Development level: first World, third World, second World? (weddings, purchasing)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But such conditions were certainly heard of if you add in the historical angle, during the geopolitical ascendancy of leading OECD member nations, even when these nations were regarded to be among the most developed in the world.
Yes, but standards have changed. I'm comparing India with other countries today. I've been to India, btw.
Yes, but standards have changed. I'm comparing India with other countries today. I've been to India, btw.
In my view, it would be somewhat unfair to be selectively perceptive of the past in this way, but then I can appreciate the opposing case that standards and definitions should be labile over time. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.
It sounds like US are a megapolis from ocean to ocean, and other countries are the islands full of the wild men and women. Are we talking about cultural differences or about economical development? You can come to Tokyo (e.g.) and be impressed of their development but be shocked of their habits. And Belarus or Ukraine are the less developed countries, but their people's habits can be more mutual to you.
I'm afraid such views mainly rely upon long-held preconceptions of India that simply don't resemble the ostensible socioeconomic trends in the country and the macro data. This is somewhat similar to the now defunct arguments that China would never be a global economic power to rival the dominance of the USA.
There are arguments either way and numerous factors to consider aside from wealth distribution. If, as you claim, India is so obviously a part of the third world, then questions such as the following would be arbitrary and pointless:
with work I've spent 3 months in mumbai/bombay and I didn't need to see the country to understand it was a third world country... heck not even listen to it's chaotic streets, but the smell! Oh god! India has 30 years to go before I would even consider it being a "developing country". The things I saw there still haunt me to this day...
A place like Dubai LOOKS developed but it's NOT. The day the imported labour force earns >23k usd/year then we can start having this conversation, but as long as they earn 6k /year it still shows where in it's development phase the country is at.
In my view, it would be somewhat unfair to be selectively perceptive of the past in this way, but then I can appreciate the opposing case that standards and definitions should be labile over time. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.
I'm sorry but you sound a bit biased... I'm sorry to say that nei is right though Maybe one day it India will be developed but not today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe one day it India will be developed but not today.
