The deficit of 1.5 trillion is funding 50 to 60 million jobs in America. We are borrowing to spend on consumer economy. These are all service sector jobs. Google for "DEFLATIONARY CRASH" to understand why these jobs cannot be sustained. We need manufacturing jobs, science, engineering and technology jobs. Service sector jobs are not able to help curb trade deficit. It is a dead end. Keynesians are dead wrong about it. At the end of the day, they won't be able to spend to stimulate the economy. Once their hand is forced, the crash will be unlike anything we have ever witnessed. We need to let the free markets run so that private sector can align itself with what works and what does not. FED is giving the wrong signals to the economy and it is creating wrong kind of jobs. These jobs won't survive the next leg down.

@summersk -- You are correct that we risk a 'deflationary crash'. Yes, service sector jobs are not sustainable - but - that is only a symptom of what is wrong with our economy.

Service sector jobs have always been a part of our economy - from the beginning. The service sector keeps pace with population - so we really do not have more service jobs than in the past relative to population size. Service sector jobs are not the problem.

What has been declining in our economy is creation of new wealth. New wealth is created by combining resources and labor to produce something of greater value.

Keynesian economics absolutely does work - when - money is spent on things that create new wealth. Just dumping money into the economy is not Keynesian economics. Keep in mind that tax cuts are also a form of government spending - tax cuts are Keynesian when they are directed toward parts of the economy that create new wealth. The 2001 - 2003 tax cuts were not Keynesian economics - they were stupid economics because the 'spending' went to non-productive 'financial services' income and jobs.

The Fed only works with the banking and finance sectors of the economy - that is precisely what it was designed to do. The Treasury Department works with the rest of the economy. Government monetary policy is set by the Fed AND Treasury Department working together. Congress has not allowed the Treasury Department to do its job - so - the government has not had any monetary policy during this recession.

'Free enterprise' - 'free trade' - 'free market' economics are not capitalism. Our economic policies have supported making money from money - and - fail to support creating wealth. Right now our economy has a money surplus and a wealth deficit. Either our economy needs to begin creating more new wealth - or - excess money needs to be destroyed. Destruction of excess money is deflationary.

We have been attempting to gamble our way to prosperity for the last 30 years by subsidizing investments instead of promoting work and wealth creation. Investing (making money from money) is not productive - does not create wealth - and will collapse our economy if it continues to be subsidized.

@Struggling American -- This article appears to be pessimistic because it is based on the mass labor model that arose because of the Industrial Revolution. Work and wealth creation was based on the efforts of the individual before industrialization. Industrialization required mass labor - the system was predominant and individual effort was diminished.

The only way mass labor can succeed is if the created wealth is fairly distributed among those contributing to creation of the wealth. (Note the similarity to socialist economics?)

What these job forecasts show is that the mass labor model is not working any longer. Any wealth created in the economy is no longer being fairly distributed among those that create the wealth. That means that the mass labor forecasts are WAGS at best - because - the mass labor industrialized model is dying.

We have seen reports of increased automation - less need for labor. That automation is available to the individual, too. Today it is possible for an individual to operate a factory on their desktop with minimal cost. People are far more interconnected than economies - and - that allows individuals to provide products and meet the needs of others through direct communication. That is the basic idea of economics.

We are returning to an economy where wealth creation will depend on individual skills, talents, intellect, and work ethic instead of being part of a mass labor system.

The era of thinking outside the box is over - now is the time to realize that there is no box ...

The days of mass labor are over - yes. But, are you saying individualism will have unequal distribution?

The only way mass labor can succeed is if the created wealth is fairly distributed among those contributing to creation of the wealth. (Note the similarity to socialist economics?)

We are returning to an economy where wealth creation will depend on individual skills, talents, intellect, and work ethic instead of being part of a mass labor system.

Read the viewpoints on this article and you will notice, like many other comments sections in other stories, the support or disdain for a policy is 90% of the time based on the commentors political parties position.....little else.

Most of those jobs which will be great in coming by 2020 are SLAVES !!! All those jobs won't be well paid. So, one might have to think about running 2 or even 3 of those SLAVERY jobs.

Welcome Americans to a system like one of a undeveloped country, where some few riches are ruling over the poor mass population.

Kind of expected to see construction trades included, considering the number of older/experienced workers nearing retirement.

