What kind of world does Daniel Gross live in that he thinks the recession is over and can write a silly piece like that? The economy is still shedding jobs at an incredible rate, with U6 unemployment growing toward 20%. Forclosures are still occurring by the millions. State budgets are in a shambles, with key programs being slashed left and right. No sign of a turnaround in any of these areas, even years into the future.

Maybe Gross's measure is limited to Wall Street bankers and whether they get their bonuses? And whether IBM is making a profit from outsourcing jobs?

By Gross's approach, he probably thinks New Orleans has recovered from Hurricane Katrina, too, just because FEMA or somebody like that says so!

Hear, hear.

No jobs, no recovery

I'm sure you'll get a long line of people agreeing with your post. I, for one, don't believe we've even really STARTED the real descent yet. Amazing, unnecessary assertion given the context. He could have pointed out the Peruvian story without that.

There is only one measure of whether or not an economy is in a recession. It is well defined. It is not an opinion. It is not for you to decide.

A recession means two or more quarters of no, or negative, growth in gdp. Period. Based on recent number is appears possible that the current quarter will show positive growth, which is why he said it *may* be over.

*** The economy is still shedding jobs at an incredible rate, with U6 unemployment growing toward 20%. ***

Uh, no, it most certainly is not. The unemployment rate actually FELL slightly, from 9.5% to 9.4% It is expected to remain essentially flat at least through the end of the year.

Thank you very much for that.

And unemployment, as painful as it has been, is no where close to 20%. I also need to ask, homes are actually still foreclosing in "the millions?" Seriously? Did we ever have "millions" plural, homes being foreclosed at the same time? I could be wrong, but that sounds incredibly high.

I do however have a great deal of sympathy for the original poster feeling like this economy still seriously sucks. It does.

I also believe the recovery period is going to be very different from past recessions in modern history. We are not going to roar back leaner and stronger. We are likely to see a close to permanent increase in higher American savings rates and lower debt, which is actually a very good thing long-term for the economy and in my opinion good for our culture too, and a lot of ugly inflation looming ahead.

"And unemployment, as painful as it has been, is no where close to 20%."

The U6 unemployment rate is currently hovering around 20% and has been for a while.

The official term for recession is useless to most people, which is why it's so commonly ignored. GDP isn't that helpful either. The employment rate is questionable as well unless you dig into the numbers, for instance noting that the rate fell because people gave up looking for work. That's not exactly a sign of recovery.

Wait- Goldman Sachs announced some billions in bonuses recently! That should settle the question. The stimulus worked!

Thank you. I am aware of the hidden statistics of individuals who just stop trying to work because they are discouraged, and the plight of temporary and cyclical workers being hidden in the data, but I have to admit that I had never heard of the "U1 - U6" labels. I had to look them up. I thought the first poster had simply mis-typed "US." Thanks!

Personally, it seems to me that a lot of all the recession talk is FUD. Maybe if you live in Detroit or work in the construction industry. But ask yourself, how many people do you know personally that lost their job. For me, out of a lot of people, I only know 2 and they both were able to get new jobs, with pay raises within 2 months.

Not to mention, I went out to the mall on Monday to eat out, at 9 pm, and literally every single restaurant was packed. More than 20 minute waits, at 9 on a Monday. And I'm not talking fast food, I'm talking about Cheescake factory and the like.

I'm not saying no one has been affected, but people are making things out to be much worse than they are in their minds because of the constant stream of "bad news" from the media.

The problem with looking for something telling in other than the statistics is difficult, because the difference between high unemployment and low unemployment is only one or two percent. That means that, if you know 100 people well enough to know what their job prospects are, only one or two of them would have to have a change in status, and you probably don't track them all well enough to detect that reliably. I know that the open plan mall in my area is always heavily attended while a very settled street in the higher priced part of town has an unusually large number of 'for sale' signs. That is a mixed input and if I had to judge how my community was doing by what I have seen, I would be really uncertain. Of course, I watch CNBC whenever the market is open, and listening to the array of guest 'experts' is even less informative. So ... back to the statistics, but with one proviso: The definition(s) of unemployment are so bizarre that I tend to think that the employment to population ratio is the only rational indicator. Of course, since the work week length is a variable, it would be best to watch compensated hours worked versus population rather than number of people employed.

I live in Los Angeles. My sister is a top notch insurance woman and she has been laid off twice in the past year, and is currently struggling to find a job. Nobody has better education, experience, skills, credentials, respect of her peers or contacts.

Two people in my office have recently been laid off due to budget changes.

It is generally a very tight job market for anyone who would consider moving to another job on his own. Raises and bonuses and perks are nearly unheard of for the past couple of years.

My state, California, is going bankrupt, but I can't really blame that so much on the economy as I can on the children running the state who haven't had the balls to say "no" to the state union workers, programs for everything utopians, and zero tax fanatics for a few decades or more, but I digress.

Lots of homes for sale. A lot less traffic (by LA standards) due to fewer work commuters and more car poolers. It's a lot easier to get a table in restaurants where you needed reservations before. My wife and I were recently in Las Vegas and we got ridiculously wonderful deals on airfare and hotel, and we noticed a signficantly smaller crowd than we experienced this time two years ago. A couple of locals said things were "real bad."

So, it has to do with where you're looking.

I think people may be permanently changing their savings and spending habits for the long-term betterment, which is a good thing. I know my wife and I have wiped out all credit card debt, put a lot of cash away and have really reduced our expenditures.

Agreed that personal antecdote can't be relied upon, but sometimes statistics and "news" can be so misleading that you need to do a personal look-around to make sure what you are seeing at least can plausibly match up to what is being reported.

And you kind of make my point: the difference between good times and bad times in terms of unemployment is only a couple percent. But if one was judging by the doom and gloom that is coming from the media (and people on internet forums), you would expect 50% of the population to be waiting in bread-lines.

The fact is that things now, right in the middle of the recession, are still FAR better than they were even 20 years ago. The standard of living is higher. Anyone arguing differently either was living in a bubble or just doesn't remember 20 years back.

BTW, I also agree that the unemployment stats need to be reworked. As they stand they are about as meaningful as the "core inflation" numbers.

I was thinking the same thing about geography. Where you are makes a big difference. I'd stay put if I were you FILO.

The other thing to consider is tragectory. I know there is lots of rebound and green shoot talk, but there are still a lot of problems out there. Alt-A mortgages. Commercial real-estate. Heavy debt loads. Continuing jobs losses. Things might not seem too bad while you're tumbling down a slope, but it doesn't mean the rocks at the bottom will be any less painful.

One of the most illuminating and adult conversations I've ever read on Slate. You guys are raising the bar around here. Hopefully it won't be ruined by idiots with cheap political insults.

It's true that the official definition - consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, ie contraction - is useless to a lot of people. But of course you need an objective definition of some sort. Otherwise, anyone can point to one sob story and say, "as far as I'm concerned, we're in a recession" even when things are going well.

In my estimation (I'm by no means an expert, but have a solid grasp of history and economics), a nation's economy is in serious crisis - call it what you want - when one or more of the following happen:

- A huge percentage of the people who want work (say, 25%) and would be willing to take anything safe with a paycheck can't find it, even after looking for weeks or months, to the point where they literally consider emigrating or turning to crime.

- The government actually runs of out of money to provide basic services such as courts and police and fire departments. Not just laying off workers, but actually encountering an inability to perform these tasks.

- Hyperinflation.

To judge by these criteria, I'd have to say we're not in "serious crisis" yet, although the 2d criterion is approaching in some areas. But does that mean we should feel good or optimistic? Probably not, because running an economy on massive deficits, with a huge trade gap every year, is unsustainable in the long term. Frankly, it's surprising that we've encountered as little trouble as we have, not just in the past year, but in the past 3 decades.

With a little luck, this recession (?) could be the kind of thing that leads to a "soft landing," with people lowering their levels of debt, credit becoming a little harder to come by (but still available for those who will be able to pay it back), perhaps a return of some industrial/physically productive jobs, and maybe even a reduction in the level of government spending. In short, a return to an economy that's slow-growing and unspectacular but sustainable. But such a thing would require a serious national conversation abouteconomics and the proper role of government in our lives. But I haven't seen the courage to initiate such a conversation in many political figures, nor a willingness to listen in many individuals. So, down with the ship, I guess.