Unemployment rates find newer heights the world over. Though reasons differ from nation to nation, when it comes third world nations, it is said that non-employability of the workforce is much more responsible than anything else.

How genuine or unfounded is this view in your opinion?

Unemployment is caused by innumerable factors. These may differ according to the statuses of nations. This essay is an attempt to find out how genuine the factor is that non-employability causes more unemployment than any other factor does.

Unemployment is prevalent in all economies the world over. There are several factors that cause it. These causes may range from poor education to rising population, poor development to absence of initiative, to mention a few. However, when it comes to the view that non-employability is a bigger force in this respect, what I feel is that it is just one of the factors that lead to unemployment. It is in no way the most powerful factor.

Let me prove it by citing an example. If we take the case of India, there are evidences to show that it is the huge population, absence of industry-friendly education, poor development initiates, to mention a few, that cause more unemployment than any other factor does.

However, it is important to find out how non-employability affects the employment. Recently, there were reports that many industries found it difficult to find enough number of employable candidates. This was due to industry-unfriendly education and absence of certain skills required of candidates. But, this concern is raised by a negligibly small number of white collar industries like software, management, marketing, engineering and so on.

In short, it is right to say that employment needs of all the workforce cannot be met by a few industries. Rather, it can be satisfied by developments in all walks of life. Therefore, I can say that the non-employability plank is absolutely unfounded.

270 words











Unemployment rates are always on the upswing the world over. However, it is a fact that there is unprecedented growth in the number of fresh employment opportunities being generated.

What reasons do you attribute to this disparity?
What effects does it have on people in general?

The world is developing faster in all walks of life. As a result, there is great rise in the number of employments. However, unemployment rates are also on the rise. This essay is an attempt to find out why there is a disparity between these two rates, and how this scenario affects people.

To begin with, several reasons could be attributed to rising unemployment rates. It may range from huge population, poor education and infrastructure development etc. I think, in our part of the world, population is so huge and it is the major reason for this disparity. For example, the numbers of people who get out of different centres of learning are much higher than the number of opportunities being created.

Besides this, other factors like digital divide, gender disparity in employment, huge difference in rural-urban development, lack of industry-friendly education, to mention a few, could be associated with this mounting disparity in both the rates.

Obviously, this dichotomy is bound to affect the general public in several different ways. The primary impact in my opinion is human resource loss. Human resource is a perishable one, and if employable people remain jobless for long, their service will go waste. Secondly, such a loss will lead to poor socio-economic conditions, slow pace development, social disharmony, rich poor divide and, finally, there will be social evils like, crimes, alcoholism, poverty etc.

In short, disparity in unemployment and employment rates is much bigger a problem than what it actually looks like. These rates need to be balanced the general well being of all, and I think it is high time different institutions did something about it.


270 words









Many reasons are attributed to unemployment in general. However, it is argued that digital divide and gender discrimination are the two formidable stumbling blocks that stand on the way of what social scientist call ‘employable-employment’ balance.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view?


It is true that there is imbalance in the number of employable people and the available opportunities. But this dichotomy, in my opinion, could not be attributed greatly to digital or gender divide. Since they are a force to reckon with, it looks hard for me to fully disagree with the view anyway.

Let us look at the common factors that go into what our social scientists call employable-employment imbalance. Primarily it is the size of the population. For example when the number of people who get employable and the number of employment created differ, obviously, there will be unemployment. Secondly, poor quality education, weaker national status, lack of industrialization, haphazard distribution of development between rural and urban areas and the like are the other factors that lead to this imbalance. I think all these reasons are as formidable as gender and digital divide.

For example, digital divide is depriving great number of people of their opportunities. But if we look at the statistics, we can see that digitally qualified people and the number employment created in the digital world do not go in line. That is, there is disparity too. So is the case with gender divide. For example, there is gender preference when private sector, the biggest employment provider, recruits people. Here too, those who suffer from this problem are negligibly small. And studies show that in many organization women outnumber men.

In short, gender and digital divide are two blocks, like any other impediments, that stand on the way of employment employable balance. Therefore, it is difficult agree with the view that they are in any way formidable or whatever.

270 words










Ensuring enough employment for all the educated and skilled workforce is taken by some as a responsibility of the State.

How far are you going to endorse this view?

Not many would disagree with the fact that State has a decisive role in ensuring employment for all. But I for one am not convinced of the view that it is solely the responsibility of the State. There are many other agencies that involve in this Herculean task. Let me first see how responsible State is in this connection.

State as a guardian is bound to ensure that the educated and employable workforce get some paid employment. However, when it comes to state as an entity and population as a beneficiary, this task is too arduous. For example, for the State, ensuring employment is one of its responsibilities, not its only responsibility. In this connection, state may be able to make sure that employment opportunities are coming up periodically.

How ever decisive the role of the state may be, there are other agencies that make employment for all possible. Primarily, individuals themselves must strive hard to find their own ways of life when the state finds it unable to perform its role. For example, an employable worker may be able to run a business of his own by taking assistance from the state. But every one cannot expect the state to be providing a monthly paid job. Rather job seekers need to find out their own way outs by taping those possibilities generated by other sources in country and outside.

These inferences make it clear that providing employment for all is not only the responsibility of the state, but it is a collective endeavour carried out by the educated workforce, entrepreneurs, industrialists and the like.

265 words