The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis B U R E A U O F L A B O R S T A T IS T IC S R E G IO N A L O F F IC E S A N D D IR E C T O R S Region I — Boston: Wendell D. Macdonald U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR J. D. Hodgson, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner Leon Greenberg, Chief Statistician Peter Henle, Chief Economist 1603-A F e d e ra l B u ild in g , G o v e rn m e n t C e n te r, B o sto n , M a s s. 02203 P h o n e : (617) 223-6727 C o n n e c tic u t M a in e M a s s a c h u s e tts N e w H a m p sh ire R h o d e Isla n d V e rm o n t Region II — New York: Herbert Bienstock 341 N inth A v e n u e , N ew Y o rk , N.Y. 10001 P h o n e : (212) 971-5405 N e w J e rs e y N ew Y o rk P u e rto R ic o V irg in Isla n d s Region Ml — Philadelphia: Frederick W. Mueller T h e M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w is fo r s a le by the re g io n a l o ffic e s of the B u re a u of L a b o r S ta tis tic s and by the S u p e rin te n d e n t of D o cu m e n ts, 406 P e nn S q u a re B u ild in g , 1317 F ilb e r t S tre e t, P h ila d e lp h ia , Pa. 19107 P h o n e : (215) 597-7796 D e la w a re U. S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f fi c e D i s t r i c t of C o l u m b i a W a sh in g to n , D. C. 20402 S u b s c r ip tio n p ric e p e r y e a r — $9 d o m e stic ; $11.25 fo re ig n . S in g le c o p y 75 ce n ts. C o rre s p o n d e n c e re g a rd in g s u b s c r ip tio n s s h o u ld be a d d re s s e d to the S u p e rin te n d e n t of D o c u m e n ts. M a ry la n d P e n n s y lv a n ia V irg in ia W e st V irg in ia C o m m u n ic a tio n s on e d ito r ia l m atters s h o u ld be a d d re s s e d to the E d ito r-in -C h ie f, M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , B u re a u of L a b o r S ta tis tic s , W a sh in g to n , D. C. 20212 P h o n e : (202) 961-2327. U se of fu n d s fo r p rin tin g th is p u b lic a tio n a p p ro v e d by the D ire c to r of the B u re a u of the B u d g e t (O c to b e r 31, 1967) Region IV — Atlanta: Brunswick A. Bagdon 1371 P e a c h tre e S tre e t, N .E., A tla n ta , G a . 30309 P h o n e : (404) 526-5416 A la b a m a F lo r id a G e o rg ia K e n tu c k y M is s is s ip p i N orth C a ro lin a So uth C a ro lin a T enn essee Region V — Chicago: Thomas J. McArdle 219 S. D e a rb o rn S tre e t, C h ic a g o , III. 60604 P h o n e : (312) 353-7226 I llin o is In d ia n a M ic h ig a n M in n e s o ta O h io W is c o n s in Region VI — Dallas: Jack Strickland 411 N. A k a rd S treet, D a lla s , T e x . 75201 P h o n e : (214) 749-3516 A rk a n s a s L o u is ia n a N ew M e x ic o O k la h o m a Texas Regions V II and V III — Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar 911 W a ln u t Stre e t, K a n s a s C ity , M o. 64106 P h o n e : (816) 374-2378 V II Iowa Kan sas M is s o u r i N e b ra s k a V III C o v e r d e sig n by S a lly M o tle y A rts and G r a p h ic s D iv is io n U.S . D e p a rtm e n t o f L a b o r https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis C o lo ra d o M o n ta n a N orth D ako ta So u th D ako ta Utah W y o m in g Regions IX and X — San Francisco: Charles Roumasset 450 G o ld e n G a te A v e n u e , B o x 36017, S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif. 94102 P h o n e : (415) 556-3178 IX A r iz o n a C a lifo rn ia H a w a ii Nevada X A la s k a Idaho O re g o n W a sh in g to n MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Editor-in-chief, H erbert C. Morton Executive editor, Henry Lowenstern Robert V. Critchlow 3 Technological changes in the printing industry Requ irem ents for occupations change sig n ifica n tly , as growth in output balances the laborsaving effects of new technology Victor J. Sheifer 10 Changes in wage rates and in hourly earnings Data from a sam ple of 87 esta b lish m e n ts in dicate p o ssib ility of diverse m ovem ents in the two pay series Anna-Stina Ericson 18 Impact of commuters across the Mexican border Study of the com m uter system exam ines the problem s attributed to ‘ green ca rd e rs' and explores som e so lution s Ellen M. Bussey 28 Management and labor in West Germany Three m ajor em ployer groups cooperate in effort to counter union bargaining and le g islative in itia tiv e s Michael F. Crowley 65 Ph. D. holders in private industry SPECIAL LABOR FORCE REPORTS Howard Hayghe 35 Employment of high school graduates and dropouts Denis F. Johnston 43 Education of adult workers: projections to 1985 Vera C. Perrella 57 Moonlighters: their motivations and characteristics https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DEPARTMENTS 2 65 67 70 75 76 Labor month in review Research summaries Foreign labor briefs Significant decisions in labor cases Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations 83 Book reviews and notes 95 Current labor statistics AUGUST 1970 VOLUME 93, NUMBER 8 Job vacancies. The Department of Labor announced the first results of its new job vacancy survey. The survey is designed to show how many jobs are vacant, where, and in what occupations— information that has long been sought by admin istrators, economists, and other students of the labor market. Survey results will be published monthly. The first results, covering manufacturing nationally and in 25 areas, revealed that: • At the end of May, 151,000 job vacancies were immediately available for filling in the Nation’s manufacturing industries. • Almost two-fifths of these jobs had re mained vacant for 30 days or more. • The May job vacancy rate for manu facturing was 0.8 percent. The vacancy rate is the number of vacancies as a percentage of the number of jobs available—employment plus vacancies. • Manufacturing vacancies in May 1970 were 48 percent below the level of May 1969. • The average rate of job openings for 25 metropolitan areas ranged from 0.3 percent in Detroit and Jersey City to 1.6 percent in Greens boro and Tampa. • Occupational data, covering manufacturing establishments in 12 metropolitan areas, showed that about 25 percent of the vacancies available in February 1970 were for white-collar occupations, with the remaining 75 percent for blue-collar and service workers. This was roughly similar to the occupational composition of employment nation ally. The job vacancy survey, launched early in 1969, was developed and tested over the past year. The program is a cooperative Federal-State venture. State employment security agencies collect data from a representative sample of employers for use in preparing both National and local summaries. The Department of Labor provides guidance and 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis support to the State agencies through the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Manpower Adminis tration. For the purposes of the survey, a current job vacancy is defined as a vacant job that is immedi ately available for filling, and for which the firm is actively trying to find or recruit a worker from outside the firm. Included in this definition are openings for all kinds of positions, classifications, and employment, full-time, permanent, temporary, and seasonal. Excluded are jobs to be filled by recall from layoff, transfer, promotion, demotion, or return from paid or unpaid leave; jobs unoccu pied because of labor-management disputes; and job openings for which “new” workers were al ready hired and scheduled to start work later. Future releases of the job vacancy survey will provide job vacancy data for manufacturing establishments in 50 metropolitan areas and for the total nonagricultural sector in 26 of the largest areas. For 17 of these areas, quarterly occupational information also will be available. Once available, the full range of job vacancy data will provide, for the first time, a compre hensive measure of the jobs employers are trying to fill along with several important characteristics of the demand for labor: the industry in which the demand exists, the occupations currently in de mand, and the geographic location of the vacant jobs. With this information and other economic data, labor market analysts should be in a much better position to evaluate to what extent labor market problems may be due to the inability of the labor market to absorb all those who want jobs and occupational and geographic imbalances be tween available jobs and workers. Job vacancy data themselves also will provide additional evi dence of economic trends and may prove to be a sensitive indicator of developments in the economy. Labor demand created by growth in output is balancing the laborsaving effects of new technology, but requirements for individual occupations are changing significantly RO BERT V. CRITCHLOW T echnological changes being introduced at an increasingly quick pace throughout the printing industry have important implications for man power. Two factors have combined to hasten the introduction of new technology: The demand for printed materials has grown to such an extent that it can no longer be met entirely by conventional printing processes and, concurrently, the state of technology has reached a point at which vastly more productive printing equipment is commer cially available. Some of the innovations, such as typesetting computers and plastic printing plates, are new; others, such as web-offset presses and perforated paper tape for operating typesetting machines, have existed for 30 or 40 years, but were little used until the last decade. Use of the new technologies results in increased productivity, greater quality control at a higher level of output, and more flexibility in what is produced and the manner of its production. These technological changes may not reduce total employment because of the offsetting de mand for labor created by growth in output, but the changes are affecting the industry’s manpower. Some occupations, such as typesetters, may de crease in number while others—printing press operators, lithographic platemakers, and compu ter-related occupations—will increase. Moreover, skill requirements are changing significantly, making retraining increasingly necessary.1 Characteristics of the industry As the printing and publishing industry is under going technological change, its economic condition is characterized by increasing employment, rising production, growing capital investment, intensified Robert V. Critchlow is an economist in the Division of Technological Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Technological changes in the printing and publishing industry research and development, predomination of small firms, and strong craft unions that are showing a trend toward mergers as a response to the changes. E mployment is increasing . In 1969, there were nearly 1.1 million employees in the printing industry—approximately 365,000 more than in 1947. This represented a 50-percent growth in printing industry employment, contrasted to the 29-percent growth in all manufacturing employ ment and 15 percent in nondurable manufactur ing. The average annual rates of increase in employment during the two periods of 1947-58 and 1958-69 were approximately the same for the industry as a whole, but not for the selected subindustry groups shown in table 1. Employment of women in the industry has increased from 250,000 in 1959 to 348,000 in 1969, an increase of 39 percent (compared with a 22percent increase of all employees over this period). Women have also increased as a percentage of total industry employment, from 28 percent in 1959 to 32 percent in 1969. About one-third of all printing employees work in printing craft occupations, with the remaining two-thirds employed in positions such as clerks, salesmen, maintenance workers, reporters and editors, and managers. The newspaper and com mercial printing segments of the industry each account for roughly one-third of total industry employment. Within these groups, employment gains have been greatest in the rapidly growing lithographic sector of commercial printing. is rising . Production increased at an even greater rate than employment during 1947-69 as new equipment was introduced in the industry. Over this period, the Federal Reserve Board index of production more than doubled (table 2) as demand for printed materials rose with expansion of population, business activity, P roduction 3 4 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 and income levels. The 4.3-percent annual rate of increase in 1958-69 was higher than the 3.3percent increase during the earlier 1947-58 period. Table 2. Production indexes, printing and publishing industry [1957-59 = 100] Year C apital spending is growing. Nearly $1 billion was spent for new plant and equipment in 1969.2 Expenditures per employee have been greatest in the lithographic sector of commercial printing, averaging nearly $1,000 per employee in 1967, compared with nearly $800 for the industry as a whole. (See table 3.) This primarily reflects the rapid acceptance of web-offset printing, introduced into commercial printing during the 1950’s. In the early 1960’s, web-offset printing was further extended into small, suburban newspaper printing and contributed to the significant increase in new capital expenditures per newspaper employee. firms predominate . The printing and publishing industry is characterized by a large number of small establishments widely distributed throughout the United States—about 4 out of 5 with fewer than 20 employees. In 1963, establish ments with less than 20 employees accounted for 81 percent of all establishments and 17 percent of all employment. Establishments with 100 em ployees or more constituted only 4 percent of all establishments in 1963, but claimed 58 percent of total employment.3 S mall R&D ACTIVITIES ARE BEING INTENSIFIED. Most research and development in the industry is carried out by equipment manufacturers, trade associations, industry research organizations, and medium-to-large firms with the capital and willingTable 1. Trends in employment, printing and publishing industry, selected subgroups and periods, 1947-69 |AII employees, in thousands] Commercial printing Year 1947__________ 1958__________ 1969__________ Total printing and publishing Newspapers Except lithographic 721 873 1,086 Lithographic 180 194 213 248 314 366 50 74 121 Percent change Total 1947-69_______ 1947-58______ 1958-69_______ Average annual rate 50.6 21.0 24.4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1.8 1.9 2.0 Total 47.6 26.4 16.6 Average annual rate 1.5 1.9 1.4 Total 18.3 7.9 9.8 Average annual rate 0.6 1.2 .7 Total 142.0 48.9 63.5 Average annual rate 4.4 4.1 4.8 Total printing and publishing 1947_____________ 1958_____________ 1969_____________ Newspapers 69.7 96.9 155.9 69.3 96.3 142.4 Percent change Total 1947-69__________ 1947-58__________ 1958-69........... . . . . 123.7 39.0 60.9 Average annual rate Total 3.6 3.3 4.3 105.5 39.0 47.9 Average annual rate 2.7 2.8 3.6 SOURCE: Federal Reserve Board. ness to experiment. In addition to traditional equipment manufacturers, firms not generally associated with the printing industry—such as companies making electronic computers—are de veloping new and more productive printing equip ment. Because of the lack of capital and of research expertise among small firms, industry research organizations and trade associations (such as the American Newspaper Publishers’ Associa tion) are important sources of new technological developments. Description of new technologies The quickening pace of technological change is illustrated by the changes that have occurred in methods of setting type. Hand composition was the sole method of typesetting for several cen turies until the first commercial typesetting machines became available in the 1880’s. The next important innovation—the teletypesetter— was developed 50 years later. Two decades later, in the 1950’s, photographic typesetting machines became available commercially. Technological innovation has accelerated in the last 10 years, with computerized typesetting, cathode ray tube type setters, optical character reading equipment, and high speed data transmission among the major advances. Approximately 600 typesetting com puters, for example, were reported installed in the United States in the fall of 1968, compared with about 100 in the spring of 1964.4 Important advances that have occurred in the major pro duction processes are described in table 4, with a brief summary of their economic advantages and the occupations affected by their use. PRINTING T EC H N O LO G Y While many new technologies are available in the printing industry, frequently involving the application of electronics and advanced photo graphic techniques, a large segment of the in dustry—the small printing firms—will continue to use manually operated typesetting machines and other printing equipment. An exception to this is the large number of small daily and weekly newspapers that are converting to photographic typesetting and web-offset printing. Several factors slow the rate of diffusion of new technology to small firms. Small firms have limited capital resources for experimenting with, and pur chasing, new equipment, especially expensive equipment like computers and high-speed printing presses. Moreover, the needs of small firms are for equipment that is highly flexible to meet their usual small volume production runs. The new technology is not often designed to meet these needs. Nor are the owners of many small printing shops particularly receptive to technological change. Many have not developed the philosophy, prevalent in large firms, of actively seeking infor mation on new technology. A further influence is that much of the conventional printing equip ment—such as linecasting machines and printing presses—not only serves the need of many small firms quite well, but also has a useful life of a decade or more. Therefore, the new technologies will be introduced primarily in newspapers (of all sizes) and in medium-to-large commercial, book, and periodical printers, where their volume may return economic savings to justify large outlays. Impact on occupations and skills Specific occupations and skills in the major printing functions of composition, platemaking, and press work will be greatly affected by the new technologies. room. The use of phototypesetters and computers can have a considerable effect on composing room employees, who constitute ap proximately one-half of the industry’s craftsmen. The higher operating speeds (separately or in a combined computer-phototypesetter system) re quire a smaller number of man-hours to perform a given amount of work than the traditional hot metal method. Further, the skills needed to operate photo typesetters and computers are often different from those used in hot-metal typesetting. C omposing https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5 Table 3. Expenditures for new plant and equipment, printing and publishing industry, average per employee, selected periods, 1947-69 Year Printing and publishing Commercial printing Newspapers Except lithographic 1947_____________ 1958_______ 1967 i ...................... $313.96 468 27 783.47 $329.39 445.31 798.99 $509.88 765.90 Lithographic $699. 34 989.40 Percent change 1947-67__________ 1947-58__________ 1958-67______ 149.5 49.1 67.3 142.6 35.2 79.4 50.2 41.5 1 Preliminary. NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available. SOURCE: Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consequently, although hot-metal typesetting will remain in use for many more years, its importance will continue to decline and fewer hotmetal typesetters will be needed. Several new skills are necessary in photo composition. Type and graphic displays must be assembled and pasted onto layout sheets (paste makeup). A knowledge of photographic processes is necessary for both setting copy onto film and developing the film for platemaking. The devel oped film must then be assembled and arranged into pages (stripping). An increasingly necessary, but perhaps not so obvious, skill is the ability to use a typewriter keyboard in which the keys are arranged in a different manner from the Linotype keyboard. Most phototypesetters and the more recent models of hot-metal typesetters are operated by a typewriter keyboard that is directly attached to the typesetting machine, or, more frequently, by tape that is prepared on a separate tape-punching machine utilizing a typewriter keyboard. The introduction of computers into the type setting process also requires a new set of skills. Computer input is generally paper tape punched on machines utilizing the typewriter keyboard mentioned above. New jobs of computer console operators and programers are being created. These often can be filled by retraining composing room employees who might otherwise be displaced. A relatively small number of systems analysts will be needed; industry practice thus far has been to hire from outside the firm to fill these positions. Also, computer maintenance will require personnel with a good background in electronics. M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 6 P latemaking . The new equipment used in auto matic film developing systems, electronic color separation, and electronic engraving, and the new materials used in making letterpress printing plates, are affecting a part of the printing process that has traditionally involved large amounts of highly skilled handwork. With the exception of the still experimental plastic plate systems, these innovations share the advantages of rapid output and consistent high quality (in comparison, the work of even a highly skilled craftsman is not completely consistent from job to job). The new platemaking equipment puts more emphasis on technical skills to operate, and less on craft skills. Some knowledge of electronics and familiarity with machine operations is particu larly important. Traditionally trained craftsmen are generally capable of being retrained for this work. P resswork . The increasing automation of printing press operations is changing the skill requirements of pressmen considerably. Electronic monitors and controls can perform many press opera tions faster and more reliably than the press crew. This frees the crew from machine operations, allowing them to spend more time on quality control; but in the process, traditional craft skills become less important, and technical knowledge and ability become more critical. Web-offset printing presses have received wide acceptance in commercial printing and small-tomedium newspaper printing, where they are expected eventually to print 90 percent of the country’s newspapers. For commercial printers who previously used sheet-fed offset presses, web-offset offers faster press speed and less paper handling; but the skills involved in operating web-fed presses are quite different from those for sheet-fed press operation. For example, web-offset press crewmembers must be able to make decisions faster, and must be more physically agile, than their counterparts operating sheet-fed presses. This generally necessitates training a now press crew, as there is little crossover from sheet-fed offset to web-offset. Newspapers converting from web-letterpress to web-offset generally decrease their make-ready time, but often must add an additional man to the press crew. Although web-offset is somewhat more complex than web-letterpress, the skills involved are basically similar (a situation that does not Table 4. Description and impact of innovations in printing technology Description and advantages Technology C o m p u t e r s ............. . Phototypography____ ____ ______ __ . . . Occupations affected The primary typesetting functions are "justification” (deciding where to end a line of type so that it remains within predetermined margins) and "hyphenation" (deciding when and where to hyphenate words that would exceed the margins). Computers can make justification and hy phenations in a fraction of the time needed by typesetting machine operators, and thereby make the typesetting process faster and more sim ple. Linecasting machine operators, Teletypesetter key board operators. Type is set on strips o f photographic film or light-sensitive paper, rather than in metal. Most phototypesetting machines are operated by punched paper tape (rather than by directly attached keyboards), and thus can be run by computer-finished tape. Composing room typesetting. employees trained in hot-metal The primary advantage of phototypography is speed. The fastest auto mated hot-metal machines can set type at speeds of 7-8 characters per second (cps). Most phototypesetting machines operate at speeds of 15-30 cps, and the latest cathode ray tube machines can go up to 1,000 cps. Another advantage is a lower rate of typographical errors. Automated photographic equipment. and platemaking Automatic film processing systems, electronic color separation equipment, and electronic engraving equipment a ll operate at considerably faster speed than the conventional (and time consuming) manual processes. Quality of the machine-produced work is both consistent and high, while the quality of handwork is very much a function of the craftsman's skill, and consistency varies even for a highly skilled craftsman. Photoengravers and lithographers involved in film processing, photographic art work, and plate en graving w ill be affected, as s k ill requirements are lower. Plastic printing plates for letterpress news paper printing. Lightweight, low cost, flexible plastic printing plates have been developed that can be used on existing letterpress printing presses in place of the large, heavy lead stereotype plates currently in use. These new plates offer superior printing quality and longer life than lead stereotype plates. Photoengravers, electrotypers, and stereotypers. Web-offset printing presses (web-fed lith o graphic presses). Web-offset presses print on large rolls (webs) of paper rather than indi vidual precut sheets. For commercial printers who previously used sheet-fed offset, web-offset offers faster printing speeds and paper handling. Newspapers converting from web-Jetterpress to web-offset gain the advantages of increased printing quality (especially for photographs), faster make-ready time, and improved compatibiltiy with phototypesetting machines. Sheet-fed offset and web-fed letterpress printing press operators. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7 PRINTIN G T EC H N O LO G Y Table 5. Outlook for employment Department Outlook Composing room________ Employment expected to decline slightly, even though the volume of printing will increase, because of the greater productivity of new technology. Linecasting machine operators will be among the most rapidly declining occupations, with some employees retraining for tape punching occupations. Photocomposition, with its attendant tape punching, machine monitoring, film processing, and paste make-up operations, will come to dominate composing room operations. Employees presently trained in hot-metal typesetting can be retrained for these jobs. Computers will become more widely used, creating new jobs for computer typists, programers, and console operators. Many of these jobs w ill be filled by composing room employees who would otherwise be displaced. Machinists with electronics training are, and w ill continue to be, in high demand. Platemaking employment will increase, although employment in particular occupations will decline. Platemaking. Lithography, as the fastest growing printing process, w ill be responsible for the most growth in platemaking occupations. However, even lithographic platemaking growth w ill be somewhat limited by the laborsaving aspects of new technology. Photoengraving employment should remain fairly constant in spite of an increase in output. This will result from a combination of laborsaving technology and increased competition from lithography. Some photoengravers have retrained for lithographic occupations— a trend that is expected to continue. Employment in electrotyping and stereotyping will decline moderately in spite of the expected increase in printing output. More productive duplicate platemaking equipment, more durable printing plate materials, and competition from lithography w ill bring about the decline in employment. Due to the increase in printing volume, and in the size and complexity of printing presses, employment for press operators and assistants is expected to rise moderately. The greatest rise w ill occur in web-offest (lithographic) presswork. The increased speeds and efficiency of new presses w ill lim it to some extent the increase in presswork employment. Presswork. I exist between sheet-fed presses and web-fed presses), so that web-letterpress crews can be retrained for web-offset operation. Outlook for employment Employment in the printing industry is es timated to increase slightly between 1970 and 1975. Some categories of employees, however, par ticularly typesetters and those engaged in duplicate platemaking functions, are expected to decrease in number. As indicated in table 5, these declines will be offset by employment growth in such occupations as printing press operators and lithographic platemakers. The introduction of electronic computers in composing room functions will require key new positions involving program ing, computer console operation, and related functions. The growing substitution of electronic for mechanical equipment will require more maintenance employees with a background in electronics. Innovations in printing technologies have focused attention on methods of preparing em ployees for new job demands. The printing trade unions, in particular, are intensively involved in developing methods of easing the impact of technological change on its members, many of whom are in jobs where skills are being sub stantially modified. Illustrative of the pressure that unions believe themselves to be under is the increasing number of strikes in the newspaper and commercial https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis printing segment of the industry. This is particu larly true of strikes lasting over 100 days which, according to bls data, totaled 19 during 1947-57 and 65 for the 1958-68 period. Apart from wage disputes that have been a part of most strikes, a common thread—especially in the longer strikes— has been controversy over the introduction of new technology and the conditions of its use. Some of the more important attitudes and policies developed in response to the effects of technological change relate to job security and retraining. Data from the latest bls surveys of collective bargaining agreements in the printing industry, covering those in effect during 1962-67 and covering 1,000 workers or more, show the extent of industry contract provisions relating to adjustment to technological change: Contracts studied Plant movement, transfer, and relocat ion allowances__________ Severance pay and layoff benefits_____ Paid vacations and holidays_________ sub Contracts having provisions 28 37 33 3 6 33 37 28 1 13 plans and wage-employment guar- antees_._....... ......................... Training and retraining_____________ Training programs have been an important technique of preparing employees to meet changing job requirements. The International Typographi cal Union ( it t j ) , for example, has long maintained that its interest can best be served by supplying industry with the most skilled workers available. The union’s training center in Colorado offers courses in computer operations, all forms of 8 composition, film processing (including color film), platemaking, and offset press operations. Most of the courses are 3 weeks in length, allowing union members to complete a course while on vacation. The International Printing Pressmen and Assist ants Union also has supported technological change and advocated retraining programs for members whose skills have become obsolete. For many years ippau operated a training school. However, it became impractical to keep up with the rapidly increasing variety of printing presses entering the market, and the school was replaced by an informally structured program in which members receive training on the particular presses used where they are employed. Management officials in many printing firms also are aware of the importance of training pro grams and many programs have been developed, ranging from informal on-the-job training to comprehensive programs involving employee test ing, lectures within the company, and attendance at special schools. In some firms, displaced em ployees are assigned to “retraining pools” from whence they are retrained and assigned to other jobs available within the firm. Some unions have established formal organi zations to study the manpower implications of technological change. The Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union (lpitj), for example, concerned over the threat of technolog ical change to job security, established a Commit tee on Technological Developments during its 1965 convention. The Committee’s purpose is to study the employment impact and the cost sav ings effects of technological changes, and, based on this, to formulate plans that locals can use in negotiations with employers that will assist the members in acquiring a fair share of the benefits involved, lpiu has developed a two-part policy for providing job security in a time of techno logical change: extensive training programs—■ including training centers in major cities—and early retirement of older union members. Dis cussions with employers over early retirement began in late 1965, and by the end of 1966 over half of the members covered under contracts negotiated during the year had gained early retirement benefits. Mergers of unions have been another conse quence of changing technology. The rationale be hind the merger trend is that the new technologies https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 often cut across traditional craft lines, jeop ardizing union security and giving rise to juris dictional disputes between unions. The largest merger has been between the Amalgamated Lithographers of America and the International Photoengravers’ Union, forming the Lithogra phers’ and Photoengravers’ International Union. Local 1 (New York area) of ala rejected the merger and became an independent union, later arranging an informal association with the Inter national Typographical Union. The International Stereotypers’ and Electrotypers’ Union reportedly is also contemplating a merger. Other mergers have been discussed between various unions, but were not realized. This is, however, a trend that could continue. As unions have become more concerned over job security, they have attempted—with fair success— to establish some degree of control over the use of the new equipment. It is not uncommon for collec tive bargaining contracts to contain provisions specifying that when new equipment is introduced, it will be operated by the union members covered in the contract, or that the union members will have the first opportunity to receive the training (often at company expense) necessary to operate the new equipment, or that employees who are displaced will be retrained by the company for other jobs. More stress is also being placed on factors such as pensions, retirement age, shorter workweeks, and formal training. A specific—and rather unusual—example is provided by Local 6 (New York) of the it u . In its negotiations with New York City newspapers, the union demanded all of the direct savings that resulted from company use of typesetting com puters and a payment from the newspapers in return for newspaper usage of “outside” (tts) tapes. Until these demands were met, union members refused to operate the equipment. By early 1966, three large newspapers had agreed to these conditions. The money contributed by the newspapers was used to establish funds for re training displaced employees, supplemental un employment benefits, incentives for early retire ment, and supporting pension and welfare funds that could suffer if union memberships were reduced. A more recent development is an agreement worked out in early 1968 to study the effects of automation on manpower. The parties to the agree- 9 PRINTIN G T EC H N O LO G Y ment are itu Local 6, three New York newspapers, and some of the commercial printing shops in the city. The results of the study are to be used to determine how the benefits of automation can be most widely spread among employers and employees.5 In 1970, negotiations between itu and the newspapers were predominantly con cerned with wages rather than with new technologies. Outlook for the industry Technological innovation will continue to change the printing industry during the decade of the 1970’s. Although the pace at which innovations will be diffused may be slower than in other in dustries due to the particular structure and economic characteristics of the printing industry, substantial change will occur, causing considerable modification in job skills. Consequently, training programs and other methods of adjustment will continue to be needed. Special attention should be given to revising trade school curriculums to include such newer developments as photo typog raphy and electronics. The rising demand for printed products will ease the impact of technological change on man power. This situation has occurred before, although on a more restricted basis, with the introduction of linecasting machines in the late 19th century and improvements in printing presses (especially the development of automatic press feeders) in the early 20th century. In both instances, considerable retraining was necessary and in the latter case, one group—manual press feeders—experienced considerable displacement.6 But, in both cases, demand increased sufficiently to mitigate the displacement for most of the affected groups. In the current situation, technological change is so widespread that it affects all facets of the printing process. Displacement will probably occur in certain occupations; but attrition should be able to handle much of it when combined with in creased demand for printed products, a somewhat slow rate of diffusion of technological change, and extensive retraining. □ -------- FOO TNO TES -------1 The Bureau of Labor Statistics is studying the man power implications of technological change in the printing and publishing industry. A forthcoming report on the study will be based on data obtained by b l S staff during field visits to selected newspapers and commercial printers using new technology and on a review of industry technical publications and other literature. 2 U.S. Industrial Outlook 1970 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration), p. 58. 3 U.S. Bureau of the Census. 4 Survey by Composition Information Services, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif. 5 Further information on the policies developed by i t u Local 6 to meet the problems posed by technological change can be found in Harry Kelber and Carl Schlesinger, Union Printers and Controlled Automation (New York, The Free Press, 1967). 6 Elizabeth F. Baker, Displacement of Men by Machines (New York, Columbia University Press, 1933). A British view on longer term trends One other broad trend foreseen was the increasing need for easier movement between occupations and categories of skill in order to cope successfully with the manpower effects of technological changes. The first requisite was seen by many as a broader initial training, incorporating the idea that retraining, quite possibly more than once and to different occupations, is almost inevitable in the average working lifetime. . . . while specialization was likely to become more and more necessary, it must be founded on a broad training which would give both an understanding of the work in other departments and a flexibil ity to accept retraining when necessary. —Printing and Publishing, Department of Employment and Productivity, Manpower Studies No. 9 (London, H. M. Stationery Office, 1970). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The relationship between changes in wage rates and in hourly earnings To what extent are general wage rate changes reflected in average hourly earnings data? In practice, do wage rate changes so dominate that there is little difference in the movements of hourly earnings and rate changes? Or are fluctua tions in premium pay and changes in the occu pational mix and other factors of sufficient importance to cause significant deviations in the behavior of the two measures? This question is important in an analysis of statistics of wage movements, since alternative measures of wage change sometimes present apparent anomalies. For example, although aver age hourly earnings of manufacturing production workers advanced considerably less between December 1968 and December 1969 than during the same period a year earlier (5.8 percent com pared with 6.9 percent), general wage rate adjust ments effective in the 2 years were much the same—5.2 percent in 1968 and 5.1 percent in 1969. A limited amount of information bearing on this issue was derived by analyzing replies, covering the December 1966-July 1967 period, from 87 establishments 1 reporting in two Bureau of Labor Statistics programs—one on wage devel opments in manufacturing (which covers general wage rate changes) and the other dealing with data on employment, payroll, and hours (which yields average hourly earnings data). This article compares changes in the establishments surveyed in gross hourly earnings, the most commonly used earnings series, and effective wage rate ad justments, conceptually the most closely related wage rate data. Because the analysis was made as part of an internal program evaluation rather than as part of a comprehensive assessment of the relationship Victor J. Sheifer is a director of the current wage developments project, Division of Trends in Employee Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 10 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Data from a sample of 87 establishments indicate the possibility of diverse movements in the two pay series VICTOR J. SHEIFER between the two statistical series, the study covered only a short time span and a small number of observations. Furthermore, since the question naire on wage developments in manufacturing is not sent to establishments when information for them is available from the Bureau’s separate cur rent wage developments project (which covers most unionized situations involving 1,000 workers or more), the establishments in the study dis cussed in this article are relatively small and are not a representative sample of manufacturing units. Despite these shortcomings, the findings throw some light on the question under con sideration, serving to clarify issues and, possibly, to stimulate further research. The statistical series The Bureau’s survey of wage developments in manufacturing defines general wage rate increases as those affecting, at any one time, at least 10 percent of the production and related workers in an establishment or all workers covered by a single collective bargaining agreement even if the agreement applies to fewer than 10 percent of the workers.2 The Bureau prepares separate series covering wage decisions reached in given time periods and wage changes placed into effect during those periods.3 The latter include, in addi tion to wage changes currently decided upon, those previously determined but deferred, and changes under cost-of-living escalator provisions. The Bureau derives average hourly earnings in an establishment by dividing total payroll outlays in a given time period by the number of hours paid for.4 As in general wage change statistics, several series are available. Data covering gross average hourly earnings are available for all establishments. Data on earnings excluding over time and the effects of interindustry employment shifts are available for manufacturing industries only.5 11 C H A N G E S IN W AGE RATES Conceptual differences The distinction between wage rate and earnings changes can be clarified when we recognize that, although an individual worker’s wage rate ordi narily is the primary determinant of his hourly earnings, it does not necessarily follow that, over short periods, fluctuations in his hourly earnings are the result of wage rate changes. Earnings fluctuations may stem from variations in output under incentive wage plans or in the volume of premium-paid overtime, holiday, weekend, or late shift work. Moreover, promotion, job réévaluation, or within-grade wage adjustments may affect an employee’s wage rate even in the absence of a general wage change. The forces affecting earnings do not always move in the same direction. A worker’s hourly earnings may decline despite a wage rate boost, for ex ample, because of a drop in premium overtime work or a transfer from night to day work re sulting in loss of a night-shift differential. Average hourly earnings are, of course, affected by adjustments in the pay of individual workers. Consequently, the various forces that influence an individual worker’s earnings also affect the aver age for a group of workers. However, even if individual earnings remain unchanged, the average for a plant as a whole could be affected by a change in the occupational mix, for example, the hiring or dismissal of workers and the resulting change in the relative number of employees at various earnings levels. Similarly, shifts in employ ment among plants with differing wage levels will affect multiplant averages.6 month prior to the rate increase. Fewer months were available for comparison of wage rate changes with average hourly earnings changes in instances where plants increased wage rates near the end of the December 1966-July 1967 period.7 Consequently, the varying averages among time intervals in the top half of table 1 are the result both of developments within the establishments and of changes in the size of the sample. To eliminate the influence of changes in the sample, the bottom half of the table is re stricted to the establishments (there were only nine of them) for which 7-month data were available. Table 1 is limited to averages; individual establishment data are depicted in the scatter diagrams on page —. The diagonal line on these diagrams serves as a reference line, showing the locus of all points representing equal changes in earnings and wage rates. Actual observations above and below the diagonal line reflect instances in which earnings changes were greater and less, respectively, than wage rate increases. The number of observations above and below the diagonal line is presented, as is the coefficient of correlation between the wage rate increases and the earnings changes.8 A detailed examination of table 1 or inspection of the scatter diagrams impresses us with the Table 1. Average differences between general wage rate increases and hourly earnings changes in 55 establish ments increasing wage rates, December 1966-July 1967 1 [Cents per hour] Tim e interval since general wage rate change Establishments showing wage increases Average differences between hourly earnings changes and general wage rate increases in 55 establishments where wage rates increased during the period are shown in table 1. (None of the factories reported a wage reduction, and 32 reported no wage change.) Since it is conceivable that the longrun impact of a wage change is not immediately apparent, possible lagged adjust ments are considered. Data for 1-month intervals compare the wage rate increase with the earnings change during the month of the increase. Data for intervals of 2 months or more compare the same rate increase with earnings changes over succes sively longer time spans beginning with the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Number of establishments studied Average earnings change less rate increase Sign of change ignored Sign of change considered A ll establishments 1 month__________________ 2 months_________________ 3 months_________________ 4 months_______ ________ 5 months........ ............ .......... 6 months............................... 7 months_________ ____ 55 46 36 27 24 20 9 7.9 9.3 9.9 12.7 11.4 9.8 9.9 -1 .8 -1 .4 -2 .3 1.6 .9 -1 .8 - 5 .6 Establishments for which 7-month comparisons could be made 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 month__________________ months__________ ____ months_________________ months...... ............ ............ months_______ ______ months...... .............. .......... months_________________ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9.0 8.6 7.9 18.0 14.4 8.2 9.9 i Averages were computed by giving equal weight to each establishm ent -3 .5 -1 .5 -4 .4 6.1 .6 -4 .0 -5 .6 12 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 absence of any indication of a clear and consistent relation between general wage rate increases and average hourly earnings movements in individual establishments. This is true not only for the month of the wage-rate adjustment but also for comparisons involving average hourly earnings over longer time spans. T able , 1 shows an average difference (sign Chart 1. General wage increases and hourly earnings cha July 1967 s in 55 establishments increasing wages, December 1966- [Data in cents per hour] ONE MONTH TWOMONTHS THREE MONTHS FOUR MONTHS Earnings change -10 f = + .07 Observations above and below diagonal line Above— 12 B e lo w - 12 ■20 r = + .0 9 Above— 10 B e lo w - 10 * ( = -.2 7 A b o v e -4 B e lo w - 5 -30 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 0 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 30 Wage rate increase FIVE MONTHS SIX MONTHS SEVEN MONTHS 13 C H A N G E S IN WAGE RATES ignored) between the earnings change in the month of the wage increase and the wage increase of 7.9 cents per hour in all 55 establishments. The scatter of the points on the diagram is so great that the coefficient of correlation between 1-month earnings changes and wage rate increases is only + .22, which is not statistically significant, that is, it could easily have arisen by chance from a situation in which the true correlation was zero. Assuming wage changes do dominate the pic ture, but only after a time lag, we would expect a closer relation in comparisons using longer time intervals. However, contrary findings are re vealed in table 1 and the scatter diagrams; the average difference between earnings and wage changes rose to 9.9 cents and the correlation coefficient actually became negative when 7month earnings changes (for which there were only nine observations) were compared with the wage rate change. The data, admittedly sketchy, provide little support for a time-lag hypothesis. None of the correlation coefficients shown were found to be significant, but the fact that all coefficients except that for the 7-month interval were positive indicates the presence of some weak relationship. Conceivably, the closer average relationship between earnings and wage changes in the 1month comparison was the result of developments in establishments not included in the 7-month comparison. Therefore, for what it is worth, a separate analysis was made of the nine establish ments for which 7-month data are available. As the bottom half of table 1 shows, if we confine ourselves to these nine units, we still find the average spread between earnings changes and wage increases increasing, although to a considerably lesser degree, when 7-month earnings changes are used in place of 1-month changes. Before concluding this discussion, we should note that in five of the seven scatter diagrams, a majority of the observations are below the diagonal line, reflecting a tendency for earnings changes to be less than wage rate increases. This raises an interesting question : Are employers often in a position to take steps—and if so do they—to reduce the cost impact of wage increases? Explanatory variables Since the'Bureau’s monthly employment, pay roll, and hours survey provides hours and employ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ment data as well as earnings information, we are able to consider in a very limited way two factors possibly contributing to the divergent earnings and wage rate changes just discussed.9 The influence of variations in premium pay for overtime hours can be examined by comparing wage rate-earnings relationships involving gross and straight-time hourly earnings. Coefficients of correlation between wage rate and gross hourly earnings changes (as shown on the scatter dia grams) are listed below, together with correspond ing coefficients based upon hourly earnings adjusted to eliminate the influence of overtime premiums: Coefficients Based on gross earnings Time period 1 month........... .............. ................................. 2 months........................ 3 months____________________ 4 months...... ......... 5 months________ _______________ _____ 6 months_______________ _____________ 7 months Based on straight-time earnings .22 .25 .16 .12 .17 .13 .27 - . 32 .1 1 .04 .14 .07 .09 - . 27 Except for the 7-month comparison, substitu tion of straight-time earnings improves the rela tionship but not to a great extent, the coefficients remaining low. At least for the establishments and time period considered, the lack of any substantial correlation between wage rate and gross earnings changes can be explained only to a limited degree by overtime premiums. Even more negative findings on the impact of employment variations are shown in table 2. No systematic relationship can be discerned between straight-time earnings-wage rate differentials and Table 2. Straight-time earnings-wage rate differentials and employment changes in 55 establishments increasing wages, December 1966-July 1967 Number of establishments Time period covered by earnings and employment changes Total. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 month ‘ .................. m onth s... . _____ months __________ m o n th s.................. months__ months . months Earnings change exceeding wage increase, and employment Rising Falling 47 46 13 9 7 7 6 3 2 8 9 10 7 5 5 2 Unchanged 5 2 1 1 1 Earnings change wage increase ployment less than and em- Rising Falling Unchanged 59 52 7 12 17 9 4 7 8 2 18 7 9 7 5 3 3 3 2 1 1 U n 1 establishment, excluded from this tabulation, the earnings change was equal to the wage increase and employment increased over the month. 14 the direction of employment changes. The propor tion of instances in which earnings changes were less than wage increases is not significantly differ ent for cases when employment rose than when employment decreased. If changes in employment did influence establishment earnings levels, their impacts clearly were submerged by forces that could not be isolated. Changes in other establishments The preceding discussion suggests that a variety of forces other than wage rate changes may have marked effects on average hourly earnings within individual establishments. This impression is reinforced by examination of the monthly average hourly earnings changes in the 32 establishments that made no general adjustments in wage rates. For these establishments, the average (sign ignored) of the 224 10 month-to-month variations in hourly earnings was as high as 6.6 cents. As one would expect, changes were in opposite directions in many of these factories; and, within individual units, changes in a given direction in 1 month were frequently offset by opposite move ments the next month. Nevertheless, the extent to which changes in opposite directions cancel out is surprisingly large and suggestive of a major in fluence by random factors; over the 7-month period, the average monthly change per establish ment, taking account of the direction of the change, was less than 0.05 cent in the 32 factories. Multiestablishment data Although individual establishments are the basic building blocks, analysts commonly are interested in the overall pattern revealed by multiestablishment data, such as averages for separate industries or for the economy as a whole. Consideration of such multiestablishment aver ages provides further evidence of the importance of random effects. As shown in table 3, the positive and negative divergences between gross earnings and wage rate changes in individual establishments largely cancel out in affecting multiestablishment averages. Differences exist in the month-to-month changes in earnings and wages, but the overall DecemberJuly increases in the two series are practically the same. As one might expect, the average hourly earn https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 Table 3. Gross average hourly earnings and average wage rate adjustments in 87 establishments, December 1966July 1967 Average hourly earnings Earnings change from prior month Month Average wage rate adjustment during preceding month Based on equal weights for each establishment Total_____ _________ December_________________ January__________________ February___ ______________ March____________________ A p ril...... ................ May__________ __ . . . . June________ ___________ _ Ju ly ._ ............... $2.585 '2.588 2.603 2. 593 2.626 2.632 2.630 2.638 $. 053 $. 056 .003 .015 - .0 1 0 .033 .006 - .0 0 2 .008 .013 .008 .005 .004 .008 .009 .009 Based on aggregate man-hour weights for each establishment Total_____ _________ December____ . ___ January__________________ February__________________ March____________________ A p ril_____________________ May______________________ June_____________________ Ju ly ________ ___________ 2. 728 2.724 2.733 2. 736 2.757 2. 764 2.778 2. 784 .056 .053 - .0 0 4 .009 .003 .021 .007 .014 .006 .012 .006 .004 .003 .008 .009 .011 ings series exhibits greater month-to-month vari ability than does the wage rate adjustment series. In this connection, differences in reporting vari ability inherent in the two statistical systems should be considered. It is also interesting to observe that the same inferences would be drawn from the bottom as from the top half of table 3. Substitution of man hour weights for equal weights raises the level of the hourly earnings series, indicating higher earnings in the larger establishments. However, month-to-month variation is modified to a much smaller degree; during the period covered, monthly fluctuations in establishment man-hours were not a major factor.11 Before concluding from table 3 that there are no significant differences in the movements of the two statistical series, several issues must be considered. For one thing, not all wage studies are based on “all manufacturing” data. It is conceivable that, as in individual establishments, significant differences between earnings and wage rate changes exist on the industry level and only average out on the overall manufacturing level.12 Unfortunately, the size of the sample used in this study is too small for even the most casual examination of this point. Secondly, if we eliminate December from con sideration, our conclusions must be modified. 15 CHANGES IN WAGE RATES Overall January-July changes are: Earnings change Equal establishment weights........................ Man-hour weights..........................................- $0.050 -060 Wage rate adjustment $0- 043 . 041 Particularly when man-hour weights are em ployed, the similarity of the aggregate changes in each of the series is noticeably reduced by elimina tion of the initial month. Shortrun and longrun comparisons However, whether we deal with a 6- or 7-month period, we must emphasize the shortrun nature of the data. Since hourly wage rates are the dominant influence on employers’ hourly pay ments to workers, regardless of time span, a strong force is operating to produce consistency in the behavior of earnings and wage rate change series. On the other hand, as we have seen, cen trifugal forces may also be present, and at least some of them are likely to differ in intensity de pending upon the period studied. On a priori grounds, one would expect the short run forces leading to divergent behavior in the two series to be largely of a seasonal or of a random nature; for example, fluctuations in premium pay ments when seasonal or short-term unexpected changes in orders cause an establishment to vary the amount of overtime work. Our finding of much divergence in individual establishments but greater uniformity on a multiunit level is in line with this view.13 Systematic patterns of divergence are more likely to be noticeable over intermediate and long time spans—patterns in which positive or nega tive differences dominate at least for a time and produce significant variations in the behavior of earnings and wage rate changes. For example, cyclical forces enter the picture; the extent of overtime and of upgrading to attract or maintain a labor force is influenced by conditions in the labor market and tends to produce consistent variations in movements of earnings and wage rates in periods of prosperity and recession. Simi larly, technological developments, partly through their effects on the skill mix, have a longrun effect on hourly earnings, independent of general wage rate changes. In support of this view, cyclical and secular patterns can be observed in the comparative movements of manufacturing gross hourly earn https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ings, hourly earnings excluding overtime, and earnings excluding overtime and effects of inter industry employment shifts. Variations in over time and employment, the forces responsible for this behavior, are also influential in the shortrun but in a more erratic and less systematic manner. Both overtime and interindustry employment variations curbed the upward movement of gross hourly earnings during postwar business contrac tions but had the opposite effect during expansions. This is shown in table 4 by the progessively smaller increases from left to right during ex pansions and by the progressively larger increases in contractions. Over the entire 1939-69 period, the compara tive behavior of the three series, not unexpectedly, resembled that during business expansions. Rates of increase in percent were the following : Annual {compound) rate of increase Total increase Gross hourly earnings............................ Straight-time earnings............................ Earnings excluding overtime and inter industry employment shifts------------ 408.8 386.4 5.6 5.4 358.7 5.2 Over the periods considered, both overtime premiums and interindustry employment shifts led to divergent movements in hourly earnings and wage rate changes.14 Whether other forces affecting hourly earnings—such as reclassifications of indi vidual workers, merit increases, administration of incentive plans, geographic shifts in employTable 4. Annual rates of increase in manufacturing production workers earnings during business cycle ex pansions and contractions, 1948-69 [In percent] Earnings excluding overtime and interindustry employment shifts Gross average hourly earnings Straighttime average hourly earnings Expansions: October 1949—July 1953_______________ August 1954-July 1957.. ____________ April 1958-May i9 6 0 _________________ February 1961-December 1969________ 6.8 5.4 3.8 4.2 6.6 5.1 3.5 4.0 5.9 4.8 3.2 3.9 Contractions: November 1948-October 1949........ ......... July 1953-August 1954_______________ July 1957—April 1958 ________________ May 1960-February 1961_____________ -.7 .6 2.7 1.2 , 1.7 3.3 2.4 1.2 2.5 4.4 3.2 Period (0 i Less than 0.05 percent. NOTE: Dating of expansions and contractions is based upon business cycle turning dates designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research. In the absence of any decision to the contrary, the period from February 1961 to December 1969 (the latest month for which final data were available when this article was written) has been treated as one of expansion. SOURCES: Data for 1948-1961 and 1969 are from Summary of Manufacturing Production Workers Earnings Series, 1939^68 (BLS Bulletin 1616, 1969), pp. 2-3, and Supplement 2, 1970. 16 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 ment, and changes in the occupational employment mix—reinforced or moderated this development is a question beyond the scope of this article.15 Concluding observations There is an understandable desire to describe changes in even so complex a phenomenon as wages by use of a single all-embracing statistical series. Use of an average hourly earnings series represents a step in this direction.16 However, the more general the wage measure, the more difficult it is to interpret. Thus, unlike a pure wage rate change series which measures variations in a single factor, average hourly earnings data reflect the combined effect of a variety of forces which individually are not isolated. Both wage rate change and average hourly earnings series have their uses and their limita tions. Certainly, where availability of series is not a restriction, the researcher should not be indif ferent as to which he analyzes. While the concep tual differences are well recognized, much less is known about the comparative movements of the two series. The study reported in this article found little correlation in the short-term movements of wage rates and hourly earnings in individual establish ments. On the all-manufacturing level, greater similarity was found in the shortrun movements of average hourly earnings and average wage rate adjustments. Nevertheless, two factors—changes in overtime premiums and interindustry employ ment shifts—were found that could loosen the relation between the two series as the time span expands. The tentative nature of these sample findings must be emphasized. To what extent would conclusions drawn from a study of 87 establish ments over a 7-month period vary with a larger sample or longer time span? Are the specific results in any way peculiar to conditions during the first half of 1967? How significantly were the results influenced by possible errors in reporting and analyzing the data? What are the primary factors responsible for the findings? While it would be possible for us to speculate on these points, the information developed in this study is insufficient to provide adequate answers. The data are provocative but not conclusive; their greatest value is as a contribution to development of work ing hypotheses for more intensive analysis. □ ■FOOTNOTES- 1 The 87 establishments remained after selecting every ninth unit in the wage developments in manufacturing sample (yielding 208 establishments) and then deleting those not in the employment, payroll, and hours survey (80) and those for which complete information was not available for the entire period (41). 2 The Bureau’s measurement of wage rate changes is limited to general wage changes. Both the wage develop ments in manufacturing and the employment, payroll, and hours surveys (for manufacturing industries) provide wage or earnings data only for production and related workers. 3 Wage rate change data covering major collective bargaining situations are published in the Bureau’s monthly Current Wage Developments, and data for manu facturing industries are in annual Monthly Labor Review articles and in reports entitled Wage Developments in M anufacturing. 4 Use of hours paid for rather than hours worked as the denominator largely eliminates the influence of changes in paid leave provisions. If payments per hour of leave are the same as earnings per hour worked, the addition, say, of an extra paid holiday will change neither total payroll nor hours paid for, merely changing the composition of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis each of these quantities. (The growth of paid leave over the years has caused a rise in total payments per hour worked relative to payments per hour paid for.) 5 Convenient compilations of BLS hourly earnings data are Employment and Earnings Statistics for the United States, 1909-68 (BLS Bulletin 1312-6, 1968); Employment and Earnings, States and Areas, 1939-68 (BLS Bulletin 1370-6, 1969); and Summary of Manufacturing Production Workers Earnings Series, 1939-68 (BLS Bulletin 1616, 1969). 6 For a listing of major factors influencing the average hourly earnings series, see Summary of Manufacturing Production Workers Earnings Series, 1939-68, p. 14. 7 December-July data for each factory were needed for the multiestablishment averages of table 3. 8 In computing correlation coefficients, equal weight was given to each observation. Two issues arising in the preparation of table 1 and the scatter diagrams must be mentioned. Five of the establishments granted more than 1 wage increase, cost-of-living escalator adjustments in addition to other general increases being involved in three of these cases. To avoid complicating the presentation, the analysis in these instances stops with the month C H A N G E S IN W AGE RATES 17 prior to the second increase. Furthermore, where the wage rate adjustment was not uniform for all production and related workers in an establishment, the increase shown is the average change for all workers in the unit. 9 Neither the employment, payroll, and hours survey nor the wage developments in manufacturing program collects data on other variables influencing average hourly earnings. No other sources of data were utilized in the analysis summarized in this article. 10 Thirty-two observations in each of 7 months. 11 The average hourly earnings column of table 3 applies to the 55 establishments raising wages and the 32 factories reporting no general wage change. Average wage rate adjustments were computed by averaging the total amount of wage increase during the month over all 87 establish ments, including those that did not raise wages. Included in the computations were the second and subsequent increases omitted from table 1 and the scatter diagrams based on it. (See footnote 8.) Current aggregate man-hour weights were used in computing the average hourly earnings data shown in the bottom half of the table; the figures are comparable to the hourly earnings data published by the Bureau. To preserve a pure wage rate change series, constant (December) man-hour weights were used in computing the average wage rate adjustments shown in the bottom half of the table. In this respect, the wage rate change data differ fiom published figures in the computation of which em ployment, rather than man-hour, weights are used. More over, the weights are adjusted annually—January figures are used throughout the year—to reflect establishment employment changes. See BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458, 1966), chapters 2 and 17. 12 See John E. Maher, “An Index of Wage Rates for Selected Industries, 1946-1957,” Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1961, pp. 278-281. 13 Industries reach their peaks at different times of the year, thus leading to some averaging out of the seasonal factor in the same manner as for random influences. For year-by-year comparisons of earnings and wage adjust ment changes, see William Davis and Lily Mary David, “Pattern of Wage and Benefit Changes in Manufactur ing,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1968, pp. 40-48. 14 Although employment weights are used in deriving Bureau measures of wage rate change (footnote 11), em ployment fluctuations have less impact on these measures than on hourly earnings series. 16 For additional comparisons of earnings and wage changes, see Maher, op. cit.; and Richard A. Lester, “Negotiated Wage Increases, 1951-1967,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1968, pp. 173-181. See also John T. Dunlop, Wage Determination Under Trade Unions (New York, Augustus M. Kelley, Inc., 1950), pp. 15-26. Lester’s comparison, it must be pointed out, is between earnings changes and wage decisions, rather than effective wage rate changes. In this connection, see discussion on p. 10. 15 Average hourly earnings is by no means the most comprehensive statistic. Bureau studies of employer pay ments for supplementary compensation, including outlays not appearing on the payroll, permit development of data on average hourly compensation. See Employee Compensa tion in the Private Nonfarm Economy, 1966 (BLS Bulletin 1627, 1969). Sophistication in the use of planning There is much more to planning than figuring out an effective and economical distribution of available resources and arranging for the effi cient conduct of a particular operation. Plan ning implies a thoughtful formulation of goals, the input of as much relevant information as possible, the creation of a system offering multiple options, and the possibility of re formulating goals as circumstances demand. Planning should allow for continuous feedback between anticipation of possible futures and 3 8 9 -5 1 0 0 - 7 0 - 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis events as they actually happen. In other words, the sophisticated forms of planning involve a continuously evolving teleological attitude in which ends influence the selection and develop ment of means, the ends themselves having to be reformulated as the program evolves. — R ene D ubos, Reason Awake: Science for Man (New York, Columbia University Press, 1970). The impact of commuters on the Mexican-American border area A pproximately 70,000 persons cross the Mexican border daily to work in the United States. Of these, 20,000 are U.S. citizens living in Mexico; about 50,000 are Mexican immigrants who have valid U.S. immigration documents but who, for various reasons, continue to live in Mexico while they work in the United States. The majority of those who cross the border work in nine U.S. border cities, where, in some cases, they make up a significant part of the local labor force. These commuters contribute to the labor surplus situation prevailing on the U.S. side of the border, which has a depressing effect on wages and on trade union organizing campaigns. Various proposals have been made in Congress and elsewhere to alleviate the economic and social hardships commuters are said to cause in U.S. border towns. But the present commuter system also has defenders who point out that retail and wholesale trade in towns on the U.S. side of the border is dependent upon the purchases of Mexican workers who earn U.S. wages. There is a great deal of interchange between the U.S. and Mexican border cities in all aspects of trade, commerce, and tourism. The cities are engaged in many joint undertakings, mutually beneficial to the social and cultural development of the people as well as to their economic and social development. This article examines the impact of commuters on commerce, employment, wages, and trade union organization, and possible remedies to counteract problems created by the commuter system. A study of the commuter system examines the problems attributed to “ green carders” and explores some solutions A N N A-ST IN A ERICSON territory and commute to their jobs in the United States.1The practice of commuting internationally grew up because many towns along the Canadian and Mexican borders are really single communities separated by the international boundaries. The immigration laws of the 1920’s, which were designed in large part to protect American labor ¡standards, gave Mexicans and Canadians who worked in the United States admission as non resident aliens coming to the United States for purposes of “business” or “pleasure,” within the meaning of the immigration law. In April 1927, immigration authorities changed position and declared that aliens coming to work in the United States would be classified as immigrants and would have to acquire commuter status. This interpreta tion of the immigration law was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1929. The first step in acquiring commuter status is to achieve lawful admission to the United States as an immigrant.2 Since 1965, the immigrant appli cant has also had to obtain a labor certification unless he is the parent, spouse, or child of a U.S. citizen or resident alien.3 The immigrant’s cer tification specifies that there is a shortage of workers in his particular occupation in the United States and that his employment will not adversely affect wages and working conditions of U.S. residents. Upon admission to the United States, the commuter is registered as an immigrant and is given an Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form 1-151), known as a “green card” from its former color. This card certifies his immigrant status and The commuter The Immigration and Naturalization Service refers to commuters as those aliens who lawfully have the privilege of residing in the United States but who choose to reside in foreign contiguous 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Anna-Stina Ericson is deputy chief of the Foreign Manpower Policy Staff, Manpower Administration. She has been the Department of Labor’s representative to the U.S.-Mexico Commission for Border Development and Friendship. 19 C O M M U T E R S A C R O SS M EXICAN BO RD ER Table 1. Number of green card commuters from Mexico and of Americans unemployed November-December 1967 December 1969 Port of entry, by State and county American Mexican com m uters1 unemployed Mexican commuters American unemployed Total border ports of San Ysidro (San Diego). Tecate (San Diego)____ Andrade (Im perial)____ Calexico (Im perial)____ Arizona San Luis (Yum a)___ _ Nogales (Santa C r u z )... Naco (Cochise)________ Douglas (Cochise)_____ Other New Mexico Columbus (Luna)______ Texas El Paso (El Paso)______ Fabens (El Paso)______ Del Rio (Val Verde)____ Eagle Pass (M a ve rick ).. Laredo (Webb)________ Roma (S ta rr).. ______ Hidalgo (H idalgo).. . . . Progresso (Hidalgo)____ Brownsville (Cameron). Other 49,770 40,176 20,753 15,284 11,697) 63) 14). 