The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Internet address: http://stats.bls.gov/flshome.htm
Technical information: (202) 606-5654
Media contact: (202) 606-5902
USDL: 98-38
For Release: 10:00 A.M. EST
Monday, February 9, 1998
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF HOURLY COMPENSATION COSTS
FOR PRODUCTION WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING
UPDATED DATA FOR 1996
Data from new labor cost surveys for Japan and European Union countries have been
incorporated on a preliminary basis into the international comparisons series of hourly
compensation costs for production workers in manufacturing by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. The series also include more current earnings and
additional compensation data for those and other countries. Also, 1996 data are now
available for four additional countries. With the exception of France and Finland, the
position of each country and country group relative to the United States is similar to that
presented in the June 27, 1997 News Release (USDL: 97-213).
For the 28 foreign economies studied, the trade-weighted average hourly
compensation costs for production workers in manufacturing were about 90 percent of the
United States cost level in 1996. Between 1995 and 1996, costs in Canada rose slightly
to 94 percent of the U.S. costs, while Mexico's costs declined to 8 percent of U.S. costs.
Labor costs in Europe and Japan remained above U.S. costs, but costs in Japan fell below
the average cost level in Europe for the first time since 1992. The Asian newly
industrialized economies (NIEs) experienced a relative rise in compensation costs to 39
percent of U.S. costs. (See charts 1 and 2.)
Chart 1. Hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars
for production workers in manufacturing, 1975-96
PRINTED COPY CONTAINS CHART AT THIS POINT.
BOX: A NOTE ON THE MEASURES
The hourly compensation measures in this news release are based on statistics available
to BLS as of November 1997. They are prepared specifically for international comparisons of
employer labor costs in manufacturing. The methods used, as well as the results, differ
somewhat from those for other BLS series on U.S. compensation costs.
Total compensation costs include pay for time worked, other direct pay (including
holiday and vacation pay, bonuses, other direct payments, and the cost of pay in kind),
employer expenditures for legally required insurance programs and contractual and private
benefit plans, and, for some countries, other labor taxes.
Labor cost measures: The compensation measures are computed in national currency units and
are converted into U.S. dollars at prevailing commercial market currency exchange rates. They
are appropriate measures for comparing levels of employer labor costs, but they do not
indicate relative living standards of workers or the purchasing power of their incomes.
Prices of goods and services vary greatly among countries, and commercial market exchange
rates do not reliably indicate relative differences in prices.
Data limitations: Because hourly compensation is partly estimated, these statistics should
not be considered as precise measures of comparative compensation costs. Data are subject to
revision in the next update. The comparative level figures are averages for all manufacturing
industries and are not necessarily representative of all component industries.
For further information regarding definitions, sources, and computation methods and a
description of the trade-weighted measures and economic groups, see the Technical Notes.
END OF BOX (A NOTE ON THE MEASURES)
1996 compensation costs
In the United States, hourly compensation costs for manufacturing production
workers increased 3 percent from 1995 to $17.70 in 1996. In U.S. dollars, Canada's
compensation costs rose 3.9 percent to $16.66, and Mexico's declined 0.7 percent to
$1.50. (See tables A and 2.)
Trade-weighted measures of hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars for Europe
increased slightly (1.2 percent) to $22.37, whereas the trade-weighted average of the
Asian NIEs rose 6.9 percent to $6.87. Overall, the trade-weighted average for the 28
countries studied remained relatively unchanged.
Changes over time in relative compensation cost levels in U.S. dollars are affected by
the differences in underlying national wage and benefit trends measured in national
currencies, as well as frequent and sometimes sharp changes in relative values of currency
exchange rates. A country's compensation costs expressed in U.S. dollars are calculated
by dividing compensation costs in national currency by the exchange rate (expressed as
national currency units per U.S. dollar).
Measured in national currency terms, only Japan and eight European countries
experienced a slower rate of increase in compensation costs from the previous year than
the United States.
The 1995-1996 change for Canada in national currency units was slightly above the
United States level at 3.2 percent, while Mexico's 18.1 percent increase in hourly
compensation costs was the highest of all countries studied.
The trade-weighted average of wage and benefit increases in Europe, on a national
currency basis, was 3.3 percent from 1995 to 1996, also slightly above the U.S rate of
increase. Among the Asian NIEs, the trade-weighted average compensation cost increase
was 9.4 percent. The trade-weighted average increase for all 28 foreign economies was
5.4 percent.
The U.S. dollar's strength relative to other nations' currencies offset increases in
hourly compensation costs measured in national currencies and led to declines or smaller
increases in hourly compensation costs measured in U.S. dollars.
Thus, hourly compensation costs in Japan declined by 12.4 percent in 1996 when
measured in U.S. dollars. The 18.1 percent increase in Mexican hourly compensation
costs on a national currency basis was more than offset by Mexico's currency
depreciation, so that hourly compensation measured in U.S. dollars declined slightly. In
contrast, Canada's slight currency appreciation boosted its hourly compensation growth
rate to almost 4 percent on a U.S. dollar basis.
Owing to declines in the average trade-weighted currency values, hourly
compensation cost increases in 1996 in Europe, the Asian NIEs, and the composite of all
28 foreign economies studied were lower when measured in U.S. dollars than when
measured on a national currency basis.
Chart 2. Indexes of hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars
for production workers in manufacturing, 1996 (U.S. = 100)
PRINTED COPY CONTAINS CHART AT THIS POINT.
Table A.
Percent change, 1995-96
Hourly compensation costs, in national currency and in U.S. dollars,
for production workers in manufacturing
and exchange rates (U.S. dollars per national currency unit)
Country
or area
United States
Canada
Mexico
Australia
Hong Kong
National
currency
Exchange
rates
U.S.
dollar
3.0
3.2
18.1
.7
-15.6
3.0
3.9
-.7
4.9
6.5
5.7
.0
10.9
6.6
Israel
Japan
Korea
New Zealand
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
13.9
1.4
15.8
4.1
12.9
8.3
3.8
-8.4
-13.6
-4.1
4.8
.5
-7.3
-3.5
4.3
-12.4
11.1
9.1
13.5
.0
.2
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany 1
Greece
Ireland
3.3
2.1
4.2
2.5
2.2
3.7
9.2
2.4
-4.8
-4.8
-3.5
-4.8
-2.5
-4.9
-3.7
-.2
-1.7
-2.9
.6
-2.4
-.4
-1.3
5.0
2.1
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
2.4
1.5
1.3
4.7
7.0
6.1
6.6
1.2
4.5
5.6
-4.8
-4.9
-1.9
-2.9
-1.7
6.5
-4.4
-1.1
8.2
-3.4
-3.7
2.7
3.9
4.4
13.5
-3.3
3.4
Trade-weighted measures
All 28 foreign economies
OECD 2
less Mexico, Korea 3
Europe
European Union
Asian NIEs
5.4
5.1
2.8
3.3
3.4
9.4
-4.9
-5.3
-4.0
-2.1
-2.0
-2.3
.1
-.6
-1.3
1.2
1.4
6.9
1
2
3
Germany refers to the former West Germany.
