problem of physical availability. And well, your idea seems to be exactly what hundreds of millions of dollars are getting spend on all around the world: building infrastructure and economy in these impoverished regions. If you want to volunteer with an NGO and go to a third world country to help dig wells and build schools, that would be a great thing to do, of course.

I understand that; but like I was saying I would find great pleasure in helping design and build such infastructure. Hiring the locals to help, teach them and etcetera.

That is really neat that there are millions of dollars being spent to help our fellow "man". At one time in my younger days I would have jumped at the chance to go build and dig as a volunteer. I have responsibilities to my family that keep me where I am at the moment. Of course, that don't mean I couldn't do that in the near future.

What part didn't you understand what I was trying to say?

[Skgoa]

I don't understand what exactly you want to do. You want to go to a developing nation and e.g. build a bridge? Then do so or donate money.

I am going to cast my vote in the "not as bad as you think" box. What Broomstick described is what I would see as a third world shithole. Most "third world" (emerging or developing would be a better term) countries are on par with what you would expect in the less economically advanced regions of many western countries. The value of "less" depends on the country in question, of course.
edit: I have seen those "third world" conditions in rural Germany and France or on remote greek islands. But even in the middle of a cuban slum they had running water and electricity. (Illegally taken from the network but still...)

I have in-laws in Appalachia that still don't have flush toilets or electricity... there are still remote parts of the US with little to no infrastructure. However, a significant difference is that those same in-laws could move to a place with such infrastructure and amenities if they really wanted to, they just prefer to remain where they are and do without as they don't see it as much of a hardship (there are also issues about the family having been there a couple thousand years and they will not be moved from their territory, but that doesn't apply to all of them).

And the same is true for the other examples I brought up. The point is that most developing countries aren't the shitholes you made them out to be.

That's a major difference between First World and Third World - while both have places so primitive, in the First World it's much easier for poor people to either obtain or move to a place where they can have flush toilets and running water.

Sorry, but that is riddiculously wrong. A poor family in a little greek mountain village has only a very slgiht chance of moving to a city nowadays. (They are often supported by younger family members working in the city or on islands during tourist season.) Or for a more obvious example, look at the millions of homeless people in the US. You guys pretend to be the best economy in the world... why then do you have tent cities under your bridges? Might it be that your view is too simplistic and that extreme differences between rich and poor exist practically everywhere?

[cadbrowser]

I don't understand what exactly you want to do. You want to go to a developing nation and e.g. build a bridge? Then do so or donate money.

Point taken. IOW...get up off my ass and quit dream'n huh?

Or for a more obvious example, look at the millions of homeless people in the US. You guys pretend to be the best economy in the world... why then do you have tent cities under your bridges?

I've often wondered that myself. I came very close to homelessness myself. I can't be certain, but I have understood that there are some of those that choose that lifestyle; but not that they are lazy or anything, but they've developed something of a community of their own.

It is an interresting dynamic that would be a great subject to study and understand better. Is there any country that doesn't have a homeless element?

[Broomstick]

I am going to cast my vote in the "not as bad as you think" box. What Broomstick described is what I would see as a third world shithole.

I associate "shithole" more with exploitation than lack of amenities. Flush toilets don't make for a good society, safe neighborhood, and stable government.

I have in-laws in Appalachia that still don't have flush toilets or electricity... there are still remote parts of the US with little to no infrastructure. However, a significant difference is that those same in-laws could move to a place with such infrastructure and amenities if they really wanted to, they just prefer to remain where they are and do without as they don't see it as much of a hardship (there are also issues about the family having been there a couple thousand years and they will not be moved from their territory, but that doesn't apply to all of them).

And the same is true for the other examples I brought up. The point is that most developing countries aren't the shitholes you made them out to be.

I guess we have different definitions of "shithole".

That's a major difference between First World and Third World - while both have places so primitive, in the First World it's much easier for poor people to either obtain or move to a place where they can have flush toilets and running water.

Sorry, but that is riddiculously wrong. A poor family in a little greek mountain village has only a very slgiht chance of moving to a city nowadays. (They are often supported by younger family members working in the city or on islands during tourist season.)

On the other hand, a group of displaced refugees living in the Sudan have damn little chance to escape their little shithole, either. Possibly less than those Greek mountain villagers, who arguably are safer on a physical level and less likely to have armed thugs invade and take everything they own, maybe rape the women and start chopping off bits of people. Or is that Uganda?

There are places where people lack not only modern infrastructure and power systems, but also lack all physical safety. It's the latter I describe as a "shithole", not the former.

Or for a more obvious example, look at the millions of homeless people in the US. You guys pretend to be the best economy in the world... why then do you have tent cities under your bridges? Might it be that your view is too simplistic and that extreme differences between rich and poor exist practically everywhere?

The majority of homeless people in the US aren't living under bridges. My sister, for example, who was homeless for four months didn't spend a single night under a bridge, she "couch-surfed" with friends. Even those who live in shelters have access to flush toilets and showers The co-workers I've had who were/are homeless have clean clothes, good personal hygiene, and aren't shitting in ditches. There's a difference between the temporarily homeless, and those who choose it, and people who are mentally ill and would shit in a corner of a hallway if kept in a technologically advanced facility.

