First World Problems?

Using the term can be an expression of humility, not guilt. A statement that I know that my problems, in the grand scheme of things, are minor—maybe even trivial.

Myself, I tend to use “high-quality problems”.

(And I have a minor pet peeve about the incorrect use of first/third world. But this incorrect use has become common use, so I should get over it.)

I don't see it used in a general way, I see it used when the poster is "complaining" about something that they realize is pretty minor in the scheme of things. It doesn't bother me.

I think that what's happening to the Ukrainians reminds us that most of the things that vex us are really quite trivial compared to the problems that others in the world have always faced but that we were not as aware of as we should be.

I usually take it as a way of heading off any negative comments on the relative triviality of an issue. People do tend to judge, me included..

Intriguing question! I think it usually serves as a way of recognizing that the question or dilemma isn't so important in the grand scheme of things, even if it's really preoccupying to the person asking the question or discussing their dilemma. I don't usually think about it too much when I see the expression, but your post has really got me thinking, and I had two additional thoughts:

First, that travel as a hobby can have positive and negative impacts. Just like you said, local economies can really benefit from tourism. Individuals might become more aware of other ways of living and doing things, which is great too. On the flip side, there's an environmental impact to travel that isn't strictly necessary, as well as the various impacts of over-tourism - places being overwhelmed by tourists, or local apartments all being turned into short-term rentals, and on and on. Travel isn't necessarily a purely good thing.

The other thing that came to mind is that while I don't feel much negativity or even think about it much when someone says something is a "first world problem," I do dislike when people talk about places as being "third world countries." Sometimes people seem to focus on a "have or have-not" dichotomy that doesn't leave much room for nuance. It seems overly simplistic to think the world is split into countries that are modern/developed/rich and not modern/undeveloped/poor, when most places are actually somewhere "in the middle." There's such a wide range of lifestyles, quality of life, strength of economy, and on and on, but that tends to get erased when folks categorize a place as "third world."

No guilt at all. Not interested in feeling any guilt. I don't use this term "first world" nor the other term, "third world" My trips in Europe as a traveler or visitor are done in a modest way with attention towards my carbon footprint.

Just going to point out that people in other Eastern countries vacation as well and not just the first world.

its just an expression. Like calling someone you will never meet a "friend" because you chat on the internet.

Matter of fact, its a first world problem that we are here to talk about first world problems.

I think Amy's post is worth remembering:

"travel as a hobby can have positive and negative impacts. Just like you said, local economies can really benefit from tourism. Individuals might become more aware of other ways of living and doing things, which is great too. On the flip side, there's an environmental impact to travel that isn't strictly necessary, as well as the various impacts of over-tourism - places being overwhelmed by tourists, or local apartments all being turned into short-term rentals, and on and on. Travel isn't necessarily a purely good thing"

Unfortunately, places have been "killed" with the "kindness" of travel.

And to your original point, it's just a way of acknowledging that, to paraphrase Rick in Casablanca, tourism questions can sometimes not be worth a hill of beans in today's world.

For some of the reasons mentioned in this thread, I now prefer the phrase "palace problems."

And, yes, if I use it, my intention is to acknowledge that my problem is trivial compared to what many people deal with.

As GoWest said, it’s just an expression. And as Scudder said, an expression of humility… which is a good thing. I like the phrase, it shows that that person realizes they’re very lucky to have the problem they have.

Good point on "local apartments turned into short term rentals." I had forgotten about that option since that choice in accommodations is not an option for me, only once did I use that option, in 2001 in Warsaw or resort to ride-share types, Uber and the like, certainly, don't patronize them.

Matter of fact, its a first world problem that we are here to talk about first world problems.

Well said. A variant is the "good problem to have." Hypothetical example: "We have only 45 days to visit France this year and a $30,000 budget. We can't decide between Paris, Provence, Burgundy, the Riviera, the Dordogne, the Loire, Languedoc, and Normandy. Help!" Or: "We'll be landing at CDG at 11 AM after our first-class flight from the US, and we're not sure where to meet the private guide who will be driving us around France for six weeks. Help!"

Pretty much all the actual problems people share on this forum are first-world problems, so maybe there's no need to point that out.

“Pretty much all the actual problems people share on this forum are first-world problems”

Exactly right.

I was curious.
https://borgenproject.org/definition-of-a-third-world-country/

Perhaps a bit off topic, but why do i never see any mention of the 'second world ' ?

I've seen some posters put this on their threads. First World Problems.

I see it as an up front admission that the issue is a ( trivial) 'problem', in the sense of having to choose between/among a number of options. (e.g., "I have only x days in Italy and am having trouble choosing between Cinque Terre or Lake Como)

A real 'problem' is a parent trying to find a way to feed their hungry child.

I see it not as a guilt statement, but an admission that in the grand scheme of things their 'problem' is of low importance

I don't think it's off-topic at all to ask the "second world" question! That's part of my issue with the first/third world terminology. Technically it IS a category, but it's rarely referenced. And when you're limited to common usage of "first" and "third," people using that terminology basically separate the world into two extremely different statuses, when most people aren't at either extreme.

Long story short, the "three world" concept is generally considered outdated. I really recommend the work of Hans Rosling - his TED talks, websites, and the book Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World. There's an interesting quiz that apparently people typically get almost all wrong because they assume things around the world are much worse than they really are. Granted, some of the statistics may have changed with the pandemic, but it's definitely interesting to check out what our preconceived notions of how the world works might be.

Historically, when this labeling began, three descriptions were used: First World, Second World, ie those areas of the world that fit into that description at that time, and lastly Third World. Conceptually, in the historical sense, there is a Second World. Whether ones subscribes or accepts this labeling as accurate, fitting or utter nonsense unworthy of discussion is another story.

Fred: the lexicographical origins refer to political, strategic, and economic alignments/spheres of influence during the early Cold War period.

First World (NATO & allies)
Second World (Soviet Block, China & allies)
Third World (Unaligned- but also left behind/ignored)

There were a number of reasons "third world" countries were left out of those two spheres of influence, but mostly it was because they did not present political, strategic, or economic value to either of the other two groups. That they were, remote, poorer nations was both incidental and integral to their exclusion and classification.

@ Scudder....I will doubt check, saw this explained in a history text, so my understanding of those terms was that they were arrived at in the early decades of the 20th century but the term "zone" was used , ie, first (inner) zone, 2nd (outer) and the 3rd zone in explaining world history since 1870.

So, is it a first world problem to discuss what is considered a first world problem?

But what if you are traveling to what might be considered a second or third world country. Would your travel questions still be a first world problem or does it then become a second or third world problem? Can a question about travel be in a higher world than the place you are visiting?

But what if someone who asks a travel question lives in a second or third world country. Is their question a first world problem or is it a second or third world problem depending on where they are asking the question?

And what happens if a country is elevated from third world to second world or even first world? Does their travel problem get elevated as well?

Isn't it a given that all questions about travel in Europe are first world problems therefore it is unnecessary to mention it? Mentioning it would bring focus onto the concept of it being a first world problem rather than the focus on the question itself.

It’s a self-deprecating comment acknowledging your own privilege, no need to overthink it.

If you're in Berlin, you will see how diverse, the many nationalities from Africa or Asia live there or are tourists...Thai, Indonesians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Iranians, Chinese, Egyptians, let alone Turks, and now Syrians, etc (go to Wilmersdorf, Steglitz or Charlottenburg, etc) , I wonder how many of them, either as generational / new residents of Berlin or tourists would even bother with this topic in terms of any moral compunctions , or consider themselves as such.

Scudde; that is what I was taught in school too. But meanings change through use, and now 3rd world has little more than a derogatory context, and many see first world in a racial context. In today's society I just figured it was safer to avoid tye terms. Very sad.

I wouldn't give it an extra thought if someone began a question with that phrase. I would find it insulting though if someone would respond to a question or whine of mine by responding with it. I can't recall it happening on this forum to me, but on more inflammatory sites such as Facebook I've seen it a few times.

I love how we turned Frank II's post, another example of doth-protest-too-much about guilt and privilege [What do I have to feel guilty about, I'm contributing to the economy!?] into a very interesting discussion of how we see ourselves and others --
I wish we could do the same with some of my half-baked posts.

Meanwhile, here's a chance to recall Weird Al Yankovic's take on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwvlbJ0h35A

(line relevant for travel: 'the cookies in this airport lounge aren't even gluten free')

Weird Al spotted the Karen haircut and attitude years before the rest of us. Kudos.

"...many see first world in racial context." True, it is sad. One could interpret the term as such. If so, then the topic can turn into a historical discussion, contentious or not....good.

If you are traveling to what is deemed a third world country but there are travel issues is it still a first world problem or does it become a third world problem or is it a first and third world problem?

Or does it balance out and become a second world problem?

such nonsense.

On general terms its been a matter of non-political/non-racial things. Measurable things like how many hours a day do the lights stay on. How long do citizens walk for fresh water. Presence of famine or hunger. Or maybe miles of paved roads.

Go to the southern border, and you can quickly find differences between worlds. Though Tijuana is a modern city, fresh water and sewage treatment is still a problem.

But over the years, the gap is not what it has been.

I still say ... if you have to complain about it ... you have a "first world problem".