Two Definitional Issues with the Patton-Nelson Personal Consumption Tables: A Reply

Abstract

This issue of the Journal of Forensic Economics includes the fifth edition of the “Patton-Nelson Personal Consumption Tables 2005-06” (PNPC). The authors Michael R. Ruble, Robert T. Patton and David M. Nelson (RPN) state in the article that “In this paper, we provide consumption percentages based on current BLS data.” (p. 217) This comment discusses two definitional issues with the PNPC estimates that readers should be aware of before applying them to a wrongful death case. The PNPC tables compute personal consumption estimates by relying on summary tabulations of the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX) as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The CEX expenditure tables selected by RPN for analysis are delineated by the number of persons living in the consumer unit and their combined before-tax income level.1 For each expenditure group in the CEX data, RPN decide if the expenditure is subject to adult (ages 18 and older) personal consumption and if so, they allocate a portion of the expenditure to adult personal consumption.