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.