My out-of-work 17-year-old son is at that trying stage in life where he can't decide whether he should go out and work for a living or stay at home and become a permanent fixture in the TV room.
I'll grant you it's a tough decision, and he's spent many an hour watching "Cheers" reruns trying to figure it out.What I never suspected was that the federal government would agree with him.
To make their point, the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates three times since February because there aren't enough people out of work.
I'm not kidding.
There are only 8 million people out of work and that is not enough! So they're raising interest rates in the hopes that unemployment figures will go up so that they can curb inflation.
We here in Utah are not doing enough to curb this impending disaster. According to federal statistics, our low unemployment rate is completely unacceptable - and anyone willing to make the supreme sacrifice of not working will be contributing to the greater good.
Of course, the connection between jobs and inflation is a highly debated subject in economics, but no matter.
Federal Reserve officials say we've reached the danger point of 8 million people out of work, so interest rates are higher. And unfortunately it costs more to finance a house now than last month.
Or get a loan. Or buy a car.
I just don't get it. Hasn't the goal all along been to lower unemployment and get people off welfare? Or did I miss something? Does that mean that there's no hope for the 8 million people now out of work?
There is an opposing point of view: Robert Solow, a Nobel laureate in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His conclusion is that "a good national target - one that does not accelerate inflation - is an unemployment rate of around 5.5 percent, or 7 million people."
Well, either way - 7 million or 8 million people - my son is ready and willing to do his part to keep interest rates down.