We will still be reeling from (three) dismal economic data reports as we look ahead to what likely be more disappointing news in the week beginning June 9.

To briefly recap, the warning a week ago was prescient: “This will be the week to concentrate on labor markets – and to take cover. The news is not likely to be good.”

The news that disappointed was bunched at the end of the week, not a positive lead-in to the critical data to come. The biggest negative surprise came from the monthly employment report in which the Bureau of Labor Statistics said the unemployment rate jumped to 5.5% from 5.0% -- the largest one-month jump since 1986. At the same time, the number of individuals unemployed soared by 861,000 – the largest one-month increase since 1975.

There were some glib explanations, the first of which suggested a data glitch. Then, too, some observers noted the May increase coincided with the close of college semesters. The flaw with the college argument is unemployment is measured during the week of the month including the twelfth calendar day – before most college spring semesters were over. Historically, we haven’t seen a jump in May unemployment which would coincide with the end of school. Indeed, while unemployment did increase in May in four of the last six years, the average increase was 51,000. In the two years in which unemployment declined in May, the average drop was 137,500.

Aside from that, the data are seasonally adjusted which is statistics-speak means they are changed to account for known and quantifiable seasonal impacts such as holidays and other events which might affect the numbers.

There was possible positive spin to the sharp bump in unemployment. Here, a slight classroom explanation is necessary. To be considered unemployed, an individual not only has to be out of work but must be actively seeking employment. In times of economic stress, when jobs are scarce, the unemployment rate sometimes drops as individuals stop looking for work and are no considered unemployed. When the economy starts to improve, individuals who have been on the sidelines resume their job search and are counted as unemployed, sending both the numbers and the rate up.

Consider a hypothetical society with 11 individuals of working age, nine of whom have jobs, with one of the two jobless not even bothering to look. The total labor force, consisting of “employed” and “unemployed” would be 10 with one not in the labor force. The unemployment rate would be 10% or 1 divided by 10. As the economy of our society improves, the one individual who wasn’t bothering to look for work starts to look. Now we have a labor force of 11 (nine employed and two unemployed) with an unemployment rate of 2 divided by 11 or 18%, so as the economy improves, the unemployment rate increases.

Unfortunately, that probably wasn’t the case in May since the job opportunities declined with private sector payrolls falling.

The more likely explanation is one of desperation: Individuals without jobs who began to look for work because they need the income -- perhaps a non-working spouse seeking to supplement the family income. Those re-entrants to the labor force would account for both the increase in the number of unemployed and the rate, exacerbated by the fact 285,000 fewer individuals had jobs in May than in April.

The sharp increase in the unemployment rate was a concern of bankers meeting earlier last week, who worried a spike in unemployment would lead to further mortgage delinquencies and loan losses, especially as home values drop. We learned of the drop in home values with the reports at the end of May and of a sharp increase in mortgage delinquencies one day before the latest employment report. An even higher unemployment rate could be on the way, with the report last Wednesday from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas of a 15% increase in layoff announcements in May, one month after a 68% increase in such announcements.

That’s the shaky groundwork for data in the upcoming week, which will include two labor-related reports beyond the weekly data on initial unemployment-insurance claims. The focus is on the consumer, with Thursday’s report on retail sales and Friday’s reports on the consumer price index and consumer sentiment. Two are likely to add to concerns about the resiliency of the consumer.

The retail sales report is one of those data sets which has to be read in pieces. The headline number (excluding auto sales) may look reasonably strong for one reason: gasoline, which in April took about 13 cents of every dollar spent by consumers. Including sales at gasoline stations, non-auto sales rose 0.5% in April, a relatively strong gain. Without gasoline-station sales, retail activity contracted 0.2%.

Friday’s CPI report is expected by collective wisdom of economists to show a relatively small increase in consumer prices both for the “all-item” index and the “core” index, which excludes food and energy, thanks to a slowing economy and reduced spending. Thursday’s report on import prices will offer a one-day-early clue to the direction of prices. If the forecasts are accurate, a drop in the inflation rate would allow the Federal Open Market Committee to refocus on the slowing economy. Remember, the Federal Reserve operates with two legislative mandates: to stabilize prices (inflation) and foster “maximum sustainable economic growth,” something which a 5.5% unemployment rate doesn’t suggest.

The University of Michigan will weigh in Friday with its survey of consumer sentiment which historically has tracked both gasoline and stock prices. (The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index generally tracks employment.) With gasoline and stock prices moving in opposite directions – and not the way drivers and investors want – a further dip in the sentiment index is likely.

Mark Lieberman is the senior economist for the Fox Business Network. Prior to joining FOX, he served as first vice president at Washington Mutual, where he was manager of economic analysis and research. Before that, he served as senior vice president at Dime Savings Bank of New York (which was later acquired by Washington Mutual), where he specialized in credit and risk management. He has a degree in Economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.