DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES

IZA DP No. 4147

Does Job Loss Cause Ill Health?

Martin Salm

April 2009

Forschungsinstitut
zur Zukunft der Arbeit
Institute for the Study
of Labor
 Does Job Loss Cause Ill Health?

Martin Salm
Tilburg University
and IZA

Discussion Paper No. 4147

April 2009

IZA

P.O. Box 7240

53072 Bonn
Germany

Phone: +49-228-3894-0
Fax: +49-228-3894-180
E-mail: [email protected]

Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in
this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions.

The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center
and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit
organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of
Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and
conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i)
original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of
policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public.

IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion.
Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be
available directly from the author.
IZA Discussion Paper No. 4147
April 2009

ABSTRACT

Does Job Loss Cause Ill Health?*

This study estimates the effect of job loss on health for near elderly employees based on
longitudinal data from the Health and Retirement Study. Previous studies find a strong
negative correlation between unemployment and health. To control for possible reverse
causality, this study focuses on people who were laid off for an exogenous reason – the
closure of their previous employers’ business. I find that the unemployed are in worse health
than employees, and that health reasons are a common cause of job termination. In contrast,
I find no causal effect of exogenous job loss on various measures of physical and mental
health. This suggests that the inferior health of the unemployed compared to the employed
could be explained by reverse causality.

JEL Classification: I12, J63

Keywords: job displacement, health, unemployment

Corresponding author:

Martin Salm
Department of Econometrics and OR
Tilburg University
Warandelaan 2
5000 LE Tilburg
The Netherlands
E-mail: [email protected]

*
I thank Padmaja Ayyagari, Han Hong, Ahmed Khwaja, Jan Osterman, Frank Sloan, Alessandro
Tarozzi, Curtis Taylor, Nicolas Ziebarth and seminar participants at Duke University, University of
Mannheim. The iHEA conference in Barcelona, and the EU Workshop on econometrics and health
economics in Coimbra for valuable suggestions.
1. Introduction

Unemployment is a major cause of economic insecurity for working-age

Americans. Loss of employment is often linked with a loss of income and employer

provided health insurance, as well as the loss of valued relationships, status, and identity.

There is a well-documented negative correlation between health and unemployment (see

discussion in Catalano et al. 2000). However, as will be discussed below, the direction of

causality has proved difficult to establish. In this study I look at business closures as a

natural experiment that can be used to test for a causal relationship from job loss on

health.

I use data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally

representative survey of near elderly Americans. For the purpose of examining the causal

effects of job loss on health the HRS offers several advantages: 1) The HRS includes

detailed information on the causes of the termination of employment contracts. In this

paper, I only consider individuals who lost their job because of business closure, which is

arguably exogenous to employees’ health. This definition of job loss sets this study apart

from most previous studies that don’t control for the cause of unemployment. 2) The

HRS is a panel data set. 3) The HRS includes detailed information on demographics,

health, income, education, health behaviors, job characteristics, and the ex-ante

subjective probability of involuntary job loss. This information can be used to control for

differences between the characteristics of people who are affected by job loss and those

who are not affected by job loss.

This study uses a differences-in-differences estimation approach. It follows a

cohort of initially employed individuals and compares the subsequent changes in health

3
of those who lose their job due to business closure with a control group of those who

don’t lose their jobs. I test the robustness of my results by performing estimations for

various measures of physical and mental health, various sets of covariates, and by

including other reasons of job termination that might not be exogenous to health, such as

being laid off for any reason, quitting a job, or explicitly leaving for health reasons.

Further, I test if there is a difference in the effect of job loss for people who anticipated a

lay-off compared to those who are dismissed unexpectedly, and I examine how the health

effects of job loss vary by gender, race, marital status, income, and education level, as

well as previous working conditions. I also examine the effect of job loss on health over

different time periods, and finally, I look at a possible effect of a spousal job loss on

health.

In contrast to most previous studies that use cross-sectional datasets or broader

definitions of job loss, I find no significant effect of exogenous job loss on health for any

of my specifications. This finding is robust for different definitions of health and for

various subgroups of the population. In contrast, I find that causes of unemployment that

are endogenous to health, such as leaving a job for bad health, are common and

associated with a substantial deterioration in health. While a lack of statistically

significant results does not prove that job loss has no effect on ill health, my results

suggest that the negative correlation between health and unemployment could be

explained by reverse causality.

The paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 discusses the previous literature with a

focus on the problem of causal inference. Section 3 outlines the identification strategy,

4
and discusses the estimation methods. Section 4 describes the data. Section 5 presents

and discusses the estimation results. Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Previous literature

This study is part of a literature that examines the effects of job loss and

unemployment on health. Some previous studies in the economics literature examine this

relationship (Bjorklund 1985, Mayer et al. 1991, Gerdtham and Johannesson 2003,

Browning et al. 2006, Boeckerman and Imakunnas 2006, and Sullivan and von Waechter

2008), and there is also a large literature on this topic in the epidemiology, psychology,

public policy, and sociology literatures. Most of these studies compare various measures

of physical and mental health between the employed and unemployed, often with a focus

on how the effects of unemployment differ for specific racial and ethnic groups

(Rodriguez et al. 1999, Catalano et al. 2000), gender, family role, and social class

(Artazcoz et al. 2004, Price, Choi and Vinokur 2002, Dew et al. 1992), unemployment

benefit type (Rodriguez 2001), and community characteristics (Turner 1995). These

studies mostly find that the unemployed are in worse physical and mental health than the

employed. However, such an association does not necessarily imply a causal relationship

from unemployment to ill health if people in ill health are more likely to become or

remain unemployed. There is some empirical evidence that people in ill health are more

likely to lose their jobs and become unemployed (Arrow 1996), and that unemployment

spells are longer for people with health problems (Stewart 2001). In order to study the

causal relationship from unemployment to health it is necessary to control for the cause

5
of entry into unemployment, and also to account for the fact that unemployment spells

might be longer for people in ill health.

One strategy to address reverse causality is to account for the cause of the loss of

employment. For example, Catalano et al. (2000) look only at people who had been fired

or laid off. However, the estimation results could still be biased, if lay-offs are related to

health, if for example some people are laid off because of sickness related work absences.

This bias can be avoided by studying the health effects of job loss for a cause that is

exogenous to employees’ health. Several studies have examined the effect of mass

layoffs on health (Dew et al. 1992, Browning et al. 2006 and Sullivan and von Wachter

2008), with contradictory findings: Dew et al. (1992) compare the mental health of a

group of 141 women before and after layoffs at a plant in semi-rural Pennsylvania.

During the twelve months following the first interviews, 73 of these women had been

laid-off. They find a significant effect of lay-offs on mental health. Sullivan and von

Wachter (2008) also find a large effect of mass lay-offs in Pennsylvania on subsequent

mortality. In contrast, Browning et al. (2006) examine the effect of mass layoffs in

Denmark on hospitalization for diseases of the cardiovascular and digestive system, and

they find no significant effect of displacement on hospitalization. My study accounts for

reverse causality by looking including only individuals who lost their job, because their

previous employer’s business closed. My study adds to the previous literature on the

effect of lay-offs on health by considering a broad range of physical and mental health

outcomes that have not been examined before. One advantage of this study compared to

previous studies is that I control for a more detailed list of individual characteristics,

including the ex-ante subjective probability of job loss. Without controlling for detailed

6
individual characteristics, differences in the subsequent health of workers affected by lay-

offs and workers who are not laid off might reflect not the effect of lay-offs on health, but

could be explained by different individual characteristics. Such a bias could possibly

explain differences in the findings of my study and the study by Sullivan and von

Wachter (2008).

Another cause of reverse causality is that not only the reason of entry into

unemployment, but also the length of stay in unemployment could be related to health.

My study includes people who have been laid-off because of business closure at any

point of time within a two-year period, independent of their unemployment status at the

time of the second interview. This approach allows the consistent estimation of the causal

effect of job loss on health.

Job loss can have potentially lasting effects on the socio-economic situation and

the health of workers even if laid-off workers face no or only brief periods of

unemployment. Job loss can cause a substantial reduction of income and consumption

(Chan and Stevens 2002, Stephens 2004). This is true not only for the unemployed, but

also for many laid-off workers who start a new job. Chan and Stevens (2002) find that

job loss reduces earning for near elderly employees one year after job loss by between

20% and 33%, and lower income might be a cause of deteriorating health (Adams et al.

2003). Also, job loss can cause a loss of health insurance, at least for those laid-off

employees who were covered by employment based health insurance. Although health

insurance is usually also available in the individual health insurance market, it tends to be

more expensive. Loss of health insurance could also cause worsening health (Haudley

2003, Levy and Meltzer 2004).

7
3. Identification strategy

The main parameter of interest in this study is the average effect of job loss on the

health of those who lost their job. A formal definition of this effect, similar to Heckman

et al. (1997) is:

α = E(Y(i,1) – Y(i,0) | D(i,1) = 1) - E(Y(i,1) – Y(i,0) | D(i,1) = 0) (1)

where Y(i, t) is the health of individual i at time t. The population is observed in a

pre-treatment period t = 0, and a post-treatment period t = 1. I denote D(i, 1) = 1 if

individual i has been affected by job loss between periods t = 0 and t = 1, and D(i, 1) = 0

otherwise.

The parameter α represents the difference between the health change of people

affected by job loss and their hypothetical (counterfactual) health change if they had not

been affected by job loss. Unfortunately, the counterfactual is never observed. Therefore,

I need to assume that without job loss the health of people who in fact have been laid off

would have evolved in the same way as it did for people with the same observed

characteristics who have not been laid off. If i' is an individual in the control group (not

laid off) with the same observed characteristics as i, an individual in the treatment group

(laid off), then this assumption can be stated as:

E(Y(i, 1) – Y(i, 0) | X(i), D(i, 1) = 0) = E(Y(i', 1) – Y(i', 0) | X(i'), D(i', 1) = 0)

where X(i) is a vector of observed characteristics predetermined at t = 0. It is

necessary to control for a sufficiently detailed set of relevant characteristics X (i), because

on average people affected by job loss do not have the same characteristics as people who

are not laid off. Not controlling for differences between these groups would lead to

8
biased estimation results. If for example the average laid-off employee is poorer or less

educated than the average employee who is not laid-off, one might expect their health to

evolve unfavorably compared to the health of the control group even in the absence of

job loss. Observed characteristics in this study include information on demographics

(age, gender, race), social situation (marital status, education, income, wealth), health

behaviors (smoking, obesity, and health insurance), and job characteristics (part-time

employment, firm size, and industry). I also control for the ex-ante subjective probability

of involuntary lay-off. Stephens (2004) finds that the subjective probability of

involuntary lay-off includes information about the likelihood of subsequent job loss even

after controlling for other characteristics, and that it is a good predictor of subsequent

actual job loss. Including the subjective probability of involuntary lay-off controls for

unobserved heterogeneity between people affected by job loss and others, which other

observed characteristics could not detect. The average treatment effect can be estimated

by the following linear differences-in- differences regression equation:

Y(i, 1) – Y(i, 0) = δ + X(i)’ π + D(i, 1)α + ε(i) (2)

where the dependent variable is the change in health between period 0 (before the

treatment) and period 1 (after the treatment), and X(i) are assumed to be exogenous to the

random error term ε(i). The equation above can be estimated by standard regression

methods such as least squares or ordered probit. I estimate the effects of job loss on

several measures of health, and for alternative causes of job termination. These variables

are described in the following section.

9
4. Data and descriptive statistics

I use data from wave two to six of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) which

cover the time period from 1994 to 20021. The HRS includes a sample of initially 7600

households (12654 individuals), with at least one household member born between 1931

and 1941, and their spouses, who could be any age. The survey was subsequently

repeated every two years. In 1998, a new sample was added to the survey which consists

of `war babies’ born between 1942 and 1947, and the data also include new spouses of

previous wave respondents. The baseline estimation sample in this study consists of all

persons who were working for pay at the time of the interviews for waves 2 to 5 and who

were age 63 or below at this time. This sample excludes persons who are self employed

and can include multiple observations for the same person. This leaves a sample of

20,396 observations. Of these, 4697 observations do not include information on

subjective probability of involuntary job loss, 221 observations do not include

information on industry sector, 92 observations have missing information on smoking, 59

observations do not include information on household income, and 9 observations have

no information on household wealth. The final sample for the baseline regression (table

3, column 4) consists of 15218 observations on 6867 individuals.

For each observation, I use information from two waves, before and after

treatment. Before treatment, all respondents work for pay. At the following interview two

years later, some respondents do not work any more for their previous-wave employer.

These individuals might be retired, unemployed, or work for a different employer. All

respondents who did not work for their previous-wave employers were asked why they

1
For a detailed description of the HRS see Juster and Suzman (1995) and the HRS homepage
(www.hrsonline.isr.umich.edu).

10
had left that employer. Possible answers included ‘business closed’, ‘laid off / let go’,

‘poor health / disabled’, and ‘other reasons’. Respondents could give multiple reasons.

My definition of exogenous job loss includes 369 observations (2.4% of the baseline

sample) who answered that their previous employers’ business closed. This definition

excludes 17 observations who also stated that they quit by themselves or left for health

reasons. 720 respondents stated that they were laid off / let go, 544 quit, and 507 left for

health reasons. One concern with respect to the timing of job transitions is that

respondents stopped working for their previous employers at different point of time

during the two year period between interviews, and it could make a difference whether

for example the previous employers’ business closed just after the first interview or just

before the second interview. This study estimates average effects.

Outcome variable is the change of health between waves, which is measured by

various subjective and self-reported objective measures of health. One measure for

change of health is the answer to a question how self-assessed health has changed since

the last interview two years ago. Possible answers include ‘much better’, ‘somewhat

better’, ‘about the same’, ‘somewhat worse’, and ‘much worse’. The answer ‘much

better’ is coded as 1 and ‘much worse’ is coded as 5. Another measure of health change is

the change in limitations in activities of daily living (ADL’s) since the previous

interview. Activities of daily living include the ability to walk across a room, dress, eat,

bath, use a toilet, and get in and out of bed without help. Another measure of health

change is the change in longevity expectations. Longevity expectations are measured as

the subjective probability to live to age 75 or longer, and changes in answers between

waves are measured relative to life-table averages. I also use two measures of change in

11
mental health, the first of which is the change in CESD scores (Center for Epidemiologic

Studies Depression Scale). Respondents are asked whether they agree or disagree with

eight statements about their emotions during the past week, such as whether they felt

depressed much of the time. The CESD score is based on the answers to these questions

and ranges from 0 (good mental heath) to 8 (bad mental health). The second measure of

mental health change is a binary variable that indicates whether there was a first

incidence of a doctor diagnosed mental health condition between interview waves.

Further, in one regression I use a measure of same-period self-reported overall health as

dependent variable. Possible answers range from ‘excellent’ (codes as 1) to ‘very good’

(2), ‘good’ (3), ‘fair’ (4), and ‘poor’ (5).

One concern with respect to self-reported change of health is that the differences

between categories might not be equal. For example the difference between ‘much better’

health and ‘somewhat better’ health might not be the same as the difference between

‘somewhat better’ health and ‘about the same health’. One solution to this potential

problem is to use ordered probit estimation, which allows for different distances between

categories.

Another question is whether self-reported health measures provide meaningful

indicators of health status. Idler and Benyamini (1997) documented in a review of 27

studies that self-reported health measures are strongly correlated with mortality. Bath

(2003) and Remle (2004) also find that self reported changes in health predict future

mortality both for British data and the HRS. Another concern about self-reported health

measures that has received a lot of attention in the literature is that self-reports of health

might be biased depending on labor force status, if people out of work are more likely to

12
report ill health in order to justify economic inactivity. Several previous studies found

evidence for such a justification bias, while others found no evidence (see review by

Currie and Madrian 1999, and discussion in McGarry 2004). This study uses several

measures of health change. Some of those, such as subjective longevity expectations and

doctor diagnosed psychological conditions, are not likely to be affected by justification

bias. For other measures such as self-reported health change, it is possible that the

estimates of the negative effect of job loss on health change are upward biased.

Explanatory variables include respondents’ age, and binary variables for

respondents who are female, black, married, have a high school degree, and for

respondents who have a college degree. Further explanatory variables are total

household net wealth, and the logarithm of the total household income. Income and

wealth are adjusted for consumer price inflation (CPI) and represent real 1982-1984

prices. Also included are binary variables about health behaviors, whether the respondent

is currently smoking, is obese, which is defined as a body mass index (BMI) in excess of

30, or is covered by health insurance. Explanatory variables also include information on

job characteristics such as a binary indicator for part time work, and five binary

indicators for firm size, which is measured by the total number of employees at all

locations (5-14 employees, 15-24 employees, 25-99 employees, 100-499 employees, and

500+ employees, less than five employees is omitted category), as well as twelve binary

indicators for industry sector (agricultural sector including forestry and fishery is omitted

category). The subjective probability of job loss is based on the following question:

‘Sometimes people are permanently laid off from jobs that they want to keep. On the

scale from 0 to 100 where 0 equals absolutely no chance and 100 equals absolutely

13
certain, what are the chances that you will lose your job during the next year?’ One

limitations of this study is that this question refers to the probability of involuntary job

loss during a one year period after the interview, while this study examines lay-offs

during a two year period after the first interview.

