The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Frances Perkins, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Isador Lubin, Commissioner (on leave)
A . F. H inrichs, A cting Commissioner
H ourly Entrance Rates o f Common
Laborers In Large Cities, Spring
and Summer o f 1943
Prepared in the
DIVISION OF WAGE ANALYSIS
Robert J. Myers, Chief
Bulletin J^o. 775
fReprinted from the Monthly Labor Review, April 1944J
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : WASHINGTON : 1944
For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents, U . S. Governm ent Printing Office
Washington 25, D . C. - Price 5 cents
Letter of Transmittal
U n it e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r ,
B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t ic s ,
W ashington, D . C., A p ril 19, 1944•
The S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r :
I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on hourly entrance rates of
com m on laborers in large cities, spring and summer of 1943. This report was
prepared by Edward M . Kriz, under the supervision of V ictor S. Baril and Theo
dore Reedy, in the Bureau’s Division o f Wage Analysis. Joseph W . B loch as
sisted in the preliminary planning of this study.
A. F. H i n r i c h s , A cting Com m issioner.
H o n . F r a n c e s P e r k in s ,
Secretary o f Labor.
Contents
Page
Summ ary______________________________
Characteristics of com m on labor______
M eth od and scope of survey--------------M ethod of weighting_____________
Coverage of survey_______________
Average hourly entrance rates________
Variation b y industry____________
Entrance rates in individual cities
Rate changes from 1942 to 1943-_
11
(II)
Bulletin 7\[o. 775 o f the
United States Bureau o f Labor Statistics
[Reprinted from the M onthly L abob Review, April 1944]
Hourly Entrance Rates of Common Laborers in Large
Cities, Spring and Summer of 1943
Sum m ary
EN TRAN CE rates paid to common laborers in large cities during the
spnng and summer of 1943 averaged 70.7 cents an hour. This figure
is not comparable with the averages resulting from earlier studies
made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, because of differences in the
scope of the study and in the method of weighting the data. Analysis
of reports by 1,595 establishments studied in both 1942 and 1943,
however, reveals an average increase of nearly 7 percent in this period
of approximately 1 year. The increase was greater in southern than
in northern cities.
The highest rates were found in cities on the West Coast and the
next highest in cities in the East North Central States, the respective
average hourly entrance rates for these two regions being 81.7 and
74.0 cents. The lowest rates were found in cities in the Southeast
and Southwest, the respective regional averages being 53.0 and 57.2
cents.
The highest entrance rates were generally paid in the buildingconstruction industry, the next highest in manufacturing, and the
lowest in public utilities. The general average hourly entrance rates
for these three groups were 82.6, 70.3, and 64.2 cents, respectively.
In manufacturing, somewhat higher rates were found in the durablegoods than in the nondurable-goods industries.
Entrance rates also varied widely among cities. There was a dif
ference of 54.7 cents between the lowest average (37.0 cents for
Charlotte, N. C.) and the highest average (91.7 cents for Seattle,
Wash.). More than three-fifths of the cities had average entrance
rates within the 25-cent range 55 to 80 cents, while in more than onethird of the cities the rates were within a range of less than 10 cents—
from 60 to 70 cents an hour.
Characteristics o f Common Labor
The entrance rates of common labor are of significance in the study
of the American wage structure, in collective bargaining, and in the
administration of wage stabilization. These rates not only indicate
the minimum level of pay of an important occupational group, but
also reflect with approximate accuracy the lowest wages commonly
found in entire industries. Because of the numerical importance of
584930— 44
(1 )
2
common laborers and their position in the wage scale, their entrance
rate frequently serves as one of the bases on which the wage structure
of an industry is built. These rates have also frequently played a
part in the determination of wage “ brackets” under the wage-stabili
zation program.
The entrance rates of common laborers provide a useful basis for
comparing general levels of wages among different industries and
different areas. This is because common labor is prevalent in many
industries and in nearly all communities. The duties of common
laborers, though subject to considerable variation from industry to
industry, are fairly uniform in their low requirements of experience
and responsibility. The common-labor entrance rate, moreover, is a
particularly stable rate, being unaffected by incentive-payment sys
tems, seniority advancement plans, late-shift and overtime premiums,
and so forth.
For purposes of the Bureau’s study, common laborers are defined
as those male workers “ who perform physical or manual labor of a
general character and simple nature, requiring no special training,
’udgment, or skill.” Excluded from the common-labor group are
>eginners, learners, and apprentices, as well as classified unskilled
workers who are designated by specific occupational titles and who
perform specific tasks, such as hand truckers, helpers, and machine
operators. It is possible that a few plants which do not employ
common laborers may have reported the entrance rates paid to other
unskilled workers. However, the number of such instances is not
great enough, nor are the entrance rates of common laborers and other
unskilled workers sufficiently different, to influence appreciably the
results of the Bureau’s survey. These two groups differ principally
in advancement opportunities, common laborers typically having
only limited opportunity to advance beyond their entrance rate.
