The US job market lost in November only 11,000 jobs, much better than what economists expected. The four month average is a minus of 103,000 jobs per month. This indeed are better numbers than what the economy had a while ago, but
- When the economy gained on average 141,000 jobs leading up to the 2006 midterm elections, was it reported as a good economy?
- When the economy gained on average 169,000 jobs leading up to the 2004 president elections, was it reported as a strong economy?
- When the economy lost on average 42,000 jobs leading up to the 2002 midterm elections, was it reported as a recovering economy?
- When the economy gained on average 106,000 jobs leading up to the 1992 president election, was it reported as a strong economy?
The answer to all these questions is… No. They were not reported for what they really were, mainly so in ‘992 when a monthly gain of 106,000 jobs meant much more to the economy than what it means today. But of course, it was the economy, stupid. Right?
A good or weak economy depends more on the President and the agenda of media people, rather than what it really means to people on the street.
p.s. for the record: Thursday morning, Dec 2, I tweeted the following: “I wont B surprised if tom’s official job report is better than t ADP report of -160K, or t MW survey of economist that expect -100K.”
I wasn’t surprised
