Full text of Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland) : January 1968

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

>•

yhwimm
J A N U A R Y 1968

IN

THIS

ISSUE

Employment Patterns
in the Fourth District,
1965-1967 ......................

3

Employment Performances
of Cleveland,
Pittsburgh, and
Cincinnati, 1950-1966
Part II: Comparison
with 13 Cities . . . .
14

FEDERAL



RESERVE

BANK

OF

CLEVELAND

Additional copies of the ECONOMIC REVIEW may
be obtained from the Research Department, Federal
Reserve Bank of Cleveland, P.O. Box 6387, Cleveland,
Ohio 44101. Permission is granted to reproduce any
material in this publication.



JANUARY 1968

EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS IN THE
FOURTH DISTRICT, 1965-1967

In the past three years, nonfarm employ­
ment1 in the Fourth District experienced in
turn periods of sharp increase, slackened
growth, outright decline, and renewed growth.
Nonfarm employment increased at an accel­
erated pace from early 1965 until late 1966,
when employment growth began to taper off.
Slackened growth subsequently was followed
by a period of declining employment. In mid1967, employment began once again to in­
crease, although the advance was obscured
somewhat by major strikes in the second half.
This article examines the behavior of non­
farm employment in the Fourth Federal
Reserve District during 1965-1967 against the
background of developments in the nation.
The article also discusses the behavior of
related series such as unemployment, the
factory workweek, and weekly earnings.
EMPLOYMENT

employment in the Fourth District2 was slow­
er than in the United States as a whole. This
was due largely to the fact that the District
experienced relatively small gains in non­
farm employment in periods of economic
expansion and relatively large losses in
periods of recession. As a result, the District's
share of total employment in the United
States declined almost continuously follow­
ing the Korean War (see table). The decline
was more pronounced in the manufacturing
sector than in nonmanufacturing. Moreover,
in both total nonfarm employment and manu­
facturing employment, the decline tended to
accelerate during the years that fell within
recession periods (1954, 1958, and 1961).
As shown in Chart 1, during 1965-1966, em­
ployment expanded rapidly in both the

2 As used here, data for the Fourth District cover the
entire State of Ohio and the Pittsburgh and Erie, Pennsyl­

During 1954-1964, the growth of nonfarm

vania, metropolitan areas. Corresponding monthly statis­

1 Employmenl data used in Ihis article are the nonagri-

available on a current basis. The resulting less-than-

tics for the remaining portions of the District are not
cultural w age and salary employment series published

complete employment totals for the District — estimated

by the U. S. Department of Labor and cooperating state

to fall short by about 10 percent for the manufacturing

agencies.

sector— do not significantly bias the conclusions.




3

ECONOMIC REVIEW
Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment
Fourth District as Percent of United States Total
Annual Averages

C h art 1.

N O N F A R M P A YR O LL E M P LO Y ME NT
U n ited

States

and

Fourth

District

IN D EX 1964= 100

1950

All Industries

Manufacturing

Nonmanufacturing

8 .0 1 %

1 0 .5 0 %

6 .7 5 %

1951

8 .1 0

1 0 .7 0

6 .7 5

195 2

8 .0 3

1 0 .5 3

6 .7 4

195 3

8 .1 3

1 0 .6 0

6.81

195 4

7 .9 5

1 0 .2 9

6 .7 8

195 5

7 .9 3

10.3 2

6 .7 3

1956

7 .8 8

1 0 .2 7

6.71

1957

7 .8 5

10.21

6 .7 2

1 958

7 .5 3

9 .5 9

6 .6 0

1959

7.41

9 .4 6

6 .4 8

1960

7 .3 8

9 .4 7

6 .4 4

1961

7 .1 5

9.11

6 .3 0

1962

7 .0 5

9.01

6 .2 0

196 3

6 .9 9

9 .0 5

6.11

1964

6 .9 6

9.11

6 .0 6

196 5

6 .9 7

9 .1 3

6 .0 5

1966

6 .9 4

9 .0 3

6 .0 4

1967*

6 .8 5

8 .8 8

6.01

A L L I NDUS

RIES

115

U N IT E D

S T A T ES /

110
-OURT

fS

-\ D I S T R I C T

105

MA N U F A C T J R I NG

1 15

\ V a 7

* Estimated b y Fed e ral Reserve Bank o f C leveland .
110
Sources: U. S. Departm ent o f Lab o r; Division o f Research and
Statistics, Ohio Bureau o f Employment Services; Pennsyl­
vania Bureau o f Employment Security

*
105

Fourih District and the nation. Since employ­
ment gains in the District were at about the
same pace as those in the nation (measured
from average 1964 levels), the District's share
of total nonfarm employment remained vir­
tually unchanged. This was also the case in
the nonmanufacturing component of total
employment. In manufacturing, however, a
leveling in late 1966 reduced the District's
share of total manufacturing employment.

N ONMA NU F A C T U R I NG

11 5

110

105

When nonfarm employment in the District
turned down early in 1967, developments in
the District and in the nation as a whole
began to diverge. As shown in Chart 1, manu­
facturing employment peaked in January
1967 in both the District and the nation, but
the subsequent decline was both longer and

4


IVONTHLY—SEASOh ALLY ADJUSTED
1965
* S trik e .
So u rces of d a ta :

’66

’6 7

’68

U .S . D ep artm en t of L a b o r;
D iv isio n of R e se a rc h and S ta tis tic s ,
O h io B u reau of Em ploym ent S e r v ic e s ;
P e n n s y lv a n ia B ureau
of Em plo ym ent S e c u rity
Last e n try :

N o v. ’67 j

JANUARY 1968

deeper in the District than in the nation, thus
perpetuating the previously mentioned pat­
tern of larger losses in the District during
periods of economic slack. The greater sever­
ity of employment loss in the District is under­
scored by the fact that manufacturing em­
ployment in the District was below the
corresponding year-earlier level in each
month from April through October 1967
compared with only July through October
in the nation as a whole. In November 1967 —
the latest month for which data are available
— manufacturing employment in the District
was still 2.1 percent below the January peak,
compared with a shortfall of only 0.7 percent
in the nation.
Nonmanufacluring employment continued
to expand for a short time in 1967 after the
downturn in manufacturing employment, but
at a reduced pace. In the District, nonmanu­
facturing employment (seasonally adjusted)
did not turn down until April, when the actual
rise in the number employed was less than
s e a s o n a lly expected. The total loss in non­
manufacluring employment during AprilJune was fully recovered by October, and
by November, nonmanufacturing employ­
ment in the District was 0.7 percent above its
previous peak. As shown in Chart 1, non­
manufacturing employment in the nation
continued to increase throughout 1967, al­
though there was some hesitation during
March-April. After the hesitation, nonmanu­
facturing employment resumed its earlier
pace, and by November, was 2 percent above

in manufacturing employment in the District
combined with the mild decline in nonmanu­
facturing employment; during July-November, the employment loss was almost com­
pletely recovered. In contrast, total nonfarm
employment in the nation dipped only
slightly in April and May 1967, reflecting the
relatively small reduction in manufacturing
employment coupled with no decline in nonmanutacturing employment; by November,
total nonfarm employment in the United
States was 1.5 percent greater than the level
reached in March 1967.
For 1967 as a whole, the performance of
employment in the District, on an annual
average basis, fell considerably short of both
the previous year's performance and the
national performance, as the following
figures show:
1965-1966

All industries

Fourth
District

United
States

1966-1967
Fourth
District

United
States
+ 3 .2 %

+ 4 .7 %

+ 5 .2 %

+ 1 .9 %

M anufacturing

+ 5 .0

+ 6 .2

— 0 .9

+ .0 .8

Nonmanufacturing

+ 4 .5

+ 4 .7

+ 3 .7

+ 4 .2

The gap between the total numbers for the
District and for the nation was wider in 1967
— a year with some economic slack — than
in 1966 — a year marked by vigorous expan­
sion — indicating further deterioration in
1967 in the District's share of total nonfarm
employment in the United States (see ac­
companying table on page 4). On the other
hand, the deterioration in 1967 was less than
in 1961, 1957, or 1954.
In 1967, manufacturing employment, both

the March level.
Total nonfarm employment in the District
fell by about 2 percent between February

in the District and in the nation, was set back

and June 1967, reflecting the sharp decline

more than nonmanufacturing employment,




5

ECONOMIC REVIEW

and the setback in manufacturing employ­
ment was more severe in the District. Because
manufacturing employment accounts for
about 38 percent of total nonfarm employ­
ment in the District compared with only 30
percent in the United States, the unfavorable
performance of District manufacturing em­
ployment was particularly serious.
EMPLOYMENT IN INDIVIDUAL
INDUSTRIES
In view of the relatively similar patterns
of nonmanufacturing employment in the Dis­
trict and the nation during the period under
review, the following discussion centers on
the manufacturing sector. Chart 2 shows
employment (on an index basis), in both the
Fourth District and the nation, for selected
major industries that are important in the
economic life of the Fourth District. The chart
provides an indication of the weak areas in
the District. For example, during 1965-1967,
employment in each of the five major durable
goods industries reached a peak at a lower
level in the District than in the United States,
reflecting slower rates of employment growth
in the District for those industries. The failure
of the District to match national rates of
growth occurred even in such "growth indus­
tries" as electrical equipment and machinery.
Apparently, the fastest growing portions of
those two industries are not sufficiently repre­
sented in the District.
During 1965-1967, the primary metal in­
dustries were plagued by wide swings in
employment levels before and after the steel
labor contract expiration date, as well as by
a generally poor employment growth record.
As a result, performance of the industry in

6


the District fell below the national average
in the closing months of 1965 and remained
there during 1966 and 1967. Because em­
ployment in primary metals in the District
constitutes nearly three times as large a
proportion of manufacturing employment as
in the nation— 19 percent and 7 percent,
respectively — the depressing effect of an
unfavorable performance on total manufac­
turing employment is obviously much greater
in the District.
Generally speaking, the nondurable goods
industries as a group appear to be more a
source of employment stability than a source
of vigorous growth (see Chart 2). In the Dis­
trict, the nondurable goods group accounts
for only one-fourth of total manufacturing
employment, compared with two-fifths in the
nation as a whole. This means that a larger
proportion of manufacturing employment in
the District is drawn from the durable goods
industries whose cyclical instability contrib­
utes to employment fluctuations that exceed
the national average.

EMPLOYMENT IN
M AJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS
The pattern of accelerated employment
gains during 1965 and most of 1966, followed
by a decline early in 1967 and recovery after
midyear, generally also held true for the
major metropolitan areas in the Fourth Dis­
trict. There were, however, some important
individual variations because of differences
in the industrial composition of individual
areas. As would be expected, the variations
were clearly much less pronounced in non­
manufacturing than in manufacturing. As

C h a r t 2.

E M P L O Y M E N T in S E L E C T E D IN D U S T R IE S
U nited

States

and

Fourth

District
IN D E X 1 9 6 4 = 1 0 0

P R I M A R Y ME TAL

ELECTRI CAL
E Q U I P ME N T

120
J

U N IT E D S' A T E S

*

110
>

*

.

100
F O U R T H Dl J T R I C T

*

F A B R I C A T E D ME T A L

T R A N S P O R T A TI ON EQUI PME NT

120

y

/A T
\/

110

V a,

*
y

100

—
N O ND U R A B L E GOODS

MA C H I N E R Y

120

110

100

M O N T H L Y - S E A S D N A LL Y A D J U S T E D
...

1965

’66

’ 67

’68

1965

’66

’67

_

____ _____
’68

* S trik e .
So urces of d a ta : U .S. D epartm ent of L a b o r; D iv isio n of R esearch and S t a tis tic s , O hio B ureau of Em ploym ent S e rv ic e s ;
P e n n sy lv a n ia Bureau of Em ploym ent S e c u rity




Last entry: Nov. '67

ECONOMIC REVIEW

shown in Chart 3, nonmanufacluring employ­
ment in the six areas continued to rise until
early 1967, even after manufacturing employ­
ment turned down. When nonmanufacturing
did turn down in these areas, the declines
were less severe both in terms of duration and
magnitude than was the case in manufactur­
ing employment. In all areas except Pitts­
burgh, the reductions in nonmanufacturing
employment were more than recovered by
November 1967.
In marked contrast, the behavior of manu­
facturing employment during 1965-1967 var­
ied considerably among the areas, in terms
of both the magnitude and timing of changes.
Among the six areas, Dayton stands out as
having the largest, longest, and steadiest rise
in manufacturing employment during the
period under review, as well as the smallest
decline in the first half of 1967. The loss, in­
cluding the sharp setback experienced in the
fall of 1967 due to a strike in the electrical
eguipment industry, was completely reversed
by November. The substantial expansion of
manufacturing employment in Dayton re­
flects the fact that two "growth industries" —
machinery and electrical equipment — a c­

stable nondurable goods sector. The early
peak (August 1965) in employment in pri­
mary metals in Pittsburgh and the heavy
adverse effects of subsequent employment
declines in that industry on the area's total
manufacturing employment — offsetting in
part employment gains in other industries —
are evident in Chart 3. Manufacturing em­
ployment in Pittsburgh declined by nearly
6 percent from a high in August 1966 to a low
in June 1967, and by November 1967, showed
a still unrecovered loss of over 3 percent. On
the other hand, employment in manufactur­
ing industries excluding primary metals de­
clined by 3 percent between the high and
the low, and was within 1 percent of full re­
covery by November. There was no net gain
in manufacturing employment in the Pitts­
burgh area during the period under review.
The Youngstown-Warren area is another
case where the primary metal industries
heavily dominate manufacturing employ­
ment, accounting for over half of manufactur­
ing employment. However, the effects of that
industry's heavy employment losses in 1966
and 1967 were largely offset by a more than

count for over one-half of the area's manu­
facturing employment. In the case of the

doubling of employment in the transportation
equipment industry in Youngstown during the

machinery industry in Dayton, employment
growth after 1964 considerably exceeded

period under review, as the nation's largest
automobile manufacturer established a new
plant in the area. As shown in Chart 3, manu­
facturing employment in the Youngstown

the national average.
At the other extreme, Pittsburgh represents
the case of an area heavily influenced by an
industry that experienced a net loss in em­
ployment during the period under review.
Nearly 45 percent of Pittsburgh's factory em­
ployment is in primary metals (mostly steel),
while only 15 percent is in the relatively

8


area declined by 9 percent between Novem­
ber 1966 and May 1967; by November 1967,
manufacturing employment was still more
than 3 percent below the earlier high. Without
primary metals, the decline of manufacturing
employment amounted to only 6 percent, and

Ch art 3.

E M P L O Y M E N T in S E L E C T E D M A J O R F O U R T H D IS T R IC T A R E A S
IN D E X 1 9 6 4 = 1 0 0
COL UMB US

CL E V E L A ND

120
M AN U FA< :

t u r in g

110

NONAAANUFACTU *ING

*

*

100

DAYTON

CI NC I NNAT I

120

110

*

100

r—
Y OU NGS T OWI i-

P I T T S B UR GH

—

WA R R E N

120

110
I

~

/

' K

v

'

100
P R IM A R Y M E T A L

V

\w

/ * '

r

MONTHLY-SEAS ONALLY ADJUSTED
1965

’66

’67

’68

1965

’66

’67

’68

* S trik e .
So urces of d a ta : U .S . D epartm en t of L a b o r; D ivisio n of Research and S t a tis tic s , O hio B ureau of Em ploym ent S e r v ic e s ;
P e n n sy lv a n ia Bureau of Em plo ym ent S e c u rity
Last entry: No v. '67




ECONOMIC REVIEW

by November 1967, all losses in employment
were recovered.
UNEMPLOYMENT
The accelerated rise in nonfarm employ­
ment in 1965 and most of 1966 was accompa­
nied by a decline in unemployment3 in both
the District and the nation (see Chart 4). The
low rates of insured unemployment in mid1966 had not been attained for many years,
either in the nation or in the District; from
available evidence, it appears that the low
rales achieved in 1953 came closest to match­
ing the 1966 scores. Insured unemployment
increased as the growth of manufacturing em­
ployment tapered off in late 1966 and then
declined in the first half of 1967. The increase
in the District in 1967 was greater than in the
nation as a w hole— 1.3 percentage points
compared with 0.6 point — reflecting the
relatively greater loss in manufacturing em­
ployment in the District.4 However, the in­
sured unemployment rate in the District in
1967 did not rise above the rate in the nation
as it generally does in periods of a sharp
decline in economic activity.
If employment levels after mid-1967 were
not completely convincing in signaling the
end of a period of economic slack, mainly
3 Insured rather than total unemployment is used in this
discussion because insured unemployment data (contin­
ued claims) for local are a s appear to be more reliable
than estimates of total unemployment, and because in­
sured unemployment — unlike total unemployment — is
immune to the movements of marginal workers into and
out of the labor force.

