The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis /rvl/' MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1970 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics In this issue: The U.S. Economy in 1980: a preview of BLS projections BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS Region I — Boston: Wend ell D. M acdo na ld U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR George P. Shultz, Secretary 1603-A Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone:(617) 223-6727 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Region II — New York: Herbert Bienstock BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner Leon Greenberg, Chief Statistician Peter Henle, Chief Economist The Monthly Labor Review is for sale by the regional offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington, D. C. 20402 Subscription price per year — $9 domestic; $11.25 foreign. Single copy 75 cents. Correspondence regarding subscriptions should be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents. Communications on editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D. C. 20212 Phone:(202) 961-2327. Use of funds for printing this publication approved by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (October 31, 1967) 341 Ninth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10001 Phone: (212) 971-5405 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Region III — Philadelphia: Fred erick W. Mueller 406 Penn Square Building, 1317 Filbert Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 Phone:(215) 597-7796 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Region IV — Atlanta: Brunswick A. Bagdon 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309 Phone: (404) 526-5416 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Region V — Chicago: Thomas J. McArdle 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, III. 60604 Phone: (312) 353-7226 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI — Dallas: Jack S tric kl and 411 N. Akard Street. Dallas, Tex. 75201 Phone: (214) 749-3516 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Regions VII and V III — Kansas City: E llio tt A. Browar 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: (816) 374-2378 VII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska March cover: Design by Arts and Graphics Division, Office of Information, U.S. Department of Labor https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis V III Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming Regions IX and X — San Francisco: Charles Roumasset 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone:(415) 556-3178 IX Arizona California Hawaii Nevada X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Editor-in-Chief, Herbert C. Morton Executive Editor, Henry Lowenstern 3 The United States economy in 1980 A preview of BLS projections: productivity and GNP (page 6), employment (page 14), labor force (page 24), implications (page 28) Edward J. O’ Boyle 35 The long-duration unemployed Special Labor Force Report focuses on Americans who accumulate 15 weeks of unemployment or more in a year H. M. Douty 69 Poverty programs: the view from 1914 IRRA CONFERENCE PAPERS Reese Hammond 44 Effective preparation for apprenticeship T. W. Kheel, L. B. Kaden 45 A plan to resolve impasses in hospital bargaining Richard B. Peterson 48 Worker participation in Sweden M. H. Moskow, K. McLennan 51 Impact of school decentralization on bargaining https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis RESEARCH SUMMARIES Charles M. O’Connor 54 Wages of nonteaching school employees Ronald W. Glass 55 Arbitration in Federal collective bargaining Edward T. O’Donnell 57 Measuring employment that results from tourism William M. Smith 59 White-collar pay in private industry 62 Cost estimates for urban fam ily budgets 64 Progress of U.S. Negroes during the 1960’s Michael J. Tighe 65 Wages of telephone and telegraph workers Thomas C. Mobley 66 Use of BLS survey data in wage setting at GPO DEPARTMENTS 2 54 69 72 74 78 80 84 95 Labor month in review Research summaries Communication Foreign labor briefs Significant decisions in labor cases Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews and notes Current labor statistics APRIL 1970 VOLUME 93, NUMBER 4 Emergency disputes. National political leaders long have spoken of the need for new approaches to labor-management disputes that threaten the national health and safety. Last month, President Nixon spelled out a new approach and asked Congress to apply it to the Nation’s transportation industries, where, he said, “emergency procedures of present laws have most frequently failed.” The President’s plan would scrap the emergency disputes procedures of the Railway Labor Act, expand those of the Taft-Hartley Act, and apply the revised procedures to national emergency disputes in the railroad, airline, maritime, long shore, and trucking industries. As now written, the Taft-Hartley Act authorizes the President to go to court to request an 80-day cooling-off period when a work stoppage threatens the Nation’s health or safety. If there is no settlement at the end of the period, the President’s only recourse is to ask Congress for special legislation. The new proposal would give the President three additional options in disputes involving transportation: • he could extend the 80-day cooling-off period for as long as 30 days; • he could require partial operation, “keeping essential segments of the industry in operation” for up to 6 months while letting “the major part of the strike or lockout continue;” or • he could invoke a procedure empowering a neutral panel to select the final written position of one of the parties as the settlement binding both. The plan permits the President to choose only 1 of the 3 options and gives both Congress and the courts veto power over the President’s action. Under the President’s third option, the parties would be required to submit their final offers, then bargain for 5 more days. If Final offer selection. 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis they failed to agree, a neutral panel would choose one of the final offers in the exact form presented, without modifying its terms or attempting to mediate. Here is how Mr. Nixon explained the advantage of this procedure: Unlike arbitration—it would also provide a strong incentive for labor and management to reach their own accommodation at an earlier stage in the bar gaining. When arbitration is the ultimate recourse, the disputants will compete to stake out the strongest bargaining position, one which will put them at the greatest advantage when a third party tries to “split the difference.” But when final offer selection is the ultimate recourse, the disputants will compete to make the most reasonable and most realistic final offer, one which will have the best chance to win the panel’s endorsement. Rather than pulling apart, the disputants would be encouraged to come together. Neither could afford to remain in an intransigent or extreme position. The President’s proposal brought neg ative responses from both organized labor and the railroad industry, a f l - c io President George Meany characterized the final offer selection procedure as “a novel form of compulsory ar bitration.” “We have,” he added, “always opposed and will continue to oppose any scheme of com pulsory arbitration, no matter what Administration proposes it and regardless of whether it is openly labeled as compulsory arbitration or is given a more euphemistic label such as ‘Mediation to Finality’ or ‘Final Offer Selection.’ ” John P. Hiltz, Jr., chairman of the National Railway Labor Conference, expressed concern over “the Administration’s emasculation of the Railway Labor Act without any assurance that the substituted provision would prove nearly as effective.” He announced that the railroads soon would offer “a far better way to improve the provisions and the processes of that Act.” Reaction. The U.S. economy in 1980: a preview of BLS projections Estimates of labor force, growth in the economy, and employment by industry and occupation the shape of the U.S. economy in 1980—its output of goods and services, its labor force, its employment? New projections by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that: ► the labor force will have climbed by onefifth to 100 million workers, and will include a large supply of young workers, age 25-34, totaling 26 million; ► the educational level of the labor force will have risen substantially; ► g n p , growing at the rate of 4.3 percent a year through the 1970’s, will have reached $1.4 trillion in 1968 dollars; ► productivity, advancing steadily if at a slightly slower pace than in the 1960’s, will have increased 3 percent a year; ► hours will have declined to 38 a week, at the very slow pace of 0.1 percent a year through the 1970’s; ► industry employment will have continued to shift toward the service industries, including trade and government; and ► occupational employment will have con tinued a long-term shift towards the white-collar occupations and those requiring the most educa tion and training. By themselves the projections summarized in this report do not represent sharp departures from the broad economic and manpower trends that prevailed during the 1960’s. And yet, more people, more growth, more goods and services, even if in line with recent trends, could have cumulative effects that may make the 1970’s quite different from the 1960’s. Moreover, many crosscurrents within the total may yield some quite dissimilar trends from the 1960’s for smaller segments of the economy. This article presents highlights of the b l s projections and is intended to be an overview, limited for the most part, to the major sectors W h a t w il l be https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of the economy. A more complete summary bulletin containing additional statistical detail covering employment in over 250 individual industries and detailed occupations will be pub lished in the late spring. Further publications and articles will present more refined analysis and more detailed information on the various methodologies followed. The economy in 1980 BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND TECHNIQUES the Bureau of Labor Sta tistics has been making economic projections to determine the Nation’s manpower requirements. Following the recommendation of a Presidential Advisory Committee on Education in 1938, the Bureau’s initial program was set up to conduct studies of projected employment trends and out look by occupation for the career guidance of young people and for the use of educators re sponsible for planning programs of vocational education or training. As the decade of the 1970’s begins, the Bureau’s projections, now used for a wide variety of planning and policy development purposes, represent one of the longest continuous systematic efforts to make economic projections both in and out of Government. In today’s growing and complicated society it is not enough to know simply that the Nation will need 100 million jobs for 100 million workers by 1980. One must know what kinds of jobs? What skills? What industries? How will job requirements change as a result of technology? What will worker characteristics be—age, sex, educational attainment? Only this kind of infor mation about tomorrow’s manpower requirements F or t h r e e decades, 3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 4 will equip private and public policy to take the measures to assure a reasonable balance between workers and jobs, between the Nation’s demand for and supply of workers. To meet these needs, the Bureau has developed and refined its projections so that they now encompass several integrated components that permit a comprehensive view of tomorrow’s economy and its manpower needs. Specifically, the projections cover labor force, hours of em ployment, output per man-hour, potential demand (gross national product or g n p ) , the composition of demand, output and productivity by 82 de tailed industry groups, and employment in over 250 industries and in detailed occupations. The projections are interrelated: the growth of g n p , a foundation of the projections, is conditioned upon labor supply, productivity changes, and hours of work. The rate and direction of changes in the major demand components of the g n p , in About the contributors The projections presented in this article represent the work of a number of Bureau personnel and their individual contributions will be given proper recog nition in the separate detailed studies to be published later this year. Special mention should be made, how ever, of the senior economists who had primary respon sibility for supervising the staff research underlying the projections and preparing the final detailed reports. ► Sophia C. Travis, chief of the Division of Labor Force Studies: labor force; Denis F. Johnston, stat istician (demography), Office of Manpower and Em ployment Statistics, who was specifically responsible for the projection of the educational attainment of the labor force. ► Ronald E. Kutscher, chief of the Division of Economic Growth: economic growth, including gross national product, output, output per man-hour, and total employment by industry. ► Russell B. Flanders, chief of the Division of Manpower and Occupational Outlook: wage and salary employment by industry and employment by occu pation. The research activities were coordinated in the Office of Productivity, Technology and Economic Growth by Jerome Mark, Assistant Commissioner, and Jack Alterman, director of the Bureau’s Economic Growth Studies, and in the Office of Manpower and Employment Statistics by Assistant Commissioner Harold Goldstein. The article was written by Maxine G. Stewart, editor of the Occupational Outlook Quarterly. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis turn, yield changing requirements for labor by industry and occupation. In this article on the economy and its manpower requirements in 1980, the projections are often described categorically—“The labor force will expand by x percent by 1980” ; “The gross na tional product will expand by y percent a year.” The intent is to show the results emerging from the Bureau’s research that seem most likely to occur but in all cases—even though the state ments may be stated categorically for ease in presentation—they represent the Bureau’s best judgment and are dependent on the realization of the various assumptions on which the projec tions rest. Assumptions The b l s projections about the world of 1980 discussed in this article are based on these specific assumptions: ► The international climate will improve. The United States will no longer be fighting a war, but, on the other hand, a still guarded relationship between the major powers will permit no major reductions in armaments. This would still permit some reduction from the peak levels of defense expenditures during the Viet Nam conflict. ► Armed Forces strength will drop back to about the same level that prevailed in the pre-Viet Nam escalation period. ► The institutional framework of the American economy will not change radically. ► Economic, social, technological, and scientific trends will continue, including values placed on work, education, income, and leisure. ► Fiscal and monetary policies will be able to achieve a satisfactory balance between low un employment rates and relative price stability without reducing the long-term economic growth rate. ► All levels of government will join efforts to meet a wide variety of domestic requirements, but Congress will channel more funds to State and local governments. ► Efforts to solve the problems posed by air and water pollution and solid waste disposal, although they may preempt an increasing amount of the Nation’s productive resources, will not lead to a significant dampening of our longrun potential rate of growth. U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980 ^ Fertility rates will be lower than they have been in the recent past. Projection techniques Labor force and occupational projections cover the period 1968 to 1980 because 1968 was the most recent year for which complete data were available at the time of the calculations. All other projections — gnp, hours, productivity, aggregate and industry demand, and industry employment— are based from 1965 because the next 3 years (1966 to 1968) were substantially affected by the demands of the Viet Nam war. Since it is assumed that these hostilities will be over by 1980, recent changes related to the impact of the Viet Nam war were considered to be atypical and unlikely to be characteristic of the years ahead. Growth rates, in most cases, are shown not only for 1965-80, but also for 1968-80 to reflect the impact of the intervening years. Since the article was written, however, some 1969 data have become available. Because a slackening of growth in the economy occurred during 1969, the g n p would have to grow at the rate of 4.4 percent a year for the period 1969-80, rather than 4.3 percent as shown for the 1968-80 period, to reach the 1980 projected levels. Similarly, productivity would have to grow at 3.2 percent a year rather than the 3.0 percent shown. Projected employment growth remains unchanged at 1.7 percent a year. The labor force 'projection, based on the Bureau on the Census projections of population, is devel oped through separate projections of labor force participation for the various age, sex, and color groups in the population. The detailed participa tion rates are then applied to the projected levels in each population group. The economic growth projections are developed in consultation with the Interagency Committee on Economic Growth, which consists of represent atives of the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Bureau of the Budget, and the President’s Council of Economic Advisors. These projections have benefited from the advice of—and have utilized the research product of—several other government agencies and private research organizations that also par ticipate in the Interagency Growth Studies Pro gram. The input-output tables developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of Business https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5 Economics provide the basic framework for the growth projections. To explore the implications of alternative growth rates and patterns, two different demand struc tures of the economy are presented in this article : one is based upon a continuation of the long-term shift toward the purchase of more consumer and public services. The other assumes a slower growth in the trend toward services with correspondingly greater emphasis on durable goods production: Consumer, producer, and military. Both these demand structures start with approximately the same level of potential output in 1980; the differ ences lie only in the composition of final demand and its related components. Specific differences are spelled out in later sections of the article. Within each set of demand projections, two alternative assumptions are outlined regarding the unemployment rate: one assumes a 3-percent unemployment rate by 1980; the other assumes a somewhat higher rate, 4 percent. Projections at the lower rate are based on the assumption that by 1980 the country will have been able to develop a mix of public and private policies that can assure such a low rate without creating inflationary pressures. Since the same structure of the economy for 1980 has been assumed for both the 3-percent and the 4-percent unemployment projections, the proportionate distribution of employment among major industry and occupa tional sectors is virtually the same for both projections except that all industries would have a slightly higher level of employment under the 3-percent unemployment assumption. It is recog nized that this assumption may be an oversimpli fication; however, the magnitude of the difference in employment that would result from a more discriminating set of assumptions for pinpointing the employment difference of a 1-percent change in the unemployment level would be quite minor except for relatively few industries or occupations. The discussion in this article will be limited to the 3-percent unemployment assumptions. Tables, however, show industry data for both alternatives. Industry and occupational employment projec tions—the end product of labor force and eco nomic growth projections, are arrived at by utilizing two projection techniques. Total industry employment, which includes wage and salary workers, unpaid family workers, and the selfemployed, is obtained by calculations involving 6 projected changes in demand, interindustry rela tionships, and output and productivity. The employment projections are initially developed for about 82 industries or industry groups, cover ing the entire economy. The employment esti mates are also distributed into much greater industry detail (about 250 industries) by using regression analysis to estimate employment in each industry consistent with the basic assump tions of the economic projections. The results of the two methods are carefully analyzed and rec onciled for consistency. Finally, the employment projections are converted into estimates of occupa tional requirements by projecting detailed occupational patterns, industry by industry, which, when combined with the industry employ ment estimates, yield the final product of the entire sequence of projections—occupational estimates. (For a discussion of the uses to which the detailed projections of industry and occupational employment are put, see the Monthly Labor Review, November 1969, p. 20.) The economy in 1980 PRODUCTIVITY AND GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT e f o r e m a k i n g projections of economic growth, the anticipated number of people in the Nation and the proportion working or seeking work must be estimated. As consumers, they provide the potential demand for the Nation’s goods and serv ices. As workers, they are also an essential element in the production of goods and services. B Expected labor force By 1980, 100 million Americans will be in the labor force, if Bureau of Labor Statistics projec tions materialize, one-fifth more (22.4 percent) than the 1968 labor force of 82 million. The working age population can be projected with more confidence than some of the other variables in economic projections since everyone who will be old enough to work during the 1970’s has been born already, and death rates and net immigration are fairly steady. The U.S. Bureau of the Census projects about 167 million people https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 of working age (16 and over) in 1980, and b l s projects the labor force participation rate of these people to increase only slightly between 1968 and 1980. Thus, the decade of the 1970’s will see increases in both population and the proportion of work-age people seeking jobs, but by far the largest contributor to labor force growth will be population expansion itself: 94 percent of the growth in the labor force will be attributable to a bigger population, with the remaining 6 percent caused by the expected increase in the participa tion rate. Growth, hours, productivity The most commonly used comprehensive mea sure of output in the economy is the value of all final goods and services produced—gross national product (g n p ). For purposes of the b l s economic projections, the value of the total national output of goods and services is derived by projecting to 1980 the size of the work force, hours of work, and the dollar value of goods and services produced in each hour worked, referred to as output per man-hour or productivity. Arrived at in this way, b l s projections indicate the potential value of all goods and services produced in 1980 may reach $1.4 trillion in 1968 dollars. If prices were to rise at the rate of 2.5 percent a year through the 1970’s as they did through the 1960’s, the potential g n p would be $1.8 trillion in estimated 1980 dollars rather than $1.4 trillion in 1968 dollars. In 1968 the economy produced goods and serv ices valued at $866 billion. Output of $1.4 trillion by 1980 implies a growth rate of 4.3 percent a year over the time span from 1968-80. Although very healthy, this potential growth rate allows for some slowdown in the economy from its performance of 4.5 percent growth a year during the 1960-68 period. This apparent slowdown is not due to a reduction in the potential growth rate, which is based on the assumption of the full utilization of labor and industrial resources, but to the actual growth in the 1960’s, which was based, in part, on taking up the slack in resource utilization which existed in the early part of the decade. H o u r s o f w o r k . Average weekly hours 1 have been declining for several years. From 1957 to 1965, hours declined at a rate of 0.2 percent a year for all private industry. The decline in hours, U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: PRODUCTIVITY projected over the 1968-80 period, slows this rate of decline somewhat to 0.1 percent per year. In the early postwar period, the decline in hours resulted, to a considerable extent, from a reduction in the scheduled workweek. In later years, how ever, the increasing proportion of part-time em ployees contributed more to the decline than changes in the scheduled workweek. During the years from 1956 to 1968, for example, when em ployment was growing by 1.5 percent per year, part-time employment was speeding along at a growth rate of 5.7 percent per year. The significant increase in part-time employment is due to (a) the rapid growth in employment in the service and retail trade industries where part-time employ ment is common and (b) a companion increase in the proportion of part-time workers used by these industries and the availability of individuals inter ested in part-time work. For example, the mush rooming of suburban shopping centers that have many branch stores and mall shops has contributed to the expansion of the part-time work force. These centers are both growing rapidly and using an increasing proportion of part-time sales personnel as they stay open later in the evening. Part-time employees represented 6.8 percent of the total employed labor force in 1956; by 1968, this pro portion had increased to 11.1 percent; by 1980, it is expected to be even larger. This projected decline in average hours assumes that labor and management will not be negotiating major reductions in the nonfarm workweek by 1980. The continuing decline in hours will be caused by the persistent increase in part-time employment plus a continued small reduction of the average workweek on the farm. The trend in hours will differ among farm and nonfarm in dustries, and government. On the farm, hours of work are expected to decline to 43.7 a week by 1980, or by 0.2 percent annually, on the average, through the 1970’s (1968-80), reflecting a longtime downward trend. Hours were 44.8 per week in 1968 and 45.7 in 1965, the base year for the projection period, just before the Viet Nam escalation. Off the farm, excluding government, hours paid for are expected to continue to decline to 37.8 a week by 1980, or by 0.1 percent a year through the 1970’s (1968-80). This rate of decline is somewhat less than has occurred since the mid-1950’s. All non farm hours were 38.1 a week in 1968, and 39.0 a week in 1965. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7 In the goods-producing industries, except agri culture, hours paid for began to climb in 1964 after several steady years. The upward trend was caused primarily by an increase in overtime hours. This trend has now reversed and through the 1970’s hours in the goods-producing industries are expected to be relatively stable. In the service industries, on the other hand, hours paid for declined steadily from the end of World War II to 1968. Trade and services are expected to continue a decline, though at a more modest rate, through the 1970’s. For projection purposes, government hours are held constant. P r o d u c t iv it y in m a jo r s e c to r s. One of the most important elements in making projections, productivity, can be quite different among in dustries and quite different from year to year. Productivity patterns have been and are expected to be different in each of the major industry groups through the 1970’s (1968-80). Farm productivity growth will be high at 5.7 percent a year. Productivity gains have been very high in recent decades because of more efficient machinery and improved fertilizers, farming techniques, and management practices. Traditionally, gains in farm output per man hour, although fluctuating widely from year to year, have been high. Through the 1970’s it may increase, on the average, about 5.7 percent annually, somewhat less than the 6-percent rise annually in recent years. But even at this lower average rate, the increases in farm output per man-hour are expected to remain considerably above that of the nonfarm sector. Nonfarm productivity will advance steadily at 2.9 percent a year. Even though nonfarm productivity is expected to advance through the 1970’s at about its long-term rate, individual industries within the broad nonfarm sector may deviate from their past productivity rates. The average rate projected will permit productivity increases that are greater than recent increases in some industries counter balanced by productivity change in other indus tries that will be lower than recent trends would suggest. Productivity gains for both farm and nonfarm industries combined will drop a little to 3 percent a year through the 1970’s (1968-80). The combined effect of these differing rates of gain in produc tivity for farm and nonfarm workers—5.7 percent MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 8 Table 1. Gross national product by major component, selected years and projected to 1980 In billions of 1968 dollars] 1980 Services economy Component 1957 1965 Percent distribution Durables economy 1968 1957 3 percent unem ployment rate 4 percent unem ployment rate 3 percent unem ployment rate 4 percent unem ployment rate 1965 1968 Iross national product.___ _______ ________ _______ Personal consumption expenditures _____________ Durable goods___ _____________________ Nondurable goods_______________ _________ Services________________ ___________ ___ $553.8 342.8 42.9 162.4 137.5 $754. 3 472.0 68.8 209.1 194 1 $865. 7 536.6 83.3 230.6 222.8 $1,427.8 903.2 137.6 346.5 419.1 $1,415.7 895.6 136.5 343.6 415.5 $1,429.6 888.9 146.8 335.0 407.1 $1,417.7 881.4 145.5 332.2 403.7 100.0 61.9 7.7 29.3 24.8 100.0 62.6 9.1 27.7 25.7 100.0 62.0 9.6 26.6 25.7 Gross private domestic investment______________ Nonresidential___________________________ Residential structures_____________________ Net inventory change_____________________ 83.6 56.1 26.2 1.3 118.9 78.0 30.9 10.0 126.3 88.8 30.2 7.3 222.0 152.3 53.0 16.7 220.1 151.0 52.5 16.6 238.9 160.4 60.7 17.8 237.0 159.1 60.2 17.7 15.1 10.1 4.7 .2 15.8 10.3 4.1 1.3 14.6 10.3 3.5 .8 Net exports____ _____ ______________ _____ ___ 7.7 7.9 2.5 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 1.4 1.0 .3 Government purchases. . . . ____ _____________ Federal________________________________ State and local__________________________ 119.7 65.2 54.5 155.5 73.1 82.4 200.3 99.5 100.7 289.7 107.3 182.4 287.1 106.4 180.7 288.9 125.9 163.0 286.4 124.9 161.5 21.6 11.8 9.8 20.6 9.7 10.9 23.1 11.5 11.6 and 2.9 percent, respectively—averages out to an overall increase in productivity in the economy of roughly 3 percent annually through the 1970’s, a smaller growth rate than the long-term postwar increase of 3.4 percent a year (1947-68). Government productivity is assumed at a constant level through the 1970’s, because of the difficulty of measuring the real output of government.2 This assumption can have a big influence on what happens to average productivity in the coming years. Since government employment is expected to rise substantially, and its productivity, arbitrarily, is held constant, the increase in overall productivity is lower than the projected growth in output per man-hour in the private sector alone. If government employment were to expand beyond the projected levels, this dampening of productivity growth, of course, would be accentuated. (See chart 1.) Purchasers of the GNP The projected 1980 g n p of $1.4 trillion will be divided among four major categories of final demand: Consumption, investment, government purchases, and foreign purchases. The changes that lie ahead in the composition of the total g n p may tell a great deal about the kinds of industries—the kinds of production—and ulti mately, the kinds of jobs that will be available in 1980. The mix of demand as between the services and durable goods economies becomes significant https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis at this point in the level of projection detail. Both b l s structures of the economy—services and durable goods—reflect a continuation of the past trend in aggregate demand through the 1970’s. Differences are assumed in the pace of change, however, among the component pur chasers of the g n p . These changes are shown in detail in table 1. To simplify this overview of the projections developed by the b l s , the initial discussion will be limited to projections based on the assumption of a continuation in the pace of the shift towards services in an economy with 3percent unemployment. The extent to which these projections are modified in alternative views of the economy will be summarized at the end of each section. e r s o n a l c o n s u m p t io n e x p e n d it u r e s . By far the largest purchasers of the g n p are consumers. In 1980 they are expected to spend close to $900 billion on goods and services, more than the total value of the g n p in 1968 which was $ 8 6 6 billion. Consumer expenditures consist of three major subcategories—durable goods, nondurable goods, and services. By 1980, durable goods and services expenditures will be higher as a proportion of total p c e than at any time in the post-World War period in all projections. In contrast to the up ward surge in expenditures for durables and services, the proportionate share of nondurable goods will be smaller than in any recent year; their rate of growth over this period will be the slowest of the three groups and about in line P U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: PRODUCTIVITY 9 Table 1. Continued—Gross national product by major component, selected years and projected to 1980 [In dollars] Average annual rates of change, 1965-80 Percent distribution Services economy 1980 Durables economy 1980 Services economy Durables economy Average annual rates of change, 1968-80 Services economy Durables economy Component 3 per cent un employ ment rate 4 per cent un employ ment rate 3 per cent un employ ment rate 4 per cent un employ ment rate 3 per cent un employ ment rate 4 per cent un employ ment rate 3 per cent un employ ment rate 4 per cent un employ ment rate 3 per cent un employ ment rate 4 per cent un employ ment rate 3 per cent un employ ment rate 4 per cent un employ ment rate 100.0 63.3 9.6 24.3 29.4 100.0 63.3 9.6 24.3 29.3 100.0 62.2 10.3 23.4 28.5 100.0 62.2 10.3 23.4 28.5 4.3 4.4 4.7 3.4 5.2 4.3 4.4 4.7 3.4 5.2 4.4 4.3 5.2 3.2 5.1 4.3 4.3 5.1 3.1 5.0 4.3 4.4 4.3 3.4 5.4 4.2 4.4 4.8 3.4 5.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.2 5.2 4.2 4.2 4.8 3.1 5.1 15.5 10.7 3.7 1.2 15.5 10.7 3.7 1.2 16.7 11.2 4.2 1.2 16.7 11.2 4.2 1.2 4.3 4.6 3.7 3.5 4.2 4.5 3.6 3.4 4.8 4.9 4.6 3.9 4.7 4.9 4.5 3.9 4.8 4.6 4.8 7.1 4.7 4.5 4.7 7.1 5.5 5.1 6.0 7.7 5.4 5.0 5.9 7.7 .9 .9 .9 .9 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 20.3 7.5 12.8 20.2 8.8 11.4 20.2 8.8 11.4 4.2 2.6 5.4 4.2 2.5 5.4 4.2 3.7 4.7 4.2 3.6 4.6 3.1 .6 5.1 3.0 .6 5.0 3.1 2.0 4.1 3.0 1.9 4.0 20.3 7.5 12.8 with the historical trend. One of the major causes of the upsurge in the purchase of durables will be increased purchases of furniture and household equipment. Large expenditures for these items will come from the increasing number of new families that will be forming as many of the large number of young people born in the early post-World War II years set up housekeeping. In contrast, nondurable expenditures for food and beverages and clothing and shoes are projected to continue to decline as a proportion of total p c e in line with the longrun historical trend. Higher consumer expenditures for services will reflect the rapid growth of expen ditures for medical care, private education, and recreation. Despite varying rates of growth, the dollar value of all categories of personal consump tion expenditures will be higher in 1980 than it is today. (See chart 2.) G o v e r n m e n t . By 1980, governments are expected to be spending more than they are today to attack domestic problems that defy individual solution. The Federal Government may participate directly in some programs, but more funds are projected to be channeled to State and local governments than at present through grants-in-aid. Government purchases at all levels under the services economy are expected to rise to about $289.7 billion in 1980, up from $200 billion in 1968. Nonetheless, the government proportion of all g n p expenditures will decline somewhat—to 20.3 percent in 1980 in the services economy, down https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Gross national product. Personal consumption expenditures. Durable goods. Nondurable goods. Services. Gross private domestic investment. Nonresidential. Residential structures. Net inventory change. Net exports. Government purchases. Federal. State and local. from 23.1 percent in 1968. These declines are largely a reflection of the projected cut in defense spending; and they mask an accompanying in crease in State and local governmental expendi tures. In fact, total nondefense purchases, for Federal, State, and local governments combined, are projected to increase more than three-fourths from 1968 to 1980. Federal purchases by 1980 are expected to be $107.3 billion in a services economy. They were $99.5 billion in 1968. If the projected expenditures materialize by 1980, the Federal share of g n p will be 7.5 percent, down from 11.5 percent in 1968. But if these 1980 Federal expenditures are com pared with 1965, before the escalation of the Viet Nam war, the decline from 1965 is smaller—from 9.7 percent of g n p —because of lower defense expenditures at that time. Defense expenditures are projected to decline by 1980, reflecting the assumption that the Viet Nam hostilities will be over and the numbers in the Armed Forces will be lower than they are today. If the Viet Nam hostilities cool off, as is assumed, expenditures to meet domestic needs are expected to grow. Funds may be directed at a greater rate than during the 1960’s into housing and com munity development, educational improvements, and the expansion of social welfare programs. These expenditures, of course, depend upon a continuation of congressional appropriations for legislation recently enacted and concerned with health, education, conservation, pollution and poverty. The projected Federal spending reflects MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 10 only direct Federal purchases of goods and services, but many Federal costs show up elsewhere. For example, increased costs of medicare and many of the increased costs of environmental control will show up in the projected increases in consumer expenditures or business investment and increased public education costs will be reflected in increased State and local government expenditures, even though the funds may come from the Federal Government. State and local governments are expected to benefit from both an increase in the Federal funds earmarked to help solve domestic problems at the State and local levels and increased revenues from higher tax collections. Reflecting this increased income, purchases are projected to rise in the services economy to the unprecedented height of Chart 1. Projected productivity, by major sector, private economy, 1968-80 Actual Employment !968 0 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Average annual rate of change 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 $182.4 billion, up from $100.7 billion spent in 1968 and exceeding projected purchases by the Federal Government by nearly 70 percent. The State and local government share of g n p will rise from 11.6 percent in 1968 to 12.8 percent in the services economy in 1980. Education takes the lion’s share of funds at the State and local levels, and its share will continue about the same in 1980. State governments usually pay for public higher education, and local governmental units pay the major share of public elementary and secondary education costs. Fol lowing the strain of rapid increases in the number of students in recent years, elementary school enrollments will begin to decline in the early 1970’s, and secondary school enrollments will show a significantly slower expansion. Nonetheless, expenditures will continue to rise as school boards look to quality improvement. Little letup in pressures in higher education enrollment is seen for 1980 in public institutions despite a slowdown in population growth. Compared with the 1960’s, a larger proportion of college-age people are expected to attend both community junior colleges and State universities. Environmental control measures are expected to command a steadily increasing share of State and local expenditures as public concern about ecological health and safety accelerates. Some of the costs of these improvements will be met by higher tax revenues and others will be borne by the consumer through increased prices. Highway construction and maintenance, which account for about one-fifth of all State and local government expenditures today, are expected to rise steadily in the 1970’s. State and local govern ments together are responsible for ownership and maintenance costs of approximately 96 percent of the highway mileage; the Federal Government, the remainder. The Interstate Highway Program scheduled for completion in the mid-1970’s will have added 41,000 miles of highway since the passage of the legislation in 1956. This additional mileage must be maintained by State and local governments. Government activities concerned with urban renewal, redevelopment, and rehabilitation asso ciated with the central cities all will require greater expenditures for construction and capital equipment. New low-income housing and urban U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: PRODUCTIVITY transit also will require heavy expenditures. Public health, hospitals, and sanitation may require large additional expenditures. Widespread citizen concern for health care and additional Federal funding undoubtedly will lead to the development of many facilities for health care such as regional health centers, community mental health facilities, nursing homes, and establish ments to aid the physically and mentally handi capped. Conservation and development of natural and agricultural resources, including the operation of parks and recreational activities, are expected to require expanded expenditures in the coming years. Although a relatively small part of total State and local government costs, expenditures on parks and recreation will be among the fastest growing areas in terms of expenditures of all State and local functions. G r o s s p r i v a t e DOMestic i n v e s t m e n t . By 1980, business investment may total $222.0 billion, up from $126.3 billion in 1968. This investment would result in a slight increase in the proportion ate share of g n p , from 14.6 percent in 1968 to 15.5 percent in 1980 in a services economy. New housing expenditures are expected to double in value to $53 billion by 1980, according to the services structure. Housing expenditures were $30.2 billion in 1968. The need for housing is expected to command a great deal of national attention in the coming decade because of the strong demand arising from the need to improve living conditions in the ghettos, the large and growing numbers of young adults who will need housing—often apartments—for their new fami lies, and the large number of retired persons seeking shelter in multiunit retirement develop ments. Plant and equipment expenditures by business may rise to $152.3 billion by 1980 in the services economy, up from $88.8 billion in 1968. These expenditures are expected to account for roughly two-thirds or more of all gross private domestic investment in the services economy. Spending for new plants is expected to grow more slowly than spending for equipment because the rate of construction growth for certain kinds of institutional and utility buildings and railroad and farm structures is expected to be slow. Indus https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11 trial building expenditures will not quite match the increases in equipment purchases, reflecting the historical downtrend in the ratio of plant to Chart 2. Differences in demand structure in a services economy and in a durables economy, 1980 (both 3- and 4-percent unemployment levels) MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 12 Table 2. Distribution of gross product originating,1 by major sector, 1965, 1968, projected to 1980 [Percent distribution] 1980 1965 Major sector 1968 Services economy— 3 percent unemploy ment2 Durables economy— 3 percent unemploy ment2 _________________ _____ ___________________ ______ _______ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Agriculture forestry, fisheries _ ___________________ ___________________________ Mining ______________________________________________________ Construction _ ____________________________________________________ Manufacturing ____ _______________________________ - _________ Transportation communications, and public utilities___ _ ______________________________ __ Wholesale and retail trade ........... Finance Insurance and real estate ............. ............. ............. .................. ............................ Services Including household services Government Including government enterprises .......................... ... _ 3.7 1.7 5.1 28.2 8.2 16.5 13.4 11.0 12.1 3.1 1.6 4.6 28.5 8.5 16.5 13.5 11.0 12.4 2.9 1.4 4.8 27.8 9.5 17.0 14.8 11.4 10.2 2.8 1.4 4.9 28.8 9.5 17.0 14.5 11.1 9.9 Total 1 Gross product originating is the value added by each sector to the total product. Distribution at 4-percent unemployment is identical. NOTE: Detail may not add to total. 2 equipment expenditures. Through the 1970’s a large gain is expected, however, in the construction of office buildings, hospitals, and social and recreational centers. The net change in inventories—raw materials, semifinish goods, and finished goods—is estimated to total 1.2 percent of the 1980 output of $16.7 billion in the services economy—well over double the 1968 level of inventories. N et f o r e ig n p u r c h a s e s o f g oo ds a n d s e r v Net exports are expected to increase five fold by 1980 to about $13 billion in 1980, according to the projections for a services economy. ic e s C . o m p o n e n t p u r c h a s e r s in a d u r a b le s goods Although the assumptions in the dura bles projection that affect the real g n p growth rate are very similar to the services projection, the composition of demand shows the following differences: (1) Total personal consumption ex penditures would be lower as a proportion of total gross national product, but durable goods would be a significantly higher proportion than in the services projection, and both nondurable goods and services would be somewhat lower. (2) Gross private domestic investment in the durable goods projection would be a slightly higher proportion of g n p . Each of the subcomponents of fixed investment would also be higher: Nonresidential structures, producers’ durable equip ment, and residential structures. The residential structures component, however, is proportionately higher than the other components of investment. The level of residential structure assumed in a durables economy is sufficiently high to encompass e c o n o m y achievement of the housing goals of 26 million new dwelling units by 1978 and assumes a larger proportion of single family housing units. Federal Government purchases are higher in a durables economy on the assumption of greater expenditures for military hardware. State and local government expenditures are lower, however, so that the proportion of g n p devoted to Govern ment in the durables projection is similar to that found in the services economy. Even though the State and local government proportion of g n p in the durables economy is lower than in the services economy State and local government in the former would still grow faster than g n p or Federal purchases. . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Industry output After determining the potential size of the g n p and its principal component purchasers, the in dustrial outlines of 1980’s economy emerge through a series of interrelated steps that involves translating the g n p into specific goods and services purchased, such as food, clothing, rent, auto mobiles, drugs, cosmetics, and medical expenses. These purchases of specific goods and services are then allocated to 82 producing industries by the application of a variety of techniques and tools, different for each of the component pur chasers of the g n p . The final demand of the 82 producing industries is traced back to all the other industries that contributed either directly or indirectly to this final production through the use of an input-output table; that is, a table used to identify the industry origins of all the goods and 13 U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: PRODUCTIVITY services that go into the production of a final product. The great value of this kind of analysis to manpower planners is that it permits detailed analysis of the employment repercussions—or the ripple effect—of changes in demand in one in dustry on all others. For example, a change in the level of highway or school construction will affect not only employment in the construction industry but also in the steel industry and then in the iron ore industry. To determine both the direct and indirect effects on employment of a change in expenditures for school or highway construction requires knowledge of (a) what each industry in the economy buys from every other industry to produce its products (input-output relationships) and (b) what employment requirements are per dollar of output for each industry (productivity). When each of these elements is projected to the target year, it becomes possible to trace the impact on employment of the projected purchases of final goods and services back along the entire chain of production, transportation, and distribution. Projections have been developed for the output in 82 industries, but this article will deal with these output projections aggregated into major sectors: Manufacturing, mining, and so on, converted into the value of the gross product originating, or value added terms, rather than the value of total output to avoid double counting materials and intermediate services. In general, these industry sector projections con tinue long-term past trends except for a halt in the downward slide in construction’s share of total output. The distribution of sector output over time has shown agriculture, mining, and Table 3. construction declining steadily in relation to total output; transportation and public utilities, finance, insurance, and real estate gaining in re lation to total output; and manufacturing, trade, and services staying roughly the same (chart 3). Agriculture's share of total output will decline by 1980 to just below 3 percent in both the services and durables projections. It was 3.1 percent in 1968. (See tables 2 and 3.) Although consumer food purchases through the 1970’s are expected to increase—more people, more demand for food—their proportionate share of total personal consumption expenditures ( p c e ) is declining. As the housewife buys more canned, frozen, or precooked food, which has been proc essed in some other way, the value added to the product by the manufacturing industry expands while the farm share declines. Manufacturing's share of total output will con tinue at roughly 28 percent in 1980; it was 28.5 percent in 1968. Dissimilar trends will prevail, however, for durable goods and nondurable goods. Over the long run, durables—consumer, producer, and military—have been increasing as a share of total demand; nondurables, mainly consumer purchases of food and clothing, have been declin ing. These trends are projected to extend to 1980 in both projections, but in the durable goods economy the upward trend for durables is, of course, accelerated. Transportation, communications, and public util ities will show a small increase in their share of total output through the 1970’s, in all projections, rising from 8.5 percent in 1968—to about 9.5 percent in 1980. Finance, insurance, and real estate industries Gross product originating:1 average annual rate of change, 1968-80 (projected) 1968-80 period Major sector Durables economy Services economy 3 percent unemployment 4 percent unemployment 3 percent unemployment 4 percent unemployment Total................................................................. 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.2 Agriculture, forestry, fisheries.................................. M in in g .................. .... ....................... ...................... Construction........ ....................................................... Manufacturing________ ____________ ____ ____ Transportation, communications, and public utilities. Wholesale and retail trade....................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate.......................... Services, including household services............ .......... Government, including government enterprises____ 3.4 3.0 4.7 4.1 5.3 4.5 5.1 4.6 2.6 3.3 2.9 4.6 4.0 5.2 4.5 5.0 4.5 2.5 3.2 2.9 4.9 4.4 5.2 4.6 4.9 4.3 2.4 3.1 2.8 4.8 4.3 5.2 4. 5 4.8 4.3 2.3 >Gross product originating is the value added by each sector to the total product. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Detail may not add to total. 14 will increase their share of total output in 1980 to close to 14.5 percent, up from 13.5 percent in 1968. This increase will reflect the surge in housing expenditures by consumers, which are reported as purchases from the real estate industry in the form of rent and rental value of owned homes. Chart 3. Average annual rates of growth in value of out put, 1968-80 (projected in 1968 dollars) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Service industries will expand slightly as a pro portion of total output by 1980 to close to 11.5 percent. The anticipated increase in consumer expenditures for medical services will contribute to this increased share in the services economy. Trade will increase a little by 1980, to 17 percent of total output in a service economy. It was 16.5 percent in 1968. Construction’s share of total output will rise slightly to about 5 percent by 1980, up from 4.6 percent in 1968. This modest increase brings to a halt a long run, severe downtrend. The increase in the total value of production, will reflect rising State and local government needs, increasing housing requirements, and expanding investment in plants. Mining will continue a slow decline in its share of total demand through the 1970’s to about 1.4 percent in the services projection. It was 1.6 percent in 1968. The economy in 1980 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY AND OCCUPATION r o je c te d c h a n g e in output per man-hour in each industry is the final step in determining employment by industry. These projections are constructed on the basis of the estimated levels of industry output in 1980 and its past output and productivity behavior, taking account of the anticipated impact of technological innovations, as well as any structural change occurring within and between industries. Hence the kind and level of manpower requirements of the 1970’s are intertwined with the nature of the industrial changes that seem likely to occur over the decade. General trends and growth factors that are expected to affect industry employment in a services economy (with 3-percent unemployment) through the 1970’s are described below for the major industry groups. (See table 4.) P Service-producing industries The most dramatic.change in industry employ ment in recent years has been the employment 15 U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: EMPLOYMENT Table 4. Changes in total and wage and salary employment by industry sector, 1965 and 1968 (actual) and 1980 (projected for services and durable goods economies) [In thousands] 1980 3-percent unemployment Industry sector Durables economy Services economy 1968 1965 4-percent unemployment 3-percent unemployment 4-percent unemployment Wage Wage Wage Wage Wage Wage Total Total Total and and Total and and Total and and Total salary employ salary employ salary employ salary employ salary employ salary employ ment employ ment employ ment employ ment employ ment employ ment employ ment ment ment ment ment ment GOODS PRODUCING 18,454 4,671 3,994 667 18,062 4,521 3,186 632 20,125 4,154 4,050 646 19,768 4,012 3,267 610 22,358 3,188 5,482 590 21,935 3,030 4,600 550 22,133 3,156 5,427 584 21,712 3,000 4,553 544 23,240 3,192 5,595 588 22,817 3,034 4,713 548 23,005 3,160 5,539 582 22,584 3,004 4,665 542 Services industries__________________________________ Trade___ . _________ _____ _ _ _ ______ . Transportation, communications, and public utilities........... . Finance, insurance, and real estate___________________ 13,722 15,352 4,250 3,367 11,501 12,716 4,036 3,023 15,113 16,604 4,524 3,726 12,826 14,081 4,313 3,383 21,080 20,487 4,976 4,639 18,660 17,625 4, 740 4, 260 20,867 20, 282 4,926 4,593 18,474 17,450 4,692 4,217 20, 585 20,501 4,961 4, 538 18,165 17,639 4,725 4,159 20,376 20, 296 4,911 4,493 17,983 17,464 4,677 4,117 Government............... ................... .......... .......................... . 10,091 10, 091 11,846 11,846 16,800 16,800 16,632 16,632 16, 200 16,200 16, 038 16,038 Manufacturing........... _........... _............. ..................... .......... Agriculture________ ____ ______________ ______ ______ Construction...................... ........................................... .......... Mining_______________________ _____ ______________ SERVICE PRODUCING shift towards service-producing industries. Shortly after the turn of this century, only 3 in every 10 workers were in service industries. By 1950, the weight had shifted to just over 5 in every 10 in service industries; by 1968 the proportion had inched to 6 in every 10. In 1980, close to 7 in every 10 workers—or 68 million—are projected to be in service industries. (See chart 4.) T r a n s p o r t a t io n , c o m m u n ic a t io n s , a n d p u b l ic Employment in this group of industries is expected to increase to close to 5 million in 1980, up from 4.5 million in 1968. Despite this small employment gain, its share of total employment will decline from 5.6 percent in 1968 to 5 percent. Transportation employment has been dominated by the long, slow decline in railroad employment during the postwar period. Even though employ ment in trucking and air transportation has expanded, the decline in railroad employment has been severe enough to cause an overall decline in the average for all transportation industries. But a turn around is expected: trucking and air trans portation will increase fast enough to offset what ever further small railroad declines occur; an overall slow gain in employment is projected. Public utilities and communications are highly productive service industries. Hence, even though u t il it ie s . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the services provided by these industries are ex pected to expand significantly—output has the highest projected rate of increase through the 1970’s among all nonfarm industries—employment will increase only moderately to 1980 and will decline as a proportion of total employment. T r a d e . The largest of the service industries, wholesale and retail trade, is interwoven through out the economic system in a network of wholesale and retail establishments. Trade employment changes are expected to parallel those of the whole economy and with trade’s relative share—onefifth—of total employment remaining about the same in 1980. Employment, however, will rise from 16.6 million in 1968 to 20.5 million in 1980. Retail trade employment will expand most rapidly in general merchandise stores and eating and drinking establishments. Technological de velopments such as vending machines, other self-service gadgets, and electronic computers for inventory control and billing will tend to retard employment growth. Wholesale trade employment will increase more rapidly than that of retail trade. Employment in motor vehicles, automotive equipment, and machinery equipment and supply will be among the faster growing areas. 16 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 in a n c e , in s u r a n c e , a n d real e s t a t e . Em ployment in these industries is expected to increase at about the same rate as total employment each year through the 1970’s and to account for only a slightly larger share—4.7 percent—of total em ployment in 1980 than in 1968. Employment, however, will rise from 3.7 million in 1968 to 4.6 million in 1980. Banking employment is expected to grow at a slower pace than in the last decade as advancing automation eliminates many clerical functions. Electronic data processing equipment also is expected to slow employment growth in the security dealers and exchanges sector, a rapid growth area. Increase in the size of firms may also limit employment gains. Although restrained somewhat by the com puterization of recordkeeping functions, insurance employment will continue to grow at about the same pace as during the 1960’s because of the steadily rising population. Real estate employment will grow at a slightly faster pace than in the past decade: it is little affected by technological advances but highly responsive to the rising number of family formations. F S e r v i c e s . These industries, including private household employment, will increase their share of total employment by 1980, rising from 18.7 percent in 1968 to about 21 percent in 1980 and at a faster rate than total employment. Employ ment will rise to 21 million in 1980, up from 15 Chart 4. Employment1 trends in goods-producing and services-producing industries, 1947-68 (actual) and 1968-80 (projected for a services economy with 3-percent unemployment) Millions of workers Service producing Transportation and public utilities Trade Finance, insurance, and real estate Services Government Goods producing Manufacturing Contract construction Mining Agriculture 1947 50 55 60 65 68 70 1 Wage and salary workers only, except in agriculture, which includes self-employed and unpaid family workers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1980 17 U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: EMPLOYMENT million in 1968. Employment growth in this heterogenous group of service industries, which include personal, business, health, and educational services, will be related to a substantial increase in population, a rapid rise in personal disposable income, expanding economic activity, and a growing demand for medical, educational, and other services. The output of these labor-intensive industries is less affected by technological change than many other industries, hence their employment growth is not restrained very much by productivity advances. Within the services division, employment growth is expected in all major industries between 1968 and 1980, ranging from 14 percent for motion picture employment to almost 100 percent for miscellaneous business services. Growth in busi ness services is expected to be particularly rapid as firms rely increasingly on advertising services to sell their products; on accounting, auditing, bookkeeping, and computing services to handle their recordkeeping; on contract firms to provide maintenance service; and on audit bureaus and collecting agencies to cope with mushrooming consumer credit. G o v e r n m e n t . Employment has grown faster in government than in any other sector in the economy. From 1960-68 employment grew at the rate of 4.5 percent a year, nearly 2%times the rate for total employment. The sharp rise in recent years has been stimulated, however, by the needs of the Viet Nam war as well as by the rapid growth in population, the increasing proportion of young and old persons in the population who require more services, and the general growth in demand for more and better government services. Employ ment is projected to rise more slowly through the 1970’s—at 2.9 percent a year—reaching 16.8 million in 1980, up from 11.8 million in 1968. Employment among Federal Government workers will rise only slightly, but State and local employ ment will continue to expand rapidly. Although the rate of increase in State and local government employment will be higher compared with almost any other sector, the growth will be slower than during the 1960’s, mainly because of an anticipated easing in the rate of growth for educational services, which account for roughly half of total employment in State and local governments. 377-973 O—70------2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Goods-producing industries Despite a steadily rising total output of goods to unprecedented levels through the 1970’s, the goods-producing industries encompass the only major industries in which employment is expected to decline—mining and agriculture—and one industry—manufacturing—for which employment growth is expected to be slower than during the 1960’s. Only one goods producer, construction, is expected to show a quickened pace of employment growth through the 1970’s. This modest employ ment expansion, overall, for goods-producing industries, in the face of an overall healthy in crease in output, reflects, of course, their rising productivity. Altogether, the goods-producing industries em ployed 29 million workers in 1968 and are expected to increase to 31.6 million by 1980. However, their share of total employment will drop to less than a third by 1980 from about 36 percent in 1968. g r i c u l t u r e . Large increases in productivity, small gains in output, and a continuing concentra tion of employment on large farms will result in further decline, about 1 million, in agricultural employment between 1968-80. The agricultural share of total employment will also decline from 5.1 percent in 1968 to 3.2 percent in 1980. A M i n i n g . Employment has been declining for many years because of above average gains in productivity and decreased demand, particularly for coal. Mining is projected to have the lowest rate of increase in output among all nonfarm industries. Continued employment declines are projected through the 1970’s although at a re duced rate because of some resurgence in the demand for coal. Employment will be less than 600,000 by 1980. Future employment growth will be limited by the increasing use of new and improved laborsaving devices and techniques, such as continuous mining machinery systems and more efficient exploration and recovery techniques in crude oil and natural gas extraction. C o n s t r u c t io n . This industry may benefit from intensive application of existing technology that would increase the output per man-hour. Already, prefabricated panels and shells for houses show promise of more widespread use. At the same time 18 the national housing goal for the decade 1968-78 calls for the construction of 20 million new housing units in the private market and the production of 6 million new and rehabilitated units with public assistance in one form or another. This will spur growth in the construction industry, which is ex pected to grow at 2.5 percent a year in the 1970’s, nearly twice its growth rate during the 1960’s. Additional demand will come from an expansion in State and local government needs, particularly for highway construction and new and rehabili tated housing units, and from expanding invest ment in industrial plants. Employment will rise from 4 million in 1968 to nearly 53^2 million by 1980. M a n u f a c t u r i n g . Still the biggest industry, man ufacturing is expected to remain as the largest single source of jobs in the economy. Manpower requirements in manufacturing, however, are expected to increase at a slower pace, at 0.9 per cent a year, than that experienced during the 1960’s, chiefly because the recent increases in employment in industries heavily oriented toward defense—ordnance, communications equipment, electronic components, aircraft and parts, and shipbuilding—are not expected to continue at the same pace in the 1970’s. Employment, how ever, will rise from 20 million in 1968 to 22.4 million in 1980. In general, manpower requirements will con tinue to increase faster in durable goods manu facturing than in nondurable goods industries. Growth in the durable goods sector will be accel erated by the significantly increased demand for building materials for housing construction. As in the past, changes in employment in individual manufacturing industries are expected to vary widely, depending on the impact of technology as well as shifts in demand. The increasing appli cation of technological innovations to manu facturing processes is expected to continue to reduce unit labor requirements in manufacturing. Major technological developments that will con tinue to limit growth in manufacturing employ ment include numerical control of machine tools, new metal processing methods, machinery im provements, improved materials handling (includ ing layout), new and improved raw materials and products, instrumentation and automatic controls, and electronic computers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 How the employment projections differ Employment projections for a durable goods economy, even though weighted more heavily toward the production of goods, still produce an economy weighted more toward the service sector than the present one. The rate at which employ ment shifts away from the goods-producing part of the economy, however, is slower in the durable goods projection than in the services projection. Durable goods manufacturing accounts for about 1 percent more of total employment under the assumptions upon which the durable goods economy projections in 1980 are based than under the assumptions used for the services economy projections. Employment in the nondurable goods industries, however, is only modestly changed between the two structures of the economy. Trans portation and trade are both roughly the same; manufacturing is slightly higher; services and government, slightly lower. In both types of economy, manufacturing shows a declining pro portion of total employment while services and government show increasing proportions of total employment. (See charts 5 and 6.) Occupational employment Industry changes during the 1970’s will have a strong influence on occupations—which ones will grow and which will contract. Each industry in the economy requires a specific mix of occupations. As industries react to changes in final demand and in relation to each other, the relative importance of particular occupations also changes. Beyond the effect of interindustry relationships, industry occupational structures are also affected by internal changes within industries. Just as technological advances that increase worker pro ductivity have significantly affected employment and output, these advances significantly affected the occupational structure of the work force. As a result of technological innovations, new occupa tions have emerged; others have expanded, contracted, or even disappeared; and the content and skill requirements of a great many occupations have been altered. But technology and final demand are not the only factors affecting occupa tional shifts. Changes can occur as a result of revised work rules, new directions in governmental policy, and severe shortages that force sub stitutions in the kinds of workers hired (table 5). U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: EMPLOYMENT 19 Chart 5. Total employment: average annual rate of change,- by major sector, 1960-68 (actual) and 1968-80 (pro jected for a services economy) -5 +3 +4 +5 Total A griculture, forestry and fisheries Mining Construction Manufacturing D urable N o n d u ra b le Transportation, communications and public u tilities Trade Finance insurance and real estate Services (including household) Government I 3 1968-80 Services economy, 3% unemployment Several long-term occupational trends are ex pected to continue: White-collar occupations, the fastest growing occupational group over the past 50 years, will continue in that mode. This group, which sur passed employment in blue-collar occupations for the first time in 1956, will account for about half of all employed workers (50.8 percent) by 1980. Employment in these occupations will rise from 35.6 million in 1968 to 48.3 million in 1980. Blue-collar occupations, a slow growing occupa tional group, will account for almost one-third (32.7 percent) of the work force by 1980, down from 36.3 percent in 1968. Employment, however, will rise from 27)^ million in 1968 to 31.1 million https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis I ] 1960-68 1968-80 Services economy, 4% unem ploym ent in 1980. Many occupations within the group, particularly in the skilled craft and foremen category, require years of specialized training. Farm workers will continue to decline—from 4.6 percent of the work force in 1968 to 2.7 percent in 1980—as machines take over many more of the production processes on the farm. Employment will also shrink from 3)^ million in 1968 to 2.6 million in 1980. Service occupations will continue to expand through the 1970’s increasing by two-fifths, which is more than one and a half times the expansion for all occupations combined. Employment will rise to 13.1 million in 1980, up from 9.4 million in 1968. (See chart 7.) 20 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Chart 6. Total employment: average annual rate of change, by major sector, 1960-68 (actual) and 1968-80 (pro jected for a durables economy) Net occupational openings Projections of occupational requirements, which encompass the total employed civilian work force, indicate that the total openings arising from occu pational growth and replacement needs will be about 48 million between 1968-80, or about 4 million jobs to be filled every year throughout the period. Although the inflow to the labor force through the 1970’s matches the overall number of net job openings3—transfers between occupations cancel out—this balance in no way suggests a perfect fit between entry requirements and worker qualifications. Such a match depends on the future education and training of young people, the degree of flexibility workers show in adapting to changing requirements and employers utilize https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in adapting hiring standards to the available labor force. Average annual openings by detailed occupation may identify those areas where oppor tunities are numerous and help young people make their career plans based on the best available information. (See chart 8.) Replacement needs—about 28 million in the 1970’s—will be the most significant source of job openings in each of the major occupational areas—white-collar, blue-collar, service, and farm. The need to replace workers who leave the labor force—primarily due to death and/or retire ment—will account for 3 in every 5 job openings during the period from 1968-80; occupational growth will account for 2 in every 5 openings. Replacement needs are likely to exceed the overall in those occupations that (a) employ U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: EMPLOYMENT 21 Table 5. Average annual rate of employment change, by major occupational group, 1960-68 (actual) and 1968-80 (Projected for a services economy with 3-percent un employment) 1968-80 1960-68 Occupational group 1.8 Total.............................................................. 1.9 White-collar workers . .. __ Professional technical, and kindred ____ Managers officials and proprietors ........... ............... - Clerical Sales - -. _ ___ 2.8 4.1 1.2 3.5 1.2 2.6 3.4 1.7 2.5 2.2 Blue-collar workers __ __ . __ ____ Craftsmen and foremen _ ______________ Operatives ......... - _________ Nonfarm laborers . 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.7 0.8 -0 .1 Service workers Farmworkers __ __ . 