U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration Occasional Paper 2006-09 

Unemployment Insurance and Reemployment among Older Workers 

Prepared for: 

Division of Research and Evaluation 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

Employment and Training Administration 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Prepared by: 

Christopher J. O’Leary 

W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research 

300 South Westnedge Avenue 

Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007, USA 

Tel: 269-343-5541 

Fax: 269-343-3308 

oleary@upjohn.org 

July 2006 

This report has been funded, either wholly or in part, with Federal funds from the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration under Contract Number 

K-6558-8-00-80-60. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views 

or policies of the Department of Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. Government. 
iii

Unemployment Insurance and Reemployment among Older Workers

Table of Contents 

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... vi 

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 

2. SAMPLES FOR ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 3 

3. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 6 

4. EMPIRICAL STRATEGY ................................................................................................. 8 

5. REEMPLOYMENT RATES ............................................................................................ 12 

6. REEMPLOYMENT EARNINGS .................................................................................... 16 

7. EMPLOYMENT STABILITY ......................................................................................... 19 

7.1 Employment Rates........................................................................................................ 19 

7.2 Job Tenure..................................................................................................................... 21 

8. DIFFERENCES BY UI ELIGIBILITY STATUS............................................................ 23 

9. EARLY RETURN TO WORK......................................................................................... 26 

10. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 28 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 30 

List of Tables 

Page

A. Prime Age Means and Older Differences by UI Claimant Group ..........................................xv 

1. Labor Force, Unemployment, and UI Receipt by Age for the U.S., 2002 ..............................34 

2. Sample Size of UI Claimants, 2001 .........................................................................................35 

3 Means of Outcomes and Characteristics of UI Claimants ........................................................36 

4. Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants ..............37 

5. Comparison of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Older and Prime Age 

Claimants ..........................................................................................................................38 
iv

List of Tables (Continued) 

Page

6. Comparison of Employment Rates after Reemployment between Older and Prime Age 

 UI Claimants .....................................................................................................................39 

7. Comparison of the Rate of Staying with the First Major Employer after Reemployment 

 between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants ....................................................................40 

8. Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants .............41 

9. Comparison of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Eligible and Ineligible 

 UI Claimants .....................................................................................................................42 

10. Comparison of Employment Rates after Reemployment between Eligible and Ineligible 

 UI Claimants .....................................................................................................................43 

11. Comparison of the Probability of Staying with the First Major Employer after 

Reemployment between Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants ........................................44 

12. Pooled Sample of Older and Prime Age Workers Eligible for UI in 2001; Advantage 

 of Early Reemployment Using Sample of Those Reemployed in BYB+1 or BYB+2; 

Dependent Variable is the Employment Rate Subsequent to and Including 

 Reemployment Quarter .....................................................................................................45 

List of Figures 

Page

1. Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants ..............46 

2. Differences in Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants ................47 

3. Logit Adjusted Differences in Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime Age 

 UI Claimants .....................................................................................................................48 

4. Comparison of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Older and Prime 

 Age Claimants ...................................................................................................................49 

5. Differences in Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Older and Prime Age 

 Claimants ..........................................................................................................................50 

6. OLS Adjusted Differences in Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Older 

 and Prime Age Claimants .................................................................................................51 

7. Comparison of Employment Rates after Reemployment between Older and Prime 

 Age UI Claimants .............................................................................................................52 

8. Differences in Employment Rates after Reemployment between Older and Prime 

 Age UI Claimants .............................................................................................................53 

9. OLS Adjusted Differences in Employment Rates after Reemployment between 

 Older and Prime Age UI Claimants ..................................................................................54 

10. Comparison of Rates of Staying with the First Major Employer after 

 Reemployment between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants ..........................................55 
v

List of Figures (Continued)

Page

11. Differences in Rates of Staying with the First Major Employer after Reemployment 

 between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants ....................................................................56 

12. OLS Adjusted Differences in Rates of Staying at First Major Employer after 

 Reemployment between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants ..........................................57 

13. Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants ...........58 

14. Comparison of the Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Eligible and 

 Ineligible UI Claimants .....................................................................................................59 

15. Comparison of Employment Rates after Reemployment between Eligible and 

 Ineligible UI Claimants .....................................................................................................60 

16. Comparison of the Rate of Staying with the First Major Employer after 

 Reemployment between Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants ........................................61 
vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Recent years have witnessed an increasing rate of involuntary job loss among older 

workers. Previous research finds that after job loss, older workers have relatively more difficulty 

gaining reemployment and also have greater earnings declines than prime age workers. These 

studies have been based on the Health and Retirement Survey and the Displaced Worker Survey, 

both of which are retrospective surveys on strategic samples from the general labor force. 

Neither has explicitly accounted for the availability of unemployment insurance (UI) benefits 

between jobs. 

UI provides temporary partial wage replacement to active job seekers who are 

involuntarily out of work. For older workers, UI is an important source of income security and a 

potential influence on work and retirement incentives. In proportion to their share of the labor 

force, older workers shoulder a relatively small share of the nation=s unemployment burden, 

while enjoying a higher-than-average chance of receiving UI compensation when jobless and 

seeking work. 

This paper examines the adjustment to involuntary unemployment of older and prime age 

UI claimants. Unlike earlier studies based on surveys of selected samples, our investigation is 

based on a census of UI claimants constructed from records maintained for program 

administration. These data have been compiled for use by partners in Administrative Data 

Research and Evaluation (ADARE) Consortium supported by the U.S. Department of Labor. 

Using data on UI claimants in a large industrialized Midwestern state, we examine patterns of 

reemployment, earnings, and employment stability following job loss. We compare the 

experience of older workers aged 50 years and over with prime age workers aged 30 to 49 

following a claim for UI benefits during the major labor market contraction in 2001. 
vii

Our data on UI claimants includes UI eligibles, UI ineligibles, and UI exhaustees. We 

look at differences across older and prime age age groups within each of the three subgroups. 

We then examine contrasting patterns of reemployment, earnings, and employment stability. 

Our analysis exploits rich data on quarterly claimant earnings in the first 11 quarters following 

these various groups’ claims for UI benefits. 

Reemployment Rates

During the first 11 quarters after a UI claim, the reemployment rate each quarter for older 

UI eligible claimants is consistently below that for prime age UI-eligible claimants. The 

reemployment rate advantage for prime age claimants is between 1.4 and 6.5 percentage points. 

Controlling for observable characteristics in estimating differences between the two age groups, 

the most conservative estimates suggest that the advantage for prime age workers is positive but 

somewhat smaller in magnitude, ranging from 0.9 to 3.2 percentage points above that of older UI 

claimants. 

Among UI-ineligible claimants, prime age claimants have an even larger advantage over 

older claimants in returning to work than is the case among UI-eligible claimants. The advantage 

is most pronounced soon after the UI claim, and it remains when differences are estimated 

controlling for observable characteristics in either OLS or logit models. 

For UI beneficiaries who exhaust their entitlement to UI, there is a statistically significant 

advantage for prime age workers returning to work, beginning with the second quarter after the 

UI claim and in each quarter thereafter. 

Among UI ineligible claimants, prime age claimants return to employment at higher rates 

than older claimants, and the greatest reemployment advantage is in the first three quarters after 
viii

the UI claim. Older UI claimants ineligible for benefits emerge as particularly vulnerable soon 

after applying for benefits. 

Within a year after the UI claim, the relative advantage of prime age workers begins to 

decline within all three claimant groups, and it continues to erode over the next two years. 

Regardless of age, and holding true across all three claimant groups, those who become 

employed sooner after a UI claim appear to also be more successful in later quarters. 

Earnings Recovery

The ratio of average quarterly earnings after the claim divided by average quarterly 

earnings before the claim is called the post-to-pre UI claim earnings ratio. An unadjusted 

comparison of older and prime age UI-eligible claimants suggests that older claimants recover 

about 20 percent less of prior earnings than do prime age claimants. However, controlling for 

differences in characteristics, the advantage for prime age claimants diminishes in all quarters 

and disappears in some quarters. 

Among UI-ineligible claimants there is a generally greater earnings recovery after a UI 

claim, regardless of claimant age, than among UI eligibles. Claimants who fail to qualify for UI 

have relatively low preclaim earnings thereby increasing the likelihood postclaim earnings will 

be the same or higher. Among the UI-ineligible, unadjusted differences suggest that prime age 

claimants have modestly higher post-to-pre UI claim earnings ratios than older claimants. 

However, controlling for observable characteristics in estimating differences among UI 

ineligibles, older claimants employed the first quarter after claim have a statistically significant 

relative earnings advantage, and there are no significant differences in relative earnings recovery 

by age for those employed in any other later quarters. 
ix

For UI exhaustees the level of earnings recovery is lower than for either other eligible 

claimants or ineligible claimants. Comparing unadjusted earnings ratios, prime age claimants 

still have an advantage over older claimants in every quarter observed. Controlling for 

observable characteristics, the earnings ratio advantage for prime age claimants declines for each 

quarterly reemployment cohort and remains significantly higher in only three of eleven quarters. 

Employment Rates

Among those reemployed in the first six quarters after the UI claim, the subsequent 

employment rate for prime age UI-eligible claimants exceeds that for older claimants by 

significant amounts. The employment rates for both age groups decline after the first quarter 

reemployment cohort, and the advantage for prime age claimants diminishes for those 

reemployed in later quarters. Controlling for differences in characteristics, the prime age 

claimants reemployed in the first four quarters and the sixth quarter after claim have significantly 

higher employment stability after reemployment than do older claimants. 

Among UI-ineligible claimants, prime age workers reemployed in the first three quarters 

after the UI claim have a higher rate of subsequent employment stability than do older claimants. 

Among the UI ineligible reemployed seven or more quarters after the claim, the older claimants 

appear to have modestly higher rates of employment. 

As would be expected, employment rates among UI exhaustees are depressed in the first 

two quarters after the claim because of their continuing receipt of benefits. In quarters after that, 

employment rates for both age groups rise to levels comparable to the full sample of UI-eligible 

claimants. The pattern of advantage for prime age workers in maintaining steady employment is 

similar to that for all UI-eligible claimants. The prime age UI claimants getting reemployed in 
x

the first six quarters after the UI claim have higher employment rates, and controlling for 

observable characteristics the differences are significant for all of the first six quarters except the 

fifth. 

Prime age claimants have an advantage in the first five quarters after a UI claim. After 

the fifth quarter, the older claimants have relatively higher employment rates among the UIbenefit exhaustees and the UI-ineligible claimants. 

Job Tenure

Older workers remain employed with their new employers at a significantly higher rate 

than prime age workers. Controlling for differences in observable characteristics in estimation, 

the advantage for older UI-eligible claimants ranges from 1.8 to 6.5 percentage points. 

Older UI-ineligible claimants also achieve higher rates of job tenure within the 

observable period than do their prime age counterparts. The differences are not as large as for 

UI-eligible claimants, but older workers reemployed in the first six quarters after the UI claim 

have a statistically significant advantage in subsequent job tenure over their prime age 

counterparts. 

For UI exhaustees, the same pattern of relative job tenure success is observed. Older UI 

exhaustees enjoy longer job tenure with their new employers after UI claims than do prime age 

claimants who exhaust UI entitlements. Controlling for observable characteristics, the advantage 

for older exhaustees ranges from 0.9 to 6.8 percentage points. The most meaningful results 

come during the first five quarters after the claim, when at least six quarters of subsequent 

employment are still observable. During this period the adjusted advantage in job tenure for 
xi

older UI exhaustees is statistically significant and averages more than 5 percentage points higher 

than for prime age UI exhaustees. 

Regarding overall stability of employment after a UI claim, prime age UI claimants 

return to more steady regular participation in the labor force, but older workers establish stronger 

employment bonds with their first employer after a UI claim. 

