Dillow's expertly-argued point, that far from the 2.49 million figure touted by the government, real unemployment in the UK is more than twice that figure (and was over 4 million even before the downturn) should surely prompt the question "is there no better way to organise things such that everyone who wants to work can find a decent job?"
The solution is not simply a question of minor policy adjustments, nor the degree of state intervention in the labour market: As Dillow points out, in the light-touch United States the real rate of unemployment is even higher. He thus concludes that mass unemployment is inevitable, and his analysis of historical trends certainly appears to support that conclusion.
But isn't it about time we started to think about poverty and unemployment in the same way that the abolitionists thought about slavery; or the suffragettes about votes for women, or campaigners for civil rights about racism: all things that are morally wrong and therefore unacceptable in a civilized society?
It's only because those involved in these great historical struggles for justice and equality refused to accept the status quo, that society has made such progress in the last two centuries. But in respect of similar injustices that are part and parcel of the economic system, nobody seems able to make the moral case for change, or offer a coherent plan.
Anti-capitalists may know what they are against, but where is the intellectual wing of that movement? And why no effort to target the millions of ordinary citizens, disenfranchised economically, and disillusioned politically, who know they're getting a rough deal, but are still told there is no alternative, two decades after Margaret Thatcher was booted out of No 10.
There could be an alternative if only people in sufficient numbers became aware of the possibility. But currently, despite our living in a 'mature' democracy, a small minority of citizens continue set the political and economic agendas. Yes, the rest of us are given a choice at election time, but only between different versions of the same, minority-favouring, recipe.
As anyone with an understanding of classical economic theory will know, unemployment arises when people are unable to gain productive access to one or more of the factors of production (land, labour and capital). You don't need statistics to realise that the distribution of land, and access to capital, are both skewed heavily in favour of the already wealth. It could be argued that everyone at least has control over their own labour, but even that is little help if you lack the right skills to sell in a competitive labour market.
Most of those who want to work but can't find jobs are denied access to these essential factors of production by others who have secured for themselves an unfair share. Until society recognises this, and until we move away from an economy which actively encourages the maldistribution of economic resources and opportunities, then a large swathe of the population will have no hope of betterment.
Having let another decade slip by without progress, dare we allow ourselves a little hope for the next one?

