The problem with employment

Even though I'm not an expert on finance and economies, I do know one thing: full employment does not always guarantee the wealth of a nation. Before we continue, I have to say that for there to be full employment can be impossible to accomplish for as our population grows and migration accelerates due to our globalized market (i.e. the number of Latin American workers), unemployment will continue to exist. Our economy also goes through a cycle where prosperity and recession reoccur at various moments so we cannot always guarantee employment to signify wealth. But, more importantly, there can’t be full employment and growing wealth at the same time for companies may not be unable to support their workforce. Overall, my view on employment is that it operates as a separate unit of our economy and has no connection to economic growth.
Rather than focus on our present economy, let’s review a period of history where the status of one’s economy was deemed as more significant than the status of the people known specifically as the Industrial Age. This era occurred in three stages, the first initiated by the textile industry in the 18th century, the second by coal and steel from the late 18th to early 19th century, and the third by the railroad industry in the mid 19th century. Before the first, manpower in labor was a constant need due to the demand for textile products so employment was at its highest state. Yet when the cotton gin and other tools for textile production were institutionalized, the need for manpower dropped and many became unemployed while the textile demand was satisfied and profits grew. At this stage employment and wealth are two sides of one scale; as wealth goes up in this period, the need for more workers drops. Then, the second Industrial stage hit and European nations were now at the mercy of the demand for coal to supply their steam powered factories. At this stage employment became essential for unlike textiles, coal could not be replicated and required extraction from dangerous mines. To avoid mine collapses similar to what China faces today, the British miners started using small tunnels to extract the coal but since men were unable to squeeze through these, the employment of women and children for manual labor became prominent. While this reverses my earlier argument over the employment/wealth scale, the third stage of Industrialization is able to reuse this analogy. When railroads were introduced, this allowed resources to be transported faster and required a lot of manpower to build the tracks. The problem is that when the tracks are finished, the railroads are able to accumulate profit while the workers find themselves out of work and must find jobs elsewhere. This has distinct parallels to the Hoover Dam project where the dam was able to acquire profit as it powered many homes in the western US in exchange for the payment of their electric bills yet the workers had to find new jobs after its completion.
While our present economy is different than the past ones, there share one unique pattern; as wealth increases, the employment in terms of manpower shrinks. Unfortunately, there is another problem with this ratio today; if wealth in corporations shrinks rapidly, employment also diminishes because of the inability for the companies to pay their workers. Does this mean that wealthy companies are able to employ more workers? Unfortunately, no for with reference to my point about the cycle our economy goes through, corporations can’t afford to recklessly employ people unless it’s financially capable of supporting that many workers. Also should the economy began to diminish, the companies would be forced to downsize their number of employed workers in order to avoid the aftershock of an economic recession.