8,979) 18,300 3,389 5,148 5,647 3,616 1,388 113) 522) 8 2 869 175 577 (?) 4,900 (*) 1,500 275 800 30 s 287 19,714 23,339 13,493) 321) 200 2, 089 3,456 1061 1,0611 82) 2, 430 101 3,553 1,118 94) 380) 3 17,300 30 31 31 7,535) 56) 3) 7,690) 3.325 774 1,215 3.325 3,960 2, 770 11,760) 279) 317 1,635 2,669 73] 9371 50) 1,917 77 4, 200 500 1,200 3,300 4,200 2, 000 1 Cumulative unduplicated count since November-December 1967. Commuters cross into the United States at least twice a week. 2 October 1969. 3 Not available. 4 These figures are 1967 annual averages. s March 1968. SOURCE: Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice, and Manpower Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. permits his reentry into the United States follow ing temporary absences of less than 1 year. An alien is entitled to commuter status only if he has a job in this country and can lose this status if he is unemployed in the United States for more than 6 months. In the past, the Immigration and Naturaliza tion Service took periodic 1-day counts of alien commuters and has kept a continuous unduplicated count since a survey it conducted in NovemberDecember 1967. At that time, all “green cards,” as they were presented at the border ports of entry, were picked up for verification and were grommetted to identify commuter status. In NovemberDecember 1967, 40,176 alien Mexican commuters were registered. By the end of December 1969, their number had grown to 49,770, as shown in table 1. In addition to immigrants who commute to jobs in the United States from their Mexican residences, about 20,000 U.S. citizens also com mute from Mexico to U.S. jobs. Most of these citizens were born of Mexican or Mexican https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis American parents and probably never lived in the United States or lived there only briefly. Border area residents also classify as commuters those nonimmigrant visitors who possess non immigrant visas or border crossing cards and work illegally in the United States. The largest number of these commuters have 72-hour border crossing cards, valid for purposes of business or pleasure within a 25-mile area from the border. These cards do not authorize their holders to live or work in the United States, but many do. The numbers who work without proper authori zation are difficult to determine. In fiscal year 1969 over 200,000 Mexicans were apprehended for being in this country illegally. Of this number, roughly one-fourth had been in the United States from 1 month to a year, long enough to have been employed. The largest group (80 percent) of deportable Mexican aliens apprehended had en tered without inspection. The next largest group (14 percent) were those holding visitor border crossing cards. Obviously, not all people who have border crossing cards work in the United States, but a sufficient number do to cause U.S. border residents to consider the practice widespread. Employment and earnings Empioyment in the border area is heavily con centrated in low-wage, low-skill industries: Agri culture, services, wholesale and retail trade, government, and light manufacturing. The San Diego area differs from the general pattern because there is more heavy manufacturing and higher wage industries. There is limited information available about the jobs held by legal commuters, the “green carders.’’ What is available was collected by the Immigra tion and Naturalization Service at the time of the 1967 survey of commuters. Commuters are found in the same types of occupations in which resident workers are found. Studies reveal that commuters generally receive the same wages resident workers receive when working in the same enterprise. . Forty percent of the commuters in November-December 1967 said they did farm work, 9 percent were general laborers, 8 percent were in clerical and sales occupations, 7 percent were maids in private households, 6 percent were in construction, and 5.6 percent were in hotel and restaurant occupations. Other signifiO c c u p a t io n a l d i s t r ib u t i o n 20 cant occupational groupings were the following: Metalworkers, 4 percent; sewing machine oper ators, 4 percent; and truckdrivers, 2.7 percent. Farm work was particularly important among commuters entering in California and Arizona. It accounted for 60 percent or more of all com muters in those States.4 Calexico in Imperial County, Calif., and San Luis in Yuma County, Ariz., received the bulk of Mexican commuter farm workers; over 80 percent of all commuters entering these ports were farm workers. In Texas, only 18 percent of the commuters listed farm work as their occupation. The important Texas ports of entry for farm workers were Eagle Pass in Maverick County and Hidalgo in Hidalgo County (the port of entry for McAllen) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Commuters entering other Texas ports of entry were more likely to be general laborers, clerical and salesworkers, domestic ser vants, construction workers, metalworkers, or hotel and restaurant workers. Commuters are found working with resident workers and competing with them for available jobs. Resident workers may occasionally find themselves at a disadvantage in the job market because some employers favor commuter workers. A study of the El Paso garment industry revealed that some employers prefer commuters because they believe they are superior workers, are more cooperative, less troublesome, and more reliable because “they have to work.” 5 In the border cities, wage rates are lower than in the rest of the border States and lower than national averages for similar indus tries or occupations. Statutory minimum wages, where they apply, tend to be the prevailing wages, and there are numerous examples of prevailing wages below the statutory minimum where the legal minimum wage does not apply. A minority of workers are paid at wage rates above the minimum. In January 1968 the Department of Labor made a survey of wages paid to commuters and U.S. residents in the same occupations in Laredo, Tex.6 Data were obtained from 95 establishments for 1,075 residents and 608 commuters in 48 broad occupational groupings. The establishments sur veyed employed at least 5 commuters at the time of the Immigration and Naturalization Service survey in November and December 1967.7 E a r n in g s . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 Twenty-five occupations, in which 5 commuters or more were employed, accounted for 84 percent of the residents and 94 percent of the commuters in the sample. The occupations in which the commuters were concentrated paralleled those reported in the Immigration and Naturalization Service survey, except that the Department of Labor study covered establishments only, exclud ing farm workers and domestics. Average hourly earnings for the 25 surveyed occupations ranged from $0.81 for busboys and $0.86 for service station attendants to $2.10 for customs appraisers. Commuters and resident workers in the same establishment received identical wages in each occupational classification. The Federal minimum wage in effect at the time ($1.40 an hour) was the rate most commonly paid to the commuters; 48 percent of the com muters surveyed received precisely that amount, and 28 percent received less. The ready supply of workers (both residents and alien commuters) kept the prevailing wage at the Federal minimum where it applied and below that level for the number who worked in occupations not covered. Since this study was completed, a study was conducted to determine the impact of the com muter on the El Paso apparel industry in 196869.8 It found that wages in the apparel industry in El Paso “were low compared to wages in the same industry for other States and regions in the United States and, in addition, when compared with the same industry in other cities in Texas.” Most of the workers surveyed received the mini mum wage or just slightly more. The study concluded that the Federal minimum wage for the industry was actually the maximum because of the large number of workers willing to work at this wage. Those workers included commuters, Mexican nationals with temporary visitor per mits, “wetbacks,” and the unemployed and underemployed residents of El Paso—all of whom have a depressing effect on wages in El Paso. Some employers do not differentiate between these categories of persons but consider them all from the same labor pool. Besides being an area where the prevailing wages are at or below the Federal minimum wage, the border also has a relatively high in cidence of Federal wage-hour violations. Almost one-fourth of the workers living in the border States who were paid less than the statutory C O M M U T E R S A C R O SS M EXICAN BO RD ER 21 Table 2. Border area labor force and unemployment rates, 1968 and 1969 [In percent] Unem ployment State and labor market area (county in parentheses) Arizona_________ _______ _______ Yuma (Yum a)_______________ Tucson (P im a )________ _____ Nogales (Santa C ruz)_________ Southern Arizona (Cochise)___ California_____________________ _ San Diego (San Diego)________ Imperial (Im perial)...... .......... . Texas_____________ ________ ___ Brackettville (K inn ey)________ Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito (Cam eron)”. .................. Carrizo Springs (D im m it)_____ Crystal City (Zavala)_________ Del Rio (Val Verde)__________ Eagle Pass (Maverick) _______ El Paso (El Paso)____________ Laredo (Webb)______________ McAllen (Hidalgo)____ ______ Rio Grande City (Starr)_______ Uvalde (Uvalde)_____________ Zapata (Zapata)........ .......... . Current labor force 1969 annual average 1968 annual average 671,000 1 27,200 117,000 5,650 20,625 8,496, 000 455,600 35,400 4,650, 000 1,100 2.9 (2) 3.1 4.7 3.2 4.0 3.8 8.6 2.7 6.7 3.7 4.0 4.0 3 5. 7 3.4 4.5 3.9 8.1 2.7 9.5 48,310 3,200 5,900 9,670 7,940 123,250 30,825 63,280 4,700 6,200 1,900 6.2 9.2 11.2 7.5 11.9 3.7 8.5 5.9 12.6 6.6 11.7 5.8 8.9 10.8 6.8 9.1 4.0 9.0 5.8 11.5 6.4 10.7 1 Data for labor force in October 1969. Data for all other labor market areas are for December 1969. 2 Not available. 3 6.6 percent after removing Mexican commuter workers from the labor force figure. minimum wage in 1969 lived in the border counties. A third of all workers in the border States who suffered equal pay and McNamaraO’Hara Service Contract Act violations lived in the border counties. These are high levels of violations, particularly since the border counties do not represent a high proportion of employ ment covered in those States. poverty level wages, or they work only part time because they are unable to get full-time employment. These workers are classified as underemployed. Combining the estimated unemployed and underemployed reveals a very different picture of the economic conditions of workers in the U.S. border cities from that shown by published unemployment data. In the cities for which such calculations could be made, estimates of unem ployment and underemployment range from about 8 percent to almost 50 percent of the labor force. (See table 3.) The presence of large numbers of Mexican commuters in these labor markets is an obvious disadvantage to resident workers. of M exican unemployment . Unem ployment is also a serious problem along the Mexican side of the border. For years, commuters have crossed into the United States to work, but since the end of the bracero program in 1964, they have been more visible and have increasingly entered agricultural occupations. Because of the bracero program, large numbers of Mexicans migrated to the border area in hopes of getting jobs in the United States. As a result, the popula tions of the Mexican border towns have increased dramatically, faster than it has been possible to create jobs, and the pressure to work on the U.S. side of the border has increased greatly. P ressure U nemployment. Unemployment rates along the U.S. side of the border, except in two or three cities, are far higher than the average unemploy ment rates for the border States and are among the highest in the country. (See table 2.) Neverthe less, a comparison of the number of the unem ployed with the number of commuters, as shown in table 1, suggests that at least in some of the border cities there would be a labor shortage without the commuters. Other estimates of the local manpower situation quickly dismiss this suggestion. These estimates, prepared by area camps committees,9 reveal that unemploy ment figures published by the local employment services understate actual conditions. Job oppor tunities are so limited in some cities that large numbers of potential workers do not actively seek work and are not counted as unemployed. In most of the cities, large numbers of employed workers work fulltime at jobs that pay less than https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 3. Estimated unemployment and underemployment in selected border labor market areas, 1969, and published labor market statistics Labor market area (County in parentheses) Labor force 1969 1 average Published unemploy ment 1969 > Number San Diego (San D iego).Imperial (Im perial)____ Nogales (Santa Cruz).__ El Paso (El Paso)______ Laredo (Webb)________ McAllen (Hidalgo)_____ Brownsville (Cameron), 436, 400 16,600 32, 600 2,600 5,650 322 122, 000 4, 390 29, 700 2, 520 62, 900 3, 700 48, 800 3,040 Esti mated unem ploy m ent2 Esti mated under em ployed 2 Rate 3.8 8.0 5.7 3.6 8.5 5.9 6.2 16,600 3 7, 824 O) 14,375 3,115 4,320 2,940 26,300 O) O) 45, 000 4,152 17, 000 12, 965 Combined underem ployed and unemployed Number Rate 42,900 7,824 476 59, 375 7,267 21,320 15, 905 9.8 24.0 8.4 48.7 24.4 33.9 32.6 1 Based on reports from State Employment Security Agencies. 2 Based on the Comprehensive Manpower Plans. Fiscal Year 1970, prepared by the local Area Manpower Coordinating Committees, and published in the Arizona, California, and Texas Cooperative Manpower Plans for Fiscal Year 1970. 3 Estimated on the basis of the proportion of Mexican Americans in the labor force and Mexican American unemployment rates (both given in the CAM PS plan) and assuming that Mexican Americans make up 50 percent of the area’ s unemployed. 4 Not available. NOTE: Where the information on underemployment differentiated between dis advantaged and nondisadvantaged, the figures for the disadvantaged underemployed only were used. The figures on those not in the labor force but who local manpower planning officials thought could or should be in the labor force are not included, if it was possible to identify them. M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 22 At the same time that the bracero program ended and restrictions were placed by the U.S. Government on temporary agricultural workers from Mexico, the duty-free allowance that Ameri cans were permitted to bring back into the United States after a trip abroad was reduced from $500 to $100. The liquor allowance was simultaneously cut from a gallon to a quart. These events had an immediate negative impact on several of the Mexican border cities, since bracero remittances and tourist purchases, including the sales of liquor, were the mainstays of their economies. Until Mexico launched its border industrializa tion program in late 1966, the Mexican Govern ment had done little to help create jobs in its border area.10 By the end of January 1970, over 17,000 persons were employed in the industries created under this program, and an unknown number of workers were employed in ancillary jobs. This program stimulates additional northward migration of Mexicans eager to work in the new plants. In an effort to determine the magnitude of unemployment and underemployment, the Mexi can National Minimum Wage Commission, under the auspices of the U.S.-Mexico Commission for Border Development and Friendship, conducted a survey of unemployment and underemployment in six border cities in 1969. This survey inquired about the characteristics of the people surveyed and the number who commute to work in the Table 4. Summary findings of survey of unemployment and underemployment in 6 border cities, 1969 Unemployed and underemployed Popula tion (late 1968— early 1969) Labor force Tijuana________ M exicali_______ Nogales.......... . . 450,000 564,700 60,000 157,000 181,381 19,000 Ciudad Ju a re z... 480, 000500,000 135,000 185,000 150,000 Municipio Nuevo L a re d o ... Matamoros_____ 43,600 60,125 Number Percent of labor force 31,000 133,587 8,000 19.7 U8. 5 42.1 30,00040, 000 10, 000 7,0008, 000 20.026.7 22.9 11.613.3 Number reported working in the United States Number 9,000 10,000 2 3,5004,500 318,00022, 500 4, 500 2,800 Percent of labor force 5.7 6.0 6 .7-7.9 12.0-15. 0 9.2 4.7 1 If the total number of persons looking for work for the first time (an estimated 10,000) is included, as they are in the other municipios, the number of unemployed increases to 39,355. The higher figure produces an unemployment rate of 21.7 percent. 2 An estimated 3,000 additional persons were reported as having applied for papers to work in the United States and were awaiting a reply. s An estimated 19,000 additional persons were reported as having applied for papers to work in the United States, but the survey indicated that it takes from six months to a year before their papers are acted upon. SOURCE: Based on data published in “ Revista Mexicana del Trabajo,” Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social, September 1969. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis United States. Without the U.S. jobs, the Mexican figures on unemployment and underemployment would be significantly higher. Officials inter viewed during the surveys said that a cause contributing to the high rates of unemployment on the Mexican side of the border is the con tinuing migration of workers from the interior regions of Mexico who hope to find jobs on the U.S. side of the border. Table 4 summarizes the findings of the Mexican survey. In the six border cities, from 119,587 to 130,587 workers were unemployed and underemployed in 1969—roughly one-fifth of the combined labor force of 611,100 of these cities. Close to 10 percent of this group of workers were looking for work for the first time. Forty to 45 percent of the workers reported that they were holding or had held jobs in the United States. Of those who had worked in the United States, the largest num ber worked as farm laborers. The next largest groups worked as factory workers, domestics, office workers, and gardeners, in that order. Of those who worked in Mexico, the unemployed and underemployed were most often farm laborers or bricklayers. Significant numbers were mechanics, chauffeurs, carpenters, and painters. Over a third of the workers surveyed fell into the 25 years or younger age group (the proportion was as high as 75 percent in Matamoros), and close to half of them were single. Between 30 and 52 percent were natives of the area. In Ciudad Juarez only 15 percent were natives, and in Tijuana none of those surveyed were natives of the area. These figures confirm the strong attrac tion the border area has for Mexicans elsewhere in the country and indicate no lessening in the pressures of continuing population growth and migration. Trade union organization Organized labor in the United States is con cerned that the presence of Mexican commuters, particularly in the grape fields of California, is a deterrent to the organization of farm workers and to the right of organized workers to strike. At its 1969 convention, the AFL-CIO passed two resolutions about Mexican border crossers. Resolution 208, which identifies the commuter with “strikebreaking and unfair competition with workers seeking their rights to organize on the farms and in the factories of the U.S.,” calls 23 C O M M U T E R S A C R O SS M EXICAN BO RD ER for Congressional action to control the “wide spread use of Mexican commuters which under mines American wage and labor standards, narrows employment opportunities for American workers, and provides a constant threat of strike breaking.” In its resolution supporting the farm workers’ organizing efforts (Resolution 233), the AFL-CIO describes how the growers employ green card commuters as strikebreakers, reiterates its support to bring farm workers under the pro tection of the National Labor Relations Act, and urges “improvements in the Government’s im migration policies.” The use of green card commuters as strike breakers was barred in June 1967, by a Federal regulation which precludes the use of the green card by an alien who has left this country and seeks to reenter to accept or continue employ ment at a place where the Secretary of Labor has determined that a labor dispute exists. In prac tice, this regulation has been difficult to enforce because green card commuters may decide to be come residents of the United States during a labor dispute in order to keep their jobs. The United Farm Workers Organizing Com mittee (UFWOC) claims that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has yet to use the regulation for its expressed purpose and that com muters have had little difficulty crossing the border to work in strikebreaking situations. A UFWOC organizer in Delano, Calif., testifying before the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel fare in May 1969, reported that the fear of losing their jobs to commuter workers stops many resi dent agricultural workers from striking. Several legislative proposals responsive to trade union concern have been introduced in the Con gress in recent years. These include an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act to make it an unfair labor practice for employers to hire aliens illegally in the United States or for employers to hire commuters to replace regular employees during a labor dispute. Some of the proposals would extend coverage of the National Labor Relations Act to the agriculture industry. Proposals for change in the commuter system There is a lack of consensus among border area residents about commuters. In its 1968 report, the Good Neighbor Commission in Texas, an organi https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis zation which has statutory responsibility for the State of Texas to survey the conditions and prob lems of migrant labor, stated that the positions of persons for and against the commuter system are “adamant almost to the point of being unnegotiable and without compromise.” 11 There is concern, however, about the effects on the U.S. border cities of changing the longstanding practice of commuting. Any curtailment of the commuter system would probably result in the large-scale movement of commuters and their families to the United States. The housing supply for low- and moderate-income families is already in short supply, and a sudden or even fairly grad ual influx of the commuters would seriously exac erbate this situation. The large-scale movement of Mexican com muters and their families to the United States could also have serious short-term consequences for resident workers. The change in status from commuter to resident would do nothing to allevi ate the labor surplus situation already existing in most border cities. During periods of recession, there would be increased competition for jobs, since the commuters then would not have the option of returning to Mexico to live while re taining their immigrant status. In spite of these and other misgivings about the consequences of changing the commuting system, the concern of the labor movement for the or.ganizing efforts of border area workers and the newly aroused concern of the Mexican-American community with poverty and their lack of eco nomic opportunities are gathering support for a change in the commuter system. Eliminating the commuter system Some opponents of the commuter system would like to see all commuters prohibited. But elimina ting the commuter system immediately seems to be a harsh alternative. Since the system of com muting has been sanctioned administratively by the United States for over 40 years, the commuters have obtained their immigrant status on the good faith assurance that the United States would not change an administrative practice of such long standing. An abrupt change could create serious personal hardships for the commuters and would probably cause diplomatic difficulties with both Canada and Mexico. Closing the border to commuters could also result in a great increase in 24 illegal entrants. Terminating the commuter system over a period of time might prevent some of the difficulties mentioned. At least it would make it possible for the U.S. communities to start con structing housing and schools to meet anticipated needs and for the commuters to plan how to move their families to this country. If the Government were to adopt this alterna tive, it could eliminate commuter status as of a certain date. Only those aliens already having “green cards” would be permitted to continue to cross the border to jobs in the United States. The question then becomes how long they would be permitted to continue commuting. If they were permitted to continue indefinitely, there would be minimal hardship on Mexican commuters’ families. Families would not have to be uprooted, and the commuter practice would disappear through attrition, since no new commuter cards would be issued, not even to family members. Alternatively, the present commuters could be given a time period, say a period of 2 to 5 years, in which to make the transition from Mexican residents to bona fide U.S. residents or lose their immigrant status. Under this alternative, special arrangements would probably have to be made to give the immediate families of present commuters unique consideration in regard to the Western Hemisphere annual immigration ceiling of 120,000. The family members could be admitted on a one-time-only basis without regard to this ceiling during the transition period, or additional num bers could be added to the ceiling to take care of those already on the waiting list. A bill (S. 3545) introduced by Senator Edmund S. Muskie on March 4, 1970, would accommodate the family members by the addition of numbers to the Western Hemisphere immigration ceiling for a 2-year period following the effective date of the bill. A recent survey of commuters12 reveals that between 80 and 90 percent of all commuters would want to move to the United States if commuting were no longer permitted. An influx of between 40,000 and 45,000 commuters and their families could create a massive shortage of housing, education, and other public services. If that number of commuters decided to take up permanent residence in the United States and were able to bring their families with them, a Mexican population of between 200,000 and 300,000 people could be expected to move to the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 United States in a relatively brief span of time. Probably a small proportion of these families would try to move to areas away from the border, but a majority could be expected to reside in the U.S. border towns. Absorbing such large numbers of Mexicans would be an intolerable financial burden for the border communities. Income generated by the new residents through the payment of rents or mortgage loans, payments for utilities, and local taxes would be more than offset by the cost of providing low-income housing, schools, sanitation, and other services. At least in the early years, Federal and State aid would undoubtedly be needed. Administration of such a program might be similar to that provided in federally impacted areas, or to that provided to Cuban refugees since the revolution which brought Fidel Castro into power.13 Strenuous efforts at all levels of government and by private organizations would have to be made to attract new industries to the U.S. border towns so that the change in the commuter system would not result in added burdens of underemployment and unemployment. Large scale training and education programs coupled to credit availability, tax relief, and other programs would make these incentives even more attractive. Consideration might also be given to mobility and relocation assistance to help both local residents and im migrants who are not able to find employment or who want to locate elsewhere. If the numbers who locate away from the border area are suf ficiently large and if they tend to concentrate in specific locations, these localities might also need financial assistance. Labor certification Much of the controversy centering around the commuter system stems from the effect that commuters have on wages and employment levels in the border communities. Because large numbers of commuters, indeed the bulk of them according to Immigration and Naturalization Service of ficials, are not required to get labor certification because of their relationship to a citizen or an immigrant, current labor certification procedures have little impact on the regulation of commuter traffic. If the decision is made to permit the continuation of commuting, or to continue it only 25 C O M M U T E R S A C R O S S M EXICAN BO RD ER for those Mexicans who are commuters as of a certain date, consideration should be given to changing the labor certification requirements. At the present time, immigrants to this country need to be certified only once, at the time of applica tion, and then only if the immigrant applicant is not a parent, spouse, or child of a U.S. citizen or resident alien.14 To be effective in controlling the numbers of commuters from Mexico (and Canada), the certification by the Secretary of Labor would have to apply to all commuters, or be required at periodic intervals. Under the present Immigration and Nationality Act, labor certifications are made either through the use of lists of occupations (schedules), which permit the processing of applications without individual review by the Department of Labor, or by individual case review. These methods are responsive to economic and manpower conditions and expedite the processing of cases. The wage level used is that prevailing for the occupation. The legislative proposals currently before Congress would not change the present method of certifica tion; they would merely require it periodically. If, in addition, the exceptions to the labor certification requirement were tightened and an adverse effect wage were added to the certification language, the procedure of labor certification might be more effective in limiting the numbers of com muters from Mexico. For example, the exception from labor certification applying to Western Hemisphere immigrants could be amended to prevent the automatic exception of the parents of children under a certain age. (Many Mexican children are U.S. citizens by virtue of having been born in a U.S. border city hospital but have never lived in this country.) Also, an adverse effect wage requirement could be added which would require commuters to be paid at a somewhat higher rate than the prevailing wage. This might have the advantage of preventing wage competition by Mexicans and pushing local prevailing wages upward. Administration of an adverse effect wage that is higher than the prevailing wage could be very cumbersome unless a system of wage informa tion, similar to the occupation schedules, could be developed. If a change in the system is made, it would be useful to provide safeguards in the new system to prevent commuters from losing their immigrant status immediately if their jobs would not qualify https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis for recertification and to prevent unscrupulous employers from abusing the commuters. The safe guard would allow for a specified interval during which the commuter could seek another job or move to the United States. Work permit An alternative to the commuter system would be to institute a new nonimmigrant border crossing card—the nonresident work permit. This alter native would permit workers living in Canada or Mexico to work in the United States at jobs where qualified U.S. residents were not available. The work permit could be issued for a specified period of time and would be renewable if the condition under which it was originally granted continued to exist. A periodic review to make such a deter mination would be required. Care should be taken that this system not be used to exploit the foreign worker and that more than a pro forma certifica tion of lack of availability of resident workers is made before issuing the work permit. Other alternatives C ommutation tax . Commuters are frequently cited as a financial drain on the municipal services of U.S. border cities because they pay no property or school taxes, yet use many local services. It has been suggested 15 that a weekly commutation tax, collected from the employers, would help pay for these services. A tax of $1 a week per com muter would provide $2.5 million annually (50 weeks times 50,000 commuters), which could be divided among the local, county, State, and Federal Governments. While such a tax might not be a serious financial liability for employers, it might be enough of an administrative problem that it would encourage employers to hire U.S. residents instead of Mexican commuters. Such a tax could also be paid by the commuters themselves as a payroll deduction. This would put the tax burden on the commuters who are already earning only a minimum salary in most cases; but, since living costs on the Mexican side of the border are lower than on the U.S. side, this tax might be tolerable. ticket . Large numbers of people in the United States commute daily on the railroads from their residences in the suburbs to their jobs C ommuter 26 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 in the cities. A similar system could be developed for border commuters. Cards or tickets could be issued subject to labor certification rather than a fee. A fee could also be charged, that would in effect be a commuter tax added to the commuter ticket. In any event, the card or ticket would be punched or picked up automatically each time the commuter crosses into the States, and an accurate record would simultaneously be made of the num ber crossing on any 1 day. L ocal initiative . There are steps which the border area people themselves can take to reduce the abuses of the commuter practice and to pro vide greater opportunities for U.S. residents. Chambers of commerce, industrial development groups, State employment offices, women’s organ izations, and other business and service groups could begin a major campaign to give job prefer ence to U.S. residents. Some employers in border cities already do this. Since many commuters have U.S. addresses, such a campaign would force employers and workers alike to prove that a worker’s U.S. address is a bona fide residence which he inhabits. Local businessmen, instead of advertising the special advantages of establishing plants in the Mexican border area, might advertise the benefits of a U.S. border location and aggressively seek the means of raising local revenues to provide favor able plant sites, good transportation to and from major markets, and other facilities. Workers in the border area could strive to make their State employment security agencies provide manpower services in a more effective manner. They could do this individually or work through their own Mexican American organiza tions or their unions. Union organization in most of the border area is very weak, because of obsta cles put up by employers and State laws and be cause of the surplus of labor in the border area. However, the major unions have few organizing campaigns in the border area outside of southern California. Conclusions In various studies, the following adverse effects of the commuter system have been identified: • Wages are lower along the border because of the impact of the commuter. • Unemployment is higher in areas where commuters are present. • The incidence of violations of the wage and hour law is greater in the border area. • Collective bargaining in the border areas is ham pered by the availability of commuter workers. There are difficulties, however, in changing the present system which has had legal validity for so many years. Mexican nonresident aliens, as well as many U.S. border residents, consider it a right. The economies and the social and political climate of the border communities have been shaped by the availability of a large pool of low-skill and Mexican-American workers in the United States In order to understand the present status of Mexican-Americans in the United States, it is imperative that we investigate the conditions on the U.S.-Mexico Border. Since the turn of the century Mexico has supplied, legally or illegally, a large portion of the labor force, mostly un skilled, which has contributed to the develop ment of the Southwest. The fluctuations of the U.S. economy are clearly reflected in the move ments of people across the border. Much of this labor force has first found a place, however precarious, in agricultural endeavors before moving into the urban environment. Many con- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tinue working as farm laborers although living in the city. Whether they have come as legal immigrants, as “braceros,” as “commuters,” as “wetbacks,” or as “visitors,” they have left an imprint in the society. Thus what happens on the border has repercussions in Detroit, Chicago, Denver, San Antonio, and certainly Delano. —Julian Samora in Preface to Ernesto Galarzza, Spiders in the House and Workers in the Field (Notre Dame, Ind., University of Notre Dame Press, 1970). 27 C O M M U T E R S A C R O SS M EXICAN BO RD ER relatively low-wage Mexican labor. A number of alternative solutions to the com muter system have been suggested. A major consideration in choosing any alternative or combination of alternatives is that an abrupt end to the practice of commuting would result in hardships for both the commuters and their families and for the U.S. border cities in which they work. The studies that have been made conclude that, if forced to choose between taking up permanent residence in the United States or surrendering their “green cards/’ an overwhelming proportion—as high as 80 or 90 percent—of the commuters would move to the U.S. side of the border. They would become residents of com munities which may already be in some economic distress and are ill-equipped to handle unantici pated massive demands for services. If the commuters and their families are to be relocated without seriously disrupting these border com munities, provision must be made to ensure the availability of basic services such as housing, education, medical care, and family assistance and to expand employment opportunities. □ ■FOOTNOTES----- 1 There are also Canadian commuteis, but because of more similar wage and other labor standards between Canada and the United States, the employment of Canadian workers does not have the depressing economic effect that the employment of Mexican workers has. 2 Until July 1, 1968, when an annual ceiling of 120,000 was imposed there was no numerical limitation on im migration from independent Western Hemisphere countries and the Canal Zone. 3 Immigration and Naturalization Service officials have stated that this exclusion means that the “bulk” of immigrants from Mexico do not need labor certification. 4 At the time this survey was conducted, seasonal agricultural employment was at or near its peak in the border areas. Among the commuters who listed farm work as their occupation were 7,743 who had been doing migratory farm work in the United States but were then back in the border area and commuting from Mexico. Had they not been identified as commuters at that time, it is likely that they would now be counted as seasonal workers, that is, Mexicans with immigrant visas who enter the United States and follow the crops, returning to Mexico to live at the end of the season. Since August 1968 the Immigration and Naturalization Service has listed these aliens as seasonal workers, and by December 1969 had identified 4,628 of them in an unduplicated, noncumulative count. 5 Brian Scott Rungeling, “Impact of Mexican Alien Commuters on the Apparel Industry of El Paso (A Case Study),” a Ph. D. dissertation. University of Kentucky, June 30, 1969, p. 74. 6 Stanley M. Knebel, “Restrictive Immigration Stand ards: Probable Impact on Mexican Alien Commuter,” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Farm Labor Developments (U.S. Department of Labor), November 1968. 7 A subsample of eight gasoline service stations employ ing less than five commuters was also included. 8 Brian Scott Rungeling, op. cit., chapters IV and V. 9 Committees of the Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System (CAMPS). Composed of officials working with manpower and related matters, these committees are organized at local, State, regional, and national levels, the initial local plans being acted on and consolidated at successively higher levels. 10 See Anna-Stina Ericson, “An Analysis of Mexico’s Border Industrialization Program,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1970, pp. 33-40. 11 “Alien Labor, Commuters and Immigration Reform,” in Texas Migrant Labor, The 1968 Migration (Texas Good Neighbor Commission, 1969), p. 5. 12 David S. North, The Border Crossers, People Who Live in Mexico and Work in the United States; September 1, 1969, draft of a study financed under a Manpower Admin istration Research Contract, p. 225. 13 The number of Cuban refugees who have been regis tered in the Cuban Refugee Program (which is entirely voluntary) since it began in January 1959 was 366,902 as of March 20, 1970. Of these, 242,606 have been resettled in over 3,000 communities in 50 States. (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of the Cuban Refugee Program.) 14 This exception applies to all Western Hemisphere applicants. The exception is slightly different for Eastern Hemisphere applicants. 15 David North, op. cit., p. 254. Relations between management and labor in West Germany framework within which trade unions achieve their aims varies considerably among Western industrialized nations. In Germany, unions face an elaborate, tightly knit structure of management organizations which act with con siderable solidarity to curtail labor’s power. The activities of these organizations are interrelated and coordinated in a way that enables them to face the trade unions effectively at the bargaining table as well as in the larger sphere of national politics where many of Germany’s labor-man agement confrontations take place. Despite the backing of the law, the divided trade union movement has never been a match for this powerful adversary—not even in the period between the two world wars. In 1933, trade unions were disbanded and the leaders perse cuted; and when they were reestablished in 1945, they lacked adequate human and material re sources. The post-World War II “economic miracle” gave renewed strength to management organizations, which had remained relatively in tact. When a new, unified trade union federation developed, it again found organized management a formidable foe. The long-range, and often vague, measures proposed by the unions to curb the power of the business community made slow progress while consuming a great deal of scarce talent, energy, and time. T he German management organizations There are three national employers’ confedera tions, a coordinating committee in which repre- Ellen M. Bussey is a labor economist formerly with the U.S. Department of Labor and Department of State. She has had an extended tour of duty in Germany, and has contributed articles on European labor to the Monthly Labor Review and other publications. 28 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Three major employer groups coordinate efforts to limit labor's effectiveness at the bargaining table and in legislatures ELLEN M. B U SS EY sentatives of the three meet at irregular intervals to discuss policy, and a research institute which serves all the management organizations and pre pares studies on management’s point of view. Economic policy is the domain of the National Confederation of German Industry (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie—bdi), which in 1968 consisted of 39 member industrial organiza tions. Trade union policy is not its concern, but the research it conducts and the recommendations it makes are often of considerable importance to the National Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbande—bda), which is responsible for collective bargaining policy and for all other matters relevant to labor. There are no official statistics on the proportion of German industrial firms organized in the bdi and bda , but esti mates expressed in conversations put membership at approximately 80 percent.1 As its name implies, the third major manage ment organization, the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (Deutscher Industrie und Handelstag—diht) is concerned mainly with the promotion of trade. But it also has responsi bility for the elaborate system of German appren ticeship training. The latter is administered by a committee of which half the members come from local chambers of industry and commerce and half are union-appointed workers employed by the member firms. Since apprenticeship is required for a vast number of occupations in industry and commerce, and since the great majority of German youngsters enter such training at age 15, it is readily apparent how far-reaching—and how important to labor—this task of diht is.2 Two or three times a year, representatives of the 3 confederations plus 11 other independent business organizations meet as the Joint Com mittee for the German Economy (Gemeinschaftsausschuss der Deutschen Gewerblichen Wirt- M A N A G EM E N T A N D LABO R IN W EST G ER M A N Y schaft) to coordinate activities and policies. A regular chairman serves a 2-year term and secre tariat responsibilities rotate biennially among member organizations. Any major topic of interest to management may receive attention. In 1966, the focus was on economic stabilization measures, and on efforts of the Social Democratic Party (spd ) and the labor wing of the Christian Democratic Union ( cdu) to effect major changes in vocational training through legislation. In 1968 codetermi nation and wage policy were the main concern. Until World War II, activities of management organizations were generally shrouded in secrecy. When the confederations were reestablished after the war, they realized that much could be gained from efforts to improve their public image. In January of 1951 the Institute for German Industry (Deutsches Industrieinstitut—di) was created, not only to provide scientific research for the existing management organization but also to influence public opinion.3 Since its formation, the institute has published books and pamphlets to explain management’s views to the public and to point out what is at stake for the economy as a whole if labor demands are met. In the last few years, several publications have appeared which countered labor’s campaign to expand the existing system of codetermination.4 The di also publishes an irregular bulletin, Argumente zu Unternehmerfragen, to supply management with quick, up-todate information to counter current trade union demands.5 Management and collective bargaining Of all the management organizations, the National Confederation of German Employers’ Associations has the greatest impact on labor, since its very reason for existence is to confront the trade unions on behalf of management. In this task it is reinforced by publications, research studies, and technical assistance from the other management organizations. But, in the end, its success depends on the solidarity it is able to achieve among member firms in implementing the social policy decided upon, and on the effec tiveness of its members’ bargaining with the unions. The employers’ confederation was formed in November 1950 despite the trade unions’ objec tions. The scheme of its organization differs little from that of the pre-1933 confederation of Ger man Employers’ Associations, but it rests on a https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 29 broader base. Its membership consists of 43 na tional organizations of employers in specific indus tries, which are subdivided into regional organiza tions corresponding to the collective bargaining units of the trade unions. Where regional organiza tions have achieved considerable importance, they may join the bda directly. On January 1, 1968, 13 such organizations were members. In collective bargaining a group of firms is represented by a bda member organization, a fact that greatly strengthens the position of individual firms, particularly the smaller ones. Collective bargaining in the Federal Republic is conducted by employers’ organizations and trade unions on an industrial and, usually, regional basis. For all practical purposes, the German labor movement has been unified since 1949 in the German Trade Union Federation (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund—dgb), which had over 6,375,000 members on December 31, 1968.6 The actual power within the federation resides in its member industrial unions, dgb headquarters officially represents the German labor movement and serves as a clearinghouse of ideas. It may suggest guidelines and tries to coordinate activities, but it cannot interfere in collective bargaining as this is the exclusive prerogative of the 16 member unions. Decisions in this respect are made by national industrial unions or by their regional branches, depending on whether a union bargains on a national or regional basis. Most agreements cover about 100,000 workers in one industry in a given region. Other arrangements exist but they are the exception rather than the rule. Only a few German labor unions are organized to bargain on a plant level. Fringe benefits, with minor exceptions, are only indirectly a subject of collective bargaining in the Federal Republic since extensive legis lation covers such items as health insurance, vacations, notice, and dismissal pay. These com pulsory added labor costs are very much an area of contention between the unions and employers’ organizations, but the battles are fought within a larger framework than labor-management nego tiations. Yet the employers cite these legislated fringe benefits when they bargain over wage increases. A study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that hourly earnings in Germany did constitute a considerably smaller proportion of estimated total labor cost per hour in 1968 (71 percent) than in the United States (84 per- 30 cent), but that a number of European countries had lower proportions of earnings to total labor costs than did Germany.7 In the event negotiations are unsuccessful and a strike or lockout results, bda member firms are entitled to compensation from their respec tive organizations. A special strike fund exists but the amounts of financial aid available to members is not made public. In general, a firm may count on being compensated for fixed ex penses as well as salaries of white-collar workers who are not striking, and for claims that may be brought by outsiders, such as customers or suppliers, for damages resulting from the strike or lockout. The total financial burden due to strikes is not quite as great for the bda as it appears. Since the trade unions have committed themselves to strike benefits equal to 90 percent of wages, thus virtually pricing themselves out of the area of industrywide stoppages, they usually strike key firms. Management decisions to allow conflicts to develop into strikes or lockouts are made by the respective management bargaining units and do not need bda ’s approval. However, once a course of action has been agreed upon, it is maintained by means of discipline among the firms in the unit. The degree of solidarity one ascribes to German employers’ organizations depends on where one expects to find it—at what level and on what issues. Usually rebuke for not having acted with sufficient unity comes from the bda and is cen tered on the wage issue. At the confederation level, solidarity on this issue is virtually impossible due to differences in economic and labor market condi tions among industries and regions. It is obvious that solidarity will vary from one member organization to another and, generally, will depend to a considerable extent on the degree of heterogeneity of firms within a bargaining unit, the stature of the organization’s leaders and their influence, and the problems encountered with the trade unions. But in practice firms usually do not deviate too greatly from the rest of the group. Few want to risk the bad feeling, and possibly adverse business consequences, that might result from offending against the majority position. Also, membership is voluntary and the purpose of belonging would be negated if a firm strongly and consistently opposed to the policy made by its spokesmen. There are, furthermore, a certain https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 number of binding decisions—usually on strikes and lockouts—which national and regional or ganizations of employers have been authorized by member firms to make. These vary from one organization to another, but where they exist member firms must comply. If they do not, they are usually expelled.8 Beyond the bargaining table Interaction of employers’ and workers’ organiza tions in Germany is by no means confined to determining who will get what piece of the economic pie. Although the class struggle idea was discarded along with Marxist slogans during the late 1950’s, the aims of trade union officials, as expressed in word and deed, leave little doubt that their concern goes beyond the present welfare of their membership. They wish to enhance the general status in society for the stratum they feel they represent, not merely to improve its economic wellbeing. In conceiving of their role in this manner they come into conflict with management organizations on a broad spectrum of political, economic, and social matters. Probably the most important bone of contention since the end of World War II has been codeter mination. Some aspects of what this term now covers—such as a type of plant council—existed in the days of the Weimar Republic, and Fürstenberg dates the concept back to the 1848 Constitutional Assembly of Frankfurt.9 In its present form, however, codetermination has existed in Germany since 1951 when it was legislated after a hardfought battle by labor. Conventionally the term is used to denote rights given workers by the Mitbestimmungsgesetz (Codetermination Law) of 1951, the Betriebsverfassungsgesetz (Plant Orga nization Law) of 1952, and the Personalvertretungsgesetz (Personnel Representation Law) of 1955. The term is loosely applied, for it has actual relevance only with respect to the 1951 law, which is restricted to the coal and steel industry. The latter allows labor equal representation with management on the firm’s supervisory board (Aufsichtsrat) and one representative on the board of directors (Vorstand), as well as the right to establish plant councils. In other private enter prises only the 1952 law applies, giving labor the right to organize plant councils and entitling it to one-third of the membership on the supervisory M A N A G EM E N T A N D LABO R IN W EST G ER M A N Y board. The 1955 law adapts the 1952 provisions to workers in public services. In practice, however, even parity representation on the board of supervisors 10 has not given labor much influence, since this body meets only a few times a year for general recommendations and is not involved in the day-to-day decisionmaking of the enterprise. The labor representative on the board of directors is also of limited value to the union. He is paid by management and is sworn to secrecy like other members of the board. Thus, the unions cannot use him as a source of information and can only hope that he represents their interests at the board meetings. In this they have been disappointed because continuous association with management and constant exposure to their problems has caused many labor representatives to identify with management. In any event, the labor representative’s responsibility is limited to personnel and social matters, such as holidays, vacation pay, coffee breaks, work hours, and shifts. The plant councils, authorized by the laws of 1952 and 1955 for all enterprises with five or more employees, consist of representatives of all workers in a plant, whether organized by a union or not. The councils are specifically prohibited from engaging in collective bargaining but, in practice, they have had considerable influence in setting wages and working conditions. They must be consulted by management on all social and personnel matters. As a result, members of councils often maintain they have a better under standing of an enterprise than do union representa tives, thus encouraging union members to identify with the plant councils rather than the unions. In spite of these negative aspects of the co determination issues, the trade unions have prob ably given more attention to its extension than to any other question, with the possible exception of wages. German labor sees in codetermination a means of achieving its long-range aim of re structuring German economic life in a manner that would give the working man a permanent and secure voice in the management of industry. Codetermination appears to have become a substitute for socialism, which has been largely abandoned by trade union policymakers, and it is clear why management organizations have op posed codetermination. Since codetermination was established by law, the question of broadening it does not just involve a confrontation of management and labor. The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 31 debate has shifted back and forth for years with no end in sight. Recent prosperity has made it seem that management is doing a good job of running its business as is. When the most recent coalition government was formed, the uncom promising attitude of the Free Democratic Party (Freie Demokrtische Partei—fdp ) against the broadening of codetermination powers for labor made the Social Democratic Party shelve the issue for the time being. Essentially the dgb wishes to extend to all industries the kind of codetermination that pre vails in the coal and steel industry, with greater power for the plant councils. It also wants a voice in economic policymaking through labor represen tation in the chambers of industry and commerce and, at a higher level, on provincial and Federal economic councils to be established for this pur pose. Management organizations have countered by contending that there is no substance to union claims that codetermination has achieved impor tant successes in the coal and steel industry through labor-inspired planning. Other industries have also planned, they say, and the reason structural changes in coal and steel did not have a disastrous effect on employment is that the rapid growth of the economy as a whole alleviated the problem. With respect to plant councils, em ployers’ organizations have insisted that the law is adequate but the workers have not availed themselves of all the opportunities it offers. They contend that the unions are not really interested in giving the worker a voice in running his enter prise, but are concerned with the influence of their leaders on the kind of long-range economic reforms they have always advocated. This, they state, is apparent from the unions’ wish to extend codeter mination to national policymaking, an aim that would result in a completely transformed economic system rather than merely in greater codeter mination.11 In the last two decades, German labor unions have also taken a strong interest in public educa tion—not just in developing trade unionists. Traditionally, most children of workingmen have left school after 8 years to enter apprenticeship. Such statistics as exist show that the proportion of workers’ children who go on to universities is very small.12 By establishing a network of classes and schools for their members, the unions have sought not only to raise the educational level of the 32 present labor force, but to provide the members with the necessary impetus to send their children to schools of higher learning. Labor has also charged that the educational system as a whole discriminates against those who do not come from an intellectual environment. It has campaigned successfully for a ninth year of compulsory schooling, is now pushing for a tenth, and is asking for extensive revisions of the apprenticeship system. The special schooling provided by the unions has, at times, been challenged by management organizations, who see in it an attempt to develop an antiestablishment, leftist-oriented group of the population, and unionists have felt compelled to defend their educational efforts.13 But reaction has been particularly strong to union proposals regarding apprenticeship training. The dgb wants more training taken out of the plant and trans ferred to schools. It has stressed that young workers need to learn new methods and not those that were taught two or three decades ago; and that trainees become too specialized when they learn their trade predominantly in one plant. Labor has also advocated that the Government take the responsibility for training away from the Chamber of Industry and Commerce, and establish vocational training boards at district and Land levels. These would include representatives of workers and employers, as well as teachers and youth organizations, and would operate under the general supervision of the Ministry of Labor. Finally, the dgb has proposed that apprentices receive negotiated wages rather than merely educational allowances. Employers have agreed that the practical and theoretical parts of training need to be better integrated, but have strongly and successfully resisted the widespread reforms ad vocated by the labor unions. The existing ap prenticeship system has been sacred territory of special concern to management organizations, since a trainee will eventually make a substantial contribution to the enterprise in which he serves.14 The new law on vocational training (Berufsbildungsgesetz),15 effective September 1969, was received with disappointment by organized labor. The law brought up to date the list of occupations for which youth could be trained, and provided for the establishment of committees on vocational training at the Federal, provincial, and regional levels. Labor and management will have an equal voice on these committees, but the latter will be https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 largely advisory. Training will continue to be ad ministered by the chambers of industry and com merce. The law encourages, but does not compel, the extension of theoretical training and the creation of centralized workshops sponsored by groups of employers. Another major debate between labor and management organizations has centered on income redistribution. The unions have come to realize that they cannot accomplish their aims in this direction through wage demands, particularly since real wages have pretty consistently remained behind productivity increases.16 Social security has reached such an advanced stage that labor asks only for minor changes. The type of income redistribution labor has emphasized in recent years is reflected in its drive to get more capital into the workers’ hands. The aim is to make it possible for the worker to accumulate savings from which he eventually can expect a return that will make him financially more independent, and generally more prosperous. Various plans have been proposed, mostly by labor, and some efforts have been made by the Government and manage ment, to further this concept. Government sub sidies have been given to long term savings accounts and to home construction, and two laws have been passed—one in 1961 and one in 1965 (amended July 1, 1969)—granting tax incentives to employers for special bonuses to workers who obligate themselves to save the money or to use it for home construction. Organized labor and the Social Democratic Party have advanced plans which included compulsory profit sharing; a fund created by an excess profits tax, with shares to be held by workers; and the investment wage—an additional negotiated wage increase which would be invested by the employers for the worker and, therefore, would have no in flationary effect. None of the three suggestions has been popular with management, although the construction workers, who are usually ahead of other unions in negotiating special benefits, have a contract allowing the employer to deposit a small invest ment wage (about $50 a year) to a special account in a worker’s name. There has been no major objection to the two bonus laws since the maxi mum bonus is small—about $78 a year in 1961 and $117 a year in 1965—and it is a voluntary, traditional gesture on the part of the employer to give yearend bonuses anyway. Management 33 M A N A G EM E N T A N D LABO R IN W EST G ER M A N Y organizations have generally agreed with the principle of increased savings and investment among workers, but to date the results of trade union efforts along this line have been meager. Concessions made have been so small that even if they were fully implemented they would do little to change the financial position of the worker. In practice they have not even aroused much interest among the beneficiaries, further negating the intended results. According to figures recently released by the Federal Labor Ministry, 20 percent of the total eligible work force made savings under these laws in 1968.17 There are more than 80 laws in Germany which assign to trade unions some responsibilities, either of a political or economic nature.18 This fact emphasizes the extent to which organized labor has become involved in matters other than collective bargaining, and sets the stage for labor’s preoccupation with a variety of problems. For the foreseeable future, labor and employers’ organizations will confront each other on funda mental economic, social, and political issues. Traditionally management organizations have been powerful opponents of labor unions and have, at best, regarded them with paternalism. Efforts to educate the workers about the issues involved and to produce leaders who can confront management on an equal basis, the gradual passing of dgb leadership to a new generation, as well as political changes brought about by the elections of last September, will be important determinants of the form worker-management relations will take in the future. The recent change in the Government will provide a more sympathetic political setting where legislative action is the trade unions’ aim. Radical changes are not likely, however, since the spn must govern with the help of the fdp . The latter represents many diverse interests, some strongly opposed to those of the trade unions. Important, also, will be the extent to which the trade unions will be able to counter the efforts of management to shape public opinion. Manage ment organizations have harped upon the wellknown German fear of inflation when opposing union wage demands, and have taken credit for postwar prosperity from which the workers have benefited. □ FOOTNOTES 1 For comprehensive information on the histories and activities of the b d i and b d a , see Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, Der Weg Zum Industriellen Spitz enverband (Darmstad, Hoppenstedts Wirtschafts-Archiv g m b h , 1956); Walter Raymond Stiftung, Aufgaben und Stellung der Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer Organisationen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Köln, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1966); and Roswitha Leckebusch, Entstehung und Wandlungen der Zielsetzungen der Struktur und der Wirkungen von Arbeitgeberferbänden (Berlin, Duncker und Humblot, 1966). 2 More information on the history and activities of the d ih t may be found in Deutscher Industrie- und Handelstag, Der Deutsche Industrie- und Handelstag in Seinen Ersten Hundert Jahren, Zeugnisse und Dokumente (Bonn, d ih t , 1962); and Deutscher Industrie- und Handelstag, Koblenzer Strasse 148 (Bonn, d i h t , 1966). 3 Writing about the founding of the institute, Dr. Wolfgang Mansfield states: “Six years after the collapse of Germany in 1945, German entrepreneurs had managed to overcome the destruction of war and dismantling, and had been able to get the economy back on its feet. But there was hardly a voice in the country which lauded the accomplishments of the business community. Instead, a large proportion of the intellectuals who are such an important influence on public opinion, had become radicals. Academicians, professional people, journalists, bureau crats, teachers and theologians, had suffered greatly during the inflation of the twenties and the currency 3 8 9 -5 1 0 O 70 3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reform of 1948 and, not understanding the economic causes behind these catastrophies, blamed industrialists and businessmen. They saw in them, people who had succeeded in nefarious ways to retain and enlarge their assets, while those who were outside the production process had been robbed of their savings. They were inclined to agree with the occupation authorities that the trade unions were the only guarantors of true democracy, and to believe the pronouncements of organized labor uncritically.” (In Ludwig Losacker, “Das Industriein stitut und Sein Vorsitzender,” Deutsches Industrieinstitut, Fünfzehn Jahre Industrieinstitut (Köln, Deutscher Indus trieverlag, 1966), p. 14; author’s translation. 4 See, for instance, Roland Tittel, Mitbestimmung in der Bundersrepublik Deutschland, Tatsachen und Forder ungen (Köln, Deutsches Industrieinstitut, 1966) ; and Deutsches Industrieinstitut, Die Entwicklung der M it bestimmung in den Unternehmen der Eisen- und Stahlin dustrie sowie des Kohlen- und Erzbergbaus von 1954 bis 1966 (Köln, DI, October 1966). 5 For more information on the activities of the Insti tute for German Industry, see Deutsches Industrie institut, Fünfzehn Jahre Deutsches Industrieinstitut (Köln, Deutscher Industrieverlag, 1966). 6 Separate confederations exist for government officials (Deutscher Beamten Bund—Confederation of German Government Officials), and for a minority of white-collar workers (Deutsche Angestellten Gewerkschaft Union 34 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 of German White-Collar Workers). In 1967, these two or ganizations had 725,000 and 481,300 members, respectively. 7 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis tics, Average Hourly Earners and Estimated Supplemen tary Labor Costs of Wage Earners in Manufacturing (un published, made available to the author in April 1969). 8 A recent example of this was the synthetic fibers firm Correcta of Hesse. During a strike the union insisted on a separate collective agreement with this company. The employers’ organization for that industry and area refused, but the firm negotiated nevertheless and granted the union most of its requests. As a result it lost its mem bership in the employer’s organization. (Der Arbeitgeber, December 1968.) 9 Friedrich Fürstenberg, “Workers’ Participation in Management in the Federal Republic of Germany,” Bulletin of the International Institute for Labor Studies, June 1969, pp. 94-148. Other useful descriptions and analyses of German codetermination may be found in Werner M. Blumenthal, Codeternination in the German Steel Industry (Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1956), and Verein für Sozialpolitik, Zur Theorie und Praxis der Mitbestimmung (Berlin, Dunker und Humblot, 1962). 10 Actually an extra, neutral member is elected to avoid deadlocks. 11 See Deutsches Industrieinstitut, Mitbestimmung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Tatsachen und Forder ungen (Köln, DI, 1966). 12 According to Dahrendorf, two thirds of all German children have parents either in agricultural or in blue- collar occupations but barely 10 percent of all university students are recruited from these groups. (Rolf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy, Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & Co., 1967, p. 76.) 13 See, for instance, Franz Deus, “ Geschichte der Gewerkschaften und deren Verhältnisse zu den Arbeit geberverbänden,” in Walter Raymond Stiftung, Aufgaben und Stellung der Arbeitgeber- und Arbeitnehmer-Organi sationen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Köln, West deutscher Verlag, 1966), pp. 94-98. 14 A good, short discussion of the German apprentice ship system and its problems is available in Gertrude Williams, Apprenticeship in Europe (London, Chapman and Hall, 1963), pp. 17-47. 15 See a report on the law in the Monthly Labor Review, January 1970, p. 73. 16 This was most recently pointed out again by Heinz Markman, the new Director of the DGB’s Economic Research Institute, in an interview (Der Arbeitgeber, February 21, 1969, p. 99). 17 For more information on German programs and proposals for capital accumulation for the worker, see Georg Leber, Accumulation of Assets for the Worker (Frankfurt/Main, I.G. Bau- Steine-Erden, 1965); and Labor Developments Abroad, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 1965. 18 Günter Drews, Abhandlungen zum Arbeits- und Wirtschaftsrecht, Bd. 5 (Heidelberg, 1958), as quoted in Walter Raymond Stiftung, op. cit., p. 94. A note on communications The M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w welcomes communications that supplement, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, M o n t h l y L a b o r R e v i e w , Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Special Labor Force Report examines employment experience of the Nation’s youth not in school in October 1969 HOW ARD HAYG HE the 1970’s , 34 million young workers are expected to enter the American labor force, about 7 million more than during the 1960’s. Most of them will be high school and college graduates, but some will be school dropouts. What kind of work can these youths expect to do in their first years out of school? Who are most likely to be unemployed? Even though the pro portion of youth in the labor force who will have completed high school is projected to rise, there will still be a significant proportion of young people who will not have completed high school. What special employment problems may be faced by this group? This article discusses the labor force character istics of young high school graduates and school dropouts, income of families of graduates and dropouts, and types of jobs they obtain. The data are based on the supplementary questions to the October 1969 Current Population Survey.1 D uring Graduates in 1969 An estimated 2.8 million young people graduated from high school in 1969 (table 1), nearly double the number graduating 10 years earlier. Over the past decade, a growing proportion of the graduates continued on to college so that by 1969 over half (53 percent) of the year’s graduates were in college at the time of the survey, compared with 46 per cent in 1959 (see chart 1). As in the past, propor tionally more men than women were enrolled in college in October 1969—about 60 percent and 47 percent, respectively, of those who graduated in 1969 and nearly all of them were full-time students. For most students, concentration on studies took precedence over labor force participation; in Howard Hayghe is an economist in the Division of Labor Force Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Employment of high school graduates and dropouts October 1969, 35 percent of them were working or looking for work. However, this proportion repre sents a significant increase from 1959 when only 26 percent of the college students were in the labor force. The increase in the proportion of college students in the work force may reflect the rising costs in higher education. Also, the relatively high level of economic activity and more plentiful job opportunities during the late 1960’s encouraged many students to seek work. They apparently had about as much difficulty finding jobs as their high school classmates who did not continue their schooling. Their unemployment rate, at 11.4 per cent, was the same as for high school graduates not enrolled in college. Of the 1.3 million graduates who did not go on to college, over 1 million were working or looking for work in October 1969. As usual, a much greater proportion of the boys than girls were in the labor force and relatively more single than married girls were in the labor force. One of the reasons for the lower labor force rate of women is the fact that about 18 percent of the female graduates were married at the time of the survey and one-half of them were not in the labor force, presumably be cause of household responsibilities. Another rea son for the lower rate for women is that a greater proportion of the women were not in the labor force while attending special schools for training in secretarial skills, data processing, and other fields. The unemployment rate in October 1969 for the year’s high school graduates, at 11.4 percent, was lower than during the early 1960’s, in line with the improvement in the economy. The high un employment rate for newly graduated women, nearly twice that of their male counterparts, was partly due to the extremely high rate for Negro graduates.2 35 36 School dropouts As in previous years, youths who had dropped out of school in the year ending in October 1969 were less likely to be in the labor force and more likely to be unemployed than were recent high school graduates (table 2). As of October 1969, some 660,000 young per sons aged 16 to 24 had left elementary or highschool sometime during the preceding year, about the same number as in the past 2 years. About half of the dropouts were young men. A signifi cantly smaller proportion of them were in the labor force compared with the recent high school graduates. This is partly because dropouts were younger—about half the dropouts but relatively few graduates were 16 and 17 years old. At this young age, persons are often out of the labor force because they continue to depend on parents for economic support; also, there are legal re strictions on the kinds of jobs they can hold. A larger proportion of women dropouts than gradu ates were married, 42 percent and 18 percent reChart 1. Proportion of high school graduates 1enrolled in college in October of year of graduation, 1959, 1965, and 1969 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 spectively. Because family and household respon sibilities tend to keep married women out of the work force, the labor force rate for the women dropouts was far lower than for the graduates. Other factors, such as emotional or academic problems, which induced many girls and boys to leave school, would also have hampered their attempts to enter the job market. Status of 16- to 21-year-olds In October 1969, nearly three-fourths of all 16- to 21-year-olds in the labor force and no longer in school (regardless of when they last attended school) had at least a high school education. For the Negroes, the proportion was 57 percent and for whites it was 75 percent. From 1965 to 1969, the proportions of both Negro and white youths who were high school graduates increased (chart 2). However, the gap in the proportions between these two groups remained unchanged, despite efforts of Federal, State and local government officials, as well as private individuals, to en courage potential dropouts to remain in school. A much greater proportion of the high school graduates than the school dropouts were in the labor force in October 1969, about 80 percent compared with 60 percent (table 3). These rates reflect the age and sex composition of these two groups, as well as their educational attainment. Over one-fifth of the dropouts aged 16 to 21 were 16 or 17 years old compared with only 3 percent of the graduates. Of these young dropouts, only about half were in the labor force. Proportionally fewer women dropouts than graduates were in the labor force. While there was only a 10-percent age point difference between the rates for male graduates and dropouts, the labor force participa tion rate of female graduates was 32 percentage points higher than that of the female dropouts (39 percent). An important cause of this differen tial was the fact that a much larger proportion of the female dropouts were married and thus prob ably had family responsibilities keeping them away from the labor force. The unemployment rate for dropouts aged 16 to 21 was nearly twice that of graduates of the same age. The 8-percent rate for graduates was quite high, however, compared with that for workers age 25 and over, about 2.2 percent in October 1969. Among both graduates and drop outs, unemployment rates were inversely related 37 G R AD U AT ES A N D DROPOUTS Table 1. College enrollment and labor force status of 1969 high school graduates,1October 1969 [Numbers in thousands] C ivilian labor fore e Civilian noninstitutional population Unemployed Not in labor force Characteristic Number Number Both sexes, total___________________ White______ _____ ______________________ Negro and other races. ___________________ Enrolled in college________________________ Full tim e____________________________ Part time________________ ____ ______ Not enrolled in college____ _______________ Percent As percent of population Employed Number As percent of civilian labor force 2,842 100.0 1,577 55.5 1,397 180 11.4 1,265 2,538 304 1,516 1,466 50 1,326 89.3 10.7 53.3 51.6 1.8 46.7 1,405 172 528 487 41 1,049 55.4 56.6 34.8 33.2 (2) 79.1 1,277 120 468 430 38 929 128 52 60 57 3 120 9.1 30.2 11.4 11.7 (2) 11.4 1,133 132 988 979 9 277 Men, total____ ____________________ 1,352 100.0 786 58.1 718 68 8.7 566 Enrolled in college________________________ Not enrolled in college____________________ 812 540 60.1 39.9 300 486 36.9 90.0 269 449 31 37 10.3 7.6 512 54 Women, total_______________________ 1,490 100.0 791 53.1 679 112 14.2 699 Enrolled in college________________________ Not enrolled in college____ _______________ Single_______ ____ ___________________ Married and other marital status 3______ 704 786 647 139 47.2 52.8 43.4 9.3 228 563 494 69 32.4 71.6 76.4 49.6 199 480 425 55 29 83 69 14 12.7 14.7 14.0 (2) 476 223 153 70 * 16 to 24 years old. 2 Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000. to age. The rates for 16- and 17-year-olds were about double those for 20- and 21-year-olds. Unemployment was much higher among Negro youths than among white youths. Proportionally, over twice as many Negro as white high school graduates in the labor force were unemployed. For Negro youth, educational achievement did not seem to be the determining factor in the likelihood of unemployment; Negro graduates had about the same unemployment rate as Negro dropouts (15.8 percent and 18.1 percent, respec tively). Other factors such as job discrimination, quality of schooling, and geographic location appear to play a part in the relatively high un employment of young Negro graduates. For dropouts, age 16 and 17, finding employ ment is often difficult; about 23 percent of those in the labor force were jobless in October 1969. Many lack the experience and education needed to perform the available jobs. Often, employers may feel that these young persons are too immature to be good workers and are reluctant to hire them. In addition, State and Federal child labor laws may limit the jobs which 16- and 17-year-olds can take. About half the States require employment certificates for minors 16 and 17 years old. While the objective of this requirement is to protect the young workers from potential danger and abuse, it does result in a certain amount of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis s Includes widowed, divorced, and separated women. NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. inconvenience and extra paperwork for both employer and potential employee. Thus, an employer is tempted to avoid hiring 16- and 17-year-old workers if older workers are available, and a youth might become discouraged with the formal process of obtaining a special work certificate. Employment in certain hazardous occupations is forbidden to people under 18. Some 17 cate gories, relating to the manufacture and handling of explosives and radioactive materials and the operation of motor vehicles and other dangerous power equipment, are forbidden by the Federal Government under the Fair Labor Standards Act. States, as well, forbid employers to hire 16- and 17-year-olds for hazardous jobs in mines or meat packing plants as well as in jobs that might be morally objectionable, such as working in estab lishments serving liquor.3 It is not possible to measure the net impact these laws have on the employment of youths in this age group. However, it can be assumed that some of the employment difficulties faced by 16- and 17-year-olds are added to by the certification requirements and their complete exclusion from certain types of jobs. Some 16- to 21-year-olds are unemployed be cause they lack experience or because of their age. Other young people are unemployed as a result of the adjustment process that takes place as they 38 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 Table 2. Employment status of 1969 high school graduates not enrolled in college and dropouts,1 October 1969 [Numbers in thousands] Civilian noninstitutional population Civilian labor force Characteristic Not in labor force Unemployed Number Percent Number As percent of popula Employed tion Total Number As percent of civi lian labor force In special schools 1969 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES NOT ENROLLED IN COLLEGE 1,326 100.0 1,049 79.1 929 120 11.4 277 103 540 786 647 139 40.7 59.3 48.8 10.5 486 563 494 69 90.0 71.6 76.4 49.6 449 480 425 55 37 83 69 14 7.6 14.7 14.0 <*> 54 223 153 70 18 85 (2) ( 2) 1,136 190 85.7 14.3 911 138 80.2 72.6 834 95 77 43 8.5 31.2 225 52 96 7 T o ta l8________________________________________ 661 100.0 405 61.3 337 68 16.8 256 22 Men. ______________________________________________ Women_____________________________________________ Single________ . . . ____ _ _____ _____________ Married and other marital status 3_ _____________ 341 320 185 135 51.6 48.4 28.0 20.4 279 126 89 37 81.8 39.4 48.1 27.4 238 99 70 29 41 27 19 8 14.7 21.4 21.3 O) 62 194 96 98 11 11 11 White______________________________________________ Negro and other races _______________________________ 519 142 78.5 21.5 316 89 60.9 62.7 267 70 49 19 15.5 21.3 203 53 19 3 Total_____________ ___ ______ ____ _ Men______ _____ ____ _____________ ___ __________ Women___ _ ___ ___ _______________________________ Single__________________________________________ Married and other marital statu s3__________________ White______________________________________________ Negro and other races_______ __________________ _ 1968-69 SCHOOL DROPOUTS s 4 Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000. 1 16 to 24 years old. 2 Not available. 3 Includes widowed, divorced, and separated women. Table 3. 5 Persons who dropped out of school between October 1968 and October 1969. 6 In addition, 86,000 persons 14 and 15 years old dropped out of school. Employment status of high school graduates not enrolled in college and dropouts,1 October 1969 [Numbers in thousands! Dropouts Graduates not enrolled in college Civilian labor force Age, sex, and color- Civilian noninstitutional popula tion Civilian labor force Unemployed Total As per cent of popula tion Employed Number As per cent ol civilian labor force Civilian noninstitutional popula tion Unemployed Total As per cent of popula tion Employed Number As per cent of civilian labor force Both sexes, total__________ 5,339 4,223 79.1 3,897 326 7.7 2,683 1,588 59.2 1,358 230 14.5 16 and 17 years old_____________ 18 and 19 years__________ _____ 20 and 21 years___________ ____ 160 2,322 2,857 125 1,869 2,229 78.1 80.5 78.0 108 1,707 2, 082 17 162 147 13.6 8.7 6.6 610 1,006 1,067 328 613 647 53.8 60.8 60.6 252 526 580 76 87 67 23.2 14.2 10.4 White__________ _____ ________ Negro and other races__________ 4,715 624 3,742 481 79.4 77.1 3,492 405 250 76 6.7 15.8 2,083 600 1,223 365 58.7 60.8 1,059 299 164 66 13.4 18.1 Men, total_______________ 1,765 1,650 93.5 1,540 110 6.7 1,170 977 83.5 868 109 11.2 16 and 17 years old_____________ 18 and 19 years________________ 20 and 21 years________________ 43 814 908 41 739 870 ( 2) 90.8 95.8 37 680 823 4 59 47 (2) 8.0 5.4 272 474 424 206 397 374 75.7 83.8 88.2 172 355 341 34 42 33 16.5 10.6 8.8 White_________________________ Negro and other races__________ 1,542 223 1,445 205 93.8 91.5 1,358 182 87 23 6.0 11.3 888 282 743 234 83.7 83.0 663 205 80 29 10.8 12.4 Women, total____________ 3,574 2,573 72.0 2,357 216 8.4 1,513 611 40.4 490 121 19.8 42 45 34 34.4 20.8 12.5 84 37 17.5 28.2 16 and 17 years old..................... 18 and 19 years........... .................. 20 and 21 years.__........................ 117 1,508 1,949 84 1,130 1,359 71.9 94.9 69.7 71 1,027 1,259 13 103 100 15.5 9.1 7.4 338 532 643 122 216 273 36.1 40.6 42.5 80 171 239 White........... ......... ..................... Negro and other races................... 3,173 401 2,297 276 72.4 68.8 2,134 223 163 53 7.1 19.2 1,195 318 480 131 40.2 41.2 396 94 1 16 to 21 years old. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000. 39 G R A D U A T ES A N D D ROPOUTS Chart 2. High school graduates as percent of out-of school youth in labor force,1October 1965, 1967, and 1969 Percent 5 weeks in October 1969—was about the same, while a much smaller proportion of the jobless dropouts than of graduates or of adult workers (25 to 44 years old) were unemployed for 15 weeks or more: G r a d u a te s D r o p o u ts A d u lt w orkers Percent unemployed- _ 100.0 100.0 100.0 Less than 5 weeks............. . 5 to 14 weeks............... ......... 15 to 26 weeks____________ 27 weeks or more................... 60.6 25.5 12.0 1.8 64.8 30.4 3.9 .9 63.6 24.5 6.3 5.6 One reason for the relatively fewer long-term unemployed dropouts could be that they may be come discouraged about finding a job because their lesser amount of education and training hampers them in their job search. After a period of time, they may leave the labor force until they believe job prospects are better. First jobs L— — — — — i ‘ 16 to 21 years old. enter the labor force. After the graduate or drop out has spent some time working, he may modify or establish his job goals, and, in doing so, leave one job to seek another. As he tries to realize his changed goals, he may become unemployed. Evidence of this is given in the reasons cited by unemployed graduates and dropouts for their un employment, shown in chart 3. The largest proportion of the unemployed, whether graduates or dropouts, were jobless be cause they were just entering or reentering the labor force. However, about 40 percent were un employed because they had either quit or lost their jobs. By quitting or being laid off, the graduate or dropout is undergoing a process of adjustment, finding out what sort of work he is capable of doing and wants to do. Unemployment rates are higher for young high school graduates and dropouts than for older persons. The proportions of these groups who looked for work for only a short time—fewer than https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis What kinds of jobs do young people hold in the first few years after leaving school? Is there a relationship between characteristics such as sex or educational attainment and the occupation at which the young worker is employed? Table 4 shows that high school graduates 16 to 21 years old were more likely than dropouts to be employed in white-collar jobs. Proportionately twice as many graduates with no college training held white-collar jobs as did dropouts. However, nearly three-fourths of both these graduates and dropouts were in blue-collar occupations predom inantly as operatives. Young men with at least some college education were more likely to be in white-collar occupations than those with only 4 years of high school—nearly 50 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Regardless of the amount of schooling they had, much greater proportions of women than men were in white-collar occupations, primarily in clerical work. Nearly 70 percent of those with only high school diplomas were in white-collar jobs, includ ing 60 percent in clerical occupations. Women who had completed 1 year of college or more were even more likely to be white-collar workers, partic ularly in the professional and technical positions. Female dropouts, like male dropouts, tended to find employment in blue-collar and service occupa tions rather than in the white-collar field. Only 40 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 Table 4. Occupations of employed high school graduates not enrolled in college and school dropouts,1 by sex, October 1969 [Percent distribution] Graduates Major occupation and sex Dropouts Total High school, 4 years only College, 1 year or more Number (thousands)................ ....... P e rc e n t..____ _________ _______ 1,540 100.0 1,281 100.0 259 100.0 868 100.0 White-collar workers_____________________ _________ _______ Professional and technical workers.......................................... Managers and proprietors........................................................... Clerical workers...................................... ............................ ....... Sales workers................................................................ ........... 24.2 4.7 3.6 11.2 4.7 19.8 2.6 2.6 10.6 4.0 46.3 15.4 8.5 13.9 8.5 8.8 1.3 1.0 4.8 1.7 Blue-collar workers............. .............................................................. Craftsmen and foremen........ ..................................................... Operatives...................................................... ............................ Nonfarm laborers........................................................................ 66.5 16.5 35.7 14.3 70.5 17.1 38.3 15.1 46.7 13.9 22.4 10.4 75.4 13.8 37.4 24.2 Service workers.................................................................................. Private household workers..................... ................................... Other service workers........................... ..................................... 5.4 .2 5.2 5.7 .2 5.5 3.5 8.3 3.5 8.3 Farm workers....................................... ..................... .......... ............ 3.9 4.0 3.5 7.4 Number (thousands)........................ Percent____ ___________________ 2,357 100.0 1,944 100.0 413 100.0 490 100.0 White-collar workers_______ ______ ____________________ _____ Professional and technical workers___________ ____________ Managers and proprietors__________ . __________________ Clerical workers........... ...................................... ...................... Sales workers........................... ........................... ..................... 72.2 5.0 1.0 61.0 5.2 68.9 2.7 .7 60.3 5.2 87.9 15.5 2.7 64.6 5.1 24.3 1.2 .2 18.6 4.3 Blue-collar workers____________________ ______________ ______ Craftsmen and foremen_____ ______________________ ______ Operatives................... ................... ............................. ............ Nonfarm laborers........................................................................ 11.4 .6 10.2 .6 12.8 .7 11.5 .6 4.3 .2 3.9 .2 38.1 2.0 34.7 1.4 Service w orkers........................................................ ...................... Private household workers____ ____________ _____ _______ Other service w orkers............................................................. 16.3 2.2 14.1 18.1 2.3 15.8 7.8 1.5 6.3 35.7 9.2 26.5 Farm workers..................................................................................... (2) MEN All occupation groups: WOMEN All occupation groups: 1 16 to 21 years old. .2 1.8 2 Less than 0.05 percent. Table 5. Annual income of families of high school graduates not enrolled in college and of dropouts.1 by color and sex. October 1969 [Percent distribution] Graduates Color and sex Dropouts Less than $3,000 Less than $3,000 Total Total Less than $2,000 to $2,000 $2,999 $3,000 to $4,999 $5,000 to $7,499 $7,500 and over Total Total Less than $2,000 to $2,000 $2,999 $3,000 to $4,999 $5,000 to $7,499 $7,500 and over A LL PERSONS Both sexes_______________________ Men_________________________ Women_____ ______________ 100.0 100.0 100.0 6.9 6.2 7.5 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.2 4.1 11.3 11.9 10.9 21.2 22.8 19.9 60.7 59.1 61.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 25.1 23.0 28.5 13.1 12.8 13.6 12.0 10.2 14.9 24.4 24.8 23.7 22.3 21.5 23.7 28.1 30.7 24.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4.8 4.9 4.8 2.0 2.4 1.8 2.8 2.5 3.0 9.7 10.2 9.4 20.0 21.5 18.7 65.5 63.4 67.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 21.1 18.9 24.9 11.0 11.4 10.2 10.1 7.5 14.7 21.2 21.5 20.8 25.0 25.7 23.7 32.7 33.9 30.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 20.6 15.0 24.5 10.9 7.1 13.6 9.7 7.9 10.9 21.2 22.8 20.1 28.9 31.5 27.2 29.3 30.7 28.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 34.2 33.3 35.4 17.8 16.1 20.0 16.4 17.3 15.4 31.5 33.3 29.2 16.4 10.7 23.8 17.8 22.6 11.5 WHITE Both s e x e s -..______ ________ _____ Men________ ____________ Women______________________ NEGRO AND OTHER RACES Both sexes____ ____________ ____ Men__________________ Women______ ____ __________ 1 16 to 21 years old. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Includes only families of unmarried persons living with, and related to, head of household. Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 41 G R A D U A T ES A N D DROPOUTS about one-fourth of the women dropouts were in white-collar jobs; the others were about equallydivided between those working as operatives or in service occupations. In comparing the occupations by race, it was found that Negro graduates tended to hold less prestigious jobs requiring less skill and training and probably providing less pay than the white high school graduates. Greater proportions of young white male graduates were employed as white-collar workers or as craftsmen than Negroes. About three-fourths of the Negroes, but only onehalf of the young white men were employed as operatives, nonfarm laborers, or in service occupa tions. The same tendency held true for the young women graduates; proportionally more white girls than Negro were clerical workers and fewer were in operative or service occupations. Similar dif ferences between the occupations held by whites and Negroes were not present among school drop outs. About 60 percent of the men, both white and Negro, were either laborers or operatives and Chart 3. nearly 70 percent of the women dropouts were operatives or service workers. High school graduation and family income There is a direct relationship between the amount of family income and the likelihood of a young person’s graduating from high school. The higher the family income, the better the chances are that a young man or woman will graduate. Among unmarried youths 16 to 21 years old living at home whose families had incomes of $3,000 or less, about 40 percent graduated from high school compared with 84 percent of the youths whose family income was $7,500 or more. A greater proportion of Negro than white youths are drop outs because relatively more of them are in fami lies in the lowest income groups where dropping out is most frequent. Some of the dropouts undoubtedly left school because of poor grades or difficulty with school authorities, and financial reasons. However, some Reasons for looking for work, unemployed graduates and dropouts, October 1969 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 42 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 other factors associated with low family income, such as broken homes or low educational aspira tions for children by parents whose own edu cational levels may be low, are probably more influential. In October 1969, 60 percent of the 16- to 21- year-old high school graduates were in families whose income was $7,500 or more, double the proportion for dropouts (table 5). The proportion of dropouts in families with an income of less than $3,000 a year was over three times that of gradu ates in families with similar incomes. 1 This article is based on supplementary questions in the October 1969 Current Population Survey conducted and tabulated for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census. Data presented in this article relate to per sons 16 to 24 years of age in the civilian noninstitutional population in the calendar week ending October 18, 1969. All members of the Armed Forces and inmates of institu tions are excluded. Estimates of the number of graduates shown here may differ from figures of the Office of Educa tion because of these exclusions, the age limitation, and other minor differences in measurement. Since the estimates are based on a sample, they may differ from the figures that would have been obtained from a complete census. Sampling variability may be relatively large in cases where the numbers are small. Small estimates, or small differences between estimates, should be inter preted with caution. This is the 11th in a series of articles on this subject. The last article appeared in the June 1969 Monthly Labor Re view, pp. 36-43, and was reprinted with additional tabular data and an explanatory note as Special Labor Force Report No. 108. 2 In this report, data for the grouping, “Negro and other races” are used to represent data for Negroes, since Negroes constitute about 92 percent of all persons in the grouping. In addition to Negroes, the grouping includes American Indians, Filipinos, Chinese, and Japanese, among others. 3 See State Child Labor Standards, Bureau of Labor Standards, Bulletin 158, revised (Washington, U.S. De partment of Labor, 1965). The cost of illiteracy The present dimensions of the reading prob lem in this country are shocking. Although hard numbers are difficult to come by, Federal officials estimate that at least one-third of U.S. public school children cannot read at their age level. Somewhere between 8 and 12 million children have reading difficulties so severe that they are headed toward functional illiteracy. . . . In an increasingly technological society, functional illiterates pay a heavy price for their handicap. Today, 50 percent of the young adults who are unemployed cannot read well enough to hold a job requiring reasonable skills, and there are fewer and fewer unskilled jobs. Twenty-five years ago, 30 percent of all https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis jobs were for unskilled workers; the figure has fallen to 17 percent today. Current estimates indicate that unskilled laborers will be able to handle only 5 percent of all jobs in the United States for the year 1975. Thus, functional illiteracy means a national productivity loss in terms of unemployment among those who cannot read. It also costs the Nation dearly in a number of other ways: . . . While the bur den falls heaviest on the functionally illiterate themselves, the social cost they impose on the Nation as a whole is so great that it concerns the Federal government. —Sumner Myers, “For All Our Children—‘The Right to Read/ ” Looking Ahead, June 1970. Special Labor Force Report notes a continued upgrading to 1985 as the educational attainment of whites and Negroes, men and women converges toward a median of 12.6 years DENIS F. JO H N STO N T h e adult labor force of 1985 will be younger, better educated, and more homogeneous (among race, sex, and age groups) in its educational attainment than it is today. In the span of just over a generation (from 1950 to 1985), the Nation’s adult labor force is expected to increase by about 77 percent, but the number of high school graduates will more than double and the number of college graduates will triple in the same 35-year period. Further, gaps in educational attainment between men and women and white and Negro workers will narrow so that by 1985 the years of school completed for each of these groups will have converged toward a median of over 12 years. These vast changes in educational composition are to be accompanied by, and will partly result from, a major shift in the age distribution of the Nation’s adult work force. In 1965, workers 25 to 34, whose average educational attainment is higher than that of older workers, amounted to 24 percent of the civilian labor force 25 and over. By 1985, this younger and relatively better educated group will make up 34 percent of the workers 25 and over—a rise in number from 14.2 million in 1965 to 28.3 million in 1985. Their attitudes, values, and even life styles, shaped by exposure to the educational milieu of the sixties and early seventies, are bound to have a strong effect on work during the 1980’s and beyond. The expected convergence in the educational attainment of the white and Negro races reflects the continuing response of “Negro and other” youth to the increased educational opportunities Denis F. Johnston is senior demographic statistician in the Office of Manpower and Employment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. N o t e : The projected civilian labor force numbers in this report are consistent with the projected total labor force in Sophia C. Travis, “The U.S. labor force: projec tions to 1985,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1970, pp. 3-12. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Education of ad uIt workers: projections to 1985 available to them.1 Table 1 shows that the 1950 census disclosed a gap of 3.3 years in the median educational attainment of white workers 25 and over (10.3 years) and of the corresponding “Negro and other” group (7.0 years). By 1965 this gap had narrowed to 2.3 years (12.2 years among white adult workers and 9.9 years among the “Negro and other” group). The projections pre sented in this report reflect the assumption that this convergence will continue, so that by 1985, white workers 25 and over are expected to have a median educational attainment of 12.6 years, and Negro and other workers an attainment of 12.3 years—with a remaining “gap” of only 0.3 years. Another major development, the spread of higher levels of educational attainment among every age group of the labor force, demonstrates the increased availability of higher education. By 1985, the principal beneficiaries of the im mediate post-World War II “GI Bill” will have advanced into the 60-69 age group, while the younger age cohorts immediately following will have enjoyed equal or greater opportunities to further their education. This means that even per sons 65 and over in the labor force are expected to have a median educational attainment of 12 years by 1985, a rise from 9.0 years in 1965. In contrast, the median educational attainment of the younger adult workers (25 to 34 years old) is expected to rise only slightly, from 12.5 years in 1965 to 12.7 years in 1985, providing a more homogeneous labor force with respect to its average amount of formal education than in 1965.2 (See table 2.) A similar convergence in the educational at tainment of men and women workers is already evident. Since World War II, the prevailing job opportunities have attracted large numbers of women with only average amounts of schooling, so that the educational distribution of the female labor force now resembles that of the female 43 44 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 Table 1. Years of school completed by persons 25 years old and over in the civilian labor force, by sex and race, selected years, 1950 to 1985 [Percent distribution] Total Elem entary school High school College Race, sex, and year Median years of school com pleted N u m b er (in th o u sa n d s) P e rce n t Less th an 5 y e a rs 1 5 to 7 years 8 y ears 1 to 3 years 4 years 1 to 3 years 1950 c e n su s ............................... ............... 1957-59 2.................................................... 1964-65-66_______________________ 1967-68-69............................................... 47, 240 55,909 60, 067 63, 618 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 9 .3 6 .3 4 .1 3 .1 15.3 11.4 8 .7 7 .2 20.1 16.8 13 .4 11.0 18.0 19.2 18.9 17.6 21 .3 27 .8 3 2 .8 3 6 .4 7 .8 8 .4 9 .6 11.0 8 .0 10.2 12.5 13.7 9 .9 11.4 12 .2 12.3 P ro jected : 69, 803 76, 327 83, 644 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 .4 1 .8 1.3 5 .3 4 .0 2 .9 8 .2 6 .1 4 .5 17.8 16.8 15.4 39 .9 42 .4 4 4 .4 11.2 12.0 12.7 15 .2 16.9 18.8 12.4 12.5 12 .6 1950 census___________ ______ _____ 1957-59 2__________ _______________ 1964-65-66_______________________ 1967-68-69_______________________ 34, 928 38, 527 39,821 40, 941 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10.3 7 .1 4 .8 3 .6 16.2 12.1 9 .3 7 .7 2 1 .2 17.6 14. 1 11.7 17.9 19.2 18.7 17.3 19.5 25.1 3 0 .0 3 3 .0 7 .1 8 .2 9 .7 11.5 7 .7 10.8 13.6 15 .2 9 .4 11. 1 12.1 12.3 P ro jected : 44,713 48, 665 53, 282 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 .9 2 .1 1 .6 5 .7 4 .3 3 .1 8 .7 6 .6 4 .8 17.6 16.6 15.1 3 6 .9 3 9 .7 4 2 .3 11.3 12.1 12.6 16.8 18.6 2 0 .5 12.4 12.5 12.6 1950 c e n s u s . .. ........................................ 1957-59 2_________ ______ _________ 1 9 6 4 -6 5 -6 6 .______________________ 1967-68-69_______________________ 12,312 17,382 20, 246 22,677 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 6 .6 4 .5 2 .8 2 .2 12.9 9 .9 7 .8 6 .2 17.1 15.2 12.0 9 .6 18.3 19. 1 19.3 18.2 26 .5 3 3 .7 3 8 .5 4 2 .5 9 .8 8 .9 9 .5 10.3 8 .7 8 .7 10.3 11.1 11.2 12.0 12.2 12.3 P rojected: 25, 090 27,662 30,362 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 .5 1. 1 .7 4 .7 3 .4 2 .4 7 .2 5 .4 4 .0 18.1 17.1 15.8 4 5 .2 4 7 .2 4 8 .2 11.0 12.0 12 .9 12.2 14.0 16 .0 12.4 12.5 12.6 1950 ce n su s______________________ 1964-65-66_______________________ 1967-68-69_______________________ 42,459 53. 672 56, 824 100.0 100.0 100.0 6 .9 2 .9 2 .1 13.9 7 .6 6 .1 21 .0 13.6 11.0 18.5 18.4 17.0 22 .7 3 4 .3 3 7 .8 8 .3 10.1 11.5 8 .5 13.1 14.5 10.3 12.2 12.4 P ro je c ted : 62,124 67, 631 73,728 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 .8 1.3 1.0 4 .6 3 .4 2 .5 8 .1 6 .1 4 .4 17.0 16.0 14.5 4 1 .0 4 3 .2 4 5 .0 11.6 12.4 13.0 15.9 17.8 19.7 12.5 12.5 12 .6 1950 c e n su s______________ _______ 1964-65-66_______________________ 1967-68-69_______________________ 31,793 36,115 37,057 100.0 100.0 100.0 7 .9 3 .4 2 .5 15 .0 8 .4 6 .8 22.1 14.3 11.8 18 .5 18.3 16.9 20.7 31 .2 34.1 7 .5 10.1 11.9 8 .3 14.3 16.1 9 .8 12.2 12 .4 P rojected: 40,140 43, 428 47, 243 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.1 1 .6 1 .2 5 .0 3 .7 2 .8 8 .7 6 .6 4 .7 17.0 15.9 14.3 37 .7 40 .2 4 2 .6 11.7 12 .4 12.9 17.7 19.6 2 1 .4 12 .5 12 .6 12.6 1950 ce n su s______________________ 1964-65-66_______________________ 1967-68-69_______________________ 10,666 17, 557 19,767 100.0 100.0 100.0 4 .2 1 .9 1 .4 10 .4 6 .0 4 .9 17.7 12 .0 9 .4 18.7 18.5 17.3 2 9 .0 40 .7 44 .7 10.7 10 .0 10.7 9 .4 10.8 11.6 11 .8 12 .3 12 .4 P rojected: 21,984 24,203 26, 485 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.1 .7 .6 3 .8 2 .7 2 .0 7 .0 5 .2 3 .7 17.1 16.1 14.8 46 .9 48.6 49 .2 11.5 12.3 13.2 12.7 14.4 16.5 12 .4 12 .5 12.6 1950 c e n su s______________________ 1964-65-66_______________________ 1967-68-69_______________________ 4,781 6,531 6, 794 100.0 100.0 100.0 30 .6 13.5 11.5 2 8 .4 17.8 16.1 12 .2 12.3 10.9 13.7 22 .9 22 .5 8 .9 2 0 .7 24 .8 3 .3 6 .0 7 .0 2 .9 7 .0 7 .2 7 .0 9 .9 10. 5 P rojected: 7,675 8, 696 9,9 1 6 100.0 100.0 100.0 7 .2 5 .4 3 .4 11 .5 8 .7 5 .8 8 .8 6 .7 5.1 24 .2 23.2 22 .0 31 .2 36 .3 4 0 .5 8.1 9 .3 10 .5 9 .0 10.5 12.8 11 .8 12 .2 12.3 1950 ce n su s______________________ 1964-65-66____________ __________ 1967-68-69_______________________ 3 ,135 3, 829 3, 884 100.0 100.0 100.0 35.1 17.2 14.4 28 .0 18 .0 16.8 11.7 12.5 11.0 1 2 .4 22 .0 21 .4 7 .8 17.9 22.7 2 .8 5 .6 6 .9 2.2 6 .7 6 .7 6 .6 9 .3 1 0 .1 Projected: 4,573 5, 237 6, 039 100.0 100.0 100.0 9 .3 6 .8 4 .4 11.7 8 .9 5 .9 8 .6 6 .5 4 .9 23 .5 22 .4 21 .4 29 .8 35 .9 40.3 8 .0 9 .1 10.3 9 .0 10 .4 12 .8 11 .6 12.2 1 2 .3 4 years or more ALL RACES Both sexes 1975............ ........................ 1980__________________ 1 9 8 5 ........................ ........... Males 1975__________________ 1980_________ ________ 1985__________________ Fem ales 1 9 7 5 .._______________ 1980__________________ 1985__________________ WHITE Both sexes 1975__________________ 1980____ _____________ 1985.................................. Males 1975__________________ 1980_________________ 1985_________________ Fem ales 1975__________________ 1980____________ _____ 1985__________________ NEGRO AND OTHER RACES Both sexes 1975_________________ 1980_________________ 1985_________________ Males 1975_________________ 1 9 8 0 . .. _____ ________ 1985_________________ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 45 EDUCATION OF A D U LT W O RKERS Table 1. Years of school completed by persons 25 years old and over in the civilian labor force, by sex and race, selected years, 1950 to 1985—Continued (Percent distribution] Total Elementary school High school College Race, sex, and year Median years of school completed Number (in thousands) Percent 1950 census______________________ 1964-65-66_______________________ 1967-68-69_______________________ 1,646 2,702 2,910 100.0 100.0 100.0 22.2 8.1 7.7 29.1 17.4 15.2 13.2 12.0 10.9 16.2 24.1 23.8 10.9 24.6 27.5 4.2 6.4 7.1 4.1 7.3 7.8 7.9 10.5 11.1 Projected: 3,106 3,459 3, 877 100.0 100.0 100.0 4.1 3.3 1.8 11.3 8.4 5.5 9.0 6.9 5.4 25.2 24.3 22.9 33.2 37.0 40.8 8.2 9.5 10.7 9.0 10.6 12.9 12.0 12.2 12.4 Less than 5 years i 5 to 7 years 8 years 1 to 3 years 4 years 1 to 3 years 4 years or more Females 1975__________________ 1980__________________ 1985__________________ 1 Includes persons reporting no formal education. 2 Totals exclude persons whose educational attainment was not reported. Data by race for March 1957 and March 1959 are not available from the Current Population Survey. population as a whole. The several veterans’ benefits provisions enacted since 1945 have benefited working-age men greatly with the result that their educational attainment has advanced faster than that of women. In 1957-59, the median years of school completed by men workers 25 and over (11.1 years) was 0.9 years less than that of women workers. By 1964-66, this difference had been reduced to only 0.1 years (12.1 years for men and 12.2 years for women). By 1985, the corresponding medians are expected to be 12.6 years among both groups of adult workers. The educational upgrading and increased homogeneity across age, sex, and race lines expected to take place between now and 1985 are demonstrated in charts 1 and 2. The educationally disadvantaged The magnitude of these anticipated improve ments in the educational level of the Nation’s labor force draws attention away from a number of persistent problems. Concealed in the above averages and aggregates are the 3.5 million per sons who will be working or seeking work under the potential handicap of very limited formal educa tion (less than 8 years completed) in 1985. While their number is expected to decline sharply during this period (from 7.7 million in 1965), their age composition will make it even harder than at pres ent for them to retain rewarding jobs or to find such jobs if they become unemployed. The median age of these less educated workers is expected to rise from 51 years in 1965 to 52 years by 1985, while that of all workers 25 and over is expected to decline during this period from 44 years in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Data for combined years are Current Population Survey averages. 1965 to 41 years in 1985. In addition, there will be the continuing problem of providing both meaningful job opportunities and needed remedial training for the 20.1 million adult workers in 1985 who will not have completed 4 years of high school. This group is expected to decline from 27.1 million, or 45 percent of the adult labor force, in 1965. Unlike the workers with less than 8 years of schooling, those with less than 4 years of high school will include a considerable number of younger workers whose career aspira tions will not be adequately supported by the amount of formal education they will have obtained.3 Despite the rapid improvement in their educa tional level, Negro workers are still expected to constitute a disproportionate amount of the total number of workers with less than 4 years of high school. By 1985, when 12 percent of the adult labor force is expected to be made up of Negro workers, 18 percent of those with less than a complete high school education will be in the “Negro and other” group. A further potential problem stems from the continuing imbalance between men and women with respect to higher education. Despite the fact that women college graduates have a much higher rate of labor force participation than less educated women, the proportion of adult working women with college degrees is not expected to converge significantly toward that of adult work ing men. As indicated in chart 3, nearly 14 percent of adult working men and 10 percent of adult working women had completed 4 years or more of college in 1965. By 1985, over 20 percent of the working men, and 16 percent of the women, 46 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 Table 2. Projected educational attainment of the civilian labor force 25 years old and over, by age and sex, 1975, 1980, and 1985 [Percent distribution] 1975 1985 1980 Age and years of school completed Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female 25 YEARS AND OVER Number (in thousands)__________ Percent________________________ 69,803 100.0 44,713 100.0 25,090 100.0 76, 327 100.0 48,665 100.0 27,662 100.0 83, 644 100.0 53,282 100.0 30,362 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school1........ ............ . 4 years of high school or more_________________ 33.7 66.3 34.9 65.0 31.5 68.4 28.7 71.3 29.6 70.4 27.0 73.2 24.1 75.9 24.6 75.4 22.9 77.1 Elementary: Less than 5 y e ars1..... ..................... 5 to 7 years_____________ _______ 8 years_________________________ 1 to 3 years_____________________ 4 years______________________ 1 to 3 years............ ......................... 4 years or more_____ ___________ 2.4 5.3 8.2 17.8 39.9 11.2 15.2 2.9 5.7 8.7 17.6 36.9 11.3 16.8 1.5 4.7 7.2 18.1 45.2 11.0 12.2 1.8 4.0 6.1 16.8 42.4 12.0 16.9 2.1 4.3 6.6 16.6 39.7 12.1 18.6 1.1 3.4 5.4 17.1 47.2 12.0 14.0 1.3 2.9 4.5 15.4 44.4 12.7 18.8 1.6 3.1 4.8 15.1 42.3 12.6 20.5 .7 2.4 4.0 15.8 48.2 12.9 16.0 Median years of school com pleted......................... 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.6 Number (in th o u sa n d s)............ Percent________________________ 21,301 100.0 14,339 100.0 6,962 100.0 25,474 100.0 17, 054 100.0 8,420 100.0 28, 264 100.0 18,840 100.0 9,424 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school i ............... ......... 4 years of high school or m o re .......................... 21.2 78.7 21.9 78.1 20.1 79.9 17.8 82.2 18.2 81.9 17.1 82.9 14.9 85.1 15.0 85.0 14.6 85.4 Elementary: 0.9 2.0 3.1 15.2 46.2 13.5 19.0 1.1 2.3 3.4 15.1 44.8 13.5 19.8 0.5 1.6 2.6 15.4 49.0 13.5 17.4 .7 1.3 2.2 13.6 47.3 14.2 20.7 .9 1.5 2.4 13.4 46.6 14.0 21.3 .4 1.0 1.8 13.9 48.8 14.5 19.6 .5 .9 1.5 12.0 48.1 14.6 22.4 .6 1.0 1.6 11.8 48.1 14.2 22.7 .3 .7 1.3 12.3 48.1 lb . 3 22.0 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 16, 044 100.0 10, 246 100. 0 5, 798 100.0 18,386 100.0 11,682 100.0 6,704 100.0 23, 009 100.0 14,616 100.0 8,393 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school i_ . 4 years of high school or more 30.6 69.5 30.9 69.1 29.9 70.1 25.6 74.3 26.2 73.8 24.8 75.2 21.2 78.8 21.2 78.7 20.9 79.0 Elementary: 2.0 4.5 6.0 18.1 42.3 11.2 16.0 2.4 5.0 6.3 17.2 38.8 11.6 18.7 1.2 3.6 5.4 19.7 48.4 10.6 11.1 1.4 3.1 4.3 16.8 44.7 12.1 17.5 1.7 3.5 4.6 16.4 41.7 12.2 19.9 .9 2.4 3.9 17.6 49.9 11.9 13.4 1.0 2.0 3.1 15.1 46.5 12.9 19.4 1.2 2.2 3.2 14.6 44.3 12.8 21.6 .6 1.6 2.8 15.9 50.1 13.2 15.7 12.5 12.5 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.6 17,145 100.0 10,579 100.0 6, 566 100.0 16,252 100.0 9,995 100.0 6, 257 100.0 15,987 100.0 9,834 100.0 6,153 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school >. 4 years of high school or more___ 38.3 61.7 40.8 59.2 34.3 65.7 35.2 64.7 37.4 62.6 32.0 68.0 29.5 70.6 30.6 69.4 27.5 72. 5 Elementary: 2.9 6.4 9.4 19.6 38.3 10.1 13.3 3.6 7.1 10. 5 19.6 33.2 10.1 15.9 1.8 5.2 7.6 19.7 46.5 10.0 9.2 2.4 5.5 7.9 19.4 39.4 10.6 14.7 3.1 6.3 8.9 19.1 34.4 10.8 17.4 1.4 4.3 6.3 20.0 47.4 10.3 10.3 1.9 4.1 5.8 17.7 43.3 11.3 16.0 2.4 4. 6 6.3 17.3 39.2 11.6 18.6 1.1 3.2 4.9 18.3 49.7 10.9 11. 9 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.5 12,184 100.0 7, 507 4, 677 12,947 7,844 100.0 5,103 100.0 12,981 100.0 7,847 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 Less than 4 years of high school * 4 years of high school or more_____ 46.7 53.4 49.7 50.3 41.7 58.4 39.5 60.5 42.4 57.6 35.1 64.8 36.2 63.8 39.1 60.9 31.7 68.3 Elementary: 3.6 8.7 14.7 19.7 33.2 9.4 10.8 4.6 9.1 15.6 20.4 29.7 9.5 11.1 2.0 8.0 13.2 18.5 38.8 9.2 10.4 2.8 6.7 10.8 19.2 37.8 10.1 12.6 3.6 7.2 11.7 19.9 33.3 10.3 14.0 1.5 5.8 9.5 18.3 44.7 9.8 10.3 2.3 5. 7 8.7 19.5 38.3 10.6 14.9 3.0 6. 4 9.7 20.0 33.0 10.8 17.1 1.2 4. 5 7. 2 18.8 46. 5 10. 4 11. 4 Total: High school: College: 25 TO 34 YEARS Total: High school: College: Less than 5 years i_ 5 to 7 years__________________ 8 years________ 1 to 3 years_____ 4 years_____ __ 1 to 3 years______ 4 years of more____ . Median years of school completed 35 TO 44 YEARS Total: High school: College: Number (in thousands) Percent__________ Less than 5 years L 5 to 7 years______ 8 years______ 1 to 3 years___ 4 years......... 1 to 3 years________ 4 years or more____ Median years of school completed. 45 TO 54 YEARS Total: High school: College: Number (in thousands)................. Percent____ _____ Less than 5 y e a rs1 5 to 7 years__________ 8 years................ . 1 to 3 years 4 years..... .......... 1 to 3 years____ 4 years or more____ Median years of school completed 55 TO 64 YEARS Total: High school: „ „ College: Number (in thousands).. Percent_________ Less than 5 years 1 5 to 7 years_____ 8 years_________ 1 to 3 years 4 years....... ............ ............. .......... 1 to 3 years________ 4 years or more___ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 100. 0 100. 0 5,134 47 EDUCATION O F A D U LT W O RK ERS Table 2. Projected educational attainment of the civilian labor force 25 years old and over, by age and sex, 1975, 1980, and 1985—Continued [Percent distribution] 1975 1980 Age and years of school completed Both sexes Female Male Both sexes Male 1985 Female Both sexes Male Female 12.1 12.0 12.2 12.3 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.3 12.4 Number (in thousands)__________ Percent________________________ 3,129 100.0 2,042 100.0 1,087 100.0 3,268 100.0 2,090 100.0 1,178 100.0 3,403 100.0 2,145 100.0 1,258 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school •______________ 4 years of high school or more______ __________ 58.9 41.0 62.2 37.7 52.6 47.4 53.1 46.8 56.6 43.5 47.0 52.9 47.0 53.0 50.7 49.4 40.8 59.2 Elementary: Less than 5 years 1_______________ 5 to 7 years_____________________ 8 years_________________________ 1 to 3 years.____ _______ ______ 4 years______ ___________ ____ 1 to 3 years..................................... 4 years or more....... ............ .......... 6.7 13.2 22.3 16.7 20.2 9. 1 11.7 7.6 13.3 23.9 17.4 18.1 7.7 11.9 5.1 12.9 19.2 15.4 24.1 11.8 11.5 4.4 11.0 19.3 18.4 24.4 12.5 5.2 11.2 20.8 19.4 22.1 8.7 12.7 3.0 10.7 16.7 16.6 28.7 12.1 12.1 2.7 8.8 16.3 19.2 29.3 10.5 13.2 3.5 9.2 17.8 20.2 26.0 9.6 13.8 1.4 8.3 13.7 17.4 34.8 12.2 12.2 Median years of school completed______________ 10.4 9.9 11.8 11.5 11.0 12.1 12.1 11.9 12.3 Median years of school completed-------------------- 65 YEARS AND OVER Total: High school: College: 9.9 1 Includes persons reporting no formal education. are expected to have completed at least 4 years of college. This continued differential only par tially reflects the difference in the proportions of the male and female population 25 and over with 4 years or more of college education. In 1965, 12 percent of the adult male population and 7 percent of the adult women were college graduates. By 1985, these proportions are expected to rise to 18.6 and 12.5 percent, respectively. It cannot be argued that these differences reflect differences in opportunity exclusively. Many young women, anticipating a primary role as mothers and home makers, may either decide to terminate their formal schooling upon graduating from high school, or may pursue less vocationally oriented courses of study if they do enter college. Others may perceive little economic advantage in com pleting a rigorous program of higher education, since relatively few highly paid positions have traditionally been open to women. Nevertheless, it is also true that many of the public benefits extended to college students have been largely focused on the men, such as veterans’ educational benefits, or have been earmarked for subjects largely pursued by men, such as medicine. Further more, many families, if they are unable to fully support the higher education of all their children, may still give fuller support to the educational needs of their male offspring. Insofar as these latter considerations continue to operate, women may be said to enjoy fewer opportunities for higher education, quite apart from their own interests in such education. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The total adult civilian labor force (25 and over) is expected to increase at an annual average rate of 1.6 percent between 1965 and 1985. Over this same 20-year period, the corresponding average rates of increase in the number of high school and college graduates in the labor force will be 3.3 and 3.7 percent per year, respectively. Among Negro workers, these differentials are even more striking. Their adult labor force is expected to increase at an average rate of 2.1 percent per year, while the numbers of both high school and college graduates are expected to increase at over 5 percent per year, on average. One obvious implication of these rates of increase relates to the kinds of jobs that become available during this period. Whereas overall expansion in employment opportunity for these adult workers should be maintained at a rate of 1.6 percent per year, jobs for college graduates, providing both meaningful career opportunities and an opportunity to use the higher education that has been acquired, should rise at twice that rate. Even more pressing will be the demand of Negro workers for similar positions—a demand that will be supported by a 5-percent-per-year increase in the number of college graduates in this group. Measurement of quality There are three major limitations to be recog nized in examining data on years of school completed in order to appraise the educational 48 attainment of the population or of the labor force. First, these data do not include education, training, or other learning experiences occurring outside the framework of formal schooling.4 Second, they do not reflect possible differences in both the quality of education received and the actual quantity of time spent in school—school years, measured in hours of instruction, have varied widely. Third, they do not provide infor mation on the content of the learning, or on the current status of formal education, training, or skill which a person may once have possessed. A recent estimate of the U.S. Office of Education indicates that some 30 million adults were engaged in “systematic, planned instructional programs” of some kind in 1968. These programs vary from basic education in the “three R/s” for adults with less than 8 years of formal education to highly advanced courses for professionals and technicians seeking to refresh or update their specialized knowledge.5 Although some of these educational pursuits may lead to receipt of equivalency certificates, and thus be reflected in the data on years of school completed, the bulk of these activities are not included in the official estimates of formal educational attainment. Information on the quality of schooling received and on the current status of acquired knowledge and training is glaringly deficient. Aside from a number of studies relating to particular schools or school systems, only two large-scale testing pro grams have been established for the purpose of obtaining representative data for the Nation as a whole: Project Talent and The Equality of Educa tional Opportunity. 6 While the findings of these two surveys provide a wealth of insight into the factors influencing the quality of educational out put, neither study has been designed to measure trends in the quality of education over time. In the absence of such longitudinal studies, it is dif ficult to distinguish the effect of school-centered factors, such as the quality of faculty, library facil ities, or per-pupil expenditures, from that of en vironmental factors, such as possible changes in the community or in the demographic, social, and economic characteristics of families in the com munity. Furthermore, only longitudinal studies can provide an adequate assessment of educational “quality” in terms of the retention of learning and its use as a foundation for further educational development. 7 The available data on years of school completed are subject to two important https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 biases: they tend to understate the actual educa tional attainment of adults who have supple mented their formal schooling in various ways, and they tend to overstate the educational attainment of those whose formal education took place in schools of inferior quality or under environmental conditions which inhibit learning. When statistics of educational attainment are viewed in the aggre gate, these biases may be offsetting to some extent; but for particular population groups, these biases may introduce uncertainty as to the significance of reported data on “years of school completed.” 8 Need versus demand Along with the general upgrading in the edu cational attainment of white and Negro workers, particularly the young new entrants to the labor force (see tables 3 and 4), there is a parallel up grading in the expectations of employers with respect to the educational qualifications of those they seek to employ. Three conditions support a continuation of this parallel rise in demand for and supply of the better-educated workers. First, the supply is ensured by the increasing output of our ever-expanding educational system. Second, the interest of employers in accumulating personnel with the highest possible educational qualifications can be justified on the ground that such personnel are more readily adapted to chang ing job requirements, are more easily trained in a variety of tasks, and are generally more adapt able to positions of increasing responsibility. Finally, as the attainment of at least a high school diploma becomes more common among job seekers, potential employers tend to view such attainment as a sign of minimum requisite compe tence for performing any job. The high school dropout is regarded as lacking not only the formal education of the graduates, but also the basic skills, attitudes, and motivations needed for adequate job performance. The outcome, except under very tight labor market conditions, is a situation in which the job applicant with limited formal education is not given equal consideration for available jobs, quite apart from the actual job requirements themselves. Excessive reliance upon formal education as a requisite for acceptance into the world of work is not only inherently unjust to the millions of lesseducated workers and potential workers who possess the need, desire, and basic competence to EDUCATION O F A D U LT W O RKERS 49 Chart 1. Percent of persons in population and civilian labor force with 4 years of high school or more, by age and sex, selected years Percent 80 “ CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE Projected to 1985 I Projected to 19751 1964-1966 averagel POPULATION 60 40 20 25 years & over 3 8 9 -5 1 0 O 70-4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years MEN The projected increase in the proportion of high school graduates among adult men points to a more educationally uniform population and labor force by 1985. WOMEN Increased educational homogeneity is also foreseen among adult women in the population and labor force by 1985. 55 years & over MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 50 Chart 2. Percent of persons 25 and over in civilian labor force with 4 years of high school or more, by age, race, and sex, selected years The gap in educational attainment between adult white and Negro working men w ill have narrowed considerably by 1985 25 years & over https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years WOMEN A sim ilar convergence in the educational attainment of adult white and Negro working women is also foreseen over the next 15 years 55 years & over EDUCATION OF A D U LT W O RKERS Chart 3. years 51 Percent of men and women 25 and over in civilian labor force with 4 years or more of college, by age, selected Percent 30 Projected to 1985 Projected to 1975 1964-1966 average 25 years and over 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 years and over The proportion of adult workers with college degrees is expected to rise very rapidly, especially among the men, in the next 15 years. perform useful work; it is also unrealistic, given the nature of many of the jobs which need to be filled.9 The real needs of employees can best be met by a selective process which ensures an op timal matching of jobs and workers. This optimum can be missed just as easily by filling jobs with overqualified workers as by hiring underqualified workers. In fact, one of the essen tial ingredients of any rewarding job is precisely the challenge that accompanies the need to extend one’s qualifications while actually performing the job itself. On methodology These projections were developed by a method that provides a systematic linkage with the educa tional projections, by age and sex, for the popula tion as a whole, prepared by the Bureau of the Census.10 In the age groups where two series of educational distributions were developed (persons 25 to 34 in 1975, 25 to 39, in 1980, and 25 to 44 in 1985) the higher of the two series was adopted. A. A ll classes. The procedure for projecting the educational distribution of the adult labor force https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis was carried out in the following sequence. Step 1. Percentage distributions of the popula tion and of the civilian labor force by sex, for age groups 25 to 34, 35 to 44, 45 to 54, 55 to 64, and 65 and over were obtained for the following educa tional attainment categories: less than 5 years (including no school years completed), 5 to 7 years, 8 years, 9 to 11 years, 12 years, 13 to 15 years (1 to 3 years of college), and 16 years or more. These data were obtained from the March Current Population Surveys for two periods: (1) An average of 1957 and 1959; and (2) an average of 1964,1965, and 1966.11 Step 2. The differences in the observed educa tional distributions of the population and civilian labor force in corresponding age-sex groups were projected to 1985. These projected differences reflected observed trends, either converging or diverging; otherwise they were held constant. Step 3. The projected differences—positive or negative—in step 2 were applied to the projected educational distributions for the population to obtain a first approximation of the projected educational attainment of the labor force for 1975, 1980, and 1985. Step 4. The projected percent distributions by M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 52 Table 3. Projected educational attainment of the white civilian labor force 25 years old and over, by age and sex, 1975, 1980, and 1985 [Percent distribution] Both sexes Male 1985 1980 1975 Age and years of school completed Female Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female 25 YEARS AND OVER Number (in thousands). Percent.................. ...... 62,124 100. 0 40,140 100. 0 21,984 100.0 67,631 100.0 43,428 100. 0 24,203 100.0 73,728 100.0 47,243 100.0 26,485 100.0 Less than 4 years of high scho o l1........ 4 years of high school or more............. 31.5 68.5 32.8 67.1 29.0 71.1 26.8 73.4 27.8 72.2 24.7 75.3 22.4 77.7 23.0 76.9 21.1 78.9 Elementary: Less than 5 years *....... 5 to 7 y e a rs ................. 8 years.......... ................ 1 to 3 years................... 4 years.......................... 1 to 3 years................... 4 years or more............ 1.8 4.6 8.1 17.0 41.0 11.6 15.9 2.1 5.0 8.7 17.0 37.7 11.7 17.7 1.1 3.8 7.0 17.1 46.9 11.5 12.7 1.3 3.4 6.1 16.0 43.2 12.4 17.8 1.6 3.7 6.6 15.9 40.2 12.4 19.6 .7 2.7 5.2 16.1 48.6 12.3 14.4 1.0 2.5 4.4 14.5 45.0 13.0 19.7 1.2 2.8 4.7 14.3 42.6 12.9 21.4 .6 2.0 3.7 14.8 49.2 13.2 16. 5 Median years of school completed....... 12.5 12.5 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.6 Number (in thousands). Percent______________ 18,663 100. 0 12,696 100.0 5,967 100. 0 22,153 100. 0 14,955 100.0 7,198 100.0 24,390 100.0 16,371 100.0 8,019 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school i ........ 4 years of high school or m ore............ 19.6 80.3 20.3 79.7 18.3 81.6 16.5 83.5 16.9 83.1 15.7 84.3 13.8 86.1 14.0 86.1 13.6 86.4 Elementary: Less than 5 years i ....... 5 to 7 years__________ 8 years.......................... 1 to 3 years................... 4 years........ ................. 1 to 3 years................... 4 years or more............ .7 1.8 3.0 14.1 46.3 13.9 20.1 .9 2.0 3.3 14.1 44.8 13.9 21.0 .4 1.3 2.4 14.2 49.6 13.8 18.2 .6 1.2 2.1 12.6 47.3 14.4 21.8 .7 1.3 2.4 12.5 46.4 14.3 22.4 .3 .8 1.7 12.9 49.1 14.8 20.4 .4 .8 1.5 11.1 47.9 14.8 23.4 .5 .9 1.6 11.0 47.9 14.4 23.8 .3 .6 1.2 11. 5 48.1 15. 5 22.8 Median years of school completed....... 12.7 12.7 12.6 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.8 Number (in thousands). Percent______________ 14,164 100.0 9,151 100.0 5, 013 100.0 16, 256 100.0 10, 414 100.0 5, 842 100.0 20, 292 100.0 12,966 100.0 7,326 100. 0 Less than 4 years of high school i ........ 4 years of high school or m ore............ 27.9 72.1 28.4 71.6 27.1 72.9 23.7 76.4 24.3 75.6 22.5 77.5 19.8 80.3 19.8 80.1 19.4 80.6 Elementary: Less than 5 years *........ 5 to 7 years.................... 8 y e ars.......................... 1 to 3 years.................... 4 years........................... 1 to 3 years.................... 4 years or more............. 1.6 3.9 5.6 16.8 43.7 11.7 16.7 2.0 4.3 6.1 16.0 39.8 12.1 19.7 1.1 3.0 4.8 18.2 50.7 10.9 11.3 1.3 2.7 4.2 15.5 45.5 12.5 18.4 1.5 3.1 4.5 15.2 42.1 12.6 20.9 .8 2.0 3.6 16.1 51.5 12.2 13.8 .9 1.8 3.0 14.1 46.7 13.3 20.3 1.0 2.0 3.2 13.6 44.3 13.1 22.7 .5 1.4 2.6 14.9 51.0 13.5 16.1 Median years of school completed....... 12.5 12.5 12.3 12.6 12.6 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.6 Number (in thousands). Percent......................... 15,365 100. 0 9,567 100.0 5,798 100.0 14,491 100.0 8,997 100.0 5,494 100.0 14,214 100.0 8,816 100.0 5,398 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school >........ 4 years of high school or more............. 35.5 64.6 38.2 61.8 31.0 69.1 32.4 67.6 34.6 65.4 28.8 71.2 26.8 73.2 28.2 71.9 24.6 75.3 Elementary: Less than 5 y e a rs1........ 5 to 7 years................... 8 y e ars.......................... 1 to 3 years.................. 4 years........................... 1 to 3 years................... 4 years or more_______ 2.2 5.2 9.2 18.9 40.0 10. 5 14.1 2.7 6.0 10.4 19.1 34.6 10.4 16.8 1.4 3.7 7.3 18.6 48.9 10.6 9.6 1.8 4.5 7.6 18.5 41.0 11.0 15.6 2.3 5.3 8.7 18.3 35.6 11.2 18.6 1.1 3.2 5.8 18.7 49.8 10.7 10.7 1.6 3.5 5.4 16.3 44.7 11.8 16.7 2.0 4.0 6.1 16.1 40.3 12.1 19.5 .9 2.6 4.3 16.8 51. 8 11.3 12.2 Median years of school completed....... 12.4 12.3 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.5 Number (in thousands). P e rc e n t....................... 11,069 100. 0 6,853 100.0 4,216 100.0 11,742 100.0 7,147 100.0 4, 595 100.0 11,720 100.0 7,124 100.0 4,596 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school *____ 4 years of high school or m ore............ 43.9 56.1 47.2 52.8 38.5 61.5 36.8 63.2 40.0 60.2 31.9 68.1 33.4 66.5 36.5 63.4 28.6 71. 5 Elementary: 2.4 7.3 14.6 19.6 35.0 9.8 11.3 3.2 7.9 15.7 20.4 31.3 9.9 11.6 1.2 6.2 12.8 18.3 41.0 9.7 10.8 1.7 5.4 10.7 19.0 39.5 10.5 13.2 2.4 6.1 11.7 19.8 34.6 10.7 14.9 .7 4.3 9.1 17.8 47.1 10.3 10.7 1.6 4.6 8.5 18.7 39.8 11.0 15.7 2.1 5.4 9.6 19.4 34.2 11.1 18.1 .8 3.4 6.8 17.6 48.6 10.9 12.0 12.2 12.1 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 Total: High school: College: 25 TO 34 YEARS Total: High school: College: 35 TO 44 YEARS Total: High school: College: 45 TO 54 YEARS Total: High school: College: 55 TO 64 YEARS Total: High school: College: Less than 5 years >____ 5 to 7 y e a rs................. . 8 y e a rs......................... 1 to 3 years................. 4 years............ ........... 1 to 3 years.................. . 4 years or more............ Median years of school completed___ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 53 EDUCATION OF A D U LT W O RKERS Table 3. Projected educational attainment of the white civilian labor force 25 years old and over, by age and sex, 1975, 1980, and 1985—Continued [Percent distribution] 1975 1985 1980 Age and years of school completed Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Male Both sexes Male Female 65 YEARS AND OVER Total: Number (in thousands)__________ Percent________________________ 2,863 100.0 1,873 100.0 990 100.0 2,989 100.0 1,915 100.0 1,074 100.0 3,112 100.0 1,966 100.0 1,146 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school t______________ 4 years of high school dr more_________________ 56.7 43.3 60.3 39.7 49.8 50.2 50.5 49.4 54.3 45.7 43.9 56.0 44.5 55.5 48.4 51.7 37.7 62.2 Elementary: Less than 5 years i ______________ 5 to 7 years_____________________ 8 years_______________________ . 1 to 3 years_____ ________ _ _ . 4 years_________________________ 1 to 3 years_____________________ 4 years or more_________________ 4.6 12.2 22.9 17.0 21.2 9.7 12.4 5.2 12.4 24.8 17.9 19.0 8.2 12.5 3.4 11.6 19.5 15.3 25.5 12.5 12.2 2.4 9.6 19.8 18.7 25.9 10.4 13.1 2.9 10.0 21.5 19.9 23.3 9.1 13.3 1.7 8.8 16.9 16.5 30.4 12.8 12.8 1.4 7.5 16.4 19.2 30.8 11.0 13.7 1.9 8.1 18.0 20.4 27.4 10.0 14.3 .6 6.5 13.5 17.1 36.6 12.8 12.8 Median years of school completed______________ 10.8 10.3 12.0 11.9 11.4 12.2 12.2 12.1 12.3 High school: College: 1 Includes persons reporting no formal education. years of school completed were then applied to the previously projected civilian labor force totals for each age-sex group. The resultant numbers were then divided by the corresponding population numbers to obtain a labor force participation rate for the population in each age, sex, and educational attainment category for the periods 1957-59, 1964-65-66, 1975, 1980, and 1985. Step 5. The labor force participation rates ob tained in step 4 for 1975, 1980, and 1985 were then adjusted by introducing minor changes in the educational distribution of particular age-sex groups wherever necessary to maintain consistency with observed trends in there participation rates in 1957-59 and 1964-65-66. B. N ( ). Information from the Current Population Survey on the educational attainment of the population and civilian labor force, by color, is not available prior to March 1964. Furthermore, the projections of educational attainment of the population prepared by the Bureau of the Census are not available for whites and for Negro and other races separately. It was therefore decided to prepare a set of projections of the educational attainment for the “Negro and other” group, by age and sex, to 1985 as a preliminary step in developing a similar projection for the Negro civilian labor force. This was the procedure: Step 1. The percent distribution of the edu cational attainment of “All Classes” (whites combined with Negro and other races) and of the “Negro and other” group, for both the popue g r o a n d o t h e r https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r a c e s e x c e p t w h i t e lation and the civilian labor force 25 years old and over, by age and sex, was recorded for the following two periods: (1) An average of March 1964, 1965, and 1966, and (2) an average of March 1967, 1968, and 1969. 12 Step 2. Observed trends in the differences in the educational distributions of the two popu lation groups were projected to 1985 and applied to the Census Bureau projection of educational attainment of the total population, by age and sex, to obtain a corresponding distribution for the Negro population. Step 3. Using the projected educational dis tribution of the Negro population as a guide, a corresponding projection for the civilian labor force was developed as described above for the “All classes” group, steps 2 to 5. Step 4. Corresponding distributions for the white civilian labor force were obtained by subtracting the number of Negroes in the civilian labor force, by age, sex, and educational attain ment category, from the corresponding numbers in “All classes,” for 1975, 1980, and 1985. The projections for Negroes are based upon a very brief time series of actual data (1964 to 1969). Furthermore, these observations are subject to considerable sampling variability because of the small frequencies encountered in many of the cells. For these reasons, among others, the educational attainment projections for the “Negro and other” group are inherently less reliable than those for the labor force as a whole. Some evidence of this instability has been obtained by making intra cohort comparisons of the reported educational 54 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 Table 4. Projected educational attainment of the Negro and other races civilian labor force 25 years old and over, by age and sex, 1975, 1980, and 1985 [Percent distribution] 1975 1980 1985 Age and years of school completed Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female Number (in thousands)__________ Percent....... ................................... 7,679 100.0 4,573 100.0 3,106 100.0 8,696 100.0 5,237 100.0 3,459 100.0 9,916 100.0 6,039 100.0 3,877 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school ...................... 4years of high school or m o r e .- ....................... . 51.7 48.3 53.1 46.8 49.6 50.4 44.0 56.1 44.6 55.4 42.9 57.1 36.3 63.8 36.6 63.4 35.6 64.4 Elementary: Less than 5 years*------------ ---------5 to 7 y e a r s ...____ ______ ______ 8 years______ ______ ___________ 1 to 3 y e a rs...................... ............. 4 ye ars........... ........ .......... .............. 1 to 3 years--------- ---------------------4 years or more___________ _____ 7.2 11.5 8.8 24.2 31.2 8.1 9.0 9.3 11.7 8.6 23.5 29.8 8.0 9.0 4.1 11.3 9.0 25.2 33.2 8.2 9.0 5.4 8.7 6.7 23.2 36.3 9.3 10.5 6.8 8.9 6.5 22.4 35.9 9.1 10.4 3.3 8.4 6.9 24.3 37.0 9.5 10.6 3.4 5.8 5.1 22.0 40.5 10.5 12.8 4.4 5.9 4.9 21.4 40.3 10.3 12.8 1.8 5.5 5.4 22.9 40.8 10.7 12.9 Median years of school completed......................... 11.8 11.6 12.0 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.3 12.3 12.4 2,638 100.0 1,643 100.0 995 100.0 3,321 100.0 2,099 100.0 1,222 100.0 3,874 100.0 2,469 100.0 1,405 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school1______________ 4 years of high school or more_________ _______ 32.5 67.7 33.5 66.5 30.5 69.5 26.4 73.6 26.9 73.0 25.3 74.6 21.4 78.5 21.8 78.2 20.7 79.3 Elementary: Less than 5 years*______________ 5 to 7 years................................. 8 years......... ............. .................. . 1 to 3 years........... ................... ....... 4 years................ ............ ................ 1 to 3 years........................... ......... 4 years or m o r e .............. ............. 2.2 3.7 3.8 22.8 45.0 11.1 11.6 2.9 4.0 3.8 22.8 44.6 10.8 11.1 .9 3.1 3.7 22.8 45.5 11.6 12.4 1.6 2.3 2.6 19.9 47.4 12.3 13.9 2.0 2.4 2.6 19.9 47.6 11.9 13.5 .7 2.1 2.5 20.0 46.9 13.0 14.7 1.1 1.4 1.7 17.2 49.0 13.2 16.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 17.2 49.6 12.8 15.7 .5 1.3 1.8 17.1 48.0 14.0 17.3 Median years of school com pleted............. .......... 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.6 Number (in thousands)............... . Percent........................ ................. 1,880 100.0 1,095 100.0 785 100.0 2,130 100.0 1,268 100.0 862 100.0 2,717 100.0 1,650 100.0 1,067 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school *---------------------4 years of high school or more............................... 50.2 49.8 52.0 48.0 47.8 52.4 40.9 59.1 41.6 58.4 40.1 60.0 32.2 67.9 32.6 67.4 31.3 68.6 Elementary: Less than 5 years *_________ ____ 5 to 7 years...................................... 8 years_________________________ High school: 1 to 3 years_____________ ______ 4 years________________________ College: 1 to 3 years___________ ________ 4 years or more_________ _______ 4.4 9.3 8.6 27.9 31.7 8.0 10.1 6.0 10.7 8.2 27.1 30.0 7.6 10.4 2.2 7.3 9.2 29.1 34.1 8.7 9.6 2.5 6.2 5.6 26.6 39.0 9.1 11.0 3.4 7.0 5.5 25.7 38.5 8.7 11.2 1.3 5.1 5.7 28.0 39.7 9.6 10.7 2.1 3.6 3.7 22.8 44.6 10.5 12.8 2.8 3.8 3.6 22.4 44.6 10.2 12.6 .9 3.2 3.9 23.3 44.6 10.9 13.1 Median years of school completed------------ --------- 12.0 11.8 12.1 12.2 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.4 12.4 Number (in thousands)__________ P e rce nt................................. ......... 1,780 100.0 1,012 100.0 768 100.0 1,761 100.0 998 100.0 763 100.0 1,773 100.0 1,018 100.0 755 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school *______________ 4 years of high school or m ore.------ ------------------ 63.0 36.9 65.8 34.2 59.6 40.5 59.1 40.8 62.5 37.4 54.8 45.2 50.2 49.8 52.0 48.0 47.7 52.4 Elementary: 9.0 16.7 11.1 26.2 23.5 6.6 6.8 12.3 17.1 11.9 24.5 19.9 7.1 7.2 4.7 16.2 10.2 28.5 28.3 5.9 6.3 7.6 13.8 10.4 27.3 26.5 7.0 7.3 10.4 15.1 11.0 26.0 23.6 6.8 7.0 3.9 12.2 9.7 29.0 30.3 7.2 7.7 4.3 8.9 8.5 28.5 31.7 7.7 10.4 5.9 10.1 8.2 27.8 29.6 7.5 10.9 2.3 7.2 8.9 29.3 34.6 8.1 9.7 10.5 10.1 11.0 11.0 10.6 11.5 12.0 11.8 12.1 Number (in thousands)......... ......... Percent___ ____ _______________ 1,115 100.0 654 100.0 461 100.0 1,205 100. 0 697 100.0 508 100.0 1,261 100. 0 723 100.0 538 100.0 Less than 4 years of high school *____ _________ 4 years of high school dr more_________________ 74.2 25.8 76.7 23.4 70.9 29.1 66.4 33.6 67.8 32.2 64.7 35.3 61.9 38.2 64.3 35.8 58.7 41.2 Elementary: 15.4 22.6 15.7 20.5 15.2 4.8 5.8 19.6 21.3 15.0 20.8 13.0 4.9 5.5 9.5 24.5 16.7 20.2 18.2 4.6 6.3 13.1 19.0 12.7 21.6 21.6 6.0 6.0 16.1 18.8 12.1 20.8 20.2 6.3 5.7 9.1 19.3 13.6 22.7 23.5 5.5 6.3 8.6 15.3 11.3 26.7 24.1 7.0 7.1 11.5 16.0 11.5 25.3 20.9 7.6 7.3 4.8 14.3 11.0 28.6 28.4 6.1 6.7 25 YEARS AND OVER Total: High school: College: 25 TO 34 YEARS Total: High school: College: Number (in thousands)................... Percent____ ___________________ 35 TO 44 YEARS Total: 45 TO 54 YEARS Total: High school: College: Less than 5 years *________ _____ 5 to 7 years_____________________ 8 years....................... ............. ....... 1 to 3 years______________ _____ 4 years.............. ..................... ......... 1 to 3 years______________ ______ 4 years or more_______ _________ Median years of school completed..................... ^ 55 TO 64 YEARS Total: Less than 5 years *............ .............. 5 to 7 years_____________________ 8 years______________ _________ High school: 1 to 3 years____ _______________ 4 years___ _____ _______________ College: 1 to 3 years____________________ 4 years or more...... ......................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 55 ED UCATION O F A D U LT W O RK ERS Table 4. Projected educational attainment of the Negro and other races civilian labor force 25 years old and over, by age and sex, 1975, 1980, and 1985—Continued 1985 1980 1975 Age and years of school completed Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female Both sexes Male Female 8.8 8.6 8.9 9.7 9.4 10.1 10.7 10.3 11.1 266 100.0 169 100.0 97 100.0 279 100.0 175 100.0 104 100.0 291 100.0 179 100.0 112 100.0 Less than 4 years of high scho o l1______________ 4 years of high school or m o re .--------- --------------- 83.5 16.6 84.6 15.4 81.3 18.8 80.9 19.0 82.3 17.7 78.8 21.1 74.1 26.0 75.9 24.0 71.0 28.9 Elementary: Less than 5 y e a rs1-----------------5 to 7 years------------ ------------------8 y e a rs._______________________ 1 to 3 years____________________ 4 years________________________ 1 to 3 years_____________________ 4 years or more_________________ 30.2 24.2 15.5 13.6 9.1 3.0 4.5 34.9 23.1 14.8 11.8 8.3 2.4 4.7 21.9 26.0 16.7 16.7 10.4 4.2 4.2 25.4 26.5 13.6 15.4 9.3 4.3 5.4 30.9 24.6 13.1 13.7 8.0 4.0 5.7 16.7 29.8 14.4 18.3 11.5 4.8 4.8 16.3 23.2 15.4 18.8 13.3 5.5 7.2 21.2 21.2 15.6 17.9 11.2 5.0 7.8 9.6 26.3 14.9 20.2 16.7 6.1 6.1 Median years of school completed______________ 7.4 6.9 8.1 7.8 7.4 8.3 8.6 8.5 8.9 Median years of school completed----------- ------- -65 YEARS AND OVER Total: High school: College: Number (in thousands)............ Percent_______________ ______ i Includes persons reporting no formal education. attainment of two cohort groups in the popula tion, by color and sex, as obtained in the Current Population Surveys of March 1964 and March 1969. The first cohort group comprises persons age 20 to 24 in March 1964—a group whose educational attainment would be expected to in crease somewhat during the following 5-year period to March 1969, when it would be age 25 to 29 years. During this 5-year period, white men re ported an overall educational upgrading of 13.2 percentage points, while Negro men reported an upgrading of 10.4 percentage points. Nearly all of the improvement among the whites stemmed from a reduction in the proportion reporting 1 to 3 years of college and a corresponding rise in the proportion reporting completion of 4 years or or more of college. Among Negro men the upgrad ing was about evenly divided between those who reported completion of 4 years of high school and those who reported completion of 4 years or more of college. Corresponding upgrading among white and Negro women was distributed similarly and amounted to 6.7 and 7.3 percentage points, respec tively. The magnitude and direction of changes reported among both color groups for this cohort are generally in line with expectations. For the cohort age 25 to 29 in 1964, a different picture emerges. As this group ages over the 5-year period to 1969, we would expect relatively minor changes in its reported educational attain ment. Since most adults in this age group who are still engaged in regular schooling would be college graduates pursuing advanced degrees, their attain ment of these degrees would not alter their original classification in the “4 years or more of college” group. This expected stability was found among white men and women, who reported a net change of only 2.8 and 2.1 percentage points, respectively, during this 5-year period. Among the “Negro and other” group, however, the reported net change amounted to 9.2 and 10.9 percentage points, respectively. In each case, the largest reported increase was in the percentage with 9 to 11 years of school completed. Taken at face value, these findings suggest that Negroes may be taking far more advantage than whites of available oppor tunities for adult education. However, the finding that this upgrading is greater among the 25 to 34 group than among the 20 to 29 group suggests some reported upgrading may be spurious.13 □ 2 The stability of the median educational attainment of 1 In this report, data for the grouping, “Negro and other races,” are used to represent data for Negroes, since any group, once it reaches 12 years, reflects the fact that Negroes constitute about 92 percent of all persons in the this attainment level is the terminal point for the formal grouping. In addition to Negroes, the grouping includes education of many persons. American Indians, Filipinos, Chinese, and Japanese, among 3 For information on the continuing erosion of the labor others. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 56 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 force activity of less-educated older males, see Denis F. Johnston, “Education and the Labor Force,” and Charles C. Killingsworth, “The Continuing Labor Market Twist,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1968, pp. 1-11 and 12-17 respectively. * John K. Folger and Charles B. Nam, Education of the American Population (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 135. 5 J. Eugene Welden, “30 Million Adults Go to School,” in American Education, November 1969 (vol. 5, no. 9), pp. 11-13. 6 John C. Flanagan and others, Studies of the American High School, Project Talent Monograph Series (Pittsburgh, Pa., University of Pittsburgh, 1962). James S. Coleman and others, Equality of Educational Opportunity (Wash ington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966). For an excellent summary of this study, see James S. Coleman, “Equality of Educational Opportunity, Reexamined,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences (vol. 2, 1969), pp. 347354. 7 For a critical summary of recent efforts at assessing the quality of education, see Abbott L. Ferriss, Indicators of Trends in American Education (New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1969), pp. 87-99. 8 Considerable evidence has been accumulating to the effect that schooling in communities whose inhabitants are predominantly of low socioeconomic status tends to be decidedly inferior in quality, regardless of the racial com position of the student body. See, for example, James S. Coleman and others, op. cit., p. 296 and Alan B. Wilson, The Consequences of Segregation; Academic Achievement in a Northern Community (Berkeley, Calif., The Glendessary Press, March 1969). 9 See Credentials and Common Sense; Jobs for People Without Diplomas, Manpower Report No. 13 (Washington, Manpower Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Differences in sa As far as salaries are concerned, there is a surprisingly low correspondence between type of college and earnings 5 years later. Age at that stage in life seems to play a much greater role in predicting salary than does one’s alma mater. . . . On the whole, differences in salary appear to depend more on the occupa tion itself than on the institution which pre pared the graduate for the occupation. In the long run, the salary differentials between graduates in the same field but from different institutions may widen as more professional and graduate degree holders fill the labor force. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis December 1968.) 10 Projections of Educational Attainment, 1970 to 1985, March 1968, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 390 (U.S. Bureau of the Census). 11 Current Population Survey data on the educational attainment of the population are presented in Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 77 (for March 1957); No. 99 (for March 1959); No. 138 (for March 1964); and No. 158 (for March 1965 and 1966) (U.S. Bureau of the Census). The civilian labor force data are presented in Current Population Reports, Series P-50, No. 78 (for March 1957) and Special Labor Force Report No. 1 (for March 1959); No. 53 (for March 1964); No. 65 (for March 1965); and No. 83 (for March 1966), (Bureau of Labor Statistics). These reports were reprinted, with additional tables, from the Monthly Labor Review, February 1960, May 1965, March 1966, and June 1967, respectively. 12 Current Population Survey data on the educational attainment of the population by race are presented in the reports cited in the preceding footnote and in Current Population Reports, Series P-20, Nos. 169, 182, and 194 for 1967, 1968, and 1969, respectively. Data for the civilian labor force may be obtained in Special Labor Force Report No. 92 and 103 (for 1967 and 1968, respectively), reprinted from the Monthly Labor Review, February 1968 and Feb ruary 1969 (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Data for March 1969 are from unpublished tabulations for a report in preparation. 13 This differential upgrading has also been observed by Reynolds Farley, “The Quality of Demographic Data for Nonwhites,” Demography (vol. 5, No. 1, 1968), pp. 1-10. Dr. Farley notes that as a cohort ages, the years of school completed reported for that cohort increases more rapidly for nonwhites than for whites. He suggests that this in crease may be attributed to both overreporting of educa tional attainment and to selective mortality in the “Negro and other” group. / and type of college But from the vantage point of 5 years after college, it appears that the expansion in higher education and the unprecedented demand for college graduates has greatly narrowed the earnings gap between those who went to the most prestigious schools and those who got their education in less exclusive surroundings. — L aure M . Sharp, Education and Employment: The Early Careers oj College Graduates (Baltimore, John Hopkins Press, 1970), pp. 110-111. Special Labor Force Report, based on May 1969 survey, shows that half take second jobs to meet current bills or pay debts V ERA C. P ER R ELLA M —moonlighters—are an im portant, though small, element in the work force. They have been a fairly steady segment of the employed population during the period between 1956 and 1969, both numerically and as a percent of all employed persons. The number of persons who hold down more than one job has ranged between 3 and 4 million, and the multiple jobholding rate has ranged between 4.5 percent and 5.7 percent. The rate for men has been roughly 3 times that for women. (See box.) This article deals with information obtained from the May 1969 supplement to the monthly survey of the labor force about reasons for moon lighting, degree of attachment to moonlighting, personal characteristics of multiple jobholders, and occupations, industries, and hours worked on primary and secondary jobs.1 A brief discussion of some economic and social aspects of moonlighting is included. u l t i p l e j o b h o l d e r s Major results Four million workers held two jobs or more in May 1969. These moonlighters constituted 5.2 percent of all employed persons. The number of moonlighters was 370,000 higher than at the time of the last survey in May 1966, and the multiple jobholding rate increased somewhat. For men, the rate rose to 6.9 percent from 6.4 percent; however, the women’s rate, 2.3 percent, was not significantly different. (See table 1.) The net increase in the number of moonlighters was entirely among workers who were nonfarm wage and salary employees in their primary and secondary jobs. In May 1969, almost 60 percent of the moonlighters were nonfarm wage and salary Vera C. Perrella is an economist in the Division of Labor Force Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Moonlighters: their motivations and characteristics employees in both their first and second jobs. Close to 25 percent worked in agriculture in at least one of their jobs, most often as wage and salary workers off the farm on the first job and as self-employed farmers on the second (table 2). Moonlighting was much more common among men than women. White men had a slightly higher multiple jobholding rate than Negro 2 men, but among women there was no difference in rates by color. Reasons for multiple jobholding It is generally assumed that the overriding rea son people take on more than one job is financial necessity. Also, there is some speculation as to whether an appreciable proportion of moonlighters Survey definitions For purposes of this survey, multiple jobholders are defined as those employed persons who, during the survey week, (1) had jobs as wage or salary workers with two employers or more, (2) were selfemployed and also held wage or salary jobs, or (3) worked as unpaid family workers but also had secondary wage or salary jobs. The primary job is the one at which the greatest number of hours were worked. Also included as multiple jobholders are persons who had two jobs during the survey week only because they were changing from one job to another. This group is very small—only 1 percent of all multiple jobholders in May 1969. Persons employed only in private households (as a maid, laundress, gardener, babysitter, and so on) who worked for two employers or more during the survey week were not counted as multiple job holders. Working for several employers was consider ed an inherent characteristic of private household work rather than an indication of multiple jobholding. Also excluded were self-employed persons with additional farms or businesses, and persons with second jobs as unpaid family workers. 57 58 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 Table 1. Employed persons with two jobs or more, by sex, 1956-69 Persons with two jobs or more Multiple jobholding ra te 1 Month and year Number (thousands) Both sexes May 1969________________________ 4,008 5.2 6.9 2.3 May May May May May 3,636 3,756 3,726 3,921 3,342 4.9 5.2 5.2 5.7 4.9 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.4 6.4 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.0 3,012 2,966 3,099 3, 570 3,653 4.6 4.5 4.8 5.3 5.5 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.6 6.9 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.5 1966________________________ 1965________________________ 1964________________________ 1963________________________ 1962________________________ December 1960 2 __________________ December 1959________ __________ July 1958______________ _______ . . July 1957................................... ......... July 1956______ _______ _______ . . J Men Women 1 Multiple jobholders as percent of all employed persons. : Data for Alaska and Hawaii included beginning 1960. have only casual attachment to their moonlight ing jobs. Information on these two aspects of moonlighting was obtained on a nationwide scale for the first time in May 1969, when persons with 2 jobs or more were asked their main reason for moonlighting, whether they had worked at more than one job in every one of the 4 weeks prior to the survey, and in how many of the 12 months prior to May 1969 they had worked on their secondary jobs. Although statements about motivation must be interpreted cautiously, information on the reasons why people take on extra jobs has significance. Four out of every 10 moonlighters said their main reason for moonlighting was to meet regular household expenses for food, clothing, utilities, and Table 2. rent. One out of 10 said paying off debts was his main reason (table 3). Another 1 in 10 said he was holding a second job mainly to save for the future. The rest of the moonlighters gave a wide variety of reasons, such as getting experience in a different occupation, building up a business, liking the work, needing money for extras, and helping out friends or relatives who needed work done. A greater proportion of the Negro than of the white moonlighters gave meeting regular house hold expenses as the main reason. Among the white moonlighters, the same proportion of men and women gave meeting regular expenses; among the black, this reason was given by an appreciably higher proportion of the women than of the men. Three-fourths of the Negro women who were moonlighters worked at a second job for this reason. Men and women 25 years old and over were considerably more likely to give the need to meet regular household expenses as the main reason than were younger people. The younger men and women are more often single and less likely to have family responsibilities. Paying off debts, saving for the future, and getting experience were more important among the younger moonlighters, decreasing in importance as age increased. This finding accords with the normal pattern of the various stages of career and family phasing linked to age. There was generally a direct relationship be tween earnings and the proportion of multiple Type of industry and class of worker of primary and secondary jobs, for persons with two jobs or more, May 1969 (Numbers in thousands] Type of industry and class of worker of secondary job Persons with two jobs or more Type of industry and class of worker of primary job Number Total______________________________ __________ Agriculture _ - _____ ___ ___ ___ - . . _____ _ Wage and salary workers________ Self-employed workers _ __ . _ _____ _ ___ Unpaid family workers _______ Nonagricultural industries.. _ . __ _ . Wage and salary workers___ .. ________ ______ Self-employed workers_________ ________ _ ________ Unpaid family workers Percent of total employed Total 77,264 4,008 5.2 723 3,893 1,284 1,962 647 73,371 67, 536 5,264 571 273 75 167 31 3, 735 3, 568 162 5 7.0 5.8 8.5 4.8 5.1 5.3 3.1 .9 57 38 13 6 666 661 5 1 Self-employed persons with a secondary business or farm, but no wage or salary job, were not counted as multiple jobholders. 2 Persons whose primary job was as an unpaid family worker were counted as mul https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Nonagricultural industries Agriculture Total employed Wage and salary workers Selfemployed workers 121 41~ 22 13 6 80 75 5 0) <2) (>) (2) Total Wage and salary workers 602 3,285 2,698 16 16 216 37 154 25 3,069 2,907 157 5 210 31 154 25 2,488 2, 326 157 5 586 586 Selfemployed workers tiple jobholders only if they also held a wage or salary job. NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 587 6 6 (0 ( 2) <2) CO, 581 581 59 M O O N LIG H TERS Table 3. Main reason for working at two jobs or more, by age, sex, color, and marital status, May 1969 Main reason for working at two jobs or more Total Characteristic Number (thousands) Both sexes, total_______________________________________ ________ 4, 008 Percent 100.0 Meet regular expenses 40.0 Pay off debts Save for the future Get experience1 O ther2 8.8 13.4 8.0 29.8 8.2 5.4 31.2 15.3 ____ _______________________________ __________ _ _ __ _____________ 3,640 368 100.0 100.0 38.2 58.6 8.8 9.3 13.5 11.4 Men, total______________________________________________________ 3,350 100.0 39.6 9.2 14.2 8.4 28.6 -- 3,059 291 100.0 100.0 38.2 54.8 9.1 10.3 14.2 13.4 8.6 5.9 29.9 15.5 lfi to 24 years 25 to 44 years 45 years and over ________ ___ ____ ______ - __ _______ _ __ __ ------------------- — _______ ____ - ____________ ____ 395 1,824 1,131 100.0 100.0 100.0 27.1 41.2 41.5 13.9 10.3 5.8 15.9 14.5 12.9 8.1 9.6 6.5 34.9 24.5 33.2 Married wife present _ 2,922 100.0 42.5 8.9 13.6 8.4 26.7 658 100.0 42.2 7.0 9.3 5.9 35.6 581 77 100.0 100.0 38.1 72.7 7.2 5.2 10.0 3.9 6.2 3.9 38.4 14.3 135 271 252 100.0 100.0 100.0 17.8 48.1 48.8 11.1 7.4 4. 4 14.1 8.1 7.9 11.9 5.9 2.8 45.2 30.4 36.1 309 100.0 44.2 5.8 7.4 6.5 36.1 White Negro and other races - White Negro and other races ____ __ _ _______ _____ ________ ___ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ __ Women, total_____________________________ — ........ — ------- --------White Negro and other races 16 to 24 years 25 to 44 years 45 years and over _____ _______________________ ______ _ __ _____ _____ - __ — _ Married hushand present __ _______ _ __ -_ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ ---- . _ _______ — ----- --------- __ 1 Including persons who said their main reason was to get experience in a different occupation or to build up a business. 2 Includes such reasons as liking the work done on secondary job, needing money for jobholders who reported they were holding a second job to meet regular household expenses. For example, among the moonlighting men who had usual wage or salary earnings of less than $100 a week, about one-half gave this as the main reason, compared with about one-third of the men earning $150 a week or more. The men earning $150 or more were more likely to report saving for the future or to get experience at a new job or business. Frequency of moonlighting Moonlighters apparently have more than a casual attachment to working at more than 1 job. In May 1969, 7 out of 10 moonlighters had worked at both their main and extra jobs in each of the 4 weeks preceding the survey (table 4), and almost half of all the moonlighters had worked at both jobs in all 12 months in the year preceding May 1969 (table 5). Another 18 percent had moon lighted in at least 7 to 11 of those months. There was no significant difference between men and women, nor between whites and Negroes, in the proportions who worked in each of the pre ceding 4 weeks. With respect to age, there was no difference for women, but the men 25 years old https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis extras, and helping out friends or relatives. Also included are a small number of person s who changed jobs during the week. NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. and over, most of whom were married, were more likely than the younger men to have worked in each of the preceding 4 weeks. The moonlighters who had worked at both their primary and second ary jobs in each of the preceding 4 weeks were twice as likely to have m oonlighted in all 12 months as those who had not worked in each of the weeks. Moonlighting in each of the 4 weeks prior to the survey was just as common (75 per cent) among those who were moonlighting to save for the future or to get experience as it was for those who were doing it to meet regular household expenses or pay off debts. Moonlighting in each of the 4 weeks or in all 12 months was more common among those whose second jobs were in agriculture than those whose second jobs were in nonagricultural industries, and among those who were self-employed than those who were wage or salary workers, on second jobs. The proportion of moonlighters who worked in all 12 months at their second jobs was not directly related to earnings. Among male moon lighters who were wage or salary workers on their first jobs, 54 percent of those with weekly earnings of $150 or more on their primary jobs moon lighted in each of the preceding 12 months, compared with only 28 percent of those who 60 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 earned less than $60. This does not appear to agree with the finding that the lower earners were more likely to moonlight to meet regular expenses. Several factors may underlie this seeming con tradiction. The low earners are mainly the younger moolighters who, on the one hand, are more likely to be recent labor force entrants and at the lower skill and experience levels, and, on the other hand, less likely to have as many dependents or family responsibilities as men in the middle years. The younger men, therefore, may neither want, nor have available to them, as steady a secondary job as the older ones. In addition, they may not have been in the work force all of the preceding 12 months. Of course, both the regularity and length of time of moonlighting depend upon availability of the work as well as the propensity of the worker to want, need, or persevere in a second job. Older workers more often have the experience and skills Table 4. Persons with two jobs or more, by number of weeks in which they worked at secondary job in 4 weeks ending in survey week, May 1969 (Numbers in thousands] Characteristic Both sexes.................. .................... ....... Worked in each of 4 weeks Total number of multiple jobholders > Number Percent of total 3,963 2,822 71.2 Men_______________ ______ __________ Women............. ............... ................... 2 320 '643 2 388 434 71 9 67 5 White.......... ......................................... Negro and other races_____ _________ ______ ___ 3 602 361 2 567 '255 71 3 70i 6 MEN Under 25 years old____ ____ _______ _____ 25 years and over____ ________ ____ Married, wife present____________ _________ 382 2,938 2,908 211 2,177 2,119 55.2 74.1 72.9 130 513 303 84 350 191 64.6 68.2 63.0 Meet regular household expenses_______ _______ Pay off debts_______________________ Save for the future_______________________ Get experience2_____________ _____ O ther3_______ ____ _______ . 1,604 354 535 320 1,150 1,216 252 407 241 706 75,8 71.2 76.1 75.3 61.4 INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF WORKER ON SECONDARY JOB Agriculture____________________ _______ Nonagriculture_________________ ____ 719 3,244 562 2,260 78.2 69.7 Wage and salary worker on secondary job . Self-employed on secondary jo b ____ . 2,775 1,188 1,918 904 69.1 76.1 WOMEN Under 25 years old________ ______ _________ 25 years and over____________________ Married, husband present___________________ REASONS FOR M ULTIPLE JOBHOLDING 1 Excludes a small number of persons who changed jobs during the week ended May 17,1969. 2 See table 3, footnotel. 3 See table 3, footnote 2. NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis which are in demand than do younger workers. For example, 40 percent of the moonlighters were professional workers, farmers, or managers in their secondary jobs. These are the kinds of jobs which generally require both continuity and reg ularity of work. Male household heads The tendency to hold more than one job varies with age, sex, and marital and household-head status. A very small proportion of single per sons, most of whom are young, have a second job—fewer than 4 percent among the men. The relatively high multiple jobholding rates of married men emphasize the importance of eco nomic responsibility for their families as a reason for moonlighting. Among these household heads who were wage and salary workers on their pri mary jobs, the rate increased as the number of children under 18 years old in the family increased: Number of children Multiple jobholding rate Total_____________________________ ___ 8.2 No children under 18 years____________ ______ 1 child under 18 years.............................................. 2 children under 18 years ........................................ ............................ 3 or 4 children under 18 years 5 children under 18 years............................ ............ 6.0 7.8 8.9 10.5 11.3 1 i Persons with 2 jobs or more as percent of all employed. Industry Workers whose primary jobs were in State and local government and in the postal service had the highest multiple jobholding rates (11 percent and 10 percent, respectively). As in previous surveys, wage and salary workers in construction and in educational services also had high rates. These industries include workers with both high and low earnings and job security. Self-employed persons in agriculture also had rates much higher than average. The high moonlighting rates may result in part from regular work schedules which leave time free when other work is available. On the other hand, the rate for workers in manufacturing, in which working hours may be harder to rearrange, was below the overall average of 5.2 percent. The industries in which the largest proportions of the moonlighters found their secondary jobs were service and finance, agriculture, and retail trade—industries which have requirements for part-time workers. About 64 percent of all the 61 M O O N LIG H T ERS Table 5. Persons with two jobs or more in May 1969, by number of months in which they worked at secondary job in year ending April 1969 [Percent distribution] Total Number of months in which they worked at secondary job Number of multi ple jobholders 1 Percent (thousands) Characteristic None 1 month 2-3 months 4-6 months 7-11 months A ll 12 months — --------------------------------------------------- . 3,963 3,602 361 100.0 100.0 100.0 8.6 8.2 12.2 4.8 4.9 3.9 8.5 8.2 11.1 12.8 13.0 11.4 17.6 17.9 14.1 47.7 47.8 47.4 -------. 2,822 1,141 100.0 100.0 1.5 26.2 3.7 7.5 6.5 13.4 11.2 16.7 20.0 11.6 57.1 24.6 Men . .. ... ____ . . . . ---------------- . _ . . ----------- --- . ----. -----------------------------. . Worked in each of last 4 weeks. Did not work In each of last 4 weeks____ _________________ Married, wife present------------------------- ------------------- ----------------------- 3,320 2,388 932 2,908 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 8.1 1.5 24.8 6.8 4.2 3.3 6.6 4.2 7.8 5.5 13.6 7.5 12.7 11.0 17.1 12.3 16.5 18.3 11.9 16.4 50.7 60.4 25.9 52.8 Women. . . . . . . . . -------------- . . . ----_______ . . . . ----Worked in each of last 4 weeks_____ ---------------------------- -----------------------Did not work in each of last 4 weeks. 643 434 209 100.0 100.0 100.0 11.7 1.4 32.4 7.8 5.8 11.4 11.8 12.0 12.4 13.2 12.7 14.8 23.2 29.3 10.5 32.3 38.9 18.6 Married, husband present.. 303 100.0 13.0 6.0 12.0 15.3 23.3 30.6 1,604 354 535 320 1,150 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 5.5 8.7 8.0 9.1 13.2 3.7 9.3 3.7 6.6 5.0 7.6 11.3 7.8 4.7 10.2 12.8 18.0 10.2 12.2 12.4 19.3 15.5 15.8 19.1 16.3 51.1 37.2 54.4 48.3 42.9 Agriculture__________ _______________ . . ------------------------------ -------Nonagriculture___ . _______ _______________________ ___ ________ 719 3, 244 100.0 100.0 6.9 9.0 3.2 5.2 6.7 8.9 11.1 13.2 11.9 18.8 60.1 45.0 Wage or salary workers on secondary job________________ ___________ Self-employed on secondary j o b . ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2,775 1,188 100.0 100.0 10.6 4.0 5.7 2.8 9.2 7.0 13.9 10.1 19.3 13.4 41.3 62.7 Both sexes.. ___ ___ . ----------White--------------- ---------------------------------Negro and other races.. ----------------------. Worked in each of last 4 weeks-----------------------------_ Did not work in each of last 4 weeks. ____________ ..... .. .. . .. . ------------------------- . .. . ----- ------------- . . .. REASONS FOR M ULTIPLE JOBHOLDING Meet regular household expenses ________ . . --------------------- ... ----Pay off debts.. _____ ___ . ---------------------------- ------Save for the future______ ____ _ . . . -------- --Get experience2___ __ . _________ ______________ . . . . . ---------O ther3. . . _______ ________ . - ____________________________________ — — INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF WORKER ON SECONDARY JOB 1 Excludes a small number of persons who changed jobs during the week ended May 17,1969. 2 See table 3, footnote 1. moonlighters worked in these three industry groups in their secondary jobs; only about 43 per cent of all the moonlighters worked in these industries in their primary jobs. Most of the moonlighters worked in different industries in their primary and secondary jobs. The service, finance, and real estate group was the only one in which close to half of the moonlighters had both their jobs in the same industry. How ever, the range of different industries included in this very broad major group is extensive, so that many of the moonlighters may in fact have been in quite different industries in their primary and secondary jobs. Of the other broad industry groups, farming (21 percent) and retail trade (19 percent) were the only ones in which the propor tion with both jobs in the same industry was much higher than 10 percent. Although the multiple jobholding rate for fac tory workers was about average, they were onefourth of all moonlighters, a proportion which has remained relatively unchanged for the past several years for which data are available. Relatively few https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 See table 3, footnote 2. NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. factory workers who moonlight hold a second factory job. In May 1969, only 11 percent held two jobs in manufacturing; nearly one-fourth were in agriculture, mainly as self-employed farmers; and other large groups worked in retail trade and serv ice and finance or were self-employed in nonfarm industries. Occupation Persons who were protective service workers (policemen, security guards, and firemen, for example) and farmers on their primary jobs had the highest multiple jobholding rates (table 6). Among men, the rate for teachers below the college level (17 percent) was more than double the rate for all men. On the other hand, the rate for men who were managers and proprietors was only 5.3 percent. Many of these workers regularly work long hours on their primary job, and average earnings for their occupation group are far above the average for all workers. Although most moonlighters work at different 62 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 Table 6. Multiple jobholding rates, 1 by occupation and sex, May 1969 Both sexes Occupation group Men Women A ll occupations______________________________ 5.2 6.9 2.3 Professional, technical, and kindred w o rk e rs.................. Engineers . . . ____________ ____ Medical and other health workers________________ Teachers, except college________________________ Other professional, technical, and kindred w orkers.. 6.9 4.6 5.6 7.1 7.6 9.2 4.6 12.0 16.8 8.6 3.1 1.6 2.8 4.6 Farmers and farm m anagers.. _____________________ Managers, officials, and proprietors, except farm _______ Clerical and kindred workers____________ ___________ Sales workers_____________________________________ Retail trade___________________________________ Other sales workers______ _______________ ____ _ 8.6 4.7 3.3 4.7 4.0 5.7 8.8 5.3 6.6 6.3 6.6 6.0 2.6 1.3 2.1 2.6 2.4 3.9 Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers____________ Carpenters and construction craftsmen___________ Mechanics and repairmen_______________________ Other craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers___ Operatives and kindred workers................. ................... . Drivers and deliverymen________________________ Other operatives and kindred workers...................... 6.4 6.6 7.2 5.8 5.0 6.9 4.6 6.5 6.7 7.2 6.0 6.7 6.9 6.6 2.0 3.6 5.1 15.7 2.8 4.1 5.1 5.6 8.8 16.6 3.8 6.6 5.6 5.6 Private household workers S e r v ic e w o r k e r s , e x c e p t p r iv a t e h o u s e h o ld ____________ Protective service w o r k e rs ....................................... Waiters, cooks, and bartenders__________________ Other service workers. _...................... ............. ....... Farm laborers and foremen_________________________ Laborers, except farm and mine_____________________ (2) 1.6 1.1 5.6 1.0 3.6 2.5 2.4 2.6 4.3 3.7 1 Persons with 2 jobs or more as percent of total employed in each occupation. Total employed is sum of single jobholders in an occupation and those with two jobs or more whose primary job is in that occupation. 2 Percent not shown where base is less than 75,000. occupations in their main and extra jobs, there is relatively more correspondence in occupation than in industry. More than half of all the moonlighters whose main jobs were in the professional, techni cal, and kindred occupations also worked in that group in their extra jobs. Examples of this type of combination are the accountant who is a salaried worker by day but self-employed in the evening or on weekends and the elementary school teacher who has adult education classes in the evenings. This percentage for the professional group was considerably higher than in any other group. Hours jobs . Most moonlighters work full-time (35 hours or more a week) on their primary jobs; only about 1 out of every 5 worked part time (less than 35 hours a week) in May 1969. The largest single group—41 percent—worked the 40-hour work week, which has become the full-time norm. The large increases in part-time workers, along with some increase in normal work weeks shorter than the usual 40-hour norm of recent years, have not resulted in significant increases in the proportions of workers who moonlight, be cause, when unemployment is not high, most people who work part time do so out of choice and P rimary https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis because the shorter work hours have not necessar ily bee'n accompanied by commensurate decreases in pay. Moreover, most part-time workers are women who work part time out of choice. While a significant number of women work at more than one job, moonlighting continues more a man’s than a woman’s activity. Moonlighters whose main jobs were in agricul ture had the largest proportion who worked 49 hours or more; of the self-employed among them, more than half worked that many hours on their main jobs. As with the farm workers, the selfemployed moonlighters in nonfarm industries on their main jobs had the largest proportion (35 percent) who worked 49 hours or more on those jobs. jobs . Multiple jobholders worked an average (median) of 13 hours on their secondary jobs during the survey week, a number which has changed little over the years for which comparable data are available. About 25 percent of the workers put in only 1 to 7 hours of extra work and another 30 percent, 8 to 14 hours. Teenagers averaged fewer hours than adults. Male multiple jobholders were not only more likely than women to be full-time workers on their main jobs (84 percent compared with 50 percent) but also more likely to have worked longer hours on their second jobs. Their median hours were 14 and 10, respectively. Nearly one-half of the men but only one-third of the women worked 15 hours or more on their secondary j obs. The industries in which the largest proportions of moonlighters worked 22 hours or more on their second jobs during the survey week were agri culture, manufacturing, and business and repair services. Among those self-employed in agricul ture, almost one-third worked 22 hours or more. In nonagricultural industries, manufacturing and business and repair services each had about 30 percent who worked 22 hours or more. By occupation and hours of second job, moon lighters who were farmers and farm managers, non farm managers and officials, nonfarm laborers, and operatives had the largest proportions working 22 hours or more, with the proportions ranging from about one-fourth to one-third. S econdary T otal hours . Since most of the moonlighters worked full time on their main jobs, the total 63 MOONLIGHTERS number of hours worked a week on both jobs was relatively high. Half of all the moonlighters totaled more than 55 hours a week, and almost 2 out of 5 worked at least 60 hours a week. The moonlighters who were self-employed in agriculture on their main jobs put in the greatest total number of hours on both jobs; about 3 out of every 5 worked a total of 60 hours or more dur ing the survey week. Among multiple jobholders who were in nonfarm industries on their primary jobs, only those in State and local government had more than 50 percent working at least 60 hours. On the other hand, only 27 percent of the workers in the service and finance industry worked that many hours on both jobs. Social and economic aspects Despite its relatively rare occurrence—or per haps because of it, since that which is atypical generally draws attention—moonlighting arouses considerable interest and comment, not all favor able. To some people, moonlighting represents a retrogressive practice which undermines efforts to obtain shorter hours and higher pay. Others con tend that shortening the work week will only lead to higher moonlighting rates, or that on-the-job accidents are bound to increase because of fatigue caused by excessive work hours. Still others view moonlighting as a threat to job security or rates of pay, arguing that if employers can hire moon lighters at lower wages than union scale, regular workers are threatened through outright job loss, lower regular pay, or loss of overtime pay. Some employers disapprove of moonlighting because they feel it lessens productivity. To some, the opportunity to hold more than one job, restricted only by the marketability of one’s skills and the availability of one’s time, represents a desirable exercise of freedom of choice, even though it is recognized that the circumstances which lead some workers to take that option are unfortunate, as in the case of the individual whose primary job earnings are too low to furnish the basic necessities. As indicated by the reasons moonlighters gave for holding more than one job, motivations for moonlighting vary, albeit financial necessity is the single most often given reason. While data for support or rebuttal of all these arguments are not available, some important points do emerge from what data there are. For instance, neither the number of moonlighters nor the percentage they constitute of all employed persons shows any clear pattern of movement up or down relative to the unemployment rate. The probability that persons with more than one job take work away from the unemployed is small. The secondary jobs in which moonlighters are self-employed (1.2 million in May 1969) would provide few job opportunities to the unemployed whose skills and financial resources would prob ably preclude their taking over a farm or business, Employers and moonlighting That some workers hold regular outside employment, or “moonlight,” is readily ac knowledged by their primary employers. Most companies do not have an official policy either sanctioning or forbidding moonlighting, but many of these same firms do place restrictions on it. These restrictions are similar to those imposed by companies which explicitly permit their employees to moonlight and, furthermore, they tend to match up with the reasons given to justify its prohibition by firms which forbid moonlighting. These are the chief findings of The Conference Board’s latest Survey of Busi https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ness Opinion and Experience, in which 136 manufacturing companies participated. Almost 80 percent of the companies (106) which replied neither explicitly permit nor for bid outside employment by their full-time workers. But 82 of these firms place explicit or implicit constraints on it, while the remaining 24 companies take absolutely no notice of moonlighting. — P atrick J. D avey and J ames K. B rown , “The Corporate Reaction to ‘Moonlighting,’ ” The Conference Board Record, June 1970, p. 31. 64 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 however small. Other factors are the difficulty of matching the location of the jobs and jobseekers and of matching jobs usually held only by men or only by women. Also, such jobs are typically for only a small number of hours, with commensurately low earnings; and many of them may be short term or intermittent, while the unemployed look mainly for full-time permanent jobs. Only 8 percent, or 320,000, of the moonlighters had worked the equivalent of a full-time week on their second jobs in the May 1969 survey, whereas about 80 percent of the 2.1 million unemployed in May were looking for full-time jobs. The role of moonlighting in agriculture cannot be discounted. The small farmer is disappearing rapidly. For a significant proportion of this dimin ishing group, moonlighting is the only means of continuing as farmers. Without the opportunity to earn money in another job, many small farm owners would be unable to maintain their farms and their chosen way of life. In May 1969, 600,000 moonlighters were self-employed in agriculture on their secondary jobs. At that time, the total number of persons self-employed in primary jobs in agriculture was 2 million. Thus, the moon lighters self-employed in agriculture on the second job represent an addition of nearly one-third to the number of persons self-employed in agriculture. In no other industry are multiple jobholders such a high percentage of the employed. And, of course, some of the 165,000 moonlighters who are selfemployed in agriculture on their primary jobs must also be assumed to be among the number for whom moonlighting makes the difference between being able to continue in agriculture and having to give it up. Similarly, moonlighting offers some persons an avenue to self-employment in nonfarm industries, another group which has declined as a proportion of all employed persons. Working at a wage or salary job for security while trying to build up a business of one’s own is a not uncommon practice. Without that security, the attempt might be impossible. In May 1969, over half a million moonlighters were self-employed in nonagricultural industries in their secondary jobs, and another 160,000 were self-employed in nonagricultural industries in their primary jobs. □ ■FOOTNOTES- 1 Data in the current report are based primarily on additional tabular data and explanatory notes as Special Labor Force Report No. 90. information from supplementary questions to the May 1969 monthly survey of the labor force, conducted for 2 In this report, data for the grouping “Negro and other the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census races” are used to represent data for Negroes, since through its Current Population Survey. The data relate Negroes constitute about 92 percent of all persons in the to the week of May 11-17. grouping. In addition to Negroes, the grouping includes This is the eighth in a series of reports on this subject. American Indians, Filipinos, Chinese, and Japanese, The most recent was published in the Monthly Labor among others. Review, October 1967, pp. 17-22, and reprinted with https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PH. D. HOLDERS IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY M ICH AEL F. CROW LEY P rivate industry employed almost 36,000 scientists and engineers with a doctor’s degree in 1968, accounting for about one-third of the Nation’s total employment of such professionals. Eight of every 10 were engaged in research and development (r &d) activities, most of them doing research. By 1980 the need for doctorates in private industry is expected to increase by 50 percent. These were the findings of a special study made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with financial support of the National Science Foundation, to determine the employment level of, and factors influencing the requirements for, Ph. D. scientists and engineers in private industry. The results, summarized here, have been published in Ph. D. Scientists and Engineers in Private Industry, 1968-80 (bls Bulletin 1648, 1970). They were derived primarily from information gathered in interviews with officials of about 70 companies which employed some 35 to 40 percent of all Ph. D. scientists and engineers in private industry. Estimates of the 1968 employment were based on a special bls survey. Only a small number of openings for Ph. D. scientists and engineers were not filled in mid1968. The few firms experiencing hiring difficulties did not feel the problem greatly hindered opera tions or planned programs. Among the company officials interviewed who did feel there was an overall shortage of Ph. D. scientists and engineers, Michael F. Crowley is a labor economist in the Division of Manpower and Occupational Outlook, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org 3 8 9 -5 1 0 0 - 7 0 - 5 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis more than half represented companies that were not experiencing any hiring problems. A few firms hinted at an overall surplus of Ph. D. scientists and engineers. Based on their recruiting ex perience, several firms indicated that Ph. D.’s have been more available relative to demand during the last few years than during the late 1950’s and 1960’s. Research and development activity is the key factor that determines private industry’s require ments for scientists and engineers holding the Ph. D. degree. For work outside of r &d , most companies did not indicate a specific need for such persons. Two major aspects of r &d activities are involved in determining require nents for Ph. D. holders—the magnitude of r &d activities (in dollars expended); and the nature of the r &d activity involved, that is, the researchdevelopment mix. Most officials interviewed felt that changes in these aspects had been, and would continue to be, significant in deteimining their firms’ requirements for persons with the Ph. D. degree. Some company officials attributed changes in such requirements primarily to changes in only one of the above factors. Many firms indicated that the proportion of r &d scientists and engineers with Ph. D. degrees is considerably greater in research than in de velopment. Therefore, a shift in emphasis between Table 1. Illustrative projections of 1980 requirements for Ph. D. scientists and engineers in private industry, by occupation group Occupation Estimated 1968 employ ment Projected 1980 require ments Percent change, 1968-80 Total_________ 35,800 55,000 53.5 Engineers___________ Mathematicians______ Physical scientists___ Life scientists------------ 12,800 800 19, 500 2,800 20,100 1,300 29, 500 4,100 57.5 56. 6 51.6 47.1 65 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 66 research and development would result in different requirements for Ph. D. holders. A few firms attributed most or all of their increased Ph. D. employment in the past to a shift from develop ment to research, or felt that future growth of their requirements for Ph. D. personnel would be due to such a shift. Another significant factor affecting require ments for Ph. D. scientists and engineers was a widespread feeling that the longrun trend towards increased sophistication and complexity of science and technology has created, and will continue to create, a need for a generally higher level of education. In terms of Ph. D. requirements, this may mean that over the long run, even with a constant research-development mix, an increas ing proportion of total requirements for scientists and engineers in & would be for those with doc torates. Most firms anticipated a continued increase in such requirements during the 1970’s because of an expansion of their & programs. In 1968, Ph. D. scientists and engineers repre sented roughly 10 percent of private industry’s scientists and engineers in & activities. Between 1968 and 1980, private industry’s requirements for scientists and engineers holding a doctor’s degree are projected to increase by more than 50 percent—from 35,800 to 55,000. These illustrative projections were developed within the framework of the Bureau’s 1980 model of the economy1 and, therefore, are consistent with other 1980 projections developed by the Bureau (table 1). □ r d r r d -------- FOO TNO TE -------- d COURT RULINGS ON QUALIFICATIONS FOR UNION OFFICE T he L abor -M anagement R eporting and D is closure A ct of 1959 sets standards for conducting trade union elections. Under section 401(e) of Title IV, “every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office . . . subject to reasonable qualifications . . .” A new study by the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Policy Development analyzes the issue of “reasonable qualifications” for union office as it has developed in each of the 15 cases involving “reasonableness” in which there has been a decision by at least a district court. One involved national union office, the other 14 local union offices. Only one case has so far reached the Supreme Court. The study points to the particular qualifications the Secretary of Labor found to be “unreasonable,” the arguments and data presented in support of his position, the lines of defense of the union, the decisions made by the court and the basis therefor. The new publication takes on additional- value to researchers in that it includes numerous tabula tions of union constitutional provisions made by the Office of Labor-Management Policy Develop ment and entered into court records as exhibits. These cover such subjects as Prior office-holding as a qualification for local union office; Method of nomination in national unions which elect national officers through referendum; and Attendance at union meetings as a requirement for nomination or election to local union office. Q u a l if i c a ti o n s f o r U n io n O ffice: The Issu e of R e a s o n a b le n e s s i n C o u r t C a s e s U n d e r th e L M R D A 1 See “The U.S. economy in 1980: a preview of BLS will be available in early fall from the U.S. De partment of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20210. □ projections,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1970, pp. 3-34. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Foreign Labor Briefs Mexico A basic labor law, the country’s first since 1931, was enacted last December and went into effect on May 1 this year. It is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation adopted during the administration of President Diaz Ordaz. In effect a labor code of 902 articles, the enactment—the Federal Labor Law (Lay Federal del Trabajo) — provides for a wide range of new benefits for workers, including increased holiday and vacation pay, and a higher rate of remuneration for over time and extra work. Among the outstanding provisions of the new law is a requirement that, in certain situations, the employers finance their workers’ housing. Com panies with more than 100 employees (and those with fewer employees if located more than 1.8 miles from a town or at any distance from a town if there is no regular transportation service) are required to provide convenient and sanitary hous ing to permanent workers with a year of seniority. If the company does not have adequate housing and cannot acquire it, it must so inform the workers and must negotiate with them a collective agreement within 3 years of the effective date of the new law to establish means of fulfilling the housing obligation. If the company undertakes to construct living quarters for rent to the workers, the annual rental is limited to 6 percent of the assessed value of the abode; if the habitations are to be acquired by the workers, the company must contribute to the cost of construction. The houses may be single-family or multifamily. The new law also effects changes in profit sharing, which was established as workers’ right by a provision of the Mexican Constitution of 1917. Prepared in the Division of Foreign Labor Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics, on the basis of material available in early June. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis In 1962, a constitutional amendment implemented this provision and made profit sharing compulsory, with certain exemptions. The present enactment reduces the period of exemption from the profitsharing obligation of newly established firms from 2 years to 1 year, and of firms making a new product, to 2 years from 4. Managerial employees may participate in profit sharing to the extent of the highest wage paid to nonmanagerial workers in the plant plus 20 percent of that pay. If the employer fails to comply with the legal require ments as regards profit sharing, the workers may legally declare a strike. One provision stipulates that a worker partially disabled by an accident on the job and no longer capable of performing his duties must be offered another job—if available—with the company, one he is able to hold, in keeping with the terms of a collective contract. The law also specifies that at least 90 percent of the workers in each area of specialization in an establishment must be Mexican. Previously, this limitation on nonMexicans had been interpreted as applicable to all the workers of an establishment as a group. The enactment also states what kind of confidential employees (persons in a position of trust) and nonunion workers a company can have on its payroll. Confidential employees are not allowed to join regular labor unions but may form their own union if they wish to do so. Many labor regulations are codified, such as those relating to continuous work shifts, overtime and Sunday work, day of rest, Christmas bonuses, and protection of sales men. Premium pay of 25 percent of normal wages must be paid for work on Sunday if another day is agreed on as a weekly day of rest. For work done on a weekly day of rest the employer must pay triple wages. The Ministry of Labor plans to establish a National Labor Institute in Mexico City, to provide information on the new law and the 67 68 workers’ rights under it. The institute will serve also as a clearinghouse for study of the application of the new law and its effect on labor costs, industrial relations, and labor unions. Ultimately, it is expected to become the Ministry’s permanent agency for investigation of labor-management relations, but not limited to the operation of the new law. Guyana The Ministry of Economic Development has an nounced a new Ten-Year Development Plan, 1971-80, with full employment and development of natural resources in the interior of the country as its major objective. It calls for a more rapid Guyanization of the economy and decreased re liance on aid and private investment from abroad. The new program will replace the current SevenYear Plan, 1966-72. The Ministry adopted the different approach in order to overcome the stalemate of the traditional emphasis on evaluation of economic growth in terms of output and the corollary increase in em ployment. In other countries, rising employment has been seen as an aftereffect of rising output. Wilfred David of the University of Guyana, head of a team of experts appointed by the Min istry to draw the new plan, believes that reduction by one-half of the present unemployment rate of about 20 percent is a feasible goal. Panama Workmen’s compensation insurance was placed under the Social Security Fund by a decree ap proved March 31, 1970, by the Provisional Junta Government, to become effective within 3 months. This decree also increased the compensation for industrial accidents, in some cases making them 10 times greater than previously. The decree pro vides unlimited medical assistance and continuing measures for physical rehabilitation, lifetime pen sions for widows and invalid children, increased pensions for permanent or temporary disability, and cost-of-living adjustments in pensions. The decree makes it mandatory for all public and private enterprises to take insurance against occupational hazards, to be issued through the Fund. This will necessitate changing the present contract arrangements made by private insurance companies with employers. Private insurers chal https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 lenged the capability of the Fund to take over coverage of workmen’s compensation. In the 25 years that social security has been provided in Panama, the insurers pointed out, only a small portion of the country’s workers had been covered by the system. Also, there are complaints among the insured of delays in social security services, particularly in the delivery of medicines. According to Director General Damian Castillo Duran of the fund, the cost of this insurance to employers would not exceed 7 percent of payrolls as compared with the 16-percent premium charged by private companies. The Communist-dominated Union Federation of Workers of the Republic of Panama, an affiliate of the World Federation of Trade Unions, and the Federation of Christian Workers, an affiliate of the Latin American Con federation of Trade Unions, praised the Govern ment’s initiative in nationalizing the workmen’s compensation function. Poland The Politburo of the ruling party has adopted draft documents setting forth the basic principles of (1) a bonus system for white-collar workers and (2) an incentive wage system, to be introduced during the 1971-75 period. The two drafts were transmitted to all labor and management bodies for discussion. Reductions in production costs were declared to be the primary source of funds for the proposed bonus and wages. To obtain higher wages, all workers are being exhorted to organize their work better, operate their machines uninter ruptedly, and improve the quality of products thus eliminating rejects. U.S.S.R. Despite the perennial Soviet claim that un employment has been eliminated in the U.S.S.R., there are continuing indications of hidden un employment due to scarcity of job opportunities in the smaller cities and in rural areas. The Soviet economic monthly Voprosy Ekonomiki (Problems of Economics) reported in its November 1969 issue (p. 151) that a government survey of 778 small and medium-sized cities in the Russian Republic (the largest of the 15 Soviet republics) uncovered over 100,000 persons in need of jobs. This fact was brought out at an interuniversity conference of social scientists, held in Moscow during the second 69 FOREIGN LABO R BRIEFS quarter of 1969, to discuss the problems incidental to a more efficient utilization of labor reserves. The monthly stated that Soviet labor force experts had recommended that employment for the persons in need of jobs be provided in new workshops to be established, in second and third shifts to be introduced into existing factories, and in expanded cottage industries. Also recommended was the more efficient use of the agricultural labor force. The journal pointed out that in 1967, over 600,000 collective farmers did not participate in harvesting at peak harvest time, so that city dwellers had to be assigned to this work. company in Sweden to have replaced piece rate payment with a monthly wage system, and its experience is being observed with interest through out the country. A spokesman of the company has described the changeover as a bold and significant step, while the workers hope that the firm’s piecework wages have been consigned to history. The strikers were less successful in achieving their other goals. The final settlement provided for an 11-percent wage increase plus $620,000 in social and recreational benefits (for the entire group), figures that were considerably telow those the workers had initially demanded. Sweden In April 1970, workers at the LuossavaaraKiirunavaara AB iron mines voted to accept a management-proposed wage package, thus re storing labor peace at the government-owned mines after nearly 4 months of troublesome con flict. Labor difficulties at the mines erupted in December 1969 when workers repudiated their local union leadership and began a sitdown strike protesting wage rates.1 Although the strikers re turned to work in February after receiving assur ances from management that an agreement satisfactory to both sides would be worked out, negotiations between the company and represen tatives of the strike committee dragged on for another 2 months. Finally, in April, the miners accepted management’s proposal by a 2,397-983 vote in which 80 percent of the eligible miners participated. The most striking feature of the agreement was the introduction of a monthly wage payment for a 6-month trial period. Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB is the largest https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Singapore The island is faced with labor shortages in occu pations ranging from engineers to semiskilled craftsmen. The shortages are due primarily to economic growth, particularly during the past 2 years, that far exceeded expectations. In an effort to alleviate the shortages, the Government has revamped the Education Ministry, established more technical training institutions, provided technical training to teachers with liberal arts college background, and popularized technological vocations for students. It has also encouraged foreign investors to import their own technicians, and has eased immigration restrictions to allow employment of foreign workers. □ -------- FOO TNO TE -------1 See the brief on Sweden in Monthly Labor Review, May 1970, pp. 68-69. That report inadvertently omitted the statement that negotiations had continued following the miners’ return to work on February 3, 1970. Significant Decisions in Labor Cases Injunctive relief The Norris-LaGuardia Act is not the impreg nable citadel of labor’s immunity from court in junctions it is often considered to be; it can be overriden by the demands of the current labor policy of voluntary but enforceable settlement of labor disputes. In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, . . Norris-LaGuardia [Act’s] policy of nonintervention by the Federal courts should yield to the overriding interest in the successful implementation of the arbitration process. . . . [T]he unavailability of equitable relief in the arbitration context presents a serious impediment to the congressional policy favoring the voluntary establishment of a mechanism for the peaceful resolution of labor disputes, [and] the core pur pose of the Norris-LaGuardia Act is not sacrificed by the limited use of equitable remedies to further this important policy. [Therefore] the NorrisLaGuardia Act does not bar the granting of in junctive relief in the circumstances of the instant case.” The circumstances of the instant case (Boys Markets*) were a strike called in violation of a no strike agreement and the union’s refusal to arbi trate the dispute as provided by the agreement. After appraising the vexatious conflict between an old labor law and the current congressional policy expressed in the National Labor Relations Act, the Court reversed its 1962 decision in Sin clair,2 based on a strict construction of that old statute, and spelled out principles for granting injunctions in labor litigation. It thus abandoned the rule it had pronounced in Sinclair—that the Norris-LaGuardia Act deprives Federal courts of power to enjoin a strike in breach of a no-strike obligation and of a promise to arbitrate. The above citations are actually restatements of Prepared by Eugene Skotzko of the Office of Publica tions, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor of Labor. 70 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis some of the salient arguments Justice Brennan presented in his dissent opinion at the time of the Sinclair decision. (Justices Douglas and Harlan had joined in the dissent.) The Court now recog nized them as “the correct principles concerning the accommodation necessary between the seem ingly absolute terms of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the policy considerations underlying section 301 (a)” of the National Labor Relations Act. Other pertinent circumstances of the present case were : The employer, having sustained business injury as a result of the strike, was willing to arbitrate but the union refused; the union re moved the case to a Federal district court after the employer obtained a State court’s injunction against it; and the Federal court also enjoined the strike despite the union’s claim of protection under the Sinclair rule. In a discourse that brought out what might be described as anachronistic features of the NorrisLaGuardia Act,3 Justice Brennan, who now de livered the Court’s judgment, traced the develop ment of the act’s conflict with the later policy of peaceful but legally enforceable4 settlement of labor disputes. The Norris-LaGuardia law, the justice said, was a product of an era with prob lems different from today’s. Here are some of his remarks on the evolution of the Nation’s labor policy: In 1932 Congress attempted to bring some order out of the industrial chaos that had developed and to correct the abuses which had resulted from the inter jection of the Federal judiciary into union-manage ment disputes on . . . behalf of management. Congress, therefore, determined initially to limit severely the power of the Federal courts to issue injunctions “in any case involving or growing out of any labor disputes. . . . ” Even as initially enacted, however, the prohibition against Federal injunctions was by no means absolute. Shortly thereafter Congress passed the Wagner Act, designed to curb various management activities which tended to discourage employee participation in collective action. As labor organizations grew in strength and devel oped toward maturity, congressional emphasis shifted SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES from protection of the nascent labor movement to the encouragement of collective bargaining and to admini strative techniques for the peaceful resolution of industrial disputes. This shift of emphasis was accomp lished, however, without extensive revision of many of the older anactments, including the anti-injunction section of the Norris-La Guardia Act. Thus it became the task of the courts to accommodate, to reconcile the older statutes with the more recent ones. On the path of this judicial “accommodation,” the conflict in law did not fail to produce a conflict in court opinion. The landmark decisions of the Supreme Court in 1957—Chicago River & Ind. Railroad and Lincoln Mills 5—emphasized volun tary but legally enforceable settlement of disputes, especially through arbitration, without resort to self-help. In Lincoln Mills the Court ruled that under section 301(a) of the nlra , “a union can obtain specific performance of an employer’s promise to arbitrate grievances [and] rejected the contention that anti-injunction proscriptions of the N orris-La Guardia Act prohibited this type of relief. . . .” (Justice Brennan’s restatement.) But in 1962 in the Sinclair case it resorted to a strict construction of the 1932 law. The 1962 decision was not well received in the country. “Shortly after Sinclair was decided,” said Justice Brennan, “an erosive process began to weaken its underpinnings. Various authorities suggested methods of mitigating the absolute rigor of the Sinclair rule. . . . “Scholastic criticism of Sincldir has been sharp and it appears to be almost universally recognized that Sinclair . . . has produced an untenable situation. The commentators are divided, however, with respect to proposed solutions some favoring reconsideration of Sinclair, others suggesting [its] extension . . . to the States, and still others recommending that any action in this area be left to Congress.” The widespread criticism and undesirable effects of the Sinclair decision brought about reconsidera tion. The Court was deeply concerned about the anomalous situation where arbitration, “the very purpose of [which] is to provide a mechanism for the expeditious settlement of industrial disputes without resort to strikes, lockouts, or other self-help measures”—arbitration, the “instrument of Federal policy”—cannot fulfill its purpose because of Sinclair ban on injunctive relief. Particularly disturbing to the Court was the erosion of the State courts’ power in actions over https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 71 collective bargaining agreements, a process deepened by the union’s routine practice of removing such suits from State to Federal courts “in order to gain advantage of the strictures upon injunctive relief which Sinclair imposes on Federal courts.” The Court admitted that this practice was facilitated by its decision (subsequent on Sinclair) in the Avco6 case sanctioning such removal of suits, and said, “The principal practical effect of Avco and Sinclair taken together is nothing less than to oust State courts of jurisdic tion in section 310(a) suits where injunctive relief is sought for breach of no-strike obligation.” Hence, reconsideration of Sinclair. But in what direction? Facing the question of whether, for the sake of uniformity of Federal labor law, to extend the Sinclair rule to the State court or to abandon it, the Court held that extension of the rule to the States would amount to depriving State courts of powers through an action that even Congress had not taken, either in the N orris-La Guardia enact ment or in section 301 of the nlra . Furthermore, “a no-strike obligation . . . is the quid pro quo for an undertaking by the employer to submit grie vance disputes to the process of arbitration.” Retention of Sinclair would remove the incentive for employers to accept arbitration arrangements. Sinclair was overruled: it “[did] not make a viable contribution to Federal labor policy.” The Court replaced that rule with a body of principles, proposed by Justice Brennan in his dissent in 1962, for the guidance of Federal district courts in determining whether an injunction should be granted. These read: A district court entertaining an action under section 301 may not grant injunctive relief against concerted activity unless and until it decides that the case is one in which an injunction would be appropriate despite the Norris-LaGuardia Act. When a strike is sought to be enjoined because it is over a grievance which both parties are contractually bound to arbitrate, the dis trict court may issue no injunctive order until it first holds that the contract does have that effect; and the employer should be ordered to arbitrate, as a condition of his obtaining an injunction against the strike. Be yond this, the district court must, of course, consider whether issuance of an injunction would be warranted under ordinary principles of equity—whether breaches are occurring and will continue, or have been threat ened and will be committed; whether they have caused or will cause irreparable injury to the em ployer; and whether the employer will suffer more from the denial of an injunction than will the union from its issuance.” (370 U.S. 228). 72 But the Court warned, “Our holding [here] is a narrow one. We do not undermine the vitality of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. We deal only with the situation in which a collective bargaining contract contains a mandatory grievance adjustment or arbitration procedure. Nor does it follow from what we have said that injunctive relief is appro priate as a matter of course in every case of a strike over an arbitrable grievance. . . .” The union contended that the Sinclair decision could not be reconsidered because it had become a precedent: it concerned a question of statutory construction which Congress can change at will. Yet Congress had not modified the Court’s con clusion in Sinclair, even though it had been urged to do so (for instance, by the Atkinson-Sinclair Committee of the American Bar Association in 1963,7 in fact by the Court itself in the Sinclair opinion). Congress’ silence, the union said, signified acceptance of the Sinclair rule as a valid rule of law. Under these circumstances, the union main tained, the doctrine of stare decisis—recognition of the precedent for the sake of continuity and predictability of law—barred reconsideration of the present case. Justice Brennan responded by citing the words of the late Justice Frankfurter that “stare decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision, how ever recent and questionable, when such adherence involves collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience.” 8 As for Congress’ silence regarding the Sinclair rule, Justice Brennan repeated the Court’s pre vious warning 9 that it is “at best treacherous to find in congressional silence alone the adoption of a controlling rule of law.” Justice Black’s firm dissent rested on the essential proposition that the Supreme Court must not engage in legislating. Abandoning the Sinclair rule, which was a strict interpretation of the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s anti-injunction clause, was in effect legislating. No events have taken place since Sinclair that would justify the departure from that rule, and the principle of “continuity and predictability in the law” brings stare decisis into play here: “When the Court changes its mind years later, simply because the judges have changed, in my judgment, it takes upon itself the function of the legislature.” “I believe,” the dissenting justice said, “that https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 both the making and the changing of the laws which affect the substantial rights of the people are primarily for Congress, not this Court. Most especially is this so when the law involved is the focus of strongly held views of powerful but antagonistic political and economic interests.” Congress had been urged by various authorities to repudiate the strict construction of the NorrisLaGuardia Act’s anti-injunction provision by modifying the act, and bills had been introduced in Congress to effect the change. But Congress had refused to act, “thus indicating at least a willing ness to leave the law as Sinclair had construed it. . . .” To Justice Black, “[t]he correct interpretation of the Taft-Hartley Act, and even the goals of ‘our national labor policy,’ are less important than the proper division of functions between the branches of our Federal Government.” The other dissenting member of the Court was Justice White, who adhered to his position as a member of the majority in the Sinclair opinion. Justice Marshall did not participate in the deliberations. Bargaining of successor employers The National Labor Relations Board recently reaffirmed (in Burns International Detective Agency10) the principle that employees’ rights under a collective bargaining agreement survive a change of ownership despite the fact that the successor employer is not a party to the contract. But the Board also stressed that this is true only if the change of ownership has not been accompanied by a change in the nature of the establishment’s business. These conclusions emerged from the Board’s review, in Burns and three companion decisions in which the same principles were applied, of legal obligations resting with new owners of businesses having collective bargaining agreements. Involved in Burns were employees (guards) of a detective agency which had lost its bid for the renewal of services for a large industrial corpora tion. The successful bidder rehired most of the predecessor’s employees but refused to recognize the validity of the old agency’s 3-year contract with a union, in effect only 2 months at the time of the change, or to arbitrate the dispute under that contract’s arbitration provision. Was the successor employer obligated to honor 73 SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES an agreement to which he had never been a party? The repeated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wiley 11 that “a collective bargaining agreement is not an ordinary contract [but one that] covers the whole employment relationship.” (Supreme Court’s language.) Such a contract must be “construed in the context of a national labor policy that accords a central role to arbitration as ‘the substitute for industrial strife’ and as ‘part and parcel of collec tive bargaining itself.’ ” Hence, a mere absence of a successor employer’s signature from a bargaining agreement is no excuse for nonrecognition of the contract’s validity. However, the Board said, “The concept of sub stantial continuity in the employing industry enunciated [by the Supreme Court in Wiley] as a necessary condition for the survival of the duty to arbitrate when the ownership of a business changes hands is at the heart of our determination that a purchasing employer is a successor employer within the meaning of the [National Labor Re lations] Act.” If the nature of business has remained the same after the change, the successor emploj^er is obligated “to recognize and bargain with the union duly selected by the employees,” even if the selection took place under the old management. In one of the companion decisions (Kota Division), the Board found the union’s—rather than the employer’s—action to have been con trary to the principle of contract survival in a change of ownership. The union there demanded a new agreement from the purchaser even before its contract with the predecessor expired. In another of the decisions (Travelodge Corp.), the successor employer’s refusal to recognize the union n l r b which represented the employees under the old ownership was upheld because he had changed the nature of the purchased business. Challenging Government contracts The validity of the Federal Government’s awards of service contracts may now be challenged in court by civil service workers whose job rights have suffered as a result of such contracts. This was the effect of a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a suit (.American Federation of Government Employees v. Payne 12) brought by a union on behalf of Federal workers displaced by a private contractor’s per sonnel doing the same kind of work. More than a year ago, a Federal district court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs and their union “had no legal interest in support service contracts”—that is, had no legal right to challenge these awards. But recent Supreme Court decisions 13 eliminated the “legal interest” test in favor of “zone of interest” and “case or controversy” test, under which the “riffed” civil service employees are entitled to court action in defense of their job interests. In line with these decisions, the appeals court ruled that the interest of such Federal employees and of their union “is sufficient to insure ‘that the questions will be framed with the necessary speci ficity, that the issues will be contested with the necessary vigor.’ Both the civil service employees and their union have the right to a judicial hear ing on the question of whether they have job retention rights superior to those of competing non-Federal employees.” D -FOOTNOTES- 1 Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks' Union, Local 770 (U.S. Sup. Ct., June 1, 1970). 