AP file photo: Like or dislike?

I spoke to Stephen Hyduke for a story today about the outlook for the summer tourism season and jotted down a note on an issue I wanted to get back to.

Hyduke lives in Delaware Township, Hunterdon County, and he and his wife had always wanted a house at the Shore. After the recession, they jumped at the chance, purchasing a home in Point Pleasant Beach.

Here's the kicker: He chose that course instead of investing in the stock market. Why? At least if housing prices decline, he'll still have a place to live.

It made me wonder how many folks are following a similar path, not necessarily buying a second home, but swearing off the stock market as too nerve-wracking and choosing something else - alpacas, government bonds, gold, money markets.

The investment experts I routinely talk to for stories are big on dividend-paying stocks, which offer investors a return no matter their stocks' performances...unless companies are struggling and cut their dividends to save cash. Most recently, J.C. Penney.

Maybe some numbers will help:

Dow's peak: 14,164  Oct. 9, 2007
Dow's low (post housing bubble): 6,547 March 9, 2007
Now: 12,525 May 24, 10:41 a.m.

So....If you bought a Dow index at the peak, you are down about 12 percent in 4-1/2 years.

If you bought when things were bleakest, you are up 91 percent.

But really, I wanted to throw this question out there. Have you sworn off the stock market? And if so, what are you doing instead?

NJ Press Media file photo of the governor.

The CEO panel at Rutgers University yesterday spent a lot of time extolling the virtues of Gov. Christie and his leadership skills. So refreshing is he that A.) he has turned around what was one of the nation's worst business climates and B.) he has gotten even Democrats to talk about the need for tax cuts, even if they're not his tax cuts.

The numbers tell a different story. The state's unemployment rate of 9.1 percent is a full percentage point higher than the nation's. And, as Rutgers economist James W. Hughes pointed out, while the nation has recovered nearly half of the private-sector jobs it lost during the recession, New Jersey has recovered about 29 percent of its lost private-sector jobs.

At first glance, that is a pretty big disconnect. But I should probably take my own advice. In this decade, short-term payoffs are out. Long-term results are in.

With that in mind, there are signs Christie's strategy, while not showing dividends right now, might soon. Hughes noted that the state's private-sector job growth, which lagged the nation for a decade, outpaced the nation last year.

And results of a CEO survey showed that nearly a quarter of them said New Jersey is an excellent or good place to do business. While that's not great, it beats the 12 percent who said the same thing in 2009.

The governor deserves part of the blame for my focus on immediate results. His New Jersey Comeback slogan reminds me of the football player who spiked the ball before getting to the end zone. Any notion that all this recovery needs is some strong leadership ignores the facts on the ground, the latest of which was the report of a giant shortfall in tax revenue. I prefer "New Jersey's Slow and Steady Growth."

Which is why I'm not in politics. Or advertising. But Bernard Flynn, the CEO of New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., summed up the business climate changes this way: "It will be years in the making."

APP file photo: How do you deal with scary customers?

So there I was, enjoying my Saturday morning breakfast and newspaper at Zoe's Kitchen in Atlantic Highlands, when a lady who looked awfully like a prominent socialite sat down at the counter and ordered soup to go.

I wasn't paying attention, but I guess she inquired about her order. The server said they were just heating it up, prompting her to scold her: "I ordered it cold. I said I wanted it cold!"

I would have left it there. Some customers are demanding. Doesn't affect me at all. But then the server brought out the soup in a bag and the bill: $5.35. To which the lady said, "I'm not paying that. Here's $5. That's all I have." And she walked out.

"She doesn't like paying the sales tax," the server told me. Which does affect me and you and everyone else.

Which prompted a discussion about customer service. It's my belief that the customer-is-always-right era is over. At some point, it isn't worth the hassle or cost to keep a relationship with the highest-maintenance customers going.

And I wonder what you think about that? What are your best customer-oriented horror stories? How did you deal with it?

AP file photo: See that guy guarding Jeremy Lin? That's us.

Bamboozle begins today. Six Flags Great Adventure rolled out the SkyScreamer. Cloudless sky. What could possibly bring down my mood today?

Glad you asked:

*New Jersey's economy added 2,600 jobs in April, which wasn't enough to accommodate all of the new workers entering the labor force. The good news is that folks might be feeling better about their chances of finding work. The bad news is that, well, they aren't finding work.

*Americans' net worth has declined to a level not seen since 1995, J.H. Cohn's director of economic research Patrick J. O'Keefe told me yesterday.

*I think that was before the Dow slumped, ending the day below 12,500. Look out, 1994.

*New Jersey attracted more than $3 billion in private equity in 2011, the Private Equity Growth Capital Council reported this week, good enough for 16th nationwide.

*Sixteenth? We're like the Miami Heat's Mario Chalmers of states. Serviceable. But no superstar. Top five were Texas, New York, California, North Carolina and...Oklahoma.

*Yet for some reason, if feels like below the surface there is a lot happening. In the past week, I've written about start-up companies - from coffee roasters to software developers - that seem to be finding traction. And I've found resilient workers who lost their jobs, re-trained and are close to finding work again.

