is often argued that elderly employees should continue working in workplaces actively. While others think that they should set an age limit to give job opportunities for young demographics. Overall, Although senior staff choose to continue their jobs without caring about fixed age to stop working, the younger people could find a job in another fields. From my perspective, I completely agree with the second statement that they should set a mandatory retirement to create room for graduates.
Regarding the first statement, others believe that veteran workers should be involve in the workplaces as long as they are able to do so. This policy could be beneficial for them, especially their financial independence to support their family’s needs. Besides that, it could remain physically and mentally active during the old-age phase. From my perspective, the young workers could actually earn a living in other ways. In this fast-paced era there are many professions that really need young generations. For instance, the aging workforce in Japan continues their positions to strengthen their economy and maintain their mental well-being.
On the other hand, i absolutely agree with the second statement that senior professionals should have a statutory retirement age to make more roles for recent graduates. When officials decide to create a policy about the age limitations, especially in the civic sphere, it could be valuable for younger generations because they have a chance to enhance their careers. In my opinion, the younger staff might be more creative and they have many ideas to contribute to the country’s development. For example, the U.S embassy in Jakarta hires many younger staff particularly for the social media division to engage generation z attention.
To sum up, some individuals consider sustaining their occupation to support their sustenance. Therefore, I believe that representatives should set a mandatory retirement to give younger people a greater role that is beneficial for country’s advance
ment