Although all of the negatives of permanent employment that I have talked about so far deal with employees’ hardships, businesses must pay a cost as well. Just to hire a permanent employee, a business must pay for recruitment of university graduates, screening them, and specialized training so that the graduates will have knowledge in whichever department of the company they are placed in. 
2009 was a very hard year for the Japanese economy as it had the worst contraction the country had seen since 1955. Despite extreme economic hardships, some companies no longer had a need for all of their employees due to downsizing, but because of the permanent employment system, those companies could not fire anyone. One such company that faced that problem is Shinano Kogyo, a steel producer. After plunging by 70 percent, the company no longer had a place for all of its full-time workers. Since Shinano Kogyo could not fire them, the company’s idle workers were dispatched to sweep and pick up trash in the local streets, all while being on the steelmaker’s payroll.
On the surface, permanent employment sounds great and at one time it truly was. In the early 20th century it served the Japanese people well and it was exactly what was needed at the time. However, as tough times continue and as businesses continue to struggle, being forced to keep workers that the businesses cannot afford or do not need does not make sense. In order to stay afloat, companies have gone to extreme measures like cutting wages and demoting employees, but then the burden shifts to the employees, many of which cannot survive with getting paid a fraction of what they used to earn. And since businesses have strict practices of which they hire permanent employees, people who are not new university graduates find it tough or even impossible to find full-time jobs in the corporate world. Instead, non-permanent workers are hired where needed and let go just as easily.
Many countries today have problems with jobs and Japan is no different, but where Japan differs is that the issue is not unemployment; but rather, it is actually the opposite. It is Japan’s reluctance to let workers go even when it is impossible to maintain the workforce that has led to many problems. That is a good enough reason alone for Japan to do away with the permanent employment system, or at least make some major changes to it. If the government does not want to completely get rid of permanent employment, then some restrictions should be put in place. For example, allowing permanent employment to live on and adding the stipulation of allowing employees to work there for life only when the company is being profitable. If tough situations arise (like the case is now), then companies should have the choice of letting full-time workers go if it will help the company, but only as a last resort. 
