Full text of Monthly Labor Review : March 1990, Volume 113, Number 3

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

U.S. Department of Labor
Elizabeth Dole, Secretary
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor. Communications on editorial matters
should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief,
Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Washington, DC 20212. Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year—$20 domestic; $25 foreign.
Single copy, $5 domestic; $6.25 foreign.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402.
Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Second-class postage paid at
Washington, DC and at additional mailing addresses.

Regional Offices and Commissioners
Region I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

Anthony J. Ferrara

Region II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands

Samuel M. Ehrenhalt

Kennedy Federal Building
Suite 1603
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 565-2327

Room 808
201 Varick Street
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (212) 337-2400

Region III
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi

Alvin R. Margulis
3535 Market Street
P O. Box 13309
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Phone: (215) 569-1154
Donald M. Cruse
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee

1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30367
Phone: (404) 347-4416

Region V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin

Lois L. Orr
9th Floor
Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880

Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

Bryan Richey
Room 221
Federal Building
525 Griffin Street
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (214) 767-6970

March cover:
Mother and Child, 1931,
and Family Group, 1946,
by Henry Moore,
courtesy of Hirshhorn Museum
and Sculpture Garden,
Smithsonian Institution,
(1966 gifts of Joseph H. Hirshhorn).
Cover design by Richard L. Mathews.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Region VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska

Region IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands

Region VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

Gunnar Engen

Region X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

Sam M. Hirabayashi

911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 426-2481

71 Stevenson Street
R O. Box 3766
San Francisco, CA 94119
Phone: (415) 744-6600

nah*
Monthly Labor Review
March 1990
Volume 113, Number 3
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chlef
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor

SPECIAL ISSUE ON THE FAMILY
Articles

4

American families: 75 years of change
Changes were particularly pronounced during the 1960’s and 1970’s,
as the baby-boom generation reached adulthood
James R. Wetzel

14

Family members in the work force
Family work patterns have become so diverse
that there no longer is a “typical” family
Howard V. Hayghe

20

How family spending has changed in the U.S.
The proportion of expenditures for food dropped by half
over 75 years; the incidence of homeownership doubled
Eva Jacobs and Stephanie Shipp

28

Family-related benefits in the workplace
Emerging and expanding employer-provided benefits
are fueled by the changing needs of employees and their families
William J. Wiatrowskl

34

Work and family: the impact of legislation
Laws to protect women and children, set workplace standards,
and establish social insurance programs have been enacted over the past 75 years
Sar A. Levitan and Frank Gallo

41

The changing family in international perspective
Scandinavian countries are pacesetters in nontraditional family living,
but the U.S. has highest incidence of divorce and of single-parent families
Constance Sorrentino

Departments


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

59
62
63
67
71

Significant decisions in labor cases
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics

The American Family
A

X.
JL .m ong the many
changes we have seen in
this century, none are more
dramatic than those that
have taken place in the
American family. The
Monthly Labor Review has
chronicled these changes
since it began publication
in 1915. So it is appropriate
for the Review, during its
75th anniversary year, to
look at the American family
in this century. Five articles
in this issue examine the
demographic, economic,
and worklife changes in
the United States. A final
article compares what has
happened in the United
States with the experience
of other industrial nations.

Family demographics
The first article discusses
the dramatic secular
changes in family structure
and orientation since the
turn of the century, giving
special attention to the
most important of these
trends:
1. The decline of the
traditional nuclear family
due to widowhood, divorce,
and delayed marriage;
2. The tendency of women
to have fewer children, and
to do so later in life; and
3. The shifting of economic
roles within the family,
with particular attention
to increased labor force
activity of wives.

Family work patterns
Delving more deeply into
the changes in the division
of labor within American
families over the past
three-quarters of a century,
the second article traces
the developments in workfamily patterns from the
time when a “typical”
family consisted of a
working husband, a
nonworking wife, and their
children. The traditional
family is now far from
being the majority, but no
other work-family structure
has taken its place. Instead,
family composition has
become increasingly diverse
as the labor force roles of
members have changed,
and the proportions of
families maintained by
divorced, widowed,
separated, or single
persons have grown.
In other words, there
is no longer a ’’typical”
American family.

Family expenditures
Using data from BLS
Consumer Expenditure
Surveys, the third article
examines the changes in
family spending patterns
that have accompanied the
unprecedented demographic,
social, economic, and
technological developments
of this century. Among the
findings: Food expenditures
as a share of the family
budget have declined sharply,
and both the composition
of the diet and family
eating habits have changed
dramatically. The incidence
of homeownership has
doubled since the turn of
the century, reflecting
rising real incomes and
the availability of quick,
reliable transportation
between home and the
workplace. Transportation
—chiefly in the form
of the automobile—has
revolutionized family life
in other ways as well, so
that today it accounts for
about one-fourth of family
expenditures.
The article also examines
changes in health-related
expenditures that resulted
from the availability of
more and better medical
care, and increased demand
for recreational goods and
services by a population
with more disposable
income and leisure time.

2


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

During tiie 20th Century
Employer-provided benefits

le g isla te d benefits

International overview

The incidence and types of
fringe benefits offered by
employers to their workers
over the past 75 years are
reviewed in the fourth
article, which points out
that trends in benefits have
followed the shift in
American family structure
from a large, extended
group to a smaller,
individualized network of
families with widely varying
characteristics. Thus,
employers have progressed
from providing no benefits,
to providing a standard
package of benefits designed
for a male-supported
family, to providing
innovative and flexible
benefits to meet
contemporary needs.

Governmental policies that
have shaped and been
shaped by changes in the
American family are the
subject of the fifth article,
which traces the
development since the
turn of the century of
government programs to
reduce working time,
address concerns of
working parents, and
alleviate poverty and
examines three periods of
greatest legislative activity.

The final article examines
three decades of major
transformations in
work-family patterns in
industrialized nations and
finds that the United States
has been in the forefront
of some trends and a
follower in others. For
example, Scandinavian
countries have been the
pacesetters in developing
nontraditional forms of
family living, but the
United States has the
highest incidence of
divorce and single-parent
households. Japan has
been the most conservative
of the developed nations
in terms of family structure
and roles, but even in
that country, the
traditional nuclear
family appears
to be losing
ground.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Planning and editing of
this special issue was
coordinated by Mary Kay
Rieg, who, together with
Anna Hill and Brian Baker,
edited the articles. The
editors thank the authors
and organizations whose
special efforts made this
issue possible.

3

American families:
75 years of change
American families have changed in many ways
in this century, as our population adapted
to evolving technologies, economic conditions,
and social trends; changes were particularly
pronounced during the 1960's and 1970's,
as the baby-boom generation reached adulthood

James R. Wetzel

James R. Wetzel, a former
assistant commissioner of
the Bureau o f Labor
Statistics, now directs the
work o f the Center for
Demographic Studies at
the U .S . Bureau o f the
Census.

amilies are the quintessential institution of
our Nation, providing both biological and
social continuity as they simultaneously
shape, and are shaped by, the larger society.
Families also are the locus of consumption, sav­
ings, and some production activities that are
vital to our overall economic well-being, and
they bear special responsibilities for nurturing
and educating the Nation’s future work force, a
critical function that is not well-served by the
deterioration of the nuclear family over the past
25 or more years.
Each of us has a concept of the typical family
and how it has changed over time. Being rooted
in our own family experience and community,
our views are seldom, if ever, an accurate depic­
tion of the typical family. Indeed, it is fair to say
that there is no such thing as a “typical” family.
In a nation as heterogeneous as the United
States, the characteristics of families vary dra­
matically by race and ethnicity; education, age,
and income of the adult members of the family;
religious affiliation; region of the country; and
by the interplay of these and other demographic,
social, and economic factors. However, over
the 75 years since first publication of the
Monthly Labor Review, there have been dra­
matic secular changes that are observable in
most subgroups of the Nation’s population.
Among the most visible of those changes:

F

4 Monthly Labor Review March 1990


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

• Today, relatively fewer of us are living in
family households, and particularly in “tradi­
tional” nuclear families, than did so earlier in
the 20th century. The trend toward living in
nonfamily households (usually alone) is associ­
ated with widowhood at older ages, the in­
creased incidence of divorce among adults of all
ages, and delayed marriage among young
adults.
• Women in the United States are bearing
fewer children during their lives, and they are
doing so later in their reproductive years. Con­
sequently, the average size of families today is
smaller than it has ever been before. The Na­
tion’s total fertility rate— the number of chil­
dren the average woman would be expected to
bear in her lifetime— has been below the re­
placement level since 1972.
• Those who live in family households— still
a very substantial majority of the population—
live in less stable, more heterogeneous families
than did earlier generations. Kinship networks
now often include former spouses and former
in-laws, stepchildren, and, with increased life
expectancy, more generations than was typical
earlier in this century.
• Finally, economic roles within the family
have shifted significantly in the post-World War
II years. In particular, regardless of the presence

of children, including infants, wives now are
more likely to work outside the home than to
work solely as homemakers. (See Howard V.
Hayghe, “Family members in the work force,”
pp. 14-19.)

Long-term trends
Because data on families are sparse for the pe­
riod before World War II, we have to base our
prewar assessments on decennial census data
that focus on households.1 A household, of
course, is any separate living unit occupied by
one or more persons. As shown in chart 1, the
number of households in the United States grew
rather steadily from 20.3 million in 1910 to 43.6
million in 1950, and to 92.8 million in 1989.2
Households may be subdivided into non­
family (one householder living alone or with
unrelated persons) and family households (a
householder with at least one additional person
in the household who is related by blood, mar­
riage, or adoption). Family households may be
of several types, including, predominantly,
husband-wife families with or without children,
single-parent families with children, and a small
number of adult child/parent, multiple sibling,
or other relative combinations (grandparent,
aunt, uncle, and the like). Data are not available
on family and nonfamily households for the preWorld War II years, but we do have decennial
census information on married couples that indi­
cated whether they had their own household or
lived in another household. The total number of
married couples more than doubled from 17.2
million in 1910 to 34.1 million in 1950, and
then rose much more slowly than the number of
households to 52.9 million by 1989.3
Before the 1950’s, the number of married
couples with their own household and the total
num ber of households tended to grow in
tandem. Thus about 4 out of 5 households were
occupied by married couples in 1910, 1930, and
1950. After 1950, however, nonfamily living
arrangements became much more common. The
ratio of married couples with their own house­
hold to total households dropped gradually from
78 percent in 1950 to 74 percent by 1965. After
1965, the ratio fell more rapidly, declining to 64
percent by 1977 and 56 percent by 1989.
Relatively slow growth in the number of
married-couple families was accompanied by
large increases in the number of family house­
holds maintained by a person with no spouse
present— for the most part, divorced, separated,
and, more recently, never-married women with
children. Family households maintained by
women (with no spouse present) rose more than
50 percent, from 3.6 million in 1950 to 5.5

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

million in 1970, while married-couple house­
holds increased 31 percent to 44.7 million in
1970. After 1970, the rise in married-couple
households slowed; the 52.1 million such
households in 1989 represented an increase of
only 16 percent over the 1970 level. Over the
same period, the number of family households
maintained by men more than doubled, to
2.8 million, and those maintained by women
soared 98 percent to 10.9 million by 1989. (See
table 1.)
In 1989, 16.5 percent of all family house­
holds were maintained by women, compared
with 9.2 percent in 1950. In addition, 1.9 mil­
lion mother-child subfamilies lived in someone
else’s household, most often the home of the
mother’s parents.4 Until the late 1940’s, an im­
portant contributor to the number of femalemaintained families was widowhood (about 30
percent of the total in 1950). By 1989, the per­
centage of family households maintained by
widows had shrunk to 7 percent of the total,
while the proportion maintained by divorced,
separated, or never-married women had risen
from about 70 percent in 1950 to 93 percent.
In a particularly dramatic shift away from
traditional nuclear family living, families main­
tained by never-married women increased ten­
fold over the past two decades, rising from
248,000 in 1970 to 2.7 million in 1988.5 These
changes in the distribution of households by
family and nonfamily status and by type of fam­
ily household are driven by changing prefer­
ences and behaviors of individuals that, on bal­
ance, empirically demonstrate a substantially
reduced commitment to the traditional nuclear
family and to married life as the preferred
status. As a consequence, family life cycles
have changed dramatically.

After 1950,
nonfamily living
arrangements
became much
more common.

Changes in the family life cycle
In 1915, when the first Monthly Labor Review
was published, most Americans could expect to
spend most of their lives playing a succession of
four primary family-life roles— as a dependent
child in the home of one’s biological parents, as
a spouse, as a parent, and as a grandparent. At
that time, more than half of the Nation’s 100
million residents lived in rural areas, and per­
sons were likely to fulfill family-life roles
within the same small geographic area, often in
an overlapping fashion. That is, young adult
children seldom left the parental home to live
alone prior to marriage, and indeed, more than
5 percent shared a household—usually with par­
ents or other relatives— at least temporarily
after marriage.6 Similarly, it was much more
common for widowed parents or other relatives
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

5

Change in American Families
to share the homes of grown children. Divorce
was uncommon, affecting less than 1 percent of
the at-risk population, while the marriage rate
was nearly 10 for every 100 unmarried women
over age 14. Single-person households were
rare, accounting for only 1 of every 20 house­
holds at the turn of the century.
In 1915, we were nearing the end of a period
of intense immigration from Europe. About 10
million immigrants entered the United States
between 1905 and 1914, compared with fewer
than 4 million from 1915 to 1924. In those days,

C hart 1.

6

about 6 of every 10 immigrants were men. As a
result, men outnumbered women by a signifi­
cant margin (2.6 million in 1915), a circum­
stance that would persist until the early 1940’s
despite the greater life expectancy of women of
all ages. Families were the order of the day early
in the 20th century, and large families were
common. Indeed, more than 1 of every 5 house­
holds included seven or more persons. We were
a youthful Nation in 1915— less than half of our
population was at least 25 years old, and 11
percent was under 5 years of age. Today, by

Numbers of households, m arried couples, and persons per household,
1 9 1 0 -8 9

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

contrast, almost half our population is 33 or
more years of age, and only about 7.5 percent is
under age 5.7
American families have changed in many
ways over the past 75 years as our population
adapted to evolving technologies, economic
conditions, and social trends. In particular, fam­
ily and nonfamily living arrangements have
greatly multiplied. Based on patterns of the last
decade, it appears that 6 of 10 of today’s chil­
dren will live for some length of time with a
single parent.8 Indeed, about 24 percent are
doing so at this moment. Subsequently, many
live with a step-parent; in 1985, for example,
almost 1 in 5 married-couple families with chil­
dren still at home had a stepchild living in the
household.9 With recent delays to later ages at
first marriage, many young adults now live in
nonfamily households, sometimes as couples or
with other nonrelatives, but often alone. After
marriage, many Americans experience divorce.
The latest annual figures show almost 1 divorce
for every 2 marriages since the mid-1970’s.
With extended life expectancy, a significant mi­
nority of Americans can look forward to being
great-grandparents, but primarily because of
gender differences in longevity, many elderly
women experience periods of widowhood, often
living alone for many years.

Family formation
In general, marriages are the primary source of
family formation.10 But demographic, eco­
nomic, and social trends have an important
bearing on marriage and childbearing decisions,
and therefore on family formation rates. Demographically, for example, a surplus of young
men brought about by heavy immigration be­
tween 1905 and 1914 meant a steady demand
for marriageable women. Marriages averaged
about 1.2 million annually from 1920 to the late
1930’s. Economically, the adverse conditions
of the Depression years reduced the marriage
rate (for example, there were only about 1 mil­
lion marriages annually in 1931-33), but the
comparatively prosperous conditions and profamily social attitudes of the post-World War II
period stimulated earlier marriages and a sharp,
albeit temporary, upturn in childbearing.
By the late 1950’s, the median age at first
marriage had fallen to 20.1 years for women and
22.5 for men. From 1950 through the early
1960’s, the number of marriages averaged about
1.5 million annually. Since then, as illustrated
in chart 2, the median age at first marriage has
trended steadily upward, reaching highs of 23.6
years for women and almost 26 years for men in
the late 1980’s. And, despite a huge rise in the

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 1.

Households, by type, in the United States,
selected years, 1950-89

Type of household

Total ......................................
Family:
Married couples.............................
Female householder, no spouse
present......................................
Male householder, no spouse
present......................................
Nonfamily:
Single person.................................
Multiple persons.............................
Unmarried couples ........................

Households
(In thousands)

Percent Increase
1970-89

1950

1970

1989

1950-70

43,554

63,401

92,830

46

46

34,075

44,728

52,100

31

16

3,594

5,500

10,890

53

98

1,169

1,228

2,847

5

132

3,954
762
(1)

10,851
1,094
523

22,708
4,286
2,588

174
44
(1)

109
292
395

1 Data not available.
S ource : Households, Families, Marital Status, and Living Arrangements: March 1989, Current
Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 441 (Bureau of the Census, 1989), pp. 6-9.

young adult population as the baby-boom gener­
ation moved through the prime marriage ages,
the number of marriages rose relatively slowly
and leveled off at about 2.4 million annually
after 1980. At its latest reading— in 1987—the
rate of marriages per 100 unmarried women age
15 and over was only 5.6. This matched the
all-time low of the Depression years and rep­
resents a decline of about two-fifths from the
average for the 1950’s. At the same time, the
divorce rate is almost triple the rates of the
1920’s and 1930’s, and easily double the rates
from 1950 through 1965. Thus, today’s popula­
tion is marrying as late as ever recorded in our
history and, once married, is much more likely
to divorce than were their peers of both the preand post-World War II periods.
Rising age at first marriage is a profound be­
havioral change with major implications for
initial and lifetime fertility and perhaps for
marriage dissolution rates in the 1990’s and
beyond, because older ages at first marriage
are associated with lower divorce rates.11 De­
layed marriage has roughly paralleled major
increases in the educational attainment and
rising labor force participation of women. Simi­
lar trends are observable in most of the devel­
oped nations. (See Constance Sorrentino, “The
changing family in international perspective,”
pp. 41-58.)
Later marriage also increases the period dur­
ing which a young woman is at risk of out-ofwedlock childbearing. During the 1980’s, outof-wedlock childbearing apparently was the
second most common source of new family for­
mation. During 1987, 933,000 births (24.5 perMonthly Labor Review

March 1990

7

Change in American Families
cent of all births) were to unmarried women
(includes those never-married, divorced, and
widowed.).12 Because many of these infants
were borne by women who had other children,
their births did not result in additional family
formation. However, the number of households
maintained by never-married women with chil­
dren of their own stood at 1.75 million in 1988
and included more than 2.9 million children
under 18 years of age. There were an additional
1.1 million never-married, usually quite young
women with children under 18 years of age who
lived in someone else’s household, generally
that of the mother’s parents.13

C hart 2. S e le c te d m a rria g e and divorce

Childbearing

1920

1920

1920

8

1930

1930

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1940

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1950

March 1990

1960

1970

1980

1990

From 1790, when there were an estimated 55
births per 1,000 population in the United States,
until the late 1930’s, the basic trend in reproduc­
tion rates was down. Still, by today’s standards,
childbearing in 1915, at a rate of about 29 per
1.000 population, might reasonably be de­
scribed as high. In the ensuing years, the rate
declined sharply— by 1934, it had fallen to a
Depression low of 18.4 per 1,000. During
World War II, it rose gradually, then even faster
amid the postwar prosperity, reaching a peak of
25.3 per 1,000 in 1957 at the apex of the baby
boom. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, childbear­
ing resumed a downward trend, reaching a low
of 14.6 per 1,000 in 1975-76. Since then, there
has been a slight rise to 15.9 per 1,000, brought
about by a large increase in the number of
women in the prime childbearing ages.14
A better measure of basic fertility— births per
1.000 women in the childbearing range of 15 to
44 years of age— is presented in chart 3. As
indicated, the general fertility rate trended deci­
sively downward in the 1920’s, falling more
than 35 percent (from almost 121 births per
1.000 women of childbearing age in 1921 to
about 89 per 1,000 in 1930), and another 17
percent to a Depression low of 75.8 per 1,000 in
1936. Despite continued severe economic con­
ditions, fertility edged up somewhat late in the
Depression years and accelerated very sharply
after World War II, to a peak of almost 123 per
1.000 by 1957. During the 1960’s and early
1970’s, the general fertility rate nosedived to 68
per 1,000 by 1974. Since then, the fertility rate
has essentially stabilized between 65 and 68 per
1.000 women of childbearing age.15
The total fertility rate measures the number of
children the average woman would have during
her lifetime if her reproductive experience
matched the population’s fertility rates by single
years of age in any particular year. As shown in
chart 3, the total fertility rate stood at 3.7 chil-

dren per woman in 1957, at the peak of the baby
boom. By the early 1970’s, the total fertility rate
had fallen below the replacement level (2.1 chil­
dren) necessary to offset mortality in the popu­
lation, and it has remained below that figure
since then. Whether the underlying factors are
economic or social, we are, on average, choos­
ing to have fewer children and to have them
later in life. As a result, the average American
family is smaller today than ever before in our
history. With fewer children, increased divorce,
and increased life expectancy that has sustained
more married couples in family households after
their children have grown to adulthood and left
home, the average family contained 3.16 per­
sons in 1989, down from 3.67 in 1960 and 3.76
in 1940 (chart 1). The bulk of the net reduction
since 1960 occurred among children, whose av­
erage number per family fell from 1.41 in 1960
to 0.96 in 1989.

Family dissolution
The divorce rate in the United States moved
unevenly higher for most of the period from
1915 to 1975 and then leveled off at a high rate.
As illustrated in chart 2, the average rate has

Chart 3.

shown little change since the mid-1970’s; but
over the years that followed, it was about twice
its average for the 1950-65 period, and about
triple the average of the 1920’s and 1930’s.
There were 14 million currently divorced per­
sons in the United States in 1988, up from 2.4
million in 1950. Almost 9 percent of the popula­
tion age 25 and over is currently divorced, up
from an estimated 2.6 percent in 1950.16
Current patterns suggest that more than half
of all marriages contracted during the 1970’s
will end in divorce, about double the ratio of the
1950’s.17 Because many divorces involve chil­
dren and because of the rise in out-of-wedlock
childbearing, almost one-fourth (15.3 million)
of the Nation’s children (under 18) lived with
only one parent in the late 1980’s. That com­
pares with only 9 percent (5.8 million) in 1960
and 12 percent (8.2 million) in 1970.18 Almost
9 out of every 10 children living with a single
parent live with their mothers, who often have
lower-than-average incomes.
Death of a spouse is the second leading rea­
son for dissolution of married-couple family
households. In 1988, there were 13.5 million
widowed persons (7.2 percent of the population
age 15 or older), compared with 5.7 million (7.7

S e le c te d fe rtility indicators, 1 9 2 0 - 8 8

Births per
thousand

Births
per woman

-

3

1 Births per 1 ,0 0 0 women ages 15 to 4 4 .
2 The number of children that a woman would have in her lifetime at the rates prevailing during the reference year.
3 Births per 1 ,0 0 0 population.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

9

Change in American Families
percent) in 1920. Almost 89 percent of the wid­
owed were age 55 or older in 1988, and 83
percent were women.19 Most widowed persons
live alone in their own households, and the pro­
portion doing so has risen over time.

Changing family composition
While comprising an ever-shrinking share of all
households, family households also have been
undergoing progressive alterations in character.
In 1950, married-couple households made up
almost 88 percent of all family households, 9.3

C hart 4.

percent were family households maintained by a
woman (with no husband present), and 2.7 per­
cent were family households maintained by a
man (no wife present). By 1989, marriedcouple households were only 79 percent of all
family households, and there had been a dra­
matic rise in the percentages of family house­
holds maintained by women with no husband
present (16.5 percent) and by men with no wife
present (4.3 percent). As chart 4 shows, the
proportion of married-couple households with
children present has declined dramatically—
falling from 44.2 percent of all households in

C om position of A m erican households, s ele cted years, 1 9 6 0 - 8 8

&

Single-person
households

® Multiperson
nonfamily
households

O ther families
without children

*

Married couples
without children

!:S O ther families
with children
under 18

■

I9 6 0

1970

10 Monthly Labor Review March 1990

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1980

1988

Married couples
with children
under 18

1960 to 27.0 percent in 1988, and the overall
percentage of households with children present
has fallen from almost half in 1960 to just over
one-third in 1989.
Reflecting underlying changes in social atti­
tudes and behavior, many more of today’s new
mothers are unmarried at the time their children
are bom than was the case in earlier generations.
The annual out-of-wedlock birth rate rose from
7.1 per 1,000 unmarried women ages 15 to 44
years in 1940 to 19.3 per 1,000 in 1955, 26.4
per 1,000 in 1970, and 36.1 per 1,000 in 1987.
In 1960, slightly more than 5 percent of all
births were to unmarried women, but by 1987,
the rate had risen to almost 25 percent.20 Much
of the change in distribution of births between
married and unmarried women arises from
steep declines in childbearing rates of married
women, especially young married women.
Bearing and raising an out-of-wedlock child
creates a family unit; this trend, coupled with
higher divorce rates, means that an increasing
percentage of our children are living in single­
parent homes. Today, almost one-fourth of fam­
ily households with children are maintained by
a single parent, 9 out of 10 of whom are women.
This is double the percentage in 1970 and al­
most triple the proportion during the late
1940’s. Comparable data are not available for
the prewar years, but the circumstances leading
to single parenthood then were more likely to
result from death of a spouse than from divorce
or out-of-wedlock childbearing. As late as
1960, when only 9.1 percent of all children
lived with a single parent, more than one-fourth
of those children lived with a widowed parent.
By contrast, only 6.3 percent lived with a wid­
owed parent in 1988.21
A basic societal problem of single parenthood
is that children of single parents are much more
likely than children in intact marriages to be
living in poverty. In 1988, for example, the
poverty rate for married-couple families with
children was 7.2 percent, but the rate for like
families maintained by women was 44.7 per­
cent. In large part, this means more children in
poverty; almost 20 percent of all children— 1 of
every 5— were living in poverty during 1988,
compared with 10.7 percent for persons 18 or
more years of age.22 A large share of these poor
children were in single-parent homes. The
poverty gap between children and adults has
increased significantly since the early 1970’s, a
trend that is inexorably linked to out-of-wedlock
childbearing and to divorce. Social science re­
search has repeatedly shown that, among other
difficulties, children raised in poverty are at
higher risk of low educational attainment, more
frequent involvement with the criminal justice

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

system, and out-of-wedlock childbearing them­
selves.23 These risks are closely correlated with
unsuccessful worklife patterns, and do not bode
well for the quality of the new-entrant labor
supply in the next century.

Growth of nonfamily households
There has been a decisive upward trend in living
in nonfamily households— those not consisting
of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption,
or other legal arrangement— in the United
States. In 1940, there were about 2.7 million
nonfamily households, about 7.7 percent of all
households. By 1989, the number of nonfamily
households had risen almost tenfold to nearly 27
million, or 29.1 percent of the total. More than
four-fifths of all nonfamily households are oc­
cupied by a person living alone. Three trends
contribute to the sharp rise in nonfamily house­
holds: Since the 1960’s, young adults have in­
creasingly deferred first marriages to older ages
and often live away from the parental home,
either alone or with others; among those who
have married, divorce is more frequent, often
creating two households, of which one is usu­
ally a nonfamily household; and, finally, there
has been a sharp rise in the number of widows
and widowers who maintain independent non­
family households.
The number and percentage of single-person
households has risen dramatically over this cen­
tury, reaching 21.9 million, or 24 percent of all
households, in 1989. Half again as many
women (13.1 million) live alone as do men (8.8
million). The entire excess of women living
alone occurs among those age 55 or older and is
closely associated with widowhood. Between
the ages of 15 and 55, both never-married and
divorced men are somewhat more likely to be
living alone than are their female counterparts.
The two latter categories often are transi­
tional— as of March 1989, more than 93 percent
of Americans were or had been married at least
once by their early 40’s, and, on average, 60
percent of divorced persons remarry. Because
unmarried (widowed, divorced, and nevermarried) women in their 60’s and older outnum­
ber unmarried men by a huge margin, older
women are particularly unlikely to marry and
form a married-couple family. In part because
of income maintenance programs like Social Se­
curity, however, currently unmarried older
women are much more likely to be living inde­
pendently in their own household than were
their predecessors.
The number of multiperson nonfamily house­
holds also has grown rapidly over the postWorld War II period, rising from 762,000 in

Families were the
order of the day
early in the 20th
century; large
families were
common.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

11

Change in American Families
1950 to 5.1 million in 1989. Just over half of
During the 1990’s, all of the Nation’s net
these households (about 2.6 million) are main­ population growth will occur among persons
tained by unmarried couples who share living age 35 and older, with the bulk of the increase
quarters, a quadrupling of such arrangements in the prime childrearing and working years,
since 1970. In many instances, such couples from the mid-30’s to the mid-50’s. The young
behave like families— indeed, there are children adult population will be smaller in 2000 than it
under age 15 present in about 800,000 of the is now. This general aging of the population
unmarried-couple households.24 More than half augurs well for a period of comparative stabil­
of the partners in unmarried-couple households ity, if not a slight drift back toward a traditional
have not been married, and more than 60 per­ family orientation. That is, with delayed mar­
cent are less than 35 years of age. According to riage, the divorce rate may continue to edge
research conducted at the University of Wiscon­ lower, reducing family dissolution somewhat.
sin, within 2 years such living arrangements Childbearing patterns and data on birth expecta­
among young adults were a precursor to mar­ tions suggest a continuation of small families.26
riage (and therefore formation of a family Over the last decade, young adults have shown
household) for 37 percent of the couples stud­ an increased tendency to remain in the parental
ied, to disestablishment of the household for 23 home during their 20’s, damping one source of
percent of the couples, or to continuation as an nonfamily-household formation. However, bar­
unmarried-couple household for 40 percent.25
ring drastic changes in either personal tastes or
Social Security and pension arrangements, it ap­
Where are we tending?
pears likely that there will be continuing growth
The past 75 years brought momentous changes in the number and proportion of elderly persons
in family life patterns of Americans as we living alone in nonfamily households.
adapted to dynamic economic, social, and de­
Even with comparative stability, areas of par­
mographic developments. Changes in family ticular societal concern require attention. In part
living arrangements and preferences were par­ because of the continuing rise in out-of-wedlock
ticularly pronounced from the early 1960’s to childbearing, more than half of all children are
the late 1970’s, about the time of the transi­ likely to experience a period of living with a
tion of the baby-boom generation from adoles­ single parent during the 1990’s, usually in re­
cence to adulthood. During the 1980’s, average duced economic circumstances. For as many as
family living arrangements and family size ex­ 1 in 5, that means living in poverty— some for
hibited comparative stability, fertility stabilized many years— with all the adverse implications
at a rate just below the replacement level, and for obtaining an adequate education and the op­
the divorce rate leveled off just below the 1979 portunity to develop an effective working and
peak.
family life as adults.
□

Footnotes
1 Household-based definitions leave much to be desired in
describing familial economic and social support networks.
For example, almost 1 o f every 25 Americans provides
some financial support for a person living outside his or her
household. During 1985, $18.9 billion was transferred from
individuals, largely to relatives living elsewhere. Such
transfers include child support payments and former-spouse
support payments, and significant sums flow from parents to
adult children and vice versa. See Who’s Helping Out: Sup­
port Networks Among American Families, Series P-70,
No. 13 (Bureau o f the Census, 1988), pp. 1, 11.

2 Historical Statistics o f the United States: Colonial
Times to 1970, Part 1 (Bureau o f the Census, 1975), p. 41;
and Households, Families, Marital Status, and Living Ar­
rangements: March 1989, Current Population Reports, Se­
ries P-20, No. 441 (Bureau o f the Census, 1989), pp. 4 -9 .
3 Ibid.
4 Steve W. Rawlings, “Single Parents and Their Chil­
dren,” in Studies o f Marriage and the Family, Current
Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 162 (Bureau o f the
Census, 1989), p. 13.
5 Ibid., p. 16.
6 All data in this and the following paragraph are drawn

12 Monthly Labor Review March 1990

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

from Historical Statistics, pp. 15, 2 0 -2 1 , 4 1 -4 2 , 4 9 -5 6
64, 105, 112, 117, and 133-34.

I Ibid., pp. 41-42; and State Population and Household
Estimates With Age, Sex, and Components of Change, 1981
to 1988, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No.
1044 (Bureau o f the Census, 1989), p. 18.
8 Arthur J. Norton and Paul Glick, “One Parent Families:
A Social and Economic Profile,” Family Relations, January
1986, pp. 9 -1 7 .
9 Louisa F. Miller and Jeanne E. Moorman, “MarriedCouple Families With Children,” in Studies of Marriage
and the Family, p. 31.
10 Donald J. Hernandez, “Components o f Longitudinal
Household Change for 1 9 84-85,” sipp Working Papers 8 9 22, November 1989, pp. 1-28.
II Arthur J. Norton and Jeanne E. Moorman, “Current
Trends In Marriage and Divorce Among American
W omen,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, February
1987, pp. 3 -1 4 .
12
National Center for Health Statistics, “Advance Report
o f Final Natality Statistics, 1987” (and various earlier
years), Monthly Vital Statistics Report, vol. 38, no. 3,
suppl. (Hyattsville, m d , Public Health Service, 1989),

pp. 32-34; and Historical Statistics, pp. 4 9 -5 6 .

o f Final Natality Statistics,” pp. 32-34; and Historical

13 Household and Family Characteristics: March 1988,
Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No 437 (Bureau
o f the Census, 1989), pp. 79, 83.

Statistics, p. 52.

14 National Center for Health Statistics, “Advance Report
o f Final Natality Statistics,” p. 15.

22 Money Income and Poverty Status: 1988, Current Pop­
ulation Reports, Series P-60, No. 166 (Bureau o f the Cen­

21 Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1988,
p. 42.

sus, 1989), pp. 60, 62.

15 Ibid.
16 Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1988,
Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 433 (Bureau
o f the Census, 1989), p. 3; and Historical Statistics, p. 20.
17 Overall marital disruption appears likely to be even
larger. See Teresa C. Martin and Larry L. Bumpass, “Re­
cent Trends in Marital Disruption,” Demography, February
1989, pp. 3 7 -5 2 .
18 Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1988,
p. 62.

23 Susan Hofferth, “The Children of Teenage Childbearers,” in National Academy of Sciences, Risking the Future:
Adolescent Sexuality, Pregnancy, and Childbearing, vol. II
(Washington, National Academy Press, 1987), pp. 174—
206.
24 Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1988,
p. 63.
25 Andrew Thorton, “Cohabitation and Marriage in the
1980’s,” Demography, November 1988, pp. 497-508.

19 Ibid., pp. 3 -8 ; and Historical Statistics, pp. 2 0 -2 1 .

26 Fertility of American Women: June 1988, Current
Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 436 (Bureau o f the

20 National Center for Health Statistics, “Advance Report

Census, 1989), pp. 1-11.

Tradeoffs in parental leave
While attention is focused largely on mothers, there is growing evi­
dence of a greater desire for involvement in childbearing from fathers.
According to Joseph Pleck of Wheaton College, former director of the
National Fatherhood Project, “Because they do not understand or ac­
cept the idea of child care leave, many employers find the concept of
paternity leave incomprehensible or frivolous.” As a result, the policy
is offered in about one-third of major corporations and rarely used by
fathers. Pleck also found that when asked what they did when their
wives had babies, men indicated that they pieced together various
time-off policies, such as sick leave and vacations, in order to take off
about three weeks. Fathers were reluctant to refer to this as “paternity
leave.”


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

— Dana E. Friedman and Wendy B. Gray

Perspectives,

“A L ife C y c le A pproach to
F am ily B en efits and P o lic ie s ,”
N o . 19 (T h e C on feren ce B oard,
In c ., 1 9 8 9 ), p. 11.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

13

Family members
in the work force
Work patterns of families
have become so diverse in recent decades
that a specific family type
can no longer be identified as “typical”

Howard V. Hayghe

Howard V. Hayghe is an
economist in the Division
o f Labor Force Statistics,
Bureau o f Labor Statistics.

14

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

s a social and economic institution, the
American family has undergone some
profound changes in recent decades.
One of the most talked about changes has been
the substantial increase since the 1940’s in
married-couple families in which both spouses
are in the labor force, or “dual-worker
families.” As the number of dual-worker cou­
ples increased, the number of families in which
only the husband is in the labor force, or
“traditional families,” dwindled. Simultane­
ously, the number of unmarried men and
women in the labor force who maintained
families grew, as divorce and separation be­
came increasingly common. But, perhaps the
most overlooked development has been the
steady increase in the proportion of families in
which neither the husband nor the person main­
taining the household is in the labor force, or
“other families.”
The traditional family group is now far from
being in the majority. Yet, no other group has
taken its place. Instead, the composition of the
family has become increasingly diverse, as the
labor force roles of members have changed, and
the proportions of “other families” and families
maintained by divorced, widowed, separated,
or single persons have grown. In other words,
there is no longer a “typical” family.
This article traces the changing labor force
characteristics of families over the years since
the Monthly Labor Review began publication. It
looks back to the pre-World War II era to pro­

A

March 1990

vide a picture of family labor force characteris­
tics during the early decades of this century, and
traces the broad trends from 1940 to the present,
focusing on the current situation.
The analysis is based on data from a variety
of sources. Information on pre-1940 develop­
ments is drawn from studies based on the decen­
nial censuses, as well as some other smaller
studies. Data for the post-1940 period are from
the decennial censuses and the Current Popula­
tion Survey.1

Pre-World War II trends
Today, there is a standard definition of what
constitutes a family— namely, a group of two
persons or more related by birth, marriage, or
adoption and residing together.2 Prior to 1940,
however, the concept was not as clearly de­
fined. As a result, information from these ear­
lier periods is not always comparable to today’s
data. Fortunately, historical data on the labor
force participation of women are available from
which a fairly good picture of the family work
patterns of those early decades can be con­
structed. (See table 1.)
Between 1900 and 1920, decennial census
data show that the number of women in the
labor force grew by about two-thirds, from
about 5 million to 8.3 million. The proportion of
these women who were married also grew fairly
rapidly, rising from 15 percent of the women in
the labor force to 24 percent.

The information on labor force participation
of wives, together with data on households, can
be used to derive estimates that are indicative of
family labor force patterns prior to World War
II. Overall, there were about 24.4 million
households in 1920. A breakdown of these
households by type is not available because the
collection and tabulation of such data were in­
consistent before World War II. However, cal­
culations based on the 1910 and 1930 censuses
indicate that in 1920, roughly 85 percent— or
around 20 million— of the households consisted
of married couples.3 And, because most of the
approximately 1.9 million wives in the labor
force had husbands who also were in the labor
force (92 percent of the husbands were partici­
pants),4 dual-worker families would have con­
stituted around 9 percent of all families.
Estimates of the proportion of families main­
tained by women in the labor force are equally
difficult to determine. Information based on
data collected in the 1920 decennial census from
an 11-city sample indicates that about 15 per­
cent of employed women maintained house­
holds in which no husband was present.5 Thus,
by extrapolation, there were about 1.3 million
women in the labor force nationwide maintain­
ing their own households without husbands.
The number of wives who were working or
looking for work continued growing from 1920
through 1940. (See table 1.) This was a remark­
able feat, considering the social, cultural, and,
indeed, technological barriers confronting
wives who worked for pay outside the home.
While poor, black, or immigrant women often
had to work, the cultural and social mores of the
time— unlike those of today— discouraged a
bread winning role for wives. For example,
Gallup polls conducted in the 1930’s found that
about 80 percent of the population felt that
wives should not work.6 But, it should be noted
that these polls were conducted during the De­
pression, and public opinion might have been
affected by the notion that women would take
some of the shrinking number of available jobs
away from men. (There was as little foundation
to this reasoning in the 1930’s as there is today.
Then, as now, women tended to be employed in
service sector jobs which are relatively un­
affected by economic downturns, whereas men
tended to be employed in goods-producing
industries that typically bear the brunt of
recession.)
In addition, 50 years ago, household technol­
ogy was relatively primitive and families were
larger. Consequently, housework required far
more physical labor and time than it does today.
Not only was present-day technology unavail­
able to wives, so were modem time-savers such


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 1.

Women in the labor force by marital status,
selected years, 1900-40
M arried w o m en 1

Total w om en
Y ear

1900 ...........................
1910...........................
1920 ...........................
1930 ...........................
1940 ...........................

N um ber in
labor force
(thousands)

4,997
7,640
8,347
10,632
13,007

A s percent
o f all w om en

N um ber in
labor force
(thousands)

P ercent
of all w om en
in labor force

20.6
25.4
23.7
24.8
25.8

769
1,891
1,920
3,071
4,675

15.4
24.7
23.0
28.9
35.9

11ncludes small number not living with their husbands.
S ource: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Series D 49-62

(Bureau of the Census, 1975), p. 133.

as prepared foods, fast-food outlets, and super­
markets where an entire week’s worth of gro­
ceries can be purchased at one stop.
Given these daunting social and physical ob­
stacles, why did some wives work? The answer
then is similar to the response frequently given
today— economic necessity. In a study con­
ducted in 1920, wives gave various reasons for
working outside the home, such as the need to
support large families, the inadequacy of their
husbands’ wages, inflation, providing for thenchildren’s education, and saving for old age.7 In
a later survey, 80 percent of wives who were job
applicants said they were looking for work out
of necessity.8

Trends since 1940
In a sense, 1940 was a watershed year for statis­
tics on the family. This was the first time that
concepts of the family and of the labor force that
are still in use today were incorporated into a
decennial census. Thus, 1940 is a natural start­
ing point for an examination of trends in family
labor force characteristics.
By 1940, the employment picture for women
had changed somewhat from its pre-World War
II trend. About 13 million women, or 26 percent
of all women, were in the labor force.9 Approx­
imately 30 percent of them were married and
living with their husbands, while 16 percent
maintained their own families with no husband
present. But the largest group of women in
the labor force— about 6.7 million, or nearly
half the total— were single (had never been
married).
This was still the era when a wife’s primary
occupation was homemaking. Thus, families in
which the husband, but not the wife, was in the
labor force accounted for nearly 7 of 10 of the
32.2 million U.S. families. There were barely 3
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

15

Family Members in the Work Force
million dual-worker couples, only 9 percent of
all families. (See chart 1.)
There were also 5.2 million families— almost
1 of 6— in which the householder, whether a
woman or a man, had no spouse present. Rela­
tively few of these householders, especially the
women, participated in the labor force. Families
maintained by a man or a woman who was in the
labor force each made up about 8 percent of all
families.
During World War II, wives helped supply
the additional labor required by industry to meet
the demands for war materiel and to fill the jobs
of the men called to serve in the Armed Forces.
Consequently, between 1940 and 1944, the
number of married women who were w o r k in g
or looking for work grew by about 2 million,
and their labor force participation rate shot up
from 14 percent to nearly 22 percent. Immedi­
ately after the war, many wives left the labor
force. However,, within a few years, they started
reentering, and, by 1948, their participation rate
had returned to its 1944 level; by 1950, about 24
percent of wives were working or looking for
work.
This postwar increase in wives’ labor force
participation— coupled with a surge in mar­
riages— is reflected in the sharp jump, between

1940 and 1950, in the proportion of families
composed of dual-worker couples. Over the
next 15 years, the number of wives in the labor
force continued to grow, expanding by nearly
400,000 a year. Consequently, the proportion of
“traditional” families declined gradually, al­
though such families remained the majority for
about half of the 1940-88 period. After 1965,
the number of wives in the labor force grew very
sharply, by an average 700,000 a year, and the
decline of the traditional family accelerated. By
1988, the traditional family accounted for only
about a fifth of the total families, compared with
more than three-fifths in 1940.
In addition to the rise in dual-worker couples,
there were other changes in the labor force be­
havior of families that have become increas­
ingly significant over time. For example, the
number of single-parent families maintained by
women in the labor force grew from about 5
percent of all families in 1965 to around 10
percent in 1988. By contrast, the increase
among those families maintained by men in the
labor force was almost negligible.
“Other families” group. Also significant was
the growth in the proportion of the other
families group. This group is quite heteroge-

C hart 1. T h e changing labor fo rc e p a tte rn s of fam ilies, 1 9 4 0 - 8 8
Percent of
all families

1940

16

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1988

neous, but its members all share a common fac­
tor— the person who maintains the household is
not in the labor force. This group includes re­
tired couples; couples where the wife, but not
the husband, is in the labor force; and families
maintained by unmarried householders who are
not labor force participants.
Between 1940 and 1988, the number of other
families increased by 11.2 million, from 4.8
million to 16 million. Over the same period, the
number that were in the married-couple cate­
gory increased to such an extent that this cate­
gory became the overwhelming majority of the
other families group. The number of other
families that were maintained by men or women
who were not in the labor force grew as well,
although not so rapidly as the married-couple
group. (See table 2.)
The increase in the proportion of the marriedcouple category of the other families group was
probably spurred by a growing tendency during
this period— especially from 1955 to about
1986— for husbands to retire and leave the labor
force at a relatively early age.10 Somewhat sur­
prisingly, however, the proportion of the cou­
ples where the wife was a labor force participant
but the husband was not was about 3 times
greater in 1988 than in 1940— 14.8 percent and
4.5 percent. (See table 2.) In contrast, the num­
ber of families in which neither spouse was in
the labor force grew at a slower pace.

Today
The children. Children are being raised in a
wider variety of family situations today than
ever before. Half a century ago, the overwhelm­
ing majority of children lived in traditional
families with the husband in the labor force and
the wife at home. As times changed, this sce­
nario became the exception rather than the
rule; more, and younger, wives entered the
labor force, and the incidence of marital
breakup and out-of-wedlock births increased.
Indeed, to the degree that households dissolve
and are reestablished, children may live in sev­
eral different family situations before reaching
adulthood.
Comprehensive data on the living arrange­
ments of children by the labor force status of
their parent(s) and family type first became
available on a regular basis in 1975. However,
even in the relatively short time since then,
some dramatic changes in the children’s family
situations have occurred. (See table 3.)
Since 1975, the proportion of married cou­
ples with children has declined from 84 percent
of all families with children to 76 percent.
Moreover, as wives and mothers increasingly

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 2.

Trends in the composition of “other families,”
by type, March of selected years, 1940-88
19401

19501

1960

1980

1988

4,788
100.0

5,584
100.0

6,883
100.0

13,314
100.0

15,974
100.0

46.2
4.5

51.2
9.3

62.5
11.8

69.3
14.6

69.3
14.8

42.2

41.9

50.7

54.7

54.5

Families maintained by women not in
labor force (no spouse present) .......

45.5

40.9

32.8

27.3

26.5

Families maintained by men not in labor
force (no spouse present) ................

8.3

7.8

4.7

3.4

4.3

O ther fam ilies type

Total:
In thousands ........................................
In percent..............................................
Married-couple families ......................
Wife In labor force, not husband —
Neither wife nor husband in labor
force ............................................

1Data are from Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Series A
288-319 (Bureau of the Census, 1975), p. 41; and Current Population Reports, Series P-50,
Nos. 5 and 29, and Series P-S, No. 20 (Bureau of the Census, May 1948, May 1951, and March
1947, respectively).
Table 3.

Trends in labor force activity of families with
children under age 18, by type of family, March
of selected years, 1975-88

[Numbers in thousands]
Fam ily type

Total families with children .........................

1975

1980

1985

1988

30,375

31,325

31,496

32,347

25,400
84.0

24,974
79.7

24,225
76.9

24,611
76.1

96.0
52.6
43.4
1.6
2.4

95.7
43.2
52.5
1.8
2.5

95.7
36.6
59.1
1.9
2.4

95.6
32.7
63.0
2.2
2.2

4,461
14.6

5,718
18.3

6,345
20.1

6,666
20.6

59.9
40.1

67.4
32.6

67.8
32.2

67.2
32.8

454
1.4

633
2.0

926
2.9

1,070
3.3

87.0
13.0

88.6
11.5

90.0
9.9

90.2
9.8

Married-couple families:
Percent of total families with children ...
Percent with—
Father in labor force.........................
Father only ...................................
Father and mother ........................
Mother only in labor force ................
Neither parent in labor force .............
Families maintained by women (no spouse
present):
Number............................................
Percent of total families with children .
Percent with—
Mother in labor force ....................
Mother not in labor force ...............
Families maintained by men (no spouse
present):
Percent of total families with children .
Percent with—
Father in labor force......................
Father not in labor force................

Note- Children are “born” children and include sons, daughters, stepchildren, and adopted
children. Not included are other related children, such as nieces, nephews, and grandchildren and
unrelated children.

entered the labor force, fewer families with chil­
dren fit the old model of “father in labor force,
mother at home.” In 1975, 53 percent of the
married-couple families with children consisted
of traditional families, while 43 percent fell into
the dual-worker category; by 1988, the pro­
portions were 33 percent and 63 percent.
As the proportion of families consisting of
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

17

Family Members in the Work Force

Table 4.

Families, by type, labor force status of husbands, wives, and persons
maintaining families, and presence and age of youngest child,
March 1988

Fam ily type

Total

W ith no ow n
children
u n d e ra g e 18

W ith ow n children under age 18

Total

A ges 6 to 17,
none youn ger

Under
age 6

N u m b e r (in th o u s a n d s )

All families ..............................................

65,670

33,323

32,347

17,486

14,860

Married-couple families........................................
Husband only in labor force ....................................
Husband and wife in labor force.................................
Wife only in labor force ..........................................
Neither husband nor wife in labor force ...........................

51,847
13,744
27,037
2,364
8,702

27,236
5,708
11,544
1,821
8,163

24,611
8,036
15,493
543
539

12,688
3,156
8,839
360
333

11,924
4,880
6,654
184
206

Families maintained by women (no spouse present) ...........
Householder in labor force ........................................
Householder not in labor force ......................................

11,061
6,834
4,227

4,395
2,353
2,042

6,666
4,481
2,185

4,086
3,088
998

2,580
1,393
1,187

Families maintained by men (no spouse present)................
Householder in labor force ........................................
Householder not in labor force ....................................

2,762
2,079
682

1,692
1,114
577

1,070
965
105

713
641
73

357
325
32

All families .....................................................
Married-couple families..............................................
Husband only in labor force ....................................
Husband and wife in labor force......................................
Wife only in labor force ..........................................
Neither husband nor wife in labor force .........................

100.0
79.0
20.9
41.2
3.6
13.3

50.7
41.5
8.7
17.6
2.8
12.4

49.3
37.5
12.2
23.6
.8
.8

26.6
19.3
4.8
13.5
.5
.5

22.6
18.2
7.4
10.1
.3
.3

Families maintained by women (no spouse present) ...........
Householder in labor force ......................................
Householder not in labor force ........................................

16.8
10.4
6.4

6.7
3.6
3.1

10.2
6.8
3.3

6.2
4.7
1.5

3.9
2.1
1.8

Families maintained by men (no spouse present)................
Householder in labor force ............................................
Householder not in labor force .................................

4.2
3.2
1.0

2.6
1.7
.9

1.6
1.5
.2

1.1
1.0
.1

.5
.5
(1)

P e rc e n t

1 Less than 0.05 percent.

ters, stepchildren, and adopted children. Not included are other

Note: Children are “born” children and include sons, daugh-

related children, such as nieces, nephews, and grandchildren and
unrelated children.

two parents declined, the proportion maintained
by a single parent rose. In 1975, about 15 per­
cent of the families with children were main­
tained by a single-parent mother, and 1 percent
by a single-parent father. By 1988, the propor­
tions had increased to 21 percent and 3 percent,
respectively. It is important to note that a parent
was in the labor force in about 7 of 10 of the
single-parent families maintained by women,
compared with nearly 9 of 10 of the families
maintained by single-parent fathers and virtu­
ally all (98 percent) of the two-parent families.
Very few families with children are in the
other families group, largely because most of
the parents are relatively young and do not have
the resources that would allow them (especially
the married fathers) to leave the labor force.
Overall, a little more than 10 percent of families
with children fell into the other family group in
March 1988, slightly more than in 1975, and the
majority were maintained by single mothers.
18

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

The families. For families, trends since 1940
have led away from the “married couple with
only the husband in labor force” paradigm. But,
instead of reorganizing around one particular
household model, such as the dual-worker
household, families appear to be moving away
from any modal category. The adjective “di­
verse” best describes the family scene today.
Table 4 shows why.
Of the 65.7 million families in the United
States in March 1988, about 41 percent con­
sisted of married couples in which both husband
and wife were in the labor force. In an addi­
tional 21 percent, the husband, but not the wife,
was in the labor force; in 13 percent, neither
spouse was in the labor force; and about 14
percent were maintained by a man or a woman
who was in the labor force, but with no spouse
present in the household.
When the presence and age of children are
taken into account along with the labor force

status of family members, the complexity
grows. For instance, dual-worker families with
no children compose 18 percent of all families,
while those with children are about 24 percent
of the total. Single-parent families maintained
by women in the labor force account for 7 per­
cent of ail families, and families maintained by
women in the labor force with no children repre­
sent 4 percent.
This perspective on family types provides in­
sights into today’s debates regarding national
family policy. For instance, although dual­
worker families with preschool children number
6.7 million, this group makes up only 10 per­
cent of all American families. Moreover, while
7 percent of the families consist of a single
mother who is in the labor force and her chil­
dren, about 2 percent of families (1.4 million)
are maintained by a single mother with children
under age 6.
Of course, these numbers and proportions are
based on information about the family situa­
tion at one point in time and do not reflect
the changes families inevitably undergo over
time. For instance, many of the two-parent

families in which both parents are in the labor
force may join the traditional family category at
some time in the future, or a divorce can change
a married-couple family into a single-parent
family.
c e n t u r y h a s s e e n m a r k e d c h a n g e s in the
composition of families and in the labor force
patterns of family members. About 50 years
ago, most wives had the exclusive role of home­
maker and childraiser. Today, the reality is that,
more often than not, she also works outside the
home. Families are far more dynamic today:
added to the changes that inevitably occur over
time (for example, as families go from raising
children to being “empty nests”) are other
changes that stem from the frequent breakup of
families through separation and divorce and the
reestablishment of families through subsequent
remarriage. The result is that the majority of
families no longer fit into a single category that
can be termed “typical.” Instead, there are nu­
merous work-family patterns with none of them
as dominating as the “traditional” family was 50
years ago.
□

T h is

Footnotes
1 The Current Population Survey is a monthly survey of
(currently) about 60,000 households conducted by the Bu­
reau o f the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to
obtain statistics on the employment status of the population.
Information collected in March of each year is specially
processed to produce employment estimates by family status
and characteristics.

tional Federation of Business and Professional Women’s
Clubs, Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 48, reprinted in R.
Baxandal, L. Gordon and S. Reverby, eds., America’s
Working Women (New York, Random House, 1976).

2 See, for example, Marital Status and Living Arrange­
ments: March 1987, Current Population Reports, Series

8 See Emily C. Brown, A Study o f Two Groups of Denver
Married Women Applying for Jobs, Bulletin of the

P-20, No. 60 (Bureau of the Census, 1988), p. 60.

Women’s Bureau No. 77 (Washington, D .C ., Government
Printing Office, 1929).

3 Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial
Times to 1970, Part 1, Bicentennial Edition (Bureau o f the
Census, 1975), Series A 28 8 -3 1 9 , p. 41.
4 1. A. Hill, Women in Gainful Occupations, 1879 to
1920, Census Monograph IX (Washington, D .C ., Govern­
ment Printing Office, 1929), p. 153.
5 H ill, Women in Gainful Occupations, p. 128.
6 Ruth Shallcross, “Shall Married Women Work?” Na­


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

7 See Women’s Wages in Kansas, Bulletin o f the
W omen’s Bureau, No. 10 (Washington, D .C ., Government
Printing O ffice, 1921).

9 Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial
Times to 1970, Series D 4 9 -6 2 (Bureau o f the Census,
1975), p. 133.
10 For a discussion of the labor force participation trends
o f husbands, see Howard V. Hayghe and Steven E. Haugen,
“Profile o f husbands in today’s labor market,” Monthly
Labor Review, October 1987, pp. 3—11.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

19

How family spending
has changed in the U.S.
Since the M onthly Labor R e v ie w began,
the proportion of family expenditures
allocated for food has dropped by half,
the incidence of homeownership has doubled,
and spending for transportation, medical care,
and recreation has increased significantly

Eva Jacobs
and
Stephanie Shipp

Eva Jacobs is chief o f the
Division o f Expenditure
Surveys, Bureau o f Labor
Statistics. Stephanie Shipp
is chief o f the Branch o f
Information and Analysis
in the same Division.

20

M onthly L abor R eview


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ver the decades since the M onthly Labor
Review was first published in 1915, sig­
nificant changes have taken place in the
economy and in the demographic composition
of the U.S. population. Wars, the Great Depres­
sion, recessions, booms, and energy crises have
in turn affected the economic status of the
American family. Over the same period, the
population shifted both by age composition
and geographically. By the 1980’s, the babyboomers of the post-World War II period were
themselves entering the family formation years
at the same time that a larger proportion of the
population was entering retirement years. These
changes were accompanied by increases in the
numbers of women— including mothers of
small children— in the labor force; increased
frequency of single parenthood and one-person
households; and a decline in family size.
This article examines the changing consump­
tion and income patterns of the American family
that resulted from these movements as well as
from change in tastes and preferences and tech­
nological and cultural developments. Two ear­
lier studies, H ow Am erican Buying H abits
C h an ge , 1and Study o f Consumer Expenditures,
Incomes and S avin gs, 2 which provide excellent
documentations of consumer expenditure data
through 1950 greatly aided in the development
of our analysis.

O

M arch 1990

Expenditure surveys: some background
Because expenditure surveys undertaken by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics date back to the late
19th century, they are a particularly rich source
of information for this anniversary study of
changes in the American household. The cur­
rent, ongoing survey has evolved from a long
tradition of these surveys, which have differed
in specific purpose and design but were all
based on the assumption that factual informa­
tion on family income, expenditures, and char­
acteristics is important for understanding social
and economic conditions. The earliest expendi­
ture studies in the United States were concerned
with the welfare of families at a time of rapid
social and economic change. During the 1870’s,
the Massachusetts Bureau of Labor Statistics
carried out the first such studies, which sought
to evaluate the welfare of the worker’s family
after immigration to this country, as well as to
evaluate their relative welfare once integrated
into the community.
The early surveys were concerned with the
cost of living of the “working” man and his
family, that is the amount of dollars a family
needed to live. Expenditure surveys have been
broadened over the years to collect data on more
than just expenditures. We now ask numerous
questions about income, family characteristics,

ownership of durable goods, assets and liabili­
ties, and other nonexpenditure data. In addition,
Table 1. Consumption expenditures
for all consumer units,
the scope of the surveys has been expanded to
1960-61 to 1986-87
include everyone— not only the working man
but also retired persons; not only families but
1972-73 1986-87
1960-61
Item
also single persons; not only city dwellers but
also inhabitants of rural areas. In addition to
Consumption
describing consumption patterns of different
$19,576
$8,271
$5,054
expenditures .........
segments of the population, the expenditure
100.0
100.0
100.0
Percent distribution ..
data have also served the very important pur­
Food and alcoholic
18.8
21.6
pose of providing the weights for Federal in­
26.0
beverages .........
20.6
16.6
13.1
Shelter ................
dexes of retail prices— from the 1901 survey of
23.7
20.7
15.2
Transportation —
retail food prices, to the 1917-19 cost-of-living
5.2
6.4
6.7
Health care...........
Recreation and
index, to the 1934-36 Consumer Price Index,
6.0
5.5
4.9
reading..............
similar to the c p i that is published today.
Over time, the consumer expenditure surveys
were expanded to reflect the increasing popula­
tion and the growth in available goods and serv­ penditures are presented by the country of birth
ices. Each survey collected data from the of respondents by State. There were no statisti­
“typical” urban family of the period. In 1901, cal standards of reliability and, at lower levels
data were collected for a family of two or more of detail, data were shown even if they repre­
persons including boarders, lodgers, and ser­ sented only one family. Furthermore, the esti­
vants. A “normal” family was limited to white mates of average expenditures were sample
renter families consisting of an employed hus­ means, and were not weighted to represent the
band, a wife, and not more than five children total population until 1950.
Despite some lack of comparability of the
(the oldest of whom could not be more than 14
detail
and the methodology and coverage in ex­
years of age), and having no other household
members. In the the 1917-19 survey, a distinc­ penditure surveys over time, broad trends in
tion was made between a “household” and a spending patterns can be compared. The follow­
“family.” Data were collected for urban wage ing discussion summarizes the most important
earners and clerical workers. In 1950, the cur­ changes in the spending patterns of families
rently used term “consumer unit” was intro­ from 1901 through 1987. Data on expenditures
duced. The 1950 survey was the first to collect (in dollars of each period), the distribution of
data for single consumers, but was still limited expenditures, and selected demographic charac­
to the urban population. Beginning in 1960 and teristics for the same period are shown in
continuing today, expenditure surveys relate to table 2. (Note that the first expenditure survey
the entire urban and rural population. Although described here— conducted in 1901— predates
references will be made throughout this article the publication of the first issue of the Review in
to “American” families, these units are more 1915. The earlier survey was chosen as the be­
precisely defined as families living in the United ginning point for this analysis because the next
survey was conducted in 1917—19, a period
States, including recent immigrants.
To maintain consistent comparisons with ear­ considered atypical because of the Nation’s in­
lier studies, the data presented in the tables re­ volvement in World War I.)
late to urban workers who are wage earners and
clerical or sales employees. This restriction Expenditure trends
yields the longest data series for similarly de­
fined households. These families accounted for The distribution of the expenditures in table 2
82 percent of the population in 1901 and fewer gives the best picture of the changes that have
than one-third in 1986-87. However, a review taken place since the turn of the century. Food
of expenditure survey data for the total popula­ as a percent of total expenditures has declined
tion from 1960—61 to 1987 shows that the trends from 46 percent in 1901 to 19 percent of total
discussed here are applicable to the total popula­ current consumption. Within the food budget,
however, spending for food away from home
tion. (See table 1.)
Historically, times of crisis, either war or de­ has increased. Homeownership has increased
pression, influenced the timing of expenditure dramatically, as have outlays associated with
surveys. As was the custom, the early reports owning a home. Data from the 1901 survey
presented a massive array of tables displaying show that only 19 percent of the workers’
data in the most minute detail for different types families owned a home, compared with 44 per­
of families. For example, in 1901, detailed ex- cent in 1950 and 56 percent in 1986-87. The

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

21

Changes in Family Spending
invention of the automobile has contributed dra­
matically to changes in the lifestyle of the
American family. Outlays for transportation
now account for 26 percent of current consump­
tion— a significant rise from 1901, when they
were included in the “other purposes” (miscella­
neous) category. Advances in health care have
had a revolutionary effect on households. The
1901 survey indicated that families allocated 3
percent of their spending to “sickness and
death,” that is, medical care and funeral ex­
penses. Even as family size has declined over
time, health care expenditures for workers’
families have increased. Finally, the budget
share allocated for entertainment and reading
has increased as the workday and workweek

Table 2.

Item

1901

1917-19

1934-36

Income before taxes1 ...................................
Income after taxes1 ......................................
Average family size......................................
Percent homeowner ....................................

$827
—
5.3
19

$1,505
—
4.9
27

$1,518

Current consumption expenditures ..................
Food and alcoholic beverages ......................
Shelter .........................................................
Utilities, fuels, and public services ................
Household operations ...................................
Household furnishings and equipment...........

$791
340
111
41
—
26

Apparel and services....................................
Vehicle expenses ........................................
Public transportation ....................................
Health care...................................................
Entertainment and reading ...........................
Personal care...............................................
Education .....................................................
Miscellaneous (sundries) .............................

107

1950

1960-61

1972-73

1986-87

3.6
30

$3,923
3.4
44

$6,678
$5,912
3.2
56

$12,771
$11,054
3.2
57

$27,576
$24,986
2.9
56

$1,353
556
187
74
37
62

$1,463
508
259
108
58
60

$3,925
1,275
415
163
155
278

$5,431
1,414
753
330
226
280

$8,601
1,948
1,411
597
103
414

$20,226
3,914
4,085
1,654
291
797

—
124

238
16
26
64
44
14
7
27

160
87
38
59
53
30
7
36

453
472
69
200
211
91
17
126

559
728
90
357
268
156
58
212

722
1,968
99
401
445
108
96
285

1,061
5,003
194
819
1,172
214
205
816

Percent of current consumption........................
Food and alcoholic beverages ......................
Shelter .........................................................
Utilities, fuels, and public services ................
Household operations...................................
Household furnishings and equipment...........

100.0
46.4
15.1
5.6
—
3.5

100.0
41.1
13.9
5.6
2.7
4.6

100.0
34.7
17.7
7.4
4.0
4.1

100.0
32.5
10.7
4.3
3.9
7.1

100.0
26.0
13.7
6.1
4.2
5.2

100.0
22.6
16.4
6.9
1.2
4.8

100.0
19.4
20.2
8.2
1.4
3.9

Apparel and services....................................
Vehicle expenses ........................................
Public transportation ....................................
Health care...................................................
Entertainment and reading ...........................
Personal care...............................................
Education.....................................................
Miscellaneous (sundries) .............................

14.7
—
—
2.9
2.7

17.6
1.2
1.9
4.7
4.5
1.0
.5
2.0

10.9
5.9
2.6
4.0
5.6
2.1
.5
2.5

11.6
12.0
1.8
5.1
7.1
2.3
.4
1.2

10.3
13.4
1.7
6.6
6.7
2.9
1.1
4.5

8.4
22.9
1.2
4.7
7.2
1.3
1.1
3.3

5.2
24.7
1.0
4.0
7.3
1.1
1.0
4.1

—

—
21
21
—

—
—

9.0

Note: Dash indicates data not available.
Source : Eighteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of

Labor: Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food (U.S. Department
of Labor, 1903), pp. 20, 84, and 581; Cost of Living in the United
States, Bulletin 357 (U.S. Department of Labor, 1924), pp. 4, 5,
333; Consumer Expenditures and Income, Cross Classification of
Family Characteristics, Urban United States, 1960-61, Supple­

22

Monthly Labor Review

Food expenditures. The increasing command
of purchasing power of the urban wage earners
served a dual function that led to generally im­
proved diets. People were able to buy more and
better foods. Too, increased purchasing power
supported the development of low-cost mass
production techniques and the marketing of new
and better foods, many of them fully processed.
As a result, the percent of expenditure allocated

Consumption expenditures of urban wage earner and clerical
consumer units, 1901 to 1986-87

1 1ncome values are derived from data for complete income
reporters—consumer units that provided usable data on house­
hold income.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

became shorter and recreational activities be­
came more accessible to more people. The fol­
lowing sections describe in more detail the
major changes in the economy and the society
and their effects on the spending patterns of
working families.

March 1990

—

ment 2—Part A to Report 237-38 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, July
1964) (Data for this article were computed from the 1960-61 Con­
sumer Expenditure Survey general purpose public use tape.);

Consumer Expenditure Survey: Integrated Diary and Interview
Survey Data, 1972-73, Bulletin 1992 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1978), pp. 72-77 (Data for this article were computed from the
1972-73 Interview public use tape.); Consumer Expenditure Sur­
veys: Integrated Data, 1984-86 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Au­
gust 1989); and “Comprehensive Picture of Spending Released
by Bureau of Labor Statistics,” usdl 89-330 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, July 6,1989) (Data for this article were computed from
internal files.).

for food and beverages declined from 43 percent
in 1901 to 19 percent in 1986-87. The shrinking
share allocated for the food budget vividly
confirms early studies, which found that the
share of expenditures for food declines as in­
come increases.3
For the working man and his family in the
early 1900’s, diets were monotonous. Said one
writer about the customary winter diet: “We
never thought of having fresh fruit or green veg­
etables and could not have got them if we had.”4
Today’s diet includes more meat, poultry,
fruits, vegetables, and milk. Improvements in
the food distribution system have freed cities
from depending on produce and meats from
local farms. High-speed refrigerated transporta­
tion has increased the variety and reduced the
cost of purchasing food. Another aspect of the
increasing availability of foods since the early
1900’s is the “revolution in retailing.” Chain
grocery stores began to appear early in the cen­
tury. The supermarket combined into one estab­
lishment the butcher, produce vendor, bakery,
and other specialty stores. The supermarkets
purchased directly from the food producers,
thus reducing the costs of distribution through
large-scale operations. The spread of ownership
of refrigerators allowed families to reduce the
number of food shopping trips. The availability
of foods that are partially or fully prepared con­
tinues to increase to accomodate dual-earner
families and the busier lifestyles of families
today.5
Another important trend has been the increas­
ing share of the food budget allocated for food
away from home. Data from a 1909 report (the
earliest such information available),6 show that
only 3 percent of the food budget went for food
away from home. This share has grown steadily
to 29 percent today. (See chart 1.) Even this
increase probably understates the increase in the
number of meals eaten away from home be­
cause of the changing nature of the eating-awayfrom-home activity. In 1909 or 1920 or even
1950, a meal away from home was taken in a
restaurant, but the proliferation over the last
three decades of fast-food establishments, with
relatively low prices for a “meal,” has changed
the eating-out habits of the population. More
recently, the increase in the use of “carry-out”
prepared foods is further altering food pur­
chasing habits and obscuring the distinction
between at-home and away-from-home food
consumption.
Rising incomes and technological
change have also allowed for the improvement
in housing conditions and the growth in homeownership. The 1901 expenditure survey found

that only 19 percent of worker families owned a
home.
Limited income was one of the reasons for
low rates of homeowership in the early years.
The difficulty of borrowing money and the high
cost of financing made owning a home virtually
impossible for many families. Long workdays
(6-day weeks of 9 or 10 hours per day were
normal), lack of good but affordable transporta­
tion, and the need to spend a large share of
income on food also contributed to the inci­
dence of poor, crowded living quarters. Subse­
quently, however, increasing incomes, the
shorter workweek, the spread of auto ownership
and the development of a paved highway sys­
tem, and the availability of less expensive land
in the suburbs led to the expansion of the popu­
lation and workplaces into areas where homeownership was more feasible.
By 1917-19, homeownership was enjoyed
by 27 percent of all families, and the share of
the family budget spent on housing had declined
from 18 percent in 1901 to 14 percent in 1917—
18— the only period under study for which such
a decline occurred. However, private building
was virtually suspended during World War I
due to government wartime restrictions. Hous­
ing shortages occurred, and even though income

C hart 1.

P ercen t distribution of th e fam ily food
b udget b e tw e e n food a t hom e and a w a y
1 9 0 9 to 1 9 8 6 - 8 7

Percent

Shelter.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

36

61

73

Monthly Labor Review

87

March 1990

23

Changes in Family Spending
was high, workers found it hard to improve then- 1917-19. Homeowners had larger homes—
housing conditions. The average number of an average of 6.4 rooms, compared with 5 in
rooms per family during the war years was 5— 1917-19.7
the same as in 1901. However, more than half
Legislation within the depression environ­
of these families now had full bathrooms.
ment of the early 1930’s dealt with the financing
By the early 1920’s, home construction aspects of homeownership. The creation of the
began to recover. Row houses, walkup apart­ Federal Housing Administration “to encourage
ments and single-family houses were built in improvement in housing standards and con­
sufficient quantity to meet demand by the higher ditions, and to provide a system of mutual mort­
paid industrial workers. The net effect was that gage insurance,”8 resulted in changes in resi­
the low-wage factory workers could “move up” dential loan practices that stimulated the
to the old housing vacated by the higher income construction of medium priced housing. By
families. The 1934-36 consumer expenditure 1950, the incidence of homeownership had in­
survey indicates the progress that was made creased to 44 percent for urban worker families.
during the 1920’s. Even though the depression Homeownership continued its rapid rise through
caused many people to lose their houses, among the 1960’s and 1970’s—reaching 56 percent in
the families surveyed in 1934-36, 30 percent 1960 and staying at about that level for worker
were homeowners, compared with 27 percent of families through 1986-87.
those interviewed in 1917-19. “The home of
The rise in homeownership slowed during the
the typical wage earner or clerical family with late 1970’s and early 1980’s for the population
an annual income above $500 had a bathroom as a whole because of changing demographics
with inside flush toilet and hot running water. It and soaring house prices and mortgage interest
had electric lights and gas or electricity for rates. Even so, the incidence of homeownership
cooking.” Among all the renter families, 98 continued to grow among married couples, as
percent had running water, 90 percent had favorable tax treatment and the advantages of
bathrooms, and 96 percent had inside flush toi­ having a fixed mortgage in times of inflation
lets. The average number of rooms in rental made buying a house a good investment.9 The
homes, however, was 4 to 4.5— the same as in estimated market value of homes rose faster

Historical overview of expenditure survey methodology
T h e first national expenditure su rvey w as
co n d u cted from 1888 to 1891 as a result o f
tariff n egotia tio n s b etw een the U n ited
States and E uropean countries. C om ­
preh en sive su rveys w ere con d u cted in
1901 and 1 9 1 7 - 1 9 in resp on se to concern
ov er the e ffe c ts o f rapidly risin g prices on
liv in g co sts during th ose period s. It w as
from inform ation obtained in the 1 9 1 7 - 1 9
su rv ey , w h ich fo cu sed on w a g e earners
and salaried w orkers liv in g in urban areas,
that the B ureau o f Labor S tatistics d e v e l­
o p ed its first c o st-o f-liv in g in d ex , w h ich
e v o lv e d into the C on su m er P rice In dex

(CPI).
S tu d ies in the late 1 9 2 0 ’s and early
1 9 3 0 ’s sh o w ed that con su m p tion patterns
o f A m erican con su m ers had changed
m arkedly sin ce the 1 9 1 7 - 1 9 su rvey. T h ese
ch a n g es, co m b in ed w ith the n eed s o f public
p o lic y planners underscored the n ecessity
for n ew inform ation on con su m p tion pat­
terns. H en ce, the 1 9 3 4 - 3 6 su rvey w as used
for rev isio n o f the CPI and the selectio n o f
a n ew list o f item s to be p riced in the in d ex.
It co v ered o n ly the urban pop ulation.
M any statistical im p rovem en ts w ere in­
corporated in the expenditure su rvey o f

24

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

19 5 0 . It w as the first BLS su rvey in w h ich
the entire sam p le pop u lation w as ch o sen
u sin g scien tific sam p lin g m eth od s. T he
1 9 6 0 -6 1 su rvey, m ore am b itiou s than any
o f its p red ecessors, co v ered all urban and
rural fa m ilies and sin g le con su m ers. D ata
w ere c o lle cte d in in terview s in w h ich re­
sp ond en ts w ere ask ed to recall the p reviou s
year’s exp en d itu res. D etail on fo o d e x ­
penditures w as obtained from resp on d en ts’
recall o f purchases ov er the 7 days pre­
ced in g the in terview . T h e release o f a
general-pu rp ose p u b lic u se com puter tape
con tain in g fin d in gs from the 1 9 6 0 -6 1 sur­
v e y m arked the first tim e m icrodata had
b een released on tape b y b l s .
U n lik e p reviou s su rv ey s, the 1 9 7 2 - 7 3
su rvey w as carried out by the U .S . Bureau
o f the C en su s under contract to b l s . It
w as the first BLS expenditure su rvey c o n ­
sistin g o f tw o separate com ponents: a Q uar­
terly In terview pan el su rvey and a D iary
su rvey. T he d e c isio n to adopt the diary/
in terview form at w as based on ex ten siv e
testing o f c o lle ctio n m e th o d o lo g y . T h ese
tests revealed that data o f h igh quality
cou ld b e obtained i f qu estion naires w ere
tailored so that inform ation on larger, m ore

e a sily recalled expenditures w as c o llected
b y p eriod ic recall in a quarterly in terview ,
w h ile that for sm all, less e x p e n siv e item s
w as obtained through day-to-d ay record­
k eep in g in a diary.
It had b een apparent for a lo n g tim e that
there w as a need for m ore tim ely con su m p ­
tion data for d ifferent kinds o f fa m ilies than
co u ld b e su p p lied by su rveys con d u cted
every d ecad e. T he rapidly ch an gin g e c o ­
n om ic con d ition s o f the 1 9 7 0 ’s in ten sified
this n eed . A s a result o f con cern s o f p o licy ­
m akers, a n e w C on tin uing C on su m er E x ­
penditure Su rvey w as initiated in 198 0 , e x ­
tending the bls tradition o f p roviding data
about the con su m p tion beh avior o f A m eri­
can fa m ilies.
W h ile the con tin u in g su rvey and the
1 9 7 2 - 7 3 su rvey are sim ilar in m any re­
sp ects, there are d ifferen ces b etw een them .
O ne m ajor d ifferen ce is the o n g o in g nature
o f the n ew su rvey, w ith rotating p an els o f
respond en ts in terview ed on a con tin u ou s
b asis. A ls o , in the n ew su rvey, students
liv in g in c o lle g e - or un iversity-regulated
h o u sin g report their o w n expenditures sep ­
arately, rather than as m em b ers o f their par­
e n ts’ h ou seh o ld s.

than the Consumer Price Index during this time,
adding to the incentive to invest in homeownership.
The share of expenditures allocated for shel­
ter, which includes rent as well as payments on
owned homes, has fluctuated, but the overall
trend has been upward. Working families allo­
cated 14.6 percent of their outlays for shelter in
1960, 16.4 percent in 1972-73, and 20.2 per­
cent in 1986-87. Homes have continued to in­
crease in size as well. According to the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, the median owner-occu­
pied home surveyed in 1985 had 6 rooms, com­
pared with 5.6 rooms in 1970. Homes today
also have many amenities unheard of in the ear­
lier years. For example, in 1988, 79 percent of
all new homes had a garage, up from 64 percent
10 years earlier; three-fourths had central airconditioning, an almost 50-percent increase;
and 42 percent had more than 2.5 bathrooms,
almost double the number in 1978.10
Transportation. In 1909, a forecaster con­
cluded that it was “nothing less than feeble­
mindedness to expect anything to come of the
horseless carriage movement.”11 Despite this
and other predictions to the contrary, automo­
biles have been one of the most significant con­
tributors to the economy and to changes in the
lifestyle of the American family. They have
changed modes of travel, altered leisure time
activities, and broadened the range of residen­
tial and employment opportunities for workers.
Numerous new industries and jobs were created
to produce and service vehicles. These develop­
ments in transportation since the early 1900’s
are mirrored in changes in family spending.
Transportation expenditures were collected
as part of “other” goods and services in the 1901
survey and so cannot be identified separately for
analysis, although other studies indicate that
outlays ranged between 1.7 and 2.5 percent of
average income.12 In 1901, an average car cost
$1,000— well above the average family income
of $650. By 1910, the yearly production of cars
had increased to 181,000 from 4,000 in 1900.
As a result of the introduction of the assembly
line, the price of the Ford Model-T fell from
$850 in 1908 to $360 in 1916.13
Transportation expenditures had not in­
creased much by 1917—19, however. Despite
increases in the output of cars, only 1 out of 18
families in the 1917-19 consumer expenditure
survey owned a car. On average, families
allocated 3.1 percent of their expenditures for
transportation. Only 10 percent reported ex­
penditures on travel for pleasure or personal
business. Expenditures for 1917-19 may have
been low because of the transportation diffi­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 3.

Percent distribution of medical care
expenditures by wage earner and clerical
families, 1917-19 to 1986-87
1917-19

1934-36

1950

1960-61

1972-73

1986-87

Total medical care .. .

$64

$59

$200

$357

$401

$819

Percent distribution ..
Health insurance ..
Medical services ..
Drugs and
supplies .............

100
80

100
7
71

100
19
60

100
26
50

100
32
54

100
35
48

20

22

21

24

14

17

Item

—

culties generated by World War I, which espe­
cially affected travel.
Ownership of cars increased dramatically
during the 1920’s, 1930’s, and 1940’s, stimu­
lated by lower auto prices, advertising, the in­
troduction of consumer credit, and generally ris­
ing incomes. By 1950, auto installment credit
was 26 percent of total consumer (nonmortgage)
credit outstanding, and increased to nearly 40
percent by 1987.14 The 1934-36 expenditure
survey found that 44 percent of working
families owned a car and that 10 percent had
purchased one during the survey years. This
prompted one analyst to comment that
“nowadays when the family has had a success­
ful year, it is more apt to think of an automobile
as a symbol of success rather than new clothes
or furniture for the parlor.”15 Working families
during the mid-1930’s alloted 8.5 percent of
their expenditures to transportation.
The purchase of automobiles continued to in­
crease, as did the percent of total expenditures
allocated for transportation, which rose from
8.5 percent in 1950 to 25.7 percent in 1986-87.
During the 1970’s and 1980’s, other vehicles
were added to the family’s driveway— vans,
trucks, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles.
Data from the 1986-87 expenditure survey
show that 91 percent of all worker households
now own a vehicle and that the average number
of vehicles per household is 2.2, for an average
family size of 2.9 persons!
As vehicle ownership became widespread,
related expenditures also increased dramati­
cally. In 1986-87, an average household spent
about as much to and maintain a car— that is, to
pay for gasoline, insurance, repairs, and li­
censes— than it did to feed that household at
home. In 1950, auto-related costs were only
about 20 percent of the food bill.
The automobile has changed lifestyles in a
dramatic way. It has given families freedom of
choice of places to live, work, and travel but at
a cost in terms of the family budget, commuting
time, and the environment.
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

25

Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Changes in Family Spending
Health care. Advances in medical research
and health care have also had a revolutionary
effect on families, although changing financing
arrangements make the effect less apparent in
the expenditure statistics. By the beginning of
the 20th century, several of the most severe
contagious diseases— for example, small pox,
yellow fever, typhus, and cholera— had been
brought under control. However, contaminated
water, unpasteurized milk, and unsanitary home
and work conditions still were responsible for a
large number of deaths in the early 1900’s.
Medical services were few and a hospital was
viewed as a place one went to die. In addition to
these health problems, the industrial worker
faced dangerous working conditions over which
he or she had little control, and for which
employers and the government accepted little
responsibility.
During the 1920’s and 1930’s, changes in the
health field began to occur. The number and
quality of hospitals increased. Nonprofit or­
ganizations that provided services in free
clinics were established. Private-sector firms
began to offer inhouse medical care and provide
health insurance for employees. Other medical
advances, such as improved control of drugs
and scientific breakthroughs, also have con­
tributed to the lengthening of the lifespan from
about 50 years in the early 1900’s to more than
70 years by the 1980’s. Longer life expectancy
and improved health have increased the earning
power of the worker. In addition, the emphasis
placed on sanitation, nutrition, and recreation in
health education programs has stimulated the
demand for a variety of consumer goods and
services.16
The 1901 detailed expenditure survey found
that families spent 2.9 percent of their total out­
lays for products and services in the category
“sickness and death,” that is, medical care and
funeral expenses. This share rose to 6.6 percent
by 1960-61 as improved economic conditions,

Table 4.

education, and the availability of insurance led
households to purchase more health care, and
declined to 4 percent by 1986-87, as practices
of financing health care changed.
In the 1920’s and 1930’s, unions played a
role in providing much of the insurance cover­
age. Significant changes began to occur during
the 1940’s with the expansion of the concept
of fringe benefits. By the late 1960’s and ex­
tending into the early 1980’s, the practice of
employer-provided health insurance had spread.
In 1987, 64 percent of individuals had employ­
ment-related health insurance, some or all of
which was paid for by employers.17 These pro­
grams reduced the out-of-pocket medical costs
to households and the share of the household
budget going for health care costs declined.
Table 3 shows how urban worker families have
allocated their medical care expenditures
since the 1917-19 expenditure survey. (Little
is known about the distribution of medical
expenditures in the 1901 survey, other than that
they included burial expenses.) Even though the
data in the table are not strictly comparable from
survey to survey, it is evident that an increasing
share of the family medical budget is being
spent on insurance and less on services and pre­
scription drugs directly.
A 1903 report advised that “more attention be
paid to the improvement of the conditions of the
working class.”18 It took the attention of many
individuals and organizations to achieve the ad­
vances that have taken place since the early
1900’s. There are still issues to be faced, how­
ever, such as the fact that 37 million individuals
currently have no health insurance coverage.19
Recreation. The increase in leisure time that
resulted from the shortening of the workday to
8 hours and the workweek to 5 days is yet an­
other improvement in the life of the American
family. Unions began to argue for the 8-hour
day late in the 19th century. However, it was
rising productivity that ultimately made the 8-

Distribution of entertainment and reading expenditures, 1901 to

1986-87
Item

1901

1917-19

1934-36

1950

1960-61

1972-73

1986-87

Entertainment and reading...................................

$17

$44

$53

$211

$269

$455

$1,172

Percent distribution ..............................................
Entertainment:
Televisions, radios, musical instruments .......
Admissions...................................................
Other1 ..........................................................
Reading ..........................................................

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

23
20
32
25

13
36
23
28

32
22
30
16

29
22
30
19

34
24
33
9

34
23
33
10

—

59
—

41

1 The “other” category is not entirely comparable for 1917-19 and subsequent periods. For the 1917-19 period, it includes travel
expenditures, which are classified elsewhere in the later surveys.

March 1990

hour day possible. In addition, it was recog­
nized that time had to be left for the worker and
his family to consume and enjoy the resulting
products and services. In 1926, when Henry
Ford announced the 5-day week for his com­
pany, he said: “The industry of this country
could not exist long if factories generally went
back to the 10-hour day, because people would
not have the time to consume the goods
produced.”20
Increasing free time and incomes meant that
families had more time for sports, once the ex­
clusive province of the “idle rich,” travel, and
entertainment. The introduction of the motion
picture and the nickelodeons after the turn of the
century gave rise to yet another form of enter­
tainment. The nickelodeons permitted workers
to stop on their way home to enjoy a 15-minute
film for 5 cents. Radios were introduced in the
1920’s and televisions in the late 1940’s. Today
there are videocasette recorders, compact disc
players, and new mechanical toys every day.
And the popularity of participatory sports and
spectator sports continues to grow.21

Although many leisure activities are free of
cost, the expenditure surveys since 1901 do in­
dicate that increasing amounts are being spent
for recreation and for reading. The budget share
spent for these items increased from 5.7 percent
in 1917-19 to 8.3 percent in 1986-87. Table 4
shows the change over time in the distribution of
expenditures for entertainment and reading
items.
a r t ic l e has presented a brief history of
changing consumption patterns of the American
worker. Changes in consumption patterns occur
as the result of trends in social and economic
conditions, and demography. The last includes,
among other factors, the age distribution of the
population, and the number of children in
families. All these are likely to change in the
future. Some, like the age distribution of the
population, can be projected under various as­
sumptions; others, particularly changes in
tastes, are unpredictable. It will be interesting to
add to this history for the 100th anniversary of
the Monthly Labor Review.
□

T h is

Footnotes
A cknowledgment : The authors thank Lavem James,
William Passero, Geoffrey Paulin, and Julie Schaljo for
their assistance in preparing the tables for this article.
1 U .S . Department o f Labor, How American Buying
Habits Change (Washington, U .S. Government Printing
Office, 1958).
2 Helen Humes Lamale, Study of Consumer Expendi­

tures, Income and Savings: Methodology o f the Survey of
Consumer Expenditures in 1950 (University of Pennsylva­
nia, 1959).
3 H. S. Houthakker, “An International Comparison of
Household Expenditure Patterns, Commemorating the Cen­
tenary o f Engel’s Law,” Econometrica, 1957, pp. 332-551.

9 Louise Russell, The Baby Boom Generation and the
Economy (Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1982).
10 U .S. Bureau o f the Census, Characteristics of New
Housing: 1978 Construction Report, C -25-78 (1979); and
Characteristics of New Housing: 1988 Construction Report,
C -25-88 (July 1989).
11 H. P. Maxim, Horseless Carriage Days (New York,
Harper, 1937).
12 Wilfred Owen, The Metropolitan Transportation
Problem (Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1956),
p. 282.
13 How American Buying Habits Change, chapter VIII.

4 Robert Lynd and Helen M. Lynd, Middletown (New
York, Harcourt, Brace and C o., 1929), p. 156, as quoted in
Richard Osborn Cummings, An American and His Food
(Chicago, University o f Chicago Press, 1940), p. 72.

14 Economic Report of the President, table B-75 (Wash­
ington, U .S. Government Printing O ffice, 1989).

5 Alice Lippert and Douglas Love, “Family Expenditures
for Food Away From Home and Prepared Foods,” Family
Economic Review, No. 3, pp. 9 -1 4 .

17 Uninsured Americans: A 1987 Profile (Washington,
U .S . Department of Health and Human Services, 1988),
p. 12.

6 Cost o f Living in American Towns (London, Great
Britain Board o f Trade, 1911).

15 Williams and Hanson, Money Disbursements, p. 41.
16 How American Buying Habits Change, chapter VII.

18 C. F. Doehring, Factory Sanitation and Labor Protec­
tion, Bulletin No. 44 (Washington, U .S. Department of

7 Faith M. Williams and Alice C. Hanson, Money Dis­
bursements of Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, 193436, Summary Volume, Bulletin 638 (Bureau o f Labor Statis­

Labor, 1903), pp. 2 -3 .

tics, 1941), p. 4.

20 “The 5-Day Week in Ford Plants,” Monthly Labor
Review, December 1926, p. 1162.

8 U .S . Department o f Labor, How American Buying
Habits Change (Washington, U .S . Government Printing
Office, 1958), p. 70.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

19 Uninsured Americans, p. 12.

21 John Robinson, “Where’s the Boom?” American De­

mographics, March 1987, pp. 3 4 -3 7 .

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

27

Family-related benefits
in the workplace
The emergence and subsequent expansion
of employer-provided benefits since 1915
have been fueled in part by the changing needs
of employees and their families

William J. Wiatrowski

William J. Wiatrowski is
an economist in the
Division o f Occupational
Pay and Employee Benefit
Levels, Bureau o f Labor
Statistics.

Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ne of the more striking developments in
personnel administration over the past
75 years has been the growing complex­
ity of employee compensation. Limited at the
outbreak of World War I largely to straight-time
pay for hours worked, compensation now in­
cludes a variety of employer-financed benefits,
such as health and life insurance, retirement in­
come, and paid time off. Although the details of
each vary widely, these benefits are today
standard components of the compensation pack­
age, and workers generally have come to expect
them.
Because family members are often primary
recipients of many employee benefits, it is ap­
propriate to trace the evolution of benefit plans
in this 75th anniversary issue of the Monthly
Labor Review, which focuses on changes in the
family from 1915 to 1990. While no consistent
series of data exists over this period, the Review
has reported on benefits throughout its history.
Those reports form the basis for much of this
retrospective.
One function of employee benefits is to pro­
tect workers and their families from financial
burdens. Health care plans help soften the im­
pact of medical expenses and, perhaps, encour­
age workers and their dependents to seek care
that might otherwise be forgone. Retirement in­
come plans allow older employees to stop work­
ing and maintain certain living standards.
Similarly, disability benefits provide income to
those unable to work, and survivor benefits pro­

O

March 1990

tect against loss of earnings resulting from the
death of a spouse or other relative.
Employers provide benefits to their em­
ployees for a variety of reasons. One theory
suggests that employers have a legitimate “con­
cern for the welfare of their employees” beyond
any economic motive, and this “paternalism” is
expressed through the offer of protection against
economic hardship.1 Employers may also offer
protection that they feel employees are unable to
provide for themselves. According to this the­
ory, employers assume that employees will tend
to favor current consumption over prudent sav­
ings, and will therefore be unprepared for emer­
gencies.2 Finally, employers may offer benefit
plans to meet union demands in collective bar­
gaining, to attract and keep good employees, or
to remain competitive with other employers in
the labor market.3
Besides employers, another source of bene­
fits is the Government, which provides direct
benefits such as Social Security, and mandates
employers to provide protection such as work­
ers’ compensation. Over the past 75 years, the
Government has increased its role in the area of
employee benefits substantially. In 1915, work­
ers’ compensation laws were just being intro­
duced in several States. Since then, nationwide
programs such as Social Security and unem­
ployment insurance have been developed, and
discussions of mandatory employer-provided
benefits such as health care and parental leave
are periodically on the agenda of policymakers.

The growth of employer-provided and Gov­
ernment-mandated benefits has changed the
character of employee compensation: by 1989,
benefits accounted for nearly 30 percent of the
total cost of such compensation.4 This article
provides a look at the growth of benefits over
the past three-quarters of a century, in 15-year
intervals. The focus is on the response of em­
ployers and the Government to the changing
needs of employees and their families.5

1915-29:

war years, boom years

When the Monthly Labor Review was first pub­
lished, the United States was an emerging world
power. The Nation’s strength became evident
over the next 15 years— militarily, diplomat­
ically, and economically. Employment in
manufacturing increased rapidly, with a new in­
dustrial order replacing the primarily agrarian
economy of the 19th century.6 Workers re­
ceived virtually all of their compensation in the
form of wages and salaries.
Typically, employers did not respond to fa­
milial needs during this period. The average
American family consisted of several genera­
tions and branches under one roof, with family
members generally looking after and supporting
one another.7 Loss of income or unusual
expenses were generally borne by the pooled
resources of the family. The pioneer and agri­
cultural traditions of this country had left a
strong legacy of independence, and employers
did not interfere.
Labor unions possessed similar ideas about
interference in areas that were traditionally han­
dled privately by individuals. Samuel Gompers,
president of the American Federation of Labor,
spoke out against compulsory benefits in 1917,
arguing that such interference “weakens inde­
pendence of spirit, delegates to outside authori­
ties some of the powers and opportunities that
rightfully belong to wage earners, and breaks
down industrial freedom by exercising control
over workers through a central bureaucracy.”8
While neither employer-provided nor
Government-mandated benefits were wide­
spread, benefits were available through labor
unions and mutual aid societies. Labor unions
typically provided lump-sum benefits to sur­
vivors upon the death of an employee, and
weekly payments to disabled employees. These
benefits were funded directly by union members
through their dues; in 1916, the American Fed­
eration of Labor reported more than $3 million
in benefit payments.9
Mutual aid societies were generally workerfinanced funds that collected dues and offered
group benefits. One example was the Work­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

men’s Sick and Death Benefit Fund of the
United States, which was started in 1884 by
German and Austrian immigrants seeking the
safety of a group to provide protection from lost
income.10 This fund, which was not limited to
employees in any one firm, had more than
44,000 members in 1916, and offered weekly
income benefits for up to 80 weeks to dis­
abled employees and lump-sum payments to
survivors. Similar organizations sponsored ath­
letic, musical, and literary events and estab­
lished savings plans for members, in addition to
providing death and disability benefits.11 In
general, mutual aid societies encouraged cama­
raderie among workers and provided a modest
source of protection against loss of income due
to disability or death.
Retirement income benefits were not wide­
spread between 1915 and 1929. Few States had
pension plans for their employees by 1916, and
while more than 150 local governments had
such plans, they generally covered only limited
numbers of workers, most commonly police and
firefighters. Among private employers, the few
pension plans that existed were most often
found in utility and transportation firms.12
The need for retirement income may not have
been as great in 1915 as it is today, however,
because Americans did not live as long and typ­
ically did not expect to enjoy “retirement
years.” Life expectancy in 1915 was 54.5 years
(for men, only 52.5 years). In addition, the ex­
tended family usually cared for its elderly and
met their financial needs.

1930-44:

In the past 75
years, employers
have progressed
from providing no
benefits, to
providing a
standard package
of benefits
designed for a
male-supported
family, to
providing
innovative and
flexible benefits to
meet differing
family needs.

Great Depression, more war

The 15-year span from 1930 to 1944 was a time
of great hardship and change in America, events
that were reflected in labor practices. Severe
economic conditions led to greater Government
participation in compensation programs, most
notably through the introduction of Social Secu­
rity. Other legislative action formalized and
strengthened the role of labor unions. By the
end of the period, American involvement in
World War II strengthened the economy,
changed the focus of industry toward support of
the war effort, and brought large numbers of
women into the labor force.13
The era was marked by an expansion of re­
tirement income benefits, particularly the estab­
lishment of Social Security. In addition, the
Railroad Retirement System, a consolidation of
several existing railroad industry pension plans
under Government administration, was formed.
Life expectancy rose to nearly 60 years by 1930
and to nearly 66 years by 1945, making it more
likely than ever that workers would live past
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

29

Family-Related Benefits

Newly emerging
benefits include
parental leave,
child care, and
flexible work
schedules.

their working life. Social Security guaranteed a
pension to retirees, although it was intended to
be just one portion of a worker’s total retirement
income. Slowly, private firms began to offer
retirement plans to supplement Social Security
benefits.14
Another benefit that became more prevalent
during this period was employer-provided life
insurance. Mutual aid societies decreased in
popularity and, where they did exist, concen­
trated largely on disability benefits. In their
place, employers were purchasing group life in­
surance contracts for their employees.15 Typical
plans in the 1930’s provided about $1,500 in life
insurance protection, and double-indemnity
benefits for accidental death.16 One study re­
ported that 60 percent of establishments sur­
veyed provided life insurance to their workers in
1936.17
While the depression years saw relatively few
changes in benefit practices, the war years gave
rise to a number of changes. Employment grew
rapidly after America entered the war, and
women entered the labor force in large numbers
to support the war effort.18 To stabilize prices,
the War Labor Board restricted wage increases
but was more lenient in allowing improvements
in benefits. Employers responded by offering a
variety of benefits in lieu of increased wages.19
Increases in compensation provided during
the war period consisted largely of items
that were considered “noninflationary,” that is,
items that did not increase cash wages and,
therefore, boost demand. Time off with pay,
limited medical care for employees and
families, and pension benefits met this require­
ment. These benefits served the additional goals
of giving families more time together and elim­
inating potential financial catastrophes.20

sent workers, on “wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment.”21 In 1948 and
1949, court rulings held that retirement and in­
surance benefits were “other terms and condi­
tions of employment” and that management had
to include these items in collective bargaining
negotiations.22
One of the most notable benefits to emerge
from the change in family structure and legal
environment of the era was health care. Previ­
ously, some lost-income benefits were available
during an illness or accident, and perhaps an
informal arrangement existed for employees to
receive medical care at a company clinic or
other local facility, but formal medical in­
surance was uncommon. Needs had changed by
the late 1940’s and 1950’s, however. Hospital
admission rates stood at 120 per 1,000 people in
1945, more than double the 1931 rate. And the
amount spent on health services and supplies
topped $10 billion in 1948. This amounted to
$68 per capita, considerably more than twice
the 1929 figure.23
To meet this need, employers began provid­
ing formal health care plans to employees and
their families, through either commercial in­
surers or Blue Cross/Blue Shield organizations.
Typically, plans would pay for a limited number
of hospital days and up to a specified maximum
dollar amount for various medical services.24
Such plans offered only basic medical protec­
tion, and looked very different from the exten­
sive plans of the late 1980’s.25 One Bureau
study showed that by 1960 about 80 percent of
plant and office workers in metropolitan areas
received a health care plan through their
employer.26

1945-59:

While the years from 1960 to 1974 are consid­
ered turbulent in American history, in the his­
tory of benefits they were but a prelude to more
dramatic changes. This era saw the U.S. Con­
gress debate major pension reform for nearly 15
years. The result— the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act— was signed into law on
Labor Day 1974. Also on the verge of major
change was the demographic makeup of the
labor force: women of the baby-boom genera­
tion were going to college and preparing for
future employment.
The era was not, however, one of stagnation
in the area of employee benefits. Employers
established and expanded upon typical benefit
plans, such as paid leave, retirement income,
health care, and survivor and disability in­
surance. More generous early retirement pen­
sion benefits and expanded survivor income

return to prosperity

Following World War II, the country reverted to
a largely male-dominated labor force, as the
return of servicemen led to a boom in marriages
and children. These traditional families had
needs that employers could address through
benefit programs, such as time off with pay,
payment of medical expenses, and protection
against loss of income. The period saw the
widespread adoption of these practices into the
compensation package.
Supporting this fundamental change in the
compensation structure of American workers
were two court rulings on the scope of the Na­
tional Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the Wagner
Act). The act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley
Act of 1947, states that management must nego­
tiate with labor organizations, elected to repre­
30

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

1960-74:

on the verge of change

payments were among the provisions added to
benefit plans during this time. Benefit packages
were primarily geared toward a typical family,
with a working husband, a non working wife,
and school-age children.
Data on the incidence of benefits among of­
fice and plant workers are available throughout
this period from the Bureau’s Area Wage Sur­
veys. All metropolitan area estimates from the
Area Wage Surveys show that life insurance,
health care, income protection during short­
term disabilities, and retirement income plans
generally became more widespread for both of­
fice and plant workers during this time. (See
table 1.)
Health care plans were subject to the most
dramatic changes during the period. In 1960,
employees typically received coverage in full
for hospitalization for a specified number of
days (such as 120 days per confinement) and
coverage for surgical expenses up to a maxi­
mum dollar amount per procedure. Less com­
mon was coverage for doctors’ visits, x rays,
and laboratory tests conducted outside of a hos­
pital. Coverage for these items would become
part of nearly all employee health packages by
the end of the era.
Catastrophic medical coverage, or “major
medical,” provides protection beyond the lim­
itations of the “basic” benefits just described.
Typically, such plans pay a percent of charges
incurred after a deductible is paid by the
employee. The combination of basic and
catastrophic coverage gives employees great­
ly expanded protection against financial
hardship.
Between 1960 and 1975, the incidence of
catastrophic medical coverage rose dramati­
cally. The following tabulation shows the in­
creasing percent of office and plant workers
with catastrophic medical protection during this
period:

1975-89:

plans for the “new” family

The period from 1975 to the present is an era
dominated by two major trends: Substantial
changes in the demographics of the labor force
and sweeping Government regulation of bene­
fits. During this period, women joined the labor
force in large numbers, two-earner families be­
came the norm, and employee needs changed
from those of the traditional post-World War II
family. As indicated earlier, the Employee Re­
tirement Income Security Act of 1974 began a
wave of benefits legislation that is still continu­
ing. The new law set standards for pension plan
provisions and funding, and established report­
ing and disclosure requirements aimed at keep­
ing employees and the Government alert to the
soundness of benefit plans.
In 1989, 57 percent of all women above age
16 were in the labor force, compared with 46
percent in 1975 and 37 percent in 1959. In addi­
tion, by 1987, both spouses were working in 57
percent of married-couple families. Further­
more, it has become less and less common for
women to leave the labor force for any signifi­
cant period following childbirth. These demo­
graphic changes suggest that traditional benefit
packages may be redundant or inadequate for
today’s workers and families.27
The Employee Retirement Income Security
Act was just the beginning of a series of tax and
benefit laws that have led to sweeping changes

Table 1.

Percent of full-time office and plant workers
in all metropolitan areas offered employersponsored benefit plans,1 selected years,
1960-75
W o rker g rou p and
benefit type

196 0 -6 1

1 9 6 5 -6 6

1 97 0 -7 1

1975

93
81
77
84
82
63

96
79
82
93
93
82

97
87
85
97
96
90

97
88
86
98
98
96

90
80
67
87
86
62

92
80
73
93
92
75

93
82
78
95
95
87

93
82
78
95
95
91

O ffice w orkers

Percent of —
Years

Office workers

1 9 6 0 -6 1 ............................
1 9 6 5 - 6 6 ............................
1 9 7 0 -7 1 ............................
1975 ....................................

49
73
88
94

Plant workers
21
40
65
77

Plant workers lagged behind office workers in
receiving catastrophic protection, in part due to
the lack of such protection in plans established
through collective bargaining. Unions typically
favored basic protection that offered full cover­
age of medical expenses without requiring em­
ployees to pay deductibles or a percent of the
charges.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Life insurance ...............................................
Short-term disability coverage2 ......................
Retirement pension........................................
Hospitalization...............................................
Surgical coverage ..........................................
Medical coverage3 ..........................................
Plant w orkers

Life insurance ...............................................
Short-term disability coverage2 ......................
Retirement pension........................................
Hospitalization...............................................
Surgical coverage ..........................................
Medical coverage3 ..........................................

1 An establishment is counted as offering a benefit to all office or plant workers if the majority of
such workers are offered the benefit.
2 Includes workers receiving either sick leave, or sickness and accident insurance, or both.
3 Includes coverage for doctors’ office visits, x rays, and laboratory tests.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

31

2 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Family-Related Benefits
in benefit plans over the past 15 years. These
laws have concentrated in large measure on
improving and guaranteeing the provisions of
existing benefits, rather than mandating new
benefits. Pension provisions covering eligibility
requirements, vesting, discrimination rules, and
survivor benefits are among the items that have
been institutionalized and strengthened during
this period.28
The rising cost of providing benefits has led
to changes in the character and scope of bene­
fits in the past 15 years. Benefits accounted for
17 percent of compensation costs in 1966, but
rose to 22 percent by 1974 and 27 percent by
1989.29 To combat these rising expenditures,
employers attempted to fix their benefit costs
and shift some of the burden to employees. For
example, defined benefit pension plans, which
guarantee employees a specified level of future
benefits at unknown future costs to employers,
were available to 20 percent fewer employees in
medium and large private firms in 1988 than in
1 9 7 9 3° jn their place, defined contribution
plans, which obligate employers only to an ini­
tial expense in the form of specified payments to
a pension fund, have increased in incidence. As
another example, employers have sought to
reduce health care costs by increasing employee
deductibles, requiring employees to share pre­
mium expenses, and instituting cost con­
tainment measures, such as mandatory second
surgical opinions, aimed at reducing unneces­
sary medical expenses. In recent years, employ­
ers also have turned to managed care programs,
such as health maintenance organizations and
preferred provider organizations, to curb rising
medical costs.
In recognition of the changing demographics
of the labor force during this period, employers
have provided several new benefits and offered
employees more opportunities to choose bene­
fits suited to their family needs. Examples of

newly emerging benefits include parental leave
(time off for parents to care for newborn or
adopted children), child care (employerprovided facilities or financial assistance), and
flexible work schedules.31 Benefit choices,
among a variety of medical plans or among
plans in multiple benefit areas, also attracted
considerable attention as the typical family of
the 1950’s and 1960’s became less prevalent
and the needs of the varied family arrangements
of the 1980’s could no longer be satisfied by a
fixed set of benefits.32
During the period 1975-89, the Bureau un­
dertook its most comprehensive analysis of
employee benefits, which has resulted in the
documentation and tracking of significant
changes in benefits. The Employee Benefits
Survey, which began in 1979, details the inci­
dence and provisions of benefits, while the
Employment Cost Index has tracked changes in
employer cost for compensation, including ben­
efits, since 1980. In addition, the Area Wage
Surveys continue to monitor the incidence of
selected benefits in metropolitan areas, and the
Industry Wage Surveys track the same data for
selected industries.
y e a r s since the Monthly Labor Review
was first published have seen the American
family shift from a large, extended group to a
smaller, individualized network of families
with widely varying characteristics. During this
same period, employers have progressed from
providing no benefits, to providing a standard
package of benefits designed for a malesupported family, to providing innovative and
flexible benefits to meet differing family needs.
While the future cannot be predicted, it is safe
to assume that benefit plans will remain a major
element of compensation and will continue to
evolve to meet the needs of a changing labor
force.
□

T h e 75

Footnotes
1 Jerry S. Rosenbloom and G. Victor Hallman, Employee
n j , Prentice-Hall,
1981), p. 14.

Benefit Planning (Englewood Cliffs,

2 Everett T. Allen, Jr., “Designing Employee Benefit
Plans,” in Jerry S. Rosenbloom, ed., The Handbook of

Employee Benefits: Design, Funding, and Administration
(Homewood,

il ,

D ow Jones-Irwin, 1984), pp. 5 -2 0 .

3 Rosenbloom and Hallman, Employee Benefit Planning,
p. 16.
4 Employment Cost Indexes and Levels, 1975-89, Bul­
letin 2339 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, October 1989), p. 9.
5 In general, the discussion focuses on monetary benefits,
such as income replacement and payment of medical ex­
penses. Changes in work schedules and provisions for paid
time off (for example, vacations, holidays, and sick leave)

March 1990

are beyond the scope of the article.
6 Data on employment by industry are from Stanley
Lebergott, “Manpower in Economic Growth,” in Historical
Statistics of the United States (Bureau o f the Census, Sep­
tember 1975), p. 139.
7 The average household size was 4.54 persons in 1910,
nearly double today’s number, according to the Bureau o f
the Census.
8 “Some Aspects o f Health Insurance,” Monthly Labor

Review, May 1917, pp. 746 -5 9 .
9 “Convention Proceedings o f the American Federation of
Labor,” Monthly Labor Review, January 1917, pp. 5 -1 0 .
10 Boris Emmet, “Disability Among Wage Earners,”

Monthly Labor Review, November 1919, pp. 2 0 -3 9 .

11 “Employment Managers’ Conference— Philadelphia,”

Monthly Labor Review, June 1917, pp. 890-900.
12 “Civil-Service Retirement and Old-Age Pensions,”

Monthly Labor Review, June 1916, pp. 101-17.
13 For more details on changing labor laws, see Alvin
Bauman, “Measuring employee compensation in U .S . in­
dustry,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1970, pp. 17-24;
and Margaret H. Schoenfeld and Torleif M eloe, “American
Labor— A 50-year Chronology,” Monthly Labor Review,
July 1950, pp. 7 9 -8 6 .
14 “Supplementary-Pension Plan of United States Steel
Corporation,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1940,
p. 888.
15 “Analysis

o f Mutual-Benefit Association
Monthly Labor Review, March 1930, pp. 7 2 -7 3 .

Plans,”

16 “Group Insurance,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1932,
pp. 5 3 -5 6 . For more current details on accidental death
benefits, see Cynthia Thompson, “Compensation for death
and dismemberment,” Monthly Labor Review, September
1989, pp. 13-17.
17 “Industrial-Relations Policies in the United States,”

Monthly Labor Review, July 1936, pp. 8 8-91.
18 Lebergott, Historical Statistics, p. 139.
19 Bauman, “Measuring employee compensation,” p. 19.

24 Evan Keith Rowe and Abraham W eiss, “Benefit Plans
under Collective Bargaining,” Monthly Labor Review,
September 1948, pp. 229-34.
25 See Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms,
1988, Bulletin 2336 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, August
1989), pp. 3 6-42.

26 Wage and Related Benefits, Metropolitan Areas,
United States and Regional Summaries, 1960-61, Bulletin
1285-84 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, August 1962).
27 Labor force data are from the Current Population Sur­
vey. See Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2340 (Bu­
reau o f Labor Statistics, August 1989).
28 For an example of how Federal legislation has affected
pension plan design, see Avy D . Graham, “How has vesting
changed since passage o f Employee Retirement Income Se­
curity Act?” Monthly Labor Review, August 1988, pp. 2 0 25.
29 See Employee Compensation in the Private Nonfarm
Economy, 1974, Bulletin 1963 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics,
1977); and Employment Cost Indexes and Levels, 1975-89.
30 See Employee Benefits in Industry: A Pilot Survey,
Report 615 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 1980), p. 4;
and Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1988,
p. 3.

22 See Inland Steel Co. v. nlrb , 170 F.2d 247 (1948); and
W. W. Cross & Co. v. nlrb, 174 F.2d 875 (1949).

31 Such programs recently have been the subject of con­
siderable policy debate, and several legislative proposals for
mandating parental leave and child care currently exist. For
more details on parental leave, see Joseph R. Meisenheimer
II, “Employer provisions for parental leave,” Monthly
Labor Review, October 1989, pp. 2 0 -2 4 .

23 Data are from the U .S. Social Security Administration
and the U .S. Public Health Service in Historical Statistics of
the United States (Bureau of the Census, September 1975),
pp. 7 3 -8 1 .

32 See Joseph R. Meisenheimer II and William J. Wiatrowski, “Flexible benefit plans: employees who have a
choice,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1989, pp. 1 7 23.

20 Bauman, “Measuring employee compensation,” p. 20.
21 This language clarified somewhat the topics to be ad­
dressed in the collective bargaining process.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

33

Work and family:
the impact of legislation
The past 75 years have seen the enactment
of laws protecting women and children,
setting workplace standards,
and establishing social insurance programs

Sar A. Levitan
and
Frank Gallo

Sar A. Levitan is research
professor o f economics
and director o f the Center
for Social Policy Studies at
The George Washington
University. Frank Gallo is
a research associate at the
center.

34

overnmental policies have both shaped
and responded to radical changes in the
work experiences of American families
during the 75 years since the Monthly Labor
Review began publication. Assessing the impact
of governmental policies is an elusive endeavor
because it is difficult to distinguish governmen­
tal actions from the myriad economic and social
factors affecting employment decisions. It is
even harder to separate the influence of govern­
mental policies on families as opposed to in­
dividuals, because almost everyone lives in a
family at some time.
Most governmental social programs in this
country emerged during three brief periods: the
Progressive Era between the turn of the century
and World War I, the New Deal in the mid1930’s, and the Great Society in the 1960’s.
State initiatives dominated the first period,
while the Federal Government led the succeed­
ing movements. The Government primarily has
sought to assist families beset by crises: unem­
ployment, disability or death, old age, and
poverty. (See exhibit 1.) The New Deal initia­
tives, the foundation of the modem welfare sys­
tem, largely reflect attitudes formed by the
Great Depression. Until that calamity knocked a
fourth of the labor force out of work, the pre­
vailing view was that individuals could control
their destiny in the workplace and that adult
joblessness and poverty among able-bodied per­
sons reflected personal shortcomings.

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

G

March 1990

The government role
Shorter working lives and workweeks for men,
the mass entrance of women into the paid work
force, and decreased poverty among workers
distinguish the work experience of the modem
family from its early 20th century counterpart.
Reduced working time. The abolition of child
labor, shorter workweeks, postsecondary school­
ing, and retirement benefits have dramatically re­
duced the proportion of time men spend working
outside the home.1 Increasing productivity, com­
bined with governmental policies, has signifi­
cantly influenced these developments.
The growth of child labor laws and of State
legislation making school attendance compul­
sory worked hand in hand to transform children
from laborers to students. Massachusetts en­
acted the first child labor and compulsory
school attendance statutes in 1836 and 1852,
respectively. Most States followed suit during
the late 19th and the early 20th centuries, but
these laws were riddled with exceptions, and
enforcement was minimal.2 Reflecting the
prevalence of child labor, the decennial census
included 10-year-olds in its count of gainfully
employed persons until 1940. Some 43 percent
of 14- and 15-year-old boys worked at the turn
of the century, dropping to 23 percent two
decades later. However, these figures may have
understated the hue extent of child labor be-

cause, before 1930, fewer than half of all
teenagers were enrolled in high school.3
Congress enacted minimum working age and
maximum working hours laws for children in
1916 and 1919, but the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down these statutes in 1918 and again in
1922. In 1924, Congress proposed a consti­
tutional amendment allowing the Federal Gov­
ernment to regulate child labor, but by 1932
only 6 States had ratified it, and 35 had rejected
it. However, fears that working children would
further depress wages during the Great De­
pression sharply weakened opposition to child
labor legislation. The 1938 Fair Labor Stand­
ards Act set a minimum age of 16 for most
kinds of work, up from 14 years in most State
laws. In 1948, 28 percent of 14- and 15-yearold boys were in the labor force, a proportion
that declined to 17 percent by 1985.4 Govern­
mental policies probably played a significant
role in reducing child labor, but solid evidence

Exhibit 1.

is lacking.
Government led the way in promoting longer
schooling, which often is viewed as an alterna­
tive to work. The 1944 gi bill made college
affordable for millions of veterans. Federal edu­
cation assistance for the disadvantaged, inaugu­
rated in the 1960’s, sought to enhance the
achievement of students who lagged behind, a
frequent cause of dropping out. Federal loans
and grants expanded during the following
decade, enabling many low- and moderateincome youth to obtain a postsecondary educa­
tion. For their part, the States have raised the
mandatory school enrollment age to 16 or
higher over the years, and nearly all States have
established postsecondary educational systems,
including universities— one dating back to the
18th century. These State-supported institutions
charge only a fraction of the tuition fees of pri­
vate schools.

Major work-related government programs with implications for
families
1988
exp enditu re
(billions)

P rogram and
y ear o f enactm ent

Retirement:
Old Age and Survivors Insurance (1935)..........................................
Tax exclusion for pensions (1942) ...................................................
Old Age Assistance (1935)/Supplemental Security Income (1972) .. .

$197.2
49.3
2 5.7

Disability:
Workers’ compensation (first State, 1911)........................................

N um ber
benefiting
(m illions)

Fam ily factors
considered in—
Determ ining
eligibility

Setting
benefits

34.6/month
(1)
2.0/month

no
(1)
yes

yes
(1)
yes

327.4

(D

no

Disability Insurance (1956) ..............................................................
Veterans’ compensation ..................................................................
Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled (1950)/Supplemental
Security Income (1972)..................................................................
Vocational rehabilitation (1921) .......................................................

22.4
11.3

4.1/month
2.2/year

no
no

in 11
States
yes
yes

2 9.1
1.6

2.5/month
,9/year

yes
no

no
no

Education, employment, and training:
Postsecondary education ................................................................

458.5

10.1 (fall)

Job Training Partnership Act (1982).................................................
Employment Service (1933) ............................................................

3.7
.8

2.1/year
18.4/year

for grants
and loans
yes
no

for grants
and loans
no
no

Poverty:
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (1935)...............................
Earned Income Tax Credit (1975) ...................................................

19.0
4.9

10.9/month
27.7/year

yes
yes

yes
no

Unemployment:
Unemployment insurance (1935) .....................................................

13.2

6.8/year

no

in 10
States

Child care:
Dependent Care Tax Credit (1976) .................................................

3.4

yes

yes

Head Start (1965) ...........................................................................

1.5

8.2 families/
year
,4/year

yes

no

1 Not applicable or not available.
2

Authors’ estimate.

3 Data relate to 1987.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4 Data relate to 1986-87.
S ources: U.S. Social Security Administration; U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Ways and Means; and U.S. Library of Con­
gress, Congressional Research Service.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

35

Legislation and the Family
In 1840, President Martin Van Buren issued
an Executive Order restricting daily labor in
Federal navy yards to 10 hours, marking the
first governmental attempt to limit working
hours for adults. Seven years later, New Hamp­
shire limited men’s labor to 10 hours daily, but
most States enacting hours limitations during
the late 19th and early 20th centuries regulated
women’s worktime only. By 1920, 43 States
had enacted maximum hours laws, but only 11
States used an 8-hour standard— typically for a
6-day workweek. Simultaneously, most States
began to require that employees be given at least
1 day off a week, and time off for meals.5 The
U.S. Supreme Court in 1905 upheld a New
York State law mandating a 10-hour workday,
Federal Civil War but reached the opposite conclusion regarding
pensions
an Oregon law a dozen years later, without
represented the
overruling the earlier decision. The 1938 Fanfirst broad
Labor Standards Act, which passed Supreme
Court muster in 1941, required the payment of
governmental
“time and one-half’ for hours worked in excess
old-age
of 40 during any week. Most jobs were covered
retirement
by this provision.6
program.
Because weekly working hours had been
gradually dropping even before the Great De­
pression, the impact of the Fair Labor Standards
Act remains uncertain. During the 1930’s,
worktime declined sharply, as employers cut
hours to share the work among employees rather
than lay them off. By 1938, the average work­
week reached a low point of 36 hours for pro­
duction workers in manufacturing. Ironically,
the workweek lengthened following passage of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, as the economy
recovered and demand for labor soared during
World War II. However, the statutory overtime
rate probably discouraged employers from rein­
stituting longer workweeks after the war.
Federal Civil War pensions represented the
first broad governmental old-age retirement pro­
gram. Due to increasingly liberalized eligibility
rules, by the early 20th century, nearly twothirds of older, white, native-born men in the
North received a “veterans” pension.7 In 1915,
Alaska initiated welfare assistance for the aged,
and by 1935, 29 States had followed suit.
Two cash assistance programs for the elderly,
created by the 1935 Social Security Act,
became instrumental in inducing widespread re­
tirement: Old Age Insurance and Old Age
Assistance (later substantially federalized under
the Supplemental Security Income program in
1972). Congress broadened Old Age Insurance,
and transformed it into a family program in
1939 by adding benefits for spouses and
dependents, as well as for survivors of deceased
workers. Subsequent liberalizations permitted
early retirement at age 62, first for women
36

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

(1956) and then for men (1961), and then
reduced the eligibility age to 60 for widows
(1965) and widowers (1972). Rising Social
Security benefits, outpacing the cost of living,
further encouraged retirement. Average benefits
as a proportion of the federally established
poverty line increased dramatically between
1940 (when monthly benefits were first paid)
and 1988:
Percent of
poverty line
1940:
R etired m e n ...................................................

41

R etired c o u p les

............................................

50

R etired m e n ...................................................
R etired c o u p les ...........................................

114
136

1988:

During the 1940’s, two governmental deci­
sions spurred the growth of private pensions. In
1942, the Federal Government excluded from
taxation contributions that private employers in­
vest in pension funds. Seven years later, the
Supreme Court ruled that private-sector
pensions are subject to collective bargaining,
and unions thereafter vigorously promoted the
establishment of pension plans. These govern­
mental actions stimulated widespread retire­
ment. Before the New Deal, more than half of
men age 65 and older were in the labor force,
but as Old Age Insurance benefits increased and
private-sector pensions became more common,
the proportion dropped drastically, to 33 percent
by 1960 and to 17 percent by 1989.
Society has embraced child labor restrictions,
extended schooling, and shorter workweeks,
but concerns over the financial solvency of
Social Security in recent years have altered
attitudes toward retirement. During the past
decade, Congress has taken several steps to en­
courage more of the elderly to continue work­
ing. Barring changes in current law, within the
next two decades the “normal” Old Age In­
surance retirement age will increase from 65 to
67, the credit for delayed retirement will be­
come more generous, early retiree benefits will
be reduced, and beneficiaries will lose less of
their benefits if they work.
Women at work. Governmental policy proba­
bly had little influence on the massive influx of
women into the work force over the past halfcentury. In fact, Federal and State governments
have at times actively discouraged women, es­
pecially wives and mothers, from working.
With strong public approval, governments
sought to deny jobs to wives during the 1930’s
because of concern that women would displace

male breadwinners. Many school districts did
not hire wives, and fired women who married.
The “marriage penalty” in the Federal income
tax during the 1970’s also put working couples
at a disadvantage, compared with more tradi­
tional family arrangements.8
Governmental policies that encouraged
women to work, including expanded educa­
tional opportunity, equal pay laws, and child
care assistance, had some influence but were
probably not determinative. More women than
men have graduated from high school since at
least 1870, and the earliest comprehensive data
(1940) on educational attainment also indicate
that women, on average, were already better
educated than men at the beginning of this cen­
tury. Nevertheless, women were far less likely
to work outside the home. During World War
II, however, the labor force participation rates
of married women rose from 17 to 26 percent
and, after a brief postwar drop, began to climb
continuously.
Governmental child care assistance and the
growing number of preschool facilities probably
had more impact on women’s labor force partic­
ipation by making it easier for mothers to work.
A limited, temporary child care program was
established for working mothers during World
War II, but further action did not occur until
1954, when the Federal Government provided a
tax deduction for employment-related child care
expenses. Congress gradually extended the de­
duction, and replaced it in 1976 with a more
generous tax credit. Other major Federal initia­
tives supporting child care include Head Start
(established in 1965), and the Social Services
Block Grant (1974). The 1988 Family Support
Act requires States to provide child care to par­
ents receiving Aid to Families with Dependent
Children who are enrolled in an educational,
training, or work program. State and local gov­
ernments have provided broader child care
assistance to families by enrolling more pre­
schoolers, directly establishing child care cen­
ters, and creating various State tax subsidies. In
addition, 12 States have enacted maternal or
parental leave laws.
However, public facilities and subsidies ac­
count for only a minor share of child care, most
of which is provided by relatives and paid indi­
viduals.9 Although the proportion of 3- to 5year-olds in preprimary schools doubled from
27 to 54 percent between 1965 and 1988, the
proportion of enrollees who attended public in­
stitutions dropped from 71 to 62 percent over
the same period, indicating that governments
were probably keeping up with, rather than
leading, the trend. Moreover, until recent
decades, relatively few women whose youngest

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

child was in elementary school worked outside
the home, although elementary schools have
long assumed custodial responsibilities for
pupils.
Work and poverty. Another important workrelated development is the remarkable decline in
poverty among working families. In 1900, more
than half of families were poor by today’s stand­
ards, compared with 7.2 percent of families
with at least one worker in 1988.10 The paucity
of information, of course, makes it difficult to
fairly assess the role of government in this
trend, but the record seems to be a mixed one.
Minimum wage legislation and the Earned
Income Tax Credit (enacted in 1975) seek to
boost the earnings of low-income workers. In
1912, Massachusetts enacted the first minimum
wage law, and 16 more States had followed by
1923, when the Supreme Court ruled that such
provisions violated the alleged constitutional
right of employers and workers to enter con­
tracts. The Great Depression prompted some
States to reenact minimum wage laws, which
the Supreme Court again struck down in 1936
before reversing itself the following year.11
In 1938, Congress enacted the first national
minimum wage law— the Fair Labor Standards
Act— which set a statutory hourly minimum of
25 cents. Since then, Congress has periodically
raised the minimum wage, and expanded cover­
age to more than 90 percent of nonsupervisory
workers. The minimum wage, if earned for a
40-hour workweek year round, paid wages
equal to at least a poverty level income for a
three-person family during most of the 1960’s
and 1970’s. However, by 1989, the minimum The Government
wage yielded only an estimated 70.5 percent of has primarily
a poverty level income— its lowest value since sought to assist
the 1940’s— and Congress again increased the
families beset by
statutory minimum wage. The scheduled $4.25
hourly rate in 1991 will yield, for full-time, crises.
year-round work, about four-fifths of a poverty
line income for a family of three.
Congress introduced the Earned Income Tax
Credit in 1975 to offset Social Security payroll
taxes paid by low earners. If the amount of the
credit exceeds tax liability, beneficiaries receive
a tax rebate. The credit is restricted to working
parents and, since 1987, its value has been auto­
matically adjusted for inflation. The maximum
allowable credit in 1989 was $910. The propor­
tions of either eligible families or poor families
who actually receive the credit are not known.
Federal and State governments have enacted
other laws to expand employment opportunities,
protect employees from discrimination in the
workplace, and boost the income of single par­
ents. Starting in the 1930’s, the Federal GovemMonthly Labor Review

March 1990

37

Legislation and the Family

Starting in the
1930’s, the
Federal
Government
began to take
limited steps to
prevent
work-related
discrimination.

38

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ment began to take limited steps to prevent
work-related discrimination against certain
groups, and during the 1960’s and 1970’s, Fed­
eral and State governments banned discrimina­
tory workplace practices relating to race, ethnic
background, gender, age, disability, and reli­
gion. Enforcement of these bans expanded sig­
nificantly until the late 1970’s, but was curbed
during the 1980’s, most significantly by a series
of 1989 Supreme Court decisions. Another fam­
ily-related law, the 1988 Family Support Act,
requires States to establish guidelines for child
support payments. By 1994, such payments will
be automatically deducted from the absent par­
ent’s wages, guaranteeing single parents a right
to a share of absent parents’ earnings.
Finally, the Federal Government has insti­
tuted a variety of programs to provide the poor
or jobless with job search assistance, education
or training, or jobs. The 1933 Wagner-Peyser
Act established a network of public employment
offices to match jobseekers with job openings.
Separate public jobs projects hired some 20 to
30 percent of the unemployed during the New
Deal.12 These programs were dismantled when
the Nation achieved full employment during
World War II.
The Federal Government created a variety of
training programs during the early 1960’s.
Funding of these programs grew steadily and, a
decade later, Congress reintroduced public jobs
programs. By 1978, the Federal Government
spent $23.4 billion (1989 dollars) for numerous
employment and training programs, nearly half
of which funded jobs in public and nonprofit
organizations. However, Congress almost en­
tirely abolished public service employment in
1981, and by 1989, total employment and train­
ing funding had declined by two-thirds, to $8.0
billion.13
On the other hand, taxes reduce the income of
low earning families, sometimes pushing them
below the poverty threshold. Social Security
payroll taxes are levied on the very first dollar of
earned income, and the taxes paid jointly by
employers and workers have increased from 1.0
percent to 15.3 percent of taxable earnings be­
tween 1936 and 1990. In the 1950’s, Federal
income taxes reached down to affect low in­
come families, and by the mid-1980’s, a family
of four with poverty level earnings paid a com­
bined income and payroll tax of 10.4 percent.
The 1986 Tax Reform Act reduced, but did not
completely eliminate, the tax burden on such
families, which remains higher than the low
points attained during the 1970’s. Poor working
individuals and families remain largely outside
the system of governmental social programs,
either because their incomes are sufficiently
March 1990

high to render them ineligible or because their
work responsibilities preclude their enrollment
in educational, training, and other programs.

Promoting or discouraging work?
Some work-related policies and programs, in­
cluding Old Age Insurance and child labor and
overtime laws, discourage work. Governments
implemented such policies for humanitarian rea­
sons or in the belief that discouraging some
from working would enhance the employment
opportunities of others. Of the major govern­
mental initiatives, only income maintenance
programs for the elderly and child labor and
overtime restrictions deliberately discourage
able-bodied individuals from working. How­
ever, the extent to which unemployment in­
surance, various programs designed to aid the
disabled, and Aid to Families with Dependent
Children unintentionally discourage work has
been vigorously debated. These programs
clearly have some work disincentive, because
assisting those who are jobless or underem­
ployed may encourage some individuals to
opt for benefits rather than work. In addition,
policies that raise the cost of hiring labor— the
minimum wage, and payroll taxes that finance
many social insurance programs— may dimin­
ish employment opportunities to some extent. In
general, work disincentives probably decreased
during the 1980’s, as governments scaled back
many programs.
Unemployment insurance may increase job­
lessness because workers are more likely to be­
come unemployed and remain so if they have a
cushion to fall back upon. Firms may be able to
save money by temporarily laying off workers,
who will not switch employers because unem­
ployment insurance tides them over until they
are recalled to work. The U.S. Congressional
Budget Office has estimated that the availability
of unemployment benefits increases the unem­
ployment rate by roughly 10 to 15 percent dur­
ing periods of low unemployment, and by about
5 percent during recessions.14 Longer unem­
ployment spells may have salutary effects in the
long run, however, if the jobless are able to use
the time to secure work that increases their satis­
faction, productivity, and job tenure.
Whatever work disincentives unemployment
insurance entails, they have undoubtedly dimin­
ished since the 1970’s. Fewer than one-third of
the currently unemployed receive benefits, a
record low. Adjusted for inflation, the average
weekly benefit has declined by 12 percent from
its 1971 peak. Moreover, the maximum dura­
tion of benefits has been significantly reduced
since the 1970’s, and benefit payments— tax-

free until 1979— are now fully subject to Fed­
eral income taxes.15
Some analysts have attributed declining labor
force participation rates among preretirementage men to the expansion of disability assis­
tance. Labor force participation rates of men 45
to 54 years old remained steady at around 95 to
96 percent from 1948 to 1969, then dropped to
91 percent by 1977 as disability programs grew
dramatically, before stabilizing again.16 More
than half of severely disabled working-age indi­
viduals currently receive Disability Insurance,
Supplemental Security Income, or both, and an
unknown proportion of the remainder obtain as­
sistance from other disability programs.
The expansion of programs aiding the dis­
abled probably contributed to declining labor
force participation rates among preretirementage men, but the connection is far from un­
equivocal. Due to liberalized benefit rules,
Disability Insurance beneficiaries could replace
a high proportion of their previous earnings dur­
ing the 1970’s, and even receive more than the
pay on their former job with the additional ben­
efits paid to spouses and dependents. However,
amendments in 1977 and 1980 significantly
lowered these replacement rates.17
On the other hand, disability assistance had
expanded greatly during the 1960’s without a
concomitant withdrawal from the labor force.
Moreover, even rejected Disability Insurance
applicants (who presumably are more healthy
than beneficiaries) tend to have very limited
subsequent work experience. Half of applicants
rejected in 1984 were jobless 3 years later (most
had not worked at all during the period), and
half of those with jobs earned less—usually at
least 25 percent less— than they did prior to
becoming disabled. Some 43 percent of Disabil­
ity Insurance beneficiaries are poor.18
The Aid to Families with Dependent Children
( a f d c ) program contains stronger work disin­
centives than other social programs, because (1)
it assists many able-bodied individuals, (2) par­
ticipants are not required to establish a work
history, and (3) benefits may be provided for
many years. Illinois and Missouri inaugurated
“mothers’ pensions” for widows with children
in 1911, and local governments in almost all
States had such programs by 1935, when Con­
gress augmented their efforts with Aid to De­
pendent Children.19 The program probably
assisted a third or less of those potentially eligi­
ble until the 1960’s, but coverage rapidly esca­
lated to nearly 90 percent of potential eligibles
by 1976 before dropping to 80 percent or less in
the 1980’s.20
In 1989, a f d c and food stamps (which fourfifths of a f d c beneficiaries receive) yielded a

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

single mother with three children nearly 20 per­
cent higher income, on the average, than she
could earn from a full-time, year-round mini­
mum wage job. Although the value of a fd c and
food stamp benefits has eroded since 1970, the
purchasing power of the minimum wage de­
clined even more until 1990, increasing the gap
between welfare benefits and income from lowwage work. The U.S. Congressional Research
Service has estimated that in Pennsylvania
(where a fd c benefits are about 10 percent
higher than the national median), the disposable
income of a single mother with two children on
a f d c would barely change if she increased her
earnings from $2,000 to $8,000 annually, and
earnings above $7,000 would eventually result
in her losing health insurance through medi­
caid.21 In the early 1970’s, Congress required
certain a f d c recipients to enroll in work pro­
grams, but because of limited funding and nu­
merous exemptions, only a minority have done
so. The 1988 Family Support Act mandates in­
creased participation in educational, training, or
work programs, but the impact of the legislation
is still uncertain.
The minimum wage encourages work by
rewarding it, but may also reduce employment
by raising the cost of labor to prospective
employers. The positive effect has not been
measured, but the negative consequences have
been heatedly debated. Attempting to estimate
the employment loss associated with a higher
minimum wage, the U.S. Minimum Wage
Study Commission reported in 1981 that a
10-percent increase in the statutory minimum
could reduce teenage employment by as much
as 1 to 3 percent. However, because of de­
clines in the teenage population and the value of
the minimum wage, a recent estimate (made
before the 1989 congressional amendment)
using the commission’s methodology suggested
that the tradeoff would reduce teenage employ­
ment by only about 0.5 percent, and have no
measurable impact on the employment of older
individuals.22
There are no eternal verities to guide govern­
ments in devising work- and family-related poli­
cies and programs, because working behavior
and societal preferences change continually.
Policies enacted during the Great Depression to
encourage the elderly to retire and discourage
poor single mothers from working have been
increasingly challenged in recent years. Eco­
nomic factors play an extremely important,
though not exclusive, role in fashioning govern­
mental and family decisions concerning work.
Rising productivity permits both additional
affluence and leisure time. However, the diver­
gence among different nations’ working be-

The extent to
which various
social programs
unintentionally
discourage work
has been
vigorously
debated.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

39

Legislation and the Family
havior and the social programs they have
designed demonstrates the various factors
that shape employment decisions and family
structure. As in most democracies, U.S.
governmental decisions have tended to reflect

the preferences of the populace. But just as
today’s choices would have appeared alien to
past generations, what will be “normal” behav­
ior in the next century might be equally dis­
turbing to us.
[J

Footnotes
1 “Two Hundred Years o f Work in America,” in Employ­
ment and Training Report of the President (Washington,
U .S. Government Printing Office, 1976), p. 144.

13 Sar A. Levitan, Programs in Aid of the Poor (Balti­
more, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming
1990).

2 Growth o f Labor Law in the United States (Washington,
U .S. Department o f Labor, 1967), pp. 11, 14-15, and 4 5 46.

14 U .S. Congressional Budget O ffice, Promoting Em­
ployment and Maintaining Incomes with Unemployment In­
surance (Washington, U .S. Congressional Budget Office,

3 Twelfth Census o f the U.S.: 1900, Volume 2, Popula­
tion, Part II (Bureau o f the Census, 1902), p. 2; Fifteenth
Census o f the U.S.: 1930, Population, Volume 5, General
Report on Occupations (Bureau o f the Census, 1933), p.
114; and Digest of Education Statistics, 1988 (Washington,

March 1985), pp. 2 1 -2 2 .

U .S. Department o f Education), p. 60.
4 Labor Force Statistics Derived from the Current Popu­
lation Survey: A Databook, Volume 1 (Bureau o f Labor
Statistics, September 1982), p. 561 (updated).
5 Growth of Labor Law in the United States, pp. 123-26,
130.
6 Irving Bernstein, A Caring Society (Boston, Houghton
Mifflin C o., 1985), pp. 124 and 144-45.
7 Theda Skocpol and John Ikenberry, “The Political For­
mation o f the American Welfare State in Historical and
Comparative Perspective,” in Comparative Social Re­
search: The Welfare State, 1883-1983, vol. 6 (Greenwich,
CT, ja i Press, 1983), p. 97.
8 Sar Levitan, Richard Belous, and Frank Gallo, What’s
Happening to the American Family? (Baltimore, MD, Johns

15 U .S. House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcom­
mittee on Public Assistance and Unemployment Compensa­
tion, Federal-State Unemployment Compensation System,
wmcp : 100-39 (Washington, U .S. Government Printing Of­
fice, Sept. 8, 1988), pp. 158, 4 3 6 -3 7 , and 448 (updated).
16 Robert Haveman and Barbara W olfe, The Disabled
from 1962 to 1984: Trends in Number, Composition, and
Well-Being, Special Report 44 (Madison, wi, Institute for
Research on Poverty, University o f Wisconsin, May 1987),
p. 7.
17 Robert M yers, Social Security (H o m ew o o d ,
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1985), pp. 108 and 192-95.

il ,

18 U .S. General Accounting Office, Social Security Dis­
ability: Denied Applicants’ Health and Financial Status
Compared with Beneficiaries’, hrd-90-2 (Washington,
General Accounting O ffice, November 1989), pp. 2 0 -2 1 ,
23, 39; and John Bound, “The Health and Earnings o f Re­
jected Disability Insurance Applicants,” American Eco­
nomic Review, June 1989, pp. 482-503.

Hopkins University Press, 1988), pp. 182-83.

19 Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg, Domestic Revolu­
tions: A Social History of American Family Life (New York,

9 Sar Levitan and Elizabeth Conway, Families in Flux:
Child, Elder and Health Care (Washington, Bureau o f Na­

Free Press, 1988), p. 130.

tional Affairs, forthcoming).
10 Stanley Lebergott, The Americans: An Economic
Record (New York, W .W . Norton & C o., 1984), p. 508;
and Money Income and Poverty Status in the United States:
1988, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 166
(Bureau o f the Census, October 1989), pp. 8 3-85.
11 Sar Levitan and Richard Belous, More Than Subsis­
tence: Minimum Wages for the Working Poor (Baltimore,
md,

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), pp. 3 3 -3 9 .

12 A Caring Society, p. 151.

40

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

20 Patricia Ruggles and Richard Michel, Participation
Rates in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Pro­
gram: Trends for 1967 Through 1984 (Washington, The
Urban Institute, April 1987), p. 37 (updated).
21 U .S. House Committee on Ways and Means, Back­
ground Material and Data on Programs Within the Jurisdic­
tion of the Committee on Ways and Means, wmpc : 101-4
(Washington, U .S. Government Printing Office, Mar. 15,
1989), pp. 536 -3 7 .
22 Sar Levitan, “The Minimum Wage: Bread and Dig­
nity,” Across the Board, September 1988, pp. 5 5 -5 7 .

The changing family
in international perspective
Families are becoming smaller and less traditional
as fertility rates fall and more persons live alone;
Scandinavian countries are the pacesetters
in developing nontraditional forms of family living,
but the United States has the highest incidence
of divorce and of single-parent households

Constance Sorrentino

Constance Sorrentino is an
economist in the Division
o f Foreign Labor
Statistics, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ar-reaching changes are occurring in fam­
ily structures and household living ar­
rangements in the developed countries.
The pace and timing of change differ from coun­
try to country, but the general direction is the
same practically everywhere. Families are be­
coming smaller, and household composition
patterns over the past several decades have been
away from the traditional nuclear family—
husband, wife, and children living in one house­
hold— and toward more single-parent house­
holds, more persons living alone, and more
couples living together out of wedlock. Indeed,
the “consensual union” has become a more vis­
ible and accepted family type in several coun­
tries. The one-person household has become the
fastest growing household type.
In conjunction with the changes in living ar­
rangements, family labor force patterns have
also undergone profound changes. Most coun­
tries studied have experienced a rapid rise in
participation rates of married women, particu­
larly women who formerly would have stayed at
home with their young children.
Scandinavian countries have been the pace­
setters in the development of many of the non­
traditional forms of family living, especially
births outside of wedlock and cohabitation out­
side of legal marriage. Women in these societies
also have the highest rates of labor force partic­

F

ipation. However, in at least two aspects, the
United States is setting the pace: Americans
have, by far, the highest divorce rate of any
industrial nation, as well as a higher incidence
of single-parent households, one of the most
economically vulnerable segments of the popu­
lation. Japan is the most traditional society of
those studied, with very low rates of divorce and
births out of wedlock and the highest proportion
of married-couple households. In fact, Japan is
the only country studied in which the share of
such households has increased since 1960. But
even in Japan, family patterns are changing:
sharp drops in fertility have led to much smaller
families, and the three-generation household,
once the mainstay of Japanese family life, is in
decline.
As part of the Monthly Labor Review’ s 75thanniversary examination of the family, this arti­
cle develops an international perspective on the
changes in the American family by looking at
selected demographic, household, and labor
force trends in the past 25 to 30 years in Canada,
Japan, and the major Western European na­
tions. The 25- to 30-year time frame was chosen
as the longest span for which data were avail­
able for all the countries examined. Because
definitions and concepts differ among countries,
an appendix dealing with these is included at the
end of the article.
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

41

International Perspective o f the Family

Demographic background
Major demographic and sociological changes
directly influencing family composition have
taken place in this century, with the pace of
change accelerating in the past two decades.
Almost all developed countries have seen
changes of four principal types: A decline in
fertility rates, the aging of the population, an
erosion of the institution of marriage, and a
rapid increase in childbirths out of wedlock.
Each of these four trends has played a part in the
transformation of the modem family.
Fertility rates. Over the past century, women
in industrialized countries have moved to hav­
ing fewer children— that is, to lower fertility
rates. The decline was, in many cases, inter­
rupted by the post-World War II baby boom, but
it resumed in the 1960’s. Japan is an exception,
in that fertility rates have declined sharply and
almost continuously since the late 1940’s, with
no postwar upturn apart from a small recovery
and stabilization from the mid-1960’s to the
early 1970’s.
The change in total fertility rates in 10 coun­
tries is shown in table 1. With the exception of
some baby “boomlets” in the late 1970’s and
1980’s, total fertility rates in most developed
countries have declined to below the level
needed to replace population deaths, namely,
2.1 children per woman. This means that the
current population will not even replace itself if

Table 1.

Total fertility rates1 in 10 countries, selected
years, 1921-88

C ountry

1921

1941

1951

1961

1971

1981

1986

1988

United States................
Canada ........................
Japan ...........................

3.3
4.0
5.3

2.3
2.8
4.5

3.2
3.5
3.2

3.6
3.8
1.9

2.3
2.2
2.1

1.8
1.7
1.7

1.8
1.7
1.7

1.9
1.7
1.6

Denmark ......................
France .........................
Germany ......................
Italy...............................
Netherlands..................
Sweden ........................
United Kingdom.............

3.1
2.6
(2)
(2)
33.5
2.7
2.7

2.2
1.8
(2)
2.7
2.6
1.9
1.7

2.5
2.8
2.1
2.3
3.0
2.2
2.1

2.5
2.8
2.5
2.4
3.2
2.2
2.8

2.0
2.5
1.9
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.4

1.4
2.0
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8

1.5
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.8

1.6
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.5
2.0
1.8

1The total fertility rate is defined as the average number of children that would be born per
woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years, and at each year of age they
experienced the birth rates occurring in the specified year.
2 Not available.
3 1921-25.
Source : Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Employment Outlook
oecd , September 1988), p. 204; Statistical Office of the European Communities, Rapid
Reports, Population and Social Conditions, no. 1, 1989, p. 4; Statistics Sweden, Befolkningsforandringar 1988, Del. 1, Forsamlingar, Kommuner och A-regioner [Population Changes, 1988, Part
1, Parishes, Communes, and Regions], p. 9; and unpublished estimates (1988 for the United

(Paris,

States, Canada, and Japan) by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Center for International Research.

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for4 2FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

current levels of fertility continue. By 1988,
fertility rates in the developed countries fell into
a narrow range of from 1.3 to 1.4 children per
woman in Germany and Italy to around 1.9 to
2.0 in the United States and Sweden.
Decreased fertility has important implications
for the family. In particular, family size is get­
ting smaller, with consequences for parents—
especially mothers— and children. Probably the
most significant effect of falling fertility is the
opportunity it has afforded women for increased
participation in the labor market. And the con­
verse relation holds as well: increased participa­
tion leads to lower fertility. Smaller families
also mean fewer relatives to care for young
children.
Aging o f the population. It is important to
consider the age structure of the population be­
cause different arrays of persons by age result in
different household structures across countries.
Mortality, as well as fertility, has declined in the
20th century. The decline in mortality has been
more or less continuous, and the average age at
death has risen considerably in all developed
countries. The decrease in fertility has resulted
in a decline in the proportion of children in the
population. However, because it affected all age
groups, the drop in mortality did not have a
major effect on the age structure of populations.
In fact, mortality decreased more at younger
than at older ages, thereby offsetting rather than
exacerbating the effect of the fertility decline.
Thus, the progressive aging of the population in
the developed countries is attributable primarily
to the declining fertility rates.1
Table 2 shows the distribution of the popula­
tion by age in 10 countries from 1950 to 1990.
The proportion of the population in the youngest
age group (0-14 years) is declining everywhere,
while the proportion of the elderly (age 65 and
over) is increasing. Compared with most Eu­
ropean countries and Japan, the U.S. and Cana­
dian populations are more youthful, reflecting
higher comparative fertility rates. However, in
both North American countries, the declining
fertility rates have produced a sharp drop since
1960 in the share of the population held by the
under-age-15 group. With the exception of
France, all the European countries and Japan
now have less than one-fifth of their total popu­
lation under 15, with Germany having the low­
est proportion.
At the other end of the spectrum, European
countries tend to have larger proportions of el­
derly persons than do the two North American
nations. Sweden, Germany, and Denmark all
have about the same proportion of elderly as
they have children under 15. In contrast, the

proportion of children in the United States and
Canada is nearly twice as great as the proportion
of elderly.
Life expectancy at birth is higher for women
than for men in all the countries studied.
Women outlive men by 6 to 7 years, on average,
and this influences household structures, as
many more women than men live alone at older
ages. In most developed countries, women must
anticipate a period of living alone at some point
during their later years.
Aging of the population is common to all the
industrialized countries, although there are con­
siderable differences in the extent and timing of
the phenomenon. These differences are re­
flected in the comparisons presented later on
household type. For example, countries with
high proportions of elderly people tend to have
higher proportions of single-person households,
because the elderly are increasingly living
alone.
Marriage and divorce. Almost everyone in
the United States gets married at some time in
his or her life. The United States has long had
one of the highest marriage rates in the world,
and even in recent years it has maintained a
relatively high rate. For the cohort bom in 1945,
for example, 95 percent of the men have mar­
ried, compared with 75 percent in Sweden.2 The
other countries studied ranked somewhere be­
tween these two extremes.
According to table 3, a trend toward fewer
marriages is plain in all of the countries studied,
although the timing of this decline differs from
country to country. In Scandinavia and Ger­
many, for example, the downward trend in the
marriage rate was already evident in the 1960’s;
in the United States, Canada, Japan, France, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, the de­
cline began in the 1970’s.
In Europe, the average age at marriage fell
until the beginning of the 1970’s, when a com­
plete reversal occurred. Postponement of mar­
riage by the young is now common throughout
the continent. The generation bom in the early
1950’s initiated this new behavior, character­
ized by both later and less frequent marriage.3
Average age at first marriage has also been ris­
ing in the United States since the mid-1950’s,
but Americans still tend to marry earlier than
their European counterparts. For example, the
average age at first marriage for American men
and women in 1988 was 25.9 and 23.6, respec­
tively. In Denmark, it was 29.2 for men and
26.5 for women.
The high U.S. marriage rate is, in part, re­
lated to the fact that the United States has
maintained a fairly low level of nonmarital co­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Table 2.

Distribution of population by age, 10 countries,
1950-90

[In percent]
C oun try and age range

United States:
Birth to 14 years ............................................
15 to 64 years ...............................................
65 years and over..........................................
Canada:
Birth to 14 years ............................................
15 to 64 years ...............................................
65 years and over ..........................................
Japan:
Birth to 14 years ............................................
15 to 64 years ...............................................
65 years and over..........................................
Denmark:
Birth to 14 years ............................................
15 to 64 years ...............................................
65 years and over..........................................
France:
Birth to 14 years ............................................
15 to 64 years ...............................................
65 years and over ......................... ...............
Germany:
Birth to 14 years ............................................
15 to 64 years ...............................................
65 years and over ..........................................
Italy:
Birth to 13 years ............................................
14 to 64 years ...............................................
65 years and over ..........................................
Netherlands:
Birth to 14 years ............................................
15 to 64 years ........................... ...................
65 years and over..........................................
Sweden:
Birth to 14 years ............................................
15 to 64 years ...............................................
65 years and over..........................................
United Kingdom:
Birth to 14 years ............................................
15 to 64 years ...............................................
65 years and over..........................................

1950

1960

1970

1980

19901

26.9
64.9
8.1

31.1
59.7
9.2

28.3
61.9
9.8

22.5
66.2
11.3

21.8
66.0
12.2

29.7
62.6
7.6

33.6
59.0
7.5

30.3
61.7
8.0

23.0
67.5
9.5

20.8
67.9
11.4

35.3
59.5
5.2

30.2
64.1
5.7

23.9
69.0
7.1

23.6
67.4
9.0

18.3
70.3
11.4

26.3
64.5
9.1

25.2
64.2
10.6

23.3
64.4
12.3

20.9
64.7
14.4

16.8
67.9
15.3

22.7
65.9
11.3

26.4
62.0
11.6

24.8
62.3
12.9

22.4
63.7
13.9

20.3
65.9
13.8

23.5
67.1
9.3

21.3
67.8
10.8

23.2
63.6
13.2

18.2
66.3
15.5

15.1
69.4
15.5

26.4
65.5
8.0

23.4
67.6
9.0

22.9
66.5
10.5

20.5
66.7
12.9

17.8
68.4
13.8

29.3
62.9
7.7

30.0
61.0
9.0

27.3
62.6
10.2

22.3
66.2
11.5

18.1
69.2
12.7

23.4
66.3
10.2

22.4
65.9
11.8

20.9
65.5
13.7

19.6
64.1
16.3

17.2
65.0
17.7

22.3
66.9
10.7

23.4
66.4
11.7

24.1
62.9
13.0

21.0
64.1
14.9

19.1
65.8
15.1

1 Projected.
S ource : Ageing Populations: The Social Policy Implications (Paris, Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development, 1988), pp. 80-81; and Labour Force Statistics, 1960-71 and
1967-87 editions (Paris, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1973,1989).

habitation. In Europe— particularly in Scandi­
navia, but also in France, the United Kingdom,
and the Netherlands— there have been large in­
creases in the incidence of unmarried couples
living together. This situation is reflected in the
lower marriage rates of these countries.
Swedish data that include all cohabiting couples
indicate that family formation rates have re­
mained stable since 1960, even though marriage
rates have dropped.
Divorce rates have shown a long-term in­
crease in most industrial nations since around
the turn of the century. After accelerating dur­
ing the 1970’s, the rates reached in the 1980’s
are probably the highest in the modem history of
these nations. While a very large proportion of
Americans marry, their marital breakup rate is
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

43

International Perspective o f the Family
by far the highest among the developed coun­
tries. (See table 3.) Based on recent divorce
rates, the chances of a first American marriage
ending in divorce are today about one in two;
the corresponding ratio in Europe is about one in
three to one in four.
Liberalization of divorce laws came to the
United States well before it occurred in Europe,
but such laws were loosened in most European
countries beginning in the 1970’s, with further
liberalization taking place in the 1980’s. Conse­
quently, divorce rates are rising rapidly in many
European countries. By 1986, the rate had
quadrupled in the Netherlands and almost
tripled in France over the levels recorded in
1960. The sharpest increase occurred in the
United Kingdom, where the marital breakup
rate increased sixfold. Although divorce rates
continued to rise in Europe in the 1980’s, the
increase in the United States abated, and the rate
in 1986 was slightly below that recorded in
1980. In Canada, although divorce rates remain
considerably lower than in the United States,
the magnitude of the increase since 1960 has
been greater than that in the United Kingdom.

Table 3.

Marriage and divorce rates
in 10 countries, selected
years, 1960-86

C oun try

1960

1970

1980

1986

M arriage rates (per 1,000
po pulation, ages 15 to 64)

United States................
Canada ........................
Japan ...........................

14.1
12.4
14.5

17.0
14.3
14.4

115.9
11.8
9.8

15.1
10.2
8.6

Denmark ......................
France ..........................
Germany ......................
Italy...............................
Netherlands..................
Sweden ........................
United Kingdom.............

12.2
11.3
13.9
11.7
12.7
10.2
11.5

11.5
12.4
11.5
11.3
15.2
8.2
13.5

7.9
9.7
8.9
8.7
9.6
7.1
11.6

9.0
7.3
8.7
7.5
8.7
7.2
10.6

D ivorce rates (per 1,000
m arried w om en)

United States................
Canada ........................
Japan ...........................

9.2
1.8
3.6

14.9
6.3
3.9

22.6
10.9
4.8

21.2
12.9
5.4

Denmark ......................
France ..........................
Germany ......................
Italy...............................
Netherlands..................
Sweden ........................
United Kingdom.............

5.9
2.9
3.6
(2)
2.2
5.0
2.0

7.6
3.3
5.1
1.3
3.3
6.8
4.7

11.2
6.3
6.1
.8
7.5
11.4
12.0

12.8
8.5
8.3
1.1
8.7
11.7
12.9

1 Beginning in 1980, includes unlicensed marriages regis­
tered in California.
2 Not available.
S ources: Statistical Office of the European Communities,

Demographic Statistics, 1988; and various national sources.

44

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

Italy is the only European country studied in
which the divorce rate remains low, and divorce
laws have not been liberalized there. Japan’s
divorce rates are lower than in all other coun­
tries except Italy, but, unlike Italy, there has
been an upward trend in Japan since 1960.
Divorce rates understate the extent of family
breakup in all countries: marital separations are
not covered by the divorce statistics, and these
statistics also do not capture the breakup of
families in which the couple is not legally mar­
ried. Studies show that in Sweden, the breakup
rate of couples in consensual unions is three
times the dissolution rate of married couples.4
Statistics Sweden tabulates data on family dis­
solution from population registers that show
when couples previously living together have
moved to separate addresses. The data indicate
that the family dissolution rate rose more than
fourfold between 1960 and 1980, while the di­
vorce rate merely doubled.
Births out o f wedlock. Rates of births to un­
married women have increased in all developed
countries except Japan. (See table 4.) The phe­
nomenon arises from the decline of marriage,
the increase in divorce, and the rising rates of
cohabitation. Close to half of all live births in
Sweden are now outside of wedlock, up from
only 1 in 10 in 1960. Denmark is not far behind.
In the United States, France, and the United
Kingdom, unmarried women account for more
than 1 out of 5 births, while the rates are far
lower in the Netherlands, Italy, and Germany.
Although relatively high proportions of
Swedish and Danish children are bom out of
wedlock, it should be noted that nearly all of
them are bom to parents who live together in a
consensual union. These cohabiting parents are
typically in a relationship that has many of the
legal rights and obligations of a marriage.
Statistics Sweden estimates that only 0.5 per­
cent of all live births in the early 1980’s
involved a situation in which no father was iden­
tified and required to pay child support.
A relatively high proportion of births out of
wedlock in the United States and the United
Kingdom are to teenagers— more than 33 and
29 percent, respectively. In Sweden, teenagers
account for only 6 percent, and in France and
Japan about 10 percent. More than half of the
births out of wedlock in Sweden are to women
between the ages of 25 and 34, while only onequarter are to women in that age group in the
United States and the United Kingdom.5
All of the foregoing demographic trends have
had an impact on household size and composi­
tion in the developed nations. This impact can
be seen clearly in developments since 1960.

Household size declines
Table 4.
One of the major ramifications of the demo­
graphic trends, especially the declining fertility
rates and the aging of the population, is that
households have diminished in size throughout
this century. All of the countries studied have
seen declines from an average of four or five
members per household in the 1920’s to an aver­
age of only two or three persons living together
in the mid- to late 1980’s. (See table 5.) Den­
mark, Germany, and Sweden currently have
average household sizes in the range of 2.2 to
2.3 persons. The United States, Canada,
France, Italy, and the United Kingdom have
households in the 2.6- to 2.8-person range.
Japan maintains the highest average, at about
three persons per household. This is explained,
in part, by the prevalence of three-generation
households there.
Married couples living with both their chil­
dren and parents made up 12 percent of all
households in Japan in 1985. However, such
households have lost considerable ground since
1960, when they represented one-quarter of all
households in Japan. Meanwhile, three-genera­
tion households have virtually disappeared in
Europe and North America. For example, the
traditional German “stem” family comprising
more than two generations represented 6 percent
of all households in 1961, but only 2 percent by
1981. The share of the population residing in
such households fell from 11 percent to less than
4 percent.6

Household composition
Households come in many sizes and types.
Table 6 sets forth a proportional distribution by
major household type for the period 1960 to
1988. Despite definitional differences that do
not allow for full comparability across coun­
tries, broad distinctions and trends are reliable.
Deviations that should be kept in mind involve
the concepts of a married couple and a child.
The classification “married couple” increas­
ingly includes couples living together who are
not legally married. The definition of the age
limit for a child varies considerably from coun­
try to country, ranging from under the age of 16
in Sweden and under 18 in the United States and
several other countries to any age in Germany
and the Netherlands. Finally, the data for
Denmark are derived differently than those for
the other countries. For further information on
all of these points, see the appendix.
Table 6 indicates that all countries shown,
except Japan, are moving in the same direction
in terms of household composition, although

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Births to unmarried women as a percent of all
live births, 10 countries, selected years,

1960-86
Percent change,
1 9 6 0 -8 6
C ountry

1960

1970

1980

1986
All live
births

B irths to
unm arried
w om en

United States.............................
Canada ....................................
Japan ........................................

5.3
4.3
1.2

10.7
9.6
0.9

18.4
11.3
0.8

23.4
16.9
1.0

-12
-22
-14

292
209
-26

Denmark ...................................
France ......................................
Germany ...................................
Italy............................................
Netherlands...............................
Sweden ....................................
United Kingdom.........................

7.8
6.1
6.3
2.4
1.3
11.3
5.2

11.0
6.8
5.5
2.2
2.1
18.4
8.0

33.2
11.4
7.6
4.3
4.1
39.7
11.5

43.9
21.9
9.6
5.6
8.8
48.4
21.0

-27
-5
-55
-39
-23
0
-18

308
243
-2
41
403
329
231

S ources: Statistical Office of the European Communities, Demographic Statistics, 1988; and
various national sources.

some are moving much faster than others.
Married-couple households are declining in
share in all but Japan; however, this category
disguises the different changes occurring in the
households with children, as opposed to those
without children. Married-couple households
without children are holding steady or increas­
ing, while households comprising married cou­
ples with children are declining everywhere.
Single-parent and one-person households are
both on the rise.
All of the trends shown are partly reflections
of the demographic patterns previously dis­
cussed. The erosion of marriage and the in­
crease in divorce rates have brought about the
decrease in the proportion of married-couple
households. The decline would have been even
greater in some countries if cohabiting couples
had been excluded from the more recent statis­
tics. Diminishing fertility rates and aging of the
population, as well as postponement of parent­
hood among those who intend to have children,
are behind the decline in the percentage of mar­
ried couples with children. Divorce rates com­
bine with the sharp rise in births out of wedlock
to propel the increase in single-parent house­
holds. Postponement of marriage, increases in
the incidence of divorce, and the aging of the
population all have played a part in the increase
in the proportion of one-person households. The
next sections examine these trends in further
detail.

Married couples decline
Reflecting a significant change in family pat­
terns, the term “married couple” now encomMonthly Labor Review

March 1990

45

International Perspective o f the Family
passes an increasing number of unmarried co­
habiting couples, particularly in Europe, but
also in Canada. Although “married-couple”
households remain the predominant household
type in all countries, the term has a different
meaning today than it did in 1960, when it was
more likely to refer only to legally married per­
sons. Nowadays, even though cohabitants are
increasingly included as married couples, this
type of household has lost considerable ground
since 1960 in all countries except Japan. The
decline is entirely in households with children.
Couples with children, the traditional nuclear
family, accounted for half or more of all house­
holds in Canada and the Netherlands at the
beginning of the 1960’s. In Japan, too, such
households were virtually half of all house­
holds, while their share was somewhat lower in
the United States (44 percent), Germany, Swe­
den, the United Kingdom, and probably France.
By the mid- to late 1980’s, households com­
prising couples with children had fallen to under
30 percent of all households in the United
States, Denmark, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom. Canada’s and Germany’s proportions
were slightly more than 30 percent, while
France’s was 36 percent. Couples with children
were most prevalent in Japan and the Nether­
lands, where they constituted almost 4 out of
every 10 households. However, it should be
noted that the data for Germany and the Nether­

Table 5.

