(FORTUNE Magazine) – CHANCES ARE that the current decade has not been particularly kind to you. Even if you are not among the millions whose jobs vanished, you may be covering for a slew of fallen colleagues and working harder than you hoped to at this stage of life. Your near-term prospects probably look a bit grim too -- more hard work, more jitters, fewer rewards. Face it: So far the Nineties have shaped up as pay-back time, with everything from AIDS to slow growth to a humongous federal debt come home to roost, seemingly in retribution for past excesses. How and when will the economy fully recover? Or if the economic landscape is undergoing not merely a slow change in seasons but instead a fundamental structural transformation, what new postindustrial world are we moving toward? Since so much rides on the answers, social and economic forecasters across the U.S. are busily charting scenarios of how the future may play out -- in many cases alternative scenarios. Governments and major corporations base long- range plans on such scripts, which at their best raise a host of ''what if?'' questions. They should raise such questions for you. While anything can happen, most forecasters come down on one of four scenarios for the years up to the millennium.

NO. 1: UP, UP, AND AWAY -- I'm already a little tired of all this talk about new values, and I could care less if people think we are self-indulgent yuppies warmed over from the Eighties. Brad and I work hard and we make a good living, so we can afford nice things. When we moved into the house, we had seven rooms to furnish and I wasn't going to make do with the old IKEA junk from the apartment. I have to dress well when I go to court; a good designer suit, an Armani or Anne Klein, makes a jury respect you more. Brad's a sucker for electronic gadgets and can't get enough of his new multimedia toys, with the CD-ROM, PC, and big- screen TV all rolled into one. And why shouldn't we have shucked out $75,000 for a new, electric-powered Lexus -- I mean, what could be more environmentally correct?

A small minority of forecasters say the rest of the Nineties will bring a full-scale boom, with much lower unemployment and economic growth averaging 5% to 6% annually. These optimists base much of their analysis on the economy's current strengths -- particularly low interest and inflation rates -- plus signs that consumers and business, while turning away from Eighties-style financial profligacy, haven't given up on spending, this time spending based on a more secure foundation of saving and investing. David B. Bostian Jr., chief strategist at the Wall Street brokerage firm Herzog Heine Geduld, points to studies that show corporate debt has fallen to about 40% of cash flow and consumer installment debt has dropped from 18.5% to 15% of disposable income in recent months. Says Bostian: ''In the Eighties, taking on debt for pure consumption and speculation was a stupid thing to do. But one of the fundamental traits of the human species is that we learn from our mistakes.'' With others who share his rosy vision, Bostian is especially keen on President-elect Clinton's announced plans to funnel billions into high-tech information, environmental, and transportation investments. He observes that pollution cleanup is already a $100-billion-a-yea r business worldwide and argues that it could mushroom to $1 trillion by 2000. ''Some kind of industrial policy is inevitable,'' says Bostian. ''The key is where you spend the money, and I'm pretty confident this new Administration can hit the proper targets.'' Bostian is also convinced the U.S. will emerge from the Nineties far stronger than current global competitors. He is particularly bearish on Japan's prospects, citing that country's limited natural resources and a rigid social structure that undervalues women's economic contributions. He figures enhanced U.S. competitiveness will lead to strong export gains, lush corporate profits -- especially for capital goods manufacturers -- and a strikingly robust stock market. Says Bostian: ''I think the Dow Jones average could reach 5000 by 1995, and I would not be surprised to see the Dow at 10,000 by the turn of the century.'' Fabian Linden, executive director of the consumer research center at the Conference Board, is similarly enthusiastic about the decade ahead, but for different reasons. Linden foresees startling demographic shifts over the next few years that will lead to a surge in consumer spending power. He cites the fact that a great many more Americans will be entering their peak earning years of 35 to 55 -- peak, at least, if their experience is anything like preceding generations. He asserts, too, that a lot more is going on to plump up people's wallets. As the last of the baby-boomers marry, says Linden, relatively affluent childless couples will account for about 60% of new households. At the same time women's salaries will continue to increase as more of them move into more demanding jobs. Linden adds that fewer households will be headed by high school dropouts, pushing up average incomes. He projects that households with annual incomes over $75,000 will increase from the current 9% of the total to about 14% by 2000, and he expects the real income flow to this group will rise by about two-thirds over the next ten years. Overall, figures Linden, U.S. real personal income should go up some 25% by decade's end. Harry S. Dent Jr., a management consultant and futurist, makes much of beefed-up consumer spending power in his sunny new book, The Great Boom Ahead. He believes that the good times arrive like clockwork as each new generation of consumers progresses up a predictable curve of earning and spending, until its consumption peaks between ages 45 and 49. He contends the inevitable result of the 78-million-strong boomer crowd, now between 28 and 46, making the trip will be a massive increase in consumer demand -- he calls it a spending wave -- that, after a brief post-election dip next year, will lift the economy to unparalleled heights by the end of the century. ''Interest rates will drop,'' he asserts. ''Inflation, that great tax we have all been paying for decades, will vanish. We will see dramatic improvements in our living standards, in our purchasing power, and in the quality of our lives. The Dow Jones will at least quadruple after a bottoming process between late 1993 and 1994.'' These wonders are possible in Dent's world because all that increased spending power will be joined by a surge of new technologies -- an innovation wave -- that will send salutary ripples throughout the economy. Past generations came up with clusters of crucial inventions that prompted major economic growth spurts. The Abraham Lincoln generation brought railroads, the telegraph, and basic steel production. The Henry Ford generation gave us the automobile, the telephone, electrical energy, canned foods, movies, radio, and the phonograph. For the Bob Hope generation some of the key inventions were the television, the jet engine, the mainframe computer, radar, and home appliances such as washers and dryers. Each of these clusters came 40 to 50 years apart, and Dent says we are now due for another.

