Yves here. We’re featuring this post more as a critical thinking exercise rather than for the findings of the study posted below, although they are also of interest. As you’ll see, a study performed using 2000 to 2005 data in Germany found that workers who’d lost their jobs didn’t fare as bad as average outcomes suggested, since some were hit hard, while 25% had reached higher of pay in five years.

To which I say “Huh?”

First, even the relatively advantaged 25% would often suffered loss of income and presumably relative savings over the part if not all of the five year period. To reach better conclusions, you’d need to estimate lifetime earnings and see if they had prospects of coming out net ahead, based on the period of no/lower income and to what degree the later, higher earnings more than compensated for that.

Second, 25% better off still confirms