NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - If you are one of the nearly 1 million people who have lost a job since 2001, keep in mind it wasn't because of macro-economics. You're simply a loser.

Got a problem with that? Take it up with the National Bureau of Economic Research. That's the august body that pinpoints business cycles in the United States. Its seven-member dating committee has decided that the latest recession, at least the latest one we know about, started in March 2001 (well before 9/11) and ended November 2001.

Since then, we've been in a recovery phase.

Huh? About 938,000 people have lost their jobs since November 2001. Factory output has retreated eight times since then, not counting the months when it just stagnated. Airlines and retailers have gone bankrupt and huge budget deficits have mounted.

This is a recovery?

"What's the expression? 'If your neighbor loses his job, it's a recession, but if you lose your job, it's a depression?' Maybe it depends on who's making the definition," said Anthony Crescenzi, a bond market strategist with Miller, Tabak & Co. in New York.

In this case the seven folks making the definition -- six economic professor types (including former Ronald Reagan adviser Martin Feldstein) and a Conference Board economist -- seem really out of touch with the nightly news.

And if they're right, the boss lied in the sit-down. You know, the one where he or she somberly went over the fact that "business hasn't been good" and "times are tough" and "we've had to make some hard decisions" ... then handed you your walking papers.

That was all just a line to make you feel better. Macro-economics wasn't to blame, you were. You didn't get laid off, you got fired you incompetent boob.

Just kidding.

It's more the "jobless recovery" or "growth recession" phenomenon you hear the wonks talk about. Basically, an hour's worth of extra sweat from your co-worker is worth more than a full shift of you. If more people bought stuff from your company, it might be worth it to have you back for the full shift again. But that ain't happening.

And to be fair, the board's date-the-recession committee is looking more at GDP and broad economic indicators when pegging the dreaded recession dates.

"They look at many things ... If you go by the old definitions of jobs and industrial output, we've gone in and out of recession (since November 2001)," said bond strategist Crescenzi.

And the committee admits up front that its findings may not be reflected in the real-time world.

"Economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion," the economists warned in their announcement.

All right, so it may still feel like a recession, even though it actually ended a year-and-a-half ago. But dang it, at least now we know it ended. That means we can ... well ... ah, say that the recession is over?

The fact is the economy, especially to people out of work, still looks, feels, smells and sounds like it is in a recession. And all the postulating about real incomes and GDP performance isn't going to change that. Then again, at least those economists have jobs.  

Allen Wastler is Managing Editor of CNN/Money and a commentator on CNNfn. He can be e-mailed at allen.wastler@turner.com.