Is ambition positive or negative?

Posted on April 14, 2012 by Mr Writefix

Is ambition a positive or negative characteristic? Is is necessary for success?

In many situations, ambition is highly regarded. Job applications often ask for ambitious candidates. Entrepreneurs are admired for their ambition and energy, and dynamic countries and cities have ambitious plans for growth. Although ambition has a dark side, this essay will show that we should not be scared of ambition.

Ambition is often associated with negative characteristics such as greed, intolerance, and the drive for power. In the movie Wall Street, the character Gordon Gecko said that greed was good: there were no limits to how much money you could make or how big a company could get. Ambition is also often associated with ruthlessness. It can block out human feelings such as friendship, respect for others, or compassion. Finally, ambition is regarded as being solitary: the individual wants power at any price, and the reward is often loneliness or isolation.

However, these negative associations should not stop us from being ambitious. First of all, being ambitious means understanding that we have value and that we can become better. Without plans, we plan to fail, but ambition helps us map out paths for success in our personal, family, or professional lives. Ambition also teaches resilience. When problems occur, ambitious people find a way around them. In addition, being ambitious should make us adaptable and tolerant: by including other people in our ambitions we all move forward. Ambition does not have to mean a solitary goal: it can be a vision for a city, the elimination of a disease or the improvement of a community.

In conclusion, ambition is often portrayed negatively, particularly by people who have failed themselves. We should not let these people get us down. Without ambition, our lives become mechanical and meaningless. We need to celebrate ambition and enjoy the better present and future it brings.

299 words, 14.9 words per sentence on average

Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Short)

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Some say that economic development is the solution to poverty: others say it is the cause of poverty. What is your opinion?

Many people today have clean water, good food, comfortable houses and money to spend. Billions, however, live in terrible conditions, often without enough to eat. Why is it that, despite all our economic progress, so many people is poor? In this essay I will discuss if the growth of business and capitalism is keeping people in poverty.

It’s easy to blame economic development for many problems. First of all, huge companies exploit the natural resources of countries. Nigeria’s oil, Zimbabwe’s diamonds and the Brazilian forest are used up, but no money goes to the ordinary people. Second, much industry leads to pollution or environmental damage. Huge dam projects in India force people from their homes, and pesticide poisoning kills millions. In addition, companies don’t care about employees. Some even move overnight to different countries, leaving thousands unemployed.

But it’s impossible to turn the clock back and live without economic development. In the first place, any job is better than no job. People need money to buy food, build houses and pay for their children’s medicine. Second, business and trade mean that good governments have money to invest in better infrastructure. They can build better roads, hospitals, sanitation, and schools, thus attracting more development. Finally, large-scale production provides us with cheap clothes, food, electronic goods and other luxuries. Only free trade and open markets can give us this consumer lifestyle, for necessities as well as luxuries.

In summary, we need to balance the greed of corporations with the needs of our people. Everyone deserves a chance to live a comfortable and dignified life.

258 words (The information below is incorrect)

Childcare: Who should provide it?

Posted on October 8, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Why should the government help working parents by providing childcare facilities?

Should parents, particularly mothers, stay at home to take care of children? Or should they be allowed to help their family and their country’s development by going out to work? In some countries, the government provides financial assistance to parents who use childcare, and I will give some reasons why I think this is a good idea.

Firstly, childcare centres may assist children in their early development. They give children an opportunity to mix with other children and to develop social skills at an early age. Indeed, a whole range of learning occurs in childcare centres.

Moreover, parents and children need to spend some time apart. Children become less dependent on their parents and parents themselves are less stressed and more effective care-givers when there are periods of separation. In fact, recent studies indicate that the parent-child relationship can be improved by the use of high-quality childcare facilities.

In addition, parents who cannot go to work because they don’t have access to childcare facilities cannot contribute to the national economy. They are not able to utilise their productive skills and do not pay income tax. In fact, non-working parents can become a drain on the tax system through social welfare payments for dependent spouses or other tax rebates, instead of earning their own money and paying tax.

In conclusion, government support for childcare services assists individual families and is important for the economic well-being of the whole nation.

Effects of ageing on society (long)

Posted on June 5, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In countries such as Japan, the population is getting older. Are the effects of an ageing population positive or negative?

In many countries such as Japan or Russia, the average age of the population is becoming older. Most people think this has a negative effect on a society, but it can also provide some opportunities. In this essay, I will look at some effects of ageing on a country.

When a population gets older, many roles in the society change. First of all, there may be fewer young people to take care of older parents or family. This may cause a breakdown in family relationships. It can also mean that older people need care in nursing homes. There is also an effect on work. Older workers may not want to do hard physical work or to work in poorly paid jobs. This may cause a shortage of workers and the country may have to import foreign workers for these positions. A third effect is on government spending. Instead of spending on schools and colleges, healthcare may become a priority to treat diseases such as cancer, diabetes or heart conditions.

However, not all the effects have to be negative. Although some people claim that older people do not have new ideas, older employees can be extremely productive and efficient and this can help companies to succeed. There may be less crime in the society, since there may be less competition for jobs or other needs. Some people worry that an older society will be more conservative and will be focused on the past. However, this could also mean a more compassionate society which is less focused on material things. Another possible outcome of an ageing society is that there may be people to take care of young children. In addition, children might have a better education if schools and colleges were not as crowded.

In conclusion it’s probably better for a society to have a good equilibrium in which all age groups are balanced. However, we need to be ready for demographic changes in order to provide our citizens, young or old, with the best opportunities.

Traffic: What can we do?

Posted on April 23, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Nowadays traffic in major cities is worsening. What problems does it create? How can we help solve these problems as individuals?

As more and more people move from the countryside into the world’s cities, traffic is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. Public transport is unable to cope, and people turn to private transport, often making the situation worse. In this essay, I will suggest ways in which individuals can take the lead in improving the flow of traffic in our cities.

It may seem as if there is nothing the individual can do to solve traffic problems. Investing in public transport such as the construction of a metro, railway or tram system, or even introducing a bus network is far too expensive for the ordinary individual. Even calling on local authorities or politicians to begin such projects is usually very unrewarding because of the long timescales involved. Finally, buying your own car or motorbike just adds to the overcrowding and magnifies the traffic problem.

However, there are some steps ordinary individuals can take. First of all, where possible we should opt for public transport, such as buses, trains, or even taxis, rather than using cars. These are a more efficient use of limited urban space than private vehicles. Another option is to pool: to share our cars with other people going to the same work or school. The fewer vehicles on the road, the less congestion. A third approach is to live closer to where we work, so that we can walk or cycle. It is much less stressful to know that you can reach your work within a few minutes by the simplest forms of transport. Finally, we do need to work with local politicians and urban planners to provide transport services. If they are not constantly pressed, they will spend the money elsewhere.

In conclusion, although traffic may seem like an insurmountable problem, it is simply the result of many individual choices. It is pointless waiting for governments to take action – we must take some responsibility ourselves.

Is emigration bad for a country?

Posted on April 19, 2011 by Mr Writefix

Should rich countries offer jobs to professionals such as doctors, engineers and teachers from poorer countries, even though these people are needed in their own countries?

Every year millions of workers migrate to developed countries such as Canada or Germany to work as doctors, engineers, or other professionals. This is good for the rich countries, but can be bad for the developing countries. This essay will explain why it is difficult to limit this flow of talented people from poor to rich countries.

Allowing foreign professionals to work overseas can cause many problems back home. First, the rich country is essentially taking the money that the developing country spent educating these workers. They are getting highly trained employees at a minimal cost without the need to build expensive universities. Why should Canada or Ireland benefit from South Africa’s or India’s education system? Another point is that many of these workers never go home. The skills they pick up abroad are not available for their home country. A third point is that many education systems are producing people for export, rather than providing skills needed in the home country.

However, we cannot simply stop employing workers from overseas. First, most professionals are free to work where they want, and if Australia won’t take them, the UAE or Saudi will. Competition exists, and people are free to choose their careers. Secondly, the remittances from these workers help to educate children. These children will, we hope, be able to work in their economy without the need to emigrate. In addition, allowing emigration can prevent social unrest. Unemployment can cause political or social problems, so it can be better for workers to emigrate, earn good salaries, and learn new skills elsewhere.

Finally, while many people would prefer to stay and work in their own country, it is inevitable that many others are attracted to higher salaries or better opportunities overseas. Developing countries need to examine why so many of their brightest, most talented people are leaving, and richer countries need quotas in place to ensure that they do not distort other education systems and economies.

Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (short)

Posted on April 11, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In many countries, foreign labour is an important part of the economy. What are some of the benefits and disadvantages for the economy of having workers from outside the country?

In many countries such as the USA, Singapore and many Gulf countries, foreign workers make up a large part of the labour force. However, there is some debate about the advantages of this for the economy of the country. In this essay, I will look at some of the arguments in favour of foreign labour and discuss some of the negative effects it can have.

There are several advantages to foreign labour. First of all, foreign labour is almost always cheap. Workers and economic migrants are attracted to countries with strong economies because they gcan earn higher salaries than at home. This means that the host country can get a good supply of cheap labour and this will make it more competitive and increase profits. Second, foreign workers are already trained. There is no need to wait years to train them in college or on the job. This also saves a lot of money and means that projects can be completed rapidly. A third point is that foreign workers are prepared to do jobs that local people do not want to do, such as work in remote areas or do dangerous or dirty jobs. These often include jobs in construction or in jobs with anti-social hours such as hotels. All of these mean that companies can provide a wide range of services at lower costs.

However, there are also hidden costs to hiring foreign labour. First of all, foreign workers may not be loyal to a company. This means they may change job often or leave the country quickly if there is a problem, such as happened recently in Libya. Secondly, they may create a lack of employment opportunities among locals. Employers may not want to give locals high salaries if they can employ expatriates more cheaply. A third problem is that they lower wages for certain jobs. Jobs which are attractive in some countries such as construction become very lowly paid if they employ mostly foreign workers. These factors may cause serious problems and imbalances in the host economy, such as too many locals in the government or public sector. A further point is that some expatriate labour is not really cheap, since it may be less effective or their skills may not transfer well to the new country.

In conclusion, it’s a difficult balance between finding workers at the right price and developing a strong and diversified economy with good employment opportunities for all. Countries have to decide between protecting their own workforce and creating a competitive environment for business.

Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (long)

Posted on April 10, 2011 by Mr Writefix

In many countries, foreign labor is an important part of the economy. Using migrant labor can contribute to the development of a country, but it can also cause economic problems. What are some of the advantages and drawbacks of expatriate labor for a country’s economy?

The development of countries such as Singapore, Brunei, the Gulf countries, and even the US has been helped greatly by millions of foreign workers. While foreign workers are cheap and quick, they can also cause problems for the economy of the country. In this essay I will look at some of the problems caused by an expatriate workforce and suggest that we need a balanced approach to employing foreign workers.

There are many obvious advantages to using foreign labor. First of all, they are usually cheap. Workers from Bangladesh, India or the Philippines are happy to work for salaries which are high in comparison to their home countries but low in the host country. Foreign workers are also ready to work in remote places or at times when local workers would not. A second point is that foreign workers are usually job-ready. They do not need expensive college education or training. They may have skills not available in the new country. A third point is that many migrant workers are ready to work in jobs that are too dirty or dangerous for nationals such as construction or cleaning. All these advantages mean that the economy is boosted by cheap labor and low production costs.

However, there are hidden costs to the economy of the country. One major drawback is that the workers are sending a lot of money home, instead of spending it. This results in a loss of foreign exchange for the country. Another point is that they may take jobs from locals. More importantly, they reduce the salaries for some jobs. For example, employers will pay very low salaries for some jobs which some locals might like to do but could not survive on. Security is another issue. Foreign workers can leave at any time if there is a political or other problem, and this can mean a sudden loss of skills and experience. An additional point is that the influx of foreign workers can put pressure on services such as hospitals or housing, and these costs have to be paid by the state, not the employers who are getting rich. All these factors can result in economic problems for the government.

In conclusion it’s important to have some control over the use of foreign workers, and to make sure that using them does not disrupt the labor market for local workers. One way is to pay them higher salaries and give them full protection. Countries should seek to employ their own citizens first before turning outside and depending on foreign labor.

Writefix.com

Argument essays, graphs, other writing, and speaking for IELTS, PET, and TOEFL

Category: Work

Is ambition positive or negative?

Related Posts:

Economic development: A solution or cause of poverty? (Short)

Related Posts:

Childcare: Who should provide it?

Related Posts:

Effects of ageing on society (long)

Related Posts:

Traffic: What can we do?

Related Posts:

Is emigration bad for a country?

Related Posts:

Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (short)

Related Posts:

Do foreign workers benefit the host country? (long)

Related Posts: