Is America a third world country?

No, I’m comparing Rayong with San Francisco, two actual cities where I’ve lived and observed the differences firsthand.

Yet you lack all context.

For example, I was in Mumbai, and I never saw homeless people there. Is the standard of living there anything close to SF? No.

I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You appear to be choosing the worst of one, and the best of the other. We could debate it endlessly, and no doubt bore every other member here. So, if nothing else, in respect to them, I think we should leave it here. Homelessness in SF does not define SF.

But let's just disagree and leave it there.
 

Yet you lack all context. For example, I was in Mumbai, and I never saw homeless people there. Is the standard of living there anything close to SF? No. I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You appear to be choosing the worst of one, and the best of the other. We could debate it endlessly, and no doubt bore every other member here. So, if nothing else, in respect to them, I think we should leave it here. Homelessness in SF does not define SF. But let's just disagree and leave it there.

I’m not "choosing the worst of one and the best of the other", I’m describing what I actually saw living in both places. That’s context. If you’d rather not continue, that’s fine, but homelessness in San Francisco is impossible to ignore if you’ve lived there, and it’s far greater than in Thailand.
 
I'll say that parts of the USA seem third world to me: people stricken with disaster in oh so many places and then there are the ghettos too. Many more now are becoming homeless especially disabled and elderly because rents have sky rocketed by greedy corporations.

We are definitely in trouble as a country although there are some who may disagree but I have seen what's happening first hand and highest crime rates aren't helping either

Say a prayer for us all as we surely need it 💘
 

I've chimed in a few times on this thread, but the question itself—"Is America a third world country?"—feels almost self-answering. If the question needs to be asked with any seriousness, the answer has likely already arrived
 
Oh bloody 'ell (pardon me), it's all sounds so complicated (which I know benefits are anyway). It's such a shame you don't get free healthcare like we do.

Probably a daft question, what happens if I've no money, no insurance, no job and I get really sick ie treatment carrying on over a long period of time as in months/years, is there a cut off period for the benefit system paying?
You would be on Medicaid, which would cover you indefinitely.

Over 90 percent of people in the US have health insurance. But it is a patchwork system, not universal.
 
Yet you lack all context.

For example, I was in Mumbai, and I never saw homeless people there. Is the standard of living there anything close to SF? No.

I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You appear to be choosing the worst of one, and the best of the other. We could debate it endlessly, and no doubt bore every other member here. So, if nothing else, in respect to them, I think we should leave it here. Homelessness in SF does not define SF.

But let's just disagree and leave it there.
According to Wikipedia, Mumbai has about 57,000 homeless people and India has 1.7 million.
 
I view the U.S from the outside. There are many factors that form my impressions, but I definitely don't see America as a third-world country. I have travelled through New England, and a great deal of the west and southwest of the U.S, and have some relatives living down there, and have met many Americans. I've also traveled around in several Third-World countries.

To all the above, I'll add that American SF members do not remind me of citizens of a Third World country.

One thing though that, to me, does somewhat smack of news stories from the Third World is the recent federal preempting of a city's normal law enforcement, with perhaps weeks-long presence of troops and even armored vehicles.

It's more murky-seeming and unsettling that there's a plan to replicate this process in a number of cities where the state governor and/or mayor belong to the opposite party to the administration. In Canada our national-broadcast news provides the explanation offered for this very unusual program. I think most of us up here find it astonishing to say the least.🙂😳
 
Travel definately broadens ones perspective. I would like to have done more of it. In some respects I think the world came to me. I grew up near NY City. I worked with scientists from around the world. I also lived in several college towns where there was access to good book stores and lectures and entertainment. Much of this can be found today on the Internet and by reading but interacting in person can't be beat.
 

If something like these examples that got so out of hand so quickly can be prevented, then I sure wish these people in charge would
get together and do something instead of fighting back and forth and standing firm because they hate each other and just
protect the people they say they care about so much...... clean up your cities then on your own or admit to needing help and make it a team effort.
Instead if we (outside of the areas involved now) wouldn't take sides and fuel the flames of either side, then maybe tempers would die off and some sane talk will happen. If they have an audience; they hunger for encore. I lived near the Watts riots and honey, it was a scary thing and spread fast and that wasn't even the bigger ones.


6 Times the Military Was Used for Riot Control in the US​

cc%20US%20Troop%20occupies%20DC%201200.jpg

A soldier standing guard on the corner of 7th & N Street NW in Washington D.C. with the ruins of buildings that were destroyed during the riots that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Warren K. Leffler/Library of Congress)
Military.com | By Blake Stilwell
Updated June 10, 2025 at 9:38am ET
Share

Marines and additional National Guard troops were headed to Los Angeles this week on President Donald Trump’s orders in response to protests over immigration raids.
The authorization came amid mostly peaceful protests in the city on Monday.


