China is relatively abundant/rich in labor

Question

China is relatively abundant/rich in labor compared to Sweden and Australia.Hi,Do both "abundant" and "rich" fit in the above and mean about the same to you? Thanks.

Akavall · Accepted Answer

Abundant sounds more natural to me.

Angliholic · Answer

Thanks, Akawall.

But could you explain a bit the reason?

Hoa Thai · Answer

Hi friends,

I think both are fine. You can also find people say, 'resource-poor but labor-rich'.

Akavall · Answer

I think rich works also and has the same meaning.

But perhaps it is slightly less natural than abundant, when used to refer to labor. My reasoning is that the word rich sends a hidden message that the country is rich or the people of the country are rich. If you say, "A country is rich in capital", this perfectly natural because countries that are rich in capital are rich. If you say, "A country is rich in natural resources", this is fine too because even though a country might not be rich, those natural resources make the country wealthier. But it appears that it's the poor countries who are rich in labor, so it just seems odd to me to use the word rich as an adjective for a characteristic of the poor countries. But this must a very minor issue, if any.

Hoa Thai · Answer

Hi Akawall,

I can see why you reason that way. To you, the word rich sends a financially rich image.

Akavall "A country is rich in natural resources", this is fine too because even though a country might not be rich, those natural resources make the country wealthier.

I find that statement is awkward. Do you mean a poor country with rich yet undeveloped natural resources - like the Middle East countries before finding oil?

Akavall But ~~it appears that it's~~for 'the poor countries who are rich in labor', so it just seems odd to me touse the word rich as an adjective for a characteristic of the poor countries.

Do you find "A country is rich in human resources" odd? How about: 'Vietnam is a poor country yet rich in hospitality."

Regarding the naturalness of the two words, the count from Google search indicates 4:1 ratio in favor of rich in labor.

Well, I know this is a minor issue to you, but I hope you would not discount the use of 'rich in labor', which just means there are a lot of people who can provide services - readily and willingly; sometimes we might even see thousands of people building roads for years without any help from modern equipment, with which they can be done in months or weeks instead.

Akavall · Answer

Hi, Hoa Thai,

Hoa Thai
Akavall "A country is rich in natural resources", this is fine too because even though a country might not be rich, those natural resources make the country wealthier.
I find that statement is awkward. Do you mean a poor country with rich yet undeveloped natural resources - like the Middle East countries before finding oil?

Yeah, this, and also situations when a country has developed natural resources, but it is, say, corrupt, so the inefficiency hinders its development. I am just saying that if a country is rich in natural resourced, it doesn't automatically mean it is wealthy.

Hoa ThaiDo you find "A country is rich in human resources" odd? How about: 'Vietnam is a poor country yet rich in hospitality."

I don't find either of those statements odd. The 2nd one is natural for sure. The 1st one is natural too because human resource is more than just labor; human resource also includes skills and education of laborers, things that we associate with wealthy countries.
By "minor issue" I meant that besides the intended definition of the word rich, "Having an abundant supply", there is also an intended definition, "Possessing great material wealth". In other words, I was saying that the drawback of saying "rich in labor" is very minor, if there is a drawback at all.

China is relatively abundant/rich in labor

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions