A study by a government think tank revealed that the Seoul income gap leaves the city’s top 20 percent earning 4.6 times more than the bottom 20 percent. The wealthiest households earn an average of 124.8 million won, while the poorest fifth earn just 27 million won. Furthermore, the city’s median income stands at 58 million won, illustrating a significant divide.
The Seoul Institute surveyed 3,004 households across the city. Researchers categorized households by income and poverty status, defining poverty as earning less than half the median, or below 29 million won annually. The impoverished group spent 1.14 million won per month on living expenses, while non-poor households spent 2.86 million won. In addition, medical costs burdened the low-income group more heavily, averaging 42,000 won per month versus 35,000 won for others.
Survey findings showed that 37 percent of households in poverty considered medical costs a substantial burden, compared to 16.7 percent of non-poor households. Meanwhile, 7.3 percent of all respondents reported being unable to pay for hospital fees, rent, or utilities. These figures highlight how the Seoul income gap impacts daily life and financial stability for many residents.
On average, Seoul citizens held 600 million won in assets, with 45 million won in debt. However, only 38.9 percent of respondents carried debt, with an average balance of 115.6 million won. Housing imposed a major financial burden. The price-to-income ratio reached 11.4, meaning households must work more than 11 years to afford a home. In addition, renters paid 37.7 percent of their annual income on rent.
Youth employment showed worrying trends as well. The survey found 4.6 percent of residents aged 15 to 29 were not working, studying, or training. A separate report indicated 328,000 people in their 30s did not work or seek employment, the highest level for August. These figures further demonstrate the challenges created by the Seoul income gap.
Overall, the study underscores widening inequality in Seoul and highlights financial pressures from housing, healthcare, and employment. Furthermore, it stresses the need for policies that reduce income disparity and support vulnerable populations. As a result, city authorities may need stronger social and financial planning strategies.