California officials sued Trump on Monday to roll back the administration's National Guard deployment, saying the president trampled over the state’s sovereignty. Local officials and Gov. Gavin Newsom don’t want the military presence and the police chief has said it creates logistical challenges for safely handling protests.
Read More: Trump Deploys Hundreds of Marines to LA in Growing Military Response to Immigration Raid Protests
How federal troops are used in domestic law enforcement is governed by a pair of laws -- the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807. Those dictate circumstances in which federal troops can be deployed on American soil, including natural disaster, terrorist attack, epidemic or domestic violence.


When it comes to curbing civil unrest, the military has been called out on multiple occasions -- and it wasn’t just the National Guard, either. Here are a few examples.

1863: The New York City Draft Riots​

The Civil War was the first time in American history that the United States had to forcibly enlist its citizens to fight a war. Unsurprisingly, people who have no interest in fighting with rifles and bayonets aren't keen on being forced to do it. To make matters worse, wealthy Americans could avoid the draft by paying $300, the equivalent of almost $7,000 in 2020 dollars.
The New York Draft Riots are still the largest civil disturbance in American history. In order to put them down (and maybe save half of Manhattan), the governor had to call not only the New York militia, he had to call in U.S. Marines.
cc%201863%20NYC%20Draft%20Riot%201200.jpg

The NYC Draft Riots. (National Archives and Records Administration)
The violence got so bad, President Lincoln also sent battle-hardened veterans -- who just finished fighting at Gettysburg -- to New York to restore and maintain order.

1932: Disbanding the "Bonus Army"​

Though not as destructive or deadly as the NYC Draft Riots, the 1932 Bonus Army attack was notable for the use of federal military troops to clear out a bunch of veterans looking for help from the government -- help that was promised to them anyway.
In the years following the 1929 stock market crash, the situation for struggling World War I veterans quickly went from bad to worse. Congress promised them a cash payment of up to $1 for every day they were in active service, to a maximum of $500. That's a cool $9,300 in 2020 dollars, more than enough to survive the Great Depression.
For most vets, that money was to be paid over the span of years, but with the Depression in full swing, everyone needed cash right then. The veterans formed an activist group called the "Bonus Army" to go to Washington and advocate for the pay, setting up camp on Capitol Hill.
President Herbert Hoover's attorney general ordered the police to remove them, which did not go as planned. Hoover soon got wind of the incident and ordered General Douglas MacArthur and tanks from the 3rd Cavalry Regiment to do the job. The Army shot tear gas and marched on the Bonus Army with fixed bayonets. As the vets retreated from Capitol Hill, the U.S. Army burned their encampment.
cc%20bonus%20army%201200.jpg

(Kinderwood Archive)

1967: Detroit's 12th Street Riot​

The second largest riot since the 1863 Draft Riot in New York happened in Detroit in 1967 -- and was a harbinger for the tumultuous years to come in the United States.
In that year, almost 160 race riots broke out across the United States, earning the nickname the "Long, Hot Summer of 1967." None of the uprisings were more destructive than in Detroit, where what started as a police raid on an illegal after-hours bar turned into one of the country's most violent and destructive riots ever.
For five days, the citizens of Detroit ran wild through the streets. It was one so rampant that then-Governor George Romney (yes, Mitt Romney's dad) chose to call in the Michigan National Guard. When even that didn't work, President Lyndon Johnson called in the 82d and 101st Airborne.
In the wake of the riot, 43 were dead and more than 2,000 buildings were destroyed.

1967: Newark Riots​

This is another significant disturbance of the 1967 "Long, Hot Summer," particularly due to the level of destruction the riots caused the city of Newark -- a level from which the city has never fully recovered.
As middle-class white Americans left urban areas after WWII, Black Americans still faced widespread racism and discrimination in those cities. Finding a decent job and a place to live became more and more difficult, even though those opportunities existed.
The frustration of Black Newark boiled over as the city descended into poverty. City politicians and police mostly remained white. The frustration came to a head when a Black cab driver was beaten unconscious and dragged to a police station by white officers for passing a double-parked police vehicle. There, he was charged with assaulting the police officers. Rumors spread that he was killed in police custody. He wasn't -- but he was badly beaten.
What began as a protest against police brutality soon turned into widespread rioting and looting. Even after the National Guard was deployed, the violence continued, causing $10 million dollars in damages ($77.6 million today) and killing 26 with hundreds injured. Almost 40 of the injured were from the New Jersey National Guard.

