越來越多的合格人士正從貧窮國家向富國轉移，以填補工程、計算機和醫學等專業領域的職位空缺。有些人認為，通過鼓勵這樣的人的運動，富國從貧窮國家偷竊。其他人認為這只是全世界工人自然運動的一部分。你同意還是不同意?下面是小編分享的雅思社會類英語作文，歡迎大家閱讀!
More and more qualified people are moving from poor to rich countries to fill vacancies in specialist areas like engineering, computing and medicine. Some people believe that by encouraging the movement of such people, rich countries are stealing from poor countries. Others feel that this is only part of the natural movement of workers around the world.
Do you agree or disagree?
Model Answer:
The so-called ‘brain drain’ from poor to rich countries is now robbing poorer countries of essential personnel like doctors, nurses, engineers, and the trend is set to continue, if not to get worse.
Some people say this movement of people around the world is not a new phenomenon. Migrant workers have always been attracted by the wider choice of employment and greater opportunity in major cities in their own countries and abroad. Recently, as the technological age has advanced and as richer countries find themselves with not enough workers to feed their development, they have had to run to other parts of the world to find the necessary manpower. Many richer European countries, for example, are now trying to attract skilled IT workers from my home country India by offering higher salaries than they could hope to earn at home. With the globalisation of the world economy, many people feel that the process cannot be stopped.
Others, myself included, are of the opinion that measures should be taken to address the problem, by compensating poorer countries financially for the loss of investment in the people they have trained, like doctors and nurses. Admittedly, this may be cumbersome to administer, but an attempt could be made to get it off the ground. Another step, which in part has already begun to happen, is to use the forces of globalization itself. Western countries could encourage people to stay in their own countries by direct investment in projects like computer factories or by sending patients abroad for treatment, as is already happening.
It is obviously difficult to restrict the movement of people around the world and it is probably foolish to try to stop it, but attempts should be made to redress the imbalance.
參考翻譯
所謂的“人才外流”從貧窮到富裕的國家現在掠奪貧窮國家的基本人員，如醫生，護士，工程師，這種趨勢將繼續下去，如果不惡化。
有人說，這個世界各地的人的運動不是一個新現象。農民工在國內外各大城市就業機會的選擇和就業機會的增加一直吸引著農民工。最近，隨著科技時代的進步，更富裕的國家發現自己沒有足夠的工人來養活他們的發展，他們不得不跑到世界的其他地方去尋找必要的人力。例如，許多富裕的歐洲國家正試圖通過提供比他們希望在國內獲得的薪水更高的工資來吸引來自印度本土的技術工人。隨著世界經濟的全球化，許多人覺得這個過程不能停止。
其他人，包括我在內，認為應該採取措施來解決這個問題，通過補償貧困國家的財政損失的投資，他們所培訓的人，如醫生和護士。誠然，這可能是繁瑣的管理，但嘗試可以使它離開地面。另一步，部分已經開始發生，是利用全球化本身的力量。西方國家可以鼓勵人們留在自己的國家直接投資的專案，如電腦工廠或傳送病人出國治療，因為已經發生。
很顯然，限制世界各地的人們的運動是很困難的，試圖阻止它可能是愚蠢的，但應該嘗試糾正這種失衡。
雅思作文範文【2】In most countries multinational companies and their products are becoming more and more important. This trend is seriously damaging our quality of life.
Do you agree or disagree?
Model Answer:
Multinational companies nowadays find it convenient both to market their goods all over the world and set up production facilities wherever they find it convenient. In my opinion this has had an adverse effect on our quality of life in three main areas.
The first area is their products. Supporters of globalization would argue that multinational companies make high-quality goods available to more people. While this may be true to some extent, it also means that we have less choice of products to consume. When powerful multinational companies invade local markets with their goods, they often are obliged local companies with fewer resources to go out of business. In consequence, we are obliged to buy multinational products whether we like them or not.
This brings me to my second point. It is sometimes said that multinational companies and globalisation are making societies more open. This may be true. However, I would point out that as a result the human race is losing its cultural diversity. If we consumed varied products, societieswherever we live would be more varied. This can be seen by the fact that we all shop in identicalmultinational supermarkets and buy identical products wherever we live.
Thirdly, defenders of multinational companies often point out that they provide jobs. Although this is undoubtedly true, it also means that we have become more valnurable on them, which in turn makes us more vulnerable to their decisions. When, for example, a multinational decides to move its production facilities to another country, this has an adverse effect on its workers who lose their jobs.
All in all, I believe that if we as voters pressured our governments to make multinational companies more responsible and to protect local producers from outside competition, we could have the benefits of globalisation without its disadvantages.
參考翻譯：
如今，跨國公司在世界各地都可以方便地銷售他們的產品，並且在任何方便的地方建立生產設施。我認為這在三個主要方面對我們的`生活質量產生了不利影響。
第一個領域是他們的產品。全球化的支持者認為跨國公司可以為更多的人提供高質量的產品。雖然這可能是在一定程度上是真實的，這也意味著我們有較少的產品選擇消費。當強大的跨國公司用他們的產品入侵當地市場時，他們往往會被迫讓本土資源少的企業破產。因此，無論我們喜不喜歡，我們都有義務購買跨國產品。
這使我想起了我的第二點。有時說跨國公司和全球化正在使社會更加開放。這可能是真的。然而，我要指出的是，人類正在失去其文化多樣性。如果我們消費各種各樣的產品，我們生活的社會就會更加多樣化。我們都可以在同一家跨國超市裡購物，無論我們住在哪裡都能買到相同的產品，這可以看出這一點。
第三，跨國公司的捍衛者經常指出他們提供工作。雖然這無疑是正確的，這也意味著我們已經成為他們更valnurable，這反過來又使我們更容易受到他們的決定。例如，當跨國公司決定將生產設施轉移到另一個國家時，這對其失去工作的工人產生了不利影響。
總之，我相信，如果我們作為選民施壓我們的政府，使跨國公司更負責任，並保護本地生產者免受外部競爭，我們可以有全球化的好處，而沒有缺點。
