Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 150 posts

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#81

Post by C1sc0cat »

mcv wrote: post #76
2drew3 wrote: post #13

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…

Looking at billionaires who came from well-to-do middle class is not quite the same as looking at social mobility of the poor. I don't think any of the Forbes top 10 started out as Parasite-style basement dwellers. There's undoubtedly some exceptions, but in general poor in the US have very little social mobility. They get stuck in debt and shitty jobs.

Bill Gates is an Example here he came from a very well of family.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#82

Post by dntbnmpls »

2drew3 wrote: post #13

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…

> In contrast, 10 out of top 10 are self-made in the US.

Sure, if you cherrypick an arbitrary cutoff. But expand it to 15, then only 10 out of 15 are self-made using your definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth

> 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.

None of the top 10 american billionaires came from the basement. They all came from wealthy or upper middle class families with professional parents.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#83

Post by mcv »

dsego wrote: post #63
remote_phone wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren’t scumbags because they were poor. They were poor because they were scumbags. That was what I saw. They were an entire family of cheaters and liars but none of the other characters in the same economic class were like that. The rich people were never mean or overbearing to less well off people and treated their workers well. The workers were very loyal to them until the family lied and cheated their way in…

What was the difference between the rich and the poor family? Who is the parasite? What is it exactly that the rich family does better or gives to this world that they deserve the exceptionally better lifestyle? Are they more intelligent? Surely not, since they were duped by the other family. Do they really care about other people and what's going on in their surroundings? Not really, they never bothered to figure ou…

What struck me is that the main family has a ton of talent. They're excellent actors and planners. In a healthy society, they could use those talents to do something productive, and better society and themselves. But in the face of extreme economic inequality and a lack of honest opportunities, it seems parasitising on a wealthy family is the more attractive option for them.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#84

Post by dntbnmpls »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #81
mcv wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at billionaires who came from well-to-do middle class is not quite the same as looking at social mobility of the poor. I don't think any of the Forbes top 10 started out as Parasite-style basement dwellers. There's undoubtedly some exceptions, but in general poor in the US have very little social mobility. They get stuck in debt and shitty jobs.

Bill Gates is an Example here he came from a very well of family.

Warren Buffet's father was a congressman.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#85

Post by barry-cotter »

watwut wrote: post #75
barry-cotter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 succ…

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 qui…

> 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.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#86

Post by speedplane »

mcv wrote: post #83
dsego wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the difference between the rich and the poor family? Who is the parasite? What is it exactly that the rich family does better or gives to this world that they deserve the exceptionally better lifestyle? Are they more intelligent? Surely not, since they were duped by the other family. Do they really care about other people and what's going on in their surroundings? Not really, they never bothered to figure ou…

What struck me is that the main family has a ton of talent. They're excellent actors and planners. In a healthy society, they could use those talents to do something productive, and better society and themselves. But in the face of extreme economic inequality and a lack of honest opportunities, it seems parasitising on a wealthy family is the more attractive option for them.

> What struck me is that the main family has a ton of talent. They're excellent actors and planners. In a healthy society, they could use those talents to do something productive

You got it both right and wrong. In "Parasite", the family did indeed have talents, and they were often morally wrong: for most of the movie, they're bad-guys. But the movie is successful for the questions it raises:

- why should the poor always be "good" and yet if the rich are just a little bit good, they are considered saints.

- why assume that talent has anything to do with it. The poor family seemed smarter than the rich family. But how much of success is really based on "talent" rather than knowing the right people at the right time?

The movie was good because it didn't really take sides on these issues, while throwing the question directly at your face. The very fact that you're asking the question means the effect was successful.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#87

Post by speedplane »

dsego wrote: post #63
remote_phone wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren’t scumbags because they were poor. They were poor because they were scumbags. That was what I saw. They were an entire family of cheaters and liars but none of the other characters in the same economic class were like that. The rich people were never mean or overbearing to less well off people and treated their workers well. The workers were very loyal to them until the family lied and cheated their way in…

What was the difference between the rich and the poor family? Who is the parasite? What is it exactly that the rich family does better or gives to this world that they deserve the exceptionally better lifestyle? Are they more intelligent? Surely not, since they were duped by the other family. Do they really care about other people and what's going on in their surroundings? Not really, they never bothered to figure ou…

> What was the difference between the rich and the poor family? Who is the parasite? What is it exactly that the rich family does better or gives to this world that they deserve the exceptionally better lifestyle?

If you're looking for answers, this movie won't answer them. However, if you're asking the questions than the movie already did it's work.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#88

Post by hocuspocus »

dba7dba wrote: post #37
httpz wrote: post #16

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.

Unemployment/underemployment has been a huge problem in S. Korea for a long time such that a college graduate getting a career track job (any like Police officer, government worker, job in a chaebol, etc) is a cause for celebration. One thing Americans might fall into thinking is that they poor family in the movie is similar to welfare queens in US. Afaik, there isn't enough support for one to live as a welfare queen…

With interest rates that have been divided by 4-5x in the last 15 years, small deposits and monthly rents aren't that rare anymore.

I'm not sure how it affects the poorest families, I imagine that you can stay in a decrepit "villa" on jeonse alone for many years. More often than not, real-estate loses value and it might not be in the landlord's interest to kick you out.

But in recent years there are definitely a lot of lower-income families that bought property and got out of jeonse, since it makes no sense anymore.

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#89

Post by unishark »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #60
zpallin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

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,…

> 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?

Re: For Seoul’s poor, class strife in ‘Parasite’ is daily reality

#90

Post by AstralStorm »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #60
zpallin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

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,…

Ethics of some cancer treatments are dubious. (lifespan but not health) Depends on the cancer though.

Others are indeed effective - hormone blockers for certain reproductive system cancers, specific treatments for leukemia, surgeries where applicable and screening, toxic chemotherapy for cancers where it is effective or after surgery.

Advanced biologicals are often expensive because they can be and are not very effective there. But there are some that are effective for autoimmune problems, those are problematic for our general healthcare in Poland with long conservative treatments with side effects while you're waiting to be qualified.

Post reply on HN