What deserves to be evaluated should be evaluated—regardless of whether the person is young or middle-aged or older.

 

Read the original article (in Japanese):

Introduction | “¥15 Million in the First Year After Graduation” Is a Media Misdirection

“¥15 million in annual pay for a first-year graduate”—this headline guides readers to a conclusion before they have even begun reading.
“It’s new-graduate favoritism gone too far.” “An entry-level salary bubble.” “Japanese employment is collapsing.”
Such reactions are understandable—but they are reflexes to the headline, not an understanding of reality.

A careful reading of the original article shows that what companies are evaluating is not the attribute of being a “new graduate.” What is being assessed is the level of completeness required to actually run the job. It merely appears excessive because the person who possesses that capability happens to be a student.
In that sense, this is an example of what job-based employment has always aimed to do: put a price tag on jobs and abilities, successfully implemented at the hiring entry point.

At the same time, the very same term—“job-based employment”—has been used elsewhere with the opposite meaning. In 2023, a subsidiary of Olympus made headlines for mass demotions concentrated in a specific age group.
The same word produced two extremes: proper high compensation in one case, and de facto restructuring in another. This contrast exposes how job-based employment is being misunderstood and misused in Japan. This article compares these two poles.

Chapter 1 | The “¥15 Million Graduate” Is Not About Age-Based Evaluation

“Raising starting salaries because we want young graduates.” This kind of move has become more common in recent years, but assigning high value to people with no track record based on attributes alone is speculative at best.

The individuals receiving high offers in the article, however, are not “22-year-old, inexperienced graduates.” They are people with advanced research backgrounds, substantial internship achievements, international experience, English proficiency, and expertise in AI, M&A, or financial analysis. These are profiles that would command far higher salaries—and recruitment fees—if sourced from the mid-career market.

Corporate logic here is strikingly simple and rational:

  • What companies want is not “new graduates” but people who can actually move the job forward

  • Hiring equivalent talent mid-career would cost even more

  • Therefore, securing already-capable talent earlier—while still students—is more efficient

High compensation is not youth worship. It reflects the market value of the job.
The essence here is not “expensive new graduates,” but the shift of hiring criteria from attributes to market value.

Chapter 2 | Job-Based Employment as Investment Rationality

“Don’t companies still prefer younger people?” This question remains. The answer is yes—sometimes. But only if the correct order is respected.

With equal ability and job fit, younger employees offer longer recovery periods, greater learning capacity, and more flexibility. This is not discrimination; it is investment logic. The sequence must always be:

  1. The job is defined

  2. The ability to perform the job exists

  3. The person happens to be young (and perhaps a new graduate)

As long as this order holds, “¥15 million for a new graduate” is a success case for job-based employment.
The moment age is prioritized over capability, the system begins to distort.

Chapter 3 | When Job-Based Employment Is “Abused”: Mass Demotions at Olympus Marketing

In 2023, Olympus Marketing reportedly carried out mass demotions and pay cuts following a transition to job-based employment. The problem is not the system itself, but that its basic conditions were not met.

From an institutional standpoint, several critical flaws were evident:

  • No job descriptions; jobs were not defined

  • Evaluation and demotion reasons were not explained

  • “Principles remain unchanged” rhetoric masked demotions as a foregone conclusion

  • Managers themselves did not understand the system

Job-based employment is a mechanism designed to eliminate arbitrariness through explicit definition and explanation. Changing treatment without this foundation turns the system into an abuse of managerial power.

Chapter 4 | The Moment Outcomes Skew by Age, Job-Based Employment Becomes Sophistry

If evaluations are truly based on ability and job fit, outcomes will naturally disperse across generations. There are strong employees in their 20s and strong employees in their 50s. That is how evaluation works.

When negative outcomes concentrate among people in their 40s and 50s, the evaluation axis has likely shifted to age. This is especially troubling because this cohort—Japan’s employment ice-age generation—is numerically smaller. A concentrated impact on a smaller population is unlikely to be accidental.

Externally, the process looks like this:

Dismissals are difficult → demotions and pay cuts make roles untenable → voluntary resignations follow
→ “job-based employment” is used as the justification label

Skill obsolescence and business change do happen. But a proper job-based process follows this order:
Job redefinition → transition criteria → reskilling → consensual redeployment.
Age-skewed, across-the-board demotions look less like adaptation and more like cost adjustment.

Chapter 5 | The Watershed: “Reason for Hiring” or “Excuse for Exclusion”

Job-based employment is fundamentally a system for explaining why someone is hired.
The moment it is repurposed to explain why someone is pushed out, it becomes misuse.

