The fight isn’t really about whether this qualifies as a recession. If you have two quarters of GDP shrinkage, it’s a recession as traditionally defined. The fight is about whether it matters. Historically, recession has been strongly correlated with a shrinking labor market. People who lose their jobs don’t pay bills. People afraid of losing their jobs don’t buy stuff. That causes further GDP shrinkage. It’s a bad situation. (See the Regan definition, which is simplistic, but actually penetrates quickly to the heart of the issue.)

This recession has been accompanied by a robust job market. So if GDP is down a little, but most everyone who wants to work can get a job, why do we care?

Yeah, the market is down, but US stock holdings are overwhelmingly concentrated in the top 10% of households, who have enough money that an unrealized loss in their stock holdings isn’t going to materially impact spending behavior.

We worry about recession not because GDP itself fundamentally matters, but because it has been correlated with bad real world outcomes for normal households. If people who want jobs have them, a small recession isn’t the worst thing.