In some countries, workers have to retire when they reach a certain age, such as 65.in other parts of the word, they are encouraged to continue working for as long as they want .Discuss these two options and decide which is the better alternative.

Nowadays, almost every company tends to retire employees once they have reached a certain age. I completely agree with

this

practice and believe elderly staff needs to be replaced with younger

workers

despite the difference in their work experience.

First

and foremost, a large majority of

workers

lose their strength as they become older.

This

is mainly because the human body has limits, and working for a long time, say, 30 or 35 years, can affect it negatively;

for example

, young industrial

workers

tend to work for five to six hours before they take breaks, while older ones usually need to rest every one or two hours.

This

means that productivity levels would certainly decline.

Furthermore

, new employment opportunities for young people are very limited. Most companies do not offer more than a few new jobs every year and try not to increase their staff members dramatically to keep expenses lowConsequently; they should lay off some of the older

personnel

Replace the word

person

show examples

to make room for younger ones, especially those around 20 to 30 years old who is about to form families and support them. Some may argue that removing older

workers

from the workplace will deprive younger

workers

of what they can teach them in terms of experience and skills.

However

, I think the old worker's experience is usually outdated and is of little use to recruits who need to learn how to employ modern technologies

such

as computers and lasers. In conclusion, think. Companies need to force their elderly workforce to retire and employ younger

workers

to replace them to improve productivity, have up-to-date

workers

, and provide dos for young people.