OECD refers to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Mexico joined the OECD in 1994 and Korea joined in 1996.
Long-term trends in comparative compensation costs
From 1975 to 1996, hourly compensation costs measured in national currency
increased more rapidly in almost all of the foreign economies than in the United States.
In only three countries - Japan, the Netherlands, and Switzerland - were average annual
percent changes in hourly compensation costs below the U.S. rate of 5 percent.
5.)
(See table
Mexico and Korea were two of five countries whose hourly compensation costs
increased at annual rates of more than 15 percent. Canada's hourly compensation costs
increased 6.5 percent.
The trade-weighted average increase in compensation costs in national currency for
Europe was 7.6 percent. The trade-weighted measure for the Asian NIEs rose 13.4
percent.
When compensation costs in national currency are converted to U.S. dollars,
Canada's hourly compensation costs rose 5 percent annually - remaining essentially
unchanged relative to the United States over the whole 21-year period - as the 1.4 percent
average annual decline in Canada's exchange rate partially offset the underlying cost
increase. However, the fluctuating exchange rates affected Canada's relative costs in
U.S. dollars over shorter time periods. This is also true for most other countries covered.
(See tables 1, 3, and 7.)
In the case of Mexico, the declines in currency value more than offset the increases in
compensation costs in pesos. Mexico's costs were 23 percent of U.S. costs in 1975, but
fell to 8 percent of the U.S. level by 1996.
In contrast, while Japan had one of the smallest annual average increases in hourly
compensation costs over the 21-year period measured on a national currency basis, it also
had the largest increase in relative currency value among the economies studied. Japan's
compensation costs rose during the period from 47 percent of the U.S. cost level in 1975
to 118 percent of the U.S. cost level in 1996.
For Europe, trade-weighted average compensation costs in U.S. dollars increased at
virtually the same rate as the average compensation costs in national currencies.
Comparing 1975 and 1996 levels with those of the United States, the composite measure
for Europe was 80 percent in 1975 and 126 percent of the United States level in 1996.
For the Asian NIEs, trade-weighted labor costs in manufacturing in U.S. dollars
increased at the same rate as in national currency over the whole period. From 1975 to
1996, the Asian NIEs' cost levels rose from 8 percent of the U.S. level to 39 percent.
For a composite of all of the foreign economies studied, hourly compensation costs
rose from 60 percent of U.S. costs in 1975 to 91 percent in 1996.
Recent exchange rates
Between 1996 (annual average) and mid-December 1997, the currencies of all but
two of the 28 foreign economies declined in value relative to the U.S. dollar. The largest
decline was about 50 percent for the Korean won. The exchange rate value of the
Japanese yen and most other Asian and Pacific currencies declined about 15 percent, and
all European currencies (except the British pound) declined from 10 to 15 percent relative
to the U.S. dollar. The Canadian dollar and Mexican peso fell about 5 percent.
At December 1997 exchange rates, assuming underlying compensation trends in all
countries were similar to U.S. trends between 1996 and December 1997, Japanese
compensation costs in U.S. dollars would fall slightly below U.S. costs, and the tradeweighted average costs of the Asian NIEs would fall to about 30 percent of the U.S. cost
level. The European trade-weighted average would fall from 126 percent to 110 percent
of U.S. costs, and the trade-weighted average of all 28 foreign economies would decline
from 91 percent to 80 percent of the U.S. cost level.
Additional data available
In addition to the compensation cost measures covered in this news release,
additional data are available showing comparative levels of hourly compensation costs,
hourly direct pay, and pay for time worked and the structure of compensation in
manufacturing for all years from 1975 through 1996.
BLS also computes comparative measures for 39 component manufacturing
industries. Data are available through 1994. These data for the component industries are
not included in this release because, in general, the data limitations are greater than they
are for the total manufacturing measures. Nevertheless, these data are made available
upon request and via the Internet (http://stats.bls.gov/flshome.htm), and there are no
restrictions on their use.
For further information, contact the Office of Productivity and Technology, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Room 2150, Washington, DC 20212-0001
or call 202-606-5654.
Information in this report is available to sensory impaired individuals upon request.
Voice phone: 202-606-STAT; TDD phone: 202-606-5897; TDD message referral phone:
1-800-326-2577.
This material is in the public domain and, with appropriate credit, may be reproduced
without permission.
BOX: REVISED MEASURES
The hourly compensation costs series for Japan and selected European Union
countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom) were revised to incorporate data from new
labor cost surveys. These revisions are preliminary calculations for Belgium, Denmark,
France, Greece, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Data are subject to revision in the next
update.
For Japan, statistics for 1992 to 1996 were revised to incorporate the results of a
1995 labor cost survey. For the European Union countries, statistics were revised for
1989 to 1996 (1975 to 1996 for Luxembourg) to incorporate data from harmonized 1992
labor cost surveys.
The 1992 labor cost surveys for the European Union countries were conducted with a
new model questionnaire; industry data were published using a revised industrial
classification; and data were published by the Statistical Office of the European
Communities (Eurostat) for all employees only. Only Germany collected and published
separate data for all employees and production workers.
For Luxembourg, BLS used all-employee compensation structure data to recompute
benchmark adjustment factors from earlier labor cost surveys and to revise additional
compensation costs for 1975 to1996. Additional compensation data for France, Ireland,
the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom already related to all employees.
For Belgium, Denmark, Greece, and Italy, BLS made preliminary calculations using
the changes in all-employee compensation structure to estimate 1992 benchmark
adjustment factors for production workers, and revised the additional compensation
adjustment factor time series for 1989 to 1996. For the United Kingdom, BLS made
preliminary calculations which included adjustments for changes in the measurement of
selected cost items.
