I don't care what the article says, couldn't the headline have used "shit", "bad" or anything else instead of "developing world"? (despite being thick-skinned) I find it offensive
There are nations who came to the globalization table later or who haven't put together an economic plan that provides a high quality of living for their citizens. What would you prefer we call those nations?
The World Bank has said that "developing/developed" duality isn't fitting anymore and now breaks nations into 4 catagories: Low, Lower Middle, Upper Middle, and High income nations based on citizen income. The UN says that there's no specific metrics for a Developed vs Developing nation, and uses the terms for convenience.
There's no set specific definition of what a developing nation is, but generally it's assumed that the types of things I mentioned in my last post (higher quality of life, more money, as well as higher life expectancy, lower birth rate) are associated with Developed nations. MOST people agree these things are good, and MOST people assume that the absence of them is therefor bad.
The point of the title of the article is that deregulation has allowed a Developed nation to contain pockets that look more like a less developed country with less regulation, more exploitative labor, lower overall income, and little regard for the health of its citizens. A quick way to say that would be that it looks more like a developing nation.