Average number of
members per household,
10 countries, selected
years, 1960-88

C ountry

1960

1970

1977

1985-881

United States.........
Canada ................
Japan ....................

3.3
3.9
4.1

3.1
3.5
3.4

2.9
22.9
33.3

2.6
2.8
3.1

Denmark ..............
France ..................
Germany ...............
Italy........................
Netherlands...........
Sweden ................
United Kingdoms . . .

2.9
3.1
2.9
3.6
3.6
2.8
3.1

2.7
2.9
2.7
3.4
3.2
2.6
2.9

(4)

2.3
2.6
2.3
2.8
2.5
2.2
2.6

2.8
2.5
3.1
2.9
32.4
2.7

1 1988 for the United States, Denmark, and France; 1987 for
Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands; 1986 for Canada and the
United Kingdom; 1985 for Japan and Sweden.
2 1981.
3 1975.
4 Not available.
5 Great Britain only (excludes Northern Ireland).
S ources : Statistical Office of the European Communities,

Economic and Social Features of Households in the Member
States of the European Community (Luxembourg, eurostat,
1982); and various national sources.

46

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

lands are overstated in relation to the other
countries because such data encompass children
of all ages. Furthermore, the data for Japan and
the Netherlands are for 1985, lagging 2 or 3
years behind the figures for several of the other
countries. Because the trend is downward, 1988
data could show Japan and the Netherlands at
around the level for France.
The share of married-couple households
without children held fairly steady in all coun­
tries except Japan, where such families rose
from 16 percent to 28 percent of all households,
and Canada, which recorded an increase from
27 percent to 32 percent. These households are
actually a diverse group, comprising young cou­
ples who have not yet started their families,
childless couples, and older couples whose chil­
dren have left home. Thus, some of the couples
who appeared as those with children in earlier
years have now moved into the category of
those without children.
Overall, married-couple households ac­
counted for about 3 out of every 4 households in
the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, and
the United Kingdom at the beginning of the
1960’s. They represented 6 or 7 of every 10
households in Japan, Germany, and Sweden at
that time, and probably slightly more than 7 of
every 10 in France. By the mid- to late 1980’s,
such households represented fewer than 2 out of
every 3 households in all countries except
Japan. The United States, Germany, and Swe­
den (and probably also Denmark) had the lowest
proportion of married-couple households, about
55 percent. Excluding unmarried cohabiting
couples, Sweden had well below half (44 per­
cent) of all households in this category in 1985.
If cohabitants classified elsewhere had been in­
cluded in the U.S. figures for married couples,
the late 1980’s proportion would have been
slightly over 60 percent of all households.

Rise of the consensual union
As noted previously, there has been a rapid in­
crease in the incidence of cohabitation outside
of marriage in a number of countries. Such ar­
rangements became much more widespread in
the 1970’s and, by the 1980’s, received more
general acceptance in public opinion. For some
couples, particularly younger ones, consensual
unions may be a temporary arrangement that
eventually leads to marriage. For others, it is an
alternative to the institution of marriage.
A recent public opinion survey in Germany
revealed increasing acceptance of marriages
without licenses. The percentage of respondents
who disapproved of couples living together
without being legally married dropped from 36

Table 6.

Percent distribution of households by type, nine countries, selected years, 1960-88
M arried-cou ple ho useh old s 1
C oun try and year
Total

United States:
I9 6 0

...................................................................................

1970 ...............................................................................................................
1980
..............................................................
1987
............................................................................
1988 ................................................................................................. .............

W ith
children2

W ithout
children2

...................................................................................
...................................................................................

1981

.................................................................................

1986 ................................................... ............... ...........................................

.................................................................................
..........................................................................................

1980

..........................................................................

1985 ............................................................................................... ................

...............................................................................................
........................................................................................

1988 ...............................................................................................................

30.0
29.9

478.0
74.0
6 6 .8
64.5

450.8
46.5
36.3
32.3

426.7
27.5
30.5
32.2

43.8
4.5
5.3
5.6

9.3
13.4
20.3
21.5

48.9
8.1
7.6
8.4

65.3
64.3
68.4
67.4

49.4
44.6
42.9
39.2

15.9
19.7
25.6
28.2

3.1
2.3
2 .2
2.5

17.2
20.3
19.8
2 0 .8

13.1
9.6
9.3

44.5
43.7
41.0

23.5
2 2 .6
19.9

2 1 .0
21.1
21.1

4.9
5.4
5.1

(6)
(6)
(6)

(6)
(6)
(6)

70.1
6 8 .8
67.0
63.4

43.6
42.1
39.7
36.2

26.5
26.8
27.2
27.3

4.2
4.1
4.3
5.1

20.3
22.1
24.6
27.1

5.4
5.0
4.1
4.4

66.7
64.8
60.5
54.3

44.3
41.7
37.0
31.4

22.4
23.1
23.5
22.9

10.8
6.2
6.6
6.7

20.6
26.5
30.2
34.9

1 .9
2 .5
2 .7
4.1

77.6
74.1
66.5
60.0

55.4
51.8
43.7
38.5

22.3
22.3
22.9
21.5

5.7
5.1
6.1
6.7

11.9
17.1
21.4
27.8

4 .8
3 .7
6 .0
5.5

66.4
64.3
57.9
54.8

35.7
30.2
24.8
21.7

30.6
34.1
33.1
33.1

3.5
3.2
3.1
3.2

20.2
25.3
32.8
36.1

9 .9
7 .2
6 .2
5.9

73.7
69.7
64.3
64.0

37.8
34.4
30.5
28.0

36.0
35.2
33.7
36.0

2.3
2.8
4.7
4.0

11.9
18.1
21.8
25.0

12.1
9 .4
9 .2
7 .0

Germany:
1961
1970

..........................................................................................
........................................................................................

1980
............................................................................................
1988 ...............................................................................................................

Netherlands:
1961
1971

........................................................................................
...................................................................................

1981
........................................................................................................
1985 ...............................................................................................................

Sweden:
I9 6 0
1970

........................................................................................
.................................................................................................

1980

.............................................................................

1985 ................................................................................... ...........................

United Kingdom:7
1961
1971

......................................................................................................
........................................................................................................

1981
........................................................................................................
1987 ...............................................................................................................

1 May include unmarried cohabiting couples. Such couples are explicitly included
under married couples in Canada (beginning in 1981) and France. For Sweden,
beginning in 1980, all cohabitants are included as married couples, and the figures
for 1970 have been adjusted by Thora Nilsson (see source note below) to include all
cohabitants. The 1960 data have not been adjusted, but the number of unmarried
cohabitants was insignificant in 1960, according to Nilsson. For Denmark, from 1983
onward, persons reported separately as living in consensual unions with joint chil­
dren have been classified here as married couples. There was no separate reporting
of such persons in 1976. In other countries, some unmarried cohabitants are in­
cluded as married couples, while some are classified under “other households,”
depending on responses to surveys and censuses.
2 Children are defined as unmarried children living at home according to the fol­
lowing age limits: Under 18 years old in the United States, Canada, Japan, Denmark,
and the United Kingdom, except that the United Kingdom includes 16- and 17-yearolds only if they are in full-time education; under 25 years old in France; under 16
years old in Sweden; and children of all ages in Germany and the Netherlands.

3 Includes both family and nonfamily households not elsewhere classified. These
households comprise, for example, siblings residing together, other households
composed of relatives, and households made up of roommates. Some unmarried
cohabiting couples may also be included in the “other” group. (See footnote 1.)


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

23.6
24.0

8 .2
7.4
9.0
10.7
11.1

4.4
5.0
7.5
8.1
8 .0

France:
19 6 8
.....................................................................
1975 ...............................................................................................................
1982
...............................................................................................
1988 ...............................................................................................................

13.1
17.1
22.7

30.1
30.3
29.9

Denmark:5
1976
1983

O ther
househ old s3

44.2
40.3
30.9
27.5
27.0

Japan:
I9 6 0
1970

O ne-person
households

74.3
70.5
60.8
57.6
56.9

Canada:
*1961
197-1

Single-parent
househ old s2

14.4

4 Estimated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, based on ratios of adjusted to
unadjusted series in 1971. See source note on Canada.
5 From family-based statistics. However, one person living alone constitutes a
family in Denmark. In this respect, the Danish data are closer to household statistics.
3 Not available.
7 Great Britain only (excludes Northern Ireland).
S ources : Compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from national population
censuses, household surveys, and other sources. For the United States, data are
from the March Current Population Survey; for Denmark, data are from the Central
Population Register; for Canada, Japan, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Swe­
den, and the United Kingdom, data are from population censuses, with the following
exceptions: French data for 1988 and British data for 1987 are from household
surveys; German data for 1970,1980, and 1988 are from the Microcensus; Dutch
data for 1981 and 1985 are from Housing Demand Surveys. Data for Sweden for
1960,1970, and 1980 are adjusted for historical comparability by Thora Nilsson of
Statistics Sweden in the article “Les ménages en Suède, 1960-1980” [Households
in Sweden, 1960-1980], Population, no. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1985, pp. 223-48. Data for
Canada (1971,1981, and 1986) have been adjusted to U.S. concepts by Statistics
Canada.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

47

International Perspective o f the Family

Almost all
developed
countries have
seen a decline in
fertility rates,
aging of the
population, an
erosion of the
institution of
marriage, and a
rapid increase in
childbirths out of
wedlock.

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for4 8FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

percent in 1982 to 27 percent in 1989, and cor­
respondingly, the notion that unmarried couples
should enjoy the same legal recognition and ad­
vantages as married couples received more sup­
port.7 Germany is a country where the number
of consensual unions has remained low, com­
pared with the rest of Europe.
The high marriage rate in the United States
means that, so far at least, the country has
maintained a fairly low level of nonmarital co­
habitation, a rate lower than in most European
countries and in a different league entirely from
Scandinavia. The Census Bureau reports the
number of households comprising two unrelated
adults of the opposite sex, with or without
children. Although some may be roommate or
landlord-tenant arrangements, most of these
households can be viewed as consensual
unions.8 None are included in the marriedcouple data in table 6; rather, they are classified
in the “other households” group. According to
the Census Bureau data, the incidence of such
arrangements has risen from 1.2 percent of all
couples living together in 1970 to 3.1 percent in
1980 and 4.7 percent in 1988. Moreover, these
percentages are understated to the extent that
people in common-law marriages report them­
selves as married couples and are, therefore, not
included in these statistics. By definition, no
more than two unrelated adults are present in an
unmarried-couple household, but the household
also may contain one or more children. About 3
out of every 10 unmarried-couple households
included a child under 15 (not age 18, as in
other U.S. statistics on children) in 1988,
slightly higher than the proportion for 1980.
Thus, a minority of consensual unions in the
United States involve a parent-child family
group.
The U.S. figures on consensual unions are
low in comparison with those of Europe and
Canada. In Canada, 8 percent of all couples
lived in common-law marriages in 1986, and all
are included among the married couples in
table 6.
Sweden and the Netherlands have recorded
rapid increases in consensual unions. In Swe­
den, the proportion of such unions rose from
only 1 percent of all couples in 1960 to 11 per­
cent in 1975 and 19 percent in 1985. In the
Netherlands, the ratio rose from 11 percent in
1982 to 19 percent in 1988. Thus, about 1 in
every 5 couples in these two countries is living
together out of wedlock.
Denmark reports that the number of couples
in consensual unions with joint children rose
from 4 percent of all families with children in
1982 to 8 percent in 1988. The proportion of all
consensual unions among couples living toMarch 1990

gether is undoubtedly far higher.
In France, nonmarital cohabitation increased
from 3 percent of all couples in 1975 to more
than 6 percent in 1982 and 8 percent in 1988.
Table 7, which shows the percent of all French
men and women in consensual unions or mar­
riages by age group in 1988, illustrates the fact
that cohabitation occurs predominantly in the
younger age groups.
As in France, the younger age groups in Swe­
den have a higher incidence of cohabitation. For
instance, in 1980, 4 out of every 5 unmarried
Swedish men ages 20 to 24 were living in a
consensual union, as were 68 percent of all un­
married women in that age group. In the age
group 25 to 29, the proportions were 49 percent
and 35 percent, respectively. Virtually all
Swedes now cohabit before marriage.9
Sweden has long been permissive about pre­
marital sexual relations, and even in the 1950’s
it was not uncommon for marriages to occur
around the time the first child was to be bom.
The difference today is that nonmarital cohabi­
tation is regarded legally and culturally as an
accepted alternative, rather than a prelude to
marriage. This is reflected by the fact that the
average period over which Swedish couples re­
main unmarried lengthens each year, with a
growing number never marrying at all.10 The
rapidly declining influence of childbirth on mar­
riage is brought into focus by the data presented
earlier on the percentage of children bom out of
wedlock. Statistics Sweden has been modifying
its family statistics to take into account the in-

Table 7.

Percent of French men and
women in marriages or
consensual unions, by age,

1988
S ex and age

M arried

In consensual union

1 8 -2 4 .........................
1 8 -1 9 .......................
2 0 -2 4 .......................
2 5 -2 9 .........................
3 0 -3 4 .........................
35 and over ...........

4.7
0
6.5
42.7
67.4
78.7

6.1
.1
8.4
14.5
9.8
3.4

14.0
.7
19.0
55.9
71.7
63.5

10.4
1.8
13.7
12.3
7.6
2.1

Men:

Women:
1 8 -2 4 .........................
1 8 -1 9 .......................
2 0 - 2 4 .......................
2 5 -2 9 .........................
3 0 -3 4 .........................
35 and over ...........

S ource: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études
Économiques, Enquête sur l’emploi de 1988: résultats détaillés
[Labor Force Survey of 1988: Detailed Results], Les Collections
de L’INSEE, Série D, no. 128 (Paris, INSEE, October 1988),
table MEN-07, pp. 104-05.

creasing incidence of cohabitation. Thus, fig­
ures on family formation and family dissolution
are replacing data on marriage and divorce,
respectively.
British surveys also indicate that consensual
unions have become more prevalent there.11
The proportion of women ages 18 to 49 who
were cohabiting more than doubled between
1979 and 1987. In the latter year, about 11 per­
cent of all women ages 18 to 24 were cohabit­
ing, about the same proportion as in France for
this age group. The figure for British women
ages 25 to 49 was 5 percent. Cohabitation is
more prevalent at ages 25 to 29 for men and
ages 20 to 24 for women. British men tend to be
a few years older than their partners, as is the
case in France and Sweden. Women and men
who are divorced are more likely than those of
other marital status to be cohabiting.
Estimates for Germany indicate that consen­
sual unions have not reached significant propor­
tions there. In 1981, only about 3 percent of all
couples were cohabiting outside of marriage.
However, the increase in numbers has been
great, from 100,000 in 1972 to 440,000 in
1981. These figures may well be too low, be­
cause some German couples living in consen­
sual unions claim to be married.12
The rise of the consensual union is a signifi­
cant move away from the traditional nuclear
form of the family. In particular, there is a
higher rate of family dissolution among unmar­
ried as opposed to married couples in all coun­
tries. Thus, where consensual unions are
significantly numerous, official divorce statis­
tics do not encompass the extent of family
breakup.

Single-parent families increase
Intercountry comparisons of single-parent
families are restricted by variations in defini­
tions. The main issues relate to the upper age
limit for children and the presence or absence of
cohabiting parents. (See appendix.) For the
comparison presented in table 8, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics has obtained data for recent
years using the under-18 age limit for chil­
dren— the U.S. definition— allowing for more
valid international comparisons of lone-parent
households.
All countries shown in table 8, except Japan,
have experienced significant increases in single­
parent households as a proportion of all family
households with children. Allowing for defini­
tional differences, it is clear that the United
States has the highest proportion of single­
parent households. (See chart 1.) In 1988, more
than 1 in 5 U.S. households with dependent

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

children were single-parent households, up
from fewer than 1 in 10 in 1960. Only Denmark
approaches the U.S. level in the 1980’s, and the
Danish data are overstated because they count
single-parent families instead of households;
that is, they include single parents who are part
of a larger household, while the U.S. figures
exclude such parents. (In 1987, one-parent fam­
ily groups in the United States represented 27
percent of all families with children; this figure
is more comparable to the Danish proportion of
20 percent.) In France, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom, the incidence of lone parent­
hood was in the range of 10 percent to 15 per­
cent of all households with children. Using the
under-18 age limit, Sweden’s proportion of
lone-parent families in 1985 was closer to the
U.S. proportion in 1980, but well below the
U.S. figure in 1988. Of the countries covered in
table 8, Japan had by far the lowest incidence of
single parenthood: 5 percent to 6 percent of all
households with children in the period since
1960. This is to be expected, given the low rates
of divorce and births out of wedlock in Japan.
The paths to single parenthood are numerous:
Marriage and childbirth with subsequent wid­
owhood; separation or divorce; and childbirth
without marriage or consensual union. Combi­
nations of events may lead to an exit from
or reentry into single-parent status— for exam­
ple, divorce and subsequent remarriage. The
growth in the number of single-parent families
has some common demographic elements in all
the countries studied.
In Europe and North America, there is a
growing proportion of those entering single par­
enthood through marital dissolution (separation
and divorce) and childbirth outside marriage,
and a diminishing share arising through the pre­
mature death of a spouse. Prior to the last three
decades, single-parent families were usually
formed as the result of the death of one of the
parents.
A recent study indicates that, with the excep­
tion of the United States, the growth of divorced
and separated mothers was responsible for the
vast majority of the net increase in one-parent
families since 1970.13 In the United States, fam­
ily dissolution also accounted for the majority of
the net increase, but the growing number of
never-married mothers contributed about 40
percent of the increase as well. Even in Japan,
divorce or separation has become the predomi­
nant route to single parenthood.
Another common characteristic is that the
great majority of single-parent households are
headed by women. In every country, 85 to 90
percent of all heads of single-parent families are
women.

There has been a
rapid increase in
the incidence of
cohabitation
outside of
marriage in a
number of
countries.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

49

International Perspective o f the Family
In all countries, single-parent families fre­
quently have low incomes, and they are more
likely than other families to experience poverty.
Families headed by women are often in eco­
nomic difficulty because of the absence of the
father and his resources, the limited earnings of
many women, and the immense difficulties of
reconciling paid work and family obligations.
The pressures on countries to address the re­
quirements of these families efficiently and ef­
fectively are increasing.
Indicative of the financial instability of such
families in the United States is the fact that the

Table 8.

average difference between after-tax income
and total expenditures of single-parent house­
holds in 1984-85 was negative.14 A recent Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics study indicated that
unmarried women maintaining families are the
workers with the greatest risk of living in
poverty and almost one-fourth of these families
are poor.15 An Organisation for Economic Co­
operation and Development conference paper
revealed that lone-parent family incomes were
only half as much as two-parent family incomes
in the United Kingdom and the United States, a
little closer in France, and about four-fifths as

Family households with children and single-parent households in
nine countries, selected years, 1960-88

[Numbers in thousands]

fo r children, year

United States
Under 18:
1960 ...
1970 .. .
1980 ...
1988 ...

Total fam ily
households
w ith children

S in gle-paren t
households

N um ber

P ercent
o f total

25,662
28,731
31,022
31,920

2,329
3,199
6,061
7,320

9.1
11.1
19.5
22.9

3,076
3,441
3,406

271
438
503

8.8
12.7
14.8

Canada
Under 18:
1971 ..
1981 ..
1986 ..
No limit:
1981 ..
1986 ..
Under 25:
1961 ..
1971 ..

4,122
4,335

639
770

15.5
17.8

12,725
13,391

266
408

9.8
12.0

Japan
Under 18:
1960 ..
1970 ..
1980 ..
1985 ..

11,839
14,228
16,147
15,836

707
710
796
940

6.0
5.0
4.9
5.9

Denmark2
Under 18:
1976 ..
1983 ..
1988 ..

731
717
674

126
139
137

17.2
19.4
20.3

France
Under 18:
1988 ..

7,070

769

10.9

ily data.
2 Data are from family-based, rather than household-based,
statistics. (See note.)
3 Great Britain only (excludes Northern Ireland).
4 Includes all children under 16 and those ages 16 or 17 who are
in full-time education.
5 Not available because survey data were not inflated to uni­
verse levels.
Note: Intercountry comparisons should be made with caution
due to differing age limits and different treatments of unmarried

50

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

C ountry, ag e lim it
fo r children, year

Under 25:
1968 ...........
1975 ...........
1982 ...........
1988 ...........
Germany
Under 18:
1972 ...........
1980 ...........
1988 ...........
Netherlands
Under 18:
1981 ...........
1985 ...........
No limit:
1961 ...........
1971 ...........
1981 ...........
1985 ...........
Sweden
Under 18:
1985 ...........
Under 16:
1960 ...........
1970 ...........
1980 ...........
1985 ...........
United Kingdom3
Under 18:4
1961 ...........
1971 ...........
1981 ...........
1987 ...........

Total fam ily
households
w ith children

S in gle-paren t
households

N um ber

P ercent
o f total

7,532
8,189
8,628
8,613

658
726
847
1,070

8.7
8.9
9.8
12.4

8,872
8,391
6,918

707
879
934

8.0
10.5
13.5

2,005
1,950

176
240

8.8
12.3

1,903
2,270
2,522
2,527

177
202
309
376

9.3
8.9
12.3
14.9

1,051

178

16.9

1,015
1,019
978
913

91
98
110
117

9.0
9.6
12.8

6,484
6,820
6,866
(5)

367
515
916
(5)

5.7
7.6
13.3
12.7

11.2

cohabiting couples across countries. Some households of unmar­
ried cohabitants may be classified as single-parent households in
all countries except Canada (1981,1986), Denmark (1983,1988),
France, and Sweden. Except in Denmark, single-parent house­
holds living as part of a larger household are excluded.
Sources : Compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from
sources listed in table 6; unpublished data provided by foreign
statistical offices and John Ermisch, “Demographic Aspects of the
Growing Number of Lone-Parent Families,” Paper No. 2, prepared
for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop­
ment’s Conference of National Experts on Lone Parents, Paris,
Dec. 15-17, 1987.

C hart 1.

S in g le -p a re n t households as a p e rce n t of all households
w ith children under 18, nine countries, la te s t availab le y ea r
Percent

Denmark

1988
Sweden

19 8 5
Canada

1986

Germany

1988

United Kingdom

19 8 7
19 8 5

Netherlands

1988

France

Japan

much in the Netherlands.16
Great Britain was the first among the Eu­
ropean countries to carry out an extensive offi­
cial study of single-parent families, with special
attention focused on mothers-only families. The
Finer Committee was established by the Gov­
ernment in the early 1970’s to study the prob­
lems of these families, and a well-publicized
report was issued in 1974. The report recom­
mended a policy goal of assuring that single
mothers and their children have enough income
to provide an adequate standard of living even if
the mother is not in the work force, and that it
not be assumed that the caretaker should go out
to work. The report’s recommendations have
still not been implemented, and discussion of
the problem and the need for more concerted
attention continues.17
All industrialized countries except the United
States have family allowance programs that pro­
vide cash payments to families with children. In
addition, the Scandinavian countries provide
special benefits for single parents. For example,
the Swedish Government assumes the responsi­
bility for collecting child support payments
from the absent parent. When this parent fails to
pay or pays irregularly, the Government makes
the payment to the custodial parent, assuring a

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

25

:United Statea

1988

19 85

20

15

10

regular flow of income. The Government also
guarantees a minimum level of support for each
child. Further, Swedish single parents receive
housing allowances, parental leave, and other
benefits designed to ease the tension between
work and family life. Unlike Great Britain,
Sweden assumes that the single parent will
work, usually on a part-time basis. Support for
single mothers is much more extensive in Swe­
den than elsewhere; however, recent analyses
reveal that single-mother families are still
strongly disadvantaged economically.18

More persons living alone
Historically, virtually all household units have
been families in some form. To live in a house­
hold was at the same time to live in a family.
This is no longer the case. Many households in
modem societies do not contain families, and
the one-person household is the most common
type of nonfamily household. Except in Japan,
this type of household has shown the most rapid
growth of all household types since 1960.
In the United States, one-person households
increased their share from 13 percent of all
households in 1960 to virtually one-quarter of
all households in 1988. (See table 6.) France,
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

51

International Perspective o f the Family

Except in Japan,
the one-person
household has
shown the most
rapid growth of
all household
types since 1960.

52

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom
reached about the same level in the 1980’s.
Sweden and Germany have even higher propor­
tions of single-person households. In Germany,
they make up about 3 out of every 10 house­
holds;19 in Sweden, they are approaching 4 out
of every 10. Meanwhile, Canada and Japan
have much lower proportions of these house­
holds than the other countries, about 1 out of
every 5.
The fastest growing groups in the livingalone category tend to be young people in thenlate teens and twenties, the divorced and sepa­
rated, and the elderly. In many cases, living
alone is the voluntary choice of people who can
afford separate housing coupled with the in­
creased availability of such housing; higher per­
sonal incomes and pensions over the past three
decades have allowed people who want to live
alone to do so. From this point of view, living
alone can be seen as a privilege of affluent peo­
ple and an expression of individual autonomy.20
Sweden has built a large number of apart­
ments in urban areas that are ideal for single
people. This new housing has helped to increase
the incidence of living alone in all age groups,
especially among the young and middle aged,
for whom living alone had been a historical rar­
ity. In Sweden, the fastest growth in living
alone has been among the younger age groups.21
A French study reveals that one-person
households grow with the degree of urbaniza­
tion.22 That is, rural people tend to live in
families, whereas urban people increasingly live
alone. In Paris, for example, nearly 50 percent
of the dwellings are one-person households.
Swedish studies also find that one-person
households are predominantly in urban areas,
and this is likely to be true in all countries.23
A five-country study of living arrangements
of young adults looked at how income from
various sources affected the decision to live
alone.24 The study showed that German youth
had a much higher propensity to live separately
than did young people in the United States,
Canada, the United Kingdom, or Australia.
Among the five countries, youth in the United
States and the United Kingdom had the lowest
propensities to live alone. Earnings levels were
positively correlated with living alone in the
United States and the United Kingdom, and to a
lesser extent in Australia, but in Germany there
was no such correlation.
At the other end of the age spectrum, the
proportion of the elderly living alone is gener­
ally high and increasing. The proportion of
persons 65 years of age or older living by them­
selves at various times during the 1980’s is
given in the following tabulation:25
March 1990

Country

Percent
living alone

United States ......... ............................ 3 0 .4
Canada ................... ............................ 2 7 .7
Japan ..................... ............................
8 .6
Denmark ............... ............................ 3 8 .3
France ................... ............................ 3 2 .6
Germany ............... ............................ 3 8 .9
Netherlands ........... ............................ 3 1 .3
Sweden................... ............................ 4 0 .0
United Kingdom . .. ............................ 3 0 .3
In Japan, the figure is low because nearly 65
percent of the elderly still live with their chil­
dren in either two- or three-generation house­
holds. There is a sharp contrast between East
and West in this area: among persons age 75 or
older in Japan, fully three-quarters live with
their children; in the United States, about 1 in
4 persons 65 or older lives with his or her
children.26
Women outlive men, on average, and women
tend to be younger than their spouses. There­
fore, the proportion of elderly women living
alone is much higher than that of elderly men in
all countries studied. In the United States, about
16 percent of all men and 40 percent of all
women 65 and older live alone. These propor­
tions are similar to those for the European coun­
tries, except that in Germany and Scandinavia,
about half of all elderly women live alone. In all
the countries studied, women constitute about
four-fifths of all one-person households main­
tained by people 65 and older.
The importance of elderly citizens in overall
national household profiles is apparent in the
percentage of single-person households in the
countries studied that were maintained by an
elderly person. In Germany, more than 30 per­
cent of all households are one-person house­
holds, and half of these are individuals age 65 or
older. Thus, more than 15 percent of all house­
holds in Germany consist of one elderly person.
In the United Kingdom, about two-thirds of
single-person households consist of one elderly
person, and proportions for Denmark, France,
and the Netherlands are also high. In the United
States, persons 65 and older account for 40 per­
cent of all persons living alone.
Among older persons, living alone is most
often the result of having outlived a spouse.
Consequently, the likelihood of living alone in­
creases with age, although there may be a de­
cline at the oldest ages, when the elderly enter
nursing homes or homes for the aged or take in
companions or boarders in a search for addi­
tional income or assistance.27
Both numbers and proportions of elderly liv­
ing alone have risen sharply during the past
three decades, although the rise in the propor-

tion may be leveling off in North America. The
number of elderly residing alone in the United
Kingdom more than doubled between 1961 and
1981. In Germany, 37 percent of all widows
lived alone in 1961; by 1981, the proportion was
up to 63 percent. These figures partly reflect the
large number of postwar widows still living
with their children in 1961, but who lived alone
by 1981 as their children married and moved
away. For widowers, the proportion living
alone rose from 41 percent to 72 percent.
Among persons who were divorced, the propor­
tion living alone hardly changed, as remarriage
and cohabitation were choices that were pre­
ferred to living alone. German data also indicate
a strong increase in never-married persons liv­
ing alone.28

Mothers at work
The developed countries have witnessed notable
increases in women’s labor force participation
since 1960, with an acceleration in the 1970’s.
More and more, these increases have involved
mothers of dependent children, with profound
effects on family life because of the problems of
reconciling employment with family responsi­
bilities. Consequently, the availability of child
care facilities has become a significant issue for
many families in these countries.
As women have entered the work force in
increasing numbers, marriages have been post­
poned, the average size of the family has
declined, and the divorce rate has risen. The
increased economic independence of women,
through labor force activity, has been a major
factor behind changes in the traditional family
over the past three decades.
The increases in women’s labor force partici­
pation have been universal across age groups,
except for teenagers in Japan and Europe and
elderly women in all the countries studied. Most
dramatic has been the rise in labor force partic­
ipation for women 25 to 34 years of age, as
shown in the following tabulation:
Country
U n ited States ....................
C anada .................................
Japan ....................................
D enm ark ............................
France .................................
G erm any ............................
Italy (a g es 2 5 - 3 9 ) ..........
N etherlan ds .......................
S w e d e n .................................
U n ited K in g d o m .............
*bls estimate.
**Not available.
***1977 data.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1970

1988

4 4 .7
* 4 1 .2
4 6 .8
**

7 2 .6
7 4 .9
5 4 .5
9 0 .0
7 4 .5
6 1 .5
6 0 .8
5 5 .4
8 9 .4
6 6 .0

5 2 .2
4 7 .6
2 3 .9
6 0 .7
4 3 .3

Table 9.

Labor force participation rates of all women
under age 601 and women with children under
the ages of 18 and 3, eight countries, 1986 or
1988r

[In percent]
A ll w om en
w ith children
C ountry

Lone m others3
w ith children

A ll w om en
U nder 18
years old

U nder 3
years old

U nder 18
years old

U nder 3
years old

United States..............
Canada ......................

68.5
66.8

65.0
467.0

52.5
58.4

65.3
463.6

45.1
41.3

Denmark ....................
Germany ....................
France ........................
Italy.............................
Sweden ......................
United Kingdom...........

79.2
55.8
60.1
43.3
80.0
64.3

86.1
48.4
65.8
43.9
489.4
58.7

83.9
39.7
60.1
45.0
585.8
36.9

85.9
69.7
85.2
67.2
(6)
51.9

80.9
50.4
69.6
68.0
(6)
23.4

1 Women ages 60 to 64 are included in
Canada and Sweden. Lower age limits are 16
for the United States and Sweden, 15 for
Canada, and 14 for all other countries. For par­
ticipation rates of women with children, no up­
per limit is applied for the United States or
Canada. These differences do not distort the
comparisons because very few women under
16 have children, while few women over 60 live
with their children.
2 Data for the United States are for March
1988; Canada and Sweden—annual averages
for 1988; data for all other countries are for
spring 1986.

3 Includes divorced, separated, never-mar­
ried, and widowed women.
4 Children under 16 years.
5 Children under 7 years.
6 Not available.
S ources : Published data from U.S., Cana­
dian, and Swedish labor force surveys; unpub­
lished data for other countries provided by the
Statistical Office of the European Communities
from the European Community labor force
surveys.

Women ages 25 to 34 are in the primary
childbearing and childrearing ages. In most of
the countries shown, fewer than half of such
women were in the work force in 1970. By
1988, a substantial majority were in the labor
force, except in Japan and the Netherlands.
Still, the Dutch women increased their partici­
pation from a low among these countries of 24
percent in 1970 to 55 percent in 1988.
Swedish women were already participating at
a comparatively high rate of 60 percent in 1970,
and by 1988, almost 9 out of every 10 Swedish
women ages 25 to 34 were in the labor force.
Danish and Swedish women in this age group
had the highest participation rates, by far.
Table 9 focuses on participation rates of
women with children under the age of 18 and
under the age of 3 in a recent year in eight
countries. Except for Italy, women with
younger children tended to have lower partici­
pation rates than women with children under
age 18. Danish and Swedish women continued
to stand out, with more than 8 out of every 10
women with younger children participating in
the work force. (The Swedish proportions are
based on women with children under age 7;
proportions for those with children under age 3
would be somewhat lower.) French and CanaMonthly Labor Review

March 1990

53

International Perspective o f the Family

More than other
advanced
industrial
societies, Sweden
has explicitly
recognized the
dilemmas of
employed parents
and has adopted
programs to
address them.

54

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

dian women, with about 6 out of 10 economi­
cally active, were second to the Scandinavian
women. In the United States, about 5 out of 10
women with children under age 3 were in the
labor force. The participation rates for German
and British women were substantially lower
than in the other countries.
Although no historical data are shown in
table 9, it is clear that there has been a dramatic
increase in participation rates of women with
younger children. For example, about 40 per­
cent of Swedish women with children under the
age of 7 (the age at which compulsory schooling
begins) were employed in 1970; today, 85 per­
cent are working. In Canada, women’s overall
participation rate increased from 45 percent in
1976 to 55 percent in 1986, and the greatest
increase involved women with children under
3 years of age.
Table 9 also shows participation rates for
mothers without partners. In the United States,
Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom,
single mothers with young children had lower
participation rates than all mothers with young
children. By contrast, in France, Germany, and
Italy, single mothers of young children had
higher participation rates than their married
counterparts.
The dramatic growth in female participation
in the labor force has contributed toward sub­
stantial political pressures for more child care
services in all the countries studied. Decades of
both national and international debate, task
forces, and commissions have resulted in a wide
variety of responses. In all the countries, there
have been two factors besides the participation
of women in the labor force that have fueled the
increase in demand for child care: Changes in
family structure and changing parental attitudes
and needs. As regards the first, with smaller
families, there are fewer relatives to care for
young children. Also, additional pressure for
child care facilities has been brought about by
the rise in single-parent families. Concerning
parental attitudes, in the past, most parents pre­
ferred to raise their children during the early
years within the family environment. Now,
however, more and more families, whether the
mother is working or not, are turning to day care
centers, nurseries, and preschool programs to
foster the intellectual, social, and emotional de­
velopment of their children. As an example,
preference studies in Canada show that both
working and nonworking parents have a high
propensity to choose licensed day care for
children ages 3 to 5. There appears to be less
preference for infant care, although studies
vary in their conclusions as to whether this is

March 1990

There are wide differences in child care serv­
ices across countries. In Europe, broadly speak­
ing, the highest levels are found in Denmark,
Sweden, and France, and the lowest in the
United Kingdom and the Netherlands. As a per­
cent of gross national product, Denmark spends
more than six times as much for services for
children under age 5 than does the United King­
dom. In Denmark, 44 percent of all children age
2 or younger attend publicly funded day care
facilities on a full-time basis. This contrasts
with 1 percent to 2 percent of all very young
children in the United Kingdom and the Nether­
lands, and 16 percent to 17 percent in France. In
the United States, one estimate indicates that
about 20 percent of children under the age of 3
were in day care in 1984-85, largely part time.
About 12 percent of children under age 3 were
in day care in Canada.30
In all of the countries, the supply of publicly
funded services is inadequate relative to the de­
mand. Even in Denmark, with its high level of
services and its population of only 5 million,
present waiting lists suggest an unmet need of
approximately 40,000 spaces.31 Sweden also
has a shortage of full-time day care spaces.
About 55,000 children who need a place cannot
be served. The Swedish Parliament recently de­
cided that all children older than years whose
parents are working shall have a right to public
day care after the year 1991.32
Canada’s National Day Care Information
Center estimates that licensed day care facilities
serve only 7 percent of the need for spaces for
children under 18 months of age. Overall, li­
censed day care facilities serve 12 percent of the
estimated need for spaces for Canadian children
age 12 and under.33
Public debate regarding the possible negative
effects of employment on parenting has been
nowhere more spirited than in Sweden. Con­
sequently, Sweden has adopted legislative re­
forms expressly intended to alleviate the
contradictions between work and family needs.
These reforms include paid parental leave for
either father or mother, time off from work to
take care of a sick child, publicly supported day
care, and the option of part-time work for par­
ents of preschool children. There is widespread
acceptance of these parental supports through­
out the country.34 More than other advanced
industrial societies, Sweden has explicitly re­
cognized the dilemmas of employed parents and
has adopted programs to address them.
One aspect of the Swedish family support
system bears further mention. Swedish parents
have the right to stay home and take care of their
newborn infant for quite a long time without risk
of losing their jobs. They are guaranteed an

economic standard corresponding to their previ­
ous salary, paid by the social insurance system.
Up to 1977, the time during which financial
support was provided was limited to 7 months;
it has subsequently been increased in stages to
15 months as of July 1989, the last 3 of which,
however, are funded at a greatly reduced level.
By mid-1991, parental leave will be available
for 18 months with full financial benefits.35
Either mother or father can take advantage of
the parental leave, or they can take turns. No
other country offers such a generous system of
parental leave.
Like Sweden, Denmark provides extensive
family support programs that have eased the
entry of a very high proportion of mothers into
the labor force. Women employees have a right
to be absent from work for 4 weeks prior to
childbirth. After the baby’s birth, the mother
has a right to be absent from work a total of 24
weeks, of which up to 10 weeks may be used by
the father. During their parental leaves, the
mother and father are entitled to cash payments
in compensation for their loss of income
amounting to a maximum of 2,126 kroner per
week, the equivalent of 67 percent of average
industrial wages. Parents with low incomes re­
ceive 90 percent of their former pay, and those
with high incomes receive the stipulated weekly
maximum.36

Conclusion
During the past three decades, the family has
undergone major transformations in all de­
veloped countries. The general direction of
household composition patterns suggests a
common contemporary trend to which all devel­
oped countries are a party, to a greater or lesser

degree. Four major demographic develop­
ments— declining fertility, aging of the popula­
tion, rising divorce rates, and an increasing inci­
dence of childbirth out of wedlock— are
underlying factors in the transformation of the
modem family.
Japan is the most traditional society of the
countries studied, with very low rates of divorce
and births out of wedlock. It was the only coun­
try with an increase in the proportion of
married-couple households since 1960. But
even in Japan, the traditional nuclear family—
mother, father, and children— lost ground. And
Japan preceded the other countries in the decline
in fertility rates.
Among the countries studied, the United
States is either a leader or a follower, depending
on the trend. We are a country of relative family
traditionalism, as evidenced by our greater tend­
ency to marry, and at an earlier age, than per­
sons in other countries and to have slightly
larger families; moreover, our rate of nonmarital cohabitation is still relatively low, compared
with European countries, and so is our tendency
to live alone. Women with young children in
Scandinavia and France are well ahead of their
American counterparts with respect to labor
force participation and access to child care
services.
Nonetheless, the United States is by no
means a land of family stability. We have long
had the highest incidence of divorce and single­
parent families. The United States surpasses
even Scandinavia in its nontraditionalism in
regard to these two indicators. Thus, in some
respects, this Nation is catching up to other de­
veloped countries, but in certain other respects,
the rest of the developed world is following the
United States.
□

Footnotes
A cknowledgments: The author thanks the following per­
sons in national statistical offices for providing special tabu­
lations and expert interpretation of their data: Pierre Parent,
Statistics Canada; Anita Lange, Danish Statistical Office;
O. Marchand, French National Institute o f Statistics and
Economic Studies; Hans-Ludwig Mayer and Hannelore
Poschl, German Federal Statistical Office; J.T.M . Laanen,
C. A. Van Bochove, and G. Bruinooge, Netherlands Central
Bureau o f Statistics; and Sten Johansson, Director General,
and Leif Heinstedt, Statistics Sweden. Thanks also to Bar­
bara Torrey, Chief, Center for International Research, U .S.
Bureau o f the Census, and her staff, for providing advice
and relevant statistical publications; to Neil Bain of the
Statistical Office o f the European Communities, for provid­
ing unpublished tabulations from the Communities’ labor
force surveys; and to Todd Godbout of the Division of
Foreign Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for
translating numerous French documents.
1 Ageing Populations: The Social Policy Implications
(Paris, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Devel-


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

opment, 1988), p. 12.
2 David Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest: Family Change
and Decline in Modern Societies (New York, Aldine De
Gruyter, 1988), p. 283.
3Jean-Paul Sardon, “Évolution de la nuptialité et de la
divortialité en Europe depuis la fin des années 1960” [Move­
ment in Marriage and Divorce Rates in Europe since the
Late 1960’s], Population, no. 3, M ay-June 1986, pp. 4 6 3 82. Population is the journal of the French National Institute
of Demographic Studies.
4 Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest, p. 173.
5 United Nations, Demographic Yearbook 1986 (New
York, United Nations, 1988), tables 23 and 33.
6 Karl Schwarz, “Les ménages en République Fédérale
d’Allemagne: 1961, 1972, 1981” [Households in the Fed­
eral Republic of Germany: 1961, 1972, 1981], Population,
no. 3, May-June 1983, pp. 5 65-83.
7 Study by Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Re-

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

55

International Perspective o f the Family
search, as reported in “The Week in Germany,” German
Information Center, New York, Sept. 8, 1989, p. 7.
8 Households, Families, Marital Status and Living Ar­
rangements: March 1988, Current Population Reports,
Series P-20, No. 432 (Advance Report) (Bureau of the Cen­
sus, September 1988), p. 2.
9 Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest, p. 170. Popenoe states
that only an estimated 2 percent of Swedish women marry­
ing today have not previously cohabited with their
husbands-to-be or with some other man, compared with
nearly 50 percent o f women bom in the 1930’s.
10 Popenoe, pp. 170-71.
11 Office o f Population Censuses and Surveys, General
Household Survey 1986 (London, Her Majesty’s Stationery
O ffice, 1989), pp. 2 3 -2 4 .
12 Schwarz, “Les ménages,” pp. 572 -7 4 .
13 John Ermisch, “Demographic Aspects of the Growing
Number o f Lone-Parent Families,” Organisation for Eco­
nomic Cooperation and Development Conference of Na­
tional Experts on Lone Parents, Paris, Dec. 15-17, 1987,
Paper No. 2, pp. 3 -6 .
14 Mark Lino, “Financial Status o f Single-Parent House­
holds,” Family Economics Review, vol. 2, no. 1, 1989,
p. 6.
15 Bruce W. Klein and Philip L. Rones, “A profile o f the
working p o o r Monthly Labor Review, October 1989, p. 3.
16 Michael O ’Higgins, “Lone-Parent Families in OECD
Countries: Numbers and Socio-Economic Characteristics,”
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Conference o f National Experts on Lone Parents, Paris,
Dec. 1 5-17, 1987, Paper No. 3, pp. 2 6 -3 3 . For interna­
tional comparisons o f poverty rates among children, see
Timothy M. Smeeding and Barbara B. Torrey, “Poor Chil­
dren in Rich Countries,” Science, Nov. 11, 1988, pp. 8 7 3 77. See also Elizabeth Diskin, “Lone-Parenthood and the
Low-Income Trap,” oecd Observer, August-September
1988, pp. 22-25; and Gertrude S. Goldberg and Eleanor
Kremen, Feminization of Poverty: Only in America? (New
York, Greenwood Press, forthcoming).
17 For a discussion o f policies regarding single-parent
families in the United States and abroad, see Sheila B.
Kamerman and Alfred J. Kahn, Mothers Alone: Strategies
for a Time o f Change (Dover, m a , Auburn House, 1988).

Digitized for5 6FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

18 Kamerman and Kahn, Mothers Alone, pp. 95-1 0 0 .
19 The German figures on one-person households in table
6 are inflated somewhat by the practice (unique to Germany)
o f double-counting people who maintain more than one
household. For example, the same person can have two
households if he or she uses a rented apartment because of
work in a city other than the one in which the principal
residence is maintained. This second household is counted
as a single-person household in the German statistics. See
Louis Roussel, “Évolution récente de la structure des
ménages dans quelques pays industriels” [Recent trends in
the structure of households in several industrialized coun­
tries], Population, no. 6, November-December 1986,
p. 916.

March 1990

20 Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest, p. 194.
21 Popenoe, p. 176. See also Thora Nilsson, “Les mé­
nages en Suède, 1960-1980,” [Households in Sweden,
1960-1980], Population, no. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1985, pp. 2 3 4 41.
22 Jean-Pierre Courson and Michel de Saboulin, “Mé­
nages et familles: vers de nouveaux modes de vie?” [House­
holds and Families: New Ways of Life?] Économie et
Statistique, March 1985, pp. 3 -2 0 .
23 Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest, p. 326.
24 Kathleen S. Short and Thesia I. Gamer, “Living
Arrangements of Young Adults Living Independently:
Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study,” paper pre­
sented at the 35th Annual Conference of the American
Council on Consumer Interests, Baltimore, m d , Mar. 2 9 Apr. 1, 1989.
25 Kevin Kinsela, Living Arrangements of the Elderly and
Social Policy: A Cross-National Perspective, staff paper
(Bureau of the Census, Center for International Research,
forthcoming).
26 Samuel H. Preston and Shigemi Kono, “Trends in
Well-Being o f Children and the Elderly in Japan,” chapter
11 in John L. Palmer and others, ed s., The Vulnerable
(Washington, Urban Institute Press, 1988), p. 282.
27 Kinsela, Living Arrangements.
28 Schwarz, “Les ménages,” pp. 5 74-88.
29 Glenn Drover, “Child Care in Canada: A Social Serv­
ice Approach,” paper prepared for a workshop on child care
policies and programs sponsored by International Perspec­
tives, National Academy o f Sciences Summer Study Center
at Woods Hole, m a , Aug. 9, 1988, p. 9.
30 Sheila B. Kamerman, “Child Care Policies and Pro­
grams: An International Overview,” paper prepared for
workshop on child care policies and programs, Woods
Hole, m a , p. 4.
31 Peter M oss, “Comments from a European Community
Perspective,” paper prepared for workshop on child care
policies and programs, Woods Hole, MA, p. 8 .
32 Soren Kindlund, “Child Care in Sweden,” paper pre­
pared for workshop on child care policies and programs,
Woods H ole, m a , pp. 3 -4 .
33 Drover, “Child Care in Canada,” table 5, p. 27.
34 Phyllis Moen, Working Parents: Transformations in
Gender Roles and Public Policies in Sweden (Madison, wi,
University o f Wisconsin Press, 1989), p. 15. See also
Bengt-Erik Andersson, “Effects of Public Day Care— A
Longitudinal Study,” paper prepared for workshop on child
care policies and programs, Woods Hole, m a .
35 The Swedish Budget 1989190 (Stockholm, Ministry of
Finance, 1989), p. 83.
36 Jacob Vedel-Petersen, “Child Care Policies and Pro­
grams in Denmark,” paper prepared for workshop on child
care policies and programs, Woods Hole, m a , pp. 16-17.

APPENDIX: Concepts and definitions
For the U n ited S tates, trends in the fa m ily can be
a n a ly zed from the p oin t o f v ie w o f tw o typ es o f
related statistics: T h ose based on all h ou seh o ld s and
th ose b ased o n fa m ilie s. For international c o m ­
parison, the data presented here are b ased on all
h o u seh o ld s rather than fa m ilies b ecau se they are
m ore read ily a v a ilab le, are m ore com parable across
co u n tries, and co v er a lon ger span o f tim e than
m o st fa m ily -b a sed data. In add ition , non fam ily
h o u seh o ld s— prim arily on e-p erson h o u seh o ld s—
h a v e been the fastest g row in g h o u seh old ty p e, and
their in crease is o n e o f the factors a ffectin g the ch an g­
in g c o m p o sitio n o f fa m ily h ou seh old s.
H o u seh o ld s take m any form s and are not lim ited to
fa m ilies. For ex a m p le, in 1988 there w ere 91 m illio n
h o u seh o ld s, but 65 m illio n fa m ilie s, in the U n ited
States. H o u seh o ld s contain fam ily m em b ers resid in g
togeth er, but th ey also m ay in clu d e n on fam ily m em ­
bers sharing the d w ellin g . O ne person liv in g alon e
represents a h o u seh o ld , but not a fa m ily . B y the U .S .
d efin itio n , a fa m ily is tw o or m ore p erson s resid in g
togeth er and related by b lo o d , adop tion , or m arriage.
A h o u seh o ld is o n e or m ore persons sharing the sam e
h o u sin g unit. Y e t, h o u seh o ld s are the b asic unit o f
fa m ily life , and in the m ajority o f c a se s, the h o u se­
h o ld and the fa m ily c o in cid e . A n a ly sis o f h ou seh old
c o m p o sitio n across countries a llo w s us to se e h o w all
o f a s o c ie ty ’s pop u lation — not ju st fa m ilie s— liv e s.
It w o u ld h a v e b een interesting to sh o w a fam ilyn o n fa m ily breakdow n o f h o u seh old typ es across
countries; h o w ev er, defin ition al d ifferen ces pre­
clu d ed this kind o f b reakdow n. In the other countries
stu d ied , the co n cep t o f a fa m ily is gen erally m ore
restrictive than the U .S . d efin itio n , lim ited to married
(or coh ab itin g) c o u p les w ith or w ith ou t child ren and
single-paren t fa m ilies. H o u seh old s com p risin g broth­
ers and sisters and other fa m ily con figu ration s are
cou n ted as fa m ily h o u seh old s in the U n ited States,
but not in th ese other cou n tries. M u ltifam ily h o u se­
h o ld s are a lso treated d ifferen tly. In the U n ited
S tates, su ch h o u seh o ld s are c la ssifie d according to
the status o f the fa m ily that in clu d es the h ou seh old er.
A b road , m u ltifa m ily h o u seh o ld s are c la ssifie d as a
separate category and not allocated to any particular
fa m ily type. H o w e v er , the num ber o f su ch h o u se­
ho ld s is sm all in all the countries stu d ied , and the
d ifferen ce in treatm ent sh ou ld h ave no sign ifican t
im pact on the h o u seh old com p arison s in this article.
For m o st co u n tries, h o u seh old c o m p o sitio n data
w ere a vailab le back to 1960 or 1 9 6 1 , but for France
the series b egan in 1968 and for D enm ark in 1976.
D ata for Italy co u ld not b e sh ow n at a ll, du e to d e fi­
n itional ch a n g es o v er the period stu died . H o u seh old
statistics for D enm ark w ere not availab le in term s o f
the cla ssifica tio n s o f table 6; therefore, proportions
derived from fa m ily-b ased data are sh ow n instead.
T h ese are not com parable w ith the figu res for the
other co u n tries, but they illustrate the m ore recent
trends in D enm ark.
T he figu res in table 6 are gen erally based upon
national p op ulation cen su ses and labor force su rveys
w ith broadly com parable h ou seh old defin ition s


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

across cou n tries, although there are so m e d efin ition al
d ifferen ces that do not a llo w fu ll com parability.
A m on g th ese d ifferen ces are the con cep ts o f a mar­
ried co u p le and a ch ild .

Married couples.

T he cla ssifica tio n “m arried c o u ­
p le ” in creasin gly in clu d es c o u p les liv in g togeth er that
are not leg a lly m arried. T h e 1980 U n ited N ation s
recom m en d ation s for p op ulation cen su ses states that
“c o u p les liv in g in co n sen su al u n ions sh ould be re­
garded as m arried c o u p le s.” (S e e U n ited N a tion s,

Principles and Recommendations for Population and
Housing Censuses, Statistical P apers, S eries M .,
N o . 6 7 , p. 7 2 .) H o w ev er, this is not a lw ays the case
in the statistics for the countries stu died . In fact, su ch
c o u p les are gen erally categorized as non fam ily
h o u seh old s in U .S . data, rather than as m arried c o u ­
p les. In the U n ited S tates, the reported num ber o f
m arried c o u p les depend s upon the an sw ers o f survey
respond en ts. T h ose w h o are in co m m o n -la w mar­
riages m ay respond that they are married; if so , they
are c la ssifie d as m arried c o u p les. T h ose w h o say that
they are unm arried partners, frien d s, or room m ates
are c la ssifie d as n on fam ily h o u seh old s i f there are no
children present. H o w ev er, i f there are ch ild ren , the
h ou seh old is c la ssifie d as a fa m ily h o u seh old i f the
children are th ose o f the referen ce person or
“h ou seh o ld er.” In this c a se , the groupin g co u ld e v en
be c la ssifie d as a single-paren t h ou seh o ld , desp ite the
fact that there are tw o coh ab itin g “parents” in the
h ou seh old .
A lth ou gh m ost countries fo llo w the U .S . m ethod
o f self-reportin g o f m arital status, so m e countries are
m ore e x p lic it in their treatm ent o f persons o f the
op p osite se x liv in g togeth er but not m arried. S in ce
1 9 8 1 , the C anadian cen su s questionnaire has directed
su ch persons to c la ssify th em selv es as husband-andw ife c o u p les. S in ce 1 9 8 0 , all coh ab itin g co u p les are
c la ssifie d togeth er in S w ed ish h o u seh old statistics,
w h ereas earlier c en su ses c la ssifie d m arried c o u p les as
a separate category. T he S w ed ish data presented in
table 6 for 1970 have b een adjusted to in clu d e unm ar­
ried coh ab itin g c o u p les. D ata for 1960 w ere not ad­
ju sted b ecau se the num ber o f unm arried cohabitants
w as b e lie v e d to b e in sign ifican t. French h ou seh old
statistics report data on “c o u p le s” w h eth er m arried or
not, and separate data are c o lle cte d on m arried and
unm arried cohabitants. A ll French co u p les h ave been
c la ssifie d as m arried c o u p les in table 6.

Families with children.

T he national d efin ition s o f
fa m ilies w ith children vary con sid erab ly b ecau se o f
d ifferen ces in the age lim its delin eatin g a ch ild . M ost
countries cou n t as children all unm arried persons un­
der a certain age and liv in g at h o m e or aw ay at
sch o o l. T h e U n ited S tates, Japan, and the U n ited
K in gd om con sid er children to be all th ose under the
age o f 18, e x cep t that the U n ited K in gd om cou n ts 16and 17-year-old s o n ly i f they are in fu ll-tim e ed u ca­
tion. In S w ed en , children are d efin ed as all th ose age
16 and under. Canada (sin ce 1 9 8 1 ), G erm any, and
the N etherlan ds im p o se no age lim it in their cla ssi-

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

57

International Perspective o f the Family
fica tio n o f ch ild ren , although earlier C anadian c en ­
su ses u sed a lim it o f under 25 years o f age. D enm ark
counts as children all th ose under the ag e o f 2 6 , w h ile
France cou n ts th ose under the age o f 2 5 . T he D an ish
and C anadian Statistical O ffic es have provid ed sp e­
cial tabulations for table 6 b ased on the u n d er-a g e-18
cu to ff. H o w ev er, the other countries u sin g different
a ge lim its w ere n ot able to provid e su ch data,
although so m e provid ed a year or tw o o f recen t data
o n the u n d er-a g e-18 lim it for com p arison s o f sin g le ­
parent h o u seh o ld s in table 8.
T h e d ifferen ces in a ge lim its for child ren h ave an
im pact o n the com p arison s o f m arried c o u p les w ith
and w ith ou t child ren and o f sin gle-p aren t h ou seh o ld s.
T h erefore, it sh ou ld b e r eco g n ized that the pro­
portions in table 6 for th ese typ es o f h o u seh o ld s are
o n a d ifferent b a sis for F ran ce, G erm an y, the N ether­
lan d s, and S w ed en than for the other cou n tries,
w h ich u se or ha v e p rovid ed data on the b asis o f the
u n d er-a g e-18 cu to ff. T h e e ffe c t o f th ese d ifferen ces
o n the c la ssifica tio n o f h o u seh old s can be seen in
table 8.

Single-parent households.

T h e m ain issu es in c o m ­
paring sin gle-p aren t h o u seh o ld s across countries re­
late to the d efin itio n o f a ch ild and the p resen ce or
a b sen ce o f coh ab itin g parents in the statistics. A
further issu e , w h ich in v o lv es all countries ex cep t
D en m ark , is that the h o u seh old statistics on sin g le ­
parent fa m ilies understate the num ber o f su ch
fa m ilies b eca u se they e x clu d e sin gle-p aren t fam ilies
that are part o f a larger h o u seh old . T h ese d ifferen ces
a ffect both the cross-cou n try com p arison s and the
trends in d ifferen t countries ov er tim e.
T h e ag e o f child ren in fa m ilies en co m p a ssed by the
term “sin gle-p aren t fa m ily ” d iffers across countries.
Id ea lly , the co n cep t sh ou ld co v er fa m ilie s w ith o n e or
m ore unm arried children w h o liv e at h om e (or are
aw a y at sc h o o l) and rec eiv e their fin an cial support
from the parent. A s d iscu ssed earlier, there is little
agreem en t across countries as to the sp ec ific age lim it
required for an in d ivid u al to q u alify as a ch ild o f a
sin gle-p aren t fa m ily . H o w e v er , all countries that do
not u se the U .S . a ge lim it o f under 18 w ere able to
provid e u n p u blished tabulations w ith this age lim it

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for58
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

for o n e or m ore years. T h ese data are sh o w n in the
sin gle-p aren t h o u seh old com p arison s in table 8. T h ey
ind icate that h igh er age lim its produce h igh er propor­
tion s o f single-paren t h o u seh old s.
A n other im portant issu e is that the data in table 8
are for h o u seh old s rather than fa m ilie s, e x cep t for
D enm ark. Sin gle-paren t h o u seh o ld s in clu d e o n ly
th ose w h ich form a sin g le h o u seh old on their ow n .
T h u s, a single-paren t h o u seh old occu rs in h ou seh old
statistics on ly w h en the sin g le parent is the head o f
the h o u seh o ld or the referen ce p erson for the h o u se­
h old . S ituation s in w h ich single-paren t fa m ilies are
part o f a larger h o u seh o ld — su ch as a husband-andw ife h o u seh old w ith an unm arried daughter and her
yo u n g ch ild — w ill b e e x clu d ed from the figu res, e x ­
cep t in D enm ark. T h u s, on this accou n t, the D an ish
figu res are overstated in relation to the other cou n ­
tries. Further, the data for all the other countries
understate the true exten t o f sin g le parenthood, e sp e ­
c ia lly in countries w h ere a siza b le portion o f sin g le
parents liv e in their o w n parents’ or other p e o p le ’s
h ou seh o ld s. B ritish fa m ily statistics for 1 9 7 7 , for e x ­
am p le, ind icate that about three-quarters o f sin g le
parents w ere liv in g alon e w ith their ch ild ren , w h ile
about 14 p ercent liv e d in their parents’ h ou seh old .
T h e rem aining single-paren t fa m ilies liv e d w ith other
relatives or w ith n on relatives. (S e e O ffic e o f P opula­
tion C en su ses and S u rv ey s, Social Trends, N o . 11,
1 9 8 1 , p. 3 1 .)
It w o u ld b e preferable to d efin e a single-paren t
h o u seh old as o n e in w h ich there is a parent w ith no
cohabitant. In p ractice, h o w ev e r, cohabitants m ay be
in clu d ed in the figu res for lo n e parents, e x cep t in
C anada (1 9 8 1 , 1 9 8 6 ), D enm ark (1 9 8 5 , 1 9 8 8 ),
F ran ce, and S w ed en . For the other cou n tries, it d e­
pend s on h o w p eo p le c la ssify their status in the sur­
v e y s and c en su ses. B ritish statistical investigation s
ind icate that m ost coh ab itin g parents describ e th em ­
se lv e s as m arried and, therefore, are not c la ssifie d as
sin g le parents. (S e e O ffic e o f P opulation C en su ses
and S u rveys, General Household S u rv ey , 1 9 8 6 , p.
1 1 .) H o w e v er , it sh ou ld be reco g n ized that the rise in
co n sen su al u n ion s in th ese countries m ean s that the
num ber and grow th o f one-parent fa m ilies m ay be
overstated to so m e exten t.

Significant
decisions in
labor cases

Fetal protection

Under certain circumstances, an em­
ployer may prohibit women from per­
forming jobs that pose a hazard to
unborn children, the Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit recently ruled
in u a w v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 1 In
this case, which a dissenting judge said
“is likely the most important sexdiscrimination case in any court since
. . . Congress enacted Title VII,”2 the
court was asked to determine whether a
battery manufacturer’s “fetal protec­
tion policy” amounted to unlawful sex
discrimination under Title VII because
it barred women, but not men, from
working in jobs that may involve ex­
cessive exposure to lead.3
The company first established a fetal
protection policy in 1977. This policy
warned women that exposure to lead
could pose a danger to fetuses and rec­
ommended that women who were con­
sidering having children not work in
jobs that required such exposure. The
policy did not, however, prohibit
women from performing those jobs. In
spite of the company’s efforts between
1979 and 1983 at least six women in
positions with high lead exposure be­
came pregnant while maintaining
levels of lead in the blood that the em­
ployer considered dangerous. In addi­
tion, at least one of the babies bom to
these women showed elevated blood
lead levels. From these events, the
company concluded that its voluntary
fetal protection policy, as well as its
other safety and health policies, were
not effective in protecting pregnant
women and their unborn children from
excessive exposure to lead. As a result,
the company established a new policy
“Significant Decisions in Labor Cases” was pre­
pared by Craig Hukill of the Office of the Solic­
itor, U .S . Department o f Labor.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

under which women capable of bearing
children could not work in jobs that
exposed them to high lead levels.4
The employees and their unions
challenged this policy, claiming that it
overtly discriminated against them on
the basis of sex. They argued that such
discriminatory treatment could not be
upheld under the sex discrimination
provisions of Title VII because the
employer had not shown that an em­
ployee’s sex was a “bona fide occupa­
tional qualification.”5 Writing for a
7 -4 majority of the Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, Judge John
Coffey rejected this argument, holding
that the company’s fetal protection pol­
icy did not violate Title VII’s pro­
hibition against sex discrimination,
because the policy was justified under
a modified and less stringent “business
necessity” standard.6
As Judge Coffey conceded, the
business necessity defense general­
ly applies when a facially neutral
employment practice, such as a writ­
ten test or a weight requirement, is
claimed to have a disparate impact on
women.7 In contrast, the more limited
bona fide occupation qualification de­
fense applies when the employment
practice in question is overt, not neu­
tral, in its discrimination against
women.8
Johnson Controls’ fetal protection
policy would appear to operate more
like overt sex discrimination than like a
neutral practice that has a disparate im­
pact on women, because the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act states that under
Title VII, sex discrimination includes
discrimination based on pregnancy,
childbirth, or related medical condi­
tions.9 Thus, the bona fide occupa­
tional qualification defense would
appear to be more appropriate in this
type of case than the business necessity
standard.

The court recognized this problem,
but held that the traditional analysis
should not be applied inflexibly. In­
stead, it applied a modified business
necessity defense analysis that two
other courts of appeals had considered
to be the appropriate analytical frame­
work for evaluating the propriety of
fetal protection policies.10 The John­
son Controls court concluded that such
a framework should be applied to fetal
protection policy cases because that
defense “balance[s] the interests of the
employer, the employee and the un­
born child in a manner consistent with
Title VII.”11
Judge Coffey articulated a three-part
test for determining whether business
necessity justified Johnson Controls’
fetal protection policy. He looked first
to see whether workplace exposure to
lead posed a substantial risk of harm to
employees’ unborn children. On this
point, he noted that the parties agreed
that exposure to lead presented a risk to
fetuses. Next, he looked to see whether
harm to fetuses occurred through the
exposure of women, but not men, to
lead. Here, he indicated that the only
credible evidence that had been pre­
sented had been presented by the com­
pany, whose experts testified that
exposure of men to lead levels meeting
Federal guidelines did not pose a sub­
stantial risk of harm to unborn chil­
dren. Finally, Judge Coffey looked to
see whether an adequate, less discrimi­
natory alternative to the company’s
fetal protection policy existed.12 Be­
cause the union did not suggest any
such alternative, he found that none
existed. Judge Coffey said that the
union’s failure to allege facts that
met his three-part business necessity
test meant that the company was enti­
tled to summary judgment in its
favor.13
The dissenting judges strongly disMonthly Labor Review

March 1990

59

Significant Decisions in Labor Cases
agreed with the majority, each com­
plaining that fetal protection policy
cases should not be analyzed under the
business necessity standard. Judge
Frank H. Easterbrook indicated that
even if business necessity were the cor­
rect standard to apply, the majority’s
view of what constituted a substantial
risk of harm to unborn children was too
narrow. In his opinion, the majority
should have applied a “net” risk analy­
sis, whereby the risks to the fetus
posed by exposure to lead would be
balanced against the risks posed by
other factors, such as the mother’s loss
of income and medical insurance.14
Traditional labor relations

On December 5, 1989, the Supreme
Court decided two cases that raised is­
sues under the National Labor Rela­
tions Act.15 The first, Breininger v.
Sheet Metal Workers, Local 6 ,16 in­
volved a union member’s complaint
that his union had refused to refer him
to employers through its hiring hall.
He claimed that the union, through the
hiring hall practices of its business
manager and business agent, had
breached a duty of fair representation
under the National Labor Relations
Act17 and improperly disciplined him
under the Labor-Management Report­
ing and Disclosure Act.18
The lower court had rejected each of
the employee’s claims, holding that
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to con­
sider union members’ duty-of-fairrepresentation claims because the
National Labor Relations Board exer­
cises exclusive jurisdiction over such
issues.19 The lower court also held that
the union’s hiring hall practices did not
amount to improper discipline under
the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act, because the individ­
ual’s membership rights in the union
had not been diminished. The Supreme
Court agreed that the employee’s claim
under the Labor-Management Report­
ing and Disclosure Act should be dis­
missed, although its reasons differed
from those of the court of appeals. The
High Court disagreed, though, on the
duty-of-fair-representation issue.
The Supreme Court held that Fed­
eral courts retain jurisdiction to con­
sider whether a union has breached its
6 0 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

duty of fair representation. This is so,
the Court ruled, even though the
breach of the duty of fair representa­
tion may constitute an “unfair labor
practice,”20 over which the National
Labor Relations Board has exclusive
jurisdiction.21 Simply because the Na­
tional Labor Relations Board is experi­
enced and expert in the area is not a
sufficient reason for denying Federal
courts the power to hear these cases,
which the Court said “require great
sensitivity to the tradeoffs between the
interests of the bargaining unit as a
whole and the rights of individuals.”22
Further, the Court said that to reach a
contrary result would “remove an
unacceptably large number of fairrepresentation claims from federal
courts.”23
The Court then considered whether
the union’s hiring practices amounted
to discipline that is prohibited under
section 101(a)(5) of the Labor Man­
agement Reporting and Disclosure
Act.24 Under this provision, union
members may not be “fined, sus­
pended, expelled, or otherwise disci­
plined” without being given written
notice of the charges, time to prepare a
defense, and a hearing.25 Interpreting
section 101(a)(5) narrowly, the Court
held that by enumerating specific types
of discipline that typically result from
established disciplinary processes, the
Congress intended to exclude from the
definition of “otherwise disciplined”
acts of retaliation by individual union
members. Because the alleged punish­
ment in this case was not authorized by
the union as a collective entity, the
Court ruled in favor of the union.
Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed
with the majority’s interpretation of
section 101(a)(5), saying that it “de­
prives union members of the protection
of the act’s procedural safeguards at a
time when they are most needed—
when the union or its officers act so
secretly and so informally that the
member receives no advance notice,
no opportunity to be heard, and no ex­
planation for the union’s action.”26 In
his view, discipline under the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure
Act should be given a broad meaning
and include any punishment that is im­
posed by the union or its officers to
protect the union by attempting to con­

trol a member’s conduct.
In the second case involving issues
arising under the National Labor Rela­
tions Act, Golden State Transit Corp.
v. City o f Los Angeles,27 the Supreme
Court held that a taxi company can re­
cover compensatory damages under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 from the City of Los
Angeles for interfering with the com­
pany’s collective bargaining process
with its union.28 By imposing liability
under section 1983, which authorizes a
Federal remedy for the “deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws,”
the Court reversed the Court of Ap­
peals for the Ninth Circuit.29 This
lower court had held that section 1983
gives rise to liability only for actions
that directly violate Federal law, not
for actions that are improper merely
because they intrude into an area that is
“preempted,” or overridden, by Fed­
eral law.
Writing for a 6-3 majority of the
Court, Justice Stevens held that a twopart test should be applied in deter­
mining whether a remedy is available
under section 1983. First, the plaintiff
must be an “intended beneficiary of a
statutory scheme that prevents govern­
mental interference.”30 Justice Stevens
found that the company met this part of
the test. The National Labor Relations
Act, he said, was enacted “to give
parties to a collective-bargaining
agreement the right to make use of
‘economic weapons’ . . . free of gov­
ernmental interference,” even though
the act directly regulates only employ­
ers and unions.31
Next, for liability to be imposed
under section 1983, the Congress must
not have provided a comprehensive en­
forcement mechanism for protecting
the Federal right in question. On this
issue, Justice Stevens noted that the
National Labor Relations Act grants
the National Labor Relations Board the
authority to remedy violations commit­
ted only by employers and unions. As
a result, he said, the act is not a com­
prehensive enforcement mechanism
for protecting the Federal right to be
free from governmental intrusion into
the collective bargaining process. He
therefore concluded that a remedy is
needed under section 1983 to protect
the Federal right.
□

Footnotes

Corp., 697 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir. 1982). See also
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

1 886 F.2d 871 (7th Cir. 1989).

2 Id. at 920 (Judge Easterbrook, dissenting).
3 Title V II o f the Civil Rights Act o f 1964
provides that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employ­
ment practice for an employer . . . to limit,
segregate, or classify his employees or appli­
cants for employment in any way which would
deprive . . . any individual o f employment op­
portunities . . . because o f such individual’s
. . . sex.” 42 U .S .C . § 2000e-2(a)(2) (1982).
4 The company’s policy applied to “[a]ll
women except those whose inability to bear chil­
dren is medically documented.” 886 F.2d at 876
n.8.
5 Title V II does not define the phrase “bona
fide occupational qualification.” Instead, it sim­
ply states that “it shall not be an unlawful em­
ployment practice for an employer to hire and
employ employees . . . on the basis o f . . . sex
. . . in those certain instances where . . . sex
. . . is a bona fide occupational qualification
reasonably necessary to the normal operation of
that particular business.” 42 U .S.C . § 2000e2(e)(1) (1982). One court has said that for a
sex-based employment criterion to be justified as
a bona fide occupational qualification, the crite­
rion must be essential to the job. See Diaz v.
Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385,
3 8 8 -8 9 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 404 U .S. 950
(1971). Another court has held that for such a
criterion to be considered a bona fide occupa­
tional qualification, the employer must prove
that it “had reasonable cause to believe . . . that
all or substantially all women would be unable to
perform safely and efficiently the duties o f the
job involved.” Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. &
Telegraph Co., 408 F.2d 228, 235 (5th Cir.
1969).
6 To be justified by business necessity, the
employment practice must serve a legitimate em­
ployment goal, although it need not be essential
to the operation o f the business. See Ward’s
Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 109 S. Ct 2115,
2 1 2 5 -2 6 (1989).
7 886 F.2d at 884. See also Griggs v. Duke
Power Co., 401 U .S. 424 (1971).
8 See Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U .S. 321
(1977), and compare this Court’s discussion of
height and weight requirements, in which it ap­
plied the business necessity defense, with its dis­
cussion o f regulations prohibiting women from
working in certain prison guard jobs, in which it
applied the bona fide occupational qualification
defense. Id. at 3 2 8 -37.
9 42 U .S .C . § 2000e(k) (1982).
10 See Hayes v. Shelby Memorial Hosp., 726
F.2d 1543 (11th Cir. 1984); and Wright v. Olin


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Policy Statement on Reproductive and Fetal
Hazards under Title VII (Oct. 3, 1988), reprinted
in Fair Employment Practices Manual (bna ),
401:6013.
11 886 F.2d at 886. Judge Richard D. Cudahy,
in a dissenting opinion, disagreed with the ma­
jority’s failure to follow a traditional, statutebased analysis, implying that the majority had
engaged in “result-oriented gimmickry” when it
applied a business necessity framework. Id. at
902 (Judge Cudahy, dissenting).
12 Judge Coffey indicated that, to show that an
adequate, less discriminatory alternative exists,
a plaintiff must present a specific alternative that
is both economical and feasible. The plaintiff
also must show that its alternative is equally ef­
fective in achieving legitimate employment
goals, taking into account factors such as cost or
other burdens. Id. at 892.
13 Under Rule 56 o f the Federal Rules o f Civil
Procedure, a party is entitled to summary judg­
ment in its favor if there is “no genuine issue as
to any material fact and . . . [the party] is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law .” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c). As a practical matter, the application of
Rule 56 in Johnson Controls meant that a trial
was never held. Instead, the trial judge found,
and the court of appeals agreed, that the union
did not allege facts that were sufficient to meet
its burden of proof.
Judge Richard A. Posner, in a dissenting opin­
ion, criticized this aspect of the majority’s deci­
sion, saying that it was a mistake to decide the
case on such a “meager record.” 886 F.2d at 902
(Judge Posner, dissenting). The Equal Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission, in policy guid­
ance issued after the Johnson Controls decision,
agreed with Judge Posner on this point and
warned its investigators not to “overlook or dis­
miss conflicting evidence on the basis o f the
[Johnson Controls] decision.” Equal Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission, Policy Guid­

ance on Seventh Circuit Decision in the United
Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (Jan.
24, 1990), reprinted in 1990 Daily Lab. Rep.
( bna ), N o . 18, at D -l.
14 886 F .2d at 915, 9 1 7-18 (Judge Easter­
brook, dissenting). Judge Cudahy, another dis­
senting judge, expressed a similar view: “What
is the situation o f the pregnant woman, unem­
ployed or working for the minimum wage and
unprotected by health insurance, in relation to
her pregnant sister, exposed to an indeterminant
lead risk but well-fed, housed and doctored?
Whose fetus is at greater risk?” 886 F.2d at 902
(Judge Cudahy, dissenting).
In warning its field offices not to rely on John­
son Controls as guidance for processing fetal
hazards complaints, the Equal Employment Op­

portunity Commission has taken a slightly differ­
ent approach:
In evaluating these cases, the field must
weigh the extent of the risk against the
breadth o f the exclusion. Thus, where the
risk is slight in terms o f numbers and nature
of the harm, any exclusion will be hard to
justify; conversely, severe harm to a high
percentage of those exposed may warrant a
broad exclusion.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
(See note 13.)
15 29 U .S.C . § 151 (1982 & Supp. V 1987).
16 110 S. Ct. 424 (1989).
17 A union’s duty o f fair representation is im­
plicit in its role as the em ployees’ exclusive bar­
gaining representative under section 9 o f the
National Labor Relations Act. 29 U .S.C . §
159(a) (1982).
18 29 U .S.C . § 401 (1982 & Supp. V 1987).
19 849 F.2d 997 (6th Cir. 1988).
20 Set Miranda Fuel Co., Inc., 140 N .L .R .B .
No. 7, 51 l r r m (BNA) 1584 (NLRB 1962), en­
forcement denied, 326 F.2d 172 (2d Cir. 1963).
Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act,
29 U .S.C . § 158 (1982), prohibits certain actions
by employers and unions. These prohibited ac­
tions are called unfair labor practices. For exam­
ple, a union commits an unfair labor practice
when it interferes with em ployees’ exercise of
rights that are guaranteed under the National
Labor Relations Act. 29 U .S.C . § 158(b)(1)(A)
(1982).
21 See San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v.
Garmon, 359 U .S. 236 (1959).
22 110 S. Ct. at 431.
23 Id.
24 29 U .S.C . § 411(a)(5) (1982).

25 Id.
26 110 S. Ct. at 443.
27 110 S. Ct. 444 (1989).
28 The City o f Los Angeles had required the
taxi company to settle a labor dispute with its
union as a condition for renewing the company’s
franchise. In a 1986 decision, the Supreme Court
found this action to be improper because only the
Federal Government, through the National
Labor Relations Act, 29 U .S.C . § 151 (1982 &
Supp. V 1987), can regulate collective bargain­
ing. Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los
Angeles, 475 U .S. 608 (1986). The Court held
that, even though the terms o f the National Labor
Relations Act refer only to employers and em­
ployees, the act “preempted” the city’s action.
29 857 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1988).
30 110 S. Ct. at 450.
31 Id.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

61

Major
agreements
expiring
next month

This list of selected collective bargain­
ing agreements expiring in April is
based on information collected by the
Bureau’s Office of Compensation and
Working Conditions. The list includes
agreements covering 1,000 workers or
more. Private industry is arranged in
order of Standard Industrial Classifica­
tion. Labor organizations listed are af­
filiated with the a fl -c io , except where
noted as independent (Ind.).
P rivate industry
Construction
A sso c ia te d C ontractors o f E ss e x C ou nty,

NY; Carpenters, 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers
A sso c ia te d G eneral C ontractors, D u lu th ,
m n ; T eam sters, 1 ,2 0 0 w orkers
A sso cia ted G eneral C ontractors, M ar­
q u ette, Mi; Carpenters, 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers
A sso cia ted G eneral C ontractors, sou th­
ern C o lorad o, CO; Carpenters, 1 ,2 0 0 w ork­
ers
A sso c ia te d G eneral C ontractors and oth ­
ers, D en v er, CO; L aborers, 2 ,4 0 0 w orkers
A sso c ia te d G en eral C ontractors and
C on n ecticu t C on struction Industries A s s o ­
cia tio n In c ., ct ; O perating E n gin eers,
1 ,0 0 0 w orkers
B u ild in g C ontractors o f Southern N e w
Jersey, nj ; Carpenters, 1 5 ,0 0 0 w orkers
B u ild in g C ontractors A sso c ia tio n o f
N e w Jersey, nj ; L aborers, 1 2 ,0 0 0 w orkers
B u ild in g C ontractors A sso c ia tio n o f
N e w J ersey, n j ; Carpenters, 2 ,2 0 0 w orkers
C on n ecticu t C on struction Industries A s ­
so cia tio n In c ., N e w H a ven , ct ; T eam sters,
1 ,5 0 0 w orkers
E x ecu tiv e C o u n cil o f the M ason C on ­
tractors E x ch a n g e o f Southern C aliforn ia,
In c ., c a ; B rick layers, 1 ,2 0 0 w orkers
In depend en t contractors, ME; C arpen­
ters, 1 ,5 0 0 w orkers
In depend en t em p lo y ers, R och ester, NY;
Carpenters, 1 ,5 0 0 w orkers
K ey sto n e B u ild in g C ontractors, pa ; Car­
penters, 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers

2 Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for 6FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

P ip e L ine C ontractors A sso c ia tio n , In­
terstate; P lu m bers, 5 ,0 0 0 w orkers
P ainting and D ecoratin g C ontractors A s ­
so cia tio n , C lev ela n d , o h ; P ainters, 1 ,0 0 0
workers

Furniture and fixtures
Store F ixture and A rchitectural W o o d ­
w ork In stitute, c a ; Carpenters, 1 ,2 0 0
w orkers

Industrial and commercial machinery
C u m m in s E n gin e C o ., C olu m b u s, in ;
D ie se l W ork ers’ U n io n (In d .), 4 ,0 0 0 w ork ­
ers

Utilities
A rizon a P ublic S ervice C o ., a z ; E lectri­
cal W orkers (ibew ), 2 ,8 0 0 w orkers
C levelan d E lectric Illum inating C o ., OH;
U tility W orkers, 2 ,5 0 0 w orkers

Printing and publishing
D etroit N e w s and D etroit Free P ress,
D etroit, m i ; variou s u n io n s, 1 ,2 0 0 w orkers
D etroit N e w s and D etroit Free P ress,
D etroit, m i ; variou s u n io n s, 2 ,0 0 0 w orkers
G raphic A rts A sso c ia tio n o f D elaw are
V a lle y , pa ; G raphic C om m u n ication s
U n io n , 1 ,3 0 0 w orkers

Rubber
D a y c o C orp ., W a y n e sv ille , NC; Rubber
W orkers, 1 ,2 5 0 w orkers

Leather and leather products
N e w Y ork Industrial C ou n cil o f the N a ­
tion al H andbag A sso c ia tio n , NY; Leather
G o o d s W orkers, 3 ,5 0 0 w orkers

Stone, clay, and glass products
A n ch or H o ck in g
C o rp .,
Interstate;
G la ss, P ottery, P lastics and A llie d W ork­
ers, 4 ,2 5 0 w orkers
B rock w ay G lass C o ., Interstate; G la ss,
P ottery, P lastics and A llie d W orkers,
6 ,4 5 0 w orkers
Indian H ead , In c ., Interstate; G la ss, P ot­
tery, P lastics and A llie d W orkers, 2 ,1 0 0
w orkers
O w e n s-Illin o is, In c ., Interstate; G lass
and C eram ic W orkers, 7 ,5 0 0 workers

Primary metals
A lleg h en y -L u d lu m
In dustries,
Inter­
state; S teelw ork ers, 3 ,5 0 0 w orkers
A m sted In dustries, In c ., A m erican S teel
Found ries D iv isio n , Interstate; S teelw ork ­
ers, 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers

Wholesale trade-nondurable goods
Greater N e w Y ork A sso c ia tio n o f M eat
and P oultry D ea lers, In c ., NY; F o o d and
C om m ercial W orkers, 1 ,9 0 0 w orkers

Retail trade-food stores
Sh oprite, Pathm ark, Grand U n io n , and
F o od tow n stores, NY and nj ; F o o d and
C om m ercial W orkers, 1 7 ,0 0 0 w orkers

Finance, insurance, and real estate
B u ild in g M anagers A sso c ia tio n , C h i­
ca g o , il ; S ervice E m p lo y e es, 1 0 ,0 0 0 w ork­
ers
B u ild in g O w ners and M anagers A s so c ia ­
tion (elevator operators), C h ica g o , il ;
S ervice E m p lo y e es, 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers
B u ild in g O w ners and M anagers A s so c ia ­
tion (secu rity), C h ica g o , il ; S ervice E m ­
p lo y e e s , 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers
N orthw estern M utual L ife Insurance
C o ., M ilw a u k ee, w i; O ffic e and P ro fes­
sion al E m p lo y e es, 1 ,6 0 0 w orkers

Services
A ffilia ted H osp itals o f San F ran cisco,
San F ran cisco, CA; S ervice E m p lo y e es,
1 ,8 0 0 w orkers

Public activity
General government
K ansas C ity general un it, K ansas C ity ,
C ou nty and M u n icip al E m ­
p lo y e e s , 2 ,4 0 0 w orkers.
□

m o ; State,

Developments
in industrial
relations

A erospace industry update

A new 3-year contract, covering 6,000
employees in the Eddystone, p a , area,
was reached between Local 1069 of the
United Auto Workers and Boeing
Helicopters, a leading producer of mil­
itary rotorcraft. The pact is similar to
one Boeing Helicopter’s parent com­
pany, The Boeing Co., negotiated with
the Machinists earlier. (See Monthly
Labor Review, February 1990, p. 56,
for terms of that settlement.) The
Boeing-Machinists settlement, the
first in the 1989 round of negotiations
in the aerospace industries, was ex­
pected to influence subsequent settle­
ments in the industry.
The Boeing Helicopter-Auto Work­
ers contract provided for a 4-percent
wage boost retroactive to October 5,
1989, and 3-percent increases in Octo­
ber of 1990 and 1991. In addition, em­
ployees received a lump-sum payment
in December 1989, equal to 10 percent
of their earnings during the preceding
12 months, to be followed by a similar
5-percent payment in December 1990
and a 4-percent payment in December
1991.
Other provisions include:
• A new cost-of-living formula
providing quarterly adjustments at the
rate of 1 cent an hour for each .075percent change in the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Consumer Price Index for
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers.
• An increase in the noncontribu­
tory retirement plan’s monthly pension
rate to $30 for each year of credited
service for employees retiring on or
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is pre­
pared by Michael H. Cimini of the Division of
Developments in Labor-Management Relations,
Bureau o f Labor Statistics, and is largely based
on information from secondary sources.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

after January 1, 1990. (Under the prior
contract, rates were $22 for years of
credited service earned prior to 1987,
$24 for 1987 and 1988, and $26 for
1989.) Also, on January 1, 1990, the
monthly pension rate increased by $1
for each year of credited service for
retirees who left the company between
January 1, 1984, and December 1,
1986, and by $2 for each year of cred­
ited service for retirees who left prior
to 1984.
• Several improvements in medical
benefits, including a reduced number
of in-patient surgical procedures re­
quiring a second opinion, expanded
coverage for well-baby care, and in­
creased benefit limits for substance
abuse. Other medical plan changes in­
clude coverage for nutritional guid­
ance, infusion therapy, organ donor
expenses, routine physical examina­
tions for active employees and their
spouses, and certain eating disorders.
At Boeing in Seattle, w a , members
of the Seattle Professional Engineering
Employees Association rejected a ten­
tative accord covering about 15,000
engineers and scientists, and accepted
a contract for 12,000 technical em­
ployees. Negotiations on the two con­
tracts had resulted in settlements which
met most of the association’s demands,
except for general wage increases,
lump-sum payments, and cost-ofliving allowances. Even after the asso­
ciation scaled back its demands, the
company’s final money package pre­
sented to association members for rati­
fication reportedly was below that in
the Boeing-Machinists settlement.
The association’s proposal for the
technicians called for a 14-percent gen­
eral wage increase in the first year, fol­
lowed by selective adjustments every 6
months thereafter; improvements in the

c o s t-o f-liv in g ad ju stm en t ( c o l a ) p r o v i­
sion ; and a m o d ific a tio n in th e w a g e
structure.

Boeing’s counter proposal, which
was accepted by the association, pro­
vided for a general wage increase of 3
percent retroactive to December 2,
1989, and 2-percent increases in De­
cember of 1990 and 1991; lump-sum
payments equal to 10 percent of an em­
ployee’s earnings in the preceding 12
months, payable in December 1989,
followed by a similar 5-percent pay­
ment in December 1990 and a 4percent payment in December 1991;
selective adjustments of 2 percent in
June of each year; and no modification
of the present c o l a clause or the wage
structure.
While the Seattle-based engineers
were rejecting the tentative settlement
at Boeing, 1,700 engineers at the
company’s Wichita, k s , facility, rep­
resented by the Machinists, ratified a
new 3-year contract that provides
essentially the same terms as the Seat­
tle Professional Engineering Em­
ployees Association agreement for the
technicians.
The Machinists contract also calls
for a package of job protection provi­
sions in anticipation of a shift from
military to commercial aircraft produc­
tion. Under this provision, laid-off en­
gineers are eligible for retraining to
perform commercial aircraft structures
work. The union defeated a company
proposal to change the current layoff
retention language, which provides for
placement of employees in four groups
for retention rating by supervisors in
event of layoffs. In addition, a special
grievance procedure was added to hear
retention disputes. Although this spe­
cial procedure includes only the first
two steps of the regular grievance pro­
cedures, Boeing supervisors, for the
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

63

Developments in Industrial Relations
first time, must reveal the reasons for
an employee’s retention rating.
The money package includes a
lump-sum payment in December 1989,
equal to 10 percent of the employee’s
earnings during the preceding 12
months; a 3-percent general wage in­
crease retroactive to December 2,1989;
and six 2-percent semiannual selective
adjustments. (The selective adjust­
ments, which are based on merit, are
made at the company’s discretion.)
The union also tightened contract lan­
guage for selective salary adjustments.
Under the prior agreement, the semi­
annual adjustment money pool was
offset by any increase in the bargaining
unit’s average salary. The new pact
calls for distribution of the entire
money pool without an offset.
Other terms include:
• A “me-too” clause, which pro­
vides that any more favorable terms
negotiated by the Seattle-based en­
gineers be extended to the Wichita
engineers.
• Improved pension benefits for ac­
tive employees equal to the greater of a
$30 (was $24) monthly pension rate
per year of service, or average earnings
in the highest 60 months of the last

120.
• Increased monthly pension bene­
fits for retirees equal to the greater of
$1 per year of credited service or a
percentage increase based on the num­
ber of years of retirement.
• Improved medical benefits for
both active employees and retirees, in­
cluding new coverage for routine phys­
icals and well-baby care and extended
coverage for vision care, hospice care,
alcohol and drug abuse treatment, and
eating disorders.
Elsewhere, McDonnell Douglas and
the Machinists settled for 8,000 work­
ers in six facilities in three States. The
3-year agreement reportedly includes
wage increases of 5.5 percent retroac­
tive to October 23, 1989, and 3 percent
in the second and third year. Em­
ployees will receive lump-sum pay­
ments in each of the 3 years, calculated
at 4 percent of earnings in the preced­
ing 12 months. The monthly pension
rate increases by $6, to $29, for each
year of service. The accord also calls
for a 20-cent-per-hour increase (to 50
64

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

cents) in the differentials for working
the second shift and for being an
elected team leader. The shift differen­
tial is retroactive to October 23, 1989,
while the team leader differential be­
came effective December 18, 1989.
Meanwhile, negotiations between
Lockheed Aeronautical Systems and
the Machinists, which had broken off
in October, resumed in December. The
contract talks are for some 6,200 em­
ployees at three of the company’s facil­
ities in southern California. The major
issues in dispute reportedly are wages,
increased employee contributions for
health care premiums, and the c o la
formula. The employees are currently
working under a day-to-day extension
of the contract. The union has stated
that it does not consider the BoeingMachinist contract as a standard for a
settlement at Lockheed.
D etroit n ew sp a p ers-fiv e unions

After intermittent contract talks that
began late November, five unions, rep­
resenting about 3,000 workers, ratified
2 ^-year accords with the Detroit
Newspaper Agency, which bargains
for The Detroit News and The Detroit
Free Press. Negotiations began as a
result of a recent Supreme Court ruling
affirming a lower court’s decision up­
holding a “joint operations agreement”
between the two newspapers. The pre­
vious contracts, negotiated last June as
1-year interim settlements, were
scheduled to expire May 1, 1990, or
when the Supreme Court ruled on the
joint operations agreement, whichever
was earlier.
The unions involved in the new
contracts are the Teamsters Local
372, representing some 1,300-1,450
drivers, handlers, and circulation man­
agers; The Newspaper Guild Local
22, representing about 800-900 edito­
rial workers; Mailers Union Local
2040, representing 360 full-time and
150 part-time mailers; Typographical
Union Local 18, representing about
290 printers; and Graphic Communica­
tions Local 289, representing 37 pho­
toengravers. (Employment numbers
are sketchy, particularly because of a
representation dispute between The
Guild and Teamsters over the news­
papers’ inside circulation workers.)

The agreements reportedly provide
for an $80 increase in weekly wages
over the term; a bonus equivalent to
2-weeks’ salary, paid upon ratification;
and a $5 a week increase in optional
benefits in 1990.
The News and the Free Press are
owned by the two largest newspaper
chains in the United States, Gannet
Newspaper Inc. and Knight-Ridder
Inc., respectively. After experiencing
revenue losses for a number of years,
the two newspapers entered into the
joint operations agreement, in which
their business and production depart­
ments would merge, but the edito­
rial functions would remain separate.
(The Detroit Newspaper Agency was
formed to run the merged operations.)
The joint operation was expected to re­
sult in the loss of almost 450 jobs
through attrition and layoffs.
The merger, the largest of its type
ever proposed in the industry, was ap­
proved by the Justice Department in
August 1988, but was postponed for
almost 16 months until the Supreme
Court ruled that the merger did not vio­
late the Newspaper Preservation Act of
1970. Knight-Ridder, citing a loss of
almost $18 million in 1988, had threat­
ened to shutdown or sell The Free
Press if the joint operations agreement
was not implemented.
The five unions involved in the cur­
rent settlements were among the seven
unions at the two newspapers that had
bargained as two coalitions in negotiat­
ing the 1-year interim pacts. Two lo­
cals of the Graphic Communications
Union (Locals 13N and 289), The
Newspaper Guild, and the Typographi­
cal Union bargained jointly as the
Council of Newspaper Unions; while
the Teamsters, Mailers, and Service
Employees negotiated as a group. In
the interim contract talks, the Council
of Newspaper Unions had requested
weekly wage increases of $150 over
the term of the contract, plus a 6-week
bonus when the joint operations agree­
ment was implemented. The Teamsterled group had proposed a $200 weekly
wage increase and a $1,700 lump-sum
payment.
The newspapers’ counter proposal
was interim 1-year agreements provid­
ing for a $22 per week wage raise,
retroactive to May 1989, if the unions

ratified the settlement by June 8, 1989.
All the unions involved in the nego­
tiations eventually accepted the coun­
ter proposal. The unions’ members had
not had a wage increase since 1986.
R ouge steel accord

As part of the sale of Ford Motor Co. ’s
Rouge Steel operations to Marico Ac­
quisitions, a 3-year tripartite agree­
ment among Ford, Marico, and the
United Auto Workers was reached
covering 3,300 workers at the facility
in Dearborn, m i . The labor agreement
provides job security and retirement
protection provisions. Marico agreed
to invest up to $60 million to modern­
ize the facility and to run it as a fully
integrated steel mill, rather than reduc­
ing the operation to a minimill, as Ford
had planned to do if the sale had not
been completed. For its part, Ford
assumed the pension liability for em­
ployees who retire before 1992, with
benefits that equal those under a su­
perior retirement plan at other Ford op­
erations. In addition, Ford agreed to
give job preference to current em­
ployees who become permanently laidoff if the new owner fails or sells the
plant.
The new contract also provides
retention bonuses totaling up to a
$13,000 maximum, depending on an
employee’s seniority, to attract and
keep current Ford employees. The
$13,000 consists of $6,000 for present
Ford employees who accept employ­
ment with Marico, and an additional
$7,000 if they remain with Marico for
the term of the contract. In addition,
the agreement calls for $500 lump-sum
payments in 1990 and 1991 to senior
employees in lieu of vacation bonuses;
continuation of the profit-sharing plan;
and the transfer of both supplemental
unemployment benefit assets and the
guaranteed income stream plan com­
mitments, as well as a 5-year guarantee
of these benefits by Ford.
BA SF lockout ends

One of the longest and most bitter labor
disputes in American labor history
ended when the b a s f Corp. and the
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers
( o c a w ) reached a 3-year agreement,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ending a 5 jr-year lockout at the com­
pany’s Geismar, l a , chemical facility.
When the dispute began, 370 operators
and maintenance employees repre­
sented by the o c a w were among the
1,200 workers at the plant, b a s f locked
out the ocAW-represented workers in
1984, shortly before their contract was
to expire. Three years later, the com­
pany recalled the operators, but termi­
nated the 110 maintenance workers,
whose ranks included most of the local
o c a w leaders.
Since then, the labor dispute esca­
lated from the bargaining table to the
media and to the national and interna­
tional political arena. The turning point
in the stalemate came when the com­
pany approached the union last Sep­
tember in an attempt to resolve the
dispute. After intense negotiations, an
agreement was reached around the end
of the year.
The 3-year pact covers only the ter­
minated maintenance workers. It pro­
vides for recall and job protection:
maintenance workers will be recalled
on a flow basis and trained as opera­
tors; once their seniority is effectively
restored, they will have the right to
displace employees in any job below
top operator. Thirty-two workers will
be recalled immediately, and 10 addi­
tional workers will be recalled every
30 days until all terminated employees
have been offered employment as op­
erators. In addition, the company is
prohibited from contracting out work
covered by the contract.
The agreement also provides for an
immediate 2-percent wage boost and
3 ^-percent increases in 1990 and
1991. The company will pay the full
cost of health insurance premiums in
the first 2 contract years, and 80 per­
cent in the third year.
G rocery settlem ents

New 5-year agreements, covering
about 8,200 workers in Phoenix and
Tucson, a z , were signed by the United
Food and Commercial Workers and
the Arizona Employers Council, the
bargaining agent for three grocery
chains— Safeway Stores, Fry’s, and
a b c o Markets. (Previous labor con­
tracts ran for 3 years.) The longer dura­
tion of the new pacts allows the parties

to meet the challenge from the recent
entrance of new nonunion supermarket
chains into the retail food industry.
Contract terms call for a 30-centper-hour increase in the $10.87 rate of
employees at the top of the wage pro­
gression scale, effective December
1989, followed by a 25-cent-per-hour
increase in December 1991 and a 40cent increase in December 1993. Start­
ing rates were increased to $4.75 per
hour (previously, $4.50), and progress
to $5.50 after 90 days (previously, 780
hours); in December 1990, rates for
new hires are set at $5 per hour, in­
creasing to $6 after 90 days. Lump­
sum payments of $500 each will be
distributed to employees at the top
of the wage progression scale in Febru­
ary 1991 and December 1992, with
proportionally smaller payments to
employees advancing up the wage pro­
gression scale.
Other terms include:
• A $73.55 increase in the employ­
ers’ $193.95 monthly payment to the
health and welfare fund for each
worker beginning in June 1991, sub­
ject to two additional $20 increases if
needed to maintain benefit levels.
• Changing Easter Sunday and
Memorial Day from holidays to float­
ing personal days, effective in 1990.
• A temporary 3-year cut in Sunday
premium pay from time and one-half to
time and one-quarter, and in daily
overtime pay from time and one-half to
straight time.
Elsewhere in the industry, the
United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 signed a 3-year pact with
Acme Markets, Inc., covering about
8,000 clerks working at 60 locations in
the Philadelphia, p a , area. The agree­
ment, coming as a product of an “in­
terest bargaining process” in which the
parties determined areas of mutual in­
terest, was negotiated 1 month before
the expiration of the previous contract.
Under the terms of the contract, the
multiclassification scheme, in which
each classification had its own wage
progression, was replaced with a single
job classification scheme, with a single
wage progression. In addition, the rate
for new hires increased to $5 per hour,
and progresses to $12 per hour after 5
years. Employees currently earning
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

65

Developments in Industrial Relations
less than $12 per hour were integrated
into the wage progression scale, with
their rates depending on their seniority;
workers earning more than $12 per
hour get a 60-cent raise in each of the
3 years.
As for benefits, monthly pension
rates for full-time employees were in­
creased $5 (to $20) for each year of
past service, and $2 (to $30) for each
year of future service. The rates for
part-time workers were boosted $6 (to
$14) per year of service for both past
and future service. The multitiered
health and welfare plan was replaced
by a plan with two coverage levels, one
for full-timers with fewer than 5 years
seniority and the other for employees
with 5 years or more of service. In
addition, part-timers became eligible
for basic coverage after 60 days of
service, and advance to a more exten­
sive plan after 2 years.
The contract also provides a package
of “fairly contemporary” provisions for
part-timers. In addition to the im­
proved pension and health benefits,
minimum hours were raised from 12
hours per week to 20 hours, and
maximum hours from 29 to 35. The
company agreed to expand full-time
positions by 10 percent, and to
establish tuition and education bene­
fits and child care/day care assistance.
The parties agreed to expand the
scope of the Quality of Work Life
program established under the prior
agreement by adding authority to deal
with new issues such as breaks and
quitting time. In addition, a joint safety
committee will be established to ad­
dress the problem of repetitive motion
injuries.

gains in starting and senior level pay.
Over the term, minimum annual start­
ing salaries were raised $11,525 (to
$42,500), while maximum pay of se­
nior level nurses increased to almost
$70,000.
Maximum annual longevity pay was
boosted to $16,750 (from $4,960) in
January 1990, progresses to $22,000 in
March 1991, to $23,000 in September
1991, and to $25,000 in October 1992.
Nurses with less seniority received
proportionally smaller increases.
The contract also increased both ed­
ucation and shift differentials. The dif­
ferential for bachelor degrees increased
to $1,000 per year (previously, $400),
and for masters and doctorates to
$1,200 (previously, $700 and $1,000,
respectively). The evening and night
shift differential was raised $800 annu­
ally (to $4,800) in the first year of the
contract and $200 in the second year.
In addition, a new $2,500 annual dif­
ferential was given to nurses with cer­
tain certification specialties.
Other contract changes include the
elimination of mandatory overtime for
nurses with at least 5 years seniority; a
1-month paid sabbatical for registered
nurses with at least 25 years of service;
the elimination of mandatory floating
from one hospital unit to another, ex­
cept in an emergency, for nurses with
at least 15 years of seniority in the first
year of the contract and with at least 12
years in the second contract year; the
establishment of “in-charge” pay, up to
$1,500 annually; increases of $5-$8 in
the per diem rate (to $28-$35); estab­
lishment of unpaid paternal leave of up
to 6 months to care for newborn or
adopted children; and improved health
insurance and pension benefits.

Beth Israel h osp ita l-L o ca l 1199

Beth Israel Medical Center and Local
1199 of the Drug, Hospital and Health
Care Employees Union reached a 3year agreement, covering 3,500 nurses
in New York City, that provides for

66

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

Safety and health in m eatpacking

The Excel Corp., the third largest meat
processing company in the Nation, and
the United Food and Commercial
Workers signed an agreement, cover-

ing 8,600 meatpacking employees in
10 of the company’s 14 plants, that
establishes a comprehensive program
to reduce injuries caused by repetitive
motion, commonly referred to as cu­
mulative trauma disorders.
The program will use ergonomics to
modify working conditions to fit work­
ers. The company reportedly will fur­
nish consultant and medical staff, train
employees to become “ergonomic
monitors” (to spot problems and work
with supervisors to correct them), and
provide orientation and training pro­
grams for new hires, as well as com­
prehensive preventive training for all
employees. Other aspects of the pro­
gram include a study of changes that
must be made in the tools, equipment,
and procedures used in the production
process to ease employees’ physical
stress; and a study of changes needed
in the medical treatment of injured
employees.
The agreement comes amid charges
by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration that Excel’s parent
company, Cargill, Inc., violated safety
and health regulations by exposing em­
ployees to working conditions that lead
to repetitive motion injuries.
Elsewhere in the meatpacking in­
dustry, after a 3-month aggressive or­
ganizing campaign by Teamsters
Local 238, production and mainte­
nance workers at ib p , Inc.’s facility at
Columbus Junction, i a , rebuffed the
union by a vote of 762 to 213 in a
representation election conducted by
the National Labor Relations Board.
The election results for the 1,250 em­
ployee unit surprised the union’s orga­
nizing team— Teamster Local 238
president said, “All indications were
that we had a win.”
EBP, the Nation’s largest meat proc­
essing company, has 15 plants
throughout the United States. The
Teamsters represent ib p employees at
four of the company’s facilities (Amar­
illo, t x ; Pasco, w a ; and Dakota City
and Storm Lake, ia ).
□

Book
reviews

‘On-Demand’ employment
The Contingent Economy: The Growth
o f the Temporary, Part-time and
Subcontracted
Workforce.
By
Richard S. Belous. Washington,
DC, National Planning Association,
1989. 121 pp. $15.
The changing relationship between
workers and their employers has be­
come an important issue in the continu­
ing debate over the quality of jobs that
the economy has generated in the
1980’s. Some analysis have suggested
that the bonds between workers and
their employers have weakened to a
point that our throwaway society has
developed a class of disposable work­
ers. The phrase, the “contingent work
force,” describe workers with little or
no commitment from their employers
for continuing employment. The possi­
bility that a large and perhaps growing
share of the labor force finds itself in
such a predicament has received con­
siderable attention in the press and
was even the subject of congressional
hearings in the spring of 1988. Richard
Belous, who has published several arti­
cles about the contingent work force,
has now written a longer study of this
issue.
Belous asserts that increased com­
petitive pressure during the 1980’s has
forced corporations to lower labor
costs by adopting flexible labormanagement strategies, including the
use of contingent workers. These
workers lack an implicit contract for
long-term employment and thus have a
limited stake in their firms. Examples
of contingent work arrangements used
by Belous include part-time and tem­
porary work, as well as subcontract­
ing. The author believes that contin­
gent employment now represents at
least a quarter of the U.S. employment
total and accounted for nearly half of

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the net increase in employment during
the 1980’s.
Belous describes a number of bene­
fits that can result from contingent
work arrangements. For example, em­
ployers may be able to respond more
readily to market conditions or to
hedge on risky new business ventures.
The arrangements may benefit workers
by offering alternative work schedules
to persons with family or other non­
work responsibilities. There are, of
course, drawbacks to contingent ar­
rangements. Employers may find con­
tingent workers difficult to motivate
and supervise. And, workers in contin­
gent jobs typically receive low pay,
few benefits, and, by definition, little
job security.
The growth of the contingent work
force presents several challenges to so­
ciety. Key among these is providing
health insurance and other benefits to
workers who do not receive them
through their employers. Another
could be to compensate for a decline in
employer-sponsored training, because
firms have little incentive to train
workers whom they employ for only a
short time.
Belous deserves credit for address­
ing so many aspects of this important
issue in a single volume and for provid­
ing information from an interesting
source— 50 interviews that he con­
ducted with human resource execu­
tives. Readers unacquainted with the
concept of the contingent work force
will find all of the major issues touched
on in the book. They may wonder,
however, about the range of workers
that the author defines as contingent.
For example, he considers all subcon­
tracting work to be contingent employ­
ment. In some instances, such as inde­
pendent truck driving and free-lancing
for newspapers, such a classification
seems intuitively appropriate. Much

subcontracting, however, does not fit
the stereotype of contingent work. The
author, for example, describes a com­
pany that he identifies as g r , which has
120,000 employees working out of
3,500 locations and annual revenues of
over $4 billion. Because g r is a sub­
contractor, the author considers all its
employees contingent. A reader may
question the justification for defining
all the workers— even those with full­
time, permanent positions— of such a
large and presumably prosperous com­
pany as contingent. Similar arguments
could be made about defining all
part-time workers and, particularly,
the self-employed as contingent. It
would seem, for example, that this
offers the anomalous situation that
self-employed individuals would be
“contingent,” while their full-time em­
ployees would not be.
Readers who have been following
the discussion of the contingent work
force may be disappointed at the re­
hashing of some items and at some
missed opportunities to extend their
knowledge on the subject. For exam­
ple, the author presents an estimate of
the contingent work force made by
piecing together currently available
data about part-time and self-employed
workers and employment in the busi­
ness services and temporary help sup­
ply industries. The shortcomings to
this approach are readily apparent to
any reader knowledgeable about the
data used, and the author admits his
estimates are subject to both over and
undercounting. It is puzzling that so
much emphasis is placed on these
rather weak estimates.
It is also puzzling that the author did
not make better use of his interviews
with human resource executives from
various industries. These interviews
provide some of the most interesting
information in the book, including a
Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

67

Book Reviews
good examination of the problems and
benefits of contingent work arrange­
ments. Yet, on some key issues, no
information from these case studies is
presented. There is no indication, for
example, about how many of these
firms offer some benefits to their con­
tingent workers or of the actual cost
savings to the firms from the use of
these workers. The author does state
that companies have surprisingly little
information regarding their use of con­
tingent arrangements, so data may
have been hard to obtain. However,
even the qualitative information the au­
thor provides from his interviews is at
times disappointing.
In the discussion of the difficulties
involved in supervising subcontrac­
tors, for example, the author mentions
the case of a clothing manufacturer
who subcontracts to have its products
given an “aged” look. He then poses
the questions: How do you supervise
subcontracted (contingent) workers
who have been hired to “destroy”
clothing and how do you establish
quality measures for making clothing
look old? His only answer is, “The
company was able to accomplish this
tricky task.” An attempt at a response
might have provided useful insights
into the difficulties in using contingent
arrangements. An important service to
the reader would have been rendered
by tabulating whatever information
was obtained from the interviews on
the key issues. Also, some explanation
of how the firms interviewed were se­
lected and how the interviews were
conducted would have been useful.
The considerable attention given to
the evolving relationship between
firms and their workers is likely to con­
tinue. Readers just beginning to ex­
plore this topic will find Belous’ book
to be a useful overview of the subject.
The problems with the author’s defini­
tion and estimates of contingent em­
ployment, however, suggest that much
more research is needed in order to bet­
ter understand the magnitude and ef­
fects of contingent work.

Publications received
Econom ic and social statistics

H ealth and safety
B e a d le, C arson E ., “H ealthcare for the
Uninsured: Is M andation the A n sw er?”

Compensation and Benefits Review,
A restis, P h ilip , “O n the P o st K eyn esian
C h allen ge to N e o cla ssica l E con om ics:
A C om p lete Q uantitative M acro for
the U .K . E c o n o m y ,” Journal of Post
Keynesian Economics, Su m m er 19 8 9 ,
pp. 6 1 1 - 2 9 .
B erry, L eonard L ., “H o w to S ell N e w
S e r v ic e s ,” American Demographics,
O ctob er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 4 2 - 4 3 .
C utler,
B la y n e ,
“M ature
A u d ien ces
O n ly ,” American Demographics, O cto ­
ber 1 9 8 9 , pp. 2 0 - 2 6 .

N o v e m b e r -D e c e m b e r 198 9 , pp. 1 7 - 2 3 .

Medicare’s New Hos­
pital Payment System: Is It Working?

R u sse ll, L o u ise B .,

W ash in gton , T he B rook in gs Institution,
1 9 8 9 , 114 pp. $ 2 2 .9 5 , cloth; $ 8 .9 5 ,
paper.

Industrial relations
A h lé n , K ristina, “S w ed ish C o llec tiv e Bar­
g ain in g U n der Pressure: Inter-union R i­
valry and In com es P o lic ie s ,” British

Journal

of

Collective

Bargaining,

N o v em b er 19 8 9 , pp. 3 3 0 - 4 6 .
G reat B ritain, Central Statistical O ffic e,

United Kingdom National Accounts,
1989 Edition. E dited b y F. H ackm an.
L on d on , Central Statistical O ffic e,
1 9 8 9 , 144 pp. A v a ila b le from H .M . Sta­
tionery O ffic e, P .O . B o x 2 7 6 , L ond on
SW 85D T .
L o n g in o , C harles F ., Jr. and W illia m H .
C row n , “T h e M igration o f O ld M o n e y ,”
American Demographics, O ctob er
1 9 8 9 , pp. 2 8 - 3 1 .
N ie m i, A lbert W ., J r ., “H o w D iscrim in a­
tion A gain st F em ale W orkers Is H id den
in U .S . Industry Statistics: S e x D iffer­
e n c es in W a g es in the C otton T ex tile and
B o o t and S h o e Industries B e tw ee n the
W orld W a rs,” The American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, O ctob er
1 9 8 9 , pp. 4 0 1 - 1 4 .
W isem a n , A . Clark, “P rojected L on gT erm D em ograp h ic T rends and A g g re­
gate P erson al S avin g in the U n ited
S ta te s,” Journal of Post Keynesian Eco­
nomics, Su m m er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 4 9 7 - 5 0 8 .

E conom ic grow th, developm ent
B razelton , W . R ob ert, “A lv in H arvey
H ansen: E co n o m ic G row th and a M ore
P erfect S o c iety — T h e E c o n o m ist’s R o le
in D e fin in g the S tagn ation T h esis and in
P opularizing K ey n esia n ism ,” The Amer­

ican Journal of Economics and Sociol­
ogy, O ctob er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 4 2 7 —40.
The New Realities: In
Government and Politics/In Economics
and Business/In Society and World
View. N e w Y ork , H arper & R o w , P ub­

D rucker, Peter F .,

B a g lio n i, G u id o, “Industrial R elation s in
E urope in the 1 9 8 0 ’s , ” Labour and Soci­
ety, July 1 9 8 9 , pp. 2 3 3 - 4 9 .
B am ber, G reg J. and R u ssell D . Lansbury,
e d s ., New Technology: International

Perspectives on Human Resources and
Industrial Relations. W in ch ester, MA.,
U n w in H ym an , 1 9 8 9 , 2 6 7 pp. $ 4 9 .9 5 .
B élan ger, Jacques, “Job C ontrol and Pro­
ductivity: N e w E vid en ce from C a n ad a,”

British Journal of Industrial Relations,
N ov em b er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 3 4 7 - 6 4 .
B oh lan d er, G eorge W ., “T h e Federal
Labor R elation s A uthority: A R e v iew
and E v a lu ation ,” Journal of Collective
Negotiations in the Public Sector, V o l.
18, N o . 4 , 1 9 8 9 , pp. 2 7 3 - 8 8 .
B row n , Su san R ., “N e w T ech n ology : H o w
D o e s It A ffe c t the W orkplace?” The Ar­
bitration Journal, Septem ber 1 9 8 9 ,
pp. 3 2 - 4 1 .
Farris, D a v id , “C om p en satin g W a g e D if­
ferentials in the U n io n and N o n u n io n
S e c to rs,” Industrial Relations, F all
1 9 8 9 , pp. 3 5 6 - 7 2 .

Figart, Deborah M., “Collective Bargain­
in g and C areer D ev elo p m en t for W o m en
in the P ublic S e c to r,” Journal of Collec­

tive Negotiations in the Public Sector,
V o l. 18, N o . 4 , 1 9 8 9 , pp. 3 0 1 - 1 3 .
F reem an , Richard B . and M arcus E . R eb ick , Crumbling Pillar? Declining
Union Density in Japan. C am bridge,
MA, N ation al B ureau o f E co n o m ic R e ­
search , In c ., 1 9 8 9 , 3 0 pp. (W orking
Paper S eries, 2 9 6 3 .) $ 2 , paper.

lish ers, 1 9 8 9 , 2 7 6 pp. $ 1 9 .9 5 .

— T homas

J.

N ardone

D iv isio n o f L abor F orce S tatistics
B ureau o f Labor S tatistics

68

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

N orton , R . D ., “R eindu strialization and
E co n o m ic D ev elo p m en t S trategy,” Eco­
nomic Development Quarterly, A u gu st
1 9 8 9 , pp. 1 8 8 - 2 0 2 .

H e n le y , John S ., “A frican E m p loym en t
R elation sh ip s and the Future o f Trade
U n io n s,” British Journal of Industrial
Relations, N o v em b er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 2 9 5 309.

H u n d ley , G reg , “T h in gs U n io n s D o , Job
A ttrib utes, and U n io n M em b ersh ip ,” In­
dustrial Relations, F all 1 9 8 9 , pp. 3 3 5 55.
J o n es, S teph en R . G ., “T h e R o le o f N e g o ­
tiators in U n ion -F irm B a rg a in in g ,”
Canadian Journal of Economics, A u ­
gu st 1 9 8 9 , pp. 6 3 0 - 4 2 .
K n igh t, K . G . , “Labour P rod uctivity and
Strike A ctiv ity in B ritish M anufacturing
Industries: S o m e Q uantitative E v i­
d e n c e ,” British Journal of Industrial Re­
lations, N o v em b er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 3 6 5 - 7 4 .

Labor History and Industrial Relations—A
Symposium: “In trod u ction ,” b y N ick
Salvatore; “Labor H istory, Industrial
R ela tio n s, and the C risis o f A m erican
L ab or,” by D a v id B rody; “R eck on in g
w ith C om p any U n ion s: T he C ase o f
T h o m p so n P rod ucts, 1 9 3 4 - 1 9 6 4 ,” by
Sanford M . Jacoby; “M anagers and
N o n u n io n W orkers in the Rubber Indus­
try: U n io n A v o id a n ce Strategies in the
1 9 3 0 ’s , ” b y D an iel N elso n ; and “L ight
M anufacturing: T h e F em in ization o f
A m erican O ffic e W ork, 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 3 0 ,”
by Sharon H artm an Strom , Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, O ctob er
1 9 8 9 , pp. 3 - 7 1 .

Dangerous Premises: An
Insider’s View of OSHA Enforcement.

L o fg e n , D o n J .,

Ithaca, NY, C ornell U n iv ersity , N e w
Y ork State S c h o o l o f Industrial and
L abor R ela tio n s, 1 9 8 9 , 2 5 6 pp. $ 3 2 ,
cloth ; $ 1 4 .9 5 , paper, ilr P ress, Ithaca,

NY.
M artin, P hilip L . and D a n iel L . E gan , “T he
M a k ew h o le R em ed y in C aliforn ia A gri­
cu ltu re,” Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, O ctob er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 1 2 0 - 3 0 .
R eed , T h om as F ., “D o U n io n O rganizers
M atter? In dividual D iffer e n c es, C am ­
paign P ractices, and R epresen tation
E lectio n O u tc o m es,” Industrial Rela­
tions Review, O ctob er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 1 0 3 19.

Industry, governm ent organization
G arten, H elen A ., “R egulatory G row in g
Pains: A P ersp ective on B ank R eg u la ­
tio n in a D eregulatory A g e ,” Fordham
Law Review, M arch 1 9 8 9 , pp. 5 0 1 - 7 7 .
Joh n son , N a n cy B row n , R ak esh B . Sam bharya, and P h ilip B o b k o , “D eregu lation ,
B u sin ess Strategy, and W a g es in the
A irlin e In du stry,” Industrial Relations,
F all 1 9 8 9 , pp. 4 1 9 - 3 0 .

International econom ics
F lo o d , R obert P. and Peter Isard, “M on e-


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

tary P o lic y S tra teg ies,” International
M onetary Fund Staff Papers, Septem ber
1 9 8 9 , pp. 6 1 2 - 3 2 .

Urban Infor­
mal Sector Information: Needs and
Methods. G en ev a , International Labor

H aan, H . and J .-B . C elestin ,

O rgan ization, 1 9 8 9 , 4 4 p p ., b ib liogra­
ph y. A v a ila b le from ilo P ublications
C enter, A lb a n y , NY.

IR: Some International Dimensions: “In­
trod u ction ,” by John P . W indm uller;
“M ultinational Labor R elation s in the
European C o m m u n ity ,” by D u ncan
C o lin
C am pbell;
“Labor and the
C a n a d a -U .S . Free Trade A g reem en t,”
b y R o y J. A d am s and Jerry P. W hite;
“Expatriate R ed u ction in A m erican
M ultinationals: H ave W e G on e T o o
Far?” b y Step h en J. K obrin; and “Im ­
proving the W ork Environm ent: D e v e l­
opm ents in the E uropean C om m u n ity ,”
by M arcello M alen tacch i, il r Report,
F all 19 8 9 , pp. 4 - 3 4 .
K atz, Abraham , “T he G lob al C h allen ge o f
Structural A d ju stm en t,” Labour and So­
ciety, July 1 9 8 9 , pp. 2 0 1 - 1 2 .
L a n d ell-M ills, J. M ., “T he D em an d for In­
ternational R eserves and T heir O pportu­
nity C o s t,” International M onetary Fund
Staff Papers, S eptem ber 1 9 8 9 , pp. 7 0 8 32 .
O h n o, K en ich i, “E xport P ricin g B eh avior
o f M anufacturing: A U .S .-J a p a n C o m ­
p arison ,” International M onetary Fund
Staff Papers, Septem ber 1 9 8 9 , pp. 5 5 0 79 .
O ntani, Ichiro and D ela n o V illa u ev a ,
“T heoretical A sp ects o f G row th in D e ­
v elo p in g C ountries: External D eb t D y ­
n am ics and the R o le o f H um an C ap ital,”
International M onetary
F und Staff
Papers, June 1 9 8 9 , pp. 3 0 7 —42.
O rganization for E con om ic C o-O peration
and D e v elo p m en t, OECD Employment
Outlook, July 1989. W ash in gton , OECD
P u b lication s and Inform ation C enter,
1 9 8 9 , 225 pp.
Parris, K ev en P ., “A gricultural Trade B e ­
tw een OECD and D e v elo p in g C ou n tries,”
The OECD Observer, A u g u st-S ep tem b er
1 9 8 9 , pp. 1 4 - 1 8 .
R osen b erg, S am u el, e d ., The State and the
Labor Market. N e w Y ork , P lenu m
P ress, 1 9 8 9 , 2 5 8 pp. $ 3 4 .5 0 .
S ervais, J .-M ., “T h e S o c ia l C lause in
Trade A greem ents: W ish fu l T hin king or
an Instrum ent o f S o cia l P rogress?” In­
ternational Labour Review, V o l. 128,
N o . 4 , 1 9 8 9 , pp. 4 2 3 - 3 2 .

T an zi, V ito , “T he Im pact o f M a cro eco ­
n om ic P o lic ie s on the L e v el o f T axation
and the F iscal B alan ce in D e v elo p in g
C ou n tries,”
International
M onetary
Fund Staff Papers, Septem ber 1 9 8 9 ,
pp. 6 3 3 - 5 6 .

L abor and econom ic history
B o ris, E ileen and C ynthia R . D a n ie ls, e d s .,

Homework: Historical and Contempo­
rary Perspectives on Paid Labor at
Home. C h am paign, U n iversity o f Illi­
n o is P ress, 1 9 8 9 , 2 9 9 pp. $ 3 2 .5 0 , cloth;
$ 1 2 .9 5 , paper.
U n iversity o f T exas at A u stin , The History
of Cotton in Texas. A u stin , T he U n iv er­
sity o f T exas at A u stin , G raduate S ch o o l
o f B u sin e ss, B ureau o f B u sin ess R e ­
search , 1 9 8 9 , 37 pp. $ 5 , paper.

L abor force
C a sey , Bernard and others, “Tem porary
E m p loym en t in G reat Britain and the
Federal R ep u b lic o f G erm any: A n
O v e r v ie w ,” International Labour Re­
view, V o l. 128, N o . 4 , 1 9 8 9 , pp. 4 4 9 -

66 .
G reat B ritain, D epartm ent o f E m p lo y m en t,
“N e w R ecruits to S elf-E m p lo y m en t in
the 1 9 8 0 ’s , ” b y Catherine H akim , Em­
ployment Gazette, June 1 9 8 9 , pp. 2 8 6 97.
------- “T h e Labour M arket for Y o u n g and
O lder W ork ers,” b y B ill W e lls, Employ­
ment Gazette, June 1 9 8 9 , pp. 3 1 9 - 3 1 .
------- The

Occupations, Earnings and Work
Histories of Young Adults—Who Gets
the Good Jobs? by Peter E lia s and D a v id
B lan ch flow er. L on d on , D epartm ent o f
E m p loym en t, 1 9 8 9 , 69 pp. (R esearch
Paper, 6 8 .)

------- “W o m en at W ork in Europe: T he P o ­
tential and P itfalls o f U sin g P ublish ed
S ta tistics,” b y A n g ela D a le and Judith
G lover, Employment Gazette, June
1 9 8 9 , pp. 2 9 9 - 3 0 8 .
L iem t, G ijsbert van , “M in im u m Labour
Standards and International Trade:
W ou ld a S o c ia l C lau se W ork?” Interna­
tional Labour Review, V o l. 1 2 8 , N o . 4 ,
1 9 8 9 , pp. 4 3 3 - 4 8 .
B ev erly , The Invisible Work
Force: Transforming American Business
with Outside and Home-Based Workers.

L o za n o ,

N e w Y ork , T he Free P ress, a D iv isio n o f
M acm illan , In c ., 1 9 8 9 , 2 1 8 pp. $ 1 9 .9 5 .

Working Parents: Transfor­
mation in Gender Roles and Public
Policies in Sweden. M ad iso n , T he U n i-

M o en , P h y llis,

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

69

Book Reviews
v ersity o f W isco n sin P ress, 1 9 8 9 , 181
pp.
P resser, Harriet B ., “C an W e M ake T im e
for C hildren? T he E co n o m y , W ork
S ch ed u les, and C h ild C a re,” Demogra­
phy, N o v em b er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 5 2 3 - 4 3 .

Psychology in the Public Forum: “W o m ­
e n ’s C h anging R oles: Im pact o f H ealth,
F am ily and P ublic P o lic y ,” b y K aren A .
M atth ew s and Judith R odin; “E m p lo y ­
m ent and W o m e n ’s M ental and P h ysical
H ea lth ,” by R ena L . R ep etti, K aren A .
M atth ew s, and Ingrid W aldron; “W ork­
in g M others and Their F a m ilie s ,” by
Sandra Scarr, D eborah P h illip s, and
K athleen M cC artney; and “T ow ard a
N ation al F am ily
P o lic y ,” by
Pat
Schroeder,
American Psychologist,
N o v em b er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 1 3 8 9 - 4 1 3 .
S eitch ik ,

A d am

and Jeffrey

Z o m itsk y ,

From One Job to the Next: Worker Ad­
justment in a Changing Labor Market.
K a la m a zo o , m i , W . E . U p john Institute
for E m p lo y m en t R esearch , 19 8 9 , 129
pp. $ 1 6 .9 5 , cloth; $ 9 .9 5 , paper.
Sh u lm an , S tev en , “T he Natural R ate o f
U n em p loym en t: C on cep t and C ritiq u e,”

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,
Su m m er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 5 0 9 - 2 1 .
S in g e ll, Larry D . and Jane H . L illyd ah l,
“S o m e A ltern ative D efin itio n s o f Y ou th
U n em p loym en t: A M ean s for Im proved
U nderstandin g and P o lic y F orm ation ,”

The American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, O ctob er 19 8 9 , pp. 4 5 7 - 7 1 .
Employers and
Child Care: Benefiting Work and Fam­
ily. W ash in g to n , U .S . D epartm ent o f

U .S .

Managers as Em­
ployees: An International Comparison
of the Changing Character of Manage­
rial Employment. N e w Y ork , O xford

R oom k in , M yron J .,

M onetary and fiscal policy

N a k o steen , R obert A . and M ich ael A . Z im ­
m er, “M in im u m W a g es and Labor M ar­
ket P rospects o f W o m e n ,” Southern
Economic Journal, O ctob er 1 9 8 9 , pp.
3 0 2 -1 4 .

B a llis, B yron and R ichard H erd, “E lim ­
inating the U .S . B u d get D e fic it,” The
OECD Observer,
A u g u st-S ep tem b er
1 9 8 9 , pp. 2 7 - 3 0 .

Sau er, R obert L ., “A N e w A pproach to
Salary Structures,” Compensation and
Benefits Review, S ep tem b er-O cto b er
19 8 9 , pp. 5 7 - 6 3 .

B eck etti, S ean and G ordon H . S e llo n , Jr.,
“H as F in ancial M arket V o la tility In­
creased?” Economic Review, Federal
R eserve B ank o f K ansas C ity , June
1 9 8 9 , pp. 1 7 - 3 0 .

W elfare program s, social insurance

U n iversity P ress, 1 9 8 9 , 2 8 8 pp. $ 2 9 .9 5 .

Darrat, A li F ., “F iscal D e ficits and L on gT erm Interest R ates: Further E v id en ce
from A n nu al D a ta ,” Southern Economic
Journal, O ctob er 1 9 8 9 , pp. 3 6 3 - 7 4 .
H eilbroner, R obert and P eter B ern stein ,

The Debt and the Deficit: False Alarmsi
Real Possibilities. N e w Y ork , W . W .
N orton & C o ., 1 9 8 9 , 128 pp. $ 1 2 .9 5 .
M orris, C harles S ., “M an agin g S tock M ar­
ket R isk w ith S tock In dex F u tu res,”
Economic Review, Federal R eserve
B ank o f K ansas C ity , June 1 9 8 9 , pp.
3 -1 6 .

W ages and com pensation
A ck er, Joan,

Gender,

Doing Comparable Worth:
Class and Pay Equity.

P h ilad elp h ia, p a , T em p le U n iversity
P ress, 1 9 8 9 , 2 5 4 p p ., bib liograp hy.
$ 3 4 .9 5 .

W o m e n ’s B ureau,

L abor,
O ffic e
of
the
S ecretary,
W o m e n ’s B ureau, 1 98 9 , 7 6 pp.

If Women Counted: A
New Feminist Economics. N e w Y ork,

W arin g, M arilyn,

Harper & R o w , P u b lish ers, I n c ., 1988,
3 8 6 p p ., bib liograp hy. $ 1 9 .9 5 .

M anagem ent, organization theory

B o w e n , D a v id E . and C hristopher A .
W a d ley , D e sig n in g a Strategic B en efits
P rogram ,” Compensation and Benefits
Review, S e p tem b er-O cto b er 198 9 , pp.
4 4 -5 6 .
H ill, M . A n n e and M ark R . K illin g s w orth,
e d s ., Comparable Worth: Analyses and
Evidence. Ithaca, NY, C ornell U n iver­
sity , N e w Y ork State S c h o o l o f In du s­
trial and Labor R ela tio n s, 1 9 8 9 , 144 pp.
$ 2 4 .9 5 , cloth; $ 9 .9 5 , paper, ilr P ress,
Ithaca, NY.

B atten, Joe D ., Tough-Minded Leadership.
N e w Y ork, am acom , a D iv isio n o f the
A m erican M an agem en t A sso c ia tio n ,
1 9 8 9 , 2 3 6 pp. $ 1 7 .9 5 .

K atz, L aw ren ce F. and A n a L. R ev en g a ,

Mintzberg on Manage­
ment: Inside Our Strange World of Or­
ganizations. N e w Y ork , T he Free P ress,

N ation al B ureau o f E co n o m ic R esearch ,
In c ., 1 9 8 9 , 34 pp. (W orking Paper S e ­
ries, 3 0 2 1 .) $ 2 , paper.

a D iv isio n o f M a cm illan , In c ., 1989,
4 1 8 pp. $ 2 4 .9 5 .

K ild u ff, A n th on y P ., “R eal W a g es and
E m ploym ent: N e w E v id e n c e ,” Ca­
nadian Journal of Economics, A u gu st
1 9 8 9 , pp. 6 1 9 - 2 9 .

M in tzb erg, H en ry,

Well Made in America:
Lessons from Harley-Davidson on
Being the Best. N e w Y ork , M c G r a w -

R eid , Peter C .,

H ill P u b lish in g C o .,
$ 1 9 .9 5 .

70

1990,

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

226

pp.

March 1990

Y ork , Praeger P u b lish ers, 198 9 , 2 3 2 pp.

Changes in the Structure of Wages: The
U.S. Versus Japan. C am b ridge, MA,

M cC arthy, E u gen e and
G au g h ey , Nonfinancial

W illia m

M c-

Economics: The
Case for Shorter Hours of Work. N e w

A sim a k o p u lo s, A ., “F in an cin g S o c ia l S e ­
curity— W h o P ays?” Journal of Post
Keynesian Economics, Su m m er 1 9 8 9 ,
pp. 6 5 5 - 6 0 .
C lou tier, N orm an R . and A n th on y L. L ov isc e k , “ afdc B en efits and the InterUrban V ariation in P overty am ong
F em ale-H ead ed H o u se h o ld s,” Southern
Economic Journal, O ctob er 198 9 , pp.
3 1 5 -2 2 .
L e v in e, R ichard, “P en sion P lan ning for the
A g e o f A g in g ,” Management Review,
O ctob er 19 8 9 , pp. 4 7 - 5 0 .
L evitan , Sar A ., Garth L . M an gu m , and
M arion W . P in es, A Proper Inheritance:

Investing in the Self-Sufficiency of Poor
Families. W ash in gton , T h e G eorge
W ash in gton U n iv ersity , C enter for S o ­
cial P o lic y S tu d ies, 1 9 8 9 , 59 pp.
S tacy, D on ald R ., “A v o id D o u b le D ip p in g
W ithout Incurring an adea V io la tio n ,”

Compensation and Benefits Review,
N o v e m b e r -D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 9 , pp. 4 8 - 5 7 .

W orker training, developm ent
Formal Employee Training
Programs and Their Impact on Labor
Productivity: Evidence from a Human
Resources Survey. C am b ridge, MA, N a ­

B artel, A n n P .,

tional Bureau o f E co n o m ic R esearch ,
In c ., 1 9 8 9 , 37 pp. (W orking Paper S e ­
ries, 3 0 2 6 .) $ 2 , paper.
Jill, Successful Training
Strategies: Twenty-Six Innovative Cor­
porate Models. San F ran cisco, CA,

C asner-L otto,

J o s s e y -B a s s , P u b lish ers, 1 9 8 8 , 4 2 9 pp.
$ 3 4 .9 5 .
Ito,

T akatoshi

and

K y o u n g sik

K ang,

Bonuses, Overtime and Employment:
Korea vs. Japan. C am b ridge, MA, N a ­
tional Bureau o f E con om ic R esearch ,
In c ., 1 9 8 9 , 38 pp. (W orking Paper S e ­
ries, 3 0 1 2 .) $ 2 , paper.
R o s o w , Jerom e M .

and R obert Z ager,

Training—The Competitive Edge: Intro­
ducing New Technology Into the Work­
place. San F ran cisco, CA, J o s s e y -B a s s ,
P u b lish ers, 1 9 8 8 , 2 4 3 pp. $ 2 6 .9 5 .

□

Current
labor
statistics

Notes on Current Labor Statistics

.......................

72

1. Labor market indicators...............................................................
2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation,
prices, and productivity ......................................................
3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation
changes ......................................................................................

82

Comparative indicators

Labor force data
4. Employment status o f the total population,
data seasonally adjusted .............................................................
5. Employment status of the civilian population,
data seasonally adjusted .............................................................
6. Selected employment indicators, data seasonally adjusted .
7. Selected unemployment indicators,
data seasonally adjusted .............................................................
8. Unemployment rates by sex and age,
data seasonally adjusted .............................................................
9. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment,
data seasonally adjusted .............................................................
10.
11.
12.
13.

84
85
86
87
88
88

Duration o f unemployment, data seasonally adjusted .........
Unemployment rates of civilian workers, by State ..............
Employment o f workers, by State ...........................................
Employment o f workers, by industry,
data seasonally adjusted .............................................................
14. Average weekly hours, by industry,
data seasonally adjusted .............................................................
15. Average hourly earnings, by industry,
data seasonally adjusted .............................................................

88
89
89

16. Average hourly earnings, by industry ....................................
17. Average weekly earnings, by industry ....................................
18. Diffusion indexes of employment change,
data seasonally adjusted .............................................................
19. Annual data: Employment status
o f the noninstitutional population ..............................................
20. Annual data: Employment levels, by industry .....................
21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels,
by industry ......................................................................................

92
93

90


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

27. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments,
bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more ----- 101
28. Average effective wage adjustments, bargaining situations
covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ................................................ 102
29. Specified compensation and wage adjustments,
State and local government bargaining situations
covering 1,000 workers or m o r e ................................................ 102
30. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more .............. 102

Price data
31. Consumer Price Index: U .S. city average, by expenditure
category and commodity and service groups .........................
32. Consumer Price Index: U .S . city average and local data,
all items ...........................................................................................
33. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items
and major g r o u p s...........................................................................
34. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of p rocessin g.....................
35. Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ................
36. Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major
industry groups .............................................................................
37. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of
p rocessin g........................................................................................
38. U .S . export price indexes, by Standard International
Trade C lassification ......................................................................
39. U .S. import price indexes, by Standard International
Trade C lassification ......................................................................

103
106
107
108
108
109
109
110
I ll

91
92

40. U .S. export price indexes by end-use category .....................
41. U .S. import price indexes by end-use ca teg o ry .....................
42. U .S . export price indexes, by Standard Industrial
Classification ..................................................................................
43. U .S. import price indexes, by Standard Industrial
Classification ...........................................

112
112
112
113

94
95
95
96

Labor compensation
and collective bargaining data
22. Employment Cost Index, compensation,
by occupation and industry g ro u p .............................................
23. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries,
by occupation and industry g ro u p .............................................
24. Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry
workers, by occupation and industry g r o u p ...........................
25. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers,
by bargaining status, region, and area size ...........................
26. Specified compensation and wage adjustments
from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments,
situations covering 1,000 workers or more ...........................

Labor compensation
and collective bargaining data— Continued

Productivity data
44. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation,
and unit costs, data seasonally a d ju sted .................................. 113
45. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity ........................... 114
46. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation,
unit costs, and p r ic e s .................................................................... 115
47. Annual productivity indexes for selected industries.............. 116

International comparisons data
97
98
99
100

101

48. Unemployment rates in nine countries,
data seasonally adjusted ..........................................................
118
49. Annual data: Employment status of civilian working-age
population, 10 countries ............................................................. 119
50. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures,
12 countries .................................................................................... 120

Injury and illness data
51. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness
incidence rates ...............................................................................

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

121
71

Notes on Current Labor Statistics

T h is sectio n o f the Review presents the
principal statistical series c o lle cte d and ca l­
cu lated by the B ureau o f Labor Statis­
tics: series on labor force; em p loym en t;
u n em p loym en t; c o lle c tiv e bargaining set­
tlem ents; con su m er, producer, and interna­
tional prices; productivity; international
com p arison s; and injury and illn e ss statis­
tics. In the no tes that fo llo w , the data in
ea ch group o f tab les are b riefly described;
k ey d efin itio n s are g iv en ; n otes on the data
are set forth; and sou rces o f additional in­
form ation are cited.

sh o w n in table 15— are adjusted to e lim i­
nate the e ffe c t o f ch an ges in price. T h ese
adjustm ents are m ade b y d iv id in g currentd ollar valu es b y the C on su m er P rice In dex
or the appropriate com p on en t o f the in d ex ,
then m u ltip lyin g b y 100. For ex a m p le,
g iv en a current hou rly w a g e rate o f $3 and
a current price in d ex num ber o f 150, w h ere
1977 = 1 00, the hourly rate ex p ressed in
1977 dollars is $2 ($ 3 /1 5 0 x 100 = $ 2 ).
T he $2 (or any other resultin g v a lu es) are
describ ed as “r ea l,” “co n stan t,” or “ 1 9 7 7 ”
dollars.

General notes

Additional information

T h e fo llo w in g no tes apply to several tables
in this section :
Seasonal adjustment. Certain m onth ly
and quarterly data are adjusted to elim in ate
the e ffe c t on the data o f su ch factors as
clim a tic co n d itio n s, industry production
sch ed u les, op en in g and c lo sin g o f sc h o o ls,
h o lid a y b u y in g p eriod s, and vacation prac­
tic e s, w h ich m igh t prevent short-term e v a l­
uation o f the statistical series. T ables
co n ta in in g data that have b een adjusted are
id en tified as “sea so n a lly ad ju sted .” (A ll
other data are not sea so n a lly adju sted.)
S ea so n a l e ffe c ts are estim ated on the b asis
o f past ex p erien ce. W hen n ew season al fa c­
tors are com p u ted ea ch year, rev ision s m ay
a ffect sea so n a lly adjusted data for several
preced in g years.
S ea so n a lly adjusted data appear in tables
1 - 3 , 4 - 1 0 , 1 3 - 1 5 , 1 7 - 1 8 , 4 4 , and 4 8 .
S ea so n a lly adjusted labor force data in ta­
b les 1 and 4 - 1 0 w ere revised in the Febru­
ary 19 9 0 issu e o f the Review and reflect the
ex p erien ce through 1 9 8 9. S ea so n a lly ad­
ju sted estab lish m en t su rvey data sh o w n in
tables 1 3 - 1 5 and 1 7 - 1 8 w ere revised in the
July 1989 Review and reflect the exp erien ce
through M arch 1 9 8 9 . A b rief exp lan ation
o f the season al adjustm ent m eth o d o lo g y
appears in “N o te s o n the d ata.”
R e v isio n s in the p rodu ctivity data in
table 4 4 are u su ally introduced in the S e p ­
tem b er issu e. S ea so n a lly adjusted in d ex es
and p ercent ch a n g es from m onth -to-m onth
and quarter-to-quarter are p u b lish ed for nu­
m erou s C on su m er and Producer P rice In­
d ex series. H o w e v er , sea so n a lly adjusted
in d ex es are not p u b lish ed for the U .S . aver­
age A ll Item s CPI. O n ly sea so n a lly adjusted
p ercent ch a n g es are availab le for this
series.

Adjustments

for

price

changes.

S o m e data— su ch as the “real” earnings
72

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

D ata that su pp lem en t the tab les in this s e c ­
tion are p u b lish ed b y the B ureau in a vari­
ety o f sou rces. N e w s releases p rovid e the
latest statistical inform ation p u b lish ed by
the Bureau; the m ajor recurring releases are
p u b lish ed accord in g to the sch ed u le pre­
ced in g th ese general n o tes. M ore inform a­
tion about labor fo rce, em p lo y m en t, and
u n em p loym en t data and the h o u seh old and
estab lish m en t su rveys un derlying the data
are availab le in Employment and Earnings,
a m on th ly pu b lication o f the B ureau. M ore
data from the h o u seh old su rvey are pub­
lish ed in the data b o o k s— Revised Sea­

sonally Adjusted Labor Force Statistics,
B u lletin 2 3 0 6 , and Labor Force Statistics
Derived From the Current Population Sur­
vey, B u lletin 2 3 0 7 . M ore data from the e s ­
tablish m ent su rvey appear in tw o data
b o o k s— Employment, Hours, and Earn­
ings, United States, and Employment,

Hours, and Earnings, States and Areas,
and the su p p lem en ts to th ese data b ook s.
M ore detailed inform ation on em p lo y ee
com p en sation and c o lle c tiv e bargaining
settlem en ts is p u b lish ed in the m on th ly p e­
riod ical, Current Wage Developments.
M ore d etailed data on con su m er and pro­
ducer p rices are p u b lish ed in the m onth ly
p eriod icals, The CPI Detailed Report, and
Producer Price Indexes. D eta iled data on
all o f the series in this sectio n are p rovided
in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, w h ich
is p u b lish ed b ien n ally by the B ureau, bls
bu lletin s are issu ed cov erin g produ ctivity,
injury and illn e ss , and other data in this
sectio n . F in a lly , the Monthly Labor Review
carries analytical articles on annual and
lon ger term d ev elop m en ts in labor force,
em p lo y m en t, and un em p loym en t; em ­
p lo y e e com p en sation and c o lle c tiv e bar­
gaining; prices; productivity; international
com parisons; and injury and illn ess data.

Symbols
n .e .c .

=

not elsew h ere c la ssified ,

n .e .s .

=

not elsew h ere sp ecified .

p

=

prelim inary. T o increase the
tim elin ess o f so m e series,
prelim inary figu res are is ­
su ed based on representa­
tiv e but in com p lete returns.

r

=

revised . G en erally, this re­
v isio n reflects the av a il­
ab ility o f later data but
m ay a lso reflect other
adjustm ents.

Com parative Indicators
(T ab les 1 - 3 )
C om parative indicators tables provide an
o v erv iew and com p arison o f m ajor bls
statistical series. C o n seq u en tly, although
m any o f the inclu ded series are availab le
m on th ly, all m easures in th ese com parative
tables are presented quarterly and annually.
Labor market indicators in clu d e e m ­
p loym en t m easures from tw o m ajor sur­
v e y s and inform ation on rates o f ch an g e in
com p en sation p rovided by the E m p loym en t
C ost In dex (eci) program . T he labor force
participation rate, the em p loym en t-to pop u lation ratio, and u n em p loym en t rates
for m ajor d em ographic groups b ased o n the
Current P opulation (“h o u seh old ”) S u rvey
are presented , w h ile m easures o f em p lo y ­
m ent and average w e ek ly hours b y m ajor
industry sector are g iv en usin g non agricultural payroll data. T he E m p loym en t C ost
In dex (com p en sation ), by m ajor sector and
b y bargaining status, is ch o sen from a vari­
ety o f BLS com p en sation and w a g e m ea ­
sures b ecau se it p rovid es a com p reh en siv e
m easure o f em p loyer co sts for hiring labor,
not ju st ou tlays for w a g e s, and it is not
affected b y em p loym en t sh ifts am ong o c ­
cupations and industries.
D ata on changes in compensation,
prices, and productivity are presented in
table 2. M easures o f rates o f ch an ge o f
com p en sation and w a g es from the E m p lo y ­
m ent C ost Index program are provid ed for
all civ ilia n nonfarm w orkers (ex clu d in g
Federal and h o u seh old w orkers) and for all
private nonfarm w orkers. M easures o f
ch a n ges in: con su m er prices for all urban
consu m ers; producer prices by stage o f
p rocessin g; and the overall export and im ­
port price in d ex es are g iv en . M easures o f

p rodu ctivity (output per hour o f all persons)
are p rovided for m ajor sectors.

Alternative measures of wage and
compensation rates of change, which reflect
the o verall trend in labor c o sts, are su m m a­
rized in table 3. D ifferen ces in con cep ts
and sc o p e , related to the sp ec ific pu rp oses
o f the series, contribute to the variation in
ch a n g es a m on g the ind ividu al m easures.

Notes on the data
D efin itio n s o f ea ch series and notes on the
data are con tain ed in later sectio n s o f th ese
no tes d escrib in g each set o f data. For d e­
tailed d escrip tion s o f each data series, see
BLS Handbook of Methods, B u lletin 228 5
(B ureau o f L abor S tatistics, 1 9 8 8 ), as w e ll
as the additional b u lletin s, articles, and
other pu b lication s noted in the separate s e c ­
tio n s o f the Review’s “Current Labor
Statistics N o te s .” U sers m ay a lso w ish to
co n su lt Major Programs, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, R eport 7 1 8 (B ureau o f Labor
S ta tistics, 1 9 8 5 ).

Em ploym ent
and U nem ploym ent Data
(T ab les 1; 4 - 2 1 )

Household survey data
Description of the series
Employment

in this sectio n are o b ­
tained from the Current P opulation S u rvey,
a p rogram o f p e r so n a l in te r v ie w s c o n ­
ducted m on th ly by the B ureau o f the C en ­
su s for the B ureau o f Labor S tatistics. T he
sa m p le c o n sists o f abou t 6 0 ,0 0 0 h o u se ­
h o ld s selected to represent the U .S . pop ula­
tion 16 years o f age and older. H ou seh old s
are in terv iew ed on a rotating b a sis, so that
three-fourths o f the sam p le is the sam e for
any 2 co n se c u tiv e m onth s.
data

Definitions
Employed persons in clu d e (1) all c iv il­
ians w h o w orked for pay any tim e during
the w e ek w h ich in clu d es the 12th day o f the
m onth or w h o w orked unpaid for 15 hours
or m ore in a fa m ily -o p era ted en terp rise
and (2 ) th o se w h o w ere tem porarily absent
from their regular jo b s b ecau se o f illn e ss,
va ca tio n , industrial d isp u te, or sim ilar rea­
so n s. M em b ers o f the A rm ed F orces sta­
tio n ed in the U n ited States are also inclu ded
in the em p lo y ed total. A p erson w ork in g at
m ore than o n e jo b is cou n ted o n ly in the jo b
at w h ich h e or sh e w ork ed the greatest
num ber o f hours.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Unemployed persons are th ose w h o did
not w ork during the su rvey w e e k , but w ere
availab le for w ork e x cep t for tem porary ill­
n ess and had lo o k ed for jo b s w ith in the
preced in g 4 w e ek s. P erson s w h o did not
lo o k for w ork b ecau se they w ere on la y o ff
or w aitin g to start n ew jo b s w ith in the next
3 0 days are a lso cou n ted am on g the u n em ­
p lo y ed . T he overall unemployment rate
represents the num ber u n em p loyed as a per­
cen t o f the labor fo rce, in clu d in g the resi­
dent Arm ed Forces. The civilian unemploy­
ment rate represents the number unem ployed
as a percent o f the civ ilia n labor force.
T h e labor force co n sists o f all em p lo y ed
or u n em p loyed civ ilia n s p lu s m em b ers o f
the A rm ed F orces stationed in the U n ited
States. P erson s not in the labor force are
th ose not c la ssifie d as em p lo y ed or u n em ­
p loyed ; this group in clu d es persons w h o are
retired, th ose en g a g ed in their o w n h o u se­
w ork , th ose not w orking w h ile attending
sc h o o l, th ose un able to w ork b ecau se o f
lon g-term illn e ss, th ose d iscou raged from
seek in g w ork b ecau se o f personal or jo b m arket factors, and th ose w h o are voluntar­
ily id le. T he noninstitutional population
com p rises all persons 16 years o f age and
older w h o are not inm ates o f penal or m en ­
tal in stitu tion s, sanitarium s, or h o m es for
the aged , infirm , or n e e d y , and m em b ers o f
the A rm ed F orces stationed in the U n ited
States. T h e labor force participation rate
is the proportion o f the n on in stitu tion al
p op ulation that is in the labor force. T he
employment-population ratio is total em ­
p lo y m en t (in clu d in g the resid en t A rm ed
F orces) as a percent o f the noninstitutional
population.

A t the end o f each calend ar y ear, sea so n ­
ally adjusted data for the p reviou s 5 years
are revised , and projected season al adjust­
m ent factors are calcu lated for u se during
th e J a n u a ry -J u n e p e r io d . In J u ly , n e w
season al adjustm ent factors, w h ich incor­
porate the e x p e rien ce through Jun e, are
produced for the J u ly -D e c em b e r period but
no révison s are m ade in the h istorical data.

Notes on the data

EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA

From tim e to tim e, and e sp e c ia lly after a
d ecen n ial cen su s, adjustm ents are m ade in
the Current Population Survey figures to cor­
rect for estim atin g errors during the intercen sa l years. T h ese adjustm ents a ffect the
com parability o f h istorical data. A descrip ­
tion o f th ese adjustm ents and their e ffe c t o n
the various data series appear in the Explana­
tory N o te s o f Employment and Earnings.
Labor force data in tables 1 and 4 - 1 0 are
sea son ally adjusted b ased on the exp eri­
e n ce through D ecem b er 19 8 9 . S in ce Janu­
ary 1 9 8 0 , national labor force data have
been sea son ally adjusted w ith a procedure
called X - l l ARIMA w h ich w as d ev elo p ed
at Statistics C anada as an ex ten sio n o f the
standard X - l l m eth od p reviou sly u sed by
b l s . A d etailed descrip tion o f the proce­
dure appears in the X - ll ARIMA Seasonal
Adjustment Method , by E stela B e e D agu m
(S ta tis tic s C a n a d a , C a ta lo g u e N o . 1 2 5 6 4 E , February 1980).

Additional sources of information
For d etailed exp lan ation s o f the data, see
Handbook of Methods , B u lletin 2 2 8 5
(B ureau o f Labor S tatistics, 1 9 8 8 ), and for
additional data, Handbook of Labor Statis­
tics , B u lletin 2 3 4 0 (B ureau o f Labor S tatis­
tic s, 1 989). H istorical unadjusted data from
1948 to 1987 are availab le in Labor Force

bls

Statistics Derived from the Current Popu­
lation Survey, B u lletin 2 3 0 7 (B ureau o f
Labor S tatistics, 19 8 8 ). H istorical sea so n ­
ally adjusted data appear in Labor Force

Statistics Derived from the Current Popu­
lation Survey: A Databook, V o l. U , B u l­
letin 2 0 9 6 (B ureau o f Labor S tatistics,
1 9 8 2 ), and Revised Seasonally Adjusted
Labor Force Statistics, 1978-87, B u lletin
2 3 0 6 (B ureau o f Labor S tatistics, 1 9 8 8 ).
A com p reh en sive d iscu ssio n o f the d if­
feren ces b etw een h o u seh old and esta b lish ­
m ent data on em p loym en t appears in G loria
P . G reen , “C om paring em p lo y m en t e sti­
m ates from h ou seh old and payroll sur­
v e y s ,” Monthly Labor Review, D ecem b er
1 9 6 9 , pp. 9 - 2 0 .

Establishment survey data
Description of the series
in this sectio n are co m p iled from payroll
records reported m onth ly on a voluntary
b asis to the B ureau o f Labor Statistics and
its cooperating State a g en cies by m ore than
3 0 0 ,0 0 0 estab lish m en ts representing all in­
dustries ex cep t agriculture. In m o st in d u s­
tries, the sam p lin g probab ilities are based
on the siz e o f the establishm ent; m o st large
estab lish m en ts are therefore in the sam p le.
(A n estab lish m en t is not n ecessa rily a firm;
it m ay be a branch plant, for ex a m p le, or
w areh o u se.) S e lf-em p lo y e d persons and
others not on a regular civ ilia n payroll are
ou tsid e the sco p e o f the su rvey b eca u se
they are ex clu d ed from estab lish m en t
record s. T h is largely accou nts for the d if­
feren ce in em p loym en t figures b etw een the
h o u seh old and estab lish m en t su rveys.

Definitions
A n establishment is an e co n o m ic unit
w h ich produ ces g o o d s or serv ices (su ch as
a factory or store) at a sin g le lo ca tio n and is

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

73

Current Labor Statistics
en g a g ed in o n e type o f eco n o m ic activity.
Employed persons are all persons w h o
receiv ed p ay (in clu d in g h olid ay and sick
pay) for any part o f the payroll period in ­
clu d in g the 12th o f the m onth . P ersons
h old in g m ore than o n e jo b (about 5 percent
o f all persons in the labor force) are
cou n ted in ea ch estab lish m en t w h ich re­
ports them .

Production workers in m anufacturing
in clu d e w ork in g su pervisors and nonsuperv iso ry w orkers c lo s e ly associated w ith
produ ction operation s. T h ose workers
m en tio n ed in tables 1 2 - 1 7 in clu d e produc­
tion w orkers in m anufacturing and m ining;
construction w orkers in construction; and
n on su p ervisory w orkers in the fo llo w in g
industries: transportation and pu blic u tili­
ties; w h o le sa le and retail trade; fin a n ce, in­
surance, and real estate; and services.
T h ese groups a ccou n t for about four-fifth s
o f the total em p lo y m en t on private nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the p aym en ts production
or non su p ervisory w orkers rec eiv e during
the su rvey p eriod , in clu d in g prem ium pay
for ov ertim e or la te-sh ift w ork but e x clu d ­
in g irregular b o n u ses and other sp ecial p ay­
m en ts. Real earnings are earnings adjusted
to reflect the e ffe c ts o f ch an ges in c o n ­
su m er p rices. T h e d eflator for this series is
derived from the C on su m er P rice In dex for
U rban W a g e Earners and C lerical W orkers
(CPI-W).

m ent (ca lled “benchm arks”). T he latest ad­
ju stm en t, w h ich incorporated M arch 1988
benchm arks, w as m ade w ith the release o f
M ay 1989 data, pu b lish ed in the July 1989
issu e o f the Review. C oin cid en t w ith the
b en ch m a rk a d ju stm e n ts, s e a s o n a lly a d ­
ju sted data w ere revised to reflect the e x p e ­
rien ce through M arch 1 9 8 9 . U n ad ju sted
data h ave been rev ised back to A pril 1987;
sea so n a lly adjusted data back to January
1984. T h ese rev ision s w ere pu b lish ed in
the Supplement to Employment and Earn­
ings (B ureau o f Labor S ta tistics, 19 8 9 ).
U n adjusted data from A pril 1988 forward
and sea so n a lly adjusted data from January
1985 forw ard are su bject to rev ision in fu ­
ture benchm arks.
T h e bls a ls o u s e s th e X - l l ARIM A
m eth o d o lo g y to sea so n a lly adjust e stab lish ­
m ent su rvey data. B eg in n in g in June 19 8 9 ,
p rojected season al adjustm ent factors are
calcu lated o n ly for the first 6 m onth s after
benchm arking, rather than for 12 m onths
(A p ril-M a rch ) as w as p rev io u sly d on e. A
seco n d set o f projected factors, w h ich in­
corporate the ex p erien ce thou gh S ep tem ­
ber, w ill be p rodu ced for the su bseq uent
period and introduced w ith the p u blication
o f data for O ctober. T he ch an ge m akes the
procedure u sed for the estab lish m en t sur­
v e y data m ore parallel to that u sed in ad­
ju stin g the h o u seh old su rvey data. R e v i­
sion s o f h istorical data w ill con tin u e to be
m a d e o n c e a y ea r c o in c id e n t w ith th e
benchm ark revision s.
In the estab lish m en t su rv ey , estim ates
for the 2 m ost recen t m onth s are based on
in co m p lete returns and are p u b lish ed as
prelim inary in the tables (13 to 18 in the
Review). W hen all returns h ave b een re­
c e iv e d , the estim ates are revised and pub­
lish ed as “fin al” (prior to any benchm ark
rev ision s) in the third m onth o f their ap­
pearance. T h u s, D ecem b er data are pu b­
lish ed as prelim inary in January and Febru­
ary and as fin al in M arch. For the sam e
reason s, quarterly estab lish m en t data (table
1) are prelim inary for the first 2 m onth s o f
pu b lication and final in the third m onth .
T h u s, fourth-quarter data are p u b lish ed as
prelim inary in January and February and
final in M arch.

Hours represent the average w eek ly
hours o f production or non su p ervisory
w orkers for w h ich pay w as rec eiv e d , and
are d ifferent from standard or sch ed u led
hours. Overtime hours represent the por­
tion o f average w e ek ly hours w h ich w as in
e x c e ss o f regular hours and for w h ich over­
tim e prem iu m s w ere paid.
The Diffusion Index represents the per­
cen t o f in d u stries in w h ich em p lo y m en t
w as risin g ov er the ind icated p eriod , plu s
o n e -h a lf o f the industries w ith un ch anged
em p loym en t; 5 0 percent in d icates an equal
b alan ce b etw een industries w ith increasing
and d ecreasin g em p lo y m en t. In lin e w ith
Bureau practice, data for the 1-, 3 -, and
6 -m o n th sp a n s are se a so n a lly ad ju sted ,
w h ile th ose for the 12-m onth span are un­
adjusted. D ata are cen tered w ithin the span.
T h e M arch 1989 Review introduced an e x ­
p an d ed in d ex o n private n on agricultural
em p lo y m en t based on 3 4 9 ind ustries, and a
n ew m anufacturing in d ex based on 141 in ­
dustries. T h ese in d ex es are u sefu l for m ea­
suring the d isp ersion o f e co n o m ic gain s or
lo sse s and are a lso eco n o m ic indicators.

D eta iled national data from the estab lish ­
m ent su rvey are p u b lish ed m on th ly in the
bls p eriod ical, Employment and Earnings.
Earlier com parable unadjusted and se a so n ­
a lly adjusted data are p u b lish ed in Employ­

N otes on the data

ment, Hours, and Earnings, United States,
1909-84, B u lle tin 1 3 1 2 - 1 2 (B u reau o f

E stab lish m en t su rvey data are annually ad­
ju sted to co m p reh en siv e cou n ts o f e m p lo y -

Labor S tatistics, 1985) and its annual sup­
p lem en t. For a detailed d iscu ssio n o f the
m eth o d o lo g y o f the su rvey, se e bls Hand-

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for7 4FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

book of Methods, B u lletin 2 2 8 5 (Bureau o f
L ab or S ta tis tic s , 1 9 8 8 ). F or a d d itio n a l
data, see Handbook of Labor Statistics ,
B u lletin 2 3 4 0 (B ureau o f Labor S tatistics,
1989).
A com p reh en sive d iscu ssio n o f the d if­
feren ces b etw een h ou seh old and esta b lish ­
m ent data on em p loym en t appears in G loria
P. G reen , “C om paring em p loym en t e sti­
m ates from h o u se h o ld and p a y ro ll su r­
v e y s ,” Monthly Labor Review, D ecem b er
19 6 9 , pp. 9 - 2 0 .

Unemployment data by State
D escription o f the series
D ata p resented in this sectio n are obtained
from tw o m ajor sou rces— the Current P o p ­
ulation Su rvey (CPS) and the L ocal A rea
U n em p loym en t S tatistics (la us ) program ,
w h ich is co n d u cted in coo p era tio n w ith
State em p loym en t security a g en cies.
M on th ly estim a tes o f the labor fo rce,
em p lo y m en t, and u n em p loym en t for States
and su b-S tate areas are a k ey ind icator o f
lo ca l eco n o m ic con d ition s and form the ba­
sis for determ ining the e lig ib ility o f an area
for b en efits under Federal eco n o m ic a ss is­
tance program s su ch as the Job T raining
Partnership A ct and the Public W orks and
E c o n o m ic D e v e lo p m e n t A c t. In sofa r as
p o ssib le , the co n cep ts and d efin ition s un­
derlying th ese data are th ose u sed in the
national estim ates obtained from the CPS.

N otes on the data
D ata refer to State o f resid en ce. M onthly
data for 11 States— C aliforn ia, F lorida, Il­
lin o is , M a s s a c h u s e tts , M ic h ig a n , N e w
Y ork , N e w Jersey, N orth C arolina, O h io ,
P en n sylvan ia, and T e x a s— are obtained d i­
rectly from the CPS, b ecau se the siz e o f the
sam p le is large en ou gh to m eet bls stand­
ards o f reliab ility. D ata for the rem aining
39 States and the D istrict o f C olu m b ia are
d erived u sin g standardized proced ures e s ­
tablish ed by b l s . O nce a year, estim ates for
the 11 States are revised to n ew pop ulation
con trols. For the rem aining States and the
D is tr ic t o f C o lu m b ia , d ata are b e n c h m arked to annual average CPS le v e ls.

A dditional sources o f inform ation
A dditional sources o f inform ation

Inform ation on the co n cep ts, d efin itio n s,
and tech n ical procedures u sed to d ev elo p
labor force data for States and sub-State
areas as w e ll as additional data on subStates are p rovided in the m on th ly Bureau
o f Labor S tatistics p eriod ical, Employment
and Earnings, and the annual report, Geo­

graphic Profile of Employment and Unem­
ployment (B ureau o f Labor S tatistics). S ee
a lso bls Handbook of Methods, B u lletin
2 2 8 5 (B ureau o f Labor S tatistics, 198 8 ).

a n d wage data are gath­
ered by the B ureau from b u sin ess estab lish ­
m en ts, State and lo ca l govern m en ts, labor
u n io n s, c o lle c tiv e bargaining agreem ents
on file w ith the B ureau, and secondary

ing status, reg io n , and m etropolitan/non m etropolitan area series, h o w ev er, e m p lo y ­
m ent data by industry and occu p ation are
not availab le from the cen su s. In stead, the
19 8 0 em p loym en t w eigh ts are reallocated
w ithin th ese series each quarter b ased on
the current sam p le. T herefore, th ese in­
d ex es are not strictly com parable to th ose
for the aggregate, industry, and occu p ation

sou rces.

series.

Employment Cost Index

Definitions

Description of the series

Total compensation co sts in clu d e w a g e s,

Com pensation and W age Data
(T ab les 1 - 3 ; 2 2 - 3 0 )

Compensation

T h e Employment Cost Index (eci) is a
quarterly m easure o f the rate o f ch an ge in
com p en sa tio n per hour w orked and in­
clu d es w a g e s, salaries, and em p loyer costs
o f e m p lo y ee b en efits. It u ses a fix ed m arket
basket o f labor— sim ilar in co n cep t to the
C on su m er P rice In d ex ’s fix ed m arket b as­
ket o f g o o d s and serv ices— to m easure
ch an ge o v er tim e in em p lo y er co sts o f e m ­
p lo y in g labor. T h e in d ex is not season ally
adjusted.
Statistical series on total com p en sation
c o sts, o n w a g e s and salaries, and on b en efit
co sts are availa b le for private nonfarm
w orkers ex clu d in g proprietors, the selfe m p lo y ed , and h o u seh old w orkers. T he
total co m p en sa tio n co sts and w a g es and
salaries series are a lso availab le for State
and lo ca l g o vern m en t w orkers and for the
civ ilia n nonfarm e c o n o m y , w h ich con sists
o f private industry and State and lo ca l g o v ­
ernm ent w orkers com b in ed . Federal w ork­
ers are ex clu d ed .
T h e E m p lo y m en t C ost In dex probability
sam p le co n sists o f about 4 ,2 0 0 private non ­
farm
esta b lish m en ts
p roviding
about
2 2 ,0 0 0 o ccu p ation al ob servation s and 8 0 0
State and lo ca l g overn m en t estab lish m en ts
p rovid in g 4 ,2 0 0 o ccu p ation al observations
selected to represent total em p loym en t in
ea ch sector. O n average, ea ch reporting
unit p rovid es w a g e and com p en sation in­
form ation o n fiv e w e ll-sp e c ifie d occu p a­
tio n s. D ata are c o lle cte d each quarter for
the p ay period in clu d in g the 12th day o f
M arch, June, Septem ber, and D ecem b er.
B eg in n in g w ith June 198 6 data, fix ed
em p lo y m en t w eig h ts from the 1980 C ensus
o f P opulation are u sed each quarter to ca l­
cu late the civ ilia n and private in d ex es and
the in d ex for State and lo ca l govern m en ts.
(Prior to June 1 9 8 6 , the em p loym en t
w eig h ts are from the 1970 C en su s o f P op u ­
la tio n .) T h ese fix ed w e ig h ts, a lso u sed to
d erive all o f the industry and occu p ation
series in d ex e s, ensure that ch an ges in th ese
in d ex es reflect o n ly ch an ges in co m p en sa­
tio n , not em p lo y m en t sh ifts am ong ind us­
tries or occu p a tio n s w ith d ifferent le v e ls o f
w a g e s and co m p en sation . For the bargain-


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

salaries, and the em p lo y er’s co sts for em ­
p lo y e e b en efits.
Wages and salaries co n sist o f earnings
b efore payroll d ed u ction s, in clu d in g pro­
du ction b o n u ses, in cen tive earn in gs, c o m ­
m issio n s, and c o st-o f-liv in g adjustm ents.
Benefits in clu d e the co st to em p loyers
for paid le a v e , su pp lem en tal pay (in clu d in g
nonproduction b o n u ses), insu ran ce, retire­
m ent and savin gs p lan s, and leg a lly
required b en efits (su ch as S o cia l Secur­
ity , w ork ers’ co m p en sation , and u n em ­
p loym en t insurance).
E xclu d ed from w a g e s and salaries and
e m p lo y ee b en efits are su ch item s as p ay­
m en t-in -k in d , free room and board, and
tips.

Notes on the data
T he E m p loym en t C ost In dex for ch an ges in
w a g es and salaries in the private nonfarm
eco n o m y w as p u b lish ed b egin n in g in 1975.
C h an ges in total com p en sation c o st—
w a g es and salaries and b en efits c o m ­
b in ed — w ere p u b lish ed b egin n in g in 1980.
T he series o f ch an ges in w a g es and salaries
and for total com p en sation in the State and
lo ca l govern m en t sector and in the civilian
nonfarm eco n o m y (ex clu d in g Federal e m ­
p lo y e es) w ere p u b lish ed b egin n in g in
1981. H istorical in d ex es (June 1981 = 100)
o f the quarterly rates o f ch an ge are pre­
sented in the M arch issu e o f the BLS period­
ica l, Current Wage Developments.

Additional sources of information
For a m ore detailed d iscu ssio n o f the E m ­
p loym en t C ost In d ex, se e the Handbook of
Methods, B u lletin 2 2 8 5 (B ureau o f Labor
S tatistics, 1 9 8 8 ), Employment Cost Indexes
and Levels, 1975—88, B u lletin 2 3 1 9 (B u ­
reau o f Labor S tatistics, 1 9 8 8 ), and the fo l­
lo w in g Monthly Labor Review articles:
“E stim ation procedures for the E m p lo y ­
m ent C ost In d e x ,” M ay 1982; and
“Introducing n ew w eig h ts for the E m p lo y ­
m ent C ost In d e x ,” June 1985.
D ata on the ECI are a lso availab le in BLS
quarterly press releases issu ed in the m onth

fo llo w in g the referen ce m onths o f M arch,
June, Septem ber, and D ecem ber; and from
the Handbook of Labor Statistics, B u lletin
2 3 4 0 (B ureau o f L abor S tatistics, 1 9 8 9 ).

Collective bargaining settlements
Description of the series
Collective bargaining settlements data
provide statistical m easures o f n egotiated
adjustm ents (in crea ses, d ecrea ses, and
freezes) in com p en sation (w a g e and b en efit
co sts) and w a g e s a lo n e, quarterly for pri­
vate industry and sem ian n u ally for State
and lo ca l govern m en t. C om p en sation m ea­
sures co v er all c o lle c tiv e bargaining situa­
tion s in v o lv in g 5 ,0 0 0 w orkers or m ore and
w a g e m easures co v er all situations in v o lv ­
ing 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers or m ore. T h ese data,
co verin g private nonagricultural industries
and State and lo ca l govern m en ts, are ca lcu ­
lated u sin g inform ation obtained from bar­
gain in g agreem en ts on file w ith the B ureau,
parties to the agreem en ts, and secondary
sou rces, su ch as new sp ap er accou n ts. T he
data are not sea son ally adjusted.
S ettlem en t data are m easured in term s o f
future sp ecified adjustm ents: th ose that w ill
occu r w ith in 12 m onth s o f the contract e f­
fe ctiv e date— first-year— and all adjust­
m ents that w ill occu r ov er the life o f the
contract ex p ressed as an average annual
rate. A d justm ents are w orker w eig h ted .
B oth first-year and over-th e-life m easures
e x clu d e w a g e ch an ges that m ay occu r
under c o st-o f-liv in g cla u ses that are trig­
gered by future m o vem en ts in the C o n ­
sum er FTice In dex.
Effective wage adjustments m easure all
adjustm ents occurring in the reference p e­
riod , regardless o f the settlem ent date. In­
clu d ed are ch an ges from settlem ents
reached during the period , ch a n g es d e­
ferred from contracts n egotiated in earlier
p eriod s, and ch an ges under co st-o f-liv in g
adjustm ent cla u ses. E ach w a g e ch an ge is
w orker w eig h ted . T he ch an ges are prorated
over all w orkers under agreem en ts during
the referen ce period yield in g the average
adjustm ent.

Definitions
Wage rate changes are calcu lated b y di­
v id in g n e w ly n egotiated w a g es b y the aver­
age straight-tim e hourly w a g e rate plu s
sh ift prem ium at the tim e the agreem en t is
reached. C om p en sation ch an ges are ca lcu ­
lated b y d ivid in g the ch an ge in the va lu e o f
the n ew ly n egotiated w a g e and b en efit
pack age by ex istin g average hourly c o m ­
p en sation , w h ich in clu d es the co st o f previ­
o u sly n egotiated b en efits, leg a lly required

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

75

Current Labor Statistics
so cia l insurance program s, and average
hourly earnings.
Compensation changes are calcu lated
by p la cin g a va lu e o n the b en efit portion o f
the settlem ents at the tim e they are reached.
T he c o st estim ates are based on the as­
sum ption that co n d itio n s ex istin g at the
tim e o f settlem en t (for ex a m p le, m eth ods
o f fin a n cin g p en sio n s or co m p o sitio n o f
labor force) w ill rem ain constan t. T h e data,
therefore, are m easures o f negotiated
ch a n g es and not o f total ch an ges o f em ­
p lo y er co st.

am ount o f tim e lo st b ecau se o f stop p age.
D ata are largely from new sp ap er ac­
cou n ts and co v er o n ly estab lish m en ts d i­
rectly in v o lv ed in a stop p age. T h ey d o not
m easure the indirect or secondary e ffe c t o f
stop p ages on other estab lish m en ts w h o se
e m p lo y ee s are id le o w in g to m aterial short­
ages or lack o f serv ice.

sion al, tech n ical, m ain ten an ce, toolro o m ,
pow erplant,
m aterial m o v em en t,
and
cu stod ial occu p ation s com m o n to a w id e
variety o f industries in the areas (labor m ar­
k ets) su rveyed . Reports are issu ed through­
out the year as the su rveys are com p leted .
Su m m aries o f the data and sp ecial an alyses
also appear in the Review.

Definitions

The National Survey of Professional,
Administrative, Technical, and Clerical
Pay provides d etailed inform ation annually

Number of stoppages:

Contract duration runs from the e ffe c ­
tiv e date o f the agreem en t to the expiration
date or first w a g e reop en in g d ate, i f app li­
ca b le. A v era g e annual p ercent ch an ges
o v er the contract term take accou nt o f the
co m p o u n d in g o f su c c e ssiv e ch an ges.

T h e num ber o f
strikes and lock ou ts in v o lv in g 1 ,0 0 0 w ork­
ers or m ore and lastin g a fu ll sh ift or longer.
Workers involved: T he num ber o f
w orkers d irectly in v o lv ed in the stop page.
Number of days idle: T he aggregate
num ber o f w orkd ays lo st by w orkers in ­
v o lv e d in the stop p ages.

Notes on the data

Days of idleness as a percent of esti­
mated working time: A ggregate w ork­

C om p arison s o f m ajor c o lle c tiv e bargain­
in g settlem en ts for State and lo ca l gov ern ­
m ent w ith th ose for private industry sh ould
note d ifferen ces in occu pational m ix ,
bargaining p ra ctices, and settlem en t char­
acteristics. P ro fessio n a l and w h ite-collar
e m p lo y e e s, for ex a m p le, m ake up a m uch
larger proportion o f the w orkers co v ered by
g overn m en t than by private industry settle­
m en ts. L u m p -su m p aym ents and c o st-o fliv in g adjustm ents (COLA) cla u se s, on the
other han d, are rare in govern m en t but
co m m o n in private industry settlem en ts.
A ls o , State and lo ca l govern m en t bar­
g a in in g freq uently ex clu d es item s su ch as
p en sio n b en efits and h o lid a y s, that are pre­
scrib ed by la w , w h ile th ese item s are typ i­
ca l bargaining issu es in private industry.

Additional sources of information
For a m ore d etailed d iscu ssio n on the s e ­
r ies, see the bls Handbook of Methods,
B u lletin 2 2 8 5 (B ureau o f L abor S tatistics,
1 9 8 8 ). C om p reh en sive data are p u blished
in press relea ses issu ed quarterly (in Janu­
ary, A p ril, Ju ly, and O ctob er) for private
industry, and sem ian n u ally (in February
and A u g u st) for State and lo ca l gov ern ­
m ent. H istorical data and additional d e­
tailed tabulations for the prior calendar year
appear in the A pril issu e o f the bls period­
ic a l, Current Wage Developments.

Work stoppages
Description of the series
D ata on work stoppages m easure the num ­
ber and duration o f m ajor strikes or lo ck ­
outs (in v o lv in g 1 ,0 0 0 w orkers or m ore)
occu rrin g during the m onth (or year), the
num ber o f w orkers in v o lv ed , and the

76

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

d ays lo st as a p ercent o f the aggregate
num ber o f standard w orkd ays in the period
m u ltip lied b y total em p lo y m en t in the
period.

Notes on the data
T h is series is not com parable w ith the on e
term inated in 1981 that co v ered strikes in­
v o lv in g six w orkers or m ore.

Additional sources of information
D ata for each calendar year are reported in
a bls press release issu ed in the first quarter
o f the fo llo w in g year. M on th ly and h istori­
cal data appear in the bls p eriod ical, Cur­
rent Wage Developments. H istorical data
appear in the Handbook of Labor Statistics ,
B u lletin 2 3 4 0 (B ureau o f L abor S tatistics,
1 989).

Other compensation data
O ther bls data on pay and b en efits, not
in clu d ed in the Current L abor Statistics se c ­
tion o f the Monthly Labor Review, appear
in and c o n sist o f the fo llo w in g :
Industry Wage Surveys provid e data for
sp ec ific occu p ation s selected to represent
an ind ustry’s w a g e structure and the typ es
o f a ctivities perform ed b y its w orkers. T he
Bureau c o lle cts inform ation on w e ek ly
w ork sch ed u les, sh ift operation s and pay
d ifferen tials, paid h olid ay and vacation
p ractices, and inform ation on in cid en ce o f
h ealth , insu ran ce, and retirem ent plan s.
R eports are issu ed throughout the year as
the su rveys are co m p leted . Su m m aries o f
the data and sp ecial a n alyses a lso appear in
the Monthly Labor Review.
Area Wage Surveys annually provide
data for selected o ffic e , clerica l, p rofes-

on salary le v e ls and distributions for the
typ es o f jo b s m en tion ed in the su rv ey ’s title
in private em p loym en t. A lth ou gh the d e fi­
n ition s o f the jo b s su rveyed reflect the du­
ties and resp on sib ilities in private industry,
they are d esig n ed to m atch sp ec ific pay
grades o f Federal w h ite-collar em p lo y ee s
under the G eneral S ch ed u le p ay sy stem .
A cco rd in g ly , this su rvey p rovid es the le ­
g a lly required inform ation for com parin g
the p ay o f salaried e m p lo y ee s in the Federal
c iv il service w ith pay in private industry.
(S e e Federal Pay C om parability A ct o f
1 9 7 0 , 5 U .S.C . 5305.) D ata are p u b lish ed in
a bls n ew s release issu ed in the su m m er
and in a b u lletin each fall; su m m aries and
analytical articles a lso appear in the

Review.
Employee Benefits Survey p rovid es na­
tion w id e inform ation on the in cid en ce and
characteristics o f e m p lo y ee b en efit plans in
m ed iu m and large estab lish m en ts in the
U n ited S tates, ex clu d in g A lask a and
H aw aii. D ata are p u b lish ed in an annual
bls n ew s release and bu lletin , as w e ll as in
sp ecial articles appearing in the Review.

Price Data
(T ab les 2; 3 1 - 4 3 )

P rice data are gathered by the B ureau o f
L abor S tatistics from retail and prim ary
m arkets in the U n ited States. P rice in d ex es
are g iv en in relation to a base period
(1 9 8 2 = 100 for m any Producer P rice In­
d ex es or 1 9 8 2 - 8 4 = 100 for m any C o n ­
sum er P rice In d ex es, u n less oth erw ise
n oted ).

Consumer Price Indexes
Description of the series
T he Consumer Price Index (cpi) is a m ea ­
sure o f the average ch an ge in the prices
paid by urban con su m ers for a fix ed m arket
basket o f g o o d s and serv ices. T h e CPI is
calcu lated m on th ly for tw o p op ulation
groups, on e c o n sistin g o n ly o f urban
h o u seh old s w h o se prim ary sou rce o f in­
c o m e is d erived from the em p lo y m en t o f
w a g e earners and clerical w orkers, and the

other c o n sistin g o f all urban h ou seh old s.
T h e w a g e earner in d ex (cpi- w ) is a con tin ­
uation o f the historic in d ex that w as intro­
d u ced w e ll o v er a h alf-cen tury ago for u se
in w a g e n eg o tia tio n s. A s n ew u ses w ere
d e v e lo p ed for the CPI in recen t years, the
n eed for a broader and m ore representative
in d ex b eca m e apparent. T h e all urban c o n ­
sum er in d ex (C P l-u ), introduced in 1 9 7 8 , is
representative o f the 1 9 8 2 - 8 4 b u yin g
habits o f about 8 0 percent o f the non institutional p op ulation o f the U n ited States at
that tim e, com pared w ith 3 2 percent repre­
sen ted in the CPI-W. In addition to w a g e
earners and clerica l w orkers, the CPI-U c o v ­
ers p ro fessio n a l, m anagerial, and tech n ical
w orkers, the se lf-em p lo y e d , short-term
w orkers, the u n em p lo y ed , retirees, and
others not in the labor force.
T h e CPI is b ased on p rices o f fo o d , clo th ­
in g , sh elter, fu e l, drugs, transportation
fares, d o cto rs’ and d en tists’ fe e s , and other
g o o d s and serv ices that p eo p le b u y for dayto-d ay liv in g . T h e quantity and quality o f
th ese item s are kept esse n tia lly u n ch anged
b etw een m ajor rev isio n s so that o n ly price
ch a n g es w ill b e m easured. A ll taxes d i­
rectly a sso cia ted w ith the purchase and u se
o f item s are in clu d ed in the in d ex.
D ata c o lle cte d from m ore than 2 1 ,0 0 0
retail estab lish m en ts and 6 0 ,0 0 0 h ou sin g
un its in 91 urban areas across the country
are u sed to d ev e lo p the “U .S . city aver­
a g e .” Separate estim ates for 27 m ajor urban
cen ters are p resented in table 3 2 . T he areas
listed are as ind icated in fo otn ote 1 to the
table. T h e area in d ex es m easure o n ly the
average ch a n g e in prices for ea ch area sin ce
the b a se p eriod , and do not ind icate differ­
e n c es in the le v e l o f prices am on g c ities.

N otes on the data
In January 1 9 8 3 , the B ureau ch an ged the
w a y in w h ich h o m eow n ersh ip co sts are
m easured for the CPI-U. A rental eq u iva­
len ce m eth od rep laced the asset-p rice ap­
proach to h om eo w n ersh ip c o sts for that
series. In January 1 9 8 5 , the sam e change
w a s m ade in the CPI-W. T h e central purpose
o f the ch an ge w a s to separate shelter co sts
from the in vestm en t co m p on en t o f h om eow n ersh ip so that the in d ex w ou ld reflect
o n ly the c o st o f sh elter serv ices p rovided by
o w n er-o ccu p ied h o m es. A n updated CPI-U
and cpi- w w ere introduced w ith release o f
the January 1987 data.

A dditional sources o f inform ation
For a d iscu ssio n o f the general m eth od for
com p u tin g the CPI, se e b l s Handbook of
Methods, B u lletin 2 2 8 5 (B ureau o f Labor
S ta tistics, 1 9 8 8 ). T h e recen t ch an ge in the
m easurem ent o f h om eow n ersh ip co sts is


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

d iscu ssed in R obert G illin gh am and W alter
L an e, “C h anging the treatm ent o f shelter
c o sts for h om eow n ers in the CPI,” Monthly
Labor Review, July 1 9 8 2 , pp. 9 - 1 4 . A n
o v erv iew o f the recen tly introduced revised
CPI, reflectin g 1 9 8 2 - 8 4 expenditure pat­
terns, is contained in The Consumer Price
Index: 1987 Revision , R eport 7 3 6 (Bureau
o f Labor S tatistics, 1 987).
A d d ition al d etailed cpi data and regular
analyses o f consum er price changes are pro­
vid ed in the CPI Detailed Report, a m onth ly
pu b lication o f the B ureau. H istorical data
for the overall CPI and for selected group­
in g s m ay b e fou n d in the Handbook of
Labor Statistics, B u lletin 2 3 4 0 (B ureau o f
Labor S tatistics, 1989).

Producer Price Indexes
D escription o f the series
Producer Price Indexes (ppi) m easure av­
erage ch an ges in prices receiv ed b y d o m e s­
tic producers o f co m m o d ities in all stages
o f p rocessin g. T h e sam p le u sed for calcu ­
latin g th ese in d ex es currently contains
about 3 ,1 0 0 co m m o d ities and about 7 5 ,0 0 0
qu otation s per m onth , selected to represent
d ie m o vem en t o f prices o f all co m m o d ities
produced in the m anufacturing, agricul­
ture, forestry, fish in g , m in in g , gas and
electricity , and pu blic utilities sectors. T he
stage o f p ro cessin g structure o f Producer
P rice In d exes organ izes products b y cla ss
o f b u yer and d egree o f fabrication (that is,
fin ish ed g o o d s, interm ediate g o o d s , and
crude m aterials). T h e traditional co m m o d ­
ity structure o f ppi organ izes products by
sim ilarity o f end u se or m aterial c o m p o si­
tion . T he industry and product structure o f
ppi organ izes data in accordan ce w ith the
Standard Industrial C la ssifica tio n (sic) and
the product c o d e ex ten sio n o f the sic d e v e l­
o p ed b y the U .S . B ureau o f the C en su s.
T o d ie exten t p o ssib le , prices u sed in
calcu latin g Producer P rice In d exes app ly to
the first sign ifican t com m ercial transaction
in the U n ited States from the production or
central m arketing poin t. P rice data are g en ­
erally c o lle cte d m on th ly, prim arily b y m ail
q u estion naire. M o st prices are obtained d i­
rectly from producing com p an ies on a v o l­
untary and con fid en tial b asis. P rices gen er­
ally are reported for the T u esd ay o f the
w e ek con tain in g the 13th day o f the m onth.
S in ce January 1 9 8 7 , p rice ch an ges for
the variou s co m m o d ities h ave b een avera­
ged togeth er w ith im p licit quantity w eigh ts
representing their im portance in the total
net sellin g valu e o f all co m m o d ities as o f
1982. T he d etailed data are aggregated to
obtain in d ex es for sta g e-o f-p ro cessin g
grou p in gs, com m od ity grou p in gs, durability-of-p rod u ct grou p in gs, and a num ber o f

sp ecial com p o site groups. A ll Producer
P rice In dex data are subject to rev isio n 4
m onths after original p u blication.

N otes on the data
B eg in n in g w ith the January 1986 issu e , the

Review is no lon ger presenting tables o f
Producer P rice In d exes for com m o d ity
groupin gs or sp ecial com p o site groups.
H o w ev er, th ese data w ill con tin u e to be
presented in the B u reau ’s m onth ly p u blica­
tion Producer Price Indexes .
T he Bureau has co m p leted the first m ajor
stage o f its co m p reh en sive overhaul o f the
theory, m eth od s, and procedures u sed to
construct the Producer P rice In d exes.
C h an ges in clu d e the rep lacem ent o f ju d g ­
m ent sam p lin g w ith probability sam p lin g
tech niques; ex p an sion to system atic co v er­
age o f the net output o f virtually all in ­
dustries in the m in in g and m anufacturing
sectors; a sh ift from a co m m o d ity to an
industry orientation; the e x clu sio n o f im ­
ports from , and the in clu sio n o f exports in ,
the su rvey un iverse; and the resp ecifica tio n
o f co m m o d ities p riced to con form to B u ­
reau o f the C en su s d efin ition s. T h ese and
other ch an ges have b een phased in gradu­
ally sin ce 1978. T h e result is a sy stem o f
in d ex es that is ea sier to u se in con ju n ction
w ith data on w a g e s, produ ctivity, and e m ­
p loym en t and other series that are orga­
n ized in term s o f the Standard Industrial
C la ssifica tio n and the C en su s product cla ss
d esign ation s.

A dditional sources o f inform ation
For a d iscu ssio n o f the m eth o d o lo g y for
com p u tin g Producer P rice In d ex es, se e bls
Handbook of Methods, B u lletin 2 2 8 5 (B u ­
reau o f Labor S tatistics, 1 988).
A d d ition al d etailed data and ana ly ses o f
p rice ch an ges are p rovided m onth ly in Pro­
ducer Price Indexes. S elected historical
data m ay b e fou n d in the Handbook of
Labor Statistics, B u lletin 2 3 4 0 (B ureau o f
Labor S tatistics, 1 989).

International Price Indexes
D escription o f the series
T h e b l s International Price Program
produ ces quarterly export and im port price
in d ex es for nonm ilitary g o o d s traded b e ­
tw een the U n ited States and the rest o f the
w orld. T he export price in d ex p rovid es a
m easure o f price ch an ge for all products
sold by U .S . resid en ts to foreig n bu yers.
(“R esid en ts” is d efin ed as in the national
in co m e accounts: it in clu d es corp orations,
b u sin e sses, and in d ivid u als but d o es not

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

77

Current Labor Statistics
require the organizations to be U .S . o w n ed
nor the in d ivid u als to h ave U .S . c itize n ­
sh ip .) T he im port price in d ex p rovid es a
m easure o f price ch an ge for g o o d s pur­
ch ased from other countries by U .S . resi­
dents. W ith p u blication o f an all-im port
in d ex in February 1983 and an all-export
in d ex in February 1 9 8 4 , all U .S . m erchan­
d ise im ports and exports n o w are repre­
sented in th ese in d ex es. T he reference
period for the in d ex es is 1985 = 100, un­
less o th erw ise ind icated .
T he product un iverse for both the im port
and export in d ex es in clu d es raw m aterials,
agricultural products, sem ifin ish ed m anu­
factu res, and fin ish ed m anu factu res, in ­
clu d in g both capital and con su m er g o o d s.
P rice data for th ese item s are c o llected
quarterly by m ail qu estion naire. In nearly
all c a se s, the data are c o lle cte d directly
from the exporter or im porter, although in
a fe w c a se s, prices are obtained from other
sou rces.
T o the ex ten t p o ssib le , the data gathered
refer to prices at the U .S . border for exports
and at eith er the foreig n border or the U .S .
border for im ports. For nearly all products,
the prices refer to transactions com p leted
during the first 2 w e ek s o f the third m onth
o f ea ch calendar quarter— M arch, June,
S ep tem b er, and D ecem b er. Su rvey re­
sp ond en ts are ask ed to ind icate all d is­
co u n ts, a llo w a n c es, and rebates app licable
to the reported p rices, so that the price used
in the calcu la tio n o f the in d ex es is the ac­
tual price for w h ich the product w as bou ght
or sold .
In addition to general in d ex es o f prices
for U .S . exports and im ports, in d ex es are
a lso p u b lish ed for d etailed product cate­
g o ries o f exports and im ports. T h ese ca te­
g o ries are d efin ed by the 4 - and 5-d ig it
le v e l o f detail o f the Standard Industrial
Trade C la ssifica tio n S y stem ( s u e ) . T he
calcu lation o f in d ex es by srrc category fa­
cilita tes the com p arison o f U .S . price
trends and sector production w ith sim ilar
data for other countries. D eta iled in d ex es
are a lso com p u ted and p u b lish ed on a
Standard Industrial C la ssifica tio n (s ic b ased ) b a sis, as w e ll as by en d -u se c la ss.

N otes on the data
T h e export and im port price in d ex es are
w eig h ted in d ex es o f the L asp eyres type.
P rice relatives are a ssig n ed equal im por­
tance w ith in ea ch w e ig h t category and are
then aggregated to the SITC le v e l. T h e v a l­
u es a ssig n ed to ea ch w eig h t category are
based o n trade valu e figu res co m p iled
b y the Bureau o f the C en su s. T he trade
w eig h ts currently u sed to com p u te both in­
d e x e s relate to 1985.
B eca u se a price in d ex dep en d s on the

78

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

sam e item s b ein g p riced from period to p e­
riod, it is n ecessary to reco g n ize w h en a
prod u ct’s sp ecifica tio n s or term s o f trans­
action have b een m o d ified . For this reason,
the B u reau ’s quarterly questionnaire re­
qu ests d etailed descrip tion s o f the p h ysical
and fun ctional characteristics o f the prod­
ucts b ein g p riced , as w e ll as inform ation on
the num ber o f units bou gh t or so ld , d is­
cou n ts, credit term s, p ack agin g, cla ss o f
buyer or seller, and so forth. W h en there
are ch an ges in eith er the sp ecifica tio n s or
term s o f transaction o f a product, the dollar
valu e o f ea ch ch an ge is d eleted from the
total price ch an ge to obtain the “pure”
ch an ge. O n ce this valu e is determ ined, a
lin k in g procedure is e m p lo y ed w h ich al­
lo w s for the con tin u ed repricing o f the
item .
For the export price in d ex e s, the pre­
ferred pricing b asis is f .a .s . (free alon gsid e
sh ip ) U .S . port o f exportation . W hen firm s
report export p rices f .o .b . (free on board),
production poin t inform ation is c o lle cte d
w h ich en ab les the Bureau to calcu late a
sh ip m en t c o st to the port o f exportation . A n
attem pt is m ade to c o lle c t tw o prices for
im ports. T he first is the im port price f.o .b .
at the foreign port o f exportation , w h ich is
co n sisten t w ith the b asis for valu ation o f
im ports in the national accou n ts. T he s e c ­
on d is the im port p rice c .i .f . (c o st, in­
su ran ce, and freight) at the U .S . port o f
im portation, w h ich a lso in clu d es the other
co sts associa ted w ith bringing the product
to the U .S . border. It d o e s n ot, h o w ev er,
in clu d e duty charges. For a g iv en product,
o n ly on e price b asis series is u sed in the
con stru ction o f an in d ex.
B eg in n in g in 1 9 8 8 , the Bureau has also
b een pu b lish in g a series o f in d ex es w h ich
represent the price o f U .S . exports and im ­
ports in foreign currency term s.

A dditional sources o f inform ation
For a d iscu ssio n o f the general m eth od o f
com p u tin g International P rice In d ex es, see
bls Handbook of Methods , B u lletin 2 2 8 5
(B ureau o f L abor S tatistics, 1 988).
A d d ition al detailed data and analyses o f
international p rice d ev elop m en ts are pre­
sen ted in the B u reau ’s quarterly p u blication
U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes and
in o cca sio n a l Monthly Labor Review arti­
c le s prepared b y bls an alysts. S elected h is­
torical data m ay be foun d in the Handbook
of Labor Statistics, B u lletin 2 3 4 0 (Bureau
o f L abor S tatistics, 19 8 9 ). For further in ­
form ation on the foreign currency in d ex e s,
se e “bls p u b lish es average exch a n g e rate
and foreign currency price in d e x e s,”
Monthly Labor Review, D ecem b er 198 7 ,
pp. 4 7 - 4 9 .

Productivity Data
(T ab les 2; 4 4 - 4 7 )

B u sin ess secto r a n d m a jo r secto rs
D escription o f the series
T he produ ctivity m easures relate real p h y s­
ical output to real input. A s su ch , they en ­
co m p ass a fa m ily o f m easures w h ich
in clu d e sin g le factor input m easu res, su ch
as output per unit o f labor input (output per
hour) or output per unit o f capital input, as
w e ll as m easures o f m ultifactor produ ctiv­
ity (output per unit o f labor and capital in ­
puts co m b in ed ). T he Bureau in d ex es sh o w
the ch an ge in output relative to ch an g es in
the various inputs. T he m easures co v er the
b u sin ess, nonfarm b u sin ess, m anufactur­
in g , and n on fin ancial corporate sectors.
C orresponding in d ex es o f hourly c o m ­
p en sation , unit labor c o sts, unit nonlabor
p aym en ts, and prices are a lso provided.

D efinitions
Output per hour of all persons (labor pro­
d u ctivity) is the valu e o f g o o d s and serv ices
in constan t prices produced per hour o f
labor input. Output per unit of capital
services (capital produ ctivity) is the value
o f g o o d s and serv ices in constan t dollars
produ ced per unit o f capital serv ices input.
Multifactor productivity is the ratio o f
output per unit o f labor and capital inputs
com b in ed . C h anges in this m easure reflect
ch an ges in a num ber o f factors w h ich affect
the production p ro cess, su ch as ch an g es in
te ch n o lo g y , sh ifts in the co m p o sitio n o f the
labor fo rce, ch an ges in cap acity u tiliza tio n ,
research and d ev elo p m en t, sk ill and efforts
o f the w ork force, m an agem en t, and so
forth. C h anges in the output per hour m ea s­
ures reflect the im pact o f th ese factors as
w e ll as the su bstitution o f capital for labor.
Compensation per hour is the w a g es
and salaries o f em p lo y ee s plu s e m p lo y er s’
contrib utions for so cia l insurance and pri­
vate b en efit p lan s, and the w a g e s, salaries,
and supplem entary p aym ents for the selfem p lo y ed (ex cep t for n on fin ancial corpora­
tions in which there are no self-em ployed)—
the su m d ivid ed by hours paid for. Real
compensation per hour is com p en sation
per hour deflated by the change in the
C on su m er P rice Index for A ll Urban
C on su m ers.
Unit labor costs are the labor co m p en sa ­
tion co sts exp en d ed in the production o f a
unit o f output and are d erived by d iv id in g
com p en sation by output. Unit nonlabor
payments in clu d e p rofits, dep reciation , in­
terest, and indirect taxes per unit o f output.
T h ey are com p u ted by subtracting com p en -

sation o f all persons from current dollar
va lu e o f output and d ivid in g by output.
Unit nonlabor costs contain all the co m p o ­
nents o f unit non labor p aym en ts except unit
profits.

Unit profits in clu d e corporate profits
w ith in ven tory valuation and capital c o n ­
su m ption adjustm ents per unit o f output.
Hours of all persons are the total hours
at w ork o f p ayroll w orkers, self-em p lo y ed
p erso n s, and unpaid fa m ily w orkers.
Capital services is the flo w o f services
from the capital stock u sed in produ ction. It
is d ev elo p ed from m easures o f the net stock
o f p h y sica l a ssets— eq u ip m en t, structures,
land , and in v en to ries— w eig h ted by rental
prices for ea ch typ e o f asset.
Labor and capital inputs co m b in ed are
derived by co m b in in g ch an ges in labor and
capital inputs w ith w eig h ts w h ich represent
ea ch c o m p o n en t’s share o f total output.
T h e in d ex es for capital serv ices and c o m ­
b in ed units o f labor and capital are b ased on
ch a n g in g w eig h ts w h ich are averages o f the
shares in the current and preced in g year
(the T o m q u ist ind ex-nu m ber form ula).
N otes on the data
T h e output m easure for the business sector
is equal to constan t-dollar gross national
product but e x clu d es the rental valu e o f
o w n er-o ccu p ied d w e llin g s, the rest-ofw orld sector, the output o f nonprofit in sti­
tu tion s, the output o f paid e m p lo y ee s o f
private h o u seh o ld s, general govern m en t,
and the statistical d iscrep an cy. O utput o f
the nonfarm business sector is equal to
b u sin ess sector output less farm in g. T he
m easures are derived from data su p p lied by
the B ureau o f E co n o m ic A n a ly sis, U .S .
D epartm ent o f C om m erce, and the Federal
R eserv e B oard. Q uarterly m anufacturing
output in d ex es are adjusted b y the Bureau
o f Labor S tatistics to annual estim ates o f
m anufacturing output (gross product o rig i­
nating) from the B ureau o f E co n o m ic A n a l­
y s is . C o m p en sation and hours data are d e­
v e lo p ed from data o f the B ureau o f Labor
S tatistics and the B ureau o f E con om ic
A n a ly sis.
T h e p rodu ctivity and associated co st
m easu res in tab les 4 4 - 4 7 d escrib e the rela­
tio n sh ip b etw een output in real term s and
the labor tim e and capital serv ices in v o lv ed
in its produ ction. T h ey sh ow the ch an ges
from period to period in the am ount o f
g o o d s and serv ices produced per unit o f
input. A lth o u g h th ese m easures relate ou t­
put to hours and capital se r v ic es, they do
not m easure the contrib utions o f labor, cap­
ital, or any other sp ec ific factor o f produc­
tion . Rather, th ey reflect the jo in t e ffe c t o f
m any in flu e n c es, in clu d in g ch an ges in


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

tech n ology; capital investm ent; lev e l o f
output; u tilization o f cap acity, en ergy, and
m aterials; the organization o f production;
m anagerial skill; and the characteristics and
efforts o f the w ork force.

A dditional sources o f inform ation
D escrip tion s o f m eth o d o lo g y un derlying
the m easurem ent o f output per hour and
m ultifactor produ ctivity are foun d in the
bls Handbook of Methods, B u lletin 2 2 8 5
(B ureau o f Labor S tatistics, 19 8 8 ). H istori­
cal data are p rovided in Handbook of Labor
Statistics, B u lletin 2 3 4 0 (B ureau o f Labor
S tatistics, 1989).

Industry productivity measures
D escription o f the series
T he BLS industry p rodu ctivity data sup­
plem en t the m easures for the b u sin ess
eco n o m y and m ajor sectors w ith annual
m easures o f labor produ ctivity for selected
industries at the 3- and 4 -d ig it le v e ls o f the
Standard Industrial C la ssifica tio n system .
T h e industry m easures d iffer in m eth od ol­
o g y and data sou rces from the produ ctivity
m easures for the m ajor sectors b ecau se the
industry m easures are d ev elo p ed ind ep en d­
en tly o f the N ation al In com e and Product
A ccou n ts fram ew ork u sed for the m ajor
sector m easures.

D efinitions
O utput per e m p lo y ee hour is derived by
d ivid in g an in d ex o f industry output b y an
in d ex o f aggregate hours o f all e m p lo y ee s.
O utput in d exes are based on quantifiable
un its o f products or se r v ic es, or both , c o m ­
b in ed w ith fixed -p eriod w eig h ts. W h en ever
p o ssib le , p h ysical quantities are u sed as the
unit o f m easurem ent for output. I f quantity
data are not availab le for a g iv en industry,
data on the constan t-dollar valu e o f produc­
tion are used .
T he labor input series co n sist o f the
hours o f all e m p lo y ee s (production and
nonprodu ction w ork ers), the hours o f all
persons (paid e m p lo y ee s, partners, propri­
etors, and unpaid fa m ily w ork ers), or the
num ber o f e m p lo y ee s, d ep en d in g up on the
industry.

N otes on the data
T h e industry m easures are co m p iled from
data produ ced b y the B ureau o f Labor
S tatistics, the D epartm ents o f C om m erce,
Interior, and A gricu ltu re, the F ederal R e ­
serve B oard, regulatory a g e n c ie s, trade as­
so cia tio n s, and other sou rces.
For m ost ind ustries, the produ ctivity in-

d ex es refer to the output per hour o f all
e m p lo y ee s. For so m e transportation ind us­
tries, o n ly in d ex es o f output per em p lo y ee
are prepared. For so m e trade and serv ice
ind ustries, in d ex es o f output per hour o f all
persons (in clu d in g the self-em p lo y ed ) are
constructed.

A dditional sources o f inform ation
For a co m p lete listin g o f availab le industry
produ ctivity in d ex es and their co m p o n en ts,
see Productivity Measures for Selected In­
dustries and Government Services, B u l­
letin 2 3 2 2 (B ureau o f L abor S tatistics,
19 8 9 ). For additional inform ation about the
m eth o d o lo g y for com p u tin g the industry
produ ctivity m easu res, se e Handbook of
Methods, B u lletin 2 2 8 5 (B ureau o f Labor
S tatistics, 1 9 8 8 ), chapter 11.

International Com parisons
(T ab les 4 8 - 5 0 )

Labor force and unemployment
D escription o f the series
T ables 48 and 4 9 present com parative
m easures o f the labor fo rce, em p lo y m en t,
and u n em p loym en t— app roxim ating U .S .
co n cep ts— for the U n ited S tates, C anada,
A u stralia, Japan, and several European
countries. T h e u n em p loym en t statistics
(and, to a lesser ex ten t, em p lo y m en t statis­
tics) p u b lish ed by other industrial countries
are n ot, in m ost c a se s, com parable to U .S .
u n em p loym en t statistics. T h erefore, the
B ureau adjusts the figu res for selected
cou n tries, w h ere n ecessary, for all k n ow n
m ajor d efin ition al d ifferen ces. A lth ou gh
p recise com parability m ay not b e a ch iev ed ,
th ese adjusted figu res provide a better basis
for international com p arison s than the fig ­
ures regularly p u b lish ed by ea ch country.

D efinitions
For the principal U .S . d efin itio n s o f the

labor force, employment, and unemploy­
ment, se e the N o te s sectio n on E M P L O Y ­
M ENT A N D UN EM PLO YM ENT DATA:
H o u seh o ld S u rvey D ata.

N otes on the data
T he adjusted statistics h ave b een adapted to
the age at w h ich com p u lsory sch o o lin g
en d s in ea ch country, rather than to the
U .S . standard o f 16 years o f a ge and over.
T herefore, the adjusted statistics relate to
the p op ulation age 16 and over in France,

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

79

Current Labor Statistics
S w ed en , and from 1973 onw ard , the
U n ited K in gdom ; 15 and over in C anada,
A u stralia, Japan, G erm any, the N ether­
land s, and prior to 1 9 7 3 , the U n ited K in g ­
dom ; and 14 and o v er in Italy. T h e institu­
tional pop u lation is in clu d ed in the
denom inator o f the labor force participation
rates and em p loy m en t-p op u lation ratios for
Japan and G erm any; it is e x clu d ed for the
U n ited States and the other countries.
In the U .S . labor force su rvey, p ersons
o n la y o ff w h o are a w aitin g recall to their
jo b are c la ssifie d as u n em p loyed . European
and Japanese la y o ff practices are quite d if­
ferent in nature from th ose in the U n ited
States; therefore, strict app lication o f the
U .S . d efin itio n has not b een m ade on this
poin t. For further inform ation , se e Monthly
Labor Review, D ecem b er 19 8 1 , pp. 8 - 1 1 .
T he figu res for o n e or m ore recent years
for France, G erm any, Italy, the N ether­
land s, and the U n ited K in gd om are ca lcu ­
lated u sin g adjustm ent factors b ased on
labor fo rce su rveys for earlier years and are
co n sid ered prelim inary. T h e recen t-year
m easu res for th ese countries are, therefore,
su bject to rev isio n w h en ever data from
m ore current labor fo rce su rveys b e co m e
availab le.
T here are breaks in the data series for
G erm any (1 9 8 3 and 1 9 8 7 ), Italy (1 9 8 6 ),
the N etherlan ds (1 9 8 3 ), and S w ed en
(1 9 8 7 ). For both G erm any and the N ether­
lan d s, the 1983 breaks reflect the rep lace­
m ent o f labor force su rvey results tabulated
by the national statistical o ffic e s w ith those
tabulated by the E uropean C om m u n ity
Statistical O ffic e (eurostat ). T h e D u tch
figu res for 1983 onw ard a lso reflect the
rep lacem en t o f m an-year em p lo y m en t data
w ith data from the D u tch Su rvey o f E m ­
p lo y e d P erson s. T h e im pact o f the ch an ges
w as to lo w er the adjusted u n em p loym en t
rate by 0 .3 percentage p oin t for G erm any
and by about 2 percentage poin ts for the
N etherlan ds. T he 1987 break for G erm any
reflects the incorporation o f em p loym en t
statistics based o n the 1987 P opulation
C en su s, w h ich ind icated that the le v e l o f
em p lo y m en t w as about 1 m illio n h igh er
than p rev io u sly estim ated . T h e im pact o f
this ch an ge w a s to lo w er the adjusted un­
em p lo y m en t rate b y 0 .3 p ercentage point.
W h en historical data benchm arked to
the 1987 cen su s b eca m e availab le, bls w ill
revise its comparative measures for Germany.
For Italy, the break in series reflects
m ore accurate enum eration o f tim e o f last
jo b search. T his resulted in a sign ifican t
in crease in the num ber o f p eo p le reported
as seek in g w ork in the last 3 0 d ays. T he
im pact w as to increase the Italian u n em ­
p lo y m en t rates approxim ating U .S . c o n ­
cep ts b y about 1 p ercentage point.
S w ed en introduced a n ew questionnaire.

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for8 0FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

Q u estion s regarding current availab ility
w ere added and the period o f active w ork­
seek in g w as red uced from 6 0 days to 4
w e ek s. T h ese ch an ges result in low erin g
S w e d e n ’s u n em p loym en t rate b y 0 .5 per­
cen tage point.

Additional sources of information
International
Comparisons of Unemployment, B u lletin

For further in form ation , se e

1979 (B ureau o f L abor S tatistics, 19 7 8 ),
A p p en d ix B , and Su p p lem en ts to A p p en d ix
B . T h e statistics are a lso an alyzed p eriod i­
ca lly in the Monthly Labor Review . A d d i­
tional h istorical data, gen erally begin n in g
w ith 1 9 5 9 , are p u b lish ed in the Handbook
of Labor Statistics and are availab le in
statistical su p p lem en ts to B u lletin 1979.

Occupational Injury and
Illness Data
(T able 5 1 )

Description of the series
T he A n nu al S u rvey o f O ccup ation al In­
ju ries and Illn esses is d esig n ed to c o lle ct
data on injuries and illn e sses based on
records w h ich em p loyers in the fo llo w in g
industries m aintain under the O ccup ation al
S afety and H ealth A ct o f 1970: agriculture,
forestry, and fish in g; o il and gas extraction;
construction; m anufacturing; transportation
and pu blic u tilities; w h o le sa le and retail
trade; fin a n ce, insu ran ce, and real estate;
and serv ices. E xclu d ed from the su rvey are
se lf-em p lo y e d in d ivid u als, farm ers w ith
few er than 11 e m p lo y ee s, em p loyers regu ­
lated b y other Federal safety and health
la w s, and F ed eral, State, and lo ca l gov ern ­
m ent a g en cies.
B e ca u se the su rvey is a F ed eral-S tate c o ­
operative program and the data m ust m eet
the n eed s o f participating State a g e n c ie s, an
ind ep en dent sam p le is selected for each
State. T h e sam p le is selected to represent
all private industries in the States and terri­
tories. T he sam p le siz e for the su rvey is
d epend en t upon (1 ) the characteristics for
w h ich estim ates are needed; (2) the ind us­
tries for w h ich estim ates are desired; (3 ) the
characteristics o f the pop u lation b ein g sam ­
pled; (4 ) the target reliab ility o f the e sti­
m ates; and (5) the su rvey d esig n em p lo y ed .
W h ile there are m an y characteristics
upon w h ich the sam p le d esig n co u ld be
b ased , the total recorded ca se in cid en ce
rate is u sed b ecau se it is o n e o f the m ost
im portant characteristics and the least vari­
able; therefore, it requires the sm allest sam ­
p le siz e.
T h e su rvey is based on stratified random

sam p lin g w ith a N ey m a n allocation and a
ratio estim ator. T he characteristics u sed to
stratify the estab lish m en ts are the Standard
Industrial C lassification (sic) co d e and siz e
o f em p loym en t.

Definitions
Recordable occupational injuries and ill­
nesses are: (1 ) occu p ation al deaths, regard­
less o f the tim e b etw een injury and death,
or the len gth o f the illn ess; or (2 ) nonfatal
occu p ation al illn esses; or (3 ) nonfatal o c c u ­
pational injuries w h ich in v o lv e o n e or m ore
o f the fo llo w in g : lo ss o f c o n sc io u sn ess, re­
striction o f w ork or m o tio n , transfer to an­
other jo b , or m ed ical treatm ent (other than
first aid).

Occupational injury is any injury, su ch
as a cu t, fracture, sprain, am putation, and
so forth, w h ich results from a w ork a c ci­
dent or from exp osu re in v o lv in g a sin g le
in cid en t in the w ork environ m en t.
Occupational illness is an abnorm al
con d ition or disorder, other than on e result­
in g from an occu p ation al injury, cau sed by
exp osu re to environ m en tal factors a ss o c i­
ated w ith em p loym en t. It in clu d es acute
and chronic illn e sses or d ise a se w h ich m ay
b e cau sed by in h alation, absorp tion , in g e s­
tion , or direct contact.
Lost workday cases are c a ses w h ich in ­
v o lv e d ays aw ay from w ork , or days o f
restricted w ork a ctivity, or both.
Lost workday cases involving re­
stricted work activity are th ose ca ses
w hich result in restricted work activity only.
Lost workdays away from work are the
num ber o f w orkd ays (co n secu tiv e or not)
on w h ich the e m p lo y ee w o u ld h ave w orked
but co u ld not b ecau se o f occu p ation al in­
jury or illn ess.

Lost workdays— restricted work ac­
tivity are the num ber o f w orkd ays (c o n se c ­
utive or not) on w h ic h , b ecau se o f injury or
illn ess: (1) the em p lo y ee w as a ssign ed to
another jo b on a tem porary basis; or (2 ) the
e m p lo y ee w orked at a perm anent jo b less
than fu ll tim e; or (3 ) the e m p lo y ee w orked
at a perm anently a ssign ed jo b but cou ld not
perform all duties normally connected with it.

The number of days away from work
or days of restricted work activity d o es
not in clu d e the day o f injury or o n set o f
illn e ss or any d ays on w h ich the em p lo y ee
w o u ld not have w orked e v en though able to
w ork.

Incidence rates represent the num ber o f
injuries and/or illn e sses or lo st w orkd ays
per 100 fu ll-tim e w orkers.

Notes on the data
Estimates are made for industries and
em ploym ent-size classes and for severity

classification: fatalities, lost workday cases,
and nonfatal cases without lost workdays.
Lost workday cases are separated into those
where the em ployee w ould have worked but
could not and those in which work activity
w as restricted. Estimates o f the number o f
cases and the number o f days lost are made
for both categories.
M o st o f the estim ates are in the form o f
in cid en ce rates, d efin ed as the num ber o f
injuries and illn e ss e s , or lo st w ork d ays, per
100 fu ll-tim e e m p lo y ee s. For this pu rp ose,
2 0 0 ,0 0 0 e m p lo y ee hours represent 100
e m p lo y ee years (2 ,0 0 0 hours per em ­
p lo y e e ). O n ly a fe w o f the availab le m ea­
sures are in clu d ed in the Handbook of
Labor Statistics . Full detail is presented in
the annual bu lletin , Occupational In­

juries and Illnesses in the United States, by
Industry.
C om parable data for ind ividu al States
are a vailab le from the bls O ffic e o f S a fe ty ,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

H ealth, and W orking C on d ition s.
M in in g and railroad data are furnish ed to
bls by the M in e S afety and H ealth A d m in ­
istration and the Federal R ailroad A d m in is­
tration, resp ectiv ely . D ata from th ese
organizations are in clu d ed in bls and State
p u b lication s. Federal em p lo y ee exp erien ce
is co m p iled and p u blished by the O ccu p a­
tional S afety and H ealth A dm inistration.
D ata on State and lo ca l govern m en t e m ­
p lo y e es are c o lle cte d by about h a lf o f the
States and territories; th ese data are not
co m p iled nationally.

A dditional sources o f inform ation
T h e Supplem entary D ata S y stem pro­
v id es d etailed inform ation d escrib in g vari­
ou s factors associated w ith w ork-related
injuries and illn e sses. T h ese data are o b ­
tained from inform ation reported by
employers to State w ork ers’ com p en sation

a g en cies. T h e W ork Injury R eport program
ex a m in es selected ty p es o f accid en ts
through an e m p lo y ee su rvey w h ich fo c u se s
on the circu m stan ces surrounding the in ­
jury. T h ese data are not in clu d ed in the
Handbook of Labor Statistics but are av a il­
able from the bls O ffic e o f S a fety , H ealth,
and W orking C on d ition s.
T h e defin ition s o f occu p ation al injuries
and illn e sses and lo st w orkd ays are from

Recordkeeping Requirements under the Oc­
cupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
For additional data, se e Occupational In­
juries and Illnesses in the United States, by
Industry, annual B ureau o f L abor Statistics
bulletin; BLS Handbook of Methods, B u l­
letin 2 2 8 5 (B ureau o f Labor S tatistics,
1 9 8 8 ) ; Handbook of Labor Statistics, B u l­
letin 2 3 4 0 (B ureau o f Labor S ta tistics,
1 9 8 9 ) , pp. 4 1 1 - 1 4 ; annual reports in the
Monthly Labor Review; and annual U .S .
D epartm ent o f L abor press relea ses.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

81

Current Labor Statistics:
1.

Comparative Indicators

L a b o r m a r k e t in d ic a t o r s
1988
Selected indicators

1988

1989

1989
I

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

E m p lo y m e n t d a ta

Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population
(household survey):1
Labor force participation r a te ..............................................................
Employment-population r a tio ...............................................................
Unemployment rate ...........................
M e n .................................................
16 to 24 years ...............................................
25 years and o v e r ...........................................................................
Women ........................................
16 to 24 years ............................................
25 years and o v e r ...........................................................................
Unemployment rate, 15 weeks and o v e r.............

65.9
62.3
5.5
5.5
11.4
4.2
5.6
10.6
4.3
1.3

66.5
63.0
5.3
5.2
11.4
3.9
5.4
10.4
4.2
1.1

65.8
62.0
5.7
5.6
11.9
4.3
5.8
11.0
4.5
1.4

65.8
62.2
5.5
5.4
11.2
4.2
5.6
10.7
4.3
1.3

66.0
62.3
5.5
5.5
11.5
4.2
5.5
10.5
4.3
1.3

66.1
62.6
5.3
5.3
11.1
4.1
5.3
10.3
4.1
1.2

66.3
62.9
5.2
5.2
11.2
3.9
5.2
10.2
4.1
1.1

66.5
63.0
5.3
5.1
11.1
3.9
5.4
10.4
42
1.1

66 5
63 0
5.3
5.2
11 4
39
5.4
10.5

53
53
11 8
40
54
10 4

1.1

1.1

105,584
88,212
25,249
19,403
80,335

108,579
90,852
25,634
19,612
82,945

104,355
87,111
25,022
19,271
79,333

105,184
87,851
25,202
19,360
79,983

105,976
88,577
25,313
19,435
80,663

106,799
89,288
25,452
19,550
81,346

107,680
90,104
25,634
19,659
82,047

108,339
90,661
25,664
19,663
82,676

108,917
91,110
25,659
19,617
83,258

109,390
91 545
25,582
19 514
83^809

34.7
41.1
3.9

34.7
41.0
3.8

34.7
41.0
3.8

34.7
41.1
3.9

34.7
41.1
3.9

34.7
41.1
3.9

34.7
41.1
3.9

34.7
41.1
3.8

34 7
41.0
3.8

34 6
40.7
3.7

Percent change in the ECI, compensation:
All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers)
Private industry workers ..............................................................
Goods-producing2 ........................................................
Service-producing2 ..........................................................................
State and local government w o rke rs ...............................................

5.0
4.9
4.4
5.1
5.6

5.0
4.8
4.3
5.1
6.2

1.4
1.5
1.8
1.3
1.3

1.1
1.2
1.1
1.4
.3

1.3
1.0
.6
1.2
2.7

1.0
1.0
8
1.2
1.1

12
13
10
1.5
1.2

12
.6

3.3

1.0

Workers by bargaining status (private industry):
U n io n ..................................................
Nonunion ...................................................

3.9
5.1

3.7
5.1

1.6
1.5

1.0
1.3

.7
1.1

.5
1.2

8
1.5

10
1.2

1.4

.9

Employment, nonagricultural (payroll data), in thousands:1
Total .........................................................
Private sector ........................................
G oods-producing......................................
Manufacturing .......................................
Service-producing ......................................
Average hours:
Private sector ...........................................
Manufacturing ...........................................
O vertim e................................................
E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x

2 Goods-producing industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Serviceproducing industries include all other private sector industries.

82

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

2.

A n n u a l a n d q u a r t e r l y p e r c e n t c h a n g e s in c o m p e n s a t i o n , p r i c e s , a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y
1989

1988
Selected measures

1989

1988

I

IV

III

II

I

IV

III

II

C o m p e n s a t io n d a ta ', 2

Employment Cost Index-compensation (wages, salaries,
benefits):
5.0
4.9

5.0
4.8

1.4
1.5

1.1
1.2

1.3
1.0

1.0
1.0

1.2
1.3

1.1
1.2

1.6
1.2

1.0
1.0

4.3
4.1

4.4
4.2

1.0
1.0

.9
1.1

1.3
1.0

1.0
1.0

1.1
1.1

.8
1.0

1.6
1.2

.8
.8

Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries

P r ic e d a t a 1

Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All ite m s ......

4.4

4.6

1.0

1.3

1.5

.6

1.5

1.5

.7

.9

Producer Price Index:
Finished g o o d s ............................................................................
Finished consumer g o o d s .......................................................
Capital equipment .....................................................................
Intermediate materials, supplies, components .....................
Crude m ate rials.......................................................................... »

4.0
4.0
3.6
5.6
3.1

4.8
5.3
3.7
2.4
6.9

.5
.4
.7
1.1
-.3

1.3
1.4
.6
2.6
4.0

.8
1.0
.4
1.2
-1.2

1.3
1.1
1.8
.6
.6

1.9
2.2
.9
1.9
6.1

2.0
2.3
1.1
1.1
.9

-.6
-.8
.1
-.3
-1.7

1.5
1.5
1.5
-.4
1.7

P r o d u c t iv it y d a ta 3

Output per hour of all persons:
1.7
2.0
2.3

_

1 Annual changes are December-to-December change. Quarterly changes
are calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and price
data are not seasonally adjusted and the price data are not compounded.
2 Excludes Federal and private household workers.
3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages.

3.

.2
.2

1.5
2.4
3.0

1.6
1.1
.1

1.1
-1.3
-1.7

.2
1.9
-.4

3.1
3.3
1.3

-2.1
-1.6
.4

2.5
2.8
3.9

1.1
.9

-

dexes. The data are seasonally adjusted.
4 Output per hour of all employees.
- Data not available.

A lt e r n a t iv e m e a s u r e s o f w a g e a n d c o m p e n s a tio n c h a n g e s
Quarterly average
1988

Components
III
Average hourly compensation:1
All persons, business s e c to r........................................................................
All persons, nonfarm business s e c to r........................................................
Employment Cost Index-compensation:
Civilian nonfarm 2 ...........................................................................................
Private nonfarm ..........................................................................................
Union ..........................................................................................................
N o nunion........................................ ...........................................................
Stale and local governm ents....................................................................
Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries:
Civilian nonfarm2 ............................................................................................
Private nonfarm ..........................................................................................
Union ..........................................................................................................
N onunion....................................................................................................
State and local gove rnm ents.....................................................................
Total effective wage adjustments3 .....................................................................
From current settlem ents.............................................................................
From prior settlements .................................................................................
From cost-of-living provision........................................................................
Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements:3
First-year adjustments ..................................................................................
Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t.................................................................
Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:4
First-year adjustment ....................................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract .................................................................

IV

II

I

1988
III

IV

III

1989
IV

I

II

III

IV

5.8
5.4

5.2
5.9

4.8
4.9

6.8
5.6

4.7
5.3

6.5
6.9

5.3
5.1

4.8
4.8

5.4
5.4

5.6
5.5

5.4
5.4

5.7
5.7

1.3
1.0
.7
1.1
2.7

1.0
1.0
.5
1.2
1.1

1.2
1.3
.8
1.5
1.2

1.1
1.2
1.0
1.2
.6

1.6
1.2
.9
1.4
3.3

1.0
1.0
1.0
.9
1.0

4.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.4

5.0
4.9
3.9
5.1
5.6

4.8
4.6
3.0
5.1
5.5

4.8
4.5
3.1
5.0
5.8

5.1
4.7
3.2
5.3
6.4

5.0
4.8
3.7
5.1
6.2

1.3
1.0
.7
1.0
2.6
.8
.2
.4
.2

1.0
1.0
.4
1.1
1.0
.5
.1
.2
.2

1.1
1.1
.7
1.3
.8
.5
.1
.3
.1

.8
1.0
.8
1.0
.5
1.0
.3
.5
.2

1.6
1.2
.6
1.3
3.1
1.0
.4
.4
.2

.8
.8
1.0
.8
.8
.7
.4
.2
.1

3.9
3.7
2.9
3.9
4.7
2.9
1.0
1.4
.5

4.3
4.1
2.2
4.5
4.8
2.6
.7
1.3
.6

4.4
4.2
2.5
4.8
4.8
2.7
.8
1.3
.6

4.3
4.1
2.6
4.6
5.0
2.8
.7
1.3
.8

4.6
4.4
2.5
4.9
5.5
3.0
.9
1.3
.8

4.4
4.2
3.1
4.5
5.3
3.2
1.2
1.3
.7

2.7
2.8

2.6
2.2

3.2
3.1

3.9
3.3

3.6
3.0

5.0
3.9

2.5
2.2

2.5
2.4

2.7
2.5

3.2
2.9

3.5
3.0

4.0
3.3

3.4
3.2

3.5
2.1

3.2
3.1

5.1
3.4

3.9
2.7

5.3
4.1

3.1
2.5

3.1
2.5

3.3
2.6

3.8
3.0

4.0
2.8

4.5
3.3

1 Seasonally adjusted.
2 Excludes Federal and household workers.
3 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Four quarters ended-

1989

most recent data are preliminary.
4 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The
most recent data are preliminary.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

83

Current Labor Statistics: Employment Data
4.

E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s o f th e to ta l p o p u la tio n , b y s e x , m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d

(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average

1989

1990

Employment status
1988

1989

186,322
123,378
66.2
116,677

188,081
125,557
66.8
119,030

62.6
1,709
114,968
3,169
111,800
6,701
5.4
62,944

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

187,340
124,961
66.7
118,336

187,461
124,801
66.6
118,441

187,581
124,929
66.6
118,731

63.3
1,688
117,342
3,199
114,142
6,528
5.2
62,523

63.2
1,696
116,640
3,268
113,372
6,625
5.3
62,379

63.2
1,684
116,757
3,196
113,561
6,360
5.1
62,660

89,404
68,474
76.6
64,820

90,283
69,360
76.8
65,835

89,914
68,936
76.7
65,296

72.5
1,547
63,273
3,655
5.3

72.9
1,520
64,315
3,525
5.1

96,918
54,904
56.6
51,858
53.5
162
51,696
3,046
5.5

Apr.

May

June

July

187,708
125,299
66.8
118,768

187,854
125,224
66.7
118,805

187,995
125,777
66.9
119,208

188,149
125,679
66.8
119,102

188,286
125,758
66.8
119,238

188,428
125,725
66.7
119,121

188,580
125,857
66.7
119,294

188,721
126,192
66.9
119,540

188,865
126,246
66.8
119,588

188,990
126,094
66.7
119,560

63.3
1,684
117,047
3,185
113,862
6,198
5.0
62,652

63.3
1,684
117,084
3,144
113,940
6,531
5.2
62,409

63.2
1,673
117,132
3,137
113,995
6,419
5.1
62,630

63.4
1,666
117,542
3,138
114,404
6,569
5.2
62,218

63.3
1,666
117,436
3,217
114,219
6,577
5.2
62,470

63.3
1,688
117,550
3,275
114,275
6,520
5.2
62,528

63.2
1,702
117,419
3,219
114,200
6,604
5.3
62,703

63.3
1,709
117,585
3,197
114,388
6,563
5.2
62,723

63.3
1,704
117,836
3,160
114,676
6,652
5.3
62,529

63.3
1,700
117,888
3,197
114,691
6,658
5.3
62,619

63.3
1,697
117,863
3,134
114,728
6,535
5.2
62,896

89,973
69,033
76.7
65,529

90,032
69,100
76.8
65,814

90,094
69,293
76.9
65,727

90,167
69,142
76.7
65,713

90,237
69,542
77.1
66,078

90,315
69,366
76.8
65,939

90,384
69,404
76.8
65,919

90,456
69,360
76.7
65,681

90,535
69,599
76.9
66,046

90,606
69,635
76.9
66,011

90,678
69,725
76.9
66,143

90,772
69,539
76.6
65,943

72.6
1,532
63,764
3,640
5.3

72.8
1,521
64,008
3,504
5.1

73.1
1,521
64,293
3,286
4.8

73.0
1,521
64,206
3,566
5.1

72.9
1,511
64,202
3,429
5.0

73.2
1,501
64,577
3,464
5.0

73.0
1,499
64,440
3,427
4.9

72.9
1,519
64,400
3,485
5.0

72.6
1,531
64,150
3,679
5.3

73.0
1,533
64,513
3,553
5.1

72.9
1,529
64,482
3,624
5.2

72.9
1,525
64,618
3,582
5.1

72.6
1,523
64,420
3,597
5.2

97,798
56,198
57.5
53,195

97,427
56,025
57.5
53,040

97,488
55,768
57.2
52,912

97,550
55,829
57.2
52,917

97,614
56,006
57.4
53,041

97,687
56,082
57.4
53,092

97,758
56,235
57.5
53,130

97,834
56,313
57.6
53,163

97,902
56,354
57.6
53,319

97,972
56,365
57.5
53,440

98,045
56,258
57.4
53,248

98,115
56,557
57.6
53,529

98,187
56,521
57.6
53,445

98,218
56,555
57.6
53,617

54.4
168
53,027
3,003
5.3

54.4
164
52,876
2,985
5.3

54.3
163
52,749
2,856
5.1

54.2
163
52,754
2,912
5.2

54.3
163
52,878
2,965
5.3

54.3
162
52,930
2,990
5.3

54.3
165
52,965
3,105
5.5

54.3
167
52,996
3,150
5.6

54.5
169
53,150
3,035
5.4

54.5
171
53,269
2,925
5.2

54.3
176
53,072
3,010
5.4

54.6
175
53,354
3,028
5.4

54.4
175
53,270
3,076
5.4

54.6
174
53,443
2,938
5.2

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

TOTAL

Noninstitutional population \ 2 .......
Labor force2 .....................................
Participation rate 3 .................
Total employed 2 ..........................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ......................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 .......
Civilian employed ......................
Agriculture ...............................
Nonagricultural in dustries.....
Unem ployed..................................
Unemployment rate 5 ............
Not in labor force ...........................

M e n , 16 y e a r s a n d o v e r

Noninstitutional population 1, 2 .......
Labor force2 .....................................
Participation rate 3 ..................
Total employed 2 ..........................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ......................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 .......
Civilian employed .....................
Unem ployed..................................
Unemployment rate 5 ............

W o m e n , 16 y e a r s a n d o v e r

Noninstitutional population ', 2 .......
Labor force2 .....................................
Participation rate 3 ..................
Total employed2 ...........................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ......................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 .......
Civilian employed ......................
Unem ployed..................................
Unemployment rate 5 ............

' The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation.
2 Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population.

84

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

4 Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
5 Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (Including the resident Armed Forces).

5.

E m p lo y m e n t s t a t u s o f t h e c iv ilia n p o p u la t io n , b y s e x , a g e , r a c e a n d H is p a n ic o r ig in , m o n t h ly d a t a s e a s o n a lly

a d ju s te d
(Numbers in thousands)
1989

Annual average
Employment status
1988

1989

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

Sept.

Aug.

July

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

TOTAL

Civilian noninstitutional
population1 .............................
Civilian labor fo rc e ...............
Participation rate .........
Employed ............................
Employment-population
ratio2 .............................
Unem ployed........................
Unemployment ra te .....
Not in labor force ................

184,613
121,669
65.9
114,968

186,393
123,869
66.5
117,342

185,644
123,265
66.4
116,640

185,777
123,117
66.3
116,757

185,897
123,245
66.3
117,047

186,024
123,615
66.5
117,084

186,181
123,551
66.4
117,132

186,329
124,111
66.6
117,542

186,483
124,013
66.5
117,436

186,598
124,070
66.5
117,550

186,726
124,023
66.4
117,419

186,871
124,148
66.4
117,585

187,017
124,488
66.6
117,836

187,165
124,546
66.5
117,888

66.4
117,863

62.3
6,701
5.5
62,944

63.0
6,528
5.3
62,523

62.8
6,625
5.4
62,379

62.8
6,360
5.2
62,660

63.0
6,198
5.0
62,652

62.9
6,531
5.3
62,409

62.9
6,419
5.2
62,630

63.1
6,569
5.3
62,218

63.0
6,577
5.3
62,470

63.0
6,520
5.3
62,528

62.9
6,604
5.3
62,703

62.9
6,563
5.3
62,723

63.0
6,652
5.3
62,529

63.0
6,658
5.3
62,619

62.9
6,535
5.3
62,896

80,553
62,768
77.9
59,781

81,619
63,704
78.1
60,837

81,162
63,285
78.0
60,398

81,256
63,393
78.0
60,566

81,333
63,468
78.0
60,783

81,413
63,638
78.2
60,716

81,524
63,535
77.9
60,774

81,592
63,874
78.3
61,072

81,679
63,736
78.0
60,915

81,754
63,717
77.9
60,861

81,790
63,771
78.0
60,729

81,905
63,918
78.0
61,026

81,968
63,967
78.0
61,033

82,055
64,071
78.1
61,154

82,168
63,958
77.8
60,976

74.2
2,271
57,510
2,987
4.8

74.5
2,307
58,530
2,867
4.5

74.4
2,286
58,112
2,887
4.6

74.5
2,312
58,254
2,827
4.5

74.7
2,309
58,474
2,685
4.2

74.6
2,270
58,446
2,922
4.6

74.5
2,295
58,479
2,761
4.3

74.9
2,279
58,793
2,802
4.4

74.6
2,329
58,586
2,821
4.4

74.4
2,340
58,521
2,856
4.5

74.2
2,330
58,399
3,042
4.8

74.5
2,304
58,722
2,892
4.5

74.5
2,292
58,741
2,934
4.6

74.5
2,293
58,861
2,917
4.6

74.2
2,269
58,706
2,983
4.7

89,532
50,870
56.8
48,383

90,550
52,212
57.7
49,745

90,072
51,961
57.7
49,517

90,153
51,816
57.5
49,455

90,242
51,876
57.5
49,467

90,318
52,009
57.6
49,560

90,432
52,120
57.6
49,649

90,526
52,219
57.7
49,687

90,607
52,385
57.8
49,817

90,684
52,352
57.7
49,875

90,771
52,358
57.7
49,984

90,860
52,281
57.5
49,796

90,952
52,541
57.8
50,043

91,042
52,586
57.8
50,048

91,091
52,686
57.8
50,255

54.0
625
47,757
2,487
4.9

54.9
642
49,103
2,467
4.7

55.0
704
48,813
2,444
4.7

54.9
646
48,809
2,361
4.6

54.8
647
48,820
2,409
4.6

54.9
638
48,922
2,449
4.7

54.9
633
49,016
2,471
4.7

54.9
622
49,065
2,532
4.8

55.0
639
49,178
2,568
4.9

55.0
642
49,233
2,477
4.7

55.1
660
49,324
2,374
4.5

54.8
641
49,155
2,485
4.8

55.0
624
49,419
2,498
4.8

55.0
618
49,430
2,538
4.8

55.2
594
49,661
2,431
4.6

14,527
8,031
55.3
6,805

14,223
7,954
55.9
6,759

14,410
8,019
55.6
6,725

14,367
7,908
55.0
6,736

14,323
7,901
55.2
6,797

14,293
7,966
55.7
6,808

14,224
7,896
55.5
6,709

14,211
8,018
56.4
6,783

14,196
7,892
55.6
6,704

14,160
8,001
56.5
6,814

14,166
7,894
55.7
6,706

14,107
7,949
56.3
6,763

14,097
7,980
56.6
6,760

14,067
7,889
56.1
6,686

14,034
7,752
55.2
6,631

46.8
273
6,532
1,226
15.3

47.5
250
6,510
1,194
15.0

46.7
278
6,447
1,294
16.1

46.9
238
6,498
1,172
14.8

47.5
229
6,568
1,104
14.0

47.6
236
6,572
1,160
14.6

47.2
209
6,500
1,187
15.0

47.7
237
6,546
1,235
15.4

47.2
249
6,455
1,188
15.1

48.1
293
6,521
1,187
14.8

47.3
229
6,477
1,188
15.0

47.9
252
6,511
1,186
14.9

48.0
244
6,516
1,220
15.3

47.5
286
6,400
1,203
15.2

47.3
270
6,361

158,194
104,756
66.2
99,812

159,338
106,355
66.7
101,584

158,865
105,999
66.7
101,137

158,947
105,760
66.5
101,187

159,020
105,926
66.6
101,413

159,098
106,208
66.8
101,400

159,200
106,152
66.7
101,432

159,297
106,474
66.8
101,683

159,400
106,384
66.7
101,546

159,470
106,485
66.8
101,684

159,549
106,393
66.7
101,579

159,644
106,618
66.8
101,862

159,736
106,834
66.9
101,991

159,832
106,896
66.9
102,032

159,938
106,884
66.8
102,074

63.1
4,944
4.7

63.8
4,770
4.5

63.7
4,862
4.6

63.7
4,573
4.3

63.8
4,513
4.3

63.7
4,808
4.5

63.7
4,720
4.4

63.8
4,791
4.5

63.7
4,838
4.5

63.8
4,801
4.5

63.7
4,814
4.5

63.8
4,756
4.5

63.8
4,843
4.5

63.8
4,864
4.6

63.8
4,811
4.5

20,692
13.20E
63.£
11,65£

21,021
13,497
64.2
11,952

20,87“
13,44“
64.*
11,86“

20,905
13.44C
64.C
11,88C

20.93C
13,429
64.2
11,952

20,956
13,336
63.6
11,872

20,986
13,454
64.1
11,962

21,012
13,569
64.6
11,969

21,038
13,54£
64.4
12,062

21.06C
13,478
64.C
11,961

21,088
13,51 £
64.1
11,938

21,108
13,507
64.C
11,92C

21,136
13,576
64.2
11,954

21,164
13,522
63.9
11,920

21,163
13,510
63.8
11,978

56.;
1,54
11.

56.E
1,54*
11.*

56.£
1,58
11.

56.£
1,56C
11.«

57.1
1,47“
11.C

56.“
1,46*
11.C

57.C
1,492
11.

56.8
1.58C
11.“

56.8
1,58*
11.“

56.6
1,622
11.S

56.3
1,602
11.8

56.6
1,532
11.3

M en, 20 y ea rs and o v e r

Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ..............................
Civilian labor fo rc e ................
Participation rate ..........
Employed ............................
Employment-population
ratio2 .............................
A g riculture........................
Nonagricultural industries
Unem ployed........................
Unemployment r a te .....

W o m e n , 20 y e a rs o nd o v e r

Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ...............................
Civilian labor fo rc e .................
Participation rate ...........
Employed ..............................
Employment-population
ratio2 ...............................
A g riculture..........................
Nonagricultural industries .
Unem ployed.........................
Unemployment ra te .......

B o th s e x e s , 16 to 19 y e a rs

Civilian noninstitutional
population1 ...............................
Civilian labor fo rc e ..................
Participation rate ...........
Employed ..............................
Employment-population
ratio2 ...............................
A g riculture..........................
Nonagricultural industries .
Unem ployed..........................
Unemployment r a te .......

1,121
14.5

W h it e

Civilian noninstitutional
pop u la tio n '..............................
Civilian labor fo rc e ................
Participation rate ..........
Employed .............................
Employment-population
ratio2 ..............................
Unem ployed.........................
Unemployment r a te ......

.
.

B la c k

Civilian noninstitutional
p o p u la tio n '..............................
Civilian labor fo rc e ................
Participation rate ..........
E m ployed.............................
Employment-population
ratio2 ..............................
Unem ployed.........................
Unemployment ra te ......

..
..

57.C
1.60C
11 .£

57.2
1.48E
11.C

56.£
1,51

11.2

See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

85

Current Labor Statistics:
5.
C o n tin u e d —
a d ju s te d

Employment Data

E m p l o y m e n t s t a t u s o f t h e c iv ili a n p o p u l a t i o n , b y s e x , a g e , r a c e a n d H i s p a n i c o r i g i n , m o n t h l y d a t a s e a s o n a l l y

(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average

1989

Employment status

1990

1988

1989

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

13,325
8,982
67.4
8,250

13,791
9,323
67.6
8,573

13,564
9,211
67.9
8,452

13,606
9,192
67.6
8,549

13,649
9,201
67.4
8,581

13,690
9,288
67.8
8,531

13,731
9,359
68.2
8,619

13,772
9,289
67.4
8,543

13,813
9,403
68.1
8,579

13,853
9,361
67.6
8,541

13,894
9,342
67.2
8,564

13,936
9,339
67.0
8,595

13,977
9,424
67.4
8,672

14,019
9,495
67.7
8,691

14 080
9 440
67 0
8,769

61.9
732
8.2

62.2
750
8.0

62.3
759
8.2

62.8
643
7.0

62.9
620
6.7

62.3
757
8.2

62.8
740
7.9

62.0
746
8.0

62.1
824
8.8

61.7
820
8.8

61.6
778
8.3

61.7
744
8.0

62.0
752
8.0

62 0
804
8.5

62 3
671
7.1

H is p a n ic o r ig in

Civilian noninstitutional
population1 .......................................
Civilian labor fo rc e ..........................
Participation rate ...................
E m ployed......................................
Employment-population
ratio2 .......................................
Unem ployed..................................
Unemployment r a te ...............

2 ™ e..popu ato n figures are not seasonally adjusted.
Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian nonmstltutional population.
NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals

6.

because data for the “ other races” groups are not presented and Híspanles are included
in both the white and black population groups.

S e le c t e d e m p lo y m e n t in d ic a t o r s , m o n t h ly d a t a s e a s o n a lly a d ju s t e d

(In thousands)
Annual average

1989

Selected categories
1988

1989

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

114,968
63,273
51,696
40,472

117,342
64,315
53,027
40,760

116,640
63,764
52,876
40,794

116,757
64,008
52,749
40,880

117,047
64,293
52,754
40,976

117,084
64,206
52,878
40,857

117,132
64,202
52,930
40,932

117,542
64,577
52,965
41,025

117,436
64,440
52,996
41,067

117,550
64,400
53,150
40,723

117,419
64,150
53,269
40,649

117,585
64,513
53,072
40,839

117,836
64,482
53,354
40,886

117,888
64,618
53,270
41,041

117,863
64,420
53,443
40,982

28,756
6,211

29,404
6,338

29,557
6,396

29,379
6,381

29,485
6,267

29,563
6,263

29,608
6,354

29,499
6,401

29,520
6,446

29,259
6,371

29,506
6,429

29,544
6,354

29,767
6,351

29,695
6,349

29,897
6,215

1,621
1,398
150

1,665
1,403
131

1,667
1,395
177

1,644
1,411
146

1,651
1,403
137

1,630
1,414
126

1,647
1,377
127

1,557
1,411
126

1,685
1,424
127

1,723
1,410
133

1,680
1,424
132

1,678
1,406
124

1,687
1,373
122

1,677
1,369
125

1,634
1,354
107

103,021
17,114
85,907
1,153
84,754
8,519
260

105,259
17,469
87,790
1,101
86,689
8,605
279

104,380
17,346
87,034
1,187
85,847
8,681
298

104,815
17,318
87,497
1,131
86,366
8,541
290

104,948
17,376
87,572
1,149
86,423
8,631
319

104,981
17,266
87,715
1,118
86,597
8,643
277

105,232
17,305
87,927
1,123
86,804
8,573
299

105,430
17,328
88,102
1,128
86,974
8,578
245

105,353
17,501
87,852
1,094
86,758
8,602
248

105,317
17,559
87,758
1,147
86,611
8,621
272

105,476
17,613
87,863
1,065
86,798
8,581
279

105,504
17,595
87,909
987
86,922
8,610
280

105,960
17,681
88,279
1,051
87,228
8,528
264

105,643
17,728
87,915
1,077
86,838
8,653
251

105,747
17,626
88,121
1,035
87,086
8,733
256

5,206
2,350
2,487
14,963

4,894
2,303
2,233
15,393

5,082
2,328
2,363
15,386

4,987
2,314
2,339
15,150

4,978
2,283
2,368
15,510

5,086
2,346
2,375
15,405

4,883
2,314
2,307
15,350

4,928
2,315
2,269
15,466

4,773
2,301
2,172
15,577

4,802
2,281
2,142
15,550

4,864
2,321
2,161
15,506

4,767
2,314
2,082
15,368

4,803
2,297
2,162
15,254

4,802
2,277
2,106
15,388

4,983
2,402
2,255
14,931

4,965
2,199
2,408
14,509

4,657
2,143
2,166
14,963

4,831
2,168
2,287
14,947

4,722
2,129
2,272
14,707

4,720
2,095
2,290
15,074

4,855
2,198
2,310
14,975

4,643
2,137
2,246
14,977

4,738
2,183
2,198
15,016

4,583
2,164
2,104
15,138

4,567
2,129
2,076
15,071

4,605
2,165
2,095
15,076

4,526
2,166
2,021
14,936

4,552
2,132
2,097
14,805

4,554
2,111
2,051
14,983

4,729
2,240
2,172
14,515

C H A R A C T E R IS T IC

Civilian employed, 16 years and
o v e r...............................................
M e n ............................................
Women ......................................
Married men, spouse present
Married women, spouse
p re s e n t.....................................
Women who maintain families

M A J O R IN D U S T R Y A N D C L A S S
OF W ORKER

Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers .......
Self-employed w o rke rs ............
Unpaid family w o rk e rs .............
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary w o rk e rs ........
Government ............................
Private in dustries....................
Private households..............
O th e r ......................................
Self-employed w o rke rs .............
Unpaid family w o rk e rs ..............

PERSONS AT W O RK
P A R T T IM E ’

All industries:
Part time for economic reasons
Slack work ................................
Could only find part-time work
Voluntary part time ....................
Nonagricultural industries:
Part time for economic reasons
Slack work ................................
Could only find part-time work
Voluntary part time .....................
Excludes persons

86

with a job but not at work

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes

March 1990

7 . S e le c t e d u n e m p lo y m e n t in d ic a t o r s , m o n th ly d a t a s e a s o n a lly a d ju s t e d
(Unemployment rates)
1989

Annual average
Selected categories

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

1988

1989

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Total, all civilian w o rke rs ..................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs ........
Men, 20 years and o v e r .............
Women, 20 years and o v e r........

5.5
15.3
4.8
4.9

5.3
15.0
4.5
4.7

5.4
16.1
4.6
4.7

5.2
14.8
4.5
4.6

5.0
14.0
4.2
4.6

5.3
14.6
4.6
4.7

5.2
15.0
4.3
4.7

5.3
15.4
4.4
4.8

5.3
15.1
4.4
4.9

5.3
14.8
4.5
4.7

5.3
15.0
4.8
4.5

5.3
14.9
4.5
4.8

5.3
15.3
4.6
4.8

5.3
15.2
4.6
4.8

5.3
14.5
4.7
4.6

White, total ....................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs .....
Men, 16 to 19 years ...........
Women, 16 to 19 y e a rs......
Men, 20 years and over ..........
Women, 20 years and o v e r .....

4.7
13.1
13.9
12.3
4.1
4.1

4.5
12.7
13.7
11.5
3.9
4.0

4.6
13.8
15.9
11.6
3.9
4.0

4.3
12.3
13.9
10.7
3.8
3.7

4.3
11.9
13.0
10.7
3.6
3.9

4.5
12.4
13.2
11.5
3.9
4.1

4.4
12.8
14.1
11.4
3.7
4.1

4.5
12.9
13.5
12.3
3.8
4.1

4.5
12.7
12.8
12.6
3.8
4.2

4.5
12.7
13.1
12.3
3.9
4.1

4.5
12.2
13.3
11.1
4.2
3.8

4.5
12.4
13.8
10.9
3.9
4.0

4.5
12.9
14.3
11.3
3.9
4.0

4.6
13.0
14.0
11.9
3.9
4.1

4.5
12.7
12.9
12.4
4.0
4.0

Black, total ....................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 y e a rs .....
Men, 16 to 19 years ...........
Women, 16 to 19 y e a rs......
Men, 20 years and over ..........
Women, 20 years and o v e r.....

11.7
32.4
32.7
32.0
10.1
10.4

11.4
32.4
31.9
33.0
10.0
9.8

11.7
33.9
35.6
31.9
10.2
10.2

11.6
32.2
32.6
31.7
10.2
10.0

11.0
31.5
29.0
34.3
9.8
9.3

11.0
31.7
34.8
28.5
9.9
9.1

11.1
32.4
35.4
29.6
9.5
9.6

11.8
35.1
33.8
36.8
9.6
10.5

11.0
27.9
23.2
33.1
9.5
9.9

11.2
31.9
30.3
33.6
9.9
9.6

11.7
36.3
33.8
38.8
10.1
9.7

11.7
33.4
32.0
34.9
10.3
9.9

11.9
32.5
32.3
32.7
10.6
10.2

11.8
30.7
30.1
31.4
10.8
10.0

11.3
26.7
29.2
24.0

Hispanic origin, to ta l.....................

8.2

8.0

8.2

7.0

6.7

8.2

7.9

8.0

8.8

8.8

8.3

8.0

8.0

8.5

Married men, spouse p re s e n t....
Married women, spouse present
Women who maintain families ....
Full-time workers .........................
Part-time workers ........................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over
Labor force time lost1 ................

3.3
3.9
8.1
5.2
7.6
1.3
6.3

3.0
3.7
8.1
4.9
7.3
1.1
5.9

3.1
3.7
7.9
5.0
7.7
1.2
6.1

3.0
3.4
8.0
4.8
7.2
1.1
6.0

2.9
3.5
7.9
4.8
6.4
1.1
5.9

3.2
4.0
7.8
5.0
7.2
1.1
6.0

2.9
3.8
8.2
4.9
6.9
1.1
6.0

2.9
3.8
7.9
4.9
7.7
1.0
6.0

3.0
3.8
8.5
5.0
7.2
1.2
6.0

3.1
3.9
8.0
4.9
7.1
1.1
6.0

3.3
3.8
7.7
5.0
7.3
1.1
6.0

3.0
3.9
7.8
4.9
7.1
1.1
5.9

3.1
3.8
8.2
5.0
7.4
1.1
5.9

3.0
3.9
8.1
5.Û
7.5
1.1
6.0

3.4
3.7
7.5
5.0
7.0

5.5
7.9
10.6
5.3
5.0
5.7
3.9
6.2
4.5
2.8
10.6

5.3
5.8
10.0
5.1
4.8
5.5
3.9
6.0
4.4
2.7
9.6

5.5
6.2
10.3
5.2
4.8
5.6
3.9
6.4
4.6
2.7
9.5

5.2
7.6
10.0
4.9
4.5
5.5
3.9
5.7
4.3
2.7
9.1

5.1
7.0
9.6
4.8
4.6
5.1
3.9
5.7
4.3
2.7
8.9

5.3
5.8
9.8
5.0
4.7
5.3
3.9
5.9
4.6
2.7
9.8

5.2
4.6
9.5
4.9
4.6
5.5
4.0
5.6
4.6
2.9
9.9

5.3
3.9
10.0
5.1
4.6
5.8
4.1
6.0
4.3
2.9
10.4

5.4
5.8
10.3
5.1
4.7
5.6
4.1
6.1
4.4
2.8
8.9

5.4
6.4
10.2
5.2
4.9
5.7
3.7
6.0
4.4
2.7
9.0

5.4
8.4
10.1
5.2
4.9
5.5
4.5
5.9
4.5
2.8
7.8

5.3
4.8
9.3
5.4
5.2
5.6
3.9
5.9
4.3
2.7
9.8

5.4
6.2
9.8
5.4
5.4
5.3
3.6
6.4
4.3
2.7
12.1

5.4
4.4
9.8
5.6
5.4
5.9
3.4
6.3
4.2
2.6
9.7

5.5
6.8
9.3
5.9
5.8
5.9
4.3

C H A R A C T E R IS T IC

11.2
9.2

1.1
6.0

IN D U S T R Y

Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers .
M ining.....................................................................
Construction .........................................................
Manufacturing ......................................................
Durable g o o d s ..................................................
Nondurable goods ...........................................
Transportation and public utilities ....................
Wholesale and retail tra d e ...............................
Finance and service in dustries.........................
Government workers ...............................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers ..................

6.2
4.3
2.4
9.2

Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

87

Current Labor Statistics:
8.

Employment Data

U n e m p lo y m e n t r a te s b y s e x a n d a g e , m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d

(Civilian workers)
Annual
average

Sex and age

1988

1989

1989

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

1990

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Total, 16 years and over ........................................................................
16 to 24 y e a rs .......................................................................................
16 to 19 years ....................................................................................
16 to 17 years .................................................................................
18 to 19 years .................................................................................
20 to 24 y e a rs ....................................................................................
25 years and o v e r.................................................................................
25 to 54 years .................................................................................
55 years and o v e r ...........................................................................

5.5
11.0
15.3
17.4
13.8
8.7
4.3
4.5
3.1

5.3
10.9
15.0
17.2
13.6
8.6
4.0
4.2
3.1

5.4
11.6
16.1
17.8
15.0
9.1
4.0
4.2
3.0

5.2
10.6
14.8
17.6
12.7
8.2
4.0
4.2
3.0

5.0
10.0
14.0
15.8
12.9
7.9
3.9
4.2
2.7

5.3
10.6
14.6
15.9
13.7
8.4
4.1
4.3
3.0

5.2
10.5
15.0
16.6
14.3
7.9
4.0
4.2
2.9

5.3
11.1
15.4
17.4
14.6
8.7
4.0
4.1
3.3

5.3
10.9
15.1
17.7
13.1
8.6
4.0
4.2
3.1

5.3
11.0
14.8
17.5
12.8
8.8
4.0
4.1
3.1

5.3
11.1
15.0
17.2
14.2
8.8
4.1
4.3
3.0

5.3
11.1
14.9
16.9
13.5
8.9
4.1
4.2
3.0

5.3
11.3
15.3
17.4
13.8
9.0
4.1
4.2
3.2

5.3
11.2
15.2
18.1
13.4
8.9
4.1
4.3
3.2

5.3
10.6
14.5
14.8
14.2
8.5
4.2
4.3
3.4

Men, 16 years and o v e r ....................................................................
16 to 24 years .................................................................................
16 to 19 y e a rs...............................................................................
16 to 17 y e a rs ............................................................................
18 to 19 y e a rs ............................................................................
20 to 24 y e a rs ...............................................................................
25 years and o v e r ...........................................................................
25 to 54 y e a rs ............................................................................
55 years and o v e r......................................................................

5.5
11.4
16.0
18.2
14.6
8.9
4.2
4.4
3.3

5.2
11.4
15.9
18.6
14.2
8.8
3.9
4.1
3.2

5.4
12.5
18.3
19.9
17.2
9.3
4.0
4.2
3.0

5.2
11.2
16.4
18.8
14.7
8.3
4.0
4.1
3.3

4.9
10.0
14.6
16.5
13.6
7.5
3.8
4.0
2.8

5.3
10.8
15.6
17.5
14.3
8.2
4.1
4.3
3.2

5.1
10.9
16.3
18.7
15.1
8.0
3.8
3.9
3.0

5.1
11.4
15.9
19.5
13.7
8.9
3.7
3.8
3.1

5.0
10.9
14.7
17.8
12.1
8.9
3.8
3.9
3.1

5.1
11.5
15.1
17.7
13.1
9.4
3.8
3.8
3.3

5.4
11.9
15.7
19.5
13.7
9.8
4.1
4.1
3.5

5.2
11.7
15.9
18.5
14.2
9.3
3.9
4.0
3.2

5.3
12.0
16.7
19.0
15.1
9.4
4.0
4.1
3.5

5.3
11.8
16.1
19.6
13.8
9.5
3.9
4.0
3.6

5.3
11.2
15.1
14.2
15.6
8.9
4.2
4.3
3.6

Women, 16 years and o v e r.............................................................
16 to 24 y e a rs ................................................................................
16 to 19 years .............................................................................
16 to 17 years ..........................................................................
18 to 19 years ..........................................................................
20 to 24 years .............................................................................
25 years and o v e r..........................................................................
25 to 54 years ..........................................................................
55 years and o v e r ....................................................................

5.6
10.6
14.4
16.6
12.9
8.5
4.3
4.6
2.8

5.4
10.4
14.0
15.7
13.0
8.3
4.2
4.4
2.8

5.3
10.6
13.9
15.7
12.7
8.8
4.1
4.3
3.1

5.1
9.9
13.1
16.3
10.4
8.1
4.0
4.2
2.6

5.2
10.1
13.3
15.1
12.0
8.3
4.1
4.3
2.6

5.3
10.4
13.5
14.1
12.9
8.7
4.1
4.4
2.7

5.3
10.0
13.7
14.3
13.4
7.9
4.3
4.6
2.9

5.5
10.8
14.9
15.2
15.6
8.5
4.3
4.5
3.6

5.6
10.9
15.5
17.6
14.2
8.3
4.3
4.5
3.1

5.4
10.4
14.6
17.2
12.5
8.1
4.2
4.5
2.8

5.2
10.2
14.4
14.7
14.6
7.7
4.1
4.4
2.4

5.4
10.4
13.8
15.0
12.8
8.5
4.2
4.4
2.8

5.4
10.4
13.8
15.7
12.3
8.5
4.2
4.4
2.9

5.5
10.4
14.3
16.5
13.0
8.2
4.3
4.6
2.7

5.2
10.1
13.7
15.5
12.6
8.0
4.1
4.3
3.3

9.

U n e m p lo y e d p e r s o n s b y r e a s o n f o r u n e m p lo y m e n t, m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d

(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average

1989

1990

Reason for unemployment
1988
Job losers ......................................................................
On la y o ff......................................................................
Other job lo s e rs ..........................................................
Job leavers ....................................................................
Reentrants .....................................................................
New entrants .................................................................

Jan.

Mar.

Apr.

May

3,092
851
2,241
983
1,809
816

1989
2,983
850
2,133
1,024
1,843
677

3,088
813
2,275
973
1,827
768

Feb.
2,879
783
2,096
980
1,767
757

2,852
806
2,046
902
1,774
713

2,932
833
2,099
985
1,882
692

2,798
805
1,993
1,103
1,853
696

2,820
813
2,007
1,021
1,993
726

2,916
829
2,087
1,016
1,901
723

2,964
865
2,099
1,031
1,772
643

2,932
852
2,080
1,034
1,920
648

2,979
780
2,199
994
1,890
685

3,092
969
2,123
1,049
1,845
695

3,097
957
2,140
1,055
1,853
686

3,183
1,033
2,150
1,016
1,730
640

46.1
12.7
33.4
14.7
27.0
12.2

45.7
13.0
32.7
15.7
28.2
10.4

46.4
12.2
34.2
14.6
27.4
11.5

45.1
12.3
32.8
15.4
27.7
11.9

45.7
12.9
32.8
14.5
28.4
11.4

45.2
12.8
32.3
15.2
29.0
10.7

43.4
12.5
30.9
17.1
28.7
10.8

43.0
12.4
30.6
15.6
30.4
11.1

44.5
12.6
31.8
15.5
29.0
11.0

46.2
13.5
32.7
16.1
27.6
10.0

44.9
13.0
31.8
15.8
29.4
9.9

45.5
11.9
33.6
15.2
28.9
10.5

46.3
14.5
31.8
15.7
27.6
10.4

46.3
14.3
32.0
15.8
27.7
10.3

48.5
15.7
32.7
15.5
26.3
9.7

2.5
.8
1.5
.7

2.4
.8
1.5
.5

2.5
.8
1.5
.6

2.3
.8
1.4
.6

2.3
.7
1.4
.6

2.4
.8
1.5
.6

2.3
.9
1.5
.6

2.3
.8
1.6
.6

2.4
.8
1.5
.6

2.4
.8
1.4
.5

2.4
.8
1.5
.5

2.4
.8
1.5
.6

2.5
.8
1.5
.6

2.5
.8
1.5
.6

2.6
.8
1.4
.5

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

PER CENT OF UNEM PLO YED

Job lo se rs....................................................................
On la y o ff...................................................................
Other job lo s e rs ......................................................
Job le avers..................................................................
Reentrants...................................................................
New entrants ..............................................................
PERCENT OF
C I V IL IA N L A B O R F O R C E

Job losers ......................................................................
Job leavers ....................................................................
Reentrants .....................................................................
New entrants .................................................................

10.

D u r a tio n o f u n e m p lo y m e n t, m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d

(Numbers in thousands)
1989

Annual average

1990

Weeks of unemployment
1988

1989

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Less than 5 weeks ...............................................
5 to 14 weeks .......................................................
15 weeks and o v e r ...............................................
15 to 26 weeks ..................................................
27 weeks and over ............................................

3,084
2,007
1,610
801
809

3,174
1,978
1,375
730
646

3,140
1,998
1,499
761
738

3,212
1,894
1,300
660
640

3,072
1,849
1,335
672
663

3,113
2,006
1,391
667
724

3,070
1,993
1,331
711
620

3,279
2,006
1,295
684
611

3,156
1,965
1,461
838
623

3,125
2,002
1,338
759
579

3,169
2,030
1,359
769
590

3,166
1,995
1,378
743
635

3,258
1,991
1,422
765
657

3,302
2,013
1,362
730
632

3,119
2,012
1,430
777
653

Mean duration in w e e k s .......................................
Median duration in w e e k s ....................................

13.5
5.9

11.9
4.8

12.6
5.6

12.3
5.4

12.4
5.5

12.6
5.4

11.9
5.3

11.2
5.4

11.9
5.4

11.4
5.0

11.5
5.0

11.7
5.0

11.6
4.8

11.5
4.8

12.1
5.1

Digitized for88
FRASER
Monthly Labor Review
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

1 1 . U n e m p lo y m e n t r a t e s o f c iv ilia n w o r k e r s b y S t a t e , d a t a n o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju s t e d
Dec.
1988

State

Dec.
1989

A labam a..................
Alaska .....................
A riz o n a ....................
Arkansas .................
C a lifornia.................

4.3

4.8

Colorado .................
Connecticut ............
D elaw are.................
District of Columbia
Florida ....................

6.2
3.3
3.1
4.6
5.4

5.5
3.8
2.8
4.9
5.8

Georgia ..................
H a w aii.....................
Idaho .......................
Illinois ......................
Indiana ...................

4.8
2.8
5.4
6.2
4.5

5.0
2.6
4.6
6.1
5.3

Io w a .........................
Kansas ....................
K e n tu c k y................
Louisiana.................
M ain e .......................

4.1

4.4

3.8
3.0
7.1

3.4
4.2
7.2

8.8

6.9
5.5

Maryland ................
M assachusetts......
M ichigan.................
M inne sota..............
M ississippi..............
M issouri..................

Dec.
1988

Dec.
1989

6.5
3.0
4.3
2.2

5.3
2.7
4.4
4.2

New Jersey ......................................................
New Mexico .....................................................
New Y o rk ..........................................................
North Carolina ................................................
North Dakota ...................................................

4.0
6.4
4.6
3.3
4.7

3.5
5.5
5.5
3.0
4.1

Ohio ..................................................................
O klaho m a.........................................................
O re g o n ..............................................................
Pennsylvania...................................................
Rhode Isla n d ...................................................

5.4
5.6
4.9
4.2
2.0

6.0
5.1
5.1
4.9
4.8

South C a rolina................................................

3.5
3.8
5.5
6.2
3.6

4.1
3.7
4.6
5.8
3.5

V e rm o n t............................................................
V irg in ia ..............................................................
Washington ......................................................
West V irg inia...................................................

2.5
4.1
5.5
8.2
3.7

3.9
4.0
5.7
8.0
4.3

7.0

5.9

State

NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data
published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the
database.

12.

E m p lo y m e n t o f w o r k e r s o n n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls b y S ta te , d a ta n o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d

(In thousands)
State

Dec. 1988

Nov. 1989

Dec. 1989p

Dec. 1988

State

Nov. 1989

Dec. 1989p

Nebraska ..........................................................
Nevada .............................................................
New Hampshire ..............................................

705.4
556.2
543.3

727.0
590.2
534.4

728.4
593.0
536.9

New Jersey ......................................................
New Mexico .....................................................
New Y o rk ..........................................................
North Carolina ................................................
North Dakota ..................................................

3,700.0
549.6
8,335.9
3,030.8
259.0

3,721.3
563.8
8,342.3
3,082.3
265.2

3,725.3
565.5
8,394.6
3,079.6
264.1

Ohio ..................................................................
O k la h o m a .........................................................
O re g o n ..............................................................
Pennsylvania...................................................
Rhode Isla n d ...................................................

4,781.8
1,145.1
1,183.3
5,106.8
464.4

4,886.8
1,153.2
1,224.4
5,166.0
459.8

4,893.1
1,154.3
1,222.5
5,149.2
462.6

South C a rolina................................................
South D a k o ta ...................................................
1,208.6 Tennessee .......................................................
1,070.8 Texas ................................................................
1,420.9 Utah ..................................................................
1,528.8
533.5 V e rm o n t............................................................
Virginia ..............................................................
2,159.7 Washington ......................................................
3,165.7 West V irg inia....................................................
3,913.1 Wisconsin .........................................................
2,112.2
925.4 W yom ing...........................................................
2,289.5 Puerto Rico ......................................................
284.6 Virgin Islands ...................................................

1,479.4
265.5
2,073.1
6,755.0
682.7

1,529.7
270.4
2,100.4
6,863.3
711.0

1,534.9
268.7
2,096.4
6,873.9
714.3

264.3
2,860.7
1,984.5
616.9
2,185.0

257.1
2,953.4
2,088.7
626.1
2,234.4

263.6
2,949.0
2,089.9
622.3
2,230.2

187.1
836.6
41.5

191.9
830.2
38.2

191.2
836.6
38.5

A labam a..................
Alaska .....................
Arizona ....................
Arkansas .................
C a lifornia.................

1,573.8
207.1
1,434.8
873.1
12,378.3

1,592.3
216.3
1,476.7
896.7
12,640.5

1,588.9
214.2
1,486.2
896.2
12,688.7

Colorado .................
Connecticut ............
D elaw are.................
District of Columbia
Florida .....................

1,444.9
1,709.2
338.0
682.2
5,257.1

1,461.8
1,715.1
342.7
694.9
5,393.2

1,465.1
1,721.8
344.5
698.7
5,455.1

Georgia ..................
H aw aii......................
Idaho .......................
Illinois ......................
Indiana ....................

2,949.9
490.1
357.2
5,136.7
2,450.1

2,959.8
503.6
376.8
5,210.6
2,495.1

2,973.0
504.7)
375.5
5,208.2
2,496.2

Io w a .........................
Kansas ...................
K e n tu cky................
Louisiana................
M aine.......................

1,185.6
1,052.2
1,395.4
1,517.0
530.1

1,213.6
1,073.6
1,419.7
1,533.0
535.5

Maryland ................
M assachusetts......
M ichigan.................
Minnesota ..............
M ississippi..............
M issouri..................
M o ntana..................

2,139.4
3,182.3
3,890.2
2,059.2
910.2
2,269.6
280.8

2,160.8
3,146.3
3,908.2
2,119.9
926.1
2,291.0
285.9

= preliminary
NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere

p

because of the continual updating of the database.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

89

Current Labor Statistics:
13.

Employment Data

E m p lo y m e n t o f w o r k e r s o n n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls b y in d u s tr y , m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d

(In thousands)
Annual average

1989

1990

Industry
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.p

Jan.p

105,584
P R IV A T E S E C T O R ............................
88,212

1988

108,579
90,852

107,442
89,897

107,711
90,124

107,888
90,291

108,101
90,475

108,310
90,623

108,607
90,884

108,767
91,016

108,887
91,083

109,096
91,230

109,171
91,328

109,452
91,622

109,548
91,685

109,823
91,962

25,249
721
406

25,634
722
404

25,626
711
393

25,629
711
394

25,646
714
397

25,671
720
400

25,672
722
401

25,648
715
402

25,669
706
404

25,694
729
405

25,614
730
408

25,603
731
409

25,609
737
414

25,533
739
416

25,526
740
417

5,125
1,368

5,300
1,391

5,267
1,404

5,270
1,398

5,252
1,380

5,279
1,377

5,283
1,388

5,283
1,384

5,314
1,391

5,321
1,403

5,325
1,396

5,335
1,386

5,355
1,391

5,305
1,390

5,409
1,419

19,403
13,254

19,612
13,375

19,648
13,423

19,648
13,426

19,680
13,442

19,672
13,430

19,667
13,426

19,650
13,400

19,649
13,410

19,644
13,401

19,559
13,319

19,537
13,307

19,517
13,276

19,489
13,258

19,377
13,151

11,437
7,635

11,537
7,687

11,605
7,758

11,594
7,749

11,604
7,749

11,600
7,744

11,594
7,735

11,567
7,706

11,549
7,697

11,551
7,696

11,480
7,632

11,457
7,615

11,439
7,594

11,411
7,580

11,310
7,479

765
530
600
774

770
531
603
782

784
532
607
786

778
534
608
786

777
535
607
788

772
537
606
788

771
534
604
787

769
534
603
787

767
536
602
785

763
529
601
786

759
528
597
777

764
525
600
776

765
525
602
772

766
523
600
771

771
521
602
767

277
1,431

274
1,445

276
1,458

276
1,458

276
1,457

275
1,454

276
1,452

276
1,449

277
1,446

276
1,443

273
1,438

271
1,434

269
1,430

270
1,427

268
1,410

2,082

2,146

2,134

2,138

2,143

2,144

2,150

2,151

2,154

2,152

2,147

2,139

2,146

2,144

2,142

2,070
2,051
857
749

2,038
2,054
856
777

2,065
2,079
882
770

2,062
2,067
871
772

2,060
2,071
869
776

2,058
2,073
875
777

2,050
2,076
876
778

2,041
2,062
861
779

2,040
2,046
844
781

2,034
2,068
873
782

2,023
2,038
843
780

2,018
2,031
833
779

2,012
2,020
824
778

1,994
2,022
824
773

1,996
1,929
734
777

386

391

390

391

390

391

392

392

392

393

393

391

389

391

395

7,967
5,619

8,076
5,688

8,043
5,665

8,054
5,677

8,076
5,693

8,072
5,686

8,073
5,691

8,083
5,694

8,100
5,713

8,093
5,705

8,079
5,687

8,080
5,692

8,078
5,682

8,078
5,678

8,067
5,672

Food and kindred pro d u cts ..........
Tobacco manufactures .................
Textile mill p ro d u c ts .......................
Apparel and other textile
products..........................................
Paper and allied products ............

1,636
56
729

1,665
53
726

1,650
56
728

1,650
56
728

1,655
56
729

1,657
54
728

1,656
53
728

1,663
52
729

1,678
53
730

1,667
52
727

1,674
51
723

1,676
51
724

1,673
51
721

1,676
51
719

1,677
52
714

1,092
693

1,091
697

1,092
696

1,096
696

1,101
697

1,098
696

1,095
697

1,093
697

1,094
701

1,095
700

1,088
697

1,084
697

1,084
697

1,079
699

1,074
700

Printing and publishing..................
Chemicals and allied products.....
Petroleum and coal p roducts.......
Rubber and mise, plastics
p roducts..........................................
Leather and leather products ......

1,561
1,065
162

1,607
1,093
162

1,595
1,084
160

1,595
1,085
161

1,600
1,088
161

1,601
1,090
162

1,603
1,094
162

1,607
1,096
163

1,609
1,091
163

1,611
1,097
163

1,612
1,095
163

1,612
1,096
164

1,617
1,098
164

1,619
1,103
163

1,625
1,102
163

829
144

840
141

839
143

843
144

845
144

843
143

843
142

841
142

841
140

841
140

837
139

837
139

835
138

832
137

824
136

S E R V IC E - P R O D U C IN G ......................

80,335

82,945

81,816

82,082

82,242

82,430

82,638

82,959

83,098

83,193

83,482

83,568

83,843

84,015

84,297

5,548
3,334

5,705
3,514

5,654
3,439

5,667
3,453

5,666
3,452

5,682
3,467

5,700
3,484

5,716
3,500

5,736
3,524

5,618
3,539

5,709
3,546

5,729
3,566

5,753
3,592

5,832
3,614

5,859
3,641

2,214

2,190

2,215

2,214

2,214

2,215

2,216

2,216

2,212

2,079

2,163

2,163

2,161

2,218

2,218

6,029
3,561
2,467

6,234
3,696
2,539

6,146
3,638
2,508

6,171
3,657
2,514

6,197
3,676
2,521

6,206
3,676
2,530

6,222
3,685
2,537

6,230
3,693
2,537

6,237
3,700
2,537

6,256
3,708
2,548

6,264
3,717
2,547

6,278
3,721
2,557

6,300
3,737
2,563

6,308
3,746
2,562

6,332
3,757
2,575

19,110
2,461
3,098

19,574
2,483
3,270

19,407
2,472
3,200

19,460
2,481
3,212

19,488
2,490
3,223

19,489
2,492
3,233

19,528
2,491
3,245

19,551
2,493
3,262

19,586
2,482
3,274

19,621
2,484
3,293

19,632
2,486
3,294

19,679
2,478
3,321

19,744
2,492
3,334

19,714
2,468
3,342

19,831
2,494
3,366

2,090
6,282

2,157
6,370

2,143
6,323

2,150
6,332

2,155
6,322

2,159
6,335

2,159
6,348

2,155
6,362

2,155
6,370

2,152
6,385

2,157
6,397

2,169
6,403

2,169
6,417

2,161
6,432

2,163
6,459

6,676
3,290
2,082
1,304

6,814
3,329
2,128
1,357

6,746
3,308
2,109
1,329

6,763
3,311
2,116
1,336

6,774
3,316
2,117
1,341

6,776
3,312
2,119
1,345

6,790
3,320
2,123
1,347

6,808
3,320
2,129
1,359

6,815
3,324
2,131
1,360

6,836
3,336
2,137
1,363

6,852
3,343
2,137
1,372

6,851
3,345
2,134
1,372

6,871
3,357
2,138
1,376

6,882
3,362
2,142
1,378

6,892
3,363
2,149
1,380

25,600
5,571
7,144

26,892
5,789
7,635

26,318
5,707
7,396

26,434
5,729
7,442

26,520
5,736
7,488

26,651
5,760
7,528

26,711
5,776
7,570

26,931
5,799
7,616

26,973
5,786
7,648

27,058
5,800
7,695

27,159
5,836
7,739

27,188
5,827
7,778

27,345
5,852
7,839

27,416
5,854
7,885

27,522
5,862
7,933

17,372
2,971
4,063
10,339

17,727
2,988
4,134
10,605

17,545
2,978
4,084
10,483

17,587
2,982
4,095
10,510

17,597
2,982
4,102
10,513

17,626
2,982
4,111
10,533

17,687
2,999
4,119
10,569

17,723
2,995
4,136
10,592

17,751
3,000
4,145
10,606

17,804
2,999
4,154
10,651

17,866
2,996
4,182
10,688

17,843
2,984
4,153
10,706

17,830
2,982
4,162
10,686

17,863
2,972
4,157
10,734

17,861
2,984
4,145
10,732

T O T A L ..................................................

G O O D S - P R O D U C IN G ..........................
M in in g .........................................................

Oil and gas extraction ..................
C o n s t r u c t io n ..........................................

General building contractors.......
M a n u f a c t u r i n g ........................................

Production w o rk e rs .......................
D u r a b le g o o d s .....................................

Production workers .......................
Lumber and wood products .........
Furniture and fix tu re s .....................
Stone, clay, and glass products ...
Primary metal industries ...............
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products..........................................
Fabricated metal products............
Machinery, except e lectrica l.........
Electrical and electronic
equipm ent.......................................
Transportation equipm ent.............
Motor vehicles and equipment ....
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries ........................................
N o n d u r a b le g o o d s ..............................

Production w o rke rs.........................

1989 P

T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic
u t i l i t i e s ......................................................

Transportation.................................
Communication and public
u tilitie s.............................................
W h o le s a le t r a d e ..................................

Durable g o o d s .................................
Nondurable g o o d s ..........................
R e ta il t r a d e ..............................................

General merchandise s to re s ........
Food s to re s .....................................
Automotive dealers and service
stations ...........................................
Eating and drinking p la c e s ...........
F in a n c e , in s u r a n c e , a n d r e a l
e s t a t e .........................................................

Finance ............................................
Insurance.........................................
Real e s ta te ......................................
S e r v i c e s .....................................................

Business se rvice s...........................
Health services ...............................
G o v e r n m e n t ...........................................

F e d e ra l.............................................
State .................................................
L o c a l.................................................

p = preliminary
NOTE: See notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

90

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

14.

A v e r a g e w e e k ly h o u r s o f p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a te n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls b y in d u s tr y ,

m o n th ly d a ta s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d

Industry

Annual
average
1988

1990

1989

1989 P Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.P

Jan.p

P R IV A T E S E C T O R ........................................................

34.7

34.7

34.8

34.6

34.7

34.9

34.6

34.6

34.8

34.6

34.7

34.7

34.6

34.5

34.6

M A N U F A C T U R I N G ...............................................................

41.1
3.9

41.0
3.8

41.1
3.9

41.1
3.9

41.0
4.0

41.3
3.9

41.0
3.8

41.0
3.8

41.0
3.9

41.0
3.8

41.0
3.8

40.8
3.7

40.7
3.7

40.7
3.6

40.7
3.6

Overtime h o u rs ...................................................
Lumber and wood products ...................................
Furniture and fix tu re s ..............................................
Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................
Primary metal industries .........................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts ..........
Fabricated metal products .....................................

41.8
4.1
40.3
39.4
42.3
43.6
44.0
41.9

41.6
3.9
40.1
39.5
42.3
43.0
43.4
41.6

41.8
4.1
40.3
39.8
42.5
43.6
44.0
41.9

41.8
4.1
39.6
39.7
42.2
43.4
43.8
41.9

41.7
4.1
40.0
39.8
42.2
43.5
44.1
41.8

41.9
4.1
40.5
39.9
42.5
43.3
43.5
41.9

41.5
3.9
39.7
39.4
41.9
43.2
43.6
41.7

41.5
3.9
39.8
39.4
42.2
43.3
43.7
41.5

41.5
4.0
39.6
39.5
42.3
43.0
43.2
41.5

41.6
3.9
40.2
39.6
42.5
42.9
43.4
41.5

41.6
3.9
40.2
39.6
42.2
42.8
42.9
41.6

41.2
3.8
40.4
39.2
42.3
42.5
42.8
41.5

41.2
3.7
40.3
39.4
42.4
42.6
43.0
41.4

41.2
3.6
40.1
39.1
41.6
42.5
43.0
41.2

41.3
3.7
40.2
39.5
42.2
42.6
43.3
41.4

Machinery except electrical ...................................
Electrical and electronic equipm ent.....................
Transportation equipm ent.......................................
Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................
Instruments and related products .........................
Miscellaneous m anufacturing.................................

42.6
41.0
42.7
43.5
41.5
39.2

42.4
40.8
42.4
43.1
41.2
39.4

42.5
40.9
42.8
43.6
41.5
39.4

42.6
40.9
43.1
43.9
41.5
39.5

42.5
40.6
43.1
43.9
41.1
39.5

42.7
41.0
42.8
43.3
41.5
39.8

42.5
40.7
42.5
42.8
41.1
39.6

42.5
40.7
42.5
42.7
41.3
39.4

42.4
40.6
42.6
42.6
41.4
39.3

42.2
40.9
42.7
43.0
41.1
39.4

42.3
41.1
42.8
43.4
41.0
39.2

42.0
40.9
41.2
42.9
41.1
39.3

42.1
40.8
40.9
42.3
41.0
39.7

42.0
40.6
41.9
42.3
41.0
39.3

42.0
40.7
41.5
41.2
41.1
39.5

N o n d u r a b le g o o d s ............................................................

Overtime h o u rs ...................................................
Food and kindred pro d u c ts ....................................
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................
Apparel and other textile products........................
Paper and allied products ......................................

40.1
3.7
40.3
41.1
37.0
43.2

40.2
3.7
40.7
41.0
37.0
43.3

40.1
3.6
40.1
40.9
37.0
.43.1

40.2
3.7
40.3
40.8
37.1
43.2

40.1
3.8
40.4
41.1
36.9
43.3

40.4
3.8
40.7
41.7
37.6
43.4

40.2
3.7
40.5
41.4
37.1
43.3

40.3
3.6
40.7
41.4
37.1
43.3

40.2
3.8
41.0
41.2
37.0
43.2

40.2
3.6
40.8
41.0
37.0
43.5

40.2
3.7
41.0
40.6
37.0
43.2

40.2
3.7
40.8
40.7
36.9
43.4

40.1
3.6
40.8
40.5
36.8
43.4

39.9
3.6
40.7
40.3
36.3
43.1

40.0
3.5
40.4
40.2
36.6
43.3

Printing and publishing............................................
Chemicals and allied products...............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u c ts .....
Leather and leather products ................................

38.0
42.3
41.7
37.5

37.8
42.4
41.5
37.9

38.0
42.3
41.7
38.0

38.0
42.3
41.7
38.6

37.9
42.3
41.6
38.0

37.9
42.6
41.6
38.3

37.7
42.1
41.5
37.4

37.8
42.5
41.5
37.9

37.6
42.5
41.4
37.7

37.7
42.4
41.5
38.1

37.9
42.5
41.5
38.1

37.8
42.4
41.4
37.7

37.9
42.3
41.2
37.5

37.7
42.7
40.7
37.2

37.9
42.4
40.8
37.2

Overtime h o u rs ...................................................
D u r a b le g o o d s

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S

39.3

39.4

39.6

39.4

39.4

40.1

39.5

39.4

39.4

39.0

39.3

39.3

39.1

39.2

38.9

W H O L E S A L E T R A D E .........................................................

37.4

37.4

38.1

38.1

38.1

38.3

37.9

38.0

38.1

38.0

38.1

38.1

38.1

38.0

38.0

R E T A IL T R A D E .....................................................................

29.1

28.9

29.1

28.9

28.9

29.1

28.9

28.9

29.2

28.8

28.8

29.0

28.8

28.7

29.0

S E R V IC E S ................................................................................

32.6

32.6

32.7

32.5

32.6

32.8

32.5

32.5

32.8

32.6

32.7

32.8

32.6

32.6

32.5

p = preliminary
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent
benchmark adjustment.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

91

Current Labor Statistics:
15.

Employment Data

A v e r a g e h o u r ly e a r n in g s o f p r o d u c t io n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a t e n o n a g r ic u lt u r a l p a y r o lls b y in d u s tr y ,

s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
Annual
average

Industry

1988
P R IV A T E S E C T O R (in c u r r e n t d o lla r s ) 1 ................

1989p

$9.66

$9.29

1990

1989
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.p

Jan.p

$9.49

$9.52

$9.54

$9.61

$9.60

$9.62

$9.69

$9.69

$9.74

$9.78

$9.78

$9.83

$9.84

13.44
10.55
10.08
12.68
10.54
6.61
9.77
9.58

13.52
10.57
10.11
12.61
10.54
6.61
9.67
9.54

13.62
10.60
10.14
12.65
10.59
6.65
9.79
9.62

13.35
10.56
10.11
12.74
10.60
6.69
9.77
9.66

4.81

4.79

4.80

Construction ............................................................... 13.01
Manufacturing ............................................................ 10.18
9.72
Excluding overtime ................................................
Transportation and public utilities .......................... 12.32
9.94
Wholesale tra d e .........................................................
6.31
Retail tra d e .................................................................
9.09
Finance, insurance, and real estate ......................
8.91
S e rvice s......................................................................

13.37
10.47
10.01
12.57
10.38
6.54
9.57
9.39

13.18
10.33
9.87
12.45
10.19
6.44
9.40
9.15

13.22
10.37
9.89
12.48
10.18
6.45
9.35
9.19

13.26
10.40
9.92
12.50
10.21
6.47
9.36
9.24

13.33
10.40
9.92
12.52
10.36
6.51
9.54
9.32

13.32
10.42
9.97
12.54
10.28
6.49
9.45
9.33

13.32
10.45
9.99
12.54
10.33
6.52
9.53
9.34

13.42
10.48
10.01
12.61
10.44
6.54
9.68
9.46

13.37
10.52
10.05
12.57
10.39
6.57
9.57
9.43

13.39
10.55
10.08
12.67
10.47
6.58
9.66
9.49

4.84

4.80

4.81

4.81

4.80

4.80

4.77

4.77

4.79

4.79

4.81

P R IV A T E S E C T O R (in c o n s t a n t ( 1 9 7 7 ) d o lla r s ) 1

1 Includes mining, not shown separately
- Data not available.
p = preliminary

16.

NOTE: See "Notes on the data’
benchmark revision.

-

for a description of the most recent

A v e r a g e h o u r ly e a r n in g s o f p r o d u c t io n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a t e n o n a g r ic u lt u r a l p a y r o lls b y

in d u s tr y
Annual
average

Industry

1988

1989p

1990

1989
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.p

Jan.p

$9.59

$9.58

$9.63

$9.61

$9.77

$9.81

$9.81

$9.84

$9.89

P R IV A T E S E C T O R ...............................................................

$9.29

$9.66

$9.54

$9.55

$9.56

$9.62

M I N I N G ........................................................................................

12.75

13.14

13.20

13.22

13.15

13.19

13.13

13.03

12.95

13.11

13.15

13.10

13.13

13.34

13.39

13.30

13.28

13.24

13.33

13.33

13.48

13.52

13.51

13.66

13.43

C O N S T R U C T I O N ...................................................................

13.01

13.37

13.26

13.21

13.26

M A N U F A C T U R I N G ...............................................................

10.18

10.47

10.37

10.38

10.41

10.41

10.42

10.44

10.47

10.44

10.55

10.52

10.58

10.66

10.60

10.93
8.76
8.12
10.71
12.26
14.06
10.48

10.94
8.79
8.16
10.69
12.25
14.06
10.49

10.98
8.85
8.23
10.73
12.32
14.18
10.51

10.99
8.92
8.26
10.75
12.40
14.33
10.53

10.98
8.93
8.29
10.77
12.36
14.27
10.50

11.10
8.98
8.40
10.79
12.47
14.38
10.64

11.06
8.99
8.39
10.82
12.43
14.40
10.57

11.10
8.99
8.40
10.87
12.51
14.48
10.61

11.18
9.02
8.40
10.87
12.53
14.41
10.69

11.04
8.95
8.40
10.87
12.48
14.34
10.55

10.71
8.61
7.94
10.47
12.15
13.97
10.26

11.00
8.86
8.25
10.74
12.36
14.24
10.53

10.90
8.71
8.10
10.59
12.27
14.04
10.45

10.91
8.69
8.08
10.62
12.27
14.13
10.46

10.93
8.68
8.13
10.62
12.27
14.13
10.47

Machinery, except electrical .................................. 11.01
Electrical and electronic equipm ent...................... 10.13
Transportation equipm ent....................................... 13.31
Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................ 14.00
9.98
Instruments and related products .........................
8.01
Miscellaneous m anufacturing.................................

11.34
10.38
13.70
14.28
10.26
8.31

11.21
10.27
13.58
14.20
10.12
8.22

11.23
10.26
13.59
14.19
10.14
8.23

11.25
10.30
13.65
14.28
10.17
8.23

11.26
10.31
13.60
14.20
10.17
8.21

11.29
10.33
13.58
14.17
10.17
8.24

11.32
10.37
13.65
14.22
10.25
8.24

11.35
10.41
13.61
14.07
10.31
8.29

11.32
10.40
13.70
14.18
10.29
8.20

11.41
10.47
13.89
14.48
10.32
8.39

11.43
10.43
13.84
14.45
10.35
8.38

11.48
10.47
13.85
14.46
10.36
8.49

11.57
10.52
13.92
14.50
10.49
8.60

11.50
10.46
13.58
13.73
10.47
8.61

9.43
9.10
Food and kindred p ro d u cts....................................
Tobacco m anufactures........................................... 14.68
7.37
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ................................................
6.12
Apparel and other textile products........................
11.65
Paper and allied products ......................................

9.74
9.33
15.38
7.68
6.35
11.93

9.62
9.27
14.39
7.60
6.32
11.78

9.62
9.26
14.75
7.59
6.32
11.80

9.66
9.33
15.34
7.59
6.34
11.84

9.65
9.32
15.87
7.60
6.32
11.83

9.68
9.34
16.13
7.62
6.32
11.89

9.70
9.37
16.48
7.65
6.33
11.91

9.77
9.35
16.34
7.66
6.28
12.04

9.71
9.28
15.72
7.69
6.32
11.90

9.80
9.32
14.69
7.76
6.41
11.99

9.80
9.27
14.91
7.77
6.39
11.97

9.86
9.38
15.01
7.82
6.42
12.08

9.95
9.47
15.46
7.86
6.45
12.11

9.99
9.46
15.89
7.92
6.45
12.08

10.52
12.67
14.98
9.14
6.27

10.87
13.06
15.44
9.42
6.58

10.73
12.85
15.24
9.32
6.48

10.74
12.88
15.45
9.31
6.49

10.79
12.91
15.46
9.33
6.54

10.73
12.92
15.50
9.35
6.55

10.76
12.98
15.34
9.40
6.58

10.75
12.98
15.23
9.41
6.59

10.83
13.12
15.34
9.45
6.54

10.89
13.08
15.23
9.44
6.53

11.05
13.18
15.43
9.46
6.63

11.04
13.25
15.63
9.47
6.64

11.05
13.26
15.64
9.50
6.67

11.07
13.31
15.80
9.60
6.73

11.14
13.40
15.96
9.71
6.80

12.32

12.57

12.47

12.50

12.46

12.51

12.49

12.48

12.58

12.56

12.70

12.69

12.67

12.70

12.75

10.47

10.50

10.55

10.62

10.64

D u r a b le g o o d s

Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts ...................................
Furniture and fix tu re s ..............................................
Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................
Primary metal industries .........................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts ..........
Fabricated metal products .....................................

N o n d u r a b le g o o d s

Printing and publishing............................................
Chemicals and allied products...............................
Petroleum and coal p roducts.................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u c ts.....
Leather and leather products ................................
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S
W H O LESA LE TRA DE

9.94

10.38

10.23

10.23

10.21

10.36

10.28

10.31

10.40

10.35

R E T A IL T R A D E .....................................................................

6.31

6.54

6.48

6.47

6.48

6.52

6.49

6.49

6.49

6.50

6.61

6.62

6.64

6.66

6.74

9.50

9.62

9.71

9.69

9.76

9.84

9.29

9.49

9.59

9.61

9.69

9.77

F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E

9.09

9.57

9.46

9.47

9.43

9.59

9.48

9.48

9.59

S E R V IC E S

8.91

9.39

9.25

9.28

9.29

9.34

9.30

9.26

9.33

................................................................................

= preliminary
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent

p

benchmark revision.

9 2 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

1 7 . A v e r a g e w e e k ly e a r n in g s o f p r o d u c t io n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a t e n o n a g r ic u lt u r a l p a y r o lls b y in d u s t r y

1988

1989p

1990

1989

Annual average
Industry
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.p

Jan.p

P R IV A T E S E C T O R

$322.36 $335.20 $329.13 $327.57 $328.86 $334.78 $330.86 $333.38 $338.01 $335.39 $339.02 $341.39 $338.45 $340.46 $338.24
330.25 329.39 331.04 335.39 332.16 332.85 337.21 335.27 337.98 339.37 338.39 339.14 340.46
166.40
”
Constant (1977) dollars ....................................... 167.81 166.52 167.41 165.94 165.76 167.39 164.53 165.37 167.08 165.79 167.00 167.43 165.66

_

_

M I N I N G ........................................................................................

539.33

563.71

557.04

551.27

552.30

564.53

551.46

555.08

550.38

566.35

574.66

575.09

572.47

584.29

589.16

C O N S T R U C T I O N ...................................................................

493.08

506.72

483.99

478.20

495.92

504.07

500.66

503.12

518.54

519.87

520.33

529.98

514.73

505.42

506.31

418.40
217.80

429.27
213.25

425.17
216.26

423.50
214.54

426.81
215.13

426.81
213.41

426.18
211.92

429.08
212.84

424.04
209.61

425.95
210.55

434.66
214.12

430.27
211.02

434.84
212.84

440.26
215.18

430.36
“

447.68
346.98
312.84
442.88
529.74
614.68
429.89

457.60
355.29
325.88
454.30
531.48
618.02
438.05

455.62
345.79
319.14
439.49
536.20
617.76
438.90

452.77
338.91
315.93
436.48
532.52
617.48
435.14

455.78
345.46
321.95
444.98
533.75
621.72
436.60

455.78
354.78
319.12
456.25
529.63
613.02
437.02

454.01
352.48
318.24
453.26
527.98
613.02
435.34

457.87
357.54
324.26
457.10
533.46
622.50
438.27

449.49
352.34
320.49
456.88
528.24
619.06
428.57

453.47
360.77
329.94
460.96
525.30
613.61
432.60

462.87
362.79
336.84
459.65
534.96
619.78
443.69

457.88
364.99
334.76
464.18
527.03
612.00
439.71

460.65
360.50
334.32
461.98
535.43
622.64
443.50

468.44
362.60
337.68
451.11
540.04
625.39
450.05

454.85
354.42
328.44
448.93
532.90
620.92
437.83

469.03
415.33
568.34
609.00
414.17
313.99

480.82
423.50
580.88
615.47
422.71
327.41

477.55
422.10
582.58
619.12
420.99
323.05

477.28
416.56
584.37
621.52
420.81
322.62

479.25
417.15
591.05
631.18
419.00
324.26

478.55
419.62
584.80
620.54
420.02
325.12

477.57
417.33
579.87
613.56
414.94
324.66

482.23
423.10
581.49
611.46
423.33
324.66

475.57
416.40
566.18
582.50
420.65
319.99

472.04
423.28
572.66
589.89
419.83
321.44

482.64
430.32
594.49
628.43
423.12
329.73

480.06
427.63
571.59
621.35
425.39
332.69

486.75
431.36
573.39
620.33
428.90
341.30

497.51
437.63
592.99
623.50
439.53
344.00

484.15
427.81
564.93
565.68
431.36
338.37

378.14
366.73
584.26
302.91
226.44
503.28

391.55
379.73
592.13
314.88
234.95
516.57

383.84
369.87
546.82
309.32
232.58
508.90

382.88
366.70
557.55
307.40
233.21
506.22

385.43
372.27
556.84
311.19
233.95
509.12

386.97
372.80
604.65
313.12
234.47
509.87

387.20
377.34
637.14
313.94
233.84
512.46

390.91
381.36
660.85
318.24
236.74
514.51

390.80
382.42
619.29
311.00
230.48
516.52

391.31
382.34
586.36
317.60
234.47
514.08

396.90
386.78
592.01
318.16
237.17
523.96

394.94
381.00
599.38
317.79
237.07
520.70

398.34
386.46
585.39
319.84
238.18
527.90

402.98
391.11
584.39
319.90
236.72
531.63

397.60
380.29
594.29
316.01
234.14
523.06

399.76
535.94
665.11

410.89
553.74
683.99

404.52
544.84
662.94

404.90
544.82
679.80

408.94
546.09
667.87

405.59
549.10
686.65

402.42
546.46
673.43

402.05
551.65
679.26

405.04
553.66
679.56

411.64
550.67
665.55

423.22
560.15
685.09

418.42
560.48
704.91

421.01
564.88
699.11

423.98
576.32
729.96

418.86
568.16
746.93

381.14
235.13

390.93
249.38

390.51
244.94

387.30
245.32

387.20
244.60

388.03
247.59

390.10
247.41

391.46
255.03

385.56
247.21

388.93
250.75

392.59
252.60

393.01
251.66

394.25
250.13

397.44
253.72

398.11
251.60

484.18

495.26

490.07

488.75

488.43

497.90

490.86

494.21

500.68

494.86

500.38

499.99

495.40

497.84

492.15

405.68

402.19

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

Constant (1977) d o lla rs .........................................
D u r a b le g o o d s ......................................................................

Lumber and wood p ro d u c ts...................................
Stone, clay, and glass p ro d u c ts ............................
Blast furnaces and basic steel p ro d u c ts ..........
Fabricated metal products .....................................
Machinery, except electrical ..................................
Electrical and electronic equipm ent......................
Motor vehicles and equipm ent............................
Instruments and related products .........................
Miscellaneous m anufacturing.................................
N o n d u r a b le g o o d s

Apparel and other textile products........................
Paper and allied products ......................................

Chemicals and allied products...............................
Petroleum and coal p roducts.................................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics pro d u cts ...................................................
Leather and leather products ................................
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC
U T I L I T I E S ................................................................................
W H O L E S A L E T R A D E .........................................................

378.71

395.48

387.72

386.69

386.96

395.75

389.61

392.81

398.32

394.34

398.91

402.15

401.96

R E T A IL T R A D E .....................................................................

183.62

189.01

184.03

183.10

184.68

188.43

186.91

189.51

194.05

192.40

191.03

191.32

189.90

194.47

190.74

E S T A T E ....................................................................................

326.33

343.56

341.51

339.03

337.59

348.12

337.49

339.38

348.12

340.10

343.43

350.53

345.93

348.43

351.29

S E R V IC E S ................................................................................

290.47

306.11

301.55

300.67

301.00

306.35

301.32

302.80

308.82

305.64

309.37

314.55

313.29

314.93

316.55

F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L

p

Data not available.
= preliminary


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE: See “ Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark
revision.

Monthly Labor Review March 1990

93

Current Labor Statistics:

Employment Data

18. D iffu s io n in d e x e s o f e m p lo y m e n t c h a n g e , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
(In percent)
Jan.

Time span
and year

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Private nonagricultural payrolls, 349 industries

Over 1-month span:
1988 ............................................................................
1989 ............................................................................
1990 ............................................................................

60.7
68.3
59.5

63.5
60.5

Over 3-month span:
1988 ............................................................................
1989 ............................................................................
1990 ............................................................................

64.8
71.6

65.6
70.1
-

Over 6-month span:
1988 ............................................................................
1989 ............................................................................
1990 ............................................................................

69.9
75.1

70.2
69.5

Over 12-month span:
1988 ............................................................................
1989 ............................................................................
1990 ............................................................................

76.2
73.2

76.1
73.6
-

63.0
61.0

62.8
58.2

61.3
55.6

-

"

69.5
64.5

70.2
61.9

-

-

71.1
61.6
-

71.5
68.2

73.9
66.0

-

74.8
69.6

67.2
59.7

63.6
55.6

58.0
57.4

55.4
47.9

-

-

71.9
60.7
-

71.2
61.6
-

69.1
57.9
-

70.2
57.7

74.6
60.2

-

73.9
63.0
-

74.6
67.6

75.8
66.6

-

-

74.9
63.0
-

78.1
63.9
-

68.2
60.9

64.6
52.6

-

63.9
55.3
-

-

-

64.2
53.4

65.3
54.6

70.1
55.7

-

-

-

73.4
57.6
-

74.6
60.3
-

73.5
54.6
-

73.9
58.2
-

74.5
_

75.8

-

-

75.5
_

75.5
_

74.8
-

74.9
_

74.1
_

-

-

-

-

-

58.5
45.7

-

_

Manufacturing payrolls, 141 industries
Over 1-month span:
1988 ............................................................................
1989 ............................................................................
1990 ............................................................................

58.5
62.4
48.2

56.0
53.5

Over 3-month span:
1988 ............................................................................
1989 ............................................................................
1990 ............................................................................

63.1
67.4
“

61.0
63.8

Over 6-month span:
1988 ............................................................................
1989 ............................................................................
1990 ............................................................................

66.3
69.5
-

66.3
58.5
-

73.8
63.1

70.2
63.8

Over 12-month span:
1988 ............................................................................
1989 ............................................................................
1990 ............................................................................

55.0
53.2
-

59.9
49.6

62.4
55.7

58.5
46.8
-

61.7
48.6
-

59.6
49.6
-

51.1
45.4
-

49.3
34.8
-

62.8
52.1
-

64.9
48.2
-

64.9
51.8
-

67.4
49.3
-

67.0
48.6
-

64.5
47.9
-

58.2
34.0
-

62.1
41.8
-

66.7
41.5
-

71.3
47.5
-

70.9
43.3
-

67.7
55.7
"

69.5
52.8

66.7
48.9

64.2
39.0
-

66.0
40.1

70.9
41.8
-

68.8
37.2
-

69.9
38.7
-

71.6
_

74.1
_

-

-

70.9
57.1
-

71.6
53.5

72.0
49.6

70.9
45.4
-

71.6
_

70.2
_

69.9
_

67.0

-

69.9
44.3
-

69.1
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- Data not available.
NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus
one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent
indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for9 4FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

-

-

-

_

employment. Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each span are
preliminary. See the “ Definitions” in this section. See “ Notes on the data” for a
description of the most recent benchmark revision.

1 9. A n n u a l d a ta : E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s o f th e n o n in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment status

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

Noninstitutional pop ulation........................................

171,775

173,939

175,891

178,080

179,912

182,293

184,490

186,322

188,081

Labor force:
Total (num ber)........................................................
Percent of pop ulation...........................................

110,315
64.2

111,872
64.3

113,226
64.4

115,241
64.7

117,167
65.1

119,540
65.6

121,602
65.9

123,378
66.2

125,557
66.8

Employed:
Total (number) .................................................
Percent of population .....................................
Resident Armed F orces...............................
Civilian
Total .............................................................
A g riculture................................................
Nonagrlcultural industries.......................

102,042
59.4
1,645

101,194
58.2
1,668

102,510
58.3
1,676

106,702
59.9
1,697

108,856
60.5
1,706

111,303
61.1
1,706

114,177
61.9
1,737

116,677
62.6
1,709

119,030
63.3
1,688

100,397
3,368
97,030

99,526
3,401
96,125

100,834
3,383
97,450

105,005
3,321
101,685

107,150
3,179
103,971

109,597
3,163
106,434

112,440
3,208
109,232

114,968
3,169
111,800

117,342
3,199
114,142

Unemployed:
Total (num ber)................................................
Percent of labor fo r c e ...................................

8,273
7.5

10,678
9.5

10,717
9.5

8,539
7.4

8,312
7.1

8,237
6.9

7,425
6.1

6,701
5.4

6,528
5.2

Not in labor force (number) ...................................

61,460

62,067

62,665

62,839

62,744

62,752

62,888

62,944

62,523

2 0 . A n n u a l d a ta : E m p lo y m e n t le v e ls b y in d u s tr y
(Numbers in thousands)
1989 p

Industry

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

Total em plo ym en t...........................................................................

91,156
75,126
25,497
1,139
4,188
20,170

89,566
73,729
23,813
1,128
3,905
18,781

90,200
74,330
23,334
952
3,948
18,434

94,496
78,472
24,727
966
4,383
19,378

97,519
81,125
24,859
927
4,673
19,260

99,525
82,832
24,558
777
4,816
18,965

102,200
85,190
24,708
717
4,967
19,024

105,584
88,212
25,249
721
5,125
19,403

108,579
90,852
25,634
722
5,300
19,612

65,659
5,165
5,358
15,189
5,298
18,619

65,753
5,082
5,278
15,179
5,341
19,036

66,866
4,954
5,268
15,613
5,468
19,694

69,769
5,159
5,555
16,545
5,689
20,797

72,660
5,238
5,717
17,356
5,955
22,000

74,967
5,255
5,753
17,930
6,283
23,053

77,492
5,372
5,844
18,483
6,547
24,236

80,335
5,548
6,029
19,110
6,676
25,600

82,945
5,705
6,234
19,574
6,814
26,892

16,031
2,772
3,640
9,619

15,837
2,739
3,640
9,458

15,869
2,774
3,662
9,434

16,024
2,807
3,734
9,482

16,394
2,875
3,832
9,687

16,693
2,899
3,893
9,901

17,010
2,943
3,967
10,100

17,372
2,971
4,063
10,339

17,727
2,988
4,134
10,605

Goods-producing .......................................................................
Construction .........................................................................
M anufacturing.......................................................................
Service-producing......................................................................
Transportation and public utilities ......................................
Wholesale trade ....................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ..................................
S e rvices..................................................................................

F ederal.............................................................................
Local ................................................................................

NOTE: See “ Notes on the data" for a description of the most
recent benchmark revision.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

95

Current Labor Statistics:

Employment Data

2 1 . A n n u a l d a ta : A v e r a g e h o u r s a n d e a r n in g s o f p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l
p a y r o lls , b y in d u s tr y
Industry

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989 p

35.2
7.25
255.20

34.8
7.68
267.26

35.0
8.02
280.70

35.2
8.32
292.86

34.9
8.57
299.09

34.8
8.76
304.85

34.8
8.98
312.50

34.7
9.29
322.36

34.7
9.66
335.20

43.7
10.04
438.75

42.7
10.77
459.88

42.5
11.28
479.40

43.3
11.63
503.58

43.4
11.98
519.93

42.2
12.46
525.81

42.4
12.54
531.70

42.3
12.75
539.33

42.9
13.14
563.71

36.9
10.82
399.26

36.7
11.63
426.82

37.1
11.94
442.97

37.8
12.13
458.51

37.7
12.32
464.46

37.4
12.48
466.75

37.8
12.71
480.44

37.9
13.01
493.08

37.9
13.37
506.72

39.8
7.99
318.00

38.9
8.49
330.26

40.1
8.83
354.08

40.7
9.19
374.03

40.5
9.54
386.37

40.7
9.73
396.01

41.0
9.91
406.31

41.1
10.18
418.40

41.0
10.47
429.27

39.4
9.70
382.18

39.0
10.32
402.48

39.0
10.79
420.81

39.4
11.12
438.13

39.5
11.40
450.30

39.2
11.70
458.64

39.2
12.03
471.58

39.3
12.32
484.18

39.4
12.57
495.26

38.5
7.56
291.06

38.3
8.09
309.85

38.5
8.55
329.18

38.5
8.89
342.27

38.4
9.16
351.74

38.3
9.35
358.11

38.1
9.60
365.76

38.1
9.94
378.71

38.1
10.38
395.48

30.1
5.25
158.03

29.9
5.48
163.85

29.8
5.74
171.05

29.8
5.85
174.33

29.4
5.94
174.64

29.2
6.03
176.08

29.2
6.12
178.70

29.1
6.31
183.62

28.9
6.54
189.01

36.3
6.31
229.05

36.2
6.78
245.44

36.2
7.29
263.90

36.5
7.63
278.50

36.4
7.94
289.02

36.4
8.36
304.30

36.3
8.73
316.90

35.9
9.09
326.33

35.9
9.57
343.56

32.6
6.41
208.97

32.6
6.92
225.59

32.7
7.31
239.04

32.6
7.59
247.43

32.5
7.90
256.75

32.5
8.18
265.85

32.5
8.49
275.93

32.6
8.91
290.47

32.6
9.39
306.11

P r iv a te s e c to r :

Average weekly h o u rs .................................................................
Average hourly earnings (in d o lla rs ).........................................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars) .......................................
M in in g :

Average weekly hours ...........................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )..................................
C o n s tr u c tio n :

Average weekly hours ...........................................................
Average hourly earnings (In dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )..................................
M a n u fa c tu r in g :

Average weekly hours ...........................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (In d o lla rs )..................................
T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u tilitie s :

Average weekly hours ...........................................................
Average hourly earnings (In dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )..................................
W h o le s a le t r a d e :

Average weekly hours ...........................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )..................................
R e ta il tr a d e :

Average weekly hours ...........................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (In d o lla rs )..................................
F in a n c e , in s u ra n c e , a n d re a l e s t a te :

Average weekly hours ...........................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )..................................
S e r v ic e s :

Average weekly hours ...........................................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................................
Average weekly earnings (in d o lla rs )..................................

96

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

22.

Employment Cost Index, compensation,' by occupation and industry group

(June 1981=100)
Percent change

1989

1988

1987

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Dec. 1989
C iv ilia n w o r k e r s 2 .........................................................................................

138.6

140.6

142.1

144.0

145.5

147.3

148.9

151.3

152.8

1.0

5.0

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers .................................................................
Blue-collar w o rkers....................................................................
Service occupations..................................................................

142.2
132.5
140.8

144.2
134.7
142.9

145.7
136.2
144.3

147.9
137.2
147.2

149.7
138.2
148.5

151.9
139.6
150.0

153.4
141.3
151.2

156.4
142.9
153.7

157.9
144.1
155.5

1.0
.8
1.2

5.5
4.3
4.7

Workers, by industry division:
G oods-producing......................................... ............... .....-...... .
Manufacturing .............................. ............................................Service-producing................................................ .............. ........
Services......................................................................................
Health se rvices......................................................................
H ospitals.................................................................................
Public administration 3 .............................................................
Nonmanufacturing.......................................................................

133.5
134.1
141.7
150.6
148.1
140.5

135.8
136.8
143.6
152.8
150.3
142.3

137.3
138.1
145.1
153.8
151.2
143.9

138.2
139.0
147.6
157.7
154.0
146.1

139.3
140.1
149.2
159.7
154.4
147.7

140.7
141.9
151.4
161.8
156.7
149.7

142.3
143.5
152.9
163.1
157.9
151.2

143.9
145.1
155.9
167.5

145.3
146.4
157.3
169.2

“
161.8
154.0

163.0
155.5

1.0
.9
.9
1.0
1.6
1.4
.7
1.0

4.3
4.5
5.4
5.9
7.0
7.1
5.6
5.3

136.0
136.6

138.1
138.7

139.8
140.2

141.2
141.7

142.6
142.9

144.4
144.7

146.1
146.2

147.9
147.9

149.4
149.3

1.0
.9

4.8
4.5

139.3
141.1
-

141.2
143.0
-

143.0
144,6
-

144.6
146.4

146.3
147.6

153.9
154.7

-

150.3
151.4
-

152.4
153.3

-

148.6
149.9
-

"
“

”
-

1.0
.9
1.1
.6
1.4

5.2
4.8
5.5
3.8
7.3

-

-

-

“

“

~

1.1

5.1

140.6

142.2

143.3

“
146.5

“
148.1

.8
.8
.9
.2
.9
1.4

4.1
4.1
4.3
3.2
4.6
4.3

P r iv a t e in d u s tr y w o r k e r s .....................................................................

Excluding sales occup ations................................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar w o rkers...............................................................
Excluding sales occupations............................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations ..........
Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations
Sales occup ations.................................................................
Administrative support occupations, including
cle ric a l...................................................................................

“

-

Blue-collar w o rk e rs .................................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair o ccup ations.......
Machine operators, assemblers, and in s p e c to rs............
Transportation and material moving occupations...........
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers ....
Service occup ations...............................................................

131.8
136.7

134.1
138.6

135.6
140.1

136.5
142.2

137.6
143.9

138.9
"
145.4

Workers, by industry division:
G oods-producing......................................................................
Excluding sales o ccup ations.............................................
Construction ............................................................................
M anufacturing..........................................................................
Durables .................................................................................
Nondurables...........................................................................

133.2
132.9
134.1
-

135.6
135.2
136.8
-

137.9
137.6
139.0
-

139.0
138.7
140.1
-

140.4
140.2
141.9
“

142.0
141.7
143.5
“

143.6
143.3
145.1
-

145.0
144.8
146.4
-

1.0
1.0
1.2
.9
1.1
.7

4.3
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5

145.5
146.7
-

147.7
148.8

149.5
150.4

151.5
152.2

“
-

-

“
“
-

152.9
153.5
~
-

.9
.9
.5
.3
.7
.6
.7
1.0
.7
1.9
.8
.5
.9
1,0
.9

5.1
4.6
3.8
3.6
4.0

-

“
-

~

.1
1.1
1.1
.6
1.8
1.5

“
5.6
4.3
7.0
7.1

“

150.1

-

-

137.1
136.8
138.1
-

Service-producing ....................................................................
Excluding sales o ccup ations.............................................
Transportation and public utilities........................................
Transportation........................................................................
Public u tilitie s .........................................................................
Communications .................................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services ................................
Wholesale and retail tra d e ....................................................
Excluding sales occupations ..........................................
Wholesale tra d e ...................................................................
Excluding sales occupations........................................
Retail trade ...........................................................................
Food s to re s ......................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ....................................
Excluding sales occupations ..........................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other
credit ag e n c ie s ..................................................................
Insurance ..............................................................................
S e rv ic e .....................................................................................
Business se rv ic e s ................................................................
Health se rvice s......................................................................
Hospitals .......... ....................................................................

138.4
140.0
-

140.2
141.9
-

142.1
143.5
*
-

143.8
145.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

“

Nonmanufacturing ..................................................................

137.1

138.9

140.8

142.4

143.9

145.9

147.6

149.5

151.0

1.0

4.9

S t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s .........................................

151.1

153.1

153.6

157.8

159.6

161.5

162.5

167.9

169.5

1.0

6.2

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar w o rkers...............................................................
Blue-collar w o rk e rs .................................................................

152.7
144.3

154.8
145.9

155.2
145.9

159.6
148.4

161.8
149.1

163.7
151.9

164.6
153.0

170.5
156.2

172.1
158.6

.9
,5

6.4
6.4

-

"
5.1
3.9
8.8
5.0
3.4
5.4
4.1
3.0

See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

97

Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations
22. Continued—Employment Cost Index, compensation,' by occupation and industry group
(June 1981 = 100)
1987

1988

1989

Percent change

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Dec. 1989
Workers, by industry division:
Services ..............................................
Hospitals and other services4 ...........................................
Health se rvice s...........................................
Schools .......................................
Elementary and secon dary.............................................
Public administration3 ..........................

153.1
146.3

155.2
150.3

155.6
150.4

160.5
153.2

163.0
155.2

164.6
157.2

165.5
158.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

_

155.5
157.8
148.1

156.8
158.9
150.3

157.3
159.4
151.2

163.1
165.4
154.0

165.7
168.3
154.4

167.2
169.3
156.7

167.8
169.9
157.9

1 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index
consists of wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits.
2 Consist of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers)
and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.

23.

171.8
162.6

173.3
163.7

175.1
177.7
161.8

176.7
179.2
163.0

_

0.9
.7
1.1
.9
.8
.7

3 Consist of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory
4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
- Data not available,

6.3
5.5
7.1
6.6
65
5.6
activities,

Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group

(June 1981 = 100)
1987

1988

1989

Percent change

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Dec. 1989

C ivilian w o rke rs ' ..........................................................................

136.1

137.4

138.7

140.5

141.9

143.4

144.6

146.9

148.1

0.8

4.4

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers .................................................................
Blue-collar w o rkers....................................................................
Service occupations..................................................................

140.2
129.4
136.6

141.5
130.4
138.0

143.0
131.6
139.3

145.2
132.5
141.8

146.8
133.4
142.9

148.6
134.6
143.9

149.8
136.0
144.8

152.6
137.4
146.8

154.0
138.3
148.4

.9
.7
1.1

4.9
3.7
3.8

131.0
132.2
139.2
148.2

132.2
133.3
140.5
149.5

133.4
134.4
141.9
150.4

134.1
135.1
144.2
154.0

135.1
136.2
145.8
155.7

136.3
137.4
147.5
157.4

137.7
138.8
148.7
158.4

139.0
140.0
151.4
162.4

140.3
141.5
152.7
163.6

3.8
3.9
4.7
5.1
6.3
6.4
4.4
4.6

Workers, by industry division:
G oods-producing.........................................................................
Manufacturing ............................................................................
Service-producing.......................................................................
Services ....................................................................................
Health se rvice s......................................................................
H ospitals.................................................................................
Public administration 2 ................................. .........................
N onm anufacturing.....................................................................

Private in dustry w o r k e r s ......................................................
Excluding sales occup ations.............................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar w o rke rs ............................................................
Excluding sales occupations........................................
Professional specialty and technical occup ations......
Executive, administrative, and managerial
occupations ......................................................................
Sales occupations.............................................................
Administrative support occupations, including
c le ric a l...............................................................................
Blue-collar w o rk e rs ..............................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair
occup ations.....................................................................
Machine operators, assemblers, and in spectors........
Transportation and material moving occupations.......
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and
laborers .............................................................................
Service occu p a tio n s............................................................
Workers, by industry division:
G oods-producing...................................................................
Excluding sales occup ations.........................................
Construction .........................................................................
See footnotes at end of table.

98

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

145.5
139.0

146.4
140.5

148.9
142.7

149.4
144.1

150.9
145.8

151.8
147.0

155.0
149.6

156.0
150.8

.9
1.1
.9
.7
1.5
1.3
.6
.8

133.8
134.7

135.1
135.9

136.6
137.2

137.9
138.6

139.3
139.7

140.8
141.2

142.2
142.5

143.9
144.0

145.1
145.2

.8
.8

4.2
3.9

137.6
140.1
142.6

139.0
141.5
144.0

140.8
142.9
145.8

142.4
144.7
148.1

144.0
146.0
148.9

145.9
147.8
151.0

147.3
149.0
152.1

149.3
150.8
154.6

150.8
152.1
155.9

1.0
.9
.8

4.7
4.2
4.7

139.2
126.1

139.9
127.5

141.3
130.8

142.5
131.5

144.4
134.4

146.2
136.7

147.3
138.7

148.5
141.6

149.5
143.8

.7
1.6

3.5
7.0

-

143.8
137.8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

138.1

140.2

141.2

143.2

144.1

146.0

147.4

149.0

150.6

1.1

4.5

128.9

129.9

131.1

131.9

132.9

134.0

135.4

136.7

137.6

.7

3.5

131.1
129.2
122.9

132.1
129.9
123.7

133.4
131.2
125.4

134.0
131.9
126.7

134.9
133.3
126.9

136.1
134.5
127.8

137.8
135.9
128.7

139.2
136.7
130.2

140.0
138.1
130.2

.6
1.0
.0

3.8
3.6
2.6

125.0
133.2

126.7
134.5

127.5
135.8

128.4
137.6

129.3
139.1

130.4
140.0

131.6
140.9

133.0
142.1

134.2
144.1

.9
1.4

3.8
3.6

130.8
130.8
124.7

132.0
131.8
125.9

133.2
133.2
127.6

133.9
133.8
128.6

134.9
134.9
129.4

136.1
136.1
130.4

137.4
137.4
131.6

138.8
138.8
133.0

140.1
140.1
133.9

.9
.9
.7

3.9
3.9
3.5

23.Continued— Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
(June 1981=100)
1987

1989

1988

Percent change
3
months
ended

Series
Dec.

Mar.

Sept.

June

Dec.

Mar.

Sept.

June

Dec.

12
months
ended

Dec. 1989
M anufacturing.......................................................................
D u ra b le s.............................................................................
N ondurables.......................................................................

132.2
131.1
134.1

133.3
132.1
135.6

134.4
133.1
136.7

135.1
133.7
137.6

136.2
134.6
139.1

137.4
135.9
140.2

138.8
137.3
141.6

140.0
138.3
143.1

141.5
139.9
144.2

1.1
1.2
.8

3.9
3.9
3.7

Service-producing..................................................................
Excluding sales occup ations.........................................
Transportation and public u tilitie s ..................................
Transportation..................................................................
Public utilities....................................................................
C om m unications............................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary se rvice s...........................
Wholesale and retail tra d e ..............................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Wholesale trade .............................................................
Excluding sales occupations ...................................
Retail tra d e ......................................................................
Food s to re s ..................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real e s ta te ..............................
Excluding sales occupations ...................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other
credit age ncies.............................................................
Insurance.........................................................................
S e rvices..............................................................................
Business s e rv ic e s ............................................................
Health services ................................................................
H o spitals..........................................................................
Nonmanufacturing................................................................

136.2
138.1
130.2
130.7
132.3
138.5
136.0
127.7

137.5
139.4
131.3
131.9
133.4
139.0
136.8
129.2

139.3
140.8
132.5
134.6
135.2
141.7
138.2
131.7

141.0
142.7
133.5
136.0
136.5
143.2
139.6
133.2

142.6
143.9
133.4
136.9
137.8
143.6
140.4
134.3

145.8
146.9
135.3
139.9
140.0
149.0
142.9
136.3
145.2
145.2

147.8
148.6
136.3
142.1
141.6
153.2
145.3
137.7
146.0
146.0

149.0
149.6
136.9
143.7
142.6
156.7
146.5
138.5
147.1
147.1

.8
.7
.4
.2
.7
.7
.7
1.1
.7
2.3
.8
.6
1.3
.8
.8

4.5
4.0
2.6
2.1
3.2

147.1
134.8

148.6
136.0

State and local g ove rnm ent w o rk e r s ................................

147.4

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar w o rk e rs ............................................................
Blue-collar w o rk e rs ..............................................................
Workers, by industry division:
Services ................................................................................
Hospitals and other services 3 .......................................
Health services ................................................................
S ch o o ls...............................................................................
Elementary and secondary ..........................................
Public administration 2 .........................................................

134.9
134.9

139.9
139.9

144.5
145.7
134.6
138.6
139.2
147.5
141.8
135.1
142.7
142.7

149.8
137.8

152.9
139.4

154.4
140.8

156.4
142.6

157.8
143.9

160.4
145.9

161.8
147.0

-.3
1.2
.9
.3
1.6
1.3
.8

148.7

149.1

153.0

154.5

155.8

156.6

161.4

162.7

.8

5.3

149.3
139.6

150.5
141.1

150.8
141.1

154.9
143.5

156.8
144.1

158.0
146.1

158.7
146.8

164.1
149.6

165.3
151.6

.7
1.3

5.4
5.2

149.5
142.2
151.8
153.4
143.8

150.7
144.5
152.6
154.0
145.5

151.1
144.7
153.0
154.3
146.4

155.6
147.4
158.0
159.7
148.9

157.6
148.7
160.3
162.1
149.4

158.6
150.2
161.2
162.8
150.9

159.3
151.5
161.7
163.3
151.8

165.0
155.3
168.1
170.2
155.0

166.2
156.1
169.3
171.3
156.0

-

131.6
131.6

-

132.9
132.9

-

-

134.9
134.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

' Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers)
and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.
2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.

24.

-

5.0
3.5
9.1
4.3
3.1
5.1
5.1
3.2
4.8
3.9
6.4
6.6
4.4

.7

5.5
5.0
6.1
5.6
5.7
4.4

.5
.9

.7
.6
.6

3 Includes, for example, library, social and health services,
- Data not available.

Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers by occupation and industry group

(June 1981 = 100)
1988

1987

1989

Percent change
3
months
ended

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

12
months
ended

Dec. 1989

P r iv a t e in d u s tr y w o r k e r s ........................................................................

141.7

146.1

148.2

149.7

151.3

154.0

156.5

158.7

160.6

1.2

6.1

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers .................................................................
Blue-collar w o rkers....................................................................

143.7
138.7

147.3
144.1

149.3
146.3

150.9
147.5

152.7
148.9

156.1
150.7

158.8
152.9

161.1
155.1

163.0
156.8

1.2
1.1

6.7
5.3

138.8
144.4
138.4
143.8

144.1
148.1
144.5
147.2

146.1
150.1
146.4
149.3

147.3
151.9
147.8
150.9

148.6
153.9
149.0
152.9

150.7
157.2
152.3
155.2

152.7
160.1
154.2
158.0

155.0
162.3
156.6
160.2

156.7
164.2
157.8
162.4

1.1
1.2
.8
1.4

5.5
6.7
5.9
6.2

Workers, by industry group:

Nonmanufacturing .....................................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

99

Current Labor Statistics:
25.

Compensation & Industrial Relations

Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size

(June 1981 = 100)
1987

1988

1989

Percent change

Series
Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

3
months
ended

12
months
ended

Dec. 1989
C O M P E N S A T IO N
W o r k e r s , b y b a r g a in in g s ta t u s 1

Union ..............................................................................................
Goods-producing .......................................................................
Service-producing......................................................................
Manufacturing ............................................................................
Nonmanufacturing .....................................................................

133.4
131.3
136.7
131.5
135.1

135.6
134.1
138.0
135.0
136.2

136.9
135.3
139.4
136.2
137.5

137.9
136.2
140.5
137.0
138.6

138.6
137.2
140.9
138.2
138.9

139.7
137.9
142.6
139.9
139.5

141.1
139.4
143.9
141.3
141.0

142.3
140.6
145.1
142.5
142.1

143.7
142.0
146.3
144.1
143.3

1.0
1.0
.8
1.1
.8

3.7
3.5
3.8
4.3
3.2

N o nunion........................................................................................
G oods-producing....................................... ...............................
Service-producing......................................................................
Manufacturing ............................................................................
Nonmanufacturing .....................................................................