For France, the revised cost levels from 1989 to 1996 reflect an increase in bonus
payments as reported in the 1992 labor cost survey. However, a change in collection
procedures for the 1992 survey likely resulted in a discontinuity in compensation
structure. For Finland, revised data for 1995-96 reflect the results of new information on
social insurance expenditures.
END OF BOX (REVISED MEASURES)
Table 1. Indexes of hourly compensation costs for production workers in
manufacturing, 29 countries or areas and selected economic groups, selected
years, 1975-96
(Index, United States = 100)
______________________________________________________________________________
Country or area
1975 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
______________________________________________________________________________
United States ......
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Canada .............
Mexico .............
94
23
88
22
84
12
106
11
106
13
100
15
94
15
93
9
94
8
Australia ..........
Hong Kong ..........
Israel .............
Japan ..............
88
12
35
47
86
15
38
56
63
13
31
49
88
21
57
86
81
24
56
102
76
26
53
116
83
27
54
126
88
28
61
138
94
29
62
118
Korea ..............
New Zealand ........
Singapore ..........
Sri Lanka ..........
Taiwan .............
5
50
13
4
6
10
54
15
2
10
9
34
19
2
12
25
56
25
2
26
32
49
31
2
32
34
49
32
3
31
38
53
37
3
33
43
59
43
3
34
46
62
47
3
33
............
............
............
............
71
101
99
72
90
133
110
83
58
69
62
63
119
129
121
141
126
137
126
124
122
130
116
101
128
137
121
113
148
155
140
140
141
146
137
133
France 1 ...........
Germany 2 ..........
Greece .............
Ireland ............
71
100
27
48
91
125
38
60
58
74
28
46
107
148
45
78
115
159
47
82
108
154
44
72
111
161
46
73
124
188
53
79
120
180
54
78
Italy ..............
Luxembourg .........
Netherlands ........
Norway .............
73
102
103
106
83
122
122
117
59
60
67
80
117
112
121
144
120
119
125
143
96
114
122
122
94
121
123
124
94
136
140
142
99
127
131
141
Portugal ...........
Spain ..............
Sweden .............
Switzerland ........
United Kingdom .....
25
40
113
96
53
21
60
127
112
77
12
36
74
74
48
25
76
140
140
85
32
84
153
144
89
27
70
107
137
75
27
68
112
148
76
31
75
126
170
80
32
76
139
160
80
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Trade-weighted measures 3
All 28 foreign economies .. 60
67
52
83
89
87
89
96
91
OECD 4 .................... 67
74
57
90
97
95
97
104
98
less Mexico, Korea 5 .... 76
84
65
104
111
108
110
119
113
Europe .................... 80
101
61
117
123
112
116
130
126
European Union ............ 79
100
60
115
122
111
114
128
125
Asian NIEs ................ 8
12
13
25
30
31
34
37
39
______________________________________________________________________________
1 Discontinuity in compensation costs beginning in 1989. See Revised
Measures box.
2 Former West Germany.
3 For description of trade-weighted measures and economic groups, see technical notes.
4 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
5 Mexico joined the OECD in 1994 and Korea joined in 1996.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 1998.
Table 2. Hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars for production workers in manufacturing,
29 countries or areas and selected economic groups, selected years, 1975-96
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Country or area
1975
1980
1985
1990
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
__________________________________________________________________________________________
United States ......
$6.36
$9.87 $13.01 $14.91 $16.09 $16.51 $16.87 $17.19 $17.70
Canada .............
Mexico .............
5.96
1.47
8.67
2.21
10.94
1.59
15.84
1.58
17.03
2.17
16.44
2.40
15.85
2.47
16.04
1.51
16.66
1.50
Australia ..........
Hong Kong ..........
Israel .............
Japan ..............
5.62
.76
2.25
3.00
8.47
1.51
3.79
5.52
8.20
1.73
4.06
6.34
13.07
3.20
8.55
12.80
13.02
3.92
9.09
16.34
12.49
4.29
8.82
19.14
14.02
4.61
9.19
21.29
15.05
4.82
10.54
23.78
16.69
5.14
10.99
20.84
Korea ..............
New Zealand ........
Singapore ..........
Sri Lanka ..........
Taiwan .............
.32
3.21
.84
.28
.40
.96
5.33
1.49
.22
1.00
1.23
4.47
2.47
.28
1.50
3.71
8.33
3.78
.35
3.93
5.22
7.91
4.95
.40
5.09
5.64
8.01
5.25
.42
5.19
6.40
8.93
6.29
.45
5.49
7.40
10.11
7.33
.48
5.81
8.22
11.03
8.32
.48
5.82
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
............
............
............
............
4.51
6.41
6.28
4.61
8.88
13.11
10.83
8.24
7.58
8.97
8.13
8.16
17.75
19.17
18.02
21.03
20.29
22.05
20.20
19.92
20.16
21.44
19.16
16.63
21.51
23.07
20.36
19.06
25.38
26.65
24.10
24.14
24.95
25.89
24.24
23.56
France 1 ...........
Germany 2 ..........
Greece .............
Ireland ............
4.52
6.35
1.69
3.03
8.94
12.33
3.73
5.95
7.52
9.60
3.66
5.92
15.98
22.03
6.76
11.66
18.58
25.56
7.60
13.12
17.86
25.50
7.23
11.89
18.74
27.19
7.73
12.39
21.28
32.28
9.17
13.57
21.19
31.87
9.63
13.85
Italy ..............
Luxembourg .........
Netherlands ........
Norway .............
4.67
6.50
6.58
6.77
8.15
12.03
12.06
11.59
7.63
7.81
8.75
10.37
17.45
16.74
18.06
21.47
19.35
19.10
20.10
23.03
15.79
18.74
20.08
20.21
15.84
20.33
20.80
20.97
16.16
23.35
24.02
24.38
17.48
22.55
23.14
25.03
Portugal ...........
Spain ..............
Sweden .............
Switzerland ........
United Kingdom .....
1.58
2.53
7.18
6.09
3.37
2.06
5.89
12.51
11.09
7.56
1.53
4.66
9.66
9.66
6.27
3.77
11.38
20.93
20.86
12.70
5.17
13.50
24.59
23.23
14.37
4.50
11.62
17.70
22.63
12.42
4.60
11.51
18.86
24.91
12.80
5.37
12.83
21.64
29.30
13.67
5.58
13.40
24.56
28.34
14.13
Trade-weighted measures 3
All 28 foreign economies .. 3.83
6.60
6.75 12.36 14.28 14.36 15.05 16.43 16.13
OECD 4 .................... 4.25
7.30
7.40 13.49 15.54 15.60 16.32 17.81 17.42
less Mexico, Korea 5 ...
4.83
8.31
8.48 15.55 17.81 17.84 18.63 20.46 19.95
Europe ..................... 5.10
9.92
7.98 17.41 19.86 18.55 19.52 22.29 22.37
European Union ............. 5.04
9.85
7.87 17.20 19.67 18.34 19.25 21.95 22.06
Asian NIEs ................. .52
1.17
1.65
3.72
4.91
5.18
5.76
6.39
6.87
__________________________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
Discontinuity in compensation costs beginning in 1989. See Revised Measures box.
Former West Germany.
For description of trade-weighted measures and economic groups, see technical notes.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Mexico joined the OECD in 1994 and Korea joined in 1996.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 1998.
Table 3. Annual percent change in hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars for production
workers in manufacturing, 29 countries or areas and selected economic groups, selected periods,
1975-96
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Country or area
1975-96 1975-80 1980-85 1985-90 1990-96
1993
1994
1995
1996
________________________________________________________________________________________________
United States ......
5.0
9.2
5.7
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.2
1.9
3.0
Canada .............
Mexico .............
5.0
.1
7.8
8.5
4.8
-6.4
7.7
-.1
.8
-.9
-3.5
10.6
-3.6
2.9
1.2
-38.9
3.9
-.7
Australia ..........
Hong Kong ..........
Israel .............
Japan ..............
5.3
9.5
7.8
9.7
8.5
14.7
11.0
13.0
-.6
2.8
1.4
2.8
9.8
13.1
16.1
15.1
4.2
8.2
4.3
8.5
-4.1
9.4
-3.0
17.1
12.2
7.5
4.2
11.2
7.3
4.6
14.7
11.7
10.9
6.6
4.3
-12.4
Korea ..............
New Zealand ........
Singapore ..........
Sri Lanka ..........
Taiwan .............
16.7
6.1
11.5
2.6
13.6
24.6
10.7
12.1
-4.7
20.1
5.1
-3.5
10.6
4.9
8.4
24.7
13.3
8.9
4.6
21.2
14.2
4.8
14.1
5.4
6.8
8.0
1.3
6.1
5.0
2.0
13.5
11.5
19.8
7.1
5.8
15.6
13.2
16.5
6.7
5.8
11.1
9.1
13.5
.0
.2
8.5
6.9
6.6
8.1
14.5
15.4
11.5
12.3
-3.1
-7.3
-5.6
-.2
18.6
16.4
17.3
20.8
5.8
5.1
5.1
1.9
-.6
-2.8
-5.1
-16.5
6.7
7.6
6.3
14.6
18.0
15.5
18.4
26.7
-1.7
-2.9
.6
-2.4
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
............
............
............
............
France 1 ...........
Germany 2 ..........
Greece .............
Ireland ............
7.6
8.0
8.6
7.5
14.6
14.2
17.2
14.4
-3.4
-4.9
-.4
-.1
16.3
18.1
13.1
14.5
4.8
6.3
6.1
2.9
-3.9
-.2
-4.9
-9.4
4.9
6.6
6.9
4.2
13.6
18.7
18.6
9.5
-.4
-1.3
5.0
2.1
Italy ..............
Luxembourg .........
Netherlands ........
Norway .............
6.5
6.1
6.2
6.4
11.8
13.1
12.9
11.4
-1.3
-8.3
-6.2
-2.2
18.0
16.5
15.6
15.7
.0
5.1
4.2
2.6
-18.4
-1.9
-.1
-12.2
.3
8.5
3.6
3.8
2.0
14.9
15.5
16.3
8.2
-3.4
-3.7
2.7
Portugal ...........
Spain ..............
Sweden .............
Switzerland ........
United Kingdom .....
6.2
8.3
6.0
7.6
7.1
5.4
18.4
11.7
12.7
17.5
-5.8
-4.6
-5.0
-2.7
-3.7
19.8
19.6
16.7
16.6
15.2
6.8
2.8
2.7
5.2
1.8
-13.0
-13.9
-28.0
-2.6
-13.6
2.2
-.9
6.6
10.1
3.1
16.7
11.5
14.7
17.6
6.8
3.9
4.4
13.5
-3.3
3.4
Trade-weighted measures 3
All 28 foreign economies .. 7.4
12.5
1.0
12.8
4.6
2.1
5.0
4.6
.1
less Mexico, Israel ..... 8.2
13.0
1.7
14.1
5.2
1.3
5.2
9.0
.1
OECD 4 .................... 6.8
12.0
.1
12.4
4.1
1.9
4.3
4.0
-.6
less Mexico, Korea 5 .... 7.1
11.8
.6
13.3
4.1
.4
4.0
8.8
-1.3
Europe .................... 7.3
14.5
-4.1
16.8
3.9
-7.4
4.7
13.0
1.2
European Union ............ 7.3
14.6
-4.1
16.8
3.9
-7.6
4.5
12.7
1.4
Asian NIEs ................ 13.4
18.9
7.0
18.4
10.5
5.7
11.0
10.5
6.9
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rates of change based on compound rate method.
1 Discontinuity in compensation costs beginning in 1989. See Revised Measures box.
2 Former West Germany.
3 Trade-weighted percent changes computed as the trade-weighted
average of the rates of change for the individual countries or areas.
For description of trade-weighted measures and economic groups, see the Technical Notes.
4 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
5 Mexico joined the OECD in 1994 and Korea joined in 1996.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 1998.
Table 4. Hourly compensation costs in national currency for production workers in
manufacturing, 29 countries or areas, selected years, 1975-96
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Country or area
1975
1980
1985
1990
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
_________________________________________________________________________________________
United States
..
6.36
9.87
13.01
14.91
16.09
16.51
16.87
17.19
17.70
Canada
Mexico
.........
.........
6.07
18
10.13
51
14.94
409
18.49
4440
20.59
6716
21.21
7.48
21.66
8.34
22.02
9.66
22.73
11.41
Australia ......
Hong Kong ......
Israel .........
Japan ..........
4.30
3.73
1.44
889
7.43
7.50
19.42
1245
11.70
13.46
4.79
1512
16.74
24.91
17.24
1856
17.71
30.31
22.36
2072
18.37
33.19
24.97
2127
19.16
35.65
27.66
2176
20.32
37.30
31.73
2235
21.31
39.74
36.14
2267
Korea ..........
