[glesica]

It takes about 10 minutes on Google to conclude that, regardless of any technical definition of a "recession", the economy is terrible unless you you're in a handful of industries or happen to make your money by owning the means of production (shocking that the group for whom the system is named always seem to do just fine...)

Here's a good example:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...

Some groups have actually seen their real wages fall over time, even since '09. If your wages are falling, then your economy is contracting, that's a recession. Over-aggregating and being pedantic about technical definitions adds nothing to the conversation, just like saying "my wages have gone up, therefore things are fine" adds nothing to the conversation (not saying you did the latter).

Edit: I'm not saying accuracy in terminology is never a good thing, if you're writing an academic or professional article then, by all means, be precise. But this isn't that kind of forum, so significant contextual inference is called for.

[pentelkuru]

>> We never left the recession;

The OP suggested the American economy is still in a recession, which is false. Not according to any obscure "technical definition" of recession, but according to the only widely accepted definition of the word.

> Over-aggregating and being pedantic about technical definitions adds nothing to the conversation

His post opens with a statement that is plainly false. Spreading misinformation (even unintentionally) is not a good way to contribute to a conversation either.

While you might find it pedantic to learn how to use words correctly, others may appreciate the opportunity to learn about subjects outside their area of expertise.

Pvnick ultimately makes a good point, but he quite unnecessarily loses credibility among anybody who knows what a recession is. Imagine someone telling you that "The best tablet is the Android" or "Git is a bad compiler." You're likely to consciously or unconsciously discredit whatever comes out of their mouth next.

[glesica]

> The OP suggested the American economy is still in a recession

I didn't read it that way. Whether we are technically in a recession or not, from the perspective of many, many people, we never left the recession. The rest of the comment makes it clear that this was the correct way to read it. Arguing over the throwaway usage of a rhetorically convenient (albeit not technically accurate) term is a waste of time.

Pvnick lost no credibility in my eyes, despite the fact that I know the definition of a "recession", because I recognized the point being made and was able to see through the terminology.

[jpetersonmn]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd agree that the economy is not doing great for many people, but I don't agree that we should change the meaning of words like that, otherwise they don't mean anything.

[mahyarm]

A lot of business owners, large and small, still go out of business or do badly in recessions, who are part of that 'capitalist' group.

[happyscrappy]

So as long as one persons wage is falling that's a recession? That makes the word meaningless.

[glesica]

Pretty sure that's not what I said. I said that would be a recession for that person, in other words, from the point of view of that one, individual person. Of course you've over-extended my point. I wasn't talking about individuals, I was talking about fairly large groups of people.

[happyscrappy]

Sure you can say specific industries are in recession but if you don't qualify it that implies the entire economy.