Full text of Monthly Labor Review : April 1983, Volume 106, Number 4

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

; tiM :
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW


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

In this Issue:
Employment in the nonprofit sector,
and productivity in the service sector

H

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
April 1983
I

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary

Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

Region I — Boston; Anthony J. Ferrara
1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center,
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: (617) 223-6761
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

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 —
$26 domestic; $32.50 foreign.
Single copy $3.50.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) 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 April 30, 1987. Second-class
postage paid at Washington, D.C. and at additional mailing addresses.
ISSN 0098-1818

Region II — New York: Samuel M. Ehrenha/t
1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N.Y. 10036
Phone: (212) 944-3121
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III — Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margu/is
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
Phone: (215) 596-1154
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Region IV — Atlanta: Donald 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: William E Rice
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, III. 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880
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: Elliott A. Browar
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

Fragment panel from a mural
painted by Edward Laning in 1937.
Formerly located on Ellis Island, the
mural was retrieved and restored by
the General Services Administration.
Cover design by Richard L. Mathews,
Audio-Visual Communication Services,
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) 556^4678
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
APRIL 1983
VOLUME 106, NUMBER 4

L IB R A R Y

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

APR 2 6 1983

P. H. Mirvis, E. J. Hackett

3

Work and the work force in the nonprofit sector
Workers in nonprofit jobs find more challenge, variety, and intrinsic rewards than those
in private enterprise or government, according to a sample of tax-exempt organizations

Sylvia Lazos Terry

13

Work experience, earnings, and family income in 1981
The number employed rose but so did the number without jobs, as the recovery aborted;
however, jobless high-wage workers maintained family incomes above the poverty level

R. E. Kutscher, J. A. Mark

21

The service-producing sector: some common perceptions
Many service industries are capital intensive, and the range of expansion in output per
hour is not significantly different from that found among goods-producing industries

IRRA PAPERS
M. J. Roomkin, R. N. Block
Michael J. Piore
S. M. Jacoby, D. J. B. Mitchell


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

25
26

Regulatory system encourages employers to take the offensive
Labor market segmentation theory: critics should let paradigm evolve

28

Are long-duration contracts insurance against strikes?
REPORTS

David M. Nelson
Nancy Rytina
Sunder Magun

30 The use of worklife tables in estimates of lost earning capacity
32 Comparing annual and weekly earnings from the CPS
36 Unemployment experience in Canada: a 5-year longitudinal analysis
DEPARTMENTS
2
25
30
32
39
41
45
49

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

Labor M onth
In Review
IMPACT. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics continued its
series of publications on new technology
by appraising some of the major
technological changes emerging among
five American industries, including
trucking and printing and publishing.
The report discusses the impact of the
changes on productivity and labor over
the next 5 to 10 years. Excerpts:

TECHNOLOGICAL

Printing and publishing. New tech­

nology is being introduced throughout
the printing and publishing industry.
These innovations frequently involve the
application of electronic techniques in
place of mechanical equipment. High­
speed phototypesetting machines, com­
puterized typesetting, video display ter­
minals, and electronic scanners are
among technologies which have brought
about significant changes in composi­
tion and typesetting—areas where about
2 out of every 5 printing craftworkers
are employed. Employment in printing
craft occupations associated with letterpress or hot-metal typesetting has been
declining as offset printing, which in­
volves photographic techniques, has
become increasingly dominant. Tech­
nological changes also are reducing
labor requirements and modifying job
skills in platemaking and printing press,
binding, and mailroom operations.
Employment in computer-related oc­
cupations has been increasing.
Intercity trucking. Most of the tech­
nologies and managerial techniques be­
ing applied in the trucking industry have
been available for many years. However,
the energy price rise has increased the
cost effectiveness and diffusion of
several of these, especially for twin
trailers, one of the more important
technologies. In addition, an increase in
computer applications, the diffusion of
the diesel engine, and decisions by more
carriers to engage in inter-firm freight
2

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

consolidations are increasing labor pro­
ductivity and reducing costs.
Unlike the slower, more moderate
changes brought about by new tech­
nology, the trucking regulatory reform
legislation enacted in 1980 is likely to
have a substantial impact on productivi­
ty and labor. Coming at about the same
time, the downturn in the economy is
seriously depressing the industry. The
outlook for the 1980’s depends on the
interpretation of the legislation as well as
the strength of the economy.
Water transportation. Changes in
technology that have made ships and
cargo handling operations more produc­
tive have facilitated the substantial ex­
pansion in U.S. waterborne commerce
since 1960. Containerized cargo han­
dling technology has greatly increased
the speed with which ships can be loaded
and unloaded, thereby reducing the un­
productive time that ships spend in port.
This faster turnaround time also has
reduced the amount of stevedoring work
required, resulting in less employment
for longshore workers.
Although merchant ship size and car­
go capacities have increased, crew size
aboard these ships has declined. Tech­
nological changes such as centralized
engine controls, bow thrusters, improv­
ed marine coatings, and changes in food
preparation have reduced labor require­
ments aboard ships, allowing smaller
crews to operate these larger ships.

Technological
changes are underway in all the major
steps of copper ore mining, including
drilling and blasting, loading and haul­
ing, and ore processing operations. In
general, these changes involve expansion
of capacity and improvements in existing
technologies rather than radical innova­
tions.
Mining copper ore involves the blast­
ing and transport of vast quantities
Copper ore mining.

of ore and waste. Productivity gains
have resulted from improved equipment
for drilling holes in which explosives are
inserted and improved techniques for
their deployment, larger capacity electric
shovels and trucks for loading and haul­
ing, extension of conveyorization,
employment of trackless vehicles in
underground mines, and refinements in
ore concentrator operations.
Productivity growth in copper ore
mining has been uneven over the past
two decades as demand for copper has
fluctuated. Between 1960 and 1980, the
b l s index of output of recoverable metal
per employee hour increased at an an­
nual rate of 1.3 percent. The annual rate
of increase was 1.0 percent during the
early part of this period, 1960-67. Pro­
ductivity rose at a significantly higher
rate of 2.3 percent per year during
1967-80. However, from 1977 to 1980,
output per employee hour declined at an
annual rate of 3.8 percent as demand for
copper slackened and output fell.
Labricated structural metal. Tech­

nological advances are being adopted
gradually in the fabricated structural
metal industry. New technology has
taken the form of improvements in the
control and operation of machine tools
and, for the first time, the adoption of a
production line approach. Some occupa­
tions have been affected by a reduction
in unit labor requirements. (See “ Pro­
ductivity growth below average in
fabricated structural metals,” in the
June 1980 issue of the Monthly Labor
Review.)

The five studies have been published in
bls
Bulletin 2137, The Impact o f
Technology on Labor in Five Industries,
which is available from the Superintend­
ent of Documents, Government Print­
ing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Price: $5.00.
□

Work and work force characteristics
in the nonprofit sector
Nonprofit jobs provide more challenge,
variety, satisfaction, and intrinsic rewards
than those in private enterprise or government,
according to a small national sample o f workers in schools,
hospitals, philanthropic and
other tax-exempt organizations
P hilip H. M irvis

and

E dward J. H ackett

Increasing proportions of the U.S. work force have been
attracted to employment in private nonprofit institutions
— organizations which constitute the third sector of the
economy.1 The popular view is that these persons are
attracted by the ideals of selfless service and work fulfill­
ment, and have chosen to avoid the competitiveness of
profitmaking firms, and the impersonality of government
bureaucracy. But the view also holds that low pay, job
pressures, and lack of resources cause these workers to
seek employment in other sectors. This study examines
such popular views by comparing characteristics of work
and the work force in the for-profit, government, and
nonprofit sectors, using data from the 1977 Quality of
Employment Survey, conducted by the Institute for So­
cial Research at the University of Michigan.
Sociologists, psychologists, and economists have
treated organization size and technology, employee back­
ground and personality, and industry and occupation as
the key explanatory factors in their models of the quali­
ty of employment. Sector— for-profit, government, or
nonprofit — represents an important but neglected facet
of the work environment. The nature of an organizaPhilip H. Mirvis and Edward J. Hackett are Research Associates of
the Center for Applied Social Science, Boston University. Mirvis is an
assistant professor in the School of Management at the same universi­
ty. Hackett is also with the Center for Research on Women, Wellesley
College.


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

tion’s mission — to make a profit, to serve the citizenry,
or to educate, entertain, and cure privately but without
profit— permeates its culture and identity. It serves
both as a selector and a socializer, attracting particular
segments of the work force and motivating and satisfy­
ing them with particular rewards. To assess the degree
to which sector shapes the quality of employment, this
study compares third-sector working people with gov­
ernment and profit-sector employees.
Studies of the characteristics of the work force have
been conducted in each of the three sectors, but assign­
ment of employees to sector has been based on Stan­
dard Industrial Classification codes which only approx­
imate the contours of the sectors, and the data analyzed
have not addressed all of the questions of interest here.2
There have also been surveys of employment conditions
in selected industries and occupations, in firms, the Fed­
eral Government, and in the work force at large.3 And
studies have compared working conditions in the pri­
vate versus public sectors.4 But these surveys and stud­
ies have varied in content, purpose, and sampling
framework and, in the case of national surveys, have
not compared employment conditions in the three sec­
tors. Available data suggest that the characteristics and
earnings of third-sector workers may differ substantially
from those employed in the other two sectors. But it is
not known whether employee attitudes, work orienta3

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Work and Workers in the Nonprofit Sector
tions, job characteristics, and motivations and satisfac­
tions differ across the sectors.

Understanding intersectoral differences
Theories of for-profit organization emphasize that
there is a common bond linking the interests of stock­
holders, employees, and consumers based upon the effi­
cient distribution of resources. There is also a bond in
government between voter-constituents and public ser­
vants based upon the equitable distribution of re­
sources. In nonprofits, however, there are no governing
distribution criteria because it is impossible to monitor
and measure whether beneficiaries have received dona­
tions. And, even where beneficiaries partially subsidize
services, as in the case of public radio listeners and tele­
vision viewers, theater- and museumgoers, or private
school attendees, it is not possible to ensure that their
resources are used efficiently or equitably. To make the
nonprofit form viable, or “trustworthy,” Federal and
State laws bar nonprofits from distributing net earnings
to members, officers, or trustees.5 Most nonprofit orga­
nizations are incorporated, and this “nondistribution”
requirement ensures that no one within the firm profits
from inefficiencies or inequities. Incorporated nonprofits
include philanthropic organizations, private tax-exempt
institutions to which donors’ contributions are tax ex­
empt, as well as membership groups such as social
clubs and labor unions (not included in these analyses).6
Credit unions and other financial nonprofits are not
treated as third-sector organizations.7
From these legal differences between nonprofit and
other forms of work organization, there may follow eco­
nomic, political, and social differences that invite inves­
tigation. First, the nondistribution requirement becomes
an economic constraint limiting the earning potential of
nonprofit employees. Does it follow that the sector may
attract only those who can “afford” to work in non­
profits or, alternatively, those who cannot find work in
the other two sectors? Or do other factors attract em­
ployees to the third sector and motivate them in their
jobs? Second, the weak links among members, benefi­
ciaries, and contributors in the nonprofit sector limit
the degree of external control over the organization’s
actions. There are few market forms of accountability
for governmental and nonprofit workers. In govern­
ment, however, controls are internalized through politi­
cal appointments, administrative reviews, and formal
policies, procedures, and work rules. In nonprofits,
boards of directors perform policymaking and adminis­
trative functions, but mechanisms for translating policy
into procedures and actions are often less formal.8 Does
it follow that alternative forms of political and social
control may be in force?
A third difference between sectors concerns their
functioning. Nonprofits are an amalgam because they
4


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

produce public goods through private means. In each
sector, the output, particularly of service employees, is
difficult to measure and the production process is diffi­
cult to monitor. Profitmaking firms are able to rational­
ize their production functions by assigning a dollar
market value to components and computing a rate of
return on resources expended. A hierarchical form of
organization monitors the overall production process
and employees seek efficiency in service delivery to max­
imize their earning potential. This may ensure that em­
ployees have clearer objectives and more resources to
do their jobs in for-profit organizations. It may also
mean that they have less autonomy and influence in the
production process. In the same way, government bu­
reaucracy provides an administrative rationality that
gives governmental employees a clearer perspective on
job duties and freedom from conflicting demands. But
it may also limit their autonomy and influence. The
question here is whether nonprofit workers avoid both
the costs and benefits of bureaucracy. Does it follow
that they have greater autonomy and influence but
more ambiguous goals and fewer resources? Further­
more, do goal ambiguity and limited resources contrib­
ute to employees’ desire to look for another kind of
job?

Data and method for the study
The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey was de­
signed to examine the physical and social characteristics
of work and the work force in the United States
through personal interviews with a representative sam­
ple of employed persons (details on the survey and its
administration are presented in the appendix). The sur­
vey did not categorize respondents by employment sec­
tor but it did provide information needed to make this
determination. Respondents were categorized by exam­
ining the survey forms of those persons employed in in­
dustries which might be found in the nonprofit and
governmental sectors. Most government employees were
clearly identifiable and those employed in religious or­
ganizations were categorized as nonprofit employees.
Surveys of teachers, health-care employees, and persons
employed in arts and cultural organizations were scruti­
nized for identifying information about employment sec­
tor. In this way, public and private schoolteachers and
governmental and nongovernmental health-care and so­
cial-service employees were distinguished.9 To further
identify the employment sector of respondents, employ­
ers’ names and addresses were checked against State
records to ascertain sector status and, in some in­
stances, employers were contacted (preserving the re­
spondent’s anonymity) regarding profit-nonprofit status.
For cases lacking information about sector or place of
employment, the Institute for Social Research contacted
interviewers for more information. Identification was es-

tablished for 70 nonprofit, 239 government, and 1,171
profit-sector sector employees (35 respondents’ sector
could not be ascertained and these persons were
dropped from the analysis).
Based upon the entire 1977 Quality of Employment
sample, it is estimated that 15.8 percent of all respon­
dents work in the governmental sector and 4.6 percent
in the nonprofit sector. These estimates are comparable
to those based upon other data sources.10
Four major sets of variables were drawn from the
survey to answer the questions posed here. First, there
are data on the occupations and demographic character­
istics of employees in each sector. Second, there are
data on employees’ education and work experience,
work orientation, and job mobility. These data provide
a profile of workers in each sector and information for
assessing the selection processes of the sectors. An un­
derlying question is whether governmental and nonprof­
it sector organizations serve as employers of first choice
for those seeking to put their ideals and skills into prac­
tice or as employers of last resort for less educated, less
mobile, and more “marginal” members of the work
force. A comparison of the levels of education, m aturi­
ty, and financial security of employees in the three sec­
tors helps to answer this question. Another question is
whether women and minorities, traditionally attracted
to and employed in second- and third-sector organiza­
tions, continue to predominate in those sectors.11
Do the working conditions, jobs, and roles of em­
ployees differ in the three sectors? The third set of data,
which covers these aspects of the quality of employ­
ment, provides objective information on wages and ben­
efits and respondents’ subjective assessments of their
working conditions, jobs, and roles. The Quality of Em­
ployment survey contains no data on pay policies, gov­
ernance structures, or control mechanisms in employing
organizations. But the survey does provide information
on employees’ ratings of the fairness of their pay, influ­
ence on job decisions, and autonomy in job perfor­
mance. On the basis of such perceptions, a comparison
can be made among the job level political and social
controls found in the three sectors.
Do the rewards of working in each of the sectors dif­
fer? Are outcomes such as satisfaction, effort, and the
desire to look for different work the same across sec­
tors? The fourth set of measures covers these rewards
and outcomes of work and becomes a summative indica­
tor of the quality of employment in each of the sectors.
Also reported are indicators of the quality of life off
the job, including measures of health, political activity,
and life satisfaction.
Two sets of analyses were undertaken to compare dif­
ferences among the three sectors. The first compares dif­
ferences for all respondents across the sectors and
provides basic data on employees and employment con­


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

ditions. Differences are expected in worker profiles in
each of the sectors and in the conditions of employment
because of the predominance of particular industries in
each sector and occupational “screening processes.” 12
Thus, the second analysis compares differences for only
those respondents whose occupations are found in all
three sectors. This eliminates from the sample a large
number of private-sector and a smaller number of pub­
lic-sector blue-collar workers in craft, operative, and la­
bor functions, as well as sales and farm employees. The
blue-collar workers in the for-profit sector have been
found to have lower ratings of the quality of employ­
ment than other occupational groups.13 By eliminating
them from the second analysis, differences might be
compared in work and in the work force in the three
sectors, controlling for key screening processes and oc­
cupation-based differences in working conditions.14

Occupations and demographics
Data on the occupations and demographic character­
istics of respondents in the three sectors show the
prominence of professional, service, and, to some extent,
clerical employees in the nonprofit and government sec­
tors as compared to the for-profit sector. (See table 1.)
These findings agree with studies of occupational pro­
files in each of the sectors drawn from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, and related indus­
try and occupation data. Nonprofit respondents are all
employed in service industries. Some 40.3 percent of the
government sample are in direct government service,
while 58 percent are employed in schools, health-care
institutions, and other social services. The remainder are
employed in transportation. About 17 percent of the
for-profit sample are employed in service industries.
The matched occupation sample represents profes­
sional, managerial, clerical, and service workers in all
three sectors. This accounts for 100 percent of the
nonprofit, 94.4 percent of the government, and 48.0 per­
cent of the for-profit sample. This matched occupation
sample has a higher percentage of professional and a
lower percentage of managerial employees in the second
and third sectors.
Data on year of birth show smaller proportions of
younger (under 30 at the time of the survey) and older
(over 55) workers in government and nonprofits as
compared to for-profit organizations. This first finding
is interesting as it is contrary to Sarason’s speculation
that the ideals of the “baby boom” generation were
leading them toward nonprofit and governmental ser­
vice.15 One interpretation is that these idealists’ entry
into the second and third sectors has been delayed by
their need for further education and credentialing for
professional service. Yet, the same trend is found in the
sample matched by occupation. Thus, it may be that fi­
nancial needs, aspirations, and opportunities are leading
5

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Work and Workers in the Nonprofit Sector

Table 1.

Composition of sectors by selected worker characteristics

[In percent]
Sector

Characteristic
Profit

Nonprofit

Government

Occupation
Professional ........................
Manager ..........................
Sales..............................
Clerical ..............................
Craft ..................................
Operative............................
Laborer ..............................
Farmer................................
Farm laborer ......................
Service worker....................

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

8.1
15.1
6.2
15.5
16.8
21.4
3.9
2.3
.7
9.3

49.5
8.3
0.0
18.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.9

44.3
5.9
0.0
21.0
2.0
1.7
2.0
0.0
0.0
23.2

10.5
26.0
32.9
16.3
12.2
2.1

6.6
23.6
37.7
20.8
10.4
.9

3.2
26.9
37.2
19.5
11.2
2.0

64.5
35.5

36.7
63.3

43.1
56.9

93.3
6.7

92.0
8.0

88.9
11.1

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

Less than 3 months ..............
3 to 12 months..................
1 to 3 years ..........................
3 to 5 years..........................
5 to 10 years........................
10 to 20 years ......................
More than 20 years ........

Government

13.7
19.7
21.2
11.9
14.7
11.6
7.3

22.5
19.6
20.6
10.3
19.6
6.5
.9

12 3
109
25 8
143
18 8
160
20

Annual income (in dollars):
All workers..................
Full-time workers only............

$13,236
14,981

$ 8,935
10,200

$13,317
14 008

Number of fringe benefits:
One or none ......................
Two..........................
Three ..........................
Four ....................................
Five or more ........................

21.5
29.7
17.6
27.0
4.2

35 2
35.2
22.9
6.7
0.0

10 1
35 0
40 6
14.0
.3

48.5
33.3
18.2

71.3
12.9
15.8

50.7
34 9
15.2

63.4

45.8

58 9

Wages and benefits

8.6
15.8
40.7
23.2
7.5
4.1

Education fits job ................
Overeducated for job ............
Undereducated for job ..........
Work outcomes
Workers who wish to find
different job, as percent of
all workers......................

Education
8 years or le s s ....................
9 to 11 years ......................
High school graduate ..........
Some college....................
College graduate ................
Post-graduate education . . . .

Nonprofit

Education-job match

Race
White........................
Minority ......................

Profit
Job tenure

Year of birth
1957-61
1948-56
1933-48
1923-32
1913-22
1900-12

Sector

Characteristic

1.8
11.3
24.5
18.9
14.2
28.3

3.7
6.9
27.5
22.3
12.6
26.9

N ote. All differences between sectors are statistically significant at the .01 level in both the full sample and the sample matched by occupation. Wage differences were tested using one-way analy­
sis of variance; other differences were tested using a chi-squared test of Independence.
y
y

a higher proportion of young people into for-profit em­
ployment.
A higher proportion of minority workers are em­
ployed in government as compared to the other two
sectors. Higher wages for minorities in public service
and traditionally greater employment opportunities may
be the attraction.16A higher proportion of women, how­
ever, are employed in the third sector, particularly in
comparison to for-profit employment. Apart from op­
portunity, three other factors may contribute to this.
First, there are more part-time employees proportion­
ately in the third sector and the flexibility of part-time
employment may be especially attractive to working
mothers. Indeed, a higher proportion of women
employed in the third sector have children under 18 in
their households. Second, a higher proportion of women
in nonprofits have working spouses and/or other earn­
ers in their families when compared to women
employed in government. In this sense, they may be
better able to afford to work in third-sector organiza­
tions. Finally it may be that the ideal of selfless service
simply draws proportionately more women to the sec­
tor.
6

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

Education, experience, mobility, and orientation
Data on the education, experience, mobility, and
work orientation of employees in the three sectors show
proportionately many more workers with college and
post-graduate degrees in nonprofits (42.5 percent) and
government agencies (39.5 percent) when compared to
the for-profit sector (11.6 percent). In part, this may be
attributable to the greater proportion of professional
jobs in these sectors. Yet, this difference remains in the
sample matched by occupation. Thus, it may be that
education serves a “credentialing” as well as preparato­
ry function for employees in these two sectors. Particu­
larly for professionals, it serves as a surrogate measure
of performance and value to the institution.17 Of course,
it may also be that employees who work in these sec­
tors simply have a greater interest in formal education.
There is little difference in the years of work experi­
ence for employees in the three sectors; the average forprofit worker has been in the labor force 18 years, com­
pared with 17 years for those in the other sectors.
Nonprofit workers, however, have less tenure in their
jobs than those employed in government and in for-pro-

fit firms: 42 percent have been on the job less than 1
year, compared with 33 percent in the for-profit sector
and 23 percent in government; and only 7 percent have
tenure of more than 10 years, versus about 18 percent
in the other two sectors. This may reflect the volatility
of nonprofit organizations, but it also may reflect the
greater mobility of nonprofit employees. Those employed
in the sector are more likely to believe their skills will
be valuable in 5 years than those employed in govern­
ment and for-profit firms. (See table 2.) Other things
equal, this suggests that they have greater job mobility.
Two other factors promoting mobility are organiza­
tion size and promotional opportunities within a firm.
For-profit employees work in larger firms and report
having more chances for promotion than do nonprofit
workers. Lack of promotional opportunities may con­
tribute to the lower levels of tenure among third-sector
people. Interestingly, government employees report hav­
ing even less chance for promotion, yet have relatively
longer tenure than nonprofit employees. Perhaps the in­
come and job security afforded by government employ­
ment reduce the effect that lower chances of advance­
ment might otherwise have on turnover decisions.
These findings can help address the question of
whether employment in the second and third sectors is
a “first choice” or “last resort.” In the sample matched
by occupation, we found second- and third-sector em­
ployees to be better educated and somewhat older than
their for-profit counterparts with equal levels of work
experience, suggesting that employment in the second
and third sectors is based upon choice. But two caveats
need insertion. First, some employees are simply funneled into jobs unique to a sector. Second, differences in
ratings of mobility and tenure in the sectors, key indica­
tors that employment remains a choice, are less pro­
nounced in the matched occupation sample.
Nonetheless, speculation on the factors contributing
to the employment choice of second- and third-sector
workers is worthwhile. The appeal of human service in
these sectors could be a factor in the occupational deci­
sions of women and minorities. In the choice between
government and nonprofit service, however, other fac­
tors may be present. One obvious factor could be fi­
nances. Those choosing nonprofits may have greater fi­
nancial security (women in the nonprofit sector are
more likely to have other earners in their homes). An­
other factor might be the work orientation of employ­
ees. Nonprofit employees are more likely to report that
their work is more important to them than the money
they earn.18 (Differences in this nonmonetary orientation
are also significant in the matched sample comparison.)
Work as such is not more important to them, for em­
ployees in all three sectors indicate that working is im­
portant to them and say that they would continue to
work even if it were not a financial necessity. But em­


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

ployees in the nonprofit sector, and to a lesser extent in
government, say that their jobs are more important to
them than do those in the for-profit sector.
Apparently, second- and third-sector workers bring a
stronger commitment to their jobs than do their coun­
terparts in for-profit organizations. Data suggest that
some government workers get locked into their jobs by
the material security. Thus, at some point, employment
in their jobs may become less a choice and more of a
necessity. But others in government and those in the
nonprofit sector may make and sustain their choices on
an ideological basis.

Wages, working conditions, and work roles
Significant differences were found in wages, working
conditions, jobs, and work roles among employees in
the three sectors. Two income statistics are reported
and both show nonprofit employees earning much less
than those in the other two sectors. (See table 1.) In the
case of all persons employed 20 hours or more per
week, nonprofit employees earn 67.5 percent of for-prof­
it and 67.1 percent of government wages. For persons
employed 35 hours or more per week, nonprofit em­
ployees earn 68.1 percent of for-profit and 72.8 percent
of government wages. These findings conform to rough
estimates of differences in wages between sectors com­
puted by T. Nichlaus Tideman using BLS data.
Several factors may account for the earnings differen­
tials between sectors, such as differences in occupational
distributions, the percentage of men versus wom­
en in the sectors, and so forth.19However, significant dif­
ferences were also found in the matched occupation
sample. Again, differences in job and sex compositions
may account for some of the differential, but it is sus­
pected that nonprofit organizations simply pay less than
for-profit and governmental organizations. The number
of fringe benefits received also shows sectoral differences
in compensation. Fully one-third of those employed in
nonprofit establishments receive only one or no fringe
benefits, compared with one-fifth of profit-sector work­
ers and one-tenth of government employees.
The actual earning differential between the sectors is
reflected in respondents’ ratings of their wages and bene­
fits. (See table 2.) Employees in the nonprofit sector
rate wages and benefits less favorably than those in the
other two sectors. Interestingly, they do not appear to
rate their compensation as less fair in comparison to
what others are paid, for the intersectoral differences
are not statistically significant.
In the total sample, government employees earned
more than for-profit employees, but in the case of full­
time workers only, the relationship was reversed. Be­
cause wage rates between these two sectors were roughly
comparable in 1977, the greater number of weekly hours
(43.6 versus 40.4 in government) worked by for-profit
7

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Work and Workers in the Nonproft Sector
employees may account for part of this income dif­
ference. Nonprofit employees worked an average of 42.2
hours per week, earned significantly less than their
counterparts, but still rated their pay to be as fair as
did those employed in the other two sectors. Two ex­
planations can be offered for these judgments. First,
nonprofit employees’ reference group may be others in
the sector, rather than workers in government or in
profit-making firms. Second, nonprofit employees’ non­
monetary orientation toward their work would make
wages and fringe benefits less salient rewards.
The data show no differences across the three sectors
in ratings of job comfort, including work hours, physi­
cal surroundings, workload, ease of travel to and from
work, and so on. There are also no differences in ratings
of job security. This latter statistic is surprising as we
expected non-profit employees to have less security
(they work in smaller firms and fewer are unionized).
The survey was taken in 1977, however, when unem­
ployment was lower and governmental grants to non­
profits were proportionately greater than today. More­
over, the job mobility of nonprofit people might ease
their concerns over job security.
There were several differences between the sectors in
employees’ ratings of their jobs. First, nonprofit em­
ployees saw more variety and challenge in their jobs
than did those in government, and those in government
saw more than did those in for-profit employment. Sec­
ond, profit-sector employees report the highest levels of
feedback from the job, followed in turn by government
and nonprofit employees. Thus, it appears that nonprof­
it employees have more interesting work but less direct
feedback on how well they are performing.
Several factors may account for differences across the
sectors. The lower ratings of job challenge and variety
in the for-profit sector may be because of the substan­
tial share of blue-collar manufacturing work in the sec­
tor. But, because this difference is sustained in the
matched sample comparison, it is suspected that the
economic rationality embedded in the sector has frac­
tionated the scope and variety of work of for-profit pro­
fessionals, managers, and service personnel more than in
the other sectors. The gain is greater quantification of
work results and, thus, more feedback for employees.20
In government, it is believed that, through administra­
tive rationality, the variety and challenge of service
work has been reduced. That the structure of the work
environment has created a “misfit” between the skills of
employees and the demands of jobs in the for-profit and
government sectors is evident in ratings of education
versus job demands. More than one-third of employees
in these sectors report they are “overeducated” for their
work, compared with only one-eighth of nonprofit
workers, and this difference remains significant in the
matched occupation sample.
8

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

Another major difference in jobs across the sectors
concerns employees’ autonomy— their freedom and re­
sponsibility to decide what to do and when. Govern­
ment employees have less autonomy than their count­
erparts in both the full and matched occupation
samples. It may be that centralization limits the freedom
and responsibility of government workers.21 In the
profitmaking sector, however, there is also less autono­
my than in the nonprofit sector. Perhaps tighter con­
trols, as shown in work measurement and accountabil­
ity systems, limit the freedom of professional and service
workers to set their own performance standards.22
Non-profit employees, less fettered by centralization and
controls, have more autonomy in doing their jobs, re­
port more variety and challenge, and find that their edu­
cation is matched to their job demands.
All of this suggests that nonprofit employees get
satisfaction from their work which may compensate for
lower wages and benefits.23 This is not to say that forprofit employees are not satisfied with the work itself—
only that they are less satisfied than those in the other
sectors. Nor is it to suggest that government workers
take less satisfaction in doing their jobs. Indeed, the
data indicate that both nonprofit and government em­
ployees find that their work is more meaningful and has
a greater effect on others than do those in the for-profit
sector. Human service seems a great source of satisfac­
tion for those in the second and third sectors. But
nonprofit employees may derive greater satisfaction
from the service delivery process itself.
There seems to be one cost to this in the nonprofit sec­
tor: the lack of job feedback. One possibility is that
third-sector workers rely on feedback from their peers
and supervisors, rather than from the job itself, to learn
about their performance. But the data do not support
this, suggesting instead that their autonomy may simply
leave them less informed about the results of their work.
Data on work roles highlight other costs and benefits
of the nonprofit organization form. In theory, nonprofit
employees should have greater role stress. Given the na­
ture of their work, their job duties should be less clear;
given their funding base, they should have fewer re­
sources. Finally, given that many have human service
functions, they should report in a dual hierarchy to ad­
ministrators and supervisors and thus have more role
conflict.24 Along this line of reasoning, government em­
ployees should have somewhat less role stress and forprofit workers even less.
The data, however, show only that nonprofit and
government workers face more demanding time pres­
sures. Nonprofit employees have slightly more ambigu­
ous job duties, fewer resources, and more role conflict
in comparison with respondents in the other two sec­
tors, but the differences are not statistically significant
and disappear in the matched sample. Several explana-

tions can be offered for these findings.
One possibility is that stress is simply based upon oc­
cupation, independent of the organization’s form.
Another is that nonprofit and government workers have
accomodated themselves to these stressors and come to
regard lower levels of resources and higher levels of am­
biguity and conflict as “acceptable” in calibrating their
ratings of their work roles. This would be consistent with
the “burnout” literature.25 A third possibility is that the
organization form in these sectors has helped them to
adapt. Government workers have more rules and proce­
dures governing their work. Other data, while not statis­
tically significant, suggest that they receive somewhat
more help from their supervisors and co-workers. Thus,
collegial assistance and precise rules may clarify their job
duties and reduce role pressures and conflicts.
How do nonprofit workers cope? They, too, receive
more help. In addition, W. H. Newman and H. W.
Wallender suggest that they develop a “mystique” about
the organization and come to accept pressures and con­
flicts as integral to their work and the organization’s mis­
sion.26 Two findings hint at the existence of such a
nonprofit mystique. Nonprofit workers are slightly
(though not significantly) more inclined to rate their ser­
vices as up to public standards and are less likely to re­
port that their jobs sometimes go against their con­
science. Another factor contributing to this mystique
could be the collegial form of governance practiced in
many nonprofits. Private schools and colleges, and many
of the so-called “alternative” organizations found in the
third sector espouse and practice a democratic form of
organization.27 Nonprofit workers indicate thât they have
more influence in work and organization decisions than
do those in government and for-profit employment. (See
table 2.) This form of organization may create a greater
sense of commitment and involvement for employees,
and serve to clarify jobs and soften role stresses.
There are costs associated with the organizational ad­
aptations in the second and third sectors. Bureaucracy,
Peter Drucker notes, threatens to “swallow up” perfor­
mance in the public sector.28 Indeed, the data here show
that governmental supervisors are seen as having lower
performance standards in comparison to supervisors in
the other two sectors.29 Collectivism, in turn, can also
slow decision processes and promote “meeting mania.”
The key question, to be examined next, is whether these
adaptations contribute to greater motivation and satis­
faction in the second and third sectors.

Rewards and outcomes
J. W. Porter and E. E. Lawler have argued that
wages, working conditions, jobs, and work roles serve
to motivate employees when they are linked to job per­
formance.30 This conception treats compensation, inter­
esting work, influence, and the like as rewards for


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

employees. Two types of rewards are distinguished.
Those linked to material gratification and advancement
are called extrinsic rewards, while those endemic to the
work itself are called intrinsic rewards. These research­
ers, and many others, find that individuals value these
rewards differently.31 Job satisfaction follows from the
receipt of valued rewards.
Employees in the for-profit sector report some likeli­
hood of receiving extrinsic rewards, whereas nonprofit
and government employees report that it is unlikely
they will receive a pay increase or promotion as a re­
ward for good performance. (See table 2.) By contrast,
workers in these two sectors are more likely to feel a
sense of accomplishment and to feel better about them­
selves when they do their jobs well. Their ratings of in­
trinsic rewards complement their higher ratings of job
characteristics.
Ratings of the effort expended on the job are higher
in the nonprofit and government sectors than in the forprofit sector, but this difference also disappears in the
matched sample. However, ratings of higher job satis­
faction in the second and third sectors are recorded in
both the full and matched samples. This same trend is
evident in ratings of total effort and emotional invest­
ment in the job (a combination of effort, satisfaction,
and job involvement ratings).
One interpretation of these data is that intrinsic fea­
tures of their jobs are prime motivators for profession­
als, managers, clericals, and service workers in all three
sectors. As a source of satisfaction, however, govern­
ment and especially nonprofit employees place a greater
emphasis on them. This would be consistent with their
nonmonetary orientation and higher job involvement.
Further confirmation of sectoral differences in employ­
ees’ commitment to their jobs is found in ratings of em­
ployees’ desires, if they could do it all over again, to
take the same job. More for-profit employees would
choose a different job than those in government, and
more in government would choose differently than in
the third sector. This trend is significant in the matched
occupation sample as well.
In these data, there is scant indication that the high
quality of worklife of nonprofit employees “spills over”
into nonwork life.32 Ratings of satisfaction with life and
of health are not significantly different across the sec­
tors. Government and nonprofit employees take a great­
er interest in politics and are more likely to vote and
work in political campaigns than are those in the profit
sector. This difference disappears in the matched occu­
pation sample, however, and is likely a result of sector
selection processes.

Summary and commentary
The survey results show that employees in the forprofit sector have higher wages, rate their benefits,
9

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Work and Workers in the Nonprofit Sector
wages, and promotional opportunities more favorably,
and find their extrinsic rewards to be based more upon
their performance. In turn, third-sector employees bring
to their jobs a greater commitment and nonmonetary

orientation and find more challenge, variety, and auton­
omy in their jobs and more influence and, perhaps,
mystique in, their work roles. Nonprofit workers also
find more intrinsic rewards in their jobs. The majority

Table 2. Workers’ ratings of selected aspects of their jobs by sector,1 and statistical significance level of intersectoral
differences
Sector

Significance level of intersectoral differences2

Job aspect
Profit

Nonprofit

Government

Total sample

Sample matched by
occupation

3.4
3.9

3.7
3.6

3.5
2.9

.01
.01

.01
.01

3.0
3.8
2.8

4.2
3.8
3.1

3.5
3.8
3.0

.01
_
.01

.01
_
.01

3.4

2.9

3.5

.01

.01

3.6
2.9
2.5

3.6
3.0
2.4

3.7
3.0
2.5

_
-

-

3.3
3.4
3.6
3.3
4.2
4.1
3.4
4.1

3.8
3.6
4.1
3.5
4.5
3.8
3.5
4.4

3.5
3.3
3.9
3.4
4.4
4.0
3.6
4.3

.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01

.05
.01
.01

4.2
2.6
3.0
3.4
3.3

4.0
2.9
3.3
3.2
3.7

4.2
2.8
3.1
3.5
3.3

_

_

.05
_
.05
-

_
.01
.01

4.2
4.5
4.4
4.1

4.1
4.6
4.0
4.2

4.2
4.6
3.4
4.3

_

_

.01
-

.01
-

4.0
2.4

4.1
2.1

3.9
2.4

_

_

.05

.05

4.8
2.4

5.0
1.7

4.9
1.8

.05
.01

.01

4.2
3.6
3.6

4.5
4.0
4.0

4.4
3.9
3.8

.05
.01
.01

.05
.01

3.2
5.9
2.5

3.4
6.0
2.8

3.3
5.9
2.8

.01

-

Job mobility
Value of skills in 5 years ......................................................................
Promotion opportunities ........................................................................
Work orientation
Nonmonetary orientation of worker ........................................................
Work involvement ................................................................................
Job involvement ...................................................................................
Wages and benefits
Wage and benefit rating........................................................................
Work conditions
Job security rating................................................................................
Comfort on job .....................................................................................
Fairness of pay .....................................................................................

_
-

Task characteristics
Variety .................................................................................................
Autonomy.............................................................................................
Challenge.............................................................................................
Completeness......................................................................................
Impact on others ..................................................................................
Feedback from jo b ................................................................................
Feedback from other workers................................................................
Meaningfulness ....................................................................................

-

.05
.01
_
.01

Work roles
Clarity of jo b .........................................................................................
Under time pressure ............................................................................
Demands of work conflict......................................................................
Existence of work rules and procedures ................................................
Worker influence on jo b ........................................................................

-

Work resources
Enough information, authority, and equipment to do job............................
Enough help from supervisor ................................................................
Rating of supervisor’s standards............................................................
Rating of co-workers .............................................................................
Organization standards
Products or services up to public standards............................................
Job requires violating conscience ..........................................................
Rewards for performance
Intrinsic rewards ...................................................................................
Extrinsic rewards..................................................................................
Work outcomes
Overall effort expended ........................................................................
Overall job satisfaction...........................................................................
Total energy and investment in the job ..................................................

_

Life outcomes
Satisfaction with life ..............................................................................
Health3 ...............................................................................................
Level of worker political activity..............................................................

'Scale scores range from 1 (low) to 5 (high). They were constructed by summing the survey
items which have been shown in the literature to reflect each dimension of work, and were
found to be adequately interrelated in these data using a principal components factor analy­
sis. The original survey items typically asked workers to describe aspects of their jobs using 4and 5-category Likert-type responses. Scale reliabilities and constituent items are available

10

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

from the authors on request.
2Dashes indicate that intersectoral differences, tested using a one-way analysis of variance,
were not statistically significant.
3The health measure was based on a seven-point scale.

would prefer to continue in their present work.
Government employees have some of the same work
orientation and also find intrinsic gratification in their
jobs. However, lower ratings of autonomy and influ­
ence, and higher ratings of rules and procedures may
dampen the effort and satisfaction of these employees.
These trends were also present, though not as pro­
nounced, in the sample of workers in the three sectors
matched as to occupation.
There is growing evidence of the link between the
quality of employment and employee productivity and
job satisfaction. The quality of employment has also
been linked to absenteeism, turnover, and poor quality
workmanship.33 In the past several years many for-profit
organizations have taken steps to enrich jobs and in­
crease employee influence in decision making. The data
herein suggest that increasing these intrinsic aspects of
work might increase the motivation and satisfaction of
for-profit employees. Such efforts might also increase
motivation and satisfaction in the other two sectors. But
the data indicate that providing more performance feed­
back and reducing the role stress of government and
nonprofit workers might pay an even larger dividend.
Changes in civil service laws, the increased monitor­
ing of nonprofits by funding sources and agencies, and

the wholesale importation of motivational, training,
incentive, and performance appraisal systems are all
seen as ways to improve efficiency in government and
nonprofit organizations.34 But will they truly improve
productivity and quality of worklife? Standards de­
signed to increase accountability and efficiency could
also centralize authority, limit flexibility, stifle innova­
tion, and create pressures toward achieving measured
goals of work quantity at the expense of quality.
Tighter controls could limit professionals’ freedom and
rigid measurement systems could alienate employees
from not only their service but also their ideals. Increas­
ing demands for efficiency could lead administrators to
demand too much from already time-pressured subordi­
nates. Or worse, these people, dedicated as they are to
their jobs, might assume a greater load but at the ex­
pense of their health and satisfaction and under a threat
of loss of their livelihood.
The irony in all this is that just as the for-profit sec­
tor seems to be “loosening up,” the second and third
sectors are “tightening up.” In our view, the move to
run government agencies and nonprofits “more like a
business” needs to be carefully considered. If not, they
may lose their identities and employees’ motivation and
satisfaction may actually suffer.
□

FOOTNOTES

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The authors wish to acknowledge the help
provided by the Institute for Social Research at the University of
Michigan and the financial support provided by the Program on Non­
profit Organizations, Yale University (Director, John Simon), and by
the School of Management, Boston University. We appreciate Susan
Zahm’s research assistance, and we thank Paul DiMaggio, Sharon
Harlan, Stan Seashore, and Amy Sonka for helpful comments on an
earlier draft of this manuscript.
1For data on the characteristics and growth of the third sector, see
Dale L. Hiestand, “Recent Trends in the Not-For-Profit Sector,” in
C o m m is sio n on P r iv a te P h ila n th r o p y a n d P u b lic N e e d s (U.S. Depart­
ment of the Treasury, 1977), pp. 333-37; and T. Nichlaus Tideman,
“Employment and Earnings in the Non-Profit Charitable Sectors,” in
C o m m is sio n on P r iv a te P h ila n th ro p y a n d P u b lic N e e d s (U.S. Depart­
ment of the Treasury, 1977), pp. 325-31. For an up-to-date estimate
of sector contours, see G. Rudney, “A Quantitative Profile of the
Nonprofit Sector,” Working Paper 40, PONPO (New Haven, Conn.,
Yale University, 1981).
2 Eli Ginzberg, Dale L. Hiestand, and Beatrice G. Reubens, Th e
P lu r a lis tic E c o n o m y (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965).
3Franklin P. Kilpatrick, Milton C. Cummings, Jr., and M. Kent
Jennings, T h e I m a g e o f th e F e d e r a l S e rvic e (Washington, The
Brookings Institution, 1964); F e d e r a l E m p lo y e e A ttitu d e s , P h a se I:
B u sin e ss S u rv e y, 1 9 7 9 (Washington, U.S. Office of Personnel Manage­
ment, 1979); Robert P. Quinn and Thomas W. Mangione, T h e 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 0 S u r v e y o f W o rk in g C o n d itio n s: C h ro n ic le s o f a n U n fin ish e d E n te r ­
p r is e (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administra­
tion, 1973); and, R.P. Quinn and G. Staines, Q u a lity o f E m p lo y m e n t,
1977, W ith C o m p a riso n s B etw e e n 1 9 7 3 - 1 9 7 7 (Ann Arbor, University

of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1979).
4 For a new report in this area, see M.P. Smith and S.L. Nock, “So­
cial class and quality of work life in public and private organiza­
tions,” J o u r n a l o f S o c ia l Issu es, Vol. 36, 1980, pp. 59-75.
s See H.B. Hansman, “The role of nonprofit enterprise,” T h e Y a le
L a w J o u rn a l, Vol. 89, 1980, pp. 835-901, for a full discussion of the


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

nonprofit form.
6The nonprofit organization is defined by Section 170(c)(2) of the
Internal Revenue Code as “A corporation, trust, or community chest,
fund, or foundation . . . organized exclusively for religious, charitable,
scientific, literary, or educational purposes or for the prevention of
cruelty to children or animals . . . .” The nondistribution requirement
comes from State charters. For a discussion of chartering arrange­
ments, see S. Lakeoff, “Private government in managed society,” in
J.R. Pennock and J. Chapman, eds., V o lu n ta ry O rg a n iza tio n s (New
York, Atherton Press, 1969).
7As per Department of Commerce’s National Income and Product
Accounts and IRS Code.
8Nonprofit boards, however, are not accountable to any particular
group of interests and may be self-perpetuating. Some States mandate
that community representatives sit on nonprofit boards. See W. Co­
hen, S o m e A sp e c ts o f E v o lv in g S o c ia l P o lic y in R e la tio n to P r iv a te
P h ila n th r o p y , The Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public
Needs, Research Papers V. II (U.S. Department of the Treasury,
1977), for discussion of boards; and J.M. Underwood, “How to serve
on a hospital board,” H a r v a r d B u sin e ss R ev ie w , July-August 1969, for
discussion of board members’ responsibilities.
9 Evidence of the size of public versus private schools, universities,
and health care institutions comes from S ta tis tic a l A b s tr a c t o f th e U n it­
e d S ta te s (Bureau of the Census, 1978); for public versus private muse­
ums, from M u s e u m s U .S .A .: A S u r v e y R e p o r t (National Research
Center for the Endowment for the Arts, 1974); and for public versus
private nursing homes, B. Dunlop, T h e G ro w th o f N u r sin g H o m e C a re
(Lexington, Mass., D.C. Heath and Co, 1979).
10T. Nichlaus Tideman, using data from the Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics and the American Hospital Association, estimated that 5.2 per­
cent of U.S. employment was in the nonprofit sector in 1974. Using a
different data base, Dale Hiestand estimated nonprofit employment at
5.9 percent. Both estimates, however, were based upon the numbers of
employees working in particular in d u str ie s weighted by the propor­
tions of nonprofit organizations within those industries. Such a

11

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Work and Workers in the Nonprofit Sector
weighting assumes that organizations are of equal size across the sec­
tors. However, employment data indicate that public schools, univer­
sities, and health care institutions are larger than private ones, so that
these estimates may be inflated. In any case, the proportion of em­
ployees in the nonprofit sector in the Quality of Employment survey
sample roughly approximates the proportion found in other employ­
ment data. Department of Labor data for 1977 show some 16 percent
of the employed civilian labor force over age 16 to be in government
service. Again, the Quality of Employment sample of government em­
ployees is slightly lower but in close approximation to the proportion
found in employment statistics.
" Ginzberg, T h e P lu r a lis tic E c o n o m y .
12 B.A. Weisbrod, “Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sec­
tor in a three sector economy,” in F.S. Phelps, ed., A ltr u is m , M o ra lity ,
a n d E c o n o m ic T h e o r y (New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1975).
" Smith and Nock, “Social class and quality of work life”; and F e d ­
e r a l E m p lo y e e A ttitu d e s .

14 For a complete accounting of the analysis procedures and tables
showing education levels, job tenure, years in the work force, and rat­
ings of the various characteristics of the quality of employment across
the sectors for the full and matched respondent samples, please write
the authors c /o The Center for Applied Social Science, Boston Uni­
versity, 195 Bay State Rd., Boston, Mass. 02215.
15 S.B. Sarason,
Press, 1977).

W ork, A g in g , a n d S o c ia l C h a n g e

(New York, Free

16 Melvin W. Reder, “The theory of employment and wages in the
public sector,” in Daniel S. Hamermesh, ed., L a b o r in th e P u b lic a n d
N o n p r o fit S e c to rs (Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1975),
pp. 1-48.
'Tideman, “Employment and earnings,” pp. 325-31.
18These ratings may reflect “justification,” for example, nonprofit
employees find that they earn less and, therefore, to explain their in­
terest in work, come to justify it with a nonmonetary orientation. See
B.M. Staw, “Motivation in organizations: toward synthesis and redi­
rection,” in B.M. Staw and G.R. Salancik, eds., N e w D ir e c tio n s in O r­
g a n iz a tio n a l B e h a v io r (Chicago, St. Clair Press, 1977), for a discussion
of this phenomenon.
19 See Quinn and Mangione, S u r v e y o f W o rk in g C o n d itio n s ; and,
Quinn and Staines, Q u a lity o f E m p lo y m e n t, for detail on occupational
and sex differences in earnings in the QOE sample.
20 See R.M. Kanter, “The Measurement of Organizational Effective­
ness, Productivity, Performance and Success,” Working Paper 8,
PONPO (New Haven, Conn., Yale University, 1979).
21 A. Etzioni, A C o m p a r a tiv e S tu d y o f C o m p le x O rg a n iza tio n s (New
York, Free Press, 1961); P. Blau and R. Scott, F o r m a l O rg a n iza tio n s
(San Francisco, Chandler, 1962); and C. Perrow, “A Framework for
Comparative Analysis of Organizations,” A m e r ic a n S o c io lo g ic a l R ev ie w ,
Vol. 32, 1967.
22 See footnote 20; and J.B. McKinlay, “On the professional regula­

tion of change,”
84.

T h e S o c io lo g ic a l R e v ie w M o n o g ra p h ,

21, 1973, pp. 61-

23 JR . Hackman and G.R. Oldham, “Motivation through the de­
sign of work,” O r g a n iz a tio n a l B e h a v io r a n d H u m a n P e r fo rm a n c e, Vol.
16, 1976, pp. 25-279; and E.E. Lawler, P a y a n d O r g a n iz a tio n a l E ffe c ­
tiven ess (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971).
24 C.C. Selby, “Better performance from ‘non-profits’, ” H a r v a r d
B u sin e ss R ev ie w , September-October 1978, pp. 92-98.
D. Mechanic, M e d ic a l S o c io lo g y (New York, Free Press, 1978);
and H. Freudenberger, “Staff Burnout,” J o u r n a l o f S o c ia l Issu es, Vol.
30, 1974.
W.H. Newman and H.W. Wallender, “Managing not-for-profit
enterprises,” A c a d e m y o f M a n a g e m e n t R e v ie w , January 1978, pp. 24—
31.
' J. Rothschild-Whitt, “The Collectivist Organization: An Alterna­
tive to Rational-Bureaucratic Models,” A m e r ic a n S o c io lo g ic a l R ev ie w ,
Vol. 44, 1979, pp. 509-27. For a broader discussion of this feature of
organizations, see R.L. Satow, “Value-Rational Authority and Profes­
sional Organizations: Weber’s Missing Type,” A d m in is tr a tiv e S c ien ce
Q u a r te rly , Vol. 20, 1975, pp. 526-31.
‘8See H.B. Hansman, “The Role of Nonprofit Enterprise,” pp. 835—
901, for a full discussion of the nonprofit form; see also Peter
Drucker, “Managing the ‘third sector’,” T h e W a ll S tr e e t J o u rn a l, Oct.
3, 1978, for a discussion of growing bureaucracy in nonprofits.
29 See R.A. Mittenhall and W.W. Mahoney, “Getting management
help to the nonprofit sector,” H a r v a r d B u sin e ss R e v ie w , September-Oc­
tober 1977, p. 9.
30 For a review, see E.E. Lawler, M o tiv a tio n in W o rk O rg a n iza tio n s
(Monterey, Calif., Brooks/Cole, 1973); and E.E. Lawler, “Reward
Systems,” in J.R. Hackman and J.L. Suttle, eds., I m p r o v in g L if e a t
W o rk (Santa Monica, Calif., Goodyear Publishing Co., 1977).
31 For a review, see Lawler, M o tiv a tio n in W o rk O rg a n iza tio n s.
32 G. Staines, “The Relation of Work and Non-Work Factors in the
Quality of Employment Survey” (Ann Arbor, Mich., University of
Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1976). Mimeographed.
33 P.H. Mirvis and B.A. Macy, “Accounting for the costs and bene­
fits of human resources development programs: An interdisciplinary
approach,” O rg a n iza tio n s, A cc o u n tin g , a n d S o c ie ty , Vol. 1, 1976, pp.
179-94; and P.H. Mirvis and E.E. Lawler, “Measuring the financial
impact of employee attitudes,” J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d P sych o lo g y, Vol. 62,
1977, pp. 1-8.
34 R.H. Brade, “MBO goes to work in the public sector,” H a r v a r d
March 1973, pp. 65-74; T.J.C. Raymond and S.A.
Geyser, “The business of managing the arts,” H a r v a r d B u sin e ss R e ­
view, July-August 1978, pp. 123-32; D. Schooler, “Rethinking and re­
making the nonprofit sector,” F o u n d a tio n N ew s, January-February
1978, pp. 17-23; and R. Anthony, “Can nonprofit organizations be
well-managed?” in D. Borst and P.J. Montana, eds., M a n a g in g N o n ­
p r o f it O rg a n iza tio n s (New York, AMACOM, 1977).
B u sin e ss R ev ie w ,

APPENDIX: The Quality of Employment Survey
The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey was de­
signed to measure the physical and social contexts of
work in the United States through personal interviews
with a representative sample of employed adults. Each
survey sampled a population of persons age 16 or over
who were employed at least 20 hours per week and who
lived in households in the contiguous United States, ex­
cluding institutions and military reservations. Details on
the sampling procedures, response rate, and 1977 sam­

12

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

ple are available from the Institute for Social Research.
A comparison of distributions of demographic variables
based on the 1977 survey with statistics from the appro­
priate Current Population Surveys showed considerable
agreement, with differences (notably in education, em­
ployment status, and industry) that may be explained
by differences in sampling frames and definitions of re­
sponse categories.

Work experience, earnings,
and family income in 1981
The number o f employed Americans increased
but so did the number without jobs, as recovery
from the 1980 recession proved to be brief;
the fam ily income o f high-wage workers exceeded
the poverty level, even when unemployed
Sylvia Lazos T erry
A total of 117 million Americans worked all or part of
1981, an increase of 1 million from the year before.
However, the number of Americans who encountered
some unemployment during the year rose to 23.4 mil­
lion, an increase of more than 2 million, as the economy
managed only a brief recovery from the 1980 recession
and then entered a deeper slump.
Although it was a relatively small gain by historical
standards, the 1981 increase in employment was still
larger than the 1980 rise. The proportion of women
employed year round, full time reached 45 percent, a
new high.
The work experience and income supplement to the
March Current Population Survey ( c p s ), the data
source for this article, provides a comprehensive view of
labor force activity, earnings, and family income for the
preceding year for all members of the population of
working age.1 The total number of persons with some
employment or unemployment in a given year, as mea­
sured by the March household survey, is always much
greater than the average of the monthly CPS figures. In
1981, for example, the average number of persons
employed, as measured during the course of the year,
was 100.4 million, while the total number with some
employment was 16.4 million higher, according to the
March 1982 survey. The number of persons with some

Sylvia Lazos Terry is a labor economist in the Office of Employment
and Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.


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

unemployment in 1981, as measured in March 1982,
was nearly three times as high as the average level of
the monthly numbers.2
A total of 15.8 million families reported that one or
more members had encountered some unemployment in
1981. The median income of these families was 23 per­
cent lower than that of families with no unemployment.
Moreover, in about 18 percent of the families with one
or more unemployed members, family incomes fell be­
low the poverty level.3 The likelihood of living in fami­
lies below the poverty level, of course, depends not only
on a spell of unemployment, but also on who in the
family experiences it, the number of earners, the types
of jobs held while employed, and other factors that may
not even be related to the labor market.

Unemployment, earnings, and poverty
In general, workers in high-wage industries manage
to hold family income above the poverty line despite pe­
riods of unemployment. In contrast, workers in lowwage industries often remain in poverty even when not
affected by unemployment. This is evident from table 1,
which shows the number of workers in each major in­
dustry in 1981 by employment or unemployment during
the year, median annual earnings, median family in­
come, and the percent whose family income fell below
the poverty line.
One striking finding is that, for persons with work
experience in the durable goods industries, family in­
come in 1981 remained relatively high, despite what
13

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Work Experience, Earnings, and Family Income in 1981

Table 1.

Earnings and family income of workers by industry of longest job and employment status, 1981

[Numbers in thousands]
Workers with no unemployment

Number

Median
annual
earnings

Median
family
income

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

96,276

$11,669

Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries ....................
Mining................................
Construction ........................................
Manufacturing ................................................
Durable goods ............................................
Lumber, wood products, and furniture........
Stone, clay, and glass products ................
Primary metal industries ..........................
Fabricated metal products........................
Machinery, except electrical......................
Electric and electronic equipment..............
Automobiles ............................................
Aircraft and other transportation equipment ,
Instruments and related products ..............
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries . . . .
Nondurable goods ......................................
Transportation and public utilities......................
Wholesale trade..............................................
Retail trade ....................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate ..................
Business and repair services............................
Private household............................................
Personal services, except private household . . . .
Entertainment and recreational services............
Professional and related services ....................
Public administration........................................

3,481
1,011
4,730
18,923
11,193
1,193
492
882
1,364
2,528
2,129
682
963
561
399
7,729
6,055
4,177
16,309
6,075
4,120
1,438
2,597
1,168
20,870
5,323

3,447
20,943
14,436
15,791
17,269
12,167
17,038
20,259
16,384
18,544
15,644
21,884
21,308
17,320
10,384
13,490
18,910
15,710
5,917
12,060
10,301
927
5,115
3,971
10,985
17,454

Industry

Percent
in poverty

Number

$26,618

5.4

20,518

17.6

$5,144

$18,495

16.0

15,636
31,359
25,893
27,407
28,368
23,691
28,624
28,880
27,001
29,682
28,224
30,973
31,877
29,584
23,984
25,960
28,796
29,008
24,801
29,422
25,317
14,773
20,894
26,811
27,720
29,391

23.9
1.1
6.1
2.8
2.7
8.0
1.7
2.3
2.4
2.2
1.9
1.2
1.1
1.5
6.3
3.0
2.4
2.8
7.5
2.7
6.4
20.5
9.3
7.7
4.4
2.1

665
237
2,613
5,241
3,139
477
172
277
352
523
493
402
200
103
141
2,102
970
721
4,083
669
992
304
536
327
2,572
589

16.0
19.0
35.6
21.7
21.9
28.6
25.9
23.9
20.5
17.1
18.8
37.1
17.2
15.5
26.1
21.4
13.8
14.7
20.0
9.9
19.4
17.5
17.1
21.9
11.0
10.0

2,829
12,365
8,086
7,956
9,933
6,936
9,805
14,184
9,754
10,372
8,317
17,308
11,970
6,930
5,582
6,142
7,716
6,668
2,878
5,594
4,554
612
2,967
3,031
4,094
5,052

11,611
21,947
17,835
20,223
21,498
16,818
18,702
22,399
21,146
21,659
21,341
26,777
20,950
20,908
18,880
18,566
18,574
18,651
18,136
21,813
16,939
10,476
14,137
16,832
18,543
18,770

37.1
93
15.2
10.3
84
14.0
67
49
12.7
6.6
8.9
3.3
7.9
54
10.6
13.0
13.7
12.9
19.7
10.7
20.1
35.3
22.1
18.8
15.6
15.1

were for some industries very high incidences of unem­
ployment. In the automobile industry, for example, the
number of jobless workers during the year was 402,000,
or 37 percent out of a total of 1.1 million. Yet the me­
dian family income of these workers— $26,777— was
still relatively high, with only 3.3 percent of the families
dropping below the poverty level.
In contrast, workers whose jobs were in agriculture,
forestry, and fisheries or the various service-producing
industries were much more likely to live in poor families
regardless of their unemployment status. This was prob­
ably because their earnings tended to be much lower
than those of workers in most of the durable goods in­
dustries. An extreme illustration of this is the agricul­
tural, forestry, and fishery workers, who had very high
incidences of poverty— 24 percent— even when they ex­
perienced no unemployment during the year.
It should be noted, however, that in the work experi­
ence data, workers are classified according to the
industry of their longest job during the year. Thus,
workers who might have lost their jobs in a given in­
dustry (say, autos) early in the year and who, after a
period of unemployment, managed to find work in an­
other industry are likely to be classified on the basis of
the industry of their last job. Moreover, the count of
unemployed workers includes persons who were ending
periods of joblessness at the beginning of 1981 or enter­
ing unemployment at the end of 1981. Among the lat­
ter, many may have remained unemployed far into
1982, and their economic situation may have deteriorat­
14

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

Workers with some unemployment
Percent
of all
workers

Median
annual
earnings

Median
family
income

Percent
in poverty

ed further as the Nation’s unemployment rate moved to
higher levels.
On average, workers with some unemployment
earned only 44 percent as much for all of 1981 as did
workers with no unemployment. However, only a por­
tion of the earnings gap between the two groups was at­
tributable to unemployment. Even when working, the
persons who fell victim to unemployment earned much
less than did workers who kept their jobs. As shown
below, when one takes into account the number of
weeks worked by the two groups, the median weekly
earnings of workers with unemployment equaled only
72 percent of the median for workers with no unem­
ployment.4

Median earnings:
All workers
M e n ...........
Women . .
W h ites...........
Blacks . . . .
Hispanics . . .

No

Som e

u n e m p lo y m e n t

u n e m p lo y m e n t

A n n u a l W e e k ly

A n n u a l W e e k ly

$11,669
16,855
7,928
11,874
9,975
9,848

$5,148
6,741
3,863
5,408
3,986
4,826

$243
340
175
248
206
206

$175
219
136
181
148
162

E a rn in g s
ra tio s
A n n u a l W e e k ly

.44
.40
.49
.46
.40
.49

.72
.64
.78
.73
.72
.79

On a weekly basis, women with some unemployment
earned 78 percent as much as their counterparts who
were not unemployed. Men with some unemployment
fared even worse; their median weekly earnings equaled
only 64 percent of the median for men with no unem­
ployment.

The role of the family
During the past decade, the dramatic increase in the
number of working wives and youths has led to sub­
stantial gains in the number of families with two or
more earners. Among other things, this rapid rise has
meant an increase in average family income, in spite of
an accompanying decline in “average” real earnings per
worker. For the unemployed, the presence of additional
earners in the family has offered some financial protec­
tion and is another important factor which keeps many
such families out of poverty.
Table 2 provides a detailed look at the different types
of families in terms of the number of earners and
whether any member encountered unemployment in
1981. Overall, there were 15.8 million families in which
one or more members experienced some unemployment
in 1981. Of these, 12 million were married-couple fami­
lies, and the great majority, or 79 percent, had two or
more earners during the year, only 2.4 million being
one-earner families.
For married-couple families with two or more earn­
ers, the incidence of poverty in 1981 was 2 percent
without unemployment and 6 percent with unemploy­
ment. For all one-earner families, the incidence of pov­
erty was 7 percent without unemployment and 24
percent with unemployment. The main reason for the
much higher incidence of poverty in the latter case is
Table 2.

that the worker unemployed is generally the husband,
and because men generally earn more than women, the
decline in family income is greater.
In families in which only the husband is an earner
and in families in which only the wife is an earner, the
incidence of poverty was identical — 7 percent for those
with no unemployment and 24 percent with unemploy­
ment. From this, it may appear that husbands and
wives who are sole earners have similar earnings. But
this is not the case. In traditional families in which hus­
bands are the only earners, median family income is
$21,091, with the major portion, 89 percent, derived
from their wages or salaries. In families in which wives
are the only earners, median family income is 25 per­
cent lower, and wages account for less than half of it.
In fact, the $7,189 median annual earnings of wives
who were the sole earners was not substantially dif­
ferent from the median for all working wives— $7,314.5
Because families maintained by women are the least
likely to have more than one earner, the financial impact
of unemployment is much greater. In 1981, there were 3
million families maintained by women in which at least
one member was unemployed for part of the year, and
43 percent had income which fell below the poverty lev­
el. (See table 2.) In families headed by women with only
one earner, unemployment meant a 50-percent chance of
poverty, while in those with at least two earners, unem­
ployment meant a 17-percent chance of poverty.

Income by family type, number of earners, and unemployment status, 1981

[Numbers in thousands!
With a member in the labor force

Married-couple families ................................
No earners ..............................................

............................
Wife
Other family member ............................
Two or more earners ................................
Husband and other family member ........
Husband is not an earner ......................
Families maintained by women......................
No earners ..............................................
Two or more earners ................................
Families maintained by men ..........................
No earners ..............................................
Two or more earners ................................
Persons not living in families..........................
Persons living alone..................................

Women ........................ ........................

Median
family
income

Percent
in
poverty

Number

Median
family
income

Percent
in
poverty

Number

Median
family
income

Percent
in
poverty

53,496

$24,393

9.4

37,692

$26,154

5.9

15,803

$20,089

17.7

4.0
( 1)
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.1
2.3
2.0
4.4
4.5

11,989
167
2,376
1,894
302
179
9,445
7,927
1,225
293

22,929
6,818
14,394
14,821
12,695
14,270
25,824
25,263
30,154
21,141

10.6
65.3
24.1
23.8
23.7
27.8
6.3
5.9
6.4

43,627
171
13,303
11,223
1,502
578
30,153
26,226
3,325
603

26,759
6,783
20,303
21,091
15,864
19,953
29,791
29,576
32,973
23,483

5.8
65.1
10.2
10.0
10.5
13.5
3.5
3.2
5.2
9.5

31,639
3
10,927
9,329
1,200
399
20,708
18,299
2,099
310

28,139
( ')
21,731
22,440
16,871
22,190
31,478
31,280
34,520
25,004

7,889
543
4,604
2,741

12,377
3,108
10,773
19,655

27.6
89.1
29.9
11.5

4,919
10
3,439
1,469

13,970
(’ )
11,910
21,368

18.5
(’ )
23.3
7.0

2,970
533
1,165
1,272

9,473
3,120
7,273
17,745

42.6
89.2
49.5
16.7

1,980
232
873
874

19,584
1,271
18,500
25,098

16.2
77.9
12.1
4.0

1,135
4
650
482

23,412
( 1)
19,979
28,217

5.6
( ')
7.6
2.8

844
228
223
393

12,192
1,233
12,719
21,224

30.5
79.0
25.0
5.5

17,632
10,869
5,539
5,330
6,762
4,088
2,674

12,430
13,655
15,749
11,903
10,733
11,927
9,194

13.1
9.6
8.7
10.4
18.9
16.5
22.5

14,008
9,057
4,453
4,604
4,951
2,899
2,051

13,974
14,796
17,692
12,640
12,209
14,341
10,455

8.8
6.8
5.4
8.2
12.6
10.0
16.3

3,624
1,812
1,086
726
1,811
1,189
623

7,284
8,162
8,911
7,504
6.304
7,038
5,277

29.7

1Percent not shown when base is less than 75, )00.
2The majority of these persons are living with nonrelatives. Also included are persons in


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

With at least one member jnemployed

Number

Family type and number of earners

All families................................................

With no member unemployed

22.4
24.7
36.0
32.3
43.1

married-couple families where the husband is in the Armed Forces, persons in secondary fami­
lies, and some whose family status is unknown.

15

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Work Experience, Earnings, and Family Income in 1981
Aside from those in a family environment, 17.6 mil­
lion persons lived alone or with unrelated persons and
participated in the labor force at some time in 1981.
For the 1.8 million such persons who lived alone and
incurred some joblessness in 1981, personal income was
$8,162, and 23 percent were living in poverty. For the
other 1.8 million who also had some unemployment but
lived with others, personal income was $6,304 and the
incidence of poverty was 36 percent.
In terms of the changes in family income in 1981
compared with 1980, income did not keep up with the
pace of inflation.6 This was true not only for the fami­
lies with some unemployment but also for those with no
unemployment in both 1980 and 1981. The loss in real
income was slightly greater for families (numbers in
thousands) with at least one unemployed member— 4.5
percent— than for those with no unemployed mem­
bers— 1.2 percent:

work. And Hispanic families were only slightly better
off than blacks, as indicated in the tabulation below:
Labor force status
Full-time year-round workers . . .
All workers:
No unemployment...................
Some unemployment..............
Some involuntary part-time
work ...................................
Some involuntary part-time
work and unemployment . . .
Persons who did not work but
looked .....................................

Percent in poverty
White Hispanic Black
3.2
7.1
8.0
4.7
16.1

10.4
25.3

12.3
36.2

14.2

26.7

31.1

18.6

31.9

34.8

32.8

45.2

59.1

An important factor contributing to the relatively
high incidence of poverty among blacks and Hispanics
is that, even when employed, the members of these two
groups tend to be concentrated in jobs that are not as
secure or as high-paying as those held by whites.

I n c o m e ch a n g e
in p e r c e n t

_____ 1 9 8 0 _____
N um ber

In com e

No member
unemployed . . .
38,455 $24,020
At least one mem­
ber unemployed . . 14,592 19,076

1981
N um ber

In com e

d o lla r s)

37,692 $26,154

-1.2

15,808

-4.5

20,089

In making year-to-year comparisons, it should be kept
in mind that many of the families with unemployment in
1980 may not have had any unemployment in 1981.
During the previous recession, March-to-March matches
of the work experience data showed that 41 percent of
all persons who encountered unemployment in 1974 also
were unemployed at some time during 1975. The compa­
rable figure for 1977-78, a much healthier employment
period, was 35 percent. However, for many persons and
families who were free of unemployment in 1980 but not
in 1981, actual gains or losses in income were greater
than the average changes shown above.7

Family income by race and Hispanic origin
The median income of black families in which at least
one member was unemployed in 1981 was $13,479, com­
pared with $21,586 for white families and $15,772 for
Hispanic families. The proportion of blacks whose family
income fell below the poverty line when affected by un­
employment was 36 percent, compared to 16 percent for
white families, and 25 percent for Hispanic families.
Actually, the incidence of poverty is consistently
greater for black families, relative to white or Hispanic
families, regardless of the labor force status of the mem­
bers of such families. Even when blacks were employed
the entire year at full-time jobs, the incidence of poverty
among their families was still 8 percent, more than
twice as high as among whites with year-round full-time
16


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

Changes in employment

(c o n s ta n t

The relatively small increase of 1 million in the num­
ber of persons with jobs in 1981 reflected the fact that
the continued growth in some sectors of the economy
was partly offset by large declines in government and
manufacturing jobs and by a static situation in other
key industries. Table 3 shows the total number of per­
sons with some employment during the year in terms of
the principal industries in which they worked.
Of particular interest is the 416,000 increase in the
number of persons who were primarily self-employed,
which accounted for two-fifths of the net gain in jobs in
1981. The number of such workers has been rising secu­
larly since 1974, expanding by 2.6 million, or 30 per­
cent. The relatively large gain posted in 1981 may also
reflect the fact that many workers who lost their wage
and salary jobs shifted to self-employment as an alter­
nate means of support.
With population growth outpacing job growth in
1981, as it had in 1980, the proportion of the popula-

Table 3. Employment by industry of longest job and
class of worker, 1980 and 1981
[Numbers in thousands]
Industry and class of worker

1980

1981

Change

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

115,752

116,794

1,042

Wage and salary workers ....................................
Agriculture ......................................................
Mining..............................................................
Construction ....................................................
Manufacturing..................................................
Transportation and public utilities ......................
Wholesale and retail trade ................................
Finance and service Industries ..........................
Government ....................................................
Self-employed......................................................
Unpaid family workers..........................................

106,342
1,923
1,054
6,114
24,539
6,744
22,442
37,500
6,206
8,513
897

106,956
2,054
1,206
6,107
23,788
6,708
23,121
38,061
5,911
8,929
909

614
131
152
-7
-751
-36
680
561
-295
416
12

Table 4.

Persons with work experience by extent of employment, race, Hispanic origin, and sex, 1980 and 1981

[In percent]
Women

Men

Total
Extent of employment

1980

1981

1980

1981

1980

1981

169,452

171,666

80,193

81,231

89,259

90,436

115,752
68.3
100.0
78.5
56.1
12.5
10.0
21.5
7.7
5.2
8.5

116,794
68.0
100.0
77.6
55.9
12.4
9.4
22.4
7.8
5.6
8.9

64,260
80.1
100.0
87.2
65.2
12.9
9.1
12.8
4.4
3.0
5.5

64,769
79.7
100.0
86.2
64.5
12.9
8.7
13.8
4.5
3.2
6.1

51,492
57.7
100.0
67.8
44.7
12.0
11.0
32.2
11.9
8.0
12.3

52,025
57.5
100.0
67.0
45.1
11.7
10.1
33.0
11.9
8.7
12.4

147,371

149,136

70,154

71,018

77,217

78,118

101,904
69.1
100.0
78.4
56.5
12.4
9.5
21.6
7.8
5.4
8.4

102,825
68.9
100.0
77.3
56.1
12.2
9.0
22.7
8.0
5.8
8.9

57,122
81.4
100.0
87.5
66.2
12.7
8.5
12.5
4.4
3.0
5.1

57,615
81.1
100.0
86.3
65.2
12.7
8.4
13.7
4.6
3.2
5.8

44,782
58.0
100.0
66.9
44.1
12.0
10.8
33.1
12.2
8.4
12.6

45,210
57.9
100.0
65.9
44.5
11.6
9.8
34.1
12.3
9.1
12.7

18,105

18,480

8,065

8,236

10,039

10,244

11,153
61.6
100.0
78.9
52.7
13.1
13.1
21.1
6.9
4.3
9.9

11,211
60.7
100.0
79.6
54.0
13.3
12.3
20.4
6.3
4.5
9.7

5,652
70.1
100.0
84.5
56.4
14.3
13.9
15.5
3.8
2.8
8.9

5,653
68.6
100.0
85.0
58.8
14.5
11.8
15.0
3.5
3.1
8.3

5,502
54.8
100.0
73.1
49.0
11.9
12.2
26.9
10.0
5.9
11.0

5,558
54.3
100.0
74.1
49.2
12.0
12.9
25.9
9.0
5.8
11.0

8,862

9,227

4,255

4,393

4,607

4,834

5,914
66.7
100.0
82.4
53.1
15.2
14.1
17.6
5.9
4.2
7.6

6,125
66.4
100.0
81.9
54.6
14.8
12.4
18.1
6.1
4.0
8.0

3,484
81.9
100.0
88.3
61.1
15.7
11.5
11.7
4.0
2.4
5.4

3,605
82.1
100.0
87.6
61.4
14.9
11.3
12.4
4.1
3.0
5.4

2,430
52.7
100.0
73.9
41.6
14.4
17.8
26.1
8.6
6.7
10.8

2,520
52.1
100.0
73.8
45.0
14.7
14.1
26.2
9.0
5.5
11.7

Total
Population (In thousands)1 .....................................................................................................
Worked during the year:2
Number (in thousands) ...................................................................................................
Percent of the population ...............................................................................................
Persons who worked during the year.......................................................................................
Full time3 ...........................................................................................................................
50 to 52 weeks .............................................................................................................
27 to 49 weeks .............................................................................................................
1 to 26 weeks ...............................................................................................................
Part time4 .........................................................................................................................
50 to 52 weeks .............................................................................................................
27 to 49 weeks .............................................................................................................
1 to 26 weeks ...............................................................................................................
White
Population (in thousands)1 .....................................................................................................
Worked during the year:2
Number (in thousands) ...................................................................................................
Percent of the population ...............................................................................................
Persons who worked during the year......................................................................................
Full time3 ...........................................................................................................................
50 to 52 weeks .............................................................................................................
27 to 49 weeks .............................................................................................................
1 to 26 weeks ...............................................................................................................
Part time4 .........................................................................................................................
50 to 52 weeks .............................................................................................................
27 to 49 weeks .............................................................................................................
1 to 26 weeks ...............................................................................................................
Black
Population (in thousands)1 .....................................................................................................
Worked during the year:2
Number (in thousands) ...................................................................................................
Percent of the population ...............................................................................................
Persons who worked during the year.......................................................................................
Full time3 ...........................................................................................................................
50 to 52 weeks .............................................................................................................
27 to 49 weeks .............................................................................................................
1 to 26 weeks ...............................................................................................................
Part time4 .........................................................................................................................
50 to 52 weeks .............................................................................................................
27 to 49 weeks .............................................................................................................
1 to 26 weeks ...............................................................................................................
Hispanic origin
Population (in thousands)1 .....................................................................................................
Worked during the year:2
Number (in thousands) ...................................................................................................
Percent of the population ...............................................................................................
Persons who worked during the year.......................................................................................
Full time3 ...........................................................................................................................
50 to 52 weeks .............................................................................................................
27 to 49 weeks .............................................................................................................
1 to 26 weeks ...............................................................................................................
Part time4 .........................................................................................................................
50 to 52 weeks .............................................................................................................
27 to 49 weeks .............................................................................................................
1 to 26 weeks ...............................................................................................................
1Population as of the survey date.
2Weeks worked Include paid vacation and sick leave.
3Usually worked 35 hours or more per week.

tion with some employment edged down further, to 68
percent. (See table 4.) For men, the proportion who
worked continued a 15-year decline and, at 79.7 per­
cent, reached its lowest level since 1948. For women,
the proportion who worked at any time during the year
was essentially unchanged and remained near the high
of 58 percent, reached in 1979.8
The proportion of blacks who worked during 1981
also receded to a new low of 60.7 percent. For black


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

4Usually worked 1 to 34 hours per week.
5Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

men, the proportion dropped to 69 percent, 4 percent­
age points lower than in 1978. The proportion of whites
and Hispanics with some employment during the year
remained largely unchanged at 69 and 66 percent.
Another important aspect of the work experience sit­
uation is the number of weeks that persons worked dur­
ing the year. In 1981, the proportion of workers who
worked all year long at full-time jobs was 56 percent,
largely unchanged from the previous year. The percent17

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Work Experience, Earnings, and Family Income in 1981
age of women with full-time year-round jobs, which has
been increasing steadily over the last 20 years, reached
45 percent in 1981, another high. For men, however,
the proportion employed full time year round, 65 per­
cent in 1981, edged down for the fourth straight year;
the low of 64 percent was reached in 1975.
The proportion of black women who worked all year
at full-time jobs in 1981— 49 percent— was higher than
for either white or Hispanic women. However, the pro­
portion of Hispanic women employed full time, year
round did increase in 1981, and at 45 percent, was
equal to that of white women. The rate for Hispanic
women has increased steadily since these data were first
collected in 1975.
Another way to look at employment trends is to look
at hours usually worked over the course of the year,
that is, whether those with jobs were employed full time
or part time. In 1981, the number who usually worked
full time (35 hours or more a week) edged down by
250,000, while the number who usually worked part
time increased significantly, by 1.3 million. Because of
these shifts, the proportion of the work force usually
employed part time, 22 percent in 1981, was at its
highest level since 1950. The proportion tends to in­
crease during recessions as fewer persons are able to
find full-time jobs.

As shown, the family economic situation of workers
experiencing involuntary part-time employment and un­
employment was actually worse than that of workers
experiencing only unemployment or involuntary parttime work. Workers with both some unemployment and
involuntary part-time work reported much lower family
income, the median being $15,600, and had a much
higher incidence of poverty — 21.2 percent. With a me­
dian of only 32 weeks of work, the annual earnings of
these workers, many of them householders,10 were re­
latively low.

Persons with unemployment
The 23.4 million persons who encountered some un­
employment in 1981 accounted for 19.5 percent of all
persons with labor force activity during the year. (See
table 5.) In 1980, this proportion was 18.1 percent and
in 1975, a record 20.2 percent.11
Among men, the proportion was 20.0 percent, the
same as in 1975. Among women, the proportion was
Table 5. Selected characteristics of persons who were
unemployed during the year, 1980 and 1981
[Numbers in thousands]
1980
Characteristic

Involuntary part-time work
Whether those working part time do so because of
adverse economic conditions, such as slack work or
material shortages, or whether they do so entirely by
personal choice is an important indication of the
economy’s health. Largely because of the recession, the
number of persons who worked part time due to labor
market related reasons (or involuntarily) increased by
1.6 million in 1981 and totaled 14.6 million. This was
the highest level since 1975.9
Close to 10 million had seen their hours cut because of
slack work; the remaining 4.8 million worked part time
because they had not been able to find full-time jobs.
Involuntary part-timers are also vulnerable to other
labor market problems. The data for 1981 reveal that of
the 14.6 million such persons, nearly one-half also expe­
rienced some periods of unemployment during the year:
I n v o lu n ta r y
I n v o lu n ta r y

p a r t-tim e

p a r t-tim e

w o rk a n d

U n e m p lo y m e n t

w o rk o n ly

u n e m p lo y m e n t

o n ly

Number of persons
(in thousands) . . . 8,166
Median weeks
worked ..............
52
Median family
income .............. . $19,622
Percent below
poverty level . . .
13.2
18

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

6,461

16,921

32

28

$15,600

$18,516

21.2

18.3

Percent
Number
of
of
labor
persons
force

1981
Median
Percent Median
Number
weeks
of
weeks
of
unem­
labor
unem­
ployed persons force ployed

Sex, race, and Hispanic origin
Total....................................
Men..................................
Women ............................
White ..................................
Men..................................
Women ............................
Black ..................................
Men..................................
Women ............................
Hispanic origin......................
Men..................................
Women ............................

21,410
12,072
9,338
17,506
10,005
7,501
3,352
1,755
1,596
1,396
822
574

18.1
18.5
17.6
16.9
17.3
16.4
28.0
29.4
26.6
23.0
23.2
22.7

13
13
11
12
13
10
14
17
13
13
14
12

23,382
13,175
10,207
19,140
10,963
8,177
3,703
1,884
1,819
1,491
891
600

19.5
20.0
19.0
18.3
18.8
17.7
30.5
31.2
29.7
23.7
24.2
22.9

13
14
11
13
13
11
15
20
13
13
16
12

1,458

8.2

10

1,596

8.7

12

867
827
2,907
2,959
3,520
894
1,821
162
2,987
34
376

7.0
11.4
13.4
20.6
28.6
22.4
30.8
11.5
19.1
(2)
22.1

12
10
11
13
13
13
14
14
13
n
16

935
1,020
3,110
3,244
3,758
952
1,903
221
3,327
24
428

7.6
13.5
14.5
22.6
30.8
24.1
31.5
16.0
20.7
(2)
24.2

12
11
11
13
12
13
17
14
13
(2)
17

5,397
4,226
1,406
315

13.3
14.6
22.3
20.3

13
11
12
14

5,735
4,581
1,510
331

14.1
15.6
23.4
21.1

13
12
12
13

Occupation1
Professional and technical
workers............................
Managers and administrators,
except farm ......................
Salesworkers........................
Clerical workers....................
Craft and kindred workers . . .
Operatives, except transport ..
Transport equipment operatives
Nonfarm laborers..................
Private household workers . . .
Other service workers ..........
Farmers and farm managers..
Farm laborers ......................
Family status3
Husbands ............................
Wives ..................................
Women who maintain families .
Men who maintain families . . .

10nly persons who worked during the year are asked to report their occupation; there­
fore, the percent of the labor force with unemployment represents the percent of workers
with unemployment.
2Percentages and medians not shown where base is less than 75,000.
3Not all classifications shown.

19.0 percent, compared with the 1975 peak of 20.5 per­
cent. Men were not only more likely to become unem­
ployed but generally remained unemployed longer than
women.
For blacks, the proportion experiencing some unem­
ployment in 1981 — 30.5 percent— was up from the
1980 level (28.0 percent) and even higher than the 1975
peak (29.5 percent). By comparison, the proportion of
whites with unemployment, 18.3 percent in 1981, was
higher than in 1980 but still lower than in 1975. For
Hispanics, the proportion remained largely unchanged
over the 1980-81 period at 24 percent.
While the great majority of the 23.4 million persons
with some unemployment in 1981 managed to work
during some or most of the year, about 2.9 million were
completely unsuccessful in their job search. The number
of such persons was about 270,000 higher than in 1980.
About 2.1 million of these unsuccessful job-seekers
spent only part of the year looking for work and the
balance outside the labor force— keeping house, going
to school, drawing retirement, and so forth. However,
when asked the main reason they had not worked in
1981, 1.7 million of all unemployed workers cited the
lack of job opportunities.
Those who searched for jobs but did not work at all
were predominantly women (59 percent), youths (42
percent), and blacks (33 percent). But these percentages
have varied in recent years, reflecting the changes in the
general employment climate. In 1979, a much healthier
year in terms of demand for labor, the total number of
such workers was much smaller and its composition
was dominated by women, whites, and youths:
1979

19 8 0

1981

1,990

2,597

2,863

Percent ...............

100

100

100

Men ................................
W om en...........................

34
66

39
61

41
59

Number (in thousands)

Whites ...........................
Blacks .............................
Others.............................

68
30
2

66
32
2

64
33
3

16 through 24 years . . .
25 years and o v e r ..........

47
53

47
53

42
58

The 2.9 million persons who searched for a job but
never held one during the year can be divided into two
groups, about equal in size, in terms of certain charac­
teristics. One group of about 1.4 million consisted of
persons who looked for work for a relatively long peri­
od and who were mainly family householders and
persons responsible for their own support. The other
group consisted of persons who looked for work for a
much shorter period and who probably did not carry
the main burden of family support:
F a m ily hou se­
h o ld ers a n d
p erso n s n o t
livin g in f a m ilie s

Job searchers with no
employment (in
thousands) .................
Median weeks of
unemployment . . . .
Median family income
Percent below poverty
le v e l.........................

F a m ily m em b e rs
o th e r th an
h o u seh o ld ers

1,408

1,455

22
$3,242

10
$19,085

76

20

What is even more strikingly different between the
two groups is that the one composed mostly of householders had a very low median family income ($3,242)

and a very high incidence of poverty (76 percent). In
contrast, the other group, made up mostly of young
family members, generally the sons and daughters of
the householder, had a much higher family income
($19,085) and a much lower incidence of poverty (20
percent).
□

FOOTNOTES
' The data for this report are based on responses to special “work
experience” questions included in the March 1982 Current Population
Survey, conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of
the Census. The questions refer to the civilian work experience of per­
sons during the entire preceding year. Persons who reached age 16
during January, February, or March 1982 are included. However, the
work experience of persons in the civilian labor force during 1981 but
not in the civilian noninstitutional population in March 1982 is not
included; similarly, data on persons who died in 1981 or in 1982, be­
fore the survey date, are not reflected.

by a Federal Interagency Committee in 1969. These indexes are based
on the Department of Agriculture’s Economy Food Plan and reflect
the different consumption requirements of families based on their size,
composition, and age of the family head. In 1981, the poverty level
for a family of four was $9,287.
Poverty thresholds are updated each year to reflect changes in the
Consumer Price Index. The poverty definition was changed slightly in
1981. For more information on the income and poverty population in
1981 and the change in the definition of poverty, see M o n e y I n c o m e

2For a review of the employment and unemployment situation in
1981 based on data collected during the year, see Robert W.
Bednarzik, Marillyn A. Hewson, and Michael A. Urquhart, “The em­
ployment situation in 1981: new recession takes its toll,” M o n th ly L a ­
b o r R e v ie w , March 1982, pp. 3-14.

(Advance Data From the March 1982 Current Population Survey),
Series P-60, No. 134 (Bureau of the Census, 1982).
4
Estimates of median weekly earnings are derived by dividing an­
nual earnings by the number of weeks worked during the year and
then computing the median.
3Unpublished data, March 1982 work experience and income sup­
plement.

3Poverty statistics presented in this report are based on a definition
developed by the Social Security Administration in 1964 and revised


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

a n d P o v e rty S ta tu s o f F a m ilie s a n d P erso n s in th e U n ite d S ta te s : 1 9 8 1

19

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Work Experience, Earnings, and Family Income in 1981
6The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers (CPI-W) is used to convert current dollars to constant dol­
lars. This index rose by 10.2 percent from 1980 to 1981.
7For a discussion of the year-to-year changes in family income and
the factors which bring them about, see Greg J. Duncan, “Who Gets
Ahead? And Who Gets Left Behind?” A m e r ic a n D e m o g ra p h ics,
July/August 1982, pp. 38-41.
8Historical work experience data are published in
tistic s D e r iv e d f r o m
u m e I,

L a b o r F orce S ta ­
th e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u rv e y : A D a ta b o o k , V ol­

Bulletin 2096 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982).

“The total number of persons with some involuntary part-time
work over the course of the year is three times greater than the annu­
al average of the monthly figure. For a detailed study of involuntary
part-time work based on the March CPS, see Sylvia Lazos Terry, “In­
voluntary part-time work: new information from the CPS,” M o n th ly
L a b o r R e v ie w , February 1981, pp. 70-74.
10Unpublished data, March 1982 work experience and income sup­
plement. As defined in the March CPS, the householder is the first
adult listed on the questionnaire. The instructions call for listing first
the person (or one of the persons) in whose name the home is owned


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

or rented. If the house is owned jointly by a married couple, either
the husband or the wife may be listed first, thereby becoming the ref­
erence person, or householder, to whom the relationship of the other
household members is recorded. One person in each household is des­
ignated as the householder. In March 1982, 96 percent of all hus­
bands were designated as householders, and 100 percent of all men
and women who maintain families were householders.
" Many researchers have made comparisons of the unemployment
figures derived from the derived work experience survey and those
from the monthly surveys. This is done by converting the work expe­
rience unemployment figures to a total number of weeks of unemploy­
ment. Results show that the work experience unemployment number
tends to understate the comparable figure based on the annual aver­
age of the monthly figure. For further discussion, see Richard
Morgenstern and Nancy Barrett, “The Retrospective Bias in Unem­
ployment Reporting by Sex, Race and Age,” J o u r n a l o f th e A m e ric a n
S ta tis tic a l A sso c ia tio n , June 1974, pp. 355-57; Wayne Vroman, “Mea­
suring Annual Unemployment,” Working Paper 1280-01 (Washing­
ton, The Urban Institute, 1979); and Francis W. Horvath, “Forgotten
unemployment: recall bias in retrospective data,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­
view , March 1982, pp. 40-43.

“Never married” women on the rise
Irrespective of their household and family-membership status, the
proportion of women remaining single is experiencing a substantial
upswing. . . . In 1980, the proportion of women 20 to 24 years of age
who had never married (50.2 percent) was almost twice the equivalent
for 1960 (28.4 percent), with a similar evolution over time in the
25-to-29-years-of-age category. It should be pointed out that the in­
crease in the 20-to-24-year-old sector is particularly significant since
this is the age when most women have traditionally married. More­
over, in conjunction with the increased prevalence of nonmarriage in
the subsequent age group (25 to 29 years), it may suggest the general
acceptance by young women for either postponing marriage or re­
maining single throughout their lives.
It is interesting to note the reverse pattern as we focus on the older
age groups. In 1960, there was a far higher proportion of women, par­
ticularly in those age categories above 45 years, who had never mar­
ried than holds true currently (1980). Is this the residual of trends
earlier in this century in Suffragettism? Is it related in part, particular­
ly among the middle-aged members of this group, to the depression
years? Or does it perhaps indicate that in the future we will see a shift
toward later marriage? And if it is the last, what impact will that
have on population growth?
— G eorge Sternlieb , James W. H ughes ,
and CONNIE O. H ughes , Demographic Trends and
Economic Reality: Planning and Markets in the '80s
(New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers, The State University
of New Jersey, Center for Urban Policy Research,
1982), p. 29.

The service-producing sector:
some common perceptions reviewed
M any service industries are capital intensive,
and the range o f expansion in output per hour
is not significantly different from that
fou n d among goods-producing industries
R onald E. K utscher and Jerome A. M ark
Over the past three decades, the rapid growth of the
economy’s service sector and the increasing interest in
the sector on the part of both scholars and policymak­
ers have helped give currency to three perceptions about
service industries. The perceptions are that (1) the ser­
vice sector is composed entirely of industries that have
very low rates of productivity growth; (2) service indus­
tries are highly labor intensive and low in capital inten­
sity; and (3) shifts in employment to the serviceproducing sector have been a major reason for the
slowdown in productivity growth over the past 10 to 15
years. This article examines these perceptions in the
light of available data.
The service sector defined. The broadest definition of the
service sector encompasses all industries except those in
the goods-producing sector— agriculture, mining, con­
struction, and manufacturing. Under this definition, ser­
vices include transportation, communication, public
utilities, wholesale and retail trade, finance, insurance,
real estate, other personal and business services, and
government. One variation on this definition of the ser­
vice sector (or service-producing sector, as it is fre­
quently called) excludes government activities at all
levels. A third definition of the service sector is still
narrower, including only private personal and business
Ronald E. Kutscher is Associate Commissioner for Economic Growth
and Employment Projections and Jerome A. Mark is Associate Com­
missioner for Productivity and Technology, Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics. This article is based on a paper which the authors presented at a
meeting of the American Economic Association in New York on De­
cember 30, 1982.


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

services and excluding transportation, communication,
wholesale and retail trade, finance, insurance, and real
estate. All three definitions will be referenced in the fol­
lowing discussion.
Growth rates vary widely by industry. The first apparent­
ly generally held perception of the service sector is that
it consists entirely of industries with low growth in pro­
ductivity. Comparison of growth rates for output and
employment by industry over the last two decades
might seem to lend support for this belief, for the data
show that the widely discussed growth in services in the
U.S. economy has been more pronounced from an em­
ployment perspective than from the output view.
Over the last two decades, there was a very notice­
able shift toward service employment. The share account­
ed for by the service-producing sector, using the
broadest definition, increased by 10 percentage points
from 1960 to 1981. A shift is also apparent when alter­
native definitions of the sector are used. When limited
to “private” services, the sector share of employment
increased by nearly 8 percentage points between 1960
and 1981. Even when limited only to “other services,”
the sector has increased its employment share by nearly
7 percentage points over the period. Thus, over twothirds of the total shift toward service employment is
accounted for by this one relatively small portion of the
service sector. (See table 1.)
There has been a large, steady shift in employment
toward the service sector not only in absolute terms but
also in relative terms. The goods-producing industries
have shown some absolute growth over the period but
21

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Perceptions o f the Service Sector

Table 1. Percent distribution of output and employment
between the goods- and service-producing sectors,
selected years, 1959-81

Item

1959

1969

1973

1979

1981

Output1
Total private..................................................
Goods-producing ......................................
Service-producing......................................

100.0
41.4
58.6

100.0
40.0
60.0

100.0
39.6
60.4

100.0
36.7
63.3

100.0
35.4
64.6

Employment2
Total nonagricultural......................................
Goods-producing sector ............................
Service-producing sector............................
Public....................................................
Private..................................................
“ Other services” ................................

100.0
38.3
61.7
15.2
46.0
13.3

100.0
34.6
65.4
17.3
48.1
15.9

100.0
32.4
67.6
17.9
49.7
16.7

100.0
29.5
70.5
17.8
52.8
19.1

100.0
28.0
72.0
17.6
54.4
20.4

1Data are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. The
specific measure is “gross product originating” in (or net output of) each of the sectors.
2Data relate to numbers of wage and salary workers in the nonagricultural economy, as
determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics survey.

have declined in relative terms. Between 1960 and 1981,
goods-producing industries (manufacturing, mining, and
construction) gained jobs at an average rate of 1.0 per­
cent a year, while employment in service-producing in­
dustries (all other industries and government) grew by
3.2 percent annually. Within the service-producing sec­
tor, civilian government employment increased at a pace
that was faster than the average for all jobs through the
1960’s and early 1970’s, but has recorded slower-thanaverage gains since then. Public job growth has tapered
to almost zero since 1979. Job gains in the private por­
tion of the service-producing sector, on the other hand,
have consistently led total employment growth.
A component of the private service-producing econo­
my, “other services,” includes industries such as business
services, medical services, professional services, hotels,
personal services, and several others. This component
has shown the most rapid job increases of any of the ma­
jor industry divisions in the economy in the last two de­
cades, averaging growth of 4.4 percent per year between
1960 and 1981. Within this narrowly defined “other ser­
vice” sector, the fastest job gains have been posted by
other medical services (9.2 percent a year) and miscella­
neous business services (7.5 percent annually).
On the basis of such evidence, it is tempting to con­
clude that the service sector comprises only industries
in which employment is growing at very rapid rates,
rates which may exceed the pace of growth in output.
Overall service sector employment, as we have just seen,
is growing rapidly. However, within the sector there are
a few industries, such as railroad transportation, in
which employment is declining, and others, such as
public utilities, motion picture production and distribu­
tion, and barber and beauty shops, in which employ­
ment is growing very slowly.
Data from the Bureau’s expanding effort to measure
22

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

productivity in the service sector also argue against
labeling all service industries as productivity drains.
These data, which at present cover one-third of sector
employment, clearly illustrate that not all services have
low productivity growth.1 During the 1965-80 period,
productivity growth in the sector ranged from a high of
7.9 percent a year in petroleum pipelines between 1965
and 1973 to a low, reflecting declines of up to 1.0 per­
cent annually, in laundries and cleaning services, eating
and drinking places, and retail food stores over the
1973-80 period. In addition to petroleum pipelines, rap­
id productivity growth has also been found in air trans­
portation, drug and proprietary stores, telephone
communication, and gasoline service stations. The range
of productivity growth noted in the service sector is not
significantly different from the range among goods-pro­
ducing industries. The perception that service industries
all have low productivity growth is not at all consistent
with these data.
Capital intensity rather high. To assess a second com­
mon perception— that service industries are very low in
E x h ib it 1. S e r v ic e in d u s trie s ra n k e d in
d e s c e n d in g o r d e r o f c a p ita l in te n s ity , 19 73
R ank

C a p ita l sto c k
p e r w o rk er hou r

First decile
(most capital
intensive)

Pipeline transportation
Railroad transportation
Radio and TV broadcasting
Electric utilities
Gas utilities
Water and sanitary service
Real estate
^Advertising

Second decile

Water transportation
Air transportation
* Miscellaneous consumer services
* Automobile repair
^Amusements

Third decile

Truck transportation
Transportation services
Miscellaneous
• Professional services
Medical, education, and non-profit

Fourth decile

Financial institutions
» Miscellaneous business services

Fifth decile
Sixth decile
Seventh decile
(least capital
intensive)

Local transportation and buses
—

Wholesale trade
Retail trade

capital intensity— we used 1973 data on capital stock
by industry.2 (This measure of capital stock covers plant
and equipment but excludes land, inventory, and mone­
tary assets.) A measure of capital intensity was calculat­
ed for each of 145 industry divisions on the basis of
capital stock per worker hour. The industry divisions
were then ranked in descending order of capital intensi­
ty as indicated by the measure. (See exhibit 1.) The sur­
prising result of this exercise was that service industry
divisions made up nearly one-half of the 30 divisions in
the first two deciles of the ranking. Transportation in­
dustries and utilities were most often found in these
“high capital intensity” deciles. The ranking of industry
divisions by capital intensity did not contain any service
industries in the bottom three deciles. These findings are
hardly consistent with the supposition that the service
industries are low in capital intensity.
Related to this perception about the service sector is
the belief that service industries are highly labor inten­
sive. To assess this perception, we ranked industries ac­
cording to labor intensity, as indicated by 1981 data on
labor hours per unit of output.3 (See exhibit 2.) The
ranking indicated that services tend to be dominant
among labor-intensive industries; for example, service
industries represented 17 of the 30 most labor-intensive
industries in the economy. However, service industries
were found in nearly every decile of the ranking, and
three appeared in the least labor-intensive decile. Thus,
while the assumption that service industries are relative­
ly labor intensive has a strong element of truth about it,
it is far from being the case for all service-producing in­
dustries.
Employment shifts unrelated to productivity growth. A
third common perception is that the shift in employ­
ment from the goods-producing sector to the service
sector has been the major element in the productivity
slowdown of the last 10 to 15 years.
To evaluate this assumption, we assembled data
which measure 1959-79 employment shifts in a number
of different ways:
• Using measures of production
— Gross product originating
— Gross duplicated output4
• Tracking interindustry employment movements
— From the farm to the nonfarm sector
— From goods-producing to service-producing indus­
tries
— Among goods-producing industries
— Among service-producing industries
Estimates of the effects on productivity growth of the
various types of shifts in employment are presented in
table 2. (The shifts were measured in terms of labor
hours rather than employment to account for differ­


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

ences in the amount of hours per job and different rates
of change in average hours.)

E x h ib it 2.

S e r v ic e in d u s trie s ra n k e d b y la b o r

in te n s ity , 1981

R ank

L a b o r h ou rs p e r
u n it o f o u tp u t

First decile
(most labor
intensive)

Local government passenger
transit
Transportation services
Hotels and lodging places
Educational services
%Medical services, except hospitals
Nonprofit organizations
4 Hospitals
Post office
Agricultural, forestry, and fishery
services
Barber and beauty shops
Retail trade, except eating and
drinking places

Second decile

- Eating and drinking places
State and local government enter­
prises, n.e.c.
Other Federal enterprises, n.e.c.
- Personal and repair services
Wholesale trade
-Business services, n.e.c.

Third decile

Banking
Local transit and intercity buses
Amusement and recreation services
' Professional services, n.e.c.
Radio and television broadcasting

Fourth decile

Truck transportation
Credit agencies and financial bro­
kers
Railroad transportation

Fifth decile

Advertising
Insurance

Sixth decile

Doctors’ and dentists’ services

Seventh decile

Air transportation

Eighth decile
Ninth decile
Tenth decile
(least labor
intensive)

—
• Automobile repair
Electric utilities, public and private
Pipeline transportation
Gas utilities, excluding public
Real estate

NOTE: The data base for the labor intensity measure does
not have the same industry configuration as that for the
capital intensity measure. Thus, some slight variation in industries can be noted between exhibit 1 and exhibit 2.
n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified.

23

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Perceptions o f the Service Sector
According to these estimates, the shift in employment
between goods-producing and service-producing indus­
tries has had a negligible effect on productivity growth.

Table 2. Impact of employment shifts on labor
productivity change, selected measures, 1959-79
Rate of productivity change
Measure and type of shift
Actual

Portion of change
Productivity
accounted for by
within
employment
sector1
shifts1

Gross product originating
Farm to nonfarm shift:
1959-79 (Total private business) ............
1959-66 ............................................
1966-73 ............................................
1973-79 ............................................

2.29
3.36
2.41
0.92

2.11
3.01
2.27
0.84

.18
.34
.14
.08

Goods- to service-producing industries shift:
1959-79 (Total private business) ............
1959-66 ............................................
1966-73 ............................................
1973-79 .................................. ..........

2.29
3.36
2.41
0.92

2.25
3.34
2.38
0.90

.04
.03
.02
.02

Shift among goods-producing industries:
1959-79 (Goods-producing industries) . . .
1959-66 ............................................
1966-73 ............................................
1973-79 ............................................

2.58
3.94
2.73
0.85

2.23
3.31
2.50
0.72

.34
.63
.23
.13

Shifts among service-producing industries:
1959-79 (Service-producing industries). . .
1959-66 ............................................
1966-73 ............................................
1973-79 ............................................

2.00
2.84
2.09
0.93

1.88
2.77
1.92
0.88

.12
.08
.17
.04

Gross duplicated output
Farm to nonfarm shift: ..............................
1959-79 (Total private)..........................
1959-66 ............................................
1966-73 ............................................
1973-79 ............................................

2.15
3.19
2.31
0.77

2.04
2.93
2.22
0.74

.12
.27
.09
.03

Goods- to service-producing industries shift:
1959-79 (Total private)..........................
1959-66 ............................................
1966-73 ............................................
1973-79 ............................................

2.15
3.19
2.31
0.77

2.32
3.27
2.53
0.99

-0.16
-0.08
-0.22
-0.21

Shift among goods-producing industries:
1959-79 (Goods-producing)....................
1959-66 ............................................
1966-73 ............................................
1973-79 ............................................

2.81
3.73
3.00
1.52

2.49
3.12
2.76
1.45

0.31
0.61
0.24
0.07

Shift among service-producing industries:
1959-79 (Service-producing)..................
1959-66 ............................................
1966-73 ............................................
1973-79 ............................................

1.44
2.70
1.58
-0.17

1.28
2.75
1.29
-0.39

.17
-.04
.29
.22

1The actual productivity change has been partitioned into two broad contributing factors,
and the interaction effect between them. The interaction effect (not shown) has been allocat­
ed equally between these two columns.

24


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

This is true regardless of the period chosen or the out­
put measure used. In no instance does the employment
shift to services account for as much as .1 per year
change in productivity growth. When “gross product
originating” weights are used, the shift to service em­
ployment actually boosts productivity slightly. In fact,
of the movements depicted in the table, the shifts
among the goods-producing industries were most im­
p o rtan t-a cco u n tin g for as much as .6 per year produc­
tivity growth.
I t is NOT our purpose here to offer alternative explana­
tions of the significant slowdown in productivity growth
that has taken place since the late 1960’s. However, we
believe we have clearly shown that the productivity
slowdown is not primarily (or even importantly) the re­
sult of shifts in employment to the service-producing in­
dustries.5
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' For a discussion of the Bureau’s program, see Jerome A. Mark,
“Measuring productivity in the service industries,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­
view, June 1982, pp. 3-8.
2For a description of this data base, see C a p ita l S to c k E s tim a te s f o r
I n p u t- O u tp u t I n d u s trie s : M e th o d s a n d D a ta , Bulletin 2034 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1979).
In addition to the measure described below, an industry ranking in
terms of capital stock per dollar of output was also developed. Re­
sults of this ranking were quite similar to those presented in exhibit 1.
3For a description of methods used in developing this data base,
see T im e S e r ie s D a ta f o r I n p u t- O u tp u t In d u s trie s , Bulletin 2018 (Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics, 1979).
““Gross product originating” is a measure of net output— the final
value of goods and services produced in a sector less the cost of mate­
rials and purchased services. “Gross duplicated output” is a measure
of gross output that includes not only the gross product originating in
a sector, but also the cost of materials and purchased services.
5For detailed analyses of the slowdown in productivity, see J.R.
Norsworthy, Michael Harper, and Kent Kunze, “Slowdown in Pro­
ductivity Growth: Analysis of Some Contributing Factors,” B ro o k in g s
P a p e r s o n E c o n o m ic A c tiv ity , Fall 1979, pp. 387-427; Barbara M.
Fraumeni and Dale W. Jorgenson, “The role of capital in U.S. eco­
nomic growth, 1943-76,” in George M. Von Furstenburg, ed., C a p ita l
E f f ic ie n c y in G ro w th (Cambridge, Mass., Ballinger Publishing Co.,
1980), pp. 9-250; Edward F. Denison, A c c o u n tin g f o r S lo w e r E c o n o m ­
ic G ro w th in th e U n ite d S ta te s (Washington, The Brookings Institu­
tion, 1979); and John Kendrick, U n d e rs ta n d in g P r o d u c tiv ity : A n
I n tr o d u c tio n to th e D y n a m ic s o f P r o d u c tiv ity C h a n g e (Baltimore, Md.,
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1977).

Conference Papers
The following excerpts are adapted from papers present­
ed at the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Industrial
Relations Research Association, December 1982, in New
York.
The full text of all papers appears in the copyrighted
irra publication, Proceedings o f the Thirty-Fifth Annual
Meeting, available from IRRA, Social Science Building,
Madison, Wis. 53706.

Regulatory system encourages
employers to take the offensive
Myron J. R oomkin and R ichard N. Block
Are the structure and processes of the industrial rela­
tions regulatory system well suited to the reality of la­
bor-management relations? It may be time to recognize
that they are not. That system is characterized by the
juridical model, a system of impartial adjudication of
either party’s good faith disputes. In such a system, the
employer enjoys an inherent advantage because of its
ability to initiate practices. We also must question
whether the current system can function properly when
employers are using the legal system aggressively and
opportunistically.
By the nature of the system, it is the employer that
initiates actions through its right to manage property.
The union must, in general, react to the employer’s ini­
tiative. Even in situations where employees appear to be
initiating action, such as a strike, employers retain the
ultimate power to initiate action. In the case of a strike
an employer through its power of discipline can remove
employees from the payroll.
Because of this power to initiate actions, the regulato­
ry system gives employers a greater opportunity than it
gives unions to alter the state of the law. Employers are
capable of initiating practices which, if litigated, could
enhance employer rights. The union, for all intents and
Myron J. Roomkin is professor of industrial relations and urban af­
fairs, J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, and assistant di­
rector, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern
University. Richard N. Block is associate professor and associate di­
rector, School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State Uni­
versity. Their full ir r a paper is entitled, “The Legal Environment as a
Challenge to Unions.”


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

purposes, does not have an equal ability to institute
conduct in pursuit of more favorable legal doctrines.
This imbalance exists despite our commitment to due
process in regulatory matters.
Not only is there an imbalance in the right to initiate
actions, there is also a differential right to maintain
good faith conduct while the actions are being adjudi­
cated. Employers can maintain such conduct until all
appeals have been exhausted, thus imposing costs on
the union or its members.
It is not always acknowledged, but employers can
reap benefits from those judgments they lose, thus get­
ting even more encouragement to initiate action. Litiga­
tion tends to take private disputes and transform them
into public disputes. As information in the public
record reaches them, employers can take advantage of
the case-by-case approach to distinguish their case from
its predecessor, rebutting old arguments, and eventually
bringing about changes in doctrines.
This appears to be what happened with decisions in­
volving dual-purpose discharges— cases in which union
supporters may or may not have been discharged for
cause. The National Labor Relations Board’s original
“in part” test was continually challenged by employers.1
Even the newer doctrine of the “shifting burden of
proof,” which requires the General Counsel to make a
prima facie case of anti-union motivations2 continues to
be a subject of employer legal actions. Two recent
Courts of Appeals decisions, for instance, have chipped
away at the “shifting burden of proof” test by requiring
employers to provide evidence that would simply rebut,
rather than outweigh, the General Counsel’s prima facie
case.3 While, in theory, an employee who supports the
union could engage in conduct that he or she believes is
lawful, that employee must risk discipline and discharge
by the employer, that is, the employee cannot maintain
the action pending a final legal decision. Even if the
General Counsel or Regional Director chooses to issue
a complaint,4 and the employee’s action is ultimately
found to be lawful, the employee still must bear the
burden of the employer’s unlawful discipline pending a
resolution of the dispute. It is reasonable to believe that
such a cost would be a substantial disincentive to em­
ployees to explore their rights under the Act or to at­
tempt to have established legal doctrines reexamined.
An incrementalist strategy in pursuit of their good
faith beliefs concerning the legality of their actions is

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Conference Papers
also relatively unavailable to unions under Section 8(b)
of the National Labor Relations Act. Union actions
such as pressuring employees of neutral employers or
recognitional picketing may prompt an employer to file
a charge. The charge, if found by the Regional Director
to have merit, triggers Section 10(1) of the Act, under
which the case is given priority handling and which re­
quires a request for an injunction by the General Coun­
sel. Thus, the employer can have the action terminated
before it is vetoed by the Board, and the union cannot
maintain the action. Even if the union ultimately wins
the case in court, the union and employees who were
enjoined are not likely to be the same parties to actual­
ly benefit from the victory.5
The fact that union respondents under Section 8(b)
cannot maintain actions pending a dispositive legal de­
termination, as can employer respondents under Section
8(a), means there is a greater disincentive to unions
than employers to explore the legality of their actions.
Evidence of the dissatisfaction of unions with this ineq­
uity is the inclusion in the defeated Labor Law Reform
Act of 1977-78 of a provision that would have required
the Board to treat alleged violations of Section 8(a)(3)
in the same manner as alleged violations of Sections
8(b)(4), 8(b)(7), and 8(e).
It is becoming clear that the system cannot cope
when employers aggressively and opportunistically fol­
low their self-interest. While most charge cases are still
filed by employees and unions and not by employers,
unions and employees are responding to the initiated
conduct of the employer. To some significant but as yet
unmeasured extent, employers show a greater willing­
ness to initiate conduct— to exercise and perhaps to
capitalize upon their inherent advantages under the reg­
ulatory framework. A traditional concern along these
lines is that such aggressive actions by employers de­
tract from the credibility of the system, because they
overload the NLRB’s limited resources and create delays.
We suspect another consequence as well.
The tendency to initiate conduct aggressively may
create direct challenges to the basic tenets of the Na­
tional Labor Relations Act. Usually this occurs when
an employer commits egregious violations of the law,
forcing the agency to deny one party its rights in order
to protect the rights of another. At such a point, one is
likely to get a “strange” remedy which, given its
strangeness or unusual quality, becomes a barrier to its
own use.
Consider the Conair Corp. case.6 Apparently the em­
ployer by its “outrageous and pervasive” practices
destroyed the workers’ ability to choose or not to
choose a union of their choice. Thus, the Board im­
posed a union on the workers, even if they might not
have chosen one in the absence of employer unfair labor
practices. Freedom of choice had to be sacrificed to pro­
26

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

tect the integrity of the regulatory system. One is
reminded of the military people in Vietnam who said it
was necessary to destroy a village in order to save it!
Considering the exceptional nature of the remedy, the
Board should and will show a great deal of reluctance
in evoking the policy. In the end, then, the employer is
in fact encouraged to act aggressively in labor relations
and the acceptability of the machinery to the unions is
lessened. We would not advocate constraining employ­
ers in their access to the legal system. Rather, we be­
lieve that unions should have the same access to the
legal system as employers in order to get their good
faith beliefs litigated.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' The history of the litigation in “dual motive” discharge cases is re­
viewed in W rig h t L in e, A D ivisio n o f W rig h t L in e, In c ., 251, NLRB
1083-86, (1980).
2 251 NLRB at 1086-91, enf.
108 LRRM 2513 (CA 1, 1981).

NLRB

v.

W rig h t L in e ,

662 F.2d 899,

3See, for example, N L R B v. W rig h t L in e, and N L R B v. T r a n s p o rta ­
tio n M a n a g e m e n t, In c ., 674 F.2d 130, 109 LRRM 3391 (CA 1, 1982).
For the opposite point of view, see N L R B v. F ix tu r e s M a n u fa c tu r in g
C o rp ., 669 F.2d 547, 550 (CA 8, 1982). The Supreme Court has
granted c e r tio r i in T ra n sp o rta tio n M a n a g e m e n t, Washington, Bureau of
National Affairs, D a ily L a b o r R e p o r t, No. 220, pp. A2-A3, Nov. 15,
1982.
“The possibility that the discretion of the General Counsel in issu­
ing a complaint may result in a barrier to an affected party having its
rights litigated has gone unnoticed by the Supreme Court. See V aca v.
S ip es, 386 U.S. 171, 182-83 (1967) and D e tr o it E d iso n Co. v. N L R B ,
440 U.S. 301, 316 (1979).
5See also Richard N. Block, Benjamin W. Wolkinson, and David
E. Mitchell, “The NLRB and Alternative Situs Picketing: The Search
for the Elusive Standard,” I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s L a w J o u rn a l, Winter
1979, pp. 668-70.
6 262 NLRB 178 (1982).

Labor market segmentation theory:
critics should let paradigm evolve
M ichael J. P iore
The chilly reception accorded the fledgling theory of la­
bor market segmentation by members of the economics
profession provides an interesting example of the con­
flicts that can arise between competing theories, and be­
tween their related research practices. Thomas Kuhn
introduces the notion of a scientific paradigm, and then
distinguishes between periods of “normal” science,
which occur within an established paradigm, and per-

Michael J. Piore is a professor of economics and Mitsui Professor for
Problems of Contemporary Technology at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. The title of his full ir ra paper is, “Labor Market Seg­
mentation: To What Paradigm Does It Belong?”

iods of scientific revolution.1 As an exponent of labor
market segmentation in the community of “normal”
economics, I can assure you that labor market segmen­
tation does not fit the conventional paradigm.
In most discussions, labor market segmentation is
contrasted with the more optimistic human capital theo­
ry, but this does not, I think, account for the hostile re­
ception it has received. In fact, the treatment accorded
labor market segmentation by the profession is not so
very different from that accorded human capital theory
when it was first advanced by Gary Becker and others.
Rather, the antagonism of conventional economics to­
ward labor market segmentation seems to have more to
do with where the observation comes from and how its
supporters have sought to present it than with the exis­
tence of segmentation as a fact of nature. It has to do,
in other words, with the practice of economics rather
than with theoretical content in the strict sense of the
term.
Two aspects of that practice are, I believe, central.
First the manner in which segmentation theory was
“uncovered” involves approaches to empirical investiga­
tion which are excluded from conventional practice. By
and large, the notion of labor market stratification
emerged through “participant observation.” The idea
was originally put forward by a group of analysts who
observed the labor market while participating in the civ­
il rights movement and serving as advocates for the
community-based groups which grew up around that
movement and President Johnson’s War on Poverty.
Segmentation theory was an attempt to make sense out
of the labor market problems as the people in these
communities experienced them (or at least described
their experience) and to describe the labor market as
these people saw it. The initial research underlying the
theory took the form of relatively open-ended, unstruc­
tured interviews with the economic actors themselves.
This approach contrasts sharply with the practice of
econometric estimation of deductive neoclassical mod­
els, which use data gathered from highly structured in­
terviews, the results of which are reduced, before they
are introduced into the analysis, into continuous, quan­
titative variables. To find a precedent in economics for
the kind of research out of which labor market stratifi­
cation grows, one has to go back to the old institutional
labor economics of the 1930’s and 1940’s and the gener­
ation of scholar-practitioners whose theory was an effort
to organize their experience as arbitrators, mediators,
and wage-control administrators, or to the early labor
market studies of people like Lloyd G. Reynolds or
Frederic Meyers, whose research techniques in many
ways simulated through interviews the exposure they
had received through direct participation in labor rela­
tions. At the time during which stratification theories
were being developed, the economics profession was in


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

strong reaction against the “eclectic” nature of this re­
search methodology and the ad hoc theories which it
generated. A decade later, this older institutional re­
search was no longer even displayed as a practice to
students in the classroom. Thus, however consistent the
segmentation ideas might have been with orthodox the­
ory, they were suspect because they were uncovered by
unorthodox research practices and but for those prac­
tices might never have come into existence.
The second respect in which the notions surrounding
labor market stratification clash with the conventional
paradigm is in the sharp discontinuities which they in­
troduce into the world which theory has to explain.
Conventional theory is infused by what one of my col­
leagues in physics calls an “aesthetic” of continuity and
homogeneity: The basic tools of theoretical analysis are
applicable only in a continuous, homogeneous world,
and the theories which are displayed in the classroom
and which constitute the standards of rigor and ele­
gance against which students learn to judge their own
work and that of their colleagues pertain only to such a
world. (By convention, perfect competition is the agen­
cy by which continuity and homogeneity are maintained
in an economic system.) Therefore, labor market seg­
mentation or any other characterization of the world
which is sharply discontinuous and involves heteroge­
neous behavior is, on its face, intractable and unappeal­
ing. Given the fact that the empirical origins of labor
market segmentation are already suspect, the theoretical
aesthetic of the conventional paradigm strengthens the
tendency to reject the new theory out of hand.
To explain why conventional economics is so hostile
to the notion of labor market stratification does not
completely dispose of the question at hand. One might
still ask whether segmentation can be made consistent
with conventional theory.
At a certain level, the answer is clearly yes. Although
conventional theory assumes that all workers are ratio­
nal and that their labor market behavior is instrumental,
it does recognize sharp discontinuities between the labor
force attachment of various demographic groups. Virtu­
ally all economists, for example, would accept a distinc­
tion between prime-age working males, on the one hand,
and women and youth on the other. So long as the lat­
ter have a weak commitment to the labor market and a
strong, inherent tendency to high turnover, one would
expect distinct labor market institutions to govern their
behavior. Add to that a certain variability in the stabili­
ty of labor demand across different industries and
occupations— a variability which the conventional
aesthetic might well characterize as “continuous” —
and one tends toward exactly the dual labor market
which was the fulcrum for labor market segmentation
theories. Most conventional segmentation-type theories
proceed along these lines.
27

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Conference Papers
One can also build conventional segmentation-type
theories out of institutional imperfections in the labor
m arket— out of the tendency for workers or employers
to organize to protect their interests in the face of eco­
nomic flux and competition. Because it is competition
which generally enforces continuity and homogeneity in
conventional theory, any abridgment of it will introduce
the kind of discontinuous structure which notions of
segmentation entail in a completely conventional way.
Howevdr, it has been more difficult for conventional
theory to cope with the concept of internal labor m ar­
kets which basically asserts that, in large territories of
the labor market, job allocation and pricing are
governed by institutional rules and customs which are
only tenuously linked to rational, instrumental behavior
or to competitive market forces, if they are so linked at
all. The convention has been to assume that factors
such as the internal rules of the firm or the internal psy­
chology of the individual are either very stable or so
tightly constrained by the market that reference to the
latter will explain their variability.
It is at this point that I think the whole attempt to
encompass notions of labor market stratification within
conventional theory begins to break down. Take, for ex­
ample, the derivation of the dual labor market from the
differences in labor force attachment among various de­
mographic groups. Conventional explanations focus
upon women and youth. The focus is no accident: Wom­
en and youth are biological categories. And biologically
rooted behavioral differences combine relatively easily
with an economic theory of social processes. But the
question is not whether women and youth are biologi­
cally different from prime-age males; the relevant ques­
tion is whether their labor market behavior is a result of
those biological differences. Because that behavior has
varied historically, is currently undergoing significant
change, and is demonstrably linked to social institutions
like marriage, laws governing military service, school at­
tendance, and the like, it seems doubtful that it can be
biologically explained. The doubt that biological dif­
ferences explain labor market segmentation is strength­
ened by the fact that other groups with a marginal la­
bor force attachment are not biologically based:
Worker-peasants, temporary migrants, even aspiring ac­
tors and artists play labor force roles similar to those of
women and youth. Hence, it would appear that one
needs a social, not a biological, theory to explain labor
market segmentation. And most social theories do not
combine so easily with the conventional paradigm.
Much the same can be said of institutional “imperfec­
tions” as an explanation of labor market segmentation.
The conventional paradigm has no theory of such im­
perfections. In their face, it switches from a positive to
a normative mode. It can explain behavior in their ab­
sence. And, in their presence, it prescribes their elimina­
28

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

tion. But it has no coherent theoretical story about
where imperfection came from and how it should be
gotten rid of. Labor market imperfections invariably in­
volve cohesive institutions, and any argument about the
imperfections that one wants to eliminate would imply
something about other cohesive institutions, like the
family and the firm, which are taken as the building
blocks of economics and which the theory does n o t—
indeed could not— get rid of.
If labor market segmentation ultimately cannot be
encompassed by the conventional paradigm, to what
paradigm does it belong? At the core of labor market
segmentation are social groups and institutions. The
processes governing allocation and pricing within inter­
nal labor markets are social, opposed either to competi­
tive processes or to instrumental calculations. The
marginal labor force commitment of the groups which
creates the potential for a viable secondary sector of a
dual labor market is social. The structures which distin­
guish professional and managerial workers from other
members of the labor force and provide their distinctive
education and training are also social. To understand
these phenomena, one therefore needs a paradigm which
recognizes and encompasses social, as opposed to indi­
vidual, phenomena.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E ---------Thomas S. Kuhn, T h e S tr u c tu r e o f S c ie n tif ic
(Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970).

R e v o lu tio n s ,

2d. ed.

Are long-duration contracts
insurance against strikes?
Sanford M. Jacoby

and

D aniel J.B. M itchell

Evidence indicates that wage contracts in the union sec­
tor are typically multiyear, while the nonunion sector
remains on either a 1-year decision cycle, or no fixed cy­
cle at all. It is difficult to argue that long-term union
contracts merely reflect the long-term nature of implicit
contracts, given the union/nonunion duration discrep­
ancy. An alternative explanation is that the cost of
strikes in the union sector accounts for the difference.
Ultimately, it is the ability of the union to impose strike
costs that accounts for union wage premiums and other
concessions from employers. Thus, it is reasonable to
assume that strike costs influence the union contract’s
duration as well as its contents.
Sanford M. Jacoby is an assistant professor at the Graduate School of
Management, University of California, Los Angeles, and Daniel J.B.
Mitchell is a professor at the Graduate School of Management and
director of the Institute of Industrial Relations, University of Califor­
nia, Los Angeles. The title of their full ir ra paper is “Does Implicit
Contracting Explain Explicit Contracting?”

The usual explanation for the development of the
multiyear union contract is that it reduced the negotia­
tion frequency and, hence, exposure to strike risk.1
However, available data on strikes do not suggest that
unionized employers reduced annual strike frequency or
worktime lost to strikes by signing longer-duration con­
tracts.
In fact, there is a slight upward trend in wage strikes
per member during the period when contract durations
were increasing, somewhat counterbalanced by a decline
in other-issue strikes per member. No trend is evident
for the other measures pertaining to wage strikes: work­
er involvement in strikes and days lost per member fell
in the 1960’s but rose in the 1970’s; worker involvement
and days lost per member rose for other-issue strikes in
the 1960’s, but declined or stabilized in the 1970’s.
There is no evidence that employers obtained a reduc­
tion in long-term “downtime” due to strikes by length­
ening their union contract durations.
If the threat of strikes influenced contract duration, it
must be through the avoidance of uncertainty and fixed
(rather than variable) costs due to strikes. Contracts of
long duration facilitate long-run investment and pro­
duction planning by making labor costs more predict­
able. Also, firms can undertake multiyear projects with
reasonable certainty that they will not be interrupted by
work stoppages. For example, General Motors signed
its first multiyear agreement with the UAW in 1948 dur­
ing a crucial period when it was bringing into produc­
tion its new models.2
There also are fixed strike costs which can be
amortized over a longer period if contract expirations
occur less frequently. A firm must put its customers on
notice that a strike may occur each time it renegotiates
a contract. There are shutdown and startup costs unre­
lated to the duration of a strike. Few firms provide de­
tailed estimates of strike costs, but data are available
from a large manufacturer of metal products. The data
show the expected costs of an impending strike to be
“front-loaded.” That is, the cost of a projected 4-month
strike was highest during the first month and declined
over the course of the next 3 months. Clearly the firm
would prefer a 3-month strike every 3 years to three
1-month strikes during the same period.3 Negotiations
entail fixed costs as well since they absorb an organiza­
tion’s time and resources. In a 1949 survey, many in­
dustrial relations executives reported preferring 2-year
to shorter agreements, because they reduced the amount
of time spent in negotiations.4
In the postwar period, pressure to lengthen contract
duration appeared to come mainly from the manage­
ment side. Of course, reducing the frequency of negotia­
tions may result in savings for unions, too. However,
there was reluctance by union officials to give up the
appearance of an annual “delivery” of benefits. Hence,


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

unions demanded concessions such as union-security
clauses in return for longer contracts.
The relationship between strike costs and agreement
duration is not new. Most pre-World War I lengthy
contracts contained no-strike clauses. One 5-year con­
tract signed in 1910 provided that strikes would be re­
nounced in favor of arbitration,
“. . . to the end that fruitless controversy shall be avoided and
good feeling and harmonious relations be maintained, and the
regular and orderly prosecution of the business in which the
parties have a community of interest be insured beyond
the possibility of an interruption.”5

But if this relationship is not new, why did mean con­
tract durations increase after World War II? Long-dura­
tion contracts are a product of a mature relationship in
which the parties have bargained for a number of years.6
Employers are reluctant to sign a lengthy agreement un­
til they have accepted the union as a permanent feature
and are convinced of the union’s integrity with regard
to its no-strike promise. When contract duration in re­
newed agreements is compared with initial agreements,
the initial agreements show a clear tendency to be
shorter, thus supporting the maturity argument. Ex­
tended-duration contracts were not uncommon before
World War II. They were most prevalent in industries
with a long history of contracting with unions, such as
mining, apparel, and printing. In apparel, for example,
the proportion of agreements of 2 or more years’ dura­
tion approached modern levels before World War II.
Between 1935 and 1945, collective bargaining on a
wide scale was introduced to a variety of industries
such as rubber, transportation equipment, and metals.
Relatively few contracts in these industries were of ex­
tended duration during this period. But mean contract
duration rose steadily after the war as these newer rela­
tionships matured. By 1961, there was little difference in
the propensity of new and old relationship industries to
sign long-duration contracts.
□

--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' Joseph W. Garbarino, W a g e P o lic y a n d L o n g -T e r m
(Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1962), p. 89.

C o n tr a c ts

2Frederick H. Harbison, “The General Motors-United Auto Work­
ers Agreement of 1950,” J o u r n a l o f P o litic a l E c o n o m y , October 1950,
p. 402.
3John G. Hutchinson, M a n a g e m e n t U n d e r S tr ik e C o n d itio n s (New
York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), p. 59.
4W.S. Woytinsky, L a b o r a n d M a n a g e m e n t L o o k a t C o lle ctive
(New York, Twentieth Century Fund, 1949), pp. 46-48.

B a rg a in in g

5Contract between Chicago Local of the American Newspaper Pub­
lishers’ Association and Chicago Typographical Union No. 16, in
1910.
6Sanford M. Jacoby and Daniel J.B. Mitchell, “Development of
Contractual Features of the Union-Management Relationship,” L a b o r
L a w J o u rn a l, vol. 33, August 1982, pp. 513-16.
29

Communications
The use of worklife tables in
estimates of lost earning capacity
D avid M. N elson
A March 1982 Monthly Labor Review article by Shirley
J. Smith updated Bureau of Labor Statistics worklife ex­
pectancies of the population, using 1977 data.1Such sta­
tistics are frequently employed by economists and
attorneys when preparing estimates of future lost earn­
ings for personal injury and wrongful death cases.
The general procedure is for worklife estimates to be
added to an individual’s age at time of injury or death
in order to estimate his or her probable age at final sep­
aration from the labor force (through retirement or
death), had the injury or death not occurred. The prob­
able age at final separation less the individual’s current
age is used to represent the years the person had poten­
tially available for work. This is then used as the basis
for calculating any economic loss of earning capacity.
The courts have generally instructed that the estimate
of loss be based on the worker’s earning capacity— that
is, potential earnings if he or she were to have been
employed on an ongoing basis until retirement. Thus,
the possibility of voluntary periods of inactivity during
the working years prior to final separation should not
reduce the loss estimate.
It is apparent that the above procedure represents an
inappropriate use of the new worklife tables, because
the new estimates using the increment-decrement model
represent only the years actually spent in the labor
force. As Smith’s article points out, for increasing num­
bers of individuals, working life is not continuous, but
is spread over a greater number of years of potential
economic activity. What is needed for purposes of litiga­
tion are estimates of the median age of final separation
for individuals of both sexes at various ages. Such esti­
mates have been prepared for this communication, and
are presented in table 1.
The probability of net final separation from the labor
force at each stated age in the table was determined us-

David M. Nelson is an associate professor of economics at Western
Washington University, Bellingham, Wash.
30


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

ing data contained in the Bureau’s complete 1977 increment-decrement working life tables. It was computed by
dividing total labor force separations minus accessions
at each age by the active population at that age. Separations include those who were active in the labor force

Table 1. Determination of the median age of final
separation from the labor force, by sex and age, 1977

Age

Under 24 . . . .

Men

Women

Probability Median
of net final number of Median age
separation years until at final
at stated
separation
final
age
separation

Probability Median
of net final number of Median age
separation years until at final
at stated
separation
final
age
separation

-

-

61.5

-

-

61.0

2 4 ............
2 5 ............
2 6 ............
2 7 ............
2 8 ............
2 9 ............
3 0 ............
31 ............
3 2 ............
3 3 ............

_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
.00016
.00107

37.5
36.5
35.5
34.5
33.5
32.5
31.5
30.5
29.5
28.5

61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5

.00532
.00769
.00934
.01120
.01190
.01086
.00513
-.00294
-.01179
-.01208

37.0
36.0
35.1
34.1
33.2
32.3
31.4
30.4
29.4
28.3

61.0
61.0
61.1
61.1
61.2
61.3
61.4
61.4
61.4
61.3

3 4 ............
3 5 ............
3 6 ............
3 7 ............
3 8 ............
3 9 ............
4 0 ............
41 ............
4 2 ............
4 3 ............

.00097
.00138
.00251
.00361
.00264
.00389
.00546
.00587
.00585
.00711

27.5
26.5
25.5
24.6
23.6
22.6
21.6
20.7
19.7
18.7

61.5
61.5
61.5
61.6
61.6
61.6
61.6
61.7
61.7
61.7

-.01208
-.00835
-.00291
-.00159
-.00082
.00033
.00025
.00230
.00304
.00638

27.2
26.1
25.1
24.1
23.1
22.1
21.1
20.1
19.1
18.1

61.2
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.1

4 4 ............
4 5 ............
4 6 ............
4 7 ............
4 8 ............
4 9 ............
5 0 ............
51 ............
5 2 ............
5 3 ............

.00826
.00905
.00967
.01341
.01579
.01639
.01764
.01961
.02193
.02538

17.8
16.8
15.9
14.9
14.0
13.1
12.2
11.3
10.4
9.6

61.8
61.8
61.9
61.9
62.0
62.1
62.2
62.3
62.4
62.6

.00846
.01159
.01343
.01564
.01793
.02258
.02706
.02857
.02897
.03041

17.1
16.2
15.3
14.4
13.5
12.6
11.8
10.9
10.1
9.3

61.1
61.2
61.3
61.4
61.5
61.6
61.8
61.9
62.1
62.3

5 4 ............
5 5 ............
5 6 ............
5 7 ............
5 8 ............
5 9 ............
6 0 ............
61 ............
6 2 ............
6 3 ............

.02967
.03377
.03752
.04521
.06081
.08181
.11344
.14209
.16281
.17901

8.7
7.9
7.1
6.3
5.5
4.8
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.2

62.7
62.9
63.2
63.3
63.5
63.8
64.2
64.7
65.5
66.2

.03236
.03847
.04620
.05984
.07247
.08674
.11210
.13711
.16203
.17578

8.5
7.7
6.9
6.1
5.5
4.8
4.3
3.9
3.6
3.5

62.5
62.7
62.9
63.1
63.5
63.8
64.3
64.9
65.6
66.5

6 4 ............
6 5 ............
6 6 ............
6 7 ............
6 8 ............
6 9 ............
7 0 ............
71 ............

.19756
.20736
.20697
.19495
.18207
.16953
.16875
.15576

3.0
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.0

67.0
68.1
69.3
70.5
71.7
72.9
74.0
75.0

.18100
.18265
.17550
.17262
.16491
.15698
.15929
.15710

3.5
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.0

67.5
68.6
69.8
70.9
72.0
73.1
74.0
75.0

but who died during the year, plus those who became
inactive. For men, separations exceed accessions for the
first time at age 32. From this age on, there is, on bal­
ance, a net outflow of men from active life. During the
early years, this outflow is very small, remaining less
than 1 percent until age 47. From the mid-50’s on,
however, the probability of final separation in any given
year accelerates quickly from around 3 percent to a
peak of 20.7 percent at age 65.
For women, separations exceed accessions for the first
time at age 24 and remain that way through age 30.
From age 31 through 38, accessions exceed separations.
This can, undoubtedly, be explained by women who
leave the work world temporarily during the child-bear­
ing years. During this entire time the net flow of women
in and out of the labor force in any given year is very
nearly balanced. From age 39 on, separations exceed ac­
cessions but the probability of final termination from an
active working life in any given year remains less than 1
percent until age 45.
The estimates for median number of years until final
separation in table 1 show how many years will elapse
from the stated age until 50 percent of the active popu­
lation of that age has become inactive through death or
retirement. This figure was added to the stated age to
obtain the median age of final separation from the work


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

force. Median ages of final separation are remarkably
similar for both men and women over the entire spec­
trum, varying from each other by less than 1 year.
Among persons of the same age, men have a higher fi­
nal separation age until age 59, and women have a
higher separation age thereafter. Increased mortality
rates for men during these later years may account for
the switch.
One may also compare worklife expectancies of the
male and female population with the median number of
years until final separation to estimate the median num­
ber of years persons will be inactive during their “pre­
retirement” years. For a man age 20, it is 4.7 years, but
for a woman of the same age, it is 15 years. At age 30,
it is 2.3 years for men, while for women it is 11.5 years.
At age 40, there are 1.3 years of pre-retirement inactivi­
ty for men and 7.4 years for women. The figures indi­
cate that, while men and women do differ significantly
in the number of years each group works, there is little
difference in the median age at which each group finally
withdraws from the labor force.
□

--------- F O O T N O T E ---------' Shirley J. Smith, “New worklife estimates reflect changing profile
of labor force,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , March 1982, pp. 15-20.

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.

31

Research
Summaries
Comparing annual and weekly earnings
from the Current Population Survey
N

ancy

R y t in a

Information on both annual and usual weekly earnings
of full-time wage and salary workers is available from
the Current Population Survey ( c p s ). The annual data
are collected each March from the entire household sur­
vey sample as part of the supplemental questions on
work experience and income in the previous calendar
year. In contrast, the weekly earnings data are obtained
each month from one quarter of the CPS sample as part
of the regular survey on employment and unemploy­
m ent.1To increase the reliability of the weekly data, the
data are aggregated into quarterly and annual averages,
which show trends in earnings.2
Because the weekly data are available before the an­
nual March data for a given year, questions have arisen
regarding the comparability between the two earnings
series. In particular, it has often been asked how closely
annualized weekly earnings (usual weekly earnings times
52) approximate reported annual earnings.
This report evaluates the comparability of the series
in two ways. First, the reported 1981 earnings of men
and women who worked full time, year round in 50 oc­
cupations are compared with the estimated annual earn­
ings of all full-time workers in those occupations. The
estimates for the latter series are obtained by taking the
annual averages of the usual weekly earnings times 52.
Second, the ratio of women’s earnings to men’s is calcu­
lated, using both reported annual and average usual
weekly earnings for 1981.

Estimated earnings lower
The first two columns of tables 1 and 2 show the re­
ported annual earnings and annual averages of the usual
weekly earnings in 1981 for men and for women. The
third column shows the estimated annualized weekly
earnings (usual weekly earnings times 52). Column 4 in
each table presents ratios of annualized weekly earnings

Nancy Rytina is a demographer in the Division of Data Development
and Users Services, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statis­
tics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
32


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

to reported annual earnings. A ratio of 1.00 indicates
that annualized weekly earnings are the same as the es­
timate of annual earnings, while a ratio greater than
(less than) 1.00 indicates that annualized weekly earn­
ings are more than (less than) reported annual earnings.
The ratios of annualized weekly earnings to annual
earnings range from .67 to 1.14. In most occupations
the estimate of annual earnings based on usual weekly
earnings is less than the reported earnings of those who
actually worked the whole year. It is also apparent that
the degree of such understatement is greater for men
than for women. Moreover, the ratios do not vary sys­
tematically by sex and occupation; for men, they range
from a low of .81 for transport equipment operatives to
1.06 for miners, and for women, from a low of .81 for
protective service workers to a high of 1.14 for personal
service workers.
A number of basic differences between the two earn­
ings series should be noted. First, both estimates of
earnings vary because of sampling error. The standard
error is a measure of the extent to which a sample is
representative of the universe and tends to vary inverse­
ly with the size of the sample. The weekly data general­
ly have smaller standard errors because the households
surveyed are triple the number in the annual survey.3
Second, while the reference period for the weekly
data is the previous week, it is 2 to 14 months earlier
for the annual data. As a result, the annual data are
more affected than the weekly data by the ability of re­
spondents to recall events. Moreover, the annual data
relate to all jobs held during the reference year, whereas
the weekly data relate only to primary jobs. Moonlight­
ing is typical of only a small percentage of workers—
4.9 percent in May 1980 (the most recently available
figure).4 For those holding more than one job, total an­
nual earnings as reported in March should, of course,
exceed an annualized estimate derived from average
weekly earnings. Moreover, the annualized estimate will
result in a greater understatement of earnings for men
than for women because moonlighting is more common
among men. In May 1980, the dual and multiple jobholding rate for men was 5.8 percent and for women,
3.8 percent.
Third, the occupation to which earnings are assigned
in the March CPS is that of the longest job held during
the previous year, while in the weekly data it is that of
the primary job. For most workers, the primary and

longest jobs are the same; only about 10 percent of
workers change occupations in a year.5 Annualized
weekly earnings and reported annual earnings will thus
vary to the extent that earnings from the longest job
differ from the earnings of the primary job held the rest
of the year.
Fourth, the weekly data refer to “usual” earnings,
rather than “actual.” Among workers employed the
same number of hours each week, usual and actual
weekly earnings should be identical. However, for work­
Table 1.

ers with irregular hours from either overtime or parttime work, usual and actual weekly earnings will tend
to vary. This possible exclusion of overtime earnings in
reporting usual weekly earnings would also lead to an
annualized figure that falls short of actual annual earn­
ings. Because men are more likely than women to work
overtime, this would tend to lead to a greater underesti­
mation of men’s annual earnings.
Fifth, income from self-employment in incorporated
businesses is included in the annual data and excluded

Median weekly and annual earnings of male full-time wage and salary workers by occupation, 1981
Weekly
earnings

Annual
earnings

Weekly
earnings
times 52

Ratio of weekly
(times 52)
to annual earnings

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

$346.74

$20,593

3$18,030

0.88

Professional and technical workers..........................................................................
Engineers ...........................................................................................................
Physicians, dentists, and related practitioners........................................................
Health workers, except practitioners ....................................................................
Teachers, except college and university................................................................
Engineering and science technicians .......................... ..........................................
Other professional and technical workers..............................................................
Managers and administrators, except farm................................................................
Salaried workers, manufacturing ..........................................................................
Salaried workers, other industries ........................................................................

439.26
547.13
494.95
331.19
384.37
371.00
443.34
466.28
558.22
440.82

25,350
31,069
38,504
16,389
20,369
21,690
( ')
26,656
30,444
( 1)

322,842
328,451
325,737
17,222
19,987
319,292
23,054
324,247
329,027
22,923

.90
.92
.67
1.05
.98
. 89
( 1)
.91
.95
( 1)

Salesworkers .........................................................................................................
Retail trade .........................................................................................................
Other industries...................................................................................................
Clerical workers .....................................................................................................
Bookkeepers .......................................................................................................
Office machine operators ....................................................................................
Stenographers, typists, and secretaries ................................................................
Other clerical workers .........................................................................................

365.67
258.65
421.29
327.67
320.37
324.39
290.58
328.23

22,144
15,948
24,599
18,728
18,065
16,062
n
19,065

319,015
313,450
321,907
317,039
316,659
16,868
15,110
317,068

.86
.84
.89
.91
.92
1.05
(2)
.90

Craft and kindred workers .......................................................................................
Carpenters .........................................................................................................
Other construction craftworkers ..........................................................................
Blue-collar supervisors, not elsewhere classified....................................................
Machinists and job setters ..................................................................................
Metal craftworkers, except mechanics, machinists, and job setters..........................
Mechanics, automobiles ......................................................................................
Mechanics, except automobiles............................................................................
Other craft and kindred workers ..........................................................................

359.93
324.86
371.72
408.57
359.33
411.17
287.03
348.33
359.53

20,458
16,635
20,480
24,097
19,022
22,555
16,305
20,074
20,859

318,716
16,893
319,329
321,246
318,685
321,381
314,926
318,113
318,696

.91
1.02
.94
.88
.98
.95
.92
.90
.90

Operatives, except transport................ ....................................................................
Mine workers.......................................................................................................
Motor vehicles and equipment...............................................................................
Other durable goods manufacturing......................................................................
Nondurable goods manufacturing .........................................................................
Other industries...................................................................................................
Transport equipment operatives ...............................................................................
Delivery and route workers...................................................................................
Other transport equipment operatives ..................................................................

298.13
412.95
386.33
294.05
277.13
263.83
306.94
306.09
310.87

16,686
20,194
20,182
16,987
16,554
15,054
17,425
16,973
19,961

315,503
21,473
20,089
315,291
314,411
313,719
315,961
315,917
316,165

.93
1.06
1.00
.90
.87
.91
.92
.94
.81

Nonfarm laborers.....................................................................................................
Construction .......................................................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................................................
Other industries...................................................................................................
Private household workers.......................................................................................
Service workers, except private household ..............................................................
Cleaning service workers .....................................................................................
Food service workers...........................................................................................
Health service workers.........................................................................................
Personal service workers .....................................................................................
Protective service workers ...................................................................................

243.63
246.87
259.46
233.98
174.31
238.08
221.99
186.09
216.12
223.63
321.52

14,690
12,860
15,991
14,569
(2)
14,255
12,634
9,618
12,827
14,018
19,654

312,669
12,837
313,492
312,167
9,064
312,380
311,543
9,677
311,238
311,629
316,719

.86
1.00
.84
.84
(2)
.87
.91
1.01
.88
.83
.85

Farmworkers:
Farmers and farm managers.................................................................................
Farm laborers and supervisors .............................................................................
Paid workers ...................................................................................................

246.42
180.47
180.47

(2)
9,016
9,016

( 2)
9,384
9,384

(2)
1.04
1.04

Occupation

1Although median annual earnings for men employed In these occupations exceeded
$25,000, the medians are reported as $25,000-plus in the tabulations from which these data
are derived.
2Data not shown where base is less than 75,000 for annual data or 50,000 for weekly
data.
3Difference between reported annual earnings and annual averages of weekly earnings
times 52 is significant at the .10 level, based on comparability test used by the Bureau of


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

the Census.
Note: Data on annual earnings refer to full-time year-round wage and salary workers and
are collected in the March supplement to the Current Population Survey. Weekly earnings data,
which are collected monthly in the CPS, refer to the annual average of usual median weekly
earnings of full-time wage and salary workers.

33

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Research Summaries
in the weekly. The effect of this difference is apparent
among male physicians, dentists, and related practitio­
ners. A substantial proportion of workers in these occu­
pations have income from their own incorporated
businesses (for example, private practice) as well as
from wages and salaries (as received from hospitals and
clinics). Annualized weekly earnings thus very much un­
derstate reported annual earnings in these occupations.
In most other occupations, the proportion of selfemployed incorporated workers is quite small, and there
is little reason to suppose that annual earnings as esti­
mated from the data on weekly earnings would lead to

T a b le 2 .

a large understatement of reported annual earnings.
Sixth, compositional differences among workers in the
two series also arise because of the time reference. The
annual data show the earnings of all individuals who
were usually employed full time, year round. In con­
trast, the weekly data provide just a snapshot of the
workers who were usually employed full time one week
of each month during the year. The annual averages of
the weekly data thus relate not only to all persons who
worked full time, year round but also those who
worked full time part of the year. The latter group con­
sists disproportionately of women and young workers.

M e d ia n w e e k l y a n d a n n u a l e a r n in g s o f f e m a le f u ll- t im e w a g e a n d s a la r y w o r k e r s b y o c c u p a t io n , 1981

Occupation

Weekly
earnings

Annual
earnings

Weekly
earnings
times 52

Ratio of weekly
(times 52)
to annual earnings

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

$224.45

$12,345

2$11,671

0.95

Professional and technical workers..........................................................................
Engineers ...........................................................................................................
Physicians, dentists, and related practitioners........................................................
Health workers, except practitioners ....................................................................
Teachers, except college and university................................................................
Engineering and science technicians ....................................................................
Other professional and technical workers..............................................................
Managers and administrators, except farm................................................................
Salaried workers, manufacturing ..........................................................................
Salaried workers, other industries ........................................................................

315.55
370.84
400.64
313.87
310.98
279.22
320.91
283.31
312.44
280.54

16,312
C)
( ')
16,471
15,769
14,371
16,627
15,432
16,367
15,331

16,409
219,284
220,833
16,321
216,171
14,519
16,687
214,732
16,247
214,588

1.01
(’ )
( 1)
.99
1.03
1.01
1.00
.95
.99
.95

Salesworkers .........................................................................................................
Retail trade .........................................................................................................
Other industries...................................................................................................
Clerical workers .....................................................................................................
Bookkeepers .......................................................................................................
Office machine operators .................................................... ............................
Stenographers, typists, and secretaries ................................................................
Other clerical workers .........................................................................................

190.04
157.64
277.11
219.69
222.39
223.17
226.15
215.30

11,395
8,833
14,861
11,929
12,315
12,102
12,041
11,693

29,882
28,197
14,410
211,424
211,564
211,605
211,760
211,196

.87
.93
.97
.96
.94
.96
.98
.96

Craft and kindred workers .......................................................................................
Carpenters .........................................................................................................
Other construction craftworkers ...........................................................................
Blue-collar supervisors, not elsewhere classified....................................................
Machinists and job setters .................................. ................................................
Metal craftworkers, except mechanics, machinists, and job setters..........................
Mechanics, automobiles .......................................................................................
Mechanics, except automobiles.............................................................................
Other craft and kindred workers ...........................................................................

239.42
( 1)
( ')
262.34
n
( ')
( 1)
279.28
214.24

13,275
( 1)
( 1)
14,289
( 1)
V)
( 1)
( ')
12,008

12,450
( 1)
( ')
13,642
(’ )
(’ )
C)
214,523
11,140

.94
( ')
(’ )
.95
(’ )
(>)
(’ )
(’ )
.93

Operatives, except transport.....................................................................................
Mine workers.................................................................................
Motor vehicles and equipment...............................................................................
Other durable goods manufacturing.......................................................................
Nondurable goods manufacturing .........................................................................
Other Industries...................................................................................................
Transport equipment operatives ..............................................................................
Delivery and route workers.........................................................................
Other transport equipment operatives ..................................................................

187.38
( ')
280.47
211.06
174.63
169.39
237.04
228.16
(’ )

10,191
(’ )
( 1)
11,721
9,359
9,021
12,850
13,139
(’ )

29,744
( 1)
214,584
210,975
29,081
8,808
12,326
211,864
(’ )

.96
(’ )
(’ )
.94
.97
.98
.96
.90
(’ )

Nonfarm laborers.....................................................................................
Construction ...................................................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................................................
Other industries...................................................................................................
Private household workers.......................................................................................
Service workers, except private household ..............................................................
Cleaning service workers ...............................................................................
Food service workers...........................................................................................
Health service workers.........................................................................................
Personal service workers .................................................................................
Protective service workers ...................................................................................

193.20
(’ )
208.59
182.69
104.18
169.82
167.90
148.35
184.56
207.92
226.14

10,477
( 1)
11,934
9,652
5,216
8,625
8,337
7,153
9,860
9,513
14,578

10,046
C)
10,847
9,500
5,417
28,831
8,731
27,714
29,597
210,812
211,759

.96
(>)
.91
.98
1.04
1.02
1.05
1.08
.97
1.14
.81

Farmworkers:
Farmers and farm managers.................................................................................
Farm laborers and supervisors .............................................................................
Paid workers ...............................................................................

(’ )

146.30
146.30

(')

( 1)

( 1)
( 1)

7,608
7,608

(’)

1Data not shown where base is less than 75,000 for annual data or 50,000 for weekly data.
2See footnote 3, table 1.
N ote:

Data on annual earnings refer to full-time year-round wage and salary workers

34


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

n

( ')

and are collected in the March supplement to the Current Population Survey. Weekly earnings
data, which are collected monthly in the CPS, refer to the annual average of usual median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers.

For example, the 16-24 age group accounted for 19 per­
cent of full-time workers in the weekly series but only
13 percent of those in the annual data. When combined
with the fact that young workers are typically in rela­
tively low-paying jobs, their differential weights in the
computation of the two series mean that they tend to
lower the weekly earnings average more than they do
the measures of annual earnings.
Overall, the absence of any clear pattern in the ratios
of annualized weekly to reported annual earnings high­
lights the many dimensions in which the annual and
weekly earnings series vary. Both series are affected by
sampling error. They differ in terms of the definition of
full-time employment, the demographic composition of
the workers and the characteristics of the jobs. As a re­
sult, it is difficult to isolate any one factor as the reason
one ratio is larger (smaller) than another.

Sex-earnings ratios differ
The usual weekly and reported annual earnings also
differ in terms of the ratios of women’s earnings to
men’s. As shown in table 3, the earnings of women are
generally closer to those of men when based on the
weekly data rather than annual earnings data, although
the ratios in the series are not consistent within the
same occupation. Thus, for purposes of comparing
women’s earnings to men’s by occupation, it is advis­
able to use the same series, especially if the sex-earnings
ratio is being contrasted among a number of occupa­
tions.
As a last observation, the data in table 4 present
trends in sex-earnings ratios based on both the annual
earnings of full-time, year-round workers and the week­
ly earnings of full-time workers (ratios are shown only
for totals, not by occupation). The annual data are from
the March CPS for the period 1955-81, while the weekly
data, available only since 1967, are from the May CPS
for 1967-78, and from the second quarterly averages of
the CPS for 1979-82.
Both series convey the same information: There has
been very little change in the ratio of women’s to men’s
earnings. There are, however, slight variations in the
trends depicted by the ratios in the two series because
of differences in the weekly and annual data noted earli­
er. The ratios based on the weekly data have always
been about 2-5 percentage points above the ratios
based on the annual data. Moreover, the ratios within
each series have fluctuated by about 3 percentage
points. Thus, put in historical context, neither the annu­
al nor weekly CPS earnings series necessarily signifies
any real change in women’s earnings relative to men’s
earnings.
THE RESULTS of this research have indicated that the
annual averages of weekly earnings when multiplied by


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

T a b le 3 . R a t io o f w o m e n ’s t o m e n ’s a n n u a l a n d w e e k ly
e a r n in g s b a s e d o n f u ll- t im e e m p lo y m e n t b y o c c u p a t io n ,
1981

Occupation

Ratio of women’s to
men’s earnings
Annual

Weekly

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

59.9

64.7

Professional and technical workers ......................
Engineers........................................................
Physicians, dentists, and related practitioners . . .
Health workers, except practitioners..................
Teachers, except college and university............
Engineering and science technicians..................
Other professional and technical workers..........
Managers and administrators, except farm ............
Salaried workers, manufacturing ......................
Salaried workers, other industries ....................

64.3
(’ )
(’ )
100.5
77.4
66.3
(2)
57.9
53.8
(2)

71.8
67.8
80.9
94.9
80.9
75.2
72.5
60.8
55.9
63.7

Salesworkers......................................................
Retail trade ....................................................
Other industries ..............................................
Clerical workers..................................................
Bookkeepers ..................................................
Office machine operators ................................
Stenographers, typists, and secretaries ............
Other clerical workers......................................

51.4
55.4
60.4
63.7
68.2
75.3
( 1)
61.3

52.0
61.0
65.8
67.0
69.4
68.8
77.1
65.5

Craft and kindred workers ..................................
Carpenters......................................................
Other construction craftworkers........................
Blue-collar supervisors, not elsewhere classified .
Machinists and job setters................................
Metal craftworkers, except mechanics,
machinists, and job setters............................
Mechanics, automobiles ..................................
Mechanics, except automobiles........................
Other craft and kindred workers ......................

64.9
(’ )
(’ )
59.3
(’ )

66.5
( 1)
(' )
64.1
(’ )

V)
(' )
(' )
57.6

(’ )
( 1)
80.2
59.4

Operatives, except transport................................
Mine workers..................................................
Motor vehicles and equipment..........................
Other durable goods manufacturing..................
Nondurable goods manufacturing......................
Other industries ..............................................
Transport equipment operatives ..........................
Delivery and route workers ..............................
Other transport equipment operatives ..............

61.1
n
( 1)
69.0
56.5
59.9
73.7
77.4
(’ )

62.9
(’ )
72.5
71.8
63.2
64.0
77.2
74.5
(’ )

Nonfarm laborers................................................
Construction....................................................
Manufacturing ................................................
Other industries ..............................................
Private household workers ..................................
Service workers, except private household............
Cleaning service workers ................................
Food service workers ......................................
Health service workers....................................
Personal service workers ................................
Protective service workers ..............................

71.3
( 1)
74.6
66.3
( 1)
60.5
66.0
74.4
76.9
67.9
74.2

79.3
(’ )
80.7
78.2
(’ )
71.3
75.6
79.7
85.4
80.0
70.3

Farmworkers:
Farmers and farm managers............................
Farm laborers and supervisors ........................
Paid workers ..............................................

( ')
(’ )
(’ )

(’ )
(’ )
(’ )

' Not available.
2Not computed. Although median annual earnings for men employed in these occupations
exceeded $25,000, the medians are reported as $25,000-plus In the tabulations .from which
these data are derived.
Note: Data on annual earnings refer to full-time year-round wage and salary workers and
are collected in the March supplement to the Current Population Survey. Weekly earnings
data, which are collected monthly in the CPS, refer to the annual average of usual median
weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers.

52 are generally less than the reported annual earnings
of men and women by occupation. Moreover, the ratio
of women’s earnings to men’s, although slightly higher
when based on the weekly rather than annual data,
shows about the same trend. Both series have their
35

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Research Summaries

Table 4. Ratio of women’s to men’s annual and weekly
earnings based on full-time employment, 1955-82
Year

Annual

Weekly

1955
1956
1957
1958
1959

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

64
63
64
63
61

1960
1961
1962
1963
1964

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

61
59
60
60
60

1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

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

60
58
58
58
61

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

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

59
60
58
57
59

62
62
63
62
61

1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

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

59
60
59
59
60

62
62
62
61
62

1980 ..................................................
1981 ..................................................
1982 ..................................................

60
60

63
64
65

( 1)

Unemployment experience in Canada:
a 5-year longitudinal analysis

( ’ )

Su n d e r M

agun

( ’ )
n
<’ )
( ’ )
( 1)
( 1)
( ’ >
n
( 1)

o
<’ )

62
( ’ )

61

1Not available.
Note: Data on annual earnings refer to full-time, year-round wage and salary workers and
are collected in the March supplement to the Current Population Survey. Weekly earnings
data, which are collected monthly in the CPS, refer to usual median weekly earnings of full­
time wage and salary workers. Data shown for the years 1967-78 were collected .in May;
for 1979-82, they are second quarter averages.

strengths and weaknesses. The purposes for which the
data are to be used thus largely determine whether the
annual or weekly data are more appropriate.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' Prior to 1979, comparable weekly earnings data were collected in
the May CPS.
2Quarterly data on weekly earnings from the CPS are published in
the press release, “Weekly Earnings of Workers and Their Families.”
For annual averages of weekly earnings, see A n a ly z in g 1 9 8 1 E a rn in g s
D a ta f r o m th e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u rv e y , Bulletin 2149 (Bureau of La­
bor Statistics, 1982). For uses of reported annual earnings data, see
L in k in g E m p lo y m e n t P r o b le m s to E c o n o m ic S ta tu s , Bulletin 2123 (Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics, 1982); and Sylvia L. Terry, “Unemployment
and its effect on family income,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , April 1982,
pp. 35-43. Also, the Bureau of the Census regularly publishes the re­
ported annual earnings data as part of the Current Population Re­
ports P-60 Series.
3The sample size for the monthly CPS is about 60,000 households.
Thus, one quarter or 15,000 times 12 equals about 180,000 house­
holds as the base for the annual averages. For further discussion, see
T e c h n ic a l D e sc rip tio n o f th e Q u a r te r ly D a ta on W e e k ly E a rn in g s f r o m
th e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u rv e y , Bulletin 2113 (Bureau of Labor Statis­

This report presents a picture of Canadian joblessness
over 5 years and reveals serious chronic unemployment.
In a 1975-79 longitudinal analysis, we used three indi­
cators: total amount of all unemployment across all
spells over the period; the number of unemployment
spells per person; and the average duration of such a
spell. Also, we considered sex, age, province, industry,
and occupation. Among our findings:
• A few bear the greatest unemployment burden;
• The people with histories of hardcore unemployment
are at a relatively greater disadvantage in the labor
market and risk further episodes of chronic unem­
ployment;
• Long-term spells are relatively few but account for
much greater unemployment than would be expected
on the basis of probability.
We find that the long-run structure of unemployment
in Canada is not consistent with the “dynamic” or the
“turnover” view of the labor market. According to this
view, the characteristics of the unemployment problem
are rapid job turnover and brief spells of unemploy­
ment, and the burden of unemployment is not concen­
trated, but is widely shared among workers. This
“benevolent” viewpoint of unemployment contends that
unemployment is mainly frictional and voluntary. The
benign view, by rejecting the existence of chronic and
persistent unemployment, de-emphasizes the social and
economic costs of joblessness. Our results do not sup­
port the turnover view. As noted, there are, in fact,
three aspects of the real problem of unemployment in
the country.
We used the linked Longitudinal Labour Force Data
Base, which is composed of several administrative data
files of the Canada Unemployment Insurance Commis­
sion. This data base contains microdata on the labor
market experience of a 10-percent sample of all “in­
sured” workers.1 A sample of about 20,200 people who
had at least one episode of unemployment from 1975 to
1979 was drawn from the data set. These individuals
had filed regular unemployment insurance claims2 for
about 56,000 job separations over the 5-year span. The
sample is a representation of Canadian workers who
have relatively more difficulties in the labor market and

tics, 1982).
4See Daniel E. Taylor and Edward S. Sekscenski, “Workers on
long schedules, single and multiple jobholders,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­
view , May 1982, pp. 47-53.
5See Nancy F. Rytina, “Occupational changes and tenure, 1981,”
September 1982, pp. 29-33.

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

36


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

Sunder Magun is an economist in the Strategic Policy and Planning
Division of Employment and Immigration Canada. The author alone
is responsible for the content of this report, which is adapted from a
larger study, L a b o u r M a r k e t E x p e r ie n c e in C a n a d a : A L o n g itu d in a l
A n a ly sis.

who are often clients of the Commission’s manpower
programs.

Who are the unemployed?
The bulk of the unemployment burden falls on a
small proportion of workers. About 25 percent of un­
employed individuals accounted for almost half of the
total time lost because of unemployment between 1975
and 1979. Each individual in this group experienced, on
average, 2 years of unemployment, consisting of repeat­
ed and long spells of joblessness. This concentration of
unemployment was not confined to a particular sex,
age, or regional group but occurred among male, fe­
male, young, and adult workers in all regions.
There are, however, important regional differences in
the distribution of unemployment burden. In a region
where the unemployment rate is high, unemployment is
more equally shared. In the Atlantic region, the top
one-quarter of workers accounted for 45 percent of total
unemployment, compared with 57 percent in the Prairie
region. Therefore, the unemployment burden is some­
what more equally shared in the Atlantic region than in
the Prairie provinces. This is because unemployment is
more widespread in the former region than in the latter.
We define the chronically unemployed as individuals
with 27 weeks or more of unemployment during a given
year without regard to the number of times they were
out of work. Persons with less than 27 weeks of total
unemployment we consider short-term unemployed, and
those with no spells of unemployment during the given
year we define as not unemployed.
The chronically unemployed as a proportion of the
sample, ranged from 12.5 percent in 1975 to 17.8 per­
cent in 1978, reflecting worsening economic conditions.
Of great significance are the large movements of people
among the three labor force categories. For example, a
worker might be chronically unemployed in 1975, not
unemployed in 1976, jobless for the short term in 1977,
and then chronically unemployed again.
Despite these intergroup movements, a subgroup of
individuals who remained over time in a given status
had little likelihood of leaving the group. This aspect of
unemployment experience can be expressed in terms of
conditional probability. By creating a probability tree
we can track the labor market experience of certain
groups of individuals. We have constructed two proba­
bilities trees— one relates to a cohort of the long-term
unemployed and the other to a cohort of the short-term
unemployed during the 4-year period, 1975-78. Both
trees show the influence of hardcore unemployment.
A comparison of the two probability distributions re­
veals an important finding: those chronically unem­
ployed in 1975 had a much greater likelihood of
repeating their experience in the following 3 years than
did the short term unemployed in 1975. The probabili­


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

ties of a period of prolonged joblessness (27 weeks or
more) were 51 percent compared with only 27 percent
for the 1975 short-term unemployed cohort. Moreover,
the 1975 cohort of chronically unemployed had a five
times greater probability of annual long-term unemploy­
ment than the 1975 cohort of short-term unemployed.
A sequence of chronic unemployment may have a cu­
mulative effect by worsening job skills. If a person is
chronically unemployed in 1976 as well as 1975, his or
her chance of becoming so in 1978 is almost 50 percent,
compared with only 15 percent for the short-term un­
employed. Furthermore, if an individual is also chroni­
cally out of work in 1977, his or her risk in 1978 is 64
percent, compared with 12 percent for the short-term
unemployed in 1975, 1976, and 1977.
Most of the spells of unemployment are less than 21
weeks. Longer spells are relatively fewer but account for
much greater unemployment. Although this would be
expected on theoretical grounds, the effect was substan­
tially larger than would be expected on the basis of
chance alone.
During 1975-79, the Canadian unemployment rate
rose from 6.9 percent in 1975 to 8.4 percent in 1978. By
quantifying the relationship between the unemployment
rate and the unemployment experience over the 5-year
period, we find that a 1-percentage-point increase in the
unemployment rate reflected, on average, a rise in un­
employment frequency by four-tenths of a spell, dura­
tion of a spell by 2.3 weeks, and length of total
unemployment by almost 10 weeks.
A closer examination of unemployment spells shows
that with increasing unemployment spell length, the
probability of leaving unemployment and finding a job
first decreases until the spell length reaches 26 weeks,
but increases up to a length of 40 weeks, because of
stricter benefit control activity of the Unemployment
Insurance Program, and then drops off sharply. As not­
ed, the majority of spells are 1 to 26 weeks. An impor­
tant finding is the sharp decline in the probability of
employment after 40 weeks. The individual with such a
long spell of unemployment may have greater problems
in finding a job, or may not be actively searching for
employment in the labor market.
As mentioned, we investigated how unemployment
experience— measured in total length of unemployment,
spell incidence, and duration— is distributed among in­
dividuals by sex, age, province, industry, and occupa­
tion. The total duration of unemployment for men was
lower than that for women; so were the number of un­
employment spells per person and spell length. The
main reason the male worker fared better than the fe­
male worker is that the spell length for the former is
shorter, on average. This could be because men are sub­
ject to more layoffs and the length of those spells which
start with layoffs is relatively shorter.
37

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Research Summaries
With regard to age, we find two fundamental tend­
encies in the labor market:
• The spell frequency decreases with age, first slowly
and then rapidly after age 44.
• The spell length increases with age, first slowly and
then sharply after age 40.
The offsetting influences of these two tendencies de­
termine the variation in total duration of unemployment
by age group. The duration first drops with age, then
increases for the 35 to 44 age group and finally falls
sharply for the older age groups (45 yeafs and over). In
general, spell frequency has a more pronounced influ­
ence than increasing spell length on total unemploy­
ment.
In keeping with the overall unemployment rates,
people in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec suffered
greater unemployment with more frequent and more
prolonged spells. Those in Ontario and the Western
provinces, however, incurred fewer and shorter spells of
unemployment.
The disparity in unemployment experience by indus­
try is not as great as the disparity by province. Greater
unemployment occurred in primary industries, including
farming, forestry, and fishery, mainly because of season­
al factors. Both the average number of spells and the
length of each spell were substantially higher than the
national averages. The workers in the construction in­
dustry had more unemployment, largely because of the
frequency of joblessness, while those in finance, insur­
ance, and real estate, and trade, experienced relatively
less unemployment principally because of fewer episodes
per person. In general, we found more and shorter
spells of unemployment in the goods-producing indus­
tries than in the service sector. In the latter sector, the
spells are longer because of relatively more quits by
people who often search longer for a job in the labor
market. By contrast, there are relatively more layoffs in
the goods sector, and workers often find reemployment
faster.
The analysis of unemployment experience by occupa­
tion indicates fairly large disparities. People working in
managerial or professional positions; clerical, sales, ma­
chining, or product fabricating occupations, and other
crafts experience less unemployment, whereas those
whose work involves construction; processing; primary
industries; transport equipment; or material handling
experience more unemployment. These dissimilarities in
unemployment experience by occupation come mainly
from the differences in spell frequencies rather than
from spell durations.
As we have suggested, most unemployment is not
short term. On the contrary, the burden falls mainly on
a small proportion of workers experiencing repeated
and long spells of unemployment. For these workers,
38


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

we would recommend intensive and carefully targeted
employment and training programs.
□
--------- F O O T N O T E S ---------1Unemployment, as measured by weeks on regular unemployment
insurance claim, constitutes the bulk of unemployment in Canada ow­
ing to the almost universal nature of the Unemployment Insurance
Program.
2 Regular claims exclude sickness, maternity, retirement, fishing,
and Adult Occupational Training Act claims.

Labor organizations directory
for 1978-80 is published
The biennial Directory o f National Unions and Employee
Associations, published by the Bureau of Labor Statis­
tics, was discontinued as part of the overall BLS budget
reduction last year. The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc., has published the Directory o f U.S. Labor Organi­
zations, 1982-83 Edition, incorporating data compiled
by BLS’s Division of Developments in Labor-M anage­
ment Relations. The statistics include previously un­
published data which have been available to the public.
The 99-page directory combines two separate, discon­
tinued government surveys of labor organization mem­
bership into one edition. In one chapter, membership
estimates are based on information provided voluntarily
to BLS in 1981 by the individual labor organizations. In
a separate chapter, membership estimates are based on
the May 1980 Current Population Survey on labor or­
ganization membership, conducted for BLS by the Bu­
reau of the Census. As did the BLS directory, the new
directory contains a chapter on the structure of the
AFL-CIO, other federations, and independent labor orga­
nizations, and a listing of approximately 250 national
labor organizations, their officers, addresses, and other
pertinent information.
During the past few years, total membership of orga­
nized labor has been decreasing, while the total labor
force has been increasing. Labor organization member­
ship in the United States dropped by 391,000 to
22,366,000 during 1978-80 (or to 20.5 percent of the
total labor force), according to the union response sur­
vey from BLS. Total membership fell 355,000 to approx­
imately 23,883,000 during the same period. Membership
estimates based on the Current Population Survey show
a greater decline for 1979-80— a drop of 891,000 to
20,095,000.
The Directory o f U.S. Labor Organizations, 1982-83
Edition, edited by Courtney Gifford, staff editor of b n a ’s
Daily Labor Report, is available from BNA Books, Dis­
tribution and Customer Service Center, 9401 Decoverly
Hall Road, Rockville, Md. 20850. The cost is $15 per
copy.
Q

M ajor Agreements
Expiring Next M onth
This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in May is based on contracts on file in the
Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000
workers or more.
Number of
workers

Labor organization1

Industry

Employer and location

1,950

Aluminum Co. of America (Interstate)...................................................
Aluminum Co. of America (Interstate)...................................................
American Enka Corp. (Enka, N .C .) ........................................................
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.:
Inland Empire Chapter, 3 agreements (Washington and Idaho)

Primary metals
Primary metals
Chemicals . . .

Aluminum Workers ...........................
Auto Workers .....................................
Textile Workers ...................................

Construction .

Ohio Building Chapter (Interstate) ................................................
Oklahoma Builders Chapter, 2 agreem ents...................................
Oklahoma Builders Chapter (Interstate)........................................
Seattle and Tacoma Chapters (Washington) ................................
St. Louis Chapter (Missouri) ...........................................................
Western Central Area Chapter (Washington) .............................
Associated Steel Erectors of Chicago, Illinois ......................................

Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction

Carpenters; Laborers; and Operating
Engineers
Operating Engineers ...........................
Carpenters and L ab orers...................
Iron W orkers........................................
Laborers and Teamsters (Ind.) . . . .
Carpenters ...........................................
Carpenters..............................................
Iron W orkers........................................

Boston Edison Co. (M assachusetts)...........................................
Brewery Proprietors of Milwaukee, Miller-Pabst (Wisconsin)

Utilities . . . .
Food products

Utility Workers ........................................
Brewery Workers (D .A .L .U .)................

1,900
2,700

Champion International Corp., Champion Paper Division (Texas)
Colt Industries, Holley Carburetor Division (Paris, Tenn.) . . . .

Paper . . .
Machinery

Paperworkers
Auto Workers

1,200
1,200

Erwin Mills (Durham, N.C.)

Textiles

Textile Workers

1,200

Food Employers Council, Inc. (Las Vegas, N e v a d a ).............

Retail tr a d e ...................................

Food and Commercial Workers

...........

2,300

Gardner-Denver Co. (Quincy, 111.)..............................................

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

M achinists...................................................

1,000

Hayes International Corp. (A labam a)........................................

Transportation equipment . . . . Auto Workers ...........................................

1,800

International Paper Co., Southern Kraft Division (Interstate)

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

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Paperworkers and Electrical Workers

10,000

1,300
1,450
4.000
5.000
1,700
11,500
4,200
9.000
2,500

8,000

( ibew )
11,000

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. (Interstate)
Kroger Co., Louisville stores (Kentucky) .............

Primary metals
Retail trade . .

Steelworkers .............................
Food and Commercial Workers

MARBA and Excavators, Inc. (I llin o is)................................
Mechanical Contractors Association of W ashington...........
Mechanical Contractors Association of St. Louis (Missouri)
Michigan Road Builders A sso c ia tio n ......................................
Mid-America Regional Bargaining Association (Illinois) . .
Munsingwear, Inc. (Interstate) ................................................

Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Textiles . . . .

Teamsters (I n d .) .....................
Plum bers...................................
Plum bers...................................
Operating Engineers .............
Carpenters................................
Clothing and Textile Workers

National Electric Contractors Association:
Los Angeles County Chapter (California)................................
Puget Sound Chapter (W ashington)...........................................
Westchester-Fairfield Chapter (Interstate)................................
Northern Illinois Ready Mix and Materials Association (Illinois)

Construction . .
Construction . .
Construction . .
Wholesale trade

Electrical Workers ( ibew )
Electrical Workers ( ibew )
Electrical Workers ( ibew )
Teamsters (I n d .) .............

5,500
2,700
1,300
1,800

Omaha Building Contractors Association (Nebraska)
Ormet Corp. (Hannibal, Ohio) ......................................

Construction .
Primary metals

Laborers . .
Steelworkers

4.000

Plumbing and heating contractors associations (Illinois)
Potlatch Corp. (Id a h o )........................................................

C onstruction................................ Plumbers . . .
Lumber and wood products . . . Woodworkers

Reynolds Metals Co. (Alabama) . . .
Reynolds Metals Co. (Interstate) . . .
Reynolds Metals Co. (Interstate) . . .
Robertshaw Controls Co. (California)

Primary metals
Primary metals
Primary metals
Instruments and
products

...........
...........
...........
related

Aluminum, Brick and Clay Workers . .
Aluminum, Brick and Clay Workers . .
Steelworkers ..............................................
Auto Workers ...........................................

4,800
1,500

2,000
1,800
2,250
25,000
1,150

2.000
5,900

2,000
1,150
1,500
8,000

1,200

See footnotes at end of table.


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

39

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 •

M a j o r A g r e e m e n t s E x p i r in g N e x t M o n t h

Continued—Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Employer and location

Industry

Labor organization1

Number of
workers

Sacramento Hotel and Restaurant and Tavern Association (California) . . .
Scott Paper Co. (A labam a).........................................................
Simpson Timber Co. (Washington) ..............................................
Sunstrand Corp. (Illin o is)..............................................

Services ........................................ Hotel and Restaurant Employees . . . .
Paper and allied products . . . . Paperworkers..............................................
Lumber and wood products . . . W oodworkers..............................................
M achinery...................................... Auto w orkers..............................................

1,700
2,600
1,450
1,200

Union Camp Corp. (Savannah, Ga.)

Paper and allied products . . . .

Paperworkers..............................................

1,600

Lumber and wood products . . . W oodworkers..............................................
Lumber and wood products . . . Paperworkers..............................................
Lumber and wood products . . . Paperworkers..............................................

37,000
1,150
1,200

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

Western States Wood Products Employers Association (Interstate).............
Weyerhaeuser Co. (Longview, W ash .)................................
Weyerhaeuser Co. (Oregon) ........................................
1Affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind.).

40


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

Developments in
Industrial Relations
GM, Toyota join to make subcompact car
General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. an­
nounced plans to jointly produce a new subcompact
car, beginning in late 1984. The venture was still being
reviewed by the Japanese and U.S. Governments for
possible antitrust implications, but it drew immediate
praise from the Reagan Administration. During the
signing ceremony, an assistant to President Reagan said
that the Administration considered the joint venture
preferable to mandatory trade restrictions and laws re­
quiring foreign auto manufacturers to use specified
amounts of U.S.-made parts in vehicles sold in the
United States.
The joint effort also drew backing from Douglas Fra­
ser, president of the Auto Workers’ union, which had
represented employees of the idle GM plant in Fremont,
Calif., that will be used to produce the new car.
Initially there was some question whether UAW mem­
bers employed in the plant prior to its March 1982
shutdown would receive preference for thè expected
3.000 jobs at the new operation. GM Chairman Roger
B. Smith subsequently said they would, but he said the
issue of whether the plant’s employees would be repre­
sented by the UAW was not yet settled. The plant,
which had produced mid-size cars, had peak employ­
ment of 6,800 in 1979, and had 2,500 workers when it
closed.
GM and Toyota said that the venture would result in
9.000 new jobs in Japan, and another 9,000 at U.S.
companies that will manufacture parts for the new car.
However, some auto industry observers were less opti­
mistic, contending that the expected production of
200.000 cars a year might cut into sales of other cars
produced by GM and other domestic companies.
The joint venture agreement provides that the new
company will be headed by a Toyota official and will
use Toyota processes because they are “closer to the
manufacturing technologies we are trying to implant
here,’’ according to GM Chairman Smith. Both compa“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben
of the Division of Developments in Labor-Management Relations,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from
secondary sources.


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

nies stressed that the joint relationship had a fixed du­
ration of 12 years, and would not be extended to any
other plants or vehicles, apparently to reduce the possi­
bility of any antitrust actions. GM’s 50-percent share of
the $300 million venture includes the $ 120-million value
of the Fremont plant.
The accord was generally viewed as beneficial to
Toyota because it enables the company to produce cars
in the United States at a small cost, compared with
Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co., which re­
cently opened plants in the United States using their
own resources. In recent years, foreign auto producers
have come under increasing pressure from the U.S.
Government and the Auto Workers’ union to produce
their vehicles for the U.S. market in this country.
Officials of Ford Motor Co. had no immediate com­
ment on the enterprise, but Chrysler Corp. Chairman
Lee A. Iacocca called it “fundamentally bad,” claiming
that it would create “the world’s most powerful auto­
motive combine.” He also questioned the long-term ef­
fects on the U.S. car market, saying that the deal “puts
world markets within the dominating grasp of two com­
panies that together already control 25 percent of the
world’s auto sales.”
Meanwhile, Japan extended for another year its vol­
untary limit on vehicle exports to the United States.
During the year beginning April 1, 1983, the Japanese
will limit their exports to the United States to 1,680,000
vehicles, the same limit that applied during each of the
first 2 years of the program. The Japanese currently
hold more than 20 percent of the U.S. auto market.

Allis-Chalmers, International Harvester accords
There was a breakthrough in the prolonged round of
bargaining in the farm and construction equipment in­
dustry, as Allis-Chalmers Corp. and the Auto Workers
negotiated a 3-year contract that provided for labor
cost reductions to aid the company, which lost $207
million in 1982. One gain for the union was a provision
that “such production as occurs by Allis-Chalmers of
agricultural tractors will be at the West Allis (Wise.)
plants.” Prior to the settlement, the union had been
concerned that the company would either shift produc-

41

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Developments in Industrial Relations
tion to other plants or sell the operation.
The settlement, which did not provide for any speci­
fied pay increases, suspended operation of the automatic
quarterly cost-of-living pay adjustment clause for 15
months; reduced the number of paid holidays to 10 a
year, from 15; eliminated vacation and Christmas pay
bonuses; and reduced Supplemental Unemployment
Benefits (combined with State unemployment benefits)
to about 70 percent (formerly about 95 percent) of
weekly after-tax pay. The company agreed to make a
special payment of $3.5 million into the SUB fund,
which had been depleted by layoffs. Currently, the Auto
Workers represents about 2,000 workers (including
more than 700 on layoff) at the plants, compared with
20,000 in the 1950’s.
The accord also covered plants in Memphis, Tenn.,
and La Porte, Ind. The La Porte plant is scheduled to
close at the end of 1983. Affected workers will receive
severance pay of $400 for each year of service up to 30
years.
International Harvester agreed to continue operating
its Indianapolis, Ind., foundry in return for Auto Work­
ers’ acceptance of a new pay system. The company
promised the union that as long as the agreement is in
force, “barring unforeseen circumstances, the foundry
won’t be sold and will remain in operation.” The agree­
ment also provided for a group incentive plan under
which employees’ earnings “will be directly affected by
the productivity of the total foundry operations.” The
agreement has no expiration date, and is a supplement
to the national contract the parties negotiated in 1982.
(See Monthly Labor Review, July 1982, pp. 53-54.)
Elsewhere in the industry, the Auto Workers’ strike
against Caterpiller Tractor Co. was in its fifth month,
and employees of Deere & Co. remained on the job
while bargaining continued on replacing a contract that
expired September 30, 1982.

Tobacco contracts increase wages, benefits
The Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers ne­
gotiated similar 3-year contracts for 14,000 workers at
Philip Morris Inc. and the American Tobacco Co. The
accord with Philip Morris, for 10,500 workers at Rich­
mond, Va., and Louisville, Ky., provided for wage in­
creases of 4.2 percent in the first year, 4.1 percent in the
second year, and 3.5 percent in the final year. The em­
ployees also will continue to receive automatic quarterly
cost-of-living 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).

The minimum pension rate was increased to $21 a
month for each year of credited service, from $16, and
workers with 30 years of service may retire at age 53,
42

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

instead of 55, without actuarial reduction in pensions.
There also were improvements in disability pay, vision
and dental care, and paid vacations.
At Philip Morris, wages and benefits were negotiated
under provisions of a 9-year agreement negotiated in
1979, which provides for binding arbitration of bar­
gaining stalemates over wages and benefits. In return
for giving up the right to strike over these issues, the
workers are guaranteed annual pay increases of at least
3 percent, and they receive indexed bonus payments at
the time of each wage-and-benefit settlement. The bonus
started at $300 and has now increased to about $330.
The agreement was modeled after the lapsed Experi­
mental Negotiating Agreement, which regulated wageand-benefit bargaining in the steel industry.

Trucking union rejects concession talks
The Teamsters’ union has rejected the trucking indus­
try’s request to discuss contract concessions to help
counter continuing adverse economic conditions. In a
letter to Teamsters’ President Roy L. Williams, Truck­
ing Management, Inc. ( t m i ), the industry’s major
bargaining arm, asked for an immediate meeting to dis­
cuss the industry’s deteriorating conditions, citing “a
devastating loss of Teamsters’ jobs due to companies
going out of business and increasing layoffs by compa­
nies whose financial losses force drastic measures to
continue in business.”
A Teamsters’ official said that one reason the union’s
leaders rejected the request was that the industry is in
such bad condition that reducing wages and benefits
“isn’t going to do anybody any good.” Another reason,
he said, was that the union leaders believed they would
have difficulty in “selling” a concession accord, noting
that in 1982 workers in the steel industry twice rejected
concessions recommended by leaders of the United
Steelworkers union.
The Teamsters’ decision not to reopen bargaining at
this time also apparently stemmed from the fact that
the union is still in the process of negotiating new
agreements with hundreds of smaller companies which
are seeking larger concessions than the union accepted
in the March 1982 “national” accord with TMI. (See
Monthly Labor Review, April 1982, p. 64.) According to
this view, if the union negotiates concessions with t m i
now, it would lead the independent companies to press
for even larger cuts, possibly destroying the more-orless uniform national wage and benefit levels the union
has attained in recent years.

Independent truckers’ strike ends
Freight truck owner-operators struck in February,
but there was wide disagreement on how many drivers

participated, and the impact of the stoppage. The strike
was called by Michael Parkhurst, president of the Inde­
pendent Truckers Association, which claims to repre­
sent 30,000 of the Nation’s 100,000 owner-operators.
According to Parkhurst, the purpose of the strike was
to induce Congress to repeal portions of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 which, he
claimed, would put an onerous, new financial burden on
truckers already experiencing difficulties because of high
operating costs and lack of cargo. In particular, he cited
a 5-cent-a-gallon increase in gasoline and diesel fuel tax­
es scheduled for April 1983, and a $1,360 increase (to
$1,600) in the truckers’ annual “use tax” scheduled for
July 1985. Parkhurst also called for an increase in the
Federal 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, and for Federal
legislation limiting the taxes, fees, and restrictions States
can impose on truckers, complaining that truckers who
operate in the 48 contiguous States must obtain 216 li­
censes of various types.
Secretary of Transportation Drew Lewis offered to
meet with industry representatives to discuss their com­
plaints, but said that, “It is totally unrealistic to expect
that we will rescind the 5-cent gas tax, especially when
the truckers are some of the biggest beneficiaries and
are paying only 73 percent of the cost to repair the
damage they cause to the roads.”
Initially, Parkhurst predicted that 98 percent of all
independent owner-drivers would participate in the
strike, but later claimed 50 to 70 percent participation;
in contrast, Secretary Lewis said that only about 20
percent of the drivers participated. It was difficult to de­
termine the effect of the strike because some slowdown
in shipping was attributed to adverse weather which af­
fected crop shipments from Florida and California.
Generally, managers of various terminals said the strike
had only a minor effect that diminished as the strike
continued.
The stoppage was marked by some violence and dam­
age to truckers. Parkhurst called an end to the strike af­
ter about 10 days, when 40 members of Congress
signed an “Expression of Concern” which said that a
“review of these tax and user fee increases is definitely
in order, in our opinion.”
The Teamsters union, whose members are directly
employed by trucking firms— unlike the independents,
who often lease their services and equipment to firms—
did not support the stoppage, although it also was seek­
ing similar changes in laws and regulations.

Brewery workers retain Machinists union
Employees of the Miller Brewing Co., Fulton, N.Y.,
voted to retain the Machinists union as their bargaining
agent in the face of a challenge by the Teamsters union.
The Machinists then negotiated a 3-year contract for


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

the workers that included at least $2.30 an hour in
wage increases and a new pension plan.
The wage increases will be effective in the first and
second years. In the third year, the wages of the 1,200
workers will be “pegged” to national wage levels in the
brewing industry.
Benefits provided by the existing pension plan were
frozen, with the company continuing to finance the plan
at the rate of 50 cents an hour. In addition, Miller will
contribute 25 cents an hour (10 cents in both the first
and second years, and 5 cents in the third) to individual
accounts for the workers, who can contribute up to 10
percent of their earnings. The accounts will have a
guaranteed interest rate of 11.95 percent, and the em­
ployees can withdraw the entire amount at retirement.
The Machinists and the Teamsters worked out a na­
tional agreement which will end efforts by either union
to displace the other as a bargaining agent. However,
the agreement does not cover organizing activities that
began earlier, or organizing efforts at nonunion opera­
tions.

General Contractors win pay freeze, rollback
In a move to reduce a 40-percent unemployment rate
among its 19,000 members, the Northern California
Council of Laborers signed a 3-year agreement with the
Associated General Contractors that reduced wages in
40 counties and froze wages in six counties in the San
Francisco area. Council of Laborers’ business agent
Thomas Clarke said that the concession accord, which
ended 8 months of negotiations, was needed because his
members were “competing with the (nonunion) people
making $8—$ 12 per hour with no fringe benefits.” Un­
der the existing agreement, which had been scheduled
to run to June 1983, the workers in the 40 counties re­
ceived pay of $14.73 an hour. Now, they will receive
$13.73 an hour (plus the existing $5 an hour in benefits)
until June 1984 when the $1 cut will be restored, to be
followed by a raise to $15.73 a year later.
In the six San Francisco area counties where non­
union competition was reportedly not as intense, the
workers’ pay rate was frozen at $14.73 until June 1984,
when they also will receive the first of two $l-an-hour
annual pay hikes.
The Associated General Contractors consists of 1,600
firms primarily engaged in commercial and high-rise
apartment construction. Reportedly, it plans to seek
similar assistance from other types of workers. Last
year, the Associated General Contractors negotiated a
pay freeze at $17.75 an hour for Carpenters’ union
members in the San Francisco area, and a rollback to
$16.25 elsewhere in Northern California.
The current agreement was preceded by a Council of
Laborers’ accord with the Engineering and Grading
43

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Developments in Industrial Relations
Contractors Association of Northern California that
provided for the same type of assistance. Members of
this association are primarily engaged in highway con­
struction.

Workers take pay cut to aid Standard Steel
Employees of the Standard Steel Co. of Burnham,
Pa., agreed to a cut of $1.70 an hour in wages and ben­
efits. Richard Fisher, an international representative of
the United Steelworkers, said the local union officers
and leadership “realized that the company is in bad fi­
nancial condition and we had to do something to help
them get out of it to help make our jobs more secure.”
Joseph Wapner, Standard Steel’s vice president for in­
dustrial relations, conceded that the specialty steel com­
pany was operating at a higher rate than the industry in
general but said the concessions were still vital “to
weather the current recession” and to minimize further
layoffs. About 1,000 of the plant’s 1,900 workers were
on layoff.
The $1.70 concession package included a 56-cent cut
in wages, elimination of vacation bonuses, and doubling
of medical insurance premiums. The parties also agreed
to suspend operation of the automatic cost-of-living pay
adjustment clause for 1983.

OSHA exempts ‘safe’ firms from recordkeeping
In accord with its announced policy of reducing re­
porting requirements for employers in “safe” industries,
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
exempted about 474,000 companies from a requirement
that they keep a log of on-the-job injuries and illnesses.
The companies are mostly in the retail, financial, and
other service industries.
The Department of Labor agency said that the ex­
emption from the recordkeeping requirements of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was
warranted because about 94 percent of the affected em­
ployers have fewer than two job-related injuries per
year. The agency also said that the industries met the
two criteria for exemption: they are not in OSHA’s
“targeted” inspection groups that have above-average
occupational illness or injury rates, and they are in in­
dustries where the injury rate was 75 percent below the
private economy average for 1978-80.
A spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO criticized the action,
contending that the exemption includes some categories,
such as laundries and certain eating and drinking estab­
lishments, “whose injury rates are quite high.” She also
said the exemption was not necessary because compa­

44


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

nies that have few injuries would have only a minimum
of paperwork.
In another development, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration extended for up to 6 months an
experimental consultation program under which em­
ployers in seven southern States may be exempt from
OSHA inspections for a year. The program, established
in July 1982, exempts firms from the usual annual in­
spection if they request free onsite advice from OSHAsponsored safety and health consultants and correct any
deficiencies that are found. There are no penalties or ci­
tations issued for such deficiencies. Assistant Secretary
of Labor Thorne G. Auchter said that “preliminary in­
dications from the experiment have been very encourag­
ing” and that employers have been showing increasing
interest in the program.
OSHA reports that 1,500 employers had requested
consultations as of December 31. The program is avail­
able to about 835,000 workplaces employing about 12.7
million people in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississip­
pi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Job hazard complaint valid, court says
Construction worker Wayne Kidd received the largest
financial award ever handed down to an employee fired
for complaining about on-the-job safety and health con­
ditions. In addition to the $32,500 back pay, a Federal
district judge ordered contractor Hahner, Foreman and
Harness, Inc., of Wichita, Kans., to reinstate Kidd in
his job as a cement finisher foreman.
The case arose in 1980 when Kidd refused to work
on a scaffold he claimed was unsafe. According to the
testimony, Kidd’s supervisor initially told him that he
was fired, but later told a Department of Labor repre­
sentative that Kidd was only on layoff because the scaff­
old was out of service. Kidd then filed for State unem­
ployment benefits but the contractor challenged the
claim, saying that Kidd had been fired. This led Kidd
to initiate court action under Section 11(c) of the Occu­
pational Safety and Health Act, which prohibits retribu­
tion against employees who complain or take other
action against job hazards.
In the trial, the contractor contended that Kidd’s suit
was not valid because he had not filed within 30 days
after the adverse action, as required by the act. Howev­
er, the court ruled that in this case, the 30-day period
actually started when Kidd learned that he was fired.
The court also rejected the employer’s contention that
Kidd had been fired for reasons other than complaining
about the hazard.
n

Book Reviews

Work stoppages— history and analysis
Strikes in the United States, 1881-1974. By P. K. Ed­
wards. New York, St. M artin’s Press, 1981. 336
pp. $27.50.
The United States has already observed the 100th an­
niversary of work stoppage statistics, and P. K. Ed­
wards’ study provides a comprehensive analysis of this
long-term data base. The first effort by a Federal agen­
cy to compile data on strikes and lockouts was made in
1880, when the Bureau of the Census sent question­
naires to employers and workers involved in disputes
occurring that year and which were reported in the
press. Seven years later, the Bureau of Labor— then in
the Department of the Interior— developed data on
stoppages between 1881 and 1886. Similar studies were
conducted in 1894, 1901, and. 1906, yielding informa­
tion for each year between 1881 and 1905 on such items
as number of strikes, number òf workers and establish­
ments involved, percentage of stoppages ordered by la­
bor organizations, and causes and results of strikes.
No Federal agency collected national data on strikes
occurring between 1906 and 1913. Since 1914, however,
the Bureau of Labor Statistics has provided a continu­
ing series of strike statistics, with emphasis on number
of stoppages, workers involved, and resulting days of
idleness. Prior to 1982, the Bureau compiled data on
strikes involving six workers or more. Currently, be­
cause of budget stringencies, collection is limited to
stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more. Current Bu­
reau data do not distinguish between strikes and lock­
outs; both are included in the term “work stoppage”
and, for convenience in writing, in the term “strike.”
This statistical record has long provided a fertile re­
source for a wide variety of researchers, including both
analysts of the level of economic activity and specialists
in labor-management relations. As early as 1921, for ex­
ample, Alvin Hansen examined the relation between
strikes and the business cycle, stimulating a line of anal­
ysis that has continued to the present time. Other writ­
ers have compared the strike records of different
industries and countries. In the past decade, many re­
searchers have examined the determinants of stoppages,
at times focusing on the relative importance of “eco­
nomic” as against “organizational-political” influences


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

on strike activity. (We ignore here separate bodies of lit­
erature— essentially nonstatistical— examining the na­
ture and conduct of strikes, their effect, and methods of
resolving industrial conflict.)
Edwards touches on these strands in his review of the
U.S. strike record. His main objective is to explain how
strike activity has been affected by industrial and insti­
tutional changes over the past century. Although con­
siderable qualitative material is presented, the core of
the study is an analysis of statistical evidence for the
1881-1974 period.
Edwards begins with a review of the overall strike
record. He concludes that work-stoppage patterns in
the post-World War II period have been much the same
as in earlier years, with no pronounced general upward
or downward trend in measures of worker involvement
or strike duration. This finding might surprise a number
of readers, in view of the numerous developments over
the years that one might expect to be reflected in the
strike record, such as growth in the extent of unioniza­
tion and collective bargaining, growing maturity in
union-management relations, increasing negotiation of
multiyear collective bargaining agreements, increasing
reliance on the grievance procedure and arbitration in
the resolution of contract administration disputes, es­
tablishment of National Labor Relations Board repre­
sentation election procedures as substitutes for eco­
nomic muscle in determining disputes over bargaining
status, and creation of both legal and internal union
procedures for resolving jurisdictional disputes.
Edwards, at this point in his analysis, does not give
detailed consideration to the relation between these in­
stitutional developments and the finding of long-term
constancy in the statistical strike record. Instead, he
turns to a review of economic, organizational, and polit­
ical determinants of strike activity. His analysis, which
follows the dominant approach in the current strike lit­
erature, employs highly aggregative regression models—
economywide strike indexes are his dependent variables.
Based on models incorporating unemployment and real
wage variables, Edwards finds a strong link between
economic circumstances and strike activity, but not in
any consistent manner over time. (Separate regression
results are shown for the following subperiods: 1890—
1910, 1900-39, and 1946-72.) On the other hand, he re-

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Book Reviews
jects models which stress the effect of institutional and
political forces.
This overall analysis is followed by more intensive
treatment of developments in three distinct time periods
— 1881-1905, 1933-46, and 1947-74— representing, re­
spectively, periods of industrialization of our economy,
widespread growth of unionism, and maturity in collec­
tive bargaining. Emphasis remains on the statistical
record, but here the analysis is at a lower level of aggre­
gation. For example, much attention is given to both
the industrial distribution of strike activity and develop­
ments within individual industries. Consideration is also
given to such topics as the effect of city size on strike
rates and the impact of immigration. Furthermore, the
quantitative analysis is now supplemented by consider­
able narrative material on unionism and labor disputes.
For example, discussions are found on steel industry
unions and strikes during the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, sitdown strikes of the late 1930’s, and the al­
leged growth of worker unrest in the 1960’s and early
1970’s. This nonstatistical material, in fact, may well
provide the most interesting parts of the book for read­
ers unfamiliar with the long-term strike record. More
intensive analysis, however, does not result in simple
generalizations. Industrialization is shown to have af­
fected individual industries in different ways.
Edwards’ final chapter notes that the United States
has tended to experience longer walkouts and greater
overall volume of strike activity than other countries.
He attributes both this finding and the previously noted
constancy of the historical record to a continuing in­
tense struggle in this country between employers and
workers for control of the job.
Overall evaluation of Edwards’ work must distinguish
between his statistical and narrative analyses. While his
regression equations help in evaluating suggested mar­
ket and institutional determinants of strike activity, it is
clear they do not provide adequate predictors of strike
incidence. The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Ser­
vice, for example, would not be expected to rely on
them in planning its workload. One issue in Edwards’
statistical methodology is his tendency to use overall
strike data in regression models. Is it desirable to use as
a dependent variable a strike total composed of such
disparate elements as disputes over the negotiation of
new or renewed collective bargaining agreements, wild­
cat strikes, jurisdictional disputes, and walkouts over
union recognition?
Edwards’ descriptions of individual walkouts do not,
in themselves, provide an integrated analysis of strikes.
However, they provide valuable supplements to the sta­
tistical analysis, adding details not possible through the
regression models. The study as a whole is stimulating,
and points out the direction for comprehensive strike
analyses— review of the statistical evidence, but at a
46


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

disaggregated level, appropriately combined with case
studies of relevant individual episodes.
— V ic t o r

J.

S h e if e r

Office of Wages and Industrial Relations
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Academic unionism
The Scope o f Faculty Collective Bargaining: An Analysis
o f Faculty Union Agreements at Four-Year Institu­
tions o f Higher Education. By Ronald L.
Johnstone. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press,
1981. 196 pp. $27.50.
This book is based upon an analysis of collective
bargaining agreements between 1972 and 1979 at 89
American colleges and universities, covering 95 percent
of those that are unionized. The vast majority are pub­
lic institutions. Despite the book’s subtitle, institutions
with graduate programs are also included. The author is
a professor of sociology and an associate dean.
Faculty unions appeared on the academic scene in the
late 1960’s as a response to increasing bureaucratization
of higher education, rise of other white-collar unions,
decline of faculty salaries, and legislation in a number
of States supportive of faculty collective bargaining.
Ronald L. Johnstone has summarized these develop­
ments in the introductory chapter. Unlike other books,
which deal with the causes of faculty unionization and
collective bargaining at particular institutions, this work
is unique in that it concentrates on contracts and their
provisions. Such a book was long overdue.
Topics covered include faculty and administration
rights, compensation, fringe benefits, working condi­
tions, academic governance, and professional responsi­
bilities. All are dealt with in a balanced manner.
There is a great diversity in the various contracts
with no one provision contractualized in all of the
agreements. Johnstone points out, however, that the ab­
sence of a particular item does not necessarily mean
that it does not have any standing in actual practice, for
it may be taken for granted, based upon academic tradi­
tion, or cited in another document. It is also evident
that faculty has gained in a number of areas, but in all
probability not as much as expected by some union
leaders. However, administrators have not lost any ap­
preciable ground. The whole negotiation process is frag­
ile and slow.
The Scope o f Faculty Collective Bargaining is of
special interest to faculty and administrators, especially
at institutions not yet unionized. It may be predicted

that with increasing unionization of college and univer­
sities, Johnstone’s book will gain in readership.
— Jo h n D

r e ij m a n is

Humanities and Social Sciences Department
Wentworth Institute of Technology

Education
Molnar, Andrew and Patricia W. Babb, “The Electronic Age
Challenges Education,” A p p a la ch ia , November-December
1982, pp. 1-7.
“Rethinking the Federal Role in Education: A Special Issue,”
H a r v a r d E d u c a tio n a l R eview , November 1982, pp. 374593.

Industrial Relations
Drost, Donald A. and Fabius P. O’Brien, “Are There Griev­
ances Against Your Non-Union Grievance Procedure?”
P erso n n el A d m in is tra to r, January 1983, pp. 36-41.

Publications received
Economic growth and development
Gemmell, Norman, “Economic Development and Structural
Change: The Role of the Service Sector,” T he J o u r n a l o f
D e v e lo p m e n t S tu d ie s, October 1982, pp. 37-66.
Giddens, Anthony and Gavin Mackenzie, eds.,

S o c ia l C lass
a n d th e D ivision o f L a b o u r: E ssa ys in H o n o u r o f Ily a
N e u s ta d t. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1982,

337 pp.
Humphrey, Thomas M., “Of Hume, Thornton, the Quantity
Theory, and the Phillips Curve,” E c o n o m ic R eview , Fed­
eral Reserve Bank of Richmond, November-December
1982, pp. 13-18.
McCallum, Bennett T., “Macroeconomics After a Decade of
Rational Expectations: Some Critical Issues,” E c o n o m ic
R eview , Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, NovemberDecember 1982, pp. 3-12.
Nelson, Joel I., E c o n o m ic In e q u a lity : C o n flict W ith o u t C han ge.
New York, Columbia University Press, 1982, 280 pp.
$30, cloth; $14, paper.
Stigler, George J., T h e E c o n o m ist a s P re a ch er a n d O th e r E s­
says. Chicago, 111., The University of Chicago Press, 1982,
259 pp., bibliography. $20.
Wible, James R., “Friedman’s Positive Economics and Philos­
ophy of Science,” S o u th ern E c o n o m ic Jou rn a l, October
1982, pp. 350-60.

Economic and social statistics
Auernheimer, Leonardo, “The Price Change Equation in Sim­
ple Models of Monetary Adjustment,” S o u th ern E c o n o m ­
ic J o u rn a l, October 1982, pp. 440-49.
Bernstein, Jeffrey I. and Ishaq Nadiri,

F in a n cin g a n d
In v e s tm e n t in P la n t a n d E q u ip m e n t a n d R esea rch a n d D e ­
velo p m en t. Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of Eco­

nomic Research, Inc., 1982, 39 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper
Series, 1017.) $1.50.
Dorsey, Stuart, “A Model and Empirical Estimates of Worker
Pension Coverage in the U.S.,” S o u th ern E c o n o m ic J o u r­
nal, October 1982, pp. 506-20.
Frydman, Roman, Gerald P. O’Driscoll, Jr., Andrew
Schotter, “Rational Expectations of Government Policy:
An Application of Newcomb’s Problem,” S o u th ern E c o ­
n o m ic J o u rn a l, October 1982, pp. 311-19.
Lewis, Donald E. “The Measurement of the Occupational and
Industrial Segregation of Women,” T he J o u r n a l o f I n d u s ­
tr ia l R e la tio n s, September 1982, pp. 406-23.


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

Enderwick, Peter and Peter J. Buckley, “Strike Activity and
Foreign Ownership: An Analysis of British Manufactur­
ing 1971-1973,” B ritish J o u r n a l o f I n d u s tr ia l R ela tio n s,
November 1982, pp. 308-21.
Goodman, J. F. B., “At the Point of Production: Some As­
pects of Workplace Industrial Relations,” The J o u r n a l o f
I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s, September 1982, pp. 365-81.
Johnson, Richard, “Interest Arbitration Examined,”
A d m in is tra to r, January 1983, pp. 53-57.

P erso n n el

Kassalow, Everett M., “Industrial Democracy and Collective
Bargaining: A Comparative View,” L a b o u r a n d S o ciety,
July-September 1982, pp. 209-29.
Poole, Michael and others, “Managerial Attitudes and Behav­
iour in Industrial Relations: Evidence from a National
Survey,” B ritish J o u r n a l o f I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s, Novem­
ber 1982, pp. 285-307.
Princeton University, E x e c u tiv e T erm in a tio n . Prepared by
Katherine Bagin. Princeton N.J., Princeton University,
Industrial Relations Section, 1982, 4 pp. (Selected Refer­
ences, 212.) 50 cents.
Sterrett, Grace and Antone Aboud, T h e R ig h t to S tr ik e in
P u b lic E m p lo y m e n t. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University,
New York State School of Industrial and Labor Rela­
tions, 1982, 59 pp., bibliography. (Key Issues Series, 15.)
$5, paper.
Swann, James P., Jr., “The Decertification of a Union,” P er­
so n n e l A d m in is tra to r, January 1983, pp. 47-51.
Taylor, Benjamin J. and Fred Witney, L a b o r R e la tio n s L a w .
4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983,
bibliography. 914 pp. $28.95.
The Bureau of National Affairs Editorial Staff, “Give-Backs
Highlight Three Major Bargaining Agreements,” P erso n ­
n e l A d m in is tra to r, January 1983, beginning on p. 33.
Wilson, David C. and others, “The Limits of Trade Union
Power in Organizational Decision Making,” B ritish J o u r­
n a l o f I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s, November 1982, pp. 322—
41.
Wrong, Elaine Gale, “Selecting an Arbitrator for a Discrimi­
nation Grievance,” P erso n n el A d m in is tra to r, January
1983, beginning on p. 58.

International economics
Chalupa, Karel V., “Foreign Currency Futures: Reducing
Foreign Exchange Risk,” E c o n o m ic P erspectives, Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago, Winter 1982, pp. 3-11.
Fairlamb, David with Henriette Sender, “Rescuing the Bank­
ing System,” D u n 's B u sin ess M o n th , February 1983, be­
ginning on p. 44.
47

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Book Reviews
Frankel, Jeffrey A., “A Test of Perfect Substitutability in the
Foreign Exchange Market,” S o u th ern E c o n o m ic Jou rn al,
October 1982, pp. 406-16.

Michael, Stephen R., “Organizational Change Techniques:
Their Present, Their Future,” O r g a n iza tio n a l D yn a m ics,
Summer 1982, pp. 67-80.

Hawk, Barry E., “International Antitrust Policy and the 1982
Acts: The Continuing Need for Reassessment,” F o rd h a m
L a w R eview , November 1982, pp. 201-54.

Mine, Manabu, “Quality of Working Life in Japan: Trends
and Characteristics,” L a b o u r a n d S ociety, July-September
1982, pp. 265-78.

Hervey, Jack L., “Economic Stagnation and the Resurgence
of Trade Restrictions,” E c o n o m ic P erspectives, Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago, Winter 1982, pp. 23-35.

Nadler, David A., “Managing Transitions to Uncertain Fu­
ture States,” O rg a n iza tio n a l D y n a m ics, Summer 1982, pp.
37-45.

Jonson, P. D., W. J. McKibbin, R. G. Trevor, “Exchange
Rates and Capital Flows: A Sensitivity Analysis,” C a n a ­
d ia n J o u r n a l o f E con om ics, November 1982, pp. 669-92.

Palmer, Barbara C. and Kenneth R. Palmer,

Labor force
Bernardin, H. John, ed., W om en in th e W o rk Force. New
York, Praeger Publishers and the V.P.L. Educational
Foundation, Inc., 1982, 242 pp. $28.95.
Buss, Terry F. and F. Stevens Redburn,
tow n: P u b lic

P o lic y f o r

M ass

S h u td o w n a t Y ou n gs­
U n em p lo ym e n t. Albany,

N.Y., State University of New York Press, 1983, 219 pp.
$39.50, cloth; $10.95, paper.
Eccles, Sandra, “The Role of Women in Australian Labour
Market: A Survey of the Literature,” J o u r n a l o f I n d u s tr i­
a l R e la tio n s, September 1982, pp. 315-36.
Hasan, A. and P. De Broucker, “Duration and Concentration
of Unemployment,” C a n a d ia n J o u r n a l o f E co n o m ics, No­
vember 1982, pp. 735-56.
Humple, Carol Segrave and Morgan Lyons,

M an agem ent an d
th e O ld e r W o rkforce: P o licies a n d P rogram s. New York,

American Management Associations, Membership Publi­
cations Division, 1983, 71 pp., bibliography. $7.50, AMA
members; $10, nonmembers.
Lynch, Lisa M. and Ray Richardson, “Unemployment of
Young Workers in Britain,” B ritish J o u r n a l o f I n d u s tr ia l
R e la tio n s, November 1982, pp. 362-72.
Wilson, Marilyn, “What Is ‘Full Employment’? ”
ness M o n th , February 1983, pp. 36-39.

T he S u ccessfu l
M e e tin g M a s te r G u id e f o r B u sin ess a n d P ro fessio n a l P eople.

Englewood-Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983, 276 pp.
$18.95, cloth; $9.95, paper.
Seitzinger, Michael, “Planning Supervisor/Subordinate Pay
Differentials,” P erso n n el A d m in is tra to r, February 1983,
pp. 74-77.
Smith, William J., “Executive Compensation After ERTA,”
P erso n n el A d m in is tra to r, February 1983, pp. 63-65.
White, Charles S., “Problem Solving: The Neglected First
Step,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview , January 1983, pp. 52-55.

Monetary and fiscal policy
Cacy, J. A., Glenn H. Miller, Jr., Diane Seibert, “The U.S.
Economy and Monetary Policy in 1982,” E c o n o m ic R e ­
view, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, December
1982, pp. 3-15.
Hughes, Dean W., “The Costs of Inflation: An Analytical
Overview,” E c o n o m ic R eview , Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City, November 1982, pp. 3-14.

Productivity and technological change
Darby, Michael R.,

T he U.S. P ro d u c tiv ity S lo w d o w n : A C a se o f
S ta tis tic a l M yo p ia . Cambridge, Mass., National Bureau of

Economic Research, Inc., 1982, 56 pp. (NBER Working
Paper Series, 1018.) $1.50.

D u n 's B u si­

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
m e n ts f o r F e d e r a l B u ild in g

Management and organization theory

John G. Olsen, Washington, 1982, 54 pp. (Bulletin 2146.)
Stock No. 209-001-02741-9. $4.75, Superintendent of
Documents, Washington 20402.

Ackerman, Linda S., “Transition Management: An In-Depth
Look at Managing Complex Change,” O rg a n iza tio n a l D y ­
n a m ics, Summer 1983, pp. 46-66.
Bargal, David and Boas Shamir, “Occupational Welfare as an
Aspect of Quality of Working Life,” L a b o u r a n d S ociety,
July-September 1982, pp. 255-64.
Ellis, R. Jeffrey, “Responsive Managing: Getting on with the
Job,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview , January 1983, pp. 59-60.
Feinberg, Mortimer R. and Aaron Levenstein, “Executive
Survival . . . How to Hang in There,” M a n a g e m e n t R e ­
view, January 1983, pp. 26-28.
Gillett, Darwin, “Better QCs: A Need for More Manager Ac­
tion,” M a n a g e m e n t R eview , January 1983, pp. 19-25.
“Human Resource Management and the Law,”
A d m in is tra to r, February 1983, pp. 23-56.

P erso n n el

Hyde, Albert C. and Wayne F. Cascio, eds., “Special Issue:
Performance Appraisal,” P u b lic P erso n n el M a n a g e m e n t,
Winter 1982, pp. 293-375.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, “Dilemmas of Managing Participa­
tion,” O r g a n iza tio n a l D y n a m ics, Summer 1982, pp. 5-27.


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

L a b o r a n d M a te r ia l R e q u ire ­
C on stru ction . Prepared by

Wages and compensation
Mitchell, Daniel J. B., “Gain-Sharing Pay Plans: In Quest of a
More Stable Economy,” P u b lic A ffa irs R e p o rt, University
of California, Institute of Governmental Studies, October
1982, pp. 1-5.
U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics,
G ainesville, F lorida,

M e tro p o lita n

(Bulletin 3015-44, 23 pp., $3.25);

A re a
W age Su rveys:
A rea, S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 2
C levela n d , Ohio, M e tr o ­

p o lita n A rea, S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 2 (Bulletin 3015-45, 40 pp.,
$4.50); A lb a n y -S c h e n e c ta d y -T ro y , N e w Y ork, M e tro p o lita n
A rea, S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 2 (Bulletin 3015—
46, 27 pp., $3.50);
K a n s a s C ity, M isso u ri-K a n sa s, M e tro p o lita n A rea, S e p te m ­
b e r 1 9 8 2 (Bulletin 3015-49, 55 pp., $4.75); M ia m i, F lo ri­
da, M e tro p o lita n A rea, O c to b er 1 9 8 2 (Bulletin 3015-52, 36
pp., $4.50); L o u isville, K e n tu c k y -I n d ia n a , M e tro p o lita n
A rea, N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 2 (Bulletin 3015-53, 30 pp., $3.75);
O m ah a, N e b ra sk a -Io w a , M e tro p o lita n A rea, O c to b er 198 2

(Bulletin 3015-54, 27 pp., $3.50).

□

Current
Labor Statistics
N o te s on C u rren t L a b o r S ta tis tic s

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

S c h e d u le o f r e le a s e d a te s fo r m a jo r B L S s ta tis tic a l s e r ie s

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

50

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

E m p lo y m e n t d a ta fr o m h o u s e h o ld s u r v e y . D e f in it io n s a n d n o te s
1. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, selected years, 1950-82
2. Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex,seasonally adjusted .
3. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted ............
4. Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted ..........................................................................................................
5. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted ....................................................................................
6. Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................
7. Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................
8. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted .................................................................................................................

51

51
52
53
54
^
56
56

E m p lo y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a ta fr o m e s t a b lis h m e n t s u r v e y s . D e f in it io n s a n d n o t e s .
9. Employment by industry, selected years, 1950-81 ...............................................................................................................
10. Employment by State ..................................................................................................................................................................
11. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ...........................................
12. Hours and earnings, by industry division, selected years, 1950-81
13. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ........................................
14. Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................
15. Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division ........................................................................................................................
16. Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................

58
58
59
60
61
62
62
63

U n e m p lo y m e n t in s u r a n c e d a ta . D e f in it io n s
..................................................................................................................
17. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations ..........................................................................................

64
64

P r ic e d a ta . D e f in it io n s a n d n o te s
.................................................................................................................. .......................
18. Consumer Price Index, 1967-82 ...............................................................................................................................................
19. Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selected items
..............................
20. Consumer Price Index, cross-classification of region and population size class ................... .. ................................ • •
21. Consumer Price Index, selected areas .................................................................. * ...............................................................
22. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing .....................................................................................................................
23. Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings .............
24. Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ................................................................................................
25. Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ...............................................................................................................
26. Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries ............................................. .......................................

65
66
66
72
71

P r o d u c t i v i t y d a t a . D e f i n i t i o n s a n d n o t e s ..........................................................................................................................
27. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years,1950-82 ......................
28. Annual changes inproductivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1972-82 ...............................................
29. Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,seasonallyadjusted .........................
30. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unitcosts, and prices

79
79
80
80
81

W a g e a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n d a t a . D e f i n i t i o n s a n d n o t e s .............................................................................................
31. Employment Cost Index, total compensation, by occupation and industry g r o u p .........................................................
32. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry grou p ...........................................................
33. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and areas i z e ..................................
34. Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1978 to d a t e ...............................................
35. Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more,1978 to d a te ..................

82

W o r k s t o p p a g e d a t a . D e f i n i t i o n ...............................................................................................................................................
36. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date .....................................................................................

87
87


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

57

74
75
77

83
84
85
86
86

N O T E S O N C U R R E N T L A B O R ST A T IST IC S

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.
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.
Seasonal adjustment. 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.

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.
Adjustments for price changes. 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.
Availability of information. 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. More information from house­
hold and establishment surveys is provided in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n ­
ings, a monthly publication of the Bureau. Comparable household in­
formation is published in a two-volume data book- 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 re n t P o p u la tio n S u rv e y , Bulletin 2096.
Comparable establishment information appears in two data booksE 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 r n ­
ings, S ta te s a n d A re a s, and their annual supplements. More detailed
information on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining ap­
pears in the monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e 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 r ic e I n d e x es.

Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 3-8 were revised in
the February 1983 issue of the R e v ie w , to reflect experience through
1982.
Beginning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifi­
cations in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data.
First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure
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, Feb­
ruary 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 shown in
tables 11, 13, and 15 were made in August 1981 using the X -ll
ARIM A seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for
productivity data in tables 29 and 30 are usually introduced
in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent
changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are

Symbols
p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series,
preliminary figures are issued based on representative
but incomplete returns.
r = revised. Generali;/, 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
Series

Employment situation ...........................
Producer Price Index.............................
Consumer Price Index...........................
Real earnings......................................
Productivity and costs:
Nonfarm business and manufacturing ...
Nonfinanclal corporations ..................
Major collective bargaining settlements
Employment Cost Index ........................

50


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

Release
date

Period
covered

April 1
April 15
April 22
April 22

March
March
March
March

April 27

1st quarter 1983

April 27

1st quarter 1983

Release
date

May 6
May 13
May 24
May 24

Period
covered

April
April
April
April

Release
date

Period
covered

MLR table
number

June 3
June 10
June 22
June 22

May
May
May
May

1-11
22-26
18-21
12-16
27-30

May 26

1st quarter 1983

May 5

1st quarter 1983

27-30
34-35
31-33

E M P L O Y M E N T D A T A F R O M T H E H O U S E H O L D SU R V E Y

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 60,000
households 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.

employed as a percent of the civilian labor force.
The labor force consists of all employed or unemployed civilians
plus members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
Persons not in the labor force are 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 long-term illness, those discouraged from
seeking work because of personal or job market factors, and those
who are voluntarily idle. The noninstitutional population 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, and members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United
States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion of the
noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The
employment-population ratio is total employment (including the
resident Armed Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional
population.

E m ploym ent

Definitions
Employed persons include (1) all civilians 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. Members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States
are also included in the employed total. 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.

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

Unemployed persons 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 overall unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as
a percent of the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The
unemployment rate for all civilian workers represents the number un­

a n d E a rn in g s.

Data in tables 2-8 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1982.

1. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-82
[Numbers in thousands]
Labor force
Unemployed

Employed
Year

Noninsti­
tutional
population

Number

Percent of
population

Civilian
Total

Percent of
population

Total

Agriculture

Nonagricultural
industies

Number

Percent of
labor
force

Not in
labor force

1,169
2,064
1,861

58,918
62,170
65,778

7,160
6,450
5,458

51,758
55,722
60,318

3,288
2,852
3,852

5.2
4.3
5.4

42,787
44,660
47,617

1,946

2,218
2,253
2,238

71,088
72,895
74,372
75,920
77,902

4,361
3,979
3,844
3,817
3,606

66,726
68,915
70,527
72,103
74,296

3,366
2,875
2,975
2,817
2,832

4.4
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4

52,058
52,288
52,527
53,291
53,602

58.0
57.2
57.5
58.3
58.3

2,118
1,973
1,813
1,774
1,721

78,678
79,367
82,153
85,064
86,794

3,463
3,394
3,484
3,470
3,515

75,215
75,972
78,669
81,594
83,279

4,093
5,016
4,882
4,365
5,156

4.8
5.8
5.5
4.8
5.5

54,315
55,834
57,091
57,667
58,171

87,524
90,420
93,673
97,679
100,421

56.5
57.3
58.3
59.7
60.3

1,678

85,846
88,752
92,017
96,048
98,824

3,408
3,331
3,283
3,387
3,347

82,438
85,421
88,734
92,661
95,477

7,929
7,406
6,991

8.3
7.6
6.9

6,137

5.8

59,377
59,991
60,025
59,659
59,900

100,907
102,042
101,194

59.6
59.4
58.2

1,604
1,645

99,303
100,397
99,526

3,364
3,368
3,401

95,938
97,030
96,125

7,637
8,273
10,678

7.0
7.5
9.5

60,806
61,460
62,067

1950 .........
1955 .........
1960 .........

106,164
111,747
119,106

63,377
67,087
71,489

59.7
60.0
60.0

60,087
64,234
67,639

56.6
57.5
56.8

1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

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

128,459
130,180
132,092
134,281
136,573

76,401
77,892
79,565
80,990
82,972

59.5
59.8
60.2
60.3
60.8

73,034
75,017
76,590
78,173
80,140

56.9
57.6
58.0
58.2
58.7

1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

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

139,203
142,189
145,939
148,870
151,841

84,889
86,355
88,847
91,203
93,670

61.0
60.7
60.9
61.3
61.7

80,796
81,340
83,966
86,838
88,515

1975
1976
1977
1978
1979

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

154,831
157,818
160,689
163,541
166,460

95,453
97,826
100,665
103,882
106,559

61.6
62.0
62.6
63.5
64.0

1980 .........
1981 .........
1982 .........

169,349
171,775
173,939

108,544
110,315
111,872

64.1
64.2
64.3


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

Resident
Armed
Forces

2,122

1,668
1,656
1,631
1,597

1,668

6,202

6.0

51

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
2.

Employment status of the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Annual average

1982

Employment status and sex

1983

1981

1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

171,775
110,315
64.2
102,042
59.4
1,645
100,397
3,368
97,030
8,273
7.5
61,460

173,939
111,872
64.3
101,194
58.2
1,668
99,526
3,401
96,125
10,678
9.5
62,067

173,153
111,028
64.1
101,359
58.5
1,664
99,695
3,367
96,328
9,669
8.7
62,125

173,338
111,149
64.1
101,268
58.4
1,671
99,597
3,367
96,230
9,881
8.9
62,189

173,512
111,408
64.2
101,152
58.3
1,668
99,484
3,356
96,128
10,256
9.2
62,104

173,691
112,043
64.5
101,659
58.5
1,665
99,994
3,446
96,548
10,384
9.3
61,648

173,854
111,811
64.3
101,345
58.3
1,664
99,681
3,371
96,310
10,466
9.4
62,043

174,038
112,090
64.4
101,262
58.2
1,674
99,588
3,445
96,143
10,828
9.7
61,948

174,200
112,303
64.5
101,372
58.2
1,689
99,683
3,429
96,254
10,931
9.7
61,897

174,360
112,528
64.5
101,213
58.0
1,670
99,543
3,363
96,180
11,315
10.1
61,832

174,549
112,420
64.4
100,844
57.8
1,668
99,176
3,413
95,763
11,576
10.3
62,129

174,718
112,702
64.5
100,796
57.7
1,660
99,136
3,466
95,670
11,906
10.6
62,016

174,864
112,794
64.5
100,758
57.6
1,665
99,093
3,411
95,682
12,036
10.7
62,070

175,021
112,215
64.1
100,770
57.6
1,667
99,103
3,412
95,691
11,446
10.2
62,806

175,169
112,217
64.1
100,727
57.5
1,664
99,063
3,393
95,670
11,490
10.2
62,952

82,023
63,486
77.4
58,909
71.8
1,512
57,397
4,577
7.2

83,052
63,979
77.0
57,800
69.6
1,527
56,271
6,179
9.7

82,673
63,683
77.0
58,197
70.4
1,527
56,670
5,486
8.6

82,763
63,693
77.0
58,031
70.1
1,532
56,499
5,662
8.9

82,844
63,829
77.0
57,973
70.0
1,529
56,444
5,856
9.2

82,929
64,172
77.4
58,251
70.2
1,527
56,724
5,921
9.2

83,006
63,851
76.9
57,775
69.6
1,526
56,249
6,076
9.5

83,097
63,898
76.9
57,664
69.4
1,537
56,127
6,234
9.8

83,173
64,055
77.0
57,710
69.4
1,551
56,159
6,345
9.9

83,231
64,301
77.3
57,598
692
1,526
56,072
6,703
10.4

83,323
64,300
77.2
57,456
69.0
1,524
55,932
6,844
10.6

83,402
64,414
77.2
57,408
68.8
1,516
55,892
7,006
10.9

83,581
64,384
77.0
57,338
68.6
1,529
55,809
7,046
10.9

83,652
63,916
76.4
57,283
68.5
1,531
55,752
6,633
10.4

83,720
63,996
76.4
57,234
68.4
1,528
55,706
6,762
10.6

89,751
46,829
52.2
43,133
48.1
133
43,000
3,696
7.9

90,887
47,894
52.7
43,395
47.7
139
43,256
4,499
9.4

90,480
47,345
52.3
43,162
47.7
137
43,025
4,183
8.8

90,576
47,456
52.4
43,237
47.7
139
43,098
4,219
8.9

90,668
47,579
52.5
43,179
47.6
139
43,040
4,400
9.2

90,762
47,871
52.7
43,408
47.8
138
43,270
4,463
9.3

90,848
47,960
52,8
43,570
48.0
138
43,432
4,390
9.2

90,941
48,192
53.0
43,598
47.9
137
43,461
4,594
9.5

91,027
48,248
53.0
43,662
48.0
138
43,524
4,586
9.5

91,129
48,227
52.9
43,615
47.9
144
43,471
4,612
9.6

91,226
48,120
52.7
43,388
47.6
144
43,244
4,732
9.8

91,316
48,288
52.9
43,388
47.5
144
43,244
4,900
10.1

91,283
48,410
53.0
43,420
47.6
136
43,284
4,990
10.3

91,369
48,299
52.9
43,486
47.6
136
43,350
4,813
10.0

91,449
48,220
52.7
43,493
47.6
136
43,357
4,727
9.8

Total
Noninstitutional population12 ....................
Labor force 2 ......................................
Participation rate3 ....................
Total employed2 .............................
Employment-population ratio4 . . . .
Resident Armed Forces1 ..............
Civilian employed.........................
Agriculture...............................
Nonagricultural industries ...........
Unemployed ...................................
Unemployment rate5 ................
Not in labor force.................................
Men, 16 years and over
Noninstitutional population12 ....................
Labor force2 ......................................
Participation rate3 ....................
Total employed2 .............................
Employment-population ratio4 __
Resident Armed Forces1 ...............
Civilian employed.........................
Unemployed ...................................
Unemployment rate6 ................
Women, 16 years and over
Noninstitutional population' 2 ....................
Labor force2 ...................................
Participation rate3 ....................
Total employed2 .............................
Employment-population ratio4 . . . .
Resident Armed Forces ' ..............
Civilian employed.........................
Unemployed ..................................
Unemployment rate5 ................

1The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation.
2Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
3Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population.

52


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

4Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
5Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (Including the resident Armed Forces).

3.

Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]

1981

1982

1983

1982

Annual average
Employment status

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

173,354
110,548
63.8
99,103
57.2
3,412
95,691
11,446
10.4
62,806

173,505
110,553
63.7
99,063
57.1
3,393
95,670
11,490
10.4
62,952

TOTAL
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................
Civilian labor force...................................
Participation rate .........................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population ratio2 .........
Agriculture......................................
Nonagricultural industries ..................
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate ......................
Not in labor force....................................

170,130 172,271 171,489 171,667 171,844 172,026 172,190 172,364 172,511 172,690 172,881 173,058 173,199
108,670 110,204 109,364 109,478 109,740 110,378 110,147 110,416 110,614 110,858 110,752 111,042 111,129
64.2
64.1
64.2
64.1
64.2
64.1
64.0
64.2
63.8
63.8
63.9
64.0
63.9
99,588 99,683 99,543 99,176 99,136 99,093
100,397 99,526 99,695 99,597 99,484 99,994 99,681
57.4
57.3
57.2
57.6
57.8
57.9
57.8
58.1
58.0
57.9
57.8
58.1
59.0
3,411
3,466
3,413
3,429
3,363
3,371
3,445
3,446
3,367
3,356
3,401
3,367
3,368
97,030 96,125 96,328 96,230 96,128 96,548 96,310 96,143 96,254 96,180 95,763 95,670 95,682
11,315 11,576 11,906 12,036
10,256 10,384 10,466 10,828 10,931
9,669
9,881
8,273 10,678
10.8
10.7
9.9
10.2
10.5
9.8
9.4
9.5
9.3
8.8
9.0
9.7
7.6
61,460 62,067 62,125 62,189 62,104 61,648 62,043 61,948 61,897 61,832 62,129 62,016 62,070

Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................
Civilian labor force .................................
Participation rate .........................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population ratio2 .........
Agriculture......................................
Nonagricultural industries ..................
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate ......................

72,419
57,197
79.0
53,582
74.0
2,384
51,199
3,615
6.3

73,644
57,980
78.7
52,891
71.8
2,422
50,469
5,089
8.8

73,209
57,581
78.7
53,130
72.6
2,388
50,742
4,451
7.7

73,287
57,633
78.6
53,026
72.4
2,392
50,634
4,607
8.0

73,392
57,794
78.7
53,024
72.2
2,417
50,607
4,770
8.3

73,499
58,008
78.9
53,190
72.4
2,446
50,744
4,818
8.3

73,585
57,959
78.8
52,943
71.9
2,424
50,519
5,016
8.7

73,685
58,055
78.8
52,905
71.8
2,462
50,443
5,150
8.9

73,774
58,064
78.7
52,832
71.6
2,433
50,399
5,232
9.0

73,867
58,354
79.0
52,776
71.4
2,436
50,340
5,578
9.6

73,984
58,363
78.9
52,649
71.2
2,444
50,205
5,714
9.8

74,094
58,454
78.9
52,589
71.0
2,434
50,155
5,865
10.0

74,236
58,443
78.7
52,534
70.8
2,389
50,145
5,909
10.1

74,339
58,048
78.1
52,452
70.6
2,426
50,025
5,597
9.6

74,434
58,177
78.2
52,428
70.4
2,374
50,054
5,749
9.9

81,497
42,485
52.1
39,590
48.6
604
38,986
2,895
6.8

82,864
43,699
52.7
40,086
48.4
601
39,485
3,613
8.3

82,367
43,111
52.3
39,825
48.4
620
39,205
3,286
7.6

82,478
43,285
52.5
39,883
48.4
625
39,258
3,402
7.9

82,591
43,355
52.5
39,827
48.2
600
39,227
3,528
8.1

82,707
43,632
52.8
40,064
48.4
614
39,450
3,568
8.2

82,811
43,819
52.9
40,254
48.6
586
39,668
3,565
8.1

82,926
43,983
53.0
40,311
48.6
598
39,713
3,672
8.3

83,035
44,039
53.0
40,368
48.6
590
39,778
3,671
8.3

83,152
43,996
52.9
40,286
48.4
588
39,698
3,710
8.4

83,271
43,936
52.8
40,112
48.2
578
39,534
3,824
8.7

83,385
44,112
52.9
40,123
48.1
590
39,533
3,989
9.0

83,383
44,286
53.1
40,215
48.2
628
39,587
4,071
9.2

83,490
44,201
52.9
40,238
48.2
625
39,613
3,963
9.0

83,593
44,216
52.9
40,291
48.2
65.7
39,634
3,925
8.9

16,214
8,988
55.4
7,225
44.6
380
6,845
1,763
19.6

15,763
8,526
54.1
6,549
41.5
378
6,171
1,977
23.2

15,913
8,672
54.5
6,740
42.4
359
6,381
1,932
22.3

15,902
8,560
53.8
6,688
42.1
350
6,338
1,872
21.9

15,861
8,591
54.2
6,633
41.8
339
6,294
1,958
22.8

15,820
8,738
55.2
6,740
42.6
386
6,354
1,998
22.9

15,794
8,369
53.0
6,484
41.1
361
6,123
1,885
22.5

15,753
8,378
53.2
6,372
40.4
385
5,987
2,006
23.9

15,702
8,511
54.2
6,483
41.3
406
6,077
2,028
23.8

15,671
8,508
54.3
6,481
41.4
339
6,142
2,027
23.8

15,625
8,453
54.1
6,415
41.1
391
6,024
2,038
24.1

15,579
8,476
54.4
6,424
41.2
442
5,982
2,052
24.2

15,580
8,400
53.9
6,344
40.7
394
5,950
2,056
24.5

15,525
8,299
53.5
6,413
41.3
361
6,052
1,886
22.7

15,478
8,160
52.7
6,345
41.0
362
5,983
1,815
22.2

147,908
95,052
64.3
88,709
60.0
6,343
6.7

149,441
96,143
64.3
87,903
58.8
8,241
8.6

148,855
95,459
64.1
88,080
59.2
7,379
7.7

149,132
95,602
64.1
88,033
59.0
7,569
7.9

149,249
95,941
64.3
88,011
59.0
7,930
8.3

149,250
96,405
64.6
88,350
59.2
8,055
8.4

149,429
96,165
64.4
88,089
59.0
8,076
8.4

149,569
96,385
64.4
88,021
58.8
8,364
8.7

149,536
96,375
64.4
87,979
58.8
8,396
8.7

149,652
96,640
64.6
87,872
58.7
8,768
9.1

149,838
96,453
64.4
87,477
58.4
8,976
9.3

149,887
96,719
64.5
87,435
58.3
9,284
9.6

150,056
96,864
64.6
87,443
58.3
9,421
9.7

150,129
96,176
64.1
87,466
58.3
8,711
9.1

150,187
95,987
63.9
87,194
58.1
8,793
9.2

18,219
11,086
60.8
9,355
51.3
1,731
15.6

18,584
11,331
61.0
9,189
49.4
2,142
18.9

18,450
11,219
60.8
9,260
50.2
1,959
17.5

18,480
11,228
60.8
9,209
49.8
2,019
18.0

18,511
11,201
60.5
9,135
49.3
2,066
18.4

18,542
11,318
61.0
9,209
49.7
2,109
18.6

18,570
11,267
60.7
9,171
49.4
2,096
18.6

18,600
11,341
61.0
9,211
49.5
2,130
18.8

18,626
11,400
61.2
9,220
49.5
2,180
19.1

18,659
11,443
61.3
9,172
49.2
2,271
19.8

18,692
11,398
61.0
9,102
48.7
2,296
20.1

18,723
11,475
61.3
9,159
48.9
2,316
202

18,740
11,522
61.5
9,127
48.7
2,395
20.8

18,768
11,542
61.5
9,142
48.7
2,400
20.8

18,796
11,548
61.4
9,276
49.4
2,271
19.7

9,310
5,972
64.1
5,348
57.4
624
10.4

9,400
5,983
63.6
5.158
54.9
825
13.8

9,341
6,051
64.8
5,297
56.7
754
12.5

9,297
6,015
64.7
5,253
56.5
762
12.7

9,235
5,966
64.6
5,211
56.4
755
12.7

9,297
6,004
64.6
5,182
55.7
822
13.7

9,428
5,965
63.3
5,155
54.7
810
13.6

9,521
5,972
62.7
5,136
53.9
836
14.0

9,689
6,045
62.4
5,162
53.3
883
14.6

9,464
5,961
63.0
5,097
53.9
864
14.5

9,474
5,973
63.0
5,075
53.6
898
15.0

9,355
5,923
63.3
5,012
53.6
911
15.4

9,301
5,898
63.4
4,998
53.7
900
15.3

9,328
5,981
64.1
5,053
54.2
929
15.5

9,368
5,992
64.0
5,042
53.8
950
15.8

Women, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................
Civilian labor force .................................
Participation rate .........................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population ratio2 .........
Agriculture......................................
Nonagricultural industries ..................
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate ......................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................
Civilian labor force..................................
Participation rate .........................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population ratio2 .........
Agriculture......................................
Nonagricultural industries ..................
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate ......................
While
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................
Civilian labor force .................................
Participation rate .........................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population ratio2 .........
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate ......................
Black
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................
Civilian labor force .................................
Participation rate .........................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population ratio2 .........
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate ......................
Hispanic origin
Civilian noninstitutional population1 ................
Civilian labor force...................................
Participation rate .........................
Employed ..........................................
Employment-population ratio2 .........
Unemployed ......................................
Unemployment rate ......................

1The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.


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

Note: Detail for the above race and Hlspanic-origln groups will not sum to totals because data for the
“other races” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black population
groups.

53

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
4.

Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted

[ Numbers in thousands]
Annual average

1982

Selected categories

1983

1981

1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

100,397
57,397
43,000
38,882
23,915
4,998

99,526
56,271
43,256
38,074
24,053
5,099

99,695
56,670
43,025
38,326
23,807
5,157

99,597
56,499
43,098
38,227
23,933
5,094

99,484
56,444
43,040
38,212
23,891
5,093

99,994
56,724
43,270
38,274
24,112
4,991

99,681
56,249
43,432
38,254
24,331
5,120

99,588
56,127
43,461
38,177
24,173
5,200

99,683
56,159
43,524
38,121
24,235
5,208

99,543
56,073
43,471
37,998
24,159
5,118

99,176
55,932
43,244
37,852
24,081
5,107

99,136
55,892
43,244
37,641
23,985
5,025

99,093
55,809
43,284
37,507
24,155
4,985

99,103
55,752
43,350
37,450
24,205
5^038

99,063
55,706
43,357
37,428
24 070
5,050

1,464
1,638
266

1,505
1,636
261

1,430
1,613
334

1,428
1,645
270

1,442
1,656
266

1,530
1,679
251

1,457
1,661
254

1,523
1,655
254

1,548
1,620
255

1,537
1,569
254

1,576
1,621
229

1,584
1,628
241

1,547
1,627
224

1 637
1 587
231

1 6P4
1 541
223

89,543
15,689
73,853
1,208
72,645
7,097
390

88,462
15,516
72,945
1,207
71,738
7,262
401

88,702
15,515
73,187
1,181
72,006
7,097
410

88,620
15,491
73,129
1,218
71,911
7,150
431

88,454
15,464
72,990
1,196
71,794
7,246
410

88,872
15,454
73,418
1,204
72,214
7,262
392

88,548
15,614
72,934
1,205
71,729
7,301
398

88,491
15,471
73,020
1,200
71,820
7,286
393

88,576
15,562
73,014
1,227
71,787
7,338
408

88,562
15,681
72,881
1,220
71,661
7,422
378

88,064
15,436
72,628
1,216
71,412
7,332
403

87,936
15,514
72,422
1,221
71,201
7,349
382

87,976
15,477
72,499
1,163
71,336
7,335
383

87,813
15,386
72,427
1,162
71 265
7 465
380

87,794
15,501
72,293
1,232
71 061
7 385
353

91,377
74,339
4,499
1,738
2,761
12,539

90,552
72,245
5,852
2,169
3,683
12,455

90,087
73,026
5,489
2,155
3,334
12,352

90,579
72,699
5,611
2,187
3,424
12,269

90,755
72,562
5,750
2,197
3,553
12,443

91,082
72,869
5,731
2,195
3,536
12,482

90,917
72,545
5,561
2,126
3,435
12,811

90,414
72,288
5,577
2,047
3,530
12,549

90,486
72,045
5,820
2,100
3,720
12,621

90,884
71,723
6,495
2,519
3,976
12,666

90,232
71,394
6,903
2,381
4,022
12,435

90,238
71,442
6,411
2,228
4,183
12,385

90,219
71,499
6,425
2,153
4,272
12,295

90,903
71,786
6,845
2,200
4,645
12^271

90207
71 564
6,481
2 097
4 384
12,162

CHARACTERISTIC
Civilian employed, 16 years and over . .

Married men, spouse present ............
Married women, spouse present .
Women who maintain families...........
MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers....................
Self-employed workers..................
Unpaid family workers ................
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers....................
Private industries.........................
Private households ..............
Other .............................
Self-employed workers......................
Unpaid family workers ..............
PERSONS AT WORK1
Nonagricultural industries ....................
Full-time schedules ..............
Part time for economic reasons.........
Usually work full time.............
Usually work part time.......................
Part time for noneconomic reasons.........

1Excludes persons "with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation,
illness, or Industrial disputes.

54


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

5.

Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted

[Unemployment rates]

1981

1982

Total, all civilian workers..................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ........................
Men, 20 years and over.............................
Women, 20 years and over ........................

7.6
19.6
6.3

9.7
23.2

6.8

8.3

White, total.............................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ..................
Men, 16 to 19 years......................
Women, 16 to 19 years ................
Men, 20 years and over ......................
Women, 20 years and over..................

6.7
17.3
17.9
16.6
5.6
5.9

20.4
21.7
19.0
7.8
7.3

19193

1982

Annual average
Selected categories

Feb.

Mar.

8.8

9.0
21.9

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

9.3

9.4
22.9
8.3

9.5
22.5
8.7

9.8
23.9
8.9
8.3

9.9
23.8
9.0
8.3

10.2
23.8
9.6
8.4

10.4
24.1
9.8
8.7

10.7
24.2

24.5

10.8
10.1

9.0

9.2

10.4
22.7
9.6
9.0

Feb.

CHARACTERISTIC

8.8
8.6

22.3
7.7
7.6
7.7
19.7
20.4
19.0
6.7

6.6

8.0

7.9
7.9
19.2
20.4
17.9
7.0

6.8

22.8
8.3
8.1
8.3
20.4
21.9
18.8
7.3
7.1

8.2

8.4
19.9
20.9
18.7
7.5
7.2

8.1

8.4
19.7

8.7

9.1
20.7

9.3
21.5
23.0
19.9

10.0
9.6

9.7

9.1

7.2

7.5

7.6

18.8
49.3
48.9
49.7
17.4
15.5

19.1
51.2
50.5
52.1
17.6
15.4

19.8
48.6
51.0
45.9
19.2
15.7

20.1

8.0
20.2

47.7
49.2
45.9
19.6
16.2

49.8
53.0
46.2
19.2
16.5

49.5
52.5
46.2
20.5
16.5

45.7
45.9
45.5
19.7
18.2

19.7
45.4
45.3
45.4
18.7
17.0

15.3

15.5

15.8

7.1
7.8
13.2

7.2
7.6
13.0
10.4

22.5
18.9

8.0

22.2
19.1
8.6

8.8

21.2
22.6

21.6
22.8

20.0
21.2

21.1

19.8
9.1

20.4
9.2

8.1
20.8

18.7
8.4
7.8

18.2
8.7
7.7

20.8

15.6
41.4
40.7
42.2
13.5
13.4

18.9
48.0
48.9
47.1
17.8
15.4

17.5
43.5
42.2
45.0
16.2
14.5

18.0
46.3
47.6
44.9
16.3
15.1

18.4
48.0
48.4
47.7
17.0
15.4

18.6
49.4
49.7
49.1
17.1
15.3

Hispanic origin, total .................................

10.4

13.8

12.5

12.7

12.7

13.7

13.6

14.0

14.6

14.5

15.0

15.4

Married men, spouse present......................
Married women, spouse present..................
Women who maintain families......................

4.3

6.5
7.4
11.7

5.4
6.9
10.4

5.6
7.0

6.0

6.1

12.1

7.3
11.7

7.2
7.6
12.4

7.5
7.9
11.3

7.8

10.8

6.6
12.0

7.6

7.3
11.9

6.4
7.1

6.8

7.6
11.5

12.5

13.2

9.6
10.5
3.2

8.9

9.1

9.2
10.5
3.0
10.7

9.4

9.6

10.2
10.6

10.5
10.3
3.8

10.6

10.8
11.1

10.3

4.3
12.7

4.2
11.7

11.4
18.1

11.6
18.1
22.0

10.8
17.1
20.0

14.8
17.0
11.4
8.3

14.8
17.1
11.4

10.6

8.0
11.0

13.0
14.7
10.5
7.8

7.7
5.1
15.6

7.9
5.1
16.5

Full-time workers......................................
Part-time workers ....................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over..................
Labor force time lost1 ...............................

8.5

11.0

8.5
10.4
2.5
9.9

7.7

10.1
13.4
20.0

9.0
8.3
18.3

7.3
9.4

2.1

10.0
2.7
10.3

10.8
2.8
10.4

9.2
19.7

18.0
7.7
7.1

21.2

20.8

Black, total .............................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ..................
Men, 16 to 19 years......................
Women, 16 to 19 years ................
Men, 20 years and over ......................
Women, 20 years and over..................

10.4

9.9
8.9

8.7
20.9
22.5
19.1
7.9
7.3

18.6
51.2
55.7
46.0
17.3
15.1

6.0

10.4

22.2

7.4

10.0

11.2

3.2
10.4

3.2
10.7

9.7
10.4
3.3
10.9

10.0

10.2

10.2

11.0

11.0

14.0
19.5

15.8
20.3

16.0
20.4
12.4
13.3

18.5
22.3
14.1
16.0

17.9
22.3
14.1
16.0

7.0
4.7
14.2

7.9
10.4
7.1
4.9
13.3

7.9
10.4
7.1
4.9
13.3

3.5
11.7

12.0

8.2

11.3
4.1
12.4

8.2

10.6

10.1
4.2
12.0

INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers ..
Mining ...................................................
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 ................

6.0
15.6
8.3

8.2

8.4
5.2

8.1
5.9
4.7

12.1

12.3
13.3

10.6
11.2

6.9
4.9
14.7

9.6
5.9
9.1
6.5
5.1
13.4

10.8
6.8
10.0

9.4
9.3
18.2
10.7

10.8
10.6
5.7
10.1
6.8
4.8
14.0

9.8

9.8

10.6

12.1

19.3
11.3
11.9

18.9
11.5

10.6
6.7
9.9
7.0
5.2
14.6

10.4
6.4

12.2
13.1
11.1
6.8

4.9
18.1

9.7
6.9
4.7
15.0

12.2
10.2
6.8

12.1
12.8
11.0
6.6
10.3
7.0
4.7
14.1

11.0
7.1
10.0

11.2

11.2

21.8

10.8
7.6
5.7
16.0

10.8
18.4
19.7
13.3
14.7
11.4

8.0

10.9
7.3

6.0

16.4

1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a
percent of potentially available labor force hours.


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

55

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data
6.

Unemployment rates by sex and age, seasonally adjusted

[Civilian workers]
Sex and age

1983

1982

Annual average
1981

1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Total, 16 years and over..................................
16 to 24 years ............................................
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.................................

7.6
14.9
19.6
21.4
18.4
12.3
5.4
5.8
3.6

9.7
17.8
23.2
24.9
22.1
14.9
7.4
7.9
5.0

8.8
16.9
22.3
22.9
21.8
14.1
6.5
6.9
4.3

9.0
16.9
21.9
23.2
21.3
14.1
6.8
7.2
4.6

9.3
17.4
22.8
24.4
21.8
14.5
7.0
7.4
4.9

9.4
17.4
22.9
25.1
21.4
14.5
7.1
7.6
4.9

9.5
17.3
22.5
23.6
22.0
14.5
7.3
7.7
5.1

9.8
17.9
23.9
25.8
22.6
14.7
7.5
8.0
5.3

9.9
18.2
23.8
25.8
22.5
15.3
7.5
8.0
5.2

10.2
18.3
23.8
26.5
22.0
15.3
7.9
8.6
5.2

10.5
18.7
24.1
26.1
22.9
15.8
8.1
8.7
5.5

10.7
19.0
24.2
26.3
22.8
16.3
8.3
8.9
5.7

10.8
18.9
24.5
27.4
22.7
16.0
8.6
9.1
5.8

10.4
18.3
22.7
24.1
21.7
16.1
8.1
8.7
5.4

10.4
18.3
22.2
23.4
21.5
16.3
8.2
8.7
5.4

Men, 16 years and over ...........................
16 to 24 years ....................................
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.........................

7.4
15.7
20.1
22.0
18.8
13.2
5.1
5.5
3.5

9.9
19.1
24.4
26.4
23.1
16.4
7.5
8.0
5.1

8.8
17.9
22.6
23.3
22.1
15.3
6.4
6.8
4.3

9.1
18.2
23.3
24.5
22.6
15.6
6.7
7.1
4.7

9.4
18.7
24.1
24.8
23.7
15.9
6.9
7.3
5.0

9.5
18.6
23.8
26.3
22.2
15.8
7.0
7.5
4.7

9.7
18.7
24.3
25.4
23.7
15.9
7.4
7.9
4.9

10.0
19.2
25.2
27.7
23.4
16.2
7.5
8.1
4.9

10.2
19.5
25.1
27.4
23.4
16.6
7.7
8.2
5.5

10.7
20.0
25.4
29.0
23.0
17.3
8.2
9.0
5.5

10.9
20.2
25.6
28.8
23.4
17.4
8.5
9.1
6.0

11.1
20.6
25.7
28.2
24.1
18.0
8.6
9.2
6.2

11.2
20.5
25.8
29.0
24.0
17.8
8.8
9.4
6.3

10.6
19.7
23.9
24.4
23.5
17.6
8.2
8.7
5.8

10.8
19.8
23.6
23.6
23.4
17.8
8.5
9.1
5.7

Women, 16 years and over........................
16 to 24 years
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.........................

7.9
14.0
19.0
20.7
17.9
11.2
5.9
6.3
3.8

9.4
16.2
21.9
23.2
21.0
13.2
7.3
7.7
4.8

8.9
15.9
21.9
22.4
21.6
12.6
6.6
7.0
4.3

8.9
15.2
20.3
21.7
19.9
12.5
6.9
7.4
4.7

9.3
16.0
21.3
24.0
19.8
13.0
7.1
7.5
4.7

9.3
16.0
21.8
23.6
20.6
12.9
7.3
7.8
5.0

9.2
15.6
20.6
21.6
20.2
13.0
7.2
7.5
5.4

9.6
16.4
22.6
23.8
21.9
13.1
7.4
7.7
5.8

9.5
16.8
22.5
23.9
21.5
13.7
7.1
7.7
4.8

9.6
16.3
22.1
23.8
20.9
13.1
7.5
8.0
4.8

9.9
17.0
22.5
22.9
22.3
14.0
7.6
8.2
4.8

10.2
17.2
22.6
24.2
21.4
14.4
7.9
8.5
4.9

10.3
17.1
23.0
25.6
21.3
14.0
8.2
8.8
5.1

10.0
16.7
21.5
23.7
19.8
14.2
7.9
8.7
4.8

9.8
16.6
20.7
23.2
19.3
14.5
7.7
8.2
4.9

7.

Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Reason for unemployment

1983

1982

Annual average
1981

1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

4,267
1,430
2,837
923
2,102
981

6,268
2,127
4,141
840
2,384
1,185

5,246
1,777
3,469
942
2,272
1,096

5,628
1,858
3,770
885
2,261
1,061

5,889
1,967
3,922
901
2,342
1,096

5,938
1,956
3,982
864
2,393
1,159

6,181
2,097
4,084
826
2,378
1,091

6,323
2,126
4,197
819
2,478
1,230

6,446
2,218
4,228
814
2,440
1,304

6,979
2,625
4,354
786
2,437
1,303

7,325
2,519
4,806
803
2,322
1,296

7,369
2,531
4,838
794
2,546
1,244

7,295
2,468
4,827
826
2,629
1,288

6,704
2,131
4,573
839
2,623
1,174

6,809
2,024
4,784
848
2,491
1,161

100.0
51.6
17.3
34.3
11.2
25.4
11.9

100.0
58.7
19.9
38.8
7.9
22.3
11.1

100.0
54.9
18.6
36.3
9.9
23.8
11.5

100.0
57.2
18.9
38.3
9.0
23.0
10.8

100.0
57.6
19.2
38.3
8.8
22.9
10.7

100.0
57.3
18.9
38.5
8.3
23.1
11.2

100.0
59.0
20.0
39.0
7.9
22.7
10.4

100.0
58.3
19.6
38.7
7.5
22.8
11.3

100.0
58.6
20.2
38.4
7.4
22.2
11.9

100.0
60.7
22.8
37.8
6.8
21.2
11.3

100.0
62.4
21.4
40.9
6.8
19.8
11.0

100.0
61.6
21.2
40.5
6.6
21.3
10.4

100.0
60.6
20.5
40.1
6.9
21.8
10.7

100.0
59.1
18.8
40.3
7.4
23.1
10.4

100.0
60.2
17.9
42.3
7.5
22.0
10.3

3.9
.8
1.9
.9

5.7
.8
2.2
1.1

4.8
.9
2.1
1.0

5.1
.8
2.1
1.0

5.4
.8
2.1
1.0

5.4
.8
2.2
1.1

5.6
.7
2.2
1.0

5.7
.7
2.2
1.1

5.8
.7
2.2
1.2

6.3
.7
2.2
1.2

6.6
.7
2.1
1.2

6.6
.7
2.3
1.1

6.6
.7
2.4
1.2

6.1
.8
2.4
1.1

6.2
.8
2.3
1.1

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED
Job losers .....................................................
On layoff ...............................................
Other job losers......................................
Job leavers ...................................................
Reentrants.....................................................
New entrants .................................................
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
Total unemployed............................................
Job losers .....................................................
On layoff ...............................................
Other job losers......................................
Job leavers ...................................................
Reentrants.....................................................
New entrants .................................................
PERCENT OF
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers .....................................................
Job leavers ...................................................
Reentrants.....................................................
New entrants .................................................

8.

Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Weeks of unemployment

Less than 5 weeks ..........................................
5 to 14 weeks ...............................................
15 weeks and over..........................................
15 to 26 weeks........................................
27 weeks and over..................................
Mean duration, in weeks ..................................
Median duration, in weeks.................................

56


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

1983

1982

Annual average
1981

1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

3,449
2,539
2,285
1,122
1,162
13.7
6.9

3,883
3,311
3,485
1,708
1,776
15.6
8.7

3,807
3,068
2,750
1,479
1,271
14.0
7.4

3,831
3,098
2,962
1,605
1,357
13.9
7.7

3,930
3,255
3,080
1,582
1,498
14.3
8.3

3,871
3,281
3,267
1,633
1,634
14.9
8.6

3,605
3,398
3,517
1,683
1,834
16.3
9.8

3,959
3,249
3,569
1,780
1,789
15.6
8.3

3,933
3,346
3,637
1,808
1,829
16.1
8.3

4,004
3,549
3,856
1,830
2,026
16.6
9.4

3,930
3,511
4,167
1,951
2,216
17.1
9.6

3,963
3,549
4,524
2,191
2,333
17.3
10.0

4,019
3,460
4,732
2,125
2,607
18.0
10.1

3,536
3,328
4,634
1,928
2,706
19.4
11.5

3,731
3,106
4,618
1,928
2,689
19.0
9.6

E M P L O Y M E N T , H O U R S , A N D E A R N IN G S D A T A F R O M E S T A B L IS H M E N T S U R V E Y S

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 177,000 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.
E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a t a

payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of
changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived
from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers (CPI-W). The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from av­
erage 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.
Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or
nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different
from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the por­
tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular
hours and for which overtime premiums were paid.

Definitions
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holi­
day and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the
12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per­
cent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establish­
ment which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker
supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with
production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 11-15 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.
Earnings 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


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

Notes on the data
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 May 1982 data, published in the July 1982 issue of the R eview .
Consequently, data published in the R e v ie w prior to that issue are not
necessarily comparable to current data. Earlier comparable unadjusted
and seasonally adjusted data are published in a Supplement to E m ­
p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s (unadjusted data from April 1977 through Feb­
ruary 1982 and seasonally adjusted data from January 1974 through
February 1982) 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 78, BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods),
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 e v 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 rv e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1976).

57

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
9.

Employment by industry, selected years, 1950-82

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
Goods-produclng
Year

Total

Private
sector

Total

Service-producing

Mining Construe- Manufaction
turing

Total

Transpor-

Wholesale and retail trade

and
public
utilities

Total

Wholesale
trade

Retail
trade

Finance,
insurance,
Services
and real
estate

Government
Total

Federal

State
and
local

1950 . .
1955 . .
I960' .
1964 . .
1965 ..

45,197
50,641
54,189
58,283
60,765

39,170
43,727
45,836
48,686
50,689

18,506
20,513
20,434
21,005
21,926

901
792
712
634
632

2,364
2,839
2,926
3,097
3,232

15,241
16,882
16,796
17,274
18,062

26,691
30,128
33,755
37,278
38,839

4,034
4,141
4,004
3,951
4,036

9,386
10,535
11,391
12,160
12,716

2,635
2,926
3,143
3,337
3,466

6,751
7,610
8,248
8,823
9,250

1,888
2,298
2,629
2,911
2,977

5,357
6,240
7,378
8,660
9,036

6,026
6,914
8,353
9,596
10,074

1,928
2,187
2,270
2,348
2,378

4,098
4,727
6,083
7,248
7,696

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

..
..
..
..
..

63,901
65,803
67,897
70,384
70,880

53,116
54,413
56,058
58,189
58,325

23,158
23,308
23,737
24,361
23,578

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

40,743
42,495
44,160
46,023
47,302

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

8,220
8,672
9,102
9,437
9,823

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

..
..
..
..
..

71,214
73,675
76,790
78,265
76,945

58,331
60,341
63,058
64,095
62,259

22,935
23,668
24,893
24,794
22,600

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

48,278
50,007
51,897
53,471
54,345

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
89,823
90,406

64,511
67,344
71,026
73,876
74,166

23,352
24,346
25,585
26,461
25,658

779
813
851
958
1,027

3,576
3,851
4,229
4,463
4,346

18,997
19,682
20,505
21,040
20,285

56,030
58,125
61,113
63,363
64,748

4,582
4,713
4,923
5,136
5,146

17,755
18,516
19,542
20,192
20,310

4,546
4,708
4,969
5,204
5,275

13,209
13,808
14,573
14,989
15,035

4,271
4,467
4,724
4,975
5,160

14,551
15,303
16,252
17,112
17,890

14,871
15,127
15,672
15,947
16,241

2,733
2,727
2,753
2,773
2,866

12,138
12,399
12,919
13,147
13,375

1981 ..
1982 .

91,105
89,630

75,081
73,842

25,481
23,882

1,132
1,121

4,176
3,913

20,173
18,848

65,625
65,748

5,157
5,058

20,551
20,551

5,359
5,294

15,192
15,258

5,301
5,350

18,592
19,001

16,024
15,788

2,772
2,739

13,253
13,050

'Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.

10.

E m p lo y m e n t b y S ta te

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]
State

January 1982

December 1982

January 1983 p

State

January 1982

December 1982

January 1983 p

Alabama............................................
Alaska ..............................................
Arizona..............................................
Arkansas ............................................
California............................................

1,304.4
172.1
1,028.2
711.1
9,834.7

1,310.1
196.3
1,043.5
719.7
9,828.0

1,301.8
191.9
1,029.0
710.0
9,677.5

Montana.............................................
Nebraska ............................................
Nevada ...............................................
New Hampshire ..................................
New Jersey ........................................

267.0
602.2
399.7
387.1
3,028.4

271.3
598.3
405.1
390.4
3,059.3

266.6
580.1
399.2
382.5
2,979.8

Colorado............................................
Connecticut........................................
Delaware ..........................................
District of Columbia .............................
Florida ..............................................

1,303.8
1,414.4
244.5
591.4
3,771.9

1,322.0
1,440.8
261.5
593.5
3,834.4

1,299.9
1,405.7
252.9
585.0
3,822.4

New Mexico ........................................
New York............................................
North Carolina......................................
North Dakota ......................................
Ohio...................................................

469.4
7,136.4
2,331.7
242.8
4,137.5

476.5
7,261.7
2,352.4
253.1
4,102.5

467.6
7,089.6
2,311.6
246.1
4,012.2

Georgia.............................................
Hawaii...............................................
Idaho ...............................................
Illinois ...............................................
Indiana ..............................................

2,160.1
399.5
306.7
4,623.3
2,020.9

2,226.5
402.8
312.2
4,543.2
1,979.8

2,195.8
396.5
303.5
4,440.8
1,944.8

Oklahoma............................................
Oregon ...............................................
Pennsylvania........................................
Rhode Island........................................
South Carolina ....................................

1,227.1
956.6
4,575.3
386.0
1,163.2

1,218.6
950.2
4,475.7
391.4
1,159.7

1,198.6
929.6
4,391.4
383.4
1,140.0

Iowa.................................................
Kansas ..............................................
Kentucky............................................
Louisiana............................................
Maine ...............................................

1,031.8
930.5
1,160.9
1,613.6
399.6

1,023.0
908.9
1,165.6
1,607.1
407.9

998.6

224.9
1,687.0
6,271.7
555.3
200.5

228.7

1,149.1
1,587.6
397.4

South Dakota ......................................
Tennessee ..........................................
Texas .................................................
Utah...................................................
Vermont..............................................

6,219.7
563.1
203.4

223.5
1,639.0
6,168.7
552.5
199.7

Maryland............................................
Massachusetts....................................
Michigan ............................................
Minnesota ..........................................
Mississippi..........................................
Missouri ............................................

1,651.7
2,576.8
3,204.6
1,710.1
789.9
1,891.0

1,688.1
2,628.7
3,165.9
1,693.9
793.6
1,908.6

1,637.7
2,546.2
3,110.6
1,648.6
779.7
1,869.2

Virginia...............................................
Washington..........................................
West Virginia........................................
Wisconsin............................................
Wyoming ............................................

2,104.1
1,556.8
611.8
1,859.4
213.7

2,140.2
1,564.1
595.7
1,846.0
210.7

2,109.2
1,544.7
586.9
1,797.5
205.3

Virgin Islands........................................

36.0

35.5

' Data not available.

58


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

888.2

p= preliminary.

1,668.1

( 1)

11.

Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted

[Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands]

TOTAL .....................................................
PRIVATE SECTOR
GOODS-PRODUCING
Mining ..........................................................

191Ì3

1982

Annual average
Industry division and group

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.p

Feb.p

88,895

88,715

1981

1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct

91,105

89,630

90,459

90,304

90,083

90,166

89,839

89,535

89,313

89,264

88,877

88,750

88,565

75,081

73,842

74,609

74,445

74,231

74,313

74,007

73,900

73,640

73,504

73,118

72,996

72,810

73,169

72,978

23,994

23,840

23,657

23,530

23,239

23,081

22,986

23,141

23,018

1,124

1,100

1,086

1,075

1,058

1,046

1,037

1,028

1,015

3,899

3,883

3,856

3,854

3,818

3,916

3,782

25,481

23,882

24,631

24,450

24,289

24,255

1,132

1,121

1,203

1,197

1,182

1,152

Construction .................................................

4,176

3,913

3,974

3,934

3,938

3,988

3,940

3,927

Manufacturing ...............................................
Production workers...............................

20,173
14,021

18,848
12,782

19,454
13,290

19,319
13,179

19,169
13,042

19,115
13,008

18,930
12,852

18,813
12,760

18,672
12,647

18,572
12,566

18,325
12,335

18,181
12,203

18,131
12,172

18,197
12,238

18,221
12,278

Durable goods ............................................
Production workers...............................

12,117
8,301

11,112
7,364

11,575
7,759

11,490
7,685

11,375
7,576

11,332
7,553

11,203
7,443

11,133
7,388

10,993
7,272

10,900
7,191

10,666
6,979

10,550
6,874

10,519
6,853

10,563
6,908

10,602
6,951

Lumber and wood products .........................
Furniture and fixtures..................................
Stone, clay, and glass products ....................
Primary metal industries...............................
Fabricated metal products ...........................

668.7
467.3
638.2
1,121.1
1,592.4

613.9
441.7
577.2
918.5
1,442.6

611
449
596
1,024
1,505

607
446
590
1,007
1,496

615
443
584
976
1,481

617
443
586
945
1,472

615
442
580
926
1,452

614
439
579
906
1,446

614
443
574
889
1,427

616
439
571
865
1,414

614
434
565
831
1,381

616
435
556
813
1,365

621
436
552
803
1,358

632
436
553
813
1,368

636
436
555
812
1,372

Machinery, except electrical.........................
Electric and electronic equipment..................
Transportation equipment.............................
Instruments and related products ..................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................

2,507.0
2,092.2
1,892.6
726.8
410.7

2,288.7
2,011.2
1,726.0
705.2
387.3

2,446
2,048
1,778
718
400

2,419
2,038
1,774
716
397

2,389
2,034
1,748
713
392

2,377
2,034
1,755
713
390

2,322
2,026
1,745
708
387

2,274
2,018
1,759
708
390

2,230
2,011
1,719
702
384

2,208
1,995
1,709
701
382

2,142
1,969
1,658
694
378

2,108
1,963
1,631
689
374

2,086
1,946
1,662
682
373

2,064
1,959
1,677
684
377

2,057
1,965
1,708
684
377

Nondurable goods ......................................
Production workers...............................

8,056
5,721

7,736
5,418

7,879
5,531

7,829
5,494

7,794
5,466

7,783
5,455

7,727
5,409

7,680
5,372

7,679
5,375

7,672
5,375

7,659
5,356

7,631
5,329

7,612
5,319

7,634
5,330

7,619
5,327

Food and kindred products...........................
Tobacco manufactures ...............................
Textile mill products....................................
Apparel and other textile products ................
Paper and allied products ...........................

1,674.3
69.8
822.5
1,244.0
687.8

1,644.0
65.6
748.9
1,158.3
659.5

1,663
68
777
1,201
670

1,658
68
760
1,186
668

1,643
67
773
1,165
664

1,652
67
759
1,165
661

1,637
67
741
1,161
658

1,643
65
741
1,126
657

1,628
65
737
1,145
653

1,629
63
735
1,143
657

1,644
63
735
1,141
650

1,644
61
726
1,134
652

1,636
66
725
1,131
650

1,640
67
722
1,144
650

1,628
67
723
1,136
647

Printing and publishing.................................
Chemicals and allied products ......................
Petroleum and coal products ........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ..
Leather and leather products ........................

1,265.8
1,107.3
215.6
736.1
233.0

1,270.7
1,074.0
206.8
697.8
210.1

1,276
1,093
208
708
215

1,278
1,088
207
703
213

1,274
1,082
206
706
214

1,274
1,079
207
708
211

1,269
1,073
205
704
212

1,267
1,068
205
700
208

1,269
1,070
205
699
208

1,269
1,066
209
694
207

1,268
1,061
208
684
205

1,266
1,059
206
678
205

1,265
1,054
206
678
201

1,269
1,053
207
680
202

1,270
1,056
206
685
201

65,625

65,748

65,828

65,854

65,794

65,911

65,845

65,695

65,656

65,734

65,638

65,669

65,579

65,754

65,697

5,157

5,058

5,115

5,100

5,094

5,101

5,078

5,044

5,025

5,031

5,007

4,992

4,983

4,959

4,951

20,550

20,492

20,441

20,425

20,316

20,500

20,431

SERVICE PRODUCING
Transportation and public utilities
Wholesale and retail trade
Wholesale trade..............................................
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate..................

20,551

20,551

20,670

20,655

20,584

20,652

20,595

20,615

5,359

5,294

5,343

5,336

5,323

5,331

5,307

5,299

5,278

5,272

5,254

5,228

5,205

5,198

5,178

15,316

15,272

15,220

15,187

15,197

15,111

15,302

15,253

15,192

15,258

15,327

15,319

15,261

15,321

15,288

5,301

5,350

5,326

5,336

5,335

5,342

5,352

5,359

5,360

5,367

5,357

5,363

5,377

5,390

5,401

19,042

19,048

19,084

19,074

19,135

19,148

19,179

19,177

15,635
2,737
12,898

15,673
2,740
12,933

15,760
2,731
13,029

15,759
2,740
13,019

15,754
2,745
13,009

15,755
2,761
12,994

15,726
2,751
12,975

15,737
2,751
12,986

Services.........................................................

18,592

19.001

18,867

18,904

18,929

18,963

18,988

Government...................................................

16,024
2,772
13,253

15,788
2,739
13,050

15,850
2,737
13,113

15,859
2,736
13,123

15,852
2,730
13,122

15,853
2,728
13,125

15,832
2,739
13,093

State and local ..........................................
p=preliminary.


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

59

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data

12. Hours and earnings, by industry division, selected years, 1950-82
[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural payrolls]
Year

Average
weekly
earnings

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Private sector

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Mining

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Average
weekly
earnings

Construction

Average
weekly
hours

Average
hourly
earnings

Manufacturing

1950 ................
1955 ................
I960' ...............
1964 ................
1965 ................

$53.13
67.72
80.67
91.33
95.45

39.8
39.6
38.6
38.7
38.8

$1.335
1.71
2.09
2.36
2.46

$67.16
89.54
105.04
117.74
123.52

37.9
40.7
40.4
41.9
42.3

$1.772
2.20
2.60
2.81
2.92

$69.68
90.90
112.67
132.06
138.38

37.4
37.1
36.7
37.2
37.4

$1.863
2.45
3.07
3.55
3.70

$58.32
75.30
89.72
102.97
107.53

40.5
40.7
39.7
40.7
41.2

$1.440
1.85
2.26
2.53
2.61

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
2.68
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

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

1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

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

127.31
136.90
145.39
154.76
163.53

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

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
400
39.5

3.57
3.82
4.09
4.42
4.83

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

175.45
189.00
203.70
219.91
235.10

36.1
36.0
35.8
35.7
35.3

4.86
5.25
5.69
6.16
6.66

273.90
301.20
332.88
365.07
397.06

42.4
43.4
43.4
43.0
43.3

6.46
6.94
7.67
8.49
9.17

283.73
295.65
318.69
342.99
367.78

36.8
36.5
36.8
37.0
37.0

7.71
8.10
8.66
9.27
9.94

209.32
228.90
249.27
269.34
288.62

40.1
40.3
40.4
40.2
39.7

5.22
5.68
6.17
6.70
7.27

1981 ................
1982 ................

255.20
266.92

35.2
34.8

7.25
7.67

439.19
460.93

43.7
42.6

10.05
10.82

398.52
425.41

36.9
36.8

10.80
11.56

318.00
330.65

39.8
38.9

7.99
8.50

Transportation and public
utilities
1950 ................
1955 ................
I9601 ..............
1964 ................
1965 ................

Finance, insurance, and
real estate

Wholesale and retail trade

Services

$118.78
125.14

41.1
41.3

$2.89
3.03

$44.55
55.16
66.01
74.66
76.91

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

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
325.58
351.25

39.8
39.9
40.0
39.9
39.6

6.45
6.99
7.57
8.16
8.87

133.79
142.52
153.64
164.96
176.46

33.7
33.3
32.9
32.6
32.2

3.97
4.28
4.67
5.06
5.48

155.43
165.26
178.00
190.77
209.60

36.4
36.4
36.4
36.2
36.2

4.27
4.54
4.89
5.27
5.79

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

1981 ................
1982 ................

382.18
402.09

39.4
39.0

9.70
10.31

190.95
198.42

32.2
31.9

5.93
6.22

229.05
245.44

36.3
36.2

6.31
6.78

208.97
225.27

32.6
32.6

6.41
6.91

1966
1967
1968
1969
1970

1Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959.

60


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

40.5
39.4
38.6
37.9
37.7

$1.100
1.40
1.71
1.97
2.04

$50.52
63 92
75 14
85.79
88.91

37.7
37.6
37 2
37.3
37.2

$1.340
1.70
2 02
2.30
2.39

$70.03
73.60

36.1
35.9

$1.94
2.05

13.

Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
1982

1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.p

Feb.»

34.8

35.0

34.9

34.9

35.0

34.9

34.9

34.8

34.8

34.7

34.7

34.8

35.1

34.4
38.9
2.4

1981
PRIVATE SECTOR ..................................

1983

Annual average
Industry division and group

35.2

MANUFACTURING ........................................
Overtime hours..................................

39.8
2.8

38.9
2.3

39.4
2.4

39.0
2.3

39.0
2.4

39.1
2.3

39.2
2.4

39.2
2.4

39.0
2.4

38.8
2.3

38.8
2.3

38.9
2.3

38.9
2.3

39.8
2.3

Durable goods............................................
Overtime hours...................................

40.2
2.8

39.3
2.2

398
2.2

39.5
2.2

39.5
2.2

39.6
2.2

39.7
2.3

39.7
2.2

39.4
2.2

38.9
2.1

39.0
2.0

39.2
2.1

39.2
2.1

40.1
2.1

39.3
2.3

Lumber and wood products ........................
Furniture and fixtures .................................
Stone, clay, and glass products....................
Primary metal industries.............................
Fabricated metal products .........................

387
38.4
40.6
40.5
40.3

38.0
37.3
40.1
38.6
39.2

37.9
37.7
40.1
39.4
39.7

37.6
37.3
40.0
38.8
39.5

37.6
37.4
40.0
38.5
39.4

38.5
37.5
40.2
38.5
39.5

38.7
37.8
40.4
38.9
39.4

38.6
37.6
40.6
38.9
39.5

38.2
37.9
40.3
38.8
39.2

38.5
37.4
40.2
37.8
38.8

38.0
37.5
40.2
38.0
38.9

38.5
37.6
40.2
38.2
39.0

38.5
37.7
40.0
389
39.1

40.7
38.9
41.4
39.0
39.8

39.0
37.6
39.9
38.8
39.2

Machinery, except electrical ........................
Electric and electronic equipment ................
Transportation equipment...........................
Instruments and related products ................
Miscellaneous manufacturing ......................

40.9
39.9
40.9
40.4
38.8

396
39.3
40.5
39.8
38.5

40.7
39.8
40.5
39.9
38.6

40.2
39.4
40.4
39.9
38.6

40.1
39.3
41.1
39.9
38.5

39.8
39.4
41.1
40.2
38.7

39.6
39.5
41.6
40.2
38.6

39.8
39.8
41.0
40.1
38.7

39.5
39.3
40.5
40.1
38.6

39.0
38.8
39.8
39.8
38.3

39.2
39.0
40.1
39.4
38.6

39.2
39.2
40.8
39.2
38.6

39.3
39.3
39.9
39.6
38.4

39.7
39.8
41.6
40.6
39.3

39.3
39.2
40.8
39.4
37.6

Nondurable goods ....................................
Overtime hours..................................

39.1
2.8

38.4
2.5

38.9
2.6

38.5
2.5

38.4
26

38.5
2.5

38.6
2.5

38.6
2.6

38.5
2.6

38.6
2.6

38.5
2.6

38.5
2.5

38.5
2.5

39.3
2.5

38.4
2.5

rood and kindred products.........................
Textile mill products..................................
Apparel and other textile products................
Paper and allied products...........................

39.7
39.6
35.7
42.5

39.5
37.5
34.7
41.8

40.2
38.3
35.5
42.3

39.5
37.6
35.0
41.8

39.4
37.7
34.7
42.1

39.4
37.9
34.8
41.8

39.5
37.8
35.1
42.0

39.5
37.7
35.2
41.9

39.1
38.2
35.0
41.7

39.4
38.1
35.2
41.5

39.7
38.2
35.0
41.7

39.4
38.6
35.1
41.6

39.2
38.4
35.0
41.6

39.3
40.3
36.9
41.7

38.9
38.9
34.9
41.4

Printing and publishing ...............................
Chemicals and allied products......................
Petroleum and coal products ......................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products .,
Leather and leather products ......................

37.3
41.6
43.2
40.3
36.8

37.0
40.9
43.9
39.6
35.6

37.4
41.2
43.5
40.0
35.6

37.1
40.7
43.5
39.6
35.8

37.1
40.7
44.0
39.8
35.6

36.8
41.0
44.1
39.9
35.6

37.1
41.0
44.1
40.1
35.7

37.0
40.9
43.3
40.2
36.1

36.8
40.9
43.9
39.7
36.0

37.0
41.2
44.0
39.6
35.7

36.9
40.8
43.3
39.0
35.2

37.1
40.6
43.9
39.3
35.9

37.1
40.9
44.4
39.6
35.8

37.6
41.0
45.1
40.2
36.6

37.0
40.9
44.7
39.6
34.4

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE ..................

32.2

31.9

32.0

31.9

31.8

32.0

31.9

31.9

31.9

32.1

31.9

31.8

32.1

32.0

31.4

WHOLESALE TRADE......................................

38.6

38.4

38.5

38.4

38.3

38.5

38.6

38.5

38.5

38.4

38.3

38.4

38.4

38.6

38.2

RETAIL TRADE.............................................

30.1

29.9

29.9

29.8

29.8

30.0

29.8

29.9

29.9

30.1

29.9

29.8

30.2

30.0

29.3

SERVICES.....................................................

32.6

32.6

32.6

32.6

32.7

32.7

32.7

32.6

32.6

32.8

32.6

32.6

32.7

32.8

32.5

p=preliminary.


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

61

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data
14.

Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
Annual average
Industry division and group

1982

1983

1981

1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.p

Feb.»

$7.25
( 1)

$7.67
(’ )

$7.54
7.53

$7.55
7.54

$7.58
7.59

$7.63
7.65

$7.64
7.67

$7.67
7.71

$7.70
7.74

$7.76
7.72

$7.79
7.77

$7.81
7.79

$7.82
7.82

$7.90
7.86

$7.90
7.88

MINING...................................................

10.05

10.82

10.62

10.62

10.65

10.66

10.82

10.91

10.93

11.04

11.02

11.06

11.08

11.21

11.34

CONSTRUCTION.....................................

10.80

11.56

11.32

11.33

11.32

11.46

11.41

11.53

11.60

11.68

11.82

11.66

11.90

11.85

11.92

MANUFACTURING

7.99

8.50

8.34

8.37

8.42

8.45

8.50

8.55

8.51

8.59

8.56

8.61

8.69

8.71

8.75

Durable goods..................................
Lumber and wood products ..................
Furniture and fixtures.........................
Stone, clay, and glass products .............
Primary metal industries........................
Fabricated metal products ....................

8.53
7.00
5.91
8.27
10.81
8.20

9.05
7.50
6.32
8.87
11.33
8.78

8.89
7.27
6.19
8.62
11.20
8.57

8.91
7.28
6.21
8.65
11.15
8.64

8.94
7.24
6.21
8.72
11.24
8.69

9.01
7.41
6.23
8.80
11.23
8.79

9.06
7.59
6.30
8.86
11.31
8.83

9.11
7.64
6.34
8.93
11.37
8.85

9.09
7.61
6.39
8.93
11.49
8.85

9.16
7.70
6.41
9.03
11.54
8.90

9.13
7.61
6.41
9.04
11.42
8.85

9.17
7.63
6.44
9.04
11.49
8.90

9.23
7.59
6.47
9.08
11.49
8.97

9.26
7.70
6.51
9.08
11.57
8.99

9.30
7.67
6.50
9.11
11.53
9.06

Machinery, except electrical..................
Electric and electronic equipment...........
Transportation equipment......................
Instruments and related products ...........
Miscellaneous manufacturing ................

8.81
7.62
10.39
7.43
5.96

9.28
8.17
11.12
8.26
6.42

9.20
7.96
10.82
7.94
6.29

9.18
8.01
10.89
8.00
6.32

9.24
8.03
10.89
8.07
6.35

9.26
8.05
11.08
8.16
6.38

9.27
8.09
11.21
8.23
6.41

9.30
8.18
11.25
8.31
6.40

9.33
8.24
11.18
8.40
6.39

9.40
8.31
11.24
8.44
6.49

9.34
8.34
11.30
8.48
6.50

9.36
8.38
11.35
8.57
6.56

9.41
8.45
11.44
8.66
6.66

9.39
8.47
11.41
8.75
6.73

9.39
8.53
11.51
8.76
6.72

Nondurable goods...............................
Food and kindred products....................
Tobacco manufactures.........................
Textile mill products.............................
Apparel and other textile products .........
Paper and allied products......................

7.18
7.43
8.88
5.52
4.96
8.60

7.73
7.89
9.78
5.83
5.18
9.32

7.54
7.74
9.56
5.76
5.13
8.99

7.57
7.79
9.72
5.76
5.15
9.03

7.65
7.90
10.05
5.79
5.18
9.11

7.66
7.92
9.93
5.79
5.16
9.14

7.70
7.90
10.35
5.79
5.18
9.28

7.77
7.88
10.42
5.81
5.17
9.41

7.74
7.85
9.53
5.82
5.18
9.45

7.84
7.91
9.57
5.86
5.20
9.63

7.81
7.88
9.50
5.87
5.19
9.54

7.88
8.00
10.16
5.92
5.22
9.60

7.96
8.06
9.63
6.03
5.26
9.66

7.97
8.06
9.87
6.08
5.31
9.66

8.01
8.10
10.43
6.09
5.30
9.70

8.18
9.12
11.38
7.16
4.99

8.73
9.98
12.46
7.63
5.33

8.56
9.68
12.29
7.49
5.22

8.59
9.71
12.32
7.45
5.24

8.59
9.81
12.50
7.52
5.32

8.61
9.83
12.52
7.56
5.32

8.66
9.95
12.53
7.64
5.36

8.74
10.02
12.42
7.65
5.30

8.79
10.03
12.42
7.64
5.33

8.90
10.20
12.62
7.76
5.41

8.87
10.24
12.57
7.72
5.39

8.91
10.28
12.69
7.79
5.41

8.99
10.34
12.72
7.89
5.44

8.97
10.35
13.15
7.90
5.48

9.00
10.40
13.15
7.93
5.50

PRIVATE SECTOR
Seasonally adjusted ...........................

Printing and publishing.........................
Chemicals and allied products ..............
Petroleum and coal products ................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
Leather and leather products ................
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBUC UTILITIES .

9.70

10.31

10.13

10.07

10.14

10.17

10.20

10.29

10.43

10.46

10.48

10.59

10.62

10.66

10.68

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE

5.93

6.22

6.16

6.16

6.18

6.20

6.20

6.21

6.22

6.26

6.30

6.32

6.29

6.44

6.47

WHOLESALE TRADE

7.57

8.06

7.94

7.93

7.97

8.03

8.01

8.07

8.11

8.14

8.17

8.18

8.24

8.33

8.34

RETAIL TRADE.............................................

5.25

5.49

5.42

5.43

5.44

5.47

5.47

5.48

5.48

5.52

5.54

5.58

5.56

5.68

5.70

FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE . . .

6.31

6.78

6.62

6.59

6.64

6.77

6.71

6.78

6.87

6.90

6.97

7.01

7.01

7.21

7.17

SERVICES...............................................

6.41

6.91

6.79

6.77

6.81

6.85

6.84

6.87

6.90

6.99

7.05

7.08

7.12

7.19

7.15

1Not available.

15.

p=preliminary.

Hourly Earnings Index, for production workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry

[1977=100]
Not seasonally adjusted

Industry

PRIVATE SECTOR (in current dollars)
Mining.................................
Construction ....................................
Manufacturing .................................
Transportation and public utilities...........
Wholesale and retail trade ..................
Finance, insurance, and real estate.......
Services ..........................................
PRIVATE SECTOR (in constant dollars)

Percent
change
from:
Feb. 1982
to
Feb. 1983

Feb.
1982

Oct.
1982

Nov.
1982

Dec.
1982

Jan.
1983P

Feb.
1983 P

153.4

5.5

145.0

150.8

151.2

152.1

152.7

152.9

0.1

165.8
143.8
157.2
155.3
150.1
156.4
152.5

6.3
5.3
5.4
6.2
4.7
7.9
5.3

( 1)
137.9
149.1
146.0
142.5
143.3
143.7

( 1)
142.3
154.6
151.1
147.6
152.9
150.8

( ')
141.0
155.3
152.3
148.1
152.7
150.9

(’ )
143.8
155.6
153.4
148.6
153.7
152.4

(’ )
143.4
156.5
154.4
148.9
156.6
152.2

(’ )
145.2
157.1
155.0
149.2
154.6
151.3

( ')
1.3
.4
.4
.2
-1.2
-.6

<2)

93.1

93.2

93.5

94.3

94.7

(2)

(2)

Feb.
1982

Dec.
1982

Jan.
1983 p

145.4

152.1

153.3

156.0
136.5
149.1
146.3
143.3
144.9
144.9

163.4
143.9
156.2
154.2
147.8
153.0
152.1

164.5
143.2
157.0
154.7
149.9
157.2
153.4

93.3

94.5

95.3

(2)

Feb.
1983P

'This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to
the trend-cycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with
sufficient precision.

62

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

Seasonally adjusted

2Not available,
p = preliminary,

Percent
change
from
Jan. 1983
to
Feb. 1983

16.

Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group

[Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls]
19183

1982

Annual average
Industry division and group
1981

1982

PRIVATE SECTOR
Current dollars......................................
Seasonally adjusted.............................
Constant (1977) dollars...........................

$255.20
(’ )
170.13

$266.92
(1)
167.87

MINING ...................................................

439.19

460.93

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

June

May

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct

Nov.

$262 39 $261.99 $262.27 $265.52 $267.40 $269.98 $271.04 $270.05 $270.31 $271.01
263.55 263.15 264.89 267.75 267.68 269.08 269.35 268.66 269.62 270.31
168.37 167.80 168.16 167.33 167.90 168.24 167.42 167.06 167.81
168.31
463.03

465.16

454.76

463.10

454.12

463.68

463.43

462.58

Dec.

Jan.p

Feb."

$274.48 $273.34 $270.18
272.14 275.89 271.07
170.59 169.88
( 1)

461.74

460.10

467.58

476.43

462.67

437.92

437.27

421.97

CONSTRUCTION ......................................

398.52

425.41

406.39

419.21

415.44

429.75

427.88

438.14

436.16

430.99

438.52

420.93

MANUFACTURING
Current dollars......................................
Constant (1977) dollars...........................

318.00
212.00

330.65
207.96

326.93
209.70

327.27
210.33

325.85
208.48

329.55
208.71

334.05
209.04

332.60
206.84

331.89
206.40

334.15
207.16

333.84
206.33

338.37
209.52

344.99
214.41

341.43
212.20

338.63
( ')

Durable goods..........................................
Lumber and wood products......................
Furniture and fixtures .............................
Stone, clay, and glass products................
Primary metal industries .........................
Fabricated metal products........................

342.91
270.90
226.94
335.76
437.81
330.46

355.67
285.00
235.74
355.69
437.34
344.18

352.93
272.63
231.51
337.90
443.52
337.66

352.84
273.73
233.50
344.27
434.85
342.14

350.45
270.05
230.39
347.93
434.99
338.91

355.90
285.29
231.76
355.52
430.11
346.33

360.59
297.53
238.77
361.49
439.96
349.67

357.11
294.90
233.31
362.56
437.75
344.27

356.33
295.27
243.46
362.56
440.07
346.04

357.24
298.76
241.66
365.72
438.52
346.21

357.90
292.22
244.22
367.02
431.68
346.04

363.13
293.76
245.36
367.02
440.07
350.66

370.12
295.25
250.39
366.83
450.41
359.70

367.62
301.62
244.78
364.11
452.39
355.11

364.56
295.30
242.45
355.29
449.67
352.43

Machinery except electrical......................
Electric and electronic equipment..............
Transportation equipment ........................
Instruments and related products..............
Miscellaneous manufacturing....................

360.33
304.04
424.95
300.17
231.25

367.49
321.08
450.36
328.75
247.17

374.44
316.81
437.13
317.60
241.54

370.87
316.40
439.96
320.80
244.58

367.75
313.17
441.05
318.77
242.57

367.62
315.56
455.39
327.22
245.63

367.09
319.56
466.34
330.85
247.43

363.63
319.84
456.75
328.25
244.48

364.80
322.18
447.20
335.16
246.65

367.54
322.43
443.98
335.91
250.51

365.19
326.09
457.65
334.96
253.50

370.66
331.85
467.62
341.09
256.50

380.16
339.69
474.76
349.86
259.74

371.84
335.41
467.81
351.75
259.78

369.03
334.38
468.46
346.02
251.33

Nondurable goods....................................
Food and kindred products ......................
Tobacco manufactures ...........................
Textile mill products ...............................
Apparel and other textile products.............
Paper and allied products ........................

280.74
294.97
344.54
218.59
177.07
365.50

296.83
311.66
369.68
218.63
179.75
389.58

291.04
307.28
366.15
219.46
180.58
377.58

289.93
303.81
362.56
217.15
180.77
376.55

291.47
306.52
367.83
215.39
178.19
380.80

294.14
312.05
369.40
219.44
180.08
379.31

297.99
312.05
397.44
220.60
183.89
389.76

299.15
312.05
383.46
216.13
183.02
391.46

299.54
310.86
363.09
222.91
183.37
393.12

304.19
315.61
379.93
223.85
182.52
401.57

302.25
312.84
370.50
227.17
183.21
397.82

306.53
317.60
386.08
231.47
184.79
402.24

311.24
319.98
364.98
236.38
186.20
410.55

307.64
313.53
361.24
236.51
187.44
402.82

305.18
311.04
384.87
235.68
183.38
399.64

Printing and publishing.............................
Chemicals and allied products..................
Petroleum and coal products....................
Rubber and miscellaneous
plastics products.................................
Leather and leather products....................

305.11
379.39
491.62

323.01
408.18
546.99

317.58 318.69
397.85 395.20
518.64 - 522.37

316.11
399.27
550.00

315.99
401.06
549.63

319.55
406.96
553.83

322.51
407.81
546.48

326.11
408.22
546.48

331.08
420.24
572.95

328.19
417.79
555.59

332.34
421.48
564.71

340.72
428.08
563.50

332.79
422.28
578.60

330.30
424.32
570.71

288.55
183.63

302.15
189.75

298.85
184.27

295.77
186.54

297.04
187.26

300.13
191.52

306.36
196.71

302.94
191.33

303.31
192.95

307.30
192.06

303.40
190.27

308.48
194.76

317.97
196.38

316.79
195.64

313.24
188.10

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES

382.18

402.09

397.10

392.73

393.43

394.60

399.84

403.37

409.90

405.85

406.62

413.01

415.24

409.34

405.84

WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE

190.95

198.42

194.66

194.66

195.91

197.78

199.02

202.45

202.77

200.95

200.97

200.34

203.80

202.86

199.92

304.45

308.35

309.19

312.31

313.05

312.58

314.55

314.93

318.89

319.04

316.09

WHOLESALE TRADE ...................................

292.20

309.50

303.31

303.72

RETAIL TRADE............................................

158.03

164.15

159.35

159.64

161.02

163.01

164.65

168.24

168.24

166.70

165.09

165.73

170.14

166.42

164.16

FINANCE, INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE

229.05

245.44

239.64

239.22

240.37

245.75

242.23

245.44

249.38

249.09

252.31

253.76

254.46

263.89

259.55

SERVICES...................................................

208.97

225.27

220.68

220.03

221.33

222.63

224.35

227.40

227.70

228.57

229.13

230.10

232.82

234.39

231.66

1Not available,


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

P = preliminary.

63

UNEM PLOYM ENT INSURANCE DATA

N a t i o n a l 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. Department of Labor from monthly reports of unem­
ployment insurance activity prepared by State agencies. Rail­
road unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S.
Railroad Retirement Board.

ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about 10
percent of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet
earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. Ini­
tial claims 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
rate of insured unemployment expresses the number of insured unem­
ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a
12-month period.

Definitions
Data for all programs 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 application 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. Num­
ber of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods.
The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all com­
pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set­
tlement of underpayments. However, total benefits 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-

17.

Unemployment insurance and employment service operations

[All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands]
1982
Item

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 ...........................
State unemployment insurance program:1
(Seasonally adjusted data)
Initial claims2 ...................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ...........................
Rate of insured unemployment ...........
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 ...........................
Railroad unemployment insurance:
Applications....................................
Insured unemployment (average
weekly volume) ...........................
Number of payments ........................
Average amount of benefit payment ...
Total benefits paid ...........................
Employment service:5
New applications and renewals...........
Nonfarm placements ........................

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

May

Apr.

4,681

4,723

4,892

4,760

3,328

2,272

2,418

4,470
5.1
15,962

4,376
5.0
15,631

4,282
4.9
18,144

64

1983
July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.p

4,388

4,327

4,495

4,398

4,283

4,391

4,635

5,074

5,459

2,347

1,989

2,399

2,655

2,358

2,342

2,443

r2,661

3,080

3,143

4,067
4.6
16,158

3,729
4.3
13,679

3,707
4.3
14,648

3,912
4.6
14,655

3,831
4.4
15,015

3,712
4.2
14,547

3,828
4.4
13,786

4,156
4.7
15,162

4,581
5.2
17,873

4,923
5.6
17,052

$114.83
$116.95
$117.10
$117.61
$118.08
$118.64 $117.28
$118.97
$120.78
$122.75
$123.36
$123.42
$125.60
$1,764,206 $1,781,830 $2,072,642 $1,849,881 $1,573,444 $1,692,150 $1,679,378 $1,746,195 $1,710,573 $1,646,554 $1,818,220 $2,135,302 $2,077,739

2,304

2,354

2,521

2,442

2,379

2,528

2,317

2,814

2,902

2,688

2,680

2,586

2,187

3,604
4.1

3,644
4.2

3,777
4.3

3,939
4.5

3,925
4.5

3,995
4.6

3,959
4.5

4,137
4.7

4,446
5.1

4,680
5.3

4,618
5.3

4,355
5.0

3,980
4.6

8

8

10

9

8

10

10

11

11

10

17

24

21

16
65
$7,098

13
49
$5,304

11
48
$5,141

10
37
$4,013

9
31
$3,395

8
29
$3,314

7
25
$2,821

7
24
$2,793

8
25
$2,900

9
28
$3,378

14
33
$4,007

26
90
$11,191

37
122
$15,349

17

12

13

13

11

14

13

12

13

16

14

15

16

40
162
$18,040

40
154
$17,517

38
172
$19,677

33
146
$16,806

29
120
$13,526

28
123
$13,922

29
120
$13,445

27
118
$13,140

26
111
$12,303

28
109
$12,119

31
126
$14,023

33
146
$16,114

35
136
$15,462

22

11

9

5

5

36

68

68

14

20

17

17

75
153
$213.39
$30,544

67
140
$214.07
$28,011

65
154
$215.71
$33,853

57
130
$209.48
$26,262

44
95
$200.75
$19,110

44
93
$199.15
$18,574

55
100
$202.54
$17,998

55
100
$202.54
$17,998

61
137
$216.14
$31,123

82
159
$212.35
$31,638

81
162
$216.55
$35,061

83
172
$217.00
$39,500

7,439
1,232

11nitial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican
¡arcane workers.
2Excludes transition claims under State programs.
3Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs.
4Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs.


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

June

10,965
1,902

14,320
2,804

5Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30). Data computed quarterly.
Note: Data for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands included. Dashes indicate data not available.
p= preliminary.
r= revised.

PRICE DATA

P r i c e 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).

Definitions
The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the
average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and serv­
ices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta­
tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. It in­
troduced a CPI for All Urban Consumers, covering 80 percent of the
total noninstitutional population, and revised the CPI for Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covering about half the new in­
dex population. The All Urban Consumers index covers in addition to
wage earners and clerical workers, professional, managerial, and tech­
nical 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, doctors’ and dentists’ 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. Data are collected
from more than 24,000 retail establishments and 24,000 tenants 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 expenditures 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 meas­
ures 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.
Producer Price Indexes 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.
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.
Price indexes for the output of selected SIC industries measure av­
erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries,
as defined in the S ta 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
Regional CPI’s cross classified by population size were introduced
in the May 1978 R e v ie w . These indexes 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 appropriate population size class meas­
ure for their region. The cross-classified indexes are published bi­
monthly. (See table 20.)
For details concerning the 1978 revision of the CPI, see T h e
C o n s u m e r P r ic 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 Y ears, Report
517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978).
As of January 1976, the Producer Price Index incorporated a re­
vised weighting structure reflecting 1972 values of shipments.
Additional data and analyses of 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 e s , both
monthly publications of the Bureau.
For a discussion of the general method of computing 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, Bulletin 2134-1
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. For consumer prices,
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 (1976), chapter
13. See also John F. Early, “Improving the measurement of producer
price change,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April 1978. For industry prices,
see also Bennett R. Moss, “Industry and Sector Price Indexes,”
M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , August 1965.

Beginning with the January 1983 data, tables 19 through 21 introduce a new treatment of homeownership costs into the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) will not be af­
fected by this change until 1985. For an explanation of the change, see “Changing the treatment of shelter costs for homeownersin the CPI”
by Robert Gillingham and Walter Lane in the June 1982 issue of the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w and “Labor Month in the Review” in the
March 1983 issue. Additional information appears in the C P I D e ta ile d R e p o r t, January 1983.


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

65

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
18.

Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-82

[1967 = 100]
Food and
beverages

All items
Year
Index
1967
1968
1969
1970

Percent
change

Index

Percent
change

Apparel and
upkeep

Housing
Index

Percent
change

Transportation

Percent
change

Index

Index

Percent
change

Medical care
Index

Other goods
and services

Entertainment

Percent
change

Percent
change

Index

Index

Percent
change

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

100.0
104.2
109.8
116.3

4.2
5.4
5.9

100.0
103.6
108.8
114.7

3.6
5.0
5.4

100.0
104.0
110.4
118.2

4.0
6.2
7.1

100.0
105.4
111.5
116.1

5.4
5.8
4.1

100.0
103.2
107.2
112.7

3.2
3.9
5.1

100.0
106.1
113.4
120.6

6.1
6.9
6.3

100.0
105.7
111.0
116.7

5.7
5.0
5.1

100.0
105.2
110.4
116.8

5.2
4.9
5.8

1971................
1972 ................
1973 ................
1974 ................
1975 ................

121.3
125.3
133.1
147.7
161.2

4.3
3.3
6.2
11.0
9.1

118.3
123.2
139.5
158.7
172.1

3.1
4.1
13.2
13.8
8.4

123.4
128.1
133.7
148.8
164.5

4.4
3.8
4.4
11.3
10.6

119.8
122.3
126.8
136.2
142.3

3.2
2.1
3.7
7.4
4.5

118.6
119.9
123.8
137.7
150.6

5.2
1.1
3.3
11.2
9.4

128.4
132.5
137.7
150.5
168.6

6.5
3.2
3.9
9.3
12.0

122.9
126.5
130.0
139.8
152.2

5.3
2.9
2.8
7.5
8.9

122.4
127.5
132.5
142.0
153.9

4.8
4.2
3.9
7.2
8.4

1976
1977
1978
1979
1980

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

170.5
181.5
195.3
217.7
247.0

5.8
6.5
7.6
11.5
13.5

177.4
188.0
206.2
228.7
248.7

3.1
6.0
9.7
10.9
8.7

174.6
186.5
202.6
227.5
263.2

6.1
6.8
8.6
12.3
15.7

147.6
154.2
159.5
166.4
177.4

3.7
4.5
3.4
4.3
6.6

165.5
177.2
185.8
212.8
250.5

9.9
7.1
4.9
14.5
17.7

184.7
202.4
219.4
240.1
267.2

9.5
9.6
8.4
9.4
11.3

159.8
167.7
176.2
187.6
203.7

5.0
4.9
5.1
6.5
8.5

162.7
172.2
183.2
196.3
213.6

5.7
5.8
6.4
7.2
8.8

1981 ................
1982 ................

272.3
288.6

10.2
6.0

267.8
278.5

7.7
4.0

293.2
314.7

11.4
7.3

186.6
190.9

5.2
2.3

281.3
293.1

12.3
4.2

295.1
326.9

10.4
10.8

219.0
232.4

7.5
6.1

233.3
257.0

9.2
10.2

19. 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

1982
Jan.

Aug.

Sept.

All items...................................................

282.5

292.8

293.3

Food and beverages ...................................................
Housing.....................................................
Apparel and upkeep............................................
Transportation................................................................
Medical care ............................................................
Entertainment .................................
Other goods and services.......................................................

273.6
306.1
187.3
289.9
313.4
229.2
248.4

279.9
320.1
191.8
296.2
333.3
237.4
258.3

280.1
319.7
194.9
295.3
336.0
238.3
266.6

Commodities............................................
Commodities less food and beverages ...............................
Nondurables less food and beverages...............................
Durables...................................................

258.8
248.0
265.6
233.4

266.4
255.9
268.8
244.6

266.6
256.1
269.9
244.1

Services .......................................................
Rent, residential........................................
Household services less rent of shelter (12/82= 100) .........
Transportation services..........................................
Medical care services...................................................
Other services..............................................

323.9
217.8

338.9
226.0

286.6
339.4
251.7

1983
Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

294.1

293.6

279.6
320.7
195.5
295.5
338.7
240.3
271.2

279.1
319.0
195.4
295.8
342.2
239.9
273.8

267.5
257.6
271.0
246.0

339.7
226.9

297.8
361.0
259.7

281.4
266.1
245.9
260.2
301.0
270.8

1982

Jan.

Jan.

Aug.

292.4

293.1

282.1

292.4

292.8

279.1
316.3
193.6
294.8
344.3
240.1
276.6

280.7
317.9
191.0
293.0
347.8
241.5
279.9

273.9
305.6
186.5
291.6
312.0
226.1
245.0

280.2
320.5
190.7
298.0
331.3
233.9
255.7

280.4
320.0
184.1
296.9
333.9
234.8
262.8

267.8
258.2
271.4
246.6

267.7
258.0
270.0
247.3

267.2
256.5
267.4
247.3

259.3
248.7
267.8
232.4

266.8
256.5
270.7
244.0

267.0
256.8
271.8
243.6

340.3
228.9

338.6
230.2

340.0
225.5

300.5
366.9
268.4

299.9
371.0
269.2

337.9
232.2
100.9
300.1
377.4
271.5

324.3
217.4

298.7
364.0
266.3

335.6
230.8
100.0
299.4
373.4
270.0

285.9
337.5
250.0

292.5
275.6
253.8
263.6
304.2
275.5

292.9
276.7
253.9
264.6
304.2
276.2

294.0
278.0
255.4
265.7
305.5
276.5

293.6
278.2
256.0
266.1
306.2
276.4

320.0
262.4
269.6
416.4
446.4
272.1
268.5
223.7
320.5

334.1
268.4
280.8
424.5
436.6
282.7
279.8
233.6
333.6

334.8
268.0
279.3
424.2
433.3
283.1
280.4
234.1
334.4

335.1
266.6
272.0
425.0
431.9
284.0
281.5
236.0
334.4

332.9
265.3
271.9
422.6
431.6
283.6
281.2
236.6
333.1

292.1
278.4
255.8
264.7
305.2
275.8
100.0
329.3
264.8
270.0
419.9
425.4
282.5
279.9
237.1
329.6

254.4
262.4
303.1
275.2
100.7
331.4
265.7
271.2
414.5
414.9
283.8
281.1
237.1
331.8

$0,354

$0,342

0.341

$0,340

$0,341

$0,342

$0,341

Sept.

1983
Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

293.6

293.2

292.0

291.1

279.9
321.2
194.6
297.0
336.5
236.5
267.8

279.4
319.6
194.4
297.3
339.8
236.1
270.9

279.6
316.8
192.8
296.3
341.8
236.5
274.0

281.1
317.0
190.0
294.3
345.3
237.7
277.8

267.9
258.3
272.9
245.4

268.2
258.9
273.3
246.2

268.2
258.8
271.9
247.0

268.0
257.8
269.3
247.3

340.5
226.4

341.2
228.4

339.3
229.7

336.2
230.2

336.9
231.7

296.5
358.3
258.4

296.0
361.1
264.0

298.4
363.9
266.1

297.5
367.7
266.8

296.7
370.1
267.5

297.1
374.0
269.1

281.3
266.4
246.6
262.4
302.6
271.9

292.4
275.8
254.4
265.4
305.5
276.5

292.8
276.7
254.7
266.5
305.6
277.2

293.9
277.9
256.1
267.5
306.9
277.4

293.5
278.1
256.7
267.9
307.5
277.4

292.1
278.3
256.6
266.6
306.5
276.8

291.9
278.5
255.7
264.2
304.4
276.2

320.5
261.4
271.1
419.0
447.0
270.9
267.1
222.8
321.0

335.6
267.4
281.9
426.1
437.3
281.5
278.7
232.8
334.7

335.8
267.0
280.7
425.6
433.8
281.9
279.2
233.6
334.8

336.3
265.5
273.2
426.0
423.3
282.8
280.4
235.4
335.2

334.0
264.4
273.2
423.7
431.8
282.5
280.2
236.2
333.7

330.4
264.0
271.2
420.8
425.6
281.5
279.0
236.8
330.1

330.7
265.0
272.5
415.1
282.2
279.3
237.1
415.2
330.5

$0,354

$0,342

$0,342

$0,341

$0,341

$0,342

$0,342

Jan.

Special indexes:
All items less food...................................................
All items less mortgage Interest costs ......................................
Commodities less food..........................................
Nondurables less food ...................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel..........................................
Nondurabies .......................................................
Services less rent of shelter (12/82= 100) ...........................
Services less medical care...................................................
Domestically produced farm foods ....................................
Selected beef cuts.......................................................
Energy1 .......................................................
Energy commodities1 ......................................
All items less energy ...............................................
All items less food and energy ............................................
Commodities less food and energy......................................
Services less energy........................................................
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 ..............
See footnotes at end of table.

Digitized for
66FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

292.6

19.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers

All Urban Consumers
General summary

1983

1982

1983

1982
Jan.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Jan.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

FOOD AMD BEVERAGES ................................................................

273.6

279.9

280.1

279.6

279.1

279.1

280.7

273.9

280.2

280.4

279.9

279.4

279.6

281.1

Food ...........................................................................................

281.0

287.4

287.6

287.0

286.4

286.5

288.1

281.1

287.5

287.7

287.2

286.6

286.7

288.4

279.8
283.4
155.5
142.1
168.6
150.5
148.1
242.5
148.2
146.6
147.6
150.6
142.6
151.5

279.7
283.4
155.2
141.8
169.0
149.4
148.2
241.9
149.0
145.6
148.7
152.1
142.3
151.8

278.5
283.7
154.9
140.3
169.7
148.7
148.6
242.6
148.4
147.1
148.5
153.2
143.3
151.4

277.4
284.1
154.1
139.5
169.4
147.3
149.1
242.6
149.4
146.9
148.8
154.5
144.6
152.3

277.1
284.9
154.2
139.8
170.1
146.5
149.6
243.9
149.6
147.6
149.7
154.6
145.5
152.9

278.6
286.4
154.8
140.6
170.3
147.6
150.5
244 6
149.7
148.6
151.3
154.6
146.4
154.9

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, 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) ...........

274.4
278.6
153.9
139.6
165.1
152.4
145.3
239.4
145.7
142.5
145.8
148.9
134.7
148.9

275.3
279.8
153.0
139.1
163.1
151.1
146.4
243.3
143.9
146.5
147.2
148.1
133.4
146.2

280.8
284.8
154.5
141.6
166.5
149.3
149.4
246.6
146.2
150.5
149.5
149.6
141.3
148.9

280.6
284.6
154.3
141.4
166.9
148.2
149.4
246.1
147.1
149.5
150.3
150.9
140.8
149.2

279.4
285.0
154.0
139.9
167.5
147.6
149.7
246.7
146.5
151.0
150.1
152.2
141.9
148.7

278.3
285.5
153.2
139.2
167.2
146.1
150.3
246.8
147.3
150.9
150.5
153.6
143.3
149.6

277.8
286.3
153.4
139.5
168.0
145.3
150.9
248.1
147.6
151.6
151.5
153.7
144.1
150.4

279.3
287.8
154.0
140.3
168.1
146.5
151.7
248.9
147.7
152.6
153.1
153.6
144.9
152.3

151.2

156.6

154.7

154.4

155.8

155.2

156.8

144.7

149.5

148.1

147.6

148.6

148.4

149.8

265.1
273.3
275.8
280.8
269.0
298.9
247.9
261.1
286.8
168.0
267.6
300.4
246.3
113.8
333.5
261.1
150.0
272.3
274.9
157.6
136.1
145.6
194.4
191.8
126.5
127.4
365.8
138.8
139.7
162.3

267.7
275.1
277.9
279.8
267.0
295.9
249.2
260.6
286.7
167.6
276.3
320.7
250.6
119.1
342.5
263.5
153.0
271.7
274.7
156.6
136.7
143.6
194.2
192.5
125.4
127.4
368.4
138.7
141.3
176.1

265.0
272.1
274.6
272.7
263.7
290.4
240.5
251.0
268.0
163.4
277.0
317.7
250.0
123.4
343.2
271.4
150.5
272.2
274.0
158.5
137.9
140.6
193.2
190.3
124.9
128.0
366.0
138.1
140.2
176.7

263.5
270.6
273.2
272.5
264.2
290.3
244.3
255.1
260.6
162.4
273.4
304.0
247.0
124.2
338.5
275.0
148.6
271.5
273.8
156.4
139.1
138.5
190.0
187.4
123.5
124.6
365.3
138.4
139.6
176.2

261.5
268.6
270.8
270.6
262.7
289.6
246.4
251.3
252.7
161.2
269.5
296.1,
240.8
126.4
332.5
276.9
144.9
269.8
268.4
155.1
139.8
137.5
188.4
183.5
123.1
125.3
368.2
138.2
141.5
173.3

262.8
270.0
271.8
271.8
263.7
290.4
246.6
253.0
254.5
162.1
271.4
295.5
243.9
126.0
335.0
279.7
147.1
268.7
268.5
153.9
137.7
140.3
189.4
185.0
123.5
125.7
375.1
139.5
145.0
173.7

Beef and veal............................................................
Ground beef other than canned .................................
Chuck roast ..........................................................
Round roast ..........................................................
Round steak ..........................................................
Sirloin steak ..........................................................
Other beef and veal (12/77 - 100) ...........................
Pork.........................................................................
Bacon ...................................................................
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 ................................................................................

253.7
259.1
257.8
269.4
262.2
279.6
241.6
257.5
258.2
160.9
234.7
235.5
219.2
107.3
297.6
245.4
129.5
258.1
256.7
145.4
132.2
138 6
194.2
193.1
128.5
123.2
373.3
140.6
143.2
189.4

265.4
273.7
276.5
280.5
268.1
289.7
245.0
263.4
285.5
169.7
268.2
295.6
248.0
116.8
332.2
257.6
150.8
272.8
275.6
157.5
138.3
142.3
196.2
193.8
128.2
127.7
367.6
139.4
140.4
161.2

267.8
275.3
278.4
279.1
265.4
286.9
245.4
262.0
285.2
169.3
277.1
315.5
252.5
122.1
341.2
259.7
153.8
272.1
275.3
156.6
138.9
140.5
196.2
194.8
127.1
127.9
369.4
139.3
141.5
175.2

265.1
272.4
274.9
272.2
262.4
281.9
237.9
253.4
266.3
164.9
277.9
312.4
252.3
126.5
342.1
267.2
151.3
272.2
274.8
158.5
140.1
137.0
195.4
192.6
126.8
128.5
367.1
138.6
140.5
175.8

263.6
270.8
273.6
272.0
263.0
281.7
241.4
257.1
259.8
164.1
274.2
298.7
249.0
127.3
337.7
270.5
149.6
271.6
274.4
156.6
141.3
135.4
192.0
189.3
125.3
125.4
366.6
139.0
140.0
175.0

261.6
268.8
271.1
270.2
261.7
281.0
243.0
253.5
253.0
162.8
270.1
290.8
242.4
129.6
332.0
272.4
145.6
269.7
268.9
155.3
141.8
134.3
190.4
185.4
124.8
126.0
369.6
138.9
141.9
172.5

263.0
270.3
272.2
271.3
262.7
281.7
243.3
255.1
253.1
163.7
272.0
290.8
245.6
129.2
333.6
275.2
147.9
269.3
269.7
154.0
139.9
137.4
191.3
186.8
125.0
126.3
376.7
140.2
145.4
172.9

253.3
258.6
257.3
270.1
263.7
288.5
244.7
256.1
258.9
159.3
234.4
239.3
217.6
104.8
298.8
249.0
128.8
257.3
256.1
145.4
130.2
141.4
192.4
190.9
126.9
123.0
372.4
140.0
143.0
190.6

Dairy products ...................................................................
Fresh milk and cream (12/77 - 100) ...............................
Fresh whole milk........................................................
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) .............................

245.8
135.1
221.2
135.1
144.4
249.3
142.0
150.8
138.4

247.5
135.4
221.2
136.0
146.3
252.1
144.8
150.6
140.7

247.0
135.1
220.8
135.6
146.1
252.2
144.9
149.3
141.1

247.1
135.0
220.8
135.3
146.2
252.6
144.7
150.4
141.0

247.4
135.1
220.9
135.4
146.6
252.5
144.5
152.4
140.9

247.8
135.5
221.9
135.2
146.6
252.1
144.6
151.8
141.7

249.5
136.7
223.7
136.9
147.1
253.4
145.2
152.5
141.6

245.2
134.6
220.2
134.7
144.7
252.0
142.3
149.9
139.1

246.8
134.8
220.3
135.5
146.6
254.6
145.1
149.6
141.6

246.3
134.5
219.9
135.0
146.3
254.7
145.2
148.4
141.8

246.4
134.5
220.0
134.7
146.5
255.1
145.0
149.6
141.7

246.7
134.6
220.1
134.9
146.9
255.1
144.8
151.5
141.5

247.1
135.0
221.1
134.7
146.9
254.5
144.9
150.8
142.4

248.9
136.2
222.9
136.3
147.4
255.9
145.5
151.6
142.3

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

Other fresh vegetables (12/77 - 100) ........................

294.7
308.0
276.7
273.0
253.5
283.1
145.9
337.3
288.8
514.4
245.6
174.8

291.4
296.9
336.1
314.5
233.7
473.0
163.9
260.2
328.1
246.3
194.3
138.3

284.1
283.5
329.0
285.5
240.7
516.3
152.1
241.0
272.4
236.1
184.9
134.0

280.7
277.4
317.1
250.7
227.8
520.8
148.0
240.2
243.8
259.2
210.5
131.5

276.1
268.3
288.9
239.4
243.7
399.6
143.3
249.1
240.8
259.2
242.9
137.6

277.6
272.3
273.9
243.7
242.6
313.0
144.8
270.8
241.3
334.6
272.8
142.2

276.2
269.2
268,3
244.2
241.3
292.2
143.1
270.0
236.2
301.3
236.8
156.0

291.3
303.1
267.0
272.6
251.1
255.1
141.0
335.8
282.7
515.8
248.8
173.9

286.7
289.7
323.2
316.7
231.3
433.5
158.1
259.6
323.4
247.5
198.2
137.8

278.8
275.2
313.6
286.6
238.5
466.8
146.4
240.6
269.6
237.9
187.9
133.5

275.0
268.4
300.4
251.9
226.7
465.7
142,4
239.7
240.5
260.9
213.7
131.0

271.3
261.0
275.4
239.9
241.9
360.4
137.5
248.1
235.9
259.8
246.6
137.1

273.6
266.6
262.5
243.7
242.0
283.0
138.7
270.4
237.5
336.0
278.4
141.5

272.6
264.3
258.9
244.8
239.9
267.5
138.0
269.2
231.5
303.4
241.5
155.3

Processed fruits and vegetables ......................................
Processed fruits (12/77 - 100)....................................
Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 - 100) ..................
Fruit juices other than frozen (12/77 - 100)................
Canned and dried fruits (12/77 - 100)........................
Processed vegetables (12/77 - 100) ...........................
Frozen vegetables (12/77 - 100) .............................

282.7
146.4
143.5
151.4
143.6
137.6
140.7

288.0
148.7
142.8
153.0
148.9
140.7
147.7

287.4
149.0
144.1
152.0
149.8
139.8
148.1

286.8
149.2
144.8
152.5
149.2
139.1
147.7

287.3
149.7
145.6
153.4
149.1
139.0
149.0

286.0
149.5
143.6
154.0
149.6
138.0
147.5

286.6
150.1
144.7
154.1
150.4
137.9
149.7

280.6
146.0
142.8
150.1
144.0
136.5
141.8

285.9
148.2
141.7
151.9
149.6
139.6
149.0

285.3
148.6
143.2
151.0
150.4
138.6
149.5

284.6
148.8
144.0
151.4
149.8
137.9
148.8

285.1
149.4
144.7
152.6
149.7
137.8
150.4

283.8
149.2
142.6
153.1
150.2
136.8
148.9

284.3
149.8
143.8
153.1
151.1
136.7
151.2

Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs.......................................................
Meats, poultry, and fish........................................................

Oranges ................................................................
Other fresh fruits (12/77 - 100) ...............................
Fresh vegetables .......................................................


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

67

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices
19. Continued— Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average
[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
All Urban Consumers
General summary

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers

1982

1983

1982

1983

Jan.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Jan.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

139.9
135.0
328.7
361.6
150.1
155.6
147.1
261.6
257.8
157.7
130.5
418.7
302.4
141.9
353.3
336.9
138.0
264.6
134.3
147.8
152.6
149.7
146.4
146.9
142.5

143.6
135.6
333.3
370.1
150.0
166.7
149.6
258.3
257.9
154.2
128.5
423.8
304.3
144.8
365.5
344.9
137.7
269.9
137.9
149.1
153.1
154.1
151.9
150.2
145.4

141.3
134.8
333.6
371.2
149.7
167.5
151.1
258.4
259.3
151.2
129.4
424.2
305.0
144.6
362.9
343.1
138.8
269.9
137.4
148.9
153.0
155.3
152.2
149.7
145.9

140.8
133.9
334.8
370.6
149.4
167.3
151.0
258.4
258.4
151.2
129.7
427.5
308.9
146.2
362.0
343.6
139.1
270.5
136.8
148.5
153.3
156.5
152.1
151.4
145.8

140.8
133.0
334.3
370.3
149.6
165.2
152.5
258.6
257.5
152.0
129.8
426.2
308.8
144.8
360.0
344.2
138.8
270.2
136.6
149.7
153.1
157.1
151.7
150.2
145.0

140.3
132.0
333.7
369.2
149.5
164.3
151.7
258.6
256.5
151.7
130.3
424.3
307.2
142.4
361.4
346.1
139.0
270.7
136.9
149.0
152.7
157.4
152.6
151.0
146.1

139.5
131.0
337.1
371.5
149.8
167.0
152.0
259.3
259.4
151.6
130.2
431.1
312.9
145.2
365.0
348.2
141.0
272.6
138.1
150.6
154.0
159.5
153.8
151.1
146.1

137.5
133.5
329.6
361.6
150.0
157.0
145.2
261.5
257.2
156.0
131.0
420.5
300.0
139.7
348.8
336.5
138.2
266.3
136.4
147.4
154.6
148.6
148.0
147.0
143.9

141.2
134.2
334.0
370.3
150.1
168.2
147.5
258.2
257.3
152.4
129.0
425.3
301.7
142.6
360.4
344.4
137.8
271.5
140.0
148.5
155.1
153.2
153.6
150.3
146.8

138.8
133.3
334.5
371.3
149.8
169.0
148.9
258.3
258.5
149.5
130.0
425.9
302.8
142.3
357.9
342.5
139.0
271.7
139.5
148.4
155.0
154.4
154.0
149.9
147.3

138.4
132.4
335.7
370.6
149.3
168.8
148.9
258.4
257.8
149.5
130.2
429.2
306.2
144.0
357.2
343.2
139.3
272.2
138.7
147.9
155.4
155.6
153.9
151.6
147.2

138.4
131.6
335.1
370.1
149.5
166.6
150.2
258.5
256.8
150.3
130.3
427.9
306.2
142.4
354.8
343.7
139.1
271.9
138.5
149.2
155.2
156.2
153.4
150.3
146.4

137.8
130.5
334.6
369.1
149.6
165.6
149.4
258.7
255.4
150.2
130.8
426.1
304.8
140.2
356.2
345.6
139.2
272.4
138.9
148.5
154.8
156.4
154.4
151.2
147.3

137.0
129.6
337.9
371.4
149.8
168.5
149.8
259.3
258.5
150.0
130.7
432.8
310.3
142.8
359.9
347.8
141.3
274.2
140.1
150.0
156.0
158.5
155.6
151.4
147.3

Food away from home........................................
Lunch (12/77=100) ....................................
Dinner (12/77=100) ......................................
Other meals and snacks (12/77=100)................

299.8
146.1
144.8
145.4

308.7
150.3
148.6
150.7

309.8
150.7
149.2
151.5

310.7
151.2
149.5
152.1

311.4
151.6
149.7
152.7

312.6
152.2
150.4
153.0

314.5
153.1
151.3
154.0

302.8
147.7
146.4
146.2

311.8
152.0
150.3
151.3

3129
152.3
150.9
152.1

313.8
152.8
151.2
152.7

314.6
153.2
151.4
153.3

315.8
153.8
152.1
153.7

317.7
154.8
153.0
154.6

Alcoholic beverages

FOOD AND B E V E R A G E S -C o n tin ued
F o o d — Continued

Food at home —Continued
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 home...........................
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 cola......................
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) ...

204.0

210.1

210.1

210.6

210.9

210.9

211.6

206.0

212.1 212.2 212.8

213.0

213.0

213.7

Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77=100)...........
Beer and a le..........................................
Wh'Skey .............................
Wine.........................
Other alcoholic beverages (12/77=100)......................
Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77=100).........

132.2
205.0
145.9
23? 2
117.5
137.0

136.1
211.9
149.6

135.9
211.4
149.8

136.2
212.7
150.0

136.2
212.5
150.7

136.1

150.2
235.6

136.5
213.3
150.5
235.6

120.3
141.2

120.3
142.5

144.2

144.8

137.2
210.5
150.5
246.2
120.4
143.9

150.7
244.8
120.3
144.0

137.5
211.7
151.2
243.7
120.4
144.8

137.8
212.5
151.2
243.0

120.4
143.6

137.4
210.9
150.4
247.1
120.5
142.4

137.4
211.7
150.7
243.3

120.3
142.7

133.4
204.3
146.8
239.8
117.5
138.6

145.3

146.0

H O U S IN G ....................................

306.1

320.1

319.7

320.7

319.0

316.3

317.9

305.6

320.5

320.0

321.2

319.6

316.8

317.0

328.3

344.2

342.6

342.8

340.7

335.9

338.3

217.8
313.6

226.0
333.9

226.9
343.0

228.9
341.6

230.2
337.8

230.8
333.0

335.9
368.5
258.8

338.4
372.5
257.7

339.4
374.1
257.3

339.0
373.4
257.8

337.8
371.4
258.5

Shelter (CPI-U)

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

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

Renters’ costs..........................
Rent, residential ...................................
Other renters’ costs..............
Homeowners’ costs2 ................
Owners' equivalent rent................
Household insurance....................
Maintenance and repairs ........................
Maintenance and repair services.............
Maintenance and repair commodities ..................
Shelter (CPI-W)

326.7
358.2
252.5

212.6

120.2 120.6

100.0
100.0
100.0

Homeownership................
Home purchase.........................
Financing, taxes, and insurance ................
Property insurance ..................
Property taxes ......................
Contracted mortgage interest cost....................
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)

68

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

362.0
147.5

120.1 120.6

232.2
339.2
100.7
100.7
100.9
342.9
380.6
259.4

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

331.1
141.8

211.8

100.0 100.8

Rent, residential.................................
Other rental costs ......................
Lodging while out of town.........................
Tenants’ insurance (12/77=100).........

137.6

363.1
147.3

358.0
149.3

351.6
150.1

343.7
150.3

352.8
152.6

329.4

346.5

344.7

345.2

343.0

338.0

337.9

217.4

225.5

226.4

228.4

229.7

230.3

231.7

312.3
328.4
142.0

333.3
359.5
146.6

341.1
360.7
146.3

339.5
355.6
148.3

335.6
349.3
149.1

330.7
341.4
149.3

337.3
350.8
151.5

369.9
267.4
512.2
395.6
214.5
666.3
245.7
323.3
359.2
246.4

390.1
287.3
536.8
404.6
223.7
699,6
241.2
332.5
369.6
253.0

387.0
286.4
528.9
407.4
225.6
686.3
237.5
334.6
373.4
251.8

387.1
289.7
524.3
408.5
226.4
678.8
232.4
335.4
374.9
251.2

383.7
290.4
514.6
409.7
227.5
663.4
226.6
334.9
374.0
251.6

376.8
290.9
495.7
412.1
228.8
633.5
215.9
333.7
371.7
252.3

375.9
291.9
490.2
414.5
230.6
624.0

337.8
377.3
253.6

212.0

149.4
124.6

154.2
124.1

153.0
123.6

152.8
122.8

153.1
123.3

153.6
123.7

154.5
122.4

142.3
121.9

147.3
121.7

145.9
121.3

145.7
120.4

120.8

145.9

146.5
121.3

148.2
120.5

131.9
133.6

136.3
138.8

136.1
139.0

135.4
139.4

135.8
139.4

136.4
139.0

138.1
138.9

131.8
135.7

135.6
140.9

135.3
141.2

134.6
141.8

135.3
141.6

136.2
141.2

137.3
141.3

19.

Continued— Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers

All Urban Consumers
General summary

Fuel and other utilities...................................................................
Fuels ...........................................................................................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas.......................................................
Fuel oil..............................................................................
Other fuels (6/78 = 100) .....................................................
Electricity...........................................................................
Utility (piped) gas ................................................................

1982

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

337.0

357.7

361.0

364.7

363.6

365.5

366.8

426.2
688.9
719.3
172.1
366.0
305.3
445.2

453.8
662.7
689.1
170.5
403.7
333.7
497.5

458.4
665.4

178.0
408.6
332.5
514.5

464.0
679.7
c701.2
184.8
412.4
326.3
538.8

461.7
693.7
714.7
190.3
406.9
317.3
541.6

463.9
690,8
710.6
191.6
410.0
318.7
547.6

463.3
673.4
691.2
189.5
412.8
318.3
556.9

193.1
157.3
124.2
116.9
109.0
312.2

203.1
164.6
132.9

204.3
165.9
134.8

205.3
166.6
135.7

205.9
167.0
135.9

207.3
168.6
138.1

210.9
171.7
140.8
121.5
113.9
344.8

Jan.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Jan.

336.2

356.3

359.5

363.4

362.2

364.1

365.4

426.9

454.0
659.9

169.2
404.4
333.7
500.6

458.5
662.8
685.9
176.8
409.2
332.5
517.6

464.5
677.2
699.1
183.7
413.4
327.0
542.0

461.9
691.3
712.8
189.0
407.6
318.4
543.1

464.0
688.5
708.7
190.4
410.6
319.6
549.6

463.5
671.1
689.3
188.4
413.5
319.2
559.1

202.4
164.2
132.5
119.7

203.6
165.5
134.3
119.7

204.5
166.2
135.2
119.7
110.4
334.1

205.1
166.6
135.4
119.7

206.6
168.2
137.8
119.7
111.5
335.8

210.1

686.0
716.8
170.9
367.4
306.6
447.2

686.8

1983

1982

1983

688,1

HOUSING
Fuel and other utilities
Other utilities and public services........................................................
Telephone services ...................................................................
Local charges (12/77 - 100) ...............................................
Interstate toll calls (12/77 - 100) ..........................................
Intrastate toll calls (12/77 - 100) ..........................................
Water and sewerage maintenance ...............................................
Household furnishings and operations
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 freezers ......................................
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) .

192.7
157.2
124.0
116.8
109.2
309.8

110.0 110.1

331.9

228.4

233.4

189.8

193.3
220.4
132.9
142.2
210.3
141.4
117.0

332.4

111.1

335.1

171.4
140.6

121.0

114.0
341.6

120.1 120.1 120.2 120.2
109.7
110.1 110.9

109.6
334.8

335.4

337.1

338.2
231.8

232.3

232.6

193.2
224.9
134.0
147.6

193.0
224.5
132.6
148.6
210.4
142.6
117.9

235.1

235.7

235.8

224.9

230.0

231.0

232.3

195.1

195.3

133.8
144.0
214.1
146.2
116.4

132.7
144.4
215.4
147.4
118.2

194.9
221.9
131.5
145.6
213.9
146.1
117.3

140.6
152.0
108.5
103.5
114.1
185.4
191.1
140.0
123.5

140.1
151.7
108.1
102.9
113.9
185.2
192.7
140.0
122.7

140.4
151.5
107.2

191.3
222.9
134.1
144.7
206.9
137.3
117.5
121.4
133.3
151.2
107.5
102.7

192.4
225.0
136.4
144.8
210.3
142.1
117.7
123.4
134.1
151.4
107.4

193.9
226.4
137.6
145.3
212.3
143.5
119.6
122.9
136.0
151.9
107.6

112.5
185.1
196.1
137.9

122.0

113.3
185.9
196.9
140.4
121.7

193.0
225.8
135.0
147.5
210.3
142.1
117.0
122.5
135.3
151.5
107.3
101.7
113.1
185.6
198.4
140.3
120.7

234.2

235.4

194.3

195.9
223.2
136.4
142.0
215.8
146.7
119.4

112.4
186.1
193.3
141.0
123.2

187.6
193.2
141.5
124.7

187.7
212.5
128.6
137.0
205.9
136.5
117.6
119.0
133.9
148.5
107.9
103.1
113.0
178.1
186.1
132.4
118.5

120.7

121.5

123.7

117.4

121.4

121.5

121.4

119.2

120.1

121.9

124.7
139.1

125.1
139.2

125.8
139.1

119.7
132.9

124.2
136.0

122.5
135.6

122.0
137.6

122.4
137.1

123.0
137.1

123 8
137.0

143.4
131.3

142.6
131.3

142.7
131.0

141.2
130.8

128.6
124.8

135 4
125.1

135.9
124.9

136.0
126.4

134.5
126.8

134.3
126.6

133.2
126.1

141.6
133.4

145.1
134.8

144.6
134.2

145.1
134.1

145.9
134.1

138.2
133.2

140.0
137.2

137.6
138.8

141.3
140.1

141.0
139.5

141.2
139.5

141.9
139.3

288.7
279.4
144.6
148.5
135.4
150.7
145.7

289.2
282.8
145.6
148.0
136.8
150.2
143.8

290.1
283.5
146.8
148.9
137.6
150.9
142.3

290.3
283.5
147.3
148.2
138.3
151.6
141.9

292.3
285.3
148.0
148.6
137.9
152.3
145.7

294.0
288.9
149.0
150.2
138.1
153.5
144.3

275.7
272.0
138.4
145.1
131.7
141.2
129.2

284.9
275.4
143.6
148.3
138.6
145.5
138.1

285.7
278.9
144.5
147.9
140.0
145.0
136.4

286.7
279.7
145.7
148.9
140.7
145.6
135.1

287.1
279.9
146.2
148.1
141.4
146.2
134.9

288.8
281.5
146.9
148.5
141.0
146.9
138.5

290.7
285.0
147.7
150.3
141.1
148.3
137.0

307.4
337.5

312.9
337.5

313.4
337.5

313.8
337.5

314.3
337.5

315.0
337.5

315.4
337.5

305.9
337.5

312.2
337.5

312.7
337.5

313.2
337.5

313.7
337.5

314.5
337.5

315.0
337.5

148.4
133.6

156.1
137.7

156.6
138.3

157.0
139.0

157.7
139.5

158.6
140.2

159.3
140.4

148.0
132.2

156.4
136.1

156.8
136.7

157.2
137.4

157.8
137.9

158.7
138.5

159.5
138.7

187.3

191.8

194.9

195.5

195.4

193.6

191.0

186.5

190.7

194,1

194.6

194.4

192.8

190.0

183.8

181.9

178.7

179.8
188.9
119.7
104.2
105.4
139.1
128.7
118.1
119.7
114.6
128.5
120.5
163.8
108.8
173.2
147.7

177.8
187.6
118.8
101.7
105.5
137.9
129.2
117.5
119.0
113.3
128.3

174.3
185.2
117.4
99.9
100.5
138.7
127.5
116.5
117.2
110.4
128.0
118.6
155.4
102.9
161.4
139.8

210.1

222.1

120.6

137.1
151.3
108.3
103.9
113.3
184.1
187.4
137.3
124.3

135.4
141.6
213.3
145.5
117.2
123.1
137.8
151.5
108.2
103.7
113.2
184.7
190.2
137.6
124.0

119.4

122.7

123.4

122.9

121.9
134.9

126.0
138.2

124.6
137.8

124.0
139.6

136.3
128.6

142.9
129.8

143.3
129.7

142.3
127.8

143.8
132.3

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)......................................

279.1
275.5
139.6
145.1
128.8
146.2
137.1

Housekeeping services.....................................................................
Postage....................................................................................
Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and
drycleaning services (12/77 - 100)............................................
Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 - 100)..................................
APPAREL AND UPKEEP..................................................................

127.3
134.8
209.5
139.7
117.3
118.9
138.5
148.8
108.8
104.4
113.8
178.0
180.8
132.2

121.1

222.6 222.0

122.6 122.1 122.2 121.6
102.6

139.4
151.9
107.0
102.3

112.2

112.6

184.6
192.9
137.5
122.7

102.6 102.1

Apparel commodities .....................................................................

177.0

180.8

184.1

184,6

184.3

182.3

179.2

176.7

180.3

183.8

184.1

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

172.8
178.7
112.9
104.3
96.4
133.6
120.7
108.2
114.6
104.7
127.3
117.2
154.3
102.3
158.4
153.1

176.9
183.7
115.9
108.0
99.1
138.4
121.9
110.5
118.4
110.5
131.1
119.5
159.2
105.4
163.0
158.5

180.4
186.5
117.7

180.9
188.6
119,0

103.7
141.0
125.2
112.4
121.7
114.5
133.6
122.7
163.0
108.1
170.5
162.6

178.4
187.4
118.3
108.7
103.2
141.5
126.5
111.9
120.7

175.0
184.9
116.8
106.5
98.8
142.2
124.5

172.2
178.6
113.3
97.8
97.6
129.8
123.3
113.6
112.9
105.3
123.3
114.7
156.4
103.9
161.6
140.7

176.2
183.5
116.2

103.7
138.6
123.8
111.4

180.6
189.0
119.3
111.5
103.4
142.4
125.8

179.9
186.6
118.2
103.5
106.4
135.8
126.2
116.9
118.3
114.6
128.6
117.3
165.7
110.5
176.9
151.2

180.2
188.6
119.4
104.3
106.4
137.7
128.1
118.0
119.8
115.3
129.5
119.7
164.7
109.8
176.8
149.2


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

120.2

111.3
338.9

110.6 111.6

120.2

113.7
132.6
120.3
163.6
108.7
169.7
165.1

112.6
121.6

113.7
132.6
123.4
162.2
107.3
169.5
161.4

112.2
122.8

132.4

159.6
105.5
166.3
159.0

111.0

118.9
108.9
132.0
121.5
153.9

101.8

158.1
152.9

101.2

100.3
134.9
123.9
116.0
116.7
111.3
127.2
117.1
160.9
106.9
171.0
145.9

211.6
143.4
118.8
122.5
135.6
151.4
106.3
101.4
111.4
186.7
199.1
141.4
121.5

120.0

161.3
106.8
171.0
144.9

122.0
134.6
151.8
106.1

101.1
111.3
187.9
199.2
142.1

122.8

69

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices

19.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
Ail Urban Consumers
General summary

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers

1982

1983

1982

1983

Jan.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Jan.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

96.7
124.0
84.2
104.4
93.4
106.3

98.3
129.3
85.6
108.2
101.4
105.8

101.4
129.7
92.7
109.6
102.5
107.8

102.0 100.1
130.6
129.9
88.6 87.4
110.4
103.9
106.0

93.7
128.8
76.9
105.1
95.8

99.1
129.0
99.8
107.4
99.4
105.9

129.4
111.9
108.9
100.5
108.5

102.9
129.6
106.7
108.7
102.3
105.2

100.9
130.2
105.8
109.6

97.8
130.5
99.7
109.2

102.1

97.3
123.7
104.0
104.2
91.2
108.2

102.6

109.9
104.5
106.0

97.1
130.8
82.8
109.5
103.7
104.1

105.9

105.1

94.4
128.4
91.8
105.0
95.2
102.9

119.2
259.6
212.9
116.2
146.7

124.0
272.4

124.4
276.8

129.3
274.2
212.7

129.1
273.1

121.9
144.1

144.9

142.2

125.7
277.1
211.5
120.4
143.7

118.2
270.1
201.4
114.3
137.5

123.0
283.0
199.5
119.6
133.3

125.1
286.8
201.7
117.7
136.2

128.1
285.5
201.4
118.2
135.7

128.0
284.2
199.2
118.5
133.5

124.9
287.5

121.5
142.6

126.0
275.8
213.1
119.3
145.6

Footwear...........................................................................
Men’s (12/77 = 100) ............................................................
Boys’ and girls’ (12/77 = 100) ...................................................
Women’s (12/77 = 100)........................................

202.8
130.3
131.1

122.6

204.4
130.9
128.7
125.4

206.2
132.4
129.4
126.5

206.8
133.2
129.5
126.9

206.9
132.5
129.3
127.6

205.9
132.0
129.0
126.8

204.8
131.4
130.4
124.5

203.1
132.2
132.5
118.9

204.1
132.7
131.3

121.1

205.9
134.1
131.9
122.4

206.7
135.0
132.1

122.8

206.7
134.2
131.8
123.6

205.8
133.7
131.5
122.9

204.6
133.0
132.9
120.4

Apparel services .....................................................

267.6

277.4

279.2

281.3

282.0

282.8

283.9

265.5

275.2

277.2

279.7

280.3

281.1

282.2

Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100).............
Other apparel services (12/77 = 100) ...............................................

160.0
139.4

165 6
145.0

166.7
145.9

167 2
148.2

167.9
148.1

168.9
147.7

169.6
148.3

158.5
139.9

164.1
145.5

165.2
146.6

165.8
149.3

166.4
149.2

167.5
148.8

168.1
149.4

APPAREL AND UPKEEP-Continued
Apparel commodities

Continued

Apparel commodities less footwear—Continued
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) ..........................................
Infants’ and toddlers'............................................................
Other apparel commodities ...............................................
Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) ...........................
Jewelry and luggage (12/77 = 100) ......................................

210.1
120.0 120.8

201.2
120.0
134.7

200.1
118.5
134.4

TRANSPORTATION ........................................

289.9

296.2

295.3

295.5

295.8

294.8

293.0

291.6

298.0

296.9

297.0

297.3

296.3

294.3

Private............................................

286.6

292.4

291.1

291.1

291.4

290.4

288.4

289.0

295.2

293.8

293.8

294.1

293 1

290.9

New cars .....................................................
Usee cars .......................................................
Gasoline ..................................................................
Automobile maintenance and repair...........................
Bodywork (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) ....................................
Other 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’ licenses (12/77 = 100) ......................
Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 100) .................................
Other vehicle-related fees (12/77 = 100) .........................

197.4
280.5
406.0
305.5
151.5

198.7
304.4
398.4
319.2
158.2

197.7
304.6
394.2
320.6
159.4

197.7
306.7
390.6
321.9
160.4

199.0
310.5
388.1
322.3
161.0

200.1 201.0
312.6
381.3
323.1
161.4

311.0
371.9
324.4
162.2

197.3
280.5
407.5
306.2
149.8

198.6
304.4
399.7
320.0
156.8

197.5
304.6
395.5
321.3
158.1

197.4
306.7
391.9
322.6
159.4

198.7
310.5
389.5
323.1
159.8

199.9
312.6
383.0
323.8
160.2

311.1
373.6
325.2
161.1

145.7
142.0
146.2
253.3
215.5
148.2
138.1
192.8
134.3
265.8
266.8
190.9
127.6
166.9
117.3
129.2
142.5

152.5
148.5
152.4
260.8
214.8
153.2
136.8
189.5
135.8
275.5
275.8
193.5
138.0
183.8
132.8
128.5
151.9

153.1
148.9
153.3
260.0
213.9
152.5
136.3
188.5
135.8
274.7
276.9
189.6
138.9
183.7
132.8
128.5
154.5

153.2
149.3
154.3
261.4
214.4
151.9
136.7
189.6
135.4
276.4
283.9
185.2
138.8
183.7
132.8
128.5
154.2

153.7
149.3
154.4
260.7
215.1
153.3
137.0
190.4
135.1
275.3
286.9
178.9
139.2
183.8
132.8
128.5
155.0

154.3
149.9
154.2
2596
214.3
153.3
136.5
190.0
133.8
274.2
288.8
173.8
139.3
183.8
132.8
128.5
155.2

155.4
150.5
154.4
259.9
215.6
153.9
137.3
191.3
134.3
274.2
292.0
169.6
139.8
184.6
132.8
128.6
155.8

149.5
141.5
145.7
256.9
218.0
146.9
140.0
196.5
134.5
269.7
266.6
190.3
128.4
166.2
117.1
130.5
150.4

156.6
147.8
151.9
263.9
217.1
151.8
138.6
193.0
136.0
278.9
275.2
192.9
138.8
183.4
133.1
129.9
159.4

157.1
148.2
152.8
263.0
216.3
151.2
138.1
192.1
135.8
277.9
276.3
188.9
140.0
183.3
133.1
129.9
163.0

157.2
148.6
153.8
264.1
216.9
151.0
138.6
193.2
135.4
279.1
283.2
184.6
139.8
183.2
133.1
129.9
162.7

157.8
148.6
153.9
262.9
217.7
152.3
139.0
194.0
135.4
277.5
286.1
178.1
140.0
183.4
133.1
129.8
162.9

158.3
149.2
153.7
261.6
216.9
152.3
138.4
193.7
133.9
276.0
288.2
173.0
140.1
183.4
133.1
129.8
163.2

159.4
149.9
153.9
261.5
218.0
153.0
139.1
194.9
134.3
275.6
291.3
168.7
140.5
184.0
133.1
129.9
163.9

Public..........................................

334.9

348.1

353.3

356.3

356.0

355.6

357.7

329.4

341.0

345.4

348.2

348.2

348.0

349.8

Airline fare.............................................
Intercity bus fare ....................................
Intracity mass transit ....................................
Taxi ‘are ...................................................
Intercity train fare...................................

375.5
367.3
305.9
296.3
318.1

397.5
370.5
312.8
299.7
338.6

409.5
368.9
312.6
299.8
338.4

413.7
370.6
315.2
300.2
338.4

411.6
373.8
316.1
300.5
348.3

408.8
377.7
317.7
300.8
351.3

412.3
381.8
318.5
300.9
351.8

372.7
368.9
305.1
305.6
317.9

393.5
372.3
312.3
309.3
338.6

407.0
371.0
312.1
309.3
338.4

411.1
372.5
314.7
309.9
338.4

408.8
375.7
315.7
310.1
349.3

405.9
379.3
316.7
310.5
351.9

409.8
383.3
317.4
310.5
352.3

200.8

MEDICAL CARE ...................................

313.4

333.3

336.0

338.7

342.2

344.3

347.8

312.0

331.3

333.9

336.5

339.8

341.8

345.3

Medical care commodities.........................

195.9

208.2

209.9

211.6

212.9

213.7

215.3

196.4

208.8

210.5

212.1

213.4

214.0

215.9

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 medical supplies (12/77 = 100) ..........................
Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 100) ................
Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and
respiratory agents (12/77 = 100)...................................

181.9
138.2
145.4
132.2

195.6
146.0
157.6
140.7

197.2
147.5
158.8
141.5

199.4
149.1
161.5
143.0

201.0 202.8
150.9
165.8
144.9

204.1
151.4
166.6
145.9

182.8
140.1
144.9
132.1

196.6
147.5
157.4
140.6

198.2
149.2
158.6
141.3

200.5
151.2
161.1
142.8

202.1

150.1
163.5
144.0

152.3
163.2
143.9

203.9
153.1
165.5
144.8

205.3
153.5
166.4
145.8

165.6
147.3

181.6
157.6

182.3
159.5

183.5
161.7

183.9
164.0

185.5
166.2

186.5
167.7

166.9
148.7

183.1
159.3

183.8
161.4

185.1
163.6

185.2
166.0

187.0
168.0

188.0
169.5

138.8

149.6

150.8

152.3

153.4

154.2

155.8

138.8

149.8

150.9

152.4

153.6

154.5

156.2

139.9
128.3

147.2
131.6
236.6
142.9

148.4
131.9
239.3
143.5

149.2
132.6
240.7
144.1

149.9
132.9
241.9
145.2

149.7
133.0
241.3
145.2

151.0
133.9
244.3
145.3

140.4
127.1
223.9
136.6

147.9
130.3
237.9
144.2

149.1
130.5
240.6
144.8

149.8
131.4
241.9
145.1

150.5
131.6
243.0
146.2

150.3
131.8
242.2
146.3

151.8
132.6
245.7
146.3

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).........

70

210.8 212.6

123.5
288.1

102.2 102.0

222.8
135.9

Medical care services ......................

339.4

361.0

364.0

366.9

371.0

373.4

377.4

337.5

358.3

361.1

363.9

367.7

370.1

374.0

Professional services ......................................
Physicians’ services......................................

292.0
315.5

304.4
330.4

305.9
332.3

306.6
334.2

308.3
335.3

309.4
336.6

312.5
341.3

292.2
318.6

304.6
333.5

306.1
335.4

306.9
337.4

308.4
338.6

309.5
339.9

312.7
344.6


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

19.

Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average

[ 1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 unless otherwise specified]

Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers

All Urban Consumers

1983

1982

1983

1982

General summary
Jan.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Jan.

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Professional services —Continued
Dental services.........................................................................
Other professional services (12/77 - 100)....................................

275.8
140.3

286.4
145.6

287.7
145.9

287.0
146.1

289.2
147.2

290.1
147.6

291.6
149.1

274.1
137.2

284.4
142.5

285.7
142.7

285.0
143.0

287.0
143.9

288.0
144.4

289.3
145.7

Other medical care services..............................................................
Hospital and other medical services (12/77 - 100).........................
hospital room.....................................................................
Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 - 100).............

396.8
165.6
529.4
162.2

429.4
177.1
565.5
173.6

434.1
178.3
570.1
174.7

439.8
180.0
576.8
176.0

446.8
182.6
586.6
178.1

450.8
183.2
588.5
178.7

455.9
185.1
594.6
180.6

393.8
164.0
522.0
161.2

425.4
175.2
557.6
172.2

429.9
176.5
562.1
173.3

435.6
178.3
569.1
174.7

442.3
180.7
578.7
176.7

446.3
181.5
581.3
177.5

451.3
183.4
587.1
179.4

ENTERTAINMENT

229.2

237.4

238.3

240.3

239.9

240.1

241.5

226.1

233.9

234.8

236.5

236.1

236.5

237.7

235.0

236.6

235.4

236.0

236.7

MEDICAL CARE —Continued
Medical care services —Continued

Entertainment commodities

232.0

240.5

240.8

242.9

241.4

241.8

242.6

226.7

234.4

Reading materials (12/77 = 100).......................................................
Newspapers ............................................................................
Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)...........................

142.9
270.5
149.0

149.4
286.3
153.8

150.1
288.5
153.9

153.1
290.4
159.2

153.4
290.9
159.6

154.3
294.7
159.3

156.1
295.7
162.6

142.1
270.1
148.8

148.9
286.0
153.6

149.6
288.2
153.8

152.4
290.1
159.2

152.7
290.5
159.6

153.8
294.8
159.2

155.5
295.6
162.6

Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)......................................
Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) .....................................................
Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100)................
Bicycles ..................................................................................
Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................

129.5
131.4

133.2
135.7
119.7
199.4
130.3

132.9
135.3
120.5
199.0
129.4

134.3
137.1

132.1
133.8
119.9
198.3
131.5

131.6
133.3

131.5
132.9
120.3
197.3
131.4

122.4

125.0

124.3

124.4

129.8

125.8
123.6
118.3
199.9
132.1

124.7

118.2
196.2
125.2

124.9
122.4
117.5
200.4
130.9

117.6
199.5
131.3

117.7
198.5
130.0

117.0
198.4
130.9

136.0
132.9
131.3
144.6

136.1
133.0
130.6
145.0

135.2
131.8
130.1
144.5

135.6
132.0
130.8
145.1

135.6
131.9
131.0
145.1

Toys, hobbles, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)...........................
Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................
Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)........................
Pet supplies and expenses (12/77 = 100) ....................................

Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100)............................................
Admissions (12/77 = 100)................................................................
Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100)........................................

Cigarettes..................................................................................
Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100).............

120.1
194.8
125.3

120.6
198.7
131.9

120.0
197.1
130.6

120.1

122.8
118.1
200.0

122.2 122.0 122.0

132.2
130.8
125.2
139.7

136.9
136.4
130.2
142.5

137.1
136.4
130.1
143.4

137.1
136.4
129.6
143.9

136.4
135.5
129.0
143.4

136.8
135.5
129.7
144.2

136.8
135.5
129.9
144.2

131.2
127.7
126.3
140.5

135.7
132.8
131.4
143.6

225.5

233.5

235.2

237.2

238.2

238.2

240.5

226.1

234.2

235.8

237.6

238.4

238.5

240.8

139.6
131.2
124.2

143.4
137.4
128.3

146.0
136.4
128.8

148.0
136.6
129.6

149.0
136.9
129.8

148.9
137.3
129.6

150.0
139.9
129.8

141.2
130.1
124.7

144.8
136.5
129.2

147.4
135.5
129.6

149.4
135.6
130.5

150.1
135.9
130.7

150.0
136.4
130.6

151.2
138.8
130.6

248.4

258.3

266.6

271.2

273.8

276.6

279.9

245.0

255.7

262.8

267.8

270.9

274.0

277.8

226.2

239.3

246.1

256.6

263.4

271.9

279.9

261.4
143.1

268.8
143.0

278.0
143.9

286.5
145.8

227.1

240.1

246.8

257.3

264.0

272.3

280.3

230.0
134.7

243.1
142.4

250.6
142.6

262.3
142.9

269.8
142.8

279.0
143.8

287.6
145.8

229.1
135.0

242.3
142.5

249.8
142.8

240.9

250.6

251.1

252.9

254.2

254.8

256.1

238.8

248.8

249.3

250.9

252.1

252.5

253.9

252.1
146.9
153.5

254.1
147.3
155.4

253.1
146.2
154.6

254.8
146,5
155.9

236.4
137.2
144.0

249.5
145.0
153.1

249.1
144.6
153.3

251.5
147.8
155.2

253.5
148.3
157.2

252.2
146.8
156.2

253.9
147.1
157.6

236.9
136.4
142.6

250.5
144.4
151.6

250.0
144.0
151.8

Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100)

134.1
135.9

141.3
142.5

140.7
142.4

141.4
142.2

141.7
144.7

142.2
143.2

144.0
143.6

134.5
138.9

142.0
146.2

141.4
146.2

142.1
145.8

142.3
148.4

143.0
147.0

144.8
147.3

Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) .......

245.7
246.9
138.0

252.5
255.0
140.2

253.8
256.3
141.1

255.1
258.3
141.0

255.8
258.9
141.4

258.0
262.1
141.6

259.0
263.3
142.0

241.0
240.5
136.8

247.6
248.7
139.0

248.9
249.8
139.9

250.0
251.6
139.8

250.6
252.1
140.3

252.4
254.7
140.4

253.4
255.8
140.8

288.1

295.8

316.1

319.3

320.0

320.5

322.1

288.9

297.9

'317.4

320.4

321.3

321.7

323.6

260.7
294.8
150.5
149.9
152.1
154.3

265.3
303.1
152.6
151.9
154.6
167.4

280.5
324.4
165.6
164.9
168.7
169.4

283.0
327.7
167.2
166.8
168.6
171.9

283.1
328.6
167.2
166.8
168.7
174.1

283.3
329.1
167.2
166.8
168.7
175.4

288.4
330.2
167.3
166.9
168.7
178.8

264.8
295.2
150.7
149.6
152.8
153.7

269.6
305.1
153.2
152.0
155.6
167.6

284.3
325.6
166.2
165.0
169.6
169.6

286.8
328.7
167.7
166.9
169.6
171.7

286.8
329.8
167.7
166.9
169.7
174.0

287.0
330.3
167.7
166.9
169.7
175.2

292.4
331.5
167.7
167.0
169.7
177.9

400.5
423.9
297.7
343.0

393.2
441.3
320.3
351.4

389.2
436.0
323.8
353.8

385.7
432.9
326.5
355.0

383.5
426.2
324.1
354.8

377.0
413.4
326.0
354.0

367.9

401.8
422.8
296.4
343.3

394.4
441.7
319.4
352.2

390.3
436.3
322.8
354.6

386.9
433.9
325.4
365.7

384.8
427.2
323.2
355.4

378.5
414.7
325.1
354.4

369.4
411.1
328.1
357.9

Products for the hair, hairpieces, and wigs (12/77 = 100) ................
Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) ...................................
Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure

Special indexes:

329.1
355.3

l
1 Excludes motor oil, coolant, and other products as of January 1983.


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

71

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices

20. 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]
Size class A
(1.25 million or more)

Size class B
(385,000 1.250 million)

1982
Aug. |

Oct.

Size class C
(75,000-385,000)

1982
Dec.

Aug. |

Oct.

Size class D
(75,000 or less)

1982
| Dec.

Aug. J Oct.

1982
I Dec.

Aug.

I Oct.

I Dec.

Northeast
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items .........................................................................................
Food and beverages ............................................................
Housing ..................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep

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

Transportation........................................................................
Medical c a r e ...........................................................................
Entertainment ........................................................................
Other goods and services ..................................................
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Com m odities..................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages .............................
Services .........................................................................................

149.0
144.9
153.3
119.6
159.4
150.0
139.7
141.7

145.3
145.5
153.8

151.8
145.1
157.7

160.7
151.4
140.6
150.0

151.0
144.4
155.9
119.8
161.0
153.6
140.2
152.8

155.8
143.4
164.5
122.4
166.5
156.1
137.4
143.2

156.6
142.4
164.9
127.0
166.6
158.1
139.9
151.4

157.1
142.1
166.5
124.9
166.7
160.6
135.9
153.9

161.2
148.9
174.5
128.4
164.7
157.2
136.8
148.1

160.7
147.0
172.9
128.5
165.2
161.5
138.1
154.3

162.3
147.4
175.2
129.1
166.2
163.6
139.2
157.8

155.3
142.9
163.7
124.8
163.7
156.1
143.8
144.6

155.8
141.9
163.0
131.4
164.6
157.0
144.8
153.4

156.3
142.0
163.2
131.1
164.5
159.8
145.0
158.7

147.7
149.3
157.1

147.5
149.4
155.6

151.6
155.6
162.4

152.4
157.2
163.3

153.5
159.0
162.9

152.3
153.9
175.6

152.0
154.3
175.0

153.7
156.6
176.4

149.8
153.1
163.8

150.9
155.2
163.5

151.7
156.3
163.4

160.2
149.2
171.4

156.8
149.1
161.9
121.4
163.8
166.5
134.5
160.3

122.2

North Central Region
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items .........................................................................................
Food and beverages ..............................................................
Housing ....................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep

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

Transportation...........................................................................
Medical c a r e .............................................................................
Entertainment ...........................................................................
Other goods and services .....................................................
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
C om m odities....................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ...............................
Services ............................................................................................

162.2
143.7
179.8
117.0
166.1
155.8
138.8
142.3

163.1
143.5
181.2
118.8
164.5
157.9
140.7
150.5

162.0
143.3
179.1
116.4
163.8
160.3
140.2
152.8

157.0
142.7
165.6
124.1
165.0
161.2
131.7
153.3

158.9
142.6
168.5
128.7
164.1
162.7
133.5
161.4

159.3
141.9
169.1
129.4
164.5
164.0
134.1
163.8

158.9
144.9
169.4
126.7
166.7
157.7
139.9
142.8

155.9
143.8
162.6
127.8
165.0
160.9
142.5
148.1

156.2
143.4
162.8
126.1
165.2
162.9
143.7
150.6

164.1
161.0
131.4
150.2

159.0
149.2
167.8
121.9
163.1
163.7
133.3
157.3

150.9
154.2
179.0

151.9
155.8
179.7

151.7
155.7
177.3

148.8
151.3
170.3

149.7
152.6
173.7

150.8
154.5
173.1

150.8
153.4
172.0

148.2
150.1
168.6

148.7
150.9
168.4

149.1
149.0
177.8

147.6
147.0
177.0

148.4
148.1
170.1

158.8
145.4
166.0

159.8
147.5
169.7
112.4
164.5
173.9
149.7
153.2

159.1
147.3
168.2

166.8
173.5
144.4
154.9

158.8
147.5
168.4
107.9
165.6
169.3
148.1
152.3

163.5
179.4
143.8
155.8

120.1

South
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................
Food and beverages ...............................................................
Housing ....................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep

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

Transportation...........................................................................
Medical c a r e .............................................................................
Entertainment ...........................................................................
Other goods and services .....................................................
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
Com m odities....................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ...............................
Services ............................................................................................

156.9
147.2
165.0
124.0
165.3
156.2
131.7
145.6

158.1
146.8
166.1
127.5
164.7
160.9
135.5
152.9

157.5
147.0
164.3
128.0
164.6
164.0
135.0
155.0

149.7
150.8
166.9

150.1
151.6
169.2

150.9
152.6
166.9

159.1
146.5
167.9

168.6
157.3
145.0
143.6

159.6
146.4
167.5
125.3
167.7
161.3
147.3
152.5

159.3
146.4
166.0
124.7
168.0
163.5
148.5
158.1

166.4
166.2
142.1
145.2

159.1
145.6
167.3
123.7
166.0
169.4
144.5
153.3

150.9
152.8
171.5

151.7
154.0
171.5

152.3
154.8
169.9

149.6
151.2
172.4

149.9
151.8
173.2

150.2
152.3
172.1

149.6
150.5
172.6

150.6
152.0
173.6

150.6
151.9
172.1

153.3
144.9
155.6

150.1
144.8
148.3
123.4
165.1
170.7
137.2
153.0

158.5
150.6
160.5
138.5
166.2
168.5
153.1
154.4

158.1
150.8
158.7
138.6
165.7
169.6
154.9
164.2

157.8
150.7
158.3
136.9
165.2
171.5
154.3
165.2

149.0
150.7
151.7

149.2
148.7
172.1

147.7
146.4
173.4

148.9
148.1
171.0

122.6

158.6
146.0
167.8

121.0

122.6

111.1

West
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
All items ............................................................................................
Food and beverages ...............................................................
Housing .....................................................................................
Apparel and upkeep

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

Transportation...........................................................................
Medical c a r e .............................................................................
Entertainment ...........................................................................
Other goods and services .....................................................
COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP
C om m odities.......................................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages ..................................
Services ..........................................................

72


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

160.3
147.5
167.7
119.8
169.9
167.1
135.8
149.3

160.3
148.3
166.9
120.7
169.4
168.9
136.6
155.4

156.9
147.8
160.7
119.9
166.3
171.1
137.8
159.3

159.9
148.6
166.6
124.9
169.7
163.3
141.0
149.8

160.1
148.6
166.0
126.5
169.8
165.1
142.4
155.0

157.9
149.2
161.2
125.8
168.1
168.4
142.5
158.9

167.0
167.0
135.7
141.7

152.6
145.7
153.4
123.8
166.0
168.8
136.2
148.0

148.8
149.4
175.5

149.4
149.9
174.8

148.1
148.3
168.5

151.0
152.1
172.1

151.6
152.9
171.8

150.7
151.3
167.9

149.9
152.0
158.1

150.6
152.6
155.4

122.8

21.

Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (revised)

All Urban Consumers
Area1
Jan.

292.8

U.S. city average2 ........................................................

Anchorage, Alaska (10/67-100) ....................................
Atlanta, Ga....................................................................
Baltimore, Md.................................................................
Boston, Mass.................................................................
Buffalo, N.Y...................................................................

Sept.
293.3

280.8

293.2

294.0
300.2

305.4

285.6

Miami, Fla. (11/77-100) ...............................................
Milwaukee, Wis..............................................................
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis..........................................
New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J.......................................
Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)...............................................

155.2
291.3

Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J........................................................
Pittsburgh, Pa.................................................................
Portland, Oreg.-Wash......................................................
St. Louis, Mo.-lll..............................................................
San Diego, Calif.............................................................

275.7

286.5
272.5

292.7
269.4
318.6
285.0
289.1

294.9

288.2

281.3
291.4

280.7
276.0
283.0

307.7
284.5

281.8
300.7

288.5

292.6
269.9
318.1
290.6
285.3

283.6
279.4
282.9

306.1
281.8

281.6
302.1

285.6
290.0
321.7

302.2
286.5

’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


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

296.0

282.3
273.4

297.5
286.3

1983

294.0
306.0

275.9
288.4

327.5

310.5

292.6

277.8

285.6

289.6

157.9
305.0

156.4
295.3

282.6
278.9

267.5
274.5

282.1

275.1

286.6
291.1
324.9

285.5
277.1
317.4

297.5
289.0

291.9
281.8

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

292.4

292.8

293.6

293.2

292.9
302.8

293.2

291.2

291.7

291.2
274.7
314.9
287.3
292.8

280.7
291.8

278.9
277.1
282.1

307.6
282.7

281.2
300.3

292.1

291.6

281.9
280.6
282.0

298.3
291.9

288.7
271.0
316.1
288.6
288.0

288.0

288.0
159.2
303.5

306.1
280.3

281.0
301.7

280.8
282.6
282.5
281.7
285.3
313.6

293.6

301.3

302.8

323.9

283.5
288.9
318.2

285.8
293.1
321.1

292.8
305.2

315.0
299.4

158.6
306.9

157.5
306.3
313.3
277.1

291.8

332.5

331.3
289.3
269.5
315.3
283.6
292.8

275.0
293.1
307.1

314.1
302.5

310.6
300.2

250.6
289.7
283.9

289.7
284.4
274.3

265.5

Jan.

297.8

298.7
2888
282.7

292.5

Dec.

254.4

258.9
297.1

293.9

302.4

304.3

248.6

291.4
286.2

317.6
303.3

156.8
303.1

288.2
294.1
325.6

288.4
278.4
323.1

295.9
278.0

295.2
275.2
317.6
289.3
289.5

156.1
302.4
313.8
278.5

293.1

326.2

324.5

257.6

277.8
294.3
304.2

316.6
306.7

312.2
304.3

Jan.

296.1
290.1
285.0

2944

Jan.

293.6

277.1

267.7

Dec.

257.2

289.2
282.9

282.1
274.0

Detroit, Mich..................................................................
Honolulu, Hawaii ..........................................................
Houston, Tex.................................................................
Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas ...............................................
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif.............................

294.1

Nov.

297.8

295.6

275.4
285.7

Oct.

263.4

253.0

Chicago, ' I -Northwestern ind............................................
Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind....................................................
Cleveland, Ohio............................................................
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex.......................................................
Denver-Boulder, Colo......................................................

San Francisco-Oakland, Calif............................................
Seattle-Everett, Wash......................................................
Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va.................................................

Aug.

1982

1983

1982

294.1
291.6

291.4
292.9

Area is used for New York and Chicago.
2Average of 85 cities.

73

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
22.

Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

[1967 = 100]
A nnual
C o m m o d ity g ro uping

1983

1982

a v e ra g e
Nov.

D ec.

Jan.

Feb.

284.1

284.9

285.1

283.6

283.7

281.9
259.9
228.2
260.6
338.3
223.0
225.5
278.7

'284.3
'257.7
'232.4
'257.9
'340.0
'231.0
'227.8
'283.2

285.2
257.6
235.6
257.4
342.4
230.8
228.1
284.0

285.1
258.2
247.2
257.1
341.4
231.5
228.3
285.1

283.0
258.3
232.6
258.4
335.2
231.9
227.4
285.7

283.0
259.9
240.4
259.5
332.5
233.5
227.7
286.2

310.8

310.5

'309.9

310.1

310.2

309.9

310.5

289.2
259.7
283.1
308.0
273.9

288.7
258.0
282.6
306.5
274.3

289.9
257.3
281.7
310.5
275.8

'289.4
'254.2
'280.4
'309.8
'276.7

288.9
251.4
279.5
309.8
277.0

288.7
250.1
278.2
309.8
277.7

289.0
250.9
277.4
312.1
277.4

291.3
253.0
277.4
319.1
278.1

294.5

294.3

293.5

294.2

'293.7

293.0

294.5

296.2

298.6

570.9
481.4
649.5

581.1
491.7
659.5

600.7
506.9
683.0

603.8
510.7
685.5

592.3
496.4
6769

'590.0
'496.6
672.1

594.3
502.5
674.9

593.6
500.4
675.5

583.5
493.2
662.7

571.1
483.5
647.8

287.0

287.0

286.5

286.3

285.4

285.3

285.1

284.7

284.6

284.9

285.1

272.1
265.3
276.0
213.1
288.9

273.4
266.7
277.2
214.2
290.1

273.4
266.7
277.1
213.1
290.4

273.1
266.8
276.7
210.3
290.5

272.6
266.5
276.0
203.1
291.1

272.2
266.7
275.3
198.1
291.3

'272.0
'266.9
'274.9
'192.9
'291.9

273.0
267.2
276.3
199.5
292.2

273.2
267.4
276.5
204.9
291.3

273.6
268.0
276.8
206.9
291.3

274.2
268.7
277.3
207.6
291.8

322.6

328.3

325.6

323.4

319.8

316.1

'312.0

313.4

312.6

313.7

321.0

1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

M ay

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Finished goods ..........................................................

280.6

277.9

277.3

277.3

277.8

279.9

281.7

282.3

281.2

Finished consumer goods......................................
Finished consumer foods....................................
Crude.............................................................
Processed ......................................................
Nondurable goods less foods..............................
Durable goods ..................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy
Capital equipment ................................................

280.9
259.3
252.5
257.7
333.5
226.7
223.6
279.6

278.6
258.2
282.5
254.0
330.3
224.0
219.6
275.0

277.7
257.1
263.3
254.5
328.8
223.9
220.5
275.8

277.3
260.0
266.6
257.3
325.7
224.1
222.3
277.2

277.7
262.3
259.9
260.3
324.3
225.0
223.1
278.1

280.1
263.4
254.7
262.0
328.7
225.9
223.5
279.2

282.1
260.6
241.0
260.2
335.3
226.7
223.7
280.2

282.8
259.7
239.2
259.4
337.2
227.5
224.3
280.7

Intermediate materials, supplies, and components..........

310.4

311.1

310.6

309.9

309.8

309.9

311.1

Materials and components for manufacturing..........
Materials for food manufacturing ........................
Materials for nondurable manufacturing ..............
Materials for durable manufacturing ....................
Components for manufacturing ..........................

289.9
255.2
284.5
310.1
274.0

290.9
252.8
289.3
313.1
270.9

290.4
252.0
288.8
310.9
271.8

290.6
254.4
287.6
311.0
272.6

291.4
260.0
287.6
311.0
273.6

289.8
260.7
285.4
307.5
273.6

Materials and components for construction ............

293.5

293.0

293.3

294.0

293.7

Processed fuels and lubricants ..............................
Manufacturing Industries ....................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ..............................

591.8
497.9
674.4

596.8
497.8
684.2

593.0
496.1
678.3

579.9
487.5
661.1

Containers............................................................

285.5

285.5

286.3

Supplies ..............................................................
Manufacturing industries ....................................
Nonmanufacturing industries ..............................
Feeds .............................................................
Other supplies................................................

272.2
266.0
275.7
207.1
289.9

270.4
263.3
274.4
287.3

270.6
264.5
274.1
208.1
287.9

Crude materials for further processing..........................

319.5

321.6

320.0

O c t.1

F IN IS H E D G O O D S

IN T E R M E D IA T E M A TE R IA LS

212.0

C R U D E M A T E R IA LS

Foodstuffs and feedstuffs......................................

247.8

248.3

247.9

254.4

262.6

259.9

255.5

249.6

242.9

236.3

236.3

237.0

239.6

249.3

Nonfood materials ................................................

474.0

479.3

475.2

469.9

470.2

467.7

469.8

471.0

473.7

'474.8

479.0

475.0

473.0

475.5

Nonfood materials except fuel ............................
Manufacturing industries..................................
Construction ..................................................

376.9
387.2
270.7

394.8
407.5
270.5

387.1
398.4
273.2

378.8
389.0
273.3

376.6
386.3
274.5

370.0
378.9
274.2

369.2
378.4
271.4

369.5
378.9
270.3

369.5
379.1
268.8

'371.9
'382.2
'266.3

369.5
379.3
267.3

366.0
375.0
269.4

368.1
377.5
268.9

366.6
375.5
270.8

Crude fuel ........................................................
Manufacturing industries..................................
Nonmanufacturing industries............................

886.3
1,034.8
782.7

824.5
954.4
735.4

839.7
974.7
746.6

851.2
989.1
755.8

864.8
1006.7
766.4

883.9
901.3
1,032.0 1,053.9
780.5
794.5

906.9
1,061.1
798.9

923.5 '917.2 955.3
1,083.6 '1,075.3 1,124.8
810.7 '805.9 835.2

949.5
1,117.0
830.9

926.3
1,088.2
812.0

949.1
1,118.7
828.8

Finished goods excluding foods....................................
Finished consumer goods excluding foods ..............
Finished consumer goods less energy....................

285.7
287.8
251.2

282.4
284.9
241.3

281.9
284.0
241.3

281.1
282.3
243.0

281.0
281.8
244.3

283.4
284.8
245.1

286.7
288.8
244.5

287.9
290.2
'244.7

286.3
288.9
'243.9

290.8
293.3
'246.5

291.9
294.6
246.5

292.0
294.3
247.0

289.9
291.1
246.9

289.6
290.3
248.0

Intermediate materials less foods and feeds..................
Intermediate materials less energy ........................

315.7
290.5

316.4
290.7

316.0
290.5

315.1
291.0

314.6
291.6

314.7
290.8

316.1
290.4

316.0
289.7

315.9
290.5

315.5
290.1

315.7
289.9

315.7
290.2

315.3
290.7

315.9
292.6

Intermediate foods and feeds ......................................

239.5

239.4

237.7

240.9

245.0

245.1

243.6

240.2

238.1

'234.4

234.6

235.4

236.5

238.2

Crude materials less agricultural products ....................
Crude materials less energy..................................

536.5
240.4

543.9
243.4

538.4
242.8

531.6
247.3

531.5
252.8

529.1
248.7

531.5
245.1

532.0
240.7

535.5
235.6

'537.2
230.0

542.3
229.3

537.0
229.9

534.8
232.6

537.5
241.6

S P E C IA L G R O U P IN G S

'Data for October 1982 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.

IX

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

r=revised.

23.

F>roducer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

All commodities (1957-59 = 100)

299.3
317.6

298.6
316.8

298.0
316.2

298.0
316.2

298.6
316.8

299.3
317.6

300.4
318.7

300.2
318.5

299.3
317.6

Farm products and processed foods and feeds
Industrial commodities........................................................

248.9
312.3

248.4
311.6

247.5
311.0

251.6
309.9

255.8
309.6

255.3
310.6

252.4
312.8

249.6
313.2

242.3
253.4
210.9
257.8
191.9
202.9
282.5
178.7

247.1
290.1
223.2
251.2
197.3
193.5
285.8

250.6
267.6
226.0
267.6
186.2
207.4
280.3
192.1

274.2

256.5
271.5
228.2
282.9
192.7
214.1
278.8
164.3
227.3
273.9

252.7
264.5
225.7
277.5
207.2
203.1
278.9
159.3
219.3
271.8

246.6
239.1

274.5

244.7
257.3
220.9
255.6
197.7
199.5
282.5
200.6 204.0
217.6 213.7
273.7 273.0

265.5

240.8
238.6
197.2
268.4
189.3
207.5
278.8
171.7
204.5
274.4

251.5
253.9
257.6
248.9
274.3
269.9
256.9
215.5
248.6
211.3

248.1 248.1
253.3 253.3
247.9 250.0
248.0 248.0
276.3 275.9
257.2 255.0
255.1 256.4
216.8 213.7
250.9 249.5
214.9 211.4

251.1
253.5
258.2
248.4
275.2
256.0
256.6
218.1
249.6
216.3

254.4
252.8
267.6
248.5
273.8
265.3
256.5
222.3
248.0
217.4

255.8
252.7
271.2
248.7
275.8
269.1
256.7

248.6
216.4

254.6
253.0
266.0
248.6
274.4
275.7
256.9
221.3
248.1
213.9

204.3
162.4
137.7
145.3
124.6
193.8
240.0

205.6
163.2
140.7
147.3
127.1
193.2
240.8

205.0
161.3
140.5
146.6
125.6
193.4
241.4

205.4
163.0
140.4
146.3
125.4
194.1
241.8

205.4
163.4
141.0
145.9
125.2
194.5
239.5

205.0
162.8
139.4
146.0
124.0
195.0
239.7

263.0
311.3
245.0
248.9

261.6
317.7
238.6
248.1

260.6
313.3
239.8
248.1

263.4
310.6
244.8
248.1

263.2
309.8
244.5
248.1

261.8
307.7
244.2
245.6

693.4
535.3
461.8
1,061.2
406.6
733.5
761.5

697.8
529.9
469.7
987.6
392.9
770.3
789.7

689.7
529.6
467.5
990.5
403.7
744.8
770.6

670.6
532.6
467.5
992.7
406.3
717.9
733.5

294.6
361.4
258.9
306.8
205.9
290.1
297.1
285.5
268.5

294.3
357.8
258.9
306.7
208.9
282.6
295.8
286.0
270.0

295.0
357.1
264.7
306.9
209.9
288.4
294.8
283.2
272.7

293.3
351.2
264.7
304.9
209.7
287.5
294.1
282.1
273.8

291.6
349.1
264.7
304.5

291.6
349.1
264.7
302.5

278.2
291.5
280.9
271.1

01-3
01-4
01-5

01-9

Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ...............................................
Other farm products ..........................................................

02
02-1
02 2

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

02-3
02-4
02-5

Processed fruits and vegetables............................................

02-6
02-8

Beverages and beverage materials........................................

02 7
02-9

1982

FARM PRODUCTS AND PROCESSED FOODS
AND FEEDS

01
01-1
01 2
01-6
01 7
01-8

19«3

Annual
average
1982

Commodity group and subgroup

Code

Miscellaneous processed foods ............................................
Prepared animal feeds........................................................

212.8

222.8

June

221.8

Feb.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

1299.8
'318.1

300.4
318.7

300.6
318.9

300.0
318.3

301.2
319.6

247.4
312.7

'243.8
'314.3

244.0
315.1

244.8
315.0

245.9
314.0

249.9
314.4

234.5

232.5
248.1
202.3
237.2
177.8

233.1
227.0
206.3
242.3
177.1
201.7
284.5
170.0
212.4
279.9

240.8
227.2
222.4
251.1

276.8

'299.2 230.6
'223.0 232.5
183.2 198.6
248.5 239.1
177.1 181.6
198.1 195.3
285.0 285.9
177.9 172.5
194.3 204.8
274.0 276.3

253.5
252.7
262.2
248.8
274.1
285.5
258.0
215.6
245.9
207.5

253.5
254.0
265.7
249.1
272.8
278.5
257.1
211.4
247.0
204.3

'250.8
'253.0
256.9
'249.8
'273.4
'276.3
'257.9
'213.8
'247.9
'199.8

250.4
254.6
251.5
250.2
273.1
281.1
258.9
209.0
247.9
205.7

250.6
256.6
249.9
250.8
273.0
280.8
259.0
204.3
248.6
210.5

251.8
256.9
252.2
250.7
274.6
281.8
260.9
203.6
248.9

253.9
257.3
257.7
251.0
273.9
286.4
261.6
205.6
248.9
212.4

204.1
161.5
135.9
144.9
123.8
194.8
238.2

204.2
162.2
135.9
144.6
124.3
195.1
236.4

204.3
162.5
136.6
143.6
123.7
195.4
238.2

'204.1
'161.1
'136.5
'143.7
'123.2
'195.7
'236.2

203.5
162.1
136.7
143.0
123.1
193.8
240.5

202.4
160.6
136.7
143.3
122.9
191.7
240.5

202.6
158.4
135.1
144.8
122.3
192.9
240.8

202.4
155.4
135.4
144.4
122.4
193.3
238.7

263.1
307.4
247.3
246.9

262.0
304.9
247.7
244.9

263.5
309.2
248.3
247.7

'263.2
309.5
'248.0
'247.2

264.3
312.8
249.1
250.9

265.2
314.3
248.2
253.1

265.6
314.9
247.5
254.6

265.0
312.7
246.9
255.0

700.4 ' 698.8 707.3 702.6 686.3
538.5 '538.1 540.3 540.3 532.3
460.0 '452.3 452.3 452.3 450.9
1,112.2 '1,130.1 1,190.9 1,177.4 1,143.5
415.0 '408.7 405.2 410.3 411.2
718.3 '735.3 734.1 720.4 720.1
761.6 '754.6 759.9 753.0 727.1

673.5
534.6
450.9
1,169.2
411.2
693.3
699.2

July

212.8

270.3
212.5

220.8
279.0
171.7

220.0

Aug.

Sept.

221.0
187.3
259.0
196.5
196.8
281.9
173.3

201.8

Oct.1

200.6
285.5
170.0
209.0
280.1

212.1

200.1
206.4
284.5
170.0
217.9
282.0

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES
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) ............................................

04
04 2
04-3
04-4

Hides, skins, leather, and related products .................................

05
05 1
05-2
05-3
05-4
05-61
05-7

Fuels and related products and power ......................................

06
06-1
06-21
06-22
06-3
06-4
00-5
06-6
06-7

Chemicals and allied products.................................................
Industrial chemicals 5 ..........................................................
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......................................

292.4
353.0
262.9
304.6

267.1
292.7
283.3
269.8

293.6
362.2
258.9
306.4
204.4
274.2
298.0
287.3
264.9

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) ..............................................

241.6
268.5
278.9
255.2
278.8
132.2

239.3
266.0
282.1
256.7
268.8
131.0

240.8
266.7
283.5
253.7
274.3
132.3

241.1
266.6
283.3
253.4
274.7
132.6

242.1
269.0
283.7
254.9
278.8
132.5

242.5
269.3
282.5
255.3
279.5
132.8

08
08 1
08 2
08-3
08-4

Lumber and wood products.....................................................

284.7
310.8
279.4
232.1
236.2

285.2
308.1
278.6
235.1
238.7

285.3
308.2
276.5
236.5
238.6

286.5
312.4
276.6
234.0
237.7

284.6
310.5
276.3
230.5
237.4

289.0
315.8
280.5
239.2
236.0

Textile housefurnishings.......................................................

Other leather and related products........................................

Petroleum products, refined4 ...............................................

Other wood products..........................................................

210.1

662.2 677.3 701.1 705.6
534.0 533.6 538.0 539.0
467.5 462.0 460.3 459.1
1,001.2 1,027.5 1,054.3 1,074.6
407.1 405.7 416.0 414.9
717.8 718.2 718.4 718.4
713.2 739.4 776.5 781.7

254.2
290.8
282.2
272.3

290.7
346.5
264.7
303.0
212.4
254.1
289.9
281.6
271.2

'289.9
'345.8
'264.7
303.0
'214.9
242.3
'288.8
'281.3
'268.6

290.5
345.8
265.1
302.3
215.4
239.6
287.3
281.4
271.7

289.3
342.9
265.1
301.5
216.0
240.8
286.2
281.4
270.2

289.2
339.9
265.1
301.3
218.3
241.9
282.8
282.8
272.6

290.6
341.0
265.1
299.3
221.3
253.4
282.5
282.3
274.8

242.0
268.8
280.3
255.0
279.4
132.5

242.6
270.1
278.7
257.8
279.7
132.5

242.5
269.5
276.6
255.6
281.6
132.7

'242.2
'268.9
'272.5
'255.7
'281.4
'132.7

242.6
270.2
270.8
254.8
286.5
132.4

243.0
270.5
271.0
256.2
285.5
132.8

244.5
273.9
271.0
259.1
290.7
132.6

242.8
270.0
274.2
250.4
290.8
132.8

288.6
319.2
282.3
232.4
236.0

284.2
311.6
280.2
229.0
235.8

283.0
310.3
279.5
228.5
235.6

'279.4
'305.6
278.6
224.0
235.8

279.9
305.1
280.3
227.8
233.1

284.8
311.0
286.1
231.2
231.3

292.1
324.2
293.7
234.4
232.0

302.7
343.6
300.5
239.3
233.2

210.0 211.2

See footnotes at end of table.


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

75

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
23.

Continued — Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Code

Commodity group and subgroup

Annual
average
1982

1982

1983

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.1

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

287.4
276.6
411.6
129.2
289.6
261.1
264.5
239.6

288.5
275.3
389.9
128.1
289.4
261.2
264.3
236.3

289.6
274.8
393.3
121.5
288.2
258.8
264.3
240.2

289.5
274.1
388.0
115.2
287.8
255.9
264.5
240.0

289.1
272.6
368.3
115.6
286.3
255.0
264.4
239.8

289.3
272.2
367.0
116.0
285.3
255.4
264.3
244.4

289.4
271.5
365.0
116.0
285.3
250.7
264.2
243.4

' 289,8
r 270.3
'350.4
116.0
'285.4
248.0
'264.0
'242.1

289.6
269.9
349.4
116.0
281.7
247.6
265.0
240.4

289.5
269.1
349.3
116.0
280.0
244.5
264.9
241.4

291.1
269.1
350.5
116.0
279.8
243.6
265.0
240.5

293.3
269.0
349.5
116.0
279.1
244.0
265.1
240.8

INDUSTRIAL COMMODITIES-Continued
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.....................................................

288.6
273.3
379.8

286.6
254.9
264.4
239.3

286.3
276.8
410.3
128.8
289.8
261.4
264.7
231.4

10
10-1
10-17
10-2

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

301.8
339.1
349.7
263.6
328.1
279.5
278.7
237.3
304.2
284.1

304.2
342.9
350.3
273.6
326.2
274.8
276.4
233.1
304.0
278.7

302.9
342.5
350.5
267.2
327.2
278.2
279.1
235.4
304.5
279.0

303.1
342.8
352.2
266.1
330.0
278.5
280.3
236.0
305.2
279.7

302.8
341.3
352.1
263.6
330.2
278.9
281.0
237.2
304.9
284.5

299.3
338.3
349.9
253.4
329.9
280.3
282.6
238.5
305.3
283.9

299.5
337.5
349.0
256.4
330.0
281.2
283.3
238.9
303.9
283.2

299.2
337.1
348.6
255.7
328.8
282.6
274.6
238.4
304.3
283.3

301.8
336.5
348.2
265.1
328.8
282.7
277.1
239.1
306.4
283.8

'301.6
337.6
349.8
'262.9
'329.7
'283.0
277.8
'238.4
'305.9
'284.1

301.0
336.3
349.3
262.0
327.0
280.8
278.2
238.9
302.8
288.5

300.9
333.3
345.5
264.0
325.7
283.5
279.1
239.3
304.6
288.7

301.7
333.2
343.7
267.6
327.0
284.9
280.6
240.1
303.3
288.6

306.1
340.3
351.8
275.5
330.3
285.6
283.4
240.8
302.5
288.6

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

278.7
310.9
343.8
320.7
303.9
325.2
231.5
268.2

275.4
304.6
337.9
317.2
301.3
320.7
229.5
264.0

276.2
306.4
339.2
317.8
302.0
321.3
230.3
264.9

277.6
306.8
341.5
319.6
303.4
322.9
231.7
266.1

278.2
308.2
343.5
320.7
303.8
323.9
231.3
267.9

278.6
309.7
343.9
321.2
3035
325.0
231.5
268.5

279.6
311.0
346.1
322.5
304.8
327.1
231.6
269.5

279.9
312.2
346.5
322.8
304.9
326.7
231.8
270.9

280.2
314.1
347.5
323.1
305.0
326.8
231.7
271.5

'281.1
'317.5
'347.6
'323.1
'305.9
'327.8
'232.6
'271.6

281.3
318.1
347.8
323.0
306.0
329.1
233.0
271.7

281.8
319.9
347.9
323.1
306.6
330.1
233.3
272.0

282.7
321.4
348.6
323.7
306.9
331.7
234.3
272.5

283.6
322.5
348.1
324.5
307.5
332.9
235.8
272.5

206.8
229.9
275.7
180.7
198.8
88.T
288.2

204.6
227.4
271.2
180.6
195.3
89.6
283.7

205.5
227.6
273.6
180.6
197.3
89.1
285.0

206.0
229.7
274.2
181.1
197.8
87.9
285.9

206.5
230.0
275.2
181.3
198.9

208.1
230.4
278.1
181.0

208.3
230.7
278.2
181.5

285.1

291.8

293.4

'208.9
'231.2
'278.3
'181.6
'201.3
'87.8
'296.5

208.3
231.6
279.1
180.2
200.3
87.3
294.5

208.6
231.8
279.0
180.1
2007
87.2
295.4

210.1

285.4

207.0
230.2
276.0
181.9
199.6
88.4
286.1

206.8
230.0
277.4
181.2

12-6

Furniture and household durables ............................................
Household furniture............................................................
Commercial furniture..........................................................
Floor coverings..................................................................
Household appliances ........................................................
Home electronic equipment .................................................
Other household durable goods ............................................

87.6
302.0

211.7
231.6
282.6
181.2
203.2
87.2
313.9

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 ........................
Refractores .....................................................................
Asphalt roofing ..............................................................
Gypsum products ..............................................................
Glass containers ................................................................
Other nonmetallic minerals...................................................

320.2
221.5
310.5
297.8
259.9
337.3
396.9
256.0
355.6
471.6

319.0
216.2
308.4
295.9
257.7
335.1
400.4
255.0
352.2
478.7

319.9
216.2
309.8
296.3
257.7
337.4
394.4
260.7
356.0
479.6

320.2
216.2
309.5
297.7
258.1
338.7
386.7
263.2
358.1
479.1

321.2
226.4
312.5
298.2
258.6
339.5
385.5
259.4
358.1
471.3

320.9
226.4
312.7
298.5
258.9
340.4
396.4
256.4
358.1
465.2

321.1
226.1
311.8
298.8
259.3
340.4
399.8
255.8
358.1
466.6

320.5

321.2

'321.1

311.2
299.0
263.9
340.7
400.1
253.9
358.0
466.0

310.8
298.7
264.0
340.8
413.4
253.9
358.6
467.7

'309.9
'298.6
'264.0
'340.8
'406.7
255.1
'358.5
470.4

321.5
225.3
311.7
298.1
264.3
337.7
397.5
254.9
358.5
471.3

320.9
225.3
309.3
298.5
264.3
337.7
395.4
253.9
358.5
470.6

321.5
229.7
308.1
298.6
264.4
338.2
392.2
259.7
358.2
471.8

321.9
229.7
309.6
299.5
264.4
338.2
378.9
263.4
355.8
476.1

14
14-1
14-4

Transportation equipment (12/68 - 100)...................................
Motor vehicles and equipment ..............................................
Railroad equipment ............................................................

249.7
251.3
348.7

245.2
246.8
345.8

245.2
246.8
346.3

245.8
247.2
343.5

247.5
249.2
342.8

249.1
251.1
342.8

249.8
252.0
342.6

250.6
252.8
347.7

244.5
244.6
348.0

'256.0
'257.8
'350.8

256.1
257.5
357.5

257.5
257.9
357.5

257.1
257.8
357.6

257.3
258.1
357.3

15
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5
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 ..............................................

276.6

273.5

273.2

272.2

306.7
271.5
214.2
162.2
334.1

307.0
280.1

272.0
223.5
311.5
280.1
208.9
162.8
327.0

279.5

306.6
270.4
210.5
159.6
341.1

271.5
221.9
307.0
280.1
210.4
162.4
328.6

273.4

323.2
277.1
210.7
161.7
338.1

272.7
220.7
306.6
271.5

'285.4
'221.2
'365.4
'280.1
'209.7
'162.6
'345.2

285.7
223.7
365.1
280.1

290.3
223.2
383.5
280.1
210.3
161.5
351.0

284.7
223.7
350.9
280.5
210.3
161.3
350.3

285.7
225.6
338.1
280.6

10-3
10-4
10-5

10-6
10-8
11
11-1
11-2
10-7

11-3
11-4

11-6
11-7
11-9

12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5

121.1

222.1

220.1

1Data for October 1982 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.
2Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month.
3Includes only domestic production.

76


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

212.1

161.9
334.5

88.0

221.0 221.8
210.6

162.5
331.3

200.2 201.0 201.2
87.2
88.0 87.4

222.0
311.5
280.1
208.9
162.6
333.7

221.1 221.1 221.1

221.8

329.1
280.1
209.9
162.9
345.2

4Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month,
5Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month.
r=revised.

210.2

161.4
344.6

231.5
281.6
181.0

202.1

212.1

161.3
359.2

24.

Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings

[1967=100 unless otherwise specified]
Commodity grouping

All commodities—less farm products ...........................

Industrial commodities less fuels ......................................
Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 100) ................
Underwear and nightwear...............................................
Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber
and fibers and yarns ...................................................
Pharmaceutical preparations ............................................
Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork....................
Steel mill products, including fabricated wire products...........
Finished steel mill products, excluding fabricated wire
products...................................................................
Finished steel mill products, including fabricated wire
products...................................................................

19B3

Annual
average
1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.1

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

303.0
254.5
256.1
272.8
138.2
138.3
217.4

301.9
253.2
251.9
271.5
139.7
136.9
215.6

301.4
251.6
252.1
271.7
139.0
137.5
215.9

300.9
254.7
255.1
272.3
139.0
138.0
215.9

301.2
257.9
259.0
272.8
138.7
138,5
215.9

302.2
259.0
260.8
272.4
138.2
138.5
217.4

303.9
256.6
259.5
272.5
137.6
138.5
218.6

304.1
255.8
258.7
272.6
137.8
138.5
218.6

303.7
255.3
259.2
272.5
137.8
138.7
219.6

304.7
r252.8
r 256.2
274.4
r 137.4
138.7
'220.1

305.2
252.1
255.0
274.4
137.1
139.7
219.4

305.2
252.7
254.8
274.8
136.6
139.7
219.5

304.6
252.4
255.8
275.4
136.6
141.7
223.1

305.2
254.7
258.2
277.0
136.7
144.5
222.3

283.9

285.1

285.6

285.6

286.1

284.5

282.9

283.3

282.5

'281.8

282.4

281.2

280.8

281.6

206.0
288.8
349.4

199.3
287.9
350.3

201.1
288.5
350.5

204.5
290.5
352.2

205.8
288.1
352.1

205.4
294.5
349.9

205.9
294.6
348.4

207.4
288.3
348.1

209.0
287.2
347.8

'211.7
'282.5
'349.1

212.3
283.5
348.5

213.0
288.6
344.8

215.5
298.7
343.1

218.4
313.5
350.5

348.4

348.9

349.2

351.0

350.9

348.6

347.7

347.3

346.9

348.6

348.0

344.0

342.1

350.5

348.1

348.9

349.2

351.0

350.9

348.6

347.0

346.7

346.3

'347.8

347.2

343.3

341.5

349.1

289.7
293.9
190.5
277.9
311.1

292.3
294.2

1982

Special metals and metal products ..................................
Fabricated metal products...............................................
Copper and copper products............................................
Machinery and motive products........................................
Machinery and equipment, except electrical ........................

286.7
292.0
185.6
272.1
306.3

286.0
289.0
194.1
268.1
302.3

285.3
289.9
190.8
268.5
303.1

285.6
290.8
191.6
269.6
304.6

286.3
292.6
193.0
270.7
305.7

285.2
292.8
179.7
271.7
306.2

285.7
292.0
179.2
272.8
307.6

285.8
291.9
179.8
273.3
308.1

284.0
292.9
181.0
270.7
308.6

'289.5
'293.0
'178.8
'276.4
'309.4

289.0
293.1
181.8
276.7
309.6

289.2
294.0
182.1
277.6
310.3

Agricultural machinery, including tractors ...........................
Metalworking machinery .................................................
Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100) . . . .
Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts..................

322.8
350.4
239.8
354.7
313.5

316.0
344.9
239.8
346.9
307.4

318.4
346.4
239.9
349.1
309.7

319.0
348.8
239.9
352.4
310.3

319.9
349.3
239.9
353.6
311.0

321.3
350.1
240.0
354.1
312.2

321.8
352.6
239.2
354.8
312.8

322.8
353.1
239.2
355.5
313.6

325.5
353.5
239.4
359.6
315.8

'330.6
'354.1
'239.4
'361.4
'320.1

331.3
354.3
239.8
360.7
320.8

333.7
354.2
239.8
363.2
323.1

336.0
354.8
238.0
365.3
325.1

337.1
355.9
238.7
365.6
326.1

Farm and garden tractors less parts .................................
Agricultural machinery, excluding tractors less parts .............
Construction materials.....................................................

327.4
319.3
288.0

319.7
313.2
286.9

323.5
314.6
287.5

323.5
315.6
288.2

325.0
316.1
288.2

325.8
317.9
289.5

325.4
319.1
289.2

326.0
320.4
288.3

333.0
319.6
288.4

'336.1
' 326.4
'288.0

334.9
328.6
287.6

339.1
329.6
288.3

342.2
331.2
290.0

342.2
333.3
294.4

Sept.

Oct.1

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

1Data for October 1982 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.

25.

201.6
278.5
311.6

r=revised,

Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product

[1967 = 100]

_____________________________
1983

1982

Annual
average
1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Total nondurable goods.................................................

279.0
315.3

277.4
315.4

277.4
314.2

278.1
313.6

278.5
314.5

278.3
316.0

278.9
317.6

278.8
317.1

278.6
315.7

'281.2
314.3

281.2
315.5

282.0
315.1

282.8
313.4

285.2
313.5

Nondurable ..........................................................

292.7
279.9
306.4

292.0
277.8
307.2

291.4
277.8
305.9

291.1
278.7
304.1

291.3
279.2
304.0

292.4
279.3
306.3

293.7
279.9
308.5

293.8
279.8
308.6

292.9
279.6
307.1

'293.8
'282.3
'306.0

294.0
282.4
306.3

294.1
283.2
305.6

293.7
283.9
303.9

294.1
286.1
302.3

331.3
234.1
337.4

330.6
253.7
335.2

329.7
250.1
334.5

331.9
245.3
337.2

335.1
239.7
341.1

333.4
225.4
340.3

333.2
225.3
340.1

331.1
225.0
337.9

329.9
226.2
336.5

'327.9
'224.2
'334.5

331.1

331.5
218.2
338.8

330.3
225.2
337.0

336.2
236.3
342.5

Commodity grouping

Total raw or slightly processed goods...............................
Nondurable ..........................................................

1 D a ta fo r O c to b e r 1 9 8 2 h a v e b e e n revised to re fle c t th e availability o f la te rep o rts

220.0

338.2

r= r e v is e d ,

a n d co rre c tio n s b y respondents. All d a ta a re s u b ject to revision 4 m onths a fte r original publication.


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

77

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices
26.

Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries

[1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]
1972
SIC
code

Industry description

Annual
average
1982

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

dune

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.1

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

175.2
312.2
925.7
151.2

171.3
313.7
913.9
149.6

171.3
325.0
905.4
149.6

171.3
327.0
893.3
151.7

177.1
308.3
901.2
151.7

177.1
307.5
914.3
151.7

177.1
306.2
924.3
151.7

177.1
287.5
926.7
151.7

177.1
289.5
937.6
151.7

177.1
312.5
'945.9
151.7

177.1
308.3
969.0
151.7

177.1
312.5
956.0
151.7

177.1<
306.2
942.8
153.6

177.1
289.5
938.4
156.3

276.4

187.5
192.2
303.3

276.8
210.9
187.3
183.5
303.3

275.3
214.2
192.5
177.9
303.4

274.9
214.2
188.4
183.0
303.4

274.9
214.2
189.1
180.3
303.4

275.0
213.6
185.5
177.6
303.3

276.3
213.6
180.2
183.0
304.7

276.8
216.5
182.2
183.0
304.7

276.8
216.5
179.6
183.0
304.8

276.5
216.5
184.8
175.2
306.0

277.8
216.5
185.5
196.1
306.1

275.5
216.5
182.6
191.3
326.0

275.6
217.7
181.7
183.0
326.0

1982

1983

MINING

1011
1092
1311
1455

Iron ores (12/75 = 100)..........................................
Mercury ores (12/75 = 100)....................................
Crude petroleum and natural gas...............................
Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 = 100) .............................
MANUFACTURING

2021
2024
2041
2044
2067

Creamery butter.....................................................
Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100) .............
Flour mills (12/71 =100) ........................................
Rice milling............................................................
Chewing gum........................................................

276.0
214.4
186.2
185.1
304.1

2074
2083
2085
2091
2098

Cottonseed oil mills.................................................
Malt.....................................................................
Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100) ..............
Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100)................
Macaroni and spaghetti............................................

168.3
256.9
140.1
187.0
258.5

170.5
267.1
137.9
187.0
259.5

158.1
267.1
140.2
187.7
259.5

164.7
259.1
140.2
188.2
259.5

167.9
259.8
139.8
188.0
259.5

170.2
259.8
139.8
188.4
259.5

174.6
259.8
139.8
187.8
259.5

173.1
259.8
140.4
184.3
259.5

164.4
251.2
140.4
186.2
259.5

157.6
251.2
140.4
186.3
255.5

164.2
240.6
141.3
186.4
255.5

169.4
240.6
141.3
186.6
255.5

157.5
232.6
141.3
182.8
255.5

160.4
232.6
141.3
179.2
255.5

2251
2261
2262
2284
2298

Women’s hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100) ...........
Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100).........................
Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 = 100)..............
Thread mills (6/76 = 100) ......................................
Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100).............................

116.8
139.5
128.2
157.2
141.5

115.6
140.3
129.9
156.8
141.0

116.1
140.8
128.5
156.8
141.0

116.2
141.6
128.5
156.7
141.0

116.9
141.5
128.4
156.6
141.0

116.9
141.4
127.6
156.6
141.0

116.8
140.3
126.8
156.5
141.0

116.9
139.8
129.0
158.0
141.0

116.9
138.5
128.2
158.0
142.6

r 116.9
136.8
r 127.5
157.9
142.6

118.5
136.2
127.7
157.8
142.6

118.4
136.1
127.2
157.8
142.6

118.6
135.3
125.6
157.9
142.6

122.7
136.0
125.5
161.9
142.7

2321
2323
2331
2361
2381

Men’s and boys’ shirts and nightwear.........................
Men’s and boys’ neckwear (12/75 = 100)..................
Women’s and misses’ blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) ,
Children's dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100).............
Fabric dress and work gloves ...................................

214.6
119.5
125.8

216.9
117.3
126.5
123.2
295.5

217.3
117.3
126.5

217.5
117.3
126.5

217.8
121.3
126.6

292.1

215.9
117.3
126.5
123.2
297.4

295.5

295.5

294.5

218.1
121.3
126.4
119.4
294.5

218.2
121.3
126.7
120.3
288.2

221.5
121.3
126.6
118.6
288.2

r 221.6
121.3
r 126.7
118.6
287.4

220.9
121.3
125.5
117.0
287.4

220.4
121.3
124.8
117.0
287.4

223.4
121.3
124.8
117.0
288.8

223.5
121.3
124.7
117.0
288.8

2394
2396
2448
2515
2521

Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100) ..............
Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100).........
Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 100) ......................
Mattresses and bedsprings ......................................
Wood office furniture...............................................

145.6
131.0
145.5
207.2
270.6

144.9
131.0
149.0
205.6
270.7

147.2
131.0
148.2
205.6
270.8

145.7
131.0
145.9
205.7
270.8

145.9
131.0
144.7
205.9
270.8

143.1
131.0
144.2
205.9
270.8

143.1
131.0
144.1
205.7
270.9

143.1
131.0
143.9
205.9
271.3

144.8
131.0
143.8
206.0
271.3

r 147.3
131.0
144.3
r 206.0
r271.4

148.0
131.0
144.1
210.3
272.4

148.0
131.0
144.5
210.3
272.4

149.4
131.0
144.5
208.7
272.5

149.4
131.0
145.1
208.7
272.5

2647
2654
2655
2911
2952

Sanitary paper products ..........................................
Sanitary food containers ..........................................
Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) . .
Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) ...............................
Asphalt felts and coating (12/75 = 100) ....................

348.4
260.2
177.8
278.4
172.9

344.6
256.9
176.5
289.1
173.8

344.5
260.0
176.5
281.7
171.2

344.5
259.9
176.5
267.4
168.1

343.6
259.9
176.7
259.2
168.4

346.2
259.9
176.7
267.9
173.1

346.9
259.9
176.7
281.5
174.7

351.5
259.9
177.5
283.7
174.4

352.3
260.8
177.5
279.6
180.4

r 351.8
r 261.7
r 177.9
r 278.3
r 177.2

358.5
263.1
180.7
280.5
173.1

356.6
263.2
183.8
278.4
172.3

356.9
263.2
183.8
268.3
170.8

359.6
263.1
183.8
258.5
165.1

3031
3251
3253
3255
3259

Reclaimed rubber(12/73 = 100) ...............................
Brick and structural clay tile......................................
Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 = 100) ..................
Clay refractories.....................................................
Structural clay products, n.e.c.....................................

207.1
306.6
139.7
353.1
219.8

200.4
299.4
140.4
354.4
226.0

207.2
299.4
140.4
355.6
225.9

209.2
303.4
140.6
355.2
215.9

209.5
304.5
140.6
355.5
215.8

210.7
305.0
140.6
356.2
215.9

209.9
305.9
140.6
356.3
215.9

209.7
313.8
140.7
356.8
219.0

209.8
314.0
140.7
356.9
219.0

r 209.8
r 314.0
r 140.7
r 357.0
r 219.0

207.0
316.9
138.0
351.2
219.4

206.5
316.9
138.0
351.2
219.5

207.1
317.1
138.0
352.0
219.5

207.4
317.1
138.0
352.0
219.5

3261
3262
3263
3269
3274

Vitreous plumbing fixtures ........................................
Vitreous china food utensils......................................
Fine earthenware food utensils...................................
Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)........................
Lime (12/75 = 100).............................................

265.0
354.3
317.5
166.4
186.4

260.6
347.7
315.1
164.3
183.7

260.8
347.3
315.0
164.2
185.7

261.8
346.5
314.9
164.0
186.3

265.4
355.5
316.2
166.3
188.0

265.5
360.2
316.9
167.4
188.3

264.2
360.2
316.9
167.4
188.0

263.9
360.2
316.9
167.4
188.0

267.2
360.2
316.9
167.4
187.8

269.1
r 360.8
r323.5
r 169.6
r 187.7

270.3
359.4
322.7
169.1
187.8

269.7
366.8
323.7
170.9
186.0

272.1
369.2
363.5
183.8
187.5

273.3
369.2
363.5
183.8
185.8

3297
3313
3425
3482
3623

Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 100)...........................
Electrometallurgical products (12/75 = 100) ..............
Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 = 100) ................
Small arms ammunition (12/75 = 100) ......................
Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 = 100)..................

201.8

198.3
123.4
214.8
167.5
236.9

200.4
120.3
214.9
167.5
232.3

202.3
120.3
215.3
166.3
237.6

203.2
120.3
221.3
166.3
237.6

203.8
120.4
221.4
170.3
237.8

203.8
120.4
221.5
170.3
241.6

203.8
121.4

203.8
121.4

203.6

170.3
242.4

149.0
242.8

203.7
121.3
221.4
175.9
238.0

203.7

221.6 221.6

203.8
121.3
r 221.6
r 150.1
'243.0

203.6

121.4
218.9
170.7
2379

174.8
238.3

221.4
180.9
238.5

226.0
180.9
238.9

3636
3641
3648
3671
3942

Sewing machines (12/75 = 100)...............................
Electric lamps.....................................................
Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ....................
Electron tubes, receiving type ...............................
Dolls (12/75 = 100)............................................

154.3
294.0
170.0
382.3
136.6

155.8
286.1
167.8
374.2
136.6

155.8
283.6
168.8
374.4
136.6

154.3
296.6
170.9
374.5
136.8

154.3
294.5
171.2
374.4
136.8

154.3
293.9
171.1
374.5
136.8

154.3
291.8
171.1
375.4
136.8

153.6
293.7
171.2
375.4
136.8

153.6
296.3
171.2
380.2
136.8

r 154.2
302.9
'171.3
'380.3
'136.8

153.6
303.0
171.2
414.5
136.5

153.6
303.4
171.5
414.5
136.5

153.6
305.6
171.5
431.6
136.8

153.8
311.1
171.7
432.0
136.5

3944
3955
3995
3996

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)................

233.1
140.0
148.4
155.9
_L

232.5
140.3
143.8
155.2

234.1
140.3
143.8
156.1

234.1
140.3
145.3
156.1

234.3
140.5
149.3
156.3

234.3
140.6
149.3
154.3

234.4
140.4
150.8
155.0

234.4
140.5
150.8
155.7

234.8
139.3
150.8
156.9

'235.3
139.3
150.8
156.9

232.8
139.2
150.8
156.9

232.8
139.4
150.8
156.8

232.7
139.2
147.0
159.2

238.6
139.2
152.1
159.2

120.6

212.8

1Data for October 1982 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.

78


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

122.2 122.2 122.2

121.2
221.2

121.1

121.2

N ote: Indexes which were deleted in the March issue may now be found in Table 4 of the BLS
monthly report, Producer Prices and Price Indexes.
r=revised.

P R O D U C T IV IT Y D A TA

P r o d u c t i v i t y d a t a 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.

ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed.

Definitions
Output is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a
given period. Indexes of output per hour of labor input, or labor pro­
ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour
of labor. Compensation per hour 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. Real com­
pensation per hour is compensation per hour adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Unit labor cost measures the labor compensation cost required to
produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation
by output. Unit nonlabor payments 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, unit
nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments
except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and invento­
ry valuation adjustments per unit of output.
The implicit price deflator 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.

27.

The use of the term “man hours” to identify the labor component
of productivity and costs, in tables 27 through 30, has been discontin­
ued. Hours of all persons is now used to describe the labor input of
payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers.
Output per all-employee hour is now used to describe labor productiv­

Notes on the data
In the 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 propri­
etor 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 1982 issue of the R ev ie w , all of the
productivity and cost measures contained in these tables are based on
revised output and compensation measures released by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis in July as part of the regular revision cycle of the
National Income and Product Accounts. Measures of labor input
have been revised to reflect results of the 1980 census, and seasonal
factors have been recomputed for use in the preparation of quarterly
measures. The word “private” is no longer being used as part of the
series title of one of the two business sector measures prepared by
BLS; no change has been made in the definition or content of the
measures as a result of this change.

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-82
Item

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 ...................................
’ Not available.
r= revised.


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

1981

1982

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

50.4
20.0
50.5
39.7
43.4
41.0

58.3
26.4
59.6
45.2
47.6
46.0

65.2
33.9
69.5
52.0
50.6
51.6

78.3
41.7
80.1
53.3
57.6
54.7

86.2
58.2
90.8
67.5
63.2
66.0

94.5
85.5
96.3
90.5
90.4
90.5

97.6
92.9
98.9
95.1
94.0
94.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.6
108.6
100.9
108.0
106.7
107.5

99.6
119.1
99.4
119.5
112.8'
117.2

98.9
131.4
96.7
132.9
119.3
128.3

100.7
144.1
96.0
143.1
135.2
140.4

101.0
r 154.5
97.0
r 152.9
138.7
r 148.1

56.3
21.8
55.0
38.8
42.7
40.1

62.8
28.3
64.0
45.0
47.8
46.0

68.3
35.7
73.0
52.2
50.4
51.6

80.5
42.8
82.2
53.2
58.0
54.8

86.8
58.7
91.5
67.6
63.7
66.3

94.7
86.0
96.8
90.8
88.5
90.0

97.8
93.0
99.0
95.1
93.5
94.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100,0
100.0
100.0

100.6
108.6
100.9
108.0
105.3
107.1

99.3
118.8
99.2
119.6
110.3
116.5

98.5
130.9
96.3
133.0
119.1
128.3

99.9
143.6
95.7
143.8
134.8
140.8

100.0
154.0
»96.7
r 154.0
r 139.0
149.0

( 1>
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )
(’ )

( 1)
( ')
(’ )
(’ )
( 1)
(’ )

68.0
37.0
75.8
54.4
54.6
54.5

81.9
43.9
84.3
53.5
60.8
56.1

87.4
59.4
92.7
68.0
63.1
66.3

95.5
86.1
96.9
90.2
90.8
90.4

98.2
92.9
98.9
94.6
95.0
94.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.9
108.5
100.8
107.5
104.2
106.4

100.7
118.7
99.1
117.8
106.9
114.1

100.3
130.9
96.2
130.5
117.7
126.1

102.0
143.5
95.6
140.6
134.8
138.6

p 103.0
p 154.1

101.5
118.9
99.2
117.1
99.9
112.0

101.7
132.8
97.7
130.6
97.1
120.8

104.5
146.4
97.5
140.0
108.8
130.8

r 103.5
158.8
99.7
' 153.4

49.4
21.5
54.0
43.4
54.3
46.6

56.4
28.8
65.1
51.0
58.5
53.2

60.0
36.7
75.1
61.1
61.1
61.1

74.5
42.8
82.3
57.5
69.3
61.0

79.1
57.6
89.8
72.7
65.0
70.5

93.4
85.4
96.2
91.5
87.3
90.3

97.5
92.3
98.3
94.6
93.7
94.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.9
108.3
100.6
107.4
102.5
106.0

P96.8
p 149.6
p 140.5

P146.5

P(t)
P(1)

p= preliminary.

79

M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity
28.

Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1972-82

1972
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 ....................................

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1950-82

3.5
6.5
3.1
2.9
4.5
3.4

2.6
8.0
1.6
5.3
5.9
5.5

-2.4
9.4
-1.4
12.1
4.4
9.5

2.2
9.6
0.5
7.3
15.1
9.8

3.3
8.6
2.6
5.1
4.0
4.7

2.4
7.7
1.2
5.1
6.4
5.6

0.6
8.6
0.9
8.0
6.7
7.5

-0.9
9.7
-1.4
10.7
5.7
9.0

-0.7
10.4
-2.8
11.2
5.8
9.4

1.8
9.6
-0.7
7.7
13.3
9.5

0.4
7.3
1.1
6.9
2.7
5.5

p2.4
p6.3
p2.3
»3.8
»3.7
»3.7

»1.1
»9.0
»0.1
»7.8
»7.3
»7.5

3.7
6.7
3.3
2.9
3.2
3.0

2.4
7.6
1.3
5.0
1.3
3.8

-2.5
9.4
-1.4
12.2
5.9
10.2

2.0
9.6
0.4
7.5
16.7
10.3

3.2
8.1
2.2
4.7
5.7
5.0

2.2
7.5
1.0
5.2
6.9
5.7

0.6
8.6
0.9
8.0
5.3
7.1

-1.3
9.3
-1.7
10.7
4.7
8.8

-0.9
10.2
-2.9
11.2
8.0
10.2

1.4
9.7
-0.7
8.1
13.1
9.7

'0.1
r7.2
r 1.0
r7.1
'3.2
r5.8

p2.1
p6.0
»2.0
»3.8
»3.7
»3.8

»0.9
»8.8
»0.0
»7.8
»7.5
»7.7

2.9
5.7
2.4
2.8
2.7
2.8

2.4
7.5
1.2
4.9
1.5
3.8

-3.7
9.4
-1.5
13.6
7.1
11.4

2.9
9.6
0.4
6.5
20.1
10.9

2.9
7.9
2.0
4.9
4.6
4.8

1.8
7.6
1.1
5.7
5.3
5.6

0.9
8.5
0.8
7.5
4.2
6.4

-0.2
9.4
-1.7
9.6
2.6
7.2

-0.4
10.3
-2.9
10.7
10.1
10.5

1.7
9.6
-0.7
7.8
14.6
10.0

p1.0
»7.4
p 1.2
p6.4
p4.2
p5.7

( 1)
(’ )
( )
( )
( ')
( 1)

1
1

»1.0
»8.8
»00
»7.7
»7.4
»7.6

5.0
5.4
2.0
0.3
0.8
0.5

5.4
7.2
0.9
1.7
-3.3
0.3

-2.4
10.6
-0.3
13.3
-1.8
9.0

2.9
11.9
2.5
8.8
25.9
13.1

4.4
8.0
2.1
3.4
7.4
4.6

2.5
8.3
1.8
5.7
6.7
6.0

0.9
8.3
0.6
7.4
2.5
6.0

0.7
9.7
-1.4
9.0
-2.6
5.7

0.2
11.8
-1.6
11.6
-2.7
7.8

2.8
10.2
-0.2
7.2
12.0
8.4

-1.0
8.5
2.2
9.6
(’ )
<1)

»2.6
»5.9
»1.9
»3.2
»2.1
»2.9

»1.7
»9.5
»0.6
»7.7
»3.7
»6.7

II

III

IV

1Not available.
r= revised.

29.

Annual rate
of change

Year

Item

1972-82

p= preliminary.

Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted

[1977 = 100]

Item

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.
r= revised.

80


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

Quarterly indexes

Annual
average

1980

1981

1982

1981

1982

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

100.7
144.1
96.0
143.1
135.2
140.4

101.0
154.6
97.0
r 152.9
r 138.7
r 148.1

98.2
130.0
96.4
132.3
116.2
126.9

98.9
133.1
96.9
134.7
120.6
129.9

99.3
136.1
96.2
137.0
124.6
132.8

100.7
140.0
96.2
139.0
131.8
136.5

100.7
142.5
96.4
141.5
133.4
138.8

101.0
145.6
95.7
144.2
137.4
141.9

100.2
148.2
95.6
147.9
138.3
144.6

100.0
150.9
96.5
150.9
136.4
146.0

100.3
153.4
97.1
152.9
137.0
147.5

101.2
155.7
96.8
153.8
140.0
149.1

102.2
'152.8
97.5
'154.4
'141.8
'150.1

99.9
143.6
95.7
143.8
134.8
140.8

100.0
154.0
96.7
r 154.0
r 139.0
149.0

97.6
129.3
96.0
132.5
116.7
127.2

98.4
132.6
96.5
134.7
120.3
129.9

99.2
135.7
95.9
136.8
124.4
132.7

100.4
139.5
96.0
139.0
131.5
136.5

100.0
142.0
96.0
141.9
132.8
138.9

100.0
145.1
95.4
145.1
136.7
142.3

99.1
147.7
95.3
149.0
138.4
145.5

99.2
150.4
96.3
151.6
136.7
146.6

99.4
152.7
96.6
153.5
137.2
148.1

100.3
155.1
96.4
154.7
140.1
149.8

'100.8
'157.2
'97.1
'156.1
'142.2
'151.4

102.0
143.5
95.6
143.4
140.6
151.4
101.6
138.6

»103.0
»154.1
»96.8
»154.2
»149.6
»167.0
»87.2
»146.5

99.3
129.3
95.9
130.4
130.2
131.0
81.9
124.8

100.6
132.6
96.6
132.9
131.9
135.7
87.8
127.7

101.1
135.6
95.8
135.8
134.1
140.7
90.5
130.6

102.3
139.6
96.0
138.3
136.5
143.4
104.7
134.5

102.2
141.9
96.0
141.7
138.9
149.6
98.8
136.8

102.2
144.8
95.2
144.7
141.7
153.1
105.2
140.2

101.6
147.7
95.3
149.1
145.4
159.6
97.6
143.2

101.6
150.7
96.5
151.8
148.3
161.8
86.1
144.3

102.3
153.0
96.8
153.8
149.5
166.0
82.3
145.6

103.5
155.2
96.4
154.8
150.0
'168.3
'89.6
'147.3

(’ )
C)
C)
n
<’ )
(’ >
( 1)
n

104.5
146.4
97.5
140.0

'103.5
158.8
99.7
'153.4

100.4
130.9
97.1
130.3

100.3
135.2
98.5
134.9

103.6
138.4
97.8
133.6

105.2
142.6
98.0
135.5

105.0
144.9
97.9
138.0

105.0
147.3
96.8
140.3

102.8
150.7
97.2
146.6

102.1
154.7
99.0
151.5

102.3
157.6
99.7
154.0

'104.1
160.0
99.4
153.6

104.3
161.8
99.9
'155.1

p= preliminary.

I

30. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,
seasonally adjusted at annual rate
[1977=100]
Percent change from same quarter a year ago

Quarterly percent change at annual rate

Business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..................
Compensation per hour ...........................
Real compensation per hour......................
Unit labor costs ......................................
Unit nonlabor payments ...........................
Implicit price deflator ...............................
Nonfarm business sector:
Output per hour of all persons ..................
Compensation per hour ...........................
Real compensation per hour......................
Unit labor costs ......................................
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 costs ......................................
’ Not available.


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

II 1982
to
III 1982

III 1982
to
IV 1982

III 1980
to
III 1981

IV 1980
to
IV 1981

11981
to
I 1982

111981
to
II 1982

III 1981
to
III 1982

IV 1981
to
IV 1982

1.4
6.9
2.2
5.5
1.7
4.3

'3.6
6.1
-1.4
'2.4
'8.9
'4.4

4.1
'5.6
'2.9
'1.4
'5.4
'2.7

2.2
9.4
-1.3
7.1
13.9
9.2

0.9
8.9
-0.6
7.9
11.0
8.9

-0.7
7.8
0.3
8.6
3.5
6.9

-0.4
7.6
0.8
8.1
2.7
6.3

'0.2
6.9
1.1
'6.7
'1.9
r5.1

2.0
6.6
r1.9
r4.4
'2.5
'3.8

0.6
7.7
4.3
7.1
-4.6
3.3

0.8
6.1
1.4
5.2
1.3
4.0

• '3.5
6.6
-0.9
'3.1
'8.9
'4.9

'2.0
'5.6
'2.9
'3.5
'6.1
0 '4.3

1.6
9.4
-1.2
7.7
13.6
9.6

-0.1
8.8
-0.6
8.9
11.2
9.6

-1.1
7.8
0.3
9.0
4.0
7.4

-0.6
7.5
0.6
8.2
3.3
6.6

'0.3
6.9
1.1
'6.6
'2.6
5.3

r1.7
r6.5
r 1.9
r4.7
'2.8
r4.1

-2.4
8.2
0.3
12.8
10.9
17.8
-25.9
8.9

0.3
8.4
5.0
7.4
8.1
5.7
-39.4
3.0

2.7
6.2
1.6
5.4
3.4
10.7
-16.7
3.8

4.6
5.9
-1.6
'2.5
1.2
'5.9
'40.8
'4.7

0

n
(')

1,6
9.2
-1.4
8.9
7.5
12.9
19.7
9.7

0.5
8.9
—0.5
9.8
8.4
13.4
7.9
9.6

-0.6
8.0
0.5
9.7
8.6
12.8
-17.8
7.3

0.2
7.8
0.9
8.5
7.6
10.9
-16.7
6.4

1.3
7.2
1.3
7.0
5.8
'9.9
-14.8
'5.1

-8.2
9.6
1.6
19.4

-2.4
11.1
7.6
13.9

0.8
7.8
3.1
6.9

7.3
6.2
-1.3
-1.0

'0.5
4.5
1.9
'3.9

4.7
8.9
-1.7
4.0

-0.8
8.9
-0.6
9.8

-2.9
8.5
1.0
11.7

-2.5
8.8
1.8
11.6

-0.8
8.7
2.7
9.5

I11981
to
III 1981

III 1981
to
IV 1981

IV 1981
to
I 1982

1.1
9.0
-2.6
7.8
12.5
9.3

-2.9
7.4
-0.4
10.6
2.9
8.0

-1.0
7.3
3.9
8.4
-5.4
3.8

-0.3
9.0
-2.6
9.3
12.1
10.2

-3.5
7.3
-0.5
11.2
5.1
9.2

0.2
8.4
-3.1
8.6
8.2
9.8
28.4
10.2
-0.1
6.8
-4.6
6.8

11982
to
II 1982

0

(1)
(’)
(’ )
0

0
n
D
0
n
n
0
n
1.5
7.4
2.8
5.8

r= revised.

81

W AGE A N D C O M P E N S A T IO N D A TA

are reported to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics by a sample of 2,000 private non­
farm establishments and 750 State and local government units
selected to represent total employment in those sectors. On
average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensation
information on five well-specified occupations.
DATA FOR THE e m p l o y m e n t COST i n d e x

Data on negotiated wage and benefit changes are obtained
from contracts on file at the Bureau, direct contact with the
parties, and secondary sources.
Definitions
The Employment Cost Index (ECI) is a quarterly measure of the
average change in the cost of employing labor. The rate of total com­
pensation, which comprises wages, salaries, and employer costs for
employee benefits, is collected for workers performing specified tasks.
Employment in each occupation is held constant over time for all se­
ries produced in the ECI, except those by region, bargaining status,
and area. As a consequence, only changes in compensation are meas­
ured. Industry and occupational employment data from the 1970 Cen­
sus of Population are used in deriving constant weights for the ECI.
While holding total industry and occupational employment fixed, in
the estimation of indexes by region, bargaining status, and area, the
employment in those measures is allowed to vary over time in accord
with changes in the sample. The rate of change (in percent) is avail­
able for wages and salaries, as well as for total compensation. Data
are collected for the pay period including the 12th day of the survey
months of March, June, September, and December. The statistics are
neither annualized nor adjusted for seasonal influence.
Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions,
excluding premium pay for overtime, work on weekends and holidays,
and shift differentials. Production bonuses, incentive earnings, com­
missions, and cost-of-living adjustments are included; nonproduction
bonuses are included with other supplemental pay items in the bene­
fits category; and payments-in-kind, free room and board, and tips are
excluded. B e n e fits include supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and
savings plans, and hours-related and legally required benefits.
Data on negotiated wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry
collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more.
Data on compensation changes apply only to those agreements cover­
ing 5,000 workers or more. F ir s t-y e a r wage or compensation changes
refer to average negotiated changes for workers covered by settle­
ments reached in the period and implemented within the first 12
months after the effective date of the agreement. C h a n g e s o v e r th e life

82

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

o f th e a g r e e m e n t refer to all adjustments specified in the contract,
expressed as an average annual rate. These measures exclude wage
changes that may occur under cost-of-living adjustment clauses, that
are triggered by movements in the Consumer Price Index. W a g e-ra te
c h a n g e s are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings;
c o m p e n sa tio n c h a n g e s are expressed as a percent of total wages and
benefits.

Effective wage adjustments reflect all negotiated changes imple­
mented in the reference period, regardless of the settlement date. They
include changes from settlements reached during the period, changes
deferred from contracts negotiated in an earlier period, and cost-ofliving adjustments. The data also reflect contracts providing for no
wage adjustment in the period. Effective adjustments and each of
their components are prorated over all workers in bargaining units
with at least 1,000 workers.

Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quar­
ter of 1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in
the private nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee bene­
fits were included in 1980, to produce a measure of the percent
change in employers’ cost for employees’ total compensation. State
and local government units were added to the ECI coverage in 1981,
providing a measure of total compensation change in the civilian non­
farm economy.
Data for the broad white-collar, blue-collar, and service worker
groups, and the manufacturing, nonmanufacturing, and service indus­
try groups are presented in the ECI. Additional occupation and in­
dustry detail are provided for the wages and salaries component of
total compensation in the private nonfarm sector. For State and local
government units, additional industry detail is shown for both total
compensation and its wages and salaries component.
Historical indexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates of chang­
es presented in the ECI are also available.
For a more detailed discussion of the ECI, see chapter 11, “The
Employment Cost Index,” of the BLS H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s (Bulletin
2134-1), and the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w articles: “Employment Cost
Index: a measure of change in the ‘price of labor,’” July 1975; “How
benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost Index,” Janu­
ary 1978; and “The Employment Cost Index: recent trends and ex­
pansion,” May 1982.
Additional data for the ECI and other measures of wage and com­
pensation changes appear in C u r r e n t W a g e D e v e lo p m e n ts , a monthly
publication of the Bureau.

31.

Employment Cost Index, total compensation, by occupation and industry group

[June 1981=100]
Percent change
1982

1981

1980

3 months
ended

Series
Dec.

March

_

_

—
—
—

—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

94.7

98.1

Civilian nonfarm workers1 ...............................................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers .................................................
Blue-collar workers ...................................................
Service workers .......................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing..........................................................
Nonmanufacturing.....................................................
Services..............................................................
Public administration2 ............................................
Private nonfarm workers.............................................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers .............................................
Blue-collar workers ...............................................
Service workers ...................................................
Workers, by Industry division
Manufacturing.......................................................
Nonmanufacturing.................................................

Dec.

December 1982

June

104.5

106.3

107.5

110.1

111.4

1.2

6.6

104.9
104.1
104.2

106.5
105.7
107.2

107.7
107.1
108.3

110.7
109.2
110.8

111.9
110.5
112.4

1.1
1.2
1.4

6.7
6.1
7.9

102.1
102.8
104.4
104.3

104.0
104.8
107.1
106.0

106.0
106.4
108.2
108.1

107.2
107.7
109.2
109.1

109.3
110.5
113.5
112.8

110.4
111.8
115.0
113.6

1.0
1.2
1.3
.7

6.2
6.7
7.4
7.2

102.0

104.0

105.8

107.2

109.3

110.7

1.3

6.4

110.8
110.3
111.8

1.2
1.2
2.0

6.5
6.1
8.4

Dec.

100.0

102.6

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.7
102.3
102.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

94.5
94.9
94.3

98.3
97.8
99.3

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.8
102.2
101.9

104.0
104.0
103.1

105.8
105.6
106.7

107.2
107.0
107.9

109.5
109.0
109.6

94.7
94.7

98.0
98.2

100.0
100.0

102.1
102.0

104.0
103.9

106.0
105.7

107.2
107.1

109.3
109.3

110.4
110.8

1.0
1.4

6.2
6.6

State and local government workers ...........................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers .............................................
Blue-collar workers ...............................................
Workers, by industry division
Services..............................................................
Schools ..........................................................
Elementary and secondary...............................
Hospitals and other services3 ...............................
Public administration2 ............................................
’ Excludes household and Federal workers.
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.


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

Sept.

March

Sept.

June

12 months
ended

—

-

100.0

105.3

107.4

108.8

109.3

114.3

115.1

.7

7.2

—
—

—
—

100.0
100.0

105.7
104.2

107.8
105.9

109.1
108.2

109.5
108.9

114.9
112.7

115.8
113.0

.8
.3

7.4
6.7

—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

105.8
106.0
106.3
105.0
104.3

107.9
107.9
108.3
107.8
106.0

109.0
108.9
109.3
109.5
108.1

109.4
109.1
109.5
110.3
109.1

114.9
114.8
115.6
115.3
112.8

115.9
115.8
116.6
116.0
113.6

9
.9
.9
.6
.7

7.4
7.3
7.7
7.6
7.2

includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
Dashes indicate data not available.

Note:

83

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 •
32.

C u r r e n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s : W a g e a n d C o m p e n sa tio n D a ta

Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group

[June 1981=100]
Percent change
1980

1981

Series

1982

3 months
ended

12 months
ended

Dec.

March

June

Sept.

Dec.

March

June

Sept

Dec.

December 1982

Civilian nonfarm workers' ....................................

-

-

100.0

102.5

104.4

106.3

107.3

109.7

110.9

1.1

6.2

Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers .................................................
Blue-collar workers ...................................................
Service workers........................................................

—
—
—

—
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.6
102.4
102.5

104.7
104.0
103.6

106.7
105.5
106.8

107.6
106.7
107.9

110.4
108.6
110.1

111,4
109.8
111.8

.9
1.1
1.5

6.4
5.6
7.9

Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing ..........................................................
Nonmanufacturing .....................................................
Services ............................................................
Public administration2 .............................................

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.1
102.7
104.4
103.8

104.0
104.5
106.6
105.5

105.9
106.5
108.6
107.5

107.0
107.5
109.5
108.4

108.8
110.1
113.2
111.9

109.8
111.3
114.4
112.6

.9
1.1
1.1
.6

5.6
6.5
7.3
6.7

Private nonfarm workers.............................................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers .............................................
Professional and technical workers ........................
Managers and administrators ...............................
Salesworkers.....................................................
Clerical workers.................................................
Blue-collar workers ...............................................
Craft and kindred workers ...................................
Operatives, except transport.................................
Transport equipment operatives ...........................
Nonfarm laborers...............................................
Service workers.....................................................
Workers, by industry division
Manufacturing .......................................................
Durables..........................................................
Nondurables .....................................................
Nonmanufacturing .................................................
Construction .....................................................
Transportation and public utilities...........................
Wholesale and retail trade ...................................
Wholesale trade.............................................
Retail trade ...................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate.......................
Services ..........................................................
State and local government workers.............................
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers ............................................
Blue-collar workers ...............................................
Workers, by industry division
Services ..............................................................
Schools............................................................
Elementary and secondary...............................
Hospitals and other services3 ...................................
Public administration2 ............................................

95.4

98.0

100.0

102.0

103.8

105.9

107.1

109.0

110.3

1.2

6.3

95.2
95.3
94.7
94.8
95.7
95.7
96.1
95.5
95.3
95.7
94.8

98.1
98.2
98.6
96.2
98.6
97.7
97.8
97.8
96.8
97.5
99.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.8
103.3
101.6
98.0
102.7
102.3
102.9
102.1
101.0
101.5
101.8

103.9
105.5
102.8
101.9
104.2
103.9
104.3
104.1
102.7
103.3
102.7

106.2
108.0
105.8
102.2
107.0
105.4
106.2
105.4
103.2
104.1
106.7

107.3
109.4
107.2
101.8
108.3
106.6
107.6
106.6
104.1
105.1
107.9

109.4
111.8
108.5
104.5
110.3
108.5
109.6
108.3
106.0
106.5
109.3

110.6
112.9
109.3
106.2
111.6
109.7
111.2
109.3
106.9
107.8
111.4

1.1
1.0
.7
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.5
.9
.8
1.2
1.9

6.4
7.0
6.3
4.2
7.1
5.6
6.6
5.0
4.1
4.4
8.5

95.7
95.7
95.7
95.2
95.9
95.6
95.1
95.9
94.8
93.1
95.7

97.9
97.9
97.8
98.1
97.6
97.7
98.2
98.5
98.1
95.7
$9.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.1
102.1
102.0
102.0
103.0
102.0
101.3
102.0
101.0
98.3
103.6

104.0
104.5
103.1
103.8
104.3
103.6
102.3
103.4
101.9
102.3
105.8

105.9
106.3
105.3
105.9
105.9
105.7
103.9
106.3
103.0
103.7
108.8

107.0
107.4
106.3
107.1
107.3
106.9
105.8
108.9
104.5
102.4
110.0

108.8
109.0
108.5
109.1
109.1
109.5
106.5
109.0
105.5
106.1
112.5

109.8
110.3
109.1
110.5
109.7
111.1
107.2
109.8
106.1
109.0
114.3

.9
1.2
.6
1.3
.6
1.5
.7
.7
.6
2.7
1.6

5.6
5.6
5.8
6.5
5.2
7.2
4.8
6.2
4.1
6.5
8.0

—

_

100.0

105.0

107.0

108.2

108.7

113.5

114.0

.4

6.5

—
—

—
—

100.0
100.0

105.4
103.9

107.5
105.5

108.5
107.5

108.9
107.9

114.2
111.5

114.6
112.0

.4
.4

6.6
6.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

105.5
105.7
106.0
104.6
103.8

107.6
107.7
107.9
107.3
105.5

108.4
108.3
108.7
108.8
107.5

108.8
108.5
108.8
109.5
108.4

114.2
114.2
114.9
114.3
111.9

114.6
114.5
115.1
114.9
112.6

.4
.3
.2
.5
.6

6.5
6.3
6.7
7.1
6.7

_
—
—
—
~

'Excludes household and Federal workers.
Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.

84


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

—
—
—

3 includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
Note: Dashes indicate data not available.

33.

Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size

[June 1981 = 100]

__________________________________
Percent change
1982

1981

1980

3 months
ended

Series
Dec.

12 months
ended

December 1982

Dec.

March

June

Sept.

Dec.

March

June

Sept.

Union .........................................................................
Manufacturing ..........................................................
Nonmanufacturing .....................................................

94.7
—
—

97.6
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.5
102.3
102.7

104.8
104.6
105.0

106.5
106.3
106.8

108.4
108.0
108.7

110.6
110.3
111.0

112.3
111.8
112.8

1.5
1.4
1.6

7.2
6.9
7.4

Nonunion.....................................................................
Manufacturing ..........................................................
Nonmanufacturing .....................................................

94.6
—
—

98.4
—
—

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
101.8
101.7

103.5
103.5
103.5

105.3
105.7
105.2

106.5
106.6
106.4

108.5
108.4
108.6

109.7
109.2
109.9

1.1
.7
1.2

6.0
5.5
6.2

94.7
94.2

98.1
98.1

100.0
100.0

102.1
101.8

1041
103.2

105.7
106.2

107.2
107.0

109.4
108.6

110.9
109.1

1.4
.5

6.5
5.7

Workers, by bargaining status'
Union .........................................................................
Manufacturing ..........................................................
Nonmanufacturing .....................................................

95.8
96.1
95.5

97.4
97.7
97.1

100.0
100.0
100.0

102.7
102.6
102.8

105.0
104.7
105.2

106.5
105.9
107.0

108.1
107.3
108.8

110.3
109.5
111.1

111.8
110.8
112.7

1.4
1.2
1.4

6.5
5.8
7.1

Nonunion.....................................................................
Manufacturing ..........................................................
Nonmanufacturing .....................................................

95.1
95.4
95.0

98.2
97.9
98.3

100.0
100.0
100.0

101.6
101.7
101.6

103.2
103.3
103.2

105.6
105.9
105.5

106.5
106.7
106.4

108.3
108.2
108.3

109.5
109.1
109.6

1.1
.8
1.2

6.1
5.6
6.2

Workers, by region'
Northeast ...................................................................
South .........................................................................
North Central................................................................
West...........................................................................

96.0
94.9
95.3
95.3

98.3
98.0
981
97.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
101.9
101.6
103.2

104.4
102.8
103.3
105.1

106.1
105.7
104.7
107.9

106.7
107.4
106.1
108.6

109.7
108.8
107.6
110.7

111.5
109.8
108.6
112.0

1.6
.9
.9
1.2

6.8
6.8
5.1
6.6

Workers, by area size'
Metropolitan areas........................................................
Other areas..................................................................

95.4
95.1

97.9
98.3

100.0
100.0

102.1
101.8

104.0
103.1

105,9
106.0

107.1
106.8

109.1
108.3

110.5
108.8

1.3
.5

6.3
5.5

COMPENSATION
Workers, by bargaining status'

Workers, by area size'
Metropolitan areas.........................................................
Other areas..................................................................
WAGES AND SALARIES

' The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a
detailed description of the index calculation, see BLS Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 1910.


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

85

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW April 1983 •
34.

C u r r e n t L a b o r S ta tis tic s : W a g e a n d C o m p e n sa tio n D a ta

Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1978 to date

[In percent]
Quarterly average
Measure

1981
1978

1979

1980

1981

1982 p

8.3
6.3

9.0
6.6

10.4
7.1

10.2
8.3

3.2
2.7

First year of contract................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

7.6
6.4

7.4
6.0

9.5
7.1

9.8
7.9

Manufacturing:
First year of contract................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

8.3
6.6

6.9
5.4

7.4
5.4

Nonmanufacturing (excluding
construction):
First year of contract................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

8.0
6.5

7.6
6.2

Construction:
First year of contract................
Annual rate over life of contract ..

6.5
6.2

8.8
8.3

1

1982 p

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

7.7
7.2

11.6
10.8

10.5
8.1

11.0
5.8

1.9
1.2

2.6
2.0

6.2
4.7

3.0
4.9

3.8
3.6

7.1
6.2

11.8
9.7

10.8
8.7

9.0
5.7

3.0
2.8

3.4
3.2

5.5
4.6

3.7
5.0

7.2
6.1

2.9
2.7

6.4
5.5

8.2
6.7

9.0
7.5

6.6
5.4

2.5
2.7

1.8
1.7

5.3
4.1

4.2
4.6

9.5
6.6

9.8
7.3

4.2
4.1

8.0
7.3

11.8
9.1

8.6
7.2

9.6
5.6

2.7
2.1

6.6
6.1

5.5
4.8

3.2
5.4

13.6
11.5

13.5
11.3

6.5
6.4

11.4
10.3

12.9
11.1

16.4
12.4

11.4
11.7

8.6
8.2

6.2
6.3

6.3
5.9

4.6
3.8

Total compensation changes covering
5,000 workers or more, all
industries:
First year of contract................
Annual rate over life of contract ..
Wage rate changes covering at least
1,000 workers, all industries:

p=preliminary.

35.

Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1978 to date
Year

Year and quarter
1981

Measure
1978

Average percent adjustment (including no change):
All industries...............................................
Manufacturing..........................................
Nonmanufacturing....................................
From settlements reached in period ................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period
From cost-of-living clauses.............................
Total number of workers receiving wage change (in
thousands)1 ...............................................
From settlements reached
in period.................................................
Deferred from settlements
reached in earlier period ...........................
From cost-of-living clauses.............................
Number of workers receiving no adjustments (in
thousands) .................................................

1979

1980

1981


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

I

II

III

IV

I

II

III

IV

8.2
8.6
7.9

9.1
9.6
8.8

9.9
10.2
9.7

9.5
9.4
9.5

6.7
5.2
7.9

1.7
2.3
1.2

3.2
2.4
3.8

3.3
3.1
3.4

1.5
1.9
1.1

1.0
.9
1.0

2.0
1.0
2.7

2.4
1.8
2.9

1.3
1.5
1.2

2.0
3.7
2.4

3.0
3.0
3.1

3.6
3.5
2.8

2.5
3.8
3.2

1.7
3.6
1.4

.4
.5
.7

1.1
1.4
.7

.5
1.5
1.2

.4
.4
.6

.2
.6
.3

.4
1.4
.2

.5
1.3
.6

.6
.4
.3

—

8,648

7,855

3,855

4,701

4,364

3,225

2,882

3,431

3,759

3,387

_
-

-

-

2,270

1,893

579

909

540

604

203

511

620

815

—

—

—

6,267
4,593

4,850
3,817

888
2,639

2,055
2,669

3,023
2,934

882
2,179

997
1,925

1,603
1,569

2,399
2,245

850
1,927

145

501

4,937

4,092

4,428

5,568

5,473

4,925

4,597

4,969

~

' The total number of workers who received adjustments does not equal the sum of workers that
received each type of adjustment, because some workers received more than one type of adjustment
during the period.

86

1982 p

1982P

p=preliminary,

WORK STOPPAGE DATA

Estimates of days idle as a percent of estimated working
time measures only the impact of larger strikes (1,000 workers
or more). Formerly, these estimates measured the impact of
strikes involving 6 workers or more; that is, the impact of vir­
tually a ll strikes. Due to budget stringencies, collection of
data on strikes involving 6 workers or more was discontinued
with the December 1981 data.

W o r k sto ppag es include all known strikes or lockouts involv­
ing 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer.
Data are based largely on newspaper accounts and cover all
workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly in­
volved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or sec­
ondary effect on other establishments whose employees are idle
owing to material or service shortages.
36.

Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date
Month and year

Beginning in
month or year

Days idle

Workers involved

Number of stoppages
In effect
during month

Beginning in
month or year
(in thousands)

In effect
during month
(in thousands)

Number
(in thousands)

Percent of
estimated
working time

270
245
262
424

1,629
1,435
2,537
1,698

25,720
26,127
43,420
30,390

.22
.38
.26

1,462
2,746
1,623
1,075
2,055

15,070
48,820
18,130
16,630
21,180

.12
.38
.14
.13
.16

1951
1952

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

1954
1955

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

415
470
437
265
363

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

287
279
332
245
222

1,370
887
1,587
1,381
896

26,840
10,340
17,900
60,850
13,260

.20
.07
.13
.43
.09

1963
1964
1965

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

195
211
181
246
268

1,031
793
512
1,183
999

10,140
11,760
10,020
16,220
15,140

.07
.08
.07
.11
.10

1967
1968

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

321
381
392
412
381

1,300
2,192
1,855
1,576
2,468

16,000
31,320
35,567
29,397
52,761

.10
.18
.20
.16
.29

1971

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

1973
1974
1975

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

298
250
317
424
235

2,516
975
1,400
1,796
965

35,538
16,764
16,260
31,809
17,563

.19
.09
.08
.16
.09

1976

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

1978
1979

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

231
298
219
235
187

1,519
1,212
1,006
1,021
795

23,962
21,258
23,774
20,409
20,844

.12
.10
.11
.09
.09

1981
1982

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

145
96

729
656

16,908
9,061

.07
.04

1982

January............................................................
February ..........................................................

2
3

4
7

6.1
3.9

11.4
15.3

202.8
241.1

.01
.01

19830

January............................................................
February ..........................................................

1
4

3
6

1.6
12.8

38.0
49.2

794.8
838.4

.04
.05

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

1959
I960

p=preliminary.


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

87

Announcing the
Second Edition o f the

For planners, it presents a variety of statistics on population,
births, deaths, the elderly, poverty, employment, health care,
and human services.
For librarians, data from over 40 government and private
agencies are summarized, including explanatory text and source
citations.
For the economist, researcher, journalist, or whatever your
profession may be, you will find this new book an invaluable
aid both to you and to your organization.
The State and Metropolitan Area Data Book, 1982, packs
into 700 pages a wide assortment of information on the entire
United States, 318 standard metropolitan statistical areas
(SMSA's) and 16 New England county metropolitan areas
(NECMA's) and their component counties, 429 central cities
located in SMSA's, 50 States, 4 census regions, 9 census divi­
sions, and the District of Columbia.
It presents 320 data items for the SMSA's and NECMA's; 73
items for the central cities of SMSA's; and 2,018 items fo r the
United States, regions, divisions. States, and the District of
Columbia.
Featured are new data from the 1980 Census of Population
and Housing, including 1979 income data for families and
households; comparative rankings among States and metro­
politan areas for 21 demographic and economic measures; and
10 pages of statistics covering recent trends between 1970 and
1980.
The State and Metropolitan Area Data Book, 1982, is handy
and easy to use.
Use the GPO order form in this announcement to order your
copy today. $15 (paperbound).
An outline of table headings showing data included in this
volume can be obtained at no charge. Also, computer tapes
containing the data for States and metropolitan areas w ill be
available for purchase. For additional information, call
301/763-1034, or write:

State and Metropolitan
Area Data Book

If you need ready access to up-to-date statistical information
at the metropolitan. State, regional, or national level, then the
new State and Metropolitan Area Data Book is for you.
If you are in marketing, the Data Book contains vast infor­
mation on population change, age distribution, educational
attainment, per capita money income, housing value and owner­
ship, and other key indicators.

ORDER FORM

Chief, Data User Services Division
U.S. Bureau of the Census
Washington, D.C. 20233

Send order form to Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Make check or money order payable to:
SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

Credit Card Orders Only

State and Metropolitan Area Data Book, 1982
S/N 003-024-04932-5 Price $15

Enclosed is $ __________ □ check,
□ money order, or charge to my
Deposit Account No.

OR

]- □
LU
a.
>-

S H IP T O:

( P le a s e P r i n t o r T y p e )

>-

Company or personal name

cc
o

I I

z
ac
CL
UJ
V)
<
Hi

CL

I

I I

I l i

I i

For Office Uee Only
Quantity
Charges

I I

I I

I I I

I I

I I

I I I

I

I

I I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

II II I I
ZIP code

II

II

I

I

I

Enclosed
To be mailed
Subscriptions

Additional address/attention line

I I l

i

I

I I

I

I I I

Street address
| I i I I I I I I I I
I— l— I— l__ I__ I__ I__ I__ l__ l__ l
City
I I I I I I l I l I

LI

l l

l

I I

I I

! i

(or Country)


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

! I

I I

l

l

i

I I

l

I I

I I

I

I
l

I I
I I

i

l

I
I
I

l

l

l l

! i !

I I

i

I
l
i

I I I I
lI
I

l

I I

I

II

II

II

I

I

I

I

II II II
State
I I I

I

I

l

I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I

! I

II

I

I

I

Postage
Foreign handling
OPNF)

......................
UPNS
Discount
Refund

A Report on W hite-Collar Salaries
by Occupation
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

The 23 rd in an annual
series, the “National

Survey of Professional,
Administrative, Tech­
nical, and Clerical Pay,
March, 1982,” provides
nationwide salary
information for 101 work
level categories covering
24 occupations. Data for
programmers and programmer/analysts are
published for the first
time. The occupations
include:

Professional
and
Administrative
Accountant
Attorney
Auditor
Buyer
Chemist
Chief Accountant
Director of Personnel
Engineer
Job Analyst
Programmer/
Programmer Analyst
Public Accountant

Also included are salary
data from 1970, a des­
cription of survey
Accounting Clerk
methods and scope,
File Clerk
survey changes in 1982,
Key Entry Operator
occupational definitions,
Messenger
Personnel Clerk/Assistant and a comparison of
average annual salaries
Purchasing Assistant
in private industry with
Secretary
Federal Classification
Stenographer
Act salary rates.
Typist

Clerical

Technical Support
Computer Operator
Drafter
Engineering Technician
Photographer

Please send______ copies of “ National Survey of Professional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical
Pay, March 1982,” Bulletin 2145. Stock no. 029-001-02720-6 price $4.75.**

Order Form

The following BLS regional
offices will expedite orders:
1603 JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
Suite 3400
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036

□
□
□
□

P.O. Box 13309
Philadelphia, PA 19101
1371 Peachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30367
„
9th Floor
Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604

2nd Floor
555 Griffin Square Bldg.
Dallas, TX 75202
911 Walnut St.
Kansas City, MO 64106

You may send your order
directly to:
e
. . . . ,
Superintendent of
Documents,
U.S. Government Printing

450 Golden Gate Ave.
Box 36017

_n n OA/1AO
Wash,rgton, D.C. 20402

San Francisco, CA 94102

Enclosed is a check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents.
Charge to my GPO Account no.
Charae to MasterCard* Account no.

Exniration data

Chame to VISA* Account no.

Exoiration date

'Available only on orders sent directly to Superindent of Documents. "Note: GPO prices are subject to change without notice.

Name
Organization
(if applicable)
Street address
City, State,
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
Official Business

J
■
Y

Penalty for private use, $300
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED

ijjs


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

Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
Lab-441

SECOND CLASS MAIL