Ask HN: Is America in Recession?
Official numbers say the U.S. isn’t in recession—does real life feel different?
41 comments
America is in a 4 income economy - the number of typical incomes needed to reliably meet basic bills (rent,transpo,food,utils) in most markets.
I've lived thru 8 recessions, none had achieved this level of difficulty. None had so completely barred new entrants to society.
I've lived thru 8 recessions, none had achieved this level of difficulty. None had so completely barred new entrants to society.
Most people now forget that 50+ years ago, the husband was the sole bread winner, kept his job for most of his life, and could afford the house, car, 4 children and a few pets.
I read somewhere that when women started working in the war efforts, businesses took advantage and skewed home prices and whatnot to make it so women had no choice but to continue working. This worked out well, because women wanted to work and have similar social treatment as men.
The issue then is that things kept skewing to the point where today a childless couple with high paying jobs can barely afford a vehicle and tiny apartment.
This may or may not be accurate. But it is an interesting opinion that I've heard a number of times over the years.
I read somewhere that when women started working in the war efforts, businesses took advantage and skewed home prices and whatnot to make it so women had no choice but to continue working. This worked out well, because women wanted to work and have similar social treatment as men.
The issue then is that things kept skewing to the point where today a childless couple with high paying jobs can barely afford a vehicle and tiny apartment.
This may or may not be accurate. But it is an interesting opinion that I've heard a number of times over the years.
> Most people now forget that 50+ years ago, the husband was the sole bread winner, kept his job for most of his life, and could afford the house, car, 4 children and a few pets.
When people say things like this, they gloss over the fact that the standard of living, of what most people find acceptable, has gone up dramatically. Average home size has more than doubled, while family size has gone down. Cars have significantly more technology in them. Everyone now needs a $1k smart phone in their pocket.
I live in a home from the 1940s. I’m sure at some point there was a family of 5 living here. My dad grew up in a similar home in the 1950s with 6 people in the home. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone these days who think my house is big enough for a family that size.
My parents both have some emotional scars I’ve seen from growing up poor in the idyllic era everyone likes to reference.
I think debt has really allowed things to get out of hand. The availability and normalization of using debt for everything has meant companies don’t have to keep prices affordable or pay decent wages, they just need to convince the public that having excessive amounts of personal debt is ok and normal. Then they also create new forms of debt to hide it from people and keep them spending, like BNPL. The idea of living within one’s means has shifted to mean if a person can make the monthly payments.
When people say things like this, they gloss over the fact that the standard of living, of what most people find acceptable, has gone up dramatically. Average home size has more than doubled, while family size has gone down. Cars have significantly more technology in them. Everyone now needs a $1k smart phone in their pocket.
I live in a home from the 1940s. I’m sure at some point there was a family of 5 living here. My dad grew up in a similar home in the 1950s with 6 people in the home. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone these days who think my house is big enough for a family that size.
My parents both have some emotional scars I’ve seen from growing up poor in the idyllic era everyone likes to reference.
I think debt has really allowed things to get out of hand. The availability and normalization of using debt for everything has meant companies don’t have to keep prices affordable or pay decent wages, they just need to convince the public that having excessive amounts of personal debt is ok and normal. Then they also create new forms of debt to hide it from people and keep them spending, like BNPL. The idea of living within one’s means has shifted to mean if a person can make the monthly payments.
It’s also not true. Women worked in the “lower classes”, they were just confined to jobs befitting their station.
“ the husband was the sole bread winner, kept his job for most of his life, and could afford the house, car, 4 children and a few pets.”
We don’t _forget_ this. We refute it. It’s not true. It’s a dream that real estate developers _sold_ that wasn’t real.
In 1975 the women’s labor participation rate stood right around 50% its around 55% now [0].
In 1975 the US home ownership rate was 65%, its 65% now [1].
There were more families with no cars in the 70s than now. 1 and 2 car families were about the same rate (with more 2 car families now) but the big difference is how many more families have more than 2 cars now than then [2].
More stats for you: - food as a percentage of family budget is lower now than then (and the only reason its close is that we eat out way more now)[3] - houses are bigger now than then[4] - data on employee tenure doesn’t go back that far, but the data we do have to the 80s shows employee tenure hasn’t changed [5]
There are lots of interesting economic challenges now, but _generally_ more people now are living better lives than then past economically. Anyone that sells you some story about some glorious past is lying to you for some reason.
Home ownership rates are always the tell. The US had very stable home ownership rates in the 45% range until the New Deal efforts that started subsidizing like crazy home ownership. They rose in the post war era until about 1960 when they reached the mid 60s. They have fluctuated in a tight curve in that band since then. The home ownership rate is tightly correlated to mortgage rates, not generational values, and spikes in 2005 (right before the bubble burst) not in the dim past [6].
[0] https://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/15/working-women-data-from-the-... [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N [2] https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/passenger_travel_20... [3] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic... [4] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/a... [5] https://www.ebri.org/content/trends-in-employee-tenure-1983-... [6] https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/research/fi...
We don’t _forget_ this. We refute it. It’s not true. It’s a dream that real estate developers _sold_ that wasn’t real.
In 1975 the women’s labor participation rate stood right around 50% its around 55% now [0].
In 1975 the US home ownership rate was 65%, its 65% now [1].
There were more families with no cars in the 70s than now. 1 and 2 car families were about the same rate (with more 2 car families now) but the big difference is how many more families have more than 2 cars now than then [2].
More stats for you: - food as a percentage of family budget is lower now than then (and the only reason its close is that we eat out way more now)[3] - houses are bigger now than then[4] - data on employee tenure doesn’t go back that far, but the data we do have to the 80s shows employee tenure hasn’t changed [5]
There are lots of interesting economic challenges now, but _generally_ more people now are living better lives than then past economically. Anyone that sells you some story about some glorious past is lying to you for some reason.
Home ownership rates are always the tell. The US had very stable home ownership rates in the 45% range until the New Deal efforts that started subsidizing like crazy home ownership. They rose in the post war era until about 1960 when they reached the mid 60s. They have fluctuated in a tight curve in that band since then. The home ownership rate is tightly correlated to mortgage rates, not generational values, and spikes in 2005 (right before the bubble burst) not in the dim past [6].
[0] https://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/15/working-women-data-from-the-... [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N [2] https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/passenger_travel_20... [3] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic... [4] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/a... [5] https://www.ebri.org/content/trends-in-employee-tenure-1983-... [6] https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/research/fi...
It took me ages to find what you were referencing in [3], but it’s not inflation adjusted, so meaningless. I’ll assume the rest of your citations are equally meaningless.
Also home ownership rates, it’s by owner occupied dwellings, which would include owner occupied duplexes and triplexes. My building is technically owner occupied, he claims the in-law unit and receives mail there. But both flats are rented out.
Also home ownership rates, it’s by owner occupied dwellings, which would include owner occupied duplexes and triplexes. My building is technically owner occupied, he claims the in-law unit and receives mail there. But both flats are rented out.
Percentage of budget is naturally inflation adjusted…
The census owner % methodology is by respondent address. So if those are 3 addresses then that’s 33% owner occupied building. If you are all sharing an address and the landlord is the respondent then its 100% owner occupied. But importantly the methodology has been largely the same across measurement periods back to the 70s.
It gets harder before that because the census didn’t track the data.
The census owner % methodology is by respondent address. So if those are 3 addresses then that’s 33% owner occupied building. If you are all sharing an address and the landlord is the respondent then its 100% owner occupied. But importantly the methodology has been largely the same across measurement periods back to the 70s.
It gets harder before that because the census didn’t track the data.
Only going back to the 70s shows a lack of historical awareness.
You mean the average number of full time jobs a single person needs to do to survive? or a couple? or a couple with kids?
Four incomes is the number of full-time jobs paying typical (most obtainable) wages. Presumably that would be 4 people.
In my market: In mid 1990s one person could afford basic bills on typical, full-time wages. By 2007 living costs had doubled, most due to housing increases. For the next 12 years, wages and living costs mostly kept parity until 2020.
During 2020, basic bills (mostly housing) rose and a typical wage-earning home required ~3 incomes as rents shot up. By late 2021 we were firmly at 4 incomes while everything shot up, especially housing and insurances.
In my market: In mid 1990s one person could afford basic bills on typical, full-time wages. By 2007 living costs had doubled, most due to housing increases. For the next 12 years, wages and living costs mostly kept parity until 2020.