2.0 2.8 - 5 .1 - 3 .4 . _ ___ ____ ___ many women, who frequently leave the labor force to assume family responsibilities, and (b) have a large proportion of older workers who have rela tively few years of working life remaining. Growth needs—about 20 million—reflect indus try changes as well as technological changes during the 1970’s that, in turn, will determine, in large measure, which occupations will grow, which will contract. Changes in occupational groups Employment requirements to 1980 have been projected for the 9 major occupational groups and for about 250 detailed occupations (chart 9). P r o f e s s io n a l , t e c h n ic a l , a n d k in d r e d . Em ployment growth in these occupations has out distanced that in all other major occupational groups in recent decades. From less than a million in 1890, the number of these workers has grown to 10.3 million in 1968. And requirements for these occupations will continue to lead other cat egories between 1968 and 1980, increasing half again in size, which is twice the employment in crease among all occupations combined. At 15% million in 1980, employment in this occupational group will represent 16.3 percent of total employ ment, up from 13.6 percent in 1968. The long term rise in demand for goods and services, resulting from population growth and rising business and personal incomes, will account for much of the need for these highly trained workers (as well as for the increases among other groups of workers). The increasing concentration of the population in metropolitan areas also will https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis create new demands for professional and technical personnel to work on environmental protection, urban renewal, and mass transportation systems. In addition, efforts to develop further the Nation’s resources and industry and the quest for scientific and technical knowledge will generate new re quirements for professional workers. M a n a g e r s , o f f ic ia l s , a n d p r o p r i e t o r s . Em ployment in this occupational group, rising more slowly than total employment, will reach 9% mil lion in 1980, up from 7.8 million in 1968. Its share of total employment will continue at about 10 per cent. Changes in the scale and type of business organization have had divergent effects upon the various segments of this occupational group. In retailing, for example, the establishment of chain stores such as supermarkets and discount houses has eliminated many small businesses, thus reducing the number of self-employed proprietors. In contrast, the number of salaried managers and officials has increased significantly. The net result of these opposing trends will probably be a slower increase in employment in the manager-proprietor Chart 7. Employment trends among major occupational categories,1 1947-68 (actual) and 1980 (projected for a services economy with 3-percent unemployment) Percent White-collar workers Blue-collar workers Service workers Farm workers 1947 1950 1960 1 Farm workers include farm managers. 1968 1980 22 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 group as a whole than in any other maj or group of white-collar workers. Demand for salaried managers and officials is expected to grow rapidly with the increasing dependence of both business and government on trained management specialists. Technological development will contribute further to employ ment growth of these occupations. For example, an increasing number of technical managers is needed to plan research and development programs and to make decisions on the installation and use of automated machinery and automatic data processing systems. Proprietors are expected to continue to decline as the trend toward larger firms restricts growth of the total number of firms, and as small grocery and general stores and hand laundries continue to disappear. The expansion of quick service grocery stores, self-service laundries and drycleaning shops, and hamburger and frozen custard drive-ins, how ever, will slow the rate of decline. Chart 8. Net job openings in major occupational cate gories and groups, 1968-80 (projected for a services economy with 3-percent unemployment) -1 All occupations +10 +20 +30 +40 +5 o ____ I_______ I 48 million White-collar I l 28 million Professional & technical Managers, officials, & proprietors Clerical 1h 9 m illion n U i 1 5 m illion i s i 11 million Sales D I 3 million Blue-collar n i 11 millio Craftsmen and foremen D 1 5 million Operatives D 5 million Nonfarm laborers I1 1 million Service uni 9 million Farm https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis C l e r i c a l . Employment in clerical jobs is expected to grow considerably faster than total employment rising to 17.3 million in 1980, up from 12.8 million in 1968. This rate of growth, although rapid, is considerably slower than that experienced from 1960-68. Clerical workers, the largest single category in white-collar employment, will be affected by the rapid technological developments in the fields of computers, office equipment, and communication devices in the 1970’s. For some, the effect of these technological improvements will in time retard the growth of employment; for others, the demand for processing the increased information becoming available through these improvements will accen tuate growth in their ranks. Technological developments will limit employ ment growth for certain types of clerical workers. To illustrate, the use of electronic computers and bookkeeping machines to process routine and repetitive work is expected to reduce the number of clerks in jobs such as filing, payroll, inventory control, and customer billing. On the other hand, laborsaving innovations will be offset to some extent by growing requirements for clerical per sonnel to prepare computer inputs. The rapid growth of industries that employ large clerical staffs, particularly those such as finance, insurance, and real estate, is a major factor in the projected level of clerical demand. Clerical employment will increase its share of total employment from 16.9 percent in 1968 to 18.2 percent in 1980. I] 0.3 million _J Replacement S a l e s . The anticipated expansion of trade should increase the demand for sales personnel—partic ularly for part-time employees—but changing techniques in merchandising may hold down some of the increase. Employment is expected to rise from 4.6 million in 1968 to 6 million in 1980 and at a slightly faster rate of increase than is expected in total employment. Sales share of total employment will continue a little over 6 percent through the 1970’s. C raftsm en, fo rem en, and k in d r e d w orkers. Employment in this highly skilled group of occupa tions is expected to expand more slowly than total employment, rising from 10 million in 1968 to 12.2 million in 1980. The craft share of total 23 U .S. EC O N O M Y IN 1 980: EM P LO Y M E N T employment will slide downward a little to 12.8 percent by 1980. Different industries employ different proportions of craftsmen. Manufacturing employs a greater number than any other industry. In construction, however, these skilled workers are a much higher proportion of employees than in any other in dustry group—1 out of every 2, compared with 1 in 5 in manufacturing and transportation and fewer than 1 in 10 in other industries. S e m i s k i l l e d w o r k e r s . These occupations employ more workers than any other group. Employment in these occupations increased sharply as industry, aided by technological innovations, shifted to mass production processes. But now that these processes are well established, further and more sophisticated technological advances are apt to slow employ ment growth in these occupations in the years ahead. Employment is projected to rise from 14 million in 1968 to 15.4 million in 1980, at a rate of increase that will be about half the increase projected for total employment; the semiskilled share of total employment will slide downward from 18.4 percent in 1968 to 16.2 percent in 1980. Three of every 5 semiskilled workers in 1968 were employed as factory operatives in manu facturing industries. Large numbers were assem blers or inspectors, and many worked as operators of material moving equipment such as powered forklift trucks. Among the nonfactory operatives, drivers of trucks, buses, and taxicabs by far made up the largest group. Employment trends among the individual semi skilled occupations since World War II have reflected different rates of growth in the industries in which the workers were employed as well as the differing impacts of technological innovations on occupations. For example, the rapid decline in employment of spinners and weavers reflected not only the relatively small increase in the demand for textile mill products but also the in creased mechanization of spinning and weaving processes. Increases in production and growing motor truck transportation of freight will be major factors in expanding demands for operatives in the 1968-80 period. o n f a r m l a b o r e r s . Employment requirements for these laborers are expected to continue at 3% million despite the rapid employment rise antici pated in manufacturing and construction, the primary employers of laborers. The nonfarm labor share of total employment, however, will decline from 4.7 percent to 3.7 percent between 1968 and 1980. Increases in demand are expected to be offset roughly by rising output per worker resulting from the continuing substitution of mechnical equipment for manual labor. For example, powerdriven equipment such as forklift trucks, derricks, cranes, hoists, and conveyor belts will take over Chart 9. Employment in major occupational groups, 1968 (actual) and 1980 (projected for a services economy with 3-percent unemployment) Millions of workers 0 10 20 White collar Professional and technical Managers, officials, and proprietors Clerical workers Sales workers Blue collar Craftsmen and foremen Operatives Nonfarm laborers Service workers Farm workers N https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ] 1980 30 40 50 24 more and more handling of materials in factories, at freight terminals, and in warehouses. Other power-driven machines will do excavating, ditch digging, and similar work. In addition, integrated systems of processing and handling of materials equipment will be installed in an increasing number of plants. w o r k e r s . Major factors underlying in creased needs for service workers will be a growing population, expanding business activity, increasing leisure time, and higher levels of disposable per sonal income. This occupational group, a fast growing one, encompasses a wide variety of jobs and a wide range of skill requirements. It in cludes such diverse jobs as FBI agents, policemen, beauty operators, and janitors. Employment requirements will rise from 9.4 million in 1968 to 13.1 million in 1980, at a rate of increase that is more than half again as fast as the rate projected for total employment. Private household employment, the slowest growing serv ice area, will expand from 1.7 million to 2.0 million, an increase of about 15 percent between 1968 and 1980. The fastest growing service area will be health service, rising close to 90 percent, from 800,000 to 1.5 million between 1968 and 1980. S e r v ic e a r m w o r k e r s . These workers will decline onethird, from 3% million in 1968 to 2.6 million in 1980. The share of total employment also will fall, from 4.6 percent to 2.7 percent in the same period. Continuing earlier trends, decreasing require ments for farm workers will be related to rising productivity on the farms. Improvements in farm technology, better fertilizers, seeds, and feed will permit farmers to increase production with fewer employees. Improved mechanical harvesters for vegetables and fruits will decrease the need for seasonal or other hired labor. Innovations in live stock and poultry feeding and improved milking systems will allow more efficient handling of a greater volume of productivity. The expected development of automatic packing, inspection, and sorting systems for fruits, vegetables, and other farm products also will reduce employment requirements for farm workers. The continued trend toward larger and more efficient farms will also limit employment. Farms and farm managers are expected to continue to be most affected by the decline in the F https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 number of small farms, and requirements for these workers are expected to continue to decline faster than that for farm laborers and foremen. Employment in a durables economy Under the assumptions embodied in the dura bles economy, those occupations that predomi nate in durable goods industries would show different employment levels. Requirements for engineers, for example, would be 1 percent higher in a durables economy; tool and die makers, carpenters, and cement finishers would each be about 2 percent higher; manufacturing sales men would be nearly 3 percent higher. On the other hand, occupations that predominate in services industries, such as government; finance, insurance, and real estate; and trade would show somewhat lower employment levels, securities and insurance salesmen, about 23^ percent less; and waitresses, about 2 percent less. The economy in 1980 PROJECTED SHAPE OF THE LABOR FORCE T h e L a b o r F o r c e is affected by changing labor force participation rates by age groups. Past trends provide clues for predicting how these rates may change. Some past trends suggest that the increase in college enrollments will tend to reduce the labor force activity of the college-age groups as a whole even though many students Table 6. Labor force balance sheet, 1960-70, 1970-80 Number in millions 1960 DECADE (1960-70) Total labor force, 16 years and over, 1960________________ Less withdrawals, 1960 through 1969_________________ 1960 total labor force still in labor force in 1970__________ Plus new entrants, 1960 through 1969________________ Plus all other entrants, 1960 through 1969 i ___________ Total labor force, 16 years and over, 1970 2______ _________ 72.1 20.9 51.2 26.4 8.0 85.6 1970 DECADE (1970-80) Total labor force, 16 years and over, 1970 2_______________ Less withdrawals, 1970 through 1979_________________ 1970 total labor force still in labor force in 1980__________ Plus new entrants, 1970 through 1979________________ Plus all other entrants, 1970 through 1979 i ___________ Total labor force, 16 years and over, 1980________ _______ _ 1 Primarily reentrants plus immigrants. 2 Estimated 85.6 26.3 59.3 33.7 7.7 100.7 25 U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: LABOR FORCE continue to work part time. As has been the case in recent years, an expanding economy is likely to provide an abundance of j obs that will tend to en courage students, other young people, and women to move into the labor force, often for parttime jobs, in larger numbers than during the 1960’s. Birth rates, which have been declining, are likely to continue to do so with the result that more women will enter the labor force. Finally, the level and coverage of retirement benefits will allow more workers to leave the labor force at earlier ages. Chart 10. The shape of the labor force, 1968 (actual) and 1980 (projected) All workers (millions) 110 Labor force changes The labor force is constantly changing. Workers enter and leave all the time. The expansion to 100 million by 1980 means that more workers will be coming into the labor force pool (41 million) than will be leaving (26 million). (See chart 10.) Three kinds of workers will increase the supply of labor by 41 million through the 1970’s: ►34 million new, young workers looking for their first jobs, ►nearly 6 million women who either delayed their entry into the labor force or picked up the threads of work again after an absence, most frequently devoted to caring for young children, ►over 1 million immigrants who will become part of the U.S. work force. Three kinds of workers will leave the labor force during the 1970’s reducing the total by 26 million: workers who die; workers who retire; and workers who decide not to work any longer, although sometimes only temporarily, for a variety of personal reasons including illness and the need to care for family or because of other responsibilities. (See table 6.) The net effect of this inflow and outflow on the age composition of the labor force through the 1970’s (1968-80) will be as follows: The huge iincrease of teenagers in the 1960’s will taper of. The proportion of the labor force that is composed of teenagers will actually decline a little—from 8.7 percent to 8.3 percent—as the 1970’s advance to 1980, but even so their numbers will continue to rise. In 1960, teenagers in the labor force numbered about 5.2 million. Their average rate of increase through the 1960’s (1960-68) was about 3.9 percent per year, result ing in 7.1 million being in the labor force by 1968; https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ages by 1980, there will be 8.3 million. Their annual average rate of increase through the 1970’s (196880) will drop to 1.3 percent, about one-third of the growth rate of the preceding decade. The rate of increase of 20- to 2f-year-olds in the labor force will slow down. Young people, 20 to 24 years old, in the labor force will be increasing in numbers during the 1970’s but at a slower rate than during the preceding decade. In contrast with the teenagers, the proportion these young adults constitute of the total labor force will continue to rise from 13.4 percent (11 million) in 1968, to 14.7 percent (almost 15 million) by 1980—a reflection primarily of the increase in population. Altogether, young people under the age of 25 will account for a little more than a quarter of total labor force expansion of the 1970’s, in con trast with over half (54 percent) of labor force growth from 1960 to 1968. The number of early career workers, 25 to years old, will increase precipitously. The big labor force news of the 1970’s will be the significant increase in the numbers of workers in their late twenties MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 26 Chart 11. Major changes in the labor force, 1960's (estimated) and 1970’s (projected) Millions of workers Age group -2 0 1960's I +2 I 4 6 1970's I 8 14 16 I and early thirties—the career development years, from 16% million in 1968 to over 26 million in 1980, an increase of almost 60 percent. One out of every 4 workers will be in this age group in 1980 in comparison with 1 in every 5 in 1968. For the most part, these workers will have completed their education and training and will be ready to assume full harness in the world of work. The catalyst for the big expansion in young workers is the great upsurge in the fertility rate that occurred following World War II. The annual number of births increased from 2.7 million to 3.8 million between 1946 and 1947 and then moved up to 4.2 million by the late 1950,s. Their schooling for the most part completed, these young people born in the early postwar years will provide a large pool of trained, young workers, unprecedented in numbers. The increasing number of 25- to 34-year-olds in the labor force in the 1970’s does not neces sarily mean that 800,000 new jobs must be found every year for those moving into this age bracket. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A great many of these young workers came into the labor force during the 1960’s and found jobs then. During the 1970’s, they simply will be moving up the age ladder of the labor force. As they acquire additional training, experience, and maturity in the process of working their way up, they may be able to compensate for the short supply of older workers in the prime career age group where recent labor force expansion has been either slim or nonexistent. The number of midcareer workers, aged 85 to 44, will show a small increase. Despite growth from 17 million to about 19 million from 1968 to 1980, the supply of these workers in the labor force still will be relatively thin. Their proportion of the total labor force will decline from about 21 percent in 1968 to about 19 percent by 1980. Generally, workers in this age group staff positions of maxi mum work responsibility and are at the peak of their performance. Their short supply will mean many more midcareer openings will be available for the younger 25- to 34-year-old workers. A sharp slowdown will occur in the labor force growth rate among older workers, 45 to 64 years of age. These workers, who are normally at the top of their career ladders, will increase in number from 27% million in 1968 to just over 29 million in 1980. But the increase will be only one-third as great as that between 1960 and 1968. Their proportion of the total labor force will decline sharply from about 33 percent to about 29 percent. This slowdown in the growth rate is related to a sizable decline in population growth in the 45-54 year old group, reflecting the comparatively small number of people born in the depths of the Great Depression when birth rates were low, who are moving into this age class. There will be no significant change for workers beyond the usual retirement age of 65 who will number just over 3 million through the 1970’s. They will represent a declining proportion of the work force. The decreased propensity to work after 65 reflects the improvement in retirement benefits that reduces the need for older workers to stay on the job to make ends meet; the greater security that comes with the health protection of medicare and medicaid; and the increased assets that may have resulted from full employment. (See chart 11.) 27 U .S. E C O N O M Y IN 1 980: LA B O R F O R C E Participation rates What makes people decide to work? Whatever the incentive for working, 6 in every 10 in the working age group (16 and over) are expected to be either working or seeking work in 1980, about the same as today; in 1890 only 5 in every 10 in the work-age population were workers. The longrun increase in labor force participation reflects primarily the increasing proportion of women who work. (See chart 12.) W o m e n i n t h e l a b o r f o r c e . Women workers— 37 million expected in 1980—will continue to represent an increasing proportion of the working population. By 1980, more than 4 in every 10 women (43 percent) will be working, only slightly more than the proportion today (41.1 percent) but double the proportion (2 in 10) in 1890. Chart 12. N e g r o e s i n t h e l a b o r f o r c e . The Negro labor force4 is expected to total 12 million in 1980, 3 million more than in 1968. Its annual rate of growth, 2.4 percent, exceeds the comparable growth rate for whites, 1.6 percent, by one half. The difference reflects a more rapid increase in the Negro population of working age than that occurring among whites, particularly among those under 35 years of age. The pattern of change between 1968 and 1980 for the Negro work force differs only in degree from that of their white counterparts. Workers under 25 years old will account for a large share of the increase for both Negroes and whites but will account for more of the increase among Negroes. For both groups, the most spectacular increase will take place in the group 25-34 years old, but again, a slightly greater relative increase for Negroes. The labor force 35 years old and over Labor force and population,1 1890 to 1980 Millions of persons 200 Population Labor force 150 100 50 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1 Data for 1890-1980 refer to persons 14 years and over. Data for 1968 and 1980 refer to persons 16 years and over. Comparable labor force data not available for 1910. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1940 1950 1960 1968 1980 Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census; U.S. De partment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; John D. Durand, The Labor Force of the United States, 1890-1960 (New York, N.Y., Gorden & Breach, 1968); Gertrude Bancroft, The American Labor Force (New York, N.Y., John Wiley & Sons, 1958). 28 will show only a small amount of growth for both Negroes and whites. The proportion of women who are in the labor force has always been higher for Negro than for white women, an indication of the greater need for many Negro women to contribute to family income. The difference between these labor force participation rates has been getting smaller as paid work outside the home has become more common among white women. In 1968, 49 percent of Negro and 40 percent of white women were workers. By 1980, it is expected that the difference will be reduced further, reflecting an improvement in the economic situation of Negro men, which, in turn, will mean that Negro women will be under less pressure to contribute toward the support of their families. Thus, the rate of participation for all Negro women in 1980 was projected as 47 percent and for white women at 42 percent. Among Negro men, small increases are projected in the labor force participation rates from 75.9 percent in 1968 to 77.5 percent in 1980, at the same time that the rate for white males is edging down. These increases reflect the anticipated improvement in Negro men’s employment oppor tunities, which will tend to minimize irregular work patterns and reduce withdrawals from the labor force that reflect discouragement over job prospects. Educational attainment The Nation’s labor force will have higher educational qualifications in 1980 then in 1968: the proportion of workers with at least 4 years of high school will be rising among workers at all ages. By 1980, only 1 in 16 adult workers (25 and over)— about 5 million—will have less than 8 years of schooling; and 7 in every 10 adult workers— about 52 million—will have completed at least 4 years of high school. In contrast, over 1 in 10 adult workers in 1968—nearly 7 million—had completed less than 8 years of schooling while 6 in every 10 adult workers—about 37 million— had completed 4 years of high school or more. Nearly 1 in 6 workers, 25 years and over— about 13 million—will have completed at least 4 years of college in 1980; in 1968, about 8.5 million, or 1 in 7 workers, 25 years and over, had a similar amount of education. The total number of collegeeducated workers of all ages in the work force https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 would, of course, exceed 13 million, since a signif icant number of workers under 25—perhaps as many as 2 to 3 million—will have completed 4 years of college in 1980. Moreover, about 9.2 million adult workers—1 in 8—in 1980 will have had some college training but less than 4 years. The heavy influx to the labor force of relatively well-educated younger workers, which will occur at the same time that many less educated older workers are leaving the labor force, promises a major change in the educational background of the workers in the early age span. By 1980, about 4 out of 5 young adult workers (25 to 34 years old) will be high school graduates or better, and 1 in 5 will have completed 4 years of college or more; by contrast, in the 1968 work force, 3 in 4 workers in this age group were high school graduates and 1 in 6 were college graduates. The economy in 1980 SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROJECTIONS n y s e t of economic projections carries with it certain implications for the future behavior of all aspects of the economy, including government policy. Three major aspects of the projections warrant further consideration: 1. growth of the economy; 2. demographic changes in the labor force; and 3. higher educational attainment of the labor force. A Growth of the economy When the depression years of the 1930’s were still within recent memory, optimistic economic projections inevitably raised a question about the ability of the economy to reach the projected levels. The sustained high levels of growth during the 1960’s, however, have created confidence that the expected levels indicated for the 1970’s may be quite reasonable. The projected g n p level for 1980 will be 65 percent above the level in 1968, a growth rate of 4.3 percent per year. Because of the anticipated higher rate of labor force increase, U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: IMPLICATIONS this is somewhat higher than the potential growth rate of the 1960’s. However, the 4.3 percent rate is somewhat lower than the rate actually achieved during the 1960’s because advances in the early part of the decade resulted from taking up the slack in the economy. The projections for certain sectors of the econ omy raise specific questions: Expenditures jor new or renovated housing, reflecting the needs of new family formation, are expected to about double by 1980. This may make possible attainment of the goal of 26 million housing units for the 1968-78 decade set by Congress in the Housing and Urban Develop ment Act of 1968. However, if this goal is to be fulfilled, major advances will be necessary to assure an adequate supply of trained construction workers, to create sufficient sources of reasonably priced financing, and to put into practice the technological improvements necessary to higher output. Strong demand for new and renovated housing is evident enough, even today, but the current limited availability of mortgage funds together with a high level of interest rates has caused buyers and builders to hesitate to take on long term commitments. If these conditions continue, the expected surge in residential construction activity may be seriously delayed. In the decade ahead, special emphasis will un doubtedly be placed on developing new methods of training construction workers, expanding op portunities for minority applicants, and reducing seasonality to make more effective use of skilled craftsmen; and to institute new technology that will permit houses to be built faster and cheaper with the manpower available. Business investment in plant and equipment is projected to at least maintain the high proportion of gnp attained during the last few years of rela tively full employment, thus providing a basis for the continuation of the long-term trend in productivity. Federal Government expenditures jor defense pur poses will fall as a proportion of total gnp. Other public expenditures—State and local and Federal nondefense—will rise as a share of the gnp. This implies a possible temporary dislocation of people and jobs in defense industries, particularly if the decline in defense expenditures occurs over a short period of time. Some defense industries may suffer https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 29 loss of their Federal contracts with a companion decline in output; some defense plants will either shut down or curtail their activities; and some regions and localities may experience, at least temporarily, increasing levels of unemployment. Government programs to meet such dislocation include placement services to workers seeking jobs outside their labor market area and special assist ance to enable defense plants hit by cutbacks to diversify production and seek other markets to maintain production levels. State and local government expenditures between 1968-80 will shift from being less than half to more than half of total government expenditures. This shift will occur because of a large increase in State and local expenditures and a relative decline in Federal purchases. While the 1980 projections do not include revenue estimates, it is clear that a major effort will be necessary to obtain the funds to finance this increase in State and local expenditures. Part of this expenditure increase will represent funds channeled from the Federal Government in the form of grants-in-aid and sharing of Federal revenues. At the same time a considerable effort by State and local governments will be necessary to increase their own revenues. A further difficult task will be to develop the programs and the management skills in State and local government to meet the complex problems that they will be facing. Expenditures jor services by both consumers and governments will account for a larger share of the gnp in 1980 than today. It is likely that the trend toward higher manpower requirements to provide these services may contribute to the goal of eco nomic stability since service employment is normally less subject to layoffs at the onset of declines in economic activity. Productivity, holding steady at 3.0 percent a year in the private nonfarm sector and remaining at high levels on the farm (5.7 percent a year), will yield an advance in output per man-hour of 3 percent a year for the entire economy through the 1970’s. However, as the service sector expands in importance, it may become increasingly diffi cult to maintain the high level of productivity gains for the economy that have prevailed since World War II. The service industries are unlikely to experience large increases in output per worker, because they are less subject to mechanization, 30 and many of them depend for their value upon personal or individual attention. Thus, particular attention will be required to find means of applying cost-saving techniques to the service industries if the Nation’s productivity is not to fall below the 3-percent level. Hours of work are expected to decline slightly during the 1970’s at a rate of 0.1 percent a year. This relatively small decline reflects in large part the continuing increase in part-time employment and to a lesser degree limited reductions in the scheduled workweek. In addition to this decline, which is based on hours for which payment is received, greater availability of leisure time can be expected as a result of longer paid vacations and an increasing number of paid holidays. Demographic changes in the labor force The 100 million labor force of 1980 will exhibit a distinctly different age profile. The rapid growth during the 1960’s of teenagers and persons in their early twenties will inexorably be transferred in the coming decade to those in their late twenties and early thirties. In contrast, the 45-64 age group by 1980 will be barely 5 percent higher than a decade earlier. For the Nation as a whole, the younger work force, averaging 35 years of age, may be a great boon. The large numbers of young workers may provide an abundance of new ideas—the eager ness, imagination, and flexibility of the young may contribute to developing new ways of business organization, production, and marketing. Differences in the points of view, however, that today seem often to characterize those under and over 30 may, of course, bring some frictions and other problems. Industry’s work force may suffer from workers who lack the patience and wisdom that come with age and experience. The differing viewpoints of young and old may bring forth more grievances, more altercations with manage ment. Likely implications of these changes on specific demographic groups in the population are as follows: T eenagers. The slowdown in their rate of growth in the labor force may improve job opportunities for teenagers competing in an anticipated expand ing economy. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Y oung workers. Projected changes may mean keen competition among workers in their twenties for entry-level jobs but better opportunities for advancement to higher levels where the number of competent older workers may be stretched thin. E xperienced midcareer workers. The big in crease in the number of young trained workers may mean that the mature worker may be pushed hard to hold his own against the young, many of whom will probably be better educated and trained for tomorrow’s jobs. Older workers. The improved supply of young workers may accelerate pressures on older workers to retire sooner than they might otherwise do. In any case, the trend toward earlier retirement is expected to continue and can be expected to lead to greater emphasis on preretirement planning and the development of community service projects for which retired workers could contribute paid or volunteer part-time work. W omen workers. The continuing increase in the labor force participation rates of women, partic ularly young women in their childbearing years, may mean that more day care centers for children must be provided to assure proper protection of the young children of working mothers; more part-time job opportunities must be made avail able for women whose home responsibilities do not permit full-time employment; some job requirements may need to be adjusted to meet women’s physical characteristics. As an increasing proportion of married women work, the added family income may serve to change patterns of consumption and living styles, more services may be purchased to replace the housewife’s home services; more precooked foods may be demanded; more expenditures for leisure time recreational activities may be made. N egro workers. The one-third increase ex pected in the Negro labor force between 1968-80, bringing their total numbers to 12 million workers in 1980, may be accompanied by increased con cern for their occupational upgrading during the 1970’s. Since upward occupational mobility is conditioned, in part, upon improved job qualifi cations, the recent steady progress in the educa tional qualifications of Negroes brings promise of better occupational adjustments to come. The U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: IMPLICATIONS proportion of Negro men 25-29 with 4 years of high school or more rose from 36 percent in 1960 to 60 percent in 1969 while the comparable increase for white males during the same period was from 63 percent to 78 percent. Negro females have made similar, but not so striking gains. A major increase in Negroes attending college also took place during the decade. These higher levels of educational attainment, together with steady progress toward equal em ployment opportunities, have combined to produce major changes in the occupational progress of employed Negroes. From 1960 to 1969 Negro employment in the professional and technical occupations has more than doubled—from less than 350,000 to nearly 700,000 while white em ployment in these occupations increased 40 percent from 7 million to 10 million. Similar improvements have been made in the managerial, clerical, and sales occupations. In the manual occupations, there has been a sharp upgrading of Negro workers with a 70-percent increase in Negro craftsmen compared with a 17-percent increase for whites. At the same time, there has been a drop in Negro nonfarm laborers, private household workers, and farm workers. Despite these encouraging gains, Negroes are still disproportionately concentrated in occupa tions such as nonfarm laborers that are expected to continue to decline throughout the 1970’s or in occupations such as household workers, which will be increasing only slightly. Moreover, Negro workers in 1969 represented only 6 percent of total employment in professional occupations, 4 percent in sales and 3 percent in managerial occupations. The prospects for improved Negro employment in 1980 will depend upon a continuing improve ment in education, the relative success of efforts to open employment opportunities that have hitherto remained closed, and the impact of changing occupational patterns. The b l s expects to issue a more detailed study of Negro employ ment progress and outlook later in the year. These demographic changes are likely also to af fect the country’s major job-oriented institutions. m p l o y e r s . The large increase in the number of new young workers and women in the labor force will produce pressure for employers to provide improved on-the-job training, more effective super vision, and additional safety education. They will E https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 31 have to expect greater turnover and will have to allow for more part-time workers. U nions. In a strong economy, their membership swelled by youthful members, unions may lean more toward emphasizing take-home pay rather than job security, seniority, pensions, and other fringe benefits that are usually of greater interest to older workers. Divergent bargaining objectives between young and older workers may lead to intraunion problems. The large number of young people enter ing the labor force directly from high school and vocational school will require improved prepara tion for obtaining the skills and work attitudes needed for success in the work world. Young workers will need better guidance and counseling as they enter the labor force. Young people who do not complete high school may find it harder to get a job as they compete with their peers who have had more schooling. Scho o ls. h a n g e s i n t h e l a b o r m a r k e t . The projections assume that the 100 million labor force will mesh with the job requirements of the $1.4 trillion economy. This close match between workers and jobs will not just happen. It will require greater flexibility in the labor market through education, realistic training programs geared to shifts in occupational requirements, improved placement services, removal of arbitrary barriers to occupa tional entry, and the willingness of employers to maintain flexible hiring requirements. C Educational attainment of the labor force The continuing rise in educational achievement of the labor force has a number of specific implica tions for the 1980 labor market. J ob e n t r y r e q u i r e m e n t s . Faced by a rising supply of more highly educated applicants, some employers may prefer more highly educated job applicants and be reluctant to adjust their educa tional entry requirements to levels that are con sistent with job requirements. Similarly, while job opportunities may open up more readily for disadvantaged workers who improve their edu cational qualifications, the job outlook for the disadvantaged with limited schooling is likely to MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 32 remain bleak. These possibilities underscore the importance during the coming decade of en couraging employers to make their educational entry requirements reflect actual job needs rather than simply the availability of a more educated labor supply. W h it e - c o l l a r o c c u p a t io n s . By 1080, more workers will be in white-collar jobs than in the blue-collar and service groups combined. The impression may grow that white-collar jobs are only for highly educated workers. Jobs within the white-collar group actually have a wide range of educational requirements: managerial jobs range from the managers of large corporations to managers of hamburger carryout shops; clerical jobs cover executive secretaries and file clerks; and sales occupations include hucksters and peddlers as well as stock brokers. Since many white-collar jobs do not require even a high school diploma, special means may be needed to keep young people whose education is limited informed of the variety of job openings in this area. M a n u a l o c c u p a t io n s . The continuing emphasis on higher education poses a threat to the flow of energetic intelligent manpower to the skilled crafts. This emphasis, together with the generally higher esteem in which white-collar occupations are held, may make it difficult to fill blue-collar and service jobs. Whether or not this materializes would seem to depend on the possibility of: 1. A shift in attitudes toward higher education, at least to the extent that youngsters who may not be college material will no longer insist on having a “go” at college nor resist taking useful manual and service employment. 2. Adjustments in labor supply through removal of any remaining racial barriers to job entry and modified immigration policies. 3. Adjustments in pay and working conditions to make such jobs more attractive. 4. Programs to provide greater advancement op portunities for those who enter the manual occupa tions at the lower level of the job structure. climb by two-thirds, and those earning master’s and doctor’s degrees will double by 1980. Numeri cally, 13.3 million degrees are expected to be awarded between 1968 and 1980—10.2 million bachelor’s, 2.7 million master’s, and 400,000 doc torates. Using past employment and educational pat terns of degree recipients, b l s estimates that between 1968 and 1980 about 9.3 million collegeeducated persons will enter the civilian labor force after receiving their degrees: 8.4 million at the bachelor’s level, 900,000 at the master’s, and ap proximately 18,000 at the doctorate level. Pre sumably, most persons who will receive degrees during this period and who enter the Armed Forces will have returned to the civilian labor force by 1980. Therefore, the effect of the conflict in Viet Nam on labor force entry of college gradu ates was assumed to be limited. This supply of new graduates will be augmented by another 1.2 million persons with college level training who will come into the labor force be tween 1968 and 1980. These additions are ex pected to consist primarily of women who delayed seeking a j ob but are expected to become available for work in the 1968-80 period, or who were work ing in earlier years but withdrew from the labor Chart 13. Projected job openings for college graduates and projected entrants, 1968-80 Millions of workers 12 Other 10 entrants 1 1.2 Replacement 8 4.3 New college graduates 6 Growth 4 9.3 6.1 2 The Nation’s col leges and universities—principal suppliers of our most highly trained manpower—now are turning out record numbers of graduates and are expected to continue to do so throughout the 1970’s. Num bers of persons earning bachelor’s degrees will H ig h l y educated https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis manpow er. 0 Job openings Entrants 1 Includes reentrants, delayed entrants, and immigrants. 33 U.S. ECONOMY IN 1980: IMPLICATIONS force. Thus, the new supply of college-educated manpower expected to enter the labor force from 1968-80 will total 10.5 million. The need for workers stems generally from two sources: employment growth in occupations and the need to replace workers who die, retire, or otherwise leave the labor force. But another factor is relevant in considering the need for college educated manpower: rising job entry requirements that make a college degree necessary for jobs once performed by workers with lower educational attainment. Assessing these three factors—growth, replace ment, and rising entry requirements—it is esti mated that 10.4 million new college graduates will be needed between 1968 and 1980: (1) 6.1 million to take care of occupational growth and rising entry requirements, and (2) 4.3 million to replace other workers. (See chart 13.) Thus, an ample supply of graduates that is roughly in balance with manpower requirements seems in the offing for the 12-year period between 1968 and 1980. The large output of highly educated workers is expected to end many long-time occu pational shortages and promises help for other occupations in which shortages may persist because of requirements for highly specialized graduate level training, lack of facilities, or comparatively low salaries. Many professional occupations have suffered from chronic worker shortages for many years, particularly teaching, engineering, physics, oceanography, chemistry, geophysics, and bio medical and health occupations. An increased supply of graduates offers only the hope that students will elect to enter courses in numbers that match job vacancies by discipline. In an effort to predict how these individual choices will be made, b l s has made projections to 1980 for some of the principal occupations in the pro fessional, technical, and kindred occupational group. (See table 7.) Specific demand-supply assessments indicate potential sharp differences among occupations. Elementary and secondary school teaching is expected to experience the most dramatic change in supply-demand conditions. Long a shortage occupation, teaching is about to undergo a sharp change in prospects: the aggregate supply is expected to significantly exceed demand if recent entry patterns in the occupation continue. The anticipated surplus of applicants trained for ele377—973 O—70----- 3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 7. Distribution of college graduates by major occu pational field, 1968 and 1980 1968 Occupational group All occupational groups_________ Total employ ment1 (thou sands) 1980 College Percent, Total grad gradu employ uates 2 ates ment 1 (thou to (thou total sands) sands) College gradu ates2 (thou sands) Percent, gradu ates to total 75,920 9,229 12.3 95,100 15,342 16.1 Professional and technical.. 10,325 Managers, officials, and 7,776 proprietors___________ 4,647 Sales...____ _________ Clerical_______________ 12,803 All other.._____________ 40,369 6,182 59.9 15,500 10,230 66.0 1,562 463 583 439 20.0 10.1 4.6 1.1 9,500 6,000 17,300 46,800 2,850 780 779 703 30.0 13.0 4.5 1.5 1 16 years of age and over. 2 Data include persons 18 years of age and over having 4 years of college or more. mentary and secondary teaching assignments, the biggest single professional opportunity for women, may mean that many college-educated women will have to look to other professions, some long regarded as the principal province of men, such as engineering, law, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy. If employers in these fields accept women readily, this acceptance may help to reduce further some of the discrimination against women in professional schools that has prevailed in the past. Professional health occupations should continue to experience shortages. The supply of physicians and dentists, for example, is expected to fall short of requirements because of the limited capacity of medical and dental schools currently in operation and scheduled to be in operation by 1980. Engineers are also expected to continue to be in short supply. If the number of engineering graduates were to keep pace with the expected growth in total college graduates, the new supply would be adequate to meet projected requirements. Recent trends, however, do not suggest this development as bachelor’s degrees in engineering continue to become a smaller proportion of total bachelor’s degrees awarded. In scientific fields, shortages of chemists, geologists, and geophysicists seem likely, but surpluses of mathematicians and life scientists may result if students continue to elect these fields in the same proportion as in the past. However, since transfers occur quite frequently among these occupations, part of the supply-demand imbalances may be remedied by such transfers. Other areas for which potential shortages are in prospect include counseling, social work, urban MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 34 planning, and a variety of occupations related to the planning and administration of local governments. These 1980 projections do have a rosy glow, inspired no doubt by the steady performance of economic growth during the 1960’s. But the past decade has, in fact, left the stage to somewhat mixed notices. While economic growth performed beyond expectations, not all aspects of the economy reached the same heights. The current difficulties of meshing the twin objectives of high employment and price stability and solving such social problems as urban congestion, the lack of equal opportunity, rising crime, the disaffection of the young, and environmental pollution are enough to cast doubt on any optimistic view of the future. The challenge to the Nation during the 1970’s will be to solve these pressing problems before they seriously erode the economy’s capacity to realize its growth potential. □ ■FOOTNOTES1 Two measures of hours are available: hours worked and hours paid for. Hours worked is a measure of hours on the job; hours paid for are hours on the job plus the additional hours which employees spent on paid leave such as vacations, sick leave, or holidays. Since hours worked data are not available in sufficient detail by Industry, the discussion of hours in this section represents hours paid for. 2 This technique is in accordance with the income accounting conventions of the Office of Business Economics of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 3 This balance results, of course, from the assumptions underlying these projections, which were that the growth in employment would match that of the labor force, leaving only a level of unemployment (at either 3 or 4 percent) roughly similar to that in 1968. 4 Data refer to all races except white. Nationwide, Negroes make up about 92 percent of races other than white. How projections are used The final detailed projections of industry and occupational employment to 1980 may be useful for a variety of planning and policy development purposes: State and city planners of higher education facilities need the best possible estimates of requirements for professionally trained workers in various disciplines to pinpoint educational activities that should be expanded. Vocational educators need projections of employ ment in certain occupations to set up high school and post secondary training programs or to pro mote apprenticeship training to provide trained workers in these occupations. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Manpower and educational planners need man power projections to develop realistic training programs. In several recent statutes, Congress has required that federally financed education and training programs be set up to meet specific local and regional manpower requirements. Vocational counselors use projections to provide information that can be made available to young people, their parents, teachers, or counselors on long-range employment trends by occupational field to help them make sound vocational choices. Industry and government rely on projections in policy planning for recruitment, salary scales, training, scholarship plans, and expansion of research programs. Special Labor Force Report shows that in 1968 about 2.5 m illion persons accumulated 15 weeks of unemployment or more EDWARD J. O'BOYLE worked, at the close of the 1960’s than ever before in our Nation’s history. From this vantage point, the late 1960’s were years of abundance. Viewed against the larger numbers of unemployed persons at the start of the decade when the work force was much smaller, the lower jobless totals at the end represented a vast im provement. Still, in the late 1960’s, about 2% million Americans accumulated 15 weeks of unemployment or more during the year. Who were these less fortunate Americans? What, if anything, sets them apart from those who had trouble finding or keeping a job at the start of the decade? How many were in the labor force all of 1968, that is, worked whenever they were not unemployed? How large was their loss of earnings? How many were working in February 1969 (the latest month for which data of this type are available) and in which occupations and industries did they find jobs? This article deals with these questions and several others in some detail. It focuses on those Americans who shouldered the heaviest burden of joblessness in 1968—the ones who accumulated 15 weeks of unemployment or more over the course of the year. Throughout the article we refer to these individuals as the “long-duration” unem ployed, whether they amassed their jobless weeks in one spell or in multiple spells. For analytical purposes, the long-duration segment is divided into two subsegments: The “long-term” unem ployed (15 to 26 weeks) and the “very long-term” unemployed (27 weeks or more). Persons with 1 to 14 weeks of joblessness are designated the “shortduration” unemployed. The data are based prin cipally on supplementary questions asked in the February 1969 Current Population Survey coverM ore A m e r ic a n s Edward J. O’Boyle is a labor economist, formerly with the Division of Labor Force Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis America’s less fortunate: the long-duration unemployed ing labor force activity in 1968, that is, the number of weeks a person worked, looked for work, or was not in the labor force.1 Extent, composition, and risk Roughly 2.5 million persons 14 years of age and over accumulated 15 weeks of unemployment or more in 1968, a decline of more than 50 percent since 1961 (table 1). There was an even greater decline among the very long-term jobless. These developments were attributable to the same up surge in labor demand that increased the total number of persons with work experience and ex tended the regularity of employment so that 9.3 million more persons worked year round, full time in 1968 than in 1961. This shift in demand had different effects on the work experience of men and women. A net increase of 5.3 million in the number of men working year round, full time was accompanied by a net decrease of 1.3 million men working full time for 27 to 49 weeks. Among women, on the other hand, a net increase of 4.0 million in the number of year-round, full-time workers was accompanied by a small rise in the number employed 27 to 49 weeks at full-time jobs. This increase in manpower requirements had widely varying effects on different subgroups of the long-duration unemployed. The principal beneficiaries were men. In 1968, about 1.4 million men were unemployed for 15 weeks or more com pared with 3.9 million in 1961. At the same time, the number of women with long-duration unem ployment fell to 1.1 million from 1.9. Thus, at the close of this period proportionately more (but still less than one-half) of all the long-duration unem ployed were women. Fewer persons under age 25 experienced 15 weeks of unemployment or more in 1968 than in 1961. However, they accounted for a much larger 35 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 36 Table 1. Extent of unemployment during the year, 1961-68 [Numbers in thousands] 16 years old and overt 14 years old and over2 Extent of unemployment 1968 1967 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 Total working or looking for work______________ Worked during the year___________________________ Did not work but looked for work. _. -------- ------------------- 91,480 90,230 1,250 89, 432 88,179 1,253 94,022 92,672 1,350 91,923 90, 554 1,369 89,924 88,553 1,371 87, 591 86,186 1,405 86,837 85,124 1,713 85,038 83,227 1,811 83,944 82,057 1,887 81,963 80, 287 1,676 Persons with unemployment---------------------------------------- 11,332 11,564 11,579 11,814 11,602 12,334 14,052 14,211 15,256 15,096 Percent of total working or looking for work---------- 12.4 12.9 12.3 12.9 12.9 14.1 16.2 16.7 18.2 18.4 With unemployment of— 1 to 14 weeks____________________________ 15 weeks or more_________________________ ________________ . . . 15 to 26 weeks. 27 weeks or more________________ _____ 8,909 2, 423 1,512 911 8,946 2,618 1,619 999 9,120 2,459 1,531 928 9,145 2,669 1,639 1,030 8,848 2,754 1,688 1,066 8,858 3,476 2,126 1,350 9,378 4,674 2,647 2,027 9, 081 5,130 2,760 2,370 9,751 5, 505 2,940 2,565 9,291 5,805 2,991 2,814 Part-year workers with unemployment of— 1 to 14 weeks _____ _ _________________ 1 spell of unemployment . __________ 2 spells of unemployment or more________ 15 weeks or more_________________________ 1 spell of unemployment________________ 2 spells of unemployment or more________ 6,657 4,744 1,913 2,140 929 1,211 6,607 4, 564 2, 043 2,323 1,009 1,314 6,776 4,813 1,963 2,161 938 1,223 6,703 4, 624 2, 079 2,355 1,021 1,334 6,520 4,499 2,021 2,442 1,001 1,441 6,645 4,537 2,108 3, 077 1,243 1,834 7,124 4,725 2,399 4,094 1,738 2,356 6,710 4,490 2,220 4,451 2,036 2,415 7,452 5,083 2,369 4,788 1,938 2,850 7,326 4,922 2,404 5, 058 2,499 2,559 1961 1 Data refer to persons 16 years and over in accordance with the changes in age limit and concepts introduced in 1967. 2 Figures on weeks of unemployment during the year are not available for persons 16 years and over for the entire period. Comparable data for persons 14 years and over are used. proportion of the total with long-duration unem ployment in the late 1960’s and an even larger share of the very long-term unemployed. These increases in proportions far exceeded their greater representation in the labor force. Fewer men had 1 to 14 weeks of joblessness in 1968 than 7 years earlier. For women and young people, however, the number as well as the proportion with shortduration unemployment was much greater at the close of the period. Part-year workers with long-duration unem ployment in 1968 were less likely than their 1961 counterparts to have one spell of 15 weeks or more—this finding held for men as well as for women. In both years, however, women were more likely than men to have their jobless weeks at one time. This difference is attributable to several factors. First, women are far more likely than men to be entrants and to accumulate 15 weeks of unemployment in the often difficult transition from a nonwork to a work role. Second, women are more likely to work in industries and occupations in which employment is steady. Hence, they are less likely than men to be laid off and to have additional unemployment. Third, women who lose their jobs are more likely to leave the labor force and, thereby, avoid another period of joblessness. In 1961, men with one spell of long-duration unemployment outnumbered women 2 to 1. Seven years later, with proportionately more women in the long-duration segment and given the greater likelihood that they will have only one spell, this differential had been almost eliminated. These changes in the composition of the unem ployed, in turn, had an important effect on the operations of the unemployment insurance pro gram. Because of their generally weaker attach ment to the labor force, young people and adult women are less likely than adult men to meet the eligibility conditions for unemployment insurance (a specified amount of employment or wages or both during a “base period” preceding unem ployment) . In addition, for those who are eligible, an irregular work record may mean a smaller weekly benefit amount, a shorter benefit duration, and a greater probability of exhausting benefits soon after becoming unemployed. For these reasons, among others, persons with 15 weeks of unemployment or more in 1968 were less likely than the long-duration unemployed in 1961 to receive the maximum protection available through the unemployment insurance program. Among persons 16 years and over, propor tionately more 16- to 24-year-olds than any other age group experienced long-duration unemploy ment in 1968. This finding obtained in every comparison involving persons of the same sex with one exception: The difference in risk between 16- to 24-year-old women and those 65 years and over was not significant. Among men and women alike, the overall risk of long-duration unemployment was significantly greater for Negroes and other races than for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis THE LONG-DURATION UNEMPLOYED whites (chart 1). These findings also applied to men below age 55 and to women below age 45. Differences of this kind turned up in the risk of long-term unemployment and the risk of very long-term unemployment. For men and women in the same age group, the risk of long-duration joblessness was approximately the same. Com paring men and women of like ages in the same duration subsegment, similar results followed. Among all persons who worked in 1961, the risk of long-duration unemployment was highest for nonfarm laborers, operatives, and craftsmen and lowest for farmers, farm managers, and professional and technical workers along with managers, officials, and proprietors. Although the risk level in 1968 was lower in all major occupaTable 2. 37 tions, there were no major changes in high-risk or low-risk groups. In both years, wage and salary workers in construction, agriculture, and mining were most likely, and government workers least likely, to accumulate 15 jobless weeks or more. Labor force activity in 1968 The balance of this article focuses on persons 18 to 64 years of age, a group that in 1968 ac counted for about 9 out of every 10 persons in the labor force at least 1 week during the year and a like proportion of the long-duration unemployed. The men in these ages, especially those with dependents, need to work because lack of a job not only reduces their ability to meet financial Labor force activity for persons with unemployment in 1968 [Numbers in thousands] Weeks of un<imployment Labor force activity, sex, and age Total with unemployment 15 or more I t o 14 Total 15 to 26 27 or more Men Total, 18 to 24 years old: Number.................................. ........................... . Percent.................................................................... Employed rest of ye a r........................................... .......... ................................ .......... Employed attimes, otherwise not in labor force_______ ____ _____ ____________ Not in labor force rest of year1_____________________ ______ _______ ____ ___ 1,859 100.0 46.3 48.1 5.5 1,513 100.0 40.5 54.4 5.1 346 100.0 71.7 20.8 7.5 229 100.0 67.7 27.1 5.2 117 100.0 79.5 8.5 12.0 25 to 44 years old: Number........... ............ .............. ................... .................... . Percent_________________________________________ Employed rest of year__________ _______________ _________ ______________ Employed at times, otherwise not in labor force___________ _______________ Not in labor force rest.of year1..................................... ............................................ 2,189 100.0 82.2 15.5 2.3 1,762 100. 0 80.9 17.8 1.3 427 100.0 87.6 5.9 6.6 319 100.0 91.5 6.3 2.2 108 100.0 75.9 4.6 19.4 45 to 54 years old: Number___ __________ ___________________ ____ _ Percent__________ _____ __________________ ______ Employed rest of year_______ ____ ____ ______ ________________ ____ ______ Employed attimes, otherwise not in labor force____________ ____ ____________ Not in labor force rest of year > ..._____ ______________________ ___________ 848 100.0 82.0 15.3 2.7 601 100.0 80.5 18.5 1.0 247 100.0 85.4 7.7 6.9 170 100.0 90.6 7.6 1.8 77 100.0 74.0 7.8 18.2 55 to 64 years old: Number_______ ____________ _____________ _______ Percent_________________ ______________ _________ Employed rest of year............................. ................... ..................... ........ ................... Employed at times, otherwise not in labor force________ _______________ ______ Not in labor force rest of year1________ __________________________________ 612 100.0 81.2 14.7 4.1 435 100.0 80. 5 16.6 3.0 177 100.0 83 1 10.2 6.8 110 100.0 81 8 13 6 4.5 Number.................................. ............ ................... Percent....... ............ ........................ ....................... Employed rest of year________ ___________ _____ ____ ________ _ ... ... Employed at times, otherwise not in labor force____ ________ _________ _____ Not in labor force rest of year1........... ..................................... ................................... 1,829 100.0 26.1 58.2 15.7 1,508 100.0 19.7 65.6 14.7 321 100.0 56.4 23.1 20.6 176 100.0 55.1 31.2 13.6 145 100.0 57.9 13.1 29.0 25 to 44 years old: Number________________________ ________________ Percent______________ _______ ___________________ Employed rest of year............... ..................................... ....................... ............. ......... Employed at times, otherwise not in labor force_____________ ______ __________ Not in labor force rest of year >._________________ ____ _______ ___________ 1,704 100.0 41.1 41.3 17.6 1,369 100.0 35.1 46.6 18.3 335 100.0 65.7 19.7 14.6 198 100.0 64.6 25.8 9.6 137 100.0 67.2 10.9 21.9 45 to 54 years old: Number____ ___________ ___ ___________ ______ Percent____________ ______ ____ ____ ____ ________ Employed rest of ye a r.._____ _________ _________ Employed at times, otherwise not in labor force........................................................... Not in labor force rest of year1______________ ____ _____ _____ _____ 651 100.0 53.8 32.7 13. 5 475 100.0 47.6 37.7 14.7 176 100.0 70 5 19.3 10.2 112 100.0 68 7 22.3 8.9 55 to 64 years old: N um ber................................ ..................... . . Percent_________ _____________________________ Employed rest of year___ _______ . . Employed attimes, otherwise not in labor force_____________ _______________ Not in labor force rest of year1_____ 379 100.0 60.7 24.3 15.0 268 100.0 54.9 29.5 15.7 111 100.0 74.8 11.7 13.5 67 (2) Women Total, 18 to 24 years old: 1 Includes small number of persons who were unemployed for entire year. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000. 64 (2) 45 66 (2) (2) MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 38 Chart 1. Long-duration unemployed as percent of total who worked or looked for work in 1968 Percent 10 MEN Average, all women 2.1 16 & over 16 to 24 25 45 to to 44 54 Years of age 55 to 64 65 & over 1 Difference between color groups statistically significant at 2 standard errors. 2 No Negroes and other races reported with long-duration unemployment. obligations but also may affect family stability. Although the psychological need for work is not as great among married women as among men, many working women in this age group make important contributions to family income. Hence, a loss of earnings leads to some adjustment in the family’s standard of living. Roughly 8 out of every 10 men 25 to 64 years https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis old with some unemployment in 1968 worked the rest of the year (table 2). There were no statis tically significant differences between younger and older men in the same duration segment. Among men 25 to 44, but not among those who were older, a significantly larger proportion of the longduration than the short-duration jobless worked whenever they were not unemployed. The experience of men 18 to 24 was quite dissimilar. Compared with older men in the same duration segment, 18- to 24-year-olds were less likely to work whenever they were not unem ployed. Further, the difference between the shortduration and the long-duration jobless was very large. This variance reflects greater proportions of students among the short-duration compared with the long-duration unemployed and the smaller proportion of students than nonstudents who work in any given month of the year. There was no strong evidence to support the hypothesis that the risk of long-duration unem ployment in 1968 would have been higher for 55to 64-year-old men had they not decided to retire rather than face the rigors of many weeks of joblessness. The data permit three tests of the hypothesis. First, a finding that the short-duration unemployed were less likely than the long-duration jobless to work whenever they were not unem ployed would support this hypothesis. This was true for men under 45 but not for those who were older. Second, a finding that in the same duration segment, younger men were more likely than older men to work the rest of the year likewise would support the hypothesis. But there were no sig nificant differences of this type for men 25 and over, including the 10-percentage point spread between the 25- to 44-year-olds and the 55- to 64-year-olds with long-term unemployment. Fi nally, a finding that older jobless men were more likely than younger men to have short-duration unemployment would support the hypothesis. The data indicate that equal proportions in the two older age groups had 1 to 14 weeks of unemployment. In all four age groups, women with long-duration unemployment were more likely than those with short-duration unemployment to work whenever they were not unemployed. As among the men, the differential between duration segments was great est for the 18- to 24-year-olds, in part for the same reason. In contrast with the men, the proportion of women working the rest of the year was sys tematically greater for older than for younger T H E LO N G -D U R A T IO N U N E M P LO Y E D women in the same duration segment. The evidence suggests that for women in the same age group the consistent variation between duration segments is not attributable to differences in marital status alone. Of both the long-duration and the short-duration jobless women 16 years and over, roughly one-half were married.2 More over, there were no major differences between duration segments in the proportions in the other two marital groups. All of the factors that influence the labor force activity of women and, therefore, account for the differences in the proportion of those who worked whenever they were not unemployed can be grouped into those that enable and those that compel women to work. The most significant of the enabling factors is the number and ages of their children. Women with few children or none at all are at greater liberty to accept a job than those with many children, particularly women with preschoolers. Moreover, the same relative freedom that enables women with smaller families to accept a job may also keep them looking for work when women with larger families would withdraw from the labor force. A disproportionately large number of women with small families or older children among the long-duration unemployed would account for some of the intersegment differences in the propor tion of younger women who worked whenever they were not unemployed. The systematically smaller intersegment variance among older women supports this argument because whatever the size of their families, women past 44 are not as likely as younger women to have small children to keep them at home. This, in turn, would account for the greater proportion of older women com pared with younger women in the same duration segment who remained in the labor force and worked whenever they were not unemployed. The most important of the factors that compel women to work is the need for income. Given that a majority of the women with some unemployment were married, it is possible that some of the inter segment difference in the proportion who worked the rest of the year is attributable to the differing needs of married women’s families. Women also work to satisfy a psychological need. To the extent that women with few children have more time on their hands than women with many, the former may be more likely to work just to keep busy. This psychological drive for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 39 work means that they may be more likely to accumulate at least 15 jobless weeks over the course of a year and may be more likely to work rather than withdraw from the labor force when ever they are not unemployed. Chart 2 presents some rough estimates of the minimum loss in annual earnings due to unemploy ment in 1968. They are based on data for 18- to 64-year-old wage and salary workers in the labor force year round. Predictably, the minimum loss was much greater for men than for women in the same duration segment because of the typically higher rates of pay for men. Most significant, these data strongly suggest that when the very long term unemployed are successful in finding jobs, they work in occupations and industries where weekly earnings are comparatively low. Even at the risk of repetition, two points are worth driving home. First, 760,000 persons 18 to 64 years old looked for work for at least 27 weeks in 1968. Close to 3 out of every 4 worked when ever they were not unemployed. Insofar as num ber of weeks in the labor force measures a person’s attachment to the labor force, most of the very long-term unemployed had a strong attachment. . Chart 2 Estimated minimum loss in annual earnings due to unemployment in 1968 [18- to 64-year-old wage and salary workers in labor force yearround] MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 40 relatively more men with many weeks of unem ployment than those with fewer jobless weeks would have been nonparticipants in February for “other” reasons. The survey disclosed that this was true when the long-duration unemployed were compared with the short-duration unem ployed and when the very long-term jobless were contrasted with the long-term jobless. The work experience data cannot be used to determine dis couragement among women because those who leave the labor force as a result of inability to find work are likely to report that they are keep ing house, and there is no way to separate these women from others in this classification who are not interested in working. There were two major facets in the relationship between weeks of unemployment in 1968 and the likelihood of being employed in February 1969. First, persons with many jobless weeks in 1968 were less likely than those with fewer to be em ployed in February. This finding obtained for men and women alike in every comparison save the one between the subsegments of short-dura tion unemployment. Second, men in general were more likely than women with the same number of jobless weeks in 1968 to be working in February. Second, the number of persons who accumulated at least 27 weeks of unemployment in 1968 was nearly 6 times greater than the monthly average of the number who experienced 27 consecutive weeks of unemployment or more. The significance of this point is that whatever differences follow from having very long-term unemployment in multiple spells rather than one spell, the loss in annual earnings is no different. Employed in February The work experience survey uncovered two elements in the relationship between weeks of unemployment in 1968 and the probability of being unemployed in February 1969. First, the chances of being unemployed in February were systematically greater for persons with more weeks of unemployment in 1968 (table 3). Second, there was some evidence that proportionately more men would have been looking for work in February had they not previously withdrawn from the labor force because of discouragement. However, their numbers were very small. The second point calls for some explanation. If the discouraged worker hypothesis obtains, Table 3. Labor force status in February 1969 of persons with unemployment in 1968 [Thousands of persons 18 to 64 years old) Percent distribution Total with unemployment! Not in labor force Weeks of unemployment in 1968 and sex Number Both sexes Total____ __________________ ___ 1 to 14 weeks____ ______ _____ 15 weeks or m ore.._____ ___ 15 to 26 weeks______ . . . _________ 27 weeks or m o r e ..____ Men Total_____________ _ 1 to 14 weeks___________________ 15 weeks or more 15 to 26 weeks... 27 weeks or more . ____ 1 to 14 weeks 15 weeks or more 15 to 26 weeks... 