4 In the first half of 1967, the national rate of total un­
employment w as much less sensitive to the softening of
employment than w as the insured unemployment rate.

Digitized10
for FRASER


C h a rt 4.

IN S U R E D U N E M P L O Y M E N T
As

Percent

of C o v e r e d

U n ited S ta te s
P e rc e n t

and

E m p lo ym en t

Fourth

UNITED

District

STATES

F O U R T H D IS T R IC T
M O N T H L Y -S E A S O N A L L Y A D JU STED
J ___________________ I___________________

1965
So urces of d a ta :

U .S . D ep a rtm en t of L a b o r;
D ivisio n of R e se arch and S ta tis tic s ,
O h io B u reau of Em ploym ent S e r v ic e s ;
P e n n s y lv a n ia B u reau
of Em plo ym ent S e c u rity
Last e n try : N o v. '67

because major strikes held back overall em­
ployment growth, no such uncertainty was
evident from the behavior of insured unem­
ployment. As shown in Chart 4, after mid1967, the behavior of insured unemployment
rates in both the nation and the District
clearly supported the contention that eco­
nomic activity had resumed an upward
course. In fact, insured unemployment con­
tinued to improve in September and October
even though the rate of total unemployment
seemed to signal an almost alarming rise in
joblessness.
The behavior of insured unemployment in
the major metropolitan areas of the District
was similar to that for the District as a whole
during the period under review. There were,
however, some variations with respect to the

JANUARY 1968

level and extent of fluctuations, most of which
can be explained by circumstances unique to
each area. In the Dayton area, for example,
insured unemployment in the first half of 1967
rose relatively little, reflecting the modest
decline in employment. At the other extreme,
insured unemployment in the YoungslownWarren area — usually a mirror image of the
ups and downs of employment in the steel
industry — rose sharply early in 1967, reflect­
ing cutbacks in employment in primary
metals.

ment in 1965. Growth of the workweek slack­
ened during 1965 and 1966, both in the
District and the nation, at a time when em­
ployment growth was strongest. The national
workweek series peaked early in 1966 and
gradually moved downward, until a sharp
decline occurred in February 1967, coincident
with the severe reduction of manufacturing
employment previously discussed. The de­
cline in the workweek from the high in 1966
to the low in 1967 was somewhat greater in
Chart 5.

FACTORY W ORKW EEK
The behavior of the length of the workweek
provides additional insights into the utiliza­
tion of manpower resources. The top panel
of Chari 5 shows average weekly hours of
production workers in manufacturing indus­
tries in the Fourth District and the nation. As
the chart clearly reveals, the average work­
week throughout the period under review was
significantly longer in the District than in
the nation as a whole. In fact, that pattern is
consistent with the record of the past 15 years.
As a general rule, in periods of expansion,
the workweek in the District has been con­
siderably longer than in the United States as
a whole; in periods of recession, the margin
has tended to narrow or disappear com­
pletely. Nonetheless, the average difference
of 0.8 hour in favor of the District that pre­
vailed during 1964-1966 was wider than at
any time since the beginning of the series
in 1952.
In keeping with its recognized role as a
leading indicator, the workweek in the Dis­
trict and the nation rose sharply in 1964, well
before the acceleration of growth in employ­



FA CTO RY W O RKW EEK
a n d W E E K L Y E A R N IN G S
United States and Fourth District
Hours
WORKWEEK
43

FO URTH DIJ >TRICT
A

42
41

y^\i\ /
s /

A
r w

v

\
f

U N ITED STATES

Dol I <
W E E K L Y I A R NI NGS

140
^

130

7^

Y

, / '

120
110

100
M O N T H L Y - S E A S O N A L Y A D J U ST E D

1964
So u rces of d a ta :

’65

’ 67

’66

’68

U .S . D ep artm en t of L a b o r;
D ivisio n of R ese arch and S ta tistics,
O hio B u reau of Em ploym ent S e r v ic e s ;
P e n n s y lv a n ia Bureau
of Em ploym ent Se cu rity
Last e n try : N ov. ’67

________ _________ I
11

ECONOMIC REVIEW

the District than in the nation as a whole —
1.5 hours and 1.3 hours, respectively. As a
result, the gap between the District and the
nation narrowed to 0.6 hour in mid-1967. With
the turnaround in employment during the
second half of 1967, weekly hours in both the
District and the nation returned to the levels
from which the declines had started in
February.
The aggregate workweek figure for manu­
facturing industries in the District lends to
conceal the wide fluctuations that occur
among the various industry groups. For ex­
ample, in the transportation equipment in­
dustry, the shortest average workweek in
1967 was almost 8 hours less than the longest
workweek (December 1965) during the pe­
riod under review. The 8-hour difference was
twice as large as that which occurred in the
same industry in the nation as a whole; it
was also considerably greater than the
spread between the longest and the shortest
workweeks in any other major industry in
the District during 1965-1967. Because the
transportation equipment industry represents
nearly one-tenth of all manufacturing activ­
ity in the District, the wide swings in the
workweek of that industry heavily influence
the behavior of the total workweek for all
industries combined.

marginal changes in earnings. This, in fact,
was the case during the period under review.
As shown in the bottom panel of Chart 5,
weekly earnings rose vigorously in 1964 in
line with the sharp increase in the workweek,
and continued to advance, but at a more
moderate pace in 1965 and most of 1966, both
in the District and in the nation. The more
moderate gain in earnings in 1965 reflected a
small net increase in the workweek. In 1966,
the advance in weekly earnings slowed even
more, as Ihe workweek began to decline and
helped to neutralize the effect of rising wages.
Earnings peaked in September 1966, and then
declined slowly during ihe remainder of the
year, in both the District and the nation; a
further sharp decline in February 1967 re­
flected ihe severe reduction in ihe workweek
referred io earlier. The decline in weekly
earnings from the peak in 1966 io ihe low in
1967 was noticeably larger in the Districi than
in ihe United States — over $5 per week com­
pared with less than $2 — due io deeper cuts
in ihe workweek and a greater proportion of
high-wage industries in ihe Districi.
The severe decline in weekly earnings in
early 1967 in ihe Districi — unlike ihe more
modest decline in the nation — kept earnings

continue to rise, changes in the workweek

during February-June below the level of ihe
corresponding monihs in 1966 (see Chari 5).
The shortfall was particularly large in those
industries where ihe workweek was most
drastically reduced, including transportation
equipment and primary metals. In those in­
dustries, average earnings in the nation as
a whole also dropped below year-earlier
levels during several months in 1967, although

are quite influential in tilting the balance of

not io ihe same extent as in the District. In

W EEKLY EARNINGS
Changes in the length of the average work­
week in the manufacturing industries play
a major role in the changes in weekly earn­
ings of factory workers. While earnings have
a built-in upward bias as long as wage rates


12


JANUARY 1968

the metropolitan areas where the transporta­
tion equipment and primary metal industries
are major employers — including Cleveland,
Pittsburgh, and Youngstown-Warren— week­
ly earnings also dropped below year-earlier
levels during several months in 1967.
Weekly earnings in November 1967 (for all
manufacturing industries combined) were
well above the previous peak levels of Sep­
tember 1966 — by $2.50 in the District and $4
in the nation — even though the average
workweek in November was 0.7 hour shorter
in the District and 0.5 hour shorter in the
United States than in September 1966.




CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Employment levels in the District will un­
doubtedly benefit from the quicker pace of
activity in the major durable goods industries
that is expected during the first half of 1968.
The extent to which employment improves
will determine whether the Fourth District
will be able to recover fully the employment
losses sustained during the early part of 1967.
If the improvement is insufficient, then 1967
will have been another period — along with
1954, 1958, and 1961 — when the Fourth Dis­
trict's share of the nation's total nonfarm
employment experienced a sizable perma­
nent reduction.

13

ECONOMIC REVIEW

EMPLOYMENT PERFORMANCES
OF CLEVELAND, PITTSBURGH,
AND CINCINNATI, 1950-1966
PART II: COMPARISON WITH 13 CITIES

This study is concerned with comparative
employment performances of Cleveland,
Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati during 1950-1966.
In Part I, which appeared in the November
1967 issue of the Econom ic R eview , data for
the three cities were compared with data for
ih e United S ta te s for the 1950-1960 an d 19591964 periods. In the present article, the three
cities are compared with ten other large cities
of the East and North Central regions of the
United States, also for the two periods under
review. The third and final article will appear
in a later issue of the Econom ic R eview , and
will update the findings of the first two arti­
cles, centering attention on the period from
1964 through 1966.
O VERVIEW ON THE 13 CITIES
Table IV presents background data on the
13 cities under review. As the data show, the
cities in 1960 ranged in population size from

on percent changes in both total employment
and covered employment for the various
metropolitan areas for 1950-1960 and 19591964.15 In both cases, the percent changes
reflect the effects of industry mix as well as
competitive factors for individual industries.
P ercen t ch a n g e s a re show n a t the bottom of
the table for the 13-city total and for the
United States as a whole. The scores for the
13-city total are consistently less favorable
than the United States totals, with the dif­
ferences even more marked in the case of
covered employment.
In terms of percent change in total employ­
ment, 1950-1960, Kansas City scored the lar­
gest gain (23.8 percent) while Pittsburgh
15 "Percent Change

in Employment,

1950-1960" and

"Percent Change in Covered Employment, 1950-1960"
differ because the former is based on more complete data.
"Covered" employment includes that portion of "total"
nonagricultural employment represented by the 28 indus­

Chicago (6.2 million) to Kansas City (1.1 mil­

tries listed in the major tables of this study. See Growth

lion). In 1960, Pittsburgh ranked fifth among
the 13 cities; Cleveland, seventh; and Cin­
cinnati, eleventh. Table IV also includes data

Patterns in Employment by County, 1940-1950 and 1950-


14


1960, by Lowell D. Ashby, Office of Business Economics,
U. S. Department of Commerce, 8 volumes, 1965, and
Technical Note, Appendix.

JANUARY 1968

A comparison of the employment perform­
ance for each of the 13 metropolitan areas.

by the 28 industry or service categories,17 is
shown in Tables V-a-m. The Baltimore metro­
politan area is used for illustration (see Table
V-a). As shown in Table V-a, for the "Food
and kindred products" industry (No. 3), there
was a 10.7 percent employment gain between
1950 and 1960. The relative growth indicator
for that industry amounted to plus 492, when
computed against the 13-city aggregate
rather than against the United States total
as used in the earlier article.18 In the second
period (1959-1964), Baltimore had an employ­
ment declin e of 2.7 percent for "Food and
kindred products," accompanied by a rela­
tive growth indicator (compared with the 13
cities) of plus 1,493. The contrasting perform­
ances of the two periods clearly implies that
the 13-city aggregate for "Food and kindred
products" could not have been very favor­
able during the 1959-1964 period. This is con­
firmed by the percent changes in employment
for the 13-city aggregate for the two periods,
shown in the last two columns of Table V-a.
Thus, the 13 cities shifted from an employ­
ment gain of 8.0 percent for "Food and kin­
dred products" in the first period to a decline
of 10.5 percent in the second period. The
scores for the other cities and industry cate­
gories are presented in the subdivisions of
Table V.

16 That is especially so in the case of Chicago where

For the "Total of covered industries," the
percent change in employment (i.e., plus 12.2

showed the smallest gain (3.5 percent). The
considerably smaller rates of gain indicated
in the "Percent Change in Covered Employ­
ment, 1950-1960" reflect the fact that the in­
dustries not covered in this study, especially
the category "Industry not reported," would
have made the total results more favorable.16
For 1950-1960, in terms of percent change in
covered employment, Minneapolis-St. Paul
had the most favorable score, with Kansas
City second. Pittsburgh's gain was the small­
est. In the case of percent change in total
employment, Kansas City was first, with
Minneapolis-St. Paul only slightly behind.
Again, Pittsburgh had the worst showing.
For 1959-1964, in percent change in covered
employment, Baltimore had the most favor­
able score, with Kansas City second; again,
Pittsburgh's total was least favorable, in fact
showing a substantial decline (see Table IV).
In terms of percent change in total employ­
ment for 1959-1964, Minneapolis-St. Paul
ranked first; Kansas City, second; and Buf­
falo, last.

13-CITY PERFORMANCE BY INDUSTRIES,
1950-1960 AND 1959-1964

"Industry not reported" w as quite large in the 1950-1960
period. The marked differences between the figures

percent for Baltimore for 1950-1960) reflects

shown in "Percent Change in Employment" and "Percent
Change in Covered Employment" would constitute a

17 See Technical Note, Appendix.

serious defect if the main argument were centered around
the "Percent Change in Covered Employment." The

18 See "Employment Performances of Cleveland, Pitts­

emphasis in this study, however, is mainly on differences

burgh, and Cincinnati, 1950-1966, Part I: Comparison with

between industries within a given a rea, and between

the United States," Economic Review, Federal Reserve

a reas, rather than on total performances of the cities.

Bank of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, November, 1967.




15

ECONOMIC REVIEW

both the advantage or disadvantage that
the city may have had because of its "indus­
try mix," i.e., its relative proportion of fastgrowing industries and its competitive per­
formance among the 13 cities (relative growth
indicator). However, the total for the relative
growth indicator (plus 13,374 for Baltimore
for 1950-1960) reflects only its competitive
standing against the other selected cities,
based on differential percent changes. While
the emphasis in this study is on competitive
standings, especially when the pattern within
a given metropolitan area is examined, the
overall percent change in employment is also
a valid statistic and in certain respects is
more comprehensive and more familiar in
concept.
HIGHS AND LOWS A M O N G THE CITIES
Table VI reveals the cities that are high
or low scorers among the 13, for the various
industries in each of the two periods. Section
a includes the 1950-1960 period and section b,
the 1959-1964 period.
Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati only
appear a few times as high scorers in either
percent change in employment or in the
relative growth indicator for 1950-1960. Cleve­
land had the highest relative growth indicator
in the "Motor vehicles and equipment" in­
dustry as a result of the surge in employment
in that industry during the period; for percent
change in employment in motor vehicles,
however, Milwaukee was first (see Table
Vl-a). Pittsburgh was high in "Lumber, wood
products, furniture" in the 1950-1960 period for
both the percent change and relative growth
indicator, and also had the largest relative
growth indicator for "Entertainment, recrea­

16


tion services." Cincinnati was first in "Air­
craft and parts, ships, etc." in the 1950-1960
period, as measured by percent change in
employment; but St. Louis, because of its
larger employment in the industry, was high
in the relative growth indicator. Cincinnati
was also the highest in percent change in
"Trucking and warehousing" and "Commu­
nications" in the 1950-1960 period, although
for both industries, other cities had larger
relative growth indicators.
In the 1959-1964 period, highs for the three
cities were less frequent. Cleveland had the
largest relative growth indicator in "Mining"
in the 1959-1964 period. In percent change in
employment, Pittsburgh led in "Textile mill
products" and "Lumber, wood products, furni­
ture," while Cleveland led in unclassified
manufacturing, a category that is difficult to
interpret. Cincinnati does not appear on the
list of highs for the 1959-1964 period.
In the list of low scorers, particularly in
the 1959-1964 period, Pittsburgh appears fre­
quently, either in percent change in em­
ployment or in relative growth indicator,
or both. Cleveland was low in percent
change in employment in "Apparel" in
the first period, and in "Food and kindred
products" and "Entertainment, recreation
services," in the second period. In all three
cases, however, other cities showed lower
relative growth indicators. According to both
the percent change in employment and the
relative growth indicator, Cincinnati was low
in "Paper and allied products" in the first
period, and low in "Chemicals and allied
products" and "Lumber, wood products, furni­
ture" in the second period. In terms of percent
change in employment, Cincinnati was low

JANUARY 1968

in "Paper and allied products" in the first
period, and low in "Chemicals and allied
products" and "Lumber, wood products, furni­
ture" in the second period. In terms of percent
change in employment, Cincinnati was low
in "Machinery," "Primary metals," and "Per­
sonal services including hotels" in the first
period, and in "Apparel" in the second period.
It is interesting to see what cities other than
the three under special consideration scored
highs, especially in some of the industries
that are particularly important in Cleveland,
Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati. For "Primary
metals," Baltimore had the largest relative
growth indicator for the first period, while
Boston scored the largest percent gain in
employment. In the second period, Baltimore
was high according to both measurements.
For "Machinery," measured by the relative
growth indicator, Boston was high in the first
period and Minneapolis-St. Paul in the second
period; however, in percent change in em­
ployment, Baltimore was at the top in the first
period and Kansas City in the second period.
In the second period, Buffalo succeeded
Cleveland as high scorer for "Motor vehicles
and equipment" with respect to the relative
growth indicator. In percent change, Milwau­
kee was high in the first period and Boston in
the second. For "Fabricated metal products,"
Detroit was the highest in both periods as

percent gain in employment in the second
period.
In the trade and service groups, in the 19501960 period, Detroit was high scorer in the
relative growth indicator in "W holesale
trade," "Retail trade," "Personal services
including hotels," "Business and repair ser­
vices," and "Professional services." For per­
cent change in employment in the first period,
Detroit was high in "Business and repair
services" and "Professional services." In the
1959-1964 period, Detroit did not lead in any
of the trade and service groups.
For the "Total of covered industries," the
high and low scorers are as follows: In the
first period, Minneapolis-St. Paul was high,
both in percent change in total employment
and total relative growth indicator. In the
second period, Baltimore was high by both
measurements. The low scorer in the first
period in percent change in employment was
Pittsburgh, and Chicago was low in relative
growth indicator.19 The low scorer in the
second period was Pittsburgh, both in terms
of percent change in total employment and
total relative growth indicator.
CLEVELAND PATTERN COMPARED WITH
13 CITIES, 1950-1960 AND 1959-1964

measured by the relative growth indicator,

The relative growth indicators measured
against the 13 cities for Cleveland for the
various industry and service groups are

while top places in percent change in employ­
ment in the two periods went to Kansas City
and Buffalo, respectively. In "Chemicals and

19 As a qualification of the result for Chicago, the larger

allied products," Philadelphia led in both

cities tend to show larger relative growth indicators than

periods in relative growth indicator and also
in percent change in employment in the first
period; Minneapolis-St. Paul had the largest



the smaller cities, whether on the up or down sides.
Further, the qualifications concerning the unusually large
figures for "Industry not reported" in Chicago already
mentioned should be considered at this point.

17

ECONOMIC REVIEW

summarized in Table VH-a. Sections b and c
of Table VII apply io Pittsburgh and Cincin­
nati, respectively.20

accordingly, that industry does not appear
on the consistently unfavorable list for Cleve­
land in the 13-city comparison. In the 19591964 period, however, Cleveland did register
a negative relative growth indicator of 4,494
for "Primary m etals" (Category C).
Among the industries with significant

Two industries in Cleveland showed a sig­
nificant favorable change in both periods —
"Printing and publishing" and "Textile mill
products." The "Printing and publishing" in­
dustry had a relative growth indicator of
plus 1,537 for the first period and plus 684
for the second period (Table VH-a, Category
A). The importance of "Printing and publish­
ing" for Cleveland is shown by the number
employed in the industry in Cleveland in
1960— 19,019. On the other hand. "Textile
mill products" is a relatively small industry
in Cleveland.
There were fewer industries in Cleveland
with unfavorable changes in both periods
(Category B) when similar cities are used
for comparison than when the United States is

changes in one period only (Category C), in
addition to "Primary metals," there are a
number of manufacturing or service groups
with either favorable or unfavorable scores,
either for one period or the other. Most im­
portant of these is "Motor vehicles and equip­
ment," with a relative growth indicator in the
1950-1960 period of plus 14,382. This confirms
the fact that the surge in "Motor vehicles and
equipment" (discussed in Part I) was impor­
tant, whether compared with the 13 cities or
the nation. Among the service groups, posi­
tive scores were made in the second period

the stan d ard , a s d iscu ssed in Part I. 21 Indus­

in "F in a n ce , in su ran ce, an d re a l e s ta te " and

tries with consistently unfavorable changes
include: "Machinery," "Fabricated metal
products," "Aircraft and parts, ships, etc.,"
and "Chemicals and allied products." Absent
from the list are "Retail trade" and "Primary
metals," both of which are unfavorable in
the comparisons with the United States. In
the case of "Retail trade," it is apparent that
the sharpest increases in employment took
place in parts of the United States outside
the 13 metropolitan areas; as a result, in
the 13-city comparison, Cleveland's negative
scores are alleviated. A somewhat similar
situation is indicated for "Primary metals";

"Professional services," whereas neither
group is favorable in the United States com­
parison. The showings in the 13-city compari­
son are favorable for these two groups, even
though Cleveland was not a top scorer among
the 13 cities.
The list of Cleveland industries with
marked shifts (favorable or unfavorable) be­
tween the two periods (Category D) is limited
io five groups: "Food and kindred products,"

20 Nol all induslry or service groups included in Table V
are carried over into the summary Table VII.

21 See Economic Review, November, 1967.


18


"Retail trade," "W holesale trade," "Apparel,"
and "Contract construction." "Food and kin­
dred products," "Retail trade," and "W hole­
sale trade" were favorable in the first period,
while "Apparel" and "Contract construction"
moved ahead in the second period.
For Cleveland's "Total of covered indus­
tries," the positive relative growth indicator

JANUARY 1968

for the 1950-1960 period (plus 3,811) is in
marked contrast to the negative showing
when the United States total is the standard
of comparison.22 Cleveland's total score was
relatively unfavorable in the second period,
with the total relative growth indicator minus
4,764 (Table Vll-a).2^
PITTSBURGH PATTERN COMPARED WITH
13 CITIES, 1950-1960 AND 1959-1964
A summary of the Pittsburgh pattern, with
relative growth indicators measured against
13-city aggregates, is shown in Table VH-b.
For most important industries, there is little
improvement over the performance shown
in the United States comparison, as discussed
in Part I.
Only one industry in Pittsburgh had signifi­
cant favorable changes in both periods
(Category A), "Motor vehicles and equip­
ment." Unfortunately, that industry employs
relatively few people in ihe city.
While there are fewer industries with un­
favorable changes in both periods (Category
B) than in the national comparison, there is
substantial overlapping, including "Primary
metals," "Machinery," "Retail trade," "Min­
ing," "Contract construction," "Professional
services," and "Aircraft and parts, ships, etc."

22 See Economic Review , November, 1967.

In addition, "Railroads and railway express"
and "Business and repair services" show un­
favorable changes in both periods for Pitts­
burgh when measured against the 13 cities,
but not in ihe national comparison.
Three other important Pittsburgh industries
or service groups — "Fabricated metal prod­
ucts," "Finance, insurance, and real estate,"
and "Food and kindred products"—show up
unfavorably in only one period in the 13-city
comparison, in contrast to the unfavorable
performance for both periods in the national
comparison. Only one of these groups —
"Food and kindred products" — had a sig­
nificantly favorable showing in either of
the two periods, with a positive relative
growth indicator in ihe 1950-1960 period
(Category C). The other two industries or
service groups had significant negative
showings in one period, coupled with insig­
nificant changes in the other period (Category
C). Additional Pittsburgh industries showing
significant changes in one period only are
indicated in Category C. The most conspicu­
ous score is for "W holesale trade," with a
relative growth indicator of minus 10,557 in
the second period. Only one of the covered
industries in Pittsburgh shows a marked shift
between the two periods — "Printing and
publishing" (Category D) — from favorable
to unfavorable.

23 Cleveland's overall performance for the two periods

For the "Total of covered industries" in

may be evaluated by comparing the percent change fig­

Pittsburgh, the relative growth indicator be­

ures for Cleveland with those for the 13-city total (Table

The cautions regarding interpretation of totals outlined

came more unfavorable in ihe second period.
Because ihe figures represent cumulative
changes and ihe second period is of only half

in the Appendix also apply.

ihe duration of ihe first period, the relative

V). However, such percent change figures reflect the
effects of "industry mix" as well as competitive factors.




19

ECONOMIC REVIEW

deterioration in Piiisburgh is substantial.24
CINCINNATI PATTERN COMPARED WITH
13 CITIES, 1950-1960 AND 1959-1964
Among the relative growth indicators for
Cincinnati's various industry and service
groups, measured against the 13-city aggre­
gate, only the "Fabricated metal products”
industry shows favorable changes in both
periods (Table VII-c, Category A).

category in ihe national comparison, but the
change in ihe standard of comparison pro­
vides, in effect, a rescue operation for one of
the two periods.

represent merely a comparative deficit in the rate of

Of the Cincinnati industries with significant
changes in one period only (Category C), four
had favorable changes — "Trucking and
warehousing" and "Communications" for the
first period, and "Entertainment, recreation
services" and "Food and kindred products"
for the second period. Eight other industry or
service groups scored unfavorable changes
in one period.
The category of industries with marked
shifts between the two periods is important
for Cincinnati, especially because of the
showing of "Aircraft and parts, ships, etc."
(Category D). The relative growth indicator
(compared with 13 cities) changed from plus
11,948 in the first period to minus 2,330 in the
second period. This change (centered in the
"aircraft parts" segment of the category)
offers some explanation why Cincinnati's
total performance shifted from relatively
favorable in 1950-1960 to markedly unfavor­
able in 1959-1964. Industries other than air­
craft and parts are included among the
groups with significant shifts between the
two periods, although the magnitudes of the

growth.

indicators are much less spectacular.

There is only one industry with significant
unfavorable changes in both periods (Cate­
gory B); that is, "Machinery," Cincinnati's
most important industry. On the other hand,
"Retail trade," "Professional services," "Ap­
parel," "W holesale trade," and "Printing and
publishing" appear in the highly unfavorable
24 If perceni changes are used, in place of relaiive
grow indicalors, Ihe same general pattern emerges. In
that formulation, the greater deterioration in the second
period is shown by the fact that employment in ihe
"Total of covered industries" actually declined by 7.1
percent in Pittsburgh, while the corresponding figure
for the 13-city total w as a gain of 4.8 perceni (Table V).
Note here the qualifications regarding the significance
of a figure of this type. It is rare, however, to find an
outright decline in any figure for total (or near total)
employment for a given metropolitan a re a in the two
fairly long periods under consideration; many of the
negative figures for relative growth indicators, of course,


20


JANUARY 1968

TABLE IV
Population, 1960, Employment Changes for Selected Periods
13 Selected Cities

Population
1960
(thous.)

Percent
Change in
Employment*
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Percent
Change
in “ Covered
Employment” !
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Percent
Change in
Employment*
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Percent
Change
in “ Covered
Employment” '
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Chicago

6,221

+ 1 3 .0 %

+

+

5 .0 %

+

3 .3 %

Philadelphia

4 ,3 4 3

+ 16.1

+ 11.5

+

3.4

4 .7

Detroit

3 ,7 6 2

+ 11 .7

7 .4

3 ,1 0 9

+ 1 2 .7

7 .8

+
+

7 .4

BostonJ

+
+

+
+

3 .7

+

8.4

Pittsburgh

2 ,4 0 5

+

+

0 .7

+

1.0

—

7.1

St. Louis

2 ,1 0 5

+ 11.0

+

8.1

+

7 .4

+

5.1

Cleveland

1 ,9 0 9

+ 15.5

+ 11.9

+

6.5

+

3.3

7 .2

+ 14.1

3.5

6 .6 %

7 .9

Baltimore

1 ,7 2 7

+ 17.6

+ 12.2

+

M inneapolis-St. Paul

1,48 2

+ 2 3 .1

+ 19.8

+ 12.3

+

9 .7

Buffalo

1 ,3 0 7

+ 1 4.0

+ 10.2

+

0.3

—

2 .7

Cincinnati

1 ,26 8

+ 18.2

+ 13 .0

+

4 .7

—

0.2

M ilwaukee

1 ,2 3 3

+ 17.4

+ 13 .7

+

7 .3

+

6 .7

Kansas City

1 ,09 3

+ 2 3 .8

+ 16.8

+ 11.8

+ 10.8

3 1 ,9 6 4

+ 1 4 .0 %

+

9 .2 %

+

5 .5 %

+

4 .8 %

1 7 8 ,4 6 4

+ 2 3 .0 %

+ 1 8 .4 %

+

9 .1 %

+

9 .3 %

1 3-C ity Total
United States Total
* Total n o n ag ricultu ral employment.

■
f" See "T o ta l of covered in d u stries," Colum n 1 of Tab les V-a through V- iti.
£ Includes entire counties of Essex, M iddlesex, N o rfo lk, and Suffolk. (See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix .) Population of Boston
official SM SA in 1960 w as 2 ,5 9 5 ,0 0 0 .
Sources: Census of Po pulatio n, 1960; County Business Pattern s, 1959 and 1964, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com ­
m erce; Lowell D. A sh b y, Growth Patterns in Em ploym ent by Co unty, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, Office of Business Eco­
nomics, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1966




21

ECONOMIC REVIEW

TABLE V-a
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Baltimore Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Baltimore
Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1950-1960

Total 13-Cities

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1959-1964

1. Mining

—

1 9 .3 %

+

213

—

2 2 .4 %

—

57

— 4 6 .6 %

— 16 .1 %

2. Contract construction

—

4 .6

—

2 ,9 4 4

8.6

+

1 ,5 3 7

+

2 .7

3 . Food and kindred products

+

492

2 .7

+

8 .0

+ 3.2
— 10 .5

+

396

—

37.1

+
—

1 ,49 3

4 . Textile mill products

+ 1 0 .7
— 4 0 .4

+
—

495

— 5 1 .0

— 17 .8

5 . A p p a rel

—

6.1

+

900

+

10 .9

+

1 ,59 5

— 12.2

—

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

—

2.8

+

310

—

7 .7

—

30

—

8 .6

— 7 .2

7 . Pa p er and allied products

+

4 0 .9

+

1 ,2 5 5

+

2 0 .5

+

793

+

8.3

+

6.3

8. Printing and publishing

+

20.1

—

361

+

5.8

+

183

+ 2 3 .8

4 .0

9 . Chemicals and allied products

+
—

1 1.2

—

1 ,1 4 5

4 .4

+ 2 3 .0

—

1 ,0 0 8

7 .8

+
—

889

3 9 .3

+
—

+
—

—

9 .3

—

4 .7

+ 1 1,381

+

3 3 .8

+

5 ,7 6 4

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

443

+

2 .7

—

95

— 13.8

+

4 .8

—

13.3

+ 4 3 .3

— 2 1 .3

—

3 .4

10. Petroleum and coal products
11. M achinery
1 2 . Motor vehicles and equipment

+ 1118.4
— 2 2 .0

—

1 3 . A irc ra ft and parts, ships, etc.

+

4 2 .6

—

104

14. Prim ary metals

+
—

2 1 .5

7 ,9 3 4

13.1

+
—

5 ,5 9 6

+ 14 0 .6
+ 14.2

17.2

+

2 ,1 6 8

+

17. Railroads and ra ilw a y express

+
—

19 .9

+

1,321

1 5 . Fabricated metal products
1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

25

672
+
+ 21,1 01

0.1

5 .5

—

2.8

+

1 ,9 9 9

+ 2 9 .3

—

6.5

9 .3

+

1 ,4 1 3

+

—

1.2

—

12.2

+

810

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5
+

2 .5

1 8 . Trucking and warehousing

+

2 6 .6

+

247

—

1.4

—

743

+ 2 3 .4

19. Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

— 2 5 .7

—

2 ,0 1 9

—

10.3

—

1,88 3

— 1 3.5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

+

12.8

+

474

+

1.8

+

22 8

+

3 .9

2 1 . Utilities and san itary service

+
—

3.6

+
—

102

+

2.5

+

468

+

2 .6

+
—

1 ,4 1 0

+

9 .5

2,291

+

6 .0

+

2 .0

+

1.6

+

7 .9

158

+ 2 5 .5
— 7 .9

2 2 . W h o lesale trad e

0 .8

6.0

5 .8

3.4

2 3 . Retail trad e

+

1.8

+

212

+

6 .6

+
—

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re al estate

+

3 0 .3

+

1 ,0 6 4

+

12.5

+

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

—

9 .9

—

349

+

4 .7

—

339

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

+

11.1

—

1 ,42 3

+

5 9 .4

+

2 ,7 8 8

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

—

1.0

+

162

+

3.3

+

262

— 4 .2

—

2 8 . Professional services

+

5 3 .4

+

1 ,5 4 5

+

3 2 .9

+

1,74 2

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+

1 2 .2 %

+ 1 3 ,3 7 4

+

1 4 .1 %

+ 4 1 ,3 8 5

+

+

Total o f covered industries

1 ,1 3 4

9 .2 %

+ 1 2 .0
+ 7 .2
2 .3

4 .8 %

Sources: G row th Patterns in Employment by Co unty, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. Departm ent of
Com m erce, 1966; unpublished estim ates fo r selected industries from U. S. D epartm ent of Com m erce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R a ilro ad
Retirem ent B o ard ; Fed e ral Reserve Bank of C leve la n d (See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix.)


