When bad is good

"You will also be given a 'third world country hardship allowance' of $5,000 a year for any inconvenience you may face or because the location of overseas employment is considered less than desirable".

I guess this is pretty derogatory. Or its just the term that is offensive and not the concept? It used to be LDC - Less Developed Countries, then because that was too offensive, HRRC - Human Resource Rich Countries (read: grossly over populated and begging for money), then Developing Countries aka Third World...by the way, why the hell Third and not Second World? What is the Second World anyways?

I always wonder of the impact (if any) of these brackets and labels on these countries. Sure there is some, like the influence on investors and policy-makers at the very least. But I would like to know what impact there is internally? It is India's dream to join the G7 I guess , even if it gets nothing out of it. Just to be able to say you belong to the G7 is good enough maybe , just like the Presidential post.

I can think of enough instances where people, states even countries preserve their "less than desirable" status because it suits them. Like a person refusing to give up his BPL (below poverty line) card to continue qualifying for Government schemes, or a BIMARU state refusing to develop to continue receiving generous grants and tax breaks.

Seems like everyone gets a good ride on this gravy train. The donors and funders live on a subsidised ego trip thinking they are God's gift to humankind (social goals and what not) and the subjects laugh behind their backs beating the system by turning the ostensible "discrimination" to their benefit...a good win-win situation there !!!

All thats well ends well, I guess.