Moving jobs abroad: ide esai IELTS

Many firms have transferred their factories and jobs to countries with lower labour costs. I disagree that this is a positive development overall, although it does have some advantages.

Supporters of this practice make two main points. Firstly, producing in cheaper locations allows companies to lower their prices, which benefits consumers, who can buy clothes, phones and household goods at affordable levels. Secondly, the move brings employment and income to poorer nations. A garment factory in Bangladesh or Vietnam can provide wages that are higher than those available in farming, and the training workers receive may develop skills which can later be used to start domestic industries. In some cases, foreign investment has helped economies to grow quickly.

Despite this, I believe the negative effects are more important. In the countries that lose the jobs, entire communities can be damaged. When a large factory closes, workers who have spent their lives in one trade often struggle to find new employment, and local shops, schools and services decline too. Detroit, once the centre of the American car industry, is a well-known example. Meanwhile, in the destination countries, labour standards are often weak. Employees may work long hours for very low wages in unsafe conditions, as the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in 2013 showed. Cheap goods therefore carry a hidden human cost, and companies that move production mainly to increase profit are not acting responsibly.

A fairer approach would be for companies to invest in training at home and to insist on decent conditions wherever they operate, supported by international rules.

In conclusion, moving jobs abroad lowers prices and creates work in poorer nations, but the damage to communities and the exploitation of workers mean that I cannot see it as positive overall.