The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Lz,3 ) S Y t> Dayton & Montgomery Co P u b lic Library J U N 1 2 1968 document COLLECTION AN INTERNATI COMPARISON , GERMANY, KINGDOM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Bureau of Labor Statistics D U L.L.L. M IX 1UOU 1968 i AN IN TERN ATIO N AL COMPARiSOiM OF UNIT LABOR COST IN THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY, 1 9 6 4 : U N IT E D . F R A N C E , G m iX M A M V , U N ITED H i W G D 0 « U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Willard Wirtz, Secretary Bureau o f Labor S ta tis tic s , A rth u r M, Ross, C om m issioner For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 40 cents Preface The Bureau of Labor Statistics has had an increasing interest in comparing labor costs per unit of output by in dustry in different countries as one of the basic factors determining international t r a d e flows in manufactured products. The Bureau published an article in the May 1963 Monthly Labor Review describing the technical prob lems of defining and measuring unit labor cost and has issued several reports (April 1964 and September 1965 issues of the Monthly Labor Review, and BLS Bulletin 1518, 1966) showing the time trend indexes of unit labor cost in all manufacturing for industrial countries. The present bulletin compares, for the first time, the absolute levels of unit labor cost in the primary iron and steel industry of the United States and the three largest steel producing countries of Western Europe in 1964. A study of unit cost in the Japanese industry and a companion study of trends in unit labor cost in the iron and steel industry for the same five countries are in progress. The steel industry was selected for this first absolute measurement project because it ranks high among basic industries in terms of size, public interest, and availability and comparability of data. United States imports of steel products and the volume of international trade in steel products in general have reached record levels in recent years, resulting in sharpened interest in the findings of this study. Great interest also attaches to the method of the present study and to the fact that sufficient data could be assembled to complete an international comparison at the industry level. The bulletin was prepared by David A. Wise and reviewed by John H. Chandler and William C. Shelton in the Office of Foreign Labor and Trade. iii Contents Page Introduction_______________________________________________________________________________________ General m ethod______________________________________ Definition of unit labor c o s t _______ ________________ ___________________________________________ Labor expenditure _____________________________________ The need for weighting _______________________________________________________________________ Minimum and maximum estimates ___________________ Results _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Unit labor c o s t _________________________________________________________________________________ Hourly labor cost _________________________ Man-hours per unit of output ____________________________________________________________ Summary _______________________________________________________________________________________ Interpretation and qualifications ________________________________________________________________ Labor cost and total cost _____________________________________________________________________ The year 1964 versus other years _____________________________________________ ,____________ Vertical integration ___________________________________________________________________________ Capacity utilization___________________________________________________________________________ Variation in cost by product and e n te rp rise ________________________________________________ New p r o c e s s e s _________________________________________________________________________________ Quality differences _________________________________ .__________________________________ _______ Other factors __________________________________________________________________________________ The iron and steel industry ______________________________________ Production processes _________________________________________________________________________ Crude steel production _______________________________________________________________________ Definition of the industry _____________________________________________________ - ______________ Methods and data u s e d ___________________________________________________________________________ Weighting _______________________________________________________________________________________ Quality differences ___________________________________________________________________________ United States _________ France „________________________________________________________________________________________ G erm a n y ____________________________ United K in gdom ________________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 7 9 11 11 11 11 13 14 14 14 16 16 16 16 16 18 20 20 23 25 26 28 30 Figures: 1. Comparison of unit labor cost, hourly labor cost, output per m an-hour, and man-hours per ton, iron and steel industry, 1964, United States, France, Germany, and United K ingdom -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Principal processes and products of the iron and steel in d u stry____________________ viii 17 Tables: 1. Items included in labor cost, by country, 1964 _______________________________________ 2. Unit labor cost in the iron and steel industries of the United States, France, Germany (Federal Republic), and the United Kingdom, by worker category, U .S . industry definition, 1964 ___________ ______________________________________________ 3. Hourly labor cost in the iron and steel industries of the United States, France, Germany (Federal Republic), and the United Kingdom, by worker category, U .S . industry definition, 1964 _________________________________ 4. Output per man-hour and man-hours per ton in the iron and steel industries of the United States, France, Germany (Federal Republic), and the United Kingdom, U .S . industry definition, 1964 ---------------------------------------------------------------------5. Hourly labor cost, output per man-hour and man-hours per ton, and unit labor cost in the steel industries of the United States, France, Germany (Federal Republic), and the United Kingdom, wage earners and salaried employees, U .S . industry definition, 1964 ----------------------------------------------------------------6. Summary of items which could affect relative unit labor cost figures but which are not incorporated in the range of estimates ---------------------------------------------------------- 8 10 12 15 Contents— Continued Page T abl e s— C ont inu ed 7. Crude steel production and percent distribution by manufacturing process in the iron and steel industries of the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, 1964 and 1966 ______________________________________________________ 8. United States 1961 relative man-hour weights, Iron and steel industry, by product and grade of s t e e l ________________________________________________________ 22 Appendix A. 33 Mathematical explanation of method _________________________________________ Appendix B: Tables— B - l . BLS 1961 relative man-hour weights converted to relative cumulative weights, iron and steel industry ________________________________________________ B -2 . Deflation of relative cumulative weights from table B - l , using U. S. 19 36 37 B -3 . B -4 . B -5 . B -6 . B -7 . B -8 . B -9 . B - 10. B -ll. B - 12. B - 13. United States. Estimate of supplementary benefits for salaried em ployees, iron and steel industry, 1964____________________________________________________ United States. Employment cost for wage earners and salaried employees, iron and steel industry, 1964 ______________________________________ United States. Total hours worked and average hourly labor cost, iron and steel industry, 1964 _________________________________________________________ United States. Calculation of unit labor cost for wage earners and salaried employees, iron and steel industry, 1964 ___________________________ United States. Man-hours per ton and output per 1, 000 m an-hours, iron and steel industry, 1964 ___________________________________________________ France. Estimate of minimum and maximum weighted output, iron and steel industry, U. S. industry definition, 1964 ___________________________ France. Employment cost for wage earners and salaried employees, ECSC industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 _____________________ France. Estim ates of employment cost for wage earners and salaried employees to manufacture products not included in the ECSC iron and steel industry but included in the U. S. industry, 1964 ____________ __________ France. Estim ates of employment cost for wage earners and salaried em ployees, U. S. industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 _______ France. Estim ates of total hours worked, ECSC industry definition and U .S . industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 _________________ France. Estim ates of average hourly labor cost for wage earners and salaried employees, U .S . industry definition, iron and steel industry, 39 40 40 41 41 42 46 46 47 47 48 B - 14. B - 15. France. Calculation of unit labor cost for wage earners and salaried employees, iron and steel industry, 1964 __________ ___________________________ France. M an-hours per ton and output per 1, 000 m an-hours, iron and 48 49 B - 16. B - 17. B - 18. B - 19. Germany (Federal Republic). Estimate of minimum and maximum weighted output, iron and steel industry, U .S . industry definition, 1964 ____________ Germany (Federal Republic). Estim ates of employment cost for wage earners and salaried employees, U .S . industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 ______________________________________________________________ Germany (Federal Republic). Estim ates of total hours worked, U .S . industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 ____________________________ Germany (Federal Republic). Estim ates of average hourly labor cost for wage earners and salaried em ployees, U .S . industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 ___________________________________________________ vi 50 54 55 55 Contents— Continued Page Appendix B— Continued Table s— C ontinu ed B -2 0 . Germany (Federal Republic). Calculation of unit labor cost for wage earners and salaried employees, U. S. industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 _____________________________________________________________ B -2 1 . Germany (Federal Republic). Estim ates of m an-hours per ton and output per 1,000 m an-hours, U. S. industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 ___________________________________________________________________ B -2 2 . United Kingdom. Estimate of minimum and maximum weighted output, iron and steel industry, U. S. industry definition, 1964 ____________________ B -23 . United Kingdom. Estim ates of employment cost for wage earners and salaried employees, U. S. industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 ___________________________________________________________________ B -24 . United Kingdom. Estimates of total hours worked, U .S . industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 _____________________________________ B -2 5 . United Kingdom. Estim ates of average hourly labor cost for wage earners and salaried em ployees, U .S . industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 ____________________________________________ B -2 6 . United Kingdom. Calculation of unit labor cost for wage earners and salaried employees, U .S. industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 _____________________________________________ B -2 7 . United Kingdom. Man-hours per ton and output per 1,000 m an-hours, U .S . industry definition, iron and steel industry, 1964 ____________________ 56 57 58 61 62 63 63 64 F i g u r e 1. I R O N A N D STEEL I N D U S T R Y , 1 9 6 4 : U N I T E D STATES, F R A N C E , G E R M A N Y , A N D U N I T E D K I N G D O M C o m p a r i s o n o f U n i t L a b o r Cost , H o u r l y L a b o r Cost, O u t p u t p e r M a n - H o u r , and M a n - H o u r s p e r Ton INDEX 240 (U S = 1 0 0 ) ------------------------ — 240 220 — 220 200 — 200 180 — 180 160 — 160 140 — 140 120 — 120 — 100 — 80 — 60 — 40 — 20 -J UNIT LABOR COST HOURLY LABOR COST OUTPUT PER MAN-HOUR vlii MAN-HOURS PERTON 0 Introduction The international competitive position of the iron and steel industry in the United States is affected greatly by cost as reflected in price. Other factors such as product design, quality, and promptness of delivery are also important, but because the market for steel products is highly competitive, price is an important factor in the international market for these products. in Germany fell near the middle of the range of estimates for Germany, the cost would have been approximately midway between the cost in France and the United Kingdom. As can be seen in figure 1, hourly labor cost in the United States was much higher than in any of the other three countries; total cost for wage earners and salaried employees in the European countries was about one-third of the cost in the United States. A lt h o u g h development of intercountry comparisons of total cost per unit of output has not been attempted, sufficient data have been compiled to make comparisions of labor cost, which is a sizable part of total cost in the iron and steel industry. In the United States in recent years, labor cost has been about 40 percent of total cost. In France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the United Kingdom, labor cost is between 20 and 30 percent of total cost. 1 A l t h o u g h hourly labor cost was much higher in the United States than in the other three countries, more man-hours were r e quired per ton of output in each of the Euro pean countries than in the United States, par tially offsetting the lower hourly labor cost advantage in these countries. About twice as many man-hours were required per ton of output in France and the United Kingdom as in the United States; the r e q u i r e m e n t in Germany was somewhat less. The present study compares unit labor cost in the United States with that in France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the United Kingdom. These three countries of Western Europe have the largest and most fully integrated iron and steel industries. Together, these c o u n t r i e s exported about 2. 2 million short tons of steel m ill products to the United States in 1966. 2* The study also compares output per man-hour and hourly labor cost in these four countries. The r e sults are summarized in figure 1. It must not be inferred from the results obtained for unit labor cost that differences among the four countries in other costs of production are of the same magnitude or even in the same direction. The prices of some inputs such as coal and electricity are c e r tainly higher in Europe than in the United States, although other prices probably are lower abroad than in the United States. The prices of some inputs are determined largely by world commodity prices and may not vary greatly among countries. The impact of in dividual price differences on production cost is hard to evaluate, however, because of dif ferences in th e efficiency of utilization of m aterial inputs and the extent to which other inputs may be substituted. In any event, unit labor cost alone cannot measure th e cost competitiveness of an industry in interna tional trade. Data limitations have prevented the de velopment of precise comparisons. Thus the results for the countries of Western Europe are presented as ranges (high and low e sti mates) in order to account for possible v a ri ations stemming from gaps in available pub lished data. The results for the United States are not presented in the form of a range since available data are much more complete. Unit labor cost in the United States, at $58. 77 per ton of finished steel in 1964, was considerably higher than that in any of the other three countries, Estimates of total labor cost per unit of output in F r a n c e , G e r m a n y , and the United Kingdom ranged from 57 to 72 percent of the cost in the United States. It is not possible to indicate with c e r tainty the relative standing of the three fo r eign countries considered, but the cost in the United Kingdom was probably somewhat lower than the cost in France. If the actual cost 1 Annual Statistical Reports (New York, American Iron and Steel Institute); Unternehmen und Arbeitsstatten, Reihe 1, Die Kostenstruktur in der Wirtschaft, I. Industrie und Energiewirtschaft, 1962 (Wiesbaden, Statistisches Bundesamt); and unpublished esti mates. The German study indicates that labor cost accounted for approximately 24 percent of total cost in the German steel industry in 1962, on the basis o f the German industry definition. The cost of materials and work contracted out (excluding maintenance) accounted for approximately 53 percent of total cost. 2 1 .4 m illion short tons in 1964. The United States exports very little steel to these countries. 1 2 It must be remembered, also, that inter national competition takes place not at steel m ills but where the steel consuming indus tries are located. Therefore, the cost of transportation is an important factor in a s sessing the competitive position of a partic ular country in international markets. This study does not attempt to evaluate transpor tation and distribution costs for the different countries or market areas. In addition, the fact that unit labor cost in the primary iron a n d steel industry is higher in the United States than in Western Europe by no means implies that this is true f o r every steel m ill product or for every plant in each country. The partial compar ative data available on list prices show that prices are generally lower in Europe than in the United States, but data are not available for all products. No information can be ob tained on actual transaction prices, which often differ greatly from list prices and which normally might be expected to reflect produc tion costs over an extended period of time. Moreover, the efficiency of plants and com panies may vary greatly in the same country. The most efficient, of course, are likely to be the more important in international trade. The comparison of unit labor cost by product or for individual companies or plants has not been attempted. The methods used in this study are ex plained in considerable detail. A section on the general m ethod3 precedes the presenta tion of results in the belief that some knowl edge of the procedures followed will lead to g r e a t e r understanding of the results. A detailed discussion of the weighting system employed and an explanation of the data used in the calculation of figures for each country have been included in a final section devoted entirely to methods. This latter section also includes some discussion of th e quality of steel produced by the countries and possible means of a l l o w i n g for quality differences among the countries. A short explanation of the production processes of the iron and steel industry and th e definition of the industry used in this study is included in the section entitled "The Iron and Steel Industry. " This explanation will be helpful to persons who desire a full understanding of the study but are not well acquainted with the production processes and products of the iron and steel industry. 3 The general approach followed in this study is outlined in a technical note prepared by W illiam C. Shelton and John H. Chandler. See "International Comparisons of Unit Labor Cost: Concepts and Methods, " Monthly Labor Review , May 1963, pp. 538-546. General Method Definition of Unit Labor Cost Unit labor cost is the ratio of total labor cost, in money term s, to total output pro duced by labor (in concert with other factors of production), in physical term s. In this study, the u n i t of measure is dollars per short ton of final steel products. 4 Unit labor cost can be obtained also from hourly labor cost and output per man-hour (or man-hours per unit of output). Algebraically, these r e lationships may be expressed as follows: Let: Q = quantity of output E = aggregate labor cost (or expenditure) L = man-hours of labor then, Hourly labor cost = -j— From these relationships it can be seen that unit labor cost equals hourly labor cost divided by o u t p u t per man-hour and also equals hourly labor cost times man-hours per unit of output. The m e t h o d used in this study to derive unit labor cost figures is ex plained in detail in appendix A. Labor Expenditure Labor expenditure includes direct pay ment for the services of all production and nonproduction 5 labor employed within the in dustry and the cost of all supplementary bene fits. Only those worker s who are contributing to the production and sale of goods included in the definition of the industry are covered by the expenditure data. Output per man-hour = ■ Man-hours per unit of output = TT . . , Unit labor cost = E E/L E L — -T ? 4 Products shipped out o f the industry, as defined. ^ Such as maintenance workers, janitors, salaried em ployees, and other workers not directly involved in producing a product o f the industry. 3 Table 1. Items Included in Labor Cost, by Country, 1964 Item Direct payments: Regular wage or sa la ry ------------------------- ------Shift d ifferen tial--------------------------------------------Overtime and other premiums 1-------------------Productivity bonuses or payments based on production------------------------------------C ost-of-livin g allow ance------------------------------Bonuses and gratuities----------------------------------Holiday pa y -----------------------------------------------------Vacation pay----------------------------------------------------- United States F ranee Germany United Kingdom X X X X X X X X X X X X 2x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Legally required social insurance costs 1 *34 --------- X X X 4x Contractual5 or voluntary social insurance costs 6------------------------------------------------ X X X X (!) (!) X X X X X X 10x 10x 10x 13x 13x Family allow ances7*---------------------------------------------Payment in kind---------------------------------------------------Recruitment and training e xp en se-------------------Tax on wages and sa la r ie s--------------------------------Subsidized se r v ic e s--------------------------------------------1 For work on Sundays and holidays and for dangerous or inordinately arduous work, etc. Would be included if incurred by employer. 3 Such costs in the United States include taxes for old -age, survivors, and disability insurance; unemployment insurance; and State sickness insurance. 4 Excluding the National Health Insurance Plan. 5 Included in a labor-management contract. ^ Such as supplemental unemployment benefit plans and company pension and insurance plans. 7 May be a direct payment to worker and may be legally required, contractual, or voluntary. (9 ) (IE) Q 11 X 13x Not incurred. 9 Largely covered in the form of wages and salaries to apprentices and instructors. 10 About 2 .2 percent of total labor cost in France; 1 .6 percent in Germany, including wages and salaries of apprentices and instructors^ and 0 .4 percent in the United Kingdom. 11 5 percent. Partly covered in wages and salaries. 13 Possible 1 percent of total labor cost in France and Ger many, including wages and salaries; and 0. 8 percent in the United Kingdom. 4 Labor expenditure in this study includes the following costs: Ail monetary rem uner ation paid directly to the worker, including bonuses, premium pay, and holiday and vaca tion pay; family allowances; employer social insurance payments to both public and private funds; and payments in kind. The French, German, and United Kingdom data (as collected by survey and reported) also include small expenditures for recruitment and training and subsidized services; the French data include the cost of a 5-percent tax on wages and salaries. ° Family allowances, the payroll tax as in France, and payments in kind are, of course, costs that generally are not incurred by U. S. employers. Labor cost items con sidered in the study and the countries in v/hich each item is incurred are indicated in table 1. Reference in this study to "w a g e s" or "s a la r ie s " m e a n s monetary remuneration excluding nonproduction bonuses 7 and holiday and vacation pay. "T otal labor cost" for wage earners or salaried employees means all costs as sociated with the employment of work ers, as shown in table 1. In the United Kingdom, some social costs are incurred indirectly by employers and therefore are not considered as labor cost; in other countries they normally would be in cluded as direct social insurance payments and thus would be included in labor expendi ture. This is true particularly of costs r e lated to the National Insurance Program, which is financed out of general tax revenue, part of which comes from industry taxes. Employer labor cost in the United Kingdom would be higher if a portion of employer in come tax payments were treated as a direct expenditure for labor. The Need for Weighting Since the output of the steel industry com prises a large variety of products and since labor input (and thus cost) requirements vary greatly from one product to another, the output of each product must be weighted in such a way that more value is given to those products requiring relatively greater labor input and less value to those requiring less labor input. If this were not done, the unit labor cost in a country producing only products requiring little labor input would be understated relative to the unit labor cost in a country producing only products requiring a high labor input. Thus, the output figure used in the calculation of unit labor cost is a weighted combination of the outputs of all the products of the industry. The weights are based on the experience of the United States steel industry and reflect relative man-hour requirements per ton of each product; that is, if twice as many man hours are required to produce a ton of prod uct A as to produce a ton of product B, the weight for product A is twice the weight for product B. The weight for any given product reflects man-hour requirements in the final process used to make that product, in addi tion to all man-hours in prior processes be ginning with the production of coke. The weights were derived from relative man-hour weights compiled for use by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in measuring out put per man-hour in the United States steel industry. This derivation is described fully in the section on "Methods and Data Used. " The total weighted output figure is ob tained by multiplying the output of each prod uct by the weight for that product and then summing the r e s u l t i n g figures. Thus, weighted output for a foreign country is not the actual tonnage output of that country but the output measured in United States com posite tons. It approximates the output that would have been produced if the foreign coun try had produced steel products in the same proportions as the United States. 9 Minimum and Maximum Estimates Data for France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are often not as detailed as data for the United States. For example, the output of each product in the United States is d is tributed among three grades of steel----carbon, alloy, and stainless— whereas a sim ilar break down for the other countries is usually not available, except in the United Kingdom. The output of pipe and tubing in the United States is classified in five or six categories accord ing to the use for which it is intended, such as pressure tubing, oil-country goods, and line pipe; for the other countries, data are normally available only according to method of production— welded or seamless..,.*1 6 This is not a payroll tax as normally understood in the United States, but is in addition to (or other than) social insurance payments. 1 Not production incentives, such as payments based on out put, which are a part o f day-to-day compensation. The weights used in the calculation are such that, for the United States, £ Q iW f = £ Q i, where Qj - the output o f the ith product and W f = the weight for the ith product. Assuming that relative man-hour requirements are the same in the foreign country as in the United States. See section on "Methods and Data Used" and appendix A. 5 In addition, complete labor expenditure data are not available for every country, and that which is available may not pertain p re cisely to the industry as defined for this study. In order to make allowances for these and other data limitations, the results for France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have been presented in the form of a range based on high and low estim ates. If, for example, the distribution of a country*s pipe and tubing p r o d u c t i o n among the several functional classifications of pipe and tubing is not known, two different distributions have been developed, the first placing as much of the total output as would appear possible— after examination of available data— in cate gories requiring relatively few man-hours, and the second placing as much of the total as would seem possible in categories with relatively high man-hour requirements. The total weighted output in the first case would be sm aller than the weighted output in the second case. The same procedure was fo l lowed in making two distributions of alloy and stainless steel and in other cases— both on the output and labor expenditure sides of the unit labor cost equation— where complete in formation is not available. In estimating maximum and minimum figures, the following procedure was used: (l) Where the possible error----resulting from definitional differences or gaps in the data---in a given figure is sm all (say, of the order of 1 percent of the figure or less), a single figure has been used; (2) where the possible error is s o m e w h a t larger, a deliberately broad range has been allowed; and (3) in ag gregating item s, the maximum and minimum figures have been combined in such a way as to produce the broadest possible resulting range. The range does not allow for certain differences among the countries, such as in the degree of vertical integration or in the quality of steel produced. These differences, however, as indicated in later discussion, appear to be quite sm all. For France, the minimum estimate of unit labor cost is about 8 percent lower than the maximum estimate; for the United King dom, the difference in the two figures is about 10 percent. In Germany, however, the minimum figure is approximately 19 percent less than the maximum figure. The ranges, of course, reflect the availability or com parability of data from each country. Results Since unit labor cost can be determined from hourly labor cost and man-hours per ton (or output per man-hour), the results of the study are presented in such a way as to separate out these two components. The first section discusses unit labor cost, followed by sections on hourly labor cost and man hours per unit of output and, finally, a sum mary section on all three m easures. Unit Labor Cost Figures on unit labor cost have been calculated first from aggregate labor expendi tures measured in country currencies and then converted to U. S. dollars at the aver age annual spot rate of exchange (1964), which corresponds very closely to the par value ex change rate for each country. 1 Unit labor cost figures for France, G er many, and the United Kingdom do not repre sent the cost of producing a national com posite ton of steel in each c o u n t r y but approximate the cost of producing a U. S. composite ton. *11 If relative man-hour r e quirements are the same in a foreign country as in the United States, then the unit labor cost figure for this country would be equal to the cost of producing a U. S. composite ton of steel. (See appendix A. ) Unit labor cost figures converted to U. S. dollars are presented in table 2. A s is evi dent from the table, unit labor cost in the United States, at $58. 77 per ton in 1964, was considerably higher than that in any of the other three countries. Estim ates of total labor cost per unit of output in France, G er many, and the United Kingdom range from 57 to 72 percent of the cost in the United States. Because the range in estim ates for Germany is rather broad, it is not possible to indicate with certainty the relative stand ing of the three foreign countries considered, Since unit labor cost is a cost of making a product to be marketed, international comparisons of this cost should reflect commercial rates of exchange. The commercial rate is, of course, relevant in analyzing the cost competitiveness o f an industry in international trade, which is the primary interest in international comparisons of unit labor cost. 11 Or, what unit labor cost would have been if the U. S. product distribution had been produced instead of the distribution which was in fact produced. Of course, comparisons on the basis of composite tons of other countries would be useful, but product weights necessary for these comparisons are not available. 6 T a b le 2. Unit L a b o r C o s t in the Iron and S t e e l I n d u s t r ie s of the United S t a t e s , F r a n c e , G e r m a n y ( F e d e r a l R e p u b lic ), and the United K i n g d o m , by W o r k e r C a t e g o r y , U. S. Indu stry D efin itio n , 1 1964 Worker category United States Germany F ranee M ini mum M axi mum M ini mum United Kingdom M axi mum M ini mum M axi mum In U. S. dollars 2 per short ton Wage earners: W a ges------------------------------------Total cost 3----------------------------- 34. 01 43. 17 15. 09 27. 29 16. 10 29. 56 17.93 26. 35 22. 30 32. 77 23. 89 27. 59 26. 71 3 0.8 5 Salaried employees: Salaries---------------------------------Total cost 3----------------------------- 12. 25 15. 60 7. 03 11.70 7. 50 12. 67 5. 38 7. 65 6. 59 9. 36 5. 32 6. 14 5.91 6. 82 Wage earners and salaried employees: Wages and s a la r ie s -------------Total cost 3----------------------------- 46. 26 58. 77 22. 12 38. 99 23. 61 42. 23 23. 31 33. 99 28. 89 42. 13 29. 21 33. 73 32. 62 37. 67 As percent of U. S. cost Wage earners: W a ges------------------------------------Total cost 3----------------------------- 100. 0 100. 0 44. 4 63. 2 47. 3 68. 5 52. 7 61. 0 65. 6 75. 9 70. 2 63. 9 78. 5 7 1 .5 Salaried employees: Salaries---------------------------------Total cost 3----------------------------- 100. 0 100. 0 57. 4 75. 0 61. 2 8 1 .2 43. 9 49. 0 53. 8 60. 0 43. 4 39. 4 48. 2 43. 7 Wage earners and salaried em ployees: Wages and salaries -------------Total cost 3----------------------------- 100. 0 100. 0 47. 8 66. 3 5 1 .0 7 1 .9 50. 4 57. 8 62. 5 7 1 .7 63. 1 57. 4 70. 5 64. 1 1 Excluding wire and wire products in the United Kingdom and wheels and axles in Germany. The ranges in estimates for the European countries do not allow for differences between the countries in the degree o f vertical integration or the quality of steel produced. 2 Exchange rates: US $1 = 4.90 new francs, 3. 977 deutsche marks, 0. 3584 pound. 3 including supplementary benefits, 7 but the cost in the United Kingdom was prob ably somewhat lower than the cost in France. If the true cost in Germany, however, falls near the middle of the estimated range for this country, it would be slightly less than the cost in France and larger than the cost in the United Kingdom. If the unit cost of wages and salaries, excluding supplementary costs, is considered, the cost in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom ranges between 48 and 71 percent of the cost in the United States, and the r e lative ranking of the three foreign countries shows g r e a t e r contrast. On this basis, France has the lowest unit cost, the United Kingdom the highest cost, and the cost in Germany lies between these two. The dif ference between results obtained considering wages and salaries only and those obtained considering total labor-related expenditures is attributable to the different importance of supplementary benefits as a proportion of total labor expenditure in each country. Supple mentary benefits are highest in France and lowest in the United Kingdom. Unit labor cost for all employees includes cost for wage earners and cost for salaried employees. The relative ranking of the three foreign countries is significantly different for each group. Estimates of wage earner cost per ton fall between $26.35 and $ 3 2 .7 7 for all three countries; the lower estimate in all of them falls between $26. 35 and $27. 59. For salaried employees, however, total cost per ton differs greatly among the three coun tries, being about twice as high in France, $ 1 1 .7 0 to $ 1 2 .6 7 , as in the United Kingdom, $6. 14 to $ 6 .8 2 . 12 The cost in Germany falls approximately midway between these two. The low cost in the United Kingdom is attrib utable prim arily to low hourly labor cost for salaried employees. Hourly labor cost for salaried e m p l o y e e s in France was only slightly higher than in Germany, but salary earners constitute a larger percentage of the labor force in France (about 20 percent) than in Germany (about 17 percent). Salaried em ployees account for about 19 percent of the steel employment in the United Kingdom and about 22 percent in the United States. The range in unit labor cost for salaried employees in the three countries is also much wider than the comparable range for all work ers. Whereas for all workers, unit labor cost in these countries ranged between 57 and 72 percentofthe United States cost, unit cost for salaried employees ranged from 39 p er cent of U. S. cost, the low estimate in the United Kingdom, to 81 percent of U. S. cost, the high estimate for France. Hourly Labor Cost For international comparisons of produc tion costs, unit labor cost is a factor of major significance; but since hourly labor cost is one component of unit cost, com pari sons of hourly cost contribute toward under standing the differences in unit labor cost among countries. Table 3 presents hourly labor cost figures expressed in U. S. dollars converted from national currencies at the 1964 spot rates of exchange. The hourly data represent cost per hour worked rather than cost per hour paid. The wage and salary figures represent pay for hours actually worked plus cost-of-livin g a l lowances, and total hourly cost figures repre sent all costs associated with employment of labor. Because salaried employees usually are paid by the month or year, attention is not always given to actual hours worked by sa l aried employees and such data are not c o l lected by all countries. Data on hours worked by salaried employees, however, are avail able for the United States (Am erican Iron and Steel Institute) and the United Kingdom (iron and Steel Board and the British Iron and Steel Federation). For France and Germany, where these d a t a are not available, hourly cost figures for salaried employees are based on an estimate that the number of hours worked per year by salaried employees is the same as the number worked by wage earners. Hourly labor cost in the United States was much higher than in any of the other three countries, total cost for wage earners and salaried employees in those countries ranging between 29 and 39 percent of this cost in the United States. A lso, among the three foreign countries, there is considerable variation in total hourly cost and in the composition---wages and s a l a r i e s versus supplemental costs— of labor cost. Total cost per hour for wage and salary workers c o m b i n e d in the United Kingdom ( $ 1. 33—$ 1. 37) was much lower than in G er many ( $ 1. 69—$ 1. 80) and in France ( $ 1 .5 7 — $1. 60). If only salaried employees are con sidered, the difference between the United Kingdom, on the one hand, and France and Germany, on the other, is even more pro nounced. The cost in the United Kingdom*3 The figure for the United Kingdom is affected slightly by the omission from statistical coverage of some central administra tive offices and research and development plants (estimated at 2 to 3 percent of total labor expenditure). 8 T a b le 3. H o u r ly L a b o r C o st in the Iron and S teel I n d u str ie s of the United S t a te s , F r a n c e , G e r m a n y ( F e d e r a l R ep u b lic), and the United K i n g d o m , by W o r k e r C a t e g o r y , U . S . Industry D efin ition , 1 1964 Worker category United States F ranee M ini mum Ge rmany M axi mum M ini mum M axi mum United Kingdom M ini mum M axi mum In U. S. dollars 2 Wage earners: W a g e s -------------------- ---------------Total cost 3----------------------------- 3. 43 4. 36 0. 76 1. 38 0 .7 6 1.40 1. 08 1. 59 1. 15 1.69 1. 13 1.31 1. 16 1. 34 Salaried employees: Salaries---------------------------------Total c o s t3----------------------------- 4. 39 5. 59 1.41 2. 34 1.41 2. 38 1.55 2. 20 1. 62 2. 30 1.25 1.44 1. 30 1o50 Wage earners and salaried em ployees: Wages and sa la ries--------------Total cost 3----------------------------- 3. 64 4. 63 . 89 1. 57 . 89 1.60 1. 16 1.69 1. 23 1.80 1o 15 1. 33 1. 19 1. 37 As percent of U. S. cost Wage earners: W a ges------------------------------------Total cost 3----------------------------- 100. 0 100. 0 22. 2 31.7 22. 2 32. 1 31. 5 36. 8 33. 5 38. 8 32. 9 30. 0 33. 8 30. 7 Salaried employees: Salaries --------------------------------Total c o s t3--------------- -------------- 100. 0 100. 0 32. 1 41. 9 32. 1 42. 6 35. 3 39. 4 36. 9 41. 1 28. 5 25. 8 29. 6 26. 8 Wage earners and salaried em ployees: Wages and salaries--------------Total cost 3----------------------------- 100. 0 100. 0 24. 5 33. 9 24. 5 34. 6 31. 9 36. 5 33. 8 38. 9 31. 6 28. 7 32. 7 29. 6 Excluding wire and wire products in the United Kingdom and wheels and axles in Germany. 2 Exchange rates: US $1 = 4 .9 0 new francs, 3. 977 deutsche marks, 0. 3584 pound. 3 Including supplementary benefits. 9 is 62 and 65 percent, respectively, of the cost in France and Germany. This difference is explained by the fact that the differential in hourly cost between salaried employees and wage earners is much lower in the United Kingdom than in the other countries. In the United Kingdom, the hourly cost of employing wage earners was about 90 percent of the cost of employing salaried workers ($1.31—$1.34 an hour for wage earners versus $ 1 .4 4 —$ 1 .5 0 for salaried employees), but in France the cost for wage earners was only about 59 p e r cent of the cost for salaried employees. In Germany and the United States, these p er centages were 73 and 78, respectively. For all workers the proportion of total hourly labor cost accounted for by supple mentary benefits ranged from a low of ap proximately 13 percent in the United Kingdom to a high of about 44 p e r c e n t in France. This proportion is about 32 percent in G er many and 21 percent in the United States. The low proportion in the United Kingdom undoubtedly is due in part to the fact that employer costs which are related to the Na tional Insurance Program are excluded from labor expenditures. The differences in hourly labor cost (or in wages and salaries) which have been de scribed do not necessarily reflect differences in purchasing power of workers or in their general welfare. From the point of view of worker welfare, international comparisons must take into account the relative prices of goods and services among countries and also differences in the types of goods and services purchased. These factors have not been con sidered in this study since they do not pertain to labor cost in the context of production cost comparisons. The study does not attempt to make com parisons between the countries in the "quality of labor, " as might be determined by some objective standard such as the proportion of workers in given occupations or professions, the length and type of education received by workers, or the level of performance in r e lation to job standards. The purpose of the study is not to compare wages or salaries paid for given types of work or to persons with a certain level of education in one coun try with those paid in another. The purpose is to compare the cost of labor required to produce a given unit of output in the different countries, regardless of any special qualities of the labor employed in each country. Hourly labor cost is considered because of its in herent relationship to unit labor cost. Man-Hours per Unit of Output The second component of unit labor cost is output per man-hour or its reciprocal, man-hours per unit of output. In the discus sion which follows, the latter concept is used, since man-hours required by wage earners and by salaried employees may be added to gether to obtain total man-hour requirements and each may be discussed separately in a meaningful manner. Both types of data are presented in table 4. Although hourly labor cost was much higher in the United States than in the other three countries, more man-hours were r e quired per ton of output in each of these coun tries than in the United States, partially off setting their lower hourly labor cost advan tage. About twice as many man-hours were required per ton of output in France and the United Kingdom as in the United States. The requirement in Germany was somewhat less, the estimates ranging from 1. 58 to 1.85 times the requirement in the United States. In comparing labor productivity levels, the most important measure is total labor requirements per unit of output (or its r e ciprocal); but differences in the total figure among the countries are explained further if the magnitude of differences in the labor r e quirements for different groups of the labor force is known. Thus, data are presented for w a g e earners and salaried employees separately. The breakdown is not meant to compare the productivity of one group with that of the other. The proportion of wage earners to salaried employees is, of course, affected by different technological and social conditions in the various countries. For wage earners alone, the relationship among countries is sim ilar to the relationship for all workers, since most workers are wage earners; for salaried employees alone, the relationship is quite different. The lowest man-hour requirement for salaried workers, as for all workers, is in the United States. The requirement in France is much higher for salaried workers than in the United King dom, although the all-w orker requirements of these two countries are quite sim ilar. Among the three foreign countries, Germany has the lowest requirements for both salaried and all workers, but the relationship between the German and the U. S. requirements is much closer for salaried workers (from 1. 25 to 1. 46 times the U. S. requirement) than it is for all workers ( l. 58 to 1. 85 times the U. S. requirement). 10 T a b le 4. Output p e r M a n - H o u r and M a n - H o u r s p e r Ton in the Iron and Steel I n d u st r ie s of the United S t a te s , F r a n c e , G e r m a n y ( F e d e r a l R e p u b lic ), and the United K in g d o m , U . S . Industry D efin itio n , 1 1964 Worker category and unit of measure United States Gerrnany F ranee M ini mum M axi mum M ini mum M axi mum United Kingdom M ini mum M axi mum Output peir 1,000 man-hours In short tons: Wage e a rn e rs-----------------------Wage earners and salaried employees---------------------------Relative output per man-hour (U .S. = 100): Wage e a rn e rs-----------------------Wage earners and salaried employees---------------------------- 100. 89 4 7 .4 2 50. 61 51. 65 60. 32 4 3 .5 1 4 7 .4 4 78. 73 37. 85 40. 39 42. 68 49. 85 36. 33 39.47 100. 0 47. 0 52. 0 5 1 .2 59. 8 43. 1 47. 0 100. 0 48. 1 53. 2 54. 2 63. 3 46. 1 50. 1 Man- hours per ton Short ton: Wage e arn ers-----------------------Salaried employees -------------Wage earners and salaried employees---------------------------Relative man-hour require ments (U .S. = 100): Wage e a rn e rs-----------------------Salaried employees--------------Wage earners and salaried employees---------------------------- 9. 91 2. 79 19. 76 5. 00 21. 08 5. 33 16. 58 3. 48 19. 36 4. 07 21. 09 4. 23 2 2 .9 9 4. 54 12. 70 24. 76 26. 42 20. 06 23. 43 25. 34 27. 52 100. 0 100. 0 199.4 179. 2 212. 8 191. 0 167. 3 124. 7 195. 4 145o9 212. 8 151.6 232. 0 162. 7 100. 0 195. 0 208. 0 158. 0 184. 5 199. 5 2 1607 1 Excluding wire and wire products in the United Kingdom and wheels and axles in Germany. The ranges in estimates for the European countries do not allow for differences between the countries in the degree, of vertical integration or the quality of steel produced, 11 The salaried employee man-hour require ment is about 22 percent of total labor r e quirements in the United States, 20 percent in France, and 17 percent in Germany and the United Kingdom. The relationships r e flect the proportions of salaried workers to total employment in Germany, France, and the United States, since average yearly hours worked by wage earners and by salaried em ployees are estimated to be about the same in these countries. In the United Kingdom, however, salaried employees work approxi mately 16 percent fewer hours a year than wage earners. When productivity is measured in terms of output per m an-hour, the reciprocal of man-hours per ton, the United States figures are, of course, higher than those for the other countries. For convenience, the data in table 4 are expressed as output (in short tons) per 1, 000 m an-hours. Summary The relationship of unit labor cost to hourly labor cost and output per man-hour is summarized for all workers in table 5 and presented graphically in figure 1. Although output per man-hour is higher in the United States than in France, Germany, or the United Kingdom, this advantage is more than offset by higher hourly labor cost, resulting in sub stantially higher unit labor cost in the United States than in the other countries. Interpretation and Qualifications Labor Cost and Total Cost The Year As mentioned earlier, labor expenditure, although an important cost, is only one of several costs of production. The differences in unit labor cost between the United States and the European countries studied should not be interpreted to mean that differences in other costs are of the same magnitude or even in the same direction. Thus, unit labor cost alone cannot measure the cost competitive ness of the steel industries of these countries in international trade. 13 It is only a measure of one of the primary costs of production. Differences in unit labor cost between countries are affected by several factors which are subject to change from year to year. Figures for a single year, therefore, may not reflect precisely the situation over an extended period of time. Changes in hourly labor cost, output per man-hour, and opera ting rate (through its effect on output per man-hour) can significantly affect unit labor cost from one year to the next. The tabu lation below gives some indication of the situation in other years. These data are based on a preliminary investigation of unit labor cost trends in the iron and steel indus try. Thus, they should not be considered as precise indicators of changes in absolute labor cost as presented for 1964 but as gen eral m easures of movement in unit labor cost in each country over the 4 -y e a r period 1963- A complete evaluation of total cost would have to take into account all other inputs contributing to final production and distribu tion of steel products. This would be an undertaking equally as complex as the m e a s urement of unit labor cost itself, and it is far beyond the scope of this study. Geographic influences also have an im portant bearing on both the cost structure and the trading position of individual pro ducers. Proximity to raw m aterials and availability of labor supply have long been regarded as basic to production. Recently, several countries have located plants at oceanside so that bulk m aterials can be brought in at low cost from distant sources and fin ished products can be shipped readily to d is tant m arkets. The vast area of the U. S. market itself contributes to a variety of trade patterns. The measurement of these geo graphical influences on cost and trade, like the measurement of nonlabor cost, is out side the scope of this study. (1 9 6 4 1964 Versus Other Years = 1 0 0 ). Country 1963 1964 United States1 ------ 104 France------------------- 103 Germ any--------------United Kingdom - - 1965 1966 100 97 99 100 100 - 108 100 110 112 105 100 101 107 1 The U. S. data are those developed in the Bureau's O ffice o f Productivity, T echnology, and Growth. 13 See W illiam C. Shelton and John H. Chandler, 'The Role o f Labor Cost in Foreign Trade," Monthly Labor R eview , May 1963, pp. 485-490. 12 Table 5. Hourly Labor Cost, Output per Man-Hour and Man-Hours per Ton, and Unit Labor Cost in the Steel Industries of the United States, France, Germany (Federal Republic), and the United Kingdom, Wage Earners and Salaried Em ployees, U. S. Industry Definition, 1 1964 Item United States Germany F ranee Mini mum M axi mum M ini mum M axi mum United Kingdom M ini mum M axi mum In absolute term s Labor cost per hour, total (in U. S, d ollars2) ------------------Man-hours per short ton (all w orkers) ---------------------------Output per 1, 000 m an-hours, all workers (short tons)---------Unit labor cost (U. S. dollars per short ton)--------------------------- 4. 63 1. 57 1. 60 1. 69 1080 1. 33 1. 37 1Z. 70 24. 76 26. 43 20. 06 23. 43 25. 34 27. 52 78. 73 37. 85 40. 39 42. 68 49. 85 36. 33 39. 47 58. 77 38. 99 42. 23 33. 99 42. 13 33. 73 37. 67 u. s. , figure == 100 Labor cost per hour* total (in U. S. dollars2) ------------------Man-hours per short ton (all w o rk ers)---------------------------Output per 1, 000 m an-hours, all workers (short tons)---------Unit labor cost (U. S. dollars per short ton)--------------------------- 100. 0 33. 9 34. 6 36. 5 38. 9 28. 7 29. 6 100. 0 195. 0 208. 0 158. 0 184. 5 199. 5 216. 7 100. 0 48. 1 51. 3 54. 2 63. 3 46. 1 50. 1 100. 0 66. 3 71. 9 57. 8 71. 7 5 7 .4 64. 1 1 Excluding wire and wire products in the United Kingdom and wheels and axles in Germany. The ranges in estimates for the European countries do not allow for differences between the countries in the degree o f vertical integration or the quality o f steel produced. 2 Exchange rates: US $1 = 4 .9 0 new francs, 3.9 7 7 deutsche marks, 0. 3584 pound. 13 Vertical Integration In using product weights which reflect labor embodied in all production from coke through the final product (cumulative weights), the im plicit assumption is made that the U. S. industry and the foreign industries, adjusted to the U. S. definition, are equally integrated; that i s , the production processes included in the industry and the extent (relative amount) of contracting out of services are assumed to be the same in all the countries. 14 This as sumption is not always true, but apparent differences in the extent of vertical integra tion appear to have only a sm all effect upon the unit labor cost comparison. The m ost important case is coke pro duction. In 1964, almost all of the coke con sumed in the steel industries of the United States and the United Kingdom (93 percent) was produced by the industry, 15 but the pro portion produced by the industry was less than one-third of the total in France (about 30 percent) and Germany (about 28 percent). Thus, French and German labor expenditure is understated to the extent that the expendi ture to produce the purchased coke is not in cluded in total labor expenditure. If the labor expenditure to produce purchased coke in Franee and Germany were included in total labor expenditure, it is estimated that the expenditure figure in both countries would be increased by about 4 percent and unit labor cost would be increased by approximately the same amount. Adjustment for imports of steel into the industry would affect unit labor cost in a sim ilar manner. For exam ple, intermediate products such as steel ingots, semifinished steel, or wire rods could be purchased by an industry from abroad and then further proc essed in the industry. Again the final prod uct would be weighted as if all labor starting with the coke process were embodied in it, whereas the expenditure for labor through the intermediate stage would be excluded from total labor expenditure. Imports of products most likely to be further processed within the steel industry in 1964 were, by country, as follows: Ingots and semifinished products (including coils for rolling) It cannot be assumed that all steel imported in this form was rolled within the steel in dustry, although it is likely that much of it w as. Ingots and semis (semifinished prod ucts), for exam ple, could be purchased by foundries or for iron and steel forgings and, in the United States at least, much of the im ported wire rod was shipped to producers of wire products not included in the nsteel pro duction” statistics used. 16 It is , therefore, impossible to determine the effect of imports on unit labor cost in a quantitative manner. N evertheless, an example of their effect may be useful. If, for instance, 5 percent of steel rolled in the French industry were purchased from abroad as crude steel and an adjust ment were made on the expenditure side of the unit labor cost equation, French expendi ture would be increased by about 1 percent and unit cost increased by about 1 percent. If the imports were entirely in se m is , the change would be somewhat greater. 17 The effect of this factor on unit labor cost is probably sm all in any case. Other differences in the degree of verti cal integration which may affect unit labor cost relationships are (a) the extent to which maintenance work and research and develop ment projects are contracted out, (b) the degree to which imputs such as electricity and oxygen are produced by the industry or purchased, (c) the a m o u n t of construction undertaken by employees of the iron and steel industry, (d) the extent of sales through w are housing firm s, and (e) the prevalence of ore preparation processes (primarily for production of agglomerated products such as sinter, pellets, and briquettes) at iron and steel plants. Most maintenance work is done by employees of the iron and steel industry in all the coun tr ie s , but there are instances in which work, such as the relining of furnaces, is contracted out. Research and development projects also are conducted prim arily by employees of the iron and steel industry in all the countries, but again there are likely to be exceptions. (Some research and development workers are excluded from United Kingdom data because of gaps in statistical coverage. 18) The extent Wire rod (Thousands o f short tons) United States-------F r a n c e ------ -—-----Germany ----------- United Kingdom - - 346 1,311 1,218 705 955 191 583 95 SOURCE: Quarterly Bulletin o f Steel Statistics for Europe, vol. XVII, No. 2 (New York, United Nations Econom ic Com mission for Europe.) *4 See Shelton and Chandler, "International Comparisons of Unit Labor Cost: Concept and M ethods," op. cit., p. 545. 15 Calculated on the basis o f production and consumption by the iron and steel industry. ^ As reported by the A m erican Iron and Steel Institute. 17 An adjustment producing similar results also could be made on the output side o f the equation. 18 These workers and those excluded from central administra tive offices account for an estimated 2 to 3 percent o f total labor expenditure. 14 to which electric power is purchased by the industry varies somewhat between countries; in 1964, about 67 percent of electricity con sumed in the U. S. industry was purchased, 51 percent in France, and 79 percent in the United Kingdom. The percentage figure for Germany is not known, but it is probably sim ilar to the percentage in France. Most oxygen is purchased (89 percent in 1964) in the United States, and a sim ilar practice ap pears to prevail in the other countries, a l though exact figures are not available. Some in-plant (force account) construction is con ducted by employees of the iron and steel industry in the United States, although this is not the usual case; the extent of force a c count construction in the other countries is not known. Sales usually are made by the steel producer directly to the consumer in all the countries, but there are somewhat more sales through intermediaries in France and Germany than in the United States or the United Kingdom. Ore preparation processes are common to iron and steel plants in all the countries. 19 In general, therefore, prac tices involving the above factors are sim ilar in the four countries. In addition, the U .S . figures (and indus try definition) include the production of fe rro alloys made in electric furnaces as well as those made in blast furnaces, but figures for the other countries include only the produc tion of blast furnace ferroalloys. The effect of this factor on unit labor cost, however, is very sm all. The possible effect on unit cost of quan titative adjustment for differences in the ex tent of vertical integration and for other dif ferences between the countries is summarized in table 6. Kingdom, but only 77 percent 20 in the United States. Consequently, a comparison between the United States and other countries in an other year, with different relative rates of capacity utilization, might show somewhat different results. In fact, unit labor cost comparisons for 1965 relative to 1964, for example, could be affected appreciably by this factor, as the operating rate between 1964 and 1965 increased considerably in the United States, but fell to 87 percent in France and 83 percent in Germany, and remained the s a m e in the United Kingdom. (Estimated changes in unit labor cost over the period 1963—66 are shown on page 1 1 .) Variation in Cost by Product and Enterprise The higher U .S . unit labor cost for the iron and steel industry as a whole does not mean that unit labor cost by product would show comparable differences in every case. Quite possibly the U .S . cost would compare more favorably with foreign cost for certain products and may even be lower than foreign cost in a few cases. This is especially per tinent to the analysis of international trade, since international competition is normally conducted by products, not industries. Labor cost relative to total cost may also vary by product, and therefore the labor cost factor may vary in importance, depending on the particular steel product being traded. In addition, some enterprises or m ills are more or less efficient than others. This is particularly significant with respect to foreign trade, since the most efficient com panies are likely to be of greatest im port ance in international trade. New P rocesses Capacity Utilization Man-hour requirements per unit of out put in the iron and steel industry tend to fall when output rises and to increase when out put falls. They also tend to rise when out put is at or near capacity for a long period and to fall when a low level of operations is prolonged. These changes may affect unit labor cost, also, depending upon parallel m ove ments in hourly labor cost. The effect may be even more pronounced in the European countries than in the United States, because European producers are less inclined to d is m iss workers during periods of low output than is the case in the United States. In 1964, the rate of capacity utilization was ap proximately 92 percent in France, 91 p er cent in Germany, and 88 percent in the United Relative unit labor costs in the countries considered may, depending on movements in wages and salaries, be altered by the adop tion of more efficient production p rocesses. Particularly important is the increasing use of oxygen steel furnaces, which use far fewer man-hours to produce a ton of crude steel than conventional furnaces do. The continuous casting process by which semifinished prod ucts are produced directly from molten crude steel, although not employed widely at p r e s ent, will become increasingly prevalent in the steel industry and may have a significant *9 Pellets, however, usually are produced at ore mines. 20 W all Street Journal estimate. O fficial figures are not pub lished currently by the iron and steel industry. 15 Table 6. Summary of Items Which Could Affect Relative Unit Labor Cost Figures But Which Are Not Incorporated in the Range of Estimates United States Item F ranee Germany 1+4% x+4% United Kingdom Coke: Largely produced--------------------- -------------Maintenance: By company w ork ers-----------------Research and development: By company workers -------------------------------------------------------------E lectricity: 2----------------- ---------------------------------------Oxygen: Purchased-------------------------------------- -----Construction: Usually contracted o u t-------------Ore preparation p rocesses: Included-------------Sales practices: Direct or through warehousing firm 3--------------------------------------------Im p orts------------------------------------------------------------------ X X X X (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) (4 ) Statistical om ission --------------------------------------------- X X X Labor expenditure item s: Recruitment and training------------------------------Subsidized s e r v ic e s ---------------------------------------- (6 ) (7 ) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1% 7- 1% 6- l % 7- 1% s+ 2 -3 % 6 - 0. 4% 7 - 0 . 8% x signifies that any differences between countries would have little effect on unit labor cost. Numbers indicate possible effect on unit labor cost of allowance for differences, relative to the United. States. * Coke is largely purchased in France and Germany. If the total amount were produced in those countries, their unit labor cost would be raised by about 4 percent. 2 67 percent purchased in the United States, about 51 per cent in France and Germany, and 79 percent in the United Kingdom. 3 Usually direct in all countries, but there is somewhat more selling through intermediaries in France and Germany than the United States or the United Kingdom. 4 A llowance for imports would raise unit labor cost by an undetermined amount, but probably not more than 1 or 2 percent in any country. 3 Some administrative and research and developm ent workers are excluded from the data for the United Kingdom. Inclusion o f these workers might raise unit labor cost in the United Kingdom by 2 or 3 percent. 6 Exclusion o f all but wages and salaries from this item would lower unit labor cost by about 0 .4 percent in the United Kingdom and possibly by 1 percent in France and Germany. 7 Exclusion o f all but wages and salaries from this item would lower unit labor cost by about 0. 8 percent in the United Kingdom and probably less than 1 percent in France and Germany. 16 effect on man-hour requirements. Other tech niques, such as the use of beneficiated ores (especially pellets), have lowered man-hour requirements, and their expanded use will continue to affect labor requirements. Quality Differences Differences in the quality of steel prod ucts— as measured by chemical content, u se fulness, or stringency of specification, e tc .— have not been taken into account in the m e a s urements in this study, because no opera tional method of defining and measuring these differences has been developed. There may be differences in quality, however, that are not reflected in the distribution of steel by product category and that could affect rela tive unit labor cost levels in the four coun tries s t u d i e d . (See "Quality D ifferences" under the later section on "Methods and Data Used. ") Other Factors Other factors which could affect the re sults of the study are the use of shipments data instead of production data, the use of man-hour weights instead of unit cost weights, and the use of U. S. weights instead of fo r eign weights. The latter two factors are d is cussed in detail in the section on "Methods and Data Used. " Shipments data, i n s t e a d of production data, have been used in most cases to m ea s ure output in the United States and the United Kingdom. Shipments data also have been used to supplement production data for France and Germany. Thus, to the extent that inven tories of finished products changed over the year 1964, the output figures for the United States and the United Kingdom could be over stated or understated, and even the figures for France and Germany could be affected slightly. 21 In 1964, however, the inventory changes were not large enough in any of the countries to affect appreciably the unit labor cost estim ates. In the United States, the value of inventories of finished goods and work in process changed----increased— by only about 5 percent during 1964. In the United Kingdom, stocks of ingots and semifinished products increased by about 114,000 short tons (6 percent) and finished products, by about 24, 000 short tons (less than 2 percent). Corresponding figures for France and G e r many are not available, but judging from pro duction and shipments data, their inventory changes were not large. In any case, the effect would be sm all, because most output data used for these two countries relate to production. Final production figures also could affect output figures to the extent that inventories o f goods in process changed. The Iron and Steel Industry The definition of the iron and steel in dustry differs somewhat from country to coun try, just as the steelmaking and finishing operations differ among countries. The prin cipal production processes are well known, however, and are generally sim ilar in each country. Production P rocesses The primary iron and steelmaking p roc esses and their r e l a t i o n s h i p to finished products (based on the U. S. definition) are illustrated in figure 2. Iron ore usually is screened or concentrated and converted to sinter or pellets before being combined with coke and limestone in the blast furnace to form pig iron. Pig iron is combined with scrap and ferroalloys in steel furnaces to produce ingots and steel for castings. 22 In gots are rolled into semifinished products (blooms, slabs, billets, etc.) on semifinishing m ills or roughing m ills. A sm all proportion of semifinished products also are made di rectly from molten steel by the continuous casting process. From semifinished prod ucts, end products such as structural shapes, sheets, strip, bars, and seam less pipe and tubing are made on hot rolling m ills or pipe m ills. Some of the end products are further processed on cold rolling m ills , or made into welded pipe, tinplate, or other coated prod ucts, or, in the case of wire rod, drawn into wire and ultimately made into wire products (nails, barbed wire, woven wire fence, and others). Crude Steel Production The four major processes for manufac turing crude steel— open-hearth, basic B e s semer (or Thomas), electric, and oxygen---22 For the purposes of this study, steel for castings is treated as if it were shipped out of the industry as such, although some finished castings may be made in plants engaged primarily in the production of iron and steel products. Figure 2. PRINCIPAL PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS OF THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY Products from mines and quarries 0 Iron works ^ Semifinishing mills Steel works ^ Finishing mills ^ Finished products and other mills -R O L L IN G ___ ^ IV!II_L$ Sheets Strip Slabs Ore SINTERING and CONCEN- -h TRATING PLANTS Sinter and ore concen trates COKE OVENS Coke BLAST FURNACES COATING------ ► Coated sheets and strip J IL L S Plates Skelp - Scrap r-i - PIPE MILLS —► Welded pipe and tubing OPEN HEARTH FURNACE BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE Coal SHEET STRIP AND PLATE MILLS Cold-rolled sheets and strip Pig iron ► Continuous casting process Blooms Axles RAIL MILLS Rails WHEEL MILLS Wheels (RR) Steel piling SEMIFINISHING MILLS Ingots FORGING PRESSES SHAPE MILLS Structural shapes (heavy) ELECTRIC FURNACE Steel for casting MERCHANT MILLS Limestone Ferro alloys (blast furnace or electro lytic) Hot-rolled bars Billets ♦ BESSEMER CONVERTER (THOMAS) WIRE ROD MILLS Tube rounds Out of the Industry Light shapes m PIPE MILLS ________^ ^ COLD FINISHING MILLS WIRE Wire rods — ► DRAWING MILLS Seamless pipe and tubing Cold-finished bars Wire and wire products 18 are used in different degrees by each coun try. 23 In 1964, the proportions produced by open-hearth and Thomas processes, espe cially, varied considerably among the coun tries under study (table 7). The percentage of total crude steel produced by electric and oxygen p rocesses, on the other hand, varied only slightly among the countries. In the United States and the United Kingdom, over 70 percent of crude steel was produced by open-hearth furnaces, but in France, about 54 percent of crude steel was produced by the Thomas process and only 26 percent by the the open-hearth process. In Germany, about 33 percent of crude steel was produced by the Thomas process and 45 percent by the open-hearth process. 24 The oxygen processes are being adopted increasingly in the United States and other countries because of lower production and capital costs, lower labor requirements, a faster production rate, and high product qual ity. By 1966, about one-fourth of total crude steel was produced by oxygen processes in the United States, 25 and Germany, and onefifth of the total was produced by this process in the United Kingdom. The adoption of oxy gen processes has been less rapid in France. There are, of course, many other dif ferences. in production techniques, but the variations among countries do not seem to be as significant as those at the crude steel stage. A detailed analysis of these differ ences would require extensive descriptions which are beyond the scope of this study. 26 Definition of the Industry The United States In the United States. iron and steel industry, for the purpose of this study, is defined to conform with report ing practices of the Am erican Iron and Steel Institute (the source of U. S. data used in the study). It includes blast furnaces (including coke ovens), steel works, and rolling and fin ishing m ills. It also may be defined as in cluding those processes involved in the output of the product classes listed below: 27 Coke produced at iron and steel plants * Pig iron and ferroalloys Ingots and steel for castings Blooms, slabs, billets, tube rounds, skelp, etc. Wire rods Structural shapes (heavy) and steel piling Plates R ails—standard and all other Joint bars, tie plates, and track spikes Wheels and axles Bars—hot rolled (including light shapes) Bars—reinforcing Bars—cold finished Bars—tool steel Standard pipe 1 SIC 331 includes all coke production. O il-country goods Line pipe M echanical tubing Pressure tubing W ire—drawn Wire products Black plate Tin and terne plate — hot dipped Tin plate—electrolytic Sheets—hot rolled Sheets—cold rolled Sheets—galvanized Strip—hot rolled Strip—cold rolled Sheets—all other coated Electrical sheets and strip In addition, the definition includes proc esses related indirectly to the production of these products such as ore concentrating and sintering plants at iron and steel works, oxy gen and electric power plants at iron and steel works, and other auxiliary processes at the plant that are necessary for the pro duction of iron and steel. The processing of coke byproducts and slag, however, is not included in the industry. In France, Germany, a n d the United Kingdom. The industry as defined in France excludes the following products included in the U. S. definition: Pipe and tubing, wire and wire products, cold-rolled strip, coldfinished bars, and wheels and axles. The German definition includes forgings, which are excluded from the U. S. definition, but excludes wire and wire products, coldrolled strip, cold-finished bars, and some pipe and tubing. The United Kingdom definition includes iron ore, forgings, steel castings, and wrought iron, which are excluded from the U. S. def inition, but excludes wire and wire products and pipe over 16 inches in diameter. 28 23 In the open-hearth process, a charge of varying proportions of scrap and pig iron is refined by heating for a period of several hours in an open-hearth furnace. In the basic Bessemer process, liquid iron in a "converter" is refined by blowing air, oxygen, or other gas through the m olten metal. In electric furnaces, which often are used to make stainless and other alloy steels, metal (usually scrap)is refined by current-induced heating. In the oxygen processes (basic oxygen process in the United States), molten metal is refined by blowing high purity oxygen on the surface o f the metal. 24The proportion o f steel produced by the Thomas process is sometimes o f different quality than steel produced by the other processes. Quality differences among the countries may affect relative unit labor cost levels, but in this case, the effect is not thought to be significant, as explained in a later section o f the study. 25 Over 30 percent o f production was by this process in February 1967. 26 For a more detailed discussion of new techniques being adopted in the United States, see Technological Trends in Major American Industries (Bureau ofLabor Statistics Bulletin 1474, 1966). 2? The industry is defined in the 1957 and 1967 editions of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (U. S. Bureau o f the Budget) under the title "Blast Furnaces, Steel Works, and Rolling and Finishing Mills" (SIC 331). There area few products, however, for which output figures used in this study do not equal total U. S. production. These cases are noted in the section on "Methods and Data Used. " 28 Based on statistical coverage o f the Iron and Steel Board and the British Iron and Steel Federation. Their definition does not correspond exactly to the United Kingdom's 1958 Standard Industrial Classification o f the iron and steel industry, which in cludes steel castings and heavy forgings but excludes wire and wire products and all pipe and tubing. 19 Table 7. Crude Steel Production and Percent Distribution by Manufacturing P rocess in the Iron and Steel Industries of the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, 1964 and 1966 Country Crude steel Percent distribution by manufacturing process production (thousands Basic Acid Open Electric Oxygen Other of short B essem er B essem er furnace blown hearth tons) (Thomas) 1964 United States--------------F ranee------------------------G erm a n y --------------------United Kingdom ---------- 127,075 2 1,805 41, 159 29,377 77. 26. 45. 70. 2 2 1 5 0. . . 1. 53. 6 32. 8 5. 5 6 5 1 1 10. 8. 8. 11. 0 5 0 2 12. 2 11. 2 14. 0 11.4 - 0. 3 1966 United States---------------F ranee------------ -------------Germany-----------------------United K ingdom ----------- 1 Includes acid Bessemer, 134,101 2 1,5 8 7 38,929 2 7,2 3 3 63. 22. 39. 59. 4 9 2 1 52. 6 27. 7 1 5. 3 0. 2 .3 - 11. 1 9 .5 8. 7 13. 8 25. 14. 24. 21. 3 7 5 9 . - - NOTE: Because o f rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 20 One of the purposes of this study is to present results on the basis of the U. S. in dustry definition. Hence, it has been n eces sary to subtract from or make additions to data based on foreign industry definitions to make the data comparable to U. S. data. The procedures used to make these adjustments are explained in later sections on data used for each country. The only significant gap in the coverage as adjusted is that output and labor expenditure d a t a for wire and wire products could not be included in figures for the United Kingdom because necessary infor mation was not available,, The effect of this omission on unit labor cost figures is thought to be quite sm all. 29 A lso, data on wheels and axles are omitted from the German fig ures, but this product category represents only a very sm all proportion (0. 6 percent) of total output. 29 The extent to which this omission could affect the re sults is discussed under weights in the section on "Methods and Data Used. " Methods and Data Used Weighting The weights used in this report to ex press aggregate output in U. S. composite tons are derived from 1961 relative man-hour weights compiled for the use of the Bureau of Labor Statistics through arrangements made by the Am erican Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). The relative weights, which were originally furnished for preparing the BLS index of out put per man-hour in the domestic steel in dustry, are expressed in term s of man-hour requirements per ton of each product relative to the man-hour requirements per ton of coke. They were based on data reported by com panies which accounted for 82 percent of the 1961 total shipments of steel reported to AISI. For deriving these original weights, the man hours reported for each steel m ill product included only those man-hours required b e yond the ingot stage. The man-hours reported for coke included the total man-hours r e quired in each company’ s coke and chemical plants. The man-hours required for pig iron and ferroalloys and steel for ingots and cast ings included only those man-hours allocated to these specific operations, thus excluding man-hours in prior processes. The relative weight for each product was obtained by di viding its man-hour requirements per ton by the man-hour requirements per ton of coke. In addition to weights for coke, pig iron and ferroalloys, and ingots and steel for castings, weights were compiled for 28 carbon steel products, 18 alloy steel products, and 15 stainless steel products. 30 For the purposes of this study, the origi nal weights have been adjusted to be cumula tive throughout, that is, they reflect all stages of production within the industry from coke through the end products. (See appendix table B- l ) . For example, the weight for wire rods reflects man-hours embodied in the produc tion of coke, pig iron, crude steel, and sem i finished steel, as well as the labor required to make wire rods from semifinished steel. The weights have been adjusted in this man ner in order to calculate the absolute unit labor cost to produce a composite ton of fin ished products rather than the cost in each incremental stage of production. If incremental weights are used for a country-to-country comparison, some disto r tion r e s u l t s because of variation between countries in tonnage yields from one stage of production to another. If, for example, more wire rod is made from a ton of crude steel in country A than in country B, incremental weights would result in an overstatement of the weighted output of country B relative to country A. If both countries produced the same amount of wire rod, the sum of weighted output for crude steel and wire rod would be higher in country B than in country A because country B would have to produce more crude steel per ton of rod. This difficulty is avoided if cumulative weights are used. 31 Only out put not consumed in further production is credited in the aggregate output figure for an industry. However, there is a practical disadvan tage to using cumulative weights when the industries of the various countries are not integrated to approximately the same degree (as for example, differences in the extent to which coke is purchased or produced by the industry, or in the percentage of steel which is imported for further processing within the steel industry). Incremental weights may be more appropriate if these differences are large, since weighted output derived with in cremental weights reflects only production by the industry in question. 30 For a more detailed description o f the derivation o f these weights, see Indexes o f Output per Man-Hour, Steel Industry, 1957—63 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1964). 31 This statement is true given that only one country's (i. e. , the United States) weights are available and can be used in the study. Somewhat different results might be obtained, o f course, if weights o f another country were used. 21 The adjustment of the original weights, making them cumulative throughout, is based on the following assumptions: 1. Carbon, alloy, and stainless qualities of steel contain different amounts of pig iron (and thus scrap) per ton of crude steel. Stain less crude steel contains almost no pig iron (estimated at 0. 03 ton per ton of crude steel) because it is made alm ost entirely from scrap in electric furnaces. Approximately 0. 63 ton of pig iron is required per ton of carbon crude steel and 0. 43 ton per ton of alloy crude steel. 32 The other major component in the production of carbon and alloy crude steel is scrap. 2. Each carbon end product, each alloy end product, and each stainless end product contains, on the average, an equal amount of pig iron. 33 This means that the weight for each carbon end product should embody the same man-hour requirements for the coke and pig iron stages of production. The same is true for alloy and stainless products. 3. Finally, the pig iron requirement per ton of end product has been determined from the estimated pig iron used in the production of each of the three qualities of steel divided by shipments of each quality. 34 The original weights and the cumulated weights, in addition to notes on the adjust ment procedures, are presented in appendix table B - l . The relative weight for coke ( l . 0) remains the same. The cumulated weight for pig iron and ferroalloys (2. l) has been ob tained by adding the weight for coke times the coke requirement per ton of pig iron (0. 68) to the original (incremental) weight for pig iron and ferroalloys (1. 4). The cumulated weight for carbon crude steel (3. 3) has been obtained by adding the cumulated weight for pig iron and ferroalloys (2. 1) times the e sti mated pig iron requirement per ton of carbon crude steel (0. 63) to the original weight a s signed to carbon crude steel (2. 0). The same procedure has been followed to obtain the cu mulated weights for alloy and stainless crude steel. The cumulated weight for any carbon final product has been obtained by adding to the original weight for the product (a) the estimated quantity of pig iron per ton of c a r bon end product times the cumulated weight for pig iron and ferroalloys (0. 91 x 2. 1) plus (b) the original weight for carbon crude steel divided by the yield factor for the product (2. 0 divided by yield factor). The same pro cedure has been followed for alloy and stain less end products. The yield factors used have been estimated from 1947 data furnished by the U. S. steel industry, together with more recent information. Since it takes more than a ton of crude steel to produce a ton of end product, the yield factors are always less than one. These cumulated product weights were then multiplied by 1964 net shipments from the U. S. industry and summed to derive an aggregate weighted output for the year. The weighted output, however, is many times greater than the unweighted output figure. Since the purpose of this study is to present unit labor cost c o m p a r i s o n s in absolute term s, it is useful to scale or "d eflate" the weights in such a way that the weighted out put in the base year and country is the same as the unweighted output. This process is shown in appendix table B -2 , and the de flated weights are listed in table 8. The deflated weights, when used with any output distributed a m o n g the various products in the same proportion as in the base country (United States) in the base year (1964), will yield a "weighted output" equal to the un weighted output. If the output of a country is concentrated in low-weight products, the weighted o u t p u t will be less than the un weighted output, and vice versa. The U. S. weighted output for the year 1964 can be thought of as U. S. output ex pressed in composite tons, and it follows from the preceding rem arks that this output is equal to the unweighted output. The weighted output of another country can be thought of as equal to the unweighted output of that country in tons converted to (or measured in) U. S. base year composite tons, or simply com posite tons. A "com posite ton, " in this case, means the equivalent of one ton of steel end products distributed according to the U. S. output proportions in 1964. 32 These ratios may be different in other countries. 33 This condition follows from the fact that a certain amount o f scrap (trimmings, rejects, etc. ) is generated for each end product. The amount o f scrap depends on the yield o f a given product from a ton o f crude steel. If 100 tons o f end product can be made from 130 tons o f crude steel, then approximately 30 tons o f scrap are generated in the production o f 100 tons o f this product. A plant continuously making only this one end product, for ex am ple, w ill use about 100 tons o f pig iron and 30 tons o f scrap to make 130 tons o f crude steel. (Actually, more than 130 tons o f input are required to obtain 130 tons o f crude steel, and to the extent that scrap is purchased from outside the industry, less pig iron and more scrap would be used. ) A plant making another product that requires, for exam ple, 140 tons o f crude steel per ton o f end product would generate 40 tons o f scrap for every 100 tons o f end product produced. This plant would use the same amount o f pig iron, 100 tons, but more scrap, 40 tons, in making the crude steel necessary to produce 100 tons o f end product. Thus, the production o f these two different products w ill involve the same amount o f pig iron but different amounts o f scrap. The situation is much more com plex when many products are produced in the same plant, but, on the average, the rule w ill still hold. 34 All data pertaining to 1961. 22 Table 8. United States 1961 Relative Man-Hour Weights, 1 Iron and Steel Industry, by Product and Grade of Steel Product category C oke---------------------------------------------------------------------------Pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s ------------ ------ --------------------Ingots and steel for castings----------------------------------Blooms, slabs, billets, tube rounds, skelp, etc ■ Structural shapes (heavy) and steel pilings-------— P la te s------------------------------------------------------------------------Rails—standard and all other-------------------Joint bars, tie plates, and track spikes Wheels and axlesBars—hot rolled (including light shapes)---------------------Bar s—reinforcing------------------------------------------------------------Bars—cold finished----------------------------------------------------------Bars—tool s te e l---------------------------------------------------------------Standard pipe-------------------------------------------------------------------Line p ip e-------------------------------------------------------------------------P ressure tubing -------------------------------------------------------------Wire—drawn---------------------------------------------------------------------Wire products-----------------------------------------------------------------Black plate-----------------------------------------------------------------------Tin and terne plate—hot dipped-------------------------------------Tin plate—electrolytic----------------------------------------------------Sheets—hot rolled---------------------------------------------------- —-----Sheets—cold ro lle d ---------------------------------------Sheets—galvanized----------------------------------------Strip—hot rolled--------------------------------------------Strip—cold ro lle d ----------------Sheets—all other coated------Electrical sheets and strip- 1 After adjustment as explained in the text. 2 A breakdown by grade of steel is not applicable. 3 Carbon Alloy 2. 06 2. 13 . 20 . 57 . 80 . 71 . 67 . 70 1. 46 1. 90 . 94 . 68 1. 44 5. 81 1. 26 1. 53 1. 12 2. 13 3. 17 1. 75 2. 22 . 94 1. 47 1. 08 . 59 . 73 . 94 1. 01 1. 74 1. 01 1. 76 (2) (2) . 27 1. 09 1. 67 1. 49 1. 43 1. 56 Stainle s s - 2. 90 1. 47 1. 44 2. 43 10. 45 1. 73 2. 12 1. 72 3. 46 5. 18 2. 88 - 1. 14 1. 30 1. 61 1. 30 12. 74 - 1. 94 Estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2) (2) . 45 2. 15 6. 06 5. 85 5. 60 - 7. 18 - 10. 27 - 8. 13 3 10. 35 18. 33 18. 93 10. 54 10. 80 - 1. 78 6. 76 - 3. 52 5. 85 - 23 As already indicated, man-hour weights have been used in this study. For the pur pose of unit labor cost comparisons, however, weights that reflect the relative labor expend iture required to produce different products of the industry would be preferable. 35 Im plicit in the use of these man-hour weights is the assumption that labor cost per hour worked to produce one product is the same as labor cost per hour worked to produce any other product. This assumption is not en tirely true, since wage rates vary from one task to another. Average hourly earnings, however, seem to bear no systematic rela tionship to stages of the production process. Examination of census data on man-hours and wages in various stages of production in the industry indicates that the use of labor cost rather than man-hour weights would have no appreciable effect upon the results. The use of weights based on the produc tion experience of another country* s industry or the use of some average of weights from several countries also could affect the r e sults. 36 If each of the steel industries con centrates on the manufacture of products in which it has a comparative labor require ments advantage, the weighting system used would tend to d i s f a v o r the country from whose production experience the weights are derived. 37 A lso, since wire and wire products have not been included in the United Kingdom in dustry data, some distortion could result in unit labor cost figures for this country. If the relative man-hour requirements by prod uct in the United Kingdom are the same as those in the United States, then no distortion results; 38 but to the extent that this is not true, the figures for the United Kingdom could be affected. 39 Wire and wire products are not a large part of the industry, however, and any distortion resulting from their ex clusion is not likely to be substantial. Quality Differences In addition to differences between coun tries in the distribution of total output among the many products of the industry, there may be differences in the quality of some of the products produced. Stainless steel strip pro duced in one country, for example, may not be as "good " as stainless steel strip produced in another. As explained in the preceding pages, the basic question that the study at tempts to answer is the cost in other coun tries to produce a composite to n of steel comparable to that produced in the United States. Comparability should be interpreted to denote not only a like product mix but also a like quality steel. The question is, How much does it cost in country A to pro duce not only the U. S. product mix but also the U. S. quality of steel? The weights allow for cost differences due to variations in prod uct mix, but do not allow for cost differences due to variations in the quality of individual product categories. To the extent that there also would be a labor cost difference due to quality differences, this difference should be reflected in the comparative figures of unit labor cost. The problem is to determine (a) the extent to which quality differences exist and (b) the labor cost differences which are associated with any quality differences. It is difficult to determine what consti tutes a quality difference, since judgments on performance, utility, and substitutability are often involved. And it is even more difficult to determine if quality differences, once de fined, do in fact exist. Even if these two unknowns are identified, the determination of labor cost related to quality variation, which is a necessary component for this study, still remains to be made. Since no operational method for determining and measuring quality differences in iron and steel products has been found, no quality adjustment has been made in this study. However, an example of one possible quality difference, as well See Shelton and Chandler, "International Comparisons of Unit Labor Cost: Concepts and Methods," op. cit. , p. 544. 36 Ibid. 3^ The rationale is that if two sets o f weights from countries producing different products were compared, the weights for prod ucts making up the m ajority o f the first country's total production would tend to be lower in this country than the weights for the same products in the second country if these products accounted for only a small portion o f total production in the second country. Therefore, unit labor cost in the United Kingdom (or another country) relative to the cost in the United States would probably be higher if weights from the United Kingdom (which are not available) were used. However, unless the pattern o f man-hour requirements by product were very different in the United Kingdom and the United States, any increase in U. K. cost relative to U. S. cost would be small. 3® Available data indicate that average hourly earnings o f wage earners producing wire and wire rope are about the same as those in the steel industry as defined in the United Kingdom. 39 For exam ple, if twice as many man-hours are required to make wire as to make wire rod in the United States as w ell as in the United Kingdom and if similar relative relationships hold for other products, no distortion results when wire and wire products are excluded. The addition o f output and labor expenditure for wire and wire products would not change the unit labor cost results obtained for the United Kingdom with these products excluded. But if, for exam ple, the production of wire and wire products in the United Kingdom requires more man-hours relative to the pro duction o f other products than is the case in the United States, the inclusion o f wire and wire products in the United Kingdom data would raise unit labor cost. 24 as two possible methods for making an ad justment for such a difference, is presented below. The example chosen is the difference in "quality" of steel produced by the Thomas (basic Bessem er) process and steel produced by the open-hearth process. This example is, of course, only one possible quality v a ri ation. There may be differences also in the quality of end products resulting from dif ferences in other production processes, but they are difficult to isolate and to quantify. In fact, differences in quality resulting from processing after the crude steel stage of pro duction, e. g. , the amount of cold rolling, stringency of specifications and product con trol, or tolerances allowed, may be more important than those resulting from varia tions in crude steel production processes. About 54 percent (1964) of French crude steel, for e x a m p l e , is produced by the Thomas process, whereas the bulk of crude steel in the United States is produced by the open-hearth process. In the Thomas process, liquid i r o n in a "co n v erter" is refined by blowing air, oxygen, or other gas through the molten metal. In the open-hearth process, a charge of varying proportions of scrap and pig iron is refined by heating for a period of several hours in an open-hearth furnace. The chemical composition of Thomas steel usually differs from the chemical com position of open-hearth steel, although it is often technically possible to produce like steel by both processes. In most instances, depending on the T h o m a s process used, Thomas steel has a higher content of nitrogen, phosphorus, and oxygen and also a higher content of sulphur and hydrogen than openhearth steel. The influence of these chem icals, especially n i t r o g e n , tends to give Thomas steel greater strength, as measured by yield point, tensile strength, and hardness, but less ductility and toughness than openhearth steel. The presence of nitrogen (as well as phosphorus and oxygen) also leads to decreased ductility and toughness with age and at lower temperatures. In addition, the yield point and hardness of Thomas steel are increased and tensile strength is decreased with much less cold working, cold drawing, or cold rolling than is the case with openhearth steel. For these reasons, Thomas steel sometimes does not lend itself to these processes as readily as open-hearth steel. In fact, Thomas steel is normally not used at all for cold drawing. For other purposes, however, the strength characteristics may not be detrimental and may even be bene ficial. Most technical experts consulted feel that Thomas steel is used largely or entirely for products or in uses for which it is the practical equivalent of th e corresponding open-hearth product. If the assumption is made that the differ ence between Thomas and open-hearth steel does represent a quality difference, an ap proach to measuring this difference would be to determine how much more labor expendi ture would be involved, and thus how much higher unit labor cost would be, if France were to produce steel of open-hearth quality in addition to the U. S. product m ix. 4 There appear to be at least two methods for determining the labor expenditure a s s o ciated with an assumed quality difference. The first approach is based on the relative labor requirements to produce steel by the two processes. If this approach were used, the relative man-hour weights could be ad justed (or additional weights added) to allow for different labor requirements in the crude steel production process, so that differences in the two qualities of steel stemming from differences in crude steel would be accounted for in the same manner that allowance is made for d i f f e r e n t product distributions. Following this method, it is estimated that French unit labor cost in 1964 would have been about Z percent higher if the French industry had produced open-hearth steel in place of its Thomas steel products. *41 Or, if man-hour weights reflecting quality differences were available, in addition to those reflecting man-hour require ments to produce different product categories, how much would French weighted output be reduced relative to U. S. weighted output because o f quality differences, in addition to product mix differences. 41 United Nations information indicates that the man-hour requirements per ton in the Thomas crude steel process are only half as great as the requirements for the open-hearth process. If each product weight used with the French output is adjusted to reflect the fewer man-hours required at the crude steel stage, the French aggregate weighted output on the high cost side would be reduced. The reduction would be modest, however, because the crude steel stage o f production is not very labor intensive. The reduction becom es even smaller when consideration is given to the fact that more pig iron and less scrap (only about 5 percent o f total charge) are used in Thomas steel, and hence blast-furnace (where pig iron is produced) man-hours per ton o f finished steel are higher for Thomas steel. No man-hour weight is allowed for scrap, because scrap is either purchased from outside the industry or is generated as a concomitant o f the production ofsteel products. In fact, the adjusted weighted output figure would be only about 2 percent less than the unadjusted figure, and the estimate o f French unit labor cost would be about 2 percent higher than the present figure. This method does not indicate that labor expendi ture would necessarily have to be 2 percent higher to produce a product with the additional quality, but only that the additional quality could be obtained by making the additional expenditure which would be involved in producing steel in open-hearth furnaces instead o f Thomas converters. The additional quality also could be obtained by other means o f production, such as oxygen processes. 25 The second possible method of estimating the affect of this assumed quality difference on unit labor cost is based on the price dif ferential which exists between open-hearth and Thomas steel products0 List prices in France for basic quality (type usually pro duced) steel indicate that Thomas steel is, on the average, about 9 percent less expensive than open-hearth steel. Unfortunately, trans action p r i c e s are not available. If it is assumed that the list price differential r e flects a difference in qualtity, and also dif ferent labor requirements, then the French weighted output for Thomas steel should be reduced by the amount of the price differ ence. 42 Following this method, it is esti mated that French unit labor cost would have been about 5 percent higher in 1964. The preceding analysis is limited to only one example of a quality difference and pos sible methods of adjusting for it. There may be, and undoubtedly are, many other differ ences. Even at the crude steel stage of production, allowances would have to be made for v a r y i n g proportions of different crude steels in each country, It is possible also that crude steel produced in electric furnaces should be valued higher than any other, since the chemical c o n t e n t of steel produced in electric furnaces can be controlled closely and the process often is used to make alloy steels. Although a precise measure of relative unit labor costs should allow for quality dif ferences if they exist, it has not been shown that these differences are so great as to affect significantly the results of this study. United States Output. Output data for the United States have been obtained from the Annual Statistical Report of the Am erican Iron and Steel Insti tute. 43 Since net production figures are not available for all products of the industry, net shipments data which cover all products except coke have been substituted. (See co l umn 1, appendix table B -2. ) Net shipments of coke have been estimated from production and consumption data reported in the AISI Report. 44 These data were used as a basis for deflating the cumulated weights, as shown in appendix table B -2 . When the shipments data are weighted using the d e f l a t e d weights, the aggregate weighted output is equal to the unweighted output but the weighted output of individual products is different from th e unweighted output. Thus, it is not necessary for the calculation of unit labor cost to weight the output of the base country (United States) in the base year (1964). If the deflated weights were used with U. S. output in another year, however, the weighted o u t p u t and the un weighted output would differ. Expenditure. Expenditure figures for the United States ^appendix table B-3) also have been taken from the AISI Annual Statistical Report or estimated from data in that r e port. 45 Labor e x p e n d i t u r e covers both 42 The assumption is that it takes 9 percent fewer man-hours to produce Thomas steel end products. Thus, since 54 percent o f French crude steel is produced by the Thomas process, about 54 percent o f French finished output would be reduced by 9 percent, or the total output would be reduced by 4. 9 percent. Reflecting this decrease, the high estimates o f unit labor cost for France would be increased by about 5 percent. List prices, however, often differ substantially from actual transaction prices, and it is the latter prices which indicate the extent to which one type o f steel is valued over another. Even differences in transaction prices may not reflect differences in the labor c o s t o f production. Price differences could result from amortized investment in old Bessemer converters or from the scale o f production (although the latter does not seem to be the case in France). Since this study uses the United States as a base for comparison, it would be useful also to know what the difference would be in the price o f the two steels in the United States. This information is not available since Thomas steel (basic Bessemer) is not produced in the United States and only a very small amount (less than 1 percent) o f acid Bessemer (fairly comparable to Thomas steel) is produced. 43 The production o f some wire and wire products is not reported in AISI statistics, because some producers o f these products do not report production to AISI and because a substantial propor tion o f this production is in products not considered primary iron and steel products. (Wire products included in AISI data are: Barbed and twisted wire, coiled baling wire, bale ties, woven wire fence, wire staples, and wire n a ils.) The production o f some electrom etallurgical products (ferroalloys) also is excluded from AISI coverage. 44 For the BLS measures o f productivity, gross coke pro duction data from the Bureau o f Mines are used. However, this study, which presents results in absolute terms, requires net pro duction data (final products shipped from the industry) for all products o f the industry. Also, in measuring U. S. output, the Bureau's productivity studies utilize AISI gross production data for pig iron and crude steel. 45 Although the BLS Office o f Productivity, Technology, and Growth uses BLS em ploym ent, hours, and earnings data whenever possible, AISI data have been used in this study for the following reasons: (a) There appears to be close comparability between AISI input and output data, which is of major importance for an absolute comparison (whereas there is some difference in coverage between AISI output and BLS input data). In the past, the AISI has said that some o f the establishments which report output data do not report em ploym ent and earnings data, but recent informa tion from AISI indicates that the current (and for 1964) small differences in output and input coverage tend to offset one another, (b) The AISI data are based on hours worked (whereas BLS reports hours paid), which is the concept used by European countries being compared with the United States. (c) AISI publishes the needed data on total compensation, which include supplementary bene fits for wage em ployees and all em ployees and also the earnings o f salaried em ployees. Figures on hours worked by salaried em ployees are also available, (d) The definitional distinction between wage and salary workers used by AISI is similar to that us£d by European countries being compared with the United States, (e) The man-hour weights used are based on the experience o f producers reporting to AISI. 26 production and nonproduction workers and in cludes both cash earnings and employer ex penditures for supplementary benefits. The AISI defines wage earners as all persons paid an hourly or a piece rate, and salaried e m ployees as all persons paid by the week or by the month regardless of their part in the production process. for wage earners are reported in the AISI Annual Statistical Report. Hourly earnings of salaried employees also have been derived from data in the r e p o r t . Hours worked, hourly labor cost, and productivity data are presented in appendix tables B -5 and B -7 . Expenditure for wages equals total hours worked by wage earners multiplied by average "pay per hour worked" by wage earners. Pay for hours worked com prises the regular wage rate (including cost-o f-liv in g adjustment and incentives), shift differentials, premiums for overtim e, and premiums for work on Sunday and holidays. Total labor expenditure, in cluding supplementary b e n e f i t s , for wage earners equals hours worked by wage earners multiplied by total employment cost per hour. Total labor expenditure for wage earners com prises, in addition to pay for hours worked, pay for holidays not worked, vacation pay, and adjustments, plus the cost of supplemen tary unemployment benefits, pensions, insur ance, savings and vacation plans, and em ployer social security payments. A s mentioned previously, data for the French industry are presented in the form of a range. A high estimate and a low e s ti mate of weighted production and a high and a low estimate of labor expenditure have been developed. Estim ates of labor expenditure have been made for wage earners, salaried employees, and wage and salaried employees together. Combining high expenditure e s ti mates with the low weighted output estimates gives a high unit labor cost figure, and vice versa. For salaried employees, AISI reports only "total s a la r ie s ," which include pay for holidays not worked, vacation pay, and ad justments. It has been estimated that the expenditure for the latter three items is the same proportion of "total sa la ries" as of "total wages" (pay for hours worked plus pay for holidays not worked, vacation pay, and adjustments), which AISI data indicate to be 7. 27 percent. Thus, in order to maintain the breakdown into wages and salaries and supplementary benefits, the total expenditure for salaries in this report is estimated at 92. 73 percent of AISI "total salaries. " (See appendix tables B -3 and B -4 . ) By excluding the cost of pay for holidays not worked, vaca tion pay, and adjustments from salary ex penditure, the latter is comparable to pay for hours worked by wage earners, which is used for wage expenditure in this study. The total labor expenditure for salaried employees is based on "total sa la rie s" reported by AISI, plus the estimated cost of additional supple mentary benefits (pensions, insurance, sup plementary unemployment benefits, savings and vacation plans, and social security pay ments) for salaried employees. The e sti mated cost of these supplementary benefits, 15. 3 percent of total employment cost (appen dix table B -4 ), is based on AISI financial data for all steel companies, including a ffil iated interests. 46Hours Worked, Hourly Labor Cost, and Productivity. Hours worked for wage earners and salaried employees and hourly labor cost F ranee Output. The French industry definition (equivalent to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) definition) excludes pipe and tubing, wire and wire products, coldrolled strip, cold-finished bars, and wheels and axles. Hence, it was necessary to in corporate output figures for these products into the data for the rest of the industry to make the broadened coverage comparable to the U. S. industry definition. Output data for the French "industry" were obtained prim arily from Siderurgie (Iron and Steel), published by the Statistical Office of the European Communities, which reports net production of products, except coated and electrical sheets, included in the French def inition. Coated and electrical sheets are counted both in their final form and as regu lar sheets, hot or cold rolled. In addition, the net production of ingots and semifinished products is not reported. Output figures (pri m arily shipments) for products not included in the French definition are reported as sup plementary data in Siderurgie and also in French sources. Production figures for the "French prod u cts" include output that is intended for con version into the excluded products, so that adjustment must be made for double counting when the excluded products are added. A d justment also must be made for the double counting of coated and e l e c t r i c a l sheets. 4 ^ An alternative would be to assume supplementary benefits for salaried employees to be the same proportion of total cost for salaried em ployees as supplementary benefits for wage earners are of the total cost for wage earners. Such an assumption would make little difference in the results. 27 Seam less pipe normally derives from se m i finished products or ingots; welded pipe from hot-rolled strip (partially skelp, following U. S. definitions); wire and wire p r o d u c t s from wire rods; cold-rolled strip from hotrolled strip; and wheels and axles from se m i finished products or ingots. To correct for double counting when these products are added to the French definition, shipments figures minus shipments for conversion into other steel products have been used, instead of pro duction data, for semis and ingots, hot-rolled strip, and wire rods. The output figure for cold-finished bars was subtracted from the ECSC production figure for hot-rolled bars (and light sections), which includes material for conversion into cold-finished bars, with allowance for some yield lo ss. ECSC pro duction figures for coated and e l e c t r i c a l sheets were subtracted from ECSC production data for hot- and cold-rolled sheets. The primary obstacle to comparing U. S. and French output is that the reporting of French production is much less detailed than that of the United States. The AISI reports carbon, alloy (excluding stainless), and stain less steel shipments of each product category; for France, this distribution is normally not available. Partial information, however, is available from several sources, including the United Nations, 47 which report shipments of all alloy (including stainless) steel for certain product categories. The AISI reports ship ments of four categories of bars, whereas the ECSC reports separately only the pro duction of reinforcing bars and of all bars (merchant bars) including reinforcing bars. In addition, French output of pipe and tubing usually is reported as seam less or welded; U. S. shipments of pipe and tubing are r e ported for five categories according to use, i. e. , standard pipe, oil-country goods, etc. There are also some other less important differences in definition and reporting which are noted in appendix table B -8 . In order to derive minimum and m axi mum estimates of weighted output for France, two independent distributions of total output among the various product categories have been developed. (See appendix table B- 8 . ) The first distribution is intended to emphasize low-weight products and the second distribu tion, high-weight products. For a few prod ucts, separate data on alloy (including stain less) production are available, 48 and for some other products, it has been possible to e s ti mate the amount of alloy production. Some data were obtained also on the distribution of pipe and tubing by functional classification, although information covering total production of pipe and tubing was not available. The amount of stainless steel produced, however, was available only for crude steel and a few end products. 49 In these cases, and in others where information is incomplete, the two d is tributions of the products or product in ques tion have been made primarily on the basis of the U. S. distribution, unless more pertinent indications were available. Thus, for ex ample, after considering the U. S. percent distribution of s t a i n l e s s steel among end products, the two distributions for France have been made so that as much stainless steel as would seem at all possible was put into low-weight product categories, on the one hand, and as much into high-weight cate gories, on the other. Consequently, the two distributions for France are on opposite sides of the U. S. distribution. The procedures and data used to make these and other estim ates are described in detail in appendix table B -8 . Labor Expenditure— ECSC D e f i n i t i o n . Detailed data on wages and total labor cost per hour or month for wage earners and salaried employees (1964) in the ECSC are obtained by survey and reported in Salaires CECA (Earnings in the ECSC) , p u b l i s h e d annually by the Statistical Office of the Euro pean Communities. 50 Hours worked by wage earners are reported in Siderurgie and r e late to hours of work involved in the produc tion of iron and steel products covered by the ECSC industry definition. Thus, total wages and total labor cost for wage earners may be calculated by multiplying, resp ec tively, wage cost per hour and total cost per hour by hours worked by wage earners during the year. (See appendix table B -9 . ) Wage cost (direct salaries) is here the equivalent of AISI pay for hours worked, which has been used for "wage expenditure" in the United States. Total labor expenditure for wage earners (and salaried employees), how ever, includes some costs which generally are not incurred by employers in the United States. In the case of France, the most im portant of these are family allowances, pay roll tax, and payments in kind. Total cost in France also includes some sm all recruit ment a n d professional development ( e . g . , apprenticeship training) expenses. Hourly data on wages which exclude bo nuses and holiday and vacation pay are avail able for wage earners; however, monthly data 47 Quarterly Bulletin of Steel Statistics for Europe. 48 Primarily in Annuaire de Statistique Industrielle (Paris, Bureau Central de Statistique Industrielle). 49 Ibid. 50 The survey covers plants em ploying 99 percent of all wage earners in the French steel industry. 28 on salaries 51 include bonuses and holiday and vacation pay. Total labor cost for salaried em ployees, nevertheless, is comparable to total cost for wage earners. In order to ob tain expenditure data on direct salaries for time worked, equivalent to the expenditure for wages, it has been estimated that bonuses and holiday and vacation pay account for the same proportion of total monetary remunera tion of salaried employees as of wage earners (16 percent); this amount has been subtracted from the ECSC monthly salary figure. (The cost of these item s, however, is included in total cost for salaried employees. ) Aggregate salary expenditure and total labor expenditure (including all supplements) for salaried em ployees were obtained by multiplying the ap propriate monthly figure by 12 and multiplying the product by salaried employment. ECSC data indicate that salaried employment is 20.3 percent of total employment. The derivation of total labor expenditure for wage earners and s a l a r i e d employees according to the French (ECSC) industry definition is shown in appendix table B -9 . Labor Expenditure— U. S. D e f i n i t i o n . When the U. S. industry definition is used, estimates must be made of labor cost to pro duce p r o d u c t s not included in the French (ECSC) definition. Data on expenditure for wages and salaries related to the production of these products were obtained for 1964, but information on supplementary benefits was not available. Based on sim ilar data for the iron and steel i n d u s t r y as defined by the ECSC, supplementary benefits were estimated to be between 43 and 4 7 percent of total labor cost for wage earners and between 3 8 and 42 percent of total labor cost for salaried employees. (See appendix table B - 10. ) Estim ates of labor expenditure to produce all products covered by the U. S. definition and of expenditure to produce the excluded products are presented in appendix table B“ 11. Hours Worked, Hourly Labor Cost, and Productivity. Statistics on hours worked by wage earners in the ECSC industry are pub lished in Siderurgie. Data on hours worked by salaried employees are not collected by the ECSC, since these employees are paid on a monthly or yearly basis. Nevertheless, to make intercountry comparisons of output per all employee man-hour (and all employee man-hours per unit of output), it has been estimated that salaried employees work the same number of hours a year as wage earn ers. Annual hours worked by employees making products outside the ECSC definition are estimated to be the same as in the ECSC industry. (See appendix table B- 1 2 . ) Hourly labor cost figures were obtained, as shown in appendix table B - 13, by dividing aggregate labor expenditure estim ates by e s timate s of hours worked. The hourly labor cost figures for salaried employees may not be completely accurate, however, because of the difficulty in determining exact hours worked by this group. Estim ates of m an-hours per ton of output and output per 1,000 man-hours were made by combining weighted output and hours worked estimates as shown in appendix table B- 15. Germany Data for Germany also have been pre pared in the form of a range. Both high and low estim ates of weighted output and high and low estimates of labor expenditure have been developed. Output. The German industry definition as set forth in the German Standard Indus trial Classification (Sy sterna tis che s W arenverzeichnis fur die Industriestatistik, 1963) differs from both the U. S. definition and the ECSC definition. It includes forgings, which are excluded from both the ECSC and the U. S. definitions, but excludes wire and wire products, cold -rolled s t r i p , cold-finished bars, and some pipe and tubing (mostly pre cision tubing). Output figures for all products of the U. S. industry are available, however, although the coverage in some cases is not as detailed as for the United States and some product categories differ from comparable U .S . categories. The output of wheels and axles (about 175, 000 m etric tons) has been excluded from the coverage for Germany be cause it was not possible to determine the labor expenditure related to this category. The effect of this exclusion on unit labor cost is insignificant because of the small percent age of total output involved and because data have been excluded from both the expendi ture and output sides of the unit labor cost equation. Output data for Germany, as for F rance, were obtained prim arily from Siderurgie and supplemented with national and United Nations statistics. Because the adjustments for double counting of coated and electrical sheets and products excluded from ECSC coverage were identical or sim ilar to adjustments made in output data for France, they will not be d iscussed here; but a detailed explanation of all adjustments made in the data is contained in the footnotes to appendix table B - 16. 51 Data on the average monthly labor cost for salaried em ployees were obtained for the first tim e by the ECSC for the year 1964. 29 Again, as with France, the primary dif ficulty in comparing the German and United States output is that statistics on the output of the German industry are much less detailed than those for the United States; in some cases, even less detail is available than is the case for France. Production figures for alloy and stainless steel are available only for crude steel, and data on shipments, which include both alloy and special carbon steels, are available only for a few product cate gories as r e p o r t e d by the United Nations (Quarterly Bulletin of Steel Statistics for Europe). Production figures for pipe and tubing distinguish only between welded and seam less pipe, and no information on output by functional classification is available. In addition, the output of bars (including light shapes) is available only in total and for one category of bars (reinforcing bars). Other differences in definitions and reporting and the basis for establishing minimum and m axi mum estimates of weighted output are de scribed in detail in a p p e n d i x table B -1 6 . Where complete information was not available, two distributions of the products in question were made, prim arily, on the basis of the U. S. distribution as described for France. Because of the large differences b e t w e e n Germany and the United States in the r e porting of output, the range between high and low estimates of weighted output is consider ably broader than for France (or for the United Kingdom). Labor Expenditure. Minimum and m axi mum estimates of labor expenditure for G e r many are based primarily on employment data from the German publication Industrie und Handwerk, Reihe I (Wiesbaden, Statistisches Bundesamt), hourly and monthly labor cost data from Salaires CECA (Statistical Office of the European Communities), and hours worked figures from Industrie und Handwerk and Sid^rurgie. The employment figures from Industrie und Handwerk used in this study relate only to wage earners, salaried employees, and apprentices actually engaged in activities r e lated to the production and sale of iron and steel products. The data cover two separate industries as defined in Germany— "blast fu r naces, steel m ills, and hot rolling m ills " (German Standard Industrial Classification number 2710) and "drawing and cold rolling m ills " (number 3010). The latter industry includes cold-finished bars and some pipe and tubing not included in the first industry (and a sm all quantity of cold-form ed sections). Wheels and axles have been left out because they are included in statistics for forgings and are not covered separately. The number of apprentices has been estimated from data published by the W irtschafts vereinigung E isen- und S t a h 1 i n du s t r i e (Statistisches Jahrbuch) and subtracted from the total em ployment figure. Based on hours worked data in Siderurgie and Industrie und Handwerk, average yearly hours worked by wage earners were deter mined to be between 1, 950 and 1, 990. M ini mum and maximum figures for wage cost per hour and total labor cost per hour for wage earners were determined on the basis of figures f r o m Salaires CECA covering the ECSC portion of the industry, the maximum figures being the same as those reported for the ECSC industry and the minimum figures being somewhat lower. Aggregate figures for labor expenditure for wages and total labor cost for wage earners were obtained, first, by multiplying employment by the minimum hours worked per year times the appropriate minimum hourly labor cost figure and, se c ond, by multiplying employment by the m axi mum hours worked per year times the appro priate maximum hourly labor cost figure. Figures on the average monthly cost per salaried employee for salaries and total labor cost per month per salaried employee are based on figures reported in Salaires CECA covering the ECSC portion of the industry. The monthly figures for salary cost used in this study exclude, as for France, the e s ti mated cost of bonuses and vacation and h oli day pay, which are included, however, in the total monthly labor cost figures. The m axi mum average monthly expenditures per sala ried employee, for salaries alone and for total labor cost, are the same as the resp ec tive figures reported for the ECSC portion of the industry (but excluding bonuses and holiday and vacation pay from the salary figure). The minimum figures are some what lower than those pertaining to the ECSC industry. Aggregate figures for labor expend iture for salaried em ployees, both salaries and total labor cost, were obtained by m ulti plying salaried employment by the appropriate monthly figure times 12. The derivation and basis for these figures are described in de tail in appendix table B -1 7 . Hours Worked, Hourly Labor Cost, and Productivity. Hours worked data are shown in appendix table B -1 8 . The figures on hours worked by wage earners are the same as those used to derive aggregate labor expendi ture. Average annual hours worked by sala ried employees were estimated to be the same as for wage earners, and total hours worked 30 by salaried employees were estimated by combining these figures with the employment figures used to derive aggregate labor ex penditure for salaried employees. Hourly labor cost figures, as shown in appendix table B- 19, for wage earners are the same as those used to calculate total wage earner labor expenditure. Hourly figures for salaried employees were obtained by com bining hours worked and aggregate expendi ture for salaried employees. Figures for wage earners and salaried employees together were derived by combining aggregate expend iture and hours worked figures for the two groups. Estim ates of output per man-hour and man-hours per unit of output (appendix table B- 21) are based on hours worked and weighted output data, combined so as to obtain m ini mum and maximum estim ates. United Kingdom Data for the United Kingdom are based almost entirely on statistics from Iron and Steel Annual Statistics (iron and Steel Board and the British Iron and Steel Federation). The industry, according to the statistical cov erage of this publication, includes iron ore, forgings, steel castings, and wrought iron, which are excluded from the U. S. definition, but excludes wire and wire products and pipe over 16 inches in diameter. The latter items have not been added to the United Kingdom ’'industry” because the necessary data are not available, but the form er item s, excluded from the U. S. definition, have been removed from the United Kingdom data. The omission of data on wire and wire products probably has only a slight effect on the unit labor cost figures as described earlier under weighting. Output. Most of the output data used to develop minimum and maximum weighted out put for the United Kingdom are statistics on shipments. The range is considerably sm aller than for either France or Germany, since the detail of output statistics (by categories of output) available for the United Kingdom is closer to that in the United States. Although there are many rather sm all differences in definition, only in the case of pipe and tubing (assuming the exclusion of wire and wire products) was it necessary to allow a broad range. The output of pipe and tubing in the United Kingdom is reported only by method of production, seam less or welded (of which electric conduit 52 is reported separately). In a few cases it was necessary to allow a range in the distribution of alloy steel by product, since product classifications are not always the same as in the United States, but United Kingdom statistics do distinguish out put of final products by quality, both alloy and stainless. Appendix table B- 22 notes the source of each figure used in e s t i m a t i n g weighted output for the United Kingdom and gives the basis for estimates and adjustments in United Kingdom figures. A ll United Kingdom output data pertain to a 53-w eek year, whereas labor expendi ture estimates described below are based on a 52-week year; therefore, weighted output (appendix table B -22) has been reduced by one fifty-third to calculate unit labor cost and productivity figures. Labor Expenditure. Estim ates of labor expenditure for w a g e s and salaries in the United Kingdom are based on employment and weekly earnings data reported in Iron and Steel Annual Statistics or Monthly Statistics. United Kingdom data for process workers are collected and published for each production process included in the United Kingdom in dustry definition; data on general and m ainte nance workers and administrative, technical, and clerical employees associated with these processes are reported only for all processes together. To exclude iron ore, forgings, steel castings, and wrought iron production proc esses from United Kingdom data, it was nec essary to estimate the number of general, maintenance, and salaried employees a s s o ciated with these processes. 