Advertisement

Evolution of Worklife Expectancy Measurement

  • Gary R. Skoog
  • James E. Ciecka
Chapter

Abstract

Some people can live to age 110–120, as reflected in current mortality data and tables used to calculate life expectancy. The US government and other governments publish such information, which is so generally accepted that courts grant it judicial notice. Similarly, people can participate in the labor force at advanced ages—comedian George Burns had a contract to perform on his 100th birthday at the London Palladium. Worklife expectancy is the life expectancy analog—it calculates how long, on average, people will participate in the labor force.

Keywords

Labor Force Labor Force Participation Sample Path Current Population Survey Labor Market Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alter, G. C., & Becker, W. E. (1985). Estimating lost future earnings using the new worklife tables. Monthly Labor Review, 108, 39–42.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, W. E., & Alter, G. (1987). The probabilities of life and work force status in the calculation of expected earnings. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 54, 364–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brookshire, M. L., & Cobb, W. (1983). The life-participation-employment approach to worklife expectancy in personal injury litigation and wrongful death cases. For the Defense, 25, 20–25.Google Scholar
  4. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1950). Tables of working life, length of working life for men, Bulletin 1001. Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1957). Tables of working life for women, 1950, Bulletin 1204.Google Scholar
  6. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1982). Tables of working life: The increment-decrement model, Bulletin 2135.Google Scholar
  7. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1986). Worklife estimates: Effects of race and education, Bulletin 2254.Google Scholar
  8. Burr, Chauncey Rea. (1915). Economic value of man, together with rules for determining his economic value in every case of injury or disease. Portland, Maine, presented by Mr. Sutherland in the U.S. Senate, and referred to the Committee of Printing, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Ciecka, J. E., Donley, T., & Goldman, J. (2000). A Markov process model of work-life expectancies based on labor market activity in 1997–98. Journal of Legal Economics, 9(3), 33–66.Google Scholar
  10. Ciecka, J. E., Rodgers, J. D., & Skoog, G. R. (2002). The new Gamboa tables: A critique. Journal of Legal Economics, 12(2), 61–85.Google Scholar
  11. Corcione, F. P. (1995). The new worklife expectancy tables: Revised 1985 for persons with and without disability by gender and level of education. Journal of Forensic Economics, 8(3), 295–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dublin, J. L. I., & Lotka, A. J. (1930). The money value of a man. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  13. Farr, W. (1853). The income and property tax. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 16(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foster, E., & Skoog, G. R. (2004). The Markov assumption for worklife expectancy. Journal of Forensic Economics, 17(2), 167–183.Google Scholar
  15. Fullerton, Howard N., & James J. Byrne. (1976). Length of working life for men and women, 1970, special labor force report 187. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.Google Scholar
  16. Gamboa Jr., A. M. (1987). Worklife expectancy of disabled versus nondisabled persons by sex and level of educational attainment. Louisville: Vocational Econometrics Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gamboa Jr., A. M., & Gibson, D. S. (2015). Gamboa Gibson worklife tables. Louisville: Vocational Economics Inc./VEI Press.Google Scholar
  18. Garfinkle, Stuart H. (1955). Changes in working life for men, 1900–2000. Monthly Labor Review, March, 297–300.Google Scholar
  19. Krautmann, A. C., Ciecka, J. E., & Skoog, G. R. (2010). A Markov process model of the number of years spent in major league baseball. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 6(4), 1–23..Google Scholar
  20. Krueger, K. V. (2004). Tables of inter-year labor force status of the U.S. Population (1998–2004) to operate the Markov model of worklife expectancy. Journal of Forensic Economics, 17(3), 313–381.Google Scholar
  21. Krueger, K. V., & Skoog, G. R. (2016). Transitions into and out of disability. Journal of Forensic Economics, 26(1), 17–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krueger, K. V., Skoog, G. R., & Ciecka, J. E. (2006). Worklife in a Markov model with full-time and part-time activity. Journal of Forensic Economics, 19(1), 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Millimet, D. L., Nieswiadomy, M., Ryu, H., & Slottje, D. J. (2003). Estimating worklife expectancy: An econometric approach. Journal of Econometrics, 113, 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nieswiadomy, M. L., & Slottje, D. J. (1988). Estimating lost future earnings using the new worklife tables: A comment. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 55(3), 539–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petty, William. (1662). A Treatise of Taxes & Contributions, shewing the Nature and Measures of Crown Lands, Assessments, Customs, Poll-Money, Lotteries, Benevolence, Penalties, Monopolies, Offices, Tythes, Raising of Coins, Harth-Money, Excize, etc. With several intersperst Discourses and Digressions concerning Warres, The Church, Universities, Rents & Purchases, Usury & Exchange, Banks & Lombards, Registries for Conveyances, Beggars, Ensurance, Exportation of Money & Wool, Free-ports, Coins, Housing, Liberty of Conscience, etc.,The Same being frequently applied to the present State and Affairs of Ireland, London, Printed for N. Brooke, at the Angel in Cornhill.Google Scholar
  26. Rodgers, J. D. (2001). Exploring the possibility of worklife expectancies for specific disabilities. The Earnings Analyst, 4, 1–37.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenbaum, David I., & Matthew J. Cushing. (2011). Higher order Markov processes in worklife estimates, presented at NAFE session, Western Economics Association meetings, July 1.Google Scholar
  28. Skoog, G. R. (2002). Worklife expectancy: Theoretical results. Atlanta: Allied Social Science Association , unpublished.Google Scholar
  29. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2001a). The Markov (Increment-Decrement) model of labor force activity: New results beyond worklife expectancies. Journal of Legal Economics, 11(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  30. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2001b). The Markov (Increment-Decrement) model of labor force activity: Extended tables of central tendency, variation, and probability intervals. Journal of Legal Economics, 11(1), 23–87.Google Scholar
  31. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2002). Probability mass functions for labor market activity induced by the Markov (Increment-Decrement) model of labor force activity. Economics Letters, 77(3), 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2003). Probability mass functions for years to final separation from the labor force induced by the Markov model. Journal of Forensic Economics, 16(1), 49–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2004a). Parameter uncertainty in the estimation of the Markov model of labor force activity: Known error rates satisfying Daubert. Litigation Economics Review, 6(2), 1–27.Google Scholar
  34. Skoog, R. G., & J. E. Ciecka. (2004b). Reconsidering and extending the conventional/demographic and LPE models: The LPd and LPi restricted Markov models, Allied Social Science Association, San Diego, CA. NEED THIS? DUPLICATE OF NEXT ITEM?Google Scholar
  35. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2006a). Worklife expectancy via competing risks/multiple decrement theory with an application to railroad workers. Journal of Forensic Economics, Fall, 19(3), 243–260 (appeared Sept. 2007).Google Scholar
  36. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2006b). Allocation of worklife expectancy and the analysis of front and uniform loading with nomograms. Journal of Forensic Economics, 19(3), 261–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2007). Worklife expectancies of railroad workers based on the twenty-third actuarial valuation. Washington, DC: The Association of American Railroads available at http://www.aar.org/pubcommon/documents/AARMonograph.pdf.Google Scholar
  38. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2009). Present value recursions and tables. Journal of Forensic Economics, 21(1), 63–98 (appeared January 2010).Google Scholar
  39. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2010). Probability mass functions and their characteristics for years in retirement, and years to retirement within the Markov model. Demography, 47(3), 609–628 and online supplement.Google Scholar
  40. Skoog, R. G., Ciecka J. E. & Krueger, K. V. (2011). The Markov process model of labor force activity: extended tables of central tendency, shape, percentile points, and bootstrap standard errors. Journal of Forensic Economics, 22(2), 165–229.Google Scholar
  41. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2012a). An autoregressive model of order two for worklife expectancies and other labor force characteristics with an application to major league baseball hitters. Journal of Legal Economics, 18(2), 47–78.Google Scholar
  42. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2012b). Recursions in forensic economics. Journal of Legal Economics, 18(2), 143–160.Google Scholar
  43. Skoog, R. G., & Ciecka, J. E. (2014). Worklife expectancy of railroad workers based on the Twenty-Fifth Actuarial Valuation using both competing risks/multiple decrement theory and the Markov railroad mode. Journal of Forensic Economics, 25(2), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skoog, G. R., & Toppino, D. (1999). Disability and the new worklife expectancy tables from vocational econometrics, 1998: A critical analysis. Journal of Forensic Economics, 12(3), 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Skoog, G. R., & Toppino, D. (2002). The new worklife expectancy tables critique: A rejoinder. Journal of Forensic Economics, 15(1), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolfbein, S. L. (1949). The length of working life. Population Studies, 3(3), 286–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary R. Skoog
    • 1
    • 2
  • James E. Ciecka
    • 2
  1. 1.Legal Econometrics, Inc.GlenviewUSA
  2. 2.DePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations