Employers are planning to cut fewer jobs for the third month in a row, according to a new report that Challenger, Gray & Christmas has supplied to BloggingStocks.

The executive outplacement firm says that the number of planned reductions fell 16% in October to 55,679 positions -- from 66,404 in September. Last month's level was the lowest seen since March 2008, when 53,579 layoffs were planned. And, it's 51% lower than October 2008's 112,884 result. Planned staff reductions have fallen in eight of the past 10 months.

This morning, the White House reported that President Obama's stimulus package has created or saved 650,000 jobs -- of course, this time the Obama Administration promises that the new figures will be "more accurate" than in the past. As for the jobs saved or created, the administration based its finds on roughly $150 billion in spending from the $787 billion stimulus package. These "more accurate" numbers are taken from state reports and private companies. The White House did note that the actual number of jobs created thus far is "likely closer to 1 million" because this report looked at only $150 billion of the $339 billion invested in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds spent.

Investors, like the former great New York Yankee Manager Joe Torre, now manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, have to be both aware of the current game situation, and be a few innings ahead, working through the permutations of what might occur.

With the above in mind, from an investor-relevance standpoint, what's next on the public policy front, after health care reform?

President Obama was in Cincinnati yesterday, where he spoke to a group of union members at a picnic. While he was on his way here, the White House released a statement noting that "working Americans will help our nation emerge from this crisis." Nevertheless, the President believes that the country still faces a "vast and complex" economic crisis. Here is the problem, with a dwindling American workforce, President Obama says that it will be the working Americans that pull the nation out of the economic crisis. Last time we checked (and that was last week), the jobless rate was 9.7%.

The first half of 2009 has whizzed by in what seems like a macroeconomic eye-blink. Wasn't President Obama inaugurated just a few weeks ago? It's a cliché but it's true: time flies.

The nation has made strides to recover from its near-decade of policy errors, but much work remains. Accordingly, then, here are three economic wishes for the United States for the second half of the year:

Mega-retailer Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) announced today that it will add more than 22,000 jobs this year. The firm will add these jobs by adding positions to its current stores, building, or expanding. The 22,000 jobs will be in store management, pharmacies, human resources, customer service, cashiers, and sales staff.

WMT says that its customer base is expanding thanks to the economic downturn, as shoppers are looking for lower prices during tough economic times. That said, the company has jettisoned 1,800 employees since the year began -- with 700 to 800 positions cut at its corporate headquarters, 400 when it closed a regional return center in Georgia, and 650 cut when WMT closed an eyewear facility in Ohio.

President-elect Barack Obama campaigned -- and has continued to generate positive press -- on his commitment to job creation.

I've been scratching my head at this for awhile and wondering: Why is job creation a worthy goal? Shouldn't the goal be economic growth, and job creation is a happy byproduct of that?

Writing in Reason, Jacob Sullum, dissects exactly why Obama's rhetoric on job creation is nonsensical, illogical, and flies in the face of economics:

Obama also wants to spend $60 billion to "provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation." He says "these projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity. Fixing a bridge, widening a highway or building a light rail system may or may not make economic sense. But the fact that it involves paying people to operate jackhammers and pour concrete does not make it any more worthwhile. If creating jobs can justify transportation projects, why not fill the country with bridges to nowhere.

My optimistic hope is that Obama realizes that job creation is not a worthy goal and mentions only because he's politically savvy enough to know that it will generate consensus around his ambitious proposals. But if his billions of dollars in infrastructure projects are motivated by a desire to create jobs, we are in a lot of trouble.

This is one increase the American people would no doubt welcome with open arms.

President-elect Barack Obama, faced with a deepening U.S. recession, is expanding his fiscal stimulus package to achieve the goal of creating or saving 3 million jobs over two years.

Job growth is priority No. 1

Obama has made job growth his first priority, with the new target revised up from the previous 2.5 million-job target, said Christina Romer, Chairman-designate for Obama's Council of Economic Advisors.

Economist Richard Felson told BloggingStocks it's a good thing the Obama Administration is aiming higher.

"The 3 million job creation total over two years is warranted. In fact, it's modest when one considers that the U.S. economy has already lost 2 million jobs since the recession started," Felson said. "Job growth is at the core of reversing negative trends in corporate revenue, earnings, and of course home mortgage foreclosures."

A good rule for a forward-thinking executive to observe is never go anywhere -- at least don't walk into any meeting -- without the latest projections or models for the U.S. economy for the year ahead.

How's the U.S. economy likely to perform in the year ahead? Well, here are the summaries of economist David H. Wang's models based on predetermined values for 20 proprietary variables.

Realignment: This forecast assumes a modest $200-400 billion fiscal stimulus, a $70-80 a barrel oil price, record / near-record home mortgage foreclosures, along with efforts to realign U.S. energy policy, and reductions in health care spending accompanying national health care legislation. In this model unemployment rises to 9.5% and the recovery does not begin until Q4 2010. (That's correct: Q4 2010.)

Elongated: This model assumes a modest $200-400 billion fiscal stimulus and a $60 a barrel average oil price, with another year of record / near-record home mortgage foreclosures. Unemployment rises to 9.0%, and the economic recovery does not begin until late Q2 / early Q3 2010.

Steady-state: This model assumes about $500 billion in fiscal stimulus and a $60 a barrel average oil price, among other factors, that limits the recession's depth slightly. Unemployment still rises to 8.0% from the current 6.5%, but the economic recovery begins in early 2010.

One hears the mantra almost daily, often from friends and relatives:

Aren't stocks cheap? Look at those low P/Es! GE is at $15 a share, Intel below $14, Du Pont at about $27. My goodness, the Dow is down to 8,200. Isn't now a good time to buy stocks?

It is, if you believe the Dow is forming a bottom and/or that the worst of the financial crisis is behind us, and the U.S. economy is set to recover.

However, the alternate viewpoint argues that the Dow has not bottomed, could very well fall another 1,000 points, with panic selling (known as 'capitulation' in Wall Street circles) taking the Dow to levels well below that, at least for a short period of time, possibly longer.

Hence, purchasing shares for the first time now (or adding to existing positions) given the latter scenario would create an immediate 10% loss, or possibly more.

Monitor corporate earnings and job growth

What's a better tack to take concerning when to buy more shares? Monitor U.S. corporate earnings and job growth.

Time provides the advantage of not only additional events, but also the ability to the compare these events to conditions and issues in previous eras -- an argument against 'instant-analysis' and a major reason my Ph.D. advisor said, "Don't study any public official's decisions until he or she has been dead for 20 years."

Hence, time is naturally providing more evidence and perspective on the recently-ended period of global economic growth, and increasingly the evidence is showing that it was a global economy of unsustainable imbalances -- balances that policy makers mistakenly ignored.

2001-2007: a policy void

First and probably foremost there was the oil price imbalance. Whether they were driven up by speculators, by institutional investors seeking a return on equity, global energy demand, and/or by other factors, economists had warned for years that the U.S. and global economies could not continue to grow at adequate rates with oil above $80 per barrel. In fact, every previous oil shock in the modern era was followed by a recession in the United States. Still, little was done from a policy standpoint to stem oil's price rise.

Similarly, the U.S.'s then-increasing trade deficit, a good part of which had been fed by purchases of imported oil, and the notion that U.S. consumers could serve perpetually as the growth engine of the export-oriented developing world, was unsustainable, given stagnant U.S. incomes, and its nadir savings rate. Yet little was done to address this imbalance.

Non-farm private employment decreased a whopping 157,000 in October on a seasonally-adjusted basis, ADP announced Wednesday in the ADP National Employment Report (pdf).

Meanwhile, the September estimated change in employment was revised to a decrease of 26,000 from the previously announced decrease of 8,000 jobs, ADP said.

Manufacturing employment fell 85,000 in October -- its 26th consecutive monthly decline. Meanwhile, the service sector of the economy lost 31,000 jobs, the first monthly job loss in the service sector since November 2002.

Economist Richard Felson said the October ADP private sector report offered little good news for the U.S economy.

"It is a large monthly job loss, and even more distressing was the job loss total in the service sector," Dawson said. "Up until now the service sector was creating jobs, helping to prop up the economy. The fact that services lost jobs in a month for the first time in six years is a bad sign for the economy because it removes one of the few remaining bright spots in the job market. Job market conditions have worsened and we're likely to continue to see 100,000-plus job loss months for awhile, I'm afraid."

If you're an economist, like David H. Wang, you wake up some days muttering, "What has happened to the industrial base in the U.S. economy?"

The auto companies are practically on life support, and other sectors are paring-back operations, even as international competition mounts. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. How did this happen? Eight more years of industrial base decline without a viable plan to counteract it? And now, as a result of the financial crisis and de-leveraging, the prospect of a period of less-available credit threatens to delay economic recovery.

Well one remedy for the above, Wang argues, is to invest in the industrial sector via investing in the United States' infrastructure. And what's one project worthy of consideration? Investor T. Boone Pickens' plan to substantially increase domestic wind power via his Pickens Plan, Wang argued.

Pickens' investment fund has fallen on tough times, as of late. His BP Capital investment fund has shrunk by 60%, due to energy sector losses, and will drop to about $500 million after redemptions, by week's end, Pickens told CNBC Thursday. Pickens, who sees oil sector consolidation, expects the price of oil to recover to $100 per barrel in 2009. Oil Thursday closed down $1.81 to $65.69 per barrel.

Pickens Plan: a better investment than AIG?

Wang is less certain about a $100 oil price in 2009, but he is certain about the merit and benefits from investing in Pickens' project, and his argument is compelling. (Wang added that he does not have an investment stake in any power/energy company.)

In this market, it bears repeating that a great deal can change in a short time.

That's why from an investor standpoint, the Dow's level really doesn't count until 4 p.m. ET.

Of course, traders will quickly point out that intra-day and hourly overbought/oversold indicators certainly count, and if you're in that category of market participants who trade daily with success, congrats.

But for the bulk of investors/readers a longer time horizon is relevant, and that's why it's not prudent to read too much into the Dow's level before the 4 p.m. close.

With the VIX, the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index (NYSE: $VIX.X), the benchmark index for U.S. stock options, at record highs, the stock market is displaying near-unprecedented volatility - - or wild gyrations characteristic of periods permeated with fear, uncertainty, and announcements events that change economic forecasts, almost daily.

Typically trading between 15-30, the VIX has been above 40 for about a month, and has traded above 80! On Thursday at 11 a.m., the VIX was at 66.38, down 3.58.

And the VIX's expression in Dow terms? That's right: massive swings in the Dow -- 500-point reversal moves intra-day, 700-point up days followed by 800-point down days, other wild swings, 5% up days in a 10% down month, and of course, the old ulcer-generator -- massive selling at 3 p.m. ET.

Bloomberg columnist Caroline Baum gently reminds us that not every tax cut achieves its intended effect.

Case study: The 2001 Bush Administration federal income tax cut, which included a cut in the marginal tax rate to 35% from 39.6%. The Bush Administration touted it as a tax cut that would increase incentives to invest, save and work.

The result? The tax cut didn't work: saving and investment have been "anemic" during the Bush years, Baum said, citing data provided by Paul Kasriel, chief economist at Northern Trust Corp. in Chicago. Business investment is down, the savings rate is at a post-World War II low. Further, the labor participation rate has declined.

No guarantee tax cut would be invested in U.S.

But why didn't cutting the top marginal rate do all of the good things the Bush Administration touted? Economist Peter Dawson said the reason is the tax cut's inherent flaw.

"The tax cut contained the mistaken belief that rich taxpayers would invest their money and invest in the right way, in the U.S., to increase GDP," Dawson said. "There was no guarantee that they would do that. Someone who is rich could invest the money in Brazil or India, with little benefit for the United States."