53 Weekly earnings estimates for both wage earners and salaried employees are based on earnings in 1 week in December 1963 and 1 week in December 1964. Aggregate labor expenditure figures for wages and salaries were then estimated from employment and weekly earnings estim ates, 54 with allowance for days not worked but paid for because of sickness, holidays, or vacation. These cal culations are presented and explained in de tail in appendix table B -23 . Electric conduit is considered a fabricated product and is not included in the U. S. industry, but this difference in coverage is considered insignificant. 53 These estimates were provided by the British Iron and Steel Board. 54 In conjunction with aggregate data provided by the Iron and Steel Board. 31 A recent survey by the United Kingdom M inistry of Labour indicates that supplemen tary benefits in 1964 accounted for 13. 4 per cent of total labor expenditure for wage earn ers and salaried employees together in the iron and steel industry. This figure has been used for estimating both wage earner and salaried employee supplements. To obtain estimates of total labor expenditure, both the minimum and maximum aggregate wages and salaries were inflated to allow for supple mentary benefits amounting to 13. 4 percent of total labor cost. (See appendix table B -2 3 . ) Hours Worked, Hourly Labor Cost, and Productivity. Total hours worked by wage earners and salaried employees (appendix table B-24) are based on employment figures used to calculate labor expenditure and av er age weekly hours worked in 1 week in D e cember 1964, 55 with allowance for days not worked because of sickness, holidays, and vacations. Minimum and maximum estimates of average hourly labor cost were calculated from aggregate labor expenditure and aggre gate hours worked figures, as shown in ap pendix table B -2 5 . Estim ates of output per man-hour and m an-hours per ton of output \\^ere derived from weighted output and hours worked data, as shown in appendix table B -2 7 . 55 Ibid. Appendix A As discussed in the body of the study, the most appropriate weights for use in a unit labor cost study would be unit labor cost weights (those which reflect the different labor cost requirements involved in the production of different products). In the absence of unit labor cost weights, man-hour weights have been used. The justification for using man-hour weights is that labor cost per hour worked is assumed to be a constant (c) for all products. Thus, if we let, W- = Man-hours required to produce 1 ton of the = Labor cost to produce Wj then W^c 1 ton of the product, i**1 product, Ui = = * ^he in this relationship ma y b e equated with the weight for the wi product in column (2) of table B—2, although the weight for the ith product in the table represents w4 -r wi (where W1 = man-hours required to produce 1 ton of coke). ith To derive unit labor cost for France, ULC f us E Qi = = = = = as an example, let: Unit labor cost France United States Aggregate labor expenditure Output in tons of the i ^ product. Using ing superscripts sup ersc ript to indicate the country and subscripts to indicate product, Ef = SQi ui Eus = s<?T Uuf e£ sq! ui Eus uu* nor Uus are known, but aggregate In fact, neithe r determined from available data. labor expenditure— Ef and E1^ — can be If the aggregate outputs of the two countries were comparable (if the product mix were the same in both countries), the ratio of unit labor cost in the countries could be expressed as follows: ULCf ULC1^ _ Ef x q \ Eus _ Ef ' y .q Eus { Z Q uf The aggregate outputs are not comparable, however, due to differences in product mix. To obtain "com parable" aggregate output m easures, man-hour weights may be used in conjunction with each country's output figures. U. S. weights have been used in this study since compa rable data are not available for France (or for other countries). The use of French man hour weights would undoubtedly yield somewhat different results. However, since the in dustries in the countries being compared are integrated to approximately the same extent and generally produce the same products with sim ilar plant layout and equipment, the assum pw*f wf f tion has been made that, -----=— —* In other words, = k W1^ for all i, where k is a con- W[us wj stant. Under this assumption, either U. S. or French man-hour weights may be used and 33 34 the results will be the same, hour weights, QUS w f 0* w us O* w us If (0) represents aggregate output weighted by U. S. man 1 1 o™ FQf w us The ratio of unit labor cost in France to that in the United States, when French and United States outputs are expressed in common terms through the use of U. S. man-hour weights, may be represented as follows: ULC1 O1 ULC O" F Q• u• F Qf wu ;2 q “ u u* ’ X q | \yu The absolute value (in dollars) of unit labor cost in France is given by where (*) indicates absolute value in dollars. Since, in the base year, ULC1 ULC ULCu ULCU FQ1? Uuf FQU ULC f* F 9 ?w f . FQF qu v i.s u1^i FQf u f FQf Wus and letting FQ* uf = Ef , XQuf w f ULC f* FQuf FQ- Wu* Since the numerator and denominator of the ratio of summations may be multiplied by a constant without changing the value of the relationship, a constant fn may be chosen such that FQU Sq1^ m = FQf The constant m must equal This is the process carried out in FQf Wf table Er—Z. The term wf ™ represents the deflated weight for the ith product, as shown in column (4) of table B—2. Thus: FQUS Wus m ULC** - FQus F gf FQU, wusm 2 qus . = JEl Fq]W f fn Fpfw f' whe re For the purpose of this paper, FQf Wus m w f m - w f ^as been called the labor cost in France to produce a " U. S. composite ton" of steel. Although an artificial term , it helps to verbalize the results obtained in the study and is mathematically justifiable if the assumption is made that w f wf wus l w; Using this assumption, it can be shown that equals the output which would have been produced in France if France had produced the U. S. product distribution. O r, the French output expressed in U. S, composite tons. If SQ1^ W f equals total man-hours in the United States, V q u s y v iis i i equals total man-hours per U. S. composite ton in the United FQ1^ i States. The number of U. S. composite tons which could have been produced in France may be represented as follows: FQf then 's o W f | SZQUfW'? 35 f 2Quf w? \ _ — s WUS^ ] have been inserted in the numerator and denominator, £Qf wus ) and!^ ZQu sof w{ \ The fa cto rs! respectively, to indicate the result of allowing for different absolute man-hour requirements WUS wf 2<?f wf Z Q J w| wu? wf (as opposed to — i_ =—L ) in France and the United States. But rr-;------ = ------------ if w us 1 wf S Q f W us VV1 i i Z Q US i i W UJS w? Thus, the above quantity may be written as TO? w”? — ------L • ZQ 1? ZQU*WT and if m is again chosen such that ZQ1^ wUf m = ZQhs j this becomes 2»[ W^m Z Q 1^ which equals 2 Q * W us' , where ;W U? ' = W u?m . soi It is also of interest to note that, given the assumptions w *1 _ w us 1 W UJS ULCf _ U* _ 2QU? U* ULC U*is V™ _ W us i " w ”5 T Q ul In this absolute comparisons study, the question of whether the labor cost and U. S. unit labor cost represents a Laspeyres- o r is not of particular relevance, but since it compares the cost in a a " U. S. composite ton" of steel, it may be appropriate to consider type comparison. uu.s and —L ratio between French unit Paasche-type relationship foreign country to produce the study as a L asp eyres- Appendix B. 36 Table B - BLS 1961 R elative M an-Hour Weights Converted to Relative Cumulative W eights, Iron and Steel Industry Yield Quality of steel lllcL i P roduct category Coke -------------------------------------------------— Pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s ------------------Ingots and steel for ca stin g s------------B loom s, slabs, b illets, tube rounds, skelp, e t c ----------------------------- -—-------W ire rods — -------------- ;— -------------------Structural shapes (heavy) and steel p ilin g ------Plates ----------------------------- ---------------------------------R ails----standard and all o t h e r --------------------------Joint ba rs, tie plates, and track spikes Wheels and a x l e s ------------------------------------B ars— hot rolled (including light sh apes}-B ars----rein forcin g ------------------------------------B ars----cold f i n i s h e d ----------------------------------B ars— tool s te e l-----------------------------------------Standard p ip e—-------------------------------------------O il-cou n try g o o d s----------------------------- ■■■.... . — M echanical tubing--------------------------------------P re ssu re tubing -----------------------------------------W ire— d ra w n ----------------------------------------------W ire products ------------------------- ------------------Black plate ------------------------------------------------Tin and terne plate— hot dipped----------------Tin plate— e le c t r o ly t ic ---------- ----- ---------------Sheets— hot rolled ------------------------------------Sheets----cold r o lle d ---- -------------------------------Sheets— g a lv a n ize d ------------- -----------------------Strip)— hot rolled ------------- --------------------------Strip----cold r o lle d --------------------------------------Sheets— all other coated --------------------------E le c tr ica l sheets and strip -------------------------1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 rbon uct per jf ingot (perc rcent) 1 78 76 81 . . . . . . . . . . 69 74 76 55 74 81 70 70 76 76 78 . . . . 69 69 74 71 . . . . . . . . . 69 66 66 72 68 66 67 65 68 . 68 Carbon A lloy BLS weight Cumulative weight 2 1. 0 I. 4 2. 0 1. 0 5 2. 1 6 3. 3 4, 8. 7. 6. 6. 8 5 1 1 7 19. 25. 10. 6. 18. 1 3 7 6 5 89. 15. 20. 13. 32. 4 6. 23. 3 1. 10. 18. 12. 4. 3 9 3 7 6 6 7 3 5 9 6 8 9. 13. 11. 10. 11. 23. 30. 15. 11. 23. 94. 20. 24. 18. 37. 51. 28. 36. 15. 6. 10. 11. 23. 11. 2 3. 9 4 4 2 4 6 3 0 5 9 3 6 8 3 0 3 1 4 8 2 4 4 3 0 3 23. 8 17. 5 9. 5 11.8 15. 3 16. 3 2 8. 2 16. 3 28. 5 BLS weight - 17. 27. 24. 23. 25. _ 6 7 7 8 8 47. 0 23. 8 23. 3 21. 1 27. 2 1. 4 8. 76. 4 1 4 3 3 9. 5 11. 13. 18. 14. 198. 3 9. 169. 28. 34. 27. 56. 83. 46. BLS weight - 7 4. 4 9 2 6 5 1 - 37. 16. 16. 31. 161. Cumulative weight 3 - 3. 5 10. 20. 17. 15. 18. Stainless 7 1 2 1 2 3 3 0 3 9 0 9 6 18. 5 - 7. 2 24. 87. 84. 78. _ - Cumulat: weight 1 1 5 4 8 7. 3 3 4. 98. 94. 90. - _ - 104. 9 - 116. 3 - 154. 2 _ 120. 7 156. 7 166. 3 _ 284. 5 294. 3 159. 3 163. 0 17. 97. 44. 81. 131. 7 167. 7 _ _ 296. 306. 170. 174. - 2 4 1 3 3 26. 0 22. 1 206. 3 - - _ _ 23. 8 31. 5 - - 21. 1 8 1 8 7 8 6 7 9 1 0 109. 5 2 8. 8 2 5 57. 0 94. 7 _ 1 Estim ates based on data pertaining to the 1946-47 experien ce of a few com panies con sid ered to be represen tative of the industiy at that tim e, and on other m ore recen t inform ation. 2 The cum ulative weight fo r any carbon final product equals the estim ated quantity of pig iron per ton of carbon end p r o duct tim es the cum ulative weight for pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s (0 .9 1 x 2 . 1) plus the BLS weight for carbon crude steel divided by the yield fa ctor for the product (2. 0 /y ie ld fa ctor) plus the BLS weight for the product. 3 The yield fa ctor for an alloy steel final product is assum ed to be 10 points less than the carbon fa ctor for that product. The cum ulative weight for any alloy final product equals the estim ated quantity of pig iron per ton of alloy end product tim es the cum ulative weight for pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s (0 .7 8 x 2 . 1) plus the BLS weight for alloy crude steel divided by the yield fa ctor for the product (3. 5/y ie ld fa ctor) plus the BLS weight for the product. 4 The yield fa ctor fo r a stainless steel final product is assum ed to be 10 points less than the carbon fa ctor for that product. The cum ulative weight for any stainless final product equals the estim ated quantity of pig iron per ton of stainless end product tim es the cum ulative weight for pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s (0. 0 6 x 2 , 1) plus the BLS weight for stainless crude steel divided by the yield fa ctor for the product (7. 2 / yield fa ctor) plus the BLS weight for the product. 5 BLS weight assigned to pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s plus the product of the estim ated coke requirem ent per ton of pig iron tim es the BLS weight fo r coke. ZTi.4 + (0.68 x 1 ) 0 6 BLS weight assigned to carbon crude steel plus the product of the cum ulative weight for pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s tim es the estim ated pig iron requirem ent per ton of carbon crude steel. 0 2 . 0 + (2. 1 x 0 . 6 3 ) 0 7 BLS weight assigned to alloy crude steel plus the product of the cum ulative weight for pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s tim es the estim ated pig iron requirem ent per ton of alloy crude steel. O 3.5 + (2. 1 x 0.43)_7 8 BLS weight assigned to stainless crude steel plus the product of the cum ulative weight for pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s tim es the estim ated pig iron requirem ent per ton of stainless crude steel. /J7. 2 + (2. 1 x. 0. 0 3 ) 0 37 T a b le B ~ 2 . D e f l a t io n o f R e l a t i v e C u m u la t iv e W e ig h t s F r o m U s in g U. S, S h ip m e n t s , 1964 P roduct category A ll product ca te go rie s Coke --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s --------------------------------------------- — Ingots and steel for castings: C a rb o n ------------------------------------------------------------------------A lloy — ------------------------------------------ -----------------------------B loom s, slabs, b illets, tube rounds, skelp, etc. : C a rb o n ------------------------------------------------------------------------A lloy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Stainless----------------------------------------------------------------------W ire rod s: C a rb on -------------------------------------------------------------------------A l l o y --------- ------------------------------------------------------------------Stainless-------- -------------------------------------------------------------Structural shapes (heavy) and steel piling: C a rb o n -------------------------------------------------------------------------A lloy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Stainless----------------------------------------------------------------------Plates: Stainless----------------------------------------------------------------------R ails----standard and all other: C a rb o n ------------------------------------------------------------- -----------A lloy ---------------------------- -----------------------------------------------Joint ba rs, tie plates, and track spikes: C a rb o n ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------W heels and axles: C a rb o n -------------------------------------------------------------------------A lloy ---------------------------------------------------- -----------------------B ars— hot ro lle d (including light shapes): C a rb o n -------------------------------------------------------------- -----------Stainles s ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------B ars----rein forcin g : C a rb o n ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------B ars----cold finished: C a rb o n --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------A lloy ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------S ta in less----------------------------------------------------------------------B ars----tool steel: C a rb o n -------------------------------------------------------------------------A lloy ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------Standard pipe: C a rb o n -------------------------------------------------------------------------A lloy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------S tainless----------------------------------------------------------------------O il-cou n try goods: C a rb o n -------------------------------------------------------------------------A lloy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Stainle s s --------------------------------------------------- ----------------— Line p ip e : C a rb o n -------------------------------------------------------------- -----------A lloy ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------M echanical tubing: C a rb o n -------------------------------------------------------------------------A l l o y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------S tainless------------------------------ ---------------------------------------P re ssu re tubing: C a rb o n ------------------- --------------------- --------------------------------A l l o y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------S tainless--------- -------------- -----------------------------------------------W ire— drawn: C a rb o n -------------- ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy — ------------------------------------------------------------------------Stainless---- ------------------------------------------------- •----------------Wire products: C a rb o n ----------------------------------- -------------------------------------S tainless---------------------------------------------------------------------— See footnotes at end of table. Shipments (thousands of short tons) Cumulative weight (1) (3) 87, 716. 3 T a b le B ~ 3, Col. Col. (1) x (2) (3) Deflated weight M * (2 )I (4) 1, 420, 682. 0 Col. Col. (4) X (i) (5) 87, 716. 3 (2) 3 2, 771. 4 1. 0 2. 1 _ 5, 820. 0 0. 06 . 13 _ 359. 5 179. 7 144. 8 5. 3 3. 3 4. 4 7. 3 593. 0 637. 0 38. 6 . 20 . 27 . 45 36. 6 39. 3 2. 4 Z, 156. 6 508. 6 38. 6 9. 3 17. 7 34. 8 20, 056. 3 9, 002. 5 1, 343. 4 . 57 1. 09 2. 15 1, 238. 3 555. 8 82. 9 1, 148. 1 39. 4 7. 9 13. 0 27. 1 98. 1 14, 925. 7 1, 067. 5 778. 4 . 80 1. 67 6. 06 921. 6 65. 9 48. 1 5, 780. 9 304. 3 0. 1 11. 5 24. 2 94. 8 66, 480. 3 7, 363. 3 10. 9 . 71 1. 49 5. 85 4, 104. 4 454. 6 .7 7, 605. 8 825. 7 59. 1 10. 9 23. 1 90. 7 82, 902. 8 19, 074. 0 5, 362. 6 . 67 i. 43 5. 60 5, 118. 7 1, 177. 6 331. 1 648. 9 26. 5 11.3 25. 2 7, 332. 6 666. 5 . 70 1. 56 452. 7 41. 2 222. 6 23. 6 5, 253. 5 1. 46 324. 4 493. 1 3. 8 30. 8 47. 0 15, 188. 3 176. 4 1. 90 2. 90 937. 8 10. 9 6, 279. 2 2, 076. 0 45. 7 15. 3 23. 8 116. 3 96, 071. 9 49, 408. 3 5, 320. 6 . 94 1. 47 7. 18 5, 932. 0 3, 050. 7 328. 5 3, 228. 4 .6 11. 0 23. 3 35, 512. 8 12. 7 . 68 1. 44 2, 192. 8 .9 1, 173. 9 222. 4 70. 5 23. 3 39. 3 166. 3 27, 351. 6 8, 740. 5 1 1, 732. 1 1. 44 2. 43 10. 27 1, 688. 8 539. 7 724. 4 _ 102. 4 94. 1 169. 3 _ 17, 332. 8 5. 81 10. 45 _ 1, 070. 2 4 2, 567. 1 4 2. 4 - 20. 4 28. 0 131.7 52, 369. 3 66. 8 - 1. 26 1. 73 8. 13 3, 233. 3 4. 1 - 1, 290. 4 345. 9 .3 24. 8 34. 3 167. 7 32, 002. 1 1 1,862. 7 41. 9 1. 53 2. 12 10. 35 1, 975. 9 732. 4 2. 6 2, 141. 4 492. 8 18. 2 27. 9 38, 972. 8 13, 748. 2 1. 12 1. 72 2, 406. 3 848. 9 670. 7 334. 7 3. 3 37. 4 56. 0 296. 8 25, 083. 3 18, 742. 9 987. 2 2. 31 3. 46 18. 33 1, 548. 7 1, 157. 2 60. 9 216. 7 44. 4 26. 9 51. 4 83. 9 306. 6 11, 136. 9 3, 724. 6 8, 239. 3 3. 17 5. 18 18. 93 687. 6 230. 0 508. 7 2, 466. 6 26. 7 24. 9 28. 3 46. 6 170. 7 5 9 ,8 0 3 .9 1, 246. 3 4, 252. 8 1. 75 2. 88 10. 54 4, 309. 8 77. 0 262. 6 586. 8 ( 5) 36. 0 174. 9 21, 126. 0 2. 3 2. 22 10. 80 1, 304. 4 .1 38 Table B~2. Delation of R elative Cumulative Weights F rom Table B—1, Using U. S. Shipments, 1964— Continued 1 5 4 3 2 Shipments (thousands of short tons) P rod uct category (D Black plate: C a rb o n ------------------------------------------------------------------------Tin and terne plate— hot dipped: Carbon —-------------- —-----------------------------------------------------Tin plate— e le c tr o ly tic : C a rb on ------------------------------------------------------------------------Sheets— hot rolled: C a rb o n ------------------------------------------------------------------------A l l o y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------S tainless----------------------------------------------------------------------Sheets— cold rolled: C a rb o n ------------------------------------------------------------------------A l l o y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------S tainless----------------------------------------------------------------------Sheets— galvanized: C a rb o n ------------------------------------------------------------------------A l l o y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Strip— hot ro lle d : C a rb o n ------------------------------------------------------—----------------A l l o y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Stainless----------------------------------------------------------------------Strip— cold rolled : C a rb o n ------------------------------------------------------------------------A l l o y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------S tainless----------------------------------------------------------------------Sheets— a ll other coated: Ca. r bon — —— — —————— — — — — — — — —— — ---E le c tr ica l sheets and strip: C a rb o n ------------------------------------------------------------------------A l l o y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deflated weight Col. Col. ( 1 ) X (2) (2) § 3 ] X (3) (4) (2 ) 1 Col. Col. (4) X (1) (5) 431. 1 15. 3 6 , 596. 0 . 94 407. 3 150. 23. 3, 571. 9 1. 47 220. 5 1 8 5, 501. 4 17. 5 96, 274. . 08 5, 944. 3 9, 530. 6 379. 3 38. 0 9. 5 18. 5 28. 8 90, 541. 2 7, 017. 5 1, 093. 9 . 59 1. 14 1. 78 5, 590. 7 433. 3 67. 5 15, 496. 9 30. 0 172. 2 11. 8 21. 1 109. 5 182, 863. 3 632. 4 18, 854. 7 . 73 1. 30 6. 76 4, 367. 9 - 15. 3 26. 0 66, 829. 1 - . 94 1. 61 4, 126. 4 - 1, 605. 6 30. 9 23. 6 16. 3 22. 1 57. 0 26, 170. 8 651. 5 1, 342. 7 1. 01 1. 30 3. 52 1, 615. 8 40. 2 82. 9 1, 102. 6 26. 3 254. 8 28. 2 206. 3 94. 7 31, 092. 2 5, 434. 1 24, 127. 7 1. 74 12. 74 5. 85 1, 919. 8 335. 5 1,489. 7 512. 3 16. 3 8, 351. 2 1. 01 515. 6 52. 6 595. 0 28. 5 31. 5 1, 498. 2 18, 741. 6 1. 76 1. 94 92. 5 1, 157. 2 8 1 .0 .0 1, 164. 1 1 1 , There w ere no net shipments of coke from the industry; there was a net purchase Pig iron shipm ents outside the steel industry. Includes structural pipe and tubing. 12 tons of stainless and 1 ton of alloy. NOTE: B ecause of rounding, of about 2. 9 m illion tons. sums of individual item s may not equal totals. SOURCE: Shipments fro m the Annual Statistical R ep ort. 1964 (New York, A m erican Iron and Steel Institute, 1965). 291 39 =°* 061742388‘ 1 2 3 4 5 Cumulative weight 39 T a b l e B ~ 3. U n it e d S t a t e s . E s t im a t e o f S u p p le m e n ta r y B e n e fit s f o r S a la r ie d E m p lo y e e s , I r o n an d S t e e l I n d u s tr y , 1964 (In U. S. dollars) Cost Item A. AISI financial data: 1 1. Employee exclusive of force account labor: 2 Total employment cost ----------------------------------------------------------- 6, 136, 131, 495 Wages and sa la r ie s-------------------------------------------------------------Supplementary b e n e fits ------------------------------------------------------ (15, 11 percent of total) — Social security taxe s-----------------------------------------------------Pen sion s---------------------------------------------------------------------------Insurance ------------------------------------------------------------------------Savings and vacation type plans----------------------------------Supplemental unemployment c o s t s ----------------------------Other employment costs------------------------------------------------- "5, 208, 927, 220, 192, 227, 186, 42, 57, 825, 306, 064, 701, 756, 582, 758, 442, 331 164 672 125 802 102 863 600 2. Employee inclusive of force account labor: 3 5, 306, 617, 587 Wages--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (72, 11 percent of total) — Salaries ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (27. 89 percent of total) — B. 3, 826, 620, 752 1, 479, 996, 835 AISI employment and wage data for the "s te e l in dustry": . Annual payroll c o s t ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4, 376, 121, 495 Wages -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Salaries ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3, 217, 048, 623 1, 159, 072, 872 4. 335 . Hourly employment cost for wage e arn ers, total Payroll cost-----------------------------------------------------------------Pay for hours worked 4 --------------------------------------- — 3. 700 3. 431 (92. 73 percent of payroll cost; 78. 78 percent of total employment cost). Pay for holidays not worked, vacation pay, and adjustments -------------------------------------------------------------------- (7. 27 percent of payroll cost). Supplementary benefits included under A - l --------------------- (15. 04 percent of total employment cost). C. D. . 269 . 655 Estim ate of fringe benefits, assum ing percentages in A -2 and B -2 apply to figures under A - l : Wages = 7 2. 11 percent of $ 5, 208, 825, 331 -------------------------------------------------------------------------Salaries = $5 , 208, 825, 331 - $3, 756, 083, 924 -------------------------------------------------------------------------Total employment cost: W age e a r n e r s - $ 3, 7 56, 08 3, 9 2 4 -h( 1 - 0. 1504) --------------------------------------------------------Salaried employees - $ 6, 1 36, 131, 495 - $ 4 , 421, 000, 896 ------------------------------------------------Supplementary benefits (included under A -l) for salaried em ployees: S 1, 71 5, 130, 599 - $ 1, 452, 741, 407 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A s a percent of total employment cost for salaried e m p lo y e e s ----------------------------------- 3, 756, 083, 924 1, 452, 741, 407 4, 421, 000, 896 1, 715, 130, 599 262, 389, 192 IEi. 30 acation pay, and Estim ated cost of pay for holidays not worked, adjustments for salaried em ployees (based 01 same percentage for wage earners) as a percent of payroll cost for sala led em ployees----------------------- 1 Covering the consolidated statem ents, including all of com panies which report these data to the AISI. 2 Excludes portion of payroll charged to own construction 3 Includes portion of payroll charged to own construction 4 Equivalent to BLS "average hourly earn in gs" and ECSC SOURCE: Steel Institute. Based 1966). data from the Annual Statistical Report, the affiliated interestts of the parent or other nonoperating accounts. or other nonoperating accounts. "s a la ir e d ir e c t ." 1965 (New York, Am erican Iron and 40 T a b le B ~ 4. U n it e d S t a t e s . E m p lo y m e n t C o s t f o r W a g e E a r n e r s and S a la r ie d E m p lo y e e s , I r o n an d S t e e l I n d u s t r y , 1964 Worker catego Wage earr Wages Total c 2, 983, 072, 760 3, 786, 441, 816' Salaried em ployees : Salaries 3 -----------Total cost 4 --------- 1, 074, 805, 055 1, 368, 420, 01 1 Wage earners and salaried em ployees: Wages and s a la r ie s ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total c o s t ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4, 057, 877, 815 5, 154, 861, 827 1 Pay for hours worked, AISI. Includes shift differentials and prem ium s for overtim e and Sun4ay and holiday work. 2 Includes wages plus pay for holidays not worked, vacation pay, adjustments, and all fringe benefits listed in table B—3. 3 Estim ated to be 9 2 .7 3 percent of total payroll cost (i. e. , AISI "s a l a r i e s ") . (See table B ~ 3. ) Pay for holidays not worked, vacation pay, and adjustments are thus excluded. 4 Estim ating that AISI salaries are 8 4 .7 0 percent of total employment cost for salaried em ployees. See table B~3. Table B~5. United States. Total Hours Worked and Average Hourly Laboi Cost, Iron and Steel Industry, 1964 Worker category Total hours worked Salaried em ployees ----- — ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Wage earners and salaried employees ---------------- - -— —----------------- ------— - ------- 869, 447, 030 2 4 4 ,6 5 8 ,3 8 3 1, 114, 105, 413 Hourly labor cost Wage earn ers: $ 3. 431 4. 355 Totai°-'o^t>UrS W° rked Sa. la. ried employee s ; 4. 393 5. 593 T^^nT^c ~t 1 4 3 2 Wage earners and salaried em ployees: 3. 642 4. 627 ^ at8^S-anf salaries 1 Aggregate salary cost from table B—4 divided by total hours worked by salaried em ployees. 2 Total employment cost for salaried employees from table B—4 divided by total hours worked by salaried em ployees. SOURCE: Steel Institute, Based on data from the Annual Statistical Report, 1966). 1965 (New York, A m erican Iron and 41 T a b le B ~ 6. U n it e d S t a t e s . C a l c u l a t i o n o f U n it L a b o r C o s t f o r W a g e E a r n e r s an d S a l a r i e d E m p l o y e e s , I r o n a n d S t e e l I n d u s t r y , 1 9 64 Worker category Employment cost (U. S. d o lla r s )1 Output (thousands of short to n s)2 (1) (2) Unit labor cost (U. S. d<ollars) per— Short ton 3 Metric ton 4 (3) (4) Wage earn ers: Wages -............ ........ - .................... Total c o s t -------------------------------------- 2, 983, 072, 760 3, 786, 441, 816 87, 716. 3 87, 716. 3 34. 01 43. 17 37. 49 47. 59 Salaried em ployees: Salaries ----------------------------------------Total c o s t -------------------------------------- 1, 074, 805, 055 1, 368, 420, 01 1 87, 716. 3 87, 716. 3 12. 25 1 5 .6 0 13. 51 17. 20 Wage earners and salaried e m p loye es: W ages and s a la rie s---------------------Total c o s t -------------------------------------- 4, 057, 877, 815 5, 154, 861, 827 87, 716. 3 8 7 ,7 1 6 . 3 46. 26 58. 77 50. 99 64. 78 1 From table B~3. 2 Weighted output from table B~2. 3 Col. 14-col. 2. 4 1 m etric ton = 1. 