The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
lONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Liigust 1972 .S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ureau of Labor Statistics In this issue: Manpower programs or criminal offenders ''Jew price indexes ay size of city https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS REGIONAL OFFICES AND DIRECTORS Region I — Boston: W endell D. M acdonald U.S. DEPARTM ENT OF LABOR James D. Hodgson, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner Ben Burdetsky, Deputy Commissioner 1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone: (617) 223-6761 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Region II — New York: H erbert Bienstock 1515 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10036 Phone: (212) 971-5405 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Region III — Ph iladelphia: Frederick W. M ueller The Monthly Labor Review is for sale by the regional offices of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D. C. 20402 Subscription price per year — $9 domestic; $11.25 foreign. Single copy 75 cents. Correspondence regarding subscriptions should be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents. Communications on editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D. C. 20212 Phone: (202) 961-2327. Use of funds for printing this publication approved by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget (October 31, 1967) 406 Penn Square Building, 1317 Filbert Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107 Phone: (215) 597-7796 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Region IV — A tlanta: Brunswick A. Bagdon 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309 Phone: (404) 526-5416 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Region V — Chicago: W illiam E. Rice 8th Floor, 300 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, III. 60606 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region V I — D allas: Jack S trickland 1100 Commerce Street, Room 6B7, Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: (214) 749-3516 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Regions V II and V III — Kansas City: E llio tt A. Browar 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: (816) 374-2481 V II Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska V III August covers; Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming Regions IX and X — San Francisco: Charles Roumasset "S eated Youth (The Frien d ),’’ bronze sculpture, 1915-17, by W ilhelm Lehmbruck, from the collection of the W ilhelm Lehmbruck Museum, Duisburg, G erm any, exh ibited at the National G allery of Art, W ashington, D.C. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: (415) 556-3178 IX Arizona California Hawaii Nevada X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Editor-in-Chief, Herbert C. Morton Executive Editor, Henry Lowenstern R. Bahr, M. Meiners, T. Nakayama 3 New consumer price indexes by size of city New consumer price indexes for most goods and services rose faster in larger than in smaller urban areas between December 1966 and December 1971 P. Flaim, C. Gellner 9 An analysis of unemployment by household relationship Special Labor Force Report finds male household heads account for smaller proportion of joblessness now than 10 years ago Robert Taggart 17 Manpower programs for criminal offenders Vocational education, work release, and other approaches to the complex manpower needs of released prisoners are being tested C. Rosenfeld, K. Gover 25 Employment of school-age youth Special Labor Force Report shows that more than half the teenage labor force was enrolled in school in October 1971 Kevin G. Wetmore 31 Improvements in employee health care benefits Study shows shift from cash allowances to service benefits, and addition of new dental benefits Leonard Goodwin 35 Welfare mothers and the work ethic John H. Chase 38 State, County and Municipal Employees convention Donald S. Ridzon 40 Wages in fertilizer plants Arthur S. Herman 41 Rapid productivity gains in selected industries Joseph C. Bush 43 Wages for telephone and telegraph workers Edmund Nash 49 Soviet trade union congress Theresa F. Bucchieri 50 Social and welfare programs for the handicapped abroad https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DEPARTMENTS 2 35 38 40 49 53 56 57 63 86 Labor month in review Communications Union conventions Research summaries Foreign labor briefs Significant decisions in labor cases Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews and notes Current labor statistics AUGUST 1972 VOLUME 95, NUMBER 8 Labor Month in Review W h a t do p o l ic y m a k e r s need from researchers? And what do researchers need from policymakers? Under Secretary of Labor L. H. Silberman offered some answers to these questions in addressing the North American Conference of Labor Statistics in Denver on June 28. A sense of discipline. The policymaker, Mr. Silber man said, must be prepared to accept—indeed, to demand—research that challenges the very premises on which he is basing his decisions. This may mean, at times, encouragement of long-term research that does not appear relevant to immediate needs. Policy makers are recognizing increasingly that the choice of a research project is itself a policy decision of the highest magnitude, perhaps too important a decision, Mr. Silberman added, to be left entirely to the policymakers. The Under Secretary suggested that policy officials and administrators need to have tougher skins about research they finance that comes up with answers critical of their policy initiatives. Ideally, govern ment policymakers have open minds and are willing to accept the answer that the idea behind a project is dead wrong. Ideally, • too, researchers have the Monthly Labor Review honored The Federal Editors Association has honored the Monthly Labor Review with a Blue Pencil Award for excellence in writing and editing. In a competition open to all publications issued by agencies of the Fed eral Government in 1971, the Review placed first in its field of technical publications. Editors who served on the Review staff at some time during 1971 included Olivia G. Amiss, Catherine C. Defina, Robert W. Fisher, Barbara Freund, Mary Hogya, Merv Knobloch, Diana LaPlante, Georgena Potts, and Eugene Skotzko. The Review also won Blue Pencil Awards in 1970 and 1969. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org 2 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis strength to face sharp rebuffs and to present their findings without fear or equivocation. Many persons are attracted to the social sciences because they have opinions about policy. But re searchers must free themselves of “personal policy bias” if they are to find government responsive to their research. Reconciling demand and supply. Both sides must work to reconcile the demand from policymakers for research relevant to their needs with the interests of the researchers. More effort is needed also to synthesize the results of research— rather than con centration on additional, often repetitive, studies. Since the reward system in academia tends to down grade this synthesizing approach, the policymaker must encourage it if he wants help in solving the problems he faces. To illustrate the practical application of research, Mr. Silberman cited a particular study sponsored by the Labor Department. The study showed that minor arrest records acquired early in life by many young men in the minority groups were a real barrier to employment, particularly in public agencies hide bound by stringent civil service regulations. Because this particular research data surfaced at the right moment in the right place, policy changes could be made that have significantly enhanced the prospects of minority employment in public service. Similarly, research on the rehabilitation of prisoners led to a new policy seeking labor market adjustments for former prisoners. The 30th North American Conference on Labor Statistics attracted 270 participants from public agencies, labor organizations, business concerns, universities, and community action groups in the United States and Canada. The program included workshops, panels, presentation of new government statistical programs, and a look at the place of labor statistics in the stabilization of prices and wages. Proceedings— including the full text of Mr. Silberman’s talk—will be published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. □ New consumer price indexes by size of city New consumer price indexes for most goods and services rose faster in larger than in smaller urban areas between December 1966 and December 1971 RICHARD C. BAHR, MARK R. MEINERS, AND TOSHIKO NAKAYAMA T h e B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t ist ic s has developed a new set of consumer price indexes which measure price change in urban areas grouped by size of pop ulation. These indexes add a new dimension to anal ysis of price data by providing alternate measures for comparison with the U.S. city average and by per mitting comparisons of price change among areas with different size populations. They will be pub lished four times a year for the months of March, June, September, and December. This article de scribes the new indexes and provides a brief analysis of their behavior over the 5-year period from De cember 1966 to December 1971. The new indexes are calculated from price data collected in 56 metropolitan and nonmetropolitan urban areas of the United States for the national Consumer Price Index. For the new price indexes, the 56 areas are grouped by their 1960 population into five groups. (See the listing of the areas in cluded in each group at the end of the article.) The first group consists of the five largest metropolitan areas included in the national CPI, all with an urban population of at least 3.5 million (class A - l) in 1960. The other groups had populations of 1.4 million to 3.5 million (class A -2); 250,000 to 1.4 million (class B ); 50,000 to 250,000 (class C ); and 2,500 to 50,000 (class D ), the later being nonmetropolitan urban areas. For each of the urban population classes, indexes for all items and for the subgroups of food, housing, apparel and upkeep, transportation, and health and recreation will be available. Table 1 shows the rela tive importance in the weighting structure of the U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index of the all items and major subgroup indexes for each urban classiRichard C. Bahr, Mark R. Meiners, and Toshiko Nakayama are economists in the Division of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis fication. (Tables 2 through 6 show historical indexes for the five population classes.) These new indexes are not designed to replace any of the individual city indexes currently published. The Bureau will continue to publish separate monthly indexes for each of the five largest metro politan areas in the CPI and separate quarterly indexes for each of the 18 other areas. As is the case with indexes for individual areas, the indexes for urban areas classified by size of population can not be used to determine differences in price levels or living costs at a point in time. They indicate only that prices in one group have changed more, less, or the same as in another. In addition, these new indexes should not be con strued necessarily as the best indicator of price be havior for a given city or geographic area because that city or area falls within the population ranges of the new indexes. Population is only one of sev eral factors that have a significant effect on price behavior in a city. For example, differences in price movement may also be related to differences in ecoTable 1. Relative im portance1 in the U.S. Consumer Price Index of all items and major groups, urban areas grouped by population,2 December 1971 Population class U.S. total___ 3.5 million or more ( A - l) ----------------1.4 to 3.5 million (A -2 )----------------250,000 to 1.4 million (B )________ 50,000 to 250,000 (C )____________ 2,500 to 50,000 (D ). Housing Apparel and upkeep Trans porta tion Health and recrea tion 22.28 33.97 10.49 13.32 19.94 32.74 7.53 10.87 3.52 4.30 6.52 11.88 2.66 4.05 1.25 1.56 2.36 25.85 5.46 9.00 2.65 3.55 5.19 12.50 17.03 2.77 3.86 4.23 5.82 1.32 1.75 1.68 2.23 2.50 3.37 All items Food 100.00 1 These data indicate the percentage of the U.S. "all items” Consumer Price Index weight represented by each population size class index as of December 1971. 1 Based upon 1960 Census of Population. 3 4 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 nomic structure, demographic characteristics, and geographic location. The Bureau intends to develop additional data that would permit analysis of price behavior by region in order to supply yet another dimension to its price data. Historical patterns The new indexes for urban areas show that be tween December 1966 and December 1971, the index of all items and the indexes for all sub groups of goods and services, except apparel and upkeep, tended to increase more (in percentage terms) in the larger urban population classes than in the smallest: P o p u la tio n class A ll item s F o o d 3.5 m illio n or m ore (A - l) ................ 1.4 to 3.5 m illio n ( A - 2 ) ................ 250.000 to 1.4 m il lio n ( B ) ............ 50.000 to 250,000 (C ) ..................... 2,500 to 50,000 ( D ) ..................... U n ite d States. H ou sin g T ran s- H ea lth , A p p a re l, por- recreau p k e e p ta tio n tion percent in December 1967 to 6.1 percent in Decem ber 1969. In 1970 the rate of advance slowed to 5.5 percent and in December 1971 it was down to 3.4 percent. Annual percent changes in the all items in dexes for each population class followed the same general pattern as those in the U.S. all items index, although there were differences in the magnitude of changes. Prices rose at about the same pace in each size class in 1967. However, when prices began to accelerate in 1968, the rates of increase (all items indexes) from December to December of each year began to diverge. The acceleration of price increases in 1968 and 1969 was greater in the larger population classes than in the smaller ones, and the deceleration in 1970 and 1971 was slightly less in the larger than in 26.3 22.5 29.4 23.0 25.4 28.4 25.2 20.6 28.2 25.4 22.5- 27.2 Table 2. Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers in areas with an urban population of 3.5 million or more (class A - l ) , 1 1 9 6 7 -7 2 24.6 19.9 29.3 24.1 18.7 26.5 [1967 = 1001________________________________________________________________ 23.4 19.5 27.0 24.2 17.4 26.4 Period 22.6 24.8 19.4 20.7 25.8 28.2 23.1 23.7 17.5 20.8 24.2 26.8 All Items Food Housing Apparel and upkeep Trans porta tion Health and recrea tion 99.0 99.7 100.8 101.6 100.0 99.1 99.7 100.7 101.2 100.0 99.4 99.8 100.3 101.2 100.0 99.0 99.8 101.8 102.4 100.0 98.5 99.7 101.0 101.7 100.0 98.6 99.4 101.2 102.3 100.0 102.8 104.0 105.5 106.6 104.3 102.3 103.5 105.0 105.5 103.8 102.4 103.5 105.3 106.6 103.9 103.5 105.0 108.3 109.4 105.4 103.2 103.7 103.3 104.3 103.5 103.6 104.8 106.2 107.6 105.2 108.5 110.0 111.7 113.4 110.2 106.7 109.3 111.3 113.7 109.5 108.7 109.9 112.4 113.9 110.5 110.5 113.9 114.2 111.4 109.0 109.1 108.1 108.7 108.9 110.9 112.4 113.2 110.9 115.4 117.2 118.9 120.4 117.4 115.3 116.4 116.8 116.7 116.2 116.7 118.8 120.8 123.4 119.0 114.8 115.4 118.6 118.7 115.7 113.6 116.1 117.5 121.2 117.0 115.1 117.1 119.1 120.5 117.3 121.5 123.2 124.2 124.8 123.0 118.7 121.1 121.1 122.0 120.2 123.5 125.4 127.3 128.4 125.6 118.4 119.3 121.3 120.9 119.0 123.0 124.0 123.4 123.3 123.3 122.3 123.9 125.1 125.4 123.8 126.3 127.1 124.4 125.1 129.8 131.1 121.6 120.4 124.1 125.1 126.8 128.2 1967 The index of all items for the largest urban areas rose 26.3 percent between December 1966 and De cember 1971, 3.7 percentage points more than the increase for the smallest areas. Differences between these two were similar for the food, housing, and health and recreation subgroups. For the transporta tion subgroups, however, the difference between them was almost 8 percentage points. For the ap parel and upkeep subgroup, the difference between increases in the largest and the smallest population classes was only 0.1 percentage point. The largest increase in apparel prices occurred in the 1.4 to 3.5 million population class. The increase for this class was 2.3 percentage points higher than that for the smallest class, still the smallest difference between size classes for any subgroup. Relationship to overall price change Analyzing changes in indexes over the entire pe riod (December 1966-December 1971) masks some aspects of the behavior of the indexes since significant changes in the overall behavior of prices occurred during the period. At the national level, the rate of increase in prices, measured in terms of December to December percent changes, accelerated from 3.0 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis March_________ June_____________ September_____ December____ Annual average.. 1968 March________ June_____________ September_____ December_____ Annual average.. 1969 March___________ June_____________ September____ . December___ Annual average.. 111.1 111.1 1970 March___ _______ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 1971 March....................... June_____________ September_______ December___ Annual average.. 1972 March....................... June_____________ i Based upon 1960 Census of Population. 5 NEW CPI BY SIZE OF CITY Analysis of the price indexes by subgroup for each population class (not shown in the tabula tion) adds another dimension to the cyclical be havior of prices. Indexes for food followed the same general pattern as the all items indexes, although there were variations in the magnitudes of price changes for each class. For other CPI subgroups the pattern was somewhat different. The rise in the indexes for housing accelerated in all population groups in 1968 and 1969, and in all except the 250,000 to 1.4 million class in 1970. In the latter class, the peak increase occurred in 1969, followed by a somewhat slower rise in 1970. The rate of price advance in housing for all population classes slowed substantially in 1971. Price changes for transportation were the only ones which showed a deceleration in 1968. The slow down occurred in all population classes, but was particularly sharp in the smallest class. The rate of advance became faster in 1969, and continued to ac celerate in 1970. The 9-percent increase for the largest population class was considerably larger than Table 3. Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers in areas with an urban population of 1.4 million to 3.5 million (class A -2 ),1 1 9 6 7 -7 2 Table 4. Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers in areas with an urban population of 250,000 to 1.4 million (class B ),1 1 9 6 7 -7 2 [1967 = 100] [1967 = 100] the smaller, as the following tabulation shows: Urban population class 3.5 million and over (A-l) 1.4 to 3.5 million (A-2) 250,000 to 1.4 million (B) 50,000 to 250,000 (C) . . 2,500 to 50,000 (D) . . . . United States . . . . 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.0 4.9 5.1 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.7 6.4 6.2 6.5 5.6 5.4 6.1 6.2 5.4 5.0 4.9 5.3 5.5 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.2 2.9 3.4 All items Food Housing Apparel and upkeep Trans por tation Health and recrea tion 99.0 99.7 100.7 101.6 100.0 98.9 99.8 101.0 100.7 100.0 99.2 99.8 100.5 101.3 100.0 98.7 99.8 100.6 102.2 100.0 98.9 99.9 100.6 101.9 100.0 98.8 99.4 101.0 102.4 100.0 March___________ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 1968 1968 March___________ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. Period September......... ___ December _______ Annual average.. 102.9 104.3 105.4 106.8 104.4 102.3 103.5 105.0 105.6 103.7 102.5 104.3 105.6 107.3 104.4 102.9 105.7 106.7 109.1 105.5 102.5 103.2 103.4 105.2 103.3 104.3 105.2 106.1 107.9 105.4 March___________ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 108.4 110.1 111.7 113.4 110.4 106.6 109.4 108.9 110.4 112.9 114.4 109.8 111.9 112.9 115.6 112.0 107.7 108.6 108.2 110.1 108.2 109.1 110.5 112.1 113.2 110.8 March_________ _ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 111.0 113.3 109.4 111.1 114.8 116.3 117.8 119.5 116.6 114.5 115.4 116.0 116.1 115.3 117.0 118.0 120.5 122.1 118.8 114.4 116.6 117.1 120.1 116.7 110.0 113.2 114.2 118.4 113.3 114.9 116.7 118.3 119.8 116.9 March_____ _____ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 120.2 121.7 122.6 123.6 121.7 117.6 119.0 118.6 120.2 118.5 122.1 123.5 125.9 126.9 124.2 119.3 120.8 121.3 123.3 120.9 118.4 121.1 120.1 120.3 119.8 121.5 122.6 124.1 124.3 122.8 March___________ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. Trans porta tion Health and recrea tion 98.9 99.8 100.7 101.6 100.0 99.1 100.1 100.4 100.8 100.0 99.0 99.7 100.8 101.6 100.0 98.8 100.0 100.5 102.0 100.0 98.7 99.9 100.8 101.7 100.0 98.9 99.6 100.8 102.0 100.0 102.7 103.9 104.8 106.2 104.0 102.4 103.2 104.0 105.0 103.3 102.6 104.1 105.3 107.1 104.3 102.8 104.7 106.1 108.0 104.9 102.2 103.1 102.9 103.4 102.8 103.6 104.5 105.6 107.0 104.8 107.9 109.8 113.1 109.9 106.0 108.7 110.5 112.5 108.8 109.3 111.6 113.0 115.2 111.6 108.6 111.4 112.4 114.9 111.3 106.2 106.4 105.6 107.9 106.2 108.3 109.6 111.7 112.9 110.1 114.5 116.3 117.3 118.7 116.2 113.9 114.6 115.2 114.6 114.4 118.0 120.0 121.6 123.2 120.0 114.4 115.9 116.6 119.2 116.2 107.3 110.6 114.5 110.3 114.4 115.9 117.5 118.7 116.1 119.2 120.9 121.6 122.7 120.8 116.0 118.1 118.0 119.5 117.5 122.6 124.1 125.5 127.2 124.5 118.4 120.0 120.4 122.0 120.0 115.4 116.9 116.1 116.3 116.0 120.3 121.6 123.4 123.8 121.9 123.4 124.5 121.6 122.1 127.9 128.6 121.1 123.0 115.5 117.9 124.9 125.9 111.1 111.0 1972 1972 March___________ June_____________ Apparel and upkeep 1971 1971 March........................ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. Housing 1970 1970 March___________ June_____________ September___ __ December________ Annual average.. Food 1969 1969 March..................... .. June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. All items 1967 1967 March___________ Period 124.2 125.1 121.9 122.4 1 Based upon 1960 Census of Population. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 127.7 128.8 122.2 122.7 119.6 121.1 125.3 126.3 March___________ June_____________ 1 Based upon 1960 Census of Population. 6 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 that for the other population classes, reflecting wide spread increases in local transit fares. By comparison with the 9-percent rise in the largest population category, transportation prices rose 7.5 percent in areas with 1.4 to 3.5 million population, and about 6 percent in the other three areas. In contrast, in 1971, the increases in the three largest classes were each 1.6 percent, 0.6 percent in groupings with 50,000-250,000 population, and 0.9 percent in group ings with 2,500 to 50,000 population. Repeal of the automobile excise tax in the second half of 1971 contributed to the slowdown that year. Compared with other CPI subgroups, health and recreation indexes ascended steadily upward in 1967, 1968, and 1969 in all the population strata. In 1970, the rate of advance accelerated sharply, ranging from 6.4 percent in the largest population category to 5.8 percent in the next largest category, and about 5 percent in the three smallest population categories. With the wage-price-rent freeze in effect after August 15, 1971, increases that year slowed to a rate of 3.7 percent in the smallest population category, to 3.8 percent in the 1.4 to 3.5 million class, and from 4.1 percent to 4.3 percent in other classes. The indexes for apparel and upkeep rose at a more rapid rate in 1968 than in 1967. Subsequently, however, the rate of advance slowed in all classes except the 250,000 to 1.4 million category. In this class, the rise in the index continued to accelerate through 1969, slowed in 1970, and became slightly faster in 1971. In contrast to the indexes for other subgroups, which usually showed larger increases in the index for apparel and upkeep in the largest classes each year were not the biggest. Table 5. Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers in areas with urban population of 50 ,0 0 0 to 25 0,00 0 (class C ),1 1 9 6 7 -7 2 Table 6. Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers in areas with urban population of 2,5 00 to 50 ,000 (class D ),1 1 9 6 7 -7 2 [1967 = 100] [1967 = 100] All items Food Housing Apparel and upkeep Trans porta tion Health and recrea tion 1967 March___________ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 98.7 99.9 100.6 101.8 100.0 99.1 100.1 100.3 100.9 100.0 98.8 99.9 100.7 101.5 100.0 98.3 100.1 100.5 102.5 100.0 98.3 100.1 100.7 102.0 100.0 98.5 99.5 100.9 102.7 100.0 1968 ___ March_____ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 103.0 104.1 105.1 106.5 194.3 102.3 103.5 104.0 104.9 103.3 102.8 103.8 105.2 107.1 104.3 103.1 105.7 107.5 109.7 105.9 102.5 102.5 102.7 103.6 102.7 1969 March___________ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 107.9 109.6 110.7 112.5 109.7 106.1 108.8 110.4 112.1 108.8 108.6 110.4 111.8 113.5 110.5 109.5 111.3 112.0 114.9 111.5 106.5 106.8 106.0 108.6 106.6 Period All items Food Housing Apparel and upkeep Trans porta tion Health and recrea tion 1967 March....................... June______ ______ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 98.8 99.9 100.7 101.6 100.0 99.3 100.0 100.5 100.5 100.0 98.9 99.8 100.7 101.5 100.0 98.2 99.9 100.3 102.9 100.0 98.5 100.0 100.8 101.9 100.0 98.8 99.6 100.8 102.1 100.0 104.3 105.7 106.7 107.9 105.7 1968 March___________ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 102.6 103.9 104.8 106.0 104.0 102.2 103.3 104.0 104.8 103.2 102.5 103.7 105.1 106.8 104.1 102.8 105.1 106.2 109.0 105.3 102.8 103.7 103.6 102.7 103.1 103.2 104.4 105.3 106.7 104.5 108.8 110.6 112.1 113.0 110.7 1969 March....................... June_____________ September_______ December................ Annual average.. 107.3 109.0 110.2 111.7 109.1 105.5 108.2 109.7 111.6 108.2 108.4 109.9 111.7 113.0 110.2 108.8 111.1 106.2 106.5 105.2 107.4 105.9 107.6 108.9 110.8 111.5 109.3 113.1 114.9 115.9 117.6 114.9 113.1 114.2 114.8 114.4 113.9 115.8 117.4 119.2 121.0 117.7 114.1 115.8 115.9 118.6 115.7 107.0 110.2 109.8 114.0 109.7 112.3 114.3 115.7 117.4 114.4 Period 111.1 111.9 114.3 1970 March___________ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 113.9 115.5 116.5 118.0 115.5 113.6 114.2 114.7 113.6 113.9 116.1 117.7 119.6 121.4 118.0 114.8 116.6 116.0 119.7 116.4 108.7 111.6 111.2 114.9 111.1 113.8 115.7 117.4 118.6 115.9 1970 March___________ June........ ................. September_______ D ecem ber............. Annual average.. 1971 March___________ June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 118.5 120.5 120.8 121.8 120.1 115.6 117.9 117.8 119.0 117.1 121.0 122.9 123.9 125.3 123.0 118.7 120.9 120.1 122.1 120.3 115.4 117.6 115.8 115.6 116.0 119.6 121.3 123.3 123.7 121.6 1971 March...................... June_____________ September_______ December________ Annual average.. 118.0 119.9 120.1 121.0 119.5 115.7 118.1 117.8 119.0 117.3 120.9 122.4 123.1 124.2 122.4 118.2 120.3 119.1 121.7 119.6 114.2 116.7 115.4 115.0 115.2 118.6 120.0 121.4 121.7 120.1 1972 March___________ June_____________ 122.6 123.8 121.4 121.4 126.1 127.9 120.6 123.6 115.3 116.7 124.2 125.1 1972 March___________ June...... ................... 121.9 122.8 120.8 121.7 125.5 126.3 120.6 122.2 114.7 116.2 122.7 123.3 1 Based upon 1960 Census of Population. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 Based upon 1960 Census of Population. NEW CPI BY SIZE OF CITY 7 Statistical analysis The foregoing analysis indicates that there are some differences in the rate of price change by urban area classified by population size. The differences, however, are small and do not always show a con sistent pattern. Therefore, to determine whether price changes by population size are statistically sig nificant with respect to time and each other, a series of analytical tests were undertaken. The first test, a Areas included in each population class (based on 1960 Census of Population) Class A-l : 3.5 million or more Chicago, 111.— Northwestern Indiana Detroit, Mich. Los Angeles— Long Beach, Calif. New York, N .Y.— Northeastern New Jersey Philadelphia, Pa. Class A-2: 1.4 to 3.5 million Class C: 50,000 to 250.000 Baltimore, Md. Boston, Mass. Cleveland, Ohio Pittsburgh, Pa. St. Louis, Mo. San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. Washington, D.C. Austin, Tex. Bakersfield, Calif. Baton Rouge, La. Cedar Rapids, Iowa Champaign-Urbana, 111. Durham, N.C. Green Bay, Wis. Lancaster, Pa. Orlando, Fla. Portland, Me. Class B: 250,000 to 1.4 million Atlanta, Ga. Buffalo, N.Y. Cincinnati, Ohio Dallas, Tex. Dayton, Ohio Denver, Colo. Hartford, Conn. Honolulu, Hawaii Houston, Tex. Indianapolis, Ind. Kansas City, Mo. Milwaukee, Wis. Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. Nashville, Tenn. San Diego, Calif. Seattle, Wash. Wichita, Kansas https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Class D: 2,500 to 50.000 Anchorage, Alas. Crookston, Minn. Devil’s Lake, N. Dak. Findlay, Ohio Florence, Ala. Kingston, N.Y. Klamath Falls, Oreg. Logansport, Ind. McAllen, Tex. Mangum, Okla. Martinsville, Va. Millville, N J . Niles, Mich. Orem, Utah Southbridge, Mass. Union, S.C. Vicksburg, Miss. regression analysis, was done by taking the natural log of the quarterly “all items” indexes for the five population classes and the United States as functions of time, for example, Log CPI = a-fb (time). The coefficient (b) of the independent variable (time) is the average quarterly rate of change in the index between December 1966 and December 1971. When multiplied by 100, this change gives the average quar terly percentage change in the index over this period. The results of these regressions, shown in table 7, indicate a great deal of similarity in the average quar terly percentage changes with the range going from a low of 1.13 percent in the smallest population class to a high of 1.33 percent in the largest class. The results also show that during this period the trend of upward price movement was greater the larger the population group. The coefficient on the time variable for each group compares with an average quarterly percent change of 1.25 for the U.S. “all items” CPI over the same period. In each case the coefficient revealed by the regression was found to be highly significant. To test whether the quarterly rates of change found in the preceding analysis are significantly different from one another, another log equation was em ployed. The second method was to take the log of the ratio of the two indexes which were to be com pared as a function of time: Log (CPIAi/C P IA2) = « + /? (time) This is the same as substracting the log equations in the preceding analysis: Log (CPIA1/C P IA2) = = = = Log CPIA1 - Log CPIA2 a + b time — ( a '+ b ' time) (a —a') -f (b—b ') time a-\-/3 time. If the difference between the two regression coTable 7. Results of regression analysis 1 testing statis tical significance of findings Dependent Variable2 b Coeffi cient Standard error t Value Coeffi cient of deter mination (R2) Log (A l—C P I)-------Log (A 2-CP I)____ Log (B -C P I______ Log (C -C P I)........... Log (D -C P I)_____ Log ( U .S .-C P I).... 0.013305 0.012555 0.012193 0.011690 0.011375 0.012460 0.000233 0.000191 0.000236 0.000177 0.000184 0.000201. 59.18 65.86 51.77 66.22 61.91 62.12 0.995 0.996 0.993 0.996 0.995 0.995 1 Regression equation: Log (CPI) = a + b (time). 2 " A l" refers to urban areas with population of 3.5 millon or more; "A2” , 1.4 to 3. million; “ B” , 250,000 to 1.4 million; “C", 50,000 to 250,000; and "D”, 2,500 to 50,000. 8 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 efficients or rate of change in prices of the original equations is not significant it will be indicated by the resulting “t” test of the coefficient /?:=(b—b '). Table 8. Results of regression analysis 1 testing signifi cance of findings b Coeffi cient Standard error t Value Coeffi cient of deter mination (R 2) (A l—CPI/A2—CPI)____________ (A l-C P I/B -C P I)_____ _____ (A l—CPI/C—C P I)...... ......... ......... (A l—CPI/D—CPI)_____________ 0.000749 0.001111 0.001615 0.001929 0.000109 0.000122 0.000144 0.000105 6.84 9.12 11.20 18.45 0.722 0.8222 0.874 0.9E0 Log (A2—CPI/B—CPI)_____________ Log (A 2-C P I/C -C P I)_____________ Log (A 2-C P I/D -C P I).......................... 0.000362 0.000866 0.001180 0.000078 0.000079 0.000077 4.62 11.02 15.27 0.543 0.871 0.928 Log (B -C P I/C -C P I)______________ Log (B -C P I/D -C P I)..____ _______ 0.000504 0.000818 0.000090 0.000097 5.58 8.48 0.633 0.800 Log (C—CPI/D—CPI)_ .......... ................ 0.000314 0.000064 4.92 0.574 Dependent v a ria b le 2 Log Log Log Log 1 Regression equation: Log (C P Ij/C P I^ = a + p (time). 2 See footnote 2, table 7. The results of applying the test to all the possible combinations of the new all items indexes are given in table 81. These indicate that the average quarterly percentage change in price for any one population class is significantly different from that of any other population class even at the 1-percent level of sig nificance (at which the “t” test value with 18 de grees of freedom is 2.88). The “t” values along with the coefficients also indicate that the extent to which the quarterly price movements differ from one another increases as the difference in the size of the population classes increases. These results support the earlier regression results which indicated a faster pace of price movement the larger the urban areas. □ ----------F O O T N O TE ----------1 In testing any two indexes, it does not matter which way the ratio is tested (L og(A i/A 2) or (L og(A 2/A i) ) since this only affects the sign of the coefficient and not the significance test. The test used is a two-tailed “t” test. Achieving a perspective on the technological order We must approach nature with a good deal less bumptiousness than we have in the past. Modesty and absence of arrogance are essential ethical correlates to the enormous powers we have achieved. We can’t commit acts of overweening pride against inanimate nature or we will suffer disastrous consequences. This is the Greek idea of hubris. In The Persians of Aeschylus, Xerxes is guilty of hubris— not only because he has attacked the Greeks, but because he has done something outrageous to nature. To us his action seems harm less enough—he built a bridge across the Helles pont. But to Aeschylus this seemed an outrage. The realization that nature cannot be recklessly outraged exists in the minds of good applied sci https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis entists and good technologists. It deeply affects their thinking. . . . We can only live in symbiosis with nature. If we treat the relationship intelligently we shall benefit. But thinking we can push nature around is absolutely wrong. It is absurd to attempt— to use that dreadful oldfashioned phrase— to conquer nature. We must take care before embarking on our grandiose technological schemes. The natural balance is easily upset, and we quickly get re sponses we have not anticipated. — A ldous H u x l e y , in Melvin Kranzberg and William H. Davenport, editors, Technology and Culture (New York, Schocken Books, 1972). Special Labor Force Report finds male household heads account for smaller proportion of joblessness now than 10 years ago PAUL O. FLAIM AND CHRISTOPHER G. GELLNER has been directed recently to the changing composition of unemployment during the decade of the 1960’s. It has been pointed out that the increase in the teenage sector of the population coupled with reduced job market participation among adult men and increased participation among women have gradually altered the composition of the labor force and materially affected the make-up of unemployment. One of the most widely known studies of the sub ject was George Perry’s, who, in 1970, analyzed the changing age-sex composition of unemployment and the effect of the change on the trade-off between unemployment and inflation.1 More recently, Carol S. Greenwald focused on the shifting proportion of unemployment accounted for by married men.2 Both observed that during the past decade much of the burden of unemployment has shifted from adult men to women and teenagers. They concluded that, con sequently, a given unemployment rate reflects less economic hardship on families today than 10 or 15 years ago. This article examines unemployment in terms of the household status of persons out of work, utiliz ing data from the Current Population Survey cover ing the 1962-71 period.3 Our analysis of these data show some of the burden of unemployment has shifted from male household heads—who head most families— to the female members of the household since 1962. This holds for the period before 1969; the trend was reversed during the 1970-71 economic slowdown. (In early 1972, the unemployment rate for household heads leveled off.) M u c h a t t e n t io n Changing structure of unemployment In most societies, including this one, it has been the head of the household who traditionally has the primary responsibility for providing sustenance for the family. It follows, therefore, that the welfare of the family is more seriously impaired when the head https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis An analysis of unemployment by household relationship of the household becomes unemployed than when any of the other household members lose their jobs. For this reason, it is important, when examining the trend in the levels and rate of unemployment, to disaggregate the numbers to see how unemployment affects each household member. (It must be remembered that each household group is comprised of persons of many different ages. The data in this article are analyzed by household rela tionship, not specifically by age. Therefore, any com parison between figures in this article and other data for specific age-sex groups or other demographic groups from the CPS should be made with caution. See the box on data and definitions on p. 11 and table 1.) Male heads of households. Between 1962 and 1969, the total number of unemployed declined from 3.9 to 2.8 million and the national unemployment rate dropped from 5.5 to 3.5 percent. This decline was attributable largely to a rapid improvement in the unemployment situation for male heads of house hold. In fact, these workers accounted for about seven-tenths of the decline in the number of unem ployed persons over the period, as their jobless rate dropped from 3.6 to 1.6 percent, or by more than half. Although other household members also experi enced a decline in joblessness during the 1962-69 period, they did not fare as well as male household heads. As a result, the proportion of total unemploy ment accounted for by male heads shrank from 36 to 24 percent of the total during those 7 years. (See table 2.) It should be noted, however, that part of the re duction in relative unemployment among male household heads stemmed from other though less Paul O. Flaim and Christopher G. Gellner are labor econ omists in the Division of Employment and Unemployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 9 10 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Table 1. Civilian labor force by household relationship and age, 1971 annual averages Age groups Household relationship 16 and over 16-19 20-24 25-54 55 and over Total (in thousands)........ Household head........ Wife of head_____ * Relative of head Not related to head1. 84,113 49,417 18,224 14,887 1,585 7,453 354 307 6,629 1,162 11,265 3,931 2,301 4,507 526 50,888 33,975 13,046 3,162 705 14,507 11,156 2,570 588 193 Total (percent distribution).................. Household head........ Wife of head........... .. Relative of head Not related to head 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 8.9 .7 1.7 44.5 10.2 13.4 8.0 12.6 30.3 33.2 60.5 68.8 71.6 21.2 44.5 17.2 22.6 14.1 3.9 12.2 1 Combined as "other males” and “other females” in this article. important factors : declining labor force participation among men workers and a simultaneous rise in par ticipation among women, and the rapid growth of the teenage labor force reflecting the “harvesting” of the baby boom of the period immediately after World War II. In short, the proportion of the labor force accounted for by male heads of household shrank somewhat during this period. Whatever the reasons for this shrinkage, it is clear that the economic hardship for families stemming from joblessness was reduced even more during the 1962-69 period than is evident from a glance at the overall unemployment rate. However, much of this gradual reduction in the share of unemployment borne by male household heads was erased during the ensuing 2 years. During the 1970-71 economic slowdown, job lessness rose among all family members (as total unemployment increased by 2.2 million), but the steepest rise was clearly experienced by men heading households. As table 2 shows, their proportion of total unemployment rose from 24 percent in 1969 to 29 percent in 1971, highest since 1965. The unemployment situation for the men head ing households deteriorated substantially at the out set of the 1970 economic slowdown,4 because during its initial stages, the slowdown fell most severely on the defense-related manufacturing industries where employment consists largely of adult male workers, most of them heads of household. Thus, between the fourth quarter of 1969 and the fourth quarter of 1970 the number of male heads without jobs in creased by 600,000 to 1.4 million and their unem ployment rate doubled, from 1.7 to 3.3 percent. It should be noted, however, that despite the de https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis terioration in their employment situation in 1970-71, males heading households still accounted for a smaller proportion of joblessness in 1971 than in 1962. Their unemployment rate was slightly lower in 1971 than in 1962 (3.4 percent compared with 3.7 percent) while the rate for other household mem bers was actually higher than in 1962. Thus, the ratio of the unemployment rate for male household heads to the total unemployment rate was lower in 1971 (.58 to 1) than in 1962 (.67 to 1). Com positional shifts in the labor force (by household make-up) also have had an effect in reducing the share of unemployment accounted for by male house hold heads. The 1962-71 movements in the overall unem ployment rate, in the rate for male heads of house hold, and in the rate for all other household mem bers are illustrated in index form in chart 1. As shown, the rate for male heads of household dropped much faster than other rates during the 1962-69 period. Although it also increased faster during the 1969-71 period, it did not entirely close the gap opened in the previous period, indicating that at least part of the change may be attributable to long term rather than purely cyclical factors. Assuming that unemployment among household heads is the best measure of the economic hardship of households resulting from unemployment, jobless ness was less burdensome on families in 1971 than in 1962, even though the rise in the overall unem ployment rate from 5.5 to 5.9 percent between these 2 years would indicate an opposite conclusion. This would tend to support the contention that the shifting composition of the jobless population makes problematical any comparison between the current employment situation and that of the early 1960’s. However, such a contention would have been clearly more valid 2 or 3 years ago, when the ratio of the unemployment rate for male household heads to the total unemployment rate was at its lowest (.46 to 1). Since then, the pendulum has swung in the other direction. Female heads of household. Although the great ma jority of American households— about 78 percent— are headed by males, there is a small but important proportion where the primary responsibility for the economic welfare of household members rests upon a wom^n. Women heading households ac counted for atyout 7 percent of the labor force in 1962 and about 8 percent in 1971. To the extent that households headed by women 11 UNEMPLOYMENT BY HOUSEHOLD RELATIONSHIPS are less likely to contain secondary earners, the eco nomic hardship resulting from unemployment among female heads may be even greater than that resulting from joblessness among male heads. The unemploy ment rate for female heads of household may thus be an important indicator of the relative well-being of a sizable proportion of American families. Table 2 shows the unemployment rate for female heads of household has consistently been higher than that for male heads. It is also not as cyclically sensi tive. It did not decline as rapidly as did that for male heads during the 1962-69 upswing. It also rose at a proportionately less rapid pace during the 1970-71 slowdown. As a result, the proportion of total unem ployment accounted for by female heads did not vary much during 1962-71. It has, instead, held fairly close to the 7 percent mark. Closer examination of recent trends, however, re veals that the jobless rate for female heads of house hold continued to edge upward during 1971, while that for male heads leveled off. The gap between the two rates has thus widened somewhat. Moreover, the unemployment rate for women heading families in 1971, at 5.4 percent, was somewhat higher than their rate of 5.1 percent in 1962. (As previously noted, the rate for their male counterparts was slightly lower in 1971 than in 1962.) Wives. Working wives’ proportion of total unemploy ment rose from 18 to 23 percent between 1962 and 1969. This is attributable to (1) a slower decline in their unemployment rate relative to that for most other household members, particularly male house hold heads, and (2) a relatively rapid rise in their participation in and proportion of the labor force. The number of working wives increased by 4.1 mil lion between 1962 and 1969, two-fifths of the pe riod’s total labor force increase. During the 1969-71 period, the proportion of total unemployment accounted for by wives shrank from 23 to 20 percent, as their unemployment rate rose more slowly than that of male heads of house hold. (See table 2.) This can be traced to working women’s concentration in service-producing indus tries, which were not as heavily affected in the early On the data and definitions The labor force data discussed in this article were collected and tabulated for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS) program. The CPS is a national survey conducted monthly in about 50,000 households. The national unemployment rate that the government releases in its monthly press release is derived from this survey. For the purposes of the CPS, a household includes all of the persons who occupy a house, an apartment, or other group of rooms, or a room which constitutes a housing unit under Census rules. A group of rooms or a single room is only regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied as separate living quarters, that is, when the occupants do not live and eat with any other persons in the structure, and when there is either (1) direct access or a common hall to the outside or (2) cooking equipment for the exclusive use of the occu pants. Persons occupying a housing unit are classified by household status according to the following definitions: Head. One person in each household is designated as the head. The head is usually the person regarded as the head by the members of the group. If a husband and wife family occupy the unit, the husband is desig nated as the head. The number of heads, therefore, is equal to the number of households. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Wife of head. Those women in the households who are married to the heads comprise this category. Since all households are not husband and wife families, the number of wives is somewhat smaller than the num ber of households. Relative of head. Household members, except the wife, who are related by blood, adoption, or marriage to the head of household are designated as relatives of the head. Most are the sons and daughters 16-24 of the household head. Nonrelative of head. This category consists of persons who are not related to the head by blood, adoption, or marriage. Only a very small percentage of all house hold members fall into this category. Other males and other females. As used in the tables in this article, this category is the sum of the relative of head and nonrelative of head groups. Approxi mately 90 percent of the other males and females are related to the head. Throughout this article, both other males and females, and relatives of the head, are often referred to as sons and daughters of the house hold head, although all three groups are not synony mous. 12 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Table 2. Civilian labor force, unemployment, and unemployment rate by household relationship and sex, 19 6 2 -7 1 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 Total (in thousands)................... ............... ................. ............ Percent_______ _______________________ _____ 70,614 100.0 71,833 100.0 73,091 100.0 74,555 100.0 75,770 100.0 77,347 100.0 78,737 100.0 80,733 100.0 82,715 100.0 84,113 100.0 Male household head__________________ ________ Other males___________________________________ Female household head_________________________ Wife of head__________________________________ Other females_________________________________ 54.8 11.2 7.3 18.7 7.9 54.4 11.3 7.5 18.8 8.1 54.1 11.2 7.5 19.2 8.1 53.6 11.1 7.7 19.5 8.0 53.2 10.8 7.8 20.0 8.2 52.7 10.7 7.8 20.5 8.4 52.3 10.7 7.7 20.9 8.5 51.6 10.6 7.9 21.4 8.5 51.0 10.9 7.9 21.7 8.5 50.6 11.2 8.1 21.7 8.4 Total (in thousands)_________ _______ ___ . _________ Percent_____________ ____ __________________ 3,911 100.0 4,070 100.0 3,786 100.0 3,366 100.0 2,875 100.0 2,976 100.0 2,817 100.0 2,831 100.0 4,088 100.0 4,993 100.0 Male household head___________________________ Other males___________________________________ Female household head_________________________ Wife of head__________________________________ Other females_______________________ _________ 36.4 25.5 6.7 17.9 13.5 33.4 27.3 7.1 17.6 14.6 31.3 27.0 7.4 18.4 15.9 29.9 27.0 7.5 19.1 16.6 28.1 25.9 8.0 18.9 19.2 25.8 24.9 7.7 23.5 18.1 24.8 25.6 7.6 22.1 20.0 23.8 25.8 7.5 23.4 19.5 27.8 26.9 6.9 21.0 17.4 28.9 26.8 7.4 20.4 16.6 5.5 5.7 5.2 4.5 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 4.9 5.9 3.5 13.7 5.4 5.3 10.2 3.0 12.5 5.1 5.0 10.3 2.5 11.1 4.4 4.4 9.4 2.0 9.2 3.9 3.6 8.9 1.9 9.0 3.8 4.4 8.3 1.7 8.6 3.5 3.8 8.4 1.6 8.5 3.4 3.8 8.0 2.7 12.2 4.3 4.8 10.1 3.4 14.1 5.4 5.6 11.8 H o u s e h o ld r e la t i o n s h ip a n d s ex C IV IL IA N LABOR FO RCE UNEM PLOYM ENT U N E M P L O Y M E N T RATES All workers______ __________ ____ _________________ Male household head___________________________ Other males___________________________________ Female household head____________________ ____ Wife of head__________________________________ Other females ___________________________ ____ 3.7 12.6 5.1 5.3 9.5 stages of the economic slowdown. Another stabilizing factor, as far as their unemployment rate is con cerned, is the relative elasticity of wives’ labor force participation. Their participation rate has tended to rise rapidly when the demand for labor is strong, and to slow down considerably when demand slack ens off. When the unemployment rate for wives peaked at 5.7 percent in the first quarter of 1971, up from 3.8 percent in 1969, the rate of growth of their labor force contracted sharply. Young household members. The highest incidence of unemployment among household members has long been experienced by the younger relatives (mostly sons and daughters) of the household head— gen erally labeled in this article “other males” and “other females.” Their rate of unemployment has, in effect, been running about four times that of male house hold heads (who have the lowest rate). Conse quently, these young workers accounted for a much greater share of unemployment than of the labor force. (See table 2.) The household group denoted as “other males” has accounted for slightly over one-tenth of the labor force and slightly over one-quarter of the unemploy ment. These proportions have varied only modestly during 1962-69’s declining unemployment and 1 969-7 l ’s rising joblessness. Such variations as oc https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis curred— a slight decline around 1966-67 and a slight increase in 1970-71— appear to reflect temporary absorption of many youths into the Armed Forces, rather than cyclical swings of the economy. By contrast, the labor force share of “other fe males”—made up mostly of daughters of the house hold head—has not changed much during the past decade, inching up only slightly from 1962 to 1971. Their share of the unemployment total, on the other hand, rose substantially— from 13.5 to 19.5 percent during 1962-69— as their unemployment rate de clined more slowly than the overall rate. From 1969 to 1971, the unemployment rate for these young women rose more slowly than the overall rate, and their share of total unemployment declined sig nificantly— from 19.5 to 16.6 percent. As in the case of older women, particularly working wives, labor force participation among younger women also tended to rise'rapidly during 1962-69 and to slacken off when the employment situation deteriorated (1969-71). Together the young household members (“other males” and “other females” ) accounted for 43.4 percent of unemployment in 1971, down from 45.3 percent in 1969, but still substantially above their 39.0-percent share in 1962. Conversely, despite the rapid increase in their population, young workers still account for barely 20 percent of the labor force. 13 UNEMPLOYMENT BY HOUSEHOLD RELATIONSHIPS Of the male and female relatives of the household head in the job market in 1971, three-fourths were 16 to 24 years old; however, among those unem ployed nearly nine-tenths were in that age bracket. During the 1960’s, there was a decline in the median age of both, reflecting the massive entry into the labor market of young workers born during the 1946-56 “baby boom.” When first entering the job market, young workers have little or no job experience and frequently change jobs, thus experiencing much job lessness during turnover periods.5 Unemployment among young members of house holds should be viewed in the context of our as sumption about the relative importance of unem ployment of household heads to that of other house hold members. Only a small proportion of youths can be considered their families’ main earners or a Chart 1. source of vital supplemental family income. Many are still in school, seek only part-time work, and thus have only marginal ties to the labor force. Moreover, the rapid growth of the youth labor force witnessed during the 1960’s will not continue in the 1970’s. In fact, the proportion of the popula tion accounted for by 16- to 24-year-olds will de cline as persons bom during the “baby boom” grow older. This demographic change should lead to less relative unemployment for youths during the decade because their labor force will be smaller. Unemployment distribution by color In 1971, nearly one-third of the white jobless, compared with less than one-fourth of the Negro un employed, were men heading households. On the Indexes of trends in unemployment rates of male household heads and other workers, 1 9 62 -71 Index (1962 = 100) 110 \ \ Unemployment rate for all persons except male household heads Total unemployment rate Unemployment rate for male household heads 1962 1963 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1964 1965 1967 1968 14 Table 3. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Unemployment distribution by household relationship, sex, and color, 1963—71 1 Household relationship and sex 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 3,208 100.0 34.6 26.9 6.6 18.2 13.7 2,999 100.0 32.6 26.8 6.9 18.8 14.9 2,691 100.0 31.0 26.8 6.7 19.6 15.9 2,253 100.0 29.4 25.7 7.1 19.8 18.0 2,338 100.0 27.5 24.2 6.9 24.7 16.7 2,226 100.0 26.3 25.1 7.0 23.0 18.7 2,261 100.0 25.3 25.0 6.7 24.8 18.1 3,337 100.0 29.4 26.2 6.2 22.1 16.2 4,074 100.0 30.2 26.3 6.4 21.4 15.7 864 100.0 28.5 29.0 9.1 15.5 17.9 786 100.0 26.4 27.7 9.2 16.9 19.7 676 100.0 25.1 28.1 10.8 17.0 19.0 621 100.0 23.2 26.8 11.3 15.4 23.3 638 100.0 19.4 27.5 10.5 19.2 23.3 590 100.0 19.3 27.6 9.7 18.6 24.7 570 100.0 17.7 28.9 10.7 17.7 24.9 752 100.0 20.8 29.6 10.1 16.4 23.2 19.9 100.0 23.0 28.6 11.9 15.8 20.9 WHITE Unemployed (in thousands)_________ ___________ Percent_____ ________ _______ Male head___.............. Other male__________ _______ Female head_______________ . Wife of head_______________________ Other female_____________ ____ NEGRO AND OTHER RACES Unemployed (in thousands)........................... Percent_________________ ___ Male head________ . . Other male______ Female head____ ________________ Wife of head______________________ Other female___ ____ __ . . 1 The year 1963 is the first for which unemployment data by household relationship and color are available. other hand, the proportion of unemployment ac counted for by women heading households and by the young members of the family is greater among blacks than among whites. (See tables 3 and 4.) These differences in the composition of unemploy ment are related to a larger proportion of Negro households being headed by women than is the case with whites. Moreover, younger members of black households are less likely to continue in school than whites, and thus they make up a relatively large share of the Negro labor force. Also important, the incidence of unemployment among black youths, particularly girls, has been inordinately high. Despite differences in the proportion of female household heads, changes in the composition of un employment during the 1963-71 6 period have been fairly similar for blacks and whites (table 3). Among both, it was male household heads who benefited most from the decrease in unemployment during the 1960’s and who, in turn, experienced a dispropor tionate share of rising joblessness in 1970-71. How ever, as table 3 shows, the share of black unemploy ment accounted for by male family heads continued to grow through 1971, while the increase among men heading white families leveled off after 1970. Notwithstanding these differences, black and white men heading families experienced the same relative proportion of unemployment in 1971 as in 1966. Since a relatively large proportion of black women head families, their unemployment situation should be looked at in the context of our basic assumption about joblessness of household heads. Table 3 indi https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis cates their situation has not been as sensitive to the business cycle as that of their male counterparts but they have been accounting for a steadily increasing share of Negro unemployment since 1968. A rela tively rapid increase in the number of black house holds headed by women has led to their increased representation among the unemployed. Black wives were also not strongly affected by cyclical developments during 1963-71. Their rate of job market participation did not rise as much as that of white wives. Largely because the participation rate of white wives increased relatively rapidly dur ing the 1960’s, the proportion of total white unem ployment accounted for by wives rose from 18 per cent in 1963 to 25 percent in 1969. In comparison, black wives’ share of black unemployment rose from 16 to 18 percent, the entire increase occurring before 1967. In both black and white households, the unemploy ment of wives rose relatively less than that of other members of the household between 1969 and 1971. (See table 3.) The rise in unemployment among wives was dampened by a temporary curtailment in their rate of entry into the labor force during 1971 which was probably induced by the economic slow down. Partly due to these developments, wives’ share of unemployment among whites fell to 21 per cent in 1971, lowest since 1966. Wives’ share of Negro joblessness moved down to 16 percent in 1971, the same as in 1963. The relative unemployment of both black and white sons of the household head ( “other males” ) 15 UNEMPLOYMENT BY HOUSEHOLD RELATIONSHIPS has been twice as large as their proportion of the labor force. However, their proportionate unemploy ment has remained relatively stable since 1963. By contrast, the shares of unemployment accounted for by daughters in black and white families ( “other females” ) increased markedly between 1963 and 1969 but receded somewhat in 1970-71. One ex planation for this decline was the curtailment in the growth of the young women’s labor force, which re sulted in part from discouragement over job pros pects. The number of black daughters in the labor force did not increase throughout the entire 1970-71 pe riod, although their population continued to grow. Apparently, the entry of the younger female mem bers of the black household into the job market is extremely sensitive to their perception of the avail ability of job opportunities. Long-term joblessness The severity of unemployment depends not only on the number and proportion of a group’s members who are unemployed but also on the length of time they remain jobless. In 1971, for example, about one-third of jobless men heading households and one-fourth of women heading households were un employed 15 weeks or longer. Table 5 shows the proportion of both male and female household heads remaining unemployed for at least 15 weeks de clined substantially between 1964 and 1969. How Table 4. 19 6 9 -7 1 ever, it also rose dramatically between 1969 and 1971, erasing practically all of the previous improve ment. Most of the recent rise in long-term jobless ness among heads of households occurred in 1971. (See table 5.) Working wives and young family members tend to remain unemployed for shorter periods than the household head, even though they are more likely to be unemployed at any given time. Both groups leave the labor force in time of poor job prospects more quickly than men or women household heads. In 1971, about 21 percent of the jobless wives were out of work 15 weeks or longer, up from 13 percent in 1969. Long-term joblessness also in creased significantly among younger members of the household in 1970-71, after declining gradually but steadily during 1964-69. The proportion of sons of household heads jobless at least 15 weeks doubled (10 percent in 1969 to 21 percent in 1971); the proportion for young females in this category in creased from 10 to 15 percent. The comparatively larger increase among young men may be attributed partly to the influx of a larger number of young vet erans into the job market and the long delay many encountered before finding jobs. Family responsibilities and job experience of heads of household account for the apparent anomaly of their having the lowest unemployment rate coupled with the highest proportion of long-term joblessness. Household heads tend not to drop out Civilian labor force, unemployment, and unemployment rate by household relationship, sex, and color, 1969 1971 1970 C o lo r , h o u s e h o ld r e la t i o n s h i p , a n d s e x C iv ilia n Unem Unem C iv ilia n U nem Unem la b o r p lo y m e n t p lo y m e n t la b o r p lo y m e n t p lo y m e n t ra te fo r c e fo r c e W h i t e ___________________________________________ C iv ilia n la b o r r a te fo r c e Unem p lo y m e n t Unem p lo y m e n t ra te Male household head__________________________ Male relative of head__________________________ Male nonrelative of h e a d ...____ _______ _______ 71,779 37,836 6,791 558 2,261 572 543 22 3.1 1.5 8.0 4.0 73,518 38,309 7,099 606 3,337 981 822 53 4.5 2.6 11.6 8.8 74,790 38,694 7,410 698 4,074 1,230 1,004 68 5.4 3.2 13.5 9.8 Female Wife of Female Female household head____ _______ ___________ head________________________ ________ relative of head________________________ nonrelative of head____________________ 5,235 15,478 5,298 584 152 561 390 20 2.9 3.6 7.4 3.4 5,316 16,090 5,447 606 206 736 507 32 3.8 4.6 9.3 5.2 5,603 16,320 5,447 618 261 873 597 42 4.7 5.3 11.0 6.7 N e g r o a n d o t h e r r a c e s _________________________________ Male household head__________________________ Male relative of head________ _________________ Male nonrelative of head_______________________ 8,954 3,795 1,071 170 570 101 156 9 6.4 2.7 14.6 5.1 9,197 3,899 1,126 157 752 156 207 15 8.2 4.0 18.4 9.8 9,322 3,892 1,168 160 919 211 248 15 9.9 5.4 21.2 9.4 Female household head________________________ Wife of head__________________________ ______ Female relative of head________________________ Female nonrelative of head_____________________ 1,108 1,833 871 105 61 101 136 6 5.5 5.5 15.6 6.0 1,133 1,899 865 118 76 123 165 9 6.7 6.5 19.1 7.8 1,228 1,904 862 108 109 145 181 11 8.9 7.6 20.9 10.1 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 16 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 of the labor force when unemployed. On the other hand, other members of the household often leave the labor market when job prospects are poor. Nearly half of unemployed household heads (men and women) are over 45 years old. Thus, they have most of their work experience in a particular profes sion or occupational specialty. When unemployed, they prefer re-employment in their special field. Moreover, many employers are reluctant to hire older workers outside their specialties because re training might be required and older workers can return fewer years of service for the training invest ment. Many unemployed household heads, therefore, continue their search until they find a job in their former occupational specialty or one which requires similar skills. Table 5. Percent of unemployed 1 workers jobless 15 weeks or more, by household relationship and sex, 1 9 6 4 - Household relationship and sex Total unemployed............ 19642 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 21.8 18.0 15.1 14.6 13.2 16.2 23.7 Male, to ta l...................... 26.8 Household head... 30.6 Relative of head___ 22.4 Nonrelative of head. 26.3 23.2 27.8 18.2 26.4 20.4 24.8 15.8 21.6 16.8 21.0 12.3 21.2 16.0 20.5 11.7 10.0 14.5 19.5 10.0 6.5 17.8 21.6 13.6 15.9 26.4 31.2 20.8 28.9 Female, total____ Household head____ Wife of head____ Relative of head___ Nonrelative of head. 20.0 27.8 19.9 16.8 18.5 15.2 21.0 14.4 13.4 13.7 13.2 18.0 12.3 12.4 11.5 13.2 18.3 12.9 12.0 7.1 12.0 14.6 13.3 9.7 7.7 14.3 18.5 14.8 12.1 12.2 20.2 26.6 21.3 16.1 15.4 1 Persons 14 and 15 years old are included in the data for the years 1964, 1965, and and 1966 shown in this table (unlike other tables and the chart in this article). However, the number of unemployed 14- and 15-year-olds is small and should have only a minor effect on the proportions of the unemployed by duration of joblessness. 2 1964 is the first full year for which duration of unemployment data by household relationship are available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ----------F O O TN O TE S---------1 See George L. Perry, “Changing Labor Markets and Inflation,” Brookings Papers on Economic A ctivity: 3 (Washington, D.C., 1970), pp. 411-441. 2 See Carol S. Greenwald, “The Changing Composition of the Unemployed,” N ew England Economic Review, July/ August 1971, pp. 2-10. 25.1 22.7 26.5 23.8 19.9 19.4 of unemployment by household relationship has changed markedly over the past decade. There has been a shift from men heading households to working wives and the younger fe males in the household. This shift occurred before 1969. Since then (1970-71), the relative unemploy ment of men heading families has grown most. Thus while male household heads account for a smaller proportion of total joblessness than in 1962, they represent a higher proportion than 2 or 3 years ago. This means that any given level or rate of unem ployment reflects less economic hardship on families today than in 1962 but more than in 1969, based on the assumption that the share of unemployment accounted for by household heads is the best variable for measuring the relative economic hardship of any given level of unemployment. □ T h e c o m p o s it io n 3 Period selected because 1962 is the first year for which labor force data by household relationship are available from the Current Population Survey (C PS). * See Employment in Perspective (BLS Report 380, 1970), for a detailed analysis of the initial effects of the 1970 eco nomic slowdown on the various labor force groups. 5 For a discussion of the effect of turnover on the unemployment rate for different groups, see Robert E. Hall, “Why is the Unemployment Rate so High at Full Employ ment,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: 3 (Wash ington, D.C., 1970), pp. 369-402. 8 The year 1963 is the first for which labor force data by household relationship and color are available from the CPS. Vocational, educational, work release, and other approaches to the complex employment needs of released prisoners are being tested ROBERT TAGGART are now some 400,000 persons in jail and another million on parole or probation. Hundreds of thousands more have been arrested and are awaiting trial or else, having served their sentences, have been recently released into the community. Other millions carry the stigma of a criminal record. These criminal offenders are a diverse group with complex problems. They differ in the seriousness of their offenses, their legal status, the degree of public control over their activities, and their individual characteristics.1 A common denominator, however, is that they very often have difficulties in the world of work. Despite wide variation in their labor market potential and their amenability to assistance, a large proportion of criminal offenders have employment problems and need help. Offenders’ illicit activities are frequently related to their lack of success in the job market. A survey of men released from Federal prisons 2 found that— even though their median age was 29—more than one-tenth had never been employed and more than half had been employed a total of less than 2 years before incarceration, often because of earlier troubles with the law. After release, their unemployment rate was three times the average for all other males in the same age bracket. Criminal offenders also tend to be drawn from, and end up in, the lowest paying jobs and lowest status occupations. The survey further showed that more than half the released men had worked in unskilled or service jobs prior to commitment, and more than two-fifths returned to such jobs upon release. The median monthly income of those em ployed was only $256, at a time when the national average in the private nonagricultural sector was $394. It must be recognized, certainly, that the released T h ere Robert Taggart is executive director, National Manpower Policy Task Force. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Manpower programs for criminal offenders prisoner is not the only one with an employment problem. The sorting process may “weed in” to the correctional system those with the most severe diffi culties, but there are many who have never been inside a court or jail who are also “losers” in the world of work. Nevertheless, the employment prob lems of offenders are special, for several reasons. Offenders have special needs First, the very fact of arrest and imprisonment exacerbates their difficulties. An individual removed from the labor market tends to have trouble in getting and holding employment upon return. This fact is recognized in the case of servicemen and women, and the veteran is helped in the transition by special government efforts and favorable public attitudes. Being in jail or prison creates even more severe frictional adjustment problems, and the re leased man or woman is further handicapped by constricting laws, discriminatory hiring practices, and negative public opinion. Second, there are, in addition to the economic dimensions, criminal implications that cannot be avoided. Most notably, the circumstances or pres sure which led to involvement with the law have a high probability of recurring, and consequently again leading to dropping out of work or training. On the other hand, to the extent employment problems are a casual factor in criminal activity, their solution may reduce crime and its costs. Third, offenders’ needs are special simply because they receive so little attention. Over the years, their manpower problems have been either ignored or in effectively addressed. The justice system has done relatively little to help them with their employmentrelated difficulties. What rehabilitation efforts have been made— and these are limited by shortages of funds and personnel—have been directed more toward changing behavior patterns than toward help ing overcome personal handicaps and institutional 17 18 barriers conducive to failure in the labor market. The extensive manpower system that serves other disadvantaged groups has largely ignored the em ployment problems of offenders. In recent years some important first steps have been taken, but to date their aggregate impact has been minimal. Per sons on probation or parole, or awaiting trial, may get help from general manpower programs, such as the Concentrated Employment Programs (CEP) or Job Opportunities in the Business Sector (JOBS); they may be placed and counseled by the Employ ment Service; or they may get special attention in halfway houses. Nevertheless, outside of State and Federal prisons, the overwhelming majority of of fenders receive little special help in preparing for or finding jobs, and they are often screened out rather than screened into manpower programs. The burden of providing education, training, and rehabilitation has therefore fallen largely to the prison system, which has usually been unsuccessful in this mission. Less than 1 out of 20 State prisoners receives training, only 1 out of 5 receives any basic education.3 A larger proportion of Federal inmates receive vocational training, but this may consist simply of work in prison industries, which teach few transferable skills. Innovative programs have developed Though operational efforts are still limited, re search into the employment problems of offenders and the manpower aspects of corrections has ex panded dramatically in the past few years. A Justice Department survey in August 1971 estimated that a variety of agencies were spending over $11 million on specifically research-oriented activities, and many millions more on operational efforts of an experi mental nature.4 Many of the funded research projects, regardless of their prime focus, have manpower aspects. Most significant, however, are the efforts of the U.S. Department of Labor. In fiscal 1971, it ac counted for $4.7 million of the $11 million spent by Federal agencies for research and experimentation and most of that dealing with manpower problems. In addition, offender manpower programs are also beginning to be implemented on an operational basis, often as a result of previous experimental and demon stration projects. In fiscal 1971, the Department of Labor spent $13.7 million for operational programs. In fiscal 1972, its total expenditures for offenders were planned at nearly $30 million.5 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Numerous strategies are needed A variety of conceptually distinct approaches have emerged as a result of this experimentation. Some have been widely implemented, others have been given only limited tests. Among them are pretrial intervention, community treatment, vocational train ing in prison, education in prison, working in prison, work release, postrelease services, and jobs in the public sector. Legislation is pending which would implement these strategies on a much broader scale. It is likely that in the near future increased funds will be pro vided for manpower services to offenders. It is im portant, therefore, to determine which of the various approaches show the most promise. Careful study of a number of separate projects embodying one or more of these approaches provides no clear-cut answers. Their lessons are disparate and subject to reservations, but they do offer clues about the effec tiveness of some strategies and the lack of effective ness of others. And, perhaps more important, they highlight the impediments that must be overcome if manpower services are to help offenders. Pretrial intervention. Services to persons awaiting trial have been shown to be an effective manpower tool, particularly with those in the courts for only their first or second time. Experimental programs such as the Manhattan Court Employment Project, in New York City, and Project Crossroads, in Washington, D.C., were suc cessful in improving work experience and lowering the rates of recidivism by providing counseling, training, and especially placement to younger per sons awaiting trial, with the disposition of the case depending, in part, on successful participation in these efforts. For instance, 44 percent of the par ticipants in Project Crossroads had an average wage of $2 an hour or more 1 year after the project, compared with 20 percent at intake.6 In the year prior, 30 percent worked less than four-fifths of the time, compared with nearly half in the year following. Recidivism rates also improved, at least during the supervision of the program. A cost-benefit analysis which weighed the $200 per enrollee cost per month against employment gains and savings in correctional costs found the project worthwhile, with a costbenefit ratio between 1.8 and 2.2.7 The experience suggested that, for one thing, man power programs apparently work best with those in their early twenties, who have matured out of the MANPOWER PROGRAMS FOR CRIMINAL OFFENDERS teenage life style but have not yet gained a foothold in the employment market. Careful screening is necessary to identify and screen out regular drug users and others with severe problems who need more sustained and intensive assistance. It is im perative also that predisposition agreements be worked out with the courts, so that judges and other officials will take successful participation into ac count in disposing of cases. With these caveats, it appears likely that the modest success of these ex perimental pretrial intervention programs can be re peated. Community treatment. For many offenders, com munity treatment is at least as effective as institu tionalization, and it certainly costs less. Recognizing this, and faced with overflowing prisons and jails, the courts have directed an increasing proportion of convicted offenders back into the community. One approach is to enlarge upon current programs, by intensifying regular probation services, reducing caseloads, and in some cases adding specialists, in cluding manpower personnel. A second approach is nonresidential treatment, such as guided group inter action in a daytime program that includes employ ment counseling and other assistance, or intensive residential treatment, in which offenders are as signed to live in community facilities outside regular prisons and jails. As a third approach, offenders may be directed, as a condition of probation, to a man power agency that would coordinate their participa tion in existing community programs. This could be a community action agency, the vocational reha bilitation service, or the Employment Service. Despite the attention these strategies have re ceived and their expanded use, they still serve a rela tively small proportion of the rapidly growing num ber of probationers. More than this, the extent of their effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated. For instance, data from experiments with “probation plus” have shown that merely reducing probation officers’ caseloads does not increase the officers’ suc cess rate. The most far-reaching effort, California’s Com munity Treatment Project (CTP), provides inten sive counseling along with basic education, halfway house residence, and in some cases placement; it uses a typological classification system in assigning participants to probation officers and to other activi ties. Followup data suggest that this works, since between 1961 and 1968, 31 percent of CTP partic https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 19 ipants had violated parole or were arrested within 15 months, compared with 50 percent of the control group.8 Manpower services, however, have not yet played any significant role in these community treatment approaches for probationers. One-stop, individual ized manpower services are probably needed. Exist ing institutions in the community can be utilized, and the court can require participation. Training in prison. Intensive vocational training may be provided within prisons—in much the same way as it is now offered in MDTA institutional programs elsewhere— combined with supportive services such as counseling, basic education, incentive payments, and placement. So far, however, this approach has had a rather mixed record. In the early 1960’s, a number of demonstration efforts suggested a posi tive effect— in particular, the Rikers Island Project in New York, which offered computer training to young male prisoners. A year after, of the total released, 48 percent of the experimental group had committed crimes which returned them to jail or prison, compared with 66 percent of a control group. Nearly half of the experimental group were in whitecollar jobs, compared with one-fifth of the nonpar ticipants, and only 5 percent worked at physical labor, compared with 22 percent of the controls. In 1966, Congress authorized prison projects under the Manpower Development and Training Act, and there are now an estimated 55 projects with some 5,000 trainees. These appear to have been less successful than the earlier demonstration proj ects. A study of 25 individual programs funded from 1968 through 1969 revealed meager impact.9 Re cidivism was reduced between 3 and 5 percent, but there was little improvement in employment status. Trainees were more likely than controls to be em ployed after 3 months, but less likely to be employed full time after 6 months. While earning slightly higher wages, trainees worked less of the time and tended to earn less overall. If vocational training in prison is to be successful, formidable obstacles must be overcome: inadequate resources, physical isolation of prisoners, deficiencies of inmates selected for training, lack of supportive services, and antagonism of prison staffs. Selection for training must be based on the prisoner’s ability to benefit rather than on seniority, docility, or expendability from prison work. To insure that trainees have the chance to apply what they have learned, 20 supportive services, especially job development and placement, must be provided. And, perhaps most vital, the prison staff must be involved in and com mitted to the training program. Prison education. The correlation between education and job success applies to offenders as it does to others in the labor force. While prisons offer educa tional opportunity more often than other manpower services, only a small proportion of the prison popu lation are served. Generally speaking, the programs are understaffed and underfinanced and have little effect on participants. In the past few years, however, some new ap proaches have been undertaken. One of these is “programmed learning,” in which each student moves at his own pace through a series of discretely packaged lessons in diverse subjects. At the Draper Correctional Center in Elmore, Ala., intensive basic education was provided, along with vocational train ing. In the initial experiment, most inmates received 2 hours of instruction 5 days a week for half a year. Teaching machines were used extensively, the pupilteacher ratio was 12 to 1, and each instructor had a college student aide. As a result of this intensive assistance, participants gained an average of 1.4 grades in their 208 hours of instruction, according to standardized achievement tests.10 Much of this gain was from relearning previously forgotten in formation, but the fact remains that out of almost 400 enrollees, 72 were able to pass a high school equivalency test. This was obviously a useful cre dential in the job market, since those who passed the examination increased their earnings more than four times as much as those who did not. There are significant limitations, however, on effective education programs within prison. Physical isolation, antipathy of personnel, and negative in fluences from the peer group are as much of an obstacle to educational programs as they are to voca tional training. Given the short duration of stay of most prisoners, only marginal gains can be made in education. Specific job skills—which permit the of fender to perform on a given job— can be learned in 6 months or a year, but the contribution of an extra 1 or 2 years of schooling has no direct effect on performance or employability (although it may im prove it indirectly). Unless education is combined with training, or leads to a recognized credential such as the General Educational Development (GED ), it will mean little to employers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Work in prison. It is a generally accepted principle that prisoners should work. Aside from the obvious purpose of providing some activity for those in en forced idleness, there are other benefits to the institu tion and to the inmates. Costs can be reduced if pris oners handle the maintenance of the institution. They will be reduced even more if the products of prison labor can be sold at a profit. The work experience itself may have some rehabilitative effect, and skills picked up on the job may be carried over to private life. Disagreement comes over the purposes and kinds of work that should be done. Laws at the State and Federal levels restrict the use of prison labor, par tially to protect against exploitation and partially to eliminate competition. Labor unions have generally strongly opposed any expansion of prison industries. For the most part, interstate transportation of con vict-made goods is prohibited, and State prisons largely produce for State use (for example, making automobile licenses,', renovating furniture, and re capping tires). Executive Order 325 restricts the Federal Government from buying the products of these State prison workshops. With limited markets for their goods, prisons can employ only a minority of the inmates. Operating with out-of-date equipment and producing a limited range of specialized products, prison industries teach few skills that can be carried over into the outside world. Survey data indicate that those who worked in Federal prison industries were more likely to be unemployed upon release than those who had worked at unskilled maintenance.11 Assignments are often made on the basis of seniority, docility, length of sentence, or other criteria which bear little relation to the job. With all workers often paid the same hourly rate, and supervisory positions earned through good behavior rather than job performance, there is little incentive to produce. One proposal, as a way to overcome these prob lems, is to attract to the prisons competitive private businesses. These firms would have access to the inmate labor force with minimal restrictions, would pay market wages based on productivity (some pro portion of which could be paid to the prison for room and board), and would produce goods for sale in the outside market.. To make this approach feasi ble, State and Federal laws and regulations concern ing the sale of prison-made goods may need to be amended. There are obvious drawbacks to this approach. MANPOWER PROGRAMS FOR CRIMINAL OFFENDERS Attracting businesses to any isolated location is difficult, and to find industries willing to work within the prison setting is not likely to be easy. If private industries were to operate within the prison, some system would have to be devised for the establish ment of “prevailing” levels of wages, working con ditions, and other such matters that are generally collectively bargained in the private sector. Work release. Perhaps a better way of giving prison ers viable work experience is to release them for jobs in the private or public sector. Working full time during the day and returning to the prison at night, the prisoner will be under some control without being removed entirely from the economic and social mainstream. Out of his earnings, maintenance costs can be repaid to the prison, he can be given an allowance, his family can be supported, or he can save a nest egg to cushion his release. This is borne out by the experience of the Federal work release program over its first 14 months, be ginning in 1966. Some 2,000 inmates participated, paying State and Federal taxes amounting to $303,000, sending $327,000 home for families, saving $700,000, spending $527,000 in the local communi ties, and paying thé prison system $203,000 for upkeep. This total of more than $2 million was for the most part a net addition to the economy and to the individuals. There was some problem with escapees, but it was generally within manageable proportions.12 Federal and most State laws permit work release. But, although experience has shown it to be rela tively effective, only a small minority of prisoners are allowed to seek jobs outside. Isolated prison loca tions and transportation difficulties often rule out this approach. And in many cases, the custodial staff is reluctant to give special help to those they consider security risks. As a result, less than a tenth of all Federal prisoners participated in work release pro grams in fiscal 1970. At the State level, the propor tion is much smaller,13 and work release is rarely used by local jails where it could have potentially the greatest impact. Here, the majority of prisoners are either awaiting trial or serving short terms; once they are jailed, they lose their jobs even though their offense and sentence may be minor. Most local jails are in close proximity to jobs and many prison ers could keep working while serving time. This would alleviate transitional employment problems and could substantially reduce costs. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 21 Postrelease services. For the most part, parolees are left on their own to sink or swim. Parole staffs are overburdened, and they can do little outside of check ing against violations. Some States have parole per sonnel specifically assigned to help with employ ment problems, but the number is inadequate to the task, and parolees ordinarily receive little assistance in finding or holding jobs.14 Project Develop, operated from 1966 to 1968 under a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor to the New York State Division of Parole, attempted to measure the effect of postrelease manpower serv ices. It provided vocational guidance, work orienta tion, counseling, education, training, support, place ment, and followup assistance to young (17 to 23 years old), undereducated, and underemployed parolees with above-average intelligence, at a cost of $2,400 per person completing the program.15 Within the 2- to 10-month period involved, the pro portion violating parole or rearrested for a new crime was 15 percent among participants, compared with 23 percent among the control group, and the proportion sent back to jail was halved (6 percent for the experimental group, 12 percent for the con trols). Although these differences are not statistically significant, they suggest that the manpower services had a favorable effect on recidivism. One vital component of postrelease services is job placement and development. In the MDTA prison project, placement rates were much higher when active efforts were exerted by the Employ ment Service and the project staff than when par ticipants were left to their own devices. The U.S. Labor Department is funding a pilot project in five States to hire special Employment Service personnel who, working in the institutions as well as in the community, will make special efforts to assist of fenders, coordinate local services, and develop jobs for and place parolees. Public employment. The most direct way to provide jobs for offenders is to hire them for positions in the public sector. This could be handled in several ways. First, transitional jobs could be provided to serve as a steppingstone to permanent positions in the pub lic sector. This is the idea behind the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, which provided $1 billion to State and local governments to hire the unem ployed and disadvantaged for temporary jobs, with the expectation that they could move to permanent payrolls. Guidelines for the program specifically 22 stated that criminal records should not be an im pediment to employment. Second, “new careers,” carefully structured to provide former prisoners with the education, training, and experience needed for advancement, could be opened in the public sector. One source of such jobs is the corrections system itself. Many of its jobs require only limited skills and could be filled from the offender population. Paraprofessional positions could be developed from which offenders, after training, might move into higher level jobs. A few steps have been taken in this direction. Some former prisoners have been hired and trained as guards and counselors within prisoners under the New Careers program.16 The Manhattan Court and Crossroads project used some released personnel as paraprofessionals, claiming that their ability to under stand and communicate with the clientele made them effective counselors. Third, temporary jobs in the public sector could be provided for offenders immediately after their release from prison or jail. These positions could serve as a short-term holding action until permanent placement was achieved in the public or private sector, thus providing income and stability during the difficult transition period. Though the arguments for public employment efforts for offenders are compelling, there are draw backs to any massive implementation. Experience under the Emergency Employment Act indicates the public sector can absorb a large number of un employed in transitional jobs— 150,000 were put to work within 8 months,17 but it is unlikely that anywhere near this number of offenders could be helped. Many agencies would balk at hiring former prisoners, especially if they were expected to move them onto permanent payrolls. Experience under the Emergency Employment Act has shown there is great reluctance to change or bend existing hiring policies, even for “deserving” unemployed. And where former prisoners have been hired, the results have not been such as to generate enthusiasm else where. In Washington, D.C., where many partici pants had serious criminal records, the majority of early terminations were the result of further involve ments with the law. The provision of Federal funds for permanent rather than transitional jobs might make local, State, and Federal agencies more willing to hire former prisoners. But the number of permanent “new careers” should not be exaggerated. The effectiveness https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 of paraprofessionals or the potential market for their services has not yet been proved, and the reservations of correctional personnel cannot be ignored. There are, after all, some risks involved in manning prisons and jails with former inmates. Transitional public jobs for recently released prisoners and work programs as alternatives to jail also have limitations. While some useful work can be performed by the relatively unskilled on an inter mittent basis, experience with public employment of the disadvantaged has not demonstrated any great success in this line. Though these reservations suggest that public em ployment is not a panacea for the employment diffi culties of offenders, they do not negate the need for expanded efforts. Under current economic conditions, public employment programs—for all their short comings— appear to have the most potential in pro viding manpower services to offenders. The lessons must be applied Experience with manpower programs for offenders is limited. There is no rigorous proof that any strategy is effective, or that all of them together can have significant impact. But public action cannot be delayed until every thing we would like to know has been learned. Neither should it proceed by ignoring the lessons of the past, especially when these are negative. The most effective public policy is therefore one which com bines experimentation and measured expansion. If this path of moderation is taken, the following lines of action would be pursued. First, greater effort would be exerted toward mon itoring and evaluating existing programs. There are no data, for instance, on the number of, and success of, former prisoners in existing manpower programs. Despite several investigations, there is little compre hensive information about the effectiveness of prison education or training. And too few projects follow up their participants in any longitudinal way to discover if the services have a longrun effect. Second, new strategies would be put to the test to fill gaps in our knowledge. As examples, projects could be initiated offering manpower services to probationers, for whom little has been done. Com petitive industries might be attracted in or near a few prisons. Training release might be offered to prisoners for participation in community manpower programs. Manpower specialists might be assigned to the court to aid in the disposition of cases. MANPOWER PROGRAMS FOR CRIMINAL OFFENDERS 23 Third, improvements would be made in the exist ing experimental methods. Too many agencies are now funding too many projects. The results are scat tered, poorly evaluated, and difficult to assess in any aggregate way. Some jurisdictional lines and mech anisms for coordination are needed. The method used by the U.S. Department of Labor in testing the MDTA approach is optimal: from a limited number of projects demonstrating the feasibility of a strategy, it proceeded to implementation on a broader scale with a standardized approach and re porting procedure which facilitated measurement and comparison. Fourth, greater emphasis would be placed on in stitutional change. Some of the experimental and demonstration projects have led to reform of the corrections system. For instance, the Draper Project contributed to the integration of Alabama prison facilities. With proper oversight and control, and more careful planning for this purpose, Federal funding could provide leverage for change. Fifth, some services would be expanded. The ex periments with pretrial intervention have been mod erately successful and should be further extended. Work release has also been relatively successful, and manpower services are needed to provide counseling, placement, and followup, as well as an incentive for the prisons to cooperate in such an approach. Pro gramed learning and higher education in prisons have also shown promise. Finally, public employment programs for offenders can be initiated on at least a limited scale with a fair assurance of success. Sixth, greater selectivity must be exercised in choosing participants for offender manpower pro grams. There are no entirely accurate predictors of success, but enough has been learned to do a better job of selection. Hard-core drug addicts are apparently not a good bet, although nonaddicted users might benefit significantly; teenagers do not seem to profit from manpower services; and the chances of success vary inversely with the number of previous arrests, so that recurrent offenders should probably be excluded. However, rules of selection must be applied with flexibility, based on case-by case assessments of motivation and potential. Finally, intervention earlier in the criminal justice process should be stressed. All indications are that manpower services are more effective the earlier they enter into the individual’s experience as an of fender. Primary emphasis should, therefore, be given to pretrial, probation, and other programs for first and second offenders. While we would not “give up” on those who are deeply involved in crime, resources should be allocated where they will have the greatest likelihood of positive effect. Even such modest actions, however, would re quire substantially increased resources. Experimenta tion on a scale to yield fairly unequivocal answers is costly, but this is the only way to find out whether the success of isolated experimental and demonstra tion projects can be replicated. On the other hand, experimentation implies trying out an idea on less than a full-scale operational basis. A doubling of the Labor Department’s present $30 million investment could accomplish most of the modest goals that have been outlined. But even an expenditure of $100 or $200 million, divided among the numerous strategies, might still be considered an experimental effort, at least in the sense that it would reach only a small portion of those in need. Judgments, in any case, should not be based on inflated hope of sucess in increasing employability of former prisoners or reducing recidivism. There is no assurance that manpower services for offenders will significantly alleviate either their employment problems or their criminal propensities. But, in the interests of these individuals and of society as a whole, which bears the cost of further crime, some thing must be done, and manpower services are at least a promising place to start. n 1 Those awaiting trial are included here as a functional matter and not in any prejudgment of their guilt or inno cence of the charges against them. Manpower services should be equally available to— and in many cases are equally needed by— anyone involved in the criminal justice system, whatever the outcome of the court proceedings. in Correctional Institutions (Washington, D.C., AAI, 1971), columns 1, 2, 3, and Final Summary. 2 George A. Pownall, Employment Problems of Released Prisoners (College Park, Md., University of Maryland, 1969), mimeographed. 3 Abt Associates, Inc., An Evaluation of M D TA Training https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 John P. Conrad, A Compilation of Ongoing and Con templated Research in Corrections and Rehabilitation (Washington, Interagency Council on Corrections, 1971), mimeographed. 5 U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty, Reform of Federally Funded Manpower Train ing Programs, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., December 1971, p. 147. For a discussion of Manpower Administration programs with 24 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 offenders, see M anpower Report of the President, 1972, p. 70-72. 0 Roberta Rovner-Pieczenik, Project Crossroads as PreTrial Intervention: A Program Evaluation (Washington, N a tional Committee for Children and Youth, 1970). 7 John F. Holahan, A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Project, Crossroads (Washington, National Committee for Children and Youth, 1970). 8 James Robinson and Gerald Smith, “The Effectiveness of Correctional Programs,” Crime and Delinquency, January 1970. 9 Abt Associates, Inc., op. cit. 10 John McKee, The Draper Project, M D TA Experimental and Demonstration Findings No. 6 (Washington, U.S. Man power Administration, 1971). 11 Pownall, op. cit. 12 J. Kitchener and W. Lebowitz, Preliminary Highlights from Work Release Follow-Up Study (Washington, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 1970), mimeographed. 13 Abt Associates, Inc., op. cit. 14 The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Corrections (Washington, the Commission, 1967). “ Leonard Witt, Project D evelop (New York, New York State Division of Parole, 1969). 16 John J. Galvin, “Training Correctional Manpower,” Manpower, January 1971, pp. 14-19. 17 For an evaluation of experience under the act, see Sar A. Levitan and Robert Taggart, “The Emergency Employ ment Act: an interim assessment,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1972, pp. 3-11. Molding people to jobs, or jobs to people? In a study . . . for the Center for Policy Re search, we found that persons have deep-seated preferences in their work behavior that are very difficult to change, and we concluded that it may be unethical to try to change them. Thus, if a person prefers to engage in nonroutine work of the more creative type, at an irregular pace, training him or her to be a “good” assembly-line worker—which entails teaching not only how to turn bolts but also how to be a more “uptight” person—may be both ineffective and morally dubious, especially if we are correct in suggesting https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that people’s existing preferences can be readily analyzed so that they can be helped to choose jobs compatible with their personalities. It is also much less costly to test and assist people than it is to train and mold them. If we run out of compatible jobs, jobs may be changed to suit people rather than people to suit jobs. — A m it a i E t z io n i , “Human Beings Are N ot Very Easy to Change After A ll,” Saturday Review, June 3, 1972. Employment of school-age youth Special Labor Force Report shows that more than half the teenage labor force was enrolled in school in October 1971 CARL ROSENFELD AND KATHRYN R. GOVER of young people are re maining in high school and college, and more of the students are in the work force. Thirty-one percent of the 16- to 24-year-olds working or looking for work were enrolled in school in October 1971, com pared with 22 percent a decade earlier/Thirty-five percent of young whites and 23 percent of young Negroes in the labor force were in school.2 In the last 2 years, school enrollment rates of men 18 to 21 years old declined from 54 percent to 48 percent in 1971, probably because of developments related to the Vietnam war. Enrollment rates had risen sharply after draft calls increased beginning in 1965, in part because of deferment of college stu dents. The recent decrease in enrollment rates may indicate that some young men have decided not to go to college because, under revised Selective Service regulations, college students are no longer being deferred. The number of unemployed workers 16 to 24 years old held steady over the year at 2.2 million, and there were no sharp changes in unemployment rates by age, sex, or race for either students or those not in school. The unemployment rates for male students, who generally want part-time jobs, were somewhat higher in October 1971 than for young men not in school; for young women, the two rates were about the same. (See table 1.) The age composition of students in the labor force was markedly younger than that of workers not in school. Only about 30 percent of the students were 20 to 24 years old; among the out-of-school group, most of whom had graduated from high school or even college, 75 percent were in this age group. Con sequently, there were differences between the two I n c r e a s in g p r o p o r t io n s Carl Rosenfeld is an economist and Kathryn R. Gover a social science research analyst in the Division of Labor Force Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis groups in the age distribution of the unemployed. Of the jobless, only 20 percent of the students were 20 to 24, compared with 60 percent of those not in school. The differences in the age composition of the stu dent labor force also account to some extent for the fact that the overall student unemployment rate, at 13.4 percent in October 1971, was above that of the under age 25 out-of-school group, 10.9 percent, even though the rates are generally higher for the lat ter in each detailed age group. This seeming paradox is explained by the fact that unemployment rates are higher for younger persons whether in or out of school, and a much greater percentage of students were teenagers. Because of time spent in school and on assign ments, students who earn money hold part-time jobs, but nearly all those out of school, especially the men, work full time. For example, among male students going to college full time, about 80 percent of those employed in nonfarm industries held part-time jobs compared with fewer than 10 percent of men in a comparable age group who were not in school. Teenage workers The sharp rise in the past decade in the num ber of teenagers 16 to 19 in the population (up 4.5 million to over 15 million in October 1971) was accompanied by increased proportions both in school and working or looking for work. In 1971, about 71 percent of the teenagers were en rolled in school compared with 61 percent in 1961. The increases in enrollment rates were greatest for the groups that had the lowest proportions at the start of the decade— the 18- and 19-year-olds, the Negroes,2 and the women. Among the blacks, for example, fewer than 60 percent were in school in 1961, compared with about 70 percent in 1971. Along with the increase in school enrollment, the proportion who remain in school long enough to 25 26 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 graduate from high school also increased. Sixty-eight percent of out-of-school teenage workers had at least a high school education in October 1971, com pared with 58 percent in 1963 (the earliest year for which comparable data are available for teenagers). As one would expect, more than half the teenage labor force was enrolled in school. Seven million were working or looking for work, of whom 4 mil lion, or 56 percent, were in school. Since the early 1960’s the number of students in the labor force had doubled, but the number of teenagers no longer in school and in the labor force had risen only slightly to 3.1 million. (See chart 1.) Labor force participation rates increased sharply among students in the past decade, but remained Table 1. virtually unchanged among teenagers no longer in school. The proportion of teenage students who com bined school with work hovered at about 37 per cent in the last few years, compared with under 30 percent in the early 1960’s. The increase in the labor force rate reflects a number of factors: the greatest increase in enrollment was among 18- and 19-year-olds who are more likely than younger stu dents to work; the rise in tuition and other schoolrelated expenses; and the increase in the number of available jobs. The number of teenage full-time college students doubled to 2.8 million, but the number also in the labor force rose threefold to 1 million as the labor force rate of collegians climbed from 22 to 35 per- Employment status of persons 16 to 2 4 years old by school enrollment status, October 1970 and 1971 [Numbers in thousands] 16 to 21 years 16 to 24 years 22 to 24 years Total Enrollment status, sex, and employment status 16 to 19 years 20 and 21 years 1970 1971 1970 1971 1970 1971 1970 1971 1970 1971 7,420 3,181 42.9 2,744 437 13.7 7,795 3,460 44.4 2,987 473 13.7 6,489 2,614 40.3 2,223 391 15.0 6,700 2,822 42.1 2,391 431 15.3 5,359 2,125 39.7 1,783 342 16.1 5,576 2,297 41.2 1,924 373 16.2 1,130 489 43.3 440 49 10.0 1,122 525 46.8 467 58 11.0 931 567 60.9 521 46 8.1 1,095 638 58.3 596 42 6.6 6,187 2,354 38.0 2,062 292 12.4 6,469 2,341 36.2 2,035 306 13.1 5,708 2,066 36.2 1,785 281 13.6 6,024 2,102 34.9 1,800 302 14.4 4,891 1,700 34.8 1,442 258 15.2 5,080 1,682 33.1 1,431 251 14.9 817 366 44.8 343 23 6.3 944 420 44.5 369 51 12.1 479 288 60.1 277 11 3.8 445 239 53.7 235 4 1.7 6,840 6,288 91.9 5,587 701 11.1 7,265 6,680 91.9 5,969 711 10.6 3,387 2,990 88.3 2,535 455 15.2 3,655 3,261 89.2 2,795 466 14.3 1,865 1,580 84.7 1,320 260 16.5 1,892 1,627 86.0 1,365 262 16.1 1,522 1,410 92.6 1,215 195 13.8 1,763 1,634 92.7 1,430 204 12.5 3,453 3,298 95.5 3,052 246 7.5 3,610 3,419 94.7 3,174 245 7.2 9,804 5,881 60.0 5,253 628 10.7 10,011 6,018 60.1 5,339 679 11.3 5,193 3,187 61.4 2,767 420 13.2 5,130 3,170 61.8 2,742 428 13.5 2,542 1,521 59.8 1,249 262 17.9 2,552 1,488 58.3 1,213 275 18.5 2,651 1,666 62.8 1,518 148 8.9 2,578 1,682 65.2 1,529 153 9.1 4,611 2,694 58.4 2,486 208 7.7 4,881 2,848 58.3 2,597 251 8.8 ENROLLED IN SCHOOL MEN Civilian noninstitutional population_____________________ Civilian labor force_______________________________________ Labor force participation rate 1 __________________________ Employed___________________________________________ Unemployed_________________________________________ Unemployment rate 2 ______________________________ WOMEN Civilian noninstitutional population_____________________ Civilian labor force__ ____ ____________ ___________________ Labor force participation rate 1 __ ______________________ Employed___________________________________________ Unemployed_________________________________________ Unemployment rate 2 ______________________________ NOT ENROLLED IN SCHOOL MEN Civilian noninstitutional population_________ __ . . . Civilian labor force_____________________ Labor force participation rate 1 ........... Employed__________________ ____ ._ . Unemployed___________________________ _____ ___ Unemployment rate 2 ........... ................... ............. .............. WOMEN Civilian noninstitutional population____ _________________ Civilian labor force___ _________ _____ . . . . Labor force participation rate 1 __________ ______________ Employed___________________ . _____ . _ Unemployed______ __ ____ . ... .. .. Unemployment rate 2 _______ _______ _______ ____ _ 1 Percent of civilian noninstitutional population in the labor force. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 Percent of civilian labor force who were unemployed. 27 EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL-AGE YOUTH Chart 1. School enrollment, October 1960—71 unemployment rates, and number unemployed for persons 16 to 19 years old, Millions SINCE 1 9 6 0 ... the number of teenage students in the labor force rose s h a rp ly .. . Rate the difference in unemployment rates narrowed between students and those not in s c h o o l.. . Thousands and students became a majority of the unemployed. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 28 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Table 2. Occupation of persons 16 to 19 years old, by school enrollment status and sex, October 1960 and 1971 W om en M en O c c u p a tio n N o t e n r o lle d E n r o lle d N o t e n r o lle d E n r o lle d 1960 1971 1960 1971 1960 1971 1960 1971 Number (in thousands)______________ Percent___________________________ 1,049 100.0 1,924 100.0 1,189 100.0 1,365 100.0 654 100.0 1,431 100.0 1,143 100.0 1,213 100.0 White collar_____ _________________________ _____ Professional and managerial__________________ Clerical_____ ____________________ _____ ____ Sales_____________________ ______ _________ 26.8 3.2 9.8 13,8 20.6 3.8 8.3 8.5 15.0 3.1 8.9 3.0 13.2 2.9 5.6 4.7 47.1 6.2 23.2 17.7 48.4 3.4 30.0 15.0 64.6 5.6 51.6 7.4 53.7 3.0 43.5 7.2 Blue collar___________ ____ ______ ____ _________ Craftsmen____________ _____________________ Operatives_____ ____________________________ Laborers, except farm_____ ____ ________ ____ 38.6 2.5 16.5 19.6 45.6 4.1 16.9 24.56 55.8 7.4 31.5 16.9 69.8 11.8 33.1 24.9 3.4 .3 3.1 — 5.2 .3 3.3 1.6 11.8 .8 10.6 .4 18.9 .4 17.4 1.1 Service.................................................................................. Private household____________________ ______ Other service______________________ _______ _ 15.7 .8 14.9 25.6 .3 25.3 7.9 .2 7.7 10.6 .1 10.5 42.5 23.6 18.9 45.1 17.5 27.6 18.8 8.7 10.1 25.0 4.8 20.2 Farm workers___________ ____________ ______ ___ 18.9 8.2 21.2 6.5 7.0 1.3 5.0 2.3 Total: cent. Increases in the number both in elementary or high school and the labor force were greater than for college students, but the percentage increase in the labor force was not as large. All of the rise in students’ labor force rates was among whites. The participation rates for Negroes were virtually the same in the last few years as in the early 1960’s, about 25 percent; for whites, the rate rose about 10 points to 40 percent. The failure of the Negro students’ labor force rate to rise undoubt edly reflects narrower job opportunities and con sistently very high unemployment rates. Number employed doubles In line with the increases in the labor force, the number of students employed in October 1971, 3.4 million, was double the level in the early 1960’s. For the 2.6 million teenagers no longer in school, em ployment was only a little higher. Among the young men, greater proportions of the students than those not in school worked in service and white-collar occupations in October 1971 and a much smaller proportion of the students were in blue-collar occupations, particularly as operatives or craftsmen. (See table 2.) Over the 1960’s a major shift occurred in the occupational distribution of working youths as the farm exodus continued and the demand for workers in the service sector in creased. The proportion of farm workers dropped sharply; other laborers increased regardless of school https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis status. Among students, there was also a large rise in the proportion in service occupations, where parttime jobs were numerous, and a modest decline in the proportion in sales. The changes in occupational distribution of 16- and 17-year-old male students were sharper than for the 18- and 19-year-olds be cause all of the decline in farm employment was among the younger boys; few 18- and 19-year-olds had been farm workers even in the earlier period. Among young women, regardless of school status, the two dominant occupational groups were clerical and service. Among students, a larger proportion were in service than in clerical jobs, while among those not in school more were in clerical jobs. From 1960, the proportion of female students in service occupations remained relatively stable, with a de crease in private household workers offset by a rise in other service occupations. In clerical jobs, the proportion of female students rose somewhat, while the proportion declined for women not in school. Among the latter, the proportion in service occupa tions (excluding private household) had doubled since 1960. Unemployed exceed million Unemployment among teenagers exceeded one million in October 1971 as in October 1970, and over one-half of these youths were students. (Per sons are counted as unemployed if they are looking EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL-AGE YOUTH 29 for and are available for work, regardless of whether they are in school.) The following are unemployment rates for October 1971: All teenagers 16.4 Total .................. In school . .. 15.7 17.2 Not in school Negro and other races 31.0 35.2 21A White 14.7 13.8 15.7 Statistically the 15.7-percent rate for students was not significantly different from the 17.2 percent for teenagers not in school. The number of unemployed students had exceeded the number of jobless teenagers not in school since 1968. In 1971, over one-half (54 percent) of the unemployed youths were students, compared with fewer than one-third in the early 1960’s. Nearly all of the increase in unemployment among teenagers since then had been among students. This develop ment reflects not only the greater rise in the number of students in the labor force, but also the sharper rise in the unemployment rate of students than of those not in school. In 1960 and 1961, the unem ployment rate for teenagers in school was about onethird lower than for the out-of-school youth. The difference between these two rates narrowed irreg ularly during the decade; in the last few years, the Table 3. rates were virtually the same. One reason for the higher unemployment rate among students was slower expansion of convenient part-time jobs than the rise in the numbers who wanted to work. Work experience in 1970 In March of each year, information is obtained on the number of weeks workers are employed during the prior calendar year. This section analyzes the extent to which teenagers worked in 1970 by school status in March 1971. The proportion of persons, whether students or not, who worked at some time during the year was greater than the proportion at a given time because many were in the labor force for only the summer or shorter periods. For example, 64 percent of all teenagers worked at some time during 1970, but only about 47 percent were in the labor force in October 1970. The proportion of teenagers who worked in 1970 was lower than in the prior few years, in part because of the economic slowdown. Teenagers who were students in March 1971 were much less likely than those not in school to have worked at some time during 1970. Among both boys and girls, the proportion of students with work ex perience was about 20 percentage points lower than Work experience in 1970 of persons 16 to 21 years old, by major activity and age in March 1971, by sex Major activity: in school1 Major activity not in school1 — Men Women Men Women Work experience in 1970 Total 16 to 21 years 16 to 19 years 20 and 21 years Total 16 to 21 years Number (in thousands)______ Percent___________________ 6,012 100.0 5,068 100.0 944 100.0 5,727 100.0 4,866 100.0 861 100.0 4,099 100.0 2,292 100.0 1,807 100.0 5,279 100.0 2,655 100.0 2,624 100.0 Worked in 1970...................................................... Did not work in 1970______________________ 66.5 33.5 63.7 36.3 81.7 18.3 53.8 46.2 50.8 49.2 70.7 29.3 88.0 12.0 86.5 13.5 89.9 10.1 73.5 26.5 71.0 29.0 76.1 23.9 Number (in thousands)____ Percent________________ 3,998 100.0 3,227 100.0 771 100.0 3,081 100.0 2,472 100.0 609 100.0 3,607 100.0 1,983 100.0 1,624 100.0 3,880 100.0 1,884 100.0 1,996 100.0 Worked at full-time jobs_____ ____________ 1 to 13 weeks______________________ 14 to 26 weeks........... ................................ 27 to 49 weeks........................................... 50 to 52 weeks_____________________ 36.9 25.4 7.2 2.2 2.2 31.7 22.6 5.6 1.6 2.0 58.6 37.2 13.6 4.8 2.9 27.0 19.0 4.2 2.4 1.4 22.2 15.3 3.4 2.1 1.4 46.6 33.8 7.7 3.4 1.6 67.4 8.7 11.8 18.6 28.3 54.7 9.6 11.7 15.3 18.1 82.8 7.6 11.9 22.6 40.8 69.1 12.4 14.0 17.4 25.4 56.6 14.1 14.8 12.4 15.3 80.9 10.7 13.2 22.1 34.9 Worked at part-time jobs..____ __________ 1 to 13 weeks______________________ 14 to 26 weeks___________ ____ 27 to 49 weeks____________ . .. 50 to 52 weeks................. ......... .. . 63.1 23.9 11.7 11.5 16.0 68.3 27.3 12.5 12.2 16.3 41.4 10.0 8.7 8.3 14.4 73.0 28.9 17.6 14.0 12.5 77.8 31.8 19.4 14.2 12.5 53.4 17.2 10.3 13.3 12.5 32.6 5.6 6.3 7.3 13.4 45.3 7.4 9.5 10.0 18.5 17.2 3.4 2.5 4.1 7.2 30.9 8.7 7.1 8.1 7.0 43.4 13.3 10.0 11.1 9.0 19.1 4.5 4.4 5.2 5.1 Total: Worked in 1970: 16 to 19 20 and years 21 years Total 16 to 19 years 16 to 21 years 1 Respondents in the survey were asked, "What were you doing most of last week?” On the basis of their replies, young persons were classified into 2 groups: Major activity—in school; major activity—not in school. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 20 and 21 years 16 to 19 Total years 16 to 21 years 20 and 21 years MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 30 Table 4. Earnings in 1970 of students 16 to 21 years old in March 1971, by age and sex Age in March 1971 and sex Total with earnings Under $500 $500 to $999 $1,000 to $1,499 $1,500 to $1,999 $2,000 to $2,999 $3,000 and over Median earnings, 1970 100.0 45.7 25.6 12.3 6.4 5.6 4.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 38.9 44.1 57.0 27.6 17.5 26.8 27.0 26.0 28.4 25.8 14.3 12.8 8.9 17.8 20.4 8.0 6.7 3.9 10.3 13.4 7.4 6.3 2.9 10.6 11.9 4.7 3.1 1.4 5.3 11.0 707 609 439 894 1,162 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 54.5 60.3 73.1 44.9 31.2 24.0 22.2 17.0 28.6 31.3 10.2 8.4 5.3 12.2 17.4 4.4 3.4 2.0 5.2 8.1 3.4 2.8 1.2 4.8 5.8 3.4 2.8 1.4 4.3 6.1 459 415 341 589 799 BOTH SEXES 16 to 21 years old, total............................... .............. MEN 16 to 21 years old________________ _________________ 16 to 19 years....................................... ................. ....... 16 and 17 years_______ ____________________ 18 and 19 years_______ _______________ _____ 20 and 21 years____ ___________ ____ __________ $ 584 WOMEN 16 to 21 years old_________________________________ 16 to 19 years_________________________________ 16 and 17 years_______________ ____________ 18 and 19 years_____ ____ _________________ 20 and 21 years...___________________ ____ _____ for those not in school. (See table 4.) More than 70 percent of the employed students had part-time jobs during 1970, compared with fewer than half of those not in school. On the other hand, fewer than 5 percent of those in school held full-time jobs for 27 weeks or more compared with about 30 percent of the employed teenagers not in school. Average (median) earnings of teenage male stu dents during 1970 were above those for female stu dents, and earnings of those 16 and 17 years old were below those 18 and 19. (See table 4.) The lower earnings for women and for the 16- and 17year-olds reflect fewer weeks of work and more part-time work. Also, to some extent, the hourly earnings of the younger students may be less than for the older ones and the earnings for the girls may be lower than for the boys because of the difference in the types of jobs they hold. □ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis --------- FOOTNOTES---------1 This article is based mainly on supplementary questions in the October 1971 Current Population Survey conducted and tabulated for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census. The data relate to persons in the civilian noninstitutional population in the calendar week ending October 16, 1971. All members of the Armed Forces and inmates of institutions are excluded. Because 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 differences between estimates, shoud be interpreted with caution. The most recent report in this series was published in the Monthly Labor Review, August 1971, pp. 13-18, and was reprinted with additional tabular data and an explanatory note as Special Labor Force Report 135. 2 Data for persons other than white are used to represent data for Negroes, since the latter constitute about 92 percent of all persons other than white in the United States. Study shows shift from cash allowances to service benefits and addition of new dental benefits KEVIN G. WETMORE the late 1960’s, employees in major industries have realized significant improvements in health in surance benefits. Existing plans were liberalized ei ther by increasing cash allowances or by switching from cash allowances to service benefits.1 In recent years, companies moved away from providing cash allowances, partly because the costs of health care often rose more rapidly than plans could be adjusted for such increases. Service benefits, providing built-in cost adjustment, became more prevalent, as com panies attempted to help employees meet the rapidly rising cost of health care for themselves and their dependents. Many plans also were improved by the addition of new benefits, including coverage of regu lar dental expenses. This article analyzes health benefits in 50 plans for office employees and 96 plans for nonoffice employees in 1971 and reports on changes in these plans since 1969 and 1966, respectively. Office employees in clude executive, professional, and clerical employees; nonoffice include production and maintenance work ers, miners, construction workers, and sales persons. These classifications have evolved from an earlier grouping of company plans for salaried office em ployees and plans negotiated by factory workers un der collective bargaining.2 The current office-non office classifications recognize that these salary and collective bargaining distinctions no longer apply. Plans are described in digests of health and in surance plans published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.3 These plans are not statistically represen tative of all health and insurance plans, but they cover a large number of employees in major industries and illustrate different approaches to health insurance planning. Both office workers and nonoffice workers have received substantially improved benefits. Office emS in c e Kevin G. Wetmore is an economist in the Division of Gen eral Compensation Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Improvements in employee health care benefits ployees generally had more complete coverage, as has typically been the case. However, companies more frequently financed the full cost of health in surance in plans covering nonoffice workers. Hospital benefits The level of basic hospital benefits provided by the plans covering nonoffice employees and their dependents has continued to rise substantially.4 In plans providing a cash benefit in both 1966 and 1971, the average allowance for daily semiprivate room and board increased more than 75 percent— somewhat less than the concurrent CPI increase of more than 100 percent for this service. The average cash allowance for ancillary services in these plans increased by more than one-third during the same period. Service benefits, which provide the full cost of services or of specified services, provide automatic protection against rising costs. The percentage of plans providing them for daily room and board in creased from 58 percent in 1966 to over 75 percent in 1971. A similar shift to service benefits occurred for ancillary services: over 71 percent provided these in 1971, up from about 61 percent in 1966. Many plans also increased the maximum number of days for which full benefits were payable. In 1971 almost half provided full hospital benefits for 365 days or more, compared wtih roughly one quarter in 1966, while the percentage providing full benefits for only 21 to 120 days declined.5 Hospital benefits for office employees showed less improvement than those for nonoffice employees partly because the study for office employees covers a shorter period (1969-71) than does the study for nonoffice employees (1966-71). Moreover, since plans covering office employees generally provided more complete coverage, there was less room for improvement. In 1971, 84 percent of plans for office workers 31 32 provided service benefits for daily room and board — up 13 percent from 1969. Only 9 percent still provided cash allowances. A similar shift to service benefits occurred in the coverage of ancillary services. However, there was little change in the duration of benefits from 1969 to 1971. The proportion of plans providing full benefits for 21 to 120 days and the proportion providing benefits for 365 days or more remained unchanged at 60 percent and 33 percent, respectively. Surgical and medical benefits Cash allowances for surgical procedures were ei ther increased or changed to service benefits covering “reasonable and customary charges.” From 1966 to 1971, the proportion of nonoffice worker plans pro viding cash allowances dropped by one-third to 55 percent. Half of those plans retaining cash allow ances increased them substantially— usually about 33 to 100 percent for the more expensive operations. Virtually all of the plans which dropped cash allow ances switched to a service benefit, boosting the proportion of such plans to approximately 38 per cent. Among plans for office workers, there was also a movement from cash allowances to service bene fits. By 1971, 32 percent provided service benefits for surgical procedures, double the proportion of 2 years earlier. About four-fifths of all plans for both office and nonoffice workers paid for physicians’ visits in the hospital, including those for dependents. Twenty percent of plans for office workers and 25 percent of those for nonoffice workers paid for physicians’ visits in the home and office. Some plans convering nonoffice employees limited coverage to employees only. Several plans changed to reasonable and cus tomary charges, but cash allowances are still more common in plans for both groups of workers. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 centage of certain expenses not covered by the basic benefits. Almost all had deductibles ranging ffom $50 to $300, which usually had to be satisfied once a year. In more than half the programs the deductible was $100. Most supplemental major medical programs now pay a larger share of charges than they did in 1966. In 1971 about 5 out of 6 paid 80 percent of all cov ered charges in excess of the deductible, up from 46 percent in 1966. However, about one-third paid only 50 percent for mental and nervous disorders. Major medical programs almost always set a maxi mum on the amount of their benefit payments. In 1966, almost half the supplemental ones had maximums for each disability; by 1971 about 62 percent utilized a per lifetime basis. (See table 1 for maximums.) Since benefits paid on a per lifetime basis generally provide more protection than benefits paid on a disability basis, this shift indicates more liberal coverage. The major medical benefits for office employees are similar to those provided nonoffice employees. In 1971, 4 out of 5 plans provided members with a supplemental major medical program. Deductibles were similar to those covering nonoffice employees, as was a provision for remaining expenses. Per lifetime maximums, generally higher than the maximums for nonoffice employees, was the basis of pay ment in 75 percent of these programs. There were only two comprehensive major mediTable 1. Major medical benefits: maximum payments and basis of payment, 1971 P la n s w ith l i m i t p e r P la n s w ith lif e t i m e d is a b ilit y p e rio d lim its M a x im u m p a y m e n t Total______________ . O ffic e N o n o ffic e O ffic e N o n o ffic e e m p lo y e e s e m p lo y e e s e m p lo y e e s e m p lo y e e s 10 $ 5 ,0 0 0 ______________________ 4 1 6 1 5 ,0 0 0 _____________________ 2 0 ,0 0 0 ______________________ 2 2 5 ,0 0 0 _______________ 2 5 1 1 0 ,0 0 0 _____ ________________ Major medical programs are of two major types: supplemental programs that add benefits to the basic hospital and surgical-medical sections of a health plan, and comprehensive programs that combine all health benefits into a single package. Since 1966 the number of supplemental major medical program covering nonoffice employees has nearly doubled. They generally paid a specified per https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 35 1 Other________________ .. 14 10 4 1 4 3 2 5 5 5 0 ,0 0 0 ......................... 1 7 11 1 3 0 ,0 0 0 ........ ..................... 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 ________ 2 40 5 2 7 ,5 0 0 __________ Major medical 1 21 1 4 2 3 * 3 1 Includes 5 plans not included in 1966 Digest. 2 Includes 1 plan not included in 1969 Digest. 1 Includes 2 plans not included in 1966 Digest. 4 Includes 1 plan with maximum payments based on employees annual salary and I plan with a family maximum. 9 Includes 2 plans with no maximum and 1 plan with maximum payments based on employees annual salary. 33 IMPROVEMENTS IN EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS cal programs for nonoffice employees and four for office workers. Comprehensive programs usually dif fered from the supplemental programs: deductibles and coinsurance provisions were frequently not uni form. (For example, one program had a $25 deducti ble for hospital expenses and $50 for all other ex penses. How much of the remaining expense the program covered was also different for hospital ex penses and other expenses.) Maximums in compre hensive programs, at least $20,000 in 1971, were higher than in supplemental programs. Other health benefits A number of plans have recently added a benefit to cover regular dental expenses.6 Fifteen plans for nonoffice employees and six for office employees provided this benefit in 1971. (Four of the nonoffice and six of the office worker plans were new addi tions to the 1971 digest.) Many of the plans were set up similar to major medical plans. Deductibles were usually about $25, and 80 percent of additional charges were usually covered. The most liberal maximums were $1,000 a year and $2,500 during a member’s lifetime. Other plans paid a specified percentage of allowable charges or according to a fee schedule. In most plans with benefits for regular dental expenditures, coverage of the more expensive services, such as orthodontics or fixed bridgework, was frequently limited or excluded. Active older workers Most plans continue health benefits for active workers after they become eligible for Medicare at age 65. One common method was the benefit carveout approach, which extends to individuals age 65 and over the same benefits they formerly received but reduced by Medicare benefits.7 In 1971, twothirds of the plans covering nonoffice employees and about one-half of those covering office employees used this method. Many of the remaining plans that did not provide benefits for employees age 65 and over had no such employees because they were auto matically retired by that age. (Sixteen plans for office and 16 for nonoffice employees had no active em ployees over age 65.) In most of these cases, how ever, dependents over 65 continued to receive the same benefits but reduced by Medicare until the worker retired. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Retirees In 1971 more than 70 percent of the plans cover ing both nonoffice and office employees provided retirees under age 65 with some form of health in surance.8 Slightly over 40 percent of these plans provide retirees under 65 with the same benefits as active employees under 65 receive. Most of the re maining plans also provide basically the same bene fits, but with some variations, such as a moderate reduction in the duration of the hospital benefit or the maximum allowance for a surgical procedure. However, the entire hospital, surgical-medical, or major medical section was eliminated in a few plans. Health insurance benefits took on a new dimen sion with the enactment of Medicare in 1965. Be fore Medicare, companies were concerned only with a worker’s employment status. Since then, the work er’s age became important as many companies sought to avoid duplication of benefits. In 1971, about two-thirds of the plans covering both groups of employees provided some type of health insurance for retirees 65 years and over. Over half of these used the benefit carveout method. (See table 2.) The “building block” approach was also widely used. Under this method plans cover expenses not covered by Medicare, such as the deductibles, pre scription drugs, and other charges the retiree must pay. The “major medical” approach, which provides re tirees with the same or a slightly modified version of the regular major medical benefits, was another common method. A few plans offered a combination of two of these approaches. For example, the bene fit carveout method may have been used for medical benefits and the building block for hospital benefits. Financing In addition to providing greater benefits in 1971 than in the 1960’s fewer health insurance plans in 1971 required active employees to contribute toward their cost. For active employees, the companies paid the full cost of all health benefits in more than 80 percent of the plans covering nonoffice and 50 per cent of the plans covering office employees in 1971. However, some of these plans required employees to pay at least part of the cost for their dependents. More than 75 percent of the plans for nonoffice employees which provided retiree benefits required 34 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Table 2. Plans with health benefits for retirees age 65 and over, by method of payment, 1971 Benefit Office employees All plans with health benefits for retirees age 65 and over________________ _______ Nonoffice employees 32 1 72 Total benefit carveout method............... Same benefits as for active workers under age 65, reduced by Medicare_____________ . _ Different benefits, reduced by Medicare2________ 17 40 3 14 18 22 Total building block method____ . . . .. Benefits supplement Medicare_____________ _ ._ Benefits supplement only Part A of Medicare3____ 8 4 4 20 17 3 Total major medical___ 6 4 Combination: Building block and major medical. Building block and benefit carveout... 1 0 0 4 Other_____ 0 4 . ___ 1 Includes 5 plans not included in 1966 Digest. 2 These benefits differ in one respect or more from those provided active workers under age 65. 3 Part A of Medicare covers in-hospital and related care. no contribution in 1971. Such plans for office re tirees more frequently required such contributions— about 55 percent of the plans for retirees under age 65 and about 47 percent for those retirees 65 years and over. □ ----------FOOTNOTES---------1 Cash allowances are specified amounts that are payable for covered health care. These amounts are generally pro vided on an “up to” basis, meaning the patient will be reim bursed for actual charges up to the allowance shown, but some plans pay the full allowance irrespective of the actual charge. Service benefits fully pay for specific hospital or surgicalmedical care services, generally on a prevailing fee basis or in the form of a “reasonable and customary charge.” ■For previous analysis of health plans, see Dorothy R. Kittner, “Changes in health and insurance plans for salaried employees,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1970, pp. 32-39; Donald M. Landay, “Trends in negotiated health https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis plans: broader coverage, higher quality care,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1969, pp. 3-10; Dorothy R. Kittner, “Negotiated health benefits and medicare,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1968, pp. 29-34; and Robert L. Joiner, “Changes in negotiated health and insurance plans, 196266,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1966, pp. 1246— 1249. 3 Description of the plans can be found in Digest of 50 Health and Insurance Plans for Salaried Employees, Early 1969 (BLS Bulletin 1620), Digest of 100 Selected Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining, Early 1966 (BLS Bulletin 1502), Benefits for Active and Retired Workers Age 65 and Over, Early 1968 (BLS Bulletin 1502-1), and Digest of Health and Insurance Plans, 1971 Edition. Eight plans for nonoffice and one plan for office workers were added to the 1971 Digest. Unless otherwise indicated, percentage figures or totals used in this report are calculated from the 96 plans covering nonoffice employees and the 50 plans covering office employees. Some plans allow employees a choice between two and sometimes three hospital, surgical-medical, or major medical programs. Ex cluded from this study are those parts of a plan for which there is a choice of benefits. 4 Since benefits for dependents identical to those provided active employees or retirees are almost always provided, no further mention will be made of them unless they differ. 5 In 1971, 50 percent of plans for nonoffice workers pro vided full benefits for 21 to 120 days compared to 65 per cent in 1966. These percentages include some plans which provided partial benefits for days in excess of the 21 to 120 full benefit days; for example, most service benefit plans in firms located in New York City provide 120 full benefit days followed by an additional 180 days for which half benefits are provided. 6 Major medical plans have usually covered the expense of dental surgery, if it was attributable to an accident. 7 For details on the benefits provided under both parts of Medicare, see Your Medicare Handbook: Health Insurance Under Social Security (U.S. Social Security Administration, 1968). 8 Thirteen plans for office and 23 for nonoffice workers provided no health benefits to retirees under age 65. Sixteen plans for office and 25 for nonoffice workers provided no benefits for retirees age 65 and over. Plans providing no health benefits for retirees under 65 years are not in all cases plans providing no benefits to retirees age 65 and over. Data from a recent study1 indicate that even long-term welfare mothers and their teen-age sons— though the sons have spent virtually their entire lives on welfare— continue to have a strong work ethic and do not need to be taught the importance of work. Poor people— males and females, blacks and whites, youths and adults— identify their self-esteem with work as strongly as do the nonpoor. They express as much willingness to take job training if unable to earn a living and to work even if they were to have an adequate income. They have, moreover, as high life aspirations as do the nonpoor and want the same things, among them a good education and a nice place to live. The white middle-class women do not link them at all. The positive association of the work ethic with lack of confidence seems to characterize those who have failed, or are risking failure, in the work world. All women rejected quasi-illegal activities as a source of income, regarding these activities as viola tions of their life goals. Welfare women find welfare much more acceptable than do the other women, and do not see such acceptance as violating their identification with work. All women seem willing to get further training and to work if they are on wel fare or if they have “adequate” incomes, but the welfare women feel more strongly that such activ ities contribute to their self-development. The findings that welfare women have a positive view of work but are insecure about their ability to achieve job success and dependent on government support when their own efforts fail cannot be at tributed to long-term receipt of welfare as such. One group of women in the study have been on welfare only 3 years, and short-term welfare women only 1 year. The pattern of responses is probably typical of mothers in general who are poor, heads of house holds, and marginal to the work force. Work orientation of mothers Influence on sons The view of work held by any particular group is complex. To compare the views of different groups, the relationships among several work orientations must be examined. For example, all groups of women, ranging from long-term welfare to middleclass white, give equally high ratings to the work ethic, but show a wide difference in beliefs about the effectiveness of their own efforts to achieve job suc cess. Long-term welfare women lack confidence in their ability while middle-class white women feel much more secure. Most striking, however, is the different relationship between these two orientations. Data from the study show that welfare mothers substantially influence the work orientations of their sons, including a high work ethic. On the other hand, middle-class white parents exert little influence on the work orientations of their sons, an outcome that may seem surprising. This may simply mean, how ever, that the white sons are gaining identification with work and strength in the other orientations out side the family: in schools, churches, and peer groups. It does not necessarily mean that white fam ilies have no influence on their sons’ subsequent work activity. They are undoubtedly instrumental in their sons’ adoption of the social manners and life styles conducive to obtaining and holding good jobs (wel fare mothers may fare badly in this respect), but WELFARE MOTHERS AND THE WORK ETHIC LEONARD GOODWIN Common arguments for proposing a work require ment for welfare mothers are that work is psycho logically valuable and provides a model for their children. Leonard Goodwin is a research associate in the Govern ment Studies Program, Brookings Institution. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 35 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 36 such variables were not measured in this study. Hence, the results offered here cannot be used to judge the overall contribution of family life to sons’ future job attainment. But they do indicate clearly that, for the work ethic, welfare mothers have no less influence on their sons than do white parents in more affluent circumstances; indeed, they probably have a greater influence, encouraging their sons to identify with work. Thus the theory that the welfare experience is depriving youths of the work ethic is not supported. At the same time the significant relationship re garding the acceptability of welfare orientation is evidence that welfare mothers are transmitting to their sons a greater tolerance of government support than is found among white middle-class families. To the extent that acceptability of welfare discourages work activity, one could argue that the mothers are transmitting a negative attitude about work. This also applies to the lack of confidence orientation, to which both welfare mothers and sons give high rat ings. The mother-son correlations are also significant, suggesting that mothers may be hindering their sons’ entrance into the work force by transmitting their own uncertainty to them. Data indicate that welfare and nonwelfare sons are more similar than dissimilar in their work ori entations. Poor youths find quasi-illegal activities slightly more acceptable than do outer-city youths. The relatively low ratings given this activity by all groups, however, suggest that it is not a preferred means of income maintenance, and that many who participate in marginal enterprises would give them up if they could earn sufficient money in a job. The most important conclusion to be drawn is that teenage males who have spent virtually their entire lives on welfare have certain positive orienta tions toward work. Having no working parent in the home— neither mother nor father—has made the sons’ identification with work no weaker than that of sons from families with working fathers. This is not to say that lack of a working father has no effect on a household. A father undoubtedly influences the character of family life, but the in fluence can be negative as well as positive— it de pends on how the father relates to other family mem bers.2 The point in any case is that welfare youths from fatherless homes show a strong work ethic, a willingness to take training, and an interest in work ing even if it is not a financial necessity. Their mothers favorably influence these positive orienta https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tions. The welfare experience has not destroyed the sons’ positive orientations toward work. However, two significant differences between black welfare and white nonwelfare sons should be recog nized. Welfare sons are much less confident about their efforts leading to job success and much more willing to accept welfare if unable to earn enough money. Mothers who are unable to support themselves and their families can be supported at a decent level by public funds without fear of damage to their work ethic or that of their sons. If the support is given, as Gilbert Steiner has suggested, “in a framework of honorable dependency,” 3 it will carry with it no social stigma, and the recipient mothers and children may be less likely to suffer from the feeling of inade quacy that inhibits subsequent work activity. But welfare payments, honorable or otherwise, are un likely to be large enough to enable families to move up to middle-class circumstances— they serve only as a holding measure. should provide a basis for moving beyond the often-expressed concern that transfer payments to the poor may take away their incentive to work.4 Excessive concern that a relatively low level of guaranteed income— around the poverty level—would cause people to drop out of the work force reflects a misunderstanding of the life and work orientations of the poor. They are no more likely to settle for this meager income and cease working than are middle-class people. The plight of the poor cannot be blamed on their having deviant goals or a deviant psychology. The ways in which the poor do differ from the affluent can reasonably be attributed to their different experi ences of success and failure in the world. There is ample evidence to suggest that children who are bom poor face discriminatory barriers to advancement in the educational and occupational worlds,5 which thrust them into failure much more consistently than their middle-class counterparts. Appropriate policies would enable more poor people to experience suc cess. While success cannot be guaranteed, the prob ability of its attainment for larger numbers of the poor might be increased in two ways. The first is to lessen the risk of failure by removing discriminatory barriers so that, for example, more poor people be come eligible for better jobs; the second, to reduce T he foregoing 37 COMMUNICATION the cost of failure, when it does occur, by providing a guaranteed income at least a small margin above the poverty level. Poor families should be given enough economic security and low-risk opportunity to rise in status, according to their desire and ability without being overwhelmed by failure induced by inequities in the social system. □ ----------F O O TN O TE S---------1 Leonard Goodwin, D o the Poor Want to Work? A Social-Psychological Study of Work Orientation (Washing ton, Brookings Institution, 1972). 2 Elizabeth Herzog and Cecelia E. Sudia, “Boys in Father less Families ” (Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Child Development, Children’s Bureau, 1970), processed. 3 Gilbert Y. Steiner, The State of Welfare (Washington, Brookings Institution, 1971), p. 338. 4 Christopher Green, Negative Taxes and the Poverty Problem (Washington, Brookings, 1967). “The question of incentives inevitably arises when discussion turns to a pro posal for a guaranteed minimum income. Would guaran teeing a minimum income and taxing it away at high rates as before-allowance income rises reduce work effort?” (P- 113). 5 Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The American Occupational Structure (N ew York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 405; Bradley R. Schiller, “Stratified Oppor tunities: The Essence of the ‘Vicious Circle,’ ” American Journal of Sociology, November 1970, pp. 426-42; Robert H. Berls, “Higher Education Opportunity and Achievement in the United States,” in The Economics and Financing of Higher Education in the United States, A Compendium of Papers Submitted to the Joint Economic Committee, 91st Cong. 1st sess., 1969, especially pp. 146, 172; and William H. Sewell, “Inequality of Opportunity for Higher Educa tion,” American Sociological Review, October 1971, pp. 793-809. Researchers such as Sewell who present statistical data showing that poor children of the same ability as middle-class children do not reach the same educational attainment tend to explain this on the grounds of psychologi cal deficiency, the poor having lower aspirations. Research ers who have examined the daily classroom procedure point out that it is the student-teacher interactions themselves which tend to lessen the aspirations and initiatives of the lower-class student as compared with his middle-class coun terpart; see Eleanor Burke Leacock, Teaching and Learning in City Schools (New York, Basic Books, 1969), chapter 6. Lower educational aspirations of poor children would not appear to be a psychological deficiency, but a normal re sponse to an environment hostile to their high aspirations and initiatives. A note on communications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes commu nications that supplement, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be con sidered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not polemical in tone. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Communications should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES CONVENTION, 1972 JOHN H. CHASE action, jurisdictional disputes, and con stitutional changes were among the key issues when the American Federation of State, County and Muni cipal Employees (A FL-CIO ) held its 19th biennial convention in Houston, Tex., May 29 through June 2. The major emphasis, however, was on political action as a first step toward solving the problems of public sector workers. International President Jerry Wurf reported that in a number of States, particularly Pennsylvania and Hawaii, new or revised laws are making it easier for public employee unions to operate. He added, how ever, that all State laws are still “repressive” and called for Federal legislation to provide a climate favorable to organization and operation of public sector unions. Mr. Wurf accused several unions representing public employees of covertly opposing national labor relations legislation for government employees. Congressman Frank Thompson, Jr., chairman of a House subcommittee on labor, similarly charged the States with “fumbling the ball on this issue” and of “turning to repressive legislation.” Summarizing the results of recent hearings, the New Jersey Demo crat said a Federal Public Employees Relations Act would be the inevitable consequence. Bargaining by State, county, and particularly municipal employees is undermined by the shortage of available revenue to support expanded (and often current) services, wages, and benefits, Mr. Wurf warned. “The cities are dying,” he told the delegates, “for lack of money. The whole system of financing the governments we work for is in disrepair. This P olitical John H. Chase is a labor economist in the Division of In dustrial Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 38 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis union cannot responsibly sit down and negotiate with a city . . . unless there is a viable basis for financing the bargain that we make.” Three remedial measures were discussed, all re quiring Federal action: revenue sharing, the release of frozen Federal funds for State and local projects, and immediate withdrawal of all military forces from Vietnam. In the keynote address, President Wurf attacked the A FL-C IO ’s policy on jurisdictional disputes: There is jurisdictional chaos in the labor move ment. There is poaching and internecine warfare. We cannot be content with Article XX of the AFLCIO Constitution. This limited, negative role of the AFL-CIO in providing rules of war between its affiliates is not, and should not be, what the Ameri can labor movement is all about. . . . We spend more resources fighting each other than fighting the bosses. The representation struggle in Pennsylvania un derscored Wurf’s point. In May, AFSCME won the right to represent 75,000 Pennsylvania State em ployees only after a bitter and expensive struggle against a coalition of other unions. Noting that only 25 percent of the American work force belong to unions, the convention passed a resolution calling on the American labor movement to stop fighting over the workers they already had and to concentrate resources on the unorganized. Raising a related jurisdictional question, Mr. Wurf charged the Operating Engineers, Service Employees, Laborers, and others with “walking both sides of the street,” by taking a per capita tax from public em ployees while working to promote the subcontracting of government services and the consequent loss of government jobs to employees in the private sector. Delegates feared that private sector businesses with unorganized, inexpensive labor would underbid cities in providing a particular public service. A sim ilar fear was expressed over the expanding activities of private nonprofit social service organizations. The convention, therefore, reaffirmed the union’s policy UNION CONVENTIONS of organizing employees of businesses and of non profit social service agencies who now perform work previously done by government workers, and of raid ing already organized units where the workers were not being “properly represented.” Constitutional changes sparked protracted debate. Delegates voted changes in the union’s Judicial Panel, extending its jurisdiction and removing it fur ther from union politics. Membership eligibility and local election protests, matters previously handled by the President and the Executive Board, were transferred to the Judicial Panel. All members would now be appointed by the President for staggered terms with the “advice and consent” of the Executive Board. (Panel members had formerly been elected by the Executive Board.) The terms of office were set at 5 years to make them longer than that of the appointing president. Rules were passed restricting union political activity of panel members and pro hibiting international staff and Executive Board mem bers from serving on the panel. The chairman of the Judicial Panel became a full-time official coequal with the Secretary-Treasurer, other panel members coequal to vice presidents. Focusing on the presidential appointment of panel members, several delegates charged that this amend ment would place the judiciary “under the thumb of the President.” Other constitutional changes transferred the authority to set executive and officer salaries from the delegates in convention to the International’s Executive Board, and extended the terms of office of the President, Secretary-Treasurer, and Interna tional Vice-Presidents from 2 to 4 years. Many dele gates saw in these amendments further restrictions on democratic processes, asserting that they might, over time, reduce executive accountability, remove the officers from close touch with the rank-and-file, and result in quadrennial conventions. Both amend ments passed only after protracted debate. President Wurf informed the 1,500 delegates that AFSCME membership, increasing at a rate of more than 1,000 new members a week, surpassed 550,000. Most of the membership gain is due to mergers. The most significant of these was the merger into https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 39 AFSCME of the Hawaiian United Public Workers and the Hawaiian Government Employees Associa tion, both formerly independent unions. This merger, which brought more than 28,000 new members into AFSCME, prompted the convention to create a sep arate legislative district for Hawaii. President Wurf attributed part of AFSCME’s rapid growth to expansion of its services made pos sible by the increase in the per capita tax authorized at the 1970 convention. He reported that thirteen regional and a dozen subregional offices are now open and staffed with 800 full-time employees, that the national headquarters staff now number 120, that the educational department is the largest of any union in the AFL-CIO, and that wage data for 200 public employee job titles and occupations have been computerized. Speaking for hospitalized Cesar Chavez, President of the United Farm Workers, Eliseo Medina de scribed the problems faced by the farm workers and their current struggle with the lettuce growers. The union presented Mr. Medina with a check for $5,000, pledged another $45,000 to the farm workers, and promised publicity and picket support for the lettuce boycott. A resolution calling for speedy ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Con stitution was amended from the floor to call for with holding support until special State laws protecting women were extended to cover all workers. Other proposals adopted included extension of the Federal Occupational Safety Act to cover employees of State and local governments and extension of social secur ity coverage to all State, county, and municipal em ployees. President Wurf delivered a tribute to Joseph Ames, who retired as Secretary-Treasurer to take up duties as chairman of the Judicial Panel. Replacing Ames as Secretary-Treasurer was William Lucy, a former executive assistant to President Wurf. Mr. Lucy is now one of the highest ranking black union officials in the country. His bid was unopposed. Jerry Wurf, president since 1964, was reelected without opposi tion, as were most of the International’s vice presi dents. WAGES IN FERTILIZER PLANTS DONALD S. RIDZON E a r n i n g s o f p r o d u c t i o n workers in fertilizer man ufacturing plants vary considerably by type of opera tion, according to a study recently completed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The study shows wages higher in integrated plants manufacturing their own acids used in production than in superphosphate plants purchasing acids and mixing plants which pur chase all ingredients. (See table 1.) Workers averaged $3.14 an hour in integrated plants, $2.39 in mixing plants, and $2.32 in super phosphate plants in March-April 1971. Differences in occupational staffing account for part of the varia tion in wage levels. Integrated plants employ most control-room men, who monitor the equipment pro ducing granulated fertilizer, all contact-acid-plant operators, and a majority of the maintenance me chanics, the three jobs with the highest wage rates. (See table 2.) Material handling laborers, one of the lowest paid jobs studied, made up one-tenth of the work force in integrated plants, one-fifth in mixing plants, and one-fourth in superphosphate plants. Wage levels in the industry are affected not only by the occupational composition of the work force, but also by other variables, such as location, size of establishment, and extent of unionization. About 80 percent of the 19,300 production workers in the industry were employed in the Border States, South east, Southwest, and Great Lakes regions. About 55 percent of the workers were in metropolitan areas, and a similar proportion in plants with collective bargaining agreements covering a majority of their workers. Most establishments in the industry are rela tively small, employing fewer than 100 workers. Donald S. Ridzon is an economist in the Division of Occupa tional Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 40 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Industrywide straight-time earnings of production workers averaged $2.67 in March-April 1971— 41 percent above the $1.90 average recorded in a study made 5 years earlier.1 This represents an annual average increase of 7 percent, somewhat higher than the annual average increase for all nondurable manu facturing production workers (6 percent). Contributing to the large pay increase for fer tilizer workers was the rise in the Federal minimum wage to $1.60 in 1968. Nearly 40 percent of the 25,500 workers in mixed fertilizer plants during the earlier study were earning under $1.60 an hour. Also, as production worker employment dropped by onefourth, the proportion of seasonal workers in the industry slid from nearly two-fifths of the industry’s work force in March-April 1966 to slightly more than one-fourth 5 years later. Because seasonal work ers are usually less skilled and lower paid than year-round employees, their reduced proportion would have increased the industry’s wage level even without a change in wage rates. Paid holidays, most commonly 8 or 9 annually, Table 1. Average hourly earnings1 of production workers in fertilizer manufacturing,2 by type of establishment, United States and major regions, March-April 1971 Region United States........ . Middle Atlantic................. Border States3__________ Southeast______________ Southwest........ .............. Great Lakes_______ . Middle West____________ Pacific_________ ._ All plants $2.67 2.81 2.34 2.43 3.10 2.76 2.83 3.41 Com plete or inte grated plants Super phos phate plants Mixing plants $3.14 $2.32 $2.39 2.10 2.24 2.60 2.80 2.26 2.06 2.13 2.76 2.28 2.99 2.60 2.83 3.85 3.28 3.77 1 Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. 2 The survey included establishments employing 8 workers or more and engaged primarily in (1) manufacturing mixed fertilizers from one or more fertilizer material* produced in the same establishment, or (2) mixing fertilizers from purchased fertilizer materials. 3 Border States include Delaware, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, Vir ginia, and West Virginia. A complete definition of all regions will appear in the full report. NOTE: Dashes indicate no data reported or data do not meet publication criteria. 41 RESEARCH SUMMARIES Table 2. Number and average hourly earnings 1 of workers in selected occupations, fertilizer manufacturing, MarchApril 1971 O c c u p a tio n Num ber RAPID PRODUCTIVITY GAINS REPORTED FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIES FOR 1971 E a rn in g s ARTHUR S. HERMAN Baggers--------- ---------------------------Bag sewers, machine____________ Batch weighers________________ Chambermen__________________ Contact-acid-plant operators______ 855 499 492 85 211 $2.47 2.27 2.35 2.60 3.48 Control-room men______________ Conveyor tenders, _____________ Granulator operators____________ Laborers, material handling______ Mechanics, maintenance_________ Millers ___ ____ __ 381 240 323 3,575 1,151 101 3.81 2.58 3.04 2.24 3.55 3.04 Mixers, dry mixing______________ Mixers, superphosphate__________ Truckdrivers__________________ Truckers, power (forklift)-------------Truckers, power (other than forklift). Watchmen____________________ 424 191 1,075 342 1,333 141 2.41 2.52 2.14 2.68 2.36 2.14 1 Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. and paid vacations after qualifying periods of serv ice were available to nearly all year-round workers. Typical vacation provisions were 1 week’s pay after 1 year service, 2 weeks after 2 years, 3 weeks or more after 10 years, and at least 4 weeks’ pay after 25 years. Four-fifths or more of the year-round employees were covered by life, hospitalization, surgical, and basic medical insurance, financed at least partly by employers. Three-fourths had private pension plans, and a majority accidental death and dismemberment, major medical, and sickness and accident insurance. Smaller proportions of seasonal workers were covered by these benefits. For example, paid holi day provisions applied to one-fourth of the seasonal workers; paid vacation plans to one-tenth; and life, hospitalization, and surgical insurance to one-tenth. Copies of separate releases for 12 States2 with substantial industry employment are available upon request to the Bureau or any of its regional offices, listed on the inside front cover of this issue. A com prehensive report on the survey, providing national and regional information on earnings and supple mentary benefits, will be published later this year. □ ----------F O O TN O TE S----------1 For an account of the earlier study, see “Wages in Fertilizer Plants, March-April 1966,” Monthly Labor R e view, March 1967, pp. 42-44. 2 Includes Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis grew during 1971 in more than three-fourths of the 37 industries currently in cluded in the Bureau’s industry productivity meas urement program. In most of these industries, it grew more in 1971 than it had in 1970. Indexes of Output Per Man-Hour, Selected Industries, 1939 and 1947-71 1 indicates that annual gains ranged from a high of 18.2 percent for manmade fibers to a low of 0.3 percent for flour. This improvement in productivity in the industries studied is consistent with the accelerated growth in output per man-hour which occurred in the entire private sector of the economy in 1971, as reported in the May issue of the Monthly Labor Review.2 Productivity declined in six industries in 1971, compared with 13 in 1970. Productivity growth was particularly pronounced in five industries: sugar, manmade fibers, aluminum rolling and drawing, radio and TV sets, and motor vehicles. The gain in output per man-hour in the motor vehicles industry (about 13 percent) re flected a large increase in output, as sales of motor vehicles rebounded sharply after a strike in the in dustry at the end of 1970. Output per man-hour also grew, although at a somewhat slower rate, in other large industries such as railroads, gas and electric utilities, paper, paperboard and pulp mills, and steel. In many industries output slackened in 1971, but declines in man-hours exceeded the decline in out put, resulting in productivity gains. For example, in steel where output fell off 4.9 percent and man hours dropped 7.9 percent, productivity increased 3.3 percent. The industries which experienced declines in out put per man-hour in 1971 were footwear; hosiery; primary copper, lead, and zinc; bakery products; bituminous coal; and total coal mining. Over the longer period, 1960-71, the average an nual growth in output per man-hour ranged from 10.1 percent in petroleum pipelines to 0.3 percent for footwear. (See table 1.) About two-thirds of the industries had rates equal to or greater than the 3.0 percent increase for the total private economy dur ing this period. O u t p u t pe r m a n -hour Arthur S. Herman is an economist in the Division of Indus try Productivity Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 42 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Table 1. Output per man-hour in selected industries, 1 9 6 7 -7 1 , and percent changes, 1 9 7 0 -7 1 and 1 9 6 0 -7 1 [Indexes, 1967 =100] A v e ra g e P e rc e n t S IC C o d e 1967 In d u s tr y 1968 1969 1970 1971» change, 1970-71 annual p e rc e n t change, 1960-71 M IN IN G 2 101 101 102 102 11, 12 12 Iron mining, crude ore........... ................. Iron mining, usable ore______________ Copper mining, crude ore____________ Copper mining, recoverable metal_____ Coal mining_______________________ Bituminous coal and lignite mining____ 203 2041 205 206 2071 2082 2086 211, 212,213 211,213 212 2251, 2252 261, 262, 263, 266 2653 2823, 2824 291 301 314 3221 324 3271, 3272, 331 3321 3331, 3332, 3333 3334 3352 341 3631, 3632, 3633, 3639 3651 371 Canning and preserving_____________ Flour and other grain mill products____ Bakery products....................................... Sugar_________ _________________ Candy and other confectionery products.. Malt liquors_______________________ Bottled and canned soft drinks_______ Tobacco products—Total_____________ Cigarettes, chewing and smoking tobacco. Cigars_______ ___________________ Hosiery_____________ ____ _________ Paper, paperboard and pulp mills_____ Corrugated and solid fiber boxes______ Man-made fibers___________________ Petroleum refining____________ , ____ Tires and inner tubes_______________ Footwear_________________________ Glass containers.._________________ Hydraulic cement__________________ Concrete products_________________ Steel____________________________ Gray iron foundries_________________ Primary copper, lead, and zinc________ Primary aluminum_________________ Aluminum rolling and drawing________ Metal cans______________ ______ _ Major household appliances__________ Radio and television receiving sets......... Motor vehicles and equipment................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 110.0 105.1 109.6 103.4 105.4 105.1 117.8 109.6 116.2 106.9 105.3 105.4 117.3 108.0 126.9 112.8 103.2 103.8 119.6 108.9 133.8 114.9 100.9 102.5 1.9 0.8 5.4 1.9 - 2 .2 - 1 .3 4.9 2.8 4.9 2.4 4.0 4.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 107.4 106.7 102.2 104.3 101.6 106.4 109.1 103.0 102.6 103.8 92.9 106.7 102.7 115.6 103.0 106.8 103.5 105.1 110.7 109.3 104.2 107.1 118.3 94.9 104.7 104.3 105.1 116.1 108.5 103.5 106.1 104.0 102.0 99.5 113.7 113.6 101.0 97.7 109.0 106.0 110.6 104.1 116.7 107.0 102.6 96.7 108.5 112.6 110.5 104.8 113.2 120.9 105.1 107.2 107.2 108.6 125.1 106.8 105.8 108.4 104.3 111.8 98.9 119.2 121.5 102.9 98.2 114.9 126.7 115.4 109.2 119.2 108.3 104.7 103.5 104.6 110.6 107.9 101.7 112.1 117.0 108.9 109.5 105.1 107.1 128.1 101.8 (s) 108.7 104.1 123.4 108.4 127.8 129.4 111.7 108.0 120.6 118.9 120.1 115.1 140.9 113.0 109.9 101.3 105.2 120.3 (s) 105.1 115.1 115.9 112.0 123.9 110.2 113.6 151.0 114.8 (3) 0.3 - 0 .2 10.4 9.5 7.3 6.6 8.5 9.9 5.0 - 6 .2 4.1 ■5.4 18.2 4.3 4.9 - 2 .2 0.6 8.8 (3) 3.3 2.7 - 0 .9 2.9 13.2 4.9 6.1 17.9 12.7 4 2.3 4.1 3.0 4.2 3.0 6.4 5.1 2.2 1.3 3.9 6.7 4.2 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.7 0.3 2.7 4.4 4 4.6 2.2 2.6 1.2 2.5 5.1 2.0 4.7 6.9 3.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 104.3 101.8 104.3 105.8 107.0 109.2 103.8 107.2 114.3 113.8 110.1 103.6 109.7 121.3 116.6 112.3 106.7 116.5 (3) 120.8 2.0 3.0 6.1 (3) 3.6 5.6 3.3 8.0 4 10.1 5.9 M A N U F A C T U R IN G O TH E R 401, Class 1 401, Class 1 451 4612, 4613 491, 492, 493 Railroads, revenue traffic___ _________ Railroads, car-miles.. ______________ Air transportation.^___________ ____ _ Petroleum pipelines________________ Gas and electric utilities_______ _____ 1 Preliminary. 2 Mining data refer to output per production worker man-hour. 1 Not available. Measures for the bakery products and metal cans industries are included for the first time this year. In the bakery products industry, productivity grew at an average rate of 3.0 percent a year from 1960 to 1971, reflecting a slow growth in output of 1.1 percent a year coupled with a decline in man-hours of 1.9 percent a year. Per capita consumption of bakery products declined slightly over this period while mechanization of product preparation and ma terials handling increased.3 In the metal cans industry, output per man-hour grew at a rate of 2.0 percent a year from 1960 to 1971, output at the high rate of 5.0 percent, and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 Average annual rate of change is for 1960-70. s Output per employee. man-hours at 2.9 percent.4 Productivity gains were aided by faster can making machinery and new can making materials. However, the growth of compli cated products such as aerosol cans and tear tops for beverage cans as well as the highly specific re quirements of can users in terms of inspection, label ing, packing, and shipping slowed the rate of pro ductivity gain. □ --------FOOTNOTES-------1 BLS Bulletin 1758, 1972. This bulletin will be available later this year from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 43 RESEARCH SUMMARIES assistants) averaged $3.89 an hour in December 1970. The dispersion of individual pay rates, as noted in previous surveys, largely reflects the wide range of worker skills required by the industry, dif ferences in pay by carrier and locality, and the exten sive use of rate-ranges for specific occupations; the middle half of the workers in the array earned be tween $2.75 and $4.50. Women made up 55 percent of the workers cov ered by the survey, accounting for almost all of the telephone operators, slightly over nine-tenths of the clerical workers, and seven-tenths of business office and sales employees. Men, on the other hand, ac counted for three-fourths of the professional and semiprofessional staff, and for nearly all construc tion, installation, and maintenance workers. Average hourly earnings for numerically important categories are presented in table 1. 2 See Shelby W. Herman, “Productivity and cost move ments in 1971,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1972, pp. 12-16. 3 For further detail, see Clyde F. Huffstutler and Martha Farnsworth Riche, “Productivity in the bakery products in dustry,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1972, pp. 25-28. 4 See also John L. Carey, “Productivity in the metal cans industry,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1972, pp. 28-31. WAGES RISE SHARPLY FOR TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH WORKERS JOSEPH C. BUSH Telephone workers. Wage levels in the Nation’s in terstate telephone companies rose 7.5 percent in 1970—nearly double the rate of increase in 1969 and one of the largest recorded by the Bureau’s an nual surveys of communication industry pay rates.1 Total employment went up 5.2 percent. In Bell System companies, which comprised 95 percent of the work force, employment rose 5 percent. Earnings of the 831,557 telephone carrier em ployees studied (excluding officials and managerial Telegraph workers. Straight-time rates of pay aver aged $3.88 an hour in October 1970 for Western Union’s 21,634 employees, other than messengers. The 1,339 motor messengers averaged $2.75 and the 911 walking and bicycle messengers, $1.79. Be tween October 1969 and October 1970, average rates of pay rose 7.8 percent for “nonmessenger” employees, 8.3 percent for motor messengers, and 7.2 percent for walking and bicycle messengers. Joseph C. Bush is an economist in the Division of Occupa tional Wage Structures, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table 1. Telephone carriers: number and average hourly earnings 1 of workers, by employment category D e c e m b e r 1970 D e c e m b e r 1969 O c to b e r 1947 Ite m 2 All employees _________ ____ _______ _________ Men SELECTED E m p lo y P e rc e n t of E arn E m p lo y P e rc e n t of E a rn E m p lo y P e rc e n t of E arn e es e m p lo y e e s in g s ees e m p lo y e e s in g s ees e m p lo y e e s ings 552,700 179,700 100 33 $1.26 790,100 348,300 100 44 $3.62 831,600 374,400 100 45 > $3.89 25,200 28,500 94,400 88,300 255,800 5 5 17 16 46 2.72 1.45 1.19 1.13 1.00 78,800 62,800 171,600 158,600 210,500 10 8 22 20 27 6.39 3.84 2.92 2.79 2.59 85,700 66,000 180,400 166,500 213,600 10 8 22 20 26 6.77 4.11 3.13 2.99 2.81 35,000 165,500 6 30 1.36 .97 25,400 127,100 3 16 3.59 2.55 26,100 140,100 3 17 3.86 2.71 125,000 8,600 20,600 8,600 18,800 23 2 4 2 3 1.55 1.61 1.63 1.72 1.44 240,100 21,900 58,200 21,400 41,900 30 3 7 3 5 4.01 3.77 3.77 3,96 3.62 258,400 25,300 63,500 23,300 42,300 31 3 8 3 5 4.27 3.93 4.00 4.13 3.86 E M P L O Y M E N T C A T E G O R IE S Professional and semiprofessional________________ Business office and sales_______________________ Clerical employees_______________________ Nonsupervisory______________________ Telephone operators______________________ Chief operators, service assistants, and instructors___________ ____ ________ Experienced switchboard operators______ Construction, installation and maintenance employees____________________________ Cable splicers___ ____________ ____ Central office repairmen_______________ Exchange repairmen__________________ PBX and station installers_____________ 1 Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends and holidays. Differentials for evening and night tours and certain prerequisites are included in averages. 2 Excludes officials and managerial assistants. (Employment estimates https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis were rounded to the nearest hundreds.) 3 An estimated 49 cents of this average is due to changes in the indus try ’s occupational mix such as illustrated in the table. Weighting occupa tional averages for 1970 by occupational employments in 1947 results in an average of $3.40 an hour instead of $3.89. 44 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Total employment (excluding officials and manager ial assistants) decreased by 3.6 percent during the year ending October 1970. Rates of pay in October 1970 for jobs mostly staffed by men averaged $3.86 for linemen and cablemen, $4.07 for traffic testing and regulating em ployees, and $4.26 for subscribers’ equipment maintainers. Nonsupervisory clerical workers (73 percent women) averaged $3.32 an hour; experienced nonMorse telegraph operators (78 percent women), $2.89; and telephone operators (89 percent women), $2.81. □ --------- FOOTNOTE---------1 The annual BLS studies of occupational wages in the telephone and telegraph industries, conducted since 1947, are based on data submitted to the Federal Communica tions Commission by telephone carriers engaged in inter state or foreign communications service by means of their own facilities, with annual revenues exceeding $1 million; the Western Union Co.; and international telegraph carriers with annual revenues exceeding $50,000. The study covered almost 90 percent of the employees in the Nation’s tele phone communications industry and almost all of the em ployees in the telegraph communications industry in late 1970. The full report on this study will be available shortly. U.S. AND U.S.S.R. CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT IN GOVERNMENT U.S. civilian government employment rose from 6.4 million in 1950 to about 12.7 million in 1969, while U.S.S.R. civilian government employment re mained virtually unchanged (1,831,000 in 1950 compared to 1,834,000 in 1969), according to offi cial reports of each nation. (See table 1.) Given that the Soviet population was more than 18 percent larger than the U.S. population in both years and that the State plays a more extensive role in Soviet society than in U.S. society, these comparisons ap pear paradoxical. A recent study by the Department of Commerce (Foreign Demographic Analysis Divi sion) has analyzed the official data and attempted to account for this paradox by adjusting the two em ployment series into “comparable classifications.” The study argues that the two series of figures represent different universes of employment. In the Soviet Union, most workers are employed by State organizations, but only those performing selected administrative functions are classified officially as https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis governmental employees. Such functions as educa tion, health, library, municipal, and postal services are classified as nongovernmental activities and re ported elsewhere. In the United States these activities comprise a large share of governmental employment; administration and law enforcement constitute only about 13 percent of the total. Thus the U.S. data covers a wider spectrum of employment than the Soviet data, and direct comparison of the two official series is invalid. When the Commerce Department adjusted Soviet data to conform with U.S. definitions of civilian gov ernment employment, the number of Soviet em ployees rose to 11.5 million in 1952 and 19.5 million in 1969. U.S. data adjusted to conform with Soviet definitions yielded a U.S. civilian government employ ment of 900,000 in 1952 and 1,475,000 in 1969. Thus, while numbers of U.S. Government employees rose faster than comparable Soviet employees, overall Soviet employment under either classification system was considerably greater than U.S. employment. Official data Total civilian employment in government in the United States rose steadily between 1950 and 1969, except for 1953 when it decreased slightly due to the drop in Federal employment. The increase during the 1960’s was greater, both numerically and proportion ately. As a proportion of total government employ ment in 1950, Federal personnel accounted for 33.1 percent, State personnel 16.5 percent, and local per sonnel 50.4 percent. By 1969 the Federal share had dropped to 23.4 percent, and the State and local shares had increased (20.6 and 56.0 percent, respec tively). Federal civilian employment increased 41 percent during the period, although a number of temporary decreases occurred, largely due to explicit attempts to reduce the total. By contrast, civilian employment in State and local governments grew steadily from the early 1950’s through 1969, increasing by 147 percent and 120 percent, respectively, during the two dec ades. Education was the largest function at both levels, accounting for one-third to two-fifths of State employment and 45 to 56 percent of local employ ment from 1952 to 1969. Other sizable functions are health services, police protection, and highway construction and maintenance. Official Soviet statistics on civilian employment in government show that between 1950 and 1960, as a result of much-publicized efforts to reduce employ- 45 RESEARCH SUMMARIES Table 1. Civilian employment in government, United States 1 and U.S.S.R.,2 as reported, 1950 to 1969 [In thousands] Year United States U.S.S.R. 1950___ ______________ 6,402 1,831 1951__________________ 1952__________________ 1953____ _____ ________ 1954__________________ 1955_________________ 6,802 7,105 7,048 7,232 7,432 1,808 1,786 1,726 1,544 1,361 1956__________________ 1957__________________ 1958__________________ 1959__________________ 1960__________________ 7,685 8,047 8,297 8,487 8,808 1,342 1,294 1,294 1,273 1,245 1961__________________ 1962__________________ 1963__________________ 1964__________________ 1965__________________ 9,100 9,388 9,736 10,064 10,589 1,295 1,316 1,308 1,354 1,460 1966__________________ 1967__________________ 1968__________________ 1969__________________ 11,388 11,867 12,342 12,691 1,546 1,651 1,736 1,834 1 U.S. data include full-time and part-time employees, except those employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, as of April for 1957 and October for all other years. 2 U.S.S.R. data are annual averages. SOURCE: C o m p a r is o n o f U .S . a n d U .S .S .R . C iv ilia n E m p lo y m e n t in Gov e r n m e n t , 1 9 5 0 - 1 9 6 9 , In t e r n a t io n a l P o p u la tio n R e p o rts , Series P-95, Np. 69 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administra tion, 1972), table 1. ment in administration, the number of persons em ployed by the government decreased about one-third. Since 1960 the total has risen nearly every year, and by 1969 it was more than 47 percent above the 1960 level, although the overall rise was only 3,000. The number of civilians officially reported as employed by the government declined significantly during the last two decades—from 4.5 percent of total state employment in 1950 to a low of 2.0 percent in 1960 (2.1 percent in 1969). The distribution of civilian government employ ment in the U.S.S.R. was estimated from official re ports to have been 11.4 percent at the central, 43.7 percent at the regional, and 44.9 percent at the local level in 1967, compared with 13.1, 33.5, and 53.4 percent, respectively, in 1950. The increase in per sonnel at the regional level and the significant de cline at the local level is probably accounted for by the extensive program to enlarge local administra tive districts and rural soviets during the 1950’s and 1960’s. Adjusted data To obtain a valid assessment of civilian govern ment employment in the United States and U.S.S.R., the study adjusted both data series for greater com https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis parability: U.S. data are adjusted to full-time equiva lents to obtain a measure more equal to the Soviet concept of annual average employment; Soviet data are adjusted to include police and full-time party personnel who are not classified as government em ployees by Soviet standards but considered here to be utilized as such. The comparison of adjusted data, as shown in table 2, indicates that government employment in the United States is less than that estimated for com parable activities in the U.S.S.R.— about 55 percent of the Soviet total in 1952 and about 57 percent in 1969. Growth of this employment, however, was slightly higher in the United States, but the amount of increase in the U.S.S.R. (8,039,000) was consid erably higher than that in the United States (4,688,000). In both countries most of the growth occurred during the years 1962-69. U.S. employment in general administration (which includes financial administration, police protection, correction, national defense, and international rela tions) rose steadily during the period shown but re mained at 13-14 percent of the total. Nearly twothirds of the increase took place after 1.962; the largest share of the increase was in police protection, which more than doubled in size. Comparable Soviet employment is estimated to have decreased slightly during the period, dropping from 25 percent of total government employment in 1952 to 14 percent in 1962, where it has remained. The largest share of government employment in both countries is in selected services. U.S. employ ment in this group was 53 percent of government employment in 1952 and 64 percent in 1969; simi lar Soviet employment increased from 51 to 63 per cent of the total. The group more than doubled in both countries, with the U.S. total remaining about 58 percent of the U.S.S.R. total. Within this group, education is the largest func tion in both countries— 25 percent of total U.S. Gov ernment employment in 1952 and 37 percent in 1969, and 26 and 29 percent, respectively, in Soviet government employment. U.S. employment in edu cation rose 154 percent during these years, while Soviet education personnel increased by slightly more than 93 percent. Health services, the next largest category in both countries, constituted approximately 8 to 10 percent of total government employment in the United States but 19 to 25 percent in the Soviet Union. The U.S. share is smaller primarily because U.S. nongovernment employment— an estimated two- 46 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Table 2. Civilian employment in government, United States1 and U.S.S.R.,2 by function, according to U.S. classification, 1952 to 1969 [In thousands] 1952 1957 1962 1967 1969 F u n c tio n U n ite d U .S .S .R . S ta te s Total__________________________________________ General administration_______ ______ _______ Selected services........................................ Education____________________________ ___________ Health services._ _ ................... . . Libraries, museums, zoos, and parks_______ Municipal services______________________ Postal service3____________________ _____ Public welfare___ ______________ Social insurance and employment security administration ____ Other________ ____ ____________ __________ 6,370 U n ite d U .S .S .R . S ta te s 11,478 7,166 U n ite d U .S .S .R . S ta te s 12,289 U n ite d U .S .S .R . S ta te s 8,425 14,828 10,363 U n ite d U .S .S .R . S ta te s 17,988 11,058 19,517 860 2,876 939 2,158 1,071 2,109 1,317 2,563 1,421 2,829 3,354 5,832 4,143 7,193 5,141 9,215 6,514 11,275 7,080 12,208 1,598 513 39 511 493 122 78 2,956 2,193 (200) 221 240 (4) 22 2,094 729 33 560 509 145 74 3,463 2,849 (200) 332 319 (4) 30 2,730 875 45 647 568 177 99 4,276 3,761 (250) 484 407 (4) 37 3,666 1,031 54 705 682 257 118 5,288 4,477 (250) 584 633 (4t 43 4,065 1,097 60 750 706 280 122 5,722 4,853 (250) 642 695 (4) 46 2,156 2,770 2,085 2,938 2,212 3,504 2,531 4,150 2,556 4,480 214 27 59 6 314 578 200 33 23 22 256 53 64 11 381 285 60 68 9 406 835 (275) 67 175 51 Agricultural services and natural resources_________ ____ Air transportation___________________________ __ _ Electric power_____________ i Gas supply.., _______ _________ Highways (rural)_____________________________ ________ 205 25 53 3 253 Housing and urban renewal____________________________ Industrial, maintenance, supply, research, and other activities of Department of Defense____________________ __________ Printing______________ _____ Research and technical services (nondefense)_______________ 19 278 26 322 34 377 42 465 51 496 1,233 8 66 (824) 196 67 1,082 6 60 (812) 223 98 982 7 76 (760) 256 179 1,176 8 99 (805) 289 231 1,150 8 94 (825) 302 253 72 26 193 138 26 345 73 24 193 250 42 335 72 23 254 381 49 446 80 27 279 542 50 490 87 30 308 589 62 550 Transit (local)_________ _________ _ . . Water transport and terminals______ Other and unallocable . _ ............. ........................................ 643 (200) 23 13 17 1 U.S. data are full-tim e equivalents as of April for 1957 and October for all other years, excluding employment in the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. 2 U.S.S.R. data are annual averages. Figures in parenthesis are arbitrary estimates. 3 Soviet figures are reported as of various times during the different years and are not annual averages. thirds of the total employment in health services in 1967— is excluded. Employment in municipal serv ices is a small portion of the total in both countries, particularly in the Soviet Union (2 to 3 percent). The “Other” group in table 2 constituted more than one-third of total U.S. Government employment in 1952 but slightly less than one-quarter in 1969. Soviet employment in this group remained at about one-quarter during the period. The comparison of certain functions in this group is strongly affected by the sizable portion of total U.S. employment in air transportation, housing and urban renewal, and transit in the private sector. Highway employment in the United States, representing aproximately 4 per cent of the total, is considerably larger than in the Soviet Union and reflects the United States’ larger highway network. The largest category in this group for the United States is “Industrial, maintenance, supply, research, and other activities of the Depart ment of Defense,” a catch-all group which consti https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 690 (225) 47 61 33 284 54 67 8 409 778 (250) 64 139 47 4 Not applicable. SOURCE: C o m p a ris o n e rn m e n t, 1 9 5 0 -1 9 6 9 , o f U .S . a n d U .S .S .R . C iv ilia n E m p lo y m e n t in G ov In t e r n a t io n a l P o p u la tio n R e p o r ts , Series P-95, No. 69 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administra tion, 1972, table 3. tuted 19 percent of total government employment in 1952 and 10 percent in 1969. Despite a smaller armed force during most of the period, U.S. civilian employment in this function ranged from onequarter to one-half larger than that estimated for the Soviet Union, perhaps because many functions per formed by civilian personnel in the United States are performed by the military in the Soviet Union. The study also provides a detailed comparison of U.S. and Soviet government employment adjusted to U.S.S.R. classifications, as well as additional statisti cal material and a detailed discussion of meth odology. Recently published under the title, Com parison of U.S. and U.S.S.R. Civilian Employment in Government: 1950-1969 (International Popula tion Reports, Series P-95, No. 69), the study is available from the Department of Commerce, Social and Economics Statistics Administration, Washing ton, D.C. 20230. □ 47 RESEARCH SUMMARIES MEDICAL CARE SPENDING SINCE MEDICARE P ersonal health care spending 1 in the United States totaled over $65 billion in 1971— up 11 per cent from 1970 and almost 80 percent from 1966, the year before Medicare began operation. Increased use of services, improvements in the quality of med ical care, intensified public spending, along with spiraling prices for medical care, are the major fac tors in the increase, according to Barbara S. Cooper and Nancy L. Worthington, writing in the Social Security Bulletin.2 The rate of increase in medical spending was approximately the same for three age groups in 1971— 10.6 percent for those under 19 and those age 19 to 64, and 11.6 percent for those 65 and over— closing the gap that had occurred in the first 2 years of Medicare when spending increases for the aged were almost double those of the other age groups. Still, in 1971, one-quarter of medical ex penditures went for the aged, who make up only one-tenth of the population. Health care expenditures for the aged averaged $861, over 6 times those for youth ($140) and al most 3 times the average ($323) for persons age 19 to 64. Hospital care was the largest expenditure for the two older groups; physicians’ service charges predominated for the young. In whatever category, the amount was the highest for the aged. Government, private health insurance, philan thropy, and industry (through in-plant services) paid a substantial part of the individual’s medical bills— three-fifths for persons under age 65 and nearly three-fourths for the aged. This represents a sizable increase from 1966, when individuals paid about half their medical costs. Government’s share of the cost has risen from 22 percent in 1966 to 36 percent in 1971 for all persons, and nearly triple the 1966 rate for the aged. Medicare payments totaled about a third of the health care bill for the aged in the program’s first year, rose to 45 percent in 1969, but declined to 42 percent in 1971 because of tightened regulations for reimbursement of ex tended care, hospital, and physicians’ services. The aged person’s average out-of-pocket payment dropped from more than one-half of his 1966 medical bill to about one-fourth in 1971, but because of the increased use of services and higher prices the amount he paid directly in 1971 ($225) was only https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis slightly lower than the amount in the earlier year ($234). For persons under age 65, the average outof-pocket payment grew 31 percent, from $79 in 1966 to $104 in 1971. After adjustment for population and price in creases, the 1967-71 growth in expenditures attrib utable to increased use of medical and improved facilities and improved technology is estimated to be 17 percent for the youth, 10 percent for the inter mediate ages, and more than 26 percent for the aged. □ --------- FOOTNOTES---------1 Personal health care spending includes all expenditures for health and medical services received by individuals and excludes expenditures for medical facilities construction, medical research, and public health activities, such as dis ease prevention and control, which do not directly benefit individuals. Also excluded are the net cost of insurance (the difference between health insurance premiums and benefits paid), the administrative expenses of several public pro grams, and some expenses of philanthropic organizations. 2 Barbara S. Cooper and Nancy L. Worthington, “Medical Care Spending for Three Age Groups,” Social Security Bul letin, May 1972, pp. 3-16. INPUT-OUTPUT TABLES UPDATED TO 1966 As part of its continuing program of input-output work, the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce has updated the 1963 input-output tables to 1966. The 1966 tables measure interindustry transactions for 85 industries in three ways: what each industry sold to and bought from every other industry; what each industry re quired directly from every other industry to produce $1 of gross output; and what each industry required directly and indirectly from every other industry for each dollar of deliveries to final demand. Data for the total output and final market pur chases of each industry are based directly on 1966 statistics. Intermediate input data are estimated from 1963 relationships, which have been modified to include changes from 1963 to 1966 in the relative prices of the inputs and in the average demand for a product due to changes in technology, scale, product mix, and other factors. The 1966 updating has been published in Depart- 48 ment of Commerce BEA Staff Paper in Economics and Statistics, No. 19. The Staff Paper also contains two supplementary tables which measure the impact of each category of final demand (personal con sumption expenditures, gross exports, Federal Gov ernment purchases, and others) on the output of every industry, and the change from 1963 to 1966 in industrial requirements for each industry’s output. A summary of methodology is also included. Copies of the Staff Paper (Accession Number 7210299) may be purchased for $3 in print or 95 cents in microfiche from the National Technical In formation Service, Springfield, Va. 22151. □ DAYS LOST FROM WORK BECAUSE OF ILLNESS OR INJURY e s t im a t e d 412.6 million workdays— 5.4 per worker— were lost because of illness or injury, ac cording to the Health Interview Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1968. Women averaged more days lost than did men, particularly among workers age 25 to 44. Overall, women lost an average of 5.9 days in 1968, com pared with 5.2 days for men. Workers of both sexes age 45 and over reported more days lost per person than did their younger counterparts. As family income level rose, the number of workloss days per person declined. Workers with a family income of less than $3,000 lost an average of 7.0 days; those whose family income was $15,000 or more, 4.4. Workdays lost were also inversely related to educational attainment, a pattern which held for each age and sex group. Overall, workers who com pleted less than 9 years of schooling lost more than twice as many days as those completing 16 years or more. White workers experienced a lower average num ber of days lost from work than did members of An https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 racial minority groups, 5.1 and 8.1 respectively. The disparity was largest for workers age 45 and over. Employees of the Federal Government averaged 6.8 days lost per person; employees of other govern ment and paid employees in the private sector, 5.4 days; self-employed persons, 5.0. Federal employees received an estimated 86.9 percent of earnings for the 19.9 million workdays lost; other government workers, 86.6 percent for the 44.5 million days; paid employees in the private sector, 45.1 percent for the 302.6 million days. The survey sample included persons in the civilian noninstitutional population who had a job or business during the 2-week period prior to the survey week. Time Lost From Work Among The Currently Em ployed Population, United States, 1968, Vital and Health Statistics Series 10—No. 71, is available for 50 cents from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402. Technical notes on meth ods and definition of terms used in the report are included in the appendixes. □ DIRECTORY OF SPANISH SURNAMED COLLEGE GRADUATES, 1 9 7 1 -1 9 7 2 to assist firms and agencies striving to meet affirmative action goals of increasing minority employment, the Cabinet Committee on Opportunity for the Spanish Speaking has published a directory showing the names, addresses, and major fields of study of Spanish surnamed college graduates. The information was obtained by the Committee on a voluntary basis from colleges and universities throughout the United States in areas where there are significant numbers of this minority group. Single copies of Spanish Surnamed American Col lege Graduates, 1971-1972 (878 pages, in 2 parts) are available from the committee, 1800 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506. □ In an e f f o r t SOVIET TRADE UNION CONGRESS URGED TO INCREASE MEMBERS’ PRODUCTIVITY EDMUND NASH 98 million Soviet trade union members and observers from over 100 foreign trade union organizations met in Moscow, March 20-24, for the 15th Congress of Soviet Trade Unions. Speeches of Party trade union leaders indi cate that the main purpose of the Congress, as of previous Congresses, was to stimulate the trade unions to get their members (about 97 percent of all wage and salary earners) to increase and improve production. Leonid Brezhnev, First Secretary of the Com munist Party, called upon workers and management to increase their efforts to fulfill the ninth Five-Year Economic Plan (1971-75), decided upon by the Party and the Government. In this connection, he said, it would be necessary to have stricter enforce ment of labor discipline, wider use of material and moral incentives to increase production, greater pro motion by unions of “socialist competition in pro duction” among workers, and faster introduction of new technology into the production process. He re peated the line stressed at the 24th Party Congress last year that the Party will continue to increase trade union responsibilities and see that the trade unions worthily perform their role as “schools of government, schools of management, and schools of communism.” He announced that the Order of Lenin, the highest in the U.S.S.R., had been con ferred on the trade unions in recognition of their “great services” in “the successful fulfillment” of the eighth Five-Year Economic Plan (1966-70). Alexander Shelepin, chairman of the All-Union R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s o f t h e Edmund Nash is an economist in the Division of Foreign Labor Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics. This report is based on the author’s more detailed unpublished study, “The Fifteenth Congress of the Soviet Trade Unions.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Central Council of Trade Unions, which implements trade union policies between Congresses, prescribed what the trade unions should do to promote greater and more efficient production in all branches of the national economy. He indicated three major goals: (1) to promote the full use of labor, materials, and equipment, especially workers’ experience and tech nological advances; (2) to inculcate in workers the “Communist attitude toward work,” so as to increase labor productivity and to fulfill production plans; and (3) to improve the trade union organization (including the selection and training of personnel) to make union locals more effective in their ideolog ical, educational, safety, and production-promoting activities. As an indication of the trade unions’ function in the U.S.S.R. to administer programs that further not only the workers’ welfare but also the ideological and economic aims of the Party, Shelepin exhorted the unions “to continue to educate the trade union aktiv (unpaid volunteer workers) in a spirit of high responsibility for the implementation of party and government directives and the decisions of trade union organs.” He urged trade unions to check more diligently on the enforcement of labor discipline in cases involving drunkenness, loafing on the job, and theft of government property, and to concern them selves more with the organization of cultural and physical activities for workers in their leisure time. He also called upon union locals to check on the implementation of work safety regulations, and on the availability and quality of consumer services. Other business of the Congress included the re port of the Central Auditing Commission, which oversees the expenditure of trade union and state social insurance funds, and the fiscal management of a wide network of trade union cultural institutions, sport facilities, sanatoriums, and other organized ac tivities. It cited a more than 40-percent increase in trade union expenditures. Two-thirds of these ex penditures were covered by union dues, and the re maining third by income derived from trade union 49 50 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 activities, including the showing of motion pictures and sales of trade union publications. The Commis sion also noted that it was necessary to continue im proving the work of auditing commissions that check on the financial activities of trade union bodies. These commissions have about 2 million elected members working without pay. The Congress approved statements condemning the use of armed forces and the detention of “polit ical prisoners” in Northern Ireland, and “the ag gressive policy of the ruling circles in Israel against the people of Arab states with the direct support of U.S.A. imperialism and the international forces of Zionism.” It unanimously adopted a resolution call ing for an end of “the American war of aggression” in Indochina. Amendments to the Constitution of Trade Unions passed by the Congress provided that the unions will establish and maintain contacts with trade unions in other countries, regardless of their social, ethnic, political, or religious character, and asserted the right of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions to issue instructions clarifying existing labor laws. Delegates are to meet every 5 years, rather than every 4 as in the past, to coincide with the period of the government’s Five-Year Economic Plans.1 □ --------- FOOTNOTE---------1 The complete text of the decision on amendments to the trade union constitution appears in Trud, Mar. 25, 1972, p. 4. For the basic provisions of the constitution, see Princi pal Current Soviet Labor Legislation (BLS Report 210, 1962), pp. 112-119; also subsequent amendments (BLS Report 358, 1969), p. 22. SOCIAL AND WELFARE PROGRAMS FOR THE HANDICAPPED ABROAD THERESA F. BUCCHIERI G o v e r n m e n t ’s a w a r e n e s s of the potential abilities of handicapped persons to develop skills, become gainfully employed, and earn regular wages has re sulted in an upsurge of sheltered workshops in several European countries.1 Through these workTheresa. F. Bucchieri was formerly with the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis shops, the handicapped persons are rehabilitated and gainfully employed, either in the workshop or in industry, depending upon their emotional stability. Methods of financing, operating, and supervising rehabilitation centers vary. In Croydon, England, a government-supported rehabilitation center enlists the support of industry to provide occupational re adjustment and sheltered employment for most categories of disabled persons. A panel of indus trialists provide advice on work opportunities and related matters. The assessment and rehabilitation section of the unit simulates realistic working condi tions, measures productivity, and is concerned with the reaction of workers to stresses and industrial pressure. Length of stay here is normally restricted to 6 months. A 35-hour 5-day workweek is in force. In the sheltered workshop section, the trainees, working a 40-hour week, have reached full wage earning status. The men earn a naverage of £ 14 ($34) a week, and the women about <£11 ($26.50). Transportation costs to and from the establishment (up to 50 cents daily) are reimbursed and mid-day meals in the cafeteria are supplied free of charge. Trainees are eligible to receive 2 weeks of paid vacation annually. The Croydon center can accommodate 150 train ees. A review panel meets weekly to consider re quests for admission. An applicant is eligible if he is medically approved as suitable; is over 16 years of age; has a good industrial therapy record or reasonable outside employment background; is of socially accepted disposition; is able to travel inde pendently; is residentially qualified as a Croydon responsibility; and is considered unemployable in open industry at time of referral. In Norway, workers who are unable to enter regu lar industry because of physical or mental dis ability are offered employment in the “social” work shops administered by local authorities. As stipulated in social and labor laws, the workshop employment must correspond as closely as possible to normal outside employment. After 1 year of training, about 30 percent of the workers are placed in private industry, with a 2-year followup, and the rest remain gainfully employed in the workshop. All wages are based on individual productivity and are geared to union wages for nonhandicapped work ers performing similar work. There are three cate gories of hourly earnings: Low, 5 kroner ($0.70); average, 10 kroner ($1.40); and top, 15 kroner 51 FOREIGN LABOR BRIEFS ($2.10). When a workshop worker receives 15 kroner per hour, he is ready for outside industrial employment. Care for the handicapped in Denmark falls under the aegis of the State. The Ministry of Social Affairs administers the Rehabilitation Act providing for vocational instruction and training of the disabled. It supervises recognized training institutions for the care of the handicapped, such as the Society and Home for Cripples in Copenhagen. The society operates or assists in the management of rehabilita tion establishments, including hospitals and hospital departments for orthopedic treatment and physical medicine, schools for disabled children, and educa tion and training institutions for young handicapped persons. The vocational schools run by the society train physically handicapped persons in a trade or in officework, which will make it possible for them to compete on equal terms with nondisabled workers. They complete their 4-year apprenticeship with a journeyman’s probation. If apprenticeship training cannot be completed because of the severity of the disability, the school tries to develop the trainee’s skill in a special trade so he can be placed as a semiskilled worker in an industrial enterprise or, in the case of the most seriously disabled, in a sheltered workshop. Wage payments in the sheltered workshops are based on union standards and are geared to the local prevailing rates for comparable work. The National Foundation for the Rehabilitation of the Handicapped operates about 150 sheltered workshops in Belgium. The Ligue Braille, a voca tional center and workshop for the blind, employs some 80 blind persons who are engaged in assembl ing operations, printing, and chair caning. These employed persons receive a monthly pen sion of 5,000 francs ($100) in addition to wages earned per week. The law provides certain minimum hourly rates for five categories according to the degree of handicaps, as follows: In francs 1 2 3 4 5 .................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 20 25 30 35 40 In U.S. dollars 0.40 .50 .60 .70 .80 The employed blind person normally earns from 55 to 75 francs ($1 to $1.50) an hour. □ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NEW MANPOWER PROGRAM IN NORWAY A n u m b e r of measures are being undertaken in Nor way to reorient its manpower policy toward cur rent economic and social conditions. The broad lines of reform, set forth in a White Paper of 1969 and approved by the Parliament, are intended to imple ment recommendations of the ILO (International Labor Office) on full employment and of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and De velopment) on an active manpower policy.1 Many of the measures, although originally de signed to cope with the tight labor market of the 1960’s, are also relevant to periods of greater un employment. The OECD Observer reported recently that great weight is given to removing obstacles to the employment of people who could be considered as additions to the labor force but against whom there is, everywhere and always, discrimination—older work ers and the handicapped. Facilitating the entry of women into the labor force is considered another important means of supplementing manpower resources.2 The new programs relating to employment include provisions to extend sheltered workshops and de velop a rehabilitation center at T r o m ^ for handi capped workers, to create language and orientation courses for foreign workers, and to establish day nurseries and an equal opportunity committee for women wishing to enter the labor force. Protection against unemployment is provided for older workers under new measures which entitle them to longer notice before separation and longer unemployment benefits, up to 52 weeks a year until the worker reaches pensionable age. Other employment measures expand unemployment benefits for younger workers as well (increasing coverage from 20 to 21 weeks) and bolster placement services by expanding their professional staff and by initiating an “open recep tion” policy to make information more accessible to job-seekers. Norway’s already extensive program for stabiliza tion of employment during the winter months has been enlarged by a winter building scheme which subsidizes private housing construction between November and May or June where climatic condi tions are extreme, at a rate of 3,000 to 4,000 Nor wegian kroner (approximately $450-600) per house 52 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 or apartment. In addition, the Government will launch public works projects and grant subsidies to municipalities to stabilize seasonal fluctuations in employment. Other measures in the manpower program attempt to even out regional differences in Norway, which are more marked than in most other countries be cause of the inaccessibility of the Northern regions and the division of the country into vertical mountain ranges and valleys. Transport subsidies and invest ment grants have been introduced to encourage in dustry to move to “development centers;” Govern ment committees have been established which must be informed of all plans to invest in overcrowded areas such as Oslo and may recommend alternative locations in zones with less pressure on economic resources. Also, the Ministry of Labor has been authorized to compensate (ordinarily up to 50,000 kroners or about $7,460) persons or families who leave a “difficult area” where they are unlikely to be able to earn an adequate income. Norway’s new manpower program also provides for a sample survey of labor market conditions at regular intervals. □ ----------F O O T N O TE S---------1 The report of the OECD examiners, together with the conclusions of its Manpower and Social Affairs Committee, are being published under the title, M anpower Policies in Norway. 2 “Norway’s Manpower Policies,” OECD Observer, April 1972, pp. 3-5. High-level student migration Although he is often treated with other high-level migrants in general statistics and in discussions, the student migrant is dif ferent. He is usually younger and less experi enced in an occupational role than other high-level migrants. His decision to migrate for study is probably less related to ultimate occupational objectives than the decision of an older, more mature professional person, and his decision to migrate following study, although linked to work goals, is made with less hindsight than that of the previously employed. His niche in the economic struc ture at home or “abroad” is not carved out and presumably his migration does not dis turb a functioning economic system in the same way the migration of an established professional might. He is human capital in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis formation; he has more of his economically productive life ahead of him that most other high-level migrants. . . . Student migrants have already made at least one migration decision, to study abroad. But they must face a second decision—to remigrate following study or to remain abroad, becoming a “permanent” rather than a “temporary” migrant. If a student re mains abroad, he enters the brain drain statistics, but until the decision is made, he represents a potential gain to his area of origin. — R obert G. M yers, Education and Emigration (New York, David McKay Co., Inc., 1972). Significant Decisions in Labor Cases The power to arbitrate A n a r b it r a t o r has no greater freedom in provid ing make-whole remedies in refusal-to-bargain situ ations than does the National Labor Relations Board. His authority does not reach beyond the stipulation of the contractual arbitration clause. In the case discussed here (Steelworkers v. U.S. Gypsum Co.1), a successor employer refused to honor his predecessor’s collective bargaining agree ment and the union demanded that the dispute be arbitrated as the agreement provided. Since the new employer declined to deal with the union, the arbi tration was ordered by a Federal court of appeals at the union’s request. One of the issues submitted to the arbitrator was that of the contract’s provision for a wage reopener. The new owner contended that, like the rest of the contract, the reopener clause did not concern him and refused to bargain. Inasmuch as the appellate court’s arbitration order, in effect, declared the successor company bound by the existing agreement, the arbitrator found that the new owner had violated that agree ment by its conduct. But the finding came almost 6 years after the violation and more than 4 years after decertification of the union in question. Under these circumstances, ordering a negotiation would have been impractical. The arbitrator decided to award a wage increase to the aggrieved employees on the basis of his own judgment. He ordered the successor employer to pay the employees an hourly wage increase of 10 cents, an amount upon which, he assumed, the parties would have agreed had they engaged in bar gaining. The award was retroactive to the date of the reopener and carried a 6-percent interest com- Significant Decisions in Labor Cases” is written by Eugene Skotzko, Office of Publications, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis pounded quarterly. The total amount was to be paid to the decertified union for distribution among the employees. (Since subsequent to the reopener date the company unilaterally granted an hourly 6-cent raise, the arbitrator’s award for the period of that increase was to be only 4 cents an hour.) On appeal by the successor, a Federal district court held the award invalid. It was contrary to the H. K. Porter Co.2 principle that the terms of a collec tive bargaining agreement cannot be determined by any authority but must be agreed upon by the par ties themselves. In Porter, the U.S. Supreme Court had said that the NLRB “is without power to com pel a company or a union to agree to any substan tive contractual provision of a collective bargaining agreement.” Here the district court ruled that the arbitrator’s “recourse . . . (of, in effect, determining what the parties would have agreed to had negotia tions been conducted) [was not] sustainable and in deed must be set aside as beyond his jurisdiction.” It was not impossible, said the district court, for the parties to have written an arbitration clause giv ing an arbitrator the authority to make a contract for them if that were necessary. But they did not do so. Their clause read as follows: “The arbitrator shall only have jurisdiction and authority to interpret, apply, or determine compliance with the provisions of this agreement. The arbitrator shall not have juris diction or authority to add to, detract from, or alter in any way the provisions of this contract. The deci sion of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties.” The court concluded, “Arbitration here has had the result of the arbitrator’s making a new contract” for the purpose of a wage scale, a function for which the clause did not provide. (The decision also dealt with the problems—not included in this report—of an apparent inconsistency between the Wiley3 and Porter decisions in their application to situations of employer successorship, and of dues checkoff and attorney’s fee awarded by the arbitrator.) 