[Table 1 about here]

Table 1 shows sample statistics for both the overall population and those affected

by job loss. Table 1 is based on the sample included in the baseline regression (Table 3,

column 4). To some degree, people anticipate being laid off. For job losers, the average

subjective probability of being laid off was 31% compared with 15.4% for the total

population. However, a substantial fraction of laid-off persons did not previously expect

to lose their employment. The fraction of laid-off respondents, who had previously stated

that their probability of involuntary job loss was zero, amount to 37.1%, as compared to

54% for the full sample. Compared to the full sample people who are affected by job loss

due to business closing are more likely to be female, married, and have a high-school

degree, but much less likely to have a college degree. On average, people, who will lose

their job, live in households with somewhat lower incomes, and substantially lower

wealth, and they are more likely to work part time. They are more likely to smoke and be

obese, and somewhat less likely to be covered by health insurance. Compared to the full

sample, the sample of laid-off employees differs little in terms how stressful jobs are and

how much physical effort they require. However, laid-off employees are more likely to

receive low pay, which is defined as an hourly wage below $4.72 in 1982-1984 prices.

Laid-off employees also tend to work at smaller firms, and are more likely to work in

14
manufacturing and retail sales and less likely to work in public administration and

professional services.

Laid-off respondents face a 10.8% probability to be unemployed at the time of the

second interview, while this probability is only 1.6% for the entire sample. The

probability that laid-off respondents will not be working at the time of the second

interview is 39.2%, as compared to 19.5% for the full sample. Thus, many of the laid-off

respondents in the sample leave the labor force. People who lose their job suffer a

substantial drop in household income, on average –12.9% between waves, while average

income stays constant in real terms for the entire sample. For respondents who don’t

work again after being laid off, the average drop in household income is -17.8%, while

for people who work for pay in the interview after the job loss, the average reduction in

household income is -9.7%. Thus, laid-off workers face on average a substantial drop in

household income even if they find new employment.

5. Results

A. Cross-section estimation of the relationship between unemployment and health

The regression results in Table 2 show the association between being unemployed

and self-reported overall health. Unemployment status and self- reported overall health

are both measured at the same time. The sample differs from the samples used in the

following regressions by including not only respondents who work for pay at the time of

the first interview, but also those who are unemployed. The regression presented in table

2 replicates the cross-sectional approach taken in much of the previous literature on

unemployment on health (for example Turner 1995, Rodriguez 2001, Artazcoz et al.

15
2004). In line with previous studies, I find a significant negative association between

unemployment status and self-reported health. However, this does not establish a causal

link from unemployment to ill health, if people who are ill in the first place are also more

likely to become and/ or remain unemployed. The coefficient of the effect of

unemployment on health is 0.21.2 This implies that unemployment increases the

probability of higher health categories, which represent worse health. The signs of the

other dependent variables are as one might expect. Higher education, higher income,

being female and having health insurance coverage are associated with better health,

while higher age, being black, working part-time, smoking and obesity correlate with

worse health.

[Table 2 about here]

B. The average effect of job loss on health

Table 3 shows the estimated average effect of job loss on health for laid-off

persons. Column 1 to column 4 show estimation results for different sets of covariates.

None of the specifications shows a significant effect of job loss on health change. The

negative estimation coefficient for the business-closed indicator actually points toward a

positive, but insignificant effect of job loss on health. The estimation coefficient of

business-closed becomes even more negative if additional covariates are added to the

regression. The signs of the coefficients for the other covariates are mostly as expected.

Higher education, income, and wealth are associated with improving health, while age,

smoking and obesity are associated with worsening health. Black race is associated with

improving health. This result could reflect different standards of black respondents in

2
The values of coefficients from ordered probit estimations do not have a straightforward intuitive
interpretation, because the size of the marginal effect of unemployment on health varies with the values of
the other explanatory variables.

16
answering questions about self-reported change of health. The subjective probability of

job loss is associated with a significant subsequent deterioration in health. This can be

explained either if the risk of being laid off itself is harmful to health, or if the subjective

probability of job loss is correlated with other characteristics that cause ill health.

[Table 3 about here]

One concern with respect to interpreting the results in Table 3 is that respondents

might use different scales for answering questions about self-reported change of health.

Such scales could also vary systematically between subgroups of the population. One

approach to account for different scales across subgroups (index sifting) is to include

variables for demographic and socio-economic characteristics. The specifications in

column 3 and 4 of Table 3 include a detailed range of such characteristics.3

In summary, the results in Table 3 show no significant causal effect of job loss on

ill health. One concern is that the sample size (369 individuals lose their job due to

business closure) is insufficient to determine a significant effect. In order to test for the

robustness of the result that job loss does not cause ill health I estimate additional

specifications for various measures of physical and mental health. I also estimate the

effect of job loss on health separately for subgroups based on demographics, job

characteristics, and on previous expectations about the probability of involuntary job loss.

Further, I examine whether there is any effect of job loss on health for a longer time

period, and I also estimate the effect of spousal job loss on the health of respondents.

