Male unemployment at 10.5%.

The word of the day is ‘Gulp.’

[UPDATE]: welcome, Instapundit readers.  Umm… Zombies, cricket, and/or Tom Clancy?

Glenn Reynolds called this graph ‘scary’:


…which it is, mostly because of the implications of what the male unemployment rate is going to be when general unemployment hits double-digits; but it’s not scary enough. So I’ve improved it a touch:


…which I think will probably help get the underlying message a bit more attention. Particularly since the measures that we use to measure unemployment now are not the ones that we’ve used in the past. So there may be even a worse situation looming, from a sociological point view; I’m not even remotely one myself, but I do know that one of the basic rules of thumb is having too many young, unemployed males in the population is bad for a society’s stability.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, now would be a really good time to read up on 19th Century European history.

Just a hint.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

3 thoughts on “Male unemployment at 10.5%.”

  1. Depends upon whom or what constitutes the Male Unemployed. If such metrics as (Lower) crime rates in Los Angeles and Denver and the rate of remittances to Mexico are any indicators, a significant majority of what we think to be the Male Unemployed are no longer in the country. Conversely, there’s quite the rampup in violence in Mexico, and I’m certain it doesn’t fully involve the narco-terrorists.

Comments are closed.