The point is, modern plumbing and electric lights aren't essential to having a good life. Living in a stable society with friends and/or family with reasonable expectation of safety of one's person and possessions is more important than technology. Now, it's great if you can have both, but given a choice, I'd rather live in a mud hut with a dirt floor, a latrine, and candlelight in a decent society in a place where I don't have to constantly fear for my life over all the tech toys in the world but in constant fear of sudden death, rape, or theft.

Maybe that's the thing - there are people who don't see primitive/undeveloped places inherently as "shitholes" and may feel they fit in and are safe there, so they see those places as desirable places to live. Others judge by the plumbing and whether or not the "shithole" in the literal sense flushes or not.

[HMS Conqueror]

If the goverment corruption is as bad as has been implied (which I have no doubts that they are), I could see that putting a major kink in someone who would want to live amongst the upper class of "that" third world society. Could a person then come in "under the radar" and live comfortable and possibly encourage a village to utilize the resources around them to improve their areas themselves?

The good thing about corruption is you can buy your way out of obeying laws, and most laws are unjust or at least unnecessary. Of course other people can maybe get out of obeying just laws, like not being able to kill or rob you, but you generally can outbid them if you have a lot of money safe off-shore. It's more in their interest to milk you for what is (for you) not very much money.

The problem when you come to make large capital investments is you put everything on the line, and there's much less disincentive for it to be stolen or destroyed. This is why Goldman Sachs doesn't just develop Africa and take the profits.

The fundamental issue is lack of enforced property rights and market institutions; with those things the poor countries will enrich themselves even without the help of well-meaning foreigners. Otherwise, not much can be done except to try to stop people dying while we wait for the political institutions to improve.

[cadbrowser]

The fundamental issue is lack of enforced property rights and market institutions; with those things the poor countries will enrich themselves even without the help of well-meaning foreigners. Otherwise, not much can be done except to try to stop people dying while we wait for the political institutions to improve.

So, how could other countries help them understand that it would be in their best interest to promote and enforce these things? Wouldn't they have to reach out and provide some sort of cultural change within those to show that it is better? I mean, I understand that it would be hard pressed to convince a corrupt person of power and wealth to allow others to prosper...but should we even try? Would it be even worth it to appeal to their side of humanity or would it be easier to appeal to their greed?

I'm reminded of the Oracle in The Matrix when Trinity (? or was it Neo?) asked her what the Merovingian wanted, and her reply was, "What do all men with power and money want? More power and more money."

Course, I don't know that with the presumed corporate greed that is at the heart of American Capitalism that we'd be a good model to follow...

[HMS Conqueror]

I'm not sure. The people in power currently benefit from the status quo. Everyone else may lose out by far more, but they are multimillionaires who can live like western elites. They have no incentive to change.

One way would be to invade these countries and enforce Western-style laws, but that would kill a fair few western soldiers, so it's not considered worth it.

For internal reform, I guess there are two models:

The British model - start with feudalistic monarchical system and have a somewhat ideologically-driven mercantile middle class take over.

The Chinese model - start with an omnipotent fascist dictatorship and hope it realises it can buy more tanks if it adopts market institutions at least somewhat.

The British model is probably better, but relies on people within the society - probably not the people currently in power who personally gain a great a deal from the status quo, even if everyone else loses - to have the right ideology and the practical ability to take power. People in Africa seem to have exactly the wrong ideology: various strands of Marxism. See what happened in Zimbabwe, where a popular revolution deposed a pretty good government and imposed a terrible one.

The Chinese model is probably more realistic, but relies first on someone taking enforceable absolute power, and that generally doesn't have the desired consequences, and certainly not right away.

---

As for "corporate greed", the possibility of (in the view one ideology - largely the one that has made Africa so impoverished) having some of your $40k/year salary nebulously looted by fatcats is a lot less bad than having a lot of your $4k/year salary literally looted by corrupt policemen and highway bandits.

[madd0ct0r]

Cadbrowser, let's actually do this - what are your skills? Qualifications?

[cadbrowser]

@ HMS Conqueror

I was wanting to leave out anything that would cause bloodshead or undue cruelty, so I'm not sure that either of those scenarios would be ideal. However, I do agree with the methodology.

I would imagine that a "lead by example" would be best. Somehow incorporate change at "home" and show the rest of the world how beneficial it is. I know that's more Utopian than would be idealistic...but I can't help to imagine that if humanity itself would take a step back and realize how the things we are doing to each other in the context to which we are discussing is doing more harm than good; then possibly a cultural shift in how we treat each other, the concept of wealth and prosperity could change.

@ madd0ct0r

Ummm...what is it exactly that you are wanting to do?

[HMS Conqueror]

British model isn't necessarily overly bloody.

A good example is Botswana, which pretty much peacefully adopted British-style institutions. It's now the richest country in sub-saharan Africa, about on par with Eastern Europe by GDPPC, and is a stable democracy. Doing it in <random country> may be moderately bloody. The biggest problem is it depends on there already being powerful people in those countries with classical liberal-ish values, who don't just want to make themselves the current chief looters. This is very hard to influence and only ever possible over a long time.

For the rest, I'm not sure what you mean by change at home; what they really want is to just turn into the West. The West may not be ideal but it's far far better than the undeveloped world, and it's far less clear how to improve the West than how to improve the undeveloped world.