Companies should encourage employees who work in a high position to leave at the age of 55 in order to give opportunities to the new generation.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
I totally disagree with the idea of high-level employees leaving at the age of 55 to make room for the upcoming generation. While it is true that the energy level and fresh ideas of youth can rejuvenate a company, the steady hand of experience can still best guide a company in most cases.
In English there is a saying, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In the fast-paced world of business, bolstered by even faster hi-tech innovations, a younger more pliant mind would seem to be able to adapt with greater flexibility, while such an environment might boggle an older more set-in-its-ways mind. Take, for example, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, whose energy and brilliant insights as a youth helped him to pioneer new territory in the computer software world and establish a digital empire. Now as a more mature CEO, this king of the “computer” mountain is constantly on the verge of being knocked down by upcoming digeratti entrepreneurs. However, it is now the experience he has accumulated as an older man which keeps him on top. So, combining the vigour and innovation of younger workers with the experience of older workers would seem to be the winning hand in the world of business.
The assertion is to give opportunities to the younger generation. If everyone retires at 55, there will be smaller pool of experience at the company. So, who will show them the ropes of the trade? It would be as if we lopped off the last few chapters of a textbook. On this point the argument would seem to be built on false presumptions.
And think of all the other problems retirement at 55 would create. With life expectancy in many advanced nations at 70-plus years, how would the state along with private enterprises be able to support their retirement pensions? The economic repercussions of such an idea could be great.
Besides, the Western form of capitalism is built on competition and merit and not seniority according to age, and democracy is built on equality for all regardless of one’s age, so the argument clearly goes against these two pillars of Western society.
Granted, my counter-arguments are perhaps as simplistic as the original assertion itself, but without qualifying the assertion with greater supporting evidence or background information, both sides can be argued. Nevertheless, even after thoroughly considering the argument, I believe I would still adhere to my viewpoint that the assertion lacks merit for the aforementioned reasons. Besides, when I am 55 I do not fancy the idea of being put out to pasture. I think I will still be full of vitality and have a desire to work, so I hope my workplace will view me as a treasure house of valuable experience to pass along to the next generation and keep me on until I am at least 65 if not older.
129. In some countries the average worker is obliged to retire at the age of 50, while in others people can work until they are 65 or 70. Meanwhile, we see some politicians enjoying power well into their eighties. Clearly, there is little agreement on an appropriate retirement age. Until what age do you think people should be encouraged to remain in paid employment?
Mandatory retirement age varies from society to society, perhaps a reflection of economics, population pressures or simply value systems. Indeed, retirement at 50 can probably be as easily justified as that at 70. It is my belief, however, that the longer an able person is allowed to work, the better for both the individual worker and the employer.
Chronological age is not always a true indicator of ability. While some 65 year-olds may not perform as well as they did in their past, many workers at this age do just as well or better than they used to. People's suitability for a position should be a reflection of their performance in the job, rather than the number of wrinkles or grey hairs they have. Employers concerned about the increasing age of their employees need only observe their work records. Those doing poorly may be asked to retire, but those as yet unaffected by age should stay on. Indeed, it would appear economical for an organisation to retain its older employees when possible rather than spend time and money on training new workers.
Remaining in one's job for as long as one is able makes sense as life expectancies increase around the world. As people live longer, they are longer able to contribute to society in the form of meaningful work. But they are also in need of income for a longer period, so a mandatory retirement age of 55 for someone who is statistically likely to live to 77 becomes increasingly difficult to justify. At a time when populations are ageing, governments are less able to provide for their senior citizens, so by keeping able workers in paid employment for as long as is practicable, public expenditures are less strained.
Thus, workers who can still demonstrate their capacity to carry out their work should not be asked to retire simply because they have reached a certain age. Societies that insist on early retirement may do well to look again at their policies.
130. When should people be made to retire? 55? 65? Should there be a compulsory retirement age?
Many old people work well into their 70s and 80s, running families, countries or corporations. Other people, however, despite being fit and highly talented, are forced to retire in their or even earlier because of company or national regulations. This essay will examine whether people should be allowed to continue working for as long as they want or whether they should be encouraged to retire at a particular stage.
There are several arguments for allowing older people to continue working as long as they are able. First of all, older employees have an immense amount of knowledge and experience which can be lost to a business or organization if they are made to retire. A second point is that older employees are often extremely loyal employees and are more willing to implement company policies than younger less committed staff. However, a more important point is regarding the attitudes in society to old people. To force someone to resign or retire at 60 or 65 indicates that the society does not value the input of these people and that effectively their useful life is over.
Allowing older people to work indefinitely however is not always a good policy. Age alone is no guarantee of ability. Many younger employees have more experience or skills than older staff, who may have been stuck in one area or unit for most of their working lives. Having compulsory retirement allows new ideas in an organization. In addition, without age limits, however arbitrary, many people would continue to work purely because they did not have any other plans or roles. A third point of view is that older people should be rewarded by society for their life’s labor by being given generous pensions and the freedom to enjoy their leisure.
With many young people unemployed or frustrated in low-level positions, there are often calls to compulsorily retire older workers. However, this can affect the older individual’s freedom - and right - to work and can deprive society of valuable experience and insights. I feel that giving workers more flexibility and choice over their retirement age will benefit society and the individual.
131. Some people insist that senior workers 65 or over should retire but others believe that they should continue working. What is you opinion?
