The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
M ONTHLY LABOR REVIEW In this issue: U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics August 1980 Employment in the first half of 1980 SI * (o * \osiz https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DEPOSITORY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Ray Marshall, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner The Monthly Labor Review is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Communications on editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 20212. Phone: (202) 523-1327. Subscription price per year — $18 domestic; $22.50 foreign. Single copy $2.50. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-0818) and other Government publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence on circulation and subscription matters (including address changes) to: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents. The Secretary of Labor has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget through October 31, 1982. Second-class postage paid at Riverdale, MD., and at additional mailing offices. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 15-26485 Regional Commissioners for Bureau of Labor Statistics Region I — Boston: W endell D. M acdonald 1603 JFK Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone: (617) 223-6761 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont Region II — New York: Sam uel M. Ehrenhalt 1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York, N Y. 10036 Phone: (212) 944-3121 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Region III — Philadelphia: A lvin i M argulis 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Phone: (215) 596-1154 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Region IV — Atlanta: D onald M. Cruse 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367 Phone: (404) 881 -4418 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Region V — Chicago: W illiam E. Rice 9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, III. 60604 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI — Dallas: Bryan R ichey Second Floor, 555 Griffin Square Building, Dallas, Tex. 75202 Phone: (214) 767-6971 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Regions VII and VIII — Kansas City: E llio tt A. Brow ar 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: (816) 374-2481 VII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska VIII Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming Regions IX and X — San Francisco: D. Bruce H anchett August coven 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: (415) 556-4678 IX Four prints by Jost Amman, published in the 16th century. Cover design by Kris Jorgenson, Division of Audio-Visual Communication, U.S. Department of Labor https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington /I \l/% MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW AUGUST 1980 VOLUME 103, NUMBER 8 Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor Richard M. Devens, Jr. 3 Employment and unemployment in the first half of 1980 As the new decade began, the Nation entered a recession; employment dropped and unemployment surged; the housing and auto industries were early casualties George Iden 10 The labor force experience of black youth: a review Unemployment rates of black youth have remained far above prerecession levels; contributing factors include military cuts and the minimum wage, analysis shows Allyson Sherman Grossman 17 Women in domestic work: yesterday and today A century ago, half of all wage-earning women were private household workers; in 1979, fewer than 3 percent were employed as cleaners, servants, or babysitters IRRA PAPERS Charles R. Perry Richard Ginnold Bruno Stein Benjamin Martin 22 24 26 27 Vinyl chloride protection: less costly than predicted A view of the costs and benefits of the job safety and health law Rise of pensions and social security created alternating union goals New Spanish legislation marks turning point in labor relations REPORTS Janice Neipert Hedges M. Corcoran and others G. L. Staines, P. O’Connor Matt Witt I. A. Litvak, C. J. Maule https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 31 33 35 40 41 The workweek in 1979: fewer but longer workdays Most workers find jobs through word of mouth Conflicts among work, leisure, and family roles American wood products workers study European job safety system Educational leave in Canada: a look at individual programs DEPARTMENTS 2 22 29 31 40 44 47 49 53 61 Labor month in review Conference papers Family budgets Research summaries Foreign labor developments Significant decisions Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews Current labor statistics ÆFEREMCE SEPT. AUG 2 7 1980 Kalamazoo Public Library Labor M onth In Review OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES. In A n Interim Report to Congress on Occupational Diseases, Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall discussed the difficulty of linking diseases to employment and the limitations on income support for those afflicted. Excerpts: D iagnosis. A lm ost 2 m illion workers report they are severely or partially disabled from an occupa tionally related disease. Approx imately 700,000 suffer long-term total disability. The 1.2 million workers partially disabled are either temporarily out of the labor force because of the impairment or limited in the work they can per form. Because of the length of time be tween exposure to an industrial health hazard and the onset of disability or death, it is difficult, in many cases, to link diseases to employment. For example, symp toms of pulmonary disease or cancer can occur 4 to 10 hours after exposure to cadmium, 10 to 20 years after exposure to asbestos, and 20 to 45 years after exposure to silica. The major health effects now linked to asbestos exposure are asbestosis (a chronic lung disease) and various types of cancer. Once established, asbestosis progresses even after exposure is terminated. The two major asbestos-related cancers are lung cancer (clinically indistinguishable from lung cancer of other causes) and mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the linings of the lungs and abdominal cavity). In ad d itio n , asbestos exposure is associated with increased risk of cancer of the esophagus, larnyx, 2 FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis oropharynx, stomach, colon, rec tum, and recently with kidney cancer. In 1974, at least 1.6 million workers were exposed to asbestos. Byssinosis is the most significant health hazard resulting from ex posure to cotton dust. The condi tions (chest tightness, wheezing, shortness of breath) generally are reversible during the early stages. The more serious (chronic) effects may be arrested (but not reversed) if the worker avoids further exposure. Diagnosis is difficult because the symptoms of chronic byssinosis are indistinguishable from those of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. An estimated 600,000 workers are currently exposed to cotton dust. The most common form of disease resulting from silica ex posure causes progressive scarring of the lungs and loss of pulmonary function. As the disease progresses, complications such as tuberculosis, other chest infections, and ultimate ly cardio-respiratory failure make diagnosis more difficult. There is no effective treatment to stop the pro gression of the disease even after rem oval from exposure. An estimated one million workers cur rently are exposed to silica. O ther hazardous substances which cause chronic respiratory disease or cancer discussed in the report are beryllium, cadmium, chromium, arsenic, nickel, coal tar products, and diisocyanates. Although social security is the major source of income support for those severely disabled from an oc cupational disease, not all severely disabled workers are eligible for benefits. The major reason: they cannot meet the “ recency of employment” requirement. Even for those eligible, there is a 5-month waiting period for cash payments and an additional waiting period of 2 years for medicare benefits. The small percentage receiving workers’ compensation benefits result, in part, from difficulties in volved in establishing the work rela tionship of disabling illnesses.Even after establishing that an illness is occupationally related, a disabled worker still has more problems col lecting benefits than those injured on the job. For example, on average, a disabled worker with an occupational disease waits a year before receiving the first compensa tion payment (work injury cases are settled in about 2 months); 60 per cent of all occupational disease awards are initially denied (com pared with 10 percent of the injury awards); and more than half of the occupational disease awards rely on compromise-and release-agreements involving small lump-sum set tlements which release insurance carriers from further liability for both income maintenance and health costs (16 percent of the injury awards receive such treatment). Income support. Public and private income support programs replace about 40 percent of the wages lost by individuals who are severely disabled from an occupational disease. The Interim Report is available from the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Assistant Secretary for P o lic y , E v a lu a tio n and Research, Washington 20210. D Employment and unemployment in the first half of 1980 As the new decade began, the Nation entered a recession; employment dropped and unemployment surged; housing construction and automobile manufacturing, which strongly influence employment in other industries, showed the earliest signs o f deterioration R ic h a r d M. D e v e n s , J r . The relative stability of the 1979 labor market ended abruptly in early 1980. Employment growth, which started to slow down in the first quarter, dropped sharply in the second. For the first time in 2 years the unemployment rate inched up to more than 6 percent in the first quarter, and jumped to 7.5 percent in the sec ond quarter. The quarter-to-quarter surge equaled the largest ever recorded in the series (which dates back to 1940). The increase in unemployment was not matched by the drop in employment. (See chart 1.) This develop ment reflects the impact of labor force entrants, as well as the complex nature of our economy which permits some sectors to continue to expand while others are lay ing off workers. The labor force participation rate rose slowly over the first half, reflecting continuing increases in the labor force participation of women. Even in the relative calm of the late 1979 job market, there were signs in two important industries that foreshadowed the deterioration of the labor market. Residential housing construction and automobile manu facturing, both industries with high potential to produce “ripple effects” through the rest of the economy, have traditionally been among the first to feel the effects of deteriorating economic conditions. In late 1979 and earRichard M. Devens, Jr., is an economist in the Office of Current Em ployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ly 1980, reports of tight financial markets, falling de mand for new housing, oil price boosts, declining auto sales, high interest rates, and other indicators augured the onset of hard times in these two industries. This article highlights recent trends in total employ ment and industry payrolls (particularly in the homebuilding and automobile industries), analyzes the sudden and steep rise in unemployment from the perspective of its differential impacts on groups of workers, and exam ines other labor market indicators to better gauge the overall magnitude of the economic downturn. Employment declines Total employment. The impact of production cutbacks on total employment became very obvious in the second quarter of the year. After a small rise in the first quar ter, the number of persons holding jobs dropped by 900,000 in the second to 96.9 million (seasonally adjust ed). (See table 1.) This was the first quarter-to-quarter employment decline in 5 years and was the third largest absolute decline recorded in the series. The only larger declines came during the 1957-58 and 1973-75 reces sions. The proportion of the employed noninstitutional population fell 0.6 percentage point between the first and second quarters of 1980 to 58.4 percent, the lowest level in 2 years. Total employment rose slightly in the first quarter of 1980. Women accounted for the entire increase, as em3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Employment in the First H alf ployment was little changed over the quarter among men and teenagers.1The situation in the second quarter was reversed: teenagers suffered about a third of the de cline in employment, men accounted for the remaining two-thirds, and the employment of women was un changed. Employment among white workers rose by 290,000 in the first 3 months, only to fall by 825,000 in the sec ond quarter to 86.1 million, a net decline of 0.6 percent over the first half. Black workers experienced employ ment declines in both quarters; the declines totaled 270,000, or 2.4 percent. Employment among blacks stood at 10.8 million in the second quarter. Industry payrolls. The second-quarter drop in payroll employment totaled 545,000 and occurred almost exclu sively in the goods-producing sector of the economy. (See table 2.) Service-producing employment continued to follow its long-run upward trend, although at a con siderably slower rate in the second quarter of 1980. The gains in the service sector thus partially offset the de cline in the goods sector. Although some part of these divergent movements may be attributed to a long-term shift in the structure of the economy, employment has Chart 1. Civilian labor force, the employed, and the unemployed, 1978-80 J F M A M J J 1978 SOURCE: Current population survey. 4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A S O N D J F M A M J J 1979 A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N 1980 D traditionally been more cyclically sensitive in the goodsproducing than in the service-producing sector. The overall pattern of the service-producing sector masked some important differences among the several industries within this broad group. Wholesale and retail trade and transportation and public utilities were the biggest job losers in the sector (down 110,000 and 40,000, respectively) while government and services were job gainers (295,000 and 110,000). Virtually all of the Federal increase was attributable to the impact of temporary hirings for the 1980 Decennial Census. The two industry groups that were hardest hit at the outset of the economic downturn were construction and Table 1. Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted quarterly averages, 1979-80 [Numbers in thousands] 1979 II III IV I II TO TAL Civilian labor force.............. Participation rate ........ Employed ...................... Employment-population ratio........................ Unemployed .................. Unemployment rate . . . 102,315 102,357 103,328 103,749 104,194 104,701 63.7 63.5 63.8 63.8 63.8 63.9 96,425 97,467 97,231 97,665 97,804 96,893 59.3 5,890 5.8 59.1 5,890 5.8 59.3 6,008 5.8 59.3 6,084 5.9 59.2 6,390 6.1 58.4 7,808 7.5 54,285 80.0 52,129 54,299 79.7 52,136 54,637 79.9 52,363 54,750 79.6 52,432 54,963 79.5 52,370 55,267 79.6 51,725 75.0 2,156 4.0 74.7 2,163 4.0 74.7 2,274 4.2 74.4 2,318 4.2 74.0 2,593 4.7 72.8 3,542 6.4 38,393 50.3 36,190 38,562 50.3 36,361 39,192 50.9 36,983 39,489 51.0 37,254 39,829 51.2 37,558 40,169 51.4 37,569 47.3 2,203 5.7 47.4 2,201 5.7 47.9 2,209 5.6 48.0 2,235 5.7 48.2 2,271 5.7 48.0 2,600 6.5 9,637 58.8 8,106 9,496 57.9 7,970 9,409 57.5 7,885 9,510 58.2 7,979 9,403 57.7 7,876 9,265 56.9 7,599 48.5 1,530 15.9 47.7 1,526 16.1 47.3 1,524 16.2 47.9 1,531 16.1 47.4 1,526 16.2 45.8 1,666 18.0 90,161 64.0 85,658 90,110 63.8 85,635 90,883 64.0 86,174 91,323 64.1 86,640 91,883 64.3 86,933 92,238 64.3 86,109 60.1 4,503 5.0 59.9 4,476 5.0 60.1 4,660 5.1 60.1 4,683 5.1 60.1 4,950 5.4 59.4 6,129 6.6 12,172 61.7 10,781 12,223 61.6 10,823 12,378 61.9 11,023 12,445 61.8 11,048 12,360 61.0 10,913 12,441 61.0 10,778 53.5 1,391 11.4 53.4 1,400 11.5 53.9 1,355 10.9 53.7 1,397 11.2 52.7 1,447 11.7 51.6 1,663 13.4 M en , 20 y e a rs an d o v e r Civilian labor force.............. Participation rate ........ Employed ...................... Employment-population ratio........................ Unemployed .................. Unemployment rate . . . W o m e n , 20 y e a rs a n d o v e r Civilian labor force.............. Participation rate ........ Employed ...................... Employment-population ratio........................ Unemployed .................. Unemployment rate . .. T e e n a g e rs , 1 6 - 1 9 y e a rs Civilian labor force.............. Participation rate ........ Employed ...................... Employment-population ratio........................ Unemployed .................. Unemployment rate . . . W h it e Civilian labor force.............. Participation rate ........ Employed ...................... Employment-population ratio........................ Unemployed .................. Unemployment rate .. . [Numbers in thousands] 1979 1980 In d u s t r y Total nonagricultural payroll employment Goods-producing industries . . . Mining .............................. Construction...................... General building contractors................ Manufacturing .................. Durable goods .............. Motor vehicles and equipment.............. Nondurable goods.......... 1 II III IV I II 89,141 89,668 90,186 90,557 91,120 90,574 26,426 934 4,403 26,517 947 4,451 26,555 971 4,499 26,549 986 4,566 26,604 1,005 4,644 25,745 1,019 4,428 1,262 21,088 12,771 1,276 21,119 12,819 1,280 21,085 12,815 1,283 20,997 12,721 1,280 20,955 12,701 1,211 20,298 12,162 1,046 8,317 1,035 8,300 968 8,270 932 8,276 869 8,254 743 8,136 Service-producing industries .. Transportation and public utilities ...................... Wholesale and retail trade Wholesale trade . . . Retail trade............ 62,715 63,150 63,632 64,008 64,516 64,802 5,082 20,114 5,150 14,964 5,095 20,201 5,188 15,012 5,174 20,302 5,221 15,081 5,210 20,447 5,255 15,192 5,201 20,592 5,294 15,298 5,161 20,483 5,265 15,218 Finance, insurance, and real estate .............................. 4,889 4,948 5,008 5,049 5,102 5,137 Services .............................. 16,829 12,018 17,153 17,311 17,527 17,635 Government.......................... Federal ........................ State and loca l.............. 15,801 2,758 13,043 15,890 2,771 13,119 15,994 2,786 13,208 15,990 2,772 13,219 16,093 2,834 13,259 16,387 3,095 13,291 1980 C h a r a c t e r is t ic I Table 2. Nonagricultural payroll employment, seasonally adjusted quarterly averages, 1979-80 manufacturing, both of which are in the goods-producing sector. During the second quarter of 1980, construc tion employment dropped 215,000 to a level of 4.4 million; manufacturing employment fell by 655,000 to 20.3 million. Within manufacturing, job losses occurred in the sec ond quarter of the year and were concentrated among durable goods industries. These cutbacks were perva sive: lumber and wood products, fabricated metal prod ucts, and transportation equipment all sustained substantial reductions. Except in rubber and plastics, the nondurable goods industries showed little or no change in employment in the first half of 1980. Layoffs in manufacturing, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ labor turnover survey, which had been averaging less than 1.0 per hundred workers in early 1979, rose from 1.2 to 1.4 per hundred between the last quarter of 1979 and the first quarter of 1980. The manufacturing workweek, which, like layoffs, is considered by analysts to be a good leading indicator of the business cycle,2 fell sharply in the spring of 1980. The aggregate hours index which reflects changes in both employment and hours declined by 2.3 percent be tween the fourth quarter of 1979 and the second quar ter of 1980. B la c k a n d o t h e r Civilian labor force.............. Participation rate ........ Employed ...................... Employment-population ratio........................ Unemployed .................. Unemployment rate . .. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Unemployment up among all groups After edging up in the first quarter, the overall rate of unemployment rose 1.4 percentage points in the sec ond quarter of the year; men, women, and teenagers re ported increased rates of joblessness. The jobless rate 5 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Employment in the First Half for men, usually the most cyclically sensitive, showed a marked deterioration earlier than other worker groups. The rate for men rose from 4.2 to 4.7 percent between the end of 1979 and the first quarter of 1980, and surged to 6.4 percent in the second quarter. The rate for women did not begin to rise until the second quar ter, when it advanced 0.8 percentage point to 6.5 per cent. The jobless rate for teenagers also rose only in the second quarter, jumping 1.8 percentage points to a mid year 18.0 percent. The jobless rate for blacks rose more, in absolute terms, than the rate for whites. For each percentage point rise in the white rate, the rate for blacks rose 1.5 percentage points. However, because the black rate was already more than twice as high as the white rate, the relative increase in the black rate was smaller than that in the white rate. This produced a narrowing of the ra tio between the two rates, an occurrence that is com mon in the initial stages of recession but that is usually reversed during the recovery period.3 The Hispanic unemployment rate was about un changed in the first quarter of 1980, but moved up 1.2 percentage points to 10.2 percent in the second quarter. The ratio of Hispanic to white unemployment rates fell between the end of 1979 and the middle of 1980. How ever, in this case, the changes in unemployment rates were about in proportion (that is, there was about 0.9 percentage point of additional Hispanic unemployment for each increment of 1.0 percentage point of white job lessness). Following are the seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for whites, blacks, and Hispanics in the last quart e r o f 1 9 7 9 a n d th e firs t h a lf o f 1 9 8 0 ( d a t a a r e n o t y e t a v a il a b le fo r t h e H is p a n i c a g e -s e x g r o u p s ) : IV / II W hite: T o t a l ......................................... M en ................................ W o m en ......................... T e e n a g e r s ...................... 5.1 3.7 5.0 14.0 5.4 4.2 5.0 13.9 6.6 5.7 5.7 16.2 B lack a n d others: T o t a l ......................................... M en ................................ W o m en ......................... T e e n a g e r s ...................... 11.2 8.6 9.9 34.1 11.7 9.4 9.8 35.2 13.4 11.8 11.4 33.2 H isp a n ic origin: T o t a l ......................................... 8.9 9.0 10.2 Other indicators. Developments in major unemployment indicators between the end of 1979 and second quarter of 1980 included a rise in the jobless rate for blue-collar workers, for workers in manufacturing industries, for full-time workers, and for married men. Among occupa tions, recession-related unemployment increases in the 6 FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis first half of the year were most visible among sales work ers, craft workers, and transport operatives. Among industries, severe increases in joblessness were recorded in construction and durable goods manufacturing. In the first quarter, the number of persons on layoff (a sensitive cyclical indicator) was above the million mark for the first time since the end of 1977, and rose again substantially in the second. The second quarter level of 1.8 million represented about 23 percent of total unemployment; by comparison, workers on layoff in 1979 accounted for 14.0 percent of total unemployment. New entrants to the labor force declined as a share of unemployment during the second quarter of 1980. The other widely followed indicators of labor market activity include data on part-time workers and discour aged workers. The number of persons on part-time schedules for economic reasons, sometimes referred to as the “partially unemployed,” rose 675,000 in the first half of the year to 4.1 million. After reaching 995,000 in the first quarter, the number of discouraged workers, sometimes referred to as the “hidden unemployed,” fell slightly in the second quarter. Increases in the number working part time for economic reasons, moreover, usu ally lead rises in unemployment. Among discouraged workers, most of the changes occurred among persons citing job-market factors as their reason for discourage ment, rather than personal factors. Developments in two key industries The general decline in labor market conditions was preceded by troubled times in the housing construction and automobile industries. Construction and auto man ufacturing are industries in which changes in production and employment affect the rest of the economy through relatively strong linkages. For example, the building in dustry is quite obviously linked to the lumber and wood products industry, and in a similar manner, automaking is linked to the production of steel and oth er metals. The “sensitivity ratio” is a measure of the ef fect of demand changes for a product on employment in the industry manufacturing that product and in related industries. A study analyzing the employment drop in the last recession established the sensitivity ratios for housing and automobiles at 2.50 and 2.75, respectively.4 Following are some related industries in which employ ment is most likely to be affected by demand changes in the housing and automobile industries: Housing: Blast furnaces and steel mill products Fabricated metal products Railroad and truck transportation Lumber and wood products Stone, clay, and glass products Furniture and fixtures Finance, insurance, and real estate Wholesale and retail trade Miscellaneous business services Miscellaneous professional services Automobiles: Blast furnaces and steel mill products Fabricated metal products Railroad and truck transportation Machinery, except electrical Textile mill products Wholesale and retail trade Miscellaneous business services Automobile repair services Rubber and plastics https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Using construction as an illustration, the sensitivity ratio (2.5 to 1) indicates that for every job lost in the industry there is a total loss of 2.5 jobs (the original construction job plus 1.5 positions in other industries.) Construction and residential housing. One of the meas ures of production for the housing market is the annualized rate of private housing units started, as re ported monthly by the Bureau of the Census. As chart 2 illustrates, there were signs of weakening in the hous ing market as early as the beginning of 1979. In each month last year, starts were lower, and in some cases 7 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Employment in the First Half substantially lower, than in the corresponding month of 1978. In the third quarter of 1979, housing starts de clined even more quickly, and by mid-1980, housing starts were hovering around the 1 million mark, about half the level of the second quarters of 1977 and 1978. On a seasonally adjusted basis, payroll employment data for the general building construction industry group (sic 15), a group that includes the bulk of resi dential construction activity, showed a great deal of strength throughout 1979, when compared to the previ ous year.5 This development reflects the relatively high levels of housing starts in 1978. However, there was a complete stop in the housing industry’s employment 8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis growth in the fourth quarter of 1979, followed by a sharp contraction in the first 2 quarters of 1980. Moreover, the unemployment rate for wage and sala ry workers in the construction industry also illustrated a deteriorating labor market in the housing industry. After dropping in 1977, 1978, and 1979, the jobless rate in construction rose 1.3 percentage points from the last quarter of 1979 to the first quarter of 1980 and then went up 4.9 more percentage points, to 16.3 percent, in the second quarter. Automobiles. Like housing construction, the automobile sector showed signs of declining somewhat earlier than the rest of the economy. In addition to being affected by the rising costs of financing consumer sales, the do mestic automobile industry has been squeezed by the rising prices of gasoline and other petroleum products and the accompanying rapid shift in consumer demand for smaller cars. Demand for domestic automobiles, as reflected by sales figures, started to weaken in early 1979 in response to those factors. Starting in March 1979, sales were below their year-earlier levels for each of the 16 months up through June 1980. Domestic pro duction started a similar pattern of consistent decline a few months later (August 1979), as manufacturers be gan to reconcile their marketing, inventory, and produc tion plans to falling demand.6 These developments had a profound effect on em ployment and unemployment in the automobile industry. Payroll employment in the industry (motor vehicles and equipment— SIC 371) fell in each of the five quarters be ginning in the second quarter of 1979. The total loss of jobs between the first quarter of 1979 and the second quarter of 1980 has been 300,000, or 29 percent. In the second quarter of 1980, there were 745,000 workers on motor vehicle and equipment makers’ payrolls. Unemployment in the auto manufacturing industry also started to change dramatically in the second quar ter of 1979. After rising from 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 1978 (the lowest rate since the historically high rates of 1974 and 1975) to 5.2 percent in the sec ond quarter of 1979, the auto industry unemployment rate jumped 4 percentage points in the third quarter of that year. After a smaller increase in the fourth quarter, the rate rose 5.8 points in the first quarter of 1980 and an additional 8.5 points in the second, to 25.2 percent. (See chart 3.) Between the second quarters of 1979 and 1980, the number of unemployed auto workers rose by a quarter of a million. Recession verified The National Bureau of Economic Research, a wellknown group of private-sector economists that tradi tionally establishes business cycle turning points in the United States, announced that the Nation entered the recessionary phase of the cycle in January 1980. Over all, employment remained relatively strong through that first quarter, however, distinct weakenings in the mar kets for labor in two key industries appeared as early as mid-1979. Employment in automaking peaked in the first quarter of 1979, and the subsequent drops in pro duction and employment have been partly responsible for falling employment in iron and steel foundries, met al stampings, tire and automotive dealers, and service stations. Cutbacks in housing construction, which start ed in late 1979 and early 1980, have led to employment losses in saw mills, plywood makers, household appli ance manufacturers, floor covering mills, and paving and roofing material makers. By midyear, these devel opments, combined with the generally weaker total de mand associated with recession, brought the Nation’s total employment down sharply from its record-setting (both as an absolute and as a percent of population) peak of 1979. The unemployment rate rose to the highest point since the early stages of recovery from the 1973-75 downturn. And, after 5 months of the current downslide, several of the leading indicators of marginal employment adjustment, such as the factory workweek, layoff's, and accessions, were continuing to worsen. □ FOOTNOTES 1In this article, “men” and “women” refer to persons age 20 and over; “teenagers” are persons age 16 to 19 years. 2For a complete treatment of economic indicators, see Geoffrey Moore and Julius Shiskin, I n d ic a to r s o f B u sin ess E x p a n s io n s a n d C o n tr a c tio n s (New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1967). 5For a detailed discussion of the analysis of relative changes in un employment, see Curtis Gilroy, “Black and white unemployment: the dynamics of the differential,” M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , February 1974, pp. 38-47. 4 A sensitivity ratio is an industry’s direct employment per billion dollars of demand divided by total — direct and indirect — employ ment per billion dollars. The estimated sensitivity ratios were devel oped from the input-output matrix, which illustrates the extent of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis interindustry relationships among 129 industries. See T h e S tr u c tu r e o f th e U.S. E c o n o m y in 1 9 8 0 a n d 1 985, Bulletin 1831 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1975) and Robert W. Bednarzik, “The plunge of employ ment during the recent recession,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , December 1975. 5Seasonally adjusted payroll employment series for the general building construction and motor vehicles and equipment industries (SIC 15 and 371) are not published regularly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but are prepared for special analyses. 6 Various issues of W a rd 's A u to m o tiv e R e p o r t (Detroit, Mich., Ward’s Communication). Because seasonally adjusted data are not reported by Ward's, year-to-year changes were used to analyze developments in domestic automobile sales and production. 9 The labor force experience of black youth: a review Jobless rates among black youths have remained fa r above prerecession levels; regression analysis shows military reductions, population share, and the minimum wage contributed to black youths' problems; jobs programs have helped, as could new efforts that integrate school and work in low-income areas G e o r g e Id e n The unemployment situation of black youths grew markedly worse in the 1970’s. For black teens, ages 16 to 19, this continued a long-term trend beginning in the 1950’s. But for older black male youths, ages 20-24, the increase in unemployment of the 1970’s was a marked change from earlier patterns. Since early 1978, the black youth employment situa tion showed some modest improvement because of rela tively more openings in the job market and because youth employment programs were expanded— particu larly under the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977. These gains, however, were not enough to restore the losses sustained earlier in the de cade. Two longer term factors are taking on increased im portance in the labor market situation for black youth: first, black youths seem to have been affected disproGeorge Iden is chief, Special Studies Unit, Fiscal Analysis Division, Congressional Budget Office. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Congressional Budget Office. Digitized10 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis portionately by the generally unfavorable job market that characterized much of the 1970’s. Second, although school enrollment rates for black youths have increased substantially, black students seem to be having a partic ularly difficult time in obtaining part-time jobs. This, in turn, represents a loss of potential experience and in come that may exacerbate future employment diffi culties. A dual situation seems to characterize the experience of black youths in the labor market in the 1970’s. Wages of black youths are very close to those of white youths.1In addition, some recent research indicates sub stantial progress during the 1960’s and 1970’s in closing the occupational gap between white youths and black youths.2 However, an examination of employment and unemployment indicators suggests that differentials be tween blacks and whites seem to be widening. Thus, it may be becoming increasingly difficult for a growing proportion of black youths to get jobs at the same time a growing proportion may be getting better jobs. The elements behind the worsening job market expe- rience of black youths are investigated in three sections. First, trends in black youth unemployment and employ ment during the 1970’s are examined, with emphasis on the period since 1977.3Second, a simple multiple regres sion model is used to analyze factors affecting teenage employment rates by race, including the effects of over all labor market conditions, supply factors, the mini mum wage, and the expansion in youth employment programs after 1977. The third section discusses the in creasing school enrollment rate for black youths cou pled with extremely low labor force participation rates of young black students. Following this analysis, princi pal conclusions and policy implications are summarized. Table 2. Employment indicators for black youths, ages 20 to 24, selected years, 1970 to 1979 [In percent] 1970 1973 1975 1977 1978 1979 Unemployment rate M en.......................... Women .................... 12.6 15.0 12.6 17.6 22.9 22.5 21.7 23.6 20.0 21.3 17.0 20.8 Employment-population ratio1 M en.......................... Women .................... 73.0 49.0 71.5 47.4 60.4 43.6 61.2 45.4 62.4 49.4 66.5 48.0 Labor force participation rate2 M en.......................... Women .................... 83.5 57.7 81.8 57.5 78.4 56.2 78.2 59.4 78.0 62.8 80.1 61.5 M e a s u re 1Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. 2Civilian labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. Review of labor market trends In analyzing the labor market situation of black youths, it is important to focus on employment-popula tion ratios as well as unemployment rates because a large proportion of black youths are not actively seek ing a job and therefore are not counted as unemployed. For example, in 1978 the number of unemployed black teenagers was about 381,000. But, if the labor force par ticipation rate had been the same for black as for white teens, there would have been about 500,000 more young blacks in the labor force. In addition, youth labor force participation rates tend to decline during recessions and to increase during business expansions. Thus, changes in unemployment rates understate both the deteriora tion in the youth labor market during recessions and the improvement during recoveries. For example, the unemployment rate of black teenagers in 1978 was about the same as in 1975— the worst recession year— but the employment-population ratio showed significant improvement. Trends in unemployment rates and employment-pop ulation ratios for black and for white teenagers in the 1970’s are summarized in table 1. The most striking thing about this summary is that unemployment and employment indicators for black teenagers seldom im Table 1. Employment indicators for teenagers (ages 16 to 19), by race, selected years, 1970 to 1979 proved and frequently got worse, while that was not the case for white teenagers. For example, in the recovery from the 1974-75 recession, the black teenage unem ployment rate was actually higher in 1977 than in 1975; not until 1978 did the black teenage unemployment rate decline noticeably. By contrast, the unemployment rate for white teenagers declined 2.5 percentage points by 1977, and by 1978 it approached the 1973 level. Data from the 1974-75 recession and previous reces sions since 1954 suggest that teenage employment—and black teenage employment in particular—is much more affected by the business cycle than overall employment. In addition, the employment of black teenagers contin ues to fall or fails to rise for several quarters after re covery begins. In the 1975-78 expansion, black teenage employment showed no growth in the first two years. Unemployment and employment indicators for older black youths, ages 20 to 24, are summarized in table 2 for the period since 1970. These young blacks also are disproportionately affected by the business cycle. How ever, the increase in their unemployment rate and de cline in their employment-to-population ratio during much of the 1970’s may reflect more than cyclical influ ences. There was significant improvement in these indi cators in 1978-79, but it is too early to determine if the improvement is more than temporary. [In percent] 1970 1973 1975 1977 1978 1979 Unemployment rate Black.......................... White.......................... 29.1 13.5 30.2 12.6 36.9 17.9 38.3 15.4 36.3 13.9 33.5 13.9 Employment-population ratio1 Black.......................... White.......................... 28.9 44.5 28.0 49.0 24.6 46.6 23.7 50.2 26.5 52.5 27.1 52.7 Labor force participation rate2 Black.......................... White.......................... 40.5 51.5 40.2 56.0 39.0 56.7 38.3 59.4 41.6 61.0 40.8 61.2 M e a s u re ' Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. 2Civilian labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Location. Unpublished Bureau of Labor Statistics data on employment and unemployment of black youths in 1978 show that employment problems for black youths are especially severe in low-income areas of large cities, particularly older cities along the Atlantic coast and in the industrial Midwest. Comparisons of unemployment rates for poverty and other areas understate the true differences in labor force activity because labor force participation rates are significantly higher in areas where average income is above the poverty line. Never theless, huge gaps in employment status exist between white youths and black youths regardless of location. 11 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Unemployment Among Black Youth Work force factors. The demographic bulge (in the size of the youth population) has generally been emphasized as an important cause of the increase in teenage unem ployment rates in the 1960’s. Additional factors such as location, discrimination, inadequate education, and changing characteristics of jobs have been emphasized as causes for the increase in black teenage unemploy ment.4 But what factors account for the increase in un employment rates of black—but not white—males, ages 20 to 24 beginning about 1970? The reasons may include the following: •T h e unfavorable job market for entry-level workers in general during the decade— a condition exacerbated by the bulge in the population size of this age group, the end of rising school enrollment rates for white youths, and in creases in labor force participation rates of women; •T h e decline in the size of the military by about 1 mil lion men in the under age 25 group between the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s; •T h e declining proportion of young black males with family responsibilities; • Changing requirements for entry-level jobs; and •T he long-term effects of more than a decade of very high unemployment for black teenagers.5 In sum, the job market for youths became much more congested in the 1970’s compared even with the previous decade. Youths, in general, suffered a decline in earnings relative to older workers. But for some youths, particularly black men, the labor market in the 1970’s meant no job rather than one at a lower wage. Rapid growth in the number of black youths, in con junction with these labor force factors, has exacerbated the situation. The more rapid growth of the number of black youths compared to the growth in the white youth population would not be a causal factor if barri ers such as discrimination, location, and educational de ficiencies were not also present. It may be that labor market indicators would have deteriorated for young black men ages 20 to 24 years in the 1960’s, if it had not been for the personnel require ments of the Vietnam War and the exceptionally favor able job market of 1965-69. Changing family respon sibilities over time probably also played some role. For example, between 1973 and 1978, the proportion of young black men (ages 20 to 24) in the labor force, who were married living with spouse, declined from almost 40 percent to about 25 percent. If martial arrangements had been the same in 1978 as in 1973 and unemploy ment differentials among marital groups remained the same, the unemployment rate for the group would have been about 1% percentage points lower. However, mar ital arrangements may be related to unemployment con ditions, so that causation runs both ways. In any case, the proportion of young white men married living with spouses also declined during this period but without an increasing trend in unemployment. Digitized 12 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regression analysis Teenage employment-population ratios, by race, can be analyzed using multiple regression techniques. Em ployment-population data are used because, with unem ployment rates for black youths so high, changes in labor force participation are both hard to explain and of questionable importance. The model underlying the regression analysis has be come fairly standard. The employment-population ratio for the teenage group is strongly related to overall labor market conditions, represented by the unemployment rate for “prime working-age” men (ages 25 to 54). In addition, this relationship was thought to be nonlinear, with teenage employment rates showing a greater re sponse when jobseekers outnumber jobs than when the reverse exists. The reasons for this nonlinearity include a larger supply elasticity for youths compared with the labor force in general and a preference on the part of employers for more mature and experienced workers. The relative supply of teenagers would also be a rele vant factor depending on how readily teenagers may be substitutable for other groups in the labor market and whether the market is free to adjust. Two supply fac tors are important here: the proportion of teenagers in the population of working age and the size of the armed forces relative to the size of the teenage population. In addition, the level and coverage of the minimum wage could also be a consideration because of possible con straints on the wage flexibility of the youth labor mar ket in response to fluctuations in supply and demand. Government employment policy, particularly the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977 ( y e d p a ), may have had an influence on teenage employment rates. An attempt was made to capture the effect of the recent youth initiatives by including a dum my variable which was assigned a value of 1 for quar ters beginning with 1978:1. Enrollments in the youth act programs began increasing very rapidly beginning in 1978:1 and leveled off by mid-1978 at approximately 200,000. In addition, the Summer Youth Employment Program was increased by about 100,000 jobs in 1978 compared with 1977. The additional jobs associated with these programs were disproportionately filled by minority youths. Finally, a time trend was included to capture other longer term influences. For white teenagers, the trend variable was assigned a value of 1 beginning with the first quarter of 1965, 2 for the second quarter, and so on, and zero before 1965. Although admittedly quite arbitrary, this formulation was chosen because the em ployment-population ratios for white teenagers appar ently began increasing on a long term basis about 1965, as did white teenage labor force participation rates. For black teenagers, the regression time trend was started at the beginning of the period (1954:1) because a perusal of the employment-population series suggested that there might be a negative trend throughout 1954-79.6 Using quarterly data for the period 1954:1 through 1979:2, the parameters for the following equation were estimated for black and white teenagers separately: E /P = a + b,U H , + b2UL_, + b3T + b4M + b5P + b6MW + b7D + E where: E/P = employment-population ratio (in percent) for teenagers, by race; UH_, = the unemployment rate of men ages 25 to 54 in excess of 3.4 percent, and zero otherwise, lagged 1 quarter; UL , = the unemployment rate of men ages 25 to 54 minus 3.4 percent, when the unemployment rate of that group was equal to, or fell below, 3.4 percent, and zero otherwise, lagged 1 quar ter; T = time trend, beginning with 1954:1 for blacks and 1965:1 for whites (T2); M = number of persons in the armed services divid ed by the teenage population, ages 16 to 19; P = teenagers, ages 16 to 19, as a percent of the population ages 16 to 64; MW = minimum wage variable consisting of the basic minimum wage as a percent of hourly earn ings, weighted by industry employment and coverage under the law, with a distributed (second degree polynomial) lag over 6 quar ters; D = dummy variable equal to 1 for quarters begin ning 1978:1; E = error term. The results—summarized in table 3—confirm that Table 3. youth employment is very sensitive to overall job mar ket conditions. But in addition, they indicate a larger response to an expanding job market when unemploy ment for the prime working-age male group is below the postwar average, compared with unemployment above the average. In the equation for black teenagers, the coefficient for high unemployment periods (b,) was quite small and that for low unemployment periods (b2) quite large— suggesting that the black teenage employ ment-population ratio does not increase very much until the unemployment rate for prime working-age men gets below 3.4 percent. In an unfavorable job market, the addition of some job opportunities helps but does not seem to greatly spur employment of black teenagers. After the unem ployment rate for prime working-age males declines to the average for the postward period, further expansion of the job market seems to cause more marked im provement. In the 1970’s, however, the unemployment rate for males ages 25 to 54 seldom got below 3.4 per cent. The coefficient for the military variable was both large and statistically significant in the equations for black teenagers, but not in those for white teenagers. This suggests that black youths have relatively more difficulty adapting to fluctuations in military personnel needs than white youths. The population share and minimum wage variables proved to be important for both races, but comparative ly more important for blacks.7 The results suggest that the recent youth employment programs may have increased the employment rate for black teenagers by about 1 percentage point, although this is not statistically significant at the 95 percent con fidence level. The effect of the jobs programs on white teenage employment rates appears negative, but this re sult also was not significant. The time trend variable was not statistically signifi cant in the equations for black teenagers; but it was Regression results of factors affecting teenage (age 16 to 19) employment rates, by race, 1954 to 1979 f t ” values in parentheses) A d u lt m a le u n e m p lo y m e n t ( t - 1 ) T im e t r e n d R ace and sex Low 1954 0.64 (2.16) 1.51 (4.22) -3.36 (5.72) -2 70 (4.02) 0.07 (1.58) -1.00 (5.85) -1.20 (5.53) -2.60 (7.52) -3.35 (7.93) H ig h Black Teenagers ............................ Male teenagers...................... White Teenagers ............................ Male teenagers...................... M ilit a r y p e rs o n n e l 1965 .31 (18.56) .29 (13.91) P o p u la t io n M in im u m Jobs r a t io w age p ro g ra m s RHO' C o n s ta n t R 2 le v e l 23.56 (1.98) 39.35 (4.13) -2.16 (3.89) -1.87 (3.16) -0.36 (2.99) -.43 (4.69) 0.94 (.86) .91 (.75) 0.50 (5.46) .28 (2.79) 56.43 (8.09) 64.64 (8.41) -1.56 (.27) -1.38 (19) -1.54 (4.63) -1.83 (4.44) -.27 (4.42) -.34 (4.53) -.42 (.69) -.90 (1.22) .58 (6.50) .60 (6.47) 65.38 (15.24) 77.05 (14.45) 0.93 .95 .97 .95 1Autocorrelation correction factor. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 13 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Unemployment Among Black Youth positive, significant, and rather large in the equation for whites. As a test, the time trend in the equation for whites was started at the beginning of the period (1954:1) rather than the first quarter of 1965. With this specification, the coefficients for the time and unemploy ment variables were not substantially changed, but that was not the case for several of the other coefficients. Specifically, the coefficient for military became signifi cant and positive, while the coefficients for the mini mum wage and population share variables were larger. In the equations for whites, the sensitivity of some of the coefficients to the specification of the time variable suggests that their magnitudes are especially uncertain.8 However, this problem was not apparent in the equa tions for black teenagers, because the coefficient for the time trend was not statistically significant and because omission of the time variable did not substantially affect other coefficients. The results suggest that the military factor, popula tion share, and minimum wage were approximately of equal importance in accounting for the decline in the employment-population rate for black teenage males during the 1955 to 1970 period—each contributing ap proximately 6 to 7 percentage points to the decline. However, in 1970-79, the military factor became rela tively much more important, accounting for a decline of about 4 percentage points. In the latter period, the min imum wage accounted for only about 1 percentage point of the decline, while the population share had a slightly off-setting effect. Student workers: a wide racial gap The racial gap in labor force participation rates for youths is much larger for students than for nonstu dents. In October 1977, the labor force participation rate for white teenagers in school was 22.5 percentage points higher than the comparable rate for black teen agers; the racial gap was 13.3 percent for the out-of school group. (See table 4.) In the early 1970’s school enrollment rates were higher for white teenagers than black teenagers. By the end of the decade, however, the situation had been re versed. Substantially increased rates of school enroll ment for black youths and decreased rates for most groups of white youths may “explain” an important part of the widening racial gaps in labor force participa tion rates and employment-population ratios. Although the gains in school enrollment rates for black youths are impressive, one of the reasons behind the increases is that black youths tend to finish high school at older ages than white youths. Furthermore, poor alternatives in the job market may be a factor influencing young blacks’ decisions to stay in school. Why are labor force participation rates so much low Digitized14for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 4. Labor force participation rates and school enrollment rates of youths by race, 1970 and 1977 [In percent] L a b o r f o r c e p a r t ic ip a t io n r a t e S c h o o l e n r o llm e n t S ex and race Y o u t h e n r o lle d in Y o u th n o t in school school ra t e 1970 1977 1970 1977 1970 1977 Ages 16 to 19 Black.................. White.................. 26.2 41.5 27.6 49.4 72.3 87.3 77.7 90.5 66.6 75.4 74.0 69.1 Ages 20 to 24 Black.................. White.................. 41.3 52.1 43.7 55.7 90.5 95.3 88.8 95.7 18.1 30.9 27.5 25.7 Female Ages 16 to 19 Black.................. White.................. 22.3 36.7 21.9 45.1 50.7 61.4 56.9 69.3 64.1 66.1 68.4 65.2 Ages 20 to 24 Black.................. White.................. 38.9 51.9 40.6 59.2 60.7 59.9 64.6 70.8 13.0 15.5 21.2 19.8 Male er for black teenagers in school compared with their white counterparts? One basic reason is that there are simply many more students looking for parttime jobs than are available, so the jobs are rationed. The most advantaged students tend to get the jobs. Parents’ influ ence in the community may be especially important in securing part-time jobs for their student sons and daughters. The minimum wage may exacerbate the em ployment difficulties of black students by reducing the number of jobs potentially available. Discrimination also plays a role, and its existence can be more easily concealed by employers faced with many more jobseekers than needed. In addition, location may play a role, because parttime jobs for students are concentrated in retail trade,9 and that sector is, in general, not prosperous in large central cities where many black youths are located. Poorer quality of education available to black youths in inner city schools may also be a substantial handicap in competing for limited job opportunities. Some observers argue that labor market experience for youths in school is of little consequence and that public resources should be concentrated on youths who are “out of school and out of work.” Although that group may well be more disadvantaged than the in school group, it is also true that some work experience while in school seems to improve job opportunities after leaving school.10 Moreover, recent black high school graduates tend to have extremely high unemployment rates. The Current Population Survey for October 1978 indicated an unemployment rate of approximately 40 percent for recent black high school graduates, com pared with 10 percent for recent white graduates.11 Thus, less job experience and poor labor market knowl edge may partially explain the difficulty of black youths in obtaining post-school employment.12 What future course? Based on the unemployment and employment experi ence of black youths in the 1970’s, the outlook for the early 1980’s is not encouraging. In general, black youth unemployment continued to get worse in the 1970’s. Al though some improvement took place beginning in 1978, it was not enough to make up for losses in the first 7 years of the decade. In 1978, the black youth un employment rate remained above 40 percent in central city poverty areas and above 30 percent in suburban and rural areas. One of the most troublesome issues identified in this analysis is that the black teenage employment-popula tion rate is much less responsive to improving job mar kets when measured unemployment remains above average historical levels. Unfortunately, we seem to be in an era of continually unfavorable job markets— part ly as a result of an inflationary environment and partly as a result of very rapid growth in the labor force. Ac cording to some analyses,13 unemployment in 1978 may have been at the lowest noninflationary level now possi ble, and yet the unemployment rate of men age 25 to 54 was very close to its average for the postwar period — not its average for business cycle peaks. Moreover, most recent forecasts show overall unemployment rising from its 1978-79 plateau of about 6 percent to more than 8 percent in 1980-81. In sum, the gains in black youth employment since 1978 seem likely to be only tempo rary, given the outlook for a weaker economy and the adverse trend in the labor market for black youths dur ing much of the 1970’s. The size of the armed forces in relation to the size of the teenage group was an important factor affecting black, but not white, teenage employment rates. The turnaround in the demographic situation should help youth employment rates of both races, but in the case of blacks the improvement seems likely to be small in relation to current employment indicators. The direct positive effects of the youth employment programs have already been realized by black youths, with additional benefits only if there is a further in crease in the scale or effectiveness of these programs. The only major recent policy innovation that has not yet been phased in is the targeted jobs tax credit passed by Congress in 1978. The Administration has recently proposed a modification and expansion of youth pro grams, but according to the present time table, it would not have much effect until after 1981. However, both ef forts reflect some commitment to resolve the problems of black youth employment. The case for doing more to reverse the trends in black youth employment and unemployment includes the following: the extreme concentration of serious youth employment problems— geographic and racial — has especially serious implications because such an envi ronment often undermines productive or socially con structive behavior. The problems seem to be getting worse, and there is some evidence to suggest that the employment problems of teenagers become employment problems of young adults. Moreover, black youth un employment probably can be reduced without increas ing the inflation rate. Finally, the very low employment rates for black students—and the probability that work experience during school provides invaluable job market informa tion— suggests the need to target employment pro grams to help low-income youths in school, as well as those out of school and out of work. Several of the poli cy instruments for this kind of initiative are already in place; for example, the provisions in Title IV of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, which were designed to encourage the cooperation of local school systems, and the targeted jobs tax credit. Also, the Administration’s recent proposals imply close coop eration between CETA, the public schools, and the pri vate sector. However, these kinds of policies may be especially difficult to implement successfully because they require a high degree of commitment and coopera tion. □ FOOTNOTES ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Curtis Gilroy, Robert Goldfarb, James Wetzel, and colleagues at the Congressional Budget Office provided helpful comments on earlier versions of this work. I am also grateful to Antoinette Gibbons for research assistance and Debra Blagburn for manuscript preparation. 1For example, in May 1976, median hourly earnings were $2.48 for white and $2.40 for black teenage males. See W e e k ly a n d H o u r ly E a rn in g s D a ta , Bureau of Labor Statistics, Special Report 195, 1977. 2See, for example, Richard B. Freeman, “Time Series Evidence on Black Economic Progress: Shifts in Demand or in Supply?” Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Discussion Paper 632, July 1978. 