Lose Your Job? Good for the Rest of Us

Recession lowers mortality in the population overall—even as the out-of-work individual’s risk of death rises. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Losing your job is bad—for you. But it could be good for the rest of us. Because a study shows that a recession lowers mortality in the population overall—even as the out-of-work individual’s risk of death rises. That paradoxical finding appears in the American Journal of Epidemiology. [José A. Tapia Granados et al.: Individual Joblessness, Contextual Unemployment, and Mortality Risk]

It’s easy to imagine that the stress of getting canned could pave the way to an untimely demise. But can joblessness really improve societal survival? To find out, researchers examined data from the US Department of Labor and a 20-year survey of so-called “income dynamics.” And they found that job loss is linked to a 73 percent rise in the probability of death for the newly unemployed—the equivalent of adding 10 years to his or her age.

At the same time, parsing the data state by state, the researchers found that people in general live longer during an economic downturn—an extra year for each percentage-point rise in unemployment.

One possible explanation: when the economy is strong, people commute more and sleep less—raising the risk of car crashes and job-related injuries. Such accidents are less likely when folks are sitting on their couches polishing up their resumes.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe