The rest of you can read it too, but I can't be responsible for any brain damage you might suffer.

Dear Overpaid Economist:

The Labor Department last Friday announced that only 1,000 new jobs were produced in the final month of 2003, a decidedly disappointing number considering that virtually all you economists were predicting growth of 150,000 or more. You can be excused somewhat for your over-exuberance, because an economy that is supposedly growing as fast as ours should be producing double what you were predicting.

If you read this column last Thursday you already know that I'm gloating because my sources and I thought the number could be a "big disappointment."

But high-fives aside, the economists are being sabotaged by the old "garbage in, garbage out" problem - you are only as good as the raw data you are using to draw your conclusions.

Here are some of the main problems.

1. All the labor numbers are wrong, but the figures for December are horribly inaccurate. My sources and I think the reason is that the month's seasonal adjustments were thrown out of whack by the highly unusual patterns caused by the terrorism in 2001, which are still affecting the numbers today.

2. That means the January employment number will probably also be a surprise, but this time to the upside. The same December-bad, January-good pattern held last year.

3. But also hidden in the January employment figures - to be announced the first Friday in February - will be a downward adjustment of 145,000 jobs that has already been announced by the Labor Department.

So, even if the January figures are better than expected, there really won't be many new jobs in the real world. That 145,000 loss is from an annual benchmark revision that usually is done in May.

4. Your biggest mistake is calculating job growth based on the supposed expansion of the nation's gross domestic product.

Economists are assuming that GDP growth figures being released by Washington are correct. In the first place, even if you believe the 8.2 percent annual GDP growth reported in the third quarter, you already know that the fourth-quarter growth figures will probably be half that amount.

But even that 4 percent annual growth is being pumped up in Washington by some false assumptions about inflation. If you keep inflation statistics down artificially - and Washington has done that nicely for a decade - then you keep GDP up.

And while overly optimistic job growth assumptions may make politicians and Wall Street happy, the businessmen who actually do the hiring won't fall for the trick. They hire and fire people based on what they see happening to their business, not because Washington is putting out some cock-and-bull GDP figure.

5. There is also, of course, the issue of companies moving jobs overseas and the effect of the recently vibrant stock market.

Look at it this way: A chief executive has a major hunk of his company's stock, which has been rising nicely - probably too well - this year. So he keeps expenses down by not hiring workers or by employing people in lower-cost countries. Does anyone expect him to do differently?

Start earning your pay. Look at what's under the numbers Washington is handing out.

Regards,

John

*Please send e-mail to: jcrudele@nypost.com