Some of the jobs that have disappeared through this recession are gone forever, it seems. Even when the market turns, and even gains momentum, we could be stuck with a fairly weak employment market for a while. The recovery will take longer than we'd like, putting more distance between now and the top of the next market run. We've lost 7.2 million jobs since December 2007, and the predictions of some economists that we'll get them back by 2014 may actually seem optimistic.

Unemployment is at 9.8%, and it's expected to clear 10% early next year. Then, we have the specter of a jobless recovery with which to contend. "Full employment" is often considered to be an unemployment rate of 4% to 5%, but it could be a while before we get there. The last downturn, following the dotcom bust, resulted in a peak unemployment rate of 6.3% in 2003 ... and we're already well past that.

Why is the recovery going to be such a grind? Check out the four major reasons after the jump.

I don't think anyone could have had a positive reaction to Bank of America's (NYSE: BAC) third-quarter report, which was released on Friday. According to Bloomberg, management lost $1 billion in the past three months. Big ouch on that one. The financial institution bled 26 cents per diluted share. No earnings beat here, either. Wall Street sent shares down 4.6% by the end of yesterday's trading session.

The year-ago period was a happier time. Back then, Bank of America was rolling in the dough, posting a profit of 15 cents per share. What a difference 12 months makes. Looking at the nine-month record perhaps gives a small amount of comfort to shareholders. The company made 39 cents per diluted share. Of course, that doesn't sit too well next to the $1.09 per diluted share booked in the comparable period. But at least it's not a loss, know what I mean?

34 banks opted not to pay their quarterly dividends to the Treasury Department in August -- that's up from the 19 deadbeats for the month of May.

The biggest offenders were American International Group (NYSE: AIG), CIT Group Inc. (NYSE: CIT), First Bancorp (NASDAQ: FBNC) , Sterling Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: STSA), and UCBH Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: UCBH).

The Treasury Department provided the USA Today with a pretty condescending explanation: "For some banks, it may be prudent to exercise their right not to pay dividends in a particular month, and we respect their right to do so. To draw any broader conclusions about the state of the banking sector from one month is highly premature and speculative."

Starting your own business? Need some extra space for your needlepoint habit? You're in luck ... office space comes cheap these days. In fact, rent for office space is sliding lower at the fastest rate since 1995. In the third quarter, office rents dropped 8.5% on a year-over-year basis.

Falling prices typically go hand in hand with falling demand and in fact, vacancies are on the rise as layoffs increase. New York-based real-estate research firm Reis says the office vacancy rate has hit a five-year high of 16.5%. Last quarter, tenants returned 19.6 million square feet of commercial rental space to their landlords.

If you're single, you're 50% more likely to lose your job, according to a study published Friday by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. This is no different from most recessions, but neither the stat nor the trend loses its shock value with each downturn. Now that the unemployment rate has edged higher, to 9.8% last month, the plight of singles is worsening.

Single employment fell 4.8% from December 2007 through June, with the married folks losing their jobs at a rate of only 3.1%. In August, the single jobless rate reached 13.5%, while those encumbered with spouses fared much better at 6.3%.

Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) announced on Thursday that it will eliminate fees on customer overdrafts of $5 or less and is going to limit overdraft charges to a maximum for four per day.

This move follows similar moves from other large banks, prompting some to ask what took so long. In addition, Wells Fargo customers will be allowed to opt out of automatic overdraft coverage. Doing so would mean that debit card and ATM transactions would not be allowed to go through if your account is overdrawn.

The banks led the markets down, and then led it back up. And when they announce earnings in October, they are almost positively going to include comments about 2010 that will help send the market back down.

The banks still have trillions of dollars in toxic assets and increasing credit losses, and they are facing new accounting and regulatory rules that are pressuring them to raise capital and dilute shareholders.

And the market is not likely to react well to this news.

Next: Sign #4: No positive catalysts on the horizon

There may be a new rule coming from the Fed that will make banks stronger but will hurt investors. There's a good possibility that banks will have to raise their "well-capitalized" capital requirement from 7% to 8%. The current definition of "well-capitalized" is 6% but the unofficial rate that regulators like to see is 7%. That means for every asset on the books of $100, there is now $7 of capital to back it up. With the new rule, that capital cushion would go to $8. That means the FDIC would have more protection against losses ($8 of protection is better than $7). But the question is: where do banks find the extra $1?

They can come up with it several different ways, none of which help current investors. The first, and easiest way, is to simply sell assets and lower the total size of the bank. If a bank of $1 billion has capital of $70 million, it could sell enough assets to shrink to $875 million. Then the capital base stays the same at $70 million (assuming no gain or loss on the sale of the assets) but the percentage of capital is now 8% rather than 7%.

The Street.com's Jim Cramer says that history should resonate here, if you don't want to repeat its mistakes.

We've heard lots of talk about how the banks have run, how they are too expensive and how they have to give back those spectacular returns. I have seen the argument on this site that things are rapidly deteriorating and the banks need to raise more capital.

And I wrote yesterday that I heard it all before.

The history never seems to matter among the bank bears. Even when I say that I owned big stakes in banks and every one of them worked out, no one seems to care. The pattern, the nay-chorus says, is rally, which we definitively have had, then severe selloff and then oblivion.

Interesting article from the Associated Press this morning, taking a look at how fast banks expanded during the past five years. The article states that banks added more than 10,000 full-service branches in the past five years, with nary a bank in the inner city (actually, one of every 10 was in a minority neighborhood).

The banks were "racing" to plant themselves in various parts of the country deemed exclusive or growing. The problem that the article looks at is the dearth of banks located in inner-city locations, which could lead to more charges for customers. This is a very real problem, and warrants the discussion; however, I want to take a look at the problem of overexpansion for the banking industry.

There is "talk" that the economy is turning the corner, that the recession is history. But some of the numbers on the housing front are frankly frightening. The housing market is in quicksand and still sinking. The newest July numbers are gloomy at best. Let's take a look at them:

• Foreclosure activity jumped 7% in July from June and 32% from a year earlier.
• James J. Saccaccio of Realty Trac said: "July marks the third time in the past five months where we've seen a record set for foreclosure activity."

The Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee minutes reveal that the Fed is going on a buying spree. The Fed plans to buy $1.25 trillion of agency mortgage backed securities, $200 billion of agency debt by the end of the year, and $300 billion of Treasury securities.

One can only guess from these numbers that the Fed is extremely worried about the financial sector and is still trying to prop up the banks by buying their junk securities to get them off the hook.

Just call it an extended buying opportunity for one of the most trusted banks in the United States. I'm Reiterating my Buy rating for Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE: BK), first recommended on April 6, 2009 at a price of $28.16.

Founded by Alexander Hamilton, perhaps my favorite U.S. Constitution Framer, The Bank of New York provides services that enable institutions and individuals to move and manage their financial assets in more than 100 markets globally. The core of BK's business, custodial services, is doing just fine, with $16 trillion in assets under custody. The First Call FY2009/FY010 EPS estimates for BK are $2.06 to $2.51.

You've probably seen or heard about all the money the federal government has loaned to banks, whether through TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) or other acronyms. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed into the banking system through the back door. Yet very little of it seems to be going out the front door to consumers for mortgages or cars or other reasons for which we all used to borrow. What are the banks doing with that money and why aren't they getting looser with credit instead of tighter?

Two things dominate all others for banks: yields and capital in reserve for potential losses. Yields have to do with making the most return for the money loaned. Right now that isn't in new mortgage originations. With yields below 6% for most mortgages, there's little incentive for banks to make those loans. That's because there are plenty of other investments that yield 8%, 9% or more that are backed by mortgages and spread risk much better than a single family mortgage that relies on one or two people keeping their jobs to make the monthly payments. Those other investments are called mortgage backed securities.

After yesterday's closing bell, Capital One Financial (NYSE: COF) reported a second-quarter loss of 65 cents per share. The quarterly loss included $461.7 million COF repaid to TARP and a $38 million dividend payment. Excluding these payments, COF saw a quarterly profit of 53 cents per share. The Street expected COF to lose 73 cents per share, so the company managed to top expectations. Nevertheless, the company noted that its results were pulled lower by credit card losses along with the repayment of the government funds.

COF managed to make money excluding items, but a loss is still a loss. While the company noted that people have been a bit more defensive in their spending, I'm guessing that this may change. Remember that unemployment is at record highs, which may lead to more people to depend on credit cards (if they have them) to pay for necessities.