PerspectiveProper Job-Based EmploymentAbused Job-Based Employment
Starting pointA job existsPeople are to be reduced
Evaluation axisJob × AbilityAge / Cost
Age distributionNaturally dispersedConcentrated in one cohort
Institutional purposeReason for hiringReason for exclusion

The word may be the same, but the philosophy is opposite. What is being tested is not the制度, but the attitude of those who operate it.

Chapter 6 | The Essentials of Proper Job-Based Employment: Pay Evaluates the Job

Proper job-based employment is brutally clear:

  • Evaluate ability, not age

  • Define the job first

  • Pay is for the job

  • Raises come from job-level progression, not tenure

That is why “¥15 million for a new graduate” is not about youth. It is about ability that can already deliver on a defined job.

When fit is lost, what should occur is not exclusion but talent mobility. As people move, knowledge circulates, and the learning speed of the entire economy increases.

Conclusion | Job-Based Employment Is a System for Seeing People

Job-based employment is not a system for cutting people. It is a system for seeing them accurately.
When it functions properly, even high graduate compensation can be rationally explained. When age-skewed demotions are branded as job-based employment, that is not a system—it is violence by the employer.

The problem is not the system. It is organizations that want to use job-based employment conveniently.
The future of Japanese employment depends on whether this single point is misunderstood or upheld.


Read in Japanese ↓（For Japanese learners!）↓

「新卒1500万円」とオリンパス子会社のジョブ型解雇は真逆だ（2026.2.3）

Read more articles (in Japanese)↓

口コミ社会で「ブラック労働＋搾取」を試みる度胸と愚かさ（2026.1.30）

コメント

コメントを投稿

このブログの人気の投稿

Why Aren’t Wages Rising in Japan?

イメージ
  Why Aren’t Wages Rising in Japan? — How the Labor Share Ratio and Retained Earnings Are Stalling Economic Growth Read the original article (in Japanese): 生産性3割アップも「増えない給料」　原因は「貯めこむ大企業」にあった | TBS NEWS DIG Chapter 1: The Illusion of Wage Growth Despite government announcements of a “historic wage increase,” most workers in Japan feel no real difference in their paychecks. The reality is that real wages have barely moved in 25 years , even though labor productivity has risen by roughly 30% during the same period. This growth rate exceeds that of major European economies like France and Germany. The popular narrative — “wages haven’t increased because productivity is low” — is no longer credible. The real question is this: Why are companies making more money, yet not paying workers more? Chapter 2: Record Corporate Profits, Yet No Pay Raises The most glaring figure is Japan’s retained earnings , also known as corporate savings or internal reserves. In 1998: approximately...
続きを読む

Proposing the Radical Idea of a “Tenure-Based Retirement System”

イメージ
Read the original article (in Japanese): 「もう長すぎた…」宇宙飛行士・野口聡一氏が57歳でJAXAを辞めた納得のワケ( ダイヤモンド・オンライン ) The Reality Behind the 45-Year Retirement Debate The ongoing public debate around the “45-year retirement” and early retirement plans in Japan was initially intended to encourage self-directed career development. Yet, many workers interpret these initiatives as thinly veiled attempts to push them out. As astronaut Soichi Noguchi has noted, Japan’s work culture tends to reward compliance over skill-building or career ownership. If we want to change that, we need structural reform—not just slogans. The Proposal: A Tenure-Based Retirement System A better alternative is the Tenure-Based Retirement System . Rather than setting a fixed age for retirement, the idea is to define an employee’s career cycle within a company by tenure—say, a 20-year maximum. Such a system allows for natural career reflection without age-based discrimination. More importantly, it promotes a mindset where workers are exp...
続きを読む

How “Incompetent Seniors” Drive Young Employees Away Through Broken OJT Structures

イメージ
 Read the original article (in Japanese): なぜ「OJT」ばかりの企業に若者は定着しないのか？　上司が部下育成を勘違いする理由 「うちはOJTで育てる」と胸を張る企業がある。OJTとはOn-the-Job Trainingの略で、現場で実務を通じて部 www.itmedia.co.jp Introduction: Is “We Train Through OJT” a Cop-Out? “We develop people through OJT”—how many times have we heard this in Japanese workplaces? On-the-Job Training (OJT) is originally meant to be a practical learning method where skills are honed through real work. Yet in practice, many companies abuse this term as a way to justify throwing new employees into unfamiliar tasks without guidance. This leads to frustration, underperformance, and ultimately, resignation. This article explores why such “OJT in name only” is problematic and what structural improvements companies must make—drawing comparisons to the foundational training methods found in sports and the arts. 1. Without Form, Growth Can’t Begin Karate, Baseball, and Art: Why Mastery Begins with Form Karate has kata. Baseball has standard stances and pitching mechani...
続きを読む