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.
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.
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.