@Grinspoon97 -- Unfortunately, any shift in how economic systems evolve will result in unequal opportunity initially. As the economy achieves a stable equilibrium - everyone has greater opportunity to participate and obtain a fair share of created wealth according to their contribution.

Industrialization really did not predominate until the end of the nineteenth century. That shift resulted in the rise of labor organizations in the 1870s (organized representation for mass labor - not representation for individual workers). Industrialization reached a stable equilibrium after World War II.

Now we see that industrialization is no longer providing a fair opportunity for people to participate in the economy. Wealth created in the economy is not distributed fairly among those that contribute to its creation.

The opportunity now is for individuals to create wealth for themselves - to work for themselves instead of working for a system. Finding a 'good' job only means keeping pace or falling behind economically. Since we are only beginning that transition - some will not have the skills or ability to shift to an individual based economy. And we are seeing more people attempting to participate in the economy in non-productive ways - day trading, gambling - which is a dead end.

Retail slaves and ass wipers?! The best one with an inkling of decent pay is the accountant if you are not medical.

Gawd-damn...retail sucks so bad. I realy loathe it.

I don't think things will get better without a radical change in the way the economy is run.

Most people don't know it but the people who own and run the U.S. changed our economy in the mid to late 1970's. It was capitalism before and it was capitalism after but from 1933 to the mid 1970's it was "Demand" side, Keynesian capitalism (dominated by the economic ideology of John Maynard Keynes). The economic Ideology of the New Deal and the FDR administration.

Keyesian economists wouldn't like me saying this but basically it was a hybrid between Capitalism and Socialism.

Economic policies associated with this ideology: Social programs like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Pro-union, a large public sector, high taxes on the rich and corporations, low interest rates. etc.

Policies that put money in many peoples hands and stimulate "demand".

After the 1970's our economy was increasingly dominated by "Supply Side" "Free-market" capitalist ideology or as economists call it: "Neo-liberal" economics.

Don't be confused, this is not because it has anything to do with "liberals" (although "liberals" like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have now embraced it) or cultural liberalism but because it involves the liberalization of capital. Indeed the first political leaders to embrace "Free-market"/ Neo Liberal economics were conservatives like Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater etc. (Milton Friedman is the economist most associated with this economic ideology).

Economic polices associated with "Free-market"/ Neo-liberal ideology: Deregulation, privatization, anti-union,

low taxes on business and the wealthy, etc.

This policy is similar to Laissez Faire the economic ideology which dominated the 1920's. You know, right before the stock market crashed and we had the Great Depression.

Even though 30 years of Free-Market/Neo-liberal economics crashed the economy in 2008 and brought about another profound economic crises like it's ancestor did at the end of the 1920's (when it was called Laissez Faire) this ideology still rules in the minds of U.S. politicians, policy makers and for the most part in corporate media.

That's why both Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership and all Republicans push many of the same "free-market"/"Neo-liberal", ideas about "fixing the economy" and "creating jobs": Slashing government spending, lowering taxes on business and the wealthy, (Obama calls them "tax incentives" and his proposals for raise taxes in the rich by token amounts are election year gimmicks)

Here's some graphs and text that shows the difference in effects the two opposing ideologies have produced"

U.S. unemployment rate during the 1930s with New Deal programs. Notice in the graph below it is generally going down at a pretty rapid rate during: Federal jobs programs (WPA, etc), creation of Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, etc. etc).

By the way that jog upwards in the unemployment rate around 1937 was when the FDR administration briefly REVERSED it's New Deal policies and started CUTTING the federal deficit. They realized their mistake and resumed spending at the previous levels and unemployment started going down again.

Even so conservative critics who say that New Deal programs did not end the depression are right.

It ended after we entered WWII and spent EVEN more than we had been during the New Deal Period. After WWII we had the Cold War and space race which kept federal spending high and the unemployment rate low.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/depression(6).JPG

Wages adjusted for inflation (also includes inflation rate). Wages, adjusted for inflation were much higher on average than now.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2008/us-wages-june08.gif

It's popular for politicians of both parties to say we have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world but they are blowing smoke and they know it. They are talking about the NOMINAL tax rate, the tax rate that is on the books but which few corporations pay.

