
For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality - Thevet
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/world/asia/parasite-seoul-south-korea.html
======
danans
As much as it pointed out the serious inequality issues facing South Korea,
the movie also highlighted the fact that the poor in South Korea have access
to healthcare free at the point of service.

It also depicted young people who, despite their poverty, had enough access to
schooling that they could serve as English tutors to the wealthy (yes, I'm
aware that SK's education system has other issues related to it being a
pressure cooker).

I'm sure that neither of those systems are perfect, but they do underpin the
importance of universal healthcare and high quality education.

~~~
madengr
“ Mr. Kim owns his place in the building, bought for $30,000 after he sold his
house in a better neighborhood 20 years ago to help pay for his late wife’s
cancer bills.”

How does that fit into universal health care?

~~~
zpallin
Universal healthcare does not mean "free healthcare". What it means is that
all people have equal access to healthcare, the kind that would otherwise be
provided by _everyone_ having private healthcare insurance, such as what would
need to happen in the US. The intent is that this would be more affordable for
the average person than not having a universal healthcare system.

Of course, affordability is not a guarantee for all treatments, regardless of
which healthcare system you agree with. It seems this is the problem for the
Kim family. Even in a universal healthcare system, things like chemotherapy
and cancer surgery might still cost too much for people who earn below living-
wage.

~~~
anonsivalley652
I'm sorry but that's wrong because that's trying to twist the meaning of
words. No money, no healthcare isn't universal obviously. With no single-
payer, government-funded, healthcare system, only doctors and patients who
have to pay for everything themselves, that is in no way "universal
healthcare."

The problem with charging poor people for healthcare is that they get sicker
and sicker and then need emergency care, and that's more expensive than giving
them free healthcare in the beginning.

It's unethical and classist to pick-and-choose who gets life-saving cancer
treatment based on their income. Doctors with integrity would be abhorred at
being presented with such a decision because it goes against the fundamental
values of their profession.

~~~
unishark
> It's unethical and classist to pick-and-choose who gets life-saving cancer
> treatment based on their income.

Since we're talking ethics, do you also think universal healthcare should be
provided by wealthy nations to all the world? Otherwise we are just picking
and choosing based on where someone happens to be born, aren't we?

~~~
kevingadd
That question doesn't matter because national sovereignty would prevent other
countries from doing that even if they wanted to. It's not a program it's even
possible to consider without some really elaborate treaties that many
countries would reject.

At the core of it what you're basically arguing is that nations are unethical
because what citizenship someone holds influences things like their access to
health care, and the solution to that would probably look a lot like the EU
but completely borderless world-wide (with no immigrations or customs
departments?)

I think you know how people would react to that. It's a pointless 'gotcha'
question

~~~
unishark
The logistics don't seem difficult at all to me if there's a will. People tend
to be pretty accommodating when it comes to letting you give them money. At
the very least, countries can offer a "medical visa" option to visitors.

As for national borders being unethical by nature, if that logically follows
then why not?

I certainly don't consider ethics a source of "gotcha" questions, but of real
conundrums.

~~~
Diggsey
> People tend to be pretty accommodating when it comes to letting you give
> them money.

Not really. A huge amount of charity money supposedly going to the poor in
other countries is actually used to bribe officials in those countries to
allow the aid to be delivered. Any attempt to give healthcare to people in
those countries would also be seen as foreign interference, and suffer the
same problems.

~~~
unishark
Corruption is simply part of the price of operating cost in developing
countries, not an impenetrable barrier.

------
Ayesh
I was born and raised in Sri Lanka, where the annual GDP per capital just
hovers $4,000 now.

We have free and universal health care, free schools, and free universities.
There are many things to improve, but it is there for the rush and poor alike.
Some schools and pregnant mothers receive rations, and there is always some
sort of social benefits in place.

Sure, the poverty exists, but one of the reasons why it is still working is
because majority of the population does not live in urban areas. There is a
trend of good schools, hospitals, and government offices being located to the
capital, where land prices skyrocketed and poor neighborhoods exist. But I
think our governments strategy in spreading the resources throughout the
island is a great one.

Countries like South Korea, India, Japan, Phillipines, and China has a
relatively higher amount of homeless or near-homeless population because of
the high urbanization. They systematically bring the costs high for everyone.

------
2drew3
For those who watched the movie, I found the ending interesting. I won't spoil
it for everyone else, but Bong Joon-ho made his perspective unambiguous: he's
not a believer in social mobility in Korea.

