Obama's comment was about the "private sector". I only saw part of the "news conference" to the end, so he may have answered a question. When the jobs report is issued by the BLS the first Friday of the month, often the headline is of the jobs created or lost and the "Unemployment Rate." But month after month, the private sector numbers went one way, up, while the government sector numbers went down.
It became deceptive to report the aggregate numbers and deceptive for investors or the Fed or Congress to ignore the performance of the private sector.
The data, in the attached tables last month at
bls.gov
was typical in the dichotomy of the 2 sectors. When Obama used the term "sector" he was speaking economics.
The private sector has been adding jobs while the government sector (federal and state) has been losing jobs. Except in the May report the government jobs number "changed little in May".
Obama did not say the private sector is doing well or great, which might be the case if GDP growth was 4.5% or more, but he used the word "fine". That seems not a stretch, if you look at a 5-6 month average.
I think he was referring to aggregate economic activity in the private sector distinguished from aggregate economic activity in the government sector(s), or the payroll jobs growth or decline in the two sectors.
It's like reports of a slowdown in China, that spook the financial markets depending on how reporters report it, when that might mean 7.5% to 7.9% growth, down from 10%.
Reporters even from the Wall Street Journal don't understand the difference between a slower rate of growth and zero growth and a real decline in GDP for 2 consecutive quarters. They repeatedly give investors buying opportunities while shaking out those who read headlines or watch TV for financial news. |
