Back when I was learning econ, the fashion was to call that "human capital" - the accumulation of knowledge, skills, personality traits, mental health, physical health, and everything else that enables and encourages someone to be a self-sufficient and economically stable member of society.

This is essentially Brooks' argument.

Going back to David Brooks' I'm "not a liberal", is precisely because he rejects the purely materialist approach to solving social problems, which he defines as a key feature of liberalism. Again, he argues that liberalism focuses primarily on economic inequality and material solutions, such as redistributing income or providing cash assistance, but fails to acknowledge the essential role of nonmaterial qualities that you cite such as skills, character, and moral virtues in fostering personal and social well-being.

From what I gleaned from Wendy's posting of Brooks' article (thanks again, Wendy!), Brooks believes that rising out of poverty, and achieving a thriving society, requires a blend of material support and cultivation of human capital, such as diligence, honesty, good health, and dependability. He claims, “I don't think the left grasps reality in all its fullness,” criticizing the left for overlooking these nonmaterial contributors to flourishing.

At its core, Brooks’s definition of "not a liberal" centers on his belief that effective policy and personal development must go beyond material interventions, prioritizing virtue, human capital, and social cohesion over mere economic redistribution.

Makes sense.

Pete