5 ms·

We're not in a recession. Yet. Google and Facebook are ahead of the curve and mostly using the headlines to shake things up internally right now. It does sho

We're not in a recession. Yet. Google and Facebook are ahead of the curve and mostly using the headlines to shake things up internally right now. It does show that the billionaires are kind of enthusiastic though about the coming recession and economic pain being inflicted on the lower classes, and getting those uppity workers a bit more under control. They're not so worried about asset prices / stock prices / sales / etc and probably correctly assume that everything will rebound just fine for them.

baby 4y ago
I mean FB's stock got halved in the last few months
- rapsey 4y ago
  That is because investors don't see a good future for that company. It is basically failing on all fronts.
  - baby 4y ago
    this is response to this comment: > We're not in a recession. Yet. Google and Facebook are ahead of the curve and mostly using the headlines to shake things up internally right now. which has nothing to do with investors
    - hervature 4y ago
      In case you're not aware, your response is heavily implying that FB's stock falling is proof of a recession. That's why they responded by clarifying that the drop is due to future outlook of investors and not the economy at large.
      - baby 4y ago
        It's not, the OP said that they were ahead of the curve, and I pointed out that their stock halved. I do believe we're in a recession though, but Meta's stock is not going to show you that.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Stock markets are investor sentiment, they aren't the real economy. They're connected, but they're not the same. Black Monday 1987 didn't correspond to any recession.
robertlagrant 4y ago
What shows that? Are you calling the < L7 engineering candidates at Facebook and Google the "lower classes"?
- rnk 4y ago
  I thought the original comment was referring to all tech workers, ie not independently wealthy as the lower classes. But it's also true that below principal level at companies there is different treatment. Just like a cto gets treated better than the senior principal.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    There might be a hierarchy of value, but that to me doesn't imply lower classes in the normal sense. We're talking about people being paid some of the best salaries in the history of the world, and with very little personal risk.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    The billionaire class is currently worried about the whole of the working class, it goes well beyond SWEs at Facebook and Google. But Amazon being worried about organizing in their warehouses and Google and Facebook freezing hiring of SWEs and Musk's comments about how workers have become soft and overpaid (or whatever it was, I can't find the quote right now) are all different body parts of the same elephant. And SWEs actually are "lower classes" (plural) compared to billionaires.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Everyone is lower class than the billionaires. A millionaire footballer can be screwed over by the billionaire owner of the club. I really think it helps to see that the power dynamics exist even at that kind of level.
fenek 4y ago
Very often advertising is the fist thing companies cut when they run into problems. Google and Facebook are both advertising companies and they control very large section of that market. It's possible the data they are seeing is showing them problems ahead for the whole economy.
leereeves 4y ago
> We're not in a recession. Yet. Based on what? Perhaps we can discard the classic "two quarters of negative GDP growth". But if we do, then from whose perspective does a 3% drop in real wages in six months [1] (and a 4.4% YoY drop in real weekly earnings [2]) not count as a recession? 1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216259/monthly-real-average-hourly-earnings-for-all-employees-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216259/monthly-real-aver... 2: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.htm
- lamontcg 4y ago
  You don't have recessions without job losses and unemployment claims: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193280/seasonally-adjusted-monthly-number-of-unemployed-persons-in-the-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/193280/seasonally-adjust...
  - leereeves 4y ago
    First, is there any precedent for that restriction? And second, why not? If everyone still has a job but their wages have decreased, that's still an economic contraction, at least from the worker's perspective.
nostromo 4y ago
> We're not in a recession. Yet. We are by the most common definition: two quarters of negative GDP growth. Some folks in the US are weirdly insistent that recessions are defined by the NBER -- a self-appointed group of wonks at a private and secretive non-profit. But they're just one measure, and an arbitrary one at that.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  https://www.statista.com/statistics/193280/seasonally-adjusted-monthly-number-of-unemployed-persons-in-the-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/193280/seasonally-adjust... That isn't the unemployment graph of any recession I'm familiar with.
  - nostromo 4y ago
    Recessions are by definition a decline in GDP, not a rise in unemployment.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      You've comfortably defined away any means of debate so you have to be right. Lemme know what you think after the actual recession hits in 6-24 months and if it feels or looks any worse.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Recessions are by definition a decline in GDP No, recessions are by definition “significant, widespread, prolonged” declines in economic activity [0] [0] from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp but the three dimensions are, with various terms, common (BLS and NBER use “duration, depth, and diffusion”, CD Howe Institute in Canada uses “pronounced, persistent, and pervasive decline in economic activity” [1].) The two-quarter-GDP-decline rule is a rule focussed on the prolonged/persistent/duration dimension, but which does not capture the other two dimensions. [1] https://www.cdhowe.org/council-reports/canada-entered-recession-first-quarter-2020-cd-howe-institute-business-cycle-council https://www.cdhowe.org/council-reports/canada-entered-recess...

