Some people think that people who choose a job early and keep doing it are more likely to get a satisfying career life than those who frequently change jobs. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is a controversial perspective heating up a debate over the fact that the population who keep a job for a long time gain more satisfying business than the community who often change their activities. I comparatively agree with

this

Linking Words

idea. Without a shadow of a doubt, societies that keep the task for the long term are highly acceptable to get an accomplishment. The community who do the job for long-serving can achieve more and more experiences in a bunch of years when they work for these enterprises with a view to obtain a wealth of individual and corporate achievements.

For example

Linking Words

, Lionel Messi, an Argentina soccer player, got involved in Barcelona Football Club for approximately twenty years and attained a bunch of awards

such

Linking Words

as the Ballon d'Or, UEFA Champions League and La Liga.

Hence

Linking Words

, the community who are loyal in their choice of early tasks may be more achievable in their vocation.

While

Linking Words

the act as a precursor to keep working on one task for a long term is widely acknowledged, the pros of often changing jobs are

also

Linking Words

important. The population who have hobbies in alternating jobs regularly will have a wealth of new experiences in their life with a view to gaining tremendous benefits for themself.

For instance

Linking Words

, young people are able to do short-term activities

such

Linking Words

as marketing, selling and bartending in Highlands Coffee or Starbucks in order to obtain more experience.

Therefore

Linking Words

, changing tasks frequently has its own benefits. In conclusion,

while

Linking Words

societies that keep the job for the long term and societies that change activities regularly have their own perks, I would contend that it is optimal to combine both mentioned elements.