'Throughout the paper, statistics cited for “black” youths pertain to “black and other nonwhite” individuals. The reason for this is to permit comparisons with earlier periods for which data are unavail able for blacks separately. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4 See, for example, Y o u th U n e m p lo y m e n t: T h e O u tlo o k a n d S o m e (Washington, Congressional Budget Office, 1978); Norman Bowers, “Young and marginal: an overview of youth em ployment,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , October 1979, pp. 4-16; and Mor ris J. Newman. “The labor market experience of black youth, 195478.” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , October 1979, pp. 17-27. 5Many people have speculated that poor experience in the labor market may have longer-term repercussions for youths. Recently some research that documents this hypothesis has become available. See Wayne Stevenson, “The Relationship Between Early Work Expe rience and Future Employability,” in A.V. Adams and G.L. Mangum, eds., T h e L in g e r in g C risis o f Y o u th U n e m p lo y m e n t (Kalama zoo, Mich., W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1978); and David Ellwood, “Teenage Unemployment: Permanent Scars or Temporary Blemishes,” C o n fe ren ce on Y o u th J o b lessn ess a n d E m p lo y m e n t (Washington, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1979), P o lic y S tra te g ie s, 15 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Unemployment Among Black Youth held at Arlie House, Va., May 17-18, 1979. were enrolled in school were employed in wholesale and retail trade. ' For a discussion of some of the factors, for which the time trend is a proxy, see Y o u th U n e m p lo y m e n t: T h e O u tlo o k . . ., and Morris J. Newman, “The labor market experience . . For a study of the employment impact of the minimum wage on teenagers during 1947-68, see Jacob Mincer, “Unemployment Effects of Minimum Wages,” J o u r n a l o f P o litic a l E co n o m y , August 1976, Part 2. For a summary of the econometric literature on the impact of the minimum wage, see Robert S. Goldfarb, “The Policy Content of Quantitative Minimum Wage Research,” P r o c ee d in g s o f th e 2 7 th A n n u a l M e e tin g o f th e I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s R es e a rc h A sso c ia tio n , 1974. Other recent studies include James F. Regan, Jr., “Minimum Wages and the Youth Labor Market,” T h e R e v ie w o f E c o n o m ic s a n d S ta tis tics, May 1977; and Edward M. Gramlich, “The Impact of Minimum Wages on Other Wages, Employment, and Family Incomes,” B ro o k in g s P a p e r s on E c o n o m ic A c tiv ity , No. 2, 1976. “ Multicolinearity among several key variables has been a frequent problem encountered in research on the employment impact of the minimum wage. See Robert S. Goldbarb, “The Policy Content . . . ,” pp. 263-64. "See Stanley P. Stephenson, Jr., “The Transition from School to Work With Job Search Implications,” in C o n fe ren ce R e p o r t on Y ou th U n e m p lo y m e n t: I ts M e a s u r e m e n t a n d M ea n in g , (Washington, U.S. De partment of Labor, 1978). In October 1978, about one-half of all employed teenagers who Digitized16 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis " Bureau of Labor Statistics, S tu d e n ts, G ra d u a te s, a n d D ro p o u ts in th e L a b o r M a r k e t, O c to b e r 1 978, Special Labor Force Report 223, Ta ble 3. 12Several researchers have documented that youths from lower so cioeconomic groups score low on knowledge of the labor market. Moreover, their perceptions about the labor market tend to be exag gerated or distorted. See James S. Coleman, “The School to Work Transition,” in T h e T e e n a g e U n e m p lo y m e n t P r o b le m : W h a t a r e th e O p tio n s (Washington, Congressional Budget Office, 1977). "For discussions of the lowest noninflationary unemployment rate, see Michael L. Wachter, “The Demographic Impact on Unemploy ment: Past Experience and the Outlook for the Future,” in D e m o g r a p h ic T re n d s a n d F u ll E m p lo y m e n t, National Commission for Manpower Policy, Special Report No. 12, December 1976; and E c o n o m ic R e p o r t o f th e P re sid e n t, January 1979, p. 118. Benchmark revisions Establishment statistics published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are based on a monthly survey of 160,000 business establishments and government units. Once a year, these survey statistics are adjusted to benchmarks of complete counts. The counts are derived from unemployment insurance records. The data in tables 8-20 of the Current Labor Statistics section of this issue of the M onthly Labor Review have been revised as a result of such benchmark revisions. The tables also reflect revised seasonal fac tors to incorporate seasonal experience through March 1980. An article discussing the benchmark revisions and their effect on the establishment statistics appears in the July issue of the BLS periodical, Employment and Earnings. Women in domestic work: yesterday and today A century ago, half of all wage-earning women were private household workers; in 1979, fewer than 3 percent were so employed; today's black domestic is likely to be a middle-aged cleaner or servant; a white domestic, a young babysitter A llyso n Sh e r m a n G rossman Private household workers—a group that consists of cleaning workers and servants, childcare workers, housekeepers, cooks, and launderers—continue to dwindle in number. Domestic work is viewed more and more as a low-skill, low-status occupation, and young women, especially black women, are increasingly shying away from it. Today, domestic workers, who tend to be older women with relatively little education, often re ceive less than the minimum wage. This article provides a historical overview of private household workers and a close look at their status today. Because 98 percent of all private household workers are women, this article focuses exclusively on them. The past: domestics predominate A century ago, private household work1was the pre dominant occupation of all gainfully employed women and girls 10 years old and over. Always a female occuAllyson Sherman Grossman is an economist in the Office of Current Employment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis pation, in 1870, domestic work accounted for more than half of all female wage earners. (See table 1.) While na tive-born white women tended to shun this occupation which did not require formal education, experience, or well-developed skills, it was an important source of in come for many immigrant and black women.2 During the 40 years between 1870 and 1910, the number of private household workers nearly doubled— from 960,000 to 1.8 million—as a result of both a steadily growing supply of labor and an ever-increasing demand. A great influx of immigrants had entered the country, and domestic service was the only type of em ployment available to many. These newly arrived wom en often replaced other household workers, particularly native-born white women, who were leaving their jobs for a variety of reasons, such as marriage, childbirth, or work in other occupations. At the turn of the century, private household work required living in the employer’s residence, and such service was often terminated, or at least interrupted, when a woman married or had a child. During this period, the rapid industrialization 17 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Women in Domestic Service and concomitant urbanization of the country gave rise to an expanding number of middle and upper class fam ilies who wanted and could afford household help. In fact, the demand for private household workers far outstripped supply. The number of private household workers declined between 1910 and 1920, as immigration fell and child labor diminished. Proportionately more immigrants from Russia, Poland, and Italy were entering the coun try during this period, and they were less inclined to be domestic workers than the women from Germany, Ire land, and Scandinavia who had been in the forefront of earlier waves of immigration. Also, young girls age 10 to 15, who formerly had been a source of domestic workers, were increasingly unavailable, as child labor came under attack and compulsory education spread. In addition, the continued urbanization of the country and the onset of World War I altered the focus of female employment. More and more women worked at profes sional (teaching and nursing), clerical, manufacturing, and sales jobs, so that private household workers accounted for a declining share of female workers. Yet, demand continued to be strong, as domestic work was viewed by some employers as providing envi able opportunities to women. As one female author dis cussed in relation to the dearth of such workers in 1915: Work in a private house is infinitely more desirable, from the point of view of the influence of one’s surroundings, Table 1. Private household workers as a proportion of all employed women, selected years, 1870-1979 [Numbers in thousands] P r iv a t e h o u s e h o ld w o r k e r s A ll Year A s a p e rc e n t e m p lo y e d w om en T o ta l o f a ll e m p lo y e d w om en 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... 1,836 2,647 3,915 5,319 8,076 8,550 10,752 11,178 17,340 21,874 29,667 960 1,078 1,433 1,526 1,784 1,360 1,909 2,277 1,459 1,943 1,518 52.3 40.7 36.6 28.7 22.1 15.9 17.8 20.4 8.4 8.9 5.1 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... 29,875 31,072 32,446 33,417 33,553 35,095 36,685 38,881 40,446 1,449 1,403 1,330 1,201 1,141 1,095 1,123 1,135 1,062 4.9 4.5 4.1 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.6 SOURCES: H istorical Statistics o f the U.S. Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial Edition Part 1(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1975). than daily labor in a factory or store. The variety of domes tic duties, the freedom of moving from one room to anoth er, or sitting or standing to do one’s work, are much to be preferred to the work that compels the worker to stand or sit in one place all day long. If it be admitted, then, that housework is in itself a desir able and suitable occupation for women who must earn their living by manual labor, it cannot be the work itself, but the conditions surrounding it that make it so distasteful to the modern working woman.3 The number of domestic workers rebounded to nearly 2 million between 1920 and 1930, in part, because im migration again accelerated and women more inclined to household work were entering the country. However, other types of employment were growing even faster, and domestic work continued to lose ground as a major source of employment for women. By this time, the na ture of private household work had changed, evolving into a job much like any other: the employee lived inde pendently of the employer. The changing racial composition of the occupational group was a primary force behind this evolution. By the end of World War I, the number of white women in do mestic service had dropped substantially. At the same time, black women— who had been concentrated in household work in the South— started migrating in great numbers to Northern cities. They began taking the places of white women who left the occupation for marriage or for other jobs that were increasingly avail able. Black women, regardless of marital status, worked outside their homes to a much greater extent than white women. The Department of Labor’s Women’s Bureau in 1920 reported “. . . it is a well-known fact that most Negro women must continue as breadwinners practical ly all their lives, marriage rarely meaning a withdrawal from the wage earning ranks.”4 Live-out jobs allowed married black women to work and still raise families of their own. Because private household employment was, in many cases, the only type of work open to them, black women began to account for a growing propor tion of domestic workers. Nevertheless, the high point for private household work as a major employer of all women had long since passed. Immigration had peaked years before, and World War II and its aftermath wrought tremendous changes in American society and the nature of work performed by women. By 1950, fewer than 1 of 10 employed women were private household workers. More recently, with the rapid expansion of the female labor force, this proportion has dropped further. Employment and Training Report of the President (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1979); and Alba M. Edwards, Sixteenth Census o f the The present: numbers declining United States: 1940, Population Comparative Occupation Statistics for the United States, 1870 to 1940 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1943). At the beginning of the 1970’s, there were 1.5 million female private household workers, and they accounted 18 FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis for 5 percent of all employed women. By the end of the decade, the number of domestics had fallen to slightly more than 1 million, or less than 3 percent of all female workers.5 Both a slackened demand for this type of em ployee and a diminished supply contributed to this drop. For instance, along with the advent of smaller families, continued improvements in household technol ogy eliminated many of the time-consuming, tedious, and difficult tasks associated with running a home. At the same time, increased employment opportunities in other fields, heightened educational attainment (which would provide workers with skills to obtain other types of jobs), and greater availability of public assistance may have hastened the departure of women from this field.6 The exodus was more pronounced among black than among white women. While the number of white wom en dropped significantly from 1970 to 1975 and then plateaued, the number of black women has fallen steadi ly. By 1979, 45 percent fewer were working in this oc cupation than in 1970. As the following tabulation shows, in March 1979 very few black women under age 35 worked as domestics: Total, 16 years and over . . W hite........................ Black ........................ Other ........................ Domestic workers (thousands) March March March 1979 1975 1970 1,093 1,217 1,649 733 974 730 345 480 633 15 7 42 Total, 16 to 34 years......... W hite........................ Black ........................ Other ........................ 599 476 113 10 477 411 64 2 451 417 30 4 Total, 35 years and over . . W hite........................ Black ........................ Other ........................ 1,050 498 520 32 740 319 416 5 642 315 315 12 As a result, the racial composition of this occupational group changed from 38 percent black in 1970 to 32 per cent black in 1979. Because the basic demographic characteristics of black and white private household workers differ substantially, the following sections focus separately on the two groups. Black women. Black women employed as domestics in 1979 were older and less educated than black women workers overall. The vast majority worked as cleaners and servants. Many maintained their own families, and their employment provided a major share of their fami lies’ support. In March 1979, more than 3 of 5 black women in private household work were between the ages of 45 and 64 years, and an additional 1 of 5 were over age 65. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Selected characteristics of private household workers, by race, March 1979 [Numbers in thousands] B la c k T o ta l W h it e 1,093 733 345 336 757 50 4.4 237 495 24 3.2 94 251 26 7.1 16-24 years.................................. 25 - 34 years.................................. 35-44 years.................................. 45 - 64 years.................................. 65 years and o v e r.......................... Median age (In years) .................... 309 142 121 369 152 42.9 292 125 65 169 82 31.0 14 16 54 192 69 54.2 Marital status: Never married................................ Married, husband present................ Married, husband absent ................ Widowed........................................ Divorcee........................................ 329 450 86 157 72 270 310 24 89 40 53 135 60 65 32 Median years of school completed: Total.............................................. 16-44 years .......................... 45 years and over .................. 10.9 11.5 9.5 11.3 11.6 10.2 9.5 10.5 8.8 Median earnings, 1979: Hourly earnings of those paid by the hour .......................................... Usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers ............ $2.44 $2.13 $2.68 $89 $80 $110 C h a r a c t e r is t ic Total, 16 years old and o v e r.......................... Employment status: Employed full tim e .......................... Employed part time ........................ Unemployed .................................. Unemployment rate (percent) . . . . Age: NOTE: Due to rounding, some components may not add to totals. Most had been married at some point in their lives, but only about 40 percent of all black domestics were cur rently living with their husbands; an additional 45 per cent were widowed, divorced, or separated. (See table 2 .) Married black domestics were less likely than black female workers in general to have employed husbands. The husbands of fewer than 7 of 10 domestics were working, compared with 8 of 10 husbands of all black employed women. The domestics’ husbands tended to be clustered in blue-collar jobs, about equally dispersed among craft, laborer, and operative (including trans port) jobs. They were more apt to be laborers than the husbands of all employed black women. (See chart 1.) Many black women may have stayed in private household work because they are educationally disad vantaged. As a group, black domestics averaged 9.5 years of school in March 1979, with those over age 45 having completed less than 9 years. The median for all black female workers was 12.4 years. Thus, without the schooling or training to meet the requirements of other jobs in today’s labor market, many women may be un able to leave household work. Like most domestic workers, black household work ers typically work part time. In March 1979, 7 of 10 reported that they were employed fewer than 35 hours per week. The intermittent nature of the work and the advanced age of many of the women in this group obvi ously contribute to the high proportion of part-time em19 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Women in Domestic Service Chart 1. Employment status of husbands of domestic workers and other employed wives, March 1979 Black wives Employment status of husbands White wives employed W hite-collar w orker1 Domestic workers B lue-collar w orker Service w orker Farm worker Unem ployed Not in the labor force In Armed Forces1 -I___ L . 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent eligible for coverage by minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 1974,7 a large amount of noncompliance with the law is apparent. For instance, in 1974, covered black household employees averaged slightly over $2 per hour. However, 45 percent of those eligible for the minimum wage earned less than the $1.90 hourly rate prescribed by law.8 Reasons for this apparent noncompliance include: ignorance of the law among some employers and employees; a willing ness on the part of some employees to work for less than the legally required minimum in order to have a job; and errors by workers in reporting their wages and perquisites.9 As the 1970’s closed, the earnings of private house hold workers remained far below average. In 1979, me dian earnings for all black women paid by the hour were $3.60; in contrast, 7 of every 10 black domestics earned the minimum wage of $2.90 or less. Black pri vate household workers who were full-time wage and salary workers—slightly more than one-quarter of the total—earned $110 weekly, about one-third less than the median for all full-time black female wage and sala ry workers. Despite perquisites— such as lunches and transporta tion— that some private household workers receive, despite payments in kind, and despite the under reporting or nonreporting of income by some,10 many domestics are living at the subsistence level. Almost 50 percent of the black women who maintained families and who reported private household work as the occu pation at which they worked the longest were below the poverty level in 1978 (the latest year for which poverty data are available). The same was true for half of the black women who did not have any immediate family responsibilities.11 White women. The situation for white private household workers was entirely different. As shown in the follow ing tabulation, white women were heavily concentrated in childcare work in 1979: 1 No black domestic workers with husbands in this category. A n n u a l avera g es ployees. Only about 1 of 6 black domestics reported that she worked all year, full time in 1978. About 25 percent of all black private household workers maintained their own families, and an addition al 30 percent were married to men who were out of the labor force. (Of course, because black domestics are older, many of their husbands may be retired.) As a re sult, these women may be providing a great share of their families’ support. The earnings of private household workers are ex tremely low by any measure. Although most have been 20 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Total (percent) . . . . . . . Childcare workers . . . Cooks ...................... Housekeepers ........... Launderers............... Cleaners and servants . T o ta l W h ite B la c k a n d o th e r 100.0 43.7 2.4 100.00 60.2 1.5 7.6 .4 30.3 100.00 10.5 4.0 11.6 8.9 .6 44.4 9 73.0 A large component of these childcare workers were youthful babysitters whose social and demographic characteristics were overwhelmingly represented in the composite portrait of white household workers. Fitting the babysitter pattern, nearly one-third of all white women working in this occupation in March 1979 were never married and under age 25. Because more than half had to balance employment with school attend ance, most worked part time, earning only a few hun dred dollars in 1978. The demographic characteristics of the remaining white private household workers were significantly dif ferent from those of their black counterparts. On aver age, they were younger, better educated, and less likely to maintain their own families. In fact, only 1 of 10 white domestics maintained her own family. About 40 percent were between 25 and 44 years of age. Overall, they had completed an average of 11.9 years of school. A larger proportion — 59 percent — were married. Their husbands were employed to a greater degree than were the black husbands, and white husbands were far less likely to be out of the labor force. Blue-collar work was, again, the most prevalent type of employment of the white husbands, although not to the extent of the black husbands. The spouses of white private household workers were much more likely than the blacks to be white-collar workers. However, their proportion was far below that for husbands of all white female workers. (See chart 1.) In terms of employment status, most of the white do mestics were part-time workers; fewer than 10 percent worked all year full time. Median hourly earnings in 1979 of those paid by the hour were about $2.15, with 4 of 5 earning less than $2.90. It should be noted, howev er, that this median, which was lower than that of their black counterparts, was greatly influenced by the earn ings of large numbers of youthful babysitters who were not subject to the minimum wage. White domestics who were full-time wage and salary workers—about 30 per cent of all white private household workers—earned $80 weekly, more than $100 below the average for all white female full-time wage and salary workers. 1In this report, the terms “private household work” and “domestic service work” are synonymous. published monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 6 D o m e stic S e rvic e W o rk e rs (U.S. Department of Labor, Employ ment Standards Administration, 1979), p. 13. See this publication for more complete information about minimum wage and overtime cover age of private household workers. 7 D o m e s tic S ervice, p. 9. 8 Ibid., p. A -2 7 . "Ibid., p. 19. 10D o m e s tic W o rk e rs C o v e r e d U n d e r O A S D H I, 1 976, Research and Statistics Note 1 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, 1980). " M o n e y I n c o m e a n d P o v e rty S ta tu s o f F a m ilie s a n d P erso n s in th e U n ite d S ta te s : 1 978, C u r re n t P o p u la tio n R ep o rts, Series P -6 0 , No. 124 (Bureau of the Census, 1980), p.l. 12 National Commission on the Observance of International Wom en’s Year, T h e S p ir it o f H o u s to n (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978), p. 48. For more information, contact the National Committee on Household Employment, 500 East 62nd Street, New York, N.Y. 2 Historical information in this section is based, in part, on David M. Katzman, S e v en D a y s a W ee k (New York, Oxford University Press, 1978). ' C. Helene Barker, W a n te d a Y o u n g W o m a n to D o H o u s e w o r k (New York, Moffat, Yard and Company, 1915), pp. 25-26. Some of the conditions which made domestic service unpleasant were the ne cessity of wearing a uniform, the extremely long hours, the isolation, and derision workers suffered. For more information see Katzman, S e v en D a y s, especially pp. 8 -4 3 and 233-34. 4 F a m ily S ta tu s o f B re a d w in n in g W o m en in F o u r S e le c te d Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau, 1926), p. 14. C itie s (U.S. 5 Labor force data in this section are based primarily on informa tion obtained from the Current Population Survey, a survey of the la bor force conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the Census. Estimates based on sample numbers such as those shown in the tables may vary considerably from results obtained by a complete count in cases where the numbers shown are small. There fore, differences between small numbers or percents based on them may not be significant. For more information on sampling error, see https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The future: will demand increase? The nature of household work may change in the years to come. As more commercial enterprises enter the field, domestic workers may find themselves em ployees of cleaning businesses. As such, they would be subject to the rights and privileges of other workers, such as more rigorous compliance with minimum wage and social security requirements. In addition, the 1980’s may witness an upsurge in the demand for private household workers. As greater numbers of women are employed outside their homes, they may seek to substi tute paid labor—either from individuals or from businesses— for the work they previously performed in their own homes. Moreover, efforts have recently been undertaken to upgrade the status of private household workers. Some of this group’s needs were included in The Spirit of Houston, the official report in 1978 of the National Commission on the Observance of International Wom en’s Year.12 Also, the National Committee on House hold Employment is trying to organize domestic workers throughout the country.13 This organization, among others, is striving to change the image of domes tic workers in both the employee’s and the employer’s view. By making both parties aware of their legal rights and responsibilities and by emphasizing that household work can be a career with business and professional as pects, the committee hopes to aid private household workers gain greater returns to their labor market expe riences. □ E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, 10021. 21 Conference Papers The following excerpts are adapted from papers present ed at the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the Indus trial Relations Research Association, December 28-30, 1979 in Atlanta, Ga. Papers prepared for the meetings of the IRRA are excerpted by special permission and may not be re produced without the express permission of the IRRA, which holds the copyright. The full text of all papers will appear in the IRRA publication, Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Meeting, available from IRRA, Social Science Building, Madison, Wis. 53706. Vinyl chloride protection: less costly than predicted Charles R. Perry The battle over the permanent Federal standard for permissible levels of worker exposure to vinyl chloride was beset with predictions of dire economic conse quences which have become commonplace in the stan dard-setting process. Such consequences clearly have not come to pass, a fact which prompted some to con clude that the industry “cried wolf.” 1 That conclusion, strictly speaking, is not justified. But, justified or unjustified, it has had the effect of tempering the indus try response to other proposed regulations. The permanent standard initially proposed by the Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration ( o s h a ) called for a level of “no detectable” exposure to the cancer agent. The industry responded that such a stan dard “is not technologically feasible and, if adopted, would shut down the industry.”2 Interestingly, this claim was supported by the conclusion of a feasibility study, commissioned by OSHA.3 The consequences of a possible industry shutdown were detailed in a separate study which indicated that $65 to $90 billion in Gross National Product and 1.7 to 2.2 million jobs were deCharles R. Perry is an associate professor of management and indus trial relations at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. The title of his full IRRA paper is “Safe and Healthful Working Condi tions: The Case of Vinyl Chloride.” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis p e n d e n t o n t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f p o ly v in y l c h lo r id e ( p v c ) r e s in s .4 The industry argued for a standard which would set a time-weighted exposure limit of 10 parts per million ( p p m ) for polyvinyl chloride resin plants and 5 ppm for vinyl chloride monomer ( v c m ) plants,5 based on feasi bility considerations. Organized labor endorsed the “no detectable level” standard and disputed the infeasibility of such a standard. The results of its own feasibility study forced OSHA to withdraw from the no detectable level standard and to adopt in its place a 1 ppm stan dard. The industry challenged both the necessity for and feasibility of this stringent limit in the courts with a notable lack of success, particularly because the court of appeals specifically ruled that: the secretary is not restricted to the status quo. He may raise standards which require improvements in existing technologies or which require the development of new tech nology. . . .6 The actual economic consequences of this technology forcing standard for the viability of PVC plants and the availability of jobs in those plants were remarkably modest. A few older p v c plants were shut down, in whole or substantial part, because of the projected cost of bringing those facilities into compliance with the re quirements of the standard. These shutdowns resulted in the loss of about 325 million pounds of production capacity and 375 jobs— approximately 5 percent of the industry total. Much of the credit for the modesty of these adverse effects now is attributed by the industry to the reasonableness of the standard itself, as is evident in the following confidential statement of one company representative: The OSHA-VCM program was, in the end, a real success story for both OSHA and the v c m - p v c industry. By fighting the “absolute zero” concept originally proposed, industry achieved a more practical 1 ppm standard that allowed it to continue to operate and grow. And, apparently the stan dard has protected the workers . . . so at least in this case we have a government regulation that has been practical and beneficial to all concerned. The vinyl chloride standard may not have been cata strophic for the industry, but it was expensive. The first public estimate of the cost of compliance with the 1 ppm standard indicated that the industry would have to invest $200 million (excluding development costs) in im mediate process improvements to satisfy the require ments of the standard.7 The V C M -PV C industry actually invested about $130 million in such process improve ments to bring existing production facilities into com pliance with the standard. More than 90 percent of this total was accounted for by PVC plants, which employ only about 75 percent of the workers in the industry. The apparent $70 million cost “saving” recorded by the industry is an attractive focus of attention but in no way offsets the $130 million actually invested in compli ance with the standard. It is difficult to identify the sources of the saving without knowledge of the basis of the original $200 million cost estimate, but three possi bilities deserve note. First, part of the savings may be attributable to the decision to close rather than modify some older PVC plants. Assuming that these plants had the most acute and expensive compliance problems, they may well have accounted for as much as 10 per cent of estimated compliance cost, although they repre sented only 5 percent of p v c capacity, and for as much as $20 million of the $70 million saving. Second, part of the savings may have stemmed from miscalculation of the significance of the relative cost advantage of VCM facilities in complying with the standard. For example, there was an almost $4,000 per worker difference be tween average compliance cost for PVC and for v c m p v c plants which, if not accounted for in industry cost projections, would have added another $25 million to those estimates. Finally, the industry was able to find more efficient means to achieve compliance than were foreseen at the time the standard was adopted. The largest producer in the industry reported it had been able to reduce its projected $42 million compliance cost by 10 to 15 percent through technological develop ments.8 If other producers were able to realize similar economies, the total savings for the industry would have been another $25 million. Compliance with the vinyl chloride standard entailed incremental operating as well as capital costs. Data on incremental operating costs are limited, but the data which are available suggest that compliance probably cost the industry close to $10 million per year or $100 million in present value terms, assuming a 10 percent interest rate and infinite time horizon. Approximately 70 percent of this incremental operating cost was attrib utable to added activity and staff in two areas—expo sure monitoring and equipment maintenance. The incremental operating costs associated with compliance are noteworthy for three reasons. First, they were not included in public estimates of compliance costs. Second, they were sizable both in absolute amount and in relation to the capital costs of compli ance. Finally, they appear to have been primarily a product of exposure control, per se, rather than the more peripheral requirements of the standard such as https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis recordkeeping or medical surveillance. The incremental capital and operating costs associat ed with compliance constitute the most visible dimen sion of the economic impact of regulation. A much more subtle and surprising economic impact of the vi nyl chloride standard was a significant reduction in ef fective production capacity and output per man-hour in the industry. Compliance with the exposure limits set by the stan dard required substantial changes in work procedures in the industry. These changes resulted in less efficient uti lization of existing equipment and manpower, which lowered effective capacity by approximately 15 percent. The actual loss of product and productivity immediately after the standard became effective was slightly less than 15 percent because there was some temporary ex cess capacity in the industry. Over the longer run, how ever, the loss of product and productivity in then existing facilities has approached the full 15 percent for two reasons. First, industry sales generally have been capacity limited and second, little progress has been made in eliminating the need for modified work proce dures which limit capacity. The incremental capital and operating costs for com pliance with the vinyl chloride standard represent the equivalent of a $23-million increase in annual produc tion cost. That $23 million, in turn, is the equivalent of a $3,000 per year or $1.50 per hour wage premium for the approximately 7,000 workers employed in the V C M PVC industry. Assuming average hourly compensation of $10 for those workers, the OSH A vinyl chloride standard mandated a 15 percent increase in effective wage rate in the industry. That 15 percent increase coupled with a 15 percent drop in productivity suggests that compli ance resulted in a 35-percent increase in unit labor costs. Labor costs, however, are only a small percentage of total costs in the V C M -PV C industry and probably account for no more than 10 percent of total operating costs. Thus, OSHA regulation added no more than 3.5 percent to the cost of PVC resins—about $.005 per pound. Assuming production from then existing facili ties of 4.5 to 4.8 million pounds, the cost to consumers would be about $23 million per year. □ --------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' Steven Rattner, “Did Industry Cry Wolf ? Polyvinyl Chloride Health Rules Can Be Met,” T h e N e w Y o rk T im es, Dec. 28, 1975, p. C -5 . 2“Post-Hearing Memorandum of the Society of the Plastics Indus try, Inc.— Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions Supported by the Record,” (Memorandum presented to the U.S. Department of La bor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, in the matter of proposed permanent standard for occupational exposure to vinyl chlo ride, Washington, D.C., Aug. 22, 1974), p. 5. 3“Showdown on Vinyl Plant Rule Presages Shutdowns,” C h e m ic a l W eek, Sept. 25, 1974, p. 15. 23 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Conference Papers 4 Arthur D. Little, Inc., U n ite d S ta te s P o ly v in y l C h lo r id e I n d u s tr y (Cambridge, Mass: Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1974), p. 5. 5“Showdown on Vinyl,” p. 16. 6 Brief for SPI at 39, S o c ie ty o f th e P la stic s I n d u s tr y , In c. v. O c c u p a tio n a l S a f e ty a n d H e a lth A d m in is tr a tio n , 509 F.2d 1309 (2d Cir. 1975). 7 “PVC Plants are Ready to Pass First Test,” C h e m ic a l W eek, May 7, 1975, p. 49. H“Goodrich Cuts Cost of Meeting VCM Limits,” C h e m ic a l W eek, Dec. 10, 1975, p. 59. I m p a c t A n a ly s is pational Safety and Health Act contains no reference to this kind of economic analysis. This view contrasts with the 5th Circuit view in the benzene cases now before the Supreme Court. If the D.C. Circuit view prevails, it will greatly assist OSHA in sustaining other urgent but costly health standards. High costs imposed? A view of the costs and benefits of the job safety and health law R ic h a r d E. G in n o l d A major issue in criticism of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s enforcement of the Occu pational Safety and Health Act has been the alleged onerous increases in costs of production. Industry has raised the issue in standards hearings, in contesting pen alties, and politically. Not only does OSHA impose high costs, say critics, but the law provides few or no bene fits. Opponents of this reasoning have argued that a se lect minority of workers bears risks so that the general public can consume. To balance worker protection against costs to the consuming public is immoral and inequitable.1 While some courts have required OSHA to consider economic feasibility, a recent D.C. Circuit Court deci sion on the cotton dust standard clearly states that eco nomic feasibility tests were purposefully left out of the law, in contrast to other environmental laws. The court says:2 In the Clean Air Act, for example, Congress required the Environmental Protection Agency ( e p a ) to perform a “costbenefit analysis” . . . Some Congressional acts require a showing of ‘unreasonable risk’ prior to regulation. The leg islative histories of these acts have led the courts to con strue this provision to require regulatory agencies to balance costs and benefits of proposed action. In the OSH Act, in contrast, Congress itself struck the balance between costs and benefits in the mandate to the agency. Section 6(b)(5) unequivocally mandates OSHA to: ‘set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity.’ In contrast to the acts for which Congress contemplated a cost-benefit requirement, the legislative history of the OccuRichard E. Ginnold is director of an occupational safety and health training program and is an associate professor at the Labor Education Center, University of Oregon — Eugene. The title of his full IRRA pa per is “A View of the OSHA Law’s Impact: Some Consideration of Worker’s Compensation Reforms.” 24FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regardless of the legal position, the cost issue is of practical importance. How do the costs impact on the economy or individual employers? What are the corre sponding benefits? Concerning overall costs, it appears they have been greatly exaggerated. Brookings Institu tion economist Edward Denison did a special study of the impact of environmental costs on growth.3He found that all environmental impacts from 1967 had lowered productivity 1.8 percent by 1975. However, only one-quarter of this, or .42 percent, was due to health and safety regulations. Furthermore, .09 percent was due to auto safety, .24 percent was due to mine safety, and only .09 percent to one-tenth of one percent of total productivity loss was due to OSHA. As Denison points out, this was a measure of gross cost alone, and he did not attempt to measure the health benefits resulting from the costs measured. Another recent source is a study by the Business Roundtable4 which measured the incremental costs of environmental regulation by 48 companies making up over one-quarter of the total manufacturing sector (among others) with over $25.8 billion in capital ex penditures and $16.6 billion in corporate after-tax pro fits. These companies reported that the added cost of business due to six Federal regulatory agencies in 1977 was $2.7 billion. The costs of EPA compliance made up 70 percent of the total, which the industry estimates thus far have not caused significant economic problems. Also, as Nicholas Ashford and others have argued,5fre quently OSHA standards speed up the normal replace ment cycles and cause the industry to install a possibly more productive and competitive technology than it was using previously. Costs related to job safety and health werq $184 million, or 7 percent of the total. The compa nies also reported that most of this expense was in curred in earlier years. The McGraw-Hill survey of business safety and health expenditures shows planned spending of $4.9 billion in 1979, as compared with $2.5 billion in 1972. This is a large rise, but not too much more than the rise in producer prices. There still is the question of long-term economic im pacts, effects on worker productivity and employment effects on industries which have refitted or changed pro duction methods to comply with job safety and health requirements. It is important to have a better idea of these costs. Also, given the standard, how long does it take to get it fully enforced in all firms? More detailed impact studies should be done for individual firms ap plying new standards or complying with a controversial standard, for example, noise control and ventilation. The impression that compliance costs have not been onerous is also confirmed by a number of cases cited by Basil Whiting, OSHA deputy assistant secretary, where the costs of industry compliance with new health stand ards— vinyl chloride, acrylonitrile, beryllium—turn out to be far lower than initial projections indicated.6 It should be mentioned that in most of these cases there has not been a thorough followup study, after the standard has taken full effect, looking at both economic and health impacts. These studies are obviously needed. Because of the uncertain knowledge of firms faced with expensive compliance, there should also be an OSHA hotline and clearinghouse of information on tech nical and economic feasibility. Case studies of successful compliance efforts could be obtained from Federal and State compliance officers, State consultants and the Na tional Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. This would greatly assist OSHA officers in informal con ferences with employers and in handling contested cases. It could also be used by employers and unions dealing with specific compliance problems. If we ask workers in hazardous jobs about the impact of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and its bene fits, there will be no question. The improvement in ven tilation, noise reduction, machine guarding, and man agement’s willingness to correct hazards is much greater than before OSHA. Workers can get information on tox ic substances for the first time. Yet this anecdotal evi dence needs more concrete supporting data. John Mendeloff calculated a possible benefit of $380 million from injury reduction, projected nationally.7 A recent report estimated the law’s injury and illness reduction benefits at over $5 billion, exceeding current projected industry costs for safety and health.8 However, we can’t even quantify the impact in most areas, let alone attach benefits to it. To go further in measuring benefits, it is necessary to have much more microresearch into injury rate data and case studies of particular firms, industries, and standards to build the base for more global estimates. Maximizing OSHA’s impact The foregoing discussion indicates that the law has not had the exaggerated cost impact its critics have charged and on balance has had some measurable posi tive impacts. Yet, it is important and possible for OSHA to produce more tangible impacts on the injury and illness problem. There are several areas of needed action. Injury and fatality data are being used widely by OSHA’s critics to show negative effects. OSHA and the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Bureau of Labor Statistics should quickly investigate the anomalies mentioned earlier and also determine to what extent outside factors like workers’ compensation improvements are causing the stability or rise in injury rates and how to obtain a rate which more truly reflects changes in job hazards. As nationwide surveys show,9 only 20 to 25 percent of all workers are exposed to serious safety and health hazards and just 16 percent of the workers surveyed had experienced an injury or illness in the past 3 years. Only 7 percent felt their injury or illness was a serious problem. The same concentration is seen on the em ployer side. Approximately 125,000 employers with more than 20 employees have above average injury rates. In the State of Washington, 10,000 employers have almost all the injuries. Even allowing for some sta tistical turnover of employers from year to year, it is clear that safety and health risks are a priority issue for a minority of employees and employers. OSHA should be directing its entire focus at this group (granted the need to respond to complaints from workplaces missed by the general rule). Once high hazard employers are identified, their inju ry and illness experience should be analyzed and related to needed control measures. Where codes are lacking, general duty guidelines should be made available. The targeting emphasis should not stop with inspections, but should be incorporated into the focus of OSHAfunded State consultation programs and “New Direc tions” education programs. OSHA and its related agen cies should all be thinking in terms of a specific injury reduction target— say, 10 percent per year—and mak ing that the focus of activity. There would be some con flicts between this goal and some natural increase in compensation claims from increased awareness and past exposure, but this could be kept separate. Many of the fastest growing injury causes are not covered by standards, such as back injuries and tendonitis. With a decline in physical conditioning and more women in the labor force, many tools, machines, work procedures, and lifting customs are increasingly hazardous. OSHA now has no standards in these areas, even though some OSHA offices have been citing job de sign problems in cases where large numbers of “carpal tunnel syndrome” (a wrist nerve deterioration) are seen. OSHA should establish general duty guidelines and prac tical control measures for citing the most frequent phys ical stress problems, for example, excessive lifting, job designs which require twisting under load, improperly designed tools and chairs, and standing for long periods on hard floor surfaces. There are many other issues which could be dis cussed. OSHA needs to expand the use of general duty citations to overcome the delay in standard-setting. La bor Department lawyers and Occupational Safety and 25 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Conference Papers Health Review Commission judges see the use of gener al duty as a litigation problem, but 90 percent of OSHA citations are settled in the field and a strongly based general duty clause is worth as much as a stand ard. □ --------- F O O T N O T E S ---------1Nicholas Ashford, C risis in th e W o rk p la c e : O c c u p a tio n a l D isea se (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1976), pp. 359-60. 2 M a r s h a ll v. A F L -C IO , M a r s h a ll v. C o tto n W a re h o u se A sso cia tio n , e t a l , U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (Oct. 24, 1979), p. 55. 1Edward Denison, “Effects of Selected Changes in the Institutional and Human Environment Upon Output Per Unit of Input,” S u r v e y o f C u r r e n t B u sin e ss (January 1978), pp. 21-44. 4The Business Roundtable, C o st o f G o v e r n m e n ta l R e g u la tio n S tu d y (March 1979). 5Ashford, C risis in th e W o rk p la ce. 6 Basil Whiting, Jr., “Regulatory Reform and OSHA: Fads and Re alities,” L a b o r L a w J o u r n a l (August 1979), p. 514. 7John Mendeloff, R e g u la tin g S a f e ty (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1979). * Mark Green and Norman Waitzman, B u sin e ss W a r on th e L a w (Ralph Nader, 1979), p. 81. " R. Quinn and G. Staines, T h e 1 9 7 7 Q u a lity o f E m p lo y m e n t S u r v e y (Ann Arbor, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan). a n d I n ju r y Rise of pensions and social security created alternating goals for unions B r u n o St e in Private pensions and social security retirement benefits easily accommodated each other from the late 1940’s until the mid-1960’s. Afterwards, the rapid growth in social security benefits altered the role of pension retire ment systems and cast doubt upon their future, much to the distress of segments of the pension community. The important breakthrough on the pension scene oc curred in the late 1940’s at the bargaining table, when unions began to demand pensions. At the time, social security retirement benefits averaged $29 per month and replaced about 20 percent of the median wage as it was in the year prior to retirement.1 In view of these low benefits, unions had found an important bargaining is sue. But income taxes were now a factor. Before World War II, most workers were below the income tax threshold, but afterward the tax became a wedge be tween a worker’s gross and net incomes; pensions act as a tax shelter. Initially, the tax advantage to workers may have been less obvious in pensions than in other fringe benefits. However, the advantages increased with Bruno Stein is a professor of economics and director of the Institute of Labor Relations, New York University. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis age, income, and inflation.2 Pension coverage grew sharply in the union sector, and spilled over into the nonunion sector. In 1950, 9.8 million workers had coverage; 10 years later, 18.7 mil lion. After that, growth stemmed more from the in creasing number of workers in businesses with existing plans than from the inauguration of new plans. By 1975, coverage had reached 30.3 million workers.3 Although the low level of social security benefits may have caused the rise of pensions, those benefits began a dramatic upward march in 1970. Between 1970 and 1977, nominal benefits increased by 105 percent. The re placement rate for a median wage earner retiring at age 65 rose from 29.6 percent in 1969 to 44.7 percent in 1977. With a dependent spouse age 62, the replacement rate reached 62 percent.4 Those who also received pen sions found that the social security benefit often was the greater of the two. Moreover, social security benefits were permanently tied to the Consumer Price Index in 1975, a feature that was virtually absent in private pen sion plans. Part of the increase in social security benefits was in tentional, for example, the ad hoc increases before 1975 and the indexing of benefits. However, part of the in crease was the unintended byproduct of a faulty benefit computation formula, enacted in 1972 and effective starting in 1975. This— the famous decoupling prob lem— drove future benefits upward faster than expected, and overcompensated for inflation.5The problem was— one hopes—corrected by the 1977 amendments. Understandably, the pension community became ner vous. As early as 1970, Robert J. Meyers sounded the warning that “expansionists” in the Social Security Ad ministration sought to change social security from a floor of protection to a virtually complete replacement of preretirement income.6 Pension planners indeed had cause to worry. If social security benefits continued to increase, they might crowd out the need for pensions. It is not surprising, therefore, that, by the mid-1970’s, the labor movement no longer placed priority on social se curity benefit increases, leaving some room for pension improvements at the bargaining table.7 The 1977 amendments to the Social Security Act have ended the rise of benefits as measured by the re placement rate. As a result, social security is now less likely to crowd out pensions, and the latter will retain their importance as income maintenance for future re tired workers. □ --------- F O O T N O T E S ------------' Alicia H. Munnell, “The Future of the U.S. Pension System,” in Colin D. Campbell, ed., F in a n c in g S o c ia l S e c u r ity (Washington, Amer ican Enterprise Institute, 1979), p. 256. 2Donald J. Cymrot, “The Effect of Tax Incentives on the Rate of Return for Private Pensions,” January 1978, unpublished. Alfred M. Skolnick, “Private Pension Plans, 1950-1974,” S o c ia l June 1976, p. 4; and Martha Remy Yohalem, “Em ployee Benefit Plans, 1975,” S o c ia l S e c u r ity B u lle tin , November 1977, pp. 20-26. 4 Munnell, “The Future of the U.S. Pension System,” pp. 255-56. An excellent treatment of this complicated issue is found in Rob ert S. Kaplan, I n d e x in g S o c ia l S e c u r ity : A n A n a ly s is o f th e Issu es (Washington, American Enterprise Institute, 1977). For a broader view of the issues, see the papers, comments, and discussion in Camp bell, F in a n c in g S o c ia l S e c u r ity , pp. 91-169. 6 Robert J. Myers, “The Future of Social Security: Is It in Conflict with Private Pension Plans?” P en sio n a n d W e lfa re N ew s, January 1970, pp. 38-48. For a more complete discussion of Myers’ position, see Martha Derthick, P o lic y m a k in g f o r S o c ia l S e c u r ity (Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1979), pp. 23-27, 31, 177-79. 7Bert Seidman, “Concepts of Balance Between Social Security (OASDI) and Private Pension Benefits,” in Dan M. McGill, ed., S o S e c u r ity B u lle tin , c ia l S e c u r ity a n d P r iv a te P en sion P la n s: C o m p e titiv e o r C o m p le m e n ta r y ? (Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1977), p. 86. New Spanish legislation marks turning point in labor relations B e n ja m in M a r t in Organized labor in Spain partakes of the highly political character that distinguishes trade unionism in the Latin countries of Western Europe. But the Spanish political climate in recent years has taken on inordinate dimen sions; the initial years of the democratic transition have been a time of acute rivalries as contending political forces fiercely compete for power and electoral influ ence. The unexpectedly large support received by the Socialists in the June 1977 parliamentary election prompted the center-right government of Prime Minis ter Adolfo Suarez to enter a tacit collaboration with the Communists, for the purpose of containing the Socialist resurgence, a development that inevitably influenced the formulation of government labor policies. The Suarez government has regarded the unions al most exclusively in political terms because the two lead ing labor confederations are controlled by Socialists and Communists. In its estimation, therefore, other than for purposes of political manipulation, there was little incentive to promote basic reforms in labor legislation. There was, on the other hand, good reason to maintain the unions in limbo, in a weakened state to aid the rul ing Union of the Democratic Center Party ( u c d ) in its effort to establish a third major labor center that would serve as the government’s labor adjunct. Nor were the actions of the Socialist and Communist Parties conducive to effective trade union development. Engrossed in a crucial contest for political advantage, Benjamin Martin is a labor specialist, formerly at the Department of State. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis their respective trade union arms were constrained to concern themselves at least as much, if not more with political mobilization and tactics than with essential trade union tasks. In such an environment, institutional needs and the credibility of the unions necessarily suf fered. Turning point The outcome of the March 1, 1979, parliamentary election marked a perceptible change. The election re sults reflected a decisive turnback of a Socialist chal lenge to the continued incumbency of the Suarez government, and a strengthened parliamentary standing for the victorious UCD. Accrued political strength and the reasonable assurance of remaining in power until 1983 persuaded the government in recent months to abandon its alliance with the Communist Party ( p c e ). Moreover, since the Socialist Workers Party ( p s o e ) no longer represents a threat to tenure, to a greater extent than before, the country’s principal parties have found it mutually beneficial to establish working compromises on pending legislation. An example is the new Statute of the Workers, passed by the Congress of Deputies on December 20, 1979. Most likely it was employer influence that was instru mental in the government’s decision to embark on a new approach both to industrial relations and to the Communists. The Spanish Confederation of Employer Organizations ( c e o e ), which serves as the principal spokesman for employer interests, is endeavoring to re duce the highly interventionist government role in herited from the Franco regime, and to carve out for it self a larger role in the setting of economic and labor policies. In July 1979, before the inauguration of parliamenta ry discussions on the proposed labor statute, the CEOE and the General Union of Workers ( u g t ) (which is al lied with the Socialist Party) entered into a pact that set forth their joint support for a number of proposed pro visions of the labor code. This unprecedented develop ment set the stage for the subsequent unveiling of the new policy. The pact marked a major departure not only for the future configuration of labor-management relations but also as a portent of the change in attitude toward the Communists. The principal thrust of p c e strategy is designed to increase the party’s own acceptability. The Workers Commissions, as a consequence, have insisted that the setting of national economic and labor policies should be taken up in formal discussions among gov ernment, employers, unions, and the political parties. The UGT argued that such matters require labor-man agement consultations to lend them a more functional character, and to establish the practice of high-level la bor-management consultations. When the CEOE sided 27 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Conference Papers with UGT on the issue, the Workers Commissions with drew from the talks. The UGT also emerged the gainer in a dispute with the Workers Commissions over the roles to be accorded respectively to the unions and the factory works coun cils. The Workers Commissions have consistently sought to confer wide ranging powers on the works councils, including the right to negotiate on wage and other economic issues, in order to exploit both its ap preciable superiority in experienced cadres and UGT’s deficiency in this area. The UGT, on the other hand, has argued in favor of a larger role for the unions at the plant level and has proposed a delineation of functions similar to what prevails in most West European countries: that works councils be empowered to repre sent workers with respect to most nonwage matters, while unions bargain for wages, hours, and related is sues. Both the pact with CEOE and the provisions of the new statute favor the UGT approach. Concern about Communism An underlying factor in this rapprochement has been mounting concern in employer and center-right political circles that the tacit alliance between the Suarez govern ment and the Communists, if it were to continue, might eventually lead to Communist labor hegemony, especial ly since the government’s effort to create its own trade union arm has ended in total failure. In the moderates’ and rightists’ view, therefore, a new policy was re quired, one that would reduce the PCE’s disproportion ate influence in the country’s political life. As a result, the CEOE-UGT pact, the adoption of a labor statute that incorporated the UGT-CEOE proposals, and the govern ment’s change of attitude toward the Communists all heralded an important shift in labor policy and in the country’s political alignments. Such a shift required the government to improve rela tions with the PSOE and UGT. The latter, who regard the PCE and Workers Commissions more as rivals than as https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis appropriate collaborators, view the government’s cur rent attempt to politically isolate its erstwhile allies as excessive and potentially counter-productive, but are, nevertheless, disposed to enter working agreements with the Suarez government on specific issues. The Commu nist Party and the leadership of the Workers Commis sions understandably have denounced the new statute as retrograde and prejudicial to the workers’ interests. While the new law may be somewhat partial to employ er interests it is, nonetheless, constructive in a number of important aspects. It holds up fairly well when com pared with similar legislation in other West European countries. Further, despite the acute political controver sy accompanying the passage of the Statute of the Workers, the logjam preventing the establishment of a coherent post-Franco labor relations structure has been breached at long last. Viewed in broader context, the democratic evolution process now seems to have attained sufficient stability to render possible the inauguration of a similar evolu tion in labor-management relations as well. The estab lishment of “rules of the game” signifies that a gradual institutionalization of the collective bargaining process and role definitions of the protagonists can now proceed along structured lines. For the unions that have fallen on hard times, a strengthening of their role in the new collective bargaining system and in the formulation of national economic policies holds the promise of eventu ally providing them with an institutional capacity. This has thus far eluded them, as has the gradual emergence of a specific trade union voice in the country’s economic and social life. Such an evolution, should it come to pass, could serve to liberate the unions from their pres ently excessive dependence on the political parties. Throughout the initial years of Spain’s democratic tran sition the trade union-party nexus has tended to func tion as a largely unilateral transmission belt rather than as a mutually beneficial channel between allied, but not always congruent, interests. □ Family Budgets Rise in autumn 1979 family budgets marked by transportation and taxes Table 2. Change in 4-person family budgets, autumn 1978 to autumn 1979 [In percent] Level Reflecting large increases in transportation and medical costs, and personal income taxes, the three hypothetical budgets for an urban family of four in autumn 1979 av eraged $12,585 a year at the lower level, $20,517 at the intermediate level, and $30,317 at the higher level.1(See table 1.) From autumn 1978 to autumn 1979, the lower budget rose 9.0 percent, the intermediate, 10.2 percent, and the higher, 10.6 percent. (See table 2.) Consumption costs. Consumption costs rose by approxi mately 9 percent in the lower budget and 10 percent in the intermediate and higher budgets between autumn 1978 and autumn 1979. The largest increases in con sumption costs for all three budgets were in transporta tion and medical care, and in homeowner costs for the intermediate and higher budgets (See table 3.) The large increases in food costs in the previous year, approximately 12 percent for the lower level and 13 percent for the intermediate and higher level budgets, were replaced by lesser increases of 9.4 percent for the lower and intermediate budgets and 9.5 percent for the higher budget. Tax changes. The budgets include Federal, State, and local tax payments. Changes in Federal Laws provided Table 1. Annual budgets for a 4-person urban family, at 3 levels of living, autumn 1979 Level Component Lower Intermediate High Total budget ...................................... $12,585 $20,517 $30,317 Total family consumption.............. 10,234 15,353 21,069 Food .................................. Housing .............................. Transportation...................... Clothing .............................. Personal c a re ...................... Medical ca re ........................ Other family consumption . . . . 3,911 2,409 1,004 866 323 1,171 550 5,044 4,594 1,851 1,235 433 1,176 1,021 6,360 6,971 2,411 1,804 613 1,227 1,684 Other items ................................ 539 877 1,478 Social security and disability ........ 781 1,256 1,413 Personal income taxes ................ 1,032 3,031 6,357 NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Com ponent Low er Total consumption less shelter .................... Total consumption ...................................... Food .................................................. Housing .............................................. Shelter1 ...................................... Renter costs ........................ Homeowner costs2 ................ Housefurnishings and operations . . . Transportation .................................... Clothing .............................................. Personal c a re ...................................... Medical care........................................ Other family consumption .................... Other items ........................................ Social security .................................... Personal income taxes ........................ Total budget .............................................. 9.1 9.0 9.4 7.9 8.2 8.2 7.0 17.3 2.2 7.3 10.0 6.8 7.4 8.6 10.4 9.0 I n t e r m e d ia t e 9.3 9.7 9.4 9.9 10.8 8.1 11.3 6.8 17.7 2.2 7.4 9.9 6.8 8.3 17.1 10.7 10.2 H ig h e r 9.2 9.6 9.5 9.9 10.9 7.9 11.3 6.9 18.0 2.0 7.5 9.9 6.7 8.3 29.5 10.8 10.6 11ncludes only rental housing in the lower budget. 2On the assumption that the home was purchased 6 years ago, these costs reflect changes in purchase prices and mortgage interest rates from 1972 to 1973; and changes in property taxes, insurance, fuel and utilities, and repairs and maintenance from 1978 to 1979. for increased deduction for personal exemptions, higher standard deductions for the assumed family type in the budgets, and a decrease in tax rates. These deductions were offset by higher tax rates corresponding to higher incomes. The net result was that total personal income taxes increased approximately 10 percent at the lower level and 11 percent at the intermediate and higher lev els. This contrasts to the 1977-78 income tax changes where taxes at the lower level rose 30 percent, and at the intermediate and higher level, 17 and 15 percent. Housing and utilities. Housing consists of rental units only in the lower budget, and increased by 7.9 percent between autumn 1978 and autumn 1979. In the inter mediate and higher budgets, housing includes both rent als and homeownership, and increased by 9.9 percent, largely because of increases in mortgage interest during 1972-73, and substantial increases in fuel and utility costs. Increases in housing costs had a greater impact on the intermediate and higher budgets than on the lower budgets, not only because of large rises in homeowner costs but also because housing accounts for a larger share of the consumption dollar at those levels. The social security tax rate rose from 6.05 in 1978 to 6.13 percent in 1979, and the maximum income on which it is deducted increased from $17,700 to $22,900. The family budgets represent the costs of three hypo29 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Family Budgets Table 3. Indexes of comparative costs based on an intermediate budget for a 4-person family,1autumn 1979* [U.S. Urban average cost=100] C o s t o f f a m ily c o n s u m p t io n A re a T o ta l T o ta l budget con sum p T r a n s p o r ta tio n 7 H o u s in g Food A u to Food T o ta l t io n at T o ta l4 R e n te r5 H om e- T o ta l o w n e r6 hom e C lo t h in g m o b ile P e rs o n a l M e d ic a l c a re c a re 8 O th e r P e rs o n a l fa m ily in c o m e con ta x e s sum p o w n e rs tio n 9 Urban United States ........................................ Metropolitan areas2 .................................. 'Nonmetropolitan areas3 ............................ 100 102 91 100 102 92 100 101 94 100 101 97 100 102 89 100 104 83 100 104 84 100 101 97 100 102 93 100 101 97 100 101 94 100 103 88 100 103 85 100 104 82 Northeast: Boston, Mass.............................................. Buffalo, N.Y................................................ New York-Northeastern, N. J........................ Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J.................................... Pittsburgh, Pa.............................................. 'Nonmetropolitan areas3 ............................ 119 106 116 104 97 101 115 103 111 102 97 101 106 102 111 112 104 100 108 104 109 109 104 103 135 105 127 100 88 107 114 99 111 87 86 88 151 107 140 106 86 115 116 109 92 96 101 105 133 103 105 109 100 99 111 123 93 73 95 101 99 92 103 92 98 87 93 82 103 103 89 90 110 100 110 105 100 84 142 121 147 119 98 103 North Central: Chicago, III.-Northwestern Ind....................... Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind................................ Cleveland, Ohio ........................................ Detroit, Mich............................................... Kansas City, Mo.-Kans................................. Milwaukee, Wis........................................... Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn........................... St. Louis, Mo.-lll.......................................... 'Nonmetropolitan areas3 ............................ 100 99 102 101 96 104 104 97 92 102 99 103 101 97 102 99 98 93 101 102 100 99 97 97 101 105 94 102 103 98 99 98 96 100 106 97 101 93 102 103 86 107 97 90 91 107 82 86 95 88 100 103 84 96 101 96 108 109 82 112 96 86 86 104 100 101 97 107 102 99 107 96 119 95 100 96 101 97 94 106 91 93 116 107 97 108 113 101 96 106 98 93 126 104 119 107 109 98 99 107 95 101 109 97 96 88 89 84 109 100 107 100 101 103 109 102 87 93 96 96 105 89 114 132 92 86 South: Atlanta, Ga................................................. Baltimore, Md............................................. Dallas. Tex................................................. Houston, Tex.............................................. Washington, D C -Md.-Va............................. 'Nonmetropolitan areas3 ............................ 92 99 89 93 108 85 93 97 94 97 105 88 96 96 94 98 103 92 95 94 91 95 103 95 82 96 85 86 110 81 77 112 96 85 113 70 77 86 80 82 110 71 99 96 101 100 99 95 94 95 96 95 98 90 109 98 93 108 91 89 103 97 104 111 110 93 91 102 108 117 107 88 98 100 99 96 112 85 82 110 63 68 129 68 West: Denver, Colo............................................... Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif..................... San Diego, Calif.......................................... San Francisco-Oakland, Calif....................... Seattle-Everett, Wash.................................. Honolulu .................................................. 'Nonmetropolitan areas3 ............................ 100 97 98 105 101 126 94 100 98 99 105 105 117 94 96 97 95 102 100 126 94 97 94 91 101 97 131 97 96 92 97 103 106 122 90 87 119 107 148 135 142 104 93 85 97 93 99 119 82 104 105 103 108 103 104 96 99 104 97 107 98 99 92 132 96 98 107 114 104 109 91 97 99 119 118 114 97 92 127 124 118 110 107 93 102 92 100 99 105 113 85 99 87 89 103 80 176 96 Anchorage, Alaska............................................ 136 134 123 127 155 197 140 126 120 113 140 161 102 157 1The family consists of an employed husband, age 38, a wife not employed outside the home, an 8-year-old girl, and a 13-year-old boy. 2As defined in 1960-61. For a detailed description of these and previous geographical boundaries, see the 1967 edition of S ta n d a rd M e tro p o lita n S ta tis tic a l A reas, prepared by the Office of Management and Budget. 3Places with population of 2,500 to 50,000. 4Housing includes shelter, housefurnishings, and household operations. 5Renter costs include average cotract rent plus the cost of required amounts of heating fuel, gas, electricity, water, specified equipment, and insurance on household contents. 6 Homeowner costs include interest and principal payments plus taxes; insurance on house and contents; water, refuse disposal, heating fuel, gas, electricity, and specified equipment; and home repairs and maintenance costs. 7The average costs of automobile owners and nonowners in the intermediate budget were thetical lists of goods and services that were specified in the mid-1960’s to portray three relative standards of living described as lower, intermediate, and higher. These budgets are for a precisely defined urban family of four: a 38 year-old husband employed full time, his non-working wife, a boy of 13, and a girl of 8. The fam ily has, for each budget level, average inventories of clothing, housefurnishings, major durables, and other articles. The budgets pertain only to an urban family with the specified characteristics; no budgets are avail able for rural families. The budgets are not intended to represent a minimum level of adequate income or a sub sistence level of living, nor do they indicate how fami lies do or should spend their money. Digitized for 30 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis weighted by the following proportions of families: Boston, New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, 80 percent for owners, 20 percent for nonowners; Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C., with populations of 1.4 million or more in 1960, 95 percent for automobile owners and 5 percent for nonowners; all other areas, 100 percent for automobile owners. 8In total medical care, the average costs of medical insurance were weighted by the follow ing proportions; 30 percent for families paying full cost of insurance, 26 percent for families paying half cost; 44 percent for families covered by noncontributory insurance plans (paid by employer). 9Other family consumption includes average costs for reading, recreation, tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, education, and miscellaneous expenditures. 'Some areas previously shown are no longer available. Users should note that the procedures used in updating the budgets to 1979 differ from procedures used in 1978. As a result of the revision of the CPI pro gram in January 1978, individual area price changes from autumn 1978 to autumn 1979 were available for only 25 of the44 family budget areas. The urban U.S. average includes estimates for these areas, however, us ing price data for the appropriate region and population size classes which are available from the CPI. Non metropolitan areas, which have always been shown as a separate class, have been similarly updated. Complete data on the three family budgets can be obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or any of its regional offices. □ Research Summaries a The workweek in 1979: fewer but longer workdays Ja n ic e N e ipe r t H edges The 4-day 40-hour workweek is the best known, but perhaps not the most significant, illustration of a trend toward fewer but longer workdays for full-time work ers. Schedules that exceed the 40-hour standard are in creasingly compressed into 5 days in order to provide a 2-day weekend. The number of wage and salary workers who usually work 5.5 or 6 days a week declined by more than onehalf million in the 6 years ended May 1979.1 (See table 1.) This drop occurred despite a gain of about 1 million in the group of workers who are most likely to work more than 5 days, namely, those who work 41 hours or more per week. The explanation lies in the growing practice of squeezing the workweek into 5 days or less even if this requires workdays of 9 or 10 hours or even more. Janice Neipert Hedges is an economist in the Office of Current Em ployment Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The compression of weekly hours into fewer days is evident below and above the 40-hour standard work week. Among employees who usually work 35 to 39 hours, the proportion working 4.5 days or less increased from 5 to 7 percent from 1973 to 1979. Among those who usually work 41 to 48 hours, three-fifths were on 5-day schedules in 1979— up from less than one-half 6 years earlier. The trend away from 5.5 and 6-day weeks was evident even for those who work 49 hours or more a week. (See table 2.) The push toward fewer but longer days is seen most clearly in the data for workweeks of a specific number of hours, rather than those which are expressed in inter vals of hours, as the latter may mask movement within the interval (for example, relatively fewer workers at or near the upper margin). Thus, among employees who reported working 44 hours, the proportion working more than a 5-day schedule declined from one-half to one-third from 1973 to 1979. Among those working 48 hours a week, the proportion working more than 5 days declined from one-fourth to one-fifth. The modest reductions in the weekly hours of wage and salary employees in this 6-year period (reflected in a decline from 42.5 to 42.3 in the average usual hours of full-time employees) fell far short of organized labor’s Table 1. Nonfarm wage and salary workers who usually work full time, by usual number of days worked per week, Mav 1973 to 1979 4 .5 d a y s o r le s s Year 5 .5 d a y s o r m o r e T o ta l 5 days T o ta l 3 days 4 days 4 .5 d a y s T o ta l 5 .5 d a y s 6 days 7 days 10,179 9,443 8,158 8,662 9,286 9,529 9,697 2,768 2,559 2,272 2,307 2,298 2,475 2,381 6,231 5,751 4,799 5,240 5,744 5,802 6,026 1,180 1,133 1,087 1,115 1,244 1,252 1,290 17.3 15.9 14.1 14.5 15.0 14.9 14.3 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.9 3.5 10.6 9.7 8.3 8.8 9.3 9.1 8.9 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 N u m b e r o f w o r k e r s (in t h o u s a n d s ) 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... 58,923 59,442 57,787 59,700 61,891 63,943 67,712 990 1,108 1,247 1,271 1,399 1,400 1,493 145 190 186 215 245 207 232 575 653 771 744 853 893 925 271 265 290 312 301 300 336 47,754 48,891 48,382 49,768 51,206 53,014 56,522 P e r c e n t d is t r ib u t io n 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... NOTE: 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.2 0.2 .3 .3 .4 .4 .3 .3 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.5 .4 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 81.0 82.2 83.7 83.4 82.7 82.9 83.5 Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Data prior to 1978 exclude private household workers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 31 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Research Summaries Table 2. Nonfarm wage and salary workers by usual weekly hours and days in the workweek, May 1973, 1976, and 1979 [In percent] 1973 1976 1979 42.5 42.1 42.3 35-39 hours in 4.5 days or less ............ 5 days .......................... 5.5 days or more............ 5.0 88.0 7.0 7.0 86.0 7.0 7.0 87.0 6.0 40 hours in 4.5 days or less ............ 5 days .......................... 5.5 days or more............ 1.0 96.0 3.0 1.0 96.0 3.0 2.0 95.0 3.0 41-48 hours in 4.5 days or less ............ 5 days .......................... 5.5 days or more............ 2.0 46.0 52.0 2.0 51.0 47.0 2.0 57.0 41.0 49 - 59 hours in 4.5 days or less ............ 5 cays .......................... 5.5 days or more............ 2.0 45.0 54.0 2.0 49.0 49.0 2.0 50.0 48.0 3.0 19.0 79.0 4.0 22.0 75.0 3.0 23.0 74.0 Usual time worked Average usual hours..........~ Percent u s u a lly w o rking In the early 1970’s, the 4-day, 40-hour workweek had been heralded as the successor to the standard 5-day week. At the close of the decade, however, 64 percent of all wage and salary workers, or 1 percentage point more than in 1973, were on 5-day, 40-hour schedules. Growth in the number of 4-day employees since 1977 had no more than kept pace with the overall growth in wage and salary employment. Work schedules which gave employees some choice in the timing of their work (for example, flexitime) seemed to be taking hold but had not resulted in any significant change in the num ber of workdays in the week.2 6 0 h o u r s o r m o r e in 4.5 days or less ............ 5 days .......................... 5.5 days or more............ often stated objective of a 4-day, 32-hour week. They did, however, facilitate the compression. A 5-day sched ule is more feasible with a 45-hour week, for example, than with a 50-hour week. Nonetheless, in 1979, the number of workers who regularly worked 10 hours a day for 5 days was several times the number who worked 10 hours daily for 4 days (2.3 million versus .5 million.) NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. Data prior to 1978 exclude private household workers. Compressed 4-day workweeks had come to be con sidered largely as special schedules. They were being used, for example, to provide larger police forces during high crime periods and to increase the utilization of Table 3. Nonfarm wage and salary workers who usually work full time, by usual number of days worked per week, and industry and occupational group, May 1979_____________ ________ ________________________________________________ In d u s t r y a n d o c c u p a t io n P e r c e n t d is t r ib u t io n T o t a l (in th o u s a n d s ) 4 .5 d a y s o r le s s 4 days 5 days 5 .5 d a y s 6 days 7 days 67,712 2.2 1.4 83.5 3.5 8.9 1.9 Goods-producing1 .............................................. Mining ........................................................ Construction................................................ Manufacturing ............................................ 25,274 793 4,456 19,711 2.0 1.8 3.0 1.7 1.4 .8 2.4 1.2 85.1 72.7 85.9 85.8 3.4 2.3 2.9 3.4 8.2 14.5 7.3 7.9 1.3 8.7 .9 1.1 Service-producing .............................................. Transportation and public utilities.................. Wholesale and retail trade............................ Finance, insurance, and real estate .............. Services .................................................... Public Administration.................................... Federal except postal .......................... Postal.................................................. State .................................................. Local .................................................. 42,438 5,188 11,348 4,236 17,120 4,545 1,480 613 807 1,645 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.4 2.3 4.6 1.0 (2) 1.3 11.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 .5 1.4 1.9 .1 (2) 1.1 4.6 82.5 86.1 71.5 84.5 86.1 90.4 96.2 91.6 95.6 82.2 3.6 2.1 6.8 4.3 2.5 .7 .7 .8 .5 .8 9.3 6.8 17.6 7.6 6.4 3.7 2.0 7.6 1.5 4.8 2.3 3.1 2.1 2.2 2.6 .6 .1 (2) 1.1 1.0 White-collar workers .......................................... Professional and technical............................ Managers and administrators........................ Sales workers ............................................ Clerical workers.......................................... 35,371 11,655 7,898 3,333 12,484 1.5 1.7 .8 1.8 1.6 .8 1.1 .6 .9 .8 84.5 87.8 71.6 70.7 93.2 4.1 2.7 8.0 8.4 1.8 8.0 5.5 16.1 16.1 3.2 1.9 2.2 3.5 3.1 .3 Blue-collar workers ............................................ Craftworkers .............................................. Operatives, except transport........................ Transport equipment operatives.................... Laborers .................................................... 25,761 10,489 9,232 2,818 3,222 2.3 1.7 2.2 3.9 3.0 1.6 1.3 1.4 2.7 2.2 83.2 82.7 85.4 76.1 84.7 3.3 4.0 2.4 3.6 3.1 9.5 10.1 8.4 13.3 7.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 3.1 1.5 Service workers.................................................. 6,580 5.8 3.2 79.2 1.3 id 2.5 Total ...................................................... In d u s t r y O c c u p a t io n 1Total includes nonfarm workers in agricultural industries, not shown separately. 2Not available. 32 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. capital equipment by scheduling more work outside the traditional daytime shifts. In continuous operations, ro tating, 12-hour shifts that combined workweeks of 4 days with 3-day workweeks were being introduced to provide employees with more days off (and more free weekends) than under traditional scheduling.3 Some viewed the 4-day workweek primarily as an energy con servation device in the event of a national emergency.4 The greater prevalence of workweeks of any given number of days in some industries than in others indi cates special requirements in those industries as well as legal restrictions and custom. Five-day schedules were very widespread in Federal public administration in 1979 where employees were covered by requirements of the Federal Pay Act for premium pay after 8 hours work a day.5 (See table 3.) Schedules of fewer than 5 days occurred most often in local government, largely because of the use of such schedules for police and firefighters. Full-time workweeks of 5.5 and 6 days were more common in trade than elsewhere, in part, because stores generally operate more days than offices or facto ries. In the service-producing sector as a whole, both longer and shorter workweeks were a little more preva lent than in the goods-producing group. Wide differences also are observed by occupation. Clerical occupations had by far the highest proportion of 5-day workers, while workweeks of 5.5 and 6 days were most common for sales employees and managers and administrators. Service workers, 6 percent of whom were on schedules of 4.5 days or less, were more likely than other groups to work full time in fewer than 5 days. Among transportation equipment operators (a group that includes truck drivers), both the proportion working 4 days and the proportion working 6 days were higher than the overall average. Overall, the proportion of full-time wage and salary workers who usually work 5 days or less, rose by 3 per centage points, to almost 84 percent, in the 6 years end ed May 1979. □ --------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' Findings in this report are based on information collected once a year since 1973 through a May supplement to the monthly Current Population Survey, which is conducted for the Bureau of Labor Sta tistics by the Bureau of the Census. The information is provided by a question, “How many days a week does . . . . usually work at this job?,” cross-classified with questions on the monthly schedules. The data refer to the number of days per week that are usually worked by nonfarm wage and salary employees who work full time (35 hours or more) on their sole or primary job. ' Flexitime in its simplest form has no impact on the number of days worked; employees can vary the hour at which they begin and end work, but are required to put in a full day every day. However, under more advanced forms of flexitime, workers can work longer days occasionally to shorten their workweek by a half day, or even more. Herbert R. Northrup, James T. Wilson, and Karen M. Rose, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis “The Twelve-Hour Shift in the Petroleum and Chemical Industries,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R ev ie w , April 1979, pp. 312-26. 4 “Concepts for an Energy Conservation Contingency Plan: Com pressed Work Week.” Draft, Jack Faucett Assoc., Inc. under contract to U.S. Department of Energy, 1979. The Federal Employees Flexible & Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-390) has temporarily suspended these provisions for agencies or work units participating in approved experi ments with work schedules. Most workers find jobs through word of mouth M ary and G C o r c o r a n , L in d a D reg J. D atcher , uncan A majority of workers heard about their current jobs through friends and relatives, according to a recent na tionally representative sample of adult workers, and more than one-third of all workers had help in getting their jobs. Black men were as likely as white men to have heard about or obtained their current jobs infor mally. Informal channels were used more among young workers, less educated workers, and blue-collar workers. These data are from the 11th wave of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, an ongoing, longitudinal study of more than 5,000 American families which was begun in 1968.1 The sample for this study is restricted to male household heads, female household heads, and wives, all of whom were under age 45 in 1978 and worked at least 250 hours in 1977. There were 3,759 observations; 1,499 white men, 667 black men, 988 white women, and 605 black women. When weighted, these data represent the population of young working adults living in their own households. All heads of households responded for themselves; for married cou ples, husbands reported for their wives. Three distinct aspects of informal job search were in vestigated: “search at the extensive margin,” “search at the intensive margin,” and “influence patterns.” Search at the extensive margin involves workers obtaining wage offers from additional employers; search at the intensive margin involves obtaining additional information about job offers already in hand.2 Responses to the first ques tion, “How did you first hear about a job with your Mary Corcoran is a study director at the University of Michigan’s In stitute for Social Research and assistant professor of political science; Linda Datcher is a study director at the Institute; and Greg J. Dun can is a senior study director at the Institute and assistant professor of economics. The research reported in this paper was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (for merly U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare) and the National Science Foundation. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors. 33 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Research Summaries present employer— was it through a friend, a relative, a want ad, an employment agency, or what?” provide some information about search at the extensive margin. Responses to the second question, “Before you got your first job with your present employer, did you know any one who worked there?” provide a dichotomous mea sure of information at the intensive margin. Personal contacts who are already working for a potential em ployer may provide jobseekers with useful information about working conditions, fringe benefits, and advance ment opportunities. Responses to the third set of ques tions, “Do you think there was anyone who may have helped you get the job?” and “How did they help?” provide measures of influence, that is, whether the workers received any help at all from personal contacts in getting their current jobs. How workers hear about their jobs Friends, relatives, and personal contacts were a major source of information and help to workers seeking jobs. About half of all workers heard about their current job through a friend or relative and about half knew some one who worked for their current employer before they began work. Reports of influence, while less common, were still numerous. About 40 percent of the men and one-third of the women reported that someone helped them get their current job. In contrast to some previous findings,3 we found that black men were more likely than white men to have heard about a job from a friend. In addition, they were more likely to have known someone who worked there and to be helped by someone in getting the job. But Table 1. looking at the kind of help received, white men were somewhat more likely to report having received direct help than were black men. Women were considerably less likely than men to have used informal information and influence channels in obtaining their current jobs. Recall, however, that husbands reported on their wives’ use of such channels. Such a difference would be expected if husbands sys tematically underestimated the extent to which their wives had access to friendship networks to learn about and get jobs. When women’s use of informal informa tion and influence channels was compared by marital status, we found that white female heads of households and white wives were equally likely to have used such channels. Black female heads, on the other hand, con sistently reported more use of such channels than did black wives. This information could be accurate rather than the result of husbands’ misreporting because the pressure to get high wage jobs is stronger for female heads of households. However, black female heads re ported considerably less use of such channels than did black men and slightly less than did white men. Users of contacts Table 1 examines use of informal information and in fluence networks by education and occupation. Con struction of the first two variables, “Heard about cur rent job from a friend or relative,” and “Knew someone on current job,” is self-explanatory. The third, “Re ceived help on current job” is formed from affirmative responses to the first question regarding influence. Regardless of race-sex group, workers with college Proportion of workers receiving information about and help in obtaining current job, by occupation and education [In percent] H e a r d a b o u t c u r r e n t jo b f r o m R e c e iv e d h e lp in g e t t in g jo b K n e w s o m e o n e o n c u r r e n t jo b a f r ie n d o r r e la t iv e O c c u p a t io n a n d e d u c a t io n W h it e W h it e B la c k B la c k W h it e W h it e B la c k B la c k W h it e W h it e B la c k B la c k m en w om en m en w om en m en w om en m en w om en m en w om en m en w om en Military, police, fire.................................. Transport operatives .............................. Other operatives.................................... Laborers, household .............................. Other service ........................................ O ther.................................................... 31.9 48.1 51.6 58.1 46.1 69.8 61.2 74.6 42.5 ’ 54.5 36.5 41.0 47.1 ( 2) (2) '35.9 63.6 ( 2) 53.6 45.5 49.1 141.7 61.6 61.7 37.1 69.6 60.3 52.9 59.9 (2) 41.4 118.2 34.5 '70.4 (2) (2) 52.2 '78.1 45.8 '35.5 43.4 52.8 53.7 63.6 48.9 64.3 64.3 67.0 60.4 '45.5 40.2 37.0 45.1 (2) (2) 153.6 71.6 ( 2) 47.7 48.3 53.7 '79.5 69.8 69.4 34.5 67.7 74.6 61.2 66.1 ( 2) 44.8 ’ 21.6 37.8 180.0 <2) (2) 72.8 ’ 27.3 55.8 '87.1 32.5 43.9 40.1 41.6 24.0 53.8 41.6 51.1 34.6 '46.9 26.5 33.0 35.8 (2) (a) 124.5 23.1 <2) 32.3 27.8 30.6 '35.8 40.2 44.7 47.4 34.7 42.4 38.6 60.7 (2) 33.0 118.2 33.2 '64.2 (2) (2) 21.5 '76.6 38.1 '58.1 Education: 8 grades or fewer .................................. 9 11 .................................................... 12 ........................................................ 12 and above ........................................ 13 15 .................................................. B.A......................................................... Advanced degree .................................. 69.3 59.5 64.2 51.8 53.4 38.5 22.8 53.4 61.0 51.0 42.4 45.2 37.1 50.2 60.4 64.9 55.6 49.2 68.8 38.3 ( 2) 26.6 41.1 45.7 44.2 49.0 24.7 ( 2) 77.5 60.7 66.2 56.5 58.1 40.6 43.6 66.2 57.7 53.0 42.6 41.0 43.4 31.9 76.1 74.2 73.7 56.8 60.8 54.6 (2) 68.5 68.5 46.3 33.3 49.6 41.0 (2) 48.7 40.0 46.3 40.9 41.7 33.9 27.1 27.4 29.4 31.8 34.7 32.1 31.4 23.1 53.1 45.3 50.0 47.0 28.1 31.6 ( 2) 56.5 28.3 29.9 40.8 41.6 27.2 ( 2) Occupation: Professional .......................................... Managerial ............................................ Clerical and sales .................................. ' Result based on 10-25 observations. 34FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 2Fewer than 10 observations. and advanced degrees and professional workers were considerably less likely than the average worker to re port having used informal information and influence channels in obtaining their current jobs. While more than half of all white men reported having heard about their current job from a friend, only 32 percent of white male professionals, only 39 percent of white men with B.A. degrees and only 23 percent of white men with ad vanced degrees reported that they heard about their current job from a friend. Forty percent of all white men reported that someone helped them get their pres ent job, but only one-third of the white men with pro fessional jobs, college degrees, or advanced degrees reported such help. White men in blue-collar occupa tions were more likely than other white men to hear about their job from a friend, to know someone on the job, and to be helped by someone. Perhaps, informal in formation and influence networks substitute for the more formal credentials used by well-educated and pro fessional workers. The three information and influence measures were regressed on schooling, job tenure, and on age when the job was taken. For white men, education and the age when they took the job were negatively associated with all three information and influence measures and sig nificantly so in all but one instance. That is, the youn ger and less educated a white man was when he obtained a job, the more likely it was that he heard about that job from friends or relatives, that he knew someone who worked there, that someone helped him get the job, or that he both knew someone and received help getting the job. Part of the negative associations with workers’ educa tion and age may be an occupational effect. That is, well-educated and older workers may be more likely to seek work in occupations which emphasize formal cre dentials and past experience or training. Results when occupation is controlled suggest that this may be true for schooling, but not for the age when the job was taken. When occupation is controlled, the magnitude of the negative association between schooling and the in formation and influence measures dropped sharply for white men. But controls for occupation had no effect on the negative association between the ages when people took their current job and influence and information measures. For the other groups, the amount of schooling and the age when workers took their jobs were not consis tently associated with the measures of informal informa tion and influence. For black men, schooling was negatively and significantly associated with knowing someone and having received help, but these associa tions dropped sharply and became insignificant once oc cupation was controlled. □ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis --------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' The Panel Study of Income Dynamics is conducted under the direction of Greg J. Duncan and James N. Morgan at the Survey Re search Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. This survey is described in A P a n e l S tu d y o f I n c o m e D y n a m ic s : S tu d y D esig n P ro c e d u re s a n d A v a ila b le D a ta , Volumes I-X I (Institute for Social Re search, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.). A more complete description of the procedures is in Mary Corcoran, Linda Datcher, and Greg J. Duncan, ‘"Information and Influence Networks in Labor Markets” in Greg J. Duncan and James N. Morgan, eds., F ive T h o u s a n d A m e r ic a n F a m ilie s — P a tte r n s o f E c o n o m ic P rogress, Volume VIII, (Ann Arbor, Mich., Institute for Social Research, 1980). See Albert Rees, “Information Networks in Labor Markets,” May 1966, pp. 559-66. See David W. Stevens, “A Reexamination of What is Known About Job Seeking Behavior in the United States,” L a b o r M a r k e t I n te rm e d ia r ie s, Special Report 22 (Washington, National Commission for Manpower Policy, 1978), pp. 55-104. A m e r ic a n E c o n o m ic R ev ie w , Conflicts among work, leisure, and family roles G raham L. St a i n e s and P a m e l a O ’C o n n o r Workers in the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey were asked, “How much do your job and your free time activities interfere with each other?” 1A third of the 1,515 workers reported that conflict between work and free time activities occurred “a lot” or “somewhat.” When asked “In what ways do they interfere with each other?” these workers most frequently mentioned excessive amounts of work which prevented them from spending enough time in other activities. The second most common complaint involved work schedules that interfered with leisure. “Other” time conflicts ranked third and reports that work makes the worker too tired or too irritated to engage in leisure activities were fourth. Demographic subgroups of workers reported different types of conflict between work and leisure. Men, who on average work more hours than women, were signifi cantly more likely than women to report excessive amounts of work. Older workers (45 years and over) were significantly less likely than younger workers to re port excessive amounts of work, scheduling conflicts, or spillover from work of fatigue and irritation. Married workers were more likely than unmarried workers to re port excessive amounts of work, but were less likely to report scheduling conflicts. Parental responsibility was positively and significantly associated with reports of Graham L. Staines is an assistant research scientist and Pamela O’Connor is a research associate at the Survey Research Center, Uni versity of Michigan. 35 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Research Summaries excessive amounts of work, but not with reports of the other types of interference. Workers with a high school diploma cited spillover of fatigue and irritation more frequently than did workers in other educational cate gories, but education was not related to the other types of interference. Workers in managerial and administra tive occupations were the group most likely to complain of excessive work, whereas service workers were the group most inclined to mention scheduling conflicts. Factors associated with conflict Conflict between work and leisure clearly appears re lated to the demographic characteristics of the worker and to various dimensions of work, leisure, and family roles.2Table 1 summarizes the findings for the degree of conflict associated with demographic factors. The “mean” in the table is the average value of response to the question: “How much do your job and your free time activities interfere with each other?” Degrees of in terference were scored from 1 to 4 points, with “not at all” equaling 1 point and “a lot” equaling 4 points. Working men reported significantly more conflict be tween work and leisure than did working women, as did younger workers (under age 45), compared with older workers. The degree of interference was not relat ed to marital status but was positively and significantly Table 1. Reported conflict between work and leisure, by selected demographic characteristics C h a r a c t e r is t ic M ean1 Sex: M e n ...................................................... Women.................................................. 22.26 22.10 Under 30 years...................................... 30-44 years.......................................... 45 years and older ................................ 22.29 22.29 22.02 Marital status: Married.................................................. Not married .......................................... 32.23 32.13 Parental status: No children............................................ Youngest child 6 -17 years .................... Youngest child under 6 years.................. 22.13 22.22 22.34 Education: Less than high school diploma ................ High school diploma .............................. Some college ........................................ College degree or more.......................... 22.05 22.21 22.20 22.39 Occupation: Professional and technical ...................... Managerial and administrative ................ Sales and clerical .................................. Crafts.................................................... Operatives ............................................ Service.................................................. 22.21 22.41 22.02 22.15 22 39 22.07 Age: ' The mean is the average value of response to the question: “ How much do your job and your free time activities interfere with each other?” Degrees of interference were scored from 1 to 4 points, with “ not at all” equaling 1 and “ a lot” equaling 4. Levels of significance indicate the presence of significant differences among subgroup means (based on analysis of variance). 2 Significant at .01. 3 Not significant. Digitized for 36 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis related to level of parental responsibilities: parents of children under age 6 were more likely to report conflict, followed by parents of school-age children, and then workers with no children at home. Moreover, workers with a college degree or above reported significantly more conflict than did those with less education. Among the major occupational groups, workers in managerial and administrative occupations registered the highest level of conflict. A number of work-related items were significantly re lated to work-leisure conflict. (See table 2.) As expected, amount of time spent on the job was positively and significantly related to interference. Another significant factor was shift assignment: workers on afternoon or night shifts reported the highest levels of interference; those on day shifts reported the lowest level; and those on rotating shifts or other irregular patterns registered scores in between. The significance that workers assign to their work role was assessed by asking the following two questions: “How often do you think about your job when you’re busy doing something else? Often, sometimes, rarely, never” (role perseveration); and “How much do you agree or disagree that the most important things that happen to you involve your job? Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree” (role importance). Role per severation was significantly and positively related to in terference, but role importance was not. Interference produced a significantly negative relationship with satis faction with work.3 Several leisure-related items also are related signifi cantly to reported conflict between work and leisure. (See table 3.) Although an index of frequency of leisure activities4 was not related to degree of conflict, an index of variety of leisure activities was positively and signifi cantly related to interference. In other words, it is not so much the total amount of leisure activity as the num ber of different types of leisure activities that appears to predict interference. When specific leisure activities were considered separately, two contrasting patterns were ev idenced. Frequency of participation in those activities that required leaving the house and going to a sched uled event (for example, a concert, play, movie, or par ty) was significantly associated with high levels of workleisure conflict. Participation in informal activities that take place at or near home (for example, working on hobbies at home or working around the house) tended to be negatively related to conflict, especially among those who at least sometimes engage in the activity; in the case of watching television, there was a significantly negative relationship (that is, more viewing was associ ated with lower conflict). Thus, individuals can reduce high levels of work-leisure conflict by opting for infor mal and easily organized leisure activities, especially television viewing. Furthermore, time spent on leisure during a workday was significantly negatively related to work-leisure interference, although leisure time on a day off was not.5In addition, the significance of leisure (role perseveration, role importance) was positively and sig nificantly associated with work-leisure conflict, whereas satisfaction with leisure produced a significantly nega tive association.6 Certain dimensions of family roles were also related to degree of work-leisure conflict. Interference increased significantly for one measure of the significance of fami ly life (role importance), but not with the other (role perseveration), and interference produced a significantly negative relationship to satisfaction with both family life and marriage.7 In sum, reports of work-leisure conflict tend to be positively associated with involvement in all major roles of life (work, leisure, family), regardless of whether in volvement is measured in behavioral (variety of activi ties, time allocated) or attitudinal (significance assigned to role) terms. Exception: conflict is negatively related to time spent on leisure during a workday. In addition, such conflict is consistently associated with low satisfac tion with each of the major roles of life. Inferred conflict An alternative measure of conflict between work and leisure involves bivariate relationships between the amount of time spent at work and the amount of time spent on leisure activities. Generally, time spent in these activities should be negatively related (that is, the more time spent in one role, the less time available for other roles). This “inferred conflict” approach assumes that the stronger the negative bivariate relationship (or the weaker the positive relationship), the greater the level of conflict. Actually, reported conflict and inferred conflict differ in a number of methodological respects. Reported con flict represents a subjective approach to measurement, inferred conflict a more objective approach; reported conflict incorporates all types of conflict between work and leisure, inferred conflict taps only the conflict con cerning amount of time; reported conflict is measured at the level of the individual worker, inferred conflict is measured at an aggregate level; and, while reported con flict is measured for only two pairs of roles (work and leisure, work and family), inferred conflict may be assessed for any and all role pairings. Data on reported and inferred conflict are best com pared in terms of demographic differences regarding time. Reported conflict between work and leisure (and, likewise, between work and family life) was greater for men than for women on the issue of excessive time spent at work. Similarly, for work and leisure and also for work and two family roles (childcare and home chores), inferred conflict (as indicated by the strength of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 2. Reported conflict between work and leisure, by selected work-related items Item M ean1 Time on the job:2 6.9 hours or less ............................................................................. 7.0-7.9 hours................................................................................. 8.0 hours......................................................................................... 8.1-9.9 hours................................................................................. 10 hours or more............................................................................. 32.05 32.13 32.12 32.25 32.47 Shift:4 Day ............................................................................................... Afternoon ....................................................................................... Night............................................................................................... Rotating ......................................................................................... Other ............................................................................................. 32.12 32.57 32.51 32.20 32.31 Role perseveration: Never............................................................................................. Rarely............................................................................................. Sometimes ..................................................................................... Often ............................................................................................. 32.04 32.21 32.14 32.36 Role importance: Disagree......................................................................................... Agree............................................................................................. Strongly agree................................................................................. 52.17 52.23 52.30 Satisfaction with work: Not at all or not t o o ......................................................................... Somewhat....................................................................................... V e ry ............................................................................................... 32.62 32.30 32.02 1See table 1, footnote 1. 2Time spent working on a workday was assessed using the question “ During the average week, how many hours do you work, not counting the time you take off for meals?” For each worker, the number of hours worked per week was then divided by the number of days worked to yield an average number of hours worked per day. 3Significant at .01. “ Day or regular shift starts between 4 a.m. and 12 noon, afternoon shift starts between 12 noon and 8 p.m„ and night shift starts between 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. 5Not significant. negative relationships among amounts of time spent in various roles) was greater for men than for women.8 This difference can be explained by the fact that men work longer hours than women and the amount of time they spend at work generates more conflict between work and other roles. By the same token, because women spend more time than men in family roles, inferred conflict between lei sure and family roles and also among family roles should be greater for women than for men. For the most part, it was. (See table 4.) The bivariate associa tion between leisure time and time spent in childcare was significantly positive for men both on workdays and on days off, but was significantly negative for wom en on workdays and not significant on days off. For men, the relationship between the time spent on leisure and home chores was significantly positive for workdays and not significant for days off; yet for women it was not significant for workdays and significantly negative for days off. On days off, time spent in two family roles, childcare and home chores, was significantly positively related among men, but not significantly related among women. On workdays, however, a contrary pattern ap peared: time allocated to these two family roles was positively and significantly related, but more so for women than for men. 37 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Research Summaries To summarize, when workers have to devote substan tial time to a demanding social role (for example, work, childcare, or home chores), conflicts arise concerning the magnitude of time allotments. In the case of work, the issue of excessive time applies more to men than to women, based on data from both the reported and in ferred approaches to measuring conflict. In the case of family roles, the pattern is reversed; with one exception, the data on inferred conflict indicate that women experi ence greater time conflict among leisure and family roles than do men. These data on inferred conflict among leisure and family roles call for additional interpretation. The con cept of partial overlap of activities offers the best expla nation of positive relationships among time spent in these roles: when an appreciable number of activities qualify as belonging equally to two different roles, a positive association may emerge between the amounts of time allocated to the two roles. Table 4. Bivariate relationships among time spent in work, leisure, and family roles on workdays and days off, by sex M e a n t im e in A c t iv it y le is u r e r o le ' M e a n t im e in f a m ily r o l e 1 W it h c h i l d r e n 2 O n h o m e c h o re s M en W om en M en W om en M en W om en 32.85 32.49 32.47 32.16 31.67 42.21 42.17 41.98 42.00 41.48 32.11 32.30 32.02 31.71 31.49 53.93 53.37 53.48 53.38 52.72 31.48 31.44 31.29 31.15 30.90 43.27 42.74 42.82 42.65 42.36 31.67 31.73 32.02 32.29 32.75 42.59 41.74 41.54 41.48 41.88 40.85 41.05 41.23 41.31 41.61 32.75 32.53 33.27 33.36 34.32 32.08 32.12 32.29 32.49 33.10 52.33 52.30 62.14 51.88 51.85 34.40 34.77 34.77 35.50 36.14 53.65 52.91 52.97 53.42 63.94 33.30 33.88 34.08 34.83 34.72 55.55 56.62 67.08 56.87 56.77 55.95 55.47 54.92 55.69 55.85 35.98 35.27 34.54 33.78 33.78 W ORKDAYS Time at work: 6.9 hours or less ............ 7 to 7.9 hours ................ 8 hours.......................... 8.1 to 9.9 hours.............. 10 hours or more............ Time in family role: With children2 Less than 1 hour . . . 1 hour .................... 1.1 to 2 hours.......... 2.1 to 4 hours.......... 4.1 hours or more .. . On home chores Less than 1/2 hour . . . 1/2 to 1 h ou r............ 1.1 to 2 hours.......... 2.1 to 3.5 hours . . . . 3.6 hours or more .. . DAYS OFF T a b le 3. R e p o r t e d c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n w o r k a n d le is u r e , b y s e le c t e d l e is u r e - r e la t e d a c t i v it ie s Activity Mean’ Leisure activities:2 Frequency index 1.1 3.5 (low)........................................................................... 3.6 4 .0 ................................................................................... 4.1 4 .4 ................................................................................... 4.5 4 .8 ................................................................................... 4.9 6.1 (high) ........................................................................ 32.15 32.18 32.18 32.30 32.21 Variety index 1 8 (low) ............................................................................... 9 ............................................................................................. 1 0 ........................................................................................... 11 (high) ................................................................................. 42.10 42.30 42.24 42.34 Time spent on leisure activities: On workday Less than 1 hour ..................................................................... 1 1.9 hours ........................................................................... 2 nours ................................................................................... 2.1 3 hours ........................................................................... More than 3 hours .................................................................. On days off 2 hours or less......................................................................... 2.1 3.9 hours ......................................................................... 4 5.0 hours ........................................................................... 5.1 -7.9 hours ......................................................................... 8 hours or m ore....................................................................... 42.46 42.29 42.14 42.08 42.09 32.15 32.16 32.16 32.25 32.29 Role perseveration:5 Never............................................................................................. Rarely ........................................................................................... Sometimes..................................................................................... Often ............................................................................................. 41.84 42.01 42.24 42.63 Role importance:6 Disagree........................................ ............................................ Agree............................................................................................. Strongly agree .............................................................................. 42.14 42.32 42.35 Satisfaction with leisure: Not at all or not to o ........................................................................ Somewhat .................................................................................... Very............................................................................................... 42.78 42.22 41.91 1See table 1, footnote 1. 2See text footnote 4. 3Not significant. 4Significant at .01. 5“ How often do you think about your free time activities when you are busy doing other things?” 6“ How strongly do you agree or disagree that the most important things that happen to you involve your free time activities?” Digitized for 38 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Time in family role: With children2 2 hours or le s s ........ 2.1 to 4 hours.......... 4.1 to 6 hours.......... 6.1 to 9 hours.......... 9.1 hours or more . . . On home chores Less than 1.6 hours . 1.6 to 3.4 hours . . . . 3.5 to 4.5 hours . . . . 4.6 to 7.5 hours . . . . 7.6 hours or more . . . 1The mean is the average value of response to these questions: “ On the average, on days when you’re working, about how much time do you spend on your free time activities? . . . And about how much time on days when you're not working?” “ On average, on days when you’re working, about how much time do you spend (taking care of or) doing things with your children? . . . And how much time on days when you’re not working?” “ On the av erage, on days when you’re working, about how much time do you spend on home chores —things like cooking, cleaning, repairs, shopping, yardwork and keeping track of money and bills? . . . And how much time on days when you’re not working?" 2Includes only parents with children under age 18. 3Significant at .01. 4Significant at .05. 