Standard & Poor’s has raised its odds of the U.S. slipping back into recession next year from 20 to 25 percent, citing risks from the European debt crisis, China’s economy and mandated budget tightening by the federal government at the end of 2012.
San Francisco real estate tips, trends and the local scoop: "Plug In" to SocketSite™
Standard & Poor’s has raised its odds of the U.S. slipping back into recession next year from 20 to 25 percent, citing risks from the European debt crisis, China’s economy and mandated budget tightening by the federal government at the end of 2012.
‘Double Dip’? Really? We’re THREE YEARS into a bull market- 12 consecutive quarters of GDP growth with stocks up over 100% since 2009 and someone’s still saying Double Dip? There could always be an entirely new dip, but I think we’re long past the possibility of it having to do with the last one.
Breaking: S&P Lowers Odds Of Not Going into a Double-Dip Recession To 75% From Its Previously Stated Position Of 80%.
See what I did there. It’s all in the marketing.
Wasn’t the ‘great recession’ a double dip from the dotcom bubble? S&P is about as credible as Fox news or the Examiner.
Mayans predict odd of the world ending this year at 100%.
The Mayan predictions are not updated as often as the S&P’s. Their last one was 1935 quarters ago if I recall.
Seriously? Look at the unemployment rates. Look at the tremendous loss in household wealth. It’s not a double dip recession because we’re still in the first recession except by technical terms that ignore all the pain in the economy. Oh, for the 1%, I agree the recession ended years ago.
So if you ignore the measures that actually define a recession, then you can clearly state we are in a recession. That makes a lot of sense.
Who cares about all that technical numbers mumbo jumbo when I feeeel in my gut that we’re still in a recession?
you might be able to argue parts of the country are still in a recession but not the Bay Area. This economy has been hot for two years and has recovered much quicker then most of the country.
R, your realtor cheerleading is funny, and predictable.
Here are some quotes from a NY Times article this morning:
“the median household income for Americans of all ages was 4.8 percent lower in June 2012 than it was when the recovery technically started in June 2009, to $50,964 from $53,508.”
“The decline looks even worse when comparing today’s incomes to those when the recession began in December 2007. Then, the median household income was $54,916, meaning that incomes have fallen 7.2 percent since the economy last peaked.”
“Younger Americans also sustained huge earnings cuts. The inflation-adjusted median household income for those 25 to 34 fell 8.9 percent, while that for people under age 25 fell 6.1 percent.”
“The biggest percentage decline was for people who took some college courses but never got a degree. Their median income fell 9.3 percent over the course of the recovery so far, to $46,200 from $50,948. That must especially sting, given that these income losses are probably accompanied by student loan debt.”
Note the referenced reductions in income AFTER the recession supposedly ended! You can yammer all you want about the technical definition of a recession. The point is that the economic situation has continued to worsen, not improve, for the vast majority of households.
We are still in the first dip. That is why talk of a “double dip” makes no sense.
Oh, and SF’s unemployment rate was 3.9% in May 2007. We’re still double that. And SF has done WORSE than the nation as a whole on that count. So talk of some special SF or Bay Area economic performance is more realtor nonsense.
Who brought up SF being special? Oh that’s right, you did.
And you do understand that household income is not a factor in a recession, right?
I’m not saying the economy is doing wonderful, I’m saying it’s not a recession. And you can jump up and down and cry all you want, that still doesn’t make it a recession.
anon,
The amount of jobs in SF is up from 2007, the amount of tech jobs is the highest ever. Everything in quotes is national and not regional. Has SF seen those kind of salary reductions?
R, you are funny.
Read a little. I’ll quote the post just before mine: “you might be able to argue parts of the country are still in a recession but not the Bay Area.” Wrong!
And, of course, I drew the distinction between the technical definition of a recession and the real-world economic woes in my very first post on this topic.
P.S. I know it’s popular with the perma-bears to call anyone who contradicts them a realtor, but alas, it’s untrue. The hours suck.
Actually in your first post you claimed we were still in a recession, as long as you throw out all those pesky “technical terms” that define a recession.
Alas, as much as you might want to, you can’t just ignore facts and decide for yourself that you feel like we’re still in a recession. It doesn’t work that way.
Fine – we’re all on the same page then that we remain in a recession, but not in a “recession.”
Well the middle-class has been in a recession since 2000 if we are considering income.
anon – I’d really enjoy seeing some stats to back up your comments that the “Bay Area is in a recession”. If I am so “wrong” it would be nice if you could provide some evidence. Might make your statement slightly more creditable. You argument about unemployment rates has no validity…yes the unemployment rate is higher today than 2007 but that has nothing to do with if we are in a recession today. It speaks to the fact that we went through a recession starting in 2007 but that is long gone. The unemployment rate has improved over the last few years, hence the economy is recovering. This isn’t realtor talk, simple economic reality.
No, anon, we’re not in a recession or a “recession.”
k&l, really, you just need to read.
SF, just like the rest of the country, fell into a huge economic pit after the 2007 economic peak. By just about any measure that counts to people – unemployment and incomes – we are not even close to out of that pit yet, especially in real terms, even if we have come somewhat off the bottom (that coming-off-the-bottom means no more “recession”). SF is actually BEHIND the rest of the country in catching up on employment – we are not as far back toward the top edge of the pit.
Since we are still in the first pit, any further “dip” would not be a “double dip” but just a continuation of the present one.
I will repeat….”I’d really enjoy seeing some stats to back up your comments”.
Here are the unemployment stats that I’m reading……
Trough Dec 09 Dec 10 Dec 11
San Mateo 9.0% 8.6% 8.1% 7.2%
SF 9.6% 9.1% 9.1% 7.6%
Santa Clara 11.6% 11.0% 10.3% 8.7%
California 12.5% 12.0% 12.3% 10.9%
US 10.0% 9.9% 9.4% 8.5%
Seems to me that NorCal has not only CARRIED the California recovery and has OUTPACED (outpaced means ahead not behind) the nation in employment growth since the “great recession”. But what do I know