If the subordinates have to lie about taking time off, and intentionally accept lower pay for the benefit of their superiors - then no, it's definitely not reciprocated. I'd argue the subordinates are straight up being abused in this case.
I'm not saying you are wrong here, but I think it is important to ground all of these old:young dynamics in culture. 'Subordinate', to me, is a very western lens and looks past the crucial point that the Japanese view power structures with far more optimism than we do.
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.
Arguably, the Japanese view a society that takes care of the elderly with respect as a benefit to themselves. In the other hand, it is a characteristic of Western society to see every moment as an opportunity to make immediate profits, even at the expense of their own future.
Exactly. What sane grandparent would want to live at the cost of cannibalizing their grandchildren? What the sandwich generation received as kids, they need to pay that forward, not back.
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.
I agree with you, wholeheartedly. Children should not be guilted into taking care of their elders.
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).
Old people have had a lifetime of experience and opportunity to build themselves up for old age. Young people have had nothing, and without that opportunity, they'll be reduced to (metaphorically) cannibalising the next generation.
I don't think reciprocation can be analyzed in a dynamic setting like that.
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.
What you describe as reciprocation is actually transgenerational exploitation. Be forcefully taken-from when you are young, and then forcefully take (from the young) when you are old.
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.
Their view is a product of hard times. Your view is a product of good times. Theirs is the observation that people will be more committed to work hard to make things better, if they can hope to eventually rest and partake in some of the improvements. Yours is basically "fuck off, YOLO and people should just have fun". Both views have some good points behind them, but then yours is unsustainable over more than a generation or two, while GP's view is the one that sustains and enables yours.
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.
Parents chose to have children, how many (i.e. how much their attention is divided), how they'll raise them (with near absolute authority), and pick 50% of the kids' genes (via the other parent). Children chose nothing. They owe nothing.
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.
Consider that in Japan, refusal care for the elders would be considered an act of irresponsibility.
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.
It’s basically the same model as social security is supposed to be. It’s reciprocated societally by you putting in lots when you’re young and then you get the benefits when you’re old.
Yes, but it matters how much it intrudes on your personal life.
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.
> Raising small children is an extreme challenge that requires all your resources
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.
Someone close to me told me they chose to have two kids because they didn't want the burden and responsibility of caring for their parents to fall solely onto one child.
It still might, eventually. One kid will live too far away, the other will have family with small children, etc. and the burden will end up falling on the one who's closest and/or doesn't have kids of their own.