Over the past few decades [In the past], there have been many advances in medical technology. Because of this, senior citizens are healthier and more active than before and may choose to work beyond the age of 65. Nowadays, however, there has been a growing debate as to whether or not these people should retire in order to create jobs for the younger generation. Despite the advantages of early retirement, I strongly believe that it is better for senior workers to continue working as long as they are physically and mentally capable.
Those who believe that senior workers need to retire for younger generation base their case on the following arguments. First, the unemployment rate, especially for college graduates, has never been so high so it is today. This is largely due to the slow economy. Therefore, firing some elderly workers who are well-paid would allow those unemployed young people to have good opportunities to get a job. In addition, replacing older workers with young people would bring greater benefits to companies [=employers]. This is because youngsters are better at adapting themselves to fast changing information based society. They are generally better at computers and speaking foreign languages than their older counterparts.
Nevertheless, people should not ignore the fact that senior citizens have been playing vital roles both at home and at work for their entire lives. To begin with, a young person's need for a job is no more important than an older person's. Both have a responsibility to support their families. Sadly, few seniors can afford early retirement. Besides, senior workers provide the wisdom and experience that young employees cannot offer. There is strong [=acute] possibility of situations arising that require the knowledge of skilled senior employees.
In summary, the advantages of keeping seasoned workers far outweigh its disadvantages. There are high hopes that employers exercise wisdom [=caution] in dealing with this issue.
132. International entertainers, including sports personalities, often get paid millions of dollars in one year. In your view, with widespread pverty in the world, are these huge earnings justified?
The salaries of many singers, dancers and sports people have increased out of all proportion in recent years, while in places like Sudan people are starving to death. I do not beleive that anyone should be able to earn such enormous salaries whan so many people in the world are living in poverty.
One af the factors which should affect what a person can earn ought to be the benefit of person's work to society. It is unreasonable for a famous singer to be able to earn far more from an evening's entertainment than, for instance, a medical scientist who develops a new drug which produces a treatment for a common disease. The pop star certainly has a value in society, but the value in no way exceeds, or even matches, the value gained from a successful medication.
Secondly. work done should be paid according to the amount of effort and skill that goes into it. Nobody would deny that a famous person works hard and is skillful, yet such people do not work any harder than thousand of other workers who have no claim to fame. Yet market force are such that these superstarts can obtain millions of dolor while other unknown people sometimes earn less than they need to survive.
Finally, it should be possible for governments to work together to ensure that the amount of money in circulation should be more more equally and fairly distributed. This seems only fair given that there are so many suffering.
To conclude, it is clear that world poverty is a serious problem and yet the problem could be eased if governments and compenies gave more thought to paying salaries on a more equitable basis and if they started to contribute more money to those in need.
133. Many people think that nowadays people are being subjected to more and more pressure in their work, and thus are having less and less time to relax. What is your opinion?
In modern society, especially in big cities, undoubtedly hard work has become a very important feature of ordinary people’s everyday life. It seems that many people are under the impression that their work is becoming more pressing and urgent, and thus they sacrifice more and more leisure time.
In the first place, with the rapid development of science and technology, work today is more demanding than it used to be. For example, college graduates nowadays have to master English, computer science and driving skills before they can find decent jobs. People have to spend more time acquiring new techniques and skills. And their spare time tends to be fully occupied, not with leisure pursuit, but with work-related pursuits.
In the second place, competition is becoming more intense. Many people feel anxious that they may be “laid-off” if they can’t work as hard as others. And they also feel at a disadvantage before new graduates. Therefore, it is understandable that people keep themselves involved in intensely hard work in order to preserve their positions.
In my opinion, the worst aspect of this phenomenon is that the huge pressure of work will gradually affect people’s mental health. Excessively hard work means that people can never get rid of the fatigue of their work, even in their leisure time. This means that they can not enjoy a normal life.
In a word, in modern society overwork is stealing our leisure time. however, I believe this problem will be settled eventually with the development of science and technology.
134. People have different job expectations for jobs. Some people prefer to do the same job for the same company, whereas others prefer to change jobs frequently. Write about the advantages and disadvantages of each viewpoint?
In the modern workplace there is no longer the attitude that ‘a job is for life’. Nowadays, many people take the option to change jobs, while others prefer not to. In my essay, I will explore the good and bad points of the above attitudes.
One of the main benefits of staying in one job is security. Changing employer often means a period of instability, where one may have to think about moving house, or temporarily losing a steady source of income. Staying in one job means these problems are avoided.
Another benefit of not changing occupation is that one is able to gain a lot of experience and expertise in his specific profession, thus enhancing job security. One’s company may recognize their loyalty and reward their service. On the other hand, those who often change jobs may be seen as unreliable, lacking in experience and employers might be reluctant to hire and invest training in them.
However, there are arguments in favour of changing job frequently. One is that a worker improves his employability. Working in several different jobs often means that the individual has more skills. Such people are seen as more dynamic and versatile.
Another benefit of changing jobs frequently is that one never gets stuck in a rut. From my own experience, I got bored when I spent too long in a job. Following this, the quality of my work would suffer. I also believe that employers generally don’t tend to greatly reward loyalty or commitment. Increased wages and promotion are often easier to attain by changing jobs.
Overall, it can be said that the disadvantages of changing jobs are the advantages of staying put, and vice versa... In my opinion, I feel that changing jobs every once in a while is of more benefit.