This writer needs to lose their job and work as a shelf stocker at WalMart and then be allowed to write this same article again 5 years later.
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
IWW and syndicalism
704 readers
1 users here now
Community for union related stuff, with focus on the IWW.
Chat room (not mine, belong to a fellow syndicalist):
https://matrix.to/#/#anarchycommunism:matrix.org
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Last I checked the media has said that we were on the very edge of a recession every day for the past 5 years. I guess if you say it long enough, some people will believe you and eventually you'll be right.
If low wages and multiple jobs make for a recession, we've been in a recession since before I was born.
"Growth is no longer economic; increasing GDP does not necessarily increase human welfare." — In Defense of Degrowth by Giorgos Kallis
Gee... I wonder who's spreading that lie? Gosh... I wonder who could benefit from the telling of such lies.
I wonder...
it's funny they're trying to gaslight when everything is blatantly more expensive/difficult/annoying than it was even 10 years ago. the america of 2024 makes the america of the 90s look like a paradise. shit is so bad that if you're on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder and on the verge of homelessness, good luck even finding an affordable 20 year old hoopty to sleep in. vans are a luxury.
How many americans can even define what a recession is?
Let me answer your question with another question: "how many Americans actually know the difference between, 'you're' and 'your' or 'two', 'too', and 'to'?
Media companies are owned by billionaires. They're protecting their investments. The "News" has operated this way for decades.
A recession is a word with a specific economic definition and measurement.
It sounds like you're saying that if people feel like there's a recession, it should be called one. That's not a good idea.
Stick around in these threads long enough and someone will come and post statistical proof that how you feel is anecdotal and of absolutely no bearing on realty. So at what point do you stop caring about the "definition" of recession and realize that maybe it's not measured in a way that promotes a health society rather than just a healthy economy?
Record profits and millions uninsured. Record profits and crumbling infrastructure. Record profits and mass layoffs. Maybe it's fucked?
Or just use a different word that means what you're trying to say. When you remove the meaning from words, it becomes harder to solve problems.
Who is removing the meaning? If anything i thought we were trying to define it better and maybe challenge the traditional meaning because i don't think it suits the current times. You are free to use a different word.
So your argument here... is that you're not trying to remove the meaning from a word.
You're just trying to change the traditional meaning and ask people who use the word correctly to use a new and different word.
You've given me a lot to think about, thank you.
Or maybe that correctly might be too traditional? If that's too much i can just stop. I don't wanna overload ya.
Actually rereading my content: What i meant was to say "well just a different word" in regards to the current situation if recession doesn't fit into the metrics of what a recession is. If you don't like recession being used than give people who feel like it's a recession a different word.
Full agree. Why not just say main street has been shit for decades and there isn't a recession? It's easy.
That seems a lot more meaningful. GDP is going up, and most people are still feeling the crunch? That is a correctly identified issue that needs a solution.
If you do stuff that historically fixes a real recession, you're going to potentially make that problem worse.
What do you think would happen if we stopped using calvinball measurements like GDP and started using metrics based around people's material conditions?
If a majority of your population feels like they're in a recession then you have economic problems and dictionary definitions make no difference.
A recession is a word with a specific economic definition and measurement.
Measured by who? Predatory western sociologists-that-wish-they-were-mathematicians whose predictions hold less merit than a meteorologist's when he's three Adios Motherfuckers in? If you still take these banker-priests seriously, that's on you; but what I know is my pension definitely doesn't go as far as it used to even five years ago.
If the economy didn't suck, I wouldn't have had to move in with some homies of mine, and I'd still be blissfully on my ones; but no, the economists gotta oversee an unending transfer of wealth until we're all inescapably wage-slave'd so now I gotta live like I'm in fucking college again.
Recession: A period during which economic activity, as measured by gross domestic product, declines for at least two quarters in a row.
The first problem with what you're saying is that you think a recession is some kind of prediction. It's not. It's a measurement of the prior 2 quarters. By definition, it can only be declared for time that already passed.
The second problem with what you're saying is that you think it is a measurement of quality of life, cost of living, or wages. It's not. By definition, it's a measurement of GDP.
I'm not trying to say that I think the economy is good or that people feel good about it. Those are things that have words to describe them, but not the word "recession". By understanding the terminology and using the right words, we can all be on the same page and solve problems.
Thank you.
The group who have defined an event with intent and required specifications are telling us, by definition, the event isn’t happening. ‘When the rate of water falling from the sky exceeds two inches per hours, it is flooding.’
The public are saying something is happening and stealing a word from the first group and telling them they’re wrong. ‘It’s below 30 degrees out and this white stuff falling from the sky is accumulating. It’s flooding!’
The public is also attempting to argue that if the defined event is not taking place, the word used to describe the event is more than sufficient to define their event while they’re placing blame upon the first group for allowing the event to take place.
The problem is that the economy doesn't work for everyone the same way. Looking at a single column employment measurement number and how the stock market players are doing gives one picture, while (if) they looked at how many people are working several jobs, earning inflation-adjusted less pay and paying more for basics, and putting bills on credit they'd see a totally different view. That the latter is far greater in number and yet we're "fine" suggests that the experts are either idiots, or that they know it's there but they don't want to change how the top is running since it's "great".