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.

I am not sure that is applicable to the movie scenario. When they go for the housekeeper job, the three of them were already making a huge amount of money, and the housekeeper job was likely not life changing for the family. But they still destroy the life of the current housekeeper. That could have been completely avoided, and would place them in the bottom 5% of a moral scale of people on their pay range if such a hypothetical scale existed.

Off course, poverty is hard and their moral actions should be seen along with their circumstances. But that way, you can find every evil doer to have some reasons for what they do. The family had become 3 jobs by the time they trigger the allergies, showing a complete lack of empathy on their part.

>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.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kx-gSK2C2Q

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.

Had they stopped at the tutoring, nobody would have a problem with it. It's when they started to hurt other (poor) people in order to advance that the situation turned to shit. Of course had the movie stopped at the tutoring, it would have been a boring movie. It's taking the situation to the extreme that makes it an interesting movie. I really hope that in real life, such a family would be happy to have their kids in cushy tutoring jobs and use that windfall to improve their situation.

"Money smooths things out, like an iron"

The point of the film was that poverty forces the poor into ruthless conflict with each other as they battle for the scraps of the rich. It’s pretty blatant. As was the indifference of the rich to the struggles of the poor and their own inhumanity toward them.

In one scene, the poor mother says something like "If I was this rich, I'd be nice too" and then immediately scolds or hits a begging dog. In this scene, the poor woman is relatively rich - she has the house they've taken over for the weekend, plenty of food, and the dog is poor and begging. I interpreted this, as the two events happen one right after the other, as the movie clearly rejecting the woman's claim. Even when she has a lot, she won't share with one who has little and is just fundamentally mean.

Likewise, when the main family meets the hidden family - are they generous? They have much from fleecing the rich family, and the hidden family has, and asks, for very little. Nope, the main family is cruel to the hidden family and by rejecting them they initiate the final conflict.

Other poor people aren't as mean. The original staff at the house are diligent workers. The original driver offers to go above and beyond to drive the sister home. The hidden family are dedicated servants. The first tutor tries to help his friend.

> Other poor people aren't as mean. The original staff at the house are diligent workers. The original driver offers to go above and beyond to drive the sister home. The hidden family are dedicated servants. The first tutor tries to help his friend.

The original housekeeper is literally lying to her employers, keeping her husband in their house in a secret compartment, where he steals food at night and terrifies their children? And as soon as this material security collapses, they become just as cutthroat as the other family.

The case of the original driver is ambiguous. At least to me, it was implied that the daughter concocted the scheme because she felt the driver was trying to find out where she lived because he was attracted to her. Most women I know wouldn’t allow a random guy to drive them directly to their house and especially if he had insisted on it after they asked to be dropped off somewhere else. This doesn’t justify pinning the fake “crime” on him, but to me, that was the subtext.

The family friend/original tutor is not desperately poor like the family. In the beginning of the film, he offers the friend the position because he’s going overseas and states his intention to marry into the wealthy family, both of which would’ve been impossible were he not well-off himself.

The mother doesn’t “have a lot” when she’s cruel to the dog, she’s feasting on some fleeting spoils. But the whole point of the film is that morality follows material stability, not the other way around.

The original housekeeper is lying, yes, but is a diligent servant who, on net, is explicitly said to be worth her cost of extra food. Her husband was once accidentally spotted by the rich son, he's not intentionally terrifying the children. They only become as cutthroat as the family, not because they lost money, but because the family kills the wife and the main son tries to kill the husband.

I would say the moral arc of the hidden family is a rejection of the "morality follows wealth" idea. When they are in debt and danger their solution is to hide and work hard. The wife sacrifices a lot to keep her husband fed and they seem to love each other. What they're doing isn't perfect, but seems like one of their best options. The hidden family only becomes violent after they are held captive and the wife is killed and the husband nearly killed.

I'm not sure how poor the original tutor is. I don't think that's clear at all. He wants to marry rich daughter, but that doesn't mean he's rich. The main son wants to marry rich daughter too.

