But wait, according to the mainstream media now, we shouldn't listen to the NBER either, they're all just a bunch of "white economists":
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/economy/recession-economists-...
Is this a joke? It's like something you'd overhear at brunch from a group of co-eds
As a thought exercise, would you think it's not notable if the 8 person board was entirely female .. or entirely black?
It’s shocking that you somehow think race or gender can effect the categorization by economists of economic conditions. It’s fairly quantitative situation and I’m at a loss how different backgrounds would effect that analysis.
Everything else is, so why not?
CNN in January 2020: "Coronavirus task force another example of Trump administration's lack of diversity" <https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/politics/donald-trump-coronav...>
The title I get is the same minus the "white". I wonder if it's A/B testing.
I took a screenshot as I had a hunch it would be changed once enough people saw it.
Edit: shows up without the “White” also for me now:
> Who decides if the US is in a recession. Eight White economists you've never heard of.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jul/04/fox-oan-newsma... https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics/hannity-text-message... https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/tucker-carlson-has-s...
https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Media-B...
Like other commenter said, AP and Reuters are best at being center / neutral for now.
How is more people working for less pay a counterargument against recession.?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=Sfun
So, that sucks, but it doesn't make a useful definition of recession. This is the result of massive, global macroeconomic forces. It's basically a slow reset of the post-WWII global order.
>All things being equal, more people working is a an increase in buying power.
This isnt an absolute. If you have 1 person working for $1/day and go to 2 people for $0.5/day, buying power hasn't changed.
You can have more people working, and people working longer, for less and less material goods.
I think any meaningful definition of economic growth/recession must address the fundamental question of is there more material goods and wellbeing in a country today than yesterday.
I agree that the allocation of those goods is a separate question entirely.
>This is the result of massive, global macroeconomic forces. It's basically a slow reset of the post-WWII global order.
I think that what we are seeing is the start of a realization that part of historic GDP growth was actually a fiction, in that more tangible goods were not produced.
This is why a small increase in wages sent inflation through the roof.
In theory, US real GDP per capita has gone up 33% since 2000[1]. This looks fine on paper as long as the growth is just accumulating in a bank account. Once people actually try to consume more, it becomes obvious that there isn't 33% more stuff to buy.