The accurate estimation of the present value of lifetime earnings is an ongoing source of concern to economists, lawyers, and insurance companies. The more reliable the estimates, the more efficient the judicial process and consequently, the less variability in compensation awards. An earlier article in this journal, by Lane and Glennon [ 1], proposed an alternative procedure for estimating the economic loss in wrongful death and injury cases that evolved around the use of an earnings function extensively used in the labor economic literature. This method avoids some of the pitfalls that plague the more standard methods, which key on earnings growth due to experience, inflation, and productivity [2], and focuses instead on the impact that education and human capital levels have on age/earning profiles. Specifically, the current earnings of individuals of different ages but similar socio-economic characteristics is used to estimate the growth in any one individual's future income. Since this method uses data on employed individuals only, however, it inhibits the estimations of earnings for non-participants in the labor force, for example, housewives [3]. The problem of imputing the value of a housewife's activity has been a persistent one. Though it is possible to 'cost out' the dollar value of a housewife's services calculated by multiplying the hours spent in each activity (as chauffeur, nurse, cleaning agent, cook, etc.) by the average market determined wage associated with each service, this approach is inefficient for two reasons. First, this method requires an extensive study of the proportion of time an individual spends in each activity. Second, this approach ignores the relevant information concerning the individual's work related qualifications and skills. It seems appropriate that we incorporate as much individual specific information as available in order to reduce the scope of a basically heterogenous group housewives to a more homogenous subgroup distinguished by group characteristics.