Los Angeles is a third world city

[ArcticPhoenix]

Obvious (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/23/wla123.xml)

A third of immigrants have not graduated from high school and 60 per cent do not speak English fluently, the Migration Policy Institute found.

It said this left immigrants ill-equipped to fill California's fastest-growing occupations, such as computer software engineering and nursing. The organisation added that as the so-called baby boomers reach retirement age, a similar pattern will spread across the US.

Ernesto Cortes Jr, of the Industrial Areas Foundation, a think-tank that specialises on social change, claimed Los Angeles was at a crossroads.

"The question is are we going to be a 21st century city with shared prosperity, or a Third World city with an elite group on top and most on near poverty wages?" he said.

The US Census Bureau last year predicted that by 2050, minorities will account for half of all residents across America.

It registered the largest numerical increases in minority residents in metropolitan Los Angeles, Riverside, in California, Dallas, Houston and New York.

In 2000, according to the Census Bureau, whites were in a minority in 262 US counties, up from 183 in 1990.

Nationally, the number of minorities topped 100 million for the first time in 2006, to make up about one third of the population.

I'm really excited by this. In 2050, when I'm 77 years old, I'll achieve minority status and maybe then I can get adequate financial aid for college.

[pit manoeuvre]

Los Angeles is a third world city

.... which makes it the capital city of a third world country.

[kingclick]

.... which makes it the capital city of a third world country.

1. Los Angeles isn't the capital of anything.
2. California isn't even a third world state.
3. The United States is nowhere NEAR a third world country.

Good try though.

[pit manoeuvre]

The United States is nowhere NEAR a third world country.


I don’t agree.

It holds most of the “developed country” façades (this is true) but scratch the surface and you’ll see the poverty, a primitive social structure, a low standard of democratic principles and a lack of freedom (of both expression and movement) resembling most of the Third World - plus an ingrediant of Facism. I would say that the United Snakes lies somewhere between Stalin's version of the Soviet Union and Mexico.

[kingclick]

I don’t agree.

It holds most of the “developed country” façades (this is true) but scratch the surface and you’ll see the poverty, a primitive social structure, a low standard of democratic principles and a lack of freedom (of both expression and movement) resembling most of the Third World - plus an ingrediant of Facism. I would say that the United Snakes lies somewhere between Stalin's version of the Soviet Union and Mexico.

:howling: Saying that only proves that you know nothing of the country and have never been here.

Do you need some soap while you bathe in your ignorance?

1. Poverty? Please show me ANY sizable country without poverty.
2. primitive social structure. What does that even mean? That we swing from trees?
3. low standard of democratic principles and lack of freedom? You mean how we can actually practice free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press? The United States is the most free country in the world.
4. I could say that pretty much all of Europe has an ingredient of Fascism.

So exactly how does the US differ than the rest of the supposed First World countries on your "phantom" points? I know....we have more freedom and less fascism.

[pit manoeuvre]

….. you know nothing of the country and have never been here.

….. how we can actually practice free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press? …

..... The United States is the most free country in the world.



God weeps. Do your parents know that you’re playing with their computer? :rofll:

[Matthew S]

3. The United States is nowhere NEAR a third world country.


That is a matter of opinion.

There are only five 1st world nations.

Canada
Belgium
Netherlands
South Africa
Spain

[kingclick]

God weeps. Do your parents know that you’re playing with their computer? :rofll:Great response. It was so indepth and had great facts to counter my points....

NOT.

[kingclick]

That is a matter of opinion.

There are only five 1st world nations.

Canada
Belgium
Netherlands
South Africa
Spain

:howling: That one is even better that the lame response pit manure gave.

[ArcticPhoenix]

That is a matter of opinion.

There are only five 1st world nations.

Canada
Belgium
Netherlands
South Africa
Spain

You forgot Poland.

[Matthew S]

You forgot Poland.

Poland is a 5th world nation right behind the USA which is a 4th world nation.

[ArcticPhoenix]

Poland is a 5th world nation right behind the USA which is a 4th world nation.

What makes the USA a 4th world nation?

[eva]

How much you wanna bet it has something to do with gay marriage?

[eva]

As to the article, I do worry about the deeper divide between haves and have nots, regardless of race. I'm pretty sure that increased investment (not just the $$ kind) in education is the only solution to it. That and doing something about illegal immigration.

[pit manoeuvre]

There are only five 1st world nations.