22


JANUARY 1968

TABLE V-b
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Boston Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Boston
Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1950-1960

Total 1 3-Cities

Percent
Change in
Employment
1959-1964

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1959-1964

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1959-1964

— 4 6 .6 %

— 16.1 %

1. Mining

— 1 3 .3 %

+

345

— 1 5 .9 %

+

2

2 . Contract construction

—

1.5

—

2 ,8 8 8

+ 15.3

+

4 ,3 8 4

+

2 .7

+

3 . Food and kindred products

+ 2 1 .2

+

3 ,9 9 7

— 19.4

—

3,031

+

8 .0

— 10.5

4 . Textile mill products

— 6 4 .6

—

7,251

— 19.9

—

375

— 5 1 .0

— 17.8

5 . A p p a rel

+

2.3

+

3 ,7 8 0

+ 16.8

+

3 ,6 7 0

— 12.2

—

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

— 7 .5

+

100

+

1.8

+

634

—

8 .6

— 7 .2

7 . Pap er and allied products

+

4 .4

—

561

+

4.2

—

305

+

8.3

+

6 .3

8. Printing and publishing

+ 2 0 .9

—

713

+

8.8

+

1 ,1 4 6

+ 2 3 .8

+

4 .0

— 16.8

—

5 ,0 4 8

—

6.3

—

66

— 4 7 .8

—

1,301

— 6 2 .3

—

841

9 . Chemicals and allied products
10. Petroleum and coal products

3.2

0.1

+ 2 3 .0

—

5 .5

—

—

4 .7

9.3

1 1. M achinery

+ 7 3 .1

+ 2 7 ,4 2 5

+ 13.0

+

4 ,4 5 3

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

1 2 . Motor vehicles and equ pment

— 4 7 .0

—

1 ,8 5 4

+ 6 5 .4

+

1 ,4 1 0

— 13.8

+

4 .8

1 3 . A irc ra ft and parts, ships, etc.

+ 3 5 .6

—

1 ,2 8 7

—

6.6

+

716

+ 4 3 .3

— 2 1 .3

14. Prim ary metals

+ 2 2 .0

+

1 ,4 3 9

— 15.3

—

772

—

15. Fabricated metal products

+ 7 2 .0

+

6 ,7 8 9

—

6.3

+

32

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

—

—

7 ,6 5 7

—

5.0

—

3 ,3 2 5

17. Railroads and ra ilw a y express

— 5 3 .2

— 4 ,2 6 0

— 3 3 .3

—

962

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

—

2 ,3 3 0

+ 12.8

+

1 ,0 0 9

+ 2 3 .4

+

— 13 .5

+

1.3

+

6 .0

+

3 .9

5 .4

3.4

—

2 .8

+ 2 9 .3

—

6 .5

+

—

1.2

2 .5

1 8 . Trucking and warehousing

+

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

— 13.0

+

119

— 7.1

—

1 ,9 5 2

2 0 . Communications

+

8 .7

+

517

+

+

254

2 1 . Utilities and san itary service

—

5 .6

—

1 ,4 7 0

+ 17.9

+

1 ,9 6 4

+

2 .6

—

3 .4

2 2 . W h o lesale trad e

—

3.2

—

4 ,6 2 5

+

+

2 ,5 4 4

+

6 .0

+

2 .0

2 3 . Retail trad e

—

4 .2

— 1 1 ,2 3 4

+ 10.8

+

5 ,0 1 7

+

1.6

+

7 .9

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re a l estate

+ 2 0 .0

—

3 ,3 0 0

+ 10.5

—

1 ,0 4 8

+ 2 5 .5

+ 1 2 .0

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

— 1 1.8

—

1 ,5 8 8

+

1.6

—

1 ,5 2 5

— 7 .9

+

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

+ 2 9 .8

+

1,691

+ 4 7 .4

+

3 ,9 7 0

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

— 14.9

—

1 ,0 2 9

+

4 .9

+

534

—

2 8 . Professional services

+ 4 3 .9

—

8 ,1 5 0

+ 2 8 .9

+

1 ,3 1 7

+

— 2 0 ,3 4 4

+

+ 1 8 ,8 5 4

Total o f covered industries

7 .4

7 .8 %

0 .3
5 .7

8 .4 %

5 .8

7 .2

4 .2

— 2 .3

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+

+

9 .2 %

4 .8 %

Sources: G row th Patterns in Em ploym ent by C o un ty, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. Departm ent o f
Com m erce, 1966; unpublished estim ates fo r selected industries from U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R a ilro ad
Retirem ent B o ard ; Fed e ral Reserve Bank of C leve la n d (See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix .)




23

ECONOMIC REVIEW

TABLE V-c
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Buffalo Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Buffalo
Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

To tal 13-Cities

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Percent
Change in
Employment
1959-1964

— 4 6 .6 %

— 1 6 .1 %

1. Mining

— 3 5 .6 %

+

2 . Contract construction

+ 2 8 .3

+ 5,451

— 2 4 .0

— 4 ,6 6 7

+

2 .7

+

3 . Food and kindred products

+ 1 1.7

+

527

—

6 .6

+

542

+

8 .0

— 1 0.5

4 . Textile mill products

— 4 1 .6

+

221

— 2 5 .5

—

110

— 5 1 .0

— 1 7.8

5 . A p p a rel

— 27.1

—

534

— 2 2 .2

—

595

— 12.2

—

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

—

+

314

— 15.2

—

218

—

8.6

— 7 .2

7 . Pap er and allied products

— 10.9

— 1 ,4 5 9

—

6 .7

—

967

+

8.3

+

6.3

8 . Printing and publishing

+ 3 2 .2

+

—

1.2

—

406

+ 2 3 .8

+

4 .0

+

9 . Chemicals and allied products

1.0

6 .7

53

664

+

8 .6 %

+

75

3 .2

0.1

— 2 ,6 9 5

— 7 .5

—

268

+ 2 3 .0

—

5 .5

10. Petroleum and coal products

— 3 7 .4

—

— 2 1 .0

—

149

—

9 .3

—

4 .7

11. Machinery

+ 11.2

— 4 ,9 3 5

+

5.1

—

780

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

12. Motor vehicles and equipment

+ 2 4 .3

+ 7 ,0 0 3

+ 3 9 .6

+

5 ,0 1 8

— 13.8

+

4 .8

1 3 . A ircraft and parts, ships, etc.

+ 2 2 .6

— 1 ,3 0 6

— 5 5 .7

—

2 ,4 6 5

+ 4 3 .3

— 2 1 .3

14. Prim ary metals

+

6.5

+ 3 ,4 4 8

— 18.1

—

5 ,5 1 8

—

3 .4

—

2.8

1 5 . Fabricated metal products

— 18.3

— 5,1 64

+ 16.8

+

1 ,9 4 6

+ 2 9 .3

—

6.5

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

— 3 .7

— 1,101

— 17.0

—

2 ,8 5 3

+

—

1.2

17. Railroads and ra ilw a y express

— 3 6 .5

— 1 ,1 9 7

— 2 1 .2

—

67

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

18. Trucking and warehousing

+ 2 7 .8

+

245

+

1.2

—

333

+ 2 3 .4

+

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

— 2 6 .9

—

943

— 16.5

—

953

— 13.5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

+ 2 2 .0

+

732

—

8.6

—

428

+

6.0

+

3 .9

2 1 . Utilities and san itary service

+ 14.9

+

805

—

9 .7

—

314

+

2 .6

—

3 .4

2 2 . W ho lesale trad e

+

6.4

+

58

—

6.2

—

1 ,92 2

+

6 .0

+

2 .0

2 3 . Retail trade

+

4 .7

+ 2 ,0 4 2

+

1.6

—

3 ,9 4 4

+

1.6

+

7 .9

584

2 .5

5 .8

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re a l estate

+ 2 9 .9

+

571

+

4 .8

—

1 ,0 9 4

+ 2 5 .5

+ 12.0

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

— 7 .6

+

36

—

2.3

—

817

— 7 .9

+

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

+ 2 2 .4

—

105

+ 5 2 .9

+

1,401

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

+

+

226

—

6 .9

—

168

— 4.2

—

2 8 . Professional services

+ 5 3 .2

+ 1 ,12 2

+ 19.5

—

1 ,9 7 9

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+ 1 0 .2 %

+ 3 ,4 9 5

—

— 2 2 ,0 3 3

+

+

Total o f covered industries

2.3

2 .7 %

9 .2 %

7 .2
2.3

4 .8 %

Sources: Grow th Patterns in Employment by C o un ty, 1940-1950 a n d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. Departm ent of
Com merce, 1966; unpublished estim ates fo r selected industries from U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R a ilro ad
Retirem ent B o ard ; Fed e ral Reserve Bank of C leveland (See Technical Note, A p p e n d ix.)


24


JANUARY 1968

TABLE V-d
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Chicago Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Total 1 3-Cities
Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

— 4 6 .6 %

— 1 6.1 %

1. Mining

— 1 1 .5 %

+

675

—

8 .0 %

+

357

2 . Contract construction

+ 15.1

+

1 2 ,6 0 7

—

2 .7

—

5 ,4 9 9

+

2 .7

+

3 . Food and kindred products

—

—

1 2 ,8 3 7

— 10.1

288

+

8 .0

— 1 0.5

4 . Textile mill products

— 2 2 .2

+

2 ,4 5 6

— 15.2

+

149

— 5 1 .0

— 17.8

5 . A p p arel

— 2 4 .4

—

4 ,3 5 7

— 1 6.6

—

5 ,2 1 9

— 12.2

—

0.1

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

— 12.2

—

1 ,08 0

— 7 .6

—

100

—

8.6

—

7 .2

7 . P ap er and allied products

+

1.9

—

1 ,4 5 7

+ 13.1

+

1,661

+

8. Printing and publishing

+

8 .7

—

1 1 ,6 5 3

+

4 .6

+

422

9 . Chemicals and allied products

5.1

+

3.2

8.3

+

6.3

+ 2 3 .8

+

4 .0

+ 2 3 .7

+

228

—

4 .7

+

282

+ 2 3 .0

—

5 .5

1 0 . Petroleum and coal products

+

2 .5

+

1,571

—

6.9

—

123

—

9 .3

—

4 .7

11. M achinery

+ 19.4

—

2 5 ,6 6 9

—

1.3

— 2 2 ,3 4 6

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

1 2. Motor vehicles and equipment

+

+

3 ,9 3 0

+

— 13.8

+

4 .8

8.2

1 3 . A irc ra ft and parts, ships, etc.

— 18.2

—

9,551

14. Prim ary metals

— 14.0 *

—

8 ,0 8 0 *

15. Fabricated metal products

+ 15.8

—

11,081

+ 16.3
-0 +

0 .6 *

— 14.6

1 ,7 2 8

+

3 ,2 4 0

+ 4 3 .3

— 2 1 .3

+

2 ,3 1 6 *

—

3 .4

—

2.8

—

8 ,6 5 3

+ 2 9 .3

—

6 .5

—

1.2

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

+

8.8

+

5 ,9 4 9

+

6.5

+

7 ,4 0 3

+

1 7 . Railroads and ra ilw a y express

— 28.1

+

1 ,0 5 9

— 16 .7

+

2 ,3 5 9

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

+

239

+

8 .7

+

1 ,30 3

+ 2 3 .4

+

2 .5

18. Trucking and warehousing

+ 2 4 .0

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

— 7.1

+

2 ,8 1 7

—

2.1

—

1 ,5 6 5

— 13.5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

— 7.1

—

5,131

—

9 .9

—

3 ,3 2 6

+

6 .0

+

3 .9

2 1 . Utilities and san itary service

+

1.7

—

265

— 12.6

—

2 ,1 6 4

+

2 .6

—

3 .4

2 2 . W ho lesale trad e

+

1.8

—

4 ,0 1 5

+

+

3 ,0 7 2

+

6 .0

+

2 .0

2 3 . Retail trad e

—

1.7

—

1 1 ,9 5 2

+ 11.2

+ 1 0 ,9 6 2

+

1.6

+

7 .9

3.8

5 .8

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re a l estate

+ 2 0 .4

—

5,521

+

9.1

—

4 ,1 4 2

+ 2 5 .5

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

— 14.3

—

5 ,4 3 2

+

4 .5

—

1 ,8 3 5

— 7 .9

+

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

+ 2 4 .5

+

427

+ 2 0 .2

—

7 ,0 3 0

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

—

9 .3

—

1 ,04 9

— 10 .7

—

1 ,56 8

— 4 .2

— 2 .3

2 8 . Professional services

+ 4 2 .9

—

1 3 ,1 4 9

+ 2 6 .8

—

1 ,0 1 4

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+

— 100,321

+

— 2 9 ,0 4 2

+

+

Total o f covered industries

6 .6 %

3 .3 %

9 .2 %

+ 12.0
7 .2

4 .8 %

* See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix.
Sources: G row th Patterns in Em ploym ent by County, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. Departm ent of
Com m erce, 1966; unpublished estim ates fo r selected industries from U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce; County Business Pat­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R ailro ad
Retirem ent B o ard ; Fed e ral Reserve Bank of C leve la n d (See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix .)




25

ECONOMIC REVIEW

TABLE V-e
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Cincinnati Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Cincinnati
Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1950-1960

1. Mining

+

5 1 .2 %

+

338

2 . Contract construction

+

1 2.4

+

2 ,2 7 4

3 . Food and kindred products

1 0.4

+

4 . Textile mill products

+
—

2 3 .5

5 . A p p a rel

—

2 2 .0

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

—

8.9

7 . Pap er and allied products

—

8 . Printing and publishing

+
+
+

9 . Chemicals and allied products
10. Petroleum and coal products

Total 1 3-Cities

Percent
Change in
Employment
1959-1964
— 1 0 .6 %

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

+
—

— 4 6 .6 %

— 16 .1 %

4 .4

1 ,2 2 9

+

2 .7

373

— 7 .7

+

506

+

8 .0

+ 3 .2
— 10 .5

+
—

376

— 2 8 .8

—

112

— 5 1 .0

— 17 .8

647

— 2 2 .3

—

1 ,3 1 7

— 12.2

—

—

19

— 2 6 .8

—

1 ,01 2

—

8 .6

— 7 .2

14.0

—

1 ,5 5 5

+

6 .5

+

14

+

8.3

+

6.3

19.8

—

443

—

4 .6

—

1 ,0 4 7

+ 2 3 .8

+

4 .0

3 6 .3

+

1 ,53 2

— 16 .9

—

1 ,5 6 7

2.8

+

237

—

—

61

—

8.6

29

0.1

+ 2 3 .0

—

5 .5

—

9.3

—

4 .7
8.1

11. M achinery

+

10.1

—

5 ,9 3 7

4 ” 6.8

—

345

+ 3 1 .6

+

12. Motor vehicles and equipment

+

36.1

+

4 ,4 9 9

—

0 .7

—

685

— 13.8

1 3 . A irc ra ft and parts, ships, etc.

— 3 3 .9

—

2 ,3 3 0

+ 4 3 .3

14. Prim ary metals

+ 1,7 1 4 .4
—
2 8 .4

+ 4 .8
— 2 1 .3

+

0.1

+

120

—

3 .4

—

2 .8

15. Fabricated metal products

+

3 9 .5

+

955

—

0 .7

+

745

+ 2 9 .3

—

6.5

16. M anufacturing, n.e.c.

1.3

—

206

—

9.2

—

1 ,3 0 3

+

—

1.2

17. Railroads and ra ilw a y express

+
—

3 5 .3

—

834

— 18.6

+

164

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

3 9 .2

+

939

+

1.6

—

317

+ 2 3 .4

+

+ 1 1 ,94 8
— 1 ,8 5 4

2.5

1 8. Trucking and warehousing

+

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

—

15.0

—

80

+

7 .8

+

249

— 13.5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

+

2 3 .9

+

925

+

1.4

+

160

+

3 .9

2 1 . Utilities and san itary service

+

11.9

+

561

—

2.3

+

48

+

2 .6

+
—

2 2 . W holesale trade

+

0 .4

—

936

+

3.1

293

+

6.0

+

2 .0

2 3 . Retail trad e

+

0 .9

—

454

+

0.2

+
—

4,681

+

1.6

+

7 .9

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re al estate

2 9 .5

+

627

+ 13.2

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

+
—

17.4

—

1,371

+

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

+

11.2

—

1 ,24 5

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

+

1.4

+

226

2 8 . Professional services

+

4 7 .3

—

925

+

1 3 .0 %

+

9 ,3 0 4

Total o f covered industries

6.0

5.8

3 .4

235

+ 2 5 .5

+112.0

6.9

+
—

34

— 7 .9

+

+ 54.1

+

1 ,5 6 6

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

+ 16.4

+

745

— 4 .2

—

+ 2 7 .4

—

48

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

—

— 111,214

+

+

0 .2 %

9 .2 %

7 .2
2 .3

4 .8 %

Sources: G ro w th Patterns in Employment by Co un ty, 1940-1950 and 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U .S . Departm ent of
Com m erce, 1966; unpublished estim ates for selected industries from U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R ailro ad
Retirem ent Bo ard ; Fed e ral Reserve Bank of C leve la n d (See Technical Note, A p p e n d ix.)


26


JANUARY 1968

TABLE V-f
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Cleveland Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Total 1 3-Cities
Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Relative
Grow th
Indicator
1 959-1964

Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employmen
1 959-1964

— 4 6 .6 %

— 1 6 .1 %

1. Mining

+ 1 9 .0 %

+

—

1.9

+
—

+ 1 6 .5 %

2 . Contract construction

1 ,5 3 7

+ 10.8

+ 1 ,8 6 6

+

2 .7

+

3 . Food and kindred products

+ 3 5 .7

+

3 ,0 3 4

— 2 5 .9

— 2 ,3 3 4

+

8 .0

— 10.5

4 . Textile mill products

— 2 2 .9

+

1 ,6 1 8

—

+

608

— 5 1 .0

— 17.8

5 . A p p a rel

— 2 7 .2

—

1,701

+ 2 0 .5

+ 1 ,4 4 5

— 12.2

—

0.1

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

— 7 .3

+

65

— 2 1 .3

—

—

8.6

—

7 .2

7 . Pap er and allied products

+ 2 5 .3

+

762

+

5 .7

—

29

+

8.3

+

6.3

8 . Printing and publishing

+ 3 4 .7

+
—

1 ,5 3 7

+

8 .7

+

684

+ 2 3 .8

+

4 .0

9 . Chemicals and allied products
10. Petroleum and coal products

+ 15.9
—

8.3

11 . Machinery

+ 14.1

1 2 . Motor vehicles and equipment

+ 3 9 .9

1 3 . A irc ra ft and parts, ships, etc.

+

8.3

14 . Prim ary metals

—

2.1

1 5 . Fabricated metal products

515

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

6.1

390

726

3.2

— 13.6

— 1 ,3 3 6

+ 2 3 .0

—

5 .5

38
+
— 10 ,8 3 3

—

+

—

—

4 .7

+

5.1

— 1 ,82 2

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

+ 1 4 ,3 8 2
— 3,951

+

3 .7

—

— 13.8

+

4 .8

— 3 1 .3

— 1 ,4 8 4

+ 4 3 .3

— 2 1 .3

498

— 13.5

— 4 ,4 9 4

—

3.4

—

2 .8

1 ,1 1 2

3.5

19
407

9 .3

+ 11.1

+
—

5,201

—

9.3

— 1 ,0 1 5

+ 2 9 .3

—

6 .5

1 6. M anufacturing, n.e.c.

+ 10 .0

+

1,371

+ 3 0 .7

+ 4 ,5 4 6

+

—

1.2

17. Railroads and ra ilw a y express

— 2 6 .5

+

480

— 19.0

+

182

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

+

6.2

+

46

+ 2 3 .4

+

2 .5

1 8. Trucking and warehousing

+ 2 1 .0

—

220

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

— 19.8

—

684

+ 11.2

+

747

— 1 3.5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

+

5 .4

—

48

—

1.0

6.0

+

3 .9

—

0 .3

—

275

+

0.8

1
235

+

2 1 . Utilities and san itary service

+
+

+

2 .6

—

3 .4

2 2 . W holesale trade

+ 13.3

+

1 ,78 0

+

0.1

—

898

+

6.0

+

2 .0

+

1.6

+

7 .9

5 .8

2 3 . Retail trad e

+

3.8

+

2 ,1 3 3

6.5

— 1 ,2 6 4

+

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re al estate

+ 2 8 .7

+

734

+ 16.5

+ 1,321

+ 2 5 .5

+ 12 .0

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

—

+

2.4

—

749

— 7 .9

+

+ 19.6

+
—

617

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

639

+ 2 6 .9

—

591

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

—

8.3

—

245

— 16.8

—

919

—

—

2 8 . Professional services

+ 5 1 .4

+

693

+ 3 0 .8

+ 1 ,3 1 4

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+ 1 1 .9 %

+

3,81 1

+

— 4 ,7 6 4

+

+

Total o f covered industries

4 .7

3 .3 %

4 .2

9 .2 %

7 .2
2 .3

4 .8 %

Sources: Grow th Patterns in Em ploym ent by C o un ty, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. D epartm ent of
Com m erce, 1966; unpublished estim ates for selected industries from U. S. Departm ent of Com merce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R ailro ad
Retirem ent Bo ard ; Fed eral Reserve Bank of C leve la n d (See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix .)




27

ECONOMIC REVIEW

TABLE V-g
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Detroit Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Total 13-Cities
Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1959-1964

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 959-1964

Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1959-1964

— 4 6 .6 %

— 1 6 .1 %

1. Mining

+

3 .5 %

+

463

+

192

2. Contract construction

—

6 .7

—

5,441

+ 2 4 .5

+

7 ,8 8 2

+

2 .7

+

3. Food and kindred products

+ 3 6 .4

+

5 ,7 1 2

—

6.9

+

808

+

8 .0

— 1 0.5

4 . Textile mill products

—

8.2

+

709

+ 7 6 .5

+

658

— 5 1 .0

— 1 7.8

5 . A p p a rel

+ 11.9

+

663

+ 4 4 .5

+

3 ,0 2 8

— 12.2

—

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

— 9 .6

—

48

+

+

468

—

8.6

— 7 .2

7 . P ap er and allied products

+ 2 9 .0

+

622

+

8 . Printing and publishing

+ 5 2 .2

+

4 ,7 4 9

+ 12.6

—

1 ,63 5

— 2 8 .0

—

459

9 . Chemicals and allied products
10. Petroleum and coal products

+

7 .9 %

2 .6

+ 12 .6

+

263

+

3.9

—

23

—

9.2

—

589

— 10.8

—

74

3.2

0.1

8 .3

+

6.3

+ 2 3 .8

+

4 .0

+ 2 3 .0

—

5 .5

—

— 4 .7

9 .3

1 1. M achinery

+ 51.1

+ 11,681

+

7.1

—

91 1

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

1 2 . M otor vehicles and equipment

— 2 6 .5

— 4 2 ,6 0 8

—

0.1

—

8 ,1 3 2

— 13.8

+

4 .8

1 3. A irc ra ft and parts, ships, etc.

+ 8 4 .0

+

1 ,33 6

— 3 5 .6

—

1,791

1 4. Prim ary metals

+

4 .2

+

2 ,5 7 3

—

2 .7

+

155

1 5 . Fabricated metal products

+ 5 5 .6

+

8 ,3 5 2

+

8.1

+

6,161

+ 4 3 .3

— 2 1 .3

—

3 .4

—

2.8

+ 2 9 .3

—

6.5

—

1.2

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

— 0.3

—

784

+ 2 8 .4

+

6 ,2 0 8

17 . Railroads and ra ilw a y express

— 19.4

+

1 ,3 8 7

— 16.8

+

418

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

1 8 . Trucking and warehousing

+ 3 7 .0

+

2 ,0 0 2

—

—

1 ,36 8

+ 2 3 .4

+

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

— 26.1

—

2 ,0 8 6

+ 2 1 .3

+

1 ,5 7 0

— 13 .5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

+ 1 3.0

+

1 ,0 3 4

—

3.2

—

355

+

6 .0

+

3 .9

2 1 . Utilities and sanitary service

—

2 .0

—

892

—

8.5

—

768

+

2 .6

—

3 .4

2 2 . W holesale trad e

+ 2 3 .7

+

6 ,1 3 6

+

5.6

+

2 ,3 3 6

+

6 .0

+

2 .0

2 3 . Retail trade

+

+ 1 2 ,6 9 6

+

8 .7

+

1 ,2 9 9

+

1.6

+

7 .9

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re al estate

+ 3 0 .7

+

2 ,0 2 9

+ 1 4.4

+

1 J4 1

+ 2 5 .5

+ 1 2.0

8.6

1.3

+

2 .5

5.8

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

—

1.7

+

2 ,2 0 4

+ 13 .5

+

1 ,53 4

— 7 .9

+

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

+ 3 5 .0

+

2 ,9 7 9

+ 3 0 .5

—

28

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

—

—

556

+

2 .7

+

513

—

—

2 8 . Professional services

+ 7 1 .9

+ 1 8 ,4 8 7

+ 3 2 .0

+

2 ,7 7 8

+

+ 3 1 ,3 0 5

+

+ 2 3 ,3 7 3

Total o f covered industries

9.2

7 .4 %

7 .9 %

4 .2

7 .2
2.3

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+

+

9 .2 %

4 .8 %

Sources: G row th Patterns in Employment by Co unty, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. Departm ent of
Com m erce, 1966, unpublished estim ates fo r selected industries from U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R ailro ad
Retirem ent B o ard ; Fed e ral Reserve Bank of C leve la n d (See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix .)


28


JANUARY 1968

TABLE V-h
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Kansas City Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Kansas City
Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Total 1 3-Cities

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Relative
Grow th
Indicator
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
19 59-1964

1. Mining

+

9 .6 %

+

417

+

2 2 .9 %

+

36 8

— 4 6 .6 %

— 16 .1 %

2 . Contract construction

—

3.4

—

1 ,4 1 4

—

1.9

—

999

+

2 .7

3 . Food and kindred products

—

1 1.5

—

3,471

—

0 .8

+

1 ,5 9 8

+

8.0

+ 3.2
— 10 .5

4 . Textile mill products

—

5 3 .3

—

16

—

4 .2

+

25

— 5 1 .0

— 117.8

5 . A p p a rel

+

1.5

+

934

+

4 .6

+

359

— 12.2

— 0.1

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

+

4 .0

+

313

+

2.3

+

206

—

8 .6

— 7 .2

7 . Pa p er and allied products

+

4 9 .9

+

1,091

—

1.9

—

343

+

8.3

+

6 .3

8 . Printing and publishing

+

5 7 .2

+

2 ,4 1 9

+

8.6

+

451

+ 2 3 .8

4 .0

+

4 0 .8

+

794

—

1.5

+

212

+ 2 3 .0

+
—

—

7 .4

+

73

—

1 7.4

—

295

—

9 .3

—

4 .7

1 1. M achinery

+

6 9 .5

+

2 ,7 2 0

+ 1117.2

8.1

1 2. Motor vehicles and equipment

—

9 .7

+

414

9 . Chemicals and allied products
10. Petroleum and coal products

+ 3 1 .6

+

17.5

+
—

7 ,9 7 7

—

1 ,1 3 3

— 13.8

5 .5

1 3 . A ircraft and parts, ships, etc.

+ 1 17.1

+

826

—

5 9 .7

—

527

+ 4 3 .3

+ 4 .8
— 2 1 .3

14. Prim ary metals

—

8.1

—

282

—

15.1

—

804

—

15. Fabricated metal products

+ 2 0 5 .2

+

8 ,2 9 9

—

5 .7

+

59

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

2 5 .6

+

1,751

+

1,641

24.1

+
—

1 ,57 2

19 .5

+
—

2 1 .0

17 . Railroads and ra ilw a y express

+
—

508

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

3 0 .8

+

528

+

2 .4

—

302

+ 2 3 .4

+

3.4

—

2 .8

+ 2 9 .3

—

6 .5

+

—

1.2

2 .5

1 8. Trucking and warehousing

+

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

+

1 0 .0

+

2 ,2 3 2

+

7.1

+

331

— 13.5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

+

2 2 .0

+

869

0 .8

119

+

6 .0

182

+

2 .6

+
—

3 .9

7 .4

+
—

3 .4

9 .5

+

2 ,4 7 0

+

6 .0

+

2 .0

1.6

+

7 .9

2 1 . Utilities and sanitary service

+

11.9

+

521

+
—

2 2 . W holesale trad e

+

1 3.7

+

1 ,4 3 9

+

2 3 . Retail trade

+

2 .4

+

546

+

1 6.0

+

4 ,7 9 9

+

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re al estate

3 2 .7

+

1 ,30 3

+

19.2

+ 2 5 .5

618

+

4.2

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

+

2 0 .4

+
—

+
—

1 ,6 9 5

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

+
—

297

+

5 3 .6

+

1,771

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

+

0 .7

+

162

+

1.1

+

2 8 . Professional services

+

6 1 .4

+

3 ,3 0 5

+

3 0 .2

+

+

1 6 .8 %

+ 2 7 ,7 3 5

+

1 0 .8 %

+ 1 9 ,3 2 7

Total o f covered industries

3 .5

332

—

7 .9

5 .8

+ 1 2 .0
+ 7 .2

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

125

—

—

615

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+

+

4 .2

9 .2 %

2 .3

4 .8 %

Sources: G row th Patterns in Em ploym ent by Co un ty, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. D epartm ent of
Com m erce, 1966, unpublished estim ates for selected industries from U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R ailro ad
Retirem ent Bo ard ; Fed eral Reserve Bank of C leve la n d (See Technical Note, A p p e n d ix .)




29

ECONOMIC REVIEW

TABLE V-i
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
M ilwaukee Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
M ilwaukee
Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Total 13-Cities

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1959-1964

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

-0 -

62
+
— 1,131

— 4 6 .6 %

— 1 6 .1 %

+

2 .7

+

+

8 .0

— 10.5

1. Mining

—

5 .8 %

+

220

2 . Contract construction

+

1.8

—

194

—

3 . Food and kindred products

—

0.1

— 1 ,61 8

—

1 4 .7

—

910

4 . Textile mill products

— 66.1

—

647

+

4 3 .4

— 5 1 .0

— 17.8

— 2 2 .5

—

447

—

10.4

+
—

752

5 . A p p a rel

36 3

— 12.2

—

6. Lumber, wood products, furniture

— 2 6 .5

—

648

—

0 .6

+

165

—

8 .6

— 7 .2

7 . P a p er and allied products

+

6.4

—

78

+

17.2

+

457

+

8.3

+

6.3

8 . Printing and publishing

+ 3 1 .6

+

763

—

2.9

—

724

+ 2 3 .8

+

4 .0

+
—

204

+ 2 3 .0

—

5 .5

—

— 4 .7

9 . Chemicals and allied products

3 .1 %

3.2

0.1

+ 1 9.7

—

92

+

0 .9

— 3 6 .3

—

165

—

14.5

11. M achinery

+ 23.1

— 5 ,4 5 0

+

10.1

1 2 . Motor vehicles and equipment

+ 4 7 .4

+ 8 ,1 1 5

+

0.8

—

1 3 . A ircraft and parts, ships, etc.

—

6.5

— 1 ,06 8

—

3.9

14. Prim ary metals

+
—

9.1
2 .5

+ 1 ,6 7 7

+

4.8

93
+
+ 1 ,41 5

—

3.4

—

2.8

— 4 ,4 6 0

+

3.8

+ 1 ,3 6 7

+ 2 9 .3

—

6 .5

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

+

4.1

+

307

+

3.9

+

737

—

1.2

17. Railroads and ra ilw a y express

— 3 2.8

—

267

—

2 0 .0

+

28

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

+

1

+

10.5

+

296

+ 2 3 .4

+

— 13.5

+

1.3

+

6.0

+

3 .9
3 .4

10. Petroleum and coal products

15. Fabricated metal products

21

+ 1 ,3 9 9

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

485

— 13.8

+

4 .8

+ 4 3 .3

— 2 1 .3

1 8. Trucking and warehousing

+ 2 3 .4

19. Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

— 1 2.6

+

49

—

0.1

_

62

2 0 . Communications

+

—

309

—

9.3

—

506

0 .6

9.3

+

2 .5

5 .8

2 1 . Utilities and san itary service

+

6.3

+

262

+ 2 1 4 .7

+ 3 ,9 4 9

+

2 .6

—

2 2 . W ho lesale trad e

+

7 .8

+

285

+

0.8

—

331

+

6 .0

+

2 .0

2 3 . Retail trad e

+ 12.0

+ 6 ,6 8 2

+

6.1

— 1,1 0 4

+

1.6

+

7 .9

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and real estate

+ 3 4 .7

+ 1 ,37 4

+

10.3

—

332

+ 2 5 .5

+ 12.0

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

—

6 .7

+

139

+

12.4

+

493

—

+

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

+ 19.3

—

416

+

2 2 .5

—

67 6

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

—

3.0

+

41

+

0 .5

+

98

—

—

2 8 . Professional services

+ 4 9 .0

—

397

+

2 8 .8

+

297

+ 1 3 .7 %

+ 3 ,6 5 9

+

Total o f covered industries

6 .7 %

+ 4 ,9 6 7

7 .9
4.2

7 .2
2.3

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+

+

9 .2 %

4 .8 %

Sources: Grow th Patterns in Employment by Co un ty, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. Departm ent of
Com m erce, 1966; unpublished estim ates fo r selected industries from U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. D epartm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R ailro ad
Retirem ent B o ard ; Fed eral Reserve Bank of C leve la n d (See Technical Note, A p p e n d ix.)


