That is the NBER's definition, which is inside the US. I said originally that the definition *outside of the US* (and outside of the current time - since the NBER has de facto followed the global definition until 2 months ago) is two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

The only reason the definition of "recession" is such a hot button issue in the US is that it looks bad for a political party to preside over a recession. They happen. At least 4 of the last 6 presidents presided over one. Most of them aren't that bad. It's fine to admit that the US economy has receded over the last 6 months, which it demonstrably has.

EDIT: The NBER, by the way, uses many metrics to declare recessions, and they particularly overweight employment and payroll metrics. The US is currently doing very well by those measures, despite the obvious weakness in the economy. I am assuming the NBER also undervalues the effects of inflation because they don't know what to do about it. That is why most of the world uses an objective definition based on GDP growth.

You literally said:

> The NBER has never failed to call a recession on 2 quarters of negative growth in the past,

However, thus far, despite two quarters of GDP decline, they have not (and from their own definition, it is clear why they have not).

Business Insider believes the state of the job market to be the primary reason why.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/economy-nber...

> The NBER, by the way, uses many metrics to declare recessions, and they particularly overweight employment and payroll metrics

You may consider it overweighted, my point was merely that the use of a single metric is mostly a feature of pundits and not civic institutions like NBER, who you mentioned as arbiters of being-in-receession.