The Fed's quantitative easing is supposed to encourage people to take risk and if you measure that by the action in junk bonds or the stock market, it has been successful. Unfotunately, it hasn't translated into the type of risk taking that is most beneficial for economic growth. According to this WSJ article, Americans are becoming more risk averse when it comes to their jobs:

Americans have long taken pride in their willingness to bet it all on a dream. But that risk-taking spirit appears to be fading. Three long-running trends suggest the U.S. economy has turned soft on risk: Companies add jobs more slowly, even in good times. Investors put less money into new ventures. And, more broadly, Americans start fewer businesses and are less inclined to change jobs or move for new opportunities.

While taking risk in the financial markets does have an indirect effect on job creation, it is entrepreneurial risk taking that really matters. With almost all new job creation coming from new businesses - not just small, but new - and large companies shedding jobs over the last couple of decades, new company formation is the canary in the coal mine for the economy. And right now the canary is looking pretty wobbly:

Fewer Americans are choosing that path. In 1982, new companies-those in business less than five years-made up roughly half of all U.S. businesses, according to census data. By 2011, they accounted for just over a third. Over the same period, the share of the labor force working at new companies fell to 11% from more than 20%.

Both trends predate the recession and have continued in the recovery.

Investors, meanwhile, appear to be losing enthusiasm for startups. Total venture capital invested in the U.S. fell nearly 10% last year and has yet to return to its prerecession peak, said PricewaterhouseCoopers.

A number of explanations have been offered for the decline including an aging population, the housing bust (underwater homeowners can't move), the rise of 2 income households, the rising cost of healthcare and increased occupational licensing. One that isn't mentioned much is monetary policy. One of the side effects of the Fed's Great Moderation period is that by reducing economic growth volatility it also allowed a lot of mismanaged companies to survive. Fewer failures means more competition for startups and less dynamism in the economy as a whole. Additionally, the financialization of the economy reduced the incentive for our best and brightest to start productive enterprises. Why take the risk of starting a company in a competitive industry when a rocket scientist could go to Wall Street and bank big bucks? 

The lack of savings has also probably played a role and that is also a function of monetary policy. Reduced interest rates and booming asset prices reduced the incentive to save. With stock prices booming in the 90s and real estate prices in the 00s, it was more difficult to justify taking money out of the market to fund a startup. Why take the risk of funding a startup when real estate prices are rising at double digit rates? Add some leverage to that equation and the returns are a nearly as high - with less risk - than investing in venture capital. The risks associated with the markets were lower than the perceived risk of starting a business. Since the 2008 crisis, the uncertainty about future growth has certainly played a role. With fiscal policy a mess, taxes rising, Obamacare coming and future growth dependent on the efficacy of an untested Fed policy, starting a new business must seem nearly insane to the average American.

It also seems likely that the perception - and reality - of crony capitalism plays a role. Individuals and companies with the right connections have an advantage over those with good ideas but no connections. Increased regulations are an annoyance to companies like GE or JP Morgan but a death sentence for small companies. Political insiders get funded through government programs while outsiders are left to beg Too Big To Fail banks for a business loan. Large banks aren't interested in lending to small companies - especially risky startups - when they can make billions underwriting securities for large companies. 

Economic growth is dependent on just two variables, work force growth and productivity growth. The work force is shrinking so growth at this point is really dependent on productivity growth which is funded by investment. Producitivity is enhanced when the large incumbent firms are challenged by upstarts with a better idea or business model. Right now, large companies are sitting on large piles of cash and not investing because they aren't being challenged. Unless we do something to change that, to encourage the right kind of risk taking, we are doomed to the new normal of slow growth.