New Zealand ....
Singapore ......
Sri Lanka ......
Taiwan .........
157
2.65
2.00
1.97
15.17
583
5.48
3.20
3.58
36.13
1074
8.98
5.43
7.58
59.60
2623
13.98
6.85
14.05
105.68
4075
14.70
8.07
17.51
128.02
4531
14.79
8.49
20.20
137.00
5141
15.06
9.61
22.32
145.44
5710
15.41
10.39
24.45
153.98
6610
16.04
11.73
26.49
159.90
........
........
........
........
78.46
235.10
36.00
16.88
114.78
382.88
60.98
30.64
156.75
532.39
86.18
50.56
201.07
640.60
111.56
80.56
222.93
709.06
121.96
89.40
234.70
741.27
124.27
95.19
245.38
771.23
129.43
99.76
255.87
785.47
134.98
105.65
264.22
801.77
140.59
108.24
France 1 ........
Germany 2 ......
Greece .........
Ireland ........
19.34
15.59
55
1.36
37.73
22.39
159
2.89
67.49
28.23
506
5.55
87.05
35.62
1071
7.03
98.36
39.92
1449
7.70
101.20
42.20
1659
8.12
103.96
44.10
1876
8.28
106.10
46.23
2124
8.46
108.42
47.96
2319
8.66
Italy ..........
Luxembourg .....
Netherlands ....
Norway .........
3048
239
16.59
35.29
6966
352
23.93
57.20
14563
464
29.04
89.11
20900
559
32.90
134.26
23841
614
35.35
143.13
24845
648
37.32
143.47
25526
680
37.84
147.92
26331
688
38.52
154.46
26976
698
39.01
161.67
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Portugal .......
40.26 103.28 263.37 538.11 697.80 724.15 763.09 804.35 860.39
Spain ..........
145
422
792
1161
1383
1481
1541
1599
1697
Sweden .........
29.73
52.91
83.12 123.98 143.26 137.99 145.55 154.51 164.73
Switzerland ....
15.72
18.57
23.71
29.00
32.66
33.45
34.06
34.61
35.03
United Kingdom .
1.52
3.25
4.84
7.12
8.14
8.27
8.36
8.66
9.05
_________________________________________________________________________________________
For currency units, see note to table 6.
1 Discontinuity in compensation costs beginning in 1989.
2 Former West Germany.
See Revised Measures box.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 1998.
Table 5. Annual percent change in hourly compensation costs in national currency for
production workers in manufacturing, 29 countries or areas and selected economic
groups, selected periods, 1975-96
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Country or area
1975-96 1975-80 1980-85 1985-90 1990-96
1993
1994
1995
1996
________________________________________________________________________________________________
United States ......
5.0
9.2
5.7
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.2
1.9
3.0
Canada .............
Mexico .............
6.5
36.0
10.8
23.2
8.1
51.6
4.4
61.1
3.5
17.0
3.0
11.4
2.1
11.5
1.7
15.8
3.2
18.1
Australia ..........
Hong Kong ..........
Israel .............
Japan ..............
7.9
11.9
62.0
4.6
11.6
15.0
68.3
7.0
9.5
12.4
200.9
4.0
7.4
13.1
29.2
4.2
4.1
8.1
13.1
3.4
3.7
9.5
11.7
2.7
4.3
7.4
10.8
2.3
6.1
4.6
14.7
2.7
4.9
6.5
13.9
1.4
Korea ..............
New Zealand ........
Singapore ..........
Sri Lanka ..........
Taiwan .............
19.5
9.0
8.8
13.2
11.9
30.0
15.6
9.9
12.7
19.0
13.0
10.4
11.2
16.2
10.5
19.6
9.3
4.8
13.1
12.1
16.7
2.3
9.4
11.1
7.1
11.2
.6
5.2
15.4
7.0
13.5
1.8
13.2
10.5
6.2
11.1
2.3
8.1
9.5
5.9
15.8
4.1
12.9
8.3
3.8
............
............
............
............
6.0
6.0
6.7
9.3
7.9
10.2
11.1
12.7
6.4
6.8
7.2
10.5
5.1
3.8
5.3
9.8
4.7
3.8
3.9
5.0
5.3
4.5
1.9
6.5
4.6
4.0
4.2
4.8
4.3
1.8
4.3
5.9
3.3
2.1
4.2
2.5
France 1 ...........
Germany 2 ..........
Greece .............
Ireland ............
8.6
5.5
19.5
9.2
14.3
7.5
23.7
16.3
12.3
4.7
26.1
13.9
5.2
4.8
16.2
4.8
3.7
5.1
13.7
3.5
2.9
5.7
14.5
5.5
2.7
4.5
13.1
2.0
2.1
4.8
13.2
2.2
2.2
3.7
9.2
2.4
Italy ..............
Luxembourg .........
Netherlands ........
Norway .............
10.9
5.2
4.2
7.5
18.0
8.1
7.6
10.1
15.9
5.7
3.9
9.3
7.5
3.8
2.5
8.5
4.3
3.8
2.9
3.1
4.2
5.5
5.6
.2
2.7
4.9
1.4
3.1
3.2
1.2
1.8
4.4
2.4
1.5
1.3
4.7
Portugal ...........
Spain ..............
Sweden .............
Switzerland ........
United Kingdom .....
15.7
12.4
8.5
3.9
8.9
20.7
23.8
12.2
3.4
16.4
20.6
13.4
9.5
5.0
8.3
15.4
7.9
8.3
4.1
8.0
8.1
6.5
4.9
3.2
4.1
3.8
7.1
-3.7
2.4
1.6
5.4
4.1
5.5
1.8
1.1
5.4
3.8
6.2
1.6
3.6
7.0
6.1
6.6
1.2
4.5
Trade-weighted measures 3
All 28 foreign economies .. 10.8
less Mexico, Israel .... 7.6
OECD 4 .................... 10.2
less Mexico, Korea 5 ... 6.5
Europe .................... 7.6
13.6
12.0
12.7
10.5
12.4
14.0
8.0
12.3
7.3
8.7
11.7
6.4
11.7
5.0
5.9
6.1
4.9
5.8
3.8
4.3
4.8
4.1
4.5
3.2
3.8
4.6
3.8
4.0
2.6
3.0
4.8
3.6
4.5
2.7
3.4
5.4
3.9
5.1
2.8
3.3
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
European Union ............ 7.8
12.8
8.9
5.9
4.4
3.9
3.1
3.5
3.4
Asian NIEs ................ 13.4
19.6
11.6
12.9
10.4
8.2
9.8
7.6
9.4
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rates of change based on compound rate method.
