What measures a county's wealth?

The definition of wealth means different things to different people, but when referring to a country as a whole it is most commonly linked to financial capital. An interesting question came up at the end of class regarding this definition of wealth and its measure; can a country’s wealth be measured by whether or not there is full employment in that particular country? If full employment is defined as everybody in that country being employed, then the answer is no. Using employment or its opposite, unemployment, as a yardstick is not an effective way to measure a country’s wealth for two reasons. The first reason is that no country can, in practical terms, have a zero unemployment rate. The second reason is that a country with a low rate of unemployment but higher wages is wealthier than a country with full employment but low wages. The reason the country with the higher wages does better is explained below. But all of that being said, I believe that a good way to measure a country’s wealth is by the level of employment. Strong employment among the populous of a country is quite beneficial to a country’s economy. The more people employed means the more people making money. People will inevitably spend at least some of the money that they make, which puts that money back in the economy. This in turn will increase a demand for new goods, which will be made if the market demands them. By making these new goods, the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will increase, thus making a country wealthier. The lower the unemployment rate in a country the better, because more people have money to inject into the economy. So the answer to the initial question is that a country’s wealth is linked at least in part to its level of employment but not necessarily to full employment which is unattainable. It might better be linked to the wages paid to workers.