Is the US really headed for a depression?

[Fulanito de Tal]

Many people have told me and I have also read a few times that the US is headed for a depression...especially from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/. That site makes it seem like the end of the world is about to happen all the time.

Can anyone with knowledge or some expertise in the US economy tell me if this is true? I would appreciate it if you can explain and support your answer with some facts.

Thanks! :)

[Delenda Carthago]

Basic facts:

Means of production for many decades now are being sended to countries like China.

Unemployntment rises. Economic power of the lower classes drops constantly.

The system invests on dept in order to keep rolling. Of course this has short feet.

The dept bubble blows. The states worldwide make the banks debt, theirs.


The "crisis" official begins. The anwer of the system is keep doing the same thing as before.

More means of production leave the West, since even after all these attacks against the working class, its still cheaper to pay a chinese worker than a western.

USA are trying to fix this problem by printing more and more and more and more and more dollars, making its value a piece of crap.


So, yeah, probably there is a depression coming. A one that ends with a World War type of.

[Tommy4ever]

Almost certainly not.

The US economy seems to have recovered reasonably well for the recession - even though unemployment remains high.

I'd expect it to return to relatively stron growth in the next few years. Anything else would be a real shock.

For the real crisis in capitalism look to Europe where much of the continent looks set for an extended period of low growth. Here many economies are actually still shrinkng in real terms (when inflation is taken into account).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Means of production for many decades now are being sended to countries like China.

Don't forget that the United States is still the world's largest manufacturer. Some 20% of production in the world takes place here.

While there has certainly been outsourcing, there has also been an increase in the level of available technology. The means of production have been made much more efficient.

For example: The elimination of huge numbers of steel mills wasn't only about foreign competition or plant relocation. It was also due to advances that made it possible to produce more with less workers and work-hours. But this change in the composition of capital has also been a major source of problems. Part of the reason the bosses have been attacking workers and increasing the intensity of work and exploitation is that so much is invested in constant capital (factories, tools, technology) in relation to variable capital (cost to hire and pay workers). Factories don't create value. Workers do.

We can also look at rail. They've either ripped up or abandoned tons of tracks in the United States. But it's not because they're no longer using rail. It's because they've made rail transport more efficient. They're moving huge amounts of freight on single lines now.

* * *

To answer the OP: The U.S. is tied into the world capitalist economy as much as any other country. We can't look at the United States in isolation. Crises are endemic to capitalism. Cyclical crises have occurred since the beginning, and the recent crisis has shown that major crises will still happen. The real question for us is not whether or not crises will come, but whether or not the working class can abolish this outdated system before it plunges humanity into conditions of utter barbarity.

[RadioRaheem84]

Almost certainly not.

The US economy seems to have recovered reasonably well for the recession - even though unemployment remains high.

I'd expect it to return to relatively stron growth in the next few years. Anything else would be a real shock.

For the real crisis in capitalism look to Europe where much of the continent looks set for an extended period of low growth. Here many economies are actually still shrinkng in real terms (when inflation is taken into account).

I don't know if you can really call it a recovery if a huge portion of the working class in unemployed or underemployed.

Money isn't circulating fast enough into the system.

We will return to a "stable" economy with high unemployment, everything will look peachy for a while, but in reality it's building up for another recession, one that will be even harder than this last one.

People will forget and say everything is back to normal, until the next big thing pops.

[Olentzero]

Offhand, I've read in several places that job growth is nowhere near strong enough to replace the number of jobs actually lost, and unemployment figures don't count people who have given up looking for jobs. Unfortunately I'm pressed for time at the moment and can't go dig up the links but will come back later on this.

Another aspect that should be taken into consideration is investment levels. If capitalists are confident in the economy and see great potential for profits they'll invest more. In the opposite case they're not going to invest as much. So, how do investment levels now compare with, say, five to ten years ago?

[28350]

Within the next 5 years

[RadioRaheem84]

I agree.

I give it five years max, even then I am surprised in how resilient it's been so far.

Then again we underestimate how much capitalists sell to themselves too.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't see any indication that there is going to be strong job growth anytime soon. The last two periods of job growth in the U.S. were the results of bubbles. So, I think we're going to have to be "content" with ~10% official unemployment for some time (~20% unofficial).

The real question isn't, is some horrible disaster headed for us, but what does the horrible disaster we have now mean for us as revolutionaries?

[Tommy4ever]

I don't know if you can really call it a recovery if a huge portion of the working class in unemployed or underemployed.

Money isn't circulating fast enough into the system.

We will return to a "stable" economy with high unemployment, everything will look peachy for a while, but in reality it's building up for another recession, one that will be even harder than this last one.

People will forget and say everything is back to normal, until the next big thing pops.

In economics we call unemployment a ''lagging factor''.

Essentially, going into a recession employment usually remains high at the start even when other factors like GDP etc are falling. This is largely due to the fact that buissnesses would rather not lose the workers they already haave (hoping that the trouble will be short lived and they can go back to normal before too long). It is afterall, much harder to get skilled labour than it is to get other factors of production.

Leaving a recession employment is usually the last thing to recover, once again its quite a big commitment to higher a worker (just as it is to fire them) and firms only do it when they feel more secure.

So one would expect unemployment to fall back in line over the course of the next few years. However, it has stayed higher in the US than in many other countries. Germany, for example, currently has lower unemployment than it did during the recession. :o

The real trouble that the US could face regarding unemployment is its ongoing process of deindustrialisation. I don't know how other countries have handled it but in the UK de-industrialisation has been a disaster for the Northern part of the country. Today the North of the country (Northern England and Scotland in particular) are essentially entirely relient on the public sector to provide jobs. This has numerous bad effects (I recently wrote a dissertation on it so I won't go into too much detail :p) but to sum up: the private sector failed to fill the gap left by the old industries so the state sector had to come in, this leaves the poorest part of the country at the most risk from coming cuts which will in turn strangle any attempts by the private sector to invest (why invest when everyone is earning less), the only way to avoid long term unemployment is to keep expanding the state sector, even if this isn't making a huge contribution to society. I'd imagine the American hatred for the state sector might mean that they are going to be left with longterm unemployed in old industrial regions rather than a dominating state sector in certain regions as in the UK.

I realise this turned into a semi-coherent rant. :p Sorry.

[RadioRaheem84]

I still don't understand how a low unemployment rate and a reluctance for a jobs program or renewed commitment to industrialization by the government, isn't a recipe for disaster?

[Tommy4ever]

I still don't understand how a low unemployment rate and a reluctance for a jobs program or renewed commitment to industrialization by the government, isn't a recipe for disaster?

Well, America has a history of just turning a blind eye to poverty ...

But I agree, the failure of countries to find a real alternative to industry does seem to be a long term recipe for disaster. Can a country really sustain itself on a huge service sector? Most Western economies have to pray that this is the case. I have my doubts.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why long term, unemployment is already at 10 percent (20 real #), and that is the norm now?

Can we sustain this without going into another recession as nothing is coming out of govt. except cuts?

I think that it won't hold for much longer but then again I am a believer in the underconsumptionalist argument.

The latter believe the economy will just float like this as capitalists will just sell to themselves leaving lemmings like us to service these transactions, and others to wallow in despair.

[Geiseric]

They're only prolonging it, I just really want people to start to understand that the Dems and Republicans both SUCK terribly. When that happens we'll have a revolution.

[Impulse97]

I remain skeptical about a moderate to large depression anytime soon, but I can certainly see a large recession occurring. One at least twice as bad as the one we're in. I really hope we can use such an event to our advantage. It is an opportunity best taken advantage of.

[RadioRaheem84]

I remain skeptical about a moderate to large depression anytime soon, but I can certainly see a large recession occurring. One at least twice as bad as the one we're in. I really hope we can use such an event to our advantage. It is an opportunity best taken advantage of.

You would think a larger recession than this would border on a Depression.

[KC]

There isn't going to be a depression any time soon. Likely we will experience another recession in the near future but I think that for the most part we will just experience a lack of "normal" growth in the long term. In other words, the economy is going to stay shitty for some time, unemployment is going to remain at higher levels, the housing market will take years, if not decades, to recover, as will many industries.

People that are claiming that there will be a depression soon don't know what they're talking about.

[Impulse97]

You would think a larger recession than this would border on a Depression.


True, but thats just it. I think it border one, but not go into one. The economic climate just doesn't seem right yet for a full blown depression.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The conditions we have now are not too different from a depression. Its likely in the short term there will be a "double dip" towards the end of this year, with another anemic recovery. Increasingly high levels of unemployment will be regarded as the norm. We won't have a 1930s style depression as such but capitalism will face increasingly severe crisis every few years.This will continue indefinitely until

A.) The ecological fabric of the planet is irreparably harmed, leading to a mass die off of people and biosystems

or

B.) World war, after killing billions and plunging much of the world into barbarism, will, after destroying enough "excess capacity" , if resources still exist, will in a few areas create a new basis for capital accumulation

or

C.) The capitalist mode of production is replaced by socialism.

[Tommy4ever]

Why long term, unemployment is already at 10 percent (20 real #), and that is the norm now?

Can we sustain this without going into another recession as nothing is coming out of govt. except cuts?

I think that it won't hold for much longer but then again I am a believer in the underconsumptionalist argument.

The latter believe the economy will just float like this as capitalists will just sell to themselves leaving lemmings like us to service these transactions, and others to wallow in despair.

Whilst trend unemployment of 10% of obviously very bad. It is not a disasterous level. Over the course of the past decade France, Germany and the US have all had unemployment rates around 7-12%, even during the boom years. Indeed, German unemployment is not nearly as bad now (it recently rose from 7% to 8% in the early months of 2011) as it was back in the middle of the decade when it was ushing past 12% - there was not recession then. The UK has actually had it slightly better and seems to traditionally have a low rate of unemployment. Looking at the UK, even in the worst years of the 1980s and early 1990s unemployment never reached 12% (something that is not so uncommon elsewhere) and in the good times (pre-recession 2000s) stayed around 5%. Even now its barely 8%.

From the point of view of the capitalist unemployment is actually a good thing - the simple reason being that it pushes wages down (someone with no job is going to be willing to work for less than he would if he was in work). So unemployment around the 10% mark is not going to bring down the capitalist system, it will probably strengthen it and make it easier to attack labour legislation in the name or creating a 'flexibile labour market'. That of course being code for capitalists wanting to hire and fire at will.

[Delenda Carthago]

Whilst trend unemployment of 10% of obviously very bad. It is not a disasterous level. Over the course of the past decade France, Germany and the US have all had unemployment rates around 7-12%, even during the boom years. Indeed, German unemployment is not nearly as bad now (it recently rose from 7% to 8% in the early months of 2011) as it was back in the middle of the decade when it was ushing past 12% - there was not recession then. The UK has actually had it slightly better and seems to traditionally have a low rate of unemployment. Looking at the UK, even in the worst years of the 1980s and early 1990s unemployment never reached 12% (something that is not so uncommon elsewhere) and in the good times (pre-recession 2000s) stayed around 5%. Even now its barely 8%.

From the point of view of the capitalist unemployment is actually a good thing - the simple reason being that it pushes wages down (someone with no job is going to be willing to work for less than he would if he was in work). So unemployment around the 10% mark is not going to bring down the capitalist system, it will probably strengthen it and make it easier to attack labour legislation in the name or creating a 'flexibile labour market'. That of course being code for capitalists wanting to hire and fire at will.

Really nice. So, capitalism is not to be threaten, even though its on its worst occasion for the last century. Very well. The bourgeois logistics are once again fine.


Now tell me please

How can you stop the competitive prices of China based corporations? How the Western (meaning those with more descent wages to the workers) corporations are gonna be antagonistic to those that pay for a $ a day to the workers? How can you stop the means of production to be transfered to China and India other than attacking the wages of the western workers? And how you gonna keep the money floating in the economy if the working class is bankrupted since the debt trick is already used?

Thats about worldwide. The US economy how its gonna sustain its power after the dollar is not gonna worth the money it takes to be printed? How you gonna stop BRICS (other than war) from buying the means of production of the West with the dollars you give them to buy your debt?

[Tommy4ever]

Well, I'm not sure if this crisis is as bad as that of the 1960s and 70s, simply because today the vast majority of people see no real alternative to capitalism whilst in the 30s and 70s large numbers of people did see an alternative.

Most measures that the capitalist system can use to improve the economy will cause dissent, but the absence of an alternative (due to the impotence of the modern Left) means that there is little risk of the overthrow of the system in the forseeable future. So I'm not sure if we can call this capitalism's worse crisis since the Depression.

The idea of modern Western economies isn't to compete with China in industrial production but to find something else to concentrate on - high skill and high tech industries and services. In China wages have already started to rise and I'd expect them to continue to do so. But the Western economies aren't looking to compete with China in the same areas - as Chinese labour will always be cheaper.

For the bourgeios factory owner, why does it matter if his production is based in China or in the US? Its probably better for him if its in China as he can make greater profits due to the cheaper labour, lesser safety regulations etc. Outsourcing industries like this only hurts the working class in the Western world and Western government (who have to deal with both dissent and lesser tax revenues).

As for a weaker dollar - that is something the American government is actually trying to secure. A weaker currency is good for an economy -especially if its trying to recover. Whilst hampering the consumer due to the greater price of imports a weak currency is a real boost to exports.

Ever heard of the Currency Wars? Its an ongoing trend around the world where countries are effectively battling it out to try to devalue their currencies as much as possible in the hope of bolstering their export sector. So America wants a weak currency.

Its not BRIC economies 'buying' the Western means of production. Its either Western bourgeiosie uprooting to other countries where they can make greater profits in their production or the bourgeiosie of those countries creating industries that are more profitable (again due to cheap labour costs).

One of the roots of the recent crisis is pretty similar to the trend you described. Western economies have been paying money to Asian and Middle Eastern economies to buy their exports (oil and industrial goods). These economies then lent that money back to Western economies to help fuel demand for their goods. This contributed to a situation where debt was cheap and we all know where that led ...

/Latest economics rant over

[Lenina Rosenweg]

How long can this continue though? The bourgeois needs a market for its goods. With the working classes in developed countries being channelled into lower paying service sector jobs as well as permanent high unemployment, wouldn't it be true that a sufficient level of consumption can only be maintained though speculative investment and recurring bubbles? Would currency depreciation be enough to take up the slack from decreased domestic demand? Since ultimately value is rooted in labour power, would finiancialization be enough?

I actually wish I knew more about this.

[Tommy4ever]

How long can this continue though? The bourgeois needs a market for its goods. With the working classes in developed countries being channelled into lower paying service sector jobs as well as permanent high unemployment, wouldn't it be true that a sufficient level of consumption can only be maintained though speculative investment and recurring bubbles? Would currency depreciation be enough to take up the slack from decreased domestic demand? Since ultimately value is rooted in labour power, would finiancialization be enough?

I actually wish I knew more about this.

Your question on bubbles:

That's how capitalism works. Riding the wave of one bubble to the next. As bad as the recent crisis has been, even in the worst effected countries we've only fallen back to the GDP levels of around 2003ish (IIRC that's where Ireland is). So, in the end, much of the growth the bubble created remains.

As for domestic demand, your right - it is strange that demand in Western countries has been spiralling out of control whilst incomes haven't been rising nearly as fast. Modern capitalism relies on the hope that debt can keep this going. I'm not sure if it can. With economies increasingly reliant upon debt in the Western world this is probably our greatest hope for a collapse of the capitalist system. This is why government went head over heels to protect the banks after Lehman Brothers - without the banking sector and debt the Western capitalist system would collapse. Conversely, in China for example the government is desperately trying to get people to borrow money - in Asia there is a culture where workers save most of their paychecks whilst in the West we spend them (in the UK the average has traditionally been 90% spent, 10% saved). China is trying to get its consumers to stop saving so they can end their reliance on exporting to us - if they succeed then there migh be a lesser problem of domestic industries being outcompeted - but China may well maintain its export industry but grow its internal market making my last couple of sentences pointless. :p

Currency devaluation is more for the short term boost in exports rather than a long term plan. That being said, China kept its currency artificially weak (and still does) for a long time to boost its export market - and to great effect!

[Delenda Carthago]

[/QUOTE]Well, I'm not sure if this crisis is as bad as that of the 1960s and 70s, simply because today the vast majority of people see no real alternative to capitalism whilst in the 30s and 70s large numbers of people did see an alternative.[/QUOTE]

There are the objective conditions and there are the subjective conditions. The fact you dont have the mighty workers movements you had in the 60s or 70s dont mean that the System is more healthy today than it was back then, nor that socialism was more close back then than now. It means simply that you dont have the subjective conditions to take advantage of the crisis.With everything this might mean.


Most measures that the capitalist system can use to improve the economy will cause dissent, but the absence of an alternative (due to the impotence of the modern Left) means that there is little risk of the overthrow of the system in the forseeable future. So I'm not sure if we can call this capitalism's worse crisis since the Depression.

The conversation is not about whether capitalism will be overthrown but about if its economy will get back on track.




The idea of modern Western economies isn't to compete with China in industrial production but to find something else to concentrate on - high skill and high tech industries and services. In China wages have already started to rise and I'd expect them to continue to do so. But the Western economies aren't looking to compete with China in the same areas - as Chinese labour will always be cheaper.

The problem begun to begin with with the constructive weakening of the West. This is where wealth is being produced. So as long as means of production get transfered to China, the wealth is going to be produced there too. And you can understand what does that mean for our economies.

In China yes, the labors are getting bigger and bigger, mostly because China wants to guard its inner economy in order to be able to absorb the its own production. While this could be the rope that chinese socialfascists will get hang, at the same time it brings autonomy from the West which means that the wages can go low as the capitalists want to(unless we stop them).




For the bourgeios factory owner, why does it matter if his production is based in China or in the US? Its probably better for him if its in China as he can make greater profits due to the cheaper labour, lesser safety regulations etc. Outsourcing industries like this only hurts the working class in the Western world and Western government (who have to deal with both dissent and lesser tax revenues).

Never said different.




As for a weaker dollar - that is something the American government is actually trying to secure. A weaker currency is good for an economy -especially if its trying to recover. Whilst hampering the consumer due to the greater price of imports a weak currency is a real boost to exports.

A weaker currency is not a good thing for an economy in general, mostly for the country which currency was to set the worldwide standard. It can indeed help US right now as it makes its products cheaper, but in the long run it will be a huge problem, since BRIC will try to gain more autonomy to western markets using the currency as their main weapon.



Ever heard of the Currency Wars? Its an ongoing trend around the world where countries are effectively battling it out to try to devalue their currencies as much as possible in the hope of bolstering their export sector. So America wants a weak currency.
Of course I have. I also have heard the word "inflation".


Its not BRIC economies 'buying' the Western means of production. Its either Western bourgeiosie uprooting to other countries where they can make greater profits in their production or the bourgeiosie of those countries creating industries that are more profitable (again due to cheap labour costs).

Actually, more and more the chinese are buying western means of production giving away dollars wich soon will be good for nothing. In Greece for example they bought the biggest port of the country(Pireus was bouth by Cosco) and now they want to create huge petroleum tanks in another place. And they are about to buy a huge place in south Crete to create another port. Guess what currency they paid in.



One of the roots of the recent crisis is pretty similar to the trend you described. Western economies have been paying money to Asian and Middle Eastern economies to buy their exports (oil and industrial goods). These economies then lent that money back to Western economies to help fuel demand for their goods. This contributed to a situation where debt was cheap and we all know where that led .

I said this but I also put the attacking of the consumer capability of the working class in the forefront. This is for me the biggest issue. People were able to buy less and less in a market that produced more and more.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't know. The presence of such a large pool of unemployed (many of whom are now going to be permanently removed from their previous class layer, as the unemployed are being discriminated against in hiring, with the double whammy of being overqualified for jobs beneath their layer) may have the effect of making people extremely reluctant to fight back.

On the other hand, we now have a large pool of people with nothing to lose, who have a material interest in fighting the system. We need to build a mass movement of the unemployed. If we can pull that off, which will be difficult, because it is such a demoralized layer of the population, it can have the effect of inspring movement among those will with jobs.

[Proukunin]

I read a report about the coming food crisis. they say it is inevitable.
here's the link to the article.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/20-signs-that-a-horrific-global-food-crisis-is-coming

I personally believe that the US will go through hard times in this decade.

[chegitz guevara]

We're already going through hard times.

[Proukunin]

I mean like the 1930's or greater than that on some levels.

[Delenda Carthago]

I mean like the 1930's or greater than that on some levels.

Different ages, different situations.

[Proukunin]

Yes, you are right it'll be different. But I think the general grief of the situation will be equal or greater then how it was during the great depression.

[Tommy4ever]

Do you really think that the American government wont end its subsidies for biofuel production and perhaps even shift them to food production if people start starving in the streets of Detroit?

In terms of cereal crops the world is fine. We've had some really bad harvests of late and a lot land that could be used for crop production (especially in America) has been used for other purposes. These are shorter term factors and don't point towards a future food shortage. Speculation has also played a major role in higher food prices of late. However, there has been higher demand - but this hasn't been that significant in cerial crops.

