I think people are operating off their perception of developing countries rather than the reality of them. Developing countries = uniformly poor in most people's eyes even though there are rich individuals who misplace their iPhone or can't get a good table at their favorite restaurant.

yeah I mean I get it but I'm just saying how in mulling the issue it turns out the real difference is even more frustrating.. i.e. people can get iphones in developing countries, but if you couldn't, not having an iphone is less of a problem than lacking city roads that can withstand heavy rain or guaranteed 24/7 electricity

if you couldn't, not having an iphone is less of a problem than lacking city roads

And I think that's the point. At least the times I've used that descriptor, it's been intended as a humorous reminder that much of the world has much larger problems than misplacing my iPhone or my mocha being too cold. It's also a small little jab at myself to quit being so whiny and maybe try counting my blessings.

I think that it's also applied by a lot of people living in the New World, who forget that the whole reason it's called the Third World is because there had to be a second one in there somewhere. Hey, dumbass, you live in America!

First world problems should have to deal with things like your family's castle falling apart or something.

Here's some background on the three world model. I admit I always wondered what the "second world" was - Communism, it turns out. At best the terms at confusing, at worst, problematic.

I think Firas' point is that one can experience "First World problems" even while being in a third world nation, if one is rich (unless I'm totally reading it wrong, which is possible, since I'm not sure I get it). The rich can buy any kind of technology they want, any kind of food they want, can employ private protection and use private transrpotation and experience any luxuries they'd like, even in a poor environment (perhaps even more, because they can more easily exploit the poverty of the workforce). They can basically avoid most of the punishing realities of a third world economy.

In a sense, it can be argued that the very rich make up a transgeographic 'nation' in the sense that they are less invested in the direct experience of living in their home region, and most invested in maximizing opportunities for futher growth of their wealth, which means they cast their lot in more with the very rich of all nations than with the populations of their own home nations.

"First world problems," then, are problems of the priveleged...no?

At least the times I've used that descriptor, it's been intended as a humorous reminder that much of the world has much larger problems than misplacing my iPhone or my mocha being too cold. It's also a small little jab at myself to quit being so whiny and maybe try counting my blessings.

Yes, this is how I feel about the term. Just a reminder to be like "Hey, self. You HAVE an iPhone. The fact that it's being wonky is a pretty silly problem to have." Just sort of trying to maintain perspective. I suppose you could call this a "ClassPrivilegeProblem" instead, but it doesn't really roll off the tongue as well.

Yeah thanks for the feedback y'all. Yeah it's just almost struck me as weird cause I'm out here in India and none of the problems people point out as first world problems seem alien to me or to huge swathes of people out here but but I think rhapsodie closed the loop quite well in that instead of reading it as "I'm spoiled cause I have this problem" it's more even just "instead of more pressing problems".

Yeah Miko you're kinda right. Like if you look at a freshman class at a very high end university you can be like, whoa, they're diverse, look at all the countries they represent! Unless you're like wait, but they all have similar class backgrounds so 'diversity' has many axis.