60% of U.S. corporations pay NO TAXES some years and the tax rate for corporations has generally been going down since the end of the 1940's. This gives the lie to claims that further lowering taxes for businesses will "stimulate the economy" and produce "jobs". If you look at the graphs above you will see that unemployment was lower and wages higher even when corporate taxes were much higher in the 1960s for example.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/business/images/corptaxrates_graph_2.jpg

http://cdn.investinganswers.net:81/images/09-02-11-taxes3.jpg

There is also a lot of BS about the share of taxes the richest americans pay. They pay a large percentage of federal taxes not because they have a high rate of taxation but because so much of the national wealth is going to them. In fact the rich are paying historically low rates of taxation.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/hildebrand/WG%201.png

Here's the history of the tax rate. Notice it was 90% during the 1950's which was mostly a Republican Administration (Eisenhower).

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4e1c5b08ccd1d50779000000/us-income-tax-top-bracket.jpg

The result of all of this? From roughly 1950's to the mid 1970's we had what economist Paul Krugman calls the "Great Compression". The period of time when wealth inequality was the lowest it's ever been since they have been taking records (and probably in U.S. history)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/

As Krugman points out the period of the Great Compression is also when the large prosperous middle class that the U.S. used to be famous for was created and was at it's greatest.

Today, from both political parties and constantly in the corporate media we have calls for more of the same "Free-market"/Neo-liberal" policies that, for the last 30 years, have been eroding the middle class, assaulting the poor and that pushed us off a cliff in 2008: "austerity" (drastically cutting federal spending), lowering taxes on billionaires and reliance on "the free-market" to produce jobs instead of a huge federal jobs program like the WPA in the 1930's that would really work.

In spite of all the happy talk in the corporate media (TV and online) and from politicians things really won't get better (and could get a lot worse, again) if we don't make radical change in the economy and learn some lessons from history.

Even if it can't be done in exactly the same way it can still be done.

That's because we don't make anything in this country anymore. All we do is service each other (in more ways thn one).

Why do we trade and allow our companies to employ overseas to countries that live off slave labor and deplorable economic and political policies? And then allow these same companies to hide profits in off-shore banks and at effective tax rates much lower than average citizens?

A: Because these are the same people who have bought and paid for Congress.

And we can't even legally service each other and get paid for it to boot!!! ;-)

This is because Americans are too dumb to raise to arms and restore America's finest moral values which have been the dream for so many migrants who came to this country centuries ago. All this is gone.

The wealth has been bundled among a few.

Hey I agree with you LM but it's tough when you're controlled by a Nazi regime - and I'm not talking Dems or Pubs - I'm talking GOVERNMENT!

Granted, there's a lot of fraud, waste and abuse in the government. But not all government workers are the "slime" they're portrayed to be (for full disclosure, I am one of them). We are middle-class and we struggle just like everyone else. And yes, we do provide services people need, often behind the scenes with skills gained through devoted service to our country. But I agree there is fat to be trimmed in federal government, but if you only knew how much was spent on wasteful programs, you would see that the government payroll is small in comparison.

Actually the report says that federal jobs will decline. I also don't think putting "workers" in quotes is appropriate.

@GTO: You neglect the reality that many in the science, technology, and engineering sector are indeed employed by the government (myself included, as part of a DoE lab.) There is little emphasis in the technical areas these days, as it is much more lucrative for those with the ability to be scientists and engineers to go into finance. It's been happening for years. I'm not complaining too hard, though, because it makes it a better job market for me...

Chris-

That was my first thought. We'll just keep giving each other handjobs and borrowing (printing) a trillion a year to buy junk from the Chinese.

I wonder where they think gasoline prices will be by 2020? I'll guess an average of $5.40/gallon in 2020.

Rob: At the rate countries like China, India, and Brazil are growing. I'd say your estimate is a very good one, bordering on too conservative.

Programmers are a dime a dozen in Asia -- I doubt anyone here will work for $.30/hr -- these jobs have been outsourced for awhile now.

PJ, my husband hires those Asians at six figures because he can't find any one qualified. Most of the Indians are PhDs, possibly because education is not as expensive there. Very sad indeed.

PJ, you are completely wrong. Most programming jobs here in the US average $45,000 yearly at entry level depending on experience. The problem is that no one here in America wants those jobs for many reasons: they require you to work insane shifts sometimes and they require you to be very logical and pragmatic in how you solve problems. Not many people have the will to work 36 hours for a job and a slightly smaller category that might do those hours may be unable to understand how programming works.

Those that are the most successful are those that do not see programming as a job, they see it as a hobby. Those are the people that will work crazy hours to get a task done because for them it is not a job, it is something they love to do.

The technology sector should be on that list of 15 jobs, there is no reason for it not to be there. The discoveries we will make over the next decade are going to be incredible, just as the ones we made over the past decade have been incredible.

Healthcare and technology are both the most stable job sectors because they will never go away. Retail depends on products to be sold and services to be bought for their continued existence while the two I mentioned are a byproduct of human's living their lives and questioning what they can do to make the world better.

I have many friends with CS degrees. They are all working in other fields. CS is dead. There are way too many people with the degrees with work experience that were laid off and competing for jobs and it is near impossible for a new grad to get a job and gain experience. IT is a similar field and there are many more openings for it, but that is more on the "service" side, vs CS which more aimed towards making a product.

gorgse,

this is why I said those that see it as only a job will not get far. You do not need a job in the programming field to get experience, you only need to drive to program some stuff during your own time to make a portfolio.

People who see programming as only a job probably will not go so far as to do that because they do not like to program for the hell of it while others, like me, love to program no matter the circumstances and have built a portfolio of their talents to fill in the experience gap.

Employers that demand business only experience are crappy employers anyway if they do not consider off the job examples as "experience".

I like it. Sort of like what we do for farmers today. We tell them to grow (or not) corn, wheat, rye, etc. so as to make their efforts profitable. How many PhD's do we need in Russian Literature? Not as many as we have now. I think the Germans have a better system. Even a factory worker gets training every year. Highly skilled trades even more.

Even if we get manufacturing to come back here, it will be even more automated than in the past. Those factory job seekers of the future cannot be computer illiterates or Luddites.

David K.

Related to that (especially the bit about "money-hungry institutions that produce unproductive citizens for jobs that don't exist"), we should retool our educational system to teach useful social skills (reading, writing, rithmetic, reasoning, hygiene, etc.) plus "generality". That implies no longer teaching things that serve little or no purpose in these days and times.

Then, let students choose one of three job streams: (1) Professional / Technical (2) Vocational or (3) Run of the Mill. The first stream would prepare students for careers or tours of duty in Professional / Technical capacities; the secound stream, for vocations like farming, carpentry, automotive maintenance, etc. and the third stream lot would just take a basic socialization curriculum. Streams one and two would be subsidized by businesses and instititions in need of particular skills ... in effect, apprentice training programs. Third stream students would graduate to compete for service jobs that could be trained and and filled on the spot, as needed.

Yes, make students know and accept their future career risks and rewards explicitly, up front, and thereafter as they enter the stream and move through it.

That implies more information should be made available on the nature of different work, its rewards, effort, and so on. Most kids don't have a clue and don't want to know, but that should change. It also implies earlier maturation, which is sad because kids should have their childhood, but good because kids today are more into uselessness and self-gratification than kids back in the day.

dubina,

Thanks for weighing in. Although I don't like the idea of more government regulation, there are plenty of things that government can do to create the right climate for cimprovement across the spectrum of issues we face today. I believe in personal freedom and a right for businesses to succeed. What I don't believe in is providing the right tools for consumers to make informed decisions and to ensure competitive fairness.

One thing I do believe we can do is start developing our youth early in life for the skills they will need to be successful. Contrary to popular rhetoric, not everyone has the potential to make it rich. After all, if everyome became a doctor or lawyer, all we would be doing is suing ourselves for the rest of our lives. Someone has to collect the trash, build our homes, and sell us insurance. Kids should be developed younger to succeed within the reality of their abilities and potential. I like the idea of "job streams," but that calls for a totally new mindset that requires public and private sector cooperation and foresight. In our current environment I just don't see it happening. This is where we need some real leadership, courage, and thoughtfulness in the Department of Education. This is what they should be doing, instead of mandating performance standards (I reference the failure of No Child Left Behind).

What we have today is misinformation, half-truths, deception, and downright lies that serve nothing less than to maximize profit at any cost. We, as a nation, have allowed corruption to run rampant in Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the Citizens United decision, contributed to this mayhem even more by allowing corporations to be considered "people" who can BUY unlimited influence. We, the Poeple, are our own worst enemy.

If we provide a simple, easily understood and accessible source of information that is reliable and insightful for the younger generation (and even us older folk who may need to adjust to life's changes), and stop rewarding "educational corporations" to feed off the government dole, the conditions we face today will shift into reverse quickly and naturally, else the institutions that don't want to play will pick up their marbles and go home. And those in the job market will only have themselves to blame as they think about why their liberal arts degree isn't helping them find work.