136.9
134.1
138.6
135.6
137.5

138.9
136.2
140.5
137.8
139.4

140.7
137.8
142.5
139.2
141.5

142.2
138.7
144.4
140.1
143.2

143.9
139.9
146.3
141.3
145.0

146.0
141.6
148.6
143.1
147.3

147.7
143.2
150.5
144.8
149.1

149.8
145.0
152.7
146.5
151.2

151.2
146.5
154.1
147.8
152.7

.9
1.0
.9
.9
1.0

5.1
4.7
5.3
4.6
5.3

141.9
135.4
131.7
136.3

143.7
137.1
134.4
138.3

145.9
139.3
135.5
139.5

147.8
140.4
136.7
140.6

150.4
141.3
138.0
141.5

153.5
142.7
139.3
143.2

155.5
144.1
140.9
144.9

158.3
145.8
142.3
146.4

160.0
147.3
143.6
147.5

1.1
1.0
.9
.8

6.4
4.2
4.1
4.2

136.7
132.0

138.9
133.6

140.5
135.5

142.0
136.2

143.6
136.8

145.6
137.5

147.4
138.3

149.4
139.4

150.7
141.1

.9
1.2

4.9
3.1

Union ..............................................................................................
G oods-producing.......................................................................
Service-producing......................................................................
Manufacturing ............................................................................
Nonmanufacturing .....................................................................

130.5
128.5
133.6
129.3
131.5

131.0
128.7
134.4
129.6
132.1

132.0
129.7
135.4
130.4
133.3

132.9
130.4
136.7
131.0
134.5

133.4
131.2
136.8
132.1
134.6

134.3
132.0
137.8
133.0
135.4

135.4
133.4
138.4
134.4
136.2

136.2
134.2
139.3
135.1
137.1

137.6
135.6
140.7
136.7
138.3

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
.9

3.1
3.4
2.9
3.5
2.7

Nonunion .......................................................................................
G oods-producing.......................................................................
Service-producing......................................................................
Manufacturing ............................................................................
Nonmanufacturing .....................................................................

135.0
132.1
136.7
133.9
135.4

136.4
133.6
138.0
135.5
136.8

138.1
135.0
140.0
136.7
138.8

139.5
135.7
141.8
137.4
140.4

141.1
136.8
143.6
138.6
142.2

142.9
138.2
145.6
139.9
144.1

144.4
139.5
147.2
141.4
145.6

146.3
141.1
149.3
142.8
147.7

147.5
142.4
150.5
144.2
148.9

.8
.9
.8
1.0
.8

4.5
4.1
4.8
4.0
4.7

139.7
133.0
129.9
133.5

140.9
134.0
131.3
134.9

142.9
136.1
132.1
136.0

144.6
137.1
133.3
137.4

147.3
137.8
134.5
138.1

150.1
138.9
135.6
139.4

152.0
140.0
136.9
140.7

154.7
141.7
138.0
141.8

156.4
142.9
139.1
142.7

1.1
.8
.8
.6

6.2
3.7
3.4
3.3

134.6
129.8

135.8
130.9

137.3
133.0

138.7
133.5

140.2
133.7

141.9
134.6

143.4
135.2

145.2
136.1

146.4
137.8

.8
1.2

4.4
3.1

W o r k e r s , b y re g io n 1

N ortheast.......................................................................................
South ..............................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North C e ntral)..............................................
W e s t................................................................................................
W o r k e r s , b y a r e a s iz e 1

Metropolitan a re a s .......................................................................
Other a re a s ...................................................................................

W A G E S A N D S A L A R IE S
W o r k e r s , b y b a r g a in in g s ta tu s '

W o r k e r s , b y r e g io n 1

N ortheast.......................................................................................
South ..............................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North C e ntral)..............................................
W e s t................................................................................................
W o r k e r s , b y a r e a s iz e '

Metropolitan a re a s .......................................................................
Other a re a s ...................................................................................

1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and
industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the

100

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

Monthly Labor Review Technical
Employment Cost Index,” May 1982.

Note,

“ Estimation

procedures

for

the

26. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, private
industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)
Q u a rte rly a v e ra g e

A n n u a l a v e ra g e
1988

M e a s u re
1987

1989

1988

II

I

III

IV

I

IF

IIP

IVP

Specified adjustments:
T o ta l c o m p e n s a tio n 1 a d ju s tm e n ts ,2 s e ttle m e n ts
c o v e rin g 5 ,0 0 0 w o rk e rs or m ore:
First y e a r o f c o n t r a c t .........................................................

3 .0

3.1

1.8

3.1

3 .4

3 .5

3 .2

5.1

3 .9

5 .3

A n n u a l ra te o v e r life o f c o n t r a c t ..................................

2 .6

2 .5

1.8

2 .4

3 .2

2.1

3.1

3 .4

2 .7

4.1

W a g e a d ju s tm e n ts , s e ttle m e n ts c o ve rin g 1 ,0 0 0
w o rk e rs o r m ore:
First y e a r o f c o n t r a c t .........................................................

2 .2

2 .5

2.1

2 .6

2 .7

2 .6

3 .2

3 .9

3 .6

5 .0

A n n u a l ra te o v e r life o f c o n t r a c t ..................................

2.1

2 .4

2 .3

2 .2

2 .8

2 .2

3.1

3 .3

3 .0

3 .9

T o ta l e ffe c tiv e w a g e a d ju s tm e n t3 ..................................

3.1

2 .6

.4

.9

.8

.5

.5

1.0

1.0

.7

F ro m s e ttle m e n ts re a c h e d in p erio d .........................

.7

.7

.1

.3

.2

.1

.1

.3

.4

.4

1 .8

1.3

.3

.5

.4

.2

.3

.5

.4

.2

.5

.6

.1

.1

.2

.2

.1

.2

.2

.1

Effective adjustments:

D e fe rre d fro m s e ttle m e n ts re a c h e d In e a rlie r
p e r io d s .......................................... ..........................................
F ro m c o s t-o f-liv in g -a d ju s tm e n ts c la u s e s .................

1 C o m p e n s a tio n

inclu d e s w a g e s ,

sala rie s ,

and

e m p lo y e rs ’ c o s t o f e m p lo y e e

c o m p e n s a tio n o r w a g e s .
3 B e c a u s e o f rounding, to tal m a y n o t e q u al sum o f parts.

b e n e fits w h e n c o n tra c t is n e g o tia ted .
2 A d ju s tm e n ts a re th e n e t resu lt o f in c re a s e s , d e c re a s e s , a n d no c h a n g e s in

p

=

prelim inary.

27. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, major collective bargaining settlements in private
industry situations covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent)
A v e ra g e fo r fo u r q u a rte rs e n d in g -

Measure

1988

II

I

1989
III

IV

I

IIP

IMP

IVP

Specified total compensation adjustments, settlements covering 5,000
workers or more, all industries:
First year of c o n tra c t....................................................................................
Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t................................................................

3.1
2.5

3.0
2.3

3.1
2.5

3.1
2.5

3.3
2.6

3.8
3.0

4.0
2.8

4.5
3.3

2.4
2.2
2.5
2.2
1.4
2.7

2.4
2.4
2.4
2.0
1.5
2.5

2.5
2.4
2.6
2.2
1.5
2.8

2.5
2.4
2.7
2.4
1.8
2.8

2.7
2.4
2.9
2.5
1.8
2.9

3.2
2.2
3.4
2.9
1.8
3.2

3.5
2.6
3.6
3.0
2.0
3.2

4.0
3.8
4.0
3.3
2.6
3.5

2.4
2.4
2.4
1.5
1.0
2.7

2.5
2.5
2.5
1.6
1.3
2.5

2.6
2.4
3.0
1.9
1.4
3.1

2.2
2.1
2.5
2.1
1.8
2.6

2.2
2.1
2.5
2.2
1.8
2.8

2.6
2.1
3.1
2.4
1.7
3.1

2.6
2.1
2.8
2.5
1.7
2.9

3.9
5.4
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.0

2.3
1.6
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.7

2.3
2.2
2.4
2.4
1.9
2.6

2.4
2.4
2.5
2.4
1.8
2.7

2.8
2.9
2.7
2.5
1.7
2.8

3.0
2.9
3.0
2.7
1.7
3.0

3.5
3.0
3.5
3.2
2.5
3.3

3.8
3.0
3.9
3.1
2.1
3.3

4.0
3.0
4.2
3.4
2.1
3.7

Specified wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or
more:
All industries:
First year of c o n tra c t................................................................................
Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ...............................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ........................................................
Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t.............................................................
Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ...............................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ........................................................
Manufacturing:
First year of contract ................................................................................
Contracts with COLA cla u s e s ...............................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses .........................................................
Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t.............................................................
Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ...............................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses .........................................................
Nonmanufacturing:
First year of c o n tra c t................................................................................
Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ...............................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses .........................................................
Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t.............................................................
Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ...............................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ........................................................
Construction:
First year of c o n tra c t................................................................................
Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ...............................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses .........................................................
Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t.............................................................
Contracts with COLA c la u s e s ...............................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses .........................................................
1 D a ta d o n o t m e e t publication s ta n d a rd s .

2.9
(1)
(1)

2.6
(2)
2.6
2.7

3.1
(1)
(1)

2.1
(2)

(2)

p

2.2
(2)

2.1
2.4
(2)

2.2
2.6
(2)

2.7

2.4

=

prelim inary.

2.4
(2)
2.4
2.7
(2)

2.6

2.7

2.4
(1)
(’ )

2.6
(')
(1)

2.9
(1)
(1)

2.8
(')
(1)

2.9
(1)
(1)

3.0
0
<1)

2 B e tw e e n -0 .0 5 a n d 0 .0 5 p e rce n t.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

101

Current Labor Statistics:

Compensation & Industrial Relations

28. Average effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1 000
workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent)
Average for four quarters endingEffective wage adjustment

1988

1989

II

III

IV

I

llp

lllp

IVp

3.0
1.0
1.6
.5

2.9
1.0
1.4
.5

2.6
.7
1.3
.6

2.7
.8
1.3
.6

2.8
.7
1.3
.8

3.0
.9
1.3
.8

3.2
1.2
1.3
.7

3.7
2.9
3.3
2.3

3.5
2.9
3.0
2.5

3.3
3.1
3.0
2.7

3.5
3.2
3.2
2.9

3.8
3.5
3.2
3.2

4.0
3.7
3.4
3.8

4.0
4.2
3.4
3.3

For all workers:1
T o ta l........................................................................................
From settlements reached in period .............................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period ..
From cost-of-living-adjustments c la u s e s .......................

For workers receiving changes:
T o ta l.......................................................................................
From settlements reached in period .............................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period ..
From cost-of-living-adjustments c la u s e s .......................
1

Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.

p

= preliminary.

29. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments State and
local government collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)
Annual average

Measure
1987

1988

1989

4.9
4.8

5.4
5.3

5.1
4.9

4.9
5.1

5.1
5.3

5.1
5.1

4.9
2.7
2.2
<4)

4.7
2.3
2.4
(4)

5.1
2.5
2.6
(4)

Specified adjustments:
Total compensation 1 adjustments, 2 settlements covering 5,000 workers or more:
First year of contract .........................................................................................................
Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t.....................................................................

Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more:
First year of c o n tra c t..................................................................
Annual rate over life of c o n tra c t......................................................

Effective adjustments:
Total effective wage adjustm ent3 ...........................................................................................
From settlements reached in p e rio d .....................................................................................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier p e rio d s ......................................................
From cost-of-living-adjustment c la u s e s ................................................................................
1 Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee
benefits when contract is negotiated.
2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in
compensation or wages.

30.

Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
Less than 0.05 percent.

Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more
Annua totals

1989

Measure
1988
Number of stoppages:
Beginning in p e rio d ....
In effect during period

Workers involved:
Beginning in period (in
thousands).......................
In effect during period (in
thousands).......................

Days idle:
Number (in thousands)..........
Percent of estimated working
tim e1 ........................................

1989

40
43

51
52

118.3
121.9

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

102

June

1990 p
July

Aug,

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

3
4

0
3

3
5

6
10

8
14

2
7

6
12

6
13

452.1

7.4

.0

31.5

8.7

56.1

3.3

45.7

203.0

14.5

68.9

8.0

5.0

33

454.1

9.4

7.2

37.7

45.2

95.2

46.3

88.8

239.8

108.7

171.1

169.1

104.1

191

4,364.3 16,996.3

140.0

125.8

805.3

770.2

1,337.1

924.8

1,273.8

3,761.4

1,922.3

3,220.9

2,343.7

376.0

308.3

.01

.01

.03

.04

.06

.04

.06

.15

.09

.14

.11

.02

.01

.02

.07

1 Agricultural and government employees are Included in the total employed and total
working time: private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An expla­
nation of the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

May

March 1990

6
12

5
13

5
14

1
9

8

in “ T otal economy’ measure of strike idleness,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1968
pp. 54-56.
p = preliminary.

3 1 . Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated)
1990

1989

Annual
average
Series

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

125.0
374.6

125.6
376.2

125.9
377.0

126.1
377.6

127.4
381.5

125.6
125.8
124.9
134.1
122.3
114.5
138.8
119.7
120.6
121.7
111.2
126.7
128.1
124.5

125.9
126.1
125.0
134.6
122.9
116.1
136.6
119.7
120.8
121.3
111.0
126.7
128.8
124.8

126.3
126.5
125.4
135.0
122.4
118.2
137.1
120.3
121.3
121.6
111.8
127.2
129.1
125.2

126.7
126.9
125.8
135.3
122.8
120.2
137.8
119.9
120.7
121.0
111.2
127.3
129.5
125.5

127.2
127.4
126.5
136.1
123.8
122.9
136.7
120.1
121.1
121.6
111.0
127.6
129.8
125.6

130.0
130.4
131.0
136.9
126.8
125.8
153.7
121.3
122.5
123.5
112.4
128.3
130.3
126.2

123.9
133.6
141.5
133.0
150.5
137.3
137.4
133.1
118.4
121.1
115.0
109.7
103.7
79.7
111.1
127.7
111.4
105.5
121.7
117.3

124.2
134.1
141.5
133.5
148.8
138.1
138.2
133.3
118.5
121.3
114.8
109.7
103.7
78.9
111.3
127.8
111.4
105.2
122.3
117.5

124.3
134.1
139.4
133.9
139.1
138.9
139.0
133.6
118.6
120.9
115.6
109.7
103.5
79.3
111.0
128.1
111.7
105.7
122.3
117.5

124.4
134.8
140.0
134.7
139.2
139.7
139.9
133.7
118.6
121.0
115.5
108.0
101.0
82.0
107.6
127.6
111.9
106.1
122.5
117.4

124.5
135.2
140.1
135.2
138.0
140.3
140.5
133.8
119.3
121.7
116.2
107.5
99.9
83.9
106.1
127.9
111.9
106.0
122.5
117.6

124.9
135.6
140,1
135.5
137.2
140.9
141.0
134.0
119.5
122.2
115.8
108.4
101.2
88.7
107.0
128.2
111.7
105.5
123.6
117.6

125.9
136.3
142.0
135.8
143.6
141.1
141.2
134.1
120.4
123.7
116.0
110.8
104.5
113.1
107.5
129.3
112.1
106.1
123.2
117.9

117.8
115.8
115.9
114.8
123.9
114.0
121.6
130.0

115.0
112.9
114.7
109.6
117.9
113.4
122.5
129.4

115.0
112.8
114.7
109.5
116.7
112.6
124.1
129.5

120.0
118.2
117.7
119.0
118.0
114.1
124.5
129.7

122.7
121.1
120.3
123.1
118.3
117.6
123.0
129.8

122.1
120.4
121.1
121.3
117.2
116.6
123.5
130.8

119.2
117.1
118.8
116.4
115.3
114.7
122.8
131.3

116.7
114.3
116.3
112.0
112.7
113.1
125.1
132.4

116.0
115.0
119.2
119.5
121.0
96.6
96.7
124.3
135.6
101.5
142.9
128.9

115.9
114.9
118.9
119.1
121.3
96.0
96.2
124.5
135.9
101.9
143.2
129.6

115.4
114.3
118.5
118.6
121.1
94.4
94.6
124.8
135.6
101.3
143.0
129.7

114.3
113.1
117.7
117.7
120.3
91.0
91.1
125.4
135.7
102.0
142.9
130.1

113.7
112.4
117.1
117.0
119.8
88.8
88.8
126.2
135.7
102.0
142.9
130.1

114.5
113.3
118.5
118.6
119.7
88.9
88.8
126.7
137.1
101.9
144.8
130.6

115.0
113.7
120.6
120.5
120.1
87.2
87.0
126.7
138.2
102.1
146.0
131.3

115.2
113.9
121.9
121.8
119.7
85.8
85.5
126.9
139.0
102.3
146.9
131.7

117.2
115.9
122.4
122.3
118.9
91.4
90.6
127.3
140.3
101.9
148.7
134.2

146.8
148.4
146.4
144.9
156.6

147.5
150.0
146.9
145.2
157.3

148.5
151.0
147.9
146.1
158.5

149.7
151.4
149.3
147.0
160.8

150.7
152.1
150.4
147.5
162.7

151.7
153.3
151.3
148.0
164.3

152.7
154.1
152.3
148.6
166.0

153.9
155.3
153.6
149.3
167.9

154.4
156.0
154.1
149.9
167.9

155.9
156.9
155.7
151.1
169.9

124.7
118.5
132.9

125.4
119.0
134.0

125.5
119.3
133.9

126.2
119.5
135.0

126.9
119.9
136.1

127.3
120.0
136.7

127.8
120.5
137.2

128.4
121.2
137.8

128.6
121.3
138.2

129.1
121.6
138.8

129.9
122.3
139.8

144.4
159.2
123.6
122.4
124.8
154.6
155.1
154.7

144.7
159.5
124.1
122.6
125.4
154.9
155.2
155.1

145.4
161.1
124.8
122.7
126.8
155.2
155.2
155.4

146.3
164.2
124.5
122.2
127.0
155.8
155.6
156.0

147.3
167.5
124.8
122.8
126.9
156.3
155.8
156.5

148.7
168.8
125.6
123.8
127.3
158.1
156.6
158.4

151.2
168.2
125.9
124.0
127.7
162.9
163.0
163.1

151.8
168.8
126.4
124.4
128.5
163.5
163.6
163.7

151.9
168.6
127.0
125.1
129.0
163.5
163.9
163.7

152.9
171.9
127.1
124.7
129.7
164.0
164.0
164.2

154.0
174.1
127.6
125.1
130.3
165.1
167.9
165.1

July

Aug.

124.1
371.7

124.4
372.7

124.6
373.1

124.7
124.9
124.4
131.5
120.7
113.8
142.7
118.9
118.1
121.6
111.5
125.2
126.7
123.1

124.9
125.0
124.3
132.1
121.4
113.6
140.2
119.2
119.2
121.6
111.6
125.5
127.1
123.5

125.4
125.5
124.8
133.3
121.6
114.1
140.1
119.7
120.1
121.6
112.3
125.9
127.8
124.0

121.6
131.2
137.9
131.4
140.7
135.4
135.5
131.4
117.3
119.8
114.1
106.2
98.8
82.5
105.0
126.2
110.7
105.0
119.6
117.1

122.1
131.8
137.8
131.7
139.7
136.2
136.3
132.1
117.4
120.2
113.8
107.0
99.6
81.5
106.1
127.0
110.8
104.7
120.9
117.3

122.9
132.3
138.7
132.3
141.5
136.5
136.6
132.8
118.3
121.0
114.7
109.2
103.2
80.2
110.5
127.1
111.1
105.1
121.2
117.4

119.3
117.5
115.9
119.4
118.5
114.1
120.4
128.5

120.9
119.3
117.2
121.5
123.6
115.3
121.5
128.9

120.4
118.6
117.8
119.5
125.4
114.9
121.7
129.9

111.6
110.3
119.5
119.6
120.5
80.3
80.1
123.3
134.3
101.2
141.4
128.1

111.9
110.7
119.4
119.6
120.5
81.5
81.3
123.5
134.5
100.1
141.9
128.2

114.6
113.6
119.2
119.4
120.7
92.1
92.1
123.8
134.7
100.8
142.0
128.4

143.8
145.0
143.5
142.2
152.9

145.2
145.8
145.1
143.5
155.1

146.1
147.2
145.9
144.4
155.8

126.5
119.8
135.4

123.8
118.1
131.6

124.3
118.4
132.3

147.7
164.r
125.0
123.2
126.8
158.1
158.0
158.3

143.4
157.0
122.8
121.7
123.8
154.0
153.3
154.2

144.1
158.5
123.2
121.9
124.4
154.4
155.0
154.6

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

124.0
371.3

121.1
362.7

121.6
364.1

122.3
366.2

123.1
368.8

123.8
370.8

118.2
118.2
116.6
122.1
114.3
108.4
128.1
113.1
114.0
113.1
107.5
118.0
121.8
118.6

124.9
125.1
124.2
132.4
121.3
115.6
138.0
119.1
119.4
121.2
111.3
125.5
127.4
123.5

122.0
122.2
121.2
127.9
118.5
112.6
134.8
116.6
117.2
119.6
109.6
121.9
124.7
120.3

122.7
122.9
122.0
128.9
118.2
113.4
137.1
117.8
117.8
120.5
111.3
123.0
125.2
121.1

123.3
123.5
122.7
129.7
120.5
113.8
135.7
118.1
118.0
120.4
111.3
123.7
125.7
121.8

124.0
124.2
123.5
130.4
120.6
114.1
138.0
119.0
117.9
121.6
111.8
125.2
126.2
122.3

118.5
127.1
133.6
127.8
134.8
131.1
131.1
129.0
114.7
117.9
110.4
104.4
98.0
78.1
104.6
122.9
109.4
105.1
114.7
114.3

123.0
132.8
138.9
132.8
140.7
137.3
137.4
132.6
118.0
120.6
114.6
107.8
100.9
81.7
107.5
127.1
111.2
105.5
120.9
117.3

120.7
129.8
135.2
130.5
132.7
134.4
134.5
130.9
116.1
118.7
112.8
106.0
98.7
80.5
105.1
125.9
110.9
106.0
117.5
116.6

121.1
130.3
136.3
130.9
136.2
134.7
134.8
131.2
117.1
119.9
113.4
105.9
98.6
81.4
104.9
126.0
110.9
105.9
117.7
116.8

121.5
131.2
138.6
131.1
144.7
135.0
135.1
131.3
117.1
119.6
113.8
105.9
98.5
81.5
104.8
125.9
110.5
105.1
118.5
116.9

115.4
113.7
113.4
114.9
116.4
109.9
116.0
123.7

118.6
116.7
117.0
116.4
119.1
114.4
122.1
129.4

115.3
113.3
115.1
111.6
115.6
112.2
119.2
127.3

115.3
113.3
114.2
111.4
118.8
112.7
120.4
127.8

108.7
107.6
116.5
116.9
118.0
80.9
80.8
119.7
127.9
98.9
133.9
123.3

114.1
112.9
119.2
119.2
120.4
88.5
88.5
124.9
135.8
101.5
143.2
129.5

111.1
109.8
119.4
119.5
120.5
79.6
79.4
122.4
133.5
101.0
140.4
127.5

Professional se rv ic e s ......................................................................
Hospital and related s e rv ic e s ........................................................

138.6
139.9
138.3
137.5
143.9

149.3
150.8
148.9
146.4
160.5

Entertainment se rvice s......................................................................

120.3
115.0
127.7
137.0
145.8
119.4
118.1
120.7
147.9
148.1
148.0

1988

1989

118.3
354.3

June

Sept.

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS:

All items (1967 = 100) .............................................................................
Food and beverages ............................................................................

Cereals and bakery pro d u c ts ......................................................
Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s .....................................................
Dairy p ro d u cts................................................................................
Fruits and vegetables...................................................................
Sugar and s w e e ts ......................................................................
Nonalcoholic beverages............................................................
Other prepared fo o d s ................................................................
Food away from home ...................................................................
Alcoholic beverages...........................................................................
H o u s in g ...................................................................................................
Renters’ costs (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )........................................................

Homeowners' costs (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )...............................................
Owners’ equivalent rent ( 1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) .....................................
Household insurance (1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )..........................................
Maintenance and re p a irs................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ..............................................
Maintenance and repair com m odities.......................................

Fuel oil, coal, and bottled g a s ...................................................
Gas (piped) and e le c tric ity ..........................................................
Other utilities and public s e rv ic e s ................................................
Household furnishings and ope ratio ns...........................................
Housefurnishings.............................................................................
Housekeeping supp lie s...................................................................
Housekeeping services...................................................................
Apparel and u p k e e p .............................................................................
Men’s and boys’ a p p a re l................................................................
Women’s and girls’ apparel ...........................................................
Infants’ and toddlers’ a p p a re l........................................................
Other apparel com m odities............................................................
Apparel se rvice s.................................................................................
Transportation ........................................................................................
Private transportation.........................................................................

Maintenance and re p a ir..................................................................
Other private tran sportation...........................................................
Other private transportation com m o dities................................
Other private transportation services........................................
Public tran sportation..........................................................................

Medical care commodities ................................................................

Other goods and services ...................................................................
Tobacco products ..............................................................................
Personal c a re .......................................................................................
Toilet goods and personal care appliances...............................
Personal and educational expenses..............................................
School books and supp lie s...........................................................
Personal and educational s e rv ic e s .............................................
See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

103

Current Labor Statistics:

Price Data

31. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated)

Series

Annual
average

1989

1990

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

124.0
116.7
124.9
111.6
111.2
116.7
111.0
112.2

121.1
113.9
122.0
108.9
106.4
113.3
105.3
112.5

121.6
114.3
122.7
109.1
106.9
113.3
106.1
112.4

122.3
115.2
123.3
110.1
108.9
117.5
106.9
111.9

123.1
116.7
124.0
112.2
112.5
119.3
111.5
111.8

123.8
117.5
124.7
112.9
113.6
118.6
113.6
111.9

124.1
117.2
124.9
112.4
112.7
115.8
113.7
112.1

124.4
117.0
125.4
111.7
111.6
112.9
113.6
111.9

124.6
116.7
125.6
111.1
110.9
112.8
112.5
111.4

125.7
132.0
115.3
128.0
138.3
132.6

131.9
138.0
118.7
135.6
148.9
140.9

128.9
134.8
117.0
133.0
143.5
137.3

129.4
135.4
116.9
133.9
145.1
137.8

130.0
136.3
116.9
134.3
145.9
138.2

130.2
136.3
117.2
134.5
146.4
138.8

130.8
136.9
118.0
135.2
146.9
139.2

131.6
137.4
120.1
135.6
147.9
139.8

132.5
138.8
120.6
135.5
149.3
140.4

Special indexes:
All items less food .............................................................................
All items less shelter .........................................................................
All items less homeowners’ costs ( 1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 )..........................
All items less medical c a re ...............................................................
Commodities less fo o d ......................................................................
Nondurables less food ......................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel ................................................
Nondurables.........................................................................................
Services less rent of’ shelter (12/82 = 1 0 0 ) ..................................
Services less medical c a r e ...............................................................
E nergy...................................................................................................
All items less energy .........................................................................
All items less food and energy ........................................................
Commodities less food and e n e rg y ................................................
Energy commodities ..........................................................................
Services less ene rgy..........................................................................

118.3
115.9
119.5
117.0
107.7
105.8
104.0
111.8
128.3
124.3
89.3
122.3
123.4
115.8
80.8
127.9

123.7
121.6
125.3
122.4
112.0
111.7
111.3
118.2
135.1
130.1
94.3
128.1
129.0
119.6
87.9
134.4

120.8
118.7
122.3
119.7
109.2
107.1
106.0
114.3
132.1
127.3
89.0
125.5
126.4
117.9
79.9
131.4

121.3
119.2
122.9
120.1
109.5
107.6
106.8
114.9
132.7
127.8
89.3
126.0
126.9
118.1
80.6
132.0

122.0
119.9
123.7
120.8
110.5
109.4
107.6
116.2
133.0
128.3
89.8
126.7
127.6
119.0
81.7
132.7

122.9
121.0
124.7
121.7
112.5
112.8
111.7
118.4
133.4
128.5
94.9
127.1
128.0
119.6
91.2
132.9

123.5
121.7
125.3
122.3
113.2
113.9
113.6
119.3
134.0
129.1
97.4
127.6
128.3
119.7
95.0
133.4

123.9
122.0
125.6
122.6
112.8
113.1
113.8
119.0
135.2
129.9
99.0
127.7
128.5
119.3
94.4
133.9

Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1 9 8 2 -8 4 = $ 1 .0 0 ..................................................................................
1 9 6 7 -$ 1 .0 0 .........................................................................................

84.6
28.2

80.7
26.9

82.6
27.6

82.3
27.5

81.8
27.3

81.2
27.1

80.8
27.0

All items ..................................................................................................
All items (1967=100) .............................................................................

117.0
348.4

122.6
365.2

119.7
356.7

120.2
358.0

120.8
360.0

121.8
362.9

Food and beverages ............................................................................
F o o d ......................................................................................................
Food at home ..................................................................................
Cereals and bakery p ro d u c ts ......................................................
Meats, poultry, fish, and e g g s ....................................................
Dairy p ro d u cts...............................................................................
Fruits and vegetables...................................................................
Other foods at h o m e ....................................................................
Sugar and sw e e ts ......................................................................
Fats and o ils ...............................................................................
Nonalcoholic beverages............................................................
Other prepared fo o d s ................................................................
Food away from home ...................................................................
Alcoholic beverages...........................................................................

117.9
117.9
116.2
122.2
114.1
108.1
127.6
113.0
113.9
113.0
107.7
117.8
121.6
118.3

124.6
124.8
123.9
132.4
121.2
115.4
137.6
119.0
119.5
121.1
111.4
125.3
127.3
123.1

121.7
121.9
120.8
128.0
118.3
112.4
134.3
116.5
117.3
119.5
109.8
121.7
124.6
119.8

122.4
122.6
121.7
129.0
118.0
113.3
136.8
117.7
117.8
120.4
111.4
122.8
125.1
120.8

123.1
123.3
122.4
129.7
120.3
113.6
135.4
118.0
118.0
120.3
111.4
123.6
125.5
121.4

Housing ...................................................................................................
Shelter ..................................................................................................
Renters’ costs (12/84 = 10 0 )........................................................
Rent, reside ntial............................................................................
Other renters’ costs .....................................................................
Homeowners’ costs (1 2 /8 4 = 1 0 0 ) ...............................................
Owners’ equivalent rent (12/84 = 100) .....................................
Household insurance (12/84 = 1 0 0 )..........................................
Maintenance and re p a irs................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ..............................................
Maintenance and repair com m odities.......................................
Fuel and other u tilitie s .......................................................................
Fuels ..................................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ...................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ..........................................................
Other utilities and public se rv ic e s .................................................
Household furnishings and ope ratio ns...........................................
Housefurnishings .............................................................................
Housekeeping supp lie s...................................................................
Housekeeping se rvice s...................................................................

116.8
124.3
119.2
127.5
135.2
119.5
119.5
118.2
114.0
117.7
108.3
104.1
97.7
77.9
104.4
122.9
108.9
104.5
115.1
115.0

121.2
129.8
123.9
132.3
141.5
125.1
125.2
121.4
117.6
120.4
112.6
107.5
100.6
81.4
107.3
127.4
110.6
104.8
121.2
117.4

119.0
126.9
120.7
130.1
131.8
122.5
122.5
119.9
115.6
118.3
110.9
105.7
98.4
80.3
104.8
126.2
110.4
105.5
117.9
116.9

119.3
127.4
121.5
130.4
135.2
122.8
122.8
120.0
116.7
119.5
111.8
105.7
98.3
81.0
104.6
126.3
110.4
105.4
118.1
117.0

Apparel and upkeep .............................................................................

114.9

117.9

114.8

114.7

1988

1989

All ite m s .....................................................................................................
C om m odities...........................................................................................
Food and beverages ..........................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages..........................................
Nondurables less food and beverages .......................................
Apparel com m odities....................................................................
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel ....................
D urables.............................................................................................

118.3
111.5
118.2
107.3
105.2
113.7
103.2
110.4

S e rvices...................................................................................................
Rent of shelter ( 1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ...........................................................
Household services less rent of’ shelter ( 1 2 /8 2 = 1 0 0 ) ..............
Transportation s e rv ic e s .....................................................................
Medical care se rvices........................................................................
Other services ....................................................................................

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

125.0
117.3
125.9
111.9
112.4
118.2
112.0
111.3

125.6
118.1
126.3
113.0
113.6
121.1
112.4
112.1

125.9
118.3
126.7
113.0
113.1
120.4
111.9
113.0

126.1
118.2
127.2
112.6
112.0
117.1
112.0
113.5

127.4
119.9
130.0
113.7
113.7
114.3
116.0
113.8

133.1
139.3
120.7
135.7
150.4
141.5

133.4
139.3
120.7
135.9
151.3
143.8

133.7
140.1
119.0
137.1
152.3
144.3

134.1
140.5
118.5
138.0
153.6
144.6

134.6
140.9
119.0
138.6
154.1
145.1

135.4
141.6
119.6
140.2
155.7
146.1

124.2
122.0
125.9
122.9
112.1
112.2
113.7
118.7
135.8
130.8
98.5
128.2
129.0
118.8
92.9
134.8

124.3
122.0
125.9
123.0
111.6
111.5
112.8
118.4
136.3
131.3
97.0
128.5
129.3
118.8
89.8
135.4

124.8
122.6
126.3
123.4
112.4
112.9
112.4
119.3
137.0
131.6
95.9
129.1
130.0
120.1
88.0
135.8

125.4
123.1
126.8
124.0
113.4
114.1
112.8
120.1
137.0
131.8
94.6
129.9
130.9
121.2
88.3
136.5

125.6
123.3
127.0
124.2
113.4
113.6
112.4
120.0
137.2
132.1
93.2
130.4
131.3
121.6
87.0
137.0

125.8
123.5
127.1
124.4
113.0
112.6
112.5
119.8
137.8
132.6
93.2
130.6
131.5
121.2
86.4
137.5

126.7
125.0
128.7
125.7
114.1
114.2
116.1
122.0
138.9
133.4
97.6
131.5
132.0
121.0
94.2
138.4

80.6
26.9

80.4
26.8

80.3
26.8

80.0
26.7

79.6
26.6

79.5
26.5

79.3
26.5

78.5
26.2

122.5
364.9

122.8
365.9

123.2
366.8

123.2
367.0

123.6
368.3

124.2
369.8

124.4
370.6

124.6
371.1

125.9
375.0

123.7
123.9
123.2
130.5
120.4
114.0
137.7
118.9
118.1
121.5
111.9
125.0
126.1
122.0

124.4
124.6
124.0
131.5
120.5
113.6
142.5
118.8
118.4
121.5
111.5
125.0
126.5
122.8

124.6
124.8
123.9
132.0
121.2
113.3
140.0
119.0
119.2
121.5
111.6
125.3
127.0
123.2

125.1
125.3
124.4
133.3
121.5
113.8
139.9
119.6
120.1
121.5
112.2
125.7
127.6
123.6

125.3
125.5
124.6
134.1
122.1
114.2
138.6
119.6
120.6
121.6
111.1
126.5
128.0
124.0

125.6
125.8
124.6
134.6
122.7
115.9
136.1
119.6
120.9
121.2
111.0
126.6
128.6
124.4

126.0
126.2
125.0
135.1
122.2
118.0
136.5
120.2
121.4
121.5
112.0
127.0
129.0
124.7

126.4
126.6
125.5
135.3
122.9
120.0
137.0
119.8
120.7
120.9
111.3
127.1
129.4
125.1

126.9
127.1
126.2
136.0
123.8
122.8
135.8
120.1
121.1
121.5
111.2
127.4
129.7
125.2

129.7
130.1
130.5
136.8
126.7
125.7
152.9
121.3
122.5
123.4
112.7
128.2
130.2
125.9

119.6
128.1
123.0
130.7
144.2
123.0
123.1
120.1
116.7
119.2
112.1
105.7
98.2
81.2
104.6
126.2
110.0
104.5
118.9
117.1

119.8
128.3
122.7
131.0
140.9
123.4
123.5
120.2
116.7
119.3
112.1
105.9
98.5
82.1
104.8
126.5
110.1
104.3
120.0
117.2

120.3
128.8
122.8
131.2
139.9
124.1
124.2
120.9
116.9
119.8
112.0
106.7
99.2
81.2
105.8
127.2
110.1
104.0
121.2
117.4

121.1
129.3
123.6
131.8
142.3
124.4
124.5
121.5
117.9
121.0
112.7
109.0
103.0
80.1
110.3
127.4
110.4
104.4
121.6
117.6

122.1
130.5
125.7
132.5
153.7
125.2
125.2
121.8
118.2
121.2
113.2
109.4
103.4
79.6
110.8
127.9
110.8
104.8
122.0
117.4

122.4
131.0
125.9
133.0
152.0
125.8
125.9
122.0
117.9
121.3
112.5
109.5
103.5
78.8
111.0
128.0
110.8
104.6
122.6
117.6

122.5
131.1
124.6
133.4
140.9
126.6
126.7
122.4
118.0
120.7
113.3
109.5
103.3
79.2
110.7
128.3
111.0
105.0
122.6
117.6

122.5
131.8
125.1
134.2
140.4
127.3
127.4
122.5
118.1
120.9
113.4
107.6
100.6
81.8
107.2
127.8
111.2
105.3
122.7
117.5

122.7
132.3
125.3
134.6
139.1
127.8
128.0
122.5
118.9
121.7
114.0
107.2
99.5
83.6
105.8
128.2
111.2
105.2
122.7
117.7

123.1
132.6
125.4
135.0
137.6
128.3
128.5
122.7
119.0
122.4
113.6
108.0
100.7
88.1
106.7
128.4
111.1
104.7
123.8
117.8

123.9
133.2
126.6
135.3
144.1
128.5
128.6
122.8
120.0
124.1
113.8
110.2
103.8
112.7
107.2
129.6
111.5
105.3
123.5
118.1

118.4

120.0

119.4

116.9

114.4

114.5

119.3

122.0

121.4

118.5

116.1

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS
AND CLERICAL WORKERS:

See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

31. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated)

Men’s and boys' a p p a re l................................................................
Women’s and girls’ apparel ...........................................................
Infants’ and toddlers’ a p p a re l........................................................

New ve h icle s.....................................................................................
New c a rs .........................................................................................
Used c a r s ..........................................................................................

Toilet goods and personal care appliances................................

School books and supp lie s............................................................

Special indexes:

Nondurables less food and apparel ...................................... .........

Services less medical c a r e ..............................................................
All items less energy ........................................................................

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

117.6
116.9
118.1
122.0
114.5
122.5
128.8

120.5
119.6
122.0
122.2
118.0
121.9
129.0

119.8
120.2
120.5
121.0
117.0
122.4
130.0

116.6
118.0
115.5
119.3
115.4
121.5
130.6

114.0
115.8
111.3
116.8
113.8
123.2
131.7

114.2
113.3
117.6
117.6
120.1
91.0
91.2
125.4
133.7
101.6
140.8
129.1

113.5
112.6
117.1
116.9
119.6
89.0
89.0
126.2
133.6
101.6
140.6
129.1

114.3
113.3
118.4
118.4
119.5
89.1
89.0
126.7
134.9
101.5
142.5
129.4

114.6
113.7
120.5
120.2
119.9
87.3
87.2
126.8
136.0
101.7
143.8
129.7

114.8
113.8
122.0
121.7
119.5
85.9
85.6
126.9
136.8
101.9
144.7
130.1

116.8
115.8
122.4
122.2
118.7
91.7
91.0
127.3
138.1
101.4
146.5
132.9

150.1
150.3
150.0
147.3
159.7

151.1
150.9
151.1
147.8
161.6

152.1
152.2
152.1
148.4
163.3

153.0
153.1
153.0
149.0
164.7

154.2
154.2
154.2
149.6
166.5

154.7
154.8
154.7
150.2
166.8

156.1
155.7
156.2
151.5
168.4

125.5
119.7
134.6

126.1
120.1
135.7

126.5
120.1
136.4

127.0
120.6
137.1

127.7
121.3
137.6

127.9
121.4
138.0

128.4
121.7
138.7

129.1
122.3
139.6

145.2
160.7
124.7
122.9
126.7
154.6
154.1
154.9

146.3
163.8
124.4
122.4
126.9
155.3
154.5
155.7

147.5
167.3
124.6
122.8
126.8
155.7
154.7
156.1

148.8
168.5
125.4
123.8
127.1
157.3
155.6
157.8

150.8
168.0
125.7
124.1
127.5
161.8
161.7
162.1

151.4
168.6
126.3
124.6
128.2
162.5
162.8
162.7

151.5
168.5
126.8
125.1
128.7
162.5
162.8
162.8

152.7
171.8
126.9
124.7
129.4
163.1
162.9
163.4

153.9
173.8
127.3
124.9
130.1
164.2
166.9
164.3

121.8
116.4
123.7
111.8
112.1
118.4
111.6
110.5

122.5
117.1
124.4
112.6
113.4
117.7
113.9
110.6

122.8
116.9
124.6
112.2
112.6
115.0
114.0
110.7

123.2
116.8
125.1
111.6
111.7
112.3
113.9
110.6

123.2
116.4
125.3
110.9
110.8
112.4
112.6
110.1

123.6
116.9
125.6
111.6
112.0
117.6
112.0
110.0

124.2
117.7
126.0
112.5
113.2
120.5
112.3
110.6

124.4
117.8
126.4
112.5
112.6
119.8
111.7
111.6

124.6
117.8
126.9
112.1
111.6
116.6
111.7
112.0

125.9
119.5
129.7
113.3
113.4
114.0
115.7
112.2

128.9
123.1
107.4
133.5
146.7
137.0

129.1
123.2
107.6
133.7
147.2
137.6

129.7
123.7
108.3
134.4
147.6
137.9

130.6
124.2
110.5
134.8
148.6
138.6

131.5
125.4
110.9
134.8
150.0
139.1

132.0
125.9
111.0
134.9
151.1
140.1

132.3
126.0
111.0
135.0
152.1
142.3

132.6
126.7
109.3
136.3
153.0
142.9

132.9
127.1
108.8
137.1
154.2
143.2

133.4
127.5
109.3
137.8
154.7
143.8

134.2
128.0
110.0
139.4
156.2
144.7

119.6
118.5
113.4
118.9
109.0
107.0
106.4
114.6
119.5
126.7
88.6
124.7
125.3
117.1
80.6
131.1

120.2
119.1
114.1
119.5
109.9
108.7
107.2
115.8
119.8
127.2
89.2
125.3
125.9
117.9
81.7
131.6

121.3
120.4
115.2
120.5
112.1
112.4
111.7
118.1
120.1
127.4
94.8
125.8
126.3
118.4
91.6
131.9

122.0
121.1
115.8
121.2
112.9
113.6
113.8
119.1
120.7
128.0
97.4
126.2
126.6
118.5
95.6
132.4

122.3
121.3
116.1
121.5
112.5
113.0
114.0
118.8
121.9
128.9
98.9
126.4
126.8
118.2
94.9
132.9

122.6
121.4
116.3
121.8
112.0
112.1
113.9
118.6
122.3
129.7
98.3
126.8
127.3
117.9
93.5
133.8

122.6
121.3
116.3
121.8
111.4
111.4
112.8
118.3
122.7
130.1
96.6
127.1
127.6
117.9
90.2
134.4

123.1
121.8
116.6
122.2
112.0
112.5
112.3
119.1
123.3
130.4
95.5
127.7
128.3
119.0
88.4
134.8

123.6
122.3
117.1
122.7
112.9
113.6
112.7
119.8
123.2
130.6
94.2
128.5
129.1
120.1
88.7
135.5

123.8
122.5
117.3
122.9
112.9
113.1
112.1
119.7
123.4
130.9
92.8
128.9
129.6
120.5
87.2
136.0

124.0
122.6
117.4
123.1
112.6
112.2
112.2
119.5
123.9
131.4
92.7
129.1
129.7
120.2
86.4
136.4

124.9
124.2
118.8
124.4
113.7
113.9
115.8
121.8
124.9
132.2
97.1
130.1
130.1
119.9
93.9
137.3

83.2
27.9

82.8
27.8

82.1
27.6

81.6
27.4

81.4
27.3

81.2
27.3

81.2
27.2

80.9
27.2

80.5
27.0

80.4
27.0

80.3
26.9

79.4
26.7

July

Aug.

115.0
115.0
113.5
126.7
114.1
119.8
129.0

112.3
113.7
108.7
121.9
113.9
120.7
128.6

112.4
113.9
108.9
120.4
113.1
122.4
128.7

116.0
115.3
119.0
119.3
120.9
96.7
96.9
124.4
133.5
101.1
140.7
127.5

116.0
115.2
118.7
118.9
121.1
96.1
96.3
124.6
133.9
101.5
141.2
128.2

115.4
114.6
118.3
118.4
120.9
94.5
94.7
124.8
133.7
101.0
141.0
128.3

147.2
147.4
147.2
145.1
155.6

147.9
148.9
147.6
145.5
156.2

148.8
149.9
148.6
146.4
157.3

124.1
118.7
132.7

124.8
119.1
133.8

124.9
119.5
133.6

143.7
158.2
123.0
121.9
124.2
153.7
153.9
154.0

144.0
158.9
123.5
122.3
124.6
153.9
154.0
154.1

144.4
159.2
123.9
122.7
125.2
154.3
154.1
154.6

119.7
113.5
121.7
108.4
105.9
113.0
104.9
111.0

120.2
113.9
122.4
108.7
106.3
112.8
105.6
111.0

120.8
114.7
123.1
109.5
108.1
116.7
106.5
110.6

130.8
124.8
109.1
134.8
149.6
139.6

127.9
121.9
107.5
132.2
144.2
136.1

128.4
122.4
107.4
133.1
145.8
136.5

116.7
115.2
110.4
115.8
107.2
105.3
103.7
111.5
115.6
123.3
88.6
121.0
121.9
114.7
80.9
127.0

122.0
120.9
115.7
121.2
111.6
111.3
111.2
118.0
121.7
129.0
93.9
126.7
127.3
118.6
88.2
133.4

119.2
118.0
113.0
118.5
108.8
106.5
105.6
114.0
119.0
126.3
88.3
124.2
124.8
116.9
79.9
130.5

85.5
28.7

81.6
27.4

83.5
28.0

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

116.1
116.1
115.5
122.5
114.7
120.5
128.6

113.0
114.4
111.3
118.5
112.8
117.8
126.4

112.8
113.4
110.7
121.8
113.1
119.0
126.8

116.7
115.1
118.3
121.7
114.1
118.5
127.7

118.4
116.4
120.2
126.7
115.2
119.6
128.1

117.7
116.9
118.1
128.3
115.0
119.8
128.9

108.3
107.5
116.2
116.6
117.9
80.9
80.8
119.8
125.8
98.6
131.7
122.5

113.9
113.0
119.0
119.1
120.3
88.6
88.6
124.9
133.7
101.1
141.0
128.2

110.7
109.7
119.2
119.3
120.3
79.6
79.5
122.4
131.4
100.5
138.2
126.1

111.2
110.3
119.3
119.5
120.4
80.3
80.2
123.3
132.2
100.7
139.2
126.8

111.6
110.6
119.2
119.4
120.3
81.5
81.4
123.5
132.5
99.8
139.8
126.9

114.5
113.7
118.9
119.2
120.5
92.3
92.3
123.9
132.7
100.4
139.8
127.1

139.0
139.0
139.0
137.7
143.3

149.6
149.7
149.6
146.7
159.4

144.2
143.9
144.2
142.4
151.9

145.6
144.7
145.8
143.7
154.2

146.5
146.0
146.7
144.7
154.8

119.7
115.1
127.2

125.8
119.9
135.1

123.1
118.1
131.3

123.6
118.4
131.9

136.5
146.0
119.3
118.0
120.5
147.4
147.1
147.7

147.4
164.2
124.8
123.3
126.6
157.3
156.9
157.7

143.0
156.9
122.7
121.7
123.6
153.3
152.0
153.7

117.0
111.0
117.9
106.8
104.6
113.4
102.9
108.9

122.6
116.3
124.6
111.2
110.9
116.1
110.9
110.8

124.7
119.4
105.9
127.1
139.0
131.4

1988

1989

113.4
112.8
114.5
118.6
110.4
114.9
123.0

Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1990

1989

Annual
average

June

Sept.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

105

Current Labor Statistics.
32.

Price Data

Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items

( 1 9 8 2 - 8 4 = 1 0 0 , un le ss o th e rw is e in d ica te d )

All Urban Consumers
Pricing
schedule2

Area1

U.S. city ave ra g e .....................

Urban Wage Earners

1989

1990

1989

1990

Jan.

Feb.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Jan.

Feb.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

M

121.1

121.6

125.0

125.6

125.9

126.1

127.4

119.7

120.2

123.6

124.2

124.4

124.6

125.9

M

125.4

125.8

130.0

130.6

131.1

131.3

132.9

124.1

124.5

128.8

129.4

129.9

130.1

131.6

M

126.1

126.5

130.6

131.1

131.6

131.6

133.3

124.0

124.3

128.7

129.1

129.5

129.5

131.0

M

123.1

123.9

128.9

130.0

130.7

130.9

132.5

121.9

122.7

127.6

128.6

129.3

129.5

131.1

M
M

124.4
118.7

124.3
119.3

128.1
122.5

128.9
123.0

129.7
123.2

130.7
123.2

132.0
124.5

126.8
116.8

126.7
117.3

130.8
120.4

131.5
120.9

132.3
121.2

133.1
121.1

134.4
122.5

M

119.8

120.4

124.1

124.3

124.4

124.3

125.7

117.1

117.7

121.2

121.4

121.5

121.5

122.9

M

118.3

118.6

121.0

122.5

123.0

123.0

124.2

116.0

116.2

118.6

120.0

120.5

120.4

121.8

M

118.8

119.5

122.2

122.9

123.3

123.2

124.6

117.7

118.4

120.9

121.6

122.0

122.0

123.5

M
M

114.5
118.9

115.1
119.2

117.8
122.5

118.2
123.0

118.6
123.2

118.8
123.4

120.0
124.6

114.3
118.3

114.8
118.7

117.7
121.9

118.1
122.4

118.4
122.5

118.6
122.7

119.9
123.9

Sept.

Sept.

Region and area size3
Northeast u rb a n ........................
Size A - More than
1,200,000 ................................
Size B - 500,000 to
1,200,000 ................................
Size C - 50,000 to
500,000 ...................................
North Central urban ................
Size A - More than
1,200,000 ................................
Size B - 360,000 to
1,200,000 ................................
Size C - 50,000 to
360,000 ...................................
Size D - Nonmetro­
politan (less
than 50,0000 ..........................
South u rb a n ...............................
Size A - More than
1,200,000 ................................
Size B - 450,000 to
1,200,000 ................................
Size C - 50,000 to
450,000 ...................................
Size D - Nonmetro­
politan (less
than 50,000) ...........................
West u rb a n ................................
Size A - More than
1,250,000 ................................
Size C - 50,000 to
330,000 ...................................
Size classes:
A ( 1 2 / 8 6 - 1 0 0 ) ......................
B ...............................................
C ..............................................
D ..............................................

M

119.7

120.1

123.5

123.9

124.0

124.0

125.1

118.8

119.3

122.5

122.9

123.0

123.0

124.1

M

119.9

120.3

123.9

124.5

124.7

125.1

126.0

117.9

118.2

121.7

122.1

122.4

122.7

123.6

M

117.8

118.0

120.9

121.7

121.6

122.0

123.3

118.4

118.6

121.5

122.2

122.1

122.5

123.8

M
M

116.9
121.7

117.4
122.3

120.2
125.6

120.7
126.1

121.3
126.3

121.4
126.8

123.5
127.8

117.7
120.3

118.1
120.9

121.0
124.2

121.6
124.6

122.0
124.8

122.1
125.3

124.4
126.3

M

123.3

123.7

127.5

127.8

127.8

128.3

129.5

120.5

121.0

124.6

124.9

124.9

125.4

126.6

M

119.8

120.5

122.8

123.7

124.5

125.3

125.4

119.3

119.9

122.1

123.0

123.7

124.4

124.6

M
M
M
M

110.0
120.1
119.6
117.5

110.5
120.8
120.0
118.0

113.8
124.2
122.9
120.8

114.2
125.2
123.7
121.3

114.3
125.6
124.1
121.8

114.4
125.9
124.5
122.0

115.7
126.9
125.6
123.6

109.9
118.8
120.0
117.8

110.3
119.3
120.4
118.3

113.7
122.8
123.3
121.2

114.0
123.6
124.0
121.7

114.1
124.0
124.3
122.1

114.2
124.3
124.7
122.4

115.5
125.4
125.9
124.0

Selected local areas
Chicago, ILNorthwestern IN ......................
Los Angeles-Long
Beach, Anaheim, C A ............
New York, NYNortheastern N J ......................
Philadelphia, P A -N J..................
San FranciscoOakland, C A .............................
Baltimore, M D ...........................
Boston, MA ...............................
Cleveland, O H ...........................
Miami, F L ...................................
St. Louis, M O -IL ........................
Washington, DC-MD-VA .........
Dallas-Ft. Worth, T X ................
Detroit, M l ..................................
Houston, TX ..............................
Pittsburgh, P A ...........................

M

121.5

122.2

127.1

126.8

126.7

126.5

128.1

117.9

118.4

123.1

122.9

122.9

122.8

124.4

M

124.6

125.5

130.1

130.0

130.0

130.6

132.1

121.4

122.3

126.5

126.5

126.4

127.0

128.5

M
M

127.0
125.7

127.6
125.4

132.2
130.2

132.8
130.5

133.2
130.1

133.3
129.9

135.1
131.2

125.1
125.5

125.5
125.4

130.3
130.4

130.8
130.6

131.3
130.1

131.3
130.0

133.0
131.0

127.5

127.2

127.4

122.9

126.1

126.7

126.4

126.6

M

124.0

124.0

126.8

M
1
1
1
1
1

121.3
129.0
118.9
120.0
118.4
124.3

_
-

125.9
132.2
123.7
122.9
123.9
130.1

1
2
2
2

_
“

117.5
120.1
112.7
117.9

_
-

_
121.4
124.6
115.7
121.7

_
-

120.5
124.4
115.5
121.8

1 A r e a is th e C o n s o lid a te d M e tro p o lita n S ta tistic a l A re a (C M S A ), e x ­

3

c lu s iv e o f fa rm s a n d m ilitary. A re a defin itio n s a re th o s e e s ta b lis h e d by

-

th e O ffic e o f M a n a g e m e n t a n d

B u d g e t in

1 9 8 3 , e x c e p t fo r B o sto n -

128.5

122.8

127.9
136.0
125.0
124.6
125.1
132.0

120.9
128.9
113.8
118.8
118.0
123.7

_

_

-

-

“

_
117.2
117.3
112.9
113.4

125.4
132.6
118.2
121.4
123.5
129.5

_
“

_
121.1
121.5
115.8
116.8

126.0
134.7
118.0
121.5
122.6
129.6

_
-

_
_
120.1
121.4
115.8
117.1

127.6
127.2
136.0
119.5
123.2
124.6
131.1

_
_
_
-

R e g io n s a re d e fin e d a s th e fo u r C e n s u s region s.
D a ta n o t a v a ila b le .

NO TE:

Local a re a C P I in d e x e s a re byp ro d u c ts o f th e natio n al C P I

L a w re n c e -S a le m , M A -N H A re a (e x c lu d e s M o n ro e C ounty); a n d M ilw a u ­

p ro g ra m . B e c a u s e e a c h local index is a sm all s u b se t o f th e n ational in­

k e e , W l A re a (in c lu d es only th e M ilw a u k e e M S A ). D e fin itio n s do n o t in­

de x, it ha s a s m a lle r s a m p le size a n d is, th e re fo re , s u b jec t to s u b stan ­

c lu d e re vis io n s m a d e sin c e 1 9 8 3 .

tially m o re sam p lin g a n d o th e r m e a s u re m e n t e rro r th a n th e natio n al in­

2 F o o d s , fu e ls, a n d s e v e ra l o th e r Ite m s p riced e v e ry m o n th in all
a re a s ; m o s t o th e r g o o d s a n d s e rv ice s p rice d a s ind icated :.
M - E v e ry m o nth.
1 - J a n u a ry , M a rc h , M a y , July, S e p te m b e r, a n d N o v e m b e r.
2 - F e b ru a ry , April, J u n e, A ugust, O c to b e r, a n d D e c e m b e r.

106

_

126.6
134.3
123.4
123.0
123.1
130.5

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

de x. A s a result, local a re a in d e x e s s h o w g re a te r vo latility th a n th e n a ­
tio n a l index, a lth o u g h th e ir lo n g -term tre n d s a re quite sim ilar. T h e re fo re ,
th e B u re au o f L ab o r S ta tistic s s trongly u rg e s users to c o n sid e r a d o p tin g
th e n a tio n a l a v e ra g e C P I fo r u se in e s c a la to r cla u s es .

33.

Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups

(1982-84=100)
Series

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
All items:
90.9
10.3

96.5
6.2

99.6
3.2

103.9
4.3

107.6
3.6

109.6
1.9

113.6
3.6

118.3
4.1

124.0
4.8

93.5
7.8

97.3
4.1

99.5
2.3

103.2
3.7

105.6
2.3

109.1
3.3

113.5
4.0

118.2
4.1

124.9
5.7

90.4
11.5

96.9
7.2

99.5
2.7

103.6
4.1

107.7
4.0

110.9
3.0

114.2
3.0

118.5
3.8

123.0
3.8

95.3
4.8

97.8
2.6

100.2
2.5

102.1
1.9

105.0
2.8

105.9
.9

110.6
4.4

115.4
4.3

118.6
2.8

93.2
12.2

97.0
4.1

99.3
2.4

103.7
4.4

106.4
2.6

102.3
-3.9

105.4
3.0

108.7
3.1

114.1
5.0

82.9
10.7

92.5
11.6

100.6
8.8

106.8
6.2

113.5
6.3

122.0
7.5

130.1
6.6

138.6
6.5

149.3
7.7

90.1
7.8

96.0
6.5

100.1
4.3

103.8
3.7

107.9
3.9

111.6
3.4

115.3
3.3

120.3
4.3

126.5
5.2

82.6
9.8

91.1
10.3

101.1
11.0

107.9
6.7

114.5
6.1

121.4
6.0

128.5
5.8

137.0
6.6

147.7
7.8

91.4
10.3

96.9
6.0

99.8
3.0

103.3
3.5

106.9
3.5

108.6
1.6

112.5
3.6

117.0
4.0

122.6
4.8

Food and beverages:

Housing:

Apparel and upkeep:

Transportation:

Medical care:

Entertainment:

Other goods and services:

Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers:
All items:


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

107

Current Labor Statistics:
34.

Price Data

Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

(1982 = 100)
Annual average

1990

G rouping
1988

1989

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

108.0
106.2
112.6

113.5
112.1
118.7

111.7
110.1
117.2

112.1
110.6
118.3

113.0
111.8
117.7

114.2
113.2
119.1

114.3
113.1
118.6

114.1
112.8
119.0

113.4
111.9
118.7

C a p ita l e q u ip m e n t ..................................................

103.1
97.3
113.8
114.3

108.9
103.8
117.6
118.7

106.6
100.9
117.0
117.5

106.8
101.3
116.6
117.5

108.8
104.2
116.4
117.6

110.3
106.0
117.1
118.3

110.4
106.0
117.5
118.8

109.8
105.3
116.9
118.7

108.5
103.5
117.0
119.0

Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components...............................................

107.1

112.0

111.0

111.5

112.4

112.7

112.7

112.5

112.0

112.4

113.2
106.0
112.9
118.7
112.3

118.2
112.7
118.6
123.6
116.4

118.3
110.1
119.7
125.3
115.3

118.7
111.4
119.8
125.7
115.7

118.9
111.1
120.3
125.9
115.8

118.9
112.5
120.3
125.0
116.1

118.4
112.4
119.5
123.6
116.4

118.1
113.3
118.6
122.7
116.6

117.7
113.3
117.4
122.1
116.9

117.7
113.7
116.9
122.6
117.0

116.1
71.2
120.1
113.7

121.2
76.5
125.5
118.1

119.9
72.1
123.9
117.4

120.5
73.2
124.4
118.0

121.1
76.7
125.1
118.0

121.5
78.1
125.3
118.2

121.5
79.3
125.6
118.1

121.6
78.7
126.0
118.5

121.6
77.3
126.0
118.3

121.9
78.7
126.1
118.5

96.0
106.1
85.5

103.0
111.1
93.4

101.2
111.0
90.7

103.2
113.7
92.2

104.4
111.6
95.3

106.1
114.9
96.0

104.1
111.7
94.7

103.9
110.1
95.4

101.1
110.0
91.1

106.5
59.8
115.8
116.3
117.0

111.8
65.7
121.2
122.1
122.1

109.9
61.8
119.8
120.6
120.7

110.0
62.3
120.1
121.1
120.7

111.4
68.4
120.0
120.9
120.8

112.6
71.8
120.8
121.8
121.4

112.8
70.2
121.2
122.1
122.1

112.4
68.4
121.3
122.2
122.1

Finished goods..........................................
F in ish e d c o n s u m e r g o o d s ................................
F in ish e d c o n s u m e r f o o d s ...............................
F in ish e d c o n s u m e r g o o d s exclu d in g
fo o d s .......................................................................
N o n d u ra b le g o o d s le s s fo o d ....................
D u ra b le g o o d s ..................................................

M a te ria ls a n d c o m p o n e n ts fo r
m a n u fa c tu rin g ........................................................
M a te ria ls fo r fo o d m a n u fa c t u r in g ...............
M a te ria ls fo r n o n d u ra b le m a n u fa ctu rin g .
M a te ria ls fo r d u ra b le m a n u fa c tu r in g .........
C o m p o n e n ts fo r m a n u fa c t u r in g ...................
M a te ria ls a n d c o m p o n e n ts fo r
c o n s t r u c t io n .............................................................
P ro c e s s e d fu e ls a n d lu b r ic a n ts ......................
C o n t a in e r s ..................................................................
S u p p lie s .......................................................................

Crude materials for further processing ...
F o o d s tu ffs a n d f e e d s t u f f s ...............................
C ru d e n o n fo o d m a t e r i a l s ..................................

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

113.6
112.2
118.5

114.8
113.3
119.5

114.8
113.2
120.2

115.3
113.9
120.9

117.5
116.6
123.6

109.1
104.5
116.7
118.9

110.3
104.8
120.1
120.3

109.8
104.2
119.7
120.6

110.4
105.1
119.8
120.7

113.2
109.1
119.4
121.1

112.3

112.2

112.0

113.4

117.9
113.3
117.1
122.9
117.1

117.9
115.4
117.0
122.1
117.3

117.3
115.4
116.6
120.1
117.4

117.6
115.5
116.5
120.2
118.0

122.2
77.8
126.9
118.3

121.9
77.0
126.7
118.3

121.5
78.1
126.9
118.3

121.8
84.6
126.9
118.7

102.3
108.9
93.6

101.8
107.2
93.9

102.3
109.4
93.4

104.0
112.3
94.2

106.7
113.6
97.6

111.7
63.6
121.4
122.3
122.4

112.0
65.9
121.3
122.1
122.3

113.3
65.7
122.7
123.5
123.9

113.0
64.5
122.9
123.8
123.9

113.5
64.9
123.5
124.5
124.4

115.5
72.8
124.5
125.8
124.7

Special groupings:
F in is h e d g o o d s , e xc lu d in g f o o d s ......................
F in is h e d e n e rg y g o o d s ..........................................
F in is h e d g o o d s les s e n e r g y ................................
F in is h e d c o n s u m e r g o o d s les s e n e r g y ..........
F in is h e d g o o d s le s s fo o d a n d e n e r g y ...........
F in is h e d c o n s u m e r g o o d s le s s fo o d a n d
e n e r g y ............................................................................

118.5

124.0

122.6

122.6

122.7

123.3

124.1

124.1

C o n s u m e r n o n d u ra b le g o o d s le s s fo o d and
e n e r g y ............................................................................

124.5

124.2

126.0

125.9

126.6

126.9

122.0

128.8

126.8

127.1

127.4

127.9

129.0

129.3

129.9

129.7

130.4

130.4

131.6

132.3

In te rm e d ia te g o o d s le s s e n e r g y ........................

106.9
109.5
70.9
114.6

111.9
113.8
76.2
119.5

110.8
114.0
71.8
119.1

111.4
115.2
72.9
119.6

112.3
113.7
76.4
119.9

112.6
114.2
77.7
120.0

112.7
112.9
78.9
119.7

112.4
114.5
78.3
119.6

112.0
113.1
76.9
119.3

In te rm e d ia te m a te ria ls les s fo o d s and
e n e r g y ............................................................................

112.3
113.7
78.3
119.5

112.3
112.4
77.4
119.6

112.1
113.3
76.7
119.5

112.0
113.0
77.7
119.2

113.4
113.3
84.2
119.5

115.2

120.2

119.9

120.3

120.7

120.8

120.5

120.2

120.0

120.1

120.3

120.1

119.7

119.9

67.7
112.6
133.0

75.9
117.5
137.8

72.0
118.1
140.3

73.5
120.4
141.3

77.3
118.8
141.2

78.3
121.0
140.3

77.5
118.0
137.9

78.9
116.2
135.5

73.5
116.4
136.6

76.1
115.9
137.7

76.6
114.6
137.4

76.8
115.4
134.3

78.5
116.9
131.7

82.4
117.9
132.1

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

In te rm e d ia te m a te ria ls les s fo o d s a nd
f e e d s ..............................................................................
In te rm e d ia te fo o d s a n d f e e d s .............................
In te rm e d ia te e n e rg y g o o d s ..................................

C ru d e e n e rg y m a t e r ia ls ........................................
C ru d e m a te ria ls les s e n e rg y ...............................
C ru d e n o n fo o d m a te ria ls les s e n e r g y ............

35.

Producer Price indexes, by durability of product

(1982 = 100)
Annual average

1989

G rouping

1990

1988

1989

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Total durable g o o d s ........................................
Total nondurable g o o d s ..................................

114.7
101.1

119.0
107.1

118.3
105.2

118.5
106.1

118.7
107.4

118.9
108.6

119.0
108.2

118.8
108.1

119.0
106.7

119.2
107.2

120.0
107.2

119.9
107.3

119.6
108.0

120 0
110.7

Total m anufactures..........................................
D u rab le............................................................
Nondurable ....................................................

109.1
114.1
104.1

114.3
118.3
110.2

112.9
117.4
108.3

113.4
117.6
109.2

114.4
117.8
110.8

115.0
118.1
111.6

114.9
118.3
111.3

114.7
118.2
110.9

114.2
118.4
110.0

114.5
118.6
110.4

115.2
119.5
110.8

115.1
119.4
110.8

115.1
119.2
110.9

116.5
119 6
113.1

Total raw or slightly processed goods ........
D u rab le............................................................
Nondurable ....................................................

95.9
148.0
93.4

101.3
151.5
98.9

100.1
161.9
97.2

101.1
161.0
98.2

101.5
159.0
98.8

103.3
157.5
100.8

102.6
151.5
100.3

102.7
146.0
100.6

100.4
146.5
98.3

101.2
148.0
99.0

100.2
145.8
98.0

100.4
141.3
98.4

102.1
137.4
100.4

105.8
138.6
104.2

108

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

36.

Producer price indexes for the net output of major industry groups

(December 1984

100,

unless otherwise indicated)

Industry

77.4
96.0
102.4

78.0
91.8
102.6

74.0
96.2
102.6

76.4
98.2

76.0
99.8
103.0

76.2
97.7

77.7
93.9
103.3

93.9
78.1

94.0
77.2

94.7
78.1

94.9

94.7

94.9

95.8

95.3

111.3

111.6

112.1

111.3

111.4

111.0

111.2

111.2

111.3

108.5
111.9
155.0
108.6

109.4
111.6
155.1
108.8

110.1
112.2
155.1
108.8

110.1
112.1
163.5
109.4

109.9
112.5
164.4
109.5

109.6
112.3
164.6
109.8

109.8
112.4
164.9
109.9

110.7
112.4
165.8

110.7
113.2
1OJ. i

111.0
113.6
174.0
110.3

109.3

109.3

109.5

109.6

109.8

110.4

110.7

110.9

111.1

111.2

111.4

115.3
115.6
120.8

112.3
114.0
119.7

113.1
114.4
120.4

114.4
114.7
120.6

115.4
115.2
121.1

115.9
115.5
121.2

117.1
115.7
120.9

116.7

116.6

117.9

117.1

115.9

121.1

121.2

121.8

121.7

118.2
113.0
67.7
106.7
113.4
105.8
113.0

124.7
119.7
75.7
110.2
118.0
107.9
118.8

123.2
119.9
69.3
109.6
116.6
106.7
119.4

123.6
120.6
71.5
110.2
117.0
107.2
120.1

124.0
121.0
79.9
110.5
117.2
107.9
120.1

124.2
120.9
82.9
110.5
117.4
107.9
119.8

124.6
120.6
80.4
110.4
117.3
108.1
118.9

124.9
119.4
77.7
110.4
117.8
108.2
118.2

125.4

125.6

125.9

126.2

126.3

73.0
110.3
118.6
108.2
118.0

75.6
110.2
119.5
108.3
118.5

77.3
110.2
119.4
108.3
118.7

110.3
119.3

110.2
120.1

118.0

116.4

34

107.4

112.5

111.1

111.5

112.0

112.5

112.5

112.8

113.0

113.2

113.8

113.7

113.8

35

106.4

110.6

109.3

109.7

109.8

110.2

110.3

110.9

111.3

111.5

111.6

112.0

112.1

107.9
114.4

108.1

Apr.

May

76.3
100.1
102.7

75.5
105.9
102.7

74.9
104.8
103.0

77.2
103.9
102.5

78.2
100.6
102.4

94.6
68.5

94.3
75.7

93.0
74.5

92.9
73.8

93.4
76.7

14

108.0

111.2

110.8

110.9

20
21
22

104.4
107.1
141.8
106.8

109.6
112.2
161.5
109.3

107.9
110.9
155.0
108.3

23

107.2

110.2

24
25
26

109.2
111.4
113.7

27
28
29
30
31
32
33

10
11

70.6
100.7
100.2

12
13

Apparel and other finished products
made from fabrics and similar
Lumber and wood products, except

Stone, clay, glass, and concrete products ..
Fabricated metal products, except
machinery and transportation

Electrical and electronic machinery,
36
37

104.6
107.8

107.2
112.1

106.4
111.7

106.4
111.2

106.6
110.9

106.8
111.6

107.1
111.8

107.6
111.1

107.6
111.3

107.6
110.7

38

107.0

110.7

109.1

109.7

110.1

110.6

110.9

111.C

111.2

111.2

111.8

112.0

112.2

3£

107.8

111.8

110.8

110.S

111.2

111.8

111,7

112.C

112.4

112.6

112.7

112.8

113.1

46

94.8

94.'

94.8

94.8

94.'

94.'

94.'

94.'

94.'

94.'

94.'

94.'

94.4

Miscellaneous manufacturing industries

Pipelines, except natural gas (12/8 6 = 1 0 0 )

37.

June

107.8

Measuring and controlling instruments;
photographic, medical, optical goods;

Service industries:

Dec.

Oct.

Aug.

Mar.

1989

Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic

Petroleum refining and related p ro d u c ts ....
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products

Sept.

July

Feb.

1988

Bituminous coal and lignite mining

Printing, publishing, and allied

1989

Annual
average

SIC

Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

(1982 = 100)

Index
Finished goods:
T o t a l..........................
Consumer goods .
Capital equipment

Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components:
T o t a l.......................................................................
Materials and components for
m anufacturing.................................................
Materials and components for construction
Processed fuels and lu b ric a n ts........ ...........
C o n ta in e rs.......................................................
S u p p lie s ............................................................

1981


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

96.1
96.6
94.6

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.6
101.3
102.8

103.7
103.3
105.2

104.7
103.8
107.5

103.2
101.4
109.7

105.4
103.6
111.7

108.0
106.2
114.3

113.5
112.1
118.7

98.6

100.0

100.6

103.1

102.7

99.1

101.5

107.1

112.0

98.7
97.9
96.7
96.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.2
102.8
95.4
100.4
101.8

104.1
105.6
95.7
105.9
104.1

103.3
107.3
92.8
109.0
104.4

102.2
108.1
72.7
110.3
105.6

105.3
109.8
73.3
114.5
107.7

113.2
116.1
71.2
120.1
113.7

118.2
121.2
76.5
125.5
118.1

103.0
103.9
101.8
84.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.3
101.8
100.7
105.1

103.5
104.7
102.2
105.1

95.8
94.8
96.9
102.7

87.7
93.2
81.6
92.2

93.7
96.2
87.9
84.1

96.0
106.1
85.5
82.1

103.0
111.1
93.4
85.3

100.6

Crude materials for further processing:
Total ......................................... ....................
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs .....................
Nonfood materials except fuel ............
Fuel ...........................................................

1982

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

109

Current Labor Statistics:
38.

Price Data

U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification

(1985=100, unless otherwise indicated)

Category

1974
SITO

1987
June

Sept.

1988
Dec.

Mar.

ALL COMMODITIES .........................
F o od...................................................
Meat and meat preparations...........................
Fish and crustaceans........................................................................................
Grain and grain preparations..........................................................................
Vegetables and fr u it ............................................
Animal feeds, excluding unmilled c e re a ls .....................................................
Miscellaneous food p ro d u c ts ......................

01
03
04
05
08
09

125.8
71.0
112.4
123.8
100.6

12

105.0
105.0

Beverages and tobacco ......................................
Tobacco and tobacco products..........................

131.1
67.8
101.1
123.1

21
22
23
25
27
28

107.0

3

82.8

Fuels and related products.......................
Coal and coke ...............................................
Crude petroleum and petroleum p ro d u c ts ...............

149.6
101.6
101.0
116.2
149.9
112.4

147.7
95.1
102.8
141.7
153.0
116.5

32
33

41
42

Chemicals and related products.....................
Organic chem ica ls.......................................................
Dyeing, tanning, and coloring materials .................................
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (1 2/85= 100 ) ....
Essential oils, polish, and cleaning preparations..............
Fertilizers, manufactured .......................................
Artificial resins, plastics and c e llu lo s e ..........................
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s...........................

Intermediate manufactured products..................
Leather and furskins .......................................
Rubber manufactures ..................................................
Paper and paperboard products ........................
T extiles.........................................................
Non-metallic mineral manufactures (9/85 = 100) ....
Iron and s te e l.........................................................
Nonferrous m e ta ls ........................................
Metal manufactures, n.e.s...........................................

107.7

104.2
101.4
105.7
91.6
111.9
97.7

105.5
102.2
107.3
100.9
116.4
97.1

6
61
62
64
65
66
67
68
69

107.9
126.9
102.5
117.0
103.7
108.7
102.9
113.0
101.3

110.3
128.7
103.9

71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78

101.8
103.7
100.1
106.7
104.5
96.1
101.4
102.1
103.5

79

105.5

8
82

105.2
107.6

Machinery and transport equipment, excluding military and
commercial aircraft......................................
Power generating machinery and equ ip m e n t.....................
Machinery specialized for particular industries.....................
Metalworking m achin ery....................................
General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s.................................................
Office machines and automatic data processing equipment
Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equipment
Electrical machinery and equipm ent............................
Road vehicles and parts .....................................
Other transport equipment, excluding military and commercial
a via tio n ...................................................................

Miscellaneous manufactured articles.........................
Furniture and p a rts ............................................................
Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and
app ara tus..................................................................
Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and
c lo c k s ...................................................................

Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s......................
-

110

Data not available.

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

87

105.5

88

102.5

89

104.8

104.8
100.5
107.8
104.6
95.7
101.4
102.5
103.8

Sept.

Dec.

113.3

113.2

112.4

112.3

103.4

114.2
130.3
174.0
102.0
110.3
157.0
104.9

117.6
132.9
169.1
108.4
108.8
154.1
107.0

115.5
128.2
158.9
106.4
113.6
144.0
108.0

110.4
119.4
137.1
101.5
113.9
139.5
107.7

108.3
116.8
132.2
101.0
111.1
128.9
108.3

107.0

109.6
109.8

110.6
110.7

112.0
112.1

111.7
111.8

117.2
117.6

117.6
117.9

120.4
120.8

119.9
120.2

157.1
109.6
105.3
146.0
160.4
111.6

171.4
115.6
104.5
150.2
171.2
107.5

139.9
166.8
143.0
106.1
149.6
179.5
109.9
94.2
146.0

140.8
156.7
154.7
109.1
150.0
181.7
100.8
94.8
145.0

135.8
136.8
130./
109.9
148.6
182.1
103.6
94.8
150.4

142.6
146.7
139.3
111.1
157.3
192.9
106.7
98.8
163.5

143.0
149.9
129.8
114.6
170.7
193.5
115.5
99.2
157.2

139.1
156.3
111.5
117.7
177.6
193.3
117.4
99.3
150.5

136.7
157.8
109.5
117.3
177.5
194.3
116.4
97.7
138.4

82.1
92.0
97.2

79.5
92.9
89.2

79.4
93.4
88.4

81.7
93.7
94.5

86.0
94.3
105.4

87.9
95.6
108.7

91.1
96.4
116.5

97.3
101.6
93.7

101.5
104.3
99.1

91.5
95.7
87.1

90.3
91.8
88.2

87.3
89.6
84.4

83.8
84.6
81.6

86.7
88.0
84.4

121.6
144.6
110.1
106.3
113.6
109.8
137.5
101.7

124.9
153.3
111.5
105.9
120.2
116.4
138.2
104.1

125.5
150.8
113.0
107.5
122.4
119.9
132.5
105.4

125.5
149.6
115.5
109.0
125.3
119.4
125.8
108.4

121.9
145.0
116.5
108.9
124.7
108.0
118.6
109.4

117.7
134.0
118.3
109.3
122.4
108.9
111.6
109.5

115.0
127.3
117.3
108.5
122.9
94.8
111.1
110.2

117.7
125.1
108.8
129.0
107.9
110.8
143.5
107.6

119.6
128.6
109.4
130.2
108.6
115.6
111.4
149.1
109.9

120.6
125.0
110.4
131.1
111.6
116.8
112.1
150.0
110.9

122.6
118.3
113.0
132.5
113.9
120.4
116.0
151.7
112.6

123.1
120.7
112.9
133.7
115.4
122.4
117.2
145.8
113.9

122.8
121.7
113.4
132.9
115.8
123.9
116.7
140.4
114.4

122.6
125.0
114.0
131.0
116.9
124.1
116.2
136.9
115.5

104.0
108.4
103.6
110.8
108.1
95.7
104.6
103.4
104.9

104.8
108.5
104.7
111.0
109.3
96.8
104.1
105.3
105.4

105.8
109.3
106.0
114.4
110.3
96.4
105.1
105.7
106.8

106.7
111.8
107.3
115.7
112.7
95.8
106.7
106.1
107.2

107.2
112.8
108.8
117.3
113.3
94.8
107.5
106.5
107.8

107.9
114.0
109.9
117.7
114.2
94.8
108.7
106.9
108.8

108.6
114.3
111.3
118.6
115.3
94.5
110.3
107.0
110.0

109.6

109.7

111.9

113.5

114.7

114.8

116.0

108.1
111.4

108.9
111.7

110.5
114.2

111.4
114.3

112.8
117.3

113.6
117.3

114.8
118.6

111.1

112.5

113.9

135.1

104.1
110.4

June

111.6

145.0
87.2
104.3
158.1
102.8

86.7
71.9

106.7

Mar.

111.9

140.9
79.8
97.5
134.6

100.0

51
53
54
55
56
57
58

Dec.

109.5

138.5
77.4
100.5
145.2

Fats and oils....................................................
Animal oils and fats ..................................................
Fixed vegetable oils and fa ts ......................................

Sept.

118.7
137.0
175.9
108.5
109.9
161.0
105.2

Crude materials............................................
Raw hides and s k in s .........................................................................................
O ilse e d s .................................................
Crude ru b b e r.........................................................
W o o d ......................................................
Pulp and waste p a p e r........................................................................................
Textile fib e rs ...............................................
Crude m inerals...........................................
Metal ores and metal s c ra p ..................................

1989

June

108.5
105.4
108.4

118.0
104.1
105.2

125.7
105.2
126.2
106.5

100.9
105.4
95.5
101.9

106.7
95.8
102.8

- .
105.4

107 1

....

115.5

118.2

119.5

121.1

99.0

97.9

97.6

100.1

99.4

99.9

98.5

99.2

99.4

101.0

105.9

105.8

105.4

106.5

106.5

108.7

110.2

110.1

110.4

111.6

39.

U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification

(1985=100, unless otherwise indicated)

Category

1974
SITC

Meat and meat preparations.........................................................................
Dairy products and eggs ...............................................................................
Fish and crustaceans......................................................................................
Bakery goods, pasta products, grain, and grain preparations.................
Fruits and vegetables.....................................................................................
Sugar, sugar preparations, and ho n e y.........................................................
Coffee, tea, c o c o a ...........................................................................................

