Do Layoffs Work – Assessing the Wider Impact
Research show that layoffs aren't necessarily good for firms, while workers see significant downsides.
Nominal News, written by a PhD Economist, is an economics newsletter that translates the latest economic research into clear, policy‑relevant insights on current issues. Join 4,000 readers for free to stay-up-to-date with Nominal News directly in your inbox:
In the US, a recent report by Challenger, Gray and Christmas Inc (the “Challenger Report”) made significant headlines, as it showed a surge in US layoff announcements in January 2026. The report stated that 108,435 job cuts were announced, a level not seen since 2009. Companies like Amazon and UPS have announced major layoffs. What to make of these layoffs, and, more broadly, are firms making the correct decision when conducting layoffs?
Layoffs in Context
First, it is worth putting the layoffs in context of the US Economy – weekly, around 100,000 to 300,000 new people file for unemployment. This suggests that these job cut announcements are not likely to impact national unemployment figures due to their relatively small size in comparison to the number of unemployed (around 7.5 mln currently). Moreover, as explained by labor economist Guy Berger here, the Challenger Report’s layoff announcement figures do not track actual layoffs well. It is directionally correct (i.e. layoffs have increased), but the magnitude in the Challenger Report is usually much
higher than what actually materializes. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear.
But how do layoffs, in general, impact:
the individuals affected (which includes both laid off workers and workers that were not laid off); and
I’ll start off from the latter.
Firms and Layoffs
The decision to layoff employees is an independent choice by the management of the company. Therefore, we would expect that this decision should bring some positive impact to the company, preferably in a quantifiable way. Answering this question is not as easy as it seems due to the fact that it is difficult to establish the counterfactual, i.e. what would have been had the company not laid off employees. Furthermore, as each company’s circumstances are unique, undertaking a ‘natural experiment’1 is not straightforward. It is difficult to argue that the company that did a layoff is similar to a company that did not do a layoff. However, attempts to address these issues and develop some insights have been made.
Layoff Impacts on Company Management and Stock Performance
Carriger (2016) summarized the research on the impact of downsizing (layoffs). There are two key ways to look at how downsizing might impact a firm – a management perspective, which focuses on how metrics such as profitability and return on equity or assets react to downsizing, and a finance perspective, which focuses on how a company’s publicly traded stock responds to the downsizing.
From a management perspective:
De Meuse et al. (2004) found that the financial metrics of downsizing firms worsened in the years after a layoff event, but over time, improved back to match the financial performance of non–downsizing companies;
They also found that companies that did fewer layoff events performed financially better than companies that had more layoffs;
Guthrie and Datta (2009) found that downsizing reduces firm profitability, and is especially worse in industries characterized by large research & development investment, high growth, and low usage of tangible capital, such as machines (note: interestingly, this seems to describe the characteristics of the tech sector);
Chalos and Chen (2003) found that the cause of downsizing matters. If the reason to downsize is cost-cutting (a reactive downsizing), then firms have worse financial performance; if it is revenue-refocusing (i.e. pro-active downsizing in response to future market trends), then financial performance improves.
Even with the caveat that it is difficult to ascertain what would have happened had these firms not downsized, which would allow us to establish a causal link, most research shows that there is generally no evidence or correlations suggesting downsizing for cost-cutting purposes will improve financial performance. Turning to the financial perspective:
Chen et al. (2001) found that on the layoff announcement day, stock prices respond negatively, especially if the cause behind the layoffs is lowering demand for the company’s goods or services. They do find that profitability and labor productivity increases for companies that conduct layoffs. However, these results occur for companies that have been underperforming to their industry peers for the prior three years. Three years after the layoff decision, operational metrics of firms that conducted layoffs outperform industry peers, while employment reverts back to pre-layoff levels. Interestingly, this improvement does not get reflected in stock market performance – the stock performance three years after the layoff period remains similar to its peers. Hiller et al. (2007) find similar results;
Brookman et al. (2007) found that companies in which CEO’s pay is linked to the performance of the stock are more likely to announce layoffs; this layoff decision does generate positive returns to shareholders. They find that this is potentially due to CEOs “adopting operating strategies that improve operating profits and stock performance”. Furthermore, similar to the Chen et al. (2001) study, Brookman et al. (2007) found that company internal performance metrics improved within two years of the layoff announcement;
Marshall et al. (2012) found that stock prices respond positively to layoffs in good times, but fall in bad times;
Capelle-Blanchard and Couderc (2007) conducted an overview of the entire literature of stock prices reacting to layoff announcements and found that generally stocks respond negatively to these announcements. As with research mentioned above, if the layoffs are driven by ‘defensive’ reasons (the firm is facing a difficulty), then the stock performance is even worse.
From the above, it appears that layoffs have negative impacts in the short-term on company stock prices. If the layoffs are ‘defensive’ in nature, most evidence points that both company stock performance and internal performance will suffer. This does not necessarily determine causality – i.e. do layoffs make the firm worse, or was the firm going to be faring poorly regardless of layoff decision. If the layoffs are done as a strategic decision, evidence suggests that companies fare somewhat better after them. Again, the same causality issue applies as above.
Longer Time Horizon
To further address some of these contradictory results, Carriger (2016) tracked companies for a longer period of time during the 2008 financial crisis. He partitioned companies into 4 groups by two categories: financially healthy and unhealthy companies based on the amount of available cash they were generating, and whether companies downsized in staff or not, specifically in 2008.
He found that companies that downsized in 2008 did worse in the period 2008-2014 than non-downsizing companies, regardless of financial health. However, any difference between these two groups became negligible in 2014. Furthermore, companies that downsized in 2008, immediately began re-hiring, and within 3 years were back to their pre-downsize employee count.
One important issue with this analysis is “Survivorship Bias”. Survivorship bias is the fact that when doing data analysis, we can only use data points of companies that existed (i.e. survived) throughout the data analysis period (in this case, from 2008 to 2014). More specifically, in the case of this particular study on layoffs and firms, we do not observe firms that ceased to exist in 2014. Thus, we do not have data points on companies that either chose or didn’t choose to downsize, but went bankrupt in that time frame. For example, a company that downsized in 2008 and in 2014, appeared to have poor financial performance, maybe would have gone entirely bankrupt if it had not downsized.2 In this instance, survivorship bias may make downsizing and layoffs seem like a less beneficial tool to the firm than it really is.
Layoffs and Individuals
Layoffs impact specific people. Economists are very interested in this impact because layoffs can potentially create many costs. For example, being laid off destroys accumulated human capital3 that was specific to the firm (i.e. by working at a firm, you already know how everything works and because this knowledge is specific to the firm, upon getting laid off, this knowledge is wasted). Furthermore, there are potentially many impacts on laid off workers, including changes to long-run career prospects, health outcomes, and even impacts on their families.
Unexpected Job Loss
Davis and von Wachter (2011) summarize the research around the various impacts of job displacement, an unexpected job loss initiated by the firm, usually involving multiple people being laid off. In their own research, they find that for laid off workers during mass layoff events, lifetime earnings of displaced workers drops by approximately 1.4 years of pre-displacement earnings (i.e. the drop in lifetime earnings is equivalent to you not working for 1.4 years, regardless of length of unemployment). This effect is twice as large, if at the time of the layoff, the unemployment rate in the US is high, above 8%.
There is debate, whether the act of layoffs itself results in lower earnings, or whether a different underlying cause is responsible. Fallick et al (2021) find that it is the joblessness duration after the layoff that explains all the drop in earnings – the longer one is unemployed, the worse their future earnings outcome.
Why Length of Unemployment May Matter
There are several hypotheses why duration of unemployment may have a significant impact on future earnings. The mains ones are:
worker differences (there is something inherently different about workers that stay unemployed longer, which results in them earning less in the future);
human capital depreciation (the longer one is unemployed, the more they ‘forget’ about the job and become less effective and thus, receive a lower wage);
changes to local labor markets (if many of those laid off are in one market, there is an over-supply of workers, leading to a reduction in earnings); and
moving to a worse firm (this is called the job ladder model: good companies hire from worse companies, but worse companies hire from the unemployed).
The authors find that the most likely reason is number 4. Workers that stay unemployed for longer than four quarters see significant earning reductions because they end up at generally worse firms.
Layoff Impacts – Lower Consumption, Worse Health and Less Child Education
Browning and Crossley (2001), using Canadian job loss data, find that consumption drops significantly for laid off individuals who are in the lower end of the income distribution, as they do not usually possess savings to use for consumption during unemployment spells. Stevens (1997) finds that job displacement lowers job stability, increases earnings instability, increases job and industry switching, as well as makes future unemployment spells more likely. These effects are very persistent, lasting 10 years after the layoff, resulting in earnings 9% below expected levels. If, however, a displaced worker is able to find a job in the same industry very soon after being laid-off, they experience an increase in earnings in comparison to their previous job.
Regarding health, workers that experience job loss have higher incidences of strokes and heart attacks (Burgard, Brand, and House, 2007). Sullivan and von Wachter (2010) use administrative and social security data that allowed them to track workers that were displaced and found that mortality rates significantly increased for this group. Based on their analysis, a job loss during a recession reduced life expectancy for middle-aged men by 1 to 1.5 years.
Besides impacts on the individual, job losses also spread to the family of the impacted workers. Stevens and Schaller (2011) established that parental job loss reduced children’s educational achievement, with children being 15% more likely to repeat a grade. Wightman (2009) further shows that both educational attainment and cognitive development of the children suffer after job loss. Other studies have shown that job loss increases divorce rates4 (Charles and Stephens, 2004), reduces fertility, and decreases homeownership (von Wachter and Handwerker, 2009).
Layoffs have a significant cost on employees. These costs are both direct with falling earnings and consumption, but also indirect, as health, life, and family outcomes are also adversely affected.
Layoffs and the Wider Economy
The prior two sections focused on the impact of layoffs on firms and individuals. These impacts, however, also have costs to the economy. From the firm side, layoffs might lead to lower profitability, which means we are generally using resources less efficiently, and the government has lower tax revenues. The negative consequences to the workers are also costly to the economy; as a society, we have less effective workers due to losses in health, human capital, and job match. Furthermore, government services are also additionally strained due to the adverse health and family outcomes of impacted workers, as they will seek assistance from government programs.
Local Community Impact
Beyond these economic costs, how do layoffs affect the communities and areas they are located in? Foote et al. (2018) studied mass layoff events from 2000 to 2011 to establish how impacted local labor markets respond to such events. They found that, if 1% of a county’s population gets laid off, the county’s labor force drops by 0.19 percentage points. This is caused by two key channels: migration (that is local population moving to other parts of the US) and quitting the labor force (i.e. permanently not looking for a job, retiring, or going on disability). Typically migration was the main driver of local labor market adjustments to layoffs. However, the authors found that after the Great Recession of 2007, quitting the labor force grew substantially and became the predominant way local labor markets adjust to shocks.
Layoffs – Costly to Firms and Employees
Summarizing:
Current layoff announcements are relatively small and their magnitude overestimates the true size layoffs;
It is unclear if firms that do layoffs are better off after layoffs from both operational and stock price perspectives;
Workers that are laid off see real negative impacts – lower consumption and lower health outcomes.
I would preface the above conclusions with the fact that research on layoffs and its impacts still appears to be in its infancy, in part due to data difficulties and assessing the counterfactual (i.e. what would have happened if the firm did or did not conduct layoffs). Overall, though, it appears that the impact of layoffs on the overall economy is very murky – it is unclear if firms truly know that layoffs will improve their own performance, while costs to workers are significant.
Interestingly, the US unemployment insurance program requires firms that have undertaken layoffs to pay larger unemployment insurance taxes for a period of time. The bigger the layoffs, the larger the tax. This policy appears to focus on making the layoff decision a bit less frivolous. During the Great Recession of 2007-2009, this mechanism is estimated to have reduced layoffs by around 825,000.
If you would like to support us in reaching our subscriber goal of 7,000 subscribers, please consider sharing this article and pressing the like❤️ button at top or bottom of this article!
Interesting Reads from the Week
When “Efficiency” Means Admitting You Were Wrong – Antowan Batts writes in Decode Econ that the recent layoff announcements may be driven by ‘malinvestment’ (when capital gets allocated based on distorted market signals rather than genuine economic fundamentals). In other words, firms mistakenly over-hired several years ago and now are incorrectly conducting too many layoffs.
When “Preferences Changed” Stops Being an Explanation – Sebastian Galiani tackles the commonly used explanation for observed economic phenomena (my preferred example being the increase in working from home) is that people’s “preferences” have changed. As Sebastian points out, one needs to explain how and what caused preferences to change before claiming they did.
Will Trump’s Fed Nominee Kevin Warsh Be Chair In Name Only? – Bharat Ramamurti discusses the appointment of the new Federal Reserve Chair with a slightly different perspective from mine, arguing that Kevin Warsh will be able to push through his preferred interest rate policy.
In the hard-sciences (e.g. biology, chemistry), an experiment is when we take two groups and treat one of them with an intervention (for example, a medicine) and argue that any difference of outcomes between the groups is due to the treatment. That is because there shouldn’t be any difference in the group prior to the treatment if the enrollment into the groups was random. In social sciences (e.g. economics, psychology), such experiments are usually not allowed for ethical reasons or feasibility. However, they tend to occur naturally due to laws and regulations that arbitrarily divide people into two groups. For example, two groups with no discernible difference between them: one that receives government intervention and one that doesn’t.
A famous example of survivorship bias occurred during World War II with statistician Abraham Wald. Bombers that returned from flight missions were analyzed for where they had bullet holes from anti-aircraft fire in order to establish where to put additional armor on the planes. One common suggestion was to strengthen the parts that have many bullet holes. Wald, however, recommended adding armor to the areas of the plane that did not have any bullet holes, because the planes that were hit in those areas simply did not return. The planes that returned with bullet holes survived, meaning the areas they were hit were already well protected.
Human capital consists of personal attributes that are of use to the production process, including education, know-how, skills, talent, and health.
Rather than any type of job loss, it is mainly layoffs that result in higher divorces, as they send a signal about the quality of marital match.
Great stuff. I never realized how comprehensive the literature is on the this topic. I also never considered the macro implications of lay offs. This was a great read!