This section presents a professionally wirtten variation of your essay and highlights the differences.
In the contemporary era, the phenomenon of migration of professionals has witnessed an unprecedented surge. There are varying views on that professionals should not be free to work wherever they want, and many believe they should be in the service of the location that train them. I argue that the negative consequences of forcing professionals to stay in the country where they have studied, particularly in terms of personal choices and social impacts, far outweigh benefits, making it a detrimental approach.
In the contemporary era, the phenomenon of professional migration has witnessed an unprecedented surge. There are varying views on whether professionals should be free to work wherever they choose, with many arguing they should serve the country that trained them. I contend that the negative consequences of restricting professionals' mobility—particularly regarding personal freedom and societal impact—far outweigh any benefits, making such restrictions detrimental.
On the one hand, many proponents of mandatory work place claim that a vast amount of money should be spent until professionals become expert, and this money often provide by individuals tax. Therefore, professionals have a huge responsibility to work for people that make them unable to study. Furthermore, they assert that professionals usually opt for developed countries provided that they have right to choose the country owing to better work condition. As a result, poor countries that prepare experts cannot use the knowledge of them, and they cannot progress.
On one hand, proponents of mandatory service argue that significant public funds are invested in professional education, often financed by taxpayers. They assert that professionals have a moral obligation to contribute to the society that enabled their training. Furthermore, they claim that without restrictions, professionals tend to migrate to developed nations for better working conditions, leaving poorer countries deprived of skilled labor and hindering their development.
On the other hand, numerous proponents contend that imposing such requirements infringes on the professionals' autonomy to make independent choices. They advocate instead for an approach that presents both sides of the debate, empowering professionals to make a informed and voluntary decisions rather than obligating them to choose one side. A poignant example can be found in a survey conducted in Iran, which revealed that obligating experts who studied a lot and have a strong credentials to stay in country is an overly simplistic approach that can be effective. Moreover, a growing number of research has shown, as professionals not be free to choose freely, they cannot work properly, resulting in decreasing useful hours of work.
On the other hand, opponents argue that such requirements violate professionals' autonomy to make career choices. They advocate for a balanced approach that respects individual freedom while addressing national concerns. For instance, research in Iran demonstrated that forcing highly educated professionals to remain in their home country is an ineffective oversimplification. Studies also show that when professionals lack career autonomy, their productivity declines significantly due to reduced motivation.
In conclusion, while many declare that professionals such as doctors and engineers, should be work in the country where they learn to be expert, many opine they should be free to make decision where they want to work. I firmly believe that they should be free to choose.
In conclusion, while some believe professionals should serve the country that trained them, I firmly support their right to choose where to work. Balancing individual freedom with national interests through incentives rather than restrictions would yield better outcomes for all parties involved.