1968: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Murdered​

On Apr. 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr was shot and killed outside of his Memphis, Tennessee motel room. As word of the killing spread in cities across the United States, riots began to break out. Cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Nashville, New York, Raleigh, North Carolina and Washington erupted in violence.

cc%20MLK%20Riots%20DC%201200.jpg

Photograph shows the ruins of a store in Washington, D.C., that was destroyed during the riots that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Warren K. Leffler/Library of Congress)
Everywhere, it seemed thousands of buildings were destroyed, hundreds of people were killed and thousands more arrested. In response, mayors throughout the country called in their respective national guardsmen to restore order in the streets. Restoring the rule of law in the nation's capital required more than 13,600 armed soldiers, the largest military occupation of a city since the Civil War.

1992: Los Angeles Riots​

People responding to police brutality with protest again sparked a riot in 1992. Four LAPD officers were acquitted of using excessive force in the beating of motorist Rodney King after being stopped in traffic. When the verdict was announced, Los Angeles exploded in a riot that covered 32 square miles.
cc%201992%20LA%20Riots%201200.jpg

The aftermath of the Los Angeles riots. (Mick Taylor)
In the end, it would take every Los Angeles law enforcement officer, 10,000 California National Guard troops and hundreds of United States Marines to restore order and begin putting Los Angeles back together again.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 
The US's percent of those living below the world poverty line is 10%, which is good to average for nations in the northern hemisphere. Strangely, most of the extremely poverty stricken nations are near the equator.
Poverty Rate by Country 2025
Anthropologists say that's because a country near the equator is as a paradise while a country nearer one of the poles requires aggressiveness, determination in order to thrive.
People near the equator never learned to fight for their needs. They remained passive. I guess.
 
Last edited:
I’m not "choosing the worst of one and the best of the other", I’m describing what I actually saw living in both places. That’s context. If you’d rather not continue, that’s fine, but homelessness in San Francisco is impossible to ignore if you’ve lived there, and it’s far greater than in Thailand.

I really do want to stop this particular discussion You just compared SF with the entirety of Thailand.

SF is one city in a huge nation. I'm not there right now. I'm sure there are issues, but I won't pretend there aren't issues everywhere.
 
According to Wikipedia, Mumbai has about 57,000 homeless people and India has 1.7 million.

I didn't see any homeless there. Why? Because I didn't happen to go to the places where they were. There are myriad issues with a country such as India. I'm not going to name them all, but I won't pretend that comparing say, everyday life in the US to everyday life in India makes any sense whatsoever. It doesn't. Doing the same with Thailand and the US is the same - personally (IMO) it's absurd to try.

I liked my time working in Mumbai. However, I know I lived a very privileged lifestyle compared to natives. I left with a huge sadness in my heart. I'd worked with people who deserved more. One woman I worked with worked alongside me, but lived in terrible conditions. That says it all.

You would be on Medicaid, which would cover you indefinitely.

Over 90 percent of people in the US have health insurance. But it is a patchwork system, not universal.

I really do think you need to acknowledge that stating "90 % of people have health insurance" is very much nuanced. What is available, where, and at what price, is very important to consider. Heck, working for one company, from working from another, can result in very different entitlements.
 
I really do want to stop this particular discussion You just compared SF with the entirety of Thailand. SF is one city in a huge nation. I'm not there right now. I'm sure there are issues, but I won't pretend there aren't issues everywhere.

You say I compared San Francisco with the entirety of Thailand, but that’s not what I originally did. I compared San Francisco, a city I lived in for decades, with Rayong, a city I’ve lived in for years. That’s apples to apples, not apples to continents. I’m not pretending issues don’t exist everywhere, but I’m pointing out what I’ve actually seen on the ground and the scale of homelessness in San Francisco is far greater than in Rayong. That’s the context.
 
You say I compared San Francisco with the entirety of Thailand, but that’s not what I originally did. I compared San Francisco, a city I lived in for decades, with Rayong, a city I’ve lived in for years. That’s apples to apples, not apples to continents. I’m not pretending issues don’t exist everywhere, but I’m pointing out what I’ve actually seen on the ground and the scale of homelessness in San Francisco is far greater than in Rayong. That’s the context.

We're not going to be able to have the discussion, which is why I made the statement of ending it. Thailand is a land very different from the US. Rayong isn't even typical of Thailand.... let alone comparing it to SF.

However, you are happy there, and that's great. Of course, you benefit from coming from the US, and the lower standard/cost of living in Thailand. Rayong is one of the better places to live in Thailand - is SF one of the better places to live in the US? Average wages in Thailand is $500 a month, I guessing you income from US investments/income take care of that. You'd have a hard time living the life of a typical American in Thailand. Let alone language issues.

And what's the population of Rayong? 65k?

But we agree to disagree on many points. For me, the homeless does not define SF.
 
Last edited:
I didn't see any homeless there. Why? Because I didn't happen to go to the places where they were. There are myriad issues with a country such as India. I'm not going to name them all, but I won't pretend that comparing say, everyday life in the US to everyday life in India makes any sense whatsoever. It doesn't. Doing the same with Thailand and the US is the same - personally (IMO) it's absurd to try.

