Reasons for moving to a Third World country

[AniThyng]

Actually, come to think of it, there are also a lot of retired westerners (mostly from the UK, I gather, but there are others) who choose to retire or maintain a retirement home here simply because they like the weather and the food and the people (and really, unless you literally choose to live in deepest Borneo, you will have water, sanitation, electricity and 3G internet). There is even a programme for it, "Malaysia My Second Home". All this talk about bettering the natives and whatnot in war-torn 3rd world countries is one thing, but the way the original OP was phrased suggests to me that it's more about people who simply want to live/work normally, not go and be a social worker.

But as I noted earlier, this talk about going in and building sanitation and bringing enlightenment seems to be using a definition of Third World that basically means "war-torn African country". But then again the proper definition of 3rd World is "not aligned with the West (1st World) or Soviet Bloc ("2nd world") and is obviously a little obsolete, so clearly we need a clarification of what countries in particular the OP had in mind?

[cadbrowser]

But then again the proper definition of 3rd World is "not aligned with the West (1st World) or Soviet Bloc ("2nd world") and is obviously a little obsolete, so clearly we need a clarification of what countries in particular the OP had in mind?

Agreed...but since Eulogy has never commented on any of the posts, I don't see that happening anytime soon and we may need to atempt to inferr as best as possible with how the OP was worded.

Or agree on a more modern term to be used in place of Third World...same with the earlier use of the word shithole.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But then again the proper definition of 3rd World is "not aligned with the West (1st World) or Soviet Bloc ("2nd world") and is obviously a little obsolete, so clearly we need a clarification of what countries in particular the OP had in mind?

While technically you are right, and the term is vague, the modern parlance of it tends to be a general catch-all term for "developing countries," which is defined by low standards of living (relative to the West), an undeveloped industrial/manufacturing base, and a low Human Development Index (as defined by UNDP). [The IMF, on the other hand, classifies countries based on per capita income, export diversification, and degree of integration into the world financial system.]

However, it is still a pretty obsolete term, but even the modern "standards" used by the UN are pretty vague and malleable. Heck, official UN reports even use the disclaimer:

The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.

The designations "developed" and developing" are intended for statistical convenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process.

[HMS Conqueror]

Everyone knows what 'third world' means even if no one can strictly define it. UN wants to be politically correct and not imply the first world should be judged better than places where children crawl though rubbish looking for scrap metal to sell. Draw your own conclusions from that.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Everyone knows what 'third world' means even if no one can strictly define it.

False. Do you honestly not understand how ambiguous the term is? I guarantee you that whatever conception you have of the term is not universal. Further more, the term is vague in that it is unable to account for the fact that the world isn't a giant black/white fallacy, which I will address below ...

UN wants to be politically correct and not imply the first world should be judged better than places where children crawl though rubbish looking for scrap metal to sell. Draw your own conclusions from that.

First of all, if you honestly think that every country that isn't America or Western Europe has children crawling through rubbish looking for scrap metal to sell you are an incredibly stupid human being. Furthermore, as has been noted previously, even wealthy nations like the U.S. have large numbers of poor and homeless people. Ever been to south-east Philadelphia? Or north Philadelphia? That's a good place to see people crawling through trash heaps looking for scrap metal to sell. In fact, going through trash and selling scrap metal is a common strategy among poor/homeless people all over the world, because technology like computers and such are full of valuable elements like gold and copper.

Second of all, the UN isn't trying to be politically correct. They are trying to be accurate. The problem with any definition of "Third World" or "developing countries" or whatever is that there is so much gray area. There are countries with almost no industrial base and low income, Botswana for example, but have a high standard of living, few deeply ingrained social problems, a functioning democracy, etc. How do classify that? Or countries like Vietnam, which have a thriving industrial/manufacturing sector but still widespread poverty? What about countries in the Middle East and North Africa, with inflated oil profits driving strong economies, yet still with large pastoral/seminomadic populations? Are these all Third World shitholes? Hell, what about the city of Detroit? It is FAR worse than many African countries that I've been to.

[AniThyng]

There's also the term "South" or "Global South" that is also equivalent to the Third World but again it's vague and includes many countries where Westerners would not need to live in anything close to suffering conditions. The closest I've personally been to a stereotypical "3rd World" city would be Manila, where poverty of the crawl in trashheap type is in abundant view, yet in many districts the amenities and income level match what I imagine a first world city would be like* - if you were a expatriate, what would you miss really?

*closest I've personally been to a 1st world city is Tokyo, if you don't count Singapore.

Hmm. Thinking about what I typed here I do notice that I implicitly defined "first world" as equivalent to "westerner" and "expatriate". This does seem to speak to perceptions...hmmm

[cadbrowser]

Ok Ziggy...let's redefine so that it isn't vauge. Problem is...I really don't have a good idea to start it. Anyone else?

[AniThyng]

Ok Ziggy...let's redefine so that it isn't vauge. Problem is...I really don't have a good idea to start it. Anyone else?

I think you're better off just naming specific countries or regions of countries and working from there.

I was thinking a bit more about things like "expatriate areas" and "upper class areas where the rich and rich foreigners live" and at least for my city, I could never afford to rent or buy a place there, but I can(and do) still afford to shop and dine there fairly regularly.

[madd0ct0r]

I AM an expat and I could never afford to live in the expat area.

I would consider one of the key conditions for 'advanced nation' to be stability. Not just political stability, but generally, your life is stable enough for you to think beyond the next two days.

Here my material living standard is as high as when i was in the UK (not that high really) but I could get wiped out anyday by a dozy truckdriver, or malaria/denuge fever. Not to mention the political winds a blowing.

[Winston Blake]

Ok Ziggy...let's redefine so that it isn't vauge. Problem is...I really don't have a good idea to start it. Anyone else?

Yeah, I've got an idea. I usually just use the term 'poor areas'.

"Reasons for moving to a Third World country" -> "Reasons for moving to a poor area". At first that may sound vague, but notice how similar the OP scenario is to that of folks moving to a rural or poor area of their own country for humanitarian / business / living-cost reasons or because they just like the weather or climate, or like 'roughing it'. Some rich states have poor areas, some poor states have rich areas, so what use is it to strictly refer to state borders?

[Skgoa]

But don't you know? Poor areas in the First World are just like the rich areas but with less iPads. While even the rich areas of the third world are full of instability and rape.

[madd0ct0r]

my sarcasm detector is twitching, but only slightly.

[Skgoa]

Oh, then that investment was totally worth it.


My point is that labelling the huge majority of Earth as "the poor regions" isn't any better. You won't be able to find a single and easy definition.

[Zixinus]

To the OP: one other consideration is simply looking for work and having nothing to lose.

A skill that is not very valuable (professional benchgrinding comes to mind, although I am sure a good deal of technical or other stuff too) in the First/second World might be more valuable and relatively better paid-for in a third-world country.