{
M ethod and Scope o f Survey
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has undertaken studies of commonlabor entrance rates annually since 1926. In many respects, however,
the 1943 study differs from the earlier surveys. The more important
differences are found in the scope of the survey and in the method of
weighting the data. These differences are fundamental, and as a
result the data presented in this report are, for the most part, not
comparable with those found in the earlier reports.
The Bureau’s earlier surveys of common-labor entrance rates were
conducted through the medium of mail questionnaires, and returns
were obtained from establishments in selected industries in all parts
of the United States. The information for the present study, however,
was secured through actual plant visits by trained representatives, in
connection with the Bureau’s survey of occupational wage rates.
Adequate information was obtained only for the major industries in
cities of 100,000 or more inhabitants. Material for a few of these
cities proved to be unsatisfactory. Data for a total of 101 cities are
included in this report.
The statistical data secured for the year 1943 are undoubtedly more
accurate than those obtained in earlier years by questionnaire. The
fuller coverage of the present survey, moreover, permits presentation
3
of considerable detail by individual city. This should greatly increase
the usefulness of the entrance-rate data in collective bargaining and
for stabilization purposes. On the other hand, the lack of information
for small communities makes impossible the computation of State or
National averages and greatly limits the opportunity for comparisons
with earlier years.
The present survey includes for most cities all important industries
employing common laborers. This has meant the addition of a num
ber of industries not previously included in the Bureau’s studies of
entrance rates, such as ordnance and accessories, electrical machinery,
nonferrous metals and their products, airframes and aircraft parts,
and shipbuilding. A number of industries previously represented,
however— such as cement, fertilizer, and brick, tile, and terra cotta—
are typically small-town industries, and for that reason were found in
few of the large cities. Omitted from the survey, moreover, are a few
nondurable-goods industries, such as printing and publishing, and
textiles and apparel, in which the occupation of common laborer is
seldom found. As a result, the level of common-labor entrance rates
reported in this study is influenced to a considerable degree by the
wage levels prevailing in the durable-goods group of industries. The
great majority of common laborers in manufacturing industries, to be
sure, are employed by the durable-goods group.
The information on common labor obtained in connection with the
occupational wage-rate survey is somewhat more limited than that
collected in former surveys. Only the common-labor entrance rate
and the total plant employment are available for 1943. No informa
tion was obtained, as in earlier surveys, regarding the number of com
mon laborers at the entrance rate and their racial designation. The
lack of information with respect to the number of common laborers at
entrance rates not only makes it impossible to present frequency dis
tributions of common laborers by rate, but also influences the method
of weighting the entrance-rate data.
METHOD OF WEIGHTING
The entrance rates reported by individual establishments cooperat
ing in this survey have been “ weighted” in proportion to the total
number of employees in the respective establishments and industries.
Thus, the entrance rate of an establishment employing 1,000 workers
has been given twice as much weight as that of an establishment em
ploying only 500. Similarly, in combining the averages for individual
industries, broad industry groups, or different cities, the total employ
ment in those economic segments has been taken into account. This
weighting has been necessary to make allowance for the greater influ
ence of large establishments and to offset differences in the complete
ness of reporting from industry to industry and from city to city.1
It is recognized that total employment does not constitute an ideal
weighting factor for combining common-labor entrance rates. The
number of common laborers employed at entrance rates— or perhaps
1In most of the Bureau’s earlier studies of common-labor entrance rates the data were essentially un
weighted. Although the number of workers reported as receiving the respective entrance rates in cooper
ating establishments was taken into account, no allowance was made for the over- or under-representation
of the various industries or regions. Since representation was most complete among the higher-wage indus
tries and areas, this method tended to overstate the average level of entrance rates. In tabulating the data
for 1942, a system of weighting was introduced to correct this error. (See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bui.
No. 733: Hourly Entrance Rates Paid to Adult Male Common Laborers, 1942, p. 3.)
4
the number of common laborers hired over a period of time— would be
more appropriate. These more desirable measures, however, were
unavailable for use in the present survey.
There is little doubt that within a specific industry total employ
ment constitutes an adequate weighting factor for combining the
entrance-rate data for individual plants, for it may be assumed that
the ratio of common laborers to total employees shows considerable
uniformity among establishments in the same line of production.
On the other hand, total plant employment has definite limitations
when used in combining the data for different industries in order to
arrive at average entrance rates for broad industry groups, cities,
or regions. Thus, it is probable that certain industries employing
relatively large proportions of common laborers, such as building
construction, have been underweighted somewhat in the present tabu
lations. It is believed, however, that the use of total employment
as a weighting factor has not greatly distorted the general averages
for industry groups, cities, or regions.
COVERAGE OF SURVEY
Information on entrance rates of common laborers was obtained
from 9,740 establishments employing a total of 4,613,496 workers.
