“Hey, what do you do?” This is a question every adult seems to ask each other at parties; it is the second question, asked typically after covering names and how your company is doing, and it is, of course, an integral part of our identity.

As we know, unemployment is extremely problematic. It is not just about money, it is about doing something with your life, having purpose, and providing for potential children as well as yourself. This considered, it makes sense why those who are unemployed typically have higher stress levels and mortality rates. To top it all off, those without jobs cannot buy goods and services and cannot contribute towards economic growth.

So, how do we measure unemployment? And how can we can fix it?

First, we must define unemployment. According to economics, the unemployed are those in a certain age bracket (18-65), who are out of work and have been actively looking for work for more than four weeks. The problem with this approach, however, is that when statisticians and the government take measurements of national unemployment they make the mistake of considering the whole age bracket that could be potential workers, and dividing that by the total unemployed.

It is a necessary mistake, since one must figure out a way to deal with such large numbers. However, there are so many exceptions to the rule. Most college students do not work, and some people retire early. There are others who simply do not want to work, and are more comfortable living off welfare and government aid than picking up a minimum wage job. Some even receive disability compensation, and a significant portion of women still choose stay at home with their children. With so many exceptions and excuses, it makes sense that those who want to stay logical stick to the basic measurement. Yet, the issue with broad, inaccurate statistics is the resulting reactions of the government and/or corporations.

While minimum wage might initially seem a beneficial system, problems arise when an employer wants to price his work at a specific rate. For instance, if the market value of a job is only six dollars an hour (like in the case of a job which really only requires 15 minutes of hard work in total, and the majority of the time is spent slothing around), and the minimum wage is nine dollars, then the employer will not be able to hire as many as he would like. In fact, he wouldn't be able to hire anyone, and his business would never grow.

Contrary to popular belief, businesses do not simply try to pay workers as little as possible (at least, smart ones don't). A business that pays workers the amount that they deserve to be paid (for their level of expertise) and still turns a profit would be in-line with its competitors. A business that pays more like Google would attract the finest members in its field and give Google a larger profit.

In order to fix unemployment the right way, it seems we should use Paul Solman’s economic scale. Thanks to his research, of asking people directly whether or not they work, are leeching the benefits of the government, or are simply tired of working, our economy appears to be still on the rise, even if it is in fact at a low in the grand scheme of this country's history.

The best method for fixing our economy might be as simple as government-issued children’s programming. If we were to educate our children on how to actually live their lives and teach skills like saving and investing, we might be able to prevent people from being comfortable with the meager benefits of welfare, or the short-term rewards of drug dealing. PBS, a government-funded channel, shows Sesame Street, which now features a section on Elmo’s saving habits. By teaching toddlers of the benefits of saving we could save them from making brash decisions in their later years. Thanks to a Stanford University study, “The Marshmallow Test,” in which children were asked to wait on one reward in order to receive a larger reward and tracked throughout their lives, we have found that those who wait for a greater compensation typically have a better standard of living than those who don’t. By having the government step out of the business sector (by lowering the minimum wage) and into the education sector, our economy might potentially rise with a faster exponential rate.