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.
“ 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.”
Wow, that's cool. I wonder if vision, dental, medical, hospital, prescriptions and mental are all covered without fees?
The very poor in the US only get Medicaid (rarely Medicare, which requires paying into Social Security long enough).
Medicaid:
- It doesn't pay doctors, specialists and dentists enough, so they often treat patients poorly (spend less time, not thorough enough, don't order necessary tests).
- Medication is all paid-for with no co-pays (out-of-pocket expenses), but at a limited number of pharmacy brands and limited selection of medications (formulary).
- Emergency and necessary hospital care is completely paid-for.
- There is a limited selection of doctors and dentists available to choose from. Most, not all, are reviewed very poorly.
- Only one dentist cleaning visit a year is allowed even if the person needs it more frequently because they produce plaque faster.
- There are very few specialists who are assigned by the doctor, often with very, very long waiting lists. Furthermore, some specialties do away with waiting lists and make people call on a certain time at a certain day like animals for very few appointments. They make it a game to play with people's lives and waste their time.
- The choices of insurers who actually provide the Medicaid insurance is usually 1, 2 or maybe 3 in certain counties.
-----
Medicare (similar to typical US convoluted, private insurance):
- Has several confusing options, lots of rules and fine-print.
- Medication isn't covered, it needs Part D insurance or ExtraHelp.
- Hospital insurance requires enough taxes paid or paid Part A private insurance.
- Medical insurance requires enough taxes paid or paid Part B private insurance.
- Medigap private insurance can be needed to pay co-pays, deductibles, coinsurance but it doesn't cover long-term care (no LTC = $$$$), vision/eyeglasses, dental, hearing aids, or private-duty nursing.
----
It's possible to have both Medicare and Medicaid, which means good insurance but with some out-of-pocket expenses.
Maybe Medicare improved without costs, for all, would be far, far better than people dying from cancer having to go to bankruptcy court rather than finish their bucket list?
Also looking at South Korea and SEA GDP growth (especially compared to most 'developing' countries) they are doing amazing compared or a lot of South American countries who adopted Boliviar style socialism around the same time:
They did this by opening up and adopting a more modern market oriented approach, mixed with limited state run organizations.
They had some rational social programs in place where externalities in the market weren't being appropriately accounted for, or where market forces were simply immoral (high costs for sick people). But notably didn't over commit to some intense socialist movements like a lot South American countries - who went well beyond public health insurance buying into the Bolivar nonsense - countries in the early/mid 2000s who are only now recovering from yrs of "post-capitalist" experiments which only resulted in mass needless poverty for their citizens in countries which should have been the wealthiest in the region. With people lining up for food rations like its the 1930s Russia and having severely reduced variety of products to select from:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economy_of_Venezuela [note they were having food shortages and starvation before the oil crisis, the entire system was always unsustainable mirage stirred up with anti-western conspiracy theories of non-existent direct intervention].
The most famous moment on the Ruskies abandoning communism in the late 1980s was that Russians leader visiting an American grocery store and seeing the massive options available, at good prices, to regular middle class citizens. Also note the first thing Venezuela did was claim "access to food was a right" and nationalized a bunch of food industries, quickly resulting in mass starvation and shortages within a few short years.
It would streamline the whole system to just admit Medicare for all is the solution and pushing burderns placed on employers, or worse deterring entrepreneurship by making it super expensive for self-employed people to turn into net job creators - there's tons of pro-market benefits to a state run public insurance policy - especially when the alternative is the current pseudo-private mess they currently have.
Having public health insurance, with some occasional private options, like what we have in Canada is far far more limited than some of the socialist experiments the Bolivars promoted and destroyed multiple countries around them, including Ecuador. So even calling it socialist is probably doing it a disservice. It is state-capitalism, where the state part is the exception to the rule.
Nor did Canada adopt the more heavy-handed approach of the NIH in the UK which nationalized hospitals and a bunch of other pieces of the puzzle which were running perfectly fine independently.
The simplest solutions that are properly tied into incentives is always what works best here.
Even today there are plenty of arguments where the US system is essentially already borerline "socialist" healthcare system but with far fewer of the benefits of either markets or altruistic public run insurance. So 'staying the course' doesn't sound like much of a solution either, besides letting political friends in medicare fleece the government through cronyism.
It won't stop because with the constant local, congressional, and executive meddling to create these "pseudo-markets" which provide few benefits of actual competitive markets nor the central negotiation power of a centralized public insurance program.
And I say that as someone who in most other cases I would learn fiscally conservative.
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.
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.