Of these establishments, 7,024 employing 4,135,872 workers were in
manufacturing industries, 2,340 with 163,236 workers were in the
building-construction industry, and 376 with 314,388 workers were
in public utilities. The reports are believed to cover a substantial
segment of manufacturing industries and building construction and
to provide virtually complete coverage of public utilities, employing
common labor, in the large cities. In a number of instances the data
are for representative samples of industries, rather than for complete
industries. Taking account of other establishments and workers
represented, in addition to those actually studied, the figures pre
sented in this report relate to 16,787 establishments and 5,873,000
workers; of these, 11,381 establishments and 5,182,000 workers were
in manufacturing, 5,011 establishments and 368,000 workers were in
building construction, and 395 establishments and 323,000 workers
were in public utilities.2
The entrance-rate data in this report relate to the spring and summer
of 1943, dining which period the occupational wage-rate survey was
conducted.
Average
Hourly
Entrance Rates
The average entrance rate for common labor in large cities in the
spring and summer of 1943 was 70.7 cents per hour. This undoubt
edly reflected the highest level of pay for common labor in the history
of the Nation.
Widely different general levels of common-labor entrance rates
were found in the seven broad regions into which the country was
2 An apparent discrepancy may seem to exist between the weighted and unweighted figures, the weighted
number of plants showing an increase of 72 percent over the unweighted number and the weighted employ
ment figure being only 27 percent greater than the unweighted figure. This is due principally to the fact
that many of the industries in the manufacturing group which were covered on a sample basis employed
comparatively few workers, whereas many of the numerically important industries, such as blast furnaces,
steel works, and rolling mills, airframes, and shipbuilding, were surveyed in full and their total employment
was already represented in the unweighted employment figures.
5
divided for purposes of this survey. As may be seen from the
regional averages shown in table 1, the level of average rates varied
from 53.0 cents in the Southeastern States to 81.7 cents on the Pacific
Coast. The average entrance rates for the other five broad regions
are distributed throughout this range, the respective averages being
74.0 cents for the East North Central States, 69.8 cents for the
Middle Atlantic States, 64,7 cents for the New England States, 61.9
cents for the West North Central and Mountain States, and 57.2
cents for the Southwestern States. These figures, it should be re
membered, represent only the level of common-labor entrance rates
in the large cities found in these regions and not the level for cities
of all sizes.
T a b le 1.— Average H ourly Entrance Rates o f Adult M ale Common Laborers in Large
Cities, by Industry and Region,1 Spring and Summer 1943
Industry
West
East North
All New Mid
Cen South Pa
South
North
dle
re Eng At
tral
Cen
east
west cific
gions land lantic
and
tral Moun
tain
All industries.......................................................... $0,707 $0.647 $0.698 $0,530 $0,740 $0.619 $0.572 $0,817
All manufacturing..................................................
Durable goods..................................................
Iron and steel and their products............
Machinery (except electrical)...................
Electrical machinery................................
Transportation equipment and parts___
Nonferrous metals and their products___
Lumber and timber basic products_____
Furniture and finished lumber products..
Stone, clay, and glass products...............
Nondurable goods.......................................... .
Leather and leather products....... ...........
Paper and allied products........................
Chemicals and allied products.................
Petroleum refining._
__________
Rubber and rubber products..________
Tobacco manufacturing_______________
Food and kindred products......................
Building construction............................................
Public utilities........................................................
.703 .637
.710 .640
.700 .658
.674 .620
.679 .609
.744 .662
.695 .710
.622
.538
.606
.651 "‘ .605
.467 .692
.566 .573
.677
.826
.729 .602
.462
.635
.826 ‘ "."860
.642 .714
.690
.694
.711
.616
.692
.727
.687
.527
.549
.580
.670
.423
.597
.681
.880
.611
.645
.830
.653
.532
.560
.533
.487
.459
.604
.602
.409
.410
.416
.435
.400
.472
.509
.462
.389
.583
.455
.735
.737
.729
.716
.666
.785
.697
.587
.608
.645
.720
.556
.628
.690
.859
.795
.609
.621
.649
.592
.479
.634
.665
.509
.463
.595
.589
.405
.505
.594
.583
.596
.509
.482
.500
.613
.503
.454
.406
.675
.919
.706
.659
.775
.618
.463
.560
.486
.490
.400
.409
.617
.802
.803
.801
.826
.642
.803
.817
.875
.765
.790
.792
.715
.810
.805
.808
.788
.975
.751
1 States included in the regions are as follows: New England—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Middle Atlantic—Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; Southeast—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ken
tucky, Mississippi, North Carolina. South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia; East North Central—Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin; West North Central and Mountain—Colorado, Idaho,
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and W yo
ming; Southwest—Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; Pacific—California,
Oregon, and Washington.
The general level of entrance rates of common laborers in the various
regions is determined by a number of factors, such as the industrial
pattern of the particular region, the wage levels prevailing in specific
industries, the extent of unionization, variations in size of city, etc.