2 Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.S. 195 (1962); see Monthly Labor Review, August 1962, pp. 903-904. 3 The Norris-LaGuardia Act provides in part: “No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute . . . from doing, whether singly or in con cert, any of the following acts: (a) Ceasing or refusing to https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis perform any work or to remain in any relation of employ ment; . . . (f) assembling peaceably to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interest in a labor dispute. . . .” (29 U.S.C. section 104.) 4 Section 301(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, reads: “Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing em ployees in an industry affecting commerce . . ., or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any dis trict court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or 74 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 without regard to the citizenship of the parties.” (29 U.S.C. section 185(a).) 5 Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Ind. Railroad, 353 U.S. 30 (1957); Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448 (1957)—see Monthly Labor Review, August 1957, pp. 976-977. 6Avco Cory. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 390 U.S. 557; see Monthly Labor Review, July 1968, pp. 58-59. This decision permitted removal (under the Federal question removal authority—28 U.S.C. section 1441) of suits initially brought in State courts to a “Federal forum.” On this practice of removal, Justice Brennan said, in the present case, it is “wholly inconsistent with . . . the congressional purpose [that] section 301(a) . . . supplement, and not . . . encroach upon, the pre-existing jurisdiction of the State courts.” And he added, “. . . It is ironic that the very pro vision which Congress clearly intended to provide addi tional remedies for breach of collective bargaining agree ments has been employed to displace previously existing State remedies. . . .” 7 Reports of the Special Atkinson-Sinclair Committee, American Bar Association, Labor Relations Law Section, Proceedings, 1963, p. 226. 8 In Holvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106 (1940). 9 In Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61, 69 (1947). 10 William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc. and United Plant Guard Workers, 182 n l r b N o. 50, May 12, 1970. The companion decisions delivered the same day were: Hackney Iron & Steel Co. and International chemical Workers, 182 n l r b N o. 53; Kota Division of Dura Cory. and Sheetmetal Workers Local J+96, 182 n l r b N o. 51; and Travelodge Cory, and Culinary Alliance and Hotel Service Emyloyees Local ^02, 182 n l r b N o. 52. 11 John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 375 U.S. 543 (1964); see Monthly Labor Review, May 1964, p. 564. 12 C.A.-D.C., April 21, 1970. 13 Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camy (1970); and Barlow v. Collins (1970). Environmental pollution and economic growth Nearly all of the programs for abating pollu tion, and most of the research that underlies them, have been directed toward some partic ular part of the environment—air, water, or land. In some instances this compartmented approach works well. By now, however, there is a growing realization that all, or nearly all, forms of environmental pollution are parts of one large problem: how to manage the residuals generated by the production and consumption activities of the U.S. population. The overall problem is something like an almost-filled toy balloon: if you punch it in at one point, it fills out somewhere else. Suppose, for example, the people of an area were bent on improving the quality of their air. They could accomplish this by using electric space heating, wet-scrubbing stack gases from factories and steam generation plants, and grinding up their garbage to be discharged as raw sewage. But this success would be at the expense of water quality, though some of the damage to water could be averted if part of the wastes were dumped on the land in solid form. If, on the other hand, the area concentrated on protecting its water quality by letting stack gases escape https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to the air and incinerating sludge and solid wastes, both air and land quality would suffer. Thus if the people of an area want to maintain, or if possible improve, the quality of their entire physical environment, they will have to con sider all kinds of residuals together and develop the processes and procedures that will result in the smallest overall damage at costs that can be borne. What the country faces, then, is a tremen dously broad problem of how to deal simul taneously with the waste products of industry, commerce, agriculture, and domestic living. It would be fatuous to suggest that pollution could be curbed by stopping this or that activity. The engendering of wastes is the reverse side of the medal of economic growth. Without much better methods of handling wastes, environmental pollution will continue to rise or fall with that highly prized index of material prosperity, gross national product. —From “Wastes Management and Environmental Quality/’ in Annual Report of Resources for the Future, Inc., 1969. Major Agreements Expiring Next Month T h is list of collective bargaining agreem ents expiring in Septem ber is based on co n tracts on file in the B u re a u ’s O ffice of Wages and Industrial R elations. The list in clu d e s agreem ents covering 1,000 w orkers or more in all in d u strie s except governm ent. Number AFL-CIO and National and International Trade Unions (W ashington, D .C .)._ . Air W est, Inc., agents and clerical ( In te rs ta te ) ......... ............... - ----------- ------------Am etek, Inc., U.S. Gauge Division (Sellersville. P a .)---------------------- -------------Association of Hospitals of Santa Clara County (S an ta Clara County, Calif.).......... Bronx Realty Advisory Board, Inc. (Bronx, N.Y.)...................... . .............................. Campbell Soup Co. (Fayetteville, A rk.)---------- _------------------- --------. --------— Chicago Residential Hotel Association, Inc. (Chicago, III.).......................... . .......... Chrysler Corp., 5 c o n tra c ts .--------- ------------------------ --------- ------------------- -------Chrysler Corp. (In te rs ta te )----------- ----------- -------------------------------------------------Corrugated Box Cos.2 (New York)....... .......... .......... ..................... ...............- ............... Corrugated Box Container Plants 2 (New J e r s e y ) .. ............ ................... ............ .. Deere and Co. (Iowa and Illin o is )........... .......... ............................................................. E. I. du Pont de Nem ours & Co., Spruce Film Plant (Ampthill, Va.)......... ........... E. I. du Pont d e Nem ours & Co. (Louisville, Ky.)................................................... FMC Corp., Link-B elt Division (Indianapolis, In d .)----------------------------------Food Employers Council, Inc., Retail Produce Drivers and W arehousem en’s A greem ent (California). Food Employers Council, Inc., W holesale Delivery Drivers A greem ent (Cali fornia). Food Employers Council, Inc., Food Industry W arehouse (Los Angeles and vicinity, Calif.). Ford Motor Co., M aster Agreem ent, production and m aintenance em ployees (In te rstate ). General Motors Corp., Master Agreement, production and maintenance employees (Interstate). General Motors Corp., covering 5 Divisions (Ohio, New York, and New Jersey). General Motors Corp., Inland Manufacturing Division (Dayton, Ohio)-----------Greater New York Folding Box and Display Manufacturers Association, Inc., and Independent Folding Box Manufacturers (New York, N.Y.). Gulf Coast Piping Contractors Association and 2 other Associations (Texas)... Hooker Chemical Corp. (Niagara Falls, N .Y .)................................... ............... Hygrade Food Products Corp. (Interstate)_______________________________ Interco Inc., International Shoe Co., Division (St. Louis and Perryville, Mo.)_. Interco Inc., Chemical Department, International Shoe Co., Division (St. Louis, Mo.). International Harvester Co., 2 c o n tra c ts........................................................ International Harvester Co., Main Labor Contract— Depot and Transfer Agree ment (Interstate). Laundry Workers’ Agreem ent2 (Seattle, Wash.). Loblaw Inc. (New York and Pennsylvania)___________________ _________ Midland-Ross Corp., I-R-C Fibers Division (Painesville, Ohio)................. . Midland-Ross Corp., Cleveland Frame Division (Cleveland, Ohio)--------------Miles Laboratories Inc. (Elkhart, III.)........ ................... ............. ......... ......... Motor Wheel Corp., and the Motor Wheel Branch (Lansing, Mich.)------------National Acme Co. (Cleveland, Ohio)----------------- ------------------- --------------National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. (San Diego, Calif.)---------------------------New Jersey Linen Suppliers, Linen Laundry Division 2 (New Jersey)............. North American Rockwell Corp., Draper Division (Hopedale, Mass.).............. North Electric Co. (Galion, Ohio)--------------------- ---------------------- ------- -------Northeastern States Boilermaker Em ployers2 (Interstate)............................. Ohio Steel Foundry Co. (Lima and Springfield, O h io ).................... ............... Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp., Energy Systems Division, Indiana Army Am munition Plant (Charleston, Ind.). Picture & Mirror Frame Manufacturers Association, Inc. (New York ,N.Y.)........ Schluderberg-Kurdle Co., Inc. (Baltimore, M d .)......... ................................... . Seattle-King County Pharmaceutical Society and The Greater Seattle Retail Drug Association, Inc. (Seattle and King County, Wash.). Seiberling Tire & Rubber Co. (Barberton, Ohio)............................. ................ Shipyard Industry of San Diego 2 (San Diego, Calif.)___ ____ _____________ Sperry Rand Corp., Vickers Inc., Division (Omaha, Nebr.)-------------------------Structural Steel and Ornamental Iron Association of New Jersey, Inc. (Newark, N.J.). Washington Publishers Association covering the Washington Post, Evening Star, and Daily News (Washington, D.C.). Waukesha Motor Co. (Waukesha, Wis.)_...................... ................................... 1 Union affiliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as Independent (Ind.). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ol Union1 Industry Company and location workers Machinery............ .......... Chemicals________ ____ C he m icals..____ ______ M ach in e ry..................... Wholesale trade...... ......... Office Employees............. . A ir Line Pilots........ .......... Machinists_____________ Nurses’ Association (Ind.). Service Employees. Meat Cutters.............................. Hotel and Restaurant Employees. Auto Workers (Ind.)__________ Plant Guard Workers (Ind.)____ Teamsters ( I n d .) ...................... Pulp, Sulphite Workers............... Auto Workers (In d .).. Transparent Film Workers, Inc. (Ind.)____ Neoprene Craftsmen (Ind.)__ ____ _______ Steelworkers___ Teamsters (Ind.). Wholesale trade_________ Teamsters (Ind.) 1,000 2,500 Services_________ _____ Air transportation........ . Instruments........ ............ H o sp ita ls....................... Real estate....................... Food products.............. . Hotels_________________ Transportation equipment. Transportation equipment. Wholesale t r a d e ............. Paper__________ ______ 2,650 1,400 1,300 1,500 3,000 1,050 1,200 116,200 1,000 2,100 1,000 18,150 1,100 1,200 3.000 1.000 Wholesale trade............... Teamsters (Ind.). Transportation equipment. Auto Workers (Ind.), 165,000 Transportation equipment. Auto Workers (Ind.). 390, 000 Electrical products........... R u bb e r........................... Electrical Workers(IUE). Rubber Workers______ P a p e r . . . .......... ....................... P u lp , S u lp h it e W o r k e r s . Construction___________ Chemicals........ ................ Food products_________ Leather................. .......... Leather............................ Plumbers...................................................... Niagara Hooker Employees Union (Ind.)___ Meat Cutters............................................. . Boot and Shoe Workers....... ............. .......... Boot and Shoe W orkers........... ................... Machinery_____________ Wholesale trade............... Auto Workers (Ind.). Auto Workers (Ind.). Services. Lumber_______ ________ Food products.......... ........ Retail trade...................... . Laundry, Dry Cleaning, and Dyehouse Workers (Ind.). Meat Cutters................ ........ ....................... Textile Workers____________ ___________ Auto Workers (Ind.)_______________ ____ District 50, Allied and Technical (Ind.)___ Allied Industrial Workers________ _______ Mechanics Educational Society___________ Iron Workers___________________ ______ Laundry and Dry Cleaning Union W orkers.. Steel Workers___________ ______________ Steel W orkers.......................... ................... Boilermakers___________ ____ _________ Auto Workers (Ind.)........ .......... ........ ......... Firemen and Oilers; and Chemical Workers (Ind.). Carpenters.. Meat Cutters. Retail Clerks. Rubber_______ _________ Transportation equipment. Machinery______________ Fabricated metal products. Rubber Workers................................. Machinists; Carpenters; and Painters. Allied Industrial Workers......... .......... Iron Workers..................................... . 1,000 Printing and publishing. Typographers. 1,050 Machinery.................... Machinists___ 1,200 Retail trade____________ Textiles________________ Transportation equipment. Chemicals______________ Transportation equipment. M ach inery..................... Transporattion equipment. Services_______________ Machinery____ _________ Electrical products........... Construction___________ Prim ary Metals_________ Ordnance......................... 29, 000 7,050 2, 000 2,000 1,600 2,500 3,650 6,400 36,200 1,250 1,100 1,600 1,700 1,500 1,100 2,950 1,700 1,450 2, 500 1,000 1,350 1,000 1,000 14,550 1,000 1,100 2,200 1,300 1,000 1,000 2 Industry area (group of companies signing same contract). 75 Developments in Industrial Relations Inflation address President Richard Nixon addressed the Nation on the economy June 17, and announced three specific steps to supplement his basic reliance on “continued moderation in general fiscal and monetary policies.” The first step consists of the appointment of a National Commission on Productivity, whose principal function is finding ways to restore productivity growth, which has “increased far less than usual” in the past 2 years. The com mittee will be comprised of representatives from business, labor, the public, and Government. Second, the Council of Economic Advisers will prepare periodic “inflation alerts” spotlighting “the significant areas of wage and price increases and objectively analyze their impact on the price level.” The Productivity Commission will then publish information on these increases. Third, a Federal Purchasing Review Board will review all Government actions “to determine where Federal purchasing and regulations drive up costs and prices.” Presidential appointments On June 10, President Nixon named Secretary of Labor George P. Shultz as director of the new Office of Management and Budget, effective July 1. The President also announced that he was nominating Under Secretary of Labor James D. Hodgson, to succeed Mr. Shultz as Secretary. The Senate approved the nomination on June 17. Later in the month, the President nominated Laurence H. Silberman to become Under Secretary of Labor. Mr. Silberman had been the Depart ment’s solicitor since May 1 , 1969. Prepared by Leon Bornstein and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and based on information from secondary sources available in June. 76 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Shortly before being named to his new post, Secretary Shultz, in a speech at the National Press Club, said that “we cannot allow labor peace to become the overriding objective in our col lective bargaining.” He encouraged companies to take “strong positions” at the bargaining table as a means of overcoming the current inflation and pointed out that “union leaders cannot take the position that their members should not be asking for high wage increases. That’s got to come from management.” Secretary Shultz added that although he didn’t “want to be classified as pro-strike by any means,” he believed that “the peaceful strike is probably one of the least worst forms of protest we have.” Minority hiring Secretary Shultz announced the implementation of a “Washington Plan,” setting equal employ ment opportunity standards for construction work in the national capital area,1on June 1. Under the plan, contractors must make “good faith” efforts to increase minority hiring on all their projects in the area during the period they are working on Federal projects. This is significantly different from the Philadelphia Plan,2 which requires con tractors to meet minority employment goals only on their Federal projects. Mr. Shultz indicated that the Washington Plan was put into effect because local contractors, unions, and minority groups had failed to reach a satisfactory agreement on minority hiring prac tices. (The Department of Labor had set a June 1 deadline on an agreement after conducting hear ings in April on minority hiring practices in the area.) He added that the plan was aimed at achieving a minimum increase of 3,500 jobs for minority members in 11 skilled construction trades over the next 4 years. Minority hiring goal ranges include 10-16 per cent for electricians until May 31, 1971, rising to DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 28-34 percent by the fourth year of the plan; iron workers, 11—19 percent, rising to 35-43 percent; lathers, 16-22 percent, rising to 34-40 percent; and boilermakers, 6-12 percent, increasing to 24-30 percent by the fourth year. A contractor may meet his commitment in one of three ways: By hiring sufficient minority group workers on his own projects; by establishing that the total minority hiring of all members of the contractors’ associa tion to which he belongs meets the percentage goal of the contractor himself; or by establishing that aggregate minority worker referrals by the union he works with meet his hiring goals, if the con tractor relies on a union for 80 percent or more of his manpower needs. The Labor Department disclosed that all of the 11 trades covered by the Washington Plan have “10 percent or less minority utilization” in the area, while minority members make up about 26 percent of the area’s work force. Although minority groups currently have a 50-percent representation in the area’s construction industry, the Depart ment asserted that “very few of these [minority workers] are located in the skilled trades.” Similar to the Philadelphia Plan, the Washington Plan applies to contracts of $500,000 or more. Both plans require the contractors to make a “good faith effort” to meet the hiring goals or risk losing their Federal contracts. (A Federal district court in Pennsylvania upheld the legality of the Phila delphia Plan in March. The decision is being appealed by the Contractors Association of East ern Pennsylvania.) The Washington, D.C., Building & Construction Trades Council termed the plan totally unwork able. The Council said the capital area has “the highest percentage of minority workers of any large urban area in the Nation” employed in skilled trades, and noted that through its Project Build, it will train and place more than 500 minor ity workers in the construction industry over the next year. Reasons cited for possible difficulties in meeting the Plan’s quota were the cutback in projects and growing unemployment in the con struction industry. R. H. Booker, spokesman for the Washington Area Construction Industry Task Force, termed the Washington Plan “weak-kneed” and a “slav ery document, right off the Plantation.” The Task Force, a militant black organization, called the plan an inadequate response to the black com munity’s demand for 70 to 80 percent representa https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 77 tion in federally funded construction work in order to parallel the percentage of blacks in the population of the District of Columbia. Following the Task Force’s statement, Assistant Secretary of Labor Arthur Fletcher said that the Depart ment believed the courts would uphold the plan. He also said that if the Task Force could get the contractors and unions to agree to a 70-percent Negro employment figure, the Labor Department would approve it as a “hometown solution.” Three weeks later, on June 19, Labor Secretarydesignate James D. Hodgson announced that two more cities, Boston and Denver, have developed areawide agreements to increase minority hiring in construction trades. Noting that the addition brought to four the number of cities where con tractors, unions, and minority coalitions have worked out “hometown” agreements for achiev ing equal employment opportunity in the con struction industry, Mr. Hodgson stated that he was especially encouraged “that the interested local parties themselves worked out their own solution to a pressing local problem.” (Boston and Denver were among 19 cities named by Secretary of Labor George P. Shultz in a national program for achieving equal employment oppor tunities in federally funded construction work; the first two cities achieving “hometown” solutions were Chicago and Pittsburgh.)3 In Boston, the parties agreed to attempt to hire at least 2,000 minority employees and to pro vide them with continuing job opportunities over a 5-year period. The number of minority members to be hired and trained under the agreement will depend on the number of men in the craft working in the geographic area, the proportion of minority employees in the craft, and the availability of work. A nine-member Administrative Board, com prised equally of representatives of contractors, involved unions, and minority groups, will estab lish a nonprofit corporation to receive funds to carry out the purposes of the agreement. The plan will run for 1 year and be renewed automatically annually, unless one or more of the parties serves notice of intent to modify or terminate the plan. The 5-year Denver plan will attempt to bring minority representation to 17 percent of the work force (an increase of 400 minority workers) over the next 18 months. In the remaining period, the unions will attempt to increase minority represen tation to equal their percentage of the population 78 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 in the Denver metropolitan area. The Denver area is unusual in that “Hispanos” (persons of Spanish descent) constitute the largest minority group, followed by blacks, Indians, and Orientals. Equal opportunity The Department of Labor issued guidelines implementing Executive Order 11375 (1968), which prohibits sex discrimination in employment by Government contractors. The guidelines, an nounced on June 9 by Mrs. Elizabeth Duncan Koontz, Director of the Department’s Women’s Bureau, call for employers to include women in management training programs and forbid the following practices: Advertising for workers in newspaper columns headed “male” or “female” unless sex is a “bona fide occupational qualification.” Distinguishing between married and unmarried persons of one sex unless the same distinctions apply to the opposite sex. Denying employment to women with young children unless the same policy exists for men. Maintaining seniority lines based solely on sex. The employees gained a 10th paid holiday and they will receive 5 weeks of vacation after 20 in stead of 22 years of service. The pension rate for future retirees was increased to $7.75; from $5.50, a month for each year of service and current re tirees will receive an additional $1.25 a month for each year of service. Dependents of workers who die before retirement will now receive $150 a month for 24 months. This is in addition to an existing $150 a month benefit paid to a widow or widower, beginning with the death of an employee and continuing until the survivor remarries, or attains age 62, or eligibility for unreduced Social Security, whichever occurs first. Life insurance was increased $1,000 (to $8,500), and accidental death and dismemberment coverage was increased by $4,750 (to $8,500). The sickness and accident benefit was increased to a flat $85 a week for 52 weeks, from the previous $60 or $70 for 39 weeks. Health insurance changes included adoption of a drug plan under which the employee pays the first $1 of a prescription charge for himself or his de pendents and the company pays the balance. The parties also agreed to adopt an occupational health program under which the School of Hygiene and Public Health at Johns Hopkins University will Specifying any difference for male and female em ployees on the basis of sex in either mandatory or optional retirement age. Rubber Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and the Rubber Workers negotiated an agreement on June 7, end ing a strike by 23,000 workers that began April 20. A week later, B. F. Goodrich Co. agreed to similar terms, ending a strike by 11,000 workers that began May 6. Also following the pattern were Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., settling on June 15 for 19,000 workers, and Uniroyal, settling July 1 for 18,000 workers. The 3-year Goodyear contract provided for general wage increases totaling 82 cents an hour— 30 cents effective immediately and 26 cents ef fective July 5, 1971, and July 3, 1972. Skilled tradesmen received an additional 15-cent hike effective immediately and 10 cents on July 5, 1971. All workers at plants in Danville, Va., and Union City, Tenn., received additional hikes (10 cents immediately and 10 cents on July 5, 1971) because of a pay differential. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Earnings index The Bureau’s index of manufacturing production workers average hourly earnings (excluding overtime premium pay and the effects of interindustry em ployment shifts) rose 1.0 in March, to 154.4. Data for prior periods are shown below. Index (.1957-59=100) March____ ____145. 2 ____146.0 April ____146. 6 May ____146. 9 June. ____147. 8 July August__ -____148.4 September .____149. 5 October ____150. 2 November .____151. 0 December ____152. 0 1969 1970 January February March Index (1957-59=100) ____ 152. 9 ____ 153.4 ____ 154. 4 Annual averages: 1968_________________________ 139. 5 1969_________________________ 147. 7 Monthly data from 1947-68 and data for selected periods from 1939 to 1947 are contained in Summary of Manufacturing Production Workers Earnings Series, 1939-68 (BLS Bulletin 1616, 1969). 79 DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS study worker health and safety problems. The results will be used in developing preventive medi cine plans at all plants. Sperry Gyroscope and Sperry Systems Manage ment divisions. Food Electrical equipment RCA Corp. and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (ibew ) reached agreement on a 42-month national contract in May, but the In ternational Union of Electrical Workers (iue ) re jected a similar offer, leading to a June 2 walkout by 12,000 workers in seven States. The offer was accepted by the Radio Communications Assem blers Union for 4,000 workers in northern New Jersey and the Carpenters for 1,000 workers in Monticello, Ind. The ibew pact, which covered 20,000 workers in seven States, provided for an immediate wage increase of 20 to 49 cents an hour and 15-cent increases in 1971 and 1972, adoption of a cost-ofliving escalator clause permitting up to 21 cents in increases during the contract term, company as sumption of the employees’ pension contribution (ranging from 5 to 11 cents an hour), and improve ments in other supplementary benefits. Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., and five AFL-CIO unions 4 tentatively agreed in May on 3-year pacts for over 10,000 workers. The unions’ bargaining was coordinated by the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Department. The new agree ments, effective immediately, replace contracts scheduled to expire at various times during the second half of 1970. They provide for a 23-cent general wage increase effective June 15 and for 15-cent increases in 1971 and 1972. Other terms include a 5- to 25-cent additional adjustment for skilled trades, revision of the cost-of-living escala tor clause to provide for up to 8-cent adjustments in 1971 and 1972, a fifth week of paid vacation after 25 years of service, and improvements in pension and insurance provisions. In Lake Success, N.Y., Sperry Rand Corp. and the Electrical Workers (iue ) reached agree ment June 8 on 3-year contracts for 4,500 workers, including 1,300 recently organized engineers. Wages and salaries were increased 5 percent effective immediately, 4.5 percent in June 1971 and 4.3 percent in June 1972. A cost-of-living escalator clause was established (the previous clause was dropped under the 1964 settlement) and pension, insurance, and sick pay provisions were improved. The operations involved were the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The Bakery and Confectionery Workers’ union recently announced that it had negotiated 2-year contracts expected to set patterns in coming contract negotiations for a total of 40,000 workers. One of the agreements was with itt Continental Baking Co. of Paterson, N.J. Terms for the 150 workers included labor cost increases of 40 cents an hour on May 3, 1970, 9 cents on January 1, 1971, 35 cents on May 2, 1971, and 6 cents on January 1, 1972. The union will decide how the increases will be allocated between wages and benefits. On the West Coast, the settlement involved itt Continental Baking, Interstate Bakeries, and American Bakeries. Terms for 2,000 workers in cluded wage increases of $14 a week effective immediately, $10.50 in May 1971, a $3-a-week increase in employer funding to provide for improvement in welfare benefits, and a $4.80-aweek increase in pension funding. Construction Recent construction settlements include the following: The Laborers and the Associated General Con tractors (agc) negotiated a $3.40-wage and benefit package for 4 years covering 35,000 workers in Southern California. The previous journeyman scale was $4,145 plus 85 cents in benefits. The Plumbers and Pipe Fitters and the Pipe Line Contractors Association agreed on a 3-year national agreement providing for a $3-package over 3 years for 5,000 workers. The previous scale ranged from $5.95 to $6.65 plus 65 cents in benefits. The Carpenters and the Master Builders Asso ciation of Western Pennsylvania negotiated a $2.76-package spread over 3 years for 5,000 workers in Pittsburgh and nine Western Pennsyl vania counties. The previous scale was $6.45 plus benefits. The Laborers and the agc agreed on a $3.55package over 3 years for 3,000 workers in Rhode Island. The previous scale was $4.30 plus 30 cents in benefits. 80 The Carpenters and the Madison (Wisconsin) Employers Council agreed to a $3-package over 3 years for 2,000 workers. The previous scale was $5.05 plus 30 cents in benefits. The Carpenters and the Laborers agreed with the agc on $2-packages for 2 years for workers in Toledo, Ohio. The previous scales were $6.78 plus 52 cents in benefits for the Carpenters and $5.24 plus 37 cents in benefits for the Laborers. Apartment houses After long and heated negotiations, the Realty Advisory Board and Local 32 B of the Building Service Employees union concluded a new 3-year pact for 25,000 employees of 5,000 New York City apartment buildings. The agreement was retroactive to April 20, the expiration date of the previous contract. The settlement, reached on June 17, provided for an $18-a-week wage increase retroactive to April 20 (including a $13 interim increase that resulted from a 1-month pact negotiated on April 20), a $12 increase in the second year, and $10 in the third. Improved fringe benefits completed the package. The agreement did not require ratification by the union members, but they were free to strike any apartment owners who did not approve the terms by June 26. On July 6, members of the local struck landlords of 2,500 rent-controlled buildings because the landlords had refused to sign the contract. These landlords contended that rent increases pending in a city council bill were not adequate to meet the cost of the contract. Government On June 3, Governor Linwood Holton of Virginia announced a 10-percent wage increase effective July 1 for the State’s 46,000 employees. The employees received 5-percent increases in both 1968 and 1969. About 25,000 employees of the State of Wiscon sin received a $16-a-month cost-of-living increase in July, based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index between April 1969 and April 1970. They received a $13 a month increase in July 1969. Wisconsin is the only State which has a law pro viding for such automatic adjustments. These employees, who are represented by the State, County and Municipal Employees union, also https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 received negotiated increases of 4 percent, mini mum $25-a-month, in July of 1969 and 1970 under a contract signed in late 1969. The Tennessee Valley Authority and five unions signed agreements in June providing wage in creases ranging from 6 to 8 percent effective July 1, for 6,000 white collar, custodial, and public safety employees. An increase in tva’s contribution to health insurance premiums, a 10-percent differ ential for Sunday work, and improved overtime were also provided. Baseball A new basic 3-year agreement5 was ratified by major league baseball players and club owners in June. The pact, retroactive to January 1, 1970, raised minimum major league salaries to $12,000 in 1970, $12,750 next year, and $13,500 in 1972. The prior minimum was $10,000. Other provisions included termination pay for players cut during spring training and, beginning in 1972, players cut after May 15 will be paid for the full season. During spring training, when no salaries are paid, players will receive $50 a week for incidentals (instead of $40) and a daily meal allowance of $13, rising to $14 in 1971. During the regular season, they will receive a meal allowance of $16 a day while traveling (instead of $15), increasing to $17 in 1971. The incidentals allowance and the meal allowances are also subject to cost-of-living ad justments in 1971 and 1972. A revised World Series and playoff pool will add an estimated $250,000 each year to be distributed to participants. Moving expenses were provided for players traded during spring training or the regular season. The agreement also provides for arbitration procedures bypassing the baseball commissioner’s office when the issue does not involve the “integrity of the game.” Railroads The Firemen and Oilers reached a 2-year agree ment with Class I Railroads on June 12, complet ing the current round of negotiations for railroad shopcraft employees.6 The settlement, which affected 18,000 workers, provided wage increases of 2 percent retroactive to January 1, 1969, 3 per cent (plus 5 cents an hour to certain skilled em ployees) retroactive to July 1, 1969, 5 cents retro active to September 1, 1969, 5 percent (plus 5 D EVE LO PM EN TS IN IN D USTRIAL RELATIO NS cents for the skilled employees) retroactive to January 1, 1970, and 4 cents effective both April 1, and August 1, 1970. The Illinois Central Railroad and the United Transportation Union, agreed to a landmark accord under which a joint commission will decide on experimental work practices and new operating methods aimed at securing new business for the railroad. The six-member joint commission will recommend experiments to recapture short-haul business lost to trucks. Decisions must be unani mous to be implemented and will be subject to a joint veto by the presidents of the union and rail road. At the end of 18 months, the parties will re view the commission’s effectiveness and decide whether it should be continued. The new body is expected to consider allowing trains to cross divisional lines without a change in crews, in order to speed shipments currently de layed by the required crew changes. It will study the use of “minitrains” of five cars using smaller crews than the present 4 or 5 men. United Trans portation Union President Charles Luna said that any changes will apply only to new business and that existing contract provisions governing crew size, division line crew changes, and other matters would remain in effect on other trains. Mr. Luna expressed the hope that, with the new agreement, “we have begun to turn some of the energy spent in the past in fighting between labor and manage ment toward a more productive direction.” William B. Johnson, Board Chairman of the Illinois Central, said that pacts similar to the one signed between the railroad and the utu could help “rejuvenate” the railroad industry, warning that nearly one-third of the Nation’s railroads are “on the verge of bankruptcy” . Layoffs The increasing layoffs of aerospace workers was dramatized in June, as McDonnell Douglas Corp. announced the suspension of Supplementary Un employment Benefits payments to workers laid off from its Long Beach, Calif., plants. The action was taken because the fund had dropped below its minimum required level of $18 for each active employee. The sub plan, adopted under the 1965 settlement with the United Auto Workers, pro vided for maximum weekly benefits (including the maximum $65-a-week State unemployment benefit) equal to 75 percent of the laid-off workers’ 3 8 9 - 5 1 0 0 - 70 - 6 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 81 gross earnings while employed. The maximum duration of benefits was 52 weeks and company funding was at the rate of 5 cents for each hour worked. The union currently represents 13,000 workers at the facilities, compared with 30,000 in July 1968. In March unemployment increases forced North American Rockwell Corp. to terminate Extended Layoff Benefits for its laid-off aerospace workers.7 NLRB decision The National Labor Relations Board has ex tended its jurisdiction to cover private, nonprofit colleges and universities, stating that, with oper ating budgets of roughly $6 billion a year, such institutions have a clear impact on interstate commerce and consequently should operate under the labor-management rules that govern other big businesses. The decision reversed a 1951 precedent involving Columbia University that exempted most charitable and educational insti tutions from the National Labor Relations Act. The Board noted that since the 1951 decision college enrollment has doubled; nonprofessional employment has reached 263,000; union organiza tion has reached most campuses; and “labor disputes have already erupted at a number of universities,” with the expectation that they will recur in the future. The nlrb decision came in a case involving Cornell University. The Board ordered a repre sentation election among the university’s non professional employees because the school’s “size and $142.5 million-a-year operation plainly evi denced that it is engaged in commerce.” The unanimous decision is expected to spur the growth of unions at colleges and universities by facilitat ing their attempts to gain recognition. Union developments On June 2, the International Union of District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the United States and Canada, announced that Elwood Moffett had been reelected to a second 5-year term as president of the 185,000-member union. Mr. Moffett defeated Angelo J. Cefalo, District 50’s former vice-president. Marlin L. Brennan was the winner in a three-way contest for the union’s vice-presidency. The election was held in May, following an April convention,8 during which the union changed its name. Previously, 82 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 it was International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America. The American Association of Securities Repre sentatives, a national trade group of securities salesmen claiming 5,000 members, announced that it had concluded an “agreement of affiliation” with the National Maritime Union. The associa tion’s president, Sam Cordova, stated that “our association with will substantially enhance our ability to . . . help [our members] maintain their individual security, their stature and their dignity.” He also disclosed that the association plans an organizing campaign in major financial centers and use of “appropriate legal action for the protection of their members to halt any abusive practices by brokerage firms or government agencies.” William J. Pachler, 65, president of the Utility Workers Union since 1960, died in May after an extended illness. Mr. Pachler was a member of the executive board of the Industrial Union Department at the time of his death. William R. Munger, a vice president, was named to succeed Mr. Pachler. Alexander J. Rohan, Secretary-Treasurer of the Printing Pressmen since 1961, was elected presi dent of the union, succeeding Anthony J. De Andrade, who died on January 20. J. Frazier Moore, interim president of the union, succeeded Mr. Rohan until another election is held for the post of secretary-treasurer. (Mr. Moore was a vice president of the union.) Mr. Rohan, who will serve until 1972, defeated Walter Turner, a former vice president of the union, by a vote of 39,583 to 20,592. Gilbert Jewell was elected president of the Allied Industrial Workers by its International Executive Board, succeeding Carl W. Griepentrog, who re tired on June 1. Mr. Jewell, 62, has been Secre tary-Treasurer of the union for 13 years. Dominick D’Ambrosio was elected to succeed Mr. Jewell as secretary-treasurer. Both will serve until the union’s next convention in the fall of 1971. n m u a f l c io Conventions The Communications Workers, at their 32d annual convention in Cincinnati, focused attention on the 408,000-member union’s upcoming negotia tions. (The union was already bargaining with the General Telephone system and is scheduled to begin contract talks in several months with the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Bell system on agreements that expire in 1971.) Union president Joseph A. Beirne set the con vention’s tone by asserting that “We are serving notice on the communications industry that the will be bargaining for wage and benefit increases that will make the largest package ever won before look like small potatoes.” The dele gates approved a 50-cent increase in the $2.50-amonth per capita payment. They also adopted a resolution calling for members to support efforts to improve the environment and for locals to participate in a “Environment Day” program. Delegates to the Retail, Wholesale and De partment Store Union’s eleventh convention in Bal Harbour, Fla., reelected Max Greenberg to his fifth 4-year term as president of the union. Secretary-Treasurer Alvin E. Heaps was reelected to the post he has held since 1948. In addition, seven new members were elected to fill vacancies in the union’s 32-man executive board. The delegates approved a $l-a-month dues increase for all locals except those which have had an increase in the past year. Also approved was a minimum dues structure of $5 a month and a 50-cent-a-month increase in per capita payments. In Miami Beach, delegates to the Textile Workers Union’s 16th biennial convention re elected William Pollock to his eighth 2-year term as president. Sol Stetin was elected to his second term as secretary-treasurer. The delegates also called on the textile industry to “enter the world of the ‘70’s by raising wages and other benefits of textile workers to a par with those in other industries.” □ c w a c w a -------- FOO TNO TES -------1 The District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges counties in Maryland, and Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William counties in Virginia. 2 See Monthly Labor Review, November 1969, pp. 72-73. 3 See Monthly Labor Review, April 1970, p. 80. 4 The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( i b e w ) , International Union of Electrical Workers ( i u e ) , Machinists, Communications Workers, and Steelworkers. 5 See Monthly Labor Review, May 1969, p. 76, for terms of the current pension agreement. 6 See Monthly Labor Review, July 1970, pp. 77-78, and June 1970, p. 79. 7 See Monthly Labor Review, May 1970, p. 83. 8 See Monthly Labor Review, June 1970, p. 81. mmm Book Reviews and Notes fi fBPliw i lj U f^ i Cross-section study Technological Advance in an Expanding Economy: Its Impact on a Gross-Section of the Labor Force. By Eva Mueller and others. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1969. 254 pp. $7, clothbound; $5, paperback. Most statements purporting to tell what is happening to workers as a consequence of tech nological change come from some general theory or ideology. Some rely on statistical study or case history of specific, localized events. None, to our knowledge, was based on a cross-section sample such as this study. The authors disclaim any effort to predict what would happen under any but the specific conditions. Still some critics will probably find fault that the study claims too much on the basis of too little evidence. Those conducting the study were quite apparently aware that many factors influence the way technological change will affect the lives of specific workers in specific industries at particular times and places. They do not offer this study as a substitute for the kinds of research that would deal with all of them. What they do offer is a set of generalizations that in some degree support, and frequently refute, other generalizations that have been made on less defensible grounds than those that they have used here. Much policy has been based on such propositions. So the study performs a real serv ice in putting up a caution against these easy assertions. The authors of this study, supported by the Labor Department’s Office of Manpower Research, used the resources of the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan to draw the sample and conduct interviews. The research instrument seems adequate to get at the facts sought and the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis summaries are well supported by the data. In this short review it will not be possible to indicate many of the findings. However, a few deserve mention here for the benefit of those who will not read the book. These include the fact that technological change affected only a few jobs (1 to 3 percent a year); that the general level of demand is a far more significant factor affecting employment than is technological change; most workers like to see change in the machines they work with; nearly all workers enjoy what they are doing; the change was more frequent change in tools and small scale equipment than in the large production equipment; workers experiencing change are younger and better educated than those not facing technological change; these persons work in expanding industries that are able to relocate workers within their own systems; unemployment among workers who had experi enced machine change in the last 5 years was almost equal to that of workers experiencing no machine change; about 60 percent of the workers felt their work was more interesting after machine change than before; attitudes favorable to auto mation increase with increased education of the worker; and the more educated worker does not feel denigrated by his new job. We have obviously selected items that tend to weaken rather than support the traditional wisdom. But the ideas that are supported here certainly cast a much more favorable light on the future than have many of those who criticize the direction to which our civilization seems committed. They deserve further investigation and dissemination. —W . F red C ottrell Director Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problems Miami University 83 84 Life across the border La Raza: The Mexican Americans. By Stan Steiner. New York, Harper & Row, Pub lishers, 1970. 418 pp., bibliography. $8.95. Sal Si Puedes: Cesar Chavez and the New American Revolution. By Peter Matthiessen. New York, Random House, Inc., 1969. 372 pp. $6.95. Nowhere else in the world is there a political border separating two nations with as wide a gulf in economic development as that between Mexico and the United States. In such a situation, one would expect migration from the less developed country toward the advanced economy. This pressure for migration has occurred, but the whole history of the process has hardly served as a guide to effective immigration and manpower policies in the receiving nation. This Nation has permitted virtually uncon trolled entry by a group of people whose peasant backgrounds, Spanish language, and deficiencies in education did not handicap them at a particular stage of U.S. economic development—in the building of the railroads in the Southwest and in the development of agriculture—but when the need for “hoe labor” passed, their ability to mesh with the economy faded. The Mexicans still come, however, generally ill prepared for life in an industrial economy. They move into the barrios of the Southwest and attempt to compete for the too few unskilled jobs available, reinforce the cultural and social factors of the old country, and in general add to the woes of already overburdened unskilled labor markets in the region. Stan Steiner and Peter Matthiessen present their commentaries on this way of life in the two books under review. Stan Steiner’s work uses the term La Raza as its focal point. Traditionally, La Raza (literally The Race) is regarded as a cultural and spiritual bond uniting all Spanish-speaking peoples and it is in this context that Steiner uses the term. His book is neither a study nor a survey. Rather, according to the author, “It is about real people, who have been recreated in their own image. Like every work of literature it attempts the impossible; the creation of life through the use of words . . . by depicting the joys, pains, fears, angers, hopes, and fantasies of people.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 A sense of injustice threads its way through La Raza. Some of it is justified, a lot of it question able. Steiner begins with the “atrocities” of the U.S.-Mexican conflict, and concludes that what could not be done by war alone, “was at last won in the violent peace that came in the war’s wake. The cowboys were to conquer the land where the soldiers had only occupied it.” Steiner chronicles the exodus of Mexicans to the United States where, at the border, the exile, the refugee, a pilgrim, a seeker, becomes merely an alien, a wetback, another “dirty Mexican.” They come voluntarily, of course, but it can also be said that the United States grants citizenship to these people and then often denies them their due advantages by sanctioning continued entry of unskilled competitors. The lack of political consciousness of La Raza has made it difficult for the group to deal with their social problems effectively. “Man is the wheel upon which the philosophy of La Raza politics turns,” Steiner writes. “The leader does not talk to the people about their problems, nor do they judge him simply by his programs. He is a man first of all. People listen to him or not, depending on how they feel about him as a man.” But new leaders are arising, from the veterans of recent wars, and from the ranks of professionals. Whether the political culmination of the youth movements becomes a reality or not, there is a movement toward a more immediate culmination of a struggle between growers and harvest workers in the great agricultural valleys of the Southwest. Nowhere has the rise of expectations among Mexi can-America ns caught the public eye to the extent that it has in the strike of grape workers in California’s great Central Valley. Peter Matthies sen captures the details of the operation of the grape workers union in his Sal Si Puedes (Escape If You Can), which focuses on Cesar Chavez, the leader of the United Farm Workers Organization Committee ( ) . T o Matthiessen, Chavez is “an idealist, an activist with a near mystic vision, a militant with a dedication to nonviolence,” who “stands free of the political machinery that the election year of 1968 made not only disrep utable but irrelevant.” This is a bit too much, and it is unfair to Chavez. Fortunately, the reader can draw a less pretentious picture of Chavez from the narrative where he emerges as u f w o c BO O K REVIEWS A N D NOTES a hard-working, intelligent organizer, who under stands the psychology of the farm workers. Aside from the extraordinary details of Cesar Chavez’s life, there is little in Sal Si Puedes that is not available in Steiner’s book. Each work depicts farm work as a rough way to make a living, which often it is. The abuses of child labor, in adequate protection against chemical sprays, dilapidated worker housing facilities or many farms, low pay, exemption from collective bar gaining laws, are presented, but there is nothing about farm workers’ conditions in either book that has not been said before. In fact, John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath did a good descriptive job on the nadir of farm labor work. What Steiner and Matthiessen show, through their descriptions, is that we have not made very much improvement in the life of the harvest laborers since the nine teen-thirties. —L amar B. J ones Associate Professor of Economics Louisiana State University Social responsibility Challenge to Labor: New Roles for American Trade Unions. By Joseph A. Beirne. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. 224 pp. $6.95. This is an interesting, informative, and some what challenging appraisal of labor’s role in our society. As one would expect from so forthright and thoughtful a labor leader as Joe Beirne, the focus on the role of American labor in our society is not so much on “what it was and is,” but on “what it should and will be.” This is especially pertinent since the observations, in addition to being convincingly enthusiastic, represent the views of one who is in a position to do much about seeing that they are carried out. Joe Beirne’s main thesis is that ours is a “plural istic society” and that labor can, and does, provide a balance and a force for the advancement of social goals and society’s general well-being. In fact, one might say that throughout the book, Joe Beirne serves as a “prick of the conscience” to encourage, stimulate, and urge a more general acceptance of this social responsibility of labor. In this regard, one might have reservations about the somewhat personalized interpretation https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 85 of labor history embodied in his chapters on the “The Evolution of the American Labor Move ment” and “Labor and the Political Process,” to cite but two of the author’s areas of concentration. These, and other historical analyses of American labor and labor legislation as well, are admittedly colored by Joe Beirne’s unbounded faith in, and enthusiasm for, the broad social goals, the labor objectives, and the type of trade unionism that initially gave rise to the Congress of Industrial Organization. But this is pardonable, indeed, since few will deny that without such dedication and forthrightness on the part of those who espoused the cio, there was little likelihood that labor’s role as the social conscience in a pluralistic society could even be hoped for, let alone achieved. Joe Beirne not only tells it as he sees it but pointedly, effectively, and dramatically tells it as it should be. For example, to paraphrase and summarize some of his observations: —Labor has provided a reservoir of talent for government but it need be more active and force ful in its role. —American labor has properly avoided the “pitfalls” of promoting a “labor party” and it must continue to serve as a balance to both major parties in developing policy and programs for the benefit of “working people” and the general social good. —Urban America demands community leader ship and labor can and should be more active in providing and developing it. -—Labor has long been active on the interna tional scene but the challenges of the misery of our neighbors to the south and in the newly emerging and developing nations provide new ho rizons and need for even greater and more coordi nated efforts among the world’s working people. And so it goes—keen, penetrating and thoughtprovoking on every facet of labor’s role in our society. However one may differ with Joe Beirne’s personalized observations and whatever may be the reservations to his historical vignettes and evaluations of past developments in the growth of American trade unionism and of public policy and labor legislation, his plea for ever more vigorous and forthright efforts “to cope with the problems of the cities, of minorities, of education, of pol lution, of transportation, of recreation, of housing, [and] of medical care . . .” will be fairly generally endorsed. And as he defines it, most will agree with the concluding observation that “management M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 86 must become a partner in pluralism” ; it must share with labor the concern and drive to enable “plur alism [to meet] . . . its most serious challenge” ; it must make certain equally with labor that “the fifth of the nation [who] is still, by the standards of the rest, ill-fed, ill-clothed and ill-housed . . . [will be] brought fully into the mainstream of American life as it is enjoyed by the other fourfifths.” — M atthew A. K elly Professor New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations Cornell UniversityIn support of a program Alliance for Progress. A Social Invention in the Making. By Harvey S. Perloff. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1969. 253 pp. $8.50. The Alliance for Progress, launched amidst high hopes by the Kennedy Administration to offer a reasonable and acceptable alternative to Castrotype social revolutions in the Western Hemisphere, will soon pass its first decade of existence. Gener ally, there has been serious disappointment in the accomplishments of this ambitious program—rates of economic growth and advances in education and health have been of such low or inconsistent quality to raise grave misgivings of the efficacy in continuing to support the endeavor. Professor Harvey S. Perloff, with his long experience in planning and development, warns that nonsupport could cause the United States to “lose one of the truly great opportunities for forward movement in modern times.” Since World War II the great moves forward have been accom plished through social inventions, such as the Marshall Plan, the Full Employment Act of 1946 and, of course, the Alliance for Progress. All have their imperfections and none has completely succeeded in fulfilling its stated objectives, he concedes. Of the three, the Alliance represents the most ambitious program and has treaded the most unknown areas. The author begins his analysis with a brief survey of the historical changes in the relations between the United States and the nations of Hispanic America; then moves quickly to the signing of the Charter of Punta del Este. In https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis essence, that document was designed to provide solutions for both immediate and long range im provement of economic and social conditions within the context of multilateral cooperation that went beyond the mere formalism of previous interhemispheric efforts or the bilateral dominance of traditional United States aid programs. But this desire led into areas that some nations, in cluding, unfortunately, the United States, were reluctant to travel. Problems arose from the beginning: a lack of consensus on definitions of priorities, an unwilling ness to give the necessary freedom of action and authority to a coordinating body, and confusion over whether existing commitments by the United States to particular aid agreements or subsidiary programs were to be considered part of the annual appropriation to the program or simply outside its scope and context. There were also major physical difficulties in providing the transportation and communication necessary for realizing the pro posed economic integration, and operational prob lems in preparation and evaluation of workable national developmental plans. Inexperience, the lack of sustained and un divided commitment both by the United States and some Latin American countries, overambition in goals and frequent timidity in implementation ultimately led to discouragement with the pro gram itself. From the beginning, moreover, critics had pointed up its shortcomings. Leftists saw it merely as another prop for continued American domination. Rightists resented the proposed changes of the traditional social, economic, and political fabric of society, and even the emerging business community felt threatened by feared future competition. While acknowledging these functional drawbacks and the failure of the program to “electrify” the entire hemisphere, Perloff concludes that even in those countries that have least been affected there is an increasing interest in development which cannot help but be intensified if basic economic integration becomes a reality. In the second half of the book, Professor Perloff carries the Alliance to the present and hopefully into the future beginning with a plea for patience, followed by a systematic series of proposals for making the Alliance for Progress more workable and useful. There has been, the author finds, a greater realization of the essentials BO O K REVIEWS A N D NOTES necessary to stimulate development and the necessity to make distinctions between national levels and accomplished reform in assessing progress. Also there is emerging a more sophis ticated attitude toward broadened participation, multilateral programming, and flexible financing that will aid in avoiding past difficulties and failures. Certainly, Perloff concludes, the con tinued effort on behalf of the wealthy nations to find a solution to the poverty that afflicts a majority of the people of the world is prerequisite if future security and peace are to be possible. Most readers will find this book an eloquent and impassioned plea in support of the continua tion of the Alliance for Progress. It is mandatory both for scholars and a concerned general reader. Highly technical and statistical throughout, those sections can be "skimmed” without seriously damaging the substance of the argument. While Professor Perloff has a stake in the continuation of the program, this does not detract from the intrinsic value of the book; plus it provides a needed balance to the Alliance’s detractors. —E dgar W . M oore Assistant Professor of History Indiana University of Pennsylvania The state of the welfare state The Welfare State: U.S.A.—An Exploration in and Beyond the New Economics. By Melville J. Ulmer. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969. 203 pp. $4.95. This is an interesting and challenging examina tion of the weaknesses and strengths of the mod ern welfare state. It is the author’s contention that some form of a welfare state is a fact of life that will not be eliminated by either Democrats or Re publicans; he proposes, therefore, that we move toward such a society that is workable and mean ingful. Professor Ulmer tells us the main failure of the modern welfare state is its unacceptably high rate of both inflation and unemployment. His explana tion for the persistence of these twin evils is rather persuasive: Long before excess demand causes inflation, other forces, specifically "bottle-neck, structural and psychological” inflation, take their deadly toll. The inflationary spiral therefore begins before full employment is reached and almost in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 87 stinctively the government puts on the monetary/ fiscal brakes. The resulting "substantial unem ployment” has been our only effective cure for inflation and we are, therefore, stuck with both. What Ulmer proposes to do about these twin evils is the weakest part of the book. The first of a three-part proposal is rather simplistic: The estab lishment of a public agency to which all unem ployed would report, either for job location, suit able retraining, or employment by this agency. The second proposal is for a surtax to be implemented by the President when needed to fight inflation. The proceeds would be frozen in a stabilization fund and refunded to the taxpayer during a downswing in the economy at some later time to bolster consumer and corporate spending and slow the rate of decline. The third proposal is to provide training, and thus more productive workers, and minimize structural inflation. Since it would now be the avowed intent of the government to stop inflation, the psychological factor would no longer be an important inflationary force. This three-point proposal fortunately takes but two short chapters in an otherwise good work. One of the better chapters describes various income maintenance plans currently under dis cussion. Two other chapters summarize the details of how Ulmer visualizes the good life in a meaning ful welfare state. It would include, for example, a department of consumer affairs with cabinet rank, a tax on excessive advertising, a national planning authority to regulate new technological innova tions, more leisure, cleaner air and streams, a cure for cancer, etc. Professor Ulmer would clearly prefer a society where more attention could be given to leisure, to gentleness and kindness, as distinguished from the current hustle-and-bustle drive for more and ever more. It is difficult to pin a label on Professor Ulmer. Clearly, in contemporary terms, he is a liberal on welfare, government spending, monetary and fiscal policy, etc.; but throughout there is an almost nostalgic desire to return to some simpler, more pleasant, quieter, idyllic era. The Puritan ethic pervades the entire book: the author takes great pride in his job of teaching, writing, doing research, enjoying the prestige and esteem of his colleagues, and he sees no reason why janitors, cleaning women, and garbage collectors should not also take equally great pride in their work. 88 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1970 The book is thoughtful and a welcome addition to the examination of the weaknesses of the welfare state. This reviewer only wishes that Ulmer could have expanded more on the quality of the good life, and less on the specific details of how to achieve a balanced growth in the modern economy. — K endall P. C ochran Professor of Economics North Texas State University A look at two new journals The Journal oj Economic Education. New York, Joint Council on Economic Education in co operation with the Advisory Committee of the American Economic Association. Issued semiannually. Annual subscription rate, $3; single issues, $2. With bookshelves already sagging under the weight of specialized publications, one greets the advent of a new journal with some reservations, if not misgivings: Who needs it? Is it worth the trouble? Will it be first-rate or merely passable? On the basis of its first two issues, the Journal of Economic Education has gone a long way toward countering such skepticism. The need for the new publication has been clearly established. A stand ard of high quality has been set. On the criteria of contents, readability, and editorial leadership, the journal has to be regarded as a professional publi cation of emerging importance. Whether the high level can be sustained has still to be proved, and it remains to be seen whether those teaching econom ics in the secondary schools will be as well served as those teaching in the colleges, for though the journal purports to serve both groups, the first two issues are avowedly addressed to college teachers. Part of the answer should become apparent in the third issue which will be directed toward teachers in the high schools and community colleges. The journal is a major milestone in a movement to increase economic literacy that began 25 years ago with the organization of the Joint Council of Economic Education. In the early years, the edu cators, businessmen, and labor and farm represent atives took the lead in building up the Joint Council and local councils throughout the coun try. Academic economists were indifferent or hos tile—with a few exceptions, notably Edwin G. Nourse and Ben Lewis. But in the 1960’s, a num https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ber of academic economists began to face up to the lamentable reputation of economics courses among students and to the problems of teaching the sub ject in a more interesting and effective fashion. They reasoned that people will learn other eco nomics from someone; better from economists. Recent annual meetings of the American Econom ic Association have accorded an important place to discussions of economic education. Much has been achieved during the past decade by the profession and the Joint Council in determining what should be taught (through the Task Force on Economic Education), in providing a nationwide unified measure of the effectiveness of teaching (through standardized tests of economic understanding), in developing alternative instructional approaches (through the National Television Course on Economics and experiments in programmed instruction). These developments are summarized by Henry H. Villard in the first issue, dated fall 1969. Villard, professor of economics at City College of New York, is also the editor, and in his introduction to the same issue provides a clear and persuasive policy statement for the publication. G. L. Bach, chairman of the Committee on Economic Education of the American Economic Association and one of the early and most articu late converts to the cause of improving economic education, is also a contributor to the first issue, describing the results of an experiment with three different teaching techniques at Stanford Uni versity. (One group of students studied a pro grammed learning text only for a week, another studied a conventional text and saw a television program, and the third read the text and attended conventional lectures.) The results of this experi ment, along with the results of other recent tests to compare the efficiency of lectures, television, and programmed instructional materials, present a good overview of the progress made during the decade in understanding the ways in which instruction can be improved. The journal’s policy, as set forth by Villard, is to focus on a particular topic in each issue—to bring together related material bearing on a central theme rather than merely presenting a random collection of articles that come in over the transom. Thus the second issue dated spring 1970 contains several articles on games and simulation and another group on the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, which was also the 89 BO O K REVIEWS A N D NOTES major theme of the first issue. These reports might well be of interest to other teachers in the social sciences as well as to economists. In the lead article to the second issue, George J. Stigler provides, in a sense, the rationale for the new journal by questioning whether there is indeed a special case for economic literacy. In brief, Stigler finds some reasons for singling out economic education for special attention in the schools. But he adds, only if it is taught much better than it has been taught in the past, which in Stigler’s view has been disastrously bad. The 16 articles appearing in the first two issues, contributed by leading figures in economics and by young, experimentally minded economists from institutions throughout the country, make it abundantly clear that teachers of economics have a lot to say to each other that is indeed worth communicating. And much of it makes good reading, for those who don’t teach but who are interested in raising the level of economic dis course and policymaking in the future. —HCM Growth and Change: A Journal of Regional Develop ment. Lexington, Ky., University of Kentucky, College of Business and Economics. Issued quarterly. Annual subscription rate, $5; single issues, $1.25. Perhaps no existing journal covers precisely the area that this new journal has claimed for itself, although several overlap its scope. In the first issue, January 1970, executive editor Lawrence R. Klein (former editor-in-chief of the Monthly Labor Review) states that the journal will cover the field of regional development and the editor intends to cover the subject “broadly and to stress, where possible, the public policy significance of research findings.” To assist in achieving this goal, Klein has a distinguished editorial board selected from at least six different disciplines, thus giving weight to his promise of broad coverage. This sounds promising, but the new journal should be judged on the basis of the material it publishes, not the intentions of its editor. There are seven papers in the first issue. Two of these are straight-forward historical accounts, one dealing with Swedish manpower policy and the other with Tanzania’s manpower training program. An addi https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tional two papers might be somewhat loosely called theoretical papers; they treat fiscal equity and federalism, and the possible contributions of economic theory to regional development policy. A fifth paper describes a highly subjective method of delineating a region. A sixth paper is a review article of regional economics in the United States. Clearly this is an appropriate and useful type of paper for the journal to publish. The coverage of the article is broad and up to date and some attempt is made to organize the subject and to list contributions in logical categories. The paper includes a bibliog raphy of 137 items. At points the authors seem not to have grasped the material they are reviewing. For example they appear to say that the old baseservice multiplier is a “Keynesian-type multiplier.” If this is their belief, they have missed the point of the controversy which surrounded the base theory. All the above articles are interesting and in a limited sense significant for regional development. Yet none of them represent research on regional development per se. They do not advance and test hypotheses about regional development. The journal contains no regression equations; there is no statistical analysis worthy of the name. With the possible exception of the paper on fiscal federalism there is no rigorous theoretical thinking in the journal. The remaining article deals with Federal spend ing for human resource development. The authors conclude that economic development of poor regions will be hastened by Federal expenditures for human capital development. They support the conclusion with some readily available data, but with only primitive analysis. This article does represent research, although of a limited type, on regional development and in this way is different from the other six. A book review section is a part of the journal. The coverage of this section is broad including books of a type not usually reviewed in social science journals. The first issue includes a review of a novel about building dams in India. — R alph W. P fouts Professor of Economics University of North Carolina 90 Separate tabulations Economic Growth in Japan and the USSR. By Angus Maddison. New York, W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1969. 174 pp. $6. The title of this book suggests that the reader beware of the theme of capitalism’s greatness and Communism’s failings, or a comparison between the model of one economic system versus the mud dle of the other. No such theme develops even though in the introduction there are statements that can be interpreted as hurrahs for free enter prise. It turns out that there is very little compari son of the USSR with Japan, so that the book is almost two separate subjects within one binding. Perhaps if there were one more chapter that brought together the significant aspects of eco nomic performances in the two countries it would unify the book. Maddison alludes to the measurement problems, which is an essential caveat in works of this type, but he offers no new methodological approaches, which may be wise, for anyone who has worked through the comparative growth measurement literature usually comes out with epistomological agnosticism. It is refreshing to see that he adjusts Soviet growth figures upward while there is almost unanimity that such figures are overstated and should be adjusted downward. There are many and large lacunae in the Soviet statistics, particularly when it comes to investment, that still remain in spite of the much larger flow of statistical informa tion being released in recent years by the Soviets. Knowing this leaves the reader in a quite skeptical frame of mind when he gets to the passages dealing with investment in chapter 10. There are many footnotes which may interest serious scholars; however, nonspecialists may con sider them unnecessary interruptions. A similar comment applies to the 45 tables and seven appendices. However, the appendices should prove helpful for methodological problems inherent in developing indices for other researchers. Likewise, the bibliography is meaty and a good source for graduate students looking for a thesis topic. For people educated in a system that is so overwhelmingly western-oriented, the Japanese experience is a breath of fresh air. The different life style, the different values, the different psycho logical and sociological aspects augur well for all https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 who are wont to see a pluralistic world. There are also big differences between the Soviet system and Japan and between both Japan and the Soviets and other western countries. These dif ferences underscore the author’s conclusion that not much is transferable from Soviet and Japanese experience to other countries facing development problems. The writing is lucid and not the convoluted jar gon common in too many economics books. This should make it a worthwhile addition to the library of many nonspecialists. — F rank D e F elic e Professor of Economics Queens College Charlotte, North Carolina Job motivation Participation, Achievement, and Involvement on the Job. By Martin Patchen. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. 285 pp. $8.50, clothbound; $5.95, paperback. This book, a report on a questionnaire-based study of 834 nonsupervisory employees in two engineering design divisions and three power plants of the TVA, is concerned with: (1) achievement and job motivation (chapters 3-7) and (2) factors, notably participation, contributing to organiza tional identification (chapters 8-11). To the extent that achievement-related variables affect it, job motivation (measured by indexes of general job interest, interest in innovation, pride in job accomplishment, attendance, and physio logical and psychological stress symptoms), is viewed as a result of opportunities for achievement on the job, “achievement incentive,” and rewards for achievement, “achievement motive.” Four job characteristics—work difficulty, control over work methods, feedback on the degree of success in performance, and standards of excellence against which to evaluate success—are said to affect achievement incentive. The motive for achieve ment, it is contended, is influenced by such things as need for achievement, occupational identifica tion, and rewards in the form of peer and supervi sory approval and promotion. Though innovative and potentially quite useful, the relevance of this rather elaborate framework for the present study 91 BO O K REVIEWS A N D NOTES is undermined by the author’s admission that the prediction of job motivation, not achievement incentive or achievement motive, is the primary focus. Patchen’s dismissal of the two intervening variables, partly on the grounds that he has no measures of them, leads to the conclusion that they are not really necessary to this study, that basically he is examining the effects of selected personal and job characteristics on job motivation. Fuller utility of Patchen’s framework requires measures of the intervening variables, otherwise we must simply take him at his word that the selected personal and job characteristics affect job motivation through achievement incentives and achievement motive. In short, a test of the theo retical framework is lacking. Because so many findings are presented, only the flavor of the results can be imparted. Of the numerous statistical relationships, most are not new. Positive relationships between work motiva tion and control over work methods, chance to learn new things, moderate degree of job difficulty, occupational identification, chance to use one’s best abilities, and influence over work goals have been reported by others. Others too have found that worker participation (in this case through the TVA Cooperative Program), co-worker soli darity, and opportunities to utilize one’s abilities promote identification with the work organization. Confirmation of findings is more important than the credit normally given to it. Moreover, Patchen’s use of multiple correlation and analysis of variance statistical techniques adds depth to the analysis. To cite one example, Patchen examined the joint contribution as well as the individual of each personal and job characteristic thought to affect job motivation through achievement incentive. He found that the factors contribute somewhat but not greatly to an increase in job motivation beyond each characteristic considered singly. Due to the absence of a strong interaction effect among the variables, it may be sufficient, in cases when increased job motivation is sought, to introduce changes in only one or two of the more important factors. From a practical view point, Patchen points out, job motivation may be enhanced, for example, by permitting control over work methods where technological or orga nizational factors prohibit changes in the degree of job difficulty or the chance to learn new things on the job. This book is replete with such multi https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis variate analysis, much more of which is needed in the study of organizational behavior. —J on M. S hepard Assistant Professor of Sociology University of Kentucky Other recent publications Education and training Altbach, Philip G. and Bradley Nystrom, Higher Educa tion in Developing Countries: A Select Bibliography. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University, Center for International Affairs, 1970, 118 pp. (Occasional Papers in International Affairs 24.) $3.75. Blau, Lucie R., “Up With Education,” Conference Board Record, June 1970, pp. 20-24. Carter, Thomas P., Mexican Americans in School: A His tory of Educational Neglect. New York, College Entrance Examination Board, 1970, 235 pp., bibli ography. $4. Coons, John E., William H. Clune III, Stephen D. Sugarman, Private Wealth and Public Education. Cambridge, Mass., Belnap Press of Harvard University Press, 1970, xxvi, 520 pp., bibliography. $12.50. Noone, Donald J., Teachers vs. School Board. New Bruns wick, N.J., Rutgers—The State University, Institute of Management and Labor Relations, 1970, 120 pp. $3.50, paperback. Silverman, Leslie J. and Stafford Metz, Selected Statistics of Educational Personnel. Washington, U.S. Depart ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1970, 59 pp. (OE-58041.) 65 cents, Super intendent of Documents, Washington. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1970-1971 Edition. Washington, 1970, xiv, 859 pp. (Bulletin 1650; revision of Bulletin 1550.) $6.25, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Employee benefits Kolodrubetz, Walter W., “Employee-Benefit Plans in 1968,” Social Security Bulletin, April 1970, pp. 35-47, 49. Oswald, Rudolph and J. Douglas Smith, “Fringe Benefits— On the Move,” The American Federationist, June 1970, pp. 18-23. Health and safety Public Health Service, Persons Injured and Disability Days Due to Injury, United States, July 1965-July 1967. M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 92 Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970, 72 pp. (PHS Publication No. 1000-Series 10-No. 58.) 70 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Reinhard, Karl R. and others, “Time Loss and Indirect Economic Costs Caused by Disease Among Indians and Alaska Natives,” Public Health Reports, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, May 1970, pp. 397-411. U.S. Bureau of Labor Standards, “Bureau of Labor Standards Remodels for Safety Tasks,” Safety Standards, May-June, 1970, pp. 9-11, 31. Industrial relations Canada Department of Labor, Legislation Branch, Labor Relations Legislation in Canada. Ottawa, 1970, 180 pp. $3.50, Queen’s Printer, Ottawa. Derber, Milton, Collective Bargaining in the Quasi-Public Sector: A Survey of Policies and Practices in the United States. Urbana, University of Illinois, 1970, 20 pp. (Reprint Series, 210; from Canadian CIRIEC Review, June-December 1970.) Flanders, Allan, editor, Collective Bargaining— Selected Readings. Baltimore, Penguin Books, 1969, 431 pp. $2.45, paperback. Heneman, Herbert G., Jr., Toward a General Conceptual System of Industrial Relations: How Do We Get There? Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center, 1970, 22 pp. (Reprint 65; from Essays in Industrial Relations Theory.) Moskow, Michael H., Labor Relations in the Performing Arts—An Introductory Survey. New York, Associated Councils of the Arts, 1970, 218 pp. $2.50, paperback. Seide, Katherine, editor, A Dictionary of Arbitration and Its Terms—Labor, Commercial, International: A Con cise Encyclopedia of Peaceful Dispute Settlement. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana Publications, Inc., 1970, 334 pp. $15. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Major Collective Bargain ing Agreements: Administration of Negotiated Pension, Health, and Insurance Plans. Washington, 1970, 52 pp. (Bulletin 1425-12.) 60 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Zack, Arnold M., “Improving Mediation and Fact-Finding in the Public Sector,” Labor Law Journal, May 1970, pp. 259-273. Labor force Brooks, Thomas R., Labor and Migration: An Annotated Bibliography. Brooklyn, N.Y., Brooklyn College Center for Migration Studies, 1970, 38 pp. $5. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Davey, Patrick J. and James K. Brown, “The Corporate Reaction to ‘Moonlighting’,” Conference Board Record, June 1970, pp. 31-35. Department of Employment and Productivity, Printing and Publishing. London, 1970, 115 pp. (Manpower Studies 9.) 12s., H.M. Stationery Office, London. Downs, Harry, “Equal Employment Opportunity: Op portunity for Whom,” Labor Law Journal, May 1970, pp. 274-282. Fletcher, Linda P., The Negro in the Insurance Industry. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, Industrial Research Unit, 1970, 177 pp. (Racial Policies of American In dustry, Report 11.) $5.95, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Gupta, M. L., “Patterns of Economic Activity in the Philippines and Some Methodological Issues In volved,” International Labor Review, April 1970, pp. 377-397. Mead, Margaret, “Working Mothers and Their Children,” Manpower, U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, June 1970, pp. 3-6. Nixon, R.A., Legislative Dimensions of the New Careers Program: 1970. New York, New York University, Center for Study of the Unemployed, 1970, 34 pp. Northrup, Herbert R. and Robert I. Ash, The Negro in the Tobacco Industry. Philadelphia, University of Penn sylvania, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, Industrial Research Unit, 1970, 107 pp. (Racial Policies of American Industry, Report 13.) $4.50, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Pencavel, John H., An Analysis of the Quit Rate in American Manufacturing Industry. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section, 1970, 65 pp. (Research Report Series, 114.) Reubens, Beatrice G., The Hard-to-Employ: European Programs. New York, Columbia University Press, 1970, 420 pp. $12. Richardson, James F., The New York Police— Colonial Times to 1901. New York, Oxford University Press, 1970, 332 pp. (Urban Life in America Series.) $8.50. Schmidt, Reynold T., M.D., “A Profile of Hard-Core Personnel Employed in Heavy Industry,” Journal of Occupational Medicine, April 1970, pp. 120-127. Schnitzer, Martin, Regional Unemployment and the Reloca tion of Workers: The Experience of Western Europe, Canada, and the United States. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1970, 253 pp. (Praeger Special Studies in International Economics and Development.) $15. Spencer, Carlie, “Employee Attitudes to Shift Work,” Personnel Practice Bulletin, Australia Department of Labor and National Service, March 1970, pp. 25-33. 93 BO O K REVIEWS A N D NOTES U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ph. D. Scientists and Engineers in Private Industry, 1968-80. Washington, 1970, 20 pp. (Bulletin 1648.) 30 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. U.S. Manpower Administration, Special Job Creation for the Hard-to-Employ in Western Europe. Washington, 1970, 44 pp. (Manpower Research Monograph 14.) 50 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Personnel management Beach, Dale S., Personnel: The Management of People at Work. New York, Macmillan Co., 1970, 844 pp. 2d ed. $10.95. Wages and hours Bixby, Lenore E., “Income of People Aged 65 and Older: Overview From 1968 Survey of the Aged,” Social Security Bulletin, April 1970, pp. 3-27. Gunzberg, D., “Wage Incentives in Australia: 2, Opera tion,” Personnel Practice Bulletin, Australia Depart ment of Labor and National Service, March 1970, pp. 10-24. Hirsch, Paul M., “Instructional Responsibility and Teacher Pay,” Public Personnel Review, April 1970, pp. 81-85. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Area Wage Survey: Salt Lake City, Utah, Metropolitan Area, November 1969. Mundel, Marvin E., Motion and Time Study: Principles and Practices. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970, 674 pp. $13.50. Zeyher, Lewis R., “Improving your Three-Dimensional Communications,” Personnel Journal, May 1970, pp. 414-418, 434. Prices and consumption economics National Industrial Conference Board, “Current Trends in Consumer Markets,” a sampling of forecasts excerpted from the N.I.C.B. March conference on the consumer market, Conference Board Record, May 1970, pp. 23-26. Troelstrup, Arch W., The Consumer in American Society: Personal and Family Finance. New York, McGrawHill Book Co., 1970, 668 pp. 4th ed. $9.95. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Three Budgets for a Retired Couple in Urban Areas of the United States, 1967-68. Washington, 1970, 74 pp. (Bulletin 1570-6.) Washington, 1970, 28 pp. (Bulletin 1660-30.) 35 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Other recent bulletins in this series include the metropolitan areas of Midland and Odessa, Tex.; Waterloo, Iowa; Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. (Bulletins 1660-44 through 1660-46.) Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.; Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.; Lubbock, Tex.; Albany-SchnectadyTroy, N.Y. (Bulletins 1660-48 through 1660-51.) Various pagings and prices. McConnell, Campbell R., Perspectives on Wage Determina tion—A Book of Readings. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970, 234 pp. $7.95. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Forms of Wage and Salary Payment for High Produc tivity. Final report. Paris, 1970, 165 pp. (International Seminars, 1967-3.) $3. Distributed by OECD Publica tions Center, Washington. Zeisel, Rose N., “Wages Under Collective Bargaining in 1970,” Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce, May 1970, pp. 15-17. 70 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Miscellaneous Productivity and technological change Burack, Elmer H. and Gopal C. Pati, “Technology and Managerial Obsolescence,” M SU Business Topics, Michigan State University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Spring 1970, pp. 49-56. De Gregori, Thomas R., Technology and the Economic Development of the Tropical African Frontier. Cleveland, Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1969, 531 pp. $15. Social security Commons, John R., The Economics of Collective Action. Edited by Kenneth H. Parsons. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1970, 382 pp. $6.50. Chorafas, D. N., The Knowledge Revolution: An Analysis of the International Brain Market. New York, McGrawHill Book Co., 1970, 142 pp. $4.95. Fleisher, Belton M., Labor Economics: Theory and Evidence. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970, 304 pp., bibliography. $4.50. Gilpatrick, Eleanor G. and Paul K. Corliss, The Occupa tional Structure of New York City Municipal Hospitals. Moynihan, Daniel P. and others, “Welfare: A Time for Reform,” (a group of four articles), Saturday Review, May 23, 1970, pp. 2-32, 60-61. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1970, 190 pp., bibli ography. (Praeger Special Studies in U.S. Economic and Social Development.) $12.50. Price, Daniel N. and Robert O. Brunner, “Automatic Adjustment of OASDHI Cash Benefits,” Social Security Bulletin, May 1970, pp. 3-11. Industrial Relations Counselors, New Dimensions in Orga nization. New York, 1970,160 pp. (Industrial Relations Monograph 30.) https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 94 M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 International Labor Office, Record of Proceedings of the International Labor Conference, Fifty-Third Session, Geneva, 1969. Geneva, 1970, lxviii, 798 pp. $12. -------- Report of the Director-General to the International Labor Conference, Fifty-Fourth Session, Geneva, 1970: Part 1, Poverty and Minimum Living Standards— The Role of the ILO (122 pp., $1.25); Part 2, Activities of the ILO, 1969 (77 pp., $1). Geneva, 1970. Distributed in United States by Washington Branch of ILO. Keiser, Norman F., Readings in Macroeconomics: Theory, Evidence, and Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., PrenticeHall, Inc., 1970, 595 pp. $6.95. Kindleberger, Charles P., editor, The International Corpo ration: A Symposium. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1970, 415 pp. $15. Schultze, Charles L. with Edward K. Hamilton and Allen Schick, Setting National Priorities: The 1971 Budget. Washington, Brookings Institution, 1970, 191 pp. $6.50, cloth; $2.95, paperback. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Labor Relations and the Law in West Germany and the United States. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1969, xxx, 606 pp., bibliography. (Michigan International Labor Studies, Vol. III.) $15. Somers, Gerald E., editor, Proceedings of the TwentySecond Annual Winter Meeting of the Industrial Rela tions Research Association, New York City, December 29-30, 1969. Madison, Wis., Industrial Relations Re search Association, 1970, 356 pp. $5. Levine, Robert A., The Poor Ye Need Not Have With You: Lessons From the War on Poverty. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1970, 262 pp. $7.95. Terkel, Studs, Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression. New York, Pantheon Books, 1970, 462 pp. $8.95. Mishan, E. J., 21 Popular Economic Fallacies. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1970, 245 pp. $7.95. Tuttle, Frank W. and Joseph M. Perry, An Economic History of the United States. Cincinnati, South-Western Publishing Co., 1970, 826 pp. Mitchell, John G. and Constance L. Stallings, editors, Ecotactics: The Sierra Club Handbook for Environmental Activists. New York, Pocket Books, 1970, 287 pp. 95 cents. Ney, John, The European Surrender: A Descriptive Study of the American Social and Economic Conquest. Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1970, 500 pp. $10. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969 Annual Report. Washington, 1970, xiii, 147 pp. $1.75, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. U.S. President’s Task Force on Women’s Rights and Responsibilities, A Matter of Simple Justice. Washing ton, 1970, 33 pp. 30 cents, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington. Robinson, Joan, Freedom and Necessity: An Introduction to the Study of Society. New York, Pantheon Books, 1970, 128 pp. $4.95. Zwerman, William L., New Perspectives on Organization Sansom, Robert L., The Economics of Insurgency in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1970, 283 pp., bibliography. $12.50. Publishing Corp., 1970, 219 pp., bibliography. (Con tributions in Sociology 1.) $11.50. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Theory: An Empirical Reconsideration of the Marxian and Classical Analyses. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Current Labor Statistics Employment and unemployment— household data 1. Em ploym ent status of n on in stitu tio nal population, 1947 to d a te ................................................................................. 96 2. Em ploym en t status, by color, sex, and age, se ason ally adjusted, qu arterly a verages.............................................. 96 97 3. Full- and part-tim e status of civ ilia n labor fo rc e ............................................................................................................. 4. Em ploym ent and unem ploym ent, by age and sex, season ally adjusted, quarterly d a ta ........................................... 97 5. Em ploym ent totals, by occupation, with unem ploym ent rates, seasonally adjusted, quarterly ave ra g e s................. 98 6. Unem ployed persons, by reason for u n e m p lo ym en t...................................................................................................... 98 7. U nem ploym ent rates, by age and sex, seasonally a d ju ste d .................................................................................... 8. U nem ploym ent indicators, season ally a d ju ste d ............................................................................................................. 100 9. Duration of unem ploym ent, se a so n a lly a d ju ste d ........................................................................................................... 100 10. Unem ploym ent insurance and em ploym ent s e rv ic e s .................................................................................................... 101 99 Nonagricultural employment— payroll data 11. Em ploym ent by industry, 1947 to d a te ............................................................................................. 102 12. Em ploym ent by S ta te ......................................................................................................................................................... 102 13. Em ploym ent by industry d ivisio n and m ajor m anufacturing g ro u p .............................................................................. 103 14. Em ploym ent by industry d ivisio n and m ajor m anufacturing group, se ason ally a d ju ste d ........................................... 104 Labor turnover rates 15. Labor turnover in m anufacturing, 1959 to d a te .............................................................................................................. 105 16. Labor turnover in m anufacturing, by m ajor industry g ro u p .......................................................................................... 106 Hours and earnings— private nonagricultural payrolls 17. H ours and earnings, by industry divisio n, 1947 to d a te ................................................................................................ 18. W eekly hours, by in dustry d ivisio n and m ajor m anufacturing g ro u p ........................................................................... 107 108 19. W eekly hours, by industry d ivisio n and m ajor m anufacturing group, se ason ally a d ju ste d ....................................... 109 20. H ourly earnings, by in dustry d ivisio n and m ajor m anufacturing g ro u p ...................................................................... 110 21. W eekly earnings, by industry d ivisio n and m ajor m anufacturing g ro u p ...................................................................... I ll 22. Spen dable weekly earnings in cu rren t and 1957-59 d o lla r s ........................................................................................ 112 Prices 23. C o nsum er and W holesale Price Indexes, 1949 to d a te ................................................................................................. 24. C onsum er P rice Index, general sum m ary and selected ite m s ...................................................................................... 112 113 25. Consum er P rice Index, selected a re a s ............................................................................................................................ 119 26. W holesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of co m m o d itie s.................................................................................. 120 27. W holesale P rice Index, for special com m odity g ro u p in g s............................................................................................ 122 28. W holesale P rice Index, by stage of p ro c e ssin g ............................................................................................................... 123 29. W holesale P rice Index, by d u ra b ility of p ro d u ct............................................................................................................. 124 30. Industry-sector price index for output of selected in d u s trie s ....................................................................................... 124 Labor-management disputes 31. W ork stoppages and tim e lo s t..................................................................... .................................................................. 126 Productivity 32. Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly com pensation, and u nit la b or c o s ts ............................................................. Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series....................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 95 127 127 96 1. M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 HOUSEHOLD DATA Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1947 to date [In thousands] Civilian labor force Total labor force Year Unemployed Employed Total non institutional population Number Not in labor force Total Percent of population Nonagricultural industries Agriculture Total Number Percent of labor force 1947 ........................ 1948.__........... ............ ............... 103,418 104,527 60,941 62,080 58.9 59.4 59,350 60,621 57,039 58,344 7,891 7,629 49,148 50,713 2,311 2,276 3.9 3.8 42,477 42,447 1949 ___________ 1950 .......... 1951 ........................... 1952 .................... 1953...................... .......................... 105,611 106,645 107,721 108,823 110,601 62,903 63,858 65,117 65,730 66,560 59.6 59.9 60.4 60.4 60.2 61,286 62,208 62,017 62,138 63,015 57,649 58,920 59,962 60,254 61,181 7,656 7,160 6,726 6,501 6,261 49,990 51,760 53,239 53,753 54,922 3,637 3,288 2,055 1,883 1,834 5.9 5.3 3.3 3.0 2.9 42,708 42,787 42,604 43,093 44,041 1954 ..................... . 1955 .................. 1956 .................... ....................... 1957 1958........... ................................. 111,671 112,732 113,811 115,065 116,363 68,072 69,409 69,729 70,275 60.0 60.4 61.0 60.6 60.4 63,643 65,023 66,552 66,929 67,639 60,110 62,171 63,802 64,071 63,036 6,206 6,449 6,283 5,947 5,586 53,903 55,724 57,517 58,123 57,450 3,532 2,852 2,750 2,859 4,602 5.5 4.4 4.1 4.3 6.8 44,678 44,660 44,402 45,336 46, 088 68,369 69,628 70,459 70,614 71,833 64,630 65,778 65,746 66,702 67,762 5,565 5,458 5,200 4,944 4,687 59,065 60,318 60,546 61,759 63,076 3. 740 3,852 4,714 3,911 4,070 5.5 5. 5 6.7 5. 5 5.7 46,960 47,617 48,312 49,539 50,583 73,091 74,455 75,770 77,347 78,737 80,733 69,305 71,088 72,895 74,372 75,920 77,902 4,523 4,361 3,979 3,844 3,817 3,606 64,782 66,726 68,915 70, 527 72,103 74, 296 3,786 3,366 2,875 2,975 2,817 2,831 5.2 4. 5 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 51,394 52,058 52,288 52, 527 53,291 53, 602 66,993 1959 ............. . 1960 1961 ................. .......... 1962 ................. 1963................................................. 117,881 119,759 121,343 122,981 125,154 70,921 72,142 73,031 73, 442 74,571 60.2 60.2 60.2 59.7 59.6 1964 ............. . ................. 1965 1966 __________ 1967 ................. ............. . 1968 1969___________________________ 127,224 129,236 131,180 133,319 135,562 137,841 75,830 77,178 78,893 80,793 82,272 84,239 59.6 59.7 60.1 60.6 60.7 61.1 2. Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted,1quarterly averages [In thousands] Annual average 1967 1968 1969 1970 Characteristic 2d 1st 4th 3d 2d 4th 1st 3d 2d 1st 4th 3d 2d 1969 1968 W H IT E 73,263 42,463 Men 20 years and over................ 24, 378 Women, 20 years and over _____ 6,422 Both sexes, 16-19 years________ _______ 73,316 72,475 71,942 71,466 71,285 42, 245 41,956 41,842 41,639 41,656 24,513 24,156 23,949 23,684 23,566 6,036 6,151 6,143 6, 558 6,363 70, 392 70,045 69,851 69, 587 69,440 68,944 68,210 41,423 41,373 41,235 41,230 41,175 40,972 40,673 23,122 22,843 22, 741 22,565 22,632 22, 276 21,775 5,762 5,696 5,633 5,792 5,847 5, 829 5,875 71,778 41,772 23,838 6,168 69,975 41, 317 22,820 5, 838 ................. . .......................... ........ 70, 059 41,131 Men, 20 years and over_______ _______ Women, 20 years and o v e r ........................ 23, 347 Both sexes, 16—19 years............... .............. 5, 581 70, 527 70, 096 69, 575 69, 260 69,135 68,267 67, 804 67,617 67,311 67, 032 66,576 65,888 41,180 41,091 40, 995 40,871 40,926 40, 677 40, 553 40, 405 40, 376 40, 300 40,101 39,772 23, 587 23,327 23,120 22,891 22,794 22, 372 22,066 21,987 21,777 21,766 21,416 20,963 5,153 5, 059 5,158 4,966 5,218 5,185 5,225 5,415 5,498 5,678 5,460 5,760 69,518 40,978 23,032 5, 508 67,750 40, 503 22, 052 5,195 Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed ........................... Men, 20 years and over_____ - - ............. Women, 20 years and over.......... .............. Both sexes, 16—19 y e a rs ..______ _______ Unemployment rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Men, 20 years and o v e r ........................... Women, 20 years and over.......................... Both sexes, 16-19 years............... .............. 3,204 1,332 1,032 841 2,789 1,065 926 798 2,379 865 829 685 2,367 847 829 691 2,206 768 793 645 2,150 730 772 648 2,125 746 750 629 2,241 820 777 644 2,234 830 754 650 2,276 854 788 634 2,408 875 866 667 2,368 871 860 637 2,322 901 812 609 2,260 794 806 660 2,225 814 768 643 4.4 3,1 4.2 13.1 3.8 2.5 3.8 12.2 3.3 2.1 3.4 10.8 3.3 2.0 3.5 11.2 3.1 1.8 3.3 10.5 3.0 1.8 3.3 10.7 3.0 1.8 3.2 10.8 3.2 2.0 3.4 11.0 3.2 2.0 3.3 11.1 3.3 2.1 3.5 10.9 3.5 2.1 3.8 11.8 3.4 2.1 3.9 11.2 3.4 2.2 3.7 10.6 3.1 1.9 3.4 10.7 3.2 2. 0 3.4 9,226 4j 706 3’ 688 832 9, 224 4,700 3,682 842 9,056 4,622 3,616 818 8,979 4,593 3,595 791 8,867 4,549 3,535 783 8,914 4,554 3,550 810 8,737 4,513 3,468 756 8,700 4,517 3,414 769 8,828 4,562 3,467 799 8,762 4,543 3,433 786 8,733 4,496 3,444 793 8,632 4, 507 3,348 777 8,632 4, 505 3,347 780 8,954 4, 579 3, 574 801 8,447 4j 434 3,416 597 8, 598 4,498 3,468 632 8,500 4,445 3,429 626 8,394 4,416 3,372 606 8,271 4,382 3,307 582 8,371 4,397 3,352 622 8,164 4,335 3,264 565 8,132 4,349 3,205 578 8,233 4,388 3,246 599 8,147 4,351 3,200 596 8,073 4,305 3,191 577 8,006 4,328 3,112 566 7,986 4,303 3,115 568 8,384 4,410 3, 365 609 8,169 4, 356 3, 229 584 779 272 272 235 626 201 215 210 556 177 187 192 585 177 223 185 596 167 228 201 543 157 198 188 573 178 204 191 568 168 209 191 595 174 221 200 615 192 233 190 660 191 253 216 626 179 236 211 646 202 232 212 570 169 209 192 590 179 217 194 8.4 5.8 7.4 28.2 6.8 4.3 5.8 24.9 6.1 3.8 5.2 23.5 6.5 3.9 6.2 23.4 6.7 3.7 6.4 25.7 6.1 3.4 5.6 23.2 6.6 3.9 5.9 25.3 6.5 3.7 6.1 24.8 6.7 3.8 6.4 25.0 7.0 4.2 6.8 24.2 7.6 4.2 7.3 27.2 7.3 4.0 7.0 27.2 7.5 4. 5 6.4 3.7 5. 8 24.0 6.7 3.9 6. 3 24.9 11.0 N E G R O AN D O TH E R Civilian labor force .... ........................ ............ Men, 20 years and over.......... ................... Women, 20 years and over______________ Both sexes, 16-19 years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Employed ........ ........ . .................. ............... Men, 20 years and over _______________ Women, 20 years and over.......................... Both sexes, 16-19 years________________ Unemployed....................................... ............ Men, 20 years and over. _____ _______ Women, 20 years and over______________ Both sexes, 16-19 years - - - - ----- ------------ Unemployment rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Men, 20 years and o v e r ............................ Women, 20 years and over______ _______ Both sexes, 16-19 years............................. 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 .9 27.2 adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings. 8,759 4,535 3, 446 778 C U R R E N T LA BO R STATISTICS 3. HOUSEHOLD DATA 97 Full- and part-time status of the civilian labor force [In thousands— not seasonally adjusted] 1970 1969 Annual average Employment status June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 1969 73,555 69,383 69,255 69,116 69, 018 68,869 69,204 69,296 69,491 70,350 73,713 73,514 72,365 69,700 68,332 66,779 64,413 64,166 64,108 63,997 64,155 65, 302 65,517 65,594 66,206 68,854 68,471 67,011 65, 503 64,225 2,831 2,128 2,301 2,139 2,117 2,135 1,998 1,916 1,955 2,069 2,607 2,456 2,522 2,055 1,970 3,945 5.4 2,842 4.1 2,787 4.0 2,869 4.2 2,904 4.2 2,579 3.7 1,904 2.8 1,864 2.7 1,942 2.8 2,075 2.9 2,251 3.1 2,587 3.5 2,831 3.9 2,142 3.1 2,138 '3 .1 Civilian labor force.......................... 10,496 12,358 12,706 12, 574 12,266 11,850 12,212 12,131 12,019 10,634 8,803 9,283 9,991 11,032 10,405 Employed (voluntary parttim e)_____ ________________ 9,772 11,816 11,940 11,711 11,375 11,023 11,488 11,284 11,122 9,751 8,185 8,688 9,422 10,343 9,726 Unemployed, looking for parttime w ork................ .............. Unemployment rate................... 724 6.9 542 4.4 765 6.0 863 6.9 890 7.3 827 7.0 724 5.9 847 7.0 898 7.5 883 8.3 618 7.0 594 6.4 568 5.7 689 6.2 679 6.5 1968 FULL TIME Civilian labor force.......................... Employed: Full-time schedules ‘ ______ Part-time for economic reasons............................ Unemployed, looking for fulltime work_________________ Unemployment rate------- --------PART TIME i Employed persons with a job but not at work are distributed proportionately among the fu ll- and part-time employed categories. 4. Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1 [In thousands] 1970 1969 Annual average Employment status June May Total laborforce________ _______ 85, 304 Civilian labor force______________ Employed_______________ Agriculture____________ Nonagriculture_________ Unemployed_____________ 82,125 78,225 3, 554 74,671 3,900 MEN 20 YEARS AND OVER Total laborforce......................... 49, 906 50, 020 Civilian labor force.......................... Employed...... .................... A griculture-............. ....... Nonagriculture_________ Unem ployed................ ....... 47,154 45,521 2,603 42,918 1,633 47, 226 45, 593 2,625 42, 968 1,633 WOMEN, 20 YEARS AND OVER Civilian laborforce........... ............. 28, 026 27,885 Employed............................ Agriculture...................... Nonagriculture—............. Unemployed............. ......... 26, 772 573 26,199 1,254 26,476 567 25, 909 1,409 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Apr. M ar. 85,783 86,143 86,087 85,590 85,599 85,023 84,872 85, 051 82, 555 78, 449 3,613 74,836 4,106 82, 872 78,924 3, 586 75, 338 3, 948 82,769 79,112 3, 550 75, 562 3, 657 82,249 78,822 3,499 75, 323 3,427 82,213 79, 041 3,426 75,615 3,172 81,583 78, 737 3,435 75,302 2,846 81,379 78, 528 3,434 75, 094 2, 851 81,523 78,445 3,446 74, 999 3, 078 50, 032 49,920 49,707 49, 736 49, 534 49,544 49,642 47,199 45,667 2,602 43, 065 1,532 47, 060 45, 709 2, 537 43,172 1,351 46,836 45, 534 2,479 43, 055 1,302 46,826 45,674 2,473 43,201 1,152 46, 578 45, 553 2,499 43, 054 1,025 46, 531 45,533 2,482 43, 051 998 46, 599 45,511 2,575 42, 936 1,088 28,274 28, 295 28, 066 28, 073 27,875 27,671 27, 022 571 26,451 1,252 27,016 583 26,433 1,279 26,925 630 26,295 1,114 27, 060 586 26,474 1,013 26, 897 585 26,312 978 26, 663 555 26,108 1,008 Sept. Aug. July 84,868 84,517 81,325 78,194 3,498 74,696 3,131 80, 987 78,142 3,614 74, 528 2, 845 49,642 49,488 49,405 49,334 49,406 48,834 46, 586 45,465 2,593 42,872 1,121 46,443 45,485 2,670 42,815 958 46,338 45,335 2,646 42, 689 1,003 46,236 45,303 2 676 42,627 933 46,351 45,388 2,636 42, 752 963 45,852 44,859 2,816 42, 043 993 27,767 27,634 27,664 27, 524 27,341 27,413 26,266 26,699 554 26,145 1,068 26,543 535 26,008 1,091 26 626 582 26, 044 1,038 26,512 547 25,965 1,012 26 322 610 25,712 1,019 26,397 593 25,804 1,015 25,281 606 24,675 985 June 1969 84,310 84,028 84,239 82,272 80,789 77,931 3,561 74,370 2,858 80, 504 77,741 3,683 74, 058 2, 763 80,733 77,902 3,606 74,296 2,831 78, 737 75, 920 3,817 72,103 2,817 1968 TOTAL BOTH SEXES, 16-19 YEARS Civilian laborforce........................ Employed............................ Agriculture...................... Nonagriculture_________ Unemployed........................ 6,945 7,444 7, 399 7,414 7, 347 7,314 7,130 7,177 7,157 7,105 6,880 6,927 6,927 6,970 6,618 5,932 378 5, 554 1,013 6,380 421 5,959 1,064 6, 235 413 5,822 1,164 6,387 430 5, 957 1,027 6, 363 390 5,973 984 6,307 367 5,940 1,007 6,287 351 5,936 843 6,332 397 5,935 845 6,235 317 5,918 922 6,186 370 5,816 919 6,031 362 5, 669 849 6, 084 368 5,716 843 6,116 397 5,719 811 6,117 377 5, 739 853 5,780 394 5,385 839 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally 3 8 9 -5 1 0 O 70-7 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings. 98 5. HOUSEHOLD DATA M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, AU G U ST 1970 Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted,1quarterly averages 1969 1970 1968 1967 Annual average Characteristic 2d 1st 4th 3d 2d 1st 4th 3d 2d 1st 4th 3d 2d 1969 1968 78,533 78,992 78, 570 78,090 77, 550 77,418 76,409 76,017 75,898 75,392 75,121 74,630 73,911 77,902 75,921 White-collar workers...................................... ................. 37,981 Professional and technical_______________ 11,129 M anagers, officials, and p r o p r i e to r s .. . ......... ............................ ........... 8,290 Clerical w o rk e rs..................... .......................... .. 13,748 Sales w orkers....................................................... 4,815 37,938 11,026 37,509 10,936 36,923 10,764 36,677 10,740 36,264 10,638 35, 906 10,473 35,732 10, 392 35,419 10,295 35,140 10,142 34,888 10,067 34,456 9,952 33,943 9,761 36,845 10,769 35, 551 10', 325 8,215 13,906 4,791 8,141 13,655 4 ,777 7,970 13,478 4,711 7,993 7,841 13,281 13,171 4,663- 4 ,614 7,897 12,876 4 ,660 7,827 12,823 4 ,690 7,661 12,816 4,647 7,716 12,694 4 ,5 8 8 7,633 12, 624 4, 564 7,630 12,343 4,531 7,453 12,250 4,4 7 9 7,987 13,397 4,6 9 2 12 ,8 0 3 Blue-collar w o rk e rs............................................ ........... 27,663 C raftsmen and forem en__________________ 10,109 O peratives--------------- --------- --------------------- 13,891 Nonfarm laborers................................................ 3,663 28,236 10,264 14,168 3,804 28, 389 28,425 10,265 10,174 14,412 14, 589 3 ,662 3,712 28, 202 27,774 10,298 10,147 14, 264 14,051 3,640 3,576 27,491 9,972 13,911 3,608 27,513 10,003 13,956 3 ,554 27,297 9,936 13,896 3 ,465 27,279 27,343 9,827 9,790 13,918 13,999 3, 534 3 ,554 27,175 9 ,853 13,787 3 ,5 3 5 28,237 10,193 14,372 3,6 7 2 27,525 10,015 13; 955 3,555 Service w orkers............................................................ 9,589 9,673 9 ,589 9 ,493 9 ,467 9 ,558 9,411 9 ,3 8 5 9 ,3 9 5 9 ,3 3 7 9 ,3 3 0 9 ,277 9,2 7 6 9 ,5 2 8 9,381 Farmworkers...................................................................... 3,234 3,153 3,0 8 9 3,231 3,417 3 ,4 3 8 3,346 3 ,400 3, 507 3 ,649 3 ,654 3 ,556 3 ,4 4 8 3,2 9 2 3,464 Unemployment rate 4 .8 4 .1 3 .6 3 .6 3 .5 3 .4 3 .4 3 .6 3 .6 3 .7 3 .9 3 .9 3 .9 3 .5 3 .6 White-collar workers...................................... ................. Professional and te c h n ic a l............................... M anagers, officials, and p roprietors----------- --------- . ............ Clerical w orkers_________________________ Sales w o rk e rs................................................ .. 2 .8 1.9 2 .4 1.9 2 .2 1 .5 2 .2 1 .4 2 .0 1 .3 2 .0 1.1 1.9 1 .2 2 .0 1.3 2 .0 1.2 2 .0 1.2 2 .2 1.3 2 .2 1.3 2 .0 1 .4 2 .1 1 .3 2 .0 1.2 1.3 4 .0 4 .0 1.0 3 .3 3 .2 .9 3 .2 2 .8 1.0 3 .2 3 .0 .9 2 .8 2 .9 .9 2 .9 2 .9 1.0 2 .8 2 .8 1.1 2 .9 2 .6 .9 3 .0 2 .7 .9 3 .1 3 .0 1.0 3 .4 3 .2 .9 3 .3 3 .6 .9 2 .8 2 .9 .9 3 .0 2 .9 1.0 3 .0 2 .8 Blue-collar workers.......................................................... C raftsm en and fo rem en _________ ______ _ O peratives_____ _________________________ Nonfarm la b o r e rs ............................................... 6 .0 3 .9 6 .6 9 .4 4 .9 2 .6 5.7 7 .9 4 .3 2 .2 5 .0 6 .9 4 .0 2 .2 4 .4 7 .2 3 .8 2.1 4 .3 6 .5 3 .7 2.1 4.1 6 .4 3 .8 2 .2 4 .3 6 .7 4 .2 2 .4 4 .5 7 .4 4 .0 2 .4 4 .3 7.0 4 .4 2 .5 4 .8 7 .7 4 .5 2 .5 5.1 7 .8 4 .5 2 .3 5.1 7 .6 4 .6 2 .8 5 .0 8 .0 3 .9 2 .2 4 .4 6 .7 4.1 2 .4 4 .5 7 .2 Serviceworkers.................................................................. 5 .0 4.7 3 .9 4 .5 4 .4 4 .0 4 .3 4 .5 4 .6 4 .3 4 .9 4 .5 4 .2 4 .2 4 .5 Farmworkers...................................................................... 2 .5 2.1 1 .8 2 .2 1.9 1.6 1.6 2 .4 2 .3 1.9 2 .3 2 .4 2 .4 1.9 2 .1 EMPLOYMENT (in thousands) 27,931 10,044 14,208 3,679 i These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through Decem ber 1969. For a discussion of a seasonal ad ju stm en t procedures and the historical seasonally 6. 7,776 4; 647 a d justed series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings. Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment [In tho u san d s— not seasonally adjusted] 1970 1969 Reason for unemployment, age, and sex Annual average June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Total, 16 years and o v e r................ 4,669 3,384 3,552 3,733 3 ,794 3,406 Lost la s t jo b _________ _____ Left la s t j o b _______ ______ _ Reentered labor fo rc e ........... N ever w orked be fo re ______ 1,598 565 1,567 939 1,658 447 944 333 1,669 507 1,001 375 1,797 441 1,143 351 1,787 473 1,158 377 1,595 485 999 328 Male, 20 years and over................. 1,584 1,403 1,498 1,606 1,678 1,456 1,052 909 906 914 888 Lost la st jo b _________ _____ Left last j o b . .............. ............. Reentered labor force............ Never w orked be fo re ______ 911 206 413 55 942 170 251 40 988 214 261 34 1,059 200 312 35 1,144 185 310 39 997 197 230 32 693 150 188 20 524 141 226 18 458 141 267 40 440 209 235 30 469 192 200 24 Female, 20 years and over.............. 1,302 1,205 1,171 1,264 1,238 1,086 840 994 1,097 1,202 1,119 Lost la s t jo b ______________ Left la s t jo b ............ ................. R eentered labor force........... Never worked b efore............ 540 192 473 97 562 174 435 34 497 188 439 47 542 156 530 36 451 200 529 58 418 177 437 54 303 138 354 46 309 183 457 45 314 209 501 72 288 237 596 81 Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.............. 1,783 776 883 863 878 864 736 807 836 147 167 682 786 155 103 259 259 184 104 301 293 196 85 302 280 192 88 319 280 180 111 331 241 137 90 283 226 106 97 328 276 110 101 324 301 Lost last jo b ................ ............ Left last jo b _______ ______ Reentered labor force............ Never worked be fo re ............ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 1969 2 ,6 2 8 2 ,710 2, 839 2 ,9 5 8 2,869 3,182 3 ,400 2,831 2,817 1,133 378 825 292 939 421 1,011 339 882 451 1,093 414 823 586 1,105 445 894 507 997 471 979 459 1,010 734 875 448 1,275 802 1,017 436 965 413 1,070 431 909 407 945 905 963 993 534 170 195 46 427 183 262 33 556 164 216 27 599 167 205 987 1,058 1,015 985 310 196 549 64 307 184 434 62 336 172 480 69 335 171 455 55 167 422 55 842 865 1,250 1,437 853 839 95 140 274 334 115 119 248 383 138 105 380 627 112 93 533 699 126 101 294 331 130 97 281 330 1968 22 341 HOUSEHOLD DATA C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 7. 99 Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1 1970 1969 Annual average Age and sex June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 1969 1968 TOTAL 16 years and over------------------------- 4 .7 5 .0 4 .8 4 .4 4 .2 3 .9 3 .5 3 .5 3 .8 3 .8 3 .5 3 .5 3 .4 3 .5 3 .6 16 to 19 years..................... 16 and 17 years______ 18 and 19 years........... 14.6 16.0 13.3 14.3 15.6 13.8 15.7 18.7 13.8 13.9 15.7 12.4 13.4 16.3 11.7 13 .8 17.2 11.6 11.8 13.7 10.2 11 .8 14.3 9 .2 12 .9 16 .5 10 .4 12.9 16.1 10 .6 12 .3 15 .8 9 .8 12.2 14.6 10 .3 11 .7 13 .5 10.1 12 .2 14 .5 10.5 12 .7 14.7 11 .2 20 to 24 years____________ 25 years and over________ 25 to 54 years............ 55 years and over____ 7 .4 3 .2 3 .3 3 .0 8 .1 3 .3 3 .4 3 .3 7 .7 3.1 3 .2 2 .8 6 .8 3 .0 3.1 2.7 7 .3 2 .6 2 .7 2 .4 6 .1 2 .4 2 .5 2 .0 5 .8 2 .2 2 .3 2 .1 5 .8 2 .2 2 .1 1 .9 6 .4 2 .4 2 .4 2 .3 6 .5 2 .4 2 .5 2 .2 5 .4 2 .3 2 .3 2 .0 5 .8 2 .3 2 .3 2 .0 5 .4 2 .2 2 .3 2 .0 5 .7 2 .2 2 .3 2 .0 5 .8 2 .3 2 .3 2 .2 MALE 4 .3 4 .4 4 .2 3 .6 3 .6 3 .3 2 .9 2 .9 3 .1 3 .2 2 .8 2 .9 2 .7 2 .8 2 .9 16 to 19 y e a r s . . . ............. . 16 and 17 years......... 18 and 19 years........... 14.8 16.6 13.2 15.0 16.4 14.6 15.2 17.2 13.9 12.5 14.6 10.8 13.0 15.4 11.0 12 .6 14.9 10.8 11 .0 13.1 9 .3 11.7 13.7 8 .9 11 .8 14 .4 9 .6 1 2 .0 15 .0 9 .4 11 .3 15 .5 7 .8 1 1 .8 14 .4 9 .7 10 .7 1 3 .0 8 .5 11 .4 13 .7 9 .3 1 1 .6 13 .9 9 .6 20 to 24 years..................... 25 years and over. ---------25 to 54 years___ . . . 55 years and over........ 7 .2 2 .9 2 .9 2 .8 7 .7 2 .9 2 .8 3 .1 7 .9 2 .6 2 .6 2 .8 6 .4 2 .4 2 .3 2 .8 6 .9 2 .2 2 .1 2 .4 6 .1 2 .0 2 .0 2.1 5 .5 1 .8 1.7 2 .2 5 .3 1 .7 1 .4 1 .9 6 .3 1 .9 1 .8 2 .2 6 .4 1 .8 1 .8 2 .0 4 .5 1 .7 1 .6 2 .0 5 .3 1 .7 1 .7 1 .9 4 .8 1 .6 1 .5 1 .8 5.1 1 .7 1 .6 1 .9 5 .1 1 .8 1 .7 2 .1 16 years and over_________ ____ _ FEMALE 5 .5 5 .9 5.7 5.7 5.1 4 .8 4 .5 4 .5 4 .9 5 .0 4 .8 4 .6 4 .7 4 .7 4 .8 16 to 19 ye ars......... ......... 16 and 17 years______ 18 and 19 years......... 14.3 15.3 13.4 13.4 14.6 12.9 16.4 20.6 13.7 15.6 17.0 14.3 13.9 17.3 12.7 15.2 2 0 .3 12.4 12.8 14.7 11.2 11.9 15 .0 9 .6 14.2 19.2 11.3 14.2 17.7 12 .0 13.6 16.2 12.0 12.7 14 .8 11.0 13 .0 14 .3 11.9 13.3 15.5 11.8 14 .0 15. 9 12 .8 20 to 24 y e a rs......... .......... 25 years and over________ 25 to 54 years_______ 55 years and over........ 7.7 3 .8 4.1 3 .2 8 .7 4 .2 4 .3 3 .6 7.5 3 .8 4 .2 2 .7 7 .2 4 .0 4 .4 2 .5 7 .6 3 .3 3 .6 2 .3 6 .2 3 .0 3 .3 1.7 6.1 3 .0 3 .3 1 .9 6 .5 3 .1 3 .4 2 .0 6 .5 3 .4 3 .6 2 .5 6 .6 3 .4 3 .7 2 .5 6 .3 3 .3 3 .6 2 .1 6 .3 3 .2 3 .5 2 .3 6 .0 3 .3 3 .6 2 .3 6 .3 3 .2 3. 5 2 .2 6 .7 3 .2 3. 4 2 .3 16 years and over...................... ........... i These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings. 100 8. HOUSEHOLD DATA M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted 1 [In percent] 1970 A n n u a l average 1969 Selected categories June Total (all civilian w orkers)______ Men, 20 years and over___ W omen, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 y e a r s . . . W hite_____________________ Negro and other...................... M arried m en ______________ Full-tim e w o rk e rs_________ Unem ployed 15 w eeks and o v e r 2________________ _ State insured 3____ _______ Labor force tim e lo s t4........... May Mar. Apr. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 1969 1968 3 .9 2 .5 3 .6 13 .8 3 .6 6 .3 1 .8 3 .4 .5 3 .5 2 .2 3 .5 11.8 3 .2 5 .7 1 .7 3 .2 .5 3 .5 2.1 3 .6 11 .8 3 .2 6 .2 1.5 3.1 .5 3 .8 2 .3 3 .8 12.9 3 .5 6 .6 1.6 3.1 .4 3 .8 2 .4 3 .9 12.9 3 .5 6 .7 1 .7 3 .3 .5 3 .5 2.1 3 .8 12.3 3 .2 6 .4 1 .5 3.1 .5 3 .5 2 .2 3 .7 12.2 3 .2 6 .5 1.6 3.1 .5 3 .4 2 .0 3 .7 11.7 3 .0 6 .8 1 .5 3.1 .5 3 .5 2.1 3 .7 12.2 3.1 6 .4 1 .5 3.1 .5 3 .6 2 .2 3 .8 12 .7 3 .2 6 .7 1 .6 3 .1 .5 .6 2 .7 4 .5 2 .5 4 .2 2 .4 3 .9 2 .4 4 .0 2 .2 4 .3 2 .2 4 .3 2.1 4 .0 2 .2 4 .0 2 .1 3 .8 2 .1 3 .9 2 .2 4 .0 2 .7 2 .3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2 .4 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2.1 2.1 2 .0 1.8 3 .6 3 .5 1 .4 3 .2 3 .4 1 .3 3.1 2 .8 1 .5 2 .8 2 .6 1.1 3 .5 2 .2 1.3 3 .4 3 .5 1.3 3 .2 2 .8 1.2 3 .2 2 .9 1.2 3 .2 3 .2 1 .2 3 .0 2 .8 1 .2 3 .0 2 .9 1.1 3 .0 2 .8 5 .7 3 .5 6 .3 8 .8 5 .2 3.1 6 .2 7 .4 5 .0 2 .5 6 .0 7 .7 4 .6 2 .3 5.1 8 .5 4 .3 2 .3 5 .0 7 .4 4 .2 2.1 4 .9 6 .9 4 .2 2 .4 4 .9 6 .5 4 .4 2 .6 4 .7 7 .6 3 .8 2 .1 4 .2 6 .8 3 .8 1 .9 4 .2 7.1 3 .7 1 .9 4 .3 6.1 3 .9 2 .2 4 .5 6 .7 4.1 2 .4 4 .4 7 .2 4 .9 5 .0 4 .9 4 .8 4 .5 3 .6 4 .0 4 .2 4 .8 4 .5 4 .3 4 .4 4 .2 4 .5 5 .2 10.9 5 .3 5.1 5 .6 5 .2 11.9 5.2 4 .9 5 .7 4 .8 8 .1 4 .7 4 .9 4 .5 4 .6 8.1 4 .7 4 .8 4 .6 4 .3 7 .9 4 .6 4.7 4 .4 3 .9 7.1 3 .8 3 .8 3 .8 3 .6 6 .0 3 .8 3 .7 3 .9 3 .6 5 .4 3 .7 3 .6 3 .9 3 .8 7 .3 3 .6 3 .2 4 .2 3 .9 7 .4 3 .7 3 .2 4 .3 3 .5 7 .0 2 .9 2 .3 3 .7 3 .5 5 .9 3 .2 3.1 3 .3 3 .5 5.1 3 .3 3 .2 3 .4 3 .5 6 .0 3 .3 3 .0 3 .7 3 .6 6 .9 3 .3 3 .0 3 .7 3 .3 5 .4 3 .3 5.1 3 .9 3.1 4 .7 2 .4 4 .7 2 .9 4 .3 2 .4 3 .9 2 .4 3 .9 2 .9 4 .2 2 .0 4 .5 2 .0 4 .3 2 .0 4.1 1 .9 4 .2 2 .2 4 .1 4. 0 4 .0 3 .2 3.1 2 .7 3 .2 3.1 3 .4 3 .4 3 .6 3 .2 3 .2 3 .4 4 .7 3 .5 4 .5 14.6 4 .2 8 .7 2 .5 4 .3 .8 5 .0 3 .5 5.1 14.3 4 .6 8 .0 2 .6 4 .7 .7 4 .8 3 .2 4 .4 15.7 4 .3 8 .7 2 .4 4 .4 .7 4 .4 2 .9 4 .5 13.9 4 .1 7 .1 2 .2 4 .0 .7 3 .7 4 .9 3 .6 5 .4 3 .1 5 .1 2 .7 4 .8 2 .6 2 .8 2 .9 1 .5 4 .0 3 .4 1.7 3 .9 4 .4 1.7 4 .0 4.1 6 .3 4 .0 6 .8 10.4 6 .2 4 .2 6 .7 9 .1 5 .0 4 .2 2 .8 4.1 13.4 3 .8 7 .0 2 .0 3 .7 O C C U PATIO N White-collar workers_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Professional and m anag erial......................... ............. Clerical w orkers___________ Sales w o r k e r s ............. ........... Blue-collar workers_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C raftsm en and forem en___ O peratives_____ _____ _____ Nonfarm laborers_________ Service workers........ . ............. . IN D U STR Y N onagricultural private wage and salary w orkers 5_ . _____ C onstruction............................. M anufacturing....................... .. D urable goods__________ N ondurable goods_______ Transportation and public u tilities_________________ W holesale and retail t r a d e .. Finance and service industrie s ______________ _____ 2. 0 4 .1 4 .2 5 .5 3 .9 G overnm ent wage and salary w o r k e r s ..__________________ 1 .9 2 .2 2 .2 2.1 2 .0 2 .2 2 .0 2.1 2 .4 1 .9 1.9 1 .8 1 .7 1 .9 1. 8 Agricultural wage and salary w orkers................................... .. 5 .5 9 .3 5 .9 6 .4 5 .8 6 .2 6 .5 5 .2 6 .3 6 .5 6 .5 8 .9 5 .6 6.1 6 .3 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings. 2 Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force. 9. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted 3 Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered employment. 4 Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours. 5 Includes mining, not shown separately. 1 [In thousands] 1970 1969 Period Annual average June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 1969 Less than 5 weeks...................... 5 to 14 weeks............. ................ 15 weeks and over____ ______ 15 to 26 w eeks..................... 27 weeks and o v e r . . ........... . 1,961 1,303 685 450 235 2,219 1,214 612 352 260 2,295 1,075 569 372 197 1,995 1,154 545 363 182 1,973 1,016 465 306 159 1,756 914 409 276 133 1,515 893 392 272 120 1,558 912 389 249 140 1,882 882 363 233 130 1,756 995 392 240 152 1,646 854 385 250 135 1,656 824 400 233 167 1,578 812 385 255 130 1,629 827 375 242 133 15 weeks and over as a percent of civilian labor fo r c e .. ......... Average (mean) duration, in weeks________ ____ _______ .8 .7 .7 .7 .6 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .5 .5 9.5 9.0 8.2 8.4 8.1 7.8 8.1 8.0 7.3 7.9 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.0 8.5 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect the experience through December 1969. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis adjusted series, see the February 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings. 1968 1,594 810 412 256 156 C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 10. HOUSEHOLD DATA 1Q1 Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1 [All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands] 1970 Item May. Employment service:2 New applications for w ork ...................... Nonfarm p lacem ents................................. Mar. Apr. 854 339 1969 857 352 Feb. 828 328 Jan. 765 295 Dec. 950 326 Nov. 658 311 Oct. 711 372 Sept. 762 463 Aug. 801 503 July 750 471 June 874 469 1,237 '512 May Apr. asn 437 454 State unemploymentinsurance programs: Initial c la im s 2 4........................................... 1,333 1,169 1,078 1,010 1,529 1,363 866 745 655 731 1,105 710 613 756 Insured u n e m p lo y m en t5 (average weekly volum e)5. .................................. 1,770 1,874 1,667 1,798 1,375 1,847 1,030 864 840 948 1,021 852 906 1,090 Rate of insured u n em p lo y m en t7.......... 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.2 2.7 3.6 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.2 W eeks of unem ploym ent com pen s a te d .................... ..................................... 6,743 6,956 6, 517 6,142 6,418 4,692 3, 054 3,156 3,104 3,496 3,626 3,123 3,519 4,496 Average weekly benefit am o u n t for total un e m p lo y m en t............................ $49. 30 $49. 00 $48. 93 $49.11 $48. 49 $47.42 $46. 47 $46. 25 $45. 70 $46.16 $45. 30 $44 88 J45 14 Total benefits paid..................................... $292,854 $320,224 $331, 067 $310, 800 $299, 352 $214,260 $136, 585 $139,536 $136,182 $156,707 $159,161 $135,004 $152,"966 $200,052 Unemployment compensation for ex-servicemen:5 s Initial c la im s 35........................................... 47 42 38 38 44 39 30 29 26 27 32 26 20 22 Insu red unem p lo y m en t5 (average weekly volum e..................................... 70 70 69 66 48 61 38 32 32 37 30 36 29 35 W eeks of unem ploym ent com pen s a te d ____________ _________ ______ 294 280 289 244 242 193 126 127 133 148 114 143 Total benefits paid ................................ .. 13,972 $14, 564 $14,200 $12, 028 $11,957 $9, 517 $6, 240 $6,256 $6,514 $5,511 $7,156 $6,946 $5,847 $7,425 Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian employees: >15 Initial c la im s 3............................................. Insured un em p lo y m en t5 (average weekly v o lu m e ) .................................... W eeks of unem ploym ent com pen s a te d ____________ __________ _____ Total benefits pa id .................................... 10 13 11 11 15 12 13 11 10 8 11 10 8 8 26 27 29 30 28 24 22 18 17 18 19 18 17 20 107 $5, 323 118 $5,824 128 $6,192 109 $5,239 110 $5,194 101 $4,748 75 $3, 465 76 $3, 494 74 $3,163 77 $3,497 78 $3,597 $3,155 $3,318 $4,038 Railroad unemploymentinsurance: Applications » ......................................... Insured unem ploym ent (average weekly v o lu m e ).................................... 4 8 9 4 9 5 5 10 6 7 17 11 11 5 15 16 19 18 21 17 14 15 13 13 13 10 18 17 N um ber of p a y m e n ts 72..................................... Average am ount of benefit paym ent 3_ Total benefits paid * ................................. 30 $84.87 $2, 439 43 $81. 50 $3, 565 42 $92. 00 $3, 668 38 $96.76 $3,374 47 $94.78 $4, 091 35 $96. 02 $3,241 28 $96.28 $2, 513 36 $89. 31 $2,918 28 $93.64 $2,478 28 $94.12 $2,375 26 $91.74 $2,113 25 $90.69 $2,043 39 $75.65 $2,804 41 $88.32 $3,386 All programs: 75 Insured u n e m p lo y m en t5. ....................... 1,778 1,885 1,916 1,987 1,957 1,464 1,105 929 902 1,015 1,088 911 970 1,162 7 I n c lu d e s d a ta f o r P u e r to R ic o . 2 Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands. 3 Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of unemployment. Excludes transition claims understate programs. * Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. 5 Number of workers reporting the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment. »Initial claims and State insured unemployment include data under the program for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers. 7 The rate is the number of insured unemployed expressed as a percent of the average covered employment in a 12-month period. 3 Excludes data on claim s and payments made jointly with other programs. 8 Includes the Virgin Islands. 70 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 77 An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods. 73 The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments 77 Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments. Represents an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under the State, Ex-servicemen and UCFE programs and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Includes claims filed under Extended Duration (ED) provisions of regular State laws. , U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Manpower Management Data Systems for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. Data for latest month are subject to revision. 102 11. M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 PAYROLL DATA Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947 to date1 [In thousands] TOTAL Year Mining Contract construc tion Manufac turing Transpor tation and public utilities Wholesale and retail trade Total Retail trade Government Services Total Federal State and local 1947........ . . 1948............ 1949______ 1950______ 43, 881 44, 891 43,778 45,222 955 994 930 901 1,982 2,169 2,165 2,333 15,545 15, 582 14,441 15,241 4,166 4,189 4,001 4,034 8,955 9,272 9,264 9,386 2,361 2,489 2,487 2,518 6,595 6,783 6,778 6,868 1,754 1,829 1,857 1,919 5,050 5,206 5,264 5,382 5,474 5,650 5, 856 6,026 1,892 1,863 1,908 1,928 3,582 3,787 3,948 4,098 1951............ 1952............ 1953 .......... 1954............ 1955............ 47,849 48,825 50,232 49,022 50,675 929 898 866 791 792 2,603 2,634 2,623 2,612 2,802 16,393 16,632 17,549 16,314 16,882 4,226 4,248 4,290 4,084 4,141 9,742 10,004 10,247 10,235 10, 535 2,606 2,687 2,727 2,739 2,796 7,136 7,317 7,520 7,496 7,740 1,991 2,069 2,146 2,234 2,335 5,576 5,730 5,867 6,002 6,274 6,389 6,609 6,645 6,751 6,914 2,302 2,420 2,305 2,188 2,187 4,087 4,188 4,340 4,563 4,727 1956............ 1957 .......... 1958 ......... 1959 2.......... 1960............ 52,408 52,894 51,363 53; 313 54,234 822 828 751 732 712 2,999 2,923 2,778 2,960 2,885 17,243 17,174 15,945 16,675 16,796 4,244 4,241 3,976 4,011 4, 004 10,858 10, 886 10,750 11,127 11,391 2,884 2,893 2,848 2,946 3,004 7,974 7,992 7,902 8,182 8, 388 2,429 2,477 2,519 2,594 2,669 6,536 6,749 6,806 7,130 7,423 7,277 7,616 7,839 8,083 8,353 2,209 2,217 2,191 2,233 2,270 5,069 5,399 5,648 5,850 6, 083 1961........... 1962............ 1963 .......... 1964......... 1965............ 54, 042 55, 596 56,702 58,331 60; 815 672 650 635 634 632 2,816 2,902 2,963 3,050 3,186 16,326 16,853 16,995 17,274 18, 062 3,903 3,906 3,903 3,951 4, 036 11,337 11,566 11,778 12,160 12,716 2,993 3,056 3,104 3,189 3,312 8,344 8,511 8,675 8,971 9,404 2,731 2,800 2,877 2,957 3,023 7,664 8,028 8,325 8,709 9,087 8, 594 8,890 9,225 9, 596 10, 074 2,279 2,340 2,358 2,348 2,378 6,315 6,550 6,868 7,248 7,696 1966........ _. 1967______ 1968______ 1969______ 63,955 65,857 67,915 70,274 627 613 606 619 3,275 3,208 3,285 3,437 19,214 19,447 19,781 20,169 4,151 4,261 4,310 4,431 13,245 13,606 14, 084 14,645 3,437 3,525 3,611 3,738 9,808 10, 081 10,473 10,907 3,100 3,225 3,382 3,557 9,551 10, 099 10,623 11,211 10,792 11,398 11,845 12,204 2,564 2,719 2,737 2,758 8,227 8,679 9,109 9,446 i The industry series have been adjusted to March 1969 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to July 1970. For comparable back data, see Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-70 (BLS Bulletin 1312-7) to be released this fall. These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full- and part-time employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or received pay for any part of the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons who 12. Wholesale trade Finance, insurance, and real estate worked in more than one establishment during the reporting period are counted more than once. Proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic servants are excluded. 2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) in the nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench mark month. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State [In thousands] S tate May 1970 j> Apr. 1970 May 1969 State May 1970 p Apr. 1970 May 1970 A la b a m a ............................ A laska................................... A rizona................................. A rkansas______________ C alifornia______________ 1 ,0 0 3 .1 8 8 .5 547.4 532.5 6, 990.9 1 ,0 0 3 .9 84 .5 549.3 530.9 6 ,9 6 0 .1 1 ,0 0 0 .0 8 5 .4 507.5 531.8 6 ,878. 2 Montana......................... N ebraska................. . Nevada........................... New Hampshire_______ New J e rs e y ................... 196.6 482.2 195.9 256.0 2,614.4 192.9 482.8 194.1 252.7 2, 599.4 196.4 472.8 186.0 255.4 2, 576.7 C o lo ra d o ............ ............... Connecticut......................... D elaw are______________ District of C olum bia____ Florida............ ...................... 721.3 1 ,1 9 9 .3 211.6 6 8 6 .5 2 ,1 4 5 .6 718.2 1 ,2 0 2 .5 210.3 6 8 5.2 2,172. 0 70 0 .5 1 ,1 9 8 .7 2 0 6.4 6 7 6 .5 2, 063. 0 New Mexico................... New Y o r k ..................... North Carolina........... North Dakota...... ........ . Ohio........ ...................... 289.6 7,258.9 1,742.0 160.9 3,906.3 289.7 7,221.8 1,742.6 158.3 3,915.3 283.5 7,206.7 1,721.7 158.2 3,883.8 Georgia................................. Haw aii_________________ I d a h o . . . ........................... .. Illinois....................... ........... I n d ia n a ................................ 1 ,5 2 8 .0 284.6 203.4 4 ,3 2 5 .8 1 ,8 5 9 .9 1 ,5 2 8 .7 284.1 199.7 4 ,3 3 1 .2 1 ,8 5 8 .3 1 ,5 0 8 .2 271.2 197.9 4 ,3 5 1 .2 1 ,8 7 4 .2 Oklahoma...................... Oregon________ ______ Pennsylvania-................ Rhode Island ................. South Carolina........... 761.0 696.8 4,374.8 332.3 815.9 759.5 695.9 4,370. 5 333. 5 814.9 753.5 700.3 4,381.3 345. b 813.1 Io w a ................................... K a n s a s ................................. K entucky............................. Louisiana______________ M aine................. ................. 886.6 676.7 908.8 1 ,0 4 0 .0 327.8 885.6 675.7 90 1 .5 1 ,0 4 2 .1 326.1 8 7 9.6 6 8 6.5 897.4 1 ,0 4 1 .9 3 2 8.8 South Dakota................. Tennessee___________ T e x a s .......................... Utah_________________ V e rm on t............. ......... 175.2 1,315.9 3,720.9 358.0 144.5 172.7 1,322.1 3,719.9 354.2 146.8 170.2 1,311.3 3, 595.7 349.7 143.2 M aryland.............................. M a ssa c h u se tts1................. Mich igan_____________ Minnesota____________ M ississipp i.................... M issouri......................... 1 ,3 0 2 .8 2 ,2 5 5 .1 3,019.1 1,304.5 580.0 1,651.3 1 ,2 9 5 .5 2, 239.2 3,013.1 1,300.9 576.6 1,653.0 1 ,2 6 6 .8 2,237.1 3,070.6 1,293.6 566.9 1,657.4 V irg in ia ..____ _______ Washington___________ West V irg in ia ............ Wisconsin____________ Wyoming_____________ 1,450.3 1,097.9 511.2 1,526.5 106.6 1,446.8 1,096.3 507.3 1, 516.4 104.5 1,429.0 1,128.7 515.4 1, 509.1 106.9 1 Revised series: not strictly comparable with previously published data. j>= preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis SOURCE: State agencies in cooperation with U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. More detailed industry data are available from the State agencies. For addresses, see inside back cover of Employment and Earnings. C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 13. PAYROLL DATA 103 Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1 [In thousands] 1970 1969 Annual average Industry division and group June ? TO TAL. _ 71,445 May *> Apr. 70,805 70, 758 Mar. 70,460 Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 1969 1968 70,029 69,933 71,760 71,354 71,333 70,964 70,758 70,481 71,116 70,274 67,915 M IN IN G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627 619 616 610 608 611 623 622 623 630 638 635 629 619 606 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N . 3, 505 3,352 3, 286 3,161 3, 071 3, 048 3,398 3,553 3,648 3,687 3,731 3,707 3,628 3,437 3,285 19,607 14,220 19, 436 14, 069 19 627 14, 240 19,794 14,385 19,770 14,346 19,824 14,402 20,110 14,680 20,194 14,763 20,395 14,953 20,482 15, 041 20,497 15,014 20,164 14,700 20,387 14,958 20,169 H i 768 1 4 ; 514 11,383 8,201 11,352 8,166 11,488 8, 282 11,607 8,379 11,573 8,327 11,623 8,377 11,802 8,556 11,832 8, 580 12, 008 8, 744 12,030 8,767 11,992 8,701 11,889 8,612 12,051 8, 794 11,893 8; 648 11,626 8,457 250.8 594.3 451.1 254.0 579.3 451.9 260.1 574.5 462.9 271.0 578.6 468.6 277.6 579.2 470.3 282.8 583.8 475.6 291.3 597.0 482.2 297.1 600.1 485.2 298.3 604.4 488.1 305.8 616.7 486.8 313.9 629.3 488.4 322.1 627.5 476.2 325.2 634.7 487.1 318.8 609.2 483.5 338. 0 600.1 471.6 639.8 635.1 632.9 632.0 650.9 661.9 664.7 669.0 674.0 670.9 670.8 656.3 635.5 1, 346. 6 1,351.4 1,421.1 1, 433.1 1,367.6 1,456.6 1,364.7 1,456.7 1,364.0 1,373.9 1,454. 6 1,459.6 1,375.5 1,449.2 1,374.3 1,428.9 1,383.4 1,358.0 l i 456. 9 l i 442.1 1,315.5 l i 390. 4 M A N U F A C T U R IN G ........... Production workers*. Durable goods........... Production w orkers*... Ordnance and accessories. Lumber and wood products. Furniture and fixtures____ Stone, clay, and glass products.......................... Primary metal industries.. Fabricated metal products. Machinery, except electrical........................ Electrical equipment......... Transportation equipment. Instruments and related products......................... 648.7 636.7 1,336.4 1,397.1 1,318.1 1,387.5 1,998.1 1,926.3 1,888.7 2, 004. 9 2, 040. 4 2, 058. 3 2, 055.9 1,931.8 1,959.1 1,983.2 1,995.2 1,899.5 1,928.9 1,963.4 1,901.1 464.1 Miscellaneous manufacturing. 465.4 1,329.5 1,338.1 1, 402. 5 1,416.1 2, 044. 6 2, 043.2 2, 028. 6 2, 036. 0 2, 032.9 2, 022.2 2,032.1 1,928.2 1,948.9 1,955.4 2, 069. 7 2, 057.4 2, 049.0 2, 022.7 1, 999. 4 2, 042. 9 2, 049.2 2, 088. 2 2, 096. 5 2, 056. 0 2, 022.9 469.1 471.3 471.3 472.6 477.7 476.9 476.2 19,781 2, 048.1 2, 027. 7 1,965.9 2, 033. 5 2; 013.0 1,974.5 2, 086. 8 2, 067.1 2; 038.6 476.8 482.1 477.4 480.5 476.5 461.9 427.3 422.6 421.3 423.0 421.4 419.0 443.7 456.4 463.4 454.9 452.0 433.7 444.0 440.2 433.4 8, 224 6, 019 8,084 5, 903 8,139 5, 958 8,178 6, 006 8,197 6, 019 8,201 6,025 8,308 6,124 8, 362 6,183 8,387 6,209 8,452 6,274 8,505 6,313 8,275 6,088 8,336 6,164 8,277 6; 120 8,155 6, 056 Food and kindred products. 1,790.0 Tobacco manufactures....... 70.7 Textile m ill products_____ 974.4 Apparel and other textile products.......................... 1, 397. 8 1,737.5 70.6 968.2 1,722.2 71.4 974.6 1,735.6 73.8 977.3 1,739.9 77.4 979.9 1,744.3 79.9 987.6 1,790.7 84.0 995.3 1,831.7 87.1 997.6 1,862.0 94.5 994.8 1,928.8 97.6 997.2 1,941.9 93.0 1, 000.1 1,832.6 71.9 992.0 1,788.1 72.0 1,012.5 1,795.9 1,781.5 82. 0 84.6 998.7 993.9 1,376.6 1,382.4 1,402.8 1,404.0 1,388.8 1,407.6 1,417.6 1,423.0 1,421.4 1,427.1 1,369.2 1,434.5 1,412.3 1,405.8 707.7 1,102.0 714.2 1,109.9 714.9 1,112.3 714.2 1,110.0 716.0 1,107.7 722.7 1,116.2 720.4 1,113.4 716.4 1,107.7 718.0 1,098.5 722.6 715.7 720.8 1, 098. 0 1, 092. 5 1,092.3 712.1 1,093.3 691.2 1, 065.1 1,057.4 1,063.8 1, 064.1 1, 060. 8 1, 058.5 1,062.1 1,059.9 1,058.1 1,063.9 1, 076. 5 1, 076.1 1,072.9 1, 060. 7 1, 029.9 191.6 190.4 189.7 188.4 188.0 188.9 191.0 191.8 191.9 195.0 195.3 192.9 182.9 186.8 543.5 580.8 585.0 588.2 593.4 599.6 601.6 600.5 599.0 599.4 588.8 599.4 593.9 561.3 329.3 329.1 331.6 334.6 336.7 341.3 341.2 338.2 336.1 351.0 341.2 350.2 345.1 355.2 Nondurable goods................ Production workers*... Paper and allied products.. 718.2 Printing and publishing___ 1,102.8 Chemicals and allied products.......................... 1,058.4 Petroleum and coal products.......................... 197.0 Rubber and plastics products, nec................... 576.4 Leather and leather products.......................... 338.4 TR A N S P O R TA TIO N A N D PUBLIC U TILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 548 4, 470 4,432 4,443 4,420 4,435 4,478 4,486 4,481 4, 508 4, 510 4, 507 4,494 4,431 4,310 W H O L E S A L E AN D R ETA IL T R A D E . 15, 035 14,886 14,818 14,700 14, 606 14,707 15,638 15, 092 14, 850 14,714 14,670 14,663 14,713 14, 645 14, 084 3,883 11,152 3, 814 11,072 3,803 11,015 3,797 10,903 3,788 10,818 3,797 10,910 3,841 11,797 3,816 11,276 3, 801 11, 049 3,781 10,933 3,796 10, 874 3,787 10,876 3,758 10,955 3,738 10; 907 3,611 10; 473 3,692 3,672 3,658 3,639 3,615 3,604 3,608 3, 597 3,589 3, 595 3,641 3,628 3, 584 3,557 3,382 11,756 11,646 11,564 11,433 11,357 11,254 11,351 11,349 11,372 11,300 11,372 11,384 11,353 11,211 10,623 727.3 1,006.2 717.5 709.6 1, 003. 0 1, 005.1 713.3 1,022.0 714.5 1.025.4 738.4 764.8 1, 028. 0 1,022.1 3, 019.4 1,197.8 3, 000. 7 2,979.8 1,196.1 1,163.6 2,961.4 1,179.9 2,950.0 1.184.5 2,927. 8 2,907. 8 2,905.1 1,164.3 1,061.6 958.4 Wholesale trade. Retail trade...... FIN A N CE, IN SU R A N C E, AND R E A L E S T A T E ................. SER V IC ES............................. Hotels and other lodging places........................... Personal services_______ Medical and other health se rvice s....................... Educational services........ GOVERNM ENT. Federal .......... State and Local. 852.3 856.5 784.2 1, 023. 8 1, 036. 9 1,043.2 2,903.3 974.7 722.2 750.3 1, 025. 8 1,031.4 2, 880. 4 2, 868. 8 2, 638. 6 1,070.7 1,116.9 1, 067. 3 12,675 12, 724 12, 757 12,680 12, 582 12,450 12, 554 12,461 12,375 12, 048 11,699 11,793 12,328 12,204 11,845 2,750 9,925 2, 765 9,959 2,838 9,919 2,758 9,922 2,694 9,888 2, 690 9,760 2,760 9, 794 2,705 9,756 2,717 9, 658 2,733 9,315 2, 804 8, 895 2, 842 8,951 2, 832 9; 496 2,758 9; 446 2,737 9; 109 * For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, and coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11. * Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers (including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling, inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production for plant’s own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely associated with the above production operations. * = preliminary. 104 14. M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 PAYROLL DATA Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1 In thousands] 1970 1969 Industry division and group TO T A L................................................................ June* May j> Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 70,666 70,881 71,163 71,256 71,135 70,992 70,842 70,808 70,836 70, 567 70,497 70,400 70,347 626 625 627 624 622 623 621 618 614 3,394 3,496 3,473 3,445 3,436 3,420 3,439 3,442 M IN IN G .......... . ......... - . . . . . . . . . . . . — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 612 619 622 626 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N ............ . .............. ...... 3,325 3,359 3,426 3,481 3,466 M A N U F A C T U R IN G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19, 460 14,101 19, 580 14,188 19, 795 14, 389 19,944 14,512 19,937 14,489 20, 018 14,573 20,082 14,638 20, 082 14,638 20,233 14,794 20,252 14, 826 20,246 14, 826 20,247 14,839 20,248 14, 844 11,278 11,388 8,108 8,187 251 256 57 3 j 582 450 457 635 637 11,529 8,318 261 585 468 644 11,648 8,409 271 593 471 651 11,625 8,367 277 598 472 657 11,679 8,425 281 605 477 653 11,773 8,516 290 606 478 659 11,782 8 , 522 296 603 479 659 11,965 8,703 298 601 483 658 11,968 8,713 306 606 483 657 11,950 8 , 698 316 607 484 655 11,955 8,706 322 608 484 655 11,957 8,707 326 612 486 656 1,323 1,411 2, 032 1,979 1,925 471 1,337 1,425 2,046 1,995 1,950 472 1,349 1,428 2, 048 1,993 1,890 472 1,360 1,436 2,043 1,922 1,988 474 1,380 1,447 2, 051 1,930 2, 009 476 1,384 1,444 2, 043 1,934 2,028 476 1,386 1,445 2, 050 2, 051 2,078 476 1,381 1,452 2, 041 2,049 2,078 477 1,367 1,451 2,028 2,043 2 , 081 479 1,358 1,446 2,032 2,045 2 , 086 478 1,356 1,444 2, 032 2, 038 2, 087 479 Production w orkers 2........... . ................... ......... Durable goods_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Production w orkers2. . . ............................. Ordnance and accessories______ ____________ Lumber and wood products_________________ Furniture and fixtures--------------------------------Stone, clay, and glass products............ ........... Primary metal industries........ .......................... Fabricated metal products. -------------------------Machinery, except electrical________________ Electrical equipment___ . . . .............. ............ Transportation equipment...... ................... ....... Instruments and related products— ............... Miscellaneous manufacturing---------- ------- — 1,310 1,385 1,982 1 ,930, 1,876 462 1,308 1,396 2, 003 1,955 1,900 468 437 441 440 447 436 439 438 439 441 441 8,266 6 , 071 1 ,8 0 5 , 81 979 1,394 721 8,296 6,103 1,823 81 980 1,396 721 8,312 8,309 1,830 80 987 1,398 720 8,339 6,148 1,817 80 999 1,416 721 8,300 6,116 1,806 80 993 1,405 718 8,268 6 , 091 1,780 81 991 1,406 716 8,284 6,113 1,799 83 992 1,409 715 8,296 6,128 1,801 8,291 6,137 1,792 82 992 1,410 714 8,292 6,133 1,795 81 999 1,416 712 1,419 712 1,108 1,111 1,060 1,063 193 585 334 1,113 1,066 194 589 333 1,113 1,067 193 591 333 1,113 1,068 193 595 337 1,109 1,064 191 596 338 1,106 1,062 191 596 339 1,064 189 596 337 1,097 1,064 190 597 345 1,093 1,064 189 597 346 1,090 1,064 189 596 347 424 426 Production w orkers 2 ................................... Food and kindred products - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----Tobacco manufactures......... ........................... Textile m ill products-------- ------- ------- ------Apparel and other textile products.................... Paper and allied products............ .................... 8,182 5, 993 1,794 80 962 1,383 709 8,192 6 , 0 01 1,806 81 972 1,379 714 Printing and publishing............................ ........ Chemicals and allied products______ _ _ _ _ _ Petroleum and coal products— - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rubber and plastics products, nee............ ........ Leather and leather products........................... 1,101 1,050 193 574 336 Nondurable goods__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 192 548 332 430 6,122 6,122 1,805 77 995 1,410 720 1,110 1,067 192 594 339 1,100 86 1,000 TR A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D PUBLIC U TILITIES.............. 4, 499 4, 479 4,468 4, 502 4,496 4, 507 4,469 4,464 4,463 4,459 4,457 4,454 4,445 W H O L E S A L E A N D R ETA IL T R A D E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 968 14,976 14,991 14,984 14,987 14,938 14,750 14, 848 14, 824 14,739 14,713 14,673 14,647 Wholesale trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Retail trade................... . . . . . . . . . . ............. . ....... 3,860 11,108 3, 860 11,116 3, 853 11,138 3,847 11,137 3,834 11,153 3,828 11,110 3,807 10,943 3,782 11,066 3,775 11, 049 3,762 10,977 3,751 10, 962 3,742 10,931 3,736 10,911 FIN A N CE , IN SU RA N CE, A N D R E A L E S T A T E ........ ... 3,663 3,679 3,673 3,665 3,652 3, 648 3, 626 3,611 3, 596 3, 584 3, 580 3, 567 3,556 SE R V IC E S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,571 11,577 11,564 11,537 772 1,015 3' 025 1,143 11,530 770 1,018 3) 007 i; 145 11,472 775 1,016 2 ,992 i; 125 11,431 770 1,016 2 973 l ' 129 11,383 760 1,125 1 122 11,289 748 1 026 ? 914 T i ns 11,248 780 1 026 ? ’ 801 r 117 11,205 2 , 950 11,361 761 1,025 2 931 080 87S 1113 11,174 74R i h? 7 ? ’ 8fi0 r 114 Hotels and other lodging places_______________ Personal services ........ ......................................... Medical and other health services ...... .......... ...... Educational services_________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1,021 1U 1 ? G O V E R N M E N T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 12, 568 12,612 12,624 12,517 12,441 12,390 12,361 12,323 12,292 12,185 12,212 12,197 12,221 Federal3....... ............................. .................. State and local_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ 2, 702 9,866 2, 781 9, 831 2,852 9, 772 2,780 9,737 2,718 9,723 2,717 9,673 2,721 9,640 2,730 9, 593 2,739 9, 553 2,747 9,438 2,749 9,463 2,765 9,432 2,782 9,439 1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, and coverage of these series, see footnote 1, table 11. 2 For definition of production w orkers, see footnote 2, tab le 13. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through February 1970. For additional detail see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings. " = prelim inary. C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 15. LABOR TURNOVER 105 Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1959 to date 1 [Per 100 employees] Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual average Total accessions 1959...................................... 1960....................................... 1961....................................... 1962...................................... 1963....................................... 3.8 4.0 3.7 4.1 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.6 3.3 4.1 3.3 4.0 3.8 3.5 4.1 3.4 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.2 3.9 4.3 4.3 3.9 5.4 4.7 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.4 3.9 4.4 4.6 4.3 5.2 4.9 5.3 5.1 4.8 5.1 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.8 3.9 3.5 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.4 2.9 3.4 3.0 2.9 3.6 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.5 4.2 3.8 4.1 4.1 3.9 1964....................................... 1965....................................... 1966...................................... 1967............... .................... . 1968...................................... 1969...................................... 1970________ ____________ 3.6 3.8 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 4.2 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.7 4.0 4.9 3.9 4.0 4.4 3.7 3.8 3.8 4.6 3.9 4.3 4.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 5.1 4.6 4.7 4.8 » 4 .2 5.1 5.6 6.7 5.9 5.9 6.6 4.4 4.5 5.1 4.7 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.4 6.4 5.5 5.8 5.6 4.8 5.5 6.1 5.3 5.7 5.9 4.0 4.5 5.1 4.7 5.1 5.0 3.2 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.6 2.6 3.1 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.9 4.0 4.3 5.0 4.4 4.6 4.7 New hires 1 9 5 9 .......................... ......... 1960....................................... 1961_____________________ 1962....................................... 1963...................................... 2.0 2.2 1.5 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.4 2.1 1.8 2.4 2.0 1.6 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.4 2.3 3.7 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.5 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.7 3.5 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.5 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.6 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.6 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.4 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.4 1964....................................... 1965...................................... 1966...................... ............... 1967....................................... 1968........... .......................... 1969....................................... 1970..................................... 2.0 2.4 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.9 2.0 2.4 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.5 2.2 2.8 3.7 2.8 2.9 3.4 2.6 2.4 2.6 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.5 2.6 2.5 3.0 4.1 3.3 3.6 3.8 » 2 .9 3.6 4.3 5.6 4.6 4.7 5.4 2.9 3.2 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.4 3.9 4.8 4.0 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.0 4.7 4.1 4.6 4.8 2.8 3.5 4.2 3.7 4.0 4.0 2.2 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.8 1.6 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.8 3.3 3.5 3.7 Total separations 1959...................................... 1960....................................... 1961....................................... 1962....................................... 1963....................................... 3.7 3.6 4.7 3.9 4.0 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.4 3.2 3.3 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.6 4.2 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.9 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.6 4.0 3.6 3.8 3.4 4.0 4.4 4.1 4.4 4.1 4.6 4.8 4.2 5.1 4.8 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.5 4.7 4.2 4.4 4.1 4.7 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.8 4.0 3.8 3.7 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.1 3.9 1964_____________________ 1965....................................... 1966....................................... 1967....................................... 1968....................................... 1969....................................... 1 9 7 0 . . _____ ______ ____ 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.5 3.3 3.1 3.6 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.3 3.5 3.4 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.4 4.5 3.5 3.7 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.5 4. 8 3.6 3.6 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.6 » 4.7 3.5 3.6 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.6 4.4 4.3 5.3 4.8 5.0 5.3 4.3 5.1 5.8 5.3 6.0 6.2 5.1 5.6 6.6 6.2 6.3 6.6 4.2 4.5 4.8 3.6 3.9 4.3 3.9 4.1 4.6 4 .7 4 .0 5.0 5.3 4.1 4.3 3.7 4.1 4.2 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.9 4 .4 4.5 4. 8 4 .6 Quits 1 9 5 9 ................................... 1960................................. . 1961...................................... 1962........................ ........... . 19 6 3 ..................................... 1.1 1.2 .9 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 .8 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 .9 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.4 2.1 1.8 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.2 .9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 .7 .9 .8 .8 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.4 1 9 6 4 .................................... 1 9 6 5 .................................... 1966....................................... 1967........................ ............. 1968....................................... 1969...................................... 1970............ ............. ........... 1.2 1.4 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.1 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.2 1.5 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.4 1.9 1.3 1.7 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.1 1.5 1.7 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.7 » 2 .2 1.4 1.7 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.6 1.5 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.1 2.6 3.6 3.2 3.8 4.0 2.7 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.2 4.4 1.7 2.2 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.9 1.2 1.7 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.7 Layoffs 1959............................................. 1 9 6 0 .............................................. 1961............................................... 1962............................................... 1963............................................... 2.1 1 .8 3 .2 2.1 2 .2 1 .5 1.7 2 .6 1.7 1.6 1 .6 2 .2 2 .3 1.6 1.7 1 .6 2 .2 1.9 1 .6 1.6 1 .4 1.9 1 .8 1 .6 1 .5 1 .4 2 .0 1 .8 1 .6 1.4 1 .8 2 .4 2 .3 2 .2 2 .0 1 .8 2 .4 1 .8 2 .2 1.9 2 .0 2 .4 2 .1 1.9 1 .8 3 .2 2 .8 2 .0 2 .2 1.9 2 .9 3.1 2 .2 2 .3 2 .1 2 .4 3 .6 2 .6 2 .5 2 .3 2 .0 2 .4 2 .2 2 .0 1 .8 1964............................................. .. 1965............................................... 1966............................................... 1967.......................... ............ 1968....................................... 1 9 6 9 .................................... 1970_______ ________ 2 .0 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.2 1. 7 1 .6 1 .2 1 .0 1.3 1.2 1 .6 1 .2 1 .0 1.5 1.1 1 .4 1 .3 1 .0 1.3 1 .4 1.1 .9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 .8 1 .4 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.7 1 .5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 2 .1 1 .9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.8 1 .7 1 .4 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.6 .9 »1.5 1 .4 1 .6 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.6 .9 1.7 2 .1 1 .8 2 .0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1 .5 1 .3 1.0 1 .3 1.1 1 .0 1.1 .9 1.0 1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see footnote 1, table 11. Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufac turing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the changes shown by the Bureau’ s employment series for the following reasons: (1) The https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 labor turnover series measures changes during the calendar month, while the employ ment series measures changes from midmonth to midmonth and (2) the turnover series excludes personnel changes caused by strikes, but the employment series reflects the influence of such stoppages. »=preliminary. 106 16. M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, AU G U ST 1970 LABOR TURNOVER Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group 1 (Per 100 employees] Separation rates Accession rates May 1970 p M A N U FA C TU R IN G ..................... Seasonally adjusted 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Durable g o o d s - ..................... Ordnance and accessories................... Lumber and wood products____________ Furniture and fixtures— Stone, clay, and glass product’s ........ .............. Primary metal industries. Fabricated metal p ro d u cts..................... Machinery, except electrical.................... Electrical equipment....... Transportation equipment............................ Instruments and related products------- -----------Miscellaneous manufacturing...... ........ — Nondurable goods................ . Food and kindred products____________ Tobacco m anufactures... Textile m ill products-----Apparel and other textile products................... . Paper and allied products...................... Printing and publishing.. Chemicals and allied products....................... Petroleum and coal products............. ......... Rubber and plastics products, n.e.c_______ Leather and leather products................... Apr. 1970 Total New hires Total Major Industry group May 1969 May 1970 p Apr. 1970 May 1969 Apr. 1970 May 1969 May 1970 p Apr. 1970 Layoffs May 1969 May 1970 p Apr. 1970 May 1969 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.0 4.8 4.8 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.8 3.8 3.7 4.7 5.1 4.8 5.2 4.6 5. 0 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.7 2.8 1.5 1.9 1.7 2.0 0.9 1.1 3.7 3.4 4.6 2.5 2.2 3.6 4.5 4.7 4 .5 1.9 1.8 2.5 1.6 1.9 .8 1.7 1.5 2.3 .8 .7 1.8 3.5 4.2 3 .3 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.8 2.5 .6 5.8 4.4 5.5 4.6 7.5 6.4 4.8 3.7 4.2 3.6 6.3 5.8 5.4 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.8 6.5 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.5 5.2 4.8 .9 1.1 1.6 1.5 .5 .4 4.9 4.7 5.5 3.8 3.3 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.9 2.6 2.4 3.1 1.1 1.2 .7 3.5 3.1 4.2 2.3 1.9 3.4 3.5 3.9 3.6 1.5 1.5 1.9 .9 1.4 .4 4.8 4.2 5.3 3.4 2.9 4.5 5.2 5.5 5.4 2.4 2.2 3.1 1.5 2.1 1.1 2.7 3.1 2.5 2.9 3.5 4.2 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.9 3.3 4.1 4.5 4.0 4.1 3.5 4.1 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 .6 .6 3.6 3.2 4.4 1.7 1.4 2.8 4.9 5.1 4.7 1.3 1.2 1.9 2.7 3.1 1.8 2.7 2.5 3.1 2.0 1.9 2.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.2 1.1 .5 5.5 6.1 6.6 4.1 3.7 5.4 5.8 6.1 5.6 2.9 2.9 3.5 1.9 2.2 .9 4.8 4.1 5.2 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 2.7 2.5 3.0 1.3 1.6 1.0 6.8 3.5 5.0 5.2 3.2 5.0 7.2 3.1 5.8 4.8 2.6 3.9 3.7 2.3 3.9 5.2 1.9 4.8 6.1 3.3 5.4 5.8 3.7 5.6 6.2 3.8 5.7 3.1 2.0 3.8 2.8 2.1 3.7 3.5 1.7 4.3 2.2 .6 .6 2.3 .8 .8 1.9 1.3 .5 5.9 5.3 6.0 3.8 3.3 3.8 6.1 6.6 5.5 3.1 2.8 3.2 2.1 3.0 1.5 3.5 3.1 3.0 4.5 3.6 2.8 3.9 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.4 4.2 3.4 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.8 2.3 .7 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.8 .8 .8 .8 .4 .4 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.0 1.8 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.8 1.4 1.3 1.7 .6 .6 .5 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 .3 .7 .4 5.2 4.3 5.5 3.7 3.3 4.7 5.6 5.8 5.8 2.9 2.8 3.6 1.4 1.8 .9 5.9 5.5 6.6 4.3 4.1 5.0 6.2 6.1 6.5 3.5 3.4 4.2 1.5 1.6 1.2 1 For com parability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see footnote 1, tab le 11. For relationship to em ploym ent series see footnote 1, tab le 15. 2 These data have been seasonally ad ju sted to reflect experience through February 1970. For additional detail see Ju n e 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis May 1970 p Quits NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, tab le D-2. _ .. . »’—prelim inary. HOURS AND EARNINGS C U R R E N T LA B O R STATISTICS 17. 107 Gross hours and earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers 1on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry division, 1947 to date Year Weekly earnings Weekly hours Hourly earnings Weekly earnings Weekly hours Hourly earnings Weekly earnings Weekly hours Hourly earnings Hourly earnings $49.17 53.12 53.88 58.32 40 .4 4 0 .0 39.1 40 .5 $1,217 1.328 1.378 1.440 2 .0 2 2 .1 3 2 .2 8 2.3 9 2 .4 5 63.34 67.16 70. 47 70. 49 75.70 40 .6 40 .7 4 0 .5 39 .6 40 .7 1.56 1.6 5 1.7 4 1 .7 8 1.8 6 3 7 .5 37 .0 3 6 .8 3 7 .0 36.7 2. 57 2.71 2. 82 2.9 3 3. 08 7 8 .78 81.59 82.71 88.26 89.72 40 .4 3 9 .8 39 .2 40 .3 39.7 1.9 5 2. 05 2.11 2.1 9 2 .2 6 118. 08 122. 47 127.19 132. 06 138.38 36 .9 3 7 .0 3 7 .3 37.2 3 7 .4 3.2 0 3.31 3.41 3. 55 3 .7 0 92. 34 96. 56 9 9 .63 102.97 107. 53 3 9 .8 40 .4 40 .5 40 .7 41 .2 2. 32 2 .3 9 2. 46 2. 53 2.61 146. 26 154.95 164.93 181.16 37 .6 37.7 37.4 37 .9 3. 89 4.11 4. 41 4 .7 8 112.34 114.90 122. 51 129.51 41 .3 40 .6 40 .7 40 .6 2 .7 2 2 .8 3 3.01 3 .1 9 $45. 58 49.00 50.24 53.13 40 .3 4 0 .0 39.4 39.8 $1,131 1.225 1.275 1.335 $59.94 65. 56 62.33 67.16 4 0 .8 39 .4 36.3 37.9 $1,469 1.664 1.717 1.772 $58.87 65.27 67. 56 69.68 38 .2 38.1 37.7 37 .4 $1. 541 1.713 1.792 1.863 1951 ......................... 1952 .............. ................. 1953 ..................... 1954 ..................... 1955.......................................... 57. 86 6 0 .65 63.76 64. 52 67.72 39.9 39.9 39.6 39.1 39.6 1.45 1.52 1.61 1.65 1.71 74.11 77. 59 83. 03 82.60 89.54 3 8 .4 38 .6 3 8 .8 38 .6 40 .7 1.93 2.01 2 .1 4 2.1 4 2. 20 7 6 .96 82.86 86.41 88.91 9 0 .9 0 38.1 38 .9 37.9 37 .2 37.1 1956 .................................. 1957 ................ ................. 1958 ____ _____ 1959 2 .................................. 1960........................................... 70.74 73. 33 75. 08 78.78 80. 67 39 .3 3 8 .8 3 8 .5 39.0 38.6 1.80 1.89 1.95 2.0 2 2.0 9 95. 06 9 8 .65 9 6 .08 103.68 105. 44 4 0 .8 40.1 38 .9 4 0 .5 4 0 .4 2 .3 3 2. 46 2.47 2. 56 2.61 9 6 .3 8 100.27 103.78 108.41 113. 04 1961 .................................. 1962 ....................... 1963 ......................... ____________ 1964 1965........................................... 82.60 85.91 88. 46 91.33 95. 06 38.6 38.7 38 .8 38.7 3 8 .8 2 .1 4 2. 22 2. 28 2. 36 2 .4 5 106.92 110. 43 114. 40 117.74 123. 52 4 0 .5 40 .9 41 .6 41 .9 42 .3 2 .6 4 2 .7 0 2 .7 5 2.81 2.9 2 1966 ................ ........ 1967 ..................... 1968 ___________ 1969_____ ________ ______ 98. 82 101. 84 107.73 114.61 38.6 3 8 .0 37 .8 37 .7 2. 56 2.6 8 2.8 5 3. 04 130.24 135. 89 142.71 154.80 42 .7 42 .6 42 .6 4 3 .0 3. 05 3.1 9 3.3 5 3. 60 Wholesale and retail trade Weekly hours Manufacturing 1947 1948 1949 ................ ............. 1950_......................................... Transportation and public utilities Weekly earnings Contract construction Mining Total private Averages Averages Averages Averages Finance, Insurance, and real estate Services 1<M7 1Q48 1949 1950 $38.07 40.80 42.93 44. 55 4 0 .5 40 .4 4 0 .5 4 0 .5 $0.940 1.010 1.060 1.100 $43.21 4 5 .48 47.63 50. 52 37 .9 37 .9 3 7 .8 37 .7 $1,140 1.200 1.260 1.340 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 47.79 49. 20 51.35 53. 33 55.16 4 0 .5 4 0 .0 3 9 .5 3 9 .5 3 9 .4 1.1 8 1.23 1.30 1.35 1.40 54.67 57. 08 59. 57 62. 04 6 3 .92 37 .7 3 7 .8 37.7 37 .6 37 .6 1.4 5 1.51 1.5 8 1.6 5 1.70 1957 1958 1959 2 19fi0 57.48 59.60 61.76 64.41 66.01 39.1 38 .7 38.6 38 .8 38.6 1.47 1.54 1.6 0 1.66 1.71 6 5 .6 8 67. 53 70.12 72.74 7 5 .14 36 .9 36 .7 37.1 37 .3 37 .2 1.7 8 1.84 1.89 1.9 5 2 .0 2 1961 19fi? 1963 1964__................ ................. .. 1965................ ................. .. 38 .3 38 .2 38.1 37 .9 37.7 1.76 1.83 1.89 1.96 2. 03 77.12 80.94 84. 38 85.79 88.91 36 .9 37 .3 3 7 .5 3 7 .3 3 7 .2 2 .0 9 2.1 7 2 .2 5 2 .3 0 2.3 9 $69. 84 73. 60 3 6 .0 35.9 $ 1 .94 2. 05 37.1 36 .5 3 6 .0 3 5 .6 2 .1 3 2 .2 4 2 .4 0 2. 56 9 2 .13 95. 46 101.75 108. 33 37 .3 3 7 .0 37 .0 37.1 2. 47 2. 58 2 .7 5 2 .9 2 77. 04 80. 38 84. 32 9 1 .26 3 5 .5 35.1 34.7 34.7 2 .1 7 2. 29 2. 43 2. 63 1966........................................... 1967........................................... 1968_____ ______ ________ 1969........................................ $118. 37 125.14 41. 1 41.3 $2. 88 3. 03 67.41 69.91 72.01 7 4 .28 76. 53 128.13 131.22 138.85 147. 74 41.2 40 .5 40 .6 40.7 3.11 3.2 4 3. 42 3. 63 79. 02 81.76 86.40 9 1 .14 i For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see footnote 1, table 11. Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing: to construction workers in contract construction: and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. 2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C - l. 108 18. HOURS AND EARNINGS M O N TH LY LABOR REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1970 Industry division and group T O T A L P R IV A TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 1970” May 1970” Apr. 1970 1969 Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Annual average Aug. July June 1969 1968 37.4 37.0 36.9 37.2 37.0 37.1 37.7 37.5 37.6 37.9 38.1 38.0 37.9 37.7 37.8 M IN IN G .................................. 42.5 42.7 43.1 42.4 42.6 42.3 43.3 43.3 43.3 43.4 43.6 43.0 42.3 43.0 42.6 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N ........ 38.5 38.1 37.9 37.2 36.8 35.7 37.6 37.1 38.3 39.3 39.1 38.7 38.4 37.9 37.4 M A N U F A C T U R IN G ..................... 40.0 3.0 39.8 2.9 39.7 2.8 40.0 3.0 39.8 3.0 40.1 3.2 41.0 3.6 40.6 3.6 40.7 3.7 41.0 4.0 40.6 3.7 40.4 3.5 40.9 3.7 40.6 3.6 40.7 3.6 40.6 3.1 40.4 3.0 40.2 2.8 40.6 3.1 40.3 3.0 40.7 3.3 41.7 3.8 41.2 3.7 41.4 3.9 41.7 4.2 41.1 3.8 40.9 3.6 41.5 3.9 41.3 3.8 41.4 3.8 Ordnance and accessories___ Lumber and wood products... Furniture and fixtures............ Stone, clay, and glass products.............................. 40.9 40.1 38.8 40.8 40.2 38.5 40.8 39.8 38.7 40.8 39.5 39.1 40.8 39,4 38.7 41.0 39.1 38.9 41.0 40.1 40.8 40.6 39.9 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.6 40.6 40.3 40.7 40.2 40.2 40.8 39.8 39.7 39.7 40.8 40.6 40.8 40.4 40.2 40.4 41.5 40.6 40.6 41.7 41.5 41.5 41.3 40.9 40.9 42.9 41.9 42.1 42.4 42.4 41.8 42.3 42.0 41.8 Prim ary metal industries........ Fabricated metal products___ Machinery, except e le ctrica l.. Electrical equipment and 39.9 41.0 41.1 40.4 40.7 41.1 40.4 40.6 41.4 40.8 40.9 42.1 40.8 40.6 41.9 41.3 41.0 42.2 41.7 41.8 43.1 41.4 41.6 42.2 41.7 41.7 42.4 42.1 42.1 42.7 41.8 41.7 42.9 41.6 41.2 41.8 42.0 42.0 42.6 41.8 41.6 42.5 41.6 41.7 42.1 39.8 41.7 39.8 40.5 39.6 39.2 40.1 40. 0 39.7 39.6 40.3 40.1 40.9 42.2 40.5 41. 5 40.4 41.9 40.7 42.3 40.3 40.5 39.8 41.6 40.7 41.6 40.4 41.5 40.3 42.2 40.1 40.1 40.3 40.7 40.2 40.5 41.3 41.1 40.9 41.2 40.7 40.5 41.0 40.7 40.5 38.7 38.6 38.8 39.0 38.8 38.8 39.5 39.3 39.3 39.2 39.1 38.5 39.2 39.0 39.4 39.2 3.0 39.0 2.9 39.0 2.8 39.2 3.0 39.1 3 .0 39.2 3.1 40.0 3.4 39.8 3.4 39.7 3.5 40.0 3.7 39.9 3.5 39.8 3.4 39.9 3.4 39.7 3.4 39.8 3.3 40.7 37.9 40.2 40.5 36.8 39.7 39.9 37.1 39.9 40,0 36.4 40.1 40.0 36.9 40.0 40.5 37.2 40.0 41.0 36.8 41.3 41.0 37.3 41.1 40.7 38.6 40.9 41.8 39.0 41.0 41.4 37.5 41.0 41.2 37.6 40.7 40.9 39.9 41.4 40.8 37.4 40.8 40.8 37.9 41.2 35.3 35.1 35.4 35.8 35.5 35.2 35.9 35.8 35.8 35.8 36.3 35.9 36.3 35.9 36.1 41.9 37.8 41.6 41.8 42.4 37.7 41.7 41.9 43.2 39.0 42.9 41.7 42.9 38.4 42.0 42.7 43.1 38.4 41.7 42.9 43.3 38.6 41.8 42.6 43.1 38.6 41.7 42.9 43.0 38.4 41.7 43.6 43.1 38.4 41.8 42.5 43.0 38.4 41.8 42.6 42.9 38.3 41.8 42.5 41. 5 36.8 41.0 37.1 40.8 37.4 41.3 37.8 41.1 37.2 41.5 38.3 Overtime hours................... Durable G o o d s ........................ Overtime hours................... s u p p lie s ____________________ Transportation equipment___ Instruments and related products............................ . Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.......................... . Nondurable goods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overtime hours................... Food and kindred pro d ucts... Tobacco manufactures............ Textile m ill pro d ucts............ Apparel and other textile products.............................. Paper and allied products___ Printing and publishing.......... Chemicals and allied products. Petroleum and coal products. Rubber and plastics prod ucts, nec_........................... Leather and leather products. 41.6 37.6 41.2 42.9 41.9 37.6 41.6 42.7 41.7 37.7 41.6 42.2 42.0 38.0 41.8 41.8 40.2 37.6 40.0 37.4 40.3 36.3 40.4 37.1 40.6 37.4 40.7 37.7 41.5 38.3 41.1 37.4 41.3 37.0 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N AND PUBLIC U T IL IT I E S ................ 40.5 40.2 39.8 40.2 40.5 40.5 40.8 40.9 41.0 41.0 40.8 41.1 40.7 40.7 40.6 W H O L E S A L E AN D R ET A IL T R A D E . 35.7 35.0 34.9 35.0 35.0 35.1 35.7 35.2 35.3 35.7 36.6 36.5 35.9 35.6 36.0 Wholesale trade.................... Retail trade......................... 40.3 34.2 39.9 33.4 39.9 33.3 40.0 33.4 40.0 33.3 40.2 33.4 40.7 34.1 40.2 33.6 40.3 33.7 40.3 34.2 40.5 35.3 40.3 35.2 40.1 34.6 40.2 34.2 40.1 34.7 FIN A N CE IN SU RAN CE, AN D R EAL E S T A T E ................................ 36.8 36.7 36.9 37.0 37.0 36.9 37.0 37.2 37.1 37.0 37.0 37.1 37.1 37.1 37.0 SE R V IC E S ............ . ............ . 34.5 34.2 34.3 34.7 34.3 34.3 34.6 34.6 34.5 34.6 35.3 35.3 34.8 34.7 34.7 'F o r comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. "^ prelim inary. HOURS AND EARNINGS CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 19. 109 Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1970 1969 Industry division and group June? Mays Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June T O T A L P R IV A TE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 37.2 37.1 37.2 37.4 37.3 37.5 37.6 37.6 37.5 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 M IN IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 42.0 42.6 43.1 43.2 43.4 42.7 43.2 43.5 43.0 43.1 43.1 42.6 41.8 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N ....... ......... ................. 37.7 38.1 38.3 38.0 38.2 36.7 38.2 38.1 37.6 38.1 37.9 37.6 37.6 M A N U F A C TU R IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Overtime hours ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39.8 3.0 39.8 2.9 40.0 3.0 40.2 3.2 39.9 3.2 40.3 3.3 40.7 3.5 40.5 3.5 40.5 3.5 40.7 3.6 40.6 3.6 40.6 3.6 40.7 3.7 Durable G o o d s . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----Overtime hours................... .......... ........ 40.4 3.1 40.4 3.1 40.4 3.0 40.7 3.2 40.5 3.2 41.0 3.4 41.3 3.6 41.1 3.5 41.2 3.6 41.4 3.8 41.2 3.8 41.3 3.8 41.3 3.9 Ordnance and accessories________________ _ Lumber and wood products-------------------------Furniture and fix tu re s............................. ....... Stone, clay, and glass products. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prim ary metal industries - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fabricated metal products__________________ Machinery, except electrical______ _ _ _ _ ____ Electrical equipment and supplies - - - - - - - - - - - - Transportation equipment.......... ... ................... Instruments and related p roducts................. _ 40.8 39.6 38.6 41.3 39.6 40.8 41.0 39.7 41.7 40.0 40.8 39.8 38.8 41.3 40.2 40.6 41.1 39.9 40.4 40.2 41.1 39.8 39.3 41.6 40.1 40.9 41.4 40.0 39.7 40.5 41.1 39.5 39.4 41.8 40.7 41.2 41.8 40.2 40.4 40.7 41.3 40.1 39.3 41.7 40.9 41.1 41.9 39.7 40.3 40.2 40.6 39.6 39.5 41.7 41.2 41.4 42.2 40.5 40.2 40.7 40.5 40.3 40. 0 42. 1 41.7 41.5 42.6 40.3 41.4 40.9 40.3 40.2 40.0 41.8 41.6 41.4 42.2 40. 1 40.7 40.9 40.2 39.9 39.9 41.7 42.1 41.4 42.4 40.2 41.2 40.7 40.3 40.0 40.1 41.9 42. 1 41.5 42.6 40.4 41.6 41.0 40.4 39.9 40.3 41.9 41.9 41.6 42.5 40.4 41.2 40.9 40.3 39.8 40.2 41.7 41.7 41.6 42.4 40.4 42. 1 40.9 40.7 40.1 40.6 41.9 41.7 41.7 42.5 40.6 41.6 40.9 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries______ 38.6 38.7 39.0 39.0 38.6 39.3 39.3 39.3 38.9 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.1 Nondurable Goods..... ....... ...... .................. — . Overtime hours___________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 39.0 3.0 39.1 3.0 39.4 3.0 39.4 3.2 39.3 3.2 39.6 3.4 39.8 3.3 39.6 3.3 39.6 3.3 39.7 3.3 39.7 3.4 39.8 3.4 39.7 3.4 Food and kindred products_________________ Tobacco manufactures_____________________ Textile m ill products____________ ______ ___ Apparel and other textile products____ ___ 40.5 37.3 39.9 35.1 40.7 37.1 39.8 35.1 40.6 38.3 40.6 35.5 40.5 37.5 40.2 35.6 40.7 37.3 40.1 35.5 41.0 38.3 40.4 35.6 40.8 36.2 40.9 36.0 40.8 37.2 40.7 35.8 40.6 37.3 40.6 35.8 40.9 37.4 40.7 35.8 40.9 37.2 40.9 35.9 40.7 38.0 41.1 36.0 40.7 39.3 41.1 36.1 Paper and allied products.............................. . Printing and publishing _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________ Chemicals and allied products................... ...... Petroleum and coal products________________ Rubber and plastics products, nec_____ ___ _ Leather and leather products_________ ___ 41.5 37.6 41.2 42.7 40.2 37.2 41.9 37.7 41.5 42.4 40.1 37.6 42.1 37.9 41.4 41.9 40.7 37.4 42.2 38.0 41.8 42.2 40.7 37.4 42.3 38.0 41.8 42.7 41.0 37.1 42.8 38.2 42.0 42.5 40.9 37.5 42.8 38.6 41.8 42.3 41. 1 37.7 42.7 38.4 41.8 42.6 40.8 37.3 42.8 38.2 41.7 42.6 40.9 37.2 42.9 38.3 41.8 42.2 41.0 37.1 42.9 38.4 41.8 42.8 40.9 36.9 43.0 38.5 41.8 42.8 41.2 37.1 43.0 38.4 41.8 42.3 41.3 37.4 40.6 T R A N S P O R TA TIO N AN D PUBLIC U TIL ITIES _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40.4 40.4 40.2 40.6 40.7 40.7 40.8 40.7 40.9 40.8 40.5 40.7 W H O L E S A L E A N D R ET A IL T R A D E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 35.5 35.4 35.3 35.3 35.4 35.4 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.6 35.7 35.7 35.7 Wholesale Trade_ _ _ _ ________________ Retail trade_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40.2 33.9 40.1 33.8 40.1 33.7 40. 1 33.8 40.2 33.7 40.3 33.8 40.5 33.8 40.3 34.0 40.3 34.0 40.3 34.1 40.3 34.2 40.0 34.2 40.0 34.3 FIN A N CE, IN SU R A N C E, AN D R E A L E S T A T E . . . . . . . ....... 36.8 36.8 36.9 37.0 37.0 36.9 36.9 37.2 37.0 37.1 37.0 37.1 37.1 S E R V I C E S ............. . .............. ............ 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.7 34.4 34.4 34.6 34.7 34.6 34.7 35.0 35.0 34.7 1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17. p= prelim inary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through February 1970. For additional detail see June 1970 issue of Employment and Earnings. 1 10 20. M O N TH LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 HOURS AND EARNINGS Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1970 Annual average 1969 Industry and division group T O T A L P R IV A TE ........ . ...... ... June* May* Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 1969 1968 $3.21 $3.20 $3.18 $3.17 $3.15 $3.13 $3.12 $3.13 $3.12 $3.11 $3. 06 $3.05 $3. 04 $3. 04 3.60 3. 59 3. 56 3.60 3.35 4.80 4. 76 4.70 4.78 4.41 $2.85 M IN IN G .................................. 3.83 3.79 3.79 3.78 3.77 3.76 3.71 3.72 3.69 3.65 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N _ _ _ 5.12 5.10 5.09 5. 06 5.06 5.07 5. 03 4.97 4.96 4.92 M A N U F A C T U R IN G ..................... 3.36 3.34 3.32 3.31 3.29 3.29 3.29 3.26 3.25 3.24 3.20 3.19 3.18 3.19 3. 01 Durable Goods.............. ...... 3.58 3. 55 3.52 3.51 3.48 3.49 3.49 3. 46 3.45 3.44 3.39 3.38 3.37 3.39 3.19 3.58 3. 59 3.58 3. 57 3. 54 3.53 3.51 3. 53 3. 48 3. 46 3.43 3.41 3.43 3.42 3. 26 2.98 2.75 2.92 2.74 2.88 2.73 2.86 2.71 2.84 2. 70 2.83 2.71 2.84 2.71 2.86 2.70 2.83 2.68 2. 84 2. 68 2. 79 2.64 2.75 2. 62 2.72 2. 62 2.74 2.62 2. 57 2. 47 3.39 3.37 3.35 3.32 3.28 3. 28 3.28 3. 29 3. 27 3. 25 3. 22 3.19 3.18 3.19 2.99 3.93 3.90 3.87 3.86 3.85 3.86 3.87 3.85 3. 85 3. 87 3.84 3. 79 3.77 3.79 3. 55 3.54 3.52 3. 50 3. 48 3.46 3.45 3.44 3.41 3.39 3.40 3. 34 3.33 3.33 3.34 3.16 3. 77 3.76 3.75 3.75 3.72 3.70 3. 72 3.67 3.67 3.63 3. 57 3. 56 3. 57 3. 58 3. 36 3.32 3. 28 3.24 3.24 3.20 3.18 3.17 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.10 3.09 3.08 3.09 2. 93 4.13 4. 06 4. 00 4. 01 3.97 4. 02 4. 04 3.98 3.95 3.94 3.92 3.90 3. 86 3.90 3.69 3.31 3.30 3. 29 3.28 3.27 3.26 3.25 3.23 3.21 3.19 3.15 3.13 3.14 3.15 2. 98 Miscellaneous manufacturing ind u stries............ 2.81 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.79 2.76 2. 72 2.69 2. 68 2.64 2. 64 2.65 2.66 2. 50 Nondurable Goods................ 3. 06 3.05 3.04 3. 03 3. 01 3. 01 2.99 2.97 2.96 2.95 2. 92 2.92 2. 89 2.91 2.74 3.15 3. 04 2. 44 3.16 2.99 2.43 3.12 2.98 2. 42 3.10 2.90 2.42 3. 08 2.89 2.42 3. 08 2.86 2. 42 3.04 2.67 2. 42 3.01 2.62 2. 42 2.98 2. 49 2.41 2.97 2. 51 2.41 2. 94 2. 49 2. 38 2.97 2.77 2.35 2.95 2.80 2.31 2.96 2.62 2. 34 2.38 2.37 2.37 2.37 2. 36 2. 36 2.35 2. 34 2. 34 2.34 2.31 2.28 2.30 2.31 2.21 2.21 3.42 3.90 3.40 3. 88 3.37 3.85 3.35 3.84 3.35 3.81 3.35 3.80 3.34 3.81 3.32 3.78 3.31 3.77 3.31 3.75 3.28 3.70 3.27 3.68 3.23 3.68 3.24 3.69 3.05 3. 48 3.66 3.64 3.61 3.60 3.60 3. 60 3. 58 3. 56 3. 55 3. 52 3. 50 3. 49 3.46 3.47 3.26 4.26 4. 25 4.26 4. 23 4.23 4.21 4.10 4.10 4. 06 4. 04 3. 99 4. 03 3. 99 4. 00 3.75 3.10 3.10 3.16 3.15 3.14 3.15 3.14 3.13 3.12 3.13 3. 08 3. 09 3.05 3. 07 2.92 2.47 2.47 2.46 2.44 2.42 2. 40 2.38 2.35 2.34 2. 35 2.36 2.23 3.42 Ordnance and accessories_______ _______ Lumber and wood p roducts........................ Furniture and fixtures------Stone, clay, and glass products............ ............. Primary metal indus t r ie s ..____ ___________ Fabricated metal products______________ Machinery, except electrical_______ _____ Electrical equipment and supplies_______________ Transportation equip ment________________ Instruments and related products.......................... Food and kindred Tobacco manufactures____ Textile m ill products........... Apparel and other tex tile products___________ Paper and allied p roducts......................... Printing and publishing___ Chemicals and allied products______________ Petroleum and coal products------- --------------Rubber and plastics products, n e e .. .............. Leather and leather products.......................... 2.80 2.48 2.49 2.49 2. 48 TR A N S P O R TA TIO N AN D PUBLIC U T IL IT IE S ....... ............. ........ 3.80 3.78 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.73 3. 72 3.72 3.70 3.71 3.67 3. 65 3. 62 3.63 W H O L E S A L E A N D R ETA IL T R A D E . 2.70 2.70 2.69 2. 68 2. 68 2.65 2.61 2.63 2.61 2. 59 2. 56 2. 55 2. 55 2. 56 2.40 Wholesale trade.................... Retail trade......................... 3.41 2.43 3.42 2.43 3.40 2.41 3.40 2.41 3.38 2.40 3.35 2. 38 3. 34 2.35 3.33 2. 36 3.29 2.35 3.28 2. 33 3.24 2.30 3.23 2.30 3. 24 2.30 3.23 2.30 3. 05 2.16 FIN A N C E , IN SU R A N C E, AND REAL ESTA TE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. 03 3. 04 3. 03 3. 05 3. 04 3. 02 2.98 2.99 2.95 2.93 2.92 2.91 2.93 2.92 2.75 SE R V IC E S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.81 2.81 2.79 2.79 2.77 2. 74 2.72 2.72 2.69 2. 67 2. 62 2.63 2.61 2.63 2.43 * For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. j>=preliminary. HOURS AND EARNINGS C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 21. 111 Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1969 1970 Annual average Industry division and group June v May v T O T A L PR IVA TE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $120.05 M IN IN G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.78 Feb. Jan. Dec. Aug. July June $117.31 $117.87 $116.59 $115.90 $115.22 $114.61 159.78 158.41 156.96 154. 37 150.59 154.80 142.71 184. 39 189.97 193.36 187.68 184.21 180.48 181.16 164. 93 132. 36 132.28 132. 84 129.92 128. 88 130. 06 129.51 122. 51 143.45 139. 33 138.24 139. 86 140. 01 132. 07 Mar. $118.40 $117.34 $117.92 $116.55 $116.12 $117.62 $117. 38 161.83 163.35 160.27 160.60 159. 05 160.64 161. 08 189.13 134.89 C O N TR A C T C O N ST R U CT IO N ........ 197.12 194.31 192.91 188. 23 186.21 181.00 M A N U F A C TU R IN G ..................... 134.40 132.93 131.80 132.40 130.94 131.93 142. 51 140.24 142. 04 145. 53 1968 Sept. Nov. Apr. 142. 55 Oct. 142. 83 1969 $107.73 Durable goods..................... 145.35 O rd n an ce and a c c e s so rie s .................... L u m b e r an d w ood p ro d u cts ....... . .............. F u rn itu re an d fix tu re s _ _ _ S to n e , cla y , a n d g lass p ro d u cts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146.42 146.47 146.06 145.66 144. 43 144. 73 143.91 143. 32 140.24 140.48 137.89 135. 72 139.94 138.17 135.29 119.50 106.70 117.38 105.49 114.62 105.65 112.97 105.96 111.90 104. 49 110.65 105. 42 113. 88 110.57 114,11 108.81 114. 05 108.81 114. 45 109. 08 112.16 107.71 109.18 104. 01 110. 43 106.90 110.15 105.85 104. 34 100. 28 141.36 139.86 139. 03 137.12 134.15 134.15 137. 76 137.85 137.67 137. 80 136.53 133. 34 134. 51 133.98 124.98 P rim a ry m etal in d u s t r ie s . .. Fa b rica te d m etal p ro d u cts ...................... . M a c h in e ry , ex cep t e le c tric a l....................... E lectrica l e q u ip m e n t a n d s u p p lie s .................. T ra n sp o rta tio n e q u ip m e n t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In stru m en ts an d related p ro d u cts ...................... . M isc e lla n e o u s m a n u fa c tu rin g in d u s trie s - - - - - - - - 156.81 157.56 156.35 157.49 157. 08 159. 42 161.38 159.39 160. 55 162.93 160. 51 157.66 158. 34 158. 42 147. 68 145.14 143.26 142.10 142. 33 140. 48 141.45 143. 79 141.86 141.36 143.14 139. 28 137.20 139. 86 138.94 131.77 Nondurable goods................. 143.42 141.50 154.95 154. 54 155.25 157. 88 155. 87 156.14 160. 33 154.87 155.61 155. 00 149.94 148.81 152. 08 152.15 141.46 132.14 130. 54 128.30 129.92 127. 04 128.15 129.65 126. 77 126.45 127. 39 124.93 122.98 125. 36 124. 84 118. 08 172.22 164.43 156.80 160. 40 157.21 161.20 170. 49 165.17 165.51 166. 66 158. 76 162.24 160. 58 161.85 155. 72 132.73 132.33 132. 59 133.50 131.45 132. 03 134. 23 132. 75 131.29 131.43 128.21 126. 77 128. 74 128.21 120. 69 108.75 108.08 108.64 109.20 108. 64 108.25 109. 02 106.90 105. 72 105. 06 103.22 101.64 103. 88 103. 74 98. 50 119.95 118.95 118. 56 118.78 117. 69 117.99 119.60 118.21 117.51 118. 00 116.51 116.22 115.31 115. 53 109. 05 128.21 115.22 98.09 127.98 110. 03 96. 47 124.49 110. 56 96.56 124. 00 105. 56 97. 04 123.20 106.64 96.80 124. 74 106. 39 96. 80 124. 64 98.26 99.95 123.41 97. 73 99.46 121.29 96.11 98. 57 124.15 97. 89 98.81 121.72 93. 38 97. 58 122. 36 104.15 95.65 120. 66 111.72 95. 63 120.77 97.99 95.47 114.24 93.99 91.05 84.01 83.19 83.90 84. 85 83.78 83. 07 84. 37 83.77 83. 77 83. 77 83.85 81.85 83.49 82.93 79. 78 142.27 146.64 142.46 145.89 140.43 145.15 140.70 145.92 140. 37 144. 02 142. 04 143. 26 144. 29 148. 59 142. 43 145.15 142.66 144. 77 143. 32 144. 75 141.37 142. 82 140.61 141.31 139.21 141.31 139.32 141.70 130.85 133. 28 150.79 151.42 150.18 150. 48 149.76 150.12 150. 36 149. 52 148. 04 147.14 145.95 145. 53 144.63 145. 05 136. 27 182.75 181.48 179.77 176.81 176.81 176. 40 170.97 175. 07 173.77 172.10 171.17 175.71 169. 58 170. 40 159. 38 124.62 124. 00 127.35 127. 26 127. 48 128.21 130.31 128. 64 128. 86 129.90 126.28 126. 07 125.97 126.18 121.18 93.62 93.13 90.02 91.64 92. 38 92. 74 93. 45 90.51 88.80 87. 58 87.19 87. 52 88. 83 87. 79 85.41 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N AN D PUBLIC U T IL IT IE S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ 153.90 151.96 149. 25 150. 75 151.88 151.07 151.78 152.15 151.70 152.11 149. 74 150. 02 147. 33 147. 74 138. 85 W H O LE S A L E AN D R ETA IL T R A D E . 96.39 94.50 93.88 93.80 93. 80 93. 02 93.18 92. 58 92.13 92. 46 93.70 93.08 91.55 91.14 86. 40 Wholesale trade....... ............. Retail trade....... .................. 137.42 83.11 136. 46 81.16 135.66 80.25 136. 00 80. 49 135. 20 79.92 134.67 79.49 135.94 80.14 133.87 79. 30 132. 59 79.20 132.18 79.69 131.22 81.19 130.17 80.96 129.92 79. 58 129.85 78. 66 122. 31 74.95 FIN A N CE, IN SU R A N C E, AN D R EAL E S T A T E ................................ 111.50 111.57 111.81 112.85 112. 48 111.44 110. 26 111.23 109.45 108.41 108. 04 107.96 108.70 108.33 101.75 SER V IC ES....... ................. ........ 96.95 96.10 95.70 96.81 95. 01 93.98 94.11 94.11 92.81 92. 38 92. 49 92.84 90. 83 91.26 8/1. 32 Food an d k in d re d p ro d u cts .................... . T o b a c co m a n u fa c tu re s _ _ _ T e x tile m ill p ro d u cts.......... A p p a re l an d o the r tex tile p ro d u cts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P a p e r an d a llie d p ro d u cts ....... ................ P rin tin g an d p u b lis h in g _ _ _ C h e m ic a ls an d a llie d p ro d u cts ....................... P etro leu m and co al p r o d u c t s ........ . ......... . R u b b e r an d p lastics p ro d u cts, n e c ........... . Le a th e r an d leath er p ro d u cts ....................... 1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-2. ■^preliminary. 112 HOURS AND EARNINGS/PRICES M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 22. Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, in current and 1957-59 dollars, 1960 to date Total private Manufacturing Spendable average weekly earnings Spendable average weekly earnings Gross average weekly earnings Year and month Gross average weekly earnings Worker with no dependents Worker with 3 dependents Worker with no dependents Worker with 3 dependents Current dollars 1957-59 dollars I960............................................. 1961_________________________ 1962_________________________ 1963................................... ......... 1964_________________________ $80.67 82.60 85.91 88.46 91.33 $78.24 79.27 81.55 82.91 84. 49 $65.95 67. 08 69. 56 71.05 75. 04 $63.62 64.38 66. 00 66. 59 69. 42 $72.96 74. 48 76. 99 78. 56 82. 57 $70.77 71.48 73. 05 73. 63 76.38 $89. 72 92.34 96. 56 99. 63 102.97 $87.02 88.62 91.61 93.37 95.25 $72. 57 74. 60 77.86 79.82 84.40 $70.39 71.59 73.87 74.81 78. 08 $80.11 82.18 85. 53 87. 58 92.18 $77.70 78.87 81.15 82.08 85.27 1965.......................................... 1966____ ____________________ 1967_________________________ 1968 ______ ________ _______ 1969...... ............................ .......... 95. 06 98. 82 101.84 107.73 114.61 86. 50 87.37 87. 57 88. 89 89. 75 78.99 81.29 83.38 86.71 90.96 71.87 71.87 71.69 71.54 71.23 86.30 88.66 90. 86 95.28 99.99 78.53 78.39 78.13 78.61 78.30 107. 53 112.34 114. 90 122. 51 129. 51 97.84 99. 33 98. 80 101.08 101.42 89.08 91.57 93.28 97.70 101.90 81.06 80.96 80.21 80.61 79. 80 96.78 99.45 101.26 106.75 111.44 88.06 87.93 87.07 88.08 87.27 1969: M ay_____________________ June_____________________ J u ly . . . .................................. Aug ust..................... ........... Septem ber...................... . October__________________ November__________ ____ _ December_______ ________ 113. 55 115.22 115.90 116. 59 117. 87 117.31 117.38 117.62 89. 55 90.30 90.41 90. 59 91.16 90. 38 89.95 89. 58 90.18 91.40 91.90 92. 41 93.35 92.94 92.99 93.17 71.12 71.63 71.68 71.80 72.20 71.60 71.26 70. 96 99.19 100.46 100.98 101.51 102.49 102.06 102.11 102.30 78.23 78.73 78.77 78. 87 79. 27 78. 63 78.25 77.91 128.61 130. 06 128. 88 129.92 132. 84 132.28 132. 36 134. 89 101.43 101.93 100. 53 100.95 102. 74 101.91 101.43 102.73 101.34 102.30 101.43 102.20 104. 34 103.93 103.99 105. 85 79. 84 80.17 79.12 79.41 80.70 80. 07 79. 69 80. 62 110.74 111.86 110.95 111.75 114. 01 113. 57 113.63 115. 61 87.33 87.66 86. 54 86. 83 88.17 87.50 87. 07 88. 05 1970: January____________ _____ February_____________ . . M arch................................... A p ril____________________ May v ...... ................ 116.12 116. 55 117.92 117.34 118.40 88.10 87.96 88. 53 87.57 87.96 93. 43 93.76 94. 78 94.35 95.14 70. 89 70. 76 71.16 70.41 70.68 101.97 102. 32 103. 39 102.95 103.77 77.37 77.22 77.62 76.83 77.10 131.93 130. 94 132.40 131.80 132.93 100.10 98. 82 99. 40 98.36 98.76 105.28 104. 53 105. 63 105.18 106. 02 79. 88 78. 89 79.30 78. 49 78.77 114. 48 113. 69 114. 85 114.37 115.27 86. 86 85. 80 86. 22 85. 35 85. 64 Current dollars 1957-59 dollars Current dollars 1 For comparability of data with those published in issues prior to July 1970, see footnote 1, table 11. For employees covered, see footnote 1, table 17. Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly earnings as published in table 21 less the estimated amount of the workers’ Federal social security and income tax liability. Since the amount of tax liability depends on the number of dependents supported by the worker as well as on the level of his gross income, spend able earnings have been computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) A worker with no dependents and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents. 23. 1957-59 dollars Current dollars 1957-59 dollars Current dollars 1957-59 dollars Current dollars 1957-59 dollars The earnings expressed in 1957-59 dollars have been adjusted for changes in pur chasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index. These series are described in "The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on its Calculation," in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force, February 1969, pp. 6-13. NOTE: For additional detail see Employment and Earnings, table C-5. «^preliminary. Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, annual averages and changes, 1949 to date1 [Indexes: 1957-59=100] Consumer prices A ll items Index Commodities Percent change Index Wholesale prices Services Percent change Index A ll commodities Percent change Index Percent change Farm products, proc- Industrial commodities essed foods, and feeds Index Percent change Index Percent change 1949. 83.0 -1 .0 87.1 -2 .6 72.6 4.6 83.5 -5 .0 94.3 -1 1 .7 80.0 -2 .1 1950. 1951. 1952. 1953. 1954. 83.8 90.5 92.5 93.2 93.6 1.0 8.0 2.2 0.8 0.4 87.6 95.5 96.7 96.4 95.5 0.6 9.0 1.3 -.3 -.9 75.0 78.9 82.4 86.0 88.7 3.3 5.2 4.4 4.4 3.1 86.8 96.7 94.0 92.7 92.9 4.0 11.4 -2 .8 - 1 .4 .2 98.8 112.5 108.0 101.0 100.7 4.8 13.9 -4 .0 -6 .5 -.3 82.9 91.5 89.4 90.1 90.4 3.6 10.4 - 2 .3 .8 .3 1955. 1956. 1957. 1958. 1959. 93.3 94.7 98.0 100.7 101.5 -.3 1.5 3.5 2.8 .8 94.6 95.5 98.5 100.8 100.9 -.9 1.0 3.1 2.3 .1 90.5 92.8 96.6 100.3 103.2 2.0 2.5 4.1 3.8 2.9 93.2 96.2 99.0 100.4 100.6 .3 3.2 2.9 1.4 .2 95.9 95.3 98.6 103.2 98.4 -4 .8 -.6 3.5 4.7 -4 .7 92.4 96.5 99.2 99.5 101.3 2.2 4.4 2.8 .3 1.8 1960. 1961. 1962. 1963. 1964. 103.1 104.2 105.4 106.7 108.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 101.7 102.3 103.2 104.1 105.2 .8 .6 .9 .9 1.1 106.6 108.8 110.9 113.0 115.2 3.3 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 100.7 100.3 100.6 100.3 100.5 .1 -.4 .3 -.3 .2 98.6 98.6 99.6 98.7 98.0 .2 1.0 -.9 -.7 101.3 100.8 100.8 100.7 101.2 1965. 1966. 1967. 1968. 1969. 109.9 113.1 116.3 121.2 127.7 1.7 2.9 2.8 4.2 5.4 106.4 109.2 111.2 115.3 120.5 1.1 2.6 1.8 3.7 4.5 117.8 122.3 127.7 134.3 143.7 2.3 3.8 4.4 5.2 7.0 102.5 105.9 106.1 108.7 113.0 2.0 3.3 .2 2.5 4.0 102.1 108.9 105.2 107.6 113.5 4.2 6.7 -3 .4 2.3 5.5 102.5 104.7 106.3 109.0 112.7 1 Historical price changes are shown in greater detail and for earlier years in the Bureau's Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1969 (B LS Bulletin 1630), in tables 108-120. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -0 .5 -.1 .5 1.3 2.1 1.5 2.5 3.4 CONSUMER PRICES C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 24. 113 Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items [The official name of the index is, “ Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.” It measures the average change in prices of goods and services purchased by families and single workers. The indexes shown below represent the average of price changes in 56 metropolitan areas, selected to represent all U.S. urban places having populations of more than 2500.] [1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified] General summary Annual average 1969“ 1969 1970 Item and group June May, Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 135.2 165.9 134.6 165.2 134.0 164.4 133.2 163.4 132.5 162.5 131.8 161.7 131.3 161.1 130.5 160.1 129.8 159.3 129.3 158.6 128.7 157.9 128.2 167.3 127.6 156. 6 127.7 156.7 132.7 128.0 155.3 132.4 127.8 154.7 132.0 127.4 154.0 131.6 127.4 152.4 131.5 127.4 151.5 130.7 126.6 150.6 129.9 125.8 149.9 128.1 123.8 149.0 127.2 122.9 148.1 127.5 123.6 146.7 127.4 123.6 145. 8 126.7 123.0 144. 8 125.5 121.8 143.7 125.5 121.5 144.6 135.6 123.4 154.4 135.1 123.0 153.3 134.4 122.6 152.1 133.6 122.3 150.9 132.2 121.8 148.5 131.1 121.3 146.8 130.5 121.0 145.4 129.8 120.5 144.5 129.2 120.1 143.6 128.6 119.7 142.6 127.8 119.3 141.3 127.0 118.8 140.0 126.3 118.5 138.7 126.7 118.8 139.4 Apparel and upkeep ______ ____ Transportation . ____ ________ Health and re cre a tio n __ __ Medical care ................. 132.2 130.6 143.7 164.7 131.9 129.9 142.9 163.6 131.1 128.9 142.3 162.8 130.6 127.1 141.4 161.6 130.0 127.3 140.7 160.1 129.3 127.3 140.1 159.0 130.8 126.4 139.6 158.1 130.7 125.6 139.1 157.4 129.8 125.7 138.6 156.9 128.7 123.6 138.4 157.6 126.6 124.2 137.7 156.8 126.8 124.3 137.0 155.9 127.0 124.6 136.3 155. 2 127.1 124.2 136.6 155. 0 Special groups: All items less shelter . . All items less food __ __ A ll items less medical care . . 132.6 136.1 133.4 132.1 135.5 132.9 131.5 134.8 132.2 130.7 133.8 131.5 130.3 133.0 130.8 129.8 132.3 130.1 129.5 131.9 129.7 128.6 131.4 128.9 128.1 130.8 128.2 127.6 130.0 127.6 127.1 129.3 127.0 126.7 128.8 126.5 126.3 128.4 126.0 126.3 128.6 126.1 Commodities . ___ - ______ - Nondurables - . ___ Durables ... . . . Services . .......................................... 126.2 130.0 116.7 155.0 125.8 129.8 115.9 154.1 125.2 129.3 114.8 153.4 124.5 128.7 114.1 152.3 124.2 128.4 113.7 150.7 123.7 127.8 113.7 149.6 123.6 127.7 113.6 148.3 122.9 126.7 113.5 147.2 122.4 126.1 113.2 146.5 121.7 125.8 111.6 146.0 121.4 125.2 111.9 145.0 121.0 124.7 111.9 144.0 120.5 124.1 111.7 143.3 120.5 124.1 111.6 143.7 Commodities less food __ . . ... Nondurables less f o o d ............. ..... Apparel commodities . . . ..... Annarel commodities less foot- 122.8 127.7 131.4 122.3 127.5 131.2 121.6 127.0 130.4 120.8 126. 1 129.9 120.4 125.8 129.3 120.1 125.2 128.6 120.3 125.7 130.3 120.2 125.5 130.4 119.8 125.1 129.3 118.7 124.4 128.1 118.2 123.3 125.9 118.1 123.1 126.2 118.0 123.0 126.4 118.0 123.0 126.5 128.3 125. 5 108.2 112.4 128.0 125.3 108.0 112.2 127.1 125.0 107.8 112.0 126.7 123.9 107.4 111.7 126.2 123.7 106.9 111.1 125.5 123.2 106.6 110.5 127.5 123.0 106.5 110.6 127.7 122.6 106.5 110.4 126.6 122.6 106.4 110.2 125.3 122.2 106.2 109.9 122.8 121.7 106.0 109.4 123.5 121.3 106.0 109.3 123.7 121.0 105. 8 109.0 123.7 121.0 105. 5 109.0 161.9 160.6 157.1 180.6 153.4 161.0 160.0 156.1 179.3 152.3 160.1 159.1 155.5 178.4 151.4 158.9 157.7 154.5 177.0 150.3 157.1 155.0 154.1 175.2 149.8 155.8 153.2 152.9 173.8 149.4 154.3 152.4 148.4 172.8 148.9 153.1 151.4 145.8 171.8 148.2 152.3 150.4 145.1 171.2 147.6 151.7 149.5 144.0 172.2 147.2 150.7 148.2 143.1 171.1 146.5 149.6 146.9 142.5 170.1 145. 7 148.8 145. 7 142.3 169.1 145.2 149.2 146. 4 142.9 168.9 145. 5 127.4 126.7 125.5 125.5 143.7 144.0 124.4 144.6 144.9 125.4 All Item s All items (1947-49-100) ____________ Food ......... ..................Food at home Food away from home _____ Housing Rent _______ Homeownership -- ___ __ __ ... ____ -- __ ___ _ - ................. .. . Nondurables less food and a D D a r e l . .. Housefurnishings .... ............. Service less rent __ _ Household services less rent ___ _ Transportation services . . . . . . Medical care services _ _ __ Other services _____ _______ Other index bases 132.7 FO O D _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Food away from home ....... ..... Restaurant meals . . Snacks ....................... Dec. 63 Food at home . . ____ Cereals and bakery products_ _ Flour __ . . . . . Cracker m e a l.. . ____ Corn flakes . . . . R ic e .. _ ...... ................ Bread, white _______ . Bread whole wheat C o o k ie s ___ . ___ . Layer cake Cinnamon rolls.. _____ Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Meats, poultry, and fish_ _ _ _ Meats ___ .. .. Beef and veal _ _ . . Steak, round Steak, sirlo in ___ __ Steak, porterhouse. Rump roast_______ Rib r o a s t ______ . Chuck roast . . Ham burger.. . . _ Beef liver ___ Veal c u tle ts ______ 3 8 9 -5 1 0 0 - 7 0 - 8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items Apr. 60 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 132.4 132.0 131.6 131.5 130.7 129.9 128.1 127.2 127.5 155.3 155.4 135.2 154.7 154.8 134.6 154.0 154.2 134.0 152.4 152.5 132.4 151.5 151.6 132.0 150.6 150.7 131.4 149.9 150.2 129.9 149.0 149.3 129.2 148.1 148.3 128.8 146.7 147.2 126.2 145.8 146.2 125.6 144.8 145.1 125.1 128.0 128.2 113.3 136.4 130.4 115.1 133.4 125.7 105.7 121.8 118.8 127.8 128.0 113.2 135.7 130.5 115.0 134.1 125.3 104.7 121.5 118.5 127.4 127.6 114.2 134.3 130.0 114.8 133.3 125.7 103.4 121.7 118.2 127.4 127.0 113. 1 132.9 130.4 114.4 133.4 125.6 102.4 121.3 116.4 127.4 126.3 112.1 130.2 130.2 114.2 132.6 125.5 101.7 119.9 116.7 126.6 125.5 111.9 127.8 130.2 113.8 132.2 124.4 101.3 118. 1 116.3 125.8 124.9 110.9 127.9 130.0 113.4 131.1 124.1 100.9 118.0 115.8 123.8 124.1 111.2 127.2 129.7 113.0 129.7 123.4 99.8 117. 1 115.1 122.9 123.7 111.6 126.9 129.6 113.0 129.1 122.5 99.8 115.4 115.2 123.6 123.0 111.2 125.8 129.4 112.9 128.8 121.6 101.0 113.2 113.2 123.6 122.6 111.4 124.7 129.4 112.6 128.1 120.3 100.9 113.8 112.8 123.0 122.6 111.6 123.3 129.0 112.3 128.2 120.9 100.9 113.6 113.4 121.8 122.0 112.1 122.1 129.0 112.1 127.2 119.6 100.1 114.1 113.2 121.5 122.4 111. 5 122.3 129.2 112.3 128.1 120.5 100.6 113.7 113.1 130.2 134.5 135.3 127.6 124.3 130.1 123.1 140.6 125.8 142.7 121.2 173.1 130.5 135.0 135,9 129.0 124.3 129.2 124.2 142.7 128.0 142.8 121.8 171.8 130.9 135.6 136.5 131.1 124.5 130.5 125.1 142.8 130.0 142.4 121.1 171.1 130.2 134.7 133.6 126.9 121.8 126.8 121.1 141. 2 126.9 140.8 120.5 168.1 129.7 133.9 133.0 126.4 120.4 126.4 120.1 141.8 126.7 140.5 119.9 166.0 128.8 132.9 132.2 126.2 121.4 126.6 120.7 141.6 122.1 138.7 118.7 164.0 127.2 131.3 130.6 123.2 119.0 123.9 118.8 140.5 123.2 137.8 118.6 162.0 127.2 131.1 131.5 125.2 121. 1 125.9 119.5 140.9 122.7 138.4 117.9 162.1 127.6 132.0 132.9 126.8 123.4 129.0 121.1 140.8 125.3 139.1 117.8 162.8 129.0 133.1 135.0 128. 1 128.3 132.9 122. 1 145.9 127.2 140.9 117.8 162.8 127.9 131.9 135.4 129.9 127.4 132.7 123.4 146.5 128.7 140.5 117.8 162.1 127.6 131.7 136.8 132.5 131. 1 135. 5 125. 0 150.1 131. 0 140. 0 115. 4 161.1 125.3 129.5 134.6 131.0 129.6 133.0 123. 0 147.1 127.9 137.9 112.1 159. 8 123.2 126.8 129. 5 124.4 121.7 126.4 118. 4 139.7 122.3 134.0 113.2 156. 4 114 24. CONSUMER PRICES M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 Consumer Price Index-general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items— Continued Index or group Other index bases 1970 1969 A nn ual average 1969 June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 134.4 135. 5 142.6 150. 5 126.5 137.5 137.4 134.8 135.1 143.6 150.4 129.0 138.5 137.1 135.9 135.6 143.5 150.6 133.5 139.9 138.2 137.9 139.7 146.1 150.6 135.3 142.1 138.7 137.2 139.5 146.2 148.6 134.0 139.9 138.8 135.6 136.9 143.7 146.7 136.9 137.7 136.7 133.3 135.7 143.4 146.8 130.7 134.7 133.1 132.0 134.1 140.4 148.3 124.8 136.0 132.4 132.7 134.0 141.8 149.1 123.9 136.5 134.9 133.7 137.6 143.0 149.6 121.8 135.5 135.6 130.2 135.7 141.3 146.0 117.0 134.5 128.7 129.0 136.4 141.9 143.6 114.2 130.9 126.8 126.1 134.8 139.7 137.2 114.2 124.8 124.1 125.2 129.6 135.8 137.8 117.1 127.5 124.3 63 63 63 63 137.4 141.0 137.1 134.4 139.7 131.9 133.2 137.9 141.2 138.2 136.7 139.5 132.0 132.9 138.0 142.0 137.4 138.3 139.7 131.8 131.9 137.3 142.2 136.1 138.3 138.4 130.4 131.6 136.0 140.8 134.2 136.6 137.7 128.6 131.4 135.3 140.9 134.2 134.8 137.2 128.0 130.1 134.4 140.4 134.6 130.4 136.6 127.9 129.9 133.6 139.4 134.7 127.8 136.1 127.1 129.8 133.3 139.9 134.7 125.1 136.2 127.2 129.9 132.6 139.7 135.4 122.6 136.2 127.0 128.0 131.2 139.3 133.7 120.6 134.5 126.0 126.3 128.8 140.9 129.4 115.6 132.0 123.7 125.0 127.2 139.1 127.6 117.6 128.8 121.5 122.2 127.7 137.0 127.4 120.0 129.3 122.1 123.7 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 97.4 95.9 108.2 119.2 97.1 95.3 109.2 119.5 97.1 95.4 109.4 119.0 97.9 96.7 110.4 116.9 99.1 98.5 110.4 115.9 99.5 99.4 110.1 114.4 97.9 97.9 110.4 110.3 99.1 99.5 110.8 110.0 98.2 98.6 112.0 107.2 102.0 103.8 113.8 105.9 101.4 103.3 113.0 104.7 100.4 103.1 109.4 101.8 97.3 99.2 107.6 101.1 96.9 98.1 108.4 102.8 143.2 128.2 154.4 126.6 131.9 142.3 127.8 153.0 126.0 130.8 141.1 126.8 152.5 124.5 129.3 139.8 127.4 150.9 123.1 126.9 138.3 126.2 148.1 121.6 126.5 137.0 125.4 145.2 120.5 126.0 135.4 124.4 143.4 117.9 125.4 134.0 122.9 141.1 116.7 125.0 133.4 122.5 139.9 116.2 124.9 132.2 121.0 138.6 114.9 124.2 131.5 120.8 137.2 114.4 123.5 130.6 119.7 134.5 113.6 124.4 129.8 118.3 133.1 113.8 124.0 130.6 119.3 134.6 114.4 124.2 130.2 126.3 134.2 129.4 131.5 129.9 126.6 134.0 129.2 129.7 129.5 126.5 133.9 128.3 127.9 129.4 126.8 133.5 128.4 127.7 128.8 126.2 133.1 127.3 127.4 128.4 126.1 132.7 127.4 126.4 127.6 125.0 132.3 126.0 125.0 126.3 123.4 130.4 125.0 124.3 125.8 122.8 130.1 124.3 123.8 125.5 122.8 129.4 124.8 124.1 125.0 122.3 128.7 124.3 124.1 124.4 121.7 128.0 122.9 123.9 124.0 121.3 127.6 122.3 124.0 124.5 121.8 128.4 123.0 123.5 Ice c re a m .......................................... Cheese, American process.................. B u t t e r . .............................................. 103.8 157.4 121.1 103.4 157.2 121.0 102.7 157.3 120.2 102.7 156.4 119.5 102.1 154.8 119.5 102.1 153.1 119.9 102.0 152.4 119.6 100.7 151.0 119.4 99.9 149.9 119.9 100.1 148.9 118.3 99.5 148.5 118.0 99.0 147.7 118.0 99.8 146.6 117.8 99.5 146.8 118.3 Fruits and vegetables___________________ Fresh fruits and vegetables................ Apples.................................... ......... Bananas................. ........................ Oranges....... ....................... ........... Orange juice, fr e s h .. ...................... 139.4 155.9 166.0 102.4 129.1 89.5 136.8 151.5 149.7 101.6 123.7 90.1 134.7 148.0 141.3 101.4 122.4 89.9 133.1 145.7 139.6 101.9 125.4 90.6 132.4 144.5 135.8 96.5 124.5 90.7 130.9 141.9 134.0 94.5 121.5 90.5 132.1 144.1 129.3 93.3 125.0 91.5 127.0 135.4 125.7 93.9 132.4 91.8 124.0 130.1 131.7 100.7 131.9 92.0 126.8 134.9 174.6 99.6 132.1 92.1 130.2 141.0 190.5 97.4 132.7 92.0 132.3 145.0 192.9 97.7 127.9 91.4 130.8 142.4 185.3 94.5 125.4 91.8 128.4 138.1 162.5 95.3 128.4 90.9 189.7 0) 133.2 180.7 160.1 (') 128.1 (O 152.4 162.7 134.9 O) 150.6 (>) (>) (') 151.7 0) (O (O 143.7 (O (>) 0 142.0 (0 <‘) 0 144.1 154.3 0 0 184.0 144.0 0) ( ') 205.9 137.8 0 0 194.6 147.4 (') 116.1 156.6 188.3 (O 119.6 143.5 O) 126.8 159.9 155.1 154.4 131.9 131.9 177.2 173.0 132.1 219.6 121.0 166.9 180.0 138.9 194.3 117.3 159.9 180.8 119.3 202.1 115.3 153.3 171.0 176.6 204.5 122.1 151.1 166.9 (O 211.3 145.3 144.3 140.5 141.6 188.7 139.2 142.0 136.4 (0 173.4 146.6 140.1 133.2 0 150.6 127.1 137.6 134.2 0 145.9 129.6 144.5 139.0 0 135.6 128.3 159.0 152.2 0 138.3 139.6 165.2 141.5 129.6 145.7 129.5 154.5 135.0 121.1 155.6 119.8 144.8 134.1 138.7 152.0 123.8 175.6 139.4 126.1 244.1 117.3 154.5 160.5 154.6 138.9 344.4 117.5 145.2 128.7 214. 0 125.2 299.7 119.9 159.0 136.2 209.1 123.0 265.5 118.3 136.1 143.6 208.5 122.7 283.9 122.0 134.8 140.5 203.4 137.6 231.2 120.3 168.1 132.2 176.5 189.5 217.2 121.8 177.5 131.2 122.5 177.9 160.9 116.5 146.7 115.5 118.5 133.3 145.7 120.1 119.0 120.1 111.7 130.8 147.8 118.0 103.2 130.2 122.5 124.2 146.4 117.2 116.3 151.8 123.0 126.8 165.6 118.8 131.0 139.2 124.6 120.2 180. 7 111. 1 158.0 125.6 148.1 144.4 172.4 114. 8 138.1 118.6 106.3 105.9 105.4 92.4 118.3 106.3 105.6 105.5 92.4 118.0 106.2 104.9 105.2 92.6 117.3 105.3 104.9 104.1 93.5 117.3 104.9 105.4 103.7 96.5 117.1 105.3 106.0 103.0 96.4 117.1 106.2 106.4 102.4 97.4 116.8 105.4 106.9 102.6 97.2 116.6 105.6 107.6 102.2 98.2 116.9 106.6 108.2 101.8 99.4 116.7 106.3 108.8 101.0 100.0 116.4 107.1 108.6 100.4 100.4 116 3 106 3 108 9 99 9 101.0 116 3 106 4 108 7 100 5 98.9 95.4 117.2 123.0 135.1 120.9 113.4 97.0 115.9 122.0 133.3 121.3 112.9 96.5 116.2 123.1 130.7 121.5 113.0 95.9 115.0 121.8 128.0 122.0 112.7 94.8 114.1 122.2 127.2 123.4 111.8 95.1 113.9 122.4 126.7 123.1 110.8 94.7 113.6 122.4 126.6 123.3 109.6 94.1 113.3 123.1 125.5 123.6 108.0 93.8 112.8 122.9 124.8 124.3 106.7 93.3 113.1 122.9 124.1 125.0 107.5 92.5 112.8 122.7 124.6 125.0 106.7 90.6 113.3 121.7 124.5 124.7 105.4 92 3 112.7 121 0 124 1 124 9 104.9 92 5 113 2 121 7 124 7 124 7 104.7 113.3 91.9 113.7 97.7 113.8 103.6 116.0 122.6 118.1 141.0 117.7 143.0 116.6 140.6 112.9 122.3 111.0 114.5 110.5 113.8 110.5 114.4 107.2 95.6 106. 6 92. 5 109.9 112.1 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 112.0 103.6 135.4 111.4 103.2 134.7 108.8 102.3 131.2 106.1 102.2 129. 1 105.6 101.9 127.2 105.6 102.5 126.2 105.0 102.6 124.8 103.7 102.5 123.9 102.7 102.8 123.0 102.2 102.3 123.6 102.4 102.3 123.6 103.1 102.4 123.5 103 5 103 4 123.3 103 0 102.6 123.4 Dec. 63 132.2 120.3 132.5 133.7 110.5 131.8 119.6 132.3 133.2 110.6 130.5 118.9 131.3 130.1 110.3 129.7 118.2 131.5 127.9 128.6 117.2 130.6 126.6 109.3 128.1 116.7 129.7 127.1 108.1 127.5 116.2 128.7 127.4 107.1 126.6 116.2 126.5 126.6 106.9 126.4 116.3 125.6 126.7 106.8 126.0 116.4 124.7 126.5 106.5 125.4 116.5 123.9 125.1 106.5 125.3 116.2 123.9 124.9 106.4 125.2 115.6 124.1 124 8 106.5 125.1 115.3 124.1 125.1 106.1 FOOD—Continued Meats, poultry, and fish— Continued Meats— Continued Pork................................................ C h o p s.______ _____ __________ Loin roast..................................... Pork sausage_________________ Ham, whole___________________ Picnics....... ............................ . B a c o n .................. ...................... Other meats...................... ............. Lamb c h o p s ................................ Frankfurters________ ______ Ham, canned_________________ Bologna sausage______________ Salami sausage_______________ Liverw urst.................................... Poultry............................................... Frying c hicke n....................... ......... Chicken breasts............................... Turkey..................... ...................... Fish.......... .............................. ............ Shrim p, frozen......... ...................... Fish, fresh or fro z e n ................. . Tuna, fish, canned....... .......... ......... Sardines, canned............................. Dairy products___ ________ ____________ M ilk, fresh, grocery________ ______ M ilk, fresh, delivered_______ _______ M ilk, fresh, s k im __________ ______ M ilk, evaporated...... .......................... Apr. 60 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Grapefruit........................................ Grapes............................... ............. Straw b e rrie s........................... ....... Watermelon____________ _____ _ Potatoes____ ______ ___________ Onions_________________________ Asparagus....... ............................. C abbage........................................ Carrots.............................. .............. C e le r y ............................................ Cucumbers_____________________ Lettuce____ ___________________ Peppers, green................................ Sp in ach.___________ ___________ Tomatoes........................................ Processed fruits and vegetables..................... . Fruit cocktail, canned______________ Pears, canned____________________ Grapefruit-pineapple juice, ca n n e d ... Orange juice concentrate, frozen........ Lemonade concentrate, frozen........ . Beets, canned____________________ Peas, green, canned_______________ Tomatoes, canned_________________ Dried beans________________ ___ Broccoli, frozen........... .............. ........ Other food at home_______________________ Eggs....................... ............................... Fats and oils: Margarine________________________ Salad dressing, Ita lia n ................... Salad or cooking o il................... ........ Sugar and sweets................................... Sugar____ _____ _________________ Grape je lly ........................................ Chocolate bar...................................... Syrup, chocolate flavored___________ See fo o tn o tes at en d of tab le. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Apr. 60 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 110.1 CONSUMER PRICES C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 24. 115 Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items— Continued Item or group June FO O D — Continued Other food at home— Continued Nonalcoholic beverages... Coffee, can and bag----Coffee, instant________ Tea..... .......................... Cola drink-----------------Carbonated fruit drink.. Prepared and partially prepared fo od s.. Bean soup, canned........ .............. Chicken soup, canned.------ --------Spaghetti, canned______________ Mashed potatoes, instant-----Potatoes, french fried, frozen. Baby foods, canned_________ Sweet pickle relish................. P retzels................................. July 61 Dec. 63 116.5 105.4 115.7 105.9 164.2 130.5 Annual average 1969 1969 1970 Other index bases May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 115.2 103.6 114.7 104.8 163.0 130.0 114.0 102.2 114.1 103.6 162.0 128.5 112.4 99.7 113.1 103.1 161.9 127.4 110.7 97.4 107.4 92.3 108.0 102.9 158.4 124.8 106.1 90.0 106.0 104.3 87.0 104.2 103.7 86.6 103.8 103.8 85.7 103.9 103.3 86.3 103.6 103.4 103.7 103.7 87.5 103.2 103.6 160.3 126.0 109.1 94.9 109.6 103.1 159.3 125.5 102.2 102.1 102.0 102.2 102.0 102.0 101.8 158.7 124.7 158.0 124.5 156.8 123.4 156.6 123.1 155.3 122.7 155.1 121.9 155.3 121.9 111.0 86.8 63 63 63 63 110.1 110.1 111.3 102.3 123.4 111.1 102.3 123.2 109.8 110.5 102.0 122.7 109.5 110.4 101.8 121.8 109.0 110.9 101.1 121.1 108.5 109.7 100.8 120.8 108.2 108.8 100.3 120.4 107.6 107.2 99.5 119.8 107.4 106.3 98.3 118.9 106.9 105.6 98.1 117.2 106.7 105.4 98.3 117.3 106.2 105.1 98.0 117.0 105.9 105.1 97.8 116.4 106.2 105.0 98.0 117.1 Dec. 63 Apr. 60 110.8 110.5 93.2 112.0 117.2 109.1 110.3 92.8 112.0 116.0 108.3 109.7 92.7 112.1 115.6 107.1 109.6 92.5 111.9 115.0 107.5 92.1 111.4 114.3 107.0 109.6 92.8 111.7 114.2 107.6 108.9 92.7 112.7 108.5 92.5 108.1 91.8 111.7 107.7 90.8 110.7 107.2 91.4 112.1 117.0 110.3 110.6 93.2 112.9 118.0 110.0 110.0 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 110.7 93.5 112.5 117.6 110.1 112.0 111.0 111.8 111.6 112.8 107.6 107.6 107.4 107.0 107.1 135.6 135.1 134.4 133.6 132.2 131.1 130.5 129.8 129.2 128.6 127.8 127.0 126.3 126.7 145.6 123.4 154.4 144.7 123.0 153.3 143.7 122.6 152.1 142.8 122.3 150.9 140.9 121.8 148.5 139.6 121.3 146.8 138.5 121.0 145.4 137.7 120.5 144.5 137.0 143.6 136.1 119.7 142.6 135.1 119.3 141.3 134.0 118.8 140.0 133.0 118.5 138.7 133.6 118.8 139.4 Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. H O U S IN G . Shelter................. Rent.............. Homeownership. 93.4 112.6 120.1 112.6 Mortgage interest rate s.. Property taxes_________ Property insurance rates. Maintenance and repairs. Dec. 63 149.1 139.8 153.5 151.4 149.2 139.4 153.2 149.9 149.1 138.2 153.6 148.8 148.9 134.7 153.2 148.3 143.5 133.6 152.8 146.9 139.9 133.0 152. 5 146.4 139.6 132.0 153.3 145.8 139.3 131.5 152.3 144.9 138.8 130.5 150.7 144.5 138.2 130.4 149.5 143.8 137.1 129.9 150.3 142.4 135.8 128.7 149.6 141.5 134.9 128.2 147.4 140.8 134.4 129.0 148.7 140.7 Commodities_________ Exterior house paint. Interior house paint. Dec. 63 119.6 120.7 115.6 118.4 119.9 115.0 117.8 119.9 114.6 117.2 121.0 114.7 116.5 119.8 114.8 116.1 119.3 114.1 115.9 119.1 114.3 116.0 118.7 113.6 116.2 118.0 113.8 116.7 117.6 113.1 117.2 116.5 113.1 117.5 115.7 112.3 117.8 115.6 112.2 116.1 116.5 112.4 Services..................... ....... .............. Repainting living and dining rooms. Reshingling roofs..... ................. Residing houses.......... ........... . Replacing s in k s .................. ........ Repairing furnaces................... . Dec. 63 149.3 196.3 168.0 138.3 151.6 154.3 147.9 191.7 167.1 137.4 150.4 153.7 146.7 187.9 165.6 137.1 149.1 152.9 146.2 186.8 166.1 136.7 148.2 152.4 144.7 185.4 165.4 135.0 145.6 151.3 144.1 184.6 164.9 134.6 145. 2 150.0 143.5 183.6 164.1 134.0 144.5 149.7 142.2 182.6 163.0 134.2 142.6 145.2 141.6 181.8 162.3 133.7 142.0 144.1 140.4 179.7 161.4 133.0 140.4 142.8 138.2 178.3 157.6 130.0 139.0 141.2 136.9 176.1 155.4 129.3 137.8 139.7 135.7 174.0 154.2 128.6 137.2 137.7 136.4 174.6 155.8 129.0 137.4 139.1 Fuel and utilities........... 116.2 121.2 116.3 120.9 117.8 115.7 123.1 108.0 115 6 120 8 117.8 114.8 121.9 107.5 114.9 120.6 117.5 114.6 121.5 107.4 114.6 119.7 116.6 114.1 120. 5 107.4 114.6 119.2 116.2 113.7 119.8 107.2 114.2 118.9 116.0 113.2 118.8 107.2 113.5 118.4 115.5 113.3 118.1 115.4 108.3 116.4 121.0 118.0 115.8 123.2 108.2 116.9 106.9 116.7 106.8 113.0 117.7 115.2 111.5 116.1 106.4 112.6 Fuel oil and c o a l... Fuel oil, #2......... Gas and electricity. Gas................... . Electricity........ . 117.4 115.0 110.9 115.7 105.6 112.7 117.5 115.0 111.3 116.4 105.7 112.9 117.8 115.1 111.5 116.8 105.8 104.9 151.0 104.9 151.0 104.8 151.0 103.9 151.0 102.8 147.5 103.0 147.5 103.8 147. 5 103.7 147.5 103.6 145.3 103.6 145.3 103.6 145.3 103.6 145.3 103.6 143.4 103.5 144.4 122.8 122.5 112.2 122.0 112.0 121.6 111.7 120.8 111.1 120.1 110.5 120.0 110.6 119.6 110.4 119.3 119.0 109.9 118.5 109.4 118.2 109.3 117.9 109.0 117.9 109.0 116.2 121.8 116.7 123.6 116.4 122.7 115.7 120.8 114.2 117.3 116.1 122.2 115.7 121.7 115.0 120.1 115.2 119.8 113.8 116.2 114.8 118.7 114.8 122.0 120.2 114.4 119.6 113.1 117.5 113.2 116.8 113.3 117.8 113.7 117.1 112.7 116.6 111.6 115.0 112.3 117.6 112.1 112.0 117.1 112.0 117.7 126.6 127.3 127.0 126.5 125.8 125.0 126.6 126.0 114.3 112.7 111.8 112.1 112.3 111.0 110.4 110.0 126.7 126.6 126.0 125.4 124.6 124.1 123.9 Mar. 70 100.6 100.5 100.4 Dec. 63 Mar. 70 Dec. 63 122.1 128.1 122.5 100.2 119.1 123.3 (5) 121.4 127.9 121.9 100.2 118.7 122.6 (s) 120.0 127.3 121.0 126.1 120.0 126.0 120.0 118.0 120.6 124.2 120.6 116.5 120.0 122.5 119.9 107.4 104.2 113.7 113.1 106.9 103.8 113.7 111.8 106.9 103.9 113.7 111.7 106.9 104.0 113.6 111.3 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 118.3 115.3 122.0 Other utilities: Residential telephone se rvice s.. Residential water and sewerage. Household furnishings and operation. 112.4 Housefurnishings................ Textile s......................... ................... Sheets, percale or m u slin ............. Curtains, tailored, polyester mar quisette________________ ____ Bedspreads, chiefly cotton, tufted. Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/ acetate_________________ : - - Slipcovers, ready made, chiefly cotton............ ............................ Furniture and bedding_____________ Bedroom furniture chest and dresser 3____ _______________ Living room suites, good and inex pensive quality------- ------- -------Lounge chairs, upholstered_______ Dining room chairs 4....................... Sofas, upholstered............ ............. Sofas, dual purpose....................... Box springs.......... ...................— Cribs........ .................................... Floor coverings_____ Rugs, soft surface.. Rugs, hard surface. Tile, vinyl________ Appliances.......................................... Washing machines, electric, auto matic_______ _________ _____ Vacuum cleaners, canister type___ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 116.7 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 ( 5) Dec. 63 87.2 87.1 92.9 81.5 87.1 92.9 81.6 86.8 92.4 81.3 112.2 110.2 112.0 112.0 111.6 116.9 115.7 116.5 111.5 116.9 110.9 116.2 124.1 124.5 125.0 124.8 122. 2 123.1 111.1 110.0 110.3 110.1 109.6 109.6 123.7 123.6 122.9 122.4 122.1 121.8 121.5 126.3 118.8 125.8 118.6 125.9 118.9 124.9 119.0 124.8 117.9 123.9 116.5 123.4 116.2 123.7 115.8 116.3 120.5 122.4 119.6 116. 5 120.0 122.6 119. 8 115.7 115.9 118.9 124.1 119.2 114.8 118.8 123.7 117.1 115.1 118.6 123.2 118.0 114.3 117.9 123.0 117.7 113.8 117.1 123.0 117.5 114.2 117.2 106.8 104.0 113.2 110.3 107.1 104.7 112.5 110.3 107.1 104.8 112.5 107.0 104.9 106.3 104.1 106.5 104.5 111.8 111.6 109.3 108.5 106.4 104.4 111.5 108.2 106.2 104.1 110.1 107.1 104.9 112. 1 109.6 86.6 86.5 86.4 6.3 86.2 86.0 86.0 85.9 85.8 85.8 92.3 81.5 91.5 91.8 81.8 1 81.4 91.2 81.4 90.9 81.5 91.0 81.3 90.8 82.1 90.5 82.0 90.5 81.8 90.6 81.5 120.2 122.5 119.5 111.2 108.0 122.0 117.0 111.2 108.4 116 24. CONSUMER PRICES M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items— Continued Index or ¡roup Other index bases 1970 Ju n e HOUSING— Continued Household furnishings and operation— Con. Appliances— Continued Refrigerators or refrigeratorfreezers, electric______________ Ranges, free standing, gas or electric_________ ____________ Clothes dryers, electric, automatic.. Dec. A ir conditioners, demountable........ Ju n e Room heaters, electric, portable___ Dec. Garbage disposal units___________ Dec. Other house furnishings: Dinnerware, earthenware_________ Flatware, stainless steel__________ Table lamps, with shade............. Boys': Coats, all purpose, cotton or cotton blend__________________ ______ Sport coats, wool or wool blend_____ Dungarees, cotton or cotton blend . Undershorts, cotton________________ Oct. average 1969 Sept. Aug. July June 87 .3 87 .5 87.2 86 .8 86.1 86 .0 85.8 85.8 85 .8 8 5 .7 85 .4 85 .2 85.3 100.2 100.7 100.1 9 9 .3 99 .0 99.0 98.8 98.5 98.1 9 8 .2 97 .6 97 .4 97.7 102.6 101. 5 102.1 101.3 0 107.2 101.8 0 100.5 106.6 101.3 0 100.6 105.9 100.8 (0 100.6 105.5 100.6 0 100.4 105.0 100.5 0 99.8 105.0 99.8 O) 99.6 104.7 99 .6 (O 0 1013 9 9 .7 9 9 .8 103.9 9 9 .5 99 .7 (!) 103.9 99 5 99 5 0 103.9 99.4 99.5 98.8 103.9 139.3 121.0 121.6 138.3 120.8 121.4 138.1 120.7 121.2 138.1 120.4 119.9 137.1 120.1 118.6 136.2 119.2 118.3 135.6 119.0 118.7 135.2 119.6 118.3 134.8 119.6 117.8 134.3 119.8 116.0 1 3 3 .5 119.6 1 1 5.4 133.6 119.5 115.3 132 7 118 9 114.0 133.3 118.7 114.6 110.0 139. 5 129.7 110.0 138. 5 129.4 109.8 136.4 127.8 110.0 134.7 126.8 108.8 131.3 123.5 108.1 129.8 121.9 107.1 131.0 120.3 106.2 130.0 121.2 106.8 129.0 121.2 107.4 128.6 120.7 1 0 7.4 128.0 119.1 106.4 127.2 119.5 106. 5 128 1 119.8 106.3 128.2 118.9 Dec. 63 186.6 141. 8 165. 5 150.2 185.5 141. 5 165. 5 150. 0 184.8 140.9 Ibb. b 149.8 182.5 140.0 165.5 149. 1 182.0 138.6 165.5 147.9 180.5 137.6 165.5 147.5 179.9 137.4 165.5 146.8 178.7 136.6 165.5 144.3 177.6 135.7 165.5 143.2 175.1 135.6 165. 5 142.7 173.9 134. 9 165. 5 141.4 172.9 134.5 165.5 140.6 172 2 133 7 165 5 140.2 173.5 133.7 165.5 140.6 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 132.7 140.2 132.5 140. 4 132.1 139.8 132. 0 139.6 132.0 138.3 132.0 136.6 131.8 135.4 131.8 135. 1 130.7 135.2 130.3 134.4 129.7 133.5 128.4 133.0 128 1 131.6 127.9 131.7 Dec. 63 Ju n e 64 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Sept. 61 Mar. 62 0 132.2 131.9 131.1 130.6 130.0 129.3 130.8 130.7 129.8 128.7 126.6 126.8 127.0 127.1 133.9 133.4 132.3 131.0 130.8 132.0 132.1 131.0 130.0 128.7 128.1 128.5 128.5 143.7 154.2 0 125.5 130.0 117.6 116.0 147.4 158.2 (>) 125.7 131.2 117.6 117.2 148.5 158.2 0 125.6 131.7 117.1 117.0 145.9 156.4 0 125.4 130.4 115.6 116.9 144.0 154.5 0 125.2 128.9 115.2 116.9 (>) 150.7 125.0 127. 1 114.5 116.8 (O 149.6 127.7 125.1 126.1 112.1 116.9 (O 150 0 130.8 125 6 126.6 114.3 116.7 142.9 150.9 128.6 124.6 127.4 113.9 116.4 0 IbO. 5 140. 5 125. 2 132. 8 123. 7 117.8 0 160.2 138.4 125.1 132.7 123.4 117.1 0 159.8 137.4 125.3 131.8 123.0 117.2 144.1 157.3 136.6 125.3 131.0 120.9 116.6 141.0 153.9 0 125.6 129.6 119.4 116.4 126.8 124.6 134. 7 123.1 115.3 126.5 124. 2 134.6 122.6 115.1 126.4 124.1 134.1 122.6 114.4 126.0 123.7 132.9 121.5 114.2 124.9 123.2 133.3 121.3 113.9 124.4 122.5 132.4 120.9 113.8 124.2 122.3 131.9 120.9 113.8 124.7 122.2 131.8 120.4 113.3 124.2 122.2 131.5 121.1 112.9 123.2 121.8 130.6 121.6 112.7 123.3 121.6 130.6 121.6 112.4 123.1 121.5 130.1 121.1 112.3 123 4 121.7 129.4 120 5 112.3 122.9 121.3 130.0 119.8 0 O) 130.1 131. 5 0 0 130.1 131.6 0 0 129.5 130.9 114.6 0 129.5 130.5 114.3 0 129.4 129.9 114.2 127.8 128.9 130.1 116.1 130.3 127.1 130.3 115.9 131.0 127.9 130.3 115.2 126.4 126.9 129.0 113. 5 122.5 127.4 128.9 (!) (1) 0 0 127.2 127.9 (l) 127.4 1 2 8 .4 127.0 126.6 112.4 125.6 126.3 127.1 126.8 126.6 125.2 125.3 125.4 124.2 127.2 127.4 126.2 124.6 120.8 122.5 122.7 122.8 0 0 136.3 130.6 0 0 136.3 129.7 0 0 0 125.3 0 121.0 0 124.9 124.9 135.6 0 126.9 136.2 144.6 0 127.6 139.9 145.3 0 127.2 139.9 133.9 0 125.4 136.0 129.4 0 122.7 0 0 0 (i) 135.2 127.1 (i) 12L8 122.2 130.7 122.4 0 135.0 122.7 134.4 129.3 129.3 123.6 155.8 0 0 0) 156.5 0 0 0 158.9 158.5 0 0 0 158.7 0 0 153.5 155.9 144.2 158.8 144.8 0 152.1 155.9 145.7 (>) 150.7 152.5 140.8 (0 149.0 147.3 152.3 158.3 145.7 0 153.0 136.6 150.0 147.6 0 149.9 148.8 147. 3 (O 150.6 149.6 150.2 141.0 147.2 147.9 115.6 113.3 121. 4 129.2 114.7 112. 7 121.3 128.4 114.2 113.2 121.4 127.4 114.6 112.7 120.9 125.6 113.4 112.0 120.5 124.4 112.3 111.2 120.8 124.9 112.2 111.4 120.5 123.8 111.9 110.5 120.2 123.1 111.9 109.9 119.5 122.9 111.6 109.1 119.4 122.5 109.7 108.6 119.0 122.2 110. 5 108.4 118 7 122.0 109.2 119.1 121.7 99.1 120.1 111.2 119.3 98 .9 120.1 110.6 118. 8 99 .0 120.5 110.9 118.2 98 .3 122.5 111.0 118.5 98 .5 121.0 110.7 116.4 99 .8 121.5 110.5 117.3 99 .8 118.5 109.8 117.2 99.4 118.5 109.2 115.5 99. 2 118.4 109. 0 114.8 98 .8 118. 2 109 3 114.1 99. 6 118.1 108.9 113.8 99 0 117.6 108.9 113.7 99.1 117.2 103.6 113.6 0) 114.8 118.9 0 0 118.1 117.4 125.6 123.2 124.4 123.4 121.7 124. 0 120.8 0 0 0 0 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 9 8 .8 118.9 111.4 120.3 Dec. 63 (!) 134.2 Hose, nylon, seam less............... Anklets, cotton___________________ Gloves, fabric, nylon or cotton____ Handbags, rayon fa ille or plastic........ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Nov. 8 7 .5 115.8 113. 5 121.4 128.9 See footnotes at end of table. Dec. 100.7 Slips, nylon_____________________ Panties, acetate_____ _____ Girdles, manmade blend____ Brassieres, cotton_________________ G irls’ : Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly cotton........................... Skirts, wool or wooi blend.” ............. I Jan. Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Women's and girls'.................................... Women's: Coats, heavyweight, wool or wool blend__________ _______ _ Skirts, wool or wool blend____ Skirts, cotton or cotton blend Blouses, cotton.____ _________ Dresses, street, chiefly manmade fiber__________________ _____ Dresses, street, wool or wool blend__ Dresses, street, cotton______ ______ Housedresses, c o tto n ..____ _______ Feb. 108.2 Men's and boys’.............................................. Shirts, work, cotton...................... . Shirts, business, cotton____________ T-shirts, chiefly cotton_____________ Socks, cotton_________ ___________ Handkerchiefs, cotton______________ Mar. 101.9 101. 3 0 107. 4 APPAREL AND UPKEEP.............. Men’s: Topcoats, wool.................................... Suits, year round weight___________ Suits, tropical weight______________ Jackets, lightweight_______________ Slacks, wool or wool b le n d .. .......... Slacks, cotton or manmade blend___ Trousers, work, cotton_____________ Apr. A nnual 63 64 63 63 Housekeeping supplies: Laundry soaps and detergents........ Paper napkins__________________ Toilet tissu e .____ ______________ Housekeeping services: Domestic service, general house w o rk ._____ _________________ Baby sitter service______________ Postal charges____ _____________ Laundry, flatwork, finished service. Licensed day care service, pre sc h o o lch ild __________________ Washing machine repairs_________ May 1969 0) 0 0 0 0 (O (0 0 0) (O (i) 0 0 0 112.1 (i) 110.8 0 (O I 120.9 121.4 C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 24. CONSUMER PRICES 117 Consumer Price Index—general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items— Continued Index or group APPAREL AND UPKEEP-Continued Women’s and girls’—Continued G irls’ Continued Dresses, cotton...... ....................... . Slacks, cotton___ ________ ______ Slips, cotton blend___________ ___ Handbags________________ ______ _ Other index bases Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Footwear_____ ________________________ Men’s: Shoes, street, oxford_______________ Shoes, work, high.............................. 1970 1969 Annual average 1969 June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 133.2 (■) 108.0 118.3 129.4 (>) 107.3 117.4 135.1 (>) 107.5 115.7 134.0 125.5 108.1 115.1 132.3 125.4 107.8 114.9 129.8 128.4 108.0 113.7 133.6 131.8 108.0 114.2 136.3 131.7 108.6 114.7 137.4 127.9 108.5 111.1 136.9 (2) 107.7 108.9 135.4 (>) 108.0 108.3 134.2 (O 108.1 108.2 133.9 C) 107.2 106.5 134.4 125.8 107.5 109.3 147.7 147.6 147.2 146.3 145.0 144.4 144.4 143.9 143.3 142.3 141.5 139.9 140.1 140.3 145.6 143.4 145.3 142.9 144.7 142.6 143.8 142.1 142.3 141.4 141.3 140.9 142.6 139.8 142.1 139.5 141.5 139.0 140.1 138.4 138.7 138.1 137.5 137.3 138.6 136.8 138.4 136.7 157.3 125.8 138.3 127.7 155.5 125.0 136.3 128.2 151.6 124.8 135.7 127.8 151.8 124.2 134.2 128.0 152.7 123.2 134.0 127.5 152.5 122.9 133.4 127.1 152.0 122.9 132.0 126.6 150.8 122.3 129.6 126.4 149.9 121.8 121.0 120.0 147.3 147.9 128.9 125.4 126.8 123.9 128.2 124.0 148.6 120.3 127.7 124.7 Women's: Shoes, street, pump_______________ Shoes, evening, pump_____________ Shoes, casual, pump_______________ Houseslippers, scuff______ ________ Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 156.8 126.6 138.3 128.1 157.3 126.7 138.7 127.7 Children’s: Shoes, oxford_____________________ Sneakers, boys', oxford t y p e ............ Dress shoes, g irls’, strap___________ 147.2 123.2 138.3 146.6 146.3 122.6 122.0 138.3 137.5 146.6 120.7 138.0 145.9 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 136.6 120.0 144.3 119.6 136.6 144.3 119.5 136.4 143.3 119.3 135.7 142.3 119.1 134.6 141.4 118.9 134.1 140.7 118.1 133.1 140.2 116.9 130.6 139.8 116.2 131.9 140.1 117.2 131.5 105.0 127.1 104.9 127.6 104.8 126.8 104.9 125.9 104.3 124.6 104.0 123.3 104.0 123.5 104.1 123.1 103.8 123.5 103.9 123.2 104.0 123.2 122.1 103.5 103.2 123.2 103.0 120.9 136.3 114. 0 130. 0 133.3 126.8 136.0 113.2 129.0 128.8 126.5 135.7 113.1 128.8 128.4 126.3 135.2 113.2 128.5 127.7 125.5 134.6 112.3 128.0 127.4 125.0 133.8 133.3 132.9 124.3 127.6 123.6 132.0 111.3 123.4 126.5 123.1 130.5 126.7 127.4 123.7 132.2 111.4 123.8 127.5 122.7 131.7 126.8 127.0 124.6 111.0 111.0 123.2 125.4 121.3 123.0 125.2 121.1 130.2 110.4 122.5 125.1 120.4 122.9 124.5 121.3 TRANSPORTATION_________________________ 130.6 129.9 128.9 127.1 127.3 127.3 126.4 125.6 125.7 123.6 124.2 124.3 124.6 124.2 Private________________________________ Automobiles, new.......................... ......... Automobiles, used___________________ Gasoline, regular and premium________ Motor oil, premium__________________ 126.7 103.8 132. 0 117.6 143.0 125.9 104.1 127.5 118.6 142.8 124.9 104.3 121.1 119.2 142.6 123.0 104.4 117.6 115.3 142.3 123.3 104.6 117.8 116.7 141.4 123.3 104.7 120.7 116.6 140.7 123.4 104.9 123.9 116.9 140.2 122.7 105.1 124.9 116.3 140.1 104.2 125.8 118.0 139.6 120.5 99.5 121.4 117.7 139.1 Tires, new, tubeless___ ___________ Auto repairs and maintenance. ............. Auto insurance rates __ ............. .......... Auto re g is tr a tio n ..___ _____ _____ 118.0 143.5 181.9 140.9 118.6 142.9 179.5 140.9 118.6 142.1 175.6 140.9 119.4 141.5 176.4 140.3 118.5 140.2 176.0 140.3 118.2 139.2 173.4 140.3 118.2 137.3 171.5 134.2 118.0 136.6 164.6 134.2 117.4 136.1 163.7 134.2 167.8 185.8 135.9 121. 5 117.9 130.1 166.6 185.2 131.5 165.8 183.9 131.5 165.8 183.8 131.5 117.8 128.6 117.8 128.6 165.1 183.3 131.5 117.2 117.4 127.9 153.0 163.2 131.5 117.2 117.4 127.9 151.1 163.0 127.5 115. 5 117.8 128.6 165.4 183.8 131.5 117.2 117.4 127.9 HEALTH AND RECREATION_________________ 143.7 142.9 142.3 141.4 140.7 140.1 139.6 Medical care____________________________ Drugs and prescriptions____ ____ ____ Over-the-counter items____ _______ Multiple vitamin concentrates____ Aspirin compounds.................... . 164.7 163.6 101.4 109.2 92.7 109.2 162.8 100.9 108.6 92.0 108.1 161.6 100.3 107.8 91.7 107.3 160.1 159.0 99.7 107.2 92.3 106.2 101.9 121.4 112.7 116.4 101.9 119.8 101. 5 119.7 116.0 113.5 118.2 111.5 113.0 90.6 63.2 114.0 90.8 90.3 63.0 113.7 90.7 89.7 62.8 89.7 63.0 102.6 90.5 63.1 114.2 90.7 102.4 Mar.’ 60 118.1 118.0 Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. 60 67 67 67 100.4 105.4 107.2 94.2 100.4 105.2 107.2 94.2 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 167.3 170.8 175.6 161.8 151.4 135.0 165.6 168.3 173.6 161.1 151.3 135.0 Miscellaneous apparel: Diapers, cotton gauze________________ Yard goods, cotton.................................. Apparel services: Drycleaning, men's suits and women’s dresses__________________________ Automatic laundry service____________ Laundry, men’s shirts____ ______ ___ Tailoring charges, hem adjustm ent.. . . Shoe repairs, women’s heel lift_______ Public_________________________________ Local transit fares. _________ ____ Taxicab fares_______________________ Railroad fares, coach. _____________ Airplane fares, chiefly c o a c h _________ Bus fares, intercity________ ________ Liquid tonics___________________ Adhesive bandages, package______ Cold tablets or capsules__________ Cough syrup__________ ________ _ Prescriptions_____________________ Anti-infectives__________ ______ _ Sedatives and hypnotics____ ____ Ataractics______________________ Anti-spasmodics...... ............ ........ Cough preparations____ : ____ Cardiovasculars and antihypertensives______ __________ __ Analgesics, internal______________ Anti-obesity_____ ______________ Hormones______________________ Professional services: Physicians’ fees_________ ________ Family doctor, office visits________ Family doctor, house v is it s ........... Obstetrical cases.__ _ _ ............... Pediatric care, office visits________ Psychiatrist, office visits............ . See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 101.6 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 109.7 92.6 109.8 Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. 101.8 Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. 63 63 63 63 60 60 60 60 122.7 112.7 117.2 112.0 112.0 111.8 122.8 121.8 101.0 101.6 101.8 130.8 110.1 121.3 121.4 125.4 118.0 138.7 127.0 117.7 138.1 128.2 118.6 137.4 121.3 102.4 125.3 117.0 137.5 117.0 135.2 163.2 134.2 116.0 134.5 160.3 134.2 116.3 133.8 159.0 134.2 115.5 133.3 158.7 134.2 116.2 133.8 160.2 133.6 150.3 161.7 127.5 115.1 150.3 161.7 127.5 115.1 149.7 160.8 127.5 114.9 149.5 160.5 127.5 114.9 149.1 159.9 127.5 114.9 148.9 160.4 126.7 114.0 127.0 122.9 122.9 122.9 139.1 138.6 138.4 137.7 137.0 136.3 136.6 158.1 99.6 107.1 92.8 106.6 157.4 99.6 107.1 92.4 106.2 156.9 99.4 106.9 92.5 106.1 157.6 99.3 106.9 92.4 105.5 156.8 99.3 107.0 92.4 106.8 155.9 99.2 106.9 92.1 106.4 155.2 99.3 107.1 92.2 106.6 155.0 99.2 106.9 92.4 106.2 101.3 117.8 .0 113.4 101.3 117.7 110.5 112.9 101.3 117.1 110.0 114.7 117.4 109.6 113.7 100.9 117.0 109.1 115.1 100.9 116.5 109.2 114.8 100.9 117.0 109.5 115.2 116.9 109.2 114.5 89.3 62.8 112.1 112.0 110.6 90.0 90.0 90.0 102.2 101.7 101.6 101.5 89.1 62.8 110.4 89.8 101.3 89.0 62.8 109.6 89.8 101.3 89.0 63.0 108.9 89.8 101.3 62.9 107.8 89.8 88.7 62.9 107.6 89.7 62.8 107.1 89.9 63.1 106.9 90.0 62.8 107.2 89.8 118.1 101.2 101.0 101.0 101.2 101.1 111.1 110.8 110.2 109.7 109.4 97.0 97.1 121.1 121.1 121.1 112.6 112.2 100.0 107.2 90.8 107.4 101.2 111 111.6 111.6 111.6 112.1 112.1 112.1 110.6 127.0 122.4 127.0 100.8 88.8 100.8 116.7 109.1 114.8 101.0 88.6 88.6 88.6 117.1 115.2 112.7 112.0 111.7 111.4 105.3 106.0 93.6 99.0 104.7 105.8 93.9 98.8 105.0 105.5 93.6 98.3 104.3 104.8 93.6 98.0 103.3 104.3 94.2 98.0 103.2 104.3 93.9 97.9 103.1 104.2 94.3 97.7 103.1 103.6 93.9 97.6 103.1 103.3 93.9 97.1 102.9 102.9 93.8 102.8 102.8 102.6 103.1 93.9 94.3 164.3 167.3 172.5 159.2 148.7 134.7 163.7 166.6 171.7 159. 0 148. 5 134.6 161.6 164.0 169.0 157.6 147.7 133.7 160.7 163. 1 167.9 155.9 146.5 133.0 160.0 162.4 167.6 155.0 145.9 132.6 159.0 161.0 166.2 154.9 145.5 132.6 158.3 160.6 165.9 153.9 144.2 131.7 158.0 160.3 165.6 153.2 144.1 131.7 156.8 158.7 163.9 152.8 142.8 130.9 156.0 158.3 163.8 150.1 140.9 129.3 155.5 157.6 163.4 149.4 140.3 129.6 155.4 157.2 163.3 150.2 141.4 129.1 100.0 118 24. M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 CONSUMER PRICES Consumer Price Index— general summary and U.S. average for groups, subgroups, and selected items— Continued Index or group Other index bases 1970 1969 June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. 130.6 156.7 129.6 156.1 128.7 154.2 127.5 153.8 126.7 152.6 126.3 152.3 125.4 151.6 125.2 151.3 151.9 151.2 150.7 148.7 148.4 148.0 147.6 Dec. 63 154.1 149.7 133.6 153.3 148.9 133.2 152.5 148.9 132.7 150.6 146.1 131.7 150.3 145.9 131.3 149.8 146.0 130.6 148.7 147.0 130.2 Dec. 63 137.8 121.7 136.9 121.3 136.7 121.2 136.3 120.8 135.7 119.8 134.6 119.6 133.9 119.5 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 284.4 281.1 273.5 181.7 131.4 283.1 279.8 272.3 180.9 129.4 282.3 279.1 271.4 180.3 128.1 279.0 275.6 268.7 177.7 127.7 275.6 271.9 265.9 175.4 125.4 271.6 268.0 261.8 172.8 124.7 Dec. 63 130.2 113.3 114.4 127.0 111.2 130.3 113.3 114.4 126.2 111.5 129.8 113.0 114.7 124.3 117.3 129.6 112.9 113.9 125.6 110.5 129.0 112.4 114.3 124.3 110.0 101.3 131.4 95.9 116.4 98.3 102.1 131.6 95.8 116.4 98.4 102.3 131.0 95.9 116.0 98.3 102.2 130.8 96.1 115.5 98.6 151.2 161.0 141.0 125.4 151.3 161.0 141.2 126.4 150.5 159.7 140.9 126.3 159.0 110.0 159.0 109.6 135.2 99.9 80.1 118.3 Annual average 1969 Sept. Aug. July June 124.6 149.3 124.6 149.1 124.3 149.0 124.3 148.1 124.1 147.8 123.9 148.2 147.2 146.9 146.0 145.5 144.9 144.2 143.9 148.3 146.7 129.7 148.3 145.9 129.5 147.1 145.3 128.9 146.4 144.7 128.8 145.7 144.5 128.3 145.1 143.4 127.7 144.9 143.1 127.4 133.8 119.4 132.8 118.5 132.4 118.5 132.2 118.6 131.7 118.0 131.2 117.9 131.1 117.4 267.9 264.1 258.7 170.9 124.7 265.4 261.7 256.1 170.6 124.5 263.8 260.1 254.7 170.9 124.8 261.9 258.4 252.6 168.7 124.6 259.9 25). 3 250.8 167.6 123.2 256.7 253.0 247.9 166.4 122.7 253.8 250.0 245.5 165.6 122.3 256.0 252.1 247.5 165.2 122.7 128.5 112.0 114.1 123.0 109.2 128.1 111.6 114.6 123.4 109.1 127.8 111.8 114.7 124.8 109.7 127.3 111.6 114.4 125.1 110.7 127.3 111.7 113. 8 126.3 111. 1 126.8 111.4 113.4 123.3 111.2 126.6 111.2 112.9 125.1 110.4 126.2 110.9 113.6 123.6 109.0 126.2 110.7 113.7 124.1 108.6 102.1 129.1 96.1 114.4 98.6 102.1 128. 1 96.0 113.8 98.6 101.9 127.6 94.5 112.5 98.7 101.6 127.5 95.0 111.8 98.6 102.0 127.2 95.1 109.2 98.5 102. 1 126.8 95.3 108.4 99.2 102.1 126.6 95.5 109.3 99.1 101.4 126.1 95.0 109.3 98.8 102.3 125. 0 94.9 108.7 99.3 102.0 125.0 94.9 108.8 98.0 150.1 159.1 140.6 126.1 149.5 158.7 140.0 125.4 148.9 158.0 139.2 125.3 148.5 157.8 138.8 125.2 147.5 156.4 138.0 124.0 146.7 155.2 137.7 123.4 146.5 154.8 137.5 123.2 145.8 154.5 136.6 121.9 145.5 154.7 136.0 121.2 144.9 153.8 135.6 120.9 145.2 153.7 136.1 122.0 158.6 109.4 158.3 109.0 157.5 108.9 156.8 107.5 156.3 107.2 155.3 107.2 154.9 107.1 154.6 107.0 153.6 106.9 152.8 106.7 152.3 106.5 152.7 106.4 134.4 99.6 80.0 117.5 133.6 99.4 79.9 117.3 133.2 99.2 79.9 117.3 133.1 99.1 80. 0 116.6 132.7 99.1 80.2 116.3 132.3 99.2 80.3 116.3 132.0 99.1 80.2 115.9 131.6 99.0 80.0 115.7 131.2 98.8 79.7 115.4 130.7 98.7 79.8 115.6 130.4 98.6 80.0 115.8 130.5 98.6 80.1 115.5 H E A L T H AN D R EC R EA TIO N — Continued Medical care— Continued Professional services— Continued Physicians' fees— Continued Herniorrhaphy, adult. _ _______ Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy.. Dentists’ fees_______ ___ _____ _ Fillings, adult, amalgam, one surface______________________ Extractions, adult_______________ Dentures, full u p p e r.............. ......... Other professional services: Examination, prescription, and dispensing of eyeglasses__________ Routine laboratory tests__________ Hospital service charges: Daily service charges______________ Semiprivate rooms____ _________ Private rooms___________________ Operating room ch a rg e s ___________ X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G .l___ Dec. 63 Personal care__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Toilet goods........................................ Toothpaste, standard dentifrice . Toilet soap, hard m illed________ Hand lotions, liquid____________ Shaving cream, aerosol________ Face powder, pressed____ ____ Deodorants, cream or roll-on___ Cleansing tissues......................... Home permanent re fills ............ Personal care services_____________ Men's haircuts___________ ____ Beauty shop services__________ Women’s h a ir c u t s . . . ____ Shampoo and wave sets, plain___________________ Permanent waves, cold_____ Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Reading and recreation _____________________ Recreational goods..... ...... ... .......... TV sets, portable and con sole... TV replacement tubes_________ Radios, portable and table model___ ___________ ______ Dec. 63 Dec. 63 136.1 100.0 80.1 119.3 76.6 76.6 76.5 76.0 76.1 76.4 76.5 76.5 76.6 76.9 76.5 76.5 76.6 76.5 Tape recorders, portable___ . Phonograph records, stereophonic______________ Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom lens.......................................... Film, 35mm, color................ Bicycle, boys’_____ Tricycles__________ _ Dec. 63 89.9 90.4 90.3 90.2 90.2 90.0 90.1 91.2 91.4 91.5 91.4 91.5 91.9 91.3 Dec. 63 98.2 98.3 97.8 98.1 97.9 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.1 97.6 97.7 97.9 97.5 97.2 63 63 63 63 82.3 100.1 110.4 113.7 82.0 100.0 110.5 113.1 81.4 99.7 110.8 111.6 81.3 99.7 111.4 111.2 81.6 99.7 111.2 112. 0 82.1 99.1 110.7 112.0 82.3 99.1 110.4 111.6 83.4 99.1 110.0 111.4 83.1 99.4 109.7 111.9 83.5 99.6 109.9 111.6 83.4 99.2 109.5 111.2 83.5 99.1 109.7 109.4 84.1 99.0 109.1 109.2 84.0 99.0 109.0 109.6 Recreational services__________ Indoor movie a d m issio n s........... Adult................................... Children’s......... ................... Dec. 63 136.9 220.0 215.6 235.0 135.9 217.9 212.8 234.8 135.0 215.4 210.9 230.6 134.1 212.0 207.7 226.7 133.7 210.5 206.1 225.4 133.9 211.7 207.3 226.9 133.2 210.3 205.4 227.1 132.6 208.3 203.2 225.4 132.1 207.0 201.9 224.5 131.7 206.5 201.6 223.2 131.1 204.2 198.8 222.1 130.1 200.2 194.4 219.6 129.7 198.3 192.9 216.7 129.9 200.6 195.5 217.6 Drive-in movie admissions, adult. Bowing fees, evening_____ . _ Golf greens fees________ _ TV repairs, picture tube rep lacem ent______ Film developing, black and w hite. Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 171.6 115.7 145.1 168.9 115.2 141.5 168.1 115.2 139.3 167.5 114.8 (2) 167.0 115.0 ( 2) 165.6 115.3 165.5 113.7 165.0 113.6 (2) 164.5 112.1 135.5 164.1 110.9 135.9 163.5 110.3 135.8 161.9 110.4 134.7 160.1 110.6 134.6 159.9 111. 1 131.8 Dec. 63 97.6 116.4 98.6 117.7 98.7 117.6 98.9 117.3 99.5 117.7 100.2 117.4 100.2 117.7 100.0 117.9 101.4 117.9 101.0 118.3 101.0 118.4 101.0 118.9 102.2 119.2 101.7 119.1 Dec. 63 162.0 128.4 161.5 128.2 160.4 128.2 160.4 127.8 159.8 127.7 160.2 127.6 158.2 127.3 156.7 126.7 156.4 126.5 155.9 126.1 155.8 123.8 155.2 122.8 154.3 122.3 154.7 123.7 136.7 158.1 136.1 156.7 135.6 156.4 134.8 155.0 134.3 154.9 133.9 154.1 133.5 153.8 133.1 153.1 132.2 151.5 131.3 150.6 130.1 148.7 129.1 146.7 127.9 144.0 129.0 146.5 166.0 158.5 108.6 164.4 157.2 108.6 164.1 156.8 108.6 162.8 154.9 108.7 162.7 154.8 108.7 161.8 154.0 109.0 161.4 153.5 110.0 160.7 152.6 109.9 158.9 151.0 109.4 158.0 150.0 109.6 155.8 148.1 108.7 153.7 146.2 107.1 150.8 143.4 106.5 153.6 145.7 107.6 123.2 118.3 123.1 118.5 122.5 118.2 122.0 117.7 121.4 116.9 121.0 116.5 120.6 116.5 120.4 116.6 120.0 116.3 119.1 116.4 118.2 115.3 117.7 114.8 117.4 114.5 117.8 114.8 112.7 119.6 129.6 112.5 119.4 129.3 111.8 118.9 128.4 111.6 117.4 128.0 111.3 116.8 127.6 111.2 116.5 127.1 111.5 115.2 125.9 111.4 114.5 125.6 111.3 113.6 125.0 110.4 112.0 123.0 110.1 110.6 122.3 109.8 110.2 121.8 109.4 109.5 121.5 109.9 110.5 121.8 Reading and education: Newspapers, street sale and delivery___________ Piano lessons, beginner___ Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Other goods and services_ _ _ _ Tobacco products____ Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular size. _________ Cigarettes, filter tip, king size___ Cigars, domestic, regular size___ Mar. 59 0 Q Alcoholic beverages___ Beer__________ Whiskey, spirit blended and straight bourbon___ Wine, dessert and table. Beer, away from home................ Dec. 63 Dec. 63 Financial and miscellaneous personal expenses: Funeral services, adult_____ Bank service charges, checking accounts____ ______ . Legal services, short form w ill. . . Dec. 63 119.6 119.3 119.0 118.6 118.1 117.7 117.4 117.3 116.9 116.5 115.9 115.5 115.2 115.2 Dec. 63 Dec. 63 110.3 149.0 110.0 146.1 110.0 145.6 110.1 145.1 110.0 142.7 110.2 142.3 110.3 141.2 109.9 139.5 109.1 139.5 108.3 138.8 103.4 137.8 108.2 135.0 108.2 134.5 108.3 134.7 i Priced only in season. 1 Npt available. 3This item is a replacement for bedroom suites, good or inexpensive quality, which was discontinued after March 1970. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis «This item is a replacement for dining room suites, which was discontinued after March 1970. < ■Item discontinued, NOTE: Monthly data for individual nonfood items not available for 1968. CONSUMER PRICES C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 25. 119 Consumer Price Index1— U.S. city average, and selected areas 11957-59=100 unless otherwise specified] 1970 Annual avg. 1969 Area2 June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 1969 All itemi 134.0 133.2 (4> (4) O) 127.0 131.1 (4) (4) (4) 137.9 (4) 130.2 (4) 131.9 133.5 (4) (4) 129.9 129.2 134.3 <0 135.2 <4) 132.9 137.9 134.3 127.1 134.9 (*> (4) (4) (4) (4) 133.8 (4) 132.9 (4) Los Angeles-Long Beach, C alif....... .................... ............... Milwaukee, W is____________________ ________ ________ Minneapolis-St. Paul, M inn......... ..................... ................. New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N.J_____ ____ ___________ Philadelphia, Pa.-N .J_____ _________ _________________ Pittsburgh, Pa.......... ............................................ ............... Portland, O reg.-W ash.«...____ __________________ 133.9 130.0 135.1 141.6 137.0 132.4 (4) 133.8 130.0 (4) 140.7 136.5 (4) (4) St. Louis, Mo.—1II__________ ____ _____________ _______ San Diego, Calif. (Feb. 1965=100)._____ _______________ San Francisco-Oakland, C alif............................................... Scranton, Pa.«.______ ____________ __________________ Seattle, Wash _________ _________ ___________________ Washington, D .C .-M d .-V a......... ............ ............................. 134.1 (4) 137.5 (4) 133.9 136.7 ( 4) 120.9 (4) 136.9 133.9 136.7 U.S. city average3______ _____ ________ _________________ 135.2 Atlanta, Ga___ __________ ___ _______ _______________ Baltimore, M d................. ...................................... ............. Boston, Mass...... ............ ............ ............................ ............ Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1 9 6 3 = 1 0 0 ) . .________ ____________ Chicago, 1II.—Northwestern Ind____________ ____ ______ Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky........................................ .......... 133.6 135.2 137.9 (4) 131.5 131.2 Cleveland, Ohio__________ ____ _____ ________ _______ Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963=100)........................... ................... Detroit, M ich........ ................................................. ............. Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963=100)...................................... Houston, Tex ___________________ _______ __________ Kansas City, M o.-Kansas......................... ........................... 134.6 131.8 131.3 (4) <4> (4) 125.3 129.3 <4) (4) <4) 136.1 (4) 129.1 (4) 129.9 131.9 (4) (4) 128.3 127.7 (4) (4) (4) 123.2 127.7 (4) (4) (4) 133.1 122.0 (4) 134.6 132.3 125.6 132.2 (4) (4) (4> (4) (4) 131.1 (4) 130.9 (4) (4> (4) 130.8 119.7 (4) 133.2 133.5 (4) 135.1 140.1 135.7 132.4 133.4 132.2 (4) (4) 139.1 135.4 (4) (4) 131.6 128.5 (4) 138.1 134.1 ( 4) (4) 131.2 (4) 132.8 137.0 132.9 129.4 130.7 (4) <4> <4> (4) (4) (4) 132.4 (4) 136.1 (4) « (4) (4> 118.6 ( 4) 134.4 132.2 134.6 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 132.5 130.5 129.8 128.7 128.2 127.6 127.7 (4) (4) 134.7 (4) 126.9 (4> 128.6 130.4 0) <4) 127.2 125.5 129.3 (4) ( 4) (4) 121.2 126.1 ( 4) (4) (4) 132.1 (4) 125.3 (4) 126.1 127.9 (4) (4) 124.6 124.6 126.7 128.3 131.8 120.5 124.9 124.6 129.5 123.7 129.8 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 129.2 (4) 129.8 (4) (4) (4) 128.6 118.1 (4) 131.4 127.3 121.2 128.5 ( 4) ( 4) (4) (4) (4) 127.6 (4) 127.0 (4) (4) (4) 127.3 116.6 (4) 130.4 126.3 120.3 127.1 117.0 127.0 130.1 131.1 (4) (4) 136.0 132.2 (4) (4) 130.0 127.0 (4) 134.6 131.7 (4) (4) 130.1 (4) 130.3 134.1 131.2 128.5 130.1 129.6 (4) (4) 133.5 131.0 (4) (4) 128.9 123.9 (4) 132.5 130.2 ( 4) ( 4> 128.6 (4) 128.0 132.1 129.2 127.7 128.4 127.9 (4) (4) 131.6 128.2 (4> (4) 128.0 123.6 127.4 131.8 128.9 127.0 128.4 130.7 (4) 134.5 (4) (4) (4) (4) 117.0 (4) 127.3 130.0 132.0 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 129.2 ( 4) 132.8 (4) ( 4) (4) (4) 116.0 (4) 130.5 129.5 130.8 (4) <4> (4) (4) (4) (4) 127.0 (4) 130.8 (4) (4) (4) 127.5 115.1 131.1 129.2 128.3 129.5 Food U.S.city average3. ................................................................... 132.7 132.4 132.0 131.6 131.5 130.7 129.9 128.1 127.2 127.5 127.4 126.7 125.5 125.5 Atlanta, Ga___..................................................................... Baltimore, M d_______________ ____ ____ ______ ______ Boston, Mass_________________ __________ ________ _ Buffalo, N.Y. (Nov. 1963 = 100)...................................... . Chicago, lll.-Northwestern I n d ............................. . ......... Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky................................... .............. 131.1 136.7 137.0 128.6 133.6 129.7 130.0 136.5 136.6 128.1 133.1 129.1 130.6 135.9 135.9 128.4 132.6 128.6 130.5 136.2 135.4 127.3 133.0 127.9 130.7 135.4 135.0 127.0 133.2 127.8 129.0 134.9 134.3 125.4 132.8 127.2 128.4 134.1 133.1 125.1 131.3 126.6 126.9 132.3 131.6 122.8 129.4 125.1 126.5 131.5 131.2 121.9 128.3 124.1 126.7 131.8 131.4 121.8 130.2 123.6 126.3 130.8 131.8 122.5 130.5 123.2 124.4 130.1 130.2 122.4 129.0 123.3 122.8 127.9 129.5 121.2 127.5 121.9 123.8 128.8 129.3 120.6 127.2 122.1 Cleveland, Ohio....................................... ........................... Dallas, Tex. (Nov. 1963 = 100)....................................... . Detroit, M ich__________________ _____________ _______ Honolulu, Hawaii (Dec. 1963 = 1 0 0 )........................ ............ Houston, Tex_______ _______ ________ ________ ______ Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas______________________________ 131.2 125.8 132.2 123.8 133.3 136.9 130.8 126.0 132.1 123.2 133.4 136.8 129.7 125.5 131.2 123.4 133.8 136.4 129.3 125.5 130.9 123.4 132.7 135.9 128.4 125.9 130.2 122.9 133.3 135.8 129.0 125.0 129.8 123.0 132.3 135.1 128.5 124.2 129.3 120.8 131.2 134.4 125.7 122.8 126.8 119.5 129.2 132.9 125.0 121.7 126.1 119.7 128.7 131.2 125.1 122.0 126.5 119.1 129.2 131.9 125.2 121.9 127.3 118.0 129.0 131.3 123.3 120.6 126.5 116.9 127.7 130.7 123.2 120.1 124.5 116.3 126.8 129.8 123.2 119.8 124.3 117.4 126.9 129.4 Los Angeles-Long Beach, C a lif.............................. ......... . 127.8 Milwaukee, Wis__________ _____________ ______ ______ 129.4 Minneapolis-St. Paul, M inn..... ............................................ 131.4 New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N .J ............ ......................... 136.8 Philadelphia, Pa.-N .J....................................... ................ _ 132.4 Pittsburgh, Pa_____________________ _____ ___________ 128.7 Portland, Oreg.-Wash.« 128.1 129.4 131.3 136.0 132.3 128.8 127.4 129.3 131.2 135.7 131.5 128.3 128.5 126.7 130.2 131.2 135.1 132.0 128.2 127.2 130.1 130.6 134.7 132.0 128.0 126.2 129.5 129.5 133.8 130.7 127.5 126.7 125.8 128.4 128.2 132.9 129.7 127.1 124.7 127.8 127.2 130.6 128.0 125.7 124.0 127.6 126.5 129.6 127.0 123.3 124.4 124.0 127.9 125.9 129.1 127.2 123.2 123.9 127.6 126.4 128.7 127.2 123.9 124.0 126.5 125.4 128.1 126.0 124.2 125.2 123.0 125.1 122.8 126.6 124.5 123.2 122.6 125.2 123.7 127.1 125.5 122.4 124.0 St. Louis, Mo.—1II__________________ _________________ _ San DiegO; Calif. (Feb. 1965=100).................... . ............. San Francisco-Oakland, C alif............................................... Scranton , Pa. . Seattle, W a s h .............. ...................................................... Washington, D .C.-M d.-Va...... ............................................. 136.3 122.3 129.0 131.3 130.6 136.2 136.5 121.3 128.8 136.6 120.8 128.2 136.6 120.6 128.2 135.5 120.0 127.2 132.6 118.3 124.9 128.6 118.1 124.3 127.8 134.8 127.6 133.5 125.2 130.5 125.9 131.6 131.2 118.6 124.9 127.5 126.2 132.5 129.8 118.7 125.9 128.5 135.7 133.5 119.1 126.2 131.9 126.2 131.2 132.4 117.8 125.6 130.1 136.6 137.4 121.3 128.7 131.3 129.2 136.2 125.8 131.3 125.0 129.1 129.5 117.0 123.8 125.0 124.5 129.5 136.7 122.0 129.1 130.3 137.1 1 See table 23. Indexes measure time-to-time changes in prices. They do not indicate whether it costs more to live in one area than in another. 2 The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire urban portion of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1960 Census of Population; except that the Standard Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ... 3 Average of 56 "citie s” (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places beginning January 1966). 1 A ll items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a rotating cycle for other areas. 5 Old series. 120 26. WHOLESALE PRICES M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 Wholesale price indexes,1by group and subgroup of commodities [1957-59=100 unless otherwise specified ] 1 1970 Code 1969 Commodity Group Annual average 1969 June May Apr. Mar. Feb Jan. Dec. N o v. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June A L L C O M M O D IT IE S . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . 1 1 7 .0 1 1 6 .8 1 1 6 .6 1 1 6 .6 1 1 6 .4 1 1 6.0 115.1 1 1 4 .7 1 1 4 .0 1 1 3 .6 1 1 3 .4 1 1 3 .3 1 1 3 .2 1 1 3 .0 FAR M PR O D U C TS A N D PR O C E SSE D FO O D S AN D F E E D S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 7 .5 1 1 7 .0 1 1 7 .6 1 1 8 .8 1 1 8.7 1 1 8 .2 1 1 6 .4 1 1 5 .7 1 1 4.3 1 1 4 .3 1 1 4.6 1 1 5 .5 1 1 5 .5 1 1 3 .5 IN D U STR IAL C O M M O D IT IE S .......... . ......... 1 1 6.7 1 1 6.6 1 1 6 .2 1 1 5.8 1 1 5 .5 11 5.1 1 1 4 .6 1 1 4 .2 1 1 3 .8 1 1 3 .2 1 1 2 .8 1 1 2 .4 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .7 11 1.3 12 2.2 8 9 .2 1 1 1 .0 1 2 3 .5 8 8 .4 1 1 1 .3 11 2.7 8 7 .8 1 1 4 .3 1 1 8 .2 8 5 .5 1 1 2.5 11 6.6 8 5 .9 11 1.7 1 1 2 .4 11 1.1 1 2 5 .3 1 0 8 .4 1 0 3 .4 1 0 8 .9 1 0 6.7 1 1 0 .5 103.1 129.6 90.8 64.9 139.7 117.3 94.8 65.3 140.5 152.2 107.7 116.3 1 2 0 .2 86.9 65.7 138.3 155.8 105.1 113.1 116.7 1 1 0 .6 83.7 126.8 90.2 67.7 134.9 117.0 111.3 106.9 83 3 118 3 89 9 106.3 114.8 124.9 87.1 65.4 140.8 136.9 106.3 115.2 81.9 123.6 92.3 66.9 135.1 100.5 107.3 109.5 85.6 130.4 89.8 67.7 134.6 85.9 114.9 124.8 82.8 65.4 141.1 94.9 109.8 114.7 83.4 119.2 89.0 66.4 135.6 122.5 105.7 1HR i ]i ' n 83.7 65.6 139.5 79.7 111. 1 115.0 84.8 118.7 85.3 1 1 1 .2 1 1 2 .9 1 2 2 .2 81.7 116.6 86.3 66.0 137.6 139.8 103.4 115.9 1 0 7 .9 1 0 1.3 123.0 77.9 65.7 139.6 85.3 1 1 3 .7 1 1 7.2 8 5 .9 106.2 124.8 124.6 123.7 135.4 118.5 130.4 120.3 111.5 105.3 102.8 113.2 126.7 120.8 124.1 124.6 122.5 135.4 118.1 129.4 120.3 116.8 106.6 106.4 113.1 124.1 119.4 124.9 124.6 124.9 135.1 117.5 128.7 118.8 118.8 114.7 107.7 113.6 125.8 121.4 124.9 123.7 127.1 133.1 116.5 127.4 118.4 133.7 110.7 111.9 112.4 127.1 119.0 125.2 123.3 124.9 134.1 117.3 127.7 118.3 115.7 99.5 99.8 107.5 127.4 131.3 125.1 122.3 125.8 133.9 116.9 129.1 117.4 111.0 86.4 97.8 107.5 126.5 131.7 122.6 122.0 121.9 133.9 116.4 127.1 116.1 115.6 86.1 97.9 108.0 126.4 121.8 121.8 121.9 120.5 131.2 116.3 127.9 116.0 123.0 97.0 91.1 106. 5 127.2 119.5 121.6 121.2 120.2 130.7 116.0 127.7 115.0 118.3 88.4 88.9 104.7 131.6 119.9 121.3 120.4 122.9 133.4 116.6 127.2 113.1 104.0 79.8 85.0 102.1 121.2 119.3 121.5 120.1 124.5 133.0 116.8 127.2 112.6 105.0 80.0 84.7 102.1 119.8 118.2 122.0 119.9 127.5 133.0 116.6 122.3 112.6 96.4 80.0 89.4 102.1 119.5 118.7 121.4 119.7 126.5 133.0 115.6 123.0 112.4 91.2 81.9 89.4 103.3 118.6 116.9 118.2 109.3 105.9 102.8 89.0 199.5 118.4 109.7 124.3 109.3 105.8 103.8 89.5 204.8 118.0 108.7 125.6 109.3 105.8 104.0 89.9 201.3 117.9 108.6 121.4 109.5 105.8 104.4 90.4 194.2 117.9 108.6 126.5 109.4 106.1 104.3 91.0 196.3 117. 5 109.0 124.3 109.5 106.1 104.3 91.5 193.5 117.2 109.1 129.0 109.2 106.1 104.3 91.1 191.1 116.9 108.1 127.8 109.2 106.0 104.6 91.5 184.6 116.7 108.0 129.6 109.1 105.8 104.5 91.6 183.9 116.5 108.0 127.2 109.0 105.9 105.0 92.1 181.2 116.2 107.3 121.4 108.7 105.7 104.8 92.7 177.1 115.8 104.7 119.6 107.7 105.3 105.0 92.6 168.2 113.9 104.2 120.3 107.2 104.5 105.0 92.7 164.6 113.3 104.2 118.0 108.0 105.2 104.6 92.2 169.7 114.5 106.7 122.8 127.3 93.8 119.8 137.9 120.9 127.9 101.8 120.4 137.8 120.4 128.5 106.6 120.4 138.4 120.0 126.8 99.4 118.2 136.9 119.9 126.7 101.1 117.3 136.9 119.8 126.6 102.8 119.6 135.9 119.2 126.5 108.9 119.7 135.0 118.5 126.8 110.4 119.6 135.5 118.6 127.4 118.0 120.3 135.2 118.4 128.2 128.7 121.7 134.9 117.9 126.4 123.1 121.0 132.7 117.6 126.4 123.0 121.2 132.7 117.5 125.7 117.4 121.5 132.3 117.2 125.8 116.9 119.9 133.2 116.9 108.6 152.8 139.6 136.3 104.3 104.5 102.2 109.1 146.9 139.6 136.1 104.2 104.5 104.2 107.5 145.9 139.6 136.2 103.7 104.5 101.3 106.3 133.4 126.9 135.0 103.6 104.5 100.8 106.4 131.7 126.9 135.2 103.6 104. 5 101.2 105.6 125.4 126.9 132.4 103.4 104.5 101.0 106.1 124.6 126.9 131.8 103.4 104.5 102.2 105.5 123.5 126.9 128.8 103.4 104.5 101.6 105.4 120.6 126.9 128.7 103.7 104.5 101.6 104.7 115.9 120.3 123.0 103.5 104.5 101.8 104.7 115.5 120.3 121.8 102.4 104.5 102.5 105.0 115.4 120.3 121.6 102.5 104.5 103.2 105.0 114.2 120.3 121.8 102.6 104.5 103.3 104.6 116.2 122.0 124.5 102.7 103.7 101.8 100.5 98.0 122.8 91.8 94.8 108.1 91.8 80.2 117.8 100.6 98.2 122.8 93.2 94.7 106.8 91.7 80.6 117.7 100.4 97.9 122.8 92.6 94.7 107.6 92.4 81.1 116.8 100.0 97.3 122.8 92.6 95.0 102.2 92.0 81.2 116.5 99.5 97.7 122.0 92.8 94.6 94.3 91.4 80.3 115.7 99.1 97.9 121.7 93.4 94.5 95.0 87.6 80.0 115.5 98.8 97.8 120.3 93.4 94.6 92.8 86.7 80.1 115.1 98.9 97.8 120.3 93.1 94.2 100.5 86.7 79.6 114.9 98.6 97.6 120.3 93.9 94.0 98.9 86.3 80.2 114.3 98.9 98.2 119.2 93.3 94.0 102.1 87.4 81.0 113.9 98.7 98.2 119.2 93.3 93.8 99.3 88.4 80.7 112.9 98.2 97.7 119.2 93.2 93.8 90.5 88.6 80.2 112.8 98.3 97.0 119.2 92.8 93.8 86.8 92.1 80.8 112.8 98.3 97.7 119.2 92.8 93.8 88.7 89.8 80.7 112.9 104.1 86.8 101.7 115.7 97.4 104.2 87.1 101.7 115.7 97.6 104.2 87.5 101.7 114.3 98.7 104.4 87.6 101.7 114.3 99. 1 104.6 89.4 101.7 114.3 99.1 104.7 89.3 101.7 114.0 99.8 104.5 88.1 101.7 113.4 100.0 104.4 88.7 101.7 113.0 103.5 89.7 100.6 111.7 102.7 90.6 99.2 110.7 103.0 92.5 99.2 110.8 102.5 90.7 98.4 111.0 101.2 89.7 96.3 110.2 102.1 89.4 98.2 110.8 120.2 123.0 131.1 98.5 119.3 121.0 124.3 131.1 99.5 119.3 120.1 123.5 130.8 97.2 119.3 119.5 123.3 130.7 94.5 119.5 120.2 124.1 130.7 96.3 119.5 121.6 126.9 131.5 95.5 119.5 122.5 128.2 131.7 96.9 118.4 123.9 129.3 133.2 99.6 116.7 122.6 128.0 133.9 95.8 116.7 123.2 129.5 134.4 94.4 116.5 124.0 131.1 135.1 93.6 116.8 125.3 133.4 135.6 93.9 115.6 129.8 142.3 136.0 94.2 115.1 132.0 142.6 132.2 109.3 114.8 FA R M PR O D U C TS , AN D PR O CESSED FO O D S A N D FEED S 01 01 -1 0 1 -2 01-3 01-4 01-5 0 1 -6 01-7 0 1 -8 01-9 02 02-1 02-2 02-3 02-4 02-5 02-6 02-71 02-72 02-73 02-74 02-8 02-9 Farm products__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables______ Grains______________________ ______ ___ Livestock......... ................................... ......... Live poultry__________________ ____ ____ Plant and anim al fibers-------- ------------------Fluid m ilk ....................................................... Eggs................................. .............................. Hay, hayseeds, and o ils e e d s ............. ......... Other farm products..................................... Processed foods and feeds- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . Cereal and bakery products.......... ............ . Meats, poultry, and fis h ..____ _____ _____ Dairy products.................. ............ ................ Processed fruits and vegetables............. ....... Sugar and confectionery....... ................... . Beverages and beverage materials....... ........ Animal fats and o ils _____________________ Crude vegetable o ils...... ............................. Refined vegetable oils____________________ Vegetable oil end products................. .......... Miscellaneous processed foods..................... Manufactured animal feeds........................... 1 1 2 .6 1 2 0 .1 82.9 6 6 .1 136.8 113.8 1 0 1 .2 1 1 0 .6 134 8 112 9 109 2 109; 1 131 9 i UU. j IN D U STR IAL C O M M O D ITIE S 03 03-1 03-2 03-3 03-41 03-5 03-6 03-7 Textile products and apparel........................ ............ 04 04-1 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 p o w e r....... .......... . 06 06-1 06-21 06-22 06-3 06-4 06-5 06-6 06-7 Chemicals and allied products_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 07 07-11 07-12 07-13 07-21 Rubher a id pfistic products_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 08 08-1 08-2 08-3 08-4 Lumber and wood products. ........... . ............... . . . . . . . Lumber___________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ M illw ork ......... ......................................... . Plywood________ . . . ......................... Cotton products________ ________________ Wool pro d ucts.. _ ............................... ........ . Manmade fiber textile p roducts.................... S ilk yarns_______________ ______________ A p p a r e l....................................................... Textile housefurnishings............................... Miscellaneous textile products........ .............. Hides and s k in s ............................................ Leather............... ........................................... Footwear.......................................... .............. Other leather and related products............... Coal________________ ____ _________ ___ C o k e .. ................. ............ .............. ............ Gas fuels (Jan. 1958 = 100)............................ Electric power (Jan. 1958 = 10 0 )................... Crude p e tro le u m ......................................... Petroleum products, refined________ _____ Industrial chem icals______ _____________ _ Prepared paint.............................................. Paint materials.............. ................................ Drugs and pharm aceuticals.......................... Fats and oils, in e d ib le ________ _________ Agricultural chemicals and chem. products. Plastic resins and materials______________ Other chemicals and allied products_______ Crude rubber___________________________ Tires and tubes___ _____________________ Miscellaneous rubber p ro d u c ts_____ _ _. Plastic construction products (Dec.1969 = 100) Other wood products (Dec. 1966 = 100)_____ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 26. WHOLESALE PRICES 121 Wholesale price indexes,1 by group and subgroup of commodities— Continued [1957=100 unless otherwise specified]2 1970 Code 1969 Annual average Commodity Group June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Ncv. 1969 Oct. Sept. Aug. July June IN D U STR IAL C O M M O D IT IE S — Continued 09 09-1 09-11 09-12 09-13 0 9 -14 09 -15 09 -2 11 2.2 1 1 2.3 1 1 2 .5 112.1 111. 8 11 1.1 1 0 9 .5 1 0 9 .3 1 0 9 .0 1 0 8 .8 1 0 8 .7 1 0 8 .4 1 0 8 .3 1 0 8 .2 Pulp, paper, and products, excluding build ing paper and b o a r d __________________ 1 1 3 .0 Woodpulp__________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 1 0 5.0 9 9 .0 Wastepaper.............. ............ ................... Paper..... ........................................................ 12 1.7 9 5 .5 Paperboard ____________________________ Converted paper and paperboard products.. _ 11 3.6 9 3 .3 Building paper and board_________ ____ _ 1 1 3 .0 1 0 5 .0 10 4.2 1 2 1 .6 9 6 .7 1 1 3 .4 9 3 .3 1 1 3 .2 1 0 5 .0 1 0 8 .5 1 2 1 .6 9 7 .0 1 1 3 .5 9 3 .4 1 1 2.9 104.7 1 0 8.5 1 2 1.6 9 7 .0 1 1 2.9 9 2 .9 1 1 2 .5 1 0 4.7 1 0 8 .2 1 2 1 .5 9 7 .1 1 1 2 .2 9 3 .0 11 1.8 10 3.7 1 0 7 .5 12 0.3 9 6 .0 11 1.9 9 3 .4 11 0.1 9 8 .0 10 6.7 1 1 7 .4 9 6 .0 1 1 0.7 9 3 .9 1 0 9.9 9 8 .0 1 0 7 .0 1 1 7 .0 9 6 .0 1 1 0 .6 9 4 .4 10 9.6 9 8 .0 10 7.2 11 6.5 9 5 .9 11 0.3 9 4 .6 1 0 9 .3 9 8 .0 1 0 8 .4 1 1 6 .5 9 5 .9 1 0 9 .8 9 5 .1 1 0 9 .2 9 8 .0 1 1 0.3 1 1 7.2 9 5 .8 1 0 9.2 9 5 .2 1 0 8 .9 9 8 .0 1 1 1 .2 11 7.1 9 3 .7 1 0 9 .0 9 5 .9 1 0 8 .6 9 8 .0 1 0 8 .8 1 1 7 .0 9 3 .5 1 0 8 .7 9 9 .4 1 0 8 .6 9 8 .0 1 0 8.3 1 1 6 .6 9 4 .4 1 0 8 .8 9 7 .1 129.1 12 0.2 1 2 2 .0 15 5.0 12 5.0 12 5.9 12 4.7 10 2.4 118.1 13 0.4 12 8.7 11 8.9 1 2 0.5 1 5 7.2 1 2 5 .0 1 2 5.4 1 2 4 .0 10 1.7 1 1 7.3 1 2 8.3 1 2 7 .8 1 1 7 .3 118.7 1 5 7.1 1 2 5 .0 1 2 5.2 1 2 3 .2 1 0 1 .3 1 1 6 .4 1 2 7 .5 1 2 7.0 117.7 1 1 8.4 15 3.4 1 2 5.0 12 4.9 1 2 2.8 10 0.5 1 1 6.0 127.1 126.1 1 1 7 .0 1 1 7.7 1 5 2 .8 1 2 5.0 1 2 4.7 1 2 2 .8 9 9 .9 1 1 4 .6 1 2 5 .2 12 4.9 11 4.6 11 5.5 15 2.8 12 0.6 12 4.2 12 2.8 9 9 .7 11 4.0 12 4.9 1 2 3.8 1 1 3.9 1 1 6 .4 150.1 1 2 0.6 1 2 3 .0 1 2 2.8 9 9 .7 11 3.7 1 2 4 .5 12 2.9 11 3.7 1 1 6 .4 1 4 6 .4 1 2 0 .6 1 2 2 .7 1 2 2 .2 9 9 .3 1 1 3 .6 1 2 4 .4 1 2 2.4 113.7 11 6.4 1 4 4.8 12 0.6 12 2.2 12 0.8 9 8 .7 11 3.4 1 2 4.4 1 2 1.7 1 1 3 .2 1 1 5 .5 1 4 3 .5 1 2 0 .3 1 2 1 .0 1 2 0 .2 9 8 .0 1 1 2 .8 1 2 4 .2 1 2 0 .4 11 2.7 1 1 5 .4 1 3 9 .5 11 9.7 12 0.6 1 1 9 .4 9 7 .7 11 2.6 12 3.2 1 1 8.7 11 1.1 1 1 3 .6 13 6.1 1 1 9.7 1 2 0 .5 1 1 9 .4 9 7 .7 1 1 2 .0 1 2 1 .3 1 1 7 .9 1 1 0 .3 1 1 2 .8 1 3 5 .5 1 1 9 .7 1 1 9 .9 1 1 7 .9 9 7 .2 1 1 1 .0 1 2 0 .7 1 1 8 .9 1 1 1 .0 1 1 3 .7 1 3 7.4 1 1 9 .7 1 2 0 .5 1 1 8.7 9 7 .6 1 1 1 .5 1 2 2 .0 124.1 137.1 14 1.0 1 4 1.7 12 8.2 1 2 3.7 1 3 7 .4 1 4 0.9 1 4 1.3 1 2 7.9 1 2 3 .4 1 3 7.3 1 4 0 .8 1 4 0.3 1 2 7 .6 123.1 137.1 14 0.6 13 9.8 127.1 1 2 2 .8 1 3 7 .2 1 4 0 .3 1 3 9 .3 1 2 6 .5 12 2.5 13 6.7 14 0.2 13 8.6 126.1 12 1.9 1 3 6 .4 1 3 9.8 1 3 8 .0 1 2 4 .8 1 2 1 .0 1 3 5 .8 1 3 8 .6 1 3 6 .5 1 2 3.7 12 0.5 13 3.2 13 7.7 13 5.4 12 3.4 1 1 9 .9 1 3 3 .0 136.1 1 3 4 .4 1 2 2 .6 119.1 1 3 2 .3 1 3 4 .9 1 3 3 .5 12 1.8 1 1 9 .0 1 3 2.3 1 3 4.8 1 3 3 .3 1 2 1 .5 1 1 8 .6 1 3 2 .0 1 3 4 .5 1 3 2 .3 1 2 1 .2 1 1 9 .0 1 3 2 .8 1 3 5 .5 1 3 3 .4 1 2 1 .4 1 3 4.3 10 8.2 123.1 1 3 4 .0 1 0 7 .5 12 2.9 1 3 3 .6 1 0 7 .3 1 2 2 .8 13 3.6 10 7.2 12 2.3 1 3 3 .4 1 0 6 .9 1 2 1.7 1 3 3.3 1 0 6.8 1 2 1.5 1 3 2 .8 10 6.2 1 2 1 .0 1 3 0 .6 1 0 6 .0 1 2 0 .4 13 0.2 105.6 1 2 0 .0 1 2 9 .6 1 0 5.4 1 1 9 .2 1 2 9.2 1 0 4.7 1 1 8.5 12 9.2 10 4.8 11 8.1 128.1 1 0 4 .7 1 1 7 .8 1 2 8.7 1 0 4 .8 118.1 10 8.6 1 2 6 .0 1 2 7.6 9 2 .6 9 4 .9 7 7 .0 1 3 5.5 1 0 8 .3 12 5.9 12 5.1 9 2 .8 9 4 .9 7 7 .0 1 3 5 .3 1 0 8 .3 1 2 5 .6 12 5.1 9 3 .1 9 4 .8 7 7 .0 1 3 5 .6 108.1 12 5.3 1 2 4.9 9 3 .4 9 4 .7 7 7 .2 1 3 4.6 1 0 7 .9 12 5.1 1 2 4 .5 9 3 .5 9 4 .4 7 7 .2 1 3 4 .8 1 0 7.5 12 4.3 12 4.4 9 3 .5 9 4 .4 7 7 .2 1 3 3 .0 1 0 7 .2 12 3.6 124.1 93 .1 9 3 .6 7 7 .8 1 3 3.3 1 0 6 .9 1 2 3 .6 1 2 4 .0 9 3 .1 9 3 .6 7 7 .7 13 1.1 1 0 6 .5 12 3.3 1 2 2.4 93 .1 93 .1 7 7 .9 131.2 1 0 6 .4 1 2 3 .0 1 2 1 .7 9 3 .2 9 3 .0 7 7 .9 1 3 1 .4 1 0 6.2 1 2 3 .0 1 1 9 .5 9 3 .2 9 3 .0 7 7 .9 1 3 1 .4 10 6.1 1 2 2.8 1 1 9 .5 9 3 .2 9 3 .0 7 7 .9 1 3 1 .2 1 0 5 .9 1 2 2 .3 1 1 9 .3 9 3 .8 9 2 .9 7 8 .1 1 3 0 .2 106.1 1 2 2 .3 1 2 0 .0 9 4 .1 9 3 .0 7 8 .2 1 3 0 .6 117.9 121.6 122.3 118.1 121.2 125.8 92.7 100.7 120.9 113.7 117.9 121.1 122.1 117.4 121.2 126.1 95.1 104.0 120.9 113.7 117.8 121.5 121.9 117.2 120.9 125.9 95.1 105.6 120.9 113.5 117.3 119.9 120.8 117.0 119.8 125.4 97.8 107.0 120.9 112.4 116.9 119.0 120.6 116.4 119.4 125.1 100.8 108.3 120.9 116.5 118.4 120.1 115.9 119.4 123.5 101.8 107.3 120.9 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .0 114.5 117.8 116.7 114. 2 118.5 120.9 101.2 104.3 116 1 110.6 113.9 116.2 116.7 113.6 118.5 117.2 94.0 109.8 116.1 110.6 113.8 116.2 116.6 113.5 117.8 117.2 96.7 105.9 116.1 110.6 113.5 116.2 116.5 113.2 117.5 117.2 96.7 106. 1 116. 1 109.6 113.0 116.2 116.1 112.4 117.0 117.0 96.7 103.2 116.1 109.2 113.0 116.2 116.1 112.3 116.9 113.6 100.9 104.9 116.1 109.0 112.8 115.2 115.9 111.6 116.9 113.6 100.2 108.7 116.1 109.0 112.8 114. 6 115.6 112.2 117.0 115.1 98.3 106.4 116.1 109.1 103.2 109.4 119.0 103.1 109.3 118.8 103.2 109.4 118.7 102.9 109.1 117.7 102.9 109.1 117.4 102.7 109.0 115.7 102.7 109.0 115.1 102.3 108.7 115.1 100.0 106.1 114.4 99.9 106.0 114.3 100.4 106.6 114.3 100.3 106.6 111.8 100.7 107.0 112.4 Pulp, paper, and allied products_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 10-1 10-13 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 Metals and metal products_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-6 Machinery and equipment_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11-7 11-9 Iron and steel__________________________ Steel m ill products_________________ ___ Nonferrous metals ......... .............................. Metal containers............................................. Hardware______________________________ Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings_______ Heating equipment........................ ............. . Fabricated structural metal products............ Miscellaneous metal products...................... . Agricultural machinery and equipment......... Construction machinery and equipment____ Metalworking machinery and equipment___ General purpose machinery and equipm ent.. Special industry machinery and equipment (Jan. 1961 = 10 0)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Electrical machinery and equipm ent............ Miscellaneous m achinery.............................. 12 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 12-6 Furniture and household d u ra b le s ...................... ...... 13 Nonmetalllc mineral products......... ......... ................ Flat glass................ ................................... 13-11 13-2 13-3 13-4 13-5 13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 Household furniture...... ................................ Commercial furniture____________________ Floor coverings . . . ________ ____ _____ Household appliances______ ___________ _ Home electronic equipm ent_______________ Other household durable goods...... .............. Concrete ingredients........... ........................... Concrete products_____ . _____________ Structural clay products exc. refractories___ R e fr a c t o r ie s __ ... ........................... . ........... Asphalt roofing___ _ _ _ _ _ _______ _ _ _ _ _ Gypsum products.................. ......................... Glass containers.............. .......... ................... Other nonmetallic minerals...................... . 14 14-1 14-4 Transportation equipment (Dec. 1968= 100)............. Motor vehicles and equipment ..... ................ Railroad equipment (Jan. 1961 = 100)______ 103.3 109.5 119.3 15 15-1 Miscellaneous products............. ..................... ....... 121.0 118.2 117.8 117.8 117.5 117.4 117.0 117.0 116.7 116.4 115.9 115.5 115.1 114.7 Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni tion ...... .................................. ................... Tobacco products_____________ ________ _ Notions___________ _____________ _______ Photographic equipment and s u p p lie s _____ Other miscellaneous products______ ______ 115.8 132.3 109.4 116.1 116.8 115.1 124.1 109.0 116.2 116.6 115.0 124.1 109.0 116.2 115.0 115.3 124.1 109.0 115.9 114.8 114.2 124.0 109.0 115.8 114.8 114.1 124.0 107.2 115.7 115.1 112.7 124.0 107.2 115.3 114.9 112.8 124.0 107.2 115.0 114.9 112.3 123.8 106.7 114.9 114.8 112.1 123.8 106.7 113.9 114.3 111.8 123.5 106.7 111.4 114.2 111.2 123.4 102.0 111.4 114. 1 110.9 123.2 102.0 112.6 112.6 111.3 120.8 103.6 113.0 113.1 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-9 i As of January 1967, the indexes incorporated a revised weighting structure reflect ing 1963 values of shipments. Changes also were made in the classification structure, and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data pre viously published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes. January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 As of January 1962, the indexes were converted from the former base of 1947-49 = 100 to the new base of 1957-59=100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1957-59 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Wholesale Price Index, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (B LS Bulletin 1458, October 1966), Chapter 11. 122 27. M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U ST 1970 WHOLESALE PRICES Wholesale price indexes for special commodity groupings 1 [1957-59=100, unless otherwise specified]^ 1970 1969 Annual Commodity group av erag e 1969 June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June Processed foods____ ________ ________ 117.6 123.5 125.2 117.4 122.8 124.6 117.2 123.2 125.4 116.8 124.9 125.7 116.6 124.5 124.6 116.3 125.0 124.5 115.4 123.3 122.8 115.0 123.1 122.1 114.7 119.8 121.8 114.1 120.1 121.6 113.8 119.9 121.9 113.6 120.7 122.5 113.3 119.9 122.0 113.4 119.0 119.9 Textile products, excluding hard and bast fiber products........................................ Hosiery............. ............ .......................... Underwear and nightw ear....................... Refined petroleum products____________ East C o a st._________ ____________ Mid-Continent___________ ______ _ Gulf Coast___ ________ __________ Pacific Coast___________ ________ Midwest (Jan. 1961 = 100)................. 99.9 92.2 116.9 102.2 113.2 101.4 97.5 94.8 100.9 100.2 92.3 116.7 104.2 110.2 111.7 99.6 94.8 101.8 100.4 92.3 116.7 101.3 103.6 98.5 98.6 94.0 99.3 100.6 92.4 116.4 100.8 103.4 99.2 99.3 92.2 96.8 101.0 92.8 116.4 101.2 103.4 102.2 99.3 91.2 98.0 101.3 92.8 116.2 101.0 103.4 101.2 98.4 92.5 98.0 101.0 92.7 115.9 102.2 103.4 103.9 100.7 92.5 99.1 101.1 92.7 115.7 101.6 103.4 102.5 99.8 92.5 98.4 101.1 92.7 115.7 101.6 103.4 98.7 101.4 92.3 97.4 101.3 92.7 115.6 101.8 103.4 98.0 101.4 94.9 97.0 101.3 92.7 115.6 102.5 103.4 103.9 101.4 94.9 97.0 101.0 92.7 115.6 103.2 103.4 93.8 104.8 94.9 97.0 100.8 92.7 114.5 103.3 103.4 103.9 103.2 93.6 98.7 101.0 92.7 115.0 101.8 103.4 102.0 100.7 93.0 97.5 96.9 96.9 96.8 97.4 97.0 97.0 97.1 96.7 96.5 96.5 96.2 96.3 96.2 96.3 117.4 123.4 119.5 118.6 123.1 119.3 117.3 122.5 119.0 116.4 122.0 118.9 117.5 121.4 118.6 119.3 120.6 118.4 120.6 119.9 117.9 122.2 119.2 117.4 120.1 118.8 116.9 120.8 117.5 115.5 121.7 116.6 115.1 123.5 115.7 115.2 130.0 115.2 114.9 134.6 116.0 115.3 134.3 139.4 149.0 134.1 139.8 148.3 133.7 139.7 147.1 133.3 139.6 146.6 132.9 139.7 146.0 132.6 139.3 145.2 131.9 139.1 144.6 130.6 138.5 143.6 129.9 135.5 143.4 129.0 135.3 141.7 128.3 134.6 140.9 128.1 134.7 140.9 127.5 134.3 139.2 128.1 135.2 140.5 142.6 131.8 124.2 107.1 118.6 142.8 131.2 124.2 107.1 118.5 142.8 130.1 124.2 107.1 118.0 142.9 130.0 124.2 107.1 117.5 143.0 129.4 124.2 107.1 117.4 142.8 128.5 123.2 107.1 117.4 142.5 127.3 119.4 107.1 116.9 141.3 125.8 118.6 107.0 116.9 139.4 125.8 118.0 102.6 116.3 138.4 124.8 118.0 102.6 115.9 137.1 124.8 115.3 102.6 115.7 137.0 125.8 115.3 102.6 115.9 137.0 126.5 115.9 102.6 116.9 138.1 124.2 115.9 103.3 117.7 All commodities— less farm products _________ All foods_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pharmaceutical preparations______ ____ Lumber and wood products excluding millwork and other wood products3___ Special metals and metal products1 ____ Machinery and motive products_________ Machinery and equipment, except elec trical____________________ ________ Agricultural machinery, including tractors. Metalworking m achinery.......................... Total tractors.................. ........................... Industrial valves. ............................. ....... Industrial fittin g s....................... .............. Abrasive grinding wheels______________ Construction maferials_________ _______ ■See footnote 1, table 26. 3See footnote 2, table 26. 3 Formerly titled “ Lumber and wood products, excluding m illw ork." https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor vehicles and equipment. WHOLESALE PRICES C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 28. 123 Wholesale price indexes,1by stage of processing [1957-59 = 100] s Annual 1969 1970 Commodity group average I 1969” June M ay Apr. M ar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. J u ly June A L L C O M M O D IT IE S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 7 .0 1 1 6.8 1 1 6.6 1 1 6 .6 1 1 6.4 1 1 6.0 11 5.1 11 4.7 1 1 4 .0 1 1 3 .6 1 1 3 .4 1 1 3.3 1 1 3 .2 1 1 3 .0 C R U D E M A TE R IA LS FO R F U R T H E R PRO CE S S IN G _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 3 .0 1 1 2 .8 1 1 3 .4 1 1 4 .2 11 3.0 110.7 1 0 9.9 1 0 9 .0 10 8.7 10 8.7 1 0 9 .5 1 1 0 .2 1 1 1 .2 1 0 7.9 Foodstuffs and feedstuffs_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 4.8 1 1 4 .4 1 1 5.3 1 1 7.3 11 5.5 11 2.9 1 1 2 .2 1 1 1.0 1 1 0 .5 1 1 0 .4 112.1 1 1 3 .8 1 1 5 .6 1 1 0 .4 Nonfood materials exceptfuel_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 0 5.9 10 4.6 12 0.7 1 0 6.9 1 0 5.6 1 2 0 .3 1 0 7 .0 1 0 5 .8 1 2 0 .2 1 0 6.6 1 0 5.6 11 8.0 10 6.9 105.9 1 1 7.5 10 5.3 10 4.3 11 6.4 1 0 4 .2 1 0 3 .2 1 1 5.3 1 0 4 .0 1 0 3 .0 1 1 5.3 1 0 4.0 1 0 3 .0 115.1 1 0 4 .8 1 0 3.9 1 1 4.9 10 4.1 1 0 3 .2 11 4.1 10 2.6 10 1.6 11 4.1 102.1 1 0 1 .0 1 1 3 .8 1 0 2 .0 1 0 1.0 1 1 4 .0 1 3 4.4 1 3 1 .8 128.1 143.0 126.2 139.2 131.5 126.0 138.8 125.2 121.5 130.3 124.7 121.2 129.4 122.2 119.6 125.8 121.5 118.8 125.0 121.1 118.6 124.5 119.9 117.8 122.8 118.1 116.7 120.1 117.2 115.6 119.4 117.1 115.5 119.3 116.8 115.3 118.7 117.6 116.0 119.8 115.9 115.7 115.3 114.8 114.7 114.4 113.5 113.1 112.8 112.4 111.9 111.4 111.4 111.8 115.4 123.0 115.3 122.5 115.0 123.4 114.4 122.9 113.9 121.5 113.6 121.1 112.9 119.9 112.6 120.0 112.2 119.2 111.8 118.3 111.4 118.4 110.6 117.8 110.4 117.8 110.8 116.8 102.4 102.8 102.7 102.4 102.3 102.3 101.6 101.7 101.5 101.7 101.7 101.2 101.1 101.2 125.6 119.7 125.4 119.0 124.5 118.7 123.4 118.3 122.7 118.0 122.1 117.7 121.4 117.0 120.4 116.7 120.0 116.1 119.6 115.1 118.7 114.3 117.4 113.9 117.1 113.4 118.1 114.0 Materials and Componentsfor Construction.. 118.9 118.6 118.2 117.7 117.3 117.3 116.8 116.7 116.2 115.8 115.5 115.4 116.0 116.9 Processedfuelsand lubricants_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 104.8 107.6 100.4 105.1 107.3 101.6 103.6 106.7 98.8 103.0 106.1 98.3 103.0 106.0 98.3 102.4 105.3 97.8 102.7 105.1 99.0 102.1 104.5 98.4 102.3 104.8 98.4 101.0 103.2 97.6 100.6 102.3 97.8 100.8 102.4 98.4 100.9 102.4 98.5 100.9 103.1 97.4 Containers_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 118.7 118.5 118.5 118.1 117.6 116.2 114.8 114.6 114.5 114.2 113.7 113.3 113.2 113.3 Supplies 118.9 122.1 116.8 112.9 114.8 118.3 121.9 116.0 111.4 114.5 118.5 121.7 116.4 113.2 114.2 117.6 121.1 115.4 110.7 113.9 120.1 120.9 119.1 122.8 113.4 119.7 120.5 118.6 123.7 112.3 116.9 119.4 115.1 114.1 111.8 115.9 118.7 113.9 111.6 111.4 115.6 118.0 113.9 112.3 111.0 115.1 117.8 113.3 111.7 110.4 114.4 117.4 112.4 110.5 109.7 114.3 116.8 112.5 110.8 109.7 113.8 116.7 111.9 109.3 109.6 114.4 117.0 112.5 110.6 109.8 119.0 118.7 118.6 119.0 118.8 118.8 118.0 117.6 116.5 116.0 115.7 115.9 115.4 115.3 117.3 124.2 115.4 125.8 115.9 108.1 117.0 123.6 115. 0 125.2 115.6 108.0 116.8 124.1 114.3 125.9 114.9 107.8 117.4 126.0 123.3 126.4 114.7 107.8 117.3 125.9 128.0 125.4 114.6 107.6 117.3 126.4 131.6 125.3 114.2 107.4 116.5 124.5 129.5 123.5 114.1 107.2 116.2 123.9 131.0 122.5 113.8 107.1 115.1 121.2 114.2 122.4 113.6 106.9 114.7 121.6 116.9 122.4 113.3 105.3 114.4 121.2 112.4 122.8 113.0 105.2 114.8 122.3 114.9 123.7 112.6 iUb. 6 114.2 121.3 111.3 123.1 112.2 105. 5 114. 0 120.3 117.5 120.7 112.3 105.8 124.2 129.9 119.0 124.0 129.5 118.8 123.7 129.1 118.7 123.5 128.9 118.5 123.1 128.4 118.2 122.9 128.0 118.0 122.3 127.5 117.4 121.5 126.2 117.0 120.8 125.8 116.1 119.9 125.0 115.0 119.3 124.4 114.4 119.3 124. 4 114. 5 118.7 123.5 114.2 119.3 124.1 114.7 Crude materials for further processing, excluding crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers, oilseeds and leaf tobacco_ _ _ _ _ _ 119.5 120.0 120.3 118.5 118.5 116.0 114.5 114.1 113.7 113.9 112.5 110.7 110.2 110.5 Intermediate materials supplies and compo nents, excluding intermediate materials for food mfg., and m fr.'d animal fe e d s _ _ _ _ _ 115.4 115.2 114.7 114.2 113.9 113.5 112.9 112.6 112.2 111.8 111.3 110.9 110.8 111.3 Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer foods_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 112.9 112.7 112.2 112.1 111.9 111.7 111.5 111.3 111.1 110.3 110.1 110.0 109.7 109.9 Manufacturing _ ______________ Construction------------------------------ - _______ Crude fuel ____ _____ ---- Manufacturing industries Nonmanufacturing industries IN T E R M E D IA T E M ATER IA LS, SU PPLIES AND _____________ CO M PO N EN TS ___ Materials and Components for Manufacturing......... __ __ _ _ _ Materials for food m anufacturing... Materials for nondurable manufacturing________ ____ _ _____ Materials for durable manufacturing ___________________ Components for manufacturing----- Manufacturing in d u s tr ie s ............. Nonmanufacturing industries-------- __ _____ _ _ _ -- Manufacturing industries________ Nonmanufacturing industries-------Manufactured animal feeds___ Other supplies_______ ________ FIN ISH ED G O O D S (Including Raw Foods and Fuels)- - - - - - - - - - ------------------- Consumer Goods __ ___ Crude __ Processed .. ........................ Other nondurable goods_________ Durable goods---------------------------- Producer Finished Goods_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Manufacturing industries ............ Nonmanufacturing industries-------- S P E C IA L G R O U PIN G S i See footnote 1, table 26. ¡¡See footnote 2, table 26. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: For description of the series by stage of processing, see Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final). 124 29. WHOLESALE PRICES M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 Wholesale price indexes,1 by durability of product 11957- 59 = 100 ] » 1970 Commodity group All commodities_ _ _ _ _ _ Total durable goods_____ Total nondurable goods____ Total manufactures_ _ _ _ _ _ Durable. ______ . . Nondurable___________ Total raw or slightly processed g o o d s. . Durable___ _____ _ Nondurable___ _______ 1969 June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June 117.0 121.5 113.8 116.8 121.3 113.6 116.6 120.9 113.6 116.6 120.5 113.9 116.4 120.0 113.9 116.0 119.6 113.4 115.1 119.0 112.4 114.7 118.4 111.9 114.0 117.9 111.2 113.6 117.1 111.1 113.4 116.5 111.1 113 3 116 1 111.3 113 2 115 9 111.2 in o l i fi* R 110.3 117.4 121.3 113.6 117.1 121.0 113.4 116.9 120.5 113.4 116.6 120.1 113.2 116.4 119.7 113.2 116.1 119.4 113.0 115.3 118.8 111.9 114.9 118.3 111.6 114.6 117.9 111.4 113.9 117.0 113.6 116.4 111.0 113.5 116.1 111.0 111.0 113.2 116.0 110.6 113 3 116 6 110.1 114.7 128.9 113.9 114.5 131.9 113.6 114.7 131.9 113.8 116.3 134.0 115.3 116.0 133.8 115.1 114.8 128.9 114.1 113.9 125.3 113.3 113.1 124.0 112.5 111.0 122.8 110.3 111.6 123.7 110.9 111.5 119.7 111.1 112.2 114.8 112.1 112.6 114.9 112.4 110 9 115 8 110.7 1 See footnote 1, table 26. » See footnote 2, table 26. 30. Annual average 1969 NOTE: For description of the series by durability of product and data beginning with 1947, see “ Wholesale Price and Price Indexes, 1957” (BLS Bulletin 1235,1958). Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries1 11957-59=100 unless otherwise indicated] 1903 SIC Code Industry 1969 Other bases 1968 Annual age 1969 D e c.2 Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. 1311 1421 Anthracite____________________ Bituminous coal_______________ Crude petroleum and natural gas. Crushed and broken stone______ 118.4 124.9 110.9 114. 5 114.9 124.2 110.9 114.5 111.4 121.3 110.8 114.2 111.4 116.2 110.9 114.2 108.0 116.1 110.6 113.6 108.0 116.0 110.5 113.6 104.2 115.0 110.6 113.6 104.2 114.1 110.7 112.6 106.2 113.4 110.9 112.5 107.4 113.1 109.9 112.5 107.4 113.1 106.6 112.5 107.0 113.1 106.5 112.5 107.0 113.1 106.4 111.3 1(19 n 116 7 no n 113.4 1442 1475 1476 1477 Construction sand and gravel. Phosphate rock____________ Rock salt______________ Sulfur___ _____ _______ 123.0 147.4 107.0 115.8 123.0 147.4 107.0 115.8 123.0 147.4 107.0 124.1 122.5 147.4 107.0 165.4 121.5 147.4 107.0 165.4 121.5 147.4 107.0 165.4 120.7 147.4 107.0 165.4 120.6 147.4 107.0 165.4 120.8 147.4 107.0 165.4 120.6 147.4 100.8 165.4 119.8 147.4 100.8 165.4 119.8 147.4 100.8 173.7 118.6 147.4 100.8 173.7 121 4 147 4 105 5 154.4 2011 2033 Meat slaughtering plants___ Meat processing plants_____ Poultry dressing plants_____ Creamery butter___________ Canned fruits and vegetables. 12/66 12/66 114.0 121.3 105. 7 106.3 109.8 113.5 118.5 103.3 105.1 109.7 113.8 119.1 101.7 105.1 1U9. 5 116.2 120.3 104.0 105.1 109.0 117.4 122.0 107.8 104.9 108.7 121.7 118.7 103.3 104.9 108.7 121.2 117.0 101.7 104.8 107.7 114.8 109.7 102.3 104.8 107.7 108.0 104.8 96.1 104.9 107.8 104.6 103.4 99.6 103.4 107.7 103.9 101.7 98.5 103.3 107.6 104.2 100.3 95.9 103.4 107.4 100.1 100.7 90.4 105.0 107.3 112 8 113 1 101 7 104 7 108.4 2036 2044 2052 2061 2062 2063 Fresh or frozen packaged fish. Rice m illing________________ Biscuits, crackers and cookies. Raw cane sugar____________ Cane sugar refining_________ Beet sugar_________________ 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 150.8 94.0 109.7 107.0 108.9 106.1 154.1 94.0 109.7 110.1 109.3 106.6 146.5 94. 0 108.0 110. 5 109. 2 106. 7 145.9 93.1 107.1 109.6 108.4 106.4 143.8 92.6 104.5 108.9 108.1 106.3 146.4 92.6 104.4 104.5 107.6 105.7 139.9 93.8 104.4 109.5 107.6 106.7 140.4 93.8 104.4 109.5 107.2 104.9 136.8 93.8 104.3 109.0 105.8 105.0 141.7 93.8 104.3 108.5 103.9 102.3 141.4 93.8 104.3 107.7 103.6 102.2 140.1 93.8 104.3 107.5 103.6 102.6 139.0 93.8 104.3 106.8 103.2 102.5 144. 0 93 6 105.8 108. 5 106.9 105.1 2073 2082 2083 2084 2091 2092 Chewing gum_____ Malt liquors______ Malt_____________ Wines and brandy.. Cottonseed oil mills. Soybean oil m ills .. 106.2 107.3 96.8 118.3 99. 4 88.6 106.1 107.3 96.8 118.3 95.8 88.0 106.1 107.7 96.8 118.3 91.5 91.0 106.1 107.1 96.8 115.5 97.0 85.7 106.1 107.2 96.8 115.5 97.2 87.4 106.1 107.2 96.8 115.7 98.3 87.1 106.1 106.7 96.8 115.7 92.9 87.0 106.1 106.0 96.8 115.7 92.7 86.3 106.1 104.9 96.8 115.7 93.9 85.6 106.1 104.9 96.8 115.7 93.6 84.8 106.1 104.9 96.8 115.5 93.7 83.1 106.1 104.9 96.8 115.5 95.0 83.3 106.1 104.9 96.8 115.5 94.5 82.2 106.1 106.3 96.8 116.3 95.1 86.5 2094 2096 2098 2131 Animal and marine fats and oils. Shortening and cooking o ils___ Macaroni and noodle products Cigarettes_______________ Cigars____________________ Chewing and smoking tobacco.._ 96.4 108.8 101.9 125.1 107.3 141.4 104.9 107.2 101.9 125.0 107.3 140.6 102.1 105.5 101.9 125.0 106.8 138. 5 105.8 102.6 101.9 125.0 106.8 138.3 104.6 102.5 101.8 125.0 105.2 138.1 99.6 102.3 101.9 125.0 103.8 138.1 93.8 103.3 101.8 124.9 102.7 137.1 89.0 103.1 101.8 117.5 102.7 137.0 88.9 103.2 101.5 117.5 102.7 136.0 85.1 103.1 100.4 117.4 102.1 134.7 82.9 102.9 100.3 117.4 102.0 134.7 81.3 101.0 100.3 117.4 102.0 132.4 79.7 100.3 100.3 117.4 101.7 132.4 94.5 103.8 101.5 121.9 104.3 137.2 2254 2311 2321 2322 2327 Knit underwear m ills____________ Men’s and boys’ suits and coats.. Men’s dress shirts and nightwear.. Men’s and boys' underwear______ Men’s and boys’ separate trousers. 12/66 12/66 107.8 142.7 122.1 109.1 106.9 107.7 142.2 121.0 109.0 106.8 107.7 140.4 121.0 109.0 106.8 107.7 139.4 120.6 107.9 106.4 107.7 138.5 120.6 107.9 106.3 107.7 137.1 118.3 107.7 106.1 106.3 135.8 118.2 106.9 106.1 106.4 134.4 118.2 107.0 104.8 106.3 134.7 118.8 107.1 104.8 106.3 134.3 118.8 107.1 104.7 106.3 134.3 118.9 107.0 104.7 106.3 134.2 118.7 106.9 104.7 105.7 133.4 115.5 106.4 103.9 107.0 137.3 119.6 107.7 105.8 2328 2381 2426 2442 2515 Work clothing_________________ Fabric dress and work gloves___ Hardwood dimension and flooring. Wirebound boxes and crates____ Mattresses and bedsprings______ 12/66 12/67 12/66 119.1 137.1 lib . 5 110.7 108.2 119.0 135. 4 116.6 110. 0 108.7 119.0 135.4 116.7 110.0 108.5 118.3 134.8 117.2 110.0 108.5 117.7 132.1 117.3 108.6 108.5 117.4 131.9 117.8 108.3 108.3 117.4 131.9 119.0 107.4 108.2 116.6 131.9 120.7 107.4 108.2 116.6 131.7 121.1 106.5 108.3 116.6 130.8 120.6 106.4 108.2 116.6 130.6 118.8 106.4 108.2 116.5 130.1 116.5 106.3 106.7 115.1 128.4 114.7 105.6 104.3 117.6 132.8 118.2 108.2 108.2 2521 2647 2654 Wood office furniture___ Sanitary paper products Sanitary food containers 12/66 12/66 139.2 115. 3 101.3 138.9 115.3 101.2 137.6 135.9 113.9 113.5 100.6 1 100.4 134.3 113.1 100.4 134.3 112.3 100.1 134.3 111.5 100.7 133.4 111.1 100.6 132.8 111.1 100.6 132.2 111.1 100.4 131.7 110.2 100.7 131.1 108.0 100.8 131.1 108.0 100.5 134.6 112.2 100.7 M IN IN G mi 1211 M A N U FA C TU R IN G 2013 2015 2021 2111 2121 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 30. 1963 SIC Code WHOLESALE PRICES 125 Industry-sector price indexes for the output of selected industries ^Continued 1969 Industry 1968 Other bases Annual Average 1969 D ec.2 Nov. Oct. Sept. Aug. July June May Apr. Mar. Feb. Jan. Dec. 96.0 95.6 96.0 96.0 95.6 96.0 96.0 95.6 96.0 96.0 95.6 96.0 95.9 95.6 96.0 95.9 95.6 96.0 95.9 95.6 96.0 95.9 95.6 96.0 95.8 95.6 96.0 95.3 95.8 96.0 95.3 95.8 96.0 94. 5 95.8 96.0 94.7 95.7 96.0 95.7 95.7 96.0 85.0 90.6 117.1 97.8 120.4 118.3 85.0 90.6 117.3 97.3 120.5 117.2 85.4 91.2 117.3 97.3 121.2 117.4 88.3 92.7 117.4 97.5 122.3 117.6 88.5 92.6 117.5 98.1 121.5 118.2 88.7 93.1 117.4 98.8 121.7 117.5 99.2 93.3 117.5 98.8 122.1 113.5 99.2 93.3 116.9 98.0 122.2 115.4 99.2 93.3 115.0 98.0 122.8 112.0 99.4 93.9 114.8 97.1 116.7 111.5 99.4 93.7 114.1 95.1 116.7 110.5 99.6 94.1 114.1 94.7 117.0 109.7 100.3 94.8 114.6 95.1 116.1 111.0 93.1 92.7 116.4 97.4 120.4 114.9 MANUFACTURING-Continued 2822 2823 2824 Synthetic rubber____ - --------- -------Cellulosic man-made fib e rs ... ---------Organic fibers, noncellulosic---------------- 2871 2872 2892 2911 3111 3121 ------Fertilizers. Fertilizers, mixing only----------------------Explosives_____ ----- . Petroleum refining___________ . . . . . Leather tanning and finishing--------------Industrial leather belting_____ ____ . . 3221 3241 3251 3255 3259 Glass containers_____________________ Cement, hydraulic___________ . . . . . . Brick and structural clay tile--------------Clay refractories__________ . ----------Structural clay products, n . e . c . . . ___ _ 116.1 114.9 125.1 126.2 116.4 116.1 114.9 125.1 122.2 116.4 116.1 114.9 124.4 122.2 115.9 116.1 114.9 124.4 122.2 115.1 116.1 114.8 123.5 122.0 115. 0 116.1 114.8 123.5 117.8 114.4 116.1 114.8 123.4 117.8 114.8 116.1 114.8 123.2 117.8 115.3 116.1 114.8 123.0 117.8 115.3 116.1 114.7 121.5 116.7 115.3 116.1 111.7 121.5 116.7 115.1 116.1 108.5 121.4 116.7 115.0 110.3 105.9 121.2 116.7 114.1 116.1 114.0 123.3 119.7 115.3 3261 3262 3263 3271 3273 3275 3312 3315 Vitreous plumbing fixtures— _______ Vitreous china food utensils------ _ . . . Fine earthenware food utensils. ______ Concrete block and b rick_____________ Ready mixed concrete___________ ____ Gypsum products_______ . ...... ......... Blast furnace and steel m ills-------- ------Steel wire drawing, etc.. . . . . . ____ 104.6 143.7 131.2 115.4 115.7 104.7 115.3 108.6 104.2 143.7 131.2 115.0 114.9 110.1 115.3 108.5 103.4 139.8 130.9 114.9 114.7 106.2 115.2 108.4 102.4 139.8 130.9 114.6 114.4 106.4 114.4 107.5 102.4 139.8 130.9 114. 5 113.7 103.6 114.3 107.0 102.4 139.8 130.9 114. 5 113.5 105.2 112.5 106.4 100.9 137.2 127.0 113.7 112.7 108.9 111.8 106.3 100.8 137.2 127.0 114.2 112.6 108.9 111.7 105.9 99.8 137.2 127.0 114.2 112.3 106.5 110.8 105.1 99.8 134.3 123.3 114.5 112.0 106.5 110.6 105.1 99.7 134.3 123.3 113.4 111.8 106.5 109.5 105.1 99.5 134.3 123.3 112.9 111.7 106.5 109.3 104.5 99.1 134.3 123.3 111.7 110.3 106.5 107.7 103.7 101.7 138.4 128.1 114.3 113.3 106.7 112.6 106.5 3316 3317 3333 3334 3339 3351 3411 Cold finishing of steel shapes_________ Steel pipe and tube______ ____ ______ Primary zinc...... ............ ........................ Primary aluminum___________________ Primary nonferrous metals, n.e.c........... Copper rolling and drawing___________ Metal cans__________________________ 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 113.6 110.5 107.7 114.0 134.8 171.4 109.0 113.7 110.4 107.7 114.0 138.9 166.4 109.0 113.7 110.4 107.4 114.0 133.9 166.4 109.0 112.1 108.4 105.6 110.0 131.8 165.9 109.0 112.1 107.8 100.9 110.0 123.8 160.6 109.0 109.0 107.7 100.6 110.0 120. 5 154. 5 108.9 109.0 107.3 100.5 109.0 120.1 152.3 108.9 108.7 107.3 100.4 109.0 120.1 151.7 108.9 107.5 107.2 97.1 109.0 120.3 147.8 108.9 107.4 105.7 96.9 109.0 119.5 144.6 108.9 107.4 105.6 96.9 109.0 119.8 142.8 108.8 107.2 104.8 97.2 106.1 122.3 142.8 106.3 107.0 104.7 93.9 105.4 119.4 134.3 106.2 110.1 107.8 101.6 110.3 125.5 155.6 108.7 3423 3431 3493 3496 3498 3519 Hand and edge tools. _ _______ ____ Metal plumbing fixtures.......................... Steel springs . . . __________ _____ _ Collapsible tubes____________________ Fabricated pipe and fittin g s................... Internal combustion engines__________ 12/67 110.8 100.4 107.2 103.8 130.9 110.9 110.6 100.3 107.2 103.7 130.8 110.8 109.6 99.8 107.2 103.7 130.4 110.1 108.4 99.4 106.8 103.7 130.4 109.7 108.4 98.8 106.8 103.6 130.3 109.1 107.8 98.7 106.8 103.6 130.3 108.0 107.1 97.3 106.3 103.5 129.7 108.3 106.9 96.6 106.0 103.2 129.7 108.3 107.2 95.8 105.9 103.2 129.7 107.9 106.3 95.8 105.8 103.1 123.4 107.5 105.9 95.7 105.8 103.0 123.4 106.9 105.0 95.3 105.8 102.9 123.4 106.7 104.8 95.0 105.2 101.5 122.7 106.6 107.8 97.8 106.5 103.4 128.5 108.7 3533 3534 3537 3562 3572 Oil field machinery__________ ______ _ Elevators and moving sta irw a y s............ Industrial trucks and tra c to rs ............. . Ball and roller b e a r in g s ....................... Typewriters_____ . . ........................ 12/66 12/66 125.1 110.5 134.0 105.7 103.9 122.7 107.7 133.9 103.7 103.8 122.5 107.7 133.6 103.7 103.2 122.4 107.6 132.6 102.6 103.1 121.8 107.6 131.2 102.6 103.1 121.5 107.6 131.2 102.2 101. b 121.0 104.5 130.5 102.2 101.4 120.8 104.5 129.1 102.1 101.3 120.4 104.5 128.6 102.1 100.5 120.0 104.5 128.6 102.1 100.6 119.1 103.9 128.2 102.1 100.6 119.0 103.9 128.1 101.6 100.6 118.0 103.9 127.2 101.6 100.6 121.4 106.2 130.8 102.7 102.0 3576 3612 3613 3624 3635 3641 Scales and balances__________________ Transformers____________ __________ Switchgear and sw itchboards........... . Carbon and graphite products_______ . Household vacuum cleaners..... .......... Electric la m p s .................................... . 12/66 12/66 12/67 12/66 12/66 133.4 100.3 107.1 104.8 99.9 98.4 133.2 99.3 106.7 104.4 99.9 98.5 133.0 100.2 105.7 104.4 99.9 99.2 133.0 101.6 105.9 104.3 99.8 101.1 129.9 101.6 103.6 104.3 99.8 100.3 129.9 101.3 104. 4 104.3 99.8 99.6 128.6 101.1 104.9 103.0 99.8 104.1 127.0 100.2 104.0 101.1 99.8 103.1 127.0 100.8 103.6 101.0 99.8 103.6 126.9 102.2 104.3 101.0 99.8 102.7 126.9 102.3 104.9 101.0 99.7 103.0 126.3 104.6 104.8 101.0 99.7 103.0 126.4 104.6 104.4 101.0 99.5 103.0 129.6 101.3 105.0 102.9 99.8 101.4 3652 3671 3672 3673 Phonograph re co rd s________ _______ _ Electron tubes, receiving type_________ Cathode ray picture t u b e s ... _______ Electron tubes, transmitting___________ 12/66 12/66 12/66 123.5 121.2 87.5 103.2 123.5 121.3 89.7 103.2 123.5 121.3 90.0 103.1 123.5 121.2 90.0 103.0 122.6 117.8 90.0 102.9 122.6 117.8 90.0 102.9 122.6 117.8 89.9 102.1 122.3 117.8 89.9 102.1 122.3 117.8 89.9 102.0 122.3 117.7 89.9 102.0 122.3 109.6 89.8 102.0 121.3 105.9 89.9 102.1 119.8 105.9 92.4 102.0 122.7 117.3 89.7 102.6 3674 3692 3693 3941 Semiconductors___________ __________ Primary batteries, dry and w e t......... . X-ray apparatus and tubes__________ _ Games and toys_____________________ 92.7 115.4 117.4 112.1 92.8 115. 4 115.6 112.2 92.7 115.3 115.4 111.4 92.6 115.2 113.1 111.4 92.7 115.2 112.8 111.4 92.6 115.2 112.8 92.6 115.2 112.5 92.7 115.2 112.6 92.7 115.2 111.0 92.6 114.9 111.3 111.1 111.1 111.1 111.2 111.1 92.4 113.8 111.4 111.2 92.4 112.5 12/67 12/66 92.5 111.3 107.7 110.1 92.6 114.9 113. 1 111.3 12/66 12/66 12/66 12/66 1958 12/66 12/66 12/66 1958 12/66 12/66 12/66 1 For a description of the series, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (BLS Bulletin 1458), Chapter 12. See also. “ Industry and Sector Price indexes.” in Monthly Labor Review, August 1965, pp. 974-982. 2 Current monthly industry-sector price indexes are not available for this issue. At the beginning of each calendar year, changes in the sample for some indexes must be https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 111,1 110.3 made and necessary internal reweighting accomplished; this has caused the delay. Indexes beginning with January 1970 w ill be published in a later report. NOTE. Beginning in January 1967, index weights and classifications are based on the 1963 Censuses of Manufactures and Minerals. They were formerly based on the 1958 Industrial Censuses. 126 31. LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES M O N T H LY LABO R REVIEW, A U G U S T 1970 Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1 Workers involved in stoppages Number of stoppages Month and year Beginning in month or year In effect during month Beginning in month or year (thousands) In effect during month (thousands) Man-days idle during month or year Number (thousands) Percent of esti mated working time 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 _____ ____ ............. ................... 4,750 4; 985 3i 693 3; 419 3; 606 3,470 4,600 2 ; 170 1,960 3,030 38,000 116’ 000 34; 600 3 4 ; 100 50; 500 0 31 1.04 .30 .28 .44 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 ........... ....... ______ ................... ........ 4, 843 4; 737 5,117 5', 091 3j 468 2,410 2,220 3,540 2,400 i; 530 38,800 22;900 28, 300 22j 600 .33 . 18 .48 .22 . 18 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 ____ 4, 320 3i 825 3^ 673 3; 694 3; 708 2,650 1,900 1,390 2,060 1,880 28,200 33,100 16,500 23, 900 69, 000 .22 .24 .12 .18 .50 ........... ____________ 5 9 ;1 0 0 I960 1961 1962 1963 1964 ______ ............... __________ ........... ....... ............ 3,333 3i 367 3; 614 3,362 3,655 1,320 1,450 1,230 941 1,640 19,100 16,300 18, 600 16,100 22,900 .14 .11 .13 .11 .15 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 ............ ............... _____ 3,963 4; 405 4,595 5,045 5, 700 1,550 1,960 2,870 2,649 2,481 23,300 25,400 42,100 49,018 42, 869 .15 .15 .25 .28 .24 J a n u a r y .................... February____ ____ _ March______________ 286 292 368 443 485 545 94.4 104.1 129.9 163.5 159.2 195.4 1,247.9 1,275.8 1, 507.8 .09 .10 .10 A p ril----------------------M ay__________ _____ June_______________ 462 528 472 638 769 759 397.6 277.8 211.8 438.8 584.9 405.0 2,544.8 4,406.4 4,927. 4 .19 .30 .33 Ju ly ............................. August...................... . September....... .......... 389 392 415 682 689 681 664.6 91.3 372.8 865.5 233.1 473.6 4,328.7 2, 859. 5 6,159.8 .32 .18 .45 October...... .......... . November__________ December................. . 449 360 182 727 653 445 178.8 277.1 74.4 458.7 559.5 209.5 7,105. 6 3,213.2 2, 546. 5 .47 .22 .18 January...................... F e b ru a ry ................... March......................... 314 357 381 483 569 618 187.8 275.0 174.5 275.7 451.3 368.7 2,668. 5 4,104.1 3,682. 0 .18 .29 .26 A p ril------- --------------M a y .____ __________ J u n e ....................... . 505 610 500 748 930 810 537.2 307.3 168.5 656.7 736.2 399.9 5,677.4 7,452.2 5, 576. 8 .38 .49 .40 Ju ly ........ .............. . August____ _________ September_________ 520 466 448 880 821 738 202.0 153.8 169.8 465.1 359.6 349.0 4,611.9 4, 048. 9 3,081.1 .30 .26 .22 O c to b e r.................... November_____ ____ December__________ 434 327 183 741 617 408 279.0 129.9 64.1 414.5 306.1 189.2 3,991.7 2,430.5 1,692.5 .25 .17 .11 January............... . . . February___________ March____________ 342 385 436 511 578 651 184.9 177.1 158.1 264.3 339.9 386.3 3,173.3 2, 565. 8 2,412.5 .21 .18 .16 A p ril_______________ May_______________ June_______ ______ _ 578 723 565 831 1,054 911 309.7 286.3 214.6 462.3 507.7 500.0 3, 755. 0 4, 744. 7 4, 722. 7 .24 .32 .31 Ju ly _______________ August_____________ September__________ 528 538 554 883 915 904 255.0 191.2 185.6 461.5 394.8 274.5 4,311.0 3,634.3 2,193.4 .27 .24 .15 October ___________ November _________ December__________ 531 324 196 850 611 446 337.0 131.0 50.8 420.9 367.6 276.0 3,167.5 4, 307.6 3,881.8 .19 .31 .24 January11___________ February»1__________ March»____________ 260 290 390 420 460 570 55 106 294 233 296 364 3,730 1,820 2, 230 .25 .13 .14 April »___________ May v ........ ................ June p ...... .............. . 600 750 600 810 960 840 319 309 212 385 470 428 4,181 7,516 5,040 .26 .52 .31 1967: 1968: 1969: 1970: i The data include all known strikes or lockouts involving 6 workers or more and lasting a full day or shift or longer. Figures on workers involved and man-days idle cover all workers made idle for as long as 1 shift in establishments directly involved in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service shortages. ^Preliminary. C U R R E N T LABO R STATISTICS 32. 127 PRODUCTIVITY Output per man-hour, hourly compensation and unit labor costs, private economy, seasonally adjusted [Indexes 1957-59=100] Output Man-hours Output per man-hour Compensation per man-hour > Real compensation per man-hour2 Unit labor costs Year and quarter Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nontarm Private Private nonfarm 1967: 1st quarter__________________________ 2d quarter_____________ ____________ 3d quarter_________________________ 4th quarter__________________________ Annual average.. . . -------------------------------------- 146.4 147.2 148.9 150.2 148.2 148.2 148.9 150.7 152.1 150.0 110.6 109.6 110.3 110.9 110.4 115.5 114.9 115.3 116.0 115.4 132.4 134.4 134.9 135.4 134.3 128.3 129.6 130.6 131.1 129.9 147.9 150.3 152.2 154.3 151.2 143.5 145.5 147.6 149.7 146.6 129.0 130.1 130.4 131.1 130.1 125.2 126.0 126.4 127.2 126.2 111.7 111.9 112.9 114.0 112.6 111.9 112.3 113.0 114.2 112.9 1968: 1st quarter---------------------- ---------------2d quarter......... ............... ............ ........ 3d quarter_______________________ 4th quarter-------------- ------- ------- ---------Annual average------------- ------------------------------- 152.4 155.2 156.7 158.1 155.6 154.3 157.5 159.0 160.6 157.9 111.2 112.2 112.7 112.6 112.2 116.4 117.5 118.3 118.3 117.6 137.0 138.3 139.0 140.4 138.7 132.6 134.1 134.4 135.8 134.2 158.5 160.8 163.7 167.8 162.7 153.6 155.7 158.1 162.0 157.4 133.3 133.7 134.5 136.3 134.4 129.2 129.4 129.8 131.5 130.0 115.7 116.3 117.8 119.6 117.4 115.9 116.1 117.6 119.4 117.3 1969: 1st quarter----------- ------- --------------------2d q u a rte r------ - ---------------------3d quarter . ........... . ...............- -- 4th q uarter..-------- ---------------------------Annual average........ .......... ................................ 159.1 159.9 160.8 160.5 160.1 161.5 162.3 163.1 163.2 162.5 113.7 114.6 115.0 114.3 114.4 119.6 120.7 121.4 121.0 120.6 139.9 139.5 139.8 140.3 139.9 135.0 134.5 134.4 134.9 134.7 170.5 172.7 175.8 179.4 174.7 164.4 166.5 169.1 172.2 168.1 136.7 136.2 136.8 137.6 136.9 131.8 131.3 131.5 132.1 131.7 121.8 123.8 125.8 127.8 124.9 121.8 123.8 125.8 127.7 124.8 1970: 159.7 162.2 114.0 120.6 140.1 134.5 182.7 175.2 138.0 132.3 130.4 130.3 1st quartern.......... ..................... ............ Percent change over previous quarter at annual rate3 1967: 1st q u a rte r... ---------- ---------------------2d quarter-------------- ------------------------3d quarter___________________________ 4th quarter----- ---------------------------------- -1 .4 2.3 4.5 3.6 - 2 .2 1.9 4.8 3.9 0.0 -3 .7 2.9 2.1 - 0 .3 -2 .1 1.7 2.4 - 1 .4 6.2 1.5 1.5 - 1 .9 4.1 3.0 1.5 3.9 6.7 5.2 5.6 4.9 5.5 5.8 5.9 3.2 3.7 0.9 2.1 4.1 2.6 1.6 2.3 5.3 0.5 3.6 4.1 6.9 1.4 2.7 4.4 1968: 1st quarter_____________ _____ ______ 2d quarter______ . . ----------------------3d quarter___________________________ 4th quarter_____________________ ____ 6.0 7.4 4.1 3.5 6.0 8.4 4.0 4.0 1.0 3.5 1.9 - 0 .3 1.2 3.8 2.8 0.0 4.9 3.8 2.1 3.8 4.8 4.5 1.1 4.0 11.3 6.0 7.5 10.4 10.9 5.5 6.4 10.3 6.8 1.1 2.3 5.5 6.5 0.7 1.3 5.4 6.0 2.1 5.3 6.3 5.9 1.0 5.3 6.0 1969: 1st q u a rte r.......... ................. ................. 2d quarter--------------- -----------------------3d quarter___________ ________ _____ 4th quarter________ . . . ----------- . . . 2.6 1.9 2.2 - 0 .7 2.2 2.0 2.0 0.2 3.8 3.2 1.3 - 2 .3 4.6 3.5 2.4 - 1 .3 - 1 .2 -1 .3 0.8 1.6 - 2 .3 -1 .4 -0 .4 1.5 6.4 5.4 7.4 8.3 5.8 5.4 6.2 7.6 1.4 -1 .4 1.5 2.4 0.8 -1 .4 0.4 1.8 7.6 6.8 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.0 1st quarter?_______________ ______ _ -1 .9 -2 .4 - 1 .3 - 1 .2 - 0 .6 - 1 .2 7.7 7.1 1.4 0.8 8.4 8.4 2.6 1.9 1.7 5.3 6.5 6.8 6.9 5.1 6.6 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.0 1970: 8.3 6.9 Percent change over previous y ear4 1969: 1970: 1st q u a rte r............. .................. ........ 2d quarter------------------ ------- ------------3rd quarter_________________________ 4th quarter______________ _________ 4.4 3.0 2.6 1.5 4.6 3.0 2.6 1.6 1st quarter?________________________ 0.4 0.4 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.5 0.2 1 Wages and salaries of employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans. Also includes an estimate of wages, salaries, and supple mentary payments for the self-employed. 2 Compensation per man-hour adjusted for changes In the consumer price index. 3 Percent change computed from original data. 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.1 0.8 0.5 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.1 - 0 .7 7.6 7.4 7.4 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.2 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.3 0.4 - 0 .4 7.2 6.6 1.0 0.4 0.0 4 Current quarter divided by comparable quarter a year ago. SOURCE: Output data from the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce. Man-hours and compensation of all persons from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. »= Prelim inary Scheduled release dates for major BLS statistical series, September 1970 Title Employment s itu a tio n ..-........................................................................... Wholesale Price Index, fin a l.. _ .................... ............................................................ Consumer Price Index.. _________ ________ __________ _ _ ........................ Work stoppages. Factory labor” turnover.... ................................................................................................ Wholesale Price Index, prelim inary.. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Date of release September September September September September September 4 8 19 24 29 30 Period covered August August August August August September MLR table numbers 1-14 26-30 24-25 31 15-16 26-30 •U .S . G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F I C E : 1 9 7 0 O — 3 8 9 -5 1 0 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis O F F IC IA L B U S IN E S S https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis P o s ta g e and fe e s p a id U .S . G o v e rn m e n t P rin tin g O ffice [FIRSJ CLASS MAILj