Economists have been talking about a looming recession for months. Why hasn’t it happened yet?

But first, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

How do you stop lawmakers from destroying the law? What losing my two children taught me about grief The FBI desperately wants to let Trump off the hook.

What Recession?

According to the predictions of many economists last summer and fall, America should be in a recession right now. But as my colleague Annie Lowrey wrote in The Atlantic today, the facts reveal a very different state of affairs:

Unemployment is holding steady at its lowest rate in half a century. Layoffs are not increasing. The economy is growing at a decent clip. Wages are rising, and households are not reducing their spending. Corporate profits are near an all-time high. Consumers report feeling confident.

“So why,” Annie asks, “were forecasters so certain about a recession last year, leading so many people to feel so pessimistic?” The main reason the recession hasn’t arrived is that businesses and consumers have proved resilient, she explains. And that resilience is in part due to government policy: “Washington fought the last recession well enough that it seems to have staved off the next one, at least for some period of time.”

But that outcome—or any economic outcome, really—is very hard for human beings to predict. The economy is huge, and our knowledge of it is imperfect, Annie reminds us. And there’s no rich sample of past recessions to study—the United States has been through just 12 in the post–World War II period.

The available data in 2022 gave forecasters clear reasons to expect a recession: The global economy was slowing down, and interest rates were going up as part of the Federal Reserve’s efforts to tackle inflation. But though in the past that combination of factors has been troubling for the U.S. economy, that wasn’t the case this time. That’s in part because of a series of bottlenecks and shortages in our strange COVID-era economy but also, and more importantly, because “the American labor market turned out to be much stronger than economists had realized,” Annie explains:

When COVID hit, the federal government spent trillions on small-business support and cash payments to families, meaning that low-income households did not reduce their spending despite the jobless rate reaching nearly 15 percent. Indeed, they actually increased their spending. What’s more, the strong policy response had the (honestly, a bit weird) effect of boosting private-sector wages: Workers dislocated from their jobs scored significant raises when they went back to work. At the same time, because of widespread labor shortages, businesses have proved loath to let workers go.

Hearing about the American economy’s resilience can feel confusing when you keep seeing news updates about layoffs in the tech and media sectors. As my colleague Derek Thompson put it in January: “These layoff announcements have become depressingly common, even rote. But they’re also kind of mysterious,” given the fact that the overall unemployment rate in the U.S. is the lowest it’s been thus far in the 21st century.

Derek’s January article offers a few helpful frameworks for thinking about these layoffs in the context of an otherwise strong American economy. But I’ll leave you with one explanation worth remembering: the idea of “layoff contagion.” Annie elaborated on that concept in an article last month, pointing out that many of the tech companies (except Twitter) that laid off employees in recent months are actually making money. “Those firms, in other words, did not need to let so many workers go; they chose to,” Annie writes. “And they did so because other tech firms were making the same choice.”

Economic conditions have become an excuse executives use to justify their strategic decisions, she argues:

Copycat layoffs also let executives cite challenging business conditions as a justification for cuts, rather than their own boneheaded strategic decisions. In this scenario, the problem isn’t that corporate leadership poured billions of dollars into a quixotic new venture or hired hundreds of what ended up being redundant employees. It’s not that the C-suite misunderstood the competitive environment, necessitating a costly and painful readjustment. It’s Jay Powell! It’s a COVID-related reversion to the mean! Who could have known?

Although recent layoffs don’t imply a recession, an economic slowdown could still be ahead of us, Annie noted in today’s article: Wage growth is stagnating, and inflation remains high. “It might turn out that forecasts of a recession were not entirely wrong—just early.”

Related:

The reason the recession hasn’t happened yet A recession is not inevitable.

Today’s News

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said the Biden administration sees “zero evidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin is prepared to engage in serious peace talks. At least 43 people were killed in a head-on train collision in Greece. Eli Lilly announced that it will cut the price for its most commonly prescribed form of insulin by 70 percent and expand a program that caps patient costs for the drug.

Dispatches

Up for Debate: Readers discuss their relationship with religion. The Weekly Planet: The world is finally cracking down on “greenwashing,” Emma Marris writes.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

What Active-Shooter Trainings Steal From Synagogues

By Daniel Torday

On a Sunday late in November, I spent the day at my synagogue in Philadelphia. The Germantown Jewish Centre, where I am a member, was holding a day-long security training on what to do if an active shooter came to our community’s home, and I felt compelled to attend.

The reason for the training is obvious: For a few years now, this country has been experiencing a marked, measurable uptick in anti-Semitic hate speech and even hate crimes. Fear of these kinds of attacks in synagogues is not wholly new, of course; I remember my Hungarian grandparents, Holocaust survivors, looking pale and stiff at my bar mitzvah, the first time they’d been in a Jewish house of worship in 30 years. But the proliferation of guns and the general air of rancor in the United States have made Jewish communities feel more on edge today. Even so, I’ve long been ambivalent about the effects of active-shooter drills in general, and of increasing security at houses of worship more specifically—feeling, at times, that in doing so, we lose something essential. This training would give me a chance to figure out what—and why.

So I went. Maybe I’d learn something.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

The glossy, tiresome melodrama of Daisy Jones & the Six We have a mink problem. Winners of the 2022 World Nature Photography Awards

Culture Break

Bella Ramsey and Storm Reid in "The Last of Us"

Read. “Flesh,” a new poem by Deborah Landau.

“We will miss the ice storm, we’ll be gone before the blizzard, / we’ll lie down in the dark forever just bones.”

Watch. Catch up on HBO’s The Last of Us—and then read Shirley Li’s piece on how the show cherishes a bygone world.

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

If you’re interested in diving deeper into Annie’s work, she has an archive of great stories about American economy and society. But today I want to recommend her 2018 classic on the small town in Arkansas where residents used to throw turkeys out of a plane on Thanksgiving (remember, turkeys do not fly). Sure, it’s a Thanksgiving story, but it’s worth reading anytime, even on the first day of March.

— Isabel

On a Sunday late in November, I spent the day at my synagogue in Philadelphia. The Germantown Jewish Centre, where I am a member, was holding a day-long security training on what to do if an active shooter came to our community’s home, and I felt compelled to attend.

The reason for the training is obvious: For a few years now, this country has been experiencing a marked, measurable uptick in anti-Semitic hate speech and even hate crimes. Fear of these kinds of attacks in synagogues is not wholly new, of course; I remember my Hungarian grandparents, Holocaust survivors, looking pale and stiff at my bar mitzvah, the first time they’d been in a Jewish house of worship in 30 years. But the proliferation of guns and the general air of rancor in the United States have made Jewish communities feel more on edge today. Even so, I’ve long been ambivalent about the effects of active-shooter drills in general, and of increasing security at houses of worship more specifically—feeling, at times, that in doing so, we lose something essential. This training would give me a chance to figure out what—and why.

So I went. Maybe I’d learn something.

I arrived late. There were already maybe 30 people in the room. At 45, I was by far the youngest person there. I have two kids, ages 13 and 10, and they have attended far more active-shooter drills than I have. This was the first for me, and they have attended at least one per semester for years now.

[Read: The Jews of Pittsburgh bury their dead]

The hum of conversation lulled as two men, one with a little winter in his goatee, the other with his head shaved and his substantial arms crossed, moved to the front of the room. I learned later that the synagogue had hired a risk-assessment contractor, and now we were being led by a former chief of police of Bergen County, New Jersey, and a former officer in his charge. The former chief began by giving us a visual tour of the room we were in. Then he asked, “What would you do if an active shooter was in the building?”

What would we do. What. Would. We. Do. I do not come to this building often, not even for worship. Now I was scanning a room for exits, for means to block doors. The former chief and the officer showed us how to use wire from a television to tie off the mechanism that allowed the door to open. They pointed out the large furniture we might use to barricade a door—or to absorb a bullet. They explained the three biggest factors that would help save us in this place of worship: time, distance, and shielding. Time to keep away from the shooter, waiting for police to arrive. Distance from the shooter. Shielding from the shooter.

“How long does it take, on average, for a city police department to arrive at the scene of an active shooter?” The chief gave an answer—three to five minutes—but I know this only because I followed up later. At that second, I could not hear it. My ears were filled with a roaring as though I had stuffed them with Styrofoam, imagining myself in that room as a shooter patrolled the hallways.

I learned, once I was able to tune back in, some useful tips for how to stay alive for five minutes in a sanctuary intended for prayer. Later in the training we would feel some satisfaction about how we were all now in a way T cells protecting the congregation. But that was not how I felt at first. I found myself avoiding eye contact with the other congregants. I was anxious, wondering: “How on earth did we get here? What is the value of imagining the unimaginable, trying to game out our actions for a terror that may never arrive?” I thought of raising my hand, of asking these questions—but I’m not a hand-raiser, and these were not the questions to be asking during an active-shooter training.

Being in a room full of older Jews, however, I was surrounded by hand-raisers, and they bottlenecked on iterations of a single inquiry: Shouldn’t we have an armed guard at the door? A low-level buzz began, a feeling that yes, this was a way to ensure our safety. I was grateful when the former chief pushed back. “You could do that, sure,” he said. “But what’s the likelihood that guard would be at the right door when a shooter arrived? And if he drew his weapon …” He told us that even trained active-duty police officers hit what they shoot at less than 20 percent of the time.

[Yair Rosenberg: The invisible victims of American anti-Semitism]

Other questions wrestled with the ethical quandaries we could find ourselves in. One man, silver-haired, with a scarf around his neck, asked: “What if we know we can escape by a window, but there is someone in a wheelchair, or someone moves too slow? How do we decide what to do?” The two men at the front of the room deferred to us. “We can’t tell you,” the former chief said. “Only you can decide.”

“But how?” the silver-haired man asked. “How do we decide?”

All I could think was: There are books full of almost 6,000 years of wisdom in this very building, with all kinds of answers to that question. I’d spent the past year honing my Hebrew through a combination of staring at Duolingo on my phone for hours at a time and reading psalms. By chance, just that morning I’d been reading Psalm 140 in the King James Bible, before reading it in Hebrew. “Deliver me, O Lord,” the English translation begins, “from the evil man: preserve me from the violent man.” The day before, the psalm had felt full of King David’s wisdom, continuing, “Keep me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from the violent man; who have purposed to overthrow my goings.”

It is not a prayer in service of arming oneself, of hiring armed guards. It is a supplication to the deity: Through your power and my steadfastness, keep me from danger. At all costs, let this be a space of peace, of sanctuary. Please let us all be safe from violence.

Here’s where I’ll say more emphatically: I don’t much like the way such trainings, such talk, put a community on edge. When my kids have come home after days when they underwent active-shooter drills, some skeptical part of me has pictured my own parents, Baby Boomers, hiding under their desks as schoolchildren, fearing nuclear annihilation. We look back on those moments now and consider them folly. But this is a different kind of threat, requiring a different response. In the secular spaces where my daughters have had active-shooter trainings, it was out of fear of a kind of stochastic terrorism we all face. But here, inside a Jewish place of worship, there was a different, more specific, and much older variety of threat: anti-Semitism.

For a number of years our synagogue has required a key fob to enter the building. I don’t like seeing it on my keychain; it reminds me of the threats we face, and that our synagogue cannot be both an open place and one of true safety. An armed guard seemed a similar prospect: In adding the possibility of security, we would lose sanctity. The active-shooter training only deepened my discomfort. I left wondering if a sacred space given over to a training where we repeatedly imagined a violent attack taking place there had been diminished by the deed. I’ll confess I still don’t really know.

What I do know is that this synagogue I attend is a thoughtful and warm place, and, despite the key fobs, an open one. The event itself was well run. After it ended, a community member asked folks to stay and discuss how they felt.

[From the March 2019 issue: Active-shooter drills are tragically misguided]

“I can feel it here and here,” one woman said, pointing at her temples and her forehead. “My central nervous system is buzzing.” I wasn’t alone in having a head stuffed with Styrofoam. But it was gone now, and as we regained our normal clarity and rationality, I found myself coming back again and again to that moment when the former police chief pushed back on the idea of having an armed guard at the synagogue.

I’ve been contemplating it ever since. About what we lose when we close a door, or put a man with a gun in front of it. Scholars have been vocal about the ways in which a newly expansive view of the Second Amendment has begun to trample on the free-speech clause of the First. As the professors Diana Palmer and Timothy Zick argued in this magazine, “People cannot exercise their speech rights when they fear for their lives.” Sitting in my synagogue that afternoon, I considered how gun rights were trampling on the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment now too. Can people properly exercise their religious rights when they fear for their lives? America’s gun culture had put a bunch of Jewish Americans in a room and made them worry about their safety, filling the space that might have welled up with questions of theology and worship with the internal noise of fear.

One thing I did not expect: In the months since the training, I have found myself a little more inclined to head to shul on a Saturday morning, to just be there, to be a part of a congregation. To be a T cell, if needed. I keep thinking back to the morning after the training, when I returned to my daily reading of psalms. I found myself drawn to Psalm 133: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!”