How to Calculate Lost Future Earnings
The standard method economists use to project lost future earnings from injury or wrongful death, and why present value is the step most people get wrong.
Lost future earnings compensate a plaintiff for income they would have reasonably earned over their remaining working life but for the injury, disability, or wrongful death at issue. Unlike lost wages to date, which are a matter of documentation, lost future earnings are a projection — and projections built on shaky assumptions are exactly what opposing experts attack first.
A defensible calculation follows a standard structure: establish the baseline earning capacity, project it forward over a work-life expectancy, adjust for growth and for the probability the plaintiff would have kept working, and then discount the entire stream back to a present-value lump sum. Skipping the present-value step, or using an unsupported growth rate, is the most common way an otherwise reasonable calculation gets torn apart on cross-examination.
Establish the baseline: what would this person have earned
Start with the plaintiff's actual earning history where it exists — tax returns, pay stubs, and W-2s over several prior years — rather than a single recent number that may not be representative. For a plaintiff with limited work history (a student, a young worker, someone entering a new field), baseline earnings are instead estimated from comparable occupational data for people of similar age, education, and career trajectory.
- Use several years of documented income, not a single year, to smooth out normal variation.
- For career-changers or new workers, use occupational wage data (government labor statistics or comparable industry sources) tied to their specific credentials and field.
- Account for a reasonably expected career trajectory — promotions, credential advancement — only where there is real evidence supporting that path, not speculation.
Project the earning stream over work-life expectancy
Work-life expectancy is not simply 'years until retirement age.' It is a statistical estimate, drawn from published labor-participation tables, of how many years a person of a given age, sex, and health status would actually be expected to remain in the workforce, accounting for the real-world probability of periods out of the workforce for any reason. An expert economist typically supplies this figure rather than counsel calculating it independently.
Apply a growth rate, then discount to present value — do not skip this step
The raw earnings stream is typically adjusted upward for expected wage growth over the projection period, then the entire adjusted stream is discounted back to a single present-value lump sum using an appropriate discount rate. This is the step most frequently done incorrectly by non-experts: presenting an undiscounted sum of future years' earnings substantially overstates the damages figure, because a dollar received twenty years from now is worth less than a dollar today.
- The growth rate should reflect real historical wage growth for the relevant occupation, not an arbitrary or aggressive figure.
- The discount rate should reflect a reasonably safe rate of return available to the plaintiff on a lump-sum investment over the projection period.
- Some jurisdictions and some economists use a 'net discount rate' approach that combines growth and discounting into a single adjusted rate — understand which method your expert is using and why.
Adjust for personal consumption in wrongful death cases
In a wrongful death claim, most jurisdictions require subtracting the decedent's own estimated personal consumption (what they would have spent on themselves) from the projected earnings stream, since survivors are compensated for their loss of the decedent's contribution to them, not the decedent's entire gross income. This adjustment is easy to overlook and is a frequent point of dispute between plaintiff and defense economists.
Retain a qualified forensic economist for any significant claim
For any claim beyond a modest, straightforward wage-loss figure, a forensic economist should build and defend the calculation. Their report should disclose every assumption — baseline income, work-life expectancy source, growth rate, discount rate, consumption offset where applicable — so it can withstand a Daubert challenge and cross-examination on methodology.
- Why does the discount rate matter so much to the final number?
- Because lost future earnings are paid as a present lump sum rather than year by year, the discount rate converts a stream of future dollars into today's equivalent value. A discount rate that is too low inflates the award; a rate that is too high understates it. Small differences in the assumed rate compound significantly over projection periods of twenty or thirty years.
- Is lost future earnings the same as loss of earning capacity?
- They are related but distinct. Lost future earnings project what a specific person would have earned given their actual job and trajectory; loss of earning capacity is a broader measure of diminished ability to earn, sometimes used when the plaintiff's specific future path is harder to establish, such as for a young child.
- Do lost future earnings claims require an economist, or can an attorney calculate them?
- For anything beyond a small, easily documented claim, a qualified forensic economist is standard practice and often necessary to survive a Daubert or similar reliability challenge, since the work-life expectancy, growth rate, and discount rate assumptions all require methodology an attorney alone typically cannot defend under cross-examination.
This page is an educational explainer, not legal advice, and creates no attorney–client relationship. Juricratic is a simulation engine: every probability-like figure is a dial you set, not a calibrated prediction. Verify every rule, deadline, and figure against the authorities and orders that govern your matter.
Stop estimating one number at a time.
Juricratic models the whole matter as a solvable game and runs it thousands of times — so the settlement value, the risk, and the optimal line all move together when the facts do.
Request access →