30


JANUARY 1968

TABLE V-j
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Minneapolis-St. Paul Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Total 1 3-Cities

Minneapolis -St. Paul
Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960
1 .6 %

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1959-1964

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Percent
Change in
Employment
1959-1964
— 1 6 .1 %

1. Mining

—

+

164

+ 1 4 .1 %

+

90

— 4 6 .6 %

2 . Contract construction

+ 18 .9

+

4 ,4 2 4

+

3.6

+

85

+

2 .7

+

3 . Food and kindred products

+ 10.9

+

682

—

8.9

+

32 5

+

8 .0

— 1 0.5

3.2

4 . Textile mill products

— 3 4 .9

+

361

+

8.0

+

366

— 5 1 .0

— 17.8

5 . A p p a rel

— 24.1

—

894

— 17.3

—

1 ,0 3 0

— 12.2

—

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

— 14.6

—

325

—

9.2

—

45

—

8 .6

— 7 .2

7 . P ap er and allied products

+ 12.4

+

172

+

+

8.3

+

6.3

8. Printing and publishing

+ 3 9 .9

+

2 ,0 1 3

+ 2 3 .8

+

4 .0

+

4 .7

—

74

+ 17.3

+

1 ,7 3 0

+ 4 6 .6

+ 1 ,6 0 9
365
+
+ 1 1 ,57 8

+

7 .5

+

50

4 .6

—

795

+ 4 3 .3

+ 29.1

+

390

+ 3 2 .4

1 1. M achinery

+ 15.3

— 4 ,3 6 7

1 2. Motor vehicles and equipment

+

5 .0

+

589

+
—

344

+ 11.5

+

261

+ 5 0 .0

+

—

9 . Chemicals and allied products
10. Petroleum and coal products

1 3 . A ircraft and parts, ships, etc.

+ 9 9 .3

14. Prim ary metals

— 12.2

1 5. Fabricated metal products

+ 8 9 .8

1 6. Manufacturing, n.e.c.

0.1

+ 2 3 .0

—

5 .5

—

—

4 .7

9.3

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

— 13.8

+

4 .8

294

+ 4 3 .3

— 2 1 .3

924

—

3.4

—

2.8

+ 2 9 .3

—

6 .5

+

—

1.2

2.1

+

437

+ 7 7 .0

+ 4 ,8 9 2
+ 1 3 ,0 3 8

— 3 0 .8

—

7 ,9 0 3

17. Railroads and ra ilw a y express

— 2 3 .2

+

1 ,2 9 7

— 2 0 .4

+

19

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

+

39

—

2 .4

—

787

+ 2 3 .4

+

2.5

1 8. Trucking and warehousing

+ 2 3 .9

19. Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

—

2.1

+

1 ,1 2 6

— 7 .7

_

747

— 13.5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

+ 17.8

+

765

—

1.3

—

18

+

6 .0

+

3 .9

2 1 . Utilities and san itary service

+ 14.0

+

752

—

5.1

—

106

+

2 .6

—

3 .4

2 2 . W holesale trade

+ 15.4

+

2 ,7 6 5

+

1-2

—

414

+

6 .0

+

2 .0

1.6

+

7 .9

5.8

2 3 . Retail trade

+

5.2

+

3 ,0 4 3

+ 15.2

+

5 ,9 5 9

+

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and real estate

+ 3 4 .2

+

2 ,2 6 5

+ 2 0 .4

+

2 ,7 6 7

+ 2 5 .5

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

+

+ 2 1 .0

—

997

+ 2 7 .9

+
—

1,741

+ 16.6

+
—

1 ,92 3

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

341

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

+ 11.6

+

731

+ 2 3 .3

+

1 ,1 8 7

— 4 .2

—

2 8 . Professional services

+ 5 3 .5

+

1 ,75 4

+ 2 8 .4

+

282

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+ 1 9 .8 %

+ 3 5 ,8 9 0

+

+ 1 8 ,3 4 3

+

+

Total o f covered industries

5.1

9 .7 %

7 .9

9 .2 %

+ 1 2 .0
+

7 .2
2 .3

4 .8 %

Sources: G row th Patterns in Employment by C ounty, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, O ffice of Business Economics, U. S. D epartm ent of
Com m erce, 1966; unpublished estim ates fo r selected industries from U. S. D epartm ent of Com m erce; C ounty Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R a ilro ad
Retirem ent Bo ard ; Fed eral Reserve Bank of C leveland (See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix .)




31

ECONOMIC REVIEW

TABLE V-k
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Philadelphia Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Total 1 3-Cities
Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 0

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1959-1964

— 4 6 .6 %

— 1 6 .1 %

1. Mining

+ 1 8 .6 %

+

— 3 4 .8 %

—

2 . Contract construction

—

— 7 ,7 4 9

+

1.2

— 1 ,2 3 7

+

2 .7

+

3 . Food and kindred products

+ 2 4 .2

+

6 ,9 6 9

—

7 .0

+ 1 ,6 4 4

+

8 .0

— 10.5

4 . Textile mill products

— 4 8 .5

+

1 ,57 3

— 2 5 .3

— 2 ,6 9 9

— 5 1 .0

— 17.8

5 . A p p a rel

—

4 .9

+

4 ,1 9 5

—

1.3

—

696

— 12.2

—

0.1

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

—

8.0

+

60

—

0 .6

+

690

—

8 .6

—

7 .2

7 . Pa p er and allied products

+ 12.0

+

722

+ 12.3

+ 1 ,0 9 7

+

8.3

+

6.3

8 . Printing and publishing

+ 2 6 .2

+

817

+

1.5

—

+ 2 3 .8

+

4 .0

9 . Chemicals and allied products

+ 4 9 .9

+

7 ,2 1 7

+

0.4

+ 1 ,9 0 3

+ 2 3 .0

—

5.5

+ 1 2.6

+

4 ,5 1 2

— 11.2

— 1 ,01 2

—

9.3

—

4 .7

10 . Petroleum and coal products

6.1

992

353

936

3.2

1 1. M achinery

+ 4 9 .4

+ 1 3 ,9 3 3

+

9 .4

+ 1 ,1 2 7

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

12. Motor vehicles and equipment

— 1 5 .7

—

—

5.1

—

— 13.8

+

4 .8

— 2 1 .3

296

617

1 3 . A ircraft and p arts, ships, etc.

+ 1 0 .7

—

8 ,1 5 4

+

7.1

+ 3,841

+ 4 3 .3

14. Prim ary metals

+

6 .0

+

3 ,1 0 0

—

8.3

— 1 ,7 6 0

—

3 .4

—

2 .8

15. Fabricated metal products

+ 5 2 .6

+

7 ,9 9 4

—

8.3

—

860

+ 2 9 .3

—

6 .5

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

—

1.3

—

2 ,4 4 5

—

2.9

—

900

+

—

1.2

1 7 . Railroads and ra ilw a y express

— 2 5 .8

+

987

— 2 4 .6

—

837

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

1 ,5 2 6

+

+

464

+ 2 3 .4

+

1 8. Trucking and warehousing

+ 15.2

—

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

— 14.4

—

265

+ 19.2

+ 3 ,9 1 8

— 13.5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

+ 12.8

+

1,31 3

+ 18.5

+ 3,261

+

6.0

+

3 .9

2 1 . Utilities and sanitary service

+

2.8

+

47

—

3 .4

—

5

+

2 .6

—

3.4

2 2 . W h o lesale trad e

+ 1 0.7

+

2 ,3 9 5

+

4 .7

+ 2 ,3 7 3

+

6 .0

+

2 .0

2 3 . Retail trad e

+

3.6

+

4 ,5 0 3

+

5.9

— 3 ,9 5 8

+

1.6

+

7 .9

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re al estate

+ 24.1

—

873

+ 13.1

+

+ 2 5 .5

+ 1 2.0

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

—

3 .9

+

1 ,73 2

+ 1 1.4

+ 1 ,2 4 4

—

+

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

+ 2 9 .5

+

1 ,8 9 2

+ 2 5 .3

— 1 ,63 2

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

—

—

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

+

2.3

+

662

2 8 . Professional services

+ 4 7 .8

—

2 ,8 4 2

+ 1 1 .5 %

+ 4 1 ,4 6 5

Total o f covered industries

8.0

2 .5

767

7 .9

7 .2

4 .0

—

168

—

+ 2 7 .1

—

448

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+

+ 4 ,2 1 1

+

+

4 .7 %

4 .2

5.8

9 .2 %

2 .3

4 .8 %

Sources: G ro w th Patterns in Employment by Co un ty, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. Departm ent of
Com m erce, 1966; unpublished estim ates fo r selected industries from U. S. D epartm ent of Com m erce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R ailro ad
Retirem ent Bo ard ; Fed e ral Reserve Bank of C leve la n d (See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix .)


32


JANUARY 1968

TABLE V-l
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
Pittsburgh Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Pittsburgh
Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1950-1960

Total 13-Cities

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1959-1964

Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 959-1964

1. Mining

— 6 2 .9 %

—

5 ,0 1 9

—

2 8 .3 %

—

1 ,4 6 7

— 4 6 .6 %

— 1 6 .1 %

2 . Contract construction

— 4.1

—

2,981

—

8.9

—

3 ,9 2 8

+

2 .7

3 . Food and kindred products

+ 16.3

1,591

—

1 1 .7

—

218

+

8.0

+ 3.2
— 10.5

4 . Textile mill products

— 5 9 .4

+
—

107

+ 1130.8

+

371

— 5 1 .0

— 17.8

5 . A p p a rel

+

6 .6

+

397

+

15.9

+

316

— 12.2

—

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

+ 14.5

+

645

8 .0

—

8 .6

— 7 .2

+ 16.8

+

246

2 5 .8

+
—

334

7 . P ap er and allied products

+
—

1 ,2 2 6

+

8.3

+

6.3

8 . Printing and publishing

+ 3 5 .1

+

1 ,0 6 5

—

15.5

—

1 ,8 3 8

+ 2 3 .8

4 .0

+ 2 5 .0

+ 2 3 .0

+
—

—

9.3

—

4 .7

9 . Chemicals and allied products

0.1

—

6 .0

—

28

— 6 9 .3

+
—

147

10. Petroleum and coal products

3 ,6 7 9

+

1 5.0

+

119

11. M achinery

+ 16.5

—

6 ,7 5 6

+

1.1

—

2 ,9 0 9

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

1 2 . Motor vehicles and equipment

+ 3 9 .8

+

1 ,2 3 5

+

3 6 .5

+

539

— 13.8

+

4 .8

1 ,0 3 4

5.5

1 3 . A ircraft and parts, ships, etc.

+

8 .7

—

1 ,9 4 7

—

36.1

—

14. Prim ary metals

—

9 .0

—

8 ,4 1 8

—

16.2

— 17 ,2 2 8

—

3 .4

—

2 .8

15. Fabricated metal products

+ 2 5 .9

—

737

—

19 .6

—

3 ,9 1 2

+ 2 9 .3

—

6.5

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

— 12.1

— 4 ,7 9 0

—

2 .8

—

396

+

—

1 7. Railroads and ra ilw a y express

— 3 4 .7

—

1 ,71 3

—

2 4 .8

—

893

— 2 9 .4

556

+

8 .9

+

313

+ 2 3 .4

+

+ 4 3 .3

2 .5

21 .3

1.2
2 0 .5

1 8. Trucking and warehousing

+ 17.5

—

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

— 2 2 .9

—

979

+

3.1

+

1 67

— 13.5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

—

4 .0

—

1 ,04 8

+

2.3

293

+

6 .0

3 .9
3 .4
2 .0

5 .8

2 1 . Utilities and sanitary service

+

2 .7

+

13

—

2 9 .2

+
—

3 ,4 2 9

+

2.6

+
—

2 2 . W holesale trad e

+

7 .8

466

—

2 0 .0

— 10 ,5 5 7

+

6 .0

+

2 3 . Retail trad e

—

3.1

+
—

5 ,8 9 0

—

0.1

—

8,591

+

1.6

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re al estate

+ 2 2 .5

—

791

+

0 .7

—

3 ,6 5 8

+ 2 5 .5

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

—

1 ,4 6 5

+

7 .3

— 7 .9

+ 15.1

1 ,39 8

2 5 .4

668

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

+

6.5

+

762

+
—

+
—

10

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

+
—

+ 7 .9
+ 1 2 .0
+ 7 .2

1 5.4

—

961

—

—

2 8 . Professional services

+ 4 5 .7

—

2 ,9 5 7

+

1 1.6

—

8 ,9 2 2

+

— 4 1 ,7 3 4

—

Total o f covered industries

1.5

0 .7 %

7 .1 %

— 69,5 01

4.2

2 .3

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

+

+

9 .2 %

4 .8 %

Sources: G ro w th Patterns in Em ploym ent by C o un ty, 1940-1950 an d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. D epartm ent of
Com m erce, 1966; unpublished estim ates for selected industries from U .S . D epartm ent of Com m erce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R a ilro ad
Retirem ent Bo ard ; Fed e ral Reserve Bank of C leveland (See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix .)




33

ECONOMIC REVIEW

TABLE V-m
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
St. Louis Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
St. Louis
Percent
Change in
Employment
1950-1960

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1950-1960

Total 1 3-Cities

Percent
Change in
Employment
1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

Relative
Growth
Indicator
1959-1964

Percent
C hange in
Employment
1950-1960

Percent
Change in
Employment
1959-1964

— 4 6 .6 %

— 1 6 .1 %

1. Mining

—

2 6 .8 %

+

622

— 4 .9 %

+

2. Contract construction

3.8

+

382

+ 12.5

+ 2 ,9 3 7

+

2 .7

+

3 . Food and kindred products

+
—

8.3

—

5 ,4 4 0

— 1 3.0

—

+

8 .0

— 10.5

4 . Textile mill products

—

3 8 .5

+

312

5 . A p p a rel

—

2 5 .3

—

2 ,2 9 6

6. Lumber, wood products, furniture

—

3.3

314
709

3.2

+ 5 3 .0

+ 1 ,03 2

— 5 1 .0

— 17.8

—

— 1 ,1 9 3

— 12.2

—

8.6

0.1

+

31 1

— 12.6

—

320

—

8.6

— 7 .2

7 . Pa p er and allied products

+

11.5

+

239

—

9 .4

— 1 ,35 3

+

8.3

+

6.3

8 . Printing and publishing

+

17.1

—

859

+

6 .7

+

+ 2 3 .8

+

4 .0

9 . Chemicals and allied products

+
—

3 9 .6

+

2 ,6 1 0

— 11.6

— 1 ,24 5

+ 2 3 .0

—

5 .5

1 0 . Petroleum and coal products

3 .9

+

395

+ 7 2 .6

+ 2 ,0 9 7

—

9 .3

—

4 .7

11. M achinery

+

2 1 .9

—

3,191

—

2.0

— 3 ,1 9 0

+ 3 1 .6

+

8.1

1 2 . Motor vehicles and equipment

+

5 ,0 2 3

+ 2 6 .6

+ 2 ,7 8 5

— 13.8

+

4 .8

1 3. A irc ra ft and parts, ships, etc.

+ 2 8 .7
+ 2 0 1 .2

+ 1 2 ,9 1 3

+

+

+ 4 3 .3

— 2 1 .3

14. Prim ary metals

—

12.0

—

1 ,79 3

+ 18.8

+ 4 ,5 8 9

—

3 .4

—

2.8

15. Fabricated metal products

2 .8

—

5 ,0 5 0

+

3 .0

+ 1 ,6 9 5

+ 2 9 .3

—

6.5

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

+
—

1 4.8

—

7 ,5 8 7

— 16.8

— 5 ,1 9 9

+

—

1.2

17. Railroads and ra ilw a y express

—

29.1

+

88

— 2 3 .9

—

714

— 2 9 .4

— 2 0 .5

2 6 .5

+

392

+

8 .6

+

420

+ 2 3 .4

+

5.8

356

77 9

2 .5

1 8 . Trucking and warehousing

+

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

_

6.2

+

715

+

3.5

+

190

— 13.5

+

1.3

2 0 . Communications

+

5 .0

—

98

+

2.2

+

318

+

6 .0

+

3 .9

2 1 . Utilities and sanitary service

+
—

1.2

—

159

+

1.0

+

301

+

2 .6

—

3 .4

2 2 . W holesale trad e

7 .5

—

4 ,3 2 5

—

0 .5

— 1 ,25 8

+

6 .0

+

2 .0

2 3 . Retail trad e

—

0 .5

—

2 ,2 8 0

+

4 .5

— 3 ,3 5 9

+

1.6

+

7 .9

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re al estate

+
—

2 7 .4

+

514

+ 18.0

+ 2 ,1 9 2

+ 2 5 .5

+ 12 .0

7 .9

+

7

+ 10.5

+ ' 609

—

+

—

465

+ 2 6 .7

—

530

+ 2 3 .7

+ 3 0 .6

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

+ 2 0 .6
—
5 .8

—

92

+

+

320

—

—

2 8 . Professional services

+

5 2 .8

+

1 ,5 0 7

+ 3 7 .4

+ 4 ,0 6 6

+ 5 0 .2

+ 2 3 .8

—

7 ,6 0 5

+

+ 5 ,9 3 0

+

+

2 5 . Personal services including hotels
2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

Total o f covered industries

+

8 .1 %

3.2

5 .1 %

7 .9
4 .2

9 .2 %

5 .8

7 .2
2.3

4 .8 %

Sources: G ro w th Patterns in Employment by C o un ty, 1940-1950 a n d 1950-1960, Office of Business Economics, U. S. Departm ent of
Com m erce, 1966; unpublished estimates fo r selected industries from U. S. D epartm ent of Com m erce; County Business P a t­
terns, Bureau of the Census, U. S. Departm ent of Com m erce, 1959 and 1964; unpublished estim ates by U. S. R ailro ad
Retirem ent B o ard ; Fed eral Reserve Bank of C leve land (See Technical N ote, A p p e n d ix .)


34


TABLE Vl-a
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators

1950-1960
High, 1 9 5 0 - 1 9 6 0
Percent
Change in
Employment

Low, 1 9 5 0 - 1 9 6 0
Percent
Change in
Employment

Relative
Growth
Indicator

Relative
Growth
Indicator

1. Mining

Cincinnati

+

5 1 .2 %

Philadelphia

+

Pittsburgh

— 6 2 .9 %

Pittsburgh

2 . Contract construction

Buffalo

+

2 8.3

Chicago

+ 1 2 ,6 0 7

Detroit

—

Philadelphia

—

7 ,7 4 9

3 . Food and kindred products

Detroit

36.4

Philadelphia

+

6 ,9 6 9

Kansas City

— 11.5

Chicago

—

1 2 ,8 3 7

Chicago

+

2 ,4 5 6

M ilwaukee

— 66.1

Boston

—

7,251

11.9

Philadelphia

+

4 ,1 9 5

Cleveland

— 2 7 .2

Chicago

—

4 ,3 5 7
1 ,0 8 0

4 . T extile mill products

Detroit

+
—

5 . A p p a re l

Detroit

+

8.2

992

6 .7

5 ,0 1 9

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

Pittsburgh

+

14.5

Pittsburgh

+

645

M ilwaukee

— 2 6 .5

Chicago

—

7 . P a p e r and allie d products

Kansas City

+

4 9 .9

Baltimore

+

1 ,2 5 5

Cincinnati

— 14.0

Cincinnati

—

1 ,55 5

8 . Printing and publishing

Kansas City

+

57 .2

Detroit

+

4 ,7 4 9

Chicago

+

Chicago

—

1 1 ,6 5 3

8 .7

Philadelphia

+

4 9 .9

Philadelphia

+

7 ,2 1 7

Boston

— 16.8

Boston

—

5 ,0 4 8

Minn.-St. Paul

+

29.1

Philadelphia

+

4 ,5 1 2

Pittsburgh

— 6 9 .3

Pittsburgh

—

3 ,6 7 9

11. M achinery

Baltimore

Boston

+ 2 7 ,4 2 5

Cincinnati

+ 10.1

Chicago

—

2 5 ,6 6 9

1 2 . Motor vehicles and equipment

M ilwaukee

Cleveland

+ 1 4 ,3 8 2

Boston

— 4 7 .0

Detroit

— 4 2 ,6 0 8

St. Louis

+ 1 2 ,9 1 3

Chicago

— 18.2

Chicago

—

Baltimore

+

7 ,9 3 4

Cincinnati

— 2 8 .4

Pittsburgh

—

8 ,4 1 8

Detroit

+

8 ,3 5 2

Buffalo

— 18.3

Chicago

—

11,081

9 . Chemicals and allied products
10. Petroleum and coal products

1 3 . A irc ra ft and p arts, ships, etc.

Cincinnati

118.4
+
4 7 .4
+
+ 1 ,7 1 4 .4

14. Prim ary metals

Boston

+

2 2 .0

1 5 . Fab ricated m etal products

Kansas City

+

20 5.2

9,551

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

Minn.-St. Paul

Minn.-St. Paul

+ 1 3 ,0 3 8

St. Louis

— 14.8

Boston

—

7 ,6 5 7

Detroit

+
—

7 7 .0

1 7 . Railro ad s and ra ilw a y express

19.4

Kansas City

+

1,641

Boston

— 5 3 .2

Boston

—

4 ,2 6 0

39.2

Detroit

+

2 ,0 0 2

Boston

+

Boston

—

2 ,3 3 0

1 8 . Trucking and warehousing

Cincinnati

+

19. Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

Kansas City

+

10.0

Chicago

+

2 ,8 1 7

Buffalo

— 2 6 .9

Detroit

—

2 ,0 8 6

2 0 . Communications

Cincinnati

+

2 3.9

Philadelphia

+

1 ,3 1 3

Chicago

— 7.1

Chicago

—

5,131

2 1 . Utilities and san itary service

Buffalo

+

14.9

Buffalo

+

521

2 2 . W h o lesale trad e

Detroit

+

23 .7

Detroit

+

6 ,1 3 6

7 .4

Boston

—

5 .6

Boston

—

1 ,4 7 0

St. Louis

— 7 .5

Boston

—

4 ,6 2 5
1 1 ,9 5 2

2 3 . Retail trad e

M ilwaukee

+

12.0

Detroit

+ 1 2 ,6 9 6

Boston

—

4 .2

Chicago

—

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re a l estate

M ilwaukee

+

3 4 .7

Minn.-St. Paul

+

2 ,2 6 5

Boston

+ 2 0 .0

Chicago

—

5,521

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

Minn.-St. Paul

+

5.1

Detroit

+

2 ,2 0 4

Cincinnati

— 17.4

Chicago

—

5 ,4 3 2

Baltimore

+ 11.1

Baltimore

—

1,42 3

Boston

— 1 4.9

Chicago

—

1,04 9

+ 1 8 ,4 8 7

Chicago

+ 4 2 .9

Chicago

—

1 3 ,1 4 9

+ 3 5 ,8 9 0

Pittsburgh

+

Chicago

— 10 0,321

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

Detroit

+

3 5.0

Detroit

+

2 ,9 7 9

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

Minn.-St. Paul

+

11.6

Pittsburgh

+

762

2 8 . Professional services

Detroit

+

7 1 .9

Detroit

1 9 .8 %

Minn.-St. Paul

Total o f covered industries
Source: Data are derived from Table V




Minn.-St. Paul

+

0 .7 %

TABLE Vl-b
Employment Changes by Industry and Relative Growth Indicators
1959-1964
High, 1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4
Percent
Change in
Employment

Low, 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 4
Relative
Growth
Indicator

Percent
Change in
Employment

Relative
Growth
Indicator

1. Mining

K ansas City

+

2 2 .9 %

Cleveland

+

390

Philadelphia

— 3 4 .8 %

Pittsburgh

—

1 ,4 6 7

2 . Contract construction

Detroit

+

2 4 .5

Boston

+

4 ,3 8 4

Buffalo

— 2 4 .0

Chicago

—

5 ,4 9 9

3 . Food and kindred products

Kansas City

—

0.8

Philadelphia

+

1 ,64 4

Cleveland

— 2 5 .9

Boston

—

4 . Textile mill products

Pittsburgh

+ 130.8

St. Louis

+

1,03 2

Baltimore

— 37.1

Philadelphia

Boston

+

3 ,6 7 0

Cincinnati

— 2 2 .3

Chicago

— 5 ,2 1 9

Philadelphia

+

690

Cincinnati

— 2 6 .8

Cincinnati

—

2 0 .5

Chicago

+

1,661

Pittsburgh

— 2 5 .8

St. Louis

—

1,35 3

17.3

Minn.-St. Paul

+

1 ,7 3 0

Pittsburgh

— 15.5

Pittsburgh

—

1 ,83 8

4 3 .3

Philadelphia

+

1 ,90 3

Cincinnati

— 1 6.9

Cincinnati

—

1 ,5 6 7

7 2 .6

St. Louis

+

2 ,0 9 7

Boston

— 6 2 .3

Philadelphia

—

1 ,01 2

5 . A p p a re l

Detroit

+

4 4 .5

6 . Lumber, wood products, furniture

Pittsburgh

+

8.0

7 . P a p e r and allied products

Baltimore

+

8. Printing and publishing

Minn.-St. Paul

+

9 . Chemicals and allied products

Minn.-St. Paul

+

St. Louis

+

1 0. Petroleum and coal products

3,031
2 ,6 9 9
1,01 2

1 1. M achinery

K ansas City

+ 1 1 7 .2

Minn.-St. Paul

+ 1 1 ,5 7 8

St. Louis

—

Chicago

— 2 2 ,3 4 6

12 . Motor vehicles and equipment

Boston

+

6 5 .4

Buffalo

+

5 ,0 1 8

Kansas City

— 1 7.5

Detroit

—

8 ,1 3 2

1 3 . A irc ra ft and p arts, ships, etc.

Minn.-St. Paul

+

11.5

Philadelphia

+

3,841

Kansas City

— 5 9 .7

Buffalo

—

2 ,4 6 5

14 . Prim ary metals

Baltimore

+ 1 40.6

Baltimore

+ 21,101

Buffalo

— 18.1

Pittsburgh

— 1 7 ,2 2 8

1 5 . F ab ricated m etal products

Buffalo

+

16.8

Detroit

+

6,161

Pittsburgh

— 1 9.6

Chicago

—

8 ,6 5 3

1 6 . M anufacturing, n.e.c.

Cleveland

+

3 0 .7

Chicago

+

7 ,4 0 3

Minn.-St. Paul

— 3 0 .8

Minn.-St. Paul

—

7 ,9 0 3

1 7 . Railro ad s and ra ilw a y express

Baltimore

—

12.2

Chicago

+

2 ,3 5 9

Boston

— 3 3 .3

Boston

—

962

1 8 . Trucking and warehousing

Boston

+

12.8

Chicago

+

1 ,3 0 3

Minn.-St. Paul

—

Detroit

—

1 ,36 8

1 9 . Transportation other than
ra il and trucking

Detroit

+

2 1 .3

Philadelphia

+

3 ,9 1 8

Buffalo

— 16.5

Boston

—

1 ,95 2

2 0 . Communications

Philadelphia

+

18.5

Philadelphia

+

3,261

Chicago

—

Chicago

—

3 ,3 2 6

2 1 . Utilities and san itary service

M ilw aukee

+ 2 1 4 .7

M ilwaukee

+

3 ,9 4 9

Pittsburgh

— 2 9 .2

Pittsburgh

—

3 ,4 2 9

2 2 . W h o le sa le tra d e

Baltimore

+

Chicago

+

3 ,0 7 2

Pittsburgh

— 2 0 .0

Pittsburgh

— 1 0 ,5 5 7

9 .5

2 .0

2.4

9 .9

2 3 . Retail trad e

Kan sas City

+

16.0

Chicago

+ 1 0 ,9 6 2

Pittsburgh

—

0.1

Pittsburgh

—

8,591

2 4 . Finance, insurance, and re a l estate

Minn.-St. Paul

+

2 0 .4

Minn.-St. Paul

+

Pittsburgh

+

0 .7

Chicago

—

4 ,1 4 2

2 5 . Personal services including hotels

Minn.-St. Paul

+

2 1 .0

Minn.-St. Paul

+

1,741

Buffalo

—

2 .3

Chicago

—

1 ,8 3 5

2 6 . Business and re p a ir services

Baltim ore

+

5 9 .4

Boston

+

3 ,9 7 0

Chicago

+ 2 0 .2

Chicago

— 7 ,0 3 0

2 7 . Entertainment, recreation services

Minn.-St. Paul

+

2 3 .3

Minn.-St. Paul

+

1 ,1 8 7

Cleveland

— 16.8

Chicago

—

1 ,56 8

2 8 . Professional services

St. Louis

+

3 7 .4

St. Louis

+

4 ,0 6 6

Pittsburgh

+ 1 1.6

Pittsburgh

—

8 ,9 2 2

Baltimore

+

1 4 .1 %

Baltimore

+ 4 1 ,3 8 5

Pittsburgh

—

Pittsburgh

— 69,501

Total o f covered industries
Source: Data a re derived from Table V




2 ,7 6 7

7 .1 %

JANUARY 1968

TABLE Vll-a
Summary of Employment Changes by Industry
Cleveland Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Relative Growth Indicator
1950-1960

Number Employed

1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 4

1960

A . Favo rab le Changes in Both Periods
Textile mill p ro d u c ts ............................................................................................................

+ 1 ,6 1 8

+

608

4 ,4 4 2

Printing and pu b lish in g .....................................................................................................

+

+

684

1 9 ,0 1 9

1 ,5 3 7

B. U n favorable Changes in Both Periods
M a c h in e ry ...................................................................................................................................

— 1 0 ,8 3 3

— 1,82 2

7 0 ,4 1 6

Fabricated metal p r o d u c t s ..........................................................................................

—

5,201

— 1 ,0 1 5

3 1 ,7 6 3

A irc ra ft and parts, ships, etc..........................................................................................

—

3,951

— 1 ,4 8 4

1 2 ,2 2 4

Chemicals and allied p ro d u c ts....................................................................................

—

1 ,11 2

— 1 ,3 3 6

1 8 ,0 4 4

C . Significant Changes in O ne Period O nly
Motor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t....................................................................................

+ 1 4 ,3 8 2

—

3 7 ,4 7 9

Finance, insurance, and re al e s t a t e ........................................................................

—

+ 1 ,3 2 1

2 9 ,8 1 0

Professional s e r v ic e s ............................................................................................................

—

+ 1 ,3 1 4

8 1 ,3 5 8

Transportation other than ra il and tru c k in g ......................................................

—

+

747

8 ,6 9 5

Prim ary m e t a ls .......................................................................................................................

—

— 4 ,4 9 4

3 9 ,7 8 3

Entertainment, recreation s e rv ic e s ..............................................................................

—

—

919

5,461

Personal services including h o te ls ..............................................................................

—

—

749

1 8 ,3 8 6

Lumber, wood products, fu rn itu re ..............................................................................

—

—

726

4 ,5 9 8

Business and re p a ir s e rv ic e s .........................................................................................

—

—

591

1 8 ,4 6 0

D. M arked Shifts Between Two Periods
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ..........................................................................................

+

3 ,0 3 4

— 2 ,3 3 4

1 4 ,8 6 7

Retail t r a d e .............................................................................................................................

+

2 ,1 3 3

— 1 ,2 6 4

1 0 1 ,5 4 2

W h o lesale t r a d e .................................................................................................................

+

1 ,7 8 0

—

A p p a r e l ...................................................................................................................................

—

1,701

+ 1 ,4 4 5

8 ,2 1 8

Contract construction...........................................................................................................

—

1 ,5 3 7

+ 1 ,8 6 6

32,571

TO TAL o f covered in d u s tr ie s * ...............................................................................................

+

3,811

898

— 4 ,7 6 4

27,691

656 ,6 6 1

* Includes 8 covered industries not listed in the ta b le . Except for "M anufacturing, not elsewhere classified ,” the unlisted industries show
re la tiv e ly small changes, i.e., (for this table) increases or declines o f less than 1 ,0 0 0 in the first period, or increases or declines o f less
than 5 0 0 in the second (or shorter) period.
Source: D ata are derived from Tab le V (Dash indicates insig nifican t changes.)




