Young people's annual labor income has been found to differ by more than twofold depending on their region of residence. High-income areas were concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan area, while in some non-metropolitan regions, both wage employment opportunities and income levels were low, revealing a stark regional imbalance in youth employment. Notably, the top 10 regions for youth labor income were all located in the metropolitan area, confirming qualitative differences in jobs across regions. Experts point out that not only employment status but also post-employment wages and job stability must be examined together.

■ Source and Methodology According to the National Assembly Futures Institute on the 25th, the report titled 'Diagnosis of Regional Disparities in Youth Employment and Policy Recommendations,' published by the institute on the 21st, analyzed the employment conditions of young people aged 19 to 39 living in 229 cities, counties, and districts nationwide in 2024. It is characterized by its use of the 2024 Employment Activity Statistics Registry from the National Data Platform to compare annual income, degree of participation in wage employment, and employment stability of young wage workers by region.

■ Regional Disparities in Labor Income The average annual labor income of young wage workers nationwide in 2024 was 35.78 million won. The average calculated by treating each city, county, and district's mean income as a single observation was 32.74 million won, and the median of regional average incomes was 31.12 million won.

By region, Seoul's Seocho District had the highest average at 53.29 million won, while Hwacheon County in Gangwon Province had the lowest at 24.42 million won. The difference between the two regions was 28.87 million won, with the average annual income of young wage workers in Seocho District reaching about 2.18 times that of Hwacheon County.

The concentration of high-income regions in the metropolitan area was also confirmed. All of the top 10 cities, counties, and districts for average youth labor income were located in the metropolitan area. The average annual labor income in metropolitan area districts was 36.97 million won, compared to 31.03 million won in non-metropolitan areas, a difference of 5.94 million won between the two regions.

Regional income differences also appeared at the level of provincial governments. Of the total variation in labor income between districts, 43% was explained by differences between provinces, a higher figure than the share of inter-provincial differences in wage employment rates.

A tendency was also observed whereby regions with larger youth populations had higher income levels. The average annual labor income in regions in the lowest quintile of youth population share was 28.98 million won, while in the highest quintile it was 38.21 million won, a difference of 9.23 million won. The correlation coefficient between youth population share and labor income was 0.597, higher than the correlation coefficient between wage employment rate and youth population share (0.287). This shows a considerable association between where young people live and the level of job compensation. However, this analysis alone cannot determine whether high incomes attracted young people, or whether high incomes formed in regions where young people concentrated.

■ Regional Disparities in Wage Employment Rates Regional differences were also large in the proportion of young people working as wage workers. The proportion of wage workers among the national youth population was 68.8%, and when averaged equally across the 229 cities, counties, and districts, it was 67.7%, with a median of 68.1%.

Ul County in North Gyeongsang Province had the highest rate at 77.7%, while Wando County in South Jeolla Province had the lowest at 42.0%, a difference of 35.7 percentage points between the two regions.

Rural areas did not necessarily have low youth wage employment rates. Of the bottom 10 regions in wage employment rates, 8 were counties, but 5 counties were also included among the top 10 regions. This means it is difficult to assess youth job conditions based solely on administrative classifications.

Furthermore, 78% of the variation in wage employment rates between districts occurred within the same province, while inter-provincial differences accounted for 22%. This means that even within the same province, the level of youth participation in wage employment can vary greatly by municipality. However, a low wage employment rate alone does not necessarily indicate a shortage of jobs in a given area, as the proportion of young people working in non-wage forms such as self-employment and agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, or continuing their studies, also affects the statistics.

■ Gender Income Gap Gender-based disparities in youth employment were also confirmed. The wage employment rate among young men nationwide was 70.1%, compared to 67.2% for young women, with men 2.9 percentage points higher. The difference was even greater in income. The average annual labor income of young male wage workers was 39.62 million won, while that of women was 31.25 million won, meaning women earned an average of 8.37 million won less than men, at 78.9% of men's income.

In 228 of the 229 cities, counties, and districts nationwide, women's average annual labor income was lower than men's. In particular, income differences between men and women were relatively large in industrial cities with high manufacturing shares. The bottom 10 regions for the ratio of women's to men's average annual labor income included all five districts and counties of Ulsan, along with Dangjin and Seosan in South Chungcheong Province, Gwangyang and Yeosu in South Jeolla Province, and Pohang in North Gyeongsang Province.

The gender income gap persisted even when the comparison was limited to regular workers. Nationwide, the average annual labor income of female regular workers was 78.4% of that of men. By province, Ulsan had the lowest relative income level for women, with the average annual labor income of female regular workers in Ulsan at only 60.8% of men's. However, these figures do not mean that men and women performing the same work experience wage gaps of the same magnitude. The fact that the composition of jobs held by men and women differs — in industry, occupation, and company size — must also be considered.