The level in one region may be profoundly influenced by the presence
of two or three large, high-wage, and highly organized industries, as
on the Pacific Coast, where the shipbuilding and the aircraft indus
tries are very important. The level in another region may reflect
the rates paid in a wide variety of industries, with no major indus
tries dominating the group. The regional averages appearing in
table 1, therefore, should not be considered to reflect differences in
the rate of remuneration for similar work in the same industry.
6
Specific industries common to all regions provide the most depend
able basis for a regional comparison of common-labor entrance rates.
Regional averages based on eight such industries 3 were arrived at by
weighting the rate for each industry by the total employment in the
industry in the Nation as a whole. By this method, adjustment was
made for variations in proportions of total employment in these
industries within the respective regions. These general averages
were then converted to index numbers based on the United States
average for all eight industries. The resulting index numbers are as
follows:
Index
numbers
(U. S .= 100.0)
97. 5
New England______ _________
M iddle A tlantic____________________________________
96. 2
Southeast___________________________________________ 75. 0
East N orth Central_________________________________ 105. 8
West North Central and M ountain________________ 90. 8
Southwest__________________________________________
76. 5
Pacific_______________________________________________ 114.9
Substantial regional variations were still apparent. The highest
rates were on the West Coast and the next highest in the East North
Central region. There appeared to be little difference in average
entrance rates paid in the New England and Middle Atlantic cities.
The West North Central region, which also includes the Mountain
region, had the lowest rates of the five Northern regions. Entrance
rates in the South were considerably lower than in any of the Northern
regions. Entrance rates in the Southwest region were somewhat
higher than in the Southeastern region.
VARIATION BY INDUSTRY
Considerable variation in common-labor entrance rates was also
found among industries. For all cities combined, the highest average
rate (82.6 cents an hour) was paid by the building-construction
industry, the next highest rate (70.3 cents an hour) by the manufac
turing industries, and the lowest rate (64.2 cents an hour) by public
utilities (table 1). Building construction had the highest rate in all
but one of the seven regions and utilities had the lowest rate in five
of the seven regions. In the New England region the utility rate
was substantially higher than the rate for manufacturing, while in
the West North Central region it exceeded the manufacturing rate
by a small margin.
In manufacturing, entrance rates were, on the whole, higher in
the durable-goods industries than in the nondurable-goods industries,
the respective average hourly entrance rates for these two groups for
all cities combined being 71.0 and 65.1 cents. In the five Northern
regions the difference in rates between the two groups was small,
amounting to less than 4 cents in all five regions and to less than 2
cents in two regions. In contrast, in each of the two Southern regions,
the difference in favor of durable-goods industries exceeded 10 cents
an hour.
Variations in average hourly entrance rates were more pronounced
in general among the nondurable-goods than among the durableaBuilding construction; public utilities; blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills; ferrous foundries;
machinery (except electrical); fabricated structural steel; airframes; and shipbuilding.
7
goods industries. In the former group, entrance rates for all cities
combined ranged from 46.2 cents for tobacco manufacturing to 82.6
cents for petroleum refining; in the latter group they varied from 53.8
cents for furniture and finished lumber products to 74.4 cents for
transportation equipment and parts. Of the eight durable-goods
industries for which figures are shown, all but oiie had average hourly
entrance rates in excess of 60 cents and five had rates in excess of 67.5
cents. In contrast, of the seven nondurable-goods industries for
which figures are presented only three had rates in excess of 67.5 cents
an hour, while three had rates under 60 cents.
It should be noted that a number of the manufacturing industries
for which average entrance rates are presented in table 1 are in reality
broad industry groups and that the regional variations indicated by
these rates may be due in part to differences in content of the group
from region to region. A more dependable measure of regional
variations in entrance rates between industries may be had from a
comparison of the entrance rates of specific industries, such as ma
chinery (except electrical), building construction, and public utilities.
For all three of these industries the highest rates were paid on the
Pacific Coast. The next highest rates in building construction and
machinery were paid in the East North Central States, while the next
highest rate in public utilities was found in the New England region..
The lowest rates for the same three industries were found in south
eastern or southwestern cities.
The pattern of variation in average hourly entrance rates for all
manufacturing in large cities is much the same as that found in the
all-industry averages. (See table 2.) The highest rates for all
manufacturing in general were in West Coast cities, except that
Detroit ranked second in the all-manufacturing averages. The
next highest averages were generally found in cities in the East
North Central region and the lowest in cities in the two Southern
regions. As was pointed out earlier in connection with the regional
averages, the general averages shown for all industries and for all
manufacturing industries in regions and cities are significant only as
an indication of the general level of common-labor entrance rates in
those regions and cities.