1 Discontinuity in compensation costs beginning in 1989. See Revised Measures box.
2 Former West Germany.
3 Trade-weighted percent changes computed as the trade-weighted
average of the rates of change for the individual countries or areas.
For description of trade-weighted measures and economic groups, see the Technical Notes.
4 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
5 Mexico joined the OECD in 1994 and Korea joined in 1996.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 1998.
Table 6. Exchange rates, 29 countries or areas, selected years, 1975-96
(National currency units per U.S. dollar)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Country or area
1975
1980
1985
1990
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
__________________________________________________________________________________
United States ..
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Canada .........
Mexico .........
1.017
12.50
1.169
22.97
1.366
256.9
1.167
2813
1.209
3095
1.290
3.116
1.366
3.375
1.373
6.419
1.364
7.601
Australia ......
Hong Kong ......
Israel .........
Japan ..........
.7647
4.939
.6390
296.7
.8772
4.976
5.124
225.7
1.428
7.791
1.179
238.5
1.281
7.790
2.016
145.0
1.360
7.740
2.459
126.8
1.471
7.736
2.830
111.1
1.367
7.729
3.011
102.2
1.350
7.736
3.011
93.96
1.277
7.735
3.288
108.8
Korea ..........
New Zealand ....
Singapore ......
Sri Lanka ......
Taiwan .........
484.0
.8254
2.371
7.050
38.00
607.4
1.027
2.141
16.53
36.02
870.0
2.010
2.200
27.16
39.85
707.8
1.677
1.813
40.06
26.92
780.6
1.859
1.629
43.83
25.16
802.7
1.847
1.616
48.32
26.42
803.5
1.685
1.527
49.42
26.47
771.3
1.524
1.417
51.25
26.50
804.5
1.454
1.410
55.27
27.47
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
........
........
........
........
17.40
36.69
5.735
3.665
12.93
29.20
5.629
3.719
20.68
59.34
10.60
6.197
11.33
33.42
6.190
3.830
10.99
32.15
6.037
4.487
11.64
34.58
6.486
5.725
11.41
33.43
6.356
5.234
10.08
29.47
5.600
4.376
10.59
30.97
5.801
4.595
France .........
Germany 1 ......
Greece .........
4.282
2.455
32.29
4.220
1.815
42.62
8.980
2.942
138.1
5.447
1.617
158.5
5.294
1.562
190.6
5.667
1.655
229.3
5.546
1.622
242.6
4.986
1.432
231.7
5.116
1.505
240.7
Ireland ........
.4500
.4860
.9379
.6033
.5868
.6827
.6680
.6236
.6250
Italy ..........
Luxembourg .....
Netherlands ....
Norway .........
652.4
36.78
2.523
5.214
855.1
29.24
1.985
4.936
1909
59.38
3.318
8.593
1198
33.42
1.822
6.254
1232
32.15
1.759
6.214
1573
34.60
1.858
7.098
1611
33.46
1.819
7.055
1629
29.48
1.604
6.336
1543
30.96
1.686
6.459
Portugal .......
25.45 50.05 172.1 142.7 135.1 161.1 165.9 149.9 154.3
Spain ..........
57.39 71.64 170.0 102.0 102.4 127.5 133.9 124.6 126.7
Sweden .........
4.142 4.229 8.603 5.923 5.826 7.796 7.716 7.141 6.708
Switzerland ....
2.581 1.675 2.455 1.390 1.406 1.478 1.367 1.181 1.236
United Kingdom .
.4501 .4300 .7708 .5605 .5662 .6660 .6528 .6335 .6407
__________________________________________________________________________________
1 Former West Germany.
Note: National currency units are: United States, dollar; Canada, dollar;
Mexico, old peso (1975-92), new peso (1993-96); Australia, dollar; Hong
Kong, dollar; Israel, shekel (1975-84), new shekel (1985-96); Japan, yen;
Korea, won; New Zealand, dollar; Singapore, dollar; Sri Lanka, rupee;
Taiwan, dollar; Austria, schilling; Belgium, franc; Denmark, krone;
Finland, markka; France, franc; Germany, mark; Greece, drachma;
Ireland, pound; Italy, lira; Luxembourg, franc; Netherlands, guilder;
Norway,krone; Portugal, escudo; Spain, peseta; Sweden, krona;
Switzerland, franc; United Kingdom, pound.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 1998.
Table 7. Annual percent change in exchange rates (U.S. dollars per national currency unit),
29 countries or areas and selected economic groups, selected years, 1975-96
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Country or area
1975-96 1975-80 1980-85 1985-90 1990-96
1993
1994
1995
1996
________________________________________________________________________________________________
United States ......
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Canada .............
Mexico .............
-1.4
-26.3
-2.7
-11.5
-3.1
-38.3
3.2
-38.0
-2.6
-15.3
-6.3
-.7
-5.6
-7.7
-.5
-47.4
.7
-15.6
Australia ..........
Hong Kong ..........
Israel .............
Japan ..............
-2.4
-2.1
-29.3
4.9
-2.7
-.1
-34.1
5.6
-9.3
-8.6
-66.3
-1.1
2.2
.0
-10.2
10.5
.1
.1
-7.8
4.9
-7.5
.1
-13.1
14.1
7.6
.1
-6.0
8.7
1.3
-.1
.0
8.8
5.7
.0
-8.4
-13.6
Korea ..............
-2.4
-4.4
-6.9
4.2
-2.1
-2.8
-.1
4.2
-4.1
New Zealand ........
Singapore ..........
Sri Lanka ..........
Taiwan .............
-2.7
2.5
-9.3
1.6
-4.3
2.1
-15.7
1.1
-12.6
-.5
-9.5
-2.0
3.7
3.9
-7.5
8.2
2.4
4.3
-5.2
-.3
.6
.8
-9.3
-4.8
9.6
5.8
-2.2
-.2
10.6
7.8
-3.6
-.1
4.8
.5
-7.3
-3.5
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
............
............
............
............
