[temende]

You conviniently left out all the good parts of the economy: unemployment is at all-time lows, inflation is down (but still not at 2%), consumer spending is at an all-time high.

We obviously could still have a recession in the future but (a) we're not in one right now and (b) the economy has done much, much better than people were expecting this time last year.

[scottLobster]

Unemployment is a lagging indicator for a recession, and credit card debt is also at an all time high.

Sure things could stay positive for a while longer, but there's a lot of headwinds on the horizon, more than I've seen in a while, and these headwinds are tangible, concrete, structural things we can put some numbers to, not just vague philosophical notions of "it can't go up forever" and "everything's overvalued". How big an impact it all makes and on what timescale we'll have to just wait and see, but I'm not leveraging up in this environment.

[gonzaloalvarez]

If you say ‘recession’ enough times, you’ll be right at some point. Experts have predicted 22 out of the last 10 recessions…

[scottLobster]

I'm no expert, nor am I a permabear. I could be wrong, but for me it's the difference between "water's warmer than usual, high probability of severe hurricane" a few years ago and "there's a category 4 a few dozen miles off the coast, we're hoping it doesn't directly hit a major population center" today. It's possible the thing turns away completely and heads out to sea, but I wouldn't bet on it

[throw0101a]

> Experts have predicted 22 out of the last 10 recessions…

The actual saying was a knock against stock traders:

> To prove that Wall Street is an early omen of movements still to come in GNP, commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions! And its mistakes were beauties.[20]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson#Aphorisms_and_q...

[lamontcg]

This joke has also been proven wrong in 10/10 of the last recessions.

[temende]

Yup I agree, there's always the possibility of things turning south. I guess I just have more subjective confidence in the American economy than it sounds like you do.

[lr4444lr]

America is usually the healthiest patient in the hospice, economically speaking.

[vizzah]

Europe: Germany - is already in the recession, but DAX is climbing on par with SP500 (or anything what climbs). Obviously, not a good indicator of a rationality in the market, esp. when greed indicators are at the top. Even Lagarde warned about swift market corrections, but market participants apparently think it all is a bluffing =)

[ChuckNorris89]

Yeah, Europe is not as economically strong as the US. We still have sky high prices, stagnating wages, and a war on our doorstep. I read a lot of news of economic slowdown in German exports due to several factors.

Anecdotally, got laid off in early spring, still trying to land a decent job, but despite the so called labor shortage all I get is shit offers for 2018 money. While I'm sure this benefits some, the fact that the stock market is now up, is little comfort to me.

[nly]

The stock market is forward looking and bottoms before the wider economy

[temende]

The original post was about the US stock market, but I guess should have still clarified that I was talking about a US recession. I don't follow the Europe economy as closely

[WarOnPrivacy]

> You conviniently left out all the good parts of the economy: unemployment is at all-time lows, inflation is down (but still not at 2%), consumer spending is at an all-time high.

On the ground here we were at 3 typical incomes to make basic bills in Jan 2022. As of this month we're solidly at 4 incomes to meet those same bills. Most of that jump occurred this year.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

In this context, "typical" would normally mean something very close to "median",

US household median income is about $71k/year. You're saying you need $280k to meet basic bills?

Perhaps by "typical" you meant something closer to "near minimum" ?

[WarOnPrivacy]

I mean typical as in a rate of pay that would be available to the most possible people.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

That's a very unusual metric to use for this purpose. Essentially the "mode" of the income distribution. I'm not saying you're wrong to use it, it's just a little strange. The mode of most distributions doesn't tell you much about the distribution as a whole, which might be just fine in this case.

OTOH, the median is the number for which half the households in the country earn more and half earn less, and whatever the merits of the mode might be, I still think that's a fairly significant value too.

[WarOnPrivacy]

It's a measurement intended to bring focus on the most common economic experiences - something that disconnected metrics aren't very good at.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I applaud the focus. I am just not sure that the mode is the best way to do that. There is something compelling about "the income that the most people make". But I think "the income that is right in the middle of what everyone makes" has a slight edge for me in this respect. Anyway, it's a good thing to focus on, regardless of the metric chosen.

[ac29]

The rate of pay available to the most possible people is minimum wage. Its covers 100% of (legal) jobs. So, are you saying your expenses are 4x minimum wage?

[WarOnPrivacy]

> The rate of pay available to the most possible people is minimum wage.

It isn't because so few employers pay that. The most available rate of pay would be closer to 10 or maybe 12 an hour.

[temende]

Do you mind clarifying - do you mean 4 incomes for the same number of people? i.e. are you or people you know taking multiple jobs, is that what "4 incomes" means?

[WarOnPrivacy]

> do you mean 4 incomes for the same number of people?

Yes.

> are you or people you know taking multiple jobs

That would work too, providing there enough hours in the week to work 4 full time jobs. One person earning 4x a typical income would also be able support themselves.

[detourdog]

higher interest rates are preferable to uncertainty.

Higher interest rates can be planned for already has a location in the tax code.

I’m staring to see that the recent recovery funding was a cash infusion to mask the rate increase from the 2008 recovery.

It is a great opportunity to reset expectations.