5Not significant. The notion of partial overlap also applies to the dif ferences in inferred role conflicts among men and wom en; in particular, to the fact that the bivariate asso ciations among time spent in leisure and family roles tend to be positive for men and negative for women. Among men, there would appear to be some overlap of leisure and childcare activities, likewise between leisure activities and home chores and, by implication, between childcare and home chores. Generally, leisure is thought of as more enjoyable than either childcare responsibili ties or home chores. Thus, the postulated overlap of ac tivities among men raises the possibility that the leisure of men (but not women) may include childcare respon sibilities and home chores. Because working men report ed significantly greater satisfaction with their leisure and with their family life than did working women, it is likely that the childcare activities and home chores of working men are sufficiently enjoyable to be considered leisure. In the case of childcare, for example, many men presumably allow their wives to assume most of the de manding and least enjoyable responsibilities, so that the time they spend with their children is consequently viewed as recreational. There is also the further possibil ity that fathers, at most, are expected to help with the children, whereas mothers typically have the much more demanding assignment of taking responsibility for them.9 The one finding based on inferred conflict that re mains to be explained concerns the relationship between the two family roles (childcare and home chores) on workdays. As noted, women registered a stronger posi tive association between time allocated to these two roles on workdays than did men. The inference that women experience less conflict between childcare and home chores on workdays should be resisted, because the associations for both sexes are appreciably positive. Far more plausible is the contention that in their typical rush for time on workdays, mothers who work outside the home perform these two activities simultaneously, while fathers engage in only one activity at a time.10 Thus, because mothers perform their childcare responsi bilities and home chores in parallel fashion during the limited amount of time they have available on work days, their time allocations emerge as more strongly and positively associated than do those of fathers. W h e n t h e i s s u e is amount of time, data based on measures of both reported conflict and inferred conflict indicate that interference between work and leisure and between work and family roles is greater among men than women. Yet, additional data on inferred conflict suggest that conflicts between leisure and family roles and between the two family roles studied (childcare and home chores) tend to be greater for women than men. □ --------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' Details of the survey’s sample, measures, and response distribu tions appear in Robert P. Quinn and Graham L. Staines, T h e 1 9 7 7 Q u a lity o f E m p lo y m e n t S u r v e y (Ann Arbor, Mich., Survey Research Center, 1979). For a general discussion of the survey’s results, see Graham L. Staines and Robert P. Quinn, “American workers evaluate the quality of their jobs,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , January 1979, pp. 3 - 12. 2For a detailed discussion of work-family conflict, see Joseph H. Pleck, Graham L. Staines, and Linda Lang, “Conflicts between work and family life,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , March 1980, pp. 29-32. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1Satisfaction was determined in terms of the question: “All in all, how satisfied would you say you are with your job? Very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied.” 4 Respondents were asked about the frequency of their participation in specific leisure activities: “How often do you . . . (1) watch televi sion, (2) read newspapers, magazines, or books, (3) visit with family, friends, or neighbors, either at each other’s homes or by telephone, (4) play in athletic games or do other active things like go bike riding or swimming, (5) work on hobbies at home, (6) work around the house or yard for pleasure, (7) eat out at restaurants, (8) go to museums, concerts, plays, or lectures, (9) go to the movies, (10) go to parties, nightclubs, or dancing places, (11) go to church or synagogue?” The responses ranged from “nearly every day” to “never.” From these measures, we derived an index of frequency of leisure activities which is the average of the scores for all leisure categories for which the worker reported frequency of participation, with each category scored from zero (“never”) to seven (“nearly every day”) and an index of va riety of leisure activities which is the number of different types of lei sure in which the worker engages at least several times a year (the worker received one point for each type of leisure for which his or her response was something other than “never” or “once a year or less”). 5Amount of time spent on leisure was measured by asking, “On the average, on days when you’re working, about how much time do you spend on your free time activities? . . . And about how much time on days when you’re not working?” *The questions used to assess the significance of leisure activities (role perseveration and role importance) and the measure of satisfac tion with leisure activities were the same as those for significance of work, except that the phrase “your job” was replaced with “your free time activities.” 7The questions used to measure significance of family life corre spond closely to those used for work and leisure. For role importance, the phrase “your husband/wife and your children” replaced the phrases “your job” and “your free time activities.” In the case of role perseveration, this substitution of phrases is repeated and, in addition, the response categories are slightly modified to take into account a more negatively skewed response distribution: “How often do you think about your husband/wife and your children when you’re busy doing other things? Always, often, sometimes, rarely.” For similar reasons, the questions measuring satisfaction with family life and with marriage likewise required modifications: “All in all, how satisfied would you say you are with your family life?” and “All in all, how satisfied would you say you are with your marriage? Extremely satis fied, very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied.” *The measures of time spent in these two family roles resemble the earlier measures on time spent on leisure: “On average, on days when you’re working, about how much time do you spend (taking care of or) doing things with your children? . . . And how much time on days when you’re not working?” “On the average, on days when you’re working, about how much time do you spend on home chores — things like cooking, cleaning, repairs, shopping, yardwork, and keeping track of money and bills? . . . And how much time on days when you’re not working?” Similarly, an intensive investigation of 14 families in which both husband and wife worked suggested that although husbands share certain childcare duties with their wives, the responsibility for seeing that such tasks get done ultimately falls on the wives in most cases. See Laura Lein, W o rk a n d F a m ily L if e (Cambridge, Mass., Center for the Study of Public Policy, 1974), pp. 45-46. 10 Lein comments specifically on this sex difference in the simultane ity of activities: “Unlike mothers who are trying to do other chores while watching their children, fathers’ hours of child care are more of ten devoted to child care exclusively.” (See W o rk a n d F a m ily L ife , p. 109.) 39 Foreign Labor Developments American wood products workers study European job safety systems M att W it t A delegation from the International Woodworkers of America and the American Labor Education Center has completed a month-long tour to study occupational safety and health practices in Sweden, West Germany, and Austria.1 Group members, including local union safety committee representatives, union safety staff, and government officials from Washington State and British Columbia, visited 20 sawmills, papermills, hardboard plants, and logging operations in the three countries. They met with local union and management officials at each site and spoke to officials of unions, companies, and government agencies. The Swedish method The Swedish system is the most comprehensive. Its centerpiece is a national Work Environment Fund, cre ated in 1972 and financed by a 0.1 percent payroll tax on all employers. Its board includes equal representa tives of labor and management, plus a chairperson who is a retired union president. The fund primarily finances research and training. Its annual budget for work envi ronment research is approximately $22 million, with topics including control of noise, toxic substances and stress, ergonomics, and health effects of various work schedules. Proposals are presented to the fund by researchers in universities and private firms, then reviewed by commit tees of employers and union representatives in each in dustry. Under a special current project, the fund is spending more than $1 million to train union staff members to both evaluate research proposals and gener ate more of their own. In the wood products industry, one environmental re search group has been working in 15 sawmills, a similar group has concentrated on factories, such as furniture and prefab housing plants, and another has worked in forestry under an additional $1 million fund grant. Matt Witt is director of the American Labor Education Center, Washington, D.C., and an editor of A m e r ic a n L a b o r. Digitized for 40 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis These groups include engineers, doctors, professors, psychologists, and representatives of the unions, em ployers, and equipment manufacturers. Their achieve ments are explained to the unions’ regional safety representatives, at the fund’s expense, who pass the re sults on to local union stewards. The International Woodworkers of America delega tion observed many operations which, aided by research findings, are now meeting Sweden’s standard for average daily noise exposure of 85 decibels. (The U.S. standard is 90 decibels.) In sawmills visited by the dele gation, airborne dust levels were reduced below 1 milli gram per cubic meter through use of enclosures for saws and local ventilation. Pentachlorophenols, widely used as wood preservatives in the United States, have been removed from Swedish mills because of concern about their effect on workers’ reproductive systems. Chain saw-related hand and wrist injuries in the logging industry were reduced by 90 percent between 1967 and 1976, chiefly due to innovative designs for hand guards. Following the introduction of chain brakes, foot and leg injuries were reduced by more than 50 percent in one year. Since 1974, the fund has paid for the training of about 250,000 local union safety stewards and supervi sors (from a work force of 4.1 million). Individual em ployers pay the lost-time wages (nearly $30 million per year) for those in training. The 40-hour basic courses cover such topics as workplace planning, noise, ventilation, toxic substances, illumination, ergonomics, and psychosocial factors such as job satisfaction. Training is conducted by the unions in “study circles” rather than in the formal classroom style used in the United States. Trained study circle leaders, who generally are workers rather than safety technicians, guide the discussions. Written materials and film strips explain basic principles, which are then ap plied by the students during special workplace inspec tions. A study circle graduate goes back to work with lists of conditions which must be corrected. Committees created Under a combination of national laws and contracts, there must be enough elected safety stewards at every workplace with 5 employees or more to cover each work area on each shift. Each workplace with 50 em- ployees or more must have a labor-management safety committee with more than half of its members elected by the union. In smaller workplaces, a committee must be created if the workers feel it necessary; otherwise, a representative from the appropriate union region per forms the committee functions. The committees (or the regional representatives) have the right to: •Veto any plans for new machines, materials, or work processes for health and safety reasons. • Decide how to spend the company health and safety budget which is usually negotiated through local bar gaining. •Approve the selection and direct the work of the company doctor, nurse, safety engineer, or industrial hygienist. • Review all corporate medical records, monitoring results, and other information on hazards. •Shut down dangerous operations until hazards can be corrected. • Decide how much time (all company paid) they need to do their safety committee work. The role of the Swedish government is primarily to set health and safety standards and to make inspections when safety committees are unable to resolve problems or do not have the necessary technical expertise. The National Board of Occupational Safety and Health, the Swedish counterpart to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), has one inspector for every 400 workplaces (compared to OSHA’s one for more than 3,000). Swedish inspectors can levy fines and have health and safety changes made, at the employer’s expense, if the company has failed to comply with a previous directive. In West Germany and Austria, the delegation ob served a health and safety system based on the “works council” —committees which represent workers on all types of grievances. These committees do not have any independent powers like those in Sweden, and are not necessarily an arm of the local union. German and Aus trian workers cannot be required to join their union (and in many industries a majority does not), yet the works council is elected by all employees at each opera tion. Training for works council members is conducted in classroom format, dealing mainly with economic is sues rather than health and safety. In both West Germany and Austria, most responsi bility for standard setting, inspections, training, and workers’ compensation is borne by insurance institutes in each industry. The institutes are run jointly by man agement and labor and financed by premiums based on industry and company safety records. Those in the wood products industry do not conduct or sponsor any significant amount of health and safety research, leaving that to employers and equipment manufacturers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis After returning home, the delegation persuaded its in ternational union convention to authorize an experimen tal project in which the union will attempt to set up Swedish-style research committees. The union is con ducting a health and safety survey of its members who use chain saws, and will then ask logging companies, saw manufacturers, and government officials to help im prove saw design. The union is also asking the Consumer Product Safety Commission to consider the views of professional chain saw users before approving new safety standards. Union officials say they hope to gradually adapt other aspects of the Swedish system, such as company-paid research funds and paid training for safety committee members, through future regional and local contract negotiations. □ --------- F O O T N O T E ---------1The trip was sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Educational leave in Canada: a look at individual programs I s a ia h A . L it v a k and C h r i s t o p h e r J. M au le Canadian interest in educational leave has increased in recent years. This can be partially attributed to Canada’s membership in the Organization for Economic Coopera tion and Development ( o e c d ) and the International La bor Organization ( i l o ), which have sponsored confer ences and studies on the subject of educational leave.1 One of the results of this interest and participation was the establishment of a Federal Government “Industrial Inquiry Commission” in 1978.2 The identification and evaluation of the issues in volved in educational leave are still in a fairly primitive state, and to shed some light on the subject, particular ly from the standpoint of policy implications, we exam ined the leave policies and practices of 13 employers,3 including Canadian and foreign-owned firms. The sample is biased toward organizations with some known commitment to education but still reflects differences in size, nationality of ownership, industry representation, technology, and organizational mission. Five of the organizations are in the public sector and employ from 500 to 80,000 unionized workers. The re maining eight organizations are manufacturing and ser- Isaiah A. Litvak is a professor of business and public policy at York University, Toronto, Canada. Christopher J. Maule is a professor of economics and international affairs at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. 41 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Foreign Labor Developments vice firms in the private sector, employing from 65 to 20,000 persons. Five of the companies are essentially nonunionized. Case method used We used the case method to collect data in 1978, structuring our interviews along the lines of a recent OECD study and modified to reflect Canadian circum stances.4 We found it difficult to obtain information of a con sistent nature within and between the organizations. Only one of the private organizations had stated educa tional leave policies; the policies of the rest were ad hoc or negotiable. There was an absence of good documen tation on the extent, nature, and costs of the education al leave and little effort to evaluate its impact. Interviews were conducted with managers, employees, union representatives, educational officials, consultants, government officials, and professionals in an attempt to become familiar with the details of the policies and practices of each organization. We defined educational leave to be leave taken in ex cess of 3 months, which is spent during regular working hours for full-time studies, directly or indirectly related to employment.5 All five public sector organizations have educational leave programs, four of which are formally structured. In all instances, the form of financing ranges from full to partial to none. While at first glance the educational leave programs appear to be well established, they are infrequently used except by the Federal Government. Leave recipients are primarily managers or technocrats, or those being groomed for these positions. With one exception, the recipients attend institutions of higher learning. Information on leave provisions is readily available and communicated within 4 of the 5 public sector organizations. The situation is dramatically different in the private sector. Four of the companies provide no opportunity for educational leave, while it is only negotiable in the remaining four. The few participants to date have been largely managerial and salaried employees. Information about leave opportunities is quite selective, and tends to be communicated to the more ambitious management employees. In the case of the small firms, none of which is foreign-owned, educational leave is not available. Employers’ perspective We will discuss public and private sector employers separately because they tend to have different attitudes. Public sector employers tended to favor the introduc tion of educational leave because of the size of their or ganizations, and because employees were not likely to leave the organization, although they might transfer from one department to another. Secondly, because Digitized 42 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis public sector organizations are not evaluated in terms of profit performance, it is easier to administer a policy which is difficult to evaluate and which would be questioned much more closely in a profit-oriented organ ization. Thirdly, public sector organizations feel that ed ucational leave provides some skills they could not oth erwise acquire. Educational leave is here viewed as a technique for manpower planning. In contrast to these supportive factors, the system of educational leave has been abused by using it to sideline personnel or to provide a stepping stone to early retire ment. Also, in a time of fiscal restraint, educational leave is a policy that is an early victim of cost cutting, and a no-growth or slow-growth public sector employ ment situation means there is less pressure to acquire personnel, however well qualified. Private sector employers are in general lukewarm to the idea of educational leave, but large companies could be persuaded of its merits if it was a way of holding on to their best employees, or providing skills which could not be otherwise purchased. Small and medium-sized firms, however, fear the individual could easily be hired away. Private sector organizations argue against educational leave on the grounds that it would not enhance their profitability, that they can buy the skills which they re quire, and also cite problems of replacing employees, who are away for lengthy periods, as well as problems of re-entry into the organization at an appropriate level. Those firms which are willing to consider educational leave tend only to do so if it is leave without pay. Ac countancy is an example of a profession whose members require neither pay while on educational leave nor job security if leave is taken, because they become an even more marketable item. Employees’ viewpoint The employee position on educational leave was artic ulated by union locals, union headquarters, and organi zations such as the Canadian Labor Congress. In general, the union locals had less interest in promoting educational leave than did the other union components, because of a perceived difference of interest. The federa tion’s position was more attuned to and knowledgable of the position put forward by the ILO, as well as the educational leave situation in some European countries. Union headquarters were also familiar with the general issues that have been debated, but their interest was largely ideological, and they argued for leave for union educational purposes. Lip service might be paid to leave for social purposes, but unions were more concerned with promoting understanding of their union among the existing members. In industries such as printing, tech nological change is already resulting in the alteration of union membership, and educational leave could be seen by a union as a further disturbing factor. At the local level, which is where the cases concen trated, educational leave received little consideration for a number of reasons. In a period of prosperity, educa tional leave is viewed by union locals as one of a num ber of fringe benefits that are negotiable. In times of recession, educational leave was of very low priority or was not even considered. The concern of locals tends to be concentrated on provisions for training and re training in the face of recession and technological change. Educational leave is not considered an issue if the union member does not have a job, so locals con centrate on immediate employment, hourly rates, and training so that the member remains employed. In this regard, both the firm and the local are in agreement in stressing the need for training facilities and programs. The professions (doctors, nurses, accountants) appear as a special group because of the type of service that they sell, and because they involve an element of self regulation. While the professions tend to restrict entry through certification requirements, which often involve extensive education in colleges and universities, their concern with certifying existing practitioners falls off once the individual has qualified for the profession. All three professions included in the case studies made statements about the type of study which an individual should undertake to ensure career development, and maintain the necessary professional qualifications. How ever, little attempt is made to enforce provisions for continuing education. The case studies revealed that there were different at titudes toward educational leave by the three profes sions. The accountants received leave without pay; the doctors who were attached to a university received a sabbatical leave with partial pay, and those employed by the hospital could negotiate a similar arrangement; the nurses seldom received leave with pay, but did have access to external funding sources. The association of nurses took the view that it was the individual’s respon sibility to remain qualified. In sum, the attitude of pro fessionals to educational leave would tend to vary among professions according to the role of the associa tion, the contractual conditions of work, and the form in which payment is received. Government’s position As a policymaker, the Federal Government has an extensive manpower policy program which is oriented toward training the currently unemployed, or those threatened with unemployment. This policy tends to be focused on job-specific training to expand employment and as such coincides with the attitudes of private firms and union locals. A lesser concern to date with educational leave has probably been because of the extensive government fi nancing of colleges and universities, which has resulted in a higher proportion of the work force in Canada at tending such institutions than has been the case in Eu ropean countries. As a pace setter, governments have introduced affirmative action, both in terms of their own and other organizations’ hiring procedures. How ever, to date, affirmative action has been enforced through moral suasion and guidelines, rather than through enforceable rules. □ FOOTNOTES ' D e v e lo p m e n ts in P a id E d u c a tio n a l L e a v e o f A b se n c e (Paris, Organi zation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1976); A lte r n a tio n B etw e e n W o rk a n d E d u c a tio n (Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1978); “Paid Educational Leave,” Re port IV, 59th ILO Conference (Geneva, International Labor Organi zation, June 1974). 2This commission was established “pursuant to section 198 of The Canada Labour Code,” House of Commons, Ottawa, May 31, 1978. 11. A. Litvak and C. J. Maule, E d u c a tio n a l L e a v e P o licies a n d P r a c https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tic e s o f S e le c t O rg a n iza tio n s in C a n a d a , background paper prepared for the Commission of Inquiry on Educational Leave and Productivity, (Ottawa, Labour Canada, March 1979). 4A lte r n a tio n B e tw e e n W o rk a n d E d u c a tio n (Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1978). 5Educational leave excludes courses of less than 3 months (or one semester) duration, evening courses, university cooperative plans, and training and apprenticeship plans. 