Rich countries should not give jobs to skilled workers (for example doctors and engineers) of poor countries as they are needed by their home country more than the rich countries. How far do you agree or disagree with the statement given?

Sample 1:

With globalization, people are migrating abroad in search of better job opportunities with higher financial incentives. Some argue that developed countries should not recruit educated and trained labour from developing countries because they need them more. I partially disagree with the statement, since there are limitations for jobs offered in developing countries, which force the unemployed to turn towards foreign countries.

Third-world countries fall under the category of being poor. These nations are nevertheless in the development phase. Despite having a sizable number of qualified applicants, there are only so many seats available, resulting in a sizable portion of the population being jobless. This has an impact on both the country and the people. For instance, India has a huge number of graduates who have appropriate skills. But there are reserved seats for the scheduled castes and tribes, making the general caste helpless. As a last resort, they look for opportunities in developed countries.
People who move abroad to pursue jobs help their families financially. This, in turn, is useful in decreasing poverty in developing countries. This is useful for developed nations as well, because they acquire equally proficient labour from poor countries at a cheaper salary than there.

I also disagree with this, because developing nations can develop and flourish by using the proficiency and expertise of these people. It struggles in the shadows, while developed countries benefit from the success brought by migrant workers. The migrants are treated unfairly; they often receive low pay checks and are discriminated against.

In conclusion, I don't agree with the idea that rich countries shouldn't hire talented people from poor countries because doing so helps the poor countries get rid of poverty and unemployment but also deprives them of developing due to a lack of trained manpower.

Sample 2:

People move to developed countries for better work prospects, which is an unavoidable truth. It is also true that this trend hampers their own nation's growth in a number of ways. For example, it has an influence on the availability of qualified workers in their home country.

Brain drain has long been a major issue. People often move to rich nations in order to receive a high income that compensates for the time and effort they put in to get their degrees. In fact, the chance to move abroad motivates many students to study better in school. For example, acquiring a degree in medicine is quite expensive and labour-intensive. A medical student will be more motivated to put in the effort required to become a doctor if she is confident that, after completing her studies, she will find a fruitful career overseas. Moreover, by having the opportunity to interact with some of the brightest minds on the planet, talented individuals who relocate to a developed nation will be able to further strengthen their capabilities.

On the contrary, due to this migration, the home country suffers in the absence of skilled workers. Just like doctors, people with IT skills are also migrating to countries like Germany and the UK since they provide a better prospect. As a result, there is a lack of qualified IT workers that can help the country progress technologically. Cyber security and privacy are not as advanced as in other countries, putting citizens' personal information at risk.

To conclude, there seems to be no arguing that skilled labour's migration to developed nations limits those countries' national growth. However, each person has the liberty to decide where they prefer to live and work. Certainly, nations could prevent this practice by providing better opportunities within their own borders.

Sample 3:

Some people feel that developed countries recruiting trained human resources from underdeveloped nations should be prohibited because those countries require them more. Everyone has a varied opinion on this statement. I believe that affluent nations should employ manpower from these nations, because it gives the individual a chance to flourish.

Unemployment is significant in various developing countries because these nations have a limited availability of jobs. A huge young population there face rejection due to reserved seats as per the government legislations. Recruiting them resolves the problem of unemployment. For example, business administration aspirants are recruited by various multinational companies. The proverb, “kill two birds with one stone” sits well in this situation as both the companies as well as the individuals are benefitted from it. This also decreases poverty that is prevailing in developing nations. It gives a wider window of progress and knowledge to individuals. For example, the current CEO of Google is an Indian migrant, who moved to America for his job in Google.

Further, when acceptance to international employment is supported, poor nations also win. When advanced economies need skilled employees from the developing world, a demand is produced in those nations, which promotes the development of their internal infrastructure, including better educational institutions. For instance, the Indian tech-related education industry witnessed substantial growth when the United States began recruiting numerous IT personnel in the late twentieth century. Consequently, these employees bring the cosmopolitan culture of developed nations, which alters traditional ideas in third world nations.

To conclude, recruitment of skilled manpower from poor countries is beneficial for both the countries as well as the employees themselves. The education system, infrastructures and so on are improved and advanced. Even the employees achieve their dreams professionally.

Sample 4:

Brain drain is a much-debated issue, and many people believe that developed countries should not provide work for skilled professionals from developing or poor nations since they are better utilised in the homeland. I personally believe that this system should be stopped as it would make poor countries poorer while rich countries would be richer in the long run.

First, poor countries can produce only a handful number of talented people each year through their broken economic and educational system. The government and public money are spent to support those students and professionals and when they are ready to serve the country, rich nations actually hijack them. This is quite unethical, and a majority of the migrated professionals serve the migrated countries than the countries they were born in. This system allows the developed countries to have a large number of talented professionals, scientists, writers, engineers, doctors and so on while poor countries suffer from the scarcity of such experts. These talented and qualified people are the keys to the development of a poor country, and they should serve their motherland.

Second, a developed country already has a large number of skilled labours and expert workers, and they can do quite well without alluring skilled professionals to come and work there. For instance, the number of native astronomers and scientists in the United States is already huge and they could easily do without brain draining talented and skilled professionals from other countries. Rich countries have a natural obligation to actually send their proficient workers to work and train citizens of poor nations for the betterment of the world. Employing skilled labours from other countries is actually a practice that ruins the equilibrium of development in the world.

Finally, many skilled labours that migrate to the first world countries often end up working in a sector which is simply irrelevant to their education and skill and hence is a wastage of talent and time. For instance, many doctors and engineers in first world countries actually work in a restaurant or drive a cab only because they migrated from poor countries and failed to show their worthiness. They could have better served the humanity by being enrolled in their original professions in their homelands.

In conclusion, the better lifestyle and more money are the reasons skilled labours migrate to rich countries and this brain drain system should be stopped for the overall betterment of the world.

Sample 5:

Nowadays, a plethora of individuals are migrating to foreign countries in search of better opportunities, and it is not a new phenomenon. A chunk of individuals opines that this trend will be detrimental for the economy of the country whilst others are skeptical about it. I, however, believe that it has both pros and cons, and we need to delve into both sides before forming any opinions.

To begin with, developed countries get immense benefits by offering jobs to skilled workers outside their country. Firstly, rich countries have complicated modern economies, which require skilled and experienced workers for the efficient operation of the country. Secondly, the corporations employ people from underdeveloped countries so they can reduce the expenditure of the organisation as they pay them less compared to their native workers. For instance, hourly wages are fixed by developed countries therefore they cannot pay less than minimum wage which is mandatory by the authorities.

On the other hand, the situation is indeed harmful to develop countries as they spend enormous money to educate and generate productive labour so they can support their countries’ economies. For instance, it is estimated that India spends billions of dollars on tertiary education but when the time comes to serve the country they migrate to a foreign land. This process is called brain drain. Thus, it increases the wealth gap between countries.

In conclusion, it is true that skilled workers need everywhere. I feel they are needed more in their home countries because they should pay back to their motherland by living there and serving their community. Henceforth, which country should limit the number of foreign field workers.