View original document

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