Every country has poor people. Every country has different ways of dealing with the poor. What are some of the reasons for world poverty? What can we do to help the poor?

 Every country has poor people. Every country has different ways of dealing with the poor. What are some of the reasons for world poverty? What can we do to help the poor?

Undeniably, impoverishment is a burning issue,  and every country embraces different methods to alleviate this social malady. In this essay, I will assess the main reasons behind this, and suggest some ways surmont this challenge.

To commence with, the primary reason behind destitution lies in history. The indiscriminate milking of resources of poverty-stricken countries by the imperialistic powers has caused a perennial dearth of wealth of all kinds, making it hard for the regimes to generate resources and avenues for development. Besides this, the things are exacerbated by corruption because higher authorities are the ruling parties who tend to abuse their powers and siphon off public money, leaving the poor high and dry and perpetuating the vicious circle of the poor economic conditions.   In addition to the above, another reason is the tremendous growth in population, forcing governments to divert invaluable money from critical areas to serving the rising populace, creating an absence of facilities like education and employment venues, causing illiteracy and joblessness, and keeping the people impoverished.  

However, the above problems can be mitigated, if the government becomes more transparent with the issues and works upon the required areas. Such as, by establishing educational infrastructure and employment venues, to eliminate illiteracy and create employment. This will help generate employable skills and also absorb those, resulting in better incomes. Moreover, developed countries should come forward and provide aid to the poor nations by investing in the various critical sectors, to alleviate the living conditions of the inhabitants of such countries.   

To conclude, destitution is a pressing problem that has inflicted misery on a  major part of society. It is thus imperative for governments and the international community to invest concerted efforts to mitigate this pressing issue.

The developments in technology allow more and more machines to be used rather than human employees. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

The developments in technology allow more and more machines to be used rather than human employees. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

Do the benefits of machines replacing humans outshine its drawbacks.

Benefits

·         More machines means

• o   Faster work process  
• o   Affords precision
• o   Making work economical
• o   Lesser conflicts at work.

Drawbacks

• Raising unemployment
• Loss of skills
• Cause of ecological destructions

 

Modern innovations has heralded the age of automation, superseding human efforts in almost every professional realm. This evolution has been extolled by many who feel this has rendered speed, precision and safety to the work environment, but it has also irked others who fear that this phenomenon is making people bereft of jobs and skills.

The progress registered in the field of technology has made it possible for human efforts to be replaced by mechanised processes. Many have hailed this evolution as the one that is laden with myriad benefits, but some fear this is going to open the pandora’s box/ to lead to several unwarranted challenges. 

The  age of machines has afforded speed to the work which is executed by use of the modern equipment. By virtue of being able to do repetitive and tedious tasks tirelessly, and without needing a break unlike their human counterparts, the mechanised workers are able to negotiate the allocated jobs in less than half the time. Furthermore, this switchover has helped eliminate errors greatly and allowed professionals in various fields, like surgeries to achieve near total accuracy.

Similarly, undeniably many owe their lives to the robots and modern equipment that helped them to evade hazards and perils posed by the dangerous nature of the work, such as underwater explorations, mining, rescuing survivors from disaster hit areas. Various apparatus specialised in doing such jobs can negotiate without harming surroundings and people.

Nevertheless, the cynicals warn about its aftermath: hordes of people have already either lost their jobs or are on the verge of losing it. It is expected that a large ratio of capable workforce will go jobless in next two decades, and will have to rely on the government support. Additionally, mankind stands at a greater risk of losing its invaluable skills of various trades which could make them vulnerable in case a catastrophe strikes and machines become unavailable.

Overall, despite having innumerable upsides, the takeover of work by machines might not have proved to be so favorable in the long run and could instead cause humongous problems. Thus I feel it is the drawbacks which exceed the benefits.

 

Some believe that younger family members should be legally responsible for supporting older family members when they become physically, mentally and financially unable to look after themselves. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Some believe that younger family members should be legally responsible for supporting older family members when they become physically, mentally and financially unable to look after themselves.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, a perception seems to be emerging that young people should be bound by law to take care of their aging family members. However, there are some voices of dissent on this issue.  

