For many middle-aged workers, the July 1 deadline for the implementation of the reformed pension system heralds a huge change. Even the government's pledge that it would ensure retirees' financial security seems to be insufficient to allay their fears.
The new system does represent an advancement of labor rights, which guarantees us a chance to eat the carrot that has long been hanging in front of us. Although an "elderly economy" still belongs to the future, it has triggered controversy in the present. Some media reported that companies are targeting both white and blue-collar workers above 40 for forced retirement. The optimum career age is now around 35, and anyone over 35 is regarded as starting to lag in productivity.
This is certainly a tragic scene at the end of one's career. At entry level, there is an overflow of university students, while most enterprises only consider applicants who hold at least a master's degree and keep lowering the starting wages. Tuition fees continue to rise rather than fall, since the government considers higher eduction to be a voluntary investment. Investments should produce returns, but the outlook for returns on higher education seems less than promising.
The amount of time spent on studies has increased along with the price of education, but incomes have fallen and the golden career window has shrunk. Facing up to an aging society with an extended life expectancy and a severe imbalance in manpower investment is the real story of Taiwan. Despite being granted a future carrot, it is still a promise of future relief. Who will help us live through the current confusion?
Hence we are rewriting human capital theory, based on factors such as the new retirement pension system, the industrial system and personal career planning, as well as the overall social environment. Today, although higher education no longer guarantees a great career in Taiwan, we can hardly give up our thirst for higher qualifications. As our straightforward career path has become twisted and hopeless, we can see that our educational system and reforms are in fact unable to deal with the massive changes in the workplace.
When the economy was more vibrant, nobody had to work too hard. Take Japan for example: During the economic bubble of the 1980s, many young Japanese chose part-time rather than full-time jobs, hoping to free their minds, and giving rise to the name "freeter." But according to a survey conducted by the Japanese government last year, about 70 percent of the so-called freeters aged between 15 and 34 actually hope to be able to work full-time again. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to restore the economic prosperity of the past.
In Japan's labor market today, one-third of the laborers work part-time or under temporary contracts. Japanese academics ascribe this to the gradually eroding social security system, combined with the youth's unwillingness to have children, which has compounded Japan's problems with an aging population.
On the eve of the implementation of the new pension system, Taiwan is obviously repeating Japan's mistake, as part-time, temporarily leased and contracted jobs will become the norm as enterprises cut back on labor costs. If we look closer, we can see the chain reaction such drastic career changes will set in motion, such as creating work instability. But no one is willing to take the necessary actions to remedy such social changes from an overall perspective.
Perhaps this problem will become more apparent in the next 10 or 20 years. Nevertheless, by following in Japan's footsteps, we may repeatedly miss the chance to remedy the situation.
Jeremy Lu is the chief editor of Mine Magazine.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI AND EDDY CHANG
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS