I disagree with the Ruggie’s definition of wealth being full employment. Wealth of the individual and wealth of a nation can both partially depend on employment, but there are so many other aspects of wealth that can potentially be more important than full employment that the definition of wealth cannot be restricted to this one factor.
Employment is crucial to an individual becoming wealthy, however employment does not automatically translate into wealth. An individual must be well educated, willing to do a ‘dirty job’, or possess a valued skill in order to be successful in the work force. As we learned at Bread for the City, people can be employed, even in multiple jobs, but due to other factors such as the cost of living, unavoidable debts, multiple dependents, etc they are still not wealthy. On the other hand, someone with a well-paying job or a wealth family could be able to live on wages made from relatively few hours of work per week.
On the nation-wide level circumstances are much the same. A high employment rate may not translate into the wealth on the global scale due to factors such as the lack of natural resources or an inferior workforce. This point can be exemplified by the Soviet Union. As a communist state, the Soviet Union had very high employment rates but was not wealthy compared to other first world countries (Perry tells me that the proper term is a second world). This was due both to a lack of resources and to improper use of what resources were available. The Soviet Union used its resources for weaponry and defense purposes rather than devoting them to projects that would increase the standard of living within the country.
So, while employment is important to both individual and national wealth, there are many other factors, both controllable and circumstantial, that affect wealth and the ability to accumulate wealth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I was just going to mention communism! :) The whole point is to have a fully employed populous, but as you explained it doesn't always work out.
So I agree, I guess the only way to measure exactly how wealthy a nation is in terms of employment would be to have Ruggie's definition of wealth. And I'm not gonna lie, I couldn't make it through that dense piece far enough to find it if it's there.
Hey Amanda,
I would add two other things:
I think this is the direction you were kind of leaning in, but judging the wealth of a country has less to do with how many people are employed, and more to do with how productive the employed citizenry is. You can have a relatively high unemployment rate and soaring productivity and have a very wealthy country.
The second thing I would add is that so much of personal wealth (my definition being secure, stable, comfortable living), in my opinion, has very little to do with capital and a great deal to do with access to resources. A person with almost no money, but housing, medical care when needed, and food (to name just a couple) will not only be more likely to be an active/productive citizen, but will also increase the wealth of the country overall because of decreased spending on crime prevention/prisons, unpaid urgent care visits, etc.
That's just a theory, though.
Post a Comment