[surely_you_jest]

Microeconomies do (nonetheless) reflect the broader trends captured by larger scale metrics. They typically exhibit higher standard deviation (due to localized influences), but the fact is that if the economy as a whole offers falling unemployment and rising wages, it is more likely than not that both John in Minnesota and Tammy in Florida will benefit. One may certainly lose their job due to outsourcing or downsizing, but it is far better for that to occur in a growing economy than in a shrinking one.

All true, and insofar as your post goes, we are in violent agreement.

My point is that individuals' perceptions are typically formed by the microeconomy in which they exist and function. Which, as you point out, may exhibit higher levels of deviation from the norm than does the overall economy. And thus, the disconnect between some people's perception, and the reality of the macroeconomy.

[andy58-in-nh]

...individuals' perceptions are typically formed by the microeconomy in which they exist and function. Which, as you point out, may exhibit higher levels of deviation from the norm than does the overall economy.

Ah, yes - but - when there is a remarkable consistency in the direction of the deviation, one must assume a common external influence is at work. In the case of our economy, one might reasonably expect that perceptions would vary (by orders of magnitude inversely proportional to sample size) in both directions; positive and negative. What we see though, is a consistent negative bias, which is a fair description, as it turns out, for the influence of the mainstream media in shaping people's opinions about the economy, and about much else as well.