The amount of poverty I saw in the States after coming from the UK was shocking to me. So much money in the country but for people at the bottom it was visibly worse with much more homelessness and visible health problems.
I had the same experience, I was mostly in big, rich cities like NY, SF, LA, Seattle. From other travelers I heard when you travel deep into South Central US, you can find full-on third world scenery.
It is shocking how many poor people are begging on the streets, in a country that is, on average, richer than where I live.
> From other travelers I heard when you travel deep into South Central US, you can find full-on third world scenery.
Respectfully, the people who told you this were either vastly exaggerating or had zero sense of perspective. You're not finding houses in "South Central US" (not sure exactly what that refers to anyway) without running water or dirt floors. I actually grew up in the small town South and knew plenty of people who commuted into town from the country. Some were poor, sure, but "full-on third world scenery." Come on...
Hmm, I'm not so sure that's true. From [1] there are about 500,000 people spread over almost 2,300 'colonias' in Texas who live without basic services like running water or sewer. There's by some measure 1.7 million of them over the US [2]. The photos from that article are very much what is described.
There are incredibly poor parts of the US where people really do live in third-world conditions -- though that's definitely the exception. Even within major cities like SF, we battle with the 'encampments' and I routinely walk by planters filled to the brim with heroin needles. Some of my walks home I see people with open wounds, lying on the sidewalk, with obvious mental illnesses muttering to themselves. You definitely won't find this in Europe, and I've certainly not seen something comparable growing up in Canada.
There's huge wealth disparity here and massive distrust of the government, which together mean those most in need are not looked after. I believe in income and wealth inequality but only when coupled with social mobility and only when the worst off can live meaningful, healthy lives.
I definitely have perspective, having lived in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Australia and the US. I've also traveled all over Europe and Asia.
Texas is probably the best example of exactly what this article is talking about. Powerhouse cities with extreme wealth and economic growth (two of the top six American cities in total GRP, and three of the top five American cities in GRP growth are in Texas), while also cutting aid services to these "colonias".
I also definitely have perspective on this issue, having grown up in the political class in Austin...
I have a hard time understanding why Texas as a state should expend taxpayer funds on upgrading the "colonias", the entire budget is built around local taxpayers funding their own services through property tax. They are essentially camps and were far away from services when people moved there.
That's my perspective anyway - I grew up in a rural northwest town with no paved roads or water that's still mostly like that. If you wanted water you had to dig a well, add your own septic, and pay for the electric hook up. In the greater area there are plenty of even smaller ones (commonly called "hippy camps"), with roads that become impassable to vehicles in winter.
I'm not going to expand on the huge issues there are with state and local funding in Texas, but the perennial underfunding of state and local government services in Texas (a hugely powerful state economically) is another clear example of exactly what this article is talking about.
This isn't a discussion about whether the Texas state government should fund basic public services in colonias (or any poor localities that can't pay for them with property taxes), it's about whether there are people living in third world conditions in the United States. Well, there are half a million people living in colonias in Texas (and some, like you it seems, are fine with that)...
Also, as an illustrative anecdote, I grew up in one of the wealthiest suburbs of Austin and in the state. Our neighbors also had to dig a well and put in a septic tank because they couldn't get city water or sewer (they're less than 15 minutes from downtown Austin and the state capital). That's the state of local government in Texas.
I think we just have a difference in core principles - I see the community I grew up in and the "colonias" as inevitable in a free society.
The colonias they described in the article was 22 miles out of El Paso, and was just inexpensive land someone bought and sold off as plots. People chose to buy those plots, build whatever they wanted, and to live out there. They chose that lifestyle instead of scraping by in the cheapest areas of El Paso, one would assume.
I've known many people who've taken that same choice, living up in the mountains accessible only by logging roads, or sitting right up against the Canadian border an hour from the nearest small town.
The only way to "solve" the colonias problem is to legally prevent people from making that decision, and I don't believe in making that choice for them. If people want to throw up off-grid tiny homes an hour from town, what would our justification for stopping them be?
I said this in my last comment, this is only a discussion about whether people in the United States live in third world conditions. They do.
Addressing what you consider equivalent examples, there is a fundamental difference between choosing to live "off the grid", and having no choice economically. The development of colonias is deeply tied to the industrialization of the border, predatory developer practices, and physical isolation, which makes escaping the economic bubble of colonias even harder (something that public services are specially meant to address). When you grow up in what is essentially a third world country, with a third world public education, can you not see how escaping that environment would be incredibly difficult?
The idea that everyone in a "free society" is inherently equally free is, to be perfectly honest, absurd. It takes a lot of work from society to make this true.
To expand a bit on my anecdote, having to dig a well and put in a septic tank didn't affect my neighbors that much... Because their home is a multimillion dollar custom built home. They chose to build their house where they did, but that took certain financial freedoms that not everyone in the United States has, which is exactly the point.
Also, just to expand on your last paragraph, we as a society already enforce many requirements on land developers. Colonias developed in areas specifically where enforcement of a lot of these regulations was weak (or at a time prior to regulation), in many cases the was done purposefully by developers and not by the people that went on to live there.
To be clear, I'm not proposing a clear alternative here. I am however asking that you acknowledge the fact that your libertarian approach is equivalent to accepting millions of people living in slums in the United States, and living in economic conditions that severely limits their ability to escape. This is exactly the state that many in third world countries find themselves in.
Excellent comment. The real travesty to me personally as a person who grew up in India is: Governments in the US actually work. Sure there is corruption, super inflated infrastructure costs and waste, but for whatever reasons, shit gets done. If Texas were to have only slightly less libertarian policies, I believe a lot more services could be provided to a lot more people that need them.
>Respectfully, the people who told you this were either vastly exaggerating or had zero sense of perspective.
Respectfully, you're wrong. I've been to parts of California where there isn't even safe drinking water... this was in a farming area too. There are plenty of shacks with dirt floors in desert/rural areas of California. You might be in a bubble if you haven't seen it. It's definitely out there.
First world was non-communist NATO aligned countries. Communist countries were 2nd world, non-aligned with either were 3rd world. That said, American having protectorates where citizens don't have power, drinkable running water or cities where there is no drinkable running water are poor examples for a nation with such resources as the US.
What's amazing to me is how many people are so quick to dismiss the kind of poverty we have in the U.S., just because people in the poorest developing nations have it worse off.
Why this status quo is one anyone would want to defend is so beyond me, I feel like we're on different planets.
The difference between urban and rural America is that in urban America you have the juxtaposition of wealth and poverty and in rural America you just have poverty.
Took the Amtrak across it stoping in a lot of places over 2 months. Most shocking was Memphis. It seemed incredibly poor. A lot of closed businesses and many people on the streets.
I live in the Bay Area now and SF Civic Center is still incredible given all the money in the area.
Port Talbot can't have improved with they closed the steelworks down, but it can't possibly compete with Philly, the level of decay is unimaginable to a person from Western Europe.