What we need in Washington is real leadership and the willingness and courage to do what's right for America.

Do such people really exist?

There is always going to be strong demand in math and science related fields.

Which is why I know a math teacher laid off due to budget cuts and her laid- off aeronautical engineer husband. Being unemployed at 50 sucks no matter what field you're in.

Except that there's a choke point for those service jobs:

When everybody's working minimum-wage service jobs, no one will be able to afford those services.

End of the service jobs.

Damn Rorschach you killed my post with logic. Okay we are @!$%#ed.

Don't wory. The pols in Washington say we all have the potential to be millionaires if we work hard enough at it. So I'm wondering who's going to collect my garbage!

Exactly!

Yesm, well said

Higher Education Needed

• Registered Nurses - Good Money - Yes
• Retail Salespersons Nope - No
• Home Health Aides - Nope - No
• Personal Care Aides - Nope - No
• Office Clerks, General - Nope - No
• Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food - Nope - No
• Customer Service Representatives - Joke - No
• Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers - Okay Pay -No
• Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand - Nope - No
• Postsecondary Teachers - Great Pay (Yeah, it is.) - Yes
• Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and Attendants - Nope - No -Somewhat
• Childcare Workers Nope - No
• Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks So So - Yes
• Cashiers - Nope - No
• Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education - Good Pay. - Yes

See a pattern there?

Higher Education Needed

• Registered Nurses - Good Money - Yes
• Retail Salespersons Nope - No
• Home Health Aides - Nope - No
• Personal Care Aides - Nope - No
• Office Clerks, General - Nope - No
• Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food - Nope - No
• Customer Service Representatives - Joke - No
• Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers - Okay Pay -No
• Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand - Nope - No
• Postsecondary Teachers - Great Pay (Yeah, it is.) - Yes
• Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and Attendants - Nope - No -Somewhat
• Childcare Workers Nope - No
• Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks So So - Yes
• Cashiers - Nope - No
• Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education - Good Pay. - Yes

See a pattern there?

You can then go out and buy the nicest house you will never see.

That's so 18th century. Tell me just when there has been a solid middle class and you will find the same 1% running things. Things have not ever changed that much. It's popular myth to say the poor are getting poorer, but it has always been about the same.

The young are just getting lazier and more entitled. Good luck with that. Read the article again and tell me what social class has to do with it.

Grin, technically not true. Overall yes you are correct but in terms of the past two decades you are wrong. The rich are the richest they have been for the past two decades. Business are making more money then they have during that same time period as well.

The income gap is almost to the same levels entertained just before the Great Depression, it has not been this wide in nearly 80 years.

@ Grinspoon97 the young are not getting lazier but realizing why should your entire youth be spent in a cube pushing paper when you can have some fun. I am 27 and the only thing that gets me up in the morning is knowing I will help finance my adventures.

Geowil.... Actually the rich lost more in this recession than others. The percentages in the 5 quintiles has remained fairly constant over all periods - a couple of percent lets one say richer, but not really.

jamesinmaryland.... Doesn't bother me. You just keep on working your whole life to pay the debt you keep voting for. If you figure a way to the dole, great. As long as it lasts, let the good times roll.

At the very least put the glove on the hand that will actually be touching the pt...unless you're more worried about what's in the syringe....

MRI - I thought the exact same thing when noticing this.

Terminate Tenure

What really cracks me up is when Romney often says:

"We (Bain Capital) added tens of thousands of jobs through the businesses we helped support." "That experience — succeeding, failing, competing around the world — is what gives me the capacity to help get this economy going again."

The two examples he uses to support that statement are Staples and Sports Authority, two retail giants with low paying jobs, that sell products mostly produced in Asia which are purchased by the working class using high interest rate credit cards which helps his wallstreet friends become richer.

The industrial revolution has been over for 30 years. I have spent my entire career replacing good paying, high skill jobs with automation. There's no turning back. The middle class will evolve out of existence over the next 100 years. Before the industrial revolution the middle class made up about 7% of the population and the wealthy about 4%, everyone else was poor. The chances that we will return to those numbers seem a virtual guarantee.

Notice that the article doesnt' talk about physicians and related specialties for future growth.... If the schools were opened up that would be the biggest profession growing. But its run by the mob called the ama and medicare to keep health care costs astromical. Its a myth perpertrated to the ignorant by the industry to control your life. Just like banking.

Turn-around? They should be buying/making every American Taxpayer a car.