|
| |
| Usual Opposition Position |
| An occasional challenge is that the article
"Employment, Earnings, and
Disability" states that the Current Population Survey is
inappropriate for studying the employment experiences of persons with
disability. |
| VEI Position |
As attested to by the author, John McNeil, in an affidavit,
this article is irrelevant to the work done by users of The New
Worklife Expectancy Tables for the following reasons:
- McNeil’s article studies results from the Survey of Income
and Program Participation (SIPP), a survey conducted by the U.S. Census
Bureau. This is not the
data used by VEI in its reports or in The New Worklife Expectancy Tables.
One of McNeil's purposes in his study was to determine whether or not an
appropriate measure exists for measuring the employment experience
of people with a disability. In doing this, his focus was
a definition of disability consistent with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).
- McNeil
used the SIPP because its definition is more consistent with the ADA
definition than the CPS definition, which focuses on work disability only.
The SIPP definition is a much broader one that includes persons who do not
have limitations in the kind or amount of work they can perform.
For forensic purposes, when assessing loss of lifetime earnings,
the most important and direct focus is on persons who have a work
disability, the definition used in the CPS.
- In an affidavit
filed in Rogde (2001), McNeil supported
use of the CPS for studying the worklife expectancy of people with a work
disability. In addition, during a November 2000 presentation before the National
Association of Forensic Economics (NAFE), McNeil reaffirmed the
application of CPS data for the study of persons with a work disability.
|
Last modified:
Wednesday March 15, 2006 10:54 AM
|