1023 short tons. Table B—7. United States. Man-Houri : per Ton and Output p< Iron and Ste< il Industry, 1964 000 M an -H ou rs, M an-hours per— 1 Worker category Short ton Wage earners Wage earners and salaried employees ---------------------------------------------------- 9. 91 2. 79 12. 70 M etric ton 2 10. 93 3. 07 14. 00 Output per 1, 000 m an-hours 1 Short tons Wage earners and salaried e m p lo y e e s ---------------------------------------------------- Using output from table B—2 and hours worked from table B—5. 1 m etric ton = 1. 1023 short tons. 100. 89 3 5 8 .5 3 78. 73 M etric tons 2 91- 53 325. 26 71. 42 42 Table B—8. F ra n ee. Estim ate of M inimum and Maximum Weighted Output, Iron and Steel Industry, U. S. Industry D efin ition ,1 1964 fin thousands of m e tric tons) M inimum P roduct category A ll product ca te go rie s ------------------------C o k e ----------------------------------------------------------------Pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s --------------------------------Ingots and steel fo r castings: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy -----------------------------------------------------------S ta in le s s ---------------------------------------------------B lo o m s, slab s, b ille ts, tube rounds, skelp, etc: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy -----------------------------------------------------------S ta in le s s ---------------------------------------------------W ire rods: Ca rb o n -------------------------------------------------------A lloy -----------------------------------------------------------Stainless ---------------------------------------------------Structural shapes (heavy) and steel piling: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy-----------------------------------------------------------Stainless ---------------------------------------------------P lates: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy -----------------------------------------------------------S ta in le s s --------------------------------------------------- R ails, standard and all other: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy -----------------------------------------------------------Joint b a rs, tie p lates, and track spikes: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------Wheels and a xles: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy-----------------------------------------------------------B a rs— hot rolled (including light shapes): C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy -----------------------------------------------------------Stainless ---------------------------------------------------B ars— rein forcin g : C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy------------------------------------------------ ----------B ars— cold finished: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy -----------------------------------------------------------Stainless ---------------------------------------------------B a rs— tool steel: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy -----------------------------------------------------------Standard pipe: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy -----------------------------------------------------------Stainless ---------------------------------------------------O il-cou n try goods: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy-----------------------------------------------------------Stainless ---------------------------------------------------Line pipe: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy-----------------------------------------------------------M echanical tubing: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy-----------------------------------------------------------Stainless ---------------------------------------------------P re s s u r e tubing: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy -----------------------------------------------------------Stainless ---------------------------------------------------W ire— drawn: C arbon -------------------------------------------------------A lloy-----------------------------------------------------------Stainless ---------------------------------------------------See footnotes at end of table. P roduction distribution emphazing low -w eigh t products Weight 16.994 Maximum Weighted output 15 ,628 .5 , (2) 3 1,277 0. 06 . 13 0 4 5 100 4 525 . 20 . 27 .45 60. 0 27. 0 11. 3 598 525 525 . 57 1. 09 2. 15 340. 9 27. 3 53. 8 625 . 80 1. 67 6 . 06 957 573 - 4 300 166. P roduction distribution emphazing high-w eight products Weight 16,994 (2) 3 1,277 Weighted output 1 7 ,3 0 6 .3 0. 06 . 13 166. . 20 . 27 .45 4 100 4 5 50 (4 5 ) 0 .0 13. 5 - 20 798 125 . 57 1. 09 2. 15 454. 9 136. 3 - 808. 0 41 .8 6. 1 6 1 ,010 . 80 1. 67 6 . 06 808. 0 26. 7 60. 6 .71 1.49 5. 85 679. 5 108. 8 - 7 1,030 (5 ) .71 1.49 5. 85 731. 3 _ _ 8 1,197 532 5 30 . 67 1.43 5. 60 802. 45. 168. 8 1,197 539 523 . 67 1.43 5. 60 802. 55. 128. 323 - . 70 1. 56 226. - 1 323 - . 70 1. 56 226. - 1 10 30 1.46 43. 8 1030 1.46 43. 8 11 37 - 2 1. 90 . 90 70. 3 - 1137 - 2 1. 90 . 90 70. 3 - .9 4 1.47 7. 18 1, 731.5 191. 1 - , 239 - . 68 1.44 842. 5 - 209 29 5£ 1.44 2.4 3 10. 27 301. 0 70. 5 20. 5 5. 81 10.45 58. 1 376. 2 . 26 1. 73 . 13 626. 2 3. 5 1. 53 2 . 12 10. 35 191. 3 . 12 1. 72 374. 1 51.6 2. 31 3.46 18. 33 492. 0 24. 2 4 4 4 6 1,010 5 5 6j 7 9 12 1, 842 5 130 (5 ) 13 1 14 15 5 16 1 0 17 18 36 497 1 5 2 - 18 8 125 5 10 (5 ) 18 18 334 5 30 1 213 57 (5 ) (18) ( ) (5 ) 14408 15 1 2 52 3. 17 5. 18 18. 93 1.75 . 88 10. 54 2 0 4 4 5 (4 5 ) 8 0 5 616 5 610 9 , 769 183 5 20 1,239 - . 68 1.44 842. 5 _ 209 is 1 9 1.44 2. 43 10. 27 301. 0 46. 2 123. 2 5. 81 10. 45 58. 1 376. 2 5 14 5 12 16 1 0 17 18 36 414 (5 ) - 1 9 0 6 521.6 _ - 2 1. 53 . 12 10. 35 335. 1 38. 2 4 1 .4 56 . 12 1.72 173. 6 10. 3 319 19 54 2. 31 3. 46 18. 33 736. 9 65. 7 73. 3 is 5 4 3. 17 5. 18 18. 93 171. 2 10.4 75. 7 1.75 . 88 10. 54 714. 0 11. 5 105.4 18 219 18 54 5 - 18 18 155 s - 714. 0 34. 6 2 1. 1 1 . 26 1.73 . 13 8 21.2 - 8 . 94 1.47 7. 18 121 13 , 662. 269. 143. 0 8 52 5 14 4 408 15 4 5 10 1 2 43 Table B—8. F ra n c e . Estim ate of Minimum and Maximum Weighted Output, Iron and Steel Industry, U. S, Industry D efin ition ,1 1964— Continued (In thousands of m etric tons) Minimum P roduction distribution emphazing low -w eight products P roduct category W ire p rod u cts: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------B lack plate: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------Tin and terne plate— hot dipped: C arbon -------- -------------------------------------------------Tin plate— e le c tr o ly tic : C a rb o n ---------------------------------------------------------Sheets— hot rolled: C a rb on ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy ------------------------------ --------- ---------------------Stainless ------------------------------ -----------------------Sheets— cold rolled: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy ---------- --------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Sheets— galvanized: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Strip— hot rolled: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Strip— cold rolled: C arbon----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless — ------------------------------ -------------------Sheets— all other coated: Carbon —----- -------------------------------------------------E le c tr ica l sheets and strip: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy -------------------------------------------------------------- M aximum Weight Weighted output P roduction distribution emphazing high-w eight products 144 10 15 1 2. 22 10. 80 910. 2 10. 8 14410 15 1 2. 22 10. 80 910. 2 10. 8 13 18 . 94 16. 9 13 18 .9 4 16.9 19 156 1.47 229. 3 19 3 12 1.47 458. 6 19469 1. 08 506. 5 19 313 1. 08 338. 0 20 1, 066 5 25 5 23 .5 9 1. 14 1.78 628. 9 28. 5 40. 9 20 371 5 23 57 .5 9 1. 14 1. 78 218. 9 26. 2 3. 6 20 2 , 2 7 9 52 5 10 . 73 1. 30 6. 76 1,663. 7 2. 6 67. 6 20 2 , 9 7 4 . 73 1. 30 6. 76 2, 171. 0 202. 8 21 445 - .9 4 1.61 418. 3 - 21 445 - . 94 1. 61 418. 3 - 22425 52 56 1. 01 1. 30 3. 52 429. 3 2.6 21. 1 224 3 3 1. 01 1. 30 3. 52 437. 3 - 14 181 15 2 54 1.74 12. 74 5. 85 314. 9 25. 5 23 .4 14 181 36 1.74 12. 74 5. 85 314. 9 35. 1 21 61 1. 01 61.6 21 61 1. 01 61 .6 23 41 23166 1.76 1.94 72. 2 322. 0 1. 76 1. 94 _ 401. 6 < (5) 5 30 (5 ) C5> (23) 23 207 Weight Weighted output 1 Includes the follow ing product ca te g o rie s not included in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) industry definition (equivalent to the F rench definition): Wheels and axles; pipe and tubing (all v a rieties); w ire— drawn; w ire prod ucts; strip— cold rolled ; and b a rs— cold finished. It has been assum ed that wheels and axles d erive from sem is and ingots; seam less pipe from sem is and ingots; w elded pipe fro m h o t-r o lle d strip (partially skelp, follow ing U. S. definition); w ire and w ire products from w ire rods; c o ld -r o lle d s tr ip fr o m h o t-r o lle d strip; and co ld -fin ish e d ba rs fro m h o t-r o lle d bars (including light shapes). In or d e r to avoid double counting, shipments fig u res minus shipments fo r con version into other steel p rod u cts, instead of production fig u res, have been used fo r sem is and ingots, h o t-r o lle d strip , and w ire rods. A yield lo s s has been allowed from h o t-r o lle d bars to cold -fin ish ed b a rs. 2 A ll coke produced by the steel industry is assum ed to be consum ed by the industry, since consum ption totaled 14, 330 thousand m e tric tons (h erea fter r e fe rre d to as MMT) and industry production 4, 323 MMT. 3 P roduction of pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s (15,840 MMT) minus consum ption (14, 563 MMT) in steelm aking p r o c e s s e s . 4 D erived fro m United Nations shipments data (Q uarterly Bulletin of Steel Statistics fo r E u rop e, vol. X V , No. 4). Source lists shipments of sem is and ingots, other than fo r con version into other steel p rod u cts, totaling 1, 073 M M T, of which 175 MMT are alloy. On the m inim um output side, 425 MMT are assum ed to be ingots and 648 M M T, sem is; on the m axim um output sid e, 150 MMT are assum ed to be ingots and 923 MMT, sem is. 5 The distribution of alloy steel, including stain less, among end products has been made on the ba sis of the follow ing data: Special crude steel A lloy t o o l -------------------------------------------------------------High sp e e d -------------- ---------------------------------------------Carbon t o o l ------------- ---------------------------------------------S ta in le s s --------- -------------- -------------------------------------- P roduction (thousands of m etric to n s) 42.7 8. 1 16.9 234.5 SOURCE: M etal B ulletin, M ar. 16, 1966. A lloy , including stainless Group A: Solids fo r sea m less tu b es-------------------------------------Other ingots and sem is ----------------------------------------S ection s, hot rolled (including b a r s )-------------------W ire r o d s —------------------------------------------------------------Strip, hot r o l l e d ---------------------------------------------------P lates (3 m m . o r m o r e ) --------------------------------------Sheets (less than 3 m m .) --------------------------------------(C on tin u ed on fo llo w in g p a g e ) Shipments (thousands of m e tric ton s) 52 175 273 41 22 62 60 44 Table B~8. Footnotes— Continued Shipments (thousands of m etric ton s) A lloy, including stainless Group B: Wire-— dra w n ----------------------------------------------------------W ire products -------------------------------------------B ars— cold finished ---------------------------------------------Strip— cold r o l l e d ----- -------------SOURCE: Group A, fo r Europe (New Y ork, E urope), v ol. XV, No. 4; Industrielie, 1965 (P a ris, 14 1 31 6 fro m Q uarterly Bulletin of Steel Statistics United Nations E con om ic C om m ission for and group B, fro m Annuaire de Statistique Bureau Central de Statistique Industrielle). F rom the above data, two distributions of alloy steel, including weight p rod u cts, and the second , high-weight p rod u cts, as fo llow s: stain less, have been m ade; the fir s t em phasizes low - M inimum output M aximum output ______ (thousands of m e tric tons) P roduct category Ingots and steel fo r c a s t in g s ------------------------B lo o m s, stabs, b ille ts, tube rounds, skelp, e t c -----------------------------------------------------W ire products ------------------------------------------------W ire— d raw n--------------------------------------------------B ars— cold fin ish e d ----------------------------- ----------Strip— hot r o lle d --------------------------------------------Strip— cold r o l l e d ------------------------------------------Pipe and tubing-----------------------------------------------B ars— tool s t e e l --------------------------------------------B ars— hot rolled (including light sh a p es)----Structural shapes (heavy ) and steel p ilin g ---P la t e s -------------------------------------------------------------Sheets— cold r o l l e d ---------------------------------------Sheets— hot r o lle d ------------------------------------------W ire r o d s -------------------------------------------------------- 125 50 50 1 14 31 a/8 6 b/49 c/36 d/130 d/7 3 62 12 48 _e/26 125 1 14 31 (_&/) 6 _b/57 c /36 d/203 ( d /) 62 30 30 _e/2 6 _a/ The h o t-r o lle d strip total of 22 required to make the c o ld -r o ile d strip is estim ated at 1.09 x 6 = 7. On the minimum sid e, 7 MMT are assum ed to go into making pipe, and on the m axim um side, 15 MMT. Jb/ The amount of pipe and tubing made fro m the shipments of solid s for seam less tubes is estim ated at 52-^1.22 = 43. The amount made from strip is estim ated at 7 M .10 - 6 on the m inim um side and 15M .10 = 14 on the m axim um side. _c/ Alloy tool and h igh -sp eed crude steel (50. 8) x 0.7 0. _d/ The h o t-r o lle d section s (total 273) required to make the cold -fin ish ed bars is estim ated at 1.09 x 31 = 34. The amount in tool steel is 36 MMT. On the m inimum side, it is assum ed that 73 MMT are in structural shapes (heavy), and on the maximum side, that no alloy is in this category. _£./ Shipments of w ire rods minus the estim ated requirem ent to make w ire and w ire products (1.03 x 15). The alloy in pipe and tubing has been distributed among the various categories on the m inimum and m axim um sides as fo llo w s : Minimum output M aximum output (thousands of m etric tons) Pipe and tubing T o t a l -------------------------------------------------------- 49 57 Standard pipe ----------------------------------------------------O il-cou n try goods---------------------------------------------Line p ip e ----------------------------------------------------------M echanical tubing---------------------------------------------P re s s u r e tubing----- ------------------------------------------- 2 10 30 7 - 22 6 23 6 Stainless steel in end products is assum ed to total 129 MMT on the m inim um side (234 tim es an average yield from crude steel of 0.5 5) and 152 MMT (234 x 0 .6 5 ) on the m aximum side. It has been estim ated that 50 p ercen t of the total, on both sid es, is in plates and sheets (based on data in La recon v ersion de la m ine de Chapagnac, Luxem bourg, ECSC, 1964), Within this fram ew ork, distributions have been made to em phasize low -w eigh t products on the m inim um side and high-w eight products on the m axim um sid e, as fo llo w s: P roduct category All ca te g o rie s-------------Ingots and steel fo r castings---------- -----------------B lo o m s, slab s, b ille ts, tube rounds skelp, etc---—-.—---------------------------W ire r o d s -------------- -------------P la te s ----------------------------------B ars— hot r o lle d ----------------- M aximum Minimum output output (thousands of m etric tons) 152 129 25 25 1 30 - 5 10 39 20 P roduct category— Continued B a rs— cold fin ish ed -----------O il-cou n try goods -------------M echanical tubing -------------P re s su r e tubing---- ------- -----W i r e— d raw n----------------------W ire p rod u cts------------------— Sheets— hot r o lle d -------- ----Sheets— cold rolled —--------Strip— hot r o lle d --------- ----- — Strip— cold r o l l e d -------------- (C o n t in u e d o n f o l l o w i n g p a g e ) M aximum Minimum output output (thousands oi m e tric tons) 2 12 4 4 4 2 10 1 1 23 7 10 30 6 4 6 45 Table B~8. F ootnotes— Continued 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 United Nations shipments figure minus the amount fo r conversion into other steel prod ucts. P roduction figure as given (ECSC) minus the estim ated amount in alloy. P roduction figure as given (ECSC) fo r large plates plus plates over 4. 75 m m . minus the estim ated amount in alloy. P roduction figure as given (Annuaire de statistique in d u strielle). Includes rails and s le e p e rs . P roduction figure as given (Annuaire de statistique in d u strielle). Includes join t ba rs and tie plates. P roduction figure as given (ECSC). Includes wheel bands, w h eels, axles, and wheel cen ters. P roduction figure as given (ECSC) minus the estim ated quantity in alloy and in cold -fin ish ed bars and tool steel. P roduction figure as given (ECSC). Shipments figure as given (Annuaire de statistique in d u strielle). Shipments figure as given (Annuaire de statistique in d u strielle) minus the estim ated amount in stainless steel. Crude steel figure (Metal B ulletin, M ar. 18, 1966) tim es 0.7 0. Crude steel figure (M etal B ulletin, M ar. 18, 1966) tim es 0. 60. The Chambre Syndicale des F abricants de Tubes d 'A c ie r record ed total pipe and tubing production of 1,218 MMT in 1964. Of this amount, at least 330 MMT w ere in standard pipe, 220 MMT in m ech anical tubing, 130 MMT in line p ipes, and 7 0 MMT in o il-co u n try goods. Within this fram ew ork, estim ates of the distribution of pipe and tubing among the various categories have been m ade as fo llo w s: Minimum M aximum output output (thousands of m e tric ton s) Pipe and tubing Standard p i p e -----O il-cou n try goods. Line p ip e -------------M echanical tubing P re s su r e tubing — 414 241 161 342 60 499 135 364 220 The amount o f carbon steel in any category represen ts the appropriate figure from above minus the estim ated amount in alloy steel. 19 The ECSC production figure fo r all tin and terne plate is 625 MMT. On the m inim um side, 25 p ercen t has been placed in the hot-dipped category and 75 p ercen t in e le c tr o ly tic ; on the m aximum sid e, 50 p ercen t has been placed in each category. 20 ECSC production figure fo r sheets 4 .7 5 m m . or le ss (coils have been added to h o t-r o lle d sheets) minus the estim ated amount used to p roduce coated products and e le c tr ic a l sheets and strip; this p roced u re avoids double counting. Relevant production figures are as fo llo w s: P roduction (thousands of m etric to n s) P roduct category Sheets— hot rolled * 4. 75 m m ------ ------------------Sheets— cold rolled £ 4. 75 m m -----------------------Tin and terne p la te -------------------------------------------Black p l a t e -----------------------------Galvanized sheets --------------------------------------------Other coated s h e e ts ------------------------------------------E le c tr ica l sheets and strip ------------ 1,114 3, 647 625 18 445 61 207 Coated and e le c tr ic a l sheets and strip are assum ed to d erive from hot- and c o ld -r o lle d sh eets, Minimum output (thousands of m etric tons) P roduct category Total B lack p l a t e ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Tin and terne p l a t e ------------------------------------------------------------Galvanized sh e e ts ----------------------------------------------------------------Other coated sh e e ts ------------------------------------------------------------E le c tr ica l sheets and s t r ip ------------------------------------------------- C old- rolled sheets as follow s: Maximum output (thousands of m etric tons) C old- rolled sheets Hot- rolled sheets 1. 356 643 713 18 625 445 61 207 18 625 Hot- rolled sheets 445 61 207 These totals m ust be subtracted fro m the total production figu res fo r hot- and c o ld -r o lle d sh eets, and the estim ated amount of alloy and stainless m ust be subtracted fro m this figure to a rriv e at the figure listed fo r carbon steel. No yield lo ss from hot- and c o ld -r o lle d sheets to coated sheets has been allow ed. 21 P roduction figure as given (Bulletin de la Chambre Syndicale de la S ideru rgie F ra n c a ise ). 22 United Nations shipm ents figure minus amount fo r con version into other steel products le ss the estim ated amount in alloy and stain less. 23 The production of e le c tr ic a l sheets and strip (207— ECSC) has been placed entirely in the alloy category on the m a x i mum sid e; on the m inim um sid e, 20 p ercen t has been placed in the carbon category and 80 p ercen t in the alloy category. E le c tr ica l sheets and strip are not c la s s ifie d as alloy steel according to French definitions, but U. S. definitions cla ssify alm ost all of this product as alloy steel. SOURCE: S ideru rgie (L uxem bourg, Statistical O ffice of the European C om m unities), 1966-No. 3; Annuaire de statistique in d u strielle. 1965 (P a r is, Bureau Central de Statistique Industrielle); Q uarterly Bulletin of Steel Statistics fo r Europe (New YorVb United Nations E conom ic C om m ission fo r Europe) v ol. XV, No. 4; Bulletin de la Chambre Syndicale de la S ideru rgie F ra n caise (P a r is, Chambre Syndicale de la Sideru rgie F ra n ca ise), se rie Rouge, No. 489; and Metal B ulletin, M ar. 18, 1966. 46 T a b l e B —9 . F r a n e e . E m p lo y m e n t C o s t f o r W a g e E a r n e r s and S a la r ie d E m p lo y e e s , E C S C I n d u s tr y D e fin it io n , I r o n an d S t e e l I n d u s t r y , 1964 ill 1£s_LL W orker category Wage e a r n e r s :2 W ages 3 = Cost per hour (3 ,7 7 NF 4 ) x total hours worked ( 2 8 6 .4 m illion 5). Total c o s t 6 = Cost per hour (6 .8 7 N F 4 ) x total hours worked (286. 4 m illion 5) . Salaried e m p lo y e e s :7 Salaries - Cost per month (1 ,2 3 9 N F 8 ) x 12 x salaried employm ent (33, 155 9 ) — Total cost = Cost per month (2, 080 NF 10 ) x 12 x salaried employm ent (33, 1 55 9 )----Wage earn ers and salaried em ployees: Wages and s a la r i e d -----------------------------Total c o s t ------------------------------------------------ Cost 1 ,0 7 9 ,7 2 8 ,0 0 0 1 ,9 6 7 ,5 6 8 , 000 4 9 2 ,9 4 8 ,5 4 0 8 2 7 ,5 4 8 ,8 0 0 1 ,5 7 2 ,6 7 6 ,5 4 0 2 ,7 9 5 ,1 1 6 ,8 0 0 1 US$ 1 = 4 . 9 N F. 2 Includes w orkers engaged p rim arily in manual tasks; excludes nonmanual w orkers such as forem en under any method of payment. 3 Pay for tim e worked, at hourly and piece rate s, including prem ium s for o vertim e, hazardous work, etc. , c o s t-o f-liv in g allow an ces, and payment for excused absence for attendance at union m eetings. 4 F rom Salaires C E C A . 5 From S iderurgie. 6 Wages ("s a la ir e d ir e c t") plus bonuses (including productivity bon u ses), holiday and vacation pay, social security paym ents, payment in kind, and other employm ent co sts. 7 Includes all nonmanual w orkers except corporation presiden ts. 8 The ECSC (Salaires C E C A) figure for monthly m onetary remuneration (1 ,4 7 5 N F) includes bonuses and holiday and vacation pay. These item s account for approxim ately 16 percent of the m onetary r e muneration of wage earn e rs. The sam e percentage is estim ated to apply to salaried em ployees and has been subtracted from the ECSC .figure in order to attain com parability between "w a g e s " and "s a l a r i e s . " 9 Salaires CECA indicates that 20. 3 percent of total employm ent is salaried . A verage annual wage earner employm ent from Siderurgie (1 3 0 ,1 6 9 ) divided by 0 .7 9 7 yields a total employm ent of 163, 324 (or salaried em ploym ent of 33, 155). 10 Includes sam e employm ent costs as for wage e a rn e rs. See footnote 6. SOURCE: Salaires C EC A , 1964, Social Statistics s e r ie s , 1 96 6 -N o . 2, and S ideru rgie, 1 96 6 -N o . 3 (Luxem bourg, Statistical O ffice of the European C om m unities). Table B -1 0 . F ran ee. E stim ates of Em ployment Cost for Wage E arn ers and Salaried Em ployees to Manufacture Products Not Included in the ECSC Iron and Steel Industry But Included in the U. S. Industry, 1 1964 (In new francs 2 ) W orker category Wage earn e rs: W a g e s ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ........... Total cost, if supplem entary benefits for wage earn ers are between 43 and 47 percent of total employm ent cost: 3 M in im u m ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|^/fqyi m 11pr, . ... .... ....... ... .. .... .......... Salaried em ployees: Salaries ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total cost, if supplem entary benefits for salaried em ployees are between 38 and 42 percent of total employm ent cost: 3 M in im u m ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mavi mnm . . . .......... ......................... . ... . Wage earn ers and salaried em ployees: Wages and sa la ries -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total cost: M in im u m ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cost 2 7 9 .5 0 0 .0 0 0 4 9 0 .3 5 1 .0 0 0 5 2 7 .3 5 8 .0 0 0 1 4 0 ,4 0 0 , 000 2 2 6 .4 5 2 .0 0 0 2 4 2 .0 6 9 .0 0 0 4 1 9 .9 0 0 .0 0 0 7 1 6 .8 0 3 .0 0 0 7 6 9 .4 2 7 .0 0 0 1 W ire— drawn and wire products; pipe and tubing; wheels and axles; strip— cold rolled; and bars— cold finished. 2 US$ 1 = 4. 9 N F. 3 Ra?.ge based on sim ila r data for the iron and steel industry as defined by the ECSC. See table B—9. SOURCE: Econom iques. Figu res on wages and sa la ries from the Institut. National de la Statistique et des Etudes 47 T a b l e B —1 1 . F rance. E s t im a t e s o f E m p lo y m e n t C o s t f o r W a g e E a r n e r s and S a la r ie d E m p lo y e e s , U .S . I n d u s tr y D e fin it io n , I r o n and S t e e l I n d u s tr y , 19 64 1 (In new francs 2) Worker category Cost Wage e arn ers: W a g e s------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim u m ___________________________________ _ . ___ M a x im u m ___________________ ________________ 2 .4 5 7 .9 1 9 .0 0 0 2 .4 9 4 .9 2 6 .0 0 0 Salaried em ployees: Salaries _______________________________ _ Total cost: M inim u m ____________________________________________________________ ___ ___ Maximum ______________ _ _ - _ . .......... . .. . ..... 1 ,0 5 4 ,0 0 0 ,8 0 0 1 ,0 6 9 ,6 1 7 ,8 0 0 1 ,3 5 9 ,2 2 8 ,0 0 0 6 3 3 ,3 4 8 ,5 4 0 . . Wage earners and salaried em ployees: W a g p s a n ii s a l a r ip s .. .. . .. Total cost: M inim u m ____________________________ M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ,9 9 2 ,5 7 6 , 540 3 .5 1 1 .9 1 9 .8 0 0 3 .5 6 4 .5 4 3 .8 0 0 1 Combining figures from tables B ~9 and B ~ 10. 2 US$ 1 = 4. 9 NF. Table B -1 2 . F ran ce. Estim ates of Total Hours Worked, ECSC Industry Definition and U .S . Industry Definition, Iron and Steel Industry, 1964 Industry definition and irker category Total hours worked ECSC Industry Definition Wage e a r n e r s ---------------------------------------------------------Salaried em ployees ----------------------------------------------Wage earners and salaried employees — 12 8 6 ,4 0 0 ,0 0 0 2 7 2 ,9 4 1 ,0 0 0 3 5 9 ,3 4 1 ,0 0 0 U. S. Industry Definition Wage e a r n e r s ------------------------------------------------------Salaried employees -------------------------------------------- 3 6 3 .2 8 6 .0 0 0 39 1 . 9 0 1 .0 0 0 Wage earners and salaried employees 4 5 5 .1 8 7 .0 0 0 1 From Siderurgie. 2 Based on the estim ate that there are 33, 155 salaried employees (table B—9) and that they work an average of 2 ,2 0 0 hours a year (derived from data of the United Nations Econom ic Com m ission for Europe). 3 Employment of wage and salary earners related to the production of products excluded from the ECSC definition was 3 4 ,9 4 8 and 8 ,6 1 8 , respectively, in 1964. Based on the estim ate that wage earners worked the sam e number of hours a year as in the ECSC steel i n d u s t r y ( 2 , 2 0 0 ) a n d that salaried employees also worked 2 ,2 0 0 hours a year, hours worked to produce these excluded products were 7 6 ,8 8 6,0 0 0 by wage earners and 1 8 ,9 6 0 ,0 0 0 by salaried em ployees. These totals m ust be added to the ECSC totals to obtain figures based on the U .S . industry definition. SOURCE: Based on data from Siderurgie, 1 966-N o. 3, and Salaires C E C A , 1964, Social Statistics s e r ie s , 1 96 6 -N o. 2 (Luxem bourg, Statistical Office of the European C om m unities); and the Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Econom iques. 48 Table B—13. F ra n ce . E stim ates of Average Hourly Labor Cost fo r Wage E arners and Salaried E m p loyees, U. S. Industry Definition, Iron and Steel Industry, 1964 W orker category Wage ea rn e rs: W a g e s-----------------------------------------------------------Total co st: M inim um -------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ----------- -------------------------------------- Hours w orked 3 (1) (2) In new fran cs 1 4 (3) 1 ,3 5 9 ,2 2 8 ,0 0 0 36 3,28 6,00 0 3. 74 0. 76 2 ,4 5 7 ,9 1 9 ,0 0 0 2 ,4 9 4 ,9 2 6 ,0 0 0 36 3,28 6,00 0 36 3,28 6,00 0 6. 77 6. 87 1. 38 1.40 (4) 63 3,34 8,54 0 9 1 ,9 0 1 ,0 0 0 6. 89 1.41 1, 054,000, 800 1, 069, 617, 800 9 1 ,9 0 1 ,0 0 0 9 1 ,9 0 1 ,0 0 0 11.47 11.64 2. 34 2. 38 Wage earners and sala ried em ploy ees: Wages and sa la ries -------------------------------------Total co st: M inim um -------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------- 1 ,9 9 2 ,5 7 6 ,5 4 0 4 5 5 ,1 8 7 ,0 0 0 4. 38 .89 3 ,5 1 1 ,9 1 9 ,8 0 0 3 ,5 6 4 ,5 4 3 ,8 0 0 455, 187, 000 455, 187, 000 7. 72 7. 83 1. 57 1.60 US$ 1 = 4. 9 NF, F rom table B ~ ll. F rom table B—12. Col. 1 col. 2. Table B—14. F ra n ee. Calculation of Unit Labor Cost fo r Wage E arners and Salaried E m p loyees, Iron and Steel Industry, 1964 W orker category Wage earn ers: W ages: M inim um -------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim um -------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ---------------------------------------------- -Salaried em ployees: S a la rie s: M inim um -------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim um -------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------Wage earners and salaried em p loyees: Wages and sa la rie s: M inim um -------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim um -------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ----------------------------------- ------------- Em ploym ent cost (in new fran cs 1 ) 2 Weighted output (thousands of m etric tons 3 ) Unit labor cost M etric tons 3 In new fran cs 1 4 (3) In d ollars Short tons 3 In new fran cs 1 4 (5) In d ollars (1) (2) 1 ,3 5 9 ,2 2 8 ,0 0 0 1 ,3 5 9 ,2 2 8 ,0 0 0 16 ,6 7 6 .9 15 ,628 .5 81. 50 86. 97 16. 63 17. 75 73. 94 78. 90 15. 09 16. 10 2 ,4 5 7 ,9 1 9 ,0 0 0 2 ,4 9 4 ,9 2 6 ,0 0 0 1 6 ,6 7 6 .9 15 ,628 .5 147.38 159.64 30. 08 32. 58 133.70 144.83 27. 29 29. 56 63 3,34 8,54 0 63 3,34 8,54 0 16 ,6 7 6 .9 15 ,6 2 8 .5 37. 98 40. 53 7.7 5 8. 27 34. 46 36. 77 7. 03 7. 50 1 ,0 5 4 ,0 0 0 ,8 0 0 1 ,0 6 9 ,6 1 7 , 800 16 ,6 7 6 .9 15 ,628 .5 63. 20 58.44 12. 90 13. 97 57. 34 62. 09 11. 70 12. 67 1 ,9 9 2 ,5 7 6 ,5 4 0 1 ,9 9 2 ,5 7 6 ,5 4 0 16 ,6 7 6 .9 1 5 ,628 .5 119.48 127.50 24. 38 26. 02 108.39 115.67 22. 12 23. 61 3 ,5 1 1 ,9 1 9 ,8 0 0 3 ,5 6 4 ,5 4 3 ,8 0 0 1 6 ,6 7 6 .9 15 ,628 .5 210.59 228.08 42. 98 46. 55 191.05 206.91 38. 99 42. 23 US$1 = 4. 9 NF. F rom table B—11. 1 short ton = 0. 9072 m e tric ton, or 1 m etric ton = 1.1023 short tons. C ol. 1 -f co l. 2. In d ollars Salaried em p loy ees: S alaries -------------------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim um -------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 A verage hourly lab or cost Em ploym ent cost (in new fran cs 1 ) 2 (4) (6) 49 T a b le B—15. F ran ee. M a n - H o u r s p e r T o n and O u tp u t p e r 1 , 0 0 0 M a n - H o u r s , Iro n and S te e l In d u stry , 1964 Calculation of man -h ou rs p er ton W orker category Hours worked 1 Weighted output (thousands of m etric tons 23) (1) (2) M an-hours per ton M etric ton 2 3 Short ton 2 (3) (4) Wage ea rn e rs: M inim um -------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 363.28 6.00 0 363.28 6.00 0 16 ,6 7 6 .9 1 5 ,628 .5 21. 78 23. 24 19. 76 21. 08 Salaried em ployees: M inim um -------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91 ,901 , 000 91 ,9 0 1 ,0 0 0 16 ,676 .9 15 ,628 .5 5. 51 5. 88 5. 00 5. 33 Wage earners and salaried em ployees: M inim um --------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45 5 .1 8 7 .0 0 0 4 5 5 .1 8 7 .0 0 0 16 ,676 .9 15, 628.5 27. 29 29. 13 24. 76 26. 