Some people think young people should be free to choose his or her job, but otherpeople think they should be realistic and think more about their future. Discussboth views and give your opinion.
Whether the youth should make their career choices according to what they enjoy doing or in light of monetary values or future development is a frequent topic of discussion. Although they can not afford to ignore certain realistic factors,personally, job satisfaction is overall the single most important factor to consider.
Admittedly, the ability to pursue careers may hinge on the financial situation as some career paths require special schooling and qualifications and this is sometimes expensive. Furthermore, youths should take into consideration if the career path they are choosing will provide them with an acceptable level of financial security. Namely, whether the take-home salary will be enough to supportthemselves or their family or to cover their health insurance and retirement options as well.
However, such realistic factors put too much pressure on people who are trying to choose the right career. I believe, the youth are entitled to make career decision according to their own will. Firstly, more values could be attached to job satisfaction. It these realistic considerations are forced on them, they may probably end up being miserable. As average person works about 40 hours a week till the age of 40 years – approximately 80,000 hours of their life will be spent on their work, which does make it important to do the job they love, find one that is a good fit for their interests, aptitudes, work-related values and personality type. In this case, they are more likely to prosper in their work as they enjoy the majority of the job duties.
It might be for some people, work is a necessary evil, but there are also instances where people choose a career more than a means of livelihood, if they are allowed to make their own choice.
Nowadays a large amount of advertising aiming at children should be banned because of the negative effects. To what extent do you agree or disagree? (2018/8/11)
People today are often exposed to a variety of advertisements on cell phones, in newspapers or on the subways, part of which are children-oriented. Some argue that they should be prohibited due to the potential negative influences. However, I partially agree withthis action.
Sure enough, overexposure to advertisings is likely to exert a heavy burden on children as well as their parents both physically and economically. The advertisers usually have a deep insight into children’s psychology and behavior, and they are designed to be more appealing to children’s minds, whether fancy toys, fast food or some other commodities. As a result, some innocent children do not consider the nutrition of some fast food and the potential physical damage. Instead, they are more likely to fail prey to its delicious taste and may even pester their parents to buy whatever is advertised as long as they expect, regardless of the price and the function.
It is, however, rather groundless to simply say that all advertisements aiming at children should be banned. The function of advertisement is to disseminate information and encourage people to make better decisions. This is true to a certain extent. In some cases, parents tend to choose the high quality products which are helpful to children’s study according to what a commercial introduces including stationery and books, especially after careful comparison. However, the fact is that commercial advertisements concerning almost every aspect are usually exaggerated by advertisers for certain purposes, a consequence that consumers are not truly informed. Therefore, careful consideration is of great significance before making purchasing decisions.
In conclusion, I believe that advertisings targeted at children should be strictly regulated by the related authorities and institutions because children are prone to be affected.Nevertheless, it is not necessary enough to ban all of them.