Dingleberry Special

Well, it was time to report the jobless numbers for January. There was an increase of 36,000 jobs, but the unemployment rate went from 9.4% to 9%. I don't know about you, but 36,000 does not sound like .4% of the working population. This lovely dingleberry of wisdom raised a lot of eyebrows. Anyone that remembered enough of sixth grade math ran that calculation through their head and said, "huh?". The explanation was an even bigger example of statistical dinglberryism. According to expert sources the numbers for last year were adjusted, so now 36,000 is really 250,000, which should translate into .4%. If you are scratching your head or reading the previous sentence over to make sure you saw it correctly, it still doesn't make sense. If 36,000 equals 250,000, please sign me up for that conversion on payday. Should you find a real answer to this question, please help us scrub away the dinglberries and get to the butt of this one. Realistically, there is no scenario that allows us to have that number go down and there has never been a time that the number is representative of true unemployment in the US. There are people that have exhausted their benefits and others that are drawing pay under the table. Did any of you really think that stats could be trusted? Well maybe, doesn't truth mark the point where investigation ceases, which means maybe this time truth is nothing more than lazy research.