6 of the top 10 Forbes list in Korea are self-made; the other 4 inherited
their wealth. In contrast, 10 out of top 10 are self-made in the US. There are
better metrics to compare social mobility (this one was convenient!), but
scanning down the Korea list, it's clear the tech boom provided opportunities
for entrepreneurs to build wealth in Korea, but most of the wealth is still
held by descendants of the big conglomerates (Samsung, LG, Hyundai, Lotte,
etc.).

While Parasite is hit in the US, the perspective that it's impossible for
basement dwellers to make it to nice mansions may be true in Korea, but it
doesn't seem to be the case in the US.

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/korea-
billionaires/list/#tab:overall](https://www.forbes.com/korea-
billionaires/list/#tab:overall)

[2]
[https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#b6d49ad7e2ff](https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#b6d49ad7e2ff)

~~~
netsharc
Bill Gates had rich parents, who bought a computer for his private school (ok
maybe that's an urban legend, but Wikipedia says: When he was in the eighth
grade, the Mothers' Club at the school used proceeds from Lakeside School's
rummage sale to buy a Teletype Model 33 ASR terminal and a block of computer
time on a General Electric (GE) computer for the students.).

Zuck went to a private school.

Not really basement dwellers...

~~~
9q9

       Bill Gates had rich parents
    

So?

Lot's of people have rich parents (think, for example about the members of the
House of Saud). How many of those raise to Bill Gates' level of excellence? He
co-wrote a paper [1] as an undergraduate in a top mathematics journal. The
algorithm he co-authored remained the best algorithm for its domain for 30
years.

As I used to notice this reaction in myself, and I've been trying to avoid it,
I find it interesting to reflect on psychological/social function of the "but
he had rich parents" reaction that successful children of the well-off get.
HNs guidelines ask us "[p]lease don't post shallow dismissals, especially of
other people's work", and I wonder if this also applies to Gates.

I'm in _awe_ of Gates' many achievements.

[1] W. H. Gates, C. H. Papadimitriou, Bounds for sorting by prefix reversal.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012365X79...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012365X79900682)

~~~
robjan
GP was pointing out that Gates wasn't entirely "self-made", as suggested by
GGP. Gates in fact enjoyed opportunities that aren't available to the average
American and is therefore not a particularly good example of social mobility.
Pointing out that he enjoyed a degree of privilege doesn't diminish his
achievements.

~~~
9q9
Gates probably at least 1000x-ed his parents wealth. By just about any measure
that's being self-made, as the GGP correctly pointed out. If 1000x-ing doesn't
count as self-made exactly what meaningful measure of self-madeness and social
mobility do you propose?

    
    
       degree of privilege doesn't diminish 
    

Privilege is a vague term that has become a term of political abuse and has
ceased to be analytically useful, I recommend to avoid it. For example, does
anyone who uses it bother to quantify privilege, after all we all stand on the
shoulders of giants? How is the modern use of the term privilege useful, given
the vastly different outcomes of the children of the rich? As I said, not
every child of upper middle class families become Gates/Zuck ... My inner
Nietzsche smells _ressentiment_ here.

~~~
robjan
It's easier to turn a million into a billion than a thousand into a million or
ten into ten thousand. All of these are 1000x the original value.

So yes, he's not entirely self made. Not even close.

~~~
BubRoss
His parents had a few million dollars but he started microsoft off of a
version of a very optimized version of basic he wrote. He amassed 80 billion
dollars and became the richest person on earth. Paul Allen and Steve Balmer
became multi billionaires as well. I don't even know that he used all his
parents money to do that. How many people are able to start a company. It's
the equivalent of putting in 1000 dollars and building a 100 million dollar
company. Saying that isn't 'self made' is delusional.

------
totorovirus
One of the most interesting culture in South korea is that under treated low
class people (dirt-spoon class) don't really try disrupt current society
model. To elaborate, people put poverty on their own responsibility rather
than complaining about structural inequality. The rage towards class
inequality is emitted at competition for higher ranked university and the
reward of being in a prestigious college.

~~~
barry-cotter
Always and everywhere the people at the bottom of the class hierarchy have
enough problems that complaining about inequality or engaging in politics is
not a priority. Social unrest is always about conflict within the elite or
wannabe elite. The American Revolution was led by the richest of Americans.
The French Revolution was led by the highly educated as was the Russian one.
We have _one_ historical example of a successful slave rebellion, in Haiti,
and it was led by the most educated, cultured section of the free black
population. For less violent examples look at the Labour Party in the UK,
whose policy stance has almost always been that of the Fabian Society with
some lag. A working class mass movement millions strong and what amounts to a
debating/social club with well under a 1,000 truly active and engaged members
had at least as big an impact on policy as the entire trade union movement.

~~~
watwut
I think that you are simplifying those events quite a lot. The willingness of
"bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite a lot. That is
involvement and engagement in politics. The actual bottom is despised by
everyone and comes with host of social problems. One of massive sparks for
these political groups is _fear that I will become part of the bottom_.

Both French Revolution and Russian one involved quite a lot of sides that
fought among themselves and quite a lot of uneducated mobs attacking this or
that place - these lost quickly. And yes, they are led by people in position
to be leaders with education that gives them advantage. That does not mean the
bottom is passive.

Also, counting only successful attempts is probably not good enough. The
slaves were running away and were resentful of inequality. What they did not
had was the remote option to engage in politics - but they did engaged in it a
lot when the opportunity arose. The subsequent suppression of black voting and
politics did not happened because they were engaged or passive - it was
because they were active.

~~~
barry-cotter
> The willingness of "bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite
> a lot.

If this were true neither the Russian nor the French Revolution would have
been a “success”. Both were won by committed minorities in the capital city
and they were even less popular outside it.

A small organized minority of people willing to use violence to achieve their
goals who are good at it can overcome weak opposition from a much larger
number. The Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks in Russia and all non-Socialist
opposition thereafter. They would never, ever have won an election. Outside
Paris the Revolution was not popular, thus the need to conquer the Vendée.

The bottom is not passive. It just doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have any
power. If it did it wouldn’t be bottom.

~~~
watwut
You basically count the one victorious group and ignore all the others.

Russian civil war involved 5 armies. It involved mobs attacking local leaders
who fled - they were not necessary related to eventual winners.

French revolution was massively complex event too. Probably even more complex
then Russian one.

And in each of these events there were more then one side commuting violence -
and there were many people having or voicing opinions about what should
happen. That they lost does not mean they don't exist.

~~~
barry-cotter
I’m not ignoring the other groups, they’re irrelevant to my point, that the
bottom doesn’t matter politically. All five groups were well educated, rich
and cosmopolitan compared to the average Russian during the civil war.

That the French and Russian revolutions were complex doesn’t mean that the
competitors for political power were ever in any way representative of the
population. They weren’t. They were members of the elite or had been educated
to a level that they aspired to that.

They weren’t on the bottom. The people on the bottom do not successfully
engage in politics except as the tools of the current elite or of a counter-
elite that aims to take over from the current elite.

~~~
watwut
Average Russian could not write and read. So of course average Russian could
not organize anything as leader, writing and reading are necessary. So if you
define elite in a way that includes everyone able to read, then it is starting
to loose meaning. Plus rich cosmopolitan is not actually correct description.

And regardless of these, average Russians had own gripes and opinions on what
is fair and what they want. The periodic explosions of violence, the
demonstrations and very real possibility of massacre (and refusal to perform
it) and revolutionary attempts all played role in eventual loss of controll of
the country, but more importantly do not show average Russian as never
complaining opinionless person.

But also, popular sentiment did played massive role in French revolution, the
way it started and evolved. You can't write if off from history.

Regardless of who wins power in the end, it is just not true that lower class
people don't have opinions and complains. You choosing to ignore them is your
choice.

Just like popular sentiment in Syria played massive role in the way war
started and evolved - despite endgame being eventually won by Russian support.
You can't write those people's actions out of history.

------
anonsivalley652
I don't want to crap all over Koreans or Korean culture, but there's one
element that profoundly bothers me: the abandonment and shunning of the
elderly. Many are homeless or live lonely lives in destitution and having to
rely on charity food. Also, certain bridges have become notorious for mostly
all elderly people committing suicide because they can't take it anymore.
Korea has a lot going for it, so I hope it gets better in this regard and
inequality.

The US and many other countries also need to address inequality seriously too,
if not for moral reasons then for selfish, long-term GDP and consumer
purchasing power reasons.

------
httpz
One unrealistic part about the poor family in the movie is that, there is no
way a family of four healthy adults can be that poor in S.Korea (unless they
have a large debt payment).

If all four of them worked 40hrs/wk doing a minimum wage job ($7/hr in
S.Korea), it puts them around $59k/yr, which is above the median household
income.

~~~
hristov
I think the main point is they couldn't get jobs. At one point in the movie
they said that every job opening for a security guard draws 500 applicants
with college degrees. None of them had college degrees.

I am not sure what the actual job situation in S. Korea is. Perhaps someone
that lives there can enlighten us.

~~~
kaiabwpdjqn
Exactly. All of them were qualified for the jobs they did. They did a good job
too. The daughter is a bit of an exception.