53 54 Picketing foreign-flag ships Interference with foreign trade and commerce is not a sufficient cause for exempting a labor dispute from the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s ban on antilabor injunctions. Recently, a Federal court of appeals refused to create such an exemption because the Supreme Court had already ruled “squarely to the contrary” in a situation virtually identical with that in the present case (Port Authority v. Masters, Mates & Pilots*). The Port of Houston Authority sought to enjoin a peaceful picketing of several ships flying foreign flags. The picketing was intended to inform the public about the decline of job opportunities to U.S. seamen because of the use of foreign-registry vessels, and about the substandard wages and working condi tions on such ships. Other workers refused to cross the picket lines, and the boats could not be unloaded. The Authority maintained that, since the foreign ships were in international commerce and entered the U.S. ports under the protection of international treaties, the picketing not only interfered with this country’s commerce with friendly nations but also violated the treaties in question— the laws of the land. Such labor activity should be among the exemp tions from the ban of the Norris-LaGuardia Act so that it could be enjoined. Upholding a district court’s refusal to enjoin the picketing for lack of jurisdiction, the appellate court listed eight categories of exemption,5 some expressly statutory, others court-created, but not including in terference with foreign trade and commerce in vio lation of underlying international treaties. Further more, the court pointed out, in 1960 the Supreme Court decided a very similar case, involving a picket ing “of the same type, for the same purpose, and in much the same style” (Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Panamanian Steamship Co.6). There the High Court “specifically rejected the idea that the NorrisLaGuardia Act contained an exception for inter ference with foreign trade or commerce.” In conclusion the appellate court observed, “The Norris-LaGuardia Act restriction on the power of Federal courts to issue injunctions in labor disputes is virtually intact after 40 years. The exception to it, whether statutory or court-fashioned, are narrow in deed. The exception sought by the Port Authority here is not within any existing exception and is be yond our authority.” (In Marine Cooks, the Supreme Court did not https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 say why interference with commerce in violation of international treaties does not merit exemption from the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s ban on antilabor injunc tions, as do, for instance, the situation involving fraud or secondary boycotts. The High Court merely stated, “Though the employer here was for eign, the dispute was domestic.” (Footnote 12.) And it explained: “Congress passed the NorrisLaGuardia Act to curtail and regulate the jurisdic tion of courts, not . . . of people engaged in labor disputes. As we pointed out in the Benz case [353 U.S. 138j, a ship that voluntarily enters the terri torial limits of this country subjects itself to our laws and jurisdiction as they exist. The fact that a foreign ship enters a U.S. court as a plaintiff cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of that court. . . .” (At p. 372). For a discussion of the effect of U.S. labor laws on the flag-of-convenience fleet, the Court re ferred to 69 Yale Law Journal, pp. 498 and 516— 525.) Unlawful dues checkoff An employee quit her job because of ill health, but failed to revoke her authorization for union dues checkoff. About 3 years later the company recalled her to a different kind of job. This time she was not required to file an application, received a higher than the beginning rate of pay, and was not asked to pay an initiation fee as a union member; but she did lose the seniority she had acquired during the time of her previous employment. The union did not consider her to be a “new em ployee.” It asked the company to deduct union dues from her pay under the old authorization, and the company complied. There was no union-security agreement, but automatic dues deductions from the wages of the recalled employees who had not re voked previous authorizations was a regular practice. Was the deduction of dues under these circum stances lawful? No, said the NLRB: “. . . It is clear from the record that when [the employee] left the employ of the . . . company she had no intention of returning and had no reasonable expectancy of reem ployment. . . . In short, [her] employer-employee relationship was completely severed.” She returned to the company as a new employee. ( Cavalier Indus tries, Inc?) But what about the unrevoked dues-checkoff au thorization? The Board said: it is now well settled that dues deduction after a valid revocation of the SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES 55 authorization is illegal (a violation of section 8( a) ( 2) of the LM RA). “Certainly the same result is justified where, as here, the checkoff authorization has been extinguished by the employee’s cessation of employment.” 8 What’s more, “checkoff of dues, under these circumstances, would encourage mem bership in the union in violation of section 8( a) ( 3) and . . . the union’s causation of such a deduction . . . is accordingly violative of section 8( b) ( 2) of the act.” The employee was not obligated to join the 1 D.C.-N.D. Ala., No. 71-248, Feb. 24, 1972. 2 397 U.S. 99 (1970); see Monthly Labor Review, May 1970, pp. 71-72. 3 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (1964); see Monthly Labor Review, May 1964, p. 564. 4 Port of Houston Authority v. Masters, Mates and Pilots (C.A. 5, No. 72-1010, Mar. 2, 1972). 5 The court listed the following situations exempted from application of the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s ban on antilabor injunctions: fraud; violence; the 80-day prestrike cooling- union and pay dues. Deductions could be made only if she signed a new authorization, that is, if she rejoin the union as a new member. Both the union and the employer were found to have violated the LMRA and ordered to discontinue the practice of checking off union dues from wages “pursuant to checkoff authorizations which are no longer valid because of break in employment.” Both were ordered to reimburse the employee, jointly and severally, for the deductions already made. □ off period under the LMRA, if the strike threatens national health or safety; a temporary relief requested by the NLRB in instances of unfair labor practices or secondary boycotts; enforcement of NLRB orders; express exception in equal employment opportunity provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; minor railroad disputes; and strikes called in violation of no-strike agreements with provisions for a binding arbitration. 6 362 U.S. 365 (1960); see Monthly Labor Review, June 1960, pp. 625-626. The welfare morass With welfare, what you’re dealing with are people who have simply fallen out of the employment market. No one really needs them. No one wants them. The ques tion then is, Do you slow down the production machine and put them to work, even though it would be inefficient? Do you do what we’re doing at the moment, which is just paying people to stay away? Or do you do the third choice, which is taxing the private economy to put these people to work in the public area? https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — G eo rg e S t e r n l i e b , quoted in Bruce Porter, “Welfare Won’t Work, But What Will?” Saturday Review, June 3, 1972. Major Agreements Expiring Next Month This list of collective bargaining agreements expiring in September is based on contracts on file in the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more in all industries except government. Number of workers Industry Union 1 A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co. (Decatur, III.)______ Acme Markets, Inc., Division No. 7 (New Jersey)____ Admiral Corp. (Chicago, III.)...................... .. ............. Alatex, Inc. (Alabama and Florida)________________ . Associated Men’s Wear Retailers of New York, Inc. (New York, N.Y.) Food products Retail trade Electrical products . Apparel Retail trade . . .................. ......... . . . 1,850 2,200 3,000 3,100 2,000 Avco Corp., Avco Ordnance Division (Richmond, Ind.)______ Buffalo Forge Co. (Buffalo, N.Y.)____ _____ ____________________ California Bakery Employers Association (California)........ ............. Campbell Soup Co. (Fayetteville, Ark.)___ . . Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (Interstate)......... ... .............................. Consolidated Gas Supply Corp. (Interstate)________ Ordnance.. Machinery. Food products Allied Industrial W orkers............. ....... Retail Clerks. _ ...................................... Electrical Workers (IBEW)__.................. Clothing Workers_________ _________ Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union. Electrical Workers (IBEW )...................... Steelworkers______________________ Teamsters (Ind .)____ _____ ________ Meat Cutters___ . Electrical Workers (IBEW)..................... Allegheny Mountain Gas Workers' Union (Ind.) Allied Industrial Workers.............. ......... Electrical Workers (IB E W ).____ _____ _ _ ___ Meat Cutters........................ Hotel and Restaurant Employees........... Allied Industrial Workers____________ Carpenters..................... ............... ......... Office and Professional Employees......... Steelworkers............................................. Meat Cutters_________ ____________ Niagara Hooker Employees Union (Ind.). Hotel and Restaurant Employees_____ Building and Construction Trades Council; and Teamsters (Ind.). Grain M illers............................................ Clothing Workers . .............. Textile Workers Union.. . . ................ Machinists______ __________ _____ .do........................................ ........... Electrical Workers (IBEW )_____ _____ 2,000 2,300 1,100 1,000 2,200 1,250 1,300 1,250 1,200 2,500 1,700 2,500 1,000 Company and location do Communication Utilities.. Eaton Corp., Fuller Transmission Division (Kalamazoo, Mich.)_________ _ Electrical Contractors Association of The City of Chicago (Chicago and Cook County, III.). First National Stores, Inc. (Massachusetts)________ . . . _______ Frank G. Shattuck Co. (New York and New Jersey)........................... FWD Corp. (Clintonville, Wis.)_____________ _____ ___________ General Contractors Labor Association (Honolulu, Hawaii)____________ _____ General Dynamics Corp. (Fort Worth, T e x .).__ _______________________ ___ __ General Fireproofing Co. (Youngstown, Ohio). ..................... _ _ ................. ......... General Foods Corp., Jell-O/Dover Operations (Dover, Del.)_____________ ______ Hooker Chemical Corp. (Niagara Falls, N.Y.)_________________ _________ ____ Retail trade Retail trade Transportation equipment . Construction Transportation equipment . Furniture Food products Chemicals _ Hotels and Motels Agreement (Washington, D.C.)2 ______________________ . Kaiser Steel Corp. Eagle Mountain Mine (Eagle Mountain, Calif)_______ _________ Hotels___ M ining... Kellogg Co. (In te rs ta te )............... ............. .......................................................... Levi Strauss & Co. (Arkansas and Tennessee)......... ..................... .................... Maremont Corp., New England Division (Saco, Maine)___ Mason & Hanger—Silas Mason Co., Inc., (Burlington, Iowa).. _ __________________ Morse Chain Co. (Ithaca, N.Y.) _____________ National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. South Florida Chaper (Wiremen’s Agreement) (Florida). New York Movie Theatres Agreement (New York, N. Y.) 2 . . . Painting and Decorating Contractors of America, Tri-County Chapter (Florida)____ Pet, Inc., Dairy Division (Interstate)_____ Philadelphia Hotel-Motor Inn Association (Philadelphia, Pa.).......... _ Prestige Structures, Inc. (Charlotte, Mich.)_______________ _____________ Food products____ Apparel Machinery Ordnance .. Machinery . Construction Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Interstate)................................ .. .......... ............... Retail Apparel Merchants Association, Inc., 2 agreements_________ . . . Retail Meat Cutters Contract, 2 agreements (Chicago, I I I . ) 2 _________________ Roper Corp., Kanakee Division (Kanakee, III.) ___________ ____ Insurance__ . Retail trade Retail trade Electrical products........................... .. San Joaquin Valley Hotel Restaurant and Tavern Association, Inc. (California)_____ Shipyard Agreement (San Diego, Calif.)2 . . . . . . . ... St. Paul On-Sale Liquor Dealers Association (St. Paul, Minn.)________________ _ Tennessee Corp., U.S. Phosphoric Products Division (Tampa, Fla.)................... Washington, D.C. Food Employers Labor Relations Association (District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia). Washington Publishers Association, Newspaper Agreement (Washington, D.C.). Restaurants... Transportation eq u ipm ent............... .. Restaurants_______________________ Chemicals Retail trade............ ......... _ __ . . Service Employees____ ___ ___ _ . Painters____________________ _____ Teamsters (In d .). ___ Hotel and Restaurant Employees____ Carpenters; Plumbers; and Electrical Workers (IBEW) . Insurance Workers................. ......... _. Clothing Workers.................... ................. Meat Cutters... . ...................... Metal Trades Department; and Teamsters (Ind.). Hotel and Restaurant Employees___ __ Machinists, Carpenters, and Painters.. Hotel and Restaurant Employees______ Chemical Workers.................................... Meat Cutters.......... ................................... Printing and publishing_____________ Typographical Union............................. 1 U n io n a ffilia te d w it h A F L - C IO 56 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis e xc ep t w h ere n o te d as in d e p e n d e n t (In d .) . Transportation equipment. . . __ Construction .................. . ................ ___ Services Construction__ . . . . _. Food products. . . Hotels___ Lumber.. ............ ................... 2 In d u s tr y a r e a (g ro u p o f c o m p a n ie s s ig n in g s a m e c o n tr a c t ). 1,000 1,150 4,000 1,100 1,300 1,700 1,150 7,000 6,000 1,000 5,150 2,000 3,000 3,400 1,050 1,600 17,500 5,500 5,450 1,050 1,700 1,000 1,300 1,050 3,800 1,000 Developments in Industrial Relations Deferred pay rise cut On June 7, the Pay Board pared to about 7 per cent a deferred wage and fringe increase of 11 per cent provided by a 1971 settlement between three food chains and 4,000 Meat Cutters in Philadelphia. This was the first time the panel had cut a deferred increase provided by a contract negotiated prior to the August 15 wage-price-rent freeze. According to the Board’s calculation, the scheduled increases were 10.9 percent at Acme Markets Inc., 11.6 percent at the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., and 11 per cent at Food Fair Stores, Inc. Meat Cutters’ Vice President Leon Schachter said the cutback was im proper because the Board failed to take into ac count productivity increases achieved under the agreement. Reportedly, more than 200 other de ferred raises had been challenged by Board mem bers or “parties of interest” and were awaiting Board rulings. In a related move, the panel increased from 60 days to 90 the advance notice required of employers before they may implement deferred increases ex ceeding 7 percent a year. The Board further specified that when an employer is late providing the informa tion, he must wait an additional 90 days before implementing the increase. Further, if the report is incomplete, the increase may not be put into effect until 60 days after “adequate and complete” infor mation is submitted. The Meat Cutters’ case report edly triggered the Board’s crackdown, because the workers had been receiving the deferred increase for 2 months before the reduction was ordered. Beginning July 1, the Pay Board began limiting eligibility for “catch-up” pay increases to units of workers with straight-time average hourly earnings of less than $3 an hour. Under the catch-up provision, “Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by Leon Bornstein and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statis tics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis effective until November 13, workers are permitted first-year raises of up to 7 percent, if they can prove the additional amount (in excess of the Board’s 5.5percent general limit) is justified because increases under the prior contract were less than 7 percent. Employees earning $3 or more were to be held to 5.5 percent unless they could qualify for one of the other exceptions to the general limit. Restitution of raise sought The Cost of Living Council filed its first suit seek ing restitution of a wage increase it claimed was paid in violation of Economic Stabilization Act regula tions. Previously, the Council had sued to prevent the payment of wage increases exceeding Phase 2 guidelines under a settlement between the Great At lantic and Pacific Tea Co. and a Meat Cutters local in Baltimore (Monthly Labor Review, June 1972, p. 60). The later suit involved a West Haven, Conn., branch of the Meredith Corp. of Des Moines, Iowa. The suit charged that the printing company and Local 47 of the International Typographical Union had negotiated a 7.45-percent pay increase in December 1971 for 39 workers, and the increases were put into effect without Pay Board approval. It also alleged that Local 47 had authorized a strike to compel immediate payment of the wage increase “in excess” of the Pay Board’s 5.5-percent standard without the panel’s approval, while encouraging its members to accept the increase. In the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New Haven, Conn., the Council asked that the company and Local 47 be enjoined from paying or receiving any wage increase exceeding Pay Board guidelines and that members of Local 47 be ordered to make full restitution to the company of all wages exceed ing the standards. In addition, the suit asked that civil penalties of $2,500 be assessed against the com pany and the local. A boost in the District of Columbia minimum 57 58 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 wage for 41,500 restaurant and hotel workers was suspended by the Cost of Living Council. The in crease, slated to go into effect June 13, would have brought the minimum to $2.25 an hour, from $1.60. The Council said it would allow $1.90 an hour, con sistent with its prior decision to exempt pay adjust ments up to that rate (Monthly Labor Review, April 1972, p. 58). The Council noted that about half the employees work for about 200 companies subject to controls, while the others work for 2,800 concerns with 60 or fewer employees. As a result, the in crease “would have forced the smaller, exempt com panies to pay the $2.25-an-hour minimum wage, while the controlled companies could maintain lower wage levels.” Maryland trims pay increase In late May, Maryland officials complied with a Pay Board decision reducing a salary increase for 42,000 State employees from an average of 7.8 per cent to 7 percent. The ruling, in effect, disallowed about $800,000 of the $24-million value of the raises due for an 18-month period ending June 30, 1973. The raises, ranging from 4.7 to 13.2 percent, went into effect May 3 but did not include retro Hourly Earnings Index The Hourly Earnings Index rose 0.2 in June to 137.0. The Index measures earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers in the private nonfarm econ omy. It is adjusted to exclude (1) the effects of inter industry employment shifts, (2 ) overtime premium pay in manufacturing, and (3 ) seasonal variations. Data for periods prior to June 1972 are also shown in the accompanying tabulation (1967 = 100). January ............... February ............. March .................. April .................... May ...................... June ...................... July ...................... A u g u s t.................. September ........... October ............... November ........... December ........... 1 Preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . . . . . . . . . 1969 1970 1971 110.0 110.8 111.4 112.0 112.7 113.3 113.9 114.4 115.1 115.8 116.5 117.0 117.4 118.0 118.8 119.3 120.0 120.6 121.4 122.5 123.2 123.4 124.1 125.0 126.0 134.5 126.7 134.7 127.3 135.5 128.1 136.6 129.1 1 136.8 129.3 1 137.0 130.0 130.9 131.3 131.4 131.6 133.5 1972 activity to January 1, 1972, as originally scheduled. The ruling provided for retroactivity to January 19. The boosts resulted from replacement of a 19-grade salary schedule with a 23-grade schedule, which raised the minimum pay from $3,864 to $4,200 and top pay from $26,423 to $30,025. In Massachusetts, the Legislature overrode Gov ernor Francis W. Sargent’s veto of a 4.3-percent pay raise for 60,000 State employees. The Governor wanted to delay the raises until January 1, 1973, but the Legislature’s action provided for retroactivity to January 1, 1972. Lumbermen settle About 53,000 lumber workers in the Pacific North west were covered by tentative 3-year settlements negotiated by the International Woodworkers and the Lumber, Production and Industrial Workers Un ions.1 On June 1, the unions settled with Northwest Forest Products Association, which consists of the “Big 5” firms— ITT Rayonier, Simpson Timber Co., Weyerhaeuser Co., Crown Zellerbach Corp., and International Paper Co. The package consisted of a 32-cent-an-hour wage increase on June 1, 1972, and 6 percent on June 1 of 1973 and 1974; a 16cent increase in employer health and welfare financ ing; an additional paid holiday; an increase in pen sion financing; and a relaxation of service require ments for paid vactions. On June 9, the unions agreed to similar terms for 32,000 employees of the 120 smaller firms that comprise the Timber Operators Council. Negotiations were continuing for 17,000 workers employed by Georgia Pacific Corp., Champion In ternational (formerly U.S. Plywood Champion Pa pers), St. Regis Paper Co., and the “Big 3” of Cen tral California—American Forest Products, Picker ing Lumber Co., and Michigan-California Lumber Co. Construction contracts extended Faced with the highest unemployment in the last 10 years, members of Sheet Metal Workers Local 98 in the Columbus, Ohio, area agreed to extend their current agreement by 1 year, to April 30, 1974. The move, which affected 850 members engaged in commercial and industrial jobs, was requested by the 50-firm Sheet Metal Contractors Association of Central Ohio to “stabilize” the industry. As a result, the workers will continue to receive their current DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS $9.58 an hour in wages and benefits until the exten sion expires on April 30, 1974. The $9.58 includes a 75-cent deferred increase effective May 1, 1972. In a similar move in the Mobile, Ala., area, Local 505 of the Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the Gulf Coast Chapters of the National Electrical Contractors Association agreed to a 1-year extension of their agreement, which had been scheduled to expire Au gust 31. The parties said the decision “represents an effort to help the electrical contracting industry, the electrical workers, and the economy of the entire area.” Frank M. Hawkins, manager of the Chapter, said area electrical contracting work had dropped 13 percent during the past year and that nonunion firms were making inroads. The decision, which affected 400 workers in six counties, kept the hourly wage scale at $7.90 plus 42 cents in benefits. Chicago dock accord The Marine Association of Chicago and the In ternational Longshoremen’s Association agreed to a 3-year package valued at $2.15 an hour— 73 cents in the first year, 72 cents in the second, and 70 cents in the final year. The previous base was reportedly $4.37 an hour in wages and benefits. About 1,000 full-time and 1,000 part-time workers were covered by the contract, which was subject to worker ratifi cation and Pay Board approval. A union official said locals in other Great Lakes ports were expected to gain similar contracts for 9,000 workers. Truckers’ raises pegged to index Members of the Chicago Truck Drivers Union, an independent union not affiliated with the Team sters, signed two agreements that provide for cost-ofliving increases but no other specified wage or fringe benefit boosts. The escalator clause provides for in creases of 1.5 cents an hour for every tenth of a percentage point increase in the Consumer Price In dex. This would amount to 45 cents if the index rises 3 percentage points during a year. Any benefit im provements negotiated later will count against the escalator increases. The contracts, covering 150 em ployees of Eisner Foods Division of Jewel Cos. and 130 employees of Canteen Corp. of America, were subject to Pay Board approval and would run for 1 year and 18 months, respectively. Edward Fenner, executive director of the union, said that if results are satisfactory the union may seek similar terms when contracts with for-hire truck https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 59 ing firms expire March 31, 1973. In 1967 and 1970, the Chicago Truck Drivers Union and local Team sters agreements set the pattern for the Teamsters’ national accord. The current national agreement ex pires June 30, 1973. Penn Central manning dispute After a Presidential factfinding panel recom mended that the Penn Central Transportation Co. delay its planned reduction in train crew size (Monthly Labor Review, July 1972, p. 50), trustees of the bankrupt railroad petitioned Federal District Judge John P. Fullam of Philadelphia, overseer of the reorganization, for a hearing to report on their collective bargaining efforts with the United Trans portation Union. The trustees asserted that the un ion “hasn’t responded with a single meaningful settle ment proposal but has sought to avoid any resolution of this dispute.” Meanwhile, the union petitioned the Federal Dis trict Court in Washington, D.C., to protect its man ning contract with Penn Central and to prevent the carrier from taking any “unilateral action” designed to reduce crew size. It accused the company of not bargaining in good faith. Mine worker election ordered On June 16, Federal District Court Judge William B. Bryant ordered a new election for the leadership of the United Mine Workers’ Union. In May, Judge Bryant had agreed with the Department of Labor that Mine Workers’ President W. A. (Tony) Boyle’s 1969 reelection campaign had violated union elec tion laws. (Monthly Labor Review, July 1972, pp. 49-50). In addition to ordering a new election, the judge set strict procedures to govern the union’s activities, authorizing the Secretary of Labor to put representatives in union offices with “specific author ity to disapprove any financial transaction” until the new election is held in December. The directive was assailed by a union spokesman as “dictatorial.” The judge also ordered the union journal to give equal space to all candidates; required the filing of monthly expenditure statements by candidates and nominees; limited the union’s authority to make loans and hire employees; and required each em ployee of the union to file bimonthly reports with the Labor Department detailing his activities and accounting for his time and expenses. The order also enjoined the union from repeating court-found vio- 60 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 lations of election procedures and allowed union dissidents to place observers “wherever the Secretary of Labor has authority to place a representative.” In a related action, coal miners opposed to Presi dent Boyle convened in West Virginia over the Memorial Day weekend. The 460 delegates of Miners for Democracy selected Arnold Miller, a 49-year-old victim of black lung disease, to run for the presidency of the union. Mr. Miller is a former mine repairman and electrician who currently heads the Black Lung Association. 1972, p. 51) prior to the beginning of the June convention. Mr. Finley and Mr. Sheinkman were unopposed; a mail vote by the union’s 185,000 members was slated, with the results to be announced in September. Mr. Finley, 50, became an attorney for the union in 1954 and was elected a vice president in 1962. Mr. Sheinkman, 45, was named a general counsel in 1958 and became a vice president 10 years later. Charges against Seafarers dismissed District 50, Allied and Technical Workers Union voted to merge with the 1.1-million-member Steel workers Union. With 165,000 members, the vote was 37,289 for the merger and 26,733 against it. The mail referendum was supervised by the De partment of Labor. The result was subject to ap proval by Federal District Judge Barrington Parker, who in August 1971 had barred a District 50 con vention from voting on the merger proposal (Monthly Labor Review, October 1971, p. 74). The Judge’s ruling was in response to a motion by Angelo Cefalo (a former vice president of District 50) that union members had not been given a “democratic voice” in selecting delegates to the convention. Judge Parker held that the union had not given its members ade quate notice of the merger proposal before the selec tion of delegates. On June 12, Mr. Cefalo, an unsuccessful candi date for the District 50 presidency in 1970, said he would protest the conduct of the referendum to the Labor Department and would ask the judge to set aside the election results on the grounds that a mail ing list of members’ names, rather than a certified membership list, was used. A Department spokesman defended the vote procedures but said the complaint would be investigated. New York Federal District Judge Mark A. Costantino dismissed U.S. charges of making illegal political contributions brought against President Paul Hall and seven other leaders of the Seafarers. In approv ing the union’s dismissal motion, Judge Costantino said the Justice Department had ignored repeated court orders to specify its charges against the officers and union, thus dragging out the case 23 months and violating their right to a speedy trial. He also held that the Department had withheld pretrial informa tion on the charges and had impeded efforts to pre pare a defense. The indictment had been filed on June 30, 1970, with the Seafarers accused of having contributed campaign funds to both major political parties through the Seafarers Political Action Donation Com mittee. (This was allegedly a violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits unions and corporations from donating to candidates for Federal office.) The union was charged with making illegal contributions of $40,000 in 1968 and with conspir ing to spend $750,000 for political purposes between 1964 and 1968. The union maintained that its dona tions were legal and that “all of the contributions cited in the indictment had been reported to the Department of Labor and the clerks of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as required by law.” Potofsky successor nominated Murray H. Finley was nominated to succeed Jacob S. Potofsky as president of the Clothing Workers at the union’s 28th biennial convention in Miami Beach. The 1,500 delegates also nominated Jacob Sheinkman to succeed Frank Rosenblum as secre tary-treasurer. The former union chiefs had indi cated their retirement (Monthly Labor Review, July https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis District 50 votes for merger Communications Workers seek merger In another merger development, delegates to the Communications Workers of America’s annual con vention authorized a committee to begin merger ne gotiations with the 300,000-member American Postal Workers Union. (The latter was formed in 1971 by a consolidation of five postal unions.) Joseph A. Bierne, president of the 550,000 Communications Workers, said a merger would greatly increase the bargaining power of employees in the two fields. In an address to the convention, Francis Filbey, presi dent of the Postal Workers, said, “We will make 61 DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS every effort to have a similar resolution adopted at our own convention in August.” Wurf hits jurisdictional disputes In keynoting the biennial convention of the State, County and Municipal Employees, President Jerry Wurf scored jurisdictional disputes among unions as impeding “the important business of organizing the unorganized.” Declaring that only about 25 percent of the Nation’s work force belongs to unions, he said, “The ability of the trade union movement to meet its responsibilities in the future will depend heavily on its ability to organize the remaining 75 percent of the work force.” Delegates to the Houston convention elected Mr. Wurf to his fifth consecutive term as head of the 550,000-member union, immediately after they ap proved a resolution extending international officers’ terms of office from 2 to 4 years. William Lucy, ex ecutive assistant to Mr. Wurf since 1970, was elected secretary-treasurer. Mr. Lucy, a 38-year-old black who joined the union in 1966, succeeded Joseph L. Ames, who was elected to the new post of full-time chairman of the union’s judicial panel. (See pp. 3839 for further convention details.) Service Employees convene In San Francisco, delegates to the Service Em ployees’ 15 th convention heard President George Hardy outline a plan to increase the union’s mem bership by “at least one-half million more members.” The program called for expansion of the executive board and union staff, the creation of a strike fund, and increased activities in political education, legis lative action, and bargaining research. The delegates approved a 50-cent increase in the monthly per capita payment, to $1.30, to help finance the pro gram. The executive board issued a report showing membership had grown by 128,000, to 500,000 in the 4 years since the last convention. President Hardy, who entered office when David Sullivan re tired in 1971, was elected to his first full 4-year term. Asbestos Workers president dies Albert E. Hutchinson, president of the Asbestos Workers, died of lung cancer at the age of 61. Mr. Hutchinson was a pioneer in the fight against job related diseases, particularly lung cancer, which re https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis portedly kills one of every five long-term asbestos workers, and asbestosis, a scarring of the lungs. Both diseases have been attributed to inhalation of asbes tos dust. Mr. Hutchinson was credited with a key role in the Department of Labor’s issuance of an “emergency temporary standard” in December 1971, under which asbestos workers’ exposure must be cut to no more than an average of two fibers per cubic centimeter of air by 1976. Arizona curbs farm strikes Arizona Governor Jack Williams signed a meas ure outlawing secondary boycotts and strikes by farm workers at harvest time. He said the new law “will help all of Arizona just as the right-to-work law did. That law has made Arizona one of the most successful States in terms of economic growth in the Nation and the same attacks were made upon it.” Meanwhile, the United Farm Workers instituted a campaign to recall the Governor, and Cesar Cha vez, union president, fasted for 24 days. The union claimed it had about one-quarter of the 103,000 signatures required to place the issue on the ballot. After 5 years of organizing, the union reportedly represents 3,500 of the 35,000 to 40,000 field work ers in Arizona. Besides outlawing all secondary boycotts, the law limits primary boycott activity to naming the specific grower of the produce. Strikes are illegal unless approved by a secret ballot of employees supervised and certified by a seven-man State board appointed by the Governor. A grower facing the threat of a strike at harvest time may seek a 10-day restraining order. The dispute would then be settled by binding arbitration. Unions also are forbidden from contact ing workers on growers’ property. Bias charged in construction Job discrimination was charged against two New York construction unions and 10 employer 2 groups in a civil action filed by the Justice Department in Federal District Court in New York City. The De partment claimed that Locals 14 and 15 of the Operating Engineers violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act by assertedly refusing to admit blacks on the same basis as whites and by using job referral stand ards that ensure priority to union members, most of whom are white. The suit asserted that Local 14 has “few” blacks among its 1,600 members and 62 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 that Local 15 has 768 among its 5,650 members. The Department asked for an injunction barring the alleged discrimination and that locals be ordered to carry out job-training programs for minority-group members and inform them of opportunities. The contract does provide for negotiations in 1974, 1975, and 1976 on pay bonuses “based on the financial position of the company.” There are 2,400 workers in the bargaining unit, compared with 2,700 in 1971 and 4,000 in 1970. Pilots strike against hijackings Employees buy railroad An international work stoppage by airline pilots to dramatize the need for anti-hijacking measures affected about 10 percent of domestic flights on June 19. Of 35,000 domestic pilots, 4,100 at Eastern and Northeastern defied a Federal Court injunction and struck for the full 24 hours, while 300 at Southern stayed out for 8 hours. Overseas air travel was vir tually halted in more than 30 countries. The first employee-owned railroad in the United States came into existence in June, when the new Chicago and North Western Transportation Co. pur chased the transportation assets of the Chicago and North Western Railway. The cost was assumption of the road’s $400-million debt burden. All of 13,500 railroad workers and officers of the unions that represent them were offered shares in the new com pany, and 1,000 purchased about 70,000 shares at $50. The parent firm of the railroad was Northwest Industries, Inc., a conglomerate, which initiated the sale because of low earnings. □ Wage ‘moratorium' extended Members of Rubber Workers Local 45 at Uniroyal’s Footwear Division in Naugatuck, Conn., ap proved an extension to July 20, 1976 of the 3-year “economic moratorium” negotiated in 1970 (Monthly Labor Review, September 1970, p. 59). The company, citing declining profits and higher pay levels at Naugatuck than at its other shoe opera tions, had warned that production would be phased out by 1974 if the union rejected the extension. In response to the concession, the company guaranteed it would keep the plant operating until at least 1977. The president of the local union estimated the work ers averaged $5.35 an hour in wages and benefits. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ----------FOOTNOTES---------1 The Lumber, Production and Industrial Workers Union (formerly the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union) is affiliated with the Carpenters. 2 The Iron League of New York City, Inc.; the Construc tion Equipment Rental Association; the General Contractors Association of New York City; the Building Contractors and Mason Builders Association; Allied Building Metal In dustries; the Rigging Contractors Association; the Contract ing Plasterers Association; the Equipment Shop Employers; the Stone Setting Contractors’ Association; and the Cement League. Book Reviews and Notes The exercise of judgment The Analysis and Forecasting of the British Econ omy. By M. J. C. Surrey. London, Cambridge University Press, 1971. 107 pp. $3.95. This volume explains how the National Institute of Economic and Social Research prepares the quar terly forecasts of British economic activity that are published in its Economic Review. It is not intended as a contribution to original research; its purpose is pedagogical. There is no analogue to the Institute in the United States. It has no similarity with its near-namesake, the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is characterized by diffusion of purpose and detach ment from policy-oriented analysis. To compare it to the Brookings Institution, which is policyoriented, would be equally misleading because the Institute maintains an interchange of personnel with the government that is not dependent on changes in administrations. Unlike Brookings, it has none of the attributes of a government in exile. In the absence of viable analogies, it is best to quote from the volume itself: “. . . the idea that the N ational Institute should undertake econom ic forecasting originated with Treasury econom ists. . . . Som e mem bers o f the origi nal Institute team had had previous Treasury experi ence. . . . The author o f the present book, Mr. Surrey, had him self worked in the Treasury____There has also been m ovem ent the other w a y . . . . But although there have been, and we hope there w ill continue to be, links . . . , they have been on a personal and inform al basis. Both the Institute itself and the eco nom ic analysis and forecasting conducted by it are w holly independent. . . . Som e . . . find it hard to be lieve that the E con om ic R eview is not in som e way under the influence o f the Treasury, if for no other purpose than to fly kites. But there is no substance in this. T he E con om ic R eview is published, so naturally the Treasury econom ists know w hat the Institute is up to, and from tim e to time there are discussions o f technical questions in m eetings and seminars, but the staff o f the R eview do not know any m ore about https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11111 $ SIndisi fj plH jj j j the Treasury’s thinking and estim ating at a particular m om ent than appears in official publications, in Hansard and in newspapers. N o t only do they not know, but they w ould not w ish to k n o w . . . . the Institute’s ow n m ethods m ight w ell be im proved if more were know n about what the Treasury actually does. But against this must be set the serious risk o f unconscious collusion, w hich could easily jeopardize one o f the main purposes o f the exercise, nam ely the Books reviewed in this issue M. J. C. Surrey, The Analysis and Forecasting of the British Economy. Reviewed by George Jaszi. Gary MacEoin, Revolution Next Door: Latin A m er ica in the 1970’s. Reviewed by Joseph Collins. Jan Pen, Income Distribution: Facts, Theories, Poli cies. Reviewed by H. M. Douty. Gerald Somers and associates, The Effectiveness of Vocational and Technical Programs: A National Follow-up Survey. Reviewed by Harrison M. Trice. Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology; Edwin G. Dolan, TANSTAAFL: The Economic Strategy for Environmental Crisis; Oliver G. Wood, Jr., editor, The BASF Contro versy: Employment vs. Environment; and Kenneth E. Boulding et al, Economics of Pollution. Re viewed by John W. Hambleton. John Herling, Right to Challenge: People and Power in the Steelworkers Union. Reviewed by Jack Stieber. Richard Kunnes, Your Money or Your Life: Rx for the Medical Market Place. Reviewed by David S. Salkever. J. Harvey Bolton, Flexible Working Flours. Reviewed by Janice N. Hedges. Richard C. Edwards, Michael Reich, Thomas E. Weisskopf, The Capitalist System: A Radical A naly sis of American Society; and Howard Sherman, Radical Political Economy; Capitalism and Social ism from a Marxist-Humanist Perspective. Re viewed by Allan G. Gruchy. David S. Walls and John B. Stephenson, Appalachia in the Sixties: Decade of Reawakening. Reviewed by Bill Peterson. Arthur Pearl, The A trocity of Education. Reviewed by August C. Bolino. 63 64 giving o f a w holly independent opinion on the state o f the econom y. As a statement of principle, this account of the relations between the National Institute and the Treasury is impeccable. But I would hope that in practice they are not quite so Simon-pure. It would seem to me that Institute staff might contact their once and future colleagues to obtain some interpreta tion of published government statistics and plans, or perhaps even some unpublished detail, in a manner that would help both parties without impairing the separation of powers. The volume opens with an introduction by G. D. N. Worswick, Director of the National Institute. The rest was written by Surrey. Chapter 1 presents an informal outline of the economy as seen through the NIESR model. Subsequent chapters take up the various segments of the model: The Public Sector; Investment; Foreign Trade; The Personal Sector; and Employment, Unemployment and Productive Potential. Next, the complete model is presented again in a more formal way. A concluding chapter describes the process of economic forecasting stepby-step. Worswick’s introduction touches upon such im portant topics as the relative role of econometric models and judgment in forecasting, the feedback of forecasts on the economy, conditional and uncondi tional forecasts, the testing of econometric models, the usefulness of forecasting, and small versus large models. His comments are sensible and perceptive, and characterized by a modesty which seems to be a British trait that, at best, is recessive in the United States. Many of his comments I would want to copy into a forecasting scrapbook— if I maintained one. “There -an be no doubt that the methods currently in use are distinctly more sophisticated than those of 10 years ago. There is nevertheless room for debate on whether they have resulted in any significant im provement in predictive performance.” “There are, it is true, dangers that the ability to make almost limitless regressions can sometimes drive out careful thought and commonsense.” He also quotes with ap proval the headnote that appears on some National Institute tables: “The forecast figures are .. . not intended to be more precise than the general state ments in the text.” Nevertheless, I have some reservations. Given Worswick’s emphasis on the role of judgment, it would have been worthwhile to explore the nature https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 of the judgment that is being invoked. Surely we do not want to be put in a position of appealing to irra tional intuition; we must try to establish that the judgment on which we propose to rely represents a rational form of inference. But Worswick should not be faulted severely on this score. To the best of my knowledge, there has to date been little if any progress in analyzing the nature of “judgment.” More disturbing is a certain weakness in sorting things out. For example, in his discussion of the problems involved in testing econometric forecasts, Worswick muddles the issues by not distinguishing between testing forecasts, on the one hand, and test ing whether forecasts have improved historically, on the other. Occasionally this weakness results in lapses of a jarring kind, as, for instance, when Milton Fried man is cited as a champion of auto-regressive fore casting techniques. Surrey’s writing also is characterized by simple explanation, and a winning absence of intellectual pretense. One of the main advantages of his ap proach is that he does not treat the model in a vacuum, but instead describes step-by-step the proc ess that takes place when the Institute prepares its quarterly forecasts, including the blending of econo metric results and judgment. The model as a whole is explained in chapters 1, 8, and 9, and also in appendixes II and III. It is a small neo-Keynesian model. It neglects money, makes the usual distinctions between exogenous and endog enous factors, and embodies endogenous relation ships that hold no major surprise. The way in which prices, wage rates, and earnings are determined is somewhat unusual. The forecasting process resembles more what we, in this country, call judgmental forecasting than what we call econometric forecasting. However, the judg mental forecasting of the National Institute does differ significantly from judgmental forecasting in the United States. In the United States, judgmental forecasts are often the result of personal idiosyncra sies that are converted into dollars on the back of an envelope. It would appear that as a rule the judg mental elements in the Institute forecast are based upon thorough studies of various segments of the economy which are produced as part of its regular work program. Is this a correct impression or is it just that the grass across the ocean looks greener? The explanation of the model as a whole is quite successful, but two aspects of it gave me trouble. First, I did not find an explanation of how, if at all, the expenditure side of the gross product account BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES is reconciled with its income side: The volume does not contain a discussion of the method of estimating corporate profits, which are the missing element. Second, nowhere in the volume is it demonstrated clearly how the model works as a mechanism— how the several exogenous and endogenous elements in teract. Part of the difficulty may be due to the fact that more than one model is being discussed. I re gard a demonstration of this kind as a test of peda gogical success which has not been passed in this volume. As to the segments of the model, I found of great est interest the work on wage rates, earnings, and prices. I was also struck by the statement that gov ernment incentives to investment had no significant effects. If valid, this is an extremely interesting con clusion, coming from a country in which such incen tives have been used intensively. I was disappointed by the treatment of foreign trade. I expected in-depth treatment of this subject in a country in which foreign trade is dominant. I did derive some comfort from the observation that Na tional Institute techniques are as inadequate for cop ing with the analysis of devaluation as are the im provisations that have recently been made in this country. What is the interest of this publication to the U.S. reader, if he is not a student of the British economy? The informed U.S. reader will not learn much in the way of econometric techniques, with the possible exception of the estimation of wage rates, earnings, and prices mentioned earlier. However, the volume may be useful to him in other ways. After several years of widespread expectation in the United States that econometrics would bury judgment, there has recently been a decided swing away from this position. In the light of this develop ment, the National Institute procedure, which never abandoned judgment, may be a useful object of study for U.S. practitioners. U.S. practitioners also might emulate the sim plicity of expression of their British counterparts in stead of settling for a secret language whose sole object is communication among econometricians— the public be damned. The elephantine U.S. text books are not adequate to fill this communications gap. Finally, this publication should have a sobering influence on U.S. practitioners. It may help them to look behind the camouflage of sophisticated U.S. forecasting techniques, and reveal to them that the basic problems of forecasting with which their https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 65 British counterparts are struggling remain unresolved also in the United States. — G eo rg e J aszi D irector Bureau of Economic Analysis Social and Economic Statistics Administration U.S. Department of Commerce The fire next time Revolution Next Door: Latin America in the 1970’s. By Gary MacEoin. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. 243 pp., selected annotated bibliography, $6.95, cloth. In 1961 Gary MacEoin, in Latin America: The Eleventh Hour, wrote optimistically of the future of Latin America. A decade later, this long-time ob server of Latin America offers us very different con clusions: the Alliance for Progress proved to be “something of a hoax”; the heralded “Decade of Development” turned out to be, in his words, “the most disastrous decade in the entire history of Latin America”— a decade of an increasing gap between the rich and the poor nations, between the owner and worker classes, between the stuffed and the starving. Through a readable bringing together of hun dreds of interviews of his latest 20,000-mile, 13nation trip, MacEoin allows us to see the crisis as it is seen by Latin Americans. Typical of the atti tudes MacEoin found is this excerpt from an interview: The rich countries, both o f the so-called free world and o f the Soviet bloc, claim that they are try ing to help us catch up with them , but their actions belie their words. W e know that our underdevelop ment is an integral factor in their progress. They m oved ahead in the first instance at our expense, and the continuance o f their growth requires the m ainte nance o f our backwardness. MacEoin uses interviews to give us his view of how imperialism does its job: Foreign aid is used for the economic and political needs of U.S. corpora tions; generating capital, strapping down govern ments with foreign debt which only furthers their dependency (repayments already exceed new loans), creating the “proper political climate” (through mas sive counterinsurgency and police programs), dump ing U.S. products in Latin America, building the airports, roads, and pipelines needed by foreign corporations, doing limited welfare-type reforms as “safety valves” or for “public relations.” The Cen- MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 66 tral Intelligence Agency (CIA ), he charges, infil trates political parties, universities, churches, and labor groups. (MacEoin points out that Latin Ameri can labor unions have traditionally realized that organizing for political change is their only hope, since corporations can draw scabs from the millions of unemployed. Latin American labor organizers, according to the author, believe that “The AFL-CIO functions as an instrument of the State Department and the CIA to divide and control our trade union movement,” and that U.S. corporations in Latin America wanted that brand of trade unionism: cold war-mythed— “the bosses are the good guys making the world safe for democracy” ; limited to wage issues— subject, of course, to “productivity” ; and hands off political action.) Further, MacEoin charges, foreign corporations demand outrageous sums for patents and trademarks and gain control of local economies, forcing out some local businesses, ironically by raising most of their capital locally. And these corporations, through monopoly control of the mass media, push not only their products but materialistic notions of human needs. MacEoin finds that those who would reverse the deteriorating condition seek some form of nationalist socialism which excludes servitude to either the United States or the U.S.S.R. MacEoin, reluctantly, places some hope in the “new military” (such as in Peru), perhaps in union with the “new” Catholic priests and laymen who seek, through an increas ingly Marxist analysis, social, economic, and politi cal change as a fulfillment of the command to love one’s neighbor. Revolution Next Door is not opposed to revolu tion. MacEoin writes out of love for both Latin America and the United States. He has come to believe that what is really in the interests of the people next door— and not against the true interests of the people in the United States— is revolution. — J o s e p h C o l l in s Institute for Policy Studies Norms and policies in incomes theory Income Distribution: Facts, Theories, Policies. By Jan Pen. Translated from the Dutch by Trevor S. Preston. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1971. 424 pp. $12. There has been a marked resurgence of interest in recent years in national income distribution in terms both of factor shares and of personal (or https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis family) distribution. The publication of Martin Bronfenbrenner’s Income Distribution Theory, a major work, coincided roughly with the appearance of Pen’s study. Harold Lydall’s The Structure of Earnings was issued in 1968 and, in the same year, a collection of papers edited by Jean Marchal and Bernard Ducros appeared under the title of The Distribution of National Income. The numerous contributors to the latter volume examined trends in income distribution in advanced market, cen trally planned, and underdeveloped economies, dis tribution theories, and some aspects of governmental policies in relation in income distribution. The work of the U.S. Bureau of the Census generally, and of Herman P. Miller in particular, is well known. The reasons for this rise in interest are various. They include the postwar preoccupation with eco nomic growth in both developed and developing economies; analysis of the impact of trade unionism and other institutional factors on income distribu tion; the distributional aspects of national wageprice (or incomes) policies; investment in human capital in relation to labor supply and income differ entials; and the rediscovery of the problem of poverty. Jan Pen, who holds the chair of economics at Groningen University, is a rara avis\ he has written a sophisticated analysis of distributional theory and policy which is eminently readable. The use of jargon and of econometric constructions is held to a mini mum. His style is lively and does not appear to have suffered in translation. The book can be read with profit by the general reader as well as by university students in the social sciences and mem bers of the economists’ guild. Income distribution is the outcome of an ex ceedingly complex economic process. Pen’s approach to distribution theory exhibits a certain eclecticism, but with the central view that the marginal pro ductivity theory of factor pricing is the pivot on which distribution theory turns. He makes con siderable allowance, however, for institutional rather than purely market forces, particularly with refer ence to wage determination. And he attempts at many points to reconcile micro- with macro-economic analysis as applied to distribution theory. After three essentially introductory chapters, Pen devotes a chapter each to factor pricing (which he labels, somewhat misleadingly, functional distribu tion); to distributive shares (wages, rent, interest, and profit as components of national income); and to personal distribution. These chapters, which can not possibly be summarized in a brief review, are BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES 67 full of insight and, no doubt to some extent, of controversy. The really savage attack on Kaldor’s aggregative approach to the determination of factor shares is perhaps illustrative of the latter point. Fully one-fourth of the book is devoted to dis cussion of norms and policies in income distribu tion. Pen clearly favors a more egalitarian distribu tion on moral and social grounds, but he has no simple prescription for achieving this end. He out lines no fewer than 21 norms for income distribution. These norms are not discrete, and Pen selects a number which he believes can be combined into a practical policy. For example, he suggests the “harmonizing” of national wage and salary structures through job evaluation, in the sense of the use of this device to obtain “rational [pay] scales reflecting social conventions of society as a whole.” There probably is a certain utopianism in contemplating, for a market economy, the use of job evaluation beyond the confines of the firm or, at most, the industry. Pen sees a role for incomes policy in improving distribution. Other elements of strategy in his longrun approach to greater income equality involve consideration of monopoly gains, profit and capital sharing, the power structure within firms, transfer payments, taxation, and education. The long section on income distribution policy, in combination with the earlier chapters on theory, yields a book of significant power that deserves a wide readership. — H. M. D outy Visiting Professor New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations Cornell University A valuable first effort The Effectiveness of Vocational and Technical Pro grams: A National Follow-up Survey. By Gerald Somers and associates. Washington, U.S. De partment of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1971. 263 pp. $5. This report of a mail questionnaire follow-up of vocational students who graduated in 1966 from high school, post-secondary, and junior college vo cational programs throughout the United States has general appeal for specialists in vocational education and manpower studies. More specifically, however, it should be read by evaluative research specialists, if for no other reason than to observe the many frustrations, pitfalls, and errors that can creep into https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis follow-up studies. Somers and his associates reveal these problems candidly along with their research data and their interpretations. Even though they are describing a detailed research effort, the authors write succinctly, even interestingly. Obviously they firmly believe in quality reporting even if it at times puts them in a bad light. Beyond doubt they report on an important topic— as any casual perusal of the monies invested to date in vocational training will indicate. Mild melancholia creeps into this reviewer’s re actions, however, when the study falls into many of the booby traps that have snared other follow-ups: abandonment of “controls” and a fallback on simple comparisons between types of training programs, rationalization of low response rates, questionable use of a complicated statistic, and an inability to control intervening variables during the follow-up period. It seems painfully obvious that high school stu dents in academic programs could not act as a control group, as Somers and his colleagues dis covered with much discomfort. Also, comparisons between the three programs suffer from the under standable impossibility of randomization of students into these three programs. Quite predictably, under these conditions, junior college graduates typically enjoy superior outcomes. Further, although response rates hovered around a median of 40 to 45 percent, this leaves the age-old problem of nonrespondents. A small sample of these nonrespondents compared with respondents does not seem adequate as a base for frequent references to “the sample”— despite traditional research folkways supporting such prac tices. Additionally, the study uses multiple regression analyses on the data. Clearly, any analyses should deal simultaneously with those independent variables which appear to be conceptually relevant. This strongly indicates regression analysis. Unfortunately, however, the use of this sensitive statistical instru ment is not guided in this study by behavioral science concept; rather, one gets a feeling that independent variables are either the traditional demographic ones or they are “fishing expeditions.” Furthermore, the likelihood that there may be high correlations be tween two or three (even more) independent vari ables, producing “redundancy,” is a real one, to say nothing of the possibility that there may be a relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable which distorts regression results. When combined with the questionable quan- MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 68 tification of some of the dependent variables, there emerges considerable reason to believe that the statistic is, at least partially, misused. Compounding these problems is the inability of the follow-up to systematically include such intervening variables as favorable, or less favorable, labor markets that may develop during the follow-up period and ac count for the relatively successful or unsuccessful outcomes. To ask the researcher to control for these intruding forces is to ask for the Herculean effort. Nonetheless, conclusions and interpretations are often influenced by these factors even though they may escape the control of the evaluative researcher. Having said these things, some positive comments are in order. Before reaching them, however, one final shot: the reader could be more adequately warned about some of these problems and over generalization reduced. There are not enough caveats. But as a first nationwide evaluative effort of voca tional education the research is truly pioneering. Finally, someone of stature is saying, “So what?” At long last a precedent for evaluation has been set. It can be hoped that refinements will follow. After all, science is a series of “successive approxi mations” in which later efforts improve on the earlier ones. Looked at from this perspective, Somers and his associates have given us a valuable and provocative legacy. — H a r r iso n M. T r ic e Professor New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations Cornell University . . . and pay for it The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology. By Barry Commoner. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1971. 326 pp. $6.95. TAN STAAFL: The Economic Strategy for Environ mental Crisis. By Edwin G. Dolan. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. 115 pp. $3. The BASF Controversy: Employment vs. Environ ment. Edited by Oliver G. Wood, Jr. In the series Essays in Economics, No. 25. Columbia, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of South Carolina, 1971. 75 pp. $2.50. Economics of Pollution. By Kenneth E. Boulding et al. New York, New York University Press, 1971. 158 pp. $5.95. The problems of pollution and exploitation of our highlighted in four recent books environment are https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis which examine the relationships between our econ omy, our environment, and our welfare as pro ducers, workers, and consumers. The Closing Circle by Commoner and TA N STA A F L by Dolan are popular but scholarly works. In contrast, The BASF Controversy, a joint research project edited by Wood, and the New York University Moskowitz lectures on the Economics of Pollution are directed more to professionals and policymakers. One idea they have in common is that pollution imposes hidden costs equal to or greater than the costs of its limitation, but they differ radically in their pro posed solutions. Commoner brings to the subject a blend of ecology and economics in an amply illustrated but somewhat lengthy exposition on the evils of modem technology unchecked by the capitalist system and the scientific community. His main thesis is that the technology which yields profits today in the free enterprise economy extracts wealth from the ecosphere, using up irreplaceable energy in the process but at the same time feeding population, affluence, narrow-minded scientific pursuit, and ultimately greater extraction of nature’s wealth. The circle is closing on us because the products of nature, which is not inexhaustible, cannot be recycled without a further loss of energy. Case studies provide the empirical evidence to support Commoner’s argument, which he develops quite effectively by successively discounting the other alleged causes of the ecological crisis— popula tion, production, and profits. Yet he returns to attack the profit motive in his call for an economy gov erned by social objectives, not by the obsessive need to increase labor productivity by environmentally destructive technology. Such an economy would be characterized by less profitable but more laborintensive industries, satisfying our needs as well as synthetic products do now, and simultaneously re lieving the problem of unemployment. How society will choose this ecologically sound economy is not spelled out, though Commoner hints that it will result more from removal of artificially created wants than from centralized decree. As tightly knit an argument is developed by Dolan, who nevertheless employs a more deductive, theore tical approach to reach opposite conclusions. He agrees with Commoner on a fundamental law of ecology and economics: “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” (that is, a gain somewhere is a loss somewhere else). Nevertheless, his solution is to have private parties who have suffered losses from pollu tion calculate these losses and make the polluters BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES realize by legal action that they are not exploiting common sources in nature or dumping wastes in common sinks but rather are violating property rights in the spaceship earth. By means of simplified hypothetical examples, he presents his main argu ment that pollution cannot be limited efficiently by social compulsion (even if democratic) but only by a completely free market. Here, preferably, all re sources, like national parks, and sinks, like inland waterways, are owned privately, so that all parties will correctly count pollution and exploitation as a cost in equating their marginal costs and benefits. Dolan’s methodology, which is grounded in a simple economic model with two factors, differs radically from that of Commoner who preaches the necessity for a general or ecological outlook on science. While the reader is left suspended by Com moner’s failure to take him step by step through the operations of his proposed social economy, he is also uneasy about the realism of the perfectly com petitive market which has made Dolan’s proof so evidently simple. Quite realistic, of course, is Dolan’s view that people will freely choose some pollution over the production only of natural goods. Reviewers of the BASF controversy and participants at New York University echo this position and conclude that the proper measurement and control of pollution should be the focus of research and, more significantly, that modem technology, the villain in The Closing Circle, is necessary for pollution control. These authors agree with Commoner, however, that the public must cal culate environmental damage and make private in dustry eliminate pollution. This concern for immediate solutions to pollution rather than for overhaul of the economic system is revealed by the well-integrated analysis of the poten tial impact of the Badishe-Analin and Soda Fabrik Co. (BASF) plant on the Beaufort Economic Area of South Carolina. The conclusion is that an enlightened business could have, by emphasizing its adherence to consistent government antipollution requirements, headed off an environmentalist offensive which re sulted in the denial of base industry jobs to a region characterized by poverty for most and uncertain recreational, fishing, and public employment for some. This chemical plant would have had a signifi cant occupational and industrial impact, even with a sizable leakage of income from the region, if it were not for opposition from local recreational developers. Unfortunately, the effects of pollution have been excluded from the formal calculations in this study. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 69 In his lecture at New York University, Boulding suggests a modified construction of GNP, called Gross Capacity Product, which may be expanded to include the disproducts of pollution once research shows how pollution is counted in social welfare functions. Solomon Fabricant, in commenting, also cites the need to revise income accounts to reflect environmental burdens, but his main focus is on the regulations needed to control pollution. Both Fabricant and Elvis Stahr opt for waste or user charges, imposed according to the public’s calcula tion of damage, which force producers to find the least cost antipollution investment and to raise prices to discourage consumption. In contrast, Martin Gainsbrugh calls for public subsidy of this invest ment because industrial profits are already so low. In evaluating each position, the reader only wishes that the lecturers had complemented each other’s arguments. Despite the considerable divergences in the books reviewed here, all of the authors agree on the need for pollution control as well as for information about the present costs of environmental destruction (though Dolan believes that pollution can be checked by the competitive market). However, all but Com moner have refused to abandon modern technology and instead rely on it to solve pollution! Where there have been differences, though, there have been surprising similarities. Probably the most notable is the agreement between Dolan and Com moner on the issue of population. Both contend that there is no necessary connection between population and pollution and that birth rates will eventually align themselves with lower death rates as affluence spreads, so that compulsory birth control is unwar ranted. To Commoner, population pressures the world’s resources only because of our methods of production. Change these methods, and the ecosphere will support more people. Similarly, in the BASF Report and the New York University lectures, proponents of pollution control via modern technology agree with Commoner that a cleaner environment may have greater employment opportunities, even though Commoner has attacked that very technology for destroying jobs. But, then, it is easier to relate the symptoms than to diagnose the causes of the environmental crisis despite the best efforts of recent literature in this area. — Jo h n W. H am bleton Assistant Professor Institute of Labor Economics San Diego State College 70 Rise and fall Right To Challenge: People and Power in the Steel workers Union. By John Herling. New York, Harper and Row, 1972, 386 pp., appendixes. $12.50. The past decade has seen the defeat of incumbent union presidents running for reelection in several major unions.'This is the story of one such union, the United Steelworkers of America, and one such president, David J. McDonald. John Herling, who has been reporting what goes on inside American unions for more than 25 years, has chronicled the rise and fall of McDonald in almost excruciating detail by drawing heavily on interviews with hun dreds of national and local union officers, staff mem bers, and rank and file steelworkers. He has pro duced a highly illuminating and valuable account of “how union leaders are chosen” in one union. One can only hope that the Steelworkers’ experience is not typical while fearing that it is. The book starts in 1952 with the sudden death of Philip Murray, the venerated first president of the Steelworkers, and the succession of SecretaryTreasurer David J. McDonald to the union’s top office. According to Herling, McDonald, whom Murray had brought with him from the United Mine Workers where he had been his personal secretary, had lost his sponsor’s support and was on his way out. Given the picture that emerges in this book, one can only marvel that a man like McDonald could ever have had Murray’s confidence and wonder why it took some 20 years for Murray to see the light, too late as it turned out. More than half of the book is devoted to a blowby-blow description of the 1965 election in which I. W. Abel, the union’s secretary-treasurer, and his running mates defeated McDonald and his slate for the three highest offices in the Steelworkers’ Union. Herling takes us behind the scenes to see the political intrigues and wheeling and dealing in the securing of local union nominations, wooing district directors for support, and lining up staff members behind the candidates. He gives both a chronological and geo graphical account of the campaign, which lasted over 3 months, in steel centers in the United States and Canada. The vignettes drawn of district directors, staff representatives, and local union leaders are sharp and memorable. They do credit to the author’s talents as a journalist and interviewer. Abel’s victory over McDonald by some 10,000 votes out of over 600,000 cast appears to have been due to a combination of factors: exploitation of the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 charge that McDonald, through creation of the Human Relations Committee with the steel industry, had taken collective bargaining out of the hands of the elected leadership; dissatisfaction over the many local issues which remained unresolved during the course of several contract agreements; support of Abel by almost half of the union’s 29 district direc tors, including several with the largest membership; and opposition to McDonald per se. Given the nar row margin of victory, any one of these factors may have been responsible for McDonald’s defeat. But the one that comes through strongest to the reader is the last. Herling depicts McDonald as arrogant, vain, corny, not overly intelligent, a heavy drinker, a publicity chaser, a lover of the good life, and consorter with shady characters. If McDonald possessed any redeeming features, they are not readily apparent in this book. One comes away with the distinct im pression that AFL-CIO Vice President George Harrison summed the man up very well when he said: “That guy is two ounces lighter than a cork.” In addition to the “main event,” Herling also describes three other elections in the union: the 1955 special election for vice president in which Joseph Molony, district director in upstate New York, ran unsuccessfully against Howard Hague, McDonald’s office manager and hand-picked choice for vice president; the 1957 challenge to McDonald’s leader ship by a local union leader named Donald Rarick; and the 1969 defeat by Abel of an unknown staff lawyer, Emil Narick. The 1955 race is notable as the first challenge to McDonald’s leadership. It showed that a man “who never saw the inside of a steel plant,” but had the support of the president and the power of office as an incumbent appointed vice president, could easily defeat one of the most able and popular district directors. The Rarick election demonstrated that a nonentity with no power base or top level union support but with a real issue— in this case opposition to a dues increase— could get more than one-third of the votes against an in cumbent president. The Abel-Narick contest, in which the loser received 42 percent of the total vote, showed that it was possible to mount a challenge against a relatively popular president by exploiting feelings of alienation, discontent, and rank and file dissatisfaction with recent contract settlements. All three elections^ as well as the McDonald-Abel con test, showed glaring defects in the union’s election procedures both before and after the passage of the Landrum-Griffin Act. Herling’s book should be fascinating reading for BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES 71 insiders: officers, staff members, local union leaders, and rank and file steelworkers; and interesting and useful to students of union government. However, for the general reader, it is too long and overly de tailed; it tells him much more than he wants to know about the Steelworkers’ Union. — J ac k S t ie b e r Director, School of Labor and Industrial Relations Michigan State University More heat than light Your Money or Your Life: Rx For the Medical Market Place, by Richard Kunnes, M.D. New York, Dodd, Mead & Co. 1971. 214 pp. $5.95. This is a confused and misleading harangue against the archvillains of the “Medical-Industrial Complex” who have brought the American medical system to its current sorry state. It is liberally sprinkled with misinformation, nonsequiturs, and quotations and attributions not supported by a single reference. In short, the book should probably be read only by individuals who share the author’s biases and opinions, and thus gain some enjoyment from knowing that they are not alone. To the reader who does not share these biases and opinions, what is most disturbing is that the book offers virtually nothing in the way of new or surpris ing information. The author holds forth at length about major problems which are commonly acknowl edged to be major problems—the inadequacy of medical services to rural areas and to low-income groups, the lack of emphasis on preventive services, the need for reorientation in medical school curricula, and so on. The “documentation” of these problems, moreover, consists primarily of anecdotes and innu endos. There are really only two general points on which the author appears to have unconventional views. The first is that “making profit from people’s health needs” is a “contradiction.” While this statement taken literally is meaningless, it is, I think, really a short-hand for the general proposition that we would have a better health care system if the people pro viding services were completely committed to im proving the general welfare of society and completely abandoned the pursuit of their own personal goals. The validity of this proposition, however, is irrele vant since the possibility of establishing such a sys tem is zero. This is a fact admitted by the author in his exposi https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tion of the second unconventional point, namely, his proposed solution to the health care crisis. This solu tion is community and consumer control of health services provided free and equally to all. As the author points out, consumers will be only too happy to “demand” incredible amounts of free care since it is in their own individual interest to do so. The problem of obtaining resources to meet these de mands is not discussed. In summary, it is too bad that the author has chosen to address himself so ineptly to such serious and important problems as the maldistribution and misallocation of health resources and the need for more consumer responsiveness and involvement in the health system. Deterioration in the quality of debate over these problems, as represented by this book, can only serve to postpone their solution. — D av id S. S a l k e v e r Economist National Center for Health Services R&D Health Services and Mental Health Administration U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ‘Gleitzeit’ Flexible Working Hours. By J. Harvey Bolton. Lon don, Anbar Publications, Ltd., 1971. 54 pp. 2. In the United States, where workers put a high premium on long weekends, “rearranged workweeks” generally refer to 4-day weeks that compress the same number of working hours, or almost as many, into fewer working days. But in Continental Europe, a different rearrangement— “flexible working hours” that provide workers with a substantial measure of control over their daily schedules— is arousing interest. Flexible hours and 4-day workweeks have similar objectives; namely, increasing worker satisfaction in order to improve morale, reduce absenteeism and turnover, and in turn increase productivity. Both schedules represent management initiatives. But the flexible workweek has been, and may continue to be, limited largely to professional, managerial, and clerical workers, while the 4-day week has been concentrated, though by no means confined, to factory production workers. The essentials of the flexible workweek as de scribed by Mr. Bolton, a management consultant in England, are these: In place of a uniform schedule for all employees in a firm, such as 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., each employee is allowed to start < £ 72 his workday at any time within a “band” of time that might extend, for example, from 7:30 to 9:30 a.m., and to finish in the evening at any time from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Starting time for a particular day does not establish quitting time for that day, nor is starting or quitting time necessarily the same from day to day. The worker’s obligations are twofold. He must work the “core time” (which in the example above would be 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.). And he must work the required total hours over a given period of time. Within limits, however, he may run a deficit in worktime and repay it in a later period, or accumu late extra hours and collect them later. (Employers report that to date surplus hours have been far more common than deficits. ) Most of Mr. Bolton’s examples are from Germany. It was there that ‘Gleitzeit’ was introduced in 1967 at Messerchmidt-Bôlkow-Blohm GmbH (MBB), an engineering, aviation, and aerospace establishment. The aim was to develop a work schedule that would give the 4,000 administrative, engineering, research, and clerical employees in the headquarters office enough flexibility in working hours to permit them to finish a job or at least continue it to a natural break. The book provides a detailed account of flexible working hours at MBB, followed by descriptions of “variations on a theme,” some of them illustrated by examples drawn from other European firms. Mr. Bolton looks at the pros and cons of the flexible workweek for management and labor. Among the advantages for the employer, he cites greater productivity (attributed in part to the fact that the early morning and late afternoon bands are used as “quiet time,” when communication is dis couraged) and lower overtime costs. (“When no work is available or the load is light, conscientious staff are quite happy to take time off. . . . They are prepared to work longer when the demand is there. . . .” ) The disadvantages are increased administra tive work and higher lighting and heating costs. The list of advantages for the employee include freedom from rigid work schedules, the right to time-off for extra hours worked (generally unrec ognized for highly paid administrative and profes sional personnel), and easier commuting. Mr. Bolton discounts the resistance that white-collar workers might have to the “little box” that records working time, by emphasizing that it differs from the ordinary time clock in that no one, including top manage ment, is excluded, and that it does not record https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 “tardiness”— an outmoded concept under a system of flexible hours. It comes as no surprise that after weighing the pros and cons the writer comes down hard on the side of flexible hours, for his book is a frank effort to foster the introduction of these schedules. In fact, it is basically a “how-to” book, replete with detailed instructions and ilustrated forms for implementing flexible working hours. Considerable attention is given to ways to encourage workers’ acceptance of the “little box.” As Mr. Bolton sees the flexible workweek: “Get ting the job done is now more important than time keeping. People are . . . responsible for their own work and the rhythm of their work. There is no longer any sitting around watching the clock for the time to go home. When in order to get his work done, an employee works longer, he knows that the time will be taken into account.” — J a n ic e N. H edges Economist Office of Economic Trends and Labor Conditions Bureau of Labor Statistics The ‘New Left’ in economics The Capitalist System, A Radical Analysis of Ameri can Society. Edited by Richard C. Edwards, Michael Reich, Thomas E. Weisskopf. Engle wood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. 543 pp. $6.50. Radical Political Economy, Capitalism and Socialism from a Marxist-Humanist Perspective. By Howard Sherman. New York, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1972. 431 pp. $12.50. These two books occupy widely different positions on the broad spectrum of radical New Left thought. The Capitalist System presents a large number of readings for an undergraduate course on the radical political movement, while Radical Political Economy tackles the difficult problem of unifying the contribu tions to radical political economy of various mem bers of the radical New Left. The Capitalist System originated as the collective effort of a group of graduate students and junior faculty to provide a radical alternative to the stand ard principles of economics course given at Harvard University. The three author-editors point out that in their undergraduate work they had found that standard economics not only ignored major social and political issues, but also justified the status quo BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES by defending the capitalist system. Their book in cludes 69 different readings, divided into four parts, the first of which analyzes the problems of capitalism by calling attention to the inequality, alienation, racism, sexism, irrationality, and imperialism which are claimed to be major features of the capitalist system. Part II investigates the nature of the capital ist mode of production, the emergence of capitalism, and the evolution of the American capitalist system. Part III concentrates on the functioning of capitalism in the United States, and goes into a more detailed study of the six major deficiencies of capitalism referred to in Part I. Part IV deals with a communal socialist alternative to capitalism. The Capitalist System professes to speak for what the author-editors call the “radical political move ment” which established the Union for Radical Political Economics in 1968. Their framework of interpretation, which provides a unity for the 69 readings, is a Marxist framework that has been updated to meet the requirements of economic analysis in the second half of the twentieth century. The author-editors accept the traditional Marxist interpretation which uncovers a logic in capitalism leading to the eventual demise of private enterprise. Part III is the most effective part of what is pre sented as a “radical analysis of American society.” It is a good introduction to a study of major prob lems such as alienation, racism, sexism, and irra tionality. The least effective part of this book is the concluding Part IV on alternatives to the capitalist system. Only one of its eight readings actually dis cusses such an alternative, which calls for the. establishment of a “pluralistic commonwealth” com posed of socialist cooperative communes of from 30,000 to 100,000 people. “Communal socialism” is offered as an alternative to both the “state capital ism” of the United States and the “state socialism” of the Soviet Union. A considerable literature on the radical political and economic movement has appeared since 1965. The major defect of this literature is that it is with out focus and does not explain the unity that some radical social scientists think they see in their move ment. The Capitalist System remedies this defect only to the extent that it points out that the radical members of the New Left movement have a unifying neo-Marxist orientation. These members have fre quently been able to provide a good statement of what is wrong with capitalism, but they are at their weakest in their views of what would be a viable alternative to capitalism. The three author-editors https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 73 are quick to admit that the “proletariat” in the ad vanced industrialized nations of the West is now “highly divided” and without much socialist consciousness. Yet the author-editors remain opti mistic about achieving a cooperative socialist com monwealth that to most nonradical economists would appear to be a very remote, if not entirely utopian, alternative to capitalism. The author of Radical Political Economy explains that his book is the first systematic attempt to present as a unified whole all the contributions to political economy of New Left radical and nondogmatic Marxist thought. The title of his book is somewhat misleading because it is not concerned with a critique of the science of economics but in stead with a critique of the development, current status, and future prospects of the various capitalist and communist (socialist) economies. This book falls more properly in the area of comparative economic systems than in the area dealing with the nature and scope of political economy. Professor Sherman explains in Part I that his method of analysis is radical or nondogmatic Marxist in nature. What this means is that he has the basic Marxist approach, but it is presented within the humanistic framework now associated with, the younger Marx. In Part II on an analysis of the capitalist system, the conclusion is reached that the major evils of capitalism can be removed only by abolishing the private profit system. In Part III the limitations of Soviet, Chinese, and Yugoslavian socialism are analyzed with the observation that, while the authoritarian socialism of Eastern Europe and Mainland China is an advance over capitalism, much remains to be done to secure a genuine political democracy and a humane society in those communist countries. The author explains in the concluding Part IV on the political economy of communism that all the major evils such as environmental deterioration, racism, sexism, and alienation will not be eliminated until a “worldwide democratic, social ist, or communist human society” is achieved. Professor Sherman, like other members of the radical New Left, is very interested in trying to establish a definite image for the radical New Left movement. He distinguishes the radical New Left from the radical Old Left by describing the latter as “dogmatic Stalinist Marxism” and the former as “nondogmatic humanist Marxism.” It should be pointed out, however, that nondogmatic humanist Marxism did not originate with the radical New Left. Ever since Stalin subjected the Soviet Union to MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 74 a ruthless forced-draft industrialization in 1928, his western socialist critics have pointed to the non humanist basis of Stalinist Marxism. What is new about the radical New Left is not its humanistic out look, but rather the fact that it is looking at the problems of capitalism and socialism from a fourth quarter, twentieth-century point of view. Also the radical New Left is of interest to the nonworker youthful intelligentsia rather than to the blue-collar workers. Many readers will doubtless be disturbed by the fact that Professor Sherman completely ignores the Scandinavian-British socialist movement. Since he professes to be both pragmatic and humanistic, it is difficult to understand why he pays no attention to the kind of socialist movement that might some day have some chance of appealing to the American public. Professor Sherman is a very competent stu dent of Marxist economics, and his study of the capitalism and authoritarian socialism from what he describes as the “progressive Marxist” approach is a very good statement of the views of the part of the New Left movement that has the radical Marxisthumanist perspective. For the non-Marxist members of the New Left, however, who have been seeking to establish an image or focus for their movement, this book will not prove to be very helpful. — A llan G. G ruchy Professor of Economics University of Maryland Promise and performance Appalachia in the Sixties: Decade of Reawakening. Edited by David S. Walls and John B. Stephen son. Lexington, Ky., University Press of Ken tucky, 1972. 261 pp. $8.50. Every generation since the Civil War has “redis covered” Appalachia and sent its social reformers, missionaries, writers, industrial barons and con men into the hills and hollows to save, civilize, and ex ploit mountaineers in the name of Christianity, social justice, and the almighty buck. No decade, however, held out more promise for the nation’s poorest region than the 1960’s with its New Frontier and Great Society. This book is a collection of articles, reprinted from county weeklies and national magazines, about what happened during the “decade of reawakening”— a time of excitement, hope, curiosity, and eventual dis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis illusionment. The collection is an excellent one, rec ommended reading for anyone seriously concerned about Appalachia. Represented are works of almost every major regional critic ranging from Whitesburg, Ky., attorney Harry M. Caudill to Harvard child psychologist Dr. Robert Coles. John Stephenson is a University of Kentucky sociologist and dean and David Walls is former executive director of the Appalachian Volunteers. The bloody “roving picket” union movement of 1963, Robert Kennedy’s tour of East Kentucky in 1968, the pillage of strip mining, vote fraud in Mingo County, W. Va., a few War on Poverty victories, and the problems of regional migration all receive com passionate treatment. The great tragedy of the decade is, of course, that the Great Society legislation failed to change Appa lachia. “Our impression is that the quantity of human suffering, privation, degradation and confusion, and the extent of environment rape and devastation in Appalachia have not decreased significantly,” write editors Stephenson and Walls in a brief foreword. Their collection offers no simple reason why. Perhaps, as one chapter on “A People’s Appala chian Regional Commission (A R C )” indicates, some efforts were doomed from the start. For example, the act creating the ARC, the article states, was essen tially a governors’ highway and public works bill when it emerged from Congress in 1965, offering little for the region’s poor. It prohibited the commis sion from using public funds to support public power projects and largely ignored natural resource man agement, although the region’s coal, water, and tim ber are among its greatest assets. Hopes for commis sion success were further crippled by adding New York, Ohio, South Carolina, and Mississippi to the list of “Appalachian” States and adopting a policy to concentrate expenditures on perimeter “growth cen ters,” thus ignoring much of hardcore, rural central Appalachia. Perhaps, as other chapters suggest, the programs which offered promise were sabotaged by local poli ticians and outside do-gooders who didn’t under stand the mountain people. Many efforts, writes so cial critic Peter Schrage, became mired “in the sump of old political styles” as courthouse politicians put their wives, brothers, and cousins in charge of local poverty and education programs, making the “circle of futility renew itself year after year.” Perhaps the problems were so complex that solu tions to the region’s problems are four decades away. Or perhaps the region can’t expect to climb out of 75 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES its doldrums until the coal industry begins to pay for the destruction it has caused. A major section of the book on the “politics of coal” implies as much. In one article, James C. Mill stone, of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, documents how coal and land companies have become some of the most profitable firms in America by taking the re gion’s coal and leaving so little tax money behind that Pike County, Ky., one of the nation’s richest coal counties, can pay only 18 percent of the cost needed to run its schools. What should be done in Appalachia during the 1970’s? This book sees the solutions, not in the bandage and mercurochrome programs of the 1960’s, but in terms of nationalizing natural resources, set ting up public utility districts, grassroots political action, broadscale social reconstruction, and revamp ing the Appalachian Regional Commission. If these recommendations are ignored, we may be “rediscovering” an again forgotten Appalachia a decade from now. — B il l P e t e r s o n Washington Correspondent Louisville Courier-Journal What is wrong, and why? The Atrocity of Education. By Arthur Pearl. St. Louis, Mo., New Critics Press, 1972, 365 pp. $9.95, E. P. Dutton, New York. This is a product of the uncertainty of our times on how to educate the American masses. Professor Pearl has excellent credentials and is known espe cially as one of the authors of the “New Careers” program. The opening paragraph sets the stage: “The mess in education is attributable to a failure to identify goals that are relevant to the last third of the 20th Century.” Pearl claims that all the criticisms of education are “as irrelevant as the education they criticize.” They tell it like it is, not “as it should be.” The volume attempts to answer three basic ques tions: What is education all about? What is it trying to accomplish? What are its goals? Pearl answers the last question first. A good education provides an opportunity to compete for employ ment; it makes possible intelligent choices in a democracy; it enhances the enjoyment of culture; https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and it teaches how to live harmoniously with one’s neighbors. Pearl knocks over quite a few educational giants (and some pigmies). He rejects the “efficient schools” and open schools (advocated by Charles Silberman), and he blames education for the pres ence of white racists. Then he socks it to the Kerner Report—he says it didn’t make a “whit of difference.” And Upward Bound he calls a charity case. Pearl even complains that the universities do not serve “soul” food! He is much better at telling us about educational bureaucracy. As he says so well: “Discretion gives way to ritual, justice to consistency, passion to ruthlessness, and wisdom to habit.” Pearl is good (very good) in many other places. He censures educators for failing to provide enough choices for making a living. He says we have no alternative now but to think big (right on). Also, “A good portion of the atrocity of education is attributable to the education prospective teachers receive.” I say cheers to Pearl’s statement that “The beginning of training for democratic citizenship” is respect for a student’s rights. He shows the many ways that adults overact to student proposals. Much of what Pearl states has been said before by Silberman and others, but these educational atroci ties need repeating. I come to bury Pearl too, not just to praise him. He emphasizes that we live in a credential society and those without papers are confined to the most menial of employments. He uses the same old tired phrases of a decade ago. He calls vocational educa tion the dumping grounds. But 1972 is not 1961. He ignores the good employment record of voca tional graduates and he ignores the hundreds of good jobs that do not require credentials (the drywall construction laborers who earn $7.50 per hour and all the overtime they want). My judgment is that the fault of vocational courses is not their quality, but insufficient supply. In chapter III, Pearl really hits us economists: Econom ists as a group w ould have you believe that, through skill training, the structurally unem ployed could effectively be integrated into the labor force. . . . That an increase in the growth rate o f the econ om y (5% o f G N P yearly) w ould lead to more pur chases o f goods and services (aggregate consum er dem and) w hich, in turn, w ould lead to creation o f jobs. . . . that a level o f unem ploym ent is necessary to avoid runaway inflation . . . that subsidy o f business to train “hardcore” unem ployables will increase em ploym ent . . . they only muddy the waters. 76 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Perhaps. But what’s Pearl’s answer? It’s his own old “New Careers” program. He calls for a full employment plus (I repeat plus) economy. It’s comical to quote him now: “The need for more persons in teaching roles will become increasingly clear.” He wants to use blacks, Spanish speaking, poor whites, and Indians in the classrooms. Marvelous. But what are they to do there and who will pay for them? These examples suffice to tell us that this is a provocative and controversial book. You may not agree with Pearl (I didn’t often), but you’ll have a better understanding of the educational problems for having read him. — A ug ust C. B o l in o Professor of Economics The Catholic University of America Other publications Institute of Ecology, Man in the Living Environment. (Re port of the Workshop on Global Ecological Problems, 1971. ) Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1972, 288 pp. $12.50, cloth; $2.50, paper. Kahn, Herman and B. Bruce-Briggs, Things to Come: Thinking A bout the Seventies and Eighties. New York, Macmillan Co., 1972, 262 pp. $6.95. Kay, David A. and Eugene B. Skolnikoff, editors, World Eco-Crisis: International Organizations in Response. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1972, 324 pp. (Spring 1972 issue of International Organization.) $12.50, cloth; $2.50, paper. Kneese, Allen V. and Blair T. Bower, editors, Environ mental Quality Analysis: Theory and M ethod in the Social Sciences. Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, 408 pp. (Papers from a Resources for the Future conference.) $12. Kravis, Irving B., “The Role of Exports in NineteenthCentury United States Growth,” Economic D evelop ment and Cultural Change, April 1972, pp. 387-405. Leif, Nathaniel H., “Economic Development and Regional Inequality: Origins of the Brazilian Case,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1972, pp. 243-262. Economic growth and development Bird, Caroline, The Crowding Syndrome: Learning to Live With Too Much and Too Many. New York. David McKay Co., Inc., 1972, 337 pp. $7.95. Caldwell, Lynton K., In Defense of Earth: International Protection of the Biosphere. Bloomington, Indiana Uni versity Press, 1972, 295 pp. $8.50. Carnoy, Martin and Hans Thias. “Educational Planning with Flexible Wages: A Kenyan Example,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, April 1972, pp. 438-473. Davis, E. G. and J. A. Swanson, “On the Distribution of City Growth Rates in a Theory of Regional Economic Growth,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, April 1972, pp. 495-503. Lind, Truls, and Jan Serck-Hanssen, “Regional Subsidies on Labor and Capital,” Swedish Journal of Economics, March 1972, pp. 68-83. Maddison, Angus, Class Structure and Economic Growth: India and Pakistan since the Moghuls. New York, W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1972, 181 pp., $7.95. O’Malley, Patrick, Irish Industry: Structure and Perform ance. New York, Barnes & Noble, Publishers, 1972, 141 pp. Ranis, Gustav, editor, The Gap Between Rich and Poor N ations• Proceedings of a Conference held by the International Economic Association at Bled, Yugo slavia. London, International Economic Association, 1972, 439 pp. $24.95, St. Martin’s Press, New York. Emmerij, Louis, “Research Priorities of the World Employ ment Program,” International Labor Review, May 1972, pp. 411-423. Rinehart, James R. and William E. Laird, “Community Inducements to Industry and the Zero-Sum Game,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, February 1972, pp. 73-90. Halacy, D. S., Jr., The Geometry of Hunger. New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972, 280 pp. $7.95. Schultz, Theodore W., “The Ecosystem D oom ,” Bulletin of the Atom ic Scientists, April 1972, pp. 12-17. Harris, Donald J., “Feasible Growth with Specificity of Capital and Surplus Labor,” Western Economic Jour nal, March 1972, pp. 65-75. Tait, A. A. and J. A. Bristow, editors, Ireland: Some Prob lems of a Developing Economy. New York, Barnes and Noble, Publishers, 1972, 239 pp. $16.25. Huizer, Gerrit, The Revolutionary Potential of Peasants in Latin America. Lexington, Mass., D. C. Heath & Co., 1972, 237 pp. $12.50. Teubal, Morris, “Development Strategy for a MediumSized Economy,” Econometrica, September 1971, pp. 773-795. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 77 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Projections of the PostVietnam Economy, 1975. Washington, 1972, 34 pp. (Bulletin 1733.) 45 cents, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington. Villaverde, Juan, “Green Revolution,” Americas, March 1972, pp. 11-17. Watanabe, Susumu, “International Subcontracting, Employ ment, and Skill Promotion,” International Labor R e view, May 1972, pp. 425-449. Whitcomb, David K., Externalities and Welfare. New York, Columbia University Press, 1972, 158 pp. $8. Economic statistics Campbell, Angus and Philip E. Converse, editors, The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1972, 547 pp. $15. Fels, Rendigs, editor, “Papers and Proceedings of the 84th Annual Meeting of the American Economic Associa tion, New Orleans, La., December 27-29, 1971,” American Economic Review, May 1972, pp. 1-520. $8, American Economic Association, 1313— 21st Ave nue South, Nashville, Tenn. 37212. Goldsmith, Seth B., “The Status of Health Status Indica tors,” Health Services Reports, March 1972, pp. 212— 220 . Lamberton, D. M., editor, Economics of Information and Knowledge: Selected Readings. Baltimore, Md., Penguin Books, Inc., 1971, 384 pp. $3.25. Moser, C. A., “Revised Figures,” Statistical Reporter, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, May 1972, pp. 193-195. Murray, James R., Systems Research for Social Interven tion: A Framework for the Empirical Evaluation of Social and Psychological Change Programs. Chicago, Industrial Relations Center, University of Chicago, 1972, 36 pp. (Occasional Paper 134.) U.S. Bureau of the Census, Pretests and Dress Rehearsals of the 1970 Census of Population and Housing: A Procedural History. Washington, 1972, 24 pp. (Working Paper 32.) 50 cents, Bureau of the Census, Washing ton 20233. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Standard Indus trial Classification Manual, 1972. Washington, 1972, 649 pp. $6.75, Superintendent of Documents, Wash ington. U.S. Public Health Service, Annotated Bibliography on Robustness Studies of Statistical Procedures. Rockville, Md., National Center for Health Statistics, 1972, 51 pp. (DHEW Publication (HSM ) 72-1051.) 60 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U.S. Public Health Service, Reporting Health Events in Household Interviews: Effects of Reinforcements, Ques tion Length, and Reinterviews— A Methodological Study. Rockville, Md., National Center for Health Sta tistics, 1972, 70 pp. (DHEW Publication (HSM ) 7 2 1028.) Weintraub, E. Roy and Sidney Weintraub, “The Full Em ployment Model: A Critique,” Kyklos, 1972, pp. 8 3 - 100. Zarnowitz, Victor, The Business Cycle Today. New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1972, 338 pp. (Economic Research: Retrospect and Prospect— Fifti eth Anniversary Colloquium of the National Bureau of Economic Research, I.) Distributed by Columbia Uni versity Press, New York. $10, cloth; $3.50, paper. Education Bowles, Samuel, “Getting Nowhere: Programmed Class Stagnation,” Society, June 1972, pp. 42-49. Carnoy, Martin, editor, Schooling in a Corporate Society: The Political Economy of Education in America. New York, David McKay Co., Inc., 1972, 303 pp. $3.95, paper. Cohn, Eichanan, The Economics of Education. Lexington, Mass., D. C. Heath and Co., 1972, 392 pp. $12.50. Fersh, George L., editor, Economics in the Business Cur riculum. New York, Joint Council on Economic Edu cation, 1972, 94 pp. Fox, Karl A., editor, Economic Analysis for Educational Planning: Resource Allocation in Nonmarket Systems. Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, 376 pp. $15. Garb, Gerald, “The Economics of a University System Without Degrees,” Western Economic Journal, March 1972, pp. 57-64. Gisser, Micha, “Education and Economic Welfare: A CrossSectional Study of the U.S.,” Social Science Quarterly, March 1972, pp. 976-983. Hubert, Dick, “Class . . . and the Classroom: The Duluth Experience,” Saturday Review, May 27, 1972, pp. 55-58. Johnstone, D. Bruce and others, “American School Finance: A History,” Current History, June 1972, pp. 273-311. (First in a 3-part symposium on American school financing.) Milner, Murray, Jr., The Illusion of Equality. San Fran cisco, Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1972, 172 pp. $8.50. Smith, Robert G., Jr., The Engineering of Educational and Training Systems. Lexington, Mass., D. C. Heath and Co., 1971, 241 pp. 78 Industrial health and safety Asper, David W., “Planning for Occupational Safety and Health,” Health Services Report, April 1972, pp. 31 1 317. Atherley, G. R. C., “Action on Occupational Deafness in the United Kingdom,” International Labor Review, May 1972, pp. 463-474. Berman, Daniel M., “Job health and safety on a limited budget,” Focus, June 5, 1972, pp. 3-6. Longaker, William D., “The Full-Time Psychiatrist in In dustry,” Journal of Occupational Medicine, March 1972, pp. 216-219. Schulz, Gunter, “Occupational Noise and Vibration Pro tection in the Federal Republic of Germany,” Inter national Labor Review, May 1972, pp. 451-462. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Injury Rates by Industry, 1970. Washington, 1972, 26 pp. (Report 406.) U.S. Public Health Service, Work Injuries Am ong BlueCollar Workers and Disability Days, United States, July 1966—June 1967. Rockville, Md., National Center for Health Statistics, 1972, 44 pp. (DHEW Publication (HSM ) 72-1035.) 50 cents, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington. Industrial relations MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Foegen, J. H., “An Ombudsman as Complement to the Grievance Procedure,” Labor Law Journal, May 1972, pp. 289-294. International Labor Office, Collective Bargaining and the Challenge of New Technology. Geneva, 1972, 71 pp. $2. Distributed in the United States by Washington Branch of ILO. Kassalow, Everett, New Directions in European Unionism, with Some Implications for American Unions. Chicago, Roosevelt University, 1971, 31 pp. Single copies free, Labor Education Division, Roosevelt University. Koshiro, Kazutoshi, “Prospects for Collective Bargaining in the 1970’s: Part I,” Japan Labor Bulletin, April 1972, pp. 13-16. Meltzer, Bernard D., “Labor arbitration and overlapping and conflicting remedies for employment discrimina tion,” University of Chicago Law Review, Fall 1971, pp. 30-50. Nigro, Felix A., editor, “Collective bargaining in the public service: a reappraisal,” Public Administration Review, March-April 1972, pp. 97-126. Rains, Harry H., “Collective Bargaining in the Public Sec tor and the Need for Exclusion of Supervisory Per sonnel,” Labor Law Journal, May 1972, pp. 275-288. Ross, Jeffrey K., “Collective Bargaining in the Prison Sec tor, Industrial and Labor Relations Forum, March 1972, pp. 1-30. Adell, B. L. and D. D. Carter, Collective Bargaining for University Faculty in Canada. Kingston, Ontario, Indus trial Relations Center, Queen’s University, 1972, 95 pp. $3.50, paper. Schiefen, Michael W., “Industrial Union Alliances for Col lective Bargaining,” Industrial and Labor Relations Forum, March 1972, pp. 66-81. Baer, Walter E., Practice and Precedent in Labor Rela tions. Lexington, Mass., D. C. Heath and Co., 1972, 112 pp. $10. Schlossberg, Stephen I. and Frederick E. Sherman, Orga nizing and the Law. Washington, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 1971, 304 pp. $10. Boivin, Robert J., “Labor Law: Duty to Bargain Over Deci sion to Mechanize Operations,” Marquette Law R e view, Winter 1972, pp. 179-184. Simkin, William E., Mediation and the Dynamics of Collec tive Bargaining. Washington, Bureau of National A f fairs, Inc., 1971, 410 pp. $12.50. Bradfield, Stillman, “Mutual Obligations Between Manage ment and Workers in Peru,” AIFLD R eview , American Institute for Free Labor Development, Vol. Ill N o 4 1971, pp. 73-92. Carpenter, Jesse Thomas, Competition and Collective Bar gaining in the Needle Trades, 1910-1967. Ithaca, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, 1972, 910 pp. $17.50. De Maria, Alfred T., Dale Tarnowieski, Richard Gurman, Manager Unions? New York, American Management Association, Inc., 1972, 31 pp. (An AMA Research Report.) $5, AMA members; $7.50, nonmembers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Layoff, Recall, and Work sharing Procedures [in] Major Collective Bargaining Agreements. Washington, 1972, 84 pp. (Bulletin 142513.) $1., Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Industry and government organization Brown, Keith C., editor, Regulation of the Natural Gas Producing Industry. Washington, Resources for the Future, Inc., 1972, 260 pp. (Papers presented at a seminar conducted by Resources for the Future in Washington, D.C., October 15-17, 1970.) $8.50, paper, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md. 79 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES George, Kenneth D. and others, “Symposium on the Large Firm in Modern Society,” Journal of Industrial Eco nomics, April 1972, pp. 105-192. Jasny, Naum, Soviet Economists of the Twenties: Names to be Remembered. London, Cambridge University Press, 1972, 218 pp. $12.50. Moroney, J. R., The Structure of Production in American Manufacturing. Chapel Hill, University of North Caro lina Press, 1972, 174 pp. $10. MacDonald, Wendell D., “The Early History of Labor Statistics in the United States,” Labor History, Spring 1972, pp. 267-278. Plumb, William T., Jr., “The Relative Priority of Claims of Workingmen and of the Federal Government in Insolv ency,” Labor Law Journal, May 1972, pp. 259-274. Marshall, Ray and Richard Perlman, An Anthology of Labor Economics: Readings and Commentary. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1972, 965 pp. $13.95. Pryke, Richard, Public Enterprise in Practice [The British Experience of Nationalization Over Two Decades]. New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1972, 530 pp. $19.95. McGovern, George S. and Leonard F. Guttridge, The Great Coalfield War. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1972, 383 pp. $8.95. Pryor, Frederic L., “An International Comparison of Con centration Ratios,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1972, pp. 130-140. Mohl, Raymond A., “Poverty, Pauperism, and Social Order in the Preindustrial American City, 1780-1840,” Social Science Quarterly, March 1972, pp. 934-948. International economics Spengler, Joseph J., “Veblen on Population and Resources,” Social Science Quarterly, March 1972, pp. 861-878. Kapoor, A. and Phillip D. Grub, The Multinational Enter prise in Transition: Selected Readings and Essays. Princeton, N.J., Darwin Press, 1972, 505 pp. $14.95. Owens, Edgar and Robert Shaw, Development Reconsid ered: Bridging the Gap Between Government and Peo ple. Lexington, Mass., D. C. Heath & Co., 1972, 190 pp. $7.95. Schydlowsky, Daniel M., “Latin American Trade Policies in the 1970’s: A Prospective Appraisal,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1972, pp. 263-289. van Goethem, Pierre, The Americanization of World Busi ness: Wall Street and the Superiority of American Enterprise. New York, Herder and Herder, Inc., 1972, 166 pp. $7.95. Ward, Benjamin, What’s Wrong with Economics? New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1972, 273 pp. $6.95. Zieger, Robert H., “Workers and Scholars: Recent Trends in American Labor Historiography,” Labor History, Spring 1972, pp. 245-266. Labor force Bureau of Business Practice, “Today’s Working Woman— Special Report,” Employee Relations Bulletin, Bureau of Business Practice, 681 Fifth Avenue, New York 10022, May 21, 1972, pp. 1-32. Clark, F. Le Gros and Jeanne M. Fisher, “The Middle-Aged Woman in the Employment Market: A British Con tribution,” Industrial Gerontology, Autumn 1971, pp. 10-19. Labor and economic history and thought Brecher, Jeremy, Strike! The True History of Mass Insur gency in America from 1877 to the Present. San Fran cisco, Straight Arrow Books, 1972, 329 pp. $10, cloth; $3.95, paper. Douglas, Paul H., In the Fullness of Time. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1972, 642 pp. $13.50. Freeman, Richard B., Labor Economics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 136 pp. $5.95. Gould, Jean and Lorena Hickok, Walter Reuther: Labor’s Rugged Individualist. New York, Dodd, Mead & Co., 1972, 399 pp. $8.95. Cook, Alvin A., Jr., “Quality Adjustment and the Excess Supply of Air Force Volunteers,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1972, pp. 166-171. Davis, C. Howard, “Influence of Selected Community Char acteristics on Mobility of College Educated Persons, 1955-1960,” Social Science Quarterly, March 1972, pp. 963-975. Durand, Claude et Michelle, De l’O.S. à l’Ingénieur: Car rière ou Classe Sociale. Paris, Les Editions Ouvrières, 1971, 320 pp., bibliography. 42 Fr. Harrington, Michael, Socialism. New York, Saturday Re view Press, 1972, 436 pp. $12.50. Engineering Manpower Commission, “Women in Engineer ing,” Engineering Manpower Bulletin, May 1972, pp. 1-6. (N o. 21.) $1.50, Engineering Manpower Com mission of Engineers Joint Council, 345 East 47th Street, New York 10017. Jacobs, Wilbur R., Dispossessing the American Indian: Indians and Whites on the Colonial Frontier. New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1972, 240 pp. $7.95. Good, Paul, “The Bricks and Mortars of Racism,” New York Times Magazine, May 21, 1972, pp. 24—25, 57 et seq. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 80 Hill, Herbert, “The New Judicial Perception of Employ ment Discrimination— Litigation Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” University of Colorado Law Review, March 1972, pp. 243-268. Reprints avail able from NAACP, 1790 Broadway, New York 10019. Hodgson, J. D. and others, “The Emergency Employment Act: An Action Research,” N ew Generation, National Committee on Employment of Youth, Winter 1972, pp. 1-28. Hood, Ernie, “Profiling Alaska’s Native Manpower,” Man power, May 1972, pp. 14-20. Janjic, Marion, “Part-Time Work in the Public Service,” International Labor Review, April 1972, pp. 335-349. National Planning Association, “Woman in the Labor Force,” Projection Highlights, May 1972, pp. 1-4. Northrup, Herbert R. and others, Negro Employment in Land and A ir Transport— A Study of Racial Policies in the Railroad, Airline, Trucking, and Urban Transit Industries. Philadelphia, Pa., Industrial Research Unit, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, 1971, 631 pp. (Studies of Negro Employment, V .) $13.50. Ozanne, Robert, The Negro in the Farm Equipment and Construction Machinery Industries. Philadelphia, Indus trial Research Unit, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, 1972, 115 pp. (Racial Policies of American Industry, 26.) $5.95. Raymond, Richard D., The Myth of the Appalachian Brain Drain: A Case Study of West Virginia. Morgantown, West Virginia University Library, 1972, 78 pp. $3. Ross, M. H., “Life Style of the Coal Miner: America’s Original Hard Hat,” Appalachia Medicine, March 1971. Sawers, Larry, “Urban Poverty and Labor Force Participa tion: Note,” American Economic Review, June 1972, pp. 414-421. Snelling, W. Rodman and Robert F. Boruch, Science in Liberal A rts Colleges: A Longitudinal Study of 49 Selective Colleges. New York, Research Corporation, 1972, 285 pp. $8.50, Columbia University Press, New York. Thorbecke, Erik, “What is Unemployment?”, A1FLD R e view, American Institute for Free Labor Development, Vol. Ill, No. 4, 1971, pp. 11-19. U S. Cabinet Committee on Opportunity for the Spanish Speaking, Spanish Surnamed American College Gradu ates, 1971-1972. Washington, 1971, Vol. I, 570 pp., Vol. II, 208 pp. Single copies free from the Committee, 1800 G St., N.W., Washington 20506. U.S. Manpower Administration, Review of the Rural Man power Service. Washington, 1972, 152 pp. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 U.S. Manpower Administration, Rural Manpower D evelop ments [formerly published as Farm Labor Develop ments]. First issue, March 1972, includes James C. Nix, “A Review of Rural Manpower Research”; Cora S. Cronemeyer, “New Ways of Helping Migrants”; Mil dred G. Wilson, “Trends in Farm Wage Rates”; “Oc cupational Trends in Nonmetropolitan Employment, 1960 to 1970”; and employment and wage tables. U.S. National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources, 1953—72— Funds and M anpower in the United States. Washington, 1972. (N SF 72-300.) 50 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Vedder, Richard K. and Lowell E. Gallaway, “The Geo graphical Distribution of British and Irish Emigrants to the United States After 1800,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, February 1972, pp. 19-35. Wachter, Michael L., “A Labor Supply Model for Sec ondary Workers,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1972, pp. 141-151. Weiss, Leonard and Jeffrey G. Williamson, “Black Educa tion, Earnings, and Interregional Migration: Some New Evidence,” American Economic Review, June 1972, pp. 372-383. Labor organizations American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, The A F L -C IO Platform Proposals Pre sented to the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, 1972. Washington, 1972, 45 pp. Braun, Robert J., Teachers and Power: The Story of the American Federation of Teachers. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1972, 287 pp. $7.95. Management and organization theory Baehr, Melany E. and Frances E. Burns, The Use of Vali dated Personal Background Data in Selection and Place ment Interviews. Chicago, Industrial Relations Center, University of Chicago, 1972, 14 pp. (Occasional Paper 131.) Block, Gerd E. and Renate C. Block, “Office Landscaping,” Personnel Practice Bulletin, Australian Commonwealth Department of Labor and National Service, March 1972, pp. 45-57. Boehm, Virginia R., “Negro-white differences in validity of employment and training selection procedures: sum mary of research evidence,” Journal of A pplied Psy chology, February 1972, pp. 33-39. Dascher, Paul E., “Motivation behavior and the reward system,” Economic and Business Bulletin, Temple Uni versity, Spring-Summer 1972, pp. 35-39. Dyer, William G., editor, Modern Theory and M ethod in Group Training. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1972, 251 pp. $12.50. 81 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES Harris, Philip R. and Dorothy L. Harris, “Training for Cultural Understanding,” Training and Development Journal, May 1972, pp. 8-10. Holley, William H., Jr., “Employer Preferences for Pro grams to Train and Employ the Hard-Core Jobless,” Training and Development Journal, June 1972, pp. 8- 12. Holmen, Milton G. and Richard Docter, Educational and Psychological Testing: A Study of the Industry and its Practices. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1972, 218 pp. $7.95. Lawless, David J., Effective Management: Social Psychologi cal Approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 422 pp. $10.95. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Enterprise M anpower Planning for Change. Interna tional Management Seminar, Lisbon, January 13-16, 1970, Final Report. Paris, OECD, 1972, 216 pp. (Inter national Seminars 1970-1.) Jakubauskas, Edward B., editor, Proceedings of the G ov ernor’s Conference on Comprehensive Manpower Plan ning. Ames, Iowa State University, Industrial Relations Center, 1972, 157 pp. Kirchner, Wayne K., “The Hard-Core in Training— Who Makes It?”, Training and Development Journal, May 1972, pp. 34-37. Pavalko, Ronald M., Sociology of Occupations and Pro fessions. Itasca, 111., F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1971, 234 pp. $6.50, cloth: $3.95, paper. Orpen, Christopher, “Peer ratings as predictors of whitecollar performance,” Personnel, May-June 1972, pp. 45-48. Roberts, Markley, “A Cost-Benefit Report on Training D is advantaged Youths for Apprenticeship,” Training and Development Journal, June 1972, pp. 32-35. Pritchard, Robert D., Marvin D. Dunnette, Dale O. Jorgen son, “Effects of Perceptions of Equity and Inequity on Worker Performance and Satisfaction,” Journal of Applied Psychology, February 1972, pp. 75-94. Style, G. W., “Training Disabled Workers for the 70’s,” United Kingdom Department of Employment Gazette, March 1972, pp. 243-246. Sirota, David and Alan D. Wolfson, “Job enrichment: What are the obstacles?”, Personnel, May-June 1972, pp. 8-17. Slocum, John W., Jr., and Robert H. Strawser, “Racial dif ferences in job attitudes,” Journal of A pplied Psychol ogy, February 1972, pp. 28-32. Trice, Harrison M. and Paul M. Roman, Spirits and Demons at Work: Alcohol and Other Drugs on the Job. Ithaca, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Rela tions, Cornell University, 1972, 268 pp. (ILR Paper back 11.) $6.50, cloth (special order); $4.75, paper. Manpower training and development Barsby, Steve L., Cost-Benefit Analysis and Manpower Pro grams. Lexington, Mass., D. C. Heath and Co., 1972, 180 pp. $15. Bartholemew, D. J. and A. R. Smith, editors, Manpower and Management Science. Lexington, Mass., D. C. Heath and Co., 1972, 341 pp. $15. Burack, Elmer H. and James W. Walker, editors, Man power Planning and Programming. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972, 452 pp. $11.95. Gilpatrick, Eleanor, Health Services M obility Study: Final Report for the Period October 1967 through March 1972. New York, The Research Foundation, City Uni versity of New York, 1972, 137 pp. (Technical Report 11. ) Hamermesh, Daniel S., “The secondary effects of man power programs,” Economic and Business Bulletin, Temple University, Spring-Summer 1972, pp. 18-26. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Prices and living conditions Boyd, J. Hayden and Gary M. Walton, “The Social Savings From Nineteenth-Century Rail Passenger Services,” Explorations in Economic History, Spring 1972, pp. 233-254. Cooper, Barbara S. and Nancy L. Worthington, “Medical Care Spending for Three Age Groups,” Social Security Bulletin, May 1972, pp. 3-16. Davis, Karen and Louise B. Russell, “The Substitution of Hospital Outpatient Care for Inpatient Care,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1972, pp. 109-120. Dean, Michael L. and William B. Wagner, “Labor’s hedge against inflation— the CPI,” Personnel, May-June 1972, pp. 23-28. Eckstein, Otto and Roger Brinner, The Inflation Process in the United States. Washington, U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 92d Cong., 2d sess., 1972. 46 pp. (Joint Committee Print.) 25 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Edwards, Marvin Henry, Hazardous to Your Health: A New Look at the “Health Care Crisis” in America. New Rochelle, N.Y., Arlington House, 1972, 318 pp. $9.95. Feldstein, Martin S., “Equity and Efficiency in Public Sector Pricing: The Optimal Two-Part Tariff,” Quarterly Jour nal of Economics, May 1972, pp. 175-187. Ikle, Doris M., “A New Approach to the Index Number Problem,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1972, pp. 188-211.' 82 Kain, John F. and John M. Quigley, “Housing Market D is crimination, Homeownership, and Savings Behavior,” American Economic Review, June 1972, pp. 263-277. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 National Science Board, The Role of Engineers and Scientists in a National Policy for Technology. Wash ington, National Science Foundation, 1972, 48 pp. 45 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Kennedy, Edward M., In Critical Condition: The Crisis in America’s Health Care. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1972, 252 pp. $6.95. Sampson, Gary P., “Salter, Solow and SMAC,” Australian Economic Papers, December 1971, pp. 114-121. Lazer, William, John E. Smallwood, and others, “Con sumer Environments and Life Styles of the Seventies,” M SU Business Topics, Michigan State University, Spring 1972, pp. 5-17. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Railroad Technology and Manpower in the 1970’s. Washington, 1972, 90 pp. (Bulletin 1717.) $1, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. McCracken, Paul W., “Fighting Inflation After Phase Two,” Fortune, June 1972, pp. 84-85, 157-158. Uselding, Paul J., “Technical Progress at the Springfield Armory, 1820-1850,” Explorations in Economic His tory, Spring 1972, pp. 291-316. Mercer, Lloyd J. and W. Douglas Morgan, “Alternative In terpretations of Market Saturation: Evaluation for the Automobile Market in the Late Twenties,” Explora tions in Economic History, Spring 1972, pp. 269-290. Social institutions and social change Schnabel, Morton, “The Subsidy Problem in Hospital Insur ance: A Comment,” Journal of Business, University of Chicago, April 1972, pp. 302-304. Schräg, Philip G., Counsel for the Deceived: Case Studies in Consumer Fraud. New York, Random House, 1972, 200 pp. $5.95. Productivity and technological change Behman, Sara and others, Productivity Change for Car penters and Other Occupations in the Building of Single-Family Dwellings and Related Policy Issues. Berkeley, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, 1971, 199 pp. $1. Etzioni, Amitai, “Human Beings Are N ot Very Easy to Change After A ll,” Saturday Review, June 3, 1972, pp. 45-47. Etzioni, Amitai, “The Women’s Movement— Tokens vs. Objectives,” Saturday Review, May 20, 1972, pp. 31-35. Lopreato, Joseph and Lawrence E. Hazelrigg, Class, Con flict, and M obility: Theories and Studies of Class Struc ture. San Francisco, Chandler Publishing Co., 1972, 576 pp. $12.50. Peachey, Paul and Sister Rita Mudd, editors, Evolving Pat terns of Ethnicity in American Life. Washington, N a tional Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs, 1971, 60 pp. Urban affairs Bloom, Gordon F., Productivity in the Food Industry: Prob lems and Potential. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 314 pp. $10. Clayton, Eric S., “Mechanization and Employment in East African Agriculture,” International Labor Review, April 1972, pp. 309-334. Computer Science and Engineering Board, Libraries and Information Technology: A National System Challenge. Washington, National Academy of Sciences, 1972, 84 pp. (A Report to The Council on Library Resources Inc., by The Information Systems Panel, Computer Science and Engineering Board.) $3.25, paper. Flueckiger, Gerald E., “Observation and Measurement of Technological Change,” Explorations in Economic History, Kent State University Press, Winter 1971-72, pp. 145-177. International Labor Office, Labor and Social Implications of Automation and Other Technological Developments. (Report VI, International Labor Conference, 57th Ses sion, Geneva 1972.) Geneva, ILO, 1972, 75 pp. Moore, Wilbert E., Technology and Social Change. Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1972, 236 pp. (A New York Times Book.) $2.45, paper. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Banfield, Edward C., “The Urban Crisis: Reality or Myth?,” Manpower, May 1972, pp. 9-13. Bigler, Harold and Eugene Keith, “Transporting the Poor to Work,” Manpower, May 1972, pp. 2-8. Erie, Steven P. and others, Reform of M etropolitan Govern ments. Washington, Resources for the Future, Inc., 1972, 88 pp. (Governance of Metropolitan Regions, Lowden Wingo, editor, 1.) $2.25, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md. Ford Foundation, “Special Report: A Wider Bargaining Table” [Activities of the National Center for Dispute Settlement and the Center for Mediation and Conflict Resolution], Ford Foundation Letter, March 1, 1972, pp. 1-2. Gans, Herbert J., “The New Egalitarianism,” Saturday Review, May 6, 1972, pp. 43-46. Groh, George W., The Black Migration: The Journey to Urban America. New York, Weybright and Talley, 1972, 301 pp. $8.95. Haar, Charles M. and others, M etropolitanization and Pub lic Services. Washington, Resources for the Future, Inc., 1972, 69 pp. (Governance of Metropolitan Regions, BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES Lowden Wingo, editor, 3.) $2.25, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md. Henderson, William L. and Larry C. Ledebur, Urban Eco nom ics• Processes and Problems. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1972, 216 pp. $7.50. Kendrick, David, “Numerical Models for Urban Planning,” Swedish Journal of Economics, March 1972, pp. 45-67. Marshall, Dale Rogers and others, Minority Perspectives. Washington, Resources for the Future, Inc., 1972, 68 pp. (Governance of Metropolitan Regions, Lowden Wingo, editor, 2.) $2.25, Johns Hopkins Press, Balti more, Md. National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs, Working Class and Ethnic Priorities. Washington, National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs, 1972, 25 pp. New York City Commission on Human Rights, Women’s Role in Contemporary Society. New York, Avon Books, 1972, 800 pp. (Report of the Commission, September 21-25, 1970.) $2.45, paper. Novak, Michael, The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnic: Politics and Culture in the Seventies. New York, Macmillan Co., 321 pp. $7.95. O’Neill, William L., editor, Women at Work: Including “The Long D ay— The Story of a N ew''York Working Girl [1905]” by Dorothy Richardson and “Inside the New York Telephone Company [1970]” by Elinor Langer. Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1972, 360 pp. $2.95, paper. Seda Bonilla, Eduardo, “The Identity of the ‘Niuyorricans’,” N ew Generation, Fall 1971, pp. 6-11. Tokyo Municipal Government, Tokyo for the People: Con cepts for Urban Renewal. Tokyo, 1972, 144 pp. Tokyo Municipal Government, T okyo’s Housing Problem. (Translated by Tokutaro Nakagawa.) Tokyo, 1972, 228 pp. Winslow, Robert W., editor, The Emergence of Deviant Minorities: Social Problems and Social Change. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Books, 1972, 378 pp. $9.75. Mills, Edwin S., Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy. Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, 151 pp. (Published for Resources for the Future, Inc.) $7. Owen, Wilfred, The Accessible City. Washington, Brook ings Institution, 1972, 150 pp. $6.50. Wood, Robert C., The Necessary Majority: M iddle America and the Urban Crisis. New York, Columbia University Press, 1972, 95 pp. $5.95. Yancey, William L., “Going Down Home: Family Struc https://fraser.stlouisfed.org ture and the Urban Trap,” Social Science Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank 1972, of St. Louis March pp. 893-906. _____________________ 83 Wages and compensation Ashenfelter, Orley, Some Evidence of the Effect of Union ism on the Average Wage of Black Workers Relative to White Workers, 1900—1967. Princeton, N.J., Prince ton University, Industrial Relations Section, 1971, 11 pp. (Working paper 33.) Baird, Robert N. and John H. Landon, “The Effects of Collective Bargaining on Public School Teachers’ Salaries,” Communication with reply by Hirschel Kasper, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, April 1972, pp. 410-423. Boskin, Michael J., “Unions and Relative Real Wages,” American Economic Review, June 1972, pp. 466-472. Bressler, Barry, “The salaries of union officials with specific reference to the construction industry,” Economic and Business Bulletin, Temple University, Spring-Summer 1972, pp. 46-50. Engineering Manpower Commission, Salaries of Engineer ing Technicians, 1971. New York, Engineers Joint Council, 1972, 80 pp. $5. Evans, Alan W., “On the Theory of the Valuation and Allocation of Time,” Scottish Journal of Political Econ omy, February 1972, pp. 1-17. Foegen, J. H., “Is it time to clip the fringes?,” Personnel, March-April 1972, pp. 36-42. Freund, James L., “Wage Pressures on City Hall: Philadel phia’s Experience in Perspective,” Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, March 1972, pp. 3-17. Hellriegel, Don, “The Four-Day Workweek: A Review and Assessment,” MSU Business Topics, Michigan State University, Spring 1972, pp. 39-48. Husband, T. M., “Developing a General Model of Execu tive Pay,” Compensation Review, Second Quarter 1972, pp. 8-14. Kirsch, Leonard Joel, Soviet Wages: Changes in Structure and Administration Since 1956. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1972,. 237 pp. $12.50. Kolodrubetz, Walter W., “Two Decades of EmployeeBenefit Plans, 1950-70: A Review,” Social Security Bulletin, April 1972, pp. 10-22. Kosters, Marvin and Finish Welch, “The Effects of Mini mum Wages on the Distribution of Changes in A g gregate Employment,” American Economic Review, June 1972, pp. 323-332. Lane, Irving M. and Lawrence A. Messe, “Distribution of Insufficient, Sufficient, and Oversufficient Rewards: A Clarification of Equity Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, February 1972, pp. 228-233. Mitchell, Daniel J. B., “Incomes Policy and the Labor Market in France,” Industrial and Labor Relations MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 84 Moore, Thomas G., U.S. Incomes Policy, Its Rationale and Development. Washington, American Enterprise Insti tute for Public Policy Research, 1971, 32 pp. (Special analysis, 18.) Prideaux, G. J., “Employee Benefits and Services,” Person nel Practice Bulletin, Australian Commonwealth D e partment of Labor and National Service, March 1972, pp. 19-45. Sherman, Roger and Thomas D. Willett, “The Standardized Work Week and the Allocation of Time,” Kyklos, 1972, pp. 65-82. Sparks, Gordon R. and David A. Wilton, “Determinants of Negotiated Wage Increases: An Empirical Analy sis,” Econometrica, September 1971, pp. 739-750. Swidinsky, Robert, “Trade Unions and the Rate of Change of Money Wages in Canada, 1953-1970,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, April 1972, pp. 363-375. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Area Wage Surveys: M etro politan Areas, United States and Regional Summaries, 1969-70. Washington, 1972, 108 pp. (Bulletin 166092.) $1, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Area Wage Survey: The Memphis, Tenn.-Ark. Metropolitan Area, N ovem ber 1971. Washington, 1972, 29 pp. (Bulletin 1725-40.) 35 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Other recent bulletins in this series include the metro politan areas of San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, Calif., Denver, Colo., Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., Pittsburg, Pa., Seattle-Everett, Wash., Charlotte, N.C., Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y., and Waterbury, Conn. (Bulletins 1725-43 through -4 9 , -5 3 .) Various pagings and prices. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employm ent and Earnings, United States, 1909-71. Washington, 1972, 688 pp. (Bulletin 1312-8.) $5, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. Microfiche available from National Tech nical Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22151, 95 cents (Stock No. 2901-0720). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Wage Survey: Cigarette Manufacturing, May-June 1971. Washington, 1972, 15 pp. (Bulletin 1748.) 50 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Wage Survey: Hosiery, September 1970. Washington, 1972, 73 pp. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Bulletin 1743.) 75 cents, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Industry Wage Survey: Paints and Varnishes, N ovem ber 1970. Washington, 1972, 56 pp. (Bulletin 1739.) 60 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Wages and Hours: Local-Transit Operating Employees, July 1, 1971. Washington, 1972, 12 pp. (Bulletin 1745.) 25 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, “Service and Compensa tion of Railroad Employees in 1970, Part II,” RRB Quarterly Review, January-March 1972, pp. 19-23. Wachtel, Howard M. and Charles Betsey, “Employment at Low Wages,” Review of Economics and Statistics, May 1972, pp. 121-129. Wilson, Francis, Labor in the South African G old Mines, 1911-1969. London, Cambridge University Press, 1972, 218 pp. $14.95. Yuki, Gary, Kenneth N. Wexley, James D. Seymore, “Ef fectiveness of Pay Incentives Under Variable Ratio and Continuous Reinforcement Schedules,” Journal of A p plied Psychology, February 1972, pp. 19-23. Welfare programs and social insurance Appel, Gary Louis, Effects of a Financial Incentive on AFD C Employment: Michigan’s Experience Between July 1969 and July 1970. Minneapolis, Minn., Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1972, 112 pp. Arndt, Sven W., “Poverty in a Dichotomized Economy,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, April 1972, pp. 165-171. Bridges, Benjamin, Jr., Redistributive Effects of Transfer Payments A m ong Age and Economic Status Groups. Washington, 1971, 33 pp. (Social Security Administra tion, Office of Research and Statistics, Staff Paper 10.) Clague, Ewan, “The Private Pension Dilemma,” Industrial Gerontology, Autumn 1971, pp. 1-9. Cohen, Wilbur J. and Milton Friedman, Social Security: Universal or Selective? Washington, American Enter prise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1972, 114 pp. (National Debate Seminars.) $5.75. BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES Fine, Max W., “Catastrophic Insurance: The Wrong Way to Health Care,” American Federationist, April 1972, pp. 4-7. Friedman, Milton, “The Poor Man’s Welfare Payment to the Middle Class,” Washington M onthly, May 1972, pp. 11-16. Haanes-Olsen, Leif, “Children’s Allowances: Their Size and Structure in Five Countries,” Social Security Bulletin, May 1972, pp. 17-28. Hanrahan, George D., “Why social programs fail,” Eco nomic and Business Bulletin, Temple University, SpringSummer 1972, pp. 51-59. Kane, Robert L. and Rosalie A. Kane, Federal Health Care ( With Reservations!). New York, Springer Publishing Co., Inc., 1972, 180 pp. $6.95. Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Kreitler, “Switzerland Changes Social Insurance Philosophy,” Social Security Bulletin, April 1972, pp. 24-26. Kolodrubetz, Walter W. and Alfred M. Skolnik, Pension Benefit Levels: A M ethodological Analysis. Washing ton, 1971. (Social Security Administration, Office of Research and Statistics, Staff Paper.) Levitan, Sar A., Martin Rein, David Marwick, Work and Welfare Go Together. Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, 137 pp. $6, cloth; $2.50, paper. Marmor, Theodore R. and Martin Rein, “Flimflam Flop in Welfare,” Society, June 1972, pp. 38-41. Murray, Merrill G., The Treatment of Seasonal Unemploy ment Under Unemployment Insurance. Kalamazoo, Mich., W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Re search, 1972, 84 pp. $1.25. National Research Council, Policy and Program Research in a University Setting: A Case Study. Washington, N a https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 85 tional Academy of Sciences, 1971, 55 pp. (Report of the Advisory Committee for Assessment of UniversityBased Institutes for Research on Poverty, Division of Behavioral Sciences, National Research Council.) $2.75, paper. Podell, Lawrence, The A ttitudes Towards Social Services of Mothers on Welfare, New York, Human Resources Administration, 1972, 38 pp. Single copies, Director, Office of Research and Evaluation, Human Resources Administration of the City of New York, 250 Church Street, New York, N.Y. 10013. Porter, Bruce, “Welfare Won’t Work, But What Will?”, Saturday Review, June 3, 1972, pp. 48-52. Rose, Stephen M., The Betrayal of the Poor: The Transfor mation of Community Action. Cambridge, Mass., Schenkman Publishing Co., 1972, 199 pp. $2.95, paper, General Learning Press, Morristown, N.J. Thurow, Lester C., The Economics of Poverty and Racial Discrimination: The Allocation of Economic Resources; Poverty; Racial Discrimination. New York, Joint Coun cil on Economic Education, 1972, 19 pp. (Economic Topic series.) U.S. Social Security Administration, “Liberalization of Vet erans’ Income-Maintenance Programs,” Social Security Bulletin, April 1972, pp. 22-24. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, “Characteristics of RRA Annuities,” RRB Quarterly Review, January-March 1972, pp. 4-8. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, Railroad Retirement D is ability Program, 1937-71. Chicago, 1972, 42 pp. (RRB Actuarial Study, 10.) U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, “Sickness Beneficiaries Under the RUIA [Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act],” RRB Quarterly Review, January-March 1972, pp. 9-15. Current Labor Statistics Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series 87 Employment and unemployment—household data 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Employment status of noninstitutional population, 1 9 4 7 -7 1 ....................................................................................... Employment status, by color, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted, quarterly av erag es............................................... Full-time and part-time status of civilian labor force, seasonally a d ju s te d ................................................................. Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally a d ju s te d ...................................................................... Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonallyadjusted, quarterly averages........... Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally a d ju s te d ................................................................. Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally a d ju s te d ........................................................................................... Unemployment indicators, seasonally a d ju s te d ................................................................................................................... Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted ............................................................................................................... 87 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 91 Unemployment insurance 10. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations .................................................................................... 92 Nonagricultural employment—payroll data 11. 12. 13. 14. Employment Employment Employment Employment by by by by industry, 1 9 47 -71 .................................................................................................. S t a t e ................................................................................................................................................................... industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ............................................................................... industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally a d ju s te d ...................................... 93 93 94 95 Labor turnover and job vacancies 15. 16. 17. Labor turnover in manufacturing, 1962 to date ................................................ Labor turnover in manufacturing, by major industry group ......................................................................................... Job vacancies in m a n u fac tu rin g ............................................................................................................................................. 96 97 97 Hours and earnings—private nonagricultural payrolls 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Hours and earnings, by industry division, 19 4 7 -7 1 .......................................................................................................... Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ............................................................................. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally a d ju s te d ...................................... Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p ........................................................................ Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ................................................................... Spendable weekly earnings in current and 1967 d o lla rs .................................................................................................. 98 99 100 101 102 103 Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, 1949—71 ............................................................................................................ Consumer Price Index, U.S. average, general summary and selected ite m s .............................................................. Consumer Price Index, selected a r e a s .................................................................................................................................... Wholesale Price Index, by group and subgroup of commodities ............................................................................... Wholesale Price Index, for special commodity g ro up ing s................................................................................................ Wholesale Price Index, by durability of p ro d u c t...................................................................................................... Wholesale Price Index, by stage of pro cessin g ................................................................................................................. Industry-sector price indexes for output of selected in d u stries................................................................................ 104 104 110 Prices 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. I ll 113 113 114 115 Labor-management disputes 32. Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes ......................................................................................... 117 Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, and unit labor c o s ts ............................................................ 118 Productivity 33. 86 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 87 HOUSEHOLD DATA Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series, September 1972 T itle Date o f re le ase Employment situation ................................ Wholesale Price Index ....................... Consumer Price Index Work stODDaees .............. 1. September September September September 1 8 22 29 P e rio d covered M L R table num ber 1-14 27-31 25-26 32 August August August August Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, 1 9 4 7 -7 1 [In thousands] Total labor force Total noninstitutiona population Year Civilian labor force Employed Number Percent of population Unemployed Not in labor force Total Total Agriculture Nonagricultural industries Number Percent of labor force 1947_____________ _________ 1948__________________________ . _____ 1949______ 1950______________ _________ 103,418 104,527 105,611 106,645 60,941 62,080 62,903 63,858 58.9 59.4 59.6 59.9 59,350 60,621 61,286 62,208 57,039 58,344 57,649 58,920 7,891 7,629 7,656 7,160 49,148 50,713 49,990 51,760 2,311 2,276 3,637 3,288 3.9 3.8 5.9 5.3 42,477 42,447 42,708 42,787 1951___________ 1952__________ 1953___________ 195 4... ________ 1955_____________ 107,721 108,823 110,601 111,671 112,732 65,117 65,730 66,560 66,993 68,072 60.4 60.4 60.2 60.0 60.4 62,017 62,138 63,015 63,643 65,023 59,962 60,254 61,181 60,110 62,171 6,726 6,501 6,261 6,206 6,449 53,239 53,753 54,922 53,903 55,724 2,055 1,883 1,834 3,532 2,852 3.3 3.0 2.9 5.5 4.4 42,604 43,093 44,041 44,678 44,660 1956_____ ______________ _____ 1957_______ ____ _ 1958__ _________ 1959____________ ____ . 1960__________________________ 113,811 115,065 116,363 117,881 119,759 69,409 69,729 70,275 70,921 72,142 61.0 60.6 60.4 60.2 60.2 66,552 66,929 67,639 68,369 69,628 63,802 64,071 63,036 64,630 65,778 6,283 5,947 5,586 5,565 5,458 57,517 58,123 57,450 59,065 60,318 2,750 2,859 4,602 3,740 3,852 4.1 4.3 6.8 5.5 5.5 44,402 45,336 46,088 46,960 47,617 1961__________________________ 1963______________________ 1964__________________________ 1965______________ ___________ 121,343 122,981 125,154 127,224 129,236 73,031 73,424 74,571 75,830 77,178 60.2 59.7 59.6 59.6 59.7 70,459 70,614 71,833 73,091 74,455 65,746 66,702 67,762 69,305 71,088 5,200 4,944 4,687 4,523 4,361 60,546 61,759 63,076 64,782 66,726 4,714 3,911 4,070 3,786 3,366 6.7 5.5 5.7 5.2 4.5 48,312 49,539 50,583 51,394 52,058 1966__________________________ 1967_________________________ 1968__________________________ 1969__________________________ 1970__________________________ 131,180 133,319 135,562 137,841 140,182 78,893 80,793 82,272 84,239 85,903 60.1 60.6 60.7 61.1 61.3 75,770 77,347 78,737 80,733 82,715 72,895 74,372 75,920 77,902 78,627 3,979 3,844 3,817 3,606 3,462 68,915 70,527 72,103 74,296 75,165 2,875 2,975 2,817 2,831 4,088 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 4.9 52,288 52,527 53,291 53,602 54,280 1 9 7 1 ________________________________ 1 4 2 ,5 9 6 8 6 ,9 2 9 6 1 .0 8 4 ,1 1 3 7 9 ,1 2 0 3 ,3 8 7 7 5 ,7 3 2 4 ,9 9 3 5 .9 5 5 ,6 6 6 _______ _____ _____ . __ ____ 1 9 6 2 ___________________________________ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 88 2. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 HOUSEHOLD DATA Employment status, by color, sex and age, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages [In thousands] 1972 1971 1970 1969 A n n u a l a v e ra g e C h a r a c t e r is t ic 2d 1970 1971 2d 3d 4 th 1st 2d 3d 4 th 1st 2d 3d 4 th 1 st 73,518 42,464 24,616 6,440 74,790 43,088 25,030 6,672 71,508 41,646 23,737 6,125 72,019 41,863 23,970 6,186 72,417 41,936 24,121 6,360 73,174 42,267 24,450 6,457 73,324 42,473 24,459 6,392 73,604 42,514 24,687 6,403 74,210 42,712 24,916 6,582 74,317 42,709 24,930 6,678 74,422 43,050 24,777 6,595 74,843 43,250 24,980 6,613 75,673 43,362 25,434 6,877 76,417 43,618 25,584 7,215 7 6 ,7 6 8 4 3 ,8 9 1 2 5 ,6 9 7 7 ,1 8 0 70,182 41,093 23,521 5,569 70,716 41,347 23,707 5,662 69,307 40,884 22,945 5,478 69,667 41,023 23,144 5,500 70,052 41,078 23,289 5,685 70,389 41,180 23,524 5,685 70,134 41,158 23,425 5,551 70,070 41,013 23,536 5,521 70,220 41,035 23,622 5,563 70,237 40,983 23,617 5,637 70,328 41,268 23,458 5,602 70,762 41,484 23,662 5,616 71,572 41,665 24,081 5,826 72,402 41,959 24,370 6,073 7 2 ,7 3 3 4 2 ,1 8 3 2 4 ,3 7 1 6 ,1 7 9 3,337 1,371 1,095 871 4,074 1,741 1,324 2,352 840 826 686 2,365 858 832 675 2,785 1,087 926 772 3,190 1,315 1,034 841 3,534 1,501 1,151 882 3,990 1,677 1,294 1,019 4,080 1,726 1,313 1,041 4,094 1,782 1,319 993 4,081 1,766 1,318 997 4,101 1,697 1,353 1,051 4,014 1,659 1,214 1,141 4 ,0 3 5 1 ,7 0 8 1 ,3 2 6 1,010 2,201 762 792 647 4.5 3.2 4.4 13.5 5.4 4.0 5.3 15.1 3.1 1.8 3.3 10.6 3.3 2.0 3.4 11.1 3.3 2.0 3.4 10.6 3.8 2.6 3.8 12.0 4.4 3.1 4.2 13.2 4.8 3.5 4.7 13.8 5.4 3.9 5.2 15.5 5.5 4.0 5.3 15.6 5.5 4.1 5.3 15.1 5.5 4.1 5.3 15.1 5.4 3.9 5.3 15.3 5.3 3.8 4.7 15.8 5 .3 3 .9 5 .2 1 3 .9 9,197 4,461 4,726 808 9,322 4,773 3,769 781 8,870 4,550 3,539 781 8,978 4,583 3,597 798 9,073 4,631 3,620 822 9,188 4,697 3,656 835 9,225 4,703 3,695 827 9,208 4,765 3,656 787 9,188 4,755 3,649 784 9,270 4,748 3,741 781 9,272 4,752 3,748 772 9,388 4,792 3,797 799 9,372 4,805 3,791 776 9,506 4,767 3,897 842 9 ,5 7 7 4 ,8 4 2 3 ,8 7 8 857 8,445 4,461 3,412 573 8,403 4,428 3,442 533 8,286 4,385 3,320 518 8,395 4,409 3,375 611 8,510 4,454 3,428 628 8,552 4,490 3,439 623 8,466 4,436 3,434 596 8,429 4,478 3,399 552 8,342 4,437 3,375 530 8,386 4,426 3,428 532 8,351 4,424 3,405 522 8,442 4,431 3,461 550 8.427 4.427 3,473 527 8,503 4,435 3,545 523 8 ,6 3 1 4 ,5 0 0 3 ,5 4 6 585 Men, 20 years and over__ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 years.. . 752 265 252 235 919 345 326 248 584 165 219 200 583 174 222 187 563 177 192 194 636 207 217 212 759 267 261 231 779 287 257 235 846 318 274 254 884 322 313 249 921 328 343 250 946 361 336 249 945 378 318 249 1,003 332 352 319 946 342 332 272 U n e m p lo y m e n t r a t e __________ 8.2 6.6 3.6 6.2 25.6 6.5 3.8 6.2 23.4 6.2 3.8 5.3 23.6 6.9 4.4 5.9 25.4 8.2 5.7 7.1 27.9 8.5 6.0 7.0 29.9 9.2 6.7 7.5 32.4 9.5 6.8 8.4 31.9 9.9 6.9 9.2 32.4 10.1 7.5 8.8 31.2 10.6 5.9 5.3 29.1 9.9 7.2 8.7 31.7 10.1 Men, 20 years and over__ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 years... 7.9 8.4 32.1 7.0 9.0 37.9 9 .9 7 .1 W H IT E C i v il i a n la b o r f o r c e __________ Men, 20 years and over__ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 years.. . E m p lo y e d ____________ _____ _ Men, 20 years and o v e r... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 years... U n e m p lo y e d __________________ Men, 20 years and over__ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 years... U n e m p lo y m e n t r a t e __________ Men, 20 years and o v e r... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 years... 1,001 NEGRO A N D O THER C i v il i a n la b o r f o r c e .................... Men, 20 years and over__ Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 years... E m p lo y e d ................. ........... .............. Men, 20 years and o v e r... Women, 20 years and over. Both sexes, 16-19 years... U n e m p lo y e d __________________ 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the 3. historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 8.6 3 1 .7 1972 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s . Full-time and part-time status 1 of the civilian labor force, seasonally adjusted 2 [N um bers in thousands] 1972 1971 E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s June June J u ly A ug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. J a n .3 Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay 71,427 67,616 3,811 5.3 71,995 68,128 3,867 5.4 72,218 68,209 4,009 5.6 72,341 68,284 4,057 5.6 72,550 68,643 3,907 5.4 73,021 68,890 4,131 5.7 73,169 69,022 4,147 5.7 73,261 69,279 3,982 5.4 72,997 69,123 3,874 5.3 73,714 69,734 3,980 5.4 73,691 69,725 3,966 5 .4 74,032 69,918 4,114 5.6 7 4 ,3 3 3 7 0 ,6 4 3 3 ,6 9 0 5 .0 12,064 11,100 964 8.0 11,954 10,918 1,036 8.7 12,211 11,086 1,125 9.2 12,293 11,280 1,013 8.2 12,190 11,158 1,032 8.5 12,125 11,094 1,031 8.5 12,083 11,072 1,011 8.4 12,595 11,476 1,119 8.9 12,540 11,482 1,058 8.4 12,596 11,497 1,099 8.7 12,466 11,369 1,097 8.8 12,406 11,403 1,003 8.1 1 1 ,8 6 7 1 0 ,8 2 5 1 ,0 4 2 8 .8 F U L L T IM E T o t a l , 16 y e a r s a n d o v e r : Civilian labor force _ _ „ . . . _ _ ________ Employed Unemployed.. __________ ______ Unemployment r a t e . . . ----- ------------------P A R T T IM E T o t a l, 16 y e a r s a n d o v e r : Civilian labor force. _ . . . Employed ___ _ .. . . . Unemployed________________ _____ . Unemployment rate. . . 1 Persons on part-time schedules for economic reasons are included in the full-tim e employed category; unemployed persons are allocated by whether seeking full-tim e or part-time work. 2 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through De cember 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3 Figures for periods prior to January 1972 in the tables are not strictly comparable with current data because of the introduction of 1970 Census data into the estimation procedures. For example, the civilian labor force and employment totals for January 1972 were raised by more than 300,000 in the census adjustment. An explanation of the changes and an indication of the differences appears in "Revisions in the Current Population Survey” in the February 1972 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s . 4. 89 HOUSEHOLD DATA CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS Employment and unemployment, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1 [In thousands] 1972 1971 A n n u a l a v e ra g e E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu s M ay A p r. June 1970 1971 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. J a n .2 Feb. M a r. 85,903 86,929 86,217 86,727 87,088 87,240 87,467 87,812 87,883 88,301 88,075 88,817 88,747 88,905 8 8 ,7 8 8 85,116 80,020 3,419 76,601 5,096 85,225 80,098 3,400 76,698 5,127 85,707 80,636 3,393 77,243 5,071 85,535 80,623 3,357 77,266 4,912 86,313 81,241 3,482 77,759 5,072 86,284 81,205 3,324 77,781 86,486 81,394 3,353 78,041 5,092 8 6 ,3 9 5 8 1 ,6 6 7 3 ,3 3 7 7 8 ,3 3 0 4 ,7 2 8 50,527 50,463 50,498 50,373 50,714 50,711 50,760 5 0 ,9 0 4 48,259 46,247 2,442 43,805 2 ,0 1 2 48,181 46,255 2,394 43,861 1,926 48,582 46,569 2,400 44,169 2,013 48,614 46,541 2,370 44,171 2,073 48,700 46,628 2,404 44,224 2,072 4 8 ,8 8 2 4 6 ,9 1 9 2 ,4 3 7 4 4 ,4 8 2 1 ,9 6 3 TO TAL T o t a l la b o r f o r c e . . . ................. C i v il i a n la b o r f o r c e . . Employed Agriculture Nonagriculture. _____ Unemployed. . . 82,715 78,627 3,462 75,165 4,088 84,113 79,120 3,387 75,732 4,993 83,401 78,600 3,301 75,299 4,801 83,930 79,014 3,374 75,640 4,916 84,313 79,199 3,407 75,792 5,114 84,491 79,451 3,363 76,088 5,040 84,750 79,832 3,416 76,416 4,918 49,948 50,308 50,256 50,369 50,458 50,492 50,530 5 ,0 7 9 M E N , 20 Y E A R S A N D O VE R T o t a l la b o r f o r c e _______ .. . 47,189 45,553 2,527 43,026 1,636 47,861 45,775 2,446 43,329 2,086 47,820 45,762 2,423 43,339 2,058 47,949 45,879 2,449 43,430 2,070 48,057 45,893 2,462 43,431 2,164 48,113 45,969 2,435 43,534 2,144 48,179 46,124 2,494 43,630 2,055 48,200 46,066 2,503 43,563 2,134 48,169 46,080 2,439 43,641 2,089 28,279 Employed..................... .. _ 26,932 549 Agriculture. . . . . . 26,384 Nonagriculture... 1,347 Unemployed. _ _____ 28,799 27,149 537 26,612 1,650 28,531 26,928 513 26,415 1,603 28,594 26,964 529 26,435 1,630 28,826 27,144 543 26,601 1,682 28,960 27,319 548 26,771 1,641 29,082 27,471 530 26,941 1,611 29,254 27,571 528 27,043 1,683 29,284 27,592 547 27,045 1,692 29,424 27,794 564 27,230 1,630 29,358 27,878 575 27,303 1,480 29,574 27,972 620 27,352 1,602 29,508 27,913 563 27,350 1,595 29,625 27,883 551 27,332 1,742 2 9 ,6 5 7 2 8 ,0 2 9 496 2 7 ,5 3 3 1 ,6 2 8 7,453 6,195 404 5,791 1,257 7,050 5,910 365 5,545 1,140 7,387 6,171 396 5,775 1,216 7,430 6,162 402 5,760 1,268 7,418 6,163 380 5,783 1,255 7,489 6,237 392 5,845 1,252 7,662 6,383 388 5,995 1,279 7,772 6,426 414 8,024 6,595 387 6,208 1,429 7,996 6,490 388 8,157 6,700 462 6,238 1,457 8 ,1 6 2 8,161 6,883 398 6,485 1,278 7 ,8 5 6 6 ,7 1 9 404 6 ,3 1 5 1 ,1 3 7 C i v il i a n la b o r f o r c e . Employed.__ ____ Agriculture__ Nonagriculture.____ Unemployed_______ _ . W O M E N , 20 Y E A R S A N D O VER C i v il i a n la b o r f o r c e _____ . . . B O T H S E X E S , 1 6 -1 9 Y E A R S C i v il i a n la b o r f o r c e __________ Employed____ _________ Agriculture____ ____ Nonagriculture______ Unemployed____________ 7,246 6,141 386 5,755 1,105 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally a d ju s te d series, see the February 1972 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s . 5. 6,012 1,346 6,102 1,506 6,751 391 6,360 1,411 2 See footnote 3, table 3, regarding the introduction of 1970 census population con' trols. Employment totals, by occupation, with unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted,1 quarterly averages Annual average 1969 1971 1970 1972 C h a r a c t e r i s t ic 1970 1971 2d 3d 4 th 1st 2d 3d 4 th 1st 2d 3d 4 th 1st 2d EMPLOYMENT (in thousands). 78,627 79,120 77,575 78,126 78,577 78,875 78,610 78,531 78,550 78,546 78,723 79,221 79,984 80,833 8 1 ,4 2 2 W hite-collar workers_______ Professional and technical. Managers and adminis trators, except farm........ Sales workers.................... . Clerical workers.............. 37,997 11,140 38,252 11,070 36,699 10,750 36,961 10,742 37,445 10,918 37,940 11,055 38,004 11,139 37,970 11,226 38,074 11,143 37,938 10,872 38,004 11,081 38,456 11,139 38,612 11,192 38,710 11,232 3 8 ,7 8 8 1 1 ,3 8 7 8,289 4,854 13,714 8,765 5,066 13,440 7,998 4,660 13,291 7,983 4,714 13,522 8 ,1 2 2 8,220 4,777 13,628 4,787 13,878 8,295 4,813 13,757 8,259 4,877 13,608 8,381 4,934 13,616 8,646 5,074 13,346 8,642 5,018 13,263 8,799 5,037 13,481 8,612 5,133 13,675 7,988 5,300 14,190 7 ,8 6 0 5 ,3 6 0 1 4 ,1 8 1 Blue-collar workers________ Craftsmen and kindred w o rkers......................... Operatives.......................... Nonfarm laborers................ 27,791 27,184 28,006 28,428 28,332 28,203 27,768 27,653 27,566 27,071 27,051 27,090 27,524 28,295 2 8 ,5 9 5 10,158 13,909 3,724 10,178 12,983 4,022 10,054 14,260 3,692 1 0,2 00 10,235 14,196 3,772 10,135 13,957 3,676 10,124 13,793 3,736 10,149 13,696 3,721 10,106 12,912 4,053 10,119 12,958 3,974 10,111 14,570 3,658 10,235 14,369 3,728 12,946 4,033 10,373 13,116 4,035 10,910 13,346 4,039 1 0 ,8 3 3 1 3 ,5 5 7 4 ,2 0 5 Service workers........................ 9,712 10,676 9,494 9,509 9,594 9,610 9,620 9,814 9,804 10,627 10,607 10,715 10,751 10,852 1 1 ,0 7 8 Farm workers............................ 3,126 3,008 3,393 3,229 3,121 3,141 3,206 3,108 3,033 2,988 3,033 2,992 3,023 3,030 2 ,9 2 8 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....... 4.9 5.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.2 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 5 .9 5.8 5 .7 W hite-collar w o rk e rs ............ Professions and technical. Managers and adminis trators, except farm____ Sales workers.............. ....... Clerical workers...... ........... 2.8 2.0 3.5 2.9 2.0 2.2 2. 1 2.4 2.9 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.7 1.9 2.0 3.4 2.4 3.6 3.2 3.5 2.9 3.5 2.9 3.5 3.0 3.5 2.7 3 .4 2 .2 1.3 3.9 4.0 1 .6 1.1 1.6 1.8 4.6 4.8 4.2 4.9 4.5 4.8 1.5 4.4 4.9 1.8 3.3 3.4 1.4 3.9 4.1 1 .6 3.1 1.3 3.9 3.9 1.6 2.8 2.8 .9 3.0 3.2 1.0 4.3 4.8 .9 2.9 3.9 4.8 4.2 4.8 1 .6 4 .1 5 .0 Blue-collar workers________ Craftsmen and kindred workers............................ Operatives............................ Nonfarm laborers............. .. 6.2 7.4 3.8 3.9 4.3 5.0 6.0 6.8 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.0 6 .6 3.8 7.1 9.5 4.7 8.3 2 .1 2.1 4.7 6.6 4.7 8.5 5.3 4.4 7.0 8.2 8 .1 9.2 4.5 7.5 10.3 4.6 4.3 6.4 2.7 5.8 7.9 3.9 1 0 .8 2.3 4.9 7.1 10.3 11.4 4.2 7.7 11.7 4 .5 7 .1 1 0 .4 S e r v ic e w o r k e r s 5.3 6.3 4.4 4.5 4.0 4.7 5.0 F a rm w o r k e r s ... 2.6 2.6 1.9 2 .1 1.9 2.1 2.6 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the series, see the February 1972 issue of seasonally adjusted Digitized forhistorical FRASER E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8.6 10.8 1 0 .6 4.3 8.5 10,9 5.5 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.2 6 .0 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.1 2.7 2.8 2.4 2 .6 NOTE: Comparisons with data prior to 1971 are affected by the reclassifi cation of census occupations, introduced in January 1971. For an explanation of the changes, see “ Revisions in Occupational Classifications for 1971” in the February 1971 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s . 90 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 HOUSEHOLD DATA 6. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted 1 [N um bers in thousands] 197 2 1971 R e a s o n f o r u n e m p lo y m e n t June June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay 2 ,3 4 2 501 1 ,3 7 1 558 2 ,2 8 0 510 1 ,5 3 4 570 2 ,4 6 0 572 1 ,5 0 9 651 2 ,3 6 9 583 1 ,5 3 6 603 2 ,2 0 6 541 1 ,4 8 6 663 2 ,3 6 0 629 1 ,4 9 3 651 2 ,3 6 5 666 1 ,4 3 2 736 2 ,1 6 9 564 1 ,6 5 2 742 2 ,0 7 7 603 1 ,5 0 3 713 2 ,1 1 8 674 1 ,5 4 2 737 2 ,0 4 0 611 1 ,5 5 7 917 2 ,1 9 9 649 1 ,4 6 0 802 2 ,2 1 0 624 1 ,2 3 8 621 1 0 0 .0 4 9 .1 1 0 .5 2 8 .7 1 1 .7 1 0 0 .0 4 6 .6 1 0 .4 3 1 .3 1 1 .6 1 0 0 .0 4 7 .4 1 1 .0 2 9 .1 1 2 .5 1 0 0 .0 4 6 .5 1 1 .5 3 0 .2 1 1 .8 1 0 0 .0 4 5 .1 1 1 .0 3 0 .4 1 3 .5 1 0 0 .0 4 6 .0 1 2 .3 2 9 .1 1 2 .7 1 0 0 .0 4 5 .5 1 2 .8 2 7 .5 1 4 .2 1 0 0 .0 4 2 .3 1 1 .0 3 2 .2 1 4 .5 1 0 0 .0 4 2 .4 1 2 .3 3 0 .7 1 4 .6 1 0 0 .0 4 1 .8 1 3 .3 3 0 .4 1 4 .5 1 0 0 .0 3 9 .8 1 1 .9 3 0 .4 1 7 .9 1 0 0 .0 4 3 .0 1 2 .7 2 8 .6 1 5 .7 1 0 0 .0 4 7 .1 1 3 .3 2 6 .4 1 3 .2 2 .8 .6 1 .6 .7 2 .7 .6 1 .8 .7 2 .9 .7 1 .8 .8 2 .8 .7 1 .8 .7 2 .6 .6 1 .8 .8 2 .8 .7 1 .8 .8 2 .8 .8 1 .7 .9 2 .5 .7 1 .9 .9 2 .4 .7 1 .8 .8 2 .5 .8 1 .8 .9 2 .4 .7 1 .8 1 .1 2 .5 .8 1 .7 .9 2 .6 .7 1 .4 .7 N U M B E R OF U N EM PLO YED Lost last iob......................................................... . Left last job_________ _______ _ . . . ____ Reentered labor force_________ _____________ Never worked before___ __________________ P E R C E N T D IS T R IB U T IO N Total unemployed________ . ______ _ ... Lost last job___________________________ Left last job___________________________ Reentered labor force__________________ Never worked before___ ___________ . . U N E M P L O Y E D AS A P E R C E N T O F T H E C IV IL IA N L A B O R F O R C E Lost last job______________________________ Left last j'ob_______________________________ Reentered labor force_______________________ Never worked before______________________ . NOTE: For additional detail or for data unadjusted for seasonal factors (formerly carried in this space), see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . 7- Unemployment rates, by age and sex, seasonally adjusted 1 A n n u a l a ve rag e 1972 1971 A ge and sex 1970 1971 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay June t a l , 16 y e a r s a n d o v e r _____ 16 to 19 years__________ 16 and 17 years_____ 18 and 19 years_____ 4 .9 1 5 .3 1 7 .1 1 3 .8 5 .9 1 6 .9 1 8 .7 1 5 .5 5 .8 1 6 .2 1 8 .7 1 4 .3 5 .9 1 6 .5 1 8 .3 1 5 .0 6 .1 1 7 .1 1 9 .5 1 5 .0 6 .0 1 6 .9 1 8 .4 1 5 .8 5 .8 1 6 .7 1 9 .9 1 4 .5 6 ,0 1 6 .7 1 8 .3 1 5 .4 6 .0 1 7 .3 1 8 .8 1 6 .3 5 .9 1 7 .8 1 9 .1 1 6 .8 5 .7 1 8 .8 2 2 .0 1 6 .7 5 .9 1 7 .9 2 0 .7 1 5 .8 5 .9 1 7 .3 1 9 .1 1 3 .5 5 .9 1 5 .7 1 6 .6 1 5 .8 5 .5 1 4 .5 1 6 .5 1 2 .9 to 2 4 years__________ years and over_______ 2 5 to 54 years______ 55 years and over___ 8 .2 3 .3 3 .4 2 .8 1 0 .0 4 .0 4 .2 3 .4 1 0 .1 3 .9 4 .1 3 .3 9 .8 4 .0 4 .2 3 .2 1 0 .0 4 .1 4 .2 3 .5 9 .6 4 .0 4 .3 3 .2 9 .2 4 .0 4 .3 3 .0 1 0 .4 4 .0 4 .2 3 .4 1 0 .1 4 .1 4 .3 3 .4 1 0 .1 3 .7 3 .9 3 .1 8 .8 3 .6 3 .7 3 .1 9 .9 3 .7 3 .9 3 .3 1 0 .0 3 .8 3 .8 3 .6 9 .9 3 .9 4 .0 3 .6 8 .7 3 .9 4 .0 3 .6 le , 16 y e a r s a n d o v e r _____ 16 to 19 years__________ 16 and 17 years____ 18 and 19 years_____ 4 .4 1 5 .0 1 6 .9 1 3 .4 5 .3 1 6 .6 1 8 .6 1 5 .0 5 .2 1 6 .1 1 8 .4 1 4 .3 5 .2 1 5 .8 1 8 .4 1 3 .7 5 .5 1 7 .2 1 9 .4 1 5 .0 5 .4 1 6 .3 1 8 .6 1 4 .6 5 .3 1 6 .5 2 0 .3 1 3 .7 5 .4 1 6 .2 1 8 .1 1 4 .7 5 .4 1 7 .3 1 9 .0 1 6 .0 5 .3 1 7 .3 1 8 .7 1 6 .1 5 .3 1 9 .6 2 1 .8 1 7 .6 5 .3 1 7 .8 2 1 .4 1 5 .1 5 .3 1 6 .7 1 9 .3 1 4 .8 5 .3 1 6 .6 1 8 .0 1 6 .2 4 .8 1 3 .8 1 5 .4 1 2 .4 to 24 years__________ years and over_______ 2 5 to 54 years______ 55 years and over___ 8 .4 2 .8 2 .6 2 .9 1 0 .3 3 .5 3 .5 3 .4 1 0 .1 3 .4 3 .5 3 .3 1 0 .2 3 .4 3 .5 3 .1 1 0 .5 3 .6 3 .6 3 .3 1 0 .2 3 .5 3 .7 3 .0 9 .7 3 .5 3 .7 2 .9 1 0 .7 3 .5 3 .7 3 .2 1 0 .5 3 .5 3 .6 3 .0 1 0 .4 3 .2 3 .3 3 .0 9 .2 3 .2 3 .2 3 .2 1 0 .4 3 .2 3 .1 3 .4 1 0 .7 3 .3 3 .2 '3 .5 9 .4 3 .4 3 .4 3 .5 8 .3 3 .3 3 .3 3 .5 m a le , 16 y e a r s a n d o v e r . . . 16 to 19 years____ _____ 16 and 17 years____ 18 and 19 years_____ 5 .9 1 5 .6 1 7 .4 1 4 .4 6 .9 1 7 .2 1 8 .7 1 6 .2 6 .7 1 6 .3 1 9 .3 1 4 .4 6 .9 1 7 .2 1 8 .3 1 6 .4 7 .0 1 6 .9 1 9 .5 1 5 .1 6 .9 1 7 .6 1 8 .0 1 7 .3 6 .7 1 7 .0 1 9 .2 1 5 .6 6 .9 1 7 .3 1 8 .7 1 6 .2 7 .0 1 7 .3 1 8 .5 1 6 .7 6 .9 1 8 .4 1 9 .6 1 7 .7 6 .4 1 7 .9 2 2 .3 1 5 .6 6 .8 1 7 .9 1 9 .8 1 6 .8 6 .8 1 8 .0 1 9 .0 1 6 .4 6 .8 1 4 .6 1 4 .8 1 5 .3 6 .5 1 5 .4 1 8 .1 1 3 .5 to 24 years__________ years and o v e r . . . ___ 25 to 54 years______ 5 5 years and over___ 7 .9 4 .1 4 .5 2 .8 9 .6 4 .9 5 .3 3 .4 1 0 .1 4 .7 5 .2 3 .5 9 .4 4 .9 5 .4 3 .3 9 .4 5 .0 5 .4 3 .8 8 .9 4 .9 5 .3 3 .4 8 .6 4 .9 5 .3 3 .0 1 0 .0 4 .8 5 .2 3 .7 9 .6 5 .0 5 .4 3 .9 9 .6 4 .6 4 .9 3 .3 8 .4 4 .3 4 .7 2 .9 9 .2 4 .7 5 .1 3 .1 9 .0 4 .6 4 .9 3 .6 1 0 .6 4 .8 5 .0 3 .8 9 .2 4 .8 5 .1 3 .8 20 25 20 25 20 25 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally 1 97 1. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . HOUSEHOLD DATA CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 8. [In 91 Unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted 1 p e rc e n t] 1972 1971 A nnual a v e rag e S e le c t e d c a t e g o r ie s 1971 1970 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. A p r. M a r. 5 .5 4 .0 5 .5 1 4 .5 9.6 5.3 10.7 5 .0 9 .4 2.9 2.9 2 .9 8 .6 8.1 12.7 10.3 6.4 7 .2 9 .9 5 .3 6 .5 8 .0 4 .6 5.9 4.4 5.7 16.9 5.8 4.3 5.6 16.2 5.9 4.3 5.7 16.5 6.1 6.0 6.0 4.5 5.7 16.9 5.8 4.3 5.5 16.7 6.0 4.5 5.8 17.1 4.4 5.8 16.7 4.3 5.8 17.3 5.9 4.2 5.5 17.8 5.7 4.0 5.0 18.8 5.9 4.1 5.4 17.9 4.5 5.4 9.9 5.3 9.4 5.4 5.4 10.4 5.3 10.4 5.6 9.4 5.4 10.4 1 0 .6 5.1 10.5 5.3 10.5 5 .4 1 0 .0 5.6 9.9 5.3 8.2 2.6 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.8 6.9 9.3 4.3 8.8 1 2 .2 8.9 13.5 4.7 8.6 1 1.2 9.8 12.3 7.6 8.5 8.4 1 2 .6 5.6 5.1 8.5 12.3 5.6 7.4 9.7 5.4 8.6 9.7 b.5 12.0 6.3 9.3 13.4 5.7 8 .0 5.7 12.3 5.6 - _ ____ - - -_ __ ___ ____ _ _ __ 6.0 8.0 6.9 9.3 4.1 7.2 9.2 4.7 8.0 6.7 8.1 10.5 4.9 8 .6 3.8 7.3 9.5 4.7 Full-time workers _____ __ _ _ Unemployed: 15 weeks and over 3 __ - _______ State insured 4 _ _ __ __ ___ Labor force time lost5 4.5 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.6 White Negro and other Married men ____________________ __ ______ ___ - .................... Vietnam Era veterans,2 men: 20 to 29 years _ _ __ 20 to 24 years _ _ _ . __ __ _ ______ 25 to 29 years Nonveterans, men: 20 to 29 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 1.4 4.4 6.4 .8 3.6 5.4 7.0 9.0 4.4 7.5 7.6 10.1 10.0 4.4 7.5 9.8 4.5 4.1 4.6 7.1 9.1 4.5 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.4 5 .4 5.6 5 .0 1.3 3.6 6 .3 1.4 3.7 6.3 1 .3 3 .6 5 .5 3.6 3 .1 1 .7 4 .0 4 .8 1.5 4.1 6.4 3.4 4.1 4.8 3.4 2.4 3.9 4.7 3.4 2.5 3.9 4.6 3.6 2.5 4.0 4.9 7.5 5.3 8.3 7.7 5.3 8.3 7.1 4.7 7.8 7.5 4.6 7.5 4.8 3.2 4.1 4.7 3.5 2.3 4.6 4.9 3.5 2.3 4.4 4.9 7.1 4.1 7.2 5.1 8. 1 5 .4 7.7 9.6 5.2 1.5 4.1 6.4 1.5 4.2 6.5 5 .4 17.3 10.3 5.5 1.5 4.4 6.5 1.5 4.0 6.3 4 .3 7.3 9.3 4.9 1.5 4.3 6.3 1.4 4.2 5.6 June 5.9 4.3 5.9 15.7 5.9 4.9 3.5 4.8 15.3 (all civilian workers). __ ______ Men 20 years and over _ __ _ Women 20 years and over Both sexes 16-19 years _____ __ __ -- T o ta l M ay 1.4 3.4 6.4 1.5 3.5 3.6 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.4 3.5 6.3 6.1 O C C U P A T IO N _ Professional and managerial. Sales workers ____ Clerical workers . _ _ W h it e -c o lla r w o rk e rs B l u e - c o ll a r w o r k e r s 1.7 3.9 4.0 ___ 7.4 4.7 8.3 6.2 - - Craftsmen and kindred workers. Operatives Nonfarm laborers S e r v ic e w o r k e r s 3.5 2.9 4.3 4.8 2.8 __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.0 2.2 4.4 4.7 4.0 4.7 8.2 7.1 4.3 7.9 7.0 4.4 7.5 11.9 1 1 .6 6.4 6 .1 3.5 2.3 4.1 4.9 3.4 2 .1 2.0 3.7 4.9 4.5 5.3 6 .8 6.8 1 1 .8 6.9 4.0 7.7 11.7 4.4 7.4 10.7 4.7 / .1 10.9 6 .4 4 .5 6 .8 9 .5 5.9 6.6 6.3 6 .1 5 .7 5.9 10.3 6.1 5.9 6.0 9.8 10,6 12.5 5 .5 9 .5 6.2 5.8 5.8 5. 9 6.0 5.6 6.0 6.0 6. 1 6.0 6.3 5. 7 5 .7 5 .5 4.1 6.3 5.3 3.9 4.0 6.7 5.3 3.7 4.9 5.1 3.5 6.3 5.0 4 .2 3.8 7.1 9.5 1 0 .8 8.2 11.1 9.2 1 0 .6 1 1 .2 1 0 .6 8 .2 1 1 .8 5.3 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.6 6.2 6 .1 6.1 6.2 6 .2 5.9 6.2 6.3 6.1 10.4 10.3 6.7 7.0 9.8 6.7 9.9 1 0 .2 6.2 1 1 .2 6.6 6.8 6.9 9.7 6.9 7.0 9.7 6.8 6. 5 6.8 6.8 6.4 5. 8 6.7 6. 3 9.8 6.4 6.7 6.2 6.9 6.7 7.1 4.3 4.4 IN D U S T R Y Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers 6 Construction _ _____ Manufacturing _ _ _ Durable goods __ ___ _ ____ Nondurable goods__ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Transportation and public utilities Wholesale and retail trade Finance and service industries _ Government wage and salary workers __ __ _ Agricultural wage and salary workers __ __ 5.2 9. 7 5.6 5.7 5. 4 6.8 7.0 6. 5 6.3 6.1 3.2 5.3 4.2 3.8 6.4 5.1 3.4 6.5 4.8 3.1 6.4 5.2 3.3 6.3 5.3 3.6 6.3 5.1 6.1 6.6 4.9 5.1 4.1 6.5 4.9 2.2 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2 .5 7.5 7.9 6.3 7.8 .8 8.5 7.0 9.6 7.5 8.6 8.3 6.0 6 .0 8.8 7 .5 6.2 6.2 3 .1 6.5 1 4 Insured unemployment under State programs as a percent of average covered employment. s Man-hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons (that is, those persons who worked less than 35 hours during the survey week because of slack work, job changing during the week, material shortages, inability to find full-time work, and so on) as a percent of potentially available labor force man-hours. s Includes mining, not shown separately. 1 These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December 1971. For a discussion of seasonal adjustment procedures and the historical seasonally adjusted series, see the February 1972 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s . 2 Vietnam Era veterans are those who served after August 4,1964; they are all classi fied as war veterans. Over 80 percent of Vietnam Era veterans of all ages are 20 to 29 years old. Not included in these figures are post-Korean peacetime veterans in ages 20 to 29. 3 Unemployment rate calculated as a percent of civilian labor force. 9. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted 1 [In thousands] 1971 A n n u a l a v e rag e 1972 P e r io d 1970 1971 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay Less than 5 weeks__ _ _ _ 5 to 14 weeks _ _ 15 weeks and over__________ 15 to 26 weeks________ _ 27 weeks and over_____ 2,137 1,289 662 427 235 2,234 1,578 1,181 665 517 2,118 1,572 1,175 630 545 2,150 1,532 1,255 704 551 2,320 1,553 1,291 735 556 2,317 1,567 1,250 683 567 2,140 1,529 1,253 628 625 2,290 1,650 1,311 741 570 2,410 1,509 1,273 724 549 2,358 1,502 1,198 636 562 2,142 1,454 1,294 634 660 2,311 1,412 1,224 591 633 2,169 1,521 1,137 482 655 2,223 1,514 1,180 587 593 15 weeks and over as a percent of civilian labor force... Average (mean duration, in weeks)__________ _____ _ .8 1,4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1 .3 1.4 1 .3 8,8 11.4 1 2 .6 11.5 1 1 .6 12.0 12.5 11.8 11.4 1 1. 8 12.5 12.4 1 2 .4 1 2 .5 1 3 .5 'These data have been adjusted to reflect seasonal experience through December Digitized for 1971. FRASER 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 1972 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . June 2 ,1 7 5 1 ,4 3 7 1 ,1 4 8 594 554 92 10. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 1 [All item s except average benefits am ounts are in thousands] 1972 1971 Ite m M ay J u ly June S e p t. Aug. Nov. O c t. Jan. D ec. Feb. Mar. Apr. May E m p lo y m e n t s e r v i c e : 2 New applications for work Nonfarm placements 779 366 767 353 1 ,4 6 8 1 ,2 7 7 1 ,9 9 3 3 .8 1 ,9 1 2 3 .6 777 308 1 ,0 0 5 '365 815 315 964 1 ,1 5 2 2 ,0 0 1 3 .8 1 ,8 9 3 3 .6 663 288 763 317 679 266 1 ,0 4 3 1 ,0 4 8 1 ,3 3 6 1 ,6 2 3 1 ,6 4 3 >1,241 p 1 ,0 2 9 p 947 (») 1 ,7 3 9 3 .3 1 ,7 1 6 3 .2 1 ,8 7 9 3 .5 2 ,2 2 1 4 .2 2 ,5 2 4 4 .8 2 ,4 9 2 4 .7 2 ,2 7 9 4 .3 2 ,0 0 5 3 .8 1 ,7 4 0 3 .3 S t a t e u n e m p lo y m e n t i n s u r a n c e p r o g r a m : Initial claims 3 4 _____ ________ ___________ Insured unemployment5 (average weekly volume) 6 ________ _____ _______ ______ Rate of insured unemployment7 ____________ p 7 ,0 8 2 6 ,1 7 7 8 ,9 7 2 >8,871 Weeks of unemployment compensated 7 ,5 4 2 6 ,7 4 0 6 ,5 0 3 5 ,9 2 3 5 ,5 6 1 7 ,5 4 6 p 9 ,3 7 2 7 ,4 3 1 Average weekly benefit amount for total unp $ 5 6 .5 4 $ 5 6 .2 5 $ 5 5 .2 3 $ 5 6 .0 8 $ 5 3 .4 6 $ 5 3 .9 6 $ 5 4 .5 8 $ 5 5 .3 5 r$ 5 6 .3 4 p $ 5 6 .6 3 $ 5 2 .3 2 $ 5 2 .0 9 employment Total benefits paid . . __ p$434,463 $ 4 4 6 ,6 9 1 ■*$428,002 $433,636 >$400,329 $367,169 r$406,905 $489,566 $ 5 5 0 ,9 0 2 ■$565,343 p$609,850 p$452,507 U n e m p lo y m e n t c o m p e n s a tio n f o r e x - s e r v ic e m e n : 86 Initial claims 3 6 _ . _____ Insured unemployment6 (average weekly ......... ............................... ........... volume)......... Weeks of unemployment compensated Total benefits paid U n e m p lo y m e n t c o m p e n s a tio n c iv i l ia n e m p lo y e e s :610 fo r ____ 45 54 53 54 48 43 51 59 68 p 57 p 49 p 4S 113 114 120 120 106 97 105 118 133 140 136 127 478 525 $ 3 1 ,5 5 2 r$ 2 9 ,650 409 $ 2 5 ,0 1 2 426 $ 2 6 ,0 8 9 498 $ 2 9 ,1 8 0 530 $ 2 9 ,9 9 8 p 550 462 $ 2 7 ,0 1 0 494 506 $ 3 0 ,1 1 7 r$ 3 0 ,449 p 119 p 500 p 623 p $ 3 2 ,9 8 6 ■ $37,620 p $32,223 F e d e ra l 10 20 15 12 12 13 14 13 16 p 12 p 10 P 11 29 31 36 35 33 35 35 35 37 36 34 30 119 $ 7 ,4 5 9 126 $ 7 ,8 4 3 r142 >■$8,605 157 $ 9 ,2 6 1 148 >$9,026 135 $ 8 ,2 2 4 144 $ 8 ,9 6 0 156 $ 9 ,8 1 1 147 $ 8 ,7 5 5 p 1 46 R a ilr o a d u n e m p lo y m e n t in s u r a n c e : Applications 11..................... .............. ....................... 36 45 89 98 100 48 Insured unemployment (average weekly volum e). ______ __________ ___________ ___ Number of payments12___ _______ __________ Average amount of benefit payment13_______ Total benefits paid 14.............................. .. ........... IS 63 $5 5 .5 3 $ 3 ,5 2 2 13 68 $ 5 8 .9 7 $ 4 ,1 5 9 15 99 $ 4 6 .0 7 $ 3 ,8 0 0 32 105 $ 8 3 .2 8 $ 8 ,6 9 8 33 163 $ 6 9 .3 5 $ 1 1 ,1 3 4 2 ,4 4 3 2 ,3 3 2 2 ,4 3 1 2 ,3 4 9 2 ,1 7 4 Initial claims 3 __ ............................ Insured unemployment5 (average weekly volume)......... ................................. ................... Weeks of unemployment compensated Total benefits paid ■ $ 8 ,9 1 8 28 p 120 157 $ 9 ,5 0 9 p $ 7 ,6 0 6 p p 19 »7 8 4 4 2 2 27 48 124 106 $ 6 1 .9 5 p $100.32 $ 9 ,9 3 0 $ 7 ,6 1 6 33 857 $ 1 0 1 .3 2 $ 8 ,8 9 1 36 87 $ 9 7 .7 9 $ 8 ,0 0 7 27 63 $ 9 9 .1 1 $ 6 ,2 1 2 26 64 $ 9 8 .7 0 $ 5 ,9 8 3 2c 4! $ 8 8 . V$ 4 ,1 1 3 15 40 $ 9 1 .2 7 $ 3 ,4 6 2 2 ,3 1 1 2 ,6 6 6 3 ,0 9 7 3 ,1 2 3 p 2 ,9 2 3 2 ,4 3 0 2 ,1 0 5 A l l p r o g r a m s :15 Insured unemployment6.................................. 1 Includes data for Puerto Rico. 2 Includes Guam and the Virgin Islands. I Initial claims are notices filed by workers to indicate they are starting periods of unemployment. Excludes transition claims under State programs. 4 Includes interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. 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. ' Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs. • Includes the Virgin Islands. 10 Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State programs. II 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 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 ,1 2 9 p periods in the same year. 12 Payments are for unemployment in 14-day registration periods. 13 The average amount is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or settlement of underpayments. 14 Adjusted for recovery of overpayments and settlement of underpayments. 15 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. NOTE: Dashes indicate data not available. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Financial and Management Information Systems for all items except railroad unemployment insurance which is prepared by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. p=preliminary. r =revised. c = c o rre c te d . CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 11. [In PAYROLL DATA 93 Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947-71 1 th o u s a n d s ] Year TOTAL M in in g C o n tr a c t c o n s tru c tio n M a n u fa c t u r in g T ra n s p o r ta tio n and p u b lic u tilitie s W h o le s a le a n d r e t a i l tr a d e T o ta l W h o le s a le tr a d e R e ta il tra d e F in a n c e , in s u r ance, and re a l e s t a te G o ve rn m e n t S e rv ic e s T o ta l F e d e ra l S ta te a n d lo c a l 1 9 4 7 _________________ 1 9 4 8 _________________ 1 9 4 9 _________________ 1 9 5 0 _________________ 4 3 ,8 8 1 4 4 ,8 9 1 4 3 ,7 7 8 4 5 ,2 2 2 955 994 930 901 1 ,9 8 2 2 ,1 6 9 2 ,1 6 5 2 ,3 3 3 1 5 ,5 4 5 1 5 ,5 8 2 1 4 ,4 4 1 1 5 ,2 4 1 4 ,1 6 6 4 ,1 8 9 4 ,0 0 1 4 ,0 3 4 8 ,9 5 5 9 ,2 7 2 9 ,2 6 4 9 ,3 8 6 2 ,3 6 1 2 ,4 8 9 2 ,4 8 7 2 ,5 1 8 6 ,5 9 5 6 ,7 8 3 6 ,7 7 8 6 ,8 6 8 1 ,7 5 4 1 ,8 2 9 1 ,8 5 7 1 ,9 1 9 5 ,0 5 0 5 ,2 0 6 5 ,2 6 4 5 ,3 8 2 5 ,4 7 4 5 ,6 5 0 5 ,8 5 6 6 ,0 2 6 1 ,8 9 2 1 ,8 6 3 1 ; 908 l i 928 3 ,5 8 2 31787 3 i 948 4 ; 098 1 9 5 1 ______ __________ 1 9 5 2 _________________ 1 9 5 3 _________________ 1 9 5 4 _______________ . 1 9 5 5 _________________ 4 7 ,8 4 9 4 8 ,8 2 5 5 0 ,2 3 2 4 9 ,0 2 2 5 0 ,6 7 5 929 898 866 791 792 2 ,6 0 3 2 ,6 3 4 2 ,6 2 3 2 ,6 1 2 2 ,8 0 2 1 6 ,3 9 3 1 6 ,6 3 2 1 7 ,5 4 9 1 6 ,3 1 4 1 6 ,8 8 2 4 ,2 2 6 4 ,2 4 8 4 ,2 9 0 4 ,0 8 4 4 ,1 4 1 9 ,7 4 2 1 0 ,0 0 4 1 0 ,2 4 7 1 0 ,2 3 5 1 0 ,5 3 5 2 ,6 0 6 2 ,6 8 7 2 ,7 2 7 2 ,7 3 9 2 ,7 9 6 7 ,1 3 6 7 ,3 1 7 7 ,5 2 0 7 ,4 9 6 7 ,7 4 0 1 ,9 9 1 2 ,0 6 9 2 ,1 4 6 2 ,2 3 4 2 ,3 3 5 5 ,5 7 6 5 ,7 3 0 5 ,8 6 7 6 ,0 0 2 6 ,2 7 4 6 ,3 8 9 6 ,6 0 9 6 ,6 4 5 6 ,7 5 1 61914 2 ,3 0 2 2 | 420 2 ,3 0 5 2 ,1 8 8 2 ,1 8 7 4 ; 188 4 ’ 340 4 '5 6 3 1 9 5 6 .................. ................ 1 9 5 7 ______________ . . 1 9 5 8 _________ _____ 1959 2______ _________ 1 9 6 0 _________________ 5 2 ,4 0 8 5 2 ,8 9 4 5 1 ,3 6 3 5 3 ,3 1 3 5 4 ,2 3 4 822 828 751 732 712 2 ,9 9 9 2 ,9 2 3 2 ,7 7 8 2 ,9 6 0 2 ,8 8 5 1 7 ,2 4 3 1 7 ,1 7 4 1 5 ,9 4 5 1 6 ,6 7 5 1 6 ,7 9 6 4 ,2 4 4 4 ,2 4 1 3 ,9 7 6 4 ,0 1 1 4 ,0 0 4 1 0 ,8 5 8 1 0 ,8 8 6 1 0 ,7 5 0 1 1 ,1 2 7 1 1,3 91 2 ,8 8 4 2 ,8 9 3 2 ,8 4 8 2 ,9 4 6 3 ,0 0 4 7 ,9 7 4 7 ,9 9 2 7 ,9 0 2 8 ,1 8 2 8 ,3 8 8 2 ,4 2 9 2 ,4 7 7 2 ,5 1 9 2 ,5 9 4 2 ,6 6 9 6 ,5 3 6 6 ,7 4 9 6 ,8 0 6 7 ,1 3 0 7 ,4 2 3 7 ,2 7 7 7 ’ 616 7; 839 8 ,0 8 3 8 ,3 5 3 2 ,2 0 9 2 ’ 217 2; 191 2 '2 3 3 2 ; 270 5 ,0 6 9 5 j 399 5 i 6 48 5 ’ 850 6 Ì0 8 3 1 9 6 1 ______ __________ 1 9 6 2 _________________ 1 9 6 3 _________________ 1 9 6 4 _________________ 1 9 6 5 ____ ____ - ______ 5 4 ,0 4 2 5 5 ,5 9 6 5 6 ,7 0 2 5 8 ,3 3 1 6 0 ,8 1 5 672 650 635 634 632 2 ,8 1 6 2 ,9 0 2 2 ,9 6 3 3 ,0 5 0 3 ,1 8 6 1 6 ,3 2 6 1 6 ,8 5 3 1 6 ,9 9 5 1 7 ,2 7 4 1 8 ,0 6 2 3 ,9 0 3 3 ,9 0 6 3 ,9 0 3 3 ,9 5 1 4 ,0 3 6 1 1 ,3 3 7 1 1 ,5 6 6 1 1 ,7 7 8 1 2 ,1 6 0 1 2 ,7 1 6 2 ,9 9 3 3 ,0 5 6 3 ,1 0 4 3 ,1 8 9 3 ,3 1 2 8 ,3 4 4 8 ,5 1 1 8 ,6 7 5 8 ,9 7 1 9 ,4 0 4 2 ,7 3 1 2 ,8 0 0 2 ,8 7 7 2 ,9 5 7 3 ,0 2 3 7 ,6 6 4 8 ,0 2 8 8 ,3 2 5 8 ,7 0 9 9 ,0 8 7 8 ,5 9 4 8^890 9 ,2 2 5 9 ,5 9 6 1 0 ,0 7 4 2 ,2 7 9 2 ,3 4 0 2 '3 5 8 2 ,3 4 8 2 ; 378 6 ,3 1 5 6 ,5 5 0 6 j 8 68 7 ’ 248 7 ; 696 1 9 6 6 _________________ 1 9 6 7 _________________ 1 9 6 8 _________________ 1 9 6 9 _________________ 1 9 7 0 _________________ 6 3 ,9 5 5 6 5 ,8 5 7 6 7 ,9 1 5 7 0 ,2 8 4 7 0 ,6 1 6 627 613 606 619 622 3 ,2 7 5 3 ,2 0 8 3 ,2 8 5 3 ,4 3 5 3 ,3 4 5 1 9 ,2 1 4 1 9 ,4 4 7 1 9 ,7 8 1 2 0 ,1 6 7 1 9 ,3 6 9 4 ,1 5 1 4 ,2 6 1 4 ,3 1 0 4 ,4 2 9 4 ,5 0 4 1 3 ,2 4 5 1 3 ,6 0 6 1 4 ,0 8 4 1 4 ,6 3 9 1 4 ,9 2 2 3 ,4 3 7 3 ,5 2 5 3 ,6 1 1 3 ,7 3 3 3 ,8 2 4 9 ,8 0 8 1 0,0 81 1 0 ,4 7 3 1 0 ,9 0 6 1 1 ,0 9 8 3 ,1 0 0 3 ,2 2 5 3 ,3 8 2 3 ,5 6 4 3 ,6 9 0 9 ,5 5 1 1 0 ,0 9 9 1 0 ,6 2 3 1 1 ,2 2 9 1 1 ,6 3 0 1 0 ,7 9 2 1 1 ,3 9 8 1 1 ,8 4 5 1 2 ,2 0 2 1 2 ,5 3 5 2 ,5 6 4 2; 719 8 ,2 2 7 8^ 679 2 ; 737 2 ,7 5 8 2 ; 705 9 ; 109 9 ; 444 1 9 7 1 _________________ 7 0 ,6 9 9 601 3 ,2 5 9 1 8 ,6 1 0 4 ,4 8 1 1 5 ,1 7 4 3 ,8 5 5 1 1 ,3 1 9 3 ,8 0 0 1 1 ,9 1 7 1 2 ,8 5 8 2 ,6 6 4 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , U n it e d S ta te s , 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). These series are based upon establishment reports which cover all full-time and part-time employees in nonagricultural establishments who worked during, or receive pay for any part of the pay period which includes the 12th of the month. Therefore, persons 12. 4 ,0 8 7 4 i 727 9 ,8 3 0 1 0 ,1 9 4 who worked in more than one establishment during the reporting period are counted more than once. Proprietors, self-employed persons, unpaid family workers, and domestic servants are excluded. 2 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning 1959. This inclusion has resulted in an increase of 212,000 (0.4 percent) in the nonagricultural total for the March 1959 bench mark month. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by State [In thousands] State May 1971 Apr. 1972 May 1972 p State M a y 1971 A p r . 1972 M a y 1972 p Alabama_________ Alaska_________ Arizona_____ . . Arkansas_______ California...................... 1,019.4 95.1 575.1 541.9 6,878.7 1,028.0 94.0 618.4 550.5 7,029.1 1,035.8 99.8 620.4 554.0 7,064.6 Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey 2 0 3 .9 4 8 8 .6 2 0 7 .8 2 5 5 .5 2 ,6 0 2 . 6 2 0 5 .0 4 9 6 .9 2 1 2 .1 2 5 7 .8 2 ,5 8 9 . 4 2 0 8 .0 5 0 1 .2 2 1 4 .8 2 6 2 .1 2 ,6 1 0 . 6 Colorado.................. Connecticut____ Delaware____ District of Columbia_______ Florida______ 764.6 1,171.9 213.5 681.6 2,203.5 796.1 1,173.9 215.5 684.0 2,302.6 796.6 1,180.1 216.2 683.0 2,282.9 New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 2 9 9 .8 7 ,0 5 5 .4 1 ,7 8 6 .8 1 6 6 .7 3 ,8 6 4 .9 3 1 3 .2 6 ,9 1 9 . 6 1 ,8 3 1 .4 1 6 5 .2 3 ,8 4 9 . 0 3 1 6 .8 6 ,9 6 8 . 4 1 ,8 3 5 .3 1 6 9 .1 3 ,8 7 8 .3 Georgia__________ Hawaii.................. Idaho......... Illinois................ Indiana___ 1,569.8 301.0 210.8 4,275.7 1,837.5 1,600.1 302.5 216.4 4,264.1 1,851.6 1,602.0 303.0 219.9 4,291.9 1,875.1 Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina 7 8 0 .0 7 2 0 .1 4 ,2 9 7 .9 3 3 8 .0 8 5 7 .8 8 0 1 .2 7 4 4 .6 4 ,2 9 4 .3 3 3 6 .8 8 8 9 .4 8 0 4 .5 7 5 5 .2 4 ,3 2 5 . 8 3 3 9 .3 8 9 5 .4 Iowa____ Kansas...... .......... Kentucky............... Louisiana___ Maine_____________ 886.6 672.2 933.4 1,044.8 906.9 681.2 943.1 1,072.1 911.3 685.9 952.2 1,074.6 3 2 8 .5 3 2 6 .4 3 3 3 .6 South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont 1 8 0 .5 1 ,3 4 7 .5 3 ,6 6 8 .5 3 7 2 .0 1 4 6 .4 1 7 9 .3 1 ,3 9 9 .2 3 ,7 5 2 . 0 3 8 3 .7 1 4 7 .7 1 8 1 .4 1 ,4 0 0 .1 3 ,7 6 3 .7 3 8 8 .7 1 4 9 .1 Maryland................. Massachusetts. Michigan 1___ Minnesota______ . . Mississippi.................... Missouri______ . _ 1 ,3 1 7 .9 2 ,2 6 5 .7 2 ,9 9 4 .3 1 ,3 0 5 .9 5 8 9 .9 1 ,6 4 1 .2 1 ,3 4 0 .0 2 ,2 6 1 .6 3 ,0 0 0 . 2 1 ,3 0 9 .2 6 0 6 .3 1 ,6 3 2 .5 1 ,3 5 1 .3 2 ,2 7 3 .8 3 ,0 3 9 .6 1 ,3 3 0 .0 6 0 9 .3 1 ,6 4 1 . 8 Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 1 ,4 8 8 .8 1 ,0 5 1 .3 5 2 9 .9 1 ,5 2 3 .2 1 1 0 .2 1 ,5 3 6 .8 1 ,0 6 5 .5 5 2 8 .4 1 ,5 3 0 .5 1 1 1 .3 1 ,5 4 3 . 5 1 ,0 7 9 .5 5 3 0 .3 1 ,5 5 0 . 3 1 1 4 .0 1 Revised series; not strictly comparable with previously published data. NOTE: Current State employment data by major industry division are published in table B-7. For historical data in available industry detail, see the annual compendium, E m p lo y m e n t and E a r n in g s , S ta te s a n d A r e a s , 1 9 3 9 -7 0 (BLS Bulletin 1370-8). E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , 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 E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , p = preliminary. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 94 PAYROLL DATA 13. Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1 [In thousands] 1972 1971 A nnual a v e ra g e In d u s t r y d iv is io n a n d g ro u p 197 0 TOTAL....................................... - ....................... MINING............................................................... 7 0 ,6 1 6 6 22 Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ayp Junep 7 2 ,0 3 4 7 0 ,6 4 3 7 0 ,7 7 6 7 1 ,3 7 4 7 1 ,9 2 8 7 2 ,5 1 6 7 3 ,2 7 4 605 602 596 599 597 602 615 3 ,4 1 0 3 ,1 7 7 2 ,9 6 5 2 ,8 8 0 2 ,9 7 4 3 ,1 1 7 3 ,2 4 5 3 ,4 0 4 1971 June J u ly A ug. S e p t. 7 0 ,6 9 9 7 1 ,3 5 5 7 0 ,4 5 2 7 0 ,5 4 2 7 1 ,1 8 4 7 1 ,3 7 9 7 1 ,6 3 8 625 623 522 524 3 ,4 7 8 634 601 613 3 ,4 1 4 3 ,4 8 0 3 ,5 0 9 3 ,4 7 1 MANUFACTURING______________________ Production workers2. ........................... 1 9 ,3 6 9 1 4 ,0 3 3 1 8 ,7 4 6 1 3 ,6 1 1 1 8 ,4 4 8 1 3 ,3 1 5 1 8,6 51 1 3 ,5 2 4 1 8 ,8 4 0 1 3 ,7 3 8 1 8 ,7 0 9 1 3 ,6 1 6 1 8 ,6 9 3 1 3 ,6 0 5 1 8 ,5 9 5 1 3 ,5 1 4 1 8 ,4 4 0 1 3 ,3 7 3 1 8 ,5 3 7 1 3 ,4 6 5 1 8 ,6 5 3 1 3 ,5 7 2 1 8 ,7 1 3 1 3 ,6 2 6 1 8 ,8 1 3 1 3,7 21 1 9 ,0 5 4 1 3 ,9 1 8 Durable goods...... ..................................... Production workers2.................... ........ 1 1 ,1 9 8 8 ,0 4 3 1 0 ,6 9 4 7 ,7 1 3 1 0 ,4 8 7 7 ,5 1 2 1 0 ,4 8 5 7 ,5 1 4 1 0 ,6 5 7 7 ,6 9 5 1 0 ,6 0 5 7 ,6 5 0 1 0 ,6 1 2 7 ,6 6 0 1 0 ,5 7 5 7 ,6 2 9 1 0 ,5 2 2 7 ,5 8 1 1 0 ,5 9 0 7 ,6 4 8 1 0 ,6 7 1 7 ,7 2 3 1 0 ,7 3 2 7 ,7 8 1 1 0 ,8 1 0 7 ,8 5 3 1 0 ,9 2 0 7 ,9 4 0 2 4 2 .1 5 7 2 .5 459 6 3 8 .5 1 9 2 .7 5 9 3 .3 4 5 9 .3 6 4 1 .7 1 8 9 .9 5 9 6 .4 4 5 2 .1 6 3 8 .6 1 8 9 .9 6 0 2 .3 4 5 9 .1 6 4 3 .8 1 9 0 .2 6 0 1 .5 4 6 8 .3 6 4 4 .0 1 8 8 .3 6 0 1 .8 4 7 2 .8 637 1 8 7 .3 5 9 8 .1 4 7 5 .8 6 3 6 .3 1 8 5 .5 5 9 1 .8 4 7 8 .3 6 2 7 .3 1 8 4 .2 5 8 4 .5 4 7 7 .8 6 2 0 .5 1 8 3 .0 5 8 7 .3 4 7 9 .3 6 2 1 .7 1 8 2 .9 5 9 1 .8 4 8 1 .2 6 3 1 .3 1 8 3 .9 5 9 6 .0 4 8 2 .0 6 4 1 .1 1 8 6 .3 6 0 4 .2 4 8 1 .9 6 5 3 .6 1 9 2 .0 6 2 3 .1 4 8 8 .9 6 6 7 .7 1 ,2 8 3 .1 1 ,3 4 3 .6 1 ,7 8 4 .6 1 ,7 8 0 .6 1 ,7 7 0 .7 4 3 0 .9 4 1 3 .3 1 ,2 3 8 .9 1 ,3 1 9 .4 1 ,7 7 2 .4 1 ,7 5 8 .7 1 ,6 8 8 .7 4 3 0 .2 4 0 2 .1 1 ,1 6 4 .1 1 ,3 3 2 .4 1 ,7 6 7 .6 1 ,7 7 7 .2 1 ,6 9 4 .6 4 3 2 .4 4 2 1 .4 1 ,1 7 6 .0 1 ,3 5 4 .1 1 ,7 8 8 .4 1 ,8 0 3 .2 1 ,7 6 8 .7 4 3 4 .8 4 2 8 .1 1 ,1 6 5 .2 1 .1 8 0 .5 1 .3 5 0 .7 1 .3 3 3 .1 1 ,7 7 8 .9 1 ,7 8 6 .2 1 ,7 8 2 .3 1 .8 0 6 .7 1 .7 9 3 .6 1 .7 5 0 .6 1 .7 3 0 .1 4 3 6 .7 4 3 5 .1 4 3 6 .2 4 2 5 .8 4 0 0 .2 4 2 9 .6 1 .1 8 6 .7 1 .3 3 8 .7 1 ,8 0 6 .6 1 .8 0 0 .8 1 ,7 4 1 .5 4 3 6 .8 4 0 7 .3 1 .2 1 4 . 0 1 .3 4 9 . 0 1 ,8 0 8 . 2 1 ,8 0 6 . 9 1, 7 5 4 .8 4 3 8 .1 4 1 2 .7 1 .2 2 3 .1 1 .3 5 5 .5 1 .8 1 4 .2 1 .8 1 1 .3 1 .7 6 7 .6 4 4 0 .6 4 1 6 .7 1 ,2 3 1 .5 1 ,3 6 6 .1 1 .8 2 7 .7 1 .8 2 0 .7 1 ,7 7 5 .0 4 4 4 .0 4 1 9 .0 1 .2 2 7 . 8 1 ,3 8 6 . 2 1 .8 3 8 . 8 1 .8 3 8 . 6 1 .7 7 4 . 7 4 5 1 .6 4 5 0 .1 8 ,0 5 2 5 ,8 9 8 7 ,9 6 1 5 ,8 0 3 8 ,1 6 6 6 ,0 1 0 8 ,1 8 3 6 ,0 4 3 7 ,9 4 7 5 ,8 1 7 7 ,9 8 2 5 ,8 4 9 7 ,9 8 1 5 ,8 4 5 8 ,0 0 3 5 ,8 6 8 8 ,1 3 4 5 ,9 7 8 CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION......................- 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................ Nondurable goods--------------- ---------------Production workers2....... ............ ........ 3 ,3 4 5 3 ,2 5 9 1 .3 1 4 .8 1 ,2 2 4 .6 1 .3 7 9 .9 1 ,3 3 1 ‘ 1 .9 7 6 .9 1 ,7 9 1 1 ,9 2 2 ' 1 ,8 0 6 .8 4 5 8 .6 4 2 5 .7 8 ,1 7 1 5 ,9 9 0 Food and kindred products................. Tobacco manufactures................ ........ Textile mill products______________ Apparel and other textile products------ 1 .7 8 1 .7 73. 8 1 .7 9 61 . 9 7 7 .6 1 .3 7 2 .2 1 ,3 6 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.......... . 687. 7 0 6 .5 1 .1 0 6 .8 1 ,0 8 7 . 1 .0 5 1 .3 1 9 0 .4 5 8 0 .4 3 2 2 .2 8 ,1 0 4 5 ,9 6 6 8 ,0 8 1 5 ,9 4 5 4 ,5 0 4 4 ,4 8 11 4 ,5 4 9 4 ,5 3 4 4 ,4 8 6 4 ,5 0 9 4 ,4 5 5 4 ,4 4 7 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE-----------Wholesale tra d e ....................... Retail trade------------------ ----------------------- 4 5 9 1 5 ,1 9 2 3 ,8 6 ( 1 1 ,3 3 2 1 5 ,1 3 2 3 ,8 7 7 1 1 ,2 5 5 1 5 ,1 5 1 3 ,8 8 6 1 1 ,2 6 5 1 5 ,2 4 2 3 ,8 8 0 1 1 ,3 6 2 1 5 ,3 2 7 3 ,8 9 6 1 1 ,4 3 1 1 5 ,5 3 7 3 ,9 0 5 1 1 ,6 3 2 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 3 ,6 9 0 3 ,8 0 00 3 ,8 3 7 3 ,8 6 7 3 ,8 6 5 3 ,8 2 9 3 ,8 2 6 3 ,8 3 6 GOVERNMENT___________________ _____ Federal...................... — ------- --------------State and local..-------------- ---------------- - 1 2 ,5 3 5 2 ,7 0 5 9 ,8 3 0 4 ,4 6 9 3 ,8 4 1 1 2,0 40 1 1 ,9 9 4 1 1 ,9 8 6 12,020 1 2 ,0 3 2 7 1 2 ,0 5 0 8 1 2 .1 7 3 6 .0 7 5 9 .0 8 8 2 .! 8 7 8 .: 2 8 1 0 .7 9 4 6 .4 9 3 3 .3 9 3 9 .9 9 3 9 .6 9 3 2 .2 1 9 5 8 .' 6 3 ,2 5 4 .1 3 , 2 7 0 - 3 ,2 7 3 .3 3 ,2 7 9 .8 3 .2 9 4 .2 3 ,3 0 5 .7 9 98 .3 9 7 3 .5 1 ,1 0 9 .3 1 .2 1 0 .3 1 ,2 3 0 .2 6 1 ,1 0 9 .4 8 4 4 1 2,9 33 2 ,6 7 10,259 1 2,336 2,681 9 , 65C 1 2,2 61 2 ,6 9 ( 9 ,5 7 1 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , U n it e d S ta t e s , 1 9 0 9 -7 1 (BLS Bulletin 1 3 1 2 -8 ). 2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers (including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assemblying, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 6 9 0 .7 6 9 6 .1 7 0 9 .1 6 8 4 .3 6 8 3 .9 6 8 7 .1 1 ,0 8 5 .5 1 ,0 8 7 .6 1 ,0 9 1 . 5 1 ,0 9 1 .9 1 ,0 9 1 .7 1 ,0 9 5 . 2 1 ,0 0 7 . 1 9 9 5 .3 9 9 6 .6 9 9 9 .6 1 ,0 0 1 .2 1, 000.0 1 9 2 .6 1 8 9 .1 1 8 7 .8 1 8 3 .2 1 8 6 .8 4 8 6 .8 6 1 9 .2 6 3 3 .5 6 1 2 .8 5 9 7 .5 6 0 3 .0 6 0 8 .8 3 0 7 .7 3 1 3 .3 3 2 0 .3 3 0 6 .1 3 0 9 .5 3 0 8 .2 6 9 3 .5 6 9 6 .7 6 9 1 .9 6 7 7 .7 6 9 0 .2 6 8 8 .1 1 ,0 8 8 .6 1 ,0 8 2 .2 1 ,0 8 0 .6 1 ,0 8 1 .4 1 ,0 8 7 .4 1 .0 8 7 .9 1 ,0 9 1 . I 1 ,2 2 2 .9 1 ,0 1 8 .2 1 ,0 1 5 .4 1 ,0 0 9 .4 1 ,0 0 4 .7 1 .0 0 3 .6 1 , 001 . 1 8 9 .1 1 9 1 .9 1 9 0 .4 1 9 3 .7 1 9 3 .2 1 1 9 2 .6 5 9 7 .0 5 9 5 .9 5 9 7 .4 5 77.4 5 8 4 .5 0 5 8 5 .C 3 0 8 .6 3 0 5 .5 3 0 4 .1 3 0 0 .0 3 1 3 .2 9 3 1 4 .9 1 4 ,9 2 2 3 ,8 2 4 1 1 ,0 9 8 1 1 ,6 3 0 761 ‘ 9 9 2 .3 3 ,0 5 2 1 ,1 3 6 .2 1 ,7 3 2 . 4 1 ,6 8 8 .2 1 .6 6 8 .9 1 ,6 7 6 .1 1 .6 7 2 .0 1 ,6 7 9 .6 6 5 .0 6 4 .7 6 6 .0 6 8 .4 7 0 .2 6 7 .2 9 8 5 .6 9 9 0 .2 1 ,0 0 8 . 6 9 8 5 .0 9 7 6 .6 9 7 2 .3 1 ,3 3 5 .7 1 .3 6 5 .9 1 ,3 7 1 .5 1 .3 6 5 .1 1 ,3 5 9 .3 1 ,3 6 9 . 8 1 ,7 4 9 .3 1 ,7 9 7 .0 1 ,8 8 2 .8 1 ,8 7 9 .3 1 ,8 0 3 .8 1 .7 7 0 .8 7 6 .5 8 4 .2 8 0 .0 6 1 .9 7 7 .7 6 7 .9 9 7 3 .7 9 6 4 .5 9 6 5 .5 9 4 8 .6 9 6 4 .7 9 6 8 .2 1 ,3 7 2 .3 1 ,3 0 4 .1 1 ,3 6 6 .1 1 ,3 7 4 .2 1 ,3 7 9 .0 1 .3 8 0 .6 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC U TILI TIES......................... — ............................. — SERVICES_______________________ Hotels and other lodging places------- ------Personal services____________________ Medical and other health services............. Educational services.-------- -------- ---------- 7 ,9 1 8 5 ,7 9 2 1 2 ,6 8 4 2 ,6 6 6 1 0 ,0 1 8 1 3 ,0 4 2 2 ,6 5 9 1 0 ,3 8 3 1 3 ,1 5 9 2 ,6 5 5 1 0 ,5 0 4 » 4 ,4 3 0 4 ,4 0 7 4 ,4 8 2 4 ,4 8 6 4 ,5 2 7 4 ,6 0 1 1 5 ,2 6 6 3 ,8 7 1 1 1,3 95 1 5 ,1 4 7 3 ,8 6 6 1 1,2 81 1 5 ,2 7 4 3 ,8 9 4 1 1 ,3 8 0 1 5 ,4 6 0 3 ,9 0 2 1 1 ,5 5 8 1 5 ,5 7 1 3 ,9 1 7 1 1 ,6 5 4 1 5 ,7 1 0 3 ,9 8 9 1 1 ,7 2 1 3 ,8 3 3 3 ,8 4 4 3 ,8 6 7 3 ,8 8 5 3 ,9 1 2 3 ,9 5 4 1 2,2 79 1 2 ,4 0 4 1 2,0 31 1 2 ,1 3 1 1 1,9 26 7 8 4 .5 809. C 7 6 0 .6 7 7 1 .4 7 5 0 .3 9 2 5 .9 9 2 9 .3 9 1 9 .6 9 2 1 .4 922. 3 ,3 7 4 .9 3 ,3 9 5 .1 3 ,3 2 6 .3 3 ,3 4 5 .2 3 ,3 6 1 .9 1 ,1 9 3 .5 1 ,2 3 0 .9 1 ,2 4 5 .4 1 ,2 3 8 .5 1 .2 2 7 .C _______ 1 3,442 2 ,6 6 2 1 0 , 78C 1 3 ,4 1 6 2 ,6 6 6 1 0 ,7 5 0 1 3,181 2,6 5 4 10,521 1 3 ,3 3 4 2 ,6 5 6 1 0 ,6 7 6 1 3 ,3 9 4 2 ,6 5 6 10,7 36 1 3,391 2 ,6 6 4 1 0 ,7 2 ' 1 2 ,5 2 0 inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance, repair, janitorial, and watchman services, product development, auxiliary production for plant’s own use (e.g., powerplant), and recordkeeping and other services closely associated with the above production operations. NOTE: For additional detail, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , table B-2. p = p re lim in a ry . • = corrected. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 14. PAYROLL DATA 95 Employees on nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1 [In thousands] 1972 1971 I n d u s t r y d iv is io n a n d g ro u p June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. N ov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ayp 70,657 70,531 70,529 70,853 70,848 71,042 71,185 71,584 71,729 72,030 72,263 72,540 619 597 609 616 521 525 607 616 612 613 603 602 601 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T IO N 3,255 3,228 3,219 3,250 3,290 3,320 3,245 3,320 3,236 3,272 3,233 3,255 3 ,2 4 5 M A N U F A C T U R I N G ___________ 18,608 13,496 18,533 13,440 18,457 13,371 18,616 13,515 18,560 13,462 18,603 13,505 18,566 13,474 18,609 13,527 18,690 13,597 18,777 13,677 18,870 13,770 18,961 13,851 1 8 ,9 0 8 1 3 ,7 9 8 10,598 7,627 10,552 7,594 10,485 7,534 10,597 7,630 10,561 7,600 10,572 7,614 10,548 7,594 10,574 7,629 10.637 7,685 10,696 7,741 10,770 7,815 10,855 7,889 1 0 ,8 1 9 7 ,8 5 2 Ordnance and accessories. ___ . Lumber and wood products Furniture and fixtures. . Stone, clay, and glass products____ _ 193 574 458 629 191 579 461 625 191 583 456 627 190 591 465 633 189 597 467 631 186 601 470 634 184 600 474 632 183 604 478 640 182 603 481 641 183 604 484 645 185 608 486 646 188 607 488 656 192 603 488 654 Primary metal industries____________ Fabricated metal products___ _ . Machinery, except electrical . Electrical equipm ent___ _ Transportation equipment Instruments and related products. . Miscellaneous manufacturing . 1,259 1,333 1,769 1,783 1,759 430 411 1,226 1,335 1,770 1,773 1,751 431 410 1,156 1,331 1,775 1,772 1,754 430 410 1,182 1,346 1,794 1,791 1,758 435 412 1,187 1,341 1,791 1,793 1,720 437 408 1,178 1,339 1,797 1,791 1,732 436 408 1,176 1,331 1,793 1,793 1,719 434 412 1,186 1,336 1,784 1,792 1,716 436 419 1,187 1,345 1,798 1,803 1,736 438 423 1, 213 1,356 1,792 1,812 1,743 '439 425 1,219 1,365 1,802 1,828 1,764 441 426 1 225 1,377 L826 1,839 1 ; 779 446 424 1 ,2 0 5 L 375 1 ,8 2 2 1 ,8 4 0 1 ,7 6 2 8 .0 10 T O T A L _____________________ _ M I N I N G _________________________ Production workers2 ___________ D u r a b le g o o d s ______ . Production workers 2._ _ June» 7 2 ,5 5 6 450 428 Production workers 2 __________ 5,869 7,981 5,846 7,972 5,837 8,019 5,885 7,999 5,862 8,031 5,891 8,018 5,880 8,035 5,880 8,053 5,912 8,081 5! 936 8,100 5,955 8,106 5i 962 8 ,0 8 9 5 ,9 4 6 Food and kindred products Tobacco manufactures Textile mill products.. _ Apparel and other textile products. . . 1,751 77 956 1,357 1,762 69 959 1,349 1,748 70 959 1,351 1,755 72 960 1,361 1,728 69 963 1,365 1,750 71 970 1,370 1,748 69 974 1,357 1,757 71 979 1,353 1,749 71 981 1,365 1,757 73 988 1,365 1,751 75 989 1,376 1,744 74 995 1,362 1 ,7 3 4 73 996 1 ,3 5 5 Paper and allied products_____ Printing and publishing_____ Chemicals and allied products Petroleum and coal products Rubber and plastics, products, nec Leather and leather products 682 1,088 1,016 189 583 311 676 1,083 1,008 188 584 303 681 1,080 1,004 188 582 309 694 1,082 1,008 190 591 306 693 1,085 1,008 189 594 305 691 1,084 1,008 189 592 306 690 1,084 1,005 191 594 306 688 1,090 1,003 188 600 306 689 1,090 1,003 192 604 309 692 1 092 N o n d u r a b le go o d s T R A N S P O R T A T IO N W HOLESALE A N D AND P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S . R E T A IL T R A D E _______ Wholesale trade. Retail trade___ F IN A N C E , I N S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E .. S E R V IC E S _______ Hotels and other lodging places Personal services Medical and other health services Educational services GOVERNM ENT . . F e d era l ______ S t a t e a n d lo c a l ___ _ 70? 701 1 093 1 non 1 097 1 003 1 O94 1 OOO 191 612 309 190 617 312 189 316 188 632 316 674 4,500 4,476 4,428 4,460 4,442 4,434 4,465 4,502 4,479 4,536 4,522 4,545 4,551 15,135 3,837 11,298 15,158 3,835 11,323 15,223 3,844 11,379 15,273 3,865 11,408 15,270 3,873 11,397 15,278 3,874 11,404 15,315 3,884 11,431 15,447 3,902 11,545 15,495 3,913 11,582 15 518 3 941 11,577 15,647 3'949 11i 698 15 6 5 0 15,651 3 961 l l ! 689 3 965 11; 686 3,807 3,806 3,804 3,821 3,834 3,851 3,860 3,872 3,879 3,890 3,897 3,920 3 ,9 2 3 11,895 775 943 3,231 1,155 11,921 755 933 3,241 1,142 11,946 760 935 3,260 1,139 11,962 796 938 3,283 1,160 11,996 784 937 3,297 1,165 12,044 785 941 3,306 1,168 12,089 801 932 3,323 1,165 12,120 12,177 813 1? 217 12 254 1 2 ,3 5 9 12,838 2,640 10,198 12,812 2,643 10,169 12,843 2,650 10,193 12,855 2,674 10,181 12,935 2,675 10,260 12,987 2,669 10,318 13,038 2,669 10,369 13,098 2 675 10,423 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in E m p lo y m e n t and E a r n in g s , U n it e d S ta te s , 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). 2 Production workers include working foremen and all nonsupervisory workers (including leadmen and trainees) engaged in fabricating, processing, assembling, inspection, receiving, storage, handling, packing, warehousing, shipping, maintenance! https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 697 1 002 813 293 3,336 1 160 806 17 306 813 3 385 3 41? 13,237 2,669 10,568 13,301 2 670 10,631 sTcD 3,252 1 171 13,161 2,672 10,489 13 207 ? 669 10,538 13,318 2 632 1 0 ,6 8 6 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. NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through May 1971. For additional detail, see September 1971 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s . •>=preliminary. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 96 LABOR TURNOVER 15. Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1962 to date 1 [ P e r 1 0 0 e m p lo y e e s ] Year Annual a ve rag e Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. June M ay J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. T o t a l a c c e s s io n s 1 9 6 2 ................................... 1963 1 9 6 4 ... 1 9 6 5 _________________ 4 .1 3 .9 4 .0 4 .3 4 .1 3 .6 3 .6 3 .8 3 .6 3 .3 3 .4 3 .5 3 .8 3 .5 3 .7 4 .0 4 .0 3 .9 3 .8 3 .8 4 .3 3 .9 3 .9 4 .1 5 .0 4 .8 5 .1 5 .6 4 .6 4 .3 4 .4 4 .5 5 .1 4 .8 5 .1 5 .4 4 .9 4 .8 4 .8 5 .5 3 .9 3 .9 4 .0 4 .5 3 .0 2 .9 3 .2 3 .9 2 .4 2 .5 2 .6 3 .1 1 9 6 6 .................. ........ 1 9 6 7 _________________ 1 9 6 8 ____ _________ 1969 1 9 7 0 _________________ 5 .0 4 .4 4 .6 4 .7 4 .0 4 .6 4 .3 4 .2 4 .6 4 .0 4 .2 3 .6 3 .8 3 .9 3 .6 4 .9 3 .9 4 .0 4 .4 3 .7 4 .6 3 .9 4 .3 4 .5 3 .7 5 .1 4 .6 4 .7 4 .8 4 .2 6 .7 5 .9 5 .9 6 .6 5 .4 5 .1 4 .7 5 .0 5 .1 4 .4 6 .4 5 .5 5 .8 5 .6 5 .1 6 .1 5 .3 5 .7 5 .9 4 .7 5 .1 4 .7 5 .1 4 .9 3 .8 3 .9 3 .7 3 .9 3 .6 3 .0 2 .9 2 .8 3 .1 2 .9 2 .4 1 9 7 1 _________________ 3 .9 3 .5 4 .1 3 .1 3 .7 3 .5 4 .0 3 .7 3 .9 4 .9 4 .0 5 .3 4 .8 3 .8 3 .3 2 .5 N e w h ir e s 1 9 6 2 _________________ 1 9 6 3 _________________ 1 9 6 4 _________________ 1 9 6 5 _________________ 2 .5 2 .4 2 .6 3 .1 2 .2 1 .9 2 .0 2 .4 2 .1 1 .8 2 .0 2 .4 2 .2 2 .0 2 .2 2 .8 2 .4 2 .3 2 .4 2 .6 2 .8 2 .5 2 .5 3 .0 3 .5 3 .3 3 .6 4 .3 2 .9 2 .7 2 .9 3 .2 3 .2 3 .2 3 .4 3 .9 3 .1 3 .2 3 .5 4 .0 2 .5 2 .6 2 .8 3 .5 1 .8 1 .8 2 .2 2 .9 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 2 .2 1 9 6 6 _________________ 1 9 6 7 _________________ 1 9 6 8 _________________ 1 9 6 9 _________________ 1 9 7 0 _________________ 3 .8 3 .3 3 .5 3 .7 2 .8 3 .2 3 .0 3 .0 3 .3 2 .9 3 .1 2 .7 2 .7 3 .0 2 .5 3 .7 2 .8 2 .9 3 .4 2 .6 3 .6 2 .8 3 .2 3 .5 2 .6 4 .1 3 .3 3 .6 3 .8 2 .8 5 .6 4 .6 4 .7 5 .4 3 .9 3 .9 3 .3 3 .7 3 .9 3 .0 4 .8 4 .0 4 .3 4 .3 3 .5 4 .7 4 .1 4 .6 4 .8 3 .4 4 .2 3 .7 4 .0 4 .0 2 .7 3 .1 2 .8 2 .9 2 .8 1 .9 2 .1 2 .0 2 .2 2 .1 1 .4 1 9 7 1 _________________ 2 .5 2 .0 2 .5 1 .9 2 .4 2 .2 2 .7 2 .3 2 .8 2 .6 .6 3 .5 2 .7 3 .4 3 .3 2 .7 2 .2 1 .6 p3 T o t a l s e p a r a t io n s 1962. 1963. 1964. 1965. 4 .1 3 .9 3 .9 4 .1 3 .9 4 .0 4 .0 3 .7 3 .4 3 .2 3 .3 3 .1 3 .6 3 .5 3 .5 3 .4 3 .6 3 .6 3 .5 3 .7 3 .8 3 .6 3 .6 3 .6 3 .8 3 .4 3 .5 3 .6 4 .4 4 .1 4 .4 4 .3 5 .1 4 .8 4 .3 5 .1 5 .0 4 .9 5 .1 5 .6 4 .4 4 .1 4 .2 4 .5 4 .0 3 .9 3 .6 3 .9 3 .8 3 .7 3 .7 4 .1 1966. 1967. 1968. 1969. 1970. 4 .6 4 .6 4 .6 4 .9 4 .8 4 .0 4 .5 4 .4 4 .5 4 .8 3 .6 4 .0 3 .9 4 .0 4 .3 4 .1 4 .6 4 .1 4 .4 4 .4 4 .3 4 .3 4 .1 4 .5 4 .8 4 .3 4 .2 4 .3 4 .6 4 .6 4 .4 4 .3 4 .1 4 .6 4 .4 5 .3 4 .8 5 .0 5 .3 5 .3 5 .8 5 .3 6 .0 6 .2 5 .6 6 .6 6 .2 6 .3 6 .6 6 .0 4 .8 4 .7 5 .0 5 .4 5 .3 4 .3 4 .0 4 .1 4 .3 4 .3 4 .2 3 .9 3 .8 4 .2 4 .1 1971. 1972. 4 .2 4 .2 4 .0 3 .5 3 R 3 .7 3 .8 4 .0 3 7 3 .7 .9 3 .8 4 .8 5 .5 5 .3 4 .3 3 .7 3 .8 p3 Q u its 1 9 6 2 . _____ __________ 1 9 6 3 _________________ 1 9 6 4 _________________ 1 9 6 5 _________________ 1 .4 1 .4 1 .5 1 .9 1 .1 1 .1 1 .2 1 .4 l.i 1 .0 l.i 1 .3 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1 .5 1 .3 1 .3 1 .3 1 .7 1 .5 1 .4 1 .5 1 .7 1 .5 1 .4 1 .4 1 .7 1 .4 1 .4 1 .5 1 .8 2 .1 2 .1 2 .1 2 .6 2 .4 2 .4 2 .7 3 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .7 2 .2 1 .1 1 .1 1 .2 1 .7 .8 .8 1 .0 1 .4 1 9 6 6 _________________ 1 9 6 7 ... ___________ 1 9 6 8 _________________ 1 9 6 9 _________________ 1 9 7 0 _________________ 2 .6 2 .3 2 .5 2 .7 2 .1 1 .9 2 .1 2 .0 2 .3 2 .1 1 .8 1 .9 1 .9 2 .1 1 .9 2 .3 2 .1 2 .1 2 .4 2 .0 2 .5 2 .2 2 .2 2 .6 2 .1 2 .5 2 .2 2 .4 2 .7 2 .1 2 .5 2 .3 2 .3 2 .6 2 .1 2 .5 2 .1 2 .4 2 .7 2 .1 3 .6 3 .2 3 .8 4 .0 3 .0 4 .5 4 .0 4 .2 4 .4 3 .3 2 .8 2 .5 2 .8 3 .0 2 .1 2 .1 1 .9 2 .1 2 .1 1 .4 1 .7 1 .5 1 .6 1 .6 1 .2 1 9 7 1 ........... ................ — 1977 1 .8 1 .5 1 .7 1 .3 1 .6 1 .5 1 9 1 .6 2 .0 1 .7 .2 1 .8 1 .8 2 .8 2 .9 1 .9 1 .5 1 .2 p2 L a y o ffs 1 9 6 2 _____ ___________ 1 9 6 3 _____ ___________ 1 9 6 4 _________________ 1 9 6 5 _________________ 2 .0 1 .8 1 .7 1 .4 2 .1 2 .2 2 .0 1 .6 1 .7 1 .6 1 .6 1 .2 1 .6 1 .7 1 .6 1 .2 1 .6 1 .6 1 .4 1 .3 1 .6 1 .5 1 .4 1 .1 1 .6 1 .4 1 .3 1 .1 2 .2 2 .0 2 .1 1 .8 2 .2 1 .9 1 .4 1 .6 1 .9 1 .8 1 .5 1 .3 2 .2 1 .9 1 .8 1 .4 2 .3 2 .1 1 .7 1 .5 2 .5 2 .3 2 .1 1 .9 1 9 6 6 _________________ 1 9 6 7 _________________ 1 9 6 8 _________________ 1969 ______ _________ 1 9 7 0 .................. ................ 1 .2 1 .4 1 .2 1 .2 1 .8 1 .3 1 .5 1 .5 1 .2 1 .7 1 .0 1 .3 1 .2 1 .0 1 .5 1 .0 1 .3 .9 1 .1 1.0 1.0 1 .0 1 .1 .9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1 .5 1 .6 .9 1 .7 .9 1 .5 1 .5 2 .0 1 .9 1 .8 1 .6 2 .3 1 .1 1 .2 1 .3 1 .1 1 .7 1 .0 1 .2 1 .1 1 .1 1 .7 1 .1 1 .3 1 .2 1 .3 2 .2 1 .3 1 .3 1 .2 1 .3 2 .1 1 .7 1 .6 1 .4 1 .8 2 .2 1 9 7 1 ................................... 1 .6 1 .9 1 4 1 .4 1 .1 1 .4 1 .1 1 .4 1 0 1 .2 2 .1 1 .8 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .8 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , U n it e d S ta te s , 1 9 0 9 -7 1 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufactur ing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the changes https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis p 1 .2 .9 1.0 shown by the Bureau's employment series because (1) the labor turnover series meas ures changes during the calendar month, while the employment 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. p=preliminary. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 16. LABOR TURNOVER 97 Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group 1 [Per 100 employees] A c c e s s io n r a te s M a j o r in d u s t r y g r o u p T o ta l S e p a r a tio n r a te s N e w h ir e s Q u its L a y o ffs M ay 1971 A p r. 1972 M ay 1972 p M ay 1971 A p r. 1972 M ay 1972 p M ay 1971 A p r. 1972 M ay 1972 p M ay 1971 A p r. 1972 M ay 1972 p M ay 1971 A p r. 1972 M ay 1972 p 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.4 4 9 4 .8 2.6 2.5 2 8 3.1 3 6 3 .5 3 7 4.0 3 7 4.0 3 9 4 .2 1 7 ? n 2.1 7 7 1 7 2 .3 1.5 1 0 1.2 0 9 1.8 3.7 3.8 4 .6 2.3 2.6 3 .4 3.3 3.3 3 .4 1.4 1.7 1 .8 1.1 .8 .7 Ordnance and accessories... Lumber and wood products. Furniture and fixtures_____ Stone, clay, and glass products_____ 1.7 6.7 5.5 4.7 2.7 6.3 5.9 5.2 7.5 7.0 .7 5.3 4.3 3.3 1.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 6 .4 6 .2 4 .4 2.5 4.7 4.8 3.7 1.9 5.5 5.7 3.5 .7 3.0 3.0 1.9 .7 3.7 3.9 1.9 1.4 .8 .8 .5 .8 .6 .8 .5 .5 .6 Primary metal industries_____ Fabricated metal products Machinery, except electrical Electrical equipment. Transportation equipment. Instruments and related products. __ Miscellaneous manufacturing____ 3.0 4.1 2.5 2.9 3.8 2.8 5.7 3.2 4.3 2.8 3.2 3.6 2.8 5.4 2.0 2.7 1.5 1.5 2.1 1.9 4.3 1.7 3.0 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.2 4.1 2.4 3.7 2.6 3.0 3.2 2.3 4.7 1 .0 2 .8 5 .1 2.7 3.8 3.1 2.8 3.2 2.6 4.5 2 .5 5 .1 1.6 .9 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.4 .9 1.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 2.6 M A N U F A C T U R IN G . Seasonally adjusted 2_ D u r a b le g o o d s _________ 5 .8 3 .9 3 .5 3.5 6 .5 2 .3 2 .6 5.6 5 .9 3 .7 2 .6 2 .7 4 .0 4 .0 2 .2 1 .0 1.0 .8 1.4 1.4 .9 1.3 .8 1.2 1 .3 1 .4 3 .1 .5 1.1 .6 .6 l.i .6 .6 1 .0 .4 1.1 1.0 .4 4.3 4.2 5 .3 3.0 3.1 3 .9 4.1 4.4 4 .6 2.1 2.4 2 .7 1.3 1.2 1 .1 Food and kindred products______ Tobacco manufactures. . Textile mill products.. Apparel and other textile products____ 5.9 2.7 5.3 5.4 5.0 2.1 5.8 5.4 6 .7 2 .9 6 .8 6 .4 3.9 1.8 4.1 3.5 3.3 1.1 4.7 3.8 4 .5 1 .9 5.3 5.7 5.8 5.9 5 .8 2 .6 6 .1 6 .0 2.4 1.1 3.4 2.6 2.4 1.3 4.1 3.2 2 .8 1 .3 4 .4 3 .6 2.3 .5 .8 1.9 2 .2 4 .6 5.4 2.3 5.2 5.2 2 .2 .6 .5 1 .5 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_____ __ 3.0 2.6 2.0 2.2 4.4 6.2 2.8 2.9 2.0 2.0 4.5 6.5 3 .8 3 .0 2.1 2.0 1.4 1.7 3.2 4.3 2.1 2.2 1.5 1.6 3.5 4.9 3 .0 2 .5 2 .0 1 .8 4 .6 6 .2 2.6 2.7 2.2 1.7 3.9 5.9 2.7 2.9 2.0 1.5 4.1 6.3 2 .7 3 .0 2 .3 1 .4 4 .6 6 .4 1.3 1.5 .9 .7 2.0 3.2 1.4 1.6 1 .5 1 .7 1 .1 .6 2 .7 4 .3 .6 .7 .7 .5 N o n d u r a b le g o o d s _______ 2.6 2 .3 5.7 8 .1 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data, are published in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , U n it e d S ta te s , 1 9 0 9 -7 1 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Month-to-month changes in total employment in manufacturing and nonmanufactur ing industries as indicated by labor turnover rates are not comparable with the changes shown by the Bureau’s employment series because (1) the labor turnover series meas ures changes during the calendar month, while the employment series measures 17. T o ta l 5.7 1.0 .6 2.4 3.8 3.6 .6 1.9 .6 .7 .4 .3 .7 1.4 1.0 1.6 .5 .7 .5 .1 .8 1.0 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. 2 These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through May 1971. For additional detail, see September 1971 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s . NOTE: For additional detail, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , table D -2 . p=preliminary. Job vacancies in manufacturing 1 A nnual a v e ra g e 1971 1972 In d u s tr y Job vacancies in manufacturing (number in thousands)_______ 1970 1971 M ay June 132 88 94 90 0 7 .6 .7 0 5 4 6 0.5 4 .6 0 5 4 6 .5 .7 .7 .5 3 4 .5 4 J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec Jan. Feb. 90 106 98 90 79 78 90 97 Ill 0.5 4 6 0.6 5 0.5 0.4 .4 0.4 4 0.5 ^5 0.5 .5 .6 0.6 .5 M a r. A p r. 124 M ayp 125 JOB V A C A N C Y R ATES 2 Manufacturing_______ ____ _ Durable goods industries____ __ . Nondurable goods industries____________ Selected durable goods industries: Primary metal industries________ Machinery, except electrical.. Electrical equipment and supplies_______ _____ __________ Transportation equipment_________________ . Instruments and related products................................................ 1.0 2 .4 .5 4 .7 Selected nondurable goods industries: Textile mill products.. . . . Apparel and other textile products______ _____ __________ Printing and publishing___ . . . Chemicals and allied products...................................................... 9 1.4 6 .7 8 1.2 4 .4 .7 9 1.3 3 .5 1 Data have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment). For months prior to July 1971, data are not comparable to those published in the February 1972 and earlier issues of the M o n t h ly L a b o r R e v ie w . 2 Computed by dividing the total number of job vacancies by the sum of employ- https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 4 .5 4 .9 9 1.3 j .4 5 0.5 4 j) J, jj 2 2 4 Ì6 4 J j 4 ]5 4 .5 j .6 j a .6 .7 .8 1.1 1.2 2 2 .3 .4 2 4 .5 5 .8 4 .6 6 .8 2 5 .5 5 Ì8 g 1.3 3 .4 1 0 1.4 4 .4 9 1.2 3 .4 j) 1.2 4 A jj .8 1.0 .3 .3 4 jj .2 0 .7 .6 .7 .2 .2 .7 .5 .7 .7 .5 .9 .7 .8 .7 1.1 1.2 .3 .4 1.1 1.4 .4 .5 1.3 .4 .6 Jj .8 .3 .7 l.i 1 .4 .5 ment plus the total number of job vacancies and multiplying the quotient of 100. NOTE: For additional detail on this series, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , tables E—1, E—2, and E-3. p=preliminary. 98 HOURS AND MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 E A R N IN G S 18. Gross average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division, 1947-71 Year Average weekly earnings Average weekly hours Average hourly earnings Average weekly earnings Average weekly hours Average hourly earnings Average weekly hours Average hourly earnings Average weekly earnings Contract construction Mining Total private Average weekly earnings Average weekly hours Average hourly earnings Manufacturing 1947.................................................. 1948________________________ 1949________________________ 1950________________________ $45.58 49.00 50.24 53.13 40.3 40.0 39.4 39.8 $1,131 1.225 1.275 1.335 $59.94 65.56 62.33 67.16 40.8 39.4 36.3 37.9 $1,469 1.664 1.717 1.772 $58.87 65.27 67.56 69.68 38.2 38.1 37.7 37.4 $1,541 1.713 1.792 1.863 $49.17 53.12 53.88 58.32 40.4 40.0 39.1 40.5 $1,217 1.328 1.378 1.440 1951________________________ 1952________________________ 1953_____ ___________________ 1954________________________ 1955________________________ 57.86 60.65 63.76 64.52 67.72 39.9 39.9 39.6 39.1 39.6 1.45 1.52 1.61 1.65 1.71 74.11 77.59 83.03 82.60 89.54 38.4 38.6 38.8 38.6 40.7 1.93 2.01 2.14 2.14 2.20 76.96 82.86 86.41 88.91 90.90 38.1 38.9 37.9 37.2 37.1 2.02 2.13 2.28 2.39 2.45 63.34 67.16 70.47 70.49 75.70 40.6 40.7 40.5 39.6 40.7 1.56 1.65 1.74 1.78 1.86 1956_____ _____ _____________ 1957________________________ 1958________________________ 1959 2_______________________ 1960________________________ 70.74 73.33 75.08 78.78 80.67 39.3 38.8 38.5 39.0 38.6 1.80 1.89 1.95 2.02 2,09 95.06 98.65 96.08 103.68 105.44 40.8 40.1 38:9 40.5 40.4 2.33 2.46 2.47 2.56 2.61 96.38 100.27 103.78 108.41 113.04 37.5 37.0 36.8 37.0 36.7 2.57 2.71 2.82 2.93 3.08 78.78 81.59 82.71 88.26 89.72 40.4 39.8 39.2 40.3 39.7 1.95 2.05 2.11 2.19 2.26 1961_______ _____ ___________ 1962________________________ 1963________________________ 1964________________________ 1965________________________ 82.60 85.91 88.46 91.33 95.06 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.7 38.8 2.14 2.22 2.28 2.36 2.45 106.92 110.43 114.40 117.74 123.52 40.5 40.9 41.6 41.9 42.3 2.64 2.70 2.75 2.81 2.92 118.08 122.47 127.19 132.06 138.38 36.9 37.0 37.3 37.2 37.4 3.20 3.31 3.41 3.55 3.70 92.34 96.56 99.63 102.97 107.53 39.8 40.4 40.5 40.7 41.2 2.32 2.39 2.46 2.53 2.61 1966________________________ 1967________________________ 1968________________________ 1969________________________ 1970________________________ 98.82 101.84 107.73 114.61 119.46 38.6 38.0 37.8 37.7 37.1 2.56 2.68 2.85 3.04 3.22 130.24 135.89 142.71 155.23 163.97 42.7 42.6 42.6 43.0 42.7 3.05 3.19 3.35 3.61 3.84 146.26 154.95 164.93 181.54 196.35 37.6 37.7 37.4 37.9 37.4 3.89 4.11 4.41 4.79 5.25 112.34 114.90 122.51 129.51 133.73 41.3 40.6 40.7 40.6 39.8 2.72 2.83 3.01 3.19 3.36 1971________________________ 126.91 37.0 3 43 171.72 42.4 4 05 213 36 37.3 5.72 142.44 39.9 3.57 Transportation and public utilities Wholesale and retail trade $43.21 45.48 47.63 50.52 37.9 37.9 37.8 37.7 $1,140 1.200 1.260 1.340 1.18 1.23 1.30 1.35 1.40 54.67 57.08 59.57 62.04 63.92 37.7 37.8 37.7 37.6 37.6 1.45 1.51 1.58 1.65 1.70 39.1 38.7 38.6 38.8 38.6 1.47 1.54 1.60 1.66 1.71 65.68 67.53 70.12 72.74 75.14 36.9 36.7 37.1 37.3 37.2 1.78 1.84 1.89 1.95 2.02 $2.88 3.03 67.41 69.91 72.01 74.28 76.53 38.3 38.2 38.1 37.9 37.7 1.76 1.83 1.89 1.96 2.03 77.12 80.94 84.38 85.79 88.91 36.9 37.3 37.5 37.3 37.2 2.09 2.17 2.25 2.30 2.39 $69.84 73.60 36.0 35.9 $1.94 2.05 41.2 40.5 40.6 40.7 40.5 3.11 3.24 3.42 3.64 3.85 79.02 81.76 86.40 91.14 95.66 37.1 36.5 36.0 35.6 35.3 2.13 2.24 2.40 2.56 2.71 92.13 95.46 101.75 108.70 113.34 37.3 37.0 37 0 37.1 36.8 2.47 2.58 2.75 2.93 3.08 77.04 80.38 84.32 90.57 96.66 35.5 35.1 34.7 34.7 34.4 2.17 2.29 2.43 2.61 2.81 40.2 4.21 100.74 35.1 2.87 121.36 37.0 3.28 102.26 34.2 2.99 1947 1948 1949 1950 $38.07 40.80 42.93 44.55 40.5 40.4 40.5 40.5 $0,940 1.010 1.060 1.100 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 47.79 49.20 51 35 53.33 55.16 40.5 40.0 39.5 39.5 39.4 1956 1957 1958 1959 2 1960 57.48 59.60 61.76 64.41 66.01 1961 1962 1963 1964________________________ 1965________________________ $118.37 125.14 41.1 41.3 1966________________________ 1 9 6 7 ...._____ _______________ 1968________________________ 1969________________________ 1970________________________ 128.13 131.22 138.85 148.15 155.93 1971________________________ 169.24 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparabie back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Services Finance, insurance, and real estate public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and 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. HOURS AND EARNINGS CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 99 19. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1972 1971 A nnual a ve rag e I n d u s t r y d iv is io n a n d g r o u p 1970 1971 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ayp J u n ep P R I V A T E ______________________________ 37.1 37.0 37.3 37.3 37.4 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.3 36.7 36.8 36.9 37.0 36.9 37.4 M I N I N G _________________________________________ 42.7 42.4 42.6 42.6 42.3 42.1 42.8 42.3 42.8 42.5 42.0 42.2 42.4 42.4 43.2 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ________________ 37.4 37.3 38.0 38.1 38.3 36.9 38.2 37.9 36.5 35.8 36.0 36.8 36.6 36.9 37.6 M A N U F A C T U R I N G _____________________________ 39.8 3.0 39.9 2.9 40.2 3.0 39.8 2.9 39.8 3.0 39.8 3.1 40.0 3.1 40.2 3.1 40.7 3.2 39.8 40.1 3.0 40.3 3.1 40.5 3.3 40.5 3.3 40.8 3.4 40.3 2.9 40.4 2.9 40.8 3.0 40.1 2.7 40.0 2 .8 40.0 3.0 40.5 3.0 40.7 3.0 41.4 3.2 40.4 Overtime hours____ ____ __________ 2 .8 40.7 3.0 41.0 3.2 41.2 3.4 41.2 3.4 41.5 3.6 Ordnance and accessories___________ Lumber and wood products__________ Furniture and fixtures____ _ _______ Stone, clay, and glass products_______ 40.6 39.7 39.2 41.2 41.7 40.3 39.8 41.6 41.8 40.9 40.1 42.3 41.3 40.4 39.7 42.0 41.7 40.5 40.4 42.3 41.9 40.4 40.0 41.9 41.8 41.0 40.4 42.1 42.0 40.6 40.4 41.9 42.4 40.8 40.9 41.6 41.7 40.0 39.7 40.9 42.2 40.4 39.8 41.2 42.2 40.9 40.2 41.8 42.2 41.1 40.2 41.9 42.2 41.2 40.2 41.9 42.2 41.7 41.0 42.7 Primary metal in d u s trie s ...________ Fabricated metal products_________ Machinery, except electrical_____ . . . Electrical equipment . . . . ____ _ Transportation equipment_____ ____ Instruments and related products____ 40.5 40.7 41.1 39.9 40.3 40.1 40.4 40.3 40.6 39.9 40.7 39.8 41.3 40.9 40.7 40.1 41.5 39.8 40.7 40.3 40.3 39.6 39.4 39.5 38.8 40.3 40.3 40.0 39.3 39.6 39.5 39.9 40.6 40.0 39.1 40.0 39.7 40.3 40.8 40.1 41.0 40.1 39.9 40.6 41.1 40.4 41.1 40.5 41.0 41.3 41.9 40.9 42.5 40.8 40.7 40.1 41.0 40.0 40.6 40.1 41.0 40.4 41.4 40.2 41.2 40.4 41.3 40.6 41.7 40.3 41.7 40.3 41.5 40.9 41.8 40.4 42.0 40.5 41.6 41.1 41.7 40.3 42.0 40.5 41.7 41.4 42.0 40.6 42.2 41.1 Miscellaneous manufacturing 38.7 38.9 38.8 38.6 39.2 38.9 39.3 39.5 39.5 38.7 39.2 39.3 39.5 39.2 39.4 Overtime hours____________________ 39.1 3.0 39.3 3.0 39.4 3.1 39.4 3.0 39.5 3.2 39.5 3.4 39.4 3.2 39.6 3.1 39.8 3.1 39.1 2.9 39.2 3.0 39.4 3.1 39.5 3.1 39.5 3.1 39.8 3.3 Food and kindred products__________ Tobacco manufactures______________ ___ Textile mill products.. _ Apparel and other textile products____ 40.5 37.8 39.9 35.3 40.3 37.0 40.6 35.5 40.5 36.8 41.0 35.5 40.6 39.3 40.1 35.8 40.7 37.4 40.8 36.0 40.9 37.8 40.6 35.5 40.1 36.0 41.0 35.9 40.1 35.7 41.4 36.3 40.6 36.0 41.5 35.9 39.8 34.1 40.8 35.3 39.6 33.1 41.0 35.9 40.0 33.3 41.3 36.0 40.0 33.1 41.3 35.9 40.3 33.6 41.0 35.6 40.7 34.8 41.4 35.9 Paper and allied products___________ Printing and publishing.._ . . . Chemicals and allied products______ Petroleum and coal p ro d u c ts ..._____ Rubber and plastics products, nec____ Leather and leather products________ 41,9 37.7 41.6 42.7 40.3 37.2 42.1 37.6 41.6 42.4 40.3 37.7 42.3 37.7 41.7 42.6 40.7 38.1 42.4 37.6 41.3 43.0 40.1 38.2 42.5 37.7 41.3 42.6 40.3 37.6 42,2 37.7 42.1 42.8 40.5 36.9 42.3 37.6 41.5 42.6 40.6 37.7 42.4 37.6 41.6 42.1 40.8 38.4 42.8 38.0 41.9 42.3 41.2 38.7 41.9 37.1 41.6 41.7 40.6 38.2 42.2 37.2 41.6 41.4 40.7 38.5 42.4 37.6 41.8 41.6 40.8 37.9 42.6 37.8 41.9 42.5 41.1 38.0 42.6 37.6 41.6 42.1 41.1 38.7 43.1 37.8 41.6 41.4 41.7 39.4 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T I L I T I E S ____________________________________ 40.5 40.2 40.8 38.4 40.7 40.8 40.5 40.6 40.6 39.8 40.2 40.2 39.9 40.0 40.8 36.0 35.2 35.0 34.9 35.5 34.7 34.6 34.8 34.8 34.8 35.6 39.9 34.7 39.7 33.7 39.8 33.5 39.8 33.4 40.3 34.1 39.6 33.2 39.7 33.0 39.8 33.2 39.8 33.3 39.8 33.3 40.0 33.2 TOTAL Overtime hours.___________________ D u r a b le g o o d s _____________________________ . .. _ N o n d u r a b le g o o d s _______ _____ . . . . . . . . 2 .8 35.3 35.1 35.4 36.1 40.0 33.8 39.8 33.7 40.0 34.0 39.9 34.8 F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E . 36.8 37.0 37.0 37.1 37.3 36.9 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.3 37.1 37.1 37.3 37.0 37.1 S E R V IC E S _______________________________________ 34.4 34.2 34.2 34.8 34.7 34.1 34.1 34.0 34.2 33.9 34.0 34.0 34.0 33.8 34.3 W HOLESALE A N D R E T A IL T R A D E __________ Wholesale trade_____________ _ . . . . . . Retail trade_______________ . . _____ 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in E m p lo y m e n t a nd E a r n in g s , U n it e d S ta te s , 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real es tate; and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. NOTE: For additional detail, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , table C-2. p=preliminary. 100 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 HOURS AND EARNINGS 20. Gross average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by indus try division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted 1972 1971 In d u s t r y d iv is io n a n d g ro u p June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay p June p P R I V A T E _______________ _____ ___________ 37.1 36.9 36.9 36.7 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.0 37.2 37.1 37.3 37.0 37.2 M I N I N G . _______ ___________________________________ 42.3 42.2 42.0 41.9 42.5 42.3 42.6 43.0 42.5 42.9 42.3 42.4 42.9 C O N T R A C T C O N S T R U C T I O N ___________________ 37.2 37.1 37.1 35.7 37.6 39.0 36.8 37.4 37.3 37.5 36.7 36.7 36.8 M A N U F A C T U R I N G _______________________________ 40.0 2.9 40.0 3.0 39.8 2.9 39.5 39.8 3.0 40.1 3.0 40.3 3.1 40.0 2.9 40.5 3.2 40.4 3.3 40.8 3.6 40.5 3.4 40.6 3.3 40.4 40.0 2 .8 2 .8 39.7 2.7 40.3 Overtime hours_________________ ____ 40.6 2.9 2 .8 40.6 2.9 40.9 3.0 40.6 2.9 41.1 3.2 41.0 3.3 41.5 3.7 41.2 3.5 41.3 3.5 Ordnance and accessories_____________ Lumber and wood products____________ Furniture and fixtures_________________ Stone, clay, and glass products_________ 41.6 40.4 39.9 42.0 41.9 40.5 40.1 41.8 41.9 40.2 39.9 41.8 41.7 40.1 39.4 41.4 41.8 40.7 39.7 41.8 41.9 40.8 40.0 41.9 42.0 40.8 39.9 41.6 41.2 40.9 40.3 41.8 42.4 40.9 40.7 42.0 42.3 40.9 40.5 42.2 42.4 41.1 40.8 41.9 42.2 40.8 40.6 41.7 42.0 41.2 40.8 42.4 Primary metal industries__________ _ Fabricated metal products_____ ______ Machinery, except electrical___ ___ Electrical equipment. _ _ _ . . . Transportation equipment_____________ Instruments and related products____ __ Miscellaneous manufacturing___________ 41.0 40.6 40.7 39.9 41.4 39.7 38.7 40.6 40.7 40.7 40.1 39.5 39.8 39.2 38.8 40.2 40.8 40.0 39.9 39.8 39.2 39.5 39.3 40.5 39.6 38.5 39.7 38.7 40.1 40.1 40.8 39.9 40.5 39.9 38.9 40.1 40.4 41.1 40.1 40.5 40.2 39.1 41.0 40.9 41.3 40.3 41.7 40.4 39.2 40.6 40.4 41.0 40.1 40.7 40.3 39.0 41.1 41.0 41.4 40.7 41.9 40.8 39.6 41.3 40.8 41.4 40.3 42.1 40.3 39.3 41.4 41.2 41.8 40.8 42.9 40.7 39.6 41.5 41.1 41.7 40.4 41.9 40.7 39.3 41.4 41.1 42.0 40.4 42.1 41.0 39.3 N o n d u r a b le g o o d s ____________________________ Overtime hours______________________ 39.3 3.1 39.3 3.0 39.3 3.1 39.1 3.1 39.3 3.0 39.5 3.0 39.5 3.0 39.4 3.1 39.6 3.2 39.6 3.3 39.8 3.3 39.7 3.2 39.7 3.3 Food and kindred products....................... Tobacco manufactures_________ . . . _ Textile mill products__________________ Apparel and other textile products______ 40.4 36.2 40.8 35.4 40.2 39.6 40.3 35.8 40.1 37.1 40.7 35.7 40.1 36.6 40.4 35.4 40.0 34.7 40.8 36.0 39.9 35.6 41.1 36.2 40.4 35.6 41.0 35.9 40.1 34.8 41.3 35.7 40.2 33.6 41.2 36.2 40.6 34.4 41.4 35.8 40.7 33.8 41.7 36.0 40.5 34.0 41.2 35.6 40.6 34.3 41.2 35.8 Paper and allied products_____________ Printing and publishing_______________ Chemicals and allied products . . . . Petroleum and coal products. _________ Rubber and plastics products, nec_____ Leather and leather products_______ __ 42.3 37.7 41.7 42.3 40.7 37.5 42.4 37.6 41.4 42.6 40.3 37.7 42.4 37.5 41.5 43.4 40.1 37.6 41.9 37.4 42.1 42.9 40.0 37.3 42.0 37.5 41.5 42.4 40.3 37.9 42.3 37.6 41.4 41.8 40.6 38.3 42.3 37.5 41.7 42.7 40.9 37.9 42.1 37.5 41.8 42.2 40.8 38.0 42.6 37.5 41.8 42.0 41.0 38.5 42.7 37.6 41.8 41.7 41.2 38.2 43.0 38.0 41.7 41.9 41.5 39.1 42.7 37.7 41.6 41.4 41.2 38.7 43.1 37.8 41.6 41.2 41.7 38.8 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T I L I T I E S . . 40.7 38.0 40.5 40.6 40.3 40.4 40.5 40.0 40.4 40.6 40.3 40.2 40.7 R E T A IL T R A D E _____________ 35.2 35.3 35.1 35.1 35.2 35.2 35.3 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.2 35.1 35.4 39.9 33.7 39.6 33.8 39.7 33.6 39.7 33.6 39.8 33.8 39.9 33.7 40.0 33.9 39.7 33.7 40.0 33.5 39.9 33.6 40.0 33.7 40.0 33.7 39.9 33.9 37.0 37.1 37.3 37.0 36.9 36.9 37.0 37.3 37.1 37.1 37.3 37.1 37.1 34.1 34.4 34.3 34.2 34.2 34.1 34.2 34.1 34.2 34.0 34.1 34.0 34.2 TOTAL Overtime hours______________________ D u r a b le g o o d s . . . W H OLESALE A N D __________________________ Wholesale trade_____ _ Retail trade_______________ F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E . . . S E R V IC E S ____________ 2 .8 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , U n it e d S ta te s , 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312— 8). 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. NOTE: These data have been seasonally adjusted to reflect experience through May 1971. For additional detail, see September 1971 issue of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s . p=preliminary. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS HOURS AND EARNINGS 101 21. Gross average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group A nnual a v e ra g e 1972 1971 In d u s t r y d iv is io n a n d g ro u p TOTAL P R I V A T E ___________________________ M I N I N G _________________________________ CONTRACT C O N S T R U C T I O N ____________ M A N U F A C T U R I N G ______________________ D u r a b le g o o d s _________________ __________ 1970 1971 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ayp $3.22 $3.43 $3.42 $3.43 $3.45 $3.49 $3.49 $3.48 $3.51 $3.54 $3.55 $3.57 $3.60 $3.61 $3.62 3.84 4.05 4.31 4.30 4.35 4.33 4 .3 4 5.98 5.97 5.99 6.03 5 .9 6 3.74 3.77 3.78 3 .7 9 3.99 4.02 4.03 4 .0 4 4.08 3.29 3.03 3.87 4 .0 8 3 .3 2 3 .0 5 3 .9 0 5.25 3.36 3.56 5.72 3.57 3.80 4.04 5.63 3.57 3.80 4.05 5.68 3.57 3.79 4.10 5.75 3.56 3.79 4.15 5.86 3.60 3.83 3.92 5.90 3.60 3.82 3.92 5.90 3.60 3.83 4.27 5.93 3.69 3.93 4.32 5.99 3.71 3.95 3.72 3.96 Junep Ordnance and accessories___________ Lumber and wood products__________ Furniture and fixtures. . . Stone, clay, and glass products 3.61 2.96 2.77 3.40 3.85 3.14 2.90 3.66 3.85 3.17 2.90 3.67 3.89 3.19 2.91 3.70 3.88 3.19 2.94 3.73 3.90 3.21 2.95 3.75 3.91 3.21 2.93 3.73 3.88 3.20 2.93 3.71 3.98 3.19 2.98 3.74 3.98 3.21 2.98 3.76 4.04 3.21 2.99 3.78 4.02 3.22 3.01 3.82 4.06 3.25 3.03 3.84 Primary metal industries. ________ Fabricated metal products... _ _ Machinery, except electrical____ Electrical equipment_____ Transportation equipment.. . Instruments and related products___ Miscellaneous manufacturing_________ 3.93 3.53 3.77 3.28 4.06 3.35 2.82 4.23 3.74 3.99 3.50 4.44 3.53 2.96 4.21 3.75 3.99 3.49 4.43 3.52 2.95 4.19 3.74 4.00 3.51 4.39 3.55 2.94 4.29 3.75 4.02 3.50 4.37 3.55 2.95 4.35 3.77 4.04 3.52 4.42 3.57 2.96 4.35 3.77 4.04 3.51 4.44 3.55 2.96 4.36 3.78 4.04 3.52 4.44 3.56 2.97 4.50 3.87 4.16 3.60 4.62 3.62 3.05 4.54 3.88 4.16 3.60 4.60 3.67 3.07 4.55 3.89 4.19 3.62 4.65 3.69 3.06 4.57 3.92 4.21 3.63 4.67 3.70 3.06 4.60 3.95 4.23 3.64 4.72 3.71 3.08 4.62 3.96 4.24 3.65 4.74 3.08 4 .6 4 3 .9 7 4 .2 5 3 .6 6 4 .7 5 3 .7 6 3 .0 9 3 .7 2 3.08 3.26 3.26 3.29 3.27 3.31 3.29 3.29 3.36 3.38 3.40 3.41 3.43 3.44 3.45 Food and kindred products__ Tobacco manufactures_______ . . . Textile mill products . . . Apparel and other textile products........ 3.16 2.92 2.45 2.39 3.38 3.15 2.57 2.49 3.38 3.30 2.56 2.47 3.39 3.33 2.56 2.47 3.34 3.19 2.57 2.50 3.38 3.03 2.58 2.53 3.38 3.02 2.59 2.52 3.40 3.08 2.59 2.52 3.51 3.29 2.62 2.55 3.52 3.32 2.69 2.56 3.53 3.37 2.71 2.58 3.56 3.39 3.59 3.45 2.72 2.58 3.60 3.47 2.72 2.58 3 .6 0 3 .5 1 2 .7 2 2 .5 9 Paper and allied products......... Printing and publishing____________ Chemicals and allied products Petroleum and coal products Rubber and plastics products, nec____ Leather and leather products. . 3.44 3.92 3.69 4.28 3.20 2.49 3.68 4.20 3.94 4.58 3.41 2.59 3.67 4.20 3.94 4.58 3.38 2.58 3.71 4.21 3.99 4.60 3.44 2.58 3.73 4.23 3.99 4.59 3.45 2.59 3.77 4.28 4.03 4.66 3.48 2.62 3.73 4.27 4.00 4.65 3.46 2.63 3.73 4.27 4.00 4.65 3.46 2.61 3.80 4.36 4.06 4.65 3.53 2.65 3.81 4.35 4.10 4.84 3.54 2.67 3.83 4.36 4.12 4.88 3.54 2.70 3 .8 4 4.39 4.11 4.88 3.54 2.70 3.86 4.43 4.13 4.94 3.56 2.69 3.88 4.46 4.15 4.93 3.57 2.70 3 .9 2 4 .4 7 4 .1 9 4 .8 7 3 .5 8 2 .7 0 3.85 4.21 4.15 4 23 4.25 4.33 4.31 4.33 4.41 4.46 4.48 4.50 4.56 4.58 4 .5 9 2.71 2.87 2.87 2.87 2 .8 8 2.90 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.97 2.98 2.99 3.00 3.00 3 .0 0 3.44 2.44 3.67 2.57 3.66 2.58 3.67 2.58 3.70 2.57 3.72 2.60 3.72 2.60 3.74 2.60 3.79 2.61 3.82 3.82 3.86 3 85 2 .6 6 2 .6 6 3.83 2.67 2 .6 8 2 .6 8 3 85 2 .6 9 F IN A N C E , I N S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E . 3.08 3.28 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.30 3.31 3.30 3.34 3.40 3.40 3.41 3.45 3.44 3 .4 2 S E R V IC E S _________________ 2.81 2.99 2.97 2.98 2.99 3.04 3.03 3.04 3.06 3.09 3.11 3.11 3.13 3.13 3 .1 2 N o n d u r a b le g o o d s ___ _____________ T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D T I E S ____________________ W HOLESALE A N D P U B L IC ___ .. _ 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , U n ite d S ta te s , 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2.57 U T IL I R E T A I L T R A D E _________ Wholesale trade. . Retail trade.. _. 2 .7 1 public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. NOTE: For additional detail, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , ta b le C—2. p = preliminary. 102 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 HOURS AND EARNINGS 22. Gross average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division and major manufacturing group 1972 1971 A n n u a l a v e rag e I n d u s t r y d iv is io n a n d g r o u p 1970 1971 June J u ly A ug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay“ June» $119.46 $126.91 $127.57 127.94 $129.92 $130.64 $131.73 $133.20 $133.21 $135.39 M I N I N G ________________ _______ 163.97 171.72 172.10 172.53 173.43 174.72 167.78 165.82 182.76 183.60 181.02 181.46 184.44 183.59 187.49 C O NTR ACT CO NSTRUCT I O N ________________________ 196.35 213.36 213.94 216.41 220.23 216.23 225.38 223.61 216.45 214.44 215.28 219.70 219.23 222.51 224.10 153.09 154.63 TOTAL P R I V A T E ____________ $129.03 $129.13 $129.13 $128.76 $130.92 M A N U F A C T U R I N G ___________ 133.73 142.44 143.51 142.09 141.69 143.28 144.00 144.72 150.18 147.66 149.17 150.72 152.69 D u r a b le g o o d s ___________ 143.47 153.52 155.04 151.98 151.60 153.20 154.71 155.88 162.70 159.58 161.17 163.59 165.62 166.04 167.66 Ordnance and accessories. Lumber and wood products____ _____ _ Furniture and fixtures____ Stone, clay, and glass products____ ________ 146.57 160.55 160.93 160.66 161.80 163.41 163.44 162.96 168.75 165.97 170.49 169.64 171.33 172.18 172.18 117.51 108.58 126.54 115.42 129.65 116.29 128.88 115.53 129.20 118.78 129.68 118.00 131.61 118.37 129.92 118.37 130.15 128.40 118.31 129.68 119.00 131.70 1 2 1 .8 8 1 2 1 .0 0 133.58 121.81 135.55 121.81 138.44 125.05 140.08 152.26 155.24 155.40 157.78 157.13 157.03 155.45 155.58 153.78 155.74 159.68 160.90 162.15 166.53 Primary metal industries.. Fabricated metal products. 159.17 143.67 170.89 150.72 173.87 153.38 170.53 150.72 166.45 151.13 171.83 150.42 172.70 151.93 173.96 153.47 184.50 159.83 184.78 155.59 186.55 157.16 188.74 159.15 190.90 1 6 1 .5 6 192.19 162.76 193.49 164.36 Machinery, except electrical. _______ _ Electrical equipment........... 154.95 130.87 161.99 139.65 162.39 139.95 161.20 139.00 162.01 140.00 164.02 140.80 164.83 140.75 166.04 142.21 174.30 147.24 170.56 144.00 173.47 145.52 175.56 146.29 176.81 147.06 176.81 147.10 178.50 148.60 163.62 180.71 183.85 172.97 171.74 172.82 182.04 182.48 196.35 186.76 191.58 194.74 198.24 199.08 200.45 134.34 140.49 140.10 140.23 140.58 142.80 142.36 144.18 147.70 147.17 149.08 149.11 150.26 150.66 154.54 109.13 115.14 114.46 113.48 115.64 115.14 116.33 117.32 120.48 118.81 119.95 120.26 1 2 1 .6 6 120.74 121.75 .. 120.43 128.12 128.44 129.63 129.17 130.75 129.63 130.28 133.73 132.16 133.28 134.35 135.49 135.88 137.31 Food and kindred products____________ Tobacco manufactures___ 127.98 110.38 136.21 116.55 136.89 121.44 137.63 130.87 135.94 119.31 138.24 114.53 135.54 108.72 136.34 109.96 142.51 118.44 140.10 113.21 139.79 111.55 142.40 112.89 143.60 114.20 145.08 1 1 6 .5 9 146.52 122.15 97.76 104.34 104.96 1 0 2 .6 6 104.86 104.75 106.19 107.23 108.73 109.75 111.11 111.92 112.34 111.52 112.61 91.85 92.98 165.29 167.70 168.95 168.97 Transportation equipment_________ . . Instruments and related products_____ _______ Miscellaneous manufacturing........................ .. N o n d u r a b le g o o d s ___ Textile mill products____ Apparel and other textile products_____________ Paper and allied products________ ____ Printing and publishing... Chemicals and allied products_______ _____ Petroleum and coal products_____________ Rubber and plastics products, nec______ _ Leather and leather products_____ _______ T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L I C U T I L I T I E S ________ W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E _______ __________ __ 84.37 88.40 87.69 88.43 90.00 89.82 90.47 91.48 91.55 90.37 92.62 92.52 92.62 144.14 147.78 154.93 157.92 155.24 “158.34 157.30 158.30 158.53 159.47 159.08 161.36 157.78 160.55 158.15 160.55 162.64 165.68 159.64 161.39 161.63 162.19 162.82 165.06 164.44 167.45 153.50 163.90 164.30 164.79 164.79 169.66 166.00 166.40 170.11 170.56 171.39 171.80 173.05 172.64 174.30 198.09 195.77 196.70 201.83 202.03 203.01 209.95 207.55 201.62 140.48 141.17 145.44 143.72 144.08 144.43 182.76 194.19 195.11 197.80 195.53 199.45 128.96 137.42 137.57 137.94 139.04 140.94 92.63 97.64 98.30 98.56 97.38 96.68 99.15 1 0 0 .2 2 102.56 101.99 103.95 102.33 155.93 169.24 169.32 162.43 172.98 176.68 174.56 175.80 179.05 177.51 180.10 180.90 149.29 106.38 181.94 183.20 187.27 104.40 104.40 106.80 153.23 89.24 154.00 92.00 126.51 128.69 127.28 126.88 105.74 106.42 105.79 107.02 100.74 101.60 103.61 103.68 102.08 101.85 101.56 103.31 103.06 103.11 104.05 137.60 82.47 146.07 86.61 146.40 87.72 146.43 89.78 147.63 89.18 147.68 87.62 148.06 87.10 148.85 86.84 152.74 89.00 151.27 88.31 151.65 87.78 152.43 88.64 F I N A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E _______ 113.34 121.36 121.36 122.06 123.09 121.77 122.47 1 2 2 .1 0 123.58 126.82 126.14 S E R V IC E S ........................................ .. 96.66 102.26 101.57 103.70 103.75 103.66 103.32 103.36 104.65 104.75 105.74 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 146.73 104.49 153.63 89.24 95.66 Wholesale trade_________ Retail trade_________ . . . 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment) and data are not comparable with those published in issues prior to October 1971. Comparable back data are published in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , U n it e d S ta t e s , 1909-71 ( 6 LS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to construction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and 146.32 1 0 2 .2 2 public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approximately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. NOTE: For additional detail, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a r n in g s , table C-2. “ ^p re lim in a ry . °=corrected. HOURS CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS AND E A R N IN G S 103 23. Gross and spendable average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers 1 on private nonagricultural payrolls, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date Manufacturing workers Private nonagricultural workers Spendable average weekly earnings Spendable average weekly earnings Year and month Gross average weekly earnings Gross average weekly earnings Worker with no dependents Current dollars 1967 dollars Current dollars 1967 dollars Worker with no dependents Worker w ith 3 dependents Current dollars 1967 dollars Cu rrent dollars 1967 dollars Current dollars 1967 dollars Worker with 3 dependents Current dollars 1967 dollars $80.67 $90.95 $65.59 $73.95 $72.96 $82.25 $89.72 $101.15 $72.57 $81.82 $80.11 $90.32 1961______________________ 1962_____________ __ 1963___________________ .. 1964________________________ 1965____________________ 82.60 85.91 88.46 91.33 95.06 92.19 94.82 96.47 98.31 100.59 67.08 69.56 71.05 75.04 78.99 74.87 76.78 77.48 80.78 83.59 74.48 76.99 78.56 82.57 86.30 83.13 84.98 85.67 91.32 92.34 96.56 99.63 102.97 107.53 103.06 106.58 108.65 110.84 113.79 74.60 77.86 79.82 84.40 89.08 83.26 85.94 87.04 90.85 94.26 82.18 85.53 87.58 92.18 96.78 91.72 94.40 95.51 99.22 102.41 1966___________ ; __________ 1967_____________________ 1968________________________ 1969____________________ 1970________________________ 98.82 101.84 107.73 114.61 119.46 101.67 101.84 103.39 104.38 102.72 81.29 83.38 86.71 90.96 95.94 83.63 83.38 83.21 82.84 82.49 8 8 .6 6 90.86 95.28 99.99 104.61 91.21 90.86 91.44 91.07 89.95 112.34 114.90 122.51 129.51 133.73 115.58 114.90 117.57 117.95 114.99 91.57 93.28 97.70 101.90 106.62 94.21 93.28 93.76 92.81 91.68 99.45 101.26 106.75 111.44 115.90 102.31 101.26 102.45 101.49 99.66 104.62 103.51 85.33 1 1 2 .1 2 92.43 142.44 117.43 114.97 94.78 124.24 102.42 1960____ __________________ 8 8 .8 8 1971________________________ 126.91 1971: June________ _____ _____ 127.57 105.00 104.00 85.60 112.64 92.71 143.51 118.12 115.76 95.28 125.07 102.94 July_____________________ August__________________ September______________ 127.94 129.03 129.13 105.04 105.68 105.67 104.27 105.07 105.15 85.61 86.05 86.05 112.93 113.79 113.86 92.72 93.19 93.18 142.09 141.69 143.28 116.66 116.04 117.25 114.71 114.42 115.59 94.18 93.71 94.59 123.97 123.65 124.89 101.78 101.27 October__________________ November___ ____ December________________ 129.13 128.76 130.92 105.50 105.02 106.35 105.15 104.87 106.47 85.91 85.54 86.49 113.86 113.57 115.28 93.02 92.63 93.65 144.00 144.72 150.18 117.65 118.04 1 2 2 .0 0 116.12 116.65 120.64 94.87 95.15 98.00 125.45 126.01 130.25 102.49 102.78 105.81 1972: January........................ ........... February ............................... March____________ ___ 129.92 130.64 131.73 105.45 105.53 106.23 107.04 107.57 108.38 8 6 .8 8 86.89 87.40 116.18 116.74 117.60 94.30 94.30 94.84 147.66 149.17 150.72 119.85 120.49 121.55 120.13 121.25 122.39 97.51 97.94 98.70 130.09 131.26 132.47 105.59 106.03 106.83 April___________________ Mayp__ June p___________________ 133.20 133.21 135.39 107.16 106.82 108.31 109.46 109.47 111.08 118.76 118.77 120.49 95.54 95.24 96.39 152.69 153.09 154.63 122.84 122.77 123.70 123.85 124.14 125.28 99.64 99.55 1 0 0 .2 2 134.00 134.31 135.51 107.80 107.71 108.41 88.06 87.79 88.86 1 The industry series have been adjusted to March 1970 benchmarks (comprehensive counts of employment). To reflect the retroactive tax exemption provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1971, the spendable earnings series has been revised back to January 1971. Moreover, the Consumer Price Index has been revised back to August 1971, to reflect the retroactive repeal of the automobile excise tax. Because of these revisions, monthly data published in this table beginning with the January 1972 issue of the Monthly Labor Review are not comparable with such data in earlier issues. Com parable back data are published in Employment and Earnings, United States, 1909-71 (BLS Bulletin 1312-8). Data relate to production workers in mining and manufacturing; to con struction workers in contract construction; and to nonsupervisory workers in transportation and public utilitie s; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for approxi mately four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural pay rolls. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 0 2 .2 0 Spendable average weekly earnings are based on gross average weekly earnings as published in table 22 less the estimated amount of the work er’s Federal social security and income tax lia b ility. Since the amount of tax lia b ility depends on the number of dependents supported by the worker as well as on the level of his gross income, spendable earnings have been computed for 2 types of income receivers: (1) a worker with no dependents and (2) a married worker with 3 dependents. The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes in purchasing power as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index. These series are described in “ The Spendable Earnings Series: A Techni cal Note on its Calculation,” in Employment and Earnings and Monthly Re port on the Labor Force, February 1969, pp. 6-13. NOTE: For additional detail, see Employment and Earnings, table C-5. «^p relim in a ry. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 104 P R IC E S 24. Consumer and Wholesale Price Indexes, annual averages and changes, 1 9 4 9 -7 1 1 [Indexes: 1967 = 100] Consumer prices Year All items Index 1949._____ _______ _____ ____ 1950_________________________ 71.4 72.1 1951.................. ......... ................... .. 1952______________ ______ _ 1953.......... .. * __________ ______ 1954_________________________ 1955................................................. 77.8 79.5 80.1 80,5 80.2 195 6................................ ............... 1957______________ _________ _ 1958_________________________ 1959______________ ______ _ 1960_________________________ 81.4 84.3 1961_________________________ 1962_________________________ 1963_________________________ 1964_________________________ 1965____ ____________________ Commodities Percent change - Index 1.0 7.9 .5 - .4 Services Percent change Index Percent change Index Index Percent change -1 1 .7 4.8 75.3 78.0 - 2 .1 3.6 91.9 11.4 -2 .7 - 1 .4 106.9 102.7 96.0 -9 5 .7 91.2 13.8 -3 .9 -6 .5 - .3 -4 .7 8 6 .1 84.1 84.8 85.0 86.9 10.4 - 2 .3 90.6 93.7 98.1 93.5 93.7 - .7 3.4 4.7 -4 .7 85.9 87.0 86.7 85.9 85.1 9.0 1.3 -.3 - .9 - .9 61.8 64.5 67.3 69.5 70.9 5.3 4.4 4.3 3.3 2 .0 87.4 87.6 87.8 85.9 .9 3.1 2.3 72.7 75.6 78.5 80.8 83.5 2.5 4.0 3.8 2.9 3.3 90.7 93.3 94.6 94.8 94.9 3.3 2.9 1.4 85.2 2 .0 94.5 94.8 94.5 94.7 96.6 - .4 .3 - .3 87.3 88.7 .8 1 .6 89.6 90.6 91.7 92.9 94.5 1 .0 1 .1 1 .2 1.3 1.7 92.0 92.8 93.6 94.6 95.7 97.2 8 8 .6 98.2 .1 .9 .5 .9 .9 1 .1 1 .2 8 6 .8 1.9 88.5 90,2 92.2 2 .0 95.8 1.9 2 .2 2.9 2.9 4.2 5.4 5.9 1 0 0 .0 2 .6 1 .8 104.2 109.8 116.3 103.7 108.4 113.5 3.7 4.5 4.7 105.2 112.5 3.9 4.4 5.2 6.9 1 2 1 .6 1971________ ________________ 121.3 4.3 117.4 3.4 128.4 1 0 0 .0 1 H isto rical p rice changes a re show n in g re a te r d e ta il and fo r e a rlie r yea rs in th e B u re au 's Percent change Index 89.6 93.9 4.8 3.2 90.6 90.7 91.5 Percent change -5 .0 3.9 56.9 58.7 1.5 3.6 2.7 Industrial commodities 78.7 81.8 .6 1966_________________________ 1967....................... ......................... 1968_________________________ 1969_________________________ 1970_________________________ 25. Farm products, processed foods and feeds - 2 .6 8 6 .6 1 0 0 .0 All commodities 78.3 78.8 1 .0 2 .2 .8 Wholesale prices 8 8 .6 .2 .2 .2 .1 93.7 94.7 93.8 93.2 97.1 .2 2 .0 3.3 90.8 93.3 93.6 95.3 95.3 .2 94.8 94.8 94.7 95.2 96.4 .0 1 .1 - 1.0 -.6 4.2 .8 .2 2 .2 4.5 2 .8 .3 1 .8 .0 - .5 .0 - .1 .5 1.3 103.5 6 .6 98.5 2 .2 1 0 0 .0 .2 1 0 0 .0 102.4 r 108.0 102.5 106.0 8 .1 2.5 3.9 3.7 1 1 1 .6 -3 .4 2.4 '5 . 5 '3 . 3 1 0 0 .0 102.5 106.5 110.4 1 1 0 .0 1.5 2.5 3.4 3.8 5.6 113.9 3.2 113.8 2 .0 114.0 3.6 99.8 Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1971 (B L S B u lle tin 1705). Consumer Price Index—U.S. average—general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] G eneral s u m m a ry Annual average 1971 1971 1972 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May ' 1 2 2 .1 '142.0 ' 1 2 2 .2 '142.1 '122.4 '142.4 1 2 2 .6 142.6 123.1 143.1 123.2 143.3 123.8 143.9 124.0 144.3 124.3 144.6 124.7 145.0 125.0 145.4 122.4 June A ll items....................................................... All items (1957-59=100)............................. 121.3 141.0 121.5 141.3 1 2 1 .8 Food............................................................... Food at home___ _______ ____ _____ Food away from home______________ 118.4 116.4 126.1 119.2 117.4 125.9 119.8 118.1 126.5 1 2 0 .0 118.1 127.1 119.1 116.9 127.6 118.9 116.6 128.0 119.0 116.7 128.2 120.3 118.2 128.3 120.3 118.2 128.6 1 22 .2 120.5 128.9 122.4 120.4 130.0 122.3 129.4 130.4 123.0 120.9 130.9 Housing......................................................... Rent........................................................ Homeownership...................... ............... 124.3 115.2 133.7 124.0 115.2 133.0 124.5 115.4 133.5 125.1 115.8 134.4 125.5 116.1 135.1 125.9 116.4 135.7 126.4 116.6 136.7 126.8 116.9 137.0 127.3 117.1 137.8 127.6 117.5 138.0 127.9 117.7 138.2 128.2 118.1 138.5 128.5 118.3 138.9 129.0 118.8 139.6 Apparel and upkeep...................................... Transportation............................................... Health and recreation.................................... Medical care........................................... 119.8 118.6 1 2 0 .1 119.3 119.5 1 2 1 .6 1 2 0 .2 128.6 129.3 '119.3 123.5 129.6 118.6 123.9 130.1 119.0 124.3 130.5 121.3 118.4 125.0 131.4 118.6 125.5 131.7 122.5 119.5 125.8 132.0 1 2 2 .1 1 2 0 .0 128.4 '118.6 123.6 130.4 120.7 118.3 124.7 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .6 121.9 118.8 123.7 129.7 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .1 119.0 '119.3 123.1 130.0 1 2 0 .6 119.6 1 2 2 .2 119.3 119.8 1 2 0 .0 1 2 2 .2 1 2 1 .1 ' 1 2 0 .2 '122.7 ' 1 2 1 .6 ' 1 2 0 .2 '123.1 '121.7 '120.3 '123.5 ' 12 2 .1 120.4 123.7 122.3 120.9 123.9 122.7 120.9 124.0 1 2 2 .8 121.5 124.2 123.4 121.8 120.9 122.4 121.4 1 2 2 .1 1 2 2 .1 124.5 123.6 124.9 123.9 122.4 125.4 124.3 122.7 125.7 124.6 117.4 117.7 116.5 128.4 117.9 118.1 117.4 128.2 118.1 118.3 117.5 128.8 '118.2 118.6 '116.9 '129.4 '118.1 118.7 '116.4 '129.8 '118.4 118.8 '117.1 '130.0 118.5 118.9 117.4 130.4 118.9 119.5 117.2 130.8 118.7 119.2 117.3 131.5 119.4 120.3 117.1 131.8 119.7 120.6 117.3 132.0 119.9 120.7 117.7 132.4 120.3 120.7 1 2 1 .0 1 2 1 .2 118.4 132.7 119.2 133.1 116.8 117.0 117.1 116.9 120.4 '117.4 118.2 120.9 120.7 116.6 113.5 114.9 118.5 119.1 121.6 119.4 119.5 122.4 120.6 117.0 113.6 115.0 121.3 117.3 114.1 115.6 1 2 2 .1 1 2 1 .8 119.2 119.7 122.9 116.8 113.7 115.3 117.7 118.1 120.3 119.9 116.8 113.7 114.9 118.2 118.9 121.9 116.8 113.6 115.1 118.1 118.7 122.4 122.3 116.5 113.6 115.1 117.8 118.4 120.9 114.9 113.1 114.7 '117,1 117,2 119.1 118.6 116.2 113.4 114.8 118.1 118.8 119.9 115.2 112.9 114.3 117.0 116.7 119.5 119.3 115.1 113.2 114.7 '118.0 118.7 12 0 .1 130.9 132.6 133.1 133.3 122.5 130.6 131.6 134.1 133.5 122.5 131.2 132.5 134.3 134.4 '131.9 133.6 '134.1 135.1 1 2 2 .6 1 2 2 .8 '132.3 134.2 '133.8 135.6 123.7 '132.5 134.7 '133.9 134.6 123.8 132.9 135.4 134.0 134.8 124.0 133.3 136.1 134.2 135.3 124.1 134.1 137.0 135.6 135.8 124.3 134 4 137.4 135.7 136.4 124.5 134.7 137.7 135.5 136.9 124.7 Special groups All items less shelter.............................. All items less food................................. All items less medical care.................... Commodities....................... ......................... Nondurables............. ........................... Durables................................................. Services......................................................... Commodities less food_________________ Nondurables less food______________ Apparel commodities..................... Apparel commodities less footwear. Nondurables less food and apparel. Household durables............................... Housefurnishings.................................... Services less rent.......................................... Household services less rent.................. Transportation services........................ Medical care services______________ Other services....................................... . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org S e e fo o tn o te s a t end o f ta b le . Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 2 0 .1 141.7 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .2 12 2 .1 120.6 1 2 0 .2 126.1 132.4 1 2 2 .6 1 2 2 .0 117.4 114.4 115.9 117.9 114.8 116.2 117.9 115.1 116.4 135.0 138.1 135.6 137.3 125.1 135.3 138.5 135.8 137.6 125.3 135.7 138.9 136.0 138.0 125.6 CONSUMER PRICES 1 0 5 CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 25. Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average 1972 1971 Annual a v e ra g e 1971 G r o u p , s u b g r o u p , a n d s e le c t e d ite m s A p r. M ay June June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. 118.4 119.2 119.8 1 2 0 .0 119.1 118.9 119.0 120.3 120.3 1 2 2 .2 122.4 122.4 122.3 1 2 3 .0 126.1 125.8 127.5 125.9 125.7 127.2 126.5 126.2 128.0 127.1 126.9 128.2 127.6 127.3 128.6 128.0 127.7 129.5 128.2 127.9 129.4 128.3 128.0 129.6 128.6 128.3 130.0 128.9 128.6 130.0 129.4 129.3 130.2 130.0 129.9 130.6 130.4 130.4 130.7 1 3 0 .9 1 3 0 .9 1 3 1 .0 F o o d a t h o m e ____________________________________ _ C e r e a ls a n d b a k e r y p r o d u c ts ____________ 116.4 113.9 116.9 114.6 101.5 131.5 104.2 116.6 114.3 116.7 114.1 131.6 103.6 109.9 131.7 103.5 109.8 120.4 115.0 100.4 135.4 101.4 1 2 0 .2 101.1 120.5 114.3 100.9 133.9 1 2 0 .6 101.1 118.2 113.8 100.5 131.9 103.0 118.2 113.7 1 0 1 .0 117.4 114.2 101.7 130.6 118.1 114.5 Flour______ . . ___________ ____ Cracker meal__ _ ___ _______ ... Corn flakes. _ . . . . . ________ Rice_______________ ______ ____ . . . Bread, white_____________ ____ _____ Bread, whole wheat________ __ _______ Cookies. _ _______ _____ _ _ _________ Layer cake. . . . . . . ___ . . Cinnamon rolls___ _ _________ ____ 1 2 0 .8 1 2 0 .9 1 1 4 .5 9 9 .4 1 3 5 .9 1 0 0 .3 1 0 9 .3 1 1 3 .0 1 1 9 .3 1 0 9 .5 1 1 9 .9 1 2 1 .3 M e a t s , p o u l t r y , a n d f i s h ___ _____ ______ ______ 135.9 134.0 130.9 132.2 132.7 138.2 137.6 136.6 128.5 159.1 124.8 125.6 134.1 130.6 127.5 130.4 129.2 136.6 133.9 135.7 132.2 159.6 1 2 6 .4 1 2 7 .5 1 3 5 .8 1 3 2 .6 1 3 1 .9 1 3 4 .0 1 3 2 .1 1 3 6 .7 1 3 2 .4 1 3 6 .6 1 3 3 .0 1 6 2 .0 1 1 8 .0 1 1 9 .8 1 1 9 .0 1 2 6 .1 1 2 2 .0 1 1 9 .9 1 1 3 .1 F O O D ___________________________________________________________ F o o d a w a y fr o m h o m e __________________________ . Restaurant meals_________ . . . . . . _______ Snacks______ ________ ____________ ______ 120.1 1 2 0 .0 118.2 118.3 118.1 114.8 101.3 130.8 109.0 109.6 113.9 118.4 109.9 120.3 118.8 116.9 116.7 124.9 123.5 124.1 122.4 126.2 124.4 126.2 113.7 141.7 117,4 117.0 126.1 125.1 125.1 125.7 124.1 128.2 125.5 127.4 113.3 140.8 118.0 117.6 126.6 124.4 126.7 128.1 122.4 129.3 125.1 127.5 114.5 144.6 118.7 118.4 126.8 125.3 125.0 128.1 124.1 129.9 126.0 127.1 114.3 145.5 Pork____ _____ ____ _______ . Chops. __________ _______ . . . _____ Loin r o a s t.___ Pork sausage_________________ Ham, w h o le ___ _____ . . . . . . Picnics________ __ ______ _________ Bacon_______________ _______ . 105.0 107.4 106.6 111.4 103.9 108.0 96.6 103.6 105.3 104.9 110.4 103.6 105.5 96.1 104.7 108.0 106.6 110.9 103.0 105.6 96.7 106.9 113.1 106.4 109.9 111.1 1 1 0 .0 111.4 102.9 107.4 96.6 113.0 103.8 106.7 97.7 1 1 2 .8 1 0 2 .0 Other meats_______ _____________ Lamb chops. . .. ___ Frankfurters__________ . . . . . Ham, canned.. _ ___ . _ . . . Bologna sausage______________ Salami sausage____________ __ Liverwurst___________________ 115.6 121.5 115.1 107.2 118.8 116.3 114.3 115.9 115.8 107.5 118.9 116.9 114.8 116.1 123.5 114.7 105.9 119.4 117.4 115.5 116.4 124.2 115.7 106.6 119.8 117.6 114.2 117.0 124.7 116.0 108.0 120.4 117.7 114.8 116.5 123.4 116.0 107.8 Poultry_____________ . . . _________ _ Frying chicken.. ______ __________ Chicken breasts___ Turkey__________________________ 109.0 108.5 109.5 1 1 1 .6 112.1 112.1 11 2 .1 1 1 2 .2 1 1 0 .0 112.3 109.9 111.1 111.7 113.5 111.1 111.1 11 2 .2 1 1 2 .6 111.9 112.7 113.3 Fish__ ________ ____________________ Shrimp, frozen___ _____ . . . . Fish, fresh or frozen . . . . Tuna fish, canned.. . . . . . . ... Sardines, canned____ ________ 130.2 117.6 140.2 128.4 134.7 130.3 116.8 141.3 129.5 133.7 131.0 118.8 141.9 129.1 134.3 131.9 119.9 142.4 129.1 136.3 132.5 119.7 142.5 129.2 138.5 . fresh, grocery.. . . . ... _ .. fresh, delivered____ ____ fresh, skim_____________________ ___ ____ evaporated.. ... 115.3 114.6 117.6 119.7 118.6 115.7 115.2 117.9 120.7 119.0 116.0 115.1 118.1 120.5 120.4 116.0 115.2 118.1 120.3 116.1 115.4 118.1 1 2 1 .2 Ice cream _ . . . . . Cheese, American process.. ___ _ . . Butter__________ ______________ ___ 106.2 105.2 121.7 105.8 107.2 M eats.. . . . ___ . . . _ __ _________ Beef and veal __________ _____ _______ Steak, round_____ .......... Steak, sirloin________ ______ _________ Steak, porterhouse Rump roast______ ___ Rib roast.. _______ Chuck roast_____ ____________ Hamburger... _________ . . . . Beef liver______ ________ . . . Veal cutlets... ... _______ 1 2 2 .8 110.1 109.4 1 1 2 .6 117.2 108.4 121.1 131.1 105.6 109.9 112.9 118.7 110.1 1 1 0 .0 111.4 118.5 109.3 112.1 1 1 2 .0 119.1 113.4 119.1 109.9 121.5 118.6 119.2 139.9 120.7 119.6 119.3 108.7 120.5 119.2 119.1 118.8 127.7 126.1 127.8 129.5 124.0 130.8 125.9 128.3 114.0 146.0 118.4 118.3 127.1 U 5 .5 125.3 127.3 125.2 129.3 125.6 127.6 114.8 146.7 118.1 118.2 126.6 125.2 123.5 125.7 124.0 128.8 125.9 127.6 114.7 147.2 118.9 119.1 128.0 126.3 125.5 127.5 124.4 131.8 128.9 129.1 114.6 148.0 105.8 109.8 108.7 106.3 110.5 109.2 1 1 1 .2 1 1 2 .0 1 1 0 .0 1 2 1 .2 107.9 96.6 102.4 108.7 97.4 1 2 0 .8 118.5 107.2 109.7 111.4 105.9 111.3 97.3 1 0 0 .8 132.2 102.5 110.3 1 1 1 .2 118.9 109.2 119.6 119.0 120.7 121.1 130.8 130.8 128.5 131.1 128.1 135.2 131.0 130.8 114.8 150.1 109.2 111.4 111.1 112.9 120.1 1 2 0 .0 117.4 114.1 116.9 114.2 109.0 111.3 113.7 108.1 106.8 109.7 112.9 107.5 106.2 109.8 111.4 108.4 107.5 110.4 132.8 132.9 106.1 107.2 122.1 1 2 2 .0 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .1 105.6 105.7 105.8 105.8 106.4 122.3 105.7 126.0 132.2 132.0 136.1 97.4 128.7 126.8 123.6 127.4 133.8 139.0 99.5 135.3 128.2 116.6 115.3 124.0 125.3 98.5 138.3 129.4 115.6 113.6 115.9 137.1 129.1 117.8 117.3 113.0 98.5 94.1 133.1 129.9 124.4 128.2 117.5 114.2 95.5 125.5 124.3 125.1 131.2 126.2 123.9 92.6 125.0 124.0 92.2 128 4 130.5 106.8 92.6 123.7 130.8 Grapefruit___________________ Grapes 1 __ Strawberries 1 Watermelon 1 _____ ____ ___ 135.7 143 8 114.1 141.7 149.3 168.2 171.4 175.9 169.7 171.6 120.3 153.5 119.6 126.8 138 2 1 2 0 .6 1 2 1 .2 104 2 170.9 Fresh vegetables__________ . Potatoes____________ Onions _____ . . . . . Asparagus1. . Cabbage_______ ______ ____ Carrots __ Celery... .............. ............. _ Cucumbers. _________ _. . Lettuce___ __________________ Peppers, green_______________ 123.9 117.3 104.4 131.0 122 2 139.5 153.0 121.4 129.4 117.3 207.3 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 2 1 .0 129.9 118.5 120.1 124.1 142.9 1 0 1 .8 1 0 1 .8 135.1 119.0 135.4 135.9 107.0 132.4 134.0 122.4 127.7 115.2 108.6 115.0 111.3 1 1 1 .8 1 1 1 .2 1 2 0 .8 1 1 0 .2 111.1 109.8 106.2 1 2 1 .2 127.3 127.4 163.6 122.3 109 5 125.4 131.6 109.4 162.7 125.6 90.0 124.0 105.2 103.4 125.5 106.4 117.3 111.5 96.6 123 2 97.5 113.3 111.2 84.8 111.4 90.8 1 2 0 .6 129.1 104.9 146.6 118.5 1 1 2 .2 102.1 1 2 1 .6 1 2 2 .0 127.3 123.3 112.7 126.3 122.5 117.5 126.7 123.1 1 1 2 .6 127.8 123.8 118.3 120.9 122.1 1 1 2 .6 121.7 126.6 12 2 .1 113.6 126.8 124.2 117.1 1 2 2 .8 1 2 9 .5 1 2 2 .4 1 1 2 .8 1 2 .1 125.4 1 1 8 .4 112.9 108.4 107.2 111.9 110.9 1 0 8 .9 1 0 7 .6 1 1 2 .4 1 1 1 .4 139.8 133.9 146.2 133.3 145.4 140.2 133.7 147.7 133.7 145.7 136.3 149.1 134.0 145.6 117.3 116.9 117.4 116.9 116.3 1 2 0 .0 1 2 1 .8 1 2 0 .8 1 2 0 .0 117.3 116.8 120.3 121.9 1 2 2 .0 121.9 1 2 0 .8 120.5 1 1 8 .8 106.1 123.4 105.8 107.1 123.4 105.8 106.8 124.2 105.7 106.5 124.1 105.3 125.4 123.9 126.8 115.2 109.9 100.4 121.4 122.3 115.5 1 2 2 .1 123.9 126.7 109.4 108.3 106.7 122.3 105.8 106.9 Fresh fruits and vegetables____________ Fresh fruits_________ _ . . . Apples_______________ _____ Bananas_____________________ Oranges_______ . . . ._ . . . . Orange juice, fresh. . _______ 1 2 1 .0 1 1 0 .8 116.9 116.4 119.4 121.3 120.9 106.5 119.1 112.3 116.4 115.7 118.8 120.5 120.9 120.1 1 2 0 .6 ____ 1 2 2 .8 1 1 2 .6 138.3 131.9 144.9 132.0 144.1 120.1 1 2 0 .2 1 0 1 .0 115.4 114.7 114.7 124.9 110.5 137.0 128.3 145.0 130.4 144.1 1 2 0 .8 1 2 1 .2 135.5 109.7 112.7 120.3 111.4 119.8 116.7 115.9 115.8 124.6 112.7 111.1 116.1 115.2 118.5 1 0 0 .2 118.2 119.0 119.5 123.5 114.3 123.8 1 2 6 .9 134.7 123.1 144.7 128.6 142.2 115.9 115.2 118.1 114.7 119.4 124.2 121.4 120.3 120.3 127.1 121.3 111.4 124.5 119.8 117.4 125.9 1 1 1 .6 116.0 115.3 118.1 120.3 121.4 F r u it s a n d v e g e t a b le s ___________ 1 1 1 .2 1 2 0 .1 1 2 0 .8 1 1 1 .6 142.7 128.2 139.7 105.4 1 2 0 .0 113.3 120.5 112.5 113.7 1 2 0 .6 122.1 113.2 119.2 110.7 120.4 1 1 0 .0 110.7 120.1 105.8 134.9 1 0 2 .0 1 1 0 .0 110.1 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .2 143.0 128.9 139.1 1 2 1 .0 1 0 0 .8 126.8 127.9 137.1 137.5 132.3 134.8 135.4 140.1 141.2 137.3 121.3 157.4 1 1 2 .6 116.8 124.8 115.4 109.0 114.8 126.3 127.5 136.1 137.2 132.1 134.4 134.6 139.2 139.5 135.9 118.3 156.2 122.7 114.0 116.6 124.4 115.2 107.8 116.8 114.5 110.3 112.7 119.3 109.7 119.2 119.2 1 1 0 .0 116.5 124.5 115.9 108.3 119.9 116.4 113.8 120.1 1 0 2 .2 113.3 1 0 1 .0 133.2 120.4 142.7 128.7 140.9 D a ir y p r o d u c t s ........... .. Milk, Milk, Milk, Milk, 129.8 107.3 109.4 112.3 117.5 108.7 1 0 1 .2 111.0 123.2 1 2 0 .1 1 2 1 .0 1 2 1 .8 1 4 1 .3 1 1 7 .0 1 2 0 .3 1 0 6 .7 1 0 4 .8 1 2 7 .2 132.2 130.8 131.4 114.1 109.4 117.3 131.3 104.4 118.0 130.6 1 0 8 .4 130.6 98.3 121.3 130.7 121.1 124.6 122.4 131.9 1 4 5 .1 119.2 103.3 115.Ò 144.8 131.4 113.7 133.4 123.8 122.9 138.1 124.9 135.5 135.3 128.8 120.9 1 2 2 .0 141.3 112.4 105.5 129.8 112.7 105.7 136.3 114.7 106.8 158.3 134.2 161.3 125.2 173.0 148.3 145.3 145.7 174.6 120.9 133.6 114.0 144.1 142.4 172.0 148.2 152.1 134.3 1 1 2 .2 127.9 115.4 105.1 163.5 133.4 143.8 164.3 145.5 106.4 147.8 125.9 113.6 107.3 120.9 125.7 128.6 125.2 162.4 115.2 150.4 1 1 2 .0 141.0 134.1 138.5 148.6 1 2 2 .0 109.3 207.7 123.3 1 3 0 .6 1 6 0 .2 106 CONSUMER PRICES 25. Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 I Group, subgroup, and selected items Annual average 1971 1972 1971 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June 129.2 131.8 127.4 127.9 129.8 154.3 129.0 1 2 2 .0 128.1 95.4 130.8 106.0 131.0 121.7 140.0 159.1 143.8 139.1 143 8 140.2 135.8 112.9 135.5 130.7 136.5 135.2 135.2 155.1 ________ Processed fruits and vegetables Fruit cocktail, canned_________________ Pears, canned _ ___ ... _ _ _ _ _ _ Pineapple-grapefruit drink_____________ Orange juice concentrate, frozen.. _ _ Lemonade concentrate, f r o z e n . .. ___ __ 116.2 117.9 116.7 113.6 127.2 113.9 115.9 117.7 117.1 113.2 126.1 113.5 116.9 119.0 116.9 113.5 130.3 113.8 117.9 119.1 117.4 114.1 133.6 114.8 118.4 119.5 120.9 117.3 114.4 135.9 117.5 119.9 121.4 117.2 115.2 136.6 117.8 119.8 119.9 1 2 2 .2 1 2 1 .6 1 2 1 .1 116.5 114.4 135.6 116.9 119.2 121.4 116.9 114.7 135.8 117.4 120.3 1 2 0 .0 117.5 114.5 136 0 115.9 118.5 119.9 116.9 115.1 135.3 115.3 118.8 1 2 0 .2 117.7 114.0 136.3 115.5 117.3 115.6 136.6 118.0 117.3 114.8 136.2 117.3 117.7 114.3 135.3 117.3 Beets, canned _______________________ Peas, green, canned__________________ Tomatoes, canned________________ Dried beans. . . . . . . Broccoli, frozen_____________________ 115.1 106.6 115.6 115.7 107.2 115.9 124.7 118.2 116.6 107.6 116.2 128.1 118.7 117.5 108.0 116.6 129.5 118.4 117.4 107.0 115.7 130.6 117.9 116.8 108.0 115.7 131.9 117.8 117.0 108.6 115.1 133 2 117.9 118.3 108.6 114.9 133.9 117.8 119.0 108.5 115.3 135.4 118.5 119.8 107.9 115.5 136.5 119.0 1 2 0 .2 117.7 114.8 105 8 116.0 122.4 117.5 108.7 115.4 137.1 119.2 120.4 107.4 115.6 137.0 118.1 121.4 107.2 115.5 136.9 118.9 115.9 108.4 114.7 99.1 115.7 105.2 116.7 109.7 115.5 102.4 116.2 106.7 115.6 103.2 116.6 110.5 116.2 108.0 115.6 101.4 116.7 107.5 116.2 102.9 116.0 101.7 114.5 94.2 116.0 109.3 115.6 109.6 119.0 123.7 118.4 111.4 123.0 117.8 123.9 118.1 110.4 124.0 118.6 123.5 117.7 110.9 123.5 117.3 119.7 118.1 109.9 123.4 117.8 120.1 122.3 118.2 109.1 121.5 119.3 112.5 119.3 130.9 113.2 1 2 0 .1 11 2 .6 120.4 131.3 113.3 120.3 113.2 121.7 131.7 113.4 120.1 1 1 2 .2 113.5 119.4 131.2 113.5 1 2 2 .0 1 2 1 .8 124.9 108.5 126.4 127.2 121.4 115.3 125.1 130.8 113.4 120.9 118.2 125.0 108.2 128.2 128.2 114.8 124.9 130.6 1 2 2 .0 1 2 1 .8 114.9 124.5 130.6 113.5 120.9 118.3 125.1 108.1 128.1 128.2 121.4 115.4 125.5 130.8 12 2 .2 120.5 114.3 122.7 130.7 113.4 120.7 118.3 125.5 107.1 127.8 127.6 118.1 125.0 108.9 128.2 128.3 120.5 117.2 124.3 109.0 127.8 128.3 114.7 116.6 105.8 118.3 114.4 116.3 104.2 118.9 FOOD— Continued Spinach,-. .............................. .... Tomatoes.. ______________ _____ Other food at home_____ ______________ Eggs-----------------------------------------------------Fats and oils: Margarine.__ _____ ________ . _ Salad dressing, Italian____________ Salad or cooking o il.. 1 2 2 .8 118.6 115.6 116.4 117.6 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .0 1 2 1 .6 123.3 11 0 .2 Sugar and sweets________ _______ Sugar_________________________ Grape jelly___________________ Chocolate bar . . . Syrup, chocolate flavored. . __ Nonalcoholic beverages. Coffee, can and bag____ ._ _ Coffee, instant________ . . . _ Tea_________________________ Cola drink_________ ._ Carbonated fruit drink.. . . . _ 124.7 107.6 125.9 126.4 122.4 125.0 108.4 126.3 126.8 Prepared and partially prepared foods Bean soup, canned Chicken soup, canned. _ Spaghetti, canned___ . .. . 112.7 114.1 106.4 117.3 114.0 106.5 117.1 113.1 113.7 106.4 117.1 Mashed potatoes, instant___ __ Potatoes, French fried, frozen. . Baby food, canned Sweet pickle relish . . Pretzels______ . . 111 6 110.1 111.1 1 1 0 .8 1 1 1 .0 111.9 110.9 110.9 117.4 113.1 1 1 1 .8 116.7 113.9 117.4 114.5 118.9 114.1 119.5 114.5 124.3 124.0 124.5 125.1 128 8 115.2 133.7 128.3 115.2 133.0 128.8 115.4 133.5 129.5 115.8 134.4 117.0 129.9 HOUSING_________ S h e lte r_______________ Rent____ . . _ Homeownership _ . . Mortgage interest rates. Property taxes... Property insurance rates. Maintenance and repairs 1 2 1 .6 1 2 1 .8 1 1 0 .8 110.1 119.4 1 1 2 .8 119.7 112.4 1 1 0 .6 1 2 0 .2 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .8 1 1 0 .6 12 0 .2 120.1 1 2 0 .0 113.5 113.4 1 2 1 .6 1 2 1 .2 131.3 112.7 120.5 118.5 125.1 106.0 127.1 127,9 113.6 121.5 130.8 113.3 120.4 118.2 124.7 106.1 127.7 127.9 113.3 114.7 105.7 117.5 113.5 114.5 106.4 118.1 114.1 115.7 106.9 117.8 114.4 116.2 106.4 116.8 114.5 116.3 106.6 117.4 1 1 2 .2 1 1 0 .0 11 1 .2 111 0 1 1 2 .2 1 1 0 .8 1 1 1 .0 122.5 114.5 112.3 110.4 111.4 124.4 115.2 111 4 125 2 115.0 111.3 125.2 115.5 110.4 124.3 116.1 131.4 113.2 131.5 113.0 12 1 .0 1 2 1 .2 125.2 108.0 126.7 127.5 119.1 125.4 108.0 127.0 127.6 119.3 125.3 107.8 127.3 127.8 113.5 121.4 131.3 112.5 120.9 119.0 125.1 107.8 127.1 127.7 113.5 114.8 106.3 117.6 113.4 114.7 106.6 117.7 113.4 114.7 106.5 117.7 113.2 114.7 106.0 117.7 110.4 110.3 110.4 109.9 1 1 1 .8 1 1 1 .6 1 2 0 .0 110.7 108 5 111.3 114.4 125.5 130.1 116.1 135.1 118.1 132.2 121,5 135.8 1 2 0 .6 1 2 1 .6 1 1 1 .0 1 2 1 .2 1 1 2 .6 1 2 1 .0 1 2 0 .6 1 1 1 .1 109.3 111.5 108.5 12 0 .6 111.1 1 2 1 .2 111.1 1 2 2 .0 114.0 114.5 114.1 125.9 126.4 126.8 127.3 127.6 127.9 128.2 128.5 129.0 130.6 116.4 135.7 131.3 116.6 136.7 131.6 116.9 137.0 132.3 117.1 137.8 132.5 117.5 138.0 132.7 117.7 138.2 133.0 118 1 138.5 133.4 118.3 138.9 134.1 118.8 139.6 118.7 133.1 121.5 136.8 119.1 134.6 122.4 137.0 118.9 136.3 122.4 137.1 118.6 137,6 122 4 137.4 118.4 141.1 122.4 137.8 118.2 141.8 122.4 138.0 117.7 143.6 122.4 138.6 117 1 144 7 139.2 117.0 145.0 122.7 139.9 117.1 144.8 122.6 140.6 120.9 116.5 115.6 1 2 0 .8 115.4 121.3 117.7 115.8 121.3 117.9 115.6 1 2 2 .0 116.5 115.3 1 2 0 .8 116 8 118.2 116.3 122 4 118 5 116.4 123.3 117.5 117.2 123.9 117.4 117.5 111.3 112.3 120.4 131.1 119.9 133.7 134.0 117.4 130.5 121.5 134.7 Commodities. ._ Exterior house paint. Interior house paint. 119.0 115.9 114.5 119.8 116.0 114.1 119.9 115.7 114.2 115.3 115.2 120.9 116.5 115.5 Services. ____ Repainting living and dining rooms__ __ Reshingling roofs___ Residing houses________ Replacing sinks. Repairing furnaces___ . .. 140.0 140.1 141.2 142.4 143.7 144.0 144.1 144.6 144.9 145.2 145.9 146.5 147.1 147.8 148.3 144.8 130.6 140.6 144.3 148.5 145.8 130.5 141.1 143.0 149.6 147.2 131.1 142.2 144.5 151.3 148.8 132.1 143.0 145.9 153.0 150.1 132.8 143.4 148.9 153.1 150.7 133.1 143.4 149.2 153.6 150.6 133.2 143.6 149.1 154.0 151.6 133.3 143.7 150.2 154.4 152.0 133.4 143.9 150.9 155.1 152.3 133.7 144.2 151.2 155.6 153.0 133.9 145.1 152.2 156 5 154 3 134 5 145 5 152.4 157.7 155.0 135.0 145.7 152.8 159.5 156.2 135.2 145.8 153.6 Fuel oil and coal. Fuel oil, #2 . . . Gas and electricity. Gas_ __ __ _ __ Electricity___ _ 115.1 117.5 116.1 114.7 116.3 113.2 114.6 117.4 116.1 114.6 116.4 113.0 115.5 117.5 116.1 114.7 116.1 113.5 116.3 117.8 116.4 115.7 116.8 114.6 116.3 117.8 116.4 115.7 116.8 114.6 116.3 117.8 lib . 4 115.7 116.8 114.6 116.8 118.1 116.4 116.2 118.1 114.5 117.9 118.1 116.4 118 2 120.5 116.0 118.7 118.7 116.5 119.0 121.7 116.6 119.3 118.7 116.5 119.4 121.9 117.0 119.6 118.7 116.5 119.7 119 9 118 6 116 5 12 0 .1 122 3 118.2 1 2 2 .2 117.2 118.9 120.1 117.8 116.5 120.3 121.2 119.5 Other utilities: Residential telephone___ Residential water and sewerage 108.0 133.4 r 106.4 132.6 108.9 135.0 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .2 136.4 110.7 136 4 1 1 1 .8 135.0 135.0 11 0 .2 135.0 136.4 113.5 136.4 113.5 137.7 113 7 137.7 114 0 137.7 137 7 118.1 114.3 118.7 114.7 119.5 115.1 119.6 115.3 113.1 116.5 119.6 115.0 120.1 11 0 .8 110.1 112.1 114.1 11 0 .6 108.8 119.1 110.3 105.1 118.9 120 115 113 116 111 120 8 113.4 111.5 107.8 119.5 119.5 115.1 112.9 116.5 110.9 108.4 119.0 119.5 114.9 1 1 2 .2 118.9 114.7 111.3 119.1 114.8 1 1 1 .6 106.9 119.6 112.5 112 8 113.2 113.1 113.0 Fuel and u tilitie s . . Household furnishings and operations... House furnishings . Textiles_____ Sheets, percale, or muslin. . Curtains, tailored, polyester marquisette.. Bedspreads, chiefly cotton. Drapery fabric, cotton or rayon/acetate__ Slipcovers, throws, ready made, chiefly cotton. ____ ___________ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 12 0 .2 114.7 1 1 2 .0 111.1 1 1 0 .2 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .0 107.8 118.4 107.7 118.6 110.7 106.7 119.3 111.5 107.0 118.9 119.4 114.9 111.9 114.0 111.3 107.4 118.8 1 1 1 .8 112.7 1 1 2 .2 112.4 1 1 1 .6 113.9 1 1 2 .2 1 1 1 .2 1 2 2 .2 122 6 102 2 118.7 116.5 120.5 114 Q 3 1 1 2 .2 1 2 1 .2 111 0 1 2 1 .1 111 5 121.7 171 n 116 4 114 2 116 7 112 1 111 6 122.7 114.6 113.7 113.7 113.8 115.6 113.2 114 4 110.9 109 8 5 9 7 0 116.2 113.6 114 9 CO NSU M ER CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 25. P R IC E S 107 Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average G r o u p , s u b g r o u p , a n d s e le c t e d ite m s 1972 1971 A nnual a v e ra g e 1971 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. 119.6 104.1 103.4 117.1 116.4 103.8 118.3 119.6 104.5 103.2 116.8 116.4 103.9 118.9 119.6 104.5 102.9 117.5 116.5 104.0 118.0 119.7 104.6 103.4 117.5 116.3 103.7 118.4 119.9 104.7 103.3 119.4 116.4 104.1 118.0 119.9 104.8 103.4 119.1 116.4 103.9 119.2 120.1 104.7 103.5 119.5 116.9 104.4 118.8 119.8 104.6 103.4 119.3 116.7 103.7 118.0 119.5 104.1 103.3 119.0 115.9 104.4 118.1 99.7 98.2 120.7 104.6 104.2 119.7 116.9 104.4 119.0 99.5 98.6 H O U S IN G — C o n t in u e d Furniture and bedding... . . _. . . . _____ Bedroom furniture, chest and dresser2 . . Dining room chairs2 _______________ . . Sofas7 upholstered____________________ _______ Sofas, dual purpose_________ Bedding, mattress, and box springs 3____ Cribs. . . . . ____________________ 119.1 103.6 103.0 117.5 116.4 103.4 117.9 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 114.9 116.9 105.6 109.4 104.3 105.7 109.7 104.3 105.7 109.9 104.3 108.3 111.3 108.3 111.7 108.2 111,4 1 1 2 .8 1 1 1 .0 113.1 111.4 113.2 113.4 106.3 102.3 114.7 116.6 106.4 102.4 114.5 116.7 Appliances____ ________ ___________ Washing machines, automatic___________ Vacuum cleaners, canister type_________ 105.5 109.4 103.8 Refrigerator-freezers____ _____________ Ranges, free standing, gas or electric____ 108.1 1 1 1 .0 Clothes dryers, electric___ ___________ 112.4 1 1 0 .2 106.3 106.5 106.8 102.7 115.9 116.4 _________ Floor coverings_______________ Broadloom carpeting, manmade fibers.. . Vinyl sheet goods______________ ______ Vinyl asbestos tile____________________ 1 0 2 .1 1 0 2 .2 116.1 116.7 106.5 102.3 116.0 116.7 106.3 106.6 1 0 1 .8 102.1 105.7 116.3 117.0 116.5 117.4 100.1 99.2 A p r. M ay 1 2 1 .0 104.9 104.9 121.7 105.3 105.3 121.5 105.1 105.1 1 2 0 .2 1 2 0 .6 1 2 0 .8 116.8 104.5 117.6 98.7 117.2 104.5 118.0 100.4 98.7 116.9 104.5 119.0 100.4 98.0 106.5 106.7 1 0 1 .6 1 0 1 .8 117.7 117.9 117.7 118.3 106.4 101.4 117.9 118.2 105.8 110.5 104.0 1 0 0 .6 106.3 101.9 115.6 117.6 106.1 101.4 116.3 117.6 106.3 101.5 116.7 117.8 105.8 105.7 110.4 103.8 1 1 0 .6 103.7 105.7 110.4 103.7 105.7 110.4 103.8 107.9 107.9 1 1 0 .0 1 1 1 .0 114.4 105.8 105.8 11 0 .1 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .2 104.1 103.9 1 1 0 .0 104.3 103.6 104.0 108.3 108.3 108.2 1 1 1 .2 1 1 2 .0 1 1 1 .0 108.3 111.3 1 1 1 .2 108.3 110.4 108.3 110.5 108.0 110.4 113.1 113.0 113.0 113.3 113.5 113.6 110.4 113.7 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .0 108 9 110.4 10 » 0 1 1 0 .2 108.5 110.3 113.6 110 4 108.0 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .0 119.3 122.9 1 2 1 .6 1 2 1 .8 123.7 122.9 123.0 110.9 130.8 126.0 130.6 125.2 105.8 108.2 1 1 1 .0 108 1 Garbage disposal units.'________________ 1 1 0 .1 109.6 110. i 1 1 0 .2 110.3 Other house furnishings: ___ ____ Dinnerware, earthenware Flatware, stainless steel ____________ Table lamps, with shade_______________ 117.8 120.4 118.3 119.6 121,4 118.4 120.4 121.9 118.9 121.5 122.3 119.2 121.7 1 2 1 .0 Housekeeping supplies: Laundry soaps and detergents_____ ________ _________ Paper napkins Toilet tissue_____________________________ 109.8 126.7 123.6 110.4 126.1 124.8 1 1 0 .6 1 1 1 .1 111.1 127.6 124.0 128.1 1 2 2 ,6 Housekeeping services: Domestic service, general housework___ ____ Baby sitter service” . . ____________________ Postal charges ____ Laundry, flatwork ____________ ___ Licensed day care service, preschool child___ Washing machine r e p a ir..'._______________ 133.8 130.0 138.1 133.3 118.2 135.3 133.7 130.3 146.6 133.6 117.9 136.8 134.5 130.5 146.6 133.9 118.0 137.3 A P P A R E L A N D U P K E E P ______________________________ 119.8 12 0 .1 M e n ’ s a n d b o y s '___________________________________ 120.3 105.8 110Ì9 1 1 1 .0 m io 1 1 1 .2 1 2 1 .0 1 2 2 .2 1 2 2 .2 1 2 2 .2 121.4 121.7 1 2 2 .6 1 2 1 .8 1 2 2 .2 119.2 119.4 12 2 .1 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .2 1 2 1 .8 1 2 1 .8 12 0 .1 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .0 110.9 128.8 123.9 1 1 0 .6 1 1 0 .8 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .0 1 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .1 128.3 123.7 128.9 123.6 128.6 123.8 128.6 124.5 128.4 124.8 128.9 125.1 129.5 125.6 134.9 130.7 146.6 134.6 119.0 137.3 135.1 132.1 146.6 135.0 119.1 137.4 135.3 132.3 146.6 135.4 119.4 137.6 136.0 132.4 146.6 135.6 119.1 138.2 136.1 132.8 146.6 136.3 119.4 138.2 136.4 133.4 146.6 136.4 119.4 138.1 136.4 133.8 146.6 136.6 138.4 135.0 146.6 137.6 138.4 136.9 134.8 146.6 137.0 120.3 138.9 119.3 119.0 1 2 0 .6 1 2 1 .6 121.9 1 2 1 .8 1 2 0 .2 120.7 121.4 119.9 119.6 1 2 0 .8 1 2 1 .8 1 2 1 .8 1 2 1 .6 119.9 127.7 121.9 130.5 123.4 132.4 124.4 133.0 124.2 131.5 1 2 1 .2 130.0 131 4 112.9 117.9 133.3 113.2 127.1 125.1 Jackets, lightweight __________________ Slacks, wool or blend _______________ Slacks, cotton or blend________________ Trousers, work, cotton.................................. 122.3 129.0 129.2 112.5 116.8 132.3 113.0 1 1 2 .2 11 2 .1 1 1 2 .2 117.3 131.0 113.5 115.4 130.9 113.7 118.2 132.5 113.7 112.9 118.2 133.9 114.0 114.2 117.6 134.7 114.0 Shirt, work, cotton. __________________ Shirt, business, cotton.. . _ ________ T-shirts, chiefly cotton____ __________ Socks, cotton or manmade fibers_______ Handkerchiefs, cotton.................................... 113.3 112.7 119.0 115.5 114.9 113.4 113.8 119.4 116.4 115.4 113.9 113.1 119.4 114.9 115.2 114.0 112.4 119.0 114.9 115.2 114.2 113.0 118.8 115.2 115.4 114.6 113.0 118.9 115.7 115.7 1 2 2 .6 1 2 2 .6 119.4 119.1 122.7 119.9 123.5 123.2 119.6 119.9 119.3 118.2 Men's: Topcoats, wool or all weather coats, polySuits, year round weight_______________ Boys’ : Dungarees cotton or blend _ _____ Undershorts, cotton....................................... W o m e n ’ s a n d g i r l s ’ ..................................... ........... .............. Women’s: 118 3 12 ? O 122.5 119.5 1 2 0 .1 1 ?? 9 131.7 Skirts’ cotton or polyester cotton or man- 114.7 102.9 119.1 126.8 June 1 2 2 .2 1 1 1 .0 139.2 135.6 146.6 138.5 138.9 138.9 135.3 146.6 138.0 121.3 140.4 121.3 1 2 1 .8 122.5 1 2 2 .1 119.7 120.3 121.9 122.4 121.9 126.5 119.5 125.6 114.3 116.8 134.7 114.0 113.0 115.7 134.0 114.1 112.7 116.3 137.1 114.4 119.3 127.6 130.9 115.0 115.7 137.4 114.4 131.1 136.3 115.1 117.2 137.0 114.6 132.4 138.0 115.7 116.7 137.3 114.7 131.8 136.8 114.8 114.9 133.9 114.7 114.8 114.4 118.4 115.7 115.7 114.5 114.4 118.2 115.8 116.1 114.5 118.3 114.3 116.3 114.2 112.7 118.0 114.9 116.0 114.5 112.4 117.8 116.2 116.2 114.9 113.1 117.4 116.6 115.4 115.1 113.4 117.4 116.7 115.7 115.5 113.7 117.4 116.7 116.2 119.2 128.1 123.2 119.6 120.3 118.3 125.2 119.6 118.3 121.3 125.8 119.6 115.8 118.1 126.4 119.9 114.8 122.3 126.1 1 2 0 .6 126.3 120.5 127.1 120.5 127. Ì 120.5 127.3 120.5 121.3 122.7 123.4 123.2 1 2 0 .2 121.7 122.5 122.3 123.4 1 2 2 .6 121 7 131.1 127.2 135.7 127.7 142.1 126.0 142.1 116.2 135.0 125.3 1 2 2 .1 1 2 0 .0 1 2 2 .2 1 2 1 .6 127.5 140.3 130.1 142.7 122.9 131.3 1 2 .2 129.4 144.3 117.6 129.6 138.4 115.5 123.7 130.1 * 121.3 124.3 129.6 1 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .2 1 1 1 .0 116.2 118.1 123.4 116.7 116.1 122.3 116.3 117.2 121.3 110.9 116.6 118.2 121.9 110.9 117.0 118.2 121.9 118 7 123.6 126.4 1 2 1 .8 109.8 115.2 116.1 110.9 115.7 116.3 1 1 1 .1 11 1 .1 11 1 .1 115.7 116.8 115.8 117.1 1 2 0 .0 1 2 1 .2 1 2 1 .2 1 2 2 .2 115.4 117.7 123.0 1 1 2 .6 1 2 0 .0 1 2 0 .8 1 2 2 .2 140.8 121.4 Slips, nylon. . __ __________________ Panties, acetate or n ylo n ______________ Girdles manmade blend . ______ ___ Brassieres, nylon lace_________________ 114 0 121.9 127.6 140 4 110.7 115.2 116.2 120.9 Hose, or panty hose, nylon, seamless------Anklets or knee-length socks, various fibers ____________________ Gloves fabric nylon or cotton. _______ Handbags, rayon faille or plastic............... 98.9 98.0 99.2 98.6 97.9 98.1 98.2 98.3 97.4 97.7 97.5 96.1 96.5 96.0 115.8 109.6 132.4 115.8 115.6 110.5 132.1 114.8 109.7 134.2 114.8 109.9 135.6 114.6 109.5 134.8 115.6 109.7 136.8 116.4 109.8 138.2 115.9 115.8 109.8 140.2 116.1 110.3 141.5 115.9 110.7 142.5 114.9 114.4 111.7 144.6 Blouses cotton . . _______ Dressesj street, chiefly manmade fiber----- See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 1 0 .0 131.9 124.5 131.1 143.8 110.4 116.2 117.9 123.4 1 1 0 .2 138.9 320.4 110.5 11 b. b 117.4 1 2 1 .6 1 1 1 .2 143.2 1 2 2 .8 128.8 1 1 1 .0 118.1 116.9 121.9 108 25. CO NSUM ER P R IC E S MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average Group, subgroup, and selected items Annual average 1971 1971 1972 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 115.6 105.2 109.3 118 5 109 0 110.3 131 8 110.9 129.3 119.5 107.1 109.4 131.5 111.3 130.0 119.3 108.6 109.3 131.7 111.9 129.3 107.2 108.9 131.1 111.7 c 112.1 127.5 124.1 128.8 130.6 129.8 124.7 122.7 132.2 123.1 122.7 122.7 123.5 124.1 124.6 124.7 1 2 1 .0 1 2 0 .6 119.7 119.9 121.4 1 2 1 .6 1 2 1 .1 121.3 121.4 121.3 123.1 121.5 123 8 120.9 124.3 120.7 125.1 124.0 123.8 120.5 124.7 124.0 124.6 121.4 125.5 124.2 125.8 126.6 123.6 121.5 128.7 124.6 122.3 128.7 1 2 2 .6 Jan. Feb. Mar. 117.1 117.3 116.8 APPAREL AND UPKEEP—Continued Girls’ : Raincoats, vinyl plastic or chiefly cotton Skirts, wool or wool blend 1____ ______ Dresses, cotton,manmade fibers or blends. Slacks, cotton 1...................... .................. Slips, cotton blend.............. ........... ........ Handbags.................... ............ ................. 116.5 106.8 107.4 131.3 110.4 129.0 109.6 105.2 107.4 110.5 130.3 110.4 129.7 109.8 126.9 111.0 Footwear................................................................. 121.5 121.7 120.9 121.5 1 2 2 .2 Men’s: Shoes, street (oxford or buckle strap)___ Shoes, work, high...................................... 119.6 118.7 1 2 0 .2 119.4 118.9 119.2 119.5 120.9 119.8 1 2 1 .1 1 2 0 .0 12 0 .1 120.4 Women’s: Shoes, street, pump................................... Shoes, evening, pump....................... ...... Shoes, casual, pump___ ____ ________ Houseslippers, scuff______ ______ ____ 123.4 123.7 119.3 126.2 1 2 2 .0 122.9 119.6 123.5 123.5 123.2 120.3 124.3 123.4 124.5 125.2 1 2 1 .0 1 2 1 .0 121.1 124.1 121.9 125.7 123.5 126.0 123.6 125.8 123.4 Children’s: Shoes, oxford.......................................... . Sneakers, boys’, oxford type........... ........ Dress shoes, girls’, strap or pump______ 123.8 119.7 128.4 124.4 119.9 128.6 124.1 120.3 128.4 122.4 119.5 127.3 Miscellaneous apparel: Diapers, cotton gauze or disposable________ Yard goods, polyester blend............................ 1 2 0 .2 118.5 128.3 125.1 Apr. May June 1 0 0 .2 119.2 121.4 125.3 119.2 1 1 2 .1 111.1 111 0 110 2 1 2 2 .0 1 2 2 .1 126.5 124.5 125 9 124.3 125 9 122 3 126 1 124.8 125.9 129.5 126.5 123 1 129.8 126 9 123 5 129.8 114 0 117.8 114 5 119.0 1 2 1 .0 118.8 122.9 122.5 122.3 118.8 125.8 122.9 118.9 126.2 119.4 124.4 122.4 119.4 126.4 1 1 2 .0 12 2 .1 1 1 1 .8 112.3 122.4 112.5 121.9 112.7 1 1 2 .8 122.1 113.3 122.3 113.3 121.9 113.0 122.1 1 2 0 .6 113.0 120.5 113.2 118.9 113.5 118.1 Apparel services: Drycleaning, men’s suits and women’s dresses. Automatic laundry service_______ _____ ___ Laundry, men’s shirts____________ _____ _ Tailoring charges, hem adjustment_________ Shoe repairs, women’s heel l i f t . . ................... 116.6 113.8 119.1 128.5 117.1 116.8 112.9 119.1 128.3 112.3 116.8 113.2 119.2 129.0 112.4 117.1 113.3 119.1 129.6 113.5 117.2 113.3 119.2 130.0 114.0 117.0 113.8 119.2 131.2 114.0 117.1 113.9 120.4 131.6 113.8 117.2 113.7 120.5 131.7 113.8 117.4 114.3 120.7 131.8 113.8 117.4 114.2 120.9 132.1 114.0 117.4 114.9 117.5 115.1 1 2 0 .6 120 8 114 8 121 0 1 1 2 .0 119.3 127.7 113.0 132 5 115.1 132 5 115.4 TRANSPORTATION...................................................... 118.6 119.6 119.5 '119.3 '118.6 '119.3 118.8 118.6 119.0 118.3 118.4 118.6 119.5 1 2 0 .0 P rivate ____ ____ _____ ___________________ Automobiles, new_______________________ Automobiles, used______________________ Gasoline, regular and premium........................ Motor oil, premium....... .................................. 116.6 117.4 113.8 113.5 104.1 120.5 '117.3 '109.3 112.5 107.9 '116.4 '105.6 115.9 111.7 103.9 106.1 122.7 116.1 111.7 106.4 105.0 122.9 110 0 1 2 1 .8 105.3 106.7 122.3 115.7 111.9 103.0 105.7 122.5 117 1 111.4 108.7 121.5 116.3 110.4 107.2 107.3 121.9 116.4 1 2 1 .0 '117.2 '109.1 111.7 108.8 121.7 116.6 109.6 1 2 0 .0 117.6 113.9 114.1 104.9 119.9 106.2 123.3 117 6 111 3 113 4 105 6 123.4 Tires, new, tubeless.......................................... Auto repairs and maintenance_________ ___ Auto insurance rates................... .................... Auto registration....................................... ....... 116.3 129.2 141.4 123.2 114.8 129.4 142.5 123.8 116.2 130.3 142.7 123.8 117.3 131.0 142.9 123.7 117.5 131.2 142.9 123.7 117.6 131.3 141.8 123.7 118.8 131.6 141.8 123.7 118.3 131.9 141.8 123.7 117.9 133.1 141.0 127.1 117.4 133.6 140.8 127.1 116.6 134.0 140.9 127.1 116.0 134.3 140.7 127.5 116.3 134 6 140 6 127.5 115 8 134 9 140 7 127.5 Public............... .......... ............................................ Local transit fares_______ _______________ Taxicab fares.................................. .................. Railroad fares, coach____________________ Airplane fares, chiefly coach....... ............. ....... Bus fares, intercity______________________ 137.7 143.4 126.5 126.8 126.9 132.7 139.0 143.8 131.7 127.4 129.6 132.9 139.0 143.8 131.7 127.4 129.6 132.9 139.1 144.0 131.7 127.4 129.6 132.9 139.3 144.0 131.7 127.7 129.6 135.9 139.3 144.0 131.7 127.7 129.6 135.9 139.3 144.0 131.7 127.6 129.6 135.9 139.7 144.4 132.8 128.2 129.6 136.1 143.4 150.2 132.8 128.2 129.6 136.1 143.5 150.3 132.8 128.2 129.6 136.1 142.3 148.4 132.9 126.9 129.6 137.6 142.7 149.1 132.9 127.0 129.6 137.6 142 7 149 1 132 9 127.0 129.6 137.6 143 0 149 9 133 6 122 7 129 2 138.1 1 1 2 .0 1 1 0 .2 106.3 123.0 1 1 2 .8 122.1 1 2 2 .8 1 1 1 .6 1 1 0 .2 106.9 1 2 1 .0 128.6 1 1 2 .2 132.1 114.6 117 5 HEALTH AND RECREATION...................................... 1 2 2 .2 1 2 2 .1 1 2 2 .6 123.1 123.6 123.5 123.7 123.9 124.3 124.7 125.0 125.5 125.8 126.1 Medical care....................................... Drugs and prescriptions............. ........ ............ Over-the-counter items...... ................... Multiple vitamin concentrates....... ........... Aspirin compounds.............. .................... 128.4 105.4 128.6 105.7 129.3 105.5 130.0 105.6 111.0 1 1 0 .0 1 1 0 .2 131.4 105.5 95.4 114.3 95.3 114.2 1 1 0 .6 1 1 0 .8 95.0 114.5 95.1 115.0 131.7 105.5 110.9 95.2 115.4 132 0 105 7 111.7 95 3 117.7 132 4 105 8 97.2 114.5 130.5 105.5 110.3 95.1 114.1 131.0 105.5 96.6 114.1 129.6 105.6 110.4 95.4 115.8 129.7 105.7 110.5 95.4 115.4 130.1 105.6 1 1 0 .2 130.4 105.7 110.3 95.1 115.1 1 1 1 .6 Liquid tonics............................................. Adhesive bandages, package................... Cold tablets or capsules........................... Cough syrup......................... ..................... 101.5 124.1 1 0 1 .2 1 2 2 .6 123.2 101.3 123.8 100.7 124.1 111.3 112.4 100.9 123.6 1 1 2 .2 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .0 101 3 124 1 113 9 114.1 101 3 123 6 113 9 113.9 Prescriptions.................................................. Anti-infectives........... ............. ................. Sedatives and hypnotics............................ Ataractics_________________________ Anti-spasmodics_____ _____________ _ 101.3 80.2 122.9 101.7 107.1 100.7 75.2 125.9 102.7 107.9 100.9 75 4 126.5 102.9 108.0 Cough preparations....... ............................ Cardiovasculars and antihypertensives___ Analgesics, internal................................... Anti-obesity............................. ................. Hormones................................... 111.1 1 1 1 .6 107.8 114.9 94.9 Professional services: Physicians’ fee.................................................. General physician, office visits............. ............ General physician, house visits...................... . Obstetrical cases................ .......... . Pediatric care, office visits._____ _________ Psychiatrist, office visits__________________ Herniorrhaphy, adult____________________ Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy.................. 129.8 131.4 131.0 129.0 132.0 124.8 123.4 125.2 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 101.3 126.0 113.8 1 1 1 .8 1 1 1 .2 1 0 1 .2 1 0 1 .6 80.2 122.4 100.7 107.7 80.4 123.9 125.8 1 1 1 .8 1 1 0 .2 95.1 114.0 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .8 1 0 0 .8 1 0 1 .2 1 0 1 .2 123.6 113.2 1 0 1 .2 124.1 112.9 111.3 123.8 1 1 2 .8 123.7 113.1 112.7 123.9 113.5 112.9 124.1 113.2 101.7 79.1 124.8 101.5 78.9 124.7 1 0 1 .2 101.1 77.4 124.9 102.7 107.7 76.7 125.1 95 0 118.1 111.3 111.4 111.4 1 1 1 .2 1 0 1 .8 1 0 1 .6 1 0 1 .6 79.9 124.2 79.6 123.8 102.5 107.9 79.4 124.6 108.1 101.7 80.0 123.8 102.3 108.1 126.8 111.7 108.2 115.9 94.6 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .0 1 1 2 .0 107.9 115.3 94.6 108.2 116.6 94.8 112.1 108.3 117.1 94.9 1 1 2 .0 107.7 117.0 94.7 107.9 117.0 94.6 1 1 1 .8 1 1 1 .8 1 1 1 .8 108.3 117.3 94.8 108.2 117.7 94.0 109.1 117.7 94.0 109.2 117.5 93.8 109.4 116.7 94.0 129.7 111.4 109.5 117.1 92.9 130.7 111.4 109.5 117.2 92.8 129.9 131.7 131.4 128.9 132.4 124.7 123.3 124.3 130.3 132.2 131.6 129.0 132.6 125.1 123.6 125.0 131.2 132.7 132.0 130.9 133.4 125.7 124.3 128.0 131.5 133.0 133.6 131.3 133.5 125.7 124.4 128.0 131.7 133.0 133.9 131.5 133.6 125.9 125.2 128.2 132.0 133.1 134.1 131.5 134.7 127.2 126.2 128.7 132.2 133.3 134.6 131.6 135.3 127.3 126.4 128.7 132.3 133.3 134.8 132.0 135.3 127.9 126.8 128.7 132.6 133.5 135.1 132.3 135.6 128.3 127.0 129.2 132.9 134.0 135.5 132.8 135.5 128.5 127.4 129.2 133.2 134.2 135.6 133.9 135.6 128.5 127.8 129.6 133.3 134.3 135.8 134.0 135.6 128.5 127.9 129.8 133.9 135.0 137.0 134.0 135.8 129.0 128.2 130.0 1 0 1 .2 127.3 1 0 2 .6 108.1 127.9 127.4 111.7 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .6 1 0 2 .6 107.8 108.0 107.9 127.2 127.2 127.1 127.8 1 1 2 .8 100.9 76.0 125.2 1 0 2 .8 1 0 2 .8 107.8 107.8 128.5 128.9 CONSUMER PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 25. 109 Continued—Consumer Price Index—U.S. average 1972 1971 Annual a v e ra g e G r o u p , s u b g r o u p , a n d s e le c te d ite m s 1971 HEALTH AND June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. N ov. D e c. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay June R E C R E A T IO N — C o n tin u e d Dentists' fees________________________ . . . Fillings, adult, amalgam, one surface____ Extractions, adult......... ... .................... __ Dentures, full uppers________ ________ 127.0 128.0 126.9 124.9 126.4 127.3 126.5 124.4 127.5 128.7 127.3 125.1 127.9 129.3 127.4 125.6 128 2 129.5 127.7 126.0 129.6 131.0 128.9 127.7 129.8 131.0 129.4 127.7 130.0 131.3 129.6 127.7 130.5 131.8 130.4 128.2 130.6 131.8 130.6 128.3 131.0 132.3 131.0 128.3 131.6 133.0 131.5 128.8 131.9 133.4 131.9 129.0 132.4 133.9 132.6 129.1 Other professional services: Examination, prescription, and dispensing of eyeglasses_________ _ _ . _ ____ Routine laboratory tests. _ __________ 120.3 116.1 120.0 115.3 120.5 115.7 121.9 117.2 122.1 117.6 122.6 117.8 122.9 117.8 122.9 118.6 163.1 156.2 124.9 162.6 155.3 125.4 164.8 157.8 125.9 165.8 156.7 126.4 166.8 158.0 126.5 167.0 159.1 126.5 167.0 159.0 126.6 167.9 162.6 126.9 123.1 118.7 100.0 169.6 163.5 127.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 123.8 118.9 100.6 171.1 165.0 127.9 100.9 99.7 99.7 101.9 100.5 100.5 101.2 124.0 119.4 101.2 172.2 166.0 128.6 101.4 100.0 99.9 102.5 101.4 100.7 101.5 124.5 119.7 101.5 172.7 166.6 129.0 101.5 100.9 100.6 102.8 101.5 100.8 101.6 124.7 120.7 101.8 173.2 167.3 128.9 101.9 100.3 101.1 102.8 101.9 101.9 101.7 125.0 120.7 102.0 173.8 167.2 128.8 102.0 100.1 101.9 102.8 102.2 102.0 101.9 116.8 113.8 107.7 114.1 119.5 116.8 113.8 107.6 112.4 118.9 117.1 114.2 107.2 115.4 117.5 117.5 114.5 107.7 116.8 119.0 117.6 114.6 108.6 115.2 119.7 117.9 114.9 108.8 118.4 120.5 117.9 114.8 108.3 118.8 120.0 117.9 114.8 109.3 119.7 120.4 118.1 115.1 109.9 119.7 121.2 118.4 115.4 109.6 120.3 124.0 118.7 115.8 119.5 121.1 123.8 119.1 116.3 108.8 121.0 125.1 119.7 117.1 109.9 122.9 125.2 120.0 117.4 109.4 122.6 126.0 Shaving cream, aerosol.. ____ . .. Face powder, pressed . . . . Deodorants, aerosol... ____ ____ . . . Cleansing tissues___ _______ ________ Home permanent wave sets____________ 106.6 123.5 105.6 123.3 110.9 107.1 124.1 105.5 124.7 111.2 107.3 123.8 105.7 124.8 111.7 106.9 124.0 106.0 124.2 111.5 107.2 124.1 106.4 124.1 111.7 107.1 123.9 106.3 122.6 111.8 107.8 122.4 105.9 123.6 111.7 107.3 122.0 105.9 121.8 111.6 107.1 122.0 104.9 124.4 111.3 106.4 123.1 105.0 123.1 111.3 107.2 125.1 105.6 123.4 110.5 107.5 126.2 105.6 125.4 110.9 108.0 131.4 106.0 124.3 109.1 103.2 133.3 105.5 125.1 109.1 Personal care services____ ________________ Men’s haircuts___ _____ __ _______ Beauty shop services________________ 120.0 122.6 118.2 119.9 122.2 118.4 120.2 122.5 118.5 120.6 123.2 118.8 120.8 123.4 118.9 121.0 123.7 119.1 121.2 123.7 119.4 121.2 123.9 119.2 121.3 123.9 119.4 121.5 124.1 119.7 121.7 124.2 119.9 122.0 124.4 120.4 122.4 124.9 120.7 122-7 125.1 121.0 R e a d in g a n d r e c r e a t io n ______ ________ ___________ 119.3 106.6 100.1 122.5 98.5 119.3 106.7 100.1 122.2 98.5 119.6 106.8 99.9 122.2 98.4 119.7 106.9 99.9 122.1 98.4 120.5 107.1 100.0 123.4 98.5 120.5 107.2 100 2 124.1 98.1 120.8 107.2 100.3 124.5 98.4 121.1 107.3 100.3 124.7 98 4 121.4 107.4 99.9 126.4 98.4 121.5 107.3 99.7 126.9 98.4 121.7 107.6 100.0 128.8 98.5 122.3 107.7 99.8 129.8 98.9 122.5 107.8 99.6 130.6 99.0 122.9 108.0 99.5 131.1 99.1 Tape recorders, portable_______________ Phonograph records, stereophonic_______ Movie cameras, Super 8, zoom lens........... Film, 35mm, color____ _ . _________ _ Bicycle, boys’.................. ......... ........... .............. Tricycles___ _____ ____ __________ ._ 94.2 103.5 89.4 108.3 112.6 111.2 94.3 103.1 89.2 108.5 113.4 111.2 94.1 104.9 89.3 108.6 113.9 111.6 93.6 105.8 89.3 108.4 114.0 111.9 93.0 106 5 89.1 108.4 113.7 112.0 92.7 106.5 89.2 108 3 114.0 111.9 92.5 106.5 88.9 108.5 113.6 111.7 93.1 107.1 88.9 108.7 113.3 112.2 93.4 107.2 88.3 108.6 113.8 112.6 93.3 107.0 88.7 108.3 114.2 113.0 93.3 106.6 88.8 108.3 114.9 113.4 93.8 106.4 88.8 108.3 114.8 112.7 94.4 106.5 87.5 108.2 116.0 113.1 94.7 107.2 88.2 108.1 117.0 114.0 Recreational services______________________ Indoor movie admissions____ _________ 125.2 137.6 126.0 138.4 126.1 138.8 126.1 138.2 126.3 138.9 126.2 138.3 126.6 138.7 126.4 137.9 126.9 139.0 127.0 138.6 127.3 139.2 127.8 140.7 128.0 141.2 128.7 142.5 Drive-in movie admissions, adult________ Bowling fees, evening__________ . . . __ Golf greens fees 1 TV repairs, picture tube replacement____ Film developing, color_________________ 140.1 116.3 127.5 98.0 116.7 141.5 116.5 128.5 98.3 117.0 141.9 116.3 128.6 98.2 117.4 142.5 116.1 ,128.8 98.1 117.7 142.5 116.1 128.4 98.5 118.3 142.3 116.7 128 3 98.4 118.1 142.3 117.7 142.5 117.6 143.1 117.9 143.5 118.4 143.7 119.1 98.5 118.3 98.6 118.2 98.6 118.2 98.5 118.3 98.3 118.2 143.8 119.3 129.6 98.1 118.1 145.9 118.9 129.0 98.0 117.8 147.8 118.6 130 7 98.2 116.6 Reading and education: Newspapers, street sale and delivery.. __ Piano lessons, beginner. .. _ _____ ____ 129.6 121.0 130.0 120.6 130.4 120.7 130.5 120.7 130.6 121.4 130.5 121.5 130.6 121.5 130.7 121.5 130.7 121.6 130.9 122.0 130.8 122.1 131.6 122.1 131.8 122.2 132.8 122.2 Tobacco products_________________________ . . . Cigarettes, nonfilter tip, regular size_________ Cigarettes, filter, king_____________________ Cigars, domestic, regular________________ _ 120.9 126.4 127.9 128.1 107.1 120.3 125.3 126.9 126.9 106.0 121.2 126.9 128.5 128.6 106.3 121.8 127.9 129.6 129.6 107.3 122.4 128.9 130.2 130.8 108.5 122.6 128.9 130.2 130.8 108.7 122.8 129.0 130.3 130.8 109.3 123.0 129.2 130.6 131.1 109.5 123.5 130.2 131.6 132.2 109.7 124.3 132.0 133.2 134.3 110.3 124.6 132.5 133.7 134.8 110.6 125.1 132.7 133.9 135.0 110.7 125.4 133.2 134.4 135.5 110.7 125.6 134.0 135.6 136.1 110.9 Alcoholic beverages__________________________ Beer____________________________________ Whiskey, spirit blended and straight bourbon.. Wine, dessert and table__________________ Beer, away from home__________________ . 