37

ECONOMIC REVIEW

TABLE Vll-b
Summary of Employment Changes by Industry
Pittsburgh Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Relative Growth Indicator
1950-1960

1959-1964

Number Employed
1 960

A . Favo rab le Changes in Both Periods
Motor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t............................................................................................-f- 1 ,2 3 5

-f-

539

3 ,2 2 3

B. U n favo rab le Changes in Both Periods
Prim ary m e t a ls ................................................................................................................................—

8 ,4 1 8

— 1 7 ,2 2 8

M a c h in e ry ................................................................................................................................... ........—

6 ,7 5 6

—

2 ,9 0 9

134,891
5 1 ,9 0 2

Retail t r a d e ......................................................................................................................................—

5 ,8 9 0

—

8,591

1 2 1 ,1 5 3

M i n i n g ......................................................................................................................................... ........—

5 ,0 1 9

—

1 ,4 6 7

1 1 ,4 0 9

Contract construction....................................................................................................................—

2,981

—

3 ,9 2 8

4 2 ,1 1 8

Professional s e r v ic e s ....................................................................................................................—

2 ,9 5 7

—

8 ,9 2 2

9 6 ,1 3 6

A irc ra ft and p arts, ships, etc.......................................................................................... ........—

1 ,9 4 7

—

1 ,0 3 4

6 ,1 2 2

Railroads and ra ilw a y e x p re s s............................................................................................—

1 ,7 1 3

—

893

2 1 ,1 9 6

Business and re p a ir s e rv ic e s ..................................................................................................—

1 ,3 9 8

—

668

1 8 ,7 2 0

C . Significant Changes in O ne Period O nly
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ................................................................................................. +

—

2 2 ,2 6 8

Personal services including h o te ls ..............................................................................

1,591
1 ,4 6 5

—

2 2 ,3 5 5

Petroleum and coal products................................................................................................. —

3 ,6 7 9

—

1 ,8 8 5

Com m unications....................................................................................................................... ....... —

1 ,0 4 8

—

1 0 ,0 5 0

W h o lesale t r a d e ..................................................................................................................

—

— 1 0 ,5 5 7

2 7 ,8 8 4

Fabricated metal p r o d u c t s ..........................................................................................

—

—

3 ,9 1 2

2 7 ,6 2 3

Finance, insurance, and re a l e s t a t e ........................................................................

—

—

3 ,6 5 8

3 2 ,4 1 6

Utilities and san itary s e r v ic e ..........................................................................................

—

—

3 ,4 2 9

1 3 ,6 8 9

P a p e r and allied p r o d u c t s ..........................................................................................

—

—

1 ,2 2 6

3 ,3 8 5

Entertainment, recreation se rv ic e s ..............................................................................

—

—

961

7 ,6 0 2

—

1 ,8 3 8

D. M arked Shifts Between Two Periods
Printing and p u b lish in g ............................................................................................................. +

1 ,0 6 5

TO TAL o f covered in d u s t r ie s * ....................................................................................................... — 4 1 ,7 3 4

— 69,5 01

12,701
7 5 2 ,1 1 9

* Includes 7 covered industries not listed in the ta b le . Except fo r “ M anufacturing, not elsewhere cla ssifie d ," the unlisted industries show
re la tiv e ly small changes, i.e ., (for this table) increases or declines o f less than 1 ,0 0 0 in the first p erio d , or increases or declines o f less
than 5 0 0 in the second (or shorter) period.
So urce: D ata a re derived from Tab le V (Dash indicates insig nifican t changes.)


38


JANUARY 1968

TABLE Vll-c
Summary of Employment Changes by Industry
Cincinnati Compared with 13 Selected Cities
1950-1960 and 1959-1964
Relative Growth Indicator
1950-1960

1959-1964

Number Em ployed
1960

A . Favo rab le Changes in Both Periods
Fabricated metal p r o d u c t s ..........................................................................................

+

955

-f-

745

1 3 ,0 1 9

—

5 ,9 3 7

—

345

3 0 ,3 2 6

Trucking and w arehousing...............................................................................................

+

939

—

Com munications.......................................................................................................................

+

925

—

B. U n favorable Changes in Both Periods
M a c h in e ry ...................................................................................................................................
C. Significant Changes in O ne Period O nly

Entertainment, recreation s e rv ic e s ..............................................................................
Food and kindred p ro d u c ts ..........................................................................................

—

+

—

+

8 ,2 3 9
6 ,4 0 6
745

4 ,0 9 9

506

17,591

Pap er and allied p r o d u c t s ..........................................................................................

—

1 ,5 5 5

—

6 ,0 1 3

W holesale t r a d e .................................................................................................................

—

936

—

1 6 ,9 3 9

Professional s e r v ic e s ...........................................................................................................

—

925

—

4 8 ,5 0 2

Railroads and ra ilw a y e xp re ss............................................................................................—

834

—

Retail t r a d e .............................................................................................................................

—

—

9 ,1 6 0

4,68 1

6 8 ,3 1 3

A p p a r e l ...................................................................................................................................

—

—

1 ,3 1 7

5 ,1 1 3

Printing and pub lishing.....................................................................................................

—

—

1 ,0 4 7

1 3 ,3 5 0

Lumber, wood products, fu rn itu re ..............................................................................

—

—

1 ,0 1 2

5 ,3 7 4

A ircraft and parts, ships, etc..................................................................................................+ 1 1 ,9 4 8

—

2 ,3 3 0

1 2 ,9 7 3

Motor vehicles and e q u ip m e n t............................................................................................+

4 ,4 9 9

—

685

1 2 ,2 8 3

Contract construction........................................................................................................... ........+

2 ,2 7 4

—

1 ,2 2 9

2 6 ,4 3 5

Chemicals and allied p ro d u c ts............................................................................................+

1 ,5 3 2

—

1 ,5 6 7

1 5 ,7 1 6

Prim ary m e t a ls ....................................................................................................................... ........—

1 ,8 5 4

+

120

5 ,2 9 8

Business and re p a ir s e rv ic e s .................................................................................................. —

1 ,2 4 5

+

1 ,5 6 6

1 1 ,0 7 0

9 ,3 0 4

— 1 1 ,2 1 4

D. M arked Shifts Between Two Periods

TO TAL o f covered in d u s t r ie s * ............................................................................................... ........+

4 0 1 ,1 8 0

* Includes 6 covered industries not listed in the ta b le . Except fo r “ M anufacturing, not elsewhere cla ssified ,” the unlisted industries show
re la tively small changes, i.e., (for this table) increases or declines of less than 8 0 0 in the first period, or increases or declines o f less
than 4 0 0 in the second (or shorter) period.
Source: Data a re derived from Tab le V (Dash indicates insignificant changes.)




39

JANUARY 1968

APPENDIX
Technical Noie*
* Applies io the ihree articles in the series, and will be
included at the end of each article.

Geographical Coverage. Wherever Ihe
lerm "city” or ''metropolitan area" is used in
the text, it refers io the "Standard Metropoli­
tan Statistical Area," composed of one or
more counties as designated in the official
list. The single exception is Boston, for which
the official SMSA cuts across county lines,
as is the case generally in the New England
Slates. As a substitute for the Boston SMSA,
this study uses a composite of data for the
entire counties of Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk,
and Suffolk. The resulting totals for "Boston,"
although not necessarily the percent changes,
become somewhat larger than would be the
case for the official SMSA. (See footnote of
Table IV for the population differences
involved.)
County composition of the SMSA's used
here is that defined by the Bureau of the Bud­
get in 1964. Data for earlier years were ad­
justed, where necessary, by addition of data
for required counties. Thus, Cleveland, in this
study includes Medina and Geauga Counties,
as well as Cuyahoga and Lake Counties. Like­
wise, the Cincinnati SMSA includes Dearborn
County, Indiana, in addition to three counties
in Ohio and three counties in Kentucky.
Use of the SMSA unit has a particular
drawback in the case of at least one of the
covered industries for one of the SMSA's; that
is, "Primary metals" for the Chicago SMSA.
A large part of the steel industry of the greater
Chicago area is located in the Gary-Hammond-East Chicago SMSA and, therefore,
does not appear in our figures for the Chi­
cago SMSA. This has the effect of seriously
understating the Chicago performance for
"Primary metals" for the 1950-1960 period.
Thus, including Gary, etc., would have the

40


effect of altering the percent change figure
for Chicago shown in Table V from minus
14 percent to minus 4 percent, accompanied
by a virtual elimination of the negative figure
for ihe relative growth indicator. For the 19591964 period, however, use of the enlarged
area would make little change in the Chicago
scores for percent change or relative growth
indicator.
As a supplement to ihe footnote shown in
Table I, it may be noted that the data on num­
bers employed in 1950 and 1960, as shown in
columns 1 and 2, and also the basic employ­
ment data used in Table V, were drawn from
unpublished figures for the various SMSA's
provided by the Office of Business Economics,
U. S. Department of Commerce. With certain
excep tio n s, th ese d a ta could h a v e b e e n com­
puted by adding the appropriate counties
making up the SMSA's, as shown in the pub­
lished volumes of Growth Patterns in Em ploy­
m ent b y County. (The exceptions are noted
below in connection with the "Miscellaneous"
problem.)
Basic data for our treatment of the 19591964 period were obtained from County Busi­
n ess Patterns, U.S. Department of Commerce
and U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. For the 1959 data, as drawn
from that source, it was necessary to add
figures for the individual counties in order
to obtain SMSA totals. For ihe 1964 data, how­
ever, the published volumes of County Busi­
n ess Patterns provide data in SMSA form.
In utilizing data drawn from this source, it was
necessary by means of estimation to fill cer­
tain gaps occasioned by the "nondisclosure"
rule. Figures on numbers employed that were
derived from our own estimates are indicated

ECONOMIC REVIEW

in the appropriate columns of Table II by a
noiaiion of "e," although such notation is not
carried through the succeeding computation
columns. In the case of the estimates within
the tables for Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Cin­
cinnati, it was possible to obtain sufficient
supplementary information to warrant con­
siderable confidence in the estimates. Esti­
mates, wherever they occur, for the other
areas are less fully documented.
Industry Coverage. The 28 industry or ser­
vice groups used consistently in this study
were selected to serve as a least common
denominator, for purposes of comparability,
between the breakdowns provided by the
OBE study already identified (which provided
the basic data for our 1950-1960 treatment)
and County Business Patterns (which pro­
vided the basic data for our 1959-1964 treat­
ment). Certain minor changes in the industry
captions were effected for clarity; i.e., we use
the caption ''Aircraft and parts, ships, etc.''
in place of ''Other transportation equipment,''
referring to transportation equipment other
than ''Motor vehicles and equipment.” In the
process of achieving comparability it was
necessary to drop the category of "Public ad­
ministration," as shown in the OBE study (an
omission noted in the text); on the other hand,
it was possible to include the category ''Rail­
roads and railway express/' which is not
contained in the County Business Patterns
summaries, by obtaining special estimates
for the SMSA's involved from the U. S. Rail­
road Retirement Board.
An important part of the data used in the
1950-1960 treatment represents certain spe­
cial breakdowns in the form of unpublished
data provided by the OBE. These breakdowns
apply to the category entitled ''Other and
miscellaneous manufacturing'' as published
in Growth Patterns in Em ploym ent b y County.
The special breakdowns were needed be­
cause they include such important industries



as "Primary metals," "Fabricated metal prod­
ucts," and others. Even with this aid, however,
Category No. 16, "Manufacturing, n.e.c." in
our standard list is undesirably large; unfor­
tunately, it includes industries of consider­
able importance, such as rubber and rubber
products, and stone, clay, and glass.
It should be noted that differences in
sources of basic data mentioned above could
give rise to a conceptual problem. Thus, data
for the period 1950-1960, although drawn here
from the OBE study as indicated, have their
original source in Census of Population re­
ports, in which employment is allocated to the
place of residence of the employee. Data for
the 1959-1964 period, however, are drawn
from sources that assign employment to the
place of work. In working with data for cor­
porate cities or for individual counties, such a
disjuncture may be serious, or even decisive,
but it may be considered to be of relatively
small importance in dealing with metropoli­
tan areas embracing counties, as is the case
here. That judgment is used widely as a work­
ing rule by regional analysis, despite the
extensive commuting distances often traveled
by the employee. Supplementary data for the
1964-1966 period contained in the third article
are based on the place-of-work criterion, as
in the case of the 1959-1964 period.
Meaning of Totals. In addition to the indus­
try and service categories (which constitute
the main focus of the study) the various tables
also show a final line for totals, usually in the
form of "Total of covered industries." In in­
terpreting such totals, certain basic points
should be kept in mind: (1) "Covered employ­
ment" is not identical with "Total employ­
ment"; (2) for relative growth indicators,
although not for percent change data, the
relative sizes of the cities represent important
underlying influences. Because of the nature
of the compulation, a relative growth indi­
cator for a given industry in a large city may
41

E CO N O M IC REVIEW

be larger (eiiher plus or minus) than for
a smaller ciiy. Ai ihe same lime, however,
ihe variation among industries in this respect
is so large as to render undesirable, and
probably statistically indefensible, ihe use of
any standard adjustment factor; and (3)
statistical problems arising from levels of ag­
gregation occur ai certain points in ihe use
of data for "totals” shown here.
The last-meniioned point is seen most
clearly by reference to ihe final line of Table I,
with accompanying footnote. It might be
APPENDIX TABLE I
Identification of Covered Industries by
Standard Industrial Classification Code
In d u stry
1. M ining

SIC Code
10-14

2. C o ntract construction

15-17

3. Food and kindred products

20

4 . Textile mill products

22

5. A p p a re l

23

6. Lum ber, wood products, furniture

24-25

7. P ap er and a llie d products

26

8. Printing and publishing

27

9. Chem icals and a llie d products

28

10. Petroleum and coal products

29

11. M ach in ery

35-36

12. M otor vehicles and equipm ent

371

13. A irc ra ft and p arts, ships, etc.

37 (except 371)

thought thai the computation of total relative
growth indicators could be done either by
following through the computaiions in a hori­
zontal direction, exactly as was done for ihe
individual industries, or by summing ihe rel­
ative growth indicators for the individual
industries as shown in ihe final column. In
fact, the results obtained by ihe two methods
will, and should, differ because ihe degree
of aggregation has an effect on ihe summa­
tion of relative growth indicators. That, in
turn, goes back to differences in industry mix
between ihe ciiy under consideraiion and ihe
standard of comparison, whether ihe latter
is ihe United States total or the aggregate of
13 cities. The method of obtaining ihe total
of relative growth indicators, as shown in ihe
lower right corner of Tables I-a-c, is ihe same
as thai used in Growth Patterns in Em ploy­
m ent b y County; that is, ihe total is obtained
by a vertical addition of ihe individual indus­
try entries rather than by the horizontal rouie
of aggregate percentage computations.
APPENDIX TABLE II

14. Prim ary m etals

33

Components of Percent Changes in Total
Nonagricultural Employment
Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati

15. Fab ricated metal products

34

1950-1960

16. M an u fa ctu rin g , n.e.c.

2 1 , 30-32, 38-39

17. R a ilro ad s and ra ilw a y express

40

18. Trucking and w arehousing

Changes Related to:
N ational
Growth*

42

19. Transpo rtatio n other than

Industry
M ix

Regional
S h a re f

Total
Change

4 1 , 44-47

Cleveland

+ 2 2 .9 %

+ 1 .6 %

—

20. Com m unications

48

Pittsburgh

+ 2 2 .9

— 2 .0

— 17.4

+

21. U tilities and sa n ita ry service

49

Cincinnati

+ 2 2 .9

+ 0 .2

—

+ 18.2

22. W h o le sa le trad e

50

23. Retail trad e

52-59

ra il and trucking

24. F in an ce, insurance, and real estate

60-67

25. Personal services including hotels

7 0 , 72

26. Business and re p a ir services

7 3 , 75-76

27. Entertainm ent, recreation services

78-79

28. Professional services

80-82, 84, 86, 89


42


9 .0 %
4 .9

+ 1 5 .5 %
3.5

*Total employment gain fo r United States, a ll nonagricultural
industries; when combined with change in components shown in
next two columns, the result is “ total change” shown in final
column.
fS a m e concept as “ re la tive growth indicator” used in this study.
Total United States change is the standard o f referen ce.
Sources: Sam e as T ab le I, main text

JANUARY 1968

RECENTLY PUBLISHED ECONOMIC COMMENTARIES OF
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND
"Trends in the Corporate Bond M arket in 1967"
December 2, 1967

"Aspects of Two D evaluations"
December 9, 1967

" A Note on Population M igration"
December 16, 1967

"N egotiable CDs in 1966-1967"
December 23, 1967

"Outlook for Agriculture in 1968"
January 6, 1968

"Recent Patterns in Commercial and Industrial Loans"
January 13, 1968

"Special D rawing Rights"
January 20, 1968

Copies of Economic Commentary may be obtained from the Research Department,
F e d e ra l Reserve Bank of C le v e la n d , P. O. Box 6387, C le v e la n d , Ohio 44101.




43




Fourth Federal Reserve District