Broader Jobless Rate Jumps to 14.8%

The Wall Street Journal ^ | June 1, 2012 | Phil Izzo

[SteelToe]

The U.S. unemployment rate ticked up to 8.2% in May and a broader measure rose even more to 14.8%. But the increases belied a slightly positive trend.

The increase in the jobless rate primarily came from people returning to the labor force. The unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are without jobs, who are available to work and who have actively sought work in the prior four weeks. The “actively looking for work” definition is fairly broad, including people who contacted an employer, employment agency, job center or friends; sent out resumes or filled out applications; or answered or placed ads, among other things. The rate is calculated by dividing that number by the total number of people in the labor force. When the unemployed return to the labor force, both numbers increase and the unemployment rate climbs.

In May, the number of unemployed dropped rose by 220,000, but so did the number of people employed — by an even bigger 422,000. But the overall labor force jumped by 642,000, indicating that some of the jobless who dropped out are searching for work again.

When people leave the labor force it could be due to discouragement of the long-term unemployed or by choice over retirement or child care. The labor force has dropped dramatically over the course of recession and recovery, and concerns have been raised it was due to discouraged workers.

[Standing Wolf]

Oh. I get it. Another summer of recovery.

[Lurker]

That’s damn near Depression level.

[Noob1999]

..................In May, the number of unemployed dropped rose by 220,000, but so did the number of people employed — by an even bigger 422,000...................

English as a second language didn’t work out so good.

Where do I place a comma to try to make sense of of this;
“the number of unemployed dropped rose by 220,000,”

[publius911]

Bottom line for me...

Is there a web site which regularly keeps track of the actual unemployment rate?
Please, anyone?

I view this propaganda game identically as I do the official government "cost of living," numbers, which fail to include all of the essential necessities of modern life. In any other context the official figures could be prosecuted for fraud.