> The NBER uses a broader definition of a recession than commonly appears in the media. A definition of a recession commonly used in the media is two consecutive quarters of a shrinking gross domestic product (GDP). In contrast, the NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales". Business cycle dates are determined by the NBER dating committee. Typically, these dates correspond to peaks and troughs in real GDP, although not always so.
...
> Though not listed by the NBER, another factor in favor of this alternate definition is that a long term economic contraction may not always have two consecutive quarters of negative growth, as was the case in the recession following the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
There are ZERO changes or decision anyone can make (including policy) based on whoever's definition of recession is.
It's really weird that humans come up with these arbitrary definitions that doesn't matter but choose that hill to die on.
Thought experiment: Knowing and feeling all the economic news around you, what decision would you make if (or what decision should policy makers make)
a) we are in some arbitrary definition of Recession?
b) we are not in some arbitrary definition of Recession?
There really is none
You need only to glance at the markets to see the reality of the situation we are in.
The argument the WH made for us not being in a recession is that employment is high. That situation is quickly changing.