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.
Using the most common (if not precise) definition?
I'd say the US probably by the 1940s
Australia and Canada slightly after
UK, West Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Scandinavia by the 60s
France, Japan, Northern Italy, Ireland by the early 70s
Singapore and Hong Kong by the late 70s
Spain and the rest of Italy by the 80s
Czech Republic, South Korea and Taiwan by the early 90s
Chile by the 00s
Countries on the cusp include Hungary, Malaysia.
A bit further away, the likes of China, Thailand, maybe even Brazil, Russia.etc.
australia would have been significantly behind the uk in terms of wealth until the mid nineties , i doubt it was " developed " ten years before england , canada was way richer than australia up until the eighties or thereabouts , its on a par with it today due to the extrordinary growth of the australian economy this past two decades
ireland was the poorest country in western europe prior to around 1990
From what I've heard from an actual Chilean,he said that the differences between Chile and the rest of the Latin American countries are not that big.The corruption is awful and while he lives in an accommodated sector,the casas chubi is just 10 minutes away from his house(the Chilean equivalent to Brazil's favelas).
He also mentioned that if there're any protests,a lot of people would die in the hands of the cops.
None of those sound first world to me.I'm pretty sure that Hungary or Poland aren't like that.
hungary is more corrupt than greece , i owned property there , paying tax was optional and the rental agencys advised me to only deal in cash
australia would have been significantly behind the uk in terms of wealth until the mid nineties , i doubt it was " developed " ten years before england , canada was way richer than australia up until the eighties or thereabouts , its on a par with it today due to the extrordinary growth of the australian economy this past two decades
ireland was the poorest country in western europe prior to around 1990
Per capita we were ahead of the US and UK in early 1853. Melbourne was at that stage the richest city in the entire Empire.
We dart about a bit until the early 1870's when we are clearly ahead of both.
America catches us by 82 and by 1890 all three are almost identical. It is at this stage we start to fall behind in wealth but start to really climb in life expectancy.
From 1935 till 1943 Americas GDP PC almost doubles! Despite being in a war both Australia's and the UK's life expectancy continues to climb.
By 48 Australia and the UK have an identical GDP with America way in front.
Australia and the UK follow pretty much the exact same path from there until present day with Australians enjoying a longer life expectancy (except for periods in the 60's). Australia also is mostly just ahead in terms of GDP until present day aswell.
Australia had overtaken Canada by 1844 (with a much lower life expectancy).
Australia remained in front of Canada (clearly at some stages) until 1906. It isn't until WW1 that they become richer (though we rise in life expectancy above all of Canada, America and the UK).
By the 1930's we once again have a larger GDP PC than Canada until the start of WW2.
Throughout the 50's and 60's they follow a similar trajectory with Canada slightly ahead. During the 70's Canada pulls further away almost catching the US while Australia is just ahead of the UK.
By the early 90's the life expectancy is the same and the GDP only just favours Canada. Until today where the GDP of both countries appears near identical but Australia has a slight edge in life expectancy.
australia would have been significantly behind the uk in terms of wealth until the mid nineties , i doubt it was " developed " ten years before england , canada was way richer than australia up until the eighties or thereabouts , its on a par with it today due to the extrordinary growth of the australian economy this past two decades
ireland was the poorest country in western europe prior to around 1990
That doesn't sound right Bob in regards to Australia. When my family came here in the 60s Australia had one of the highest standards of living in the world. Migrants were flooding into the place and the Australian Government was in fact paying for a lot of British and Irish families to come here.
I think the UK was in a bad way for a lot of the 60s, 70s and 80s - and was sometimes dubbed the sick man of Europe. Much of the urban country was really poor - even London was ravaged by homelessness, drugs, empty buildings, dirt, grime and general decay. Things were never quite as bad as New York in the 70s or 80s, but still pretty crap. Oh, and I forgot to mention the rolling blackouts. The mid 90s onwards signaled a change and the 2000s, until 2008, were the 'boom times', so to speak. I think it's safe to say that the UK enjoys higher living standards today than at any point in its history.
Per capita we were ahead of the US and UK in early 1853. Melbourne was at that stage the richest city in the entire Empire.
We dart about a bit until the early 1870's when we are clearly ahead of both.
America catches us by 82 and by 1890 all three are almost identical. It is at this stage we start to fall behind in wealth but start to really climb in life expectancy.
From 1935 till 1943 Americas GDP PC almost doubles! Despite being in a war both Australia's and the UK's life expectancy continues to climb.
By 48 Australia and the UK have an identical GDP with America way in front.
Australia and the UK follow pretty much the exact same path from there until present day with Australians enjoying a longer life expectancy (except for periods in the 60's). Australia also is mostly just ahead in terms of GDP until present day aswell.
Australia had overtaken Canada by 1844 (with a much lower life expectancy).
Australia remained in front of Canada (clearly at some stages) until 1906. It isn't until WW1 that they become richer (though we rise in life expectancy above all of Canada, America and the UK).
By the 1930's we once again have a larger GDP PC than Canada until the start of WW2.
Throughout the 50's and 60's they follow a similar trajectory with Canada slightly ahead. During the 70's Canada pulls further away almost catching the US while Australia is just ahead of the UK.
By the early 90's the life expectancy is the same and the GDP only just favours Canada. Until today where the GDP of both countries appears near identical but Australia has a slight edge in life expectancy.
i was thinking in terms of wage rates specifically , i have relatives in canada , the uk and australia , canada would have been viewed as a higher wage payer amongst my extended family than australia prior to the nineties , its like australia really took off once china became an economic giant
i stress that i wasnt implying australia and canada were ever apart like germany and greece in terms of wealth
But Canada is certainly much wealthier today overall relative to its neighbour and also to the rest of the world than it was 50, 100 and 150 years ago.
There was a much bigger difference with respect to the U.S. for much of late 18th and first half of the 20th century.
Also, having between a quarter and a third of your population living in relative poverty is never a good thing, and the situation today where French Canadians have a typical western standard of living like other Canadians do is far better for Canada's performance as a whole.
Canada for a good part of its history was a bit of an oligarchy socio-economically, although this was of course true of many countries I suppose.
Canada was not a country in the late 18th Century…perhaps you meant 19th century. I understand that the US with a larger population had more clout, but we did have Britain covering our backs to an extent.
Either way, I have yet to be convinced that we were less developed in the sense we were and are a modern nation, that had all the trappings of a developed country.
The oppression bit that was brought up is a bit of a red herring. Was New York City less developed in the late 19th century, the Gilded Era, because it had a huge slum problem, same with London?
Canada was not a country in the late 18th Century…perhaps you meant 19th century. .
Yes I meant the 19th. Was thinking of the 1800s...
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.
