Recently, not only on this site but nearly everywhere there has been a lot of talk about unemployment.  Its reached a point where nearly everyone reading this is either unemployed or knows someone personally who has lost his or her job.  The situation isn't pretty and instead of making things worse, our government is causing more harm.

By raising the minimum wage, they are increasing the bottom line on already struggling retail businesses, by increasing taxes they likewise increase the bottom line.  The only way for companies to get around this hit to their budgets is to either cut back spending which includes staff or to pass the cost on to the consumer.

The stimulus package is not only failing to make things better but we're worse off now then Obama claimed we would be if he didn't pass anything. 

Then again those who pay attention knew not much would happen since only 23% of the stimulus bill was even scheduled to be spent this year.  The vast majority of it is going to political pay backs for the groups like ACORN who helped get Obama elected.  And of course Obama is playing on the gulable who believe that money was all spent and is starting to build the argument that yet another situmulus package is needed.

But I digress... regardless of which side your on or how you look at it, we can all agree the situation right now is bad. Even using the best estimates unemployment is reaching into the double digits.

So if we can all agree there's a problem, what's next?  The next step is a solution but before you can find a solution you must all agree on the root of the problem.

Part of the disagreement stems from the very problem itself... unemployment.  How you define unemployment will lump in a different group depending on your definition.

For instance, in a discussion in the feedback to a Dave Jarvis article on this site (found here) a link was given that defined unemployment to include those who are "marginally" employed, underemployed and even part time employees.

Now I know government and other groups have all different definitions of unemployed but I like to use my dictionary which defines it as "Out of work, especially involuntarily; jobless."  If you are working you are not unemployed.

Here is one link discussed that attempts to define "real unemployment".

Someone who has a full time job and is given a week or even two weeks off without pay because the company isn't doing well is not unemployed.  Someone who has had the number of hours they work cut back is not unemployed.

And "underemployeed" is a joke.  There is no such thing.  For there to bee underemployement then there must too be over imployment, people earning more then they should.  Ah but we call that Government.

There are also those who choose not to work.  Seasonal employees who have no problem collecting unemployment checks while out of work between seasons.  Lazy people who know they'll collect unemployment for a few weeks so they take that time without even looking for work.

Once we get our hands around who the real unemployed are we'll begin to see the problem and only in seeing the problem will we find a real solution... and I'll leave you with a hint, more government aint going to do it!