The front cover of The New York Times today almost made me want to buy the paper. Then I realized that I didn't have two bucks in my pocket and hurried home to the computer to read it online. If I had had two bucks, I probably would have blown it on the paper -- the news was that exciting.

They had two stories about the unemployment situation. The one that interested me was the one that said the rate of joblessness has purportedly fallen to 9.7 percent. (The other one was a human interest story about the suffering of the unemployed. I've read that one 10,000 times already.) This seemed like a significant drop to me. The news positively titillating, home I rushed, eager to read all about it online. Alas, the Times' online edition doesn't seem to include the story in question. Thank goddess for The Christian Science Monitor and Google News.

If you read this piece about the unemployment rate, you will see that 20,000 jobs were lost according to a survey which is separate from the one used to calculate the actual rate. Looks like a lot of people are getting rid of their land lines and not being included in the rate calculation survey. (Has anyone ever actually been called for this? I've been hearing about it since 1989, when I took Econ 101, but in all those years neither I nor anyone I know has ever been called by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to participate in this mythical weekly ritual.)

Seriously? The rate supposedly dropped by a very significant three tenths of a percent in one month, but the economy did not add a single job? What, did millions of people die in a catastrophe that somehow got lost in the hustle and bustle of newsrooms across this great land? Did the Swine Flu come back with a vengeance? Seriously, what am I missing here?

Because the only thing that makes a statistical claim of lowered unemployment amid continued job losses mathematically possible is a drop in population.

Oh, I see, there was a drop in population -- the population of people counted as unemployed. That doesn't mean people got jobs, just that they're not unemployed. They may be broke and sleeping with their entire families on Mom's couch, but at least they're still alive and -- thank goddess -- not unemployed.

Why weren't these people counted as unemployed? I've written about it before -- underemployment, discouragement, sample bias (people who are unemployed are less likely to have phones) -- and I'm tired of writing about it.

For once I want good news. At least the five minutes between passing the news stand and actually reading the news were kind of hopeful. Not being able to afford $2 for the paper does have its advantages.