A group of people think that experts should be loyal to their own society and job where they are

trained, while others argue that they should have a good to choose anywhere they want.
Although it would provide a better situation for each nation if advanced-skill individuals work for their society, it seems to me that everyone has the right to choose whatever they planned for
their life.

On the one hand, many believe that high-trained people such as doctors, engineers, professional artists and so on could provide different advantages in various situations. From contributing
to developing the economy of the provincial to making the homey famous and proud. In other words, they should be assisted in improving their country. Moreover, a lack of experts may
provide a negative circumstance for citizens. The example can be seen in community with high-rate of migration like Iran. For one thing, people who have a high-risk level of illness have to
abundant the rustic to give professional treatment due to increased number of experts who left the homey.

On the other hand, opponents of this view point out that everyone has a honest to decide where they will work. Choosing the nation where a person would like to effort is a basic suitable
according to democratic law. In addition, developed land provided them with better career prospects and offered them a better futures, hence, it is not their fault, it is their government's
frailty. For illustrate, the average salary of engineers is around 300.000 to 500.000 per month in developing society, whereas the low income for them in high-rate migration countries like Iran
where they cannot even meet their basic needs.

In conclusion, although it is emotionally right that experts should have struggled where they are trained, it is logical that they have the right to decide their future plans.
The bar graph shows the weekly average expenditure made by families in relation to their salaries in 1968 and 2018 in a certain country. Overall, the spending experienced many changes over
time. It can be seen that food was the most important expenditure in 1968 while in 2018 it changed to leisure with also a huge difference in the percentages designated to these categories. Besides
this, in 2018 categories such as housing and transport increased considerably compared to 1968, whereas food, fuel and power, clothing and footwear and personal goods decreased their
percentages by 2018. Finally, the only category that did not experiment with any changes was household equipment.

To begin with, in 1968, families spent most of their salary on food, representing 35% of the total, followed by clothing and footwear and housing, which shared the same percentage of 10%. In
fourth place, leisure represented just under 10%, whereas household and personal furniture as well as transport represented around 8% respectively. Finally, the least expenditure was on fuel and
power, which was just over 5%.

On the other hand, in 2018, the biggest spending was related to leisure activities, which was over 20% of the total income. The second position was occupied by housing with just under 20%,
followed by food with over 15% and then by transport, with an index of just under 15%. Regarding household goods, this category represented the same index that it was in 1968 of 8%. Clothing
and footwear represented 5%. Finally, personal furniture and fuel and power shared the same percentage of almost 5% of the total income.