[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

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

[immawizard]

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.

[1] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.p...

[jandrewrogers]

As a metric, "social mobility" does not mean what most people intuit it means. Someone who, in real PPP terms from the same base, doubles their income may be wildly "socially mobile" in one country and not in the other, even though their absolute outcome is identical. This is because it is a function of income distribution which varies widely and is partly a function of country size.

Many people who are "socially mobile" in a country with compressed income ranges, like Denmark, will be objectively worse off economically (PPP) than many people who are not "socially mobile" in a country with wide income ranges, like the US. Income distributions need to be similar for social mobility comparisons.

Most people readily prefer a "non-socially mobile" increase in income if it is greater in absolute PPP terms than smaller "socially mobile" income increases. In these comparison cases, which are not uncommon, there is literally no benefit to being "socially mobile" in a country with compressed income ranges.

[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...

[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.

[monocasa]

Gates also got the IBM DOS contract because his mom was on a board of directors with someone who was also on the board of IBM.

[mcv]

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.

[C1sc0cat]

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

[dntbnmpls]

Warren Buffet's father was a congressman.

[crummy]

Apparently the US has much lower social mobility than a lot of other first-world countries (though this chart doesn't mention South Korea): https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/american...

[bildung]

> 10 out of top 10 are self-made in the US

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-...

[nickik]

Usually mobility doesn't happen in one generation but like 2-3. A poor person managed to get middle class or upper middle class and their children then are in prime position to make another jump.

If you just look at the Top 20% you can see how people drop into and out of it over generations.

So, garbage man to millionaire, is pretty rare if your grand father was a garbage man from Korea in the 70s your life now is probably comparable to most people from the US.

[sl120]

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...

[dntbnmpls]

> 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.

[sybarita]

lol "self made billionaire"

[_8j50]

Looking at top10 == Survivors bias

[golergka]

> he's not a believer in social mobility in Korea

> 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.

[netsharc]

The director has mentioned that the rich family were also parasites, although you're right, maybe he didn't make their parasitic behavior explicit enough. Although some examples I noticed:

- They got rid of their loyal, long-serving, housekeeper instead of caring that she's sick/supporting her through it.

- They "forced" their helpers to show up on Sunday.

- When the driver (the poor dad) was reluctant to run around as a Native American, the rich dad showed anger and said "You're getting paid extra for this!".

On the topic of work ethic, I didn't really see the rich dad or the mom working hard, the mom doesn't even work! Just like many of us in this forum, the dad probably got lucky to end up in a high-paying position, luck doesn't mean work ethic!

You're probably a believer in the meritocracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ , and watched the movie with a little confirmation bias.

[golergka]

> They got rid of their loyal, long-serving, housekeeper instead of caring that she's sick/supporting her through it.

From their point of view, she hid her very contagious and dangerous sickness from them and knowingly endangered them and their children with tuberculosis just to keep her job. What kind of loyalty is that?

> They "forced" their helpers to show up on Sunday.

I watched the movie in September, so I must admit, I don't remember that part really well, but then you're quote the phrase...

> "You're getting paid extra for this!".

...which means, they're paid overtime - so, while outright forcing someone to come out on a weekend is a bad thing to do, it's not even unpaid overtime (which is so common, unfortunately). And it's certainly not even in the same league as literal murder.

> On the topic of work ethic, I didn't really see the rich dad ... working hard

I think it's obvious he's not in the position where he has to work hard - it's working smart that counts.

> the mom doesn't even work!

That's dad's decision - he earned his money, and he decided (for better or for worse) that he wants to provide for his wife. Many (me included) would not take this decision even if we had the resources, but everyone has the freedom to do whatever with the money they earned.

> Just like many of us in this forum, the dad probably got lucky to end up in a high-paying position, luck doesn't mean work ethic!

I can't judge you personally, but I've seen many other talented software engineers and other tech workers come to the same conclusions after they've been in the bubble too long. They got accustomed to level of intelligence and abstract thinking of their social group and naturally assume that all the other people are basically the same. I don't think that they realize what the "outer world" and people who inhabit it are really like. (I grew up pretty poor in not a particuarly elite neighbourhood of Moscow during a decade-long economic and system crysis, and my opinion of the "proletariat" is based on a very intimate first-hand experience).

> You're probably a believer in the meritocracy

No, not quite - I'm not a believer in any kind of system or a systematic truth about this, not the meritoracy, nor the opposite.