[pachydermic]

"Recession" means that GDP is shrinking, not growing. That's the definition of that word:

noun: recession; plural noun: recessions

1. a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.

So technically, the recession is over. There's not much room for interpretation there unless you choose a different definition of "recession".

All of the bad stuff you listed are symptoms of an empire in decline as well as a massive change in how the economy works. Industrialization changed the world and so will computers and information related technology. We're right in the thick of things. We don't know how things will turn out in the long term - that's for historians 200 years from now to figure out.

It looks like this period of drastic change will be a mixed bag. People being put out of work by automation puts pressure on the labor market. Educational systems set up in a bygone era are failing to adapt. People are having fewer children and living longer which puts stress on everything from social security to labor markets.

It will probably just take a while for society to sort all of this out. And it may or may not suck in the meantime. I think most people reading this will be just fine and probably live really nice lives. Also it'd be nice if the USA and China could avoid a war/proxy wars while trying to figure out the new world order.

[pvnick]

Your narrow technical definition of the word "recession" is by no means universally accepted [1] [2]. In addition, as another post adjacent to your's points out, there is a common meaning used by everybody outside of economic-savvy circles that refers to periods of general economic difficulty. It is this definition which is more important because this is what the technical definitions of recession attempt to formalize with math and economic indicators, and the tendency to play semantics and say "since GDP hasn't fallen for two successive quarters the recession is over" when the economy is clearly still in shambles ignores the real struggle of millions of Americans who are not seeing the benefits of our "recovery," other than hearing about it on the news.

[1] http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html

[2] http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/11/23/what-is-the-difference-b...

[hnnewguy]

>And the tendency to play semantics and say "since GDP hasn't fallen for two successive quarters the recession is over" when the economy is clearly still in shambles ignores the real struggle of millions of Americans who are not seeing the benefits of our "recovery," other than hearing about it on the news.

The formal definition of recession as two quarters of falling GDP isn't prone to semantic arguments, while your soft definition, talking about "real struggle" and "what Americans see" is.

That's why we choose the former.

[at-fates-hands]

Not sure if this was meant as a contradiction or not.

First you said: "All of the bad stuff you listed are symptoms of an empire in decline as well as a massive change in how the economy works"

Then at the end you said: "Also it'd be nice if the USA and China could avoid a war/proxy wars while trying to figure out the new world order."

I do agree we are seeing the US in a state of decline. Too many wars, a destroyed economy just starting to recover, educational issues, floods of illegal immigrants. There's only so much one country can take. Add in the massive amounts of financial aid we give other countries and fight their wars for them, it is very reminiscent of the fall of the Roman empire.

The Roman Empire was stretched too thin and soon became overrun by other neighboring tribes. It eventually took a toll after years of invasions and recoveries. Then education began to suffer, crime increased, production decreased, and cities began to shrink.

Also keep in mind the dark ages followed the fall of the Roman empire. As such, I hardly think we've seen the end of this very turbulent time period.

[sillysaurus3]

Even though pvnick was incorrect about their claim that the recession isn't over, we should try to look past that.

Their more important claim was that people have forgotten what it's like to have enough money. It's hard to dispute that. In the tech sector, most of us have "enough" money, but it's not the case anymore for the vast majority of people in the US.

[pvnick]

> Even though pvnick was incorrect about their claim that the recession isn't over

I was not, please see my reply adjacent to your's

[pc86]

Based on the definition of the very word, yes you were incorrect. If you want to make an argument that we should ignore the definition, provide a reason, but as far as the definition of the word goes, you were incorrect.

[TheOtherHobbes]

>There's not much room for interpretation there unless you choose a different definition of "recession".

Inexplicably, the mainstream definition of GDP omits to explain how GDP growth is distributed.

Equally inexplicably, almost all of mainstream economic policy and theory makes similar - let's be kind - interpretations about economic experience which privilege a certain perspective while ignoring other equally valid perspectives.

So technically you're correct.

Politically, in terms of the everyday experience of most of the population, 'The recession is over' is raving nonsense.

>It will probably just take a while for society to sort all of this out.

I'm betting on a millennium or two. (At least I would if it were practical.)

>I think most people reading this will be just fine and probably live really nice lives.

So that's just fine, I guess?