Hi everyone,
I am an ESL student, and I have big trouble in wording while preparing for a competition. I have written a passage about this question:
Some people believe that delayed retirement is squeezing out young workers. Do you agree or disagree?
However, there are plenty of problems in this passage. I know that many sentences (esp. those in bold) are hard to read, but I fail to find a better way to construct them. The structure of this passage is quite messy, and I fail to write a nice ending, I suppose.
It would also be helpful if you have suggestions on writing argumentative essays about unfamiliar fields when not allowed to search for any information.
Please do help me! I have only one week left to prepare and now I am almost desperate.
The world is aging. As average human longevity is expanding, the greater percentage of seniors in the population leads to a labor force shortage. Therefore, many national legal systems shifted to a delayed retirement, first in European countries, now introduced into China. According to a report in May 2019, the number of over 70s still working has more than doubled in a decade to nearly half a million in Britain. It seems inevitable that the old would hold up their present positions, and thus some argue that they block the young people's way to an employment. However, retiring after 60 would not reduce the chance for young men to have a decent job .
One rationale of delayed retirement is that the young and the old contend for respective positions. Different people satisfy different needs. Having had a longer working experience usually means that you are more likely to understand the issues from a broader view than those younger. Thus most managerial and consultative positions are targeted at seniors, and some of them are even advertised with an age limitation.So even if a vacancy occurs due to an early retirement, they are intended for middle-aged groups rather than those in their twenties or thirties. On the other hand, tech and other rapid-changing industries prefer younger men. The average age of employees in such companies is usually below 35. Although some positions grant access to both groups, age is always taken into consideration.
Another reason is that the number of jobs available never stays the same. After postponing the retirement age, the elders would certainly stay longer in their positions, but the job market is not a stiff wooden chest. There can be more elder people in the market, yet not necessarily less young men, especially in this century of Cloud. Mobile phones have lifted us up close to applications, as well as an open, fiercely-battled market, so today's customers ask for faster product iterations to meet their requirements. Under such circumstances, employees have to accomplish more tasks than before. One practical method for corporations is to hire more people, but consider the downhill global economy, few would try to do so in order to save costs. The other is to hire younger staff, since they can endure longer working hours and heavier loads. One notable phenomenon is, in China, companies like Tencent, Netease, and Huawei lay off elderly employees, probably linked to current economic crisis.
Therefore, it might appear that young men would face an unfair competition at the first glance, but the two groups actually seldom are rivals. Even if they can be from time to time, it's not likely that young people are going to suffer. What we shall concern, in fact, is the upcoming unemployment of the elderly. They have been cut off from acquiring new knowledge for a long time, and most trained in a very specific field. So it's tough for them to find a new job in new businesses based on social media and phone apps, which are the most rapid growing sectors. A practical suggestion is that the government should encourage corporations to provide training programs for elderly employees, which help to retain their qualification and adapt themselves to the latest technology and trends.
I am an ESL student, and I have big trouble in wording while preparing for a competition. I have written a passage about this question:
Some people believe that delayed retirement is squeezing out young workers. Do you agree or disagree?
However, there are plenty of problems in this passage. I know that many sentences (esp. those in bold) are hard to read, but I fail to find a better way to construct them. The structure of this passage is quite messy, and I fail to write a nice ending, I suppose.
It would also be helpful if you have suggestions on writing argumentative essays about unfamiliar fields when not allowed to search for any information.
Please do help me! I have only one week left to prepare and now I am almost desperate.
SOME FOR THE ELDERLY, SOME FOR THE YOUTH
The world is aging. As average human longevity is expanding, the greater percentage of seniors in the population leads to a labor force shortage. Therefore, many national legal systems shifted to a delayed retirement, first in European countries, now introduced into China. According to a report in May 2019, the number of over 70s still working has more than doubled in a decade to nearly half a million in Britain. It seems inevitable that the old would hold up their present positions, and thus some argue that they block the young people's way to an employment. However, retiring after 60 would not reduce the chance for young men to have a decent job .
One rationale of delayed retirement is that the young and the old contend for respective positions. Different people satisfy different needs. Having had a longer working experience usually means that you are more likely to understand the issues from a broader view than those younger. Thus most managerial and consultative positions are targeted at seniors, and some of them are even advertised with an age limitation.So even if a vacancy occurs due to an early retirement, they are intended for middle-aged groups rather than those in their twenties or thirties. On the other hand, tech and other rapid-changing industries prefer younger men. The average age of employees in such companies is usually below 35. Although some positions grant access to both groups, age is always taken into consideration.
Another reason is that the number of jobs available never stays the same. After postponing the retirement age, the elders would certainly stay longer in their positions, but the job market is not a stiff wooden chest. There can be more elder people in the market, yet not necessarily less young men, especially in this century of Cloud. Mobile phones have lifted us up close to applications, as well as an open, fiercely-battled market, so today's customers ask for faster product iterations to meet their requirements. Under such circumstances, employees have to accomplish more tasks than before. One practical method for corporations is to hire more people, but consider the downhill global economy, few would try to do so in order to save costs. The other is to hire younger staff, since they can endure longer working hours and heavier loads. One notable phenomenon is, in China, companies like Tencent, Netease, and Huawei lay off elderly employees, probably linked to current economic crisis.
Therefore, it might appear that young men would face an unfair competition at the first glance, but the two groups actually seldom are rivals. Even if they can be from time to time, it's not likely that young people are going to suffer. What we shall concern, in fact, is the upcoming unemployment of the elderly. They have been cut off from acquiring new knowledge for a long time, and most trained in a very specific field. So it's tough for them to find a new job in new businesses based on social media and phone apps, which are the most rapid growing sectors. A practical suggestion is that the government should encourage corporations to provide training programs for elderly employees, which help to retain their qualification and adapt themselves to the latest technology and trends.
