In many countries, the increase in life expectancy means that people have to work until they are older to help pay for their retirement. An alternative is for people to start their work at a younger age. Do you think this alternative would be a positive or negative development?

In a number of nations, it is thought that as life expectancy increases, people must work until they become older to help pay for their retirement. An alternative for this can be starting career at a younger age. This action would be both beneficial and adverse development. Appreciating them for spending most of their life for company, older workers have a knack for dealing with a problem starting from petition to essential negotiations between companies. While they get older, they would be aware of any consequence of single action. They are keen on to tackling any problem than youngsters, as they have experienced on this field decades. Therefore, they have a significant role for company, and they can not be substituted with youngsters who have not faced such kind of challenges, which elders already solved. In contrast, young people have more strength and will to accomplish any tasks in order to deserve respect. While elders have more experience, youngsters would have more time to acquire more knowledge and experience than aged people. Simultaneously, they would face challenges on their 20th or 30th, which elderly people faced on their 40th or 50th. In addition, young people have tendency to accomplish their jobs using all of their abilities. For example, when it comes to delivering a letter or vital information to any adress, they are ready for it all time, because they have capability to walk faster ever run. Elders are not rapid as youngsters. As the job requires speed and quality, young workers are the best option for substituting mature workers. To conclude, this alternative is the best choice for its key factors, such as quality and speed. And it would be impressive if there would be any additions to this choice.