2.4
.8
-.1
-1.1
6.1
4.7
.4
-.3
-9.0
-13.2
-11.9
-9.7
12.8
12.2
11.4
10.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
-3.0
-5.6
-7.0
-6.9
-21.6
2.0
3.4
2.0
9.4
13.2
13.4
13.5
19.6
-4.8
-4.8
-3.5
-4.8
France .............
Germany 1 ..........
Greece .............
Ireland ............
-.8
2.4
-9.1
-1.6
.3
6.2
-5.4
-1.5
-14.0
-9.2
-21.0
-12.3
10.5
12.7
-2.7
9.2
1.1
1.2
-6.7
-.6
-6.6
-5.6
-16.9
-14.0
2.2
2.0
-5.5
2.2
11.2
13.3
4.7
7.1
-2.5
-4.9
-3.7
-.2
Italy ..............
Luxembourg .........
Netherlands ........
Norway .............
-4.0
.8
1.9
-1.0
-5.3
4.7
4.9
1.1
-14.8
-13.2
-9.8
-10.5
9.8
12.2
12.7
6.6
-4.1
1.3
1.3
-.5
-21.7
-7.1
-5.3
-12.5
-2.4
3.4
2.1
.6
-1.1
13.5
13.4
11.3
5.6
-4.8
-4.9
-1.9
Portugal ...........
Spain ..............
Sweden .............
Switzerland ........
United Kingdom .....
-8.2
-3.7
-2.3
3.6
-1.7
-12.7
-4.3
-.4
9.0
.9
-21.9
-15.9
-13.2
-7.4
-11.0
3.8
10.8
7.8
12.0
6.6
-1.3
-3.5
-2.1
2.0
-2.2
-16.1
-19.7
-25.3
-4.9
-15.0
-2.9
-4.8
1.0
8.1
2.0
10.7
7.5
8.1
15.7
3.0
-2.9
-1.7
6.5
-4.4
-1.1
Trade-weighted measures 2
All 28 foreign economies.. -2.3
-.5
-9.4
2.9
-1.2
-2.6
.4
.3
-4.9
less Mexico, Israel ...
.6
1.0
-5.8
7.3
.3
-2.6
1.3
5.3
-3.8
OECD 3 ................... -2.4
-.3
-9.6
2.8
-1.4
-2.5
.4
.0
-5.3
less Mexico, Korea 4 ..
.7
1.3
-6.1
7.9
.3
-2.7
1.4
5.8
-4.0
Europe ...................
-.3
2.0
-11.7
10.3
-.4
-10.9
1.7
9.2
-2.1
European Union ...........
-.4
1.7
-11.9
10.3
-.5
-11.1
1.4
8.9
-2.0
Asian NIEs ...............
.0
-.5
-4.2
4.9
.2
-2.3
1.1
2.6
-2.3
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rates of change based on compound rate method.
1 Former West Germany.
2 Trade-weighted percent changes computed as the trade-weighted average of the rates of
change for the individual countries or areas.
For description of trade-weighted measures and economic groups, see the Technical Notes.
3 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
4 Mexico joined the OECD in 1994 and Korea joined in 1996.
Source:
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 1998.
Technical Notes
The tables in this news release present international comparisons of hourly
compensation costs for production workers in manufacturing in selected countries
or areas. The total compensation measures are prepared by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics in order to assess international differences in employer labor costs.
Comparisons based on the more readily available average earnings statistics
published by many countries can be very misleading. National definitions of
average earnings differ considerably; average earnings do not include all items
of labor compensation; and the omitted items of compensation frequently
represent a large proportion of total compensation.
The compensation measures are computed in national currency units and are
converted into U.S. dollars at prevailing commercial market currency exchange
rates. The foreign currency exchange rates used in the calculations are the
average daily exchange rates for the reference period. They are appropriate
measures for comparing levels of employer labor costs. They do not indicate
relative living standards of workers or the purchasing power of their income.
Prices of goods and services vary greatly among countries, and commercial market
exchange rates are not reliable indicators of relative differences in prices.
Definitions
Hourly compensation costs include (1) hourly direct pay and (2) employer
social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes. Hourly direct pay includes
all payments made directly to the worker, before payroll deductions of any kind,
consisting of (a) pay for time worked (basic time and piece rates plus overtime
premiums, shift differentials, other premiums and bonuses paid regularly each
pay period, and cost-of-living adjustments) and (b) other direct pay (pay for
time not worked (vacations, holidays, and other leave, except sick leave),
seasonal or irregular bonuses and other special payments, selected social
allowances, and the cost of payments in kind). Social insurance expenditures
and other labor taxes include (c) employer expenditures for legally required
insurance programs and contractual and private benefit plans (retirement and
disability pensions, health insurance, income guarantee insurance and sick
leave, life and accident insurance, occupational injury and illness
compensation, unemployment insurance, and family allowances) and, for some
countries, (d) other labor taxes (other taxes on payrolls or employment (or
reductions to reflect subsidies), even if they do not finance programs that
directly benefit workers, because such taxes are regarded as labor costs). For
consistency, compensation is measured on an hours-worked basis for every
country.
The BLS definition of hourly compensation costs is not the same as the
International Labour Office (ILO) definition of total labor costs. Hourly
compensation costs do not include all items of labor costs. The costs of
recruitment, employee training, and plant facilities and services(such as
cafeterias and medical clinics(are not included because data are not available
for most countries. The labor costs not included account for no more than 4
percent of total labor costs in any country for which the data are available.
Production workers generally include those employees who are engaged in
fabricating, assembly, and related activities; material handling, warehousing,
and shipping; maintenance and repair; janitorial and guard services; auxiliary
production (for example, powerplants); and other services closely related to the
above activities. Working supervisors are generally included; apprentices and
other trainees are generally excluded.
Methods
Total compensation is computed by adjusting each country's average earnings
series for items of direct pay not included in earnings and for employer
expenditures for legally required insurance, contractual and private benefit
plans, and other labor taxes. For the United States and other countries that
measure earnings on an hours-paid basis, the figures are also adjusted in order
to approximate compensation per hour worked.
Earnings statistics are obtained from surveys of employment, hours, and
earnings or from surveys or censuses of manufactures.
Adjustment factors are obtained from periodic labor cost surveys and
interpolated or projected to nonsurvey years on the basis of other information
for most countries. The information used includes annual tabulations on
employer social security contribution rates provided by the International
Studies Staff of the U.S. Social Security Administration, information on
contractual and legislated fringe benefit changes from ILO and national labor
bulletins, and statistical series on indirect labor costs. For other countries,
adjustment factors are obtained from surveys or censuses of manufactures or from
reports on fringe-benefit systems and social security. For the United States,
the adjustment factors are special calculations for international comparisons
based on data from several surveys.