Contrasting Outcomes for UI Eligibles and Ineligibles

UI-eligible claimants are more successful in all of our measures of labor market success 

than UI-ineligible claimants: They return to work at a higher rate in each of the first 11 calendar 

quarters after a UI claim, they have statistically significantly higher earnings replacement ratios, 

they remain employed at a higher rate after gaining reemployment, and they also remain 

employed with the major employer in the reemployment quarter longer. 

Early Return to Work

A general theme in the results of all outcomes is that those who get reemployed sooner 

have better subsequent labor market success. We examined this question directly on a 

subsample of UI claimants reemployed in either the first or second quarter after the UI claim. 

We estimated a regression model explaining the subsequent employment rate for each individual. 

 For each claimant in the sample, the variable measures the proportion of quarters employed 

since reemployment—including the quarter of reemployment. Our models control for personal 

characteristics and parameters of UI entitlements. Among those eligible for UI benefits, prime 

age claimants who get reemployed in the first quarter after their UI claim increase their 

employment rate by an average of 2.82 percentage points relative to those getting back to work 
xii

in the second quarter after their claim. The similar impact estimate for older UI-eligible 

claimants is a 0.92-percentage-point gain in the employment rate. 

Summary 

A quick summary of the main findings is presented in Table A for the first four quarters 

after the UI claim on each outcome for all three claimant groups. 

Compared to older UI-eligible claimants, prime age UI-eligible claimants have superior 

outcomes in terms of most measures of subsequent labor market success. They have higher 

reemployment rates, and after reemployment they enjoy higher earnings replacement and greater 

employment stability. Older UI-eligible claimants maintain longer steady employment with the 

major employer in their reemployment quarter.1

 

UI-ineligible claimants have lower gross rates of reemployment in each quarter after the 

UI claim than do eligible claimants. Still, reemployment rates for prime age claimants are higher 

than for older claimants. The same pattern of results by age emerges for employment rates after 

reemployment among UI claimants. Among UI-ineligible claimants, older workers maintain 

longer attachments to their major employer in the reemployment quarter, and older UI claimants 

manage to obtain earnings recovery that somewhat exceeds that achieved by prime age workers. 

Because of the length of time they have been receiving benefits, UI exhaustees have 

particularly low gross reemployment rates in the first two quarters after a UI claim; however, the 

gross reemployment rate rises to become higher than that of other eligible claimants in 

subsequent quarters. Patterns of differential outcomes by age are comparable to the full sample 

 1

Many UI claimants have received earnings from more than one employer in a calendar quarter. The major 

employer is defined as the employer in the quarter paying the greatest share of total quarterly earnings. 
xiii

of UI-eligible claimants. Prime age claimants have higher reemployment rates, higher earnings 

recovery, and higher employment rates following reemployment, and they have lower job tenure 

with the major employer following employment. 

Conclusion

Among UI claimants in the administrative records of a major Midwestern state, compared 

to prime age counterparts, older UI claimants return to work at lower rates, are less successful at 

returning to prior earnings levels, and have lower employment rates in the near term after 

reemployment. These are the same qualitative results that emerged in earlier studies of older 

workers that were based on general survey data on dislocated workers (Farber, Haltiwanger, and 

Abraham 1997; Chan and Stevens 2001). 

One finding not reported in the related literature is that older workers who do gain 

reemployment after an involuntary job separation maintain better attachment to their new 

employers than do their prime age counterparts.2

 This result obtains for all three subsamples of 

UI claimants: benefit eligible, benefit ineligible and exhaustees of benefit entitlements. The 

longer employer attachments observed suggest that prospective employers can benefit from 

hiring older workers. 

The relative advantage for prime age UI claimants over older claimants in reemployment, 

earnings recovery, and subsequent employment is greatest in the first year after the claim for 

benefits. There is also evidence that those who get back to work in the very first quarter after a 

UI claim have higher subsequent employment rates than those getting back to work only one 

 2

UI-eligible claimants must have been involuntarily separated from their prior employers, and some of the 

UI-ineligible claimants may also have been involuntarily separated while failing to qualify for UI benefits because of 

inadequate levels of prior earnings to be insured against joblessness. 
xiv

quarter later. Controlling for observable factors, the advantage for prime age workers may be as 

large as 4 percentage points in the near-term employment rate and as large as 1 percentage point 

for older workers. 

At least two important lessons emerge from this research. First, employers on the 

demand side of the labor market should be aware when filling their staffing needs of the 

reliability and loyalty offered by older workers. Second, public employment policy-makers 

facilitating labor supply should see these results as further evidence that getting dislocated 

workers back to work quickly can improve their labor market success for the foreseeable future: 

Early reemployment pays big dividends. 
Table A. Prime Age Means and Older Differences by UI Claimant Group 

UI Eligible UI Ineligible U

Outcome 

Quarters 

after the UI 

Claim 

Prime Age 

Mean 

Older 

Difference 

Prime Age 

Mean 

Older 

Difference 

Prime Ag

Mean 

1 0.676 -0.019** 0.620 -0.048** 0.326 

2 0.405 -0.032** 0.286 -0.037** 0.271 

Reemployment 3 0.267 -0.032** 0.189 -0.032** 0.295 

Rate 4 0.206 -0.032** 0.128 -0.021** 0.243 

1 1.085 -0.009 1.329 0.123* 0.810 

2 1.071 -0.042** 1.269 0.025 0.970 

Earnings 3 0.912 -0.058* 1.236 0.057 0.904 

Recovery 4 0.841 -0.043 1.201 0.100 0.824 

1 0.865 -0.056** 0.791 -0.035** 0.672 

2 0.793 -0.041** 0.728 -0.058** 0.763 

Employment 3 0.777 -0.040** 0.681 -0.078** 0.787 

Rate 4 0.763 -0.032** 0.684 -0.056* 0.770 

1 0.598 0.050** 0.417 0.106** 0.266 

2 0.557 0.060** 0.434 0.091** 0.435 

Job 3 0.486 0.065** .0462 0.094** 0.472 

Tenure 4 0.507 0.047** 0.493 0.022 0.501 

* (**) Statistically significant in a two-tailed test at the 90 percent (95 percent)confidence level. 
1

1. INTRODUCTION 

In recent years an increasing proportion of older workers have suffered involuntary job 

loss (Farber, Haltiwanger, and Abraham 1997, p. 59). Prime age workers experience a 

disproportionately large share of job layoffs. However, after being laid off, older workers have 

relatively more difficulty gaining reemployment and recovering to their former earnings level 

(Chan and Stevens 2001, p. 484). The greater earnings decline among older job losers has been 

attributed to their longer job tenure and higher earnings before separation (Kuhn and Sweetman 

1999, p. 671–672). This paper investigates reemployment and earnings patterns following a 

claim for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits by older workers. This sheds light on the role 

of UI in adjustment to involuntary unemployment for older workers relative to prime age 

workers. 

Although they experience greater earnings declines, older workers are more likely to 

qualify for UI and to draw more benefits during jobless periods (O=Leary and Wandner 2001, p. 

87). The shares of older workers among the labor force, the total unemployed, and the insured 

unemployed in the United States for 2002 are reported in Table 1. The figures are based on 

monthly averages for the year and indicate that those aged 45 years and over made up one-third 

of the labor force, encompassed only one-quarter of those experiencing unemployment, but 

included two-fifths of all UI beneficiaries. The national average numbers suggest that older 

workers shoulder a proportionately smaller share of the unemployment burden and enjoy a 

higher than average chance of receiving UI compensation while jobless and seeking work. 

UI provides temporary partial-wage replacement to active job seekers who are 

involuntarily out of work. For older workers, UI is an important source of income security and a 

potential influence on work and retirement incentives. Using data on UI claimants in a large 
2

industrialized Midwestern state, we examine patterns of reemployment, earnings, and 

employment stability following job loss. These data have been compiled for use by partners in 

Administrative Data Research and Evaluation (ADARE) Consortium supported by the U.S. 

Department of Labor. Starting from administrative records that provide a census of all UI 

claimants, we compare the experience of older workers aged 50 years and over with prime age 

workers aged 30 to 49 following a claim for UI benefits during the labor market contraction in 

2001. 

This paper proceeds by describing our sample of UI claimants for analysis and comparing 

the characteristics of subsamples of UI eligibles, UI ineligibles, and UI exhaustees. We look at 

differences across older and prime age age groups within each of the three subsamples. We then 

present an overview of our methodology for analysis of reemployment, earnings, and 

employment stability. In Section Four we examine contrasting patterns of reemployment. 

Section Five presents results about earnings recovery, and Section Six reports on employment 

stability as measured by the observable job tenure with a post-UI claim employer. To put the 

differential findings by age into perspective, Section Seven provides a quick examination of 

reemployment, earnings, and employment stability between UI-eligible and -ineligible claimants. 

The final section offers a summary and conclusion. 
3

2. SAMPLES FOR ANALYSIS 

Starting from administrative records that provide a census of all UI claimants, we 

selected a sample of claimants aged 30 and over so as to compare the experience following a job 

separation of older workers aged 50 years and over with prime age workers aged 30 to 49. Our 

sample for analysis is based on UI claims in a major industrial Midwestern state during the labor 

market contraction in 2001. 

Our full sample includes 329,935 UI claimants aged 30 and over, of whom 28.1 percent 

are aged 50 or older. Table 2 summarizes the composition of our sample in terms of UI 

eligibility and exhaustion of UI entitlement for benefit years started in calendar year 2001. 

Overall, 83.6 percent of claimants were UI eligible, and 29.5 percent of eligible claimants 

exhausted their initial entitlement of regular UI benefits. Older claimants had an appreciably 

higher rate of UI benefit eligibility (88.7 percent compared to 81.7 percent for prime age 

claimants), but among UI-eligible claimants older workers exhausted benefit entitlements at 

about the same rate as prime age claimants (29.8 percent compared to 29.4 percent for prime age 

claimants). 

The means of outcome variables and claimant characteristics for our three analysis 

samples are summarized in Table 3. The first three rows in the table are common UI outcomes 

measured over the benefit year: weeks of UI benefits drawn, the fraction of UI entitlement used, 

and the proportion drawing their full monetary entitlement—the UI benefit exhaustion rate. 

Among those eligible for UI, there are no appreciable differences between older and prime age 

UI claimants in terms of UI weeks drawn or the rate of exhausting UI benefit entitlements. 

Neither are there significant differences for the two age groups from the overall mean of 14.9 

weeks of UI drawn in the benefit year and 58.2 percent of entitled benefits drawn. The mean 
4

duration of UI weeks drawn by older and prime age exhaustees of regular UI benefits was not 

significantly different: being 25.7 weeks for older claimants and 25.6 weeks for prime age 

claimants. The maximum duration of regular UI benefits is 26 weeks. 

Among UI eligibles, there is virtually no difference between older and prime age 

claimants in terms of the new U.S. Department of Labor performance indicator for 

reemployment. Checking for the presence of earnings in quarterly UI wage records in the 

quarter after the benefit year begin date (BYB), we find that 67.5 percent of older claimants and 

67.6 percent of prime age claimants show earnings as evidence of reemployment.3

 Naturally, UI 

benefit exhaustees have a lower rate of being employed one quarter after the quarter of the BYB. 

 Furthermore, ineligible UI claimants are less successful at gaining reemployment than are UIeligible claimants. A difference across the age groups exists in terms of reemployment among 

both UI ineligibles and benefit exhaustees. For both groups, a smaller share of the older group 

gains reemployment relative to the prime age group. 

The similarities in outcomes between older and prime age UI-eligible claimants occur 

despite significant differences between the two groups in terms of some measurable 

characteristics. Older eligible claimants are more likely to be white and to have a lower level of 

educational attainment than prime age claimants. Older workers also had significantly higher 

levels of prior earnings: their income in the base period—the 12 months before claiming 

unemployment benefits—was nearly $7,000 higher.4

 

 3

 Like the performance indicator we use earnings as evidence of employment. Since earnings in the UI 

claim quarter could lie before or after the claim, we start checking employment in the calendar quarter after the 

claim. 

4

The UI program base period for earnings is the first four of the five completed calendar quarters 

immediately preceding the quarter of the UI claim for benefits. The level of base period earnings is a measure of the 

degree of labor force attachment and a prime factor in determining eligibility for UI benefits. 
5

In terms of UI program entitlements among eligible claimants, the mean entitled duration 

was 25.8 weeks for both older and prime age groups, the average weekly benefit amount (WBA) 

was $5 higher for older claimants at $277, the percentage at the state WBA maximum was 3.4 

percentage points higher for prime age claimants, and the percentage exempt from job search 

was 5.9 percent higher for older claimants.5

Claimants not eligible for UI benefits are somewhat more likely to be younger, female, 

nonwhite, less educated, and to have lower base period earnings than UI-eligible claimants. 

Compared to all eligible claimants, UI benefit exhaustees are more likely to be female, nonwhite, 

more educated, and to have moderately lower base-period earnings. 

 5

Most UI claimants must register for active job search with the state employment service to maintain 

continuing eligibility for UI. Exemptions from registration include claimants designated by their employer as being 

on a fixed-term layoff awaiting recall to a prior job, union members who get job referrals from union hiring halls, 

and participants in job training approved by the state employment commissioner (O’Leary 2006). 
6

3. BACKGROUND 

Earnings impacts of involuntary job loss for the average worker have been estimated to 

be on the order of one-quarter of his or her prior earnings levels (Jacobson, Lalonde, and 

Sullivan 1993). We also know that peak life-cycle earnings tend to occur around the age of 50 

(Heckman 1974). As workers age, the work-leisure decision increasingly includes the option of 

retirement. As they approach retirement age, it is common for them to work reduced hours on 

the career job or to migrate to a “bridge” job as a step in the transition toward full retirement out 

of the labor market (Quinn 1999). 

If involuntary job separation means the career job is no longer available, the shift to 

another job involves the loss of firm-specific human capital and, most likely, lower earnings 

potential. The shift to another job can also involve a change in occupations and further loss in 

value of accumulated occupation-specific human capital. For members of industrial unions, 

reemployment in new industries may mean the loss of union rents in earnings. 

As people approach the end of their working years they also tend to be reaching lifetime 

peak levels of asset accumulation. Furthermore, as their age approaches 60 years, the potential 

to make withdrawals from 401k retirement accounts without penalty arrives. In their mid to late 

60s full Social Security entitlements become available, and during their 70th year compulsory 

withdrawals from pretax retirement savings accounts must begin. All of these events make it 

easier for older workers to transition into bridge jobs or full retirement. 

Receipt of UI benefits tends to increase the duration of jobless spells (Decker 1997, p. 

285–298). The maximum entitled duration of regular UI benefits in nearly all states is 26 weeks, 

and typically about one-third of beneficiaries exhaust their benefit entitlement. For older 
7

workers UI benefits could act as additional severance income, easing the transition to a bridge 

job or to full retirement. 

In this paper we contrast the post–UI claim experience for three types of older and prime 

age claimants: UI eligible, UI ineligible, and UI exhaustees. Dividing the sample in this way 

illuminates the influence of UI on return to work among older workers. We examine differences 

in rates of reemployment, reemployment earnings, and employment stability between older and 

prime age UI claimants. 

Given the greater range of post–job separation options for older workers, we expect that 

reemployment rates would be somewhat lower for older workers and that UI benefit eligibility 

would reinforce these lower reemployment rates for older workers. 

Furthermore, given the higher levels of pre-UI claim earnings for older workers, we 

expect that older workers will suffer larger relative earnings declines upon reemployment 

following an involuntary job separation. 

Among those who do gain reemployment following a UI claim, theory does not guide us 

as to whether older or prime age claimants will experience greater job stability in new jobs. It 

may be the case that older workers, having accumulated more general human capital, could more 

easily adapt to new working situations. If this is true, older workers may be more stable in new 

jobs, but this is an empirical question. 
8

4. EMPIRICAL STRATEGY 

With a full year of UI claims inflow for a major midwest industrial state, we have a 

wealth of data with which to inform our view of employment, earnings, and employment 

stability. Our data includes quarterly earnings records for each UI claimant provided by 

employers to the state employment security agency. The data includes at least six quarters 

preceding the quarter of UI claim and at least eleven quarters after the claim for all claimants in 

our analysis sample. We examine the earnings data directly and use earnings data as evidence of 

employment in a quarter.6

 Among those eligible for benefits, the duration of UI receipt could be 

used as an indirect measure of jobless duration, but that measure is not available for UI-ineligible 

claimants.7

 

We examine reemployment rates, earnings, and subsequent employment stability in 

sequence, using similar empirical strategies for each. We begin by tabulating the rate of firsttime reemployment observed in each quarter after the calendar quarter of UI benefit claim. We 

then perform unadjusted tests for differences in mean values of outcomes across the subgroups 

of interest. In doing this we present mean values of outcome variables (x) for older (o) and 

prime age (p) groups. Differences are computed as: 

(1) E(xo) − E(xp), 

 6

Any positive level of earnings reported for the quarter is taken as evidence of employment in that quarter. 

Our results were virtually unchanged when we tried an alternative threshold of $100 in earnings for the quarter—the 

Social Security Administration’s definition of insured employment. 

7

Quarterly earnings are a direct measure of reemployment, observable for all UI claimants regardless of UI 

eligibility. The great majority of earned income in the United States is captured in wage records, since 99 percent of 

employers are covered by UI. Only a small percentage of UI claimants apply for benefits while still working. 
9

where E is the expectation operator yielding means of the random variables, x is an outcome of 

interest, and the index o denotes the sample of older UI claimants while p denotes the sample of 

prime age claimants. Tests of significance are done using t-statistics on the difference in means. 

The result of the computation stated in Equation (1) is equivalent to the slope coefficient 

estimated by ordinary least squares (OLS) applied to a simple bivariate regression model. That 

is, program impacts can be estimated by running the OLS model, 

(2) xi = a0 + a1Oi + ui, 

on a pooled sample of older and prime age claimants, where x is the outcome of interest, a1 is the 

difference in the outcome for the older claimants, a0 is the mean value of the outcome for prime 

age claimants, O is a dummy variable with a value of 1 for older UI claimants and 0 otherwise, ui

is a normally distributed mean zero error term, and i is an index denoting individuals in either the 

prime age or older samples. Tests for significance of differences are simply t-tests on the 

parameter a1. 

Since older and prime age UI claimants differ significantly in terms of observable 

characteristics, it would not be surprising to observe different labor market outcomes across the 

groups. That is, observed outcomes may differ by age because of characteristics associated with 

age, rather than because of the difference in age alone. To remove the influence of covariates 

when comparing outcomes for the two different age groups, Equation (2) may be augmented by a 

set of variables representing n observable characteristics, zk (k = 1, ..., n). To estimate the 

difference between older and prime age UI claimants, controlling for characteristics, we can run 

the following multivariate regression model, 
10

(3) xi = a0 + a1Oi + b1z1i + b2z2i + ...+ bnzni + ui, 

by ordinary least squares (OLS) on the pooled sample of older and prime age UI claimants. Our 

list of covariates zi includes variables that can affect the decision of older workers to return to 

work, such as the presence of income from private pensions, severance pay, vacation pay, social 

security, or other sources of income affecting UI benefit entitlement.8 The method of Equation 

(3) yields differences adjusted for observable characteristics. 

Since the main dependent variable of interest—proportion returning to work—is a 

fraction between zero and one, the regression model predicts the probability of re-employment. 

The OLS estimation is a linear probability model, which may yield biased estimates. OLS 

estimates may be biased since the range of variation in the dependent variable is constrained to 

the zero-one interval. Maddala (1982, pp. 22–27) suggests using the logit estimator in such 

cases: 

(4) xi = f(Oi,z1i, . . . ,zni, ui; B), 

 8

Control variables zi in our models are as follows: county unemployment rate in the quarter of UI claim, the 

change in the county unemployment rate (the rate in the UI claim quarter minus the rate in the prior quarter), 

indicator for older claimant (age 50–65), indicator for sex (male = 1), race indicators (six categories), education 

indicators (four categories), UI base period earnings (earnings in the first four of the five calendar quarters preceding 

the quarter of the UI claim), the number of employers in UI earnings base period, the UI weekly benefit amount 

(WBA), an indicator for the individual WBA value being at the state allowed maximum of $289, entitled weeks of 

UI compensation (maximum 26 weeks), job search–exempt (principally on stand-by awaiting employer recall or a 

member of a union hiring hall), indicators for benefit year begin (BYB) date in each of four calendar quarters, 

indicator variable for “has dependents,” indicator for “has a handicap,” indicator for “deductions made from UI for 

severance pay,” indicator for “deductions made for vacation pay,” indicator for “deductions made for company 

pension income,” indicator for “deductions made for social security benefit income,” indicator for “deductions made 

for other reasons,” indicators for “prior industry of employment (21 NAICS groups),” indicators for “county of 

residence,” and a set of indicator variables for residence in neighboring states. 
11

where B is a vector of regression model parameters, and the error term ui is assumed to vary 

according to the logistic distribution. The problem of bias in estimation is usually most severe 

when the bulk of probability clusters at one or the other extreme of the zero-one interval. Since 

reemployment probabilities for prime age and older UI claimants generally range from about 40 

to 80 percent, the limited range of the dependent variable is not a likely source of severe bias in 

estimating parameters by OLS. Nonetheless, we present estimates of the difference in outcomes 

estimated by all three methods outlined: simple unadjusted, OLS regression adjusted, and logit 

regression adjusted. 
12

5. REEMPLOYMENT RATES 

To examine the quarterly time pattern of reemployment after a UI claim, we compute the 

ratio of those who gain reemployment for the first time in a quarter to the UI claimants yet to 

return to work. This concept is called a conditional hazard rate to reemployment, or the exit rate 

from joblessness. Denoting time zero (t = 0) as the quarter of UI claim, and rt as the number of 

period t claimants yet to have earnings at the start of quarter t, then h(t) is the conditional 

reemployment hazard rate in quarter t, 

(5) h(t) = (rt - rt+1)/rt . 

The hazard rate each quarter is a conditional measure of a change in behavior because it depends 

on the number who had yet to gain reemployment at the start of each quarter (rt). The expression 

h(t) is the popular Kaplan-Meier hazard rate, which is discussed thoroughly by Kiefer (1988). 

The number of UI claimants still seeking reemployment at the start of each time period (rt) is 

called the risk set because it is the number of job seekers “at risk” of changing their labor market 

status in the subsequent quarter. For UI claimants, Table 4 presents reemployment hazard rate 

estimates computed according to Equation (5) for the three subgroups of UI claimants. 

The top panel of Table 4 presents results of hazard rate computations for older and prime 

age UI claimants eligible for benefits, the middle panel presents results of similar computations 

for claimants not eligible for UI, and the bottom panel presents results for UI benefit exhaustees. 

 Rows in each panel present results for quarters following the quarter of the benefit year begin 

(BYB) date that falls in the quarter of the UI claim (t = 0). The columns headed “reemployment 

rate” list hazard rates of exit to reemployment for each quarter (t = 1, ..., 11) after the quarter of 
13

claim for prime age and older claimants. After the first quarter (t = 1), the exit rate for older 

eligible UI claimants is consistently below that for prime age eligible claimants. This can be 

seen graphically in the top panel of Figure 1; after the first period the hazard rate curve for older 

claimants is strictly below the curve for prime age claimants. 

Statistical tests of the simple difference in the reemployment rates also suggest an 

advantage for prime age workers in every quarter after the first one following the UI claim. The 

estimates indicate the range of advantage is between 1.4 and 6.5 percentage points. Because 

older and prime age claimants differ in ways that can affect their ability and desire to gain 

reemployment, it is important to control for characteristics when estimating the difference in 

rates of returning to work by age. Table 3 summarizes the observable ways that the groups 

differ. Tests for differences in the hazard rates were done by ordinary least squares regression 

models, controlling for these and other factors listed in the previous section. Controlling for 

observable factors increases the estimated advantage for prime age workers in gaining 

reemployment each quarter after a UI claim. The range of estimated advantage is 2.1 to 5.8 

percentage points. Since the dependent variable reemployment hazard rate is a fraction limited 

to range between zero and one, the OLS model is a linear probability model which can 

alternatively be estimated as a logit. The logit estimator constrains estimated parameters of the 

model to assure that predicted probabilities from the model fall in the zero-to-one range. The 

logit model yields more conservative estimates of the reemployment advantage for prime age 

workers. The logit range of estimates is 0.9 to 3.2 percentage points over older UI claimants. 

Among those eligible for UI, the rate of returning to work by prime age workers exceeds 

that for older workers by the greatest margin in Quarters 2 through 5 after the claim for benefits. 

 Given that they maintain continuing UI benefit eligibility by remaining able, available, and 
14

actively seeking work, and not refusing any offers of suitable work, beneficiaries may draw out 

available benefits during a 52-week period starting from their benefit year begin (BYB) date. 

That period is called the UI benefit year. Since the maximum benefit entitlement is 26 weeks at 

the full weekly benefit amount (WBA), entitlements may be exhausted during Quarters 2 

through 4 after the calendar quarter of the BYB. These quarters include the period when prime 

age workers show a greater rate of returning to work than older workers. 

We also examine reemployment hazards by age group for UI claimants who are not 

eligible for benefits. The unadjusted results in the second panel in Table 4 suggest that among 

those not eligible for UI, prime age workers have an even larger advantage over older workers 

than is the case among UI-eligible claimants. The advantage is most pronounced early on after 

the UI claim, and remains when differences are estimated, controlling for observable 

characteristics in either OLS or logit models. The most conservative logit results indicate a 

range of advantage for prime age workers starting at 4.8 percentage points in the first quarter and 

declining to 1.0 in the eleventh quarter after the UI claim. These differences are presented 

graphically in the second diagram in Figure 1. The hazard curve for prime age claimants lies 

strictly above that for older claimants. 

Among UI beneficiaries who exhaust their entitlement to UI, the average rate of return to 

work is greatly depressed in the early quarters following the claim, compared to all eligible and 

ineligible claimants. Exhaustion of the 26-week entitlement can take place in one continuous 

uninterrupted spell of 26 weeks from the BYB, or exhaustion may occur later in the benefit year. 

The week of benefit entitlement exhaustion would be delayed if benefit payments are less than 

the WBA in any week because of factors like earnings, severance pay, or receipt of pension 
15

income or Social Security benefits.9 Alternatively, exhaustees may experience multiple spells of 

joblessness punctuated by spells of employment or income sufficient to result in a week of zero 

UI compensation. There is a statistically significant advantage for prime age workers starting 

with the second quarter after the UI claim and in each quarter thereafter. 

The differences between older and prime age UI claimants in returning to work is clearly 

illuminated in Figure 2. The graphs in this figure present simple and regression adjusted 

differences by quarter. The curves show that the OLS adjusted estimates track the simple 

unadjusted differences closely, and that the logit adjusted estimates of differences are uniformly 

more modest. Reemployment advantages for prime age claimants are greatest in the first 

quarters after claim, then diminish. However, Table 4 reports that the absolute rates of first time 

reemployment in these later quarters—nearly three years after the claim—are very low, falling in 

a range between 2 and 7 percent. 

The logit estimates of the prime age claimant reemployment-rate advantage across the 

three samples are combined and presented in Figure 3. The greatest reemployment advantage for 

prime age claimants occurs in the first three quarters after claim and is found among those 

ineligible for UI benefits. Older UI claimants ineligible for benefits emerge as particularly 

vulnerable soon after applying for benefits. Within a year after the UI claim, the relative 

advantage of prime age claimants converges among the three claimant groups, and the advantage 

continues to erode over the next two years. 

 9

In 1976, new federal UI amendments (Public Law 94-566) required a dollar-for-dollar reduction of UI 

payments against “any governmental or other pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or any other similar 

periodic payment which is based on the previous work of such individual” (USDOL 2006, p. 4–19). The rule 

applies only to payments from plans established by the base period or UI chargeable employer. States may disregard 

pension income if established by other than a base period employer, except in the case of Social Security and 

Railroad Retirement benefits, which reduce UI dollar-for-dollar, regardless of when entitlement was established. 

Also, states are permitted to reduce UI by less than each dollar of pension income if an employee’s own 

contributions helped establish the pension benefit (O’Leary and Wandner 2001, p. 108). 
16

6. REEMPLOYMENT EARNINGS

Involuntary job loss has been estimated to significantly reduce future earnings (Jacobson, 

Lalonde, and Sullivan 1993). Furthermore, earnings loss is believed to be greater among older 

workers (Chan and Stevens 2001). In this paper we compare quarterly earnings before and after 

a UI claim between older and prime age workers. 

The outcome we examine is the ratio of average quarterly earnings after the claim to 

average quarterly earnings before the claim. We call this the post-to-pre UI claim earnings 

ratio. After the claim we average earnings across all quarters in which earnings are greater than 

zero. Before the claim we average earnings across Quarters Three through Six prior to BYB. 

This computation for prior earnings better approximates permanent earnings levels by excluding 

quarters when earnings of displaced workers commonly decline below their customary levels—

an earnings pattern often referred to as the Ashenfelter (1978) dip in earnings. The value of the 

ratio for any quarter is computed on the sample of older and prime age workers first reemployed 

in that quarter.10 

Among UI-eligible claimants, prime age workers who get reemployed in the first or 

second quarter after claim appear to have higher average quarterly earnings after the claim than 

before. This can be seen in the top panel of Table 5 and in the top graph in Figure 4. Among 

UI-eligible prime age claimants, the average ratio of post-to-pre UI claim earnings is less than 

one among claimants gaining first reemployment more than two quarters after the UI claim. 

Figure 4 suggests that older claimants consistently recover about 20 percent less of prior 

 10Sample sizes in Table 5 are based on the reemployment rates listed in Table 4. Further sample reductions 

are due to the fact that claimants with average prior quarterly earnings of less than $100 were excluded to eliminate 

outliers. Regressions to estimate adjusted differences in earnings between prime age and older claimants also include 

a variable for the number of postunemployment quarters with earnings, because the reemployment quarter is most 

likely a quarter with less than full-time quarterly hours of work. 
17

earnings than do prime age claimants. This differential is borne out in the simple differences in 

the top panel of Table 5. However, when we control for differences in characteristics, the prime 

age claimant advantage diminishes in all quarters and disappears in some quarters. The top 

graph in Figure 5 illustrates the degree to which observable characteristics explain the prime age 

claimant advantage in earnings recovery. 

Among those not eligible for UI benefits, there is uniformly a greater earnings recovery 

after UI claim, and a smaller advantage for prime age UI claimants. Controlling for observable 

characteristics in estimating differences among UI ineligibles, older claimants employed the first 

quarter after claim have a significant relative earnings advantage. There are no significant 

differences in relative earnings recovery by age for those employed in later quarters. 

For UI benefit exhaustees, the level of earnings recovery is lower than for both other 

eligible claimants and ineligible claimants. Comparing unadjusted earnings ratios, prime age 

claimants still have an advantage over older claimants in every quarter observed. Controlling for 

observable characteristics, the earnings ratio advantage for prime age claimants declines for each 

quarterly reemployment cohort and remains significantly higher in only three of eleven quarters. 

 Regression adjusted differences between older and prime age UI claimants in post-to-pre claim 

earnings ratios are summarized in Figure 6 for UI eligibles, ineligibles, and exhaustees. The 

figure shows that among those getting reemployed in the first year after a UI claim, earnings 

recovery is best for older UI ineligibles. This is largely due to the low pre-UI claim earnings 

levels for ineligibles. For UI-ineligibles gaining reemployment after the first quarter following 

the claim, there are no statistically significant differences in post-to-pre UI claim earnings ratios 

between older and prime age claimants. This is reflected in the volatility of the curve in Figure 

6. For UI-eligibles, including exhaustees, the figure provides a graphic view of an approximately 
18

10 percent advantage for prime age claimants getting reemployed in the first two years after a UI 

claim. 
19

7. EMPLOYMENT STABILITY 

Two different measures of employment stability are examined. First, we look at the 

proportion of quarters a UI claimant is employed after reemployment, and second, we check to 

see how long the claimant stays working for the major employer in his or her reemployment 

quarter. The latter is a measure of short-term job tenure; we call the former an employment rate. 

 We track both outcomes for older and prime age claimants who are UI eligible, UI ineligible, 

and UI exhaustees. Both outcomes are measured during the 11 observable quarters after the UI 

claim. 

7.1 Employment Rates 

To measure the employment rate for a claimant employed the first quarter after the claim, 

the denominator of the employment rate is 11, and the numerator is the number of quarters with 

earnings. For a claimant who first gains reemployment in the fifth quarter after the claim, the 

employment rate is based on the seven observable quartersBincluding the quarter of 

reemployment. The number of quarters in the computation depends on when the client becomes 

reemployed. While comparisons between older and prime age reemployed in a given period are 

valid, comparisons between those reemployed in different quarters after the BYB are not valid 

because of differences in the number of quarters observed after reemployment. 

The employment rate for prime age UI-eligible claimants reported in the top panel of 

Table 6 exceeds that for older claimants by significant amounts for those reemployed in the first 

six quarters after the UI claim. The rate for older claimants is 81.4 percent and the rate for prime 

age workers is 85.6—4.2 percentage points higher. As seen in the top graph of Figure 7, the 

rates for both groups decline from the first quarter, and the advantage for prime age claimants 
20

diminishes in later quarters but appears to reemerge in Quarters nine and ten. However, these 

later quarters reflect only very short term employment. Controlling for differences in 

characteristics, the prime age claimants reemployed in the first four quarters and the sixth quarter 

after claim have significantly higher employment stability after reemployment than do older 

claimants. 

Among those not eligible for UI benefits, prime age workers reemployed in the first three 

quarters after the UI claim have a higher rate of employment stability than do older claimants. 

The second graph in Figure 7 illustrates how employment rates for both groups flip-flop 

thereafter. Figure 8 presents graphs of the simple and regression adjusted differences in 

employment rates, and among the UI ineligible reemployed seven or more quarters after the 

claim, the older claimants appear to have modestly higher rates of employment. 

As would be expected, employment rates among UI exhaustees are depressed in the first 

two quarters after the claim. In quarters after that, employment rates for both age groups rise to 

levels comparable to the full sample of UI-eligible claimants. The pattern of advantage for 

prime age workers in maintaining steady employment is also similar to all UI-eligible claimants. 

 The prime age UI claimants getting reemployed in the first six quarters after the UI claim have a 

higher employment rate, controlling for observable characteristics, and the differences are 

significant for all quarters except the fifth. 

Regression-adjusted estimates of the older minus the prime age employment rates are 

summarized in Figure 9. The graph shows prime age claimants to have an advantage in the first 

five quarters after UI claim. After the fifth quarter the older claimants have relatively higher 

employment rates among the UI-benefit exhaustees and the UI-ineligible claimants. 
21

7.2 Job Tenure 

Quarterly UI wage records for a particular claimant often contain earnings from more 

than one employer in a given quarter. We define the major employer for a claimant in a quarter 

as being the employer paying the most wages to the claimant in that quarter. We measure job 

tenure by counting the quarters with the major employer from the reemployment quarter. Table 

7 gives the ratio of the number of quarters with the same major employer starting with the 

quarter of reemployment, divided by the number of quarters with earnings since reemployment. 

Older workers remain employed with their new employers at a significantly higher rate 

than prime age workers. Table 7 reports that among UI eligibles the simple unadjusted 

advantage for older workers after the reemployment quarter ranges from 1.5 to 11.3 percentage 

points higher than prime age workers. Controlling for observable characteristics in estimation, 

the advantage for older UI-eligible claimants ranges from 1.8 to 6.5 percentage points.11 These 

results can be viewed graphically in Figure 10, where the top panel shows older claimants to 

maintain longer job tenure among the reemployed. The top panel of Figure 11 shows that this 

advantage diminishes somewhat each quarter, but that tenure is higher for older claimants among 

each reemployment quarter cohort. 

Older UI-ineligible claimants also achieve higher rates of job tenure within the 

observable period than do their prime age counterparts. The differences are not as large as for 

UI-eligible claimants, but the first six reemployment-quarter cohorts of older workers have a 

statistically significant advantage in subsequent job tenure over their prime age counterparts. 

These results can be seen graphically in the middle panels of Figures 10 and 11. 

 11In addition to the control variables listed above, the job tenure regressions include a variable for the 

number of postreemployment quarters with earnings. This factor adjusts for the fact that the job tenure rate tends to 

be higher for those with fewer observable quarters remaining after reemployment. 
22

For UI exhaustees, the same pattern of relative job-tenure success is observed. Older UI 

exhaustees enjoy longer job tenure with their new employers after UI claims than do prime age 

claimants who exhaust UI entitlements. The simple unadjusted advantage for older UI 

exhaustees ranges from 0.6 to 8.8 percentage points. Controlling for observable characteristics, 

the advantage for older exhaustees ranges from 0.9 to 6.8 percentage points. The most 

meaningful results occur during the first five quarters after the claim, when at least six quarters 

of subsequent employment are observable. During this period, the adjusted advantage in job 

tenure for older UI exhaustees is statistically significant and averages more than 5 percentage 

points higher than for prime age UI exhaustees. 

The job tenure results on age differentials are summarized in Figure 12, which presents 

regression adjusted estimates across UI eligibles, UI ineligibles, and UI exhaustees. With an 

exception only for UI-ineligible claimants reemployed in Quarter 8 after the claim (a result that 

is not statistically significant), all three curves in the graph indicate a positive advantage for 

older UI claimants in job tenure with their first employer after the UI claim. 

Regarding overall stability of employment after a UI claim, prime age UI claimants 

return to more steady regular participation in the labor force, but older workers establish stronger 

employment bonds with their first employer after a UI claim. 
23

8. DIFFERENCES BY UI ELIGIBILITY STATUS 

Our focus on contrasting reemployment and earnings outcomes for older claimants with 

those for prime age claimants may have obscured a more fundamental comparison between UIeligible and -ineligible claimants. We now briefly compare these two samples on three things: 

exit rates to reemployment, post-to-pre UI claim earnings ratios, and employment stability. For 

the last one we examine both employment in any job and steady employment with the major 

employer starting with the quarter of reemployment. We present both unadjusted estimates of 

differences in outcomes, and differences adjusted for characteristics of the samples. As we saw 

in Table 3, compared to UI-eligible claimants, the UI ineligibles are more likely to be prime age, 

female, African American, have a lower educational attainment, and have lower base period 

earnings. 

In each quarter after the UI claim, beneficiaries eligible for UI compensation return to 

work at a higher rate than UI-ineligible claimants. The unadjusted reemployment hazard curves 

summarize this graphically in Figure 13. As reported in Table 8, the positive difference in the 

rate of return to work each quarter for UI-eligible claimants is statistically significant in all of the 

first nine quarters after the claim. Controlling for observable characteristics, this pattern holds 

for all except the first quarter after the claim. After the benefit claim, the unadjusted advantage 

for UI-eligible claimants is 5.8 percentage points in the first quarter but jumps to 12.5 percentage 

points in the second quarter. The smaller difference for the first quarter results from the long 

benefit receipt spells by UI exhaustees, who constitute nearly 23 percent of the UI-eligible 

sample. 

Among those gaining reemployment in the first or second quarter after their UI claim, the 

UI eligibles have statistically significantly higher earnings-replacement ratios than UI-ineligible 
24

claimants. Table 9 reports that the ratios of average reemployment earnings to average earnings 

preceding the claim are higher for UI-eligible claimants in the first two quarters after the claim, 

but that there are no statistically significant differences among claimants first reemployed in 

subsequent quarters. These results are presented graphically in Figure 14. Controlling for 

observable characteristics, the UI-eligible claimants also have higher earnings ratios in Quarters 

four and eleven after the claim. No clear pattern emerges about relative earnings. For both 

eligible and ineligible UI claimants, we see that the post-to-pre earnings ratio tends to decline as 

the quarter of reemployment is delayed. These results do not refute the thesis that those who 

return to work sooner after a UI claim do better in recovering to prior earnings levels. 

After gaining reemployment, UI-eligible claimants remain employed at a higher rate than 

UI-ineligible claimants. Table 10 summarizes the results of unadjusted and regression-adjusted 

estimates of the difference in employment rates after reemployment among UI-eligible and UIineligible claimants. The employment rates, unadjusted over time, are presented graphically in 

Figure 15 for the first 11 quarters after the UI claim. The proportion of UI eligibles maintaining 

employment ranges from 74.6 to 91.0 percent, and the advantage for UI eligibles over ineligibles 

ranges from 2.8 to 9.5 percentage points. 

In addition to maintaining a steadier earnings pattern after reemployment as seen in Table 

11, UI-eligible claimants also remain employed with the major employer in the reemployment 

quarter at a higher rate than UI-ineligible claimants. The difference is greatest for those 

employed in the first two quarters after the UI claim: the major employer retention rates among 

UI eligibles are 63.1 and 57.7 percent as a percentage of the several remaining observable 

quarters. The rate of staying with the major employer after hiring is presented graphically in 

Figure 16. A higher rate of employer retention occurs for UI-eligible claimants in all quarters 
25

observed, but, if we control for observable characteristics, the difference between UI-eligible and 

UI-ineligible claimants is statistically significant only in the first two quarters after the claim. 
26

9. EARLY RETURN TO WORK 

In reviewing the collection of results reported in this paper, a general theme emerges: 

following a UI claim, those who get reemployed sooner have better subsequent labor market 

success. To investigate whether this is indeed the case, we created subsamples of claimants 

reemployed in either the first or second quarter after the UI claim. We then estimated regression 

models having as the dependent variable the employment rate for each individual. For each 

claimant in the sample, the variable measures the proportion of quarters employed since 

reemployment—including the quarter of reemployment. This dependent variable, similar to the 

concept examined in Section 7 above, is a fraction ranging between zero and one. For example, 

someone getting reemployed in the first quarter after the claim and having earnings in only three 

of the other 10 observable quarters would have a value of the dependent variable equal to 4/11. 

We estimated OLS linear probability models of the employment rate on UI-eligible 

claimants reemployed in either the first or second quarter after the UI claim. The aim of the 

model is to determine whether there is a subsequent advantage to getting employed in the first 

quarter as opposed to the second quarter after a UI claim. By confining our analysis to this 

simple question, we avoid issues of small sample sizes and misleading values for the dependent 

variable based on reemployment late in the observable period. 

Our models include an indicator (dummy) variable for being employed in the first quarter 

after the UI claim, a dummy variable for older workers aged 50 to 65 years, and an interaction 

between these two variables. The models control for sex, race, educational attainment, base 

period earnings, number of employers in the base period, WBA, WBA at state maximum, 

entitled duration of UI benefits in weeks, the change in the county unemployment rate, and the 

calendar quarter of the BYB. We also include indicator variables for work search exemption for 
27

the presence of dependents, a handicap that may affect work abilities, and deductions from UI 

payments for: severance pay, vacation pay, company pension payments, and Social Security 

payments. Other control variables were included for industry of prior employment (22 NAICS 

categories) and county of residence in the state. Results of estimation for UI-eligible claimants 

are presented in Table 12. 

Among those eligible for UI benefits, prime age claimants who get reemployed in the 

first quarter after their UI claim increase their subsequent employment rate by an average 2.82 

percentage points relative to those getting back to work in the second quarter after their claim. 

The similar impact estimate for older UI-eligible claimants is a 0.92-percentage-point gain in the 

employment rate. These estimates were computed in a regression model controlling for 

observable differences. This is further evidence of the value of quickly returning to work, and it 

supports public policies facilitating speedy reemployment. Research evidence on the 

effectiveness of public reemployment programs related to UI is provided by O’Leary (2006). An 

enumeration of public employment and training programs and the participation in them by older 

workers is provided by Simonetta (2004). 

The parametric model of employment also suggests that among UI-eligible claimants 

who get employed in the first or second quarter after a UI claim, older claimants have a 

subsequent employment rate that is an average of 4.66 percentage points below that for prime 

age claimants, and males have an employment rate 3.24 percentage points below that for 

females. Estimates are also presented for the effects on employment rates of other characteristics 

among UI-eligible claimants. Among the UI program parameters it should be noted that those 

with higher base-period earnings, higher WBAs, and higher entitled duration of benefits also had 

higher employment rates.
28

10. CONCLUSION

Among UI claimants in the administrative records of a major Midwestern state, compared 

to prime age counterparts, older UI claimants return to work at lower rates, are less successful at 

returning to prior earnings levels, and have lower employment rates in the near term after 

reemployment. These are the same qualitative results that emerged in earlier studies of older 

workers based on general survey data on dislocated workers. 

One finding not reported in the earlier related literature is that older workers who do gain 

reemployment after an involuntary job separation maintain better attachment to their new 

employers than do their prime age counterparts.12 This result pertains to all three subsamples of 

UI claimants: benefit eligibles, benefit ineligibles, and exhaustees of benefit entitlements. The 

longer employer attachments suggest that older workers could be a valuable asset for prospective 

employers. 

The relative advantage for prime age UI claimants in reemployment, earnings recovery, 

and subsequent employment is greatest in the first year after the claim for benefits. There is also 

evidence that those who get back to work in the very first quarter after a UI claim have higher 

near-term employment rates than those getting back to work only one quarter later. Controlling 

for observable factors, the advantage for prime age workers may be as large as a 4 percentage 

point gain in the near-term employment rate, and as much as 1 percentage point for older 

workers. 

At least two important lessons emerge from this research. First, employers on the 

demand side of the labor market should be aware when filling their staffing needs of the 

 12A condition of this finding is that UI-eligible claimants must have been involuntarily separated from their 

prior employers. Some of the UI-ineligible claimants may also have been involuntarily separated while failing to 

qualify for UI benefits because of inadequate levels of prior earnings to be insured against joblessness. 
29

reliability and loyalty offered by older workers. Second, public employment policymakers 

facilitating labor supply should see these results as further evidence that getting dislocated 

workers back to work quickly can improve their labor market success for the foreseeable future. 

In short, early reemployment pays big dividends. 
30

REFERENCES 

Ashenfelter, Orley. 1978. “Estimating the Effect of Training Programs on Earnings,” Review of 

Economics and Statistics, 60(1): 47–57. 

Chan, Sewin, and Ann Huff Stevens. 2001. Job Loss and Employment Patterns of Older Men. 

Journal of Labor Economics 19(2): 484–521. 

Decker, Paul T. 1997. “Work Incentives and Disincentives,” in Unemployment Insurance in the 

United States: Analysis of Policy Issues, Christopher J. O=Leary and Stephen A. 

Wandner, eds. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, pp. 

285–320. 

Farber, Henry, John Haltiwanger, and Katherine Abraham. 1997. “The Changing Face of Job 

Loss in the United States, 1981-1995.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: 

Microeconomics, pp. 55–128. 

Heckman, James J. 1974. “Life Cycle Consumption and Labor Supply: An Explanation of the 

Relationship Between Income and Consumption Over the Life Cycle,” American 

Economic Review, 64(1): 188-94. 

Jacobson, Louis, Robert LaLonde, and Daniel Sullivan. 1993. “Earnings Losses of Displaced 

Workers,” American Economic Review, 83(4): 685–709. 

Kiefer, Nicholas M. 1988. “Economic Duration Data and Hazard Functions.” Journal of 

Economic Literature, 26(2): 646–679. 

Kuhn, Peter, and Arthur Sweetman. 1999. “Vulnerable Seniors: Unions, Tenure, and Wages 

Following Permanent Job Loss,” Journal of Labor Economics 17(4, part 1): 671–693. 

Maddala, G.S. 1982. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. London: 

Cambridge University Press. 
31

O=Leary, Christopher J., and Stephen A. Wandner. 2001. “Unemployment Compensation and 

Older Workers,” in Ensuring Health and Income Security for an Aging Workforce, Peter 

P. Budetti, Richard V. Burkhauser, Janice M. Gregory and H. Allan Hunt, eds. 

Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, pp. 85–133. 

O=Leary, Christopher J. 2006. “State UI Job Search Rules and Reemployment Services,” 

Monthly Labor Review, 129(6): 27–37. 

Quinn, Joseph. 1999. “New Paths to Retirement.” In Forecasting Retirement Needs and 

Retirement Wealth, Brett Hammond, Olivia Mitchell and Anna Rappaport, ed. 

Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. 

Simonetta, Jonathan. 2004. “The Participation of Older Workers in Employment and Training 

Administration Programs” in A Compilation of Selected Papers from The Employment 

and Training Administration’s 2003 Biennial National Research Conference, J. Riley, A. 

Branch, S. Wandner, and W. Gordon, eds., Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training Administration, Office of Policy Development, Evaluation and 

Research. http://wdr.doleta.gov/conference/pdf/BOOK1.pdf Accessed July 20, 2006. 

U.S. Department of Labor. 2006. Comparison of State Unemployment Insurance Laws. 

Washington, DC: Unemployment Insurance Service, Employment and Training 

Administration. http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uilawstable.asp#400 

Accessed July 20, 2006. 
32

Table 1. Labor Force, Unemployment, and UI Receipt by Age for the U.S., 2002 

 Total <=24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >=65 

Labor Forcea

(thousands) 144,863 22,366 32,196 36,926 32,597 16,309 4,469 

Percent of the Labor 

Force 15.4 22.2 25.5 22.5 11.3 3.1 

Total Unemployedb

(thousands) 8,378 2,683 1,890 1,691 1,315 635 163 

Percent of Total 

Unemployed 32.0 22.6 20.2 15.7 7.6 1.9 

Percent of Insured 

Unemployedc

 9.7 23.6 26.6 24.0 12.6 2.9 

NOTES: a

Data from the Handbook of U.S. Labor Statistics, Seventh Edition, 2004, Table 1-7. b

Data from the Handbook of U.S. Labor Statistics, Seventh Edition, 2004, Table 1-28. c

Age information not available for 0.6 percent of beneficiaries. Data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of 

Workforce Security, www.adare_older_UI_claimants.doc, accessed January 9, 2006. 
33

Table 2. Sample Size of UI Claimants, 2001 

Description Overall Older Prime Age 

(1) UI Claimants 329,935 92,811 237,124 

(2) UI Eligible 275,943 82,288 193,655 

(3) UI Ineligible 53,992 10,523 43,469 

(4) UI Exhaustees 81,539 24,523 57,016 

UI Eligibility and Benefit Exhaustion Rates 

UI Eligibility Rate (2)/(1) 0.836 0.887 0.817 

UI Benefit Exhaustion Rate (4)/(2) 0.295 0.298 0.294 

SOURCE: Tabulation of state UI agency data for claimants aged 30 and over. Older claimants aged 50 years and over, 

prime age aged 30 to 49 years. 
Table 3. Means of Outcomes and Characteristics of UI Claimants 

 UI Eligible UI Ineligible Description Overall Older Prime Age Overall Older Prime Age Overall Full-Time Equivalent Weeks of UI 14.9 14.8 15.0 na na na 25.7 Fraction of Entitlement/Benefits Used 0.582 0.574 0.585 na na na 1.000 Exhausted Regular UI 0.295 0.298 0.294 na na na 1.000 Employed One Quarter After BYB 0.676 0.675 0.676 0.606 0.550 0.620 0.322 Age as of BYB 43.3 54.7 38.5 41.0 54.5 37.7 43.4 Gender, Female 0.329 0.323 0.332 0.461 0.465 0.461 0.366 Race, White 0.834 0.856 0.824 0.692 0.752 0.677 0.791 Race, African American 0.124 0.105 0.132 0.262 0.204 0.276 0.167 Race, Hispanic 0.020 0.015 0.022 0.021 0.016 0.022 0.018 Education, Less than High School 0.198 0.223 0.187 0.258 0.251 0.260 0.201 Education, High School Grad / GED 0.510 0.489 0.519 0.450 0.417 0.458 0.458 Education, Some College 0.195 0.189 0.198 0.210 0.219 0.208 0.220 Education, Bachelors Degree or Higher 0.097 0.098 0.096 0.082 0.113 0.074 0.120 

Base Period Earnings 32,224 37,121 30,144 17,840 20,875 17,106 29,041 Entitlement Length (Weeks) 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.7 25.8 25.7 25.6 Weekly Benefit Amount 274 277 272 219 228 218 263 WBA at Maximum 0.219 0.196 0.228 0.082 0.083 0.082 0.178 Work Search Exempt 0.345 0.386 0.327 0.112 0.131 0.107 0.120 Sample size 275,943 82,288 193,655 53,992 10,523 43,469 81,539 

SOURCE: Tabulation of state UI agency data for claimants aged 30 and over. 
35

Table 4. Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

UI Eligibles 

Sample Size Reemployment Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference Logit Difference Quarters 

After 

BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Prime Age T-Stat Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 193,655 82,288 0.676 0.675 0.000 -0.23 -0.028 -14.59 -0.019 -13.86 

2 62,794 26,720 0.405 0.340 -0.065 -18.34 -0.049 -13.59 -0.032 -13.38 

3 37,340 17,628 0.267 0.207 -0.061 -15.48 -0.055 -13.37 -0.032 -13.29 

4 27,352 13,987 0.206 0.147 -0.060 -14.79 -0.058 -13.69 -0.032 -13.55 

5 21,706 11,935 0.140 0.097 -0.043 -11.51 -0.046 -11.54 -0.024 -11.51 

6 18,660 10,777 0.115 0.074 -0.042 -11.54 -0.045 -11.65 -0.022 -11.63 

7 16,507 9,984 0.086 0.052 -0.034 -10.33 -0.035 -9.82 -0.016 -9.68 

8 15,081 9,462 0.065 0.040 -0.025 -8.32 -0.029 -8.91 -0.013 -8.95 

9 14,095 9,080 0.063 0.049 -0.014 -4.46 -0.023 -6.86 -0.011 -7.05 

10 13,202 8,632 0.052 0.033 -0.019 -6.67 -0.022 -7.30 -0.010 -7.30 

11 12,511 8,345 0.048 0.027 -0.020 -7.32 -0.021 -6.97 -0.009 -6.91 

 

Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

UI Ineligibles 

Sample Size Reemployment Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference Logit Difference Quarters 

After 

BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 43,469 10,523 0.620 0.550 -0.070 -13.13 -0.071 -13.47 -0.048 -13.25 

2 16,519 4,731 0.286 0.211 -0.075 -10.26 -0.059 -7.84 -0.037 -7.99 

3 11,790 3,731 0.189 0.126 -0.063 -8.91 -0.055 -7.44 -0.032 -7.62 

4 9,562 3,262 0.128 0.086 -0.042 -6.38 -0.039 -5.77 -0.021 -5.93 

5 8,341 2,981 0.099 0.050 -0.049 -8.17 -0.046 -7.38 -0.024 -7.59 

6 7,514 2,831 0.083 0.045 -0.039 -6.74 -0.033 -5.49 -0.017 -5.66 

7 6,887 2,704 0.063 0.034 -0.029 -5.70 -0.024 -4.46 -0.012 -4.49 

8 6,453 2,613 0.054 0.023 -0.031 -6.39 -0.033 -6.45 -0.015 -6.49 

9 6,104 2,552 0.053 0.024 -0.030 -6.10 -0.028 -5.40 -0.013 -5.57 

10 5,780 2,492 0.051 0.025 -0.026 -5.26 -0.026 -5.08 -0.012 -5.18 

11 5,486 2,429 0.042 0.020 -0.023 -5.04 -0.020 -4.21 -0.010 -4.46 

 

Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

UI Exhaustees 

Sample Size Reemployment Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference Logit Difference Quarters 

After 

BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 57,016 24,523 0.326 0.311 -0.016 -4.43 -0.006 -1.62 -0.004 -1.55 

2 38,411 16,908 0.271 0.220 -0.051 -12.70 -0.031 -7.59 -0.020 -7.70 

3 28,019 13,196 0.295 0.227 -0.068 -14.56 -0.058 -11.93 -0.035 -11.95 

4 19,758 10,207 0.243 0.170 -0.073 -14.52 -0.067 -12.82 -0.039 -12.82 

5 14,956 8,470 0.163 0.115 -0.049 -10.15 -0.049 -9.83 -0.026 -9.82 

6 12,511 7,497 0.135 0.085 -0.050 -10.64 -0.052 -10.46 -0.026 -10.53 

7 10,821 6,857 0.102 0.059 -0.044 -10.14 -0.042 -9.26 -0.021 -9.37 

8 9,713 6,454 0.076 0.046 -0.031 -7.88 -0.032 -7.58 -0.015 -7.73 

9 8,970 6,160 0.073 0.047 -0.026 -6.55 -0.030 -7.03 -0.014 -7.08 

10 8,316 5,872 0.060 0.037 -0.023 -6.21 -0.025 -6.36 -0.011 -6.37 

11 7,818 5,656 0.055 0.030 -0.025 -6.94 -0.024 -6.37 -0.011 -6.37 
36

Table 5 Comparison of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios Between Older and Prime 

Age Claimants 

Comparison of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios Between Older and Prime Age Claimants 

UI Eligibles 

Quarters Sample Size Post-to-Pre Ratio Simple Difference OLS Difference After 

BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 129,650 55,287 1.085 0.940 -0.146 -23.47 -0.009 -1.39 

2 25,041 8,982 1.071 0.886 -0.185 -10.09 -0.042 -2.24 

3 9,807 3,615 0.912 0.706 -0.206 -7.07 -0.058 -1.94 

4 5,574 2,031 0.841 0.674 -0.168 -6.01 -0.043 -1.56 

5 2,989 1,149 0.809 0.691 -0.118 -2.32 0.007 0.14 

6 2,116 778 0.854 0.590 -0.264 -4.77 -0.096 -1.69 

7 1,391 519 0.814 0.595 -0.219 -3.25 -0.034 -0.50 

8 966 373 0.858 0.538 -0.320 -3.09 -0.193 -1.74 

9 870 441 0.729 0.642 -0.087 -0.72 0.136 1.01 

10 676 283 0.692 0.508 -0.184 -2.50 0.079 0.98 

11 584 226 0.621 0.373 -0.247 -3.34 -0.165 -1.97 

 

Comparison of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios Between Older and Prime Age Claimants 

UI Ineligibles 

Quarters Sample Size Post-to-Pre Ratio Simple Difference OLS Difference After 

BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 25,211 5,438 1.329 1.237 -0.092 -2.32 0.123 3.07 

2 4,364 914 1.269 1.076 -0.193 -2.26 0.025 0.28 

3 2,037 431 1.236 0.906 -0.330 -3.01 0.057 0.51 

4 1,135 255 1.201 1.071 -0.130 -0.72 0.100 0.54 

5 761 139 1.095 0.880 -0.215 -1.05 -0.208 -0.93 

6 569 114 1.213 1.100 -0.113 -0.50 -0.007 -0.03 

7 403 85 0.928 0.792 -0.136 -0.93 -0.018 -0.10 

8 309 50 1.217 0.475 -0.743 -1.82 -0.603 -1.25 

9 296 55 1.079 0.873 -0.206 -0.74 0.134 0.43 

10 269 57 0.825 0.969 0.145 0.69 0.269 1.10 

11 211 42 0.672 0.506 -0.166 -0.70 -0.361 -1.08 

 

Comparison of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios Between Older and Prime Age Claimants 

UI Exhaustees 

Sample Size Post-to-Pre Ratio Simple Difference OLS Difference Quarters 

After 

BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 18,372 7,563 0.810 0.656 -0.153 -9.24 -0.005 -0.29 

2 10,178 3,658 0.970 0.764 -0.206 -6.98 -0.051 -1.71 

3 8,121 2,969 0.904 0.705 -0.200 -5.84 -0.064 -1.81 

4 4,742 1,719 0.824 0.686 -0.138 -4.56 -0.035 -1.15 

5 2,401 968 0.794 0.689 -0.105 -1.76 -0.002 -0.04 

6 1,661 628 0.818 0.586 -0.233 -3.77 -0.089 -1.39 

7 1,082 401 0.805 0.547 -0.258 -3.30 -0.037 -0.47 

8 729 287 0.727 0.549 -0.177 -2.72 -0.088 -1.29 

9 639 284 0.656 0.585 -0.071 -1.09 0.026 0.38 

10 488 212 0.648 0.508 -0.140 -1.79 0.077 0.88 

11 425 167 0.586 0.374 -0.212 -2.52 -0.181 -1.96 

NOTES: Dependent variable is the average of post-to-pre unemployment earnings ratios beginning with the quarter of 

reemployment. Pre-unemployment earnings are the average quarterly earnings for quarters three through six prior to 

BYB. Persons with average prior quarterly earnings less than $100 are excluded to control outliers. Regressions 

include a variable for the number of post-unemployment quarters with earnings. 
37

Table 6. Comparison of Employment Rates after Reemployment between Older and Prime 

Age UI Claimants 

Comparison of Employment Rates Between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

UI Eligible 

Quarters Sample Size Employment Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference 

After BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 130,861 55,568 0.856 0.814 -0.042 -33.72 -0.056 -43.87 

2 25,454 9,092 0.793 0.751 -0.042 -13.49 -0.041 -12.86 

3 9,988 3,641 0.777 0.747 -0.030 -5.41 -0.040 -7.14 

4 5,646 2,052 0.763 0.738 -0.025 -3.21 -0.032 -4.06 

5 3,046 1,158 0.751 0.733 -0.019 -1.76 -0.016 -1.54 

6 2,153 793 0.766 0.744 -0.023 -1.87 -0.050 -4.02 

7 1,426 522 0.782 0.777 -0.006 -0.38 -0.020 -1.28 

8 986 382 0.813 0.808 -0.005 -0.32 -0.020 -1.14 

9 893 448 0.840 0.813 -0.027 -1.97 -0.003 -0.18 

10 691 287 0.915 0.895 -0.020 -1.47 -0.025 -1.63 

 

Comparison of Employment Rates Between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

UI Ineligibles 

Quarters Sample Size Employment Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference 

After BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 16,487 2,996 0.791 0.761 -0.030 -5.37 -0.035 -6.19 

2 2,676 471 0.728 0.684 -0.044 -2.94 -0.058 -3.73 

3 1,243 241 0.681 0.635 -0.046 -2.07 -0.078 -3.18 

4 724 134 0.684 0.641 -0.044 -1.43 -0.056 -1.65 

5 469 83 0.704 0.704 0.000 0.00 -0.006 -0.12 

6 345 69 0.700 0.664 -0.035 -0.86 0.017 0.34 

7 266 51 0.735 0.796 0.061 1.36 0.058 1.02 

8 194 34 0.774 0.787 0.012 0.23 0.031 0.45 

9 188 27 0.793 0.790 -0.002 -0.04 -0.002 -0.03 

10 171 35 0.874 0.914 0.040 1.01 0.017 0.33 

 

Comparison of Employment Rates Between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

UI Exhaustees 

Quarters Sample Size Employment Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference 

After BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 18,605 7,615 0.672 0.575 -0.097 -23.50 -0.075 -17.90 

2 10,392 3,712 0.763 0.706 -0.057 -10.55 -0.053 -9.71 

3 8,261 2,989 0.787 0.758 -0.029 -4.85 -0.038 -6.17 

4 4,802 1,737 0.770 0.749 -0.020 -2.44 -0.027 -3.16 

5 2,445 973 0.760 0.739 -0.021 -1.85 -0.011 -0.95 

6 1,690 640 0.765 0.740 -0.025 -1.86 -0.046 -3.30 

7 1,108 403 0.792 0.772 -0.019 -1.18 -0.026 -1.45 

8 743 294 0.813 0.810 -0.002 -0.12 -0.023 -1.13 

9 654 288 0.832 0.846 0.014 0.82 0.026 1.42 

10 498 216 0.918 0.887 -0.031 -1.97 -0.024 -1.31 

NOTES: Dependent variable is the proportion of quarters employed starting with the quarter of reemployment 

through 11 quarter after the client’s BYB. Therefore, the number of quarters observed varies depending upon when 

the client becomes reemployed. While comparisons between older and prime age reemployed in a given period are 

valid, comparisons between those reemployed in different quarters subsequent to the BYB are not valid due to 

differences in the number of quarters observed between reemployment and BYB+11.
38

Table 7. Comparison of the Rate of Staying with the First Major Employer after 

Reeployment between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

Comparison of the Rate of Staying with the First Major Employer After Reemployment 

between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

UI Eligible 

Quarters Sample Size Same Employer Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference 

After 

BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 126,973 53,224 0.598 0.711 0.113 52.48 0.050 24.06 

2 24,435 8,510 0.557 0.635 0.078 14.85 0.060 11.39 

3 9,406 3,347 0.486 0.574 0.089 10.42 0.065 7.39 

4 5,189 1,798 0.507 0.577 0.070 5.97 0.047 3.88 

5 2,687 984 0.564 0.644 0.080 5.09 0.052 3.16 

6 1,931 684 0.635 0.675 0.040 2.20 0.026 1.32 

7 1,250 452 0.684 0.732 0.048 2.15 0.038 1.57 

8 857 340 0.703 0.746 0.043 1.66 0.026 0.90 

9 765 391 0.786 0.821 0.034 1.49 0.022 0.83 

10 564 225 0.866 0.881 0.015 0.58 0.018 0.58 

11 na na na na na na na na 

 

Comparison of the Rate of Staying with the First Major Employer After Reemployment 

between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

UI Ineligibles 

Quarters Sample Size Same Employer Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference 

After 

BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

 

1 24,415 5,093 0.417 0.552 0.135 21.54 0.106 16.76 

2 4,190 843 0.434 0.549 0.115 7.57 0.091 5.84 

3 1,884 380 0.462 0.601 0.139 6.08 0.094 3.92 

4 1,019 211 0.493 0.563 0.070 2.25 0.022 0.65 

5 679 125 0.524 0.630 0.106 2.62 0.060 1.30 

6 502 99 0.596 0.764 0.167 3.79 0.165 3.23 

7 343 75 0.642 0.716 0.074 1.42 0.056 0.89 

8 260 41 0.693 0.792 0.099 1.56 -0.010 -0.12 

9 240 47 0.764 0.794 0.030 0.49 0.033 0.42 

10 195 45 0.830 0.918 0.088 1.55 0.020 0.29 

11 na na na na na na na na 

 

Comparison of the Rate of Staying with the First Major Employer After Reemployment 

between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

UI Exhaustees 

Sample Size Same Employer Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference Quarters 

After 

BYB Prime Age Older Prime Age Older Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

 

1 16,957 6,401 0.266 0.345 0.079 14.20 0.063 11.16 

2 9,829 3,389 0.435 0.511 0.076 9.06 0.053 6.27 

3 7,816 2,758 0.472 0.560 0.088 9.38 0.068 7.07 

4 4,420 1,542 0.501 0.571 0.070 5.52 0.047 3.57 

5 2,189 831 0.559 0.644 0.086 4.98 0.054 2.95 

6 1,517 550 0.635 0.681 0.046 2.24 0.034 1.54 

7 978 350 0.686 0.738 0.052 2.06 0.043 1.54 

8 646 263 0.691 0.751 0.059 1.99 0.045 1.31 

9 559 250 0.784 0.820 0.036 1.28 0.017 0.54 

10 408 165 0.868 0.874 0.006 0.21 0.009 0.24 

11 na na na na na na na na 

NOTES: The dependent variable is the number of quarters after the quarter of reemployment where the major 

employer is the one from the reemployment quarter divided by the number of quarters of employment after the 

reemployment quarter. Regressions include a variable for the number of post-reemployment quarters with earnings. 
Table 8. Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants 

Comparison of Reemployment Rates 

between Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants 

Sample Size Reemployment Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference 

Quarters 

After 

BYB Ineligible Eligible Ineligible Eligible Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 31,537 275,943 0.618 0.676 0.058 20.70 -0.023 -8.56 

2 12,054 89,514 0.261 0.386 0.125 26.73 0.075 16.17 3 8,907 54,968 0.167 0.248 0.081 16.79 0.073 14.69 4 7,423 41,339 0.116 0.186 0.071 14.76 0.069 13.97 5 6,565 33,641 0.084 0.125 0.041 9.39 0.044 9.83 6 6,013 29,437 0.069 0.100 0.031 7.54 0.028 6.58 7 5,599 26,491 0.057 0.074 0.017 4.49 0.017 4.44 8 5,282 24,543 0.043 0.056 0.013 3.68 0.014 3.79 9 5,054 23,175 0.043 0.058 0.015 4.33 0.012 3.21 

10 4,839 21,834 0.043 0.045 0.002 0.68 0.003 0.78 11 4,633 20,856 0.036 0.040 0.003 1.10 0.005 1.66 
40

Table 9. Comparison of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Eligible and 

Ineligible UI Claimants 

Comparison of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Eligibles and Ineligibles 

Sample Size Post-to-Pre Ratio Simple Difference OLS Difference Quarters 

After 

BYB Ineligible Eligible Ineligible Eligible Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 19,255 184,937 0.988 1.042 0.054 5.83 0.111 11.93 

2 3,104 34,023 0.879 1.022 0.143 5.04 0.146 5.11 

3 1,462 13,422 0.844 0.857 0.012 0.30 0.023 0.55 

4 840 7,605 0.775 0.797 0.021 0.55 0.069 1.84 

5 548 4,138 0.850 0.776 -0.074 -1.02 -0.017 -0.23 

6 408 2,894 0.897 0.783 -0.114 -1.55 -0.073 -1.00 

7 315 1,910 0.741 0.754 0.013 0.17 0.052 0.67 

8 222 1,339 0.770 0.769 -0.001 -0.01 0.034 0.27 

9 214 1,311 0.646 0.699 0.053 0.37 0.146 0.95 

10 203 959 0.718 0.638 -0.080 -0.98 -0.012 -0.14 

11 164 810 0.486 0.552 0.066 0.82 0.148 1.71 
41

Table 10. Comparison of Employment Rates after Reemployment between Eligible and 

Ineligible UI Claimants 

Comparison of Employment Rates after Reemployment 

between Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants 

Quarters Sample Size Reemployment Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference 

After 

BYB Ineligible Eligible Ineligible Eligible Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 19,483 186,429 0.787 0.844 0.057 30.19 0.023 11.92 