116.9 112.9 106.4 122.3 126.4 116.7 113.2 106.2 121.8 125.7 117.0 113.3 106.3 123.0 126.2 117.4 113.3 107.0 123.9 126.8 117.6 113.4 107.0 124.5 127.1 117.9 113.6 106.8 124.7 127.7 118.3 113.7 106.9 124.9 128.8 118.4 113.8 107.0 125.1 128.8 118.5 113.5 107.4 125.3 129.3 118.7 113.6 108.5 125.6 129.0 118.9 113.9 108.5 125.9 129.1 119.3 114.1 108.6 126.4 130.1 119.5 114.2 108.6 126.5 130.5 119.1 113.1 108.5 126.7 130.7 Financial and miscellaneous personal expenses: Funeral services, adult____________________ Bank service charges, checking accounts_____ Legal services, will_______ _______________ 117.2 110.6 135.5 116.8 110.7 133.3 117.7 110.8 133.6 118.3 110.9 133.9 118.4 110.9 137.4 118.8 109.3 139.9 119.1 109.3 140.2 119.2 109.5 141.4 119.5 109.7 141.7 120.2 108.5 141.8 120.6 108.2 141.9 120.6 107.4 149.3 120.7 107.4 149.3 121.1 107.4 150.6 H o s p ita l s e r v ic e c h a rg e s 5_ ____ Semiprivate rooms_______________________ Operating room charges___________________ X-ray, diagnostic series, upper G.l__________ Laboratory test, urinalysis5 . _____ Anti-infective, tetracycline HCL5 Tranquilizer, chlordizepoxide, HCL5 ____ Electrocardiogram5. . . . . _ Intravenous solution, saline5 Physical therapy, whirlpool bath5 Oxygen, inhalation therapy5 . ___ P e r s o n a l c a r e _________ __________________________ Toilet goods_____________________ _______ Toothpaste, standard dentifrice__ ______ Toilet soap, hard milled__________ _ _ Hand lotions, liquid_____ ______ . . . _ Recreational goods_____________ _____ _ _ TV sets, portable and console__________ TV replacement tubes_________________ Radios, portable and table model_______ O T H E R G O O D S A N D S E R V IC E S _____________________ 1 Priced only in season. * March 1970=100. 1 June 1970=100. 4 December 1971 = 100. * January 1972=100. NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Con https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis sumer Price Index, see B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s f o r S u rv e y s a n d S tu d ie s (BLS Bulletin 1711, 1971), chapter 10. r = revised. These figures have been recalculated to reflect the retroactive repeal of the automobile excise tax. Indexes for August recalculated to reflect adjustments for refunds on new cars in the August 15-31 period. Indexes for services reflect revision of auto finance charges which are imputed to changes in new car prices. 110 26. CONSUMER PRICES Consumer Price Index MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 U.S. city average, and selected areas [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified!! 1S71 Annual Area2 1972 average 1971 June J u ly Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. M ay June A ll ite m s . 121.3 121.5 121.8 ■•122.1 '122.2 '122.4 122.6 123.1 123.2 123.8 124.0 124.3 124.7 125.0 Atlanta, G a_____________________________________ Baltimore, M d ._______________ ________________ Boston, Mass____________________________________ Buffalo, N.Y_____________________________________ Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind____ . _______ . Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky______________________ . U.S. c it y average3____________________________ 121.7 123.4 122.8 121.8 120.8 120.7 122.3 123.5 (4) (4) 120.9 120.7 (4) (4) 122.9 (4) 120.9 (4) (4) (4) (4) '122.8 '121.5 (4) '122.0 '124.4 (4) (4) '121.7 '121.4 (4) (4) '124.5 (4) '121.7 (4) (4) (4) (4) 123.1 121.8 (4) 123.5 125.1 (4) (4) 122.3 121.9 (4) (4) 124.9 (4) 122.1 (4) (4) (4) (4) 124.9 123.0 (4) 132.8 124.9 (4) (4) 123.2 123.0 (4) (4) 126.2 (4) 123.3 (4) (4) (4) (4) 126.1 123.7 (4) 124.8 125.5 (4) (4) 124.2 124.6 Cleveland, Ohio__________________________ Dallas, Tex______________________________ _____ Detroit, Mich____________________________________ Honolulu, Hawaii___________________________ ___ Houston, Tex. ___________________________ ___ Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas__________________________ 122.8 121.3 121.7 118.9 120.9 120.5 (4) (4) 121.9 118.5 (4) 120.6 (4) (4) 121.8 (4) 121.3 (4) '123.2 '122.7 '122.8 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) '122.8 '121.2 (4) '121.5 (4) (4) '122.8 (4) '122.4 (4) 124.4 122.4 123.4 (4) (4) (4) ( 4) (4) 123.7 121.1 (4) 121.4 (4) (4) 124.2 (4) 123.2 (4) 125.9 123.7 124.9 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 125.0 122.4 (4) 122.4 (4) (4) 125.0 (4) 124.8 (4) 126.1 124.6 125.5 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 126.0 122.2 (4) 123.9 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif___________ Milwaukee, Wis. _ _____ _ Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn .................. .. . New York, N.Y.-Northeastern N .J ... . . . . . Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J__________________ Pittsburgh, P a .. . . . ________ Portland, Oreg.-Wash.5_____ 118.5 120.1 121.7 125.9 123.5 121.5 116.1 118.7 (4) (4) 126.1 124.1 (4) (4) 119.1 (4) 121.9 126.8 123.7 121.8 116.2 '119.5 '121.4 (4) '126.9 '123.6 (4) (4) '120.0 (4) (4) '127.3 '124.6 (4) (4) '120.3 (4) '123.4 '127.5 '125.0 '122.9 '117.4 120.1 120.9 (4) 127.6 124.7 (4) (4) 120.1 ( 4) (4) 128.0 125.0 (4) (4) 120.2 (4) 123.8 128.4 124.7 123.2 118.1 120.4 122.2 (4) 129.5 125.2 (4) (4) 121.2 (4) (4) 130.0 125.8 (4) (4) 121.3 (4) 124.2 130.3 126.0 124.7 118.4 121.4 122.8 (4) 130.5 126.1 (4) (4) 121.7 (4) (4) 130.9 126.5 (4) (4) 119.6 119.9 120.2 121.4 116.4 122.7 119.9 (4) 119.9 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) '120.7 (4) '123,2 '117.6 '123.5 '120.5 (4) '120.9 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) M (4) 120.9 (4) 122.6 117.6 124.2 120.9 (4) 121.8 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 122.3 (4) 123.6 119.0 124.7 120.8 (4) 122.9 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) 123.8 (4) 125.1 118.8 125.6 121.9 (4) 124.3 (4) (4) (4) ___ St. Louis, M o.-lll__________________ . San Diego, C a lif... ______________________ San Francisco-Oakland, Calif____ _______ Scranton, Pa.5_____ _________ Seattle, Wash____ ______ _____ Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va________________ .. .. Food U.S. c it y average____ __ ________ _____________ 118.4 119.2 119.8 120.0 119.1 118.9 119.0 120.3 120.3 122.2 122.4 122.4 122.3 123.0 Atlanta, Ga_____________ _ . . Baltimore, Md________________________ Boston, Mass _____________ Buffalo, N.Y_____________________________ Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind____________ . . Cincinnati; Ohio-Kentucky____________ 118.1 121.0 118.5 119.7 118.5 118.4 118.8 121.5 118.6 121.0 119.8 119.3 119.1 122.0 119.0 121.4 120.5 119.2 119.3 122.6 119.2 122.0 120.7 119.7 119.0 122.2 118.5 119.6 119.4 118.7 118.4 121.8 118.4 119.8 118.9 118.9 118.7 121.7 118.8 119.8 119.2 118.9 119.6 123.2 119.9 120.9 119.6 120.7 120.6 121.9 119.5 121.1 119.8 120.5 122.1 123.2 121.2 122.9 122.8 123.6 122.6 123.9 122.3 122.8 122.7 123.6 123.7 122.7 122.5 122.5 122.3 123.2 123.3 122.7 122.8 122.5 122.3 123.5 123.6 123.2 122.9 123.2 123.9 124.4 Cleveland, O h io ..____ . . . . . . . Dallas, Tex___________________ Detroit, Mich_________________ . Honolulu, Hawaii________________ Houston, Tex. . . . . . . ... Kansas City, Mo.-Kansas___________ 118.9 117.8 117.3 118.1 118.8 118.6 119.4 117.9 118.6 116.6 118.7 118.8 120.3 118.8 118.9 116.5 120.1 119.6 119.0 119.5 119.4 119.6 120.5 120.3 118.2 118.6 118.4 121.4 120.1 120.0 118.1 118.7 117.8 121.8 120.2 119.5 118.4 118.5 117.8 120.4 120.0 119.8 119.2 120.6 119.2 120.9 121.5 120.8 118.9 120.8 119.7 120.7 121.9 120.9 121.7 122.5 122.1 123.7 123.2 122.8 122.1 122.1 122.0 123.2 124.0 122.8 121.7 121.4 121.3 122.8 123.6 122.5 121.6 121.6 121.1 122.3 123.2 122.0 122.9 122.1 122.4 121.3 123.6 123.2 ___ 114.9 115.7 119.2 123.1 120.1 118.9 113.4 115.2 116.7 120.2 123.9 120.8 119.9 115.8 117.6 121.8 124.8 121.4 120.3 114.6 115.8 117.6 122.1 124.9 121.8 120.1 115.1 116.8 119.5 124.2 121.4 119.4 115.3 116.3 119.1 124.3 121.0 119.0 112.5 115.8 116.3 119.2 124.3 120.6 119.4 116.6 117.2 120.6 125.2 122.0 120.9 117.5 117.0 120.5 125.2 122.2 120.9 114.9 118.9 119.4 122.0 126.9 123.8 122.6 118.8 119.4 122.8 127.4 124.3 123.1 119.2 119.1 122.9 127.4 124.2 122.4 116.4 119.0 119.4 123.3 127.3 123.0 121.5 120.0 120.1 124.1 128.1 123.0 121.5 St. Louis, M o.-lll________________ San Diego.Calif_____ . . . ____ San Francisco-Oakland, Calif________ Scranton, Pa.5__________ Seattle, Wash____ ________ Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va............................... ..................... 118.0 117.3 116.1 120.1 115.9 120.2 118.3 117.9 116.7 119.6 118.3 117.2 118.8 117.8 115.5 118.3 117.7 116.3 119.7 120.0 119.1 121.0 122.0 119.7 116.3 121.4 r ÎÏ8 .2 122.0 118.4 120.9 119.0 124.0 119.1 123.8 121.4 122.3 120.9 121.7 119.3 122.9 122.0 123.4 121.2 116.8 121.3 120.9 121.8 120.2 123.6 119.6 123.7 120.8 121.8 119.8 116.7 121.4 118.5 118.6 116.9 119.6 116.5 121.2 119.4 119.5 118.9 116.5 121.4 120.0 118.2 116.6 122.8 117.0 122.2 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif_______________ Milwaukee, Wis. Minneapolis-St. Paul, M inn ... . . ._ _ New York. N.Y.-Northeastern N.J_______ _ Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J_________ . ___________ ______ Pittsburgh, P a ... Portland, Oreg.-Wash 5_____________________ 1 2 See table 25. Indexes measure time-to-time changes in prices. They do not indicate whether it costs more to live in one area than in another. 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. Average of 56 "cities” (metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan urban places beginning January 1966). 3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 5 6 120.4 124.8 All items indexes are computed monthly for 5 areas and once every 3 months on a rotating cycle for other areas. Old series (old market basket components). In the March and April 1971 Monthly Labor Review, these indexes were on a 1957-59=100 base. Indexes are now on a 1967=100 base. r revised. These figures have been recalculated to reflect the retroactive repeal of the automobile excise tax. Indexes for August recalculated to reflect adjustments for refunds on new cars in the August 15-31 period. WHOLESALE PRICES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 27. 111 Wholesale Price Index,1 by group and subgroup of commodities [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]2 C ode 1972 1971 Annual a v e ra g e C o m m o d ity g ro u p 1971 A l l c o m m o d it ie s ___________________________ . . A ll c o m m o d itie s (1957-59=100)___________ F a r m p r o d u c ts a n d p r o c e s s e d fo o d s a n d f e e d s _______________ ____ _ __________ _ In d u s t r i a l c o m m o d it ie s ________________ _ . . . FARM June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. 113.9 120.9 114.3 121.3 114.6 121.6 114.9 121.9 114.5 121.5 114.4 121.4 114.5 121.5 115.4 122.4 116.3 123.4 117.3 124.5 117.4 124.6 117.5 124.7 118.2 125.4 118.8 126.0 113.8 114.0 115.4 113.9 115.0 114.5 114.6 115.1 113.0 115.0 113.0 115.0 113.6 114.9 115.9 115.3 117.4 115.9 119.6 116.5 119.1 116.8 118.3 117.3 120.0 117.6 121.3 117.9 112.9 120.1 100.9 118.3 100.3 92.8 118.8 100.8 109.2 115.4 116.0 136.1 109.4 118.9 108.1 92.3 119.1 98 0 109.9 113.7 113.4 109.3 102.5 121.3 121.1 92.6 119.5 89.4 114.4 113.3 113.2 115.9 92.8 121.3 100.8 93.4 119.3 110.1 114.3 113.9 110.5 103.6 89.0 119.1 102.8 95.2 119.2 J07.8 108.9 115.6 111 3 115 8 88 3 120 9 93.5 96.3 119 2 92.4 107.9 115.4 112.2 127.1 87.8 121.0 92.3 97.3 118.8 88.5 109.0 111.8 115.8 126.3 95.3 124,7 87 2 102.5 119.0 114.4 109.2 117.3 117.8 124 9 94.1 132.2 94.3 109.5 120.5 92.6 108.7 118.0 120.7 127.5 93.0 139.6 105.4 113.2 120.5 91.9 110.2 116.8 119.7 112.8 93.8 136.7 107.6 114.3 121.8 107.7 114.4 117.5 119.1 117.6 96.0 133.8 94.1 122.1 122.1 87.2 118.5 118.0 122.2 120.6 97.5 139.8 96.3 130.1 122.5 90.6 116.9 119.5 124.0 121.7 94.5 146.4 102.9 127.3 121.7 91.9 116.9 119.9 114.3 111.4 116.0 115.4 114.3 119.2 115.8 130.9 128.8 134.8 121.1 113.2 104.4 114.9 111.5 116.7 116.1 115.4 119.0 115.7 123.9 127.2 131.6 118.5 113.9 107.4 116.0 111.5 119.6 116.2 115.9 119.4 115.9 135.7 136.7 135.5 122.8 113.8 106.9 115.4 111.4 117.7 115.4 116.2 120.5 116.1 144.0 147.5 140.7 124.6 113.8 104.7 114.6 111.3 117.5 115.4 115.7 119.8 116.0 136.5 135.6 133.6 123.3 113.0 101.3 114.1 111.3 116.9 116.4 115.3 118.7 116.4 132.1 128.9 127.9 122.8 112.7 98.7 114.4 111.5 117.1 116.3 115.4 119.1 116.6 130.1 128.6 130.4 122.8 113.0 100.3 115.9 111.6 120.4 117.4 115.8 120.2 116.4 122.3 118.2 122.7 122.0 113.1 104.5 117.2 112.2 125.4 117.3 116.0 120.1 116.4 121.4 114.2 121.0 121.7 113.6 103.8 118.8 112.4 130.5 117.5 116.1 121.1 116.8 133.5 116.8 120.1 121.1 113.8 103.7 118.6 112.6 127.3 118.0 116.7 121.9 116.7 130.4 115.6 120.6 120.8 113.7 108.5 117.7 112.8 123.6 117.5 118.3 121.1 117.2 127.8 118.9 120.9 120.7 113.8 108.5 118.6 113.3 126.8 117.4 119.0 120.8 117.2 127.3 112.8 119.6 120.7 115.0 108.4 119.6 113.3 131.4 115.3 119.5 121.3 117.8 125.8 112.0 119.1 121.5 114.4 107.7 108.6 110.6 93.5 100.8 112.9 104 2 117.2 108.5 110.9 93.4 101.4 112.3 104.5 118.7 109.2 111.9 92.6 101.9 113.3 104.8 119.9 109.7 112.5 92.7 103.1 113.6 104.8 117.2 109.7 112.2 92.5 103.1 113.8 104.1 119.8 109.6 112.2 92.4 102.5 113.8 104.1 120.8 109.8 112.5 92.3 103.2 113.8 104.1 121.2 110.6 113.6 91.5 104.3 113.8 106.1 136.2 111.3 116.7 92 0 105.4 113.8 106 2 137.4 112.0 118.0 92.2 105.9 114.0 108.5 141.6 112.1 119.6 92.0 106.1 114.1 108.7 130.9 112.6 120.5 93.0 107.2 114.1 108.7 131.1 113.3 121.5 98.3 108.0 114.3 109.3 129.8 113.6 122.6 99.2 108.6 114.4 109.5 125.8 114.0 115.1 112.5 116.8 108.3 114.2 114.0 114.4 116.8 108.2 114.2 114.0 114.4 116.8 108.2 114.4 114.6 114.4 117.1 108.2 114.7 117.7 113.4 117.1 109.0 114.7 117.2 113.4 117.1 109.0 115.1 123.1 113.5 117.1 109.1 116.2 128.6 117.0 117.1 109.8 117.8 136 0 120.0 118.1 110.6 119.1 148.9 120.6 118.5 111.2 123.0 173.8 128.4 120.1 111.9 127.2 188.6 133.1 122.4 113.7 129.5 200.3 137.8 124.6 115.3 130.9 204.1 138.6 125.8 116.7 114.2 181.8 148.7 108.0 113.6 113.2 106.8 114.4 182.5 150.5 107.5 113.0 113.2 107.4 114.4 182.9 150.5 107.7 113.5 113.2 107.2 114.8 182.9 150.5 107.2 115.3 113.2 107.3 115.3 182.9 150.5 108.4 116.4 113.2 107.3 114.8 182.9 150.5 108.8 116.3 113.2 106.3 114.7 182.9 150.5 108.8 116.2 113.2 106.2 115.0 190.2 150.5 107.9 116.3 113.2 106.1 116.0 192.7 150.5 110.0 118.9 113.2 106.1 116.1 192.6 155.0 110.2 120.0 113.2 105.5 116.5 192.6 155.0 110.9 120.0 113.2 106.3 116.9 191.2 155.3 112.5 120.5 113.2 106.6 117.5 191.2 155.3 113.0 121.2 113.2 107.3 118.2 191.2 155.3 112.9 121.5 113.2 108.5 104.2 102.0 115.6 101.5 102.4 133.5 104.4 102.2 115.9 99.4 102.3 132.0 104.4 102.4 115.9 99.8 102.6 130.8 104.3 102.4 115.9 99.8 102.7 134.2 104.3 102.4 115.9 99.7 102.6 132.9 104.2 102 4 115.9 99.7 102.6 129.0 103.8 101.7 115.9 99.7 102.4 125.3 103.4 101.1 115.9 101.9 102.5 115.9 103.4 101.4 116.2 102.7 102.3 111 3 103.5 101.4 117.3 102.7 102.2 110.7 103.4 101.0 117.9 102.7 102.5 103.5 104.1 101.5 118.3 103.0 102.4 112 2 104.4 101.4 118.3 103.5 102.8 116.0 104.3 101.4 118.3 103.9 103.1 115.9 92.2 88.9 112.1 94.1 88.1 112.5 93.4 88 6 112.5 91.0 89.0 112.4 91.0 89.5 112.4 90.4 89.9 112.5 90.3 89.2 112.5 90.3 89.0 112.4 90.3 88 6 112.4 90.2 89.3 112.5 90.6 88.9 112.7 92.2 88 3 113.5 92.1 88.6 114.1 92.3 87.9 113.8 109.2 112.2 99.3 109.2 118.0 94.7 101.1 99.2 108.7 111.1 99.4 107.5 117.0 93.6 101.9 99.2 109.7 113.2 98.8 111.2 118.7 94.0 100.6 99.7 109.8 113.7 99.6 111.4 119.3 94.1 100.1 98.6 109.7 113.7 99.3 110.8 119.8 94.7 100.0 98.6 109.5 113.3 99.0 110.8 119.2 94.6 100.0 98.2 109.5 113 3 98.5 110.8 119.2 94.1 100.1 98.0 109.4 113.3 98.5 110.8 119.2 93.8 100.0 97.9 109.5 113.4 99.2 110.3 119.7 93.7 100.0 98.2 109.2 113.0 98.8 108.4 120.4 93.8 99.9 98.6 108.9 112.9 98.5 108.4 120.4 93.6 98.9 98.1 108 7 112.9 98 2 108 4 120.4 93 6 98. 4 98.4 108.8 113.0 98.6 108.4 120.4 93.3 98.5 98.4 108.9 113.3 98.6 108.7 120.8 93.5 98.1 97.9 127.0 135.5 120.7 114.7 118.8 126.1 134.4 122.2 110.2 119.1 130.6 142.5 122.8 111,7 119.0 134.6 146.7 123.8 120.5 118.9 134.3 146.8 123.7 119.1 118.9 131.8 142.7 123.7 116.2 118.8 131.3 141.9 123.7 115.9 119.5 132.7 143.8 124.3 IP .8 119.1 134.9 146.9 124.9 120.2 119.6 137.7 150.4 125.5 125.1 119.9 139.5 152.4 125.8 128.9 120.1 141.1 155.1 126.6 128.9 121.1 142.7 157.0 127.6 130.3 122.7 144.2 isq o 1?R 4 in 7 123.4 M ay June P R O D U C T S A N D PROCESSED F O O D S A N D FE E D S 01 01-1 01-2 01-3 01-4 01-5 01-6 01-7 01-8 01-9 F a r m p r o d u c t s ____________________ . . . . . 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 P ro c e s s e d fo o d s a n d fe e d s __________________ 03 03-1 03-2 03-3 03-5 03-6 03-7 T e x t i l e p r o d u c ts a n d a p p a r e l________________ 04 04-1 04-2 04-3 04-4 H id e s , s k in s , l e a t h e r , a n d r e la te d p r o d u c ts . 05 05-1 05-2 05-3 05-4 05-61 05-7 F u e ls a n d r e la t e d p r o d u c ts a n d p o w e r _ . . . 06 06-1 06-21 06-22 06-3 Ub-4 06-5 C h e m ic a ls a n d a llie d p r o d u c ts ............... .............. Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables.. . . Grains_______________________________ Livestock______________________ ___ Live poultry___ _________________ ____ Plant and animal fibers________________ Fluid milk___ _______________ _______ Eggs------------------------------------------------------Hay, hayseeds, and o i l s e e d s . . . . . . . ____ Other farm products___ ___________ __ Cereal and bakery products_________ Meats, poultry, and fish____ __________ Dairy products.. ___________ . . . Processed fruits and vegetables___ . Sugar and confectionery______ _____ _ Beverages and beverage m a te ria ls ...___ Animal fats and oils___________________ Crude vegetable oils_________________ _ Refined vegetable oils _____ . Vegetable oil end products_______ . . . _ Miscellaneous processed foods. . Manufactured animal feeds_____________ I N D U S T R I A L C O M M O D IT IE S 06-6 06-7 Cotton products_____ _ ___________ Wool products______________ ________ Manmade fiber textile products_____ .. Apparel_____________________________ Textile housefurnishings....... ................. .. Miscellaneous textile products__________ ____ Hides and skins_______ . . . . Leather_________ __ Footwear_____________ . . Other leather and related products___ _ Coal________ _. Coke_____ . Gas fuels .. . Electric power Crude petroleum .._ . . . ___ __ Petroleum products, refined____________ Industrial ch e m icals..___ ______ ____ Prepared paint____________ ____ ____ Paint materials.. . . Drugs and pharmaceuticals____ ____ Fats and oils, inedible Agricultural chemicals and chemical products______ _ ________ : _ ____ P'astic resins and materials_____ ______ Other chemicals and allied products. ___ 07 07-1 07-11 07-12 07-13 07-21 07-22 07-23 R u b b e r a n d p la s t ic p r o d u c ts ___________ ____ 08 08-1 08-2 08-3 08-4 L u m b e r a n d w o o d p r o d u c ts _______ Rubber and rubber products Crude rubber___________ _____ .. Tires and tubes................. ....... Miscellaneous rubber products . . . . . . . Plastic construction products3. . . _____ Unsupported plastic film and sheeting * . . . Laminated plastic sheets, high pressure .. ... Lumber____ _ Millwork___ . . . . Plywood___________ . . Other wood products._________________ See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 112 27. W H O LESALE MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 P R IC E S Continued—Wholesale Price Index,1 by group and subgroup of commodities [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified]2 Code IN D U S T R I A L 09 09-1 09-11 09-12 09-13 09-14 09-15 09-2 Annual a v e ra g e 1971 C o m m o d ity g ro u p Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board_________ . Woodpulp________________ __ W astep ap er...___ _____________ ____ Paper____________ __ _______ . . Paperboard____ . ___________________ Converted paper and paperboard products. Building paper and board_________ . _ M e t a ls a n d m e ta l p r o d u c ts ____ 11 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-6 11-7 11-9 M a c h in e r y a n d e q u i p m e n t . . . 12 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 12-6 F u r n i t u r e a n d h o u s e h o ld d u r a b le s __________ 13 13-11 13-2 13-3 13-4 N o n m e t a llic m in e r a l p r o d u c t s ______________ _________ Iron and steel, _____________ , Steel mill products... ______ . ___ Nonferrous metals__________ _____ Metal containers______________________ Hardware___________ ___ Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings_____ Heating equipment _______ ___ . . . Fabricated structural metal products_____ Miscellaneous metal products _ _ __ _ ... Agricultural machinery and equipment___ Construction machinery and equipment__ Metalworking machinery and equipment. General purpose machinery and equipment. Special industry machinery and equipment. Electrical machinery and equipment_____ Miscellaneous machinery___________ . _ Household furniture___________________ Commercial furniture__________________ Floor coverings Household appliances, _ . _ _ Home electronic equipment,. _ ___ ___ Other household durable goods _______ Flat glass____________________________ Concrete ingredients__________________ Concrete products._______ __ __ _____ Structural clay products excluding refrac tories____________________ _______ . . . Refractories ............ _ . ... . Asphalt roofing_______________________ Gypsum products_____________________ Glass containers______________________ Other nonmetallic minerals_____________ 14 14-1 14-4 T r a n s p o r t a t io n e q u i p m e n t 5__________________ 15 15-1 M is c e lla n e o u s p r o d u c ts 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-9 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay June C O M M O D IT IE S — C o n tin u e d P u lp , p a p e r , a n d a llie d p r o d u c ts ______ . . 10 10-1 10-13 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 13-5 13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 1972 1971 Motor vehicles and equipment____ . . . Railroad equipment. , , . . . . .. . . . . . Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammuni . . . ___ tion__________ . . . . . . Tobacco products_____________________ Notions___________ ____ ________ Photographic equipment and supplies____ Other miscellaneous products. 110.1 110.2 110.5 110.6 110.6 110.6 110.6 110.7 110.8 111.6 112.3 112 8 113.2 1 1 3 .5 110.4 112.0 111.9 114.1 102.4 109.7 103.0 110.5 112.4 112.3 114.3 102.8 109.8 103.2 110.8 112.4 111.8 114.6 102 8 110.1 103.6 110.8 112.4 112.8 114.7 102.8 110.1 104.3 110.8 111.5 114.5 114.7 102.8 110.2 104.5 110.9 111.5 117.2 114.7 102.9 110.1 104.6 110.9 111.5 117.2 114.7 102.9 110.1 104.7 111.0 111.5 124.6 114.7 102.7 110.1 104.6 111. 1 111. 5 124.9 114.9 102.7 110.3 104.7 111.9 111.5 126.6 115.3 103.5 111.4 104.7 112.5 111.5 129.3 115.7 103.6 112.2 105.6 113.1 111.5 131.0 115.9 105.6 112.7 106.1 113.4 111.5 130.5 115.9 105.8 113.3 106.5 1 1 3 .8 1 1 1 .5 1 3 7 .7 1 1 6 .2 1 0 6 .0 1 1 3 .5 1 0 6 .6 119.0 121.8 123.0 116.0 121.7 116.5 116.4 115.5 118.2 119.0 118.5 120.3 121.1 116.4 123.0 115.8 116.8 115.2 117.9 118.7 119.4 121.9 123.4 116.9 123.0 116.7 117.9 115.9 118.2 119.3 121.1 125.3 128.1 117.1 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.8 119.6 119.8 121.1 125.6 128.2 116.5 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.7 120.3 119.9 121.0 125.5 128.1 116.3 124 2 117.7 118.3 116.3 120.3 119.7 120.9 125.3 128 2 116.0 124.2 117.7 118.3 116.5 120.3 119.7 120.8 125.3 128 2 114.9 124 2 117.7 118.4 116.3 120.4 120.9 121.4 126.8 129.6 114.4 124.2 118.4 118.2 115.9 121.6 121.3 122.6 128.2 131.0 115.0 127.1 119.0 118.6 116.2 122.0 123.2 123.4 128.3 130.9 117.2 127.1 119.2 118.9 117.0 122.1 124.1 123.5 128.3 130.9 117.6 127.3 119.6 119.0 117.9 122.1 124.3 123.6 128.3 130.7 117.8 127.3 120.2 119.0 118.1 122.0 124.4 1 2 3 .6 1 2 8 .1 1 3 0 .4 1 1 7 .6 1 2 8 .8 1 2 0 .4 1 1 9 .7 1 1 8 .6 1 2 4 .4 115.5 117.2 121.4 117.3 119.1 120.9 109.5 117.2 115.5 116.9 121.2 117.9 119.3 120.9 109.4 117.2 115.7 117.4 121.6 117.7 119.8 121.6 109.5 117.3 116.1 117.5 121.9 118.1 120.3 121.6 109.9 118.0 116.0 117.5 121.8 118.0 120.2 121.7 109.7 117.8 116.0 117.5 121.8 118.1 120.2 122 0 109 6 117.8 115.9 117.5 122.0 118.2 120.2 122.0 109.3 117.8 116.2 118.6 123.2 118.4 120.5 122.1 109.3 117.9 116.5 119.9 124.3 118.5 120.8 122.6 109.5 118.3 117.1 121.5 124.7 118.9 121.2 123.1 110.0 118.8 117.3 122.0 125.0 119.4 121.5 123.0 110.1 119.0 117.6 122.1 125.7 119.7 121.9 123.4 110.2 119.6 117.9 122.3 125.6 120.0 122.2 123.5 110.5 120.3 1 1 8 .1 1 2 2 .7 1 2 5 .9 1 2 0 .2 1 2 2 .7 1 2 3 .7 1 1 0 .6 1 2 0 .7 109.9 114.8 118.1 98.8 107.2 93 8 120.9 109.8 115.2 118.1 98.4 107.1 93.6 120.1 110.0 115.3 118.1 98.2 107.0 93.9 121.6 110.2 115.5 118.2 97.6 107.4 94.0 122.1 110.2 115.6 118.2 97.6 107.6 93.8 122.1 110.2 115.6 118.2 97.6 107.5 93.8 121.9 110.2 115.4 118.2 97.6 107.6 93.4 122.0 110.2 115.5 118.2 97.9 107.4 93.4 122.1 110.2 116.0 118.3 98.1 106.9 93.3 122.3 110.8 116.7 118.3 98.2 107.5 92.9 124.1 110.9 116.8 118.7 98.2 107.4 93.0 124.5 111.0 116.9 119.2 98.2 107.5 92.8 124.5 111.1 117.1 119.4 98.2 107.2 92.9 125.0 1 1 1 .2 1 1 7 .2 1 1 9 .5 9 8 .6 1 0 7 .1 9 2 .6 1 2 5 .4 122.4 123.9 121.9 120 6 122.2 122.5 121.5 120.1 123.3 122.5 123.3 121.5 124.2 124.3 124.0 122.8 124.2 124.3 124.1 122.6 124.1 124.3 124.1 122.6 124 0 123.1 124.3 122.6 124.2 123 6 124 2 122.9 124.3 123.6 124 4 123.4 124.6 123.6 124.6 123.8 124.8 122.4 124.6 124.5 125.6 121.1 126.4 125.1 125.9 121.5 126.7 125.1 1 2 5 .8 114.2 126.9 125.5 106.8 131.6 124.1 114.5 126.9 130.7 104.0 131.5 124.8 114.5 126.9 131.2 112.7 131.5 125.6 114.9 126.9 131.2 114.3 131.5 125.7 114.9 126.9 131.2 114.5 131.5 125.7 114.9 127.1 131.2 113.6 131.5 125.7 114.9 127.1 131.2 112.1 131.5 125.6 114.9 127.1 131.2 114.1 131.5 125.6 114.8 127.1 131.2 113.4 131.5 125.7 116.1 127.1 131.2 112.8 131.5 125.9 116.2 127.1 131.2 115.3 131.5 126.4 117.2 127.1 131 2 114.9 136 2 126.4 117.2 127.1 131.2 113.4 136.2 128.4 1 1 7 .4 1 2 7 .1 1 3 1 .2 1 1 3 .9 1 3 6 .2 1 2 7 .4 110.3 114.7 121.1 110.0 114.4 120.8 110.3 114.7 121.5 110.5 114.9 122.5 109.6 113.8 122.5 110.7 115.2 122.5 110.8 115.3 122.5 112.9 117.5 122.6 113.4 117.9 123.7 113.6 118.0 123.9 113 6 118 0 127.3 113 7 118 0 128.4 113.8 118.1 129.6 114 2 1 1 8 .5 1 2 9 .6 112.8 112.6 112.8 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.1 113.2 113.7 114.0 114.2 114 1 114.1 1 1 4 .2 112.6 116.7 111.6 106.1 112.3 112.6 116.5 111.7 106.0 111.9 112.6 116.6 111.7 106.2 112.4 112.6 116.8 111.7 106.3 112.9 112.6 116.8 111.7 106.3 112.9 112.6 116.8 111.7 106 3 112.9 112.8 116.8 111.7 106.5 112.9 113.1 116.7 111.7 106.5 113.0 113.5 117.4 111.7 106 4 113.9 114.0 117.4 111 7 106 7 114.4 114.5 117.4 111 7 infi q 114.5 114.0 117 4 111 7 infi ? 115.0 114.1 117 ^ 111.7 1 1 4 .4 117 5 111 7 1 0 6 .2 1 1 5 .2 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes also were made in the classification structure, and titles and composition of some indexes were changed. Titles and indexes in this table conform with the revised classification structure, and may differ from data pre viously published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. 2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 114I 9 122.2 121.1 1 2 6 .8 1 2 5 .3 3 December 1969 = 100. 4 December 1970 = 100. 5 December 1968 = 100. NOTE: For a description of the general method of computing the monthly Whole sale Price Index, see BLS H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s (BLS Bulletin 1711, 1971) Chapter 11. CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 28. WHOLESALE PRICES 113 Wholesale Price Index for special commodity groupings 1 [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] 2 C o m m o d ity g ro u p 1971 A nnual a v e ra g e 1972 1971 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O ct. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay 114.0 115.5 115.6 114.0 117.0 116.0 114.7 115.8 117.3 115.1 116.6 116.9 114 9 115.1 116.4 114.8 115.3 116.1 114.8 116.3 116.2 115.4 118.1 117.5 116.1 118.9 119.2 116.9 120.8 121.2 117.1 119.3 120.3 117.3 118.0 119.1 117.8 119.4 120.2 118.2 120.7 121.5 Textile products, excluding hard and bast fiber products. Hosiery... ______ . ____________________________ ______ Underwear and nightw ear._____ _________ 103.7 95.6 108.1 104.1 95.5 108.1 104.6 95.5 108.3 105.2 95.5 108.6 105.0 95.5 108.4 104.7 95 5 108.4 105.1 95.5 108.4 106.1 96.0 108.4 107.6 96.0 108.7 108.7 96.0 109.6 109.1 96.0 109.6 110.0 96.0 109.6 111.4 96.0 109.8 112.2 96.4 110.0 Refined petroleum products____ _ _________ . . . East Coast_____ _ _ ___ _ . . . . . Mid-Continent___________________________ Gulf Coast___ __________________________ Pacific Coast_________________ . . Midwest____ _ Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber and manmade fibers and yarns3 _____ 106.8 120.0 103.3 100.0 112.7 112.5 107.4 121.8 103.1 100.7 113.8 113.1 107.2 121.8 103.1 100.7 112.4 113.1 107.3 120.8 103.1 100.7 113.0 113.1 107.3 120.8 103.1 100.7 113.3 113.1 106.3 120.4 101.6 98.4 113.8 113.1 106.2 119.2 101.6 98.4 113.8 113.1 106.1 119.2 101.6 98.4 112.7 113.1 106.1 119.2 101.6 98.4 113.3 113.1 105.5 119.9 100.2 96.9 114.1 113.1 106.3 119.9 100.2 99.2 113.3 112.8 106.6 119.9 103.1 99.2 113.3 112.8 107.3 119.9 103.1 99.2 113.3 112.8 108.5 119.9 103.1 102.3 113.3 113.0 103.2 103.4 103.5 103.3 103.3 103.3 103.0 102.9 103.0 103.2 103.2 103.7 103.9 103.8 Pharmaceutical preparations______________ _______ Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork and other wood products 4__ __ . _________ . . Special metals and metal products 5____ Copper and copper products6_________ _________ Machinery and motive products______ _____ _ _ . Machinery and equipment, except electrical... _ _ _ Agricultural machinery, including tractors. . __ . . . . . Metalworking machinery . . . _ . . . . . . . . Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 =100) Total tractors_________ _____ _______ Industrial valves____ Industrial fittings . . . . . . . . . Abrasive grinding wheels___ . . . . Construction materials______________ . __________ 102.2 102.1 102.4 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.3 102.4 102.2 102.1 102.5 102.4 102.8 103.1 130.1 117.6 116.6 115.3 118.9 117.3 118.6 128.2 117.2 117.7 115.2 118.9 117.0 119.1 134.7 117.9 118.4 115.5 119.3 117.6 119.2 140.0 119.0 117.8 115.8 119.6 117.7 119.4 139.7 118.7 117.0 115.3 119.6 117.7 119.2 135.9 119.0 116.7 115.8 119.6 117.7 119.3 135.3 119.0 116.0 115.8 119.7 117.7 119.5 137.2 119.7 114.0 116.7 120.1 118.9 119.8 100 0 122 5 119.1 123.0 123.5 122.4 140.1 120.3 115.0 117.2 120.6 120.4 119.9 100 0 124.1 119.1 123.8 123.5 123.2 143.9 121.1 116.3 117.6 121.1 122.1 120.3 100 5 124.6 120.2 123.1 123.8 124.2 146.4 121.6 120.1 117.7 121.4 122.6 120.8 100 6 125.0 120.2 123.1 126.5 124.9 148.4 121.7 119.9 117.9 121.8 122.7 121.2 101 5 125.4 120.2 124.2 126.8 125.7 150.2 121.8 119.4 118.2 122.1 122.8 121.5 10? 3 125.6 120.5 124.2 126.8 126.2 152.1 121.9 118.8 118.5 122.4 A ll c o m m o d it ie s — le s s fa r m p r o d u c ts ______ ______ A ll fo o d s _______ ____________________________ __ . Processed foods_______________________ ______ 120.7 116.3 122.4 122.1 119.5 120.8 117.7 122.2 123.7 119.0 120.8 118.1 122.6 123.7 120.9 120.8 118.6 122.6 123.5 122.9 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes were also 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 previously published. See W h o le s a le P r ic e s a n d P r ic e In d e x e s , J a n u a r y 1967 (final) and Feb ruary 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. 2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 29. 120.8 118.6 122.6 123.5 123.0 120.8 118.6 122.6 123.5 122.2 120.8 119.1 122.6 123.5 122.0 June 1 2 3 .2 1 2 1 .6 107 1 1 2 5 .7 1 2 1 .3 1 2 1 .9 1 2 6 .8 1 2 6 .6 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. 3 Introduced in February 1971. 4 Formerly titled "Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork." 5 Metals and metal products, agricultural machinery and equipment, and motor vehicles and equipment. 6 Formerly titled "Copper and copper base metals." Wholesale Price Index,1 by durability of product [1967 = 100P C o m m o d ity g ro u p 1971 Annual a v e ra g e 1972 1971 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay June Ail commodities.. . . Total durable goods . . ___ __ Total nondurable goods________ 113.9 117.0 111.7 114.3 116.7 112.5 114.6 117.5 112.4 114.9 118.4 112.4 114.5 118.2 111.7 114.4 118.2 111.6 114.5 118.1 111.8 115.4 118.6 113.0 116.3 119.2 114.1 117.3 120.0 115.3 117.4 120.4 115.2 117.5 120.7 115.1 118.2 121.0 116.2 118.8 121.2 117.0 Total manufactures_____ Durable_____________ _ Nondurable____________ 113.8 117.0 110.5 113.8 116.7 110.8 114.5 117.5 111.4 114.9 118.5 111.2 114.7 118.3 111.0 114.5 118.3 110.6 114.5' 118.3 110.7 115.1 118.8 111.3 115.7 119.3 112.0 116.5 120.0 112.8 116.7 120.4 112.9 116.9 120.8 112.9 117.4 121.0 113.6 117.8 121.3 114.3 Total raw or slightly processed goods . . Durable_______ Nondurable____ ______ 114.4 112.2 114.6 116.3 111.5 116.6 114.7 111.4 115.0 114.8 110.4 115.1 113.2 111 1 113.4 113.8 110.4 114.0 114.3 108.9 114.6 116 8 107.4 117.3 118.9 110.3 119.3 120.9 113.1 121.3 120.7 116.2 121.0 120.4 115.0 120.7 122.4 115.0 122.7 123.3 114.1 123.8 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes were also 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 previously 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 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. NOTE: For a description of the series by durability of product and data beginning with 1947, see W h o le s a le P r ic e s a n d P r ic e In d e x e s , 1957 (BLS Bulletin 1235, 1958). 114 30. MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 WHOLESALE PRICES Wholesale Price Index,1 by stage of processing [1967 = 100] 2 1972 1971 Annual average 1971 Commodity group June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June . 113.9 114.3 114.6 114.9 114.5 114.4 114.5 115.4 116.3 117.3 117.4 117.5 118.2 118.8 ____ 115.0 116.9 116.6 115.2 113.9 114.3 114.3 117.0 120.2 123.1 123.1 123.0 125.5 127.2 _______ . . . 114.2 117.1 116.6 114.5 112.1 112.6 112.7 115.8 119.3 122.9 122.0 121.0 124.0 126.7 110.5 109.7 119.1 110.1 109 3 119.3 110.4 109.5 119.6 110.2 109.3 120.1 111.1 110.3 120.3 111.1 110.3 120.3 111.1 110.2 120.5 112.8 112.2 120.4 115.4 115.1 120.7 117.3 117.1 120.9 119.5 119.5 121.0 121.3 121.5 121.2 123.2 123.5 121.5 122.7 123.0 121.5 138.5 129.6 150.4 139.4 130.4 151.3 139.7 130.7 151.5 139.3 130.2 151.2 140.3 131.4 152.0 140.6 131.8 152.2 140.6 131.8 152.2 142.7 132.8 155.7 145.4 135.5 158.4 145.6 135.7 158.6 146.2 136.5 159.0 146.9 137.6 159.1 147.3 138.1 159.4 147.2 138.0 159.4 Intermediate materials: Supplies and components. 114.0 114.0 114.8 115.6 115.4 115.0 115.0 115.4 115.9 116.7 117.2 117.7 118.2 118.5 Materials and components for manufacturing. 113.0 116.2 105.6 118.8 114.7 112.8 116.3 105.9 118.1 114.5 113.6 117.5 106.1 119.6 114.9 114.6 118.3 106.3 121.7 115.5 114.4 117.1 106.2 121.6 115.6 114.2 116.6 105.9 121.4 115.4 114.2 116.8 105.9 121.2 115.6 114 4 117.3 106.3 121.0 115.8 114.9 117.9 107.0 121.5 116.0 115.7 119.4 107.4 122.7 116.5 115.9 118.6 107.5 123.3 116.6 116.4 117.8 108.7 123.7 117.0 116.9 118.5 109.3 123.9 117.6 117.1 119.2 109.6 123.8 118.0 Materials and components for construction___ 119.5 119.2 120.8 122.5 122.5 121.9 121.8 122.3 123.1 124.2 124.9 125.5 125.9 126.3 Processed fuels and lubricants.. _____ 113.4 115.2 110.6 113.2 114.7 110.9 113.4 115.1 110.9 114.6 116.6 111.5 115.3 117.5 111.9 114.6 117.2 110.6 114.4 117.0 110.4 114 3 117.0 110.1 116.0 119.2 116.8 120.4 111.0 111.1 116.9 120.4 111.5 117.3 120.8 111.9 118.1 121.7 112.6 118.7 122.0 113.7 116.6 116.9 117.2 117.5 117.6 117.6 117.6 117.6 117.8 119.5 120.0 121.2 121.3 122.0 110.9 113.1 109.9 104.3 112.6 111.9 113.5 111.2 107.8 112.7 111.9 113.2 111.3 107.2 113.2 111.3 113.2 110.4 104.6 113.2 110.3 113.2 109.0 100.8 113.0 109.6 113.2 107.9 97.9 113.0 110.1 113.2 108.6 99.8 113.0 111 1 113.2 110.2 104.4 113.0 111.0 113.2 110.1 103.6 113.2 111.4 113.9 110.3 103.3 113.8 112.8 114.2 112.3 108.3 114.1 113.0 114.5 112.4 108.1 114.3 113.3 114.8 112.8 108.1 115.0 113.4 114.9 112.8 107.3 115.5 113.5 113.8 113.8 114.1 113.6 113.8 114.0 115.0 115.5 116.3 116.1 115.8 116.4 116.9 112.7 115.2 115.8 115.0 111.3 110.9 113.1 116.4 121.8 115.4 111.2 110.7 113.0 115.6 109.0 116.7 111.6 111.0 113.3 116.1 115.8 116.1 111.8 111.1 112.7 114.9 109.6 115.8 111.9 110.4 112.9 115.0 112.2 115.5 111.7 111.3 113.1 115.7 116.1 115.6 111.7 111.3 114.2 117.7 121.5 117.0 111.8 112.6 114.7 118.7 117.4 118.8 112.0 112.9 115.6 120.6 117.9 121.0 112.1 113.2 115.2 119.4 115.7 120.0 112.4 113.1 114.8 118.0 113.4 118.7 112.7 113.2 115.5 119.5 115.1 120.2 113.1 113.1 116.1 120.7 115.6 121.6 113.5 113.2 116.6 117.3 116.0 116.5 117.2 115.8 116.8 117.7 116.1 117.1 117.9 116.4 116.9 117.8 116.0 117.1 117.9 116.3 117.0 117.8 116.3 117.8 118.2 117.4 118.4 118.7 118.1 118.8 119.1 118.4 119.0 119.2 118.8 119.3 119.5 118.9 119.4 119.6 119.1 119.6 119.8 119.4 122.7 122.8 122.7 122.3 123.0 122.9 122.6 123.4 125.6 127.0 129.1 129.3 129.9 129.8 All commodities___ _ __ Crude materials for further processing____ RAW MATERIALS Foodstuffs and feedstuffs . __ Nonfood materials except fuel _____ Manufacturing . Construction.” . . _____ ______ Crude fuel ... _____ ...... ___ .............. Manufacturing industries _ Nonmanufacturing industries. . . _____ ___ INTERMEDIATE MATERIALS Materials for food manufacturing . ____ Materials for nondurable manufacturing . Materials for durable manufacturing Components for manufacturing______ __ Manufacturing industries _ Nonmanufacturing industries. Containers__ Supplies ______ ___ . .. ___ . _. ___ . . . ___ Manufacturing industries . ______ Nonmanufacturing industries . __ Manufactured animal feeds____ ____ Other supplies___ . . . . . . . . FINISHED GOODS Finished goods (including raw foods and fuels)___ Consumer goods ______ _______ __ _____ Foods . . . . __ __________ Crude . . . __ Processed. . . . . . _______ Other nondurable goods _________ ____ _ Durable goods... .”. _____ _______________ Producer finished goods___ Manufacturing industries . Nonmanufacturing industries. ... . _ . . . . . ___ .. SPECIAL GROUPINGS Crude materials for further processing, excluding crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs, plant and animal fibers oilseeds, and leaf tobacco . . ._ _____ Intermediate materials, supplies and components ex cluding intermediate materials for food manufactur ing and manufactured animal feeds____ . . _____ Consumer finished goods, excluding consumer foods... 114.3 114.1 114.9 115.9 115.9 115.7 115.6 115.8 116.4 117.2 117.6 118.2 118.6 119.0 111.2 111.0 111.4 111.5 111.3 111.6 111.6 112.1 112.3 112.5 112.7 112.9 113.1 113.4 1 As of January 1967, the index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1963 values of shipments. Changes were also 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 previously published. See Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and Feb ruary 1967 (final) for a description of the changes. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2 As of January 1971 the indexes were converted from the former base of 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Technical details and earlier data on the 1967 base furnished upon request to the Bureau. NOTE: For a description of the series by stage of processing see Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, January 1967 (final) and February 1967 (final). CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 31. INDUSTRY PRICES 115 Industry-sector price indexes for output of selected industries 1 [1967 = 100 unless otherwise in dicated]2 1963 SIC code Industry Annual average 1971 1972 1971 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June MINING 1111 1211 1311 1421 Anthracite_______________________________ Bituminous coal___________________________ Crude petroleum and natural gas________ . . . Crushed and broken stone____ _____ _______ 144.9 185.0 113.0 117.7 140.5 186.1 113.2 118.3 144.7 186.1 113.3 118.5 144.7 186.1 113.1 118.5 145.6 186.1 113.5 118.5 144.7 186.2 113.6 118.5 144.7 186.2 113.6 118.8 144.7 194.1 113.3 118.8 146.4 196.6 113.9 119.1 146.4 196.6 114.0 119.4 146.4 196.6 114.2 119.4 146.4 195.0 114.6 119.7 146.4 195.0 114.8 120.1 1 4 6 .4 1 9 5 .0 1 1 4 .8 1 2 0 .1 1442 1475 1476 1477 Construction sand and gravel____ _____ ____ Phosphate rock___________________________ Rock salt_______ ____ __________________ Sulfur___________________________________ 120.6 79.8 118.3 59.8 120.5 79.8 112.2 59.8 120.8 79.8 124.4 59.8 121.9 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.3 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.3 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.3 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.2 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.5 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.5 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.7 79.8 124.4 59.8 122.8 79.8 124.4 59.8 123.0 79.8 124.4 59.8 1 2 3 .1 7 9 .8 1 2 4 .4 5 9 .8 2011 2013 2015 2021 2033 Meat slaughtering plants_________________ . Meat processing plants..____ ____________ . Poultry dressing plants________ _________ _ Creamery butter__________________________ Canned fruits and vegetables........................... 115.6 110.7 111.0 113.1 111.7 115.2 117.1 113.3 113.0 117.7 111.6 127.1 113.3 113.3 117.5 111.4 112.0 113.4 113.7 117.5 110.2 113.0 113.5 113.0 117.1 112.0 106.0 113.6 112.5 117.1 112.4 104.9 113.6 112.6 120.8 114.9 100.8 114.2 113.0 125.4 117.4 106.8 113.9 113.3 130.6 124.5 114.1 114.0 112.9 126.0 124.0 115.3 113.8 113.6 123.0 122.1 104.9 113.7 114.6 128.0 123.5 107.6 113.5 114.9 1 3 3 .4 1 2 5 .2 1 1 3 .0 1 1 3 .5 1 1 5 .6 2036 2041 141.2 142.5 141.0 148.4 145.3 145.3 150.0 158.1 165.3 167.9 166.0 173.2 167.9 1 6 4 .1 2042 2044 2052 Fresh or frozen packaged fish.............................. Flour and other grain mill products (12/71 = 100)___________________________________ Prepared animal feeds (12/71 = 100).................. Rice milling_________________ . . . . _____ Biscuits, crackers and cookies___ 98.9 119.3 99.3 120.3 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 99.3 119.6 100.5 119.6 98.4 100.5 100.5 119.6 97.8 100.2 100.5 120.6 99.5 101.7 100.5 122.2 98.7 101.9 100.5 123.0 97.9 102.2 103.1 123.1 9 7 .7 1 0 1 .6 1 0 3 .1 1 2 1 .2 2061 2062 2063 2073 2082 Raw cane sugar ___________ _____ Cane sugar refining_____________ _____ ____ Beet sugar_______________________________ Chewing gum________________ Malt liquors............................................................. 116.9 118.3 116.8 123.6 110.2 117.7 117.8 116.7 126.1 110.2 117.7 119.5 117.1 126.2 110.2 119.5 119.8 117.3 126.2 110.2 116.7 119.4 117.0 126.2 110.2 116.7 119.4 117.0 126.2 110.2 118.1 119.6 117.0 126.2 110.9 121.3 120.0 117.3 126.2 110.6 126.7 120.9 118.0 125.9 110.7 123.5 123.0 119.7 125.9 110.9 1 2 6 .1 123.6 120.2 125.9 110.4 123.6 125.4 121.2 125.9 110.7 119.5 124.9 120.8 125.9 110.6 1 2 0 .9 1 2 5 .1 1 2 0 .9 1 2 5 .9 1 1 0 .7 2083 2084 2091 2092 2094 Malt______________________ . . Wines and brandy_____________ . Cottonseed oil mills______________ Soybean oil mills____ . . . ................................ Animal and marine fats and oils....................... 98.5 117.0 111.4 111.4 125.7 98.9 115.4 110.4 112.9 124.3 98.9 120.4 113.1 120.8 122.8 98.9 120.4 120.0 120.8 124.4 98.9 120.4 118.1 109.2 125.4 98.9 120.5 105.2 110.3 122.6 98.9 102.5 104.9 110.9 120.3 94.2 119.4 108.5 111.3 114.0 94.2 119.7 106.7 109.6 113.1 94.2 125.0 106.4 112.7 115.7 94.2 125.1 106.4 120.0 117.0 94.2 125.2 104.9 123.1 125.6 94.2 125.2 103.6 121.8 129.1 9 4 .2 1 2 5 .3 1 0 2 .7 1 2 0 .0 1 2 8 .9 2096 2098 2111 2121 2131 Shortening and cooking o ils ............................... Macaroni and noodle p rodu cts .......................... Cigarettes__________________ ____________ Cigars_______ ______ Chewing and smoking tobacco______________ 121.0 106.3 117.4 108.1 125.0 118.4 106.4 117.3 107.0 125.1 122.9 106.5 117.3 107.6 125.1 125.0 106.4 117.3 109.6 125.1 123.3 106.5 117.3 109.6 125.1 122.4 105.8 117.3 109.6 125.1 122.2 105.8 117.3 109.6 125.1 121.1 105.8 117.3 109.1 125.1 120.6 105.8 118.2 109.1 125.1 120.2 105.8 118.2 109.1 125.1 119.8 105.9 118.2 109.1 125.1 119.8 106.0 118.2 109.1 125.1 119.8 106.2 118.2 109.1 125.8 1 2 0 .5 1 0 6 .2 1 1 8 .2 1 0 9 .1 1 2 5 .8 2254 2272 2281 2311 2321 Knit underwear mills....... ................................. .. Tufted carpets and rugs. . Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 = 100)________ Men's and boys’ suits and coats........................ Men's dress shirts and nightwear____________ 107.8 96.0 107.7 95.5 107.8 95.2 108.3 94.2 108.3 94.2 108.2 94.2 108.3 94.2 108.2 94.5 108.7 94.8 128.0 111.9 126.5 112.0 127.7 112.2 129.1 112.3 131.0 112.4 131.2 112.4 131.3 111.4 111.1 131.5 111.5 109.8 95.1 102.5 131.3 111.7 109.8 94.7 103.1 131.2 111.9 109.8 94.9 104.2 131.0 112.0 110.1 94.9 105.4 131.3 112.0 1 1 0 .2 9 5 .5 1 0 6 .2 1 3 1 .8 1 1 2 .3 2322 2327 2328 2337 Men’s and boys’ underwear.................... Men's and boys’ separate trousers___________ Work clothing_____________ . Women's suits, coats and skirts (12/71 = 100).. 110.3 110.6 113.7 110.2 110.2 113.4 110.2 110.7 113.4 110.6 110.9 114.7 110.6 110.6 110.5 110.5 111.8 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.7 111.0 114.6 114.6 114.6 114.9 2381 2421 2426 2431 2432 Fabric dress and work gloves . . ___ Sawmills and planing drills (12/71 = 100)_____ Hardwood dimension and flooring___________ Millwork plants (12/71 = 100) _____ Veneer and plywood plants (12/71 = 100)____ 111.8 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.8 111.8 111.5 111.5 115.5 114.2 116.2 118.8 118.5 118.2 118.2 119.4 2442 2511 2512 2515 2521 Wirebound boxes and crates (12/67 = 100) Wood furniture, not upholstered (12/71 = 100).. Wood furniture upholstered (12/71 = 100) . . . Mattresses and bedsprings ................ . .. Wood office furniture___ 117.6 117.5 117.9 117.9 117.9 117.9 118.3 118.5 108.8 117.1 109.1 117.1 108.9 117.1 109.0 117.3 109.0 117.3 109.0 117.3 109.0 117.5 109.0 117.5 2647 2654 2819 2822 2823 Sanitary paper products______ Sanitary food containers___________________ Inorganic chemicals, nec. (12/71 = 100)__ Synthetic rubber. ________________________ Cellulosi man-made fibers . _______ ____ _ 119.1 106.0 119.5 106.1 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 119.5 106.2 99.9 102.5 99.9 102.5 99.9 102.5 99.9 102.8 99.9 102.8 99.9 102.9 99.7 102.7 99.7 103.7 2824 2834 2841 2844 2871 Organic fibers, noncellulosic________________ Pharmaceutical preparations (12/71 = 100). Soap and other detergents (12/71 = 100)_____ Toilet preparations (12/71 = 100)......................... Fertilizers’_______ ________________________ 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 91.8 94.1 93.7 89.7 89.7 89.8 89.8 89.7 MANUFACTURING See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 111.0 101.0 131.3 111.0 lo o . 0 115.1 100.0 111.8 108.3 116.3 100.0 112.0 108.4 116.9 100.0 112.1 111.0 115.1 100.0 113.2 102.2 120.6 100.5 102.3 113.6 104.8 120.8 100.6 106.8 115.0 106.4 121.9 101.3 110.5 118.7 108.2 124.9 102.2 110.7 120.1 109.5 125.6 103.2 112.2 1 2 1 .5 1 1 1 .0 1 2 7 .0 1 0 4 .1 1 1 3 .6 119.8 100.7 100.3 108.9 117.5 120.1 101.4 100.6 109.6 117.5 120.5 101.7 100.2 109.6 117.9 121.6 101.7 100.6 109.6 118.5 122.3 101.8 100.6 110.9 118.9 1 2 3 .9 1 0 1 .9 1 0 0 .6 1 1 0 .9 1 1 9 .1 119.5 106.2 100.1 99.7 104.3 119.6 106.3 100.2 99.7 104.8 119.6 106.4 100.2 99.7 105.6 120.1 107.2 101.5 99.7 105.9 121.1 107.6 101.7 99.9 106.0 1 2 1 .1 1 0 7 .7 1 0 1 .7 1 0 0 .1 1 0 6 .0 98.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 89.7 98.1 99.8 100.0 100.1 89.5 98.1 100.1 100.0 99.8 90.2 98.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.6 98.1 100.4 100.2 99.7 90.5 9 8 .1 1 0 0 .6 1 0 0 .1 9 9 .7 9 0 .6 110.7 U 5 .0 1 0 8 .1 1 1 7 .1 1 0 0 .0 116 31. INDUSTRY PRICES MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 Continued—Industry-sector price indexes for output of selected industries 1 [1967 = 100 unless otherwise indicated]2 1963 S IC code I n d u s tr y 1971 A nnual a v e ra g e 1971 1972 June J u ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M a r. A p r. M ay 102.8 112.9 106.2 102.3 112.8 106.2 102.4 112.8 106.3 102.5 112.8 105.3 102.4 112.8 105.2 102.3 112.7 105.0 117.5 102.3 112.7 105.1 102.9 120.4 101.5 112.7 104.5 106.7 121.1 102.9 112.9 105.2 106.7 129.0 103.3 113.1 105.6 106.8 139.0 103.1 114.6 105.9 106 8 138.7 1 0 3 .3 1 1 4 .9 1 0 7 .1 106 9 1 3 9 .5 126.6 101.1 100.0 131.4 128.1 125.8 102.6 99.5 131.4 128.1 126.9 104.7 99.0 136.1 131.5 127.0 10fi 7 98 9 136.1 131.8 1 3 6 .8 107 6 98 8 1 3 6 .1 1 3 1 .9 June M A N U F A C T U R I N G — C o n tin u e d 2872 2892 2911 3021 3111 Fertilizers, mixing only____________________ Explosives______________ ________________ Petroleum refining________________________ Rubber footwear 02 /7 1 = 1 0 0 ) ..: ............ ......... Leather tanning and finishing______________ 102.5 112.8 105.7 103.5 112.9 106.3 113.0 114.7 114.7 114.7 113.9 114.0 114.0 3121 3141 3211 3221 3241 Industrial leather belting__________________ Shoes, except rubber (12/71 = 100) Flat glass (12/71 = 100)................. ...................... Glass containers___________ ______________ Cement, hydraulic.................................. .............. 125.5 125.3 125.5 126.0 125.6 125.6 126.3 . 126.3 131.5 124.6 131.4 123.6 131.4 126.7 131.4 127.6 131.4 127.8 131.4 127.8 131.4 127.8 131.4 127.8 125.6 100.7 100.0 131.4 127.8 3251 3255 3259 3261 3262 Brick and structural clay tile_______________ Clay refractories__________________________ Structural clay products nec................................ Vitreous plumbing fixtures_________________ Vitreous china food utensils________________ 119.1 128.7 109.2 112.1 132.4 119.1 128.7 109.9 113.2 133.4 119.1 128.7 109.9 114.0 133.4 120.0 128.7 109.9 114.3 133.4 120.0 128.7 110.0 114.6 133.4 120.0 128.9 110.0 114.8 133.4 120.0 128.9 109.9 114.4 133.4 120.0 128.9 109.9 114.7 133.4 119.9 128.9 109.9 113.9 133.4 122.5 128.9 109.9 114.4 135.8 122.7 128.9 109.9 114.9 137.9 123.2 128.9 109.9 115.3 137.9 123.3 128.9 109.9 115.3 137.9 1 2 3 .5 1 2 8 .9 1 0 9 .9 1 1 6 .0 1 3 7 .9 3263 3271 3273 3275 3291 Fine earthenware food utensils_____________ Concrete block and brick. . _______________ Ready mixed concrete_____________________ Gypsum products_________________________ Abrasive products (12/71 = 100).................. ....... 125.5 118.4 122.5 107.0 120.3 118.3 121.8 104.2 129.7 118.4 123.3 112.7 131.1 118.9 124.8 114.4 131.1 119.1 124.6 114.5 131.1 113.1 124.6 113.7 131.1 119.1 124.6 112.3 131.1 119.1 124.9 114.1 134.6 120.0 125.3 113.4 100.0 134.8 120.5 125.8 113.0 100.3 140.3 120.8 126.7 115.3 101.3 140.3 122.0 127.3 114.9 101.9 140.3 122.5 127.3 113.6 102 1 1 4 0 .3 1 2 2 .9 1 2 7 .4 1 1 4 .0 107 ? 3312 3315 3316 3317 3321 Blast furnace and steel mills_______________ Steel wire drawing, etc____________________ Cold finishing of steel shapes_______________ Steel pipe and tube_______________________ Gray iron foundries (12/68=100)____________ 123.4 120.2 124.1 121.9 115.1 121.6 119.1 122.4 120.3 115.8 124.0 119.2 126.2 120.7 116.0 128.2 124.3 128.5 128.4 116.1 128.3 125.3 128.9 128.4 116.2 128.3 125.2 128.9 128.2 116.3 128.3 125.7 128.9 128.2 116.4 128.3 125.7 128.9 128.2 116.4 129.6 127.1 127.9 128.6 116.1 130.9 127.6 132.4 128.5 116.7 130.9 127.7 132.4 128.7 116.9 130.9 127.9 132.1 129.2 116.8 131.0 127.9 130.7 129.2 116.9 1 3 0 .6 1 2 8 .2 1 2 9 .9 3333 3334 3339 3341 3351 Primary z in c ......................................... ............... Primary aluminum________________________ Primary nonferrous metals, nec_____________ Secondary nonferrous metals (12/71 = 100)___ Copper rolling and drawing..__________ ____ 113.3 115.9 112.8 112.0 115.9 114.1 112.8 115.9 111.2 118.8 115.9 111.8 118.8 115.9 106.5 118.8 115.9 104.9 118.8 115.9 105.1 118.8 115.9 107.2 119.0 120.4 120.5 120.5 120.0 120.0 119.7 118.3 119.0 101.5 110.4 96.3 120.3 119.1 99.2 112.2 96.0 122.2 119.2 95.9 114.2 99.7 125.6 122.3 95.9 115.4 100.5 125.4 126.1 95.9 117.8 100.0 125.6 3352 3356 108.2 108.2 108.3 108.4 108.4 108.3 108.3 108.3 108.3 108.2 108.3 108.6 108.9 1 0 8 .8 121.9 120.8 114.0 123.9 119.6 114.2 124.0 121.3 116.2 124.0 123.2 117.8 100.1 124.0 124.4 116.9 101.1 127.5 125.0 116.9 101.3 127.6 125.0 117.5 101.8 127.6 125.9 117.9 102.2 127.6 126.0 118.0 102 1 3411 3423 3431 Aluminum rolling and drawing (12/68= 100)_ Nonferrous rolling and drawing, nec. (12/71 = 100)________________ . ______ Metal cans_______________________________ Hand and edge tools (12/67=100)___________ Metal plumbing fixtures____________________ 3493 3494 3496 3498 3519 Steel springs_____________________________ Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 = 100) Collapsible tubes___ ______________________ Fabricated pipe and fittings________________ Internal combustion engines________________ 111.9 111.7 118.4 133.0 117.4 119.8 135.6 116.6 3533 3534 3535 Oil field machinery_______ ____ ___________ Elevators and moving stairways_____________ Conveyors and conveying equipment (12/71 = 1 00 ).. . _____ Industrial trucks and tractors_______________ Machine tools, metal cutting types (12/71 = 100) 123.3 121.0 123.8 120.6 3537 3541 3542 3552 3562 3572 3576 Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 = 100). . _ ______ ____ Textile machinery (12/69=100 )_____________ Ball and roller bearings____________________ Typewriters____________ __________ ____ Scales and balances. _____________________ 3611 3612 3613 3624 3634 Electric measuring instruments (12/71 = 100 ).. Transformers___ ’________________________ Switchgear and switchboards_______________ Carbon and graphite products (12/67=100)___ Electric housewares and fans (12/71 = 100) 3635 3641 3642 3652 3671 120.4 118.6 124.0 123.0 117.6 124.0 123.2 117.8 129.2 1 1 7 .7 1 2 6 .0 95.9 1 2 0 .4 Q9 1 125! 5 124.0 123.1 117.7 124.0 123.1 117.7 110.2 111.5 113.3 113.1 114.3 115.9 119.9 135.6 116.8 120.0 135.6 118.4 120.0 136.7 118.5 119.9 136.7 118.5 119.9 136.7 118.5 119.9 136.7 119.3 116.6 100.3 119.9 136.7 120.2 118.7 100.6 120.5 136.7 120.9 118.9 100.6 120.7 136.7 121.1 119.0 100.9 120.8 136.7 121.1 119.0 101.1 120.9 136.7 121.5 1 1 9 .0 io n 9 1 2 0 .8 1 3 6 .7 123.8 102.6 124.0 122.2 123.9 122.2 123.9 122.2 123.9 122.2 123.9 122.2 125.3 122.3 125.6 122.3 125.6 122.3 126.5 122.3 128.4 122.3 1 2 8 .7 101.1 123.3 101.1 123.4 101.2 123.5 101.5 123.5 102 1 124.2 100.2 124.2 123.3 100.2 100.7 100.9 101.4 102.0 1 0 2 .1 100.3 111.0 115.0 103.5 116.5 100.7 111.3 115.7 104.0 116.5 101.4 111.3 116.2 104.4 117.6 101.4 111.4 116.8 104.5 117.8 101.4 111.4 117.6 104.5 118.5 100.5 94.4 112.0 113.4 99.7 100.7 94.1 112.1 113.4 99.9 101.2 94.3 112.4 113.4 100.1 101.2 95.5 111.7 113.4 99.8 100.2 95.4 1 0 0 .3 111.0 1 1 1 .5 1 1 4 .3 100.4 114.5 101.1 113.2 139.8 101.8 116.3 101.1 113.2 139.9 101.8 117.4 101.5 113.2 139.9 101.8 117.7 101.8 111.2 144.1 1 0 1 .8 1 1 7 .6 1 0 1 .8 1 1 1 .2 1 4 4 .1 121.6 123.5 ¡21.7 121.7 121.7 129.3 1 2 6 .4 119.3 121.4 122.3 1 0 1 .4 108.9 114.2 103.4 114.3 109.4 113.9 103.4 113.9 109.7 114.0 103.4 114.1 109.8 114.6 103.5 114.1 110.1 114.6 103.5 114.1 110.4 114.6 103.5 114.5 110.4 114.6 103.5 114.5 110.4 114.6 103.5 114.5 97.3 113.3 113.1 96.9 113.5 113.3 96.7 113.1 113.3 95.6 113.1 113.3 95.5 112.7 113.3 94.8 113.0 113.3 92.4 112.5 113.3 93.0 112.3 113.3 Household vacuum cleaners........... .......... ........ Electric lamps___________ ___________ ___ Lighting fixtures (12/71 = 100) . . . . Phonograph records_______________________ Electron tubes, receiving type_______________ 100.4 113.6 100.2 113.5 100.5 113.3 100.5 113.8 100.5 113.8 100.5 114.3 100.5 114.0 100.4 114.2 106.8 132.0 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 105.4 132.2 100.4 114.2 100.3 113.2 132.1 3672 3673 3674 3692 3693 Cathode ray picture tubes__________________ Electron tubes, transmitting________________ Semiconductors__________________________ Primary batteries, dry and w et.____ ________ X-ray apparatus and tubes (12/67=100)........... 86.4 111.4 93.9 118.9 128.5 87.7 111.7 93.5 120.5 129.6 87.7 111.7 93.3 121.8 129.5 87.7 111.7 93.7 123.0 129.5 83.3 111.6 93.5 123.0 129.5 83.0 111.6 93.5 123.0 129.5 83.0 111.6 93.5 123.0 129.5 83.0 111.4 93.0 123.0 129.5 83.0 111.4 93.0 123.0 132.1 82.9 111.2 93.1 123.0 132.1 83.1 112.1 92.5 123.0 132.1 82.8 112.4 92.3 123.1 132.1 83.7 114.1 92.5 123.1 132.1 114.1 92.5 123.1 131.9 3861 3941 Photographic equipment (12/71 = 100)_______ Games and to ys..'._______ ______ _________ 112.9 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.0 113.1 100.0 113.3 100.3 114.3 100.5 115.5 99.9 115.7 99.9 115.7 99.9 115.8 1 For a description of the series, see B LS H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s (BLS Bulletin 1711,1971), Chapter 12. See also "Industry and Sector Price Indexes," in the M o n t h ly L a b o r R e v ie w . August 1965, pp. 974-982. 2 As of January 1971, the indexes were converted from the former base 1957-59 = 100 to the new base of 1967 = 100. Other bases are shown in parenthesis following the title. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 113.6 99.4 111.1 1 1 7 .6 1 0 4 .7 1 1 8 .6 95.1 99.4 8 3 .7 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. LABOR MANAGEMENT DISPUTES CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS 32. 117 Work stoppages resulting from labor-management disputes 1 Workers involved in stoppages Number of stoppages Man-days idle during month or year Month and year Beginning in month or year In effect during month Beginning in month or year (thousands) In effect during month (thousands) Number (thousands) Percent of estimated working time 4,750 3,470 38,000 0.31 4,985 3,693 3,419 3,606 4,843 4,600 2,170 1,960 3,030 2,410 116,000 34,600 34,100 50,500 38,800 1.04 .30 .28 .44 .33 1 9 5 1 -............ .... 1952-1953____________ . 1954___________ ____ .. 1955____________ 4,737 5,117 5,091 3,468 4,320 2,220 3j 540 2,400 1,530 2,650 22,900 59,100 28,300 22,600 28,200 .18 .48 .22 .18 .22 1956____________ . 1957___________ 1958. _________ . 1 9 5 9 - .. _____ . . I9 6 0 -.. .. .. 3,825 3,673 3,694 3,708 3,333 1,900 1,390 2,060 1,880 1,320 33,100 16,500 23,900 69,000 19,100 .24 .12 .18 .50 .14 3,367 3^614 3,362 3,655 3,963 1,450 1,230 941 1,640 1,550 16,300 18,600 16,100 22,900 23,300 .11 .13 .11 .15 .15 1966___________________ 1967_____ 1968______ 1969___ . 1970_________ 4,405 4,595 5,045 5,700 5,716 1,960 2,870 2,649 2,481 3,305 25,400 42,100 49,018 42,869 66,414 .15 .25 .28 .24 .37 1 9 7 1 -... 5,135 1945 __________ 1946____________ 1947______ 1948__________ 1949____________ 1950___________ . . 1961_____ . 1962_______ 1963_____ 1964______ 1965_______ .. 1970: 1971: 1972: _ . 47,417 .26 January ________ February_________ . M arch______ 279 330 427 458 529 630 71.1 116.3 316.2 269.9 329.6 402.5 3,710.8 2,110.6 2,471.2 .25 .15 .16 April____________ May_____________ June_____________ 640 699 657 884 1,050 1,060 451.1 331.1 288.1 523.1 675.4 538.0 5,431.1 6,650.7 5,845.6 .34 .46 .36 July_____________ August.__________ September....... ......... 585 527 560 989 950 971 242.2 127.3 591.1 467.1 340.7 785.0 5,112.1 3,851.8 8,669.5 .32 .26 .57 October__________ November________ December_____ . . . 448 340 224 881 695 529 231.1 83.6 455.5 753.9 552.0 919.9 11,573.6 7,798.0 3,188.7 .73 .54 .20 January.................. February_________ March___________ 416 359 457 647 632 725 234.5 128.4 150.0 319.9 206.0 260.0 2,868.2 1,934.5 2,489.5 .20 .14 .15 April................ ........ May_____________ June_____ _______ 550 612 617 859 957 1,031 180.5 726.9 280.4 269.3 817.7 420.0 2,388.6 4,000.1 4,093.6 .15 .28 .26 July_____________ August___________ September________ 499 437 351 938 890 668 747.8 182.5 108.2 937.6 489.8 316.0 7,894.8 5,022.5 3,109.5 .52 .32 .20 October__________ November.. _____ December________ 304 315 218 551 561 485 245.6 234.6 43.7 311.9 450.3 236.2 5,480.6 5,032.4 3,102.8 .36 .33 .20 January p ......... ........ February p _________ March p__________ 300 290 360 460 455 540 79 58 122 154 137 161 2,284 1,597 1,517 .15 .11 .09 April p ___________ 380 600 130 203 1,983 .14 May p .......................... 420 630 109 186 2,058 .13 3,263 ’ 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 a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establish* https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ments or industries whose employees are made idle as a result of material or service shortages. p=preliminary. 118 PRODUCTIVITY MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, AUGUST 1972 33. Indexes of output per man-hour, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, private economy, seasonally ad justed [Indexes 1 9 6 7 = 1 0 0 ] Output Compensation per m an-hour1 Output per man-hour Man-hours Real compensa tion per m an-hour2 Unit labor costs Unit nonlabor payments3 Im plicit price deflator Year and quarter Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm Private Private nonfarm 1969: 1st__________ 2d__________ 3d__________ 4th_________ Annual average......... 107.1 107.5 108.0 107.6 107.5 107.2 107.9 108.3 107.8 107.8 103.4 104.2 104.5 104.0 104.0 104.0 104.9 105.4 105.2 104.9 103.6 103.1 103.4 103.4 103.4 103.1 102.8 102.7 102.4 102.7 112.6 114.4 116.6 118.9 115.6 111.9 113.7 115.5 117.5 114.7 104.9 104.8 105.4 105.9 105.3 104.3 104.2 104.4 104.7 104.5 108.7 110.9 112.8 115.0 111.9 108.6 110.6 112.5 114.7 111.6 102.5 102.6 102.9 102.6 106.2 102.4 102.2 102.8 102.2 102.3 106.3 107.7 109.0 110.2 108.3 106.3 107.4 108.8 110.0 108.1 1970: 1st__________ 2d__________ 3d__________ 4th_________ Annual average.......... 106.7 106.9 107.3 106.1 106.8 107.1 107.2 107.7 106.2 107.1 103.7 103.1 102.0 100.8 102.4 104.9 104.0 103.1 102.0 103.5 103.0 103.7 105.3 105.3 104.3 102.1 103.1 104.6 104.1 103.5 121.1 122.5 125.3 127.2 124.0 119.7 121.5 124.1 125.7 122.7 106.3 105.9 107.1 107.2 106.6 105.0 105.0 106.0 106.0 105.5 117.7 118.1 119.0 120.7 118.9 117.2 117.8 118.7 120.7 118.6 102.1 104.4 106.4 108.1 105.3 101.3 104.0 106.6 108.8 105.2 111.6 112.8 114.1 115.9 113.6 111.2 112.6 114.1 116.2 113.5 1971: 1st......... .......... 2d__________ 3d__________ 4th_________ Annual average_____ 108.3 109.3 110.0 111.7 109.8 108.5 109.5 110.0 111.9 110.0 101.3 101.7 101.4 102.2 101.7 102.5 102.8 102.6 103.3 102.8 106.9 107.4 108.5 109.3 108.1 105.8 106.5 107.1 108.3 107.0 129.8 131.7 133.7 135.1 132.6 128.4 130.4 132.2 133.6 131.2 108.6 109.0 109.6 110.1 109.3 107.4 108.0 108.3 109.0 108.1 121.4 122.6 123.3 123.6 122.7 121.3 122.4 123.4 123.5 122.7 110.4 111.7 112.6 113.0 111.9 110.9 112.2 112.8 112.6 112.1 117.1 118.4 119.1 119.5 118.5 117.4 118.6 119.4 119.4 118.7 1972: 1st_________ 113.3 113.9 103.1 104.2 109.9 109.4 137.9 136.8 111.5 110.6 125.5 125.1 113.8 113.1 120.9 120.5 Percent change over previous quarter at annual rate 4 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.1 1.4 - 0 .4 2.0 2.2 0.8 -0 .5 0.9 1.3 6.8 8.4 7.0 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.1 8.2 1.0 0.0 1.0 6.4 6.5 7.9 8.0 0.4 1.3 - 1 .1 -0 .9 2.4 - 2 .3 4.6 5.4 4.8 4.5 4.7 4.4 5.3 4.4 -1 .5 4.3 5.6 - 1 .6 7.9 4.7 9.4 6.1 7.5 6.3 8.7 5.5 1.5 -1 .7 4.6 0.7 1.1 -0 .2 4.0 9.7 1.6 3.1 6.0 9.1 1.9 2.9 7.2 -1 .9 9.0 8.2 6.6 -3 .4 11.2 10.4 8.2 5.4 4.2 4.9 6.2 4.5 5.1 5.5 7.6 — 0.5 2.6 6.2 1.9 4.0 3.2 6.6 2.7 2.3 4.5 8.5 6.2 6.2 4.4 8.6 6.6 5.4 5.0 5.1 1.7 2.1 1.9 5.2 2.1 1.3 2.7 2.1 4.1 2.2 8.7 4.6 3.3 1.4 8.1 4.6 2.4 - 0 .9 4.4 4.3 2.5 1.2 4.1 4.1 2.8 1.0 1.9 3.8 3.0 0.5 3.4 2.3 3.9 8.6 9.4 5.1 5.7 6.2 5.3 3.1 1.7 5.1 4.0 3.5 3.9 4.0 2.3 8.1 7.0 5.8 4.5 9.5 7.8 5.8 3.5 4.9 5.0 4.4 3.1 5.5 5.3 4.6 2.7 3.1 3.1 1.9 3.3 2.7 1st_____ ____ 2d__________ 3d__________ 4th_________ 3.0 1.4 1.8 - 1 .5 2.5 2.4 1.6 -1 .7 3.4 3.3 0.9 -1 .6 4.2 3.6 1.9 - 0 .7 -0 .4 - 1 .8 0.9 1970: 1st__________ 2d__________ 3d__________ 4th_________ -3 .0 0.8 1.5 - 4 .4 -2 .7 0.6 2.0 -5 .6 -1 .4 -2 .2 - 4 .3 -4 .5 -1 .2 -3 .6 -3 .5 -4 .0 -1 .6 3.1 6.1 0.2 8.5 3.6 2.7 2.1 1.7 - 1 .2 3.0 2.1 3.6 1969: 1971: 1st__________ 2d__________ 3d__________ 4 t h _________ 6.3 8.8 3.7 1.8 7.2 1972: 1st_________ 5.9 7.4 0.1 1.0 -1 .7 - 1 .1 -0 .3 - 0.1 - 0.1 Percent change over previous y e a r 5 1971: 1st.......... . 2d__________ 3d__________ 4th_________ 1.5 2.2 2.5 5.2 3.1 1.2 0.2 3.5 -2 .3 -1 .3 -0 .5 1.4 -2 .3 - 1 .2 — 0.4 1.3 3.8 3.6 3.0 3.8 3.7 3.3 2.5 4.0 7.1 7.5 6.7 1972: 4.6 5.0 1.7 1.6 2.8 3.4 1st................... 1 W ages and s a la rie s of e m p lo yees plus em p lo yers contributions for social, insu rance 2.1 3.0 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.8 2.2 6.2 7.3 7.3 6.5 6.4 2.8 3.2 3.8 3.6 2.3 6.3 6.6 2.7 3.0 3.4 N O T E : Data fo r 1969, 1970, and th e firs t tw o qu a rte rs of 1971 have been adju ste d and p riv a te b e n e fit plan s. Also includes an e stim a te of w ages, s a la rie s and s u p p le to new be n ch m a rk s and a re not c o m p ara b le to those previously m e n ta ry p a y m e n ts fo r th e s e lf-e m p lo y e d . Monthly Labor Review. 2 C o m p en satio n p e r m a n -h o u r a d ju ste d fo r changes in th e c onsum er p rice in d e x. 3 N o n la b o r p a ym e n ts in c lu d e profits, deprec iatio n , in te re s t, re n ta l inco m e and in d ire c t taxes. p u blish ed in th e SOU RCE: O u tp u t data fro m th e Office o f Business Economics, U .S . D e p a rtm e n t C om m erce. M a n -h o u rs and com pensation o f a ll persons fro m th e B ureau of 4 P e rc e n t c hange c o m puted fro m o rig in al data. * C u rre n t q u a rte r d iv id e d by c o m p a ra b le q u a rte r a y e a r ago. p = P r e li m i n a r y . Professional positions at BLS The Bureau of Labor Statistics invites inquiries about job openings (1 ) from experienced professional economists, statisticians, systems analysts, and techni cal editors, and (2 ) from outstanding college grad uates planning careers in these fields. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis of Labo r S tatistics. Current openings range from G S-5 ($7,319—$9,515) to G S-15 ($25,583-$33,260). Inquiries should be addressed to William T. McGuigan, Personnel Officer, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 441 G Street, N.W., Room 2415, GAO Building, Washington, D.C. 20212. * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972 484-757/46 PUBLICATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS P eriodical su bscription s and in dividu al publication s m ay be ord ered through the B ureau’s regional offices or directly fro m the S u perin ten den t o f D ocu m en ts, G o vern m en t P rinting Office, W ashington, D .C . 204 0 2 . M a k e check or m on ey o rd er p ayable to the Super in ten den t o f D ocu m en ts. U se order blank on next page. Periodicals M O N T H L Y L A B O R R EV IE W . $9 a year; $11.25, foreign; single copy, 75 cents. A rticles on em ploy m ent, labor force, wages, prices, productivity, unit labor costs, collective bargaining, w orker satis faction, social indicators, and labor developm ents abroad. Regular features include a review o f developm ents in industrial relations, significant court decisions in labor cases, book reviews, and current labor statistics. E M P L O Y M E N T A N D E A R N IN G S . M onthly. $10 a year; $12.50, foreign; single copy, $1. Current data for the U n ited States as a w hole, for in dividual States, and for m ore than 200 local areas on em ploym ent, hours, earnings, and labor turnover. O C C U P A T IO N A L O U T L O O K Q U A R T E R L Y . $1.50 for four issues during the sch ool year; $2, foreign; single copy, 45 cents. Current inform ation on em ploym ent trends and outlook, supplem enting and bringing up to date inform ation in the O ccupational O u tlo o k H an dbook. C U R R E N T W A G E D E V E L O P M E N T S . M onthly. $4.50 a year; $5.75, foreign; single copy, 45 cents. W age and benefit changes resulting from collective bargaining settlem ents and m anagem ent decisions; statistical sum maries; and special reports on wage trends. EM PLO YM ENT AND E A R N IN G S , U N IT E D ST A T E S A nnual. Latest edition ( 1 9 0 9 - 7 1 ) , Bul letin 1 3 1 2 -8 . $5. D etailed industry statistics on em ploym ent, hours, and earnings o f the nonagricultural work force. D IR E C T O R Y OF N A T IO N A L AND IN T E R N A T IO N A L LA BO R U N IO N S IN T H E U N IT E D STA T E S. Biennial. Latest edition (1 9 6 9 ) , B ulle tin 1665, $1.25. N am es o f officers and professional em ployees, number o f m em bers, and number of locals o f each union, along with sections on union mem bership, structure, and function. H A N D B O O K OF M E T H O D S. Latest edition ( 1 9 7 1 ) , Bulletin 1711, $2. B rief account o f each major statistical program o f the Bureau o f Labor Sta tistics, sources o f original data, definition o f terms and concepts, m ethodology and techniques, uses and lim itations o f data. A sampling of other publications BLA C K A M E R IC A N S: A D E C A D E O F O C C U P A T IO N A L C H A N G E . Bulletin 1931, 40 cents. C om panion report to Bulletin 1699. V isual pres entation o f data on 1 9 6 0 -7 0 progress o f blacks in m oving up the occcupational ladder toward higher paid jobs. B LA C K A M E R IC A N S , A C H A R T B O O K . Bulletin 1699, $1.25. V isual presentation o f data on prog ress and problem s o f blacks in recent years. W A G E C A L E N D A R 1972. Bulletin 1724, 50 cents. R esum e o f collective bargaining activity antici pated in 1972, with detailed tables on agreements scheduled to expire, contract reopenings, and de ferred wage increases due. Handbooks H A N D B O O K O F L A B O R STATISTIC S. Annual. 1971 edition, Bulletin 1705, $3.25. H istorical tables o f major series published by BLS. Related series from other governm ent agencies and foreign countries. O C C U P A T IO N A L O U T L O O K H A N D B O O K . Bien nial. 1 9 7 2 -7 3 edition, Bulletin 1700, $6.25. E m ploym ent outlook, nature o f w ork, training, requirem ents for entry, line o f advancem ent, lo ca tion o f jobs, earnings, and w orking conditions for 700 occupations in 30 major industries, including farm ing. E M P L O Y M E N T A N D E A R N IN G S , ST A T E S A N D A R E A S. A nnual. Latest edition ( 1 9 3 9 - 7 0 ) , Bulle tin 1 3 7 0 -8 , $4.50. H istorical State and area em ploym ent and earnings statistics in the nonfarm sector o f the econom y. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis L A B O R L A W A N D P R A C T IC E IN V E N E Z U E L A . Report 386, 70 cents. One o f a series o f studies providing background inform ation on the labor scene in foreign countries. D escribes the country and its workers, the structure o f governm ent, labor, and managem ent, and conditions o f em ploym ent. A B R IE F H IST O R Y O F T H E A M E R IC A N LA B O R M O V E M E N T . 1970 edition, Bulletin 1000, $1. PRICES, E SC A L A T IO N , A N D E C O N O M IC ST A B IL IT Y . Interpretive pam phlet, 1971, 30 cents. T H E M E A N IN G A N D M E A S U R E M E N T O F P R O D U C T IV IT Y . Bulletin 1714, 30 cents. A R E A W A G E SU R V E Y : C H A R L O T T E , N .C . M E T R O P O L IT A N A R E A , J A N U A R Y 1972. Bulletin 1 7 2 5 -4 8 , 35 cents. One o f a series sum marizing results o f w age surveys in 9 0 m etropolitan areas, with data on occupational earnings, establish m ent practices, and supplem entary wage benefits. V arious pagings and prices. IN D E X E S O F O U T P U T P E R M A N -H O U R , SE L E C T E D IN D U S T R IE S . A nnual. Latest edition (1 9 3 9 and 1 9 4 7 -7 0 ) , Bulletin 1692, $1.25. A nnual indexes o f output per m an-hour, output per em ployee, and unit labor requirem ents. A lso, indexes for related data on output, em ploym ent, and man-hours. D IG E S T O F SE L E C T E D P E N S IO N P L A N S . 1970 edi tion, $5. (Subscribers receive basic volum e and pe riodic revision sheets.) Principal features o f selected pension plans for (1 ) em ployees under collective bargaining and ( 2 ) salaried em ployees. IN D U S T R Y W A G E SU R V E Y : W O M E N ’S A N D M ISSES’ C O A TS A N D SU IT S, A U G U S T 1970. Bulletin 1728, 35 cents. One o f a series sum m ariz ing results o f surveys o f wages and related benefits in a specific industry. V arious pagings and prices. To order any of the publications listed, please complete the order form below and mail it to the Superintendent of Documents or to the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, at any of the regional addresses shown on the inside front cover. Make check or money order payable to the Superintendent of Documents. Order Enclosed find $______________________ for the publications listed below: Form Name___________________________________________________________________________________ St reet___________________________________________________________________________________ City_______________________________ State____________________________ Zi p__________________ Q u antity Item (title and publication num ber, if any) Price For prom pt, accurate shipm ent please fill in the following label—please print or typew rite U.S. G O VERNM ENT PR IN TIN G OFFICE PUBLIC D OCUM ENTS DEPARTMENT W A SH IN GTO N, D.C. 20402 OFFICIAL B USINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis N am e Street Address City, State, Zip Code U.S. GO VERN M EN T P R IN TIN G OFFICE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER