Through the 1930s, a young Ohio lawyer named Benjamin Roth kept a diary about the economic and social chaos he saw around him, chronicling the extreme uncertainty about the future that was affecting ordinary, middle-class Midwesterners. The striking thing to readers now is how many false dawns there were and how accordingly slow the authorities were to take action; they kept thinking -- hoping -- that the economy was about to improve. "When I started these notes it never occurred to me that the depression would last more than two years," Roth wrote in 1936. "We are now in the beginning of the seventh year and the road is not yet clear."

Measured by the length and depth of the downturn in global GDP, the current economic crisis is set to be even worse than that of the 1930s. As in the 1930s, governments in the United States and Europe must switch from doing the least they can get away with to avert immediate disaster to acting with enough commitment to the future that their citizens begin to believe in a brighter economic outlook. Above all, this means creating jobs -- perhaps even creating a modern equivalent of the Depression-era Works Progress Administration.

Unemployment breeds hopelessness. Whether it affects young people just entering the workforce or older people who will find it hard to get re-employed, it scars their prospects for the rest of their lives. As of November, 16- to 19-year-olds in the American workforce and adults seeking to re-enter it had nearly the same alarming unemployment rate: about 25 percent. Of course, it is best if private businesses start to create jobs for these people by growing -- but until they do, the government must step in.

That's why governments in the United States and Europe should take a page out of the Depression-era playbook and introduce major public-sector jobs programs, guaranteeing employment, at least for young people. Why? There are about 3.6 million youth ages 16 to 24 in the United States looking for work, and more than 1 million -- a record 21 percent -- in Britain. At a time when governments are trying to cut their budgets and firing public-sector workers, this might seem wildly contrarian. But in practice, this kind of program would not cost much more than existing social security benefits in Europe, and in any case it would save a great deal of future government expenditure supporting a lost generation. The programs could also be time-limited, say, to three or five years. But they should be meaningful and suit a range of skills, from construction to the arts.

Some uses for this kind of instant labor force are obvious, such as rebuilding decaying infrastructure. At a time of similarly massive economic and social upheaval, Britain's Victorian-era leaders made such massive, confident investments in the fabric of the nation that we are still using them; the same is true of the dams and bridges built in the United States under Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. But let's not leave it at that. Why not also take on the sorts of brave artistic and cultural projects funded during the Great Depression? We could use more of the introspection and discovery of meaning that comes from the arts in this time of dislocation.

Of course, it would be better for the private sector to create enough jobs instead, and in the end it will have to: Structural government deficits clearly need to be eliminated. The job creation I'm advocating is an emergency measure, and its additional short-term financial cost need not be large -- especially compared with the estimated $1 trillion annual subsidy banks are still receiving globally. The long-term savings of getting millions of young people to work, and the long-term benefits of a commitment to investing in the national fabric, are hard to estimate but surely are large. What's required is sufficient responsibility and courage from politicians and, above all, a recognition that if too many people stay unemployed, with no prospects and on the fringes of mainstream society, there will be no end to this economic crisis.

Maria Tama/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Diane Coyle is founder of the consultancy Enlightenment Economics and author of The Economics of Enough.

IGNORANTRIFFRAFF

12:57 AM ET

January 3, 2012

What happens afterwards?

Say you pull out of the recession- how do you get rid of all these government jobs? It'd be much different than the Great Depression, when soldiers came home after the war. I don't necessarily think people would leave paying jobs on their own. Surely it would be hard for politicians to pass legislation firing their voters?

 

ANNZYOUNG

2:11 AM ET

January 3, 2012

Online Education

Unemployment in construction is 21.2%, I wish these guys would tell the truth. We all need to education ourself in this tough market only way is a degree or change your career.. search online for High Speed Universities for career advice

 

ATIMOSHENKO

2:28 PM ET

January 3, 2012

Self-employment better than government employment

In order to produce value in a fundamentally tool-driven (i.e. capital intensive) economy, one needs both labour and capital. Rather then trying to find jobs for people (a situation in which the capital-less majority is forced to rent out capital from a small number of capital owners – be they state or private), why not try to promote distributed private ownership of productive capital, and then let people (and the market) figure out for themselves how to put it to use? Is this not what true capitalism is supposed to be about?

As long as the majority of people entering the workforce have *no choice* but to work for someone and/or take on debt in order to be able to produce value, the sickness gripping our economic foundation will persist.

 

THEBULLSS

2:27 AM ET

January 5, 2012

Taxes,regulation, legislation are in favor of the Supper Rich

As long as we have the supper rich corporation, have the rich Representatives and Senators write one sided legislation to enslave the masses we will not breack out of this recession. we need somthing really big and out of box quickly. I suggest:

Please stop supporting non-sense polices that would only benefits the Rich.
You cannot fix the problem by STOP SPENDING. It is a BS of starving the beast cowards...sorry crowds and you know it.
If only the milliners Senators and Congressmen would have thought of the country instead of their own pockets, and that of their Neo-cons backers, they would have done;
1) Reverse the Bush Tax Cut and then some, for the TOP Rich 5%.
2) Eliminate FICA payroll tax for Corp. and employees (at lease for a few years) for the people who are making under $30k of income.
3) Eliminate ceiling cap for FICA taxable amount (now at $ 109K) and make ALL incomes from all sources taxable for FICA taxable, so everybody pay the same percentage. That should include those bankers’ bonuses and Wall Street high rollers, I mean every conceivable income from every conceivable source must be FICA taxed.
4) Audit (real audit) every Gov. Agency, especially Pentagon and Federal Reserve (a Privet Bankster, and make it a real Federal Agency) for waste and corruption and so called mismanagement s (playing favoritism).
5) Tax ALL Wall Street Transactions (stock, commodity, and even Derivative Instruments) say 1% on both side (Buyers & Sellers).
6) Close all loopholes on the tax codes for the rich and Corporations (is there any other loopholes? we have already stoped giving single Moms welfare.)
7) Create the biggest Depression-era Works Progress Administration for all kind of public infrastructure (hi-tech and low-tech) .
These simple steps would bring JOBS, stability to the Market, and slowly eliminates DEFICIT and will fix funding for Social Security Fund.

 

RALPHMUSGRAVE

6:07 AM ET

January 12, 2012

Infrastructure.

If we can spend billions on infrastructure projects to give the unemployed jobs, why not spend the billions re-hiring the public sector teachers, medical staff, etc sacked as a result of the recession? I.e. what’s the point of sacking teachers and then re-hiring them as labourers on infrastructure schemes? Their skills are hardly being put to good use when labouring.

Also, infrastructure projects are singularly unsuited for dealing with recessions in that recessions normally last 2-5 years, whereas infrastructure projects can take far longer to plan, and get going. To take an extreme example, the “HS2” rail scheme recently announced in the UK will be completed in 2026: fourteen year’s time!