Aging population is good or bad for society (Let task 2)

less children than elderly people

PEOPLE HAVE FEWER CHILDREN, MANY SOCIETIES HAVE A POPULATION WITH MORE OLD THAN YOUNG.
DO YOU THINK IT IS GOOD OR BAD FOR SOCIETIES.

Nowadays, the more society develops, the busier people are. Therefore, people do not have much more time to take care of themselves and their families. As a result , they have fewer kids and many societies face a population with less young than old. From my perspective, the phenomenon is bad for societies because it make bad effects for labour markets and governments will spend much more money for welfare. Also, economy will develop more slowly.

First of all, having fewer children and aging population are bad for societies because they make negative effects for labour markets. That is, the number of workers will reduce in the future. For example, a country has much less junior workers to senior workers will face lack of employees when their senior workers retire. As people understand, younger people are active and have many new ideas, so if companies do not have enough younger employees, they will loss many active ideas. If the number of kids is equal to the number of seniors, countries will have enough workers and many innovative ideas. There in, the government should encourage people to have enough children.

Secondly, welfare for the elderly is a negative effect that many societies having a population with less young than old face. In other word, when a population has too much older people, the government have to pay much more money for welfare. Also, citizens have to pay more money for tax and health care of their older relatives. If it is a balance between the younger and the elderly, each person will spend less money on tax and health care for the elderly.

Last but not least, there are no doubt that aging population and having fewer children make economic development slow down.In fact, today, many countries need to hire international workers to ensure the number of workers. Consequently, the domestic income will reduce. If these countries do not have to employ international workers , the countries' income will not decrease. Therefore, their economy can develop faster.

To sum up, aging population and having fewer children make countries face the lack of workers and the increase of welfare. Also, economy will develop less. Therefore, the phenomenon brings some drawbacks for societies.

@Tracytrinh1998
Hi Tracy, in my opinion, i have some feedback to you.
In your introduction, the last sentence is too short, you should combine with the previous sentence.
In the second paragraph in the body paragraph, instead of use phrase: "pay more money for tax ", you can use a phrase " a greater tax burden for...", i think this phrase will be interesting. Moreover, i use too much word " therefore", you can use the synonymous word such as: hence, thus.

And in your conclusion, some sentences is too short.

Chinh, your essay veers off the discussion points towards the end of the essay. What do domestic workers have to do with the issue being discussed? Stick the main discussion points which are whether or not it is good for a society to have fewer younger people and more older people. The problem, is that you do not fully discuss each reason per paragraph and sometimes, your sentence structure tends to confuse the reader.

Another time that your discussion doesn't really flow well is when you discuss the economy. Why will the economy grow more slowly if there are more older people? This is the part where you discussed the domestic workers in the country. That is an irrelevant discussion because that does not relate to the discussion of one generation being lesser than the other.

You are also confusing retirement benefits with welfare. Welfare is paid out to people who are not working. Pensions are retirement allowances given to the elderly who have worked for a period of time. The government is the one in charge of the pensions, just as they are in charge of welfare. However, welfare and pensions are two separate things that have nothing to do with the tax that was paid to the government.

There is an obvious lack of understanding of the given prompt on your part. You are not properly discussing the prompt because your reasoning is not very relevant to the topic and tends to confuse the reader who may be more informed that you are about the given topic. So the tendency is for your explanation to be incomplete, uninformed, and not really convincing in relation to the discussion.

I'm glad to see your essential feedback. I will try to use words that have accurate meaning.
I'm confusing that LET test require 3 paragraph for essay's body. When I read the topic sentence, I cant think enough information to support my essay.