I think social mobility from poverty to middle class is more relevant to most people than mobility from millionaire to billionaire class. According to The Global Social Mobility Report 2020 [1] South Korea has higher level of social mobility than United States.
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.).
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.
Korea is a highly hierarchical, relationship-driven society on top of the extreme competition. It's increasingly a place where you need the perfect marks + the right family background + some starting money to get anywhere.
In practice, it's almost impossible to really climb in society and unfortunately this situation is describing more and more the US as well...
> 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.
> it's impossible for basement dwellers to make it to nice mansions
Did we watch the same movie? The contrast between two families depicted on screen, their woth ethic and simple human morals is so stark that it seems even more right-wing than I am. I don't believe that there's a social justice to be achieved in society as a whole, but as you watch the movie (especially the later part), I can't imagine how could you possibly sympathize with the poor family.
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.
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.
In my opinion, S. Korea has less visible rage against inequality because of the Japanese colonialism, Korean War and the fast development of the economy since 1970s.
For 500+ years before Japan occupied Korean peninsula in 1910, Korea had a strict social class system. Class inequality was very firmly in place. But most accepted it as a natural order, as any society with kings in ruling.
All those social classes were broken down with the Japanese colonialism and the Korean War. Especially the Korean War. The Korean war basically wiped out overnight a large chunk of the landed rich. The society was turned upside down. It was a true leveling of the playing field. I'd say from end of the Korean War (or maybe even starting in 1910), those who rose above others in wealth largely did so on their own. The old money/wealth lost wealth and had none for the children to inherit.
Obviously some cheated (or hacked their way in techie term) to get above. Others worked honestly and did well on test and in job to get above.
So there's less decades/centuries old wealthy class passing down their wealth to their kids.
That dream get crushed when universities start increasingly accepting students through connections and children of graduates.
Getting major urban schools is much harder as a rural kid with a 4.0 GPA than a kid from nearby with the same GPA and parents who attended and donated to the school a few times.
I think Americans are more pissed off because there's been more to make people aware of the long term and growing unfairness.
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.
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.
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.
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 in S. Korea.
Another different factor is Jeonse. In S. Korean real estate rental market, monthly rent is rare. Most are rented out as Jeonse. With Jeonse, instead of paying monthly rent, a renter will make a lump-sum deposit on a rental space, at anywhere from 50% to 80% of the market value.
This allow a poor family to have relatively secure housing (although it would be undesirable) while having no money for other essentials.
Which they did. The movie mentions an unsuccessful attempt to be a franchisee of a food chain that later turned out to be a scam. That ended up bankrupting the family.
If you can't get any job then you're done. Even if there're jobs but employers want the prices to fall for a specific occupation, then you're don too. This is not specific to South Korea though.
I believe that this situations could get better if HR companies weren't thriving everywhere just cutting down any opportunities for the people with stupid assessments, even universities graduates, and letting the experienced and trained personnel that belong to a business make their calls, but this depends on the business willingness.
What would life be like for 4 people on median wage, though? Did they live in a slummy part of Seoul? Or were they in an expensive part in a crappy house?
If a family of four tried to live in Santa Monica on $59k -- they would only have $39k after taxes. You can't rent even a single shitty room for less than $1k per month. That leaves them $500 a month per person. Health care would take at least $58 (the fine if you don't have health care). That leaves you $440 ($14.50 a day) for everything else. It wouldn't be Parasite bad. But it would be awful.
If you just moved to Compton or San Bernardino, it would be fine.
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]
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.
The Chinese middle class is still in its first generation and mobility has stagnated for just a decade so it's still early. It'll be interesting to see whether tolerance for the government survives the upcoming economic slowdown.
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.)
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.
The point was to show you their desperation,not to justify their actions. One thing leads to another.
There's a scene where the Dad wonders if the old driver they slandered out of a job had found a new one and the daughter responds by telling him to focus on them.
I am personally not quick to say I wouldn't do what they did when my whole family is starving.
> 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.
The Park family was so nice, always honest and considerate of other people! I didn't get the sense they represented the upper class, because frankly, where was the psychopathic ruthlessness of bankers and CEOs?
It makes it harder to argue this represents class struggle when the Park family is so modest, and shows that we can all unite together in peace without brutal day-to-day competition.
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?
[+] [-] danans|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
How does that fit into universal health care?
[+] [-] anonsivalley652|6 years ago|reply
The very poor in the US only get Medicaid (rarely Medicare, which requires paying into Social Security long enough).
Medicaid:
- It doesn't pay doctors, specialists and dentists enough, so they often treat patients poorly (spend less time, not thorough enough, don't order necessary tests).
- Medication is all paid-for with no co-pays (out-of-pocket expenses), but at a limited number of pharmacy brands and limited selection of medications (formulary).
- Emergency and necessary hospital care is completely paid-for.
- There is a limited selection of doctors and dentists available to choose from. Most, not all, are reviewed very poorly.
- Only one dentist cleaning visit a year is allowed even if the person needs it more frequently because they produce plaque faster.
- There are very few specialists who are assigned by the doctor, often with very, very long waiting lists. Furthermore, some specialties do away with waiting lists and make people call on a certain time at a certain day like animals for very few appointments. They make it a game to play with people's lives and waste their time.
- The choices of insurers who actually provide the Medicaid insurance is usually 1, 2 or maybe 3 in certain counties.
-----
Medicare (similar to typical US convoluted, private insurance):
- Has several confusing options, lots of rules and fine-print.
- Medication isn't covered, it needs Part D insurance or ExtraHelp.
- Hospital insurance requires enough taxes paid or paid Part A private insurance.
- Medical insurance requires enough taxes paid or paid Part B private insurance.
- Medigap private insurance can be needed to pay co-pays, deductibles, coinsurance but it doesn't cover long-term care (no LTC = $$$$), vision/eyeglasses, dental, hearing aids, or private-duty nursing.
----
It's possible to have both Medicare and Medicaid, which means good insurance but with some out-of-pocket expenses.
Maybe Medicare improved without costs, for all, would be far, far better than people dying from cancer having to go to bankruptcy court rather than finish their bucket list?
[+] [-] dmix|6 years ago|reply
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Fo...
https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/7/11/saupload_t...
They did this by opening up and adopting a more modern market oriented approach, mixed with limited state run organizations.
They had some rational social programs in place where externalities in the market weren't being appropriately accounted for, or where market forces were simply immoral (high costs for sick people). But notably didn't over commit to some intense socialist movements like a lot South American countries - who went well beyond public health insurance buying into the Bolivar nonsense - countries in the early/mid 2000s who are only now recovering from yrs of "post-capitalist" experiments which only resulted in mass needless poverty for their citizens in countries which should have been the wealthiest in the region. With people lining up for food rations like its the 1930s Russia and having severely reduced variety of products to select from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarianism
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Economy_of_Venezuela [note they were having food shortages and starvation before the oil crisis, the entire system was always unsustainable mirage stirred up with anti-western conspiracy theories of non-existent direct intervention].
The most famous moment on the Ruskies abandoning communism in the late 1980s was that Russians leader visiting an American grocery store and seeing the massive options available, at good prices, to regular middle class citizens. Also note the first thing Venezuela did was claim "access to food was a right" and nationalized a bunch of food industries, quickly resulting in mass starvation and shortages within a few short years.
It would streamline the whole system to just admit Medicare for all is the solution and pushing burderns placed on employers, or worse deterring entrepreneurship by making it super expensive for self-employed people to turn into net job creators - there's tons of pro-market benefits to a state run public insurance policy - especially when the alternative is the current pseudo-private mess they currently have.
Having public health insurance, with some occasional private options, like what we have in Canada is far far more limited than some of the socialist experiments the Bolivars promoted and destroyed multiple countries around them, including Ecuador. So even calling it socialist is probably doing it a disservice. It is state-capitalism, where the state part is the exception to the rule.
Nor did Canada adopt the more heavy-handed approach of the NIH in the UK which nationalized hospitals and a bunch of other pieces of the puzzle which were running perfectly fine independently.
The simplest solutions that are properly tied into incentives is always what works best here.
Even today there are plenty of arguments where the US system is essentially already borerline "socialist" healthcare system but with far fewer of the benefits of either markets or altruistic public run insurance. So 'staying the course' doesn't sound like much of a solution either, besides letting political friends in medicare fleece the government through cronyism.
It won't stop because with the constant local, congressional, and executive meddling to create these "pseudo-markets" which provide few benefits of actual competitive markets nor the central negotiation power of a centralized public insurance program.
And I say that as someone who in most other cases I would learn fiscally conservative.
[+] [-] Ayesh|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
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
[2] https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#b6d49ad7e2ff
[+] [-] immawizard|6 years ago|reply
[1] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.p...
[+] [-] netsharc|6 years ago|reply
Zuck went to a private school.
Not really basement dwellers...
[+] [-] mcv|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crummy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bildung|6 years ago|reply
Those seem to be outliers: "Of the over 60 percent [of the Forbes 400] remaining, all grew up in substantial privilege." https://inequality.org/research/selfmade-myth-hallucinating-...
