But even as the flexibility of freelancing is becoming more attractive to many employers and employees alike, little security exists for such workers.

Sara Horowitz, a former labor attorney in New York, founded the Freelancers Union more than a decade ago to provide freelancers with a social safety: offering health, dental, life, and disability insurance and a 401 retirement plan, as well as networking and advocacy to make the law more freelancer-friendly.

The union has grown to 175,000 members nationwide, with 75,000 in New York alone.

In a special Business Desk video exclusive, Horowitz explains why more employers and employees are going the freelancer route, and how the law has lagged in its protections for this growing class of workers.

Editor's note: Paul recently sat down with economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, authors of a new book chronicling an incredible eight centuries of financial crises around the world, This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly.

The authors dug through mountains of data on every financial crisis they could uncover back to the 1300s, hoping to uncover common elements. Two major recurring themes they found: Arrogance and ignorance.

Kenneth Rogoff: Ignorance that this has happened before in other places, in other countries and arrogance thinking we're special, this time is different, we have financial globalization, we're running our economy better.

They took questions from NewsHour viewers in this special forum.

Question: Many years ago, I read a book about the Great Wave theory in economics, which argued along the lines that every 60 years or so economies go through crashes like this one. I am not an economist, but am curious if professional economists give any credence to these wave ideas, or are they discredited? -- Edward Allen

Kenneth Rogoff: We applaud looking at long periods of data. A key theme of our book is that you don't want to assess the risk of 100 year floods using 25 years of data, and you certainly want to look at multiple countries and not just one or two. But we also believe that economic theory has a role to play, and the variables we emphasize, such as debt, housing prices, and growth, are quite consistent with the models we know of how financial crises occur.

We put less store in those "wave" theories which are completely non-structural, when it becomes more likely that "regularities" are simply statistical flukes. And again, we don't think it makes sense to take advantage of the striking similarities in financial crises across countries and time, rather than just focus on a very small sample as most previous efforts have done.

Carmen Reinhart: I too read that literature with great interest during my time at Bear Stearns! But as Ken and I document, the cycles are not evenly timed across time or countries as this literature suggests (which is the advantage of tracking 66 countries in our sample for such a long period). In a nutshell (and it is a nutshell), the debt buildup-crises cycles are much more closely timed than 60 years for emerging markets AND they were also more closely timed for the advanced economies of today prior to WWII. (The chapter on banking highlights this point).

Question: Based upon your comparative study, (a) how long do you estimate this recession will last and solid growth will finally return? And (b) Is there a possibility that an even worse crisis can happen, as Nouriel Roubini recently predicted in the Financial Times? -- Frank S.

Kenneth Rogoff: Thanks for your question. In the usual postwar recession, it takes about two years for solid growth to return, as appears to have happened here as well.

Will there be something worse down the road? We probably won't have a relapse into the same kind of panic we saw that the end of 2008. After all, the governments of the world have basically guaranteed a huge patch of the financial sector. Even after they "withdraw" their guarantees, everyone will expect them to rush back as needed.

So the immediate panic is over. The bad news is government debts are soaring. In Chapter 14 of the book (see also Chapter 10 on banking crises), we show that on average, government debt nearly doubles in the aftermath of a severe financial crisis, within a few years. We are looking at trajectories for government debt (relative to income) that are seldom seen outside of a war period.

Will rich country government, already facing severe long-term budget problems due to aging populations, be able to tighten their belts enough to stave off a major problem? Maybe, but we are not so sure. Check out the figure below, from page 74 of our book. (The figure aggregates the world, but the same features come out from a more granular look at the data.) Waves of international banking crises are often followed, a few years later, by waves of government defaults (on external debt).

We do not expect a country such as the United States to necessarily default. But five to ten years down the road, if we have not fixed our severe budget imbalances (we are running double digit deficits), we might well see a period of significantly elevated inflation, which is the rich country way of reneging on debt commitments.

Carmen Reinhart: Ditto to Ken's comments above. You cannot rule out another big bang (an emerging market default could trigger that). But a scenario that worries me is one where the (global) "solid growth," as you put it, does not materialize for awhile. That is, the tentative recovery will end, not with a bang, but a whimper. We have yet to establish a durable foundation for growth.

Editor's note: This week and next, the Business Desk will feature questions from students in three high schools around the country.

Question: Unemployment seems to be far worse than the government's statistics show (currently just below 10 percent). Why is this so? -- Liz, senior, Central High School, Phoenix, Ariz.

Paul Solman: Because lots of people who you (and I) might consider "unemployed" aren't in the most commonly reported number, which only includes people who haven't worked at all, or looked for work, in the past week. And even that number is from a sample that might misrepresent reality, if unemployed people are harder to find and survey than other Americans.

But assume the methods are sound. The government actually reports an official statistic called "Unemployment-6" that includes everyone who has looked for work in the past year (but not past week) and who is looking for full-time work, but can't find, and thus worked part-time in the past week. "U-6" was 17 percent last month. And even that number didn't include anyone who hadn't looked for work in the past YEAR, because they were simply discouraged. Add in those people, and the unemployment number could be double the 10 percent you mention.

Question: Is unemployment going to get worse or better? -- Miguel, senior, Central High School, Phoenix, Ariz.

Paul Solman: If you believe most economic forecasts, it'll get worse right through the middle of next year. I can't see any reason to argue strongly the other way. Since economies like ours tend to move up and down in cycles, I assume unemployment will get better some day.

Editor's note: This week and next, the Business Desk will feature questions from students in three high schools around the country.

Question: If every other major economy in the world has universal health care why doesn't the United States? -- Kavion, senior, Central High School, Phoenix, Ariz.

Paul Solman: The excellent health economist Victor Fuchs gives four reasons:

1. Many organizations prefer the status quo. (Insurance companies, drug companies)

2. Machiavelli's "Law of Reform" suggests that a determined and concentrated minority fighting to preserve the status quo has a considerable advantage over a more diffuse majority who favor reform.

3. Our country's political system renders Machiavelli's Law of Reform particularly relevant in the United States, where many potential "choke points" offer opportunities to stifle change.

4. Reformers have failed to unite behind a single approach.

I can't do any better than that, except to add that health care's opponents have spent a lot of money scaring Americans about "socialized" medicine, suggesting that government health care is simply not "American" because it doesn't rely on the "free market."

The vulnerability of Americans to such appeals was apparent when protesters at a Congressional town hall meeting on health care said: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" But Medicare is a government program for all Americans over 65. It does not rely on the free market at all.

Question: If education helps to increase economic growth, why don't politicians pay more attention to and spend more money on K-12 schools? -- April, senior, Central High School, Phoenix, Ariz.

Paul Solman: Because economic growth is a long-term and iffy thing. Human beings don't love giving up something today (money) on iffy outcomes years down the road. I'm not sure how appealing the politics of education spending would be even if it could be shown persuasively to increase economic growth. Since the results aren't blindingly clear, the appeal is even less than it might otherwise be.

Editor's note: This week and next, the Business Desk will feature questions from students in three high schools around the country. To kick off the special series, two questions from high school seniors at Central High School in Phoenix, Arizona.

Question: How does it happen that the whole world is in a recession? -- Kavion, senior, Central High School, Phoenix, Ariz.

Paul Solman: The whole world isn't in a recession. China is growing; so is India; so is Brazil. Among them, those three countries alone have something like two-thirds our GDP and maybe nine times as many people as we do.

As to the parts of the world that are in recession -- largely in Europe -- it looks like the reason is because their citizens borrowed and spent "beyond their means."

Question: When, why and how did the economy begin to fall? -- Chanessa, senior, Central High School, Phoenix, Ariz.

Paul Solman: When: late 2007.

Why: easy credit, easier regulation, a national mindset that we could have it all.

How: Scam artists got into the act and pushed the economy beyond the breaking point. You know Ben Stein, the guy chained to Shaquille O'Neal in those TV ads? His father, a famous economist, is known for Herb Stein's Law: "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

Editor's note: Tonight on the NewsHour, Paul sits down with economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, authors of a new book chronicling an incredible eight centuries of financial crises around the world, This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly.

The authors dug through mountains of data on every financial crisis they could uncover back to the 1300s, hoping to uncover common elements. And uncover them they did: Rapid deregulation, bubbles in real estate, and an influx of foreign savings are often tell-tale signs of a financial crisis to come.

So why didn't we see this crisis, which Rogoff and Reinhart argue is far from extraordinary, coming before it hit? Because of another two recurring themes: Arrogance and ignorance.

Kenneth Rogoff: Ignorance that this has happened before in other places, in other countries and arrogance thinking we're special, this time is different, we have financial globalization, we're running our economy better.

Rogoff and Reinhart are taking viewers' questions about past financial crises and comparisons to today. Simply leave your questions in the comments below or in the box to the right and they'll post their answers here later this week.

Editor's note: Need a fun distraction on a fall Friday afternoon? Paul has just launched the latest edition of his financial literacy site, Making Sen$e. In the latest edition, you can listen to a podcast with Paul and credit expert Adam Levin about how the new credit card rules affect you, read Paul's answers to students' questions about the economy, watch a collection of Web-exclusive interviews and slideshows featured here on the Business Desk, and play around with a collection of fascinating calculators that allow you to measure relative worth over time - what your first salary would be worth today, whether Andrew Carnegie was richer than Bill Gates is today, you name it. Have a great weekend.

Paul Solman: No. Actually, I CAN explain, but I think you want me to estimate the cost, and that I cannot do. Why? Because there's no way of even knowing if the takeover will eventually cost money, or actually wind up MAKING money for taxpayers. In short, the impact on our national debt -- and thus on the interest we pay on it -- could be either negative or positive.

How so? you may ask.

Well, Fannie and Freddie buy home mortgages, insure and resell them: MBS, or mortgage-backed securities. Sometimes, they hold onto the mortgage securities themselves as an investment.

If the underlying mortgages go up in value, the Fannie and Freddie portfolios are worth more. Remember, they were making big PROFITS just a few years ago. Any FUTURE profits, like "this land" in Woody Guthrie's song, are made for you and me.

The former coal miner has long been a major voice advocating for better, more affordable health care for union members. In the behind-the-scenes Web exclusive below, Trumka meets with state labor leaders to discuss the union's health care lobbying efforts.

Paul Solman: But that's what the Obama Administration says it is TRYING to do, no? "Shovel-ready" projects, they've been called: infrastructure investments that have passed all the necessary tests (environmental, for example) and are ready to roll. We chronicled the ambition last December.

But in the same piece, economist Ed Yardeni pointed out some of the possible pitfalls and let me tell you something: It's not so easy to spend massively, quickly, AND efficiently on infrastructure, it turns out. I was told just the other day about a contractor in Florida -- from an impeccable source, deep off-the-record. The contractor had his employees doing busy work on a federally funded infrastructure project in order to spend the allocated money FAST ENOUGH.

Meanwhile, with Republicans seizing on the rising debt taken on to PAY for the new projects as a clear and future danger, the public has become skeptical of government spending.

Paul Solman: Come up with incentives that induce big companies to slim down, or disincentives that punish them if they don't. What's startling at the moment is the consensus: "Too big to fail" is a huge problem and should be fixed. HOW to do it remains the issue, especially if it isn't done on a global scale. (Because if it isn't, offshoring is the obvious way around any new laws.)

Legislation is complicated and difficult, especially in a bifurcated democracy like ours, with business and Wall Street so influential, due to the role of money in the political process. But even so, it's surprising to me that, given the too-big-to-fail consensus, so little has been done about it.

Question: I have a "nanoeconomy" question.

Most of us go to the grocery store once a week. Which would be better for the economy overall if everyone did it: to go to the same store every time, or to try to go to a different store each time? Spread our money around, or concentrate it in one place?

Paul Solman: What an intriguing question, Curt. (One of my favorite authors, BTW, George Ainslie, has written a book called Picoeconomics. I'd recommend starting with his Breakdown of Will, however. I found the book mind-altering.)

But back to your question. I don't think there's any generalizable answer. My only response is to tell you what I've done that sort of relates. During the crisis, I've been trying to patronize stores I like -- and worry about -- even if there's nothing I remotely need. My older daughter occasionally twits me about bringing home "fanciful cr*p" for the grandkids and it's true, I guess. But the motivation is long-term and self-interested: to keep the marginal merchants on whom I rely in business, as best I can.

Question: What is the difference between a recession and a depression? I have been out of work since last November. It seems like a depression for me. I worked for a civil/structural consulting engineering firm for the past 11 1/2 years. We at one point had 30 people working there. Now 12 people have left, 9 of them are the principles. I do not foresee any work in this area for the next 6 months, at least. I want to go back to work, but there is no work for what I do. Also since I left, 3 of my co-workers have been let go. The firm may close by the end of the year because lack of work. This is a very competitive business. Other firms have closed their doors because of no work. Three years ago, we had the busiest year in the firm's 25 years of existence.

Paul Solman: "Depression" and "recession" are loosely used terms (and you can see here for an earlier post on the differences). To the extent they have technical definitions, the D-word is a shrinkage in total yearly output of 10 percent. The R-word refers to two consecutive quarters (ie, one half-year) of any shrinkage in output.

In the vernacular, a "depression" is one hell of a downturn, with one hell of a lot of folks out of work. A "recession" is less catastrophic slide. This downturn is being called the Great Recession because of its severity. But for those like yourself without jobs, "depression" doesn't seem especially hyperbolic.

Question: Your work on the economy is discussed at our dinner table, with my 15 and 16 year old sons, almost every night. You have made such a difference to our family in understanding the Global Economic Meltdown.

My children are very distressed by one statistic, and I have no good explanation to offer them: "How can the economy be GROWING while unemployment is RISING?" I showed them your story on that, but they were unsatisfied.

"If this is a statistic we make up, Mom, why can't economists simply insert rising unemployment as a factor in their definition? We sure don't see the suffering get any better. If they define it at Harvard, then they can change the definition," says Joshua, age 16.

"This is just a government program to makes us all feel better about being miserable," Ross, age 15. Naive, I know.

I would appreciate your help in clarifying this subject for them. They really liked your NYC job fair interviews and the paintings you profiled of Ken Lewis and Dick Fuld. Still, I don't how to refute their assertion that we are being fed a steady diet of "happy pills". Thank you ever so much. --Denise Lai & Eylon Caspi (mom and dad), plus Joshua & Ross Lai (high school rebels)

Paul Solman: Thanks to all you Lai/Caspi's. The question is both rebellious and profound. Economic growth is measured by the total sales of all goods and services in the economy, with imports subtracted from exports (which reduces the number so long as we have a negative trade balance).

So, how could the total be going up if unemployment is TOO? Well, suppose there are ten of us on a tropical island. All ten work -- picking and cracking coconuts. Pretty soon, we get efficient enough so that 5 of us can do the work 10 used to do. Five stop working. But the five on the job get even MORE efficient, so three can take care of the coconuts, one of the workers starts fishing instead, and the fifth joins the ranks of the unemployed. The economy has grown -- same number of coconuts PLUS new fish means the economy is wealthier, right? -- but unemployment has grown, too.

In other words, PRODUCTIVITY (more output per worker) yields economic growth, not the necessarily the number of workers.