Beverages and tobacco............................................................................
Beverages.........................................................................................................

Crude materials..........................................................................................
Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaim ed).....................................
Cork and wood ................................................................................................
Pulp and waste p a p e r....................................................................................
Textile fib e rs .....................................................................................................
Crude fertilizers and crude m in e ra ls ............................................................
Metalliferous ores and metal s c ra p ..............................................................
Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s..............................................

Fuels and related products.....................................................................
Crude petroleum and petroleum pro d u c ts...................................................

Fats and oils...............................................................................................
Fixed vegetable oils and fats (9 /8 7 -1 0 0 ) ................................................

Chemicals and related products..............................................................
Organic che m ic a ls ...........................................................................................
Inorganic chem icals.........................................................................................
Medicinal and pharmaceutical p ro d u c ts ......................................................
Essential oils and p erfum e s..........................................................................
Manufactured fertilizers..................................................................................
Artificial resins and plastics and cellulose .................................................
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s.......................................................

Intermediate manufactured products.....................................................
Leather and furskins ......................................................................................
Rubber manufactures, n.e.s............................................................................
Cork and wood m anufactures.......................................................................
Paper and paperboard products...................................................................
T e xtile s..............................................................................................................
Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s.....................................................
Iron and s te e l...................................................................................................
Nonferrous m e ta ls ...........................................................................................
Metal m anufactures.........................................................................................

Machinery and transport equipment .....................................................
Machinery (including SITC 7 1 -7 7 )................................................................
Machinery specialized for particular in dustries..........................................
Metalworking m a chin ery................................................................................
General industrial machinery and parts, n.e.s.............................................
Office machines and automatic data processing equipm ent..................
Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing app a ra tu s......
Electrical machinery and equ ipm ent............................................................
Road vehicles and p a rts ................................................................................

Miscellaneous manufactured articles......................................................
Plumbing, heating, and lighting fix tu re s .......................................................
Furniture and p a rts .........................................................................................
Travel goods, handbags, and similar goods (6 /8 5 —100) .......................
C lo th in g .............................................................................................................
F oo tw ear...........................................................................................................
Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and
ap p a ra tu s .......................................................................................................
Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and
c lo c k s ...............................................................................................................
Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s.................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1988

1989

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

112.5
120.8

113.8
123.7

116.8
126.7

115.3
126.1

117.6
129.1

119.7
129.6

119.8
128.5

118.4
127.6

119.8
128.5

0
01
02
03
04
05
06
07

112.5
113.4
125.1
131.0
130.7
116.2
107.0
90.6

114.1
111.5
125.6
132.5
135.8
115.4
109.6
94.3

114.0
107.0
125.0
129.3
139.8
120.3
110.0
93.3

112.7
111.2
122.2
125.9
136.9
123.7
112.1
87.4

114.3
108.7
125.8
126.7
142.2
127.7
110.8
90.6

114.1
111.2
124.0
127.0
140.4
123.4
109.8
91.2

111.3
109.7
120.2
122.7
140.2
123.2
111.8
85.3

106.1
124.1
120.3
121.6
141.6
119.1
114.4
62.5

108.0
134.1
123.2
122.0
143.1
127.3
117.0
57.3

1
11

113.5
116.2

116.0
118.7

116.2
120.0

115.3
118.9

116.2
119.9

117.0
120.7

117.2
120.7

120.7
122.9

122.4
124.1

2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

122.1
120.1
108.8
141.0
135.2
99.9
137.9
118.3

129.2
121.7
112.4
151.0
137.8
100.4
151.2
135.8

137.8
151.1
111.4
160.5
145.5
101.0
167.6
148.2

135.4
133.3
109.7
169.6
141.9
97.2
172.2
122.0

143.2
121.5
107.8
174.7
145.6
100.2
205.4
139.5

146.2
123.0
112.1
184.7
151.5
103.3
204.3
138.5

144.3
103.4
112.4
190.0
145.4
104.7
212.3
110.3

137.2
98.3
113.5
190.1
141.7
101.2
183.4
108.6

136.1
98.5
111.6
189.6
140.2
98.0
176.6
129.4

3
33

67.2
67.8

60.6
60.4

63.4
63.6

57.7
57.7

56.4
56.1

66.8
67.3

73.3
74.4

68.8
69.5

73.3
74.1

4
42

102.1
105.7

106.4
111.1

111.2
116.1

114.0
119.2

112.3
117.4

112.5
117.3

117.4
122.6

106.7
110.7

100.7
104.2

5
51
52
54
55
56
58
59

110.1
103.0
90.1
126.3
123.0
133.6
117.6
124.8

114.2
105.8
92.0
135.3
125.7
133.7
121.6
138.7

116.4
107.3
92.3
140.3
126.2
136.3
124.3
148.5

119.2
111.3
93.0
145.4
127.5
136.5
127.6
153.4

122.2
115.1
96.1
146.4
130.5
139.9
129.5
156.5

123.6
117.6
93.1
154.9
130.3
143.5
129.5
154.8

120.4
114.0
86.6
153.5
130.2
142.1
129.8
151.6

117.7
110.3
85.7
149.2
127.2
132.4
130.8
150.2

118.9
112.8
86.0
149.7
135.3
130.5
130.6
150.6

6
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69

119.8
124.4
104.6
128.2
112.3
118.6
133.4
114.0
125.8
117.8

124.4
131.8
106.0
133.8
117.2
120.0
137.4
120.0
132.7
121.1

132.2
137.0
107.7
138.2
118.3
120.6
142.5
127.2
159.7
126.9

132.3
136.6
109.1
136.1
119.5
119.1
139.7
129.9
158.9
127.5

135.0
134.9
111.1
134.1
119.9
120.5
141.9
130.7
169.1
130.7

137.3
134.6
111.7
136.9
120.6
120.5
147.5
132.6
172.8
132.4

136.1
133.8
112.2
139.8
120.8
122.1
149.5
133.6
158.6
132.6

135.3
133.9
113.7
140.8
119.7
121.7
151.7
133.7
150.7
133.2

134.1
133.4
114.0
140.6
118.9
122.6
153.4
130.7
144.8
133.9

7
7hyb
72
73
74
75
76
77
78

123.1
122.6
142.1
135.5
137.0
118.3
112.1
118.2
122.6

125.4
124.6
146.8
139.9
140.4
118.1
112.8
122.2
125.5

127.3
126.4
149.8
142.4
143.7
119.5
113.8
124.2
127.6

126.7
125.9
143.7
139.7
139.6
118.7
113.9
125.9
127.1

129.9
128.7
150.8
144.1
144.2
118.7
115.5
129.3
130.8

130.1
129.2
149.1
142.9
144.7
119.6
115.7
130.5
130.5

129.2
128.4
145.7
139.5
143.0
119.3
115.7
129.6
129.6

129.0
127.8
145.7
143.9
143.7
117.2
115.0
128.7
129.5

130.1
128.0
148.1
144.3
145.3
117.5
113.7
128.9
131.9

8
81
82
83
84
85

121.8
121.0
124.3
103.0
112.3
124.3

124.2
123.4
125.4
105.8
115.6
125.4

125.7
126.9
129.6
107.3
114.9
129.6

124.2
124.5
128.0
111.3
116.7
128.0

126.6
127.2
129.1
115.1
117.2
129.1

126.6
130.0
127.2
117.6
118.5
127.2

126.6
131.5
127.9
114.0
119.9
127.9

127.2
133.0
128.8
110.3
120.8
128.8

128.9
136.6
131.0
112.8
122.3
131.0

87

138.7

140.0

142.5

135.8

141.9

141.1

136.5

136.3

137.3

88
89

127.3
127.3

129.2
129.2

129.3
132.1

125.4
128.2

130.6
131.4

130.2
131.7

127.9
131.4

126.3
131.9

128.7
133.8

ALL COMMODITIES ...................................................................................
ALL COMMODITIES, EXCLUDING FUELS.............................................
Food and live animals...............................................................................

1987

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

111

Current Labor Statistics:
40.

Price Data

U.S. export price indexes by end-use category

(1985 = 100 unless otherwise indicated)
1987

1988

1989

Category
Dec.
Foods, feeds, and beverages..........................................................................
Industrial supplies and m ate rials.....................................................................
Capital g o o d s ......................................................................................................
Automotive ..........................................................................................................
Consumer g o o d s ................................................................................................
Consumer nondurables, manufactured, except r u g s ................................
Consumer durables, manufactured ..............................................................
Agricultural (9 /8 8 = 1 0 0 ) ................................................................................
All exports, excluding agricultural (9 /8 8 —1 0 0 )...............................................

41.

Mar.

96.6
111.8
102.1
104.5
108.0
106.3
107.9
99.3
106.2

June

98.5
114.2
103.4
104.3
110.1
107.4
110.4
101.1
107.7

Sept.

110.1
118.3
104.3
104.8
110.6
108.7
110.4
110.9
109.7

Dec.

124.5
118.7
104.9
106.5
111.3
109.3
110.7
120.6
110.8

Mar.

117.4
118.6
105.7
107.7
112.9
110.0
112.6
114.0
111.6

June

120.8
120.7
106.7
108.1
115.3
111.4
115.4
117.7
112.9

Sept.

117.2
120.9
107.4
108.6
115.6
111.5
115.4
116.1
113.1

Dec.

110.3
119.5
108.2
109.4
116.5
111.7
116.5
111.2
113.0

108.2
118.7
108.8
110.8
117.1
112.9
116.8
109.8
113.1

U.S. import price indexes by end-use category

(1985 = 100)
1987

1988

1989

Category
Dec.
All imports, excluding petroleum (6/88 —100) ................................................
Foods, feeds, and beverages..........................................................................
Industrial supplies and m ate rials.....................................................................
Petroleum and petroleum products, excluding natural g a s .....................
Industrial supplies and materials, excluding p etroleu m ............................
Capital goods, except autom otive...................................................................
Automotive vehicles, parts and engines ........................................................
Consumer goods except autom otive..............................................................
Nondurables, manufactured ..........................................................................
Durables, m anufactured.................................................................................

42.

Mar.

120.3
112.1
93.7
67.6
115.6
126.6
120.6
121.4
120.2
121.0

June

123.2
113.7
92.7
60.3
119.6
128.6
123.7
124.2
123.3
123.5

Sept.

126.2
113.7
97.8
63.5
126.4
131.0
125.8
126.3
124.2
125.5

Dec.

125.4
112.7
95.2
57.5
126.4
129.0
126.0
125.0
123.8
124.5

Mar.

128.3
114.2
96.4
56.2
129.6
132.3
129.2
127.4
125.4
127.4

June

129.0
113.8
102.1
67.2
131.2
132.4
129.1
128.7
126.5
127.9

Sept.

Dec.

128.0
111.7
104.2
74.1
129.4
131.0
128.2
129.1
127.5
127.9

127.1
107.1
100.6
69.1
126.9
130.6
128.2
129.5
128.5
127.8

Sept.

Dec.

U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification 1

(1985 = 100)
1987

1988

1989

Industry group
Dec.
Manufacturing:
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts .....................................................
Lumber and wood products, except furn itu re ......................
Furniture and fix tu re s ...............................................................
Paper and allied p ro d u c ts .......................................................
Chemicals and allied products...............................................
Petroleum and coal p roducts.................................................
Primary metal p roducts............................................................
Machinery, except electrical ...................................................
Electrical m achin ery.................................................................
Transportation equipm ent........................................................
Scientific instruments; optical goods; c lo c k s .......................
1 SIC-based classification.

112

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

116.3
142.5
111.2
119.3
113.8
78.8
126.6
99.7
102.2
107.8
107.1

Mar.

120.8
146.1
112.5
124.6
118.4
73.0
126.9
100.6
102.9
108.1
109.2

June

125.1
145.4
112.9
129.8
122.3
77.8
133.8
101.3
103.7
109.1
110.8

Sept.

128.9
146.1
112.9
133.1
125.4
73.7
133.5
102.2
104.9
109.4
112.0

Dec.

123.5
144.0
115.3
135.6
125.5
75.4
133.6
102.8
105.4
110.9
113.4

Mar.

124.5
151.7
115.2
139.9
125.9
79.8
130.8
103.4
106.3
111.8
114.5

June

122.7
164.4
116.0
141.4
122.5
86.9
125.7
103.7
106.8
112.7
116.7

119.5
171.2
116.5
141.6
118.5
88.7
122.5
104.4
107.5
113.4
117.7

117.2
171.2
117.7
140.6
115.7
94.5
123.1
105.1
107.9
114.5
119.5

128.0
108.8
102.4
73.9
126.3
131.3
130.0
131.0
130.1
128.6

43.

U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification

(1985 = 100)
1989

1988

1987

Industry group

Manufacturing:
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ............................................................
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ........................................................................
Apparel and related products ........................................................
Lumber and wood products, except furn itu re .............................
Furniture and fix tu re s ......................................................................
Paper and allied products ..............................................................
Chemicals and allied p roducts.......................................................
Petroleum refining and allied p ro d u c ts ........................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics p ro d u c ts .............................
Leather and leather products ........................................................
Stone, clay, glass, and concrete p roducts..................................
Primary metal pro d u c ts ...................................................................
Fabricated metal products..............................................................
Machinery, except e lectrica l...........................................................
Electrical machinery and s upp lie s................................................
Transportation equipm ent...............................................................
Scientific instruments; optical goods; c lo c k s ..............................
Miscellaneous manufactured commodities .................................

June

Mar.

Dec.

114.0
127.4
116.6
119.5
122.2
119.1
116.8
114.5
117.2
120.8
138.2
122.6
127.3
135.9
114.7
127.3
135.8
127.7

110.6
124.3
113.4
115.4
118.9
113.6
112.2
127.4
115.7
118.4
133.9
120.0
123.2
133.9
112.5
124.6
134.0
123.8

Sept.

115.4
127.8
117.5
117.0
128.0
125.2
130.6
111.6
122.6
124.0
144.3
140.2
136.3
138.4
119.0
132.8
137.7
132.2

115.0
127.0
117.0
118.6
124.8
123.8
123.5
110.8
117.7
123.7
140.5
136.2
133.0
135.0
116.7
129.3
132.2
130.6

114.4
128.9
115.8
120.3
124.0
121.3
121.3
119.2
119.0
124.6
141.5
137.0
133.3
138.2
116.1
129.5
137.0
133.1

Mar.

Dec.

June

114.9
139.0
118.9
120.5
126.3
127.4
130.7
121.3
122.3
122.8
145.1
140.6
138.9
138.6
119.7
132.6
136.7
136.6

Sept.

Dec.

114.8
137.5
121.2
123.3
128.7
127.3
123.9
128.0
124.2
124.6
147.4
132.0
141.3
135.8
118.9
132.0
132.8
138.4

114.0
139.8
120.3
122.2
126.1
128.2
130.0
139.1
123.1
123.5
144.8
135.2
140.3
136.7
119.4
131.9
133.8
137.7

115.8
140.7
122.6
122.3
128.9
126.6
123.8
133.8
125.2
126.0
147.8
129.5
142.2
137.7
118.4
134.1
134.2
140.1

1 SIC - based classification.

44.

Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted

(1977 = 100)
Quarterly Indexes

Business:
Output per hour of all p e rs o n s....
Compensation per h o u r................
Real compensation per h o u r .......
Unit labor c o s ts ..............................
Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts...............
Implicit price d e fla to r....................

Nonfarm business:
Output per hour of all p e rs o n s....
Compensation per h o u r................
Real compensation per h o u r .......
Unit labor c o s ts ..............................
Unit nonlabor pay m e n ts...............
Implicit price d e fla to r....................

Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees
Compensation per h o u r...............
Real compensation per h o u r ......
Total unit c o s ts ..............................
Unit labor costs ..........................
Unit nonlabor c o s ts ....................
Unit p ro fits ......................................
Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts ...............
Implicit price deflator ....................

Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ....
Compensation per h o u r...............
Real compensation per h o u r ......
Unit labor c o s ts .............................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

-

III

IV

114.2
210.4
102.9
184.1
176.3
181.4

114.7
212.8
103.5
185.6
176.5
182.4

114.7
216.2
104.1
188.4
175.4
183.9

111.6
205.5
102.1
184.1
174.6
180.8

111.9
208.3
101.9
186.1
176.5
182.8

112.6
211.0
102.7
187.4
177.6
184.0

112.7
214.6
103.4
190.5
176.9
185.8

114.9
197.8
99.6
177.5
172.1
193.3
131.6
171.7
172.0

114.5
200.2
99.5
180.4
174.9
196.9
119.6
169.8
173.1

114.5
202.8
99.3
182.9
177.1
200.1
116.6
170.9
175.0

115.3
205.5
100.0
184.6
178.1
203.9
113.5
172.2
176.1

138.6
200.2
100.8
144.4

139.4
201.9
100.3
144.8

140.7
203.2
99.4
144.4

141.1
206.1
100.3
146.1

I

III

IV

112.6
199.1
102.5
176.9
168.8
174.1

113.4
201.9
102.8
178.0
171.8
175.8

113.5
204.5
103.0
180.2
173.7
177.9

113.8
206.9
102.8
181.9
174.7
179.4

111.0
195.0
101.5
175.7
170.3
173.8

110.5
197.5
101.7
178.7
169.8
175.6

111.5
200.2
101.9
179.6
172.1
177.0

112.0
203.0
102.3
181.3
176.3
179.6

113.5
189.5
99.6
172.1
167.0
187.2
122.0
164.4
166.1

114.6
190.9
99.4
171.9
166.6
187.8
127.0
166.5
166.5

114.7
193.1
99.5
173.6
168.4
188.9
129.1
168.0
168.2

115.1
195.5
99.5
175.2
169.9
191.0
127.5
168.8
169.5

134.7
191.7
100.7
142.3

135.5
194.3
101.2
143.4

136.3
195.3
100.6
143.3

137.8
197.4
100.5
143.2

I

III

IV

110.7
189.5
101.4
171.3
166.5
169.6

111.7
191.8
101.7
171.6
168.9
170.7

112.5
195.1
102.5
173.5
167.2
171.3

113.2
196.4
102.3
173.5
168.9
171.9

108.6
188.3
100.7
173.4
167.6
171.4

109.5
190.5
101.0
173.9
170.3
172.6

110.2
193.8
101.8
175.8
168.7
173.4

111.6
184.8
98.9
170.8
165.5
186.3
122.5
163.9
165.0

113.0
186.9
99.1
170.8
165.3
186.9
129.3
166.7
165.8

133.3
189.0
101.1
141.8

134.3
190.4
100.9
141.8

II

19Í39

1988

1987

Item

II

II

_
“
“

142.2
209.8
101.0
147.5

Data not available.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

113

Current Labor Statistics:
45.

Productivity Data

Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years

(1977 = 100)
Item

1960

1970

1973

1980

1982

1983

1985

1986

Private business
Productivity:
Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ....
Output per unit of capital services
Multifactor p roductivity...................
O u tp u t..................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons....................................
Capital services ............................................
Combined units of labor and capital input
Capital per hour of all persons.....................

67.3
103.7
78.5
55.3

88.4
102.7
93.1
80.2

95.9
105.6
99.2
93.0

82.2
53.3
70.5
64.9

90.8
78.1
86.1
86.1

96.9
88.0
93.7
90.8

70.7
104.9
81.2
54.4

89.2
103.5
93.8
79.9

96.4
106.3
99.7
92.9

106.0

77.0
51.9
67.1
67.4

89.6
77.2
85.2
86.2

96.3
87.3
93.2
90.7

105.1
104.0
104.7
99.0

62.2
103.0
72.0
52.5

80.8
99.1
85.3
78.6

84.4
51.0
72.9
60.4

97.3
79.3
92.1
81.5

100.8
101.9
105.8

99.2
94.1
97.4
106.6

100.3
86.6
95.2
105.4

103.0
88.3
97.6
109.9

105.6
92.7
100.9
119.2

107.9
92.9
102.4
124.3

110.3
93.0
103.9
128.7

93.7
104.7
133.4

105.0
103.8
104.6
98.9

107.5
113.3
109.4
105.4

105.2

106.7
124.4

110.7
115.8

116.6

112.9
128.6
118.1
113.9

115.2
133.8
121.4
116.1

116.7
138.5
123.9
118.7

142.4
127.4
118.6

100.8
101.9

98.7
93.3
96.9
106.6

99.1
85.1
94.1
104.8

102.5
87.3
97.0
110.1

104.7
91.3
99.9
119.3

106.2
91.0
100.7
124.0

108.3
90.8

108.0
114.2
105.7

105.7
123.3
111.4
116.6

107.4
126.1
113.5
117.4

114.0
130.6
119.4
114.6

105.9
81.6
99.2
98.4

112.0
86.7
105.0
104.7

118.1
95.5

92.9
120.5
99.2
129.8

101.2

121.8

112.6

111.2

120.0

Private nonfarm business
Productivity:
Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ..................
Output per unit of capital se rv ic e s ...........
Multifactor productivity................................
O u tp u t...............................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons....................................
Capital services ...........................................
Combined units of labor and capital input
Capital per hour of all persons.....................

101.2

110.0

128.3

109.1
91.5
102.7
133.2

116.8
136.3
123.1
116.7

118.5
141.3
125.8
119.3

145.5
129.6
119.2

123.6
130.1
98.6
127.6
105.3
129.4

102.0

122.0

Manufacturing
Productivity:
Output per hour of all p e rs o n s ....................
Output per unit of capital s e rv ic e s .............
Multifactor productivity..................................
O u tp u t.................................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons......................................
Capital services .............................................
Combined units of labor and capital inputs
Capital per hour of all persons.......................

114

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

93.4

101.5

112.0

102.0
101.6

98.0
96.3

106.0

101.4
91.0
98.6
103.2

103.1
86.0
98.3
83.4

104.4
103.9
104.2
99.5

101.7
113.4
104.6
111.5

93.5

120.8
99.7
129.3

112.1

123.6
97.3
116.4

117.5

122.0

127.7
98.4
119.5
124.7

99.5
123.0
104.8
123.7

98.7
125.4
104.8
127.1

97.7
126.8
104.4
129.8

131.9

102.0

46.

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years

(1977 = 100)
Item

1960

Business:

Real compensation per h o u r ...................................
Unit nonlabor p a y m e n ts...........................................

1970

1973

1978

1980

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

66.1
32.9
67.3
49.7
46.4
48.5

87.6
57.2
89.4
65.3
59.4
63.2

95.2
70.3
96.0
73.8
72.6
73.4

100.9
108.6
100.9
107.7
106.7
107.3

99.4
131.8
97.0
132.6
118.4
127.6

100.2
154.9
97.3
154.5
136.3
148.1

102.6
160.8
97.8
156.7
146.2
153.0

105.2
167.4
97.6
159.1
156.4
158.2

107.3
174.8
98.4
162.8
160.9
162.2

109.8
183.8
101.7
167.5
162.1
165.6

111.1
191.0
101.9
171.9
166.3
170.0

113.0
200.2
102.5
177.1
170.9
174.9

114.2
211.3
103.3
185.0
175.8
181.8

69.5
34.5
70.7
49.7
46.3
48.5

88.4
57.6
90.0
65.2
60.0
63.4

95.8
70.7
96.4
73.8
69.4
72.3

100.9
108.6
101.0
107.7
105.6
107.0

99.0
131.6
96.7
132.9
118.1
127.8

99.1
154.7
97.1
156.1
136.1
149.2

102.0
160.8
97.8
157.6
148.1
154.3

104.2
167.2
97.5
160.4
156.3
159.0

105.6
174.0
98.0
164.9
161.9
163.8

107.7
182.9
101.1
169.8
163.3
167.6

108.9
189.8
101.2
174.2
167.7
172.0

111.1
198.7
101.8
178.8
172.2
176.5

112.1
209.6
102.4
187.0
176.5
183.4

71.9
36.1
74.0
49.4
50.2
47.0
59.8
51.5
50.7

90.2
58.6
91.6
64.8
65.0
64.2
52.3
60.1
63.3

96.8
71.0
96.9
72.7
73.4
70.7
65.6
68.9
71.9

100.7
108.5
100.8
107.3
107.8
105.7
102.0
104.4
106.6

99.3
131.4
96.6
133.4
132.3
136.7
85.2
118.6
127.6

100.2
154.1
96.8
159.5
153.8
176.4
78.5
142.1
149.8

103.0
159.1
96.8
159.5
154.5
174.3
110.9
152.1
153.7

105.5
165.0
96.3
160.8
156.5
173.6
136.5
160.6
157.9

107.2
171.6
96.7
164.1
160.2
175.8
133.0
160.8
160.4

109.6
179.9
99.5
168.5
164.1
181.7
123.1
161.2
163.1

112.1
186.1
99.3
171.2
166.1
186.4
123.0
164.2
165.4

114.7
194.1
99.4
174.6
169.3
190.3
128.8
168.8
169.1

60.7
35.6
73.0
58.7
60.0
59.1

80.2
57.0
89.0
71.0
64.1
69.0

92.6
68.2
93.1
73.7
70.8
72.8

101.6
108.3
100.6
106.6
101.8
105.2

101.7
132.8
97.7
130.6
97.6
121.0

106.6
158.7
99.6
148.8
113.7
138.6

112.2
162.7
99.0
145.1
128.3
140.2

118.2
168.1
98.1
142.3
138.5
141.2

123.5
176.3
99.3
142.7
130.3
139.1

128.2
184.3
101.9
143.8
135.2
141.3

132.9
189.2
100.9
142.3
137.6
141.0

136.5
196.0
100.4
143.6
“

Nonfarm business:

Nonfinancial corporations:

Manufacturing:

—
-

____

“
"
“
“

140.3
204.4
99.9
145.7
“
“

Data not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

M onthly L abor R eview

M arch 1990

115

Current L abor S tatistics:
47.

P rodu ctivity D ata

Annual productivity indexes for selected industries

(1977 = 100)
Industry

116

SIC

1970

1975

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

Iron mining, crude o r e ....................................
Iron mining, usable ore ..................................
Copper mining, crude o r e ..............................
Copper mining, recoverable m e ta l...............
Coal m in in g .......................................................
Bituminous coal and lignite m in in g ...........
Nonmetallic minerals, except fu e ls ...............
Crushed and broken s to n e .........................

1011
1011
1021
1021
111,121
121
14
142

99.9
111.1
84.8
85.5
141.5
142.3
89.7
83.1

112.7
117.8
87.2
77.2
105.3
105.2
90.6
91.4

124.7
123.2
99.5
91.6
112.5
112.6
96.5
101.3

132.8
130.6
102.0
97.7
122.3
122.7
94.7
96.7

100.9
98.2
106.4
116.2
119.4
120.0
89.3
94.1

139.0
138.6
129.9
130.9
136.5
136.9
98.2
103.9

173.3
171.7
140.3
155.4
151.7
152.3
105.5
105.8

187.9
187.9
164.2
193.1
154.3
154.6
107.5
104.5

200.3
197.8
195.4
228.9
167.7
168.2
108.4
104.9

254.5
250.4
197.0
211.2
181.3
182.4
115.3
121.3

258.8
248.2
206.9
229.9
200.7
201.9
114.0
120.1

Red meat p ro d u cts.........................................
Meatpacking plants .......................................
Sausages and other prepared m e a ts .......
Poultry dressing and processing...................
Fluid m ilk ...........................................................
Preserved fruits and ve g e ta b le s ...................
Grain mill products..........................................
Flour and other grain mill p ro d u c ts ...........
Rice m illin g.....................................................
Bakery p ro d u c ts ..............................................
S u g a r..................................................................
Raw and refined cane s u g a r......................
Beet s u g a r......................................................
Malt beverages.................................................
Bottled and canned soft d rin k s .....................
Total tobacco p ro d u c ts ...................................
Cigarettes, chewing and smoking tobacco
C ig a rs...............................................................

2011,13
2011
2013
2016,17
2026
203
204
2041
2044
205
2061,62,63
2061,62
2063
2082
2086
2111,21,31
2111,31
2121

77.3
78.7
72.8
78.3
73.7
79.7
79.7
76.6
82.0
87.5
85.9
86.1
92.9
56.7
70.0
86.8
85.3
88.4

84.4
88.6
74.8
87.9
95.5
93.7
87.1
85.8
90.4
93.4
94.0
90.8
98.1
86.1
89.5
93.9
93.3
93.7

107.0
108.9
102.3
105.7
123.9
100.8
105.3
94.8
111.8
93.7
100.1
99.3
102.1
116.0
106.9
102.1
101.8
106.4

107.9
113.9
95.0
116.4
128.0
99.2
110.9
96.7
117.9
96.2
98.8
98.8
98.7
118.3
110.6
100.5
99.6
107.3

112.3
119.5
96.5
125.6
135.3
107.9
121.0
104.1
104.5
103.3
90.4
87.6
94.8
122.6
114.1
100.7
99.5
111.4

115.9
123.4
100.0
131.7
143.1
110.8
125.5
110.4
103.3
106.9
98.6
100.0
94.5
131.3
121.5
105.1
104.1
112.3

117,0
125.6
99.5
130.3
149.5
112.4
132.8
114.9
93.2
106.8
99.7
94.7
108.8
137.9
131.0
110.3
107.2
141.4

119.5
130.1
98.8
133.2
155.0
113.4
140.9
122.9
103.2
108.5
105.5
108.7
100.7
130.3
136.7
113.4
111.7
129.3

117.3
126.2
98.7
127.3
162.4
118.3
142.1
126.6
112.6
114.4
110.1
109.6
111.8
152.3
146.6
117.2
115.5
133.1

115.3
126.2
94.5
135.4
168.0
116.4
149.6
129.9
120.6
113.3
125.5
117.1
139.2
165.7
158.1
124.2
123.1
139.1

Cotton and synthetic broad woven fabrics ...
H o s ie ry ...............................................................
Nonwool yarn m ills ..........................................
Men’s and boys’ suits and c o a ts ...................
Sawmills and planing mills, general .............
M illw o rk ..............................................................
Veneer and plyw ood........................................
Household fu rn itu re .........................................
Wood household furn itu re ............................
Upholstered household fu rn itu re .................
Mattresses and bedsprings..........................
Office furn iture...................................................
Paper, paperboard, and pulp m ills .................
Paper and plastic b a g s ...................................
Folding paperboard b o x e s ..............................
Corrugated and solid fiber boxes ..................
Industrial inorganic chem ic a ls........................
Industrial inorganic chemicals, not
elsewhere cla ssified....................................
Synthetic fib e rs ..................................................
Pharmaceutical preparations...........................
Cosmetics and other to ile trie s ........................
Paints and allied p ro d u c ts ...............................
Industrial organic chemicals, not
elsewhere c la ssifie d ........................................
Agricultural chemicals ......................................
Petroleum re fin in g .............................................

2211,21
2251,52
2281
2311
2421
2431
2435,36
251
2511,7
2512
2515

65.5
84.3
75.1
90.0
95.9
83.2
82.2
83.5
84.4
67.7
78.2
77.5
75.8
77.4
73.1
~

86.7
94.3
101.2
95.2
98.8
100.2
97.8
97.5
98.0
97.2
96.9
85.5
86.7
99.8
98.5
96.2
86.5

105.0
107.4
99.7
97.3
104.2
93.6
102.8
99.9
97.2
102.3
112.1
112.1
105.2
94.6
101.6
111.0
94.3

107.4
122.0
103.1
98.8
107.9
96.4
106.9
103.0
97.3
110.5
114.0
108.8
104.4
92.3
104.5
109.8
91.4

112.5
114.2
118.2
95.2
117.1
86.1
114.4
104.7
98.2
115.9
104.3
107.4
111.3
95.3
104.2
111.9
86.3

121.6
118.0
128.5
90.2
126.8
87.9
121.1
110.1
103.8
121.6
108.6
112.0
119.5
102.9
104.5
114.0
94.0

119.8
119.9
129.6
96.9
132.3
88.7
120.0
112.2
105.5
122.7
109.5
117.8
121.0
105.6
102.4
118.9
104.5

123.7
118.5
134.5
106.3
139.2
85.7
125.1
112.5
104.4
124.6
108.8
116.7
123.1
107.1
99.6
122.5
101.4

132.8
121.0
141.1
107.5
155.1
90.0
128.8
118.5
111.9
127.1
117.9
117.8
133.5
112.3
101.4
126.7
105.4

132.1
118.3
162.6
105.8
151.1
94.1
132.1
118.3
110.5
125.2
130.9
118.7
138.0
110.5
98.1
123.3
107.5

84.0
84.5
92.5
94.0
94.2

90.3
115.7
106.0
83.6
100.8

89.3
120.9
104.2
76.1
99.8

80.8
103.6
107.0
84.0
106.5

85.8
126.2
114.3
86.2
113.8

95.0
125.3
116.4
85.2
121.5

91.5
135.8
118.1
87.3
125.6

90.6
146.2
121.8
94.3
127.7

92.0
156.4
120.9
96.2
135.3

85.3
86.7
88.7

98.9
97.2
94.2

103.9
97.7
83.7

87.2
94.5
79.4

105.3
106.2
81.8

113.9
119.8
92.5

112.5
115.6
102.6

119.6
110.0
113.8

132.1
129.4
120.1

91.8
86.2
101.3
98.5
84.7
91.0
89.1
93.1
95.5
91.9
97.5

102.4
95.7
99.1
105.2
87.0
97.6
94.0
84.9
109.6
90.4
93.1

118.1
98.5
95.6
110.1
91.1
100.7
97.3
84.3
111.1
88.5
95.4

128.2
110.1
106.4
105.8
94.0
102.6
103.3
88.6
100.0
91.0
90.6

136.1
107.2
103.9
108.5
108.4
105.4
101.1
85.5
121.6
97.6
93.7

146.8
110.5
105.7
128.0
125.3
111.3
110.4
93.3
115.1
99.2
96.3

146.7
113.0
107.3
127.0
128.3
112.8
112.6
100.4
114.1
100.5
97.4

151.4
114.1
109.3
138.9
135.5
115.6
114.5
98.7
122.9
105.9
100.1

162.2
125.4
104.7
153.6
143.8
119.9
120.0
104.9
121.9
102.1
104.5

102.9
90.8
99.8
99.8
103.7
105.3
100.0
94.1
100.0
102.6
98.4
99.7
102.1
90.6
99.9

112.0
92.7
91.6
90.0
118.6
124.4
103.8
97.9
96.8
108.1
95.2
94.6
98.5
90.4
101.4

90.9
93.7
89.0
88.4
128.0
128.5
103.0
106.0
99.2
118.5
92.8
102.3
99.5
96.0
98.1

116.8
98.3
89.9
90.2
141.2
138.3
111.5
121.1
110.4
120.5
88.8
93.2
103.0
99.7
104.7

131.3
106.8
98.8
103.5
148.0
151.9
125.4
128.1
116.2
123.0
89.5
102.0
107.9
102.8
110.4

139.5
104.2
95.6
101.0
181.5
189.8
125.4
122.0
115.6
125.6
90.1
101.6
117.7
106.3
104.7

141.8
107.4
100.3
104.3
210.8
229.2
134.0
130.4
125.0
126.0
89.2
105.0
117.7
104.1
108.7

152.3
108.8
95.0
104.3
259.8
296.9
133.3
135.5
128.4
132.6
93.9
109.3
117.7
104.9
115.6

102.8
93.3

105.4
95.1

101.3
94.9

103.6
105.1
95.1 | 105.2

104.5
101.5

104.4
103.0

110.8
109.6

2611,21,31,61
2643
2651
2653
281
2819 pt.
2823,24
2834
2844
2851

-

53.8
74.8
65.9
74.9

2869
287
2911

65.5

Tires and inner tu b e s .......................................
Miscellaneous plastic p ro d u c ts .......................
F o o tw e a r.............................................................
Glass c o n ta in e rs................................................
Hydraulic c e m e n t...............................................
Structural clay products ...................................
Clay construction p ro d u cts ..............................
Brick and structural clay tile .........................
Clay refractories.................................................
Concrete products .............................................
Ready-mixed concrete ......................................

3011
3079
314
3221
3241
325
3251,53,59
3251
32bb
3271,72
3273

87.6

Steel .....................................................................
Gray iron fo u n d rie s............................................
Steel foundries ...................................................
Steel foundries, not elsewhere classified ....
Primary copper, lead, and zinc ........................
Primary c o p p e r................................................
Primary alum inum ...............................................
Copper rolling and drawing ..............................
Aluminum rolling and drawing ..........................
Metal c a n s ...........................................................
Hand and edge to o ls .........................................
Heating equipment, except e le c tric .................
Fabricated structural m e ta l...............................
Metal doors, sash, and trim ..............................
Metal stam p ings..................................................

331
3321
3324,25
3325
3331,32,33
3331
3334
3351
3353,54,bb
3411
3423
3433
3441
3442
3465,66,69

102.2
82.1
86.4

93.3
97.0
107.5
107.7
85.3
83.0
96.2
76.8
87.5
87.0
93.9
80.4
97.4
89.3
93.2

Valves and pipe fittin g s .....................................
Farm and garden m achin ery............................

3494
352

93.6
75.7

92.4
97.7

M onthly L abor R eview


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

M arch 1990

73.8

100.3
87.2
84.8
78.2
77.4
81.1
82.1
82.3
91.1
87.6
79.8
90.6
78.1
79.8
92.5
76.8
66.0
78.8
91.0

125.7

176.1

132.3
113.7
126.3
118.9
138.2
163.6
166.7
120.3
119.9
129.3
131.4
126.9
161.1
109.9
148.7

124.5

123.7
113.9
142.8
98.7
124.3

156.6
116.8
138.2

125.7
169.7
100 6
153.3
147.6
120.6
104.9

168 3

111.0
338.0
134.9
135.7
128.4
143.2

-

-

4 7 . C o n tin u e d —

Annual productivity indexes for selected industries

(1977 = 100)

________________________________
Industry

SIC

1975

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

107.1
73.2
97.7
97.6
97.1
108.3
95.6
101.5
111.1

100.8
75.6
110.8
112.4
105.9
115.4
103.6
107.9
118.8

101.6
72.0
100.2
93.3
112.9

3531
3533
3541,42
3541
3542
3561,63
3562
3585
3592

83.4
86.4
91.7
89.5
98.5
85.8
85.5
88.4

93.9
107.9
103.0
102.9
104.0
91.4
97.5
89.9
100.1

97.4
104.0
98.8
100.6
93.5
100.2
95.4
93.8
90.3

96.1
104.7
96.5
98.9
89.4
102.4
94.3
99.4
91.7

88.9
98.4
88.0
89.2
85.0
95.9
83.3
100.1
92.0

88.2
91.8
83.0
81.1
87.6
100.2
86.3
100.9
99.6

102.6
87.5
93.6
93.3
93.7
106.1
94.4
105.5
110.3

104.1
79.9
96.7
96.4
96.6
106.8
92.1
103.7
114.0

3612
3613
3621
3631,32,33,39
3631
3632
3633

89.1
83.3
87.8
70.2
68.7
71.7
70.7

89.3
93.4
93.0
93.6
97.8
94.5
93.6

110.6
103.2
96.7
105.8
103.9
114.4
102.1

106.9
99.5
100.4
107.6
105.7
117.4
103.9

99.6
101.3
102.4
108.6
112.6
116.1
105.4

99.1
106.1
104.3
117.6
120.8
127.1
112.2

97.6
107.4
107.9
123.6
131.9
127.5
117.5

99.3
110.6
110.5
127.2
135.6
136.8
118.2

100.4
110.7
112.3
134.1
158.4
133.5
123.1

101.5
109.3
119.2
137.2
168.5
129.0
125.3

103.1

3639
3641
3645,46,47,48
3651
3674
371
3825

70.4
88.3
78.1
70.6

_
_

88.8
96.4
89.2
90.1
56.0
87.7
95.9

99.1
103.2
93.3
116.9
149.4
90.8
108.4

100.4
106.9
88.7
133.6
171.6
93.1
111.9

94.7
108.4
91.0
163.9
197.9
96.9
119.2

103.7
124.8
96.3
196.1
211.5
109.6
121.8

109.8
131.9
102.2
236.9
229.2
115.7
133.7

110.0
126.9
107.1
249.8
206.1
121.2
130.4

113.1
131.1
113.9
278.1
210.5
121.7
122.2

120.1
144.5
109.9
257.7
260.1
129.1
132.2

117.7
150.4
109.8
258.5
“
133.8

401 Class I
401 Class I
411,13,14 pts.
4213 pt.
4213 pt.
4511,4521 pt.
4612,13
4811
491,92,93
491,493 pt.
492,493 pt.

77.7
89.1
107.3
83.5
76.8
71.4
79.5
62.1
83.1
77.1
102.1

89.5
98.3
97.0
89.2
88.4
87.6
95.7
85.9
94.7
92.9
101.4

107.3
107.9
100.9
107.7
107.5
106.2
93.0
118.1
96.2
94.0
102.1

111.5
107.6
90.7
116.3
117.2
104.9
86.0
124.4
94.4
93.0
98.1

115.8
110.1
98.8
108.0
107.8
114.9
89.2
129.1
89.3
89.5
89.0

141.9
128.9
95.4
130.7
136.0
126.7
94.3
145.1
88.4
90.9
81.1

152.9
137.7
90.9
135.1
137.6
131.7
104.5
143.0
91.6
94.4
83.6

161.7
138.9
87.4
130.2
131.7
136.3
104.9
149.8
90.9
93.5
82.1

178.1
148.2
86.8
134.5
140.9
137.9
107.0
161.3
90.6
95.8
74.1

206.4
167.5
90.6
138.9
144.9
146.1
104.9
165.9
93.5
100.7
71.6

226.5
179.4
~
“
*
140.8
109.9
176.7
97.9
105.6
74.7

74.6
81.3
82.7
76.5
75.2
95.3

97.8
89.7
122.5
98.8
98.6
93.1
95.0
89.9
85.3
105.0
102.3
106.5
109.5
95.1

111.6
103.8
107.8
100.3
100.1
102.5
99.6
106.7
105.1
117.9
107.1
117.9
123.7
110.3

107.5
109.9
118.8
97.1
97.9
97.9
98.1
109.2
106.7
123.9
116.4
127.8
132.4
114.2

109.2
112.4
113.0
95.5
97.9
90.6
100.4
107.2
111.8
126.4
116.6
142.0
140.7
110.2

111.4
119.5
121.5
95.2
98.6
88.4
109.4
118.9
122.5
132.9
119.5
151.3
149.2
107.9

121.1
126.6
126.8
95.6
100.1
78.9
110.4
118.4
129.1
140.9
125.1
158.3
145.8
110.9

124.6
129.2
118.5
95.8
98.4
69.8
109.7
124.7
134.3
146.3
131.4
162.8
138.5
118.7

137.4
135.3
101.1
93.7
96.3
73.6
110.7
125.6
143.9
153.5
135.0
176.4
136.0
127.5

140.3
138.5
97.2
92.7
93.8
78.9
107.4
134.1
139.8
142.3
134.0
166.1
128.8
119.9

150.6
141.7
93.8
91.8
92.1
76.9
111.8
136.6
141.5
141.2
133.7
162.8
128.0
118.2

57
571

80.1
79.3

91.9
90.1

107.4
98.0

112.6
101.2

109.2
97.6

118.4
104.1

129.4
113.1

133.5
108.7

144.4
115.5

146.8
113.0

154.4
111.0

572,73
572
573

81.2

94.8
89.5
98.0

124.0
109.9
131.5

132.4
114.9
140.5

128.7
102.0
142.4

143.4
111.8
159.5

158.5
139.2
165.9

180.0
154.6
190.2

198.9
177.2
206.5

211.9
172.1
226.7

243.2
177.2
269.5

58
5912
5921
602
7011
721
7231,41
7231
753

100.6
83.4

100.8
94.2
96.3
90.0
89.7
96.6
98.7
100.1
102.0

99.8
107.0
102.2
92.7
95.0
91.0
102.9
106.2
95.9

97.3
107.6
104.0
90.5
91.6
88.4
109.2
114.7
93.3

96.9
107.9
108.1
93.2
88.8
90.6
108.3
113.1
87.4

95.3
110.9
101.6
101.3
95.4
90.4
114.0
120.1
86.1

91.1
105.7
98.7
104.3
102.1
92.3
103.9
112.3
88.3

87.9
105.5
107.1
109.7
97.5
87.3
98.6
104.1
96.1

89.7
104.6
98.0
111.8
92.8
85.0
97.3
98.8
93.2

90.7
103.8
91.6
116.5
88.0
84.1
99.1
100.1
96.1

91.3
105.3
88.5
“
“
83.8
96.0
96.2
101.1

Household appliances, not elsewhere

5251
5311
5331
54
5411
546
5511
5531
5541
56
5611
5621
5651
5661
Furniture, furnishings, and equipment

Appliance, radio, television, and music


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1970

_

70.5

77.5
124.9
107.0

86.1
-

_
-

85.5
85.1
94.7

-

Monthly Labor Review

106.3
“

”
117.4
138.9
170.9
131.2
129.8

”

March 1990

117

Current Labor Statistics:

International Comparisons Data

48. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data
seasonally adjusted
Annual average

1988

1989

Country
1988

1989

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

Total labor force basis
United S ta te s ........................................
Canada ..................................................
Australia ................................................
Japan .....................................................

5.4
7.7
7.2
2.5

France ...................................................
G erm any................................................
Italy 1, 2 ..................................................
Sweden .................................................
United Kingdom ....................................

10.1
6.2
7.8
1.6
8.2

5.2
-

_
-

5.4
7.6
7.4
2.5

5.4
7.8
6.9
2.6

5.2
7.7
6.8
2.4

5.1
7.5
6.6
2.4

5.2
7.6
6.1
2.3

5.2
7.3
6.0
2.3

5.3
7.5
5.9

10.1
6.3
7.7
1.6
8.6

10.2
6.2
7.8
1.6
8.0

10.0
6.1
7.7
1.4
7.5

9.9
5.7
7.6
1.4
7.0

9.9
5.6
7.8
1.3
6.5

9.9
5.6
7.7
1.3
6.2

9.8
5.5
7.5
1.4
5.8

5.5

5.3
6.8
2.4

5.2
7.6
6.6
2.4

5.3
7.6
6.1
2.3

5.3
7.4
6.0
2.3

5.3
7.6
5.9

10.2
6.2
7.8
1.4
7.6

10.1
5.8
7.8
1.4
7.0

10.1
5.7
8.0
1.3
6.6

10.2
5.7
7.8
1.3
6.2

10.1
5.6

Civilian labor force basis
United S ta te s ........................................
Canada ..................................................
Australia ................................................
Japan .....................................................

5.5
7.8
7.2
2.5

France ....................................................
G erm any................................................
Italy1, 2 ....................................................
Sweden .................................................
United Kingdom ....................................

10.4
6.3
7.9
1.6
8.3

5.3
-

7 .7

-

7.5
2.5

5.5
7.8
7.0
2.6

10.4
6.4
7.9
1.6
8.6

10.4
6.3
7.9
1.6
8.0

-

_
-

-

1 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter.
2 Many Italians reported as unemployed did not actively
seek work in the past 30 days, and they have been ex­
cluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Inclusion of
such persons would about double the Italian unemployment
rate in 1985 and earlier years and increase it to 11-12 per­
cent for 1986 onward.

118

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

7 .7

7 .7

1.4
5.9

- Data not available.
NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, and the
United Kingdom are calculated by applying annual adjust­
ment factors to current published data and therefore should
be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under
U.S. concepts than the annual figures.

49. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts,
10 countries
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment status and country

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

Labor force
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
A u stralia.......................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Ita ly ...............................................................................
N etherlands.................................................................
S w e d e n ........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

1986

1987

1988

106,940
11,573
6,693
55,740
22,800
26,520
21,120
5,860
4,312
26,520

108,670
11,899
6,810
56,320
22,950
26,650
21,320
6,080
4,327
26,590

110,204
11,926
6,910
56,980
23,160
26,700
21,410
6,140
4,350
26,720

111,550
12,109
6,997
58,110
23,140
26,650
21,590
6,170
4,369
26,750

113,544
12,316
7,135
58,480
23,300
26,760
21,670
6,260
4,385
27,170

115,461
12,532
7,300
58,820
23,360
26,970
21,800
6,280
4,418
27,370

117,834
12,746
7,588
59,410
23,440
27,090
22,290
6,370
4,443
27,540

119,865
13,011
7,758
60,050
23,540
28,360
22,350
6,490
4,480
27,860

121,669
13,275
7,974
60,860
23,580
28,540
22,660
6,540
4,530
28,110

63.8
64.1
62.1
62.6
57.2
53.2
48.2
55.3
66.9
62.5

63.9
64.8
61.9
62.6
57.1
52.9
48.3
56.6
66.8
62.2

64.0
64.1
61.7
62.7
57.1
52.6
47.7
56.5
66.8
62.2

64.0
64.4
61.4
63.1
56.6
52.3
47.5
56.1
66.7
61.9

64.4
64.8
61.5
62.7
56.6
52.4
47.3
56.2
66.6
62.5

64.8
65.3
61.6
62.3
56.3
52.6
47.2
55.7
66.9
62.6

65.3
65.7
62.8
62.1
56.1
52.6
47.8
55.9
67.0
62.6

65.6
66.2
63.0
61.9
55.8
55.0
47.9
56.3
67.3
63.0

65.9
66.7
63.3
61.9
55.6
55.2
48.4
56.2
67.8
63.3

99,303
10,708
6,284
54,600
21,330
25,750
20,200
5,510
4,226
24,670

100,397
11,001
6,416
55,060
21,200
25,560
20,280
5,540
4,219
23,800

99,526
10,618
6,415
55,620
21,240
25,140
20,250
5,510
4,213
23,720

100,834
10,675
6,300
56,550
21,170
24,750
20,320
5,410
4,218
23,610

105,005
10,932
6,494
56,870
20,980
24,790
20,390
5,490
4,249
23,990

107,150
11,221
6,697
57,260
20,920
24,960
20,490
5,640
4,293
24,310

109,597
11,531
6,974
57,740
20,950
25,230
20,610
5,730
4,326
24,460

112,440
11,861
7,129
58,320
21,010
26,550
20,590
5,840
4,396
25,010

114,968
12,244
7,398
59,310
21,140
26,730
20,870
5,920
4,458
25,780

59.2
59.3
58.3
61.3
53.5
51.7
46.1
52.0
65.6
58.1

59.0
59.9
58.4
61.2
52.8
50.8
45.9
51.6
65.1
55.7

57.8
57.1
57.3
61.2
52.3
49.6
45.2
50.7
64.7
55.2

57.9
56.8
55.3
61.4
51.8
48.6
44.7
49.2
64.4
54.7

59.5
57.5
56.0
61.0
51.0
48.5
44.5
49.3
64.5
55.2

60.1
58.5
56.5
60.6
50.4
48.7
44.4
50.0
65.0
55.6

60.7
59.4
57.7
60.4
50.2
49.0
44.2
50.2
65.2
55.6

61.5
60.4
57.9
60.1
49.8
51.5
44.1
50.6
66.0
56.6

62.3
61.6
58.7
60.4
49.9
51.7
44.6
50.9
66.7
58.0

7,637
865
409
1,140
1,470
770
920
350
86
1,850

8,273
898
394
1,260
1,750
1,090
1,040
540
108
2,790

10,678
1,308
495
1,360
1,920
1,560
1,160
630
137
3,000

10,717
1,434
697
1,560
1,970
1,900
1,270
760
151
3,140

8,539
1,384
641
1,610
2,320
1,970
1,280
770
136
3,180

8,312
1,311
603
1,560
2,440
2,010
1,310
640
125
3,060

8,237
1,215
613
1,670
2,490
1,860
1,680
640
117
3,080

7,425
1,150
629
1,730
2,530
1,800
1,760
650
84
2,850

6,701
1,031
576
1,550
2,440
1,810
1,790
620
72
2,330

7.1
7.5
6.1
2.0
6.4
2.9
4.4
6.0
2.0
7.0

7.6
7.5
5.8
2.2
7.6
4.1
4.9
8.9
2.5
10.5

9.7
11.0
7.2
2.4
8.3
5.8
5.4
10.3
3.1
11.2

9.6
11.8
10.0
2.7
8.5
7.1
5.9
12.3

7.5
11.2
9.0
2.8
10.0
7.4
5.9
12.3
3.1
11.7

7.2
10.5
8.3
2.6
10.4
7.5
6.0
10.2
2.8
11.2

7.0
9.5
8.1
2.8
10.6
6.9
7.5
10.0
2.6
11.2

6.2
8.8
8.1
2.9
10.8
6.4
7.9
10.0
1.9
10.2

5.5
7.8
7.2
2.5
10.4
6.3
7.9
9.5
1.6
8.3

Participation rate1
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
A u stralia.......................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
F ra n c e ..........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Ita ly ...................................... ;.......................................
N etherlands.................................................................
S w e d e n ........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

Employed
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
A u stralia.......................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
F ra n ce ..........................................................................
G erm any................................................ .....................
Ita ly ...............................................................................
N etherlands.................................................................
S w e d e n ........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

Employment-population ratio2
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
A u stralia.......................................................................
F rance..........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
N etherlands.................................................................
S w e d e n ........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

Unemployed
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
A u stralia.......................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
F ra n ce ..........................................................................
G e rm any......................................................................
Ita ly ...............................................................................
N etherlands.................................................................
S w e d e n ........................................................................
United K ingdom ..........................................................

Unemployment rate
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
A u stralia.......................................................................

G e rm any......................................................................
N etherlands.................................................................
S w e d e n ........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

1 Labor force as a percent of the civilian working-age population.
2 Employment as a percent of the civilian working-age population.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

11.7

NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for information on breaks in series
for Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

119

Current Labor Statistics:
50.

International Comparisons Data

Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries

(1977 = 100)
Item and country

1960

1970

1973

1977

1978

1979

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

60.7
50.7
23.2
33.0
37.2
37.4
40.3
37.2
32.4
54.3
42.3
55.9

80.2
75.6
64.8
60.4
65.6
71.4
71.2
69.8
64.3
81.3
80.7
80.3

92.6
90.3
83.1
78.8
83.3
83.8
84.0
83.4
81.5
94.4
94.8
95.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.6
101.1
108.0
106.1
101.5
104.6
103.1
106.5
106.4
101.2
102.8
101.4

101.6
102.0
114.8
112.0
106.5
109.7
108.2
116.6
112.3
107.4
110.9
102.5

104.0
102.9
127.2
127.6
114.2
113.9
111.0
125.4
116.9
108.0
113.2
107.1

106.6
98.3
135.0
135.2
114.6
122.0
112.6
128.5
119.4
109.2
116.5
113.5

112.2
105.4
142.3
148.1
120.2
125.1
119.2
135.3
127.9
117.2
125.5
123.1

118.2
114.4
152.5
155.0
119.6
127.5
123.7
148.8
139.2
124.1
131.0
129.9

123.5
117.3
161.1
158.6
120.3
132.7
128.4
156.8
145.1
126.8
136.1
134.1

128.2
117.7
163.7
164.5
116.2
135.2
128.3
158.3
144.8
125.9
136.0
138.6

132.9
120.5
176.5
170.5
117.2
136.8
129.9
162.3
145.9
132.2
141.8
147.6

136.5
124.3
190.0

52.5
41.3
19.2
41.9
49.2
36.5
50.0
33.0
44.8
54.8
52.6
71.2

78.6
73.5
69.9
78.6
82.0
75.5
86.6
69.0
84.4
86.5
92.5
94.9

96.3
93.5
91.9
96.4
95.9
90.5
96.1
83.5
95.8
99.2
100.3
104.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

106.0
104.6
106.7
101.4
99.7
102.3
101.8
104.9
102.8
97.7
97.3
100.6

108.1
108.5
113.9
104.2
105.4
105.3
106.6
115.7
106.1
100.5
103.6
100.5

104.8
107.4
129.8
105.6
106.6
102.9
104.9
119.9
106.7
98.6
100.6
86.3

98.4
93.6
137.3
110.1
108.3
104.0
102.4
118.7
105.0
96.8
100.1
86.4

104.7
99.6
148.2
114.7
115.6
103.8
103.6
119.7
107.0
97.2
105.2
88.8

117.5
112.5
165.4
118.0
121.0
102.6
106.4
125.3
113.3
102.7
111.5
92.5

122.0
118.8
177.0
119.6
124.9
103.0
110.0
129.0
116.7
106.5
115.3
94.8

124.7
121.9
177.8
121.4
125.9
102.8
110.8
131.9
118.1
106.9
114.7
95.6

130.1
128.5
190.8
123.3
121.1
101.8
111.6
137.3
118.7
108.3
119.2
101.0

86.5
81.4
82.7
127.1
132.4
97.6
123.8
88.9
138.4
101.1
124.4
127.3

97.9
97.2
107.9
130.2
125.1
105.7
121.7
98.9
131.2
106.4
114.6
118.1

104.0
103.6
110.7
122.3
115.2
107.9
114.4
100.1
117.6
105.1
105.7
109.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

104.3
103.4
98.8
95.5
98.3
97.8
98.7
98.5
96.6
96.5
94.6
99.1

106.3
106.3
99.3
93.0
99.0
95.9
98.5
99.3
94.4
93.6
93.4
98.0

100.8
104.3
102.0
82.8
93.4
90.3
94.6
95.6
91.2
91.3
88.9
80.6

92.3
95.2
101.7
81.4
94.5
85.2
91.0
92.4
88.0
88.6
85.9
76.2

93.4
94.5
104.2
77.5
96.2
83.0
86.9
88.5
83.6
82.9
83.9
72.2

99.4
98.3
108.5
76.1
101.2
80.4
86.1
84.2
81.4
82.8
85.1
71.2

98.7
101.2
109.8
75.4
103.8
77.6
85.7
82.3
80.5
84.0
84.7
70.7

97.3
103.6
108.6
73.8
108.4
76.1
86.4
83.3
81.5
84.9
84.3
69.0

97.9
106.6
108.1
72.3
103.3
74.4
85.9
84.6
81.3
81.9
84.0
68.5

35.6
27.5
8.9
13.8
12.6
15.0
18.8
9.2
12.5
15.8
14.7
15.2

57.0
47.9
33.9
34.9
36.3
36.3
48.0
27.1
39.0
37.9
38.5
31.4

68.2
60.0
55.1
53.5
56.1
51.9
67.5
41.2
60.5
54.6
54.2
47.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

108.3
107.6
106.6
107.8
110.2
113.0
107.8
115.2
108.4
110.0
111.4
116.7

118.9
118.6
113.4
117.4
123.1
128.4
116.1
139.5
117.0
116.0
120.1
139.0

145.7
151.1
129.8
144.5
149.7
172.0
134.5
197.9
129.1
142.8
148.1
193.4

158.7
167.0
136.6
150.7
162.9
204.0
141.0
233.3
137.5
156.1
158.9
211.7

162.7
177.2
140.7
159.8
174.2
225.2
148.3
273.1
144.5
173.5
173.3
226.6

168.1
185.6
144.9
173.1
184.1
244.9
155.5
313.3
148.6
188.3
189.7
242.3

176.3
194.4
151.4
183.6
196.5
265.4
164.6
352.0
156.9
204.3
212.4
258.8

184.3
203.5
158.9
190.8
203.5
278.7
171.5
367.4
162.2
224.2
228.7
277.8

189.2
214.0
162.5
194.7
225.9
291.4
178.1
391.2
167.0
257.4
244.8
295.7

58.7
54.2
38.4
41.7
33.8
40.2
46.6
24.7
38.5
29.2
34.8
27.2

71.0
63.4
52.3
57.8
55.4
50.8
67.4
38.8
60.7
46.6
47.7
39.1

73.7
66.5
66.4
67.9
67.4
62.0
80.3
49.4
74.3
57.8
57.2
50.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

106.6
106.5
98.7
101.6
108.6
108.0
104.5
108.1
101.8
108.7
108.4
115.0

117.0
116.2
98.8
104.8
115.7
117.0
107.3
119.7
104.1
108.1
108.3
135.6

140.1
146.7
102.0
113.2
131.1
151.0
121.2
157.8
110.4
132.2
130.9
180.6

148.8
170.0
101.2
111.5
142.2
167.2
125.2
181.6
115.2
142.9
136.3
186.5

145.1
168.1
98.9
107.9
144.9
179.9
124.4
201.9
113.0
148.0
138.1
184.1

142.3
162.3
95.0
111.7
153.9
192.0
125.8
210.6
106.8
151.8
144.8
186.5

142.7
165.7
94.0
115.8
163.3
200.0
128.3
224.5
108.1
161.1
156.1
193.0

143.8
172.8
97.1
116.0
175.1
206.2
133.7
232.0
112.0
178.1
168.2
200.4

142.3
177.5
92.1
114.2
192.8
213.0
137.1
241.0
114.4
194.7
172.6
200.4

58.7
59.4
28.5
30.0
29.5
40.3
25.9
35.1
25.1
21.8
30.1
43.7

71.0
64.5
39.1
41.7
44.4
45.2
42.9
54.7
41.2
34.7
41.1
53.7

73.7
70.6
65.6
62.7
67.2
68.6
70.4
75.0
65.6
53.5
58.7
70.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

106.6
99.3
126.8
115.8
118.4
117.9
121.0
112.4
115.7
110.4
107.2
126.5

117.0
105.4
121.3
128.1
132.0
135.2
135.9
127.2
127.4
113.6
112.9
164.9

140.1
130.0
123.8
109.6
110.3
136.4
124.9
122.4
108.9
122.5
115.4
209.6

148.8
146.3
108.8
87.2
102.3
124.9
119.7
118.4
105.8
117.8
96.9
186.8

145.1
144.9
111.5
75.6
95.1
116.1
113.1
117.3
97.1
107.9
80.4
160.0

142.3
133.2
107.2
69.3
89.3
108.1
102.6
105.9
81.6
99.0
78.2
142.9

142.7
128.9
105.6
69.9
92.5
109.5
101.2
103.8
80.0
99.8
81.1
143.5

143.8
132.1
154.4
93.1
129.9
146.3
143.0
137.4
112.2
124.7
105.4
168.6

142.3
142.3
170.5
109.5
169.0
174.2
177.0
164.0
138.6
153.7
121.5
188.3

Output per hour
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
B e lgium ........................................................................
D e nm a rk......................................................................
F ra n ce ..........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Ita ly ...............................................................................
N e therlands.................................................................
Nonway.........................................................................
S w e d e n ........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

117.2
144.1
135.9
167.1
153.2
145.0
154.9

Output
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
B e lgium ........................................................................
D e nm a rk......................................................................
F ra n ce ..........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Ita ly ...............................................................................
N etherlands.................................................................
Nonway.........................................................................
S w e d e n ........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

138.1
136.0
212.3
118.4
105.7
116.3
145.3
123.8
124.0
108.2

Total hours
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
B elgium ........................................................................
D e n m a rk......................................................................
France ..........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Ita ly ...............................................................................
N etherlands.................................................................
N o rw ay.........................................................................
S w eden........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

101.2
109.4
111.7
101.0
73.4
85.5
87.0
80.8
85.5
69.8

Compensation per hour
United S ta te s ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
B e lgium ........................................................................
D e nm a rk......................................................................
F ra n ce ..........................................................................
G erm any......................................................................
Ita ly ...............................................................................
N etherlands.................................................................
N o rw ay.........................................................................
S w e d e n ........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

196.0
227.1
171.3
230.1
301.9
185.5
416.3
172.8
261.1
319.3

Unit labor costs: National currency basis
United States ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
B e lgium ........................................................................
D e n m a rk......................................................................
France ..........................................................................
G e rm any......................................................................
Ita ly ...............................................................................
N etherlands.................................................................
Nonway.........................................................................
S w eden........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

143.6
182.7
90.2
196.3
209.6
136.4
249.1
112.8
180.0
206.2

Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis
United States ..............................................................
Canada ........................................................................
Japan ...........................................................................
B e lgium ........................................................................
D e n m a rk......................................................................
France ..........................................................................
G e rm any......................................................................
Ita ly ................................................................................
N etherlands.................................................................
N o rw ay.........................................................................
S w eden ........................................................................
United K ingdo m ..........................................................

Monthly Labor Review
Digitized for120
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

143.6
157.8
188.4
174.8
172.9
180.3
168.8
139.9
131.1
210.5

51.

O c c u p a t i o n a l i n j u r y a n d il l n e s s i n c i d e n c e r a t e s b y i n d u s t r y , U n i t e d S t a t e s
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2
Industry and type of case1
1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

PRIVATE SECTOR3
8.7
4.0
65.2

8.3
3.8
61.7

7.7
3.5
58.7

7.6
3.4
58.5

8.0
3.7
63.4

7.9
3.6
64.9

7.9
3.6
65.8

8.3
3.8
69.9

8.6
4.0
76.1

11.9
5.8
82.7

12.3
5.9
82.8

11.8
5.9
86.0

11.9
6.1
90.8

12.0
6.1
90.7

11.4
5.7
91.3

11.2
5.6
93.6

11.2
5.7
94.1

10.9
5.6
101.8

11.2
6.5
163.6

11.6
6.2
146.4

10.5
5.4
137.3

8.4
4.5
125.1

9.7
5.3
160.2

8.4
4.8
145.3

7.4
4.1
125.9

8.5
4.9
144.0

8.8
5.1
152.1

15.7
6.5
117.0

15.1
6.3
113.1

14.6
6.0
115.7

14.8
6.3
118.2

15.5
6.9
128.1

15.2
6.8
128.9

15.2
6.9
134.5

14.7
6.8
135.8

14.6
6.8
142.2

15.5
6.5
113.0

15.1
6.1
107.1

14.1
5.9
112.0

14.4
6.2
113.0

15.4
6.9
121.3

15.2
6.8
120.4

14.9
6.6
122.7

14.2
6.5
134.0

14.0
6.4
132.2

16.3
6.3
117.6

14.9
6.0
106.0

15.1
5.8
113.1

15.4
6.2
122.4

14.9
6.4
131.7

14.5
6.3
127.3

14.7
6.3
132.9

14.5
6.4
139.1

15.1
7.0
162.3

15.5
6.7
118.9

15.2
6.6
119.3

14.7
6.2
118.6

14.8
6.4
119.0

15.8
7.1
130.1

15.4
7.0
133.3

15.6
7.2
140.4

15.0
7.1
135.7

14.7
7.0
141.1

12.2
5.4
86.7

11.5
5.1
82.0

10.2
4.4
75.0

10.0
4.3
73.5

10.6
4.7
77.9

10.4
4.6
80.2

10.6
4.7
85.2

11.9
5.3
95.5

13.1
5.7
107.4

18.6
9.5
171.8

17.6
9.0
158.4

16.9
8.3
153.3

18.3
9.2
163.5

19.6
9.9
172.0

18.5
9.3
171.4

18.9
9.7
177.2

18.9
9.6
176.5

19.5
10.0
189.1

16.0
6.6
97.6

15.1
6.2
91.9

13.9
5.5
85.6

14.1
5.7
83.0

15.3
6.4
101.5

15.0
6.3
100.4

15.2
6.3
103.0

15.4
6.7
103.6

16.6
7.3
115.7

15.0
7.1
128.1

14.1
6.9
122.2

13.0
6.1
112.2

13.1
6.0
112.0

13.6
6.6
120.8

13.9
6.7
127.8

13.6
6.5
126.0

14.9
7.1
135.8

16.0
7.5
141.0

15.2
7.1
128.3

14.4
6.7
121.3

12.4
5.4
101.6

12.4
5.4
103.4

13.3
6.1
115.3

12.6
5.7
113.8

13.6
6.1
125.5

17.0
7.4
145.8

19.4
8.2
161.3

18.5
8.0
118.4

17.5
7.5
109.9

15.3
6.4
102.5

15.1
6.1
96.5

16.1
6.7
104.9

16.3
6.9
110.1

16.0
6.8
115.5

17.0
7.2
121.9

18.8
8.0
138.8

13.7
5.5
81.3

12.9
5.1
74.9

10.7
4.2
66.0

9.8
3.6
58.1

10.7
4.1
65.8

10.8
4.2
69.3

10.7
4.2
72.0

11.3
4.4
72.7

12.1
4.7
82.8

8.0
3.3
51.8

7.4
3.1
48.4

6.5
2.7
42.2

6.3
2.6
41.4

6.8
2.8
45.0

6.4
2.7
45.7

6.4
2.7
49.8

7.2
3.1
55.9

8.0
3.3
64.6

10.6
4.9
82.4

9.8
4.6
78.1

9.2
4.0
72.2

8.4
3.6
64.5

9.3
4.2
68.8

9.0
3.9
71.6

9.6
4.1
79.1

13.5
5.7
105.7

17.7
6.6
134.2

6.8
2.7
41.8

6.5
2.7
39.2

5.6
2.3
37.0

5.2
2.1
35.6

5.4
2.2
37.5

5.2
2.2
37.9

5.3
2.3
42.2

5.8
2.4
43.9

6.1
2.6
51.5

10.9
4.4
67.9

10.7
4.4
68.3

9.9
4.1
69.9

9.9
4.0
66.3

10.5
4.3
70.2

9.7
4.2
73.2

10.2
4.3
70.9

10.7
4.6
81.5

11.3
5.1
91.0

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing3

Mining

Construction

General building contractors:

Heavy construction contractors:
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................
Special trade contractors:

Manufacturing

Durable goods
Lumber and wood products:

Furniture and fixtures:

Stone, clay, and glass products:

Primary metal industries:
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys............................................................................. .......................
Fabricated metal products:

Machinery, except electrical:

Electric and electronic equipment:
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Transportation equipment:

Instruments and related products:

Miscellaneous manufacturing industries:

See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

March 1990

121

Current Labor Statistics:

Injury & Illness Data

5 1 . C o n t in u e d — O c c u p a t io n a l in ju r y a n d illn e s s in c id e n c e r a t e s b y in d u s t r y , U n it e d S t a t e s
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2
Industry and type of case1
1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products:
Total c a s e s ..........................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................
Tobacco manufacturing:
Total c a s e s ..........................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................
Textile mill products:
Total c a s e s ..........................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................
Apparel and other textile products:
Total c a s e s ..........................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................
Paper and allied products:
Total c a s e s ..........................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................
Printing and publishing:
Total c a s e s ..........................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................
Chemicals and allied products:
Total c a s e s ..........................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................
Petroleum and coal products:
Total c a s e s ..........................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products:
Total c a s e s ..........................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................
Leather and ieather products:
Total c a s e s ..........................................................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...........................................................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.....................................................................................................

18.7
9.0
136.8

17.8
8.6
130.7

16.7
8.0
129.3

16.5
7.9
131.2

16.7
8.1
131.6

16.7
8.1
138.0

16.5
8.0
137.8

17.7
8.6
153.7

18.5
9.2
169.7

8.1
3.8
45.8

8.2
3.9
56.8

7.2
3.2
44.6

6.5
3.0
42.8

7.7
3.2
51.7

7.3
3.0
51.7

6.7
2.5
45.6

8.6
2.5
46.4

9.3
2.9
53.0

9.1
3.3
62.8

8.8
3.2
59.2

7.6
2.8
53.8

7.4
2.8
51.4

8.0
3.0
54.0

7.5
3.0
57.4

7.8
3.1
59.3

9.0
3.6
65.9

9.6
4.0
78.8

6.4
2.2
34.9

6.3
2.2
35.0

6.0
2.1
36.4

6.4
2.4
40.6

6.7
2.5
40.9

6.7
2.6
44.1

6.7
2.7
49.4

7.4
3.1
59.5

8.1
3.5
68.2

12.7
5.8
112.3

11.6
5.4
103.6

10.6
4.9
99.1

10.0
4.5
90.3

10.4
4.7
93.8

10.2
4.7
94.6

10.5
4.7
99.5

12.8
5.8
122.3

13.1
5.9
124.3

6.9
3.1
46.5

6.7
3.0
47.4

6.6
2.8
45.7

6.6
2.9
44.6

6.5
2.9
46.0

6.3
2.9
49.2

6.5
2.9
50.8

6.7
3.1
55.1

6.6
3.2
59.8

6.8
3.1
50.3

6.6
3.0
48.1

5.7
2.5
39.4

5.5
2.5
42.3

5.3
2.4
40.8

5.1
2.3
38.8

6.3
2.7
49.4

7.0
3.1
58.8

7.0
3.3
59.0

7.2
3.5
59.1

6.7
2.9
51.2

5.3
2.5
46.4

5.5
2.4
46.8

5.1
2.4
53.5

5.1
2.4
49.9

7.1
3.2
67.5

7.3
3.1
65.9

7.0
3.2
68.4

15.5
7.4
118.6

14.6
7.2
117.4

12.7
6.0
100.9

13.0
6.2
101.4

13.6
6.4
104.3

13.4
6.3
107.4

14.0
6.6
118.2

15.9
7.6
130.8

16.3
8.1
142.9

11.7
5.0
82.7

11.5
5.1
82.6

9.9
4.5
86.5

10.0
4.4
87.3

10.5
4.7
94.4

10.3
4.6
88.3

10.5
4.8
83.4

12.4
5.8
114.5

11.4
5.6
128.2

9.4
5.5
104.5

9.0
5.3

8.5
4.9
96.7

8.2
4.7
94.9

8.8
5.2
105.1

8.6
5.0
107.1

8.2

100.6

102.1

8.4
4.9
108.1

8.9
5.1
118.6

7.4
3.2
48.7

7.3
3.1
45.3

7.2
3.1
45.5

7.2
3.1
47.8

7.4
3.3
50.5

7.4
3.2
50.7

7.7
3.3
54.0

7.7
3.4
56.1

7.8
3.5
60.9

8.2
3.9
58.2

7.7
3.6
54.7

7.1
3.4
52.1

7.0
3.2
50.6

7.2
3.5
55.5

7.2
3.5
59.8

7.2
3.6
62.5

7.4
3.7
64.0

7.6
3.8
69.2

7.1
2.9
44.5

7.1
2.9
41.1

7.2
2.9
42.6

7.3
3.0
46.7

7.5
3.2
48.4

7.5
3.1
47.0

7.8
3.2
50.5

7.8
3.3
52.9

7.9
3.4
57.6

2.0
.9
15.4

2.0
.9
17.1

2.0
.9
14.3

.9
17.2

5.3
2.5
43.0

5.5
2.7
45.8

Transportation and public utilities
Total c a s e s .........................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ..........................................................
Lost workdays ..................................................................

4.8

Wholesale and retail trade
Total c a s e s ...................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...................................................
Lost w o rkda ys............................................................. .
Wholesale trade:
Total c a s e s ...................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...................................................
Lost w o rkda ys............................................. ................
Retail trade:
Total c a s e s ..................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ...................................................
Lost w o rkda ys.............................................................

Finance, insurance, and real estate
Total c a s e s ...........................................................................
Lost workday c a s e s ............................................................
Lost w o rkda ys......................................................................

2.0

1.9
.8

2.0

2.0

.8

12.2

11.6

.9
13.2

.9
12.8

1.9
.9
13.6

5.2
2.3
35.8

5.0
2.3
35.9

4.9
2.3
35.8

5.1
2.4
37.0

5.2
2.5
41.1

2.0

Services
Total c a s e s ..... ........
Lost workday cases
Lost w o rkda ys........
1 Total cases include fatalities.
2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost
workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as:
(N/EH) X 200,000, where:
N = number of Injuries and illnesses or lost workdays.

122
Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1990

5.4

2.6
45.4

5.4

2.6
47.7

EH = total hours worked by all employees during calendar year.
200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per
week, 50 weeks per year.)
3 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976.

H an d b o o k of
Labor S tatistics - 1989 Edition
B ulletin 234 0
Contains 156 tables
with data on:

Makes available in
one 585-page volume
historical data (through
1988 in most cases)
for the major statistical
series produced
by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics.

Labor force
characteristics

Employment and
unemployment

Provides technical notes
for each major group
of tables.

Hours and earnings
Includes related series
from other countries.
Productivity and
unit labor costs

Wage and benefit
changes

Prices and
living conditions

Work stoppages

Occupational injuries
and illnesses

Foreign labor statistics

Employee benefits

Please send
yo u r o rder to:

Superintendent
of Documents,
U.S. Government
Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402

i

i
i
i
■

□

Please send_________ copies of Handbook of Labor Statistics,
Order Processing code: * 6 7 4 8
Bulletin 2340, GPO Stock No. 029-001-03009-6, at $29 per copy.

□

Enclosed is a check or money order payable to the Superintendent of Documents.

□ Charge
□

to GPO Account No.

Charge to □

V IS A '

- □

□ b o ),

Account No.
Bureau of
Labor Statistics,
Publications Sales Center,
P.O. Box 2145,
Chicago, IL 60690

i
i
i
i
i
■
i
i
i
i

i

§<


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Expiration date
(Deduct 25 percent for 100 or more copies sent to the same address.)

Name
Organization
(if applicable)
Street address

i
i
i

L

City, State, ZIP

T he Board o f Trustees o f the
L aw rence R. K lein Award
announces

A Special
Competition
to mark the 75th year of the
Monthly Labor Review
1.

A prize of $1,000—separate from the annual Lawrence R. Klein A w ardwill be awarded for the best article manuscript submitted to this
competition before May 1, 1990.

2.

Entries will be judged on the basis of quality of writing and adherence
to criteria of professional research and analysis.

3.

The manuscript should not exceed 3,500 words, must be written
exclusively for the Monthly Labor Review and must not have been
submitted to or appeared in any form in any manner of publication
prior to its submission to this competition.

4.

The competition will be open to anyone except members of the
Lawrence R. Klein Board of Trustees and members of their immediate
families.

5.

Manuscripts must be based on original research or analysis in a subject
germane to the interests of the Monthly Labor Review.

6.

To be eligible, entries must be submitted to the trustees with the entry
form shown below, or a reproduction thereof.

7.

The Board of Trustees of the Lawrence R. Klein Award will have first
publication rights.
Charles D. Stewart, President,
Ben B u r d e tsk y , Secretary-Treasurer,
The Lawrence R. Klein Award

M a il to:
Board o f Trustees,
Law rence R. K lein Award

Monthly Labor Review
75th A nniversary
C om p etition
c/o Monthly Labor Review
441 G Street, N W .,
Room 2 8 2 2
W ashington, D C 20212


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Entry Form M onthly Labor Review 75th A nniversary C om petition
I submit the attached manuscript, titled

as my entry in the Monthly Labor Review 75th Anniversary Competition.
I am aware of the contest rules and agree to abide by them.
Signature

Name

Date

________________________________________________

Street Address
City, State, Zip

EI3
T he S o ciety f o r T ech n ica l C o m m u n ica tio n
W ashington. D.C. C h a p te r

( d o fE x c e « ej
is

hereby presented

to

WilliamM. D avis
for

Mafor Collective Bargaining Settlements
In Private Industry, 1988

rh e Society f o r Technical Communication
Washington, D.C. C hapter

is h e r e b y p r e s e n t e d t o

Monthly Labor Review Staff
4 : for
M o n th ly Labor R eview ,
S ep tem b er, O ctober, N o v e m b e r 1988

The S ociety f o r Technical C om m u n ication
W ashington, D.C. C h a p te r

A#

is hereby presented to

hr i *i*or Review Staff

%

for

Monthly Labor Review, August, September, October 1989


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Subm itted to the

1989-1990 Technical Ctpinmunications Competition

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, DC 20212

Second Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
ISSN 0098-1818

Official Business
Penalty for private use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE G U A R A N TE ED

M LR

LIBRA442LAISSDU E013R

1

LIBRARY
FED

RES

BANK

P

BOX

442

0

SAINT

OF

LOUIS

ST

MO

LOUIS
63166

'

V

içiyiçyo
Schedule of release dates for

bls

statistical series

Series

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

Employment situation

A p r il 6

M a rc h

M ay 4

A p r il

June 1

M ay

1; 4 - 2 1

Producer Price Indexes

A p r il 13

M a rc h

M a y 11

A p r il

J u n e 14

M ay

2; 3 4 - 3 7

Consumer Price Index

A p r il 1 7

M a rc h

M a y 16

A p ril

J u n e 15

M ay

2; 3 1 - 3 3

Real earnings

A p r il 1 7

M a rc h

M a y 16

A p ril

J u n e 15

M ay

1 4 -1 7

Employment Cost Index

A p r il 2 4

1 st q u a r t e r

2 2 -2 5

Major collective bargaining settlements

A p r il 2 4

1 st q u a rte r

2 6 -2 9

U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes

A p r il 2 6

1 st q u a r t e r

M ay 24

A p ril

M ay 4

1 st q u a r t e r

Ju n e 28

M ay

MLR table
number

3 8 -4 3

Productivity and costs:
N o n fa rm b u s in e s s a n d m a n u f a c tu r in g

N o n fin a n c ia l c o r p o r a t io n s


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2 ,4 4 -4 7

June 4

1st q u a rte r

2 ;4 4 - 4 7