[+] [-] sl120|6 years ago|reply
In practice, it's almost impossible to really climb in society and unfortunately this situation is describing more and more the US as well...
[+] [-] dntbnmpls|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sybarita|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badrabbit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golergka|6 years ago|reply
> it's impossible for basement dwellers to make it to nice mansions
Did we watch the same movie? The contrast between two families depicted on screen, their woth ethic and simple human morals is so stark that it seems even more right-wing than I am. I don't believe that there's a social justice to be achieved in society as a whole, but as you watch the movie (especially the later part), I can't imagine how could you possibly sympathize with the poor family.
[+] [-] totorovirus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barry-cotter|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dba7dba|6 years ago|reply
For 500+ years before Japan occupied Korean peninsula in 1910, Korea had a strict social class system. Class inequality was very firmly in place. But most accepted it as a natural order, as any society with kings in ruling.
All those social classes were broken down with the Japanese colonialism and the Korean War. Especially the Korean War. The Korean war basically wiped out overnight a large chunk of the landed rich. The society was turned upside down. It was a true leveling of the playing field. I'd say from end of the Korean War (or maybe even starting in 1910), those who rose above others in wealth largely did so on their own. The old money/wealth lost wealth and had none for the children to inherit.
Obviously some cheated (or hacked their way in techie term) to get above. Others worked honestly and did well on test and in job to get above.
So there's less decades/centuries old wealthy class passing down their wealth to their kids.
[+] [-] fiblye|6 years ago|reply
Getting major urban schools is much harder as a rural kid with a 4.0 GPA than a kid from nearby with the same GPA and parents who attended and donated to the school a few times.
I think Americans are more pissed off because there's been more to make people aware of the long term and growing unfairness.
[+] [-] solveit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonsivalley652|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
I am not sure what the actual job situation in S. Korea is. Perhaps someone that lives there can enlighten us.
[+] [-] dba7dba|6 years ago|reply
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 in S. Korea.
Another different factor is Jeonse. In S. Korean real estate rental market, monthly rent is rare. Most are rented out as Jeonse. With Jeonse, instead of paying monthly rent, a renter will make a lump-sum deposit on a rental space, at anywhere from 50% to 80% of the market value.
This allow a poor family to have relatively secure housing (although it would be undesirable) while having no money for other essentials.
[+] [-] L_Rahman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stebann|6 years ago|reply
I believe that this situations could get better if HR companies weren't thriving everywhere just cutting down any opportunities for the people with stupid assessments, even universities graduates, and letting the experienced and trained personnel that belong to a business make their calls, but this depends on the business willingness.
[+] [-] onlyrealcuzzo|6 years ago|reply
If a family of four tried to live in Santa Monica on $59k -- they would only have $39k after taxes. You can't rent even a single shitty room for less than $1k per month. That leaves them $500 a month per person. Health care would take at least $58 (the fine if you don't have health care). That leaves you $440 ($14.50 a day) for everything else. It wouldn't be Parasite bad. But it would be awful.
If you just moved to Compton or San Bernardino, it would be fine.
[+] [-] BelleOfTheBall|6 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/parasite-south-korea-impro...
[+] [-] justicezyx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 9nGQluzmnq3M|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] L_Rahman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qqssccfftt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] odkamkfn|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RichardHeart|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WilliamEdward|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neonate|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcurve|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] remote_phone|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cycrutchfield|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badrabbit|6 years ago|reply
There's a scene where the Dad wonders if the old driver they slandered out of a job had found a new one and the daughter responds by telling him to focus on them.
I am personally not quick to say I wouldn't do what they did when my whole family is starving.
[+] [-] js8|6 years ago|reply
The Park family was so nice, always honest and considerate of other people! I didn't get the sense they represented the upper class, because frankly, where was the psychopathic ruthlessness of bankers and CEOs?
It makes it harder to argue this represents class struggle when the Park family is so modest, and shows that we can all unite together in peace without brutal day-to-day competition.
[+] [-] infruset|6 years ago|reply
(I ask because in my language and culture it sounds a bit childish, and because I've also seen stories recounted in the present tense)
[+] [-] lurquer|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
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!)
[+] [-] wbronitsky|6 years ago|reply
http://sensesofcinema.com/2017/cteq/raising-arizona/ and https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/30... discuss this well. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/studamerhumor.3.1.0001?... looks to be interesting, but is paywalled. Either way, Raising Arizona seems to me to be some great cultural commentary.
> A thread about the subtleties of Korean culture revealed in Gangham Style? Read a book.
That too sounds like an interesting idea: https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Reflections-Gangnam-Style...