Full text of Monthly Labor Review : April 1981, Volume 104, Number 4

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
April 1981


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

-» 4

* au
*

t?

.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner

The Monthly Labor Review is published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U S. Department
of Labor. 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) 523 -1327.
Subscription price per year
$18 domestic; $22.50 foreign.
Single copy $2.50.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-0818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402
Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that the
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business required by
law of this Department. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget
through October 31, 1982. Second-class
postage paid at Riverdale, MD.,
and at additional mailing offices.
Library of Congress Catalog
Card Number 15 - 26485

Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I Boston: W endell D. M acdonald
1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223 -6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II
New York: Sam uel M. Ehrenhalt
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944 3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III - Philadelphia: A lvin I. M argulis
3535 Market Street
PO . Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596 -11 54
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: D onald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367
Phone: (404) 881 -4418
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V — Chicago: W illiam E. Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 3 5 3 -18 80
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI — Dallas: Bryan Richey
Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202
Phone: (214) 767-6971
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions VII and VIII — Kansas City: E llio tt A. B row ar
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Phone: (816) 374-2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming

April cover:
Detail from "Man of Steel" (1930),
a bronze sculpture
by Max Kallsh
courtesy National Museum of American Art,
Washington, D.C.
Cover design by Richard L. Mathews,
Division of Audio-Visual Communications,
U.S. Department of Labor.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Regions IX and X — San Francisco: D. Bruce Hanchett
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017,
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Phone: (415) 556 -46 78
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
’n
Oregon
Washington

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
APRIL 1981
VOLUME 104, NUMBER 4

l ib r a r y

m 28 m

Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor

Craig Howell and others

3

Price changes in 1980: double-digit inflation persists
Consumer prices jumped 12.4 percent and producer prices, 11.7 percent;
energy and food costs increased— mortgage interest rates were volatile

Gregory J. Mounts

13

Labor and the Supreme Court: significant decisions of 1979-80
The Court approved Congress’ remedial quotas for employment, left key issues
of safety and health unresolved, and limited NLRA coverage of teachers

Robert A. Moffitt

23

The negative income tax: would it discourage work?
Advocates often contend plan would provide more incentive than welfare benefits,
but recent evidence indicates that this assumption may not be well-founded

Daniel E. Taylor

28

Education, on-the-job training, and the black-white pay gap
Black men’s earnings lag those of white men, but their monetary returns
for each year of education are as high as those for white counterparts

C. B. Barsky, M. E. Personick

35

Measuring wage dispersion: pay ranges reflect industry traits
Greatest wage dispersion occurs in industries with broad occupational staffing
or with incentive pay; high-paying industries show less variation in earnings

ÎRRA PAPERS
George T. Milkovich
Gregory E. DeFreitas
D. Ledgerwood and
S. Johnson-Dietz
B. Bergmann, W. Darity, Jr.

42
44

The male-female earnings gap: a need for réévaluation
What is the occupational mobility of black immigrants?

45
47

Sexual harassment: implications for employer liability
Social relations and employer discrimination
REPORTS

Joseph L. Gastwirth
Arthur S. Herman
Charles F. Mueller


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

50
58
62

Estimating the demographic mix of the available labor force
Productivity slows or drops in more than half of industries measured
Migration of the unemployed: a relocation assistance program
DEPARTMENTS

2
42
50
58
62
65
67
70
77

Labor month in review
Conference papers
Communications
Productivity reports
Research summaries
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics

Labor M onth
In Review
STATISTICAL INTEGRITY. Three
years ago, a President’s Reorganization
Project for the Federal Statistical
System, under the leadership of James
T. Bonnen, set out to define the prob­
lems of Federal statistics and to suggest
some possible solutions. Last month, the
Statistical Reporter, issued by the Office
of Federal Statistical Policy and Stand­
ards, published the Project’s report,
“ Improving the Federal Statistical
System: Issues and Options.” The
following excerpts from chapter 5 focus
on threats to the integrity of the
statistical system.
The most direct threat to integrity is
outright manipulation of, or tampering
with, data. For the most part, this is not
believed to be a problem. The produc­
tion of a major statistical series or
analysis is almost always a joint effort
involving many statisticians, field staff,
systems analysts, and others. Any
significant manipulation of the output
would likely cause someone within
the system to blow the whistle.
Knowledgeable users would also be like­
ly to raise questions.
According to the diaries of Henry
W allace, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt once suggested to Dr. Isador
Lubin that he “ doctor up the cost of liv­
ing figures by leaving out some item so
as to make it appear that the cost of liv­
ing was not really so much as it is.” Such
a suggestion to a statistical administrator
by a President or other high administra­
tion official today seems almost un­
thinkable. It is important to insure that
the conditions that make it unthinkable
continue to exist.
More subtle threats to integrity can arise

from selectivity—selectivity in what
kinds of data to collect, in the resources
allotted to establish the quality of data
in a particular series, in the selection of
models and assumptions for analyzing
2


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

an issue, in decisions on what data to in­
clude in publications, in decisions on
when to release data or analyses, and in
many other ways. Analytical, as oppos­
ed to data-production, activities are
especially vulnerable to threats of bias
from selectivity. Selectivity biases can
arise inside the statistical system, if
employees allow their own personal
biases to affect their objectivity,
but are perhaps more likely to arise
from outside the system. It is
usually in the interest of any admin­
istration, particularly as a Presidential
election year ap p ro a c h e s, to
demonstrate that the economy is sound
and society is healthy. Considerable
restraint and objectivity on the part of
administration officials are needed to
avoid favoring statistical activities which
support that view, and withdrawing sup­
port from those which do not.
The integrity of the Federal statistical
system depends heavily on the
maintenance of high professional stan­
dards by its members. Threats to integri­
ty can arise within the system from lack
of professionalism and objectivity.
Some practices to be avoided include:
(1) The use of judgment, as opposed
to random or probability, samples.
Judgment or purposive samples are
sometimes acceptable for small ex­
ploratory studies, but should never be
used when estimates for the population
sampled are a primary objective.
(2) Failure to deal properly with miss­
ing or incomplete data. Statisticians
must evaluate the probable effects of
nonresponse bias on a particular series,
make reasonable efforts to achieve an
acceptable level of response, and
develop and document procedures to
deal with remaining nonresponse.
(3) Failure to monitor all phases of
data collection and processing with ap­
propriate quality control procedures.
(4) Failure to document all procedures
used to collect, compile, process, and

analyze data, and to make documenta­
tion available to data users and other in­
terested persons.
(5)
Failure to use acceptable evalua­
tion techniques, such as verification,
validation, and sensitivity analyses.
Another kind of threat to the in­

tegrity of the Federal statistical system
can occur if agencies or individuals fail
to observe what has come to be called
a code of fair information practices.
Data collectors must not, in their zeal to
achieve high response rates, harass
potential respondents to voluntary
surveys or misrepresent in any way
the conditions under which they are be­
ing asked to respond. Once data are sup­
plied to the system, all employees must
be aware of and scrupulously abide by
all regulations, policies, and procedures
designed to protect the confidentiality of
individually identifiable data.
Failure to abide by fair information
practices, no matter how well intentioned, in the long run can only impair the
integrity of the system and destroy the
confidence of persons and businesses
asked to supply data for statistical pur­
poses. Cooperation in voluntary surveys
will probably decline, and the quality of
results will suffer accordingly.
Finally, employees of the Federal
statistical system must avoid any conflict
of interest. Most issues in this area are
similar to those which arise in other
kinds of government activities. Employ­
ees with responsibilities for procurement
should deal at arm’s length with any
organizations from which their agencies
contract for surveys and other statistical
services, purchase of data-processing
equipment, and so forth.
The report appears in the February
1981 issue of Statistical Reporter,
available for SI. 10 from the Superinten­
dent of Documents, Government Prin­
ting Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Annual subscription price, $13.
□

Price changes in 1980:
double-digit inflation persists
Consumer prices jum ped 12.4 percent
and producer prices, 11.7 percent;
costs for energy items rose, but
mortgage interest rates fluctuated wildly
and a severe drought raised food prices
C r a ig H o w e l l , D

ave

Callahan,

a n d others

For the second consecutive year, the rate of inflation in
both retail and primary markets registered double-digit
increases. The Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers ( c p i -u ) moved up 12.4 percent, following a
13.3-percent advance during 1979. Prices for all major
consumer expenditure categories, except apparel and en­
tertainment, increased at least 10 percent over the year.
Mortgage interest costs advanced 27.6 percent, com­
pared with a 34.7-percent climb in the preceding year.
Prices paid by consumers for energy items were up 18.1
percent. Although this was larger than the increases re­
corded for most other CPI components, it was half as
large as the 1979 surge of 37.4 percent. Food prices
rose about 10 percent for the second consecutive year.
Excluding food, energy, and mortgage interest costs,
however, the rate of increase in the CPI accelerated from
8.7 percent in 1979 to 9.9 percent in 1980. (See table 1.)
At the primary market level, Producer Price Indexes
( p p i ) for each of the three major stage-of-processing
groupings—finished, intermediate, and crude goods—
rose at double-digit rates from December 1979 to De­
cember 1980, although each rate was somewhat slower
than the corresponding 1979 pace. The Finished Goods
Price Index climbed 11.7 percent in 1980, following a
Craig Howell and Dave Callahan are economists in the Office of
Prices and Living Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics. They were
assisted by Andrew Clem, John Z. Wetmore, William Thomas,
Eddie Lamb, Mary Burns, and Jesse Thomas, economists in the same
office.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

12.8-percent advance in 1979.1 The slowdown in 1980
was partly due to the deceleration in the rate of increase
for the finished energy goods index, which climbed 27.7
percent, after soaring 58.0 percent in 1979. Finished
consumer food prices rose 7.3 percent in 1980, virtually
the same as during the previous 12 months. Prices for
finished goods other than food and energy rose more in
1980 (11.0 percent) than in 1979 (9.3 percent); on aver­
age these prices advanced rapidly in early 1980 and
then moderated as the year progressed. At the earlier
stages of processing, the price index for intermediate
goods moved up 12.5 percent over the year, after in­
creasing 16.1 percent from December 1978 to December
1979, and crude material prices climbed 11.9 percent,
following a 16.4-percent jump during the 12 months
ended in December 1979.

Energy cost increases moderate
Prices for most energy goods and services continued
to rise rapidly in 1980, although the increases were gen­
erally less than in 1979. (See table 2.) The upward
movement in energy prices reflected increased costs of
imported crude petroleum as well as higher prices
allowed for domestic crude petroleum and natural gas.
The slowdown in the rate of increase was partly due to
reduced consumer and industrial demand for energy.
In late 1979 and early 1980, world crude petroleum
prices rose sharply as the security of Persian Gulf oil
shipments was threatened by political turmoil in Iran
3

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Price Changes in 1980
Table 1.

Changes in selected components of the Consumer and the Producer Price Indexes, 1979-80
C o m p o u n d a n n u a l r a t e s , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s t e d

C o n tr ib u tio n 1

P e rc e n t c h an g e

e x c e p t a s n o te d , fo r 3 m o n th s e n d e d —
R e la t iv e
G r o u p in g

im p o r t a n c e
D e c . 1979

D e c . 1978

D ec. 1979

D ec. 1978

D ec. 1979

D ec. 1980

D ec. 1979

D e c . 1980

1980

to
D ec. 1979

M ar.

June

S e p t.

Dec.

C o n s u m e r P r ic e In d e x f o r A ll
U rb a n C o n s u m e rs (C P I-U )2

A.i items ..............................................................
Food and beverages ......................................
Food at hom e...............................................
Food away from home ...............................
Alcoholic beverages ....................................

100.0
18.7
12.2
5.5
1.0

13.3
10.0
9.5
11.4
8.0

12.4
10.1
10.6
9.6
7.6

100.0
14.5
9.1
4.8
.6

100.0
15.3
10.4
4.2
.6

17.3
3.6
.8
9.1
7.4

11.4
5.9
4.7
8.1
9.8

7.8
19.1
24.8
9.0
8.2

13.2
12.5
13.2
12.3
5.2

All Housing ..........................................................
Shelter ............................................................
Rent, residential3 ........................................
Flomeownership..........................................
Finances, taxes, insurance3 ....................
Maintenance and re p a irs ........................
Fuel and other utilities.................................
Flousehold furnishings and repairs .............

45.0
30.9
5.3
24.9
10.4
10.9
3.6
6.5
7.6

15.2
17.4
7.9
19.8
15.8
27.5
10.3
16.0
6.4

13.7
15.1
9.1
16.5
11.4
23.3
10.6
13.6
8.1

50.5
39.0
3.3
35.0
12.1
20.0
2.9
7.6
3.9

49.7
37.6
3.9
33.2
9.5
20.5
3.1
7.1
5.0

18.5
20.0
8.3
22.6
7.0
41.5
16.2
19.8
10.8

19.7
23.1
10.0
26.4
14.9
43.9
8.3
17.0
8.4

1.7
-1.4
8.6
-3.5
14.9
-20.0
8.2
9.8
7.8

15.8
20.2
9.6
23.1
9.0
41.8
10.1
8.5
5.1

Apparel and upkeep............................................
Apparel commodities ......................................
Apparel services ............................................

5.1
4.4
.7

5.5
4.5
12.5

6.8
6.0
12.4

2.3
1.6
.6

2.8
2.1
.7

13.2
13.2
14.9

1.1
- .7
13.8

8.9
8.8
9.2

4.3
3.3
11.7

Transportation.....................................................
Private transportation ......................................
Public transportation........................................

18.6
17.5
1.1

18.2
18.2
17.9

14.7
14.0
25.6

24.3
23.0
1.4

22.0
19.8
2.2

33.2
34.1
17.3

2.6
1.8
18.6

11.3
8.9
56.7

13.9
13.8
14.1

Medical c a r e .......................................................
Medical care commodities...............................
Medical care services......................................

4.8
.8
4.0

10.1
7.6
10.6

10.0
10.0
10.0

3.8
.5
3.3

3.9
.6
3.3

14.2
10.2
15.3

8.9
10.7
8.4

9.2
10.2
8.9

7.9
8.9
7.7

Entertainment .....................................................

3.7

6.9

9.6

2.0

2.9

14.3

9.1

10.5

5.0

Other goods and services

4.1

7.9

10.1

2.5

3.3

11.0

9.3

11.1

9.0
13.2
13.1
9.6
.3
17.9

.................................

Services less energy ......................................

100.0
17.7
34.5
10.3
37.5

13.3
10.2
8.8
37.4
13.6

12.4
10.2
9.9
18.1
14.1

100.0
13.9
23.8
24.0
38.3

100.0
14.6
27.7
15.1
42.6

17.3
3.3
9.5
64.0
20.2

11.4
5.8
7.7
15.2
20.0

7.8
19.7

All ite m s ..............................................................
Services ..........................................................
Commodities ...................................................

100.0
40.9
59.1

13.3
13.7
13.0

12.4
14.2
10.3

100.0
42.1
57.9

100.0
47.0
53.0

17.3
20.1
15.3

11.4
20.5
5.4

7.8

13.2
16.8
11.0

All items less food, energy, and mortgage
Interest c o s t.....................................................

62.0

8.7

9.9

43.2

51.0

10.7

8.6

11.0

9.3

Finished goods ...................................................
Finished energy goods ...................................
Consumer foods ............................................
Finished goods less food ...............................
Finished goods less food and energy.............
Finished consumer goods less fo o d ...............
Finished consumer goods less food and
energy..........................................................
Capital equipment ..........................................

100.0
11.3
25.9
74.1
62.8
52.0

12.8
58.0
7.4
14.8
9.4
17.5

11.7
27.7
7.3
13.3
10.6
14.0

100.0
36.7
15.7
84.1
47.5
68.2

100.0
26.9
16.1
83.9
57.0
62.2

17.5
89.2
24.6
15.0
29.7

8.4
18.7
-1.4
11.8
10.4
12.1

13.5
27.3
31.0
8.3
9.3
7.6

7.8
14.4
3.6
9.3
8.3
8.5

40.7
22.0

9.7
8.8

10.2
11.4

31.7
15.7

35.5
21.5

16.0
13.6

10.0
10.9

8.9
9.9

6.7
11.4

Intermediate materials, supplies, and components
Intermediate energy goods .............................
Intermediate food and feeds ...........................
Intermediate materials less foods and feeds . .
Intermediate materials less food and energy . .

100.0
14.1
6.1
93.9
79.8

16.1
44.7
8.2
16.7
12.8

12.5
25.2
15.3
12.3
10.0

100.0
31.5
3.4
96.9
65.2

100.0
28.5
7.5
92.5
64.0

22.2
65.4
.5
23.7
17.1

6.6
9.9
14.1
6.2
5.8

10.1
13.0
52.7
7.8
6.9

11.9
19.5
.7
12.6
11.0

Crude materials from further processing ...........

100.0
24.0
59.7
40.3
16.3

16.4
34.9
10.6
26.1
15.1

11.9
23.0
8.6
16.7
7.5

100.0
44.1
40.6
59.2
15.2

100.0
46.4
43.1
56.6
10.3

-3.4
33.6
-16.6
18.9
.2

-.1
19.3
- .3
.2
-24.4

55.2
20.4
73.9
32.3
54.8

4.4
19.1
-4.1
17.6
15.1

All items ..............................................................
F o o d ................................................................
Commodities less food and energy ...............

2.5
- .4

P r o d u c e r P r ic e In d e x ( P P I) b y
s ta g e o f p r o c e s s in g 2

Crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs......................
Crude nonfood materials.................................
Crude nonfood materials less energy.............

' Percent of overall change attributable to each specific item.
2 See "Definitions” and “ Notes” preceding tables 22-30 of Current Labor Statistics in this
Review.
3 Not seasonally adjusted.
Note: PPI data shown above and elsewhere in this article may differ from those previously

4


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

reported because: (1) stage-of-processing indexes from January 1976 through December 1980
have been revised to reflect 1972 input-output relationships; (2) seasonal adjustment factors
have been recalculated to reflect developments during 1980; and (3) data through September
1980 have been routinely revised to reflect late reports and corrections by respondents. Sea­
sonal adjustment factors have also been recalculated for CPI data.

and Afghanistan. Some members of the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) lifted their prices
unilaterally; others, such as Saudi Arabia, sought to re­
strain such increases. Industrial nations reduced their
consumption of petroleum as a consequence of the slug­
gish economy, consumers’ resistance to increases in gas­
oline prices, and the trend toward more energy-efficient
technologies. As a result, inventories of crude petroleum
grew to record levels as Saudi Arabia continued to ex­
port about one million barrels per day above the level it
was exporting prior to the Iranian Revolution of early
1979. The surplus of crude oil on world markets
inhibited other OPEC members from raising prices sub­
stantially during mid-year. However, in late September,
oil shipments from Iraq and Iran virtually ceased after
their war broke out. Trading on the spot market quick­
ened, and prices rapidly rose to more than $40 per bar­
rel for the first time since late 1979.2
The United States imported about 20 percent less
crude oil in 1980 than in 1979, which helped to moder­
ate the impact of higher costs of foreign crude oil on
domestic energy prices. American refineries operated at
an average capacity utilization rate of 76 percent during
1980, down from 85 percent in 1979, and 88 percent in
1978. The continuing phase-out of price controls on
crude oil encouraged increased production and explora­
tion. As a result, domestic output of crude oil exceeded
Table 2.

1979 levels, despite considerably weakened demand for
most petroleum products. As deregulation continued,
domestic crude oil prices became increasingly sensitive
to world market conditions. Prices for domestic crude
petroleum rose substantially during 1980,3 although not
as rapidly as in 1979.
Consumer items. Retail gasoline prices rose 18.9 percent
in 1980, substantially less than the 52.2-percent surge in
1979. Most of the 1980 increase occurred in the
first quarter, as refiners passed through the crude oil
price boosts of late 1979 and early 1980. In the spring,
the combined effects of the recession, consumer resis­
tance to the earlier price jump, and the increasing pro­
portion of smaller, high-mileage automobiles in use led
to a decline in demand for gasoline, resulting in recordhigh levels of gasoline inventories. Profit margins for re­
tailers were squeezed as competition led to small price
decreases during the second and third quarters. But
gasoline prices turned up again in the fourth quarter, as
the economy strengthened and crude oil costs continued
to climb.
Consumer prices for home heating oil moved up 20.2
percent over the year, about one-third as much as in
1979. Again, the largest advances occurred early in the
year. Demand was lighter than expected, largely be­
cause of the relatively mild winter. As a result, during

Changes in retail and producer prices for energy items, 1979-80
P e rc e n t c h a n g e

C o m p o u n d a n n u a l r a t e , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s t e d ,
e x c e D t a s n o te d , fo r 3 m o n th s e n d e d —

R e la t iv e
G r o u p in g

In d e x

im p o rta n c e

D ec. 1978

D ec. 1979

D e c . 1979

D ec. 1980

1980

D ec. 1979
M ar.

June

S e p t.

Dec.

F in is h e d it e m s
( s o ld t o c o n s u m e r s )

Energy items ' ...................................................................
Finished energy g o o d s.....................................................
Gasoline, motor oil, coolants, etc...................................
Gasoline2 ................................................................
Household fu e ls ............................................................
Fuel oil2 ..................................................................
Gas (piped)1 2 ..........................................................
Electricity..................................................................

CPI
PPI
CPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
CPI
PPI
CPI
PPI
CPI

100.0
100.0
55.3
54.5
55.7
44.7
10.3
14.6
13.4
17.5
19.5

37.4
58.0
51.4
52.2
61.2
23.4
61.8
70.4
20.1
38.7
11.2

18.1
27.7
18.9
18.9
29.5
17.0
20.2
24.0
14.7
29.9
16.7

64.0
89.2
97.6
98.9
125.9
28.7
68.4
81.7
14.3
25.9
18.6

15.2
18.7
-5.3
-5.8
16.9
20.6
3.7
14.1
29.3
25.9
28.1

2.5
3.6
-3 .0
-3.3
-3.9
11.5
1.5
2.5
15. 6
37.9
14.0

0.3
14.5
10.2
10.5
10.7
8.5
17.9
11.7
1.4
30.3
7.3

PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI

100.0
9.2
8.1
14.1
5.0
32.1

44.7
74.9
76.1
62.8
77.5
14.5

25.2
23.5
29.7
39.1
20.9
17.7

65.4
88.2
98.6
95.7
63.2
20.3

9.9
9.7
24.6
-42.5
7.4
22.6

13.0
9.6
13.1
65.8
-9.1
16.9

19.5
2.9
1.0
99.6
34.3
10 9

PPI
PPI
PPI
PPI

100.0
28.9
51.0
20.1

34.9
38.7
50.7
3.3

23.0
29.9
26.6
3.7

33.6
25.9
52.1
6.1

19.3
25.9
21.6
-2.2

20.4
37.9
17.3
5.4

19.1
30.3
18.4
6.3

In t e r m e d ia t e m a t e r ia ls
( s o ld t o b u s in e s s e s )

Intermediate energy g o o d s ..............................................
Diesel fuel2 ..................................................................
Commercial jet fuel ' • 2 .................................................
Residual fuel2 ..............................................................
Liquefied petroleum gas1 ............................................
Electric power3 ............................................................
C r u d e m a t e r ia ls

Crude energy materials ...................................................
Natural gas1 2 ..............................................................
Crude petroleum ..........................................................
Coal ..............................................................................
1Not seasonally adjusted.
2 Prices for these Items are lagged 1 month in the PPI.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3 Includes commercial and industrial power, but not residential.

5

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Price Changes in 1980
the opening months of 1980, primary stocks of distillate
fuels (home heating oil and diesel oil) were considerably
above 1979 levels.4
Retail prices for piped gas rose 14.7 percent, almost
as much as in the prior year; this paralleled the pattern
of producer prices for natural gas at the wellhead,
which climbed almost 30 percent following a 38.7-per­
cent jump in 1979.5 Under the provisions of the 1978
Natural Gas Policy Act, price ceilings were raised dur­
ing the year. In addition, a relatively greater volume of
gas from newer or deeper wells was sold in 1980;
existing regulations allowed higher prices for gas from
such wells. Prices for natural gas imported from Cana­
da (which are based on changes in world crude oil
prices) advanced sharply during the first half and then
stabilized. Residential electricity rates increased more
than in 1979. Most of the 1980 increase occurred in the
first half of the year as regulatory agencies permitted
higher generation fuel costs incurred in 1979 to be
passed through to consumers; rate increases slowed for
the rest of the year.
Industrial fuels. Producer prices of energy items used in
the production of goods and services also continued to
move up in 1980, although the increases were less than
in 1979. Prices for refined petroleum products rose
sharply early in the year, following increases in OPEC
crude oil prices. The petroleum glut which emerged
during the middle of the year helped to keep prices for
diesel fuel, commercial jet fuel, and liquefied petroleum
gas relatively stable until late in the year, when these
prices turned upward again. Prices for residual fuel
tended to be more volatile, dropping sharply in the sec­
ond quarter after several utilities and industrial firms
switched to less costly fuels, then turning upward dur­
Table 3.

ing the second half of the year.
Charges for commercial and industrial electric power
advanced more than during the previous year; this was
due to significantly higher fuel costs as well as addition­
al fixed costs incurred by some electric utilities for
switching from oil to other fuels. The sharpest increases
in electric power rates occurred on the West Coast and
in New England, where relatively more oil for power
generation is used. Ample supplies resulted in an in­
crease in coal prices of less than 4 percent for the sec­
ond consecutive year. Potentially strong demand by
foreign nations for coal was constrained by the lack of
adequate port facilities in this country.

Mortgage interest rates bounce
Following a 13.6-percent advance in 1979, the CPI for
services excluding energy increased 14.1 percent in
1980. This increase was largely caused by substantially
higher prices for household services other than energy,
which moved up 17.2 percent primarily because of a
27.6-percent climb in the index for contracted mortgage
interest costs (34.7 percent in 1979). This advance in
the contracted mortgage interest cost index was respon­
sible for nearly one-fifth of the 1980 increase in the All
Items CPI. The index for residential rent moved up 9.1
percent, compared with 7.9 percent in 1979, reflecting
higher charges for heating oil, gas, and electricity. In­
creases in charges for transportation services also accel­
erated, while the indexes for medical care, entertain­
ment, and apparel services rose about as much as in the
previous year. (See table 3.)
The 17.2-percent increase for household services other
than rent and energy reflected home purchase prices (up
11.4 percent in 1980; 15.8 percent in 1979) and mort­
gage interest rates (up 15.0 percent in 1980; 16.1 per-

Changes in consumer services less energy prices, 1979-80
C o m p o u n d a n n u a l r a t e , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s t e d

P e rc e n t ch a n g e

e x c e p t as n o te d , fo r 3 m o n th e n d e d

R e la t iv e
C P i g r o u p in g

D ec. 1978

D ec. 1979

to

to

D ec. 1979

D e c . 1980

M ar.

June

S e p t.

D ec.

Services less energy ..............................................
Rent, residential1 ................................................................

100.0
14.0

13.6
7.9

14.1
9.1

20.2
8.3

20.0
10.0

-0.4
8.6

17.9
9.6

Household less rent and energy1 ......................................
Home financing, taxes, and insurance ' ...........................
Mortgage interest costs1 ............................................
Home maintenance and repairs ......................................
Housekeeping services1 .................................................

48.7
23.1
8.7
7.4
5.4

18.8
27.5
34.7
10.6
8.4

17.2
23.3
27.6
10.7
7.4

28.6
41.5
51.6
18.3
8.8

29.7
43.9
55.0
7.0
8.6

-10.8
-20.0
-25.4
7.0
6.4

26.7
41.8
51.3
11.0
5.7

Transportation services.......................................................
Auto maintenance and repairs ........................................
Other private transportation services .............................
Public transportation1 .....................................................

15.1
3.9
8.3
2.8

10.3
10.2
8.0
17.9

14.1
10.9
11.8
25.6

16.2
10.8
18.4
17.3

16.6
11.0
18.6
18.6

13.5
10.9
2.1
56.7

10.3
10.8
8.8
14.1

Medical care services..........................................................
Entertainment services1 .....................................................

10.7
4.1
2.4
1.8
3.2

10.6
5.8
8.4
12.5
8.8

10.0
8.7
8.0
12.4
12.3

15.3
12.9
11.3
14.9
10.2

8.4
9.2
7.4
13.8
9.2

8.9
9.7
6.5
9.2
21.7

7.7
3.3
6.8
11.7
8.6

Apparel services...................................................................
Personal and educational services......................................
1Not seasonally adjusted.

6

im p o rta n c e


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

cent in 1979). The index for mortgage interest rates ac­
celerated sharply during 1980. In late 1979, the Federal
Reserve Board began a series of credit-tightening
moves. The resulting climb in interest rates in early
1980 dampened the previously strong demand for hous­
es and home financing. The mortgage interest rate index
then decreased sharply in the third quarter. Conse­
quently in the fourth quarter, the demand for houses
and house financing rose, in part, because house pur­
chases were still viewed as a hedge against inflation.
The Federal Reserve Board continued its restrictive pol­
icies, and mortgage interest rates again accelerated to
levels approaching the record established in early 1980.6
The index for property insurance rose 13.2 percent, a
much faster rate than was registered in the preceding
year. Insurance premiums for a specified level of cover­
age increased very little but the additional coverage
made necessary by escalating house prices caused most
of the overall increase. The property tax index rose 4.6
percent (3.7 percent in 1979). After the strong national
trend toward Proposition 13 type legislation in 1978, lo­
cal taxing jurisdictions have been forced to raise proper­
ty taxes slowly to offset the costs of the services such
taxes provide.
The transportation services index rose 14.1 percent,
more than in the previous year. The increase in the pub­
lic transportation index accelerated from 17.9 percent in
1979 to 25.6 percent in 1980. Sharply higher fuel costs
and increased food and labor expenses caused airline
fares to soar 33.4 percent, despite the competitive effects
of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Intracity mass
transit fares increased 20.3 percent, as government sub­
sidies failed to keep pace with increased operating ex­
penses (largely higher wage and fuel costs). Increases in
taxi fares reflected the cost of gasoline.
Medical care services rose 10.0 percent, about the
same as in 1979, reflecting large increases in profession­
al and hospital services. The entertainment services in­
dex moved up 8.7 percent, reflecting increases in fees for
participant sports. Price increases for other types of ser­
vices, including personal care and apparel, rose about
the same as in the previous year, while the personal and
educational services index increased substantially more,
reflecting higher college tuition.

Drought hampers food production
The CPI for food increased 10.2 percent, the same as
in 1979. At the producer level, finished consumer food
prices increased 7.3 percent in 1980, slightly less than in
1979. (See table 4.) Both the consumer and producer
price indexes showed relatively little change during the
first half of the year. However, in the third quarter, the
CPI recorded its largest quarterly increase since 1973,
and the PPI, its largest since 1974. This sharp runup
was largely the result of a severe summer drought
which helped prices for crude foodstuff's and feedstuff's

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

to soar at a 120.1-percent annual rate during July and
August. At the same time, the increase in crude food
prices pushed up producer prices of finished food prod­
ucts at an annual rate of 45.3 percent. Retail food
prices consequently advanced at a 19.7-percent annual
rate during the third quarter. During the fourth quarter,
prices moderated: at the retail level, the moderation was
quite small; at the producer level, it was substantial.
Early in the year, live poultry and hog supplies were
more than ample; in fact, pork production reached a
new high. Competition from decreasing pork and poul­
try prices forced beef prices down, even though cattle
populations were near the low point of the production
cycle, which had peaked in 1975. In response to low
prices in 1979, pig farmers already had cut back on
production plans for late 1980. Meanwhile, hot summer
weather damaged pastures and sent hay and manufac­
tured animal feed prices upward, and animal weight
gain slowed. As a result, livestock supplies fell and
prices soared during the third quarter. The hot weather
also hit the poultry industry particularly hard, as mil­
lions of chickens succumbed to the heat. However, the
fourth quarter showed considerable price moderation.
Fluid milk prices rose 10.0 percent over the year de­
spite large supplies, primarily as the result of higher
price supports. Combined with higher processing costs,
this raised prices for dairy products about 10 percent at
both the processor and retail levels.
Prices for sugar and sweets showed the greatest in­
crease of any food group in the CPI in 1980. The
35.7-percent increase was the largest since 1974, when
this index more than doubled. Within this group, the
largest advance occurred for the sugar and artificial
sweeteners component, which jumped 96.5 percent. Re­
tail sugar prices reached their highest level since Janu­
ary 1975. The PPI showed a similar picture: the price of
raw sugar was up 62.2 percent. Poor sugar harvests in
several major sugar producing countries, especially
Cuba and the Soviet Union, led to a worldwide short­
age. The situation was aggravated by increased demand
in many developing countries. In addition, intense spec­
ulation in commodity markets led to highly volatile
price movements throughout the year. Higher sugar
prices and tight supplies allowed prices for corn syrup,
a widely used substitute sweetener, to soar 75.3 percent.
However, prices for other confectionery materials failed
to reflect these strong upward pressures. The declining
per capita consumption in recent years and the third
consecutive year of production surpluses sent the price
of cocoa beans down 34.6 percent in 1980, keeping the
increase in chocolate coating and candy bars modest,
despite their large sugar content.
The CPI for fats and oils increased 8.1 percent in
1980. Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter rose the
most, at 20.7 percent. Processor peanut prices more
than tripled by the end of the year, as the drought led
7

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Price Changes in 1980
Table 4.

Changes in retail and producer prices for consumer foods, 1979-80
C o m p o u n d a n n u a l r a t e , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s t e d ,

P e rc e n t c h a n g e

e x c e p t a s n o te d , fo r 3 m o n th s e n d e d R e la t iv e
G ro u p in g

In d e x

im p o r t a n c e
D e c . 1979

D e c . 1978

D e c . 1979

to

to

D ec. 1979

D ec. 1980

1980
M ar.

June

S e p t.

Dec.

Consumer foods1 .................................................

CPI
PPI

100.0
100.0

10.2
7.4

10.2
7.3

3.3
-.9

5.8
-1.4

19.7
31.0

13.1
3.6

Beef and v e a l.....................................................................

CPI
PPI

10.3
13.4

21.7
20.6

5.0
-1.8

-3.5
-13.8

-16.3
-8 .0

48.8
35.0

1.4
-11.5

Pork2 ................................................................................

CPI
PPI

4.7
6.3

-8 .2
-12.9

11.8
8.8

-4 .6
-30.0

-22.0
-23.5

87.2
171.7

12.0
-2.7

Poultry................................................................................

CPI
PPI

2.2
3.3

-.8
-1.9

15.0
6.8

-8.1
48.1

-8 .9
-19.4

89.0
262.0

10.3
-15.3

Cereal and bakery products ............................................

CPI
PPI

8.6
12.5

11.4
13.6

11.6
11.1

12.6
15.0

12.8
8.8

7.4
7.0

13.8
14.4

Dairy products ...................................................................

CPI
PPI

9.3
13.2

10.4
8.4

9.7
10.4

8.6
9.7

12.3
13.9

6.9
4.6

11.2
13.7

Fresh fruits and vegetables...............................................

CPI
PPI

5.0
4.7

13.2
-4 .9

139.9
16.1

-15.0
-12.0

27.4
41.3

53.7
100.5

0.3
-27.9

Processed fruits and vegetables2 ....................................

CPI
PPI

4.6
6.5

6.1
1.9

8.0
6.5

8.7
5.3

7.3
7.1

8.4
5.7

7.7
7.8

E g g s ........................................................

CPI
PPI

1.3
2.0

3.6
5.0

11.1
9.6

-21.2
4.7

11.3
-19.9

31.3
47.9

31.8
16.4

Sugar and sweets3 ............................................................

CPI
PPI

2.4
4.4

7.4
14.6

35.7
42.7

34.8
61.2

34.8
130.5

33.8
21.2

39.5
-7.7

Roasted coffee2 ................................................................

CPI
PPI

1.0
4.5

19.6
22.8

-11.6
-14.7

-2.8
-5 .6

-4.7
-11.7

-5.7
-20.2

-30.0
-21.0

Fats and oil products4 .....................................................

CPI
PPI

2.0
1.6

7.1
8.8

8.1
2.8

9.6
-0.2

-2 .0
-7.2

6.5
11.1

19.5
8.6

11ncludes Items not listed. The CPI includes prices of food away from home, which account
for about 31 percent of the food Index. The PPI for finished consumer foods does not reflect
restaurant prices.

to the smallest peanut crop since 1964 on top of a poor
harvest in 1979. Processor prices of peanut butter were
up by a third. Margarine prices rose slightly, as higher
processing costs more than offset lower prices for re­
fined corn and soybean oil. Prices for crude vegetable
oils were down 9.9 percent despite a 34.9-percent rise in
oilseed prices. Both oils and oilseeds showed large price
declines during the first half of the year as excellent
soybean harvests in Brazil depressed world prices. How­
ever, hot, dry weather across much of the United States
during the summer resulted in a shortage, especially for
soybeans. U.S. soybean production was down 20 per­
cent from 1979 after 3 years of record output. The price
of soybeans jumped 25.0 percent in July alone. The
price of vegetable cake and meal was up 19.8 percent
over the year, creating a strong demand from crushers
for oilseeds. Heavy crush resulted in large supplies of
vegetable oil, a byproduct of vegetable cake and meal
production. Meanwhile, strong demand for corn syrup
resulted in large supplies of corn oil, which is a
byproduct of corn syrup production. Thus, even with
large price increases in the last half of 1980, abundant
supplies kept crude vegetable oil prices well below the
1979 level.
Retail prices for roasted coffee dropped 11.6 percent
Digitized for 8FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2 Not seasonally adjusted,
3 “ Sugar and confectionery” in the PPI. Not seasonally adjusted in the PPI.
4 “ Vegetable oil end products” In the PPI.

in 1980, compared with a 19.6-percent increase in 1979.
This drop was the direct result of record supplies that
led to a 17.3-percent decline in prices for green coffee
beans and a 14.7-percent drop in processor prices for
roasted coffee. There was little frost damage to the Bra­
zilian crop in 1980; world output was large, despite
crop damage in some smaller producing nations. By
yearend, the United States had more than a year’s sup­
ply on hand. In addition, domestic coffee consumption
continued to decline. In contrast, world consumption of
tea kept pace with record production, leading to a mod­
est 1.9-percent rise in unprocessed tea prices. Higher
manufacturing costs were largely responsible for a
9.3-percent boost in the p p i for packaged tea. Packaged
cocoa prices increased modestly, as falling cocoa bean
prices were offset by rising sugar prices. Soft drink
prices were up in both the CPI and the PPI in response
to sugar prices.
Cereal and bakery products were up 11.6 percent in
the CPI and 11.1 percent in the p p i . Higher wheat prices
during most of the second half of the year led to a
5.5-percent increase in the PPI for flour. Costs increased
for many goods, especially cookies, cereals, and sweet
baked goods because of skyrocketing sugar prices. De­
spite a record domestic crop, the price of milled rice

moved up, principally because of strong export demand
due to poor rice harvests in South America and the Re­
public of Korea.
At the farm level, grain prices dropped at a 10.8-per­
cent annual rate during the first half of the year as
world supplies were generally good. The grain embargo
against the Soviet Union in January had only a tempo­
rary impact on prices because the Soviets removed an
equivalent amount of grain from the world market
through purchases from other countries. Hot, dry
weather hurt U.S. grain production during the summer,
sending grain prices up at a 51.7-percent annual rate
during the second half. Corn production was down 16
percent from 1979, after 5 years of record crops, send­
ing corn prices up 26.8 percent in 1980. However, the
winter wheat crop was harvested before the drought hit,
and damage to spring wheat was not sufficient to pre­
vent a record wheat harvest in 1980. The large domestic
supply of wheat counteracted poor harvests of other
grains, and strong export demand for wheat resulted in
a wheat price increase of less than 1 percent.
Consumer prices for fresh fruits rose 7.2 percent in
1980, despite a 4.3-percent drop in the PPI for fresh
fruits. A record harvest and sizable drops in the PPI for
citrus fruits and apples did not fully impact retail prices
by yearend. Florida orange trees had recovered from
the severe frost of January 1977; however, higher costs
for transportation, storage, and marketing exerted up­
ward pressure on retail prices. The supply situation for
fresh fruits, though, was much more favorable than that
for fresh vegetables. The CPI for fresh vegetables rose
20.3 percent in 1980, led by a 43.8-percent increase for
potatoes. Fresh vegetable prices fell during the first
quarter when supplies were more than ample. U.S. De­
partment of Agriculture statistics indicated that 6.9 per­
cent more acreage was devoted to 14 major winter
vegetables over 1979 and production was up 8.2 per­
cent. However, reduced plantings and severe weather
took their toll during the summer. Potatoes were espe­
cially hard hit, with the smallest crops for sweet and
white potatoes since the early 1970’s. Planted acreage
for 14 fresh fall vegetables was the same in 1980 as in
1979, but yields were down 4.7 percent, limiting the
yearend recovery. However, tomatoes, which had suf­
fered damage from heat in the fall of 1979 and were in
short supply at the start of 1980, went against the trend
and showed a net price decrease over the year.
Processed fruits and vegetables were up 8.0 percent in
the CPI and 6.5 percent in the PPI. Processed fruits rose
5.9 percent at the retail level in 1980. The cost of most
raw fruits being processed was fairly stable. Most of the
increase was due to other raw material and production
costs, especially sugar. Processed vegetables experienced
a more substantial increase of 10.2 percent. Acreage
contracted for the production of seven major processing
vegetables was down approximately 12 percent from

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1979 levels. In addition, bad weather reduced yields and
in turn the quantity packaged. Thus, the 1980 supply
was considerably smaller than in 1979. Meanwhile, as
with processed fruits, labor, tinplate, energy, transporta­
tion, and marketing costs all increased. Prices increased
as the large carryover stocks from 1979 were depleted.

Commodities other than food and energy
Consumer goods. Both retail and producer prices for
consumer goods other than food and energy increased
about 10 percent in 1980, a somewhat larger increase
than in the preceding year. Price increases accelerated
for a broad range of goods, including used cars, appar­
el, textile housefurnishings, sanitary papers, cosmetics,
drugs, soaps, tobacco products, and sporting goods.
Home purchase and gold jewelry prices continued to
climb rapidly. Prices for footwear and tires, however,
increased considerably less than in 1979. (See table 5.)
The home purchase component of the CPI moved up
11.4 percent over the year, second only to the 15.8-per­
cent annual increase recorded in 1979. The rate of in­
crease in this index slowed significantly in the first
quarter of 1980, as record-high mortgage interest rates
severely dampened both housing demand and the avail­
ability of mortgage credit. A resurgence in the housing
market, triggered by a sharp drop in interest rates dur­
ing the spring, caused the increase in home prices to ac­
celerate through the second and third quarters. By the
end of the year, record-high interest rates returned and
had the same moderating impact on home prices as in
the first quarter.
Retail prices for new cars moved up 7.5 percent in
1980, almost identical to the 1979 increase. Producer
prices, however, rose somewhat more than in the previ­
ous year (9.0 versus 7.3 percent). The largest increases
were registered for compacts and subcompacts while
prices for larger cars rose very little or not at all in re­
sponse to reduced demand for cars with low gas mile­
age. Prices for imports, which captured approximately
27 percent of the American market in 1980, were sharp­
ly higher, both because of the weakness of the dollar
compared to the yen and demand that exceeded
supplies. Price increases slowed for tires, particularly at
the primary market level, largely because reduced do­
mestic production of automobiles depressed demand.
After dropping at an annual rate of 12 percent during
the first half of 1980, used car prices exploded in the
second half at the second highest rate ever recorded for
this index. This turnaround was all the more dramatic
because, historically, used car prices have decreased af­
ter the introduction of new model-year cars each fall.
The unusual upturn in late 1980 could be attributed to
a number of factors, including: (1) a continued rise in
new car prices, especially smaller, higher-mileage mod­
els; (2) an increase in gasoline supplies, which made the
purchase of large used cars more palatable; (3) the re9

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Price Changes in 1980
Table 5.

Changes in retail prices for commodities less food and energy, 1979- 1980
P e rc e n t c h a n g e

C o m p o u n d a n n u a l r a t e , s e a s o n a lly a d ju s t e d
e x c e p t a s n o te d , fo r 3 m o n th s e n d e d

R e la t iv e
C P I g r o u p in g

Im p o r t a n c e
Dec

D e c . 1978
to

to

D ec. 1979

D ec. 1980

1979

—

D e c . 1979
1980
M ar.

June

S e p t.

Dec.

Commodities less food and energy ...................................

100.0

8.8

9.9

9.5

7.7

12.9

9.6

Alcoholic beverages .......................................................................
Home purchase1 ...........................................................................
Maintenance and repair commodities1 ..........................................
Textile housefurnishings ................................................................
Furniture and bedding.....................................................................
Appliances, including radio and T.V,1 ............................................
Other household equipment1 ..........................................................
Housekeeping supplies1 ................................................................
Apparel commodities less footwear ...............................................
Footwear.........................................................................................
New c a rs .........................................................................................
Used cars .......................................................................................
Auto parts and equipment1 ............................................................
Medical care commodities..............................................................
Entertainment commodities ............................................................
Tobacco products’ .........................................................................
Toilet goods and personal care appliances' .................................
School books and supplies ............................................................

3.0
30.1
2.4
1.5
3.5
4.4
2.6
4.2
10.9
1.9
10.8
8.2
1.8
2.3
6.4
3.1
2.1
.5

8.0
15.8
9.2
6.1
6.3
3.3
6.5
7.2
3.8
8.7
7.4
2.2
13.3
7.6
7.7
6.2
8.2
7.9

7.6
11.4
10.4
8.2
7.8
3.6
10.4
12.4
5.8
6.7
7.5
18.3
8.6
10.0
10.3
9.7
9.9
9.7

7.4
7.0
9.2
14.9
15.7
3.8
16.1
16.3
14.1
7.6
10.2
-2.0
14.0
10.2
15.3
13.8
9.3
9.5

9.8
14.9
12.5
7.6
5.8
4.1
10.3
13.0
-1.4
3.7
8.7
-12.1
3.3
10.7
9.2
10.5
10.2
7.6

8.2
14.9
12.7
10.4
7.3
5.2
9.6
11.2
8.7
9.2
15.4
39.0
11.7
10.2
11.0
2.2
10.5
27.4

5.2
9.0
7.3
.6
2.7
1.1
6.0
9.4
2.9
6.1
-3.4
62.3
5.7
8.9
6.1
12.9
9.7
-3.4

1 Not seasonally adjusted.

cord-high interest rates required for new-car financing;
and (4) a smaller supply of good, late-model used cars
because weak demand for new cars resulted in a short­
age of trade-ins.
Retail prices for apparel commodities other than
footwear increased 5.8 percent in 1980. While moderate
when compared to most other items in the CPI, this rate
was still the largest annual increase since 1974. From
1975 through 1979, these prices had moved up at an av­
erage annual rate of just 3.2 percent. Producer price in­
creases for apparel also accelerated from 4.6 percent in
1979 to 8.9 percent in 1980. Major influences included
the increased cost of financing inventories due to high
interest rates, a substantial advance in cotton prices as a
result of a domestic cotton crop that was 20 percent
smaller than the year before, and a continued increase
in synthetic fiber prices. On the other hand, leather
footwear prices rose considerably less than in 1979, par­
ticularly at the primary market level, reflecting an eas­
ing of leather price boosts.
Gold jewelry prices advanced sharply for the second
consecutive year. Most of the 1980 increases occurred
early in the year, before gold prices took a sharp dip in
the spring. After resurging in the third quarter, produc­
er prices for gold jewelry declined at a 21-percent rate
during the final months of the year. Prices accelerated
for prescription and over-the-counter drugs— higher
petrochemical prices and an increase in labor costs were
among the major contributors. Higher prices for tobac­
co products partly reflected increased costs for leaf to­
bacco.
Capital equipment. The Producer Price Index for capital
equipment moved up 11.4 percent in 1980, the first
double-digit advance in this index since the 22.3-percent
surge in 1974. The acceleration from an 8.8-percent rise
10

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

in 1979 was very broad-based— most major types of
capital goods rose considerably more in 1980 than in
the previous year. Advances of at least 15 percent were
recorded for generators, small aircraft, oilfield machin­
ery, plastic and rubber industry machinery, food prod­
ucts machinery, and chemical industry machinery.
Photographic equipment, office and store machines, and
commercial furniture were among the few kinds of in­
vestment goods which moved up less than 8 percent
over the year.
After adjusting for inflation, the real level of capital
spending declined about 6 percent in 1980. A number
of factors served to discourage capital expansion plans
in 1980. The economic downturn in the first half of the
year led to both sharply reduced profits and excess ca­
pacity in some industries. Energy-intensive industries,
which had been hard hit by the steep energy price
boosts from late 1978 through early 1980, often found
it difficult during the recession to raise output prices to
match the climb in input costs. The resulting erosion of
profitability severely limited their ability to internally
generate investment funds. The unusually high level of
interest rates which prevailed much of the year further
discouraged potential investment spending.
Mitigating these negative effects somewhat was the
relatively quick upturn in business activity after mid­
year, as many firms were sufficiently confident to con­
tinue their capital expansion projects. Investments by
petroleum companies, other energy producers, firms in
the aerospace and defense-related industries, metals pro­
cessors, electrical machinery manufacturers, and trans­
portation equipment companies were especially strong.
Companies eager to install more energy-efficient ma­
chinery and to meet pollution abatement requirements
also tried to maintain their capital spending plans. The
fact that real investment spending did not drop as

much in 1980 as it usually does during a recession
served to limit the depth and duration of the recession.

cent because of strong overseas demand and increased
production in the defense and aerospace industries.

Intermediate materials other than food and energy

Nondurable manufacturing materials. The nondurable
manufacturing materials index advanced 12.3 percent in
1980 after rising 18.0 percent in the previous year.
Sharply higher world prices for crude oil led to large
advances during the early months of 1980 for organic
industrial chemicals, plastic resins and materials, and
synthetic rubber. These prices changed very little during
the rest of the year because of the impact of the reces­
sion and the slowdown in crude oil price rises.
Among textile products, synthetic fibers prices rose
13.5 percent, about the same as in 1979, largely because
of higher petrochemical feedstock costs. Because pro­
ducers had reduced their output in response to declin­
ing demand, they were able to continue passing through
cost hikes. Higher prices for synthetic materials plus ris­
ing prices for cotton led to accelerated price increases
for processed yarns and threads, gray fabrics, and fin­
ished fabrics.
Prices for paper and paperboard continued to move
up at double-digit rates in 1980, largely because of
higher costs for woodpulp and energy. Woodpulp prices
were sharply higher over the year as a result of reduced
production of lumber.

The Producer Price Index for intermediate materials
less foods and energy climbed 10.0 percent from De­
cember 1979 to December 1980, a somewhat slower
pace than in the previous 12 months. In general, prices
for most items within this category tended to rise
sharply during the first quarter, moderate during the
middle of the year, and resume substantial increases in
the fourth quarter. These price movements thus
paralleled the sharp changes in the general level of eco­
nomic activity during 1980. High interest rates during
most of the year had a negative impact on material
prices; speculation in nonferrous metals and certain
crude commodities was discouraged by increased bor­
rowing costs, and the need felt by many firms to cut
their material inventories (because of high financing
costs) led to reduced demand.
Durable manufacturing materials. The slowdown in the
rate of price increases was most evident in the durable
manufacturing materials category, which rose 5.9 per­
cent following a 17.2-percent jump in 1979. This com­
paratively moderate pace was largely due to the
depressed markets for housing, automobiles, and some
related consumer durable goods. The PPI for finished
steel mill products moved up 7.9 percent in 1980, fol­
lowing two years of double-digit increases. Steel industry
production was reduced to about half of capacity by
midyear and total 1980 shipments of steel products fell
18 percent from 1979 levels, principally because of poor
demand from the automotive industry. Competitive
price discounts were introduced in July for sheets, strips,
and bars to stimulate sales; most of these discounts were
removed at the beginning of the fourth quarter, and new
increases were included as the economy strengthened. In
contrast to the weakness in other steel markets, demand
was very strong for steel pipes and other products used
by the oil and natural gas industries. Prices for these
products rose sharply during 1980.
Price movements for nonferrous metals during 1980
were mixed. Heavy speculative activity led to very steep
increases at the beginning of the year for gold, silver,
and copper. However, soaring interest rates helped to
end the boom by spring, and prices dropped sharply in
subsequent months. From June to October, precious
metals prices recovered some of these losses, but turned
down at the end of the year as interest rates again ap­
proached 20 percent. Over the year, copper prices fell
15.5 percent because of poor demand from the con­
struction industries. Prices for lead plummeted 28.7 per­
cent in response to low demand from manufacturers of
automobile batteries, the largest market for lead. On the
other hand, primary aluminum prices were up 14.4 per­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Construction materials. The index for construction mate­
rials rose about 9 percent for the second consecutive
year. The sharp climb in mortgage interest rates in early
1980 led to a steep decline in the rate of new private
housing starts. After interest rates receded in the spring,
residential construction activity picked up again; this
upturn persisted through the rest of the year in spite of
renewed increases in interest rates by late fall. Prices for
softwood lumber, millwork, and plywood were general­
ly sensitive to demand from the construction industry,
falling sharply in the early months of the year and then
turning up in subsequent months. Prices for nonmetallic
mineral products rose substantially during the first part
of the year as producers passed through increased ener­
gy costs; prices during the latter part of the year were
relatively stable, reflecting the slowdown in energy price
increases. Most other construction materials such as
fabricated structural metal products moved up moder­
ately during 1980, partly because of smaller advances in
steel prices compared to 1979.
Other. Among other intermediate goods, the electronic
components index advanced 14.0 percent, more than in
any other year on record, as higher prices for gold, alu­
minum, and tantalum led to increases for such products
as capacitors and relays. Because poor economic condi­
tions prevailed during much of the year, businesses were
reluctant to invest in new machinery and, instead, in­
vested in replacement parts to extend the usefulness of
11

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Price Changes in 1980
existing capital equipment. Large increases were regis­
tered for ball and roller bearings, fluid power equip­
ment, mechanical power transmission equipment, and
nonfarm tractor parts, among other goods. Prices for
photographic supplies rose sharply early in the year,
then edged down somewhat, in response to the fluctu­
ating price of silver, which is used in making most types
of camera film.

Crude nonfood materials less energy
Producer prices for crude nonfood materials less ener­
gy, which tend to be highly sensitive to changes in gen­
eral economic conditions, dropped at a seasonally
adjusted annual rate of 18.4 percent during the first half
of the year. These prices then turned up dramatically in
the second half, climbing at a rate of 50.5 percent. For
the year as a whole, this index rose 7.5 percent, follow­
ing a 15.1-percent advance in 1979. Prices for nonferrous scrap, wastepaper, and hides and skins tumbled
after rising rapidly in 1979, and increases for iron and
steel scrap, crude natural rubber, and iron ore were
considerably smaller than those of the year before. In
contrast, raw cotton prices jumped far more than in
1979, and prices for sand and gravel, leaf tobacco, and
potash also recorded larger increases in 1980.
After climbing 36.7 percent in 1979, nonferrous scrap
prices were down 3.5 percent in 1980 because of weak
domestic and export demand, reflecting the weakness in
prices for copper and some other nonferrous metals.
Wastepaper prices fell 13.7 percent over the year, prin­
cipally because of sluggish demand from domestic recy­
cling mills. However, increased exports and good

demand for wastepaper for making insulation materials
served to restrain the price decline. Prices for hides and
skins moved down in the first 6 months of the year be­
cause of poor demand. A surge in demand from domes­
tic tanners and export buyers from Japan, Korea, and
Taiwan led to a partial price recovery in the second
half; nevertheless, the hides and skins index finished the
year 11.5 percent lower than in December 1979. Iron
and steel scrap prices were up 7.6 percent for the year.
Sharply lower prices during the first half resulted from
a marked decrease in steel mill production. Ferrous
scrap prices then rebounded in the last half when
supplies were tight in the face of increased domestic
steel output. Crude natural rubber prices rose much less
than a year earlier (5.6 percent versus 21.5 percent), in
large part because of weak demand from domestic and
foreign tire manufacturers, and because of slower price
increases for synthetic rubber.
Raw cotton prices soared 35.5 percent from Decem­
ber 1979 to December 1980. Most of this surge was
registered in the third quarter as hot, dry weather in
major domestic producing areas reduced the cotton
crop by 20 percent from the 1979 level. Unusually
strong export demand, particularly from the People’s
Republic of China, also helped to boost cotton prices.
Prices for sand, gravel, and crushed stone were up 14.4
percent for the year as energy-related costs continued to
rise. Leaf tobacco prices rose 10.2 percent, partly be­
cause of damage to the new crop by the summer
drought. Potash prices climbed even more in 1980 (21.8
percent) than the year before (18.9 percent), reflecting
tight supplies and firm export demand.
□

FOOTNOTES

1All previously published data for stage-of-processing indexes from
January 1976 through December 1980 have been revised to reflect
new stage-of-processing allocations based on 1972 input-output tables
published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
At the December 1980 OPEC conference in Indonesia, another
general increase in official contract prices was announced. Saudi Ara­
bia raised its standard crude oil price to $32 per barrel, one-third
higher than a year earlier, but still the lowest within OPEC. The
highest allowed price within OPEC was set at $41 per barrel, a $4 in­
crease over the ceiling price in effect since June.
The PPI for crude petroleum does not include prices for un­
controlled categories of domestic production other than low-output
“stripper” wells. These excluded categories accounted for a growing
proportion of total output during 1980 and by the end of the year

12

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

represented about half of total production; therefore, the PPI under­
estimated the actual average price for domestic crude oil.
4 “Primary stocks” refer to petroleum products stored at refineries,
in pipelines, or at bulk terminals; inventories of retailers, jobbers, and
so forth are excluded.
The PPI for natural gas has been partly reallocated from the
Crude Materials stage-of-processing category to the Finished Goods
stage-of-processing category to reflect the proportion of natural gas
consumed by households. This change was part of a comprehensive
revision of stage-of-processing allocations, which became effective with
the release of January 1981 data on February 13.
6The highest recorded average monthly contracted mortgage inter­
est rate occurred in May 1980. On average, there is about a 60-day
lag between mortgage rate commitments and home purchase settle­
ments.

Labor and the Supreme Court:
significant decisions of 1979-80
The Court approved Congress' remedial quotas,
left important safety and health issues unresolved,
limited NLRA coverage of teaching professionals,
and broadened the concept of work preservation;
many important cases were decided by one-vote margins
G

regory

J.

M ounts

Mr. Dooley said that “ . . . th’ supreme coort follows
th’ iliction returns,” 1but in its 1979-80 labor cases, the
Supreme Court foreshadowed the electorate’s November
return to private sector emphasis with a series of cases
expanding the flexibility of private sector employers and
unions2 but limiting that of public sector employers.3
Some decisions resulted in expansive enforcement of
constitutional rights,4 while the Court read statutory
texts literally to broaden administrative discretion in
some cases5and limit it in others.6
In seven of the year’s most important cases, different
alliances produced decisions that hinged on one vote.
Such close verdicts in cases involving health and safety
standards, faculty bargaining rights, seniority system
provisions, and the work preservation doctrine suggest
that the new approaches established by the Court in
these areas may be either broadened or trimmed, as
some justices clarify their views or as the makeup of the
Court changes.
In the cases considering workplace health and safety
standards and racial quotas, the independent-minded
justices forged agreements only by combining the result
of differing factions, because no more than three justices
could agree on the reasons for a verdict. The Court’s
splintered approach to health and safety standards pre­
vented a resolution of whether the costs of standards,
such as for reducing worker exposure to benzene, need
Gregory J. Mounts, an economist now with the General Accounting
Office, wrote “Significant Decisions in Labor Cases” while on the staff
of the M o n th ly L a b o r R eview .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

to be justified based on the benefits to workers’ health.7
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s
standard-setting process probably must be modified
based on the Court’s multiple opinions, but the agency
and affected industries will have to await future deci­
sions— perhaps in the 1980-81 term— to find out exact­
ly how much.
The decision on racial quotas was somewhat more
conclusive, as the six justices who approved minority
set-asides by Congress split evenly on the appropriate
constitutional standard in such cases.8 Employment dis­
crimination cases under Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act permitted wide flexibility in negotiated sen­
iority system provisions9 and settled important proce­
dural questions, including a ruling that the Equal Em­
ployment Opportunity Commission need not meet
restrictive class certification standards.10
A pair of public-sector cases significantly altered the
potential liability of State and local governments. An
old law with many new twists, the Civil Rights Act of
1871 permits suits against governmental entities for al­
leged violations of all Federal statutory rights, not just
civil rights." And municipalities may not claim “good
faith” immunity as a defense in such suits.12 A third
public-sector case further restricted patronage.13
In traditional labor law, the Court continued a yearearlier pattern and rejected National Labor Relations
Board positions in two of three cases. But the result in
all three cases expanded employer rights. The Court de­
nied Board-approved bargaining rights to faculty pro­
fessors with “managerial” responsibilities,14and rejected
13

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Labor and the Supreme Court, 1979-80
the Board’s limited interpretation of the work preserva­
tion doctrine applied to longshoring.15 However, the
Court adopted a new n l r b policy that prohibits sec­
ondary picketing of a struck product if it will have a se­
vere economic impact on a neutral employer.16
The Supreme Court also decided a wide range of
issues concerning government benefit programs. In con­
trast to the variegated pattern in other areas, nearly ev­
ery decision involving benefits expanded coverage or
made benefits more available by removing restrictions
created by legislatures and courts.

Safety and health
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
celebrated its 10th anniversary in 1980, winning one of
two Supreme Court cases challenging its interpretation
of the 1970 health and safety law. Now, the agency en­
ters its second decade facing two major sources of un­
certainty: the Supreme Court has been unable to agree
on how health and safety standards must be justified;
and the new Administration may approach OSHA regu­
latory policies differently than did President Carter.
Early in the year, the Court resolved a conflict
among the Circuits by upholding an OSHA regulation
giving workers the right to refuse to perform hazardous
jobs if they reasonably believe that there is no other
way to avoid risk of serious injury or death.17 Although
the OSH act does not mention a right to refuse to work
under unsafe conditions, Justice Potter Stewart’s opin­
ion for a unanimous Court reasoned that the Secretary
of Labor had the power to find such an implied right in
the law because Congress had intended to prevent inju­
ries and to require employers to eliminate dangers in
the workplace. However, the Court made clear that em­
ployers have no obligation to pay workers for the time
they have refused to work.
What the Court characterized as its liberal interpreta­
tion of the health and safety law in Whirlpool Corp. did
not last. In American Petroleum Institute,18 the Court
took its first look at the complicated process of setting
health and safety standards without resolving much. Al­
though it was expected to answer several questions, in­
cluding whether and when the benefits of a standard
must justify its costs, the decision had only one legal
outcome: OSHA’s attempt to further reduce worker ex­
posure to benzene was impermissible.
In reaching its 5-4 verdict on the benzene standard,
the Court pluarality (five justices split three ways in
explaining their vote) appeared to seriously undermine
OSHA’s standard-setting procedure for carcinogens. The
Secretary of Labor had relied on the act’s language re­
quiring the most protective standard feasible for toxic
substances.19 But the Court’s lead opinion, written by
Justice Stevens and joined by Chief Justice Warren Bur­
ger and Justice Stewart (and in part by Justice Powell),
14

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

found that the act initially requires all standards to be
“reasonably necessary or appropriate to remedy a sig­
nificant risk” to workers’ health or safety. After making
this “threshold determination,” the Secretary may select
a standard geared to eliminate the “significant risk of
harm,” Stevens wrote. But he explicitly rejected OSHA’s
policy on regulating carcinogens, which sought stand­
ards strict enough to produce a risk-free work environ­
ment. The law was not intended to provide such protec­
tion, Stevens declared. Because the Secretary had failed
to produce “substantial evidence” that a signifi­
cant risk exists with the old benzene exposure limits (10
parts per million parts of air), Stevens refused to con­
sider the further question of whether the benzene stan­
dard was economically feasible.
The law is unclear as to the meaning of economic
feasibility, and the Circuits have split on the question.
Some have held, as the Fifth Circuit had when consider­
ing the benzene case, that OSHA must use some cost /
benefit approach in creating standards for industry.20
Other Circuits have ruled that the standards are eco­
nomically feasible as long as an industry is not faced
with massive economic dislocation.21 There is a wide gap
between the two approaches, and the Court will have
another opportunity to resolve the question during its
1980-81 term when it reviews a District of Columbia
Circuit Court ruling upholding OSHA’s cotton dust stand­
ard.22The D.C. appeals court found that a standard can
be economically feasible even if compliance results in
the demise of some employers within an industry.
Some of the justices used the benzene ruling to ex­
press their general views on the economic feasibility is­
sue. Powell’s concurring opinion supported the use of
cost/benefit analysis to justify OSHA standards. The
Chief Justice, in his own concurrence, also compared
the benefits and costs of a standard, but in far more
general terms. The four dissenters, in an opinion by Jus­
tice Marshall, noted that the law does not specifically
require cost/benefit analysis. A standard is feasible,
Marshall wrote, “if it is capable of achievement, not if
its benefits outweigh its costs.” Thus, these four may
need the support of only one other justice to prevail on
this issue when the Court considers the cotton dust
standard.

Constitutional quotas, civil rights
For the third consecutive term, the Supreme Court
addressed the sensitive question of whether goals and
quotas are permissible tools to correct racial and ethnic
imbalances. Based on the line of cases, quotas are prop­
er tools in some hands but their use by many others in­
volves unanswered questions. Public schools may not
use rigid admissions quotas, a divided Court ruled in
1978, but race may be a factor in the selection of stu­
dents.23 Within certain limits, the 1979 Weber ruling

allowed private employers and unions to voluntarily
adopt racial quotas in job training programs.24 In 1980,
the Court ruled that Congress has the authority to use
quotas to remedy past discrimination, reasoning that
the 14th Amendment’s requirement of equal protection
means that groups historically denied this right may be
given special treatment.25 The Court’s incremental ap­
proach to deciding how far society can go in favoring
minorities passed a critical constitutional test with this
most recent ruling. Even though the six justices approv­
ing quotas split 3-3 on precisely when they are consti­
tutional, the ruling made clear that properly devised
minority quotas do not violate the constitutional rights
of others in society. Some of the remaining questions
concerning quotas, such as whether and when other
governmental authorities besides Congress may use
them in remedial schemes, may be answered by the
Court in its 1980-81 term.26
Last term’s case arose when white contractors chal­
lenged a provision of the 1977 Public Works Employ­
ment Act setting aside 10 percent of available funds for
minority business enterprises; those owned or operated
by U.S. citizens who are “Negroes, Spanish-speaking,
Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts.” Congress
acted to remedy the effects of prior discrimination, and
its unique constitutional power to enforce equal protec­
tion guarantees permits new approaches— “such as the
limited use of racial and ethnic criteria” — to achieve
this objective, Chief Justice Warren Burger’s lead opin­
ion concluded. Burger, joined by Justices Powell and
White, reasoned that the impact on white contractors
was not an unreasonable burden, even though it fell on
many not guilty of prior discrimination. He also found
that administrative provisions that waived the quotas
when qualified minorities were unavailable reduced the
potential for abuse. Questions about whether the law’s
coverage of specific disadvantaged groups was appropri­
ate must be decided in other cases, Burger wrote.
Writing for the second three-man bloc, Justice Mar­
shall approved the quotas using a much broader
constitutional test he first developed in his Bakke opin­
ion. As long as remedial racial classifications “serve im­
portant governmental objectives and are substantially
related to these objectives,” they are constitutionally
permissible. The 10-percent set-aside for minorities in
Fullilove fell well within the limits of this standard, he
concluded. The significance of a split opinion, offering
two rationales for the same result, is the freedom—
some say confusion—it creates for lower court judges
confronted with similar questions in different settings.
For example, the Supreme Court’s multiple Bakke opin­
ions have been cited in rulings upholding voluntary ra­
cial quotas adopted by public employers.27 On the
opening day of its 1980-81 term, the Court refused to
review a California Supreme Court ruling that approved

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the voluntary use of quotas by a county employment
agency following administrative findings that its racially
imbalanced work force resulted from prior discrimina­
tion. The case could signal the direction the Court will
take in a similar California case it has agreed to review.28
Until these questions are more fully resolved, Fullilove
allows Congress—if not other governmental authorities
—to use remedial quotas in the allocation of funds for
jobs, housing, education, and perhaps other areas.
In cases arising under Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, the Court established a broad interpretation
of the permissible provisions of a “bona fide” seniority
system and narrowly ruled that the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission need not meet restrictive proce­
dural criteria in filing class action suits. Three other cases
resolved important procedural issues under Title VII.
“Bona fide” seniority systems are exempt from the
antidiscrimination provisions of Title VII. The Court’s
1977 Teamsters decision approved a two-track seniority
system as bona fide, even though it perpetuated the ef­
fects of pre-act discrimination.29The ruling created much
uncertainty about what other provisions could be in­
cluded in bona fide plans. In California Brewers Assn.,30
the Court finally provided some guidance. In addition to
rules that operate on the basis of employment longevity,
a seniority system may also include “ancillary” rules
that determine when and how the “seniority time clock
begins ticking,” what work time will “count” toward
benefits, and when and how accrued seniority can be
forfeited, a 4 -3 majority ruled.
As a result of this broad definition of acceptable pro­
visions, the Court approved the use of a rule requiring
brewery employees to accumulate 45 weeks of work
during a year for advancement to a high-benefit seniori­
ty track. Black workers had charged that the 45-week
rule had a discriminatory impact, in violation of Title
VII. However, Justice Stewart’s majority opinion
stressed the freedom of collective bargaining parties to
adopt such provisions. He also made clear that negoti­
ated provisions acceptable under Title VII may be used
as vehicles of illegal discrimination. Thus, California’s
black brewery workers remain free to show in district
court that the operation of the 45-week rule produced
differences in employment conditions resulting from an
intention to discriminate.
The standard procedural rules governing class certi­
fication require, in part, that the group be sufficiently
large and that all members share important interests. In
a narrow 5 -4 ruling, the Supreme Court resolved a
conflict among the Circuits and found that the EEOC
need not meet such procedural requirements because it
has separate authority under Title VII to file suits on
behalf of groups of aggrieved persons.31
One especially sensitive aspect of this issue is that the
standard procedural requirements for class certification
15

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Labor and the Supreme Court, 1979-80
(Rule 23 of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure) make
any judgment in subsequent suits binding on all class
members; no such requirement exists under Title VII.
Thus, employers expressed concern over the possibility
of additional or supplemental claims by EEOC class ac­
tion members unsatisfied with class-wide relief. Writing
for the Court, Justice Byron White refused to restrict
EEOC’s ability to bring class actions, but he instructed
lower courts to play an active role in determining
whether subsequent private suits by unsatisfied EEOC
class members occur. Where the EEOC has prevailed in
its action, a court may require “any individual who
claims under its judgment to relinquish his right to
bring a separate private action.” Except where lower
courts ignore this advice, it should ameliorate employ­
ers’ equity concerns for double recovery by discrimina­
tion victims.
In N. Y. Gaslight Club?2 the Court increased the
likelihood that discrimination victims can recover the
costs of their successful litigation. A 7 -2 majority ruled
that, in States that have employment discrimination
agencies, a successful plaintiff in State court may file a
Federal Title VII suit for an award of attorney’s fees if
State law does not provide for such an award. The
Court reasoned that the complementary nature of State
and Federal enforcement mechanisms permits those re­
ceiving inadequate relief in State courts to seek com­
plete relief in Federal courts. All plaintiffs may seek
attorney’s fees once they reach a Federal Court, so the
Court found no reason to block such access simply be­
cause adequate relief was received at the State level.
In a second case involving attorney’s fees, the Court
rejected a novel approach by a district judge that would
award fees to prevailing parties in Title VII cases when
the proceedings had been “vexatiously multiplied.”33 A
separate law allows the assessment of “excess costs” for
creating such delays,34 and the lower court found that
attorney’s fees are part of the costs.
Even though the Supreme Court refused to award
fees by combining the two laws, Justice Powell and four
others found that attorney’s fees may be awarded
against lawyers who “willfully abuse judicial process,”
such as by refusing to comply with discovery orders.
The five justices agreed that Federal courts have the
“inherent power” to assess fees as part of the “bad
faith” exception to the American Rule against recovery
of counsel fees.
Both this case and N. Y. Gaslight Club clearly expand
the opportunities for Title VII litigants to recover court
costs, creating additional incentives for alleged victims
to bring suits. But the assessment of fees for the abuse
of judicial process should provide an incentive for more
timely resolution of Title VII cases, perhaps offsetting
the burden of fatter dockets in lower courts.
The fourth procedural case under Title VII involved
16

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the length of time available for filing Federal claims
when deferral to a State employment discrimination
agency is required. Title VII provides that, in a deferral
State, a complainant must file charges with the EEOC
within 300 days of the allegedly unlawful incident; the
law also provides that no charges can be filed with the
EEOC until 60 days after the filing of charges with a
State agency.
When charges were filed with the EEOC after 291
days, and the case was then referred to a State agency,
the Supreme Court ruled that the charge was not filed
on time with the EEOC because the 60-day deferral peri­
od for State charges pushed the technical EEOC filing
date beyond the legal 300-day limit.35 Justices Blackmun, Marshall, and Brennan argued in dissent that the
Court’s interpretation effectively reduces the time for fil­
ing EEOC charges in deferral States to 240 days.

Public-sector cases
Three public-sector cases decided by the Court in
1979-80 expanded the rights of individuals in dealing
with State and local governments. A pair of cases, not
the subject of much media attention, fundamentally al­
tered the potential liability of these governmental enti­
ties. In one case, the Court ruled that State and local
governments can be sued not only for alleged violations
of constitutional and Federal civil rights but also for al­
leged violations of any other federally created right. The
second ruling denied municipalities a qualified “good
faith” immunity defense in such suits. Increased rights
for individuals and corresponding increased liability for
State and local governments are certain to play a key
role in public employment issues. A third public-sector
decision further reduced the number of patronage jobs
controlled by elected officials.
In Maine v. Thiboutot?ba 6-3 majority ruled that the
Civil Rights Act of 1871 creates liability for State and
local government violations of any Federal statutory
right. The 1871 law provides that anyone acting under
the color of State law to deprive another person’s
“rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Consti­
tution and laws” is subject to liability. Justice Brennan’s
majority opinion found “and laws” to be a straightfor­
ward indication that Congress wanted to provide a right
of action to enforce all rights created under Federal
laws.
Thiboutot specifically approved the right to file a
claim against State officials for incorrectly computing
benefits under the Social Security Act. But the list of
federally created rights now enforceable under the 1871
law is long; it includes “any Federal-State cooperative
program,” according to Justice Powell’s vigorous dis­
sent. Thus, cooperative public-works programs and the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act pro­
grams, among others, may now be potential sources of

liability for the States, counties, and cities involved in
their administration.
In expanding private rights under the 1871 law, the
Court also ruled that attorney’s fees could be awarded
by State courts to prevailing parties in all actions under
the law. But, in a companion case that permitted such
fee awards by a Federal court based only on a consent
decree,37 the Court left open whether Federal courts can
award fees against States based on a statutory, non-civil
rights claim under the 1871 law. The 11th Amendment
may bar such an award, but the increased litigation
now expected in this area could soon produce a case
that may answer this question.
In 1978, the Supreme Court overturned a 17-year-old
interpretation of the 1871 Civil Rights Act and held
that municipalities can be sued as “persons” under the
law.38 Last term, in a narrow 5 -4 ruling, the Court
found that cities cannot claim “good faith” immunity as
a defense in such suits.39 Writing for the Court, Justice
Brennan reasoned that the law was designed to protect
against misuse of State and local powers, and permit­
ting immunity would undermine that purpose. Brennan
made clear that government officials may still claim
such a defense in cases under the 1871 law, indicating
that when a municipality deprives individuals of their
constitutional or Federal rights “the public, as repre­
sented by the municipality,” must bear the costs.
The two-way expansion of the potential liability of
State and local governments may have important impli­
cations for the role these government entities choose to
play in administering Federal programs and in provid­
ing other services. Pressure on local governments to en­
sure that neither Federal nor constitutional rights are
infringed could increase administrative costs, as pro­
gram procedures are re-examined and new controls are
implemented. The cost of additional court suits can eas­
ily upset a carefully balanced budget. And with public
finances limited by taxpayer resistance, additional ex­
penditures could mean fewer— but, perhaps, fairer—
programs and services.
Patronage systems suffered a strong blow in 1980, as
once again the Supreme Court upheld the rights of indi­
viduals over those of governmental authorities. The
Court refused to permit a newly elected Democratic
county administration to replace two assistant public
defenders appointed by the defeated Republican of­
ficials.40 Expanding public employees’ First Amendment
protections against political coercion first announced in
Elrod v. Burns,4' a 6-3 Court found that the attorneys,
judged competent in their jobs, could not be dismissed
solely because of their political beliefs.
Which public jobs can still be controlled for patron­
age purposes? The confidential or policymaking nature
of a job is not the criterion for patronage positions, Jus­
tice Stevens wrote for the Court; rather, a hiring au­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

thority must demonstrate that party affiliation is “an
appropriate requirement for the effective performance of
the public office involved.” However, the types of posi­
tions where effectiveness is related to party affiliation re­
mains uncertain. Stevens acknowledged only that
election judges and “various assistants” of State gover­
nors, such as press secretaries, speech writers, and lob­
byists, are examples of permissible patronage jobs, but
he created no clear line.
One writer suggested that the Court has adopted
and expanded Oliver Wendell Holmes’ concept of
“Jobbism,” where a worker’s political beliefs do not in­
terfere with the performance of a job— even if that job
involves carrying out the policies of a competing politi­
cal party. Under the Court’s present approach, “it’s an
open question whether a newly elected governor, or
president, may appoint his own cabinet,” wrote Robert
M. Kaus in “Zbig for Life: The Way the Supreme Court
is Going That’s What We Could be Stuck With.”42 Al­
though Stevens’ opinion is unlikely to lead to court suits
by cabinet officials of an out-going administration, the
question of when party affiliation influences the ef­
fectiveness of a public employee’s performance is bound
to raise some interesting future cases that should help
reduce the present uncertainty.
Indeed, some officials appointed by President Carter
may be encouraged to try and keep their jobs by a re­
cent district court decision. Mahlon M. Delong was
appointed to a Schedule A, Federal “plum book” job
by President Ford. Based on the Supreme Court’s rul­
ing in Brand v. Finkel, a district court found that
Delong was illegally fired by the Carter Administration
and must be reinstated as the Maine director for the
Farmers Home Administration.43 As a result, the Depu­
ty General Counsel for the Federal Office of Personnel
Management, Paul Trause, expects some Carter appoint­
ees to go to court: “I don’t expect to be deluged, but I
think it’s a real consideration.”

Traditional labor law
The NLRB’s expertise in settling labor relations issues
under the National Labor Relations Act has been fre­
quently recognized by the Supreme Court. But in its
1979-80 term, the Court continued a year-earlier pat­
tern and rejected two of three Board interpretations of
the act, so that all three decisions resulted in greater
flexibility for employers. In both cases lost by the
Board, however, the Court achieved only a bare 5-4
majority.
In Yeshiva,44 the Supreme Court ruled that the act’s
coverage of university faculty is far more limited than
the Board claimed. The Court supported a Second Cir­
cuit ruling that faculty members who play dominant
decisionmaking roles in matters of hiring, tenure, sab­
baticals, terminations and promotions as well as in aca17

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Labor and the Supreme Court, 1979-80
demic areas are “managerial” employees excluded from
NLRA coverage. The Board had argued that the faculty
exercised “independent professional judgment” in han­
dling its decisionmaking responsibilities, but the Court
rejected this approach in finding that the interests of
faculty members and those of the university could not
be separated.
Justice Powell’s majority opinion stressed that the
purpose of the managerial exclusion was to preserve for
an employer the undivided loyalty of those employees
who carry out management policies. In applying this ra­
tionale to the employment structure at private universi­
ties, the Court failed to provide clear lines to determine
when a faculty member is aligned with management, al­
though Powell suggested that tenure status in some
schools might distinguish managerial faculty members.
For 9 years, NLRB decisions had approved virtually
all faculty bargaining units, but the uncertainty created
by Yeshiva requires case-by-case reviews by the Board,
certain to dampen union organizing efforts among pri­
vate institutions. Public colleges and universities are
covered by State labor laws, and any change in cover­
age must come in State courts or legislatures.
Without doubt, the most significant aspect of Yeshiva
is whether the “managerial” exclusion may now reach
other professional employees. The Taft-Hartley Act cre­
ated the original exemption for “supervisors,” which
was expanded by Court-approved Board decisions to
cover those “who formulate and effectuate management
policies by expressing and making operative the deci­
sions of their employees.”45 The “managerial” activities
of the Yeshiva faculty may be similar to the responsibil­
ities held by some nurses, lawyers, doctors, engineers,
and other professionals currently bargaining under the
act. More precise limits on the managerial exclusion are
bound to emerge through increased litigation by man­
agements seeking to avoid collective bargaining. Ironi­
cally, the greater decisionmaking authority among
professionals— such as university faculty— that resulted
from the availability (if not the use) of collective
bargaining may be the basis for finding their interests
aligned with those of management. However, Yeshiva's
narrow 5-4 verdict suggests that a Court majority may
not support a broad expansion of the managerial exclu­
sion.
Technological innovation carries conflicting conse­
quences for economic growth and for the continuity of
employment. As pressures increase to combat sagging
productivity growth through policies to stimulate inno­
vation, attempts to preserve traditional work may also
increase. Possibly anticipating such a scenario, the
Court’s ruling in N L R B v. International Longshoremen's
Assn.4b recognized the important role of collective
bargaining in resolving such conflicts and outlined a
broad new interpretation of the work preservation doc­
18

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

trine that should permit innovative solutions to limit
job losses following the introduction of new technolo­
gies.
The n l r b ruled invalid an agreement between the
I LA and the shipping industry granting the union exclu­
sive rights to pack and unpack containerized cargo
within 50 miles of a port. The Board reasoned that such
work was not traditional longshoring work and that the
union illegally sought to acquire the work traditionally
done by freight consolidators and trucking companies.
However, the High Court, noting that container tech­
nology had completely replaced the traditional method
of handling goods between ocean and motor transporta­
tion, found that the Board had incorrectly analyzed the
work the union sought to preserve. On remand, the
Board must reexamine the ILA agreement based on the
Court’s advice that the work preservation doctrine must
protect union actions that “attempt to accommodate
change while preserving as much of their traditional
work as possible.”
If the Board finds the i l a contract provisions valid, a
second question will be whether the shipping industry
has the “right to control” the assignment of work.47
Justice Marshall hinted in a footnote to his majority
opinion that the Board might frame the question in
terms of the shippers’ authority over containers they
own or lease in their “possession and control.”48 But
other issues such as government regulatory constraints
cloud the resolution of the control question.
Regardless of how the Board now decides the ILA
case, the Court’s decision clearly broadens the scope of
permissible work preservation agreements. In earlier
cases such as National Woodwork and Pipefitters,49
unions had completely rejected an innovation in efforts
to preserve traditional work. Thus, it appeared that
only exact work patterns could be preserved through
negotiated contracts. Now, however, the Court has
opened the way for agreements that can preserve work
generically the same as that performed before an inno­
vation. The flexibility of the new approach was also en­
hanced by Marshall’s comment that valid agreements
need not be the “most rational or efficient response to
innovation.” As in Yeshiva, however, the 5-4 majority
in this case suggests that the new standard may extend
only as far as the views of a single justice.
The views of the NLRB were adopted by the Supreme
Court when it declared that a union may not picket a
struck product handled by a neutral secondary employ­
er if the product accounts for substantially all of the
employer’s business.50 The Court’s 1974 Tree Fruits de­
cision had permitted a union to picket a struck product
at a secondary location (apples in a retail store).51 But
the Court reasoned that this simple rule must be condi­
tioned on the relationship of the product to the neutral
employer’s revenues. Justice Powell explained for the 6 -

3 majority that when product picketing “reasonably can
be expected to threaten neutral parties with ruin or sub­
stantial loss” it illegally coerces them to cease dealing
with that product or with the primary employer.
The threshold criterion for when product picketing at
secondary locations becomes illegally coercive remains
unclear. Must a union gain access to the employer’s
books and use some quantitative interpretation of “sub­
stantial” before being reasonably certain that picketing
is legal? In the case before the Court, revenues from
sales of the struck product accounted for more than 90
percent of the neutral employers’ gross income. But is
75 or even 50 percent still “substantial”? The threshold
of illegality is also crossed when “ruin or substantial
loss” of a neutral employer is a “reasonably expected”
outcome of secondary picketing. Must a union evaluate
its potential success in influencing consumers? Presum­
ably the Board and the lower courts will have to answer
these questions and others that emerge concerning spe­
cific products and their economic contribution to the
neutral employer’s business.
The Court also considered the First Amendment
speech questions involved in limiting secondary pic­
keting. Powell’s majority opinion found the new stand­
ard constitutionally sound basically because it differed
little— on the speech question—from the existing limits
on secondary picketing. Justices Blackmun and Stevens
agreed that the new economic impact limitation on sec­
ondary picketing was constitutional, but both were
troubled by the Court’s easy acceptance of additional
content-based speech restrictions. During the 1979-80
term, the Court struck down an Illinois law as uncon­
stitutional because it prohibited picketing of residential
homes based on the content of the picketers’ speech.52
Generally, speech rights have only been limited based
on time, place, and manner. In labor law, the Supreme
Court first limited speech based on content (primary
product picketing) in Tree Fruits, and Blackmun and
Stevens appeared wary of establishing precedents that
could be used in other areas.
Another case decided under the NLRA settled ques­
tions about the liability of parent unions for damages
caused by a local’s unauthorized strike. Unanimously
the Court ruled that a parent union can be held liable
for such damages when it can be proved that the local
acted with the express or implied authority of the par­
ent. Damage liability can also result from a parent
union’s failure to fulfill contractual obligations to re­
solve unauthorized strikes, the Court found in resolving
a conflict among the circuits.53 Under both tests, the
United Mine Workers of America were found not liable
for damages resulting from a series of wildcat strikes by
locals between 1969 and 1973:
Justice Brennan’s opinion emphasized that parent
union liability under the NLRA exists only when a local

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

acts as its agent. However, his analysis of the potential
liability arising from contract language left some impor­
tant questions.
Brennan found that the UMW’s obligation to “main­
tain the integrity” of the contract did not require
attempts to resolve the unauthorized strikes, largely be­
cause such a duty to intervene had been specifically de­
leted from the 1952 contract. It is unclear whether an
“integrity” clause that resulted from a different
bargaining history could create an obligation for parent
union intervention. Thus, where contract language is
imprecise and the negotiating history offers no definitive
answers, a parent union could be held liable for failing
to intervene in a local’s unauthorized strike.

Injury compensation
The two worker compensation cases decided by the
Court last term overturned unconstitutional restrictions
on the availability of benefits to injured workers or
their survivors. Likewise, a pair of cases under the Fed­
eral injury compensation law for maritime workers also
resulted in greater availability of benefits. An unusual
case under another Federal law found the Court agree­
ing with actions that might curb the amount of com­
pensation awards to injured workers or their survivors.
The Missouri workers’ compensation law required a
dependency test for widowers seeking benefits based on
their wives’ former earnings, but did not require such a
test for similarly situated widows. The Supreme Court
struck down this unequal treatment as unconstitutional
sex discrimination,54 extending to State benefit laws the
equal protection analysis used to void similar sex-based
provisions for the distribution of Federal social security
benefits.55 The 8-1 ruling acknowledged that the Mis­
souri provision discriminated both against working
women, by failing to provide the same protection for
their families that men receive, and against men who
survive their working wives. The Court left State courts
to decide whether to require a dependency test for wid­
ows or to drop it altogether.
In the second workers’ compensation case, the Court
ruled that an injured worker may obtain supplemental
or additional benefits from a second jurisdiction that is
willing to pay.56 Although seven justices agreed on this
result, they split 4 -3 on their approach. Justices Ste­
vens, Brennan, Stewart, and Blackmun would have
overruled a 1943 High Court ruling that the Full Faith
and Credit Clause of the Constitution precludes com­
pensation from one State following receipt of benefits
from another.57 However, Justices White and Powell and
the Chief Justice pursued a more narrow course, agree­
ing with a 1947 case that benefits from a second juris­
diction are permissible when not expressly prohibited
by the law of the first jurisdiction.58 In this case, Virgin­
ia’s compensation law was found not to prevent addi19

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Labor and the Supreme Court, 1979-80
tional benefits from other jurisdictions. In dissent, the
unusual combination of Justices Marshall and Rehnquist supported the Court’s 1943 ruling that payment of
secondary compensation claims violates the Full Faith
and Credit Clause.
Under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’
Compensation Act, the Court ruled unanimously that
Congress intended coverage to be based on the nature
of the work performed rather than based solely on its
location. Thus, “maritime employment” for the pur­
poses of the act includes all workers involved in moving
cargo between ocean and land transportation, even
though some of this traditional longshoring work may
occur away from the water’s edge.59
Another unanimous decision found that State com­
pensation plans may cover the same land-based
maritime workers covered by the Federal injury com­
pensation scheme.60 The Court reasoned that the exten­
sion of the Federal law in 1972 to cover such workers
was meant to complement not to supplant State com­
pensation systems.
The calculation of damage awards for a worker’s
death or injury has generally been based on expected
gross income in claims under the Federal Employers’
Liability Act. But during 1980, the Supreme Court sid­
ed with a vanguard of inflation-fighting lower courts
and ruled that after-tax future earnings of a victim
could be calculated and presented to the jury by the
defending employer.61 Justice Stevens wrote for the
Court that juries are now sufficiently sophisticated to
deal with the complexities of future tax liabilities.
Awards under the law are not taxed, and Stevens rea­
soned that juries may be told this to prevent inadver­
tently large awards that include the imaginary tax
consquences. Justices Blackmun and Marshall argued
that the Court simply reduced penalties for defendents
in such cases, whereas Congress probably intended only
victims to benefit from the tax break on awards.

Other benefits, Federal laws
Vested pension benefits are “nonforfeitable” and thus
insured under provisions of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act even if the pension plan was termi­
nated before the act took full effect and contained a
provision disclaiming employer liability for insufficient
assets, the Supreme Court ruled.62 Justice Stevens wrote
for a narrow 5-4 majority that disclaimers of employer
liability protect against direct claims by employees, but
that even during the phase-in period of benefit insurance
Congress intended employers to be liable for up to 30
percent of their net assets to compensate the ERISA in­
surance fund for benefits paid. Because Congress knew
that most plans contained disclaimers, its creation of
the reimbursement plan made clear that benefits were
insured where the employer had disclaimed liability.
20


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Although the decision directly affects only the partici­
pants of plans terminated before 1976, Pepperdine Uni­
versity law professor R. Wayne Estes has suggested that
the decision “sets a tone for strict judicial interpretation
of the statute that may have a far-reaching effect.63
Veterans whose employment is interrupted by their
military service are entitled to seniority benefits calcu­
lated as if they had been continuously employed. The
Supreme Court has ruled that such seniority benefits in­
clude severance pay64 and pension benefits65 but not va­
cation benefits.66 In 1980, a unanimous Court ruled that
the steel industry’s supplemental unemployment benefits
are perquisites of seniority, and military service must be
included in the calculation of SUB payments.67
Justice Marshall’s opinion for the Court satisfied both
prongs of the test established in Alabama Power:68 it is
reasonably certain that steel industry SUB benefits would
have accrued to an employee who entered military ser­
vice; and because they offer lay-off protection initially
based on time worked, SUB benefits are a reward for
length of service.
In U.S. v. Clark,69the Court made it easier for illegiti­
mate children of Federal civil service employees to
obtain survivors’ benefits under the Civil Service Retire­
ment Act. A 7 -2 majority ruled that the law’s
requirement that “recognized natural” children “lived
with” their parents to be eligible for a survivor’s annu­
ity means only that they must have once lived in a nor­
mal parent-child relationship—not necessarily at the
time of the worker’s death. Although not an explicit de­
pendency requirement (which would raise troublesome
constitutional issues), the Court’s reading of the “lived
with” provision establishes some basis for the economic
support intended to flow to the dependent survivors of
a Federal worker.
During its 1979-80 term, a unanimous Court upheld
the constitutionality of the Labor Department’s practice
of using fines assessed for violations of child labor laws
to help defray the cost of enforcing these laws.70 Al­
though the Court has found that Fifth Amendment due
process requirements prohibited such self-supporting ac­
tivities for judicial or quasi-judicial decisionmakers,71
Justice Marshall wrote for the Court that child labor
law enforcers act more like prosecutors because all em­
ployers fined under the law have an opportunity for a
de novo review by an administrative law judge. The
Court left open the question of what constitutional lim­
its may exist on the financial or personal interests of
prosecutors.
Employment discrimination issues sometimes arise in
unusual legal contexts. In a case under the Emergency
School Aid Act, the Court ruled that Federal funds
may be denied to elementary and secondary schools
based on statistical evidence of a disparate racial impact
in the hiring, promotion, or assignment of employees.72

The Court found that discriminatory impact—not nec­
essarily intent— should trigger a fund cutoff because
Congress intended to eliminate de facto as well as de
jure minority group segregation and isolation. The
Court suggested that schools could possibly rebut a sta­

tistically shown disparate impact by proof of “educa­
tional necessity,” analogous to the “business necessity”
justification permitted under Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act.
□

FOOTNOTES

' Finley Peter Dunne, M r. D o o le y 's O p in io n s (St. Clair Shores,
Mich., Scholarly Press, Inc., 1977), reprint of original 1900 edition.
Private employers gained greater flexibility in contesting health
and safety regulations, I n d u s tr ia l U nion D ep t. A F L -C I O , v. A m e ric a n
P e tr o le u m I n stitu te , 48 U.S.L.W. 5022 (U.S., July 2, 1980), and in pre­
venting unionization of employees with some managerial responsibili­
ties, N L R B v. Y esh iva U niv., 48 U.S.L.W. 4175 (U.S., Feb. 20, 1980).
Private employers and unions were jointly provided new freedoms to
preserve traditional work, N L R B v. I n te r n a tio n a l L o n g sh o re m e n 's
A ssn ., 48 U.S.L.W. 4765 (U.S., June 20, 1980), and to structure se­
niority systems, C a lifo r n ia B re w e r s A ssn. v. B ry a n t, 48 U.S.L.W. 4156
(U.S., Feb. 20, 1980).
' State and local government employers became liable for violations
of all Federal statutory rights, M a in e v. T h ib o u to t, 48 U.S.L.W. 4859
(U.S., June 25, 1980), and were denied “good faith” immunity in such
cases, O w en v. C ity o f In d e p e n d e n c e , M o ., 38 U.S.L.W. 4389 (U.S.,
Apr. 16, 1980).
4 In F u llilo v e v. K lu tz n ic k , 48 U.S.L.W. 4979 (U.S. July 2, 1980),
congressionally imposed quotas were approved to enforce the equal
protection rights of minorities; B r a n d v. F in k el, 48 U.S.L.W. 4331
(U.S., Mar. 31, 1980), expanded public employees’ first amendment
protections against dismissal for political reasons; and W en g ler v.
D ru g g ists M u tu a l Ins. Co., 48 U.S.L.W. 4459 (U.S. Apr. 22, 1980),
found unconstitutional sex discrimination in a workers’ compensation
law by extending the equal protection analysis developed in challenges
to Federal benefit laws.
The Court broadened administrative discretion in G e n e ra l T ele­
48 U.S.L.W. 4513 (U.S.,
May 12, 1980), allowing EEOC to use special, less restrictive class
certification procedures; W h irlp o o l C orp. v. M a rs h a ll, 48 U.S.L.W.
4189 (U.S., Feb. 26, 1980), upholding a Labor Department regulation
that allows employees to refuse dangerous work even though the OSH
act does not specify such authority; and N L R B v. R e t a il S to r e E m ­
p lo y e e s U nion , L o c a l 1001, 48 U.S.L.W. 4796 (U.S., June 20, 1980),
approving an NLRB policy that limits secondary boycotts based on
the potential economic loss for the neutral employer.
’ I n d u s tr ia l U n ion D e p t., A F L - C I O v. A m e r ic a n P e tr o le u m I n stitu te ,
48 U.S.L.W. 5022 (U.S., July 2, 1980), limiting OSHA’s regulatory
authority over toxic substances; N L R B v. Y esh iva U n iversity, 48
U.S.L.W. 4175 (U.S., Feb. 20, 1980), restricting NLRB jurisdiction
over university faculty; M a in e v. T h ib o u to t, 48 U.S.L.W. 4859 (U.S.,
June 25, 1980), creating liability for State and local government viola­
tions of Federal laws; and M o h a sc o C orp. v. S ilver, 48 U.S.L.W. 4851
(U.S., June 23, 1980), limiting when the EEOC may act on charges
first filed with a State agency.
p h o n e Co. o f th e N o rth w est, Inc. v. E E O C ,

11 n d u s tr ia l U n ion D e p t., A F L - C I O v. A m e r ic a n P e tr o le u m In stitu te ,
48 U.S.L.W. 5022 (U.S., July 2, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w ,
September 1980, pp. 53-54.
* F u llilo v e v. K lu tz n ic k , 48 U.S.L.W. 4979 (U.S.,
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , September 1980, pp. 54—56.

July 2, 1980), see

C a lifo r n ia B re w e r s A ssn. v. B ry a n t, 48 U.S.L.W. 4156 (U.S., Feb.
20, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , June 1980, pp. 51-52.
10 G e n e ra l T e le p h o n e Co. o f th e N o rth w est, Inc. v. E E O C , 48 U.S.L.
W. 4513 (U.S., May 12, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August
1980, pp. 45-46.

" M a in e v. T h ib o u to t, 48 U.S.L.W. 4859 (U.S., June 25, 1980).
I! O w en v. C ity o f In d e p e n d e n c e , M o., 48 U.S.L.W. 4389, (U.S., Apr.
16, 1980).
" B r a n d v. F in k el, 48 U.S.L.W. 4331 (U.S., Mar. 31, 1980), see
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August 1980, pp. 44-45.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

14N L R B v. Y esh iva U niv., 48 U.S.L.W. 4175 (U.S., Feb. 20, 1980),
see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April 1980, pp. 57-58.
' N L R B v. I n te r n a tio n a l L o n g sh o re m e n 's A ssn ., 48 U.S.L.W. 4765
(U.S., June 20, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , November 1980, pp.
46-47.
16N L R B v. R e t a il S to r e E m p lo y e e s U nion, L o c a l
4796 (U.S., June 20, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r
1980, pp. 47—48.

1001, 48 U.S.L.W.
R ev ie w , November

17 W h irlp o o l C orp. v. M a rs h a ll, 48 U.S.L.W. 4189 (U.S., Feb. 26,
1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April 1980, p. 57.
18 I n d u s tr ia l U n io n D e p t., A F L - C I O v. A m e r ic a n P e tr o le u m In stitu te ,
48 U.S.L.W. 5022 (U.S., July 2, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R eview ,
September 1980, pp. 53-54.
1929 U.S.C. Sec. 655(b)(5).
A m e r ic a n Iro n a n d S te e l I n s titu te v. O S H A, 581 F.2d 493
R M I Co. v. Sec. o f L a b o r, 594 F.2d (6th Cir. 1979);
T u rn e r Co. v. Sec. o f L a b o r, 561 F.2d 82 (7th Cir., 1977).

Cir., 1978);

21 I n d u s tr ia l U n ion
1974), and A m e r ic a n
Cir., 1978).

D ep t. v. H o d g so n , 499 F.2d
Iro n a n d S te e l In st. v. O S H A ,

(5th
and

467 (D.C. Cir.,
577 F.2d 825 (3d

“ A m e r ic a n T e x tile M a n u fa c tu r e r s In stitu te , Inc. v. M a rsh a ll, 48
U.S.L.W. 2311 (D.C. Cir., Oct. 24, 1979), review granted, 49 U.S.L.W.
3208 (U.S., Oct. 7, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , December 1980,
p. 67. For a more detailed discussion, see Berger and Riskin, “Econom­
ic and Technological Feasibility in Regulating Toxic Substances Under
the Occupational Safety and Health Act,” 7 Ecology L.Q. 285 (1978).
U n iv e rs ity o f C a lifo r n ia R e g e n ts v. B a k k e ,
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August 1978, p. 46.

438 U.S. 265 1978), see

4 S te e lw o r k e r s
v.
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w ,

W eber,
443
U.S.
193
(1979),
see
August 1979, pp. 56-57.
25F u llilo v e v. K lu tz n ic k , 48 U.S.L.W. 4979 (U.S., July 2, 1980), see
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , September 1980, pp. 54—55.
" M in n ic k v. C a lifo r n ia D ep t, o f C o rrectio n s, 48 U.S.L.W. 2128 (Cal.
Ct. App., 1979), review granted, 48 U.S.L.W. 3855 (U.S., July 2,
1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , December 1980, pp. 67-68.
27 See, for example, D is tr ic t A tty . S a c r a m e n to C ty. v. S a c r a m e n to C ty.
C iv il Serv. C o m m ., 48 U.S.L.W. 2538 (Cal. Sup. Ct., 1980), cert,
dismissed, 49 U.S.L.W. 3213 (U.S., Oct. 7, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r
R ev ie w , December 1980, pp. 67-68; D e tr o it P o lice O fficers A ssn. v.
Young, 608 F.2d 671 (6th Cir., 1979); and M a e h re n v. C ity o f S e a ttle ,
20 FEP Cases 854 (Wash. Sup. Ct., 1979).
28 See footnote 19.
T e a m s te rs v. U n ite d S ta tes, 431 U.S. 324 (1977), see M o n th ly L a ­
b o r R ev ie w , August 1977, pp. 48—4-9.
" 'C a lifo rn ia B re w e r s A ssn. v. B ry a n t, 48 U.S.L.W. 4156 (U.S. . . ,
Feb. 20, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , June 1980, pp. 51-52.
" G e n e ra l T ele p h o n e Co. o f th e N o rth w est, Inc. v. E E O C , 48 U.S.L.W.
4513 (U.S., May 12, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August 1980,
pp. 45-46.

'2 N e w Y o rk G a slig h t C lu b , Inc. v. C a rey, 48 U.S.L.W. 4645 (U.S.,
June 9, 1980).
" R o a d w a y E x p ress, Inc. v. P iper, 48 U.S.L.W. 4836 (U.S,,
June 23, 1980).
44 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1927.
" M o h a sc o C orp. v. S ilver, 48 U.S.L.W. 4851 (U.S., June 23, 1980).
'6 48 U.S.L.W. 4859 (U.S., June 25, 1980).
'7 M a h e r v. G agne, 48 U.S.L.W. 4891 (U.S., June 25, 1980).

21

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Labor and the Supreme Court, 1979-80
Y o rk C ity , 436 U.S. 658
1978, p. 53.
48 U.S.L.W. 4389 (U.S., Apr.

'* M o n e ll v. D ep t, o f S o c ia l S erv., N e w
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , October

(1978), see
O w en

v.

C ity o f I n d e p e n d e n c e , M o .,

16, 1980).
40 B r a n d v. F in k el, 48 U.S.L.W. 4331 (U.S.,
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August 1980, pp. 44-45.
41 427 U.S. 347 (1976), see
pp. 46-47.

Mar. 31, 1980), see

M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w ,

October 1976,

4‘ Robert M. Kaus, “Zbig for Life: The Way the Supreme Court is
Going, That’s What We Could be Stuck With,” T h e W a sh in g to n
M o n th ly , June 1980, pp. 25-32.
41 See T. R. Reid, “GOP Loyalist’s Job Victory May Impede
Housecleaning,” T h e W a sh in g to n Post, Dec. 3, 1980, p. 12.
44 N L R B v. Y esh iva U niv., 48 U.S.L.W. 4175 (U.S., Feb. 20, 1980),
see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April 1980, pp. 57-58.
45 N L R B v.

T e x tro n ,

416 U.S. 267 (1974).

46 48 U.S.L.W. 4765 (U.S., June 20, 1980), see
view, November 1980, pp. 46-47.

M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­

47 See N L R B v. E n te rp r is e A ssn, o f P ip efitte rs, 429 U.S. 507 (1977),
establishing the so-called “right to control” test for work preservation
agreements; see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , June 1977, pp. 57-58.
48 See footnote 27 of Justice Marshall’s opinion, 48 U.S.L.W. 4771.
47 N a tio n a l W o o d w o r k M a n u fa c tu r e r s A ssn . v. N L R B , 386 U.S. 612
(1967); N L R B v. E n te rp r is e A ssn, o f P ip efitte rs, 429 U.S. 507 (1977),
see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , June 1977, pp. 57-58.
' N L R B v. R e t a il S to r e E m p lo y ee s , Local 1001, 48 U.S.L.W. 4796
(U.S., June 20, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , November 1980, pp.
47-48.
MN L R B v. F ru it P a c k e rs ( T ree F ru its), 377 U.S. 58 (1964), see
M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , June 1964, pp. 687-88.
52 C a r e y v. B ro w n , 48 U.S.L.W. 4756 (U.S., June 20, 1980).
53 C a rb o n F u e l Co. v. U n ite d M in e W o rk e rs o f A m e ric a , 48 U.S.L.W.
4059 (U.S., Dec. 10, 1979). For a more detailed discussion and cita­
tions of lower court decisions, see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , March
1980, p. 51.
W en g ler v. D ru g g ists M u tu a l Ins. Co., 48 U.S.L.W. 4459 (U.S.,
Apr. 22, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August 1980, p. 45.

22


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

55 See W ein b e r g e r v. W isen field , 420 U.S. 636 (1975); and C a lifa n o v.
G o ld fa r b , 430 U.S. 199 (1977), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , May 1977,
pp. 51-52.
56 T h o m a s v. W a sh in g to n G a slig h t C o., 48 U.S.L.W. 4930 (U.S., June
27, 1980).
'7M a g n o lia P e tr o le u m Co. v. H u n t, 320 U.S. 430 (1943).
58 I n d u s tr ia l C o m m is sio n o f W isco n sin v. M c C a r tin , 330 U.S. 62
(1947).
” P. C. P feiffe r C o., Inc. v. F ord, 48 U.S.L.W. 4018 (U.S., Nov. 27,
1979) , see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , March 1980, pp. 51-52.
60 S u n S h ip, Inc. v. C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia , 48 U.S.L.W.
4826 (U.S., June 23, 1980).
1,1 N o r f o lk a n d W estern R a ilw a y Co. v. L ie p e lt, 48 U.S.L.W. 4132
(U.S., Feb. 19, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , June 1980, p. 52.
62 N a c h m a n C orp. v. P en sio n B e n e f it G u a r a n ty C o rp ., 48 U.S.L.W.
4524 (U.S., May 12, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , September
1980, p. 56.
63 R. Wayne Estes, from a paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Bar Association’s Section on Labor and Employment
Law, Honolulu, Hawaii, August 4, 1980, 155 D aily Lab . R ep. 1980,
D -l.
84A c c a r d i v. P e n n sy lv a n ia R . C o., 383 U.S. 225 (1966), see M o n th ly
L a b o r R ev ie w , April 1966, pp. 417-18.
85 A la b a m a P o w e r Co. v. D a vis, 431 U.S. 581 (1977), see M o n th ly L a ­
b o r R ev ie w , October 1977, p. 71.
88 F o ste r v. D r a v o C orp., 420 U.S. 92 (1975), see M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­
view, May 1975, p. 65.
67 C o ffy v. R e p u b lic S te e l C orp., 48 U.S.L.W. 4683 (U.S., June 10,
1980) , see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , November 1980, p. 48.
68 431 U.S. 581 (1977).
6fl 48 U.S.L.W. 419 (U.S., Feb. 26, 1980), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w ,
June 1980, p. 53.
70 M a r s h a ll v. J errico , In c., 48 U.S.L.W. 4485 (U.S., Apr. 28, 1980),
see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , June 1980, pp. 52-53.
71 See T u rn ey v. O hio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927); and W a r d v. V illa g e o f
M o n ro e v ille , 409 U.S. 57 (1972).
72 B o a r d o f E d ., C ity o f N e w Y o rk v. H a rris, 48 U.S.L.W. 4035 (U.S.,
Nov. 28, 1979), see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , March 1980, p. 52.

The negative income tax:
would it discourage work?
Advocates of the negative income tax often contend that
such a program would provide stronger work incentives than
conventional welfare benefits; evidence from recent tests
indicates that this assumption may not be well-founded
R o b e r t A . M o f f it t

Would government cash transfer payments to the poor,
in the form of a negative income tax, discourage work
effort among recipients? The strongest evidence for the
existence of such a disincentive comes from four income
maintenance experiments, each of which tested the ef­
fects of the negative income tax on samples of the Na­
tion’s low-income population. The findings from the
experiments have been released in uneven spurts, as
they have become available. This article summarizes the
results of all four experiments, shows what we have
learned from them, and discusses their limitations in
providing correct estimates of work disincentive effects.1
The experiments were conducted over a number of
years in selected “test bore” sites across the country:
New Jersey and Pennsylvania (1968-72); rural areas of
North Carolina and Iowa (1970-72); Seattle and Den­
ver (1970-78); and Gary, Indiana (1971-74). Three of
the tests were limited to specific groups of people; only
husband-wife couples were studied in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania and in the rural experiment, and only
blacks in the Gary test, although the Gary test included
both couples and families headed by women. All races
and family types were included in the Seattle-Denver
study.
The sample sizes for the experiments were: 1,300 in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania; 800 in the rural tests;
4,800 in Seattle-Denver; and 1,800 in Gary. The first exRobert A. M offitt is assistant professor o f economics at Rutgers Col­
lege, New Brunswick, N.J.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

periment was conducted in the New Jersey-Pennsylvania area because of its high density of urban poor,
because it initially had no Aid to Families with Depen­
dent Children Unemployed Parent Program for hus­
band-wife couples, and because area government
officials were very receptive. The rural experiment was
designed to study a different group of the population,
and thus focused on two States with different types of
low-income populations and agricultural bases. Seattle
and Denver were chosen to represent the West, and in
the case of Denver, to study a Chicano subpopulation.
Finally, Gary was selected because its population per­
mitted concentration on black female family heads in
the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program,
and because of receptive local officials.
However, the experiments were alike in the most im­
portant respect—each attempted to test the negative in­
come tax using classical experimental methods. A
sample of the low-income population was selected in
each area, and families were assigned to either an “ex­
perimental” group or a “control” group. The experi­
mental group received negative income tax benefits, the
control group did not, and the effect of the experiment
was measured as the difference in work effort between
the two groups. The experiments also varied the gener­
osity of benefits to the experimental groups in order to
measure the effect of this factor on work effort.
Like all pure negative income tax schemes, the plans
provided a positive benefit to families with no earnings
at all, whether the head or any other family member
23

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • The Negative Income Tax
was “voluntarily” or “involuntarily” unemployed; there
was no work requirement in any of the experiments.
However, to provide work incentives, benefits were not
reduced by the full amount of any earnings that the
family did receive. That is, the “tax rate” or “benefit-re­
duction rate” was less than 100 percent. The algebraic
statement of the benefit formula is:

with the levels of the guarantee and the benefit-reduc­
tion rate: the higher each of them, the greater the work
disincentive.2 This expectation was held most firmly for
married couples, to whom the existing welfare system
provides benefits in only a few States. For female heads
of families, who are already eligible for conventional
welfare benefits, there was no prior expectation of a net
change in work effort. In fact, the negative income tax
was originally proposed in the 1960’s as a program to
increase work incentives relative to the existing welfare
system, which at that time had fairly high benefit-reduc­
tion rates that may have discouraged work.

B = G - tY,
where B is the benefit paid to the family, G is the
“guarantee level” — that is, the amount paid to a family
with no other income—Y is the family’s income level,
and t is the benefit-reduction rate.
As is apparent from the benefit formula, an extra dol­
lar of income, Y, reduces the family’s benefit by t dol­
lars, where t is some fraction between 0 and 1.
Therefore, because an extra dollar of earnings lowers
the benefit by only t dollars, total income does indeed
increase— by 1—t dollars. The experiment varied levels
of the guarantee (G) and reduction rate (t) given to dif­
ferent families in the experimental group. On average,
however, a tax rate of .50 and a guarantee level about
equal to the poverty line ($6,191 per year in 1977 for a
family of four) were offered. The guarantee level in all
cases was higher for larger families.
The economists conducting the experiments expected
that the results would show some negative effect on
work effort; the important question was what the mag­
nitude of the reduction would be. Moreover, they be­
lieved that the size of the work disincentive would vary
Table 1.

Findings confirm expectations
Table 1 shows the difference in hours of work per
week between the experimental and control groups, bro­
ken down for husbands, wives, and female heads of
families in each of the test areas. Work effort is shown
as hours of work per week, but most of the studies ac­
tually measured work hours over longer periods. For
analytical purposes, hours have been standardized here
to a weekly basis.
Data presented in the table are unequivocal evidence
that hours of work are reduced by the negative income
tax. The disincentive effects for husbands range from
about 1 percent to 8 percent. For wives, they vary
much more—from almost zero to 55 percent (although
the latter figure may be a statistical anomaly). Disincen­
tives of 12 to 28 percent were reported for female fami­
ly heads in the only two experiments for which esti-

Average differences in weekly hours between control and experimental groups in four test areas
Husbands
A r e a a n d s o u r c e o f e s t im a t e

W iv e s

F e m a le h e a d s o f fa m ilie s

A b s o lu t e

P e rc e n ta g e

A b s o lu t e

P e rc e n ta g e

A b s o lu t e

P e rc e n ta g e

d iffe r e n c e

d iffe r e n c e

d iffe r e n c e

d iffe r e n c e

d iffe r e n c e

d iffe r e n c e

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare:1
W h ite ..................................................................................................
Black ..................................................................................................
Spanish-speaking ..............................................................................

-1 .9
0.7
-0.2

5.6
2.3
0.7

-1.4
0.1
-1 .9

30.6
2.2
55.4

—

—

—

—

Hall:2
White ..................................................................................................

3 -2.4

7.1

3-1.5

32.8

—

-

3 -2 .9
2.1
-0 .5

8.0
5.6
1.2

3 -5.2
-2.2
-1.2

31.3
21.5
20.3

—

—

—

—

3 -1.8

5.3

3 -2.1

14.6

3 -2 .6

11.9

-1 .6

4.7

0.2

3.7

3 -2 .0

27.8

N e w J e r s e y - P e n n s y lv a n ia

R u ra l ( n o n f a r m )

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and Bawden:4
North Carolina blacks .......................................................................
North Carolina whites .......................................................................
Iowa whites.........................................................................................
S e a t t le - D e n v e r

Keeley and others6 ..................................................................................
G a ry

Moffitt6 ......................................................................................................

1See Sum m ary R eport: New Jersey G raduated W ork Incentive E xperim ent (U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1973).
2 See Robert Hall, “ Effects of the Experimental Negative Income Tax on Labor Supply,” in
Joseph A. Pechman and P. Michael Tlmpane, eds., W ork Incentives and Incom e G uarantees
(The Brookings Institution, 1975).
3 Significant at 10-percent level (15 percent for New Jersey Department of Health, Education
and Welfare estimate).
4 See Sum m ary R eport: R u ral Incom e M aintenance Experim ent (U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, 1976).

24


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

5 See Michael Keeley, Philip Robins, Robert Spiegelman, and Richard West, “ The Labor Sup­
ply Effects and Costs of Alternative Negative Income Tax Programs,” Journal o f Human Re­
sources, Winter 1978, pp. 3-36.
6 See Robert A. Moffitt, “ The Labor Supply Response In the Gary Income Maintenance
Experiment,” Journal o f Hum an Resources, Fall 1979, pp. 477-87.
Note: Hours differences are regression-adjusted for differences between experimental and
control group members in years of education, age, and similar variables.
Dashes Indicate data not available.

mates are available, Gary and Seattle-Denver. These
represent the differences in hours worked between the ex­
perimental group, which received negative income tax
payments, and a control group which received Aid to
Families with Dependent Children; thus, the results indi­
cate that the negative income tax programs tested also re­
duced work effort relative to the existing welfare system.
Although the experiments clearly found a work
disincentive effect, the ranges of response are rather dis­
concerting. Moreover, the effects for different demo­
graphic groups follow no clear pattern. Interracial
variations, for example, appear to be only a result of
random statistical error. In fact, in the Seattle-Denver
experiment, no statistically significant differences be­
tween the races were found. (The Seattle-Denver data in
table 1 are averages across all racial groups.)
One interesting finding that has emerged from the ex­
periments relates to the form which work reduction has
taken for men. There are strong indications that reduc­
tions in total hours of work most often reflect reduc­
tions in likelihood of being employed at all, rather than
marginal reductions in the hours of those who remain
employed. That is, the reduction in total work hours
shows up as a decline in the employment rate of the ex­
perimental sample relative to that of the control sample.
The policy implications of this finding are ambiguous.
On the one hand, withdrawal from the labor force is a
major change in work effort, one that society is not
likely to accept. On the other hand, this also implies
that the total reduction in work hours stems from a
rather large response by a small number of men. There­
fore, the negative income tax does not appear to have a
pervasive effect on the work ethic of the low-income
male population; in fact most of the men do not re­
spond at all.
This phenomenon is undoubtedly related to the diffi­
culty in reducing hours of work while remaining
employed. Work hours in most jobs held by prime-age
men are institutionally fixed and difficult to change.
This is less true of the poor than of the population as a
whole, low-wage workers being more likely to hold
part-time or unstable jobs. But even these workers may
be able to reduce work effort mostly by not working at
all. However, one way in which workers may be able to
adjust hours marginally is by reducing overtime work.
There has not been a great deal of attention paid to this
possibility, except in the New Jersey experiment, where
it did indeed appear that part of the response resulted
from a reduction in overtime.
A decrease in the employment rate of the low-income
population can occur in several ways. It may take the
form of lengthening of time between jobs, longer peri­
ods of unpaid vacation and holidays, or permanent
withdrawal from employment. Results from some of the
experiments indicate that the first of these responses—a

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

lengthening of time between jobs, often corresponding
to an increase in the length of unemployment spells—
was the most common. If used for more thorough job
search, such unemployment spells may result in higher
wages when employment is finally secured. For young
workers, some data have also shown an increase in
school attendance, which may contribute to the individ­
ual’s human capital and also ultimately increase wages.
Both of these uses of nonwork time are probably more
acceptable than increases in pure leisure. However, al­
though this investment should result in greater future
earnings potential, no earnings increases were apparent
in data from the experimental period.
The lengthening in unemployment spells took an in­
teresting form in the Gary test, where heavy layoffs in
the steel industry early in the experiment drove up local
unemployment rates. The data showed that both the ex­
perimental and control groups increased their work ef­
fort over the period of the experiment as unemployment
rates in the area dropped, but that the growth in the
employment rate of the control group was greater than
that in the experimental group. Consequently, this “rel­
ative employment reduction” was taken as evidence that
the negative income tax resulted in a slower return to
work among members of the experimental group, prob­
ably because they were using the payments as a form of
unemployment insurance. Members of the control
group, with much less generous conventional unemploy­
ment benefits available were probably forced by eco­
nomic distress to return to work sooner.
As previously mentioned, the experiments also tested
negative income tax plans with various benefit-reduction
rates and guarantees. The results in table 1 should be
thought of as the responses to plans with a benefit-re­
duction rate of about .50 and a guarantee level equal to
the poverty line— roughly the average across all experi­
ments. Most of the plans currently before Congress pro­
pose somewhat lower guarantee levels (equal to 65
percent of the poverty line), which would suggest a
smaller work disincentive. Therefore, measures of the
work effort resulting from various combinations of ben­
efit-reduction rates and guarantees are needed to predict
the responses to different programs.
The following tabulation shows the average effects of
selected guarantee and benefit reduction rate adjust­
ments:
Change in negative
income tax variable
An increase of $20 per
week (1977 dollars) in
the guarantee level . . .
An increase of 10 percent
in the benefit-reduction
rate ............................

Change in hours for—
Female family
Husbands Wives
heads

-0 .4

-0 .8

-1 .8

-0 .3

-1 .2

+ 0.5

25

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • The Negative Income Tax
As indicated, increases in the guarantee level decrease
hours of work.3 The effects are largest for female family
heads, who appear to be very responsive to the guaran­
tee level, and smallest for husbands. Both husbands and
wives also work less, the higher the benefit-reduction
rate, with wives responding more than husbands. For
female heads, the experimental findings show unexpect­
edly that increases in the benefit-reduction rate promote
work effort. The explanation generally given for this re­
sult is that, in economic terms, the “income effect” of
the change dominates the “substitution effect”; the re­
duction in take-home pay caused by the higher benefitreduction rate strongly induces these women to work
more in order to make up for the loss of income. How­
ever, the absolute size of this increase in work hours is
rather small and is overwhelmed by the large negative
effect of an increase in the guarantee level. In fact, the
results show that, in general, experimental group mem­
bers are somewhat more sensitive to changes in the
guarantee than to changes in the benefit-reduction rate.
These findings do indeed imply that the response to a
cash transfer program with a guarantee set at 65 per­
cent of the poverty line would be smaller than shown in
the experiments, which set it at 100 percent. At the
lower guarantee level, the percentage reductions in work
effort discussed in table 1 would be about 2 percent
lower for husbands, 6 percent lower for wives, and 11
percent lower for female family heads.4 Nevertheless,
work disincentives would remain.

Limitations of the experiments
Several limitations of the experiments should be taken
into account when assessing the results. The most im­
portant qualification is that the experiments by and
large lasted only 3 years, a fact which was known be­
forehand by the families who agreed to enroll. Partici­
pants consequently may have behaved differently than
they would in a permanent national program, although
it is not obvious whether they would respond more or
less under non-test conditions. As Charles Metcalf has
shown, there is a tendency for individuals in a short-run
experiment to overrespond (reduce work effort more
than they would in a permanent program) in order to
take advantage of the higher benefits temporarily avail­
able from non-work.5 This runs contrary to the natural
tendency for persons to underrespond simply because a
permanent guarantee of income has more impact than a
temporary guarantee. On a priori grounds, there is no
way to tell which tendency dominates.
Fortunately, some families in the Seattle-Denver ex­
periment were enrolled for 5 years (and were told so be­
forehand), to ascertain whether the duration of the
experiment makes a difference. The preliminary results
indicate that these individuals responded substantially
more than those enrolled for 3 years, suggesting that
26

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the underresponse tendency dominates in test situations.
Interestingly, there is also some evidence that this differ­
ence was largely due to the rather high guarantee levels
offered in Seattle-Denver, and that a national negative
income tax with a guarantee closer to 65 percent of the
poverty line would have permanent effects closer to
those discernible among the 3-year test families.6 More
research should be forthcoming on this topic.
Another limitation of the experiments is that they
yield very little information on the welfare participation
rate one might expect from a national negative income
tax. Participation rates in existing welfare programs
vary substantially (about 20 percent in the Aid to Fam­
ilies with Dependent Children Unemployed Parent Pro­
gram, 50 percent in the Food Stamp Program, and 90
percent in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Program), and it is likely that a national negative in­
come tax would not have a 100-percent participation
rate. However, the experiments rarely made any formal
provision for nonparticipation; families were automati­
cally sent a payment by mail if they reported their in­
come every month— which they were required to do in
order to take part in the experiment. Some families left
the experiment for this reason, and others undoubtedly
refused to participate in the first place because they did
not want to be welfare recipients. Therefore, the experi­
ments do not provide much information on the poten­
tial nationwide participation rate of eligibles.
A final problem with the experiments relates to the
underreporting of income by the experimental and con­
trol groups. In the Gary experiment, there is some evi­
dence that the female family heads in the experimental
group underreported income substantially more than
those in the control group, and that the reduction in
work effort indicated by the data was partly spurious.7
Rather than the 28-percent response shown in table 1,
the evidence suggests that the true response was on the
order of 9 percent. Such effects were not significant,
however, for husbands, and wives showed no response
in any case. A new study just completed in Seattle and
Denver shows that the results of the original experiment
in those areas were similarly affected.8 These findings
have implications not only for the estimated work disin­
centives of transfer programs, with which this article is
concerned, but also for the administrative aspects of
program cost and quality control.
Despite their limitations, the income maintenance ex­
periments have contributed a great deal to our knowl­
edge of the work disincentives of pure cash transfer
programs. We now have a much better idea of what the
magnitudes of these disincentives would be if a national
program were instituted. And although it has not been
discussed in this article, the experiments have also con­
tributed substantially to our understanding of the prop­
er administration of such programs and to our effective

knowledge of program evaluation techniques. In any
case, the test results have provided much support for
the current emphasis on work requirements and guaran­

teed-jobs programs in welfare reform, and have given us
a much better ability to quantify the tradeoffs society
would encounter among alternative antipoverty plans. □

FOOTNOTES

1More detailed information on the results of the experiments may
be found in Robert A. Moffitt and Kenneth C. Kehrer, “The Effect of
Tax and Transfer Programs on Labor Supply: The Evidence from the
Income Maintenance Experiments,” in Ronald Ehrenberg, ed., R e ­
sea rc h in L a b o r E c o n o m ic s (Greenwich, Conn., JAI Press, 1981).
’ Economic theory actually predicts that the effect of a change in
the benefit-reduction rate can be either positive or negative, depending
upon whether the “income effect” dominates the “substitution effect.”
This is mentioned again below.
' Actually, a range of estimates have been found in the experiments.
These numbers are the midpoints of the ranges. Also, caution should
be exercised in using these estimates inasmuch as they refer to n e t
changes in G and t over what they would be in the absence of a nega­
tive income tax. For example, a positive level of G already exists for
female heads and positive levels of t exist for both female heads and
married couples from the positive income tax system.
4 For example, in 1977, the poverty line for a family of four was
$119 per week, so 65 percent of it is $77. The difference is therefore
$42. The percentages cited here are derived by multiplying the guar­
antee-effects in table 2 by $42 and dividing by the average hours of


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

work for husbands, wives, and female family heads in the experiments
(40, 30, and 35 per week, respectively).
5See Charles E. Metcalf, “Making Inferences from Controlled In­
come Maintenance Experiments,” T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R ev ie w ,
June 1973, pp. 478-83.
See Gary Burtless and David Greenberg, “The Limited Duration
of Income Maintenance Experiments and Its Implications for Estimat­
ing Labor Supply Effects of Transfer Programs,” Technical Analysis
Paper 15 (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1978).
See also Robert A. Moffitt, “Estimating a Simple Life-Cycle Model of
Labor Supply: The Evaluation of a Limited Duration n i t Experi­
ment” (New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University, 1979). Mimeo­
graphed.
See David Greenberg, Robert Moffitt, and John Friedmann, “The
Effects of Underreporting on Estimation of the Experimental Effects
on Work Effort: Evidence from the Gary Income Maintenance Exper­
iment,” T h e R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tis tic s (forthcoming).
See David Greenberg and Harlan Halsey, “Underreporting and
Experimental Effects on Work Effort: Evidence from the Seattle and
Denver Income Maintenance Experiments” ( s r i International, 1980).
Mimeographed.

A note on communications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supple­
ment, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be
considered for publication, communications should be factual and an­
alytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed
to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212.

27

Education, on-the-job training,
and the black-white earnings gap
Black men \s earnings lag those of white men,
but their monetary returns for each year
of education are as high as those for white men;
on-the-job training does not pay off as well for blacks
D

a n ie l

E. T a y l o r

More than a decade after the passage of the Economic
Opportunity Act and the establishment of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, black men con­
tinued to earn much less than white men. Those who
worked full time in 1977 earned a median of $8,714 in
wage and salary income, compared with $12,603 earned
by white men. Median weekly earnings for black men
were $189, or $72 less than those of white men.1
During most of the postwar era, the earnings of black
men increased faster than those of white men. Richard
Freeman, in a comprehensive study of the economic sta­
tus of blacks in the 1950’s and 1960’s, demonstrated
that during that period, the median wage and salary an­
nual income of black men increased at a rate of 3.2 per­
cent per year, compared with a 2.6-percent rate for
white men.2 According to Janice Hedges and Earl
Mellor, usual weekly earnings of black men who work­
ed full time increased relative to those of white men
from 1967 until the recession of 1974-75, but made lit­
tle gain subsequently. Black men’s usual weekly earn­
ings rose from 69 percent of white men’s earnings in
1967 to 77 percent in 1973 and to 78 percent by 1978.3
The interplay of social and economic factors compli­
cates the analysis of the black-white earnings gap. For
example, discrimination historically has played an im­
portant role in keeping black workers out of occupa­
tions which provide higher levels of earnings, skills
training, and job stability. Racial disparities in educaDaniel E. Taylor is an economist in the Office of Current Employ­
ment Anaylsis, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

28

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

tion and other spheres that influence the worker’s pro­
ductivity also affect earnings.4 Both the quantity and
quality of education differ for whites and blacks. While
the quantity usually is measured by years of school
completed, the quality— which is affected by housing
patterns, geographic location, and community and fami­
ly investments in education— is more difficult to mea­
sure.

The human capital approach
The notion that workers embody wealth similar to
that of capital is not new. Although the concept of hu­
man capital has been discussed since the 18th century,
it received more attention in the 1960’s, spurred by the
National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the man­
power development acts of the early 1960’s. Gary
Becker presented a general statement of human capital
theory in 1964.5A decade later, Jacob Mincer set down
perhaps the most fully developed discussion of the hu­
man capital theory to date.6 This article uses Mincer’s
approach to report earnings differences of black and
white men in 1977, by years of educational attainment
and work experience.
Basically, human capital theory states that job skills
obtained by workers through formal schooling and onthe-job training increase productivity. Because workers
put aside time for training in which earnings otherwise
could be made, they expect a return on this investment
analagous to that on invested funds. This return is in
the form of increased earnings for higher productivity.
Under the human .capital approach, education and work

experience along with other variables are used to ex­
plain differences in earnings among workers.7
Because dollar amounts of investment are difficult to
obtain, education is most often measured by years com­
pleted. Educational achievement affects both weekly
earnings (earnings are increased because of the effect of
education on productivity) and weeks worked per year
(workers with more education tend to work more
weeks, recapturing investments in education). Further­
more, education affects earnings and worktime indirect­
ly through workers’ occupations. Actual work experience
also is difficult to measure and often is approximated by
the number of years since leaving school.

Black-white earnings ratios
In 1977, both median annual and median weekly
earnings ratios (black to white) of men with 1 or more
years of college exceeded those with 1 to 4 years of high
school. (See table 1.) Two exceptions were the groups
who had been out of school 11 to 15 years and those
out more than 30 years. For them, the weekly earnings
ratios were about the same at both educational levels.
The earnings differential by race was smallest for col­
lege-educated men who had been out of school fewer
than 6 years and largest for men with some high school
education and fewer than 6 years of work experience.8
The black-white weekly earnings ratio exceeded the
annual earnings ratio in all groups, except for college

Table 1. Median annual and weekly earnings and
earnings ratios of male full-time wage and salary workers,
by race, educational attainment, and work experience,

1977
E d u c a t io n a n d w o r k
e x p e r ie n c e

W e e k ly e a r n i n g s 1

A n n u a l e a r n in g s
W h it e

B la c k

R a tio 2

W h it e

B la c k

R a tio 2

All educational levels3 . . . .
Fewer than 6 years
experience ...............
6 to 1 0 ...............................
11 to 1 5 .............................
16 to 2 0 .............................
21 to 3 0 .............................
31 or m o re ........................

$12,603

$8,714

69

$261

$189

72

5,489
11,243
14,308
15,513
16,037
14,078

4,084
8,071
9,703
11,225
10,519
8,836

74
72
68
72
66
63

152
233
292
313
321
292

115
174
206
227
218
186

76
75
71
73
68
64

High school — 1 to 4 years
Fewer than 6 years
experience ...............
6 to 1 0 ...............................
11 to 1 5 .............................
16 to 2 0 .............................
21 to 3 0 .............................
31 or m o re ........................

11,737

8,268

70

245

181

74

4,702
9,402
12,424
14,452
15,030
14,386

2,893
7,191
8,729
10,125
10,255
10,509

62
76
70
70
68
73

130
202
254
294
304
296

102
155
196
210
214
219

78
77
77
71
70
74

15,126

11,867

78

306

246

80

7,065
13,517
16,778
19,101
20,306
18,575

6,861
10,976
12,382
14,742
15,170
14,547

97
81
74
77
75
78

186
272
331
377
403
382

186
233
251
305
307
281

100
86
76
81
76
74

College — 1 year or more
Fewer than 6 years
experience ...............
6 to 1 0 ...............................
11 to 1 5 .............................
16 to 2 0 .............................
21 to 3 0 .............................
31 or m o re ........................

1Weekly earnings are calculated by dividing annual earnings by weeks worked.
2 Ratios are calculated by dividing the earnings of black men in a particular cohort by
those ot white men in that cohort.
3 Includes elementary school.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

men with more than 30 years of work experience. This
reflects the fact that black men generally work fewer
weeks in a year. The difference between the weekly and
annual earnings ratios is greatest for men with some
high school education and fewer than 6 years of work
experience. This large difference is attributed to the high
rate of unemployment among black men in this group:
in 1977, 18- and 19-year-old black men had an unem­
ployment rate of 38 percent, nearly 3 times that of their
white counterparts.
Both the annual and weekly earnings ratios have im­
proved since 1969. Following are annual and weekly
earnings ratios by work experience cohorts in 1977 from
this study, which uses the Current Population Survey,
and from a study based on a similar universe from the
1970 Census:9

Work experience
Fewer than 6 years:
A nnual............
W eekly............
6—10 years:
A nnual............
W eekly............
11-15 years:
A nnual............
W eekly............
16-20 years:
A nnual............
W eekly............ .
21-30 years:
A nnual............
W eekly............
31 years or more:
A nnual............
W eekly............

1970
Census
(mean)

1977
Current Population
Survey
(median)
(mean)

.65
.70

.81
.82

.74
.76

.65
.68

.75
.78

.72
.75

.62
.64

.71
.76

.68
.71

.60
.62

.75
.80

.72
.73

.59
.62

.67
.68

.66
.68

.60
.62

.65
.67

.63
.64

Black men made earnings gains relative to white men
in each work experience category, with particularly
large gains for black men recently out of school. How­
ever, the large difference between the median and mean
earnings for those with fewer than 6 years of work ex­
perience suggests that only a portion of young black
men benefits from high-paying, stable jobs.
By education. Over the last two decades, black and oth­
er men have made considerable gains in education.10 In
1959, for example, only 21 percent of black and other
men 18 years and over and in the labor force had com­
pleted at least 4 years of high school, compared with 58
percent in 1977. During the same period, the proportion
of white men completing 4 years of high school rose
from 49 percent to 75 percent. Thus, the educational at­
tainment of black men continues to lag behind that of
white men. Chart 1 contrasts the educational attain­
ment of white and black men who were full-time wage
29

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Education, Training, and Black-White Earnings
and salary earners in 1977. Although slightly more than
one-third of both white and black men had completed 4
years of high school, the relative proportions are quite
different at other levels of schooling. Whereas, 41 per­
cent of black men had fewer than 4 years of high
school, this was true for only 23 percent of the white
men; and, while 25 percent of the black men attended
college, 38 percent of the white men did so.
Black men not only completed fewer grades, they
also scored lower on standardized scholastic aptitude
tests. Mean scores of high school seniors were signifi­
cantly lower for blacks. The racial difference between
scores remained about the same over the school years
reported (1972-73 through 1976-77)." According to a
test administrator:
. . . a typical result is to find that only 10 to 20 percent of
disadvantaged minority groups score above a point that is
. . . exceeded by 50 percent of whites . . . . Such differences
should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with histori­

cally unequal education available to blacks as compared
with whites, or with corresponding differences in social,
economic, and occupational spheres of American life.12

By occupation. In 1977, nearly twice as many black men
as white men were employed in low-paying occupations,
for example, as service workers or laborers, while
smaller proportions were in professional, managerial,
and craft occupations. It is estimated that one-fourth of
the pay differential13 would be eliminated if black men
were represented in major occupational groups in the
same proportions as white men.
The overall black-white wage gap is also affected by
pay differences within major occupational groups. (See
table 2.) This is because earnings differ among individu­
als within the same occupational group. For example,
the professional and technical group includes both phy­
sicians and health technicians, workers with vastly dif­
ferent earnings.

Chart 1. Educational attainment of male full-time wage and salary workers, by race, 1977

Percentage

0-8 years
elem entary

30

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1-3 years
high school

4 years
high school

1-3 years
college

4 years
college

Graduate
degree

Payoffs for investment in education
Earlier studies. Using the human capital approach, Finis
Welch calculated rates of monetary return to schooling
for white and for black and other men in various job
experience groups, using data from the 1960 Census (re­
porting 1959 earnings data) and the 1967 Survey of
Economic Opportunity (reporting 1966 earnings data).14
His results for 1959 showed a higher rate of return for
white men than for black men in each experience group.
However, over the period, younger black men gained
relative to white men with the same years of work expe­
rience, both in rates of return for schooling and in rela­
tive earnings. The Vietnam War and a strong economic
upswing at the time of the second survey may have in­
fluenced these results because employment and earnings
of black workers rise faster than those of white workers
during rapid economic expansions.
Leonard Weiss and Jeffrey Williamson used the same
Survey of Economic Opportunity data to estimate in­
come elasticities of education (percentage change in in­
come resulting from a one percentage point change in
education) by race.15 They too noted the importance of
full employment conditions as a source of improvement
in black-white earnings differentials, but they also noted
the possibility of a decline in discrimination as a proba­
ble cause.16
. . . there may have been an independent shift in the inci­
dence of discrimination at all education levels as well. The
strong effect of secondary and even primary education on
black male incomes in 1967 suggests that the improved op­
portunities in 1967 extended considerably beyond the token
employment of a few black executives . . .

Other research also demonstrates that blacks made
some gains during the 1960’s although results are
mixed. For example, Charles Link published income
elasticities of education for 1960 and 1970 which
showed that black men with 9 to 12 years of education
made earnings gains, but his results differed from those

of Weiss and Williamson, which showed a large increase
at all educational levels. Weiss and Williamson (in an
update of their earlier study) concluded that in 1970,
“the effect of education on earnings is roughly as strong
for blacks as for whites.” 17
James Smith and Finis Welch (using 1960 and 1970
Census data) found that returns for education in 1969
were less for black men who had not attended college
than for their white counterparts.18 However, among the
college trained with 1 to 5 years of work experience,
black men received more handsome returns than white
men.
More recent research by Smith and Welch used Cur­
rent Population Survey data for 1968-75 to estimate
schooling coefficients, along with other measures of eco­
nomic equality, for both white and black men.19
They found that the declining proportion of blacks re­
siding in the South (as well as movements within the
South) has been an important factor in the decrease in
the racial wage differential, but that education also
played an important role in the movement towards
wage parity in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.20
Results of current study. In 1977, the rate of monetary
return for education, measured in terms of weekly
wages, was as high for black men as that for white men
(8.1 percent versus 7.3 percent per year of school).
These results appear to be in line with the trends noted
earlier. The average rates in 1977 are shown in table 3.21
Rates of return are highest for men most recently out of
school and rates generally decline with additional years
of work experience. The decline is less among those
with some college education.
Two effects govern the decline in the rates of return
for those with more years of work experience. The “vin­
tage” effect suggests that workers who have been out of
school longer receive lower returns than more recent
graduates because of the increasing quality of schooling
and the obsolesence of knowledge. The “life cycle”

Table 2. Median annual and weekly earnings and earnings ratios of male full-time wage and salary workers, by race and
occupation, 1977
N u m b e r (in t h o u s a n d s )

A n n u a l e a r n in g s

A v e r a g e w e e k ly e a r n in g s 1

O c c u p a t io n

All workers3 .......................................................................
Professional, technical and kindred workers ...............
Managers and administrators........................................
Sales workers ..............................................................
Clerical workers ............................................................
Craft and kindred w o rkers............................................
Operatives, except transport ........................................
Transport equipment operatives....................................
Nonfarm laborers ..........................................................
Service workers5 ..........................................................
Farm aborers................................................................

W h it e

B la c k

41,677
6,527
5,302
2,264
2,666
9,775
5,565
2,628
3,065
3,131
724

4,180
290
196
( 4)
303
651
779
389
729
671
104

' Weekly earnings are calculated by dividing annual earnings by weeks worked.
2 Ratios are calculated by dividing the earnings of black men in a particular cohort by those
of white men in that cohort.
3 Includes farm managers and private household workers who are not listed separately


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

W h it e

$12,603
16,322
17,774
13,970
12,615
13,093
10,332
11,418
7,081
8,358
4,098

B la c k

R a tio 2

W h it e

B la c k

$8,714
13,247
14,587

69
81
82

$189
271
283

9,363
10,072
9,428
8,721
5,935
6,764
3,875

74
77
91
76
84
81
95

$261
325
348
285
255
275
221
245
178
181
121

n

R a tio 2

72
83
81

n

199
214
201
194
138
144
91

78
78
91
79
78
80
75

because of their small sample size.
4 Base is less than 75,000.
5 Excludes private household workers.

31

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Education, Training, and Black-White Earnings

Table 3. Rates of return on educational attainment for
male full-time wage and salary workers, by race,
educational attainment, and work experience, 1977
D iffe re n c e

W h it e

B la c k

High school — 1 to 4 years:
Fewer than 6 years experience .........
6 to 1 0 .................................................
11 to 1 5 ...............................................
16 to 2 0 ...............................................
21 to 30 ...............................................
31 or m o re ..........................................

1.193
1.124
’ .126
'.112
’ .073
’ .041

’ .207
’ .111
’ .084
’ .133
'.062
1.090

.014
-.013
-.042
.021
-.011
.049

College — 1 year or more:
Fewer than 6 years experience .........
6 to 1 0 .................................................
11 to 1 5 ...............................................
16 to 2 0 ...............................................
21 to 30 ...............................................
31 years or more ...............................

’
’
’
’
’
’

’ .116
’ .097
'.144
.081
’ .074
’ .089

.018
.023
’ .076
.003
.002
.028

E d u c a t io n a n d w o r k e x p e r ie n c e

.098
.074
.068
.078
.072
.060

1Statistically different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level.
N ote: See appendix for the methodology used in deriving rates of return.

effect results from the compounding effect of training
received at school and that received at work over one’s
lifetime. For example, a high school dropout would be
less likely to be in a job which provides opportunity for
advancement. Smith and Welch suggested that the life
cycle effect may be of more importance to those who at­
tend college, and this may explain why the rates of re­
turn decline much faster with additional years of work
experience for those with only a high school education
than for those who have also attended college.22
Within each schooling-experience group, the rates of
return for white men and black men are not statistically
different, except for college-educated men with 11 to 15
years of work experience. In this category, black men
posted a rate of return 8 percentage points higher than
that of white men. Three possible explanations for their
exceptional performance are that (1) they entered the la­
bor market during a period of a sharp economic up
swing (1962-66), (2) they entered the labor market
with at least some college training at a time when em­
ployers were eagerly looking for minorities to meet Fed­

eral affirmative action guidelines, and (3) they were the
last cohort to enter the labor market before the en­
trance of the baby-boom cohorts, whose large number
has lowered the relative wages of more recent workers.23
Rates of return based on a year of college is less than
that for a year of high school. However, these estimates
are the average rates; marginal rates imply that for
black men with 12 years of schooling and 13 years of
work experience, an additional year of education would
bring with it an 11-percent rate of return. (See appen­
dix.) For white men at a comparable level of education
and experience, an additional year of school would re­
sult in about a 9-percent marginal rate of return.24These
rates suggest that for white men, the marginal benefit of
each additional year of school is less than that for
blacks.
A rough estimate of the rates of return for on-the-job
training suggests that black men do not fare as well as
white men. The returns for on-the-job training (mea­
sured by time since leaving school) are estimated at
about 13 percent for white men, and 8 percent for black
men.25 However, these estimates should be interpreted
with caution. First, on-the-job training is measured by
years of work experience; therefore, the training compo­
nent is overestimated for black men because their jobs
usually require less training.26 Second, because black
men have higher levels of unemployment than white
men, their work experience is also overestimated.
D i f f e r e n c e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l attainment and work
experience are major forces determining earnings. Black
men appear to be gaining as much or more from their
fewer years of school relative to white men, but on-thejob training may not pay off as well for blacks. Com­
pared with white men, the rates of monetary return for
education are estimated to be slightly higher for black
men but on-the-job training may be considerably less.
However, limitations in measuring work experience sug­
gest caution in drawing any policy interpretations.
□

FOOTNOTES

Information on annual earnings and educational attainment in
1977 was gathered from questions in the March 1978 supplement to
the Current Population Survey ( c p s ). Weekly earnings data were de­
rived by dividing the annual wage and salary earnings reported for an
individual worker by the number of weeks that individual worked
during the year. The CPS is conducted each month by the Bureau of
the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A detailed description
of the survey appears in C o n c ep ts a n d M e th o d s U se d in L a b o r F orce
S ta tis tic s D e r iv e d F ro m th e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u rv e y, Report 463 (Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics, 1976). The universe for this study included
full-time (but not necessarily year round) wage and salary workers,
age 16 to 65.
: Richard B. Freeman, “Changes in the Labor Market for Black
Americans, 1948-72,” B ro o k in g s P a p e rs on E c o n o m ic A c tiv ity , No. 1,
1973, p. 73.
Janice N. Hedges and Earl F. Mellor, “Weekly and hourly earn­

32


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ings of U.S. workers, 1967-78,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August 1979,
pp. 31-41.
4 See, for example, James Gwartney, “Discrimination and Income
Differentials,” A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R ev ie w , June 1970, pp. 396—408.
' Gary Becker, H u m a n C a p ita l (New York, Columbia University
Press, 1964).
"Jacob Mincer, S ch o o lin g , E x p erie n c e , a n d E a rn in g s (New York,
Columbia University Press, 1974).
Additional variables relating to workers’ social, economic, and de­
mographic status have been used in various specifications of the hu­
man capital model. These variables include marital status, region,
family background, city, size of residence, and veterans status. (See,
for example, Randall D. Weiss, “The Effect of Education on the
Earnings of Blacks and Whites,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tistic s,
February 1970, pp. 150-59 or Leonard Weiss and Jeffrey G.
Williamson, “Black Education, Earnings, and Inter-regional Migra-

tion: Some New Evidence,” A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R ev ie w , June 1972,
pp. 372-83.) Occupation, a variable which has an important indirect
effect upon the distribution of earnings, is often discussed. Another
important variable in the model, individual ability, is often excluded
from consideration because it is difficult to measure.
”Work experience is estimated in the following manner: the years of
schooling plus 5 years representing the preschool years are subtracted
from the worker’s age. Although this estimation of work experience is
often used in human capital studies, it has serious limitations. Among
these are that it assumes men finish school, go immediately to work,
and work continuously until retirement. Also, it implicitly assumes
that the amount of on-the-job training embodied in a given amount of
work experience is the same for all men and that on-the-job training
decreases over the life cycle in the same manner for all men.
' James P. Smith and Finis Welch, “Black-White Male Wage Ra­
tios, 1960-70,” A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R ev ie w , June 1977, p. 324. Smith
and Welch groups with the shortest and longest work experience ex­
clude workers with less than 1 year of experience and those with more
than 40 years. (The Current Population Survey data include all full­
time wage and salary workers between age 16 and 65 in 1977, irre­
spective of length of work experience.) Smith and Welch describe their
ratios in the following manner: “Numbers reported are ratios of aver­
ages, i.e., they are average black earnings or weekly wages relative to
appropriate averages for whites. Weekly wages are earnings last year
divided by weeks worked last year. The average weekly wage used
here is total earnings of all persons divided by total weeks worked,
i.e., individual earnings per week are weighted by weeks worked.” Al­
though their data include workers with less than full-time schedules,
this has little effect on the earnings ratios because the black-white ra­
tio of median usual weekly earnings of part-time workers was .98 in
May 1977.
" The term “black and other” is used for historical data which are
not available for blacks only. In the 1970 Census of Population, 89
percent of the black and other group were black; the remainder in­
cluded American Indian, Alaskan Natives, Asian and Pacific Island­
ers. The regression model, however, was designed to measure the
earnings differential between blacks and other races. Whites com­
prised the overwhelming majority of the nonblack group— about 98
percent in 1970.
" Statement of Winton H. Manning, senior vice president for Re­
search and Development, Educational Testing Service, before the Sub­
committee on the Civil Service. (See P r o fe s sio n a l a n d A d m in is tr a tiv e
C a r e e r E x a m in a tio n , U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on
the Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
96th Cong. 1st sess., May 15, 1979.)
Statement of Winton H. Manning,
. . , p. 62.

P r o fe s sio n a l a n d A d m in is tr a ­

tiv e .

Migration: Comment and Some New Evidence,” and Leonard Weiss
and Jeffrey G. Williamson, “Black Education, Earnings and
Interregional Migration: Even Newer Evidence,” A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic
R ev ie w , March 1975, pp. 236-44. Link’s estimates were based on
grouped data from the 1970 Census, while Weiss and Williamson’s es­
timates were based on individual data from the 1970 census.
IKSmith and Welch, “Black-White . . . ,” pp. 323-38. In their anal­
ysis of earnings ratios, they found that the earnings differential
diminished somewhat over the decade yet remained large in 1970; that
blacks entering the labor market in the 1960’s, especially in the late
1960’s fared best; and that college educated black men made the
greatest improvements.
In their regression model, Smith and Welch include government
employment and geographic location as explanatory variables as well
as school completion and years of work experience which means that
their results are not directly comparable with those reported in this
article. However, it is useful to note that they found that little change
had taken place between 1960 and 1970 in the rates of return for
schooling of either black or white men in the elementary and second­
ary category and that data for both years showed the rate of return
for black men to be lower than that for white men in each experience
category. For example, white men in the 1 to 5 years of experience
category accrued a return of .143, compared with a rate of .097 for
black men of this category; in the 31 to 40 years of experience group,
the rates of return were .050 and .026. Among those who attended
college, the rate grew in the 1960’s, while there was little difference
between the races. In 1970, black men in the 1 to 5 years experience
category had a rate of return for schooling of .158, compared with a
rate of return of .124 for white men of this group.
James P. Smith and Finis Welch, “Race Differences in Earnings:
A Survey and New Evidence,” in Peter Mieszkowski and Mahlon
Straszheim, eds., C u r r e n t Iss u e s in U rb a n E c o n o m ic s (Baltimore, The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), pp. 40-73.
Smith and Welch, “Race Differences . . . ,”
1Differences were tested for statistical significance using results
from the dummy variable analysis. (See appendix.)
""Smith and Welch, “Black-White Male . . . ,” p. 330.
For a discussion of the “baby-boom” effect on wages see Richard
B. Freeman, “The Effect of Demographic Factors on Age-Earnings
Profiles,” T h e J o u r n a l o f H u m a n R eso u rces, Summer, 1979, pp. 289—
318.
4 These calculations were derived in the following manner for
whites:
___________ Change in logarithm of weekly earnings_________
Change in education

' This figure was calculated by distributing black men across occu­
pations in the same proportions as white men, then redistributing
these groups across their earnings distribution in the same propor­
tions. This new income distribution was then used to calculate a re­
vised median in which 24 percent of the black-white difference was
explained.
14 Finis Welch, “Black-White Differences in Returns to Schooling,”
A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R ev ie w , December 1973, pp. 893-907.
Weiss and Williamson, “Black Education, Earnings . . .”
Weiss and Williamson, “Black Education, Earnings . . .”
17 Charles R. Link, “Black Education, Earnings, and Interregional

. 1414 —.0022 X (12) —.0018 X (13)
5Coefficients of experience and experience squared were used to de­
rive these estimates. Mincer, S c h o o lin g . . . , p. 91, provides formulas
used in the derivation of these estimates. For estimates of the effect
experiences on earnings using a more direct measure of on-the-job
training, see Greg J. Duncan and Saul Hoffman, “On-the-Job Train­
ing and Earnings Differences by Race and Sex,” R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s
a n d S ta tistic s , November 1979, pp. 594-603.
“ See Duncan and Hoffman, “On-the-Job Training . . . ,” p. 597,
for estimates of the average amount of training by occupation.

APPENDIX: Rates of return for education
The model used to estimate rates of return for educa­
tion in the current study is
In W = a + b]S + b2t + b312; where:
In W is the natural logarithm of average weekly
earnings.
S is the number of years of schooling completed.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

t is the calculated number of years of work experi­
ence (Age -S -5).
Average weekly earnings (annual earnings divided by
weeks worked) is used as the dependent variable of the
model because earnings and work time are both depen­
dent on schooling and experience. An advantage in us33

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Education, Training, and Black-White Earnings
ing weekly earnings as the dependent variable (as op­
posed to annual earnings) is that the labor-leisure
tradeoff is taken into account, that is, the effect of hu­
man capital on earnings is separated from its effect on
work time. However, involuntary unemployment, which
reduces work time beyond that which would be freely
chosen, makes this variable less useful, that is, to the
extent that black men are involuntarily unemployed
more than white men, their rate of return to schooling
is overestimated.
Because years of schooling measure the quantity of
schooling but not its quality and because the black edu­
cational experience historically has been lower in quali­
ty than that of whites, the independent variable, years
of schooling, overestimates blacks’ educational input.
Experience, defined as the time since leaving school,
overestimates black men’s work experience as they are
more likely to have periods of unemployment than
white men. Additionally, the amount of on-the-job
training which is embodied within a given amount of
work experience may be less for black men. The experi­
ence squared term takes into account the fact that actu­
al on-the-job training declines as workers age, which
means that additional years of work experience will
have less impact on workers’ earnings.
To measure the statistical significance of the dif­
ference between the effect of schooling on the earnings
of white and black men (holding experience constant),
the model takes the form
In W = a + a'Z + b, S + b,'SZ + b2t + b2'tZ +
b312 + b /t2Z
where Z is a dummy variable designating race (Z = 1 if
black, 0 if white). Using this method, it can be said that
the rate of return for black men is significantly
different from that for white men if the coefficient, b,' is
statistically different from zero. (These differences are
reported in table 3 of the text.) For a discussion of this
estimation technique, see Jan Kmenta, Elements of
Econometrics (New York, The Macmillian Co., 1971),
pp. 419-22.
The regressions were run separately by length of
work experience for workers who completed 1 to 4
years of high school and for those completing at least 1
year of college (total figures include those completing
only elementary school). By analyzing the data in this

34

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

manner, experience acts as an index of age (that is, suc­
cessive experience groups can be considered successive
age groups). In the context of the human capital model,
this indexing marks the vintage of schooling. This is im­
portant because the difference in the quality of educa­
tion of blacks and whites has declined over the past
several decades. See John D. Owen, School Inequality
and the Welfare State (Baltimore, the Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1974), pp. 133-^48. Furthermore,
schooling’s effect on earnings over the life cycle (succes­
sive experience groups) may differ by race.
A measure of the marginal rate of return can be esti­
mated by altering the model to include a variable which
accounts for the non-linear aspect of an additional year
of education with experience. Essentially, the model is
expanded to include a term for the square of education
and for education by experience. The marginal change
in earnings due to a change in education can then be
derived by differentiating the estimated equation with
respect to education. Estimates of this equation are
shown in the following tabulation for the overall sam­
ple, by race (standard errors in parenthesis):

C onstant............................
Education..........................
Education squared ............
Education, by experience . .
Experience..........................
Experience squared............

White
3.2
(.05)
.1414
(.0069)
-.0011
(.0002)
-.0018
(.0001)
.0904
(.0017)
-.0011
(.00002)

Black
2.94
(.20)
.1374
(.0251)
.0001
(.0009)
-.0022
(.0003)
.0874
(.0063)
-.001
(.0001)

The extra payoff from an additional year of education
(at a given experience and educational level) can be esti­
mated from the following relationships:
For whites—change in logarithm weekly earnings _
change in education
(.1414—.0022 education —.0018 experience)
For blacks—change in logarithm weekly earnings _
change in education
(. 1374 + .0002 education —.0022 experience)

J

Measuring wage dispersion:
pay ranges reflect industry traits
Greatest wage dispersion occurs in industries
with broad occupational staffing or with
much incentive pay; high-paying industries,
often heavily unionized, show less variation
in earnings and a penchant for single job rates
C a r l B. B a r s k y

and

M

a r t in

E. P e r s o n i c k

Wage rates in an industry can vary a great deal above
and below the average wage for that industry. However,
in another industry with a similar average wage, the
range of pay rates can be small. What causes such dif­
ferent wage dispersions among industries? Using meas­
ures of relative dispersion, this analysis shows that in­
dustry characteristics such as degree of unionization,
geographic location, occupational mix, and method of
wage payment influence the amount of variation. Recent
wage data for a cross-section of manufacturing and
mining industries are examined in this article.
The Bureau’s Industry Wage Survey program is espe­
cially suited to analysis of wage dispersion. Individual
surveys provide straight-time hourly earnings data for a
number of detailed occupations representing an indus­
try’s wage structure. Information is recorded on each
establishment’s location, collective bargaining status,
and number of employees, as well as on its major prod­
uct and production processes. In addition, sex and
method of wage payment are recorded for individual
workers.
Data for 43 manufacturing and six mining industries
surveyed during 1973-78 are used in this analysis.1
These narrowly defined industries, although not a prob­
ability sample of all industries, adequately represent the
many kinds of manufacturing and mining activities in
the United States.
Carl B. Barsky is an economist and Martin E. Personick a project di­
rector in the Division of Occupational Wage Structures, Bureau of La­
bor Statistics.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

The data reveal substantial differences in the degree
of wage dispersion among various industries, apparently
governed by two competing groups of factors: (1)
companywide bargaining and single job rates create low
wage dispersion in industries such as glass containers
and cigarettes; and (2) broad occupational staffing pat­
terns and incentive pay systems tend to produce large
wage spreads in industries such as meat products and
men’s suits. In general, high-paying industries, often
highly unionized, show less variation in individual earn­
ings than low-paying industries. Differences in pay lev­
els among establishments are a dominant characteristic
of industries with widely dispersed earnings.
Employee opportunities for increased pay take dif­
ferent forms that are related to the degree of industry
wage dispersion. Uniformity of wages, as found in many
high-paying industries, might discourage movement of
workers between firms (that may pay the same rates set
by union agreement). However, widely dispersed earn­
ings, often in low-paying industries, may encourage
workers to seek increased earnings through shifts to
higher paying firms or to those using incentive pay sys­
tems.
In addition to individual workers, others who make
decisions based on wage rate distributions include com­
panies who set their wage levels at stipulated distances
from an industry or area-wide average, market research­
ers testing the potential demand for new consumer
products, and tax analysts estimating revenues from
workers at different earnings levels.
35

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Measuring Wage Dispersion

Analytical technique

Before defining the dispersion measures in this analy­
sis, let us look at a full earnings distribution to find
some of its key points. Chart 1 describes the wage dis­
tribution in basic steel, which corresponds closely to a
“bell-shaped” curve; in fact, its mean and median value
are exactly the same. Moreover, its first and third quartiles— the points above and below which a fourth of the
workers fall— are each about equidistant from the me­
dian. The standard deviation can be thought of as the
average distance (dispersion) of workers’ earnings from
the industry’s mean. Typically, about two-thirds of the

workers fall within plus or minus one standard devia­
tion of the mean.
In this analysis of wage dispersion, two basic
approaches are used: the spread in earnings for the cen­
tral portion of the industry’s distribution is related to
the median value by the index of dispersion; and the
variation of all wage rates in the distribution about the
mean value is summarized by the coefficient of variation.
The index of dispersion is computed by dividing the
interquartile range (the difference between the third and
first quartiles) by the median (second quartile) and mul­
tiplying by 100. In the case of basic steel, it is
$ 1.46/$8.32 X 100 = 18. Obviously, the distribution of
rates at the upper and lower fourth of the array has no

Chart 1. Distribution of hourly earnings of production workers in basic iron and steel,
February 1978

Percent of workers

20

ir w r iïï i iiii i

18

16

Mean and median

14

12

10

36

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Earnings

influence on the index values. Further, the actual wage
rates other than the three quartiles do not affect the dis­
persion index; this measure is determined only by the
position of these quartiles, and not the shape of the dis­
tribution within the band. The median standardizes the
index of dispersion, so that a distribution of relatively
high rates may be compared with one of low rates. For
example, if one industry has quartiles of $4.00, $4.50,
and $5.00, and a second has quartiles of $8.00, $8.50,
and $9.00, both would have an interquartile range of
$1.00. The indexes of dispersion are 22 for the first in­
dustry and 12 in the second, indicating more relative
dispersion in the lower paying industry.
The coefficient of variation is computed by dividing
the standard deviation by the mean and multiplying by
100. The calculation for basic steel would be $1.25 -h$8.32 X 100 = 15. As with the dispersion index, a cen­
tral value— the mean—is used to standardize the earn­
ings dispersion for situations with varying pay levels.
Most of the analysis in this article relies on the
coefficient of variation as a measure of dispersion. Us­
ing either the dispersion index or the coefficient of vari­
ation, however, will generally result in similar con­
clusions when comparing wage dispersion among in­
dustries or other economic units.2 (See “technical note”
that follows for a comparison of how the two measures
may differ.) The primary advantage of the coefficient of
variation approach is that total variation in earnings
around the mean can be measured and then, broken
into two component parts—earnings variations among
and within establishments.

Ranking wage spreads
Two sets of dispersion rates by industry are shown in
table 1. Indexes of dispersion were, with few exceptions,
higher than coefficients of variation, but both measures
yielded similar rankings of industries based on Spear­
man tests.3 Industries with the least degree of earnings
variation included motor vehicle manufacturing, several
mining groups, petroleum refining, and cellulosic fibers.
The most dispersed earnings were reported in semicon­
ductors and men’s suit and coat manufacturing.
In certain instances, the two dispersion measures
were dissimilar in rank or value. The coefficients of vari­
ation for the women’s hosiery and men’s and boy’s
shirts industries, for example, were 21 and 22, respec­
tively, indicating a moderate amount of dispersion.
Their indexes of dispersions were 30 and 31, however—
relatively high in comparison with other industries. The
dispersion index in effect ignores a certain amount of
wage compression brought about by the concentration
of workers at the lower end of the array, below the first
quartile. Thirteen percent of the women’s hosiery and
24 percent of the shirts industry production workers
earned within 5 cents of the applicable Federal mini­

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

mum wage when the surveys were last conducted. The
median-based dispersion index suggests that these in­
dustries have as much relative dispersion as, for exam­
ple, meatpacking—an industry which is not influenced
by the minimum wage and which has one of the highest
coefficients of variation (29) among those reported.
At the other end of the earnings array, the lead and
zinc mining industry has some “hidden” dispersion in
the upper one-fourth of its earnings distribution. Min­
ers, primarily paid on an incentive basis, had earnings
that were usually scattered throughout that upper por­
tion. As a result, the industry’s dispersion index value
of 18 ranks relatively low (although second highest
among the mining segment); but, its coefficient of varia­
tion (26) is among the upper third of those reported.
Rankings of the coefficients of variation were com­
pared with rankings of such characteristics as industry
pay level, unionization, and the use of single-rate pay
systems. Based on Spearman rank correlation tests, the
degree of dispersion is inversely related to these factors.4
Table 2 portrays the inverse relationship found be­
tween dispersion and pay levels for 28 industries. Only
the meatpacking and motor vehicle parts industries
were in the top third of rankings of both industry pay
levels and dispersion, and none of the industries fell
into the bottom third of both categories. Consistent
with the Spearman test, a clustering occurred for indus­
tries with the highest pay levels and the lowest coeffi­
cients of variation.
Industries with low dispersion rates were, as
expected, highly unionized. There were, however, other
highly unionized industries with broadly dispersed earn­
ings— such as men’s suits, leather tanning, and gray
iron (except pipe and fittings) foundries. The latter in­
dustries had substantial proportions of workers under
incentive pay plans. Four industries with coefficient^ of
variation of 10 or less (underground coal, iron and cop­
per mining, and petroleum refining), in addition to be­
ing virtually 100 percent unionized, were marked by
almost complete mechanization of production processes
and, therefore, a virtual absence of worker control over
output. As a result, time rates are paid almost exclus­
ively in these industries, producing low wage dispersion.
Industries with high dispersion rates were invariably
those using pay plans other than single-rate systems.
Men’s suits, with the second highest coefficient of varia­
tion, had four-fifths of its production workers covered
by union agreements—most of them by a single nation­
wide contract. Nevertheless, seven-tenths of the workers
were paid under individual piecework plans. Further,
dispersion is affected by regional differences that have
not been eliminated by the nationwide contract that
specifies only minimum occupational wage rates.
Semiconductors, the most highly dispersed industry,
has relatively little unionization (two-fifths) and sub37

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Measuring Wage Dispersion

Table 1.

Wage dispersion statistics for selected industries, 1971 -7 8
C o e f f ic e n t o f

Dlv

In d u s t r y t it le

code

S u rv e y d a te

M ean w age

v a r ia t io n

P r o p o r t io n o f
in t e r p la n t

In d e x o f
d is p e r s io n

v a r ia t io n

1011
1021
1031
1094
1211
1211
2011
2013
2071
2111

Iron m ining...........................................................................
Copper mining ....................................................................
Lead and zinc mining .........................................................
Uranium, radium and vanadium m ining...............................
Underground coal m in e s.....................................................
Surface coal m ines..............................................................
Meatpacking .......................................................................
Prepared meat products .....................................................
Candy and other confectionery products ...........................
Cigarettes ...........................................................................

July
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Jan.
Jan.
Mar.
Mar.
Aug.
May

1977
1977
1977
1977
1976
1976
1974
1974
1975
1976

19,103
20,210
5,277
9,000
94,411
33,979
118,319
46,945
40,286
32,826

$7.10
7.60
6.23
6.89
6.96
6.88
4.64
4.38
3.60
5.71

10
9
26
25
7
19
29
27
28
15

13
10
30
48
22
76
75
78
67
8

16
11
18
27
14
22
32
35
40
21

221,8
222,8
223,8
2251
2252
226
2311
2321
2327
2511

Cotton textiles .....................................................................
Manmade te xtile s................................................................
Wool textiles .......................................................................
Women’s hosiery ................................................................
Hosiery, except women’s ...................................................
Textile dyeing and finishing .................................................
Men’s and boys' suits and coats ........................................
Men’s and boys sh irts..........................................................
Men’s and boys separate trousers......................................
Wood household furniture (except upholstered)..................

May
May
May
July
July
June
Apr.
May
May
Nov.

1975
1975
1975
1976
1976
1976
1976
1978
1978
1974

152,025
136,437
13,122
23,805
23,913
51,458
64,105
85,442
55,017
122,350

3.08
3.07
3.17
300
3.05
3.82
3.97
3.29
3.46
3.05

17
17
19
21
22
23
32
22
23
27

13
25
48
17
15
47
31
25
27
69

25
25
23
29
32
24
45
31
32
32

2611
2621
2631
2653
281
2823
2824
2851
2911
3079

Pulp m ills ..............................................................................
Paper m ills...........................................................................
Paperboard mills ................................................................
Corrugated and solid fiber b o x e s ........................................
Industrial chemicals ............................................................
Cellulosic fibers ................................................................
Noncellulosic fibers............................................................
Paints and varnishes..........................................................
Petroleum refining..............................................................
Miscellaneous plastics products........................................

Summer
Summer
Summer
Mar.
June
Aug.
Aug.
Nov.
Apr.
Sept.

1977
1977
1977
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1974

8,016
98,860
41,030
61,912
129,952
10,830
51,963
27,647
63,289
236,413

7.23
6.47
6.59
4.65
6.28
4.45
5.18
5.10
7.38
3.24

18
19
22
20
19
12
18
23
10
27

31
51
47
61
77
38
54
75
38
44

29
26
32
25
26
15
24
27
13
38

3111
3141
3221
3229
3251
3253
3255
3259
331
3321

Leather tanning and finishing............................................
Nonrubber footwear ..........................................................
Glass containers................................................................
Other pressed or blown glassware .................................
Brick and structural clay tile ............................................
Ceramic wall and floor t ile .................................................
Clay refractories................................................................
Clay sewer p ip e ................................................................
Basic iron and steel ..........................................................
Gray iron foundries, except pipe and fittings ....................

Mar.
Apr.
May
May
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Feb.
Nov.

1973
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1978
1973

16,677
105,583
62,591
28,328
15,375
5,215
7,585
4,349
345,163
97,371

3.41
2.98
4.63
4.32
3.35
3.41
4.78
4.06
8.32
4.43

25
29
18
22
26
22
23
24
15
25

44
21
8
18
63
56
48
34
35
65

34
40
18
22
36
28
26
24
18
39

3321
3322
3323
336
3441
3711
3714
3674
3731

Gray iron pipe and fittings foundries.................................
Malleable iron foundries ...................................................
Steel foundries..................................................................
Nonferrous foundries .......................................................
Fabricated structural s te e l.................................................
Motor vehicles ...................................................................
Motor vehicle parts and accessories ...............................
Semiconductors and related devices ...............................
Shipbuilding .......................................................................

Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
May
Nov.
Dec.
Apr.
Sept.
Sept.

1973
1973
1973
1975
1974
1973
1974
1977
1976

17,982
20,087
49,954
54,432
63,741
611,428
149,237
52,956
104,015

3.72
4.68
4.12
4.45
4.55
5.54
4.65
4.52
5.66

20
21
22
26
25

42
38
46
63
75
—
75
62
60

27
26
26
36
35
4
37
62
20

stantial geographic dispersion. In addition, semiconduc­
tors is a relatively new industry within which companies
are still developing internal wage structures. Method of
pay, again, seems to be the most important influence on
dispersion; here, through the use of rate-range pay plans.
Certain groups of related industries prove to be quite
different in their dispersion characteristics when exam­
ined closely. The mining sector, for example, produces
some striking contrasts. First, among four metal mining
industries, two have low coefficients of variation (iron
and copper) and two are quite high (lead-zinc and ura­
nium). Iron and copper are extracted predominantly
from open pit (surface) mines. Accordingly, workers in
these industries have less control over production, and
are much less likely to receive incentive pay. By con­
trast, a substantial proportion of workers in lead-zinc
and uranium mining—typically underground miners—
are paid incentives that lead to dispersed earnings.
38

w o rk e rs


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

—

26
35
18

In coal mining, the situation is reversed: underground
coal has somewhat less dispersion than does surface
coal mining. Underground coal workers, virtually all
unionized, are covered by a master national agreement.
In contrast, most surface coal agreements, covering
three-fifths of the industry, are companywide, not na­
tionwide. Thus, almost all of the dispersion in under­
ground coal mining results from differences within
establishments. The coefficient of variation is low in un­
derground coal because the master agreement sets only
a few rates to cover all occupations. In surface coal,
however, there are pay differences among establish­
ments, and these, in fact, more than offset differences
within firms.

Components of dispersion
Table 1 shows the percentage of total wage variation
attributable to differences among establishments. The

Table 2. Relationship between ranking of coefficients of
variation and average hourly earnings, selected industries,
1973-78
C o e f f ic ie n t o f

A v e r a g e h o u r ly e a r n i n g s 1

v a r ia t io n in
in d u s t r y w a g e s

$ 5 .2 8 o r le s s

Low
(Under 20)

$ 5 .3 1

$ 7 .1 4

$ 7 .3 7 o r m o r e

Corrugated boxes
Glass containers
Noncellulosic fibers
Paper mills

Cigarettes
Copper mining
Iron mining
Petroleum refining
Shipbuilding

Medium
(20 to 23)

Hosiery, n.e.c.2
Men’s shirts
Men’s trousers
Textile dyeing
Women’s hosiery

Glassware, n.e.c.2

Malleable iron
foundries
Paperboard mills

High
(24 or more)

Candy
Footwear
Men’s suits
Plastics

Fabricated steel
Leather tanning
Nonferrous foundries
Prepared meat
Semiconductors

Meatpacking
Motor vehicle parts

1Gross hourly earnings of production workers in February 1979.
2Not elsewhere classified.
interplant proportion of variation was highest (at least
75 percent) for surface coal mining, motor vehicle parts,
meat products, industrial chemicals, paints and
varnishes, and fabricated structural steel. It was lowest
(15 percent or less) for cigarettes, glass containers, cot­
ton textiles, iron and copper mining, and hosiery (ex­
cept women’s). The difference between the interplant
proportion of variation and 100 percent equals the per­
cent of wage variation within plants.

47 for paperboard mills, two larger related industries
with coefficients of variation and several other charac­
teristics similar to the pulp industry. The same kind of
relationship can be found for the cellulosic (12 plants)
and noncellulosic (48 plants) fibers industries, with coef­
ficients of variation of 12 and 18, and interplant values
of 38 and 54, respectively.
Few establishments in an industry are not sufficient
to produce low interplant variation. The cotton textile
industry, with 800 plants, had a much lower interplant
value (25) than wool, with 87 firms and an interplant
value of 48. Cotton industry wages have little variation
among plants, in part, because of geographic concentra­
tion— nine-tenths of the industry is in the Southeast,
four-fifths in North Carolina alone. In contrast, wool
industry employment is split about evenly between the
Southeast and New England— two regions with quite
different pay levels.
The four clay products industries had similar coeffi­
cients of variation but differing interplant values, rang­
ing from 34 for clay sewer pipe to 63 for brick and clay
tile. Clay sewer pipe had more geographic concentration
and a higher proportion of incentive workers than the
other branches— two factors associated with higher
intraplant variation. By contrast, brick and clay tile
plants were found in most parts of the country and had
Table 3. Relationship between rankings of coefficient of
variation and degree of interplant variation in industry
wages, 1973-78
In t e r p ia n i v a r ia t io n in in d u s t r y w a g e s

Industry patterns. In general, the higher the proportion
of interplant variation in an industry, the greater its
overall wage dispersion as measured by the coefficient
of variation.5Table 3 illustrates this relationship; for ex­
ample, 10 of the 15 industries grouped as having the
highest coefficients of variation were also in the upper
third for the proportion of interplant variation.
The characteristics of several industries were examined
to determine why earnings variation in some primarily
stems from differences in pay within rather than among
establishments. Low interplant variation was present in
industries with one or more of the following dominant
features:6 geographic concentration (cigarettes, hosiery,
and cotton textiles); companywide bargaining (glass con­
tainers, iron mining, copper mining, and cigarettes);
prevalence of incentive pay (nonrubber footwear and ho­
siery); and broad range of occupational skills (cigarettes,
glass containers, iron mining, and copper mining).
In addition, a low interplant value would be expected
for an industry with few establishments.7 For example,
cigarettes, with 13 plants, ties for the lowest interplant
value among industries studied. The pulp industry,
comprised of only 19 mills nationwide, has an inter­
plant value of 31, compared with 51 for paper mills and

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

a s a p e r c e n t o f t o t a l v a r ia t io n

C o e f f ic ie n t o f
v a r ia t io n in
Low

M e d iu m

H ig h

(U n d e r 32 p e rc e n t)

( 3 3 - 5 4 p e rc e n t)

(5 6 p e rc e n t o r m o re )

in d u s t r y w a g e s

Low
(Under 20)

Medium
(20 to 23)

High
(24 or more)

Cigarettes
Copper mining
Textiles
(except wool)
Glass containers
Iron mining
Pulp mills
Underground coal

Basic steel
Cellulosic fibers
Noncellulosic fibers
Petroleum refining
Wool textiles
Paper mills

Glassware, n.e.c.1
Hosiery, n.e.c.1
Men’s shirts
Men’s trousers
Women’s hoisery

Gray iron pipe
Malleable iron
foundries
Paperboard mills
Refractories
Steel foundries
Textile dyeing

Footwear
Lead and zinc
mining
Men’s suits

Clay sewer pipe
Leather tanning
Plastics
Uranium mining

Chemicals
Shipbuilding
Surface coal

Ceramic tile
Corrugated boxes
Paints

Brick
Candy
Fabricated steel
Furniture
Gray Iron, except
pipe
Meatpacking
Motor vehicle parts
Nonferrous foundries
Prepared meat
Semiconductors

1Not elsewhere classified.
39

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Measuring Wage Dispersion
relatively fewer incentive workers than the other clay
products groups. This geographic dispersion is to be
expected because of the relatively high cost of shipping
the finished products and the availability of raw materi­
als (mostly clay) in most areas.
Work force differences. Within individual occupations,
earnings variations primarily reflected pay differences
among establishments, regardless of the interplant vari­
ation for the overall industry. In the four industries
with broad skill ranges and low interplant variation, for
example, individual occupations exhibited relatively lit­
tle earnings variation (coefficients of variation rarely
exceeded 10); but, this small variation resulted primarily
from interplant pay differences. Exceptions included cer­
tain incentive-oriented occupations, such as forming-ma­
chine operators (glass containers) and miners— both
exhibiting more wage dispersion within establishments
than did most time-rated occupations in these indus­
tries. Wages in some time-rated jobs in cigarettes also
had relatively more variation within plants, in part be­
cause of the extensive use of rate-range plans.
One worker characteristic—sex—is often associated
with different wage distributions. Women, for example,
are commonly employed in a small number of occupa­
tions near the low end of the wage structure. As a
group, therefore, their dispersion values are typically
lower than men’s and more attributable to interplant
variation. Combining the distribution of women’s wage
rates with that for men typically results in higher pro­
portions of within plant variation by industry. In fact,
there is a statistically significant relationship between
the proportion of within plant variation and the female
percentage of an industry’s production work force.8
The glass containers industry illustrates how values
for dispersion can differ between men and women. Al­
though glass containers is a high-paying industry (table
2), seven-eighths of its 20,000 women production work­
ers were employed in three low-paying jobs— final in­
spectors, selectors, and carton assemblers. Men, in
contrast, were spread throughout the industry’s earn­
ings spectrum. The result is a much lower coefficient of
variation for women (6) than for men (19) and, as
expected, very different proportions of interplant varia­
tion— 54 for women and 11 for men. The high propor­
tion for women, clustered in three occupations,
approximates the high values that are typical for most
individual occupations. At an occupational level, the
proportion of interplant variation as well as dispersion
rates and pay levels were fairly similar for men and
women in the industry.

Few changes from earlier data
To examine trend information on dispersion meas­
ures, observations for industries in table 1 were
40


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

matched, where possible, with earlier data. Of the in­
dustries compared, indexes of dispersion for 16 indus­
tries were essentially the same (a difference of 2
percentage points or less) in both survey periods.
As shown in the following tabulation, six industries
—led by glass containers— recorded declines of 4 per­
centage points or more in their dispersion indexes and
five industries—led by candy products—exhibited in­
creases of at least that magnitude.
Industry, by
direction of change

Wage dispersion index
1975-78
1970-72

Increases:
Candy products.....................
Industrial chemicals..............
Nonferrous foundries............
Paperboard m ills...................
Paper m ills............................

33
20
31
28
22

40
26
36
32
26

Decreases:
Basic steel ............................
Copper mining .....................
Glass containers ...................
Glassware (except containers)
Iron mining ..........................
Lead and zinc mining............

24
15
28
28
20
27

18
11
18
22
16
18

No single factor or set of factors consistently explain
these changes. However, a decline in the incidence of
incentive pay was reported in several instances where
dispersion values dropped. In glass containers, for ex­
ample, “buy-outs” of incentive plans by the largest
companies contributed heavily to the decline of
incentive workers in the industry from 33 percent in
1970 to 13 percent in 1975. In basic steel, however,
lower dispersion rates were accompanied by a sharp in­
crease in the incidence of incentive workers—from twothirds in 1972 to four-fifths in 1978. In steel, uniform
cents-per-hour wage increases more than offset the in­
creased use of incentive plans— typically group
bonuses. Such wage increases compressed its occupa­
tional pay structure to the extent that the highest basic
wage rates for workers exceeded the lowest by about 50
percent in 1978 compared with 80 percent in 1972.
In summary, industries vary not only with respect to
average earnings but also in the extent to which individ­
uals’ earnings are dispersed around a central point.
Such industry characteristics as highly uniform pay
rates and skill requirements are associated with low dis­
persion rates while broad staffing patterns and incentive
pay systems are commonly found where earnings are
more dispersed. Despite their high pay levels, high wage
industries tend to have relatively little earnings varia­
tion; the degree of this variation and the relative impor­
tance of interplant wage differences as a source of
dispersion seems to be directly related. Finally, disper­
sion rates for most industries were essentially the same
as those recorded 5 years earlier.
□

-— F O O T N O T E S
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : The authors thank William Bailey of the Spe­
cial Reports Group, Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, BLS,
and Stephen Baldwin, formerly of the same office, for their helpful
suggestions.

' For an earlier account of wage dispersion by industry, see L. Earl
Lewis, “Wage Dispersion in Manufacturing Industries, 1950-55,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w . July 1956, pp. 780-86.
The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was .84 between the co­
efficient of variation and the index of dispersion. This test compares
the ranking of arrays of these two measures. Had they coincided ex­
actly, the coefficient would be 1.0; if the rankings were reverse images
of each other, the coefficient would be — 1.0.
Two factors contribute to the index of dispersion exceeding the
coefficient of variation: (1) the interquartile range, which covers 50
percent of the workers, is almost always higher than the standard de­
viation, which includes about one-third of the workers (68 percent
typically fall within ± 1 standard deviation of the mean); (2) the
mean is generally higher than the median. Hence, the index of disper­
sion contains a larger numerator and smaller denominator than does
the coefficient of variation.
4 The Spearman rank correlation coefficients were —.53 for industry

pay level, —.40 for unionization, and —.64 for single-rate pay sys­
tems— all statistically significant at a 1-percent level.
5The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was .42 between the co­
efficient of variation and the proportion of interplant variation.
6 In theory, it would be possible to use the analysis of variance
technique to isolate the percentage of total within plant variation be­
cause of differences among occupations (interoccupational) and those
due to differences within occupations (intraoccupational). The Bu­
reau’s wage surveys, however, do not examine all occupations in an
industry. Instead, occupations are selected to represent an industry’s
wage structure; these occupations may cover between 30 and 80 per­
cent of the production workers in an industry. Thus, in some cases,
70 percent of the workers are lumped together in a residual category
consisting of a broad range of occupations which are not studied sep­
arately.
The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was .48 between the
proportion of interplant variation and the number of establishments
in an industry.
KThe Spearman rank correlation coefficient was .44 between the
proportion of within plant variation and the percentage of women in
the industry.

A Technical Note on Dispersion Calculations
Coefficient of variation. The summary measure of rela­
tive dispersion called the coefficient of variation is de­
rived from total wage variation by summing the wage
variation that results from interplant and intra-plant
factors; relating that total to the number of workers to
derive the “average dispersion per worker”; and, finally,
relating that average, the standard deviation, to the in­
dustry mean wage. The procedure involves the follow­
ing series of equations:
(1)

Interpiani variation = 2(X e —X()2

where Xe is the mean wage in each establishment and X: is
the industry mean;
(2)

Intraplant variation = 2(X w —Xe)2

where Xw is the individual wage rate and Xe is the mean
wage in the establishment; the sum of equations (1) and (2)
equals the total wage variation;

(3)

Variance =

Total wage variation
Number of workers —1 ;

(4)

Standard Deviation

(5)

Coefficient of Variation

Variance; and
Standard deviation
Mean

Dispersion measures compared. As mentioned earlier, the
rankings of industry wage dispersions were similar and
highly correlated using either indexes of dispersion or
coefficients of variation. In terms of data accessibility,
however, the index of dispersion is easier to derive be­
cause the Bureau publishes quartiles or full distributions
of earnings, or both, but not standard deviations in its
occupational wage survey reports.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

The impact on an industry’s coefficient of variation
and index of dispersion could be quite different with a
change in the minimum wage. To illustrate, data from
the May 1978 men’s and boys’ shirts survey were ad­
justed to bring all workers paid less than $2.90— the
Federal minimum that became effective in January 1979
—to that level; no other wage rates were changed. The
effect on dispersion statistics is illustrated below:
Actual
After
Percent
Statistic
values
adjustment change
Median .....................
$3.04
$3.04
0
Middle 50 percent . . . $2.70-$3.65 $2.90-$3.65
-21
Index of dispersion . .
31
25
-19
M ean..........................
$3.28
$3.36
2
Standard deviation . . .
$ .73
$ .67
-8
Coefficient of variation
22
20
-9
Interplant proportion .
25
23
-7

The much larger decrease in the dispersion index than
in the coefficient of variation (19 percent compared with
9 percent) reflects the fact that most of the workers af­
fected by the adjustment are in the lower 25 percent of
earnings array. As can be seen, the median and third
quartile are unchanged. The coefficient of variation,
however, only drops 9 percent, reflecting an 8-percent
decline in the standard deviation and a 2-percent in­
crease in the mean.
In summary, either the index of dispersion or the co­
efficient of variation, in most instances, can be used to
gauge dispersion effectively. The former has the advan­
tage of being easier to derive; however, the coefficient
of variation provides a more refined measurement be­
cause it takes into account portions of the wage distri­
bution which are ignored in computing the index of
dispersion.
41

Conference Papers
The following excerpts are adapted from papers present­
ed at the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the Industrial
Relations Research Association, September 1980 in
Denver, Colo.
Papers prepared for the meetings of the IRRA are
excerpted by special permission and may not be
reproduced without the express permission of the IRRA,
which holds the copyright.
The full text of all papers appears in the IRRA
publication, Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual
Meeting, available from IRRA, Social Science Building,
Madison, Wis. 53706.

The male-female pay gap:
need for réévaluation
G

eorge

T. M

il k o v ic h

A significant re-examination of current wage-setting
practices is underway. Perhaps as far reaching as the
advent of industrial unions and labor legislation of the
1930’s and 1940’s, this re-examination springs from
concern over the magnitude and persistence of the earn­
ings gap between men and women. This gap is consid­
ered evidence of continued discrimination in employ­
ment relationships. At issue in the challenges to current
wage-setting practices are the legislative intent of the
Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and the Bennett Amendment;
the assertion that current wage practices potentially
cause and continue wage discrimination; and the debate
over alternative policies for reducing the earnings gap.
Two basic policy options have emerged to reduce the
earnings gap. The first focuses on regulating the distri­
bution of employment and educational opportunities;
the second aims at realigning wage differentials among
jobs. While both have the same intended consequences
regarding the earnings gap, their strategies differ.
During the 1970’s the regulatory agencies’ and the
courts’ interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and
the Equal Pay Act were consistent with the policy of

George T. Milkovich is a professor in the School of Industrial and
Labor Relations at Cornell University. His full i r r a paper is entitled
“Pay Inequalities and Comparable Worth.”


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

distributing employment and education opportunities.
Under this policy, women and minorities, underrepre­
sented (in some cases excluded) in higher paying jobs
within and across occupations and in education and
training programs, fill opportunities at rates greater
than the rates at which they occur in the supply. To
date, the legality of these “affirmative action” programs
have been upheld in the court.
Coupled with the accelerated sharing of opportunities
is the Equal Pay Act, which seeks to ensure that wom­
en (and minorities, under Title VII) receive pay equal to
pay for men doing “substantially similar work.” Thus,
reduction in the earnings differentials is sought by the
desegregation of jobs and the equality of pay within
jobs.
The argument underlying the need for realignment is
that while it may be true that desegregation of occupa­
tions and jobs within occupations may eventually re­
duce the gap between male and female earnings,
progress is slow.1Further, proponents maintain that the
focus solely on job opportunities and equal pay for
equal work overlooks a major source of discrimination.
Jobs dominated by women may be valued less because
they are “women’s work,” not because of any produc­
tivity-related attributes of the work performed.2
The persistent male-female earnings differential has
been attributed to two factors. First, despite affirmative
action programs, women tend to be concentrated in
lower paying jobs and in occupations which provide
limited potential for advancement. Second, the rise in
labor force participation rates of women has resulted in
significant proportions of women with lower seniority at
or near the lower paying entry level jobs.3
Empirical evidence supports the notion that a large
part of the male-female earnings gap may be attributed
to overrepresentation of women in lower-paying occupa­
tions and lower paying jobs rather than from women
and men being paid unequally in similar jobs. When
male and female earnings are analyzed within occupa­
tions, the income differentials are less than in the labor
force at large.4 Some evidence suggests that within the
same occupation, firms employing predominantly wom­
en tend to pay a lower average wage than those
employing predominantly men; however, while the oc­
cupations are controlled in these studies, specific job
content is typically not controlled. Evidence suggests
that the more similar the work content, the less the

inequality between male and female earnings. Yet the
more similar the work content, the greater chances of
underrepresentation of women in the higher paid jobs
and overrepresentation in lower paid jobs.
In sum, pay inequalities for work in similar jobs do
not appear to be a major factor in the earnings gap;
rather, the distribution of women among occupations
and jobs is the issue. From this perspective, the relevant
question is why women end up in lower-paying jobs
than men.
Empirical research suggests a second, equally relevant
question. “Rather than asking what causes women to
be employed in lower paying jobs than men, let us ask
what is it that causes female jobs to pay less than male
jobs.”5 It is possible that women may be concentrated
in jobs which have lower productivity-related attributes
than male-dominated jobs, or it may be that through
the overcrowding (through discriminatory practices
and/or personal preferences) of women into certain
types of work, lower wages can be paid regardless of
the value of the work content.6

Comparable worth
The principal mechanism suggested to accomplish the
restructuring of differentials is to set wages based upon
the notion of comparable worth or value. Comparable
worth, which focuses on the comparison of jobs across
rather than within occupations, has been defined as
“jobs that require comparable (not identical) skills, re­
sponsibility, and effort.”7 Yet in an analysis of the
meaning and measurement of comparable worth,
Schwab summarizes the present state of knowledge. “At
present, however, there is no mechanism for defensibly
establishing comparable worth.”8
Under current compensation practices the differential
“worth” or “value” of work is established through the
interaction of a variety of forces, including market
forces, forces attributed to collective bargaining, eco­
nomic condition and policies of the employer, technolo­
gy, and norms (including discrimination) found in the
workplace. A variety of components, including job
analysis, job evaluation, market surveys, and negotia­
tions, constitute the wage determination process.
Comparable worth implies the wage differentials
should be based on work content and skills required to
perform the work. Consequently, application of the
comparable value notion requires the development of a
universal taxonomy of job content/skill requirements
capable of being applied across all occupations and all
jobs within occupations. Without this, comparisons
across occupations and across employers to identify
comparable jobs would not be feasible. Current wage
practices and related research suggest that such a tax­
onomy may be feasible, although considerable research
remains.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

R e g u l a t i o n o f t h e alignment of the wage structure
and the allocation of job opportunities is not in conflict.
It is clear that elimination of discrimination in the dis­
tribution of jobs, coupled with equal pay for similar
work, will reduce discrimination in earnings. It should
be equally clear that the focus on equal job opportuni­
ties and equal pay for equal work fails to insure that
current wage differentials among jobs across occupa­
tions are nondiscriminatory. The basic position taken in
this article is that before employers, unions, regulating
agencies and the courts can supervise any realignment
of wages for work performed predominantly by women,
a mechanism to accomplish it must be designed and
tested. Such a mechanism does not currently exist. It
should be clear, however, that it may be methodologi­
cally feasible to develop an approach based on the no­
tion of comparable worth. The approach, using a
taxonomy of universal work components skills required,
and an agreed upon wage structure of male jobs, needs
to be further examined.9
Finally, it is not at all clear that completely changing
the wage determination process based on the notion of
equal pay for jobs of comparable worth and skill will in
any way influence the earnings gap between men and
women. It assumes that jobs in which women are over­
represented are undervalued in current practice. We
simply do not know that women (or minorities) on av­
erage are overrepresented in undervalued jobs. A more
basic point, of course, is that if society desires that the
median earnings of women and men be more equal,
then we ought to be sure that notions such as compara­
ble worth will generate that objective.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------P. England, “Assessing Trends in Occupational Sex Segregation,
1900-1976,” in I. Berg, ed., S o c io lo g ic a l P e rsp e c tiv es on L a b o r M a r k e ts
(New York, Academic Press, 1981).
N. D. Perlman and B. J. Bass, P r e lim in a r y M e m o r a n d u m on P a y
E q u a lity : A c h ie v in g E q u a l P a y f o r W o rk o f C o m p a r a b le V a lu e (Albany,
N.Y., Center for Women in Government, Graduate School of Public
Affairs, 1980). P. England and S. D. McLaughlin, “Sex Segregation of
Jobs and Male-Female Income Differentials,” in R. Alverez, K.
Lutterman & Associates, ed. D is c r im in a tio n in O rg a n iza tio n , (San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1979).
U.S. Department of Labor, T h e E a rn in g s G a p B etw e e n W o m en a n d
M e n (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979).
4 H. Sanborn, “Pay Differences Between Women and Men,” I n d u s ­
tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R ev ie w , July 1964; V. Fuchs, “Differences in
hourly earnings between men and women,” M o n th ly L a b o r R eview ,
May 1971 pp. 9-15, and “Women’s earnings: recent trends and longrun prospects,” M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , May 1974, pp. 23-26; and B.
G. Malkiel and J. A. Malkiel, ‘‘Male-Female Pay Differentials in pro­
fessional Employment,” T h e A m e r ic a n E c o n o m i c R e v ie w , 1972.
' England and McLaughlin, “Sex Segregation . . . ,” p. 6.
'' M. Stevenson, “Relative Wages and Sex Segregation by Occupa­
tion,” in C. Lloyd, ed., S e x D is c r im in a tio n a n d th e D ivisio n o f L a b o r
(New York, Columbia University Press, 1975); D. J. Treiman and K.
Terrell, “Women, Work, and Wages — Trends in the Female Occupa­
tional Structure Since 1940,” in K. Land and S. Spilerman, eds., S o ­
c ia l I n d ic a to r M o d e ls (New York, Russell Sage, 1975); and J. E.

43

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Conference Papers
Rosenbaum, “Hierarchical and Individual Effects Earnings,” I n d u s tr i­
a l R e la tio n s , Winter 1980.
Perlman and Bass, P r e lim in a r y M e m o r a n d u m . . . , p. 2.
* D. Schwab, “Intra-Organizational Pay Setting and Comparable
Worth,” in R. Livernash, ed., C o m p a r a b le W orth (Washington, D.C.,
Equal Employment Advisory Council, 1980).
“An alternative approach to developing a bias-free job evaluation
plan, “part-correlation”, in which the effects of sex (race) composition
of jobs are partialed out has been suggested. See the N a tio n a l A c a d e ­
m y o f S c ie n c e s D r a f t G u id e lin e s on J o b E v a lu a tio n P la n s (Washington,
D.C., Bureau of National Affairs, 1980).

What is the occupational mobility
of black immigrants?
G

regory

E. D

e F r e it a s

More immigrants were legally admitted to the United
States in the 1970’s than in any previous decade of the
last half century. The increased volume of immigration
has involved a striking shift in composition as well.
Since the elimination of ethnocentric national origins
quotas in 1965, non white aliens have become the fastest
growing segment of the foreign-born population. The
number of West Indians, other than Cubans, entering as
permanent resident aliens leapt from 44,500 in the
1950’s to 262,700 in the 1960’s, then rose still faster be­
tween 1971 and 1977 as another 304,700 arrived.1
Although considerable attention has recently been fo­
cused on the arrival of over 15,000 Haitian boat people
in Miami, the black immigrant population is highly
concentrated in the Northeast. One-tenth of all blacks
in New York City counted in the 1970 census were for­
eign born.2Their current share may be far larger, given
the hundreds of thousands of legal entrants and an esti­
mated one-half million or more illegal entrants from the
Caribbean in the past decade.3 Yet little economic re­
search exists on their employment in this country.
This article examines the occupational mobility of
black immigrants in the United States through compari­
sons with their pre-migration occupations and with the
occupational mobility of native-born blacks.

Data and empirical analysis
Data for this study were drawn from the 1970 Cen­
sus of Population, 5 percent questionnaire. Respondents
answered questions on country of birth, race, year of
immigration, and occupation in 1965 and 1970. The
study sample includes black native- and foreign-born
men, ages 16 to 64, who were experienced members of
Gregory E. DeFreitas is an assistant professor of economics at Bar­
nard College, Columbia University. His full i r r a paper is entitled
“Occupational Mobility Among Black Immigrants.”

44


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the civilian noninstitutional labor force in 1970 and re­
ported their occupation that year and in 1965. The sam­
ple was further limited to residents of New York and
New Jersey Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas;
two thirds of all black immigrants are concentrated in
this region, almost all in New York City. The 1/1000
census sample was used for analysis of the native born
while the 1/100 sample was employed for the foreign
born to provide an adequate number of observations for
statistical tests.
The empirical analysis begins with an examination of
the frequency and direction of occupational mobility ex­
perienced by blacks who immigrated to the United
States between 1965 and 1970. For these individuals,
the occupation in 1965 was the last occupation in the
country of origin. The pre-migration occupational distri­
bution of these recent entrants reveals that a relatively
large proportion had high status occupations at origin.
Over 16 percent held jobs in professional, technical, and
kindred fields and 24.7 percent were craftsmen. Barely
one-third were in lower-level operative, service, farm,
and laboring jobs.
Entry into the American labor force entails consider­
able movement between major occupational categories
for the foreign born, most of it downward. About 44
percent of black immigrants experienced occupational
mobility between 1965 and 1970, compared with 20.6
percent of native-born blacks. But whereas the native
born are almost twice as likely to be upwardly rather
than downwardly mobile, 27 percent of foreign-born
men fell in status while 17.3 percent were upwardly mo­
bile.4
Calculations of mobility rates by pre-migration occu­
pation indicate that two-thirds of those in managerial
and administrative positions in their homeland changed
occupations once in the United States and all of them
moved to lower ranking jobs. Men formerly in profes­
sional and craft occupations were less likely to be mo­
bile, but the roughly 2 of 5 who were moved
downward. The only other group suffering substantial
downward mobility were sales workers. The depth of
their descent.was relatively modest, with most moving
into clerical jobs.
Despite the prevalence of downward occupational
mobility among the foreign born, their decline is not so
steep and prolonged as to put them at an occupational
disadvantage relative to native black workers in New
York City. A comparison of 1970 occupations indicates
that immigrants are far more likely to be in higher level
jobs: 9.6 percent are professional and technical workers
and 18.7 percent are craftsmen, whereas among indige­
nous blacks, 7.8 percent are professional and technical
workers and 14.7 percent craftsmen. Only one in three
immigrants is employed in those occupations ranked be­
low craftsmen in which over 58 percent of the native

born are concentrated.5 Black immigrants and natives
alike, however, are much less likely than white men to
secure high status jobs. Among native- and foreignborn whites in New York-New Jersey Standard Metro­
politan Statistical Areas, 19.1 percent were in profes­
sional occupations and 14.4 percent in managerial
occupations in 1970.6
These results are consistent with the hypothesis that
adjustment difficulties tend to be especially important
for high level occupations. However, because recent im­
migrants are younger, on average, than native-born
blacks, these mobility rates may also reflect the greater
mobility common to young age groups. Even with con­
trols for length of work experience and other variables,
men arriving in the country between 1965 and 1970
have 18 percent more downward mobility and those en­
tering in 1960-64 have 9.8 percent more than native
blacks. The native born-foreign born differential is small
and insignificant for earlier immigrant cohorts, with no
evidence of a subsequent upturn in the occupational lev­
el of immigrants relative to native workers. Finally, in
an analysis restricted to recently arrived foreign-born
men, migrants with managerial backgrounds are found
to have far greater rates of downward mobility (60.7
percentage points) than those in “blue collar” jobs (the
reference category). Smaller but also significant differen­
tials exist for those in professional or clerical /sales posi­
tions in the country of origin.
These results suggest that black immigrants in New
York City experience significant occupational mobility
during their first few years after arrival. Downward mo­
bility is especially severe among those with high level
occupational backgrounds in the country of origin.
These results are consistent with hypotheses derived
from previous research on the adjustment difficulties ex­
perienced by white immigrants. However, unlike most
white immigrants who are able to subsequently recover
much of their lost occupational status through upward
mobility, foreign-born black professionals, managers,
and craftsmen appear less likely to regain their former
occupational levels. Despite certain employment advan­
tages when compared with indigenous blacks, foreignborn blacks are substantially underrepresented in highpay, high-status occupations relative to white males.
Further research is needed to determine whether this
reflects primarily the fact that many immigrants arrived
recently or the fact that racial discrimination is perva­
sive in employment.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' A n n u a l R ep o rt, U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Nat­
uralization Service, various years.
1 9 7 0 C en su s o f P o p u la tio n , Vol. I, C h a r a c te r istic s o f th e P o p u la tio n ,
N e w Y ork, Part 34, Section 2 (Washington, U.S. Bureau of the Cen­

sus, 1973), table 142.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

J. M. Scheuer, “Illegal Immigration — Problems and Prospects,”
April 1978, pp. 1-15.

C ity A lm a n a c ,

Matrices cross-classifying occupation in 1970 with 1965 occupa­
tion, both for the native- and foreign-born subsamples, are available
from the author upon request.
These results are supported by my recent research comparing
black earnings by nationality. See Gregory E. DeFreitas, “The Rela­
tive Earnings of Black Immigrants: The American Case,” E c o n o m ic
R es e a rc h P a p e r Series, Cambridge University, 1980.
"Calculations from U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Sexual harassment: implications
for employer liability
D

onna

E. L e d g e r w o o d

and

S u e Jo h n s o n - D

ie t z

Effective March 11, 1980, The Equal Employment Op­
portunity Commission ( e e o c ) issued new sex discrimi­
nation guidelines covering sexual harassment on the
job.1 These guidelines will be reviewed particularly in
context of the recent appellate decision in Miller v.
Bank of America,2and possible affirmative measures will
be defined which employers may take with respect to
these guidelines.
The new EEOC guidelines clearly reiterate the recent
case law holdings that sexual harassment is sex discrim­
ination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.3
Section 1604.11(a) of the guidelines defines the term
“sexual harassment” as being “unwelcome sexual ad­
vances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature . . . .” The defi­
nition is broad and in fact may represent an expansion
of existing case law interpretation of what constitutes
an offending activity since the definition extends to envi­
ronmental conditions of the workplace itself. Included
in the EEOC’s legal definition of “employer” are employ­
ment agencies, joint apprenticeship committees and la­
bor organizations, as well as other employers under
Title VII. Use of the term “individuals” within the defi­
nition appears to make clear beyond any reasonable
doubt that protection against sexual harassment extends
to both male and female employees.

A definition of sexual harassment
The EEOC definition of sexual harassment stated
above identifies two types of sexual incidents as the
Quid Pro Quo type and the Work Environment type.
The guidelines also set out three circumstances under
which the definition will be applied. These are:
Donna E. Ledgerwood is an assistant professor in the College of Busi­
ness Administration, North Texas State University. Sue JohnsonDietz is a para legal in Dallas, Texas. Their full i r r a paper is entitled
“The EEOC’ s Bold Foray Into Sexual Harrassment: Implications for
New Employer Liability.”

45

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Conference Papers
(1) Where sexual conduct is made a condition of an individu­
al’s employment (Employment Condition)
(2) Where such conduct or condition creates an employment
consequence (Employment Consequence)
(3) Where such condition creates an offensive working envi­
ronment or interferes with job performance (Offensive
Job Interference)

The first circumstance (Employment Condition) de­
scribes sexual harassment as occurring when
. . sub­
mission to such conduct is made either explicitly or
implicitly a term or condition (emphasis added) of an in­
dividual’s employment . . . This situation is the Quid
Pro Quo type of sexual incident and implies an offer to
exchange employment opportunity for sexual activity.
Such an offer is usually made by a supervisor, or person
in a superior position, to some subordinate employee.
Although the guidelines do not speak to possible re­
sponses which may be made by an individual confronted
by a Quid Pro Quo incident, there are two possible re­
sponses to such an incident: compliance or non-compli­
ance. A compliant response may be of either a
consenting nature (a willing positive response in order to
gain positive employment consequences), or a noncon­
senting nature (an unwilling positive response in order
to avoid loss or negative employment consequences).
Potential employer liability may accrue under either a
compliant or a non-compliant response.
The second circumstance (Employment Consequence)
describes harassment activity or behavior as occurring
when “. . . submission to or rejection of such conduct
by an individual is used as the basis for employment de­
cisions affecting such individual . . . .” The guidelines
do not clearly state whether the first two circumstances
must be read together. For example, is an individual, in
order to sustain a claim of harassment, required to en­
dure unwanted sexual behavior unless/until an adverse
employment decision has been made as a result of such
conduct? As noted by Gene Renslow., Deputy District
Director of the Dallas EEOC,4 the question is probably
moot since it appears to be covered in any event by the
third circumstance.
Under the third circumstance (Offensive Job Interfer­
ence), the sexual harassment definition is extended be­
yond the Quid Pro Quo type of sexual incident to
include situations where “. . . such conduct has the pur­
pose or effect of substantially interfering with an indi­
vidual’s work performance or creating an intimidating,
hostile, or offensive working environment.” (In the No­
vember 10, 1980 guidelines, the term “unreasonably”
replaced the term “substantially” which was used in the
March 11, 1980 interim guidelines.) This circumstance
is described as the Work Environment type of sexual in­
cident. Since Work Environment harassments are prob­
ably a more pervasive form of harassment and harder to
positively identify,5 the Work Environment type of inci­
46

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

dent may create potentially more problems and liability
for employers than the Quid Pro Quo type. With re­
spect to the Work Environment sexual incident, no offer
of positive rewards is made; the individual is simply put
in the position of either tolerating or resisting unwanted
sexual activity (physical and/or verbal) during the
course of employment. Regardless of whether a re­
sponse to such an incident is tolerance or resistance, the
harassed individual probably always suffers negative
consequences.

Analysis of employer liability
In addition to subsection (a), defining sexual harass­
ment and identifying the circumstances under which the
definition will be applied, four subsections to section
1604.11 of the EEOC guidelines make explicit reference
to employer liability.
Subsection (b) of the guidelines states that the totali­
ty of the circumstances, including the nature of the of­
fense and the context in which an alleged offense
occurs, will be considered in any determination that an
activity or behavior constitutes sexual harassment. Each
case will turn on its own facts (be determined situationally) in defining a harassment activity.
Applying the legal doctrine of respondeat superior
(let the principle, here the employer, be held responsi­
ble), subsection (c) clearly states that the employer will
be held responsible for the acts of its agents and super­
visory employees. Further, this responsibility exists “. . .
regardless of whether the specific acts complained of
were authorized or even forbidden by the employer and
regardless of whether the employer knew or should
have known of their occurrence.”
With respect to non-supervisory personnel and others
outside the agency relationship (possibly co-workers,
customers, clients, etc.), subsection (d) invokes employ­
er liability for harassment in the workplace except
where the employer lacked knowledge and could not
reasonably be expected to have known of a harassment
incident. Further, the employer may rebut liability only
where immediate and appropriate corrective action is
taken upon discovery of such conduct. Although all ha­
rassment cases in which legal precedence were set have
involved superior-subordinate situations, future litiga­
tion involving activities of non-supervisory persons can
probably be expected. In fact, the recently filed case of
Alus v. General Foods, Inc.f in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Michigan, alleges harass­
ment activities by plaintiffs male co-workers. The plain­
tiff in Alus seeks, in addition to losses recoverable under
Title VII, five million dollars in compensatory and pu­
nitive damages for tortious interference with a contract.
The implications for liability under subsection (d) may
then properly merit a serious concern for employers.
And, finally, the guidelines at subsection (e) define a

program of prevention stating that employers should
take affirmative steps in dealing with the problem.
Suggested approaches include
. . affirmatively raising
the subject, expressing strong disapproval, developing
appropriate sanctions, informing employees of their
right to raise and how to raise the issue of harassment
under Title VII, and developing methods to sensitize all
concerned.”

Validity of the guidelines
The guidelines, at the date of original writing, only
had “interim” approval. Comments from interested
parties on these interim guidelines were received by the
EEOC until June 10, 1980. The EEOC, however, made no
significant changes in the finally approved guidelines
which became effective November 10, 1980. Although it
is the courts which over time will define the judicial va­
lidity of the guidelines, the Ninth Circuit’s recent Miller
decision (cited previously) may already have established
validity for at least some of the principles iterated.
In Miller, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled (1) that under the legal doctrine of respondeat su­
perior, employers are responsible for the tortious acts
(sexual harassment) of a supervisor even when such acts
are forbidden by the employer’s policy, and (2) that the
mere existence of a harassment grievance procedure at
the employer’s establishment does not create a duty
with the grievant to use the procedure, nor can failure
to exhaust internal remedies foreclose an individual’s
rights under Title VII. Miller cites as authority Alexan­
der v. Gardner-Denver Co.,7a race discrimination case in
which the Supreme Court established that internal
grievance procedures may not be used to deny access to
Title VII remedies.
Under the language of the guidelines and the princi­
ples of Miller then, it appears that the employer is
strictly liable for the acts of its supervisors and may not
escape that liability. At the very most, liability may
only be rebutted under the guidelines (1) upon a clear
showing that immediate and appropriate corrective ef­
forts were taken to halt activities which the employer ei­
ther knew of or should have known of and (2) only
with respect to non-supervisory (rather than superviso­
ry) persons within the workplace.
The guidelines specify, however, that the context in
which an alleged offense occurs will be considered, not
in order to determine employer liability, but rather to
ascertain whether an activity actually constitutes illegal
behavior. Harassment prevention and enforcement of
appropriate workplace behaviors then appear to be the
best, if not the only, “cures” for employer liability.
Consideration, therefore, should be given to develop­
ment of programs which affirmatively meet the preven­
tive standards outlined by the guidelines. Specific areas
for program consideration include policy statements,

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

management and employee training, and communica­
tion of internal grievance procedures for harassment
complaints.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------45 FR 25024. (All quoted material used in this paper which bears
no immediate reference is taken from the above source. The e e o c ’ s
final regulations on sexual harassment will be codified at Title 29
CFR, Ch. XIV, Part 1604, Sec. 1604.11.)
20

2 M ille r v. B a n k
e p d §30086.

o f A m e ric a ,

600 F.2d 211 (1979), 20

fep

Cases 462,

W illia m s v. S a x b e , 413 F.Supp. 654, 12 e p d §11130; T o m p k in s v.
P u b lic S e r v ic e E le c tr ic & G a s C o., 568 F.2d 1044 (CA-3, 1977), 15 e p d
§7954; M ille r v. B a n k o f A m e ric a , 600 F.2d 211 (1979), 20 f e p Cases
462, 20 e p d §30086; B a rn e s v. C osile, 561 F.2d 983 (D.C. Cir. 1977);
H e e la n v. J o h n s-M a n v ille C orp., 451 F.Supp. 1382 (1978), 16 e p d

§8330, 20

fep

Cases 251.

4 Statement by Gene Renslow, Deputy District Director, Equal Em­
ployment Opportunity Commission, Dallas Area District Office, Dal­
las, Texas, March 24, 1980.
5 S e x u a l H a r a s s m e n t in th e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t: H e a rin g s B efo re th e
S u b c o m m itte e on P o s t O ffice a n d C iv il S ervice, H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n ta ­
tives, 96th Congress, 1st Session, Serial No. 96-57, Washington,
1980.
h A lu s v.

G e n e r a l Foods, In c.,

Civil Action No. G 79 699 CA 5.
415 U.S. 36, 49-50, 94 S. Ct.

A le x a n d e r v. G a r d n e r -D e n v e r C o.,

1011 (1974).

Social relations, productivity,
and employer discrimination
Ba r ba r a R. Ber g m a n n

and

W il l ia m D

a r it y ,

Jr .

The fact that white males have a virtual monopoly of
the best jobs and the highest incomes is explained by
one school of economists as occurring simply because
employers prefer things that way, even though employ­
ers lose money in enforcing it. A second school con­
cludes that white male dominance of the best jobs is the
most profitable arrangement for employers. This group
in effect argues that a fair review of the candidates for
all of the good jobs would show that all of the best
candidates are white males, so that hiring and promot­
ing them is both fair and profitable for employers. A
third group calls attention to the fact that hiring for a
good job is a gamble, and that employers may minimize
risk by placing all their bets on white males.
All of these points of view are implausibly simple,
and are uriilluminating of what we might call the scenes
of everyday economic life, in which people perform and
interact on the job, in which decisions on hiring and

Barbara R. Bergmann is professor of economics at the University of
Maryland. William Darity, Jr. is assistant professor of economics at
the University of Texas at Austin. Their full i r r a paper is entitled
“Social Relations in the Workplace and Employer Discrimination.”

47

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Conference Papers
promotion are made and wages are set.
A set of ideas will be presented here which will em­
phasize the importance of social relations among people
of different race or sex in the workplace, and the con­
nection between productivity and smooth social rela­
tions. These ideas suggest that discrimination occurs,
and that it is dictated by considerations of profitability
in many cases. These considerations account for occupa­
tional segregation by race and sex, for the relegation of
minority people to dead-end jobs and for the lower
wages they earn on average.

Productivity and social process
Our analysis starts from the premise that consider­
able numbers of black women, black men, and white
women have the capacity to perform a wide variety of
tasks in entry-level jobs usually reserved for white men,
and have the ability, by which we mean the intelligence
and the drive, to perform them as well as the white men
who customarily get those jobs. We are leaving aside
consideration of those tasks for which specialized edu­
cation or training or experience or strength would be
required. We are concerned here with ability to perform
the multiplicity of tasks the vast majority of white
males’ entry-level jobs require— driving a truck on the
highway, serving as police officer, management trainee,
painter, or apprentice crafts worker. Our argument does
not depend on the assumption that the distribution of
abilities is the same or nearly the same in all race-sex
groups. We are taking a far more conservative position,
namely that the distributions have enough overlap so
that the proportion of the best candidates who are
white men is not close to 100 percent in many of the
situations where the proportion of white men who are
hired is 100 percent or close to it.
Something excludes the able candidates who are not
white men. We would locate that “something,” not in
the lack of innate capacities of a high proportion of the
excluded group and not, principally, in the indulgence
in bigotry or in complicated statistical calculations on
the part of employers. We would rather draw attention
to the fact that having innate ability is a necessary but
not sufficient condition for performing creditably on
any job. Workers (including immediate supervisors) af­
fect each other’s performance, and a person of sufficient
innate ability (whether inborn or developed through
training) to perform well on a job in a milieu which is
cooperative, non-hostile, and facilitating may show low
or negative productivity in a hostile milieu.
In almost any work establishment, the employees
need to interact with each other for there to be any out­
put at all, and the quality and smoothness of their in­
teractions will powerfully affect the establishment’s
productivity. If there is a group of employees doing the
same job, the members of that group will contribute
48


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

more to the productivity of the establishment if they in­
teract cooperatively—if the experienced workers are
willing to teach newcomers the ropes, and if there is an
absence of personal tensions resulting from slights, in­
sults, or attempts to establish dominance. Persons
assigned to supervise others will be more effective if
they have no personal characteristics which make it dif­
ficult for some of the assigned subordinates to give re­
spect and to submit to direction.
When they come to the job, American workers bring
with them ideas about the status conferred in society by
being male and white, as well as ideas about the roles
customarily played in the home and in social life gener­
ally by men and women, by whites and blacks. Obvi­
ously, these ideas are likely to influence workers’
interactions with fellow workers. Evidence which sociol­
ogists have collected by systematic observation shows
that ideas of sex dominance, for example, have an im­
portant effect on job behavior.
A particularly vivid description of the part that
workers’ ideas of sex roles play in relations among
workers on the job was provided by Whyte1 in report­
ing a study of restaurants done in 1947. The investiga­
tors whom Whyte sent to observe noticed that when a
waitress, in the course of her duties, had to interact
with a male employee of the restaurant in a way atypi­
cal of the manner in which females and males interact
in ordinary life, there was potential for trouble of a sort
which would adversely affect the productivity of the es­
tablishment. Whenever a woman had to “set in motion”
a man— as when a waitress had to get a bartender to
make a drink which a customer had given her an order
for—there was likely to be resentment on the part of
the man. This resentment resulted in behavior which, in
some cases, caused a deterioration of the service re­
ceived by the restaurant’s customers.
The waitresses studied by Whyte were in a tradition­
ally female job for the United States. Studies of women
who have been introduced into nontraditional jobs or
into situations which simulated conditions in such jobs
have demonstrated the problems which arise and, by
implication, the threat to productivity which such prob­
lems pose. Judith Long Laws, who reviewed research on
this issue by sociologists and psychologists, says, “. . .
the possibility that male co-workers will explicitly and
deliberately arouse sex role conflicts by baiting the
woman recruit cannot be ruled out. Research on women
in non-traditional occupations documents a whole range
of harassment and sabotage by male co-workers and
sometimes supervisors.”2
The historical reaction of white workers to the plac­
ing of black workers in jobs which are non-traditional
reveals a parallel pattern. Longstanding enmity between
black laborers and white-dominated unions is a premier
manifestation. Some unions have played a major role in

excluding blacks from the workplace.3 David Taylor’s
study4 of the Chicago labor market found that there
were some jobs for which blacks and whites were both
recruited, but employers who recruited blacks paid
them less and provided them with no prospects of up­
ward mobility. Whites may more easily accept the in­
trusion of black workers when there are evident
guarantees that the blacks will not compete with them
over the occupational life-cycle.

Race/sex territories in a firm
If even a very small proportion of whites are in a
mood to make trouble for blacks who are moving into
non-traditional placements or even if a small proportion
of men make trouble for women moving into non-tradi­
tional placements, this may be enough to cause substan­
tial unrest in the workplace. Where the person making
trouble is a long-term employee, loaded down with
valuable experience in the firm, whose loss would be a
serious blow to the productivity of the organization, the
employer is faced with a serious loss if he insists on re­
solving the incident in favor of the newcomer.
We would conjecture that employees who deal in per­
sonnel matters for business firms and other establish­
ments develop or have handed down to them a few
simple “axioms” on race and sex, which these days one
would not expect to find written down in any manual:
(1) People who work in the same job and/or must interact as
equals will interact more smoothly if they are all of the
same race and sex.
(2) If a person is supervised by someone who by race and/or
sex has an inferior social status, tensions may arise.
(3) If the occupations which constitute the training ground
for another occupation are open to people of a race and /
or sex whose presence in the latter would create frictions,
the pool of able persons eligible for promotion would be
reduced.

Consider the problem posed for the management of
an establishment interested in establishing a staffing
pattern which will minimize unit labor cost. The lower
wage which blacks and women can be paid will be a
factor favoring their hiring and promotion, but the “ax­
ioms” of interaction developed above will be a factor
against their use in most jobs. Even under the assump­
tion that management knew and believed that good
candidates for all the entry-level jobs could be found in
both races and both sexes, we would still be likely to
observe occupational segregation by sex and race.
Management might be expected to try to find as
many slots as possible to put black and white women
into because of their cheapness, subject to the cost con­


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

straints suggested by the “axioms.” Axiom 1 suggests
that if any occupation is opened to a particular race/sex
group, then all members of that occupation must be of
that group. Axiom 2 suggests that the most likely slots
for blacks and white women are entry-level positions.
Axiom 3 suggests that jobs at all levels must be re­
served for the group that is to be given the top-echelon
jobs so as to provide adequate training opportunities
for successors to the present incumbents. Taken togeth­
er, the “axioms” might exclude all but white males
from almost all of the higher paying jobs in many es­
tablishments, and from a considerable proportion of en­
try level jobs as well.
So far, we have been discussing the effects of behavior
by individual male or white workers when attempts are
made to increase the territory available to minority
groups. There is an additional element which suggests
itself— the idea of cohesive same-sex same-race groups
occupying and defending “turf,” an idea suggested by
Bonacich.5Here, the idea is that there may be concerted
efforts to maximize each group’s territory. Employers
who may want to hire blacks and women because of
their cheapness may find it easier to do so if they carve
out for them territory which is least desirable for white
men. Thus, employers may purposely structure jobs
that are dull, dirty, dangerous, and dead-end so as to
have jobs that white men do not covet and do not
make trouble over.
If employers’ practice of race and sex discrimination
is primarily based on productivity considerations deriv­
ing from social processes in the workplace, the difficulty
in eliminating it becomes more comprehensible. Such
considerations suggest the desirability of more field re­
search into what actually happens when women and mi­
nority men are placed in non-traditional jobs. They also
suggest that firms needing to get into compliance with
anti-discrimination laws might place more emphasis on
educating their own employees as to the forms of raceneutral and sex-neutral behavior the firm requires of
them.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------1William Foote Whyte, “The Social Structure of the Restaurant”,
(January 1949, pp. 302-10).
2Judith Long Laws, T h e S e c o n d X : S e x R o le a n d S o c ia l R o le (New
York, Elsevier, 1979).
Julius Jacobson, “Union Conservatism: A Barrier to Racial Equal­
ity,” in J. Jacobson ed., T h e N e g ro a n d th e A m e r ic a n L a b o r M o v e ­
m e n t (Garden City, Anchor Books, 1968).
4 David P. Taylor, “Discrimination and Occupational Wage
Differences in the Market for Unskilled Labor,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r
R e la tio n s R ev ie w , April 1968.
5Edna Bonacich, “A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split La­
bor Market,” A m e r ic a n S o c io lo g ic a l R ev ie w , October 1972.
A m e r ic a n J o u r n a l o f S o c io lo g y

49

Communications
Estimating the demographic mix
of the available labor force

J oseph L. G astwirth

Statistical arguments have played an important role in
establishing prima facie cases of discrimination based on
race or sex. The courts have generally established that a
disproportionate racial impact in hiring can be demon­
strated with one of two statistical methods:' comparing
the proportion of minority applicants who are hired to
the corresponding proportion of majority applicants
(applicant flow method); or comparing the percentage
of minorities currently employed or hired over a period
of time to the proportion of minorities in the labor
force (or population) in the relevant geographic area
(demographic method). The two statistical methods
may yield conflicting results.
Although the first approach is the standard two-sam­
ple test of equality of proportions (binomial probabili­
ties), Mark Rosenblum2 emphasized that the logic
underlying its applicability rests on two assumptions:
ability and qualifications for the job are distributed sim­
ilarly in all race (sex) groups in the population; and the
people who actually apply for the job can be considered
a random sample from the total population (or the rele­
vant subpopulations). Kenneth T. Lopatka3 noted that
if the minority group contains a disproportionately
large share of incompetent potential candidates or if
some eligible candidates are eliminated by the imposi­
tion of an invalid requirement (so some might not even
apply), the actual applicants may not even be a close
approximation to a random sample.
The demographic method does not rely on applicant
data. It was originally used because courts noticed that
minority members might not apply to firms with a rep­
utation for employment discrimination. So that even
though a statistically acceptable proportion of minority
applicants get jobs, the minority proportion of all hires

Joseph L. Gastwirth is professor of statistics and economics at the
George Washington University. This was adapted from a paper pres­
ented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association at
Houston in August 1980.

50

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

may be far less than the minority population share.4
Thus, the two statistical methods are consistent only
when the recruiting process draws a representative sam­
ple of all eligible applicants and the pool of eligible ap­
plicants can be determined from available data. Indeed,
two 1977 Supreme Court decisions emphasize the im­
portance of properly specifying the labor pool for new
hires,5 and recent articles in the legal literature have
been concerned with this topic.6
This study will show that the appropriate labor force
in minority hiring and promotion cases may have racesex proportions substantially different from those de­
rived from the 1970 census or from the Current Popula­
tion Survey, the two most commonly used statistical
sources. The reasons for this include the following:
1.

2.

3.

New hires come from persons not in the labor force, (for
example, students and persons returning to the labor
market) in addition to the current labor force. The racesex proportions of these sources of new hires are quite di
fferent from those among the currently employed;
The census data for 1970 and, to a lesser extent, more
current data include many employed persons who were
hired prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, possibly re­
flecting pre-act societal discrimination.7 Thus, the minori­
ty fraction of post-act entrants to the labor force, espe­
cially a “qualified labor force,” is usually higher than the
corresponding fraction of persons employed in that occu­
pation as of 1970 (or even 1980);
Because persons already employed in an occupation for
some time typically earn more than the beginning wage o
ffered by an alternative employer and may be em­
ployed in higher level positions in the occupations, they
are unlikely to be interested or available for entry level
positions in that occupation and should be excluded from
the potential labor pool for new hires.8

Because the race-sex mix of potential new hires differs
from that of the entire labor force, refinements to the
statistical procedure which adjust for some of the prob­
lems noted are discussed. For example, occupational
wage data on employed persons enable us to account
for the fact that persons who change jobs usually seek
another job paying at least as much as the previous
one.9 This approach also tends to correct the census
data for pre-act hires, as wages typically increase with
seniority. Although there are severe data limitations
with the use of gross flow data to refine the “entrant”
portion of the labor force,10 the wage adjustment alone

more accurately defines the available labor pool than
do the census data. This approach is illustrated on data
used in a case on new hires and in one on promotions,
showing how it narrows the differences in the results
obtained from the applicant flow and demographic
approaches.11
Because labor force data are also being used in pro­
motion cases,12the applications of this refinement of the
occupational wage data also are discussed in that con­
text. In particular, it is shown that by failing to make
an adjustment for pre-act employees in the 1970 census
data, a Federal appeals court may have reached a statis­
tically incorrect inference, as it excluded pre-act promo­
tions from the firm’s data which it then compared to
the raw census data.
In a final section, the need for better labor market
data is discussed, as well as the implications for the use
of statistical hypothesis testing when the minority pro­
portion against which the data are tested is itself inac­
curate.

Refining availability data
Courts have noted that the 1970 census data on per­
sons employed in a specific occupation may be outdated
or may reflect discrimination that occurred prior to the
1964 Civil Rights Act,13 and, therefore, underestimate
the availability of minorities for new positions. The Su­
preme Court’s Hazelwood decision14focused attention on
post-act hiring data and the need to develop statistical
methods to exclude employees hired prior to the law’s e
ffective date from census or other data15 to properly an­
alyze an employer’s post-act hiring decisions.
It can be demonstrated that the use of all employed
persons or persons in the civilian labor force as a refer­
ent group for new hires can lead to serious errors. Re­
call that the labor force is composed of employed
persons and persons available for work who are unem­
ployed. Furthermore, the unemployed are classified into
three subcategories: persons laid off from their most re­
cent jobs; persons who quit their previous jobs; and
persons who have just entered or reentered the labor
force.
The available pool for new hires can be similarly
separated into persons who have been unemployed,
those employed elsewhere, or those who are not in the
Table 1.

labor force but intend to enter or reenter the labor
force. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports monthly
data on the flow of workers from both unemployment
and not in the labor force into employment.16 The data
for 1978 are presented in table 1.
Although data specifically for job changers (persons
employed in consecutive months but who changed em­
ployers) are unavailable, they are counted in the em­
ployed category. It is evident from the percentages in
table 1 that using the currently employed civilian labor
force as a referent to determine an affirmative action
goal or standard of comparison in a legal case yields an
underestimate of the proportion of minorities and wom­
en in the available labor pool for new hires. The degree
of this statistical bias may depend on the particular po­
sition, as the fraction of new hires who come from the
currently employed undoubtedly varies among the occu­
pations and by experience level within an occupation.
As an estimate of the magnitude of the bias, a recent
survey showed that 4.1 percent of persons currently
employed were looking for work.17 Of course, not all
seekers of jobs find them within a month, so the actual
job changers form a smaller percentage than 4.1 percent
of the employed. However, the turnover in manufactur­
ing jobs ranges from 1.1 to 3.4 percent with a typical
value of about 2.2 percent.18 For illustrative purposes,
assume that 2.5 percent of the employed change jobs.
Then the composition of new hires can be derived from
table 1 by adding 2.5 percent of the previous month’s
employed to the new hires. The results are presented in
the following tabulation:

T o ta l..............
M a le ..........................
Female........................
White .......................
Nonwhite...................

N um ber

P ercen t

7,393
3,659
3,734
6,414
979

49.50
50.50
86.76
13.24

Comparing these race-sex percentages of the available
labor force with those of the currently employed in ta­
ble 1, we note that the difference between 13.24 and
11.66 percent for minorities is more important than it
may first appear because minorities are not spread uni­
formly over the country. In an area where the labor
force goal is about 35 percent, our estimate of availabil-

Civilian labor force employment and new hires, by race and sex, annual averages, 1978

[Numbers in thousands]
C iv ilia n la b o r

C u r r e n t ly

N e w h ir e s f r o m

fo rc e

e m p lo y e d

u n e m p lo y m e n t

C h a r a c t e r is t ic

Total .....................................................
Vale ...................................................................
Female ..............................................................
W hite..................................................................
Nonwhite............................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Num ber

P e rc e n t

N um ber

P e rc e n t

100,312
58,589
41,723
88,618
11,694

100.00
58.41
41.59
88.34
11.66

94,433
55,659
38,774
84,145
10,288

100.00
58.94
41.06
89.11
10.89

Num ber

1,678
921
757
1,396
282

F r o m n o t in
la b o r f o r c e

P e rc e n t

Num ber

P e rc e n t

100.00
54.89
45.11
83.19
16.81

2,882
1,068
1,814
2,494
388

100.00
37.06
62.94
86.54
13.46

51

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Communications
ity would be 40 percent. Moreover, lower paid workers
are more likely to search for a new job while employed,19
so that our adjustment, especially for minorities, may
still be on the low side. As detailed data on new hires
by occupation or geographic region are not available,
we now turn to the development of methods of refining
the census labor force data to obtain a more realistic es­
timate of the labor pool available for new hires.
One method for eliminating pre-act hires from census
data is based on the fact that senior employees tend to
earn more than the entry level wage and normally seek
jobs paying at least as much as they currently earn.20
This idea only applies to the potential new hires
among currently employed persons. And because the
other two sources of new hires have higher minority
percentages, it often yields reasonable numbers for the
whole problem. Moreover, courts have often relied on
experienced labor force data as the demographic refer­
ent, and indeed prior experience may be required for
some jobs.
In addition to the use of wage data, in some applica­
tions data on school and university enrollment may be
used to develop availability data for specific occupations
such as lawyers, teachers, and technicians. Potential
new hires may then be separated into persons hired di­
rectly from school and those hired from the external la­
bor market.

Illustrations
In this section, two cases are examined to show how
apparent conflicts between applicant flow data and the
demographic method are diminished considerably when
high wage earners are eliminated from the labor force to
obtain the new hire pool. Hill v. Western Electric pres­
ents the issue clearly.21 Entry level assembler positions
requiring no previous background or experience were at
issue. Applicant flow statistics showed that both black
and female applicants had significantly lower hire rates
than their white and male counterparts. The data for
1970-74 are shown in table 2.
To rebut the applicant flow statistics, the employer
introduced data for the standard metroplitan statistical
area ( s m s a ) showing that blacks formed 24 percent and
women 40.4 percent of the civilian labor force. Because
25 percent of the hires were black, the firm claimed it
had not discriminated in hiring blacks. A more accurate
new hire pool might exclude persons earning more than
$10,000 (in 1969 dollars) from the labor force and oper­
ative data.22 The basic labor force data as well as data
on earnings of the experienced labor force are given in
table 3.
Blacks form about 40 percent of the experienced la­
bor force and an even higher proportion of operative
workers earning less than $10,000. As blacks formed
38.1 percent of the unemployed in the relevant SMSA,
52


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

their proportion of the applicants (44 percent) probably
reflects the lack of commuting problems.23 Similarly, the
female proportion of all applicants (41.1 percent) is be­
tween their percentages of the overall and operative la­
bor force without high wage earners. Recalling the high
proportions of women hired from the unemployed and
out of the labor force categories in table 1, we realize
the female share (30 percent) of actual hires is lower
than their estimated availability from each source. Thus,
Judge Bryan’s original finding of discrimination in hir­
ing of both blacks and females on the basis of applicant
data is not in conflict with a proper demographic analy­
sis. Indeed, the applicants (table 2) appear to be a rep­
resentative sample from the labor pool available for the
jobs at issue.
Both the District Court and appellate opinions in
EEOC v. UVBU illustrate the problem and our approach
quite clearly. Both courts stated that the proper com­
parison for determining whether the bank had engaged
in racial discrimination in hiring for office/clerical and
management positions is between the black fraction of
the employees in these jobs and the black percentage of
the local force with the requisite qualifications, not the
black fraction of the total labor force or population.
The District Court allowed the EEOC to establish a prima facie case (later rebutted by the defendant), in part
on the basis of a significant disparity between the black
fraction of employees in each job category and the
SMSA data. The Fourth Circuit asserted that the EEOC
failed to establish a prima facie case because it made no
effort to exclude employees hired prior to the effective
date of the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, the appeals
court disregarded applicant flow data showing that 12.4
percent of whites were hired but only 4.4 percent of
blacks because applicants for all positions were aggre­
gated, and no evidence was presented by the EEOC as to
qualified applicants.
The data used by the District Court, based on a Vir­
ginia Employment Commissions report for 1975:

Job category

Black
percentage
in SMSA
(1975)

Black
percentage
of employees
(1970)

Black
percentage
of employees
(1974)

M anagers.........
Office/Clerical . .
Operative.........
Service..............

4.8
14.0
45.4
49.6

0.0
6.5
20.0
55.0

1.8
9.5
33.3
78.6

The Fourth Circuit rejected the EEOC’s assertion that
the black percentage (27 percent) of the total labor
force in the Norfolk-Portsmouth s m s a should be used
as the availability figure for clerical workers and agreed
with the District Court choice of referent data. Howev­
er, it disagreed with the judge’s use of “ 1975” referent
data to evaluate the 1970 employment pattern25 and
proceeded to perform the usual “standard deviation”

Table 2.
Co.

1970-74 applicant-hire data for Western Electric

W o rk e r
c h a r a c t e r is t ic s

A p p lic a n t s

H ir e s

P e rc e n t
h ir e d

Num ber

P e rc e n t

Num ber

P e rc e n t

Race:
B la c k ...............................
W h ite ...............................

1,489
1,893

44.03
55.97

189
565

25.06
74.94

12.7
29.8

Sex:
Female ...........................
Male ...............................

1,443
2,068

41.10
58.90

244
555

30.54
69.46

16.9
26.8

analysis on the bank’s employment data and on em­
ployees hired in the post-act era. The Fourth Circuit
did not eliminate high wage earners from the Census
data, even though the District Court had found that a
specific plaintiff did not suffer discrimination when she
was not hired in 1972 for a clerical job paying $300 a
month because she had been paid $375 a month in her
previous job and expressed interest in jobs of the same
level she previously held. Because the census earnings
data report 1969 earnings, eliminating clerical workers
receiving more than $3,600 would be conservative and
allow for some persons who are willing to take a small
pay cut.
Repeating the same type of calculations made in our
discussion of Hill v. Western Electric, we found that
blacks formed 14 percent of all clericals, 14.9 percent of
clericals earning less than $4,000 in 1969, and 17.2 per­
cent of all clerical workers earning less than $3,000 in
1969. For the specific positions of bank tellers and ca­
shiers, the corresponding percentages are 14.6, 16.1, and
17.2. Therefore, it seems reasonable and conservative to
use 15.5 percent instead of 14 percent as the black
availability for entry level clerical jobs. As there were
301 clerical employees at u v b hired after July 1, 1965,
we would expect 46.66 black clericals in contrast with
the actual number of employees (30) which leads to a dif­
ference of 2.65 standard deviations instead of the 2.02
calculated by the Fourth Circuit.
Although our approach did not increase the number
of standard deviations between the observed and
expected number of black clerical employees to three or
more, the data are significant at the .01 level rather

Table 3.

than at the .05 level. Thus, our approach supports
Judge Clarke’s original finding that a prima facie case
had been established as well as Judge Butzner’s concur­
rent opinion. Moreover, excluding higher paid workers
in the other occupations would also have reinforced the
statistics showing black underrepresentation in manage­
rial positions.
Both overall labor force data and specific occupation­
al data have been used by a number of courts to aid in
the determination of liability and in fashioning an ap­
propriate remedy in cases involving possible discrimina­
tion in promotions. In particular, the Fourth Circuit
held in two promotion cases26 “that the ratio of blacks
and females in supervisory positions should be judged
on the basis of their ratio in the qualified work force
and that a standard might be found in the SMSA data.”
Because 1970 census data on managers include per­
sons employed in higher paid supervisory positions,
many of whom presumably became first level managers
prior to July 1965, the concepts developed above imply
that the basic labor force data need some refinement be­
fore being used in a promotion case.
In contrast with the demographic comparisons in hir­
ing cases, where persons represented by census data
could actually apply or be recruited for jobs, promotion
cases focus on the advancement of current employees.
Although most statisticians would prefer to base their
analysis of promotion data on a test of the significance
of the difference in the promotion rates,27 comparisons
with an external group are needed in cases where mi­
norities are underrepresented in the feeder position, ei­
ther because of hiring discrimination28 or because of
discriminatory placement or advancement at an earlier
level.29 Judges have also used demographic comparisons
to find a firm innocent of discrimination when minori­
ties were “overrepresented” in the feeder position but
received a share of promotions corresponding to their
proportion of the total labor force.30 Our approach
should aid in defining an appropriate comparison group
from census data.
In Patterson v. American Tobacco Company,31 the
Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s finding that
blacks and women had been discriminated against in

Basic labor force data for the Washington SMSA, 1970 Census
C iv ilia n la b o r

E x p e r ie n c e d la b o r

fo rc e

fo rc e

C h a r a c t e r is t ic

T o ta l........................
Male ...................................
Female ...............................
B lack...................................

Num ber

P e rc e n t

Num ber

P e rc e n t

1,292,347
769,718
522,629
310,505

100.00
59.56
40.44
24.03

1,174,888
680,522
494,366
294,130

100.00
57.93
42.07
25.03

E x p e r ie n c e d la b o r

O p e r a t iv e s in

f o r c e e a r n in g le s s

e x p e r ie n c e d la b o r

t h a n $ 1 0 ,0 0 0

fo rc e

Num ber

737,059
387,106
349,953
267,976

O p e r a t iv e s e a r n in g
le s s th a n $ 1 0 ,0 0 0

P e rc e n t

Num ber

P e rc e n t

Num ber

P e rc e n t

100.00
52.52
47.48
39.91

41,182
27,175
14,117
15,919

100.00
65.72
34.28
38.65

37,259
23,407
13,852
15,248

100.00
62.82
37.18
40.92

S ource : Data from the S M S A labor force are from tables 164-65 and those for the experienced labor force are from tables 175-76 of the Detailed Characteristics Volume of the 1970 Census
for the District of Columbia.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

53

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Communications
promotions, but overturned the district court’s remedy
that vacancies for foremen and assistant foremen be
filled with qualified blacks and women, except when
none could be found, until their proportion equalled
that in the Richmond, Va., SMSA work force.
The appeals court focused on the firm’s post-act em­
ployment decisions in its two Richmond branches. Dur­
ing the post-act period, 1965-73, at the “Virginia
Branch,” the company appointed 18 assistant foremen,
of whom 5 (27.5 percent) were black and 3 (16.6 per­
cent) were women. At the “Richmond Branch,” 3 (33.3
percent) of the 9 post-act supervisory appointments
were black and 2 (22.2 percent) were women. Of the six
entry level supervisory positions at the Richmond
Branch at the time of the trial, 5 were white men with
one vacancy, although there was some evidence indicat­
ing that the defendent subsequently promoted one black
and one woman.
The appeals court found that 6.8 percent of the
blacks and 1.5 percent32 of the women in the Richmond
SMSA could be classified as supervisory personnel. How­
ever, in a post-Hazelwood appeal,33 the defendants
asserted that blacks formed 12 percent of those eligible
for supervisory work and women, 5 percent. These data
were used by appeals court Judge Widener in dissent,
claiming that these percentages were lower than the per­
centages of new promotions that actually went to
blacks and women.
Ideally, the company’s promotion data should be
compared with all promotions to supervisory positions
made from July 1965 through March 1970 in the labor
market area. As these data are unavailable, a reasonable
substitute is to eliminate senior (higher paid) superviso­
ry positions. This should yield a closer approximation
to the desired data on persons holding comparable low­
er level supervisory positions. For purposes of illustra­
tion, a 1969 income of $7,000 was used as the salary for
entry level supervisors.34 Table 4 reports the number
and minority percentages of the experienced civilian la­
bor force, managers and administrators, and foremen.

Table 4. The experienced civilian labor force eligible for
supervisory occupations, by salary, in the Richmond
SMSA, 1970 Census
W om en

M en

B la c k

L a b o r fo r c e g ro u p

Total labor force . . .
Experienced labor force . ..
Managers ...........................
Eligible m anagers...........
Foremen .............................
Eligible foremen .............

Num ber

P e rc e n t

Num ber

P e rc e n t

Num ber

P e rc e n t

128,962
59,591
16,887
3,334
4,104
729

59.00
42.82
85.11
61.59
92.83
76.82

89,602
79,583
2,955
2,079
317
220

41.00
57.18
14.89
38.41
7.17
23.18

50,246
43,319
1,211
706
359
154

22.99
31.13
7.17
13.04
8.12
27.57

Note: For each of the three occupations, the minority percentages of the entire popula­
tion and of the eligible portion of the occupation (workers earning less than $7,000) were
used.

54


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

The data for all workers and for persons who earned
less than $7,000 in 1969 are presented.
Regardless of whether one considers the general man­
agerial category or the specific occupation of foremen as
the appropriate comparison group, it is clear that the
minority share of lower level jobholders (thus eligible
for promotion) is substantially larger than their percent­
age of all persons employed in the occupation. Using
the “eligible foremen” as a comparison group, we might
conclude that the firm promoted enough blacks but
women had not received their fair share. Of course, the
dates of the minority promotions played a major role in
the original finding of discrimination which was
sustained by the Fourth Circuit.
Although this statistical approach might not have led
the Fourth Circuit to reach a different decision in its re­
versal of the quota remedy, it does give a more realistic
measure of the available labor pool for entry level su­
pervisory positions.

Implications
We have seen that the female and minority propor­
tion (p,) of persons employed in an occupation usually
is an underestimate of their proportion (p2) of the labor
pool available for hire into lower level positions within
that occupation and that this difference is often sub­
stantial enough to change the statistical inference
reached by the judiciary. In this section we present for­
mulas for the difference, in standard deviation units, be­
tween the actual and expected number of hires when a
low availability proportion (p,) is used instead of p2and
the number of hires that female and minority plaintiffs
consequently lose in legal proceedings because of an un­
derestimate of availability. If minority availability is
overestimated, similar formulas yield the number of
“excess” minority members firms would need to hire to
“pass” the usual standard deviation analysis.35 Numeri­
cal results obtained from these formulas illustrate the
important role the assumed availability proportion plays
in the statistical analysis once a moderate number of
hires is examined. Therefore, we suggest the need for
additional labor market data which should aid in im­
proving the accuracy of availability estimates.
Letting S denote the number of standard deviations
from the expected number of hires when M minorities
are observed among n hires calculated under the as­
sumption that the minority function of the available la­
bor pool is Pj, and letting T denote the corresponding
number of standard deviations from expected assuming
that minority availability is p2, we have
. .
(M —np.)
(M —np,)
(1.1) S = — ------ ^ — , T = — -------- —
[ n p .a - p ,) ] '«
[np2(1 —P2)]l/2
and

(P2-P1) + s P.O —P,) 1/2
[p2( l - p 2)]1/2
P2( l - P 2)

(1.2) T

When p, is less than p2and n is of reasonable size, the
value of T is less than S; for example the plaintiff is re­
quired to show a disparity of more than 2 or 3 standard
deviations from the expected number of hires in order
to establish a prima facie case under the Hazelwood cri­
teria. Conversely, a defendant employer is similarly dis­
advantaged when minority availability is overestimated.
Another measure of the potential minority loss in em­
ployment from using p, instead of p2 as the minority
availability fraction is the difference between the mini­
mum number of minority hires a firm needs to “pass”
the 2 standard deviation criterion. For any value of p,
this minimum number is given by
(1.3) np — 2 [np(l —p)]1/2
so using p, instead of p2 (when p, < p 2) leads to an
expected loss of
(1.4) n(p2—p,) - 2nl/2 [(p2( l - p 2))1/2 - ( p ,(l-p ,) ) 1/2]
jobs in a legal action. This loss in jobs is usually slight­
ly less than the difference, np2—np,, between the
expected number of minority hires calculated using the
different availability fractions, as the statistical allow­
ance for chance effects has been taken into account.
In table 5, we present the true number (T) of stan­
dard deviations from the expected number of hires
when the number of standard deviations (S) is calculat­
ed assuming an availability fraction p,, while the true
availability is p2 (larger than p,). The results are given
for sample size (n=100, 300, 1000) and for several
choices of p, and p2 and values of S = 0 and —1. The
number of legally missed hires (equation 1.4) is also re­
ported. To avoid the problem of rejecting the null
hypothesis for insubstantial differences we have selected
values of p, and p2 which obey p ,/p 2< 0.836 and sample
sizes which are reasonably, but not overly, large. The
results show that when S = —1 (for example, minority
hires are one standard deviation below expectation) a dif­
ference of 5 percentage points between p, and p2 would
yield significance according to the 2 standard deviation
criterion for samples of size 100 and a difference of 3

percentage points yields significance using the 3 STD cri­
terion for samples of 300. Thus, comparatively small er­
rors in the determination of the minority fraction (p) of
the available labor pool can have a large effect on the
ultimate statistical inference. It should be noted that the
effect of the “statistical allowance” (the second term in
(1.4) or the difference between n(p7—p,) and the lost
hires in table 4) depends on the actual values of p, and
p2. Indeed, for pairs (p,, p2) with the same difference p2—
p,, it is larger for the smaller values; that is, the allow­
ance is larger for (p,, p2) = (.1, .15) than for (.2, .25).
Hence, the statistical allowance for chance effects in­
creases the importance of properly determining the mi­
nority availability (p) when p is small. The results also
indicate the influence of sample size upon the degree of
statistical significance.
To develop more accurate estimates of minority avail­
ability (p), statisticians and labor economists will re­
quire more data of a longitudinal nature. Even our re­
finement of the data on currently employed persons (to
a yield a more realistic estimate of the race-sex mix of
job changers) is just one step in the process because
new hires come from other components of the labor
force (table 1). Moreover, about 10 percent of all work­
ers change jobs during a year and the occupational mo­
bility rate varies by occupation, age, education, and to a
lesser extent by race.37 Because it is virtually impossible
to obtain precise estimates of mobility for very specific
jobs (for example, waiters), one can use data showing
that 30 to 40 percent of job changers move to other
jobs within the same broad occupational category to aid
in the development of a weighting model or transition
matrix. Some types of information which will enable us
to develop more precise availability estimates include:
1. The proportion of new hires in an occupation coming from
each of the three components of the labor force.
2. The previous jobs and the salary in both old and new jobs
for job changers.
3. For the new and re-entrant portions of the labor force,
data on the nature of the job sought and qualifications re­
quired (for example, training, previous employment).

Much of the data could be obtained by additional tabu­
lations of the gross flow data by broad occupational
categories and by making the CPS supplements on occu-

Table 5. True number of standard deviations from expected value and lost hires when the number of standard deviations
was calculated assuming a low value of P1
P o p u la t io n =

100

P o p u la t io n = 3 0 0

Low P

T ru e P

P,

P2

.10
.20

.15
.25

.05
.05

-1.40
-1.15

-2.24
-2.08

3.86
4.34

-2.43
-2.00

-3.27
-2.92

.10
.20
.30

.20
.30
.40

.10
.10
.10

-2.50
-2.18
-2.04

-3.25
-3.06
-2.98

8.00
8.83
9.37

-4.33
-3.78
-3.45

-5.08
-4.65
-4.47


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

P2’ P,
S =

0

S =

-1

L o s t h ir e s

S =

0

S

=

-1

P o p u la t io n =
L o s t h ir e s

S

=

1000

0

S = -1

L o s t h ir e s

13.02
13.85

-4.43
-3.65

-5.27
-4.58

46.39
47.91

26.54
27.98
28.90

-7.91
-6.90
-6.45

-8.66
-7.77
-7.39

93.68
96.32
98.00

55

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Communications
pational mobility and job search regular yearly surveys.
As all the above-mentioned labor market information
may not be readily available, other possible approaches
that could yield more accurate availability estimates
than the raw census data on employed persons are:
1. For entry-level jobs an age-weighted labor force model can
be developed using the age distribution of new hires in a
weighted average of the minority proportions in the same
age brackets in the relevant labor force. This approach
tends to place relatively little weight on senior workers and
more on younger workers, most of whom were hired in the
post-Civil Rights Act era and who do more job changing.
Because of Age Discrimination in Employment Act, one
might wish to use this method to supplement another ap­
proach.
2. For some occupations (for example, lawyers and phar­

macists), data on new degree recipients38 or on persons
employed in various types of jobs within an occupation39
may be useful.
3. Memberships rosters of professional societies40 and Nation­
al Research Council data on scientists and engineers may
also be helpful. However, using the demographic mix of all
persons on these registers as a referent for new hires will
typically underestimate minority availability as does raw
census data. Hence, an adjustment based on current posi­
tion and salary may be needed.

In situations where several reasonable methodologies
yield slightly differing availability estimates, the actual
hiring data can be tested against all values of p. Fre­
quently, the ultimate statistical conclusions, at the usual
.05 and .01 levels of significance, will agree.
□

FOOTNOTES

A c k n o w l e d g m e n t : The author thanks the staff of the Office of
Statistical Policy and Standards of the Department of Commerce for
valuable discussions concerning the reliability and availability of vari­
ous statistical series. The research was supported in part by a Nation­
al Science Foundation grant.
1Distilled from three methods established in G reen v. M iss o u r i Pac.
R .R . Co., 523 F.2d 1290 (8th Cir. 1975).
2 Mark Rosenblum, “The Use of Labor Statistics and Analysis in
Title VII Cases: Rios, Chicago and Beyond,” I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s L a ­
b o r J o u rn a l, Vol. 1, 1977, pp. 685-710.

' Kenneth T. Lopatka, “A 1977 Primer on the Federal Regulation
of Employment Discrimination,” U n iv e rs ity o f I llin o is L a w F o ru m ,
1977, pp. 60-168.
4 For example, in J o n e s v. T r i-C o u n ty E le c tr ic C o o p era tive, 512 F.2d
1 (5th Cir. 1975) the court noted that although 8 of 23 black appli­
cants were hired in contrast with 35 of 159 white applicants so that
blacks had a larger hire rate (34 percent vs. 22 percent), the black
fraction of hires was only 18.6 percent, less than half of their fraction
(40 percent) of the population. Moreover, during the first seven years
the Civil Rights Act was in effect the defendant had employed only
one black person. Thus, the fifth circuit reversed the district court de­
cision, which apparently relied on the applicant-hire percentages,
when it found the firm innocent of violating Title VII.
H a z e lw o o d S c h o o l D is tr ic t v. U n ite d S ta tes, 97 S. Ct. 2736 (1977),
B r o th e r h o o d o f T e a m s te rs v. U n ite d S ta tes, 431 U.S.

and I n te r n a tio n a l
324 (1977).

6 Marcy Hallock, “The Numbers Game— The Use of and Misuse of
Statistics in Civil Rights Litigation,” V illa n o va L a w R ev ie w ,
Vol. 23, 1977, pp. 5-34; and Mark Rosenblum, “The External Mea­
sures of Labor Supply: Recent Issues and Trends,” C o n n e c tic u t L a w
R ev ie w , Vol. 10, 1978, pp. 892-919.
Several courts have noted this explicitly; for example G reen sp a n v.
A u to m o b ile C lu b o f M ich ig a n , 22 FEP Cases 184 (1980), at 192; S m ith
v. U n ion O il Co. o f C a lifo rn ia , FEP 960 Cases (1978), at 967. The fact
that the defendant city had hired a black as a fireman or in an admin­
istrative capacity prior to 1974 played a role in Judge Keady’s deci­
sion to rely on applicant flow data rather than the demographic
method in N A A C P v. C ity o f C orin th , 20 FEP Cases 1044 (1979), at
1056.
* In H o a r d v. T eletyp e, 20 FEP Cases 1070 (1978), Judge Heany
noted that the “Managerial” census category included higher level
managers, for example, vice presidents, while no black had ever held
supervisory positions higher than section chief. The reverse situation
may occur when senior positions are being filled; see A g a r w a l v.
M c K e e , 19 FEP Cases 501 (N.D. Ca„ 1977).
4See Carl Rosenfeld, “The extent of job search by employed work­
ers,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , March 1977, p. 57, who reports that the

56


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

most common reason given by employed workers seeking a new job is
the desire for higher pay. Moreover, low pay is the most frequent rea­
son given by unemployed persons for declining a job. See Carl
Rosenfeld, “Job search of the unemployed, May 1976,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R ev ie w , November 1977, p. 39.
10 For more information concerning the potential usefulness of and
problems inherent in the gross flow data, see T. F. Bradshaw, “Em­
ployment in perspective: a cyclical analysis of gross flows in the labor
force,” Report 508 (Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, 1977);
Harvey J. Hilaski, “The status of research on gross changes in the la­
bor force,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, October 1968; and R. E. Smith
and J. E. Vanski, “Gross change data: the neglected data base ”
(Washington, National Commission on Employment and Unemploy­
ment Statistics, 1975). Also see Barbara Bailar, “The Effects of Rota­
tion Group Bias on Estimates for Panel Surveys,” J o u r n a l o f th e
A m e r ic a n S ta tis tic a l A sso cia tio n , March 1975, pp. 23-30.
" Courts have taken different views on the issue of which of the two
approaches is the more relevant, in part, because they do not wish to
penalize an employer for taking affirmative action in recruitment.
Some relevant cases are: H ill v. W estern E le c tr ic C o., 12 FEP Cases
1175 (E.D. Va., 1976), at 1179, 19 FEP Cases 596 F.2d 99; H e s te r v.
S o u th e rn R a ilw a y C o., 497 F.2d 1374 (5th Cir, 1974); R o b in s o n v.
U n ion C a rb id e , 538 F.2d 652 (5th Cir., 1976); and P a te v. T r a n s it D is ­
trict, 21 FEP Cases 1228 (N.D. Cal., 1979) at 1231.
12 See P a tte r s o n v. A m e r ic a n T o b a c c o Co., 8 FEP Cases 778; 12 FEP
Cases 314, 535 F.2d 257; 18 FEP Cases 378. S m ith v. U n io n O il Co.
o f C a lifo rn ia , 17 FEP Cases 960 (1978) and cases using employment
data from comparable employers, for example, G a rc ia v. V icto ria I n d e ­
p e n d e n t S c h o o l D istric t, 17 EPD 8544.
'See U.S. v. C o u n ty o f F a irfa x , 23 FEP 485 (4th Cir. 1980);
G reen sp a n v. A u to m o b ile C lu b o f M ich ig a n , 2 2 FEP Cases 184 (1980);
E E O C v. R a d ia to r S p e c ia lity C o., 21 FEP Cases 351 (1979) at 357.
14433 U.S. 299 (1977).
1 Two post- H a z e lw o o d decisions which illustrate the effect of em­
phasizing postact hiring data rather than employment statistics are E l
C o n c ilio v. M o d e s to S c h o o l D istric t, 17 FEP Cases 819 (1978) and
D r a y to n v. C ity o f P e te rsb u rg h , 20 FEP Cases 1495 (M.D. Fla., 1979).
16These data are not published regularly due to technical difficulties
noted in the article cited in footnote 10; however, it is available on re­
quest.
1 See Carl Rosenfeld’s articles cited in footnote 9.
18 See “Measurement and Significance of Labor Turnover” (Wash­
ington, National Commission on Employment and Unemployment
Statistics, 1979), Background paper 27.
14 See Carl Rosenfeld’s first article cited in footnote 9.
20 Because some persons are willing to take small pay cuts to move
to jobs offering better opportunities for advancement or having a con-

venient location, we will usually include persons making 10 to 15 per­
cent more than the beginning wage in the available labor pool. The
author has not seen any data showing that a sizable fraction of job
changers is willing to move to jobs involving a large percentage pay
decrease.
12 FEP Cases 1175 (E.D. Va., 1976). Although this part of the
district court’s decision was reversed on grounds of standing.
Unfortunately, the entry level salary was not reported so we are
using a relatively high salary (in 1969 dollars) for such jobs. For a
more recent case in which the applicant flow approach was preferred,
in part, because most new hires were given low paying production
jobs, see V au gh n v. W estin gh ou se, 19 FEP Cases 1475 (1979).
23 For further discussion of modifications of census labor force data
to account for commuting patterns, see Joseph Gastwirth and
Sheldon Haber, “Defining the labor market for equal employment
standards,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , March 1976, pp. 32-36; and dis­
cussions in M a r k e y v. T e n n ec o O il Co., 439 F. Supp. 219, 234-235
(E.D. La., 1977); G a y v. W a ite r's U n ion L o c a l 30, 22 FEP Cases 281
(N.D. Cal., 1980), at 296-7; and E E O C v. N o rth H ills P a s s a v a n t H o s ­
p ita l, 19 FEP Cases 212 (W.D. Pa., 1979).
24 21 FEP Cases 1392 (E.D. Va., 1977), 21 FEP Cases 1405 (4th
Cir. 1980).
See the original opinion at 1400. The Court relied on a Virginia
Employment Commission report for 1975. The author reproduced
these numbers from tables 86 and 93 from the General Social Eco­
nomic Statistics Volume of the 1970 Census for Virginia. Thus, the
Court was incorrect in criticizing the original opinion. Indeed, the
State agency report may have misled the Court about the currentness
of the data.
" P a tte rs o n v. A m e r ic a n T o b a cco Co., 18 FEP
v. W estern E le ctric , 19 FEP Cases 490 (1979).

7David C. Baldus and Joseph W. L. Cole,
(New York, McGraw-Hill, 1980).

Cases 378 (1979);

H ill

S ta tis tic a l P r o o f o f D is ­

c r im in a tio n
G a rc ia

v.

V icto ria I n d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l D istric t,

' K y r ia z i

17 EPD Cases 8544.
924; S t. M a r ie v.

v. W estern E le c tr ic C o., 18 FEP Cases
E .R .R . A s s ’n, 458 F. Supp. 1147 (S.D. N.Y., 1978).

10S m ith v.

U n ion O il C o.,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

cited in footnote 12.

” 8 FEP Cases 778 (1974).
32The source of the data quoted was not reported. The author
could not reproduce the percentages from published census data.
” 18 FEP Cases 378 (1979), at 383.
The entry level salary used (1969) for the position appears reason­
able, perhaps conservative. In legal proceedings, the actual salary
should be used.
Since H a z e lw o o d , this technique has become a standard method of
statistical proof. For more discussion and additional cases, see Chap­
ter 9 of Baldus and Cole cited in footnote 27; and Michael O.
Finkelstein, “The Application of Statistical Decision Theory to the
Jury Discrimination Cases,” H a r v a r d L a w R e v ie w , Vol. 80, 1966, pp.
338-76. And, Judge Higgenbotham’s opinion, in V u ya n ich v. R e p u b lic
N a tio n a l B a n k , 24 FEP Cases 128 (1980), interprets the meaning of
statistical significance at 223-24, and illustrates the importance of
properly determining the availability fraction, p, at 243-44.
'’For further discussion of the “four-fifths rule” and the EEOC
testing guidelines, see Jacob Van Bowen and C. Riggins, “A Techni­
cal Look at the Eighty Percent Rule as Applied to Employee Selec­
tion Procedures,” U n iv e rs ity o f R ic h m o n d L a w R ev ie w , Vol. 12, 1978,
pp. 647-56.
7See Carl Rosenfeld, “Occupational mobility during 197.7,” M o n th ­
December 1979, pp. 44-A8; Patrick Wash, “Occupa­
tional mobility of health workers,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , May 1977,
pp. 25-29; and Dixie Sommers and Alan Eck, “Occupational mobility
in the American labor force,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , January 1977,
pp. 3-19.
ly L a b o r R e v ie w ,

3* These are published by the National Center of Educational Statis­
tics; the 1975 survey of recent doctorates was used to determine avail­
ability of C o o p er v. U n iv e rs ity o f T e x a s a t D a lla s, 2 2 FEP Cases 1064.
39 For example, the Bureau of Health Manpower in the Department
of Health and Human Services issued data on type of position held by
Pharmacists in the report, P h a r m a c y M a n p o w e r R e s o u r c e s (for 1974)
and in separate reports for each State.
Membership data in the AAUP were used in C o o p er v. U n iv e rs ity
FEP Cases 1064 to compare the percentage of
tenured female professors with the national average.
o f T e x a s a t D a lla s , 2 2

57

Productivity
Reports
Productivity slows or drops in 1979 in
more than half of industries measured
A rth u r S. H erm an

Productivity, as measured by output per employee hour,
declined or grew at a lower rate in 1979 than in 1978 in
more than half of the industries surveyed by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. However, during 1974-79, more
than half of the industries reported productivity gains.
Over the long-term (1947- or 1958-79), all of the indus­
tries posted gains.

Changes in 1979
Most mining, retail trade, and service industries
posted declines, as did some transportation and large
manufacturing industries. Conversely, gains were re­
corded in a few of the larger industries, including air
transportation and telephone communications, and in a
majority of the manufacturing industries covered. The
slowdown is consistent with productivity in the non­
farm business sector, which declined 0.8 percent during
the year. Table 1 shows productivity trends in indus­
tries measured by the Bureau, including new measures
for the fabricated structural metal, construction machin­
ery, drug and proprietary stores, ball and roller bear­
ings, and bus carrier industries.1 Also included, for the
first time, is a series for electric utilities and gas utilities.
These indexes were developed by disaggregating the
existing measure for gas and electric utilities.
Manufacturing. Both steel and motor vehicles, which
are among the larger industries covered, had productivi­
ty declines in 1979. In the steel industry, productivity
fell 1.3 percent as output dropped 0.3 percent and em­
ployee hours went up 1.0 percent. Demand for steel was
strong in the first half of the year, but fell off sharply in
the second half. In the motor vehicles industry, produc­
tivity declined for the second consecutive year, falling
3.7 percent, as output declined more than employee
hours. Motor vehicle production was high in the first

Arthur S. Herman is an economist in the Office of Productivity and
Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

58

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

quarter, but demand began to fall in the second quar­
ter, in part, because of lower supplies and higher prices
for petroleum; as a result, output decreased sharply
during the remainder of the year. Other large manufac­
turing industries posting productivity declines in 1979
were: sawmills, —3.1 percent; petroleum refining, —2.2
percent; gray iron foundries, —0.8 percent; pulp and
paper, —0.4 percent; and construction machinery, —0.3
percent. These industries, except paper, had declines in
output in 1979.
These large manufacturing industries posted produc­
tivity gains in 1979: fabricated structural metal, 6.0 per­
cent; fluid milk, 5.3 percent; motors and generators, 3.6
percent; household appliances, 3.0 percent; tires, 2.9
percent; household furniture, 2.8 percent; bakery prod­
ucts, 1.6 percent; footwear, 1.1 percent; soft drinks, 0.9
percent; and corrugated boxes and pharmaceutical prep­
arations, 0.5 percent each.
Transportation. The productivity situation was mixed
among transportation industries. Intercity trucking de­
clined 1.2 percent, and railroads (revenue traffic)
dropped 0.1 percent. Conversely, air transportation
posted a gain in productivity of 3.4 percent as output
increased strongly, petroleum pipelines grew 2.2 per­
cent, and bus carriers increased 0.4 percent.
Utilities. In utilities, the gas and electric industry posted
its second consecutive productivity decline, dropping
0.5 percent. Both the gas and the electric utility compo­
nents of this industry had productivity declines in 1979.
Telephone communications registered a gain of 3.6 per­
cent, with output continuing its high rate of growth.
Mining. Most mining industries experienced productivi­
ty declines. Coal mining dropped 9.5 percent. Although
coal output posted a significant gain, production worker
hours grew even more as the industry recovered from a
major strike in 1978. Copper mining (recoverable metal)
and nonmetallic minerals recorded large productivity
declines of 10.0 and 3.7 percent, respectively. In con­
trast, iron mining (usable ore) grew 6.9 percent as out­
put posted an above-average gain.
Trade and services. Productivity declined in most retail
trade and service industries, with laundry and cleaning

Table 1.

Indexes of output per employee hour in selected industries, 1973-79, and percent changes, 1978-79 and 1974-79

SIC C ode1

Industry

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

19792

Percent
change
1978 79

Average annual
percent change
1974-79

Mining3
1011
1011
1021
1021

Iron mining, crude ore ..............................................
Iron mining, usable o r e ..............................................
Copper mining, crude o r e ..........................................
Copper mining, recoverable metal ..........................

130.6
123.6
118.6
97.8

124.0
114.2
114.7
86.9

129.7
118.6
122.2
91.3

130.6
116.8
140.5
110.6

126.0
110.5
145.4
117.1

135.1
121.4
158.6
125.2

147.0
129.9
148.6
112.7

8.8
6.9
-6.3
-10.0

2.7
1.9
6.2
6.8

111, 121
121
14
142

Coal mining................................................................
Bituminous coal and lignite mining.............................
Nonmetallic m inerals.................................................
Crushed and broken s to n e ........................................

85.8
85.9
128.5
141.6

84.1
83.9
123.3
138.6

72.7
72.1
120.7
139.6

71.4
70.8
126.4
140.2

69.5
69.0
130.4
148.0

76.1
75.8
136.6
161.7

68.8
68.2
131.5
150.1

-9.5
-10.0
-3.7
-7.2

-2.5
-2.6
2.1
2.6

Manufacturing
2026
203
2033
204
2041
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047, 48
205
2061,62, 63
2061,62
2063
2065
2082
2086

Fluid milk ..................................................................
Preserved fruits and vegetables ...............................
Canned fruits and vegetables...................................
Grain mill products ...................................................
Flour and other grain mill products ..........................
Cereal breakfast foods ............................................
Rice m illing................................................................
Blended and prepared flour ......................................
Wet corn milling .......................................................
Prepared feeds for animals and fo w ls ......................
Bakery products .......................................................
Sugar .........................................................................
Raw and refined cane sugar ...................................
Beet sugar ................................................................
Candy and confectionery products ...........................
Malt beverages..........................................................
Bottled and canned soft d rin k s .................................

140.1
125.6
130.3
116.1
113.7
111.0
100.3
103.5
123.3
118.5
113.1
114.0
105.6
127.2
137.3
153.2
117.3

143.6
123.0
128.1
124.4
119.2
105.3
115.2
116.4
150.6
127.1
112.9
110.0
103.7
119.7
149.0
157.2
119.9

150.3
124.9
126.0
125.5
120.8
107.7
111.7
104.6
152.7
129.5
112.7
108.1
97.8
124.3
136.0
175.3
129.6

156.1
132.7
138.9
131.0
119.7
112.8
109.7
108.0
168.7
136.9
112.8
111.4
102.0
128.6
126.9
192.9
139.7

156.1
131.9
135.2
137.5
140.3
112.2
123.8
95.2
198.3
140.9
120.1
118.9
113.7
126.2
149.4
199.6
147.7

165.8
135.5
138.6
136.2
144.7
111.8
114.6
87.5
203.3
138.7
116.8
117.1
110.3
127.6
161.5
201.3
154.3

174.7
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
150.2
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
118.6
131.0
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
203.0
155.6

5.3
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
3.8
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
1.6
11.8
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
0.9
0.9

3.7
52.5
52.3
52.8
5.4
51.6
50.9
5 -6.4
5 9.0
5 2.6
1.2
3.4
5 2.8
51.4
5 2.6
5.1
5.5

2111,21,31
2111,31
2121
2251,52
2421
2435, 36

Tobacco products — to ta l..........................................
Cigarettes, chewing and smoking tobacco...............
Cigars .......................................................................
Hosiery.......................................................................
Sawmills and planing mills, general...........................
Veneer and plywood .................................................

108.1
104.9
116.8
147.7
112.9
126.7

111.9
106.5
128.6
168.5
108.2
127.4

114.2
110.3
126.5
191.6
112.7
142.2

119.3
114.1
137.1
219.5
118.2
142.4

122.4
117.5
139.8
208.6
115.3
147.2

125.0
122.0
137.0
209.5
116.4
147.4

127.6
122.7
148.4
236.5
112.8
( 4)

2.1
0.5
8.3
12.9
-3.1
( 4)

2.8
3.0
2.8
5.6
0.8
5 3.3

251
2511,17
2512
2514
2515

Flousehold furniture............... ...................................
Wood household furniture ........................................
Upholstered household furniture...............................
Metal household furniture..........................................
Mattresses and bedsprlngs ......................................

123.3
127.9
113.7
119.9
138.3

121.2
122.8
114.2
114.3
147.8

123.6
120.5
120.8
119.0
152.7

126.3
124.4
122.2
121.7
156.7

126.7
122.9
124.6
126.2
158.8

131.9
127.6
136.1
122.8
161.4

135.6
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)

2.8
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)
( 4)

2.2
51.0
53.9
52.0
52.2

2611,21,31,61
2643
2651
2653
2823, 24
2834
2841
2851

Paper, paperboard and pulp m ills .............................
Paper and plastic bags ............................................
Folding paperboard boxes ........................................
Corrugated and solid fiber boxes .............................
Synthetic fib e rs .........................................................
Pharmaceutical preparations ...................................
Soap and detergents.................................................
Paints and allied products ........................................

135.4
125.1
114.1
130.2
176.8
132.1
127.5
112.1

135.2
131.8
120.4
137.7
173.1
141.3
132.7
123.7

128.0
133.6
119.9
142.2
187.2
145.2
123.3
129.1

140.2
135.0
124.4
148.0
198.4
155.2
127.0
133.2

147.3
134.6
120.3
144.0
221.0
158.2
127.0
137.2

152.9
134.8
122.3
149.0
231.7
149.6
132.0
144.2

152.3
( 4)
127.5
149.9
251.9
150.3
( 4)
150.9

-0.4
( 4)
4.2
0.5
8.7
0.5
( 4)
4.6

3.4
50.5
0.9
1.5
7.8
1.2
50.2
4.0

2911
3011
314
3221
3241
325
3251,53, 59
3251
3253
3255
3271,72
3273

Petroleum refining.....................................................
Tires and inner tu b e s .................................................
Footwear ..................................................................
Glass containers.......................................................
Hydraulic cement .....................................................
Structural clay products............................................
Clay construction products........................................
Brick and structural clay t i l e ......................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile ........................................
Clay refractories .......................................................
Concrete products.....................................................
Ready-mixed concrete..............................................

132.4
116.7
102.0
112.9
129.7
131.7
133.0
128.6
133.5
125.6
115.9
109.0

121.4
116.3
100.3
121.6
119.0
134.6
130.7
132.3
128.1
143.9
116.4
105.7

123.7
115.7
104.8
120.9
110.6
132.0
132.2
133.7
131.8
127.6
113.3
102.7

128.3
127.6
105.5
121.2
120.7
138.3
140.2
147.2
131.6
130.3
116.3
104.0

136.8
130.0
103.3
124.0
131.6
146.1
149.2
144.5
149.9
134.1
120.5
105.3

138.2
139.9
106.0
125.8
132.4
145.9
• 148.1
134.4
n
136.3
120.1
108.7

135.1
143.9
107.1
127.1
128.5
147.8
148.2
130.0
( 4)
142.7
( 4)
( 4)

-2.2
2.9
1.1
1.1
-2.9
1.3
0.1
-3.3
( 4)
4.7
( 4)
( 4)

2.7
4.8
1.0
1.1
2.9
2.4
3.0
-0.3
64.8
0.5
51.3
50.8

331
3321
3324, 25
3331,32, 33
3331
3334
3351
3353, 54, 55

Steel .........................................................................
Gray iron foundries ...................................................
Steel foundries ..........................................................
Primary copper, lead, and z in c .................................
Primary co p p e r..........................................................
Primary aluminum .....................................................
Copper rolling and drawing ......................................
Aluminum rolling and drawing...................................

123.5
124.2
107.6
140.6
129.6
111.1
117.7
154.7

123.5
128.0
118.5
127.6
116.1
122.8
106.3
157.9

107.6
126.7
113.6
126.4
118.7
105.8
94.7
142.5

114.5
125.6
111.5
142.7
136.3
110.8
105.4
166.0

115.6
130.4
105.9
148.6
143.7
108.8
120.7
163.7

125.7
134.0
103.4
143.9
143.4
108.4
117.1
168.7

124.0
133.0
101.6
149.2
146.4
112.0
121.4
161.7

-1.3
-0.8
-1.7
3.7
2.1
3.3
3.7
-4.2

1.4
1.1
-3.1
3.5
5.2
-1.1
4.2
1.8

3411
3441

Metal cans ................................................................
Fabricated structural m etal........................................

109.2
116.5

113.3
109.7

116.0
99.4

124.6
100.3

131.7
100.8

136.1
101.8

( 4)
107.8

( 4)
6.0

55.1
( 7)

3531
3562

Construction machinery ............................................
Ball and roller bearings ............................................

113.2
119.4

119.9
121.1

111.6
113.4

113.4
115.3

117.1
116.8

120.1
122.6

119.7
120.6

-0.3
-1 .6

0.7
0.7

3621
3631,32, 33, 39
3631

Motors and generators...............................................
Major household appliances......................................
Household cooking equipment .................................

115.4
135.1
134.9

114.8
134.9
138.4

106.7
140.7
152.8

109.9
145.2
156.1

114.3
149.8
153.6

113.1
150.5
152.8

117.3
155.0
142.0

3.6
3.0
-7.1

0.9
2.7
0.3


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

59

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Productivity Reports
Table 1.

Continued— Indexes of output per employee hour in selected industries
Industry

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

19792

Percent
change
1978 79

Average annual
percent change
1974-79

3632
3633
3639
3641
3645, 46, 47, 48
3651

Household refrigerators and freezers ......................
Household laundry equipment .................................
Household appliances n.e.c........................................
Electric la m p s ............................................................
Lighting fixtures..........................................................
Radio and television receiving sets ..........................

141.3
131.5
126.7
104.0
126.0
128.7

143.1
126.0
125.9
104.5
120.8
124.4

139.9
138.5
132.9
113.3
118.9
125.7

139.6
145.9
140.3
121.9
126.6
137.3

148.4
147.4
151.2
119.6
132.5
132.9

145.5
152.8
156.0
123.2
132.9
146.4

170.2
153.3
149.2
127.9

17.0
0.3
-4.4
3.8

150.7

( 4)
2.9

3.0
3.7
4.1
3.6
5 3.0
4.0

371

Motor vehicles and equipment .................................

123.9

118.8

127.1

136.0

145.1

144.0

138.7

-3.7

3.5

SIC C ode1

n

Other
401
401
4111,31,414
4213 PT
4213 PT
4511

Railroads, revenue tra ffic ..........................................
Railroads, car-miles...................................................
Bus carriers, class I ...................................................
Intercity trucking8 .....................................................
Intercity trucking (general freight)8 ...........................
Air transportation8 .....................................................

133.2
119.2
92.5
123.4
122.1
131.3

129.6
116.2
95.9
119.3
124.3
133.0

123.9
115.5
84.5
114.1
117.6
134.6

131.9
117.5
81.7
128.2
127.9
146.7

138.4
117.5
87.1
127.9
133.2
153.6

148.6
124.0
86.8
127.6
131.3
167.9

148.5
122.6
87.2
126.1
128.7
173.6

-0.1
-1.1
0.4
-1.2
-2.0
3.4

3.7
1.4
-0.9
1.8
1.6
6.0

4612, 13
4811
491,92, 93
491,493 PT
492, 493 PT

Petroleum pipelines...................................................
Telephone communications ......................................
Gas and electric utilities............................................
Electric utilities ..........................................................
Gas utilities................................................................

150.4
128.8
129.9
135.8
117.9

146.6
137.3
127.5
133.7
115.1

147.4
149.6
131.9
141.4
114.4

146.6
165.8
135.8
146.2
116.9

154.0
175.9
137.8
152.2
112.9

156.7
187.6
136.2
148.0
114.6

160.2
194.3
135.5
147.3
114.5

2.2
3.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.1

1.9
7.3
1.2
1.9
-0.2

54
5511
5541
58
591
7011
721

Retail food stores9 ...................................................
Franchised new car dea lers......................................
Gasoline service stations9 ........................................
Eating and drinking places9 ......................................
Drug stores9 ..............................................................
Hotels and motels9 ...................................................
Laundry and cleaning services9 ...............................

108.1
119.2
136.6
105.9
146.2
108.7
104.0

104.5
116.2
140.5
100.8
149.4
103.2
103.9

104.8
120.5
137.8
102.0
144.8
101.9
103.0

107.0
126.9
151.8
101.8
150.6
106.9
104.5

106.4
131.2
160.9
98.9
156.7
106.8
108.0

100.9
128.5
168.3
94.6
152.4
109.1
108.7

100.2
122.5
169.4
89.5
153.6
102.8
101.8

-0.8
-4.7
0.6
-5.5
0.8
-5.8
-6.3

-0.9
1.4
4.7
-2.4
1.0
0.5
0.3

1As defined in the 1972 Standard Industrial Classification Manual, published by the Office of
Management and Budget.
2 Preliminary.
3 Mining data refer to output per production worker hour.
4 Not available.
5 Rate of change is for 1974-78.
6 Rate of change is for 1974-77.
7 Less than 0.05 percent.
8 Output per employee.

services falling 6.3 percent; hotels and motels, 5.8 per­
cent; eating and drinking places, 5.5 percent; and new
car dealers, 4.7 percent. These industries, except hotels
and motels, had output declines in 1979. Productivity
fell 0.8 percent in retail food stores; output rose slightly
but was offset by a greater rise in hours. On the other
hand, productivity increased 0.8 percent in drug stores,
based on small gains in output and hours, and grew 0.6
percent in gasoline service stations, as hours declined
more steeply than output.

Trends, 1974—79
During 1974-79, the wet corn milling industry had
the highest rate of productivity increase, growing 9.0
percent from 1974-78 (1979 data are not yet available).
This growth is based on substantial output gains and
declining employee hours. Demand for high fructose
syrup, an important industry product, continued to ex­
pand during this period and the industry invested in
more efficient plant and equipment. The second highest
rate of productivity growth during 1974-79 was for
synthetic fibers (7.8 percent). Output in this industry
was sustained by high domestic and foreign demand
while the industry’s cost cutting operations led to a
falloff in employee hours. High growth rates were also
60


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

9 Output per hour of all persons.
Note: Although the output per employee-hour measures relate output to the hours of all
employees engaged in each industry, they do not measure the specific contributions of labor,
capital, or any other single factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effects of many influences, including new technology, capital investment, the level of output, capacity utilization,
energy use, and managerial skills, as well as the skills and efforts of the work force. Some of
these measures use a labor input series that is based on hours paid, and some use a labor input series that is based on plant hours.

posted by the telephone communications industry, up
7.3 percent; copper mining (recoverable metal), 6.8 per­
cent; and air transportation, 6.0 percent. In telephone
communications, productivity growth has been aided by
large increases in output and the continuing use of elec­
tronic switching equipment for long distance calls. In
copper mining (recoverable metal), output grew only
slightly; however hours of production workers dropped
sharply, in part, because of the closing of inefficient
mines. In the air transportation industry, high output
growth (because of gains in both passenger travel and
freight shipments) coupled with a moderate gain in em­
ployment resulted in increased productivity. Other in­
dustries with productivity gains of more than 5 percent
per year included hosiery, soft drinks, flour milling,
malt beverages, and metal cans.
Declining productivity rates were experienced by a
number of industries over the 1974-79 period. The
blended and prepared flour industry (cake mixes,
among other products) posted the largest decline, fall­
ing at a 6.4-percent rate. Steel foundries dropped 3.1
percent, coal mining fell 2.5 percent, and eating and
drinking places declined 2.4 percent. Smaller declines
were experienced by primary aluminum, —1.1 percent;
bus carriers and retail food stores, —0.9 percent each;

brick and structural clay tile, —0.3 percent; and gas
utilities, —0.2 percent.
A full report, Productivity Measures for Selected In­

dustries, 1954-1979, Bulletin 2093, is available from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Print­
ing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
□

FOOTNOTE
' For a detailed report on these industries,
ly L a b o r R e v ie w articles: Horst Brand and

see the following M o n th ­
Clyde Huffstutler, “The
paper and plastic bag industry: two distinct productivity phases,”
May 1980, pp. 26-30; Phyllis Flohr Otto, “Productivity growth below
average in fabricated structural metals,” June 1980, pp. 27-31; John
Duke “Construction machinery industry posts slow rise in pro-

ductivity,” July 1980, pp. 33-36; Brian L. Friedman, “Productivity
gains in the drugstore industry, 1958-79,” November 1980, pp. 1822; and James D. York and Elmer S. Persigehl, “Productivity trends
in the ball and roller bearing industry,” January 1981, pp. 40-43.
Productivity trends for Class I bus carriers will be discussed in a
forthcoming article.

Erratum
In “Husbands and wives as earners: an analysis of family data,” by
Howard Hayghe (Monthly Labor Review, February 1981), the labels
in the legend on chart 1 were inadvertently transposed. A corrected
version of the chart appears below.

Chart 1. Distribution of dual-earner and traditional-earner families by family income quintiles, 1978
Percent
40
D u a l-earner fa m ilie s

T ra d itio n a l-e a rn e r fa m ilie s

30

20

10

Lowest
0-$8,720

Second
$8,721-14,700

Third
$14,701-20,600

Fourth
$20,601-28,632

Highest
$28,633 and
over

Quintiles
NOTE: “ Dual-earner families” refers to married couples where both husband and wife were earners at sometime during the year. A “ traditional-earner
family" is one where the husband, but not the wife, was an earner. In both types of families other members may also be earners and there may not be
children under age 18.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

61

Research
Summaries
Migration of the unemployed:
a relocation assistance program

C harles F. M ueller

Would the unemployed be more willing to relocate to
jobs if provided with information, support from other
people, and cash for moving expenses? Relocation rates
were greater for unemployed persons enrolled in a Fed­
eral Job Search and Relocation Assistance program
than they were for a comparable group of unemployed
persons with “potential” for relocation, but who relied
on friends and relatives for support. Further, the pro­
gram’s results indicate that among the unemployed, the
young, black persons, men, and persons with lower edu­
cational levels are more willing than others to relocate
in search for work.
The Job Search and Relocation Assistance program
provides financial and other assistance to Employment
Service registrants who are willing to relocate in order
to find employment for which they are qualified by rea­
son of training and experience. The program, adminis­
tered by the Employment and Training Administration
of the U.S. Department of Labor, began in April 1976,
shortly after the 1973-75 recession. It is a mobility as­
sistance program for the unemployed.1
The Employment and Training Administration’s net­
work of local Employment Service offices provides the
administrative framework for the program. Forty select­
ed offices in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Ten­
nessee initially provided one of three different levels of
assistance. Level 1 offices provided information on outof-area jobs and long-distance telephone referral service.
Level 2 offices provided level 1 services and job search
grants (funds for reasonable travel expenses incurred in
visits for interviews). Level 3 offices provided level 1
and level 2 services and relocation grants (funds for
travel and moving to the location of the new job).
By 1980, 18 offices remained in operation, all provid­
ing level 3 services.
Charles F. Mueller is an economist at the Planning Economics
Group, Boston, and formerly at the Brookings Institution.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

a

Employment Service registrants were initially screened
according to unemployment or underemployment sta­
tus, regardless of the duration and reason for the status,
and for their response to a question about “willingness
to relocate” on the standard Employment Service regis­
tration form.2 Those not indicating willingness to relo­
cate were not informed of any of the Job Search and
Relocation Assistance program services. Enrollments
also partly depended on the judgments of the Employ­
ment Service staff who, intentionally or otherwise, try
to maximize the number of relocatees for their effort.
Thus, Employment Service registrants are likely to be
further screened by local staff on whether they are
“good prospects” for relocation.
An examination of the characteristics of Job Search
and Relocation Assistance enrollees and relocatees sug­
gests that there is screening by local staff. Further, the
screening appears to have been counterproductive in
that persons with the highest enrollment rates have the
lowest relocation rates. This is most apparent when
considering education and occupation. (See table 1.)
The Job Search and Relocation ratio (a group’s share in
total relocatees relative to its share in total enrollees) is
much higher for persons with 12 or fewer years of edu­
cation, than for those with more. And the ratio is much
lower for professionals and managers than for craftworkers and operatives. It seems that more relocatibns
would have been made if more enrollees had not more
than 12 years of education, or were operatives or
craftworkers.
The program’s ultimate success is yet to be deter­
mined, as data collection and program evaluation con­
tinue. No cost-benefit assessment is attempted here.
Nonetheless, some rough judgments of its performance
to date can be made. Although program enrollees and
comparison group members (Employment Service regis­
trants in selected offices where no relocation assistance
was offered) have similar characteristics, mobility was
much greater for enrollees, as table 1 indicates. This
was especially the case for the young, black persons,
men, and persons with lower levels of education.
The upgrading of services to level 3 led to greater in­
creases in Job Search and Relocation Assistance activi­
ties than did upgrading services from level 1 to level 2.
And, except for high-volume level 3 offices, the perfor­
mance of level 2 and level 3 offices was similar in terms

of relocation rates and relocations per office-month.
Further, the labor market results, employment and
wages for the relocatees, tended to be superior to those
for both nonmovers and other movers. Indeed, the aver­
age wage for relocatees was $5.84 per hour, and the
full-time employment rate was 82.6 percent, despite that
38 percent of the relocatees went to a single employer,
Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., where the aver­
age hourly wage was $4.46 and the employment rate
73.4 percent.
Cost per relocation was lower in the program’s sec­
ond year of operation than in the first, although it in­

Table 1. Characteristics of and relocation rates for Job
Search and Relocation Assistance participants, and
migration rates for comparison group members,
September 1979
J o b S e a rc h
C h a r a c t e r is t ic s

E n r o lle e s

R e lo c a t e e s

R e lo c a t io n

and

r a te

R e lo c a t io n
r a tio

Total ..........................

M ig r a t io n
ra te 2

1

5068

1345

27

12

M a le ...............
Fem ale...........

85
15

90
10

28
18

1.06
.67

12
12

Years of education:
Less than 1 2 . .
12 y e a rs .........
More than 12 ..

15
26
59

27
34
38

48
35
17

1.80
1.31
.64

12
10
14

Race:
White .............
Black .............
Other .............

72
26
1

66
32
1

24
33
19

.92
1.23
1.00

17
4
22

Welfare:
Yes ...............
No ..................

2
98

2
98

31
27

1.17
1.00

( 2)
( 2)

Previous migrant:
Yes ...............
No ..................

2
98

*
99

20
27

.75
1.01

( 2)
( 2)

Marital status:
M arried...........
Not married . . .

44
45

47
47

28
28

1.07
1.04

16
10

33

39
39

31
27
20
20
21

1.18
1.03
.80

11
15
15
12
9

14
11
18
19
46
37
27
45
75
45
41
16
38
38

.53
.42
.60
1.00
1.78
1.33
1.03
1.71
283
1.75
1.56
.60
1.41
1.45

Percent
Sex:

Age:
17 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 40
41 to 50
Over 50

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

Occupation:
Professional ..
Managerial . . .
C lerical...........
Sales .............
Craftworkers ..
Operatives . . .
Farmers .........
Farm labor . . .
Mining labor . .
Other labor .. .
Food...............
Personal.........
Protective . . . .
Building...........

38
10
13
6

38
12

8

10

5
20

5

5
3

2

2

23
6
( 3)
( 3)
( 3)

41

8

1
1
1
( 3)

8

( 3)
( 3)
( 3)
14
1
( 3)
2
( 3)

.77

.83

16
7

Characteristics of migrants
The migratory behavior of unemployed persons was
explored using data from the National Longitudinal
Survey, a historical profile of four age-sex cohorts be­
ginning in 1966. Because enrollees in Job Search and
Relocation Assistance were predominantly young men,
the study was of data from the National Longitudinal
Survey cohort of men age 14 to 24 in 1966, numbering
5,225. Unemployed persons, those without a job but
looking for work or with a job but on indefinite layoff
in the 1970 survey week, were considered “potentials”
for relocation.4 The following is a summary of the expe­
riences of migrants.

9

8

15

1Job Search and Relocation ratio is the percent of relocatees relative to the percent of
enrollees.
2 Data were not available by welfare status and previous migrant status for comparison
group members.
3 Less than .5 percent.
S ource : JSRA Third A n a lytica l Report, Washington, D.C., (U.S. Department of Labor, Em­
ployment and Training Administration, 1980), appendix and table 5-1.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

creased during the third year. Perhaps a more efficient
handling of job search efforts by Employment Service
staff was responsible for the second-year decrease. Lax
monitoring of non-program staff activities that were re­
munerated by the program may have contributed to the
third-year increase. As might be expected, the cost per
enrollee was higher for level 3 offices (except for the
high-volume ones) than for level 2 offices. The cost per
relocatee was also higher for level 3 offices, by about 75
percent. Regardless, scale economies seemed to charac­
terize level 3 services, in that the cost per relocatee was
only half that for level 2 offices in the two high-volume
level 3 offices.
Overall, the program seemed to have an impact on
mobility, and its performance apparently has improved
during its operation. Nonetheless, its operation raised
questions. Was the response to the “willingness to relo­
cate” question on the Employment Service registration
form an appropriate screening device? Should Employ­
ment Service staff, as a policy, have directed their en­
rollment efforts away from professionals and managers,
toward craftworkers and operatives? What role did job
search through friends and relatives have compared to
other methods, such as consulting Employment Service
listings of job openings?3 Did Job Search and Reloca­
tion Assistance merely assist moves that would other­
wise successfully have occurred? To shed light on these
and other questions on the mobility of job seekers, mi­
gratory experiences of the unemployed were analyzed,
using data different from that of the Job Search and Re­
location Assistance program.

Selectivity. Migrants tended to be on welfare rolls less
than nonmigrants. None of the unemployed migrants
and only 6 percent of all migrants received public assis­
tance or welfare; 14 percent of the unemployed non­
migrants received some public assistance or welfare.
The migration rate of unemployed professionals was
substantially greater than that for unemployed craftworkers and operatives.
Surprisingly, unemployed migrants whose economic
situation had worsened were no more prone to migrate
63

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Research Summaries
than those experiencing an improvement. Nonetheless,
migrants appeared to move from areas of poor econom­
ic opportunity. About half the migrants in both the un­
employed group and the total group originated in labor
market areas with low indexes of labor demand.
Willingness to relocate. The attitudinal variable of
whether a person was willing to relocate did not seem
to be a bellwether of migration. More than half of all
movers indicated unwillingness to relocate. Even those
whose financial position had worsened were unwilling.
Migrant craftworkers and operatives, who had lower
migration rates than professionals and managers, were
much more likely to indicate willingness than migrant
professionals and managers.
Having a job lined up. The risks of moving were certain­
ly tied to whether a migrant had both a job lined up
before moving and friends and relatives at the destina­
tion. Unemployed migrants seemingly took greater risks
than other migrants—half of the unemployed did not
have a job lined up before they moved, compared with
38 percent of all migrants. About half the migrants
moved to areas where there were friends or relatives.
And migrants without job prospects tended to move to
areas where there were friends or relatives.
Migrants without job prospects seemed to move to
satisfactory destinations. About half of both unem­
ployed and other migrants found work in less than 2
weeks. An additional 20 percent found work in 2 to 4
weeks, and approximately 90 percent were working
within 3 months. Unemployed migrants without job
prospects tended to find work in less time after the
move than they spent looking for work before the
move. Overall, migrants without job prospects tended
to move further than those with a job lined up.
Motive. Economic incentives played a large role in the
migration of the unemployed, 56 percent compared with
38 percent of all migrants. Perhaps because unemployed
migrants tended, more so than other migrants, to tie
moving to expectations of landing a job rather than to

more certain concerns such as the presence of family,
their evaluations of the moves were less favorable. Only
6 percent of all migrants felt that the move was a bad
idea, but about one-third of the unemployed migrants
felt as such.

Implications for program’s future
Based on the information on the willingness of unem­
ployed persons to migrate, it seems that Job Search and
Relocation Assistance policy of restricting enrollment to
persons willing to relocate may be overly exclusionary.
More than half of the migrants who responded to an at­
titudinal question on mobility indicated unwillingness.
Additionally, it seems prudent not to encourage the en­
rollment of craftworkers at the expense of enrolling pro­
fessionals and managers. Although the relocation rates
of craftworkers and operatives were higher, their migra­
tion rate was less than that of professionals. Also, be­
cause friends and relatives at the destination are an
important factor in the migration of those unemployed
and without a job lined up, the program should contin­
ue to encourage the use of such contacts in placing relocatees.
The above observations suggest that unemployed
migrants relocate more than other migrants in response
to their economic circumstances, and that they take
risks when doing so. And the risks associated with
long-distance movement and not having a job waiting
are greater for unemployed migrants than for others. To
allay these risks, unemployed migrants rely upon the
support mechanisms provided by friends and relatives.
However, as might be expected when decisions are more
risky and outcomes more variant, unemployed migrants,
more than others, view their moves as disappointments.
Overall, the disappointing moves made by unem­
ployed migrants point to the potential usefulness of a
national program like Job Search and Relocation Assis­
tance, which could reduce the risks of moving for the
unemployed by providing the certainty of having a job
already waiting. The result would likely be more in­
formed choices and fewer disappointments than at pres­
ent.
□

FOOTNOTES

' Job Search and Relocation Assistance is only the most recent of
several mobility demonstration projects. For example, the Mississippi
Labor Mobility Project moved nearly 2,500 individuals and their fam­
ilies during the late 1960’s. See, Cilia J. Reesman and David R.
Zimmerman, “Worker Relocation 1965-72: A Review of the Research
and Operations Findings of MDTA Experimental and Demonstration
Projects,” (Springfield, Va. National Technical Information Service,
1975.)
: Initially, the registrant needed to have been laid-off and not work­
ing for at least 30 days. These conditions were deemed to be too re­
strictive by project staff and were relaxed.
'Two employment service listings, Job Bank Openings Summary

64


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(JBOS) and Job Bank Frequently Listed Openings (JOB-FLO), were
available to Job Search and Relocation Assistance enrollees. They ap­
peared to be used less successfully in relocation, than other techniques
such as enrollees’ contacts. Because JBOS and JOB-FLO were not
successful resources, an on-line Data Retrieval System (DRS) was
established for Job Search and Relocation Assistance purposes.
Though DRS has improved the quality of job listings, its usefulness
in providing job openings to relocatees is yet to be assessed.
4 Using our characterization of unemployed-employed, the unem­
ployment rate in the sample was 3 percent during 1970; whereas the
national average was 4.9 percent. Alternative characterizations of un­
employment were explored and yielded roughly the same sample rate.

M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
T h is lis t o f c o lle c t iv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n ts e x p ir in g in M a y is b a s e d o n c o n tr a c ts o n f ile in th e
B u r e a u ’s O f f ic e o f W a g e s an d I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s . T h e lis t in c lu d e s a g r e e m e n ts c o v e r in g 1 ,0 0 0
w o r k e r s or m o r e .

E m p lo y e r a n d lo c a t i o n

In d u stry

U n io n

1

N u m b er of
w orkers

Allied Construction Employers Association, Inc. (W isc o n sin ).....................
Alterman Foods, Inc. ( I n te r s ta te ) .........................................................................
American Hoist & Derrick Co. (St. Paul, M in n .)..............................................
A nthracite O perators (P en n sy lv an ia)...................................................................
Associated General C ontractors of America, Inc.: Colorado Chapter . . . .
Rhode Island C h a p t e r .........................................................................................
Western Central Area Chapter (W ash in g to n )................................................
Wisconsin Chapter ..............................................................................................
Association of Telephone Answering Services, Inc. (New York, N.Y.) . . .
Associated Brick Mason Contractors of Greater New York
(New York, N.Y.)
Associated Mechanical Contractors of Chattanooga, Inc. (Interstate) . . . .

C o n stru ctio n ................................
Retail trade ................................
Machinery ...................................
M in in g ...........................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
Services ........................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................

Iron Workers ...........................................
Food and Commercial W o r k e r s ...........
Machinists ................................................
Mine Workers ( I n d .) ................................
L a b o re rs ......................................................
Carpenters ................................................
Carpenters ................................................
Operating E n g in e e rs................................
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Bricklayers ................................................

C o n stru ctio n ................................

Plumbers

...................................................

1,200

Brewery Proprietors of Milwaukee, Miller-Pabst-Schlitz (Wisconsin) . . . .
Building Construction Agreement (Colorado)- ................................................

Food products ...........................
C o n stru ctio n ................................

Brewery Workers (D .A .L .U .)................
Teamsters (Ind.) ......................................

3,500
1,900

Colonial Stores, Inc. (I n te rs ta te )...........................................................................
Colorado Contractors Association, Inc..................................................................
Construction Employers Labor Relations Association (New York, N.Y.) .
Construction Industry Employers Association, 3 Agreements (New York)
Construction Employers of the Hudson Valley, Inc., and 1 other
(New York)
Crown Zellerbach Corporation (Camas, Wash.) ..............................................
Cummins Engine Co., Inc. (Columbus, Ind.) ...................................................

Retail trade ................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................
C o n stru ctio n ................................

Food and Commercial W o r k e r s ...........
L a b o re rs ......................................................
Carpenters ................................................
Laborers; Carpenters; and Iron Workers
Carpenters ................................................

2,200
1,200
1,800
3,700
1,500

P a p e r ..............................................
Machinery ...................................

Western Pulp and Paperworkers (Ind.)
Diesel Workers ( I n d . ) .............................

2,250
6,700

Dow Chemical Co., Texas Division (Texas)

......................................................

C h em icals.....................................

Operating E n g in e e rs................................

2,050

Erwin Mills (D urham, N.C.) .................................................................................

Textiles ........................................

Textile W o rk e rs ........................................

1,200

General Building Contractors Association, Inc. (Pennsylvania) ...................
General Telephone Co. of Northwest-W est Coast Telephone of California .
Great Western Sugar Co. (In te rsta te )...................................................................
Greater New York Association of Meat and Poultry Dealers, Inc., and
1 other (New York)

C o n stru ctio n ................................
C om m unication...........................
Food products ...........................
Wholesale t r a d e ...........................

Carpenters ................................................
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
Teamsters (Ind.) ......................................
Food and Commercial Workers ...........

7,000
3,800
3,500
2,600

Hercules, Inc. (Hopewell, Va.) ..............................................................................
Hinky-Dinky Supermarkets, Inc. (Omaha, Nebr.) ...........................................
Howmet Corp., Misco Division and 3 others (Muskegon County, Mich.) .

C hem icals......................................
Retail trade ................................
Transportation equipment . . . .

Mine Workers (I n d .) ................................
Food and Commercial W o r k e r s ...........
Auto Workers ( I n d .) ................................

1,000
2,000
2,000

Independent Employers-Mason Tenders of Greater New York
(New York, N .Y .)2
Independent Non-Association Restaurant Employers (Seattle, W ash.)2 . . .
Industrial Launderers, Cleaners Association and Linen Companies
(M ichigan)2
Illinois Regional Insulation C ontractors Association ......................................

C o n stru ctio n ................................

L a b o re rs ......................................................

5,000

Restaurants ................................
Services ........................................

2,500
1,700

C o n stru ctio n ................................

Hotel and Restaurant Employees . . . .
Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House
Workers
Asbestos Workers ...................................

Kroger Co., A tlanta Division (Georgia, Tennessee, and A la b a m a ) .............

Retail trade

Food and Commercial W o r k e r s ...........

2,800

Longview Fibre Co. (Longview, W a s h .) ..............................................................

P a p e r ..............................................

Western Pulp and Paperworkers (Ind.)

1,550

M ARBA of Chicago & Vicinity, 3 other Associations (Illin o is )...................
Martin M arietta Aluminum, Inc. (Torrance, C a l if .) ........................................
McDonnell Douglas Corp. (Missduri) ................................................................
Metro Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Constractors (Minnesota)
Munsingwear, Inc. (I n te r s ta te ) ..............................................................................
See footnotes at end of table.

C o n stru ctio n ................................
Primary metals ...........................
Transportation equipment . . . .
C o n stru ctio n ................................
Textiles ........................................

Laborers; and Carpenters .....................
Steelworkers ..............................................
Machinists ................................................
Plumbers ...................................................
Clothing and Textile Workers .............

11,000
1,350
9,300
1,200
1,200


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

................................

1,250
2,450
1,200
2,000
4,500
7,700
11,500
1,050
1,200
2,500

1,000
1,100

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Continued— Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
E m p lo y e r an d lo c a tio n

In d u stry

N u m ber of

U n io n 1

w orkers

National Tea Co., Standard Grocery Division (Illin o is)...................................
National Electrical C ontractors Association, 2 Agreements (Interstate) . . .
Nestle Co., Inc. (Fulton N.Y.) ...........................................................................

Retail t r a d e ...................................
C o n stru c tio n ................................
Food p ro d u c ts ..............................

Food and Commercial Workers ...........
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................
Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store

1,100
7,300
1,100

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Newark, Ohio) ..............................................

Stone, clay, and glass products . Glass Bottle B lo w ers ................................

2,050

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. (Interstate) ...................................................
Plumbing & Heating C ontractors Association of Lake-McHenry, and others
(Illinois)
PPG Industries, Inc., Chemical Division (Lake Charles, L a . ) ........................
Printing Industries of Northern California .........................................................

Stone, clay, and glass products . Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers . . .
C o n stru c tio n ................................

1,400
3,650

C h e m ic a ls......................................
Printing and p u b lish in g .............

M ac h in ists...................................................
G raphic A r t s ..............................................

1,250
1,200

Restaurant Association of the State of W ashington, King County Chapter
(King County, Wash.)
Roofing & Sheet Metal Contractors Association (Pennsylvania and
New Jersey)

R e s ta u ra n ts ...................................

Hotel and Restaurant Employees

....

1,500

C o n s tru c tio n ................................

Sheet Metal W o rk e rs ................................

1,500

P a p e r ..............................................

Western Pulp and Paperworkers (Ind.) .

R e s ta u ra n ts ...................................

Hotel and Restaurant Employees

Tecumseh Products Co., Tecumseh Division (M ic h ig a n )................................

M achinery......................................

1,900

Toledo Edison Co. (Toledo, O h io ) .........................................................................

Utilities

........................................

Tecumseh Products W orkers of
Tecumseh, Michigan (Ind.)
Electrical Workers (IBEW) ...................

U nderground Contractors Association (I n te r s ta te )...........................................

C o n s tru c tio n ................................

L a b o r e r s ......................................................

1,600

Ventilating and Air Conditioning C ontractors Association of Chicago
(Illinois)

C o n s tru c tio n ................................

Sheet Metal W o rk e rs ................................

5,300

Wholesale Bakers Group, Machine Shop (California) ......................................

Food p ro d u c ts ..............................

1,650

Wisconsin Association of Public W orks Contractors, and 1 other
(Wisconsin)

C o n s tru c tio n ................................

Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco
Workers
L a b o r e r s ......................................................

S. D. Warren Co., Division of Scott Paper Co. (Westbrook, M a in e ) ...........
Scott Paper Co., Packaged Products Division (Everett, W a s h .)......................
Seattle Department Stores Association Inc. (W a sh in g to n )..............................
Seattle Restaurant Association and Seattle Hotel Association (Washington)
SM ACNA M etropolitan Detroit Chapter (M ic h ig a n )......................................

1Affiliated with A FL -C IO except where noted as independent (Ind.).
-Industry area (group of companies signing same contract).

66


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

....

1 ?00
1,250
i son
5,000
1 800

1,050

2,000

Developments in
Industrial Relations
AFL-CIO offers plan to aid economy
The major item of business at the AFL-CIO Executive
Council’s winter meeting was the adoption of a plan for
countering inflation and unemployment. The Council
contended that the plan could attain the goals through
“true equality of sacrifice” by all Americans. According
to thé Council, President’s Reagan’s proposals for stabi­
lizing the economy, which center on cuts in Federal tax­
es, spending, and regulatory controls, would require
“more sacrifice from those who have little” and would
primarily benefit wealthy corporations and individuals.
The Executive Council’s plan called for—
•

•
•
•

•

•

An income tax rebate equal to 20 percent of a work­
er’s share of social security contributions and 5 per­
cent of the employer’s share.
Selective tax reductions to aid industries hardhit by
economic conditions.
Continuation of “basic income-support programs for
the unemployed, the poor, and the elderly.”
A reduction in inflation through credit controls, spe­
cific steps to hold down energy price increases, and
government measures to make housing more afford­
able.
Public sector jobs for adult and youth workers to
provide new skills and increase employment oppor­
tunities.
A study of investment tax credits for business to as­
sure the best possible results.

In other resolutions, the Executive Council called for
indexing the Federal minimum wage by keeping it at a
constant percentage of average hourly earnings in man­
ufacturing; for adoption of trade policies including im­
mediate import relief for domestic automobile manu­
facturers and their parts suppliers; and for revamping of
marketing agreements and import restraints in other in­
dustries. The Executive Council also established a com­
mittee to seek ways to give stronger support to political
candidates favored by organized labor.

Container contracts feature ‘justice on the job’
About 20,000 workers were covered by a settlement
between the Steelworkers and four major can companies

“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee
Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on in­
formation from secondary sources.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

that, reportedly, will set a pattern for settlements with
other container companies. The contracts contain a
“justice and dignity on the job” clause described by the
union as a first in any of its contracts. This clause re­
quires the employer to keep an employee on the payroll
until the final resolution of any grievance challenging a
dismissal or suspension action. According to the union,
the wage and benefit provisions of the new contracts are
comparable to those in its 1980 settlements with basic
steel, aluminum, and copper companies. (See Monthly
Labor Review, November 1980, p. 51; August 1980, pp.
49-50; and June 1980, pp. 55-56.)
The 3-year accord with American Can Co., Continen­
tal Can Co., National Can Corp., and Crown Cork &
Seal Co., Inc., provided for an initial wage increase
ranging from 25 cents for employees in the lowest pay
grade to 49 cents for those in the highest grade. In
March 1982, the workers will receive a 20- to 44-cent
increase, followed by a 15- to 27-cent increase a year
later. Combined, the three increases average 87.5 cents.
The cost-of-living clause was retained without change.
It provides for quarterly adjustments of 1 cent an hour
for each 0.3-point movement in the BLS Consumer Price
Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(1967=100).
Pensions for future retirees were increased, in steps,
by a total of $4 a month for each year of credited ser­
vice, bringing the range to $17.50-$21.50 (varying ac­
cording to pre-retirement pay rates). Pensions also were
increased for current retirees, ranging from a 70-percent
increase ($140-$ 145 a month) for those who retired pri­
or to 1964 to 8 percent for those who retired just before
the effective date of the new contract.
Other provisions included a $59- to $71-a-week in­
crease in sickness and accident benefits over the con­
tract term and improvements in insurance benefits.

Two western coal producers settle
The United Mine Workers settled with two
bituminous coal mine operators for Western operations,
but there was no indication of how much the 3-year ac­
cords might influence the bargaining between the union
and the Bituminous Coal Operators Association
(BCOA) for 120,000 Eastern miners. An official of a
major coal producer said the Western settlements were
“bound to have an impact” on the BCOA talks; however,
union president Sam Church said that the settlements
will have “nothing to do with the Eastern talks.”
The first settlement, which covered about 350 em­
ployees of Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co. in
67

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Developments in Industrial Relations
Gallup, N. Mex., and Steamboat Springs, Colo., set a
pattern for an accord with Peabody Coal Co. for 950
workers at 5 mines in Colorado, Arizona, and Mon­
tana. The Peabody accord was preceded by a 1-month
strike. Bargaining was continuing with 10 other West­
ern operators.
The Pittsburgh & Midway agreement provided for a
$1.20-an-hour immediate wage increase and for a
65-cent increase in February of 1982 and 1983. The
contract did not provide for automatic cost-of-living ad­
justments linked to the movement of the BLS Consumer
Price Index, but the workers will receive six quarterly
wage increases (the first in February 1981) of 18 cents
an hour, followed by two quarterly increases of 19
cents. (One of the union’s major demands in the BCOA
talks was for restoration of the cost-of-living clause that
had been terminated by the 1978 settlement. (See
Monthly Labor Review, May 1978, p. 69.)
Other terms of the Pittsburgh & Midway agreement,
which expires in February 1984, included 30- and
40-cent-an-hour differentials for the night shifts (former­
ly 25 and 30 cents); two additional paid personal or
sick leave days, bringing the total to 7 a year; 14 days
of pay (formerly 13) under the basic vacation provision,
which continued to provide for 14 consecutive days off,
including 10 work days; $185 a year clothing allowance
(was $150); a three-step increase in the $150 a week
sickness and accident benefit, bringing it to $200 in the
third contract year; $25,000 life insurance (was
$12,000); a two-step increase in pensions for future re­
tirees that will bring the benefit to $18 a month for
each of the first 10 years of service, $18.50 for each of
the next 10 years, $19 for each of the next 10 years, and
$19.50 for each year of service in excess of 30 (the pre­
vious rates were $13.50, $14, $14.50, and $15, respec­
tively); a flat $25-a-month increase in pensions for
current retirees; adoption of the same contributory den­
tal plan that covers employees of the parent Gulf Oil
Corp.; and adoption of the same eye care plan that the
union and the BCOA established in 1978.

Utility workers end 8-week walkout
One of the longest utility strikes in U.S. history end­
ed when Northern Indiana Public Service Co. and the
Steelworkers settled. During the 8-month walkout, the
company maintained gas and electric service in the
30-county area by using its 2,000 supervisory employ­
ees. One of the major issues prolonging the strike was
the company’s disciplining of 16 strikers for alleged
misconduct. Under the settlement, 11 of the workers
will be suspended for 30 to 60 days and the fate of the
other five will be decided by binding arbitration.
The 40-month contract provided the 4,200 workers
with wage increases of 6 percent on February 2, 1981,
68


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

5.5 percent on June 1, 1981, 4 percent on June 1, 1982,
and 3 percent on June 1, 1983. In addition, the workers
received a 37-cent-an-hour immediate cost-of-living ad­
justment, the 98 cents in adjustments that was accrued
under the previous contract (which expired May 31,
1980) was incorporated into base wage rates, and there
was provision for continued quarterly adjustments. Pri­
or to the settlement, the average wage was reportedly
$8.95 an hour.
Other improvements included a 1- to 5-day increase
in paid vacations; $14,000 life insurance (formerly
$12,000); $250,000 major medical coverage (formerly
$50,000); adoption of company-financed vision and den­
tal care benefits; and increased pensions for current and
future retirees.
George Washington’s birthday was added as a paid
holiday, but two “personal” holidays were terminated,
reducing the total to 11 days a year. The union also
agreed to cuts in meal allowances and changes in work
rules and overtime pay provisions that will reduce labor
costs.

Realty Advisory Board, Service Employees settle
About 30,000 employees of commercial buildings in
New York City were covered by a settlement between
the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations and the
Service Employees union. The 3-year contract provided
for general wage increases of $26 a week in January
1981, $27 in January 1982, and $28 in January 1983,
and for an additional $2 on each date for employees in
certain classifications. The cost-of-living clause, which
was continued, provides for possible pay adjustments in
January of 1982 and 1983, depending on the movement
of the BLS Consumer Price Index for New York CityNortheastern New Jersey.
Other terms included an increase in the maximum
pension to $300 a month; an increase in life insurance
to $8,000; improved dental benefits; establishment of a
prescription drug plan; and increased employer contri­
butions to the union’s training and safety fund.
The union said that it won changes in layoff proce­
dures. The accord covered maintenance workers, security
guards, porters, and elevator starters and operators.

Montgomery Ward cuts pensions of future retirees
Montgomery Ward & Co. announced a reduction in
pension rates for future retirees to slow down the cost of
its retirement plan. The company said that its annual
pension costs had risen 123 percent (to $52.3 million)
from 1975 to 1980, compared with a 71.6-percent rise
(to $315 million) for all other benefits, including re­
quired social security contributions. It estimated that the
pension changes will cut costs by $20 million in 1981.

Under the revisions, which apply to employees retir­
ing after 1984, annual pensions will be calculated at
2.25 percent of average annual pre-retirement earnings
for each year of service after that year. The portion of
their pension based on any earlier service will be calcu­
lated by using the 2.5 percent rate that previously ap­
plied to all service. Employees retiring after 1984 will
also be adversely affected by a change in the provision
for offsetting pensions by the amount of primary social
benefits. This offset will be reduced by 1.5 percent for
each year of credited service, compared with the current
2-percent reduction.
In a change favorable to workers, eligibility for nor­
mal retirement was lowered to age 63, from 65. In
keeping with this change, the age at which an employee
may enter the plan was reduced to age 21, from 25.
There was no change in the employee contribution rate
of 3 percent of earnings.
Montgomery Ward also made changes in other bene­
fits for its 40,000 employees. The employee contribution
for health insurance was reduced from $10 to $7.50 a
month for individual coverage and from $20 to $15 for
family coverage. Also, eligibility for 3 weeks of paid va­
cation was reduced to 5 years of service, from 7.
There also were cost reduction developments at a
competitor, as Sears, Roebuck & Co. announced that
1,483 of 2,474 mid- and upper-level executives had ac­
cepted a one-time offer of early retirement. As of Janu­
ary 1, 1981, employees retiring between the ages of 55
and 62 receive half pay for 3 years and those age 63 re­
ceive half pay until age 65. At age 65, retirees in both
categories will begin to receive their normal pension.
Sears officials said that the action, combined with
mergers of various operations, will reduce the executive
staff by 8 percent and reduce costs by about $125 mil­
lion a year. Sears also expects the early retirement move
to aid its affirmative action plan by creating promotion
opportunities.

Teamsters locals accept work-rule changes
Members of two Teamsters locals reversed their ini­
tial decision and accepted work-rule changes proposed
by Yellow Freight Systems’ St. Louis terminal. The
company had threatened to lay off 400 drivers following
the first vote, contending that the existing work rules
limited productivity. The feature of the settlement was a
provision terminating premium pay for scheduled non­
overtime weekend work.
In recent months, a number of organized trucking
companies have asked the Teamsters for relief on work


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

rules and pay rates, contending that they are unable to
compete with numerous nonunion firms that entered the
industry after deregulation. Although a few firms did
win relief, the Teamsters turned down an industry re­
quest for a reopening of their contract on these issues.
(See Monthly Labor Review, November 1980, p. 51.)

Steps taken to abolish wage-price council
In late January, President Reagan carried out a cam­
paign promise to terminate the authority of the Council
on Wage and Price Stability to monitor wage and price
movements. In addition to issuing an Executive Order
ending the monitoring, the President also moved to
abolish the agency by asking Congress to rescind ap­
propriated operating funds.
The council had already severely restricted its activi­
ties. In September 1980, it said its monitoring of wages
and prices had moderated the rate of inflation some­
what but that the program should be re-evaluated. The
council then extended the guidelines for 1 year from the
September 30 expiration date, but specified that union
and management would be expected to adhere to the
standards only until the end of 1980.
The council’s annual report assessing the results of its
anti-inflation program concluded that the program had
been largely thwarted because it had been based on
slowing inflation during a period of relatively slack la­
bor and product markets resulting from “fiscal and
monetary restraint— the principal ingredients of any ra­
tional anti-inflation policy.” However, the expected
1979 slowdown in the economy did not occur, which
meant that the agency was faced with controlling “an
inflationary surge fueled by excess demand, and a
worldwide surge in commodity prices,” a job “it was
never intended to perform.” The report also concluded
that the program had achieved some success in “pre­
venting a bad situation from becoming worse.” For ex­
ample, over the pay standards 2 year lifetime, it had
directly reduced pay increases about 1 percentage point
and had reduced price increases by a maximum of half
a percentage point. But the council conceded that the
wage standards had produced a distortion by permit­
ting workers covered by cost-of-living clauses to receive
larger pay increases than those who were not covered.
This could negate the beneficial effects of the pay guide­
lines if the workers not covered by cost-of-living provi­
sions win catch-up wage increases.
The Council on Wage and Price Stability was
established in 1974 but assumed responsibility for moni­
toring formal wage and price guidelines in 1978.
□

69

Book Reviews
A history of the forgotten laborers
Women at Work: The Transformation of Work and
Community in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1826-1860.
By Thomas Dublin. New York, Columbia Univer­
sity Press, 1979, 312 pp. $17.50.
Wage-Earning Women: Industrial Work and Family Life
in the United States, 1900-1930. By Leslie Wood­
cock Tentler. New York, Oxford University Press,
1979, 226 pp. $14.95.
Now, more married women work outside the home
than are full-time housewives. Of even greater social im­
portance, women are now entering occupations that re­
quire extensive periods of training and long-term
commitment. These apparently dramatic changes have
motivated historians to explore the past economic role
of women and to seek the causes of these recent trans­
formations. But for most of American history, the labor
force participation rate of white married women has
been low. Furthermore, these women have been a small
fraction (less than 15 percent in 1900) of the total fe­
male labor force.
The history of female labor in the United States is
primarily the saga of young, single women who were
predominantly, but not exclusively, “the daughters of
the working class” (Tentler, p. 1). They are forgotten
laborers, because their working lives were but brief in­
terludes between their childhood and motherhood. They
were not vocal participants in the American labor
movement, and their union membership was almost al­
ways small. But their market work may have altered
and strongly influenced their own lives. They may have
married later, had fewer children, and been socialized
differently from women who did not work. Their in­
comes may have enabled their own mothers to remain
in the household, and their ability to earn may have en­
hanced their independence within their parents’ homes.
Because change did occur, their experiences may help us
understand why the female labor force eventually aged,
became more educated, and was transformed in a myri­
ad of related ways.
History does repeat itself, and many past generations
have also commented on the changing economic role of
women. In 1893, Richard T. Ely wrote in a preface to a
book on working women that the “importance of this
subject . . . cannot well be overestimated. Our age may

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

properly be called the Era of Woman, because every­
thing which affects her receives consideration quite un­
known in past centuries.” (Helen Campbell, Women
Wage Earners: Their Past, Their Present, and Their Fu­
ture, Boston, 1893.) A decade and a half later Edith
Abbott justified her book, Women in Industry, with the
statement that “public opinion in this country has been
recently concerned with the increase in gainful employ­
ment among women.” ( Women in Industry: A Study in
American Economic History, New York, D. Appleton
and Co., 1910). Just as each generation has recognized
that women have always worked, each has highlighted
change and sought its origins. It is within this frame­
work of continual examination and reinterpretation that
both Thomas Dublin’s Women at Work, which was
awarded the 1980 Bancroft Prize in history, and Leslie
Woodcock Tentler’s Wage-Earning Women should be
read.
Although Tentler argues that the period covered by
her book, “the decades between 1900 and 1930” were
“a first and critical chapter in the history of modern
female industrial employment (p. 3), it is with Dublin’s
work that this history more justifiably begins. The ori­
gins of the sexual segregation of industrial jobs, of the
low relative wage of women, and of their weak
bargaining position in the labor market are found al­
most a century before Tentler’s history begins. Unlike
Tentler’s study, which focuses on large cities and by im­
plication “modern” industry, Dublin’s Lowell is an in­
dustrial town, not a city with industry. The America of
his study was predominantly agricultural. Industrial
employment was the exception for most male laborers
but was, in many localities, the sole paid employment
for women and children. Lowell and economically simi­
lar towns of its day were unique by early 19th century
standards. But the composition of their labor force and
the types of work that were performed in their industry
are historically significant, both as departures from agri­
cultural employment, the dominant economic activity of
the time, and as harbingers of more extensive industrial
employment.
Women and children were more important as a per­
centage of total industrial employment in 1840 than
they have been at any time thereafter. Furthermore,
more than one-third of the young women in the indus­
trial counties of Massachusetts, particularly in Middle­
sex, which included Lowell, were employed in man­

ufacturing, primarily in the cotton, wool, paper, and
boot and shoe industries, with the cotton industry
employing almost 40 percent of female industrial work­
ers. Therefore, a detailed social history of female cotton
textile workers during the decades preceding the Civil
War should reveal much about the origins of paid em­
ployment for women.
Dublin has written a successful history, partly be­
cause he has used both quantitative sources and
impressionistic materials. His work is not an economic
or a quantitative history; it is a social history informed
by data. Dublin has meticulously traced female employ­
ment in the Hamilton Co. from the cotton mill records
housed in Harvard’s Baker Library and the U.S. Feder­
al Population Census manuscripts and local censuses
for three critical dates— 1836, 1850, and 1860. Al­
though other economic historians have used the Baker
Library records, only Dublin’s work links data on mari­
tal status, age, residence, and family background to
those on earnings and mill experience. Together with a
wide variety of other sources, he is able to describe the
social impact of industrial employment on the age at
first marriage, traditional family life, migration, and on
various aspects of socialization. Dublin finds that millhands married later than was customary at that time,
thereby raising the issue of the overall effect of industri­
al employment on the secular increase during the 19th
century in the age at first marriage. Young women re­
sided in boardinghouses (almost 90 percent of those
employed by the Hamilton Co. in 1836 did) under strict
surveillance, and kin and friendship ties within the
boardinghouse were an important part of socialization
(the close bonds among the young women were a criti­
cal factor in the cohesiveness of the labor movement of
the 1840’s). Dublin’s descriptions of the strict regula­
tions governing the social lives of the millhands and
their own “unwritten code of moral conduct” are remi­
niscent of pre-1970 college life for women, although
Dublin views them as unique. Regulations were not the
only common feature of college and boardinghouse life:
many of the women of the Lowell boardinghouses were
so educated that they published a literary magazine.
Manufacturing employment in the pre-1850 period
was commonly viewed (from outside the factory) as
wholesome and productive for young women and chil­
dren. But Lucy Larcom and her compatriots worked 11
to 12 hours per day over 300 days a year, and it was
only after the labor unrest which began in the 1840’s
that these mills were seen as dark, satanic fortresses.
Labor historians will be particularly interested in these
detailed sections on the success of early collective action
and its eventual demise with the influx of Irish workers.
Dublin’s book is not merely a social history of work­
ing women, it also deals with the complex forces that
led both to the substitution of men and boys for female

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

industrial labor and to the decline in the employment of
native-born white females. His data clearly indicate a
rapid shift from native-born laborers to immigrants,
particularly the Irish, in the late 1840’s. They also show
that the employment of boys and men rose, and that
the wages for young women plateaued and possibly fell
in real terms. Dublin does not adequately analyze the
factors causing these labor market changes but instead
uses them to lend substance to his social history.
Women at Work is refreshing, a fine combination of
old and new methods and materials. Dublin has written
a dynamic work in terms of both the lives of the indi­
vidual millhands and the composition of the cotton mill
labor force. This study of Lowell, 1826 to 1860, clearly
shows that the modern economic role of women has
evolved in a complex and noncontinuous fashion over a
long period of time.
Tentler’s study, like Dublin’s, is a social history—an
inquiry into the lives and work of female wage-earners
in the early 20th century. By 1900 to 1930, the majority
of the American population had become urban, indus­
try had migrated from towns like Lowell and was con­
centrated in large cities, and the range of industrial em­
ployment for women had enlarged. But the fundamental
characteristics of the female labor force and the nature
of their jobs remained largely unaltered. They were still
primarily young, single, and unskilled, and their work
was task oriented, sexually segregated, and promised lit­
tle advancement. Perhaps the most important change
during the preceding century was an increase in the nu­
merical importance of female industrial workers. As the
urban population grew, the percentage of young women
who worked in industry greatly expanded, and the pos­
sibility that married women would work in industry in­
creased as well. Social concern mounted—married
working women might deprive their children of care,
young women might work in unsafe environments, and
women living in large cities apart from their families
might become public nuisances. Progressive sentiment
and the statistical approach to labor reform begun by
Carroll Wright, first when he was Commissioner of La­
bor in Massachusetts and later when he assumed vari­
ous Federal posts, combined to produce a spate of
studies on female workers. Public agencies at both State
and Federal levels, along with private foundations, pro­
duced hundreds of reports on the condition of workers,
based primarily on microlevel surveys of the workers
and their families. Tentler rests much of her book on re­
ports dating from 1900 to 1930, and her bibliography
provides a valuable and full account of this literature.
Although these reports are based on careful statistical
surveys, most of them containing large samples, they
are not entirely objective. Each was produced to expose
a particular problem, and each was couched in its own
rhetoric. Of course, each contains important and reveal71

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Book Reviews
ing data, but only when interpreted within the proper
context. Tender has chosen to use these sources to de­
scribe the harshness of industrial employment and the
poverty of the working class. But her description of
working class life during 1900 to 1930 is so grim that
by implication, life in 1830, when per capita real income
was one-quarter its 1930 value, must certainly have
been unbearable. Dublin’s study as well as the research
of economic historians do not support such a conclu­
sion.
Despite these biases, Tentler’s analyses of the role of
industrial work in socialization, in the sexual division of
labor, and in power relationships within the family are
sensitive. Tentler suggests that many working daughters
had enhanced power in dealing with their parents,
“power . . . most often used to gain greater personal
freedom during the years preceding marriage’’ (p. 82).
The fact that many young women were “On their Own”
(the title of ch. V) indicates that an amiable accord was
not always struck within the home. The financial inse­
curity of old age led many parents to depend upon their
children to augment family income and such a strategy
frequently led to an underinvestment in the education
of both boys and girls. (Readers familiar with the work
of Michael Anderson, for example, will gain from relat­
ing these issues to the larger topic of the impact of in­
dustrialization on the traditional family.)
Although these women may have wielded power
within their own homes, they were to Tentler, powerless
in the labor market. Their “unique subordination” was
a product of their brief working lives, reinforced by so­
cietal norms and discrimination. But working class life
was harsh for both men and women and for children of
both sexes, and Tentler insufficiently disentangles the
problems of sex from the problems of poverty.
Elements of change during the period 1900 to 1930
echoed those.described by Dublin for 1830 to 1860. The
immigration of unskilled men once again reduced rela­
tive wages for women; the primary employer had
changed—it was the clothing industry instead of the
cotton industry— but the economic forces were similar.
Technological change had resulted in the continuous
flow process, for example, in cigarettes and in food, re­
moving many of the piecework jobs that women had
occupied. But of greater importance were the changes
that hinted of an evolution of occupations and of alter­
ations in social status. Clerical work came of age during
the brief period from 1910 to 1920, and the 1920’s were
a decade of social change too complex to be neatly
summarized.
Social and economic commentators of the early 20th
century were as struck by their perceptions of a chang­
ing role for women as we are today with ours. But
Tentler’s portrait of wage-earning women during this
period is static; the harsh and discriminatory aspects of
72


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

the labor market overpower the subtle clues of the even­
tual transformation.
These two books have much in common. They pose
similar questions concerning the role of work in the
lives of individual women and their role as a group in
labor history. They are also both part of a larger set of
works grappling with an issue of current importance—
the meaning of recent change in the economic role of
women. History warns us to be cautious, and caution is
the fundamental message of both books.
— C laudia G oldin
Associate Professor of Economics
University of Pennsylvania

Policymaking with a dash of realism

Making Foreign Economic Policy. By I. M. Destler.
Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1980. 244
pp.
I. M. Destler has delivered a detailed analysis of the
process of foreign economic policymaking using a “bu­
reaucratic politics” model. His analytic method, which
has long been used in studies of national security issues,
sees policy as the resolution of the competition among
bureaucratic interests for power and influence. The
model, which was adopted by international relations
specialists as a reaction to oversimplified analyses that
assumed that foreign policy was made by a rational ac­
tor in the business of maximizing some unitary concept
of “national interest,” injects a healthy realism to stud­
ies of any policy decision. However, in foreign affairs it
seems better suited to studies of national security* and
defense policy, where nongovernmental actors are rela­
tively minor influences, than to foreign economic policy
where major domestic interest groups (such as orga­
nized labor) and semiautonomous transnational eco­
nomic agents (such as multinational corporations) are
involved. I would argue that as traditional foreign poli­
cy analysis benefited from the bureaucratic politics
model’s supersedence of the rational actor paradigm,
foreign economic policy would benefit from an even
more general polycentric model that explicitly takes
into account nongovernmental groups. Destler handles
this issue by assuming that nongovernmental interests
are constituents of one or another of the bureaucracies.
By so doing, he has missed an opportunity to complete
the generalization of a model of foreign policy analysis,
where internal decisionmaking is polycentric and there
exist governmental and nongovernmental external ac­
tors.
The extremely high quality of Destler’s exposition
more than overshadows any methodological contentions
this reviewer might have. The substance of the book is

presented in detailed examinations of two major foreign
economic issues of the 1970’s, food and trade. The stud­
ies are comprehensive, desk-by-desk accounts of the
policymaking process. Food policy and the officials
making it come off in far the worse light. In a word, the
food policy process described by Destler was chaotic. In
contrast, trade issues, such as the passage of the Trade
Act of 1974 and the resulting Multilateral Trade Nego­
tiations, seem well managed, and trade policy seems or­
derly and purposive. The reader’s obvious question is,
“What made the difference?”
My reading led me to two reactions, one suggested
by the chapters on food, one by the section on trade.
The feature that most struck me about the problems
with food policy was the lack of information provided
to decisionmakers, both in terms of empirical data and
of authoritative technical analysis. In one case studied,
the hard data were available but were not used because
the agency holding them was in some political disgrace.
As a member of the information and data community, I
must admit it was gratifying to see a case where our in­
puts, skills, and professional values could have contrib­
uted so much.
The key to the relative success of trade policy seemed
to lie at a much more fundamental level of the
governing process. In this case, far more than in the
case of food, the policymakers appeared to play a role
of mediating competing interests—cajoling, persuading,
and educating various interest groups and lobbies until
some rough consensus on a fairly coherent national pol­
icy was formed somewhere near the prescriptive norms
of the policymakers. In contrast, food policy seemed to
react strongly to whatever interest was closest to the
relevant official at the propitious moment. The tendency
to attempt to respond to every interest group extant (as
in food policy) seemed to be a cause of political chaos,
while acknowledging the inevitable disappointment of
some parties during consensus building (as in trade pol­
icy) seemed to yield substantial benefit.
— R ich a rd M. D evens , J r .
Office of Current Employment Analysis
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Trade union democracy
Governing Trade Unions in Sweden. By Leif Lewin.
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1980.
180 pp. $20.
In this brief monograph, Leif Lewin, professor of
government at Sweden’s University of Uppsala, devel­
ops a model of union government. He then draws a
sample of Swedish local unions and interviews their
membership and leadership. The results are then tested


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

against his model. More than 60 tables and 20 figures
are included and are invaluable in understanding this
study.
Lewin’s basic model—the interactive model—is best
described in his own words:
A key word of this model — one corresponding to the em­
pirical term “oligarchy” used by Michels and to the norma­
tive terms “direct democracy,” “bureaucratic efficiency,”
“revolutionary vanguard,” “competition of elites” used by
Rousseau, Weber, Lenin, and Schumpeter, respectively—is
the term “public spirit.”
The development of public spirit is the normative postulate
for the model of interactive democracy. In order for a polit­
ical system to be called democratic, the interaction between
leadership and membership has to be constituted in such a
way that it develops the public spirit of the individual. A
methodological consequence of this condition is that the
success of democracy is measurable by the extent to which
that system has managed to further this public spirit.

In recent decades, the LO (the Swedish trade union
confederation) has been following a policy of “wage sol­
idarity,” aiming at greater income equality. According
to Lewin, this “wage solidarity” policy is the empirical
application of the normative postulate of public spirit.
Lewin then adopts several key functional dependent
variables designed to characterize each local union. The
presence or absence of certain “activities or phenome­
non” are then linked with these functional dependent
variables. Lewin’s seven independent variables are: or­
ganizational structure, wages, social-technical condi­
tions, mobility, sex, length of membership, and political
preferences. And, then, to quote the author, “the main
object of this study is to examine how these seven con­
ditions affect the pattern of interaction between leader­
ship and membership within the Swedish trade union
movement.”
The author’s basic judgment is:
The main picture of trade union democracy emerging from
this study is that of an opinion formation process with cer­
tain flaws such as relatively moderate membership activity,
limited knowledge of union matters, and, in practice, re­
stricted freedom of opinion. However, there is good consen­
sus building with high agreement of opinion between
members and leaders—with the exception of a few special
problems in district branches with representational bodies
—and a position of authority for the leaders whose actions
generally have the support of the membership.

More specifically, he maintains that Swedish local
unions as a whole should be characterized as “manipu­
lative” rather than “democratic,” “impotent,” “thera­
peutic,” or “passive”. These designations are based on
the responses to questions regarding each local union’s
operation. The responses are then summed and weight­
ed, and the resulting number is then used to “character­
ize” each local.
73

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Book Reviews
Are democratic practices “more highly developed in
those locals that are characterized by a high degree of
“public spirit”? Lewin finds that they are. Thus, democ­
racy is not only characterized by the “public spirit” by
member participation. Readers acquainted with the
American literature on union democracy will not be
surprised by this conclusion. Indeed, it closely resem­
bles findings in Arnold Rose’s study of a large Team­
ster local in St. Louis ( Union Solidarity, University of
Minnesota, 1952).
Three difficulties trouble this reviewer. Is it really
possible to select a single goal at a particular time and
then attribute an acceptance of that goal as an indica­
tion of democracy? What happened to the concept of
“his majesty’s loyal opposition”? Suppose Lewin’s
study had been conducted at a time when support for
wage solidarity was diminishing and the results even
suggested a rejection of the goal. Would Lewin con­
clude that the trade unions were “undemocratic” or
simply that a change in policy or leadership or both
was needed?
A second troublesome aspect is the scoring of the re­
sponses because it seems that the author has unduly
weighted the leadership’s responses. In selecting the in­
dividuals to be interviewed, Lewin samples the local
union membership, but almost all of the leadership is
included. As a result, the leadership constitutes more
than one quarter of the responses. Moreover, the leader­
ship responses are weighed double the membership
responsed, thus the leadership constitutes about half of
the characterization of the local.
This study, as well as other studies of union atti­
tudes, reveals a divergence between the membership and
the leadership. Indeed, several studies of unions focus
on these diverging attitudes and their possible implica­
tions for union democracy. Lewin acknowledges that
the leadership’s public spirit is much greater than the
membership’s, but he does not seem to consider that
the divergence cannot be too “great” in a “democratic”
environment.
There were many studies focusing on union democra­
cy following World War II in this country, but most
concentrated on developing factual information. Few
sought to link data within a theoretical framework. In­
terest in union democracy was revived in the late
1970’s. A few research studies have appeared and the
Industrial Relations Research Association devoted a
session to the topic recently. Lewin’s study is undoubt­
edly a serious contribution— particularly its attempt to
combine empirical data into an overall theoretical
framework.
— J oseph K rislov
Department of Economics
University of Kentucky
74


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Publications received
Economic and social statistics
Griliches, Zvi, The Estimation of Distributed Lags in Short
Panels. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc., 1980, 41 pp. ( n b e r Technical Paper Se­
ries, 4.) $1.
International Labor Organization, Technical Guide— Descrip­
tions of Series Published in the Bulletin of Labour
Statistics: Vol. 1, Consumer Prices; Vol. II, Employment,
Unemployment, Hours of Work, Wages. 7th ed. Geneva,
International Labor Organization, 1980, 294 and 171 pp.
$15.70 each. Distributed in the United States by the
Washington Branch of i l o .
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Where to Find b l s Statistics
on Women. Prepared by Beverly L. Johnson. Washington,
1980, 10 pp. (Report 612.)
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Illustrative Statistics on Women in
Selected Developing Countries. Rev. ed. Washington, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980,
24 pp. $1.75, Superintendent of Documents, Washington
20402.
----------

W o r ld P o p u la tio n , 1 9 7 9 : R e c e n t D e m o g r a p h ic E s tim a te s

for the Countries and Regions of the World— Summary.
Washington, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, 1980, 33 pp. $2, Superintendent of Docu­
ments, Washington 20402.
Industrial relations
Loney, Timothy J., “Capitulate or Litigate in Unfair Labor
Practice Settlements: A New Try in the Federal Sector,”
Labor Law Journal, November 1980, pp. 659-68.
Perkins, Marianna M., “Economically Motivated Partial Clos­
ings: The Duty of Management to Decision-Bargain,”
Labor Law Journal, November 1980, pp. 700-08.
Robertson, David E. and Ronald D. Johnson, “Reverse Dis­
crimination: Did Weber Decide the Issue?” Labor Law
Journal, November 1980, pp. 693-99.
Sloane, Arthur A. and Fred Witney, Labor Relations. 4th ed.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981, 525 pp.
$19.95.
Stephens, Elvis C., “A Supervisor Performs Bargaining Unit
Work: Is the Contract Violated?” Labor Law Journal,
November 1980, pp. 683-92.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Major Agreements: Employer
Pay and Leave for Union Business, Washington, 1980, 89
pp. (Bulletin 1425-19.) $4, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
Women’s Labor Project, Bargaining for Equality: A Guide to
Legal and Collective Bargaining Solutions for Workplace
Problems That Particularly Affect Women. San Francisco,
Calif., Women’s Labor Project, 1980, 143 pp. $4.50, pa­
per, National Labor Law Center, Washington 20036.
International economics
Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Cen­
ter for Islamic Countries, Areas of Economic Cooperation
Among Islamic Countries: A Collection of Studies. Ankara,
Turkey, Statistical, Economic and Social Research and
Training Center for Islamic Countries, Organization of
the Islamic Conference, 1980, 130 pp.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Country Demographic Profiles: Mo­
rocco. By Peter D. Johnson. Washington, U.S. Depart­
ment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980, 57 pp.
( isp -DP-23.) Stock No. 003-024—
02124-2. $4, Super­
intendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
Valentine, T. J., “A Securities Value Model of Investment in
Australia 1921-22 to 1938-39,” Australian Economic Pa­
pers, June 1980, pp. 168-81.
Management and organization theory
McMillan, John D. and Hoyt W. Doyel, “Performance Ap­
praisal: Match the Tool to the Task,” Personnel, JulyAugust 1980, pp. 12-20.
Michael, Stephen R. and others, Techniques of Organizational
Change. New York, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1981, 363
pp. $16.95.
Milbourn, Gene, Jr. and Richard Cuba, “What Blacks Want
from Their Jobs—and What They Get,” S.A.M. Ad­
vanced Management Journal, Autumn 1980, pp. 50-60.
Remick, Carl, “Time for a Turnaround? Take Comfort, Take
Stock, Take Action,” S.A.M. Advanced Management
Journal, Autumn 1980, pp. 4-15.
U.S. Department of Labor, Library, The Practice of Manage­
ment: Selected Recent References. (Prepared by Elizabeth
K. Van Staaveren.) Washington, U.S. Department of La­
bor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
and Management, Library, 1980, 101 pp. (Stock No. 029000-00406-4.) $4.50, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
Whelan, Elizabeth M., “Confessions of a ‘Superwoman,’”
Across the Board, December 1980, pp. 17-25.
Monetary and fiscal policy
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Ma­
jor 1980 Tax Cut Proposals. Washington, 1980, 61 pp.
(Legislative Analysis 21, 96th Cong., 2d sess.)
Wilson, Thomas “Robertson, Money, and Monetarism,” Jour­
nal of Economic Literature, December 1980, pp. 1522-38.
Prices and living conditions
Eeckhoudt, Louis and Pierre Hansen, “Minimum and Maxi­
mum Prices, Uncertainty, and the Theory of the
Competitive Firm,” The American Economic Review, De­
cember 1980, pp. 1064-68.
Feldstein, Martin, “Inflation and the Stock Market,” The
American Economic Review, December 1980, pp. 839-47.
Levi, Maurice D. and John H. Makin, “Inflation Uncertainty
and the Philips Curve: Some Empirical Evidence,” The
American Economic Review, December 1980, pp. 102227.
Linden, Fabian, “Inflation — and Taxation Without Authori­
zation, Part I,” Across-the-Board, November 1980, pp. 57
-59.
Nowotny, Ewald, “Inflation and Taxation: Reviewing the
Macroeconomic Issues,” Journal of Economic Literature.
September 1980, pp. 1025-49.
Productivity and technological change
Engelberger, Joseph F., Robotics in Practice: Management and
Applications of Industrial Robots. New York, AM ACOM , A


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

division of American Management Associations, 1980,
291 pp., bibliography. $39.95.
Howard, Robert, “Brave New Workplace,” Working Papers
for a New Society, November-December 1980, pp. 21-31.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
Technical Change and Economic Policy: Science and Tech­
nology in the New Economic and Social Context. Paris,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop­
ment, 1980, 117 pp. $12.50, O ECD Publications and Infor­
mation Center, Washington 20006.
Peitchinis, Stephen G. with the assistance of Elizabeth
MacDonald, The Attitude of Trade Unions Towards Tech­
nological Changes. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Department
of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Technology Branch,
1980, 73 pp.
“The Great Productivity Debate: The Puzzling Setback to
Productivity Growth,” by Edward F. Denison: “The
Role of Innovation,” by Michael Boretsky, Challenge,
November-December 1980, pp. 3-25.
Social institutions and social change
Butler, Robert N., “Ageism,” Across the Board, November
1980, pp. 30-38.
“Old Age: Environmental Complexity and Policy Interven­
tions,” The Journal of Social Issues, Spring 1980, pp. 1164.
Terkel, Studs, American Dreams: Lost and Found. New York,
Pantheon Books, 1980, 470 pp. $14.95.
Wages and compensation
Browne, E. Lynn, “Narrowing Regional Income Differ­
entials,” New England Economic Review. Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston, September-October 1980, pp. 35-56.
Costa, Michael L. Master Trust: Simplifying Employee Benefits
Trust Fund Administration. New York, AM ACOM , A divi­
sion of American Management Associations, 1980, 213
pp. $19.95.
Lazear, Edward, The Narrowing of Black-White Wage Differ­
entials Is Illusory. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of
Economic Research, Inc., 1980. Reprinted from The
American Economic Review, September 1979, pp. 553-64.
(NBER Reprint 96.) $1.
Stokey, Nancy L., “Job Differentiation and Wages, ” Quarterly
Journal of Economics. November 1980, pp. 431-49.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Wage Surveys: Hotels
and Motels, May 1978 (Bulletin 2055, 47 pp., Stock No.
029-001-02460-6, $3.50); Auto Dealer Repair Shops, June
1978 (Bulletin 2060, 35 pp., Stock No. 029-001-02466-5,
$2.25); Basic Iron and Steel, 1978- 79 (Bulletin 2064, 32
pp., Stock No. 029-001-02476-2, $2.25). Available from
the Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402.
-------- National Survey of Professional, Administrative, Techni­
cal, and Clerical Pay, March 1980. Washington, 1980, 72
pp. (Bulletin 2081.) $4, Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
Welfare programs and social insurance
Denton, Frank T., A. Leslie Robb, Byron G. Spencer, The
Future Financing of the Canada and Quebec Pension
Plans: Some Alternative Possibilities. Hull, Quebec, Eco75

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Book Reviews
nomic Council of Canada, 1980, 40 pp. $3.50, Canada;
$4.20, other countries. Available from Canadian Govern­
ment Publishing Center, Supply and Services Canada,
Hull, Quebec.
Halpern, Janice H., “Why Another Social Security Crisis?”
New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston, September-October 1980, pp. 5-19.
Hay-Huggins, Social Security: Incorporating Changes to July 1,
1980. Philadelphia, Huggins & Co., Inc., 1980, 24 pp.
(Booklet, 20.)
Henretta, John C. and Angela M. O’Rand, “Labor-Force Par­
ticipation of Older Married Women,” Social Security Bul­
letin, August 1980, pp. 10-16.
Lawrence, William J. and Stephen Leeds, An Inventory of
State and Local Income Transfer Programs: Fiscal Year
1977. White Plains, N.Y., The Institute for Socioeconom­
ic Studies, 1980, 301 pp. $12.
McGinn, Daniel F., Pension Funding: Actuarial Primer for
Corporate Management. Chicago, 111., Charles D. Spencer
& Associates, Inc., 1980, 124 pp. $15.
March, Michael S., “Pensions for Public Employees Present
Nationwide Problems,” Public Administration Review,
July-August 1980, pp. 382-89.
Seidman, Laurence S., “The Personal Consumption Tax and
Social Welfare,” Challenge, September-October 1980, pp.
10-16.
Simanis, Joseph G., “Worldwide Trends in Social Security,
1979,” Social Security Bulletin, August 1980, pp. 6-9.
Worker training and development
Braddock, Douglas, “Careers in Advertising,” Occupational
Outlook Quarterly. Fall 1980, pp. 2-5.
Briggs, Vernon M., Jr., Youth Employment Programs in the
Southwest: Three Case Studies. Austin. University of Tex­
as at Austin, Bureau of Business Research, 1980, 47 pp.
Dillich, Lisa S., “The Job Market for Teachers in the 80’s:
Signs of Improvement . . . Charting the Course,” Occupa­

76


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

tional Outlook Quarterly. Fall 1980, pp. 22-27.
Holder, Todd, “Job Finding and Career Planning: A Course
Outline,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1980, pp.
28-31.
Mangum, Garth and others, Job Market Futurity: Planning
and Managing Local Manpower Programs. Salt Lake City,
Utah, Olympus Publishing Co., 1979, 398 pp.
Martin, Gail M., “A Guide to Setting Up a Career Resource
Center,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1980, pp.
12-17.
-------- “The Job Hunter’s Guide to the Library,” Occupation­
al Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1980, pp. 6-11.
Mirengoff, William and others, The New CETA: Effect on Pub­
lic Service Employment Programs Final Report. Washing­
ton, The National Research Council, Assembly of
Behavioral and Social Sciences, Committee on Evaluation
of Employment and Training Programs, 1980, 185 pp.
Available from National Academy Press, Washington.
Rudney, Shirley, “Writers and Editors: Or Oh Ye Scribes and
Scholiasts,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall 1980,
pp. 18-21.
Sexton, Robert F., Barriers to the Older Student: The Limits of
Federal Financial Aid Benefits. Washington, National In­
stitute for Work and Learning, 1980, 27 pp.
Shaw, Lois B., A Profile of Women Potentially Eligible for the
Displaced Homemaker Program Under the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act of 1978. Columbus, The
Ohio State University, College of Administrative Science,
Center for Human Resource Research, 1979, 19 pp. 80
cents.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, A Counselor's Guide to Occu­
pational Information. Washington, 1980, 60 pp. (Bulletin
2042.) Stock No. 029-001-02490-8. $3.50, Superinten­
dent of Documents, Washington 20402.
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Training
Requirements in OSHA Standards. Rev. ed. Washington,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, 1979, 62 pp. Single copy free. □

Current
Labor Statistics
Notes on Current Labor Statistics

.....................................................................................................................................

Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series

..........................................................................

Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

.............................................................
Employment status of noninstitutional population, selected years, 1950-79 ................................................................
Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................
Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................................................
Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................
Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted .....................................................................
Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................................

Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Employment by industry, 1950-79 .......................................................................................................................................
Employment by State ...............................................................................................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group ................................................................................
Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ........................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date ........................................................................................................
Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group ...................................................................................
Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1949-79 ..........................................................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ..............................................................................
Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ......................................
Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group . ......................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................
Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date .....................................................

Linemployment insurance data. Definitions and notes

78
78
79
79
80
81
82
83
83
83
84
85
85
86
87
88
88
89
90
91
92
92
93
94

.......................................................................................
........................................................................................

95
95

..........................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, 1967-79 .............................................................................................................................................
Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selected items ..........................................................
Consumer Price Index, cross classification of region and population size class ..........................................................
Consumer Price Index, selected areas .....................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ..................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings .............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ...............................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries
................................................................................

96
97
97
103
104
105
106
108
108
108

Productivity data. Definitions and notes .....................................................................................

m

21. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations

Price data. Definitions and notes
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

31.
32.
33.
34.

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1950-79
Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1969-79 .............................................
Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted ...................
Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices . .

Labor-management data. Definitions and notes

.......................................................................................................
35. Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date ........................................................
36. Effective wage rate adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date .....................
37. Work stoppages, 1947 to date ...............................................................................................................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Ill
112
112
113
114

114
115
115

NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS

This section of the Review presents the principal statistical se­
ries collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A brief introduction to each group of tables provides defi­
nitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually
found in footnotes.

published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series.
However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S.
average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are
available for this series.
Some data are adjusted to eliminate
the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing
current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate
component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given
a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of
150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is
$2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as
“real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars.
A d ju s t m e n ts fo r p r ic e c h a n g e s .

Readers who need additional information are invited to
consult the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cov­
er of this issue of the Review. Some general notes applicable to
several series are given below.
Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted
to eliminate the effect of such factors as climatic conditions, industry
production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying
periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short­
term movements of the statistical series. Tables containing these data
are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated
on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are com­
puted each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for sev­
eral preceding years.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 2-7 were revised in
the February 1981 issue of the R e v ie w to reflect the preceding year’s
experience. Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major
modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force
data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new proce­
dure called X -ll/A R IM A , which was developed at Statistics Canada
as an extension of the standard X -ll method. A detailed description
of the procedure appears in T h e X - l l A R I M A S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t
M e th o d by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No.
12-564E, February 1980). The second change is that seasonal factors
are now being calculated for use during the first 6 months of the year,
rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for
the July-December period. Revisions of historical data continue to be
made only at the end of each calendar year.
Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll data in tables
11, 13, 16, and 18 begins with the August 1980 issue using the
X -ll ARIMA seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal fac­
tors for productivity data in tables 33 and 34 are usually intro­
duced in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent
changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are
S e a s o n a l a d ju s tm e n t.

A v a ila b ilit y o f in f o r m a tio n . Data that supplement the tables in this
section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of
sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information
published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published
according to the schedule given below. The H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis ­
tics 1 9 7 8 , Bulletin 2000, provides more detailed data and greater his­
torical coverage for most of the statistical series presented in the
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w . More information from the household and es­
tablishment surveys is provided in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, a
monthly publication of the Bureau, and in two comprehensive data
books issued annually — E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n ite d S ta te s and
E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, S ta te s a n d A reas. More detailed informa­
tion on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining appears in
the monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e D e ve lo p m e n ts . More detailed
price information is published each month in the periodicals, the C P I
D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P ric e s a n d P rice I n d e x es.

Symbols
p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series,
preliminary figures are issued based on representative
but incomplete returns.
r = revised. Generally this revision reflects the availability
of later data but may also reflect other adjustments,
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.

Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series
T itle a n d fre q u e n c y

P e rio d

M LR ta b le

c o v e re d

d a te

c o v e re d

num ber

April 3

March

May 8

April

1-11

April 3

March

May 8

April

26-30
22-25

(m o n th ly e x c e p t w h e re in d ic a te d )
d a te

Employment s itu a tio n ...............................................................................
Producer Price Index ...............................................................................
.............................................................................

April 23

March

May 22

April

............................................................................................

April 23

March

May 22

April

M ajor collective bargaining settlements (quarterly) .............................

April 27

1st quarter

Consumer Price Index
Real earnings

14-20
35-36

Productivity and costs:
31-34

April 27

1st quarter
May 27

1st quarter

31-34

............................................................

April 29

March

May 27

April

12-13

Work s to p p a g e s.........................................................................................

April 29

March

May 29

April

37

Nonfarm business and manufacturing

..............................................

Nonfinancial corporations ...................................................................
Labor turnover in manufacturing

78


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

E m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are obtained from the
Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews
conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 65,000
households beginning in January 1980, selected to represent the
U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are
interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the
sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months.

those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes
persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not
working while attending school, those unable to work because of
longterm illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of
personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle.
The n o n in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n comprises all persons 16 years of age
and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions,
sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy.
are those employed at least 35 hours a week;
are those who work fewer hours. Workers on parttime schedules for economic reasons (such as slack work, terminating
or starting a job during the week, material shortages, or inability to
find full-time work) are among those counted as being on full-time
status, under the assumption that they would be working full time if
conditions permitted. The survey classifies unemployed persons in
full-time or part-time status by their reported preferences for full-time
or part-time work.
F u ll-t im e w o r k e r s

p a r t-tim e w o r k e r s

Definiitions
E m p iloyed p e r so n s are (1) those who worked for pay any time
during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise
and (2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs
because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. A
person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at
which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.

are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and
had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did
not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new
jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed.
The u n e m p lo y m e n t r a te represents the number unemployed as a
percent of the civilian labor force.
U n e m p lo y e d p e r so n s

The c iv ilia n la b o r fo r c e consists of all employed or unemployed
persons in the civilian noninstitutional population; the to ta l la b o r
fo r c e includes military personnel. Persons n o t in th e la b o r fo r c e are

1.

Notes on the data
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census,
adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to
correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These
adjustments affect the comparability of historical data presented in
table 1. A description of these adjustments and their effect on the
various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of E m p lo y m e n t
a n d E a rn in g s.

Data in tables 2 - 7 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1980.

Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-80

[Numbers in thousands]
C ivilian la b o r fo rc e

T o ta l la b o r fo rc e

Year

U n e m p lo y e d

E m p lo y e d

T o ta l n o n ­

N o t in

in s titu tio n a l
p o p u la tio n

N um ber

P e rc e n t o f
p o p u la tio n

P e rc e n t o f

N o n a g ri-

T o ta l
T o ta l

A g ric u ltu re

cultu ral

Num ber

in d u s trie s

la b o r fo rc e

la b o r
fo rc e

1950
1955
1960
1964
1965

............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................

106,645
112,732
119,759
127,224
129,236

63,858
68,072
72,142
75,830
77,178

599
60.4
60.2
59.6
59.7

62,208
65,023
69,628
73,091
74,455

58,918
62,170
65,778
69,305
71,088

7,160
6,450
5,458
4,523
4,361

51,758
55,722
60,318
64,782
66,726

3,288
2,852
3,852
3,786
3,366

5.3
4.4
5.5
5.2
4.5

42,787
44,660
47,617
51,394
52,058

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................

131,180
133,319
135,562
137,841
140,182

78,893
80,793
82,272
84,240
85,903

60.1
60.6
60.7
61.1
61.3

75,770
77,347
78,737
80,734
82,715

72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902
78,627

3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606
3,462

68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296
75,165

2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832
4,088

3.8
3.8
3.6
3.5
4.9

52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602
54,280

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................

142,596
145,775
148,263
150,827
153,449

86,929
88,991
91,040
93,240
94,793

61.0
61.0
61.4
61.8
61.8

84,113
86,542
88,714
91,011
92,613

79,120
81,702
84,409
83,935
84,783

3,387
3,472
3,452
3,492
3,380

75,732
78,230
80,957
82,443
81,403

4,993
4,840
4,304
5,076
7,830

5.9
5.6
4.9
5.6
8.5

55,666
56,785
57,222
57,587
58,655

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................

156,048
158,559
161,058
163,620
166,246

96,917
99,534
102,537
104,996
106,821

62.1
62.8
63.7
64.2
64.3

94,773
97,401
100,420
102,908
104,719

87,485
90,546
94,373
96,945
97,270

3,297
3,244
3,342
3,297
3,310

84,188
87,302
91,031
93,648
93,960

7,288
6,855
6,047
5,963
7,448

6.0

7.7
7.0

59,130
59,025
58,521
58,623
59,425


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

5.8
7.1

79

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.

Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
1980

A nnual a v e ra g e
E m p lo y m e n t sta tu s

D ec.

Nov.

S e p t.

O ct.

166,789
107,101
164,667
104,980
97,180
3,399
93,781
7,800
7.4
59,687

167,005
107,288
164,884
105,167
97,206
3,319
93,887
7,961
7.6
59,717

167,201
107,404
165,082
105,285
97,339
3,340
93,999
7,946
7.5
59,797

167,396
107,191
165,272
105,067
97,282
3,394
93,888
7,785
7.4
60,205

167,585
2,125
165,460
105,543
97,696
3,403
94,294
7,847
7,4
59,917

167,747

69,756
55,403
51,791
2,301
49,490
3,612
6.5
14,353

69,864
55,475
51,823
2,389
49,434
3,652

69,987
55,495
51,963
2,351
49,612
3,532
6.4
14,492

70,095
55,539
52,007
2,372
49,635
3,532
6.4
14,556

70,198
55,470
52,045
2,331
49,714
3,425

70,320
55,443
52,091
2,378
49,713
3,352
6.0
14,877

70,413
55,445
52,134
2,289
49,844
3,312
6.0
14,968

78,598
40,317
37,804
592
37,212
2,513
38,281

78,723
40,486
37,754
576
37,178
2,732
6.7
38,237

78,842
40,629
37,909
574
37,335
2,720
6.7
38,213

78,959
40,570
37,820
665
37,155
2,750

37,977

78,473
40,523
37,890
555
37,335
2,633
6.5
37,950

38,389

79,071
40,942
38,191
621
37,570
2,750
6.7
38,129

79,175
41,090
38,410
615
37,794
2,680
6.5
38,085

16,268
9,293
7,557
397
7,160
1,736
18.7
6,975

16,235
9,019
7,322
354
6,968
1,697
18.8
7,216

16,205
9,188
7,553
418
7,135
1,635
17.8
7,017

16,174
9,186
7,489
392
7,097
1,697
18.5
6,988

16,145
9,117
7,423
394
7,029
1,694
18.6
7,028

16,114
9,027
7,417
398
7,019
1,610
17.8
7,087

16,069
9,158
7,414
404
7,010
1,744
19.0
6,911

16,039
9,146
7,384
376
7,008
1,762
19.3
6,893

143,770 143,900
92,335 92,288
86,075 86,067
6,260
6.7
51,435 51,612

144,051
92,317
86,307

144,211
92,516
86,371
6,145

144,359 144,500
92,562 92,383
86,409 86,377
6,006
6,153
6.5
51,797 52,117

144,651
92,832
86,620
6,213
6.7
51,819

144,774
93,035
86,940
6,095

20,564
12,630
10,902
1,728
13.7
7,934

20,617
12,677
10,894
1,783
14.1
7,940

20,771

20,809
12,684
11,051
1,634
12.9
8,125

20,853
12,598
10,942
1,655
13.1
8,255

1979

1980

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

July

163,620
104,996
161,532
102,908
96,945
3,297
93,648
5,963
5.8
58,623

166,246
106,821
164,143
104,719
97,270
3,310
93,960
7,448
7.1
59,425

165,298
106,357
163,211
104,271
97,817
3,329
94,488
6,454

165,693
106,519
163,601
104,427
97,225
3,262
93,963
7,202
6.9
59,174

165,886
107,148
163,799
105,060
97,116
3,352
93,764
7,944
7.6
58,739

166,105
106,683
164,013
104,591
96,780
3,232
93,548
7,811
7.5
59,422

166,391
107,119
164,293
105,020
96,999
3,267
93,732

58,940

165,506
106,261
163,416
104,171
97,628
3,337
94,291
6,543
6.3
59,245

68,293
54,486
52,264
2,350
49,913
2,223
4.1
13,807

69,607
55,234
51,972
2,355
49,617
3,261
5.9
14,373

69,140
55,017
52,436
2,418
50,018
2,581
4.7
14,123

69,238
54,966
52,230
2,386
49,844
2,736
5.0
14,272

69,329
55,127
51,935
2,334
49,601
3,192
5.8
14,202

69,428
55,440
51,871
2,337
49,494
3,569
6.4
13,988

69,532
55,182
51,624
2,301
49,323
3,558
6.4
14,350

69,664
55,344
51,714
2,306
49,408
3,630

76,860
38,910
36,698
591
36,107
2,213
5.7
37,949

78,295
40,243
37,696
575
37,120
2,547
6.3
38,052

77,766
39,871
37,560
568
36,992
2,311
5.8
37,895

77,876
39,845
37,550
557
36,973
2,295
5.8
38,031

77,981
40,098
37,597
560
37,037
2,501

78,211
40,182
37,613
550
37,063
2,569
6.4
38,029

78,360
40,383
37,728
564
37,164
2,655

37,883

78,090
40,193
37,600
598
37,002
2,593
6.5
37,897

16,379
9,512
7,984
356
7,628
1,528
16.1
6,867

16,242
9,242
7,603
380
7,223
1,640
17.7
7,000

16,305
9,383
7,821
343
7,478
1,562
16.6
6,922

16,302
9,360
7,848
374
7,474
1,512
16.2
6,942

16,291
9,202
7,693
368
7,325
1,509
16.4
7,089

16,281
9,427
7,645
377
7,268
1,782
18.9
6,854

16,271
9,227
7,543
381
7,162
1,684
18.3
7,044

141,614
90,602
86,025
4,577
5.1
51,011

143,657
92,171
86,380
5,790
6.3
51,486

142,951
91,873
86,869
5,004
5.4
51,078

143,115
91,802
86,723
5,079
5.5
51,313

143,254
92,044
86,389
5,655

143,403
92,501
86,251
6,250

51,210

50,902

143,565
92,134
86,007
6,127
6.7
51,431

19,918
12,306
10,920
1,386
11.3
7,612

20,486
12,548
10,890
1,658
13.2
7,938

20,261
12,395
10,945
1,450
11.7
7,866

20,301
12,320
10,856
1,464
11.9
7,981

20,346
12,401
10,838
1,563

20,395
12,546
10,842
1,704
13.6
7,849

20,448
12,491
10,809
1,682
13.5
7,957

Aug.

TOTAL

Total noninstitutional population1 .................
Total labor force

...............................

Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............
Civilian labor force
Employed

........................

...............................

Agriculture

......................

Nonagricultural Industries
Unemployed

..........................

Unemployment rate

..............

Not in labor force ..........................

6.2

166,578
107,059
164,464
104,945
97,003
3,210
93,793
7,942
7.6
7.6
59,273 59,519

8,021

2,121

165,627
105,681
97,927
3,281
94,646
7,754
7.3
59,946

Men, 20 years and ove r
Civilian noninstitutional population1
Civilian labor force
Employed

............

...............................

......................................

Agriculture

.............................

Nonagricultural industries
Unemployed

.. .

..................................

Unemployment rate
Not in labor force

.....................

.................................

6.6

14,320

6.6

14,389

6.2

14,728

W om en, 20 years and ove r
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............
Civilian labor force
Employed

...............................

......................................

Agriculture

.............................

Nonagricultural industries
Unemployment rate
Not in labor force

...................

...............................

B oth sexes, 16

Civilian labor force

.........

.............................

....................................

Agriculture

..........................

Nonagricultural industries ..
Unemployed

...............................

Unemployment rate
Not in labor force

6.2

6.6

6.2

6.8

19 years

Civilian noninstitutional population1
Employed

..

...............................

Unemployed

...................

...............................
W hite

Civilian noninstitutional population1
Civilian labor force
Employed

.........

.............................

....................................

Unemployed

...............................

Unemployment rate
Not in labor force

...................

...............................

6.1

6.8

6.8

6,221

6,010

6.5
51,734

6.6

51,695

6.6

6.6

51,739

Black and o th e r
Civilian noninstitutional population1
Civilian labor force
Employed

..........

. . . . ■...................

....................................

Unemployed

...............................

Unemployment rate
Not in labor force

...................

...............................

12.6

7,945

1As in table 1, population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.

80


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

20,523
12,661
10,902
1,759
13.9
7,862

20,673

12,686

10,884
1,802
14.2
7,987

20,723
12,706
10,922
1,784
14.0
8,017

12,668

10,895
1,773
14.0
8,103

3.

Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted

[ In th o u sa n d s]
A n n u al a v e ra g e

1981

1980

S e le c te d c a te g o rie s
1979

1980

Feb.

Mar.

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

July

Aug.

S ep t.

O ct.

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

96,945
56,499
40,446
39,090
22,724

97,270
55,988
41,283
38,302
23,097

97,817
56,631
41,186
38,827
23,150

97,628
56,489
41,139
38,706
23,171

97,225
56,054
41,171
38,373
23,094

97,116
55,914
41,202
38,197
23,145

96,780
55,597
41,183
38,220
23,131

96,999
55,678
41,321
38,049
23,118

97,003
55,589
41,414
37,987
23,126

97,180
55,754
41,426
38,027
23,027

97,206
55,881
41,325
38,142
22,993

97,339
55,897
41,442
38,167
23,065

97,282
55,920
41,362
38,231
23,063

97,696
56,012
41,684
38,182
23,352

97,927
56,045
41,882
38,113
23,356

49,342
15,050

50,809
15,613

50,447
15,423

50,336
15,408

50,465
15,528

50,627
15,540

50,836
15,682

51,023
15,717

51,307
15,751

51,074
15,540

51,101
15,780

51,148
15,863

51,065
15,810

51,594
15,965

51,698
15,813

10,516
6,163
17,613
32,066
12,880
10,909
3,612
4,665
12,834
2,703

10,919
6,172
18,105
30,800
12,529
10,346
3,468
4,456
12,958
2,704

10,953
6,179
17,892
31,669
12,722
10,648
3,557
4,742
13,005
2,745

10,765
6,132
18,031
31,568
12,740
10,556
3,551
4,721
12,982
2,718

10,773
6,048
18,116
31,120
12,713
10,450
3,495
4,462
13,009
2,682

10,877
6,072
18,138
30,800
12,551
10,379
3,458
4,412
12,947
2,730

10,901
6,046
18,207
30,443
12,357
10,233
3,429
4,424
12,941
2,625

10,999
6,130
18,177
30,276
12,403
10,189
3,354
4,330
13,017
2,694

11,109
6,140
18,307
30,232
12,346
10,147
3,478
4,261
12,928
2,620

11,007
6,316
18,211
30,436
12,490

10,979
6,277
18,065
30,521
12,485

11,016
6,155
18,114
30,550
12,424
10,247
3,429
4,450
2,729

11,009
6,175
18,071
30,373
12,337
10,194
3,402
4,440
12,982
2,804

11,363
6,265
18,001
30,338
12,306
10,331
3,322
4,380
12,946
2,737

11,488
6,271
18,125
30,446
12,386
10,390
3,361
4,309
13,070
2,662

3,434
4,310
12,943
2,757

3,443
4,383
12,891
2,735

1,413
1,580
304

1,384
1,628
297

1,411
1,636
293

1,429
1,612
295

1,377
1,602
287

1,396
1,642
292

1,369
1,606
278

1,360
1,631
295

1,282
1,640
280

1,417
309

1,363
1,640
325

1,417
1,612
324

1,411
1,655
305

1,465
1,615
284

1,336
1,610
325

86,540
15,369
71,171
1,240
69,931
6,652
455

86,706
15,624
71,081
1,166
69,915
6,850
404

87,192
15,539
71,653
1,181
70,472
6,841
400

87,110
15,605
71,505
1,140
70,365
6,807
385

86,789
15,635
71,154
1,151
70,003
6,804
363

86,722
15,720
71,002
1,197
69,805
6,698
406

86,370
15,817
70,553
1,204
69,349
6,728
445

86,432
15,718
70,714
1,230
69,484
6,801
426

86,490
15,531
70,959
1,196
69,763
6,881
403

86,395
15,575
70,820
1,125
69,695
6,977
416

86,587
15,597
70,990
1,144
69,846
7,005
417

86,643
15,651
70,992
1,148
69,844
6,943
405

86,513
15,653
70,860

69,750
6,973
396

87,125
15,738
71,387
1,197
70,190
6,839
422

87,236
15,589
71,647
1,176
70,471
6,923
371

88,133
72,647
3,281
1,325
1,956
12,205

88,325
72,022
3,965
1,669
2,296
12,338

88,830
72,937
3,454
1,415
2,039
12,439

88,505
72,618
3,470
1,481
1,989
12,417

88,041
71,986
3,803
1,680
2,123
12,252

87,974
71,501
4,276
1,998
2,278
12,197

87,994
71,454
3,969
1,734
2,235
12,571

87,431
70,825
4,086
1,794
2,292
12,520

88,195
71,526
4,143
1,709
2,434
12,526

88,246
71,929
4,183
1,701
2,482
12,134

88,488
72,071
4,220
1,685
2,535
12,197

88,694
72,265
4,176
1,620
2,556
12,253

88,468
72,131
4,218
1,647
2,571
12,119

89,499
72,807
4,474
1,698
2,776
12,218

89,441
72,945
4,145
1,622
2,523
12,351

C H A R A C T E R IS T IC

Total employed, 16 years and over ......................
Men ............................................................
Women........................................................
Married men, spouse present ........................
Married women, spouse present....................
O C C U P A T IO N

White-collar workers............................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ........................................................
Salesworkers................................................
Clerical workers............................................
Blue-collar workers..............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport..........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers..........................................
Service workers ..................................................
Farmworkers ......................................................

10,202 10,210

12,888

M A JO R IN D U S T R Y A N D C L A S S
OF WORKER

Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers..............................
Government ..........................................
Private industries....................................
Private households ..........................
Other industries ..............................
Self-employed workers..................................
Unpaid family workers ..................................

1,688

1,110

PERSONS AT W O R K '

Nonagricultural industries ....................................
Full-time schedules ......................................
Part time for economic reasons......................
Usually work full time . ............................
Usually work part tim e............................
Part time for noneconomic reasons ................

'Exoudes persons "with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as
vacation illness, or industrial disputes.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.

Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted

[Unemployment rates]
A n n u al a v e ra g e

1980

1981

S e le c te d c a te g o rie s
1979

1980

Feb.

Total, 16 years and over......................................
Men, 20 years and over................................
Women, 20 years and over ..........................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ............................

5.8
4.1
5.7
16.1

7.1
5.9
6.3
17.7

White, total ..................................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ......................

5.1
3.6
5.0
13.9

Black and other, total....................................
Men, 20 years and over ........................
Women, 20 years and o v e r....................
Both sexes, 16-19 years ......................

11.3
8.4

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

July

Aug.

S e p t.

O ct.

6.3
5.0
5.8
16.2

6.9
5.8

7.5
6.4
6.4
18.3

18.7

7.6
6.5
6.5
18.8

7.4

16.4

7.6
6.4
6.5
18.9

7.6

4.7
5.8
16.6

17.8

7.6
6.4
6.7
18.5

6.3
5.2
5.6
14.8

5.4
4.1
5.2
14.2

5.5
4.5
5.0
14.1

5.2
5.5
14.8

5.8
5.7
17.1

6.7
5.7
5.7
16.1

5.8
5.8
16.5

6.7
5.8
5.8
16.6

6.5
5.8
5.5
15.1

5.7
5.8
16.0

13.2
11.4

11.7
9.5
9.3
36.9

11.9
9.5
10.5
33.7

12.6
10.8
11.1

13.6
11.7

31.8

35.3

13.9
12.5
11.3
35.9

13.7
12.5
10.9
37.6

14.1
13.2

10.9
34.8

3.2
5.4
8.5
5.8

3.4
5.4

4.0
5.7
9.0
6.5

4.6

4.6

4.9

4.8

8.3
7.3
9.0

8.5
7.2

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

7.4

7.3

6.7
19.0

6.5
19.3

C H A R A C T E R IS T IC

Married men, spouse present........................
Married women, spouse present....................
Women who head families............................
Full-time workers..........................................
Part-time workers ........................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over....................
Labor force time lost1 ..................................

10.1

11.1

33.5

35.8

2.7
5.1
8.3
5.3
8.7

4.2
5.8
9.1

6.8

6.2

6.3

8.7
1.7
7.9

8.8
1.2
6.6

3.3
2.4

3.7
2.5

3.4
2.3

1.9
3.9
4.6
6.9
4.5
8.4
5.4

2.4
4.4
5.3

10.0
6.6
12.2
8.8

7.1
3.8

14.6
7.9
4.4

1.2

8.6

5.9
8.4
1.3

6.2

6.1

8.8

6.8

1.5
7.6

3.4
2.3

3.7
2.4

6.8

11.6
6.1
1.6
8.6

13.5

12.2

6.0

8.8
1.7
8.1

6.6
6.6
6.8

6.6
6.2

10.6

37.8
4.7
5.7
9.0
7.3
8.7

6.6

14.2

12.1

12.3
37.4
4.6

6.1
8.8
7.4
8.8
1.8

9.0
7.3
8.7

8.4

8.3

2.2
8.2

3.7
2.4

3.7
2.4

3.8
2.5

2.6

2.5
4.2
5.4

2.4
4.3
5.4

6.0
2.0

6.0
10.2
7.3
9.1

7.5
6.4
6.7
18.6

6.6
5.7
5.8
16.4
14.0

12.0
12.2

7.4

6.2
6.8

17.8
6.5
5.5
5.9
15.4
14.0

11.6

36.6

12.3
37.5

4.4
5.9
9.9
7.4

4.3
5.8
10.4
7.3

2.2

8.6
2.2

8.4

8.3

8.2
2.3
8.2

3.9

3.9
2.5

2.6

2.5
4.6
5.6

2.5
4.7
5.8
10.5
7.1
12.9

6.0
6.7
5.5

6.0

16.8
12.9
10.5

11.0
36.5
4.2

6.2
10.5
7.1
9.2

2.2
8.2

6.0
6.6

5.4
5.7
17.4
13.1

10.8

11.9
35.4
4.1
5.8
9.6
7.1
9.1

2.1
8.1

O C C U P A T IO N

White-collar workers ..........................................
Professional and technical ............................
Managers and administrators, except
farm ........................................................
Salesworkers ..............................................
Clerical workers ..........................................
Blue-collar workers ............................................
Craft and kindred workers ............................
Operatives, except transport ........................
Transport equipment operatives ....................
Nonfarm laborers ........................................
Service workers..................................................
Farmworkers..................................................

10.8

2.2
4.3
4.7
7.9
5.1
9.3

6.8

12.5
7.0
3.9

2.4
4.0
4.8

8.2
5.5
9.4
6.9
13.3
7.2
4.2

2.6
4.5
5.1
9.6
6.5

11.6
8.4
14.1
7.8
4.8

3.8

2.6
2.6

3.7
2.5
2.5
4.4
5.2

4.4
5.3
10.9
7.5
13.7
8.7
14.9

15.7

4.7

4.5

8.2

11.1
7.5
13.4

10.0
8.1

2.6
4.2
5.4
11.3
7.2
14.4

10.0

15.8
8.3
4.6

4.0

11.1

10.8

10.8

7.6
13.3
9.8
16.1
8.5
5.5

7.4
13.0
10.4
15.2

7.1
13.2

2.4
4.8
5.6
10.7
7.1
13.0

15.3
8.3
4.4

15.0
8.3
4.0

14.8
7.8
4.0

7.8
14.6
9.2
9.5
8.9
5.3
7.8
5.6
4.4

7.8
14.8
8.9
9.0

7.7
13.8

8.1

4.3

10,6

10.6

8.8

3.9

3.7

2.8

2.6

2.4
4.4
5.7

2.4
4.0
5.3

10.2
6.8
12.1
9.1
15.0

8.0

5.0

10.1
7.2
11.9
8.3
14.9
8.7
4.7

IN D U S T R Y

Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers2
Construction ................................................
Manufacturing..............................................
Durable goods ......................................
Nondurable goods..................................
Transportation and public utilities ..................
Wholesale and retail trade............................
Finance and service industries ......................
Government workers ..........................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers ..................

5.7

10.2
5.5
5.0
6.4
3.7
6.5
4.9
3.7
9.1

7.4
14.2
8.5
8.9
7.9
4.9
7.4
5.3
4.1

10.8

6.2
10.9
6.7
6.5
6.9
4.5

6.6

4.7
4.0
9.5

6.3
13.1

6.6
6.5
6.8

3.9
6.4
4.9
4.1
10.3

7.0
14.5
7.9
8.3
7.3
4.7
7.0
5.1
4.3
11.7

' Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.
Includes mining, not shown separately.

2

82


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

8.0
16.6
9.7
10.4

8.6

5.0
7.5
5.6
4.2
11.4

8.0
15.6
9.7
10.9
7.9
5.1
7.7
5.6
3.5
10.4

8.0
15.8
9.8
10.7
8.5
5.6
7.6
5.6
4.1

10.8

8.0
17.3
9.3

10.1
8.0
5.6
7.7
5.5
4.0
13.2

7.8
15.9
9.2

10.0
7.9
5.3
7.7
5.4
4.1
10.7

11.1

8.6
4.9
8.2

5.5
4.2

10.1

8.8

9.0
8.5
4.9
8.3
5.5
4.1

10.6

7.5
13.3
8.4
8.3
8.5
5.8
7.6
5.8
4.4
11.5

7.5
13.2
8.4
8.5

8.2
5.5'
7.6

6.0
12.1
4.3

NOTE: The monthly data in this table have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through
1980.

5.

Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted
A n n u al a v e ra g e

1980

1981

S e x an d a g e
1979

Total, 16 years and over......................................
16 to 19 years ............................................
16 to 17 years ......................................
18 to 19 years ......................................
20 to 24 years ............................................
25 years and over........................................
25 to 54 years ......................................
55 years and over..................................

5.8
16.1
18.1
14.6
9.0
3.9
4.1
3.0

Men, 16 years and over................................
16 to 19 years ......................................
16 to 17 years................................
18 to 19 years................................
20 to 24 years ......................................
25 years and over..................................
25 to 54 years................................
55 years and over ..........................

5.1
15.8
17.9
14.2

Women, 16 years and over ..........................
16 to 19 years ......................................
16 to 17 years................................
18 to 19 years................................
20 to 24 years ......................................
25 years and over..................................
25 to 54 years................................
55 years and over ..........................

6.

8.6
3.3
3.4
2.9

6.8
16.4
18.3
15.0
9.6
4.8
5.2
3.2

1980

M ar.

A pr.

16.6
18.8
15.2
9.9
4.2
4.6

6.3
16.2
17.7
15.1
9.9
4.4
4.8

6.9
16.4
19.0
14.5
11.3
5.0
5.3
3.3

6.9
18.2
20.4
16.7
12.5
4.7
5.1
3.3

5.6
16.0
18.2
14.5
10.3
3.7
3.9

5.8
15.2
16.5
14.5
10.7
4.0
4.3

6.7
16.3
18.8
14.4
12.3
4.7
4.9
3.3

7.4
17.2
19.5
15.6
10.3
5.5
5.9
3.2

6.9
17.4
19.4
16.1
9.4
5.0
5.4
2.9

7.2
16.5
19.3
14.8

7.1
17.7

20.0
16.1
11.5
5.0
5.4
3.3

Feb.

6.2

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

6.9
17.2
19.2
15.8
9.0
5.1
5.5
2.9

10.1
5.4
5.8
3.3

M ay

7.6
18.9

21.2

Ju n e

July

7.5
18.3

7.6
18.7
20.5
17.4

20.0
17.6
12.1

A ug.

7.6
188

S ep t.

O ct.

7.4
17.8

7.6
18.5
20.9
16.7
12.3
5.4
5.9
3.4

7.5
18,6
21.4
16.5
5.4
5.9
3.3

7.4
17.8
19,9
16.4
11.7
5.3
5.8
3.5

7.4
19.8

7.2
19.0
20.5
17.8
12.5
4.9
5.4
3.3

7.2
20.3
23.0
18.5
4.9
5.2
3.4

18.7
12.7
4.8
5.2
3.4

7.7
16.5
19.3
14.8

7.7
17.5
18.7
16.4

7.6
18.4
20.5
17.0

5.9
6,3
3.9

5.8
6.3
3.6

5.6
5.9
3.9

12.1

22.1
16.5
12.0

20.1
16.0
12.0

5.4
5.8
3.3

5.5
5.9
3.4

5.4
5.9
3.4

5.4
5.9
3.4

7.5
19.4
21.5
17.6
13.5
5.1
5.4
3.4

7.5
19.1
21.5
18.8
13.4
5.2
5.6
3.6

7.6
19.5
20.9
18.4
13.2
5.4
5.8
3.6

7.6
19.9
23.7
17.1
13.6
5.3
5.7
3.6

7.6
18.3
20.9
17.2
11.3
5.5

7.4
17.3
18.3
16.3

7.7
17.7

7.6
17.6

6.0

10.6
5.5
6.0

3.3

2.9

17.4
12.5
5.3
5.6
3.4

20.1

N ov.

12.1

21.2

21.8

16.9
13.5
5.4
3.5

18.1
13.8
5.1
5.6
3.3

7,4
19.8
22.3
17.8
13.2
5.1
5.6
3.3

7.2
16.6
18.8
15.1

7.7
17.0
19.8
15.1

7.7
17.2
20.3
15.1

5.9
6.4
3.4

7.6
18.9

6.0

16.2
10.9
5.7

6.1

20.2
15.9
10.2
5.7
6.2

3.1

3.1

5.4
5.9
3.3

10.2

10.6

10.8
5.8
6.2
3.4

D ec.

10.8

Jan.

Feb.

7.4
19.0

21.0
17.5
11.9
5.3
5.7
3.5

12.8

10.8

7.3
19.3
21.4
17.9

11.8
5.1
5.5
3.6
7.1

20.1
22.1

10.8

Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
1980

R e a s o n fo r u n e m p lo y m e n t

1981

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

July

A ug.

S e p t.

O ct.

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

2,979
1,087
1,892
831
1,797
825

3,102
1,135
1,967
804
1,812
815

3,581
1,422
2,159
905
1,909
752

4,164
1,771
2,393
930
1,975
871

4,468
1,954
2,514
887
1,834
872

4,364
1,832
2,532

4,319
1,699
2,620
890
1,883
870

4,387
1,744
2,643
855
1,844
862

4,240
1,692
2,548
870
2,013
880

4,229
1,453
2,776
897
1,896
890

4,226
1,470
2,756
813
1,869

3,847
1,258
2,590
907
2,039

3,896
1,267
2,629
884
1,970
928

100.0
53.0
21.1

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NUM BER OF UNEM PLOYED

Lost last job ......................................................................................
On layoff ....................................................................................
Other job iosers ..........................................................................
Left last jo b ........................................................................................
Reentered labor force ........................................................................
Seekirg first jo b ..................................................................................

866
1,868
893

868

1,000

P E R C E N T D IS T R IB U T IO N

Total unemployed ..............................................................................
Job losers..........................................................................................
On layoff ....................................................................................
Other job losers ..........................................................................
Job leavers........................................................................................
Reentrants ........................................................................................
New entrants....................................................................................

100.0 100.0 100.0 1000

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

46.3
16.9
29.4
12.9
27.9

50.1
19.9
30.2
12.7
26.7
10.5

52.4
22.3
30.1
11.7
249

55.4
24.2
31.2

12.8

47.5
17.4
30.1
12.3
27.7
12.5

2.9

3.0

3.4
.9

4.0
.9
1.9

11.0

11.0
22.8
10.8

54.6
22.9
31.7

54.2
21.3
32.9

55.2
21.9
33.3

23.4

23.6
10.9

23.2

31.8
10.9
25.2

4.3

4.2

4.1

4.2

4.0

10.8
11.2

11.2

10.8
10.8

11.0

53.5
18.4
35.1
11.3
24.0

54.3
18.9
35.4
10.5
24.0

4.0
.9

4.0

11.2

11.2

49.4
16.1
33.2

11.6
12.8

26.2

50.7
16.5
34.2
11.5
25.7

12.1

UNEM PLOYED AS A PERCENT OF
T H E C IV IL IA N L A B O R FO R C E

Job losers..........................................................................................
job leavers........................................................................................
Reentrants ........................................................................................
New entrants......................................................................................

7.

.8
1.7
.8

.8
1.7
.8

1.8
.7

.8

.8
1.8
.8

.8
1.8
.9

.8
1.8
.8

.8
1.8
8

.8
1.9
8

1.8
8

.8
1.8
8

3.6
.9
1.9
.9

3.7

.8

1.9
.9

Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
A n n u al a v e ra g e

1980

1981

W e e k s o f u n e m p lo y m e n t

Less than 5 weeks..............................................
5 to 14 weeks ....................................................
15 weeks and over ............................................
15 to 26 weeks............................................
27 weeks and over ......................................
Average (mean) duration, in weeks......................

1979

1980

Feb .

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

June

July

A ug.

S ep t.

O c t.

2,869
1,892

3,208
2,411
1,829
1,028
802
11.9

3,049
2,134
1,299
794
505
10.7

3,005
2,207
1,391
796
595

3,258
2,373
1,599
931

3,714
2,589

3,281
2,812
1,777
1,024
753
11.7

3,317
2,649
1,935
1,093
842

3,255
2,533
2,150
1,239
911
12.5

3,042
2,586
2,295
1,366
929
13.0

3,186
2,500
2,292
1,256
1,036
13.3

1,202
684
518
10.9

11.0

668
11.2

1,686
980
706

10.6

11.8

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb .

3,108
2,524
2,329
1,213
1,116
13.6

3,115
2,217
2,378
1,231
1,147
13.5

3,259
2,264
2,358
1,079
1,279
14.4

3,203
2,324
2,250
992
1,257
14.4

NOTE: The monthly data in these tables have been revised to reflect seasonal experience through 1980.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

83

EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS

E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n i n g s d a t a in this section are
compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a volun­
tary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperat­
ing State agencies by 166,000 establishments representing all
industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling
probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most
large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An estab­
lishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant,
for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others
not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the
survey because they are excluded from establishment records.
This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures
between the household and establishment surveys.

L a b o r t u r n o v e r d a t a in this section are compiled from per­
sonnel records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies.
A sample of 40,000 establishments represents all industries in
the manufacturing and mining sectors of the economy.

Bureau of Labor Statistics computes spendable earnings from gross
weekly earnings for only two illustrative cases: (1) a worker with no
dependents and (2) a married worker with three dependents.
H o u r s represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. O v e r tim e h o u rs represent the por­
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtime premiums were paid.
L a b o r tu r n o v e r is the movement of all wage and salary workers
from one employment status to another. A c c e s s io n r a te s indicate the
average number of persons added to a payroll in a given period per
100 employees; s e p a r a tio n r a te s indicate the average number dropped
from a payroll per 100 employees. Although month-to-month changes
in employment can be calculated from the labor turnover data, the re­
sults are not comparable with employment data from the employment
and payroll survey. The labor turnover survey measures changes dur­
ing the calendar month while the employment and payroll survey
measures changes from midmonth to midmonth.

Notes on the data
Definitions
E m p lo y e d p e r so n s

day and sick pay)
12th of the month.
cent of all persons
ment which reports

are all persons who received pay (including holi­
for any part of the payroll period including the
Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per­
in the labor force) are counted in each establish­
them.

P r o d u c tio n w o r k e r s in manufacturing include blue-collar worker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 14-20 in­
clude production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction
workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in transporta­
tion and public utilities, in wholesale and retail trade, in finance, in­
surance, and real estate, and in services industries. These groups
account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private
nonagricultural payrolls.
E a r n in g s are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special
payments. R e a l e a r n in g s are earnings adjusted to eliminate the effects
of price change. The H o u r ly E a r n in g s I n d e x is calculated from aver­
age hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types
of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments:
fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector
for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and
seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries. S p e n d a b le e a r n in g s are earnings from which estimat­
ed social security and Federal income taxes have been deducted. The

84

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the re­
lease of June 1980 data, published in the August 1980 issue of the R e ­
view. Consequently, data published in the R e v ie w prior to that issue
are not necessarily comparable to current data. Complete comparable
historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in a
Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from April
1977 through March 1980 and seasonally adjusted data from January
1974 through March 1980) and in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n ite d
S ta tes, 1 9 0 9 - 7 8 , BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods).
Data on recalls were shown for the first time in tables 12 and 13 in
the January 1978 issue of the R eview . For a detailed discussion of the
recalls series, along with historical data, see “New Series on Recalls
from the Labor Turnover Survey,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, Decem­
ber 1977, pp. 10-19.
A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household
and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green,
“Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur­
veys,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , December 1969, pp. 9-20. See also
B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics, 1976).
The formulas used to construct the spendable average weekly earn­
ings series reflect the latest provisions of the Federal income tax and
social security tax laws. For the spendable average weekly earnings
formulas for the years 1978-80, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s,
March 1980, pp. 10-11. Real earnings data are adjusted using the
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W).

8.

Employment by industry, 1951-80

[Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands]

Year

T o ta l

C o n s tru c ­

M a n u fa c ­

tio n

tu rin g

M in in g

T ra n s ­

W h o le ­

p o rta tio n

sa le

an d

and

G o v e rn m e n t

F in an ce,
W h o le s a le

R etail

tra d e

tra d e

in su r­
an c e ,

pu b lic

re ta il

an d real

u tilitie s

tra d e

e s ta te

S e rv ic e s

S ta te
T o ta l

F e d e ra l

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

a n d lo cal

..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................

47,819
48,793
50,202
48,990
50,641

929
898

2,668

791
792

2,659
2,646
2,839

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

2,727
2,812
2,854
2,867
2,926

7,015
7,192
7,393
7,368
7,610

2,111
2,200
2,298

5,547
5,699
5,835
5,969
6,240

1956 ..........................................................
1957 ..........................................................
1958 ..........................................................
1959’ ........................................................
1960 ..........................................................

52,369
52,853
51,324
53,268
54,189

822
828
751
732
712

3,039
2,962
2,817
3,004
2,926

17,243
17,174
15,945
16,675
16,796

4,244
4,241
3,976
4,011
4,004

10,858

10,750
11,127
11,391

3,018
3,028
2,980
3,082
3,143

7,840
7,858
7,770
8,045
8,248

2,389
2,438
2,481
2,549
2,629

6,497
6,708
6,765
7,087
7,378

7,278
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

..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................

53,999
55,549
56,653
58,283
60,765

672
650
635
634
632

2,859
2,948
3,010
3,097
3,232

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

3,133
3,198
3,248
3,337
3,466

8,204
8,368
8,530
8,823
9,250

2,754
2,830
2,911
2,977

7,620
7,982
8,277
8,660
9,036

8,594
8,890
9,225
9,596
10,074

2,279
2,340
2,358
2,348
2,378

6,315
6,550

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................

63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880

627
613
606
619
623

3,317
3,248
3,350
3,575
3,588

19,214
19,447
19,781
20,167
19,367

4,158
4,268
4,318
4,442
4,515

13,245
13,606
14,099
14,705
15,040

3,597
3,689
3,779
3,907
3,993

9,648
9,917
10,320
10,798
11,047

3,058
3,185
3,337
3,512
3,645

9,498
10,045
10,567
11,169
11,548,

10,784
11,391
11,839
12,195
12,554

2,564
2,719
2,737
2,758
2,731

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................

71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945

609
628
642
697
752

3,704
3,889
4,097
4,020
3,525

18,623
19,151
20,154
20,077
18,323

4,476
4,541
4,656
4,725
4,542

15,352
15,949
16,607
16,987
17,060

4,001
4,113
4,277
4,433
4,415

11,351
11,836
12,329
12,554
12,645

3,772
3,908
4,046
4,148
4,165

11,797
12,276
12,857
13,441
13,892

12,881
13,334
13,732
14,170
14,686

2,696
2,684
2,663
2,724
2,748

10,185
10,649
11,068
11,446
11,937

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................

79,382
82,471
86,697
89,886
90,657

779
813
851
960
1,025

3,576
3,851
4,229
4,483
4,469

18,997
19,682
20,505
21,062
20,361

4,582
4,713
4,923
5,141
5,156

17,755
18,516
19,542
20,269
20,573

4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
5,281

13,209
13,808
14,573
15,066
15,292

4,271
4,467
4,724
4,974
5,162

14,551
15,303
16,252
17,078
17,741

14,871
15,127
15,672
15,920
16,170

2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773

12,138
12,399
12,919
13,147
13,304

1951
1952
1953
1954
1955

866

2,637

10,886

1,956
2,035

2,688

2,868

6,868
7,248
7,696

8,220
8,672
9,102
9,437
9,823

'Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.

9.

Employment by State

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
S ta te

Alaska1 ........................................................................

California’ ....................................................................
Colorado ......................................................................

Hawaii..........................................................................

Maryland ......................................................................
Massachusetts..............................................................
Michigan ......................................................................
Mississippi’ ..................................................................
Missouri’ ......................................................................

Jan. 1980

D e c . 1980

Jan . 1 9 8 1 p

1,357.3
153.5
998.6
737.9
9,733.3

1,366.9
163.9
1,028.6
749.7
9,967.3

1,355.5
160.2
,011.0
739 7
9,817.1

1,255.2
1,409.0
250.1
603.8
3,515.7

1,266.5
1,442.4
263.2
616.5
3,711.6

1,251.6
1,420.5
254.6
608 9
3,691.6

2,126.7
403.5
329 9
4,866.7
2,149 9

2,176.2
407.7
331 9
4,879.4
2,145.1

2,154.9
402.8
322.8
4,722.2
2 105 9

1,111.3
948.3
1,205.0
1,534.7
405.6

1,097.0
956.8
1 222 3
1,6169
421.2

1,071.5
940.0
1,1999
1,603 4
409.6

1,716.8
2,696.9
3,535.9
1,769.7
838.8
1,965.1

1,665.6
2,636.4

1

,666.1
2,609,3
3,506.1
1,744.6
830.7
1,956.1

1

1,724.2
826.4
1,925.4

S ta te

Jan . 1980

D e c . 1980

274.0
6233
386.3
375 6
3,002.0

280 7
634.1
403 5
391 6
3,060.5

274.9
619.8
396 3
382 5
2,994.9

462.9
7 086 0
2,371.9
238 0
4 398 1

470.8
7 269 9
2,416 1
248 1
4 420 1

463.4
7 093 9
2 380 6
241 1
4 306 6

1120
1,039.9
4 789 0
392 0
1 177 4

1 159 6
1,027.8
4 788 7
404 3
1 195 5

1 150 8
1,007.8
4 677 9
392 7
1 175 7

234 2
1,740.0
57102
542.8
197.6

234 5
1,736.8
027 2
564 4
204.0

6

231 5
1,702.1
5 997 8
552 6
203.1

2,150.4
1,613.9
650.1
1,959.3
207.2

2,112.5

Wyoming ................................................................

2,097.2
1,584.5
638.3
1,926.0
198.8

Virgin Islands1 ........................................................

37.1

36.9

36.3

Nebraska................................................................

New Jersey ............................................................
New Mexico ’ ..........................................................

1

Oregon ..................................................................

Utah

Virginia....................................................................
Washington ............................................................
West Virginia ’ ........................................................

Jan . 1981

p

633.5
1,913.2
204.8

' Revised series, not strictly comparable with previously published data.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

85

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
10.

Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands]
19 31

1980

A n n u al a v e ra g e
In d u s try d iv is io n a n d g ro u p

TOTAL

M IN IN G

..................................................................................

C O N S T R U C T IO N

1980

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

July

A ug.

89,886

90,657

89,781

90,316

90,761

90,849

91,049

89,820

90,072

4,483

4,469

4,109

4,150

4,311

4,471

4,611

4,633

4,712

4,690

4,700

4,618

4,431

4,078

3,969

14,093

19,754
13,657

20,044
13,947

20,269
14,182

20,302
14,204

20,368
14,260

20,316
14,199

20,158
14,053

20,146
14,065

12,065
8,307

11,774
8,025

11,827
8,075

12,028
8,281

12,195
8,430

12,186
8,413

12,112
8,341

12,085
8,329

689.2
466.6
667.4
1,081.8
1,594.5
2,449.6
2,103.5
1,857.9
695.5
422.2

679.8
682.8
473.8
475.8
654.3
667.2
1,111.9 1,124.6
1,615.6 1,614.6
2,475.2 2,492.5
2,134.9 2,143.9
1,912.2 1,888.4
700.6
702.2
410.1
421.2

667.7
474.2
636.2
1,127.0
1,598.5
2,491.4
2,143.4
1,870.2
701.3
402.2

667.9
473.8
632.0
1,127.3
1,598.2
2,497.2
2,143.5
1,842.1
698.5
404.3

8,130
5,786

8,046
5,712

8,061
5,736

1,667.2
74.7
858.3
1,281.7
691.7
1,291.6
1,107.6
207.8
710.3
708.3
238.8
241.5

1,624,0
71.9
853.2
1,266.9
687.5
1,282.6
1,106.5
207.8
708.5
236.7

1,615.7
69.8
856.9
1,282.7
687.5
1,289.0
1,108.4
203.1
709.3
238.9

12,215
8,468

12,599
8,869

12,647
8,909

12,414
8,672

12,150
8,409

Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ....................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................
Machinery, except electrical..........................
Electric and electronic equipment..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................

766.1
499.3
709.7
1,250.2
1,723.7
2,481,6
2,124.3
2,082.8
688.9
445.6

686.9
473.7
667.9
1,133.3
1,627.1
2,488.8
2,126.3
1,889.8
699.7
422.0

718.9
494.6
674.7
1,205.1
1,699,4
2,536.5
2,157.7
1,983.1
700.5
428.8

716.9
494.1
679.0
1,203.7
1,703.8
2,539.9
2,167.7
2,005.6
703.6
432.9

678.4
488.7
675.5
1,193.8
1,671.4
2,523.5
2,156.2
1,891.1
702.2
433.0

654.8
469.1

8,290
5,965

8,146
5,809

8,131
5,809

8,146
5,818

8,119
5,794

1,728.1
69.9
888.5
1,312.5
706.7
1,239.5
1,110.7

775.6
248.0

1,690.4
69.0
863.8
1,296.5
693.9
1,271.7
,112.6
197.3
710.7
240.1

1,644.1
67.1
884.6
1,305.8
701.9
1,270.4
,112.1
155.9
746.3
242.6

1,641.1
64.4
886.9
1,318.4
701.8
1,272.1
1,118.1
153.1
746.5
243.4

5,141

5,156

5,130

20,269

20,573

20,155

W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E

W HO LESALE TRADE

R E T A IL T R A D E
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

S E R V IC E S
GOVERNMENT

State and local ............................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1,068

1,035

1,030

12,772
9,120

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S

90,147

1,067

1,049

Production workers................................

Apparel and other textile products ................
Paper and allied products ............................
Printing and publishing..................................
Chemicals and allied products ......................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................

90,098

1,064

1,039

1,024

20,250
14,172

Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures ................................

91,846

1,055

91,332

1,006

20,533
14,466

Production workers................................

91,693

90,729

996

20,793
14,727

N o n d u ra b le g o o d s

F e b .P

N ov.

987

20,730
14,678

D u ra b le g o o d s

J a n .p

O c t.

1.025

20,361
14,277

Production workers................................

210.0

1

1

20,201

668.0 666.8
438.1
460.8
666.2 656.0

1,029

D ec.

S ep t.

960

21,062
15,085

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

86

1979

1,112.9
1,598.6
2,486.1
,102.2
1,847.0
702.9
420.1

1,055.5
1,538.4
2,440.2
2,066.5
1,810.2
698.3
404.0

683.0
454.6
663.2
1,059.6
1,567.6
2,417.8
2,080.7
1,785.4
697.8
417.6

5,763

8,136
5,786

7,980
5,632

8,217
5,872

8,241
5,901

1,626.2
62.9
882.1
1,304.2
698.8
1,270.4
,120.6
173.6
737.2
243.3

1,638.5
62.7
870.6
1,299.0
692.4
1,267.8
1,119.5
203.4
702.4
243.2

1,676.8
64.6
853.2
1,310.5
695.0
1,271.3
,122.2
209.1
688.5
244,7

1,709.5
63.9
820.6
1,236.9
682.3
1,264.5
,112.0

1,790.5
75.5
854.7
1,309.2

659.3
218.9

1,795.3
71.3
854.1
1,299.9
688.7
1,264.3
1,108.4
212.4
680.4
242.6

5,143

5,147

5,167

5,185

5,145

20,226

20,373

20,497

20,562

20,506

1

668.1
1,149.8
1,619.8
2,509.3
,120.2
1,835.1
699.4
424.6

2

8,100

2

1

1
212.0

12,100
8,343
686.9
470.3
665.5
1,093.1
1,604.6
2,456.7
2,119.3
1,885.7
695.9
422.1

8,202
5,861

8,173
5,830

1,267.9
1,106.3
210.9
6958
241.1

1,738.8
76.4
856.8
1,307.5
690.7
1,272.2
1,104.9
210.4
703.4
240.6

1,696.6
75.6
859.4
1,302.3
691.6
1,281.0
1,106.1

5,144

5,170

5,178

5,158

5,163

5,081

5,080

20,579

20,692

20,708

20,937

21,313

20,575

20,403

5,313

5,318

5,273

5,280

688.6

210.2

5,204

5,281

5,250

5,269

5,265

5,263

5,287

5,278

5,284

5,291

5,313

15,066

15,292

14,905

14,957

15,108

15,234

15,275

15,228

15,295

15,401

15,395

15,624

15,995

15,302

15,123

5,232

5,194

5,204

5,215

5,229

5,223

5,223

4,974

5,162

5,061

5,085

5,104

5,137

5,201

5,229

17,078

17,741

17,317

17,478

17,636

17,747

17,846

17,973

17,966

17,915

17,949

17,951

17,978

17,790

17,928

15,550
2,949
12,601

15,366
2,862
12,504

15,764
2,754
13,010

16,252
2,774
13,478

16,391
2,776
13,615

16,352
2,782
13,570

16,126
2,758
13,368

16,320
2,734
13,586

15,920
2,773
13,147

16,170

2,866

13,304

16,292
2,803
13,489

16,445
2,869
13,576

16,651
3,103
13,548

16,556
2,963
13,593

16,394
2,995
13,399

11.

Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
1980

1981

In d u s try d iv is io n a n d g ro u p

TOTAL

M IN IN G

.................................................................................................................................

C O N S T R U C T IO N

.............................................................................................................

J a n .p

F e b .P

91,125

91,499

91,550

1,072

1,084

1,090

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

July

A ug.

S e p t.

O ct.

N ov.

91,186

91,144

90,951

90,468

90,047

89,867

90,142

90,384

90,710

90,961
1,054
4,475

4,508

4,608

4,500
20,370
14,260

1,007

1,009

1,012

1,023

1,029

1,013

1,013

1,028

1,037

4,659

4,529

4,467

4,436

4,379

4,322

4,359

4,404

4,442

D ec.

20,957
14,871

20,938
14,850

20,642
14,550

20,286
14,186

20,014
13,931

19,828
13,759

19,940
13,872

20,044
13,972

20,157
14,065

20,282
14,179

20,312
14,195

20,350
14,226

12,715
8,967

12,707
8,961

12,442

8,686

12,140
8,386

11,947
8,205

11,819
8,084

11,860
8,123

11,955

Production workers ................................................................

8,212

12,043
8,288

12,146
8,381

12,160
8,386

12,192
8,409

12,198
8,424

Lumber and wood products............................................................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................................................
Primary metal industries ................................................................
Fabricated metal products..............................................................
Machinery, except electrical ..........................................................
Electric and electronic equipment....................................................
Transportation equipment ..............................................................
Instruments and related products....................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing..........................................................

745
495
705
1,214
1,711
2,529
2,168
2,006
702
440

737
494
700
1,209
1,711
2,530
2,176
2,006
705
439

689
491
680
1,193
1,678
2,518
2,167
1,885
703
438

654
472
663
1,144
1,620
2,517
2,127
1,819
700
424

648
461
647
1,096
1,584
2,476
2,094
1,831
696
414

650
449
641
1,049
1,551
2,448
2,079
1,839
698
415

662
456
648
1,059
1,569
2,437
2,083
1,840
697
409

674
464
655
1,074
1,587
2,452
2,091
1,851
697
410

677
466
656
1,096
1,595
2,469
2,107
1,873
697
407

683
469
661
1,119
1,606
2,475

692
474
660
1,135
1,611
2,490
2,154

701
415

693
474
662
1,135
1,608
2,484
2,150
1,865
703
418

N o n d u ra b le g o o d s .....................................................................................................

8,242
5,904

8,231
5,889

8,200

8,146
5,800

8,067
5,726

8,009
5,675

8,080
5,749

8,089
5,760

8,114
5,777

8,136
5,798

8,152
5,809

8,158
5,817

8,172
5,836

1,713

1,704

1,691
70
869
1,291
692
1,268

1,677
71
843
1,287
685
1,269

1,683
69
833
1,276
680
1,266
1,103
207
663
229

1,690
67
851
1,296
682
1,266

1,672

1,682
69
856
1,292
690
1,272
1,105
209
699
240

1,686

1,684
70
857
1,291
693
1,284

1,679
70
858
1,290
694
1,285
1,115
213
713
241

1,683
71
860
1,290
695
1,292
1,117
209
714
241

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

Production workers ................................................................
D u ra b le g o o d s .............................................................................................................

Production workers ................................................................
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 miscellaneous plastics products....................................
Leather and leather products..........................................................
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S

....................................................

W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E

W HO LESALE TR A D E

R E T A IL T R A D E

1,313
709
1,273

1,121
161
751
245

68
888

1,316
708
1,274
1,123
157
749
244

1,690
69
884
1,302
702
1,272
1,123
175
740
243

1,120

1,112

203
703
239

205
681
237

1,100
208
680
240

68

851
1,299

686

1,269
1,104
208
692
240

1,901
701
411

71
856
1,291
692
1,278
1,108
209
705
240

472
660
1,133
1,608
2,480
2,135

1,868

1,112
210
711
240

1,866
701
415

5,198

5,202

5,178

5,167

5,134

5,114

5,129

5,124

5,147

5,132

5,137

5,148

5,147

20,637

20,610

20,531

20,487

20,459

20,506

20,589

20,620

20,641

20,660

20,638

20,782

20,892

5,302

5,301

5,286

5,268

5,245

5,247

5,263

5,280

5,292

5,297

5,302

5,310

5,333

15,335

15,309

15,245

15,219

15,214

15,259

15,326

15,340

15,349

15,363

15,336

15,472

15,559

....................................................

5,101

5,115

5,119

5,137

5,150

5,167

5,180

5,194

5,214

5,225

5,245

5,265

5,275

...........................................................................................................................

17,540

17,580

17,618

17,659

17,652

17,760

17,788

17,861

17,913

17,969

18,068

18,135

18,164

16,087
2,826
13,261

16,161

13,275

16,384
3,115
13,269

16,273
2,960
13,313

16,230
2,951
13,279

16,157
2,893
13,264

16,144
2,828
13,316

16,109
2,765
13,344

16,159
2,788
13,371

16,164
2,790
13,374

16,145
2,789
13,356

16,127
2,786
13,341

16,112
2,753
13,359

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
S E R V IC E S

68
888

5,864

2,120

688

GOVERNMENT

Federal ........................................................................................
Stale and local..............................................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2,886

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
12.

Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date

[Per 100 employees]
Y ear

A nnual
a v e ra g e

Jan.

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

June

July

A ug.

S e p t.

O c t.

Nov.

D ec.

4.3
4.4
4.3
3.8

5.3
5.4
5.0
4.5

4.6
4.9
4.5
4.3

3.9
4.3
4.1
3.6

3.1
3.3
3.0
2.7

2.4
2.4

3.0
3.3
3.1

2.1

4.0
4.2
3.7
2.5

3.5
3.9
3.4

3.0
3.5
3.1

.9

1.0

.9
1.4

.9
.9
1.7

4.3
4.1
4.3
4.2

5.1
5.3
5.7
4.8

1.9

3.1
3.5
3.3

T o ta l a c c e s s io n s

1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................

4.0
4.1
4.0
3.5

1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................

2.8

1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................

.9
.7
.7

1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................

3.7
3.8
4.0
3.8
” 3.4

3.7
3.2
3.4
3.3

4.0
3.8
3.8
3.5

3.8
4.0
3.9
3.1

4.6
4.7
4.7
3.4

2.1
2.2
2.5
2.2

2.6
2.7
2.8

2.7
2.9
2.9

3.5
3.6
3.6

4.9
4.9
4.8
3.9

2.2
2.2

N e w h ire s

3.1
2.9

2.1

2.2
2.5
2.8
2.4
” 1.8

2.3

2.1

2.1

1.1
.8

.9

.8
.8
.8
1.0

3.7
3.9
3.8
2.4

2.6

2.2

2.2
2.6
2.2
1.6

.8
.7
.8

,6

.6

.5
.5
.9

.5
.5

1.4

.6
6
.7
1.1

4.9
4.9
4.7
4.1

3.8
4.1
4.2
3.7

3.4
3.5
3.8
3.0

3.4
3.4
3.5
3.1

1.5
1.7

1.2
1.3
1.1

1.6
1.7
1.5

1.2

R ecalls

1.1

1.2
1.0
.9
1.1

1.3
.7
.7
.9

.8
.8

.7
.9

.7

3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7

3.4
3.6
3.7
4.7

.8

.8

.7
.7

1.2

.8

” 1.4
T o ta l s e p a ra tio n s

3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0

3.9
3.6
3.8
4.1
” 3.5

3.4
3.1
3.2
3.5

3.5
3.7
3.8
4.8

3.5
3.8
3.9
4.4

Q u its

1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................

1.8
2.1
2.0
1.5

1.4
1.5

1.6
1.8
1.9
1.6

1.3
1.4

1.8
1.6
1.2

1.6
1.5

1.7

1.9

1.9

2.0
2.0

2.1
2.1

2.2
2.1

2.1
2.0

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

2.8

1.9
2.3

3.1
2.7
1.9

2.2

2.1
1.4

1.6
1.1

.9

L a y o ffs

1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

13.

..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................

1.1
.9
1.1

1.7

1.4

1.0
.9
.8

1.4
.9

1.2
1.1
1.6

.8
1.2

.8

.9

.8

.7
.7
2.5

.9
2.3

1.3

.8

1.5

1,1
1.4
2.0

.7
.9

2.2

1.0
.8
1.3
1.7

1.1
.8
1.1

1.1
.9
1.2

1.4

1.5

1.1
1.0

1.5
1.4
1.7

1.5
1.3

1.6

” 1.5

Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group

[Per 100 employees]
A c c e s s io n ra te s

M a jo r in d u s try g ro u p

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

Seasonally adjusted..............
D u ra b le g o o d s ..............................................

Lumber and wood products..........
Furniture and fixtures ..................
Stone, clay, and glass products . . .
Primary metal industries ..............
Fabricated metal products............
Machinery, except electrical..........
Electric and electronic equipment ..
Transportation equipment ............
Instruments and related products ..
Miscellaneous manufacturing........
N o n d u ra b le g o o d s

Food and kindred products ..........
Tobacco manufacturers................
Textile mill products ....................
Apparel and other products..........
Paper and allied products ............
Printing and publishing..................
Chemicals and allied products . . . .
Petroleum and coal products........
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products......................
Leather and leather products........

88

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T o ta l

S e p a ra tio n ra te s

N e w h ire s

R ecalls

T o ta l

Q u its

L a y o ffs

Jan.

D ec.

Jan.

Jan.

D ec.

Jan.

Jan.

D ec.

Jan.

Jan.

D ec.

Jan.

Jan.

D ec.

Jan.

Jan.

D ec.

Jan.

1980

1980

1981”

1980

1980

1981”

1980

1980

1981”

1980

1980

1981”

1980

1980

1981”

1980

1980

1981”

3.4
3.5

2.4

1.1

0.8

1.4

4.1
4.1

3.1
3.3

3.5
3.5

0.9
1.5

1.2

1.6

1.5

1.3

1.6
1.1

1.5

1.9

3.9

2.6

1.4

1.5

4.9
3.2
4.7
2.5
2.9
1.7

1.0
2.0
1.8
1,0
.5
1.1
.9
1.0
1.0

1.7

4.9
4.8
3.1
4.4

.7
1.4
1.3

3.8
3.9

2.2

3.5
4.7
4.6
3.6
3.1
4.0
2.9
3.1
3.4
3.0
5.7

1.9

4.2
4.8
3.9
4.5

6.8
2.7
3.4

1.6

1.9
4.8
7.0

3.6

2.8
2.0
2.9

3.2
4.6
4.2
3.8
3.2
3.3

2.8
2.1
2.9
3.6
1.9

1.8

2.7

1.2
2.1
2.1

1.7
1.5
2.5

2.2
6.1

1.5
2.3
3.1

3.7
4.5

2.8
2.9
1.6

2.3
1.9
1.7

2.5
3.4
5.0

2.0
3.0
1.7
2.5

1.1

1.4

2.6
3.4

2.6

3.2
5.6
2.5
3.0

2.5

3.5
4.0
1.5

1.2 1.8
2.2 2.2
1.0 1.6
1.6 2.7
1.7
2.6
1.1 1.5
.5
1.0
1.1 1.7
1.0 1.5
1.0 1.4
6
1.2 1.7
1.5
2.1
1.5
2.2
1.8 2.4
1.6
1.4
1.5
.9
1.9

2.3
3.0

1.8
2.2

2.8
1.2
1.6

.8
1.1

1.2
2.2
1.2
1.8

3.9
7.5

3.1
4.4

1.4
2.3

2.3
3.5

1.0
1.6
.7
1.5

1.6
1.2

.5
.5
1.4
.4
2.4

1.2
1.6
1.9
.7
2.5

1.0
.5
.3

.2

1.4
2.3

.7

1.0
1.0
.8
1.5
.7
.5
.5

.6
.2
.8

1.4

1.6
1.2
2.2
2.0
1.5
.9

.8

.4
3.7

.9
1.4

1.3

.4
1.4

.7
2.4

2.8
.6
.5
.2
.2
1.0
1.0

1.8

6.0

3.3
5.3
3.8
5.1

2.6

2.1

3.8
2.5
2.9

6.2

2.5
1.5
5.8

2.2
6.1

4.4

3.8

2.8

3.4
4.8
2.5

6.0.
4.5
4.4
5.8
2.7
3.3

6.1
3.9
2.6

3.9
5.6

.5
.3

1.6
2.1

2.0

3.4
5.3
2.7
3.2
1.5
1.9

1,3
3.8

5.4
7.1

3.5
5.9

3.9
5.8

1.1
.6

5.3
2.4
3.0
1.4

1.6
1.4
2.4
2.5
1.4
.7

1.6
1.2

1.4
.9
1.4

2.0
2.0
2.4
1.0
2.5
2.9

1,0

1,9
.7
.7

2.1
3.3

.8
.3
,8
.5
.7
.4
.7

1.1
1.2
1.5
.3

1.1

1.5
.5
1.4
.4
.5

1.1
1.8

1.5

1.6
1.9

1.6
2.2
.9
1.7

.6
.5

1.4
2.5

2.6
1.3
2.6
1.6
1.9
.8
1.0
3.0
.4
3.1
1.5
2.7
2.7

.8
2.0
.9
.8
.3
,6
2.1
2.7

2.8
1.3
3.1

1.6
1.6
.6
.8

1.4
.3
3.9

1.2

2.2
1.1
3.3
1.3

1.8
.9
1.0

.5
3.4

2.1

1.6

4.0
3.0
.9
3.2
1.4

2.9

1.0
.5
1.0

1.0
1.2
.8
.3
.8

1.7
3.4

1.7
2.5

2.3

14.

Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1950-80

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]

Year

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

w e e k ly

w e e k ly

h o u rly

w e e k ly

w e e k ly

h o u rly

w e e k ly

w e e k ly

ho u rly

w e e k ly

w e e k ly

h o u rly

h o u rs

e a rn in g s

e a rn in g s

h o u rs

e a rn in g s

e a rn in g s

h o u rs

ea rn in g s

ea rn in g s

h o u rs

e a rn in g s

40.5

$1.440

2.13
2.28
2.39
2.45

63.34
66.75
70,47
70.49
75.30

40.6
40.7
40.5
39.6
40.7

1.56
1.64
1.74
1.78
1.85

37.5
37.0
36.8
37.0
36.7

2.57
2.71
2.82
2.93
3.07

78.78
81.19
82.32
88.26
89.72

40.4
39.8
39.2
40.3
39.7

2.10

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

92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53

39.8
40.4
40.5
40.7
41.2

2.32
2.39
2.45
2.53
2.61

3.05
3.19
3.35
3.60
3.85

146.26
154.95
164.49
181.54
195.45

37.6
37.7
37.3
37.9
37.3

3.89
4.11
4.41
4.79
5.24

112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33

41.4
40.6
40.7
40.6
39.8

2.71
2.82
3.01
3.19
3.35

42.4
42.6
42.4
41.9
41.9

4.06
4.44
4.75
5.23
5.95

211.67
221.19
235.89
249.25
266.08

37.2
36.5
36.8
36.6
36.4

5.69
6.06
6.41
6.81
7.31

142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79

39.9
40.5
40.7
40.0
39.5

3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83

42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
43.2

6.46
6.94
7.67
8.50
9.18

283.73
295.65
318.69
342.99
367.78

36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
37.0

7.71

209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
288.62

40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
39.7

5.22
5.68
6.17
6.69
7.27

37.4

1.93

2.20

76.96
82.86
86.41
88.91
90.90

38.1
38.9
37.9
37.2
37.1

40.8
40.1
38.9
40.5
40.4

2.33
2.45
2.47
2.56
2.60

96.38
100.27
103.78
108.41
112.67

106.92
110.70
114.40
117.74
123.52

40.5
41.0
41.6
41.9
42.3

2.64
2.70
2.75
2.81
2.92

2.85
3.04
3.23

130.24
135.89
142.71
154.80
164.40

42.7
42.6
42.6
43.0
42.7

36.9
37.0
36.9
36.5
36.1

3.45
3.70
3.94
4.24
4.53

172.14
189.14
201.40
219.14
249.31

36.1
36.0
35.8
35.6
35.3

4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16

273.90
301.20
332.88
365.50
396.58

$1.335

$67.16

37.9

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................

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

74.11
77.59
83.03
82.60
89.54

38.4
38.6
38.8
38.6
40.7

1956 ..................
1957 ..................
1958 ..................
1959' ................
1960 ..................

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

95.06
98.25
96.08
103.68
105.04

1961
1962
1963
1964
1965

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................

82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45

38.6
38.7
38.8
38.7
38.8

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................

98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83

38.6
38.0
37.8
37.7
37.1

2.56

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................

127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................

175.45
189.00
203.70
219.30
235.10

2.09
2.14

2.22
2.28
2.36
2.46

2.68

6.66

M a n u fa c tu rin g

$58.32

$69.68

39.8

2.02

A v e ra g e

C o n s tru c tio n

$1.772

$53.13

1951
1952
1953
1954
1955

e a rn in g s

M in in g

T o ta l p riv a te

1950 ..................

A v e ra g e

A v e ra g e

2.01
2.14
2.14

$1.863

2.02

8.10
8.66
9.27
9.94

1.95
2.04

2.19
2.26

F in a n c e , in s u ra n c e , and

T ra n s p o rta tio n a n d pub lic

W h o le s a le a n d re ta il tra d e

u tilities

S e rv ic e s

re a l e s ta te

1950

$44.55

40 5

$1.100

$50.52

37.7

$1.340

1951
1952
1953
1954
1955

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
1957
1958
1959 1
1960

57 48
59 60
61.76
64 41

1.47
1.54
1.60

66.01

39.1
38 7
38 6
38.8
38.6

369
36.7
37.1
37.3
37.2

1.78
1.84
1.89
1.95

1.71

65.68
67.53
70.12
72.74
75.14

2.02

1961
1962
1963
1964 ..................
1965 ..................

38 3
38.2
38.1
37.9
37.7

1.76
1.83
1 89
1.97
2.04

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

$70.03
73.60

36.1
35.9

$1.94
2.05

$118.78
125.14

41.1
41.3

$2.89
3.03

67 41
69 91
72.01
74.66
76.91

1.66

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................

128.13
130.82
138.85
147.74
155.93

41.2
40.5
40.6
40.7
40.5

3.11
3.23
3.42
3.63
3.85

79.39
82.35
87.00
91.39
96.02

37.1
36.6
36.1
35.7
35.3

2.14
2.25
2.41
2.56
2.72

92.13
95.72
101.75
108.70
112.67

37.3
37.1
37.0
37.1
36.7

2.47
2.58
2.75
2.93
3.07

77.04
80.38
83.97
90.57
96.66

35.5
35.1
34.7
34.7
34.4

2.17
2.29
2.42
2.61
2.81

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................

168.82
187.86
203.31
217.48
233.44

40.1
40.4
40.5
40.2
39.7

4.21
4.65
5.02
5.41
5.88

101.09
106.45
111.76
119.02
126.45

35.1
34.9
34.6
34.2
33.9

2.88
3.05
3.23
3.48
3.73

117.85
122.98
129.20
137.61
148.19

36.6
36.6
36.6
36.5
36.5

3.22
3.36
3.53
3.77
4.06

103.06
110.85
117.29
126.00
134.67

33.9
33.9
33.8
33.6
33.5

3.04
3.27
3.47
3.75
4.02

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

..................
..................
..................
..................
..................

256.71
278.90
302.80
325.98
352.04

398
39.9
40.0
39.9
39.6

6.45
6.99
7.57
8.17
8.89

133.79
142.52
153.64
164.96
175.91

33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
32.1

3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
5.48

155.43
165.26
178.00
190.77
209.24

36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
36.2

4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
5.78

143.52
153.45
163.67
175.27
190.71

33.3
33.0
32.8
32.7
32.6

4.31
4.65
4,99
5.36
5.85

’ Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

89

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
15.

Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1981

1980

A n n u al a v e ra g e
In d u s try d iv is io n an d g ro u p

D ec.

35.3

35.3

35.6

35.0

34.9

43.5

43.5

44.1

43.7

42.8

36.8

37.1

36.3

34.6

40.2
3.1

40.8
3.3

39.9
2.9

39.5

40.7
3.1

41.5
3.4

40.4
2.9

39.9

39.2
38.5
41.3
39.9
40.5

39.2
38.4
41.4
40.8
40.9

39.6
39.6
41.6
41.6
41.6

38.7
38.0
40.3
41.2
40.4

37.8
38.1
39.8
40.6
40.0

41.0
39.7
40.7
40.1
39.1

40.7
39.9
41.1
40.3
38.9

41.3
40.4
41.7
40.9
39.1

42.2
41.0
43.1
41.2
39.5

41.2
40.1
41.2
40.5
38.6

40.9
39.5
40.2
40.0
38.7

38.9
2.9

39.1
3.0

39.1
2.9

39.3
3.0

39.8
3.1

39.1
2.9

38.8

39.9
36.5
38.5
35.3
41.4

40.3
36.8
39.2
35.4
41.8

40.3
38.2
39.8
35.2
42.4

39.7
40.1
39.9
35.4
42.2

40.1
40.0
40.3
35.4
42.8

40.3
38.1
40.8
35.9
43.7

40.0
38.4
39.8
35.1
43.0

39.4
38.3
39.7
35.0
42.6

36.8
40.7
42.7
386
36.4

37.2
40.9
42.2
40.0
36.6

37.3
41.3
43.4
40.3
36.2

37.2
41.4
43.7
40.7
36.5

37.2
42.0
43.6
41.1
36.3

38.1
42.1
43.3
41.6
36.9

37.1
41.3
42.6
41.1
36.5

37.0
41.4
42.4
40.3
36.9

O ct.

35.5

35.3

43.1

43.5

37.3

37.9

37.9

39.3
2.7

39.7
3.0

39.8
2.9

39.1
2.3

39.7

40.2
2.9

40.3
2.9

38.4
37.3
41.0
39.1
40.1

38.2
36.2
40.3
38.6
39.2

39.2
37.6
40.7
39.0
40.0

39.3
38.3
41.1
39.9
40.5

40.8
39.3
39.9
40.3
38.2

40.8
39.4
39.9
40.5
38.3

40.0
38.5
39.5
39.6
37.8

40.4
39.2
40.0
39.9
38.5

38.7
2.7

38.7
2.5

38.8
2.5

38.5

39.0
37.7
40.9
35.4
42.4

38.9
38.2
39.9
35.3
42.2

39.7
38.7
39.8
35.3
41.6

39.6
38.3
39.6
35.6
41.7

37.0
41.6
39.7
39.9
36.8

37.2
41.7
39.4
40.0
36.4

36.8
41.6
41.1
39.7
36.7

36.9
41.3
42.3
39.0
37.0

36.7
41.2
42.3
39.3
37.4

1980

Feb.

T O T A L P R IV A T E .........................................................

35.6

35.3

35.1

35.2

35.0

35.0

35.3

35.3

M I N I N G .....................................................................................

43.0

43.2

43.2

43.4

42.8

42.7

43.2

41.9

C O N S T R U C T IO N

37.0

37.0

35.7

36.2

36.7

36.9

37.9

37.7

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

40.2
3.3

39.7

39.8
2.9

39.8
3.0

39.4
2.7

39.3
2.5

39.4
2.5

38.8
2.4

40.8
3.5

40.2

Overtime hours......................................

40.3
3.0

40.3
3.1

39.9
2.7

39.7
2.5

39.8
2.4

Lumber and wood products ..........................
Furniture and fixtures ....................................
Stone, clay, and glass products......................
Primary metal industries................................
Fabricated metal products ............................

39.4
38.7
41.5
41.4
40.7

38.6
38.1
40.8
40.1
40.4

38.5
38.4
40.1
40.7
40.4

38.3
38.5
40.7
40.7
40.6

37.1
37.9
40.4
40.6
40.2

37.6
37.3
40.6
39.3
39.9

Machinery except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment ..................
Transportation equipment..............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................

41.8
40.3
41.1
40.8
388

41.1
39.8
40.6
40.5
38.7

41.5
40.2
40.4
40.8
38.6

41.5
40.0
40.4
40.6
388

41.1
39.6
39.8
40.4
38.4

39.3
3.1

39.0

38.9

Overtime hours.....................................

38.9
2.9

Food and kindred products............................
Tobacco manufactures..................................
Textile mill products......................................
Apparel and other textile products..................
Paper and allied products..............................

39.9
38.0
40.4
35.3
42.6

39.7
38.1
40.0
35.4
42.3

39.1
36.9
40.8
35.4
42.4

Printing and publishing ..................................
Chemicals and allied products........................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ........................

37.5
41.9
43.8
40.5
36.5

37.1
41.5
41.8
40.1
36.7

Overtime hours......................................
D u ra b le g o o d s

N o n d u ra b le g o o d s

2.8
2.8

2.8

2.8

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

2.6

Aug.

2.6

J a n .p

Feb. P

N o v.

S e p t.

M ar.

July

1979

2.8

2.8

2.8

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S

39.9

39.6

39.4

39.5

39.5

39.3

39.6

39.9

39.7

39.7

39.8

39.7

40.0

39.2

39.4

W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E

32.6

32.1

31.9

32.0

31.8

31.9

32.3

32.5

32.7

32.1

32.1

32.0

32.4

31.6

31.7

W HOLESALE TRADE

38.8

38.5

38.4

38.4

38.4

38.5

38.2

38.2

38.4

38.5

38.7

38.6

38.9

38.5

38.2

R E T A IL T R A D E

30.6

30.1

29.8

29.9

29.7

29.9

30.4

30.7

30.9

30.1

30.0

30.0

30.5

295

29.6

36.2

36.2

36.3

36.3

36.2

36.1

36.4

36.2

36.3

36.1

36.3

36.3

36.3

36.2

36.4

32.7

32.6

32.5

32.5

32.4

32.3

32.8

33.1

33.1

32.5

32.6

32.6

32.6

32.4

32.4

F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D REA L
ESTATE

S E R V IC E S ...............................................................................

90


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

16.

Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1980

1981

In d u s try d iv is io n a n d g ro u p

T O T A L P R IV A T E

...............................................................

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

July

Aug.

S e p t.

O ct.

N o v.

D ec.

J a n .p

F e b .p

35.5

35.4

35.3

35.1

35.0

34.9

35.1

35.2

35.3

35.4

35.4

35.5

35.2

M IN IN G

43.2

43.4

42.8

42.7

43.2

41.9

43.1

43.5

43.5

43.5

44.1

43.7

42.8

C O N S T R U C T IO N

37.1

36.6

36.7

36.8

37.1

36.8

36.5

37.4

37.0

37.2

37.1

38.4

35.9

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

40.1
3.0

39.8
3.1

39.8
3.0

39.3

39.1
2.4

39.0
2.5

39.4
2.7

39.6
2.7

39.7

39.9
2.9

40.1
3.1

40.4
3.1

39.8
2.9

40.6
3.1

40.3
3.2

40.3
3.0

39.7
2.5

39.5
2.4

39.4
2.4

399

40.1
2.7

40.1

Overtime hours............................................

40.5
3.0

40.6
3.2

40.9
3.1

40.2
2.9

Lumber and wood products ................................
Furniture and fixtures..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ..........................
Primary metal industries......................................
Fabricated metal products ..................................

39.1
39.0
41.2
40.8
40.8

38.7
38.5
40.9
40.7
40.7

37.3
38.5
40.6
40.6
40.8

37.5
37.6
40.3
39.2
39.9

37.6
37.0
40.4
38.8
39.7

38.1
36.6
40.2
38.6
39.6

38.9
37.4
40.3
39.2
40.1

38.8
38.0
40.9
39.7
40.4

38.7
38.0
40.9
40.1
40.4

39.3
38.0
41.1
40.9
40.6

39.4
38.6
41.3
41.4
40.6

40.0
38.8
41.5
41.3
40.7

38.3
38.7
40.8
40.7
40,4

Machinery, except electrical................................
Electric and electronic equipment........................
Transportation equipment....................................
Instruments and related products ........................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..............................

41.5
40.3
40.8
40.9
39.1

41.3
40,0
40.4
40.4
38.6

41.5
39.9
40.5
40.7
385

41.0
39.5
39.7
40.3
38.3

40.7
39.2
39.5
40.4
38.2

40.6
39.0
39.6
40.1
38.3

40.8
39.4
40.9
40.1
38.6

40.9
39.5
40.6
40.1
38.9

40.7
39.9
40.8
40.2
38.7

41.0
40.0
41.4
40.5
38.6

41.0
40.2
41.3
40.5
39.0

41.3
40.4
42.2
40.9
39.0

40.9
39.6
40.6
40.1
39.1

39.4
2.9

39.0
3.0

39.1
3.0

38.9

38.6
2.5

38.5

38.7

38.8
2.7

39.0

Overtime hours............................................

39.0
2.9

39.3
3.0

39.6
3.1

39.3
3.0

Food and kindred products..................................
Tobacco manufactures ......................................
Textile mill products............................................
Apparel and other textile products ......................
Paper and allied products ..................................

39.7
37.9
41.1
35.9
42.9

39.3
37.7
40.8
35.3
42.6

39.6
38.2
40.3
35.8
42.5

39.9
382
39.7
35.3
41.7

39.6
37.3
39.1
35.2
41.4

39.7
38.5
38.8
35.1
41.4

39.8
37.3
39.2
35.1
41.8

39.7
37.5
39.7
35.1
42.2

39.6
39.5
39.9
35.3
42.2

39.8
38.9
40.0
35.0
42.6

39.8
37.2
40.3
35.6
43.0

40.3
39.6
40.4
35.9
43.3

40.0
39.3
40.0
35.5
43.1

Printing and publishing........................................
Chemicals and allied products ............................
Petroleum and coal products ..............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ........
Leather and leather products ..............................

37.4
41.9
40.7
40.0
37.2

37.2
41.8
39.7
39.9
36.9

37.2
41.5
41.1
40.1
37.3

37.1
41.3
42.5
39.3
36.7

36.8
41.1
42.3
39.2
36.7

36.9
40.8
42.2
39.0
36.1

37.1
41.0
42.2
40.2
36.5

36.9
41.3
42.7
40.1
36.2

37.1
41.4
43.1
40.4
36.5

36.8
41.7
43.2
40.8
36.2

37.4
41.7
43.2
40.9
36.6

37.7
41.6
43.4
41.5
37.0

37.4
41.6
43.4
40.3
37.3

Overtime hours............................................
D u ra b le g o o d s

N o n d u ra b le g o o d s

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S

39.4

39.5

39.5

39.3

39.6

39.9

39.7

39.7

39.8

39.7

40.0

39.2

39.4

W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E

32.4

32.3

32.0

32.1

31.9

31.8

32.0

32.1

32.2

32.2

32.1

32.2

32.2

W H O LESA LE TRADE

38.8

38.5

38.5

38.6

38.0

38.0

38.2

38.5

38.5

38.6

38.7

38.8

38.6

R E T A IL T R A D E

30.4

30.3

30.0

30.1

30.0

29.8

30.1

30.1

302

30.2

30.0

30.2

302

ESTATE

36.3

36.3

36.2

36.1

36.4

36.2

36.3

36.1

36.3

36.3

36.3

36.2

36.4

S E R V IC E S

32.7

32.7

32.6

32.5

32.6

32.6

32.6

32.5

32.6

32.7

32.6

32.6

32.6

F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D REAL


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

91

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
17.

Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1981

1980

A n n u a l a v e ra g e
In d u s try d iv is io n an d g ro u p

T O T A L P R IV A T E .....................................................................

J a n .p

F e b .P

1979

1980

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

July

A ug.

S ep t.

O ct.

N o v.

D ec.

$6.16

$6.66

$6.46

$6.51

$6.53

$6.57

$6.61

$6.64

$6.68

$6.80

$6.86

$6.93

$6.94

$7.03

$7.04

9.08

9.18

9.32

9.37

9.51

9.58

9.78

9.84

9.91

10.05

10.19

10.25

10.25

10.35

10.42

10.34

7.49

7.59

7.69

7.72

7.72

8.02

M I N I N G ................................................................................................

8.50

9.18

8.90

8.95

9.10

9.08

9.16

C O N S T R U C T IO N .............................................................................

9.27

9.94

9.61

9.68

9.69

9.77

9.81

6.69

7.27

7.00

7.06

7.09

7.13

7.20

7.29

7.30

7.42

Lumber and wood products ............................
Furniture and fixtures......................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ......................
Primary metal industries..................................
Fabricated metal products ..............................

7.13
6.08
5.06
6.85
8.97
6.84

7.76
6.56
5.48
7.51
9.76
7.44

7.46
6.33
5.32
7.14
9.44
7.14

7.54
6.35
5.37
7.27
9.45
7.24

7.56
6.28
5.39
7.34
9.53
7.27

7.60
6.40
5.42
7.45
9.61
7.32

7.69
6.56
5.49
7.53
9.65
7.42

7.77
6.72
5.52
7.60
9.82
7.42

7.78
6.76
5.54
7.64
9.84
7.48

7.93
6.80
5.58
7.69
9.95
7.62

6.76
5.59
7.74
10.09
7.68

8.13
6.79
5.62
7.82
10.28
7.75

8.24
6.77
5.69
7.83
10.35
7.86

8.24
6.82
5.72
7.86
10.35
7.86

8.25
6.85
5.77
7.86
10.44
7.90

Machinery, except electrical............................
Electric and electronic equipment....................
Transportation equipment................................
Instruments and related products ....................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ..........................

7.32
6.32
8.54
6.17
5.03

8.04
6.96
9.34
6.81
5.45

7.69
6.71

7.76
6.78
9.04
6.63
5.34

7.81
6.79
9.04
6.63
5.37

7.91
6.78
9.06
6.72
5.40

7.97
6.87
9.24
6.80
5.42

8.05
6.96
9.34

8.07
7.02
9.35

5.46

8.36
7.20
9.77
6.95
5.55

8.44
7.29
9.89
7.02
5.60

8.57
7.39

5.46

8.28
7.14
9.56
6.92
5.51

8.59
7.42
9.96
7.20
5.81

8.61
7.39
9.89
7.22
5.81

6.30

6.36
6.75
7.79
4.91
4.46
7.63

6.42
6.82
7.64
4.90
4.45
7.65

6.48
6.84
7.97
4.93
4.51
7.79

6.60
6.89
8.06
5.06
4.50
7.97

6.62
6.90
7.74
5.19
4.60
7.99

6.69
6.93
7.42
5.24
4.70
8.06

6.72
6.95
7.56
5.26
4.73
8.09

6.80
7.09
7.74
5.30
4.75
8.18

6.94
7.21
8.44
5.34
4.89
8.27

6.94
7.22
8.35
5.33
4.89
8.28

7.34

7.46
8.24

10.22

10.22
6.57
4.59

7.73
8.46
10.33
6.63
4.61

7.75
8.52
10.39
6.70
4.64

7.79
8.59
10.52
6.79
4.68

7.91
8.71

6.39
4.54

7.53
8.35
10.25
6.48
4.54

7.63
8.39

9.83
6.30
4.52

7.44
8.17
10.07
6.34
4.53

10.37
6.89
4.73

6.95
4.85

7.94
8.75
11.18
6.96
4.86

8.71

8.72

8.75

8.90

8.95

9.04

9.20

9.28

9.31

9.34

9.38

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

D u ra b le g o o d s

6.00

N o n d u ra b le g o o d s

886
6.59
5.30
6.27
6.64
7.36
4.90
4.45
7.52

6.54

6.86

668

6.86

6.86

10.11
7.14
5.72

6.86
7.13
8.00

Food and kindred products..............................
Tobacco manufactures....................................
Textile mill products........................................
Apparel and other textile products ..................
Paper and allied products................................

6.27
6.65
4.66
4.23
7.13

Printing and publishing....................................
Chemicals and allied products ........................
Petroleum and coal products ..........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . . .
Leather and leather products ..........................

6.95
7.60
9.36
5.96
4.22

7.54
8.29
10.09
6.49
4.57

7.29

9.37
6.25
4.47

7.34
8.05
9.29
6.27
4.51

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S

8.17

8.89

8.58

862

W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E

5.06

5.48

5.36

5.40

5.40

5.42

5.43

5.48

5.48

5.56

5.59

5.64

5.61

5.79

5.81

W HOLESALE TRADE

6.39

6.97

6.77

6.83

6.87

6.89

6.95

6.99

7.01

7.08

7.10

7.20

7.24

7.31

7.35

R E T A IL T R A D E

4.53

4.88

4.78

4.81

4.80

4.82

483

4.88

4.89

4.95

4.98

5.02

4.99

5.17

5.18

5.27

5.78

5.60

5.68

5.68

5.70

5.77

5.77

5.82

5.87

5.91

5.79

5.93

6.00

6.01
6.10

6.00
6.12

6.12
6.21

6.21

5.81

7.66
5.07
4.57
7.85

7.57
4.92
4.49
7.55

8.01

8.12

F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D REA L
E S T A T E ..........................................................................................

5.36

S E R V IC E S ...........................................................................................

18.

5.70

5.85

5.75

5.75

5.79

5.81

5.33
4.81
8.28
7.88

8.68

11.02

6.28

Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division

[Seasonally adjusted data: 1967=100]
1981

1980

Jan . 1981
In d u s try

T O T A L P R IV A T E (in c u rre n t d o lla rs )

Mining..........................................
Construction ................................
Manufacturing ..............................
Transportation and public utilities . . .
Wholesale and retail trade ............
Finance, insurance, and real estate .
Services ......................................
T O T A L P R IV A T E (in c o n s ta n t d o lla r s ) r

r = revised.

92

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

J a n .p

F e b .p

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

June

July

Aug.

S e p t.

O ct.

Nov.

D ec.

242.4

245.2

246.2

248.3

250.9

252.1

254.0

255.4

257.9

260.9

261.9

264.2

265.6

278.5
229.8
247.8
2624
235.2

280.9
232.2
250.2
265.9
237.8
225.7
242.7

283.7
233.0
252.4
267.2
238.0
224.9
243.0

284.2
234.2
255.0
268.7
239.8
226.3
245.7

286.3
235.3
258.3
270.6
241.8
230.2
248.4

285.3
236.7
260.6
272.8
243.5
229.0
247.6

288.9
239.0
262.4
273.2
245.3
232.7
249.8

290.4
239.3
264.5
274.0
246.5
233.1
251.7

294.4
241.6
266.6
280.2
247.7
234,8
254.2

298.7
243.0
268.9
283.4
250.9
239.3
258.5

302.3
245.3
270.4
284.1
250.9
238.0
259.4

306.6
247.7
272.3
285.9
254.1
240.9
261.2

307.5
246.2
273.3
287.1
255.4
244.0
264.2

101.0

101.5

101.6 102.1

102.0

101.5

101.4

101.5

100.8

100.9

221.1

239.7

102.2 1021

Feb . 1980

to

to

F eb . 1981

F eb . 1981

0.5

9.6

.3

10.4
7.1
10.3
9.4

-.6
.4
.4
.5
1.3

1.1

8.6
10.4
10.2

19.

Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1980

A n n u al a v e ra g e

1981

In d u s try d iv is io n an d g ro u p

1979

1980

Feb.

M ar.

$229.15

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

July

Aug.

S e p t.

O ct.

Nov.

D ec.

J a n .p

F e b .p

$233.33

$234.39

$237,14

$240.04

$242.16

$244.63

$247.06

$246.05

$245.70

$219.30

$235.10

$226.75

M IN IN G

365.50

396.58

384.48

388.43

389.48

387.72

395.71

380.45

395.66

405.42

407.60

413.69

422.48

427.39

421.15

C O N S T R U C T IO N

342.99

367.78

343.08

350.42

355.62

360.51

371.80

373.61

374.87

386.20

388.48

377.20

383.99

378.25

357.76

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

268.94

288.62

278.60

280.99

279.35

280.21

283.68

282.85

286.89

294.57

298.10

305.12

313.75

308.03

304.94

Lumber and wood products........................
Furniture and fixtures ................................
Stone, clay, and glass products..................
Primary metal industries ............................
Fabricated metal products..........................

290.90
239 55
195.82
284.28
371.36
278.39

311.95
253.22
208.79
306.41
391.38
300.58

300.64
243.71
204.29
286.31
384.21
288.46

303.86
243.21
206.75
295.89
384.62
293.94

301.64
232.99
204.28
296.54
386.92
292.25

301.72
240.64
202.17
302.47
377.67
292.07

306.06
251.90
204.78
308.73
377.32
297.54

303.81
256.70
199.82
306.28
379.05
290.86

308.87
264.99
208.30
310.95
383.76
299.20

318.79
267.24
213.71
316.06
397.01
308.61

323.21
264.99
215.22
319.66
402.59
311.04

330.89
266.17
21581
323.75
419.42
316.98

341.96
268.09
225.32
32573
430.56
326.98

332.90
263.93
217.36
316.76
426.42
317.54

329.18
258.93
219.84
312.83
423.86
316.00

Machinery except electrical........................
Electric and electronic equipment................
Transportation equipment ..........................
Instruments and related products................
Miscellaneous manufacturing......................

305.98
254.70
350.99
251.74
195.16

33044
277.01
379.20
275.81
210.92

319.14
269.74
357.94
268.87
204.58

322.04
271.20
365.22
269.18
207.19

320.21
268.88
359.79
267.85
206.21

322.73
266.45
361.49
270.82
206.28

325.18
270.68
368.68
275.40
207.59

322.00
267.96
368.93
271.66
206.39

326.03
275.18
374.00
273.71

210.21

339.48
283.46
389.09
277.49
215.44

340.25
287.28
401.55
280.09
215.90

348.57
294.52
412.41
287.12
218,96

361.65
30299
435.74
294.17
225.94

353.91
297.54
410.35
291.60
224.27

352.15
291.91
397.58
288.80
224.85

235.80
250.17
252.70
188.26
149.32
303.74

255.06
272.34
291.85
202.80
161.78
332.06

243.90
259.62
271.58
199.92
157.53
318.85

245.07
260.52
285.39
201.23
158.95
320.12

246.13
262.58
297.58
195.91
157.44
321.99

248.45
270.75
295.67
195.02
157.09
318.24

251.42
270.86
305.25
195.23
160.56
324.84

254.10
274.91
294.19
194.81
158.85
329.96

257.52
278.07
284.83
203.45
162.84
333.98

261.58
279.28
283.44
208.55
165.44
341.74

262.75
275.92
303.16
209.87
167.44
341.40

267.24
284.31
309.60
213.59
168.15
350.10

273.03
287.34
304.80
217.46
172.68
361.84

271.35
288.40
324.10
212.53
171.64
355.61

269.27
284.47
319.81
211.60
171.15
352.73

260.63
318.44
409.97

279.73
344.04
421.76

269.73
333.22
371.99

273.05
335.69
366.03

270.11
337.79
404.01

274.54
337.42
425.96

273.78
339.49
432.31

277.10
339.85
437.68

283.84
343.15
431.28

288.33
349.40
448.32

288.30
352.73
454.04

289.79
360.78
458.67

300.23
365.43
449.02

293.46
359.72
469.45

293.78
362.25
474.03

241.38
154.03

260.25
167.72

249.38
164.50

250.80
164.16

250.11
165.88

247.26
167.61

251.13
169.80

250.13
165.26

262.80
167.99

267.19
166.88

272.69
169.36

279.07
169.88

286.62
174.54

285.65
177.03

280.49
179.33

T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S

325.98

352.04

338.05

340.49

344.05

342.70

346.50

355.11

355.32

358.89

36616

368.42

372.40

366.13

369.57

W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E

164.96

175.91

170.98

172.80

171.72

172.90

175.39

178.10

179.20

178.48

179.44

180.48

181.76

182.96

184.18

W HOLESALE TRADE

....................................................

247.93

268.35

259.97

262.27

263.81

265.27

265.49

267.02

269.18

272.58

274.77

277.92

281.64

281.44

280.77

R E T A IL T R A D E .................................................................

138.62

146.89

142.44

143.82

142.56

144.12

146.83

149.82

151.10

149.00

149.40

150.60

152.20

152.52

153.33

190.77

209.24

203.28

206.18

205.62

205.77

210.03

208.87

211.27

211.91

214.53

218.16

217.80

221.54

226.04

175.27

190.71

185.25

186.88

186.30

187.02

190.57

191.65

192.31

192.73

195.60

198.86

199.51

201.20

203.47

T O T A L P R I V A T E ..............................................

D u ra b le g o o d s ...............................................................

N o ndu rab le g o o d s

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 miscellaneous
plastics products....................................
Leather and leather products......................

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

S E R V IC E S ............................................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

.

$228.55 $229.95

93

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
20.

Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date

[Averages for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
M a n u fa c tu rin g w o rk e rs

P riv a te n o n a g ric u ltu ra l w o rk e rs

S p e n d a b le a v e ra g e w e e k ly e a rn in g s

S p e n d a b le a v e ra g e w e e k ly e a rn in g s
G ro s s a v e ra g e

G ro s s a v e ra g e
Y e a r an d m o n th

w e e k ly e a rn in g s

W o rk e r w ith no

w e e k ly ea rn in g s

W o rk e r w ith no
d e p e n d e n ts

3 d e p e n d e n ts

d e p e n d e n ts

1960 ..........................................

M a rrie d w o rk e r w ith

M a rrie d w o rk e r w ith
3 d e p e n d e n ts

C u rre n t

1967

C u rre n t

1967

C u rre n t

1967

C u rre n t

1967

C u rre n t

1967

C u rre n t

1967

d o lla rs

d o llars

d o llars

d o lla rs

d o lla rs

d o lla rs

d o lla rs

d o llars

d o lla rs

d o lla rs

d o lla rs

d o lla rs

$80.67

$90.95

$65.59

$73.95

$72.96

$82.25

$89.72

$101.15

$72.57

$81.82

$80.11

$90.32

92.19
94.82
96.47
98.31

74.87
76.78
77.48
80.78
83.94

74.48
76.99
78.56
82.57
86.63

83.13
84.98
85.67

91.67

92.34
96.56
99.23
102.97
107.53

103.06
106.58
108.21
110.84
113.79

74.60
77.86
79.51
84.40
89.08

83.26
85.94
86.71
90.85
94.26

82.18
85.53
87.25
92.18
96.78

91.72
94.40
95.15
99.22
102.41

91.21
90.86
91.44
91.07
90.20

112.19
114.49
122.51
129.51
133.33

115.42
114.49
117.57
117.95
114.64

91.45
92.97
97.70
101.90
106.32

94.08
92.97
93.76
92.81
91.42

99.33
100.93
106.75
111.44
115.58

102.19
100.93
102.45
101.49
99.38

1961
1962
1963
1964
1965

..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................

82.60
85.91
88.46
91.33
95.45

101.01

67.08
69.56
71.05
75.04
79.32

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................

98.82
101.84
107.73
114.61
119.83

101.67
101.84
103.39
104.38
103.04

81.29
83.38
86.71
90.96
96.21

83.63
83.38
83.21
82.84
82.73

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................

127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53

104.95
109.26
109.23
104.78
101.45

103.80
112.19
117.51
124.37
132.49

85.57
89.54
88.29
84.20
82.19

112.43

127.38
134.61
145.65

92.69
97.11
95.70
91.14
90.35

142.44
154.71
166.46
176.80
190.79

117.43
123.47
125.06
119.70
118.36

114.97
125.34
132.57
140.19
151.61

94.78
100.03
99.60
94.92
94.05

124.24
135.57
143.50
151.56
166.29

102.42
108.20
107.81
102.61
103.16

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................

175.45
189.00
203.70
219.30
235.10

102.90
104.13
104.30
100.73
95.18

143.30
155.19
165.39
177.55
188.82

84.05
85.50
84.69
81.56
76.45

155.87
169.93
180.71
194.35
206.40

91.42
93.63
92.53
89.27
83.56

209.32
228.90
249.27
268.94
288.62

122.77
126.12
127.63
123.54
116.85

167.83
183.80
197.40
212.43
225.79

98.43
101.27
101.08
97 58
91.41

181.32
200.06
214.87
232.07
247.01

106.35
110.23

110.02
106.60
100.00

1980: February..........................
March ..............................

226.75
229.15

95.88
95.52

182.98
184.67

77.37
76.98

200.07
201.89

84.60
84.16

278.60
280.99

117.80
117.13

218.99
220.61

92.60
91.96

239.40
241.22

101.23
100.55

April ................................
May ................................
June ................................

228.55
229.95
233.33

94.21
93.82
94.16

184.25
185.23
187.59

75.95
75.57
75.70

201.43
202.49
205.06

83.03
82.62
82.75

279.35
280.21
283.68

115.15
114.32
114.48

219.49
220.08
222.43

90.47
89.79
89.76

239.97
240.63
243.26

98.92
98.18
98.17

July..................................
August ............................
September ......................

234.39
237.14
240.04

94.51
95.01
95.29

188.33
190.25
192.28

75.94
76.22
76.33

205.86
207.95
210.15

83.01
83.31
83.43

282.85
286.89
294.57

114.05
114.94
116.94

221.87
224.61
229.82

89.46
89.99
91.23

242.63
245.69
251.52

97.83
98.43
99.85

October............................
November........................
December ......................

242.16
244.63
247.06

95.30
95.41
95.50

193.76
195.48
197.18

76.25
76.24
76.22

211.76
213.63
215.47

83.34
83.32
83.29

298.10
305.12
313.75

117.32
119.00
121.28

232.22
236.98
242.60

91.39
92.43
93.78

254.20
259.52
265.84

101.22

1981: January p ..........................
Februaryp ........................

246.05
245.70

94.38

195.20
194.95

74.88

213.43
213.16

81.87

308.03
304.94

118.15

237.35
235.28

91.04

260.07
257.80

88.66
90.86
95.28
99.99
104.90

121.68

’ Not available.
. I,
.
.
. . . . . .
i >
NOTE: The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes in price level
as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.
These series are described in “The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on Its Cal-

94


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

88.88

100.04

102.76
99.76

culation,” E m p lo y m e n t an d E a rn in g s an d M o n th ly R e p o rt o n th e L a b o r F o rc e , February 1969,
pp. 6 - 1 3 . See also “ Spendable Earninqs Formulas, 1 9 7 9 -8 1 ," E m p lo y m e n t a n d E arn in g s, March
v
v '
3
’
~

U NEM PLO YM ENT INSURANCE DATA

U n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled monthly by
the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De­
partment of Labor from records of State and Federal unem­
ployment insurance claims filed and benefits paid. Railroad
unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Rail­
road Retirement Board.

ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about onethird of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. I n i­
tia l c la im s are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance
programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiv­
ing compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a
full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The
r a te o f in su r e d u n e m p lo y m e n t expresses the number of insured unem­
ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.

Definitions

Data for a ll p r o g r a m s represent an unduplicated count of insured
unemployment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation
for Ex-Servicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal
Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act.

An a p p lic a tio n for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the be­
ginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no ap­
plication is required for subsequent periods in the same year. N u m ­
b er o f p a y m e n ts are payments made in 14-day registration periods.
The a v e r a g e a m o u n t o f b e n e fit p a y m e n t is an average for all com­
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set­
tlement of underpayments. However, to t a l b e n e fit s paid have been
adjusted.

Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs
for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of
at least 1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unem­

21.

Unemployment insurance and employment service operations

[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1980
Jan.

All programs:
Insured unemployment ......................
State unemployment insurance
program:1
Initial claims2 ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Rate of insured unemployment ..........
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Average weekly benefit amount
for total unemployment ..................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for exservicemen: 3
Initial claims1 ....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................
Unemployment compensation for
Federal civilian employees:4
Initial claims ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Weeks of unemployment
compensated ................................
Total benefits paid ............................

Feb.

3,740

M ar.

3,730

Apr.

M ay

Ju n e

1981
July

Aug.

N o v.

D ec.

3,629

3,680

3,790

4,140

3,911

3,961

3,661

3,726

4,085

2,837

1,818

1,705

2,190

2,248

2,319

2,737

1,829

1,702

1,808

1,673

2,544

3,537
4.1

3,518
4.1

3,356
3.9

3,278
3.8

3,343
3.9

3,455
4.0

3,692
4.3

3,408
3.9

3,087
3.6

2,903
3.3

2,983
3.4

3,321
3.8

13,792

12,801

13,170

12,689

12,302

12,441

14,398

12,786

11,689

11,443

r 9,514

12,595

$96.41
$98.39
$99.15
$99.52
$99.55
$99.88
$98.75
$99.68
$99.86
$92.32
$1,283,946 $1,229,877 $1,218,231 $1,232,173 $1,196,836 $1,213,595 $1,397,508 $1,249,782 $1,144,885 $1,125,416

25

21

21

21

20

23

27

23

58

63

52

50

45

58

55

56

56

54

55

299
$29,635

255
$25,308

249
$24,928

246
$24,518

220

122

331
$33,342

244
$24,560

245
$24,804

255
$25,880

216
r $21,024

267
$27,015

19

11

12

11

34

32

30

25

150
$14,118

129
$12,226

123
$11,901

108
$10,323

22

7

5

4

$22,025

12
22
88
$8,280

$11,761

17

15

19

21

14

18

25

29

32

35

37

50
$4,665

124
$11,296

93
$8,707

105
$9,699

130
$11,917

118
r$11,351

156
$14,735

24

44

13

10

9

7

11

44

39

40
89

38
84

38
70

39
83

$211.99
$18,809

$208.49
$17,789

$209.00
$14,269

$212.27
$18,046

23
54

27
55

$199.01
$14,967

$208.73
$14,573

$210.79
$13,884

$201.87
$13,002

$193.44
$9,953

$199.06
$10,140

$207.08
$13,320

$211.87
$17,336

Employment service:5
New applications and renewals ..........
Nonfarm placements..........................

5,980
1,314

7,285
1,561

8,708
1,853

11,446
2,413

12,864
2,730

14,249
3,105

15,431
3,445

2,143

1nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
sugarcane workers.
Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. Excludes transition claims under State programs.
Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.

66

86

4,623

3,845
4.4

21

26

27
62

10,021

17

14

30

68

23

20

39
71

6

25

Jan.

r $101.96
$101.41
r$1,055,065 $1,242,957

60

40
80


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

O ct.

3,652

Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications ......................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume)..............................
Number of payments ........................
Average amount of benefit
payment........................................
Total benefits paid ............................

1
2
3

S ep t.

57

41

4Includes the Virgin islands. Exludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs
6Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30).
r = revised
NOTE: Date for Puerto Rico included. Dashes indicate data not available.

95

PRICE DATA

d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price
indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100,
unless otherwise noted).

P r ic e

Definitions
The C o n s u m e r P r ic e I n d e x is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and ser­
vices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. One
index, a new CPI for All Urban Consumers, covers 80 percent of the
total noninstitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covers about half the
new index population. The All Urban Consumers index includes, in
addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, manageri­
al, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the
unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctor’s and dentist’s fees, and other goods and
services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quali­
ty of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revi­
sions so that only price changes will be measured. Prices are collected
from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishments, and 18,000
housing units for property taxes in 85 urban areas across the country.
All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are
included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the expendi­
tures of two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately
reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with
different buying habits.
Though the CPI is often called the “Cost-of-Living Index,” it mea­
sures only price change, which is just one of several important factors
affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the
level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in
prices for each area since the base period.
P r o d u c e r P r ic e I n d e x e s measure average changes in prices received
in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodities
in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these in­
dexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations
per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all com­
modities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing,
mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe
includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial
transactions in primary markets in the United States.
Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or
by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products
by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or
semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure
organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price In­
dexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the Unit­
ed States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data
are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire.

96


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a vol­
untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month.
In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari­
ous commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights
representing their importance in the total net selling value of all com­
modities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in­
dexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, dura­
bility of product groupings, and a number of special composite
groupings.
P r ic e in d e x e s fo r th e o u tp u t o f s e le c t e d S I C in d u s tr ie s measure av­
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries,
as defined in the S t a n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la ssifica tio n M a n u a l 1 9 7 2
(Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These
indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the
economic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value
of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive in­
dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Notes on the data
Beginning with the May 1978 issue of the R ev ie w , regional CPI’s
cross classified by population size, were introduced. These indexes will
enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a
better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the appropri­
ate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified
indexes will be published bimonthly. (See table 24.)
For further details about the new and the revised indexes and a
comparison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised
CPI, see F a cts A b o u t th e R e v is e d C o n s u m e r P ric e I n d e x , a pamphlet in
the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also Th e
C o n s u m e r P ric e I n d e x : C o n c ep ts a n d C o n te n t O v e r th e Years. Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stan­
dards of living, see the family budget data published in the H a n d b o o k
o f L a b o r S ta tistic s, 1977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes
are provided in the C P I D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P ric e s a n d P ric e
I n d e x es, both monthly publications of the Bureau.
As of January 1976, the Wholesale Price Index (as it was then
called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val­
ues of shipments. From January 1967 through December 1975, 1963
values of shipments were used as weights.
For a discussion of the general method of computing consumer,
producer, and industry price indexes, see B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s
f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the mea­
surement of producer price change,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April
1978, pp. 7-15. For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, “In­
dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August
1965, pp. 974—82.

22.

Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-79

[1967=100]
Food and
beverages

All Items
Year
Index

Percent
change

100.0

Index

Percent
change

100.0

Index

104.2
109.8
116.3

4.2
5.4
5.9

103.6
108.8
114.7

3.6
5.0
5.4

104.0
110.4
118.2

1971 ..................
1972 ..................
1973 ..................
1974...................
1975 ..................

121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2

4.3
3.3

9.1

118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1

3.1
4.1
13.2
138
8.4

123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5

1976
1977
1978
1979

170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7

5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5

177.4
188.0
206.2
228,7

3.1

174.6
186.5

..................
..................
..................
..................

Percent
change

100.0

1967 ..................
1966..................
1969 ..................
1970 ..................

6.2
11.0

Apparel and
upkeep

Housing

6.0
97
10.9

Transportation

Percent
change

Index

100.0
4.0

6.2
7.1
4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3

202.6

10.6
6.1
6.8
8.6

227.5

12.3

Index

Percent
change

100.0
5.4
5.8
4.1

103.2
107.2
112.7

3.2
3.9
5.1

119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3

3.2
3.7
7.4
4.5

118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6

1.1
11.2

147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4

3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3

165.5
177.2
185.8

212.8

Index

106.1
113.4

120.6

Other goods
and services

Entertainment

Percent
change

100.0

105.4
111.5
116.1

2.1

Medical care

6.1
6.9
6.3

Percent
change

Index

100.0
111.0

Index

100.0

105.7

116.7

5.7
5.0
5.1

105.2
110.4
116.8

5.2
4.9
5.8

5.3
2.9

4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4
5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2

6.5
3.2
3.9
9.3

9.4

128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6

12.0

122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2

7.5
8.9

122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9

9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5

184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1

9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4

159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6

5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5

162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3

5.2

3.3

Percent
change

2.8

23, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
U.S. city average— general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

1980

Jan.

Aug.

All items

233.2

Food and beverages ....................................................................
Hojsirg..................................................................
Apparel and upkeep......................................................................
Transportation ..............................................................................
Medical care ............................................................................
Entertainment ......................................................................
Other goods and services......................................................

237.5
247.3
171.0
233.5
253.9
195.3
206.3

Commodities........................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ....................................
Nondurables less food and beverages..................................
Durables............................................................................

222.4

Ser/ices ..................................................................................
Rent, residential..........................................................
Household services less rent ..............................................
Transportation services....................................................
Medical care services..........................................................
Other services................................................................

1981

Sept.

Oct.

249.4

251.7

252.0
265.8
178.6
252.7
268.4
208.0
214.5

254.2
267.7
182.2
254.7
270.6
209.8

1980

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Jan.

253.9

256.2

258.4

260.5

257.4
273.8
184.8
259.0
274.5

259.3
279.9
183.9
261.1
275.8

220.6

255.5
271.1
183.9
256.1
272.8
210.9
221.5

211.2 212.0
222.8 2246

261.4
279.1
181.1
264.7
279.5
214.4
226.2

224.6
201.3

236.7
226.0
242.6
212.4

239.0
228.4
244.1
215.3

240.7
230.2
244.4
218.1

242.5
232.0
245.3

243.8
232.9
246.8

253.1
184.1
295.1
226.8
274.4
209.0

272.5
193.2
321.5
246.4
289.8
219.2

274.8
195.1
322.6
249.4
292.3
225.3

229.9
224.3
210.4
220.5
248.6
232.0
266.1
249.2
229.2
265.7
327.9
225.9

193.7
361.5
251.6

246.3
239.0
224.2
237.8
270.9
248.3
287.4
268.7
243.5
274.5
370.7
240.0
234.3
204.3
404.2
269.0

$0,429

$0,401

212.0

Aug.

Sept.

233.3

249.6

237.8
247.3
169.8
234.1
254.9
193.9
206.0

252.5
265.8
177.9
253.5
270.0
205.6
214.0

245.4
234 3
250.2

222.3

220.6 221.1 221.0

277.9
197.1
327.4
250.8
294.8
226.7

280.9
198.3
331.9
253.3
296.6
227.2

284.7
199.6
338.4
255.8
297.9
228.1

248.6
241.5
2266
239.3
271.3
250.2
289.8
271.0
246.2
278.8
370.1
242.5
236.9
207.2
401.7
271.3

250.9
243.0
228.3
239.6
271.1
251.0
293.2
274.2
247.3
276.8
368.0
245.1
239.7
209.4
399.1
274.9

253.2
244.5
230.0
240.5
272.1
252.4
296.4
277.2
249.2
278.9
366.1
247.7
242.4

$0,397

$0,394

1981

Oct.

Nov.

251.9

254.1

255.1
267.6
181.4
255.2
272.2
208.1
219.0

256.6
271.0
182.8
256.6
274.3
209.2
219.9

226.3
199.6

236.9
226.2
244.8
210.5

239.2
228.4
246.0
213.5

287.7
200.9
342.3
258.7
302.1
230.4

253.6
183.9
297.2
226.6
275.6
209.3

273.3
193.0
324.2
246.3
291.7
219.5

257.6
247.8
232.4
245.3
281.1
256.9
304.2
284.2
252.4
276.2
381.7
251.2
245.7
211.5
420.5
285.4

230.0
224.7
210.3

400.2
278.6

255.5
245.9
231.0
242.0
274.7
254.1
300.7
281.2
251.1
276.2
370.4
249.7
244.5
211.7
404.9
282.4

$0,390

$0,387

$0,384

Dec.

Jan.

256.4

258.7

260.7

258.7
273.7
183.3
259.7
276.3
209.9

260.5
277.1
182.9
261.9
277.6

262.1
279.1
180.8
265.7
281.4

210.1 212.2
223.0

224.4

240.8
230.0
246.1
216.3

242.9
232.0
247.1
218.9

244.3
233.1
248.8
219.7

245.8
234.7
252.6
219.5

275.4
194.8
325.3
248.2
294.3
225.4

278.6
196.8
330.3
249.6
296.6
227.4

281.5
198.0
334.8
252.2
298.7
227.9

285.5
199.4
341.9
254.7
300.0
228.4

288.4

250.2
232.9
266.7
249.5
229.0
268.1
331.5
225.3
219.6
192.4
362.8
252.2

246.6
2396
224.4
239.9
272.9
249.6
288.6
269.4
242.9
275.9
374.2
239.4
233.4
202.9
405.5
269.9

248.7
242.0
226.5
241.1
273.0
251.5
290.7
271.4
246.1
280.8
373.1
242.0
235.9
205.7
402.7
271.9

251.0
243.5
228.2
241.3
272.8
252.3
294.2
274.7
247.0
279.0
371.1
244.5
238.7
207.8
400.3
275.6

253.4
245.1
230.1
242.2
273.9
253.8
297.4
277.7
249.1
280.7
369.5
247.2
241.5
209.9
401.3
279.3

255.7
246.7
231.2
243.9
276.6
255.6
302.0
281.9
251.1
278.4
373.7
249.3
243.6
405.9
283.4

257.9
248.5
232.7
247.5
283.0
258.3
305.2
284.7
252.1
277.9
385.2
250.6
244.8
210.4
421.3
286.2

$0,429

$0,401

$0,397

$0,394

$0,390

$0,387

$0,384

212.0

221.0

200.6

345.5
257.7
304.3
230.2

Special indexes:
All items less food ......................................................
All items less mortgage Interest costs ....................................
Commodities less food..................................................................
Nondurables less food ....................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel....................................
Norourables ........................................................
Services less rent ............................................................
Services less medical ca re ............................................................
Domestically produced farm foods ................................................
Selected beef cuts....................................................................
Energy ......................................................................
All items less energy ............................................................
All Items less food and energy ..........................................
Commodities less food and energy....................................
Energy commodities ........................................................
Services less energy......................................................
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ....................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

220,6

211.2

222.1

210.6

97

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.

Continued —Consumer Price Index

U.S. city average

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs an d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d )

All U rb a n C o n s u m e rs
G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

FO O D A N D B E V E R A G E S

D ec.

Jan.

Jan.

257.4

259.3

261.4

237.8

268.6

244.0

Jan.

A ug.

S e p t.

O ct.

N o v.

237.5

252.0

254.2

255.5

1981

1980

1981

1980

S ep t.

O ct.

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

252.5

255.1

256.6

258.7

260.5

262.1

259.2

261.9

263.4

265.7

267.6

269.2

258.6
251.1
137.8
134.1
138.6
140.2
131.2
219.3
134.3
128.1
129.7
131,7
124.5
132.0

259.7
254.3
138.5
133.8
139.3
141.6
133.3

135.8
132.1
132,6
132.5
126.5
134.1

262.0
256.8
139.7
133.6
141.5
142.7
134.7
225.2
137.0
134.1
133.1
134.5
125.7
136.1

263.9
259.5
142.3
134.4
145.0
145.8
135.7
226.6
137.9
135.1
134.2
136.1
126.5
136.4

265.1
263.0
144.5
136.8
147.2
147.8
137.5
229.4
139.4
136.4
136.8
139.0
126.8
138.5

Aug.

F o o d .........................................................................................................................................

243.8

258.7

261.1

262.4

264.5

266.4

Food at home........................................................................................
Cereals and bakery products ..........................................................
Cereals and cereal products (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 - 100)....................
Cereal (12/77 = 100)........................................................
Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Bakery products (12/77 = 100)................................................
White bread ......................................................................
Other breads (12/77 - 100)..............................................
Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 - 100) ..................
Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100)..........................
Cookies (12/77 - 100)......................................................
Crackers and bread and cracker products (12/77 = 100) . . .
Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) . . .
Frozen and refrigerated bakery products
and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 100) ..........

240.6
234.2
125.0
125.7
123.7
126.4
123.5
208.6
123.8
124.8
121.7
119.7
117.5

258.9
250.3
137.1
1333
138.5
138.4
130,9
219.6
130.9
129.2
129.5
129.9
124.2
131.6

260.0
253.7
137.5
133.2
139.3
138.9
133.1
222.7
132.5
133.4
132.5
131.0
126.4
133.4

262.1
255.8
138.7
132.9
141.1
140.5
134.3
224,9
133.1
134.6
133.4
133.1
125.6
135.3

263,9
258.5
140.8
133.5
143.8
143.1
135.4
226.3
134.1
135.4
135.3
134.9
126.9
135.9

265.6
262.9
143.2
135.9
145.8
146.0
137.7
229.5
137.1
137.6
138.5
138.0
127.0
138.0

240.1
234.7
126.1
126.9
124.2
127.9
123.6
207.4
126.9
123.1

122.2

256.3
249.2
136.3
133.6
137.6
136.8
130.4
217.9
129.7
130.0
129.8
128.7
124.6
131.4

121.5
118.4
124.1

255.6
249.6
136.8
133.9
137.7
138.4
130.5
217.2
133.3
128.9
129.4
130.1
124.7
131.6

125.7

131.4

132.1

135.3

136.2

137.5

139.7

122.5

129.2

129.9

130.9

132.4

134.0

135.2

Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs ..........................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Meats ..............................................................................
Beef and vea ................................................................
Ground beef other than canned....................................
Chuck roast................................................................
Round roast................................................................
Round steak ..............................................................
Sirloin steak................................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 - 100) ............................
Pork..............................................................................
Bacon ........................................................................
Pork chops ................................................................
Ham other than canned (12/77 - 100)........................
Sausage ....................................................................
Canned ham ..............................................................
Other pork (12/77 - 100) ..........................................
Other meats ..................................................................
Frankfurters................................................................
Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) ............
Other lunchmeats (12/77 - 100) ................................
Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100) ........................
Poultry..............................................................................
Fresh whole chicken....................................................
Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100) ............
Other poultry (12/77 --100) ......................................
Fish and seafood ..............................................................
Canned fish and seafood (12/77 = 100)......................
Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 - 100) ........
Eggs..........................................................................

238.0
243.0
244.1
264.6
271.4
274.7
241.9
249.8
250.9
151.8
206.4
194.5
192.1
99.1
256.6

245.4
251.0
251.1
273,1
272.9
279.8
248.8
258.0
274.1
159.0

251.8
257.7
257.8
277.5
276.8
287.7
248.0
260.7
280.9
161.8
222.7

254.9
260.7
261.1
277.9
277.1
291.7
251.2
263.8
271.8
161.8
228.6
229.5
208.5
107.9
283.5
237.7
128.4
261.8
262.6
148.4
129.7
146.1
204.1
208.7
131.8
128.0
343.0
136.0
127.5
185.2

255.7
259.9
260.0
275.3
276.1
288.5
245.7
260.2
267.6
160.4
229.1
231.9
208.7
107.8
285.6
238.4
127.6
262.8
264.0
149.1
129.9
146.6
202.7
206.9
131.6
126.6
346.9
136.4
129.6
206.6

255.1
260.6
259.7
275.3
276.3
285.3
250.0
262.4
264.9
160.3
228.2
228.1

237.5
242.5
243.7
266.7
272.7
283.6
245.1
249.4
253.5
151.9
206.8
195.3
194.8
96.5
260.3
219.3
116.2
239.3
239.5
130.5
118.7
142.5
184.3
183.8
118.7

244.3
249.8
250.0
274.1
275.6
287.9
248.2
256.4
278.8
157.6

251.2
257.1
257.2
279.1
279.9
295.4
249.0
261.4
282.2
161.2

223.0
205.0
100.7
280.0
225.9
128.5
251.5
254.3
141.2
123.5
145.0
203.3
209.6
134.1

177.0

177.1

333.4
131.0
124.5
178.4

254.2
259.9
260.3
279.1
280.4
301.9
249.9
261.8
274.9
160.3
228.5
232.3
204.8
106.0
285.9
242.2
128.8
259.0
262.6
145.7
127.5
147.7
201.4
203.5
131.6
126.5
340.0
133.5
127.0
185.7

255.0
259.2
259.3
276.8
281.0
296.0
246.6
257,6
269.7
159.2
228.8
234.1
206.8
105.7
287.2
242.6
127.4
259.4
263.4
145.2
127.7
148.5

315.4
118.4

205.6
198.5
96.3
263.6
219.1
122.7
244.1
245.9
134.5
121.5
140.8
195.1
199.9
128.1
119.1
327.3
129.3

251.8
258.1
258.1
277.4
278.9
294.0
251.1
257.9
272.8
160.3
225.8
226.0
207.3
103.5
283.2
235.2
127.9
255.8
260.3
143.6
125.5
146.5
205,4
210.5
133.5
127.1
333.8
131.2
124.6
174.4

254.1
259.4
259.2
276.4
279.3
295.2
249.6
255.5
266.3
159.5
228.5
232.5

277.9
225.1
128.6
254.9
256.1
143.5
125.7
143.8
2052
214.0
134.0
122.9
335.8
133.2
124.8
179.9

252.6
259.0
258.7
2758
275.8
284.4
250.6
258.9
270.7
161.0
2258
224.7
207.8
105.5
282.4
232.5
127.6
259.4
260.9
146.5
127.8
146.1
209,1
216.7
134.7
128.7
336.6
133.9
124.8
175.3

132.3
126.2
343.1
133.7
128.8
206.6

288.5
243.3
127.9
260.4
262.6
148.0
128.1
147.8
199.2
197.2
131.3
127.9
350.0
135.3
132.0
190.1

Dairy products..........................................................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 - 100) ................................
Fresh whole m ilk............................................................
Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100)......................
Processed dairy products (12/77 - 100)............................
Butter............................................................................
Cheese (12/77 - 100) ..................................................
Ice cream and related products (12/77 - 100)................
Other dairy products (12/77 = 100)................................

218.4
123.2
202.3

229,7
127.9
209.8
127.1
132.5
231.2
130.4
137.0
128.3

230.6
128.0
209.7
127.7
133.6
236.2
132.3
135.7
128.9

232.7
129.1
211.3
129.1
134.9
238.9
133.4
138,0
129.0

235.4
130.4
213.3
130.5
136.9
241.5
135.9
139.1
130.6

238.0
131.9
216.2
131.4
138.2
241.0
137.0
141.4
132.4

240.1
133.0
218.2
132.1
139.6
242.7
138.2
143.6
133.3

2189
123.2

230.9
128.2
209.8
128.3
134.1
238.8
132.7
135.4
129.3

233.1
129.1

124.5
219.8
123.6
125.6
120.4

229.9
128.0
209.7
127.6
132.9
233.7
130.9
136.1
128.8

129.5
135.8
242.5
133.8
139.1
129.4

235.9
130.4
213.0
131.0
137.9
244.4
136.2
140.9
131.9

238.8
132.2
216.5
131.9
139.2
244.1
137.4
143.2
133.1

240.7
133.4
218.5
132.9
140.1
246,5
138.3
144.3
132.9

Fruits and vegetables ..............................................................
Fresh fruits and vegetables ................................................
Fresh fruits ....................................................................
Apples........................................................................
Bananas ....................................................................
Oranges ....................................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100)..................................
Fresh vegetables............................................................
Potatoes........................................................................
Lettuce ......................................................................
Tomatoes ..................................................................
Other fresh vegetables (12/77 - 100) ........................

229.8
227.2
233.6
230.4
221.9
236.2
122.5

203.8
197.6
216.7
132.0

258.4
273.0
302.3
340.8
234.0
297.1
158.5
245.6
327.1
213.1
205.4
126.2

257.4
269.6
286.3
295.2
238.0
296.5
150.8
253.9
313.2
265.9
214.2
127.1

254.2
262.3
272.9
242.2
233.4
312.9
145.4
252.4
295.6
249.1
237.3
129.7

253.3
258.3
258.6
213.5
235.7
316.6
134.9
258.0
293.0
273.5
192.2
139.6

255.6
262.0
251.8
218.8
244.1
299.3
128.6
271.5
297.7
255.3
206.1
156.3

257.6
263.9
245.6
2208
. 237.8
272,9
127.8
281.1
326.1
234.2
247.2
157.8

2272
224.9
232.7
230.1
219.5
231.3
122.7
217.9
200.9
193.2
213.2
130.5

256.6
270.8
300.1
342.2
228.0
285.5
157.9
244.4
325.4
209.3
199.6
127.0

255.8
267.8
284.9
2953
234.3
284.2
151.9
252,4
309.2
262.5

127.6

252.3
259.6
270.4
243.7
230.2
301.5
145.6
249.9
292.0
241.3
235.6
129.6

251.4
255.7
255,5
213.0
232.0
300.4
136.4
256.0
2899
267.2
188.9
140.0

253.9
260.2
248.6
216.9
2392
287.0
129.2
270.9
298.0
253.8
204.5
156.2

255 1
260.3
241.1
216.8
228.9
258.9
128.4
277.8
322.9
229.9
239.8
156.9

Processed fruits and vegetables ........................................
Processed fruits (12/77 - 100) ......................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 - 100)....................
Fruit juices and other than frozen (12/77 = 100) ..........
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 - 100) ........................
Processed vegetables (12/77 - 100)..............................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 - 100)................................

234.7
122.9
117.2
125.1
125.3
113.0
111.9

244.5
126.9
119.2
130.1
130.0
118.8
119.6

246.3
127.4
119.3
130.8
130.7

247.5
127.8
118.8
131.0
132.0

250.1
129.1
120.5
131.9
133.3

250.9
129.0

253.0
129.9
120.7
133.2
134.1
124.2
124.1

231.8
122.4
116.5
124.5
124.8

242.9
127.2
118.1
130.7
130.7
117.5
119.2

244.6
127.6
118.5
131.0
131.5
118.7
119.4

246.4
128,5
118.8
131.9
132.7
119.6
120.3

248.8
129.4
120.7
132.3
133.5

249.0
129.1
119,9
132.2
133.3
121.5

251.3
129.9
119.6
133.2
134.7
123.0
123.3

98


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

220.8

116.2
243.2
239.0
134.1

121.2

141.6
187.8
191.1
120.7
119.3
316.7
118.5
121.9
178.2

122.1

123.8
216.9
123.5
124.0
119.8

221.2

212.0

201.5
199.9
98.4
262.5
217.0
123.1
247.8
245,8
138.5
123.7
140.4
197.5
205.3
127.8
120.3
331.8
131.2
123.6
178.3

220.1
206.2
102.2

120.6

131.6
133.1
1.23.1

120.1 120.8 122.2
119.7
120.3
121.8 122.1

211.6
104.1
287.8
241.1
127.4
262.9
262.5
151.2
130.3
145.0
202.4
202.5
132.7
128.7
358.0
137.4
135.7
190.2

120.8

120.1

212.0 222.8

121.2 121.8

201.8
122.8

111.2
111.4

122.0

210.8

222.6

211.0

121.0
121.7

201.1
202.2

121.2

210.2
102.2

23.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All U rb a n C o n s u m e rs
G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs a n d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d )

1980

1981

1980

1981

Jan.

Aug.

S e p t.

O c t.

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Jan.

A ug.

S ep t.

O c t.

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Fruits and vegetables — Continued
Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) . . .
Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77=100)............
Other foods at hom e......................................................................
Sugar and sweets..........................................................................
Candy and chewing gum (12/77=100) ....................................
Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77=100)......................
Other sweets (12/77=100) ..............................................
Fats and oils (12/77=100) ......................................................
Margarine ........................................................................
Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77=100) ..........
Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77=100) ..............
Nonalcoholic beverages ..........................................................
Cola drinks, excluding diet c o la ..........................................
Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77=100)............
Roasted coffee ................................................................
Freeze dried and instant coffee..........................................
Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77=100)..........................
Other prepared foods ..............................................................
Canned and packaged soup (12/77=100)..........................
Frozen prepared foods (12/77=100)..................................
Snacks (12/77=100)........................................................
Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77=100)............
Other condiments (12/77 -100) ........................................
Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77 = 100) ......................
Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77=100) ..

114.5
112.9
283.5
289.8
121.3
122.2
118.7
233.9
248.3
115.3
121.9
378.5
249.5
119.9
443.2
378.2
116.8
218.8
116.5
126.0
121.8
121.4
120.8
119.6
119.4

119.4
118.0
307.8
355.1
132.6
194.6
128.3
242.0
249.3
124.7
126.2
402.8
275.2
131.3
433.9
380.3
123.1
234.9
123.7
134.6
129.3
129.4
131.8
130.9
127.5

121.4
119.6
309.2
361.1
134.2
200.2
129.2
243.6
249.2
125.8
127.4
403.9
276.7
132.5
426.1
376.1
124.5
235.2
123.8
133.9
129.8
130.7
133.0
130.6
126.9

122.5
120.3
311.5
369.0
134.7
209.4
131.5
246.0
254.2
125.6
128.5
404.9
280.4
133.9
411.8
368.1
125.8
236.6
124.1
133.9
130.6
131.9
133.4
132.0
127.9

124.1
121.5
314.8
381.3
135.7
225.9
132,5
247.4
254.9
127.4
129.0
405.5
284.0
133.8
399.2
364.9
1267
239.9
125.1
136.6
135.2
133.5
133.3
133.5
128.6

124.5
122.9
317.1
386.3
136.9
230.3
133.7
251.9
253.6
139.6
129.1
405.2
285.2
134.8
389.7
356.5
127.5
242.4
127.2
137.6
138.6
134.2
133.5
133.8
130.3

126.0
123.4
320.5
385.4
138.6
222.8
137.1
260.4
256.9
156.0
130.3
409.7
290.8
137.5
380.7
354.6
129.1
244.9
128.1
138,6
141.1
135.2
134.4
135.4
131.6

112.7
110.4
282.6
289.6
121.2
122.7
117.5
234.9
248.8
116.1
122.3
375.6
246.5
116.4
440.1
376.8
116.2
219.1
116.8
125.1
122.8
121.1
121.4
199.7
119.5

118.1
116.4
307.4
356.6
133.2
195.1
126.9
242.4
251.5
124.8
125.7
403.0
274.7
128.8
430.4
379.7
122.3
234.2
124.2
131.7
129.9
127.8
133.4
130.2
126.8

119.6
117.9
309.1
361.8
134.7
199.7
127.7
244.6
251.8
1258
127.4
403.6
274.9
130.2
423.1
374.8
123.8
235.6
124.7
131.6
130.4
129.5
135.0
131.1
127.2

120.9
118,5
311.7
369.8
135.4
209.5
129.2
247.0
256.6
125.5
128.7
405.8
279.6
131.8
409.3
366.3
125.3
236.9
124.9
131.9
131.0
132.2
135.3
131.7
128.2

121.8
120.3
315.7
383.9
136.8
225.9
131.9
248.2
256.9
128.0
128.8
407,8
283.6
133.2
395.5
364.0
126.2
240.4
125.6
133.5
136.1
132.8
136.5
133.8
128.9

122,8
121.0
317.8
388.9
137.4
231.4
133.1
252.6
254.6
139.9
129.1
407.4
284.0
133.5
386.2
358.1
127.7
242.8
128.0
134.8
140.1
133.4
136.3
133.5
130.2

124,5
122.1
320.8
387.3
139.4
223.4
135.5
261.8
257.4
156.4
131.0
410.7
288.2
135.0
376.4
355.8
129.6
245.1
127.9
136.9
141.7
134.5
136.3
135.2
132.1

Food away from home..........................................................................
Lunch (12/77=100) ......................................................................
Dinner (12/77=100) ......................................................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77=100) ............................................

256.1
124.6
124.8
122.5

269.5
131.2
130.7
130.0

271,4
132.1
131.9
130.4

273.1
132.9
132.4
131.8

275.3
134.3
133.4
132.5

277.7
135.7
134.4
133.7

280.9
137.2
136.2
134.7

258.0
125.7
125.6
123.7

272.8
131.8
132.8
132.3

274.9
132.9
133.8
133.3

277.4
134.4
135.1
133.9

279.5
135.7
136.1
134.5

281.8
137.3
136.7
135.6

284.2
138.5
138.2
136.4

A lc o h o lic b e v e ra g e s

179.3

188.7

189.6

190.4

190.9

191.6

193.7

179.7

190.6

191.7

192.5

192.8

193.7

195.5

Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77=100)............................................
Beer and a le ..................................................................................
Whiskey ........................................................................................
Wine..............................................................................................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77=100)..........................................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77=100) .................................

116.8
179.0
131.6
201.6
107.1
118.0

123.1
190.1
136.9
213.9
111.2
123.5

123.6
190.8
137.6
214.7
111.7
124.5

124.0
191.7
137.7
215.4
112.5
125.1

124.4
192.0
138.9
215.2
112.9
125.3

124.9
192.9
138.9
217.6
112.7
125.8

126.1
194.5
140.0
221.7
113.7
127.6

117.6
178.8
132 9
203.8
106.4
115.9

124.6
191.1
137.8
218.1
111.1
123.6

125.1
191.9
138.5
219.8
111.2
124.8

125.6
192.0
139.0
224.2
111.6
125.3

125.9
192.2
139.8
224.0
112.0
125.5

126.5
192.9
140.2
227.2
112.1
126.2

127.6
194.5
141.5
229.4
113.2
127.4

H O U S I N G ..............................................................................................................................

247.3

265.8

267.7

271.1

273.8

276.9

279.1

247.3

265.8

267.6

271.0

273.7

277.1

279.1

F O O D A N D B E V E R A G E S - C o n t in u e d

Food

C o n tin u e d

Food at home — Continued

S h e l t e r ....................................................................................................................................

264.0

283.3

285.3

290.4

294.7

298.5

300.1

265.1

284.8

286.8

2920

296.4

300.4

301.7

Rent, residential....................................................................................

184.1

193.2

195.1

197.1

198.3

199.6

200.9

183.9

193.0

194,8

196.8

198,0

199.4

2006

Other rental costs ................................................................................
Lodging while out of town................................................................
Tenants’ insurance (12/77=100) ....................................................

251.1
267.0
116.2

267.5
286.4
122.2

268.9
2870
124.7

268.8
286.0
125.4

268.3
284.2
126.5

267.7
282.6
126.9

273.9
291.5
127.6

251.1
266.1
116.8

267.3
285.1
122.7

268.6
285.6
125.2

268.8
284.9
126.0

268.4
283.3
126.8

267.3
281.0
127.2

273.6
289.9
128.0

Homeownership....................................................................................
Home purchase..............................................................................
Financing, taxes, and insurance ......................................................
Property insurance ..................................................................
Property taxes ........................................................................
Contracted mortgage interest c o s t............................................
Mortgage interest rates......................................................
Maintenance and repairs ................................................................
Maintenance and repair services ..............................................
Maintenance and repair commodities ........................................
Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and
equipment (12/77=100) ................................................
Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77 = 100)............
Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling
supplies (12/77=100)....................................................
Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77=100) ..........

292.5
242.1
359.8
327.7
186.7
452.8
183.7
270.6
293.2
217.6

315.4
258.1
393.6
355.9
190.3
501.8
192.0
288.5
312.4
232.7

317.6
261.5
393.5
359.8
191.2
500.9
188.9
291.6
315.9
234.9

323.8
265.5
404.7
362.0
192.0
518.1
192.6
292.8
317.0
236.3

329.4
267.3
416.9
364.5
192.8
536.7
198.0
294.2
318.6
237.1

334.2
267.2
429.4
365.8194.5
555.5
205.1
296.8
321.5
239.1

335.8
266.2
435.2
369.8
196.0
563.5
209.0
296.8
321.3
239.7

294.6
242.3
363.4
328.8
188.2
453.7
183.8
271.9
295.9
218.4

318.1
258.6
398.8
357.9
192.0
504.2
192.5
287.7
312.1
233.2

320.2
262.1
398.9
362.9
193.0
503.6
189.5
290.3
315.6
233.9

326.7
266.4
410.8
365.3
193.8
521.2
193.0
290.4
315.1
235.0

332.3
268.2
423.1
367.8
194.7
539.7
198.4
291.1
315.9
235.6

337.5
268.0
436.0
369.0
196.4
558.7
205.5
294.2
3203
236.2

338 6
266.4
441.3
373.2
197.9
565.9
209.4
294.1
319.8
236.7

122.5
115.9

134.4
120.1

135.6
122.2

136.9
122.4

137.4
122.3

139.2
123.2

139.5
123.4

122.2
118.6

133.1
120.4

132.7
121,8

133.1
122.5

134.7
122.0

134.9
122.9

135.1
122.7

114.7
115.4

122.7
122.1

123.2
122.7

123.8
123.3

124.2
123.7

124.8
124.2

125.2
124.7

117.0
113.2

126.6
123.9

126.1
125.2

126.6
125.9

124.6
126.4

124.9
126.3

124.5
127.9

Fu el a n d o th e r u t i l i t i e s ...................................................................................................

258.6

286.8

2882

287.6

285.7

289.9

296.7

259.2

287.4

288.7

288.0

286.3

290.7

297.5

Fuels ...................................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas..........................................................
Fuel o il....................................................................................
Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ........................................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ..............................................................
Electricity................................................................................
Utility (piped) gas ....................................................................

318.0
514.0
534.4
132.7
273.0
226.6
335.1

362.5
561.5
586.1
140.8
316.1
268.3
375.2

364.5
561.5
585.4
142.1
318.4
269.2
380.2

362.8
558.7
581.5
143.1
317.1
265.3
384.6

358.7
567.0
589.8
145.7
310.5
258.7
379.0

364.7
585.3
610.0
148.4
313.9
262.3
381.5

375,4
625.9
656.0
152.3
318.5
266.9
385.3

318.1
515.1
534.9
133.7
273.0
226.8
333.8

362.1
562.7
586.4
142.5
315.4
268.6
372.0

363.8
562.9
585.9
143,8
317.4
269.6
376.1

362.1
559.9
581.8
144.8
316.0
265.3
380.9

358.2
568.3
590.3
147.3
309.8
258.4
376.7

364.5
587.0
610.9
150.1
313.4
262.1
379.7

375,0
627.9
657.1
154.1
317.7
266.5
383.3


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

99

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.

Continued— Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs an d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d )

All U rb an C o n s u m e rs
G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

1980

1981

1980

1981

Jan.

Aug.

S e p t.

O ct.

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Jan.

Aug.

S ep t.

O ct.

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Other utilities and public services ............................................................
Telephone serv ces ..........................................................................
Local charges (12/77 = 100) ....................................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Water and sewerage maintenance ....................................................

161.5
133.4
102.6
97.7
100.8
250.0

166.5
136.5
105.4
101.9
999
263.5

167.1
137.0
106.0
102.1
100.1
264.5

167.8
137.5
106.6
102.1
100.1
266.2

169.0
138.7
108.3
101.7
100.6
267.0

170.6
140.3
110.5
101.8
100.9
267.8

171.9
141.1
111.6
101.8
101.0
271.4

161.5
133.4
102.6
97.7
100.6
250.5

166.4
136.4
105.2
101.9
99.7
264.5

167.1
136.9
105.9
102.1
100.0
265.5

167.8
137.4
106.5
102.1
99.9
267.3

169.1
138.7
108.3
101.8
100.5
268.0

170.7
140.3
110.6
101.8
100.7
268.7

172.0
141.1
111.7
101.9
100.8
272.5

H o u s e h o ld fu rn is h in g s a n d o p e ra tio n s

196.9

207.2

209.2

210.1

211.0

211.6

212.6

194.9

204.5

206.0

206.8

208.1

209.0

209.7

175.2
189.1
114.1
121.9
192.6
125.8
111.3
111.6
125.7
141.4
106.6
105.0
109.1
164.6
164.4
120.2
113.3

177.3
194.1
118.4
123.6
195.7
127.9
112.7
114.1
127.5
142.0
107.0
105,0
109.8
165.5
164.8
120.9
114.2

177.9
195.9
119.5
124.9
195.2
127.4
113.8
113.0
127.0
142.3
107.1
104.7
110.3
166.0
165.8
121.5
114.2

178.1
192.4
117.3
122.7
196.5
128.6
114.2
113.3
127.9
142.6
107.4
105.1
110.6
166.2
166.1
122.0
114.2

178.3
193.2
117.2
123.8
197.0
129.2
115.3
113.1
127.8
142.4
107.2
105.2
110.1
165.9
166.5
123.4
113.1

178.7
191.9
114.6
124.9
196.6
128.3
114.2
113.1
128.7
143.1
107,4
105.6
110.2
167.2
168.0
123.6
114.2

166.5
175.3
106.0
113.2
183.6
116.8
110.6
109.4
117.8
137.2
104.9
102.2
108.2
157.7
159.4
113.8
108.6

173.5
189.6
114.7
122.4
189.9
123.6
110.4
112.3
122.5
140.6
105.2
103.3
107.9
164.5
168.0
120.1
112.0

175.0
192.5
117.7
122.7
192.0
124.5
111.1
115.1
123,6
141.2
105.7
103.2
108.8
165.2
169.1
120.0
112.5

175.6
195.1
119.5
124.1
192.5
124.6
113.0
114,4
123.6
141.2
105.6
103.2
108.7
165.3
169.4
120.2
112.5

176.4
195.7
122.6
121.2
193.9
125.5
113.6
115.6
124.6
141.4
106.1
103.8
109.1
165.2
169.2
120.2
112.4

176.9
196.6
122.7
122.4
194.4
125.7
114.7
115.2
124.7
142.0
106.1
103.7
109.2
166.3
170.9
121.4
112.8

176.9
193.4
117.0
124.6
193.6
125.1
113.2
114.3
125.6
142.7
106.5
104.2
109.4
167.6
171.7
121.9
114.0

110.0

111.8

111.8

112.4

113.0

112.0

114.8

109.2

111.4

111.8

112.1

112.6

113.9

115.7

111.1
114.6

115,1
121.7

117.0
123.0

116.2
124.1

115.5
124.6

114.3
124.8

113.6
125.6

107.8
113.3

112.6
120.5

113.4
121.6

113.0
122.2

112.1
123.2

111.5
123.1

112.0
123.8

113.1
111.6

121.7
119.8

123.0
120.6

123.3
121.6

124.3
121.4

124.6
121.7

125.7
122.3

108.9
109.4

115.3
117.1

116.8
118.2

118.2
119.4

119.0
119.2

118.4
118.8

118.9
119.2

H O U S IN G

C o n tin u e d

Fuel an d o th e r u tilitie s

C o n tin u e d

Housefurnishings ....................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings....................................................................
Household linens (12/77 - 100) ................................................
Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100)
Furniture and bedding ......................................................................
Bedroom furniture (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Sofas (12/77 - 100) ................................................................
Living room chairs and tables (12/77 - 100) ..............................
Other furniture (12/77 = 100)....................................................
Appliances including TV and sound equipment....................................
Television and sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Television ..........................................................................
Sound equipment (12/77 - 100) ........................................
Household appliances................................................................
Refrigerators and home freezer............................................
Laundry equipment (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Other household appliances (12/77 - 100)..........................
Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing
machines (12/77 - 100) ..............................................
Office machines, small electric appliances,
and air conditioners (12/77 - 100)................................
Other household equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Floor and window coverings, infants’ laundry
cleaning and outdoor equipment (12/77 - 100) ......................
Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric
kitchenware (12/77 - 100) ....................................................
Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) .

167.6
176.7
105,4
115.1
184.0
119.1
108.2
108.9
118.1
137.8
105.3
103.7
107.8
158.5
156.7
114.1
110.5

119.9
110.6

125.8
117.1

128.2
117.2

130.0
117.9

130.6
118.4

130.8
118.7

131.9
118.7

117.3
113.0

125.1
119.6

126.3
120.3

126.3
120.9

127.4
122.3

127.6
122.3

128.0
123.8

Housekeeping supplies............................................................................
Soaps and detergents ......................................................................
Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) ..
Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 - 100) ..............
Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 100)..............................
Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 - 100)..........................................

231.1
224.1
116.1
120.6
111.6
117.7
114.4

249.9
240.1
124.4
132.2
117.4
127.7
127.5

252.0
243.7
125.6
133.8
118.0
129.0
127.1

253.6
248.7
125.7
134.2
118.6
129.5
126.9

256.0
252.4
126.7
135.6
118.3
131.1
128.0

257.7
254.0
127.6
136.1
119.5
132.5
128.4

259.5
255.6
128.8
137.3
119.9
132.6
130.0

228.8
222.2
115.6
121.8
109.0
115.0
111.3

247.8
236.8
123.9
135.1
117.4
125.5
121.4

249.6
241.1
125.0
135.8
116.9
126.6
120.5

251.2
245.6
125.1
136.2
118.2
126.7
121.0

253.5
248.2
126.2
136.6
118.8
128.4
122.5

256.0
252.3
127.6
137.6
120.0
129.5
122.5

257.5
253.4
129.0
139.2
120.7
1293
122.7

Housekeeping services............................................................................
Postage ..........................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 = 100) ..............................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100) ....................................

260.0
257.3

271.6
257.3

273.3
257.3

274.5
257.3

276.1
257.3

277.1
257.3

279.6
257.3

259.2
257.2

269.0
253.7

270.2
257.3

271.0
257.3

272.5
257.3

273.8
257.3

276.4
257.3

122.9
114.0

131.3
119.4

132.8
119.8

133.3
120.3

134.6
120.7

134.4
121.4

137.0
122.4

123.3
114.4

129.7
118.3

130.3
118.7

130.2
119.2

131.4
119.7

131.8
120.6

134.3
121.5

APPAREL A N D UPKEEP

171.0

178.6

182.2

183.9

184.8

183.9

181.1

169.8

177.9

181.4

182.8

183.3

182.9

180.0

A p p a re l c o m m o d itie s

164.3

171.0

174.9

176.4

177.2

176.0

172.6

163.6

170.7

174.4

175.6

176.0

175.3

172.6

172.5
174.3
109.8
103.5
99.7
123.9
119.7
103.4
113.1
108.6
118.7
114.3
157.4
104.4
161.4
163.8
101.4
116.8
91.9
106.1
101.3
106.1

168.9
171.1
107.5
99.9
95.2
123.9
115.4
103.4
112.0
104.8
119.1
114.8
152.1
100.8
150.4
155.5
98.2
116.0
87.8
102.9
96.0
103.6

160.2
162.4
102.3
94.9
95.6
109.3
108.3
102.2
104.7
99.8
109.7
106.6
149.9
100.1
165.0
150.0
97.1
109.1
94.0
97.9
91.9
99.8

167.3
168.4
106.1
95.2
98.0
116.3
115.1
105.0
108.6
107.1
112.9
108.2
154.1
102.5
170.2
151.1
99.7
114.3
91.3
102.3
99.5
100.7

171.1
171.6
108.3
98.3
100.0
117.5
117.4
107.1
110.2
109.6
113.7
109.4
159.8
107.0
177.0
156.8
104.6
114.8
105.7
103.3
97.3
104.2

172.2
173.8
109.Ü
99.7
101.3
118.8
118.5
108.3
112.0
111.2
115.1
111.5
160.3
107.0
176.5
157,5
103.6
115.3
106.8
105.1
99,0
106.3

172.5
174.8
110.2
99.4
101.9
119.7
120.4
108,7
112.7
112.5
115.2
111.9
159.9
106.6
175.5
157.7
102.8
116.4
102.8
105.3
99.1
106.8

171.6
174.4
109.9
98.2
101.9
120.0
120.7
108.1
112.6
111.8
116.2
112.0
158.2
105.3
172.2
154.3
98,2
116.6
98.2
104.9
98.6
106.6

168.7
171.7
107.9
95.1
97.4
119.9
116.7
108.2
111.6
107.9
115.8
112.9
153.9
102.3
162.1
147.3
95.5
115.6
95.5
102.5
94,4
104.4

113.8

113.1

104.4

109.6

111.3

112.8

112.6

112.2

112.2

Apparel commodities less footwear....................................................
Men's and boys’ ..............................................................................
Men’s (12/77 - 100) ................................................................
Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 - 100) ......................
Coats and jackets (12/77 = 100)........................................
Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100) ....................
Shirts (12/77 - 100) ..........................................................
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) ....................
Boys' (12/77 - 100) ................................................................
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100) ..............
Furnishings (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) ........
Women's and girls' ..........................................................................
Women's (12/77 - 100)............................................................
Coats and jackets ..............................................................
Dresses ..............................................................................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 - 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100)................
Suits (12/77 - 100)............................................................
Girls (12/77 - 100) ..................................................................
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 100)..................
Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100)............................
Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and
accessories (12/77 - 100)..............................................

100


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

161.1
162.8
102.6
98.8
95.5
112.2
108.6
98.2
105.6
99.3
111.5
108.2
151.5
100.8
166.4
161.3
96.1
108.6
91.0
100.5
97.5
99.9

167.8
167.9
105.6
99.2
96.7
119.3
114.9
99.5
109.5
106.0
114.6
110.3
153.7
101.7
164.0
158.3
98.5
114.2
86.5
104.5
103.4
102.0

171.8
171.7
108.1
103.2
99.9
120.8
116.9
101.2
111.4
108.1
116.6
111.9
159.0
105.7
168.9
168.5
102.2
114.6
95.4
105.8
102.1
105.3

173.1
173.9
109.5
104.3
100.4
122.9
118.3
102.6
113.0
109.2
118.1
113.9
159.7
106.1
167.0
170.0
101.6
114.9
98.2
107.0
103.2
106.7

173.9
174.8
110.1
104.7
100.5
123.3
119.6
103.5
113.3
109.4
118.4
114.3
159,9
106.3
164.7
168.1
102.9
116.7
97.4
106.5
102.7
105.9

106.7

111.2

113.0

113.8

114.0

23.

Continued — Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average

[19(57 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
All U rb a n C o n s u m e rs
G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs an d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d )

1980

1981

1980

1981

Jan.

A ug.

S e p t.

O ct.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Jan.

A ug.

S ep t.

O ct.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Apparel commodities less footwear - Continued
Infants’ and toddlers’ ......................................................................
Other apparel commodities ............................................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) ............................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 = 100) ........................................

224.9
184.4
103.2
126.1

243.9
209.9
110.2
146.5

242.4
210.5
110.9
146.8

244.1
211.8
111.9
147.5

248.9
213.7
110.3
149.9

250.1
213.3
110.6
149.5

249.7
214.2
111.9
149.7

229.1
185.5
101.2
128.4

252.6
204.1
110.0
142.0

248.3
204.4
110.7
142.0

249.2
204.1
112.0
141.1

254.0
204.0
110.2
141.8

255.4
204.4
110.0
142.3

256.9
205.3
110.8
142.8

Footwear ...............................................................................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ....................................................................
Boys’ and girls’ (12/77 = 100) ......................................................
Womens' (12/77 = 100)................................................................

183.7
117.8
117.3
111.6

190.3
121.3
122.8
115.4

193.2
123.6
123.3
117.7

196.1
124.7
125.8
119.6

196.5
125.4
126.2
119.4

196.6
124.6
126.6
120.0

194.9
124.4
125.7
118.1

183.3
119.3
116.9
109.4

190.0
123.4
123.9
111.7

193.3
124.9
124.6
115.1

195.6
125.8
126.9
116.3

196.4
126.7
127.4
116.5

196.7
126.0
127.8
117.5

195.5
' 126.1
127.0
115.9

A p p a re l s e rv ic e s

220.7
129.3
119.6

235.4
138.3
126.9

237.3
140.0
126.9

240.0
141.1
129.2

241.9
142.4
130.0

243.4
143.5
130.5

246.3
145.3
131.7

216.9
129.0
115.1

233.7
138.4
125.0

2345
139.1
125.1

238.1
140.9
127.4

239.9
141.6
129.1

242.2
143.2
129.9

245.5
145.5
131.1

APPAREL AN D UPKEEP

C o n tin u e d

A p p a re l c o m m o d itie s — C o n tin u e d

Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100)............
Other apparel services (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
T R A N S P O R T A T IO N

233.5

252.7

254.7

256.1

259.0

261.1

264.7

234.1

253.5

255.2

256.6

259.7

261.9

265.7

P r i v a t e ....................................................................................................................................

233.5

251.6

253.2

254.5

257.4

2594

262.9

234.1

252.7

254.1

255.5

258.6

260.8

264.4

New cars .............................................................................................
Used c a rs .............................................................................................
Gasol.ne ..............................................................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair........................................................
Body work (12/77 = 100)..............................................................
Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous
mechanical repair (12/77 = 100) ................................................
Maintenance and servicing (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Power plant repair (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Ottier private transportation ..................................................................
Other private transportation commodities ........................................
Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 = 100) ................
Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Tires ................................................................................
Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Other private transportation services................................................
Automobile insurance ..............................................................
Automobile finance charges (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) . . .
State registration ..............................................................
Drivers’ license (12/77 = 100) ..........................................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Other vehicle related fees (12/77 = 100) ..........................

173.9
197.2
334.6
255.1
125.0

181.1
206.4
375.9
271.1
133.0

181.7
214.6
373.0
273.8
133.8

181.9
222.7
370.5
276.0
135.0

184.3
230.8
370.5
278.4
136.1

184.5
234.4
373.3
280.1
136.8

185.3
234.0
385.2
282.7
137.3

174.1
197.2
335.9
256.2
124.3

181.9
206.4
377.1
272.2
132.4

182.3
214.6
373.9
273.9
133.0

182.0
222.7
371.7
276.6
134.6

184.5
230.8
371.7
278.9
135.9

184.6
234.4
374.4
280.6
136.7

185.7
234.0
386.6
283.2
137.3

121.8
120.2
120.4
209.8
188.4
120.9
121.9
165.8
126.6
217.6
237.1
129.9
109.1
144.2
104.7
117.5
118.8

129.0
128.4
127.3
224.7
198.3
136.3
127.0
175.9
126.2
233.9
250.2
148.2
114.0
146.5
104.9
122.8
128.3

130.9
129.4
128.7
226.0
200.9
137.5
128.8
178.8
127.3
234.9
251.3
148.6
114.5
146.5
104.9
122.8
129.8

132.7
130.0
129.8
226.5
200.9
136.5
128.9
179.2
126.9
235.6
251.5
149.9
114.6
146.5
104.9
122.9
130.0

133.6
131.0
131.3
228.8
203.1
137.8
130.3
181.7
127.3
2379
251.9
154.4
115.0
146.6
105.0
123.2
130.7

134.0
131.6
132.7
231.0
203.6
138.8
130.6
182.1
127.6
240.6
252.5
159.4
115.8
146.9
105.3
124.3
132.7

135.8
132.5
134.4
232.4
203.7
139.1
130.6
181.5
128.6
242.4
252.3
163.4
116.2
146.9
105.3
124.8
133.7

123.6
120.4
120.9
210.6
188.0
122.4
121.4
166.3
124.0
218.7
236.8
129.4
109.8
144.1
104.5
118.3
123.8

131.5
128.4
127.5
226.8
200.6
136.1
128.7
179.9
125.2
236.0
249.9
147.5
115.4
146.4
104.6
123.5
136.6

131.8
129.5
128.5
227.6
201.9
135.6
129.8
181.5
125.8
236.7
250.9
147.5
115.8
146.5
104.6
123.5
137.8

133.9
130.2
129.6
228.0
201.4
135.4
129.4
180.8
125.7
237.3
251.2
148.3
116.3
146.5
104.7
123.6
139.1

135.0
131.1
130.8
230.6
203.4
137.3
130.6
182.5
126.9
240.1
251.5
153.2
116.7
146.6
104.7
123.9
140.0

135.6
131.7
132.2
233.2
205.7
139.0
132.0
184.7
127.8
242.9
252.0
157.9
117.5
147.0
105.1
125.1
142.0

137.5
132.7
133.5
235.0
206.2
139.2
132.4
184.8
128.9
244.9
251.8
161.7
118.2
146.9
105.1
125.6
144.1

P u b l i c .................................................................................................................................

226.8

261.5

271.0

273.6

277.0

280.1

286.4

221.9

256.9

264.4

266.5

269.2

271.8

279.0

Airline fare........................................................................
Intercity bus fare ..................................................................................
Intracity mass transit ............................................................................
Taxi fare ..............................................................................................
Intercity train fa re ..................................................................................

251.1
284.7
198.5
243.1
237.2

289.8
297.9
234.1
266.2
255.4

310.3
304.7
234.8
2668
255.5

315.0
307.1
235.6
267.9
255.6

321.8
308.0
236.1
269.2
255.6

327.4
310.1
237.1
269.7
270.1

331.9
310.7
247.1
271.0
276.4

251.0
284.8
196.7
248.9
237.1

287.9
2980
233.8
273.0
255.6

308.6
304.5
234.4
273.6
255.6

313.0
306.9
235.2
274.7
255.7

319.8
308.0
235.6
275.6
255.7

325.7
309.8
236.5
275.9
270.3

330.2
310.6
246.5
277.5
276.8

M E D IC A L C A R E

253.9

268.4

270.6

272.8

274.5

275.8

279.5

254.9

270.0

272.2

274.3

276.3

277.6

281.4

M e d ic a l c a re c o m m o d itie s

160.5

170.2

171.3

172.5

173.8

175.1

176.7

161.0

170.8

171,8

173.0

174.1

175.6

177.5

Prescription drugs ................................................................................
Anti-infective drugs (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 100)........................................
Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and
prescription and supplies (12/77 = 100) ......................................
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 100) ..............................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 = 100)................................................

147.9
115.8
119.9
112.4

156.4
120.5
126.1
116.0

157.5
122.4
126.3
116.9

158.5
124.1
127.1
117.3

159.6
124.6
128.9
118.3

160.7
124.7
130.2
119.1

162.7
127.7
130.7
120.6

148.8
118.2
119.7
113.0

157.4
121.6
125.4
118.2

158.5
123.4
125.4
118.9

159.5
125.1
126.2
119.3

160.2
125.6
127.7
119.9

161.5
126.4
128.6
120.2

163.4
128.6
129.4
121.3

126.0
118.8

138.2
125.2

138.9
125.6

139.6
126.3

140.4
126.7

142.3
126.9

143.9
128.7

124.8
119.0

137.0
127.6

138.1
128.1

138.8
128.7

139.6
128.3

141.7
129.6

143.8
131.4

112.6

119.9

120.5

120.4

121.2

122.4

123.2

114.2

121.2

121.8

122.1

122.3

123.1

123.8

Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 =100) ....................
Eyeglasses (12/77 = 100) ............................................................
Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs ................................
Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100)........

115.3
111.5
179.1
113,8

122.6
119.9
190.4
119.9

123.3
120.5
191.2
120.8

124.4
121.0
1935
121.3

125.3
121.2
195.8
121.5

126.2
120.8
198.1
122.5

127.1
121.5
199.3
123.6

115.6
111.4
179,0
115.0

122.9
118.4
191.6
119.9

123.6
119.0
192.4
121.2

124.4
119.6
194.0
121.8

125.5
120.2
195.8
123.0

126.5
120.4
198.0
123.7

127.9
121.1
200.4
125.1

M e d ic a l c a re s e rv ic e s

274.4

289.8

292.3

2948

296.6

297.9

302.1

275.6

291.7

294.3

296.6

2987

300.0

304.3

Professioqal services ............................................................................
Physicians’ services........................................................................
Dental services..............................................................................
Other professional services (12/77 = 100)......................................

238.9
256.0
227.4
116.6

254.7
272.2
242.2
126.0

257.3
274.2
245.8
126.7

259.0
276.0
247.5
127.6

260.4
278.0
248.0
128,5

261.7
280.3
248.6
128.5

254.7
283,9
251.4
129,3

241.7
260.3
229.5
115.9

257.8
277.6
244,5
123.9

260.4
280.5
247.3
124.5

261.9
281.8
249.0
125.1

263.8
283.8
250.4
126.7

265.0
285,7
251.3
126.6

268.7
290.0
254.9
127.6

Other medical care services..................................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)..........................
Hospital room..........................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services (12/77-100)..............

317.4
125.6
395.3
124.7

332.3
135.4
424.0
135.1

334.7
137.1
428.4
137.0

338.0
139.3
435.8
139.0

340.5
141.1
441.0
140.9

341.6
141.7
443.7
141.4

347.3
144.5
453.8
143.7

317.3
124.9
393.9
123.8

3333
134.9
422.4
134.4

335.6
136.4
427.2
136.0

339.2
138 9
435.3
138.4

341.6
140.5
439.8
140.2

342.9
141.3
443.1
140.6

347.8
143.7
451.9
142.7


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

101

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
23.

Continued — Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs a n d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d )

All U rb a n C o n s u m e rs
G e n e ra l s u m m a ry

1980
Jan.

Aug.

S e p t.

O ct.

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

1981

1980

1981
Jan.

Aug.

S e p t.

O ct.

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

E N T E R T A IN M E N T ..............................................................................................................

195.3

208.0

209.8

210.9

211.2

212.0

214.4

193.9

205.6

208.1

209.2

209.9

210.1

212.2

E n te rta in m e n t c o m m o d itie s

197.6

210.8

212.8

213.7

214.5

215.3

217.1

194.2

206.4

208.6

209.0

210.2

210.9

213.0

Reading materials (12/77 = 100)..........................................................
Newspapers ..................................................................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)............................

116.7
226.8
118.1

123.2
240.7
124.0

126.1
242.3
129.3

127.0
245.3
129.6

127.6
245.6
130.7

128.2
246.2
131.5

130.0
249.7
133.4

116.2
226.4
117.8

122.7
239.9
123.7

125.5
241.5
129.3

126.6
244.6
129.6

127.1
244.9
130.8

127.6
245.5
131.5

129.6
249.4
133.5

Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................................
Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) ........................................................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100)................
3'Cydes ........................................................................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................

113.8
( 1)
107.6
170.5
111.8

120.9
122.2
113.5
183.6
116.5

121.1
(’ )
113.8
184.7
117.2

121.8
<1)
114.5
185.3
118.2

122.8
( 1)
114.7
185.7
119.9

122.9
( 1)
116.2
184.7
120.4

123.5

108.6
( 1)
106.4
170.5
111.9

115.3
113.5
111.7
183.2
116.9

115.8
( 1)
112.1
184.9
117.4

116.3
( 1)
112.5
185.4
117.8

117.0
(’ )
112.2
185.8
119.1

117.8

(’ >
115.7
185.9
120.9

(’ )
113.4
184.9
119.3

118.5
( 1)
114.5
186.7
119.2

Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)............................
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 - 100) ........................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Pet supplies and expense (12/77 = 100) ........................................

113.2
112.1
110.8
116,8

121.8
120.4
122.5
123.9

122.6
121.4
123.1
124.4

122.8
120.9
123.1
125.8

122.8
120.7
121.8
127.3

123.5
121.3
122.0
128.4

124.4
122.4
121.5
130.1

112.6
110.9
111.2
116.7

120.3
117.8
121.7
123.8

121.3
119.0
121.8
125.2

120.9
117.4
122.3
126.4

121.6
118.4
122.7
126.8

121.8
118.5
122.4
127.6

122.9
119.4
122.3
129.7

E n te rta in m e n t s e rv ic e s

................................................................................................

192.5

204.3

206.1

207.2

206.9

207.8

210.9

194.4

205.2

208.4

210.6

210.5

209.7

212.0

Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100)..............................................
Admissions (12/77 - 100)....................................................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 - 100)..........................................

114.6
117.9
109.1

123.2
122.1
117.4

124.5
122.6
118.3

125.5
122.7
119.0

125.2
122.6
118.7

125.7
123.1
119.4

128.1
124.7
120.1

115.6
119.4
109.3

121.8
124.2
119.1

124.7
124.1
120.8

127.0
124.2
121.6

126.7
124.3
121.6

125.9
124.0
121.8

127.8
125.2
122.0

O T H E R G O O D S A N D S E R V IC E S ................................................................................

206.3

214.5

220.6

221.5

222.8

224.6

226.2

206.0

214.0

219.0

219.9

221.0

223.0

224.4

T o b a c c o p ro d u c ts

...........................................................................................................

196.7

204.5

204.5

204.5

207.3

210.8

211.9

197.1

204.4

204.3

204.3

2068

210.4

211.7

Cigarettes.............................................................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 - 100)............

199.7
113.9

207.0
122.0

206.8
122.8

206.8
123.2

209.6
124.3

213.5
124.9

214.6
125.4

200.3
113.4

207.0
121.7

206.8
122.7

206.7
123.1

209.3
123.9

213.2
124.5

214.5
125.4

P e rs o n a l c a re

...................................................................................................................

204.2

215.4

216.7

217.8

219.0

220.9

222.5

204,4

214.7

216.6

218.0

218.5

220.0

221.1

Toilet goods and personal care appliances..............................................
Products for the hair, hairpieces and wigs (12/77 - 100)..................
Dental and shaving products (12/77 - 100)....................................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure
and eye makeup implements (12/77 - 100) ................................
Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)

196.4
114.2
117.8

209.0
121.7
125.2

210.3
121.8
125.3

211.8
124.5
126.0

212.4
124.5
127.2

215.2
125.2
128.4

216.9
126.3
130.8

196.2
114.0
115.3

208.8
122.5
123.6

210.4
123.6
124.0

212.1
123.6
125.3

212.7
123.2
125.9

214.3
125.3
125.4

216.1
126.2
128.3

112.9
112.1

119.6
119.9

121.3
120.8

121.3
120.8

120.8
122.2

122.6
124.8

122.9
125.5

112.9
114.0

118.5
121.5

119,7
122.1

121.1
123.6

121.0
125.3

121.4
126.8

222.2
126.6

Personal care services..........................................................................
Beauty parlor services for women....................................................
Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . .

211.6
213.3
118.1

221.7
222.5
124.8

223.1
224.5
124.8

223.8
225.2
125.3

225.5
227.5
125.6

226.8
228.7
126.4

228.3
230.1
127.3

212.7
214.2
118.8

220.7
222.0
123.4

222.9
225.0
123.9

224.0
225.6
125.0

224.4
226.1
125.2

225.8
227.5
126.0

226.3
227.6
126.7

P e rs o n a l a n d e d u c a tio n a l e x p e n s e s

226.3

231.4

249.5

251.1

251.3

251.5

253.6

226.2

231.8

249.8

251.2

251.4

251.7

254.0

School books and supplies....................................................................
Personal and educational services..........................................................
Tuition and other school fees ..........................................................
College tuition (12/77 = 100) ..................................................
Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ....................
Personal expenses (12/77 = 100)..................................................

206.0
231.4
118.3
117.6
120.9
120.1

207,7
237.1
119.4
118,7
122.0
130.7

221.0
256.2
131.6
130.7
134.4
130.5

221.9
257.8
132.2
131.5
134.4
132.4

221.9
258.1
132.2
131.5
134.4
133.0

222.1
258.2
132.2
131.5
134.4
133.4

228.6
259.7
132.6
132.0
134.4
135.7

209.8
230.6
118.4
117.6
120.7
117.7

211.5
237.1
119.5
118.7
121.8
128.5

224.8
256.1
131.8
130.7
134.3
129.7

225.6
257.5
132.4
131.5
134.3
131.0

225.6
257.8
132.4
131.5
134.3
131.6

225.8
258.1
132.4
131.5
134.3
132.2

232.4
259.6
132.8
132.0
134.3
134.4

329.9
310.5
225.0
284.7

370.7
338.3
251.9
300.8

367.9
338.6
254.8
303.6

365.5
346.4
254.9
304.7

365.5
355.3
253.1
306.4

368.3
364.5
255.8
308.4

379.9
368.9
259.4
309.5

331.3
310.0
224.4
286.0

371.8
338.7
251.2
299.7

368.7
339.0
253.6
302.3

366.6
346.7
253.5
302.4

366.7
355.6
251.6
303.5

369.4
364.7
254.4
306.6

381.2
368.8
258.0
307.4

S p e c ia l in d e x e s :

Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products......................................
Insurance and finance ..........................................................................
Utilities and public transportation............................................................
Housekeeping and home maintenance services ......................................
1Not available.

102


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

24. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure
category and commodity and service group
[December 1977 = 100]
S iz e c la s s A

S iz e cla s s B

S iz e c la s s C

S ize c la s s D

(1 .2 5 m illio n o r m o re )

(3 8 5 ,0 0 0 -1 .2 5 0 m illion)

(7 5 ,0 0 0 -3 8 5 ,0 0 0 )

(7 5 ,0 0 0 o r less)

C a te g o ry a n d g ro u p
1980
Aug.

O ct.

1980
D ec.

Aug.

O ct.

1980
D ec.

A ug.

1980

O ct.

D ec.

A ug.

O ct.

D ec.

N o rth e a s t
E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y

All Items ......................................................................
Food and beverages ..................................................................................
Housing ........................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation............................................................................................
Medical care..................................................................................
Entertainment ..........................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

129.1
129.5
131.2
112.0
138.0
125.1
118.3
117.2

130.5
131.0
131.8
116.2
139.4
126.3
120.0
121.2

132.8
132.8
135.2
114.8
141.9
128.0
120.7
122.7

134.8
131.0
139.7
113.1
143.5
124.4
121.1
120.0

137.2
133.7
141.9
116.2
145.3
127.2
122.7
124.0

139.8
135.8
144.6
116.8
149.4
129.3
123.2
127.5

138.3
133.4
148.4
113.9
140.3
125.0
118.9
123.3

141.2
134.7
151.0
124.6
142.8
129.1
120.1
127.8

143.8
137.7
153.7
124.8
146.5
130.1
120.4
130.3

134.1
130.4
138.7
115.0
141.4
125.2
124.4
118.3

135.6
131.5
139.9
118.6
143.1
126.9
125.2
122.0

137.8
132.8
142.0
120.3
146.5
130.7
126.7
124.4

130.4
131.0
127.4

131.8
132.3
128.8

133.7
134.3
131.6

136.1
138.5
132.8

138.3
140.5
135.4

140.8
143.2
138.3

136.9
138.6
140.4

139.9
142.3
143.4

142.1
144,1
146.7

135.1
137.3
132.5

136.6
139.1
134.0

138.1
140.7
137.3

C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P

Commodities ..............................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ..............................................................................................

N o rth C e n tra l
E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y

All items ................................................................
Food and beverages ..........................................................................
Housing ..............................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ..........................................................................
Transportation............................................................................................
Medical care............................................................................................
Entertainment ........................................................................................
Other goods and services ........................................................................

136.8
131.5
145.4
109,0
141.0
127.8
122.4
118.6

140.8
133.1
151.9
112.1
143.2
129.1
124.5
122.6

143.3
135.0
155.3
110.8
146.4
130.5
125.1
124.2

134.7
129.8
139.4
112.9
141.3
128.8
118.6
124.4

137.6
130.8
143.7
118.2
143.0
129.6
121.1
128.4

140.0
132.9
146,0
118.8
146.8
131.4
121.3
130.3

132.9
131.8
135.3
112.0
141.6
129.1
122.7
118.8

135.1
133.7
137.9
115.3
142.9
130.6
124.3
122.5

136.6
135.1
139.1
114.8
146.2
132.4
124.0
123.9

131.7
133.9
131.5
113.6
140.4
133.7
116.9
122.9

134.6
135.8
135.3
115.5
142.2
133.3
121.1
128.4

136.2
139.1
135.9
116.2
145.4
134.6
120.8
129.8

134.5
135.9
140.3

138.1
140.4
144.9

139.9
142.3
148.4

132.4
133.4
138.4

135.0
136.8
141.8

136.5
138.0
145.6

131.9
131.9
134.5

133.9
134.0
137.1

135.2
135.3
138.9

129.8
128.0
134.8

132.6
131.2
137.7

133.4
130.9
140.6

C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P

Commodities..........................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ..........................................................................................................

S o u th
E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y

All items ..................................................................
Food and beverages ....................................................................................
Housing ........................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ....................................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ........................................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

134.8
132.3
138.2
116.7
143.5
125.4
119.5
122.3

136.7
134.6
139.8
119.9
145.0
126.8
120.2
126.4

139.0
136.8
143.1
120.0
146.8
127.9
120.4
128.1

135.4
131.3
140.5
114.1
142.0
127.5
124.0
121.3

138.1
133.0
143.5
116.4
144.5
130.9
125.3
126.8

140.9
135.4
146.7
117.3
147.9
132.1
127.9
128.8

133.7
132.8
137.1
109.4
141.1
128.8
122.0
121.6

136.1
134.8
139.7
111.8
143.0
132.7
125.0
124.7

138.6
137.2
142.5
114.1
145.7
133.7
127.5
126.7

131.9
132.4
132.4
105.6
140.4
133.9
130.5
125.1

134.1
134.5
133.7
110.5
142.2
140.2
132.4
128.2

136.5
136.9
137.5
108.9
144.8
140.7
130.7
129.9

133.1
133.5
137,1

135.4
135.8
138.4

137.2
137.3
141.5

132.7
133.3
139.5

135.2
136.1
142.6

137.5
138.3
146.1

131.9
131.5
136.4

134.1
133.8
139.2

136.3
135.9
142.3

131.3
130.9
132.7

133.4
133.0
135.0

135.6
135.0
138.0

C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P

Commodities........................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..........................................................
Services ..............................................................................................

W est
E X P E N D IT U R E C A T E G O R Y

All Items ................................................................................
Food and beverages ..........................................................................
Housing ..........................................................................
Apparel and upkeep ........................................................................
Transportation..............................................................................................
Medical care................................................................................................
Entertainment ..............................................................................
Other goods and services ............................................................................

135.5
130.5
139.2
116.4
142.8
130.6
120.8
122.8

137.7
132.7
141.6
117.9
144.9
133.0
122.3
126.2

140.7
134.3
146.0
117.9
146.7
134.3
123,8
127.7

136.8
133.1
140.9
119.5
142.4
129.0
125.9
125.7

139.5
135.0
144.7
121.5
144.3
130.7
125.7
128.1

141.4
136.5
146.7
123.8
146.6
133.1
125.0
129.0

134.2
129.5
137.2
108.5
143.6
132.2
125.2
120.2

136.3
131.7
139.4
111.2
145.9
133.3
126.9
122.3

138.4
132.7
142.1
112.0
148,5
134.5
126.3
125.2

135.4
132.9
135.6
126.3
143.5
134.1
131.5
124.5

136.9
135.6
136.2
129.1
145.9
134.9
131.2
128.1

139.8
137.3
140.6
129.0
148.0
136,6
133.5
130.4

132.3
133.1
139.7

134.2
134.8
142.5

135.3
135.7
147.8

134.6
135.2
140.0

136.3
136.8
144.0

137.5
138.0
146.7

132.2
133.3
137.1

134.1
135.1
139.5

135.2
136.2
142.9

134.1
134.6
137.3

135.7
135.7
138.7

137.2
137.1
143.8

C O M M O D IT Y A N D S E R V IC E G R O U P

Commodities......................................................................
Commodities less food and beverage ............................................................
Services ............................................................................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

103

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
25.

Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs an d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d )

All U rb a n C o n s u m e rs
A re a '
Jan.

Aug.

S ep t.

O ct.

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Jan.

U.S. city average2 ..............................................................

233.2

249.4

251.7

253.9

256.2

258.4

260.5

2333

Anchorage, Alaska (10/67 -100) ........................................
Atlanta, Ga...........................................................................
Baltimore, Md.......................................................................
Bostor. Mass........................................................................
Buffalo, N.Y..........................................................................

218.2

240.1

215.9

264.3
256.4

234.5
226.9

230.9

234.4
227.3

230.3
239.5

Detroit, Mich.........................................................................
Honolulu, Hawaii ................................................................
Houston, Tex........................................................................
Kansas City, Vlo -Kansas ....................................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif................................

237.2

Miami, Fla. (11/77-100) ....................................................
Milwaukee, Wis.....................................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis..............................................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J...........................................
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)....................................................

123.3
236.4

245.2

239.6
250.1
259.9

253.9
258.5

226.1
224.4
227.2

Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.............................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.......................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash............................................................
St. Louis, Mo.-lll....................................................................
San Diego, Calif...................................................................

244.6
232.7
254.0

San Francisco-Oakland, Calif................................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash...........................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va......................................................

236.0
231.9

255.1
230.1
268.6
250.8
247.3

259.5

249.6

246.0
250.7

241.8
243.1
247.2

255.5

247.9
256.3

244.7
247.0
249.2

D ec.

Jan.

249.6

251.9

254.1

256.4

258.7

260.7

226.7

260.3

229.9
241.0

269.7
236.1
274.8
259.1
258.7

259.0
247.3

250.5
262.0

249.5
261.7

254.4
257.4
277.3

250.9

268.5

236.4

259.4

235.0

137.3
266.2

124.9
240.8

249.4
252.4
253.2

225.5
225.8
228.0

266.4
255.7
287.7

243.5
233.5
251.0

264.9
257.2

233.8
233.0

257.7

252.0

247.3
251.2

241.5
246.9
248.3

258.9

263.6

258.4

282.2
265.5
237.0
272.1
257.2
262.2

135.6
267.5
256.6
242.6

249.5
257.6

244.2
249.5
251.1

264.4

262.7
138.8
271.9

260.6
247.2

252.3
262.9

260.7
254.2
275.1

255.4
252.7
267.7

258.1
266.3

266.7
268.2
276.7

261.4
233.5
269.4
253.0
254.9

134.9
263.2
250.6
240.7

262.6
255.7
245.2

258.9
236.5

264.2
262.9
270.9

253.8
229.5
265.5
249.3
250.1

260.3
257.4
249.2

252.8

258.9
264.5

235.0

232.0
252.4

2532
244.5
238.2

261.9
253.8
279.1

256.9
252.4
271.8

N o v.

245.4

133.9
262.1
255.5
243.1

O ct.

235.5

266.5
269.5

266.4

S ep t.

246.5

271.9
264.3
234.6
272.3
254.8
252.6

133.1
258.4
250.1
240.8

259.9
262.1

264.6
264.9
266.6

247.3

232.6

253.7

Aug.

249.7

258.3
258.4
248.8

255.0
244.4
236.8

Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind................................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind..........................................................
Cleveland, O hio..................................................................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex............................................................
Denver-Boulder, Colo............................................................

236.5
250.2

246.5

1981

1980

1981

1980

249.1
255.1
255.5
265.0
255.9
282.9

251.4
258.1
249.2

'The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard Consolidated
Area is used for New York and Chicago.

104


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

262.6
253.6

255.7

252.6

254.9

251.9

251.0

2 Average of 85 cities.

254.6
251.8

259.4
255.7

262.3
259.4

26.

Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

[1967 = 100]
A nnual
C o m m o d ity g ro u p in g

1981

1980

a v e ra g e

1980

F eb

Mar.

A pr.

M ay

Finished goods....................................................................

246.8

237.7

240.0

242.1

Finished consumer goods..............................................
Finished consumer foods ..........................................
Crude ..................................................................
Processed ............................................................
Nondurable goods less foods ....................................
Durable goods..........................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy . . . .
Capital equipment ........................................................

248.8
239.4
237.1
237.7
283.9
205.9
192.1
239.5

239.7
232.1
221.2
231.2
268.6
202.6
205.7
230.5

242.2
233.6
230.6
232.0
275.6
200.8
207.4
232.2

243.7
230.1
224.1
228.8
281.5
202.3
209.9
2362

Intermediate materials, supplies, and components..................

280.1

271.9

274.3

Materials and components for manufacturing..................
Materials for food manufacturing................................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing......................
Materials for durable manufacturing............................
Components for manufacturing ..................................

265.5
263.7
259.5
301.0
231.4

259.6
248.1
248.6
308.4
222.4

Materials and components for construction ....................

268.2

Processed fuels and lubricants......................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................

502.7
425.3
570.7

O c t.’

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

251.4

r 255.4

255.6

256.9

259.8

262.4

254.1
247.4
259.8
244.3
290.9
206.2
216.6
241.8

r 257.0
r 248.0
'237.8
'246.9
'291.7
'214.0
'217.8
'249.2

257.4
248.5
250.4
246.3
293.8
212.3
219.1
248.9

258.6
248.8
254.6
246.3
296.0
213.0
219.9
250.8

261.4
250.6
257.3
247.9
301.1
213.8
223.2
253.9

264.0
250.9
265.0
247.6
307.1
213.9
226.1
256.3

284.3

285.3

'287.7

288.6

291.7

295.5

297.8

265.6
264.4
261.7
297.3
232.4

268.9
277.9
263.4
299.2
235.6

269.5
275.8
263.2
300.5
237.0

'273.3
'295.1
'265.0
'304.7
'238.4

273.5
296.2
266.9
304.1
237,4

275.5
277.0
268.4
304.2
246.4

278.7
277.9
273.4
306.9
249.0

279.7
273.8
275.8
305.5
251.7

266.9

269.6

271.4

271.7

'272.4

273.7

276.4

279.2

280.2

502.0
425.4
569.6

514.2
431.0
586.1

517.4
436.0
588.4

519.5
440.8
588.9

'516.2
'440.6
'583.7

519.8
442.4
588.5

538.7
456.8
610.9

551.4
468.8
624.2

568.3
481.5
644.8

Ju n e

July

Aug.

S e p t.

243.4

244.9

249.3

251.4

245.2
231.9
229.1
230.3
284.2
201.9
211.1
236.7

246.8
233.0
224.5
231.8
285.9
204.1
212.7
237.8

251.7
241.6
240.9
239.7
288.4
207.5
214.7
240.6

254.1
246.5
247.0
244.4
290.0
208.1
215.9
241.9

275.7

277.0

278.8

281.6

259.6
243.8
252.4
302.3
224.7

260.6
241.5
258.1
296.1
227.6

262.5
255.3
260.4
294,1
229.0

264.3
259.7
261.0
297.0
230.3

262.5

265.9

265.5

265.2

471.1
399.2
534.5

489.8
411.2
557.9

496.6
415.2
566.7

498.2
420.9
565.9

F IN IS H E D G O O D S

IN T E R M E D IA T E M A T E R IA L S

Containers ..................................................................

254.5

245.7

247.4

253.2

254.4

256.2

257.0

257.4

257.9

'260.1

259.6

261.1

264.7

268.0

Supplies......................................................................
Manufacturing industries............................................
Nonmanufacturing industries......................................
Feeds ..................................................................
Other supplies ......................................................

244.5
231.8
251.1
229.2
253.5

2373
222.8
244.8
222.2
247.5

239.4
225.5
246.6
218.8
250.7

239.7
229.0
245.4
205.2
253.0

240.0
230.5
245.0
207.5
251.9

241.2
232.8
245.7
205.1
253.4

245.3
234.2
251.1
225.2
254.7

247.7
235.4
254.1
234.7
255.8

250.3
236.1
257.6
246.8
256.9

'252.3
'237.5
'259.9
'250.3
' 258.8

254.9
238.4
263.5
259.6
260.8

254.9
239.5
262.8
251.8
262 1

257.3
242.2
265.1
252.2
264.9

257.5
244.6
264.3
238.1
267.6

Crude materials for further processing..................................

304.2

298.5

293.6

286.2

289.3

288.4

304.3

317.0

319.3

'322.8

323.2

320.8

321.3

335.5

Foodstuffs and feedstuffs..............................................

259.1

253.1

246.5

235.8

243.0

243.0

263.4

276.8

276.6

'279.1

277.3

271.6

270.6

267.1

Nonfood materials........................................................

399.9

394.7

393.8

393.4

387.5

384.6

390.8

401.9

409.8

'415.4

420.3

425.2

428.7

481.7

Nonfood materials except fuel....................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Construction..........................................................

344.5
355.8
2372

346.0
358.3
228.7

344.9
356.9
229.9

342.0
353.5
232.4

333.3
343.8
232,8

328.9
338.9
234.1

333.9
343.9
239.1

344.8
355.4
243.7

351.4
362.6
244.8

'355.6
'367.1
245.3

358.4
370.0
247.5

363.1
375.1
247.8

365.8
377.5
254.3

428.1
445.7
257.9

Crude fu e l................................................................
Manufacturing industries ........................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ..................................

614.9
690.2
566.9

579.8
645.0
539.5

579.8
644.3
540,0

591.4
659.0
549.3

600.0
670.3
555.9

604.0
675.7
558.8

615.1
690.5
567.1

626.3
705.4
575.5

639.1
722.0
585.4

'650.9
'738.1
'593.8

665.1
755.9
605.4

670.3
763.0
609.1

677.6
772.2
614.9

679.0
773.1
616.8

Finished goods excluding foods............................................
Finished consumer goods excluding foods......................
Finished consumer goods less energy............................

247.7
248.5
216.9

238.0
238.1
213.4

240.6
241.0
213.9

244.5
244.9
214.0

245.6
246.2
214.9

247.3
248.1
216.5

250.2
251.0
221.2

251.4
252.2
223.5

251.1
251.8
223.5

'256.2
'255.8
'226.6

256.3
256.1
226.6

258.0
257.6
227.2

261.2
260.9
229.3

264.4
264,3
230.5

Intermediate materials less foods and feeds..........................
Intermediate materials less energy ................................

281.3
265.8

273.4
259.3

276.3
260.3

278.3
261.1

278.8
262.3

280.6
263.9

282.9
265.9

285.0
268.7

285.8
269.5

r 287.3
'272.5

288.1
273.3

292.5
275.1

296.6
278.1

299.5
279.0

Intermediate foods and feeds ..............................................

252.2

239.3

235.3

229.5

239.7

242.0

251.4

263.7

265.9

'280.3

2839

268.3

269.0

261.9

Crude materials less agricultural products ............................
Crude materials less energy..........................................

480.3
256.7

411.4
257.7

411.1
251.5

409.8
241.3

402.7
243.7

401.2
241.6

406.9
258.9

418.5
271.4

425.1
272.8

'433.6
'275.4

438.3
274.7

442.1
270.4

447.5
268.8

509.0
265.4

C R U D E M A T E R IA L S

S P E C IA L G R O U P IN G S

’ Data for October 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Not available.
r=revised.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE: Figures in this table may differ from those previously reported because stage-of-processing
indexes from January 1976 through December 1980 have been revised to reflect 1972 input-output
relationships.

105

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
27.

Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
A n n u al
Code

C o m m o d ity g ro u p a n d s u b g ro u p

All c o m m o d itie s
All c o m m o d itie s (1 9 5 7 -5 9 = 100)

Farm p ro d u c ts an d p ro c e s s e d fo o d s a n d fe e d s
In d u strial c o m m o d itie s

1980

1981

a v e ra g e
1980

Feb .

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

June

July

Aug.

S ep t.

O c t .1

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

268.6
285.0

260.2
275.6

261.9
277.4

262.8
278.8

264.2
280.3

265.6
281.8

270.4
286.9

273.8
290.5

274.6
291.4

'277.8
r 294.7

278.4
295.4

280.3
297.4

283.5
300.8

286.9
304.4

244,6
274.5

237.0
265.9

234.9
268.6

229.3
271.3

233.8
271.9

234.3
273.5

246.6
276.2

255.1
278.2

256.5
278.8

r 259.4
r 282.0

260.1
282.7

2565
286.1

257.3
289.9

254.9
294.8

FA R M P R O D U C T S A N D P R O C E S S E D F O O D S
A N D F EED S

01
01-1
01-2
01-3
01-4
01-5
01-6
01-7
01-8
01-9

Farm products ............................................................................
Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables ........................................
Grains......................................................................................
Livestock ................................................................................
Live poultry..............................................................................
Plant and animal fibers..............................................................
Fluid milk ................................................................................
Eggs........................................................................................
Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ....................................................
Other farm products ................................................................

249.3
238.5
239.0
252.7
202.1
271.1
271.2
171.0
247.1
298.1

242.3
2206
223.3
257.2
184.6
269.5
263.8
150.4
224.7
304.7

239.3
218.5
217.9
251.8
180.1
254.9
263.1
184.2
215.9
311.5

228,9
223.2
210,8
230.5
171.9
266.9
265.4
153.3
205.1
304.8

233.5
244.0
219.0
233.3
171.3
272.7
265.4
140.5
206.9
311.0

233.4
233.5
215.3
240.0
166.6
247.0
265.5
146.8
207.4
309.4

254.3
252.0
244.8
260.5
227.2
267.0
265.8
159.3
251.4
292.4

263.8
254.0
256.5
275.7
224.5
280.8
271.6
176.9
261.5
282.7

267.0
266.2
260.6
266.8
241.0
295.2
275.5
188,4
280.7
292.0

r 263.6
r 240.9
269.2
263.0
2229
278.5
280.9
175.2
284.4
r 285.8

264.9
246.4
270.9
254.8
221.0
287.2
284.7
194.0
298.3
296.6

265.3
244,7
265.2
251.4
218.9
294.1
290.5
217.5
310.2
296.0

264.4
257.7
277.7
244.3
213.1
284.1
288.4
185.7
311.8
296.1

262.3
270.4
267.5
244.6
220.8
268.4
289.5
184.8
295.0
295.1

02
02-1
02-2
02-3
024
02-5
02-6
02-7
02-8
02-9

Processed foods and feeds..........................................................
Cereal and bakery products......................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish ............................................................
Dairy products..........................................................................
Processed fruits and vegetables................................................
Sugar and confectionery ..........................................................
Beverages and beverage materials............................................
Fats and o ils ............................................................................
Miscellaneous processed foods ................................................
Manufactured animal feeds ......................................................

241.0
235.9
243.0
230.7
228.9
321.2
232.4
226.8
227.2
226.9

233.1
229.9
239.6
220.8
223.3
287.5
224.8
226.4
223.5
219.8

231.6
231.8
239.2
223.0
223.7
264.1
225.9
222.6
224,7
216.6

2286
2324
226.0
227.5
224.6
275.0
227.9
214.5
225.1
205.0

233.1
234.7
224.5
228.5
225.4
327.8
231.2
212.0
223.7
207.2

233.9
233.2
226.6
229.5
227.2
325.4
234.3
212.8
223.4
205.0

241.5
234.7
248.5
230.1
229.8
313.5
234.6
226.9
2235
223.9

249.4
235.8
259.9
232.6
230.7
347.1
237.1
240.2
224.0
232.4

249.8
238.3
257.8
233.7
231.3
341.4
236.1
238.3
226.8
243.4

'256.1
'241.5
'256.0
'238.0
'233.8
'404.7
'239.5
'231.0
230.6
'246.9

256.5
245.4
250.8
240.6
235.2
403.4
238.1
237.9
235.0
254.9

250.8
248.5
248.0
242.7
237.1
334.6
238.1
234.3
240.5
247.3

252.4
250.8
248.8
245.2
237.4
338.6
240.4
230.4
244.2
247.9

250.0
251.7
243.9
245.5
244,1
324.7
242.2
228.3
248.0
235.3

03
03-1
03-2
03-3
03-4
03-81
03-82

Textile products and apparel ........................................................
Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 100)..................................................
Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) ............................
Gray fabrics (12/75 = 100)......................................................
Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100) ................................................
Apparel....................................................................................
Textile housefurnishings............................................................

183.4
134.8
122.2
137.7
115.7
172.2
208.3

176.5
127.2
118.0
132.3
111.1
166.8
199.7

179.3
129.1
119.3
136.8
113.2
168.0
201.3

181.2
130.4
122.1
137.0
114.5
170.0
201.6

182.0
133.2
124.2
136.5
115.3
170.2
202.6

183.0
134.5
122.8
134.8
115.8
172.7
202.7

184.7
136.0
122.4
135.7
116.6
174.4
210.7

185.6
137.5
123.2
137.5
116.8
175.1
211.0

186.6
139.5
124.3
141.0
117.0
175.0
212.9

'188.1
'140.2
'125.1
'143.5
'118.3
'176.2
'213.8

189.3
141.4
124.9
144.3
119.0
176.0
218.0

190.2
141.5
127.6
143.3
120.0
177.0
218.5

192.4
147.3
129.2
142.8
121.5
178.6
223.9

193.1
147.8
129,6
143.1
122.2
179.3
225.4

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............................................

248.6
370.9
311.6
233.2
218.1

250.9
404.8
340.3
228.0
214.8

246.8
348.7
311.0
231.8
217.8

243.5
328.6
297.6
231.9
216.2

240.7
289.7
290.4
231.9
217.4

240.9
315.7
284.4
231.9
215.9

245.1
356.6
292.2
232.7
217.5

251.3
398.4
314.2
233.7
218.7

247.8
356.1
298.1
235.5
218.8

'251.2
381.5
'301.9
'236.6
'221.8

255.5
409.1
317.3
237.7
2226

256.6
392.8
332.4
237.1
223.5

258.5
377.8
332.6
238.6
230.7

257.4
367.3
310.0
240.8
235.8

05
05-1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7

Fuels and related products and power ..........................................
C oal........................................................................................
Coke ......................................................................................
Gas fuels1 ..............................................................................
Electric power..........................................................................
Crude petroleum2 ....................................................................
Petroleum products, refined3 ....................................................

573.4
467.5
430.6
160.4
321.6
551.7
674.4

532.7
459.6
430.6
716.6
2993
515.1
620.4

553.5
461.7
430.6
716.6
305.5
522.8
659.0

566.6
465.2
430.6
730.1
310.1
533.9
678.0

572.1
466.5
430.6
745.1
316.5
540.1
680.9

576.5
466.6
430.6
749.2
326.0
549.0
681.7

585.5
467.5
430.6
762.1
331.1
551.4
693.9

590,6
468.7
430.6
772.6
333.6
566,8
697.6

593.5
471.3
430.6
786.2
338.3
571.3
696.4

'592.9
'470.7
430.6
'802.2
'337.4
579.6
'690.4

597.6
475.7
430.6
826.5
332.0
580.7
696.8

611.7
475.7
430.6
841.8
337.9
596.0
716.3

625.9
477.5
430.6
857.9
341.7
615.2
736.0

663.8
480.8
430.6
858,8
345.4
842.9
767,8

06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
06-5
06-6
06-7

Chemicals and allied products......................................................
Industrial chemicals4 ................................................................
Prepared paint..........................................................................
Paint materials ........................................................................
Drugs and pharmaceuticals ......................................................
Fats and oils, inedible ..............................................................
Agricultural chemicals and chemical products ............................
Plastic resins and materials ......................................................
Other chemicals and allied products ..........................................

260.2
323.8
235.4
273.8
174.4
297.9
256.9
279.4
224.6

248.7
307.9
223.3
263.4
167.6
302.2
248.0
272.1
211.3

2528
313.3
228.7
267.5
168.9
299.9
256.1
274.5
215.0

259.8
322.1
231.5
272.1
172.6
298.2
258.5
287.6
223.1

262.5
328.5
238.8
273.9
172.8
294.7
258.5
288.4
224.8

262.8
329.5
238.8
275.0
174.4
255.8
257.6
287.6
226.9

263.3
328.7
238.8
277.2
175.7
260.0
258.7
285.7
228.5

264.4
330.0
238.8
278.4
176.1
307.6
260.0
281.5
229.0

263.4
327.5
239.3
278.9
176.8
304.5
260.6
276.5
229.1

'264.8
'330.0
'239.3
'279.6
'178.4
302.0
'260.6
'276.1
'230,9

266.9
333.4
241.7
279.5
181.1
3082
260.4
277.1
2326

267.9
334.6
241,7
280.9
181.8
316.0
262.8
274.4
2342

273.6
342.8
243.3
283.1
184.7
310.6
265.8
275.2
244.1

277.2
349.4
246.9
286.4
187.4
289.7
271.3
276.1
246.7

07
07-1
07-11
07-12
07-13
07-2

Rubber and plastic products ........................................................
Rubber and rubber products......................................................
Crude rubber ..........................................................................
Tires and tubes........................................................................
Miscellaneous rubber products..................................................
Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..................................................

217.3
237.7
263.9
236.6
227.6
120.9

210.7
231.5
263.9
231.6
217.8
116.7

212.7
231.5
255.8
231.6
220.6
119.0

214.1
233.4
264.7
231.8
222.1
119.7

215.0 217.3
234.7 •236.8
263.9 264.1
233.2 235.6
224.0 226.4
119.9 121.4

218.8
239.0
263.4
238.0
229.3
122.0

220.5
240.2
264.3
238.0
232.0
123.2

222.0
242.6
267.3
242.1
232.1
123.7

'222.8
'244.6
'271.7
'245,2
'232.0
'123.6

223.0
245.8
270.0
244.7
236.1
123.1

223.5
245.9
267.5
244.7
237.1
123.6

224.9
246.9
278.0
240.5
241.1
124.7

226.5
249.2
280.8
243.1
243.0
125.3

08
08-1
08-2
08-3
08-4

Lumber and wood products..........................................................
Lumber....................................................................................
Millwork ..................................................................................
Plywood ..................................................................................
Other wood products................................................................

2888
325.6
260.5
246.6
239.1

294.7
341.4
258.0
243.4
243.4

294.9
340.6
262.2
240.0
243,1

275.6
310.1
257.5
219.8
241.7

272.1
301.4
251.8
230.6
240.7

289.2
327.2
255.9
252.8
2369

296.1
333.7
260.3
266.0
236.2

292.2
328,0
264.5
252.6
236.8

'289.0
'320.6
'264.5
'252.9
236.7

293.4
325.0
270.0
256.6
236.6

299.4
333.0
273.3
263.5
236.2

296.6
331.6
273.6
251.1
238.5

294.5
327.8
273.8
248.6
238.1

IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S

See footnotes at end of table.

106


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

279.8
313.0
253.0
241.7
238.7

27.

Continued — Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings

[1957=100 unless otherwise specified]
1981

1980

A n n u al
Code

C o m m o d ity g ro u p a n d s u b g ro u p

IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S

1980

Feb .

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

June

July

Aug.

S e p t.

O c t.1

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

C o n tin u e d

09
09-1
09-11
09-12
09-13
09-14
09-15
09-2

Pulp, paper, and allied products....................................................
Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board . . .
Woodpulp................................................................................
Wastepaper ............................................................................
Paper ......................................................................................
Paperboard..............................................................................
Converted paper and paperboard products................................
Building paper and board..........................................................

249.3
250.7
381.1
208.5
256.9
235.0
238.6
206.0

239.2
240.8
356.4
223.4
247.2
223.7
229.5
191.7

242.6
244.1
356.8
224.9
250.3
227.4
233.0
198.7

247.8
249.4
385.6
242.5
253.5
232.1
236.7
201.3

249.2
250.6
385.6
226.1
256.1
235.5
237.6
206.8

251.1
252.4
387.7
206.6
257.9
238.9
239.8
208.9

251.7
252.9
388.3
194.0
258.2
237.1
241.2
211.8

252.4
253.8
388.3
193.8
258.6
238.4
242.3
210.3

252.8
254.1
388.2
192.5
258.7
239.5
242.7
210.2

'254.3
'255.6
'389.6
'193.5
'262.1
'239.9
'243.7
'212.7

255.5
256.7
392.6
191.7
264.4
243.2
243.8
215.6

257.4
258.6
392.6
190.8
269.8
241.1
245.2
219.1

262.0
261.0
392.6
191.5
271.0
251.0
247.0
219.1

266.2
264.6
392.6
186.1
273.1
253.2
252.0
225.2

10
10-1
10-13
10-2
10-3
10-1
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8

Metals and metal products ..........................................................
Iron and steel ..........................................................................
Steel mill products....................................................................
Nonferrous metals....................................................................
Metal containers ......................................................................
Hardware................................................................................
Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings............................................
Heating equipment....................................................................
Fabricated structural metal products..........................................
Miscellaneous metal products....................................................

286.2
305.1
302.7
304.2
298.6
240.1
246.6
206.2
270.4
250.2

288.9
300.3
294.2
337.7
284.4
230.4
236.7
202.6
259.7
241.6

286.8
301.8
295.5
321.4
288.5
231.5
242.4
202.6
265.1
244.2

284.4
307.2
304.1
298.3
304.1
237.3
243.8
204.2
269.1
246.1

281.8
304.8
305.5
289.7
302.7
238.4
247.5
204.0
269.9
246.7

281.9
303.4
305.8
288.8
302.7
240.5
248.6
205.0
270.1
250.4

282.5
300.6
301.0
292.6
303.0
242.6
249.7
296.2
272.2
251.1

285.1
302.6
301.0
298.4
303.2
243.3
250.4
208.0
273.0
253.2

287.3
304.5
301.0
302.2
303.2
245.9
250.6
208.8
274.1
255.0

'291.9
'310.5
307.5
'309.4
304.4
'246.6
250.6
'210.6
'276.9
'256.3

290.7
312.5
309.5
301.0
303.3
247.9
251.8
211.2
277.6
257.7

290.7
316.0
313.4
294.4
303.3
249.6
254.4
212.6
279.2
258.4

293.6
322.8
322.7
290.6
311.4
252.5
255.5
215.4
283.0
261.3

293.7
323.0
322.9
286.2
313.8
256.0
259.0
216.1
285.6
264.0

11
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-6
11-7
11-9

Machinery and equipment ............................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment........................................
Construction machinery and equipment......................................
Metalworking machinery and equipment ....................................
General purpose machinery and equipment................................
Special industry machinery and equipment ................................
Electrical machinery and equipment ..........................................
Miscellaneous machinery..........................................................

239.6
258.1
289.2
274.3
264.3
275.9
201.7
229.8

230.2
249.9
278.3
261.8
253.3
263.2
194.3
221.1

232.5
252.0
279.5
264.1
256.7
265.5
196.5
223.2

236.4
254.4
284.2
270.2
261.1
271.9
198.9
227.2

237.6
256.4
285.9
272.9
262.8
273.0
199.9
227.3

239.2
257.1
287.6
275.4
264.8
274.3
201.6
228.2

241.5
258.6
291.5
278.0
266.1
276.7
203.7
231.1

242.6
259.9
293.4
278.8
267.0
277.1
205.0
232.1

244.7
263.9
295.7
280.2
270.0
283.0
206.0
233.6

'246.8
'265.4
'299.1
'282.5
'272.5
'286.0
207.0
'236.5

247.7
266.1
299.7
283.7
273.2
287.9
207.4
238.1

249.5
269.5
301.1
285.6
275.2
291.2
208.9
239.2

252.7
273.5
304.9
289.3
278.2
295.3
211.9
241.8

254.8
277.2
308.4
291.2
279.9
299.3
213.6
243.7

12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
12-6

Furniture and household durables ................................................
Household furniture ..................................................................
Commercial furniture................................................................
Floor coverings ........................................................................
Household appliances ..............................................................
Home electronic equipment ......................................................
Other household durable goods ................................................

187.3
204.2
235.9
163.0
173.8
91.0
277.7

185.6
198.5
231.4
158.5
168.9
91.2
295.3

185.7
198.9
232.8
160.8
169.9
91.3
288.3

184.4
200.3
233.6
162.2
171.1
91.4
267.3

185.4
203.0
233.9
161.9
173.2
92.0
265.6

186.5
204.0
235.5
162.1
175.5
91.8
266.5

188.0
206.5
237.2
163.2
175.8
91.7
271.5

188.9
208.0
237.3
163.8
176.3
91.3
275.9

189.5
208.5
237.8
163.9
177.2
91.6
276.2

'190.9
'209.8
'241.4
'164.4
'177.5
'91.5
'281.8

190.4
209.1
241.5
165.7
177.2
91.1
278.4

192.3
210.4
242.4
170.2
178.2
91.0
285.1

193.2
211.3
246.1
172.3
181.0
91.0
278.3

194.6
212.1
251.2
172.4
182,3
91.7
280.2

13
13-11
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
13-7
13-8
13-9

Nonmetallic mineral products........................................................
Flat glass ................................................................................
Concrete ingredients ................................................................
Concrete products....................................................................
Structural clay products excluding refractories............................
Refractories ............................................................................
Asphalt roofing ........................................................................
Gypsum products ....................................................................
Glass containers ......................................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals........................................................

282.8
196.5
273.4
273.9
231.5
264.9
396.7
256.3
292.7
394.0

274.0
191.0
266.6
266.7
231.0
251.1
372.5
262.2
274.3
381.7

276.5
191.4
267.5
269.1
231.4
253.9
388.8
267.6
274.3
387.0

283.7
195.3
271.7
272.9
235.0
261.7
408.9
264.0
294.3
399.6

284.0
195.3
272.4
275.2
230.0
264.4
401.1
256.5
294.3
400.7

283.4
193.6
273.2
275.8
230.1
265.8
400.9
257.1
294.3
394.8

284.8
194.3
275.9
275.9
230.1
268.7
413.8
253.1
294.3
396.9

286.0
199.5
278.6
276.0
229.7
270.6
411.2
251 8
294.3
397.1

286.8
199.7
278.9
277.3
230.1
270.6
407.9
251.8
294.6
400.7

'288.6
200.7
'279.0
'277.5
'233.3
'273.2
'408.5
249.5
'306.2
'402.7

288.4
203.1
278.5
277.6
233.6
274.1
396.9
253.3
306.5
402.0

290.7
203.0
278.7
277.8
234.1
274.1
394.5
252.7
311.5
415.7

296.3
203.9
287.5
285.6
240.0
283.5
404.1
259.6
311.5
417.9

297.7
204.3
289.6
286.6
240.4
294.4
389.3
257.3
311.5
424.7

14
14-1
14-4

Transportation equipment (12/68 - 100)......................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ..................................................
Railroad equipment ..................................................................

206.6
208.7
313.0

198.2
200.1
299.3

198.8
200.7
302.1

203.2
205.4
309.9

202.5
204.5
310.5

203.1
205.2
312.2

206.2
208.6
316.4

2088
211.7
318.0

204.4
205.6
320.0

'217.4
'218.2
323.3

216.0
218.0
323.6

224.1
225.9
323.6

226.4
228.5
3278

228.5
230.2
334.4

15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-51
15-9

Miscellaneous products................................................................
Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition............................
Tobacco products ....................................................................
Notions....................................................................................
Photographic equipment and supplies ........................................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)....................................................
Other miscellaneous products ..................................................

258.7
198.4
245.5
217.2
203.0
149.9
363.3

262.9
193.5
237.2
203.2
218.6
146.8
378.3

256.1
194.5
237.3
207.2
219.1
147.1
351.3

252.8
195.4
238.1
216.8
212.3
149.4
340.9

251.7
196.0
247.7
217.0
199.6
150.4
340.2

258.0
197.5
248.1
217.0
201.7
150.6
360.2

261.7
200.2
248.2
221.7
201.6
151.2
370.9

260.1
201.3
248.2
223.8
200.9
151.4
364.6

265.1
202.3
248.2
223.9
200.9
151.7
381.9

266.0
'202.7
'249.4
224.0
'200.8
'153.2
'383.4

263.8
202.8
253.9
224.1
207.1
152.0
368.2

265.4
205.6
254.2
225.0
207.0
152.4
371.5

263.0
207.8
254.3
227.0
207.3
152.3
359.5

263.2
209.5
255.3
247.3
209.6
152.5
353.2

’ Data for October 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by
respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.
2 Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
3 Includes only domestic production.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month,
5Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
r=revised.

107

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
28.

Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
A n n u al
C o m m o d it y g r o u p in g

A ll c o m m o d it ie s

1980

le s s f a r m p r o d u c t s

A ll f o o d s
P ro c e s s e d fo o d s

Industrial commodities less fu e ls ......................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 1 0 0 ) ...........
H osiery..............................................................................
Underwear and nightwear.................................................
Chemicals and allied products, Including synthetic rubber
and manmade fibers and yarns ...................................
Pharmaceutical preparations............................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding mlllwork and
other wood products.....................................................
Special metals and metal products .................................
Fabricated metal products ...............................................
Copper and copper products ..........................................
Machinery and motive products........................................
Machinery and equipment, except electrical....................
Agricultural machinery, including tra c to rs ........................
Metalworking machinery...................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100)
Total tractors.....................................................................
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts ...........
Farm and garden tractors less parts ...............................
Agricultural machinery excluding tractors less parts . . . .
Industrial valves..............................................................
Industrial fittings................................................................
Abrasive grinding wheels .................................................
Construction materials .....................................................

1980

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

269.4
244.5
246.6
243.4
124.4
123.3
185.5

260.9
235.8
238.6
238.0
119.3
119.4
177.4

262.9
234.8
236.9
238.9
121.3
120.3
182.1

264.8
231.9
234.1
240.5
122.2
121.1
182.4

250.7
167.1

239.2
160.3

243.2
161.7

303.8
258.3
258.2
222.1
230.1

313.9
256.0
248.4
260.7
220.9

261.8
266.2
299.5
225.6
286.5
260.2
268.0
265.0
287.1
291.8

251.1
257.2
284.4
215.4
275.1
251.5
257.5
257.3
273.5
280.4
244.0
262.6

266.3

June

July

A ug.

S e p t.

O c t .1

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

265.9
237.3
239.0
240.6
122.9
121.5
182.8

267.5
237.7
239.9
242.0
123.7
122.2
187.1

270.9
245.9
247.3
243.9
125.5
123.5
188.3

273,8
254.1
255.7
245.6
126.0
125.9
189.3

274.3
254.3
254.9
246.0
126.6
126.4
189.5

'278.1
'258.8
'261.7
'249.6
'127.5
'126.2
'189.7

278.7
259.3
261.4
249.8
128.5
126.7
190.5

280.7
253.9
255.1
252.2
129.6
126.7
190 9

284.2
255.1
256.4
255.0
131.8
129.2
199.5

288.0
253.9
254.2
256.6
132.7
130.1
201.2

250.0
165.6

252.8
165.9

253.8
167.6

254.2
1681

254.7
168.4

254.0
168.8

'255.4
170.8

257.3
173.7

258.2
174.6

264.2
177.1

268.0
179.7

312.2
255.1
252.0
240.9
222.5

284.7
255.8
255.9
222.0
226.7

282.0
254.0
256.8
212.2
227.1

293.5
254.4
258.6
208.5
228.3

306.9
256.2
259.9
214.5
231.0

315.5
259.0
261.2
220.4
232.9

307.4
257.8
262.6
214.1
232.1

'302.3
'265.7
'264.3
'216.5
'239.2

306.5
265.0
265.2
216.9
239.0

314.2
268.4
266.3
210.9
243.8

309.2
271.3
270.0
207.8
246.7

305.7
272.2
272.6
205.9
248.8

253.5
260.0
287.5
216.7
276.6
254.1
261.5
258.9
280.0
282.8
244.0
265.1

258.2
261.9
293.6
223.8
280.8
256.2
263.7
260.7
287.8
289.9
261.4
262.3

259.6
263.9
296.8
226.9
282.9
258.0
264,7
263.6
288.4
291.5
261.3
261.8

261.2
264.7
299.7
228.5
284.0
258.7
264.8
265.0
290.1
295.9
261.3
264.2

263.7
266.3
303.3
228.7
288.3
260.8
267.2
265.9
291.1
296.1
261.5
267.0

264.6
268.1
304.5
229.3
291.1
262.2
270.3
266.6
291.3
296.1
261.5
269.6

270.2
272.9
306.5
230.0
295.8
266.5
277.3
269.7
292.4
296.1
261.3
269.3

'273.0
'274.8
'309.6
231.7
'298.3
'268.3
'278.0
'272 5
'294.6
'298.6
263.4
'269.9

271.3
275.4
311.4
232.4
296.8
268.8
276.9
274.5
293.7
298.6
273.0
271.8

273.3
279.1
314.4
230.9
299.4
272.2
280.8
277.9
296.3
298.6
273.8
273.9

276.6
283.3
318.9
235.0
304.8
276.3
283.6
283.3
297.9
2986
<2)
276.7

278.9
285.8
320.0
235.4
310.2
279.0
286.4
285.5
302.7
296.0
( 2)
277.1

1Data for October 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

29.

1981

a v e ra g e

2 Not available,

Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product

[1967=100]
A n n u al
C o m m o d it y g r o u p in g

1980

1981

a v e ra g e
1980

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

Total durable g o o d s .......................................................
Total nondurable goods .................................................

251.2
282.3

247.1
270.2

247.0
273.4

247.7
274.4

Total manufactures .......................................................
Durable.....................................................................
Nondurable ..............................................................

261.4
250.5
272.9

253.2
245.7
260.8

255.2
245.6
265.2

Total raw or slightly processed goods ..........................
Durable.....................................................................
Nondurable ..............................................................

305.4
278.0
306.4

295.9
305.3
294.2

295.4
303.4
293.8

June

July

A ug.

S e p t.

O c t.1

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

247.1
277.6

248.7
278.8

251.2
285.6

253.1
290.3

253.7
291.2

'258.4
'293.0

257.8
294.8

260.8
295.8

261.9
300.7

263.1
306.0

257.0
246.7
267.9

258.3
246.7
270.7

259.8
248.5
271.7

263.0
251.0
275.9

265.7
252.7
279.5

265.8
253.1
279.5

'269.6
'257.8
' 282.1

270.1
257.1
283.9

271.9
260.2
284.2

276.4
261.5
292.5

278.7
262.7
295.9

290.4
286.0
289.8

292.7
262.2
294.0

293.8
249.9
296.1

307.7
255.2
310.6

315.7
265.8
318.4

319.9
274.9
322.2

'319.6
282.7
321.3

321.8
285.9
323.3

324.3
284.1
326.2

318,6
275.7
320.7

328.9
275.7
331.7

1Data for October 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections
by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.

30.

Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
S IC

A n n u al
In d u s try d e s c rip tio n

code

1980

1981

a v e ra g e
1980

Feb .

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

Ju n e

July

A ug.

S e p t.

O c t.1

N ov.

D ec.

152.9
331.2
466.8
640.2
252.0
136.0

147.3
335.4
459.6
598.0
243.2
136.6

152.6
330.0
461.7
600.6
243.9
136.6

152.6
337.5
464.6
612.5
248.6
136.6

152 6
337.5
466.0
619.6
249.3
136.6

152.6
322.9
466.0
631.5
250.0
136.6

155.8
331.2
466.9
638.0
254.8
136.6

155.8
329.1
467.9
656.7
255.8
136.6

155.8
3354
470.3
667.6
258,5
136.6

155.8
338.7
' 469.7
'681.8
'261.8
137.2

155.8
343.7
474.5
690.6
263.5
132.1

155.8
325.0
474.3
705.5
263.4
133.7

155.8
297.9
475.8
722.9
269.0
137.1

168.1
324.5
478.3
885.6
271.7
137.1

244.3
219.9
191.9
258.5

240.1
207.8
178.2
242.8

238.9
209.4
173.5
243.4

225.6
197.9
164.5
252.7

227.2
193.3
164.7
253.7

230.0
190.9
164.2
255.7

249.1
213.7
214.2
256.3

2653
233.0
212.1
268.5

257.1
240.0
226.0
265.8

'258.0
'247.0
211.3
273.2

251.3
249.0
205.9
273.3

248.9
246.8
201.8
274.8

2458
235.3
201.9
273.7

237.3
232.7
208.3
273.5

Jan.

Feb.

M IN IN G

1011
1092
1211
1311
1442
1455

Iron ores (12/75 = 100)................................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 100)..........................................
Bituminous coal and lignite ............................................
Crude petroleum and natural gas....................................
Construction sand and gravel ........................................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 = 100) ..................................

2011
2013
2016
2021

Meatpacking plants........................................................
Sausages and other prepared meats ..............................
Poultry dressing plants ..................................................
Creamery butter............................................................

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

See footnote at end of table.

108


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

30.

Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC

A n n u al
In d u s try d e s c rip tio n

code

M A N U F A C T U R IN G

1980

1981

a v e ra g e

1980

Feb.

M ar.

A p r.

M ay

June

Ju ly

Aug.

S e p t.

O c t.1

Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb .

C o n tin u e d

2022
2024
2033
2034
2041
2044
2048
2061
2063
2067

Cheese natural and processed (12/72 = 100) ..............
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100) ..............
Canned fruits and vegetables........................................
Dehydrated food products (12/73 = 100)......................
Flour mills (12/71 =100) ............................................
Rice milling..................................................................
Prepared foods, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............................
Raw cane sugar ..........................................................
Beet sugar ..................................................................
Chewing gum ..............................................................

205.0
193.3
221.7
160.2
189.1
243.4
124.3
414.1
349.6
290.7

192.9
181.5
213.6
159.0
183.6
233.0
122.6
374.9
293.2
262.3

195.7
185.0
214.7
156.4
181.6
258.0
121.5
276.0
305.7
281.9

201.9
191.3
216.3
157.5
175.0
260.4
116.5
320.2
296.6
282.0

201.9
192.1
217.3
156.4
182.3
254.5
116.9
456.1
339.9
282.0

202.5
195.2
219.9
156.3
180.8
236.0
116.2
402.4
348.0
282.0

203.4
195.2
222.9
157.7
188.6
225.3
122.2
381.8
342.3
282.4

206.8
1955
223.4
159.6
193.1
219.9
126.6
484.0
365.5
282.4

208.0
1961
224.3
159.9
196.1
225.9
129.6
458.9
384.5
302.4

r 213.7
199.5
r 227.6
162.6
201.5
237.2
' 129.2
588.2
'460.1
322.4

216.8
199 8
231.8
168.7
205.1
265.8
133.6
563.8
476.2
322.9

217,9
207.5
232.8
170.5
199.5
287.2
134.2
402.9
389.6
322.9

217,8
210.1
233.7
172.9
2034
289.6
132.9
418.0
375.6
323.0

217.4
210.6
238.3
170.1
198.0
289.6
129.7
367.1
403.1
323.0

2074
2075
2077
2083
2085
2091
2092
2095
2098
2111

Cottonseed oil m ills......................................................
Soybean oil m ills..........................................................
Animal and marine fats and oils ....................................
Malt ............................................................................
Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100) ................
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) ..................
Fresh or frozen packaged fish ......................................
Roasted coffee (12/72 = 100)......................................
Macaroni and spaghetti ................................................
Cigarettes....................................................................

192.9
244.2
290.1
249.9
123.0
174.0
367.1
269.3
233.8
254.6

184,4
230.4
292.6
244.1
118.7
164.0
385.5
273.9
227.7
245.9

170.4
222.3
297.4
244.1
118.7
165.7
391.6
274.0
227.7
246.0

154.7
211.9
274.0
244.1
118.7
170.2
370.5
273.9
230.5
246.3

150.4
212.9
262.9
244.1
118,9
173,1
360.0
273.9
230.5
257.3

155.1
208.6
238.9
244.1
120.5
175.3
361.2
283.1
230.5
257.4

191.3
37.4
274.5
244.1
121.0
175.9
363.7
274.5
230.5
257.4

215.1
256.9
297.4
244.1
127.7
177.5
365.2
274.7
230.5
257.4

232.9
275.2
307.0
244.1
127.7
178.6
355.0
263.9
239.3
257.4

218.7
r 279.2
311.0
267.4
127.9
180,0
r 353.8
257.0
243.6
r 257.8

231.7
290.5
317.2
267.4
128.5
183.1
353.8
252.5
243,6
263.4

228.0
270.2
310.8
267.4
129.2
183.4
354.4
248.5
243,6
263.5

221.2
272.0
310.8
286.1
129.2
187.0
375.4
238.2
243.6
263.5

193.7
253.0
287.2
286.1
133.9
186.8
367.2
238.3
243.6
263.9

2121
2131
2211
2221
2251
2254
2257
2261
2262

Cigars ........................................................................
Chewing and smoking tobacco......................................
Weaving mills, cotton (12/72 = 100) ............................
Weaving mills, synthetic (12/77 = 100) ........................
Women’s hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100)..............
Knit underwear mills ....................................................
Circular knit fabric mills (6/76 = 100)............................
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100) ............................
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 = 100) ................

157.7
278.2
215.6
124.5
106.4
190.0
104.5
135.1
113.6

154.2
265.1
206.9
118.3
103.3
184.1
100.4
129.6
109.4

154.4
267.3
209.5
122.7
104.3
186.5
103.4
131.9
110.4

155.3
279.2
211.3
123.0
105.0
186.8
104.0
132.4
110.7

155.3
278.6
212.9
122.4
105.4
187.1
104.4
134.5
111.8

159.8
278.6
212.9
121.2
105.4
190.4
105.0
134.6
112.1

159.9
279.5
217.7
123.0
105.4
192.6
105.4
137.2
113.8

159.9
279.7
219.0
124.9
108 8
192.9
105.7
137.3
114.1

159.9
279.7
221.9
127.7
108.8
194.1
105.8
136.9
115.3

r 163.7
r 295.0
r 223.4
r 130.7
r 108.7
r 194.2
r 106.7
r 139.1
117.3

161.3
290.2
223.9
132.5
109.0
194.6
106.8
139.3
117.9

162.4
294.0
224.8
132.0
109.0
195.0
107.2
140.1
120.4

163.6
294.2
227.2
131.5
1091
205.5
107.9
142.4
121.6

162.6
310.4
230.2
131.8
109.2
208.6
108.2
144.5
123.0

2272
2281
2282
2284
2298
2311
2321
2322
2323
2327

Tufted carpets and rugs................................................
Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 =100) ..........................
Throwing and winding mills (6/76 = 100) ......................
Thread mills (6/76 = 100)............................................
Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100)................................
Men’s and boys’ suits and coats....................................
Men’s and boys’ shirts and nightwear............................
Men’s and boys’ underwear..........................................
Men's and boys’ neckwear (12/75 - 100) ....................
Men's and boys’ separate trousers................................

138.1
203.5
114.8
139.1
123.6
212.5
204.1
208.0
112.6
174.5

134.5
197.8
110.6
129.2
117.2
208.1
196.2
202.0
112.4
174.2

137.0
199.5
112.0
130.0
118.5
208.3
199.3
204.0
112.4
174.3

137.3
203.7
114.8
134.6
123.6
209.7
2040
204.2
112.4
174.9

137.1
204.5
118.1
143.0
123.8
210.9
203.7
204.3
112.4
174.9

137.4
202.8
115.8
142.9
125.0
211.6
205.1
208.5
112.4
175.1

137.7
202.9
115.0
143.0
125.0
214.9
206.5
211.1
112.4
175.3

138.3
204.3
115.8
143.1
125.0
214.9
206.7
211.2
112.4
175.3

138.3
206.2
117.2
143.1
125.0
214.9
207.7
212.8
112.4
175.3

r 138.8
r 207.9
r 118.2
143.8
127.1
r 216.2
' 208.0
212.8
112.4
r 180.2

140.3
209.9
116.0
143.9
129.2
215.9
207.5
212.8
112.4
175.3

145.3
215.2
118.4
143.9
129.3
216.1
2084
212.8
115.4
180.3

148.1
217.0
121.5
144.1
129.3
218.1
203.1
224.8
115.4
180.4

148.2
218.1
121.6
144.3
129.3
219.7
203.9
229.0
115.4
180.4

2328
2331
2335
2341
2342
2361
2381
2394
2396
2421

Men’s and boys' work clothing ......................................
Women’s and misses’ blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) .
Women’s and misses’ dresses (12/77 = 100)................
Women’s and children’s underwear (12/72 = 100) ........
Brassieres and allied garments (12/75 = 100) ..............
Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100)..............
Fabric dress and work gloves........................................
Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100)..................
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100)..........
Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 = 1 0 0 )......................

240.4
110.0
114.7
154.5
126.6
109.8
268.6
124.0
122.4
227.5

233.6
106.6
113.8
150.0
122.9
105.3
261.7
122.8
114.3
239.5

235.4
106.7
113.8
153.1
124.9
105.5
265.0
123.4
122.3
239.1

241.2
107.6
113.9
153.1
125.4
106.3
267.5
123.4
122.3
215.8

241.8
107.6
113.9
153.2
125.4
105.6
271.1
123.4
122.3
209.4

242.6
107.8
114.0
155.0
126.6
108.0
271.1
123.4
122.3
218.1

244.8
111.4
114.0
155.4
127.8
112.7
271.1
123.4
122.3
228.9

244.1
112.6
115.4
156.9
129.0
112.7
271.1
123.4
122.3
234.2

243.9
112.6
115.4
155.4
129.0
112.2
271.1
123.9
122.3
229.0

'244.3
r 114.0
116 3
156.0
'129.0
'112.7
271.1
'125.1
122.3
'223.2

243.9
112.8
116.3
157.1
129.5
114.8
272.1
125.6
131.0
226.8

244.3
114.0
116.3
158.7
129.5
117.0
272.1
126.6
131.0
233.5

241.6
114.8
116.4
166.1
132.1
117.1
284.9
127.4
131.0
232.4

241.7
114.8
116.7
168.0
133.2
117.7
289.1
127.4
131.0
230.0

2436
2439
2448
2451
2492
2511
2512
2515
2521
2611

Softwood veneer and plywood (12/75 = 100)................
Structural wood members, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ............
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 100)..........................
Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)........................................
Particleboard (12/75 = 100) ........................................
Wood household furniture (12/71 = 100) ......................
Upholstered household furniture (12/71 = 100)..............
Mattresses and bedsprings............................................
Wood office furniture....................................................
Pulp mills (12/73 = 100)..............................................

144.6
155.8
160.1
150.0
161.1
183.6
162.6
179.0
235.3
240.8

143.7
158.2
167.0
146.9
150.7
178.2
158.7
170.5
233.8
225.1

139.8
158.3
166.3
147.2
158.9
178.9
158.7
170.5
233.8
225.5

121.9
158.2
164.6
149.5
161.9
180.0
160.9
172.8
233.9
243.8

130.3
152.1
162.8
150.5
167.3
182.2
161.1
176.0
233.9
243.9

140.5
152.1
159.7
150.7
171.7
183.5
162.5
176.0
234.0
243.9

150.4
152.1
157.1
151.3
'168.7
185.1
166.1
180.8
235.5
244.5

160.7
152.2
156.0
151.4
169.4
186.4
166.2
186.4
235.5
244.5

149.6
155.5
154.9
151.8
163.7
187.7
166.2
186.4
235.5
244.4

'149.1
'156.2
154.6
'153.2
'159.8
'188.1
'167.7
'186.5
'239.7
'246.1

152.3
157.0
154.7
152.1
161.6
188.6
165.8
186.4
239.6
249.0

158.2
157.1
154.1
152.4
164.7
189.8
167.6
186.4
240.8
249.1

149.8
157.1
153.8
152,4
162.7
191.2
166.9
186.2
244.0
249.1

147.0
157.0
152.8
152.5
169.1
191.7
167,2
188.2
250.3
249.1

2621
2631
2647
2654
2655
2812
2821
2822
2824
2873

Paper mills, except building (12/74 = 100)....................
Paperboard mills (12/74 = 100) ..................................
Sanitary paper products................................................
Sanitary food containers ..............................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) ..
Alkalies and chlorine (12/73 = 100)..............................
Plastics materials and resins (6/76 = 100)....................
Synthetic rubber ..........................................................
Organic fiber, noncellulosic............................................
Nitrogenous fertilizers (12/75 = 100) ............................

145.6
139.1
322.3
216.4
151.0
249.3
143.1
255.5
132.6
124.1

139.8
132.3
303.9
204.8
143.2
226.5
139 7
244.2
124.7
119.8

142.5
134.6
311.7
208.9
143.3
233.7
140.8
244.7
126.9
122.1

145.0
137.9
316.7
212.9
146.6
241.2
146.4
256.8
128.5
123.6

145.8
139.5
319.3
215.5
148.7
246.5
147.3
259.3
131.7
124.5

146.2
141.2
321.2
217.2
150.6
250.0
146.9
259.6
132.8
123.4

146.4
140.3
327.4
218.2
155.2
251.9
146.1
259.8
133.4
122.6

146.7
141.1
331.1
220.3
155.2
257.3
144.4
260.5
134.9
123.7

146.7
141.7
331.1
222.3
155.2
257.2
141.5
260.1
137.1
127.2

'148.2
'142.3
'332.6
'222.3
155.5
'257.9
'141.5
'260.9
'138.0
130.3

149.5
143.7
335.6
223.4
155.5
272.3
142.0
259.3
139.3
130.0

151.0
142.8
339.2
226.5
159.4
267.8
141.1
261.5
139.6
131.8

152.0
148.3
339.2
233.2
157.7
282.5
142.7
274.6
144.8
135.1

152.8
149.4
343.6
236.5
159.7
290.5
143.5
279.5
145.4
137.9

2874
2875
2892
2911
2951
2952
3011

Phosphatic fertilizers ....................................................
Fertilizers, mixing only ..................................................
Explosives ..................................................................
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ..................................
Paving mixtures and blocks (12/75 = 100)....................
Asphalt felts and coatings (12/75) = 100) ....................
Tires and inner tubes (12/73 = 100) ............................

237.1
246.6
269.7
248.5
171.5
173.3
202.9

233.2
239.8
255.2
228.4
161.5
162.7
198.7

235.0
242.5
260.2
242.3
167.9
169.9
198.8

237.2
245.2
271.4
250.5
172.7
178.2
199.1

236.3
248.5
272.8
253.0
172.7
174.8
200.1

235.7
249.0
273.7
253.3
172.6
175.0
202.2

234.8
249.8
273.8
255.9
174.7
180.9
204.1

240.6
249.3
273.4
256.9
175.1
179.8
204.1

240.8
250.2
273.3
256.4
176.0
178.3
207.4

'239.3
'250.6
'273.5
'254.6
'176.2
'178.6
'209.9

239.2
251.7
272.8
256.1
176.5
173.5
209.5

244.9
251.8
282.7
261.2
181.5
172.5
209.7

247.5
255.9
288.7
268.1
182.1
176.5
206.6

248,4
267.2
295.3
279.1
185.4
170.0
209.0


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

109

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
30.

Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972

A n n u al
In d u s try d e s c rip tio n

SIC
code

1980

1981

a v e ra g e
1979

Feb.

M ar.

A pr.

M ay

June

July

Aug.

S e p t.

O c t.1

N o v.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

3021
3031
3079
3111
3142
3143
3144
3171
3211
3221

Rubber and plastic footwear (12/71 = 100)....................................
Reclaimed rubber (12/73 = 100) ..................................................
Miscellaneous plastic products (6/78 = 100) ..................................
Leather tanning and finishing (12/77 = 100)....................................
House slippers (12/75 = 100)........................................................
Men's footwear, except athletic (12/75 = 100)................................
Women’s footwear, except athletic..................................................
Women’s handbags and purses (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Flat glass (12/71 =100) ..............................................................
Glass containers............................................................................

178.0
184.0
121.5
147.1
149.6
159.9
213.5
137.9
161.3
292.6

173.6
180.0
117.0
160.8
145.4
157.9
206.3
131.9
157.6
274.3

173.6
184.9
119.1
146.7
145.4
158.5
213.5
132.1
157.9
274.3

173.7
185.9
120.3
140,8
145.4
158.5
213.8
132.1
160.8
294.2

173.7
186.5
120.5
137.9
145.4
158.5
213.8
140.8
160.8
294.2

173.8
1¿6.5
122.2
134.6
145.4
158.5
213.8
140.9
158.9
294.2

181.8
186.5
122.7
137.7
151.1
158.5
214.2
140.9
159.5
294.2

181.9
185.9
123.9
147.9
151.1
159.5
214.3
140.0
162.6
294.2

182.0
185.9
124.4
140.0
151.1
161.5
215.2
140.9
162.8
294.2

r 182.0
'184.0
r 124.2
( 2)
r 153.5
r 161.6
217.1
140.9
163.8
r 306.1

183.1
182.0
123.8
149.3
159.7
162.4
217.1
140.9
166.4
306.4

183,0
184.7
124.2
156.6
154.9
162.4
217.2
140.9
166.3
311.4

183.2
188.3
125.1
157.0
(2)
164.7
217.9
149.5
167.1
311.4

183.7
192.1
125.6
145.5
(2)
166.4
220.0
149.5
167.5
311.4

3241
3251
3253
3255
3259
3261
3262
3263
3269
3271

Cement, hydraulic..........................................................................
Brick and structural clay tile ............................................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ......................................
Clay refractories............................................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c...........................................................
Vitreous plumbing fixtures ..............................................................
Vitreous china food utensils............................................................
Fine earthenware food utensils........................................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............................................
Concrete block and brick................................................................

309.8
277.3
122.5
274.1
202.8
234.8
317.3
295.4
152.6
257.3

305.9
270.4
130.4
259.4
198.1
224.6
308.2
294.3
150.1
250.6

306.3
271.9
130.4
263.7
196.4
226.7
308.2
294.3
150.1
2523

312.6
276.4
130.4
273.9
203.1
227.6
313.4
295.1
151.4
259.3

313.8
278.5
117.6
275.6
204.1
236.1
313.4
293,9
151.5
259.4

313.8
278.5
117.6
275.9
204.4
235.8
318.6
294.7
152.7
259.4

313.3
278.5
117.6
279.2
204.7
237.2
318.3
294.6
152.7
259.5

313.1
277.6
117.6
279.5
205.0
240.4
318,3
294.6
152.7
259.5

312.3
278.5
117.6
279.7
204.8
241.1
318.7
296.4
153.3
260.5

r 311.8
282.6
120.1
'280.2
'204.9
241.5
327.4
' 297 9
'155.4
'259.4

307.6
283.0
120.1
282.1
205.4
242.6
327.4
297.6
155.4
259.4

307.6
283.8
120.1
282.1
205.6
245.0
327.4
297.6
155.4
259.4

319.2
287.5
127.1
293.1
209.9
244.7
327.4
298.3
155.4
264.1

319.1
287.0
127.1
306.9
213.3
248.9
327.4
298.3
155.4
264.9

3273
3274
3275
3291
3297
3312
3313
3316
3317
3321

Ready-mixed concrete....................................................................
Lime (12/75 = 100) ......................................................................
Gypsum products ..........................................................................
Abrasive products (12/71 = 100) ..................................................
Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 100)................................................
Blast furnaces and steel mills ........................................................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 = 100) ..................................
Cold finishing of steel shapes..........................................................
Steel pipes and tubes ....................................................................
Gray iron foundries (12/68 = 100)..................................................

279.9
157.8
256.7
212.6
161.2
310.4
117.7
283.9
291.0
282.0

272.6
153.5
262.8
203.3
153.3
302.9
117.8
277.1
281.0
276.9

275.5
155.6
268.1
203.9
154.2
304.1
118.0
277.2
283.2
277.2

278.8
157.1
264.6
212.0
157.4
312.0
118.7
285.9
286.8
279.8

281.5
157.3
257.0
211.8
159.7
313.3
118.6
288.1
286.9
280.5

282.5
157.7
257.5
213.5
161.2
313.5
118.7
288,2
290.4
282.5

282.6
159.6
253.5
215.2
162.8
308.6
117.1
282.2
292,4
283.0

282,6
160.2
252.3
215.7
164.9
308.5
117.1
282.3
292.6
283.2

283.6
158.8
252.2
217.1
164.8
308.6
117.2
282.3
292.6
283,3

'282.7
'160.8
250.0
'218.8
'167.8
314.8
117.3
288.1
'294.2
'289.7

282.8
161.0
253.7
220.2
167.6
316.6
117.3
288.5
302.4
288.6

283.3
162.0
253.1
220.6
167.6
320.0
117.3
293.0
308.5
289.2

294.0
165.8
259.9
222.7
172.4
328.7
119.9
302.8
315.0
291.9

295.4
171.9
257.6
226.9
177.5
328.9
119.9
303.1
315.7
293.0

3333
3334
3351
3353
3354
3355
3411
3425
3431
3465

Primary zin c..................................................................................
Primary aluminum..........................................................................
Copper rolling and drawing ............................................................
Aluminum sheet plate and foil (12/75 = 100)..................................
Aluminum extruded products (12/75 = 100)....................................
Aluminum rolling, drawing, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ..............................
Metal cans....................................................................................
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 = 100) ....................................
Metal sanitary ware........................................................................
Automotive stampings (12/75 = 100) ............................................

269.9
298.3
227.6
158.2
167.7
146.2
291.6
182.0
248.3
137.0

272.4
267.0
253.1
153.5
158.9
141.0
277.3
174.6
242.1
132.4

279.6
267.8
238.6
155.5
160.9
141.1
279.9
176.4
243.1
132.7

274.3
276.0
227.4
157.8
167.7
143.8
295.1
178.0
245,5
133.5

268.2
287.0
222.8
157.6
167.7
145.2
295.2
181.5
249.7
133.8

268.6
290.1
220.2
157.8
167.7
146.7
294.9
181,9
249.9
137.8

255.9
312.1
222.8
158.2
168.3
147.4
295.6
183.5
250.9
137.8

255.9
312.2
226.2
157.6
168.4
147.6
295.9
185.4
251.4
139.8

264.0
313.0
220.2
157.6
168.2
147.5
296.1
185.8
251.4
140.1

269.9
'325.6
'222.0
'161.5
'173.2
'150.7
297.9
'186.8
251.5
'140,2

279.3
329.9
223.1
163.3
176.3
151.3
297.2
186.9
252.1
141.2

287.5
329.4
223.1
165.1
176.4
151.2
297.4
190.2
253.7
141.5

289.4
333.9
221.9
169.3
176.8
155.5
302.1
195.0
255.9
143.3

296.3
334.9
215.4
170.7
177.1
157.5
303.0
195.1
256.3
144.1

3482
3493
3494
3498
3519
3531
3532
3533
3534
3542

Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 100) ..........................................
Steel springs, except wire ..............................................................
Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 = 100)............................................
Fabricated pipe and fittings ............................................................
Internal combustion engines, n.e.c.....................................................
Construction machinery (12/76 = 100) ..........................................
Mining machinery (12/72 = 100)....................................................
Oilfield machinery and equipment....................................................
Elevators and moving stairways......................................................
Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 =100) ..........................

146.8
230.2
229.7
315.5
274.9
140.9
258.3
337.7
239.2
279.6

143.2
226.6
219.6
301.8
261.8
135.7
247.1
316.2
226,1
268.1

142.6
228.6
223.1
303.5
266.1
136.3
247.8
318.9
229.1
269.4

141.7
229.2
229.4
313.0
270.6
138.6
256.0
329.8
232.6
274.3

141.4
229.2
229.9
313.1
271.6
139.5
257.3
333.1
234.1
275.1

144.6
230.3
231.8
313.8
271.7
140.3
258.2
337.4
242.8
279.2

145.1
230.3
232.5
317.2
276.8
141.8
259.4
342.6
244.2
284.3

147.3
230.8
232.7
317.2
278.6
142,7
262.0
345.7
243.8
285.3

145.3
231.9
233.3
319.9
283.2
143.8
264.1
347.3
246.4
285,6

' 145.8
'233.0
'235.8
325.0
'285.2
'146.0
'266.0
'352.9
248.3
'286.8

151.1
232.9
235.6
329.9
287.1
145.8
267.9
357.8
248.4
287.9

161.3
233.9
237.6
329.9
288.5
146.7
269.6
360.9
249.5
292.5

158.2
238.2
239.0
335.7
293.0
148.9
271.9
366.5
250.3
298.1

163.2
239.0
240.8
335.7
294.2
150.4
273.5
373.7
250.3
298.5

3546
3552
3553
3576
3592
3612
3623
3631
3632
3633

Power driven hand tools (12/76 = 100)..........................................
Textile machinery (12/69 = 100)....................................................
Woodworking machinery (12/72 = 100)..........................................
Scales and balances, excluding laboratory ......................................
Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (6/76 = 100)..............................
Transformers ................................................................................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 100)......................................
Household cooking equipment (12/75 = 100)..................................
Household refrigerators, freezers (6/76 = 100) ..............................
Household laundry equipment (12/73 = 100)..................................

132.0
216.6
212.6
212.7
156.5
185.0
209.7
133.0
120.9
162.0

126.6
205.2
201.6
205.8
147.8
176.6
203.3
129.3
118.5
156,6

127.4
207.0
205.1
206.6
148.6
177.5
206.0
129.4
118.6
158.3

129.0
213.4
212.3
207.5
152.6
180.5
207.0
129.7
119.3
160.3

131.2
213.6
212.1
208.2
153.0
181.5
209.2
133.1
119.4
161.7

131.1
217.0
213.7
208.6
153.5
182.9
211.0
134.7
122.0
162,3

133.5
221.7
215.9
215.4
158.6
186.0
212.1
134.9
122.2
161.2

134.5
222.1
216.0
226.2
159.3
190.6
212.1
134.4
122.2
163.6

135.3
222.3
216.0
226.2
160.1
190.7
211.7
134.7
123.3
165.5

'136.6
'223.8
'217.0
'226.3
'164.9
'193.9
'214.4
'134.8
'124.1
166.1

136.4
224,5
218.1
217.7
165.0
192.8
214.2
134.9
123.7
166.6

137.6
226.0
221.9
218.0
167.4
193.4
215.5
137.1
123.8
167.3

141.7
231.1
222.9
219.8
168.7
195.2
218.3
140.1
126.2
169.7

143.9
233.7
223.1
221.1
170.6
197.0
220.0
140.8
126.1
170.1

3635
3636
3641
3644
3646
3648
3671
3674
3675
3676

Household vacuum cleaners ..........................................................
Sewing machines (12/75 = 100)....................................................
Electric lamps................................................................................
Noncurrent-carrying wiring devices (12/72 = 100) ..........................
Commercial lighting fixtures (12/75 = 100) ....................................
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ........................................
Electron tubes receiving type..........................................................
Semiconductors and related devices ..............................................
Electronic capacitors (12/75 = 100) ..............................................
Electronic resistors (12/75 = 100)..................................................

152.2
128.9
260.1
220.3
139.3
139.9
251.8
90.6
162.6
134.1

149.7
129.2
252.4
215.2
134.3
133.2
229.4
88.5
149.1
128.8

151,3
129.2
251.8
215.3
136.2
134.6
229.7
89.3
151.3
131.8

148.6
129.2
252.3
217.4
138.0
139.4
254.0
90.4
157.0
131.9

149.3
129 2
251.3
218.2
138.5
140.2
254.7
91.2
160.7
133.0

155.8
129.2
258.1
220.4
139.2
140.7
255.2
92.0
160.5
135.2

158.4
130.0
266.3
220.3
139.2
140.7
255.5
92.1
168.6
135.3

158.5
130.0
268.1
220.7
140.4
140.9
255.6
91.8
172.6
136.3

158.6
130.0
269.2
220.9
142.3
143.2
255.7
92.0
174.0
136.9

'158.8
'130.3
'268.7
'221.8
' 142.8
'143.3
264.6
' 91.8
'170.1
137.7

152.2
129.7
269.3
225.0
143.4
144.5
264.8
91.1
170.1
137.7

152.5
129.7
266.2
231.2
145.0
144.9
272.7
91.1
170.1
137.8

152.6
129.7
265.9
235.3
145.6
146.3
284.3
90.6
170.3
138.1

149.9
129.7
271.2
238.5
148.5
146.8
284,5
90.8
170.6
138.8

3678
3692
3711
3942
3944
3955
3995
3996

Electronic connectors (12/75 = 100)..............................................
Primary batteries, dry and w e t........................................................
Motor vehicles and car bodies (12/75 = 100)..................................
Dolls (12/75 - 100)......................................................................
Games, toys, and children’s vehicles ..............................................
Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100)..............................
Burial caskets (6/76 = 100) ..........................................................
Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 = 100)....................................

146.2
176.5
136.6
126.8
204.5
132.9
131.2
143.7

146.4
176.5
131.6
125.4
203.8
128.2
128.3
138.7

146.7
176.6
131.8
125,6
204.0
128.3
128,3
138.7

146.5
176.8
135.5
127.7
205.0
131.5
128.4
143.2

146.8
176 4
134.5
128.4
205.3
133.3
130.3
143.3

148.7
176.4
134.6
128.4
205.9
136.4
132.2
143.3

148.9
176.4
137.3
128.4
206.0
135.0
132.2
146.1

149.1
176.7
137.9
128.4
206.0
135.0
132.2
146.6

149.6
176.8
131.4
128.4
206.6
135.0
132.9
146.6

'149.7
176,9
'144.5
'128.3
'207.0
135.0
132.9
146.6

150.0
176.9
144.1
126.6
205.2
135.0
132.9
146.6

150.1
176.9
143.6
126.6
205.4
135.0
135.0
146.6

152.6
179.0
145.0
129.0
210.4
133.1
135.0
148.6

153.7
183.3
145.1
129.1
214.7
136.4
135.0
148.6

'Data for October 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication.


110
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2Not available,
r=revised.

PRODUCTIVITY DATA

data
are compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics from establishment data and from estimates of com­
pensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board.

P r o d u c t iv it y

Definitions
O u tp u t is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of o u tp u t p er h o u r o f la b o r in p u t, or labor pro­
ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour
of labor. C o m p e n s a tio n per h o u r includes wages and salaries of em­
ployees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private
benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and
supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. R e a l c o m ­
p e n s a tio n p er h o u r is compensation per hour adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
U n it la b o r c o s t measures the labor compensation cost required to
produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation
by output. U n it n o n la b o r p a y m e n ts include profits, depreciation, in­
terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by
subtracting compensation of all persons from the current dollar gross
domestic product and dividing by output. In these tables, U n it
n o n la b o r c o s t s contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments
except unit profits. U n it p r o fits include corporate profits and invento­
ry valuation adjustments per unit of output.

The im p lic it p r ic e d e fla to r is derived by dividing the current dollar
estimate of gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the
deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported.

31.

The use of the term “man-hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 31 through 34, has been discontin­
ued. H o u r s o f a ll p e r so n s is now used to describe the labor input of
payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.
O u t p u t p er a ll- e m p lo y e e h o u r is now used to describe labor productiv­
ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.

Notes on the data
In the private business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the
basis for the output measure employed in the computation of output
per hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National
Product. Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and
farm proprietor hours.
Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly
manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating)
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data
are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Beginning with the September 1976 issue of the R ev ie w , tables 3134 were revised to reflect changeover to the new series— private busi­
ness sector and nonfarm business sector— which differ from the
previously published total private economy and nonfarm sector in
that output imputed for owner-occupied dwellings and the household
and institutions sectors, as well as the statistical discrepancy, are
omitted. For a detailed explanation, see J. R. Norsworthy and L. J.
Fulco, “New sector definitions for productivity series,” M o n th ly L a b o r
R ev ie w , October 1976, pages 40-42.

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1950-80

[1977 = 100]
Ite m

Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor co s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ....................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o s t................................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ........................
Compensation per hour ..................................
Real compensation per hour............................
Unit labor c o st..............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..................................
Implicit price deflator ......................................
' Not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

50.3
20.0
50.4
39.8
43.5
41.0

58.2
26.3
59.6
45.2
47.8
46.1

65.1
33.9
69.4
52.1
50.8
51.7

78.2
41.7
80.0
53.3
57.8
54.8

86.1
58.2
90.8
67.6
63.4
66.2

94.8
71.3
97.3
75.2
75.6
75.3

92.7
78.0
95.9
84.2
78.9
82.4

94.8
85.5
96.3
90.2
90.7
90.4

97.9
92.9
98.8
94.8
94,4
94.7

100.0
100,0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100,0

99.8
108.4
100.7
108.6
105.1
107.4

99.4
119.2
99.5
119.9
110.9
116.9

99.0
131.1
96.4
132.4
'118.1
127.6

56.2
21.8
55.0
38.8
42.8
40.2

62.7
28.3
63.9
45.1
47.9
46.0

68.2
35.6
73.0
52.3
50.5
51.7

80.4
42.8
82.2
53.2
58.2
54.9

86.7
58.6
91.5
67.6
64.0
66.4

95.3
71.7
97.7
75.2
71.9
74.1

93.1
78.4
96.4
84,3
76.1
81.6

95.0
86.0
96.8
90.5
88.9
89.9

98.1
93.0
99.0
94.8
94.0
94,5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

99.8
108.5
100.7
108.7
103.6
107.0

99.0
118.8
992
120.0
108.5
116.2

'98.4
130.4
95.9
132,4
'117.4
'127.8

(’ )
( ')
<’ >

( ')

(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
n
n
(’ >

66.3
36.3
74.2
54.7
54.6
54.7

79.9
43.0
826
53.8
60.8
56.2

85.4
58.3
91,0
68.3
63.1
66.5

94.5
70.8
96.5
74.9
70.7
73.4

91.3
77.6
95.4
85.1
75.7
81.8

94.4
85.5
96.3
90.6
90.9
90.7

97.4
92.5
98.5
95.0
95.0
95.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.4
108.2
100.5
107.8
103.8
106.4

' 100.3
'118,6
99.0
118.2
108.3
114.8

p 100.6
0130.4
p 95.9
p 129.6
p 117.0
p 125.2

' 49.5
21.5
54.1
r 43.4
'55.1
'46,8

'56.5
28.8
65.2
'51.0
' 59.4
' 53.4

'60.1
36.7
75.1
61.1
'62.0
61.3

'74.6
42.9
82.3
'57.4
70.3
61.2

'79.2
57.6
89.9
'72.7
'66.0
70.7

93.1
69.1
94.2
'74.2
71.6
73.4

'90.9
76.4
93.9
'84.1
'70.4
'80.1

'93.5
85.5
96.3
'91.4
'88.5
'90.6

'97.7
92.4
98.3
'94.6
' 95.1
'94.7

100.0
100,0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.9
108,2
100.5
'107.3
' 104.7
106.5

'101.9
118.7
99.1
'116.5
'105.7
'113.4

'101.4
131.2
96.5
'129.3
(’ )
(’ )

(')
(')

r = revised.

Ill

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1981 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
32.

Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1969-79
A n n u al ra te
Year

of change

Ite m
1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1 9 6 0-80

3.5
6.5
3.1
2.9
4.5
3.4

2.7
8.0
1.7
5.2
5.9
5.4

-2.3
9.4
-1.4
11.9
4.4
9.4

2.3
9.6
0.4
7.2
15.0
9.7

3.3
8.6
2.7
5.1
4.1
4.7

2.1
7.7
1.2
5.5
5.9
5.6

-0.2
8.4
0.7
8.6
5.1
7.4

-0.4
9.9
-1.2
10.4
5.5
8.8

r -0.4
10.0
-3.1
r 10.5
'6.4
9.2

2.5
6.0
2.4
3.5
3.2
3.4

2.2
7.1
1.9
4.8
4.4
4.7

0.3
7.0
1.0
6.6
1.1
4.8

3.3
6.6
2.2
3.1
7.4
4.5

3.7
6.7
3.3
2.8
3.2
3.0

2.5
7.6
1.3
4.9
1.3
3.7

-2.4
9.4
-1.4
12.1
5.9
10.1

2.1
9.6
0.4
7.4
16.7
10.3

3.2
8.1
2.2
4.7
5.7
5.1

2.0
7.6
1.0
5.5
6.4
5.8

-0.2
8.5
0.7
8.7
3.6
7.0

-0.8
9.6
-1.5
10.4
4.8
8.6

'9.7
-3.3
r 10.4
'8.2
9.7

2.1
5.7
2.1
3.5
3.1
3.4

1.9
6.8
1.6
4.8
4.2
4.6

0.4
6.8
0.8
6.3
0.5
4.4

4.8
6.5
2.1
1.6
7.4
3.5

3.0
5.8
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.8

2.6
7.7
1.4
4.9

-3.4
9.7
-1.1
13.6
7.1
11.4

3.4
10.1
0.9
6.5
20.1
10.9

3.2
8.2
2.3
4.9
4.6
4.8

2.7
8.1
1.5
5.3
5.2
5.2

0.4
8.2
0.5
7.8
3.8
6.4

r -0.1
r9.6

r -0.2
6.8
0.8
r7.0
-2.5
r4.3

r6.1
6.1
1.8

r5.0
5.4
2.0
r0.3
'0.8
r0.5

r5.4
7.2
0.9

' -2.4
10.6
-0.3
r 13.3
r —1.8
r9.0

'2.9
11.9
2.5
'8.8
r25.9
r 13.1

4,4
8.0
2.1
'3.4
'".4
r4.6

r2.4
8.3
1.7
r5.7
'5.2
r5.6

'0.9
8.2
0.5
r7.3
r4.7
6.5

r 11.2
r3.1

1.5

3.8

r 1.7

' —3.3
r0.3

I
O

3.6
6.6
2.2
2.9
7.6
4.4

' Not available.

33.

1 9 5 0-80

0.9
7.4
1.4
6.4
0.7
4.5

O
o

Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................

1971

<y>

1970

9.7
4.4
7.9

p0.3
p9.9
0 -3.2
p9.6
p8.0
p9.1

(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
n
( 1)

p2.0
p6.7
p 1.5
p4.6
p3.8
p4.3

r 1.0
9.7
-1.4
r8.6
'0.9
r6.4

'0.5
10.5
-2.7
11.0
(’ )
( 1)

2.5
5.6
2.0
3.1
4.6
4.5

2.4
6.7
1.5
'4.2
'8.3
7.6

r - 1 .5

r = revised.

Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted

[1977 = 100]
Q u a rte rly in d e x e s

A n n u al
Ite m

Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments......................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Total unit costs ..................................................
Unit labor cost ............................................
Unit nonlabor costs......................................
Unit profits ........................................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ............................
Compensation per hour ......................................
Real compensation per hour................................
Unit labor cost....................................................
1Not available.

112

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

a v e ra g e

1978

1979

1980

1979

1980

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

99.4
119.2
99.5
119.9
110.9
116.9

99.0
131.1
96.4
132.4
'118.1
127.6

99.9
107.1
100.5
107.3
104.8
106.4

100.0
109.4
100.5
109.4
106.7
108.5

99.9
111.9
100.5
112.1
109.1
111.1

99.7
115.0
100.5
115.4
109.6
113.4

99.6
118.0
100.1
118.5
110.4
115.8

99.2
120.5
99.0
121.4
111.5
118.1

99.0
123.0
97.9
124.2
112.3
120.2

99.3
126.0
96.5
127.0
115.3
123.0

98.8
129.7
96.2
131.3
116.0
126.1

99.2
132.8
96.8
133.9
119.8
129.1

'98.5
135.5
95.9
137.3
122.7
'132.2

99.0
118.8
99.2
120.0
108.5
116.2

'98.4
130.4
95.9
132.4
'117.4
'127.4

99.9
107.2
100.6
107.3
103.2
105.9

99.9
109.4
100.5
109.5
105.1
108.0

99.8
111.9
100.5
112.2
107.0
110.5

99.5
114.9
100.4
115.4
107.1
112.6

99.1
117.6
99.8
118.7
107.7
115.1

98.7
119.9
98.6
121.5
109.3
117.4

98.6
122.7
97.7
124.4
110.2
119.7

98.6
125.6
96.2
127.4
114.0
122.9

97.9
129.0
95.7
131.8
115.2
126.3

98.8
131.9
96.1
133.5
119.2
128.8

'98 3
135.0
95.6
'137.3
'121.0
'131.9

'100.3
'118.6
99.0
116.8
118.2
112.7
99.0
114.8

»100.6
p 130.4
p95.9
p 129.8
p 129.6
p 130.4
p 88.9
p 125.2

100.8
'107.0
100.5
105.4
106.2
103.0
105.5
105.4

100.4
109.2
100.2
107.6
108.7
104.4
105.9
107.4

100.5
111.5
100.1
109.6
111.0
106.0
108.9
109.6

100.6
'114.5
'100.1
112.2
113.8
107.8
105.6
111.5

100.6
117.5
99.6
115.3
116.8
111.2
100.7
'113.7

100.3
119.8
98.5
118.2
119.5
114.6
97.5
115.9

99.7
122.4
97.5
121.3
122.8
117.2
92.2
118.1

100.0
125.3
95.9
124.2
125.4
120.9
95.5
121.0

99.8
128.9
95.6
129.2
129.1
129.3
83.4
124.1

101.5
132.1
96.3
131.1
130.2
133.8
89.1
126.4

(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
( 1)
( 1)
n
(’ )
( )

'101.9
118.7
99.1
'116.5

'101.4
131.2
96.5
'129.3

'100.6
106.9
100.3
106.2

101.7
109.1
100.2
107.3

'102.0
111.5
100.1
'109.3

'101.4
114.5
100.1
'112.9

'102.3
118.5
100.5
'115.9

'101.9
119.7
98.4
'117.5

'101.9
122.0
97.2
'119.8

'101.7
125.0
95.7
'122.9

'100.5
129.6
96.1
'128.9

100.2
133.5
97.3
133.2

'103.0
136.8
'96.9
'132.8

r = revised.

1

34. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1977 = 100]
P e rc e n t c h a n g e fro m s a m e q u a rte r a y e a r a g o

Q u a rte rly p e rc e n t c h a n g e at ann u al ra te

Private business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o s t............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor co s t............................................
Unit nonlabor payments ..............................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees ................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Total unit costs ..........................................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor costs..................................
Unit profits..................................................
Implicit price deflator ..................................
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons ....................
Compensation per hour ..............................
Real compensation per hour........................
Unit labor c o s t............................................
1 Not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

IV 1979

II 1979

III 1979

IV 1979

1 1980

II 1980

III 1980

III 1978

IV 1978

I 1979

II 1979

III 1979

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

to

III 1979

IV 1979

I 1980

II 1 9 8 0 .

III 1980

IV 1980

III 1979

IV 1979

I 1980

II 1980

III 1980

IV 1980

-1.5
8.5
-4.4
10.1
4.2
8.2

-1.1
8.6
-4.4
9.8
2.6
7.4

1.3
10.4
-5.6
9.0
11.3
9.7

-1.9
12.2
-1.3
14.4
2.6
10.5

1.5
9.7
2.4
8.1
13.6
9.8

'- 2 .8
'8.4
-3.4
'11.5
'6.4
'9.9

-0.7
10.1
-1.5
10.9
4.6
8.8

-0.9
9.9
-2.5
10.9
2.9
8.2

-0.4
9.6
-4.0
10.0
5.2
8.4

-0.8
9.9
-3.9
10.8
5.1
9.0

0,0
10.2
-2.3
10.3
7.4
9.4

' -0.5
10.2
-2.0
'10.7
' 8.4
' 10.0

-1.4
8.1
-4.7
9.7
5.9
8.5

-0.3
9.6
-3.5
9.9
3.3
7.8

0.0
9.9
-6.0
9.9
14.6
11.3

-3.0
11.2
-2.2
14.6
4.2
11.3

' 3.8
'9.3
2.0
5.3
14.9
8.2

' —1.9
9.6
-2.3
'11.8
'6.1
'10.0

-1.2
9.6
-1.9
10.9
4.0
8.7

-1.1
9.6
-2.7
10.9
3.0
8.3

-0.9
9.4
-4.2
10.4
6.4
9.1

-1.2
9.7
-4.1
11.0
6.9
9.7

0.1
10.0
-2.5
9.9
9.1
9.6

' -0.3
10.0
-2.2
' 10.4
'9.8
'10.2

-1.1
8.2
-4.6
10.3
9.5
12.8
-12.0
7.9

' -2.4
8.9
-4.1
11.0
11.6
9.3
-20.2
7.8

'1.2
'9.8
' -6.1
9.8
8.6
13.5
15.3
10.3

-0.5
12.0
-1.5
17.0
12.6
30.6
-41.9
10.5

'6.9
10.3
3.0
6.2
3.2
14.7
30.3
7.9

(’ )
( 1)
( 1)
(’ )
( 1)
(’ )
(’ )

' -0.8
'9.8
'- 2 .6
10.7
10.7
10.6
-15.4
7.8

' -0.6
9.5
-4.1
10.6
10.1
12.2
-9.5
8.5

-0.7
'9.7
' -4.1
12.0
10.5
16.3
-17.2
9.1

'1.2
10.3
-2.2
11.0
8.9
16.8
-8.6
9.1

n
n
( 1)

(')

r -0.1
'9.8
' -1.7
9.9
9.9
9.8
-7.9
7.9

r -1.6
3.9
-8.4
'5.6

r0.1
8.1
-4.8
'8.0

'0.7
10.1
-5.9
'10.8

'- 4 .6
15.5
1.6
'21.1

'-1 .1
12.7
5.2
' 14.0

'11.7
'10.3
' -1.8
' -1.3

'0.2
9.7
-1.8
'9.5

'0.1
9.4
-2.9
'9.6

' -0.3
9.1
-4.4
'8.8

' —1.7
9.3
-4.4
'11.2

' -1.6
11.6
-1.1
'13.4

r 1.1
12.1
-0.3
'10.9

r

n
(')
(')
(')

revised.

113

LABOR-MANAGEMENT DATA

M a jo r c o l l e c t iv e b a r g a in in g
d a t a
are obtained from
contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, direct
contact with the parties, and from secondary sources. Addi­
tional detail is published in C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e l o p m e n t s , a
monthly periodical of the Bureau. Data on work stoppages
are based on confidential responses to questionnaires mailed
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to parties involved in work
stoppages. Stoppages initially come to the attention of the
Bureau from reports of Federal and State mediation agencies,
newspapers, and union and industry publications.

the agreement. C h a n g e s o v e r th e lif e o f th e a g r e e m e n t refer to total
agreed upon settlements (exclusive of potential cost-of-living escalator
adjustments) expressed at an average annual rate. W a g e -r a te c h a n g e s
are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings, while w a g e
a n d b e n e fit c h a n g e s are expressed as a percent of total compensation.
E ff e c t iv e w a g e -r a te a d j u s t m e n ts going into effect in major
bargaining units measure changes actually placed into effect during the
reference period, whether the result of a newly negotiated increase, a
deferred increase negotiated in an earlier year, or as a result of a costof-living escalator adjustment. Average adjustments are affected by
workers receiving no adjustment, as well as by those receiving in­
creases or decreases.

Definitions

W o r k s to p p a g e s include all known strikes or lockouts involving six
workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data cover all
workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a
stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on
other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or
service shortages.

Data on wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry agree­
ments covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on wage and benefit
changes c o m b in e d apply only to those agreements covering 5,000
workers or more. F ir s t-y e a r w a g e s e t tle m e n ts refer to pay changes go­
ing into effect within the first 12 months after the effective date of

35.

Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1976 to date

[In percent]
A n n u al a v e ra g e

Q u a rte rly a v e ra g e

S e c to r a n d m e a s u re

1979
1976

1977

1978

1979

1 980

p

1980 p
I

II

III

IV

1

II

III

IV

Wage and benefit settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract ......................

8.5
6.6

9.6
6.2

8.3
6.3

9.0
6.6

10.4
7.0

2.8
5.3

10.5
7.8

9.0
6.1

8.5
6.0

8.6
6.4

10.1
6.8

11.6
7.3

8.3
5.9

Wage rate settlements, all industries:
First-year settlements ....................................
Annual rate over life of contract......................

8.4
6.4

7.8
5.8

7.6
6.4

7.4
6.0

9.5
7.1

5.7
6.6

8.9
7.2

6.8
5.1

6.3
5.3

7.8
6.3

8.7
6.8

10.7
7.4

8.4
6.5

Manufacturing:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................

8.9
6.0

8.4
5.5

8.3
6.6

6.9
5.4

7.3
5.4

8.7
7.7

9.7
8.1

6.3
4.7

5.6
4.2

7.0
5.6

6.6
4.9

8.7
5.5

7.6
5.7

Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction):
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................

8.6
7.2

8.0
5.9

8.0
6.5

7.6
6.2

9.6
6.6

3.2
5.6

8.5
5.8

9.4
6.5

7.8
7.4

9.1
7.1

10.4
8.6

9.4
5.8

8.9
7.4

Construction:
First-year settlements................................
Annual rate over life of contract ................

6.1
6.2

6.3
6.3

6.5
6.2

8.8
8.3

13.6
11.5

9.7
8.2

8.7
8.3

9.7
8.5

7.5
7.6

9.6
9.3

12.7
10.3

15.7
13.3

14.3
12.0

114


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

36.

Effective wage adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date

[In percent]
A v e ra g e q u a rte rly c h a n g e s

A v e ra g e a n n u al c h a n g e s
S e c to r a n d m e a s u re
1976

1977

1978

1979

1980 e

1979

1978
1980 p
IV

I

II

III

IV

1

II

III

IV

Total effective wage rate adjustment, all industries ..............
Change resulting from —
Current settlement................................................
Prior settlement....................................................
Escalator provision ..............................................

8.1

8.0

8.2

9.1

9.3

1.4

1.4

2.6

3.3

1.6

1.5

3.2

3.4

1,2

3.2
3.2
1.6

3.0
3.2
1.7

2.0
3.7
2.4

3.0
3.0
3.1

3.6
3.1
2.6

.4
.5
.5

.2
.6
.6

1.1
1.0
.5

1.0
1.0
1.2

.5
.4
.7

.4
.5
.6

1.1
1.2
,8

1.6
1.1
.7

.5
.3
.5

Manufacturing ............................................................
Nonmanufacturing ......................................................

8.5
7.7

8.4
7.6

8.6
7.9

9.6
8.8

9.7
9.0

1.9
1.1

1.5
1.4

2.3
2.8

3.2
3.4

2.4
1.0

1.9
1.3

3.4
3.0

2.9
3.7

1.6
1.0

NOTE: Because of rounding and compounding, the sums of individual items may not equal totals.

37.

Work stoppages, 1947 to date
N u m b e r o f s to p p a g e s
M o n th a n d y e a r

B e g in n in g in

In e ffe c t

m o n th o r y e a r

d u rin g m o n th

D a y s idle

W o rk e rs in v o lv e d
B e g in n in g in

In e ffe c t

m o n th o r y e a r

d u rin g m o n th

(th o u s a n d s )

(th o u s a n d s )

Num ber
(th o u s a n d s )

P e rc e n t o f
e s tim a te d
w o rk in g tim e

1947
............................................................
1948
1949 ........................................................................................
1950 ........................................................................................

3,693
3,419
3,606
4,843

2,170
1,960
3,030
2,410

34,600
34,100
50,500
38,800

.30
.28
.44
.33

1951
..........................................................................
1952 .........................................................................................
1953
..................................................................................
1954
1955 ......................................................................................

4,737
5,117
5,091
3,468
4,320

2,220
3,540
2,400
1,530
2,650

22,900
59,100
28,300
22,600
28,200

.18
.48
.22
.18
22

1956 ........................................................................................
1957
1958
1959
............................................................................
1960
................................................................

3,825
3,673
3,694
3,708
3,333

1,900
1,390
2,060
1,880
1,320

33,100
16,500
23,900
69,000
19,100

.24
.12
.18
.50
.14

1961
1962 ........................................................................................
1963
1964
........................................
1965
..........................................................

3,367
3,614
3,362
3,655
3,963

1,450
1,230
941
1,640
1,550

16,300
18,600
16,100
22,900
23,300

.11
.13
.11
.15
.15

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

......................
....................................................

4,405
4,595
5,045
5,700
5,716

1,960
2,870
2,649
2,481
3,305

25,400
42,100
49,018
42,869
66,414

.15
.25
.28
.24
.37

1971
........................................................................
1972 ........................................................................................
1973
1974
................................................
1975 ........................................................................................

5,138
5,010
5,353
6,074
5,031

3,280
1,714
2,251
2,778
1,746

47,589
27,066
27,948
47,991
31,237

.26
.15
.14
.24
.16

1976 ........................................................................................
1977 . .
1978
1979 ........................................................................................

5,648
5,506
4,230
4,827

2,420
2,040
1,623
1,727

37,859
35,822
36,922
34,754

.19
.17
.17
.15

1980p: January ......................................................................
February ....................................................................
March ........................................................................
April............................................................................
M ay............................................................................
June ..........................................................................
J u ly ............................................................................
A u gjst........................................................................
September..................................................................
October......................................................................
November ..................................................................
December ..................................................................
1981°: January ......................................................................

304
332
326
357
388
385
414
374
420
347
201
66
253

3,222
3,131
3,230
2,579
2,099
2,441
3,954
3,079
3,407
2,195
1,110
617
614

.17
.19
.16
.14
.10
.13
.21
.15
.20
.11
.06
.03
.03


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

576
594
605
649
704
699
733
704
724
630
427
247
297

170
77
98
98
116
173
241
80
126
90
52
18
50

250
248
237
218
172
224
336
211
247
200
101
48
68

115

How to order BLS publications
PERIODICALS
O rd er fr o m

(a n d m a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to ) S u ­

p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts , W a sh in g to n , D .C .
2 0 4 0 2 . F o r fo r e ig n su b scrip tio n s, a d d 2 5 p e rc e n t.

Monthly Labor Review. The oldest and most

authoritative government research journal in
economics and the social sciences. Current
statistics, analysis, developments in industrial
relations, court decisions, book reviews. $18
a year, single copy, $2.50.
Employment and Earnings. A comprehensive
monthly report on employment, hours, earn­
ings, and labor turnover by industry, area,
occupation, et cetera, $22 a year, single copy
$2.75.
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. A popular

periodical designed to help high school stu­
dents and guidance counselors assess career
opportunities. $6 for four issues, single copy
$1.75.
Current Wage Developments. A monthly re­

port about collective bargaining settlements
and unilateral management decisions about
wages and benefits; statistical summaries.
$13 a year, single copy $2.25.
Producer Prices and Price Indexes. A com­

BULLETINS AND HANDBOOKS
A b o u t 1 4 0 b u lle tin s a n d h a n d b o o k s p u b lis h e d e a ch y e a r a r e f o r s a le b y reg io n a l
o ffices o f th e B u r e a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s (see in sid e f r o n t c o ver) a n d b y th e S u ­
p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts , W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2 . O rd e r s ca n b e c h a r g e d to
a d e p o s it a c c o u n t n u m b e r o r c h e c k s c a n b e m a d e p a y a b le to th e S u p e r in te n d e n t
o f D o c u m e n ts . Visa a n d M a s te r C a r d a r e a ls o a c c e p te d ; in c lu d e c a r d n u m b e r
a n d e x p ira tio n d a te . A m o n g th e b u lle tin s a n d h a n d b o o k s c u r r e n tly in p r in t:

Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1980-81 Edition. Bulletin 2075. A
useful resource supplying valuable assistance to all persons seeking satis­
fying and productive employment. $8, paperback; $11 cloth cover.
BLS Handbook of Labor Statistics. Bulletin 2070, December 1980. A
490-page volume of historical data on the major BLS statistical series.
$9.50.
Handbook of Methods. Bulletin 1910. Brief technical account of each
major statistical program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. $3.50.
BLS Measures of Compensation. Bulletin 1941. An introduction to the

various measures of employee compensation; describes each series, the
manner in which it is developed, its uses and limitations. $2.75.
Occupational Projections and Training Data. Bulletin 2052. Presents
both general and detailed information on the relationship between occu­
pational requirements and training needs. (Updates Bulletin 2020
published in 1979.) $4.75.
Exploring Careers. Bulletin 2001. A new career guidance resource
designed for junior high school students but useful for older students as
well. Includes occupational narratives, evaluative questions, suggested ac­
tivities, career games, and photographs. $10.
Profile of the Teenage Worker. Bulletin 2039. Focuses on the labor mar­
ket experience of 16- to 19-year-olds. Based on data from the Current
Population Survey, the bulletin reviews past trends and explores the
problems of youth unemployment and the transition from school to
work. $3.25.

prehensive monthly report on price move­
ments of both farm and industrial commodi­
ties, by industry and stage of processing. $17
a year, single copy $2.25.

Profiles of Occupational Pay: A Chartbook. Bulletin 2037. A graphic il­
lustration of some of the factors that affect workers’ earnings. This threepart presentation looks at wage variations among and within occupations
and portrays characteristics of high- and low-paying urban areas and
manufacturing industries. $3.50.

CPI Detailed Report. A monthly periodical

REPORTS AND PAMPHLETS

featuring detailed data and charts on the
Consumer Price Index. $18 a year, single
copy $3.
PRESS RELEASES

The Bureau’s statistical series are made avail­
able to news media through press releases is­
sued in Washington. Many of the releases
also are available to the public upon request.
Write: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washing­
ton, D.C. 20212.

S in g le co p ies a v a ila b le f r e e f r o m th e B L S r e g io n a l o ffices o r f r o m th e B u r e a u o f
L a b o r S ta tistic s , U .S. D e p a r tm e n t o f L a b o r , W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 2 1 2 .

Major Programs of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Report 552. A sum­
mary of the Bureau’s principal programs, including data available,
sources, uses, and publications.
Employment in Perspective: Working Women. A quarterly report series
presenting highlights of current data on women in the labor force.
Employment in Perspective: Minority Workers. A quarterly report series

presenting highlights of current data on blacks and persons of Hispanic
origin in the labor force.
Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment, 1979. Report

Regional. Each of the Bureau’s eight regional

offices publishes reports and press releases
dealing with regional data. Single copies
available free from the issuing regional office.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

619. Latest report in a series presenting geographic labor force data from
the Current Population Survey. Provides 1979 annual average demo­
graphic and economic characteristics of the labor force for States and
similar data for 30 large s m s a ’ s and 11 large cities.

☆ U .S . G O VERNM ENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 -

3 41 -2 58 '5 6

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

is the oldest,
most authoritative
Government journal
in its field

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Every month, 12 times a year

•
Articles and
reports on
employment,
prices, wages,
productivity,
job safety, and
economic growth

•
40 pages of
current
labor statistics

Mail to:
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402

•

•

•

•

Developments in
industrial
relations

Significant
decisions in
labor cases

Book reviews
and notes

Foreign labor
developments

Please enter my subscription to the Monthly Labor Review for
1 year at $18.00. (Foreign subscribers add $4.50.)
□ Remittance is enclosed.
(Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents.)
□ Charge to GPO Deposit Account No____________________

!
i
i
i

Name
Organization
(if applicable)
Address
City, State,
and ZIP Code


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington D.C. 20212

Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
Lab-441

Official Business

SECOND CLASS MAIL

Penalty for private use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NLR LIBRA44ZL I
LIBRARY
__
FED RESERVE BANK OF ST LOUIS

PO box 4*2._____ |___ ____ .________ L.
SAINT LOU

U.S.MAIL