With unemployment low and wages rising, the struggle for basic necessities like food should be easing. But those on the front lines of feeding the hungry say they are seeing the opposite.
The definition wasn’t redefined. You just always heard the rule of thumb and thought that was actually the definition. Like, let’s be honest here, have you ever even taken an economics class outside of HS? When you learned how it’s actually determined, instead of thinking “I’ve learned some nuance and I will incorporate this into my future conclusions” you rejected it and concocted some conspiracy to explain it.
But even in academic circles it is an arbitrary definition that is usually agreed upon by consensus. It’s holistic, not a firm science and it’s like that because economics is not actually about actual mathematics but is about humanity studies and trying to predict the emotional feelings of people with money to spend. There is statistical stuff you can use to help but a farmer in 1875 has done better on predicting markets than most modern degree holders.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s just that, as you note, a nuanced question without a simple answer. The “two quarters” thing is just something that we tend to see with every recession. But there are a lot of other things we tend to see too: unemployment rising, consumer spending retracting, income dropping, industrial output retracting… and we didn’t see any of the other factors that we’ve seen previously.
It would have been one of the weirdest “recessions” we’ve ever seen, that bucked numerous other recession indicators. . .all in favor of two quarters of negative GDP growth. How does that make any sense?
Expecting everything to be the same is silly. History rhymes, not repeats, so whatever this period could be called is hard to say. But consumer spending is down. Sorta. People are spending less now but the market now is back to “stable”. There is over employment from income not raising to match inflation so it’s like people got pay cuts. Industries are also rapidly declaring bankruptcy.
It’s weird now. Sorta like a Frankenstein recession one that is not and is still shambling but seems to be held together by stitches and random corpses thrown together.
This period will definitely be talked about in economics because it’s certainly something new that couldn’t have existed before without the very global economy. Maybe it will turn more traditional or go back to normal but it’s definitely not a full well and fine economy at the moment.
I absolutely agree that it’s weird and it’s not fine right now. All I responded to was the oft-repeated and false claim that they changed the definition of recession, and then attributed that to some conspiracy theory to silence them.
It will absolutely be talked about, but just as likely as how it was a huge win for the fed if the soft landing happens, and that appears more and more likely at this point.
I guess that is fair. I’m just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.
So for them… They are in a recession. My point is that it’s a term that has no solid definition. It’s truly arbitrary to the person who is making the claim and on a global level it might not be happening but in smaller sectors it feels like hell.
But that person did say that they changed the definition when it really just doesn’t have one other than agreed idea of what it should look like. And based on what we all classically think of as a recession this ain’t it. And thinking it’s a conspiracy against us and not just wealth classes being completely unsynced is a bit silly, even if I want them to use their voice to complain.
I’m just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.
This is the problem tho, it’s all anecdotal. Recessions aren’t individual things, because there are always going to be losers in any economy. Unemployment is at all time lows. Wage growth is beating inflation (and some of the biggest beneficiaries of this have been low wage workers). Inflation back down near desired levels. There’s tons of reason to be optimistic about the state of the economy. Don’t get me wrong, there is a long way to go to make up for what was lost over the pandemic and the subsequent inflationary period, but economic outlook looks good now.
The doom and gloom is being amplified by Republicans in an attempt to hurt Biden’s chances of re-election. I wish people wouldn’t repeat their lies and help Trump get elected at the same time.
My point is that it’s a term that has no solid definition.
The world is a complicated place. The fact that one can’t precisely define something and there is a grey zone doesn’t make any claim, even those that fall clearly outside of that grey zone, valid. “It’s complicated, so any opinion is valid” is just not something we should get behind, as it justifies all kind of nonsense, like climate-change denial.
I won’t vote for Trump, I just don’t like having to eat a shit pie and being told it’s french silk caramel, and if I say otherwise I’m Republican, Uneducated, or something else equally insulting.
I’m not saying “they changed the definition”. I’m saying “too many things about the way this term is gatekept from general use are flawed, and done for political gain sometimes, the average discussion of what is happening right now being one of them”. It depends on the context whether a more academic definition standard should be expected, and even then it’s not as straightforward as whoever is trying to shut down its use likes to pretend, and so perhaps a less-important hill to die on than whatever discussion is happening at that point in time."
I’m not saying “they changed the definition”
so we’re the ones who get to redefine it however we wish
Funny that after making up an claim that people are serving you shit while claiming it’s a delicacy, you would turn around and claim you aren’t saying they changed the definition after almost explicitly doing so.
For all your whining about nuance, you sure love to take the most reductionist (straw-manned) interpretation of things and come out of the gate swinging with insults. Excuse me while I use this to justify dismissing your pedantry.
iT’s NoT a ReCeSsIoN (because we don’t like you having a word to call it, so we’re the ones who get to redefine it however we wish)
The definition wasn’t redefined. You just always heard the rule of thumb and thought that was actually the definition. Like, let’s be honest here, have you ever even taken an economics class outside of HS? When you learned how it’s actually determined, instead of thinking “I’ve learned some nuance and I will incorporate this into my future conclusions” you rejected it and concocted some conspiracy to explain it.
But even in academic circles it is an arbitrary definition that is usually agreed upon by consensus. It’s holistic, not a firm science and it’s like that because economics is not actually about actual mathematics but is about humanity studies and trying to predict the emotional feelings of people with money to spend. There is statistical stuff you can use to help but a farmer in 1875 has done better on predicting markets than most modern degree holders.
It’s not arbitrary. It’s just that, as you note, a nuanced question without a simple answer. The “two quarters” thing is just something that we tend to see with every recession. But there are a lot of other things we tend to see too: unemployment rising, consumer spending retracting, income dropping, industrial output retracting… and we didn’t see any of the other factors that we’ve seen previously.
It would have been one of the weirdest “recessions” we’ve ever seen, that bucked numerous other recession indicators. . .all in favor of two quarters of negative GDP growth. How does that make any sense?
Expecting everything to be the same is silly. History rhymes, not repeats, so whatever this period could be called is hard to say. But consumer spending is down. Sorta. People are spending less now but the market now is back to “stable”. There is over employment from income not raising to match inflation so it’s like people got pay cuts. Industries are also rapidly declaring bankruptcy.
It’s weird now. Sorta like a Frankenstein recession one that is not and is still shambling but seems to be held together by stitches and random corpses thrown together.
This period will definitely be talked about in economics because it’s certainly something new that couldn’t have existed before without the very global economy. Maybe it will turn more traditional or go back to normal but it’s definitely not a full well and fine economy at the moment.
I absolutely agree that it’s weird and it’s not fine right now. All I responded to was the oft-repeated and false claim that they changed the definition of recession, and then attributed that to some conspiracy theory to silence them.
It will absolutely be talked about, but just as likely as how it was a huge win for the fed if the soft landing happens, and that appears more and more likely at this point.
I guess that is fair. I’m just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.
So for them… They are in a recession. My point is that it’s a term that has no solid definition. It’s truly arbitrary to the person who is making the claim and on a global level it might not be happening but in smaller sectors it feels like hell.
But that person did say that they changed the definition when it really just doesn’t have one other than agreed idea of what it should look like. And based on what we all classically think of as a recession this ain’t it. And thinking it’s a conspiracy against us and not just wealth classes being completely unsynced is a bit silly, even if I want them to use their voice to complain.
This is the problem tho, it’s all anecdotal. Recessions aren’t individual things, because there are always going to be losers in any economy. Unemployment is at all time lows. Wage growth is beating inflation (and some of the biggest beneficiaries of this have been low wage workers). Inflation back down near desired levels. There’s tons of reason to be optimistic about the state of the economy. Don’t get me wrong, there is a long way to go to make up for what was lost over the pandemic and the subsequent inflationary period, but economic outlook looks good now.
The doom and gloom is being amplified by Republicans in an attempt to hurt Biden’s chances of re-election. I wish people wouldn’t repeat their lies and help Trump get elected at the same time.
The world is a complicated place. The fact that one can’t precisely define something and there is a grey zone doesn’t make any claim, even those that fall clearly outside of that grey zone, valid. “It’s complicated, so any opinion is valid” is just not something we should get behind, as it justifies all kind of nonsense, like climate-change denial.
It’s all anecdotal, folks.
I won’t vote for Trump, I just don’t like having to eat a shit pie and being told it’s french silk caramel, and if I say otherwise I’m Republican, Uneducated, or something else equally insulting.
I’m not saying “they changed the definition”. I’m saying “too many things about the way this term is gatekept from general use are flawed, and done for political gain sometimes, the average discussion of what is happening right now being one of them”. It depends on the context whether a more academic definition standard should be expected, and even then it’s not as straightforward as whoever is trying to shut down its use likes to pretend, and so perhaps a less-important hill to die on than whatever discussion is happening at that point in time."
Funny that after making up an claim that people are serving you shit while claiming it’s a delicacy, you would turn around and claim you aren’t saying they changed the definition after almost explicitly doing so.
For all your whining about nuance, you sure love to take the most reductionist (straw-manned) interpretation of things and come out of the gate swinging with insults. Excuse me while I use this to justify dismissing your pedantry.