Full text of Monthly Labor Review : August 1970, Volume 93, Number 8

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