In recent comments, I said that I had good news to report regarding my adult dependants.They all got jobs!

Ever since the Great Recession erupted, I have had to carry my family members -legal adults all- on my one pay check. There have been temporary jobs occasionally, but never could any one of them support themselves, Nor could they assist me. For the past couple of years, I have been able to take them as dependants on my tax return despite their being older than 26 due to meeting all of the conditions - all of which are listed in the 1040 Instructions if you care to peruse them.

While they are still unable to support themselves, however, they are now able to help a bit. All three of my kids have been hired to part-time jobs. One will now have two part-time jobs and can start paying off her student loans without me. The other two can begin to cover some of their expenses, especially car insurance.

Because all of them were hired on first tries, I am inclined to finally believe the headline: Strong U.S. job growth. This despite an understandable difference of opinion regarding employment: New Jobs Fall Short of Forecasts.

Of course, one needs to be cautious about what one wishes for. Now that my kids have gotten jobs, how long will they keep them? If UBS is to be believed, there is a 34% Probability of U.S. Recession by Q1 2017. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones reports that Deutsche Bank is saying similar things. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) surveyed 400 real estate professionals, who are pessimistic about economic prospects and feel a recession coming on. Marketwatch is seeing many restaurant chains worried about business dropping off due to changing economics, and at best issued hold ratings on the various chains if not sell ratings on these restaurant shares.

What is driving this investor angst is the fact that the working class is beginning to recover from the Great Recession, and the 1% aren't interested in paying more than they have become accustomed to pay for labor, which is essentially nothing. Every time this happens, the FED will step in and raise interest rates, which initiates a freeze on hiring if not initiating active layoffs, and those hired last tend to go first. This would put me back in the role of primary support for at least two of my offspring.

Greg McBride, senior vice president and chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com, presents the connection between rising FED interest rates and the effect on employment:

If the Fed goes a little too far in raising rates, it could really slow the economy. That's when housing and car loan sales are hit – when the economy slows and people are worried about getting laid off.

The FED's stated strategy, on hold since at least August 7, 2015:

The U.S. central bank said its policy-setting committee anticipated it would be appropriate to raise lending rates when it has seen "some further improvement" in the jobs market. -Reuters

As economics.org put it, in terms of traditional economics theory:

...higher interest rates will tend to reduce consumer spending and investment. This will lead to a fall in Aggregate Demand (AD). If we get lower AD, then it will tend to cause:

• Lower economic growth (even negative growth – recession)
• Higher unemployment. If output falls, firms will produce less goods and therefore will demand less workers.
• Improvement in the current account. Higher rates will reduce spending on imports and the lower inflation will help improve the competitiveness of exports.

I want to hope for the best, that things will work out. But when Sarah Palin asked how that hopey-changey thing was working out for me and mine, I had to admit that the proper response was, "Not very well." This assessment of mine was confirmed when éminence grise Noam Chomsky declared about Palin's observation:

“I don’t usually admire Sarah Palin, but when she was making fun of this ‘hopey-changey’ stuff, she was right,” Chomsky said. “There was nothing there. And it was understood by the people who run the political system.”

So I am hoping that my issue is remunerated at least long enough to allow me to pad my reserves and not have to go into deeper hock to participate in the annual merchandising frenzy, which pretends to be a religious observation while being the main period during which most retailers earn their annual profits. Yet as Forbes just stated:

Many traditional retailers have struggled in recent years and the list of retail bankruptcies reads like a mall directory, ranging from American Apparel, Sports Authority, Wet Seal and Aéropostale.

Haven't we consumers been spending enough? Wasn't our surprising $25.9 Billion increase in credit card debt -just in August alone- enough of a confidence booster for you? We're doing the best we can, considering our wages aren't what they once were, and our medical costs have risen to the point that many can no longer afford coverage. Yet we are sacrificing our futures for your profits anyway.

There will come a time -assuming the continuation of the current direction of the economy- when the lemon has no more juice to be squeezed out. How soon this happens is in part dependent on whether some president foolishly gets TPP pushed through the Congress.

At that point, I have to hope that I still have a job, for it's likely that my dependants would lose theirs.

It's a good thing I resigned myself to working until I drop shortly after the treasonous Reagan took office. I've had plenty of time to prepare myself for that fate. Who needs to retire anyway?

Or so I claim to believe.