[boh]

Most recessions are identified after they've occurred, particularly on a global scale, since the evidence is rarely obvious. Not all countries, industries, states will be affected equally. It's completely possible the recession has already occurred and we're currently in the midst of it.

[SantalBlush]

While this is true, the statement "We don't know that we're not in a recession" is not evidence that we're in a recession. Looking at the evidence that we do currently have--GDP, unemployment, etc.--that evidence strongly suggests that we are not in one.

[Izkata]

The low unemployment rate indicates we're likely either in or about to start a recession. It generally doesn't spike until months after recessions begin: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE

[dragonwriter]

> The low unemployment rate indicates we’re likely either in or about to start a recession.

Sure, I mean, we might only be ~4 years from a recession (see 1966). It's true that, as recession is defined roughly as the period of decline from an economic peak, they usually start during a period of low unemployment, but that doesn't mean low unemployment signals being in a recession. Most low unemployment periods are outside of recessions.

> It generally doesn’t spike until months after recessions begin

Every recession shown on that chart either begins simultaneously with or after sustained unemployment increases, I don’t see any where it lags significantly.

There are several places where the low unemployment plateau before a recession is extended, and even a couple where an apparent low plateau is followed by another drop and another plateau.

[Izkata]

Take a look at the comment I was responding to, as well as some others on this page: It's a common misconception that the unemployment rate spikes (spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher) before recessions. It doesn't.

[dragonwriter]

The fact that you were responding to an incorrect description does not make your description that “The low unemployment rate indicates we’re likely either in or about to start a recession” correct. 1+1=3 is wrong, but that doesn’t make the response “1+1 is actually 1” correct.

[Izkata]

Allow me to repeat: spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher.

1948, 1953, 1960, 1974, 1980, 2001, and 2008 all fit what I said.

1957, 1970, 1981, and kind-of 1990 are the exceptions.

As for the extended low unemployment... If you ignore the covid anomaly (as most people seem to since it wasn't a natural market reaction but caused by lockdowns), we're at the same 3 years of the previous maximum duration.

[SantalBlush]

>It's a common misconception that the unemployment rate spikes (spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher) before recessions

I'm not talking about using the unemployment rate as a leading indicator, which is what you're describing here.

[Izkata]

> > that evidence strongly suggests that we are not in one

The unemployment part can't indicate current state either because it usually doesn't spike until months afterwards. We can easily be in a recession with unemployment still being low.

[AnimalMuppet]

This is kind of obvious if you take the amateur-level definition of a recession - two quarters of negative economic growth. A month after the end of the second quarter, when the statistics for that quarter become available, then you know that a recession started two quarters ago.

[verisimi]

We need to get some crossover between virologists and economists. Virologists always seem to know when pandemics are coming.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

This is not a bad analogy. I remember at least one time when virologists announced a pandemic too early and were criticized for it later, and at least one time when they waited for too long.

[verisimi]

Or climatologists for that matter.