27 weeks or more Employed Total Keeping house Going to school Unable to work Other2 100.0 68.8 15.2 15.9 7.5 5.0 .2 3.2 5,983 2,149 1,383 766 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 73.7 55.3 63.4 40.5 10.6 28.3 23.4 37.2 15.8 16.4 13.3 22.3 7.1 8.8 6.5 12.8 6.0 2.3 2.6 1.7 .1 .6 .5 .7 2.6 4.8 3.6 7.0 4,518 100.0 73.7 15.9 10.4 5.3 .4 4.7 3,316 1,202 829 373 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 78.4 60.6 68.2 43.4 11.1 29.1 23.2 42.3 10.5 10.3 8.6 14.2 .1 6.5 1.8 2.3 .8 .2 1.0 .8 1.4 3.7 7.5 5.4 12.0 3,614 100.0 62.8 14.4 22.8 16.8 4.7 1.2 2,667 947 554 393 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 67.8 48.6 56.1 37.8 9.9 27.3 23.6 32.4 22.3 24.2 20.2 29.8 15.8 19.8 16.2 24.9 5.4 2.9 3.1 2.6 1.2 1.5 .9 2.3 1 Excludes 1,252,000 year-round workers with 1 to 2 weeks of unemployment and 703,000 nonworkers who looked for 1 to 14 weeks for whom data were not available. These two groups represent 19.4 percent of the 18- to 64-year-olds with unemployment. 2 Includes retired persons, individuals reported as too old or temporarily unable to work, the voluntarily idle, seasonal workers for whom the survey week fell in an "o ff" https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Unemployed 8,132 Women Total Percent (3) season and who were not reported as looking for work, and persons who did not look for work because they believed that no jobs were available in the area or that no jobs were available for which they could qualify. 3 Less than 0.05 percent. T H E LO N G -D U R A T IO N 41 U N E M P LO Y E D Table 4. Occupation group of part-year workers with unemployment in 1968, who were employed in February 1969, by longest job in 1968 IThousands of persons 18 to 64 years old] Part-year workers with unemployment in 1968 who were employed in February 1969 Unemployed 15 weeks or more Unemployed 1 to 14 weeks Major occupation group and sex February job in same occupation as longest job February job in same occupation as longest job Longest job in 1968 Longest job in 1968 February job Number February job Percent of longest job Number Percent of longest job Men All occupation groups------------------- ---------------------------- 2,597 2,597 2,092 80.6 707 707 549 77.7 White-collar workers.- ___________________ ___________ Professional and technical __________________________ Managers, officials, and proprietors........ .............................. Clerical workers----------------------------- ---------------------------Sales workers-------- ----------------------------------------------------- 577 190 130 155 102 603 192 129 169 113 449 166 95 112 76 77.8 87.4 73.1 72.3 74.5 90 20 33 23 14 106 31 36 23 16 75 18 28 16 13 83.3 Blue-collar workers----------- ---------- ------------------------------------Craftsmen and foremen........... ............ ......... — ............... Operatives..-------- -----------------------------------------------------Nonfarm laborers----------------- ------------------------------------ - 1,800 620 801 379 1,758 643 753 362 1,486 549 651 286 82.6 88.5 81.3 75.5 532 183 207 142 519 165 213 141 418 142 169 107 Service workers, except private household------------------- ---------Farmers and farm laborers........... ............................................... 1 155 64 1 167 68 108 49 69.7 1 45 39 51 31 34 22 All occupation groups......................................................... 1,808 1,808 1,576 87.2 435 435 367 84.4 White-collar workers..................................................................... Professional and technical___________________________ Managers, officials, and proprietors__________________ Clerical workers_____________________ __________ _ Sales workers...... .............................................................. 942 168 30 638 106 950 184 17 648 101 837 159 15 586 77 88.9 94.6 (0 91.8 72.6 160 29 2 106 23 163 29 2 110 22 133 25 1 92 15 83.1 (0 (1) 86.8 o. o Blue-collar workers___________________ ________________ Craftsmen and foremen._____ ________ ______________ Operatives___________________________________ ___ Nonfarm laborers__________ _________ _____________ 447 13 426 8 472 11 448 13 408 11 390 6 91.3 (*) 91.8 0) 168 5 162 1 156 4 149 3 149 4 144 1 (0 Private household workers_______________________ ____ _ Service workers, except private household__________ ____ _ Farmers and farm laborers________________ _____________ 73 326 20 67 313 6 52 274 5 0) 22 74 11 32 75 9 21 56 8 0) 0) ( l) (0 (0 0) 0) 0) 78.6 77.6 81.6 75.4 (0 (0 Women (0 84.0 0 ) 88.7 88.9 (>) 1 Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000. This variance is attributable to the fact that women more often than men enter the labor force, work for only a short time, and then voluntarily withdraw from the labor force. The influence of weeks of unemployment on labor force status at some later date draws our attention to the relationship between length of unemployment and the occupational-industrial attachment of those who are employed at a later date. Specifically, it raises several questions. In which occupations and industries do the unem ployed eventually find employment? Are they the same ones in which these individuals worked before becoming unemployed, or are they different? Are the unemployed more or less likely to find work in different occupations or different industries as weeks of unemployment accumulate? Approximate answers to these questions for part-year workers with unemployment in 1968 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis who were employed in February 1969 were derived from a comparison of the occupation group and the industry group of their longest job in 1968 with that of their February job. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously. First, only changes between major occupation and industry groups were tabulated. Because some groups encompass occupations and industries of greater variety than others (for example, operatives compared with private household workers, durable goods contrasted with mining) proportionately more of the persons in the more encompassing groups will have their longest job and their February job in the same group. Second, persons who had their February job in a different occupa tion or industry group than their longest job include those who changed groups because of a spell of unemployment after their longest job and those who changed for other reasons. Separate 42 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 estimates for these two groups are not available. Third, differences in industry groups but not in occupation groups suggest a change in employers between longest job and February job. But even this evidence is not conclusive because a person can work in different industries without changing employers, by transferring from one operating division to another within the same parent organization. Lastly, large differences between percentages are required for statistical significance because the percentages are based on totals that are relatively small. These limitations, in turn, impose the following definition. A person working in a different occu pation (industry) group is one whose February job was in a different group than his longest job, whether his unemployment occurred before, dur ing, or after his longest job, and whether he changed employers or not. About 3 out of every 4 men who worked part year and had some unemployment in 1968 were employed in February 1969. A smaller proportion of the long-duration than the short-duration unemployed were working in February. However, roughly 80 percent among the employed in both duration segments had their February job in the same occupation group as their longest job in 1968 (table 4). Further, there were no significant differences of this sort in any of the major occupa tion groups for which data were available. Nor were there any when white-collar workers were compared with blue-collar workers in the same duration segment. Approximately equal proportions among the Table 5. Industry group and class of worker of part-year workers with unemployment in 1968, who were employed in Febru ary 1969, by longest job in 1968 [Thousands of persons 18 to 64 years old] Part-year workers with unemployment In 1968 who were employed in February 1969 Unemployed 1 to 14 weeks Unemployed 15 weeks or more Industry group, class of worker, and sex Longest job In 1968 February job February job in same industry as longest job Number Longest job in 1968 February job Percent of longest job February job in same industry as longest job Number Percent of longest job Men All Industry groups............................. 2,597 2,597 2,013 77.5 707 707 519 Wage and salary workers, total__________ Agriculture.____ _____ ____ _______ M in in g ................................................. Construction_____ ______ ______ ___ Manufacturing...... ................................ Durable goods_______ _________ Nondurable goods_____________ Transportation and public utilities____ Wholesale and retail trade__________ Service and finance.......... ..................... Finance, insurance, and real estate. Private household...................... . Other services i ............. ................. Public administration______________ Self-employed and unpaid family workers.. 2,494 58 42 490 934 706 228 193 387 330 56 11 263 60 103 2,488 60 51 467 880 661 219 209 396 361 60 10 291 64 109 1,927 40 40 405 738 581 157 154 267 240 43 8 189 43 86 77.3 (2) (2) 82.7 79.0 82.3 68.9 79.8 69.0 72.7 (2) (2) 71.9 (2) 83.5 668 41 15 158 215 154 61 38 96 94 10 7 77 11 39 668 35 15 147 211 145 66 52 98 99 14 6 79 11 39 486 25 14 119 164 121 43 34 66 60 10 3 47 4 33 1,808 1,808 1,453 80.4 435 435 354 81.4 1,779 21 2 18 498 211 287 85 356 745 125 75 545 54 29 1,783 8 2 17 519 215 304 90 338 755 120 72 563 54 26 1,437 7 1 13 424 172 252 72 267 613 90 55 468 40 16 80.8 430 12 1 1 155 66 89 10 102 135 10 22 103 14 5 432 11 1 5 144 49 95 12 98 147 7 32 108 14 3 353 10 1 1 129 48 81 8 82 111 6 21 84 11 1 82.1 73.4 72.8 (2) (2) (2) (2> (2) (2) 75.3 76.3 78.6 68.8 63.8 61.0 <2) (2) Women All industry groups.......... ............. . Wage and salary workers, total__________ Agriculture..................... ...................... Mining....................................... ........................ Construction________ ____________ Manufacturing............................. ....... Durable goods................................ Nondurable goods..____ _______ Transportation and public utilities____ Wholesale and retail trade____ ______ Service and finance________________ Finance, Insurance, and real estate. Private household............... .......... Other services i _______________ Public administration_____ _________ Self-employed and unpaid family workers.. 1 Includes forestry and fisheries. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2) (2) (2) 85.1 81.5 87.8 84.7 75.0 82.3 72.0 73.3 85.9 (2) (2) 2 Percent not shown where base Is less than 75,000. (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2> (2) (2) (2) 83.2 91.0 80.4 82.2 81.6 43 THE LONG-DURATION UNEMPLOYED employed in both segments had their February job in the same industry group as their longest job, and there were no significant intersegment variances in any of the major industry groups (table 5). Finally, men with the same number of jobless weeks in 1968 were as likely to have their February job in the same industry group as to have that job in the same occupation group. In the main, these findings also applied to women even though they were less likely than men to be employed in February. To sum up, these data suggest several conclu sions. First, most of the unemployed eventually find employment in the same occupation group and in the same industry group in which they worked before becoming unemployed. Further, they are no more likely to change occupation groups than to change industry groups. Second, the unemployed are neither more nor less likely to find work in different occupation groups or different industry groups as weeks of unemploy ment accumulate. Third, other work experience data indicate that persons with some unemploy ment more frequently than those with none at all switch from one group to another. Less than 10 percent of all persons who worked, had no unemployment in 1968, and were employed in February had their February job in a different occupation group than their longest job. In con trast, about 25 percent of the part-year workers who had some unemployment in 1968 and who were employed in February had their February job in a different occupation group than their longest job. Similar differences appeared in the proportions working in different industry groups. □ --------- FOOTNOTES--------1 See Vera C. Perrella, “Work Experience of the Popu lation in 1968,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1970, pp. 54-61, reprinted as Special Labor Force Report 115, for additional information from this survey and for the explanatory note which shows the standard errors for the 1968 data. 2 Data on marital status of 18- to 64-year-olds are not available. Youth’s need for work experience The school’s exclusive responsibility for education in programs not directed toward preparing for college should end about the age of 16. Beyond that point, cooperation between local government, industry, business, and the technician-employing professions is essential for adequate job training and, incidentally, for the maximum efficiency of secondary schools as college preparatory institutions. There is no magic in the chronological age 16, of course; the person’s degree of development as well as his talents and interests must be taken into consideration. But States generally permit the issuing of special work permits at about 16 or 17; they authorize limited licenses to drive an automobile. The childhood privilege of fishing without a license ends then; apprenticeship indentures may be entered into. . . . Even the most conscientious and optimistic educators cannot hope to sustain the myth that the school is a “house of magic,” capable of overcoming the reluctance of young people to take a vicarious classroom approach to specifically oriented job training. As of March 1964, fewer than 1 of 3 males and 1 of 5 females were employed in professional, technical, managerial, or proprietary positions for which secondary or higher education could be considered essential. This does not imply that more education would be undesirable, but simply that it is trying the patience of juvenile Jobs to insist that they forego the experience that comes with jobs. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — G eorge A. P ettitt, Prisoners of Culture (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970). T h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t s are adapted from papers presented to the Twenty-second Annual Winter Meeting of the Industrial Relations Re search Association, December 29-30, 1969, in New York City. Excerpts from five other papers appeared in the March issue of the Review. The full text of all papers will appear in the forthcoming i r r a publication, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting, available from i r r a , Social Science Building, Madison, Wis. 53706. EFFECTIVE PREPARATION FOR APPRENTICESHIP R E E S E HAM M O N D h a t is the best way—the most effective way— to prepare a young man for apprenticeship? Around the turn of the century, the concept of free public education was accepted and the frame work for a basic education for all of our youth was established. Unfortunately, six decades later, with few exceptions, vocationally oriented stu dents don’t get an effective preparation for apprenticeship. Despite the expenditure of some $50 billion per year for education, less than $1 billion is spent for vocational education,1 and most of that doesn’t prepare youngsters for work. Despite the fact that only 40 out of every 100 students entering the ninth grade go on to enter college, and only 20 of every 100 finish college, we spend less than 2 percent of our education budget on the 80 percent of our students who will not join the intellectually elite. The first step towards effective preparation for entry into a skilled trade is an honest analysis of W Reese Hammond is research and education director, International Union of Operating Engineers. 44 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the requirements of the trade. The second step is a realistic program to communicate these require ments to potential candidates at appropriate levels of understanding throughout their youth. The third step is to teach the youngster what will best prepare him for his future vocation. Any professor who assembles a “do it yourself” bookcase becomes an expert on the carpenter’s apprenticeship program; anyone who has refinished an antique commode can explain the intricacies of industrial painting; and any sidewalk super intendent who has ever watched a power shovel or a bulldozer will assure you that running equipment can’t be much more difficult than driving the family station wagon. I want to appeal to the “spray can painters,” “faucet fixers,” and the “extension cord wirers” to relate to the painters, plumbers, and electricians in the same fashion that they relate to the “guard house lawyer,” the “parlor psychologist” and the “bathroom baritone” to law, medicine, and music. Those qualified to analyze a craft include the master craftsman who works at his trade, super vises his trade, or has become a teacher. The record of the craftsman who has remained in the industry is written in thousands of apprenticeship standards administered jointly by labor and management across the nation and thousands of successful graduates of these apprentice programs. Unfortunately, the record seems to be in on vocational teaching. With a handful of welcome exceptions, this country has no vocational educa tion system. I am less inclined to blame the teachers than I am the elected school boards that either dilute meaningful skill training or use the vocational school as a dumping ground for the slow, the incorrigible, or the youngsters putting in time until they drop out. I am sure there are others professionally qualified to analyze the skill requirements of a craft, but they seldom do. The Purdue study 2 on apprenticeship will be extremely interesting when it is formally released. 45 IRRA PAPERS Ohio State University and the University of Illinois, working under a $1.3-million Office of Education grant, are just completing a 180-day Industrial Arts Curriculum Program 3 which deals with the world of construction, from the owner’s decision to buy right through the owner’s accept ance of the product. The package is designed for junior high school students and comes complete with laboratory assignments, such as building a simple wood form, mixing concrete, pouring it in the form, and screeding it off. Other assignments include design sessions, role playing between contractors, architects, and owners, moving pic tures of various trades at work, and discussions on bond issues and financing construction. There will be no segregation for the youngster who prefers to pound nails rather than design buildings or discuss financing. All of the components of construction, including the craftsmen, are treated with equal dignity and importance. This will be effective preparation for apprenticeship. But we have to reach youngsters in a meaningful way, earlier than junior high school. The Connecticut State Building and Construc tion Trades Council is well on its way toward developing a cooperative work study program with the Commission on Higher Education of that State, which will enable some 60 male ele mentary school teachers to work annually for 8 to 10 weeks in the summer as construction workers at the same time they are attending a graduate level seminar for credit in the ‘‘World of Con struction.” For 5 days a week, the teacher will work under union conditions as a carpenter’s helper plumber’s helper, or heavy equipment oiler. On the sixth day, he will attend a 3- to 4-hour seminar on employment conditions peculiar to the con struction industry. Hiring halls, apprentice pro grams, health, welfare, and pension programs, and the history of construction unions are proposed topics for discussion and related reading assign ments. It is hoped that these teachers will be able to portray an accurate picture of the construc tion industry and its labor force, and the pro gram will contribute to effective preparation for apprenticeship. At a more general level, the Vocational Educa tion Acts of 1963 and 1968 provide blueprints for improved preparation for apprenticeship. Unfor tunately, legislative authorizations are not legisla tive appropriations. And history clearly demon strates that money alone is no guarantee of quality https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis vocational education. Dr. Mangum’s paper reveals that in 1967 there were 7 million vocational enroll ments, split into 3.5 million in high school, 500,000 in vocational agriculture, 1.5 million in home economics, 1 million learning office skills, and 333,000 in trade and industry courses.4 We are already paying $1 billion per year for vocational education. We have a lot of house cleaning to do before we can get a fair return on this investment—a fair return which will include effective preparation for apprenticeship for all of our potential building tradesmen. □ --------- FOOTNOTES--------1 Garth L. Mangum, “Vocational Training: New Prac tices Needed?” Vital Issues, Vol. X IX , No. 4, p. 1. 2 Alfred Drew, et al., “Educational and Training Adjust ments in Selected Apprenticeable Trades (Lafayette, Ind., Purdue University, 1969). 3 Edward R. Towers, et al., The World of Construction (Columbus, Ohio State University Research Foundation, 1968), 2nd ed. 4 Mangum, op. cit., p. 2. A PLAN TO RESOLVE IMPASSES IN HOSPITAL BARGAINING T H E O D O R E W. K H E E L A N D LE W IS B. K A D EN m o s t p r e s s in g issues in hospital labor rela tions are first, the assurance of organizational rights in those areas where representational pro ceedings are not provided by law, and second, the design of procedures for resolving impasses. Like other workers, hospital employees seek greater participation and a larger voice in the determina tion of conditions of their work. For these workers, who are largely black, that quest for participation is part of the drive for racial equality and equal opportunity. Once organization is achieved, the question is what form participation will take. There the dilemma is similar to that in other areas of public employment. Is there to be participation through joint determination, the process of collective bargaining which is dominant in the private sector of the economy, or is some form of third party determination to be imposed? Collective T he Theodore W. Kheel and Lewis B. Kaden are members of the law firm of Battle, Fowler, Stokes, and Kheel. 46 bargaining depends upon the possibility of a strike, since it is the prospect that service will be withheld if a settlement is not reached that injects urgency into the process and forces a decision. Withholding services or suspending oper ations if the terms offered or demanded are unacceptable is the logical as well as traditional method of supporting demands and counter demands made at the bargaining table. There are only two logical alternatives to col lective bargaining: either the final determination is left to the employer’s discretion or it is trans ferred to an outside party, through a process of third party determination, most commonly arbi tration. Neither of these alternatives meets the demand for participation. It is the rare case where, the drive for organization won, employee satisfaction can result from mere consultation. And the difficulties of implementing compulsory arbitration as a method of setting contract terms in all cases has been proven by experience. Arbi tration is inconsistent with the aim of placing more responsibility with the parties themselves. It may improperly place statutory decisionmaking responsibility in the hands of a third party. It is especially unworkable where the arbitrator is asked to resolve a variety of issues without any agreed upon standard, and that tends to become the rule where it is required. Regardless of how much data is given him, his judgment cannot ade quately replace the decision of the parties who face and understand the pressures of the day-to-day activities. These are the tensions which can be effectively reflected in collective bargaining where the parties retain full control over the outcome of deliberations. If arbitration lies automatically at the end of the line, the result is predictably to stifle any collective consideration or bargaining. It is the flexibility induced by uncertainty that is a spur to resolution by the parties themselves. Strike threat In the private sector of the economy, collective bargaining has demonstrated its effectiveness as a method of dispute settlement. In public employ ment, it is gaining acceptance and improving its record for resolving disputes without a disruption of service. But true collective bargaining depends on the possibility of a strike, although not the certainty or even probability of it. Indeed, the probability is reduced, in our judgment, where https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 the possibility of a strike exists. Nevertheless, in hospitals, whether public or private, the prospect of disrupted service may be uniformly unacceptable, especially where nego tiations are conducted on a regional or citywide basis with a group of hospitals and many institu tions may be affected at once. In practice, both public and private hospital employees tend to ignore strike prohibitions in order to achieve bargaining. For example, the provisions for com pelling arbitration for New York voluntary institutions have never been invoked and have been generally ignored in negotiations between Local 1199 of the Retail, Wholesale, and Depart ment Store Union and the hospitals. The problem, Bargaining in public hospitals Congressman Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey commented on the Kheel-Kaden paper at the Industrial Relations Research Association meetings. Here is a portion of his statement: As a result of the legislative policies and Labor Board decisions, the processes and procedures of collective bargaining are available for the resolution of labor-management disputes at private proprie tary, profitmaking hospitals, but there are no orderly procedures for the ascertainment of majority union sentiment, for the adjustment of grievances, for the resolution of wage disputes in charitable or in public hospitals. This does not make sense. If the processes of collective bargaining are useful to the peaceful resolution of labor disputes in private hospitals (which I think they are), why should not the same processes be made available to the resolution of labor disputes at public and at charitable hospitals? There is no constitutional barrier. All hospitals are in interstate commerce and susceptible to the remedial powers of Congress. There is no question on this score. In 1966, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to make its minimum hourly wages applicable to hospitals and schools, “regardless of whether or not such hospital is public or private, operated for profit or not for profit.” Over the objection of Maryland and 27 other States, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of this law in Maryland v. Wirtz. If it is constitutional and wise for Congress to protect interstate commerce against strikes by a minimum wage at all hospitals, public or private, charitable or profitmaking, it is constitutional, and also wise, for Congress to seek the same objective by substituting at these institutions the peaceful processes of collective bargaining for the presently existing naked resorts to economic warfare. 47 IRRA PAPERS then, is how to grant desired participation while preventing disruptions in service. The situation is much the same whether we speak of voluntary or public hospitals. In each the workers are in the early stages of concerted efforts to improve conditions; the management is under increasing fiscal pressures to match inade quate revenue with spiraling costs for equipment, and materials as well as labor; the workers compete with other demands on limited revenues; the facility is conducted in a context of increasing public debate about reforms in finance and delivery of health services, and the potential of comprehensive and universal insurance schemes; and in each type of institution the sources of revenue are inflexible and substantially dependent on government payments or public assistance. When in July 1970 the city hospitals are trans ferred to a public corporation, under a board of city officials and public representatives, the administrative structure will closely resemble that of the nonprofit institutions. Thus it seems appro priate to consider the problems of labor relations in hospitals without distinguishing between public and voluntary institutions. Major issues The major issues are the same throughout hospital labor relations. First, questions of unit determination—whether supervisory personnel should be included in bargaining units; whether hospital bargaining should take place along func tional or “craft” lines, or whether units should include broader groups of employees. Local 1199 has taken the position that separate groups repre senting different functions of manual, clerical, maintenance, and professional employees will ini tially establish their own identity and then proceed to joint bargaining with specialized committees setting forth their particular claims. In 1968 the hospitals grouped together for bargaining for the first time. Local 144, which represents most of the proprietary institutions, has preferred compre hensive units crossing functional lines. In the municipal hospitals, negotiations between District 37 and the city are conducted on a job title basis, with titles that apply to other departments as well as hospitals negotiated citywide. The result is substantial fragmentation of agreements, al though an effort is being made to achieve greater coordination. A second major issue in hospital bargaining is https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that of wage differentials between workers of differing skills. As in any industrial union ar rangement, the tensions between low and high skill employees is reflected in the issue of per centage or dollar increases. When, as is common in hospitals, the focus is initially on raising entrylevel wages, the resulting narrowing produces pressure from the skilled people in subsequent negotiations. Third, an important issue at the bargaining table is subcontracting. Hospitals faced with mounting costs look toward the possibility of savings through regionalized laundry and main tenance services or mechanized food preparation. Subcontracting can produce interunion conflict with nonhospital organizations. This was the result in 1962 when Flower Fifth Avenue Hospital attempted to subcontract dietary and house keeping operations to an organization represented by the Hotel Service Employees, and Local 1199 set up pickets at the hospital gates. The overriding issue in hospital labor relations remains the question of impasse resolution. If strikes are prohibited under all circumstances, as they are now for public and voluntary hospitals, collective bargaining is frustrated. If employees seek to achieve bargaining by raising the pos sibility of a strike, they threaten violations of law and bring into the arena the variety of penalties that are provided for such misconduct. The strike ban often becomes a challenge to the ingenuity of the workers—a challenge they appear capable of meeting. As the nurses demonstrated with their mass resignation, the mind of man (or woman) is more than a match for a statute that tries to dictate conduct indorsed as proper for some but deemed unacceptable for others. The result is law that is ignored and bargaining that exists in fact if not by statutory decree. Bargaining to the fullest It would be preferable to create a system that effectively resolves disputes, our primary objec tive, while granting participation. Such a system would encourage collective bargaining to the fullest extent possible, recognize the possibility of a strike, and protect the public against injury to health or safety through the flexible and discretionary use of an injunction for a limited period when all other procedures have failed. However, if in the hospital area, any prospect of a work stoppage is deemed unacceptable, then we suggest this plan to prevent 48 strikes while offering workers effective participa tion. It is a method of promoting collective bar gaining to the fullest extent possible. First, create a Board to Promote Collective Bargaining in hospitals and health services with the primary function of prompting joint decision making by mutual agreement. Second, designate this Board as the agent to decide when direct negotiations are no longer possible or productive and to determine what pro cedure should be followed as an alternative. If the Board does not believe the parties have exhausted the utility of negotiations, it would be able to insist on further meetings with mediation. If it decides that factfinding or recommendations are called for, it would have power to direct this pro cedure. No fixed procedure would be mandated in advance. The Board would have full flexibility to design procedures that met the particular situation. Third, the Board should have authority to re strain a strike for a limited period, perhaps 20 days, to give it time to consider the next step to be taken. Fourth, as a last resort, the Board would have power to submit a particular remaining issue or issues to arbitration. The Board would also frame the issue for the arbitrator. By holding this possi bility in reserve, the process would have sufficient uncertainty to spur effective negotiations. A Board to Promote Collective Bargaining would serve these purposes: (1) it would encourage direct negotiations to the fullest extent possible; (2) it would permit the submission of one issue or more to arbitration if that seemed appropriate, but the parties could not evade direct responsi bility with any expectation that arbitration would be waiting at the end of the line ; (3) it would care fully formulate the issue or issues for arbitration in order to avoid an unlawful delegation to a third party or the unnecessary submission of many minor issues because either or both of the parties are reluctant to assume the responsibility of decisionmaking. Such a Board to Promote Collective Bargaining with a broad range of flexible reserve powers is a more workable method of resolving disputes than the procedures of the Taylor Law for public insti tutions or the mandated arbitration of the hos pital labor relations amendment governing nego tiations in voluntary institutions. It would bring the law into closer relation to the reality of hos pital labor experience, and that is the indispensable https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 foundation for effective labor relations in the health service field. □ WORKER PARTICIPATION IN SWEDISH ENTERPRISE RICHARD B. PETERSON h e r e are five principal levels of worker influence on managerial decisions or policy—no influence, providing information for the worker and his representatives, consultation, joint determination, and union initiation. The following analysis of these levels is based upon review of the Swedish Labor Court decisions, the Basic Agreement,1 collaboration and collective agreements, inter views, and the responses to a questionaire sent to 70 Swedish firms regarding managerial prerogatives. There are a number of areas in which the worker and his union may have no influence on policy because of contractual concessions by the trade unions or legal (Labor Court) backing of the employer position such as article 23 (32) .2 How ever, from interviews with both union and em ployer officials, it appears that present day employers will rarely establish employee relations policy arbitrarily, without some participation of workers or local trade union leaders, or both. In terms of legal rights, the employer basically has the right to hire, transfer, and promote workers, to subcontract work, and to determine new pro duction methods without consultation or accept ance by the trade union. In some situations, providing information or notification to workers is required of the employer. The basic agreement has for years required such notification to the union concerning layoffs and dismissals. Under the original agreement, a notice of so many days was provided prior to the dis missal or layoff of workers with at least 9 months’ service (with some specific exceptions). The notice would provide opportunity for an appeal if the dismissal or layoff was considered unfair. The employer was also required to state the reason T Richard B. Peterson is assistant professor of personnel and industrial relations at the Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Washington. The title of the full paper is “Worker participation in the enterprise: the Swedish experience.” IRRA PAPERS for the dismissal. A mechanism for appealing seemingly unjust dismissals was provided by the creation of the Labor Market Council. Later amendments to the Basic Agreement required notification to the trade union or works council of plans for reemployment of laid-off workers. The Works Council Agreement3 has also spelled out certain requirements regarding information about the firm. For example, the employer is obli gated to disseminate and discuss with the works council economic, technical, and financial data about the firm such as its balance sheets, profit and loss statements, administrative reports, and auditors’ reports. If this information is not legally required to be made public or is injurious to the firm, the firm is excused from furnishing it. How ever, the 1966 amendments encourage the firms to be as open as possible about their economic situation in the work council meetings. Several important changes relative to the dis semination of information to the works councils resulted from the 1966 negotiations. These changes required further information on certain economic matters concerning the firm; information con cerning the recruitment, selection, and promotion policies of the firm; consultation with the works council sufficiently in advance of decision by the firm’s board of directors so it would have some effect on that decision; and the establishment of a joint Development Council on Collaboration to supervise research and evaluation on the works councils system. Consultation and social duty There are few situations in which the employer is obligated to consult with the workers’ organi zations. This obligation is confined largely to the problems of workers’ job security. Although required only in limited areas, consul tation is a common practice in Swedish collec tive bargaining. The employer has the final say, but certain forces acting upon him make consul tation advisable. The primary forces are the employer’s sense of social obligation, full employ ment economy, the employer’s sense of responsible bargaining, and political considerations. It is generally agreed that, on the whole, Swedish employers recognize obligations to their employees as well as to society at large. Though the law favors the employer regarding managerial rights, such rights are used with discretion. For 377-973 0 — 70—— 4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 49 instance, though a Swedish employer could move his plant to get away from a troublesome union situation, few employers would choose to do so because of their sense of responsibility to their workers and the community. Another example is the treatment of a worker who, because of age, is no longer able to perform his normal work satisfactorily. Approximately one half of the employers’ replies to the questionnaire showed that the employer would not dismiss the worker even though it would be within his right to do so. Typically, the employer would reassign the worker to functions which he could perform. The full employment labor market has acted as another restraining force on unilateral action by the employer. The unemployment rate has averaged approximately 1.5 percent over the last 10 to 15 years. Facing the difficulty of finding competent workers, the employer will use the club 4 chairman or the works council as a sounding board for a proposed policy so as not to antago nize his employees. Most Swedish employers have accepted the need for quid pro quo in dealing with the trade union organization. The very success of the Swedish industrial relations system is explained largely in terms of responsible bargaining by both sides. Finally, politics is an important factor behind the Swedish management’s discretion in decision making. The employers are aware of the fact that the Confederation of Swedish Trade Unions might use the ruling Social Democratic (Labor) Party as a legislative vehicle toward greater worker participation if the employers are obstinate in considering legitimate changes. Joint determination is the next stage of workers’ influence in Swedish management. There are a number of illustrations of bilateral determination. The 1964 amendments to the Basic Agreement provided for an arbitration role for the Labor Market Council in considering appeals of personal dismissals. Because the union and management are equally represented on the council, joint determination exists. The evolutionary nature of the Works Council Agreement has allowed more worker influence in the management deliberations as well. For ex ample, the 1966 changes prescribed some addi tional responsibilities for the works councils. Now the councils may exercise the power not only to determine the value of a production 50 suggestion but also the amount of the award. A further illustration of joint determination is that the works council may allocate employee service funds within the prescribed budget. The collective agreements contain a few re quirements for joint determination. The hours within which the employer can schedule his workers is established by contract. Should the employer wish to revise these frame hours he must renegotiate. Generally speaking, unilateral decisionmaking by the worker and his trade union is rare in Swedish collective bargaining. This may happen where the employer does not choose to exercise his options and thereby, through inaction, the worker plays the dominant role in the decision. One good illustration is the planning of vacation schedules and overtime assignments. Though the employer has the right to direct such activities, interviews brought out that, due to the fear of losing good workers, Swedish managers do not enforce assignments of overtime work or vacation schedules during certain times of the year. Finally, regarding the hiring of foreign workers, such workers are unable to receive labor permits to work in Swedish firms unless the request is approved by the local and national trade union organizations. In this way the workers’ organiza tion can limit the number and skill categories of foreign workers. In conclusion, some generalizations can be made concerning worker participation in Swedish management. First, worker influence is largely found in decisions concerning employee relations. There is no evidence that the worker or his trade union plays a direct role in decisions concerning marketing, production, or financial matters. Second, worker influence is more likely to consist of receiving prior notification or being consulted by management rather than as a joint decision maker. Finally, worker participation in Sweden may be considered evolutionary in the sense that workers have a larger role today than has been true in the past. Bilateral relationships (not necessarily joint determination) are more evident than is commonly assumed. A glimpse of the future The Confederation of Swedish Trade Unions has not yet taken a clear position on the future of worker participation. For instance, a 1961 report of the Confederation envisioned the future https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 codetermination as some type of corporate management system. A corporate cadre would administer “the common property of society” under this arrangement. The leadership would be responsible both to the employee and the con sumer. As for the Development Council For Collabora tion, in June of 1969, it released a report out lining future activities regarding industrial democracy. The council has been quite interested in experiments in industrial democracy in Nor wegian state-owned establishments, and its report placed major emphasis on designing and evaluating experiments with self-governing groups in Swedish industries. The report encouraged a number of experiments at different corporate levels, with different degrees of worker influence, and recom mended that such experiments deal with worker participation in decisions concerning work prac tices and organization of work; formulation of personnel policies; consultation with management concerning selection of supervisors, personnel officers, work study engineers, and other execu tives who have a great influence upon the social and psychological climate of the work place; and improved communications between workers and management, including worker representation on the company board of directors. □ --------- FOOTNO TES--------1 The “Basic Agreement” was concluded in 1938 by the Swedish Employer’s Confederation (SAF), by far the largest employer organization in Sweden, the Confedera tion of Swedish Trade Unions (LO), and the Central Organization of Salaried Employees (TCO). The agreement provided the framework for supplementary agreements covering such issues as safety, vocational training, works councils, work study, and female labor. 2 Article 23(32) of the Constitution of Swedish Em ployers’ Confederation asserts the employers’ rights to hire, dismiss, and direct the work force. In 1906, the trade unions agreed to respect this provision in return for labor’s right of association. The managerial rights have been consistently upheld by the Swedish Labor Court. 3 The Swedish works council system was created by the Works Council Agreement for the purpose of mutual discussion and exchange of information on production and industrial safety. The works council system operates alongside the factory union organization, but independ ently of it. For more information on this subject, see Richard B. Peterson, The “Swedish Experience With Industrial Democracy,” British Journal of Industrial Relations, July 1968, pp. 185-203. 4 Factory clubs have responsibilities for grievance handling on the factory level. They are outposts of trade unions. 51 IRRA PAPERS IMPACT OF SCHOOL DECENTRALIZATION ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MICHAEL H. MOSKOW AND KENNETH MCLENNAN p r e c i s e i m p a c t of school decentralization on teacher bargaining in urban school systems will depend on the nature of the particular decentrali zation plan .1 However, all decentralization pro posals which in effect change the environment in which a teacher organization operates are bound to encounter initial resistance. Teacher organiza tions are concerned with consolidating present gains as well as improving conditions of employ ment. Issues involving job security become crucial during the introduction of the decentralization plan. Urban teachers feel that there is a shortage of desirable job opportunities within the school system and, consequently, issues concerning seniority, hiring, assignment, and transfer must be discussed with teacher representatives, and the detailed provisions must be specified in the decentralization plan. Failure to do this will inevitably lead to labor conflict in urban education. This prediction is supported by experience in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville school district of New York City and by recent research studies. A survey2 of teachers’ attitudes towards decentralization sug gests that teachers overwhelmingly prefer their organization to be involved in the decisionmaking process on personnel policy issues. In most cases, they favored systemwide negotiations on these issues. On decisions covering some educational policy topics, there was substantial support for decentralizing to the district (community) level. But an overwhelming proportion (80 percent) of teachers in the system studied indicated that, if the system were decentralized, they would prefer salary and fringe benefits for all teachers in the system to be negotiated at the central rather than the local level. Central, systemwide bargaining was also preferred, though not to the same degree, for job security issues, such as transfers among local community districts, hiring, dismissal, and criteria for promotion. T he Michael H. Moskow, now on leave at the Council of Economic Advisers, and Kenneth McLennan are pro fessors of economics at Temple University. The ideas ex pressed are the personal views of the authors. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis It appears that most teachers are willing to negotiate issues of policy on the instructional program at the local community level. For ex ample, the proportion of respondents favoring central level negotiations was only 32 percent for class size, 41 percent for course content, 24 percent for textbook selection, and 20 percent for teacher aide selection. The tendency toward preference for negotiation on these issues at the local level probably reflects current dissatisfaction with the educational bureacracy in urban school systems, and support for the idea of community participa tion in professional policy issues. From research findings it seems likely that the most difficult issues created by decentralization will stem from the community’s demand for con trol over personnel and budget allocation within the district. Teacher organizations will reflect their members’ resistance to this type of com munity control. Their strategy most likely will be strong political pressure to prevent any decentral ization plan from giving this power to the local community and, where this authority is decen tralized, an attempt to negotiate uniform per sonnel provisions among the local district. Structure of negotiations The structure of collective bargaining is largely influenced by the legal bargaining unit. In urban educational systems, bargaining units are systemwide. They exclude nonteaching personnel and administrators, the rationale being that there is no community of interest between teachers and nonteaching personnel. The introduction of a decentralization plan will not affect the teacher organization’s legal responsi bility to act as bargaining agent for all teachers in the city. Reorganization of the bargaining struc ture, however, will become an administrative necessity. The extent and nature of the reorgani zation will depend on the new locus of decisions regarding personnel and educational policy. If salaries and working conditions as well as educational policy matters are decided at the district board level, the bargaining structure will tend to be decentralized. The leadership of the teachers’ organization along with teachers’ repre sentatives from each district will negotiate sep arate contracts with each district in the system. Under this type of decentralization plan, there is greater possibility that, in the future, bargaining 52 units may be separated according to district demarcation. On the other hand, if only a limited number of decisions are delegated to the district boards, the structure of negotiation will remain fairly centralized, with a single uniform contract covering all districts. Most of the decentralization plans so far pro posed anticipate basic salary and working con ditions to be decided at the central level, with selected personnel and educational policy topics (such as selection of teachers, tenure, curriculum, and textbook selection) decided at the local level. It is therefore likely that the bargaining structure will become somewhat more decentralized than at present. It may become analogous to the master agreement-local agreement arrangement in indus trywide bargaining in the private sector. Teacher supply and salaries Among the problems requiring adjustment as a result of decentralization will be the supply of teachers. Any situation which creates stress and conflict among the faculty will make it more difficult to hire teachers. Increased community participation in educational policy will, at least in the short run, result in some conflict between teachers, the school board, and the community. Since some teachers avoid disputes over such issues as curriculum, qualifications for teaching black history, and qualifications for school princi pals, the teachers at first will be in short supply. This is expected to occur in all local districts within the system, though in some districts com munity support for the goals advocated by teachers may actually attract teachers. Social and economic differences between the residential areas where teachers live and the location of schools is one reason for different supply curves in local school districts within the system. As previously indicated, central cities are becom ing increasingly black, and recent population surveys suggest that an increasing number of city census tracts are becoming racially segregated. In addition, comparisons between the central city, the rest of the city, and the suburbs indicate that the incidence of crime, unemployment, households headed by women, and poverty are not randomly distributed throughout the metropolitan area. Consequently, it has become difficult to attract teachers to schools located in areas with poor socioeconomic environments. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Economic theory suggests wage differentials as a means of allocating teachers among local dis tricts in a system. For example, assume that one local district is located in the lower income central city and contains a large ghetto, while the other district is located in a middle-income resi dential area of the city. The teacher availability will be different for each district because the two districts differ in access to middle-income resi dential areas (where teachers are likely to live), in recorded crime rates, and in intellectual quality of entering students. At the prevalent wage rate, the ghetto district will be short of certified teachers and the central school system will have to “assign” more teachers to the ghetto district. It is, of course, possible that some teachers will not accept the assignment and will take jobs in suburban districts or find some other type of em ployment. The ghetto district is faced with two possibilities. It must either raise its wage rate or adjust its entry standards by accepting teachers who have not met the certification requirements. If the central school board sets the uniform salary schedule, the ghetto district must lower its entry standards. The lack of salary differentials between the two districts will result in a lower quality of teachers in the ghetto district. This will occur because teachers with least seniority will usually be “assigned” to the ghetto school, and it is assumed that teaching ability increases with teaching experience; certified teachers are superior to noncertified teachers, assuming that certifica tion standards are valid criteria for entry into the profession; and, even if senority and certifica tion are neutral in their effect on quality of teaching, the ghetto district has fewer teachers from which to select. Consequently, it will not have the advantage of applying any selection criteria. Salary differences among local districts (and per haps within districts) have much merit since they provide for an efficient allocation of manpower within the entire school system. It is, of course, difficult to predict the size of the differential neces sary to attract teachers to the ghetto area local district. Over one-third of the respondents in the survey indicated salary differentials would not motivate them to teach in a ghetto school. When asked what differential would be necessary to get teachers to move to a ghetto school, most said that if a differential were to be effective, it would have 53 IRRA PAPERS to be substantial (over 10 percent) before teachers would voluntarily move to a ghetto area school. The relatively higher birth rates among residents of the central city and the socioeconomic problems in ghetto areas are likely to increase the importance of the allocation of teachers as a topic in collective bargaining. Under most decentralization plans it is unlikely that local districts will be responsible for negotiat ing basic salary schedules. As already indicated, teachers overwhelmingly favor salary determina tion at the central level. It is also obvious that leaders of teachers’ organizations will strongly resist any attempt to have this issue negotiated by district boards. Nevertheless, it is possible that some degree of salary flexibility (as opposed to adjustments in qualification requirements) will emerge if the master agreement—local agreement model—for bargaining is established. One possibil ity would be for the master agreement to set the basic salary level and local districts would be free to negotiate differentials above this basic level. It is more likely, however, that interdistrict differ- entials can be achieved through the master local agreement method by having extra pay features, such as longer preparation periods, smaller class size, or greater opportunities to teach summer school or to tutor students, included in the local negotiations. The introduction of differentials, no matter what method is used, is preferable to ad justing the entry requirements. □ --------- FOOTNOTES--------1 In this paper, the term “school decentralization” means transfer of decisionmaking power from citywide school boards and administrators to lower levels of policy making and administration of the school system. It is not merely administrative decentralization, however, for implicit in this delegation of power is greater community control by lay persons residing in the local areas in which the schools are located. 2 See Michael H. Moskow and Kenneth McLennan, “Teacher Negotiations and School Decentralization,” in Henry Levin (ed.), Community Control of Schools (Washing ton, The Brookings Institution, 1970). Situation report on California Indians A recent report on California Indian Health Status notes that of all ethnic groups in the State, American Indians have the highest unemployment rate. Typically, the Indian worker is unskilled or semiskilled, and work when available is seasonal or intermittent. The Indian’s life span is short (42 years, compared with 62 years for all Californians) and the rate of death due to accident is more than 3 times the overall California rate. Indians are comparatively few in California, but nevertheless make up the State’s fastest-growing minority, more than doubling in number in each of the past two decades. These last 20 years have also seen a decided shift from rural to urban living. In 1950, 26 percent of California’s Indians lived in cities and towns; in 1960, 53 percent; and today, probably 65 percent. The Indians in California cities (mostly in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose) are, in the main, relocated from reservations in other States. They move to California at the rate of 6,000 to 10,000 a year, either on their own or under relocation programs for jobs or training. As many as one-third probably return to their reservations after a brief stay. Single copies of the report are available without charge from the California State Department of Public Health, 2121 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, Calif. 94704. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis WAGES OF NONTEACHING EMPLOYEES IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS CHARLES M. O'CONNOR S t r a i g h t - t i m e e a r n i n g s of the 2 . 2 million nonsupervisory nonteaching employees in educational institutions averaged $2.24 an hour in March 1969, up 1.8 percent since October 1968, accord ing to a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey.1 During this period, earnings levels rose 2.8 per cent in the South, 1.8 percent in the North Central region, and less than 1 percent in the Northeast and West. Part of the rise in earnings was due to an increase in the Federal minimum wage for newly covered nonfarm workers, includ ing certain employees in educational institutions. The minimum wage for these employees was raised from $1.15 to $1.30 an hour on February 1, 1969. Average hourly earnings for employees in March 1969 ranged from $1.84 in the South to $2.54 in the West. Within each region, employees in metropolitan areas averaged more than those in smaller communities by amounts ranging from 26 cents an hour in the South to 53 cents in the West. Employees in public schools averaged 34 cents an hour more than those in private schools in the North Central region and 41 cents more in the West. (See table 1.) In the Northeast and South, averages for the two types of schools were only a few cents apart. Public schools accounted for nearly two-thirds of the employees in colleges and universities and for more than nine-tenths of those in elementary and secondary schools. Employees in elementary and secondary schools, Charles M. O’Connor is an economist in the Division of Occupational Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 54 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis three-fifths of the workers covered by the survey, averaged $2.26 an hour—6 cents more than those in colleges and universities. Averages were higher in elementary and secondary schools than in colleges and universities in the North Central region ($2.38 and $2.19) and the West ($2.61 and $2.42), and about the same in the South ($1.83 and $1.87) and Northeast ($2.45 and $2.46). Earnings of more than nine-tenths of the employees were within a range of $1.30 to $3.50 an hour in March 1969. The middle half of the employees in the array earned from $1.45 to $2.51. Proportions of workers at or near the Federal minimum wage, earning $1.30 but less than $1.35 an hour, were three-tenths in the South, nearly one-eighth in the North Central region, and less than one-tenth in the Northeast and West. In each region, the proportions of workers in the $1.30-$ 1.35 interval were larger in nonmetropoli tan than in metropolitan areas, larger in private than in public schools, and larger in colleges and universities than in elementary and secondary schools. Five occupational groups, accounting for slightly more than seven-tenths of the employees covered by the survey, were studied separately. In March 1969, the number and average hourly earnings of workers in these five groups were: O c c u p a t io n a l g r o u p N u m ber (in th o u s a n d s ) A v e r a g e h o u r ly e a r n in g s F o o d s e r v ic e e m p l o y e e s . . . ...................... 4 1 9 .3 $ 1 .6 8 C u s to d ia l e m p lo y e e s .................................................. O ffice c le r ic a l e m p lo y e e s ........................................... B u s d r iv e r s ............... ............................. S k ille d m a in te n a n c e e m p lo y e e s ....................................... 4 2 3 .7 5 2 2 .3 1 4 5 .8 2 .2 8 2 .3 7 2 .6 2 3 .4 4 7 4 .9 Since October 1968, average earnings rose slightly more than 3 percent for food service employees and 1y2 percent or less for the other occupational groups. School employees averaged 27 hours of work a week in March 1969. The average was nearly 19 hours a week for busdrivers, compared with 26 hours for food service employees, 31 hours for 55 RESEARCH SUMMARIES Table 1. Number and average hourly earnings of nonsupervisory nonteaching employees in educational institu tions, March 1969 Number (in thousands) Region Average hourly earnings Public schools Private schools All schools Public schools Private schools United States_____ 2,181.1 1,790.9 390.2 $2.24 $2.25 $2.16 140.5 101.8 100.1 47.8 2.45 1.84 2.30 2. 54 2. 46 1.84 2.35 2. 58 2.44 1.87 2.01 2.17 All schools Northeast_____________ South_________________ North Central__________ West___________ ____ 470.9 668.0 632.0 410.2 330.5 566.1 532.0 362.3 Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. office clerical employees, 35 hours for custodial employees, and 40 hours for skilled maintenance employees. The survey also developed information on the incidence of selected supplementary wage benefits and the extent of labor-management contract coverage for each of the occupational groups, except busdrivers. Educational institutions having labor-management contracts covering a majority of their custodial, food service, office clerical, and skilled maintenance employees accounted for less than three-tenths of the workers in each group. Paid holidays were provided to slightly more than three-fifths of the food service employees and nine-tenths or more of the office clerical, custodial, and skilled maintenance employees. The number of paid holidays provided annually varied substantially within each group; most common provisions were for 8 to 11 days a year, except for food service employees who were usually granted fewer paid holidays. Paid vacations, after qualifying periods of ser vice, were provided to seven-eighths or more of the office, custodial, and skilled maintenance employees and one-third of the food service em ployees. Typical provisions were at least 2 weeks of vacation pay after 1 year of service and 3 weeks or more after 10 years. Paid sick leave, nearly always at full pay with no waiting period, was provided to a large ma jority of the employees in the four groups. Except for food service workers, a majority of the em ployees were provided at least part of the cost of hospitalization, surgical, medical, and catas trophe (major medical) insurance. Retirement pension benefits, other than social security, applied to a majority of the employees in the four groups. The survey covered all public and private elementary and secondary schools, colleges, univer https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis sities, professional schools, junior colleges, and their separate auxiliary units. Excluded from the survey were federally owned and operated schools ; university and college hospitals; correspondence schools ; vocational schools (except vocational high schools); other nondegree granting schools; and all schools in Alaska and Hawaii. Earnings infor mation developed by the survey included shift differential pay, but excluded premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends and holidays, as well as the value of room and board or other perquisites that may have been provided. Supple mentary benefits were treated statistically on the basis that if formal provisions in a school were applicable to one-half or more of the workers regularly employed in an occupational group (e.g., food service, custodial) the benefits were considered applicable to all workers in the group. Similarly, if fewer than one-half of the workers were covered, the benefits were considered non existent. The full report on the survey is expected to be issued early this summer. □ -------------------- FOOTNOTE -------------------- 1 Nonsupervisory nonteaching employees, for purposes of this survey, include all school employees engaged in nonsupervisory noninstructional functions. Excluded were members of religious orders, teachers and other professional personnel (except registered nurses), and administrative, executive, and technical employees. For ease in reading in subsequent paragraphs, workers covered by the survey are referred to simply as “employees.” IMPASSE, GRIEVANCE, AND ARBITRATION IN FEDERAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RONALD W. GLASS A n e w Bureau of Labor Statistics study took on special timeliness when Executive Order 11491 was issued October 29, 1969. The Order, “LaborManagement Relations in the Federal Service,” introduced a number of significant changes in existing procedures for the settlement of employee grievances and negotiation impasses. Principal among these were permission to negotiate binding arbitration of grievances subject only to limited Ronald W. Glass is an economist in the Division of Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics. M O N T H L Y LA B O R R EV IEW , A P R IL 1 9 7 0 56 appeal rights (which could replace present advisory arrangements); the right of the parties to replace the present dual grievance system (consisting of that negotiated by the parties and that unilaterally established by the agency) with a single negotiated procedure; greater reliance on the Federal Media tion and Conciliation Service in resolving stale mated negotiations; and the creation of a Federal Services Impasses Panel, which will take final resolution of seemingly insoluble negotiation impasses away from the agency involved and place them with a neutral third party. The new b l s study, based on Federal contracts in effect in 1967 and negotiated under Executive Order 10988, offers Federal union and manage ment negotiators an opportunity to review grievance, arbitration, and impasse resolution provisions now in effect. Experiences under the old Order will be of interest in future negotiations and will serve as a benchmark against which changes in these procedures may be measured. Illustrative clauses are used extensively throughout Negotia tion Impasse, Grievance, and Arbitration in Federal Agreements, the forthcoming b l s bulletin which provides the results of the study. The study includes 685 Federal agreements, covering nearly 1 million employees in 25 Federal departments and agencies. In total, 64 labor or Table 1. 1967 i ganizations had negotiated contracts. Excluding the National Postal Agreement,1 eight unions accounted for over three-quarters of the agreements and about 84 percent of the employees in the study. Over half the employees were in units which covered both classification act and wage board workers. The size of bargaining units ranged from as low as eight workers in the Tariff Commission to well over 1,000 in each of several agreements. The latter accounted for over threefifths of all workers in the study, excluding the National Postal Agreement. About 47 percent of the agreements studied contained one impasse resolution procedure or more. (See table 1.) Most frequently (in 201 agreements), these involved the referral of stalemated talks to higher agency officials for final resolution. Almost as often (in 187 agree ments), factfinding committees were utilized to sharpen the issues in dispute. The findings, in some cases, were referred back to the stalemated parties, and in others to the final decision level in the agency. Mediation arrangements could be employed under provisions negotiated in 76 agreements. Over half the agreements studied, covering almost two-thirds of the employees, contained negotiated grievance procedures. These covered a Impasse resolution, grievance procedures and advisory arbitration in Federal collective bargaining agreements, Advisory arbitration arrangements Negotiated grievance procedures Impasse resolution procedures Total studied Agency Agreements T o ta l..______ ___________ _______ Agriculture____________________________ Commerce____________________________ Defense______________________ _____ _ Air Force_____ ________________________ Army____ ____________________________ Navy_________ ______________________ _ Health, Education and Welfare____________ Interior___________ ____ _______ _______ Justice______ ____ ______________ ____ Labor___________ _____________ _____ _ Transportation___________ _____________ Treasury....................... ................................... General Services Administration___________ National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Labor Relations Board Smithsonian Institution__________________ T a riff C o m m issio n Tennessee Valley Authority_______________ Veterans Administration................................. Employees 684 14 10 6 49 110 181 24 45 17 2 34 9 7 1 47 1 6,206 2,309 2,766 38,922 53,931 140,739 19, 569 4,148 2,460 9,035 4,387 3,054 397 98 5, 240 19 5 5 1 1 3 1 3 108 5, 484 L 529 1 612 28 435 8 17,978 55,401 1 Excludes the National Postal Agreement which covers 608,833. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 375,485 Employees Agreements Employees Agreements Employees Agreements 321 154,810 380 245,863 266 194,670 9 5 3 15 39 5 15 45 17 1 2 2 3 1 46 5,421 259 563 20,835 24,952 3,568 7,646 4,148 2,460 3,835 191 1,490 77 98 5,223 6 7 5 12 53 127 4 45 8 1 30 4 5,073 1,810 2,565 5,741 31,849 127,321 1,412 4,148 1,160 3,835 4,130 410 3 5 4 42 100 2 45 5 1 12 4 3,806 506 2,344 5,641 25, 845 114, 576 1,283 4,148 778 3,835 2,141 410 8 67Ö 6 534 5,484 1,529 1,612 509 1,260 1,612 28 200 5 5 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 235 17,978 54, 226 3 1 3 52 435 3 106 17,978 28,693 3 17 17,978 8,841 h 57 RESEARCH SUMMARIES variety of matters, including the rights of em ployees to select either the negotiated or agency procedures to process their complaints, the union’s role in grievance processing, the scope of the grievance procedure and its steps, and the utiliza tion of factfinding. Seventy percent of the negotiated grievance procedures contained advisory arbitration arrange ments; these applied to 4 of every 5 employees covered by negotiated grievance procedures. Included in these provisions were details on how the parties to a dispute could initiate advisory arbitration and how the arbitrator is to be selected. Other matters referred to are time limits for arbitrators to reach their opinions and cost-sharing arrangements. In a separate section of the study, the issue of official time off for grievance preparation, grievance processing, and arbitration is discussed. Appendixes include a reproduction of procedures in the National Postal Agreement, a selection of advisory arbitration decisions, and the text of Executive Order 11491. □ -------------------- FOO TNO TE --------------------- 1 Because of its size, the National Postal Agreement, which covers over 600,000 employees, is discussed separately. HOW TO MEASURE THE EMPLOYMENT THAT RESULTS FROM TOURISM Excellent and informative as these studies may be, they do not tell the full story. Systematic inquiry into measurement of employment directly generated by tourist travel has been lacking. Particularly noticeable is the dearth of information on the volume of tourist-based employment and payrolls that would permit measurement of chang es over time or between States and areas. Recognizing the need for such data, a special legislative commission on recreation and tourist travel in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts requested the Boston regional office of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to report on the direct genera tion of private employment by the vacation travel industry. (A tourist, for purposes of this study, was defined as a traveler for pleasure away from home at least one night.) The Commission stipulated that only statistical material already available be used. Fortunately, much of the material necessary in preparing monthly current employment estimates under the cooperative State-Federal program was well adapted to the purposes of the Commission study. This was especially true of the quarterly summary tabulation (form e s - 2 0 2 ) by the Massachusetts Division of Employment Security, by industry and county, of employment covered under provi sions of the unemployment compensation law. These data were supplemented by the Passenger Transportation Study of 1963, the Census of Business of 1963, standard statistical reference books, trade and industrial association fact books, and private and governmental studies of patterns of tourist expenditures in Massachusetts and elsewhere. EDWARD T. O'DONNELL T he u b i q u i t o u s t o u r is t —a highly visible variety of invisible export—is increasingly recognized as an asset to the economy. Tourism’s influence upon State and regional economies has been much studied. Government agencies and private econo mists have published volumes treating with the industry’s contributions to State and local income. This literature typically devotes itself to types and optimal locations of facilities, traveler destina tions and points of origin, composition of vacation parties, duration of visits to attractions, and pat terns of tourist expenditures. Edward T. O’Donnell is assistant regional director of Region I (Boston), Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Identifying tourist industries Before the regional office began the project, three private consultants to the commission had identified 49 Standard Industrial Classification (sic) three-digit industries as embodying the recreation and vacation travel industry. Review permitted b l s to pare this list, first to the 2 0 largest industries (accounting for 95 percent of employment) and then to the 10 that contributed practically all of the seasonal swing between February and August. These 2 months had been established by study of travel data as the low and high months of tourist mileage in Massachusetts. The 10 markedly seasonal industries were: 58 M O N T H L Y LA B O R R EV IEW , A P R IL 1 9 7 0 S I C C ode I n d u s try 581--------------------------- E a tin g a n d d r in k in g p la c e s. 701—................................. 