During 2020, basic bills (mostly housing) rose and a typical wage-earning home required ~3 incomes as rents shot up. By late 2021 we were firmly at 4 incomes while everything shot up, especially housing and insurances.
So for a single person you need 4 x ~$80k median income i.e. $320k for housing, health insurance, food etc. and other basics?
Or are we talking federal minimum i.e. 4 x 14k = 56k.
I guess you are talking min(min wage)
Or are we talking federal minimum i.e. 4 x 14k = 56k.
I guess you are talking min(min wage)
The median wage earner in the US working one job is not homeless. Most homes are do not have three jobs between two adults.
> The median wage earner in the US working one job is not homeless.
Median wage goalpost is up the field from the typical wage goalpost. The latter is the most obtainable income range, the sort that folks could once earn and stay housed.
source: I once supported my young family on a typical wage
Past that, homelessness and wage earning are generally at odds with each other. This is for a for a number of pronounced reasons, obvious and not. One of the less discernible reasons is that being unhoused makes employers uneasy; I once lost a job when my boss learned I was homeless.
Median wage goalpost is up the field from the typical wage goalpost. The latter is the most obtainable income range, the sort that folks could once earn and stay housed.
source: I once supported my young family on a typical wage
Past that, homelessness and wage earning are generally at odds with each other. This is for a for a number of pronounced reasons, obvious and not. One of the less discernible reasons is that being unhoused makes employers uneasy; I once lost a job when my boss learned I was homeless.
In your estimation what was the peak for ease of new entrance to society?
Was 1968 awesome for everybody?
Peak purchasing power of the minimum wage, per the question about entrance to society. To my knowledge, there is no period where America was “awesome for everybody”, as there is always a material cohort or cohorts America subjugates, exploits, or marginalizes for nation state economic success.
I never asked about peak purchasing power of the minimum wage. Not sure why you brought that up tbh.
“peak for ease of new entrance to society?” was the question you asked. Maximum earning power for anyone (minimum wage) was the answer. The lower your purchasing power, or access to purchasing power, the less ease for entrance to society, economically speaking. This coincides with the tail end of America’s post WW2 economic boom.
> Maximum earning power for anyone (minimum wage) was the answer.
I think you meant to say “my answer” not “the answer.”
I think you meant to say “my answer” not “the answer.”
Why would you think that?
1968 was most awesome for white males.
My mom managed to keep the family afloat on one income but she was working a higher-income job (w/ wages somewhat lower than the men below her). Winters could be tougher; we ate what we grew during the summer and didn't always have money for furnace fuel.
My mom managed to keep the family afloat on one income but she was working a higher-income job (w/ wages somewhat lower than the men below her). Winters could be tougher; we ate what we grew during the summer and didn't always have money for furnace fuel.
1968 was about 10 years after my grandparents migrated from Mexico to work at textile factories in the USA. They managed to buy a new house in a master planned community that was filled by other factory workers like themselves. He could never be mistaken for a white male, still he took english classes at night and started a side business as an umpire for baseball games and my grandmother started selling gold to the other factory workers during lunch time. They raised 3 kids, upgraded their house, bought a triplex, and a couple acre investment property.
Could any factory worker do that today?
Could any factory worker do that today?
I'd love to hear from someone who denies this situation who is under the age of 35 and hear their arguments.
Obligatory post - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
I’m really curious about the 08 recession. I definitely remember some of the fallout, but I was young and insulated from much of what it meant. My parents were also lucky enough to be employed with a mortgage.
The one thing killing me in the economy is housing. Rent is up like crazy, but even more so rental criteria is ridiculous and competition is insane.
And this is in a dilapidated rust belt city with maybe one industry propping up the entire economy. It’s a bit cheaper than when I was in Florida a few years back, but not by a ton.
If I could figure out housing, all other problems would solve themselves, but it’s the one problem I can’t solve. My credit score took a battering during a long period of unemployment, and now I’m about as much of a pariah as a three time felon with two evictions, and I don’t even have an eviction.
But how was in after the 2008 crisis. How hard was it to find rent them. If you had a job, and income were the rents still ridiculous? Or was it easy enough to find a place if you had money?
The one thing killing me in the economy is housing. Rent is up like crazy, but even more so rental criteria is ridiculous and competition is insane.
And this is in a dilapidated rust belt city with maybe one industry propping up the entire economy. It’s a bit cheaper than when I was in Florida a few years back, but not by a ton.