Canada
Belgium
Netherlands
South Africa
Spain

I would add 2 more, but in any case, you are smarter than most people give you credit for.

[pit manoeuvre]

Great response. It was so indepth and had great facts to counter my points....

You didn't answer my question. Do they?

[Diva]

From here (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm):


Worlds within the World?

The First, the Second, and the Third World.

When people talk about the poorest countries of the world, they often refer to them with the general term Third World, and they think everybody knows what they are talking about. But when you ask them if there is a Third World, what about a Second or a First World, you almost always get an evasive answer. Other people even try to use the terms as a ranking scheme for the state of development of countries, with the First world on top, followed by the Second world and so on, that's perfect - nonsense.

To close the gap of information you will find here explanations of the terms.

The use of the terms First, the Second, and the Third World is a rough, and it's safe to say, outdated model of the geopolitical world from the time of the cold war.
There is no official definition of the first, second, and the third world. Below OWNO's explanation of the terms.

Four Worlds

After World War II the world split into two large geopolitical blocs and spheres of influence with contrary views on government and the politically correct society:
1 - The bloc of democratic-industrial countries within the American influence sphere, the "First World".
2 - The Eastern bloc of the communist-socialist states, the "Second World".
3 - The remaining three-quarters of the world's population, states not aligned with either bloc were regarded as the "Third World."
4 - The term "Fourth World", coined in the early 1970s by Shuswap Chief George Manuel, refers to widely unknown nations (cultural entities) of indigenous peoples, "First Nations" living within or across national state boundaries.

First there was the three worlds model
The origin of the terminology is unclear. In 1952 Alfred Sauvy, a French demographer, wrote an article in the French magazine L'Observateur which ended by comparing the Third World with the Third Estate: "ce Tiers Monde ignoré, exploité, méprisé comme le Tiers État" (this ignored Third World, exploited, scorned like the Third Estate). Other sources claim that Charles de Gaulle coined the term Third World, maybe de Gaulle only has quoted Sauvy. However...

__Definitions

The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after word war II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia.

Second World" refers to the former communist-socialist, industrial states, (formerly the Eastern bloc, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic) today: Russia, Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland) and some of the Turk States (e.g., Kazakhstan) as well as China.

"Third World" are all the other countries, today often used to roughly describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The term Third World includes as well capitalist (e.g., Venezuela) and communist (e.g., North Korea) countries, as very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries.



(Additional bolding mine)

The article links to a list of the supposed First World countries here (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/first_world.htm). There are 25 countries - not 5. US is on the list.

So-called "Second World" countries are linked here (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/second_world.htm), and so-called "Third World" countries here (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm).

[pit manoeuvre]

The article links to a list of the supposed First World countries here (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/first_world.htm). There are 25 countries - not 5. US is on the list.

Ooo. That changes everything. As it's in alphabetical order it wouldn't even be safe to say "the top five countries are ..... "

Sorry Matty Boy but I'll have to retract my compliment.

[pit manoeuvre]

The article links to a list of the supposed First World countries here (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/first_world.htm).

Note also that the list of “A decent standard of living” is measured by GDP per capita. This shows that the list comprises a high standard of living for citizens of each country except for one: The US.

The US is the only country on this list with sub-standard wealth sharing. In other words, the US has a small percentage of extremely wealthy individuals AND some of the most destitute citizenry of the industrialized countries. All the other countries on the list reflect ACTUAL “decent stadnard of living” for its’ citizens – not merely a national, “per capita” statistic.

The statistics on the page seems to be biased in favour of the US. So much so that important bits of info (such as I've stated) have been left out in a manipulatory fashion. I don't doubt the facts - I'm just suspicious of the means.

[Diva]

Ooo. That changes everything. As it's in alphabetical order it wouldn't even be safe to say "the top five countries are ..... "

Sorry Matty Boy but I'll have to retract my compliment.

The links provided for so-called First World countries also lists the top ten by various criteria. It's quite interesting, really.

[pit manoeuvre]

It's quite interesting, really.

Very! Thank you for posting it. :)

[kingclick]

The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after word war II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia.

So you can be the whole REASON for the term...yet, you can't be on the top of the list? :howling: Talk about arrogantly stupid.

[Diva]

So you can be the whole REASON for the term...yet, you can't be on the top of the list? :howling: Talk about arrogantly stupid.

?????

[kingclick]

?????First World Countries are countries aligned with the US. I'm pretty sure the US is aligned with itself.