Youth unemployment — all countries

Youth unemployment — Guam

Youth unemployment in Guam in 2025 — 13.81%. Ranked 99 in the world out of 182. Since 1991, the indicator has risen by 6.24 pp.

2025 13.81% +0.94 pp vs 2024
World rank 99of 182
Period maximum 36.52%2000
Period minimum 7.57%1991

Trend over time

1991–2025 · % of labor force aged 15–24

Youth unemployment — Guam, 1991–202501020304019911995199920032007201120152019202320251991: 7.57%1992: 8.4%1993: 12.23%1994: 17.09%1995: 18%1996: 19.08%1997: 22.5%1998: 18.16%1999: 32.98%2000: 36.52%2001: 31.52%2002: 27.07%2003: 22.85%2004: 18.15%2005: 16.28%2006: 17.02%2007: 19.76%2008: 21.01%2009: 21.99%2010: 19.48%2011: 31.96%2012: 28.61%2013: 27.06%2014: 18%2015: 16.41%2016: 12.89%2017: 13%2018: 13.13%2019: 13.13%2020: 15.4%2021: 14.35%2022: 13.03%2023: 12.85%2024: 12.88%2025: 13.81%
Change over the period: +6.24 pp Annual average: 0.18 pp

Comparison, 2025

How the value compares with the world and the groups this territory belongs to: Guam

Guam 13.81%
World 13.41%
High-income countries computed 11.17%
Youth unemployment — Guam, by year Guam All countries CSV XLSX
Year % Change, pp
2025 13.81 +0.94 pp
2024 12.88 +0.02 pp
2023 12.85 −0.18 pp
2022 13.03 −1.32 pp
2021 14.35 −1.05 pp
2020 15.4 +2.27 pp
2019 13.13 +0.01 pp
2018 13.13 +0.13 pp
2017 13 +0.11 pp
2016 12.89 −3.52 pp
2015 16.41 −1.59 pp
2014 18 −9.07 pp
2013 27.06 −1.54 pp
2012 28.61 −3.36 pp
2011 31.96 +12.48 pp
2010 19.48 −2.51 pp
2009 21.99 +0.98 pp
2008 21.01 +1.25 pp
2007 19.76 +2.75 pp
2006 17.02 +0.74 pp
2005 16.28 −1.88 pp
2004 18.15 −4.7 pp
2003 22.85 −4.22 pp
2002 27.07 −4.45 pp
2001 31.52 −5 pp
2000 36.52 +3.54 pp
1999 32.98 +14.82 pp
1998 18.16 −4.34 pp
1997 22.5 +3.42 pp
1996 19.08 +1.09 pp
1995 18 +0.9 pp
1994 17.09 +4.86 pp
1993 12.23 +3.83 pp
1992 8.4 +0.83 pp
1991 7.57

About the indicator

The share of the economically active population aged 15–24 that is unemployed. In almost every country youth unemployment runs two to three times above the overall rate: the young have no experience, and their first entry into the labor market puts them up against more qualified workers. A sharp gap with the overall rate points to structural problems in the transition from school to work.

Source: ILOSTAT (ILO), license CC BY 4.0.