We learned on Friday that California may be on the verge of jobs growth. 32,000 jobs were created in the state in January 2010, including in construction and manufacturing. However, the unemployment rate also went up to 12.5%, as more people sought work. It's a sign that any economic recovery that might be under way is anemic at best, and that we still have a VERY long way to go to solve the problems of what may be persistent unemployment.

Unfortunately, this economic recovery is not only anemic, it may be transitory. And even if it were to continue to pick up steam and last for a while, it will not be a true "recovery" in the sense of creating broadly shared prosperity. Instead we appear to have experienced another dramatic ratcheting downward of economic opportunity for most Californians, while creating conditions that both ensure we will have another nasty crash and that many more people will suffer when it happens.

This phenomenon is not unfamiliar to California. Since 1980 we have experienced four recessions that have frayed the safety net, fueled anti-government sentiments, and created more inequality and economic vulnerability, all of which mean that the subsequent recession hits harder than the one that came before it. The recoveries from each recession have been largely driven by unsustainable asset bubbles that benefit the wealthy but create little if any actual wage growth for everyone else.

All indications are that we will experience the same here in 2010 - that is, if this halting recovery even lasts. Below are some thoughts on the ongoing economic problems California faces and what needs to be done to actually solve them, instead of ignore them in the face of another asset bubble.

• *Any current economic recovery is driven by massive federal economic stimulus, and will collapse if and when it is withdrawn.* Since California has done absolutely nothing to stimulate economic recovery, any job creation currently being experienced is due solely to the Obama Administration's 2009 stimulus plan. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely to be renewed, as both the White House and Senate Democrats are putting deficit reduction ahead of recovery. They're afraid of teabaggers whining about deficits, so instead they're going to repeat the error of 1937 and drive the state and nation deeper into recession by taking away government support. We need a second stimulus that is larger than the first if recovery is to happen, and it must be aimed at creating jobs, not at pointless tax cuts.

• *Austerity budgets and policies designed to protect creditors leave debtors less able to participate in and fuel economic growth.* Last week's student protests were very similar to recent protests in Spain and Greece in that they shared a common enemy: austerity budget cuts made in the name of appeasing creditors. Just as economic commentator Simon Johnson believes Europe risks global depression with these austerity policies, so too does California risk another downward slide with its ongoing slashing of government spending and programs. As average Californians are being told to spend more money for health care, education, and transportation so that government doesn't have to tax the rich and the large corporations to pay those costs, that makes it more difficult for those Californians to clear away their household debts, rebuild savings, and power the recovery through sensible spending choices.

• *Policies that favor large corporations at the expense of small business leave the state more vulnerable to recession and fail to create good jobs.* Small businesses in California need things like universal health care, affordable transportation, worker-friendly labor laws, and above all, a well-paid customer base that is able to sustain locally owned business. Instead California's current policies all favor large businesses, who get the tax breaks and bailouts and are able to block reforms that could make it easier for people to start and maintain businesses. Small businesses drive a greater share of job creation, are far less likely to outsource or offshore work, and tend to keep profits in the community. They need to be emphasized, not screwed over by policies designed to keep costs low for the big businesses, who can then crowd out their smaller competitors.

• *The state budget is still in permanent, long-term deficit, and austerity appears to be the solution for years to come.* Just as more government spending is needed to sustain any nascent recovery that might be under way, more spending is also needed to sustain a fairer, more prosperous economy. If people can't afford an education, can't afford health care, can't afford to get around the region for work, then they will be vulnerable to the next downturn, which will come much sooner than expected. California is projected to still have budget deficits for the next 3 years, of about $20 billion per year. If we cut another $60 billion in spending, California's economy will be left in tatters, since the programs that help keep down the cost of living for Californians will no longer be there. Now is the time to raise taxes by a large amount on the wealthy and on large corporations, to close the deficit and make it possible to restore and grow government services to strengthen and lengthen any economic recovery.

I'm sure there is more that can be examined and that must be done, but these are some general principles to keep in mind. If there is any economic recovery over the next 12-18 months, however weak and uneven it is, Sacramento will be tempted to avoid tackling the deep problems and implementing the solutions we need to a 30-year long downward spiral.

That wouldn't be good. Because if the status quo remains in place, most Californians will not see lasting benefits from this recovery. Sure, they might be able to find a job, but it won't be enough to pay the bills, eliminate the debt, build up savings, and help build a more sustainable economy for the future.

We've all had a good laugh at Carly "Failorina" and her completely inept campaign, particularly the lame websites and shockingly bad ads. But those are merely the surface reasons why Fiorina needs to be kept as far away from elected office as possible. Today she reminded us just how harmful she would be to Californians and their economic fortunes.

The Senate today passed its version of the Jobs Bill which, while far weaker than it should have been, is a good start. Even 12 Republicans voted for it, including Fiorina's new hero Scott Brown. Fiorina immediately criticized the bill's passage in a press release:

Today’s vote represents yet another missed opportunity to pass a real jobs bill that cuts taxes or institutes a real suspension of the payroll tax – either of which would free up small businesses to hire people. Instead, the Senate opted to pass what amounts to nothing more than an expensive extension of the failed stimulus plan.

You mean this failed stimulus? The one that's created or saved over 2 million jobs?

Of course, that IS the real reason Fiorina believes the stimulus failed - that it created jobs. To Fiorina, job creation is actually a bad thing. Higher unemployment is a very good thing, since it benefits the wealthy and corporate interests she represents. She claims the stimulus is a problem because it adds to the deficit, but the deficit is only a problem if you think raising taxes on the wealthy to deal with it is undesirable, as Fiorina surely does.

As we saw when Fiorina ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground as its CEO, she believes jobs are bad for the economy. She called offshoring "rightsourcing" and said that there is no "god given right" to a job. As with her former CEO counterpart Meg Whitman, Fiorina appears to be making higher unemployment as a core element of her campaign.

With Fiorina's statement today, her stance is clear: she thinks Californians should have fewer jobs, because anything we might do with government to help create jobs would wind up hurting the wealthy, and they're the ones that really matter in Fiorina's world. Good to know.

In 2004 Paul Krugman published a book that, at the height of the Bush Administration and less than a year after Arnold Schwarzenegger seized power in the 2003 recall vote, described 21st century America as embarking upon a "Great Unraveling" as the accomplishments of the 20th century were being undone by right-wingers.

As it turned out, the unraveling was only just beginning. It has taken the worst recession in 60 years to give that unraveling its full force and power here in California. Here in 2010, everywhere around us we see collapse, decay, and suffering - and a state government whose procedures are rigged to empower the small right-wing minority that is enthusiastically cheerleading the unraveling they've wrought.

Interestingly enough it's two articles in today's New York Times that show most clearly the depth of suffering and decay taking place in California. The first is Tom Friedman's column, which riffs off of the insane news that Tracy is going to charge for 911 calls, an example Friedman uses to show the lack of desire to rebuild this country and pull us out of crisis:

But now it feels as if we are entering a new era, “where the great task of government and of leadership is going to be about taking things away from people,” said the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum.

Indeed, to lead now is to trim, to fire or to downsize services, programs or personnel. We’ve gone from the age of government handouts to the age of citizen givebacks, from the age of companions fly free to the age of paying for each bag....

Our parents truly were the Greatest Generation. We, alas, in too many ways, have been what the writer Kurt Andersen called “The Grasshopper Generation,” eating through the prosperity that was bequeathed us like hungry locusts. Now we and our kids together need to be “The Regeneration” — the generation that renews, refreshes, re-energizes and rebuilds America for the 21st century.

That isn't going to happen as long as others in Friedman's generation continue to prioritize wealth extraction and tenacious, even bitter defense of the status quo over "The Regeneration." I see this all the time in my work in support of the high speed rail project, where prosperous homeowners in Palo Alto are doing everything in their power to try and stop the train project, merely because they think it will make their communities look ugly. They've even been able to convince the city's mayor, Pat Burt, to reverse his position in support of HSR and to instead call for a delay in the project, despite a 30% unemployment rate among Peninsula construction workers.

The same attitude extends to our schools, which are facing a serious crisis as teachers are laid off, campuses closed, and educational opportunity shrinks; to our health care system, which careens from one crisis to another; and to our overall economy, which is increasingly dominated by a wealthy few who prefer to extract wealth that already exists, rather than invest in making new things that can create new wealth.

This isn't a new phenomenon. But here in 2010, we're seeing an almost colonial approach to economic development that destroys public resources and infrastructure combining with long-term unemployment (since wealth extractors have no interest in creating lasting jobs or prosperity) to produce a worsening social crisis. The NYT's Peter Goodman explored this in Orange County:

Call them the new poor: people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives — potentially for years to come.

Yet the social safety net is already showing severe strains. Roughly 2.7 million jobless people will lose their unemployment check before the end of April unless Congress approves the Obama administration’s proposal to extend the payments, according to the Labor Department.

Here in Southern California, Jean Eisen has been without work since she lost her job selling beauty salon equipment more than two years ago. In the several months she has endured with neither a paycheck nor an unemployment check, she has relied on local food banks for her groceries.

The article is worth reading in its entirety, telling stories of middle-aged, middle-class Californians who are not only out of work, but do not have the resources to make some necessary adjustments. Food stamps, welfare, and Medi-Cal are being cut precisely when the middle-class and others need it to avoid homelessness and starvation. We're cutting college classes and making it more expensive to even attend a community college and get some valuable retraining skills. Add in California's ongoing lack of public housing and public job creation and you have a recipe not just for long-term unemployment, but for a massive expansion of an already-persistent underclass.

The stories Goodman tells are not new to California. They are familiar to anyone with any experience in East Oakland, South Los Angeles, or other communities that had been cut off from public support and economic opportunity for decades now, owing largely to the skin color of their residents. We are now seeing those problems grow deeper by becoming broader.

To bring it back to the great unraveling, the attitude of California's right-wing politicians, who govern this state by virtue of the 2/3rds rule, is that this suffering is a good thing. Chuck DeVore believes the unemployed should just leave California. Meg Whitman has made a call for higher unemployment a key campaign pledge.

They have allied with the wealth extractors to reach out to some of those who still have some financial resources left - longtime homeowners, those still making good money - to recruit them to support the destruction of California. They argue against any and all tax increases because if they don't, then the public might get the idea that some tax increases are indeed good and worthwhile, then California might follow Oregon voters and raise taxes on the rich and large corporations.

But it will take more than aggressively and persistently pushing for new investment in public services. As Friedman and Goodman both indicate, we also need to reorient our thinking. Our work and our society need to emphasize creating and making things, instead of making money on finances (rising home values, investment income, etc).

California has reached the end of a 60-year long model that emphasized massive consumption of non-renewable resources that caused major environmental problems, the most significant of which is global warming. We have the expertise, the workers, and the financial resources to address those problems by democratizing the economy, empowering more people to create sustainable ways of life, and building public services to provide the foundation upon which it depends.

Progressives will have to lead the creation of that new model for California. Nobody else will, because nobody else wants to.

Late last week we learned that California's unemployment rate dropped 0.1% in September, from 12.3% to 12.2%. That stat obscures far more than it reveals, including the fact that the 12.3% rate for August was an upward revision of the earlier reported number.

More significantly, the stat is not an accurate reflection of the job market in California. We actually lost 39,000 jobs in September. The only reason the rate appears to have dropped is that a significant number of the long-term unemployed have stopped looking for work and are no longer counted as "unemployed.

Nearly 1/3 of those lost jobs came from the public sector, as Steven Levy explained:

The state's job losses were especially pronounced in construction, which lost 14,100 jobs over the month, and government, which lost 12,700.

Cutbacks in government employment, which includes public schools, are partly to blame for the state's lackluster performance this month, said Stephen Levy of the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy.

"We are disproportionately hit in the government sector because our state and local governments are having worse budget shortfalls than in other states," he said. (LA Times, 10/17/09)

As Atrios said, that's not the way it's supposed to work. Government needs to be the employer of last resort, especially in a state that has the highest unemployment levels in 60 years. When 12,700 government employees lose their jobs, that translates into less consumer spending, which in turn means pressure to lay off more workers, all of which results in less tax revenue for the state, which merely exacerbates the vicious circle.

Yet Arnold Schwarzenegger simply doesn't care about the unemployment crisis. Instead of working to create private sector jobs through the preservation and expansion of public sector jobs, Arnold has engaged in a right-wing shock doctrine attack on the basic services of the state, an attack that was never going to succeed before the recession hit.

Once upon a time conservative Republicans claimed job creation was their #1 task, and that we had to give corporations whatever they wanted to create jobs - tax cuts, regulation cuts, etc. California did so - and as a result we have a far larger recession and unemployment numbers than we've ever had when Big Government supposedly ruled our political economy.

Today, you'll hear nary a peep out of the Republican Party about jobs. Sure, the Cal Chamber will publish its list of "job killer" bills, but that's only the public excuse to give Arnold the reason he needs to veto bills he'd have vetoed anyway. Instead you have a party that simply does not care about unemployment and the jobless. Instead, to hear Chuck DeVore tell it, the unemployed should just leave California.

California Republicans see unemployment as an unalloyed good, something to be embraced as a tool to destroy what remains of the New Deal and create a working class utterly dependent upon and unable to resist corporate power. California's economic policy has become nothing short of kleptocracy, justified by a constant media drumbeat demanding greater spending cuts, apparently for their own sake.

It is up to Democrats and progressives, then, to make the case to California that jobs matter, that jobs are what this state desperately needs, and that Republicans have not just given up on providing jobs, but are actively cheerleading unemployment and attacking the jobless.

Of course, we don't need jobs for their own sake. We need quality jobs, jobs that pay a living wage, jobs that are sustainable and not dependent on the latest asset bubble Ponzi scheme. And just as we learned in the 1930s, we need government to step in and provide them - instead of actively destroying them.

The geography of Depression is spreading. Yesterday we looked at how Mendota and other Central Valley towns are facing Steinbeckian scenes of poverty. Today brings another account of dire economic straits - this time in the San Bernardino/Riverside region of Southern California long known as the "Inland Empire".

Tom Woodruff, director of Change to Win's Strategic Organizing Center, offered this overview of the Depression in the Inland Empire, where unemployment is above 12%, and how the Employee Free Choice Act can help improve dire conditions:

The area's fractured employment model has turned a recession into a depression. There are now tens of thousands of laid off warehouse workers with no unemployment, no safety net at all, just barely getting by.

Ignacio Sanchez lost his warehouse job in October and now struggles every day to feed his family. Ignacio was a "lumper," unloading the large containers that come to the warehouses from the ports. He now spends his days watching over his five year-old daughter and searching dumpsters for cans and food. When he finds food, he has to hide where he got it from his daughter because if she knew, she might not eat it.

Olga Romero, who worked 14 hour days repacking shoes at a warehouse, was laid off three months ago with no warning or cause and has been unable to find work since. She can only afford to feed her family rice and beans for dinner, and worries about the days ahead. "There's no future with these bad jobs," she says. "I need a real job to take care of my family, not another temp job."

As conditions worsen in the Inland Empire, the big retail companies that created the broken business model have not accepted responsibility for the damage they have done. They hide behind the temp agencies and third-party logistics firms in an elaborate shell game.

The Inland Empire became a warehousing and shipment center for the nation - handling the products shipped from China to LA/Long Beach and putting them on trucks and trains to the nation's big box stores. The basic economic model was unsustainable; the employment itself was temporary and lacking in most basic benefits. And it goes without saying that most of these jobs were non-union.

Just as pro-labor legislation like Section 7(a) of the 1934 National Labor Relations Act and the Wagner Act of 1935 helped pull the nation out of Depression and ensure that the recovery would build a strong and lasting middle class, the Employee Free Choice Act can play a similar role in places like the Inland Empire:

More than one million new jobs will be created in the goods movement industry in Southern California by 2030, according to projections. For only pennies on the dollar, the retail industry could turn them into high quality, middle class jobs that support a family. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced and could play a major role in revitalizing our reeling economy. But only if the nation's biggest retailers are held responsible for the treatment of all the workers in their supply chain.

I have to confess that I am not sure the goods movement industry's future growth in SoCal will be so vast, and I am skeptical that relying on imports from China at the expense of domestic manufacturing (the Inland Empire used to be a major center of blue-collar work in the US, including the Kaiser Steel mill in Fontana) is a smart move. But in any case, we need to ensure that California's workers have the opportunity to organize unions for economic recovery.

Because we are learning the same lessons today that we learned 75 years ago - that we will not have economic security and shared prosperity unless the people of this nation have the power to wrest wealth back from the oligarchs.