Posts Tagged ‘full-time housewives’

Young women’s life preferences acknowledge workplace reality

Friday, September 27th, 2013

Preference or default?

Preference or default?

Social media has been buzzing about the results of a survey released this week by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. The survey was carried out last March among men and women, both single and married, between the ages of 15 and 39. The results that provoked the most discussion had to do with attitudes toward marriage, or, more precisely, a woman’s role in a marriage.

When asked if they want to be full-time homemakers, 34.2 percent of the female respondents said “yes” or “probably.” And while more women, 38.5 percent to be exact, said they didn’t want to be homemakers, the portion who said they did was apparently higher than people expected, especially now that the government is pushing an agenda to make it easier for women to join the workforce and contribute more directly to the economy.

Some people are saying that these results indicate a regressive attitude among women, but it’s impossible to say from the results that the women who want to be homemakers are being guided by some kind of cultural gender identification.

When men were asked in the survey if they wanted their wives to be homemakers, 19.3 percent said “yes” or “probably,” which implies that the other four-fifths want their wives to work. That’s because they know that a single income isn’t enough any more to support a household, especially one that does or will someday include children.

When the women were asked how much income they thought their husbands should make a month, 40.8 percent said ¥200,000-¥300,000, 24.8 percent said ¥300,000-¥400,000 and a mere 4.2 percent said “it doesn’t matter.” So much for marrying for love.

A more likely reason for this desire to stay at home is a perceived understanding of workplace norms, something the labor ministry didn’t ask about. In a different survey conducted by the Japan Management Association, young men (751) and women (249) already in the workforce were asked if they aspired to be leaders among their colleagues. Of the female respondents, 81 percent said they would rather be “supportive.”

One of the more pressing issues in Japan is the paucity of women managers, a situation that is blamed on implacable male dominance in the workplace. The association analyzes this result as meaning that women value their private lives over their careers. In other words, they don’t think they can raise children or have families if they are in leadership positions. And, in fact, this is still a widely held belief.

Civil servants are different, especially when it comes to social security

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

A major feature of the Democratic Party of Japan’s manifesto that helped make it the ruling party was its proposed overhaul of the social security system. One feature of the plan was to combine two types of pensions. Regular full-time employees usually pay into the kosei nenkin system if they work for a private company, or into the kyosai nenkin system if they work for a public entity. This latter group includes civil servants, whether they work for the central government or a local one, and school teachers, including instructors at private schools.

You're the only one who cares about your pension

However, there is a real difference in terms of both premiums and benefits between the two systems. Though in both cases, the employee splits his contributions with his employer, the rate is less for kyosai nenkin members than it is for kosei nenkin members. Even more significant, kyosai nenkin members after retirement receive ¥20,000-a-month more in benefits than do kosei nenkin members. And that’s not all. While the widows of both kosei nenkin and kyosai nenkin members can receive a special pension when they survive those members, under certain conditions other surviving family members of deceased kyosai nenkin members can also receive benefits. That does not apply to kosei nenkin members and their families.

The problem with the proposal to combine these two systems is that public servants will lose these special privileges. The kyosai nenkin system will adhere to the regulations associated with the kosei nenkin system, which is is why it hasn’t been discussed much during the current Diet session. The bureaucracy, needless to say, isn’t very fond of the proposal and is fighting it.

Another social security proposal from the manifesto that seems to have died on the vine is bringing more non-regular employees into the kosei nenkin system. At present, anyone who joins has to work at least 30 hours a week. Otherwise they have to pay into the kokumin nenkin, or regular pension, system. Forces in the DPJ were supposed to submit a bill during this session that would change the rules for kosei nenkin members to allow anyone who works more than 20 hours a week and has been in his or her position for at least six months to join. In this new system, a 45-year-old woman who makes ¥100,000 a month must pay a set premium of ¥15,000 a month into the basic pension system, but if she meets the conditions of the new system, she would join the kosei nenkin system and split the premium with her employer, which means she’d pay only ¥8,000 a month. At retirement, that amount would give her ¥500 a month more in benefits than the basic pension benefit for each year of payment. So if she paid into the system for 20 years, she’d get ¥10,000 more a month.

The main difference would be for “type 3″ members, meaning wives of kosei nenkin members. At present, type 3 members don’t have to pay anything, but under this proposed revision the housewife would have to pay ¥8,000 a month, just as the employed woman would; that is, if she decided to join.

It goes without saying that the main obstacle to implementing this plan is employers, who don’t want the extra burden of having to pay their part of kosei nenkin premiums. In any case, the government’s idea of a totally integrated social security overhaul that would result in a guaranteed minimum pension has been roundly criticized, so it seems even less likely that these two proposals, which wouldn’t really cost anything, have much of a chance. At present, the only thing the administration cares about is pushing an increase of the consumption tax.

Is the pension waiver for full-time housewives unfair?

Friday, March 4th, 2011

Earlier this week the government announced that it will probably submit a bill to the Diet that will allow full-time housewives who did not pay all their pension premiums in the past to receive benefits if they pay some of their premiums retroactively. Originally, the welfare ministry had issued a directive in January to allow this waiver. That plan came under fire from the opposition Liberal Democratic Party, who said that such a matter should be debated by lawmakers and that the waiver is basically unfair. The ministry subsequently suspended the waiver.

Where the deal goes down

This is what is called a “moral hazard,” a term that is used frequently when Japan’s pension system is discussed. Ever since it was discovered that the government had lost or incorrectly filed thousands of pension payment records, there have been many people in the government who advocate scrapping the complicated premium system. They believe it is better to simply pay pensions out of revenues collected through a higher consumption tax. Others complain that this is morally wrong, not so much because it would punish those who have paid into the system properly all along, but rather because it rewards those who have not paid into the system correctly all along.

The housewife issue is even more convoluted. There are three types of beneficiaries in the Japanese public pension system. Type 1 includes the self-employed, part-time workers and the unemployed, who are required to pay a set premium of ¥15,100 a month on their own. Type 2 includes full-time regular employees of private companies and public organizations, who split contributions to their pensions with their employers. Type 3 includes non-earning spouses of Type 2 beneficiaries (technically, “non-earning” means the spouse does not make more than ¥1.3 million a year). Type 3 do not have to pay premiums but nevertheless receive benefits when they reach a certain age. Spouses of Type 1 beneficiares do not have the same advantage, since they, too, are classified as Type 1 beneficiaries and thus have to pay their own premiums whether they work outside the home or are full-time housewives.

Continue reading about pension waivers →

RSS

Recent posts