I liked my time working in Mumbai. However, I know I lived a very privileged lifestyle compared to natives. I left with a huge sadness in my heart. I'd worked with people who deserved more. One woman I worked with worked alongside me, but lived in terrible conditions. That says it all.



I really do think you need to acknowledge that stating "90 % of people have health insurance" is very much nuanced. What is available, where, and at what price, is very important to consider. Heck, working for one company, from working from another, can result in very different entitlements.
On balance, India is a very poor country. Its GDP per capita is in the $2500 range -- that's less than a quarter of Vietnam's. Ours is about $85,000. So I agree with you that comparisons don't make much sense.

My point about US healthcare is that, whatever the system's many flaws, most Americans have health insurance of some sort. Someone like me who is on Medicare and has supplemental insurance has pretty good coverage. Many people overseas seem to think we have no coverage at all.

I try not to bash other peoples' countries. I like living in the U.S. although I recognize that we have a lot of problems. I don't like people from outside the U.S. dumping on us, especially when it's often clear that they've never been here. (I'm not talking about you as your comments are always measured and fact-based.)
 
On balance, India is a very poor country. Its GDP per capita is in the $2500 range -- that's less than a quarter of Vietnam's. Ours is about $85,000. So I agree with you that comparisons don't make much sense.

My point about US healthcare is that, whatever the system's many flaws, most Americans have health insurance of some sort. Someone like me who is on Medicare and has supplemental insurance has pretty good coverage. Many people overseas seem to think we have no coverage at all.

I try not to bash other peoples' countries. I like living in the U.S. although I recognize that we have a lot of problems. I don't like people from outside the U.S. dumping on us, especially when it's often clear that they've never been here. (I'm not talking about you as your comments are always measured and fact-based.)

I get it, and I love the US. Truly. Your healthcare system is good for those that have, and poor for those that don't. Sorry. People go bankrupt every day due to healthcare costs. Your healthcare system is nuanced in ways, say, the UK system is not. If you get good healthcare in the US, it's very good. But that's not really my concern, it's those that don't.

I know monthly - the cost of keeping my mother-in-law in a decent care facility is monstrous. I pay. I gues it's a bit of a raw nerve for me.
 
I really do want to stop this particular discussion You just compared SF with the entirety of Thailand.

SF is one city in a huge nation. I'm not there right now. I'm sure there are issues, but I won't pretend there aren't issues everywhere.
This topic, San Francisco vs Thailand, is not political. The OP has not specified any rules. It seems to me that oslooskar's posts are within bounds of our subject: IS AMERICA A THIRD-WORLD COUNTRY?
 
We're not going to be able to have the discussion, which is why I made the statement of ending it. Thailand is a land very different from the US. Rayong isn't even typical of Thailand.... let alone comparing it to SF. However, you are happy there, and that's great. Of course, you benefit from coming from the US, and the lower standard/cost of living in Thailand. Rayong is one of the better places to live in Thailand - is SF one of the better places to live in the US? Average wages in Thailand is $500 a month, I guessing you income from US investments/income take care of that. You'd have a hard time living the life of a typical American in Thailand. Let alone language issues. And what's the population of Rayong? 65k? But we agree to disagree on many points. For me, the homeless does not define SF.

You’re shifting away from my original point (homelessness comparison) into a lecture about standards of living, my personal situation, and whether Rayong is "typical Thailand." It’s a mix of deflection and personalization, with a soft landing at the end ("you’re happy there, that’s great"). My point was straightforward, I lived for decades in San Francisco and I’ve lived for years in Rayong, and the scale of homelessness in SF is vastly greater. That’s an observation based on firsthand experience, not an argument about wages, cost of living, or who’s "typical." You can "agree to disagree", but the visible reality on the ground in SF speaks for itself.
 
This topic, San Francisco vs Thailand, is not political. The OP has not specified any rules. It seems to me that oslooskar's posts are within bounds of our subject: IS AMERICA A THIRD-WORLD COUNTRY?

If anyone has a problem with my comments, please direct all complaints to my attorney, gruntlabor. She handles all my forum litigation pro bono. lol
 
If something like these examples that got so out of hand so quickly can be prevented, then I sure wish these people in charge would
get together and do something instead of fighting back and forth and standing firm because they hate each other and just
protect the people they say they care about so much...... clean up your cities then on your own or admit to needing help and make it a team effort.
Instead if we (outside of the areas involved now) wouldn't take sides and fuel the flames of either side, then maybe tempers would die off and some sane talk will happen. If they have an audience; they hunger for encore. I lived near the Watts riots and honey, it was a scary thing and spread fast and that wasn't even the bigger ones.
Interesting post, frightful events. But, mm, the armed official responses were to riots.
 


Back
Top