3 ms·

Take a look at the comment I was responding to, as well as some others on this page: It's a common misconception that the unemployment rate spikes (spikes, not

by Izkata 4y ago

Take a look at the comment I was responding to, as well as some others on this page: It's a common misconception that the unemployment rate spikes (spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher) before recessions. It doesn't.

dragonwriter 4y ago
The fact that you were responding to an incorrect description does not make your description that “The low unemployment rate indicates we’re likely either in or about to start a recession” correct. 1+1=3 is wrong, but that doesn’t make the response “1+1 is actually 1” correct.
- Izkata 4y ago
  Allow me to repeat: spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher. 1948, 1953, 1960, 1974, 1980, 2001, and 2008 all fit what I said. 1957, 1970, 1981, and kind-of 1990 are the exceptions. As for the extended low unemployment... If you ignore the covid anomaly (as most people seem to since it wasn't a natural market reaction but caused by lockdowns), we're at the same 3 years of the previous maximum duration.
SantalBlush 4y ago
>It's a common misconception that the unemployment rate spikes (spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher) before recessions I'm not talking about using the unemployment rate as a leading indicator, which is what you're describing here.
- Izkata 4y ago
  > > that evidence strongly suggests that we are not in one The unemployment part can't indicate current state either because it usually doesn't spike until months afterwards. We can easily be in a recession with unemployment still being low.
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    >The unemployment part can't indicate current state either Yes, it can. Nonfarm payroll employment--along with GDP--is one of the key measures used by the NBER in their determination of whether or not we're in a recession, so it is by definition a current indicator. You are stating that it's not a sufficient indicator in determining a recession, which is correct, but that's not what I was saying anyway. Unemployment is absolutely a relevant measure here, and you are wrong.

by Izkata 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

The fact that you were responding to an incorrect description does not make your description that “The low unemployment rate indicates we’re likely either in or about to start a recession” correct. 1+1=3 is wrong, but that doesn’t make the response “1+1 is actually 1” correct.

Izkata 4y ago
Allow me to repeat: spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher. 1948, 1953, 1960, 1974, 1980, 2001, and 2008 all fit what I said. 1957, 1970, 1981, and kind-of 1990 are the exceptions. As for the extended low unemployment... If you ignore the covid anomaly (as most people seem to since it wasn't a natural market reaction but caused by lockdowns), we're at the same 3 years of the previous maximum duration.

SantalBlush 4y ago

>It's a common misconception that the unemployment rate spikes (spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher) before recessions I'm not talking about using the unemployment rate as a leading indicator, which is what you're describing here.

Izkata 4y ago
> > that evidence strongly suggests that we are not in one The unemployment part can't indicate current state either because it usually doesn't spike until months afterwards. We can easily be in a recession with unemployment still being low.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  >The unemployment part can't indicate current state either Yes, it can. Nonfarm payroll employment--along with GDP--is one of the key measures used by the NBER in their determination of whether or not we're in a recession, so it is by definition a current indicator. You are stating that it's not a sufficient indicator in determining a recession, which is correct, but that's not what I was saying anyway. Unemployment is absolutely a relevant measure here, and you are wrong.