They're not changing the definition. Most of you are quoting an anecdotal rule of thumb, and it's certainly common usage, but it's not a definition. Here's the definition according the the National Bureau of Economic Research (NEBR).
"A significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months." -
Source
They add:
"we treat the three criteria—depth, diffusion, and duration—as somewhat interchangeable. That is, while each criterion needs to be met individually to some degree, extreme conditions revealed by one criterion may partially offset weaker indications from another."
Economists can't just look at
retail sales outperforming projections,
372,000 new jobs created in June,
industrial production up year over year and just call it a recession because stocks, real estate, or exports are down.
And that's not to say we aren't headed into a recession, or that economic slowdown isn't needed. There are larger discussions to be had about fluctuating values of currency, and heightened economic activity that I don't think the average person can really grasps. This thread functionally speaks to that point.
I do think it's important for the public to understand what's happening. Because 99% of the time economic slowdown is a disaster but in this case it may be a necessary way of averting an even worse disaster. It's going to be difficult ton contextualize this important distinction for the public, but I don't think baboon-esque partisan shit flinging is the ideal solution.