[Table 4 about here]

3
One approach to control for different distances between cutoff points across subgroups of the population
(cutoff-point shifting) is to use a generalized ordered probit model. In analysis not shown I estimate a
generalized ordered probit for the baseline specification in column 4 of Table 3, and I find that. business-
closed is not significantly different from zero at any of the cutoff points.

17
 In addition to testing for the robustness of the result that job loss does not cause ill

health, I also examine whether the observed correlation between unemployment and

health can be explained by reverse causality. Table 4 compares how subsequent health

changes vary by different reasons of job termination. Previous studies differ in what

reasons for unemployment they include in their analysis. For example, Bjorklund (1985)

and Rodriguez et al. (1999) include all reasons for unemployment, while Catalano et al.

(2000) include only those who were involuntarily laid off. A simple test on how the

definition of job loss influences the estimated effects of job loss on health is to estimate

the effect of job loss on health for various reasons of job termination and compare the

results. As discussed above, I assume that business closure is exogenous to health change,

while being laid off, quitting, and leaving for health reasons might be endogenous. I find

that being laid off, which could be for any reason, has no significant effect on health

change. People who quit their job subsequently experience improving health. This

finding could be explained if these respondents qut for example because they started a

better job with a new employer. However, people who leave their job for health reasons

experience a very strong negative change in their health. As shown in table 1, leaving a

job for health reasons is also quite common in this age group. In summary, these results

suggest that the subsequent change of health varies substantially for different reasons of

job termination. This implies that reverse causality can bias estimation results if the

reason for unemployment is not exogenous.

Table 5 presents the effect of job loss for several measures of health change.

Measures of health change in table 5 include the change in limitations of activities in

daily living, the change in longevity expectations, the change in the CESD score for

18
mental health, and first incidence of doctor diagnosed mental health conditions. For all of

these measures, I find no significant effect of job loss on health change. This adds

credibility to the hypothesis that job loss does not cause ill health.

[Table 5 about here]

D. The effect of job loss on health by subgroups

Columns 1 and 2 of Table 6 show how the effect of job loss on health varies with

prior expectations about job loss. Column 1 includes a binary indicator for respondents

who stated that their risk of involuntary job loss was zero. The table shows the effect of

this variable both for laid-off respondents, and for the entire sample. Respondents who

did not expect to lose their job faced improving health. The interaction term of zero job

loss expectations and business-closed is also associated with improving health, but is not

statistically significant. Column 2 includes an interaction term of the probability of

involuntary job loss and business closed. The coefficient for this interaction term is zero,

indicating that the effect of job loss on health does not depend on previous job loss

expectations.

[Table 6 about here]

Columns 3 and 4 of Table 6 examine the role of unemployment in the relationship

between job loss and ill health. As shown in Table 1, most respondents affected by job

loss are not unemployed at the time of the second interview. Many laid-off employees

find new employment, although typically at substantially lower wages (see discussion in

section 4). Column 3 includes a binary indicator for respondents who are unemployed at

the time of the second interview and an interaction term between unemployment at the

time of the second interview and business-closed. Unemployment at the time of the

19
second interview is not exogenous to health change if persons with deteriorating health

are more likely to become or stay unemployed. The estimation results indicate that

unemployment is associated with strongly declining health. However, the interaction term

of business-closed and unemployment point to improving health, but is not significantly

different from zero. Column 4 includes a binary indicator for respondents who did not

work at the time of the second interview and an interaction term between this variable

and business-closed. As for unemployment, work status at the time of the second

interview is not exogenous to health change if respondents with deteriorating health are

more likely to stop working. The estimation results show that persons who do not work at

the time of the second interview face strongly deteriorating health. However, the

interaction term of not working at the second interview and business closed is close to

zero and not statistically significant. Columns 3 and 4 of Table 6 imply that persons with

deteriorating health are more likely to become unemployed or leave the labor force, but

there is no significant relationship between health change and unemployment or work

status at the second interview for laid-off respondents.

[Table 7 about here]

The estimation results shown in Column1 of Table 7 include interaction terms of

business-closed with gender and marital status, black race, education level, and previous

job characteristics. The omitted reference group would be unmarried white females

without high school degree. The results suggest that married, black, and more educated

respondents might be less affected by the negative health consequences of job loss, while

respondents with low wages and with jobs that involve a high degree of stress or physical

20
effort are more affected by job loss. However, these interaction terms are not statistically

significant.

Column 2 of table 7 shows the effect of lagged job loss on self-reported health

change. It includes a binary indicator which is set to one for respondents who lost their

job due to business closure in the two year period prior to the first interview. This

specification examines effect of job loss on health for a period of two to four years after

the layoff. The estimation results show no evidence for a longer lasting effect of business

closure on subsequent changes in health. Column 3 of Table 7 reports the effects of a

spousal job loss on health. The estimation results provide no evidence for an effect of

spousal layoffs on the health of respondents.

6. Conclusion

In summary, I find no evidence of any significant effects of job loss on health

within a period of up to four years after job loss. This result is robust across

specifications. It holds for various measures of physical and mental health, for the

average effect of job loss on health for all laid off persons, as well as for the effect of job

loss on specific groups defined by previous job loss expectations as well as by gender,

marital status, race, education, and previous working conditions. There is also no effect

of the job loss of a spouse.

These results contradict much of the previous literature that finds strong negative

health consequences of unemployment. However, many previous studies do not account

for the cause of unemployment which might be related to ill health, and studies which do

account for this possible source of endogeneity – for example by examining the effect of

21
mass-layoffs on health - might not sufficiently account for differences in the

characteristics of individuals who are laid-off and individuals who are not laid off. This

raises the possibility that results of previous studies might not reflect the causal effect of

unemployment on health.

In contrast to many previous studies, this study focuses on people who have lost

their job for an exogenous reason – the closure of their previous employer’s business.

This study also accounts for a detailed list of individual characteristics including the ex-

ante subjective probability of involuntary job loss in order to control for differences

between laid-off employees and employees who are not laid-off. Thus, the identification

strategy of this study is well suited to identify the causal effect of job loss on health.

The results of my study also make it plausible that the inferior health of the

unemployed compared to the employed could be explained by reverse causality.

Specifically, I find that leaving a job for health reasons is both quite common in this age

group, and associated with a rapid deterioration in health (Table 5), and that persons with

deteriorating health are more likely to become unemployed or leave the labor force

(Table 6). This leads me to the cautious conclusion that the absence of any significant

effect of job loss on health in this study might indeed unveil that job loss does not cause

ill health.

7. References

Adams, Peter, Michael Hurd, Daniel McFadden, Angela Merrill, Tiago Ribeiro

(2003), Healthy, wealthy, and wise? Tests for direct causal paths between health and

socioeconomic status, Journal of Econometrics, 112, 3 –56.

22
 Arrow, J. O. (1996), Estimating the influence of health as a risk factor on

unemployment: A survival analysis of employment duration for workers surveyed in the

German Socio-Economic Panel, Social Science & Medicine, 42, 1651 – 1659.

Artazcoz, Lucia, Joan Benach, Carmen Borrell, Immaculada Cortes (2004),

Unemployment and mental health: Understanding the interactions among gender, family

roles and social class, American Journal of Public Health, 94, 82 – 88.

Bath, P. (2003), Differences between older men and women in the self-rated

health and mortality relationship, The Gerontologist, 43, 387 - 395.

Bjorklund, Andres (1985), Unemployment and mental health: Some evidence

from panel data, Journal of Human Resources, 20, 469 – 483.

Bockerman, P. and P. Ilmakunnas (2009), Unemployment and self-assessed

health: evidence from panel data, Health Economics, 18, 161-179.

Browning, Martin, Anne Moller Dano, and Eskil Heinesen (2006), Job

displacement and stress-related health outcomes, Health Economics, 15, 1061 – 1075.

Catalano, Ralph, Ethel Adrete, William Vega, Bohdan Kolody, and Sergio

Aguila-Gaxiola (2000), Job loss and major depression among Mexican Americans, Social

Science Quarterly, 81, 477 –487.

Chan, Sewin, and Ann Stevens (2001), Job loss and employment patterns of older

workers, Journal of Labor Economics, 19, 484 –521.

Chan, Sewin, and Ann Stevens (2002), How does job loss affect the timing of

retirement? NBER Working Paper 8780.

23
 Currie, Janet, and Brigitte C. Madrian (1999), Health, Health Insurance and the

Labor Market, Chapter 50 in: Handbook of Labor economics, Vol. 3C, Edited by Orley

Ashenfelter and David Card, Elsevier.

Dew, Mary A., Evelyn Bromet, and Lili Penkower (1992), Mental health effects

of job loss in women, Psychological Medicine, 22, 751 –764.

Gerdtham, Ulf, and Magnus Johannesson (2003), A note on the effect of

Unemployment on mortality, Journal of Health Economics, 22, 505 – 518.

Haudley, Jack (2003), Sicker and Poorer- The consequences of Being Uninsured:

A Review of the Research on the Relationship between Health Insurance, Medical Care

Use, Health, Work, and Income, Medical Care Research and Review, Vol. 60 (2),

Supplement, 3S – 75S.

Heckman, James J., Hidehiko Ichimura, and Petra E. Todd (1997), Matching as an

Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Program,

Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605 – 654.

Idler, E., Y. Benyamini (1997), Self-related health and mortality: A Review of

twenty-seven Community studies, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 21 -37.

Juster, R. and R Suzman (1995), An overview of the Health and Retirement

Study, Journal of Human Resources, 30, S7 - S56

Levy, Helen and David Meltzer (2004), What do we really know about whether

health insurance affects health? in: Health Policy and the Uninsured, Edited by Catherine

McLaughlin, Urban Institute Press.

24
 Mayer, Francine, Paul-Marcel Roy, Aline Emond, and Raynald Pincault (1991),

Unemployment and mental health: a longitudinal analysis, Canadian Journal of

Economics, 24, 551 – 562.

McGarry, Kathleen (2004), Do Changes in Health Affect Retirement

Expectations? Journal of Human Resources, 39, 624 – 648.

Meyer, Bruce D. (1995), Natural and Quasi- Experiments in Economics, Journal

of Business & Economics Statistics, 13, 151 – 161.

Price, Richard, Jin Choi, and Amiram Vinokur (2002), Links in the chain of

adversity following job loss: How financial strain and loss of personal control lead to

depression, impaired functioning, and poor health, Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 7, 302 – 312.

Remle, R. (2004), self-related health trajectories: alternative measures of

perceived change of health as predictor of mortality, unpublished manuscript.

Rodriguez, E., J. A. Allen, E. A. Frongillo, and J. and P. Chandra (1999),

Unemployment, depression and health: A look at the African-American community,

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53, 335 –342.

Rodriguez, Eunice (2001), Keeping the unemployed healthy: The effect of means-

tested and entitlement benefits in Britain, Germany, and the United States, American

Journal of Public Health, 91, 1403 -1411

Stephens, Melvin (2004), Job loss expectations, realizations, and household

Stewart, Jennifer (2001), The impact of health status on the duration of

unemployment spells and the implications for studies of the impact of unemployment on

health status, Journal of Health Economics, 20, 781 –796.

25
 Sullivan, D. and t. von Wachter (2009), Job displacement and mortality: and

analysis using administrative data, Quarterly Journal of Economics, fortchcoming

Turner, J. Blake (1995), Economic Context and the health effects of

unemployment, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 213 – 229.

