“If you strive, you can succeed” had been one of the foundational moral principles in Korean society for long. John Locke posited that humans hold a legitimate right to property over things into which they have mixed their labor. Here lies the philosophical root of the belief that “effort is the foundation of wealth and success.” The older generation believed they had proven this proposition through their own lives, passing that belief down to the next generation. The question is whether this belief remains valid today.
Thomas Piketty pointed out the phenomenon where the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth. While the wealth of asset owners continues to grow even without labor, income earned through labor fails to keep pace. Furthermore, Joseph Stiglitz analyzes that inequality stems not from a lack of individual effort, but from market structures and institutions. Economic rent—unearned income derived from land or assets, as Henry George noted—generates wealth regardless of effort. The gap between those who own assets and those who do not is already determined at the starting line, rather than by the amount of effort expended. Ultimately, there is a clear divide between success and failure that cannot be explained by effort alone. Moreover, market logic has shifted the very definition of success itself. In the past, even a modest life with a spouse and children could be considered successful. Today, however, we live in an era where any form of deficiency is unacceptable, and the measure of success has narrowed to the sheer size of one’s assets.
Does this mean effort is completely invalid? I do not think so. John Rawls considered a just society to be one that does not erase all natural inequalities, but rather adjusts institutions to provide the greatest benefit to the least advantaged. This perspective asks us to view the meaning of effort not as a guarantee of success, but as a matter of self-determination over our own lives. Even if effort is not translated directly into wealth or status, it remains the way we autonomously lead our lives. Acknowledging that the social structure is tilted and giving up on effort are two entirely different matters. Ignoring the former leads to cynicism; choosing the latter leads to resignation. What we need is a perspective that strikes a balance between the two. When we confront structural limitations, we can redefine effort not merely as a ladder toward material success, but as a tool for shaping our own lives. “If you put in effort, you will succeed” may no longer be as valid as it once was. However, the reason why we must still strive—even if the outcome remains uncertain—remains fundamentally valid.
Kim Min-seo
[Department of Journalism, Public Relations, and Advertising]