554---------------------------- H o t e ls , to u r is t c o u r ts , m o t e ls . G a s o lin e s e r v ic e s t a t io n s . 794............................ ........ 599----------- ---------------783—.................... ............ S p o r ts p r o m o tio n , a m u s e m e n t s , re c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s . R e t a il s to r e s , n o t e lse w h e r e c la s s if ie d . M o tio n p ic tu r e th e a te r s . 793............. ..................... .. 702..................................... 721..................................... 7 0 3 ................................... T h e a tr ic a l p r o d u c e r s , b a n d s , a n d e n te r ta in e r s . R o o m in g a n d b o a r d in g h o u s e s . L a u n d r ie s . T r a ile r p a r k s a n d c a m p s . Employment trends in each of these industries were charted and reviewed to assess, for each county, the proportion of jobs stemming directly from the needs of tourists. Similar determinations were required for all industries in Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha’s Vineyard, since in these locations the effect of the seasonal influx of vacationists was felt throughout the entire employment structure. The thorniest difficulty of the exercise lay in determining tourist-generated jobs in industries or establishments not covered by unemployment compensation laws, and therefore not included in the basic e s - 2 0 2 . County and industry statistics in the selected services and retail trade volumes of the Census of Business, 1963, were most helpful in working around this puzzle. These, together with the tabulations of covered employment, permitted estimates (admittedly tentative) of the number of noncovered establishments together with inferences concerning their average employ ment. Although these secondary data were helpful, a truly satisfactory solution to the problem of noncovered employment is unlikely without ade quate sample surveys of noncovered firms. Estimates of weekly earnings were based on the summary reports of payrolls in covered in dustries. These, available in quarterly aggregates on form e s - 2 0 2 , were adjusted to weekly equiva lents that were then related to estimated employ ment in each industry. Comparison with wage earnings data prepared elsewhere suggests that weekly earnings so derived may serve where mod erate precision is sufficient. Since Census data and special county tabu lations of covered employment were available for 1963 and 1964, the research centered on those years. Results were moved by link-relatives to provide coverage from 1958 through 1967. One of the prime purposes of the project was the development of a low-cost system for current estimates. After some testing, trend projection was accepted as a feasible approach. Advance estimates for 1967, 1968, and 1969, when compared https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis with actual covered employment reported later, possessed precision generally sufficient for each separate industry—and rather surprisingly high precision for all industries in combination— particularly during the summer months when tourism is at its maximum. Adaptability to other States This approach to measurement of tourist generated employment is adaptable to other States. The necessary statistics are available— U.S. Census publications, for example, and the indispensable tabulations of covered employment prepared by State employment security agencies. Coded according to the Standard Industrial Classification by coders working to generally uniform instructions, these are definitionally con sistent and highly comparable between States. Results based upon them could readily be com bined into regional totals. Tests of New England States apart from Massa chusetts showed that in the benchmark year 1964, each State’s 10 most volatile industries enrolled at least 95 percent of all covered employment in tourism’s 49 component industries. In four States, the 10 accounted for 95 percent or more of the February—August seasonal rise, while in Ver mont—where winter recreation was most highly developed—the volatile 10 provided 92.9 percent of the upward movement. Moreover, State-to-State sim ilarities were marked in the composition and seasonal patterns of the 10 volatile industries, suggesting the pos sibility of sharing costs of direct survey of compo nents of the troublesome noncovered sector. Separate surveys of every industry by adjacent States seems needlessly expensive. If what is true of a set of seasonal industries in one State is equally true in adjoining ones, why not divide the burdens and pool the resulting data? In time, an interstate exchange of information on employment could evolve, based upon statis tics already in existence supplemented by limited direct surveys, with cost spread among the States. Massachusetts tourism in 1969 Highlighting the Massachusetts study was the fact that, at the peak of the 1969 summer vacation season, over 59,000 workers (other than govern- 59 RESEARCH SUMMARIES ment) were employed in direct service to tourists. Tourism’s 1969 summer jobs outnumbered 1968’s by more than 2,200 and 1960’s by 13,000, a 29percent advance compared with a 15-percent gain in all nonagricultural employment during the same period. At 1969’s midsummer crest, tourism directly generated more jobs than all but 2 of the 19 two-digit sic categories into which statisticians divide factory employment. Only machinery production and the fabrication of electrical and electronic equipment employed more workers than tourist vacation travel at its seasonal peak. Payrolls, exclusive of tips and gratuities, approached $4 million a week during July and August. Much of this money went to student workers of limited experience, many of them earning money for school expenses. Massachusetts’ vacation travel industry in 1969 employed 41,300 more workers at its August peak than at its February low of about 15,700. The benefits of the industry’s midsummer rise are unevenly distributed among counties. In the counties of Barnstable (Cape Cod), Nantucket, and Dukes (Martha’s Vineyard), the effect upon total employment is extreme. In other counties, the effect is considerable but less weighty. The detailed study, An Essay on Method of Measurement of Employment Directly Generated by Tourism in Massachusetts, 1958-1967, is avail able from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151, for $3 a copy (65 cents microfiche). Reference should be made to Accession No. pb -185982. D WHITE-COLLAR PAY IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY WILLIAM M. SMITH S a l a r i e s of white-collar workers in the private sector rose almost 6 percent during the year ending in June 1969, marking the largest annual increase since 1961, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began its yearly studies of these workers’ William M. Smith is an economist in the Division of Occupational Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis pay. Continuing the trend noted since the begin ning of the series, average salaries generally increased at higher rates for professional and administrative employees than for the others. These gains ranged from 3 to 9 percent for most of the professional and administrative levels surveyed, and from 4.5 to 7 percent for clerical and most of the technical support levels.1 A wide dispersion of salaries was reported within each of the 78 job levels studied, with salaries of the highest paid employees at least twice those of the lowest paid in almost all the levels. There was also a substantial overlapping of individual salaries between work levels of the same occupa tions, largely because of different pay practices among the establishments. These were among the findings of the latest b l s survey, summarized in table 1. Salary trends The accompanying chart shows changes that occurred in salaries between 1961 and 1969 for four selected employee groups. Salary indexes for each of the groups have been plotted on a ratio scale, starting from a base of 100 for 1961. The largest increases over the 8-year period were for the beginning and developmental pro fessional and administrative occupational group (43.4 percent), and the experienced professional and administrative group (39.0). The clerical and technical support groups showed practically iden tical lower increases (32.4 and 32.5 percent, re spectively). The chart also shows the accelerating rate of increase in salaries for all four employee groups. The 1968-69 increases were the largest for each group for any annual period since the survey’s inception. Increases in average salaries between June 1968 and June 1969 for the beginning and developmental professional and administrative employee group were 7.2 percent. They reflected the tight labor market that existed during the period and increased competition among employ ers in bidding for the services of recent college graduates. Increases for the other three groups were between 5.4 and 5.9 percent. An effect of the larger increase for the beginning and developmen tal professional and administrative group was a narrowing of salary differentials between beginning and experienced professional and administrative workers, and a compression of salary ranges within occupations. 60 M O N T H L Y LA B O R R EV IEW , A P R IL 1 9 7 0 Using data from the past surveys, the Bureau, for the first time, has constructed an index 2 of white-collar salaries: In dex Y ear (1 9 6 1 = 1 0 0 ) 1969........................................ ................................................................................. 135.5 1968........................................................................................................................... 1967.................................... 1966................................................................................................................... 1 9 6 5 . . . ................................................................................................................... 1 9 6 4 ........................................... 1963__________ _____________________ __________ ____________ ____ 1962........................................................ .................................. .............................. 128. 2 1 2 1 .6 116.4 11 2 .7 1 0 9 .3 1 0 6 .0 102 .9 1 9 6 1 ..................................................................... .................................................. 100.0 After 5 years of relatively stable increases, the salaries of white-collar workers began to climb sharply in the year ending in June 1967, and con tinued to rise at an accelerated rate through the next 2 years. The 5.7-percent increase in 1968-69 was nearly double the average annual rate of increase (3.1 percent) between 1961 and 1966. The rise in white-collar salaries in the last 3 yearly periods corresponded with large increases in wages of blue-collar workers, as reported in the Bureau’s occupational wage surveys in metro C h a rt 1. politan areas.3 In the year ending in February 1969, wage increases were larger for both skilled maintenance men (6.5 percent) and unskilled plant workers (6.1 percent) than in any other year since February 1961. Metropolitan areas The proportion of workers employed in metro politan areas 4 was close to nine-tenths for each of the occupational groups surveyed, except attor neys (96 percent) and directors of personnel (72 percent). Average salaries for most occupations were higher in metropolitan areas than for the full survey, although the differences were slight be cause of the predominance of employment in metropolitan areas. For example, in only 1 of the 78 work levels studied did the metropolitan area average exceed the full survey average by more than 2 percent. Metropolitan area salaries were higher than the salaries in the full survey in 67 work levels, lower in 7, and the same in 4. S a la ry ind exe s fo r sele cte d o ccu p a tio n a l g ro u p s, 1 9 6 1 -6 9 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis R E S E A R C H S U M M A R IE S 61 Large establishments percent of the all-survey average) tended to be higher than the all-survey average: Establishments employing 2,500 persons or more accounted for almost two-fifths of the total white-collar employment within scope of the survey, and approximately the same proportion of total employment in the selected occupations studied. As shown in the following tabulation of 62 job categories which could be compared, pay levels in large establishments (expressed as a P ro fe s s io n a l a n d a d m in is tr a tiv e T e c h n ic a l su pport C l e r ic a l A ll l e v e l s _____ 42 9 31 9 6 -9 9 .._____ ______ _____ 100-104____________ ........... 105-109____________ _____ 110 a n d o v e r ....... ........... 22 10 6 3 2 11 4 ... 6 ... 8 Percent salary differences were generally greater for clerical than for nonclerical jobs. Median pay Table 1. Employment and average salaries for selected professional, administrative, technical, and clerical occupations,1 June 1969, and percent increase in mean salaries during the year2 Occupation and work level Num ber of em ployees Mean Median Middle range3 Percent increase in mean salary4 5 579 11’ 138 2^ 550 1 fi?9 6 ,451 $667 751 836 997 1,198 $668 750 825 990 1,187 $617- $717 683- 820 750- 910 900-1,083 1,065—1* 311 7.4 8.9 7.1 6.2 6.2 719 1 848 4,195 2, 295 697 774 894 1,094 673 750 875 1,083 625- 778 691- 850 793- 976 982-1,200 9.4 6.7 7.5 6. 7 731 1 288 ' 756 325 1,101 1 220 1 052 1 208 1 465 1,740 958-1,250 1,085-1', 333 l ' 3ÒÓ-1,' 625 li 500-1', 848 7. 5 3 6 6 9 8.1 824- 999 916-1,195 1,150-1,458 1,337-1,749 1 749-2 166 2; 042-2; 750 Monthly salaries2 Auditors Auditors Auditors Auditors 1 11 i l l .................... .............. IV Chief accountants Chief accountants Chifif accountants Chief accountants 1 II III IV 1 476 1,716 Attorneys Attorneys 1__________________ Attorneys I I ____ ____________ Attorneys III. Attorneys IV Attorneys V Attorneys VI 568 1,316 1,640 1,626 ’ 655 469 2’ 452 875 1,050 1,309 4 570 1920 2,395 Buyers 1____ _______ ______ I I ___________________ III IV V . 2, 708 9,884 13 809 4 ’ 909 234 656 772 912 1,096 li 306 650 760 902 1,080 1, 250 583- 715 685- 842 817 1 000 978 1208 1,181—li 404 129 319 648 573 678 757 883 1,069 683 750 890 1,077 600- 760 695 835 800 963 963-1,165 1 101 2 105 l ’ 142 '409 987 1 160 1 395 I) 715 980 1 125 1 355 1 ,666 850 1 077 1 020 l ' 250 1 211 l ’ 575 1,491-1,925 Buyers Buyers Buyers Buyers Buyers 918 1,065 1,323 4 597 1________________ II III IV Directors Directors Directors Directors personnel personnel personnel personnel of of of of 1 II III IV \\ 974 (S) O) 0 0 7.3 7.0 6 6 5 8 0 1,949 Chemists 1__________________ Chemists I I ............. ................. 4,577 Chemists I I I _________________ 9', 084 Chemists IV______________ _ H i 059 Chemists V ._________________ 8,797 Chemists VI___ ____ _________ 4,486 Chemists V II____________ _ _ 1,848 Chemists V III_______________ 534 $728 802 922 1,113 1,340 1,544 1,873 2,258 $735 800 900 1,095 1,333 l', 540 1,805 2,118 $660- $785 733- 860 833-1,000 990-1,235 1,208-1', 470 l i 399-i; 683 1,627-2,083 i; 916-2; 616 8.4 7.8 8.6 4.8 5.4 7.0 9.3 6.6 Engineers 1_________ _______ _ Engineers I I ____ ____ ________ Engineers I I I _________ ____ . Engineers IV ._____ __________ Engineers V ............ ....... . Engineers V I..................... .......... Engineers V II___________ ____ Engineers V III.......................... 13, 848 34,224 88, 587 12i; 882 79,139 41,032 14; 953 3, 466 805 871 975 1,158 i; 342 1,548 li 767 2, 002 808 869 975 1,150 i; 330 1,540 li 755 1,950 773- 845 824- 919 900-1,045 1,054-1,251 1,216-1,451 1,400-1,680 i; 586-i; 926 1,761-2,173 7.1 7.0 6.7 6.1 5.8 7.0 4.9 3.2 1______ I I ______ II I.......... IV_____ V_........... 6,100 15, 752 28,185 32,337 16,908 495 584 670 775 860 498 582 665 765 850 443526608704791- 547 633 726 840 925 6.4 5.3 5.8 6.1 5.4 Draftsmen-tracers____________ Draftsmen 1_________________ Draftsmen I I ________________ Draftsmen I I I ____ ____ _______ 5,818 21,501 34,292 28,689 442 538 666 813 428 530 659 795 382466591723- 491 598 735 878 7.1 5.6 5.8 5.7 89, 004 57,324 31,134 29,488 8,978 62, 838 45, 568 28, 066 87,275 82,602 48, 037 15,051 71,379 56,212 14,035 10, 826 5, 297 10,130 5,058 85,292 45,409 412 537 324 361 443 400 457 357 489 549 586 641 433 490 402 474 418 505 614 371 430 395 525 313 348 430 387 450 343 483 543 584 630 424 480 391 469 402 494 604 361 417 350458293317374348403313433482505551374425346416360435546326378- 453 607 345 388 500 435 504 384 543 614 655 725 481 553 452 528 465 565 673 400 470 4.9 4.4 5.7 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.6 6.7 5.5 5.0 5.1 5.9 6.8 4.8 5.1 4.5 6.8 4.9 5.2 5.8 5.4 Engineering technicians Engineering technicians Engineering technicians Engineering technicians Engineering technicians Draftsmen Clerical 0 3 0 19 2.0 7 4 5* 4 4 6 4.4 1 The study relates to establishments in the United States except Alaska and Hawaii. I ndustry coverage includes establishments with 250 workers or more in manufacturing and retail trade; 100 or more in transportation, communications, electric, gas, and sanitary services, wholesale trade, engineering and architectural services, and research, development, and testing laboratories operated on a commercial basis; and 50 or more in the finance, insurance, and real estate industry division. The definitions used in classifying employees by occupation and level appear in appendix C, BLS Bulletin 1654. 2 Salaries relate to the standard sala ries that were paid for standard work schedules— https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Median Middle range3 Percent increase in mean salary 4 Engineering technicians 0 0 Personnel management Job analysts Job analysts Job analysts Job analysts Mean Monthly salaries2 Chemists and engineers Accountants and auditors Accountants 1 Accountants 11 Accountants 111 Accountants IV Accountants V Nurm ber of em ployees Occupation and work level Clerks, accounting 1___________ Clerks, accounting I I __________ Clerks, file 1_________ _______ Clerks, file I I ________________ Clerks, file I I I ...... ............... . Keypunch operators 1...... ......... . Keypunch operators I I _________ Office boys or girls____ ._ ........ Secretaries I.T ............................. Secretaries I I ................................ Secretaries Ml_______________ Secretaries IV____ __________ Stenographers, general________ Stenographers, senior_________ Switchboard operators 1________ Switchboard operators I I _______ Tabulating-machine operators 1... Tabulating-machine operators II.. Tabulating-machine operators II I. Typists 1____ _____________ _ Typists I I ............. ......................... i.e., to the straight-time salary corresponding to the employees' normal work schedule excluding overtime hours. Nonproduction bonuses are excluded, but cost-of-living payments and incentive earnings are included. 3 The middle (interquartile) range is the central part of the array of employees by salary, excluding the upper and lower fourths. 4 Annual salaries were used to compute percent increases. 5 Because of changes in the number and definitions of levels between surveys year-to-year comparisons for attorneys could not be presented. 6 Not included in 1968. 62 M O N T H L Y LA B O R R EV IEW , A P R IL 1 9 7 0 levels in large establishments, as a percent of the all-survey average, were 107 for the clerical occupational group and 104 for the other two groups. Industry differences In all but one of the professional, administrative, and technical occupations, and in most of the clerical, more workers were reported in manu facturing than in any other industry division. Finance, insurance, and real estate employed more attorneys than any other division and, as a group, was the second largest employer of auditors, chief accountants, job analysts, and directors of personnel. It also accounted for more than a third of all file clerks, office boys and girls, and typists. In all of the clerical and in most of the pro fessional and administrative occupations in which comparisons could be made, relative salary levels were lower in retail trade and in finance, insurance, and real estate than in the other industry divisions. Consequently, in clerical and other occupations where the retail trade and finance industries con tributed a substantial portion of the total em ployment, salary levels in the high-salary in dustries, such as manufacturing, were well above the all-industry averages. But, since manufac turing accounted for a very high percentage of the employees in most professional, administrative, and technical occupations, manufacturing salary levels for these occupations were quite close to all-industry levels. While the finance industries had relatively lower salaries than the other industries surveyed, they also reported a shorter workweek. For a majority of occupations, workweeks in these industries averaged 38 hours, compared with 39.5 hours in manufacturing and 39 or 39.5 in the remaining industries. □ --------- FOO TNOTES--------1 The 1969 survey covered 21 clerical, 9 technical support (draftsmen and engineering technicians), and 48 profes sional and administrative occupational work levels in all States except Alaska and Hawaii. The full report, National Survey of Professional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay, June 1969 (BLS Bulletin 1654, 1970), pro vides a detailed description of the scope and method of the survey and includes the occupational definitions used to classify workers. A major purpose of the annual survey, designed by the BLS in collaboration with the Bureau of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the Budget and the Civil Service Commission, is to provide a basis for comparing Federal salaries with pay levels in private industry. See L. Earl Lewis, “Federal pay com parability procedures,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1969, pp. 10-13. 2 The index was derived by linking annual percent changes for the survey occupations. Annual percent changes were arrived at by averaging the increases for the two broad groups of workers included in the survey: clerical, and professional, administrative, and technical support occupations. The increases for each of these two groups was determined by averaging the increases of each occupation within the group. The percent increases for each occupation were obtained by adding the aggregate salaries (employment in the most recent year times average salary) for each level in each of 2 successive years and dividing the later sum by the earlier sum. The resultant relative, less 100, shows the percent of increase. Changes in the scope of the survey or in the occupational definitions were incorporated into the series as soon as two comparable periods were available. 3 Summary release, “Wage Trends for Occupational Groups in Metropolitan Areas, February 1968 to February 1969,” issued in December 1969. 4 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States, except Alaska and Hawaii, as revised through April 1967 by the Bureau of the Budget. SPRING 1969 COST ESTIMATES FOR URBAN FAMILY BUDGETS T h e Bureau of Labor Statistics has prepared pre liminary estimates showing the spring 1969 cost of its three budgets for an urban family of four. According to these estimates, the lower budget cost $6,567, the intermediate budget $10,077, and the higher budget $14,589 in the spring of 1969. (See table 1.) Preliminary estimates also were prepared for 39 metropolitan areas and for 4 regional classes of nonmetropolitan areas. The budgets describe a specified manner of living for an urban family of four persons—em ployed husband, wife, 13-year-old boy, and 8-yearold girl. The budgets were first published in Three Standards oj Living for an Urban Family of Four Persons, Spring 1967 ( b l s Bulletin 1570-5) and in the April 1969 issue of the Monthly Labor Review, Reprint 2611. The “food at home” costs for spring 1969 are final estimates. For other consumption costs, pre liminary estimates were derived by applying price changes between spring 1967 and spring 1969, RESEARCH SUMMARIES 63 reported in the Consumer Price Index, to the appropriate spring 1967 cost of each budget class of goods and services. These estimates are pre liminary because the Consumer Price Index reflects prices paid for commodities and services purchased by urban wage earners and clerical workers generally, without regard to their family type and level of living. The final estimates will utilize specific price data considered more appro priate to each budget level than is the Consumer Price Index. Users should keep in mind that the budget-type family of four is very precisely defined, and that it is an urban, not a rural, family. Comparable estimates are not available for rural families. Table 1. This urban family has average inventories of clothing, home furnishings, major durables, and other equipment. After about 15 years of married life—that is, at a middle stage in the life cycle— the family is well established and the husband an experienced worker. Thus the budget is an illustrative one and the dollar estimates are applicable only to an urban family with the specified characteristics. They are not typical of all families. An equivalence scale has been prepared for use in estimating family consumption costs for other urban families differing in size and composition from the specific city worker’s family for which the four-person family budgets were constructed. Estimated annual costs and comparative indexes of 3 budgets for a 4-person family,1 spring 1969 Cost of family consumption Area Total budget2 Total Food Housing3 Annual costs Urban United States............. ............ .................... Metropolitan areas3................................. ....... Nonmetropolitan areas7_________________ Transpor tation 4 Clothing and personal care Medical care® Other family consumption Personal taxes Lower budget $6,567 6,673 6,092 $5,285 5,364 4,935 $1,778 1,803 1,663 $1,384 1,418 1,237 $484 457 603 $780 796 713 $539 557 460 $320 333 261 $619 638 536 100 102 93 100 101 93 100 101 94 100 102 89 100 94 126 100 102 91 100 103 85 100 104 82 100 103 87 Indexes of comparative costs Urban United States............... ..................... .......... Metropolitan areas®.................................... . Nonmetropolitan areas7................................. Annual costs Urban United States_______ ________________ Metropolitan areas®___ ______ __________ Nonmetropolitan areas7....... ......................... . Intermediate budget $10,077 10,273 9,204 $7,818 7,968 7,151 $2,288 2,322 2,135 $2,351 2,426 2,012 $940 925 1,006 $1,097 1,113 1,023 $543 561 464 $601 621 511 $1,348 1,387 1,176 100 102 91 100 102 92 100 101 93 100 103 86 100 98 107 100 102 93 100 103 85 100 103 85 100 103 87 Indexes of comparative costs Urban United S tates...________________ ____ Metropolitan areas®...... ....................... ....... Nonmetropolitan areas7________ _____ ___ Annual costs Urban United States__________ ________ Metropolitan areas®_________ _______ _ Nonmetropolitan areas7______ _____ _____ Higher budget $14,589 14,959 12,942 $10,804 11,064 9,645 $2,821 2,876 2,572 $3,544 3,677 2,954 $1,215 1,214 1,217 $1,609 1,628 1,527 $565 584 482 $1,050 1,085 893 $2,523 2,618 2,101 100 103 89 100 102 89 100 102 91 100 104 83 100 100 100 100 101 95 100 103 85 100 103 85 100 104 83 Indexes of comparative costs Urban United States........ ....................................... Metropolitan areas®........................................ Nonmetropolitan areas7.............. ................... 1 The family consists of an employed husband, age 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. 2 In addition to family consumption and personal taxes shown separately in the table, the total cost of the budget includes allowances for gifts and contributions, life insur ance, occupational expenses, and social security, disability, and unemployment com pensation taxes. 3 Housing includes shelter, household operations, and housefurnishings. The average costs of shelter are weighted by the following proportions: Lower budget, 100 percent for families living in rented dwellings; intermediate budget, 25 percent for renters, 75 percent for homeowners; higher budget, 15 percent for renters, 85 percent for homeowners. The higher budget includes an allowance for lodging away from home city. 4 The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners in the lower budget are weighted by the following proportions of families: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 50 percent for both automobile owners and nonowners; all other metro politan areas, 65 percent for automobile owners, 35 percent for nonowners; nonmetro https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis politan areas, 100 percent for automobile owners. The intermediate budget proportions are: Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, 80 percent for owners, 20 percent for nonowners; Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C., with 1.4 million inhabitants or more in 1960,95 percent for automobile owners and 5 percent for nonowners; all other areas, 100 percent for automobile owners. The higher budget weight is 100 percent for automobile owners in all areas. Intermediate budget costs for automobile owners in autumn 1966 were re vised prior to updating to spring 1967 cost levels. 5 In total medical care, the average costs of medical insurance are weighted by the following proportions: 30 percent for families paying full cost of insurance; 26 percent for families paying half cost; 44 percent for families covered by noncontributory plans (paid by employer). 6 For a detailed description, see the 1967 edition of the “ Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas,” prepared by the Bureau of the Budget. 7 Places with 2,500 to 50,000 inhabitants. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 64 Table 2. Comparative budgets for families of different size, type, and age at three levels of living, urban United States, spring 19691 Age, size, and type of family Lower budget Intermediate budget Higher budget $1,850 $2,740 $3,780 Husband— wife under 35 years2 No children_______________________ 1 child under 6 years-------------------------2 children older under 6 years........... 2,590 3,280 3,810 3,830 4,850 5,630 5,290 6,700 7,780 Husband— wife, 35-54 years 1 child 6-15 years2_______________ . 2 children older 6-15 years3---------------3 children oldest 6-15 years2--------------- 4,330 5,285 6,130 6,411 7,818 9,070 8,860 10,804 12,530 Husband— wife retired, 65 years and over4. . 2,777 3,940 5,811 Single person retired, 65 years and over3— 1,530 2,170 3,200 Single person under 35 years2................... * Excludes gifts and contributions, life insurance, occupational expenses, social security and disability payments, and personal taxes. 2 Estimated by applying the revised equivalence scale in table 2 to cost of family con sumption for the 4-person family (see footnote 3) budgets and rounding to nearest $10. 3 Estimates for the 4-person family described in “ Three Budgets for an Urban Family of Four Persons, Preliminary Spring 1969 Cost Estimates,” December 1969. 4 Estimates for the retired couple described in "Three Budgets for an Urban Retired Couple, Preliminary Spring 1969 Cost Estimates” January 1970. 3 Estimated by applying the ratio of the revised equivalence scale value for one person to husband and wife families 65 or over to cost of family consumption in Retired Couples Budget (see footnote 4) and rounding to nearest $10. The equivalence scale shows the percentage of the four-person budget needed by households with different characteristics. For example, consump tion costs for a single person under 35 years of age would be 35 percent of the consumption costs of the four-member family. The corresponding figure for a husband under 35, a wife, and a child under 6 would be 62 percent. Consumption costs account for approximately four-fifths of living costs. (The other major costs are taxes on personal in come, social security taxes, gifts, contributions, personal life insurance, and occupational expenses.) A derivation of the scale is described in Revised Equivalence Scale for Estimating Equivalent In comes or Budget Costs by Family Type ( b l s Bulletin 1570-2, 1968). The estimates of living costs for selected family types, obtained by applying the equivalence scale values to the cost of consumption for the fourperson urban family, are shown in table 2. Other costs and Old Age, Survivors’, Disability and Health Insurance were also updated to 1969, but personal taxes were computed from tax rates in effect for 1968. Final detailed estimates based on the complete repricing of the budgets in spring 1969 will be published later in 1970. The preliminary budget estimates for spring 1969 and the revised equivalence scale are avail able upon request from the Bureau and its regional https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis offices. Also available without charge are copies of Monthly Labor Review Reprint 2611. Bulletin 1570-5 may be purchased from the Bureau’s regional offices and from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402 (price $1). Similar preliminary estimates of the spring 1969 costs of three budgets for a retired couple were published in the November 1969 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. The article (Reprint 2646) is available upon request from the Bureau and its regional offices. A detailed description of the spring 1967 costs of these budgets will be pro vided in forthcoming b l s Bulletin 1570-6, Three Budgets for a Retired Couple, which may be pur chased from the Bureau’s regional offices and from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402. □ PROGRESS OF U.S. NEGROES DURING THE 1960’s “ I m p r e s s i v e p r o g r e s s has been made, but wide discrepancies remain,” says a joint report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of the Census in appraising the American Negroes’ progress toward social and economic equality during the 1960’s. Negroes now are “more likely” to have higher incomes, hold better j obs, and live in better homes than they did a decade ago. There are now more Negroes among high school and college graduates, they continue to move into higher status jobs, and they are mostly full-time employees. But “Negroes are still disadvantaged in terms of educational and occupational attainment,” and they are-“more likely than whites” to be poor or disabled, and to live in poverty neighborhoods of large cities. Negro employment rose continuously during the 1960’s, particularly in the upper half of the occupational pyramid. But the unemployment rate among Negroes in 1969 continued to be twice the rate for the whites, and two-fifths of Negroes and persons of other races still remained in service, labor, and farm jobs—more than the proportion of whites in these jobs. RESEARCH SUMMARIES School enrollment among Negro youths 18 and 19 rose from 35 percent in 1960 to 45 percent in 1968, and Negro college enrollment increased 85 percent. The proportion of Negro population in the Unit ed States has been about the same since the begin ning of the century—11 percent in 1969. Most of its growth occurred in the central cities of metro politan areas (about one-third of it due to inmigration), and now 55 percent of all Negroes— compared with 26 percent of all whites—reside in central cities, making up one-fifth of their inhabitants. The national ratio of the median family income of Negroes to that of whites has been rising since 1965, but was still only 60 percent 3 years later. About 1.4 million (roughly 29 percent) of Negro families—a total of 7.6 million (35 percent) per sons—were below the poverty line in 1968. The corresponding figures for the whites that year were 3.6 million (8 percent) for families and 17.4 million (10 percent) for individuals. In the area of family conditions, the report found that “the proportion of female-headed families of Negro and other races has increased since 1950”—from 17.6 percent of all families to 27.3 percent in 1969. “One half of Negro female heads of families are separated or divorced, as compared with one-third of white female heads.” As regards politics, Negroes now have 10 mem bers in the Congress (a rise from 4 in 1962), but their representation in State legislatures dropped from 148 in 1966 to 138 in 1968. Of the 36 mayoral ties in Negro hands, 22 are in the South. The Social and Economic Status of Negroes in the United States, 1969 ( b l s Report No. 375 and Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 29) is available for $1 from any of the b l s regional offices, or from the Super intendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Q WAGES OF TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH WORKERS MICHAEL TIGHE rates of the 759,000 employees of the Nation’s principal communications carriers av eraged $3.47 an hour in late 1968—6.8 percent 65 above a year earlier. The term “employee” as used here excludes officials and managerial assistants. This annual percentage increase in wage levels was larger than the advance recorded the year before (3.8 percent) and has been exceeded only three times since BLS in 1947 began its series of annual studies of wages of telephone and telegraph carrier employees: 1957-58 (7. 0 percent), 1951-52 (7.5 percent), and 1947-48 (7.3 percent). Telephone employees—96 percent of the workers covered by the latest annual study—averaged $3.48 an hour in December 1968. Wage levels varied by region. Percentage increases in wage levels since December 1967 were greatest in the North Central region and smallest in the Middle Atlantic and South Central regions, as indicated below: A v e ra g e h o u rly e a r n in g s , D e c e m b e r 1968 M id d le A t la n t ic _____ _____ P a c ific ............................................................................... N e w E n g la n d ................................................................. G r ea t L a k e s ................ .................................................... C h e sa p e a k e ...................... ........................................... .... M o u n ta in ___ _____________________________ N o r th C e n tr a l....................................................... S o u t h C e n t r a l............ ............................................... S o u th e a s t...................................................................... $ 3 .6 9 3 .5 3 3 .5 2 3 .3 6 P ercen t in c r e a s e , 1 9 6 7 -6 8 6 .0 3 .6 8 7 .9 8 .6 7 .6 7 .0 3 .3 5 7 .7 3 .3 2 9 .9 3 .1 4 6 .1 2 .9 9 7 .2 Employment of telephone carriers covered by the study rose about 4 percent during the Decem ber 1967-68 period, from 701,000 to 728,000. It increased 6 to 7 percent in the Southeast, South Central, and Chesapeake regions, and from 2 to 4 percent in all other regions, except the North Central where a 2 percent decline was recorded. Of the telephone workers studied, 95 percent were employees of Bell System carriers. They averaged $3.52 in December 1968, up 7.3 percent over the previous year. The average for employees of other telephone carriers was $2.77, an increase of 5.7 percent. Much of the increase in wage levels for Bell System employees was due to general wage adjustments provided in collective bargain ing agreements negotiated during 1968. Agree ments reached in May 1968 between the Com munications Workers of America ( c w a ) and vari ous companies of the Bell System provided initial wage increases of $4 to $12 a week to plant crafts men and $4 to $8 a week to clerical employees and telephone operators. The agreements also provided deferred wage increases of $5.50 to $6 a week for B asic wage 377-973 0 — 70— https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5 Michael J. Tighe is an economist in the Division of Occupational Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 66 plant craftsmen and $3.50 to $4 a week for clerical employees and operators in both 1969 and 1970.1 Almost three-fifths of the telephone workers were women, employed mostly as telephone opera tors and clerical workers. Men accounted for a large majority of professional and semiprofessional employees and for almost all construction, installa tion, and maintenance workers. Nonsupervisory clerical workers (93 percent women) averaged $2.69 an hour in December 1968, and experienced switchboard operators (virtually all women), $2.46. Averages for numerically important occupa tions predominantly staffed by men were cable splicers ($3.70), central office repairmen ($3.66), PBX and station installers ($3.60), and linemen ($2.97). Straight-time rates of pay for the approximately 23,000 nonmessenger employees of the Western Union Telegraph Co. averaged $3.37 an hour in October 1968. The 1,600 motor messengers aver aged $2.42 an hour and the 1,700 walking and bicycle messengers, $1.63. Since October 1967, average pay rates increased 4.7 percent for non messenger employees, 4.8 percent for motor messengers, and 13.2 percent for walking and bicycle messengers. The company’s total employ ment (excluding officials and managerial assist ants) remained virtually unchanged during the October 1967-68 period. A majority (55 percent) of Western Union’s nonmessenger employees were men. Average hourly rates of pay among jobs staffed largely by men were $3.82 for traffic testing and regulat ing employees, $3.78 for subscribers’ equipment maintainers, and $3.71 for linemen and cablemen. Nonsupervisory clerical workers and experienced telegraph operators (except Morse), two jobs mostly staffed by women, averaged $2.93 and $2.59 an hour, respectively. Annual BLS studies of occupational wages in the telephone and telegraph industries are based on data submitted to the Federal Communications Commission by telephone carriers with annual operating revenues exceeding $1 million and en gaged in interstate or foreign communication service, the Western Union Telegraph Co., and international telegraph companies having annual operating revenue exceeding $50,000. A full report on the latest study will be available this year. □ MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 employees. They also set the pattern for 200,000 other CWA workers at Bell and for another 200,000 workers in other unions having agreements with Bell System car riers. For further details on these agreements, see BLS Current Wage Developments, June 1, 1968, No. 246, and later issues. USE OF BLS SURVEY DATA IN WAGE SETTING AT GPO THOMAS C. MOBLEY U nder the K iess A ct, effective in 1924, the U.S. Public Printer is responsible for establishing pay rates for all employees of the Government Printing Office.1A number of pay systems are used to determine wage and salary rates for the various kinds of occupations.2 Under one of these, gpo has since 1948 used data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to establish hourly rates of pay for some 2,500 journeymen bindery, printing, and maintenance employees in Washington, D.C. Prior to 1924, the rates of pay for journeymen crafts at gpo were fixed either directly by Congress, in appropriation bills, or by the Public Printer as he sought to implement the intent of Congress. Although the Kiess Act authorized the Public Printer to regulate and fix rates of pay, it was not until 1948 that there was any set formula for determining if, and to what extent, wage rates should be changed. In these early years, confer ences between the Public Printer and representa tives of the various crafts were held only when one of the parties was of the opinion that the move ment of wages in the private sector of the printing industry justified a change in wage rates. It is not clear how such “opinions” were developed, but it is assumed that they were based on some general knowledge of collective bargaining agreements in the industry and of general economic conditions. Conferences did not always result in wage changes, and rates were adjusted only 7 times during the 23year period. In 1947, the Public Printer asked representa tives of the various crafts to help him develop a more systematic and objective plan for determin ing rates of pay for journeymen craftsmen. The Thomas C. Mobley is a labor economist in the Division --------- FOOTNOTE--------1 These agreements, ending the first nationwide tele of Occupational Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics. phone strike since 1947, covered approximately 200,000 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis RESEARCH SUMMARIES following year, the Joint Committee approved and adopted a system—one of several proposed by the compositors—calling for an annual review of hourly rates for each of the major journeymen crafts with 10 workers or more. The system pro vided that hourly rates would be set either in accordance with the average union wage scale paid for that same craft in commercial print shops in the Nation’s 25 most populous cities, or the rate paid in Washington, D.C., whichever was higher, as determined from annual surveys by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.3 In 1962, the formula was changed to include employer contributions to welfare (insurance, medical, surgical, and hospital benefits) and pension funds. In actual practice, the 25-city average has been used in all but one instance since the current formula was adopted in 1962. In 1968, the Wash ington, D.C., scale for journeymen bindery work ers exceeded the 25-city average for these workers. BLS data Each year the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides separate tabulations for bindery workers and for each of the 10 journeyman printing and binding crafts. Copies of the tabulations are sent simultaneously to the Public Printer and to designated representatives of the craft at g p o . Each tabulation includes the basic day-shift wage scale and the amount of employer contributions for welfare and pension funds required by con tracts between labor organizations and commercial printing establishments (book and job shops) in the 25 most populous cities—separately for each city and a 25-city average. To obtain the 25-city average, the current union scales and the employer payments to welfare and pension funds from each agreement are multiplied by the membership data, the aggregates are summed, and the product is divided by the total union membership for the craft in the companies covered by the agreements. The wage scale used in b l s tabulations indicates the minimum rate that may be paid; in practice, many workers received rates in excess of those specified. Employer payments to welfare and pension funds are tabulated only when the agreement specifies these payments in a manner permitting their computation on an hourly basis. Thus a few contracts—that indicate the existence of employer contributions but provide no basis for computation—are omitted from the tabula tions of these benefits. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 67 GPO specifies the reference date of each tabula tion (1 year from the effective date of the last g p o pay adjustment for the craft) and a delivery date 2 or 3 weeks prior to the reference date. Occasionally, a contract in one city or more has expired and settlement has not been reached at the time the tabulations are due for delivery, and the most recent negotiated rate must be used. When this occurs, the craft representatives may ask the Public Printer to withhold setting a new pay rate, and b l s is asked to submit a retabula tion when data on the new settlement are available. Rates for craftsmen Representatives of the printing and binding crafts meet separately with the Public Printer to determine the rate of pay for their specific craft: Bookbinders, compositors, pressmen (cylinder and offset), electrotypers, offset photographers, off set platemakers-strippers, photoengravers, offsetstrippers and stereotypers. The pay scale for compositors—numerically the largest craft at g p o —is also used to set rates for crafts with fewer than 10 members, mainte nance crafts,4 and any crafts for which b l s is not able to provide adequate information. The follow ing tabulation lists for compositors the data provided by b l s and the rates set by g p o since 1948: E ffective date G P O ra te 1 D e c e m b e r 1 9 ,1 9 4 8 ................... M a rch 3 ,1 9 5 0 ....................... ....... M arch 2 2 ,1 9 5 1 .......................... . M arch 2 2 ,1 9 5 2 _______ ______ M a y 1 3 ,1 9 5 3 ________________ J u n e 2 1 ,1 9 5 4 - ................ ............ J u ly 2 5 ,1 9 5 5 - ,____ _________ J u ly 2 5 ,1 9 5 6 ............................... . A u g u s t 16, 1 9 5 7 - - ..................... A u g u s t 1 8 ,1 9 5 8 ....................... .. A u g u s t 18, 1959........................... A p r il 1 9 ,1 9 6 1 ....................... .. M a y 2 ,1 9 6 2 ................ ................... M a y 2, 1963_____________ _ M a y 1 9 ,1 9 6 4 ................................. M a y 1 9 ,1 9 6 5 ................ ................ M a y 1 9 ,1 9 6 6 ________________ $2. 38 2 .4 3 2 .5 4 2 .6 7 2 .8 0 2 .8 7 2 .9 3 3 .0 1 3 .1 3 3 .2 6 3 .3 4 3 .5 2 3 .7 7 3 .9 0 4 .0 2 4 .2 0 4 .3 2 4 .4 9 4 .8 0 5 .1 1 M a y 1 9 ,1 9 6 7 ___________ _____ M a y 1 9 ,1 9 6 8 ................................. M a y 1 9 ,1 9 6 9 ________________ 2 5 -city a v e ra g e 2 W a sh in g to n , D . C . , r a te 2 $ 2 .3 8 2 .4 2 2. 51 2. 67 2 .8 0 2. 87 2. 93 3. 01 3 .1 3 3. 26 3 .3 3 3. 51 3 .7 6 3 .9 0 4. 02 4. 20 4. 32 4 .4 9 4 .8 0 5.1 1 $2. 36 (3) 2 .5 4 2. 61 2. 61 2 .8 3 2 .8 9 2 .9 4 3 .0 4 3 .1 2 3 .1 2 3. 33 3. 44 3 .4 4 3 .8 3 4 .0 7 4 .2 0 4. 32 4 .5 9 4. 87 1 I n a f e w in s ta n c e s , t h e G P O r a te w a s r a ise d 1 -c e n t a b o v e t h e 2 5 -city a v e r a g e b e c a u s e o f o d d m ills in th e a v e r a g e . 2 B L S d a ta p rio r t o 1962 w a s lim it e d to t h e b a sic d a y -s h ift h o u r ly scale; s in c e 1962 th e d a ta h a v e in c lu d e d e m p lo y e r p a y m e n t s to w elfa re a n d p e n sio n p la n s . 3 D a t a n o t a v a ila b le . Offset pressmen represent an exception to this principle. Prior to 1968, b l s was unable to obtain membership data required to develop a 25-city MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 68 average for these workers. The Public Printer agreed that the rate for this craft would be the rate for cylinder pressmen plus the difference in scale between offset and cylinder pressmen as provided in the Washington, D.C., area collective bargaining agreement. Bindery workers At the Government Printing Office, journeymen bindery workers perform various skilled hand and 1 The Kiess Act provides that changes in rates of pay for occupations with 10 employees or more are to be deter mined in accordance with an agreement between the Public Printer and representatives of the trade or occupation affected; that rates agreed upon shall become effective upon approval of the Joint Committee on Printing; that if an agreement is not reached, each party has the right to appeal to the Joint Committee, and the Committee’s decision shall be final; and that wages shall not be subject to change more often than once a year. 2 Other pay systems at GPO include: (1) The General Grade covering professional, administrative, technical, and clerical employees which is similar to the system used for employees under the General Schedule (GS) of the Federal Salary Act; and (2) wage setting for certain semiskilled and unskilled printing plant workers (including those in the Departmental and Field Service Offices), based on conferences between GPO’s Personnel Director and machine operations—such tasks as folding, sewing, and inserting, as well as completing work on stitching, gathering, stripping, and such opera tions. The pay system currently includes five pay grades. Although the workers in this occupation do not meet with the Public Printer as the crafts do, the b ls average is used to fix the rate for bindery workers in pay grade 2, and the Public Printer determines rates for the other grades to provide appropriate ranges. □ employee representatives and subject to approval of the Public Printer. Journeymen bindery workers (formerly bindery women) are included under the latter system; b l s does, however, provide wage data for the occupation. 3 BLS conducts annual surveys of wage rates and scheduled hours of work for selected crafts or jobs as provided in labor-management agreements in the printing industries. The studies provide separate information for book and job shops (commercial), for newspaper plants, and for lithography shops. They cover all cities with 100,000 inhabitants or more (except Honolulu), with separate tabulations for 69 of these cities. For results of the most recent survey, see Union Wages and Hours: Printing Industry, July 1, 1968 (BLS Bulletin 1623, 1969). 4 Blacksmiths, carpenters, electricians, elevator mechan ics, knife grinders, machinists, masonry mechanics, painters, pipefitters, sheet metal workers, stationary engineers, upholsterers, and welders. The probabilities of job changing What is the probability of an employed man, aged in his middle 30’s, continuing in his same job or with his same firm until about age 60?. . . . The longer a man has worked on his job, the more likely he is to continue to work in it. We estimate that of a group of men age 35-37 who had held the same job for 10 years or longer, about 54 percent will be alive and remain on the same job at age 59-61. . . . Of men age 35-37 who had held the same job for 5 to 9 years, about 12 percent will continue on the same job until age 59-61. Of a cohort of beginning Middle Years men who had been on their job only 3 or 4 years, about 6 percent will continue until age 59-61. . . . The older the man is, the more likely he is to remain on the same job until age 59-61. Thus, for example, among men who had been on the same job 10 years or longer: of those age 41-43, 60 percent will continue until age 59-61; of those age 50-52, 79 percent will continue until age 59-61; of those age 53-55, 84 percent will continue until age 59-61. —A. J. J a f f e , https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis “How Long Will You Stay on Your Job?” The New York Statistician, January-February 1970. Communications POVERTY PROGRAMS: THE VIEW FROM 1914 H. M. D O U TY f ir s t d e c a d e and a half of the present century resembled the 1960’s in its concern with poverty.1 By that time, statistical work in the United States on wages, prices, and working class budgets had begun to provide a foundation for the evaluation of living standards. Hunter’s Poverty (1904) aroused wide interest.2 Spargo’s The Bitter Cry of the Children (1906) was a power ful tract on the consequences of malnutrition and its contribution, in modern terminology, to the cycle of poverty.3 Between 1907 and 1909, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at the request of the Congress, conducted a series of studies on the status of women and child wage earners.4 Trade union membership was expanding. A widespread movement for minimum wage and other forms of labor legislation at the State level was under way. All in all, it was a period in which old social values were being questioned, and proposals for reform, ranging from moderate to revolutionary, were being widely advocated. In 1914, Professor Jacob H. Hollander published a small book entitled The Abolition of Poverty.5 Hollander was a distinguished professor at the Johns Hopkins University, and was to become, in 1921, president of the American Economic Association. His interests were eclectic. He wrote in the fields of public finance, economic theory, and labor. His views on poverty undoubtedly reflected a substantial body of opinion among economists and others. Hollander was concerned with the working poor. He defined poverty in terms of economic T he H. M. Douty was formerly Assistant Commissioner for Wages and Industrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis insufficiency for “the masses who, not lacking in industry and thrift, are yet never really able to earn enough for decent existence and who toil on in constant fear that bare necessities may fail.” His definition excluded pauperism, that “pathological disorder of the social body,” which involves dependence on private or public assist ance. It also excluded differences in levels of living arising from inequality as such in income distribution. The standard of poverty used by Professor Hollander can best be described as one of mini mum physical adequacy, with little or no margin for savings or the amenities of life. He estimated that an annual income of about $825 would provide this standard for a family of five (father, mother, and three children under 14 years of age). Since the level of consumer prices increased approximately three and a half times between 1914 and 1969, the Hollander standard in 1969 would have cost close to $3,000. Such a computa tion is extremely tenuous, of course, because of changes in consumption patterns and social stand ards. On the extent of poverty, Hollander adopted Hunter’s rough estimate of about 20 percent of the population in the industrial States, 10 percent in other States, or about 10 million persons in all.6 In Hollander’s view, the economy of the United States had reached a point at which a “social surplus” of goods and services was being pro duced. The existence of this surplus provided the basis for the elimination of poverty. Moreover, “there is no assignable limit to the increase of the economic product.” The Malthusian dilemma was dismissed in light of the observed tendency in modern nations for output, even of foodstuffs, to increase more rapidly than population. On a variety of grounds he rejected the socialist approach to the elimination of poverty, but he also repudiated laissez-faire in favor of “construc tive social regulation.” In essence, Hollander held that “poverty, in its 69 70 practical aspect, is a phase of the wage question/’ and that proper standards of remuneration would go far toward its abolition. He contended that industry generally had the capacity to pay an economically sufficient wage, and that the failure of many workers to secure such a wage “must be in consequence of [their] relatively weaker position in industrial bargaining as compared with the capitalist employer.” Where feasible, therefore, collective bargaining should replace individual bargaining. In addition to wages, trade unionism would tend also to improve other conditions of employment, such as working hours, shop rules, and apprentice regulations. Hollander was by no means uncritical of some trade union policies and tactics, but he felt that “new types of labor leadership are being evolved, shortsighted policies are becoming discredited, and a sounder and wiser unionism is in sight.” But trade unionism alone cannot be relied upon to raise the wages of two categories of employed workers above the poverty level. The first group consisted of those workers who were, in Hollander’s view, simply unorganizable. The second was composed of workers in employments in which “the valuation placed by society upon the marginal unit of product is less than enough to permit the payment of a sufficient wage after the deduction of the prevailing rate of profit.” Such industries were described as parasitic. In both cases, Hollander believed that the establishment of legal minimum wage levels was required. He discounted the possibility of severe adverse employment effects in the light of minimum wage experience abroad, and on the assumption that caution would be exercised in setting minimum wage standards. In addition to low wages, another source of poverty for competent workers arises from un employment. “More, perhaps, than any other single cause,” Hollander wrote, “involuntary idleness is responsible for the economic injury and mental bitterness of self-respecting toilers.” He urged a two-prong attack on unemployment. The first involved better organization of the labor market through the provision of public employ ment exchanges, supplemented by such measures as decasualization (e.g., of dock labor) and greater elasticity in the wage rates and working hours of employed workers to minimize temporary reduc tions in employment. He also suggested the establishment of “compulsory industrial training https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 and continuation schools for all youths, designed to avoid the recruiting of ‘blind-alley’ occupations, as well as to reduce the supply of juvenile labor and to hasten the absorption of unemployed adult labor.” However, well organized the labor market, some involuntary unemployment will continue to arise from seasonal or cyclical variations in output, individual business failures, or decline in demand for specific products. In these circumstances, Hollander argued, prompt relief could best be afforded by a system of unemployment insurance. He felt that the practicality of such a proposal had been demonstrated by the success of some trade unions in providing unemployment benefits to their members. There remain—aside from those who have fallen into chronic dependence on private or public assistance—workers who are unemployable due to sickness, industrial accident, or old age. Hollander recommended compulsory State in surance against these hazards. Although he gave priority to the enactment of workmen’s compen sation laws, which were beginning to appear in the several States, he pointed out that disease and sickness were even greater causes of poverty than industrial accidents. In the case of old age, “a large proportion of the body of wage-earners find it sooner or later impossible to secure employ ment because of failing efficiency.” He cited estimates to the effect that about one-third of all persons over the age of 65 were being supported by public or private charity, and observed that among the remaining two-thirds were “large bodies of men and women who have lived decent and useful lives and who now drag out their last years in want and penury—less acute only than the bitterness of outright dependence.” Such was the program more than half a century ago for the abolition of poverty among the working population. Despite the remarkable extent to which the measures outlined by Professor Hollan der have become part of the fabric of our economic and social life, the program has a distinct air of modernity. This is because institutions, to remain viable, need at least occasional amendment and change. We remain preoccupied today not only with the administrative but with substantive aspects of these anti-poverty institutional arrange ments. Collective bargaining is much more widespread today than 50 years ago, but there are still rela- COMMUNICATIONS 71 tively low-wage unorganized or partially organized segments of the working population. A minor split in the union movement has occurred recently over, among other issues, organizing priorities and effort. The coverage of Federal and State minimum wage legislation is now extensive, but questions of additional coverage and of changes in minimum wage standards continually arise. More effort probably is being devoted today than ever before to improve the functioning of the labor market, including government-supported training programs of impressive dimensions. We now have workmen’s compensation, unemployment insurance, old-age pensions, and the beginnings of govern ment-sponsored health insurance, but such programs require adjustment to changing conditions. Hollander’s poverty line, although nowhere pre cisely defined, appears to have represented a level of income just high enough to keep workers efficient and dependents nourished. He argued that this minimum standard could be achieved through the wage system and better organization of the labor market, with social insurance to pro vide for loss of income occasioned by involuntary unemployment, industrial accidents, illness, or old age. With the protection afforded by such social insurance systems, and with incomes from work at or above the poverty level, he believed that the ranks of those dependent on public or private charity would greatly diminish. Aided by a long upward trend in per capita output, the substantial implementation of the measures urged by Holland er have largely, but not entirely, eliminated poverty in his sense among the working population. In fact, given the size of our national income, and the generally high level of employment in recent decades, Hollander no doubt would be sur prised at the volume of poverty that continues to exist. Since the concept of poverty in relation to income is elastic, and can be viewed in either relative or absolute terms, the matter is partly one of definition. But it also reflects the fact that the causes of poverty are complex, and that, in par ticular, problems of individual adjustment to work in a highly dynamic economy, and to the tensions of an increasingly demanding urban environment, are frequently difficult. Nonetheless, the extent to which public and private assistance is still required to prevent desti tution would have distressed Hollander and o thers concerned with poverty at the beginning of the century. They had an abhorrence of economic dependence, and they had genuine insight into some of its psychological and social consequences. The early poverty fighters considered income from welfare an undesirable substitute for income from work. Their proposals were calculated greatly to reduce economic dependence. In the meantime, however, they urged that the dependence then existing be met, in Hollander’s words, “in a new spirit of communal responsibility and social conservation.” □ 1 However poverty may be defined, two conditions are essential for the question of its elimination to emerge as a practical issue of social policy. The first is a rise in income relative to population sufficiently great to lift a substantial segment of the working class above a “subsistence” level of living. The second is a general expectation that the income-population ratio will continue to grow. These condi tions correspond with advancing productivity in agricul ture, the rise of factory production, and the development of an urban working class. By the beginning of the twenti eth century, these conditions were fully present in the United States. Poverty, in fact, was the subject of serious discussion by the middle of the nineteenth century. One strain was filtered through the great stream of utilitarian thought and, as John Stuart Mill tells us in his Autobiography, sought to secure “full employment at high wages to the whole laboring population through a voluntary restriction of the increase of their numbers.” Another strain, best represented by Marx, held that escape from poverty and degradation required a transformation of the economic system. Other reformers or reform groups had more limited aims or stressed particular issues, and trade unions, beneficial societies, and other working class institutions sought practical ways to influence wage determination and provide a measure of protection against some of the hazards of economic life. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 Robert Hunter, Poverty (New York, Macmillan Co., 1904). This eloquent and perceptive study is still worth reading. 3 John Spargo, The Bitter Cry of the Children (New York, Macmillan Co., 1906). 4 The studies were published, under the general title of Condition of Women and Child Wage Earners in the United States, in 19 volumes as Senate Document No. 165, 61st Cong. 2d Sess. A summary appeared as BLS Bulletin 175 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1916). 5 Jacob H. Hollander, The Abolition of Poverty (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1914). 6 Hunter, op. cit., chapter 1, especially pp. 59-60. Foreign Labor Briefs Czechoslovakia Recent government measures indicate a tight ening control over labor. In a move to reduce the role of workers in industrial management, several factory workers’ councils have been dissolved. The most important of the banned councils was that at the Pilsen Skoda works. Union activity also is being discouraged. Toward the end of 1969, the Czech Ministry of Culture announced it would no longer guide socialist culture in cooperation with the unions of artistic and creative workers, but would deal directly with these workers. Last January 7, the Czech Union of Film and Television Artists was expelled from the communist-dominated National Front of the Czechoslovak Republic for persisting in political opposition. Leaders of the Czech Union of Writers and the Czech Union of Radio and Theater Artists were warned to follow the current National Front political line and to disassociate themselves from alleged rightwing exponents still active in their unions and from those who have left the country. Leadership of the Czech Union of Journalists already has been dissolved. (The National Front of the Czechoslovak Republic was created in 1945 by the major political parties. It now unites the leading organ izations in Czechoslovakia for the purpose of promoting socialist ideas and fulfilling the country’s economic tasks. Included among the leading organizations are the labor unions, po litical parties, and the youth organizations.) In another move, the Government has put a brake on wage increases as a part of new wage and price controls to combat inflation. The State Prepared in the Office of Economic and Social Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics, on the basis of material available in early February. 72 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis economic plan for 1970 provides for a lower aver age annual wage increase of about 3 percent, in contrast with the unplanned 8-percent increase of last year. Since 1968, the year of the Moscowdirected military occupation of Czechoslovakia, wage increases have exceeded productivity in creases. For example, during 1969 wages increased 8 percent and productivity only 4.5 percent. This discrepancy has been one of the chief factors in the development of serious shortages in the supply of consumer goods. The Czech press has reported that excessively high wages resulted in unplanned increases in employment and a maldistribution of the available labor reserves. The press has further reported that worker morale and labor discipline declined during 1968 and 1969. The Government has exhorted enterprises to try to improve their financial situation by econo my in the use of labor and materials, rather than by increasing the prices of their products. Australia Shortage of labor caused mainly by economic prosperity is holding back Australian manufac turing production, according to a quarterly survey conducted at the end of 1969 by the Associated Chambers of Manufactures and the Bank of New South Wales. Although 30 percent of the firms surveyed had increased their labor force, sub stantially more overtime was being worked than in the previous quarter, and there were longer delays in delivery of orders. At the same time, college graduates are having a difficult time being placed. In contrast to the increasing demand for skilled labor, jobs for college graduates are not coming into existence rapidly enough. Formerly graduates operated in a seller’s market, but during 1969, shortages among the holders of first degrees in arts, science, economics, and business administration ceased to FOREIGN LABOR BRIEFS 73 exist. Particularly affected are women, whose difficulty in finding satisfactory employment has become more intense. Another recent development on the Australian labor front was the exploration by the Federated Miscellaneous Workers’ Union (mwu) of the possibility of organizing the 121,000 members of Australia’s Armed Forces in a trade union. The mwu, with 75,000 members, is the second largest union in the country. Its general secretary, who is studying the legal situation, claims that service men are in a position corresponding to that of policemen, who have been organized for many years. He expressed a belief that a need exists for peacetime coverage of working conditions and pay rates for servicemen and for the enforcement of their general legal rights. France The transfer of hourly paid workers to a monthly pay status, called “mensualization,” is gaining support of the Government and labor. A special committee appointed by the Minister of Labor is studying a comprehensive program that would extend monthly pay status to all blue-collar workers. In the past, white-collar employees, usually paid on a monthly basis, have had advantages vis-à-vis the hourly rated blue-collar workers with regard to payment for time lost due to absence from work, annual leave, and severance and retirement bene fits. Participation of blue-collar workers in the benefits traditionally granted white-collar em ployees is now demanded by the unions, which support the drive for mensualization. Such de mands are expected to be voiced frequently in future collective bargaining. Representatives of four major labor groups—the French Democratic Confederation of Labor, the General Confedera tion of Labor, the General Confederation of Labor—Workers’ Force, and the General Con federation of Supervisory Employees—recently negotiated collective agreements which provide for mensualization. An agreement of January 9, 1970, with the Berliet truck manufacturing firm changes the pay status of 1,500 workers and modifies the provisions for sick leave, separation, retirement, and other benefits as of January 1. A collective agreement with the Bull General Electric Co. will transfer 1,400 workers to a monthly pay basis over the next 4 years. Benefits derived from the monthly pay status will include payments for absences involving illness, maternity, or work injury, and for holidays, dismissals, and seniority and retirement bonuses. Company offi cials indicated they had agreed to the mensualiza tion provision as a means of reducing worker turn over, and because they believe the Government soon will ask industry as a whole to consider such arrangements. India Money flowing into the pockets of India’s landowning farmers during the past 3 years of bumper crops is causing discontent among millions of sharecroppers and landless laborers. With the growing mechanization of farms, hundreds of thousands of such laborers are unable to secure jobs. Hostility toward the landowning farmers is building up in the rural areas where more than 80 percent of India’s population lives. Violence al ready has broken out in the rural areas of West Bengal and Kerala and is spreading to other states. There have been increasing incidents of landless workers, taking over farms by force. A crash land-reform program as a means of forestall ing further disorders will be an issue during the 73d plenary session of the Congress Party faction headed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. A note on communications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Significant Decisions in Labor Cases Equal pay for women “No employer . . . shall discriminate . . . be tween employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees . . . at a rate less than [that he pays] the employees of the opposite sex . . . for equal work . . except where such payment is made pursuant to . . . (iv) a differential based on any . . . factor other than sex.” These are the basic elements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963—an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, usually referred to as the “equal pay for women provision.” 1 Violations of this provision are common, although not always intentional, and in virtually all instances justification is sought in the law’s exemption of factors “other than sex.” And the most convenient and most frequently cited of those factors, especially in manufacturing, are tasks allegedly requiring physical strength and endurance beyond those of an average woman— the “weightlifting” factors. Recently the Secretary of Labor brought one such weightlifting situtation before a Federal court of appeals, and the court reemphasized that “equal work” means “substantially equal,” not “identical” work (Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co.2). A customized glassware manufacturing plant employed men and women as “selector-packers” (hereinafter also referred to as “selectors”) whose job was inspecting the products for defects and packing them in cartons. Men selectors were also used for miscellaneous other functions, usually performed by “snap-up boys,” which included lifting and moving of heavy cartons, climbing over boxes, and generally working as handymen. They did this miscellaneous work (snap-up work) Prepared by Eugene Skotzko of the Office of Publica tions, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in cooperation with the Office of the Solicitor of Labor. 74 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis particularly during the frequent shutdowns of ovens, and their availability for this purpose allegedly was of economic value to the company. They also volunteered for overtime work when necessary. Men selector-packers were trained 6 months, women only 3 months. Hourly rates of pay were $2,335 for men selectors, $2.16 for the snap-up boys, and $2.14 for women selectors. At one time, selecting and packing was done by men only, but shortage of men necessitated hiring of women. A union (Glass Bottle Blowers) then insisted that the women’s job be “carved out” of the men selectors’ classification. The new classification was included in a collective bar gaining agreement, as were also the union’s demands that women never replace men except when vacancies occur, and that they be forbidden to lift weights over 35 pounds. The court faced the question of whether the difference between the work of men and of women selector-packers was such as to make it a “factor other than sex” in the computation of wages. The answer hinged on the meaning of the statutory phrase “equal work.” Viewing the Equal Pay Act in a historical perspective, the court emphasized that its overall purpose was to provide “a broad charter of women’s rights in economic field.” The law sought “to overcome the age-old belief in women’s inferiority and to eliminate the depressing effects on living standards of reduced wages for female workers and the economic and social consequences which flow from it.” But the language of the act is difficult to con strue, the court said; it has not been authorita tively interpreted by the Supreme Court, and its legislative history “yields little guidance.” With out stating its rationale or citing any source, the court said that “Congress, in prescribing ‘equal’ work did not require that the jobs be identical, but only that they must be substantially equal.3 DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES Any other interpretation would destroy the remedial purpose of the act.” Referring to the fact that the women selectors’ job was carved out of the men selectors’ classifi cation, the court said that, although distinctions in job classifications are beyond the act’s coverage, “Congress never intended . . . that an artificially created job classification which did not substanti ally differ from the genuine one could provide an escape for an employer from the operation of [the act]. This would be too wide a door through which the content of the act would disappear.” Contrary to the lower court’s finding, the court of appeals held that the Secretary of Labor had proved the company’s discrimination on the basis of sex. He had shown that men selectors received wages 10 percent higher than the wages of women, even though the extra work they did commanded a pay rate (for snap-up boys) almost equal to the rate of women selectors. The Secretary had also cited the fact that the women selectors’ classification had been carved out of the original men’s classification. “Under the statute, the burden . . . thereupon fell on the company to prove . . . that it came within exception (ivV* of the act, the court said. Disagreeing with the district court that the com pany had met the burden of proof, the appellate court said the employer had failed to provide evidence to show the economic value of the snap-up work of the men selectors. Nor was there anything to indicate that what the lower court called the factor of ‘flexibility’—the men selectors’ availa bility for this work—justified the 10-percent dif ferential. Furthermore, there was no finding in the lower court’s decision that all the men selectors were able and willing to do, and actually did, the snap-up work; or that no women selectors were available for such work. In short, the company had failed to prove that it was paying lower wages to women on the basis of factors other than sex. Religion and good-faith bargaining The National Labor Relations Act does not require anyone to believe in it; it merely demands compliance, even if that is contrary to one’s reli gious beliefs. The law’s command to bargain “in good faith” means, not acceptance of its philosophy but an honest attempt “to come to some workable https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 75 agreement despite [the bargainers’] belief that what they were doing was wrong in a religious sense.” In fact, away from the bargaining table, a person who rejects the law for any reason “may fully devote his time, influence, and resources to cam paign for [its] repeal.” What appeared to be a conflict of law and reli gion in the area of labor relations recently came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in two companion cases, Cap Santa Vue and Campbell.4 The court upheld the n l r b ’ s ruling that the two employers were not insulated from the operation of the n l r a by their religious precepts. As members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the two employers objected to holding representation elections among their employees. After the elections had nevertheless taken place, they refused to bargain with the certified union. They said that dealing with a labor union was con trary to the teaching of their faith, and cited Holy Scriptures in support of their position. Compelling them to deal with the union and thus to comply with the n l r a , they held, violated their religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendent to the Constitution. The employers did not oppose the principle, established through a long process of judicial opinion, that, for self-preservation, society may regulate conduct based on religious beliefs. What they did oppose was pushing such regulation to the point where, in effect, it becomes suppression of the constitutional right to hold religious beliefs—a right that, unlike the freedom to act in accordance with these beliefs, is absolute under the First Amendment and cannot be interfered with legislatively.5 Specifically, the employers maintained that the n l r a ’ s sections 8(a)(5) and (1), under which refusal to bargain or interference with the em ployees’ right to bargain is unlawful, “require more than mere compliance with the objective law” (court’s language). For section 8(d) of the act demands that the bargaining be “in good faith,” and this is possible only when the bargaining party believes in bargaining, that is, when he believes in and agrees with the law. Compliance with the requirement is impossible for one who— like themselves—does not believe in bargaining. For him the good-faith requirement is a compulsion to agree with the law, and the Constitution 76 protects him against such compulsion. Surveying the legislative history of section 8(d), the court did not uncover “any indication of a congressional intent that a party to the collective bargaining process must believe in collective bar gaining as an economic, social, political, or religious philosophy. It is enough if he recognizes it as a legal requirement and complies with [it].” For “the act is concerned not with an employer’s belief in the act but with his conduct under the act, including in the term ‘conduct’ not only the process of bargaining but an honest purpose to arrive at an agreement.” The employers also argued that, even if their refusal to bargain was subject to regulation, the n l r b had failed to cite any compelling public interest that would justify the invasion of their constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom.6 To this the court replied, after elucidating the act’s purposes and stressing the importance of its enforcement, “[W]e hold that the bargaining requirements under the act are sufficiently invested with the public interest to justify applying the good-faith bargaining requirement of the act to the employers.” Direct confrontation Direct bargaining with employees over condi tions of employment is not impossible, either as a matter of law or of practice. But the employer ought to make sure that the circumstances for the venture are right—primarily, that the initiative emanates from “a spontaneous grass-roots move ment [of] the employees themselves,” as it happened in a situation recently brought before a Federal court of appeals in Gallaro.7 The dispute involving a small retail store developed as follows: a 1-year contract covering the store’s work force was about to expire and the union requested renegotiation. The union had been certified more than a year earlier8 after winning an election by a one-vote margin (8-7). (At the time of the dispute the work force was 10 persons.) Before the management was able to reply to the request, it was presented with a petition signed by a majority of the employees repudiating the union’s representation. Sub sequently, all the employees—with a “possible exception of one,” as the court found—held a https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 meeting and decided to ask for a 25-cent-an-hour wage increase. The store manager was called in several times during the meeting, and he warned the employees that their action might be illegal. He rejected the 25-cent demand, but eventually accepted one for a 15-cent raise—only “if it is perfectly legal.” At no time did the management instigate or encourage the move away from the union. Under the circumstances, the company challenged the union’s majority status and the union charged it with coercion of employees and refusal to bargain. The National Labor Relations Board ruled in favor of the union. Overruling the n l r b , the court pointed out that the circumstances could hardly have failed to inspire doubt that the union still represented a majority of the employees. Normally there is a “rebuttable presumption” of a union’s majority status after the expiration of the certification year; in this case, the presumption was “weak at best.” The employer was free to refuse to bargain with the union. As for the coercion and interference with the rights of employees, the court held that the situa tion offered sufficient evidence “so to rebut the presumption [of the union’s majority status] as to permit the employer to bargain with someone other than the union whose certification had expired.” The manager’s “bargaining” at the employee’s meeting under these conditions was no interference with the workers’ rights, the court said. The court issued a warning that the decision is not intended to open the sluice to a flood of direct management-employee negotiations under the pretext of alleged justifications. “We limit this holding to the particular facts of this case. . . .” A dissenting member of the court argued that “something more than good-faith doubt is required to sanction negotiation with the employees directly. [An] employer cannot actively negotiate with someone other than the former majority representative until . . . he has evidence as to who now represents the majority. . . .” To this the majority of the court replied, “The doctrine [of the dissent] would compel [the employees] to negotiate through the repudiated union or remain in a state of suspended animation for an indefinite period with no one to negotiate or speak on their behalf.” □ DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES 77 -FOOTNOTES1 29 U.S.C., section 206 (d)(1). 2 C.A. 3, January 13, 1970. 3 At this point the court cited an earlier decision (Wirtz v. Rainbo Baking Co., 303 F. F. Supp. 1049, E.D. Ky., 1967), holding that “equal work does not mean identical work and that different tasks which are only incidental and occasional would not justify a wage differential.” (The present court’s language.) 4 Cap Santa Vue, Inc. v. N LR B; Campbell v. NLRB (C.A.-D.C., January 20, 1970). 5 In Cantwell v. Connecticut (310 U.S. 296, 303-04, 1940), the U.S. Supreme Court said with regard to religion, “[The First Amendment] embraces two concepts— freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. . . . ” 6 “In every case the power to regulate must be so exer cised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom,” said the Supreme Court. (Ibid.) 7N LR B v. Gallaro (C.A. 2, December 8, 1969). 8 Section 9(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act protects a union from decertification during the first 12 months following the date of certification. Emigration of high-level manpower from India Perhaps 5-10 percent of India’s high-level manpower has been permanently or tem porarily diverted abroad. The order of magnitude represents the proportion of gross emigration of university-trained Indians with degrees comparable to European or reasonably good American degrees. There is no telling how many of the estimated 30,000 Indians abroad (mostly in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada) may eventually return to India. The best estimate is that something like 15 percent of India’s annual output of high-level manpower goes abroad soon after graduation in pursuit of work or further study, and that something like 40 percent of these fail to return. The proportions vary considerably by field of study and by level of degree: the higher the level of study, the greater the loss (e.g., perhaps 10-20 percent of Indians with post graduate degrees are today living and working abroad). The proportion of the new output of engineers who go abroad is today around 25 percent; of doctors, perhaps 30 percent. But these high figures represent little loss in view of the widespread unemployment among engineers and doctors in India. Over the next few years unemployment among educated Indians, including those in science, technology, and medicine, is expected to rise, not fall. Consequently any brain drain that may be said to exist concerns only the normal shortage of exceptional people that exists in almost all countries. When specific Indian institutions (e.g., the Indian Institute of Technology at Kanpur) have developed careful arrangements to identify and to invite home outstanding individuals needed for specific critical open ings, they have often been able to repatriate them even at India’s much lower salaries. There is practically no one, in India or outside, who feels that India’s economic growth is being held back because the country has lost educated manpower. Indeed, government officials have more than once said they hoped that educated Indians in large numbers would not return, since the country has no way of putting them to work. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — G eorge B. B , “Brain Drain or Overflow,’’ Foreign A f airs, January 1970 a l d w in Major Agreements Expiring Next Month This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in May was prepared in the Bureau's Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements on file with the Bureau covering 1,000 workers or more in all industries except government. Allied Construction Employers' Association, Inc. (Milwaukee, Wis., vicinity).. Allied Construction Employers’ Association, Inc. (Milwaukee, Wis., vicinity).. Allied Construction Employers’ Association, Inc., and the Mason Contractors Association of Milwaukee, Wis. (Wisconsin). Arkansas Power and Light Co. (Arkansas)..................................... ............... Armstrong Cork Co. (Macon, Ga.)_------------------- ---------- ---------------- ---------Arrow-Hart & Hegeman Electric Co. (Connecticut)........................ ................... Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.: Cincinnati Chapter (Ohio and Kentucky).................................................. Arizona Chapter and 4 other associations (Arizona)................................ U n ion 1 Industry Company and location Number of workers Construction____ Construction......... Construction......... Operating Engineers Bricklayers........... Utilities................. Paper__________ Electrical products. Electrical Workers (I BEW). Cement Workers_______ Electrical Workers (I BEW). 1,750 Construction____ Construction____ 3,900 6, 000 Construction Carpenters............................................... . Carpenters: Laborers; Plasterers and Cement Masons; and Teamsters (Ind.). Operating Engineers.............. ........... ........ C a rp e n te rs__________ 4,000 2,600 1,800 1,100 1,700 4,200 Oregon-Columbia Chapter and Portland Home Builders Association, Inc. (Oregon and Washington). Oregon-Columbia Chapter and 4 other associations (Oregon and Wash ington). Nevada Chapter and 3 other associations (Nevada)............................... . Nevada Chapter and 3 other associations (Nevada)............................. . Heavy and railroad construction (Alabama).......................................... . Construction Laborers. Construction Construction Construction 1,000 Rhode Island Chapter (Rhode Island). 10, 000 Construction Operating Engineers...______ _________ Plasterers and Cement Masons; and Laborers. Operating Engineers; Carpenters, Laborers; Teamsters (Ind.); and Plasterers and Cement Masons. Laborers.......................... ............................ Building Trades Employers Association of Westchester and Putnam Counties, New York, Inc. (New York). Builders’ Association of Chicago (Chicago, III.)-------------------------------------- Builders' Association of Chicago (Chicago and Cook County, III.)................... Brewers Board of Trade, Inc. (New York, N.Y.)............................................... Construction.. Operating Engineers. 1,100 Construction.. Construction.. Food products. Plasterers and Cement Masons. Bricklayers_______________ Teamsters (Ind.)..................... 3,700 4,500 California Beer Distributors (California)........................................................ . California Brewers Association (California)------------------------- -------------------Calumet Builders Association Inc., The Industrial Contractors and Builders Association of Indiana, Inc., The Laporte-Porter Contractors Association, Inc. (Indiana and Michigan). Champion Papers Inc., Champion Papers Division (Pasadena, Tex.)............ . Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Co. (Cleveland, O h io )........................................... Wholesale trade. Food products.. Construction__ Teamsters (Ind.). Teamsters (Ind.). Carpenters........ 3.000 3.000 3.000 Paper.................... ........... Transportation equipment. Pulp, Sulphite Workers..................... .......... Aerol Aircraft Employees’ Association (Ind.) 1,150 1,600 Defoe Shipbuilding Co. (Bay City, Mich.). Transportation equipment. Marine and Shipbuilding Workers. 1,000 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. Repauno Works and Eastern Laboratory, Explosives Department (Gibbstown, N.J.). Eastern Airlines, Inc.2 (pilots)................ .......................................................... Erwin Mills, Inc. (Durham, N.C.).............................................................. ........ Chemicals............ Chemical and Industrial Union (Ind). 1,050 Air transportation. Textiles............... Air Line Pilots Association. United Textile Workers.... 3,800 2,600 Fruehouf Corp., Fruehauf Div. (Avon Lake, Ohio). Transportation equipment Allied Industrial Workers. 1,600 General Contractors and Builders Association of Newburgh, Hudson Valley Construction Employers Association, Orange County Contractors Associa tion, Inc., and Tri-County Construction Associates (New York). General Tire and Rubber Co. (Ohio and Texas)________________________ Goodrich, B. F. Co., B. F. Goodrich Footwear Co. Division (Watertown, Mass.). Construction Carpenters. 2,500 Rubber. Rubber. Rubber Workers_____________________ Directly Affiliated Local Union of the AFL-CIO. Typographical Union__________________ 3,050 3,650 Ladies' Garment Workers______ _____ _ 2,850 Graphic Arts Association of Delaware Valley, Inc., Allied Printing Employees’ Printing and Publishing. Association Div. (Philadelphia, Pa., Area). Greater Blouse, Skirt, and Neckwear Contractors’ Association, Inc. (New Apparel____________ York, N.Y.). Greater Blouse, Skirt, and Undergarment Association, Inc. (New York, N.Y.).. Apparel________ ____ Harley-Davidson Motor Co. (Milwaukee, Wis.). Hoerner Waldorf Corp. (St. Paul, Minn.)____ Transportation equipment. Paper............................... . Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Texas)...................... .................................. Utilities___ HudsonValley Construction Employers Association and the Genera I Contractors Construction and Builders of Newburgh (Newburgh, N.Y.). Ice Cream Council, Inc. (Chicago, III., area)........ ............................................ Food products.. Industrial Employers and Distributors Association (California)____________ Wholesaletrade Infants’ and Children’s Coat Association, Inc., and Manufacturers of Snow- Apparel______ suits, Novelty Wear, and Infants’ Coats, Inc. (Interstate). 78 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1,500 1,400 1,500 2,000 1,100 Ladies’ Garment Workers................. .......... 1,000 Allied Industrial Workers........................... . Pulp, Sulphite Workers; Firemen and Oilers. Electrical Workers(l BEW)_____________ Laborers__________ ______ __________ 1,050 Teamsters (Ind.)....................... .................. Longshoremen and Warehousemen (In d .).. Ladies’ Garment Workers....... ..................... 1,000 2,000 1,500 1,800 5,000 10,000 79 AGREEMENTS EXPIRING Major agreements expiring next month—Continued Union > Industry Company and location Number of workers 4,150 International Paper Co., Northern Div. (New York, Maine, and Pennsylvania). Paper, International Paper Co., Southern Kraft Div. (Interstate)...................... ....... Paper. Ironworker Employers Association of Western Pennsylvania Construction Papermakers and Paperworkers; Pulp, Sulphite Workers; and Firemen and Oilers. Papermakers and Paperworkers; Pulp, Sulphite Workers; and Electrical Workers (I BEW). Iron Workers. Jordan Marsh Co. (Boston, Mass.). Retail trade. Retail Clerks. 1.500 Los Angeles Coat & Suit Manufacturers’ Association (Los Angeles, Calif.)........ Apparel____ ____ Litton Industries, Louis Allis Co. Div. (Milwaukee, Wis.)................................... Electrical products. Ladies' Garment Workers. Electrical Workers (IUE). 3.500 1,300 Master Builders' Association of Western Pennsylvania, Inc. (Pennsylvania).. Master Builders’ Association of Western Pennsylvania, Inc. (Pennsylvania).. Master Builders’ Association of Western Pennsylvania, Inc. (Pennsylvania)... Metropolitan Detroit Plumbing Contractors Association, and Mechanical Con tractors’ Association of Detroit; and Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Con tractors Association of Southeastern Michigan, Inc. (Michigan). Monsanto Co. (Texas City, Texas)............... ............ ......................................... Construction Construction Construction Construction Operating Engineers-----Carpenters___________ Laborers____________ Plumbers and Pipefitters. 2, 500 4, 500 5,000 Chemicals. Texas Metal Trades Council National Association of Blouse Manufacturers, Inc. (Interstate). National Skirt and Sportswear Association, Inc. (Interstate)___ Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. (Port Edwards and Nekoosa, Wis.). Apparel Apparel. Paper.. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (New York)..... ............................ ..................... New Jersey Brewers’ Association, Anheuser Busch, Inc., Pabst Brewing Co., and Rheingold Breweries, Inc. Northwest Brewers Association (Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia, Wash.)........ . New York Coat and Suit Association, Inc. (New York, N .Y .)...................... . Utilities.......... Food products. Ladies' Garment Workers......... ................... Ladies’ Garment Workers............................ Papermakers and Paperworkers; Pulp, Sul phite Workers; Machinists; and Plumbers and Pipefitters. Electrical Workers (I BEW)_______ _____ _ Teamsters (Ind.)...................................... . Food products. Apparel.......... Teamsters (Ind.)__________ _____ ____ _ Ladies' Garment Workers....... ................... Utilities____ Construction Electrical WorkersO BEW). Painters____ .1 ............ . 1,000 Lumber____ Utilities___ Woodworkers.................... Electrical Workers(IBEW). 1,250 2,100 Hotel and Restaurant Employees--------------Teamsters(lnd.)----- ------- ---------- ----------The Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers(lnd.). Pulp, Sulphite Workers; Papermakers and Paperworkers. Ladies’ Garment Workers............................. Electrical Workers (I BEW)_____________ Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers-----------Iron Workers........ ...................................... 3.500 1,700 1,650 Pennsylvania Electric Co.(Pennsylvania)_________ _____ ______________ Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Pittsburgh Chapter (P itts burgh, Pa.). Potlatch Forests, Inc., Bradley-Southern Division (Warren, Ark.)............. ...... Public Service Co. of Colorado (Colorado)______ ____ _________________ Sacramento Hotel, Restaurant and Tavern Association (Sacramento, Calif.).. . Hotels................ San Francisco Employers Council(San Francisco, Calif.).................................. Wholesaletrade. Scott Paper Co. (Everett, Wash.)........................................................ ............ Paper................ Scott Paper Co., S. D. Warren Co. Division, Cumberland Mills (Westbrook, Paper............. Maine). Slate Belt Apparel Contractors’ Association, Inc.(Pennsylvania)............. ....... Apparel......... Sperry Rand Corp., Univac Div. (St. Paul, Minn.).................. ........................... Machinery____ Squibb, E. R. & Sons, Inc. (New Brunswick, N.J.)............................... ........... Chemicals____ Steel Fabricators Association of Southern California, I nc.(Los Angeles, Calif.). Primary metals. 11,500 1,950 2,200 1,100 4, 000 11,550 1,850 7,150 2,200 1,000 42,000 1.500 1,750 9.000 4.000 1.000 2.500 The Stanley Works (New Britain, Conn.). Torrington Co. (Torrington, Conn.)____ Twin City Hospitals 3 (Minnesota)......... Fabricated metal products Machinery_____ ______ Hospitals.......................... Machinists........ .................... .......... Auto Workers ( In d .) ..................... Minnesota Nurses Association (Ind.). 2,800 1,450 3.000 Union Carbide Corp., Chemicals and Plastics Division (Bound Brook, N .J.)... United Parcel Service, Inc. (Chicago, III.).......................................... .............. Upholstering Manufacturing Agreements (Chicago, |j|.)........ .......................... Chemicals. Trucking.. Furniture. Chemicals and Crafts Union, Inc. (Ind.)----Teamsters (Ind.)__________ _____ _____ Upholsterers................................... ......... 1,400 1,600 1.500 Vornado Corp., Two Guys From Harrison, Inc., Food Department, Non-Food Department (Newark, N.J.). Retail trade. Retail Clerks. 4.000 Wagner Electric Corp. (Newark and Bloomingdale, N.J.)................................. Washington Gas Light Co. (D.C., Virginia, and Maryland)............................... Whirlpool Corp., St. Joseph Div. (St. Joseph, Mich.)........................................ Wholesale Bakers’ Group (Los Angeles, Calif.)............. ..................... ............. Wholesale Grocers, Chain Store and Retail Owned Warehouse Operators of Minneapolis 3 (Minneapolis, Minn.). Wisconsin Power and Light Co. (Wisconsin)....... .......... .................................. Woodworkers Association of Chicago Mill Div. (Chicago, III.)................... ....... Electrical products. U tilitie s............... Electrical products. Food products___ Wholesale trade... Electrical Workers (IUE)------------ ------- -----International Union of Gas Workers (lnd.)_. Machinists_________________ _____ ___ Bakery and Confectionery Workers-----------Teamsters (Ind.)_____________________ 1,100 1,400 1,550 2,250 1,000 Utilities................. Lumber................. Electrical Workers (IBEW)........................... Carpenters................................. .................. 1,300 2, 000 1 Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as Independent (Ind.). 2 Information is from newspaper account of settlement. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 Industry area (group of companies signing same contract). Developments in Industrial Relations Equal employment opportunity Secretary of Labor George P. Shultz announced a national program for achieving equal employ ment opportunity in federally funded construc tion work in 19 cities. It calls for special efforts to develop such programs in the cities named, including the possible installation of “Phila delphia-type plans” for those communities unable to develop acceptable area-wide agreements on their own initiative. (The controversial Philadel phia Plan, implemented in September 1969,1 stipulates that bidders on federally assisted con struction projects in the Philadelphia area submit “affirmative action plans” providing for minority membership of at least 19 percent of the work force in six skilled building trades by 1973.) In urging contractors, unions, minority group organizations, and local officials in the 19 cities to speed development of area-wide agreements to provide equal employment opportunities in con struction, Secretary Shultz said, “We favor voluntary, area-wide agreements to the imposi tion of specific requirements by the Government.” He added that the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance ( o f c c ) will first “focus attention” on six cities—Boston, Detroit, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Newark. The selection of these six cities was based on indications ,of need and the o f c c ’ s resources. Criteria used in selecting all the cities included labor shortages, availability of minority craftsmen and their representation in critical trades, total population and the minority proportion, and the volume of Federal construction in the areas. Other cities named included Buffalo, Cincinnati, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Prepared by Leon Bornstein and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensa tion, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and based on information from newspapers and other secondary sources available in February. 80 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Miami, Milwaukee, New Orleans, New York, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh. Even though Pittsburgh was originally included on the list, a tripartite “memorandum of understanding” covering minority group hiring had been reached for the Pittsburgh area on January 30 by the Pittsburgh Building Trades Unions, contractors’ associations, and the Black Construction Coali tion. The Pittsburgh agreement called for an affirmative action program for training and em ploying 1,250 new minority journeymen within 4 years. A 12-man committee will govern the program; a chairman without vote willbe appointed as the 13th committee member. Under the program, the committee may enter into contracts with the Government and other organizations to recruit, counsel, train, and orient persons for the construction industry. (A similar agreement to bring 4,000 Negroes into Chicago-area construc tion jobs was signed on January 12.2) The Labor Department later issued a statement approving the Pittsburgh agreement. In another move intended to equalize job opportunities, the Department of Labor issued an order specifying “affirmative action” require ments for Federal contractors outside the con struction industry. The new rules implement a July 1968 directive from the Department requiring such contractors to develop minority-group hiring plans. An employer with at least 50 employees and Government contracts exceeding $50,000 must draw up compliance plans and submit them within 120 days of the start of the contracts. Until these plans are found acceptable, the Department said, the “contractors will not be complying with the equal opportunity requirements.” However, the contractor will not be considered in noncompliance with the order if he has made a “good-faith” effort to meet his equal employment opportunity obligations. The order specified that a contractor conduct an analysis of all major job categories and provide explanations if minorities “are being underutilized DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS in one or more jobs.” Up to nine points must be considered in determining minority underutiliza tion, including the minority percentage of total population and work force in the area in question, the minorities’ possession of required skills, and the availability of training. If the analysis reveals deficiencies in minority employment, the contractor is required to establish "goals and timetables” as part of an affirmative action program in minority hiring. If a contractor lacks an acceptable program, the Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance could cancel his contract after 30 days. Prefabricated plumbing In a further attempt to increase the volume of housing and job opportunities, the Plumbers and Pipefitters signed an agreement with American Standard, Inc., providing for factory assembly of plumbing systems. The pact marked the third time in a 2-month period in which the union was involved in agreements which Plumbers’ President Peter T. Schoemann described as "designed to solve one of the greatest challanges of our times— more jobs for more people.” In November 1969, the Plumbers were 1 of 3 unions signing an agreement with Prestige Structures, Inc., a sub sidiary of v t r , Inc., to participate in the con struction of prefabricated housing.3 The American Standard agreement provides that the union members will build and assemble the plumbing systems, including piping, fixtures, and fittings for bathrooms and kitchens. The factory-built plumbing will be shipped and in stalled on site anywhere, as long as it bears a specially designed union label. In the past, plumbing systems have been built on the job site, rather than in a factory, and the Plumbers had resisted their shipment across local union jurisdictional lines. Training In a program hailed by Secretary of Labor Shultz as an "innovative” step forward in con struction industry training, the Plumbers Union and 33 construction companies signed a contract to recruit and train 500 minority-group members as journeymen pipefitters outside the regular ap prenticeship program. The pact, signed by the union, the National Constructors Association, and 377-973 O1—70 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 81 the Department of Labor on January 27, is pri marily designed for persons who have some exper ience in pipefitting but are not eligible for regular apprentice training because of age or lack of edu cation. Those selected will be known as journeymen trainees and will be paid the union’s apprentice starting rate—about 60 percent of the journey man’s pay scale. Under the agreement, the Department of Labor will provide about $1.4 million in on-the-job training funds to cover the cost of orientation, classroom instruction, and training. Secretary Shultz said that he was optimistic that the pro gram would have an impact on the length and com position of training throughout the industry. He said that he was hopeful some men would be able to qualify as journeymen after a year, instead of the usual 5 years. The Stirling Homex Corp. of Avon, N.Y., a producer of modular homes, announced that it would start a training program for the employed and unskilled under which graduates would be admitted to the Carpenters’ Union within 30 days of employment. (In June 1969, the company had signed an agreement with the Carpenters under which the union provides journeymen to erect factory-built housing at job sites throughout the Nation and the company uses only union labor at the sites.)4 A company spokesman stated that 100 Rochester-area residents would be hired, educated, and trained in groups over the next 9 months. It was also announced that the Labor Department would finance up to $275,000 of the project’s costs. AFL-CIO Executive Council Secretary Shultz delivered to the mid-winter meeting of the a f l - c io Executive Council Presi dent Nixon’s assurance that he stands ready "to take strong measures” if it should appear "un employment was going to rise in any major way.” Speaking later at a press conference, Secretary Shultz termed "unlikely” Federation President George Meany’s prediction that there was a "distinct possibility” the jobless rate would climb to 6 percent in the near future as a result of the Administration’s anti-inflation measures. The Council members, who met at Bal Harbour, Fla., in late February, heard a report from the Federation’s Civil Rights Department criticizing the Government’s Philadelphia Plan. According to the report, the Plan’s "main result may be to MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 82 maximize opposition of union membership and its main proposal seems to be to divide civil rights and liberal critics of the administration from the labor movement.” The report advised the Federation’s building trades unions to proceed with their own affirmative minority hiring plans rather than reacting to the “provocation” of the Philadelphia Plan. The report charged that the building trades have been singled out as “a favorite whipping boy,” and cited the enlistment of more than 5,100 minority apprentices, a fourfold increase, in the past 2 years. The Council declared that workers “have no other recourse than to seek substantial wage gains in collective bargaining,” noting that increases in the cost of living “have been washing out the bargaining power of much of workers’ wage gains” and that many workers have experienced declines in real wages, while profits during much of the 1960’s have “skyrocketed and executive compen sation moved up sharply.” In other actions, the Council endorsed the idea of a comprehensive national health plan financed by employees, employers, and the Federal Government and indicated that some remaining differences must be worked out before the Federa tion would rejoin the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. It elected S. Frank Raftery, president of the Painters, to a council seat, re placing Anthony J. DeAndrade, president of the Printing Pressmen, who died in January. Manufacturing Honeywell, Inc., and Local 1145 of the Inter national Brotherhood of Teamsters reached agree ment January 28 on a 3-year pact for 12,500 workers at 14 plants in the Minneapolis, Minn., area. The pact provided for general wage increases of 30 cents effective immediately and 25 cents in February 1971, plus 1- to 12-cent and 1- to 6-cent increment increases on the respective dates. There was also a provision for reopening the contract in 1972 on wages and benefits, and there were some immediate benefit changes, including a ninth paid holiday, and improvements in vacation, hospital, and sickness and accident provisions. The J. I. Case Co. and the Auto Workers have negotiated an 18-month agreement covering 6,000 employees at six plants.5 The pact provided a 15-cent-an-hour general wage hike effective Jan https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis uary 1, 1970, with an additional 15 cents for skilled workers. A 5-cent general increase will become effective January 1, 1971. The 8-cent annual maximum on the escalator clause was continued (4 cents for the final 6 months of the contract) with the stipulation that the limit will be auto matically removed if the union’s 1970 round of bargaining with other farm equipment firms resulted in removal of their limits. Three ad ditional paid holidays (between Christmas and New Year’s) brought the total to 12, and would provide 11 consecutive days off during the holiday season. Sickness and accident benefits were raised $10 a week (to $85) and bridge and transi tion benefits to employees’ survivors were hiked from $100 to $150 a month. The pact also gives the union the right to strike over unresolved disputes on new or changed incentive standards or hourly classifications. Nonmanufacturing About 9,000 employees in the New York City area were covered by a settlement between R. H. Macy & Co. and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. Wages for the 37K-hour Earnings Index The Bureau’s index of manufacturing production workers average hourly earnings (excluding over time premium pay and the effects of interindustry employment shifts) rose 0.8 in November, to 151.0. Data for prior periods are shown below. In dex In d e x = 100) (,1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = 1 0 0 ) (.1957 -5 9 1967______ ____ 131. 5 ____ 139. 5 1968 1968 November _ ____ 142. 6 December. ____ 143. 6 1969 ____ 144. 4 January February _ ____ 144. 9 March. _ ____ 145. 2 April ____ 146. 0 ____ 146. 6 M ay. ____ 146. 9 June July---------- ____ 147. 8 August. _ ____ 148. 4 September ____ 149. 5 ____ 150. 2 October. November ____ 151. 0 Monthly data from 1947-68 and data for selected periods from 1939 to 1947 are contained in Summary of Manufacturing Production Workers Earnings Series, 1039-68 (BLS Bulletin 1616, 1969). DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS workweek were increased by $10 effective im mediately and $16 on February 1, 1971. The mini mum starting rate was raised to $85 and $93.75 on the corresponding dates, from $75. Other benefits included a seventh paid holiday, 4 weeks of vacation after 20 years and 5 weeks after 25 years, monthly pensions of $36 to $157.50, up from $22.50 to $131.25, and improved health and welfare benefits. An arbitration panel issued an award that ended a contract dispute between D.C. (District of Columbia) Transit System, Inc., and Division 689 of the Amalgamated Transit Union in January. The panel had been selected after the parties were unable to agree on a contract to replace one that expired October 31, 1969. The award, which covered 2,400 busdrivers and related employees, provided for a total of 40.5 cents in general wage increases, plus some inequity adjustments, during a 3-year term beginning November 1, 1969. In addition, the escalator clause was revised to provide guaranteed cost-of-living wage increases of 4 cents on July 1, 1970, and 6 cents on October 1, 1970. The workers will also receive 6-cent cost-of-living increases on January 1, and July 1, 1971, but the 12-cent total will be corrected up or down on October 1, 1971, to correspond with an amount determined by providing a 1-cent increase for each 0.4-point change in the Washington area Consumer Price Index between August 1970 and August 1971. Similarly, there will be a 6-cent boost 83 on April 1,1972, that will be corrected on October 1, 1972, based on the August 1971 to August 1972 Index change. Changes were also made in supple mentary benefits, including company assumption of the full cost of the health and welfare plan by November 1, 1971. Statistical summary Idleness caused by strikes in January rose to 3.7 million man-days, or .25 percent of the esti mated total working time. This compared with .18 percent in January 1969,6 and .09 percent the previous January. The strike against the General Electric Co. accounted for a large portion of the January idleness. (Most of the 147,000 striking members of a 14-union coalition did not return to work until February, despite a tentative settle ment reached on January 26.7) □ --------- FOOTNOTES--------1 See Monthly Labor Review, November 1969, p. 73-4. 2 See Monthly Labor Review, March 1970, p. 66. 3 See Monthly Labor Review, January 1970, p. 75. 4 See Monthly Labor Review, August 1969, p. 73. 5 Racine, W is.; Burlington and Bettendorf, Iowa; Rock ford and Rock Island, 111.; and Terre Haute, Ind. 6 Data for 1970 and 1969 are preliminary. 7 See Monthly Labor Review, March 1970, p. 65. History of U.S. social insurance programs A new tool is now available to aid social scientists, writers, and other researchers who wish to learn from original documents more about the early history of U.S. social insurance and public assistance programs. Social Security Sources in Federal Records, 1934-1950 provides a compre hensive guide to the files and other archival materials generated during the first 15 of the Social Security Administration’s 35 years of existence. A boxby-box inventory and a subject index catalog references to operating sta tistical and fiscal data, as well as administrative reports and correspondence, relating not only to the old-age and survivors insurance program, but also to unemployment compensation, public assistance, child health and welfare services, and other programs initiated or fostered by the Social Security Act. The 118-page booklet (Research Report No. 30) is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, at 65 cents a copy. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Book Reviews and Notes Negotiating for prestige The Educational Enclave: Coercive Bargaining in Colleges and Universities. By Norman Matlin. New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1969. 226 pp. $8.95. In the context of the times, perhaps the first point to be made about Mr. Matlin’s book is that the term “coercive bargaining” used in the title does not refer to the tactics of student protest in the universities, but to a process that the author regards as more pervasive and fundamental. The author’s two major themes are (1) that the es sence of education is “the certification of prestige,” an activity that has become important because modern society has replaced distinctions based on social class with a prestige-graded social con tinuum, and (2) that education is best analyzed, not as a flow or a process, but as a series of “trans actions” between the individuals and the insti tutions that make up the “semi-autonomous, quasi-society” that is the educational enclave. The negotiation of these transactions involves what Matlin calls coercive bargaining. I find a more familiar term, implicit bargaining, to be more accurate and descriptive. An example of the bargaining in question is the enrollment of a student in a professor’s course. This has some elements of a bargain in that each party has expectations as to how the other will behave in terms of class attendance, performance of assignments, and grading standards, and if these expectations are not realized, the aggrieved party may try to use some form of pressure to insure performance. Mr. Matlin’s analysis of academic ritual and practice is extremely comprehensive, and he is ingenious in fitting virtually every conceivable facet of faculty, student, and institutional be havior into his system. To give the flavor of the book, here is Matlin on the subject of cutting classes: 84 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis H ilf 11^ .J 1r^zz^l . . . Minimizing the number of appearances is obviously beneficial. While the appearance or nonappearance of any particular student is of no great import to the institution, the simultaneous nonappearance of large numbers tends to be conspicuous. Prudence suggests that the nonappearance of students be staggered. In situations of comparative inelasticity, the relative infrequency of nonattendance allows for this solution with a minimum of formal organiza tion. In situations of higher elasticity, a fair amount of cooperation and coordination among students may be necessary to maximize minimization. This comprehensiveness is both a strength and a weakness. There are many instances in which academic folkways are analyzed with considerable insight; for example, the discussion of the lecture system on pp. 136-139. On the other hand, the relentless translation of every bit of academic minutiae into sociological jargon over more than 200 pages makes for heavy going. Taking a course is too often described as “opting for a specific sub bargain;” getting a degree as “acquiring a prestige token.” With regard to his basic argument, surely Mr. Matlin dismisses too easily the tremendous variety of American higher education. A great deal of educational activity is based on the genera tion and distribution of prestige, but a surprising amount of transmission of knowledge also takes place. Even on his own ground, the prestige ranking of adults is more a function of occupation than educational level, and the educational system might be more profitably viewed as an arrange ment for allocating occupational opportunities. As a final comment, the book would have benefited from a greater degree of selectivity in characteris tics analyzed and a more straightforward style. —J. W. Garbarino Professor of Business Administration University of California, Berkeley 85 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES The importance of policy Industrialization in an Open Economy: Nigeria 1945-1966. By Peter Kilby. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1969. 399 pp., bibliography. $14.50. About half of this book is devoted to a micro level analysis of the industrial sector in Nigeria, including a number of detailed industry and firm case studies, of the process of import substitution as it has evolved in Nigeria, and the Nigerian experience with processing its raw materials for export markets. The remaining half is given over to a variety of issues related to industrialization— labor productivity, industrial research, education and manpower development, industrial relations, and entrepreneurship. The author emphasizes the importance of organizational efficiency, stating in several places that it is the major factor in faster growth; the concept itself, however, is not much discussed. Where organizational problems are most thor oughly considered—notably in discussions relating to interfirm differences in productivity—it is difficult to distinguish “organization” from the more conventional notions of “management.” In most of the book, poor public sector policy making is at issue; the relationship between policy making and organization is mentioned only briefly. Mr. Kilby’s analysis of government policy shows that the industrial incentive legislation in Nigeria is badly conceived and has been of very limited value in encouraging industrial investment. The most important and productive investments have come from firms established in Nigeria who are more eager to protect their market than to take advantage of the kinds of concessions given in the incentive legislation. Public sector industrial projects, furthermore, have been almost uniformly ineffective, leading to inefficient, high-cost opera tions, exaggerated levels of tariff protection, and in the end small positive and even negative effects on real output or foreign exchange balances. Industrial research policies have been too small in scope and poorly designed to provide needed information for industrial policies. Government’s industrial relations policy (defined here as en couragement of voluntary collective bargaining) and wages policy have been unsuitable. The export sector has been adversely affected by agricultural price policies. This stress on the importance of policy is https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis refreshing, and it is not the only useful aspect of the book. The richness of detail, the concern over what actually happens, the refusal to accept at face value conventional arguments about “ex ternalities” and similar purported phenomena, all make this a valuable addition to the literature. Some readers may be unsettled by the pro fusion of figures of uncertain origin (feasibility studies?) and reliability. There are occasional lapses in analysis, and the succinct treatment given to complex issues leaves a number of important questions unanswered. In his brief discussion of the urban labor supply function, for example, Professor Kilby omits the wage rate in the unorganized sector as a determinant of migra tion without mentioning why. There are also some matters of interpretation which are hard to accept. The author argues that “the Anglo-Saxon model” has “failed” in Nigeria, but his criterion is not so clear. It seems to be that the trade unions, through political pressures, have raised wages above what they would be otherwise. But real wages have risen very slowly in Nigeria in the past 20 years, and there is little persuasive evidence that organized labor’s political potency has been responsible for this rise. In any case, the crux of the matter is the absence of feasible, more desirable alternatives to collective bargaining. Some people would argue that “the Anglo-Saxon model” of collective bargaining has “failed” in New York City, too, but nobody has yet been able to come up with better ways of dealing with the problems involved. In this, as in several other respects, Mr. Kilby’s policy proposals are very sketchy and simplistic, and are in contrast to the care and detail that characterizes much of his diagnosis. The measures he puts forward in the industrial relations area, for example, are the removal of foreign sources of support for Nigeria trade unions and the tying of wage changes to a cost-of-living index. His recommendations for improvements in the policymaking process gen erally—“promulgation of basic procedural guide lines” and recruitment of better personnel are even more straightforward. But these hardly begin to do justice to the complexity of the issues involved, as Mr. Kilby’s own analysis makes abundantly clear. — E l l io t J. B er g Professor of Economics University of Michigan 86 Unification of the field Essays in Industrial Relations Theory. Edited byGerald G. Somers. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University Press, 1969. 200 pp. $6.50. Industrial relations specialists, and especially those responsible for conducting university degree programs, have long been troubled by the untidy, fragmented character of their field. It has appeared to lack a distinguishable domain; scholars have been hard-pressed, therefore, to demonstrate that it merits the status of an academic discipline offering a uniquely useful perspective from which to acquire competent knowledge about important aspects of society. Whether industrial relations can establish in fact its claim to represent a sys tematically related field of study is the central concern of this volume of essays. Each essay ex amines the state of knowledge in a different area or specialty, and it is the editor’s task to assemble the various theoretical strands and to project how they might be woven into a more general frame work for organizing the field’s diverse materials. As the editor readily acknowledges, the essays do not establish the case for industrial relations as a separate discipline. If one can distinguish a common theme, it is the view of industrial relations as a complex set of social interactions, originating in the division of labor, and governed by the neces sities of exchange. While several authors illustrate the value of the exchange concept in analyzing such phenomena as bargaining behavior and or ganizational decisionmaking, it remains to be shown that the notion of exchange, even if limited to behavior arising out of work relationships, provides a sharp enough focus for defining an orderly or unified field of study. Not all the contributors share the same passion for large-scale conceptualizing or for carving out a special domain for industrial relations. William F. Whyte, for example, proposes a different kind of synthesis when he urges, in the interests of scientific progress, abandonment of collective bargaining as a subject matter area and a “re conceptualization of the field” as a study of basic social processes of conflict resolution. Myron Joseph, on the other hand, would focus research interests inward, retaining collective bargaining as a useful descriptive term but partitioning its subject matter severely to permit the kind of rigorous analysis essential, in his view, to the acquisition of reliable knowledge. Professor https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Joseph’s list of research priorities—largely a catalog of traditional concerns—is, in turn, precisely the set of specific tasks that Murray Edelman, from a system’s perspective, labels of minor consequence in assessing the true functional significance of the bargaining process. It is also the kind of small-scale theorizing that is the bane of the industrial relations generalist. A brief review must leave to the reader the task of sorting the overlapping and partially contrasting views in the five essays addressed to the develop ment of a general theory. A word is in order, however, concerning Herbert Heneman’s intro ductory essay on scientific method. This essay misconceives the role of theories and models in scientific explanations, and these misconceptions lead the author into error, especially in his criticism of Dunlop’s well-known theory of industrial relations systems. Hopefully, its mistaken views will not deter the reader from evaluating the other essays on their merits. — R o b e r t M . M a c d o n a ld Professor of Business Economics Amos Tuck School of Business Administration Dartmouth College Working Maryland’s mines The Best-Dressed Miners: Life and Labor in the Maryland Coal Region, 1835-1910. By Katherine A. Harvey. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1969. 488 pp. $14.50. In this book, the author presents a thoroughly researched study of coal mining in western Maryland. She describes the procedures of coal mining, the job conditions experienced by the miners, and traces in detail the evolving relations between mine operators and the workers. The history of the industry is set in its broader com munity context—a clear picture is provided of the cultural and educational life of the mining towns, of the everyday life of the miner and his family. The coal industry is viewed as it shapes direct economic conflict between the corporation and the union and also as it affects the politics of the local community and the State. The conflicts of the coal industry were fought on the streets and also in the legislature in Annapolis that considered proposals for regulating coal mining. Mrs. Harvey makes extensive use of newspaper accounts and the records of corporations and unions. 87 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES As portrayed in this volume, the coal miners in western Maryland enjoyed a somewhat privileged position in comparison with miners in other areas; they often owned homes and only rarely ex perienced major mine disasters. Still, the industry did exploit the miners—it sought to maintain profits by frequently cutting wages, depended heavily on child labor, and met strikes with injunctions and scab labor. What stands out clearly in this account are the primitive conditions that prevailed in coal mining, the incidence of the company store system, inadequate standaids of mine safety, and insecurity of striking miners. The unions and the corporations clashed repeatedly in this area. In various strikes—those of 1876, the great strike of 1882, 1894, and 1900— the unions were defeated and miners returned to work on corporation terms. The operators made skillful use of propaganda, scabs, and the local judiciary and police. The mine strikes were most often defensive in character, launched against company attempts to cut wages. It is likely that the threat of strikes somewhat restrained the operators from further depressing the workers’ conditions. The operators took a consistent posi tion; the unions were not to be legitimized by recognition. The companies sought to teach the lesson that ultimately the worker would have to come to terms with his employer. Employers effectively pursued the policy of divide and conquer, perhaps because ethnic divisions separated the largely Anglo-Saxon workers of western Maryland from the “new” immigrants of other communities, or possibly because it was difficult to unite the Maryland miners with more poorly paid workers. Miners saw the union organizer as the outsider who came to meddle in local affairs and they noted that national unions, especially the Knights of Labor, were not always able or willing to support local struggles. Finally, after 1890, the miners turned to an organization that was clearly a labor union; the United Mine Workers had a precarious existence until the New Deal period, however. The mine operators set the terms of conflict between themselves and the miners; the very right of the union to exist and to effectively function was only established after a protracted battle. This book is a comprehensive, factual account of the industry. The author’s style, however, is somewhat dry and the dramatic story of the coal miner is somehow obscured. There is heavy use https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of statistics and reports with no real attempt to view what happened from the perspective of the miner. We get little sense of what the workers thought and felt about their situation and little information about the internal history of the unions. This is labor history written from “out side” and the volume’s impact is thereby limited. The workers’ viewpoint is not the only perspective but the historian who fails to explore it misses a vital element of American economic history. —H erbert S hapiro Professor of History University of Cincinnati Autogestion in Algeria The Land to Those Who Work It: Algeria's Experi ment in Workers’ Management. By Thomas L. Blair. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1969. 275 pp., $5.95. This interesting book tells the story of Algeria’s experiment in workers’ management, called auto gestion, from spring 1962 to spring 1965, the first stage in Algeria’s new independent history. The period runs from Ben Bella to Boumedienne, when workers’ management came forth from the debris of colonialism and revolution under the banner of “Land to the Peasants; Factories to the Workers.” The author sets out to describe “the ways in which Algeria, with an impoverished colonial inheritance, a small core of ex-settler property, and a revolutionary élan, devised a system of autogestion and attempted to move the economy and society leftward toward socialism.” He attempts to answer a number of preliminary ques tions concerning the structure of power and in fluence on the eve of independence, the emergence of new goals, and the reason for the colon exodus of French settlers. The principal part of the text documents and critically examines Algeria’s bold attempt at decolonization and economic selfdetermination and explains its significance within the economy and society. Questions from earlier cases of workers’ management, outlined in chapter I, that occur again in Algeria’s experiment are: What social and economic structures would best sustain a transition from a century of colonialism to socialism? What is the role of state capitalism, collectivization, and agrarian reform in this transi tion? How could all classes be united, land and prosperity brought to the disinherited, and a new socialist man be created, confidently seeking his MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 88 destiny through democratic forms of selfgovernment and an international fraternal per spective? In closing chapters, the author returns to problems of theory and practice in his assess ment of noncapitalist change in Algeria, but except by implication he provides no positive answers to those questions. Dr. Blair’s work is well written and provides useful reading for those concerned with economic development in poor countries having a colonial background. Those persons who advocate political and social revolution as a primary means of achieving economic development and improved economic and social status for the urban masses and peasants will be disappointed with Algeria’s experience. Although the fertile estates of French settlers were eventually taken over by the govern ment for their workers’ use and management and this limited land has again become productive, Algeria nevertheless had to continue its depend ence on French capital, administrative and tech nical expertise, and on continental markets for exploitation of the oil and gas of the Sahara regions, for training efficient managers, and for establishing industrial plants in cooperation with the government. Thus, workers’ management did not spread widely, an Algerian bourgeoisie emerged in the former French estates, industry, and the civil service with economic interests of its own, and the millions of Fellahin continued to dwell in poverty on the poor lands and in the hills. The encouraging development that occurred on the limited fertile land and in industry, trans port, and education has not materially improved the lot of these people because of the shortage of good land, of industrial and town jobs, and of education and skills. In a word, although the story is unfinished, the political revolution and the decolonialization of the fertile estates have not solved the poverty and distress in Algeria. —James C. N elson Professor of Economics Washington State University History of revolution The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe jrom 1750 to the Present. By David S. Landes. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1 9 6 9 . 5 6 6 p p . $ 8 .5 0 . Described by the author as an “interpretive https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis essay” on the Industrial Revolution, this study began as a contribution to the Cambridge Eco nomic History for the period 1750-1870. The author has revised the scope of the study to include the present. The result is actually a self-contained survey of British industrial development in the 18th century, its subsequent spread to the con tinent, and its 20th century regeneration as a cumulative international movement of great im pact. The volume is an impressive work of analy tical scholarship in economic history and provides a valuable base (in some respects a welcome anti thesis) to theoretical formulations now prevalent in development economics. Professor Landes asks many of the key questions about the historical development process: Why did the Industrial Revolution occur in 18th century Britain, and why not elsewhere and earlier? Why did industrial leadership pass in the closing decades of the 19th century from Britain to Germany? How was recovery from the crisis of 1929-32 achieved in Europe? The answers are always thoughtful and reasonably comprehensive, al though with respect to the first question they tend to be conventional, possibly because the literature is so exhaustive. Some recognition might have been given to the explanation put forward by C. E. Ayres some years ago that western Europe at the time of the Industrial Revolution was technologi cally continuous with Mediterranean civilization, yet because of its frontier situation was institu tionally discontinuous. In his explanation of the process of invention, Professor Landes, like other historians, at times becomes teleological. On page 66 he says, “We are now come full circle: the inventions came in part because the growth and prosperity of the industry made them imperative; and the growth and prosperity of the industry helped make their early and widespread utilization possible.” This seems to confuse invention with commercial ad aptation and exploitation. Nevertheless, the author appreciates profoundly the force of technology as a prime mover in economic development and its relation to institu tional inertia. His description of the breaking of the “crust of custom” which enabled the industrial system to take root in Germany and France, as well as the peculiar technical problems that had to be solved, is well done. He effectively describes the role of evolving financial institutions such as 89 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES crédit mobilier, while recognizing that economists have tended to exaggerate the formation of capital as a motor of economic growth. Professor Landes’ essay throughout is a piece of literary craftsmanship of the first order. His passages on the technology of steelmaking, the application of the principle of interchangeable parts, and the significance of the sewing machine are gems of compressed historical and analytical writing. In a single footnote on page 229, he provides a neat assessment of W. W. Rostow’s stages theory of development. In his final chapter, the author offers some further cautions about the conclusions that can be drawn for the lessdeveloped countries from the experience of the industrially advanced countries. — J a m es H. Street Professor of Economics Rutgers University Inner city enterprise Black Economic Development. Edited by William F. Haddad and G. Douglas Pugh. New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. 171 pp. $4.95. The editors have assembled 12 background essays to form this book. John Z. Delorean’s essay ascribes black frustration to discrimination and through black capitalism, the black man seeks to control his own economic institutions and destiny. He divides the problem into two parts: (1) the conceptual, and (2) the practical. Gerson Green and Geoffrey Faux address themselves to the con ceptual when they outline the controversy be tween the economic (profit and loss approach) versus the social utility approach. Although con ceding that the majority view favors job training, they indicate a weakness of this approach by say ing, “the economic structure puts the ghetto at a competitive disadvantage,” hence evaluation should be in terms of social advantages (as de fense is viewed). Roy Innis favors a “new social contract,” or separatism. He would build a viable economic ghetto, include alliances with the “outside world,” but have the ghetto retain economic and political power to protect the “infant black community.” Wright Elliott compares the differences between black and traditional capitalism; explores the limitations of “special privilege,” and cautions https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that “special privilege may make the black com munity less viable.” He is opposed to separatism, emphasising mutuality and job training. Dunbar S. McLaurin and Cyril D. Tyson in, “Ghetto Econ omic Development and Industrialization,” con clude the conceptual aspects of the problem. They contend that their proposal, Ghediplan, is more inclusive and that all other proposed plans are piece-meal and stress only the economic side. They envisage the ghetto as part of a larger economic structure. On the practical side, Peter F. McNeish asserts that interest in minority involvement is associated with the economic potential of minority group enterprises. In the chapter, “Where Does the Money Come From,” he maintains that invest ment in the ghetto would lessen tensions, reduce the rotting core of metropolitan areas and strengthen the entire economy. In conjunction with McNeish’s essay, Lawrence Johnson and Wendell Smith discuss the need for qualified black managers. They maintain that the black manage ment group could be recruited from the black community. Howard J. Samuels stresses govern mental intervention, by the Small Business Administration, through underwriting black en terprise. Like Green and Faux, David B. Hertz stresses underutilization of human resources in the ghetto, but he emphasizes economic integration via a black-white partnership. G. Douglas Pugh reviews the “Oakland Plan,” bonding of minority contractors, a requisite for bidding on large construction jobs, and the trend toward white craft union and employer construction trades councils cooperating with black contractors in finding skilled labor, assisting in the preparation and submission of bids, and so on. The concluding essay offers a thumbnail sketch of current black experiences in “inner city” enterprises. From an organizational standpoint, this reviewer found the lack of historical perspective, the repetitiveness of the essays, and the lack of a cohesive whole rather disconcerting. Despite these comments, the book should provide the uninitiated with some explanation of the black-white economic paradox. Should a new addition be contemplated, the participant’s reaction to the background papers would round out the book. — H e r m a n D. B loch Professor of Economics St. John’s University 90 Man and the machine Automation and Industrial Labor. By Julius Bezier. New York, Random House, Inc. 1969. 224 pp., bibliography. $5.95. Every once in a while, I run into the question, “Whatever happened to concern about automa tion?” As one who worried and urged that we learn from the statesmanship of the Armour and Kaiser agreements, I sometimes wonder, too. Automation is still marching forward, upsetting accustomed work relationships and individual habits. This is not to say that the great benefits which flow from technological progress should therefore be postponed, but rather that foresight and planning should be hitched up to reduce waste of human resources. Perhaps one aspect of the new emphasis on physical conservation could be a revival of interest in human conservation. To some, it seems that unemployment figures, for example, are being dismissed like so many lifeless chess figures—the economy can take a 4- or a 5percent unemployment rate, but we should begin worrying if it goes over 5. This kind of discussion suggests that it is a matter of little moment if 1 in every 20 workers in our Nation needs a job to become a man again and regain a place in respectable society. Well, sir, if that is the way the pendulum has swung, there is little future for Professor Rezler’s thorough and thoughtful volume. I hope not, for it deserves a better fate. On the other hand, there was that hefty report, “Technology and the American Economy,” put out by the National Commission on Technology, Automation and Economic Progress, a top-flight group chartered by the Congress and appointed from the leader ship of business, labor, and the rest of us by the President of the United States. That was 4 years ago, and some restless souls are already asking, “Whatever happened to the report of those fellows from Texas Instruments, United Auto Workers, and m . i . t .” But enough of this mourning for the wisdom of yesteryear. Let those of us who believe clap hands and give life to Professor Rezler’s brainchild. He has focussed on many varied aspects of the impact of automation and has recited an impres https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 sive list of studies and sources to reinforce them. His chapter on “Automation’s Effects on the Job Satisfaction and Mental Health of Workers” offered several provocative findings. The Loyola University of Chicago professor, in contrast to those who urge the smaller plant and the smaller company as a way to better relate employee to employer, declares, “The notion that the general public has about automated plants also contributes to the pride of workers who are employed in them. . . . Automated plants have more prestige with the public not only because they are new, clean, and located in suburbia, but also because they are generally affiliated with large companies. In American society, one criterion of “goodness’ is the size of the organization, and the prestige of the individual worker is enhanced from his affiliation with a large, automated company.” The author packs much more into this trim volume, touching on the effect of automation on skill requirements, supervision, leisure time, loca tion of work, unionization, and labor-management devices to humanize the changeover from manual to automated production. His notes and bibliog raphy indicate the work of a meticulous writer. —Sam Zagoria Director Labor-Management Relations Service National League of Cities and United States Conference of Mayors Productivity in the ports Collective Bargaining and Productivity: The Long shore Mechanization Agreement. By Paul T. Hartman. Berkeley, Calif., University of California Press, 1969. 307 pp., bibliography. $8.50. The major thrust of the book is an analysis of the restrictive work rules in Pacific Coast longshoring and the steps taken to eliminate them through the Mechanization and Modernization Agreement (m&m) between the Pacific Maritime Association (pma) and the International Long shoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union ( i l w u ). After describing the historical development of the employers’ association and the union, Dr. Hartman does an excellent job of analyzing the BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES ways in which the ilwu obtained its extremely high degree of job control in longshoring and the reasons for gaining that control. He has examined several job control mechanisms such as gear priority (the individual worker’s right to a job to which he was properly assigned and put to work), manning, sling-loads, standard gang size, and multiple-handling rules. Interestingly enough, these restrictive work rules were not implemented by a conservative business union, but one led by men with revolutionary goals. The development of the m&m Agreement is described in detail. For agreeing to eliminate restrictions in the labor contract and working rules, the union received a share of the productivity increase by providing for a guaranteed weekly wage, a trust fund for death or permanent dis ability, and a trust fund for early retirement. A major contribution of the book is the develop ment of productivity measures in longshoring. During the first 3 years of the agreement, the employers kept productivity figures. However, the pma was reluctant to concede that productivity had improved and doubted the validity of the employer-gathered data. The author used several types of estimates to show that productivity had increased dramatically during the 1960-65 period. These estimates included indexes of average productivity, man-hour savings, estimated man hours required and saved at 1960 rates, and tonnage. In general, productivity increased ap proximately 40 percent from 1960 to 1965. In analyzing the reasons for the increase in productivity, the author cited the elimination of make-work rules and practices as most important. Specific changes were the curtailment of multiple handling, the relaxation of jurisdictional claims to piling or breaking down piles on the dock, abandoning manning requirements on the dock, improving methods of handling, and using new machinery. Another contribution to the productiv ity increase was the substantial investment in new bulk-handling facilities and equipment. The impact of the agreement upon the work force has been substantial, but in a very un expected direction. Rather than the feared over supply of labor, there has been a severe manpower shortage due to the inaccurate estimates of the demand for labor by both parties. The impact https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 91 upon the employers has been substantial in terms of increased revenues and profits. Although the book has some highly technical sections (primarily in the appendixes), it certainly is a “must read” for those interested in feather bedding. The author has contributed a superb analysis of the relationship between restrictive make-work rules and productivity. —M ax S. W ortman, Jr. Professor of Industrial Relations and Management University of Massachusetts Other recent publications Economic development Chakravarty, Sukhamoy, Capital and Development Plan ning. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1969, 344 pp., bibliography. $12.50. Lorenzo, A., “Employment Effects of Rural and Com munity Development in the Philippines,” Inter national Labor Review, November 1969, pp. 419-444. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Development Aid—Successes and Failures,” OECD Observer, December 1969, pp. 5-12. Wharton, Clifton R., Jr., editor, Subsistence Agriculture and Economic Development. Chicago, Aldine Pub lishing Co., 1970, 481 pp. $12.50. Education and training Belitsky, A. Harvey, Private Vocational Schools and Their Students: Limited Objectives, Unlimited Opportunities. Cambridge, Mass., Schenkman Publishing Co., Inc., 1969, 186 pp. $7.95. Brenton, Myron, What’s Happened to Teacher? New York, Coward-McCann, Inc., 1970, 280 pp. $5.95. Canada Department of Labor, “[Canada] Labor Legisla tion in 1968-69: Part 2, Industrial Training and Apprenticeship,” Labor Gazette, January 1970, pp. 38-42. Gollin, Albert E., Education for National Development: Effects of U.S. Technical Training Programs. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1970, 280 pp., bibliog raphy. (Special Studies in International Economics and Development.) $15. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 92 Levin, Henry M., “A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Teacher Selection,” Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin, Winter 1970, pp. 24-33. McCaffrey, Gordon, “ A Labor View of Technical and Vocational Education,” Canadian Vocational Journal, January 1970, pp. 12-15, 48. Review of Economic & Business, Winter 1969, pp. 29-37. Dudra, Michael, editor, Search for Industrial Peace—At Home and Abroad: An Industrial Relations Sy " posium. Loretto, Pa., Saint Francis College, Graduate Program in Industrial Relations, 1969, 45 pp. McNulty, Nancy G., Training Managers: The International Guide. New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969, 572 pp. $12.95. Flanders, Allan, “The Changing Character of Collective Bargaining,” Employment and Productivity Gazette, H.M. Stationery Office, December 1969, pp. 11001105. Nadler, David, “Training and Development and the Youth Problem,” Training and Development Journal, American Society for Training and Development, January 1970, pp. 22-25. Ocheltree, Keith, editor, Perspective in Public Employee Negotiation. Chicago, Public Personnel Association, 1969, 98 pp. $10. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Adult Training as an Instrument of Economic Stabilization,” OECD Observer, December 1969, pp. 29-31. Shaeffer, Ruth G., “The College Recruiting Picture for 1970,” Conference Board Record, February 1970, pp. 17-21. Employee benefits Gordon, T. J. and R. E. LeBleu, “Employee Benefits, 1970-1985,” Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary 1970, pp. 93-107. Price, Daniel N., “Income Replacement During Sickness, 1948-68,” Social Security Bulletin, January 1970, pp. 21-32. Health and safety Reed, G. W., White-Collar Bargaining Units Under the Ontario Labor Relations Act. Kingston, Ont., Queen’s University, Industrial Relations Center, 1969, 61 pp. $3.50. Ryder, M. S., Managing Industrial Conflict in Holland at the Plant Level. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Bureau of Business Research, 1970, 106 pp. Stettner, Nora, Productivity Bargaining and Industrial Change. Elmsford, N.Y., Pergamon Press, Maxwell House (for Foundation on Automation and Employ ment), 1969, 185 pp. $5.50. Straus, Donald B., “Arbitration of Disputes Between Multinational Corporations,” Arbitration Journal, 1969, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 228-234. Teele, John W., “Characteristics of Public Employment Arbitration Under a Massachusetts Law,” Arbitration Journal, 1969, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 239-248. Baird, Charles W., “A Proposal for Financing the Purchase of Health Services,” Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin, Winter 1970, pp. 89-105. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, New England Region, The Outlook for Collective Bargaining in New England in 1970. Boston [1969], 23 pp. (Regional Report 70-2.) Barton, Sam B., The Use of Workmen’s Compensation Statistics as a Measure of Underwriter Performance. Denton, North Texas State University, 1969, 91 pp. Labor force Glaser, William A., Paying the Doctor: Systems of Remu neration and Their Effects. Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press, 1970, 323 pp. $10. Davis, Louis E., “Restructuring Jobs for Social Goals,” Manpower, U.S. Manpower Administration, February 1970, pp. 2-6. Rice, Dorothy P. and Barbara S. Cooper, “National Health Expenditures, 1929-68,” Social Security Bulletin, January 1970, pp. 3-20. Dror, Yehezkel, “Specialists vs. Generalists— A MisQuestion,” Public Personnel Review, January 1970, pp. 36-39. Schuman, Leonard M., M.D., “Approaches to Primary Prevention of Diseases,” Public Health Reports, U.S. Public Health Service, January 1970, pp. 1-10. Engineering Manpower Commission of Engineers Joint Council, Demand for Engineers and Technicians, 1968. New York, 1969, 32 pp. $5. Industrial relations Fishman, Betty G. and Leo Fishman, Employment, Un employment, and Economic Growth. New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Co., Inc., 1969, 143 pp. $6, cloth; $2.95, paperback. Craft, James A., “Public Employee Negotiations Legisla tion: The Paradox of Labor Divided,” Quarterly https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 93 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES Harwood, Edwin, “Youth Unemployment— A Tale of Two Ghettos,” Public Interest, Fall 1969, pp. 78-87. Lambright, W. Henry, “Womanpower: The Next Step in Manpower Policy,” Public Personnel Review, January 1970, pp. 27-30. Myers, Robert J., C. C. Greenfield, M. D. Veitch, Zambian Manpower. Ridgeway, Lusaka, Republic of Zambia, Development and Finance Division, 1969, 122 pp. K l. National Planning Association Agriculture Committee, “Ending the Misery of Migratory Farm Labor,” Looking Ahead, January 1970, pp. 1-4, 6-7. Northrup, Herbert R., The Negro in the Paper Industry. Philadelphia, Pa., University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, Industrial Research Unit, 1970, 233 pp. (Racial Policies of American Industry, Report 8.) $8.50, University of Pennsyl vania Press, Philadelphia. Thirlwall, A. P., “On the Costs and Benefits of Manpower Policies [Great Britain],” Employment and Produc tivity Gazette, H. M. Stationery Office, November 1969, pp. 1004-1008. Schoderbek, Peter P. and William E. Reif, Job Enlarge ment: Key to Improved Performance. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Bureau of Industrial Rela tions, 1969, 113 pp., bibliography. $8. Weeks, David A., Incentive Plans For Salesmen. New York, National Industrial Conference Board, 1970, 98 pp., bibliography. (Personnel Policy Study 217.) Prices and consumption economics Capdevielle, Patricia, “Consumer Price Trends in 14 Industrial Countries, 1958 to June 1969,” Labor Developments Abroad, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 1969, pp. 12-27. McNeal, James U., editor, Dimensions of Consumer Be havior. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Division of Meredith Corp., 1969, 446 pp., bibliography. 2d ed. $4.50. Sweeney, Joseph C., “Abolition of Wage Garnishment,” Fordham Law Review, December 1969, pp. 197-224. Productivity and technological change U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Serv ice, Farm Labor Used for Fruits and Tree Nuts, 1964Washington, 1969, 45 pp. (Statistical Bulletin 436.) Diebold, John, Business Decisions and Technological Change. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1970, 268 pp. U.S. Office of Education and U.S. Manpower Administra tion, Vocational Education and Occupations. Washing ton, Superintendent of Documents, 1969, xv, 292 pp. (OE-80061.) $2.25. Gruber, William H. and Donald G. Marquis, editors, Factors in the Transfer of Technology. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1969, 289 pp. Labor organizations Beime, Joseph A., Challenge to Labor: New Roles for American Trade Unions. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969, 224 pp. $6.95. Matthiessen, Peter, Sal Si Puedes: Cesar Chavez and the New American Revolution. New York, Random House, Inc., 1969, 372 pp. $6.95. Radosh, Ronald, American Labor and United States Foreign Policy. New York, Random House, Inc., 1969, 463 pp. $10. Raskin, A. H., “The Labor Movement Must Start Mov ing,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1970, pp. 108-118. Tyler, Gus, “Labor in the 1970s: A New Era,” American Federationist, January 1970, pp. 1-5. Personnel management Brown, Darrel R., “Do Personnel Policies Alienate Em ployees?” Personnel Administration, January-Febru ary 1970, pp. 29-36. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis $ 10 . Mueller, Eva and others, Technological Advance in an Expanding Economy: Its Impact on a Cross-Section of the Labor Force. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research (for U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration), 1969, 254 pp. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Indexes of Output Per Man-Hour: Corrugated and Solid Fiber Boxes Industry, 1958-66. Washington, 1969, 19 pp. (Bulletin 1641.) 35 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Social security AFL-CIO, Department of Social Security, Security in Time of Need— Retirement, Disability, Unemployment, Sickness, Poverty. Washington, 1969, 32 pp. (Pub lication 145.) Atkinson, A. B., Poverty in Britain and the Reform of Social Security. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1969, 224 pp. (University of Cambridge, Department of Applied Economics Occasional Paper 18.) $7, cloth; $3.25, paperback. Bortz, Abe, Social Security Sources in Federal Records 1934-1950. Washington, U.S. Social Security Admin istration, 1969, 118 pp. (Research Report 30.) 65 cents. 94 National Conference on Social Welfare, Social Work Practice, 1969. Selected papers, 96th annual forum, New York, May 25-29, 1969. New York, Columbia University Press, 1969, 216 pp. $7.50. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Miscellaneous Brennan, John A., Silver and the First New Deal. Reno, University of Nevada Press, 1969, 187 pp., bibliog raphy. $5.50. Railroad Retirement Board, 1969 Annual Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30. Washington, Superintendent of Documents, 1970, 64 pp. 35 cents. Brinkloe, William D., Managerial Operations Research. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969, 233 pp. $12.50. Shlakman, Vera, Children’s Allowances. New York, Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York, Inc., Children’s Allowance Project, 1970, 30 pp. $1. Brisbane, Albert, Social Destiny of Man or Association and Reorganization of Industry. New York, Augustus M. Kelley, 1969, 480 pp. (Reprint of 1840 Economic Classic.) $15. Steiner, Gilbert Y., Welfare Options and Welfare Politics. Washington, Brookings Institution, 1969, 25 pp. (Reprint 170.) Urban affairs Finley, Grace J., “An Assessment of the Urban Coalition,” Conference Board Record, February 1970, pp. 48-52. Cairncross, Alec, “Economic Forecasting,” Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, December 1969, pp. 797-812. Hansen, Bent, “Jan Tinbergen: An Appraisal of His Con tributions to Economics,” Swedish Journal of Eco nomics, December 1969, pp. 325-336. Green, James L., Economic Ecology: Baselines for Urban Development. Athens, Ga., University of Georgia Press, 1969, 167 pp. $4. Hazlitt, Henry, Man vs. the Welfare State. New Rochelle, N.Y ., Arlington House, 1970, 225 pp. $6. Gross, Bertram M., “Urban Mapping for 1976 and 2000,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, December 1969, pp. 121-142. Hicks, John, A Theory of Economic History. London, Ox ford University Press, 1969, 181 pp. $5, Oxford Uni versity Press, New York. Moynihan, Daniel P., “Toward a National Urban Policy,” Public Interest, Fall 1969, pp. 3-20. Shiloh, Ailon, “Rapid Urbanization and Its Health Con comitants in the Middle East,” Urban Affairs Quar terly, December 1969, pp. 207-214. Sundquist, James L., “A Policy for Urban Growth: I, Where Shall They Live?” Public Interest, Winter 1970, pp. 88-100. Wagesand hours Alden, John, Salaries and Income of Engineering Teachers, 1968. New York, Engineering Manpower Commission of Engineers Joint Council, 1969, 48 pp. 50 cents. Parker, R. H. and G. C. Harcourt, editors, Readings in the Concept and Measurement of Income. London, Cambridge University Press, 1969, 402 pp. $12.50, cloth: $3.45, paper, Cambridge University Press, New York. Rubin, Richard S., “An Integrated Approach to Police Salary Schedules,” Public Personnel Review, January 1970, pp. 27-30. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Area Wage Survey: The Sioux Falls, S. Dak., Metropolitan Area, September 1969. Washington, 1969, 11 pp. (Bulletin 1660-14.) 25 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Other recent bulletins in this series include the metro politan areas of Scranton, Pa.; Boston, Mass. (Bul letins 1660-15 and 1660-16.) Various pagings and prices. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Horowitz, David, editor (for Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation), Corporations and the Cold War. New York, Monthly Review Press, 1970, 249 pp. $6. Hunter, Neale, Shanghai Journal: An Eyewitness Account of the Cultural Revolution. New York, Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1969, 311 pp. $7.95. Kain, John F., editor, Race and Poverty: The Economics of Discrimination. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969, 186 pp., bibliography. $5.95. Lyons, Gene M., The Uneasy Partnership: Social Science and Federal Government in the Twentieth Century. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1969, 394 pp. $8.50. O’Neill, William L., The Woman Movement: Feminism in the United States and England. London, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1969, 208 pp. (Historical Problems: Studies and Documents, 5.) Ornati, Oscar A., Transportation Needs of the Poor: A Case Study of New York City. New York, Praeger Publishers 1969, 127 pp., bibliography. (Special Studies in Labor Economics and Urban Studies.) $10. Papi, Ugo and Charles Nunn, editors, Economic Problems of Agriculture in Industrial Societies. (Proceedings of a conference held by the International Economic As sociation.) London, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1969, 671 pp. Distributed in United States by St. Martin’s Press, New York. Current Labor Statistics Employment and unemployment—household data 1. Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1947 to date.................................................................................. 2. Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages............................................... 96 96 3. Full- and part-time status of civilian labor force............................................................................................................... 97 4. Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted,quarterly data.............................................. 97 5. Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonallyadjusted, quarterly averages.................. 98 6. Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment........................................................................................................ 98 7. Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted............................................................................................ 99 8. Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted............................................................................................................... 100 9. 10. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted.............................................................................................................. Unemployment insurance and employment services...................................................................................................... 100 101 Nonagricultural employment—payroll data 11. Employment by industry, 1947 to date.............................................................................................................................. 102 12. Employment by State............................................................................................................................................................ 102 13. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group............................................................................... 103 14. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted........................................... 104 Labor turnover rates 15. 16. Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1959 to date................................................................................................................ Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group............................................................................................ 105 106 Hours and earnings—private nonagricultural payrolls 17. Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1947 to date.................................................................................................. 18. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group............................................................................. 19. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted......................................... 20. Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group....................................................................... 107 108 109 110 21. Ill Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group........................................................................ 22. Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1957-59 dollars.......................................................................................... 112 Prices 23. Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 1949 to date................................................................................................... 24. Consumer Price Index, general summary and selected items........................................................................................ 25. *26. 112 113 Consumer Price Index, selected areas............................................................................................................................... Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of commodities..................................................................................... 119 120 27. Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity groupings............................................................................................... 28. Wholesale Price Index, by stage of processing.................................................................................................................. 29. Wholesale Price Index, by durability of product................................................................................................................ 122 123 124 30. 125 Industry-sector price index for output of selected industries......................................................................................... Labor-management disputes 31. Work stoppages and time lost............................................................................................................................................. 12 6 Productivity 32. Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs.............................................................. 127 Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series........................................................ 127 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 95 96 1. HOUSEHOLD DATA MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1947 to date [In thousands] C iv ilia n l a b o r f o r c e T o ta l l a b o r f o r c e Year T o ta l n o n i n s ti t u t i o n a l p o p u la tio n U n e m p lo y e d E m p lo y e d N um ber N o t in la b o r fo rc e T o ta l P e rc e n t of p o p u la tio n T o ta l N o n a g r ic u ltu ra l in d u s tr ie s A g r ic u lt u r e N um ber P e rc e n t of la b o r fo rc e 1 9 4 7 ......................................................................... 1 9 4 8 ......................................... ................................ 1 0 3 ,4 1 8 1 0 4 ,5 2 7 6 0 ,9 4 1 6 2 ,0 8 0 5 8 .9 5 9 .4 5 9 ,3 5 0 6 0 ,6 2 1 5 7 ,0 3 9 5 8 ,3 4 4 7 ,8 9 1 7 ,6 2 9 4 9 ,1 4 8 5 0 ,7 1 3 2 ,3 1 1 2 ,2 7 6 3 .9 3 .8 4 2 ,4 7 7 4 2 ,4 4 7 1 9 4 9 ____________________________________ 1 9 5 0 _______________ _____________________ 1 9 5 1 .......................................................................... 1 9 5 2 ......................................................................... 1 9 5 3 ......................................................................... 1 0 5 ,6 1 1 1 0 6 ,6 4 5 1 0 7 ,7 2 1 1 0 8 ,8 2 3 1 1 0 ,6 0 1 6 2 ,9 0 3 6 3 ,8 5 8 6 5 ,1 1 7 6 5 ,7 3 0 6 6 ,5 6 0 5 9 .6 5 9 .9 6 0 .4 6 0 .4 6 0 .2 6 1 ,2 8 6 6 2 ,2 0 8 6 2 ,0 1 7 6 2 ,1 3 8 6 3 ,0 1 5 5 7 ,6 4 9 5 8 ,9 2 0 5 9 ,9 6 2 6 0 ,2 5 4 6 1 ,1 8 1 7 ,6 5 6 7 ,1 6 0 6 ,7 2 6 6 ,5 0 1 6 ,2 6 1 4 9 ,9 9 0 5 1 ,7 6 0 5 3 ,2 3 9 5 3 ,7 5 3 5 4 .9 2 2 3 ,6 3 7 3 ,2 8 8 2 ,0 5 5 1 ,8 8 3 1 ,8 3 4 5 .9 5 .3 3 .3 3 .0 2 .9 4 2 ,7 0 8 4 2 ,7 8 7 4 2 ,6 0 4 4 3 ,0 9 3 4 4 ,0 4 1 1 9 5 4 . . ..................................................................... 1 9 5 5 ......................... ................................................ 1 9 5 6 _______________ __________ __________ 1 9 5 7 ............................................... ....................... .. 1 9 5 8 ________________________ ___________ 1 1 1 ,6 7 1 1 1 2 ,7 3 2 1 1 3 ,8 1 1 1 1 5 ,0 6 5 1 1 6 ,3 6 3 6 6 ,9 9 3 6 8 ,0 7 2 6 9 ,4 0 9 6 9 ,7 2 9 7 0 ,2 7 5 6 0 .0 6 0 .4 6 1 .0 6 0 .6 6 0 .4 6 3 ,6 4 3 6 5 ,0 2 3 66, 552 6 6 ,9 2 9 6 7 ,6 3 9 6 0 ,1 1 0 6 2 ,1 7 1 6 3 ,8 0 2 6 4 ,0 7 1 6 3 ,0 3 6 6 ,2 0 6 6 ,4 4 9 6 ,2 8 3 5 ,9 4 7 5 ,5 8 6 5 3 ,9 0 3 5 5 ,7 2 4 5 7 ,5 1 7 5 8 ,1 2 3 5 7 ,4 5 0 3 ,5 3 2 2 ,8 5 2 2 ,7 5 0 2 ,8 5 9 4 ,6 0 2 5 .5 4 .4 4 .1 4 .3 6 .8 4 4 ,6 7 8 4 4 ,6 6 0 4 4 ,4 0 2 4 5 ,3 3 6 4 6 ,0 8 8 1 9 5 9 ............................................................ ............. 1 9 6 0 . . . ________________________________ 1 9 6 1 . . _____ ___________________________ 1 9 6 2 . ....................................................... ................ 1 9 6 3 . . ......................... ..................... ............. .. 1 1 7 ,8 8 1 1 1 9 ,7 5 9 1 2 1 ,3 4 3 1 2 2 ,9 8 1 1 2 5 ,1 5 4 7 0 ,9 2 1 7 2 ,1 4 2 7 3 ,0 3 1 7 3 ,4 4 2 7 4 ,5 7 1 6 0 .2 6 0 .2 6 0 .2 5 9 .7 5 9 .6 6 8 ,3 6 9 6 9 ,6 2 8 7 0 ,4 5 9 7 0 ,6 1 4 7 1 ,8 3 3 6 4 ,6 3 0 6 5 ,7 7 8 6 5 ,7 4 6 6 6 ,7 0 2 6 7 ,7 6 2 5 ,5 6 5 5 ,4 5 8 5 ,2 0 0 4 ,9 4 4 4 ,6 8 7 5 9 ,0 6 5 6 0 ,3 1 8 6 0 , 546 6 1 ,7 5 9 6 3 ,0 7 6 3. 740 3 ,8 5 2 4 ,7 1 4 3 ,9 1 1 4 ,0 7 0 5 .5 5 .5 6 .7 5 .5 5 .7 4 6 ,9 6 0 4 7 ,6 1 7 4 8 ,3 1 2 49, 539 50, 583 1 9 6 4 ......................................................... ............... 1 9 6 5 ................. ........................................................ 1 9 6 6 ____________________________ ______ _ 1 9 6 7 ____________________________________ 1 9 6 8 _________ __________________________ 1 9 6 9 ___________________________________ 1 2 7 ,2 2 4 1 2 9 ,2 3 6 1 3 1 ,1 8 0 1 3 3 ,3 1 9 1 3 5 ,5 6 2 1 3 7 ,8 4 1 7 5 ,8 3 0 7 7 ,1 7 8 7 8 ,8 9 3 8 0 ,7 9 3 8 2 ,2 7 2 8 4 ,2 3 9 5 9 .6 5 9 .7 6 0 .1 6 0 .6 6 0 .7 6 1 .1 7 3 ,0 9 1 7 4 ,4 5 5 7 5 ,7 7 0 7 7 ,3 4 7 7 8 ,7 3 7 8 0 ,7 3 3 6 9 ,3 0 5 7 1 ,0 8 8 7 2 ,8 9 5 7 4 ,3 7 2 7 5 ,9 2 0 77, 902 4 ,5 2 3 4 ,3 6 1 3 ,9 7 9 3 ,8 4 4 3 ,8 1 7 3 ,6 0 6 6 4 ,7 8 2 6 6 ,7 2 6 6 8 ,9 1 5 7 0 , 527 7 2 ,1 0 3 7 4 ,2 9 6 3 ,7 8 6 3 ,3 6 6 2 ,8 7 5 2 ,9 7 5 2 ,8 1 7 2 ,8 3 1 5 .2 4 .5 3 .8 3 .8 3 .6 3 .5 5 1 ,3 9 4 52, 058 5 2 ,2 8 8 5 2 ,5 2 7 5 3 ,2 9 1 5 3 ,6 0 2 2. Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages [In thousands] 1968 1969 1966 1967 Annual average Characteristic 4th 3d 2d 1st 4th 3d 2d 1st 4th 3d 2d 1st 4th 1969 1968 W H IT E 72,475 71,942 71,466 71,285 70,392 70,045 69,851 69, 587 69,440 68,944 68,210 68,226 67,951 ............................................................................... Men, 20 years and o v e r...____________ 41,956 41,842 41,639 41,656 41,423 41,373 41,235 41,230 41,175 40,972 40,673 40,607 40, 373 Women, 20 years and over........... .............. 24,156 23,949 23,684 23,566 23,122 22,843 22, 741 22,565 22,632 22, 276 21,775 21,709 21,638 Both sexes, 16-19 years_____ _________ 6,363 6,151 6,143 6,036 5,847 5,829 5,875 5,792 5,633 5,696 5, 762 5,910 5,940 71,778 41,772 23,838 6,168 69,975 41,317 22,820 5,838 ........................................................................................... ................ 70,096 69, 575 69,260 69,135 68,267 67, 804 67,617 67,311 67, 032 66,576 65,888 65,970 65,747 Men, 20 years and o v e r.................. ......... 41,091 40,995 40,871 40,926 40, 677 40, 553 40, 405 40,376 40, 300 40,101 39,772 39,775 39,524 Women, 20 years and over......................... 23,327 23,120 22,891 22, 794 22, 372 22,066 21,987 21,777 21,766 21,416 20,963 20,902 20,921 Both sexes, 16-19 years.............................. 5,678 5,460 5,498 5,415 5,218 5,185 5,225 5,158 4,966 5, 059 5,153 5,293 5,302 69,518 40,978 23,032 5,508 67,750 40, 503 22,052 5,195 Civilianlaborferce Employed 2,379 2,367 865 847 829, 829 685 691 2,206 768 793 645 2,150 730 772 648 2,125 746 750 629 2,241 820 777 644 2,234 830 754 650 2,276 854 788 634 2,408 875 866 667 2,368 871 860 637 2,322 901 812 609 2,256 832 807 617 2,204 849 717 638 2,260 794 806 660 2,225 814 768 643 3.3 2.1 3.4 10.8 3.3 2.0 3.5 11.2 3.1 1.8 3.3 10.5 3.0 1.8 3.3 10.7 3.0 1.8 3.2 10.8 3.2 2.0 3.4 11.0 3.2 2.0 3.3 11.1 3.3 2.1 3.5 10.9 3.5 2.1 3.8 11.8 3.4 2.1 3.9 11.2 3.4 2.2 3.7 10.6 3.3 2.0 3.7 10.4 3.2 2.1 3.3 10.7 3.1 1.9 3.4 10.7 3.2 2.0 3.4 11.0 ........................................................... .......................... 9,056 Men, 20 years and over.............................. 4,622 Women, 20 years and over______ _____ _ 3,616 Both sexes, 16-19 years.............................. 818 8,979 4,593 3,595 791 8,867 4,549 3,535 783 8,914 4,554 3,550 810 8,737 4, 513 3,468 756 8,700 4,517 3,414 769 8,828 4,562 3,467 799 8,762 4,543 3,433 786 8,733 4,496 3,444 793 8,632 4, 507 3,348 777 8,632 4,505 3,347 780 8,599 4, 500 3,362 737 8,544 4,492 3,322 730 8,954 4,579 3,574 801 8,759 4,535 3,446 778 ............................................................................................................ 8,500 Men, 20 years and over.............................. 4,445 Women, 20 years and over.......................... 3,429 Both sexes, 16-19 years_______________ 626 8,394 4,416 3,372 606 8,271 4,382 3,307 582 8,371 4,397 3,352 622 8,164 4,335 3,264 565 8,132 4,349 3,205 578 8,233 4,388 3,246 599 8,147 4,351 3,200 596 8,073 4,305 3,191 577 8,006 4,328 3,112 566 7,986 4,303 3,115 568 7,974 4,299 3,118 557 7,923 4,268 3,098 557 8,384 4,410 3,365 609 8,169 4,356 3,229 584 556 177 187 192 585 177 223 185 596 167 228 201 543 157 198 188 573 178 204 191 568 168 209 191 595 174 221 200 615 192 233 190 660 191 253 216 626 179 236 211 646 202 232 212 625 201 244 180 621 224 224 173 570 169 209 192 590 179 217 194 6.1 3.8 5.2 23.5 6.5 3.9 6.2 23.4 6.7 3.7 6.4 25.7 6.1 3.4 5.6 23.2 6.6 3.9 5.9 25.3 6.5 3.7 6.1 24.8 6.7 3.8 6.4 25.0 7.0 4.2 6.8 24.2 7.6 4.2 7.3 27.2 7.3 4.0 7.0 27.2 7.5 4.5 6.9 27.2 7.3 4.5 7.3 24.4 7.3 5.0 6.7 23.7 6.4 3.7 5.8 24.0 6.7 3.9 6.3 24.9 Unemployed........................................................................................................... Men, 20 years and over.............................. Women, 20 years and over.................... . Both sexes, 16-19 years............................. Unemployment rate ...................................................................................... Men, 20 years and over...................... ....... Women, 20 years and over......................... Both sexes, 16-19 years............................ NEGRO AND O THER Civilian labortorce Employed Unemployed............................................................................................................ Men, 20 years and over............................. Women, 20 years and o v e r........................ Both sexes, 16-19 years.............................. Unemployment rate ............................................... Men, 20 years and over.............................. Women, '20 years and over.......................... Both sexes, 16-19 years...... ..................... . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis HOUSEHOLD DATA CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 3. 97 Full* and part-time status of the civilian labor force [In thousands— not seasonally adjusted] 1969 1970 Annual average Employment status Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 1969 1968 69,018 68,869 69,204 69,296 69,491 70,350 73,713 73,514 72,365 67,818 67,921 67,799 67,700 69, 700 68,332 63.997 64,155 65, 302 65,517 65, 594 66,206 68,854 68,471 67,011 64,346 64,244 63,778 63, 588 65, 503 64,225 2,117 2,135 1,998 1,916 1,955 2,069 2,607 2,456 2,522 1,672 1,704 1,961 1,906 2,055 1,970 2,904 4.2 2,579 3.7 1,904 2.8 1,864 2.7 1,942 2.8 2,075 2.9 2,251 3.1 2,587 3.5 2,831 3.9 1,799 2.7 1,973 2.9 2,060 3.0 2,206 3.3 2,142 3.1 2,138 3.1 Civilian labor force....................................... 12,266 11,850 12,212 12,131 12,019 10,634 8,803 9,283 9,991 11,745 11,699 11,467 11,404 11,032 10,405 Employed (voluntary parttime).............................. 11,375 11, 023 11,488 11,284 11,122 9,751 8,185 8,688 9,422 11,245 11,130 10,781 10,687 10,343 9,726 890 7.3 827 7.0 724 5.9 847 7.0 898 7.5 883 8.3 618 7.0 594 6.4 568 5.7 500 4.3 569 4.9 686 6.0 717 6.3 689 6.2 679 6.5 F U L L T IM E Civilian labor force.............. Employed: Full-time schedules'... Part-time for economic reasons...................... Unemployed, looking for full time work......................... Unemployment rate.............. PART T IM E Unemployed, looking for parttime work............................ Unemployment rate................ 1 4. Employed persons with a job but not at work are distributed proportionately among the full- and part-time employed categories. Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted [In thousands] 1969 1970 Annual average Employment status Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. 85, 590 85,599 85, 023 84,872 85,051 June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 1969 84,310 84,028 83,652 83,950 83,883 83,674 84,239 82,272 80, 789 77,931 3,561 74,370 2,858 80, 504 77,741 3,683 74, 058 2, 763 80,130 77,321 3,777 73,544 2,809 80,434 77, 589 3,661 73,928 2,845 80,379 77,650 3,710 73, 940 2,729 80,199 77, 524 3,836 73,688 2,675 80, 733 77,902 3,606 74,296 2,831 78,737 75, 920 3,817 72,103 2,817 Aug. July 84,868 84,517 1968 TOTAL Total labor force------- ------------- ------------ 82,213 79,041 3,426 75,615 3,172 81,583 78,737 3,435 75,302 2,846 81,379 78, 528 3,434 75, 094 2,851 81,523 78, 445 3,446 74,999 3,078 81,325 78,194 3,498 74, 696 3,131 80,987 78,142 3,614 74,528 2,845 Nonagriculture........... . Unemployed.................. . 82.21'' 7G, 322 3 :'9 75. 323 3,427 M E N , 20 Y E A R S A N D O V E R Total labor force........................................ — 49,707 49,736 49, 534 49, 544 49, 642 49,642 49,488 49,405 49, 334 49,290 49, 294 49,336 49,259 49,406 48,834 4 6 .3 3 6 45. 534 2 4 /9 43. Gj 5 46, 578 45, 553 2,499 43, 054 1,025 46, 531 45,533 2,482 43, 051 998 46, 599 45,511 2,575 42,936 1,088 46, 586 45,465 2,593 42, 872 1,302 46,826 45,674 2,473 43,201 1,152 1 ,1 2 1 46,443 45,485 2,670 42,815 958 46,338 45,335 2, 646 42,689 1,003 46,236 45,303 2 676 42,627 933 46,194 45,251 2,713 42, 538 943 46, 203 45, 282 2,678 42, 604 921 46, 255 45,374 2,701 42,673 881 46, 203 45,323 2, 720 42,603 880 46, 351 45,388 2, 636 42, 752 963 45,852 44,859 2,816 42, 043 993 28, 066 28, 073 27,875 27, 671 27,767 27,634 27,664 27, 524 27,341 27,055 27,227 27,192 27,178 27,413 26,266 Employed............................ 26,925 Agriculture. .................... 630 Nonagriculture................. 26,295 Unemployed............................. 1,114 27, 060 586 26,474 1,013 26,897 585 26,312 978 26, 663 555 26,108 1,008 26, 699 554 26,145 1,068 26, 543 535 26, 008 1,091 26 626 582 26, 044 1,038 26,512 547 25,965 1,012 26 322 610 25,712 1,019 26,041 622 25,419 1,014 26,193 607 25,586 1,034 26,216 626 25,590 976 26, 200 718 25,482 978 26,397 593 25,804 1,015 25,281 606 24,675 985 7,314 7,130 7,177 7,157 7,105 6,880 6,927 6,927 6,881 7,004 6,932 6,818 6,970 6,618 6, 029 442 5,587 852 6,114 376 5,738 890 6, 060 383 5,677 872 6, 001 398 5,603 817 6,117 377 5, 739 853 5,780 394 5,385 839 Civilian labor force___ ____________ Employed- -_ Agriculture............ ................ Civilian labor force_______________ Employed_______ _______ Agriculture________ _ Nonagriculture___ ____ Unemployed____________ W O M E N , 20 Y E A R S A N D O V E R Civilian labor force_______ _______ B O T H S E X E S , 16-19 Y E A R S Civilian labor force........... ................................ Employed................. ............ Agriculture............. .......... Nonagriculture................ Unemployed......... ............. 3 77-9 73 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis , 7, 347 6 ,3ü3 390 5,973 934 6,307 367 5,940 1,007 6,287 351 5,936 843 6,332 397 5,935 845 6,235 317 5,918 922 6,186 370 5,816 919 6,031 362 5,669 849 6, 084 368 5,716 843 6,116 397 5,719 811 98 5. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 HOUSEHOLD DATA Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly averages 1968 1969 1967 1966 Annual average 4th 1969 Characteristic 4th 3d 2d 1st 4th 2d 3d 1st 3d 4th 2d 1st 1968 78,570 78,090, 77, 550 77,418 76,409 76,017 75, 898 75,392 75,121 74,630 73,911 73,862 73,648 77,902 75,921 37,509 36,923 36,677 36, 264 35, 906 35,732 35,419 35,140 34, 888 34, 456 33, 943 33,635 33,693 Professional and technical_____________ 10,936 10,764 10,740 10,638 10,473 10,392 10,295 10,142 10,067 9,952 9,761 9,734 9,605 Managers, officials, and proprietors_______________________ 8,141 7,970 7,993 7,841 7,897 7,827 7,661 7,716 7,633 7,630 7,453 7,261 7,429 Clerical workers......... ................................ 13,655 13,478 13,281 13,171 12, 876 12,823 12,816 12,694 12, 624 12,343 12,250 12,115 12,158 Sales workers................ ................... ......... 4,777 4,711 4,663 4,614 4,660 4,690 4,647 4,588 4, 564 4,531 4,479 4,525 4, 501 36,845 10,769 35, 551 10,325 7,987 13,397 4,692 7,776 12,803 4,647 28, 389 28,425 27,931 28,202 27,774 27,491 27,513 27,297 27,279 27,343 27,175 27, 240 26,963 Craftsmen and foremen_______________ 10,265 10,174 10,044 10,298 10,147 9,972 10,003 9,936 9,827 9, 790 9,853 9,918 9,700 Operatives------------ --- ------------------- . . . 14,412 14,589 14,208 14,264 14,051 13,911 13,956 13, 896 13,918 13,999 13,787 13, 822 13,831 3,712 3,662 3,679 3,640 3,576 3,608 3,554 3,465 3,534 3,554 3,535 3,500 3,432 Nonfarm laborers................................ — 28,237 10,193 14,372 3,672 27,525 10,015 13,955 3,555 E M P L O Y M E N T (in thousands) White-collar workers_____ _____ ______________ _ Blue-collar workers .................................................................................... Service w o r k e r s ....................................................................................... -- 9,589 9,493 9,467 9,558 9,411 9,385 9,395 '9,337 9,330 9,277 9,276 9,418 9,405 9,528 9,381 Farmworkers.............................................................................. .............. 3,089 3,231 3,417 3,438 3,346 3,400 3,507 3,649 3,654 3,556 3,448 3,584 3,612 3,292 3,464 Unemployment rate 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.6 White-collar workers........................................................... ..................... 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.4 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.1 1.9 1.2 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.2 2.0 1.2 2.2 1.3 2.2 1.3 2.0 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.0 1.3 2.1 1.3 2.0 1.2 .9 3.2 2.8 1.0 .9 2.8 2.9 .9 2.9 2.9 1.0 2.8 2.8 1.1 2.9 2.6 .9 3.0 2.7 .9 3.1 3.0 1.0 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.2 .9 3.3 3.6 .9 2.8 2.9 .9 3.0 3.2 .8 3.0 2.4 .9 3.0 2.9 1.0 3.0 2.8 3.7 2.1 4.1 6.4 3.8 4.2 2.4 4.5 7.4 4.0 2.4 4.3 4.4 2.5 4.8 4.5 2.3 5.1 7.6 4.6 2.8 5.0 8.0 4.2 2.3 4.7 7.2 4.1 2.8 4.2 7.5 3.9 4.3 6.7 2 .2 4 .4 4.1 2.4 4.5 Professional and technical________ — Managers, officials, and proprietors---------- ------------- --------------Clerical workers.................. ............... — Sales workers-------------------------------------Craftsmen and foremen_______________ Operatives..--------- ---------- ------- -----------Nonfarm laborers____________________ 4.3 2.2 5.0 6.9 4.0 2.2 7.2 3.8 2.1 4.3 6.5 7 .0 7 .7 4.5 2.5 5.1 7.8 6.7 7 .2 Serviceworkers................................................................................... ......... 3.9 4.5 4 .4 4 .0 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.5 Farmworkers......................................................................................................... 1.8 2 .2 1.9 1.6 1.6 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.4 2 .2 2.0 1.9 2.1 Blue-collar workers.............................................................. .............. 6. 4 .4 2 .2 Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment [In thousands— not seasonally adjusted] Annual average 1969 1970 Reason for unemployment, age, and sex Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 1969 1968 2,628 2,710 2, 839 2,958 2,869 3,182 3,400 2,299 2,542 2,746 2,923 2,831 2,817 1,133 378 825 292 939 421 1,011 339 882 451 1,093 414 823 586 1,105 445 894 507 997 471 979 459 1,010 734 875 448 1,275 802 892 325 796 286 1,088 394 770 290 1,186 391 869 301 1,245 409 947 323 1,017 436 965 413 1,070 431 909 407 1,456 1,052 909 906 914 888 945 905 810 901 1,048 1,134 963 993 997 197 230 32 693 150 188 20 524 141 226 18 458 141 267 40 440 209 235 30 469 192 200 24 534 170 195 46 427 183 262 33 438 148 204 19 575 145 164 17 686 139 203 19 707 167 232 28 556 164 216 27 599 167 205 22 1,086 840 994 1,097 1,202 1,119 987 1,058 867 967 964 1,061 1,015 985 418 177 437 54 303 138 354 46 309 183 457 45 314 209 501 72 288 237 596 81 310 196 549 64 307 184 434 62 336 172 480 69 344 107 377 39 374 159 399 35 353 144 414 52 394 153 457 57 335 171 455 55 341 878 864 736 807 836 842 865 1,250 1,437 623 674 734 729 853 839 192 88 319 280 180 111 331 241 137 90 283 226 106 97 328 276 110 101 324 301 95 140 274 334 115 119 248 383 138 105 380 627 112 93 533 699 110 70 214 228 139 90 207 238 147 107 252 229 145 89 257 238 126 101 294 331 130 97 281 330 Feb. Jan. Dec. Total, 16 years and over................................... 3,794 3,406 Lost last job........................ Left last job........ ............. . Reentered labor force____ Never worked before_____ 1,737 473 1,158 377 1,595 485 999 328 M ale, 20 years and over................................... 1,678 Lost last job______ _____ Left last job____________ Reentered labor force......... Never worked before_____ 1,144 185 310 39 Female, 20 years and over.............................. 1,238 Lost last job......... .............. Left last jo b ....................... Reentered labor force____ Never worked before_____ 451 200 529 58 Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................ ............. Lost last job____________ Left last jo b . . . ........... ....... Reentered labor force____ Never worked before.......... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 167 422 55 CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 7. HOUSEHOLD DATA 99 Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1970 1969 Annual average Age and sex Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 1969 1968 TOTAL rears and over.................................................. 4.2 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.6 16 to 19 years__________ 16 and 17 years_____ 18 and 19 years........... 13.4 16.3 11.7 13.8 17.2 11.6 11.8 13.7 10.2 11.8 14.3 9.2 12.9 16.5 10.4 12.9 16.1 10.6 12.3 15.8 9.8 12.2 14.6 10.3 11.7 13.5 10.1 12.4 14.0 11.5 12.7 14.8 11.4 12.6 13.8 11.6 12.0 13.8 11.0 12.2 14.5 10.5 12.7 14.7 11.2 20 to 24 years..................... 25 years and over_______ 25 to 54 years_______ 55 years and over____ 7.3 2.6 2.7 2.4 6.1 2.4 2.5 2.0 5.8 2.2 2.3 2.1 5.8 2.2 2.1 1.9 6.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 6.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 5.4 2.3 2.3 2.0 5.8 2.3 2.3 2.0 5.4 2.2 2.3 2.0 5.5 2.2 2.3 1.7 5.7 2.2 2.3 2.0 5.4 2.1 2.2 1.9 5.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 5.7 2.2 2.3 2.0 5.8 2.3 2.3 2.2 M ALE rears and over________________ 3.6 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.2 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 16 to 19 years................... 16 and 17 years........... 18 and 19 years_____ 13.0 15.4 11.0 12.6 14.9 10.8 11.0 13.1 9.3 11.7 13.7 8.9 11.8 14.4 9.6 12.0 15.0 9.4 11.3 15.5 7.8 11.8 14.4 9.7 10.7 13.0 8.5 11.1 13.9 9.2 11.5 13.1 10.4 11.5 13.2 10.0 11.0 13.0 9.4 11.4 13.7 9.3 11.6 13.9 9.6 20 to 24 years................... 25 years and over_______ 25 to 54 years_______ 55 years and over____ 6.9 2.2 2.1 2.4 6.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 5.5 1.8 1.7 2.2 5.3 1.7 1.4 1.9 6.3 1.9 1.8 2.2 6.4 1.8 1.8 2.0 4.5 1.7 1.6 2.0 5.3 1.7 1.7 1.9 4.8 1.6 1.5 1.8 4.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 4.8 1.6 1.6 1.8 4.6 1.6 1.5 1.8 4.8 1. 5 1.4 1.8 5.1 1.7 1.6 1.9 5.1 1.8 1.7 2.1 FEM A LE rears and o v e r .............................................. 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.8 16 to 19 y e a rs ................ . 16 and 17 years........... 18 and 19 years_____ 13.9 17.3 12.7 15.2 20.3 12.4 12.8 14. 7 11.2 11.9 15.0 9.6 14.2 19.2 11.3 14.2 17.7 12.0 13.6 16.2 12.0 12.7 14.8 11.0 13.0 14.3 11.9 14.0 14.2 14.1 14.3 17.1 12.6 14.0 14.9 13.3 13.2 15.1 12.9 13.3 15.5 11.8 14.0 15.9 12.8 20 to 24 years..................... 25 years and o v e r............. 25 to 54 years.......... . 55 years and over........ 7.6 3.3 3.6 2.3 6.2 3.0 3.3 1.7 6.1 3.0 3.3 1.9 6.5 3.1 3.4 2.0 6.5 3.4 3.6 2.5 6.6 3.4 3.7 2.5 6.3 3.3 3.6 2.1 6.3 3.2 3.5 2.3 6.0 3.3 3.6 2.3 6.4 3.1 3.4 1.9 6.7 3.2 3.5 2.5 6.4 3.0 3.4 2.0 6.2 3.1 3.3 2.4 6.3 3.2 3.5 2.2 6.7 3.2 3.4 2.3 A note on revised seasonal adjustment The household data appearing in tables 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 of this issue have been revised to reflect new seasonal factors. The Bureau recomputes seasonally adjusted labor force series at the beginning of each year, incorporating data through December of the previous year. In most cases, the changes are minimal. For a discussion of the seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 100 8. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 HOUSEHOLD DATA Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted [In percent] Annual average 1969 1970 Selected categories Total (all civilian workers).......... Men, 20 years and over___ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 ye ars... White ................ Negro and other................ Married men ................... Full-time workers............ Unemployed 15 weeks and over1............................... State insured 2 ............... Labor force time lost3........ Dec. Jan. Feb. Sept. Oct. Nov. June July Aug. Apr. M ay 1969 Feb. M ar. 1968 4.2 2.8 4.1 13.4 3.8 7.0 2.0 3.7 3.9 2.5 3.6 13.8 3.6 6.3 1.8 3.4 .5 3.5 2.2 3.5 11.8 3.2 5.7 1.7 3.2 .5 3.5 2.1 3.6 11.8 3.2 6.2 1.5 3.1 .5 3.8 2.3 3.8 12.9 3.5 6.6 1.6 3.1 .4 3.8 2.4 3.9 12.9 3.5 6.7 1.7 3.3 .5 3.5 2.1 3.8 12.3 3.2 6.4 1.5 3.1 .5 3.5 2.2 3.7 12.2 3.2 6. 5 1.6 3.1 .5 3.4 2.0 3.7 11.7 3.0 6.8 1. 5 3.1 .5 3.5 2.0 3.7 12.4 3.1 6.4 1. 5 3.1 _ .5 3.5 2.0 3.8 12.7 3.1 7.0 1.5 3.2 .5 3.4 1.9 3.6 12.6 3.1 6.1 1.4 3.0 .4 3.3 1.9 3.6 12.0 3.0 5.9 1.4 2.9 .4 3.5 2.1 3.7 12.2 3.1 6.4 1.5 3.1 .5 3.6 2.2 3.8 12.7 3.2 6.7 1.6 3.1 .6 2.7 4.5 2.5 4.2 2.4 3.9 2.4 4.0 2.2 4.3 2.2 4.3 2.1 4.0 2.2 4.0 2.1 3.8 2.0 3.8 2.1 3.8 2.1 3.7 2.2 3.7 2.1 3.9 2.2 4.0 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.3 3.2 2.8 1.2 3.2 2.9 1.2 3.2 3.2 1.2 3.0 2.8 1.2 2.9 2.9 1.1 2. 5 3.1 1.1 3.0 2.9 1.0 2.7 3.2 1.2 3.0 2.9 1.1 3.0 2.8 4 .4 3.8 2.1 3.7 1.9 4.3 6.1 3.8 2.3 4.1 6. 5 4.0 2.2 4.6 6.8 3.7 2.2 3.9 6.9 3.6 2.1 4.2 5.7 3.9 2.2 4. 5 6.7 4.1 2.4 6.8 3.8 1.9 4.2 7.1 O C C U P A T IO N White-collar workers ............................... Professional and mana gerial .................... Clerical workers___ ___ Sales workers...................... 1.4 3.2 3.4 1.3 3.1 2.8 1.5 2.8 2.6 1.1 3.5 2.2 1.3 3.4 3.5 Craftsmen and foremen___ Operatives . ________ Nonfarm laborers................ 5.0 2.5 6.0 7.7 4.6 2.3 5.1 8.5 4.3 2.3 5.0 7.4 4.2 2.1 4.9 6.9 4.2 2.4 4.9 6.5 2.6 4.7 7.6 Service workers .................................................. 4.8 4.5 3.6 4.0 4.2 4.8 4.5 4.3 4 .4 4.2 4.5 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.5 Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers4_______ Construction .................. Manufacturing.... ................ Durable goods.. _____ Nondurable goods........... 4.3 7.9 4.6 4.7 4.4 3.9 7.1 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.6 6.0 3.8 3.8 7.3 3.6 3.2 4.2 3.9 7.4 3.7 3.2 4.3 3.5 7.0 2.9 2.3 3.7 3.5 5.9 3.2 3.1 3.5 5.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 6.0 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.4 6.1 3.1 2.8 3.5 3.3 5.6 2.9 2.5 3.6 3.6 6.9 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.5 5.7 3.1 2.9 3.4 3.5 6.0 3.9 3.6 5.4 3.7 3.6 3.9 Transportation and public utilities.. __________ Wholesale and retail trade.. Finance and service industries .................... 2.4 4.7 2.9 4.3 2.4 3.9 2.4 3.9 2.9 4.2 2.0 4.5 2.0 4.3 2.0 4.1 1.9 4.2 2.4 4.1 2.3 4.2 2.3 3.9 1.9 4. 0 2.2 4.1 2.0 4.0 3.2 3.1 2.7 3.2 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.4 Government wage and salary workers.................................. 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.8 Agricultural wage and salary workers........................... 5.8 6.2 6.5 5.2 6.3 6.5 6.5 8.9 5.6 5.3 5.8 5.9 4.6 6.1 6.3 Blue-collar workers______ ________ 4 .2 4 .4 7.2 IN D U S T R Y 3.7 1 Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force. 2 Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered employment. 9. 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.7 3.7 3 Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours, ‘ Includes mining, not shown separately. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted [In thousands] Annual average 1969 1970 Period Less than 5 weeks...................... 5 to 14 weeks........... ................. 15 weeks and over..................... 15 to 26 weeks....................... 27 weeks and over________ 15 weeks and over as a percent of civilian labor force______ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1968 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 1969 1,973 1,016 465 306 159 1,756 914 409 276 133 1,515 893 392 272 120 1,558 912 389 249 140 1,882 882 363 233 130 1,756 995 392 240 152 1,646 854 385 250 135 1,656 824 400 233 167 1,578 812 385 255 130 1,720 639 400 263 137 1,711 748 381 246 135 1,625 777 359 240 119 1,461 833 351 238 113 1,629 827 375 242 133 1,594 810 412 256 156 .6 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .5 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 10. HOUSEHOLD DATA 101 Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1 [All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands] 1970 1969 Item Jan. Dec. Nov. Sept. O c t. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Jan. Feb. Employment service:2 New applications for work_________ _______ Nonfarm placements__________ _________. . 950 326 658 311 711 372 762 463 801 503 750 471 874 469 1,237 512 85C 437 822 454 745 397 794 373 849 392 Rate unemploymentinsurance programs: 745 1,548 866 655 Initial claims34___________________ _____ 1,363 1,105 731 710 613 709 756 890 1,240 Insured unemployment3 (average weekly 864 1,375 1,030 1,847 840 volume)3________ _____ _____ ________ 948 1,021 852 906 1,090 1300 1,459 1,491 2.0 1.6 Rate of insured un employment7........................ 3.6 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.2 26 3.0 '2 .9 Weeks of unemployment compensated........... 6,418 4,692 3,054 3,156 3,104 3,496 3,626 3,123 3,519 4,998 4,496 5,159 5,547 Average weekly benefit amount for total un$48. 49 $47.42 $46. 47 $46. 25 $45.70 $46.16 $45. 30 $44. 88 $45.14 $46.03 $46. 71 $46.80 $46.16 employment___________ ______ ________ Total benefits paid............. ............ ................. $299,352 $214,260 $136, 585 $139, 536 $136,182 $156,707 $159,161 $135,004 $152,966 $200,052 $226,516 $234,199 $246,117 Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen: 8« Initial claims33_______ ________________ Insured unemployment3 (average weekly volume)_________________ __________ Weeks of unemployment compensated______ Total benefits paid............................................. Unemployment compensation ployees: »1» for Federal civilian 44 39 30 29 26 27 32 26 20 22 24 27 32 61 242 $11,957 48 193 $9, 517 38 126 $6,240 32 127 $6, 256 32 133 $6, 514 37 148 $7,156 36 143 $6, 946 30 114 $5,511 29 122 $5,847 35 155 $7,425 40 163 $7,794 43 16IT $7,997 44 191 $9, 046 em Initial claims 3__________________ ______ _ Insured unemployment3 (average weekly volume).. _________________ _________ Weeks of unemployment compensated..____ Total benefits paid..................... ..................... . 14 12 13 11 10 8 11 10 8 8 8 9 13 28 110 $5,194 24 101 $4, 748 22 75 $3, 465 18 76 $3,494 17 74 $3,163 18 77 $3,497 19 78 $3, 597 18 69 $3,155 17 73 $3,318 20 88 $4,038 23 94 $4,265 24 97 $4,362 24 102 $4.595 Railroad unemploymentinsurance: Applications11_________ ______ __________ Insured unemployment (average weekly volume).____________________________ Number of payments12____ _____ _______ _____ ______ Average amount of benefit payment13............... Total benefit paid 14.._ ............. .......... .............. 9 5 5 10 6 7 17 11 11 5 5 6 12 21 17 14 15 13 13 13 10 18 17 21 23 24 47 $94. 78 $4, 091 35 $96. 02 $3, 241 28 $96. 28 $2, 513 36 $89. 31 $2,918 28 $93.64 $2,478 28 $94.12 $2,375 26 $91. 74 $2,113 25 $90. 69 $2,043 39 $75.65 $2,804 41 $88. 32 $3,386 46 $91.06 $4,056 47 $92.20 $4,251 54 $91.23 $4,797 1,957 1,464 1,105 929 902 1,015 1,088 911 970 1,162 1,384 1,550 1,584 All program s:13 Insured unemployment3____________ _____ r Includes data for Puerto Rico. 2 Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands. 3 Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of unemployment. Excludes transition claims under State programs. 4 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. s Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment. 6 1nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers. 7 The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of the average covered employment in a 12-month period. 8 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs. »Includes the Virgin Islands. 10 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11 An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent periods in the same year. 12 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods. 13 The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments. 14 Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments. is Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State, Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Manpower Management Data Systems for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. Data for latest month are subject to revision. 102 11. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 PAYROLL DATA Employees1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date [In thousands] Year TOTAL Mining Contract construc tion Manufac turing Transpor tation and public utilities Wholesale and retail trade Total Retail trade Services Total Federal State and local 1947_____ 1948........... 1949_____ 1950______ 43,881 44, 891 43,778 45,222 955 994 930 901 1,982 2,169 2,165 2,333 15,545 15, 582 14, 441 15,241 4,166 4,189 4,001 4,034 8,955 9,272 9,264 9,386 2,361 2,489 2,487 2,518 6,595 6,783 6,778 6,868 1,754 1,829 1,857 1,919 5,050 5,206 5,264 5,382 5,474 5,650 5,856 6,026 1,892 1,863 1,908 1,928 3,582 3,787 3,948 4,098 1951............ 1952........... 1953............ 1954______ 1955............ 47, 849 48, 825 50,232 49,022 50,675 929 898 866 791 792 2,603 2,634 2,623 2,612 2,802 16,393 16,632 17, 549 16,314 16, 882 4,226 4,248 4, 290 4, 084 4,141 9,742 10, 004 10,247 10,235 10, 535 2,606 2,687 2,727 2,739 2,796 7,136 7,317 7,520 7,496 7,740 1,991 2,069 2,146 2,234 2,335 5, 576 5,730 5, 867 6,002 6,274 6,389 6,609 6,645 6,751 6,914 2,302 2,420 2,305 2,188 2,187 4,087 4,188 4,340 4, 563 4,727 1956............ 1957............ 1958........... 1959 2......... 1960........... 52,408 52, 894 51,363 53,313 54,234 822 828 751 732 712 2,999 2,923 2,778 2,960 2,885 17,243 17,174 15,945 16,675 16, 796 4,244 4,241 3,976 4,011 4,004 10,858 10, 886 10,750 11,127 11,391 2, 884 2,893 2,848 2,946 3,004 7,974 7,992 7,902 8,182 8,388 2,429 2,477 2,519 2,594 2,669 6, 536 6,749 6,806 7,130 7,423 7,277 7,616 7,839 8, 083 8,353 2,209 2,217 2,191 2,233 2,270 5,069 5,399 5,648 5, 850 6,083 1961............ 1962.......... 1963_____ 1964______ 1965.......... 54, 042 55,596 56, 702 58, 331 60,815 672 650 635 634 632 2,816 2,902 2,963 3,050 3,186 16, 326 16, 853 16,995 17,274 18,062 3,903 3,906 3,903 3,951 4, 036 11,337 11,566 11,778 12,160 12,716 2,993 3,056 3,104 3,189 3,312 8,344 8,511 8,675 8,971 9,404 2,731 2,800 2,877 2,957 3,023 7,664 8,028 8,325 8,709 9,087 8, 594 8,890 9,225 9,596 10,074 2,279 2,340 2,358 2,348 2,378 6,315 6, 550 6,868 7,248 7,696 1966______ 1967........... 1968.......... 1969______ 63,955 65,857 67,860 70,141 627 613 610 628 3,275 3,208 3,267 3,411 19,214 19,447 19, 768 20,121 4,151 4,261 4,313 4,448 13,245 13,606 14,081 14,644 3,437 3, 525 3,618 3, 767 9,808 10,081 10,464 10,876 3,100 3,225 3,383 3,559 9,551 10,099 10,592 11,103 10,792 11,398 11,846 12,227 2,564 2,719 2,737 2,757 8,227 8,679 9,109 9,469 i The industry series have been adjusted to March 1968 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to August 1969. Historical data for a particular industry are available upon request to any of the Bureau’s eight regional offices (see inside front cover for addresses) or to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 20212. These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full- and part-time employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or received pay for 12. Wholesale trade Government Finance, insurance, and real estate any part of the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons who worked in more than one establishment during the reporting period are counted more than once. Proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic servants are excluded. 2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) in the nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench mark month. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State [In thousands] State Alabama_____ _______ Alaska______________ Arizona.......................... Arkansas2...................... California____________ Jan.1970 Dec. 1969 Jan. 1969 Jan.1970 Dec. 1969 995.5 81.7 540.5 536.0 7,067.3 958.5 74.3 494.9 515.0 6,706. 5 Montana......................... Nebraska......................Nevada........................... New Hampshire........... New Jersey.................... 189.8 473.5 189.0 250.5 2,523.7 196.4 483.3 191.5 256.0 2,579.4 186.1 460.8 177.9 247.7 2,477.2 712.6 1,187.5 209.1 689.3 1,162.2 207.3 674.4 2,051.3 New Mexico................... New York.......... ............ North Carolina2............. North Dakota................. Ohio2.............................. 285.7 (') 1,733.6 O) 3,872.9 291.4 7,226. 3 1,767.6 158.8 3,970.9 276.9 6,973.5 1,706.4 151.3 3,765.6 Oklahoma2..................... Oregon........................... Pennsylvania................. Rhode Island2. .............. South Carolina2............. 760.2 691.4 4,253.6 336.2 813.0 772.7 709.0 4,358.8 346.0 825.3 737.0 671.2 4,221.6 339.1 796.2 South Dakota............ Tennessee___________ Texas2............................ Utah....... ....................... Vermont......................... 168.1 O) 3,650.8 342.9 145.4 171.8 1,326.7 3,720.3 354.9 147.3 163.8 1,284.8 3,479.6 334.4 138.8 Virginia............ .............. Washington__________ West Virginia2................ Wisconsin2..................... Wyoming........... ............ 1,431.8 1,102.4 507.6 1,512.3 102.7 1,462.1 1,137.6 519.4 1,551.6 106.3 1,397.4 1,080.7 498.0 1,474.2 98.6 80.0 536.0 524.9 6,901.4 2,177.6 Georgia2......................... Hawaii........ ................... Idaho_______________ Illinois_________ ____ Indiana.......................... 1,528.9 O) 197.2 4,333.0 1,827.5 1,556.3 275.8 201.7 4,438. 0 1,880.4 1,481.4 261.5 191.6 4,281.3 1,825.7 Iowa............ .................. Kansas.......................... Kentucky............... ........ Louisiana____________ Maine2........................... 865.4 678.1 863.4 1,060.4 326.4 886.4 691.5 890.1 1,075.4 1,333.9 857.0 673.0 880.0 1,041.4 321.5 Maryland2...................... Massachusetts............. Michigan ...................... Minnesota2. . ............. . Mississippi..................... Missouri..................... . 1,277.5 2,209.9 3,038. 2 1,296.4 559.1 1,631.4 1,315.1 2, 264. 4 3,120.9 1,322.5 569.5 1,673.4 1,231.4 2,184.6 3, 022.7 1,242.8 550.5 1,624.8 O) 1 Not available. 2 Revised series: not strictly comparable with previously published data. NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary. SOURCE: State agencies in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. More detailed industry data are available from the State agencies For addresses, see inside back cover of Employment and Earnings. Historical data for tables 11 and 13 through 22 are published periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Bulletin 1312 series “ Em ployment and Earnings, United States." The next edition, covering the period 1909 to 1970, is scheduled for publication in the fall of 1970. Publication of the edition covering the period 1909 to 1969 has been cancelled. Historical data for a particular industry are available from any of the Bureau’s eight regional offices (see inside front cover for addresses) or from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 20212. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Jan. 1969 O) 725.9 1,224.3 212.7 683.4 2,183.8 Colorado____________ Connecticut2............... . Delaware______ ____ _ District of Columbia___ Florida2.......................... State CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 13. PAYROLL DATA 103 Employees 1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group [In thousands] 1970 1969 Annual average Industry division and group TOTAL........................................ Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 1969 1968 69,655 69,755 71,629 71,227 71,198 70,814 70,607 70,347 70,980 69,929 69,462 68,894 68,403 70,141 67,860 MINING___________________ 614 617 631 631 632 639 647 645 638 624 619 610 610 628 610 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION........ 3,037 3,015 3,373 3,530 3,623 3,663 3,707 3,681 3,601 3,404 3,255 3,077 2,999 3,411 3,267 MANUFACTURING____ _______ Production workers2_____ 19,632 14,238 19,764 14,370 20,056 14,647 20,143 14,732 20,339 14,918 20, 421 14,997 20,435 14,971 20,114 14,665 20,336 14,923 19,982 14,624 19,952 14,604 19,978 14; 644 19,891 14; 584 20,121 14,735 19,768 14,505 Durable goods____________ Production workers2. . . 11,490 8,263 11,606 8,370 11,785 8, 544 11,816 8,570 11,991 8,733 12,014 8,755 11,976 8,691 11,874 8,600 12,036 8,781 11,846 8,615 11,835 8,612 11,841 8,'623 11,785 8; 585 11,880 8| 639 11,624 8,456 Ordnance and accessories.. Lumber and wood products. Furniture and fixtures____ Stone, clay, and glass products........ ................. 286.4 563.1 478.1 291.3 573.5 483.7 300.1 585.9 491.0 306.0 589.4 494.3 307.7 593.9 496.9 315.1 605.3 495.9 323.4 617.8 497.9 331.7 616.3 485.0 335.3 624.4 496.0 338.7 604.1 489.6 341.2 593.4 490.7 345.5 594.2 490.6 346.8 590.1 491.1 328 5 600! 2 492.3 341 S 597 8 4 74^ 632.4 636.8 655.8 666.9 669.6 674.2 679.1 676.2 676.1 657.2 654.8 646.6 639.2 661.2 637.0 Primary metal industries... Fabricated metal products.. Machinery, except electrical........................ Electrical equipment.......... Transportation equipment.. Instruments and related products.......................... Miscellaneous manufacturing................. Nondurable goods......... ......... Production workers2. . . 1,331.6 1, 343. 0 1, 360.1 1,357.0 1,355.9 1,435.7 1, 449.7 1,471.0 1,470.9 1,468.0 1,365.5 1,367.9 1,366.7 1,375.6 1,346.1 1,336.8 1,333.3 1,326.0 1.350.2 1,314.3 1,472.5 1,461.9 1,441.7 1,469.1 1,445.5 L441.6 1,441.1 1,435.4 1.454.3 1,393.7 2, 033. 3 2, 019.1 2,018.5 2,004. 2 2, 011.9 2, 029.1 1,958.5 1,975.5 1,981.7 2,094. 9 1, 820. 4 1,965.8 2, 009.2 2, 015.2 2,054.8 2,009.7 1,999. 3 2,009.3 2, 025. 6 2, 000.9 2,007. 0 2,005.2 2,002.6 2 006 5 1,960.5 2,083.1 2, 074. 2 2, 047. 7 2, 058.7 2, 035.8 2,027. 7 2 025.9 2,026.1 2 037.5 1,981.9 2,063.8 2, 023. 4 1,991.0 2, 053. 7 2, 018. 9 2,037.3 2,057.8 2,037.8 2,035.4 2,028.4 455.2 463.9 470.1 469.4 469.2 424.6 420.5 447.7 460.7 467.7 8,142 5,975 8,158 6,000 8,271 6,103 8,327 6,162 8,348 6,185 , 469.8 475.7 470.9 458.9 455.8 437.5 8,407 6,242 8,459 6,280 8,240 6,065 474.1 , 470.3 469.6 469.3 467.1 447.6 439.2 435.3 431.0 422.7 443.8 434.6 8,300 6,142 8,136 6,009 8,117 5,992 8,137 6,021 8,106 5; 999 8,241 096 8,144 6,049 470.0 459.9 Food and kindred products. 1,724.5 1,739.1 1,790.3 1,833.6 1,860.4 Tobacco manufactures........ 91.3 77.7 85.0 78.6 82.2 967.0 982.3 Textile mill products_____ 974.2 981.8 984.4 Apparel and other textile products.......................... 1, 407.2 1,394.0 1,412.9 1,423. 4 1,428.6 1,920.2 1,932.0 1,827.6 1,785.3 1,725.3 1,710 8 1,706.7 1,710.9 1,793.6 1 780 8 93.9 90.0 71.9 72.1 71.3 75.6 79.3 83 a 80.6 71 6 984.7 988.1 980.7 1,000.9 984.7 992.1 990.8 988.4 987.2 990; 6 Paper and allied products.. 716.9 720.1 727.1 724.9 720.6 Printing and publishing___ 1,100.6 1,101.1 1,108.9 1,106.3 1,100. 5 Chemicals and allied products...... ................... 1, 049.3 1, 045. 2 1, 049.7 1,048.1 1,046.2 Petroleum and coal 189.9 192.0 products.......... ................ 189.1 190.0 192.7 Rubber and plastics 588.2 580.3 587.2 products, nec................... 573.8 586.7 Leather and leather 341.1 products................. ......... 335.3 336.6 341.4 338.3 722.2 719.8 726.8 725.0 707.6 707.3 706.2 703.5 716.2 692 5 1,091.6 1,091.1 1,085.4 1,085. 0 1,071.1 1,077.3 1,077.0 1,073.6 1,086. 5 1,063.1 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES..___ ___________ 1,427.3 1,433. 3 1,375.8 1,440.1 1,419.1 1,411.2 1,426.5 1,414.7 1,417.5 1,407.9 1,052.2 1, 064. 4 1,064.5 1,060.9 1, 045.1 1,046.9 1,043.2 1,036.9 1, 049.1 1,026.1 192.9 196.0 196.3 193.7 188.9 187.8 183.9 166.3 183.8 187.0 585.8 586.2 576.1 586.2 577.0 575.7 575.8 574.9 581.0 557.1 336.2 351.0 341.4 350.3 345.5 343.8 348.5 352.2 345.2 355.5 4,430 4,450 4,498 4,506 4,502 4, 529 4, 533 4, 528 4,512 4,431 4,403 4,346 4,303 4,448 4,313 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE. 14, 594 14,683 15,642 15,090 14,847 14,702 14,660 14,662 14,717 14,517 14,398 14,201 14,097 14,644 14,081 3,806 10,896 3,821 10,839 3,818 10, 844 3,793 10,924 3,709 10,808 io; 7io 3,688 3,678 10,523 3,666 10; 431 3,767 10; 876 3,618 10,464 Wholesale trade...................... Retail trade____ _________ 3,836 10,758 3,833 10,850 3,875 11,767 3,849 11,241 3,834 11,013 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE......................... 3,617 3,603 3,609 3,599 3,591 3,597 3,642 3,629 3,585 3,534 3,517 3,490 3,467 3,559 3,383 SERVICES.................................... 11,178 11,136 11,229 11,230 11,255 Hotels and other lodging 718.8 places........ .................... 690.7 687.9 693.7 695.8 Personal services................ 1, 008. 3 1, 007.4 1, 022. 2 1,025.4 1,028.0 Medical and other health services........................... 2,980.2 2,959.0 2,947. 0 2,935. 7 2,913.7 Educational services........... 1,174.2 1,163.7 1,170.8 1,175.5 1,155.4 11,183 11,253 11,266 11,243 11,131 11,044 10,913 10,792 11,103 10,592 2,893.8 2,891.0 2,889.3 2,866.6 2,816.9 2, 804.3 2,789.5 2,772.1 2,855.7 2,637.7 1,053.4 967.2 1, 062. 5 1,158.3 1,159.8 1,164.7 Û 5 7 .6 l i 108.7 l i 065.9 951.1 GOVERNMENT....... .................... 12,553 12,487 12, 591 12,498 12,409 12, 080 11,730 11,822 12,348 12,306 12,274 12,279 12,244 12,227 11,846 Federal 3.................................. State and Local....................... 2,696 9,857 2,690 9,797 2,760 9,831 2,705 9,793 2,715 9,694 2,733 9,347 2,804 8,926 2,841 8,981 2,832 9,516 2,740 9, 566 2,747 9, 527 2,737 9; 542 2,739 9; 505 2,757 9; 469 2,737 9; 109 743.5 829.2 825.9 763.0 727.4 691.7 714.6 681.2 719.4 729.6 1,021.8 1,023.0 1,036.0 1,042.2 1,031.1 1,025. 4 1,016.6 1,012.7 1,025.2 1,031.3 1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, and coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11. 2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers (including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling, inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance, repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production for plant’s own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely associated with the above production operations. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 Beginning January 1969, Federal employment includes approximately 39,000 civilian technicians of the National Guard, who were transferred from State to Federal status in accordance with Public Law 90-486. NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. 104 14. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 PAYROLL DATA Employees 1 on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted [In thousands] 1969 1970 Industry division and group Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 69,487 70,766 70,778 70,679 70,635 70,651 70,390 70, 500 70,247 70,300 70,013 69,789 69,710 M I N I N G ____________________________ _____ ________ 632 632 635 632 631 631 631 629 622 622 624 626 628 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N .............. ................................- ..................... 3,409 3,328 3,459 3,461 3,418 3,420 3,410 3,434 3,466 3,407 3,363 3,374 3,366 19,806 14,388 19,964 14, 548 20, 007 14, 582 20,004 14, 588 20,156 14,732 20,197 14,772 20,334 14, 922 20,164 14,772 20,198 14,811 20,118 14, 740 20,111 14,739 20,122 14,771 20,061 14,731 Production workers2. . _______ ________ Ordnance and accessories ........ ....................Lumber and wood products.._ ............. ... ........ ... Furniture and fixtures..__________________ Stone, clay, and glass products......... ................. 11, 544 8,308 286 579 481 659 11,664 8,423 290 591 485 661 11,738 8,487 299 591 486 664 11,740 8,492 304 591 488 664 11,932 8,674 306 589 491 662 11,965 8,701 314 595 492 660 12,081 8,823 325 598 493 659 11,912 8,668 332 600 491 658 11,931 8, 687 337 607 496 662 11,874 8,630 342 610 496 656 11,868 8,634 343 604 496 6b8 11,881 8,654 346 608 494 664 11,839 8,628 346 607 494 666 Primary metal industries.................. ............................. Fabricated metal products.................. ....................... Machinery, except electrical_______________ Electricaféquipment_____ ______ ____ _______ Transportation equipment---------------------------Instruments and related products..... .............. 1,336 1,444 2, 027 2,029 1,804 456 1,352 1,454 2,017 1,953 1,950 465 1,371 1,459 2, 025 1,952 1,972 468 1,378 1,456 2,012 1,958 1,983 468 1,381 1,456 2,030 2,076 2,030 469 1,378 1,468 2,020 2,075 2,054 469 1,361 1,465 2,005 2, 076 2,183 473 1,348 1,456 2,007 2,070 2,032 471 1,347 1,456 2, 010 2,063 2,035 473 1,333 1,453 1,999 2, 058 2,009 474 1,326 1.450 1,999 2.046 2 029 472 1,332 1,451 1,993 2,036 2, 042 470 1,330 1,444 1,997 2, 026 2,020 468 T O T A L ................... .....................- ................- ............. M A N U FA C T U R IN G ____________________________ Production workers2.................... - ........ - ........ Durable goods ............... ............... ..................................- 443 446 451 438 442 440 443 447 445 444 445 445 441 Tobacco manufactures........................... .......... Textile mill products ............. ...................... Apparel and other textile products----------------------Paper and allied products.................. .......................... 8,262 6,080 1,815 81 975 1,402 724 8,300 6,125 1,812 80 986 1,421 726 8,269 6,095 1,803 76 982 1,414 724 8,264 6,096 1,808 78 979 1,409 722 8,224 6,058 1,777 78 977 1,410 720 8,232 6,071 1,791 80 979 1,412 718 8,253 6,099 1,797 83 979 1,414 718 8,252 6,104 1,787 81 988 1,423 716 8,267 6,124 1,789 81 990 1,429 717 8.244 6,110 1,793 82 987 1,426 714 8,243 6. lUb 1,795 81 991 1, 42b 710 8,241 6,117 1,793 83 995 1,417 714 8,222 6,103 1,801 82 999 1,409 713 Printing and publishing-----------------------------------------Chemicals and allied products.............. ... Petroleum and coal products................................. ...... Rubber and plastics products, n e c ................. ... Leather and leather products------------------------ 1,104 1,057 194 576 334 1,107 1,055 194 581 338 1,102 1,055 193 581 339 1,103 1,053 193 581 338 1,099 1,050 191 583 339 1,093 1,051 189 583 336 1,089 1,052 190 586 345 1,084 1,054 191 585 343 1,083 1,055 191 584 348 1,075 1,046 190 581 350 1,078 1,044 190 579 3bU 1,078 1,045 187 579 350 1,077 1,044 170 577 4, 502 4,518 4,489 4,484 4,480 4, 480 4,484 4,483 4,467 4,444 4,439 4,399 4,373 W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A I L T R A D E ....................................................... 14,978 14,913 14,773 14,836 14,809 14,716 14,702 14,671 14,665 14,609 14,533 14, 508 14,468 Wholesale trade............................. .................................................................... Retail trade_______ ______________ _____ ________ 3,887 11, 091 3,864 11,049 3,837 10,936 3,815 11,021 3,807 11,002 3,787 10,929 3,776 10, 926 3,773 10,898 3,774 10,891 3,758 10,851 3,737 10,796 3,726 10,782 3,714 10,754 Miscellaneous manufacturing-----------------------Nondurable goods-------- ------------------------------------------------Production workers 2_ . ............................................. Food and kindred products------------------------------------ T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D P U B LIC U T I L I T I E S ....................... 3ÒU 3,654 3,647 3,623 3,613 3, 595 3, 586 3,581 3, 568 3,557 3,541 3,531 3,515 3, 502 S E R V IC E S ____ __________________________________ Hotels and other lodging places................ ................ ... Personal services____________________ _____ _ Medical and other health services______ _______ Educational services__________________ _____ 11,360 743 1,023 2,986 1,128 11,352 753 1,018 2,974 1,125 11,297 749 1,017 2,956 1,121 11,264 742 1,021 2,936 1,118 11,244 740 1,025 2,917 1,113 11,150 721 1,026 2,897 1,092 11,120 704 1,026 2,874 1,094 11,067 706 1,030 2,861 1,099 11,066 724 1,026 2,850 1,102 11,065 730 1,025 2,831 1,120 11,044 741 1,024 2,813 1,119 11,034 745 1,026 2, 795 1,117 10,967 733 1,027 2,778 1,112 G O V E R N M E N T ............................................................................................................ 12,425 12,424 12, 396 12,341 12,318 12,210 12,238 12,231 12,259 12,207 12,144 12,132 12,122 Federal2________________ ___________ _________ State and local______ ______ ____ ________________ 2,723 9,702 2,714 9,710 2,720 9,676 2,721 9,620 2,729 9, 589 2,749 9,461 2,752 9, 486 2,777 9,454 2,790 9,469 2,754 9,453 2,758 9,386 2,759 9,373 2,767 9, 355 F I N A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E ........................ * For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, and coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11. 2 For definition of production workers, see footnote 2, table 13. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 See footnote 3, table 13. NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. LABOR TURNOVER CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 15. 105 Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1959 to date 1 [Per 100 employees] Year Jan. Feb. J M ar. A pr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 5.1 3 .9 3 .5 3 .4 3 .6 4.8 2 .9 3 .4 2 .3 Dec. Annual average T o t a l accessions 1 9 5 9 .......................................................... 3 .8 4.1 3 .4 4 .2 3 .9 5 .4 4 .4 4 .0 3 .7 3 .5 4 .1 1 9 6 0 ___________ _________ ________ 4 .7 3 .9 5 .2 4 .9 1 9 6 1 ______________ ______________ 1 9 6 2 ................................. ........................ 3 .7 4.1 3 .2 3 .6 4.0 3.8 4 .0 4 .3 5.0 4 .4 5 .3 4 .0 4 .3 5.0 4 .6 1 9 6 3 ....................................................... .. 3 .6 3 .3 3 .5 3 .9 3 .9 4 .8 4 .3 1 9 6 4 _____________________________ 3 .6 3 .4 3 .7 3 .8 5.1 3 .8 3 .9 4.1 5 .6 1 9 6 5 ............................................ ............. 3.3 4 .2 3 .8 4 .1 4 .1 4 .3 5.1 4 .7 4 .9 3 .9 3 .0 4 .8 4 .8 3 .9 2.9 2 .5 3 .9 4 .4 5.1 4 .0 4 .5 3.2 2 .6 4 .0 4 .5 4 .8 5 .5 3.9 3.1 4 .3 2 .6 2 .4 4 .6 3 .5 4.2 4 .0 1 9 6 6 ......................................................... 4 .9 3 .8 4 .6 5.1 6 .7 5.1 5 .4 6.4 6 .1 5.1 1 9 6 7 ................. ........................................ 4 .3 3 .6 3 .9 3 .9 4.6 5 .9 4 .7 5 .5 5 .3 3.9 3 .7 2 .8 5 .0 4 .4 1 9 6 8 ................. ............. .......................... 4 .2 3 .8 3 .9 4 .3 4.6 5 .9 5 .0 5 .7 5 .7 4 .7 5 .0 3 .8 3 .0 4 .6 1 9 6 9 . _______ ____________________ 4 .6 4 .0 3.9 4 .4 4 .5 4.8 6 .6 5.1 5 .6 5 .9 4 .9 3 .6 2 .9 4 .7 1 9 7 0 ................. ........................................ 2 .9 New hires 1959....................... ........... 1960........... ........................... 1961___________________ 1962________ __________ 1963............. .................. 2.0 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.8 2.4 2.0 1.6 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.4 2.3 3.7 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.5 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.7 3.5 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.5 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.6 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.6 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.4 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.4 1964...................................... 1965............ ................... 1966........... ........................... 1967...................................... 1968.................. .................. 1 96 9 ............... ................... 1970____ ______________ 2.0 2.4 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.9 2.0 2.4 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.2 2.8 3.7 2.8 2.9 3.4 2.4 2.6 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.5 2.5 3.0 4.1 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.6 4.3 5.6 4.6 4.7 5.4 2.9 3.2 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.4 3.9 4.8 4.0 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.0 4.7 4.1 4.5 4.8 2.8 3.5 4.2 3.7 4.0 4.0 2.2 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.8 1.6 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.8 3.3 3.5 3.7 Total separations 19 59 .............................................. I 9 6 0 . ........................................ .. 1961........................... ................... 1 9 6 2 . . . ........................................ 1963............................................... 3.7 3.6 4.7 3 .9 4.0 3.1 3 .5 3.9 3 .4 3 .2 3. 3 4. 0 3. 8 3.6 3. 5 3.6 4.2 3 .4 3 .6 3 .6 3.5 3.9 3 .5 3 .8 3.6 3.6 4. 0 3.6 3. 8 3. 4 4 .0 4 .4 4.1 4 .4 4.1 4 .6 4 .8 4.2 5.1 4.8 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.5 4.7 4.2 4. 4 4.1 4.7 4 .5 4 .0 4 .0 3.9 3.9 4 .8 4 .0 3.8 3.7 4.1 4.3 4 .0 4.1 3.9 1964_______________________ 1965............................................... 1966............................................... 1967............................................... 1968............................................ .. 1969............................................... 1970______________ ________ 4.0 3.7 4.0 4 .5 4 .4 4 .5 4.7 3 .3 3.1 3 .6 4 .0 3 .9 4 .0 3.5 3.4 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.4 3 .5 3.7 4 .3 4 .3 4.1 4.5 3.6 3.6 4.3 4.2 4.3 4 .6 3. 5 3.6 4. 4 4.3 4.1 4.5 4 .4 4 .3 5.3 4.8 4 .3 5.1 5.8 5.3 5.1 5.6 6.6 5 .0 6 .0 6 .2 6 .6 4.2 4. 5 4. 8 4.7 4. 9 5.3 3 .6 3.9 4 .3 4.0 4.1 4 .3 3 .7 4.1 4.2 3 .9 3.8 4.1 3 .9 4.1 4 .6 4.6 4 .6 4.9 5.3 6 .2 6.3 Quits Layoffs 1 95 9 ................................................................ 19 60 ................................................................ 19 61 ................ ............................. ................. 1 9 62 ................................................................ 1 9 63 .......................................................... ... 2.1 1.8 3.2 2.1 2.2 1.5 1 .7 2.6 1 .7 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.3 1 .6 1.7 1.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 1 .6 1.4 1 .9 1.8 1 .6 1.5 1.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1 .8 2.4 1 .8 2.2 1 .9 2.0 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.8 3.2 2.8 2.0 2.2 1 .9 2.9 3.1 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.4 3.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1 96 4 ................ .. .......................... .................. 1 96 5 ...................... ......................................... 1 96 6 - ................................................ ... 1 96 7 ............. .................................................. 1 96 8 .................................... .......................... 19 69 ............................................................... 1970 .............................. ................................ 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.2 1 .6 1 .6 1.2 1.0 1 .3 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.5 1. 1 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 .9 1.4 1. 1 .9 1.1 1.0 .9 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.1 .9 .9 2.1 1 .8 2.0 1.9 1. 7 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.2 1. 1 1.5 1.3 1 .0 1.2 1. 1 1.1 1.8 1.4 1. 1 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see footnote 1, table 11. Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufac turing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the changes shown by the Bureau's employment series for the following reasons: (1) The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis labor turnover series measures changes during the calendar month, while the employ ment series measures changes from midmonth to midmonth and (2) the turnover series excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employment series reflects the influence of such stoppages. NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary. 106 16. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 LABOR TURNOVER Labor turnover rates 1 in manufacturing, by major industry group [Per 100 employees] Accession rates Total Major industry group Jan. 1970 Dec. 1969 Separation rates Total New hires Jan. 1969 Jan. 1970 Dec. 1969 Jan. 1969 Jan. 1970 Dec. 1969 Quits Jan. 1969 Jan. 1970 Dec. 1969 Layoffs Jan. 1969 Jan. 1970 Dec. 1969 Jan. 1969 ANUFACTURING...................... Seasonally adjusted________ _ 4.0 4.3 2.9 4.6 4.6 4.9 2.9 3.3 2.1 3.5 3.3 3.8 4.7 4.8 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.6 2.1 2.5 1.6 2.5 2.3 2.7 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 Durable goods....................— 3.6 2.6 4.4 2.5 1.9 3.2 4.6 3.9 4.2 1.9 1.4 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.3 2.5 1.3 .6 1.9 4.5 4.1 3.3 1.3 1.0 1.6 2.4 2.6 1.0 5.6 4.6 3.4 3.3 5.9 6.2 3.5 3.8 2.8 2.9 5.0 5.4 6.2 6.3 5.4 4.6 6.2 5.8 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.6 3.8 4.0 2.5 1.6 2.1 1.2 1.3 .6 3.7 2.9 4.3 3.0 2.3 3.2 5.3 4.7 5.1 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 3.2 2.5 4.3 2.2 1.7 2.7 3.9 3.2 3.2 1.6 1.2 1.6 1 .0 1.1 .5 4.3 3.3 5.2 3.5 2.5 4.2 5.1 4.0 5.2 2.3 1.8 2.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 3.3 3.2 2.4 2.4 3.7 4.0 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.8 2.9 2.9 3.2 4.4 2.3 3.2 3.2 4.0 1.6 1.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 .7 1.5 .5 1.1 .5 .8 3.3 2.2 4.1 1.5 1.1 2.6 5.1 4.5 4.2 1.2 .9 1.6 3.1 2.9 1.7 2.8 2.0 3.5 2.3 1.6 3.0 3.6 2.5 3.5 1.7 1.2 1.9 1 .0 .6 .5 Ordnance and accessories...... ............ Lumber and wood products........ .............. Furniture and fixtures— Stone, clay, and glass product’s ..................... Primary metal industries. Fabricated metal products..................... Machinery, except electrical...................... Electrical equipment........ Transportation equipment...... .......... .......... Instruments and related products....................... Miscellaneous manufacturing________ _ Nondurable goods.................................. ... Food and kindred products..................... Tobacco manufactures... Textile mill products___ Apparel and other textile products............... ....... Paper and allied products___________ Printing and publishing.. Chemicals and allied products....................... Petroleum and coal products___________ Rubber and plastics products, n.e.c............. Leather and leather products..................... 6.3 2.8 7.1 3.4 2.3 4.4 5.8 10.2 6.3 2.7 1.9 3.0 2.1 7.3 2.1 4.6 3.2 4.8 3.4 2.4 3.5 4.8 4.5 5.0 2.5 1.9 2.7 1.4 1.9 1.4 5.7 2.4 5.1 4.3 5.7 3.4 5.3 3.6 5.4 4.0 1.9 3.9 3.2 3.6 2.6 3.7 2.6 4.1 6.2 4.8 5.3 6.8 5.8 4.2 6.7 7.0 5.3 2.8 1.8 3.4 2.6 2.0 2.4 2.9 2.2 3.6 2.5 2.2 .8 3.5 3.2 1.0 2.8 3.9 .7 6.2 3.3 6.2 4.0 1.9 3.8 5.7 5.3 5.7 3.0 1.9 2.9 1.7 2.7 1.9 3.2 3.7 2.6 2.8 3.9 3.6 2.7 3.1 2.2 2.3 3.4 2.9 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.4 4.0 3.8 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.7 2.3 2.3 .7 .8 .8 1.0 .6 .7 2.4 1.8 2.8 1.9 1.4 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.5 1.3 .9 1.4 .5 .5 .3 2.2 1.3 2.3 1.9 1.2 1.8 1.7 2.6 2.4 .9 .8 1.1 .2 1.3 .3 5.1 3.5 5.4 4.0 2.6 4.2 5.4 4.7 5.1 2.8 2.1 2.9 1.4 1.6 .9 5.3 4.4 6.5 4.0 3.2 4.3 6.4 5.5 6.4 3.1 2.6 3.7 2.1 2.0 1.6 i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see footnote 1, table 11. For relationship to employment series see footnote 1, table 15. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Data for the current month are preliminary. For additional detail see Employmentand Earnings, table D-2. HOURS AND EARNINGS CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 17. 107 Gross hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers 1on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry division, 1947 to date Averages Year Weekly earnings Weekly hours Averages Hourly earnings Weekly earnings Total private $45. 58 1947 ..................... ..................... 49. 00 1948 .............. 50. 24 1949_________ ________ 1950............................... . 53.13 Averages Weekly hours Hourly earnings Weekly earnings Weekly hours Averages Hourly earnings Weekly earnings Durable goods Manufacturing Weekly hours Hourly earnings Nondurable goods 40.3 40.0 39.4 39.8 $1,131 1.225 1.275 1.335 $49.17 53.12 53. 88 58. 32 40.4 40.0 39.1 40.5 $1,217 1.328 1.378 1.440 $51.76 56.36 57.25 62. 43 40.5 40.4 39.4 41.1 $1,278 1.395 1.453 1.519 $46.03 49. 50 50. 38 53.48 40.2 39.6 38.9 39.7 $1.145 1.250 1.295 1.347 1951.................................. 1952__............................... 1953................................ 1954_________________ 1955................................ 57. 86 60.65 63. 76 64. 52 67.72 39.9 39.9 39.6 39.1 39.6 1.45 1.52 1.61 1.65 1.71 63.34 67.16 70. 47 70. 49 75. 70 40.6 40.7 40.5 39.6 40.7 1.56 1.65 1.74 1.78 1.86 68. 48 72.63 76.63 76.19 82.19 41.5 41.5 41.2 40.1 41.3 1.65 1.75 1.86 1.90 1.99 56. 88 59.95 62. 57 63.18 66. 63 39.5 39.7 39.6 39.0 39.9 1.44 1.51 1.58 1.62 1.67 1956.................. ............... 1957-............................... 1958______ __________ 1959 2......... ................. I9 6 0 ..______ _________ 70. 74 73.33 75. 08 78.78 80.67 39.3 38.8 38.5 39.0 38.6 1.80 1.89 1.95 2. 02 2.09 78.78 81.59 82.71 88. 26 89.72 40.4 39.8 39.2 40.3 39.7 1.95 2.05 2.11 2.19 2. 26 85. 28 88. 26 89.27 96. 05 97. 44 41.0 40.3 39.5 40.7 40.1 2. 08 2.19 2. 26 2. 36 2. 43 70. 09 72. 52 74.11 78.61 80. 36 39.6 39.2 38.8 39.7 39.2 1.77 1.85 1.91 1.98 2. 05 1961.................................. 1 9 6 2 -..______________ 1963................................ . 1964______ ____ ______ 1965.................................. 82.60 85.91 88. 46 91.33 95. 06 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.7 38.8 2.14 2. 22 2.28 2.36 2.45 92.34 96. 56 99. 63 102.97 107. 53 39.8 40.4 40.5 40.7 41.2 2. 32 2. 39 2. 46 2. 53 2.61 100. 35 104. 70 108. 09 112.19 117.18 40.3 40.9 41.1 41.4 42.0 2.49 2. 56 2.63 2.71 2.79 82. 92 85. 93 87.91 90.91 94. 64 39.3 39.6 39.6 39.7 40.1 2.11 2.17 2. 22 2.29 2. 36 1966_________ ________ 1967......................... ......... 1968______ ______ ____ 1969____ ____________ 98. 82 101.84 107.73 114.61 38.6 38.0 37.8 37.7 2. 56 2.68 2.85 3. 04 112. 34 114.90 122.51 129. 51 41.3 40.6 40.7 40.6 2.72 2.83 3.01 3.19 122. 09 123.60 132. 07 139. 59 42.1 41.2 41.4 41.3 2.90 3. 00 3.19 3.38 98. 49 102. 03 109.05 115. 53 40.2 39.7 39.8 39.7 2.45 2. 57 2. 74 2.91 Contract construction Mining Wholesale and retail trade Finance, insurance, and real ostate 1947................................... 1948____ ____________ 1949-............................... 1950................................... $59.94 65. 56 62. 33 67.16 40.8 39.4 36.3 37.9 $1,469 1.664 1.717 1.772 $58. 87 65. 27 67.56 69. 68 38.2 38.1 37.7 37.4 $1. 541 1.713 1.792 1.863 $38. 07 40.80 42.93 44. 55 40.5 40.4 40.5 40.5 $0.940 1.010 1.060 1.100 $43.21 45. 48 47.63 50. 52 37.9 37.9 37.8 37.7 $1.140 1.200 1.260 1.340 1951................................... 1952............ .................... 1953......... ........................ 1954____ ____________ 1955........................... . 74.11 77.59 83.03 82.60 89. 54 38.4 38.6 38.8 38.6 40.7 1.93 2.01 2.14 2.14 2. 20 76.96 82.86 86.41 88.91 90.90 38.1 38.9 37.9 37.2 37.1 2. 02 2.13 2.28 2.39 2.45 47. 79 49.20 51.35 53. 33 55.16 40.5 40.0 39.5 39.5 39.4 1.18 1.23 1.30 1.35 1.40 54. 67 57. 08 59. 57 62.04 63.92 37.7 37.8 37.7 37.6 37.6 1.45 1.51 1.58 1.65 1.70 1956-_____ _________ 1 95 7 ................................ 1958................................... 1959 2................................. 1960................................... 95. 06 98.65 96. 08 103.68 105. 44 40.8 40.1 38.9 40.5 40.4 2.33 2.46 2.47 2.56 2.61 96.38 100.27 103.78 108.41 113. 04 37.5 37.0 36.8 37.0 36.7 2. 57 2.71 2. 82 2. 93 3.08 57.48 59.60 61.76 64. 41 66.01 39.1 38.7 38.6 38.8 38.6 1.47 1.54 1.60 1.66 1.71 65.68 67.53 70.12 72.74 75.14 36.9 36.7 37.1 37.3 37.2 1.78 1.84 1.89 1.95 2. 02 1961................................ 1962.................................. 1963.................. ............... 1964....... .......................... 1965.................................. 106.92 110. 43 114. 40 117.74 123. 52 40.5 40.9 41.6 41.9 42.3 2.64 2.70 2.75 2.81 2.92 118. 08 122. 47 127.19 132. 06 138. 38 36.9 37.0 37.3 37.2 37.4 3.20 3.31 3.41 3. 55 3.70 67.41 69.91 72.01 74.28 76. 53 38.3 38.2 38.1 37.9 37.7 1.76 1.83 1.89 1.96 2. 03 77.12 80. 94 84.38 85. 79 88.91 36.9 37.3 37.5 37.3 37.2 2.09 2.17 2.25 2. 30 2. 39 1966-............................... 1967................................ 1968...................... ........... 1969_________________ 130. 24 135. 89 143. 05 154.73 42.7 42.6 42.7 43.1 3.05 3.19 3.35 3. 59 146.26 154.95 164. 56 181.64 37.6 37.7 37.4 38.0 3. 89 4.11 4. 40 4. 78 79. 02 81.76 86.40 91.14 37.1 36.5 36.0 35.6 2.13 2.24 2.40 2. 56 92.13 95. 46 101.75 108. 33 37.3 37.0 37.0 37.1 2. 47 2. 58 2.75 2.92 i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see footnote 1, table 11. Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction, and to nonsupervisory workers in wholesale and related trade, finance, insurance, and real estate; transportation and public utilities and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ment on private nonagricultural payrolls. Transportation and public utilities, and serv ices are included in total private but are not shown separately in this table. 2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-l. 108 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 HOURS AND EARNINGS 18. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1969 1970 Industry division and group Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. Annual average July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 1969 1968 T O T A L P R I V A T E ................................................. 37.2 37.1 37.7 37.5 37.7 38.0 38.2 38.1 38.0 37.7 37.5 37.6 37.2 37.7 37.8 M I N I N G ....................................................................... 42.7 42.3 43.4 43.4 43.4 43.5 43.7 43.1 42.5 43.5 43.6 42.2 42.5 43.1 42.7 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ................. 36.7 35.6 37.7 37.1 38.4 39.3 39.2 38.8 38.5 38.2 37.6 37.2 36.6 38.0 37.4 M A N U F A C T U R I N G ............................................ O v e r tim e h o u rs .................................... 39.8 3.0 40.1 3.2 41.0 3.6 40.6 3.6 40.7 3.7 41.0 4.0 40.6 3.7 40.5 3.5 40.9 3.7 40.7 3.6 40.5 3.5 40.7 3.5 40.0 3.3 40.6 3.6 40.7 3.6 Durable Goods.................................................... O v e r tim e h o u rs .................................... 40.4 3.0 40.6 3.3 41.7 3.8 41.2 3.7 41.4 3.9 41.7 4.2 41.1 3.8 40.9 3.6 41.5 3.9 41.4 3.7 41.2 3.6 41.4 3.7 40.8 3.6 41.3 3.8 41.4 3.8 O rd n a n c e an d accessories____ L u m b e r an d w ood p r o d u c t s ... F u r n itu r e an d fix tu r e s ....................... S to n e , c la y , an d glass p ro d u c ts ........................................................ 41.0 39.7 38.6 41.1 39.1 38.9 41.0 40.2 40.8 40.7 39.9 40.3 40.3 40.4 40.6 40.6 40,4 40.7 40.2 40.2 40.8 39.8 39.7 39.7 40.8 40.7 40.8 40.6 40.7 40.4 40.5 40.2 40.1 40.6 40.7 40.4 40.1 40.0 39.7 40.5 40.2 40.4 41.5 40.6 40.6 41.3 40.7 42.0 42.0 42.2 42.6 42.6 41.9 42.4 42.4 41.9 41.7 41.3 42.0 41.8 P r im a r y m e tal in d u s trie s --------Fa b ric a te d m etal p ro d u c ts— M a c h in e ry , e xc e p t e l e c t r i c a l.. Ele c tric al e q u ip m e n t a n d s u p p l i e s ............................... ................... T ra n s p o rta tio n e q u ip m e n t— In s tru m e n ts an d related p ro d u c ts ....................................................... 41.1 40.4 41.7 41.3 41.0 42.2 41.6 41.9 43.1 41.4 41.6 42.2 41.7 41.7 42.4 42.1 42.1 42.7 41.8 41.7 42.0 41.6 41.2 41.8 42.0 42.0 42.6 41.9 41.7 42.6 42.1 41.4 42.6 42.0 41.6 43.0 41.5 40.8 42.4 41.8 41.6 42.5 41.6 41.7 42.1 39.8 39.7 40.3 40.1 40.9 42.2 40.5 41.5 40.4 41.9 40.7 42.3 40.3 40.5 39.8 41.6 40.7 41.6 40.5 41.3 40.3 41.0 40.6 41.2 39.7 41.0 40.4 41.5 40.3 42.2 41.3 41.1 40.9 41.2 40.7 40.5 41.0 40.7 40.5 40.7 39.7 40.7 40.5 40.6 40.5 M iscellaneou s m a n u fa c tu rin g in d u s trie s .................................................... 38.9 38.7 39.4 39.3 39.3 39.2 39.1 38.4 39.2 39.0 39.1 39.1 37.7 39.0 3.93 Nondurable goods........................................... O v e r tim e h o u rs ................................... 39.0 2.9 39.3 3.1 40.0 3.4 39.8 3.4 39.7 3.5 40.0 3.7 39.9 3.5 39.8 3.4 39.9 3.4 39.7 3.3 39.4 3.2 39.7 3.2 38.9 3.0 39.7 3.4 39.8 3.3 Fo o d an d k in d re d p r o d u c t s ... To b a cco m a n u fa c tu r e s ................... T e x tile m ill p r o d u c t s ...................... A p p a re l an d o th e r te x tile p ro d u c ts ....................................................... 40.1 36.4 40.0 40.5 37.2 40.1 41.0 36.9 41.3 41.0 37.4 41.1 40.7 38.4 40.9 41.8 38.9 41.0 41.4 37.5 41.0 41.2 37.7 40.7 40.9 39.9 41.4 40.6 37.6 40.9 40.1 35.8 40.4 40.3 35.6 40.9 40.0 36.2 39.9 40.8 37.4 40.8 40.8 37.8 41.2 P a p e r an d allied p ro d u c ts ___ P rin tin g an d p u b lis h in g .................. C h em ic als an d allied p ro d u c ts . P e tro le u m an d coal p r o d u c ts . R u b b e r an d plastics p rod u c ts , n ec....................................................... Le a th e r an d le a th e r p r o d u c ts . 35.4 35.2 35.9 35.8 35.8 35.8 36.3 35.9 36.3 36.1 35.9 36.3 35.2 35.9 36.1 42.2 37.6 41.6 40.7 42.5 37.8 41.7 41.8 43.2 39.0 42.0 41.7 42.9 38.4 42.0 42.7 43.0 38.4 41.7 42.7 43.2 38.6 41.7 42.6 43.0 38.6 41.7 42.9 43.0 38.4 41.7 43.6 43.0 38.4 41.8 42.5 43.0 38.3 41.9 43.3 42.9 38.1 41.9 43.2 43.0 38.3 41.7 42.7 42.1 37.7 41.5 41.7 43.0 38.3 41.8 42.6 42.9 38.3 41.8 42.5 40.8 37.1 40.7 37.8 41.5 38.3 41.1 37.4 41.3 37.0 41.5 36.8 41.0 37.1 40.8 37.4 41.3 37.8 41.2 37.3 41.0 36.5 41.1 37.3 40.3 35.7 41.1 37.2 41.5 38.3 W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E . 35.1 35.1 35.6 35.2 35.3 35.7 36.6 36.5 35.9 35.4 35.3 35.4 35.3 35.6 36.0 Wholesale trade......................................... Retail trade.................................................... 40.2 33.4 40.2 33.5 40.6 34.1 40.2 33.6 40.3 33.7 40.3 34.2 40.5 35.3 40.3 35.2 40.1 34.5 40.0 33.9 40.0 33.8 40.0 33.9 39.9 33.8 40.2 34.2 40.1 34.7 F I N A N C E IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T i .................................................................. 37.1 37.0 37.0 37.2 37.1 37.0 37.0 37.1 37.1 37.0 37.1 37.1 37.1 37.1 37.0 »For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2 HOURS AND EARNINGS CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 19. 109 Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1969 1970 Industry division and group Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. T O T A L P R I V A T E ............................................................................................— - 37.5 37.4 37.5 37.6 37.6 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.5 M I N I N G _________ ___________ ____ 43.5 42.7 43.4 43.8 42.9 43.2 43.2 42.6 42.0 43.4 43.8 42.8 43.3 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N .............................................................. 38.1 37.1 38.2 38.2 37.5 38.1 37.9 37.5 37.6 38.1 38.0 37.9 38.0 M A N U F A C T U R I N G .................................................... .......................................... Overtime hours.............. ... ............ .................... 39.9 3.2 40.3 3.3 40.7 3.5 40.5 3.5 40.5 3.5 40.8 3.7 40.6 3.7 40.7 3.6 40.7 3.6 40.7 3.6 40.8 3.7 40.9 3.7 40.1 3.5 Overtime hours........... .................................................... 40.5 3.2 40.8 3.4 41.3 3.6 41.1 3.5 41.2 3.7 41.5 3.9 41.3 3.8 41.2 3.8 41.3 3.9 41.4 3.8 41.4 3.8 41.5 3.9 40.9 3.8 Ordnance and accessories....................... .......... Lumber and wood products.......................... Furniture and fixtu res_________________ Stone, clay, and glass products.......................... Primary metal industries______________ ___ Fabricated metal products.. --------- -----------------------Machinery, except electrical_______________ Electricafequipment and supplies..................— Transportation equipment.......... .............. ........ Instruments and related products.................. 41.2 40.5 39.0 42.2 41.2 40.8 41.6 39.8 40.3 40.6 40.7 39.5 39.5 41.4 41.2 41.4 42.3 40.4 40.0 40.7 40.5 40.4 40.0 42.1 41.6 41.6 42.6 40.3 41.5 40.9 40.4 40.3 39.9 42.0 41.6 41.4 42.2 40.1 41). 6 40.9 40.1 40.0 39.9 41.7 42.2 41.4 42.4 40.2 41.3 40.7 40.4 40.1 40.1 42.1 42.2 41.5 42.7 40.5 41.8 41.0 40.4 39.8 40.3 42.1 42.0 41.6 42.6 40.4 41.2 40.9 40.2 39.7 40.1 41.7 41. 5 41.6 42.2 40.3 42.3 40.9 40.9 40.2 40.7 41.9 41.7 41.8 42.5 40.6 41.6 40.9 40.6 40.3 40.9 42.1 41.7 41.6 42.6 40.6 41.1 40.8 40.9 40.2 40.9 42.0 41.8 41.8 42.6 40.9 41. 5 40.8 40.8 40.9 40.7 42.3 41.9 41.9 42.7 40.7 41.6 40.7 40.3 40.8 40.1 42.2 41.6 41.2 42.3 39.7 41.6 39.7 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries............ 38.8 39.2 39.2 38.9 38.8 39.0 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.1 39.5 39.0 37.6 Nondurable Goods ______ __________ ________ hours................................ ... ................ 39.2 3.1 39.7 3.4 39.8 3.3 39.6 3.3 39.5 3.3 39.7 3.3 39.6 3.4 39.7 3.4 39.8 3.4 39.8 3.4 39.8 3.4 39.9 3.4 39.1 3.2 Food and kindred products................... ....................... Tobacco manufactures................ ................... ........... Textile mill products_________ ___________ _ Apparel and other textile products.................... 40.8 36.8 40.0 35.4 40.8 38.3 40.3 35.7 40.8 36.3 40.9 36.0 40.8 37.4 40.8 35.8 40.5 37.2 40.6 35.7 41.0 37.4 40.8 35.8 40.9 37.2 40.9 35.9 40.6 38.2 41.2 36.0 40.7 39.5 41.2 36.2 40.8 38.1 41.0 36.1 40.9 36.4 41.1 36.0 40.9 36.5 40.9 36.0 40.7 36.6 39.9 35.2 Paper and allied products.............................. . Printing and publishing............................. ....... Chemicals and allied products...................— Petroleum and coal products..---------------------Rubber and plastics products, nec__________ Leather and leather products........................... ... 42.6 37.8 41.8 41.6 41.2 36.7 43.1 38.3 42.0 42.3 40.9 37.7 42.8 38.6 41.8 42.2 41.1 37.7 42.7 38.4 41.9 42.7 40.8 37.4 42.7 38.3 41.7 42.6 40.9 37.3 42.8 38.3 41.6 42.0 41.0 37.1 42.8 38.4 41.9 42.8 40.9 36.8 43.0 38. 5 41.9 42.9 41.2 37.0 42.9 38.4 41.8 42.2 41.3 37.4 43.0 38.4 41.8 43.0 41.4 37.6 43.4 38.3 41.6 42.9 41.4 37.7 43.2 38.3 41.7 43.2 41.4 37.6 42.5 37.9 41.7 42.6 40.7 35.3 W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A I L T R A D E .................................................... 35.5 35.4 35.4 35.5 35.5 35.7 35.8 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.6 35.7 35.7 Wholesale Trade............................................................- ............................. Retail trade........... ........................................... ..................................................... 40.4 33.8 40.3 33.9 40.4 33.8 40.2 34.0 40.3 33.9 40.3 34.2 40.3 34.3 40.0 34.2 40.0 34.2 40.1 34.3 40.2 34.1 40.1 34.3 40.1 34.2 F I N A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E .............................. 37.1 37.0 36.9 37.2 37.1 37.1 37.0 37.0 37.2 37.0 37.1 37.1 37.1 Durable Goods Overtime _________ ....................................................................... - ............. i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August, 1969, see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary, 110 20. HOURS AND EARNINGS MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry division and major manufacturing group ' 1970 1969 Annual average Industry and division group Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 1969 $3 .1 5 $ 3 .1 3 $3.11 $3 .1 2 $3.11 $3.1 0 $3 .0 5 $3.0 4 $3.0 3 $3.01 $2.98 $2.9 7 $2.9 6 $3.04 $2.85 M IN I N G ....................................................................... 3 .8 0 3 .7 3 3 .7 0 3 .7 0 3 .6 8 3.63 3 .5 9 3 .5 8 3 .5 5 3 .5 7 3.5 5 3 .5 2 3 .5 2 3 .5 9 3 .3 5 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N .............. 5 .0 2 5.0 5 5 .0 2 4 .9 6 4 .9 5 4.91 4 .7 9 4 .7 4 4.71 4.71 4.6 4 4 .6 2 4 .5 6 4 .7 8 4 .4 0 M A N U F A C T U R I N G .......................................... 3 .2 8 3.2 9 3.2 9 3 .2 6 3 .2 4 3 .2 4 3.1 9 3 .1 9 3 .1 7 3 .1 6 3 .1 5 3 .1 3 3 .1 2 3 .1 9 3.01 Durable Goods----------- --------------- 3 .4 7 3 .4 9 3 .4 9 3 .4 5 3 .4 4 3 .4 4 3.3 9 3 .3 7 3 .3 6 3 .3 5 3 .3 3 3 .3 2 3.3 1 3 .3 8 3 .1 9 3 .5 6 3 .5 6 3 .5 4 3 .5 5 3 .5 0 3.4 9 3.4 6 3 .4 4 3 .4 5 3.4 2 3.41 3 .3 8 3 .3 8 3 .4 4 3 .27 2 .7 9 2.7 0 2.81 2.7 0 2 .8 2 2 .7 0 2.8 4 2.7 0 2.8 2 2.6 8 2 .8 3 2 .6 8 2.7 8 2.6 4 2 .7 4 2 .6 2 2.71 2.6 2 2.6 8 2 .6 0 2.6 4 2 .5 8 2 .6 5 2 .5 6 2.61 2 .5 4 2 .7 3 2 .6 2 2 57 2.47 3 .2 8 3.27 3 .2 8 3 .2 8 3 .2 6 3.2 5 3.21 3 .1 8 3.1 7 3 .1 7 3.1 4 3 .1 0 3 .0 6 3 .1 8 2 .9 9 3 .8 4 3 .8 5 3 .8 7 3 .8 5 3 .8 5 3.8 7 3 .8 4 3 .7 9 3.7 6 3 .7 5 3.7 4 3.71 3 .6 9 3 .7 9 3 .5 5 3 .4 4 3 .4 4 3 .4 3 3 .4 0 3 .3 9 3.3 9 3.3 3 3 .3 2 3 .3 3 3.31 3 .2 9 3 .2 8 3 .2 6 3 .3 3 3 .1 6 T O T A L P R I V A T E _______________ Ordnance and accessories.............................. Lumber and wood products....................... Furniture and fixtures......... Stone, clay, and glass products.......................... Primary metal industries........... .................. Fabricated metal products___________ _ Machinery, except electrical_______ ____ _ Electrical equipment and supplies__________ . . . Transportation equipment................... ........... Instruments and related products........................ 1968 3.71 3.71 3 .7 1 3.6 7 3.6 7 3 .6 3 3.57 3 .5 5 3 .5 6 3 .5 6 3 .5 4 3 .5 2 3.51 3 .5 8 3.36 3 .1 9 3 .1 7 3 .1 6 3 .1 2 3.1 3 3.13 3 .0 9 3 .0 9 3 .0 8 3.0 7 3 .0 5 3 .0 4 3 .0 4 3 .0 9 2 .9 3 3.9 7 4.01 4. 04 3 .9 8 3 .9 6 3 .9 5 3 .9 3 3.91 3 .8 6 3 .8 3 3. 84 3 .8 2 3 .8 3 3 .9 0 3 .6 9 3.2 6 3 .2 7 3 .2 6 3 .2 4 3 .2 2 3 .2 0 3.1 6 3 .1 4 3 .1 5 3.1 3 3.11 3 .1 0 3 .1 0 3 .1 6 2 .9 8 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries............ 2 .7 8 2 .7 9 2. 76 2.71 2.6 8 2.67 2.6 4 2 .6 4 2.6 5 2 .6 4 2.62 2.61 2.61 2 .6 5 2 .5 0 Nondurable Goods_____ _____ 3.01 3.01 2.9 9 2.9 7 2 .9 6 2 .9 5 2.9 2 2 .9 2 2 .8 9 2.8 8 2 .8 7 2 .8 5 2 .8 4 2.91 2 .7 4 3 .0 8 3 .0 7 ? an 2 49 Food and kindred products______ _____ Tobacco manufactures____ Textile mill products........... Apparel and other textile products......... .......... Paper and allied products_______ _____ Printing and publishing___ Chemicals and allied products_____________ Petroleum and coal products........................ Rubber and plastics products, nec_________ Leather and leather products...... .......... ........ 2 .8 6 2 .8 7 2.4 2 2.4 2 3 .0 4 2. 69 2. 42 3 .0 0 2.6 4 2.4 2 2.97 2 .5 2 2.41 2 .9 6 2. 54 2.41 2.9 3 2 .5 2 2. 39 2 .9 7 2 .7 7 2 .3 5 2 .9 4 2 .7 9 2.31 2 .9 5 2 .7 4 2 .3 0 2 .9 4 2 .6 8 2. 30 2 .9 3 2 .6 6 2 .2 9 2.91 2.6 3 2 .2 7 2 .9 5 2 .6 4 2. 34 2.3 7 2.3 6 2 .3 5 2 .3 5 2 .3 4 2 .3 5 2.31 2 .2 9 2 .3 0 2. 29 2 .2 8 2 .2 9 2 .2 7 2.31 3 .3 5 3.81 3 .3 4 3 .8 0 3 .3 3 3.81 3 .3 2 3 .7 8 3.31 3.7 7 3.31 3.7 5 3.2 8 3. 70 3 .2 6 3 .6 8 3.2 2 3.6 8 3.1 9 3 .6 6 3.17 3.6 4 3 .1 5 3 .6 3 3 .1 4 3 .6 1 3 .2 4 3.6 9 3 (15 3.61 3 .6 0 3 .5 7 3.5 6 3.5 4 3.52 3 .4 9 3 .4 9 3. 46 3 .4 3 3 .4 0 3 .3 8 3 .3 7 3.4 7 3 .2 6 3 .7 5 2:21 2.21 3 .4 8 4. 22 4.21 4 .1 0 4.11 4 .0 6 4.0 4 4. 00 4. 04 4. 00 4 .0 3 4.0 3 3 .9 5 3.8 7 4.01 3 .1 5 3 .1 5 3 .1 4 3 .1 3 3 .1 3 3.1 3 3 .0 9 3. 09 3. 05 3 .0 4 3.0 2 3 .0 0 3.01 3 .0 7 2 .9 2 2.47 2. 45 2.44 2 .4 2 2 .4 0 2 .3 8 2 .3 5 2 .3 4 2 .3 5 2 .3 5 2.3 5 2 .3 4 2 .3 3 2 .3 6 2 .2 3 W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E . 2 .6 8 2 .6 6 2.61 2 .6 3 2.61 2. 59 2. 56 2. 55 2 .5 5 2 .5 4 2.5 2 2.51 2.51 2 .5 6 2 .4 0 Wholesale trade_____________ Retail trade_____ ____ _______ 3 .3 9 2.40 3.3 7 2 .3 8 3 .3 4 2.3 4 3 .3 3 3. 29 2.3 3 3.2 4 2. 30 3 .2 3 2 .3 0 3 .2 4 2 .3 0 3 .2 0 2 .2 9 3.1 8 2 .2 7 3 .1 6 2 .2 6 3.1 6 2 .2 6 3 .2 3 2 .3 0 3 Q5 2 .3 6 3 .2 9 2 .3 5 2l 16 F IN A N C E . IN S U R A N C E. A N D R E A L E S T A T E ................................................ 3 .0 3 3.01 2 .9 8 2 .9 8 2 .9 4 2.9 3 2.9 2 2.91 2 .9 3 2 .9 0 2 .8 8 2 .8 9 2 .9 0 2.9 2 2 .7 5 1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 21. HOURS AND EARNINGS H I Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1969 1970 Industry division and group Feb. T O T A L P R I V A T E .................................. Jan Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. I July Annual average June May Apr. Mar. Feb, 1969 1968 $117.18 $116.12 $117.25 $117.00 $117.25 $117.80 $116. 51 $115.82 $115.14 $113.48 $111.75 $111.67 $ 110.11 $114.61 $107.73 M I N I N G ......................................................... 162.26 157.78 160.58 160.58 159.71 157.91 156.88 154.30 150.88 155.30 154.78 148.54 149.60 154.73 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N .. 184.23 179.78 189.25 184.02 190.08 192.96 187. 77 183.91 181.34 179.92 174.46 171.86 166.90 181.64 164.56 M A N U F A C T U R I N G .............................. 130.54 131.93 134.89 132.36 131.87 132.84 129.51 129.20 129.65 128.61 127.58 127.39 124.80 129. 51 122.51 Durable goods.............................. 140.19 141.69 145.53 142.14 142.42 143.45 139.33 137.83 139.44 138.69 137.20 137.45 135.05 139.59 132.07 145.96 146.32 145.14 144.49 141.05 141.69 139.09 136.91 140.76 138.85 138.11 137.23 135.54 139.32 135.71 110.76 104.22 109.87 105.03 113.36 110.16 113.32 108.81 113.93 108.81 114.33 109. 08 111.76 107.71 108.78 104. 01 110.30 106.90 109.08 105.04 106.13 103.46 107.86 103.42 104.40 100.84 109.75 105. 85 104.34 100.28 135.46 133.09 137.76 137.76 137.57 138.45 136.75 133.24 134.41 134.41 131.57 129.27 126.38 133.56 124.98 162.93 160.51 157.66 157.92 157.13 157.45 155.82 153.14 158.42 147.68 Ordnance and accessories................... Lumber and wood products.......... ........... Furniture and fixtures__ Stone, clay, and glass products....................... 143.05 Primary metal industries. Fabricated metal products....................... Machinery, except electrical. Electrical equipment and supplies.............. . Transportation equipment................. Instruments and related products...................... Miscellaneous manufac turing industries....... 157.82 159.01 160.99 159.39 160.55 138.98 141.04 143.72 141.44 141.36 142.72 138.86 136.78 139.86 138.03 136.21 136.45 133.01 138.53 131.77 154.71 156.56 159.90 154.87 155.61 155.00 149.94 148.39 151.66 151.66 150.80 151.36 148.82 152.15 141.46 126.96 127.75 129.24 126.36 126.45 127.39 124.53 122.98 125.36 124.34 122.92 123.42 120.69 124. 84 118.08 157.61 160.80 170.49 165.17 165.92 167.09 159.17 162.66 160. 58 158.18 157.44 157.38 157.03 161.85 155.72 132.36 132.44 134.64 133.16 131.70 131.84 128.61 127.17 129.15 127.39 125.96 126.17 123.07 128. 61 120.69 108.14 107.97 108. 74 106.50 105.32 104.66 103.22 101.38 103.88 102.96 102.44 102.05 98.40 103.35 98.25 Nondurable goods. 117.39 118.29 119.60 118.21 117.51 118.00 116.51 116.22 115.31 114.34 113.08 113.15 110.48 115. 53 109.05 123.51 104.10 96.80 124. 34 106.76 97.04 124. 64 99.26 99.95 123.00 98.74 99.46 120.88 96. 77 98. 57 123.73 98.81 98.81 121.30 94. 50 97.99 122.36 104.43 95.65 120.25 111.32 95.63 119.77 103. 02 94.07 117.89 95.94 92.92 118.08 94.70 93.66 116.40 95.21 90.57 120.36 98.74 95. 47 114.24 94.12 91.05 83.90 83. Q7 84.37 84.13 83.77 84.13 83.85 82.21 83.49 82.67 81.85 83.13 79.90 82.93 79.78 141.37 143.26 141.95 143.64 143.86 148.59 142.43 145.15 142.33 144.77 142.99 144.75 141.04 142. 82 140.18 141.31 138.46 141.31 137.17 140.18 135.99 138.68 135.45 139.03 132.19 136.10 139.32 141.33 130.85 133.28 150.18 150.12 149.94 149.52 147.62 146.78 145. 53 145. 53 144. 63 143.72 142.46 140.95 139. 86 145. 05 136.27 171.75 175.98 170.97 175.50 173.36 172.10 171.60 176.14 170.00 174. 50 174.10 168.67 161.38 170. 83 159.38 128. 52 128.21 130.31 128.64 129.27 129.90 126.69 126. 07 125.97 125.25 123.82 123.30 121.30 126.18 121.18 91.64 92.61 93.45 90. 51 88.80 87. 58 87.19 87.52 88.83 87.66 85.78 87.28 83.18 87.79 85.41 94.07 93.37 92.92 92. 58 92.13 92.46 93.70 93.08 91.55 89.92 88.96 88.85 88.60 91.14 86.40 136.28 80.16 135.47 79.73 135.60 79.79 133.87 79.30 132. 59 79.20 132. 59 79.69 131.22 81.19 130.17 80. 96 129.92 79.35 128. 00 77.63 127.20 76.73 126.40 76.61 126. 08 76.39 129. 85 78.66 122.31 74.95 112.41 111.37 110. 26 110. 86 109.07 108.41 108.04 107.96 108.70 107.30 106.85 107.22 107. 59 108.33 101.75 Food and kindred products......................... Tobacco manufactures___ Textile mill products....... . Apparel and other textile products............. Paper and allied products......................... Printing and publishing___ Chemicals and allied products........................ Petroleum and coal products........................ Rubber and plastics products, n e c............... Leather and leather products......................... W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E Wholesale trade. Retail trade____ F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E, A N D R EA L E S T A T E ................................................................ i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Data for the 2 most recent months are preliminary. For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. 112 22. HOURS AND EARNINGS/CONSUMER PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonaqricultural payrolls, in current and 1957-59 dollars, 1960 to date K M Total private Manufacturing Spendable average weekly earnings Gross average weekly earnings Worker with no dependents Year and month Current dollars 1957-59 dollars Current dollars Spendable average weekly earnings Gross average weekly egrnings Worker with 3 dependents 1957-59 dollars Current dollars Worker with no dependents 1957-59 dollars Current dollars 1957-59 dollars Current dollars 1957-59 dollars Worker with 3 dependents dollars 1957 69 dollars I960_____ _________________ 1961______________________ 1962______________________ 1963______________________ 1964_______________________ $80.67 82.60 85.91 88. 46 91.33 $78.24 79.27 81.55 82.91 84. 49 $65.95 67.08 69.56 71.05 75.04 $63.62 64.38 66.00 66.59 69.42 $72.96 74.48 76.99 78. 56 82. 57 $70.77 71.48 73.05 73.63 76.38 $89. 72 92.34 96. 56 99.63 102.97 $87. 02 88.62 91.61 93.37 95.25 $72.57 74. 60 77.86 79.82 84.40 $70.39 71.59 73.87 74.81 78. 08 $80.11 82.18 85.53 87.58 92.18 $77.70 78 87 81 1.6 8? 08 85! 27 1965_______________________ 1966______________________ 1967.______________________ 1968_______________________ 1969_______________________ 95. 06 98.82 101.84 107. 73 114.61 86.50 87.37 87.57 88.89 89.75 78.99 81.29 83.38 86.71 90.96 71.87 71.87 71.69 71.54 71.23 86.30 88.66 90. 86 95. 28 99. 99 78.53 78. 39 78.13 78.61 78.30 107.53 112. 34 114.90 122. 51 129. 51 97.84 99.33 98.80 101.08 101.42 89. 08 91.57 93.28 97.70 101.90 81.06 80.96 80.21 80.61 79.80 96.78 99.45 101.26 106.75 111.44 88 06 87 93 87 07 88.08 87.27 1969: January................ ............... February______ _____ ___ March.................................. April................ ................... M a y .._________________ June___________________ July____________ ______ _ August.................................. September______________ October______________ _ November_______________ December....................... . 110.25 110.11 111.67 111.75 113.48 115.14 115.82 116.51 117.80 117.25 117.00 117.25 88.84 88.37 88.91 88.41 89. 50 90.24 90.34 90. 53 91.11 90. 33 89.66 89.30 87.76 87.65 88.80 88. 86 90.13 91.35 91.85 92.35 93.30 92.89 92.71 92. 89 70.72 70.35 70.70 70.30 71.08 71.59 71.65 71.76 72.16 71.56 71.04 70.75 96.68 96. 57 97.76 97.82 99.13 100. 40 100.92 101.45 102. 44 102.01 101.82 102. 01 77.90 77. 50 77.83 77.39 78.18 78.68 78.72 78. 83 79.23 78. 59 78. 02 77.69 126.05 124. 80 127.39 127. 58 128. 61 129. 65 129.20 129. 51 132. 84 131.87 132. 36 134. 89 101.57 100.16 101.43 100.93 101.43 101.61 100.78 100. 63 102. 74 101.59 101.43 102.73 99.36 98. 44 100.34 100. 48 101.24 102. 00 101,67 101.90 104. 34 103.63 103.99 105. 85 80.06 79.00 79.89 79.49 79.84 79.94 79.31 79.18 80.70 79. 84 79. 69 80.62 108.78 107.82 109.81 109.95 110.74 111.54 111.20 111.44 114. 01 113.25 113.63 115.61 87 66 86 53 87 43 86.99 87.33 87 41 86.74 86 59 88.17 87.25 87.07 88.65 1970: January............... .................. 116.12 88.10 93.43 70.89 101.97 77. 37 131.93 100.10 105.28 79. 88 114. 48 86. 86 1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to August 1969, see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17. Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly earnings as published in table 21 less the estimated amount of the workers’ Federal social security and income tax liability. Since the amount of tax liability depends on the number of dependents supported by the worker as well as on the level of his gross income, spend able earnings have been computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) A worker with no dependents and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents. 23. The earnings expressed in 1957-59 dollars have been adjusted for changes in pur" chasing power as measured by the Bureau's Consumer Price Index. These series are described in “ The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on its Calculation," in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force, February 1969, pp. 6-13. NOTE: Data for the most recent month are preliminary. For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-5. Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, annual averages and changes, 1949 to date [Indexes: 1957-59=100] Consumer prices All items Services Commodities Year Index Wholesale prices Percent change Index Percent change Index All commodities Percent change Index Farm products, proc Industrial commodities essed foods, and feeds Percent change Index Percent change Index Percent change 1949. 83.0 1.0 87.1 2. 6 72.6 4.6 83.5 -5 .0 94.3 -1 1 .7 80.0 - 1950. 1951. 1952. 1953. 1954. 83.8 90.5 92.5 93.2 93.6 1.0 8.0 2.2 0.8 0.4 87.6 95. 5 96.7 96.4 95. 5 0.6 9.0 1.3 -.3 -.9 75.0 78.9 82.4 86.0 88.7 3.3 5.2 4.4 4.4 3.1 86. 8 4.0 11.4 82.9 91.5 89.4 90.1 90.4 3.6 10.4 - 2 .3 1955. 1956. 1957. 1958. 1959. 93.3 94.7 98.0 100.7 101.5 -.3 1.5 3.5 -.9 2.8 94.6 95.5 98.5 100.8 100.9 .1 90.5 92.8 96.6 100.3 103.2 2. 0 2. 5 4.1 3. 8 2. 9 93. 2 96. 2 99. 0 100. 4 100.6 1960. 1961. 1962. 1963. 1964. 103.1 104.2 105.4 106.7 108.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 101.7 102.3 103.2 104.1 105.2 .8 .6 .9 .9 1.1 106.6 108.8 110.9 113.0 115.2 3.3 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 100. 7 100. 3 100.6 100.3 100.5 1965. 1966. 1967. 1968. 1969. 109.9 113.1 116.3 1.7 2.9 106.4 109.2 2 .8 111.2 4.2 5.4 115.3 120.5 117.8 122.3 127.7 134.3 143.7 2.3 121.2 1.1 2.6 1.8 3.7 4.5 3.8 4. 4 5.2 7.0 127.7 - .8 - 1.0 3.1 2.3 2. 8 98.8 112.5 108.0 - 1 .4 101.0 .2 100.7 4.8 13.9 -4 .0 - 6 .5 -.3 .3 3.2 2.9 1.4 .2 95.9 95.3 98.6 103.2 98.4 - 4 .8 -.6 3.5 4.7 - 4 .7 92.4 96.5 99.2 99.5 101.3 .1 .2 101.3 1.0 .2 98.6 98.6 99.6 98.7 98.0 102.5 2.0 102.1 105.9 106.1 108.7 113.0 3.3 .2 2.5 4.0 108.9 105.2 107.6 113.5 96.7 94.0 92.7 92.9 - - .4 .3 -.3 -.9 -.7 4.2 6.7 - 3 .4 2.3 5.5 100.8 100.8 100.7 101.2 2. 1 .8 .3 2.2 4.4 2.8 .3 1.8 - 0 .5 -.1 102.5 104.7 106.3 109.0 112.7 Historical price changes are shown in greater detail and for earlier years in the Bureau's "Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1969” (BLS Bulletin 1630), in tables 108-120. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .5 1.3 2.1 1.5 2.5 3.4 CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 24. CONSUMER PRICES 113 Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items [The official name of the index is, “ Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers." It measures the average change in prices of goods and services purchased by families and single workers. The indexes shown below represent the average of price changes in 56 metropolitan areas, selected to represent all U.S. urban places having populations of more than 2500.] [1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified] General summary 1969 1970 Item and group Annual average 1969 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. All items_________________ All items (1947-49=100)______ 132.5 162.5 131.8 161.7 131.3 161.1 130.5 160.1 129.8 159.3 129.3 158.6 128.7 157.9 128.2 157.3 127.6 156.6 126.8 155.6 126.4 155.0 125.6 154.1 124.6 152.9 127.7 156.7 Food...... ....................... .......... Food at home____________ Food away from home____ 131.5 127.4 151.5 130.7 126.6 150.6 129.9 125.8 149.9 128.1 123.8 149.0 127.2 122.9 148.1 127.5 123.6 146.7 127.4 123.6 145.8 126.7 123.0 144.8 125.5 121.8 143.7 123.7 119.8 142.8 123.2 119.3 142.2 122.4 118.5 141.3 121.9 118.1 140.7 125.5 121.5 144.6 Housing__________________ Rent___ ____ __________ Homeownership................ 132.2 121.8 148.5 131.1 121.3 146.8 130.5 121.0 145.4 129.8 120.5 144.5 129.2 120.1 143.6 128.6 119.7 142.6 127.8 119.3 141.3 127.0 118.8 140.0 126.3 118.5 138.7 125.8 118.1 138.0 125.3 117.8 137.1 124.4 117.5 135.7 123.3 117.2 133.6 126.7 118.8 139.4 Apparel and upkeep________ Transportation____________ Health and recreation_______ Medical c a re ...................... 130.0 127.3 140.7 160.1 129.3 127.3 140.1 159.0 130.8 126.4 139.6 158.1 130.7 125.6 139.1 157.4 129.8 125.7 138.6 156.9 128.7 123.6 138.4 157.6 126.6 124.2 137.7 156.8 126.8 124.3 137.0 155.9 127.0 124.6 136.3 155.2 126.6 124.0 135.7 154.5 125.6 124.6 135.1 153.6 124.9 124.3 134.3 152.5 123.9 122.0 133.7 151.3 127.1 124.2 136.6 155.0 Special groups: All items less shelter_____ All items less food_______ All items less medical care.. 130.3 133.0 130.8 129.8 132.3 130.1 129.5 131.9 129.7 128.6 131.4 128.9 128.1 130.8 128.2 127.6 130.0 127.6 127.1 129.3 127.0 126.7 128.8 126.5 126.3 128.4 126.0 125.4 127.9 125.2 125.0 127.5 124.7 124.4 126.8 124.0 123.5 125.6 123.0 126.3 128.6 126.1 Commodities...................... . Nondurables... ________ Durables________________ Services___ ____ _________ 124.2 128.4 113.7 150.7 123.7 127.8 113.7 149.6 123.6 127.7 113.6 148.3 122.9 126.7 113.5 147.2 122.4 126.1 113.2 146.5 121.7 125.8 111.6 146.0 121.4 125.2 111.9 145.0 121.0 124.7 111.9 144.0 120.5 124.1 111.7 143.3 119.6 123.0 111.3 142.7 119.3 122.5 111.4 142.0 118.7 121.8 111.1 140.9 117.8 121.1 109.7 139.7 120.5 124.1 111.6 143.7 Commodities less food_______ Nondurables less food_____ Apparel commodities____ Apparel commodities less footwear______________ Nondurables less food and apparel... Household durables_______ Housefurnishings................. 120.4 125.8 129.3 120.1 125.2 128.6 120.3 125.7 130.3 120.2 125.5 130.4 119.8 125.1 129.3 118.7 124.4 128.1 118.2 123.3 125.9 118.1 123.1 126.2 118.0 123.0 126.4 117.5 122.4 126.0 117.2 121.9 124.9 116.8 121.4 124.3 115.7 120.5 123.1 118.0 123.0 126.5 126.2 123.7 106.9 111.1 125.5 123.2 106.6 110.5 127.5 123.0 106.5 110.6 127.7 122.6 106.5 110.4 126.6 122.6 106.4 110.2 125.3 122.2 106.2 109.9 122.8 121.7 106.0 109.4 123.5 121.3 106.0 109.3 123.7 121.0 105.8 109.0 123.4 120.3 105.6 108.8 122.2 120.2 105.0 108.3 121.6 119.7 104.4 107.8 120.5 118.9 103.7 107.1 123.7 121.0 105.5 109.0 Service less rent_________ .. Household services less rent. Transportation services Medical care services... _ . . Other services____ _____ _ 157.1 155.0 154 1 175.2 149.8 155.8 153.2 152.9 173.8 149.4 154.3 152.4 148.4 172.8 148.9 153.1 151.4 145.8 171.8 148.2 152.3 150.4 145.1 171.2 147.6 151.7 149.5 144.0 172.2 147.2 150.7 148.2 143.1 171.1 146.5 149.6 146.9 142. 5 170.1 145.7 148.8 145.7 142.3 169.1 145.2 148.1 145.0 141.8 168.2 144.7 147.4 144.2 141.4 167.2 144.2 146.1 142.5 140.9 165.8 143.2 144.6 140.6 139.8 164.3 142.7 149.2 146.4 142.9 168.9 145.5 Other index bases U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items FOOD____________________ 131.5 130.7 129.9 128.1 127.2 127.5 127.4 126.7 125.5 123.7 123.2 122.4 121.9 125.5 Food away from home________ Restaurant meals_______ Snacks_______________ 151.5 151.6 132.0 150.6 150.7 131.4 149.9 150.2 129.9 149.0 149.3 129.2 148.1 148.3 128.8 146.7 147.2 126.2 145.8 146.2 125.6 144.8 145.1 125.1 143.7 144.0 124.4 142.8 143.0 124.1 142.2 142.3 123.7 141.3 141.4 123.0 140.7 140.8 122.4 144.6 144.9 125.4 127.4 126.3 112.1 130.2 130.2 114.2 132.6 125.5 101.7 119.9 116.7 126.6 125.5 111.9 127.8 130.2 113.8 132.2 124.4 101.3 118.1 116.3 125.8 124.9 110.9 127.9 130.0 113.4 131.1 124.1 100.9 118.0 115.8 123.8 124.1 111.2 127.2 129.7 113.0 129.7 123.4 99.8 117.1 115.1 122.9 123.7 111.6 126.9 129.6 113.0 129.1 122.5 99.8 115.4 115.2 123.6 123.0 111.2 125.8 129.4 112.9 128.8 121.6 101.0 113.2 113.2 123.6 122.6 111.4 124.7 129.4 112.6 128.1 120.3 100.9 113.8 112.8 123.0 122.6 111.6 123.3 129.0 112.3 128.2 120.9 100.9 113.6 113.4 121.8 122.0 112.1 122.1 129.0 112.1 127.2 119.6 100.1 114.1 113.2 119.8 121.6 112.2 119.3 127.9 112.0 127.1 119.6 100.9 113.9 111.9 119.3 121.3 111.7 117.9 128.4 111.7 127.2 119.5 101.1 112.3 112.1 118.5 121.2 111.5 117.8 129.3 111.6 127.4 119.2 100.8 111.1 111.8 118.1 120.8 111.7 117.6 129.4 111.6 126.8 118.5 99.5 111.3 111.5 121.5 122.4 111.5 122.3 129.2 112.3 128.1 120.5 100.6 113.7 113.1 129.7 133.9 133.0 126.4 120.4 126.4 120.1 141.8 126.7 140.5 119.9 166.0 128.8 132.9 132.2 126.2 121.4 126.6 120.7 141.6 122.1 138.7 118.7 164.0 127.2 131.3 130.6 123.2 119.0 123.9 118.8 140.5 123.2 137.8 118.6 162.0 127.2 131.1 131.5 125.2 121.1 125.9 119.5 140.9 122.7 138.4 117.9 162.1 127.6 132.0 132.9 126.8 123.4 129.0 121.1 140.8 125.3 139. 1 117.8 162.8 129.0 133.1 135.0 128.1 128.3 132.9 122.1 145.9 127.2 140.9 117.8 162.8 127.9 131.9 135.4 129.9 127.4 132.7 123.4 146.5 128.7 140.5 117.8 162.1 127.6 131.7 136.8 132.5 131.1 135.5 125.0 150.1 131.0 140.0 115.4 161.1 125.3 129.5 134.6 131.0 129.6 133.0 123.0 147.1 127.9 137.9 112.1 159.8 119.9 123.4 127.9 124.1 120.7 125.2 117.2 138.1 121.5 131.4 109.6 154.2 118.4 121.2 125.1 121.4 117.2 121.6 115.4 133.6 119.2 128.3 101.1 150.6 116.5 119.1 121.4 116.8 113.5 118.5 112.3 129.3 114.3 125.0 107.7 147.7 116.2 119.0 121.3 117.0 113.8 118.6 111.9 130.8 114.0 124.4 108.1 146.1 123.2 126.8 129.5 124.4 121.7 126.4 118.4 139.7 122.3 134.0 113.2 156.4 Food at home______________ Cereals and bakery products . Flour........................... . Cracker meal________ Corn flakes__________ Rice...... .................... . Bread, white_________ Bread, whole wheat___ Cookies_______ ____ _ Layer cake__________ Cinnamon rolls_______ Meats,poultry, and fish_____ Meats______________ Beef and veal______ Steak, round_____ Steak, sirloin_____ Steak, porterhouse. Rump roast______ Rib roast________ Chuck roast______ Hamburger______ Beef liver_______ Veal cutlets______ 377-973 0— 70— https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Dec. 63 Uec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Apr. 60 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 8 114 24. CONSUMER PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued Index or group Other index bases 1970 1969 Annual average 1969 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. FOOD— Continued Meats, poultry, and fish— Continued Meats— Continued Pork......... ...................................... Chops........................................... Loin roast...... .............. ............... Apr. 60 Pork sausage............................... Dec. 63 Ham, whole.................................. Picnics......................................... Dec. 63 Bacon............ ............................. 137.2 139.5 146.2 148.6 134.0 139.9 138.8 135.6 136,9 143.7 146.7 136.9 137.7 136.7 133.3 135.7 143.4 146.8 130.7 134.7 133.1 132.0 134.1 140.4 148.3 124.8 136.0 132.4 132.7 134.0 141.8 149.1 123.9 136.5 134.9 133.7 137.6 143.0 149.6 121.8 135.5 135.6 130.2 135.7 141.3 146.0 117.0 134.5 128.7 129.0 136.4 141.9 143.6 114.2 130.9 126.8 126.1 134.8 139.7 137.2 114.2 124.8 124.1 118.8 122.4 129.8 130.0 111.1 121.5 118.4 117.5 122.0 128.1 127.4 108.0 121.1 117.3 116.4 121.0 126.6 125.7 113.1 118.3 114.3 116.6 121.9 127.8 125.5 112.4 118.4 113.6 125.2 129.6 135.8 137.8 117.1 127.5 124.3 Other meats............... .................... Lamb chops.............. ................. Frankfurters......... ...................... Ham, canned............................... Bologna sausage.......................... Salami sausage............................ Liverwurst.................................... 63 63 63 63 136.0 140.8 134.2 136.6 137.7 128.6 131.4 135.3 140.9 134.2 134.8 137.2 128.0 130.1 134.4 140.4 134.6 130.4 136.6 127.9 129.9 133.6 139.4 134.7 127.8 136.1 127.1 129.8 133.3 139.9 134.7 125.1 136.2 127.2 129.9 132.6 139.7 135.4 122.6 136.2 127.0 128.0 131.2 139.3 133.7 120.6 134.5 126.0 126.3 128.8 140.9 129.4 115.6 132.0 123.7 125.0 127.2 139.1 127.6 117.6 128.8 121.5 122.2 124.0 136.2 122.2 116.6 123.7 118.6 120.6 122.2 133.7 120.4 115.3 122.4 116.6 118.8 122.0 132.4 119.2 117.2 121.8 116.6 118.3 121.4 131.9 118.5 115.0 121.8 116.7 118.4 127.7 137.0 127.4 120.0 129.3 122.1 123.7 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 99.1 98.5 110.4 115.9 99.5 99.4 110.1 114.4 97.9 97.9 110.4 110.3 99.1 99.5 110.8 110.0 98.2 98.6 112.0 107.2 102.0 103.8 113.8 105.9 101.4 103.3 113.0 104.7 100.4 103.1 109.4 101.8 97.3 99.2 107.6 101.1 93.3 94.7 104.4 98.7 95.3 97.9 106.7 93.4 94.2 95.5 105.3 99.7 92.3 93.0 103.9 100.5 96.9 98.1 108.4 102.8 138.3 126.2 148.1 121.6 126.5 137.0 125.4 145.2 120.5 126.0 135.4 124.4 143.4 117.9 125.4 134.0 122.9 141.1 116.7 125.0 133.4 122.5 139.9 116.2 124.9 132.2 121.0 138.6 114.9 124.2 131.5 120.8 137.2 114.4 123.5 130.6 119.7 134.5 113.6 124.4 129.8 118.3 133.1 113.8 124.0 129.5 118.2 132.0 114.0 123.7 128.4 116.8 130.2 113.1 123.7 127.7 116.5 128.6 112.4 123.5 127.7 115.6 128.3 113.3 123.9 130.6 119.3 134.6 114.4 124.2 128.8 126.2 133.1 127.3 127.4 128.4 126.1 132.7 127.4 126.4 127.6 125.0 132.3 126.0 125.0 126.3 123.4 130.4 125.0 124.3 125.8 122.8 130.1 124.3 123.8 125.5 122.8 129.4 124.8 124.1 125.0 122.3 128.7 124.3 124.1 124.4 121.7 128.0 122.9 123.9 124.0 121.3 127.6 122.3 124.0 123.6 120.7 127.3 121.7 123.8 122.9 120.5 126.8 121.5 122.9 123.0 120.7 127.0 121.4 122.4 122.8 120.3 126.7 121.1 121.8 124.5 121.8 128.4 123.0 123.5 102.1 154.8 119.5 102.1 153.1 119.9 102.0 152.4 119.6 100.7 151.0 119.4 99.9 149.9 119.9 100.1 148.9 118.3 99.5 148.5 118.0 99.0 147.7 118.0 99.8 146.6 117.8 98.8 146.1 117.9 97.0 143.6 117.4 98.9 142.5 117.4 99.4 142.7 117.6 99.5 146.8 118.3 132.4 144.5 135.8 96.5 124.5 90.7 130.9 141.9 134.0 94.5 121.5 90.5 132.1 144.1 129.3 93.3 125.0 91.5 127.0 135.4 125.7 93.9 132.4 91.8 124.0 130.1 131.7 100.7 131.9 92.0 126.8 134.9 174.6 99.6 132.1 92.1 130.2 141.0 190.5 97.4 132.7 92.0 132.3 145.0 192.9 97.7 127.9 91.4 130.8 142.4 185.3 94.5 125.4 91.8 130.0 140.9 171.4 96.3 126.2 91.2 127.9 137.6 167.4 91.7 126.4 91.7 127.6 137.2 164.7 91.4 126.9 90.2 124.7 132.3 160.1 94.7 126.6 88.0 128.4 138.1 162.5 95.3 128.4 90.9 Grapefruit........................................ Grapes............................................ Strawberries.................................... Watermelon................................... 151.7 (>) (>) (>) 143.7 (») (0 <0 142.0 (O 0) (0 144.1 154.3 (0 <*) 184.0 144.0 (') (') 205.9 137.8 (') (O 194.6 147.4 <>> 116.1 156.6 188.3 O) 119.6 143.5 O) 126.8 159.9 137.3 (*) 121.5 O) 134.5 («) 147.5 (') 134.3 <0 (>> (■) 141.6 (>) (O (O 155.1 154.4 131.9 131.9 Potatoes........ .................................. Onions....... ...................................... Asparagus........................................ Dec. 63 Cabbage........................................ Carrots.............................. ........... . 151.1 166.9 <»> 211.3 145.3 144.3 140.5 141.6 188.7 139.2 142.0 136.4 (0 173.4 146.6 140.1 133.2 (') 150.6 127.1 137.6 134.2 (•) 145.9 129.6 144.5 139.0 (') 135.6 128.3 159.0 152.2 O) 138.3 139.6 165.2 141. 5 129.6 145. 7 129.5 154.5 135.0 121.1 155.6 119.8 143.8 130.5 118.9 152.6 109.7 141.2 124.3 152.2 148.8 114.0 139.1 123.6 171.5 149.7 113.0 136.4 128.2 (>) 153.8 114.3 144.8 134.1 138.7 152.0 123.8 Celery.............................................. Cucumbers............................... ....... Lettuce............................................ Peppers, green............................... Spinach............................................ Tomatoes......................................... 143.6 208.5 122.7 283.9 122.0 134.8 140.5 203.4 137.6 231.2 120.3 168.1 132.2 176.5 189.5 217.2 121.8 177.5 131.2 122.5 177.9 160.9 116.5 146.7 115.5 118.5 133.3 145.7 120.1 119.0 120.1 111.7 130.8 147.8 118.0 103.2 130.2 122.5 124.2 146.4 117.2 116.3 151.8 123.0 126.8 16b. b 118.8 131.0 139.2 124.6 120.2 180.7 111.1 158.0 134.3 161.1 149.3 188.0 109.6 173.8 113.2 161.9 166.1 163.7 113.4 118.7 110.6 145.3 156.0 192.9 110.0 144.3 111.6 171.5 115.3 192.1 110.3 133.2 125.6 148.1 144.4 172.4 114.8 138.1 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 117.3 104.9 105.4 103.7 96.5 117.1 105.3 106.0 103.0 96.4 117.1 106.2 106.4 102.4 97.4 116.8 105.4 106.9 102.6 97.2 116.6 105.6 107.6 102.2 98.2 116.9 106.6 108.2 101.8 99.4 116.7 106.3 108.8 101.0 100.0 116.4 107.1 108.6 100.4 100.4 116.3 106.3 108.9 99.9 101.0 116.3 106.0 109.0 99.1 103.7 115.9 106.5 109.4 99.6 102.1 115.8 106.6 110.1 99.4 99.5 115.3 106.9 110.1 98.7 94.8 116.3 106.4 108.7 100.5 98.9 Lemonade concentrate, frozen............ Apr. 60 Beets, canned_________ _________ Dec. 63 Peas, green, canned............................ Tomatoes, canned________ _______ Dried beans....................................... Broccoli, frozen................................... Dec. 63 94.8 114.1 122.2 127.2 123.4 111.8 95.1 113.9 122.4 126.7 123.1 110.8 94.7 113.6 122.4 126.6 123.3 109.6 94.1 113.3 123.1 125.5 123.6 108.0 93.8 112.8 122.9 124.8 124.3 106.7 93.3 113.1 122.9 124.1 125.0 107.5 92.5 112.8 122.7 124.6 125.0 106.7 90.6 113.3 121.7 124. 5 124.7 105.4 92.3 112.7 121.0 124.1 124.9 104.9 92.5 113.4 121.1 123.8 125.4 103.2 92.3 113.1 121.3 123.6 124.6 101.1 91.4 113.5 120.6 124.3 124.8 101.3 91.2 113.2 120.1 124.9 125.3 100.7 92.5 113.2 121.7 124.7 124.7 104.7 118.1 141.0 117.7 143.0 116.6 140.6 112.9 122.3 111.0 114.5 110.5 113.8 110.5 114.4 107.2 95. 6 106.6 92.5 107.1 97.4 109.0 109.8 108.5 108.5 109.4 116.2 109.9 112.1 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 105.6 101.9 127.2 105.6 102.5 126.2 105.0 102.6 124.8 103.7 102.5 123.9 102.7 102.8 123.0 102.2 102.3 123.6 102.4 102.3 123.6 103.1 102.4 123.5 103.5 103.4 123.3 102.8 103.2 122.7 102.6 102.9 122.3 103.0 102.6 122.8 102.3 102.3 123.5 103.0 102.6 123.4 Sugar and sweets................................... Sugar................................................ Grape je lly ........................................ Chocolate bar.................................... Syrup, chocolate flavored.................... Dec. 63 128.6 117.2 130.6 126.6 109.3 128.1 116.7 129.7 127.1 108.1 127.5 116.2 128.7 127.4 107.1 126.6 116.2 126.5 126.6 106.9 126.4 116.3 125.6 126.7 106.8 126.0 116.4 124.7 126.5 106.5 125.4 116.5 123.9 125.1 106.5 125.3 116.2 123.9 124.9 106.4 125.2 115.6 124.1 124.8 106.5 124.7 115.0 123.1 124.5 106.4 124.4 114.4 122.5 124.5 106.3 123.8 114.1 122.4 123.7 105.4 123.1 113.5 121 6 123.1 104.7 125.1 115.3 124.1 125.1 106.1 Poultry................................................. Frying chicken...................... .......... Chicken breasts........................... Turkey............................................. Fish...................................................... Shrimp, frozen...................... .......... Fish, fresh or frozen........................ Tuna, fish, canned........................... Sardines, canned............................. Dairy products............................................ Milk, fresh, grocery....... ..................... Milk, fresh, delivered......................... Milk, fresh, skim ............. ................. Milk, evaporated................................. Dec. 63 Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Ice cream.......................... ................. Cheese, American process.................. Butter................................................. Fruits and vegetables................................... Fresh fruits and vegetables................. Apples.............................................. Bananas........................................... Oranges....................... ................... Orange juice, fresh.......................... Dec. 63 Processed fruits and vegetables....................... Fruit cocktail, canned............ .......... Pears, canned___________ _______ Grapefruit-pineapple juice, canned... Orange juice concentrate, frozen........ Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Other food at home.......................................... Eggs .................. Margarine........................................... Salad dressing, Italian........................ Salad or cooking oil................... ........ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CONSUMER PRICES C U R R E N T LA B O R S T A T IS T IC S 24. 115 Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued Item or {roup Other index bases 1969 1970 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 110.7 97.4 111.0 103.6 160.3 126.0 109.1 94.9 109.6 103.1 159.3 125.5 107.4 92.3 108.0 102.9 158.4 124.8 106.1 90.0 106.0 102.2 158.7 124.7 104.3 87.0 104.2 102.1 158.0 124.5 103.7 86.6 103.8 102.0 156.8 123.4 103.8 85.7 103.9 102.2 156.6 123.1 103.3 86.3 103.6 102.0 155.3 122.7 103.4 86.8 103.7 102.0 155.1 121.9 102.7 86.6 103.0 100.8 153.8 120.4 102.6 86.8 102.1 101.0 153.8 119.8 102.5 87.0 101.2 101.6 152.8 119.3 102.2 87.0 99.7 101.5 152.4 119.1 103.7 87.5 103.2 101.8 155.3 121.9 63 63 63 63 109.0 110.9 101.1 121.1 108.5 109.7 100.8 120.8 108.2 108.8 100.3 120.4 107.6 107.2 99.5 119.8 107.4 106.3 98.3 118.9 106.9 105.6 98.1 117.2 106.7 105.4 98.3 117.3 106.2 105.1 98.0 117.0 105.9 105.1 97.8 116.4 106.0 105.2 98.2 116.2 105.8 104.5 97.5 116.0 105.1 103.5 96.7 115.7 104.5 102.4 96.2 115.1 106.2 105.0 98.0 117.1 Dec. 63 Apr. 60 110.3 92.8 112.0 116.0 108.3 109.7 92.7 112.1 115.6 107.1 109.6 92.5 111.9 115.0 107.5 110.0 92.1 111.4 114.3 107.0 108.9 92.7 112.7 112.6 107.6 108.5 92.5 112.1 112.0 107.6 107.7 90.6 110.9 112.5 106.8 106.4 91.2 111.1 113.2 106.9 107.2 91.4 111.6 112.8 107.1 131.1 130.5 129.8 128.6 127.8 126.3 125.8 125.3 104.5 90.7 111.1 112.8 106.7 124.4 103.2 89.0 111.8 112.3 106.9 132.2 108.1 91.8 111.7 111.0 107.4 127.0 107.7 90.8 110.7 111.8 107.0 ............................ - ................................... 109.6 92.8 111.7 114.2 107.6 129.2 123.3 126.7 .................................................. ................ 140.9 121.8 148.5 139.6 121.3 146.8 138.5 121.0 145.4 137.7 120.5 144.5 137.0 120.1 143.6 136.1 119.7 142.6 135.1 119.3 141.3 134.0 118.8 140.0 133.0 118.5 138.7 132.4 118.1 138.0 131.6 117.8 137.1 130.5 117.5 135.7 128.9 117.2 133.6 133.6 118.8 139.4 F O O D —Continued Other food at home—Continued Nonalcoholic beverages ...................... Coffee can and bag.......................... Coffee instant .......................... July 61 Tea . __________________ Cola drink ............................... Carbonated fruit drink........................ Dec. 63 Prepared and partially prepared foods.. Rean soup, canned _ ____________ Chicken soup, canned___________ Spaghetti canned ...................... Mashed potatoes, instant.................... Potatoes french fried, frozen............ Baby foods canned ............... ........................ Sweet pickle relish Pretzels ........................................ h o u s in g Shelter Annual average 1969" Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Rent ..................................... Homeownership ................................Mortgage interest rates___________ Property taxes ...................... Property insurance rates__________ Maintenance and repairs.................... Dec. 63 143.5 133.6 152.8 146.9 139.9 133.0 152.5 146.4 139.6 132.0 153.3 145.8 139.3 131.5 152.3 144.9 138.8 130.5 150.7 144.5 138.2 130.4 149.5 143.8 137.1 129.9 150.3 142.4 135.8 128.7 149.6 141.5 134.9 128.2 147.4 140.8 134.3 128.3 146.9 139.6 133.5 128.1 146.0 138.4 129.5 127.7 146.1 137.4 126.1 126.4 146.0 135.4 134.4 129.0 148.7 140.7 Commodities ........................ Exterior house paint.................... Interior house p a in t................... Dec. 63 116.5 119.8 114.8 116.1 119.3 114.1 115.9 119.1 114.3 116.0 118.7 113.6 116.2 118.0 113.8 116.7 117.6 113.1 117.2 116.5 113.1 117.5 115.7 112.3 117.8 115.6 112.2 117.5 115.9 111.6 117.0 116.2 111.7 115.9 115.5 111.6 113.9 114.6 111.2 116.1 116.5 112.4 144.7 185.4 165.4 135.0 145.6 151.3 144.1 184.6 164.9 134.6 145.2 150.0 143.5 183.6 164.1 134.0 144.5 149.7 142.2 182.6 163.0 134.2 142.6 145.2 141.6 181.8 162.3 133.7 142.0 144.1 140.4 179.7 161.4 133.0 140.4 142.8 138.2 178.3 157.6 130.0 139.0 141.2 136.9 176.1 155.4 129.3 137.8 139.7 135.7 174.0 154.2 128.6 137.2 137.7 134.2 171. 5 152.3 127.6 135.3 136.4 132.9 167.9 151.4 126.5 134.7 135.0 132.0 167.1 150.4 125.3 133.7 134.5 130.1 166.5 149.4 123.3 131.1 131.5 136.4 174.6 155.8 129.0 137.4 139.1 114.9 120.6 117.5 114.6 121.5 107.4 114.6 119.7 116.6 114.1 120.5 107.4 114.6 119.2 116.2 113.7 119.8 107.2 114.2 118.9 116.0 113.2 118.8 107.2 113.5 118.4 115.5 112.2 116.9 106.9 113.3 118.1 115.4 112.0 116.7 106.8 113.0 117.7 115.2 111.5 116.1 106.4 112.6 117.4 115.0 110.9 115.7 105.6 112.7 117.5 115.0 111.3 116.4 105.7 112.6 117.5 114.9 111.2 116.4 105.5 112.6 117.4 114.8 111.2 116.5 105.4 112.2 117.2 114.5 110.6 116.2 104.5 111.8 116.9 114.3 110.2 116.1 104.0 112.9 117.8 115.1 111.5 116.8 105.8 102.8 147.5 103.0 147.5 103.8 147.5 103.7 147. 5 103.6 145. 3 103.6 145.3 103.6 145.3 103.6 145.3 103.6 143.4 103.4 143.4 103.3 143.4 103.1 143.4 103.1 141.6 103.5 144.4 120.8 111.1 120.1 110.5 120.0 110.6 119.6 110.4 119.3 110.2 119.0 109.9 118.5 109.4 118.2 109.3 117.9 109.0 117.4 108.8 116.9 108.3 116.4 107.8 115.8 107.1 117.9 109.0 115.7 120.8 114.2 117.3 116.1 122.2 115.7 121.7 115.0 120.1 115.2 119.8 113.8 116.2 114.8 118.7 114.8 120.2 114.4 118.3 114.6 121.0 113.6 119.6 112.7 119.6 114.4 119.6 112.7 116.6 111.6 115.0 112.3 117.6 112.1 117.7 112.0 117.1 112.0 116.9 112.0 115.7 111.6 116.5 111.5 116.9 111.1 117.3 110.4 117.3 109.3 116.3 108.0 113.5 110.9 116.2 125.8 125.0 126.6 126.0 124.1 124.5 125.0 124.8 122.2 122.1 121.3 121.1 120.1 123.1 112.3 111.0 110.4 110.0 111.1 110.0 110.3 110.1 109.6 109.4 109.3 108.6 108.0 109.6 Furniture and bedding.. _________ Bedroom suites, good or inexpen sive q u a lity ._______________ Living room suites, good and inexpensive quality............................ Lounge chairs, upholstered______ Dec. 63 Dining room suites........ .................. Dec. 63 Sofas, upholstered........................... Dec. 63 Sofas, dual purpose____________ Box springs ............................. Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Cribs.......................................... . 124.6 124.1 123.9 123.7 123.6 122.9 122.4 122.1 121.8 121.6 120.5 119.7 118.3 121.5 129.5 128.6 128.0 128.0 127.6 127.2 125.8 125.3 124.8 124.4 123.0 122.3 121.2 124.9 126.1 120.0 131.1 116.5 120.0 122.5 119.9 126.0 120.0 130.3 116.3 120.5 122.4 119.6 126.3 118.8 129.5 116.5 120.0 122.6 119.8 125.8 118.6 129.4 115.7 120.2 122.5 119.5 125.9 118.9 128.7 115. 9 118.9 124.1 119.2 124.9 119.0 127.5 114.8 118.8 123.7 117.1 124.8 117.9 126.0 115.1 118.6 123.2 118.0 123.9 116.5 126.6 114.3 117.9 123.0 117.7 123.4 116.2 126.1 113.8 117.1 123.0 117.5 123.3 114.6 126.7 114.3 116.2 122.8 117.1 122.4 113.3 125.7 113.3 116.0 121.6 115.8 121.9 112.7 125.0 112.7 114.8 120.4 115.1 121.2 112.0 124.5 112.0 114.1 119.7 113.2 123.7 115.8 126.6 114.2 117.2 122.0 117.0 Floor coverings................................. Rugs, soft surface.......................... Rugs, hard surface.......................... Tile, vinyl...................................... 106.9 104.0 113.6 111.3 106.8 104.0 113.2 U0. 3 107.1 104.7 112.5 110.3 107.1 104.8 112.5 110.1 107.1 104.9 112.1 109.6 107.0 104.9 111.8 109.3 106.3 104. 1 111.6 108.5 106.4 104.4 111.5 108.2 106.2 104.1 111.2 103.0 106.2 104.2 111.1 108.0 106.2 104.4 110.3 107.7 106.1 104.4 110.0 107.2 106.1 104.5 110.0 106.8 106.5 104.5 111.2 108.4 86.6 86.5 86.4 86.3 86.2 86.0 86.0 85.9 85.8 85.6 85.6 85.4 85.4 85.8 92.3 81.5 91.8 91.5 81.4 91.2 81.4 90.9 81.5 91.0 81.3 90.8 82.1 90.5 82.0 90.5 81.8 90.2 81.4 90.1 81.2 89.9 81.1 90 0 81.1 90.6 81.5 Services ...................... ....... Repainting living and dining rooms. Reshingling roofs .................. Residing houses .................. Replacing sinks ........................ Repairing furnaces..................... Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Fuel and utilities.................................................................................... Fuel oil and coal ............................... Fueloil, #2 ...................... Gas and electricity ........................ Gas Electricity ............................ Other utilities: Residential telephone services........... Residential water and sewerage......... Household furnishings and operation................................... Housefurnishings.................................... Textiles ............................... Sheets, percale or muslin________ Curtains, tailored, polyester marquisette . .................... Bedspreads, chiefly cotton, tufted.. Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/ acetate.. ............. ......... ........ _ Slipcovers, ready made, chiefly cotton.......... ............................... Dec. 63 Appliances.. ......................... ... Washing machines, electric, auto matic. .................................... Vacuum cleaners, canister type___ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Dec. 63 8 1 .8 116 24. CONSUMER PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Consumer Price Index-general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued Index or ro u p Other index bases 1970 Feb. HOUSING— Continued Household furnishings and operation— Con. Appliances— Continued Refrigerators or refrigeratorfreezers, electric...... ................... Ranges, free standing, gas or electric................................... . . . Clothes dryers, electric, automatic.. Air conditioners, demountable____ Room heaters, electric, portable___ Garbage disposal units.................... Other house furnishings: Dinnerware, earthenware................ Flatware, stainless steel.................. Table lamps, with shade................. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July Annual June May Apr. 1969” Mar. Feb. 86.8 86.1 86.0 85.8 85.8 85.8 85.7 85.4 85.2 84.9 84.8 84.7 84.7 85.3 99.3 99.0 99.0 98.8 98.5 98.1 98.2 97.6 97.4 97.0 97.1 97.1 96.5 97.7 63 64 63 63 101.3 (*) 100.6 105.9 100.8 , 0 100.6 105.5 100.6 (>) 100.4 105.0 100.5 0 99.8 105.0 99.8 0) 99.6 104.7 99.6 (>) 0 104.3 99.7 99.8 0) 103.9 99.5 99.7 0 103.9 99.5 99.5 0 103.9 99.1 99.2 0 103.6 98.9 99.3 (>) 103.1 98.8 0 98.0 102.8 98.4 (i) 97.5 103.2 99.4 99.5 98.8 103.9 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 137.1 120.1 118.6 136.2 119.2 118.3 135.6 119.0 118.7 135.2 119.6 118.3 134.8 119.6 117.8 134.3 119.8 116.0 133.5 119.6 115.4 133.6 119.5 115.3 132.7 118.9 114.0 132.5 118.1 113.6 132.2 118.1 113.0 132.0 117.0 112.4 131.8 117.0 111.3 133.3 118.7 114.6 108.8 131.3 123.5 108.1 129.8 121.9 107.1 131.0 120.3 106.2 130.0 121.2 106.8 129.0 121.2 107.4 128.6 120.7 107.4 128.0 119.1 106.4 127.2 119.5 106.5 128.1 119.8 106.1 127.1 118.0 105.7 127.0 117.7 105.6 127.5 116.8 105.3 127.6 116.5 106.3 128.2 118.9 Dec. 63 182.0 138.6 165.5 147.9 180.5 137.6 165.5 147.5 179.9 137.4 165.5 146.8 178.7 136.6 165.5 144.3 177.6 135.7 165.5 143.2 175.1 135.6 165.5 142.7 173.9 134.9 165.5 141.4 172.9 134.5 165.5 140.6 172.2 133.7 165.5 140.2 171.9 133.1 165.5 139.6 171.1 131.9 165.5 139.0 170.2 131.0 165.5 137.9 169.8 130.1 165.5 136.6 173.5 133.7 165.5 140.6 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 132.0 138.3 132.0 136.6 131.8 135.4 131.8 135.1 130.7 135.2 130.3 134.4 129.7 133.5 128.4 133.0 128.1 131.6 127.2 131.0 125.3 129.2 124.1 129.0 123.7 127.3 127.9 131.7 Dec. June Dec. Dec. Housekeeping supplies: Laundry soaps and detergents........ Paper napkins........ ......................... Toilet tissue............................... . Housekeeping services: Domestic service, general house work________ ______________ Baby sitter service_______ _____ Postal charges............... ................. Laundry, flatwork, finished service. Licensed day care service, pre schoolchild............ ........... ........ Washing machine repairs................ 1969 Dec. 63 APPAREL AND UPKEEP...................................... 130.0 129.3 130.8 130.7 129.8 128.7 126.6 126.8 127.0 126.6 125.6 124.9 123.9 127.1 Men’s and boys’.............................................. 131.0 130.8 132.0 132.1 131.0 130.0 128.7 128.1 128.5 128.1 127.3 126.4 125.3 128.5 Men's: Topcoats, wool.................................... Suits, year round weight..................... Suits, tropical weight.......................... June 64 Jackets, lightweight............................ Dec. 63 Slacks, wool or wool blend................ Slacks, cotton or manmade blend___ Trousers, work, cotton........................ 141.0 153.9 0 125.6 129.6 119.4 116.4 143.7 154.2 0 125.5 130.0 117.6 116.0 147.4 158.2 (0 125.7 131.2 117.6 117.2 148.5 158.2 0 125.6 131.7 117.1 117.0 145.9 156.4 (l) 125.4 130.4 115.6 116.9 144.0 154.5 0) 125.2 128.9 115.2 116.9 0) 150.7 0 125.0 127.1 114.5 116.8 0 149.6 127.7 125.1 126.1 112.1 116.9 (0 150.0 130.8 125.6 126.6 114.3 116.7 0 150.1 130.0 125.3 126.3 114.3 116.5 (0 148.1 128.1 124.6 126.5 114.2 116.0 137.7 146.8 126.2 123.1 125.3 112.9 115.5 137.5 144.6 0 122.7 123.4 111.0 115.1 142.9 150.9 128.6 124.6 127.4 113.9 116.4 Shirts, work, cotton............................ Shirts, business, cotton....................... T-shirts, chiefly cotton........................ Socks, c o tto n .................................... Handkerchiefs, cotton......................... Dec. 63 124.9 123.2 133.3 121.3 113.9 124.4 122.5 132.4 120.9 113.8 124.2 122.3 131.9 120.9 113.8 124.7 122.2 131.8 120.4 113.3 124.2 122.2 131.5 121.1 112.9 123.2 121.8 130.6 121.6 112.7 123.3 121.6 130.6 121.6 112.4 123.1 121.5 130.1 121.1 112.3 123.4 121.7 129.4 120.5 112.3 122.6 121.3 128.8 119.4 111.5 122.2 120.5 129.0 118.9 111.6 121.8 120.4 129.2 118.1 111.4 121.1 120.1 128.7 117.5 110.9 122.9 121.3 130.0 119.8 112.1 Boys’ : Coats, all purpose, cotton or cotton blend........... ................................... Dec. 63 Sport coats, wool or wool blend.......... Dec. 63 Dungarees, cotton or cotton blend___ Undershorts, cotton............................. 114.3 <‘> 129.4 129.9 114.2 127.8 128.9 130.1 116.1 130.3 127.1 130.3 115.9 131.0 127.9 130.3 115.2 126.4 126.9 129.0 113.5 122.5 127.4 128.9 0) « 127.4 128.4 0 0 127.2 127.9 0 (i) 127.0 126.6 0 0 126.0 126.1 (0 (0 125.2 125.6 108.7 0 124.3 125.0 108.2 0 124.9 124.0 112.4 125.6 126.3 127.1 125.4 124.2 127.2 127.4 126.2 124.6 120.8 122.5 122.7 122.4 121.0 120.6 119.3 122.8 O) 121.0 0 124.9 124.9 135.6 0 126.9 136.2 144. 6 0 127.6 139.9 145.3 (>) 127.2 139.9 133.9 0 125.4 136.0 129.4 0 122.7 0 0 121.8 122.2 0 0 130.7 122.4 0 0 135.0 122.7 0 0 134.4 123.4 0 0 124.4 123.2 0 (>) ( 2) 123.1 0 104.4 0 121.2 134.4 129.3 129.3 123.6 158.7 0 0 153.5 155.9 144.2 0) 152.3 158.3 145.7 0 153.0 158.8 144.8 0) 152.1 155.9 145.7 0 150.7 152.5 140.8 0 149.0 147.3 0 136.6 150.0 147.6 0 149.9 148.8 147.3 0 150.6 149.6 147.7 0 150.5 147.3 148.8 (0 148.5 146.4 148.4 0) 0 144.2 146.3 (*) 0 142.5 150.2 141.0 147.2 147.9 Dec. 63 114.6 112.7 120.9 125.6 113.4 112.0 120.5 124.4 112.3 111.2 120.8 124.9 112.2 111.4 120.5 123.8 111.9 110.5 120.2 123.1 111.9 109.9 119.5 122.9 111.6 109.1 119.4 122.5 109.7 108.6 119.0 122.2 110.5 108.4 118.7 122.0 110.1 108.8 119.0 120.8 110.3 108.5 119.1 120.7 109.4 107.9 118.2 119.4 109.4 108.1 118.2 119.1 110.8 109.2 119.1 121.7 Hose, nylon, seamless......................... Anklets, cotton................................... Dec. 63 Gloves, fabric, nylon or cotton........... Dec. 63 Handbags, rayon faille or plastic........ Dec. 63 98.3 122.5 111.0 118.5 98.5 121.0 110.7 116.4 99.8 121.5 110.5 117.3 99.8 118.5 109.8 117.2 99.4 118.5 109.2 115.5 99.2 118.4 109.0 114.8 98.8 118.2 109.3 114.1 99.6 118.1 108.9 113.8 99.0 117.6 108.9 113.7 99.1 116.6 108.6 113.0 98.7 115.2 108.4 112.1 99.1 114.7 107.8 111.4 98.0 114.6 106.7 110.8 99.1 117.2 108.6 113.6 118.9 0 118.1 117.4 125.6 123.2 124.4 123.4 121.7 124.0 120.8 0 0 0 0 0 (0 0 0 (0 118.3 0 118.9 0 120.9 121.4 Women’s and girls'......................................... Women's: Coats, heavyweight, wool or wool blend.................. ...................... . Skirts, wool or wool blend.................. Sept. 61 Skirts, cotton or cotton blend............. Mar. 62 Blouses, cotton______ ______ _____ Dresses, street, chiefly manmade fiber............................................ Dresses, street, wool or wool blend... Dresses, street, cotton....................... Housedresses, cotton.......................... Slips, nylon......................................... Panties, acetate______ ____ ______ Girdles, manmade blend..................... Brassieres, cotton............................... Girls’ : Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly cotton.............................................. Skirts, wool or wool blend.................. See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Dec. 63 0 0 CONSUMER PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 24. 1 17 Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued Index or group Other index bases 1970 1969 Annual average 1969 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. 132.3 125.4 107.8 114.9 129.8 128.4 108.0 113.7 133.6 131.8 108.0 114.2 136.3 131.7 108.6 114.7 137.4 127.9 108.5 111.1 136.9 (2> 107.7 108.9 135.4 O) 108.0 108.3 134.2 (>) 108.1 108.2 133.9 O) 107.2 106.5 134.1 (>) 107.0 108.5 134.1 (') 107.0 108.8 133.5 (2) 106.9 108.0 132.5 117.7 106.6 107.7 134.4 125.8 107.5 109.3 145.0 144.4 144.4 143.9 143.3 142.3 141.5 139.9 140.1 139.6 138.4 137.6 136.8 140.3 142.3 141.4 141.3 140.9 142.6 139.8 142.1 139.5 141.5 139.0 140.1 138.4 138.7 138.1 137.5 137.3 138.6 136.8 138.2 136.1 136.7 135.2 136.0 134.5 134.4 133.5 138.4 136.7 A P P A R E L A N D U P K E E P —Continued Women's and girls'—Continued Girls’ Continued Dresses, cotton_________________ Slacks, cotton............. ............. . . Slips, cotton blend_______________ Handbags............................................ Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Footwear ------- --------- ------------ ---------------- Men’s: Shoes, street, oxford___ _________ Shoes, work, high________ ____ _ Women’s: Shoes, street, p u m p ......................... Shoes, evening, pump____________ Shoes, casual, pump............. ............ Housaslippers, scuff_______ _____ - Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 151.6 124.8 135.7 127.8 151.8 124.2 134.2 128.0 152.7 123.2 134.0 127.5 152.5 122.9 133.4 127.1 152.0 122.9 132.0 126.6 150.8 122.3 129.6 126.4 149.9 121.8 128.9 125.4 147.3 121.0 126.8 123.9 147.9 120.0 128.2 124.0 148.0 119.1 127.1 123.9 147.2 118.0 125.5 123.4 145.9 117.9 123.3 123.0 144.9 117.4 122.5 122.7 148.6 120.3 127.7 124.7 Children’s: Shoes, oxford............. .................... . Sneakers, boys’, oxford type.............. Dress shoes, girls', strap................... Dec. 63 Dec. 63 145.9 120.0 136.6 144.3 119.6 136.6 144.3 119.5 136.4 143.3 119.3 135.7 142.3 119.1 134.6 141.4 118.9 134.1 140.7 118.1 133.1 140.2 116.9 130.6 139.8 116.2 131.9 139.4 115.8 130.7 138.2 115.8 129.1 137.6 115.7 127.6 137.1 115.7 127.7 140.1 117.2 131.5 104.3 124.6 104.0 123.3 104.0 123.5 104.1 123.1 103.8 123.5 103.9 123.2 104.0 123.2 103.5 122.1 103.2 123.2 102.7 120.5 102.3 119.3 101.7 118.1 101.9 115.8 103.0 120.9 134.6 112.3 128.0 127.4 125.0 133.8 112.0 126.8 127.0 124.6 133.3 112.0 126.7 127.4 123.7 132.9 111.8 124.3 127.6 123.6 132.2 111.4 123.8 127.5 122.7 132.0 111.3 123.4 126.5 123.1 131.7 111.0 123.2 125.4 121.3 130.5 111.0 123.0 125.2 121.1 130.2 110.4 122.5 125.1 120.4 129.8 110.3 122.1 123.5 120.1 129.9 108.4 122.2 122.7 120.1 129.4 108.4 121.9 121.8 119.6 129.1 107.9 121.3 121.3 119.6 130.8 110.1 122.9 124.5 121.3 Miscellaneous apparel: Diapers, cotton gauze______________ Yard goods, cotton............. ................... Apparel services: Drycleaning, men's suits and women’s dresses___________ ____ _______ Automatic laundry service............... . Laundry, men’s shirts_________ ____ Tailoring charges, hem adjustment------Shoe repairs, women's heel lift------. . . Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 T R A N S P O R T A T I O N ................................................................................... 127.3 127.3 126.4 125.6 125.7 123.6 124.2 124.3 124.6 124.0 124.6 124.3 122.0 124.2 Private .............. ................................................................................ Automobiles, new_________________ Automobiles, used____________ ____ Gasoline, regular and premium_______ Motor oil, prem ium........................... 123.3 104.6 117.8 116.7 141.4 123.3 104.7 120.7 116.6 140.7 123.4 104.9 123.9 116.9 140.2 122.7 105.1 124.9 116.3 140.1 122.8 104.2 125.8 118.0 139.6 120.5 99.5 121.4 117.7 139.1 121.3 101.0 125.4 118.0 138.7 121.4 101.6 127.0 117.7 138.1 121.8 101.8 128.2 118.6 137.4 121.2 101.8 126.8 117.3 136.7 121.9 101.9 131.2 117.8 136.0 121.6 102.4 130.5 117.2 135.5 119.3 102.3 122.6 114.5 134.6 121.3 102.4 125.3 117.0 137.5 Tires, new, tubeless.. ........... .............. Auto repairs and maintenance............... Auto insurance rates.............................. Auto registration............... .................... 118.5 140.2 176.0 140.3 118.2 139.2 173.4 140.3 118.2 137.3 171.5 134.2 118.0 136.6 164.6 134.2 117.4 136.1 163.7 134.2 117.0 135.2 163.2 134.2 116.0 134.5 160.3 134.2 116.3 133.8 159.0 134.2 115.5 133.3 158.7 134.2 115.6 132.9 158.1 134.2 115.7 132.3 157.2 134.2 114.8 132.0 156.1 133.5 114.9 131.1 155.7 130.7 116.2 133.8 160.2 133.6 165.4 183.8 131.5 117.2 117.4 127.9 165.1 183.3 131.5 117.2 117.4 127.9 153.0 163.2 131.5 117.2 117.4 127.9 151.1 163.0 127.5 115.5 111.6 127.0 150.3 161.7 127.5 115.1 111.6 127.0 150.3 161.7 127.5 115.1 111.6 127.0 149.7 160.8 127.5 114.9 112.1 122.9 149.5 160.5 127.5 114.9 112.1 122.9 149.1 159.9 127.5 114.9 112.1 122.9 148.0 159.6 124.8 114.6 110.7 118.6 148.0 159.6 124.8 114.6 110.7 118.6 147.5 158.6 124.8 114.6 110.7 118.6 145.5 158.4 124.8 108.4 103.3 117.8 148.9 160.4 126.7 114.0 110.6 122.4 140.7 140.1 139.6 139.1 138.6 138.4 137.7 137.0 136.3 135.7 135.1 134.3 133.7 136.6 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 160.1 100.0 107.2 90.8 107.4 159.0 99.7 107.2 92.3 106.2 158.1 99.6 107.1 92.8 106.6 157.4 99.6 107.1 92.4 106.2 156.9 99.4 106.9 92.5 106.1 157.6 99.3 106.9 92.4 105.5 156.8 99.3 107.0 92.4 106.8 155.9 99.2 106.9 92.1 106.4 155.2 99.3 107.1 92.2 106.6 154.5 99.3 107.0 92.4 106.2 153.6 99.0 103.8 92.2 10S.3 152.5 98.8 106.6 92.2 106.5 151.3 98.6 106.4 92.2 105.6 155.0 99.2 106.9 92.4 106.2 Liquid tonics..................... ............. Adhesive bandages, package........... Cold tablets or capsules_________ Cough syrup__________________ Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. 