Countries should restrict foreign companies from opening offices and factories in order to protect local businesses. Do you agree or disagree?
It is widely argued that the government should impose a limitation on multinational corporations in terms of establishing offices and plants to provide local companies with the protection. From my perspective, I firmly disagree with given statement, as foreign fundings can bring several benefits, including a decrease in the unemployment rate and the development of a skilled workforce.
Firstly, global companies play crucial roles in increasing the employment rate for the countries that they invest in. To be more specific, they frequently offer a wide range of job openings each year, with higher salaries and better benefits in kind compared to domestic enterprises. For example, several multinational companies in Viet Nam, such as Nike, Sam Sung, hire thousands of workers and officers each year, helping to decrease the numbers of unemployment. As a result, employees no longer face with a lack of job opportunities..
Another benefit is that working for foreign companies assists workers in developing their skills. This means that they have a chance to cope with new methods, and the advances in technology, which are not available in their home countries. Normally, when employees enter factories, they will be trained on how to run the automatic machines, the regulations in the workplace, and the ability to understand some foreign languages. Thanks to these instructions, workers can acquire new knowledge in the development of technology in order to improve their productivity and performance.
In conclusion, for the reasons mentioned above, I strongly disagree with the view that some nations should limit foreign investment in building offices and factories in their countries to protect domestic companies. This is because these foreign companies may annually offer more job opportunities and enhance the quality of workers.
It is widely argued that the government should impose a limitation on multinational corporations in terms of establishing offices and plants to provide local companies with the protection. From my perspective, I firmly disagree with given statement, as foreign fundings can bring several benefits, including a decrease in the unemployment rate and the development of a skilled workforce.
Firstly, global companies play crucial roles in increasing the employment rate for the countries that they invest in. To be more specific, they frequently offer a wide range of job openings each year, with higher salaries and better benefits in kind compared to domestic enterprises. For example, several multinational companies in Viet Nam, such as Nike, Sam Sung, hire thousands of workers and officers each year, helping to decrease the numbers of unemployment. As a result, employees no longer face with a lack of job opportunities..
Another benefit is that working for foreign companies assists workers in developing their skills. This means that they have a chance to cope with new methods, and the advances in technology, which are not available in their home countries. Normally, when employees enter factories, they will be trained on how to run the automatic machines, the regulations in the workplace, and the ability to understand some foreign languages. Thanks to these instructions, workers can acquire new knowledge in the development of technology in order to improve their productivity and performance.
In conclusion, for the reasons mentioned above, I strongly disagree with the view that some nations should limit foreign investment in building offices and factories in their countries to protect domestic companies. This is because these foreign companies may annually offer more job opportunities and enhance the quality of workers.
