4 ms·

> It could well be that 50% of CEOs are always "considering" cutting jobs in the next 6 months They are not. CEOs are generally optimistic. this is a very bad

> It could well be that 50% of CEOs are always "considering" cutting jobs in the next 6 months They are not. CEOs are generally optimistic. this is a very bad sign. 99.99999% of knowing what someone will do is what they say. people try to read way too much into other things, "what were they really thinking? how has that changed over time?" etc etc. sometimes you just have to snap out of it and LISTEN. and what you hear is very bad, and far from 'useless'. as far as whether we are heading into a recession or not, we are not. We are already in a recession. We've had 2 quarters of shrinking GDP. maybe we notch a positive quarter in between the next negative quarter, but its a recession. stop over thinking it.

koolba 4y ago
> We are already in a recession. We've had 2 quarters of shrinking GDP. maybe we notch a positive quarter in between the next negative quarter, but its a recession. stop over thinking it. That definition of recession is not codified. The official definition is that we’re in a recession only after an octogenarian declares it (retroactively of course).
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
- permo-w 4y ago
  as far as I know, a recession is codified as two consecutive quarters of negative growth
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    Recessions are defined by NBER, a consortium of academic economists. Using the 2 quarters rule (something that has no official bearing) means that 2 of the last 3 recessions (2000 and 2020) weren't recessions.
    - permo-w 4y ago
      covid did not result in 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth? that seems improbable
      - shagie 4y ago
        https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm Begin using the data > Section 1 Domestic Product and Income > Table 1.1.5 Gross Domestic Product > Modify > First year 2016 (refresh table)
      - rory 4y ago
        It did: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=UtHh https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=UtHh Only two though-- Q2 was so sharp that everything after that was recovery.
        mywittyname 4y ago
        Which points to why the whole "two consecutive quarters" rule is not, and should not be, definitive. The country could see a 50% collapse in a single quarter and see 2-3% growth each quarter for years, and not be in a recession by that definition. It wouldn't be unusual for a major economic calamity to occur within a single quarter. Both Covid lock downs and the collapse of AIG/LB happened within a matter of weeks.
        OJFord 4y ago
        > The country could see a 50% collapse in a single quarter and see 2-3% growth each quarter for years, and not be in a recession by that definition. But that's not receding, that's has receded. If your implied definition is slipping below the growth trend, then any '50% collapse' is going to ensure 'recession' (by this definition) for probably (or even hopefully) a long time.
        mywittyname 4y ago
        > But that's not receding, that's has receded. A recession is past tense. One can speculate that we are in a recession, but it's not feasible to collect all the information necessary to make that determination in real time. The best one can do is say, "a recession started six months ago, and I think the situation is better/the same/worse."
  - colpabar 4y ago
    The comment that you're replying to is poking fun at the way the biden administration responded to the report saying there were two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. Everyone "knew" that a recession meant two quarters of negative growth, but we were told that actually it's only a recession if the people in charge say so. You do "trust the experts", right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-01/Op-Ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
    - chasd00 4y ago
      Yeah if republicans take the house and senate we will be in the deepest recession evarr. If not then we’ll only be in a mild correction.
  - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
    We have had two quarters of negative growth before that were not called a recession.
lamontcg 4y ago
We haven't had any increase in unemployment yet, this isn't a recession. Two periods of negative GDP growth without a rise in unemployment is unprecedented, but that is largely the result of bullwhip effects of the pandemic which was unprecedented. The actual recession is going to be substantially worse. The people who argue that we're in a recession right now due to two quarters of negative GDP growth while discounting the fact that every other indicator of the economy has been pretty healthy up until recently just makes me think "tell me you were too young to remember 2008/2001/1992/1982/1980 without telling me you were too young to remember". IDK it is probably pointless to argue about this with people who will double-down on the strict definition that they think they know. Wait for another 12-24 months and let me know if it feels and order of magnitude worse or not. (Agreed, though, that CEOs are generally almost naive optimists and that when they're all pessimistic about the economy it can almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy)
poulsbohemian 4y ago
You aren't wrong, but CEOs are also herd animals. Someone starts talking about a new initiative or a new idea, suddenly they are all talking about it to keep up with the Joneses. So when enough start talking about cuts or scaling back hiring, they all have to address it or they fear looking out of touch. Cuts can also help pad quarterly numbers, regardless of the real health of the company, so it can help those execs keep their job just a bit longer so long as it looks like they are demonstrating leadership.

koolba 4y ago

> We are already in a recession. We've had 2 quarters of shrinking GDP. maybe we notch a positive quarter in between the next negative quarter, but its a recession. stop over thinking it. That definition of recession is not codified. The official definition is that we’re in a recession only after an octogenarian declares it (retroactively of course).

sieabahlpark 4y ago
permo-w 4y ago
as far as I know, a recession is codified as two consecutive quarters of negative growth
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  Recessions are defined by NBER, a consortium of academic economists. Using the 2 quarters rule (something that has no official bearing) means that 2 of the last 3 recessions (2000 and 2020) weren't recessions.
  - permo-w 4y ago
    covid did not result in 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth? that seems improbable
    - shagie 4y ago
      https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm Begin using the data > Section 1 Domestic Product and Income > Table 1.1.5 Gross Domestic Product > Modify > First year 2016 (refresh table)
    - rory 4y ago
      It did: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=UtHh https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=UtHh Only two though-- Q2 was so sharp that everything after that was recovery.
      - mywittyname 4y ago
        Which points to why the whole "two consecutive quarters" rule is not, and should not be, definitive. The country could see a 50% collapse in a single quarter and see 2-3% growth each quarter for years, and not be in a recession by that definition. It wouldn't be unusual for a major economic calamity to occur within a single quarter. Both Covid lock downs and the collapse of AIG/LB happened within a matter of weeks.
        OJFord 4y ago
        > The country could see a 50% collapse in a single quarter and see 2-3% growth each quarter for years, and not be in a recession by that definition. But that's not receding, that's has receded. If your implied definition is slipping below the growth trend, then any '50% collapse' is going to ensure 'recession' (by this definition) for probably (or even hopefully) a long time.
        mywittyname 4y ago
        > But that's not receding, that's has receded. A recession is past tense. One can speculate that we are in a recession, but it's not feasible to collect all the information necessary to make that determination in real time. The best one can do is say, "a recession started six months ago, and I think the situation is better/the same/worse."
- colpabar 4y ago
  The comment that you're replying to is poking fun at the way the biden administration responded to the report saying there were two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. Everyone "knew" that a recession meant two quarters of negative growth, but we were told that actually it's only a recession if the people in charge say so. You do "trust the experts", right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-01/Op-Ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
  - chasd00 4y ago
    Yeah if republicans take the house and senate we will be in the deepest recession evarr. If not then we’ll only be in a mild correction.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  We have had two quarters of negative growth before that were not called a recession.

lamontcg 4y ago

We haven't had any increase in unemployment yet, this isn't a recession. Two periods of negative GDP growth without a rise in unemployment is unprecedented, but that is largely the result of bullwhip effects of the pandemic which was unprecedented. The actual recession is going to be substantially worse. The people who argue that we're in a recession right now due to two quarters of negative GDP growth while discounting the fact that every other indicator of the economy has been pretty healthy up until recently just makes me think "tell me you were too young to remember 2008/2001/1992/1982/1980 without telling me you were too young to remember". IDK it is probably pointless to argue about this with people who will double-down on the strict definition that they think they know. Wait for another 12-24 months and let me know if it feels and order of magnitude worse or not. (Agreed, though, that CEOs are generally almost naive optimists and that when they're all pessimistic about the economy it can almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy)

poulsbohemian 4y ago

You aren't wrong, but CEOs are also herd animals. Someone starts talking about a new initiative or a new idea, suddenly they are all talking about it to keep up with the Joneses. So when enough start talking about cuts or scaling back hiring, they all have to address it or they fear looking out of touch. Cuts can also help pad quarterly numbers, regardless of the real health of the company, so it can help those execs keep their job just a bit longer so long as it looks like they are demonstrating leadership.