2 3,147 34,546 0.721 0.782 0.061 12.50 0.055 11.26 

3 1,484 13,629 0.674 0.769 0.095 11.97 0.078 9.78 

4 858 7,698 0.678 0.757 0.079 7.25 0.058 5.30 

5 552 4,204 0.704 0.746 0.042 3.02 0.034 2.53 

6 414 2,946 0.694 0.760 0.067 4.30 0.041 2.54 

7 317 1,948 0.744 0.781 0.036 2.09 0.022 1.22 

8 228 1,368 0.776 0.811 0.035 1.83 0.042 2.06 

9 215 1,341 0.792 0.831 0.039 2.22 0.045 2.35 

10 206 978 0.881 0.910 0.028 1.89 0.017 1.05 

NOTES: Dependent variable is the proportion of quarters employed starting with the quarter of reemployment 

through 11 quarters after the client's BYB. Therefore, the number of quarters observed varies depending upon 

when the client becomes reemployed. While comparisons between eligibles and ineligibles reemployed in a given 

period are valid, comparisons between those reemployed in different quarters subsequent to the BYB are not valid 

due to the difference in number of quarters observed between reemployment and BYB+11. 
42

Table 11. Comparison of the Probability of Staying with the First Major Employer after 

Reemployment between Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants 

Comparison of the Probability of Staying with First Major Employer After Reemployment 

between Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants 

Sample Size Reemployment Rate Simple Difference OLS Difference 

Quarters 

After 

BYB Ineligible Eligible Ineligible Eligible Difference T-Stat Difference T-Stat 

1 18,496 180,197 0.406 0.631 0.225 69.68 0.079 25.32 

2 2,940 32,945 0.426 0.577 0.151 18.73 0.093 11.58 

3 1,327 12,753 0.468 0.509 0.040 3.31 0.019 1.55 

4 748 6,987 0.487 0.525 0.039 2.34 0.023 1.37 

5 480 3,671 0.554 0.585 0.031 1.52 0.003 0.16 

6 356 2,615 0.614 0.645 0.032 1.35 0.019 0.77 

7 272 1,702 0.640 0.696 0.056 2.09 0.011 0.38 

8 189 1,197 0.707 0.715 0.008 0.27 0.006 0.17 

9 173 1,156 0.751 0.798 0.046 1.50 0.059 1.72 

10 154 789 0.822 0.870 0.049 1.61 0.022 0.63 
43

Table 12. Pooled Sample of Older and Prime Age Workers Eligible for UI in 2001; 

Advantage of Early Reemployment Using Sample of Those Reemployed in 

BYB+1 or BYB+2; Dependent Variable is the Employment Rate Subsequent to 

and Including Reemployment Quarter

Variable Description 

Parameter 

Estimate 

Standard 

Error T-Value 

 

firstemp1 Reemployed in BYB+1 0.0282 0.0019 14.60 

older Older Workers, Age 50-65 -0.0466 0.0034 -13.79 

older_firstemp1 Older x Reemployed in BYB+1 -0.0190 0.0036 -5.24 

male Gender, Male -0.0324 0.0014 -22.50 

race2 Race, African American -0.0158 0.0020 -8.01 

race3 Race, Hispanic 0.0195 0.0043 4.57 

race4 Race, Native American -0.0421 0.0110 -3.81 

race5 Race, Asian/Pacific Islander 0.0064 0.0078 0.82 

race6 Race, Not Available -0.0226 0.0052 -4.37 

 

educ1 Education, Less than High School -0.0300 0.0016 -19.17 

educ3 Education, Some College -0.0099 0.0016 -6.16 

educ4 Education, Bachelor Degree or Higher -0.0225 0.0023 -9.59 

bpe Base Period Earnings ($10,000) 0.0048 0.0004 11.66 

base_empnum Number of Employers in Base Period -0.0010 0.0005 -1.89 

wba1 Weekly Benefit Amount 0.0277 0.0013 22.18 

wba_max WBA at Maximum -0.0167 0.0022 -7.61 

entitlement Entitlement Length 0.0191 0.0007 28.40 

search_exempt Job Search Exempt 0.0796 0.0014 56.57 

 

unrate_change1 Unemp Rate Change, BYB to BYB+1 0.0360 0.1479 0.24 

qtr1 BYB in 1st Calendar Quarter 0.0026 0.0019 1.37 

qtr2 BYB in 2nd Calendar Quarter -0.0021 0.0013 -1.60 

qtr3 BYB in 3rd Calendar Quarter -0.0083 0.0011 -7.53 

qtr4 BYB in 4th Calendar Quarter 0.0047 0.0017 2.73 

 

dependents Has Dependents 0.0026 0.0015 1.68 

handicap Handicap -0.0642 0.0083 -7.70 

severance1 Deductions Made for Severance Pay -0.0184 0.0034 -5.45 

severance2 Deductions Made for Vacation Pay 0.0082 0.0052 1.59 

severance3 Deductions Made for Company Pension -0.1414 0.0075 -18.97 

severance4 Deductions Made for Social Security -0.2254 0.0129 -17.42 

severance5 Deductions Made for Other Reasons -0.2294 0.0195 -11.77 
44

Figure 1. Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

Reemployment Rates

Older and Prime Age UI Eligibles

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Reemployment Rate

Prime Age

Older

Reemployment Rates

Older and Prime Age UI Ineligibles

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Reemployment Rate

Prime Age

Older

Reemployment Rates

Older and Prime Age UI Exhaustees

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Reemployment Rate

Prime Age

Older
45

Figure 2. Differences in Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants 

Simple and Regression Adjusted Differences in Reemployment Rates

between Older and Prime Age UI Eligibles

-0.08

-0.07

-0.06

-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Differnce in Reemployment 

Rates

Simple

OLS

Logit

Simple and Regression Adjusted Differences in Reemployment Rates

between Older and Prime Age UI Ineligibles

-0.08

-0.07

-0.06

-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Difference in Reemployment 

Rates

Simple

OLS

Logit

Simple and Regression Adjusted Differences in Reemployment Rates

between Older and Prime Age UI Exhaustees

-0.08

-0.07

-0.06

-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Difference in Reemployment 

Rates

Simple

OLS

Logit
46

Figure 3. Logit Adjusted Differences in Reemployment Rates between Older and Prime 

Age UI Claimants 

Logit Regression Adjusted Differences Reemployment Rates between Older 

and Prime Age UI Claimants by UI Eligibility and Exhaustion Status

-0.05

-0.05

-0.04

-0.04

-0.03

-0.03

-0.02

-0.02

-0.01

-0.01

0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Difference (Older minus Prime Age)

Eligibles

Ineligibles

Exhaustees
47

Figure 4. Comparison of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Older and Prime 

Age Claimants

Comparing the Ratio of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings among Eligible Claimants

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Prime Age

Older

Comparing the Ratio of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings among Ineligible Claimants

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters since UI claim

Prime Age

Older

Comparing the Ratio of Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings among Benefit Exhaustees

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Prime Age

Older
48

Figure 5. Differences in Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Older and Prime 

Age Claimants

Simple and Regression Adjusted Differences in Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios 

between Older and Prime Age UI Eligibles

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters since UI claim

Avg Post-to-Pre Earnings 

Ratios

Simple

OLS

Simple and Regression Adjusted Differences in Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios 

between Older and Prime Age UI Ineligibles

-0.80

-0.70

-0.60

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters After Benefit Year Begin Date

Avg Post-to-Pre Earnings 

Ratios

Simple

OLS

Simple and Regression Adjusted Differences in Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios 

between Older and Prime Age UI Exhaustees

-0.40

-0.35

-0.30

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters After Benefit Year Begin Date

Avg Post-to-Pre Earnings 

Ratios

Simple

OLS
49

Figure 6. OLS Adjusted Differences in Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between 

Older and Prime Age Claimants 

OLS Regression Adjusted Differences in Post-to-Pre Unemployment Earnings Ratios 

between Older and Prime Age UI claimants by Eligibility and Exhaustion Status

-0.70

-0.60

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters since UI claim

Difference (Older minus 

Prime Age)

Eligibles

Ineligibles

Exhaustees
50

Figure 7. Comparison of Employment Rates after Reemployment between Older and 

Prime Age UI Claimants

Employment Rates after Reemployment

among UI Eligible Claimants

0.500

0.550

0.600

0.650

0.700

0.750

0.800

0.850

0.900

0.950

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters since UI claim

Prime Age

Older

Employment Rates after Reemployment 

among UI Ineligible Claimants

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters since UI claim

Prime Age

Older

Employment Rates after Reeemployment 

among UI exhaustees

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters since UI claim

Prime Age

Older
51

Figure 8. Differences in Employment Rates after Reemployment between Older and Prime 

Age UI Claimants

Differences in Employment Rates after Reemployment 

Older minus Prime Age UI Eligible

-0.060

-0.050

-0.040

-0.030

-0.020

-0.010

0.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters Since UI Claim

Simple

OLS

Differences in Employment Rates after Reemployment

Older minus Prime Age UI Ineligible

-0.100

-0.080

-0.060

-0.040

-0.020

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters Since UI Claim

Simple

OLS

Differences in Employment Rates after Reemployment

Older minus Prime Age UI Exhaustees

-0.120

-0.100

-0.080

-0.060

-0.040

-0.020

0.000

0.020

0.040

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters Since UI Claim

Simple

OLS
52

Figure 9. OLS Adjusted Differences in Employment Rates after Reemployment between 

Older and Prime Age UI Claimants

OLS Adjusted Differences in Employment Rates after Reemployment between Older 

and Prime Age UI Claimants

-0.100

-0.080

-0.060

-0.040

-0.020

0.000

0.020

0.040

0.060

0.080

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters Since UI Claim

Eligible

Ineligible

Exhaust
53

Figure 10. Comparison of Rates of Staying with the First Major Employer after 

Reemployment between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants

Rates of Staying with the First Major Employer after Reemployment

among UI Eligibles

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters Since UI Claim

Prime Age

Older

Rates of Staying with the First Major Employer after Reemployment 

among UI Ineligibles

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters Since UI Claim

Prime Age

Older

Rates of Staying with the First Major Employer after Reemployment

among UI Exhaustees

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters Since UI Claim

Prime Age

Older
54

Figure 11. Differences in Rates of Staying with the First Major Employer after 

Reemployment between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants

Simple and Regression Adjusted Differences in the Rate of Staying with the First 

Major Employer between Older and Prime Age UI Eligible Claimants 

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters since UI claim

Difference in Probability of 

Staying

Simple

OLS

Simple and Regression Adjusted Differences in the Rate of Staying with the First 

Major Employer between Older and Prime Age UI Ineligible Claimants

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters After Benefit Year Begin Date

Difference in Probability of 

Staying

Simple

OLS

Simple and Regression Adjusted Differences in the Rate of Staying with the First 

Major Employer between Older and Prime Age UI Exhaustees

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters After Benefit Year Begin Date

Difference in Probability of 

Staying

Simple

OLS
55

Figure 12. OLS Adjusted Differences in Rates of Staying at First Major Employer after 

Reemployment between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants

OLS Regression Adjusted Differences in the Rate of Staying with the First Major 

Employer between Older and Prime Age UI Claimants by Eligibility and Exhaustion 

Status 

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters since UI claim

Difference (Older minus 

Prime Age)

Eligibles

Ineligibles

Exhaustees
56

Figure 13. Comparison of Reemployment Rates between Eligible and Ineligible UI 

Claimants

Comparing Exit Rates to Reemployment among Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Ineligible

Eligible
57

Figure 14. Comparison of the Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios between Eligible and 

Ineligible UI Claimants

Comparison of the Post-to-Pre UI Claim Earnings Ratios

between Eligible and Ineligible Claimants

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1.100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Quarters Since UI Claim

Ineligible

Eligible
58

Figure 15. Comparison of Employment Rates after Reemployment between Eligible and 

Ineligible UI Claimants

Employment Rates after Reemployment among Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters Since UI Claim

Ineligible

Eligible
59

Figure 16. Comparison of the Rate of Staying with the First Major Employer after 

Reemployment between Eligible and Ineligible UI Claimants

Proportion Staying at First Major Employer After Reemployment

among UI Claimants

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Quarters Since UI Claim

Ineligible

Eligible