ENTRANCE RATES IN INDIVIDUAL CITIES
Although information on entrance rates of common laborers was
collected for 101 cities with a population of 100,000 or more, figures
are presented in this report only for a total of 89 cities, the data for
a number of adjacent cities having been combined and a single set of
figures presented for such cities. For example, combined figures are
presented for Minneapolis and St. Paul; Kansas City, Kans., and
Kansas City, M o.; Oakland and San Francisco; Albany and Sche
nectady; New York and Yonkers, etc. Moreover, a single set of
figures is shown for four cities in eastern New Jersey—Elizabeth,
Jersey City, Newark, and Paterson—as these cities appear to
constitute a single wage area.
8
T able 2.— Average H ou rly Entrance Rates o f Adult M ale Common Laborers in Large
Cities, Spring ana Summer 1943
Manufacturing
Selected industries
Population group and city
Total, all cities___
1,000,000 and over:
Chicago...........
Detroit
___________________ _____ _
Los Angeles and Long Beach................. .
New York and Yonkers...........................
Philadelphia and Camden...................... .
500.000 and under 1,000,000:
Baltimore................................................. .
Boston and Lynn....................................
Buffalo.......................................................
Cleveland................. ............................... .
Kansas City, Kans.-Mo......................... .
Milwaukee............................................... .
Minneapolis and St. Paul........................
Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, and
Paterson......... ........................................
Pittsburgh................................................ .
St. Louis....................................................
San Francisco and Oakland ................ .
Washington, D. C ....................................
250.000 and under 500,000:
Atlanta............................................... ......
Birmingham..............................................
Cincinnati.................................................
Columbus..................................................
Dallas.........................................................
Denver................................... ................. .
Houston.....................................................
Indianapolis..............................................
Louisville..................................................
Memphis...................................................
New Orleans.............................................
Portland....................................................
Providence................................................
Rochester...................................................
San Antonio..........................................
Seattle .................................................
Toledo...................................................... .
100.000 and under 250,000:
Akron.........................................................
Albany and Schenectady........................ .
Allentown..................................................
Bridgeport.................................................
Canton. .................................................... .
Charlotte...................................................
Chattanooga..............................................
Dayton......................................................
Des Moines...............................................
Duluth.......................................................
El Paso...................................................
Erie....... ....................................................
Evansville.................................
Flint..........................................................
Fort Wayne............................................. .
Fort Worth.................. .............................
Gary....... ...................................................
Grand Rapids.............................. ............
Hartford.....................................................
Jacksonville...............................................
Knoxville...................................................
Lansing......................................................
Little R ock...............................................
Lowell........................................................
Miami........................................................
See footnotes at end of table.
Build Pub
All Total, Blast
ing
lic
indus
all
fur
Ma
con
tries man- naces,
chin
struc utili
Fer
ties
ufac- steel
ery
Meat
tion
tur- works, rous
(ex pack
ing1 and found cept
ing
ries
roll
elec
ing
trical)
mills
$0,707 $0.703 $0,757 $0.675 $0.674 $0.673 $0,826
$0,642
.708
.880
.761
.655
.714
.689
.880
.761
.644
.698
.791
.789
.780
<2)
.727
.732
.827
.742
.675
.677
.677
.811
.741
.544
.610
.716
.679
. 756
(2)
.665
1.097
.908
.854
.954
.828
.750
.855
.632
.667
.631
.681
.647
.697
.735
.694
.672
.706
672
.617
.693
.726
.702
.674
.695
.780
(2)
.780
.778
(2)
.684
587
.585
.698
.679
.607
.653
.658
.577
.587
.650
.725
.555
.662
.703
.745
.959
.909
.988
.810
1.000
.902
.666
.715
.679
.755
.604
.587
.667
.762
.603
.880
.723
.662
.765
.587
.878
(2)
.650
.782
.655
(2)
.650
.778
.666
.858
.583
.755
.577
.888
.725
.653
.712
.752
1.043
.877
.884
.961
.860
.687
.682
.629
.722
.588
.440
.522
.566
.621
.579
.622
.598
.649
.577
.428
.572
.892
.658
.694
.455
.917
.790
.430
.536
.558
.617
.593
.613
.603
.645
.556
.423
.583
.883
.651
.687
.418
.858
.789
(2)
.603
.394
.497
.560
.669
.410
.398
.571
.680
.627
.605
.430
.606
.546
.374
.403
.571
.648
.543
.683
.498
.697
.487
(2)
.443
.467
.536
.739
.699
.506
.792
.598
.803
.690
.436
.625
.963
.820
.850
.471
1.080
.925
.583
.487
.551
.545
.607
.494
.441
.472
.900
.717
.697
.462
.887
.680
.745
.762
.665
.671
.745
.370
.442
.706
.603
.755
.471
.667
.693
(3)
.735
.744
.762
.707
.664
.743
.376
.436
.708
.591
.758
.506
.635
.693
00
.724
.578
(2)
.602
.605
.548
.414
.781
.389
.621
.576
.783
.609
.612
.543
.461
.780
.398
.646
.569
(2)
(2)
(2)
.855
<2)
(2)
.780
.754
(2)
(2)
.780
(2)
(2)
.630
.685
.720
.700
.577
.488
.400
(2)
.866
.579
(2)
(2)
.926
.570
.612
.854
.766
.804
.799
.679
.617
(2)
.635
.711
.402
.448
.681
(2)
(2)
.660
.845
.544
.647
.831
.577
.766
.680
1.042
.754
.850
(2)
.377
.417
(2)
.393
.576
.347
.629
.751
.598
.693
(2)
.790
(2)
(2)
.481
(2)
.644
.797
.712
.700
(?)