*What do you all think? Is the glass half-empty or half-full right now?

NJ Press Media file photo of Rutgers' graduation.

As Monmouth University prepares for its graduation today, the importance of a college degree has come under question, for reasons I can't fully understand.

Maybe it's because college grads are having trouble finding jobs. Maybe it's because they are loaded with debt.

Under particular scrutiny are liberal arts majors - such as myself - who based on recent talk have trouble tying their shoes.

I always thought my major served me well. Sure I didn't know anything about economics, business, or, for that matter, journalism. But I thought it helped me think critically, figure out which questions to ask and communicate well, all of which I use most days.

And then I started writing about the heavy demand for what used to be known as blue-collar jobs like manufacturers and auto mechanics. And about the need for folks with professional degrees - nurses, accountants, pharmacists. And I wondered: Are we on our way out?

Not quite. Here are the simple facts: The unemployment rate for a worker with a bachelor's degree or higher was 4 percent in April, according to the Labor Department. Far less than a worker with an associate's degree (7.6 percent), a high school diploma (7.9 percent), and a high school diploma (12.5 percent).

And career experts at Monmouth and Rutgers told me this week that liberal arts majors are in demand; they just need to understand how their skills translate into the workplace.

"These are words, but they’re more than words," Richard White, Rutgers' director of career services said. "This is part of the challenge we have trying to help our students understand the skills they are developing.

"When they write a paper and do well in a course, they're actually completing a project, planning it, implementing it, submitting it in a timely fashion. These are projects. They are what we call transferable skills, transferring accomplishments in a classroom to a work setting. This is why I’m a big believer in the liberal arts."

He wasn't the only one.

"Frankly, the vast number of employers that contact Monmouth University are not looking for a specific degree, but good communication skills, attention to detail, good basic computer skills, which certainly a liberal arts major would be able to pursue," William Hill, Monmouth's assistant dean of career services, said.

An example of critical thinking? If you do have trouble tying your shoes, buy some Crocs.

AP file photo

JPMorgan Chase's $2 billion trading loss serves as a reminder that several banks remain so large that one mistake makes them ticking time bombs.

The question is, do we really need a reminder? It's only been four years since Wall Street crumbled, sending the unemployment rate to a 30-year high and forcing taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions to bail them out.

The government responded with Dodd-Frank, a set of regulations to prevent a repeat. It wasn't strong enough to save JPMorgan from itself. But the bank is well enough capitalized to cover the loss so taxpayers wouldn't have to.

That we're still in a position where one of the giant banks could topple the economy again is shocking.  One of capitalism's charms is that individuals can make mistakes. But it's their mistake. The rest of us have our own jobs waiting for us.

Unless you're a huge bank. If they make a mistake, we all pay. Maybe banks become cautious and slow their lending. Maybe the stock market falls. And although Dodd-Frank expressly prohibits Congress from using taxpayer money to bail them out, let's be real. Congress can either bail them out or brace for a Depression-like unemployment rate.

By the way, if you don't think taxpayers aren't still steamed about the bank bailout of '08, check out the results of the Republican primary in Indiana.

As Scott Rasmussen, an Asbury Park pollster and frequent Fox News guest told me a couple of months ago, voters are beyond angry about the system of crony capitalism that appears to be pervasive; they're, convinced there is little distinction between Wall Street and Congress.

How do you think Congress will respond to the JPMorgan loss?

APP file photo of a little starter home in Seaside.

The median price of a single-family home in Central New Jersey was $292,400 during the first quarter, down 3.6 percent from the same quarter a year ago, a report from the National Association of Realtors said Wednesday.

The decline comes even though some of the local Realtors I ran into - OK, one, my own - said January and February were very busy. But her experience seemed to jibe with what housing experts have been saying for a couple of months now: We soon should be on a path of slow, sustainable growth.

Housing expert Jeffrey Otteau said the first quarter figures aren't quite up-to-date since sales are taking longer to close. He said pending sales were up 25 percent in the first quarter, and the expected boost to prices should show up later this year.

His first-quarter price figures show:

Monmouth County: Down 3.8 percent.
Ocean County: Down 7.3 percent.
Middlesex County: Down 9.7 percent.
Morris County: Down 2.6 percent.
Somerset County: Down 8.8 percent
Hunterdon County: Down 5.6 percent.

Some other thoughts:

*Is anyone else surprised that mortgage rates remain below 4 percent? From a housing perspective, it's great since it keeps homes more affordable. From an economics perspective, it's puzzling because it means investors still are flocking to safe-havens such as bonds. Think about it. Investors would rather settle for a return of less than 4 percent than risk it in the stock market.

*The decline in median home prices might not be reason to fret. Particularly if lots of first-time home buyers came into the market and bought lots of entry-level homes. If that happened - and that's making a huge assumption - it would mean more middle-class folks are getting approved for loans the old-fashioned way. By having steady jobs with steady income.

*Other tidbits from the report: U.S. median home prices dipped .4 percent during the quarter. The Northeast took the biggest hit, falling 3.2 percent. Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla., rose the most, 28.1 percent. Kingston, NY, fell the most, 22 percent.

*Realtors and mortgage pros, what are you seeing out there?

APP file photo: Banker man sees reason for hope.

The economy's slow growth of the past couple of years can be explained in part by the banks' tighter credit standards. No longer can you get a loan simply by proving you are alive. Now, you need things like steady income and collateral in case you lose that income.

It was always unfair to expect banks to loosen their reins on lending. For one, consumers were scarcely in a position to borrow more money after they spent a decade digging themselves deep into debt. For another, banker man (shout out to Bruce) needed to sock away more money to brace for tighter regulations.

There was no magical formula. No outside the box thinking. No Wall Street wizardry. The only solution was time. Time for consumers to pay off debt. Time for unemployed workers to get hired. Time for banks to feel confident that the loans they already had on the books wouldn't go delinquent.

We might have reached that point. Two local banks - Two River Community Bank and Rumson-Fair Haven Bank & Trust - reported growth in their loan portfolios during the first quarter. OceanFirst Financial didn't spell out its loan volume in its earnings report, but it said that its provision for loan losses remained the same as it was last year - a sign that it didn't need to set aside anymore money to cover bad loans.

"Locally, our economy seems to reflect some strengthening in certain sectors. As a result, we have experienced an increase in loan demand as loans reached a new high at quarter end," William D. Moss, chief executive officer of Two River Bank's parent company, said in a statement.

It put the state's chief economist Charles Steindel in a terrible position - cheerleading for Gov. Christie instead of providing economic analysis.

And it gave us a behind-the-scenes glimpse of how the administration handles facts that run counter to its relentless message of the New Jersey Comeback.

A timeline:

*11:41 a.m.: The Department of Labor and Workforce Development sends a press release with the headline: "Unemployment Rate Unchanged at 9 Percent; Employer Payrolls Lower in March."

In it, the department says New Jersey lost 8,600 jobs in March, "but the longer-term employment trend remains positive."

And it provides reporters a quote from Steindel, the chief economist for the New Jersey Department of Treasury: "While over 60,000 private sector jobs have been created since the beginning of the administration, just like on the national level, we aren't immune to interruptions in growth. However, we are confident that considering the sound economic policies that have been put in place and that this administration continues to pursue, the longer-term employment trend remains positive."

Ok, fair enough. Christie's economist likes his boss's policies and, quite reasonably, explains that New Jersey's growth can be interrupted from month to month. Hey, man, stuff happens. We're coming out of a disastrous recession. The economy is shaky. Gas prices rise, the weather gets unseasonable, Europe falters. That's economics.

*11:53 a.m. The Labor Department sends an email, saying it would like to recall the previous message.

No problem. I'd sent a few tweets about the release. But we all make mistakes.

*12:02 p.m. Another email, this time in all red capital letters: PLEASE BE ADVISED INCORRECT MONTHLY EMPLOYMENT DATA WAS EMAILED UPDATED RELEASE TO FOLLOW

Well, that would make sense. I mean, the initial report said New Jersey lost 11,600 private-sector jobs. Even though the nation's job market slowed down in March, it still managed to add private-sector jobs. Maybe the calculation was wrong.

*12:59 p.m. Another press release. This one is the final version. The numbers are exactly the same.

There is only one change - Steindel's quote. This time, he says: "New Jersey’s economy has expanded steadily throughout the first two years of the Christie Administration, creating thousands of private sector jobs. The majority of indicators suggest that New Jersey employment growth will continue over the long term, creating a stronger economy for everyone.”

What? There is no mention of March's figures. No explanation of what might have happened. Why, after two months of really solid growth, did employers seem to fold up shop? Only a revised quote that offers stronger praise for the Christie Administration, more tightly written.

I called the Labor Department to ask what happened. A spokesperson said the department accidentally sent out the release without getting final approval.

Was Steindel mad? Did he yell at them? You'll have to ask him, the spokesperson said.

I called Steindel this morning. What happened with the release? He declined to talk about it. "That's a procedural thing and just not my area," he said.

Here's the problem: The unemployment report both in New Jersey and the U.S. is politically loaded. A good report and the person in charge takes credit. A bad report and the person in charge takes blame. It has become very difficult to cut through the clutter and figure out how the job market is doing. What policies work? What policies don't work? Should the government change course?

I don't blame Steindel. In fact, I doubt he had much to do with it. But taxpayers are paying his salary and deserve an honest assessment of the economy. We have more than enough political operatives.

AP file photo

CEOs of the S&P 500 were paid on average $12.9 million in 2011, up 14 percent from the previous year, the AFL-CIO union group reported today.

It means the average CEO makes 380 times the average worker.

Chances are, the 99 percenters didn't keep pace. In 2010, CEOs got a 23 percent pay increase on average. Workers' didn't keep up; they got on average a 2.8 percent raise, bringing their average pay to about $34,000.

To say that executives and corporate boards are tone deaf on this issue would put it mildly. Citigroup shareholders earlier this week pulled off the once unthinkable, voting down CEO Vikram Pandit's $15 million compensation package. The vote itself was required by Dodd-Frank Act.

Alas, the law didn't make the shareholders' vote binding. Pandit still gets the money.