Contents: This issue contains two articles. In the first, Christopher Bruce and Derek Aldridge examine the effect of a criminal record on earnings. In the second, Christopher Bruce and Kelly Rathje discuss the structure and content of expert cost of care reports. The Effect of Incarceration on Future Earnings In the first article, Dr. Bruce […]
Read More...Year: 2016
The Structure of a Cost of Care Report
Dr. Bruce and Ms. Rathje provide an economist’s perspective on various issues that arise in the presentation of cost of care reports. These include issues such as incremental costs, requirements that will vary over a plaintiff’s lifetime, the approach to ranges of estimates for costs or replacement frequencies, the costs of housekeepers and personal care attendants, and presentation. They also provide a sample calculation, to illustrate the issues discussed in the article.
Read More...The Effect of Incarceration on Future Earnings
In this article, Dr. Bruce and Mr. Aldridge find that the literature regarding the effect of a criminal record on income suggests incarceration has a relatively small effect on lifetime earnings. Those who have been incarcerated tend to have lower levels of income than those without a criminal record, not because incarceration has changed their vocational/economic outcomes, but because they are drawn from a group with relatively low income to begin with. Further, the length of a person’s incarceration (holding the severity of the crime constant) appeared to have little impact on earnings, except in the case of “white collar” crime such as fraud or embezzlement. The literature suggests that individuals with supportive family ties, such as those living with their spouses and children, were the most successful at transitioning back into the workforce. In addition, the likelihood of recidivism decreased as an individual aged (i.e., those 30 and 40 year olds who were incarcerated in their early 20s are not likely to become repeat offenders).
Read More...Spring 2016 issue of the Expert Witness newsletter (volume 20, issue 1)
Contents: This issue contains two articles written by Dr. Christopher Bruce. The first reviews the debate over the use of cross versus sole dependency approaches in the determination of loss of dependency on income; while the second article concerns the reliability of income data drawn from the 2011 census. Cross versus Sole Dependency in Fatal […]
Read More...Are Data from the 2011 Census Reliable?
In this article, Dr. Bruce examines the reliability of the 2011 Census income data. In the past, completion of the long form census was mandatory. In 2011, however, completion of this form was voluntary and the response rate decreased. While this created statistical problems concerning the reliability of the data, Statistics Canada had anticipated these problems and took steps to mitigate them. In his article, Dr. Bruce discusses these problems, and the solutions implemented by Statistics Canada, concluding that the 2011 census remains a reliable, high quality data source. It will remain our primary source of earnings information until data from the 2016 census are released sometime in 2018.
With respect to the 2016 census, we would note that it will be mandatory. Further, Statistics Canada will be sending the long-form section to a greater number of households than in past censuses (one in four households instead of one in five households), and will use income data directly from the Canada Revenue Agency, providing data for 100 percent of households. It is anticipated that because of these changes, the income data from the 2016 census will be the most accurate of any census to date.
Read More...Cross versus Sole Dependency in Fatal Accident Actions
In this article, Dr. Bruce notes that a fundamental assumption in economics is that individuals are rational. Therefore, when an individual is observed to make a voluntary choice, it can be concluded that the individual must have expected that choice to make him/her better off (or at least, no worse off). With respect to fatal accident actions, this implies that if spouses are rational, they must have expected that the decisions they made about spending on one another would make them better off. He then shows that if this proposition is accepted, the sole dependency approach is preferred to cross dependency.
Read More...