The younger have been giving the middle finger to these kind of companies for a while now. Either literally, by proxy, or going elsewhere and/or quit the whole corporate culture altogether and doing "shit" jobs with more flexibility instead (they feel screwed either way, at least they'll do it on their own term)
This 4 days week measure has a realistic chance IMHO, otherwise these gov job will stay the bottom of the barrel in the new generation's perception.
She only sends her a text on Christmas and her birthday, that's the extent of their yearly interaction!
They will prioritize their hobbies over basically anything, including socialization (they can still socialize inside their hobby group, but they might not be "friends" in the traditional way)
I'd see it as the same line of thinking as DINK, except with a single income and no fucks given about romantic relationships. Of course the situation could be different if they were super affluent, but as they have to prioritize they choose what makes them happy regardless of social norms.
In this case, I know my friend's friend talked about constant overtime and not having a life outside of the office.
I sent Mai this video of the crazy day-in-the-life of a salaryman in Japan [1], and we both felt it was crazy, but she said "I actually think he likes it". Some people are cut out for overtime every day but I know I'd go crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmjXp_AYg0
---
Unrelated, but I (sort of) wish English had an obviative case. It's hard to give a story about a friend and their friend of the same gender in English without ambiguity, hence why I gave [person 1] a name.
When writing docs in code recently, it struck me as a little odd that pronouns can be used as a shorthand when referring to a singular and a plural, but can't be if they have the same plurality.
E.g. "When the name and errors exist, and it is non-empty and they are capitalized, ..."
You usually convey a bunch of info and intent when referring to someone (how close you're to that person and their social position relative to you), and pronouns don't easily cover that range. It can be done but requires more finesse.
That's perhaps why pronouns are so tainted (You=anata has become the most stereotypical way to call one's husband)
The better choice is usually to omit the subject and just imply who you're talking about. Using their name is the second best alternative.
Japan clearly has its own problems, but honour and duty play a significant part in their culture and, admirably, contributes to the creation of a high-trust society.
For one, I don't want a long life. I want to live as long as I'm not a burden. Don't want to burn down in my final years all that I will have built up for my kids and their kids.
Now, they say that anime is not real life in Japan, and it's true; however it absolutely reflects (I dare say: indoctrinates viewers with) cultural elements of Japan. And this "fuck up your kids' lives so you can take care of your parents" is so characteristic. A good example (of this terrible phenomenon) is in Lovely Complex, where Nobu-chan effectively needs to abandon her sweetheart Nakao-kun, just so she can care for her grandmother, who's about to move to Hokkaido. The most heart-wrenching part is where Nakao and Nobu's grandma sit at the dining table, and Nakao is guilt-tripped into actively encouraging Nobu's grandma to travel to Hokkaido and to rob him of his beloved Nobu. Fuck all that, seriously.
My parents are immigrants from Southeast Asia and the culture is similar, but it's children taking care of their parents (in all facets, including financially). People ask me why I'm not rich despite making a Silicon Valley salary without living in Silicon Valley... Well, I pay two rents (mine and my parents'). Yes, I know they can move in with me to save money, yes I could just say no and leave them in the lurch, yes I could do xyz, but this is the reality.
I do have the sense of duty towards them, because they took care of me and my siblings, and we wanted for nothing, despite not being an affluent family. But the tradition stops with me. I personally would never make my kids take care of me like that, and I would rather be euthanized early than have my family's last memories of me being bedridden, changing my bed pan, etc. And I'm taking all measures necessary to ensure that I leave my family a financial legacy (life insurance, retirement accounts, brokerage accounts, etc).
I'm just someone who is different and western civilization applauds individualism to some extent (except highly religious communities, army, etc).
For people like me such societies are pretty cruel.
In the Netherlands children are a selfless act they are not a pension fund for their parents.
Another version of this is, what happens if the younger generation doesn't take the deal -- do they get fired? Keeping them on is a form of reciprocation, even if bleak.
Likewise, is there an implicit deal where when the young get old, they get to work less? If so, it is eventually reciprocated.
I do think it is not reciprocated instantaneously.
It should be unidirectional giving. Give to your children, and save for yourself. Retire to an assisted living facility, don't become a burden. Hope to die as soon as you become a burden. If you decide to die, because you are done living, I firmly believe that you can die.
Complicating things is the fact that for the fist 10+ years, children are extreme burden, so the "transgenerational exploitation" is actually done by the younger generation, even if they didn't mean it. That's the cost of bringing them into existence. It's not fair for parents to keep their children forever in their debt, but let's not pretend we don't owe anything to our parents and their generation either.
It's selfish to demand your children be personally responsible for you.
Making young people miserable under the crushing weight of caring for themselves and their irresponsible elders won't inspire them to produce and share grandkids.
You are right that there should be no crushing weight inflicted. Not all of Japanese worklife has the exploitative nature described upthread. And indeed, seems to be decreasing significantly from the 1980s. For instance, the following situation is no longer likely:
"A boss is working late, so the employees under the boss keep working without being requested to. If the boss disagrees with their decision to stay, then instead of directly telling them they may leave (because they may feel obligated politely refuse as long as the boss is still working), the boss will 'go home' by walking around the block. This gives the employees time to leave, before the boss returns to continue working late."
Consider that in Japan, doing what is best for a group of which you are part is more important than self-interest. There is some modern trend to a little more individualism, in part as reaction to some past and current excesses, and somewhat due to influences of foreign cultures. In general, it seems to be trending toward balance while still keeping a lot of importance of your in-group.
They all generally depend on the model of there being population growth though in order to keep the burden on the younger generations tolerable.
Paying social security (and saving for retirement) when you are young, and getting (some) coverage when you are old, is one thing. It's "only" money.
Having your time, availability, emotional capacity, mental health sucked dry by the elderly in your own family is an entirely different thing. Raising small children is an extreme challenge that requires all your resources; young and middle-aged Japanese are entirely reasonable not to start families.
I recommend reading this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich_generation#Other_chal...
Indeed, and in the past, this would've been offset by everyone around the parents - the old, the young, the other families and the childless aunts and uncles - all chiming in to share the burden. Social security & retiremenet is basically an attempt to give a substitute for that, for the village, but things are getting more and more pathological with each generation.