43 Calc:ulation of output per 1, 000 m an-hours Weighted output (thousands of m etric tons 2 ) (1) Hours worked 1 (2) Output per 1, 000 m an-hours M etric tons 2 3 Short tons 2 (3) (4; Wage earn ers: M inim um -------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 ,628 .5 1 6 ,6 7 6 .9 3 6 3 .2 8 6 .0 3 6 3 .2 8 6 .0 43. 02 45. 91 47. 42 50. 61 Salaried em ployees: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 ,628 .5 1 6 ,6 7 6 .9 9 1 .9 0 1 .0 9 1 .9 0 1 .0 170. 06 181.47 187.46 200.03 Wage earners and salaried em ployees: M inim um -------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 ,628 .5 16 ,6 7 6 .9 455, 187.0 455, 187.0 34. 33 36. 64 37. 85 40. 39 1 F rom table B~ 12. 2 1 short ton = 0. 9072 m e tric ton, o r 1 m e tric ton = 1.1023 short tons. 3 Col. 1 F col. 2. 50 T a b le B —16. G e r m a n y ( F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c ) . E s t i m a t e o f M in im u m an d M a x i m u m W e ig h t e d O u tp u t, I r o n an d S t e e l I n d u s t r y , U . S. I n d u s t r y D e f i n i t i o n , 1 1964 ,£injdiousi3snds>_ofj2aet^ Maximum Minimum Ingots and steel fo r castings: C arbon----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------ -----------------------B lo o m s, slab s, b ille ts, tube rounds, skelp, etc: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------W ire rods: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Structural shapes (heavy) and steel piling: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------ -----------------------P lates: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------R ails, standard and all other: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy---------------------------------------------- ---------------Joint b a rs, tie p lates, and track spikes: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------Wheels and axles: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------B ars— hot rolled (including light shapes): C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------B ars— re in forcin g : C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------B a rs— cold finished: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------B ars— tool steel: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Standard pipe: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy_________________________________________ Stainless ------------------------------------------------------O il-cou n try goods: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Line pipe: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------M echanical tubing: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------P re s su r e tubing: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------W ire— drawn: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------- See footnotes at end of table. 30,555 Weighted output 2 7 .783 .27 30,555 Weight Weighted output 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 3 0. 06 . 13 _ 287.05 (2) 3 2, 208 0. 06 . 13 287.05 4 1, 014 4 * 290 4 5 34 . 20 . 27 .45 202.08 78. 30 15. 30 4 664 4 5 90 4 5 34 . 20 . 27 . 45 132.80 24. 30 15. 30 4 1,639 4 5 482 4 5 97 . 57 1. 09 2. 15 934.23 525.38 208.55 4 2, 240 4 5 528 (4 5) . 57 1. 09 2. 15 1 ,2 7 6 .8 0 575.52 - . 80 1.67 6. 06 625.00 68. 47 - 6 8 15 5 6 41 (5 ) . 80 1. 67 6.0 6 625.00 68. 47 - 7 2, 022 5 165 - .71 1.49 5. 85 1,4 3 5 .6 2 245.85 - 7 2,187 (5 ) - .71 1.49 5. 85 1,5 52.7 7 - 8 3,617 5 58 (5 ) . 67 1.43 5. 60 2,4 23. 39 82. 94 - 8 3,617 5 56 52 . 67 1.43 5. 60 2 ,4 2 3 .3 9 80. 08 11. 20 9 466 - . 70 1. 56 326.20 - 9 466 - .7 0 1. 56 326.20 - 10 5 0 1.46 73. 00 10 50 1.46 73. 00 (") - 1.90 2. 90 - 1. 90 2. 90 - 12 3, 299 5 297 53 . 94 1.47 7. 18 3 ,1 0 1 .0 6 436.59 21. 54 12 2, 983 5 456 5 10 .9 4 1.47 7. 18 13 1,636 - . 68 1.44 1, 112.48 131,636 . 68 1.44 13 638 (?) (5 ) 1.44 2.43 10. 27 918.72 (14) (5 ) 5.81 10. 45 15 1, 150 (?) (5 ) 1. 26 1.73 8. 13 1 ,4 4 9 .0 0 - 15 300 (5 ) 1.53 2. 12 45 9.00 - 15 1, 149 (5 ) 1. 12 1.72 15 124 (?) (5 ) o (2) 3 2 , Z08 6 8 15 5 641 (5 6) (?) (5 ) 16 205 5 105 5 25 - (H ) - - 1.44 2.43 10. 27 774.72 145.80 410. 80 (14) 5 150 5. 81 10. 45 _ 1 ,5 6 7 .5 0 15 517 (?) (5 ) 1. 26 1.73 8. 13 651.42 - 15 780 5 10 1. 53 2. 12 1, 193.40 21. 20 1,286.-88 - 15 517 (5 ) 1. 12 1. 72 579.04 - 2. 31 3. 46 18. 33 286.44 - 15 643 5 11 (5 ) 2. 31 3. 46 18. 33 1 ,4 8 5 .3 3 38. 06 (5 ) 3. 17 5. 18 18. 93 - 15 237 53 55 3. 17 5. 18 18. 93 751.29 15. 54 94. 65 1.75 2. 88 10. 54 358.75 302.40 263.50 16 210 5 55 5 70 1.75 2. 88 10. 54 367.50 158.40 737.80 - - - 13 538 5 60 5 40 2 ,8 0 4 .0 2 670. 32 71 .80 t\j All product c a t e g o r ie s ---------------------------C o k e ------------------------------------------------------------------P ig iron and fe r r o a llo y s ----------------------------------- Weight Production distribution emphazing high-w eight products 00 P roduct category Production distribution emphazing low -w eight products 51 T a b le B —16. G e r m a n y ( F e d e r a l R e p u b lic ). E s t i m a t e o f M in im u m and M a x i m u m W e ig h t e d O u tp u t, I r o n an d S t e e l I n d u s t r y , U . S. I n d u s t r y D e f i n i t i o n , 1 19 6 4 — C o n tin u e d (In thousands of m etric tons) Maximum Minimum Product category W ire prod ucts: C a rb on ----------------------------------------- ----------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------B lack plate: C a rb on ----------------------------------------------------------Tin and terne plate— hot dipped: C a rb on ----------------------------------------------------------Tin plate— e le c tr o ly tic : C a rb on ----------------------------------------------------------Sheets— hot rolled: C a rb on ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy -------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Sheets— cold rolled: C a rb on ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Sheets— galvanized: C a rb on ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Strip— hot rolled: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Strip— cold rolled: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Sheets— all other coated: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------E le ctrica l sheets and strip: C arbon ------------------------------------ ---------------------A lloy--------------------------------------------------------------- P roduction distribution emphazing high-w eight products W eight 2, 852. 70 17 1,280 55 2. 22 10. 80 2, 841.60 54. 00 . 94 47. 00 3 50 .9 4 47. 00 18 133 1.47 195.51 18 133 1.47 195.51 18 396 P roduction distribution emphazing low -w eight products Weight 17 1, 285 (5 ) 2. 22 10. 80 3 50 Weighted output Weighted output 1. 08 427.68 18 396 1. 08 427.68 19 1,719 5 75 (5 ) . 59 1. 14 1. 78 1,0 14.2 1 85. 50 19 1, 142 5 31 59 . 59 1. 14 1.78 673.78 35. 34 16. 02 19 2, 266 (5 ) 56 . 73 1. 30 6. 76 1,654. 18 19 2, 843 56 5 35 . 73 1. 30 6. 76 2 ,0 7 5 .3 9 7. 80 236.60 20 301 - .9 4 1.61 282.94 20 301 - .94 1.61 282.94 - 21 899 29 - 1.01 1. 30 3. 52 907.99 37. 70 21 928 - 1. 01 1. 30 3. 52 937.28 - 7 1,127 < (5) 5 29 1.74 12. 74 5. 85 1,9 6 0 .9 8 169.65 7 1,127 5 18 5 11 1.74 12. 74 5. 85 1,9 60.9 8 229.32 64. 35 20 4 5 1. 01 45 .45 20 4 5 1. 01 45. 45 22 53 22 213 1. 76 1. 94 93. 28 413. 22 (22) 22 2 6 6 1.76 1.94 516.04 40. 56 .. 1 Excluding wheels and ax les, becau se the labor cost data used do not co v e r this category . Since there is double counting in both Germ an and ECSC production statistics when all p roducts of the U. S. industry definition are included, United Nations shipments data, minus shipm ents fo r con v ersion into other steel p rod u cts, have been substituted fo r production figu res in certain c a s e s , e. g. , ingots and se m is, w ire rod, and h o t-r o lle d strip . In other c a s e s , the production figure fo r a final p r o duction ( e . g . , coated sh eets, co ld -fin ish e d b a rs) has been subtracted from the production figure fo r the product from which it d e riv e s, as noted in the footnotes relating to individual p rod u cts. 2 All coke produced by the steel industry is assum ed to be consum ed by the industry, sin ce consum ption totaled 21,178 thousand m e tric tons (h ereafter r e fe r re d to as MMT) and industry production 5,955 MMT. 3 P roduction of pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s (27,182 MMT) minus consumption (24,974 MMT) in steelm aking p r o c e s s e s . 4 The ECSC figure fo r the production of steel fo r castings is 638 MMT (including the production of independent fou nd ries), of which 124 MMT (excluding the production of independent fou ndries) are alloy. United Nations data (Quarterly Bulletin of Steel Statistics fo r E u rop e, vol. XV, No. 4) list shipments of ingots and se m is, excluding shipments fo r con v ersion into other steel p rod u cts, totaling 2,918 MMT. The total of steel fo r castings and shipments of ingots and sem is is then 3, 556 MMT. On the m inim um output sid e, 1, 338 MMT are assum ed to be ingots and 2,218 M MT, sem is; on the m axim um side, 788 are assuined to be ingots and 2, 768, se m is. 5 The distribution of alloy steel, including stain less, among end products has been made on the ba sis of the follow ing data: P roduct category S pecial crude ste e ls: S pecial carbon in g o ts--------------------------------------------A lloy ingots -------------- --------------------------------------------A lloy steel fo r c a stin g s----- ------------------ ----------------Stainless steel: Ingots------------------------- --------------------------------------------Steel fo r casting — ---------- ------------- -------- ---------------- P roduction (thousands of m etric tons) 69 7.2 2, 225. 8 124. 0 267. 2 33. 9 SOURCE: F or sp ecia l crude steels, from S iderurgie (ECSC); and fo r stainless steel, from M etal B ulletin, F ebruary 26, 1965. Relevant United Nations shipments data fo r sp ecia l steels (alloy and sp ecia l carbon) are presented in col. 1 of the follow ing tabulation. If the average yield of sp ecia l carbon steel from ingots to end products is estim ated at 0 .7 2 , there are approxim ately 502 MMT of sp ecia l carbon steels included in United Nations shipments fig u res. On the m inim um output side, it has been assum ed that this amount is divided equally among the categories "oth er ingots and s e m is" and " s e ctio n s , hotrolled (including b a r s ) ," leaving shipments fig u re s, excluding sp ecial carbon steels, as shown in col. 2. On the m axim um side, it has been assum ed that this amount is all in the category "oth er ingots and s e m is ," leaving shipments figures as shown in co l. 3. 52 T a b l e B—16. F o o t n o t e s ---- C o n t i n u e d Shipments of sp ecia l steels (thousands of m etric tons) P roduct category ( 2) M aximum output (3) 2, 118 1,616 1,616 030 716 175 58 58 81 779 465 175 58 58 81 528 716 175 58 58 81 ( Total Solids fo r sea m less tu b e s-----------------Other ingots and sem is ---------------------S ection s, hot rolled (including b a rs) . W ire r o d s -------------------------------------------Strip— hot r o lle d --------------------------------P lates (3 m m . or m o r e )--------------------Sheets (less than 3 m m . ) -------------------- Estim ated shipm ents of alloy steel, including stainless (thousands of m e tric tons) 1 ) M inim um output s ta in le s s, have been m ade; the fir s t weight products and the secon d , high-w eight p rod u cts, P rod u ct category T o t a l------------------------------Ingots and steel fo r castin g s---B loom , slab s, b ille ts, tube, rounds, skelp, etc ----------------W ire r o d s ---------------- ----------------W ire— d raw n----------------------------W ire p rod u cts---------------------------Structural shapes (heavy) and steel p ilin g ----------------------B a rs— hot rolled (including light s h a p e s )--------------------------B ars— cold fin ish e d ------------------ as follow s: Minimum Maximum output output (thousands of m etric tons) 1.736 1,736 _a/ 324 _a/ 124 a/579 b /4 1 b /1 3 0 (b /) a / 528 b/4 1 b / 125 _c/ 165 c / 300 ( c /) bl S (c, c / 466 _c/ 100 P roduct category----Continued B ars----tool s t e e l------P la t e s -----------------------Sheets— hot rolled — Sheets— cold rolled — Strip— hot r o l l e d ----Strip— cold r o lle d ---Pipe and tubing-------Standard p ip e ------Oil" country g o o d s -----------------Line p i p e ------------M echanical tubing P re s s u r e tubing — M inim um M aximum output output (thousands of m e tric tons) (c/) 58 75 6 d / 29 d / 29 (d /) c / 150 58 40 41 (d /) d /2 9 d / 29 10 11 8 _a/ A lloy crude steel fo r castings (124) has been placed in the "ingots and steel fo r castin g s" category on both sid es. Shipments of "oth er ingots and se m is" from c o ls . 2 and 3 in the previou s tabulation have been distributed among the ingots and sem is categories to em phasize low -w eigh t products on the m inim um side and high-w eight p ro d ucts on the m axim um side. b_j 41 MMT of w ire rods w ere exported (ECSC data). If the rem ainder of w ire rods w ere used to make w ire and w ire p rod ucts, output o f these products was approxim ately 130 MMT (allowing fo r a yield lo ss of 3 p ercen t). _c/ Based on data fo r h o t-r o lle d section s in c o ls. 2 and 3 above. _d/ Based onUnited Nations shipments data for h o t-r o lle d strip. No allow ance has been made fo r yield lo ss from h o t-r o lle d strip to c o ld -r o lle d strip and pipe and tubing. Stainless steel in end p roducts, excluding stainless steel fo r castings, is assum ed to total 160 MMT on the m inimum side (267 tim es an average yield from crude steel of 0.6 0) and 187 MMT (267 x 0. 70) on the m axim um side. Stainless steel for castings has been placed in the "ingots and steel for castin g s" category and is assum ed to be shipped out of the industry in that form . Within this fram ew ork , distributions have been made to em phasize low -w eigh t products on the m inim um side and high-weight products on the m axim um side, as follow s: P roduct category Minimum M aximum output output (thousands of m etric ton s) T o t a l----- -------------------------- 194 221 Ingots and steel c a s t in g s --------B lo o m s, slab s, b ille ts, tube rounds, skelp, etc ----------------W ire r o d s ---------------------------------W ire— drawn — ------------------------■\AZ-j r f» prnriiirts Structural shapes (heavy) and steel p ilin g ------------------- —B ars— hot rolled (including light s h a p e s )-------------------------B a rs— cold fin ish e d ------------------ 34 34 97 - 25 - _ 70 5 0 - 10 40 - P roduct categorv----Continued B ars----tool s t e e l ------------------------P la t e s ------------------------------------------Sheets— hot r o l l e d ---------------------Sheets— cold r o lle d -------------------Strip— hot r o l l e d -----------------------Strip— cold r o lle d ----------------------Pipe and tubing--------------------------Stand a Td pipe - -- -.. O il- country g o o d s -----------------------------------Line pipe ------------------------------M echanical tubing-----------------P re s s u r e tubing -------------------- Minimum M aximum output output (thousands of m etric tons) - 6 29 _ - 2 9 35 - 11 5 _ 5 6 United Nations shipments figure minus shipments fo r con v ersion into other steel p rod u cts. 7 P rod uction figure as given (ECSC) minus estim ated amount in alloy. 8 P rod u ction figxire as given (ECSC) for large plates plus plates ov er 4. 75 m m . minus estim ated amount in alloy and amount used to make welded pipe and tubing, 246 MMT (United Nations figure fo r shipments of plates and sheets 3 m m . and o v er to make pipe and tubing). 9 P roduction figure as given (ECSC) fo r railway m aterial minus amount in join t b a rs and tie plates (figure provided by the ECSC). 10 F igure as provid ed by the ECSC. Includes join t bars and tie plates. 11 Wheels and axles are included in the forgings industry and are not cov ered by labor cost data used fo r this study. Thus, production (175 MMT) has not been included. 12 P roduction figure as given (ECSC) minus estim ated amount in alloy and tool steel and estim ated amount used to p r o duce co ld -fin ish e d ba rs (production fig u re, 638, tim es 1. 10). 13 P roduction figure as given (ECSC). 53 Table B—16. Footnotes----Continued 14 Production figures fo r tool steel are not given in ECSC statistics or in Germ an sta tistics. On the minimum side, tool steel has been allowed (in b a rs), but 150 MMT (all alloy) have been allowed for on the m aximum side. 15 The ECSC production figure fo r pipe and tubing (all qualities) is 2,723 MMT, of which 1,510 MMT are seam less and 1,213 MMT are w elded. The total has been distributed among the various U. S. functional ca tegories em phasizing low'-weight categories on the minimum side and high-weight ca tegories on the m aximum side, as follow s: no Minimum Maximum output output (thousands of m etric tons) Pipe and tubing Standard pipe ------------------------------ __________ O il-cou n try g o o d s ----- ------------- — __________ Line pipe M echanical tubing _________ _ ____ __________ P re s s u r e tubing------------ 1,150 300 1 14Q 124 517 790 517 654 245 Where som e alloy steel has been assum ed, the alloy figure has been subtracted from the appropriate figure fo r all qualities as shown above. 16 P roduction figure fo r drawn w ire (Industrie und Handwerk, Reihe 3) minus production of w ire products and estim ated amount in alloy. 17 P roduction figure as given (Industrie und Handwerk, Reihe 3). 18 The ECSC production figure fo r tin and terne plate is 529 MMT. The relative distribution between the hot-dip and ele ctro ly tic p r o c e s s e s has been estim ated to be the same as the 1965 distribution, which was provided by the ECSC. 19 The ECSC production figure fo r sheets 4.7 5 mm. or le ss plus c o ils , which have been added to h o t-r o lle d sheets, minus the estim ated amounts used to p roduce coated prod ucts, e le c tr ic a l sheets and strip , and c o ld -r o lle d strip. This avoids double counting. Relevant production figures are as follow s: P roauction (thousands of m etric tons) Product category Sheets— hot rolled J>4.7 5 mm ------------------------------Sheets— cold rolled < 4 . 75 mm ---------------------------------Tin and terne p la te -----------------------------------------------------B lack plate -----------------------------------------------------------------Galvanized sheets ------------------------------------------------------Other coated sh e e ts ---------------------------------------------------E le ctrica l sheets and s t r i p ----------------------------------------- 2,066 3,463 529 50 301 45 266 Coated and e le c tr ic a l sheets and strips are assum ed to d erive from hot- and c o ld -r o lle d sheets as follow s: Minimum output (thousands of m etric ton s) P roduct category Total Black p l a t e --------------------------------------------------------------------Tin and terne p la te -------------------------------------------------------Galvanized sheets ---------------------------------------------------------Other coated s h e e ts ------------------------------------------------------E le c tr ica l sheets and s t r i p ------------------------------------------- Cold- rolled sheets Hot- rolled sheets 1. 191 579 612 50 529 301 45 266 50 529 C old- rolled sheets Hot- rolled sheets Maximum output (thousands of m etric to n s) 301 45 266 United Nations shipments data indicate that 426 MMT of plates and sheets 3 m m . and ov er w ere used to make pipe and tubing and 272 MMT to make c o ld -r o lle d strip. It has been assum ed that plates were used to make pipe and tubing, and hotrolled sheets to make c o ld -r o lle d strip. These totals must be subtracted from the total production figures for hot- and c o ld -r o lle d sheets, a n d the estim ated amount of alloy and stainless m ust be subtracted from this figure to a rrive at the figures listed for carbon steel. No yield loss from hot- and c o ld -r o lle d sheets to coated sheets has been allowed. 20 F igure as given (Statistisches Bundesamt). 21 United Nations shipments figure minus amount for con version into other steel products less the estim ated amount in alloy and stain less. 22 The production of e le c tr ic a l sheets and strip (266— ECSC) has been placed entirely in the alloy category on the maximum side; on the m inimum side, 20 p ercen t has been placed in the carbon category and 80 percent in the ailoy category. E lectrica l sheets and strip are not cla ssifie d as alloy steel according to German definitions, but U. S. definitions cla ssify alm ost all of this product as alloy steel. SOURCE: Sidgrurgie (L uxem bourg, S tatistical O ffice of the European Com m unities), 1966-No. 3; Q uarterly Bulletin of Steel Statistics fo r Europe (New York, U. N. E conom ic C om m ission for E urope), vol. XV, No. 4; E isen und Stahl, 4 . V ierteljah resh eft 1965 (D u sseld orf, S tatistisches Bundesamt, A ussenstelle D u sseldorf); M etal B ulletin, F ebruary 26, 1965; and Industrie und Handwerk, Reihe 3, 1965 (W iesbaden, Statistisches Bundesamt). 54 T a b le B —17. G e r m a n y ( F e d e r a l R e p u b l i c ) . E s t im a t e s o f E m p lo y m e n t C o s t f o r W a g e E a r n e r s an d S a l a r i e d E m p l o y e e s , U. S. I n d u s t r y D e f i n i t i o n , 1 I r o n a n d S t e e l I n d u s t r y , 1964 Cost figu res in deutsche m arks z ) W orker category Wage ea rn ers: Em ploym ent 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hours w orked p er year 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total hours w o rk e d 5---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------Labor co st p er hour: W a g e6----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------Total c o s t 7------------------------------ ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Minimum estim ate M aximum estim ate 297,990 1,950 58 1 ,0 8 0 ,5 0 0 297,990 1,990 59 3,00 0,10 0 4. 30 6. 32 4. 58 6. 73 2 ,4 9 8 ,6 4 6 ,1 5 0 3 ,6 7 2 ,4 2 8 ,7 6 0 2 ,7 1 5 ,9 4 0 ,4 5 8 3, 990, 890, 673 62,611 62,611 999 1,419 1, 069 1, 518 Sala rie s , t o ta l11-------------- ---------------------------------- ------- ---------------------------- --------------Total lab or c o s t 11----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- ----------------- 7 5 0 ,5 8 0 ,6 6 8 1 ,0 6 6 ,1 4 0 ,1 0 8 80 3,17 3,90 8 1 ,1 4 0 ,5 2 1 ,9 7 6 Wage earners and sala ried em ploy ees: Wages and sa la ries ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total labor cost ----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- 3 ,2 4 9 ,2 2 6 ,8 1 8 4 ,7 3 8 ,5 6 8 ,8 6 8 3 ,5 1 9 ,1 1 4 ,3 6 6 5, 131,412,649 W ages, to ta l-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------Total labor co st ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ---------------Salaried em ployees: Em ploym ent 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------Labor co st p er month: 5»a.l 3 ry 9 ... - -...... Total lab or c o s t 10-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 But excluding wheels and axles. 2 US$ 1 = 3. 977 DM. 3 Based on data in Industrie und Handwerk, Reihe 1, pertaining to em ployees producing iron and steel products only (i. e. , the data in this se r ie s which are on a "beteilig ten " b a sis). The sou rce gives average y early wage earner em ploym ent, including a p p re n tice s, of 240,186 fo r "b la st fu rn aces, steel m ills , and hot rolling m ills " (Standard Industrial C lassifica tion — System atisches W a ren verzeich is fur die Industriestatistik 1963— number 2710) and 66, 262 fo r "draw ing and cold rolling m ills " (num ber 3010). A ccord in g to data in the S tatistisches Jahrbuch d er E isen - und Stahlindustrie fur 1965, approxim ately 2.7 6 p ercen t (average o f D ecem b er 1963 and D ecem b er 1964 fig u res) of wage earn ers in the iron and steel industry, including forgings and lo ca lly connected establish m en ts, w ere ap p ren tices. Total wage earner em ploym ent is then estim ated to be 240, 186 plus 66, 262 minus the estim ated number of ap p ren tices. 4 B ased on data in Industrie und Handwerk. Reihe 1, pertaining to all em ployees in establishm ents p rim a rily engaged in the production of iron and steel products (i. e. , the data in this se r ie s which are on a "hauptbeteiligten" b a sis), and data on em ploym ent and hours worked from S id g ru rg ie, pertaining to the ECSC portion of the steel industry. The fo r m e r sou rce indicated average y ea rly hours worked by wage e a rn ers, including ap p ren tices, in "b la st fu rn a ces, steel m ills , and hot rolling m ills " and in "drawing and cold rolling m ills " of 1,971 and 2 ,0 1 0 , r e sp ectiv ely . Sidgrurgie indicates average y early hours worked by wage ea rn e rs, excluding ap p ren tices, to be 1,964. 5 E m ploym ent tim es estim ated hours worked p er y ear. 6 Includes pay fo r tim e w orked, at hourly and p iece rates, including p rem ium s fo r ov ertim e, hazardous w ork, e t c ., c o s t-o f-liv in g allow ances, and payment fo r excused absence fo r attendance at union m eetin gs. The m axim um estim ate is the ECSC (Salaires CE C A ) figure fo r d ire c t w ages, pertaining to the ECSC p ortion of the industry. Industrie und Handwerk, Reihe 1, indicates that g ro ss earnings (including bonuses) of wage earners in "drawing and cold rolling m ills " w ere approxim ately 14 p ercen t le ss than those in "b la st fu rn aces, steel m ills , and hot rolling m ills . " Thus, it is assum ed that the average figure fo r the total industry m ust be somewhat le ss than the ECSC figu re. 7 Includes wages plus bonuses (including p roductivity bon uses), holiday and vacation pay, s o c ia l secu rity paym ents, pay ment in kind, and other em ploym ent c o sts . The m axim um estim ate is the ECSC figure fo r total co st, pertaining to the ECSC portion of the industry. The m inimum estim ate is assum ed to be low er than this figu re to the sam e extent that the m inim um wage figure is low er than the m axim um wage fig u re, as explained in footnote 6. 8 Based on data in Industrie und Handwerk. Reihe 1. which indicate sala ried em ploym ent, including a p p ren tices, in "b la st fu rn aces, steel m ills , and hot rolling m ills " and "draw ing and cold rolling m ills " of 50, 934 and 14,972, r esp ectiv ely . (The data are com parable to that used fo r wage ea rn ers, footnote 3. ) A ccord ing to data in the S tatistisches Jahrbuch der E isen - und Stahlindustrie fur 1965. approxim ately 5 p ercen t (average of D ecem b er 1963 and D ecem b er 1964 fig u res) of sala ried em ployees in the iron and steel in d u stries, including forgin gs and lo ca lly connected establish m en ts, w ere appren tices. Total sala ried em ploym ent is then estim ated to be 50, 934 plus 14,972 minus the estim ated number of apprentices (5 p ercen t). 9 The m axim um estim ate is the ECSC (Salaries CECA) figure fo r monthly m onetary rem uneration (1 ,249 DM) pertaining to the ECSC portion of the industry minus the estim ated portion of this figure which related to bonuses and holiday and vacation pay, which is not included in " w a g e s ." These item s have been estim ated to account fo r the sam e p ercen tage of m onetary rem uneration of sala ried em ployees as of wage earners (1 4 .4 p ercen t). Industrie und Handwerk. Reihe 1. indicates that g r o s s earnings (including bonuses) of sala ried em ployees in "drawing and cold rolling m ills " w ere approxim ately 14.5 p ercen t le s s than those in "b la st fu rn aces, steel m ills , and hot rolling m ills . " Thus, as in the ca se o f wages (footnote 6), it is assum ed that the average figure fo r the total industry must be somewhat le ss than the ECSC fig u re. 10 The m axim um estim ate is the ECSC figure fo r total c ost, pertaining to the ECSC portion of the industry. The m inim um estim ate is assum ed to be low er than this figure to the sam e extent that the m inim um sala ry figure is low er than the m axim um salary figu re. “ Monthly co st x 12 x em ploym ent. SOURCE: B ased on data in Salaires CECA, 1964, Social Statistics s e r ie s , 1966-No. 2, and S id g ru rg ie, 1966-No. 3 (L uxem bourg, Statistical O ffice of the European C om m un ities); and Industrie und Handwerk. Reihe 1. 1965 (W iesbaden, S tatistisches Bundesamt). 55 T a b l e B —18. G e r m a n y (F e d e r a l R e p u b lic ). E s tim a te s o f T o ta l H o u rs W o r k e d , U . S. I n d u s t r y D e f i n i t i o n , 1 I r o n a n d S t e e l I n d u s t r y , 19 64 Work. Total hours worked category Wage earner: Minimum ‘ Maximum 5 8 1 ,0 8 0 , 500 5 9 3 ,0 0 0 ,1 0 0 Salaried employees: Minimum 3 ----------Maximum 3----------- 1 2 2 ,0 9 1 ,4 5 0 1 2 4 ,5 9 5 ,8 9 0 Wage earners and salaried employees: M inim um ----------------------------------------------M axim u m ---------------------------------------------- 703, 171, 950 7 1 7 ,5 9 5 ,9 9 0 1 But excluding wheels and axles. 2 From table B~17. 3 Using employment figures from table B ~ 17 and the estimate that salaried employees work the same number of hours per year as wage earners. Table B—19. Germany (Federal Republic). Estim ates of Average Hourly Labor Cost for Wage Earners and Salaried Em ployees, U. S. Industry Definition,1 Iron and Steel Industry, 1964 Worker category Employment cost (in deutsche marks 2) 3 (1) Wage earners: W ages: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------M axim u m ----------------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------M axim u m ----------------------------------------------------Salaried employees: Salaries: M inim um -----------------------------------------------------M axim u m ----------------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ----------------------------------------------------Wage earners and salaried em ployees: Wages and salaries: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------M axim u m ----------------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------M axim u m ----------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 But excluding wheels and axles. US$ 1 = 3. 977 DM. From table B- 17. From table B~ 18. Col. 1 4- col. 2. Hours worked 4 (2) Averag. ; hourly labor cost In deutsche marks 2 5 (3) In dollars (4) 2 ,4 9 8 ,6 4 6 ,1 5 0 2 ,7 1 5 ,9 4 0 ,4 5 8 5 8 1 ,0 8 0 ,5 0 0 5 9 3 ,0 0 0 ,1 0 0 4. 30 4. 58 1. 08 1. 15 3 ,6 7 2 ,4 2 8 ,7 6 0 3, 9 9 0 ,8 9 0 ,6 7 3 581, 080, 500 5 9 3 ,0 0 0 ,1 0 0 6. 32 6. 73 1. 59 1 .69 7 5 0 ,5 8 0 , 668 8 0 3 ,1 7 3 ,9 0 8 1 2 2 ,0 9 1 ,4 5 0 1 2 4 ,5 9 5 , 890 6. 15 6 .4 5 1. 55 1. 62 1 ,0 6 6 ,1 4 0 ,1 0 8 1 ,1 4 0 ,5 2 1 ,9 7 6 1 2 2 ,0 9 1 ,4 5 0 1 2 4 ,5 9 5 ,8 9 0 8 .7 3 9. 15 2. 20 2. 30 3 ,2 4 9 ,2 2 6 ,8 1 8 3 ,5 1 9 ,1 1 4 ,3 6 6 703, 1 71,950 717, 5 9 5 ,9 9 0 4. 62 4. 90 1. 16 1. 23 4 ,7 3 8 ,5 6 8 ,8 6 8 5, 1 3 1 ,4 1 2 ,6 4 9 703, 1 71,950 7 1 7 ,5 9 5 ,9 9 0 6. 74 7. 15 1. 69 1 .8 0 56 Table B—ZO. Germany (F ederal R epublic). Calculation of Unit Labor Cost for Wage E arners and Salaried E m ployees, U. S. Industry D e fin ition ,1 Iron and Steel Industry, 1964 W orker category Employment cost (in deutsche m arks 2) 3 (1) Wage ea rn ers: W ages: M inim um --------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim um --------------------------------------------M a x im u m -------------------------------------------Salaried em ploy ees: S alaries: M inim um --------------------------------------------M a x im u m -------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim um --------------------------------------------M a x im u m -------------------------------------------Wage earners and sala ried em ployees: Wages and sa la rie s: M inim um --------------------------------------------M a x im u m -------------------------------------------Total cost: M inim um --------------------------------------------M a x im u m -------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 But excluding wheels and axles. US$ 1 = 3. 977 DM. F rom table B—17. 1 short ton = 0. 9072 m e tric tons, Col. 1 + co l. 2. W eighted output (thousands of m etric tons 4 ) (2) Unit labor cost per ton M etric tons 4 5 In deutsche m arks 2 (3) In d ollars 2 (4) Short tons 45 In deutsche m arks 2 (5) In d ollars 2 (6) 2 ,4 9 8 ,6 4 6 , 150 2 ,7 1 5 ,9 4 0 ,4 5 8 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 78. 58 97. 75 19. 76 24. 58 71.29 88. 68 17. 93 22. 30 3 ,6 7 2 ,4 2 8 ,7 6 0 3 ,9 9 0 ,8 9 0 ,6 7 3 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 115.50 143.64 29. 04 36. 12 104.78 130.31 26. 35 32. 77 750,58 0,66 8 803, 173, 908 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 23. 61 28. 91 5. 94 7. 27 21.41 26. 22 5. 38 6. 59 1 ,0 6 6 ,1 4 0 ,1 0 8 1, 140, 521,976 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 33. 53 41. 05 8.43 10. 32 30. 42 37. 24 7. 65 9. 36 3 ,2 4 9 ,2 2 6 ,8 1 8 3 ,5 1 9 ,1 1 4 ,3 6 6 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 102. 19 126.66 25. 69 31. 85 92. 70 114.91 23. 31 28. 89 4 ,7 3 8 ,5 6 8 ,8 6 8 5 ,1 3 1 ,4 1 2 ,6 4 9 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 149.03 184.69 37. 47 46. 44 135.20 167.55 33. 99 42. 13 or 1 m etric ton = 1. 1023 short tons. 57 T a b le B —2 1 . G e rm a n y (F e d e r a l R e p u b lic ). E s t i m a t e s o f M a n - H o u r s p e r T o n a n d O u tp u t p e r 1, 0 0 0 M a n - H o u r s , U. S. I n d u s t r y D e f i n i t i o n , 1 I r o n a n d S t e e l I n d u s t r y , 196 4 C alculation of man--hours p er ton W orker category Hours worked 2 (1) Wage earn ers: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- W eighted output (thousands of m e tric tons 3 ) (2) M an-hours p er ton M etric ton 3 4 Short ton 3 (3) (4) 5 8 1,08 0,50 0 5 9 3,00 0,10 0 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 18. 27 21. 34 16. 58 19. 36 12 2,091,450 12 4,595,890 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 3. 84 4. 48 3. 48 4. 07 703, 171,950 71 7,59 5,99 0 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 22. 11 25. 83 20. 06 23. 43 S alaried em ployees: Wage earners and sala ried em p loyees: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C alculation of output pe r 1, 000 m an-hours Weighted output (thousands of m etric tons 1 3)4 2 (1) Hours worked 2 (2) Output p er 1,000 m an-hours M etric tons 3 4 Short tons 3 (3) (4) Wage ea rn ers: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M ax i m um - - __............. ...... ...... 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 59 3 ,0 0 0 .1 5 8 1 ,0 8 0 .5 46. 85 54. 72 51. 65 60. 32 Salaried em ployees: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------M a x im u m ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 1 2 4,59 5.9 1 2 2,09 1.5 222.99 260.44 245.80 287.08 Wage earners and sala ried em ployees: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 7 ,7 8 3 .3 3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 7 1 7 ,5 9 6 .0 7 0 3 ,1 7 2 .0 38. 72 45. 22 42. 68 49. 85 1 2 3 4 But excluding wheels and axles. F rom table B ~ 18. 1 short ton = 0. 9072 m e tric ton, o r 1 m e tric ton = 1. 1023 short tons. Col. 1 4- co l. 2. 58 T a b le B —2 2 . U n it e d K in g d o m . E s t i m a t e o f M in im u m and M a x i m u m W e ig h t e d O u tp u t, I r o n an d S t e e l I n d u s t r y , U . S. I n d u s t r y D e f i n i t i o n , 1 1 96 4 2 (II1 thousands of B ritish standard tons 3) Minimum Product category Production distribution emphazing low -w eight products Weight M aximum W eighted output P roduction distribution emphazing high-weight products 1 8 ,6 3 2 .0 20. 950. 1 Weight Weighted output All product ca tegories ---------------------------- 20,950. 1 C o k e ------------------------------------------------------------------Pig iron and fe r r o a llo y s ----------------------------------- < (4) 5 1,824. 1 0. 06 . 13 237. 1 s (4) 5 1,8 2 4 .1 0. 06 . 13 237. 1 6 1. 5 6. 6 - . 20 . 27 .45 .3 .2 - 6 1. 5 6. 6 - . 20 . 27 . 45 .3 .2 - 7 552.2 7 52 1.6 7 11. 9 . 57 1. 09 2. 15 314. 8 568. 5 25. 6 7 552.2 7 521. 6 7 11.9 . 57 1. 09 2. 15 314. 8 568o 5 25. 6 8 1 ,5 0 4 .7 8 33. 1 8 4. 6 . 80 1.67 6. 06 1,203. 8 55. 3 27. 9 8 1,5 0 4 .7 8 33. 1 84. 6 . 80 1.67 6. 06 1 ,2 0 3 .8 55. 3 27. 9 9 2, 135.6 1048. 7 - .71 1.49 5.85 1,516. 3 72. 6 - 9 2, 135.6 (10) - .71 1.49 5. 85 1,516. 3 - 11 3, 191.6 12 31. 2 12 19. 3 . 67 1.43 5. 60 2 ,1 3 8 .4 44. 6 108. 1 " 3 , 191.6 12 31.2 1219. 3 . 67 1.43 5. 6Q 2 ,1 3 8 .4 44. 6 108. 1 13 317.8 - . 70 1. 56 222. 5 - 13 3 17.8 - . 70 1. 56 222. 5 - Ingots and steel fo r castings: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy------------------------- — --------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------B loom s, slabs, b ille ts, tube rounds, skelp, etc: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy----- -------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------W ire rods: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy..... ........ -------- ------------------------- --------- -----Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Structural shapes (heavy) and steel piling: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------P la te s: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy----- -------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------R ails, standard and all other: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy--------- ------- ---------------------------------- -------Joint b a rs, tie plates, and track spikes: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------Wheels and axles: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy— ........ —------------------------------------------------B ars— hot rolled (including light shapes): C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------- -........... — -------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------B ars— re in forcin g : C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy....................-............................................. ....... B ars— cold finished: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy--------------------------- ---------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------B ars----tool steel: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Standard pipe: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------O il-cou n try goods: Carbon —----- -------------------------------------------------A lloy--------------------------------------------- ------- ---- ---Line pipe: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy---------- --------------------------------------------------M echanical tubing: C arbon ---------------------------------------------------------A lloy........ — ........ — ------- -------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------P re s s u r e tubing: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy------------------------- -----------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------W ire— drawn: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy--------------- ---------------------------------------- -----Stainless ------------------------------------------------------- See footnotes at end of table, 1 9 .6 9 9 .8 14 18. 1 1.46 26. 4 1418. 1 1.46 26. 4 15 59. 2 15 4. 7 1.90 2. 90 112. 5 13. 6 15 59. 2 15 4. 7 L 90 2. 90 112. 5 13. 6 16 1,941. 0 16 195. 0 16 26. 0 . 94 1.47 7. 18 1,8 2 4 .5 286. 7 186. 7 16 1,941. 0 18 24 3. 7 16 26, 0 . 94 1.47 7. 18 1 ,8 2 4 .5 358. 2 186. 7 17 617. 9 - . 68 1.44 420. 2 - 17 617. 9 - . 68 1.44 420. 2 - 17 552. 9 17 71.8 17 4. 8 1.44 2. 43 10. 27 796. 2 174. 5 49. 3 17 552. 9 17 71.8 17 4. 8 1. 44 2. 43 10. 27 796. 2 174. 5 49. 3 18 10. 4 18 33. 1 5.81 10. 45 60. 4 345. 9 18 10. 4 18 33. 1 5.81 10. 45 60. 4 345. 9 19 6 19. 8 (19) (19) 1.26 1.73 8. 13 780. 9 - 19 247. 9 O (19) 1.26 1.73 8. 13 3 12. 4 - (19) (19) 1. 53 2. 12 19 37 1.9 19 22. 1 1. 53 2. 12 569. 0 46. 9 19 6 19. 8 19 120. 6 1. 12 1. 72 694. 2 207. 4 19 247. 9 19 22. 1 1. 12 1. 72 277. 6 38. 0 19 69. 3 2. 31 3.46 18. 33 160. 1 o (19) 19 317. 2 19 55. 3 (19) 2. 31 3.46 18. 33 732. 7 191. 3 (19) o (19) 3. 17 5. 18 18. 93 19 124. 0 19 11. 1 19 10. 0 3. 17 5. 18 18. 93 393. 1 57. 5 189. 3 (20) (20) (2°) 1. 75 2. 88 10. 54 (20) (2°) (20) 1. 75 2. 88 10. 54 - - _ - - - _ - 59 T a b le B —2 2 . U n it e d K i n g d o m . E s t i m a t e o f M in im u m an d M a x i m u m W e ig h t e d O u tp u t, I r o n a n d S t e e l I n d u s t r y , U . S. I n d u s t r y D e f i n i t i o n , 1 196 4 2— C o n tin u e d (In thousands of B ritish standard tons 3) Minimum Production distribution emphazing low -w eight products P roduct category W ire p rod ucts: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Black plate: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------Tin and terne plate— hot dipped: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------Tin plate— e le c tr o ly tic : C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------Sheets— hot rolled: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy--------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Sheets— cold ro lle d : C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy--------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Sh e et s— g al vani z e d : C arbon ---------------------------------------------- ------- ----A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Strip— hot rolled: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy--------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Strip— cold rolled: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy-------------------------------------------------------------Stainless ------------------------------------------------------Sheets— all other coated: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------E le c tr ica l sheets and strip: C arbon ----------------------------------------------------------A lloy--------------------------------------------------------------- (2°) (“ ) M aximum Weighted output Weight 2. 22 10. 80 P roduction distribution emphazing high-w eight products (2°) (20) - Weight 2. 22 10. 80 Weighted output _ 17 30. 8 . 94 29. 0 17 30. 8 . 94 29. 0 17 231. 1 1.47 339. 7 17 231. 1 1.47 339. 7 17 922. 7 1. 08 996.5 17 922. 7 1.08 996. 5 21 429. 4 22 2. 2 23 19. 2 . 59 1. 14 1. 78 253. 3 2. 5 34. 2 21 429. 4 22 2. 2 (23) .5 9 1. 14 1.78 253. 3 2. 5 _ 24 2, 350. 1 25 2 .0 23 19. 3 . 73 1. 30 6. 76 1,715. 6 2. 6 130. 5 24 2, 350. 1 25 2. 0 23 38 . 5 . 73 1. 30 6. 76 1,715. 6 2 .6 260. 3 17 311. 1 - . 94 1.61 292.4 - 17 311. 1 - . 94 1.61 292. 4 - 26 520. 2 27 2. 5 (28) 1. 01 1. 30 3. 52 525.4 3. 3 - 26520. 2 27 2. 5 (28) 1. 01 1. 30 3. 52 525.4 3. 3 - 26 5 2 9. 5 29 1.7 30 14. 1 1.74 12. 74 5. 85 921.3 21.7 82. 5 26 529. 5 29 1. 7 30 14. 1 1.74 12. 74 5. 85 921. 3 21.7 82. 5 17 176. 8 1. 01 176. 8 17 178. 6 1. 01 178. 6 31 44. 9 31 179. 6 1.76 1. 94 79. 0 348.4 (31) 31 224. 5 1.76 1. 94 435. 5 _ 1 The follow ing p r o c e s s e s , included in the U. K. industry definition but not included in the U. S. definition, have been excluded from the U. K. data fo r the purposes of this study: Iron ore m ines and q u a rries, fo r g e s and a n cilla ry p r o c e s s e s (other than drop fo r g e s ), steel foundries and a n cilla ry p r o c e s s e s (including m elting fo r m anufacture of steel castin g s), and wrought iron m anufacture. W ire and w ire products are excluded from the U. K. definition but are included in the U. S. d e fi nition. These 2 ca te g o rie s, h ow ever, have not been added to the U. K. definition, sin ce the n e ce ssa ry data are not available. 2 53 w eeks. 3 1 B ritish standard ton = 1.016 m e tric tons or 1. 120 short tons. 4 No net shipments of coke out of the industry are allow ed, sin ce consum ption by the industry was 12, 364 thousand B ritish standard tons (h ereafter r e fe rre d to as M B T), while production by the steel industry totaled 1 1,530 M BT. 5 P roduction of pig iron ( 17, 105. 2 M BT) plus im ports (335. 8 M B T ) minus consum ption in the steel industry (15, 616. 9 M B T). 6 E xports of ingots. 7 Shipments of ingots and sem ifinish ed products out of the steel industry, excluding shipm ents to make "forgin g s (e x cluding drop fo r g in g s )," fro m U. K. sou rce (Iron and Steel Annual S ta tistics), plus estim ated quantity shipped to make "forg in g s (excluding drop fo rg in g s)" minus exports of ingots. 8 Total shipments m inus shipm ents fo r intraindustry conversion (other than fo r w ire and w ire p rod u cts). It has been estim ated that the ratio o f shipm ents fo r con v ersion (144. 1 MBT all qualities) to total shipm ents (1 ,685 . 7 M BT----- all qualities) is the sam e fo r carbon, alloy , and stainless w ire rods. 9 U. K. shipments figu re fo r "oth er h e a v y -ro lle d p rod u cts" minus shipments fo r intraindustry con v ersion . 10 On the m inim um output sid e, 20 p ercen t of alloy steel (minus shipm ents fo r con v ersion ) reported in U. K. data under "oth er lig h t-ro lle d section s and h o t-r o lle d b a rs " has been placed in the structural shapes ca tegory . See footnote 16. 11 U. K. shipm ents figu re fo r carbon plates 3 m m . and ov er minus shipments of plates (all qu alities) fo r intraindustry con v ersion (81. 1 M BT). 12 U. K. shipm ents figu re fo r plates o v e r 0.176 inches. 13 U. K. shipments fig u res fo r heavy rails plus shipm ents of light rails and a c c e s s o r ie s and s le e p e rs . 14 Includes fishplates and solep lates. 15 U. K. shipments figu re fo r tir e s , w h eels, ax les, and rolled rings. 16 U .K . shipm ents figu re fo r "oth er lig h t-r o lle d section s and h o t-r o lle d b a rs " plus shipm ents of "a r c h e s " minus shipments fo r intraindustry co n v e rsio n . Of total shipm ents o f "a r c h e s , light rails and a c c e s s o r ie s " (353. 7 M B T), 337. 1 MBT w ere in arch es and 16.6 MBT in light rails and a c c e s s o r ie s . Of total shipments fo r con v ersion (639.6 M B T), 51 2 .4 MBT w ere for bright steel b a rs, 126.6 M BT fo r tubes, and 0 .6 MBT fo r other p u rposes. It has been estim ated that of the 51 2.4 MBT fo r bright steel b a rs, 6 3 .0 MBT w ere alloy (excluding stain less) and 4 .1 MBT w ere stain less. Of the 126.6 MBT fo r tubes, an estim ated 120 MBT w ere alloy. The result is as fo llo w s: B a rs— hot rolled Without deduction With deduction fo r con version fo r con v ersion (thousands of B ritish standard tons) T o t a l ........................................................ 2.8 50. 3 2. 210.7 C arbon -----------------------------------------------------A lloy ---------------------------------------------------------Stainless -------------------------------------------------- 2, 393.5 42 6.7 30. 1 1 ,9 4 1 .0 243.7 26. 0 60 Table B~22. Footnotes— Continued U. K. data include shipments of alloy steel heavy structural shapes ("oth er h e a v y -rolled p rod u cts") with figu res for hotrolled bars and light shapes ("oth er lig h t-r o lle d section s and h o t-ro lle d b a r s "). T h erefore, on the m inimum output side, 20 p ercen t of the alloy figure (243.7 M BT) has been placed in the structural shapes category; on the m aximum output side, all alloy has been placed in the h o t-r o lle d bars and light section s category. 17 U. K. shipm ents figure as given. 18 U. K. shipments figure fo r "h ig h -sp eed and other tool and magnet s t e e l." 19 U. K. shipments data on pipe and tubing are as follow s: Shipments (thousands of B ritish standard ton s) Pipe and tubing Carbon tubes and pipes (excluding welded tubes ov er 16 inches outside d iam eter) -E le c tr ic cond uit-------------------------------------Oth e r : W eld ed ------------------------ ----------------------W eld less--------------------------------------------Carbon tube and pipe fittings (excluding fla n g e s) -----------------------------------------------------A lloy tubes and pipes (including stainless) 1 ,2 8 8 .0 48. 4 767. 5 472. 1 20 . 9 120 . 6 On both the m inimum and m axim um output sides, e le c tr ic conduit and tube and pipe fittings have been placed in the m echanical tubing category. On the m inimum side, the rem ainder of the carbon pipe and tubing (welded and w eld less) has been divided evenly between standard and line pipe. All alloy steel has been placed in the line pipe category , and no stainless steel has been allow ed. On the m axim um side, 10 MBT of stainless have been allov/ed and the rem ainder of alloy and carbon steel has been distributed to em phasize high-w eight p roducts. The 2 distributions are as follow s: Minimum output Maximum output _____ ______ (thousands of B ritish standard tons)_____________ Carbon Pipe and tubing T o t a l-------- ------------------------------- ,3 0 8 .9 Standard pipe -----------------------------------O il-cou n try g o o d s ----------------------------Line pipe ------------------------------------------M echanical tubing----------------------------P re s su r e tubing ------------------------------- 619. 8 - 619. 8 69. 3 - Alloy 120. 6 _ - 120. 6 - Carbon 1 .3 0 8 .9 247. 37 1. 247. 317. 124. 9 9 9 2 0 Alloy Stainless 110. 6 10 _ - 22. 22. 55. 11. 1 1 3 1 - 10 20 W ire and w ire products are not within the U. K. definition of the steel industry, and appropriate data are not available fo r these prod ucts. M aterial fo r con version to w ire and w ire products is included in shipments of w ire rods. 21 U. K. shipments figure fo r h o t-r o lle d uncoated sheets under 3 m m. minus shipm ents for con version into other steel products (484. 3 M BT). 22 U. K. shipments figure fo r alloy h o t-r o lle d sheets 0. 176 inches and under. 23 U. K. shipments figure for stainless hot- and c o ld -r o lle d sheets 0.176 inches and under minus shipments for in tra industry con v ersion (7 .4 M BT) is 38.5 M BT. On the m inimum side, this amount has been divided equally between hot- and c o ld -r o lle d sheets. On the maximum sid e, the total amount has been placed in the c o ld -r o lle d category. 24 U. K. shipments figure fo r c o ld -r o lle d uncoated sheets under 3 m m. (excluding e le c tr ic a l) minus shipments fo r con version into other steel products (5 .4 M BT). 25 U. K. shipments figure fo r alloy c o ld -r o lle d sheets 0. 176 inches and under. 26 U. K. shipments figure as given minus shipments fo r con v ersion into other steel products (171. 1M BT). 27 Estim ated shipments minus estim ated shipments for con version into other steel products. 28 All s t a in le ss st rip has been pl a c e d in the cold -rolled ca te g or y. 29 Shipments estim ated from production data. 30 U. K. shipments of stainless strip, minus shipments fo r con version into other steel products (2. 1 M BT). 31 E le c tr ica l sheets do not fall within the U. K. definition of alloy steel, but alm ost all e le c tr ic a l steel in the United States falls within the U. S. definition of alloy steel. On the minimum side, 20 percent of the U. K. shipments figure (224.5 M BT) has been placed in the carbon category , and on the maximum side, the total amount has been placed in the alloy category. SOURCE: Iron and Steel Annual S tatistics, 1964 (London, Iron and Steel Board and the B ritish Iron and Steel F ederation, 1965). 61 Table B~23. United Kingdom . E stim ates of E m ploym ent Cost fo r Wage E arners and S alaried E m p loyees, U. S. Industry D efinition, 1 Iron and Steel Industry, 1964 (Earnings and em ploym ent cost in p ou n d s2 ) A verage weekly earnings 4 W orker category and p r o c e s s A verage numb e r D e ce m D e ce m of p ersons b er ber at work 3 1963 5 1964 6 (1) P r o c e s s w ork ers -------------------- 119,856 Coke ovens at blast fu rn a c e s ---------------------------4, 866 B last furnaces and sintering p la n t s --------------10,808 Steel m elting furnaces and a n cilla ry p r o c e s s e s (ex cluding m elting fo r manu facture of steel castings ---------------------------20,559 Rolling m ills and an cilla ry p r o c e s s e s (excluding wrought iron , sheet, and tinplate rolling, but in cluding bright b a r s ) --------49,386 12,832 Sheet m i l l s ------------------------3, 142 Tinplate m anu facture--------Steel tubes, p ipes, and fittings (excluding welded tubes ov er 16 inches out side d ia m e te r )-----------------18,263 G eneral and m aintenance w orkers a ssocia ted with above p r o c e s s e s ------------------- 12 89. 134 Wage ea rn e rs, t o t a l----- Wage earners and salaried em p loyees, to ta l------------------- A ggregate em ploym ent cost E sti mated m ax i mum annual a v e r age 8 (5) (2) (3) - - - _ 17. 15 18. 60 17. 52 18. 24 17.40 18. 15 17. 59 20. 15 20. 50 18. 70 20. 20 20. 05 16. 25 Wages and sa la ries Total cost Minimum estim ate 9 M aximum estim ate 10 Minimum estim ate 11 (6) (7) (8) M aximum estim ate 11 (9) 108,766,755 114,99 3,92 2 _ 4 ,1 0 9 ,1 4 6 4 ,4 1 1 ,1 7 3 . 17. 97 9 ,1 6 3 ,3 4 5 9 ,6 5 2 ,7 3 4 20. 24 20.42 20 ,0 5 6 ,6 9 5 2 0 ,8 6 4 ,8 0 6 19. 65 21. 35 21. 00 18. 94 20. 49 20. 25 19.42 21. 07 20. 87 4 5 ,0 8 4 ,8 8 2 12,673 ,313 3,0 6 6 ,7 7 3 4 7 ,6 6 6 ,0 7 7 13 ,437 ,389 3 ,2 5 9 ,0 2 8 17. 65 16. 60 17. 30 14,612,601 15 ,702,715 13 17. 80 13 18. 70 18. 02 18. 48 7 6 .6 1 5 ,5 0 2 8 1 ,0 4 2 .2 0 4 - - 17. 52 18. 24 208,990 Salaried em ployees, total: A d m in istrative, tech n ical, and c le r ic a l em ployees a ssocia ted with above p r o c e s s e s 14— 12 50, 017 E sti mated m in i mum annual a v e r age 7 (4) - - 1317. 15 13 18. 60 259,007 _ 185,382,257 19 6,036,126 21 4 ,0 6 7 ,2 0 0 2 2 6 ,3 6 9 ,6 0 0 4 1 ,2 7 3 ,6 3 6 4 3 ,3 3 4 ,7 2 5 4 7 ,6 6 0 .1 0 0 5 0 .0 4 0 ,1 0 0 22 6,65 5,89 3 239,37 0,85 1 26 1 ,7 2 7 ,3 0 0 2 7 6 ,4 0 9 ,7 0 0 - 1 But excluding w ire and w ire prod ucts. 2 US$ 1 = 0. 3584 pound. 3 A verage of figures relating to 1 week in each month. 4 Gross a v e r a g e pa ym e n ts to p e r s o n s at w o r k (d uri ng any p a r t of the su r v e y w e e k ), including c o st-o f-living a ll o w a n c e and prem ium s fo r overtim e and weekend w ork, etc. 5 Week ended D ecem b er 7. 6 Week ended D ecem b er 5. 7 (D ecem ber 1963 + D ecem b er 1964) (D ecem ber 8 2 )~ ( (D ecem ber 1963 + D ecem b er 1964) (D ecem ber 1964 - D ecem b er 1963) 4 )• 1964 - D ecem b er 1963) ( 2 )+ ( ~1 )• 9 F or p ro c e s s w o rk e rs, co l. 1 x co l. 4 x 4 8 .2 ; fo r general and maintenance w o rk e rs, c o l. 1 x c o l. 4 x 4 7 .7 ; and fo r sala ried em ploy ees, co l. 1 x co l. 2 x 4 7 .1 . To the extent that 4 8 .2 , 4 7 .7 , and 47 .1 are le ss than 52, allow ance is made fo r days not worked but paid fo r becau se of sick n e ss, holid ays, or vacations. I F o r p ro c e s s w o rk e rs, co l. 1 x co l. 5 x 4 9 .7 ; fo r general and maintenance w ork ers, c o l. 1 x c o l. 5 x 4 9 .2 ; and fo r sala ried em ploy ees, co l. 1 x co l. 5 x 4 7 .5 . To the extent that 49. 7, 4 9 .2 , and 47. 5 are less than 52, the allowance is made fo r days not worked but paid fo r becau se of sick n e ss, holid ays, or vacations. II A survey by the M inistry of Labour indicates that supplem entary benefits accounted fo r 13.4 p ercen t of total labor cost fo r wage earners and sala ried em ployees together in 1964. The follow ing item s w ere included in the survey as supplem entary ben efits: Holidays and vacations, absence due to sick n ess and injury, statutory National Insurance contributions, private so cia l w elfare paym ents, payments in kind, subsidized s e r v ic e s , recru itm ent and training expen ses, p rofit sharing bonuses and pay m ents, and other lab or co st. It is assum ed here that 13.4 p ercen t of both wage earner labor co st and sala ried em ployee labor co st is in supplem entary ben efits. 12 P artia lly estim ated on the ba sis of data furnished by the Iron and Steel B oard. 13 Includes approxim ately 6,0 00 w ork ers in p r o c e s s e s not cov ered by this study, but included in the U. K. definition of the steel industry. 14 E xcludes som e central adm inistrative o ffic e s . SOURCE: B ased on data fro m Iron and Steel Annual S tatistics, 1964 (London, Iron and Steel B oard and the B ritish Iron and Steel F ederation), and fro m the M inistry of L abour, in conjunction with aggregate data furnished by the B ritish Iron and Steel B oard. 62 T a b le B -2 4 . U n ited K in g d o m . E s t im a t e s o f T o ta l H o u rs W o rk e d , U. S. In d u stry D e fin itio n , 1 Iro n and S te e l I n d u s try , 1964 W orker category Average number of persons at work 2 Minimum estimate * Maximum estimate 5 (3) (4) _ 4 2.8 43. 1 260,347,046 10,038,373 22,452,765 268 ,4 49 ,1 35 10,350,771 2 3,1 5 1,5 0 3 20,559 43. 3 4 2,907,881 4 4 ,2 4 3 , 189 49,386 12,832 3, 142 4 5.9 45. 0 4 2 .8 109,260,579 27,8 3 2,6 0 8 6 ,4 8 1 ,8 4 0 112,660,805 28,6 9 8,7 6 8 6 ,68 3 ,55 7 18,263 47. 0 4 1,3 7 3 ,0 0 0 4 2,6 6 0 ,5 4 2 68 9 .134 7 46. 1 196.002.973 202.166.588 456 ,3 50 ,0 19 4 70 ,6 15 ,7 23 Total wage earn ers ----------------------------------------- ------------------- 208,990 , Salaried em ployees: A dm inistrative, tech nical, and c le r ic a l em ployees a ssocia ted with above p r o c e s s e s 8 -------------------------------- 6 50. 017 Wage earners and sala ried em p loy ees, to ta l------------------------------- Total hours worked 119,856 4, 866 10,808 (1) P r o c e s s w o r k e r s ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Coke ovens at bla st fu rn a c e s -------------------------------------------------- — B last fu rn aces and sintering p la n t s ------------------------------------ — Steel m elting fu rn aces and an cilla ry p r o c e s s e s (excluding m elting fo r m anufacture o f steel c a stin g s)---------------------------R olling m ills and a n cilla ry p r o c e s s e s (excluding wrought iro n , sheet, and tin plate rolling but including bright b a r s )—--------------------------------------------------------------------------Sheet m i l l s -------------------------------------------- *----------------------------------Tinplate m an u factu re---------------------------------------------------------------Steel tubes, p ipes, and fittings (excluding w elded tubes o v er 16 inches outside d ia m e t e r )------------------------------------------G eneral and m aintenance w ork ers a ssocia ted with above p r o c e s s e s --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average weekly hours worked December 1964 3 (2) 259,007 7 39. 1 - 92.1 1 1.8 2 2 92.8 9 4.0 8 8 548,461,841 563,509,811 1 But excluding w ire and w ire p rod ucts. 2 A verage of figures relating to 1 week in each month. 3 Week ended D ecem b er 5. 4 F or p r o c e s s w o rk e rs, c o l. 1 x co l. 2 x 4 8 .2 ; for general and maintenance workers, col. 1 x col. 2 x 4 7 .7 ; and for sala ried em p loy ees, col. 1 x* co l. 2 x 4 7 .1 . To the extent that 48. 2, 4 7 .7 , and 47.1 are less than 52, allowance is made fo r days not w orked because of sick n e ss, holidays, or vacations. 5 F o r p r o c e s s w o rk e rs, co l. 1 x co l. 2 x 4 9 .7 ; for general and maintenance workers, col. 1 x col. 2 x 4 9 .2 ; and for sa la ried em p loy ees, co l. 1 x c o l. 2 x 4 7 .5 . To the extent that 4 9 .7 , 4 9 .2 , and 4 7.5 are less than 52, allowance is made fo r days not worked because of sick n e ss, holidays, or vacations. 6 P artia lly estim ated, on the ba sis of data furnished by the Iron and Steel Board. 7 Includes approxim ately 6, 000 w ork ers in processes not covered by this study, but included in the U. K. definition of the steel industry. 8 E xcludes som e central adm inistrative o ffic e s . SOURCE: Based on data from Iron and Steel Annual Statistics. 1964 (London, Iron and Steel Board and the British Iron and Steel F ederation ), in conjunction with aggregate data furnished by the British Iron and Steel Board. 63 Table B—25. United Kingdom. Estimates of Average Hourly Labor Cost for Wage Earners and Salaried Employees, U. S. Industry Definition, 1 Iron and Steel Industry, 1964 Employment cost (thousands of pounds 2) 3 Worker category Wage earners; Wages; Minimum----------------------------------------------------------------Maxim um---------------------------------------------------------------Total cost; Minimum----------------------------------------------------------------Maxim um---------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 In shillings and pence 2 s. d. In U. S, dollars 2 4 56 ,3 50 .0 4 70 ,6 15 .7 0.4062 .4166 8 8 1 4 1. 13 1. 16 214 ,0 67 .2 226 ,3 69 .6 4 5 6 ,3 5 0 .0 470, 615. 7 .4691 .4810 9 9 5 7 1. 31 1. 34 4 1 ,2 7 3 .6 4 3 ,3 3 4 .7 9 2,1 1 1.8 9 2,8 9 4.1 . 4481 .4665 8 9 12 4 1.25 1. 30 4 7 ,6 6 0 .1 50, 040. 1 92, 111.8 92,8 9 4.1 . 5174 . 5387 10 10 4 9 1.44 1. 50 2 2 6 ,6 55 .9 2 3 9 ,3 70 .9 5 48 ,461.8 5 63,509.8 .4133 . 4248 8 8 3 6 1. 15 1. 19 2 61 ,7 27 .3 276 ,4 09 .7 5 48,461.8 5 63 ,509.8 . 4772 . 4905 9 9 6 10 1. 33 1. 37 But excluding wire and wire products. US$ 1 = 0. 3584 pound; 1 pound = 20 shillings; 1 shilling = 12 pence. From table B—23; From table B—24. Table B~26. United Kingdom. Calculation of Unit Labor Cost for Wage Earners and Salaried Employees, U. S. Industry Definition, 1 Iron and Steel Industry, 1964 Worker category Wage earners: Wages: Minimum-------------------------------------------------Maxim um------------------------------------------------Total cost: Minimum-------------------------------------------------Maximum--------- ---------------------------------------Salaried employees: Salaries: Minimum_________________________________ Maximum------------------------------------------------Total cost: Minimum-------------------------------------------------Maximum------------------------------------------------Wage earners and salaried employees: Wages and salaries: Minimum-------------------------------------------------Maximum------------------------------------------------Total cost: Minimum-------------------------------------------------Maxim um------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average hourly labor cost In pounds 2 185,382.3 196, 036. 1 Salaried employees; Salaries; Minimum----------------------------------------------------------------Maximum ---------------------------------------------------------------Total cost: Minimum----------------------------------------------------------------M axim um---------------------------------------------------------------Wage earners and salaried employees: Wages and salaries: Minimum----------------------------------------------------------------Maxim um---------------------------------------------------------------Total cost: Minimum----------------------------------------------------------------Maximum--------------------------------------------------------------- Hours worked (thousands) 4 Unit labor cost per ton Employment cost (pounds 2) 3 Weighted output (thousands of British standard tons 4) 56 ( 1) (2 ) (3) In U.S. dollars 2 (4) 185, 3 8 2 ,3 0 0 196, 0 3 6 ,1 0 0 19, 328. 1 18, 2 8 0 . 5 9 .5 9 1 0 . 74 26. 76 29.92 8. 56 9. 58 2 3 . 89 2 1 4 , 0 6 7 ,2 0 0 226, 3 6 9 ,6 0 0 19, 3 28. 1 18, 280. 5 11. 08 1 2 . 38 30. 90 34. 35 9. 89 11. 06 27. 59 30. 85 4 1 , 2 7 3 ,6 0 0 4 3 , 3 3 4 ,7 0 0 19, 328. 1 18, 2 8 0 .5 2 . 14 2 . 37 5. 96 6. 62 1. 91 2. 12 5. 32 5. 91 4 7 , 6 6 0 ,1 0 0 50, 0 4 0 ,1 0 0 19, 328. 1 18, 280. 5 2 .4 7 2 . 74 6. 88 7. 64 2. 20 2. 44 6. 14 6. 82 226, 6 5 5 ,9 0 0 239, 3 7 0 ,9 0 0 19, 3 2 8 . 1 18, 280. 5 11.7 3 1 3 . 09 32. 72 36. 53 10. 47 11.69 29. 21 32. 62 261, 7 2 7 ,3 0 0 276, 4 0 9 ,7 0 0 19, 328. 1 18, 280. 5 1 3 . 54 1 5 . 12 37. 78 42. 19 12. 09 13.50 33.73 37.67 Short ton 4 British standard ton4 In pounds 2 6 In pounds 2 (5) But excluding wire and wire products. US$ 1 = 0. 3584 pound. From table B—23. 1 British standard ton = 1.12 short tons, or 1 short ton = 0.8929 British standard ton. Figures from table B—22 reduced by l/ 53 , to adjust for 53-w'eek year to which the output data apply. Col. 1 4- col. 2. In U. S. dollars 2 (6) 26. 71 64 Table B—27. United Kingdom . Man-Hours p er Ton and Output p er 1, 000 M an-H ours, U .S . Industry Definition, 1 Iron and Steel Industry, 1964 C alculation of m an-hours p er ton (1) Weighted output (thousands of B ritish standard tons 3 ) 4 (2) B ritish standard to n 35 (3) Wage earn ers: M inim um -------------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- 45 6,35 0,01 9 47 0,61 5,72 3 19 ,328 .1 18, 280. 5 23. 61 25. 74 21. 09 22.99 Salaried em p loy ees: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 92, 111,822 92 ,894 ,088 19 ,3 2 8 .1 1 8 ,2 8 0 .5 4. 77 5. 08 4. 23 4. 54 Wage earners and sala ried em p loyees: M inim um -------------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 548,461,841 56 3,509,811 19 ,328 .1 1 8 ,2 8 0 .5 28. 38 30. 83 25. 34 27. 52 W orker category Hours worked 2 M an-hours p er ton Short t o n 3 (4) Calculation of output per 1,000 m an-hours Weighted output (thousands of B ritish standard tons 3) 4 (1) Output per 1, 000 m an-hours Hours worked 2 (2) B ritish standard tons 3 5 (3) 18 ,2 8 0 .5 19,328. 1 4 7 0 ,6 1 5 .7 456, 350. 0 32. 84 42. 35 43. 51 47. 44 Salaried em p loyees: M inim um -------------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18 ,280 .5 19, 328. 1 9 2 ,8 9 4 .1 9 2 , 1 1 1 .8 196.79 209.83 220. 40 235.01 Wage earners and sala ried em ployees: M inim um -------------------------------------------------------------------------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 8 ,280 .5 19, 328. 1 563, 509. 8 548,461. 8 32.44 35. 24 36. 33 39.47 Wage ea rn ers: M inim um ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------M a x im u m ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Short tons 3 (4) But excluding w ire and w ire p roducts. F rom table B—24. 1 B ritish standard ton = 1. 12 short tons, or 1 short ton = 0.8929 B ritish standard ton. F igu res from table B—22 reduced by Vs3 » to adjust fo r 53-week year to which the output data apply. C ol. 1 4 - co l. 2. ☆ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1968 O - 296-356