26
Table 1: Sample Statistics

Entire Sample Business Closed

Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Health Measures
Health Change 3.038 0.706 3.043 0.657
ADL Change 0.038 0.424 0.016 0.416
Life Exp. Change -0.011 0.381 -0.016 0.408
CESD Change 0.086 1.944 0.175 2.243
Psych Diagnosis 0.019 0.136 0.032 0.177
Health 2.353 0.971 2.363 0.963

Number Affected
Reasons for Job termination
Business Closed 369
Laid Off 720
Quit 544
Left for Health 507
Spouse Business Closed 209

Entire Sample Business Closed

Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Prob. Of Job Loss 15.359 25.005 31 34.817
Zero prob. of job loss 0.540 0 .498 0.371 0.483
Spouse Prob. of Job Loss 14.872 24.692 20.335 29.583
Demographics
Age 55.481 4.958 54.880 5.203
Female 0.599 0.489 0.615 0.487
Black 0.146 0.353 0.111 0.314
Married 0.741 0.437 0.764 0.425
Social Status
High School 0.560 0.496 0.604 0.489
College 0.233 0.422 0.113 0.318
Log(income) 9.477 0.900 9.372 0.846
Wealth (in $100,000) 0.651 1.720 0.497 0.739
Part time work 0.146 0.353 0.176 0.381
Health Behaviors
Smoking 0.224 0.417 0.300 0.459
High BMI 0.263 0.440 0.292 0.455
Health Insurance 0.927 0.259 0.880 0.324
Number of Observation in Baseline 15,218 369

27
 Entire Sample Business Closed
Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Endogenous Variables
nd
Unemployed at 2 interview 0.016 0.1281 0.108 0.311
nd
Not working at 2 interview 0.195 0.396 0.392 0.489
Income change 0.003 0.7229 -0.129 0.808
nd
Health Insurance at 2 Interview 0.924 0.2644 0.810 0.392
Job Characteristics
Job stressful 2.204 0.806 2.296 0.799
Job physical effort 2.801 1.110 2.736 1.100
Low Wage 0.186 0.389 0 .272 0.446
Firm size 5-14 employees 0.025 0.156 0.040 0.197
Firm size 15-24 employees 0.017 0.129 0.037 0.191
Firm size 25-99 employees 0.064 0.244 0.081 0.273
Firm size 100-499 employees 0.120 0.325 0.100 0.300
Firm size > 500 employees 0.461 0.498 0.368 0.483
Industry: mining and construction 0.038 0.191 0.054 0.226
Industry: manufacturing nondurables 0.077 0.267 0.127 0.333
Industry: manufacturing durables 0.112 0.316 0.195 0.396
Industry: transportation 0.067 0.250 0.070 0.256
Industry: wholesale 0.036 0.188 0.056 0.231
Industry: retail 0.100 0.300 0.184 0.388
Industry: finance / insurance 0.063 0.244 0.043 0.203
Industry: business services 0.049 0.216 0.054 0.226
Industry: personal services 0.031 0.175 0.040 0.197
Industry: entertainment 0.012 0.111 0.010 0.103
Industry: professional services 0.333 0.471 0.130 0.336
Industry: Public administration 0.061 0.240 0.010 0.103
Number of observations in baseline 15218 369

28
Table 2: Cross- Section Regression of Health on Unemployment

Health
Unemployed 0.212***
(0.050)
Age 0.016***
(0.002)
Female -0.054**
(0.022)
Black 0.192***
(0.030)
Married -0.01
(0.025)
High School -0.318***
(0.027)
College -0.556***
(0.034)
Income -0.165***
(0.011)
Wealth (in $100,000) -0.001
(0.003)
Part time work 0.068***
(0.026)
Smoking 0.214***
(0.024)
High BMI 0.381***
(0.022)
Health Insurance -0.054*
(0.033)
Observations 20,776
Pseudo R-Squared 0.05
Robust standard errors clustered for individuals in brackets
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
Coefficients for binary wave variables not shown
Ordered probit estimation
Higher values for health represent worse health

29
Table 3: The causal Effect of Job Loss on Health

Health Health Health Health

Change Change Change Change
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Business Closed -0.005 -0.002 -0.049 -0.068
(0.059) (0.060) (0.060) (0.060)
Age 0.010*** 0.010*** 0.010***
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002)
Black -0.059* -0.114*** -0.116***
(0.031) (0.032) (0.032)
Female 0.014 0.017 0.016
(0.022) (0.026) (0.026)
Married 0.021 0.023
(0.026) (0.026)
High School -0.100*** -0.100***
(0.030) (0.030)
College -0.154*** -0.151***
(0.038) (0.038)
Income -0.040*** -0.039***
(0.014) (0.014)
Wealth (in $100,000) -0.011** -0.011**
(0.005) (0.005)
Part Time Work 0.027 0.024
(0.030) (0.030)
Smoking 0.134*** 0.133***
(0.026) (0.026)
High BMI 0.112*** 0.110***
(0.025) (0.025)
Health Insurance -0.024 -0.02
(0.045) (0.045)
Prob. of Job Loss 0.001***
(0.000)
Observations 15,218 15,218 15,218 15,218
Pseudo R- Squared 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.008
Robust standard errors clustered for individuals in brackets
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
Coefficients for binary wave variables not shown; Columns (3) and (4) also
include binary variables for six firm size categories and thirteen industry
codes, which are not shown
All columns show ordered probit Estimations
Higher values for health change represent worsening health

30
Table 4: Endogenous Causes of Job Termination

Health Health Health

Change Change Change
(1) (2) (3)
Laid Off -0.018
(0.049)
Quit -0.098*
(0.052)
Left for Health 1.159***
(0.068)
Prob. of Job Loss 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001**
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Age 0.010*** 0.010*** 0.009***
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002)
Female 0.015 0.015 0.012
(0.026) (0.026) (0.026)
Black -0.116*** -0.117*** -0.123***
(0.032) (0.032) (0.032)
Married 0.022 0.022 0.024
(0.026) (0.026) (0.026)
High School -0.100*** -0.100*** -0.071**
(0.030) (0.030) (0.029)
College -0.151*** -0.150*** -0.112***
(0.038) (0.038) (0.038)
Income -0.039*** -0.040*** -0.033**
(0.014) (0.014) (0.014)
Wealth (in $100,000) -0.011** -0.011** -0.011**
(0.005) (0.005) (0.005)
Part time work 0.024 0.025 0.007
(0.030) (0.030) (0.030)
Smoking 0.133*** 0.134*** 0.118***
(0.026) (0.026) (0.026)
High BMI 0.110*** 0.109*** 0.091***
(0.025) (0.025) (0.025)
Health Insurance -0.021 -0.021 -0.024
(0.045) (0.045) (0.045)
Observations 15,218 15,218 15,218
Pseudo R- Squared 0.008 0.008 0.027
Robust standard errors clustered for individuals in brackets
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
Coefficients of wave indicators, six firm size categories and
thirteen industry codes not shown
All columns are ordered probit estimations
Higher values for health change represent worsening health

31
Table 5: Alternative Measures of Health

ADL Change Life Exp. CESD First Psych.

Change Change Diagnosis
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Business Closed -0.072 -0.003 0.064 0.008
(0.089) (0.023) (0.114) (0.010)
Prob. of Job Loss 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000***
(0.001) (0.000) (0.001) (0.000)
Age -0.002 0.000 -0.001 -0.001***
(0.002) (0.001) (0.003) (0.000)
Female 0.010 0.023*** 0.059** 0.010***
(0.025) (0.006) (0.027) (0.003)
Black 0.016 0.007 0.017 -0.012***
(0.035) (0.009) (0.035) (0.003)
Married -0.063** 0.013** 0.059* -0.002
(0.027) (0.006) (0.031) (0.003)
High School -0.052 -0.002 0.013 -0.009**
(0.032) (0.008) (0.036) (0.004)
College -0.110*** 0.005 0.017 -0.011**
(0.038) (0.009) (0.043) (0.004)
Income -0.015 0.002 -0.005 0.000
(0.017) (0.004) (0.020) (0.002)
Wealth (in $100,000) -0.001 0.000 -0.009 -0.001*
(0.003) (0.001) (0.006) (0.000)
Part time work -0.062 -0.009 -0.024 -0.002
(0.040) (0.008) (0.045) (0.004)
Smoking 0.051* 0.000 0.091*** 0.009***
(0.029) (0.007) (0.032) (0.003)
High BMI 0.058** -0.005 0.034 0.007**
(0.028) (0.006) (0.030) (0.003)
Health Insurance 0.007 -0.013 0.112 0.002
(0.059) (0.014) (0.070) (0.005)
Observations 15,216 13,775 14,910 14,004
(Pseudo) R-squared 0.009 0.003 0.01 0.01
Robust standard errors clustered for individuals in brackets
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
Coefficients of wave indicators, six firm size categories and thirteen industry codes
not shown
Column (1) is ordered probit regression
Columns (2) to (4) are least square regressions

32
Table 6: Interactions of job loss with job loss expectations and with employment
status at 2nd interview

Health Health Health Health

Change Change Change Change
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Business Closed -0.02 -0.082 -0.063 -0.111
(0.078) (0.076) (0.064) (0.069)
Zero prob. of job loss -0.102
× Business Closed (0.114)
Zero prob. of job loss -0.051**
(0.021)
Prob. of Job Loss 0.000
× Business Closed (0.002)
Prob. of job loss 0.001***
(0.000)
nd
Unemployed at 2 interview -0.170
× Business Closed (0.193)
nd
Unemployed at 2 interview 0.150*
(0.085)
nd
Work at 2 interview 0.010
× Business Closed (0.123)
nd
Work at 2 interview 0.217***
(0.028)
Observations 15,218 15,218 15,218 15,218
Pseudo R- Squared 0.000 0.001 0.008 0.011
Robust standard errors clustered for individuals in brackets
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
Estimation includes all variables in Column 4 of Table 3; these coefficients
are not shown
All columns show ordered probit Estimations
Higher values for health change represent worsening health

33
Table 7: Effects of Job Loss interacted with socioeconomic and job characteristics,
longer term effects of job loss, and spousal Job Loss
Health Health Health
Change Change Change
Business Closed -0.29
(0.196)
Married Male -0.116
× Business Closed (0.153)
Married Female -0.155
× Business Closed (0.278)
Not Married Male 0.061
× Business Closed (0.184)
Black × Business Closed -0.151
(0.195)
High School -0.112
× Business Closed (0.147)
College -0.205
× Business Closed (0.224)
Job Stressful 0.054
× Business Closed (0.069)
Job Physical Effort 0.066
× Business Closed (0.056)
Low Wage 0.231
× Business Closed (0.140)
Business closed in 0.098
previous wave (0.069)
Spouse Business Closed 0.118
(0.077)
Spouse Prob. of Job Loss -0.001
(0.001)
Observations 14,174 18,233 7,915
Pseudo R- Squared 0.01 0.008 0.005
Robust standard errors clustered for individuals in brackets
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%
Estimation in column 1 includes all variables in Column 4 of
Table 3 and additional variables for stressful job, job requires
physical effort and low wage; columns 2 and 3 include
variables for demographics, socioeconomic characteristics and
health behaviors
All columns are Ordered Probit estimations

34