There are literally only two sources of wealth on the planet.
1. As a result of nature’s gifts (utilized for purpose)
2. As a result of work (utilized for a purpose)
From that, wealth is only useful for two things:
1. For current social well-being
2. For future social well-being
No wealth comes from capital. (Sorry to sound like Marx.)
Some (perhaps even a great deal of) wealth comes from the work of the choice of where to put capital to use.
No wealth comes from idleness (Sorry to sound like a rabid conservative). What people do with time that they are unemployed or unable, can be a contribution to society.
People are idle a lot. Leisure. Even working people are “idle” 60 hours of their weekly waking life.
In an average person’s life, they are idle (not contributing to economy) for the first 22 years of their life (college educated). A lot of expenditure for future contributing life (a form of human capital, in contrast to social[ly-owned] capital). They are idle 60 hours/week of their working life (reasonable). They are idle an average of 20 years of their retirement life.
So, in summary, between preparing for contributory life and relaxing after contributory life, most individuals are fully idle for half of it.
One definition of adult life is the transition from preparatory idleness to socially contributory. That is the liberal definition.
The conservative definition of adult life is the transition from others taking care of you, to you taking care of yourself, and to you caring for others.
If high unemployment is acceptable (the conservative view), that there is no moral social obligation or even social virtue (through any agency) to universal employment, then there will end up not being a path for the conservative virtue, the ability to universally take care of yourself and of others.
In Greenfield, we are in trouble. I’m in trouble. My neighbors are in trouble. We are eating our seed grain.
Loving Home in Practice 