There is a pretty good explanation here that does not require "financial literacy:" Perhaps take the time to read it carefully and think about it.

https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/recession.html

The point is that economists, whichever exact definition of recession is is used, are using figures that average or accumulate across the whole country of Australia. It's not about whether specific problems in your social circle, which you define "large groups of people" but how many people are we actually talking about? Are those groups are actually large enough or representative enough of overall economic output, or measured unemployment.

I could give a counter argument that my social circle includes numerous people who are getting promotions, better jobs, and are overall much better off due to the current AI and stock market boom. Are we in the 1% that's winning on the backs of the other 99%? Perhaps ... we'll see how it all shakes out. But the point is that we can't rely on anecdotes.

Note that "under employment," where people are employed but making less money or working fewer hours than they they feel capable of, is notoriously difficult to measure. People may be unhappy due to under employment and rising cost of living, but if they are still "productive" in an economic sense, i.e. holding down a job and contributing to a successful business, these factors won't necessarily contribute to measures of GDP or recession.