You don't have to be a U.S. Department of Labor statistician to know the trend in the United States regarding wages and salaries: they're heading lower, in many job categories.

And the reasons are complex: globalization, automation, and lack of unionization have driven real wages and salaries for many job segments down to decade-long lows, and in some cases to levels not seen in more than a generation.

Investors received yet another indicator Monday that this is not your father's recession.

The global economy will likely contract in 2009 for the first time since World War II -- including a decline in trade - - the World Bank announced in its most recent report.

Following the instructions of President John F. Kennedy, "I appreciate candor almost as much as I appreciate good news," we're moving forward with candor, however unpleasant.

Investors take heed: the U.S. recession most likely just got longer.

The European Union, led by Germany, has rejected Eastern Europe's pleas for an aid package of about $228 billion, citing budget concerns in their own Western European countries, Bloomberg News reported Sunday.

The E.U.'s failure to provide aid and fiscal stimulus to Hungary, the Czech republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia and Poland will hurt both the U.S. and global economies.

The manager of the world's largest bond fund, PIMCO, has laid-out in unambiguous terms the problem facing the global economy in the quarters ahead: The U.S. and global recession will worsen -- with a "second wave" of turmoil -- unless governments increase fiscal stimulus and spending plans.

"The economic setback is still in its early stages," Koyo Ozeki, head of Asia-Pacific credit research at Pimco's Tokyo office, wrote in a report published on PIMCO's web site. "Any further decline in housing prices could accelerate the downturn, intensifying the pernicious feedback loop and possibly leading to a second wave in the financial crisis in the next six to 12 months."

It's as if every major economy in the world's emerging markets structured its economy to take advantage of U.S. consumption, and only U.S. consumption.

Of course, we know this isn't the case. Asia-to-Europe and Latin America-to-Asia trade, etc. expanded during the past decade, but then why is it that the end of the housing boom in the United States, and its accompanying slowdown in consumer spending, slowed demand seemingly everywhere -- in China, Brazil, Russia and in Europe?

Similarly, how is it that a banking crisis primarily rooted in the United States was able to propel a global financial crisis, in a multi-polar financial world? Economists and others speak of the great financial centers of the world -- London, Frankfurt, Hong Kong and Tokyo -- in addition to New York. How is it, then, that when New York has a problem -- admittedly its biggest financial crisis in generations -- the global financial system nearly freezes up, as we saw in the credit markets last fall? What ever happened to decoupling?

These days, most investors, executives, and economists know that there's no shortage of unpleasant news regarding the U.S. economy.

Moreover, some days it's hard to find those bright spots that we know exist amid the the snow storm of the recession. Here's one: U.S. worker productivity.

Underscoring that while there are no positives to job layoffs -- each job loss is a tragedy -- citizens and investors can at least point to the fact that the U.S. workforce is becoming more productive, and corporate efficiency is improving.

It's an axiom of business theory that change is continual in market economies, but as economist David H. Wang points out, there's change that corporations and citizens can prepare for, and then there's change that few expect.

The latter is, by its nature, Wang says, more disruptive - - driving companies out of business, compelling triage-like changes in business models of others, while also triggering wholesale changes to family budgets, career paths, and students' educational objectives.

Wang groups change in three categories: cyclical (as in the business cycle), technological (such as the Internet, car, telephone, electrification, railroad etc.), and structural (globalization, Cold War, Marshall Plan, Bolshevik Revolution, the Enlightenment, Protestant Reformation, etc).

Globalization is, at most, two decades old and few would deny its benefits, which include: the transfer of production to lower-cost centers, an increase in trade and interconnectedness between nations, and the more-efficient deployment of resources.

But while the bulk of globalization research has focused on commerce and production changes and trends, the new world economy may also have ushered in another pattern that could be just as telling regarding national and regional economy GDPs: the era of the frugal consumer.

Has there been a consumption 'shift'?

Moreover, who better to ask about the above than economist David H. Wang, a macroeconomic modeler with more than 100 variables in his research arsenal.

Novelist and journalist Pete Hamill, whose life and collection of work encapsulates the character, wisdom, grit, and tapestry of immigrant New York, and the rise of the United States, in the 20th century, speaks often of his subway commutes as a student to and from prep school Regis High School in Manhattan to his native Brooklyn.

On the ride home Hamill would frequently see the men of manufacturing and industrial New York -- the men who with their hands worked with the machines and tools that made at one point ... almost every product you could think of. Further, despite all that unpredictable New York could offer in a day, there was always a sense of calm on that subway, he notes.

"Nobody would ever mess with those guys," Hamill says.

Since the end of Hamill's subway riding days, the United States has become a post-industrial economy, but that's not to say that it can not have a manufacturing role in the global economy.

What's the world's biggest economic concern, even after a decade of globalization? When the U.S. economy will begin to recover and pull out of its recession.

What's, arguably, the world's second biggest economic concern? When China's economy will begin to grow at a stronger rate.

The U.S. and E.U. recessions have decreased demand for China's exports, which in turn has slowed China's GDP growth from more than 11% in 2007 to about 8% in 2008, with even slower growth in the final half of 2008, so says economist David H. Wang, a China expert.

The power of Chinese demand

True, slower Chinese growth has taken pressure off commodity prices globally -- it's a major reason oil, copper, coal, and related commodity prices collapsed in 2008 -- but that reduced demand also has "resulted in a negative-feedback loop," Wang said, slowing the economies of raw material- and commodity-exporting countries, particularly emerging market economies like Brazil.

Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf argues that the current financial crisis and global recession is best viewed through a Keynesian lens, and it's the lens of a pragmatist.

Wolf sees three Keynesian themes, or lessons, that policy makers would be wise to heed.

Keynes: Markets are essential, but not perfect

The first: if you expect markets to be self-correcting and self-policing, there's trouble up ahead. Wolf: Mistakes occur, even among those who were following standard operating procedure. A market filled with bankers -- or other participants -- following standard operating procedures that were flawed leads to ... what we have today, pretty much -- a global recession and constrained credit.

The second: It's o.k. for a corporation to become more efficient, but it's not necessarily a good thing if a society or nation (or world) does so all at once. This reinforces one of Keynes's tenets: It's a good thing to have consumers amass savings, but if everyone saves everything all the time it would be a disaster.

Or, for the globalization version of the above, economist Richard Felson told BloggingStocks: "We need people in the United States to save more money, but if people in Europe, China, India, Japan, Brazil and Russia do the same thing simultaneously, the global economy will remain in a recession for a very long time."

To say current economic conditions are challenging the acumen of those who are charged with adjusting to them or planning for them would be an understatement.

And it goes without saying that in these volatile times, investors, like business executives, have to keep an eye on the near-term and the long-term.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has embarked on various liquidity measures, including quantitative easing. Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury, as a result of $350 billion in deployed TARP money (and another $350 billion available to be deployed if Congress approves), has stabilized the financial system, at least for the time being. And if economic history is any indicator, look for the bulk of the Fed's monetary stimulus to begin to take effect within three months of deployment.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration and new U.S. Congress are expected to act quickly on a large fiscal stimulus package that could pump an additional $800 billion into the U.S. economy over two years. And if economic history is valid here, as well, look for the fiscal stimulus to begin to take effect within six months.

So globalization -- the spread of free markets integrated internationally by trade -- is guaranteed, correct? Just like the market's ability to self-correct, self-reform, and self-regulate?

Not quite, says New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman.

Krugman argues that the current globalization era is actually 'Globalization 2.0.' 'Globalization 1.0' began in 1919, also a period of large-scale international trade and investment, when it was thought that commerce and the benefits of trade would render previous ethnic and cultural rivalries between nations irrelevant.

History did not begin in 1981

What followed, Krugman notes -- and this will be illuminating for those investors who believe history began in 1981 -- was war, revolution, political instability, depression, and more war ... for 30 years.

To be sure, the world today is a different 'political economy place' than it was in 1919, Krugman adds, with the economic / minor-political integration of Europe being a big difference: the euro-zone and E.U. means European states are less likely today to go to war with one another.

China will remain a major low-cost center for manufacturing, but it is egregiously incorrect and irresponsible to say it represents the landscape -- the sweep, if you will -- of the manufacturing horizon, says economist Richard Felson.

"Many low cost products will be made in China, and elsewhere, but better products can and will be made in the United States, if we plant the seeds for those industries today," Felson said.

This decade, which many economists call the U.S.'s 'decade of descent,' has been a lost decade concerning manufacturing. A failure to invest in the nation's manufacturing, technology, and basic research segments "has left the United States grossly underinvested, from physical plant and capital investment standpoints," Felson said. "The U.S. auto sector is probably the best known example of this. It is a manufacturing tragedy."

U.S. can seize the high end

The solution? Invest in industry, basic research, and technology to re-grab the high-end, and beyond, Felson says.

Think next-generation cars, he says. Think even more efficient jet engines and power systems. Think solar technology. Think wind power. Think smart electric grid. Think expanded universities to train the civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers needed to develop the innovative, energy-efficient, and smart systems of tomorrow.

What's one key to the global economy's recovery, and by extension, the U.S. economy's recovery?

Well, it's not likely to be an engine of growth of the past, namely, the U.S. consumer. Several regional growth engines are needed.

To be sure, the U.S. consumer will play a role: a $14 trillion economy -- still, the world's largest -- remains an influential contestant in the GDP arena, but if the global economy hopes to achieve a balanced, sustainable growth track, consumption by consumers in the world's other major economies have to play a larger role, so says economist Peter Dawson.

Dawson's analysis assumes that the U.S. consumer will return -- not to home equity loan-driven, frenzied, unsustainable consumption of this decade, but to a moderate growth track, after real median incomes start to rise after the U.S. economy starts to recover. The above is mentioned as a backdrop because some economic models assume severely-challenged U.S. consumption for several years; Dawson's model is not one.

Still, even a moderate-growth U.S. consumer spending model does not invalidate the need for structural changes in the global economy.