to grow through the decade following 9/11 that included two recessions, while numbers of mid-income earners dropped throughout with the exception of one positive blip in 2007. No wonder the middle class has been decimated. Previous recessions, we're told, had more symmetric recoveries. Most of the jobs that were lost were eventually recovered and then some. So what makes this recession different from all the previous ones? One solid argument might be that in practical terms the Great Recession isn't really over, so the recovery isn't either. If we just wait awhile things might get better. ?In the current political debate over jobs, for example, there are those who argue staying the course (the Obama campaign) and those who argue for significant, if undefined, changes of course (the Romney campaign). Interestingly both campaigns feel a sense of efficacy -- that full recovery can come. Of course it can, but will it? Our poster child for the current U.S. economy is Japan, which has managed not to fully recover from the recession following its bubble economy of the late 1980s -- 25 years of economic stagnation made tolerable through deficit spending by the state. So it is very possible for the U.S. to not emerge from the current muck for decades, which is one of the reasons why so much capital sits uninvested on the sidelines earning one percent or less. Why invest if growth is unlikely? The jobs added in the current recovery are those that require very little capital.