The he mother does have a lot when she's cruel to the dog. She has more food than she can eat and won't spare it. When she and her family have fully infiltrated the rich household, they don't help the hidden husband.

The fact that your term for the first housekeeper is “diligent servant” should tell you how far your own biases are straining against the intention of the film. The good poor vs. the evil poor is not what it’s about.

She is literally a diligent servant. Her job is to be a servant and she is attentive, hard working, cares about her job and the family and the house. I don't see how accurately describing her as a diligent servant shows any of my biases.

I don't think the film is the good poor versus the evil poor. I think the film is something like a rich person's horror story - the poor hold you in contempt, they're lying to you, they're parasitic off of you, and they're a danger to you and your children. Even worse, they're in your home!

Your interpretation of the film seems explicitly rejected be the film itself as I explained above.

What do you think the rich family would have done to her if they knew what she was actually doing?

What exposes your biases is that you reduce her to the superficial appearance that she puts on for the rich in order to survive. This is not only viewing her through the perspective of the wealthy in the film, but counter to what the movie itself tells you she is forced to do and become, outside this limited perspective. It’s embracing an ignorance of the entirety of her characterization that the film intentionally elaborates.

And this is what Bong Joo Ho himself said about his movie:

“I tried to express a sentiment specific to Korean culture, [but] all the responses from different audiences were pretty much the same. Essentially, we all live in the same country, called Capitalism.”

The film is a depiction of life under Capitalism and all the related tensions, violence, and inequality that comes along with it. At a certain point, refusing to acknowledge this is just being willfully obtuse.

I think if the rich family knew what the hidden family was doing they would have fired her and called the police. I think that's a totally normal and understandable reaction, but it's not the most moral reaction, which would be to help the hidden family. I think this cuts against your argument because the richest people aren't extremely moral, whereas they would be if point was that morality follows wealth. Consider the party scene where the rich father cares more for his fainted son than the stabbed poor daughter.

I think your attempt to perceive and expose my biases is unsound. I called her a diligent servant because she is, and to contrast her with the poor family. The diligent servant works hard, does her job, and earns even the extra she takes for her husband. The poor family don't really know how to do their jobs, consider the father's inattention while driving or the daughter's made up therapy, and they perform their jobs haphazardly.

The diligent servant is doing what she's doing because otherwise loan sharks will kill her husband. The poor family is doing what they're doing to make more money. The point is that the original housekeeper is behaving morally and picking the best of bad options. The poor family is behaving immorally by lying, getting people fired, poisoning the housekeeper, and stealing. Both are poor and only the main family is immoral, which again rebuts your interpretation.

My old minister said it this way "We can have all the morals we can afford".

> The point of the film was that poverty forces the poor into ruthless conflict with each other as they battle for the scraps of the rich.

As an empirical matter this isn’t true. If it was civilization would be impossible. Most people are decent human beings working hard to get by. If poverty forced the poor into ruthless competition India or China would have higher rates of violent crime than the US, not lower.

This movie was a plot exaggerated to be interesting. Most cutthroat behaviour exhibited by the poor in real life is not literally killing, but more like selfishness and conniving.

When exactly is the family "forced" into conflict? They freely chose to take away from other working class people in order to boost themselves. Obviously, the rich were depicted as part of the problem. However, the family could have improved their lives if they restrained themselves.

Ah yes, they could have continued to be unemployed in their soon to be flooded apartment if they had only restrained themselves.

There's definitely a point in the movie where they squander your sympathy. The kids tutoring their kids isn't so bad (though certainly the second one is more a con than honest tutoring), but as soon as they start to push the other employees out of their jobs, they're advancing at the cost of other poor people. Though some of those others are also dishonest, like the lady with her husband living secretly in the basement.

On the one hand, it's easy to dismiss them all as evil people, but on the other hand, people must be pretty desperate to live like that and do things like that. Extreme economic inequality puts a lot of strain on social relationships.