NO. 2: STORMY WEATHER TO CLEAR GRADUALLY, OCCASIONAL SUNSHINE -- Carl was halfway through his shift, and he was mightily annoyed. That pimply faced little punk hadn't bothered to show up again, and Carl had to work the French-fry machine by himself. He was cursing softly under his breath when the fat girl wandered over to tell him his wife was on the phone. He froze for a moment, fearing the worst, but when she came on the line he could tell the news was good. ''Still no word from the mill,'' she said. ''Frankly, I don't think they'll ever hire anybody back. But that new startup outfit with the plant south of town called. They're looking for skilled machinists, and they want you to begin Monday.'' Carl went back to the grill with a silly smile plastered on his face, and swore to himself out loud that he would never, ever flip another burger.

Most of the forecasters FORTUNE spoke with take only a moderately bullish view. According to the plurality's outlook, the U.S. economy is likely to settle into a steady annual growth rate of slightly more than 2%, which will edge up to slightly under 3% in the decade's latter half. The key reason these forecasters don't think we can hope for the sprightly expansion of the mid-Eighties is that two crucial elements of economic expansion, increases in population and productivity, have slowed in recent years. The U.S. population overall will probably grow around 1.8% annually through the 1990s, with no big increase in the working-age population either. So there simply won't be all that many more people entering the labor force to pump out goods and services. Productivity improvements, despite a brief spurt in recent months, have been running less than 1% annually for the economy as a whole. The only change that would significantly boost the work force -- an enormous influx of immigrants -- is unlikely. Productivity growth would probably have to double to produce GDP increases in the 4% range, and that too is improbable. As John Williamson, a senior fellow at the Institute of International Economics in Washington, D.C., puts it: ''Unless you have a strong reason to think things are going to change, they usually stay the same.'' To be sure, these modestly optimistic forecasters do find some signs of economic vigor, especially in the corporate sector. Widespread restructuring and downsizing may have wreaked havoc with people's lives, but they have produced thousands of far more efficient and flexible enterprises. Corporate profits should be strong because payroll costs are down and interest rates on short-term corporate debt have tumbled, providing up to a 10% lift to earnings. Says James Annable, chief economist at First National Bank of Chicago: ''In response to tough global competition, we are coming out of recession with a much leaner, more productive corporate base.'' The end of the Cold War remains a cause for comfort about the future. Even if no ''Pax Americana'' envelops the planet, new markets for U.S. exports will almost certainly be opening. The so-called peace dividend also provides an opportunity to trim the federal deficit and shift some manufacturing capacity to more economically productive pursuits. Reorienting big defense contractors and retraining workers will require formidable effort, but the more optimistic forecasters point to the past as evidence of American industry's capacity for change. Says James Tobin, the eminent Yale economist: ''We can blow it, of course, but you must remember that our economy is capable of making much more dramatic shifts than this. Look what happened after World War II, when that great war machine was broken down and turned around virtually overnight.'' Nearly all forecasters who predict solid if unspectacular growth through the 1990s add a caveat or two. Most stress that a series of strong economic shocks, however unlikely, could upset their predictions. Commercial banking is a particular concern. New laws that would shut down institutions with insufficient funds have prompted warnings about a wave of bank closings and another raid on the Treasury, as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. pays off ^ hordes of depositors. But the banking business has been reasonably good for some time now, and many balance sheets have improved markedly; a recent FDIC report says commercial banks in the U.S. raised close to $35 billion in new capital during 1992. It appears that fewer than 100 of the nation's more than 11,000 commercial banks will be threatened by the new laws. The mildly optimistic scenario requires relatively stable financial markets, or at least no huge upset on the order of the 1987 stock market crash. The mere presence of Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve chairman seems to have a calming effect on those markets, and this script for the Nineties depends in part on his serving out at least the four remaining years of his term. Economic seers who favor this scenario say they will feel much more comfortable when the country's job-creation machinery cranks up again. No one expects much action from large corporations, despite their improved profit picture. But it's hoped that businesses with fewer than 500 employees will hire big, bringing down unemployment numbers in months and years ahead. A major survey of smaller businesses by the National Association of Manufacturers in 1992 offered some ground for optimism: Nearly 80% of proprietors expected business to be as good as or better than in 1991. There's some evidence to suggest this relatively upbeat outlook may at last be translating into new jobs. The unemployment rate has declined in each of the past four months, including a big drop to 7.2% in November. Smaller businesses, which created about 100,000 new jobs a month during go-go stretches of the 1980s, could manage only about 10,000 new jobs a month during the worst of the recession in 1991. But recently these smaller outfits have created about 35,000 new jobs each month, and the trend line is upward. With much new economic activity continuing to be driven by smaller businesses, forecasters believe the society will likely adjust in a number of subtle ways. Says Richard S. Belous, senior economist at the National Planning Association, a Washington research and policy group: ''In the 1980s the flavor of the labor market continued to be set by large corporations. But in the Nineties, perception will finally adjust to realities.'' That will mean, says Belous, that national labor policies attuned to lifetime employment at a megacorporation will change. Workers will need to carry their own social- welfare system as they move from job to job. You, not your employer, will be responsible for amassing your retirement funds and providing your health coverage; when you switch jobs, your benefits will move with you. In short, don't let the moderate-growth scenario lull you. The future may bring a measure of economic stability, but each of us will be increasingly under the gun to take control of our careers and make sure we share in the prosperity.

NO. 3: THE BELTWAY BLUES -- For a while it looked as if the election of 1996 would be decided by the House of Representatives. Clinton's reelection chances appeared pretty slim before the conventions with all the heat he was taking on the economy, though he did hold on to a diehard core of support from the unions, gays, minorities, and semidisillusioned liberals. Then Jack Kemp put everyone to sleep with his acceptance speech down in Dallas, and Perot jumped into the race after promising everyone that he wouldn't. It was shaping up as a pretty even three- way race. But Kemp pulled the political coup of the century, dumping Pete Wilson from his ticket and persuading Perot to sign on as his VP candidate. No contest after that; Clinton didn't even win Massachusetts.

A few of our seers, particularly those of a conservative political bent, take a dimmer view of the Nineties. They envision a decade of little if any economic growth and rising unemployment, punctuated by intermittent recessions. The cause of their moderately grim vision can be summed up in two words: the Democrats. In this scenario, Bill Clinton's victory unleashes a motley army of lobbyists, labor officials, blowhard Congressmen, and assorted special- interest groups ready for plunder after 12 years' absence from the public trough. Says Stephen Moore, director of fiscal policy studies at Washington's conservative Cato Institute: ''There are people all over this town who are simply drooling as they dream about opening up the coffers.'' Clinton didn't get that much criticism during the campaign for his promise to pump up employment and stimulate the economy with a $20 billion campaign to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. But the key questions now concern precisely where the money will flow and how effectively it will be spent, and the worry is that partisan politics -- read pork -- will take a central role. David D. Hale, chief economist at Kemper Financial Services in Chicago, jokingly says he is advising clients to invest heavily in capital goods * producers based in West Virginia -- home state of Senator Robert Byrd, omnipotent head of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Says Hale, who worries about the tone of fiscal restraint -- or its opposite -- that could be set by spending initiatives: ''The percentage of these programs that turn into pure pork is absolutely crucial to the economy.'' Clinton's conservative critics have grave doubts about his promise to keep a tight grip on spending in order to halve the budget deficit by the end of his first term; a failure on that front could be costly. The private sector, especially smaller businesses, would suffer from higher interest rates for precious capital while sectors crucial to the country's living standards -- education, health research, and law enforcement among them -- would be starved for funding. Why? Federal budgeting is heading quickly toward virtual paralysis. Within a few years, points out former Senator Warren Rudman, about 60% to 65% of the budget will be earmarked for entitlement programs, 13% or 14% will go to defense, and 17% will pay interest on the ever-mounting federal debt. A mere 5% to 6% will be left for everything else. According to the skeptics who favor this scenario, even surprising restraint by Clinton on spending will matter little because his plans are so out of whack on the revenue side. For example, critics consider Clinton's promise to squeeze $45 billion in new taxes out of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. the height of folly at a time of high unemployment and a global scramble for investment dollars. Similarly, say the skeptics, soak-the-rich aspects of Clinton's program will have the opposite of the effect intended. Researchers at the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas predict Clinton's proposed higher taxes on the wealthy will lead to a $413 billion drop in private-sector investment and the loss of 750,000 jobs by 1996. They add that reduced output will in turn generate less tax revenue and inflate the federal deficit by about $113 billion. These pessimists are especially worked up about a cascade of costly new regulations that could flow out of Washington and stifle growth. The Dallas group estimates that Clinton's health insurance proposals could put 710,000 to 965,000 people out of work because of higher costs to employers, and that new mandatory worker-training programs could cost another 175,000 to 350,000 jobs. Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute estimates that the Clean Air Act, passed during the Bush Administration, will cost an astounding $150 billion per year and lead to the loss of one million jobs when fully implemented. He contends, too, that a stack of legislation likely to be passed by the new Congress could be nearly as troublesome. For example, the mandatory family-leave package high on the Democrats' wish list will cost businesses, he estimates, about $10,000 in replacement costs each time a worker departs for a 12-week stint; new costs of an OSHA reform package working its way through the system, according to Moore, will be $50 billion a year. Employers of all sizes are dreading the effects of these new laws -- and the stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Better Business Bureau reports that the new Americans with Disabilities Act has spawned dozens of dubious enterprises that offer seminars and other services to small businesses struggling to figure out their potential liabilities under the statute. On top of everything else, Clinton's critics fret about the possibility of a global trade war on his watch. The new President has expressed tepid support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, but skeptics predict organized labor and influential Democrats like Missouri Senator Richard Gephardt will push him into a more protectionist camp. An all-out trade war could have terrible consequences for the U.S. economy and Americans' living standards in the Nineties. Not only would U.S. exports slump and Americans wind up paying more than in the past for imported goods, but the very industries supposedly being protected could lose their edge in the race to remain globally competitive.

NO. 4: APOCALYPSE THEN -- After the fact, no one at the Pentagon or down at Langley could explain why nothing had showed up on the satellite photos: The Iranians had blitzkrieged through Iraq and were halfway to Kuwait City before anybody knew what was happening. They just kept going, catching the Saudis completely by surprise, and ended up sitting atop 40% of the world's oil reserves. The scene at the U.N. Security Council was an unbelievable mess, with the French, Germans, and Japanese cutting deals with Teheran behind everybody else's back. Then the Chinese said they would consider any U.S. intervention to be ''a provocative act.'' It was a tough one to swallow, but in the end we were forced to make nice with the mullahs. The alternative was cold homes in the winter and two bucks a gallon at the pump.

Another small minority of forecasters offer an even darker view of the near future. This crowd talks global depression, massive unemployment, widespread social unrest -- a veritable nightmare. While they differ about the causes of this impending collapse, most seem to agree that an economic disaster could be touched off during the next few years by some momentous happening overseas. One of the more common doomsday fears: a violent civil war in what was the Soviet Union that sends oil prices skyward and threatens global stability. Kemper's David Hale also keeps a wary eye on China, which boasts a 9% economic growth rate and could reach superpower status by the end of the decade. Should this giant become expansionist or belligerent, all bets on a new, more stable world order would be off.

Hale says the Middle East will likely remain a hot spot through the decade: Iran and Iraq will no doubt stay dangerous foes, and the region's poorer countries are in the throes of a population explosion. By 2010 the Mideast population will nearly double to 450 million or so, and the rich, sparsely settled oil states might seem inviting targets to poorer neighbors. Some gloom-meisters insist a collapse is inevitable even without any new shock to the system from abroad. Barry Minkin, a California futurist, paints a particularly ugly scenario in his new book, Econoquake: ''Hundreds of companies will go bankrupt. Real estate markets, already down by 30% in some areas, will go into free fall. Unemployment will reach 15%, putting many middle-class families out on the streets. Retirees will find their investments and pensions turning to dust.'' Minkin says that, unlike most economic seers, he has based his predictions on his years of experience as a senior management consultant with the Stanford Research Institute. He argues that nearly all the enterprises he has worked with -- including Coca-Cola and IBM -- share common failings, and these add up to economic ''fault lines'' that all but assure disaster. The first problem, says Minkin, is America's poor international competitiveness. He contends that since we buy much more than we sell in world markets and borrow to make up the difference, we have become like some sorry debtor in hock to the neighborhood loan shark. He likens Treasury auctions to a kind of national debt consolidation loan. We have marched so far down the path to ruin, he argues, that even a complete overhaul of America's industrial base would probably be useless. Says Minkin: ''There is very little we can do to stop the decline at this point.'' A subtext in the gloomy scenarios is the potential for a social upheaval that would thoroughly undermine what has come to be called the American way of life. What most concerns analysts is the widening social and economic gap between rich and poor in the U.S. The core of the problem, says George Peterson, a senior fellow at Washington's Urban Institute, is that the population is becoming increasingly segregated by income level. Inner cities and rural areas are more and more home only to the underclass, while the more affluent concentrate in suburban enclaves. As a result, the poor are completely shut off from good schools, good jobs, and all sorts of economic opportunities. These researchers charge that short-term solutions such as enterprise zones will help little; Isabel Sawhill, another Urban Institute senior fellow, dismisses the schemes as ''people taking in each other's laundry.'' Experts assert that pressure is building -- ''There's a lot of suppressed anger out there,'' says Peterson -- and an explosion of social unrest may be inevitable. The Nineties, according to this troubling scenario, could be the decade when our cities burn.