The statistics are also adjusted, where necessary, to account for major
differences in worker coverage; differences in industrial classification
systems; and changes over time in survey coverage, sample benchmarks, or
frequency of surveys. Nevertheless, some differences in industrial coverage
remain and, with the exception of the United States, Canada, and several other
countries, the data exclude very small establishments (less than 5 employees in
Japan and less than 10 employees in most European and some other countries).
For the United States, the methods used, as well as the results, differ somewhat
from those for other BLS series on U.S. compensation costs.
Hourly compensation costs are converted to U.S. dollars using the average
daily exchange rate for the reference period. The exchange rates used are
prevailing commercial market exchange rates as published by either the U.S.
Federal Reserve Board or the International Monetary Fund.
For further details on survey sources and on special estimation procedures
for some countries because of incomplete data, see International Comparisons of
Hourly Compensation Costs for Production Workers in Manufacturing, 1995 (Report
909, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 1996).
Country notes
The following are exceptions to the standard coverage and definitions explained
above:
Australia. Compensation relates to production workers and nonproduction workers
other than those in managerial, executive, professional, and higher supervisory
positions.
Hong Kong. Average of selected manufacturing industries. The industries
covered accounted for about 70 percent of all persons employed in manufacturing
in 1988. Compensation excludes overtime pay.
Austria. Excludes workers in establishments considered handicraft
manufacturers. (All printing and publishing and miscellaneous manufacturing
establishments are classified in handicrafts.) In 1986, handicraft employment
was about 35 percent of all manufacturing employment. Average compensation per
employee was about 10 percent lower in manufacturing including handicrafts than
in manufacturing excluding handicrafts.
Finland. Includes workers in mining and electrical power plants. For
comparability with other countries, compensation excludes some obligatory
training and plant facilities costs; these costs would add 1.6 percent to
average hourly compensation costs in 1994.
Germany. Refers to former West Germany. Excludes workers in establishments
considered handicraft manufacturers. In 1990, handicraft employment was about
25 percent of all manufacturing employment. Average hourly earnings of
production workers were about 3 percent lower in manufacturing including
handicrafts than in manufacturing excluding handicrafts.
Ireland.
Data refer to September for 1975.
Norway. For comparability with other countries, compensation excludes some
obligatory training and plant facilities costs; these costs would add 2.2
percent to average hourly compensation costs in 1994.
Trade-weighted measures
The trade weights used to compute the average compensation cost measures
for selected country or economic groups are the sum of U.S. imports of
manufactured products for consumption (customs value) and U.S. exports of
domestic manufactured products (free along side {f.a.s.} value) in 1992 for each
country or area and each economic group. See table A.
The trade data used to compute the weights are U.S. Bureau of the Census
statistics of U.S. imports and exports converted to an industrial classification
basis from data initially collected under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
commodity classification system.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) includes
Canada, Mexico, Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and all European
countries. The European Union (EU) consists of Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Europe includes the EU
countries plus Norway and Switzerland. The group labeled "Asian NIEs" consists
of the four newly industrializing economies of Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and
Taiwan.
The trade weighted measures relate to all the countries or areas covered in
the series. Estimates are computed for missing country data using the average
trend in other economies to estimate the missing data. Trade weighted average
percent changes for the 28 foreign economies are computed both including and
excluding Mexico and Israel because their rapid rates of inflation and currency
changes in several years distort the trade-weighted averages.
Table A. Share of total U.S. imports and exports
of manufactured products in 1992
(in percent)
Country or area
and
economic group
1992
trade
share
Canada
Mexico
19.2
7.6
Australia
Hong Kong
Israel
Japan
1.4
2.0
.8
15.8
Country or area
and
economic group
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
1992
trade
share
.1
.6
2.3
.1
1.9
.3
Korea
New Zealand
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
3.4
.3
2.4
.1
4.4
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany 1/
.3
1.5
.3
.2
3.2
5.4
1/
2/
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
.2
.8
.8
1.0
4.4
Economic groups
28 foreign
economies
OECD 2/
Europe
European Union
Asian NIEs
80.8
71.1
23.4
22.1
12.2
Former West Germany.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Data limitations
Because compensation is partly estimated, the statistics should not be
considered as precise measures of comparative compensation costs. In addition,
the figures are subject to revision as the results of new labor cost surveys or
other data used to estimate compensation costs become available.
The comparative level figures in this report are averages for all
manufacturing industries and are not necessarily representative of all component
industries. In the United States and some other countries, such as Japan,
differentials in hourly compensation cost levels by industry are quite wide. In
contrast, other countries, such as Germany and Sweden, have narrow
differentials.
Labor costs versus labor income
The hourly compensation figures in U.S. dollars shown in the tables provide
comparative measures of employer labor costs; they do not provide intercountry
comparisons of the purchasing power of worker incomes. Prices of goods and
services vary greatly among countries, and the commercial market exchange rates
used to compare employer labor costs do not reliably indicate relative
differences in prices. Purchasing power parities(that is, the number of foreign
currency units required to buy goods and services equivalent to what can be
purchased with one unit of U.S. or other base-country currency(must be used for
meaningful international comparisons of the relative purchasing power of worker
incomes.
Total compensation converted to U.S. dollars at purchasing power parities
would provide one measure for comparing relative real levels of labor income.
It should be noted, however, that total compensation includes employer payments
to funds for the benefit of workers in addition to payments made directly to
workers. (For a few countries, the compensation measures also include taxes or
subsidies on payrolls or employment even if they do not finance programs which
directly benefit workers.) Payments into these funds provide either deferred
income (for example, payments to retirement funds), a type of insurance (for
example, payments to unemployment or health benefit funds), or current social
benefits (for example, family allowances), and the relationship between employer
payments and current or future worker benefits is indirect. On the other hand,
excluding these payments would understate the total value of income derived from
work because they substitute for worker savings or self-insurance to cover
retirement, medical costs, etc.
Total compensation, because it takes account of employer payments into
funds for the benefit of workers, is a broader income concept than either total
direct earnings or direct spendable earnings. An even broader concept would
take account of all social benefits available to workers, including those
financed out of general revenues as well as those financed through employment or
payroll taxes.