Worldwide cerial crop production is fine. The only places where it is threatened in the long term are areas like the Sahel or the fringe of the Gobi Desert where soil degredation is expanding deserts and farmland - but these areas are traditionally occupied by subsistence farmers anyway so it won't make a huge difference to food price - just adding a little demand from those who once supported themselves but are now forced into cities.

The real concern for long term food price is meat. Millions more people are getting regular access to meat that they couldn't afford in the past. Demand for meat from China alone is pushing up the price significantly - as Asia's billions start to be able to afford meat on a regular basis with their meals the prices will inevitably skyrocket. What difference that is going to make, I'm unsure of.


This was a response to ChrisC's post about a food crisis btw. Basically, we are probably not going to see mass starvation (beyond the poorest parts of the Third World, but that has little to do with world production and a lot to do with the capitalist system) but food prices are going to steadily rise for decades to come. That means more first world workers having to spend a significant portion of their incomes on food which will in turn worsen living conditions and demand for consumer goods - that could harm capitalism.

[Rakhmetov]

WE ARE ALREADY IN A DEPRESSION!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBMnDLQr7-M&feature=fvst

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Wallerstein

http://www.iwallerstein.com/the-depression-a-long-term-view/

http://www.iwallerstein.com/impossible-choices-in-a-world-depression/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumpeter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism,_Socialism_and_Democracy

[RadioRaheem84]

How bad do things have to become in order for people to admit that there is a huge crisis?

We cannot just have the 30s Depression as our standard. The 70s were bad enough.

Anything worse than the 70s is pretty damn bad.

Another part of me thinks that it won't get that bad but it will be shitty for a long time without any significant improvement in living standards.

I could see the US mirroring nations like Poland and Chile in economic model.

[greenwarbler]

Part of the reason the bosses have been attacking workers and increasing the intensity of work and exploitation is that so much is invested in constant capital (factories, tools, technology) in relation to variable capital (cost to hire and pay workers). Factories don't create value. Workers do.

Right, and so it should be in relation to this problem (the general discarding of working families and working class individuals in the face of an economic system which continues to increasingly develop without a need for their labor power, but which is still -- at root -- based on the same economic relations that create a need for wage labor (that is, an economic and social order where the conquest of bread, and biological sustainance are reduced -- in general -- to the arena of commodities exchange; this is a problem, when the average individual has neither the means (no job) nor the prospects (no job market) to support himself or his family -- somewhere in that formula lies a contradictory premise, since people need to eat!


The real question for us is not whether or not crises will come, but whether or not the working class can abolish this outdated system before it plunges humanity into conditions of utter barbarity.
Well, the pessimist would argue that in the battle between socialism and barbarism, the latter one; but, then, there are mystics who do not extract themselves from Epic Dream Time, and from perceving events in relation to the constant ebb an flow of time, and who thereby leave room for human freedom and human agency!

The project of the Protestant Reformation, for instance -- or that of the French revolution, appear to be events set in a context of the long-run, and, hence, appear till today, incomplete (the former for the fact that the Papacy still has swing over a large share of the human population -- whether de facto, or only in spirit need not concern us; and the latter, because there are and remain yet in France conditions antithetical to the project of "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite")!

[Delenda Carthago]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/max-keiser-people-t153648/index.html?t=153648

[Rusty Shackleford]

One. Shock. Away.

[t.shonku]

Jesse Ventura thinks we are going to see a newer and bigger recession

[MattShizzle]

Major thing is the economy cannot keep going with such a huge percentage of the wealth concentrated at the top. When it's like that for long, that's when major recessions and even depressions happen.

[Delenda Carthago]

http://www.businessinsider.com/average-american-family-hurt-by-economy-2011-4#only-454-of-americans-were-employed-2010-the-lowest-level-since-1983-1

[Psy]

Another part of me thinks that it won't get that bad but it will be shitty for a long time without any significant improvement in living standards.

I could see the US mirroring nations like Poland and Chile in economic model.
The problem the bourgeoisie needs another boost in the rate of profit as even with the huge government subsidizes capitalists refuse to invest in production as they already don't feel the rate of profit is high enough. Thus the crisis seems to signal that markets will now start having cycles with ever greater slumps and weaker recoveries.