baby 4y ago

I mean FB's stock got halved in the last few months

rapsey 4y ago
That is because investors don't see a good future for that company. It is basically failing on all fronts.
- baby 4y ago
  this is response to this comment: > We're not in a recession. Yet. Google and Facebook are ahead of the curve and mostly using the headlines to shake things up internally right now. which has nothing to do with investors
  - hervature 4y ago
    In case you're not aware, your response is heavily implying that FB's stock falling is proof of a recession. That's why they responded by clarifying that the drop is due to future outlook of investors and not the economy at large.
    - baby 4y ago
      It's not, the OP said that they were ahead of the curve, and I pointed out that their stock halved. I do believe we're in a recession though, but Meta's stock is not going to show you that.
lamontcg 4y ago
Stock markets are investor sentiment, they aren't the real economy. They're connected, but they're not the same. Black Monday 1987 didn't correspond to any recession.

robertlagrant 4y ago

What shows that? Are you calling the < L7 engineering candidates at Facebook and Google the "lower classes"?

rnk 4y ago
I thought the original comment was referring to all tech workers, ie not independently wealthy as the lower classes. But it's also true that below principal level at companies there is different treatment. Just like a cto gets treated better than the senior principal.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  There might be a hierarchy of value, but that to me doesn't imply lower classes in the normal sense. We're talking about people being paid some of the best salaries in the history of the world, and with very little personal risk.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  The billionaire class is currently worried about the whole of the working class, it goes well beyond SWEs at Facebook and Google. But Amazon being worried about organizing in their warehouses and Google and Facebook freezing hiring of SWEs and Musk's comments about how workers have become soft and overpaid (or whatever it was, I can't find the quote right now) are all different body parts of the same elephant. And SWEs actually are "lower classes" (plural) compared to billionaires.
lamontcg 4y ago
Everyone is lower class than the billionaires. A millionaire footballer can be screwed over by the billionaire owner of the club. I really think it helps to see that the power dynamics exist even at that kind of level.

fenek 4y ago

Very often advertising is the fist thing companies cut when they run into problems. Google and Facebook are both advertising companies and they control very large section of that market. It's possible the data they are seeing is showing them problems ahead for the whole economy.

leereeves 4y ago

> We're not in a recession. Yet. Based on what? Perhaps we can discard the classic "two quarters of negative GDP growth". But if we do, then from whose perspective does a 3% drop in real wages in six months [1] (and a 4.4% YoY drop in real weekly earnings [2]) not count as a recession? 1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216259/monthly-real-average-hourly-earnings-for-all-employees-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216259/monthly-real-aver... 2: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.htm

lamontcg 4y ago
You don't have recessions without job losses and unemployment claims: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193280/seasonally-adjusted-monthly-number-of-unemployed-persons-in-the-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/193280/seasonally-adjust...
- leereeves 4y ago
  First, is there any precedent for that restriction? And second, why not? If everyone still has a job but their wages have decreased, that's still an economic contraction, at least from the worker's perspective.

nostromo 4y ago

> We're not in a recession. Yet. We are by the most common definition: two quarters of negative GDP growth. Some folks in the US are weirdly insistent that recessions are defined by the NBER -- a self-appointed group of wonks at a private and secretive non-profit. But they're just one measure, and an arbitrary one at that.

lamontcg 4y ago
https://www.statista.com/statistics/193280/seasonally-adjusted-monthly-number-of-unemployed-persons-in-the-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/193280/seasonally-adjust... That isn't the unemployment graph of any recession I'm familiar with.
- nostromo 4y ago
  Recessions are by definition a decline in GDP, not a rise in unemployment.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    You've comfortably defined away any means of debate so you have to be right. Lemme know what you think after the actual recession hits in 6-24 months and if it feels or looks any worse.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Recessions are by definition a decline in GDP No, recessions are by definition “significant, widespread, prolonged” declines in economic activity [0] [0] from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp but the three dimensions are, with various terms, common (BLS and NBER use “duration, depth, and diffusion”, CD Howe Institute in Canada uses “pronounced, persistent, and pervasive decline in economic activity” [1].) The two-quarter-GDP-decline rule is a rule focussed on the prolonged/persistent/duration dimension, but which does not capture the other two dimensions. [1] https://www.cdhowe.org/council-reports/canada-entered-recession-first-quarter-2020-cd-howe-institute-business-cycle-council https://www.cdhowe.org/council-reports/canada-entered-recess...