CLARKONOMICS: Recently, Clark read about an economist who jokingly called the glum state of our economy a "hecession" instead of a recession.

That's because the job losses are mainly hitting men. The Financial Times of London reports men account for 80% of the jobs that were lost since the recession began in 2007. That's over 4 million jobs lost by men vs. only 1 million lost by women. The male unemployment rate is just under 9%, while it's around 7% for women.

The reasoning behind these numbers is simple. Some of the hardest-hit sectors of the economy -- construction and manufacturing -- have been male-dominated. Women, meanwhile, tend to dominate in the relatively unscathed sectors of education and healthcare. In fact, we are on the cusp of reaching a level where more women are employed than men across the country.

But here's the good news. When the economy does recover -- and that's a "when," not an "if" -- the men who took the brunt of the hit will go back to work. Because they tend to have higher salaries than women, there will be a very positive boomerang effect that should be greater than stats suggest.

But you've also got to recognize that many manufacturing jobs are not coming back. And in construction, we'll need a smaller industry in the future than what existed in the past.

So men might want to use this downtime for education and retraining in a new career.

Finally, unemployment varies so much by region. California and North Carolina are two of the hardest-hit states. If you're looking for where the jobs are, think about "flyover" country like North and South Dakota and other heartland states.