.850
(2)
.716 '"573" .831
.490
. 508
.625
l! 099
.682
.719
.613
.768
.553
(2)
(2)
.553
(2)
(2>
.813
.838
.400
(2)
.611
.821
.624
(2)
.602
(2)
(2)
.642
.544
.587
.572
(2)
(2)
(?)
.596
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
.716
.589
.586
.723
.658
.345
.496
.611
.680
(2)
.400
.708
.592
.757
.778
.438
.500
.624
.770
.435
.472
.663
.424
.714
.505
9
T able 2.— Average H ou rly Entrance Rates o f A dult M ale Common Laborers in Large
Cities, Spring and Summer 1943— Continued
Manufacturing
Selected industries
Population group and city
Build Pub
All Total, Blast
ing
lic
all
fur
Ma
con
indus
tries man- naces, Fer chin
struc utili
ties
ufac- steel
ery
Meat tion
rous
(ex pack
tur- works, found
ing i
ing
and
cept
ries
roll
elec
ing
trical)
mills
100,000 and under 250,000—Continued.
Mobile........................................................ $0.614 $0,611
(2)
(2)
(2) $0.650
.480
Nashville.................. ................................ .482
$0.346 $0,390
.497
(2)
.582
New Bedford and Fall River................... .585
.531
.796
(2)
.621
New Haven...............................................
.613
.607
.608
.929
Norfolk...................................................... .505
.526
.383
.534
.579
.474
Oklahoma City......................................... .580
.471
.588
.612
.532 $0,690
.620
.599
.677
Omaha.......................................................
.735
.596
.692 1.000
Peoria........................................................ .738
.749
.662
Reading...................................................... .659
.656
.699
.635
(2)
.472
Richmond....................... .........................
.490
.471
.401
(2)
(2>
(2)
.801
Sacramento................................................ .825
.949
.730
(2)
.619
Salt Lake City........................................... .686
.766
(2)
.746
San Diego................................................... .751
(2)
.743
.865
.612
Savannah................................................... .602
.499
(2)
Shreveport.............. ................................... .421
.438
.478
(2)
Scranton.................................................... .636
.616
.624
.597
.805
South Bend................................................ .802
.630
.668
.977
(2)
.767
.790
.991
Spokane.................................................... .893
(2)
.616
.793
Springfield.................................................
.639
.636
.548
.611
.619
.587
.806
Syracuse..................................................... .636
.649
(2)
.844
.879
Tacoma...................................................... .895
.845
1.100
(2)
.572
Tampa.......................................................
.560
.388
.500
Trenton...................................................... .725
.724 $0.780
.889
.550
.678
.589
.564
.545
.610
Tulsa.......................................................... .586
(2)
.656
.558
.615
.839
Utica....................- .................................... .659
W aterbury................................................. .682
.679
.645
.638
.887
.545
Wichita..................................................... .542
.537
.563
.647
.741
Wilmington............................................... .732
.736
.646
.599
.691
.722
.639
Worcester................................................... .692
.780
.708
.744
.780
Youngstown.............................................. .776
.759
.777
$0.518
.482
.669
.744
.440
.571
.621
.725
.614
. 455
(2)
.674
.761
.417
.365
.694
.605
.747
.680
.638
.910
.457
.662
.500
.685
.762
.520
.650
.723
.760
J Includes industries for which data are not presented separately.
* Data insufficient to justify presentation of an average.
3 Averages not shown to avoid disclosing information for one large firm operating several plants in this
city.
It should be remembered that the figures in this report indicate only
the level of entrance rates in industries in large cities and not, as in
earlier surveys, the level of entrance rates in selected industries for
the country as a whole. The figures for large cities are believed to
be slightly higher than those for the whole country, owing to the fact
that wages are generally somewhat higher in large cities than in small
cities.
An examination of the average hourly common-labor entrance rates
for all industries in 89 large cities or groups of cities for which figures
are shown in table 2 reveals widely different wage levels among these
cities. There was a difference of 54.7 cents between the lowest city
average— 37.0 cents for Charlotte— and the highest city average— 91.7
cents for Seattle. Tacoma, Spokane, and Portland all averaged
slightly more than 89 cents per hour, and Detroit and San Francisco
tied for fifth place with 88 cents. In somewhat more than three-fifths
of these cities, average hourly entrance rates were found within the
25-cent range 55 to 80 cents, while in more than one-third of the cities
the range in rates was less than 10 cents— from 60 to 70 cents an hour.
