No.
Maybe.
Depends.
...No, it's back to no.
This question is basically asking: do you agree with this definition of wealth: in relation to countries, having full employment.
And, no, I don't agree with that definition. I reject your definition, good sir, and replace it with my own:
...
I don't have one yet. I'm working on it.
Besides, rarely are countries at "full employment", which doesn't mean there isn't unemployment. According to my WordWeb (since I'm too lazy to pull out my macroecon book), full employment is: "The economic condition when everyone who wishes to work at the going wage rate for their type of labor is employed." ...Hmm. That isn't what I remember from econ.
Ok! Got my macroecon book. The term "full employment" is also referred to as "natural rate of unemployment". My book defines this as: "The normal rate of unemployment, consisting of frictional unemployment plus structural unemployment." Frictional unemployment is "short-term unemployment that arises from the process of matching workers with jobs" and structural unemployment is "unemployment arising from the persistent mismatch between the skills and characteristics of workers and the requirements of jobs". It also lists the other type of unemployment, which is cyclical unemployment (cyclical is such a weird looking word). Cyclical (still weird) unemployment involves unemployment due to recession. Like now.
Alright! Combining all the information we've garnered thus far, let's look at what we've (meaning I, and thus you by association) have deduced: According to Ruggie, a wealthy country is a country with full employment. According to
...Taking into account the current economic crisis (have fun with that one, Obama)...no country is wealthy all the time then.
Which brings us to the question of: do countries fluctuate in and out of being wealthy?
If America is in a recession (it is), then are we not wealthy anymore because people are unemployed due to the recession?
Conveniently, and I mean, really conveniently, I just started reading the book "The End of Poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs, who is becoming a hero of mine relatively quickly. And no, totally didn't go out and buy this book for World Politics. Went out and bought this book for College Writing. Since I wrote a research paper on Sachs.
And I was going to talk about it, but I realized I can do it next week when it is poverty week. Whoo!
In any case, I've come up with my definition of wealthy, on both an individual level (I'm all about the individuals) and country level (this class is all about the countries):
Individual level: Look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The closer you get to self-actualization, the wealthier you are. In order to achieve the most base of needs, someone, either you or someone you are dependent on, needs to have a job. So I don't agree with the "wealthy if you have a job". You could be considered wealthy if you have a job, but you do not need a job to be wealthy. Make sense?
Country level: As Jasmine just told me (she's going to be slightly pissed I stole this. ...Love ya?) "If you're giving out aid to other countries, you can be considered wealthy." Though...never mind, no, Jas, take that back. I don't like it. New definition: The population of a country is able to access the basic needs of survival on a day-to-day basis, and can accumulate durable goods (that means things like cars and houses), lending to better health, mental and physically, of life.
Because, hey, I don't care if you say "my family/friends are more important to me than money or material things"...having money, having the ability to buy food, shelter, whatever, for your friends/family, VASTLY increases your wealth on an emotional scale.
Personally, when my financial situation is secure (secure usually means I am making money, and have money saved away), I am less stressed. Overanxiety and stress can lead to actual physical ailments. When I'm less stressed, more endorphins are released in my brain, causing me to be happier. When I'm happier, I'm more social, when I'm more social, I'm more likely to create relationships that actually mean something.
Go money.
1 comment:
Hey not fair! :) You asked me randomly while I was blowdrying my hair so it was taken out of context- not really but I wasn't prepared to share an intellectual answer, hence the foreign aid comment. Though I do consider it a sign of national wealth.
I'm not sure your definition of country-level wealth is actually country-level. Ultimately it still cites the population of the nation as opposed to, say, the nation's finances. Which you could say boils down to the general population but chu know what I mean. ;)
Post a Comment