■ Disparities in Employment Stability Regional imbalances were also evident in the proportion of regular workers, an indicator of employment stability among wage workers. The proportion of regular workers among young wage workers nationwide was 89.9%, with the average of district-level rates at 88.9%. Seoul's Gangnam District had the highest at 94.9%, while Samcheok in Gangwon Province had the lowest at 77.2%, a gap of 17.7 percentage points.

Of the top 10 regions for regular worker proportions, 8 were in the metropolitan area, while all of the bottom 10 were non-metropolitan. The average regular worker proportion in metropolitan districts was 91.7%, compared to 87.7% in non-metropolitan areas, a difference of 4.0 percentage points. This is larger than the average gap between counties and city/district areas (1.0 percentage point). Regions with higher regular worker proportions also tended to have higher average labor income, showing that both compensation levels and employment stability of youth jobs differ by region.

■ Classification into Four Regional Types Differences were also confirmed when regional youth employment conditions were classified by wage employment rate and annual labor income. The classification criteria were the national median wage employment rate (68.1%) and the median average annual labor income (31.12 million won) across all districts.

Regions low in both indicators numbered 80, accounting for 34.9% of the total. These included Wando County in South Jeolla Province, Goesan County in North Chungcheong Province, and Imsil County in North Jeolla Province. Their average wage employment rate was 63.8%, annual labor income 28.65 million won, and regular worker proportion 86.6% — the lowest among the four types. Of the 80 regions, 45 were counties, and 16.3% of the national youth population lives in these areas. It was suggested that in regions where both employment opportunities and compensation levels are low, youth outmigration and vulnerable labor market conditions are likely to accumulate together.

Conversely, regions high in both wage employment rate and income numbered 81, or 35.4% of the total. Representative examples include Seoul's Songpa District, Hwaseong in Gyeonggi Province, and Sejong City, with an average wage employment rate of 71.3%, annual labor income of 36.46 million won, and regular worker proportion of 90.8%. It was found that 54.3% of the national youth population lives in regions of this type. However, not all regions with good employment conditions are in the metropolitan area — some non-metropolitan industrial hubs, such as Ulsan's five districts and counties, Gumi in North Gyeongsang Province, and Gwangyang in South Jeolla Province, were also included.

Regions with relatively many employment opportunities but low income, and regions with high income but low wage employment rates, each numbered 34. Chuncheon in Gangwon Province, Daejeon's Seo District, and Jeju City were classified as regions with high wage employment rates but low compensation levels, with an average wage employment rate of 70.2% and annual labor income of 29.17 million won. Seoul's Mapo District, Goyang in Gyeonggi Province, and Geoje in South Gyeongsang Province were classified as regions with low wage employment rates but high income, with an average wage employment rate of 65.6% but annual labor income of 37.06 million won — the highest among the four types. The 68 regions belonging to these two types account for about 30% of all districts, showing that the level of participation in wage employment and post-employment compensation do not necessarily move in the same direction.

■ Migration to the Metropolitan Area and Policy Recommendations Occupational factors also accounted for a large share of young people's migration to the metropolitan area. The National Assembly Futures Institute, citing previous research, explained that about 77% of young people aged 25 to 29 who moved from non-metropolitan to metropolitan areas in 2024 cited jobs as their reason for moving. To understand regional migration of the youth population, it argued, not only the number of available jobs but also wages and employment stability must be examined.

Accordingly, the need to apply different employment policies by region was raised. For regions low in both employment opportunities and income, suggestions included developing jobs linked to local industries, connecting vocational training with hiring, and supporting employment and commuting to adjacent regions. For regions with sufficient employment opportunities but low income, recommendations included identifying the causes of low wages and focusing on skill development, expansion of high-value-added jobs, and improving SME productivity. For regions with high income but low participation in wage employment, the analysis indicated a need to identify and address factors blocking young people's entry into employment, such as schooling, job preparation, caregiving burdens, transportation issues, and job mismatches. In regions with developed manufacturing and heavy chemical industries, proposals included expanding hiring opportunities and job categories for women and linking childcare and flexible work support with employment policies.

Kim Bong-seop, an associate research fellow at the National Assembly Futures Institute who authored the brief, emphasized that national and local governments should examine not only employment rates but also labor income and the proportions of regular and full-time workers. The point is that when evaluating the performance of job policies, rather than focusing solely on the number of people employed, it is necessary to verify whether participants' incomes actually improved and whether employment has been maintained after hiring. He also called for regular reviews of regional employment conditions and policy adjustments when improvement effects are not confirmed.

Regional disparities in youth employment extend beyond differences in employment opportunities to differences in labor income and employment stability. In particular, the concentration of top-income regions in the metropolitan area and the gender income gap in manufacturing hubs demonstrate the need for youth employment policies to consider the characteristics of both regions and industries together.

[This article is based on the report 'Diagnosis of Regional Disparities in Youth Employment and Policy Recommendations,' released by the National Assembly Futures Institute on October 21, 2026. Caution is required in interpreting regional disparities and correlations as direct causal relationships. AI provided partial assistance.]