10
An analysis of the figures for the specific industries listed in table 2
reveals marked differences in rates between cities. The rates paid
by the building-construction industry showed the greatest dispersion,
ranging from 40 cents in Little Rock to $1.10 in Tacoma. Average
entrance rates of 80 cents or more an hour were found in nearly half
of the cities surveyed. None of the building-construction rates were
above 70 cents in the 25 cities of the Southeast and Southwest regions,
whereas rates under 70 cents were found in only 6 of the northern
cities. There was a range of somewhat more than 50 cents in the
average hourly entrance rates paid by ferrous foundries, machinery,
and public utilities. The somewhat narrower range in meat-packing
rates, which varied from 34.7 cents in Chattanooga to 75.6 cents in
Los Angeles, may be due to the fact that it was possible to show figures
for this industry only in a limited number of cities, most of which
were cities of 250,000 or more. The pattern of variation of rates
for these four industries followed in general that of the building-con
struction industry. It should be pointed out, however, that average
rates in these industries were substantially lower than those paid in
building construction. The greatest concentration of rates was found
in blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills, in which rates varied
only 25.2 cents among the large cities for which figures are shown.
Most of this variation was due to the established regional differentials
in this industry; the rate of 78 cents prevailed in the Northern States
east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio and the rate of 60.5
cents prevailed in the South. The average rate of 85.5 cents for this
industry in Seattle undoubtedly reflected the influence of the highwage shipbuilding industry.
Table 3 presents index numbers of wage rates based on a compari
son 4 of four specific industries, namely, building construction, public
utilities, ferrous foundries, and machinery (except electrical) in 51
selected cities. These industries constitute a substantial segment of
the industrial composition of the cities and provide a more repre
sentative basis for measuring intercity variations in common-labor
entrance rates than would a comparison of rates for a single specific
industry. The figures show that the highest wage levels were generally
in cities on the West Coast, the index numbers of four of the five cities
in this area for which figures are shown exceeding 120. The next
highest levels were in the East North Central States, the index num
bers for 12 of the 15 cities in this region coming within a 20-point
range from 90 to 110. Wage levels were somewhat lower in the New
England and Middle Atlantic areas, 4 of the 8 cities in the former
region having index numbers within the 5-point range from 90 to 95
and 8 of the 11 cities in the latter region having index numbers within
the 10-point range from 85 to 95. No northern city had an index
number as low as 80, whereas none of the 9 southern cities for which
figures are presented had an index number as high as 80. Wage levels
were substantially lower in the Southeast than in the Southwest, only
one of the six cities in the former region having an index number in
excess of 65, while the index numbers for the 3 cities in the Southwest
came within the 15-point range from 65 to 80.
* In order to overcome variations in the proportions of workers in these industries in the various cities,
oity averages were arrived at by weighting the averages for each industry by the total employment in that
industry in all 51 cities. The city averages were then converted to index numbers, using the average for
all 51 cities as a base.
11
T able 3.— Index Num bers o f Entrance Rates o f Adult M ale Common Laborers in Four
Identical Industries in 51 Selected Cities9 Spring and Sum m er 1943
[Average, 51 cities=100]
Index
numbers
City
1,000,000 and over:
Chicago_______ __________________
D etroit--................... ................. ....
Los Angeles and Long Beach............
New York and Yonkers___________
Philadelphia and Camden_________
500,000 and under 1,000,000:
Baltimore..-________ ____________
Boston and Lynn_________________
B uffalo...............................................
Cleveland
___
Milwaukee_______________________
Minneapolis and St. Paul_________
Newark, Elizabeth, Paterson, and
Jersey City________ _____ _____
Pittsburgh.........................................
St. Louis___________________ l ____
San Francisco and Oakland............
250,CC0 and under 5C0,CC0:
Atlanta
__ _ ____
___
Birmingham
Cineinnati
Columbus
. . _.
Denver
......
Indianapolis______________________
Louisville.
Portland....... .....................................
Providence _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Rochester............................................
108.0
117.9
105.1
90.8
92.7
87.4
94.6
99.3
108.9
100.0
101.3
96.5
108.2
91.1
123.3
60.2
61.1
85.0
94.2
89.1
90.0
78.8
130.3
89.7
94.4
City
250,000 and under 500,000—Continued.
Seattle___________ ______ __________
Toledo_________ __________________
100,000 and under 250,000:
Akron________ _______ ____________
Albany and Schenectady ____
Bridgeport............................................
Canton..................................... ...........
Charlotte______ _______ ___________
Chattanooga...................................
Dayton_____ __________________ ____
Fort Worth..........................................
Grand Rapids___ ________ ______ ___
Hartford...............................................
Nashville............................................ .
New Haven_______________________
Oklahoma City_______________ ____
Omaha................................................ .
Peoria...................................................
South Bend
Springfield_______________________
Syracuse_________________________
Tacoma___________________________
Tulsa____________________________
U tica-...................................................
Waterhnry _ _
Wilmington........................................ .
Worcester
_ __
Index
numbers
122. ft
113. ft
99.0
85.6
105.2
106.2
53.7
62.8
97.5
69.1
94.8
93.1
59.1
96.5
71.7
81.2
109.6
100.1
92.1
89.7
126.8
77.7
93.1
98.9
89. ft
94.5
An examination of the data for specific industries within cities
indicates that the industrial pattern of a city exerts a profound influ
ence on the level of rates in that city. For example, the predomi
nance of heavy durable-goods industries, most of which pay typically
high rates to their workers, accounts for the high wage levels of such
cities as Cleveland, Detroit, and Pittsburgh; while the presence of the
shipbuilding industry, with its well-paid and numerically important
labor force, operates to raise the averages for Seattle, Portland, and
San Francisco.
To some extent, the level of entrance rates in cities is also affected
by the degree of unionization found there. Separate tabulations for
union and nonunion establishments have not been prepared in con
nection with this study, but it is well known from other studies by
the Bureau that wage rates in establishments with union agreements
generally exceed those in nonunion establishments.
These data show no consistent relationship between the level of
common-labor entrance rates and size of city. The wage advantage
which cites of 500,000 and over appear to enjoy over cities of less than
500,000 is very largely due to the fact that all southern cities, most
of which have wage levels substantially below those found in northern
cities, are found in the “ under 500,000” group of cities.5
RATE CHANGES FROM 1942 TO 1943
Because of changes in the scope of the survey, the nature of the
data collected, and the method of weighting the data, it is imposible
to continue the historical series of common-labor entrance rates estab
* Data collected in earlier years have indicated, however, that entrance rates in cities of less than 100,000
are appreciably lower on the average than those in the larger cities in the same region.
12
lished in earlier years. Dependable conclusions can be drawn, how
ever, as to the relative changes which have occurred in entrance rates
in manufacturing, building construction, and public utilities by com
paring the entrance rates of firms which reported in both 1942 and
1943. There were 1,595 such firms, employing 630,352 workers in
1943. Of these firms, 632 employing 384,1Q9 workers were in manu
facturing, 753 with 51,914 workers were in building construction, and
210 with 194,269 workers were in public utilities. These firms were
in large cities widely scattered over the country.
The weighted average hourly entrance rates for 1942 and 1943,
using 1943 plant employment as the weighting factor in both years,
indicate an increase in entrance rates between 1942 and 1943 of 4.5
percent in manufacturing, an increase of 8.3 percent in building con
struction, and an increase of 11.4 percent in public utilities (see
tabulation below). Greater relative increases in rates occurred in
the South than in the North, the respective percentages being 6.0 and
4.4 for manufacturing, 17.1 and 6.6 for building construction, and 16.6
and 11.0 for public utilities.
Percent of increase, 1942 to 1943—
North and South and
United
States
Northwest Southwest
All industries____________________ .................
6 .7
6 .4
12. 7
M anufacturing__________________ _________
Building, construction___________ _________
Public utilities__________________ _________
4 .5
8 .3
11.4
4. 4
6. 6
11.0
6. 0
17. 1
16. 6
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Division of Wage Analysis Regional Offices
Since early 1943, the Bureau’s Division of Wage Analysis has
devoted its efforts largely to making available to the National War
Labor Board the basic wage data essential to the Board’s stabilization
program. As an aid to this end, 12 regional offices have been estab
lished to make community industry-wage-rate surveys. Infomiation
on hours, earnings, and working conditions of workers in nonagricultural pursuits may be obtained from the Regional Director or Regional
Wage Analyst in the appropriate office. These offices are located as
follows:
Boston, Mass.: 294 Washington Street.
New York, N. Y.: 1000 Parcel Post Building, 341 Ninth Avenue.
Philadelphia, Pa.: 814 Widener Building, Chestnut & Juniper Streets.
Cleveland, Ohio: 133 Federal Building, Public Square.
Detroit, Mich.: 1108 Francis Palms Building, 2111 Woodward Avenue.
Atlanta, Ga.: 308 Carl Witt Building, 249 Peachtree Street.
Dallas, Tex.: 7th floor, Fidelity Building, 1000 Main Street.
Kansas City, M o.: 3000 Fidelity Building.
Chicago, El.: 226 West Jackson Boulevard, Room 312.
Denver, Colo.: 422 Chamber of Commerce Building.
San Francisco, Calif.: 1355 Market Street, Room 967.
Seattle, Wash.: 516 Seaboard Building.
FCKVICTORY
BUY
U N IT E D
STATES
W AR
BONDS
AND
STAMPS
@FedFRASER