Gen Z: Working Just Enough, for a Fuller Life

Four figures — access, quality, time, and money — capture the overall state of Indonesia's labor market, covering the entire workforce across generations. The specific experiences of Gen Z and millennials are discussed in the following section, using data that measures those two generations directly. The primary source is the May 2026 National Labor Force Survey (Sakernas), the latest BPS release, published August 5, 2026.

Access: the door is widening for almost everyone, except the youngest. According to the May 2026 Sakernas, the national Open Unemployment Rate (TPT) stood at 4.65%, equivalent to 7.22 million unemployed people, down from 4.68% in February 2026 (BPS, 2026c). According to M. Edy Mahmud, BPS Deputy for National Accounts and Statistical Analysis, this is the lowest figure since 1994, as reported by Detikcom (2026). The opposite trend appears among the youngest age group. The TPT for ages 15–24 rose to 17.37% in May 2026, up from 16.36% in February 2026 and 16.26% in November 2025 — a rising trend across the last three survey periods, as reported by CNBC Indonesia (2026c). Over the same period, the TPT for the 25–59 age group actually fell to 2.56%. In other words, as the national labor market improved overall, the age group overlapping with the youngest members of Gen Z moved in the opposite direction.

Quality: nearly six in ten workers are in the informal sector. Of the 148.19 million people employed as of May 2026, 87.88 million, or 59.30%, worked in the informal sector, while 60.31 million, or 40.70%, were in the formal sector, as reported by CNBC Indonesia (2026b). BPS defines informal workers as those who are self-employed, self-employed with the help of temporary workers, casual workers, and unpaid family workers. This group generally falls outside standard labor protections such as severance pay, paid leave, and employer-provided social security.

Time: a third of workers work fewer than 35 hours a week. Of all people employed in May 2026, 98.98 million, or 66.80%, held full-time status, working 35 hours or more per week. The remainder splits into two groups that both work under 35 hours a week but occupy different positions. Part-time workers numbered 38.42 million, or 25.93% — those who are not looking for and not willing to take on additional work. Underemployed workers numbered 10.79 million, or 7.28% — those who are still looking for or willing to accept additional work. BPS refers to the combination of the two as underutilized workers, accounting for 33.20% of all employed people.

Money: the youngest workers sit at the bottom of the wage ladder. The average wage for laborers, employees, and staff as of May 2026 stood at Rp3.39 million per month (BPS, 2026c). This figure covers only wage-earning workers — laborers, employees, and staff — who make up 37.09% of all employed people, meaning it describes roughly a third of the labor market.

Broken down by age group, the gap is stark. According to the February 2026 Sakernas, workers aged 15–19 earned the lowest average wage, at Rp1.99 million, while the 55–59 age group earned the highest, at Rp3.77 million (BPS, 2026a). For a comparison against price increases, the only year-over-year comparison BPS itself publishes comes from the August period: average wages grew 1.94%, from Rp3.27 million in August 2024 to Rp3.33 million in August 2025 (BPS, 2025a), while annual inflation in August 2025 stood at 2.31% (BPS, 2025b). Over that period, average wage growth ran slightly below the rise in prices for goods and services. The most recent annual inflation figure, for July 2026, stood at 2.88%, higher than the 2.37% recorded in July 2025 (BPS, 2026b).

Taken together, these four figures describe a labor market full of trade-offs. Jobs are growing and national unemployment has fallen to its lowest point in three decades. At the same time, most available jobs are in the informal sector, a third of workers have yet to secure full-time hours, the youngest workers earn the lowest wages, and the entry point for young people is actually narrowing. Access to jobs, job quality, working hours, and income are all moving in different directions.

These four figures lay out the terms facing anyone entering the labor market today. The next question is one of judgment: how do Gen Z and millennials themselves weigh work under these conditions?

For the Indonesian context, the most relevant and reasonably recent source is the Workplace Happiness Index Indonesia 2025–2026 report from Jobstreet by SEEK. The report was produced with research firm Nature based on an online survey of roughly 1,000 respondents aged 18–64 in Indonesia's labor market, conducted October–November 2025 (Jobstreet by SEEK, 2026).

Two things determine how the figures below should be read. This is commercial market research with a sample of around a thousand people, so its directional findings are more reliable than its exact decimal figures. And all respondents come from formal employment backgrounds, as reported by Kompas.id (2026). Given that 59.30% of Indonesian workers are in the informal sector, this report captures a minority of the national labor market — albeit the minority most relevant to corporate brands and employers. These two caveats apply to every Jobstreet figure that appears in this article.

The core value of this report lies in how it breaks down work priorities by generation. Citing Infobanknews' (2026a) coverage of the report's launch media briefing, millennials ranked work-life balance (76%), company culture (74%), and job security (73%) as the three most important drivers of their job happiness. Gen Z ranked work-life balance (69%), the option to work from home (69%), and a meaningful sense of purpose at work (68%) at the top. Gen X chose a different combination altogether: responsibility and type of work (78%), team and colleagues (74%), and the role of their manager (65%).

This pattern offers three concrete insights. Gen Z and millennials both place work-life balance first. Millennials add job security to their top three, likely because they're generally at a different career stage and level of life responsibility. Gen Z adds location flexibility and meaningful work. Speed of promotion doesn't appear in anyone's top three.

The same report also notes a satisfaction gap across generations. Gen X appears as the most satisfied group, with a job happiness rate of 85%, followed by millennials at 84%, while Gen Z posted the lowest figure, at 76%. According to the report, Gen Z workers just starting their careers often feel undervalued and struggle to connect their daily tasks to the company's broader goals (Jobstreet by SEEK, 2026). Beyond that, 43% of Indonesian workers across generations report experiencing mental exhaustion or burnout, and 40% of those who describe themselves as happy also report experiencing it.

Deloitte's annual survey of 22,595 Gen Z and millennial respondents across 44 countries reinforces this picture from another angle, as it includes more than 500 Indonesian respondents and publishes their data as a separate breakdown.

The Indonesia breakdown is sharper than the global average. Only 3% of Gen Z and 2% of millennials in Indonesia name leadership as their primary career goal, compared to 6% globally. At the same time, 85% of Gen Z and 81% of millennials in Indonesia say they want to hold a leadership position at some point in their career — both above the global average. Financial independence is the top career goal for Indonesian Gen Z, at 29%, followed by the desire to become an expert in a specific field, at 25%, while millennials rank work-life balance and financial stability at the top, as reported by CNBC Indonesia (2026d) and Bisnis.com (2026).

The most interesting figure concerns who already holds responsibility. 59% of Gen Z and 79% of millennials in Indonesia already manage or supervise a team, far above the global averages of 45% and 61%. This generation is shouldering structural responsibility earlier than their peers in many other countries, while still refusing to make rank their main goal. According to Deloitte, concerns about stress, burnout, and disrupted work-life balance are the main reasons they hold off.

Two other Deloitte figures apply globally: 25% of Gen Z and 21% of millennials choose a fast-track promotion path, and 55% of Gen Z and 52% of millennials delay major life decisions due to financial constraints (Deloitte Global, 2026). Cross-country variation on the second indicator is fairly wide — Thailand posts 65% and 57% — so both figures are best read as points of comparison rather than as Indonesia-specific numbers.

This shift is often told as though it were a single phenomenon. It's more accurately seen as a spectrum with three layers, each differing in depth and consequence.

Layer one, values: anti-hustle and soft life. This is the layer with the lightest consequences and the broadest reach — a shift in how people view work. People at this layer keep working as usual, while no longer treating endless overtime or climbing the ladder as fast as possible as an automatically desirable life goal. The data in the previous section is most relevant to this layer: both the Jobstreet findings in Indonesia and Deloitte's Indonesia breakdown place work-life balance and meaningful work above speed of promotion. What's being measured here is preference, and preference tends to move faster than behavior.

Layer two, behavior: quiet quitting. This concerns effort within the job someone already holds. People keep showing up and keep completing their tasks, while no longer doing things outside their job description — extra initiative, voluntary overtime, and the emotional investment once considered a given. The conversation around this is fairly active in Indonesian workplace discourse — in the media, on social media, and in HR conversations.

Layer three, career decisions: downshifting. This is the layer with the deepest consequences: a structural decision to change one's career trajectory by accepting a lower salary, position, or status in exchange for time, flexibility, or quality of life. Unlike the two layers before it, downshifting carries long-term financial consequences and is usually hard to reverse. In Indonesia, this phenomenon most often surfaces as personal stories: essays, social media threads, and anecdotal accounts of people moving to smaller towns, leaving corporate jobs to start small businesses, or choosing freelance work with lower income but more flexible time.

These three layers stand independently of one another. Some people who are anti-hustle keep working as usual. Some who quiet-quit stop there and continue on the same career path. Someone can stop at the values layer, and that remains a valid stopping point in its own right.

There's one thing that explains why this shift is hard to quantify, and the explanation is more interesting than the absence of data itself.

Labor statistics are designed to answer three questions: whether someone is working, how many hours they work, and how much they're paid. All three questions stop at the surface of the working relationship. Someone who consciously limits their effort is still recorded as a full-time worker, working 35-plus hours a week, in formal employment, earning the same wage as before. Someone who trades part of their income for time is still recorded as employed — just under a different line in the data.

That means people can move across all three layers above without shifting a single statistical category. What changes is their relationship with work, and that relationship doesn't yet have a measurement tool. The three layers above are therefore more useful read as a map of the shapes this change can take, rather than as a measure of how many workers have actually made the shift. We'll return to this measurement gap in the policy section, because that's where its consequences are most keenly felt.

The biggest temptation in writing about downshifting is to flatten it into an inspiring story about young people brave enough to choose happiness over money. That flattening obscures the most important thing to understand: this is a trade-off, and it comes at a cost.

Downshifting means trading part of one's income, status, or career progression for time, flexibility, or quality of life. Wage data helps explain why that trade-off is a heavy one for most Indonesian workers. With a national average wage of Rp3.39 million per month in May 2026, and workers aged 15–19 earning just Rp1.99 million in February 2026, there's little room to give up income. Anyone making this kind of decision likely needs some financial cushion — savings, family support, or a partner's income.

There's a much smaller and more observable version of this trade-off: salary negotiation. Jobstreet by SEEK's Salary Pulse 2026 report, produced with Nature based on a survey of 1,010 professional workers in February 2026, found Gen Z to be the most willing to initiate conversations about pay raises. 60% of Gen Z initiated that conversation themselves with a manager or HR, compared to 55% of millennials and 37% of Gen X, as reported by CNBC Indonesia (2026a).

That combination is striking precisely because it's counterintuitive. The group with the lowest average wages and the highest unemployment rate is also the group most actively negotiating compensation. The same report found that 49% of Gen Z feel their salary is already fair — the same share as millennials — as reported by Infobanknews (2026b). Here, the willingness to negotiate grows alongside satisfaction, which makes this pattern different from demands born of a sense of being shortchanged. Their career trajectory and employment status also remain intact, which sets this apart from downshifting. But the underlying logic is similar, just at a smaller scale: a willingness to reconsider what counts as fair compensation.

The same nuance applies to the other two layers. Someone can hold anti-hustle values while still working hard because their economic circumstances leave no other option. Someone can quiet-quit because they feel their extra effort has never been fairly recognized — a response to perceived inequity.

The labor market conditions described at the start of this article function as the structural backdrop — the conditions that make this kind of trade-off worth considering, without being its cause. One Deloitte finding shows why that distinction matters. Unlike the pattern in many other countries, where cost of living tops the list of concerns, young Indonesian workers actually name corruption as their biggest social concern. Economic pressure remains real in BPS data, but the lens this generation uses to read their own lives isn't necessarily an economic one.

One thread connects this entire article to consumer decisions, and that thread is time.

As people begin to recalculate how much time and energy is worth handing over to work, the same calculation applies to the rest of their lives. Time stops being something simply available and starts having a price. The sharper question, then — sharper than "how do we understand Gen Z" — is this: once time has a price, what starts to count as worth paying for?

The following three directions flow from that logic, and all three are hypotheses. No national-scale spending or consumer research yet links this shift in work values to growth in any specific category, so none of the three should be read as a prediction of which category will grow.

First, time given back. The claim "this product is convenient" stops at the feature level. A more relevant claim touches the outcome: this product keeps time from being consumed by things that don't matter. The value of time saved differs by segment, and the makeup of the labor market explains why.

For full-time formal-sector workers, time given back means rest breaks that are actually used for rest. For the 10.79 million underemployed workers — by definition, those still looking for or willing to accept extra work — time given back means capacity to earn more. For the 38.42 million part-time workers, who by BPS's definition are not seeking extra hours, the value of time lies elsewhere: caregiving, a home business, or education. These three needs demand different product messaging even within the same category — for example, in food delivery, household services, fintech, personal care, and mobility.

Second, time enjoyed and redirected elsewhere. When work stops being someone's sole source of identity, time for hobbies, friends, family, community, and rest gains its own value. For brands, this opens up a broader context than simply selling career aspiration. The shape of that time matters too: limited leisure time that's hard to plan far in advance makes short, flexible experiences more accessible than big vacations requiring long stretches of leave. The same applies to wellness, which is better read as a need to recover energy than as a marker of expensive self-care status — especially given that 43% of Indonesian workers report burnout.

Third, time carries a new price, while budgets stay the same. This point is the one most often missed when shifts in work values get translated into consumption opportunities. A change in preference doesn't add to purchasing power. With an average wage of Rp3.39 million per month and annual inflation at 2.88% in July 2026, people who want more time still face the same budget, so they won't necessarily become premium consumers. Price sensitivity is likely to persist, with an emphasis on value transparency: budget-conscious consumers tend to scrutinize more closely whether a price is worth what they get — including whether it's worth the time traded to earn it.

All three need validation through consumer research specific to each brand's category and audience, including research that actually breaks its data down by generation.

The measurement gap that surfaces in the three-layer section carries a fairly direct policy consequence.

Indonesia's current labor indicators record status: employed or unemployed, formal or informal, full-time or underutilized, and how much someone earns. Those indicators work well for the questions they're designed to answer. The problem arises when meaningful change happens within the same category. A full-time formal-sector worker on a fixed wage can undergo a major shift in their relationship with work, and none of that shift moves a single number.

Measuring job quality in a way that's closer to workers' actual experience therefore needs to reach dimensions not yet counted: income, certainty, working hours, flexibility, autonomy over how and when one works, and the space for life left over after work ends. These six elements are already starting to appear in commercial research like Jobstreet's, just on a sample of a thousand people from the formal sector alone. What's still missing is a national-scale measurement.

Two points illustrate why that matters.

Flexibility has two different origins, and current statistics don't distinguish between them. Someone who chooses flexibility by preference and someone who ends up in flexible work because every other option is closed off are recorded in the same category. The 59.30% share of informal workers and the 10.79 million underemployed workers show that in Indonesia, flexibility often arrives as a condition people accept rather than choose. Without data that separates the two, policy responses for each are hard to distinguish too — even though one group needs expanded protection and the other needs a different kind of employment arrangement altogether.

Job quality needs to be read alongside job quantity. A national TPT of 4.65%, the lowest since 1994, sits right next to a TPT of 17.37% for ages 15–24, which has risen across two consecutive survey periods. One figure signals success; the other signals a problem — and both come from the same survey. The four indicators at the start of this article form a more complete sequence: access, quality, time, and money. Labor market success is therefore better measured by the kind of job people get, how many hours they work, and whether their income is enough to sustain a life.

Work has stopped being the single bet everything rides on, while still mattering to Gen Z and millennials in Indonesia. What's changed is its position: from an automatic measure of success to one of several things that must be negotiated alongside time, money, and quality of life.

This shift is also far from uniform. Some people stop at the values layer. Some adjust their effort within the job they already have. A smaller number make the structural decision to trade part of their income or status for more room to live. All three emerge on the same terrain — Indonesia's labor market, with its varying trade-offs between access, quality, time, and income.

For marketers, what matters most is the logic behind these terms. As the calculation of how much time, money, and effort is worth giving to work changes, that same calculation may reshape what people consider worth paying for in the rest of their lives. That's a useful hypothesis for guiding further research, and testing it remains an open question.

References

Titles below are retained in their original Indonesian, as they refer to actual Indonesian-language publications.

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2025a, November 5). Tingkat pengangguran terbuka (TPT) sebesar 4,85 persen. Rata-rata upah buruh sebesar 3,33 juta rupiah [Berita Resmi Statistik No. 103/11/Th. XXVIII]. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.bps.go.id/id/pressrelease/2025/11/05/2479/tingkat-pengangguran-terbuka-tpt-sebesar-4-85-persen-rata-rata-upah-buruh-sebesar-3-33-juta-rupiah-.html

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2025b, September 1). Inflasi y-on-y pada bulan Agustus 2025 sebesar 2,31 persen [Berita Resmi Statistik]. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.bps.go.id/id/pressrelease/2025/09/01/2459/inflasi-y-on-y-pada-bulan-agustus-2025-sebesar-2-31-persen--inflasi-provinsi-y-on-y-tertinggi-terjadi-di-provinsi-sumatera-utara-sebesar-4-42-persen-dan-inflasi-kabupaten-kota-y-on-y-tertinggi-terjadi-di-kabupaten-deli-serdang-sebesar-5-79-persen-.html

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2026a, May 5). Tingkat pengangguran terbuka (TPT) sebesar 4,68 persen. Rata-rata upah buruh sebesar 3,29 juta rupiah [Berita Resmi Statistik No. 49/05/Th. XXIX]. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.bps.go.id/id/pressrelease/2026/05/05/2574/tingkat-pengangguran-terbuka--tpt--sebesar-4-68-persen--rata-rata-upah-buruh-sebesar-3-29-juta-rupiah-.html

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2026b, August 3). Inflasi year-on-year (y-on-y) pada Juli 2026 sebesar 2,88 persen [Berita Resmi Statistik]. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.bps.go.id/id/pressrelease/2026/08/03/2601/inflasi-year-on-year--y-on-y--pada-juli-2026-sebesar-2-88-persen-.html

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2026c, August 5). Tingkat pengangguran terbuka (TPT) sebesar 4,65 persen; rata-rata upah buruh sebesar 3,39 juta rupiah [Berita Resmi Statistik]. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.bps.go.id/id/pressrelease/2026/08/05/2606/tingkat-pengangguran-terbuka--tpt--sebesar-4-65-persen---rata-rata-upah-buruh-sebesar-3-39-juta-rupiah-.html

Bisnis.com. (2026, May 23). Survei Deloitte: Adopsi AI Gen Z & milenial Indonesia lampaui rata-rata global. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://teknologi.bisnis.com/read/20260523/84/1975865/survei-deloitte-adposi-ai-gen-z-milenial-indonesia-lampaui-rata-rata-global

CNBC Indonesia. (2026a, June 23). Gen Z paling berani minta naik gaji, Gen X terima nasib. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/lifestyle/20260623163916-33-745114/gen-z-paling-berani-minta-naik-gaji-gen-x-terima-nasib

CNBC Indonesia. (2026b, August 5). Pekerja paruh waktu RI tembus 38,41 juta orang di Mei 2026. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/news/20260805133643-4-756756/pekerja-paruh-waktu-ri-tembus-3841-juta-orang-di-mei-2026

CNBC Indonesia. (2026c, August 6). Tingkat pengangguran usia 15-24 terus naik, paling banyak lulusan SMK. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/news/20260806131950-4-757114/tingkat-pengangguran-usia-15-24-terus-naik-paling-banyak-lulusan-smk

CNBC Indonesia. (2026d, May 22). Riset menunjukkan Gen Z paling siap pakai AI, tapi... Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/lifestyle/20260522205129-33-737251/riset-menunjukkan-gen-z-paling-siap-pakai-ai-tapi

Deloitte Global. (2026, May 13). 2026 Gen Z and millennial survey. Deloitte. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/issues/work/genz-millennial-survey.html

Detikcom. (2026, August 5). BPS ungkap jumlah pengangguran turun, ini datanya. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://finance.detik.com/berita-ekonomi-bisnis/d-8606104/bps-ungkap-jumlah-pengangguran-turun-ini-datanya

Infobanknews. (2026a, February 4). Bukan gaji, ini 5 faktor yang bikin pekerja Indonesia paling bahagia se-Asia Pasifik. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://infobanknews.com/bukan-gaji-ini-5-faktor-yang-bikin-pekerja-indonesia-paling-bahagia/

Infobanknews. (2026b, June 23). Jobstreet: Gen Z paling berani negosiasi gaji, 83 persen berhasil naikkan pendapatan. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://infobanknews.com/jobstreet-gen-z-paling-berani-negosiasi-gaji-83-persen-berhasil-naikkan-pendapatan

Jobstreet by SEEK. (2026, February 3). Jobstreet by SEEK rilis "Workplace Happiness Index", Indonesia pimpin tingkat kebahagiaan di tempat kerja di Asia Pasifik [Press release]. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://id.employer.seek.com/market-insights/workplace-happiness-index-2025-id

Kompas.id. (2026, February 3). Survei Jobstreet: Kolega kerja suportif jadi faktor utama kebahagiaan karyawan Indonesia. Retrieved August 14, 2026, from https://www.kompas.id/artikel/en-survei-jobstreet-kolega-kerja-suportif-jadi-faktor-utama-kebahagiaan-karyawan-indonesia