There’s a profound irony in the fact that governments invest substantial taxpayer funds to pull economies out of recessions, given the hardships that accompany economic downturns. Families face the threat of losing their homes, children may suffer from malnutrition, and recent graduates often find themselves grappling with prolonged career setbacks, postponing major life milestones like marriage, parenthood, and homeownership. However, a growing body of research suggests that recessions might have an unexpected silver lining: they contribute to increased longevity.
The latest study shedding light on this phenomenon is “Lives vs. Livelihoods,” authored by four researchers led by esteemed health economist Amy Finkelstein. Their findings, centered on the Great Recession spanning from 2007 to 2009, reveal a surprising correlation: for every 1 percentage point increase in unemployment within an area, age-adjusted mortality rates among Americans dropped by 0.5%. Remarkably, higher levels of joblessness were associated with longer life spans, particularly among adults aged 64 and older, as well as individuals without a college education.
What’s even more striking is the immediacy and longevity of these effects. The economists observed that the mortality reductions were evident right away and persisted for at least a decade following the recession. In essence, the economic downturn effectively gifted an additional year of life to approximately 4% of 55-year-olds. Moreover, residents in states experiencing significant spikes in unemployment were more likely to report being in excellent health. It appears that recessions, counterintuitively, play a role in improving overall fitness and extending lifespans.
The question that naturally arises is: why does higher unemployment correlate with longer life spans? The economists behind the study explored various potential explanations but ultimately ruled out many conventional factors. It wasn’t that laid-off workers suddenly had more time to exercise or were cutting back on unhealthy habits like smoking and drinking due to financial constraints. Infectious diseases continued to spread, and retirees weren’t receiving notably better care despite the easier staffing conditions in nursing homes. So what could be the driving force behind this unexpected phenomenon?
The answer, it turns out, lies in pollution. The counties hit hardest by job losses during the Great Recession also experienced significant reductions in air pollution levels, particularly in fine particulate matter known as PM2.5. The logic is straightforward: during economic downturns, there’s less commuting to work, reduced industrial activity, and decreased energy consumption as people tighten their belts. All of these factors contribute to cleaner air. This finding sheds light on why individuals without a college education, who often reside in areas with higher environmental pollution, saw the most substantial decreases in mortality. It also explains the downturn’s impact on mortality rates from heart disease, suicide, and car accidents — all conditions linked to the physical and mental effects of PM2.5. In total, cleaner air accounted for more than a third of the observed decline in mortality during the Great Recession.
This research underscores an essential point: while economic growth is typically equated with progress, it comes with significant trade-offs. The boom times that create jobs also generate unseen but harmful side effects, such as increased pollution. This revelation prompts us to rethink our metrics for societal well-being. Economic growth alone cannot capture the full spectrum of human progress, including health outcomes, community safety, and environmental sustainability.
The dilemma posed by the study raises questions about the traditional pursuit of GDP growth as the primary measure of success. While economic expansion provides employment opportunities, it often comes at the expense of public health and environmental quality. This realization has fueled the emergence of the degrowth movement, which challenges the notion that perpetual economic growth is desirable. Instead, proponents advocate for a shift towards a more holistic understanding of progress, one that prioritizes human well-being and environmental preservation over GDP expansion.
While sympathetic to the principles of the degrowth movement, some argue that actively shrinking the economy may not be the optimal solution. Instead, they advocate for strategies aimed at achieving “better growth” — growth that is environmentally sustainable, socially equitable, and inclusive. By implementing stronger regulatory measures and fostering innovation, it’s possible to create jobs without compromising public health or ecological integrity.
Ultimately, the research underscores the urgent need to strike a balance between economic growth and social welfare. Rather than viewing economic prosperity and public health as mutually exclusive, we should aspire to cultivate an economy that fosters both prosperity and well-being. Achieving this balance requires a reevaluation of our priorities and a commitment to crafting policies that prioritize human flourishing and environmental stewardship. After all, the goal shouldn’t be to choose between work and life — it should be to ensure that both are sustainable and fulfilling.