View original document

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