To start with, most of the aging members of the family spend their entire life making sure that their younger ones get proper education, eventually affording the latter successful careers. Moreover,  it is seen that the older people spend the most important time of their life saving money for their wards, relinquishing their own dreams, for the sake of the better future of their offspring. Thus, it becomes imperative for them to be reciprocated by their children in the same way, but that is rarely happening so today, making it quite plausible to suggest creating a law that binds the young members to this task. It is only the fear of punishment that will push children to fulfill their moral and ethical duties in the world dominated by consumerism. 

However, others, although quite few in numbers, are up in arms against this proposal, for this section considers such a move as an encroachment of private lives of citizens. The state can only act as a medium of spreading awareness among citizens about their obligations, rather than acting as a tool to guide people about how to deal with their family members. Similarly, as these critics suggest, many households may not be in a condition to support their elderly family members due to poor economic conditions, and making a statute in this regard could exacerbate their conditions and woes.   

Overall, I vehemently support this move: young people should be legally bound to support their aging parents. This seems to be the only way to  coax them into honoring their moral and ethical responsibilities. 

Today, TV channels broadcast men’s sports shows more than women’s sport shows. Why is this case? Should TV channels give equal showtime for each?

 Today, TV channels broadcast men’s sports shows more than women’s sport shows. Why is this case? Should TV channels give equal showtime for each?

Television has brought sports to the living rooms of households, but even so it has been blamed for ignoring the events that feature female athletes and prioritizing male events despite being backed by several plausible attributes. This has led to voices in support of blurring the differences. 

The reason for this bias is quite conspicuous: the male branch of sports has humongous fan-following that is lacking in the case of the female domain. Therefore, it is natural for the television broadcasting companies to favor the more popular events since it can help fetch colossal viewership - that is populated by both the genders - and also sumptuous profits. However, this is not possible in the events that are participated by girls. To corroborate, the outcomes of a survey by a magazine called Stern revealed that most of the media houses and sports channels aimed at tapping and covering those areas and disciplines where the chances of earnings were abundant. That is the reason why the FIFA world cup of the males  gets more airtime than the world championship of females.    

However, the demand for TV granting more showtime to female sporting events is quite warranted: this will aid in empowerment of women. It has been observed that due to the conservative attitudes of society, females are unable to earn their deserving dues, and if the onus of emancipating women is shared by television by telecasting more and more sporting events that feature women, the latter will get a chance to break their stereotype since sports provides a way to liberation. 

Overall, commercial compulsion is the fundamental foundation for the apathy of television towards women sports, but this needs to change and more time slots be allocated to this branch: it will assist in diluting gender differences. 

Nowadays, many people change jobs quite regularly, rather than working in the one company for their entire careers. Why do you think this is happening? How can companies keep their workers?

 Nowadays, many people change jobs quite regularly, rather than working in the one company for their entire careers. Why do you think this is happening? How can companies keep their workers?

Switching employment is a ubiquitous phenomenon. This can be attributed to several reasons such as seeking advancement, and thus, organizations strive to discover the mechanism that can help retain their workforce. 

The primary driver of job hopping happens to be the intent of people to seek enhancement in job satisfaction, and the ever increasing number of companies being established every day is augmenting this trend. For example,  a study carried out recently to discover the cause behind frequent job switching revealed that nearly 75% or individuals felt that they did not derive professional contentment from the work they were allocated by their former employers. It further said that this induced a disenchantment towards their obligations that finally pushed them to seek opportunities elsewhere.   

To surmount this challenge, organizations must shift their focus from simply offering financial stimulus to extending opportunities to their personnel to obtain a sense of accomplishment, addressing the psychological need to be acknowledged of the latter. As per several human theorists and human resource researchers, this can turn the work environment into more absorbing and fascinating for the workforce and let them enjoy the work they perform, and never letting a feeling of boredom set in. To corroborate,  even if the employee is paid less, but the work is more meaningful and purposeful, there are more chances for them to contribute to the productivity of their employers. This can produce a win-win situation for both the parties. In other words, companies should help their employees to gain fulfilling professional experience rather than merely bigger pay packets.

Overall, the current propensity to switch employment stems from the need to gain professional satisfaction. Therefore, in my view businesses and employment providers must afford the mental contentment to their human resource, to curb this practice.