More and more qualified people are moving from poor to rich countries to fill vacancies in specialist areas like engineering, computing and medicine. Some people believe that by encouraging the movement of such people, rich countries are stealing from poor countries. Others feel that this is only part of the natural movement of workers around the world.
There is an exponential increase in the number of professionals in impoverished countries migrating to
the rich ones to get such jobs that require certain expertise as IT, engineering and the like. Many
speculate that these rich nations are intent to take manpower from the poor ones. From my point of
view, I totally disagree with this belief.
On the one hand, the activity of skilled labour moving to richer countries is more of a voluntary decision.
It depends on the workers’ mind whether they will move to other countries to work or not, which
underpins the idea that these rich countries have no relevant connections to the workers’
determination. It’s also the destitute conditions of the poor countries themselves, compared to the rich
counterparts, that the workers will be more likely to move to richer countries in order to better their life
by getting access to more cutting-edge facilities as well as higher living standards. Take Vietnam as a
prime example, it is a developing countries whose number of migrant workers to the USA is among the
highest in the world, in which most of the workers higher salary and life quality as the main reasons for
leaving their home country.
On the other hand, rich countries’ inducing skillful labours from poor ones to come and work for them
does not aim at stealing human resource, but for other purposes which provide both countries with
various advantages. Firstly, when in the process of applying for job in a foreign country, most workers
will have an interview, in which they are asked whether they will return to their country or not, whose
aim is to reassure that the answer will be “Yes”. In other words, a rich nation provides the qualified
workers to work for it in a certain amount of time and then has a policy to return them back to their
countries so that the rich nation itself as well as the poor one will be able to reap a variety of benefits.
For instance, a rich country can capitalize on this to reinforce its empowering factors in various aspects
such as diplomatic links, mutual integration or even economy, while the poor countries will be able to
have their skilled labours come back and contribute the best to them simultaneously.
Some believe that through doing this, rich countries are stealing from the poor ones. However, they
forget to take into considerations that it is intrinsically the workers themselves that call the shot in this
case. The different conditions between the two countries as well as the return policy of the rich
countries should also be factored in so that these rich countries will no long be called a stealer.
In conclusion, due to the factor mentioned, namely the mutual benefits of this activity as well as the
workers’ subjective choices, it is clear that the rich countries are not stealing from the poor ones.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-20 | mehjabin | 67 | view |
| 2021-09-18 | Kamran2555 | 11 | view |
| 2021-09-18 | Kamran2555 | 11 | view |
| 2021-09-18 | Kamran2555 | 11 | view |
| 2021-09-18 | Kamran2555 | 78 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, so, then, well, while, for instance, such as, as well as, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 13.1623246493 99% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 34.0 24.0651302605 141% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1942.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 393.0 315.596192385 125% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94147582697 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69137110592 2.80592935109 96% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 176.041082164 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473282442748 0.561755894193 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 570.6 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 16.0721442886 68% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 35.0 20.2975951904 172% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.070212211 49.4020404114 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 176.545454545 106.682146367 165% => OK
Words per sentence: 35.7272727273 20.7667163134 172% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.9090909091 7.06120827912 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 23.0 4.38176352705 525% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261750702276 0.244688304435 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129134554615 0.084324248473 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0914029157643 0.0667982634062 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0849347521102 0.151304729494 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0744530952514 0.056905535591 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.7 13.0946893788 150% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.41 50.2224549098 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.4159519038 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.58950901804 100% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 78.4519038076 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 9.78957915832 184% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.0 10.1190380762 158% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 10.7795591182 148% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum five paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.