[tenpies]

> You conviniently left out all the good parts of the economy: unemployment is at all-time lows, inflation is down (but still not at 2%), consumer spending is at an all-time high.

Ah yes, the fruits of Bidenomics!

Real wages are stagnant so everyone has to pick up additional work to deal with inflation. In a backdrop of inflation, these are essentialy a drop in wages: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf

Inflation is down: sure, from a face-ripping to a merely painful number. More importantly, it took several revisions to the CPI calculation and the lowest SPR levels in decades to make it happen. Also conveniently ignored, food CPI is still at a crushing 6.7% annual rate. If you remove food and energy, CPI inflation is at 5.3%. See: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

Consumer spending is all-time high: indeed. Sky-high! It becomes quite nefarious when you think about the above: inflation of very important things is still high, but wages are not keeping up. How is the American consumer trying to stay afloat? Household debt. That is credit cards and other forms of personal debt has hit an all time high: https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc

I understand that Biden is trying to paint this as a success, but it's just cherry-picking statistics that hide the disaster the Democrats have created. It's like the Weimar Republic celebrating that the stock market is at all time high and unemployment is 0%.

[TeeMassive]

Employment numbers are skewed because of people who wouldn't normally work working more to make ends meet and debt keeping on rising and inflation slowing but still unsustainable.

Under the hood these numbers are not good.

[douglasisshiny]

Can you elaborate, maybe point to a data source on this? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. The prime age labor participation rate isn't out of line with historical trends: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060

Edit: Also wanted to throw this in: Average weekly hours of all employees https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP

[SoftTalker]

When have people not worked to "make ends meet" unless you are independently wealthy this is just normal life. I don't know where we forgot that.

[rat9988]

While for most people ends won't meet without working, making the ends meet in this context has a bit more specific meaning you glossed over. The difference is subtle but makes the whole difference.

[temende]

Can you please explain the subtle difference in more detail? Do you mean something like people having to work multiple jobs to make ends meet?

[douglasisshiny]

I honestly cannot tell what the person to whom you're responding is saying. But if they suggesting people are working multiple jobs at a higher rate than the historical average, they would, in fact, be incorrect according to fed data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12026620

[shagymoe]

And probably also low because every unemployed person drops off the list after 6 months AFAIK.

[gruez]

>And probably also low because every unemployed person drops off the list after 6 months AFAIK.

Source? The BLS definition for U3 (ie. the figure that's referenced when people talk about "unemployment") doesn't say anything about 6 months.

[shagymoe]

Here's some lazy ChatGPT info:

However, there are certain factors that can lead to individuals falling out of the official unemployment statistic:

Discouraged Workers: If individuals become discouraged and stop actively seeking employment, they may no longer be counted as part of the labor force or in the unemployment rate calculation.

Underemployed Workers: The unemployment rate may not fully capture those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time employment. These individuals are considered part of the employed category, even if their work hours are insufficient.

Marginally Attached and Particular Job Seekers: Some individuals may have searched for employment in the past but have not actively sought employment in the four weeks preceding the survey. They are classified as marginally attached to the labor force and are not considered part of the unemployed category.

Involuntary Part-Time Workers: People who are working part-time due to economic reasons, such as inability to find full-time work, are included in the employed category but may not be fully reflected in the unemployment rate.

[gruez]

Right, but none of them mentions 6 months. If you're going to use chatgpt at least give a cursory glance to see whether the response is applicable to the topic at hand. I already know that U3 excludes some jobless people, but I'm asking specifically about the 6 months part.

[111111IIIIIII]

Yes, but you aren't supposed to know that.

[lotsofpulp]

Oh shit, someone should tell the government to take these webpages down then.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/u6rate

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab...

[douglasisshiny]

Don't forget about prime age labor participation rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060.

[111111IIIIIII]

Definition?

[111111IIIIIII]

How insufferable and/or out of touch and/or smartass does one have to be to pretend this qualifies as popularly accessible information? I cannot even imagine...

[option]

is consumer spending at all-time high adjusted for inflation?

[111111IIIIIII]

Additionally, you can say what you want about chattel slavery but it rendered a very strong employment rate.

[Loughla]

You're being a bit extreme, but I would like to hear the argument of why unemployment being low is automatically a positive.

I think it's more nuanced in the types of employment and pay. But I'm also sure I don't even know where to go to get that data.

[jdminhbg]

“Unemployment” is people who are trying to find work divided by themselves + people working. If everyone is living a life of leisure, it will still be low.

[temende]

> If everyone is living a life of leisure

Isn't that the sign of a good economy then?

[jdminhbg]

Yes, unemployment is a good statistic in that case because it only measures those who are trying and failing to find a job, not those who don’t want or need one.

[marcosdumay]

Well, people are in a much better negotiation position when their next option is some minimum wage undesirable work, instead of no work at all and being unable to survive.

[111111IIIIIII]

That is the point. Having a job does not mean making a living or having any dignity.

[m0llusk]

atmosphere and oceans pretty much shot to shit, we are so doomed

[cvhashim04]

- Doomer

[m0llusk]

Not at all. Recessions are corrections. The overall effect is beneficial. They cannot be avoided, only delayed. Environmental issues often drive recessions which at some level is what we are seeing now. Dealing with recessions and environmental issues should lead to improved circumstances.