The daughter is constantly depicted at someone who is exceptionally talented,
although has no paper credentials for the job she does. The family makes
multiple comments about good she is at things and how she belongs in the
wealthy lifestyle. When everyone is wading through the sewage water (motif for
poverty) she sits sort of dry on the toilet just barely above the others
(incredible scene imo). She does an excellent job. I think it’s to make a
point about the lack of meritocracy even within class or something.

~~~
abvr
Aslo ends up being ironically, kinda of the scapegoat for no fault of hers,
other than the fact that she was the mastermind of the whole operation?

------
BelleOfTheBall
Well, yes, that was the point of the movie, to highlight the very real
problems. In fact, the resonance that it gained seems to be helping, at least
a little bit [0]

[0] [https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/parasite-south-korea-
impro...](https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/parasite-south-korea-improve-semi-
basement-apartments-1202213182/)

------
justicezyx
Similar situation exits in many orders of magnitude larger scale in China, but
the government so successfully keep everyone not paying attention.

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
China is arguably much worse, because fixed _hukou_ registration creates an
official caste system that ensures the migrant worker underclass can never
have access to proper schools, housing, etc.

------
qqssccfftt
ITT: Exactly the people the movie was making fun of

------
RichardHeart
The movie reviews well in most countries, because we mostly live in the same
country, capitalism. (This is me paraphrasing a quote I saw the director give
in an interview.)

~~~
WilliamEdward
As inequality rises, and as people are tired of the same old stories, i can
see why more and more people resonate with Parasite.

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/gH9yc](https://archive.md/gH9yc)

------
pcurve
Man, the last photograph of Mr. Kim in the article is striking. It looks like
a freeze frame from Korean indie movie.

------
remote_phone
I didn’t get the sense it was class strife. The main family was a bunch of
scumbags. They lied and cheated constantly. I didn’t get the sense that they
represented the lower class because the others around them weren’t like that.
It makes it harder to argue this represents class struggle when the main
family is so deceitful and undeserving of benefits.

~~~
cycrutchfield
They lied and cheated constantly because they were forced to due their
poverty. It is absolutely a movie about class inequality and resentment.

~~~
Aunche
They were absolutely terrible people. They weren't so poor that they had to
trigger an old lady's dangerous allergy just to get the mother a job.

~~~
Barrin92
One of the key findings of research done by Robert Sapolsky is that poverty,
on a biological level, increases the tendency to prioritize short-term
thinking over long-term thinking.

This is not surprising, because people in poverty need to be opportunistic to
survive. Cutthroat behavior in poverty is not an example of bad moral
character, it's a valid strategy to make it day to day. Being generous is
something one has to be able to afford.

This is one of the perversions of poverty and our culture that make the movie
so great. it showcases how poverty itself forces people to engage in behaviour
that makes others look down on them as undeserving, rather than painting an
idealized image of the poor.

It's quite hilarious how much Protestant folk morality was on display in
response to the movie in particular among American audiences.

~~~
Aunche
>Cutthroat behavior in poverty is not an example of bad moral character

I can tell that Dick Cheney is a shitty person, even though he donated more
money than I'll make in several lifetimes to charity. Likewise, I can tell
that the Kim family had poor moral character, even though they were in
poverty.

> it showcases how poverty itself forces people to engage in behaviour that
> makes others look down on them as undeserving

I'm sure that's true to some extent in real life, but I don't see how that is
portrayed in the movie. The Kim family isn't "forced" to cheat except in the
beginning when they had nothing.

Equally funny as the "Protestant folk morality" is the belief that poor people
100% a product of their environment.

~~~
Apocryphon
Here is an analysis of the movie which may clear some things up for you:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kx-
gSK2C2Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kx-gSK2C2Q)

~~~
Aunche
I skipped around, but this basically reinforces my point. The movie doesn't
have the clear cut "eat the rich" narrative that people seem to imply. All the
families are depicted as parasites. The poor are never excused for fighting
amongst themselves.

------
lurquer
Parasite gives one the same degree of insight about Korean culture as Raising
Arizona does about American culture.

WTF, HackerNews? All this pretentious pontificating about the deeper meaning
of a dark comedy (which could be set in ANY culture or locale with very few
changes...) Whats next? A thread about the subtleties of Korean culture
revealed in Gangham Style?

Read a book.

~~~
jwilber
How wild that this comment is the most pretentious thing in the entire thread.

The article is a straightforward piece on living situations in Seoul. Maybe
next time give it a read before commenting.

In any case, please DO continue ending your comments with those authoritative
one-liners. (Such an enigma!)

~~~
lurquer
>How wild that this comment is the most pretentious thing in the entire
thread.

Ha. Touché.

