Youth unemployment trending up, a reliable recession leading indicator

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/560889427778601023/1177440834627588137/F_nTYVgXkAAzevb.png?ex=6572843a&is=65600f3a&hm=98cb34eccd77286e6a808ee3d2521a90766f41381427a3998cb5150e69456fb3&=&format=webp&width=1108&height=572

[junior chįmp]

Let me give you an example of effective political framing (in other words, facts dont matter and you can say whatever you want):

"Youth Unemployment explodes ever since House Speaker Johnson took over. He needs to answer for what he's gonna do to curtail how his reckless brinkmanship led to an unprecedented uptick in Youth Unemployment ."

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

It's still among the lowest on that entire f@cking chart

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

It's still among the lowest on that entire f@cking chart

As one would expect in a Deliveroo economy where everyone and their pet hamsters can get a job of some description.

[GeorgiaModerate]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

[Sir Mohamed]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

[Crumpets]

See that recent enormous spike in the chart? That was when Biden's 2024 opponent was in charge. In fact, if I'm reading that right, youth unemployment had a net increase under Trump, Dubya, and HW, while it decreased overall under Biden, Obama, and Clinton. I wonder what the difference could be there...

[GeorgiaModerate]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There's an old saying that economists have successfully predicted 23 out of the last 3 recessions.

I'm also reminded of the British general who confidently predicted in 1914 that the war would be over by winter.  Eventually he was right.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Yeah, he's been doing this since he started posting. Pretty gross IMO.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There hasn't been any false positives with this indicator. Every time this indicator has started going up by this amount, it has always been followed by recession (in grey in the above chart).

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There's an old saying that economists have successfully predicted 23 out of the last 3 recessions.

I'm also reminded of the British general who confidently predicted in 1914 that the war would be over by winter.  Eventually he was right.

Every fed rate hike cycle has ended up recession. Why do you think this time is different?

[RilakkuMAGA]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There's an old saying that economists have successfully predicted 23 out of the last 3 recessions.

I'm also reminded of the British general who confidently predicted in 1914 that the war would be over by winter.  Eventually he was right.

Every fed rate hike cycle has ended up recession. Why do you think this time is different?

Yeah, I'm an optimist and think that we are heading towards a soft landing. But a lot of Dems really don't realize that a soft landing is still a landing. If we get a recession, it will be very mild and short.

But there's pretty much no chance GDP growth in 2024 is better than 2023. So I don't know why they expect the economy to rescue a flailing presidency.

[Mr. Ukucasha]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There hasn't been any false positives with this indicator. Every time this indicator has started going up by this amount, it has always been followed by recession (in grey in the above chart).

Also...

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There hasn't been any false positives with this indicator. Every time this indicator has started going up by this amount, it has always been followed by recession (in grey in the above chart).

Also...

The one in 1991 and 2001 occurred right after a recession grey. It probably was a continuation of the same recession. The one in 1985 doesn't show anywhere near as much spike.

[Mr. Ukucasha]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There hasn't been any false positives with this indicator. Every time this indicator has started going up by this amount, it has always been followed by recession (in grey in the above chart).

Also...

The one in 1991 and 2001 occurred right after a recession grey. It probably was a continuation of the same recession. The one in 1985 doesn't show anywhere near as much spike.

Cope and seethe.

Also,

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There hasn't been any false positives with this indicator. Every time this indicator has started going up by this amount, it has always been followed by recession (in grey in the above chart).

Also...

The one in 1991 and 2001 occurred right after a recession grey. It probably was a continuation of the same recession. The one in 1985 doesn't show anywhere near as much spike.

Cope.

Also,

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

There is a clear mechanism: when the economy is bad, less experienced people are the first people to stop being hired and start being laid off. Again, there are no false positives with that indicator. Youth employment continuing to rise after a recession has already begun isn't a counterexample.

[Mr. Ukucasha]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There hasn't been any false positives with this indicator. Every time this indicator has started going up by this amount, it has always been followed by recession (in grey in the above chart).

Also...

The one in 1991 and 2001 occurred right after a recession grey. It probably was a continuation of the same recession. The one in 1985 doesn't show anywhere near as much spike.

Cope.

Also,

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

There is a clear mechanism: when the economy is bad, less experienced people are the first people to stop being hired and start being laid off. Again, there are no false positives with that indicator. Youth employment continuing to rise after a recession has already begun isn't a counterexample.

I circled 4 different counterexamples on your chart. And the recessions were clearly over by the time the 1991 and 2003 spikes occurred. Your claim that they were both "a continuation of the same recession" is not backed by any evidence. There was also a modest 2017 spike that did not foreshadow a recession.

And youth unemployment is still at record lows despite the modest increase.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There hasn't been any false positives with this indicator. Every time this indicator has started going up by this amount, it has always been followed by recession (in grey in the above chart).

Also...

The one in 1991 and 2001 occurred right after a recession grey. It probably was a continuation of the same recession. The one in 1985 doesn't show anywhere near as much spike.

Cope.

Also,

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

There is a clear mechanism: when the economy is bad, less experienced people are the first people to stop being hired and start being laid off. Again, there are no false positives with that indicator. Youth employment continuing to rise after a recession has already begun isn't a counterexample.

I circled 4 different counterexamples on your chart. And the recessions were clearly over by the time the 1991 and 2003 spikes occurred. Your claim that they were both "a continuation of the same recession" is not backed by any evidence.

And youth unemployment is still at record lows despite the modest increase.

Unemployment can continue to rise after the GDP has started growing, because the job market is still weak. Ie youth unemployment was still going up after the grey in the 2008 recession. On the other hand, when the youth employment turns around after hitting a bottom, it's always lead to a recession.

The stock market of the Dot Com bubble didn't bottom until late 2002, for example.

[Mr. Ukucasha]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There hasn't been any false positives with this indicator. Every time this indicator has started going up by this amount, it has always been followed by recession (in grey in the above chart).

Also...

The one in 1991 and 2001 occurred right after a recession grey. It probably was a continuation of the same recession. The one in 1985 doesn't show anywhere near as much spike.

Cope.

Also,

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

There is a clear mechanism: when the economy is bad, less experienced people are the first people to stop being hired and start being laid off. Again, there are no false positives with that indicator. Youth employment continuing to rise after a recession has already begun isn't a counterexample.

I circled 4 different counterexamples on your chart. And the recessions were clearly over by the time the 1991 and 2003 spikes occurred. Your claim that they were both "a continuation of the same recession" is not backed by any evidence.

And youth unemployment is still at record lows despite the modest increase.

Unemployment can continue to rise after the GDP has started growing, because the job market is still weak. Ie youth unemployment was still going up after the grey in the 2008 recession.

The stock market of the Dot Com bubble didn't bottom until 2002.

What about the non-negligible 2017 spike?

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There hasn't been any false positives with this indicator. Every time this indicator has started going up by this amount, it has always been followed by recession (in grey in the above chart).

Also...

The one in 1991 and 2001 occurred right after a recession grey. It probably was a continuation of the same recession. The one in 1985 doesn't show anywhere near as much spike.

Cope.

Also,

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

There is a clear mechanism: when the economy is bad, less experienced people are the first people to stop being hired and start being laid off. Again, there are no false positives with that indicator. Youth employment continuing to rise after a recession has already begun isn't a counterexample.

I circled 4 different counterexamples on your chart. And the recessions were clearly over by the time the 1991 and 2003 spikes occurred. Your claim that they were both "a continuation of the same recession" is not backed by any evidence.

And youth unemployment is still at record lows despite the modest increase.

Unemployment can continue to rise after the GDP has started growing, because the job market is still weak. Ie youth unemployment was still going up after the grey in the 2008 recession.

The stock market of the Dot Com bubble didn't bottom until 2002.

What about the non-negligible 2017 spike?

The spike was much smaller than the current one. Also gigantic tax cuts/deregulation was passed around the time, possibly stalling the recession (which would likely have happened around 2020 with or without COVID based on the inverted yield curve).

The problem right now is that every single indicator points to a recession. Inverted yield curve, PMI employment estimates, youth unemployment, credit contraction, defaults, etc.

[Mr. Ukucasha]

You're just desperate for there to be a recession before the election, aren't you?

Also, the chart is too wide for the page.  Please edit the image and decrease the width.

It almost seems like, since that makes Biden less likely to win reelection. That said, it looks more like statistical noise and is still among the lowest in the entire chart. Total nothingburger.

There hasn't 5. Every time this indicator has started going up by this amount, it has always been followed by recession (in grey in the above chart).

Also...

The one in 1991 and 2001 occurred right after a recession grey. It probably was a continuation of the same recession. The one in 1985 doesn't show anywhere near as much spike.

Cope.

Also,

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

There is a clear mechanism: when the economy is bad, less experienced people are the first people to stop being hired and start being laid off. Again, there are no false positives with that indicator. Youth employment continuing to rise after a recession has already begun isn't a counterexample.

I circled 4 different counterexamples on your chart. And the recessions were clearly over by the time the 1991 and 2003 spikes occurred. Your claim that they were both "a continuation of the same recession" is not backed by any evidence.

And youth unemployment is still at record lows despite the modest increase.

Unemployment can continue to rise after the GDP has started growing, because the job market is still weak. Ie youth unemployment was still going up after the grey in the 2008 recession.

The stock market of the Dot Com bubble didn't bottom until 2002.

What about the non-negligible 2017 spike?

The spike was much smaller than the current one. Also gigantic tax cuts/deregulation was passed around the time, possibly stalling the recession (which would likely have happened around 2020 with or without COVID based on the inverted yield curve).

The problem right now is that every single indicator points to a recession. Inverted yield curve, PMI employment estimates, youth unemployment, credit contraction, defaults, etc.

Ok, that's fair. But there's no evidence to back your assertion that gigantic tax cuts/deregulation stalled the recession. Also, the yield curve has been inverted since July 2022, and there have been times when yield curve inversions were not followed by recessions (like 1966, for example).

But I'm not denying that a recession may occur, I was mainly refuting your assertion that there haven't been "any false positives with this indicator" (when there clearly have been such false positives as shown by the chart you posted), and also how you seemed to insinuate that this one metric alone proves that a recession is inevitable. Even if there haven't been any false positives with this indicator yet, history is filled with "spurious correlations" such as this one that always break eventually, the economy is too complicated for recessions to be reduced to a single metric.

[Progressive Pessimist]

That 2019-2020 number is pretty striking. Biden really did f*** that up when he was President four years ago.

*phone rings*

Hello? What? He wasn't President then? But I thought everything was perfect in 2019? How could that be?

[Pres Mike]

Youth unemplyment is at a record low!

Wait, its slightly up??? Sill close to record lows by historical standards? WE ARE ALL DOOMED! RECESSION IN 2024!!!!! UGH

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

I do wonder what part of this can be explained by young people preferring irregular employment these days.