Nowadays, there are some companies providing their employees with security of their whole lives, on the contrary, others do not. So there is a heated discussion on whether the whole-life securities should be implemented as a regulation among enterprises. I disagree with this measure for at least three reasons which will be elaborated as follows.
First and foremost, to ensure the entire life of the employees is detrimental to the growth of both enterprises and societies. As for the enterprises, employees who have job security are unable to be motivated as when their occupations are not certain. Therefore, increasing number of employees might be less productive and efficient during their working time, causing the stagnancy of companies and may lose in the fierce competitions. Also, from the social angle, the authoritative research, conducted by Harvard University, illustrates that the transfer of talent among different companies is the engine of the creating more social value. It is because the expertise transferring is propulsion to the fierce competition in the markets, which of the best interest to the technological improvement. And as the technological improvement accumulates with ages; more treasure can be gained in the future. Indeed, job security does harm to the prosperity of the whole country.
Furthermore, employees are prone to search for higher-paid occupation, and the job security is unnecessary to some degree. After interviewing almost 20 workers in my companies, I conduct a conclusion that the majority of the employees nowadays would prefer the promotion in their department or more salaries. Accordingly, if the companies cannot provide more decent occupations with a higher compensation for them, the job security cannot assist them to retain talents, so it means nothing. Apparently, to provide an employee a life-long job is not an optimal attraction to appeal to talented people.
Admittedly, job security somehow shows the responsibilities of enterprises and can gain good reputations for them. But as far as I am concerned, more options can be considered to achieve this purpose. For instance, providing more medical insurance and maternity insurance for employees, and building up a housing funding for them, are, in practice, more attractive measures.
All in all, although providing an employee a job for their whole life is a responsible behavior, considering the prosperity of the society and enterprises, and finding out the attraction of employees, I do not think the job security is an excellent choice.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, apparently, but, first, furthermore, if, may, so, therefore, as for, at least, for instance, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 15.1003584229 126% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 9.8082437276 102% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 13.8261648746 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.0286738351 54% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 43.0788530466 49% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 52.1666666667 94% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.0752688172 161% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2170.0 1977.66487455 110% => OK
No of words: 399.0 407.700716846 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43859649123 4.8611393121 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46933824581 4.48103885553 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20714861284 2.67179642975 120% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 212.727598566 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541353383459 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 688.5 618.680645161 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.51630824373 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 9.59856630824 42% => OK
Article: 2.0 3.08781362007 65% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.51792114695 114% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.86738351254 268% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.94265232975 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.6003584229 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.1344086022 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.4835361801 48.9658058833 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.555555556 100.406767564 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 20.6045352989 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05555555556 5.45110844103 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.53405017921 110% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.85842293907 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15240726187 0.236089414692 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0501626997289 0.076458572812 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0447393023838 0.0737576698707 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0950464376086 0.150856017488 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0394863156191 0.0645574589148 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 11.7677419355 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 58.1214874552 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.10430107527 183% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.1575268817 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 10.9000537634 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.63 8.01818996416 120% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 86.8835125448 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.002688172 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.0537634409 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.