In some countries, celebrities can now earn more than senior politicians. What might be the reason for this? Is this a positive or negative development?
In the contemporary world, celebrities have become an indispensable part of
the society. In some countries, they earn significantly more than politicians since they have a plethora of secondary income sources other than the primary one their primary profession (You are comparing profession with income sources. Wrong comparison.). I firmly consider it as a negative development since the huge income difference demotivates people from joining to join the politics. (You can’t demotivate to do something, you can demotivate from doing something.)
Due to the massive fan following of movie actors (“the X of Y” construction), sportsmen, and youtubers, they earn money not only from their profession but also from television advertisements, marketing photoshoots, and guest appearances. In contrast, politicians, due to strict government policies, are not allowed to do (engage in/ indulge in) such commercial activities
other than their profession. (Such has the same function as these. It is a pronoun. When you write such commercial activities, you are referring to the activities mentioned in the previous sentence. This makes “other than their profession” redundant. LR issue.) For instance, Shahrukh Khan, a famous Indian actor, despite releasing any movie (This does not make sense. DESPITE = Without being influenced by.) despite earning enough from movies in the year 2015, earned ten million dollars for acting in the marketing campaigns of the online education firm Byus, which is twenty times higher than the yearly salary of the Prime minister of India.
Because of this massive salary difference, (1) politics as a profession is least preferred by youngsters. Nowadays, parents, (2) inspired
from by the luxurious lifestyle of these celebrities, train their children to become the next Sania Mirza, Virat Kohli or Shahrukh khan. Consequently, few people join politics, which leads to the scarcity of enthusiastic youth in it. (The idea is not well developed. TR issue.) Moreover, low income forces ruling politicians to engage in unethical activities to earn more money. For instance, ten Indian ministers were caught in money laundering cases in 2015 and the further investigation revealed that the primary reason was their low income. (Let us write more originally. Here’s another example: While the Indian politicians engage in hawala and favoritism (crony capitalism), those in the USA accept illegal favors from lobbyists and the ones in France indulge in corrupt practices in the guise of loans from private companies. This is primarily to support their personal expenses due to low income for this profession.)
1. Modifier mistake. The modifier “because of ….. difference” can’t modify politics. It can modify YOUNGSTERS. Let us rewrite: Because of this massive salary difference, youngsters do not prefer politics as a profession.
2. Well, the first sentence is that youngsters do not prefer. The second sentence should be an explanation about WHY youngsters do not prefer. Rather, you’ve written about parents.
To recapitulate, the lower income of political leaders
as compared to the than that of (The correct construction is “X lower than Y”) famous personalities (Your sentence compares the income of politicians with famous personalities. That’s incorrect. You’ve committed the same mistake above.) is hampering the country’s growth as it is restricting youth to join it (Join what? There are two “IT” in this sentence. Referencing confusion.) and promoting (LR issue. You can’t promote to follow illegal means. You can encourage.) leaders of the ruling party to follow illegal means of generating money.