63 63 63 63 101.2 118.2 111.5 113.0 101.3 117.8 111.0 113.4 101.3 117.7 110.5 112.9 101.3 117.1 110.0 114.7 100.8 117.4 109.6 113.7 100.9 117.0 109.1 115.1 100.9 116.5 109.2 114.8 100.8 116.7 109.1 114.8 100.9 117.0 109.5 115.2 100.9 116.9 109.3 115.1 100.9 116.6 109.3 114.5 100.9 116.4 108.8 113.5 101.0 116.5 108.1 113.8 101.0 116.9 109.2 114.5 Prescriptions...... ................... ............ Anti-infectives________________ Sedatives and hypnotics................. Ataractics...... ............ .......... .......... Anti-spamodics................................ Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. 60 60 60 60 89.7 63.0 112.0 90.0 101.6 89.3 62.8 110.6 90.0 101.5 89.1 62.8 110.4 89.8 101.3 89.0 62.8 109.6 89.8 101.3 89.0 63.0 108.9 89.8 101.3 88.8 62.9 107.8 89.8 101.2 88.7 62.9 107.6 89.7 101.0 88.6 62.8 107.1 89.9 101.0 88.6 63.1 106.9 90.0 101.2 88.6 63.1 106.4 90.0 101.1 88.3 62.5 103.1 89.7 100.9 88.2 62.5 105.9 89.7 101.1 88.0 62.4 105.0 89.8 101.1 88.6 62.8 107.2 89.8 101.1 Mar. 60 115.2 112.7 112.0 111.7 111.4 111.1 110.8 110.2 109.7 109.3 108.5 106.7 106.4 109.4 Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. 60 67 67 67 98.8 105.0 105.5 93.6 98.3 104.3 104.8 93.6 98.0 103.3 104.3 94.2 98.0 103.2 104.3 93.9 97.9 103.1 104.2 94.3 97.7 103.1 103.6 93.9 97.6 103.1 103.3 93.9 97.1 102.9 102.9 93.8 97.0 102.8 102.6 93.9 96.9 103.0 102.6 94.9 96.9 103.0 102.4 94.7 96.5 102.4 102.8 94.3 95.9 102.1 102.1 94.7 97.1 102.8 103.1 94.3 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 161.6 164.0 169.0 157.6 147.7 133.7 160.7 163.1 167.9 155.9 146.5 133.0 160.0 162.4 167.6 155.0 145.9 132.6 159.0 161.0 166.2 154.9 145.5 132.6 158.3 160.6 165.9 153.9 144.2 131.7 158.0 160.3 165.6 153.2 144.1 131.7 156.8 158.7 163.9 152.8 142.8 130.9 156.0 158.3 163.8 150.1 140.9 129.3 155.5 157.6 163.4 149.4 140.3 129.6 154.3 155.8 162.9 148.6 140.2 129.2 153.3 154.9 162.4 147.4 139.9 126.6 152.6 154.1 161.5 146.5 139.6 125.5 151.1 152.0 158.8 145.9 139.0 125.2 155.4 157.2 163.3 150.2 141.4 129.1 Public......................... ........... .......................................................— Local transit fares______ _____ _____ Taxicab fa re s ..................................... . Railroad fares, coach_______________ Airplane fares, chiefly coach_________ Bus fares, intercity.............. ................. Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 H E A L T H A N D R E C R E A T I O N ........................................................... Medical care___ ______ ____________________ Drugs and prescriptions......................... Over-the-counter items...... .......... . Multiple vitamin concentrates____ Aspirin compounds.................... . Cough preparations......................... Cardiovasculars and antihypertensives..... ................... .............. Analgesics, internal................ ......... Anti-obesity............. ....................... Hormones........................ ............... Professional services: Physicians' fees________ _________ Family doctor, office visits............... Family doctor, house visits.............. Obstetrical cases....................... . Pediatric care, office visits.............. Psychiatrist, office visits........... . See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 118 24. CONSUMER PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items—Continued Index or group Other index bases Personal care___ ________ ____ _______ Toilet goods.-_______________ -Toothpaste, standard dentifrice.. Toilet soap, hard milled___ _. Hand lotions, liquid___________ Shaving cream, aero so l............. Face powder, pressed.......... ....... Deodorants, cream or roll-on___ Cleansing tissues___ _______ Home permanent refills------------Personal care services____________ Men’s haircuts______________ Beauty shop services...... ........ . Women’s haircuts________ Shampoo and wave sets, plain_________ _______ Permanent waves, cold____ Reading and recreation_____ ____ _________ Recreational g oo d s.......................... TV sets, portable and console___ TV replacement tubes................. Radios, portable and table model.____ ______________ Tape recorders, portable.......... Phonograph records, stereophonic__________ _________ Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom le n s ..._____________ ____ Film, 35mm, color_____ ______ Bicycle, boys’_____ ____ _____ Tricycles...................................... Recreational services_____________ Indoor movie admissions......... . A d u lt.................. ............... Children’s........... ................. Drive-in movie admissions, adult. Bowing fees, evening....... .......... Golf greens fees......................... TV repairs, picture tube replacement________________ Film developing, black and white. Reading and education: Newspapers, street sale and delivery....... ............................ Piano lessons, beginner_______ Other goods and services............ ............. ......... Tobacco products........ ............ .......... Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular size_____________________ Cigarettes, filter tip, king size___ Cigars, domestic, regular size___ Alcoholic beverages______ ______ Beer......................... .......... ......... Whiskey, spirit blended and straight bourbon..................... Wine, dessert and table............. Beer, away from h om e .............. Financial and miscellaneous personal expenses: Funeral services, adu lt............. Bank service charges, checking accounts............ Legal services, short form w ill... 1 Priced only in season. J Not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1969 Mar. Feb. Annual average 1969 123.2 146.5 123.1 146.4 142.9 140.1 122.8 146.3 139.4 123.9 148.2 143.9 144.6 142.6 127.3 144.0 141 8 126.5 141.1 138 9 124! 3 140.2 138 4 124! 1 144.9 143 1 127.4 131.2 117.9 130.8 117.6 129.5 115.6 128.9 115.4 128.5 115.1 131.1 117.4 256.7 253.0 247.9 166.4 122.7 253.8 250.0 245.5 165.6 122.3 252.4 248.4 244.4 164.8 122.1 251.4 247.4 243.5 163.0 121.8 249.2 245.1 241.6 160.4 121.4 126.6 111.2 112.9 125.1 110.4 101.4 126.1 95.0 109.3 98.8 145.5 154.7 136.0 121.2 126.2 110.9 113.6 123.6 109.0 102.3 125. 0 94.9 108.7 99.3 144.9 153.8 135.6 120.9 125.8 110.4 113.2 123.9 107.7 102.3 124.0 95.4 107.9 98.4 144.7 153.1 135.7 121.7 125.5 110.4 114.1 124.2 107.0 101.9 124.4 95.1 108.0 97.5 144 2 152.3 135.4 121.4 124.8 109.8 113.9 123.9 106.4 101.9 123.1 94.9 107.1 96.6 143 2 151.7 134.2 120.7 246.2 242.2 238.4 158.1 120.3 124.1 109.2 113.3 123.5 105.4 102.4 121.4 93.9 106.8 96.0 142 5 150.5 133.9 120.5 256.0 252.1 247.5 165.2 122.7 126.2 110.7 113.7 124.1 108.6 102.0 125.0 94.9 108.8 98.0 145 ? 153.7 136.1 122.0 153.6 106.9 131.2 98.8 79.7 115.4 152.8 106.7 130.7 98.7 79.8 115.6 152.3 106.5 130.4 98.6 80.0 115.8 152.1 106.5 130.2 98.6 80.1 115.6 151.7 106.1 129.6 98.4 80.1 115.3 128.7 97.9 79.8 114.8 149.7 105.3 128.4 97.7 80.1 114.7 152.7 106.4 130.5 98.6 80.1 115.5 76.9 91.5 76.5 91.4 76.5 91.5 76.6 91.9 76.6 91.7 76.3 91.2 76.3 76.5 91.7 91.1 91.3 98.1 97.6 97.7 97.9 97.5 97.5 96.6 96.4 95.9 97.2 83.1 99.4 109.7 111.9 132.1 207.0 201.9 224.5 164.5 112.1 135.5 83.5 99.6 109.9 111.6 83.4 99.2 109.5 111.2 83.5 99.1 109.7 109.4 84.1 99.0 109.1 109.2 84.5 98.6 107.3 107.2 84.0 99.0 109.0 109.6 131.1 204.2 198.8 222.1 163.5 110.3 135.8 130.1 200.2 194.4 219.6 161.9 110.4 134.7 129.7 198.3 192.9 216.7 160.1 110.6 134.6 84.9 98.9 108.6 107.9 128.7 196.3 191.5 212.5 156.0 110.8 130.9 84.8 98.9 107.8 107.5 131.7 206.5 201.6 223.2 164.1 110.9 135.9 85.0 99.0 109.0 108.5 129.2 197.4 192.0 215.6 157.0 110.6 133.8 127.1 193.2 188.6 208.6 153.1 110.4 127.3 126.7 192.6 188.2 207.4 153.6 110.1 125.0 129.9 200.6 195.5 217.6 159.9 111.1 131.8 102.7 120.2 102.6 120.0 101.7 119.1 152.3 121.6 125.8 141.7 154.7 123.7 129.0 146.5 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. 126.7 152.6 148.4 126.3 152.3 148.0 125. 4 151. 6 125.2 15.1.3 147.6 Dec. 63 150.3 145.9 131.3 149.8 146.0 130.6 Dec. 63 135.7 119.8 Sept. Aug. July 124.6 149.3 124.6 149.1 124.3 149.0 147.2 146.9 146.0 148.7 147.0 130.2 148.3 146.7 129.7 148.3 145.9 129.5 134.6 119.6 133.9 119.5 133.8 119.4 275.6 271.9 265.9 175.4 125.4 129.0 112.4 114.3 124.3 110.0 102.1 129.1 96.1 114.4 98.6 149 5 158.7 140.0 125.4 271.6 268.0 261.8 172.8 124.7 128.5 112.0 114.1 123.0 109.2 102.1 128.1 96.0 113.8 98.6 148.9 158.0 139.2 125.3 267.9 264.1 258.7 170.9 124.7 128.1 111.6 114.6 123.4 109.1 101.9 127.6 94.5 112.5 98.7 148.5 157.8 138.8 125.2 265.4 261.7 256.1 170.6 124.5 127.8 111.8 114.7 124.8 109.7 101.6 127.5 95.0 111.8 98.6 147.5 156.4 138.0 124.0 157.5 108.9 Dec. 63 156.3 107.2 132.7 99.1 80.2 116.3 155.3 107.2 133.2 99.2 79.9 117.3 156.8 107.5 133.1 99.1 80.0 116.6 Dec. 63 76.1 90.2 76.4 90.0 Dec. 63 97.9 81.6 99.7 111.2 112.0 HEALTH AND RECREATION— Continued Medical care— Continued Professional services— Continued Physicians' fees— Continued Herniorrhaphy, adult___________ Dec. 63 Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy.. Dentists' fees___________________ Fillings, adult, amalgam, one surface___________ ____ ____ Extractions, adult__________ Dentures, full upper----------- --------Other professional services: Examination, prescription, and dispensing of eyeglasses--------------Routine laboratory tests--------------Hospital service charges: Daily service charges_____________ Semiprivate rooms____________ Private rooms_________________ Operating room charges....... ............ X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G.l — 1970 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. 63 63 63 63 63 June May Apr. 124.3 148.1 124.1 147.8 123.9 147.3 145.5 144.9 144.2 143.6 147.1 145.3 128.9 146.4 144.7 128.8 145.7 144.5 128.3 145.1 143 4 127.7 132.8 118.5 132.4 118.5 132.2 118.6 131.7 118.0 263.8 260.1 254.7 170.9 124.8 146 7 155.2 137.7 123.4 261.9 258.4 252.6 168.7 124.6 127.3 111.7 113.8 126.3 111.1 102.1 126.8 95.3 108.4 99.2 146.5 154.8 137.5 123.2 259.9 25). 3 250.8 167.6 123.2 126.8 111.4 113.4 123.3 111.2 102.1 126.6 95.5 109.3 99.1 145.8 154.5 136.6 121.9 132.3 99.2 80.3 116.3 154.9 107.1 132.0 99.1 80.2 115.9 154.6 107.0 131.6 99.0 80.0 115.7 76.5 90.1 76.5 91.2 76.6 91.4 98.0 98.0 98.0 82.3 99.1 110.4 111.6 133.2 210.3 205.4 227.1 165.5 113.7 0 83.4 99.1 110.0 111.4 132.6 208.3 203.2 225.4 165.0 113.6 0 127.3 111.6 114.4 125.1 110.7 102.0 127.2 95.1 109.2 98.5 76.5 150.1 105.4 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 167 0 115. 0 0 82.1 99.1 110.7 112.0 133.9 211.7 207.3 226.9 165.6 115.3 (2) Dec. 63 99 5 117.7 100.2 117.4 100.2 117.7 100.0 117.9 101.4 117.9 101.0 118.3 101.0 118.4 101.0 118.9 102.2 119.2 102.3 120.0 103.3 120.5 159 8 127.7 134 3 160.2 127.6 133.9 154.1 158.2 127.3 133.5 153.8 156.7 126.7 133.1 153.1 156.4 126.5 132.2 151.5 155.9 126.1 155.2 122.8 153.7 122.2 126.9 142.3 152.7 121.7 129.1 146.7 154.3 122.3 127.9 144.0 153.2 122.2 131.3 150.6 155.8 123.8 130.1 148.7 126.6 142.1 126.1 141.8 162 7 164 8 108.7 121 4 161.8 154. 0 109.0 121.0 116.5 161.4 153.5 110.0 158.9 151.0 109.4 158.0 150.0 109.6 120.0 116.3 119.1 116.4 155.8 148.1 108.7 118.2 115.3 153.7 146.2 107.1 117.7 114.8 150.8 143.4 106.5 117.4 114.5 149.3 141.0 106.1 116.8 114.2 149.1 140.9 106.0 116.5 113.9 148.7 140.7 105.9 115.9 113.5 148.6 140.5 105.9 120.6 116.5 160.7 152.6 109.9 120.4 116.6 115.6 113.0 153.6 145.7 107.6 117.8 114.8 111.2 116.5 127.1 111.5 115.2 125.9 111.4 114.5 125.6 111.3 113.6 125.0 110.4 112.0 123.0 110.1 110.6 122.3 109.8 110.2 121.8 109.4 109.5 121.5 109.2 108.8 120.5 109.2 108.6 119.9 108.9 108.0 118.9 108.9 107.8 118.8 109.9 110.5 121.8 Dec. 63 Mar. 59 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 133.7 210.5 206.1 225.4 127.6 Dec. 63 118.1 117.7 117.4 117.3 116.9 116.5 115.9 115.5 115.2 114.6 114.0 113.6 113.1 115.2 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 110.0 142.7 110.2 142.3 110,3 141.2 109.9 139.5 109.1 139.5 108.3 138.8 103.4 137.8 108.2 135.0 108.2 134.5 107.9 132.9 107.8 130.8 107.5 129.5 107.4 128.2 108.3 134.7 NOTE: Monthly data for individual nonfood items not available for 1968. CONSUMER PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 25. 119 Consumer Price Index1—U.S. city average, and selected areas [1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified] 1970 Annual avg. 1969 Area2 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. 128.2 127.6 126.8 (4) <4) <4) 120.2 Mar. Feb. 126.4 125.6 124.6 127.7 ( 4) <4> ( 4) 129.8 <4) 124.9 125.7 ( 4> <4) (4> (4> 117.3 126.7 128.3 131.8 120.5 1969 All items U.S. city average3..................................................................... 132.5 131.8 131.3 ( 4) (4) 123.2 127.7 134.7 (4) 126.9 128.6 130.4 (4) (4) 127.2 130.5 129.8 129.3 128.7 Atlanta Ga .... ..................................... ............. ____________________________ Baltimore Md Rnstnn Mass ______________ _________ ___ Buffalo N.Y. (Nov. 1963— 100)..... .............................. ........ Chicago III Northwestern In d ............. - .............. ........ -Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky................................................... (4> <4) <4) 125.3 129.3 <4) 136.1 (4) 129.1 129.9 131.9 (4) (4) 128.3 ( 4) ( 4) 127.7 ( 4) ( 4) 125.5 Cleveland Ohio _____________________ ____ — Dalias Tex. (Nov. 1963= 100) _________ _________ ... — Detroit Mich __ _____________________ Honolulu Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 100) . ................................ - — ___________ ______________ — -Houston Tex Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas— ................................................... 132.3 125.6 132.2 ( 4> <4> ( 4) ( 4> <4> 131.1 ( 4) 130.9 ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) 130.8 119.7 ( 4) 133.2 1 2 9 .5 123 .7 1 29 .8 ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) 129.2 « 129.8 ( 4) ( 4> ( 4) 128.6 118.1 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif______________________ ...... ............................ .......... --Milwaukee Wis Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.... ........................... New York N.Y.-Northeastern N.J................................. — Philadelphia Pa.-N.J ____________ _______________ ........................................................... Pittsburgh, Pa Portland” Oreg.-Wash.«................................................. — 131.6 128.5 (0 138.1 134.1 ( 4) ( 4) 131.2 ( 4) 132.8 137.0 132.9 129.4 130.7 131.1 ( 4) <4> 136.0 132.2 ( 4) ( 4) 13 0 .0 1 27 .0 ( 4) 13 4 .6 131.7 ( 4) ( 4) St. Louis. Mo.—1II __________ _________- .......................... San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965- 100) . ............................................. San Franclsco-Oakland, C a lif............................................. Scranton, Pa.«._____ ________________________ - — Seattle, Wash........... ............. ................................... .......... Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va..................................................... ( 4) 118.6 ( 4) <4) ( 4> (4) (4) (4) 130.7 ( 4) 134.5 ( 4) <4> ( 4) ( 4) 11 7 .0 ( 4) 127 .3 130 .0 132 .0 O) 134.4 132.2 134.6 (4> ( 4) ( 4> (4> (4) 121.2 132.1 (4) 126.1 127.9 (4) (4) 126.1 ( 4) 125.3 ( 4) 124.6 124 .6 123.6 ( 4) 123.2 ( 4) 122.9 122.7 121.9 ( 4) 124.9 124.6 <4> 131.4 127.3 121.2 128.5 ( 4) ( 4> <4> ( 4) <4> 127.6 ( 4) 127.0 ( 4> ( 4> <4) 127 .3 116 .6 ( 4) 130.4 125.3 119.4 126.4 <4) ( 4> ( 4) ( 4> <4> 125.7 <4) 125.5 ( 4) ( 4) <4) 125.1 115.6 ( 4) 128.1 123.1 116 .8 123 .4 ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) 126.3 120.3 127.1 117.0 127.0 130.1 130.1 ( 4) 130.3 134.1 131.2 128.5 130.1 129.6 ( 4) ( 4> 133.5 131 .0 ( 4) ( 4> 128.9 123.9 ( 4> 132.5 130.2 <4) ( 4) 128.6 ( 4) 128.0 132.1 129.2 127.7 128.4 127 .9 ( 4) <4) 131 .6 128.2 <4) ( 4) 126.9 122.8 ( 4) 130.8 127.5 ( 4) ( 4) 126.9 ( 4) 125.1 130.5 127.6 126.0 127.9 126.6 ( 4) ( 4> 129.6 127.0 <4) ( 4) 125.2 120 .8 ( 4) 128.3 126 .0 ( 4) ( 4> 128.0 123.6 127.4 131.8 128.9 127.0 128.4 ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) 129.2 <4> 132.8 ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4> 116.0 ( 4) <4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) 127.0 ( 4) 130.8 ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) 114.4 ( 4) 128.1 127.6 128 .8 ( 4) ( 4> ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) 125.4 <4) 128.9 ( 4) <4) ( 4) ( 4) 112.8 C) 126.2 125.9 126.3 127.5 115.1 131.1 129.2 128.3 129.5 ( 4) ( 4) ( 4) ( 4> c 130.5 129.5 130.8 ( 4) Food U.S.city average3......... ..................................................... — 131.5 130.7 129.9 128.1 127.2 127.5 127.4 126.7 125.5 123.7 123.2 122.4 121.9 125.5 126.9 132.3 131.6 122 .8 129 .4 125.1 126.5 131.5 131.2 121.9 128.3 124.1 126.7 131.8 131.4 121.8 130.2 123.6 126.3 130.8 131.8 122.5 130.5 123.2 124.4 130.1 130.2 1 22 .4 129.0 123.3 122.8 127.9 129.5 121.2 127.5 121.9 121.2 126.2 127.8 118.9 125.3 120.7 121.8 126.3 127.5 118.2 124.4 120.2 120.7 125.3 126.3 117.4 123.9 119.1 120.0 124.1 126.0 117.2 123.0 118.8 123.8 128.8 129.3 120.6 127.2 122.1 Atlanta, Ga .............................................................. ...... Baltimore, M d....................................................................Boston. Mass............... ......................................................... Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963= 100) . . . ................................................ Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind........................................... Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky.................................................. 130.7 135.4 135.0 127.0 133.2 127.8 129.0 134.9 134.3 125.4 132.8 127.2 128.4 134.1 133.1 125.1 131.3 126.6 Cleveland. Ohio...... .......... ................................................ Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963= 100) . . . ______________ __________ Detroit, Mich__________ ____ ____________________ Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963= 100) ............................................... Houston, Tex................... ................................. .................. Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas— ............................................... 128.4 125.9 130.2 122.9 133.3 135.8 129.0 125.0 129.8 123.0 132.3 135.1 128.5 124.2 129.3 120.8 131.2 134.4 125.7 122 .8 126 .8 1 1 9 .5 129 .2 132.9 125.0 121.7 126.1 119.7 128.7 131.2 125.1 122.0 126.5 119.1 129.2 131.9 125.2 121.9 127.3 118.0 129.0 131.3 123.3 120.6 126.5 116.9 127.7 130.7 123.2 120.1 124.5 116.3 126.8 129.8 122.3 118.2 122.7 116.1 125.2 127.5 120.1 116.9 121.9 115.8 124.3 126.6 112.6 116.5 120.8 115.7 124.3 125.6 120 .0 116.2 119.9 115.7 123.8 125.5 123.2 119.8 124.3 117.4 126.9 129.4 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif............................................ Milwaukee, Wis.__ ............................................................. Minneapolis-St. Paul, M in n ...___________________ ___ New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J........ ............................... Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J__............. ........................... ............. Pittsburgh, P a ................................................................. . 127.2 130.1 130.6 134.7 132.0 128.0 126.2 129.5 129.5 133.8 130.7 127.5 126.7 125.8 128.4 128.2 132.9 129.7 127.1 124.7 127.8 127.2 130.6 128 .0 125.7 124.0 127.6 126.5 129.6 127.0 123.3 124.4 124.0 127.9 125.9 129.1 127.2 123.2 123.9 127.6 126.4 128.7 127.2 123.9 124.0 126.5 125.4 128.1 126.0 124.2 125.2 123.0 125.1 122.8 126.6 124.5 123.2 121.6 123.3 121.3 124.9 123.1 120.9 121.2 122.9 120.7 124.7 124.3 119.6 122.7 120.3 122.0 120.2 123.6 123.2 119.2 119.6 121.4 119.3 123.1 122.9 118.7 122.6 125.2 123.7 127.1 125.5 122.4 124.0 St. Louis, Mo.—1II................................................................. San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965 = 100) ................................... .......... San Francisco-Oakland, C a lif............................................ 137.4 121.3 128.7 131.3 129.2 136.2 136.6 120.6 128.2 135.5 120.0 127.2 132.4 117.8 125.6 132.6 118.3 124.9 128.6 118.1 124.3 125.8 114.5 121.4 125.2 130.5 125.9 131.6 ¡ 25. 8 131.3 125.0 129.1 126.9 116.4 122.7 123 .4 123.6 128.3 126.4 115.3 122.3 127.6 133.5 131.2 118.6 124.9 127.5 126.2 132.5 129.8 118.7 125.9 127.8 134.8 133 .5 119.1 126.2 131.9 126.2 131.2 123.2 127.6 122.3 126.3 125.2 113.8 120.2 121.6 121.5 126.0 129.5 117.0 123.8 125.0 124.5 129.5 Scra n to n Pa Seattle, W ash.................................................................... Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va..................................................... i See table 23. Indexes measure time-to-time changes in prices. They do not indicate whether it costs more to live in one area than in another. 3 The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire urban portion of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1960 Census of Population; except that the Standard Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 Average of 56 "cities” (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places beginning January 196S). * All items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a rotating cycle for other areas. ‘ Old series. 120 26. WHOLESALE PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities [1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified]2 1970 Code 1969 Commodity Group Annual average 1969 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. ALL COMMODITIES...................................- 116.4 116.0 115.1 114.7 114.0 113.6 113.4 113.3 113.2 112.8 111.9 111.7 111.1 113.0 FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS AND FEEDS.......... ............................. — 118.7 118.2 116.4 115.7 114.3 114.3 114.6 115.5 115.5 114.1 110.9 110.7 110.0 113.5 INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES....................... 115.5 115.1 114.6 114.2 113.8 113.2 112.8 112.4 112.2 112.2 112.1 112.0 111.4 112.7 108 5 111 0 88 8 118 8 80 8 67 1 134 8 112 9 100 7 109! 1 FARM PRODUCTS, AND PROCESSED FOODS AND FEEDS 01 01-1 01-2 01-3 01-4 01-5 01-6 01-7 01-8 01-9 Farmproducts....... ...................... ............................. Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables........... Grains_____ ____________________ ____ Livestock........... ........................................... Live poultry...............................- .................. Plant and animal fibers.................................. Fluid milk__________ _________________ Eggs-------------------------------- --------------------Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds.......................... Other farm products....................................... 113.7 117.2 85.9 124.9 87.1 65.4 140.8 136.9 106.3 115.2 112.5 116.6 85.9 117.3 94.8 65.3 140.5 152.2 107.7 116.3 111.7 112.4 82.9 120.2 86.9 65.7 138.3 155. 8 105.1 113.1 111.1 125.3 81.7 116. 6 86. 3 66. 0 137.6 139.8 103.4 115.9 107.9 101.3 84.8 118.7 85.3 66.1 136.8 113.8 101.2 116.7 108.4 103.4 83.4 119.2 89.0 66.4 135.6 122.5 105.7 110.6 108.9 106.7 81.9 123.6 92.3 66.9 135.1 100.5 107.3 109.5 110.5 103.1 83.7 126.8 90.2 67.7 134.9 117.0 111.3 106.9 111.2 112.9 85.6 130.4 89.8 67.7 134.6 85.9 110.6 106.2 110.5 126.7 86.7 123.0 90.7 67.7 134.1 80.6 115.1 105.6 105.6 106.8 83.1 113.8 87.0 67.3 133.5 97.3 113.8 106.1 106.5 112.1 81.6 112.5 95.5 67.3 132.8 110.9 112.5 106.8 105.0 108.7 82.0 109.2 94.3 67.7 132.6 108.1 112.4 106.4 02 02-1 02-2 02-3 02-4 02-5 02-6 02-71 02-72 02-73 02-74 02-8 02-9 Processed foods and f eeds---------------- ----------------- Cereal and bakery products.......................... Meats, poultry, and fish— .......................... Dairy products............ .................................. Processed fruits and vegetables.............. . Sugar and confectionery..... ........................... Beverages and beverage materials................ Animal fats and o ils . ..---------------------------Crude vegetable oils...................................... Refined vegetable oils....... .......................... Vegetable oil end products.................... ....... Miscellaneous processed foods..................... Manufactured animal feeds........................... 125.2 123.3 124.9 134.1 117.3 127.7 118.3 115.7 99.5 99.8 107.5 127.4 131.3 125.1 122.3 125.8 133.9 116.9 129.1 117.4 111.0 86.4 97.8 107.5 126.5 131.7 122.6 122.0 121.9 133.9 116.4 127.1 116.1 115.6 86.1 97.9 108.0 126.4 121.8 121.8 121.9 120.5 131.2 116.3 127.9 116.0 123.0 97.0 91.1 106.5 127.2 119.5 121.6 121.2 120.2 130.7 116.0 127.7 115.0 118.3 88.4 88.9 104.7 131.6 119.9 121.3 120.4 122.9 133.4 116.6 127.2 113.1 104.0 79.8 85.0 102.1 121.2 119.3 121.5 120.1 124.5 133.0 116.8 127.2 112.6 105.0 80.0 84.7 102.1 119.8 118.2 122.0 119.9 127.5 133.0 116.6 122.3 112.6 96.4 80.0 89.4 102.1 119.5 118.7 121.4 119.7 126.5 133.0 115.6 123.0 112.4 91.2 81.9 89.4 103.3 118.6 116.9 119.4 119.4 121.0 132.5 115.7 122.7 111.8 89.0 81.0 89.4 103.3 118.6 114.9 117.3 119.3 114.0 131.4 115.4 120.2 111.4 90.8 80.6 89.4 103.3 119.0 118.3 116.4 119.3 112.2 130.4 115.1 119.5 111.3 96.1 83.0 91.6 103.1 119.3 115.7 116.3 119.3 111.4 130.2 114.5 119.2 111.1 90.3 83.4 95.0 102.9 119.1 117.5 120 119 131 11S 123 2 6 o 7 6 118.2 INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES 03 03-1 03-2 03-3 03-41 03-5 03-6 03-7 Textile products and apparel.......................................... Cotton products............. ..................... ......... Wool products____________ _________ _ Manmade fiber textile products..................... Silk yarns.............. ...................................... Apparel............. .......... .................................. Textile housefurnishings................................ Miscellaneous textile products....................... 109.4 106.1 104.3 91. 0 196.3 117. 5 109.0 124.3 109.5 106.1 104.3 91.5 193.5 117.2 109.1 129.0 109.2 106.1 104.3 91.1 191.1 116.9 108.1 127.8 109.2 106.0 104.6 91.5 184.6 116.7 108.0 129.6 109.1 105.8 104.5 91.6 183.9 116.5 108.0 127.2 109.0 105.9 105.0 92.1 181.2 116.2 107.3 121.4 108.7 105.7 104.8 92.7 177.1 115.8 104.7 119.6 107.7 105.3 105.0 92.6 168.2 113.9 104.2 120.3 107.2 104.5 105.0 92.7 164.6 113.3 104.2 118.0 106.9 104.6 104.3 92.6 157.9 112.9 103.2 114.7 107.1 104.5 104.3 92.4 155.4 113.0 107.7 119.7 107.1 104.6 104.2 92.1 155.0 112.8 107.7 121.9 107.2 104.8 104.4 92.3 156.4 112.7 107.6 127.1 108.0 105.2 104.6 92.2 169.7 114.5 106.7 122.8 04 04-1 04-2 04-3 04-4 Hides, skins, leather, and related products....................... Hides and skins............. ........................... Leather.......................................................... Footwear________ _____________ ______ Other leather and related products............ 126.7 101.1 117.3 136.9 119.8 126.6 102.8 119.6 135.9 119.2 126.5 108.9 119.7 135.0 118.5 126.8 110.4 119.6 135.5 118.6 127.4 118.0 120.3 135.2 118.4 128.2 128.7 121.7 134.9 117.9 126.4 123.1 121.0 132.7 117.6 126.4 123.0 121.2 132.7 117.5 125.7 117.4 121.5 132.3 117.2 126.1 122.6 121.7 132.1 117.0 126.0 125.8 122.3 131.9 116.0 123.4 109.1 116.4 131.5 115.3 123.4 106.3 116.5 132.2 114.8 125.8 116.9 119.9 133.2 116.9 05 05-1 05-2 05-3 05-4 05-61 05-7 Fuels and related products and power............................. Coal............... ................................................ Coke________________ ___________ ___ Gas fuels (Jan. 1958 = 100)......... ................. Electric power (Jan. 1958=100)................... Crude petroleum................................ .......... Petroleum products, refined........ .......... ....... 106.4 131.7 126.9 135.2 103.6 104.5 101.2 105.6 125.4 126.9 132.4 103.4 104.5 101.0 106.1 124.6 126.9 131.8 103.4 104.5 102.2 105.5 123.5 126.9 128.8 103.4 104.5 101.6 105.4 120.6 126.9 128.7 103.7 104.5 101.6 104.7 115.9 120.3 123.0 103.5 104.5 101.8 104.7 115.5 120.3 121.8 102.4 104.5 102.5 105.0 115.4 120.3 121.6 102.5 104.5 103.2 105.0 114.2 120.3 121.8 102.6 104.5 103.3 104.5 113.5 120.3 121.6 102.5 104.7 102.4 104.5 112.8 120.3 121.8 102.3 104.8 102.5 104.2 112.7 120.3 124.6 102.3 103.7 101.7 102.7 112.7 120.3 124.0 102.2 99.9 99.5 104.6 116.2 122.0 124.5 102.7 103.7 101.8 06 06-1 06-21 06-22 06-3 06-4 06-5 06-6 06-7 99.5 Chemicals and allied products....................... .............. Industrial chemicals...................................... 97.7 Prepared paint............................................... 122.0 Paint materials............................................... 92.8 94.6 Drugs and pharmaceuticals________ _____ Fats and oils, inedible............................... 94.3 Agricultural chemicals and chem. products.. 91.4 Plastic resins and materials.......................... 80.3 Other chemicals and allied products.............. 115.7 99.1 97.9 121.7 93.4 94.5 95.0 87.6 80.0 115.5 98.8 97.8 120.3 93.4 94.6 92.8 86.7 80.1 115.1 98.9 97.8 120.3 93.1 94.2 100.5 86.7 79.6 114.9 98.6 97.6 120.3 93.9 94.0 98.9 86.3 80.2 114.3 98.9 98.2 119.2 93.3 94.0 102.1 87.4 81.0 113.9 98.7 98.2 119.2 93.3 93.8 99.3 88.4 80.7 112.9 98.2 97.7 119.2 93.2 93.8 90.5 88.6 80.2 112.8 98.3 97.0 119.2 92.8 93.8 86.8 92.1 80.8 112.8 98.1 96.9 118.7 92.8 93.8 83.3 92.1 80.8 112.7 97.9 96.7 118.7 92.2 93.7 83.7 92.1 80.9 112.2 98.0 97.9 118.7 91.9 93.6 80.4 92.3 81.3 111.2 97.8 98.1 118.2 92.0 93.4 73.6 92.2 81.5 111.1 98.3 97.7 119.2 92.8 93.8 88.7 89.8 80.7 112.9 07 07-11 07-12 07-13 07-21 Rubber and plastic product 3................. ...................... 104.6 89.4 Crude ru b b e r..._____ ________________ Tires and tubes........................ ............. ....... 101.7 Miscellaneous rubber products....... ............. 114.3 Plastic construction products(Dec.l969=100). 99.1 104.7 89.3 101.7 114.0 99.8 104.5 88.1 101.7 113.4 100.0 104.4 88.7 101.7 113.0 103.5 89.7 100.6 111.7 102.7 90.6 99.2 110.7 103.0 92.5 99.2 110.8 102.5 90.7 98.4 111.0 101.2 89.7 96.3 110.2 101.1 89.5 96.3 110.2 101.2 90.1 96.3 110.1 100.9 88.9 96.3 109.7 100.5 87.5 96.3 109.5 102.1 89.4 98.2 110.8 08 08-1 08-2 08-3 08-4 Lumber and wood products.......................................... Lumber.............. .......................................... Millw ork....................................................... Plyw ood........................... ............. ........... Other wood products (Dec. 1966=100)......... 121.6 126.9 131.5 95.5 119.5 122.5 128.2 131.7 96.9 118.4 123.9 129.3 133.2 99.6 116.7 122.6 128.0 133.9 95.8 116.7 123.2 129.5 134.4 94.4 116.5 124.0 131.1 135.1 93.6 116.8 125.3 133.4 135.6 93.9 115.6 129.8 142.3 136.0 94.2 115.1 138.0 155.9 134.3 103.5 114.7 143.3 164.9 132.3 111.0 112.6 149.5 164.7 128.8 146.9 112.4 144.5 155.8 126.7 146.5 111.2 132.0 142.6 132.2 109.3 114.8 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 120.2 124.1 130.7 96.3 119.5 WHOLESALE PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 26. 121 Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities—Continued [1957=100 unless otherwise specified]2 1970 Coda 1969 Annual average 1969 Commodity Group Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Pulp, paper, and allied products.................................................................. 111.8 111.1 109.5 109.3 109.0 108.8 108.7 108.4 108.3 108.1 108.0 107.4 106.8 108.2 Pulp, paper, and products, excluding build ing paper and board................................... Woodpulp ............................................... Wastepaper_________________________ Paper ................................................... Paperboard....................................... .......... Converted paper and paperboard products... Building paper and board............................... 112.5 104.7 108.2 121.5 97.1 112.2 93.0 111.8 103.7 107.5 120.3 96.0 111.9 93.4 110.1 98.0 106.7 117.4 96.0 110.7 93.9 109.9 98.0 107.0 117.0 96.0 110.6 94.4 109.6 98.0 107.2 116.5 95.9 110.3 94.6 109.3 98.0 108.4 116.5 95.9 109.8 95.1 109.2 98.0 110.3 117.2 95.8 109.2 95.2 108.9 98.0 111.2 117.1 93.7 109.0 95.9 108.6 98.0 108.8 117.0 93.5 108.7 99.4 108.3 98.0 107.1 116.7 93.5 108.4 100.7 108.3 98.0 109.1 116.4 93.5 108.3 100.4 107.7 98.0 108.1 116.1 93.6 107.6 99.6 107.1 98.0 107.8 115.7 92.6 106.8 98.2 108.6 98. 0 108.3 116.6 94.4 108.8 97.1 126.1 Iron and steel________________________ 117.0 Steel m ill products........................ ................ 117.7 Nonferrous metals..................... .................. 152.8 125.0 Metal containers.......................................... Hardware ............................... ................. 124.7 Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings----------- 122.8 Heating equipment__________ _________ 99.9 Fabricated structural metal products............ 114.6 Miscellaneous metal products--------- ------- - 125.2 124.9 114.6 115.5 152.8 120.6 124.2 122.8 99.7 114.0 124.9 123.8 113.9 116.4 150.1 120.6 123.0 122.8 99.7 113.7 124.5 122.9 113.7 116.4 146.4 120.6 122.7 122.2 99.3 113.6 124.4 122.4 113.7 116.4 144.8 120.6 122.2 120.8 98.7 113.4 124.4 121.7 113.2 115.5 143.5 120.3 121.0 120.2 98.0 112.8 124.2 120.4 112.7 115.4 139.5 119.7 120.6 119.4 97.7 112.6 123.2 118.7 111.1 113.6 136.1 119.7 120.5 119.4 97.7 112.0 121.3 117.9 110.3 112.8 135.5 119.7 119.9 117.9 97.2 111.0 120.7 117.5 109.9 112.7 134.2 119.7 119.9 117.1 97.0 110.8 120.5 116.5 108.9 111.9 132.4 119.7 119.9 116.6 96.8 110.2 120.4 115.8 108.8 111.7 129.9 119.4 119.1 116.6 96.6 109.6 120.4 115.2 108.0 110.7 128.9 119.4 119.0 116.1 96.3 109.4 120.4 118.9 111.0 113.7 137.4 119.7 120.5 118.7 97.6 111.5 122.0 122.8 137.2 140.3 139.3 126.5 122.5 136.7 140.2 138.6 126.1 121.9 136.4 139.8 138.0 124.8 121.0 135. 8 138.6 136.5 123.7 120.5 133.2 137.7 135.4 123.4 119.9 133.0 136.1 134.4 122.6 119.1 132.3 134.9 133. 5 121.8 119.0 132.3 134.8 133.3 121.5 118.6 132.0 134.5 132.3 121.2 118.3 131.9 134.3 132.1 120.3 118.0 131.8 134.1 131.8 120.0 117.8 131.7 134.0 131.4 119.8 117.3 131.6 133.6 131.1 119.1 119.0 132.8 135.5 133.4 121.4 133.4 106.9 121.7 133.3 106.8 121.5 132.8 106.2 121.0 130.6 106.0 120.4 130.2 105.6 120.0 129.6 105.4 119.2 129.2 104.7 118.5 129.2 104.8 118.1 128.1 104.7 117.8 128.0 104.5 117.6 127.2 104.3 116.6 126.9 104.2 116.5 126.6 103.5 116.1 128.7 104.8 118.1 107.9 Household furniture.. _________ _____ - 125.1 Commercial furniture.................. .................. 124.5 Floor coverings............ ................................. 93.5 Household appliances.............. .......... ............... 94.4 Home electronic equipment............. ................. 77.2 Other household durable goods.................... 134.8 107.5 124.3 124.4 93.5 94.4 77.2 133.0 107.2 123.6 124.1 93.1 93.6 77.8 133.3 106.9 123.6 124.0 93.1 93.6 77.7 131.1 106.5 123.3 122.4 93.1 93.1 77.9 131.2 106.4 123.0 121.7 93.2 93.0 77.9 131.4 106.2 123.0 119.5 93.2 93.0 77.9 131.4 106.1 122.8 119.5 93.2 93.0 77.9 131.2 105.9 122.3 119.3 93.8 92.9 78.1 130.2 105.9 121.9 119.0 94.6 93.0 78.1 130.0 105.8 121.5 118.0 95.0 93.0 78.5 130.0 105.7 121.3 117.8 95.5 92.8 78.6 129.6 105.4 121.0 117.2 95.5 92.5 78.7 129.1 106.1 122.3 120.0 94.1 93.0 78.2 130.6 116.9 119.0 120.6 116.4 119.4 125.1 100.8 108.3 120.9 111.0 116.5 118.4 120.1 115.9 119.4 123.5 101.8 107.3 120.9 111.0 114.5 117.8 116.7 114.2 118.5 120.9 101.2 104.3 116.1 110.6 113.9 116.2 116.7 113.6 118.5 117.2 94.0 109.8 116.1 110.6 113.8 116.2 116.6 113.5 117.8 117.2 96.7 105.9 116.1 110.6 113.5 116.2 116.5 113.2 117.5 117.2 96.7 106.1 116.1 109.6 113.0 116.2 116.1 112.4 117.0 117.0 96.7 103.2 116.1 109.2 113.0 116.2 116.1 112.3 116.9 113.6 100.9 104.9 116.1 109.0 112.8 115.2 115.9 111.6 116.9 113.6 100.2 108.7 116.1 109.0 112.6 114.6 115.6 111.6 116.8 113.6 97.9 108.7 116.1 109.0 112.3 113.4 115.6 111.3 116.7 113.6 99.2 106.2 116.1 109.0 111.9 112.3 115.5 111.2 116.0 112.6 99.2 106.2 116.1 107.6 111.2 110.8 113.8 110.8 115.9 112.6 99.6 106.2 116.1 107.6 112.8 114. b lib . 6 112.2 117.0 115.1 98.3 106.4 116.1 109.1 (Dec. 1968=100)............... 102.9 Motor vehicles and equipment...... ................ 109.1 Railroad equipment (Jan. 1961 = 100)............ 117.7 102.9 109.1 117.4 102.7 109.0 115.7 102.7 109.0 115.1 102.3 108.7 115.1 100.0 106.1 114.4 99.9 106.0 114.3 100.4 106.6 114.3 100.3 106.6 111.8 100.2 106.5 111.1 100.1 106.4 110.2 100.0 106.3 110.2 100.1 106.4 108.5 100.7 107.0 112.4 117.5 117.4 117.0 117.0 116.7 116.4 115.9 115.5 115.1 112.8 112.7 112.5 112.5 114.7 112.7 124.0 107.2 115.3 114.9 112.8 124.0 107.2 115.0 114.9 112.3 123.8 106.7 114.9 114.8 112.1 123.8 106.7 113.9 114.3 111.8 123.5 106.7 111.4 114.2 111.2 123.4 102.0 111.4 114.1 110.9 123.2 102.0 112.6 112.6 110.7 117.0 102.0 112.4 111.7 110.8 116.9 100.8 112.1 111.7 110.5 116.7 100.7 112.0 111.4 110.1 116.7 100.7 112.7 111.2 111.3 120.8 103.6 113.0 113.1 I N D U S T R IA L C O M M O D I T I E S — Continued 09 09-1 11 09 1? 09 13 09 14 09-15 09-2 09 10 10-1 10-13 10 ? 10-3 10-4 16—5 10-6 10-7 10-8 Metals and metal products.............................................................. .............. 11 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-6 Machinery and equipment_________________________ 11-7 11-9 Agricultural machinery and equipment-------Construction machinery and equipment....... Metalworking machinery and equipment----General purpose machinery and equipment.. Special industry machinery and equipment (Jan. 1961-100)_______ ____ ________ Electrical machinery and equipment............. Miscellaneous machinery............................... 12 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 12-6 Furniture and household durables.......... .................................................. 13 13-11 13-2 13-3 13-4 13-5 13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 Nonmetallic mineral products ............. ................................................. .... 14 14-1 14-4 Transportation equipment 15 15-1 Miscellaneous products..................................................................................... 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-9 Flat glass....................................................... Concrete ingredients......... ............................. Concrete products.......................................... Structural clay products exc. refractories----Refractories.................................................. Asphalt roofing............................................ Gypsum products........... .................................... Glass containers----------- -------------- ---------------------Other nonmetallic minerals........................... Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni tion ......................................................... Tobacco products........................................... Notions............. ............................................ Photographic equipment and supplies......... Other miscellaneous products— ................. 114.2 124.0 109.0 115.8 114.8 114.1 124.0 107.2 115.7 115.1 1As of January 1967, the indexes incorporated a revised weighting structure reflect ing 1963 values of shipments. Changes also were made in the classification structure, and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data pre viously published. See “ Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes , January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. 2 As of January 1962, the indexes were converted from the former base of 1947-49= https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 100 to the new base of 1957-59=100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1957-59 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. s Retitled to cover the direct pricing of plastic construction products; continuity of the group index is not affected. NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Wholesale Price Index, see “ BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies" (BLS Bulletin 1458, October 1966), Chapter 11. 122 27. WHOLESALE PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Wholesale price indexes for special commodity groupings 1 [1957-59=100, unless otherwise specified]> 1970 1969 Commodity group All commodities—less farm products................................ All foods________________________________ Processed fo o d s....................................... Textile products, excluding hard and bast fiber products...................................... Hosiery_______ ___________________ Underwear and nightwear.................... Refined petroleum products...................... East Coast___________ _________ Mid-Continent__________________ Gulf Coast.......................................... Pacific Coast___________ ________ Midwest (Jan. 1961 = 100).................. Pharmaceutical preparations.................... Lumber and wood products excluding millwork and other wood products 4___ Special metals and metal products5. ........ Machinery and motive products________ Machinery and equipment, except electrical........................... ................... ....... Agricultural machinery, including tractors. Metalworking machinery................ .......... Total tractors...____________________ Industrial valves........................................ Industrial fittings....................................... Abrasive grinding w he e ls....................... Construction materials..... ......................... Jan.3 Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb . Jan. 116.3 125.0 124. b 115.4 123.3 115.0 123.1 114.7 119.8 114.1 1 2 1 .8 1 2 1 .6 113.6 120.7 122.5 112.9 119.0 119.9 112.5 115.4 117.0 112.3 115.7 116.2 1 1 1 .8 1 2 2 .1 113.8 119.9 121.9 113.3 119.9 1 2 2 .8 115.0 115.8 111.3 115.5 115.4 101.3 92.8 116.2 1 0 1 .0 1 0 1 .1 1 0 1 .1 92.7 115.9 1 0 0 .6 1 0 2 .2 1 0 1 .6 1 0 1 .6 1 0 1 .8 103.4 103.9 100.7 92.5 99.1 103.4 102.5 99.8 92.5 98.4 103.4 98.7 101.4 92.3 97.4 103.4 98.0 101.4 94.9 97.0 92.7 114.5 103.3 103.4 103.9 103.2 93.6 98.7 92.7 114.3 102.4 103.4 100.9 92.7 114.2 102.5 103.4 103.2 1 0 1 .0 103.4 92.7 115.6 103.2 103.4 98.8 104.8 94.9 97.0 1 0 0 .8 1 0 1 .0 101.3 92.7 115.6 102.5 103.4 103.9 101.4 94.9 97.0 1 0 0 .8 92.7 115.7 101.3 92.7 115.6 1 0 1 .0 92.7 115.7 92 7 114.3 101.7 103.4 106 9 99.5 91.0 98.4 92 4 114.2 99. 5 103.4 101. 5 9? 5 114 3 98 9 103 4 1 0 1 .1 1 0 1 .8 1 0 1 .2 98.4 92.5 98.0 1 2 0 .1 1 2 2 .0 1 0 1 .0 102.4 93.6 97.4 1 0 1 .8 93.6 97.6 96. 8 91 0 95.8 95.2 90 9 95.8 1969 113 4 119. 0 119! 9 101 0 92.7 116 0 101 8 103 4 102. 0 100 7 93’ n 97! 5 97.0 97.1 96.7 96.5 96.5 96.2 96.3 96.2 96.2 96.2 96.1 95.9 95.9 96.3 119.3 1 2 0 .6 1 2 2 .2 1 2 0 .1 1 2 0 .8 1 2 0 .6 118.4 119.9 117.9 119.2 117.4 118.8 116.9 117.5 115.5 121.7 116.6 115.1 123.5 115.7 115.2 130.0 115.2 114.9 142.5 114.9 114.7 151.1 114.3 114.4 161.6 113.7 114.3 155 0 113 4 114.0 146 n 112 9 113.8 134.6 116.0 115.3 132.6 139.3 145.2 131.9 139.1 144.6 130.6 138.5 143.6 129.9 135.5 143.4 129.0 135.3 141.7 128.3 134.6 140.9 128.1 134.7 140.9 127.5 134.3 139.2 127.1 134.3 138.9 126.6 134.4 138.6 126.4 134.4 138.1 126.0 134.1 137.8 125 5 133. 7 137.7 1?8 1 13S 142.8 128.5 123.2 107.1 117.4 142.5 127.3 119.4 107.1 116.9 141.3 125.8 118.6 107.0 116.9 139.4 125.8 118.0 102.6 116.3 138.4 124.8 118.0 102.6 115.9 137.1 124.8 115.3 102.6 115.7 137.0 125.8 115.3 102.6 115.9 137.0 126.5 115.9 102.6 116.9 137.0 123.5 115.9 102.6 118.9 137.0 123.1 114.7 102.6 120.2 136.8 122.4 114. 7 102.6 121.6 136.8 120. 4 113.0 102.6 119.8 136.8 120 6 112 0 102 6 117.4 138 1 1?4 ? »See footnote 1, table 26. 3See footnote 2, table 26. 3Current monthly indexes are not available for this issue. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Annual averag e ? 140; 5 11 5 9 103. 3 117! 7 4Formerly titled "Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork." 8Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor vehicles and equipment. WHOLESALE PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 28. 123 Wholesale price indexes,1 by stage of processing [1957-59=100] J Annual average 1969 1969 1970 Commodity group j Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. .............................. 116.4 116.0 115.1 114.7 114.0 113.6 113.4 113.3 113.2 112.8 111.9 111.7 111.1 113.0 CRUDE MATERIALS FOR FURTHER PROC ESSING .............................. 113.0 110.7 109.9 109.0 108.7 108.7 109.5 110.2 111.2 109.7 105.7 105.2 103.8 107.9 115.5 112.9 112.2 111.0 110.5 110.4 112.1 113.8 115.6 113.5 107.6 107.6 105.9 110.4 Nonfood materials except fuel ............ Manufacturing ________ ____ Construction _____________ 106.9 105.9 117.5 105.3 104.3 116.4 104.2 103.2 115.3 104.0 103.0 115.3 104.0 103.0 115.1 104.8 103.9 114.9 104.1 103.2 114.1 102.6 101.6 114.1 102.1 101.0 113.8 101.8 100.8 113.2 101.1 100.0 113.2 99.5 98.3 113.1 98.3 97.0 112.8 102.0 101.0 114.0 Crude fuel ............ -................ Manufacturing industries________ Nonmanufacturing industries------- 124.7 121.2 129.4 122.2 119.6 125.8 121.5 118.8 125.0 121.1 118.6 124.5 119.9 117.8 122.8 118.1 116.7 120.1 117.2 115.6 119.4 117.1 115.5 119.3 116.8 115.3 118.7 116.4 115.0 118.2 116.2 114.9 117.8 115.8 114.7 117.4 115.4 114.2 117.1 117.6 116.0 119.8 INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS,SUPPLIES AND COMPONENTS ............ -......... 114.7 114.4 113.5 113.1 112.8 112.4 111.9 111.4 111.4 111.4 111.4 111.4 110.7 111.8 113.9 121.5 113.6 121.1 112.9 119.9 112.6 120.0 112.2 119.2 111.8 118.3 111.4 118.4 110.6 117.8 110.4 117.8 110.2 116.3 109.8 114.1 109.6 113.4 109.1 113.1 110.8 116.8 102.3 102.3 101.6 101.7 101.5 101.7 101.7 101.2 101.1 100.9 100.8 100.7 100.6 101.2 122.7 118.0 122.1 117.7 121.4 117.0 120.4 116.7 120.0 116.1 119.6 115.1 118.7 114.3 117.4 113.9 117.1 113.4 117.5 113.1 117.3 112.6 117.0 112.4 116.0 111.9 118.1 114.0 117.3 117.3 116.8 116.7 116.2 115.8 115.5 115.4 116.0 117.6 118.4 119.7 118.3 116.9 101.0 103.2 97.6 100.6 102.3 97.8 100.8 102.4 98.4 100.9 102.4 98.5 100.5 102.4 97.5 100.3 102.2 97.2 100.4 102.8 96.7 99.6 102.8 94.7 100.9 103.1 97.4 114.2 113.7 113.3 113.2 113.1 112.9 112.3 111.7 113.3 114.3 116.8 112.5 110.8 109.7 113.8 116.7 111.9 109.3 109.6 113.3 116.5 111.2 107.4 109.4 113.9 116.3 112.1 110.8 109.2 112.9 115.8 111.0 108.1 108.8 113.0 115.2 111.4 109.8 108.6 114.4 117.0 112.5 110.6 109.8 ALL COMMODITIES Materials and Components for Manufacturing __ _________ ____ Materials for food manufacturing... Materials for nondurable manufacturing _________ ______ Materials for durable manufacturing ............. ..................... Components for manufacturing----Materialsand Componentsfor Construction.. Proceed fuels and lubricants__________ Manufacturing industries________ Nonmanufacturing industries____ 103.0 106.0 98.3 102.4 105.3 97.8 102.7 105.1 99.0 102.1 104.5 98.4 102.3 104.8 98.4 Containers______________________ 117.6 116.2 114.8 114.6 114.5 Supplies ...................................... Manufacturing industries________ Nnnmannfactiiring industries____ Manufactured animal feeds____ Other supplies..... ............ .......... 120.1 120.9 119.1 122.8 113.4 119.7 120 5 118.6 123.7 112.3 116.9 119.4 115.1 114.1 111.8 115.9 118.7 113.9 111.6 111.4 115.6 118.0 113.9 112.3 111.0 115.1 117.8 113.3 111.7 110.4 114.4 117.4 112.4 110.5 109.7 FINISHED GOODS (Including Raw Foods and Fuels) .................................... 118.8 118.8 118.0 117.6 116.5 116.0 115.7 115.9 115.4 114.7 113.8 113.7 113.3 115.3 Consumer Goods _______ _______ Foods . . ........... - ..................... Crude ............................. Processed .......................... Other nondurable goods________ Durable goods. _______________ 117.3 125.9 128.0 125.4 114.6 107.6 117.3 126.4 131.6 125.3 114.2 107.4 116.5 124.5 129.5 123.5 115.1 121.2 114.2 122.4 113.6 106.9 114.7 121.6 116.9 122.4 113.3 105.3 114.4 121.2 112.4 122.8 113.0 105.2 114.8 122.3 114.9 123.7 112.6 105.6 114.2 121.3 111.3 123.1 112.2 105.5 113.5 120.1 116.0 120.9 111.4 105.4 112.3 116.9 111.4 117.9 111.5 105.4 112.2 117.1 117.4 116.9 111.2 105.3 111.7 116. 4 115.1 107.2 116.2 123.9 131.0 122.5 113.8 107.1 110.7 105.1 114.0 120.3 117. 5 120.7 112.3 105.8 Producer Finished Goods........................ Manufacturing industries................ Nnnmanufacturing industries____ 123.1 128.4 118.2 122.9 128.0 118.0 122.3 127.5 117.4 121.5 126.2 117.0 120.8 125.8 116.1 119.9 125.0 115.0 119.3 124.4 114.4 119.3 124.4 114.5 118.7 123.5 114.2 118.5 123.2 113.9 118.1 122.7 113.7 118.0 122.6 113.7 117.8 122.3 113.5 119.3 124.1 114.7 Crude materials for further processing, excluding crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and an im al fibers oilseeds and leaf tobacco.............. 118.5 116.0 114.5 114.1 113.7 113.9 112.5 110.7 110.2 109.7 109.0 107.2 105.5 110.5 Intermediate materials supplies and components, excluding intermediate materials for food mfg., and mfr.'d animal foods.............. 113.9 113.5 112.9 112.6 112.2 111.8 111.3 110.9 110.8 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .1 110.4 111.3 Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer foods...................................................... 111.9 111.7 111.5 111.3 1 1 1 .1 110.3 110.1 110.0 109.7 109.2 109.2 109.0 108.7 109.9 1 14 .1 116. 5 SPECIAL GROUPINGS 1See footnote 1, table 26. 2 See footnote 2, table 26. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: For description of the series by stage of processing, see "Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes,” January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final). 124 29. WHOLESALE PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 Wholesale price indexes,1 by durability of product 119 5 7-5 9 = 10 0 )2 1970 1969 Commodity group Annual average 1969 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. All commodities____ ____ _____________ Total durable goods........................... Total nondurable goods___________ 116.4 120.0 116.0 119.6 113.4 115.1 119.0 112.4 114.7 118.4 111.9 114.0 117.9 113.6 117.1 113.4 116.5 113.3 116.1 111.3 113.2 115.9 112.8 111.9 116.0 108.8 111.7 116.1 108.6 111.1 113.9 Total manufactures___________ _____ ___ Durable_______________________ Nondurable____________________ 116.4 119.7 113.2 116.1 119.4 113.0 115.3 118.8 111.9 114.9 118.3 114.6 117.9 111.4 113.9 117.0 113.6 116.4 113.5 116.1 113.2 116.0 112.8 116.2 109.6 112.4 116.2 108.9 112.2 111.6 Total raw or slightly processed goods................. Durable_______________________ Nondurable_____________ _______ 116.0 133.8 115.1 114.8 128.9 114.1 113.9 125.3 113.3 113.1 124.0 112.5 122.8 110.3 111.6 123.7 110.9 111.5 119.7 111.1 112.2 114.8 112.1 112.6 114.9 112.4 112.1 113.3 112.0 108.6 110.6 108.5 111.2 111.1 111.1 111.0 1 See footnote 1, table 26. 2 See footnote 2, table 26. 30. 111.2 111.0 111.0 111.0 110.6 116.1 110.3 115.4 108.0 113.0 116.6 110.3 116.3 108.3 111.7 115.6 103.0 110.1 109.1 108.1 109.1 107.8 107.1 107.8 110.9 115.8 110.7 113.3 116.6 NOTE: For description of the series by durability of product and data beginning with 1947, see “ Wholesale Price and Price Indexes, 1957” (BLS Bulletin 1235,1958). Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries1 [1957-59=100 unless otherwise indicated] 1963 SIC Code Industry 1969 1968 Dec.2 Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Annual aver age 1968 Other bases M IN IN G 1111 1211 1311 1421 Anthracite___________________ Bituminous coal.,. ____ _____ Crude petroleum and natural gas. _ Crushed and broken stone.. _ _ _____ 118.4 124.9 110.9 114.5 114.9 124.2 110.9 114.5 111.4 121.3 110.8 114.2 111.4 116.2 110.9 114.2 108.0 116.1 110.6 113.6 108.0 116.0 110.5 113.6 104.2 115.0 110.6 113.6 104.2 114.1 110.7 112.6 106.2 113.4 110.9 112.5 107.4 113.1 109.9 112.5 107.4 113.1 106.6 112.5 107.0 113.1 106.5 112.5 107.0 113.1 106.4 111.3 99 9 107 2 106 0 109'. 5 1442 1475 1476 1477 Construction sand and gravel_________ Phosphate rock________ . . . Rock salt____ Sulfur___________________________ 123.0 147.4 107.0 115.8 123.0 147.4 107.0 115.8 123.0 147.4 107.0 124.1 122.5 147.4 107.0 165.4 121.5 147.4 107.0 165.4 121.5 147.4 107.0 165.4 120.7 147.4 107.0 165.4 120.6 147.4 107.0 165.4 120.8 147.4 107.0 165.4 120.6 147.4 100.8 165.4 119.8 147.4 100.8 165.4 119.8 147.4 100.8 173.7 118.6 147.4 100.8 173.7 116 6 147 4 100.8 171.6 2011 2013 2015 2u2l 2033 Meat slaughtering plants____________ Meat processing plants... . Poultry dressing plants... . . Creamery butter___ _______ Canned fruits and vegetables____ 12/66 12/66 114.0 121.3 105.7 106.3 109.8 113.5 118.5 103.3 105.1 109.7 113.8 119.1 101.7 105.1 109.5 116.2 120.3 104.0 105.1 109.0 117.4 122.0 107.8 104.9 108.7 121.7 118.7 103.3 104.9 108.7 121.2 117.0 101.7 104.8 107.7 114.8 109.7 102.3 104.8 107.7 108.0 104.8 96.1 104.9 107.8 104.6 103.4 99.6 103.4 107.7 103.9 101.7 98.5 103.3 107.6 104.2 100.3 95.9 103.4 107.4 100.1 100.7 90.4 105.0 107.3 101.1 98.8 93 8 102.6 109.4 2036 2044 2052 2061 2062 2063 Fresh or frozen packaged fis h ... ... . Rice milling___ Biscuits, crackers and cookies___ Raw cane sugar.. ___ Cane sugar refining________ Beet sugar__________________ 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 150.8 94.0 109.7 107.0 108.9 106.1 154.1 94.0 109.7 110.1 109.3 106.6 146.5 94.0 108.0 110.5 109.2 106.7 145.9 93.1 107.1 109.6 108.4 106.4 143.8 92.6 104.5 108.9 108.1 106.3 146.4 92.6 104.4 104.5 107.6 105.7 139.9 93.8 104.4 109.5 107.6 106.7 140.4 93.8 104.4 109.5 107.2 104.9 136.8 93.8 104.3 109.0 105.8 105.0 141.7 93.8 104.3 108.5 103.9 102.3 141.4 93.8 104.3 107.7 103.6 102.2 140.1 93 8 104.3 107.5 103.6 102.6 139.0 93.8 104.3 106.8 103.2 102.5 131.5 96 6 104.3 105.4 101.9 102.3 2073 2082 2083 2084 2091 2092 Chewing gum______________ Malt liquors_______________ Malt___ ____ ____ Wines and brandy_______ Cottonseed oil mills________ Soybean oil mills________ 106.2 107.3 96.8 118.3 99.4 88.6 106.1 107.3 96.8 118.3 95.8 88.0 106.1 107.7 96.8 118.3 91.5 91.0 106.1 107.1 96.8 115.5 97.0 85.7 106.1 107.2 96.8 115.5 97.2 87.4 106.1 107.2 96.8 115.7 98.3 87.1 106.1 106.7 96.8 115.7 92.9 87.0 106.1 106.0 96.8 115.7 92.7 86.3 106.1 104.9 96.8 115.7 93.9 85.6 106.1 104.9 96.8 115.7 93.6 84.8 106.1 104.9 96.8 115.5 93.7 83.1 106.1 104.9 96.8 115.5 95.0 83.3 106.1 104.9 96.8 115.5 94.5 82.2 106.0 104.6 96.8 115.2 108.9 86.9 2094 2096 2098 2111 2121 2131 Animal and marine fats and oils__ Shortening and cooking oils_____ Macaroni and noodle products_______ Cigarettes______________ Cigars_______________ Chewing and smoking tobacco__ 12/66 96.4 108.8 101.9 125.1 107.3 141.4 104.9 107.2 101.9 125.0 107.3 140.6 102.1 105.5 101.9 125.0 106.8 138.5 105.8 102.6 101.9 125.0 106.8 138.3 104.6 102.5 101.8 125.0 105.2 138.1 99.6 102.3 101.9 125.0 103.8 138.1 93.8 103.3 101.8 124.9 102.7 137.1 89.0 103.1 101.8 117.5 102.7 137.0 88.9 103.2 101.5 117.5 102.7 136.0 85 1 103.1 100.4 117.4 102.1 134.7 82 9 102.9 100.3 117.4 102.0 134.7 81 3 101 0 100.3 117.4 102 0 132.4 79.7 100.3 100.3 117.4 101.7 132.4 79.0 100.5 100.3 115.8 101.6 130.7 2254 2311 2321 2322 2327 Knit underwear mills____ . . . Men’s and boys’ suits and coats.. Men’s dress shirts and nightwear. Men’s and boys’ underwe'ar__ Men s and boys' separate trousers____ 12/66 12/66 12/66 107.8 142.7 122.1 109.1 106.9 107.7 142.2 121.0 109.0 106.8 107.7 140.4 121.0 109.0 106.8 107.7 139.4 120.6 107.9 106.4 107.7 138.5 120.6 107.9 106.3 107.7 137.1 118.3 107.7 106.1 106.3 135.8 118.2 106.9 106.1 106.4 134.4 118.2 107.0 104.8 106.3 134.7 118.8 107.1 104.8 106.3 134.3 118.8 107.1 104.7 106.3 134.3 118.9 107.0 104.7 106.3 134.2 118.7 106.9 104.7 105.7 133.4 115.5 106.4 103.9 104.7 127.3 114.4 104.5 102.8 2328 2381 2426 2442 251j Work clothing__________ Fabric dress and work gloves.. Hardwood dimension and flooring Wirebound boxes and crates___ Mattresses and bedsprings__ 12/66 12/67 12/66 119.1 137.1 116.5 110.7 108.2 119.0 135.4 116.6 110.0 108.7 119.0 135.4 116.7 110.0 108.5 118.3 134.8 117.2 110.0 108.5 117.7 132.1 117.3 108.6 108.5 117.4 131.9 117.8 108.3 108.3 117.4 131.9 119.0 107.4 108.2 116.6 131.9 120.7 107.4 108.2 116.6 131.7 121.1 106.5 108.3 116.6 130.8 120.6 106.4 108.2 116.6 130.6 118.8 106.4 108.2 116.5 130.1 116.5 106.3 106.7 115.1 128.4 114.7 105.6 104.3 114.3 127.5 106.6 104.6 103.7 2521 Wood office furniture___ Sanitary paper products_______ Sanitary food containers______ 12/66 12/66 139.2 115.3 101.3 138.9 115.3 101.2 137.6 113.9 100.6 135.9 113.5 100.4 134.3 113.1 100.4 134.3 112.3 100.1 134.3 111.5 100.7 133.4 111.1 100.6 132.8 111.1 100.6 132.2 111.1 100.4 131.7 110.2 100.7 131.1 108.0 100.8 131.1 108.0 100.5 128.0 107.1 101.5 M A N U FA C T U R IN G 2654 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 WHOLESALE PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 30. Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries Continued 1969 1963 SIC Code Industry 125 1968 Other bases Annual A ve ra g e 1968 Dec.2 Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. 96.0 95.6 96.0 96.0 95.6 96.0 96.0 95.6 96.0 96.0 95.6 96.0 95.9 9b. 6 96.0 95.9 95.6 96.0 95.9 95.6 96.0 95.9 95.6 96.0 95.8 95.6 96.0 95.3 95.8 96.0 95.3 95.8 96.0 94.5 95.8 96.0 94.7 95.7 96.0 95.3 95.2 96.1 85.0 90.6 117.1 97.8 120.4 118.3 85.0 90.6 117.3 97.3 120.5 117.2 85.4 91.2 117.3 97.3 121.2 117.4 88.3 92.7 117.4 97.5 122.3 117.6 88.5 92.6 117. 5 98.1 121.5 118.2 88.7 93.1 117.4 98.8 121.7 117. 5 99.2 93.3 117.5 98.8 122.1 113.5 99.2 93.3 116.9 98.0 122.2 115.4 99.2 93.3 115.0 98.0 122.8 112.0 99.4 93.9 114.8 97.1 116.7 111.5 99.4 93.7 114.1 95.1 116.7 110.5 99.6 94.1 114.1 94.7 117.0 109.7 100.3 94.8 114.6 95.1 116.1 111.0 102.0 98.4 113.8 96.3 112.7 110.4 M A N U F A C T U R IN G -C o n tin u e d 2822 2823 2824 Synthetic rubber___________ _______ Cellulosic man-made fibers..- - - - - - Organic fibers, noncellulosic---------------- 2871 2872 2892 2911 3111 3121 Fertilizers________________________ Fertilizers, mixing only----------------------Explosives---------------------------------------Petroleum refining----------------------------Leather tanning and finishing... Industrial leather belting------------------- 3221 3241 3251 3255 3259 Glass containers___________________ Cement, hydraulic----------------------------Brick and structural clay t i l e -------------Clay refractories---------------------Structural clay products, n.e.c-------------- 116.1 114.9 125.1 126.2 116.4 116.1 114.9 125.1 122.2 116.4 116.1 114.9 124.4 122.2 115.9 116.1 114.9 124.4 122.2 115.1 116.1 114.8 123.5 122.0 115.0 116.1 114.8 123.5 117.8 114. 4 116.1 114.8 123.4 117.8 114.8 116.1 114.8 123.2 117.8 115.3 116.1 114.8 123.0 117.8 115.3 116.1 114.7 121.5 116.7 115.3 116.1 111.7 121.5 116.7 115.1 116.1 108.5 121.4 116.7 115.0 110.3 105.9 121.2 116.7 114.1 108.4 105.7 117.8 116.0 114.3 3261 3262 3263 3271 3273 3275 3312 3315 Vitreous plumbing fixtures-----------------Vitreous china food utensils----------------Fine earthenware food utensils-----------Concrete block and brick-------------------Ready mixed concrete______________ Gypsum products. - . . . -----Blast furnace and steel mills--------- . . . Steel wire drawing, etc----------------------- 104.6 143.7 131.2 115.4 115.7 104.7 115.3 108.6 104.2 143.7 131.2 115.0 114.9 110.1 115.3 108.5 103.4 139.8 130.9 114.9 114.7 106.2 115.2 108.4 102.4 139.8 130.9 114.6 114.4 106.4 114. 4 107.5 102.4 139.8 130.9 114. 5 113.7 103.6 114.3 107.0 102.4 139.8 130.9 114. 5 113. b 105.2 112.5 106. 4 100.9 137.2 127.0 113.7 112.7 108.9 111.8 106.3 100.8 137.2 127.0 114.2 112.6 108.9 111.7 105.9 99.8 137.2 127.0 114.2 112.3 106.5 110.8 105.1 99.8 134.3 123.3 114.5 112.0 106.5 110.6 105.1 99.7 134.3 123.3 113.4 111.8 106.5 109.5 105.1 99.5 134.3 123.3 112.9 111.7 106.5 109.3 104.5 99.1 134.3 123.3 111.7 110.3 106.5 107.7 103.7 98.2 130.8 123.1 110.8 108.6 105.8 107.6 101.5 3316 3317 3333 3334 3339 3351 3411 Cold finishing of steel shapes............... . Steel pipe and tube_______ ____ ____ Primary zinc............................................ Primary aluminum____________ ____ Primary nonferrous metals, n.e.c......... . Copper rolling and draw ing............... . Metal cans............................................. - 113.6 110.5 107.7 114.0 134.8 171.4 109.0 113.7 110.4 107.7 114.0 138.9 166.4 109.0 113.7 110.4 107.4 114.0 133.9 166.4 109.0 112.1 108.4 105.6 110.0 131.8 lbb. 9 109.0 112.1 107.8 100.9 110.0 123.8 160.6 109.0 109.0 107.7 100.6 110.0 120.5 154. 5 108.9 109.0 107.3 100.5 109.0 120.1 152.3 108.9 108.7 107.3 100.4 109.0 120.1 151.7 108.9 107.5 107.2 97.1 109.0 120.3 147.8 108.9 107.4 105.7 96.9 109.0 119.5 144.6 108.9 107.4 105.6 96.9 109.0 119.8 142.8 108.8 107.2 104.8 97.2 106.1 122.3 142.8 106.3 107.0 104.7 93.9 105.4 119.4 134.3 106.2 104.6 103.6 93.9 104.0 122.3 140.3 105.6 3423 3431 3493 3496 3498 3519 Hand and edge to o ls ......................... . Metal plumbing fixtures.......................... Steel springs........................................... Collapsible tubes__________________ Fabricated pipe and fittings.................... Internal combustion engines---------------- 110.8 100.4 107.2 103.8 130.9 110.9 110.6 100.3 107.2 103.7 130.8 110.8 109.6 99.8 107.2 103.7 130.4 110.1 108.4 99.4 106.8 103.7 130.4 109.7 108.4 98.8 106.8 103.6 130.3 109.1 107.8 98.7 106.8 103.6 130.3 108.0 107.1 97.3 106.3 103.5 129.7 108.3 106.9 96.6 106.0 103.2 129.7 108.3 107.2 95.8 105.9 103.2 129.7 107.9 106.3 95.8 105.8 103.1 123.4 107.5 105.9 95.7 105.8 103.0 123.4 106.9 105.0 95.3 105.8 102.9 123.4 106.7 104.8 95.0 105.2 101.5 122.7 106.6 102.6 93.5 102.6 100.2 119.8 104.5 3533 3534 3537 3562 3572 Oil field machinery.................................. Elevators and moving stairways.............. Industrial trucks and tractors........ ........ Ball and roller bearings.......................... Typewriters............................................. 12/66 12/66 125.1 110.5 134.0 105.7 103.9 122.7 107.7 133.9 103.7 103.8 122.5 107.7 133.6 103.7 103.2 122.4 107.6 132.6 102.6 103.1 121.8 107.6 131.2 102.6 103.1 121.5 107.6 131.2 102.2 101. 5 121.0 104.5 130.5 102.2 101.4 120.8 104.5 129.1 102.1 101.3 120.4 104.5 128.6 102.1 100.5 120.0 104.5 128.6 102.1 100.6 119.1 103.9 128.2 102.1 100.6 119.0 103.9 128.1 101.6 100.6 118.0 103.9 127.2 101.6 100.6 114.6 102.8 123.7 100.8 101.3 3576 3612 3613 3624 3635 3641 Scales and balances................................ Transformers- __________ _______ Switchgear and switchboards................. Carbon and graphite products-------------Household vacuum cleaners.................... Electric lamps........................................ 12/66 12/66 12/67 12/66 12/66 133.4 100.3 107.1 104.8 99.9 98.4 133.2 99.3 106.7 104.4 99.9 98.5 133.0 100.2 105.7 104.4 99.9 99.2 133.0 101.6 10b. 9 104.3 99. 8 101.1 129.9 101.6 103.6 104.3 99.8 100.3 129.9 101.3 104. 4 104.3 99.8 99.6 128.6 101.1 104.9 103.0 99.8 104.1 127.0 100.2 104.0 101.1 99.8 103.1 127.0 100.8 103.6 101.0 99.8 103.6 126.9 102.2 104.3 101.0 99.8 102.7 126.9 102.3 104.9 101.0 99.7 103.0 126.3 104.6 104.8 101.0 99.7 103.0 126.4 104.6 104.4 101.0 99.5 103.0 123.4 106.1 104.3 100.8 101.2 104.9 3652 3671 3672 3673 Phonograph records.................... .......... Electron tubes, receiving ty p e .............. Cathode ray picture tu b e s .................... Electron tubes, transmitting.............. . 12/66 12/66 12/66 123.5 121.2 87.5 103.2 123.5 121.3 89.7 103.2 123.5 121.3 90.0 103.1 123.5 121.2 90.0 103.0 122.6 117.8 90.0 102.9 122.6 117.8 90.0 102.9 122.6 117.8 89.9 102.1 122.3 117.8 89.9 102.1 122.3 117.8 89.9 102.0 122.3 117.7 89.9 102.0 122.3 109.6 89.8 102.0 121.3 105.9 89.9 102.1 119.8 105.9 92.4 102.0 119.8 105.9 94.5 101.4 3674 3692 3693 3941 Semiconductors................................... . Primary batteries, dry and wet............... X-ray apparatus and tubes..................... Games and to y s ..-------- -------------------- 92.7 115.4 117.4 112.1 92.8 115.4 115.6 112.2 92.7 115.3 115.4 111.4 92.6 115.2 113.1 111.4 92.7 115.2 112.8 111.4 92.6 115.2 112.8 111.1 92.6 115.2 112.5 111.1 92.7 115.2 112.6 111.1 92.7 115.2 111.0 111.2 92.6 114.9 111.3 92.4 113.8 111.4 111.2 92.4 112.5 111.1 110.3 92.5 111.3 107.7 110.1 92.3 111.3 105.1 109.3 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 1958 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/67 12/66 1958 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/67 12/66 1 For a description of the series, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458), Chapter 12. See also, "Industry and Sector Price indexes," in Monthly Labor Review, August 1965, pp. 974-982. Current monthly industry-sector price indexes are not available for this issue. At the beginning of each calendar year, changes in the sample for some indexes must be 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 1 1 .1 made and nesessary internal reweighting accomplished; this has caused the delay. Indexes beginning with January 1970 will be published in a later report. NOTE. Beginning in January 1967, index weights and classifications are based on the 1963 Censuses of Manufactures and Minerals. They were formerly based on the 1958 Industrial Censuses. 126 31. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, APRIL 1970 LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1 Number of stoppages Month and year Beginning in month or year Workers involved in stoppages In effect during month Beginning in month or year (thousands) In effect during month (thousands) Man-days idle during month or year Number (thousands) Percent of esti mated working time 1945 ..................................... 1946 ................................... 1947 1948 ..................... ............. ............................. 1949 4,750 4,985 3' 693 3.419 3)606 3,470 4,600 2' 170 1,960 3,030 38,000 116’ 000 34; 600 34,100 50,500 0.31 1.04 .30 .28 .44 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 .................................... ................................... ..................................... ..................................... ..................................... 4,843 4,737 5,117 5', 091 3| 468 2,410 2,220 3,540 2,400 l ’ 530 38,800 22,900 5 9 ; 100 28) 300 22) 600 .33 . 18 .48 .22 .18 1955 ........... ........................... 1956 _____ _____________ 1957.................... ................... 1958____________________ 1959 ................................. 4,320 3,825 3,673 3! 694 3,708 2,650 1,900 l) 390 2)060 1,880 28,200 33) 100 16) 500 23,900 69,000 .22 .24 .12 .18 .50 I960 ...................................... 1961....... ............................... 1962.................... ................... 1963 ............. .............. ......... 1964..._________________ 3,333 3| 367 3; 614 3; 362 3; 655 1,320 1,450 1,230 941 1,640 19,100 16,300 18) 600 16)100 22,900 .14 .11 .13 .11 .15 1965....................................... 1966 ............. .......... ............ 1967....................................... 1968........................................ 3,963 4,405 4; 595 5i 045 1,550 1,960 2; 870 2 ,649 23,300 25) 400 42) 100 49)018 .15 .15 .25 .28 1967: January....................... February........ ............ March......... ............... 286 292 368 443 485 545 94.4 104.1 129.9 163.5 159.2 195.4 1,247.9 1,275.8 1,507.8 .09 .10 .10 April........................... May............................. June_____ ____ ___ 462 528 472 638 769 759 397.6 277.8 211.8 438.8 584.9 405.0 2,544.8 4,406. 4 4,927.4 .19 .30 .33 July............................. August........................ September.................. 389 392 415 682 689 681 664.6 91.3 372.8 865.5 233.1 473.6 4,328.7 2,859. 5 6,159.8 .32 .18 .45 October....................... November................... December................... 449 360 182 727 653 445 178.8 277.1 74.4 458.7 559.5 209.5 7,105.6 3,213.2 2,546.5 .47 .22 .18 1968: January....................... February..................... March......................... 314 357 381 483 569 618 187.8 275.0 174.5 275.7 451.3 368.7 2,668.5 4,104.1 3,682.0 .18 .29 .26 April........................... May........................... June........................... 505 610 500 748 930 810 537.2 307.3 168.5 656.7 736.2 399.9 5,677.4 7,452.2 5,576.8 .38 .49 .40 July............................ August.................. . September.................. 520 466 448 880 821 738 202.0 153.8 169.8 465.1 359.6 349.0 4,611.9 4, 048.9 3,081.1 .30 .26 .22 October....................... November................... December.................. 434 327 183 741 617 408 279.0 129.9 64.1 414.5 306.1 189.2 3,991.7 2,430.5 1,692.5 .25 .17 .11 1969: January3 .................... February3 ................... March 3....................... A p ril3......................... May3 .......................... June3 ..................... July3. . ........................ August3............ .......... September3................. October3. .................. November3________ December3_________ 320 330 420 570 660 560 500 500 490 510 310 175 480 500 600 770 870 800 760 770 740 750 550 385 182 137 112 253 219 181 220 160 157 317 132 33 255 266 261 303 329 302 307 280 215 372 323 208 3,380 2,590 2.080 2,740 3,530 3,370 3,420 2,890 1,830 2,850 4,050 3,990 .22 .19 .14 .18 .24 .22 .22 .19 .12 .17 .29 .25 1970: January3...................... 260 420 55 233 3,730 .25 >The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and lasting a full day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and man-days idle cover all workers made idle for as long as 1 shift in establishments directly involved in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service shortages. Preliminary. 3 PRODUCTIVITY CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 3 2. 127 Output per man-hour, hourly compensation and unit labor costs, private economy, seasonally adjusted [Indexes 1957-59=100] Output per man-hour Man-hours Output Compensation per man-hour1 Real compensation per man-hour3 Unit labor costs Year and quarter Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm 1967: 1st quarter...... ............ - .......................... 2d quarter........... .......................... ....... 3d quarter.............................. - ................ 4th quarter............................. .................. Annual average............ ......... ........................... . 146.4 147.2 148.9 150.2 148.2 148.2 148.9 150.7 152.1 150.0 110.6 109.6 110.3 110.9 110.4 115.5 114.9 115.3 116.0 115.4 132.4 134.4 134.9 135.4 134.3 128.3 129.6 130.6 131.1 129.9 147.9 150.3 152.2 154.3 151.2 143.5 145.5 147.6 149.7 146.6 129.0 130.1 130.4 131.1 130.1 125.2 126.0 126.4 127.2 126.2 111.7 111.9 112.9 114.0 112.6 111.9 112.3 113.0 114.2 112.9 1968: 1st quarter..............................................2d quarter .............. ......... ..................... 3d quarter_______________________ 4th q uarter............................................. Annual average....................................................... 152.4 155.2 156.7 158.1 155.6 154.3 157.5 159.0 160.6 157.9 111.2 112.2 112.7 112.6 112.2 116.4 117.5 118.3 118.3 117.6 137.0 138.3 139.0 140.4 138.7 132.6 134.1 134.4 135.8 134.2 158.5 160.8 163.7 167.8 162.7 153.6 155.7 158.1 162.0 157.4 133.3 133.7 134.5 136.3 134.4 129.2 129.4 129.8 131.5 130.0 115.7 116.3 117.8 119.6 117.4 115.9 116.1 117.6 119.4 117.3 1st quarter............................... ............... 2d quarter ..................................... .... .............................. 3d quarter 4th quarter............................................... Annual average....................................................... 159.1 159.9 160.8 160.6 160.1 161.5 162.3 163.1 163.4 162.6 113.7 114.6 115.0 114.3 114.4 119.6 120.7 121.4 121.0 120.6 139.9 139.5 139.8 140.5 139.9 135.0 134.5 134.4 135.0 134.8 170.5 172.7 175.8 179.3 174.6 164.4 166.5 169.1 172.1 168.0 136.7 136.2 136.8 137.5 136.8 131.8 131.3 131.5 132.0 131.7 121.8 123.8 125.8 127.7 124.8 121.8 123.8 125.8 127.5 124.7 1969: Percent change over previous quarter at annual rate3 1967: 1st quarter.... ................... ......... ............ 2d quarter________________________ 3d quarter___ ____________________ 4th quarter...................................... ........ -1 .4 2.3 4.5 3.6 - 2 .2 1.9 4.8 3.9 0.0 - 3 .7 2.9 2.1 - 0 .3 - 2 .1 1.7 2.4 - 1 .4 6.2 1.5 1.5 - 1 .9 4.1 3.0 1.5 3.9 6.7 5.2 5.6 4.9 5.5 5.8 5.9 3.2 3.7 0.9 2.1 4.1 2.6 1.6 2.3 5.3 0.5 3.6 4.1 6.9 1.4 2.7 4.4 1968: 1st quarter................................................ 2d quarter................................................. 3d quarter................................................ 4th quarter................................................ 6.0 7.4 4.1 3.5 6.0 8.4 4.0 4.0 1.0 3.5 1.9 - 0 .3 1.2 3.8 2.8 0.0 4.9 3.8 2.1 3.8 4.8 4.5 1.1 4.0 11.3 6.0 7.5 10.4 10.9 5.5 6.4 10.3 6.8 1.1 2.3 5.5 6.5 0.7 1.3 5.4 6.0 2.1 5.3 6.3 5.9 1.0 5.3 6.0 1969: 1st quarter.......................... ................. . 2d quarter._____ _________________ 3d quarter...................... .......... ........ . 4th quarter............................................ 2.6 1.9 2.2 - 0 .3 2.2 2.0 2.0 0.6 3.8 3.2 1.3 - 2 .2 4.6 3.5 2.4 - 1 .3 - 1 .2 - 1 .3 0.8 2.0 - 2 .3 - 1 .4 - 0 .4 1.9 6.4 5.4 7.4 8.2 5.8 5.4 6.2 7.5 1.4 - 1 .4 1.5 2.3 0.8 - 1 .4 0.4 1.7 7.6 6.8 6.5 6.0 8.3 6.9 6.6 5.5 Percent change over previous year« 1968: 3d quarter............................................... 4th quarter.......................... ................... 5.3 5.3 5.6 5.6 2.1 1.5 2.6 1.9 3.1 3.7 2.9 3.6 7.6 8.8 7.2 8.3 3.1 3.9 2.7 3.4 4.4 4.9 4.1 4.5 1969: 1st quarter........ ..................................... 2d quarter.............................................. 3rd quarter................................. ............ 4th quarter_______________________ 4 .4 4 .6 3.0 2.6 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.5 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.1 0.8 0.5 1.8 0.3 7 .6 3.0 2.6 1.6 0.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.2 2.6 1.9 1.7 0.9 2.0 1.5 1.3 0.4 5.3 6.5 6.8 6.7 5.1 6.6 7.0 6.8 > W ages an d salaries o f e m p loye es plus e m p lo y e rs ' c o n trib u tio n s fo r social insurance an d p riva te benefit p la n s. A ls o includes an e stim a te o f w a g e s, sa larie s, an d s u p p le m e n ta ry p a y m e n ts fo r th e se lf-e m p lo y e d , s Com p e n satio n p e r m a n -h o u r a d ju ste d fo r changes in th e co n su m e r price in d e x, x P e rc e n t change c o m p u te d fro m orig inal d a ta . 0.1 - 0 .6 *C u rr e n t q u a rte r d iv id e d 7.4 7.4 6.8 b y c o m p a ra b le q u a rte r a y e a r a g o . S O U R C E : O u tp u t data fro m th e O ffice o f Business Eco n o m ic s, U .S . D e p a rtm e n t o f C o m m e rc e . M a n -h o u rs an d c o m p ensation o f all p ersons fro m th e B u re a u o f La b o r S ta tis tic s. N O T E : D a ta fo r 1 9 6 7 ,1 9 6 8 , a n d first q u a rte r 1969 h a ve been revised to re fle c t new b e n c h m a rk in fo rm a tio n on o u t p u t, e m p lo y m e n t an d co m p e n s a tio n . Scheduled release dates for major BLS statistical series, May 1970 Title Productivity.. .................................... ................................................................. The employment situation.. .................................... . ........................ . Wholesale Price Index, fina l..................................................................... .................... Consumer Price In d e x ... . .................... ...................... ...................... .......... .......... Work stoppages. .......................... _____________ ___________ . Wholesale Price Index, preliminary.. .................. . . . .. ___ . Factory labor turnover. . ............................. . . ................... i D a te s o f press releases a re s u b je c t to ch an ge because o f de la y s re su ltin g fro m th e rece nt m ail s trik e . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Date of release1 May 1 May 8 May 11 May 20 May 27 May 27 May 28 Period covered 1st quarter April April April April May April MLR table numbers 32 1-14 26-30 24-25 31 26-30 15-16 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1969. Bulletin 1630. 407 pp. $3.75. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS The Social and Economic Status of Negroes in the United States, 1969. Report 375. 96 pp. $1. ECONOMIC STABILITY The Anatomy of Inflation. Report 373. 24 pp. Free from BLS regional offices. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS A Directory of BLS Studies in Industrial Relations, 1954-69. 26 pp. Free from BLS regional offices. WAGES Area Wage Surveys (metropolitan area): Boston, Mass., August 1969. Bulletin 1660-16. 34 pp. 45 cents. Fort Worth, Tex., October 1969. Bulletin 1660-18. 17 pp. 30 cents. Send check or money order to any of the Bureau's regional offices listed on the inside front cover. Copies may also be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING O FFIC E : 1970 O — 3 7 7 -9 7 3 Boston New York Philadelphia Chicago San Francisco Kansas City Atlanta Dallas Y our Bureau o f Labor S tatistics Regional O ffice is equipped to... ■ H e l p y o u f i n d t h e information you need about p r i c e s , e m p lo y m e n t , w a g e s , frin ge benefits, e a r n in g s , and other c u r rent s ta tistica l s e r ie s . * E x p l a i n w h a t t h e d a t a m e a n to y o u r r e g i o n , y o u r i n d u s t r y , your laborm arKet. * H e lp you u s e the d ata c o r r e c t l y . ■ D e l i v e r the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o m p t l y . For the address of your nearest Bureau o f Labor Statistics Regional Office, see the inside front cover of this issue of the M onthly Labor R eview . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE Division of Public Documents WASHINGTON, D. C. 20402 OFFICIAL BUSINESS https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Postage and fees paid U.S. Government Printing Office [FIRST CLASS MAILj