Let's see ... if the 25-35 years old unemployment rate in France is 9-10%, but the 15-24 unemployment rate is 23%, then this doesn't necessarily mean that there is a major problem that's twice as worse than in the US.

It can just as well mean that people 15-24 who look for a job and can't find one are most probably those that didn't study long enough, the under-qualified. ie. And in a French system where studying is very important, and where 2/3rds of your peers are studying, if you quit your studies too early you'll go pump up that youth unemployment figure. How about this interpretation? Yeah, could work.

We can have all the interpretations in the world ... but it stands that Jérôme's repeat argument is about methodology. If all European countries use the entire age group as the denominator, then France should be doing as much. And if by doing that France obtains a rate comparable to other European countries, but still twice less than the US one, then to me it doesn't mean that France has a problem, particularly when we're told to look at the UK for a model to follow.

What it could mean however is that the US has a problem ... kids don't study enough there, and end up in under-qualified jobs with no benefits or protection => that could be construed as a major problem.
ie. not that (2) is true because of (1), but (2) is true because of (3): "studying late is harder in the US than in France, and finding a cheap job with no protection or benefits is easier in the US than in France". How about that interpretation. Yeah, could work too.

What I'm basically trying to say is that is that there is nothing in the world that can indicate that the 22% figure is good, or bad. No reason to suspect it either. Hell it can even bowl down to some people just being choosy ... who knows. The point is that Jérôme's argument is about methodology, not about interpretation of numbers.