If I could figure out housing, all other problems would solve themselves, but it’s the one problem I can’t solve. My credit score took a battering during a long period of unemployment, and now I’m about as much of a pariah as a three time felon with two evictions, and I don’t even have an eviction.
But how was in after the 2008 crisis. How hard was it to find rent them. If you had a job, and income were the rents still ridiculous? Or was it easy enough to find a place if you had money?
> Rent is up like crazy, but even more so rental criteria is ridiculous and competition is insane.
Yes. People with solid jobs and money in the bank - people who've lived responsibly by saving before buying, almost no one will rent to them because of a zero credit score.
And we know a bit about competition too. We got our current rental in 2021. It was a FB ad, with a crayon drawing of the layout. It was up for less than 2hrs and had 50 applicants. We got it by offering 6 mos in advance + heavy security deposit.
Yes. People with solid jobs and money in the bank - people who've lived responsibly by saving before buying, almost no one will rent to them because of a zero credit score.
And we know a bit about competition too. We got our current rental in 2021. It was a FB ad, with a crayon drawing of the layout. It was up for less than 2hrs and had 50 applicants. We got it by offering 6 mos in advance + heavy security deposit.
People with solid jobs and money in the bank don’t generally have zero credit scores.
It'll vary by location, but typically credit scores are a measure of -credit- management, not -money- management.
So people who are good at managing money, who tend to avoid credit, don't get a chance to demonstrate good -credit- management and hence end up with a low score.
This is one reason why getting a credit card, using it, and then paying it off in full every month is a valuable thing to do.
So for all the good money managers out there, be even smarter - build a good credit management history as a side effect of your good money management. That'll pay off in the long run.
So people who are good at managing money, who tend to avoid credit, don't get a chance to demonstrate good -credit- management and hence end up with a low score.
This is one reason why getting a credit card, using it, and then paying it off in full every month is a valuable thing to do.
So for all the good money managers out there, be even smarter - build a good credit management history as a side effect of your good money management. That'll pay off in the long run.
Maybe it goes without saying, but if you aren’t good at managing -credit-, you aren’t good at managing -money-, period.
All your savings will evaporate when you can’t get a good mortgage rate. That’s not good money management
All your savings will evaporate when you can’t get a good mortgage rate. That’s not good money management
Seems perfectly reasonable to consider money management to just refer to management of money in one's ownership.
Re: mortgages. IDK how things are where you're at, but from what I've seen, with houses of equal valuation, the value of the monthly with a mortgage will typically be more than double than when renting. Renting, saving, then buying out of one's pocket (likely a lower valuation house than when renting) seems like a viable strategy. Mortagages aren't some unavoidable fact of life.
It may or may not be what gives the best result, but that's ok. The peace of mind of not being in debt and having greater savings may be worth it, and have second order effects like enabling you to take more risk in other parts of your life.
Re: mortgages. IDK how things are where you're at, but from what I've seen, with houses of equal valuation, the value of the monthly with a mortgage will typically be more than double than when renting. Renting, saving, then buying out of one's pocket (likely a lower valuation house than when renting) seems like a viable strategy. Mortagages aren't some unavoidable fact of life.
It may or may not be what gives the best result, but that's ok. The peace of mind of not being in debt and having greater savings may be worth it, and have second order effects like enabling you to take more risk in other parts of your life.
> GoFundMe CEO says the economy is so bad that more of his customers are crowdfunding just to pay for their groceries
October 13th, 2025
https://fortune.com/2025/10/13/gofundme-ceo-economy-inflatio...
October 13th, 2025
https://fortune.com/2025/10/13/gofundme-ceo-economy-inflatio...
Not sure about the US, but IT industry in Canada definitely is in a recession. When good graduates from Waterloo CS cannot find an entry level job, you know something is wrong.
[deleted]
If you are talking about as defined by NBER there is no “official numbers”. Recession by that definition is a) not a fixed set of numbers, the board determines it each time based on lots of different things and they aren’t necessarily the same metrics every time and b) explicitly a backwards looking descriptive designation. Most of the time you will be _through_ a recession before it’s declared.
They’re running out of cards to stack up in the form of a house
GDP is growing so its not a recession by the traditional definition. But the number of well paying jobs is not increasing overall. You can still become a bartender or a contract/gig worker, those are still in demand.