Axios Macro

November 19, 2025
Crank up the *NSYNC and pop "Shrek" into the DVD player, because today we take a trip down macro memory lane. We're looking back at the 2000-2003 business cycle — and particularly the uncanny similarities between where the economy stood in 2000 and where it stands now.
- Plus, the latest commentary from homebuilders on prices.
👀 Situational awareness: This afternoon, the Federal Reserve releases minutes of its late-October meeting, which should be spicier than usual, given deep divides among top officials over whether rates should be cut further. 🌶
- Also, the much-delayed September jobs report is due out tomorrow morning. We'll be covering it all at Axios.com.
Today's newsletter, edited by Ben Berkowitz and copy edited by Katie Lewis, is 863 words, a 3.5-minute read.
1 big thing: What to expect if this cycle mirrors 2001


A booming stock market, fueled by a few buzzy names. CEOs predicting huge productivity gains from new technologies. Robust GDP growth, but job creation starting to crack.
- That was the situation in the year 2000, and is the situation today, only accentuated by a sell-off in some of this cycle's big-name stocks the last few days.
The big picture: A close look at what happened during that turn-of-the-century business cycle can shed light on what might happen in the next couple of years, as companies implement labor-saving AI advances across their operations and investors wrestle with priced-for-perfection asset markets.
- In that episode, GDP growth remained mostly solid, even amid a popping asset bubble. Consumer spending held up. But the job market was weak for years.
Flashback: The S&P 500 peaked in March 2000 before beginning a long bear market. Job growth turned consistently negative in early 2001.
- The economists who make these calls would eventually conclude that there was a short recession in 2001, but it was a curious kind of recession — and at best a borderline call.
- GDP never fell for two consecutive quarters. GDP was narrowly up (0.2%) in 2001 and returned to solid growth in 2002. The GDP slump was caused by a collapse in investment in telecommunications equipment.
- Personal consumption expenditures, the biggest driver of overall economic activity, were positive every single quarter of the cycle — boosted by 2001 tax cuts and Fed interest rate cuts.
Yes, but: GDP bounced back quickly, but the job market didn't. For workers, it was a long, jobless recovery.
- After shedding 1.7 million jobs in 2001, employers cut another 518,000 in 2002. Year-on-year job growth was still negative as late as November 2003, two full years after the recession had technically ended.
- At year-end 2003, total employment was lower than it had been at the end of 1999 — while America's economic output was 10% higher.
Between the lines: This combination of solid GDP growth and continued job losses reflected soaring productivity.
- Corporate America was finally getting the bang for its buck out of years of information technology investment. A wave of outsourcing and offshoring — enabled by tech advances and globalization — meant that they could keep growing economic output with fewer hours of work by American labor.
- High productivity growth, in other words, can make society richer in the long run while causing, or at least coinciding with, a painful period of adjustment for workers.
Reality check: There may or may not be a correction ahead for this generation's big-name stocks, and generative AI may or may not live up to the promises of its biggest enthusiasts.
- But the early 2000s experience shows that even if there is a significant rewiring of the economy ahead, it won't necessarily translate into a recession, or at least not a severe one.
- Yet the adjustment period for workers probably won't be much fun, no matter how things look in the National Income and Product Accounts.
2. Homebuilders turn to price cuts


A record share of homebuilders reported slashing prices this month to entice buyers to come off the sidelines.
Why it matters: For years, the housing market has been mired by an affordability crisis that isn't letting up — which the White House is racing to address.
- Builders are increasingly taking steps to lure new homebuyers into the market.
Between the lines: The majority of homebuilders — 59% — are still holding the line on prices, according to a monthly survey by the National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo.
- Still, the growing share that say they are easing costs points to America's lackluster demand for new homes.
What they're saying: "We continue to see demand-side weakness as a softening labor market and stretched consumer finances are contributing to a difficult sales environment," Robert Dietz, chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders, wrote in a blog post.
- The NAHB said "more builders are using incentives to get deals closed ... but many potential buyers still remain on the fence."
- The group says that despite a recent drop in mortgage rates, buyers remain hesitant because of concerns about inflation and the labor market.
Zoom in: Builders reported an average price cut of about 6% in November, the same rate as October.
- Roughly 65% of builders said they were using sales incentives — like mortgage buydowns — a share that has held steady since September.
The bottom line: Tariffs are contributing to higher construction costs. A record number of builders say they're cutting prices anyway.
Sign up for Axios Macro


