From 1948 until 1980, men who considered themselves to be `in the labor force' (working or wanting work) equaled roughly 98% of the male population ages 20-64. [Wow. What a quaint concept. If you could work, you wanted work.] From 1980 to 2005, this proportion fell steadily, from 98% to 92%. Then, in six years, it fell again by half this margin, to 89%. As for male employment, it averaged 94% of the population age 20-64, until the 1975 recession. Today, it's 81%. Let's assume that the old labor force ratio of 98% could, in fact, work. That means that male unemployment - including those who have given up on the idea of gainful employment - is over 17%, and is roughly tied with the levels of mid-2009.

"For women, society evolved from predominantly `homemaker' employment to a point, about a decade ago, where women in the labor force equaled about 82% of the female population aged 20-64. The women in the labor force have dropped from 82% to 78% in ten years, with most of that drop in the past two years; that's 5% of the female workforce that's simply given up in two years. Using the prior peak of 82%, as the roster who would want to work, the current 71.6% who are working implies that female unemployment is roughly 13%, and is much higher than it was two years ago.

"Combine the results, and we get a figure of 15% unemployment, give or take, relative to past peak labor-force levels, if we include those who have given up hope. Add in the usual U-6 vs U-3 comparison (including those who are part-time and want full-time work), and we're at about 20% true unemployment.

"The good news, is that if our natural "labor force" is 98% of the men and 82% of the women, and if `full employment' puts 95% of them in jobs, we have about 25 million new jobs that could be created. If we get out of the private sector's way, and allow employers to hire who they want, doing work that both parties agree to do, for pay that both parties find acceptable. I.e., enlightenment in Washington (and Sacramento) could unleash a tsunami of new employment.

So in a way, for a while, if you built it, they would come...

I'm being quite useful.  This thing is a Thneed.
A Thneed's a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need!
It's a shirt.  It's a sock.  It's a glove.  It's a hat.
But it has OTHER uses.  Yes, far beyond that.
You can use it for carpets.  For pillows!  For sheets!
Or curtains!  Or covers for bicycle seats!"

Thneeds

Economists have no technical term for thneed; they assume that all "demand" in the economy is equivalent, as long as it's backed with money. Yet surely it would be helpful to differentiate. One can imagine an axis running from needs to thneeds. On one end are such things as food, shelter, basic transportation, and health care. On the other end are Coca-Cola, iPods, and Hummers. (Significantly, needs are generic, while thneeds are typically branded.)

Greece is heaven sent to neoliberals. Now they can steal public sector everywhere and keep their private sector ponzi scheme going on.
Slavery is exactly what "the middle classes" deserve.