43 Significant Decisions In Labor Cases To the victor, what spoils? In a recent 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court curbed the patronage practices of local governments by ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the dismissal of patronage appointees solely on the basis of their political beliefs, unless the hiring authority can prove party affiliation a necessary condition for the ef fective execution of the appointee’s office. (Branti v. Finkel.') This decision further expanded the principles set forth in Elrod v. Burns2 by divorcing questions of party affiliation from the confidentiality or policymak ing status of a public office. Two assistant public defenders for Rockland County, N.Y., appointed under the 1972-76 Republican admin istration, sought to prevent their dismissal by the newly selected Democratic public defender, Peter Branti. Asserting that the announced dismissals stemmed solely from the attorneys’ Republican affiliation rather than unsatisfactory job performance, a Federal district court, upheld by the Second Circuit, enjoined Branti from fir ing the pair. Branti provided the Court with an interesting oppor tunity to further delineate and clarify the constitutional status of political patronage. In Elrod, the Court held unconstitutional a requirement that certain patronage employees change party allegiance as a condition of continued employment. The Branti case took the dilem ma a step further. Have an employee’s rights been vio lated if he has not been coerced into switching parties, but has been discharged simply because he lacks the sponsorship of the party in power? Still another issue was raised: even if party sponsorship is an unconstitu tional condition of employment for Elrod-type employ ees (whose duties were primarily clerical and janitorial), is party affiliation an acceptable condition for a position that may involve policy decisions such as assistant pub lic defender? In a majority decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that the attempted Branti dis missals, even though they did not involve explicit coer cion nevertheless would infringe on the employees’ First “Significant Decisions in Labor Cases” is written by Gregory J. Mounts of the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w staff. Kate Farrell of the Uni versity of Notre Dame, an intern with the R e v ie w , wrote the summary of B r a n ti v. F in kel. 44 FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Amendment rights. Expanding on Elrod, Stevens wrote, “If the First Amendment protects a public employee from discharge base on what he has said, it must also protect him from discharge based on what he believes . . . his beliefs cannot be the sole basis for depriving him of continued public employment.” Stevens dismissed the assertion that an employee’s rights are vi olated only if he is forced to change his party affiliation, arguing “such an interpretation would surely emascu late the principles set forth in Elrod . . . it would not eliminate the coercion of belief that necessarily flows from the knowledge that one must have a sponsor in the dominant party in order to retain one’s job.” Ste vens concluded, “ . . . there is no requirement that dismissed employees prove that they, or other employ ees have been coerced into changing either actually or ostensibly, their party allegiance” for them to gain rein statement; it suffices to prove that such dismissals de rived solely from party affiliation. Less straightforward was the Court’s reasoning regarding the constitutionality of requirements of party sponsorship for positions deemed policymaking or con fidential. The Court conceded that party affiliation may be an acceptable, even necessary condition for some types of government employment, but countered that it is not relevant to every policymaking or confidential post. “In sum, the ultimate inquiry is not whether the label ‘policymaker’ or ‘confidential’ fits a particular po sition; rather the question is whether a hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.” Moving from the broader issue to the circumstances of the case, the Court reasoned the posi tion of public defender cannot properly be conditioned on party affiliation, because the policymaking functions of the position relate to the problems of individual cli ents rather than partisan political interests. In uphold ing the Second Circuit, the majority concluded any effort to link office tenure to party affiliation would undermine the integrity of the assistant public defender. The imprecision of the Court’s new standard creates potential ambiguity in many public employment deci sions. The Court did not indicate the criteria to be used for determining which positions may remain under pa tronage, nor how a hiring authority could demonstrate the need for a requirement of party affiliation. Particu- larly noteworthy are the implications for the selection practices of government authorities. Quoting the opin ion of the Second Circuit,3 the Court stated “it is diffi cult to formulate any justification for tying either the selection or retention of an assistant public defender to his party affiliation.” This line of reasoning suggests that considerations of party affiliation may be unconsti tutional in the selection, as well as the retention, of cer tain government employees. Such a holding would raise interesting questions in the law enforcement field where, as Justice Lewis Powell noted in his dissenting opinion, party affiliation frequently plays an important role in the selection of prosecutors at all levels. Although the Court specifically excluded prosecutors from its Branti deliberations, Powell asserted that questions would arise as to how, under the Court’s standard, a prosecutor’s duties are any more related to “partisan” interests than those of an assistant public defender. Consequently, Branti, and any subsequent rulings that may arise from it, could have a significant impact on existing law en forcement machinery. Powell’s dissent, in which Justices William Rehnquist and Potter Stewart (in part) concurred, characterized the majority decision as an “exercise in judicial law making” which brings under judicial scrutiny govern ment hiring practices more properly left to legislative and executive discretion. Powell faulted the majority for its “broad, new standard” of determining the scope of patronage, implying it would lead to confusion and un certainty. He also criticized the Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment, claiming the constitutionality of patronage hirings and firings depends upon the govern mental interests served by patronage. Equally, conclud ed Powell, the Court’s decision denigrates the strength and accountability of the political parties and impairs the right of the local voters to structure their govern ment. Missouri compromised on sex standard Missouri’s workers’ compensation law requires wid owers seeking death benefits based on their wives’ former earnings to prove that they were dependent on those earnings; widows seeking death benefits do not have to prove dependency. An 8-to-l majority of the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down this unequal treatment as unconstitutional sex discrimination, extending to State benefit laws the equal protection analysis used to void similar sex-based provisions for the distribution of Federal social security benefits. ( Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co.4) The earlier Supreme Court cases that foreshadowed the demise of the Missouri provision involved equal protection challenges to a pair of Social Security Act provisions. Both provisions assumed that men were https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the primary wage earners and their spouses, regardless of employment status, were dependent on them. As a result, survivors’ benefits available to widows were ei ther unavailable to similarly situated widowers5 or con ditioned on a showing of dependency.6 In both cases, the Court ruled that the law deprived working women the protection for their families which men receive as a result of their employment, in violation of equal protec tion component of the Fifth Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that such sex-based benefit provi sions discriminate only against men who survive their employed wives. The Court acknowledged that both forms of discrimination resulted from the Missouri workers’ compensation law. The State had the burden of justifying the law’s gen der-based discrimination by showing that it served im portant governmental objectives and that the means employed were related to the achievement of those ob jectives. As the Federal Government had done under similar circumstances, the State failed. Missouri’s claim of administrative convenience as justification for its 1925 legislative formula (presuming dependency for widows and not for widowers) was insufficient to meet the “heightened scrutiny” standard the Court applied under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. One factor influencing the Court’s decision, wrote Justice Byron White for the majority, was that the State had failed to present any evidence as to what additional costs the State or Mis souri employers may incur if men and women were treated equally under the law. Despite its power to prescribe a remedy for the con stitutional defect in the Missouri law, the Court left this task for the Missouri judiciary. The question of whether to extend the presumption of dependence to widowers or to eliminate it for widows (and investigate each claim) involves potentially great economic burdens for the State. White concluded “Because State legislation is at issue, and because a remedial outcome consonant with the State legislature’s overall purpose is preferable, we believe that State judges are better positioned to choose an appropriate method of remedying the consti tutional violation.” Title VII overrides class standards In 1972, Congress amended Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to permit the Equal Employment Op portunity Commission to file civil suits on behalf of al leged victims of discrimination. Individuals who. were represented by the commission retained their right to file private suits under certain circumstances. To repre sent a “class” of affected persons in such a private civil suit, certain Federal procedural requirements must be satisfied: the class must be sufficiently numerous and all 45 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Significant Decisions members must share important interests. The procedur al rule acts to limit the number of private class actions brought in Federal court. But did Congress intend for EEOC suits also to be constrained by such a rule? Two appeals courts split on this question, but the Supreme Court recently agreed with the Ninth Circuit that this rule does not apply to EEOC suits filed on behalf of a class. A 5-to-4 majority ruled that the 1972 amend ments to Title VII plainly authorized such EEOC suits, making the application of standard procedural rules in appropriate. (General Telephone Co.1) EEOC brought suit against the General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 89 based on employee alle gations that both had engaged in unlawful sex discrimi nation in the form of restrictions on maternity leave, access to craft jobs, and promotion to managerial posi tions. The agency sought injunctive relief and backpay for the women involved. The company, but not the union, sought to block EEOC’s ability to sue on behalf of all allegedly affected women, claiming that the agen cy had not established a legitimate class action based on the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Despite the Fifth Circuit’s contrary view, a Federal Magistrate, district court, and appeals court each reasoned that EEOC was not constrained by standard procedural restrictions on class actions. General Telephone sought application of Rule 23 be cause one feature of that procedural provision is that a judgment in subsequent class action suits is binding upon all certified members of the class. This provision clearly prevents individual class members who may be unsatisfied with a judgment from seeking an additional award. No similar limitation exists for alleged discrimi nation victims under Title VII, and the company feared additional or supplemental claims. Although it recognized that these are legitimate con cerns, the Supreme Court refused to contradict what it found to be clear statutory expression providing EEOC the right to enforce Title VII. Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White found that the purpose of the 1972 amendments was to “implement the public interest” as well as to secure more effective enforcement of Title VII. EEOC’s pre-1972 role was limited to “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” According to White, EEOC’s new authority was intended to supplement, not replace, private action. This suggests that EEOC’s enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23, he wrote. White went on to note the range of differences be tween Title VII’s enforcement requirements and those permissible under Rule 23. The procedural rule imposes prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, 46 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and adequacy of representation. As pointed out by White, Title VII covers all employers and unions with at least 15 members; this would fall short of the num ber that has been required for class action suits in many cases. Appeals courts have ruled that the EEOC is not limit ed to the charges brought by the workers represented in its suits; the typicality requirement of Rule 23, however, limits charges to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiffs. Finally, Rule 23’s adequate representa tion standard often prevents class certification when a conflict of interest occurs between the named plaintiff and the putative class. As White noted, a conflict be tween employees and applicants, as members of a single class, may easily occur over benefits or seniority in em ployment discrimination litigation. A lth o u g h p e rm ittin g th e EEOC to b rin g v ir tu a l ly u n r e s t r i c t e d c la s s a c ti o n s in F e d e r a l c o u r t s , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t is s u e d s o m e a d v ic e t o t h e F e d e r a l ju d i c i a r y in a n a t t e m p t to o v e r c o m e t h e e q u it y c o n c e r n s r a is e d b y G e n e ra l T e le p h o n e . W h it e w r o t e t h a t F e d e r a l c o u r t s s h o u l d p la y a n a c tiv e r o le in d e c id in g w h e th e r t o p e r m it w o r k e r s c o v e r e d b y a n EEOC s u it ( o r a w a r d ) t o file p r i v a te s u its . S p e c ific a lly , h e w r o te t h a t c o u r t s s h o u l d a c t to p se v e n t a n u n d u e h a rd s h ip fo r th e d e fe n d a n t e m p lo y e r o r u n io n ( f o r e x a m p le , in th e f o r m o f d o u b le re c o v e r y b y a n in d i v id u a l ) . W h e r e EEOC h a s p r e v a ile d in its a c ti o n , W h it e a d v is e d , “ t h e c o u r t m a y r e a s o n a b ly r e q u i r e a n y in d i v id u a l w h o c la im s u n d e r its j u d g m e n t t o r e l in q u is h h is r i g h t t o b r i n g a s e p a r a t e p r i v a te a c t i o n . ” H e a ls o s u g g e s te d t h a t a s i m i la r r e q u i r e m e n t c o u ld b e p a r t o f a n E E O C -n e g o tia te d s e t tl e m e n t ( c o n s e n t a w a r d ) . □ --------- F O O T N O T E S ---------' B r a n d v. F in k el, 48 U.S.L.W. 4331 (U.S., Mar. 31, 1980). 2E lr o d v. B u rn s, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), held that the newly elected Democratic sheriff of Cook County, 111. had violated the rights of four noncivil service employees by firing them for refusing membership in the Democratic Party; see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , October 1976, pp. 46-47. '457 F. Supp.; at 1293, n. 13. 4 W en g ler v. D ru g g ists M u tu a l Ins. C o., 48 U.S.L.W. 4459 (U.S., Apr. 22, 1980). ' W e in b erg e r v. W isen field , 420 U.S. 636 (1975), striking down a provision that granted survivors’ benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband and father covered by the Act both to his widow and to the couple’s minor children in her care, but that granted bene fits based on the earnings of a covered deceased wife and mother only to the minor children and not to the widower. k C a lifa n o v. G o ld fa rb , 430 U.S. 199 (1977), striking down a provi sion providing survivors’ benefits to a widow regardless of dependen cy, but providing the same benefits to a widower only if he had been receiving at least half of his support from his deceased wife; see M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , May 1977, pp. 51-52. 7 G e n e ra l T e le p h o n e Co. o f th e N o rth w est, Inc. v. E E O C , 48 U.S.L.W. 4513 (U.S., May 12, 1980). M ajor Agreements Expiring Next M onth T h is lis t o f c o lle c t iv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n ts e x p ir in g in S e p te m b e r is b a se d o n c o n tr a c ts o n f ile in th e B u r e a u ’s O f f ic e o f W a g e s an d I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s . T h e lis t in c lu d e s a g r e e m e n t s c o v e r in g 1 ,0 0 0 w o r k e r s or m o r e . E m p lo y e r a n d l o c a t io n U n io n 1 In d u str y N u m b er of w orkers Anchor Hocking Corp. (Lancaster, O hio)...................................................... Stone, clay, and glass products Glass Workers....................................... 3,500 1,200 1,100 Brockway Glass Co., Inc. (Clarksburg, West V a .) ....................................... Stone, clay, and glass products Glass Workers....................................... 1,000 Champion International Corp., Champion Papers Division (Hamilton, Ohio) Clark Equipment Co. (Lima, O h io)................................................................ Clothing Manufacturers Association of the United States of America (Interstate) Paper.......................................... Paperworkers ....................................... 1,600 Machinery ................................ A pparel..................................... Auto Workers (Ind.)............................. Clothing and Textile Workers ............ 1,300 80,000 Daitch Crystal Dairies, Inc. (New York, N .Y .) ............................................ Delaval Turbine, Inc. (Trenton, N.J.) ........................................................... Dresser Industries, Inc. (Orleans, N .Y .) ........................................................ Retail trade ............................. Machinery ................................ Machinery ................................ Food and Commercial W orkers.......... Steelworkers .......................................... Steelworkers .......................................... 1,150 1,200 1,600 3,350 Federal Paper Board Co. Inc. (Riegelwood, N .C .)....................................... Paper.......................................... Paperworkers ....................................... 1,500 1,200 1,850 General American Transportation Corp. (Interstate) .................................. Giant Food, Inc. (Interstate) .......................................................................... Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 2 Agreements (Interstate).......... Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Cos. (Interstate)2 ............................................ Transportation equipment . . . . Retail trade ............................. Retail trade ............................. Construction............................. Steelworkers .......................................... Food and Commercial W orkers.......... Food and Commercial W orkers.......... Operating Engineers (IU O E )............... 2,100 1,000 3,050 2,200 1,700 Interco, Inc. (Arkansas)................................................................................... Leather ..................................... Shoe Workers ....................................... 3,950 3,600 League of New York Theatres, Inc. (Interstate) .......................................... Lufkin Industries, Inc. (Lufkin, Tex.) ........................................................... Amusements............................. Machinery ................................ Actors ................................................... Boilermakers; Machinists and Molders Massachusetts Leather Manufacturers Association (Massachusetts) .......... Mens Clothing Industry (California)2 ........................................................... Leather ..................................... A pparel..................................... Leather Workers .................................. Clothing and Textile Workers ............ Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., Catalog House (Chicago, 111.) ................. Retail trade ............................. (Ind.) Teamsters (Ind.) .................................. New Orleans Steamship Association, 2 Agreements (Interstate)................. National Industries, Inc., Doehler-Jarvis Division (Interstate).................... Water transportation ............... Primary m e ta ls........................ Longshoremen’s Association ............... Auto Workers (Ind.)............................. 2,500 3,300 1,700 1,450 2,000 2,500 1,100 1,000 7,000 2,600 1,700 2,500 1,150 1,450 Retail Meat Cutters, 2 Agreements (Illinois)2 ............................................... Retail trade ............................. Food and Commercial W orkers.......... Rockwell Internationl Corp. (Interstate) ...................................................... Transportation equipment . . . . Steelworkers .......................................... 5,400 1,600 1,450 Savannah Maritime Association (Savannah, G a .).......................................... Water transportation ............... Longshoremen’s Association ............... 1,100 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Major Agreements Expiring Next Month Continued— Major Agreements Expiring Next Month E m p lo y e r a n d l o c a t io n N um ber of U n io n 1 In d u stry w orkers 3,300 (Ind.) Star-Kist Foods, Inc. (California) .................................................................. Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc. (Baltimore, M d .)............... Food products........................... Water transportation ............... Seafarers ................................................. Longshoremen’s Association................. Waldbaum, Inc. (New York, N.Y.) ................................................................ Retail trade................................ Washington, D.C. Food Employers Labor Relations Association, 2 Agreements (Maryland, D.C., and Virginia) Retail trade................................ Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Food and Commercial Workers .......... West Gulf Maritime Association, Inc. (Louisiana and Texas)...................... Western States Field Construction Agreement (Interstate)2 ......................... Water transportation ............... Construction............................. Longshoremen’s Association................. Boilermakers .......................................... Zenith Radio Corp. (Springfield, M o .) ........................................................... Electrical products.................... Electrical Workers (IBEW) Government activity Florida: Dade County Metropolitan General Classified Employees.......... Multidepartment ...................... Dade County Police Department.................................................... Public safety ............................. ................. 3,400 2,400 5,000 4,500 16,000 1,500 15,000 3,250 4,000 1,650 Employee organization 1 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Dade County Police Benevolent Association 10,000 2,200 3,000 and Munipical Employees 1Affliated with AFL-CIO except where noted as independent (Ind.). 'Industry area (group of companies signing same contract). Digitized 48 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 'Information is from newspaper reports. Erratum The May issue of the Monthly Labor Review, page 33, contains the statement, “The CPI home-purchase index is compiled from data on home sales which involve mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans Administration.” This statement is partially incorrect. House price data from FHA-insured mortgages are included in the CPI home-purchase index; however, comparable data from VA-guaranteed mortgages are not used for the CPI home-pur chase index. The only data from VA-guaranteed mortgages used in the CPI are interest rate information, which is combined with comparable interest rates data from FHA-and conventionally insured mortgages in the computation of the mortgage interest cost component of the CPI. Developments in Industrial Relations Three aluminum companies settle Contracts negotiated by the Steelworkers and the Aluminum Workers unions with three major aluminum companies were generally viewed as being more costly than the Steelworkers’ April settlement with major ba sic steel producers. The aluminum settlements involved 30,000 employees of the Aluminum Company of Ameri ca, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Co., and Reynolds Metals Co. and 19,000 Alcoa and Reynolds employees represented by the Aluminum Workers. Steelworkers’ President Lloyd McBride said that the new aluminum contracts will narrow the gap between average hourly earnings in the two industries. McBride said that after the final pay adjustment in the aluminum contracts, which expire on May 31, 1983, pay rates will range from $12.73 to more than $16 an hour and average about $14.10. These estimates were based on the union’s assumption that the Consumer Price Index, which trig gers wage escalator adjustments for the workers, will rise at an annual rate of 11 percent. The Council on Wage and Price Stability, which based its escalator calculations on the 7.5-percent CPI increase assumption specified in the administration’s voluntary anti-inflation program, approved the aluminum accords. An official said the aluminum agreements provided for increases in compensation near the mid-point of the per mitted 7.5- to 9.5-percent annual rate of increase. The major differences between the settlements in the two industries centered on the wage escalator clause. In aluminum, workers received a 31-cent quarterly escala tor adjustment on June 2, 1980, and, beginning with the third contract year, the formula will be revised to provide 1 cent an hour adjustments for each 0.26 point movement in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (1967=100). In steel, the Steelworkers gave up a 33-cent escalator ad justment scheduled for March 1980 to help defray the cost of pension improvements for current retirees and the union agreed to continue for the full contract term the 1 cent for 0.3 point formula that will also continue to apply during the first two years of the aluminum ac“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben and other members of the staff of the Division of Trends in Employee Compensation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on in formation from secondary sources. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis cords. (See Monthly Labor Review, June 1980, pp. 5556 for terms of the steel settlement.) An unusual feature of the new escalator formula in aluminum is that the re sulting increase in money will be paid in two forms— all of the increase that would have been generated by continuation of the 1 cent for each 0.3-point increase in CPI formula will be paid in the form of flat general in creases to all employees and any additional amount will be used to increase the increment between job grades. The Steelworkers said that the purpose was to minimize the compression of pay rates that would otherwise oc cur if the entire amount of each escalator adjustment was paid in the form of a general increase. The aluminum contracts provided for “set” general wage increases of 25 cents an hour on June 2, 1980, 20 cents on June 1, 1981, and 15 cents on June 7, 1982, matching those in steel. However, the increases in incre ments between job grades differed. The increment in creases also differed among the aluminum companies, as part of a plan to attain near uniformity of pay rate structures among the three companies. The plan also provided for special pay adjustments for some employ ees of each companies to attain uniformity within that company. The Steelworkers union, which had agreed to lesser settlement terms to avert the closing of some steel fabri cating plants, also agreed to lesser terms for five “noncompetitive” aluminum plants. At these plants, employees will receive annual escalator adjustments, each limited to 35 cents an hour; a 10-cent general wage increase in each year (plus increment increases), and 50 percent of the improvements in pensions and sickness and accident benefits. All other terms match those for the other plants. The five are Alcoa’s Richmond, Ind., plant and its Mantahola Power and Light Co. in Frank lin, N.C.; Kaiser’s Dolton, 111., and Toledo, Ohio, plants; and Reynolds’ Torrance, Calif., plant. For present retirees, the pension rate was increased to $12.50 a month for each year of credited service for those who retired prior to June 1, 1971; to $13.25 for those who retired between June 1, 1971 and January 31, 1974; to $15.10-$19.50 (varying according to pre-retire ment job grade) for those who retired between February 1, 1974 and May 31, 1977; and to $15.75-$20.25 for those who retired between June 1, 1977 and May 31, 1980. The new rates will be attained in two equal steps, with each increase not to exceed a total of $125 a 49 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Developments in Industrial Relations month. Each increase is also subject to a minimum of $12.50 a month ($25 for those who retired prior to Feb ruary 1, 1974). Pension rates for employees retiring dur ing the agreement term will be increased by $2 on January 1 of 1981 and 1982, which will raise the range of rates to $18.25-$22.25 a month for each year of credited service. Under a new paid personal leave plan, employees will receive six casual days off during the contract term. To partly offset the cost increase, United Nation’s Day was dropped as a paid holiday in each year. The maximum limit on Supplemental Unemployment Benefits for employees with less than 10 years service was increased by $25 a week in each year, bringing it to $260. There is no limit for longer-service employees. The maximum level of the fund was increased to 23 cents (from 18) per hour worked in the preceding 12 months and the employer’s contribution rate was in creased to 14.5 cents per hour worked until maximum funding is attained and to 5 cents until 125 percent of maximum funding is reached. Under the prior con tracts, the rates were 12.5 and 2 cents. Other improvements included $25,000 life insurance coverage (formerly $10,000); $235 to $303 a week sick ness and accident benefits (formerly $168 to $230); 365 days convalescent nursing home coverage; 100 visits a year by nurses and technicians, plus coverage of appli ances and supplies, for persons confined to their own homes; $100,000 major medical coverage (formerly $50,000); and increased vision and dental care benefits. In the noneconomic area, the parties agreed to estab lish a joint committee to develop methods for solving local problems of mutual concern, mentioning the for mation of plant level bodies as a possible approach. Bargaining was continuing with other aluminum com panies for 14,000 workers represented by the unions. Lumber workers’ contract sets industry pattern More than 35,000 loggers, sawmill, and plywood plant workers in the Pacific Northwest were covered by a settlement between 10 major forest products compa nies and the Woodworkers union and the Lumber, Pro duction and Industrial Workers union, a division of the Carpenters union. The companies compose the Western States Wood Products Employers Association, which was formed prior to the start of the talks; previously, negotiations with the unions were conducted on a com pany-by-company basis. The 3-year accord was ex pected to set a pattern for 30,000 employees of member companies of the Timber Operators Council (another large employer association) and hundreds of indepen dent companies. Settlement terms included an 80-cent-an-hour wage increase on June 1, 1980, 75 cents on June 1, 1981, and 50 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 70 cents on June 1, 1982. Employees paid on a piece work basis receive equivalent increases. (According to a union official, pay averaged between $8.30 and $8.50 an hour under the prior contracts.) A pool equal to $491.70 an hour was established for special pay adjust ments to skilled workers, with the allocation of the money to be determined by a union-management com mittee. Shift differentials were increased by a total of 9 cents an hour over the term and the “woods travel time” differential was increased by 10 cents per qualify ing hour. Other provisions included an additional paid holiday, beginning June 1, 1982; a 20-cent-an-hour increase in the employer payment to the health and welfare fund over the term; and a $2.50 increase in the normal pen sion rate, bringing it to $19.50 a month for each year of credited service. Employees affected by a permanent plant shutdown who are eligible for early retirement (10 years of service and age 55) were given the option of de ferring the benefit payments until age 62 and avoiding the actuarial reduction that would otherwise apply. At the time of the settlement, about 20,000 forest products workers were unemployed in the region because of pro duction cutbacks attributed to a reduction in building construction. The companies that settled for operations in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, and Montana are Boise-Cascade Corp., Champion International Co., Crown Zellerbach Corp., Georgia Pacific Corp., ITT Rayonier Inc., International Paper Co., Louisiana Pacif ic Corp., Publishers Paper Co., Simpson Timber Co., and Weyerhaeuser Co. Furniture workers settle, end strike The United Furniture Workers settled with the Mem phis (Tenn.) Furniture Manufacturing Co. on a 2-year contract that ended a 10-week strike and was expected to set a pattern for two furniture manufacturers the union had recently organized in the area. Three other newly-organized companies had already settled. Union president Carl Scarbrough said that the Memphis Fur niture agreement provided for the retention of existing insurance and union security provision and the exten sion of the grievance procedure to cover piecework dis putes, which he described as victories for his organization. Hourly wages, which reportedly averaged $3.50 to $4 prior to the settlement, will be increased by 45 cents for skilled workers and 40 cents for other workers in two steps during each year of the contract. Other provisions for the 1,200 workers included a 10th annual paid holi day beginning in the second year; a Christmas bonus; additional holiday and vacation pay for incentive work ers; paid funeral leave; and time and one-half pay after 8 hours a day, rather than 40 hours a week. Flight attendants get double time for holiday work A 2-year agreement for 9,000 flight attendants was signed by United Airlines and the Association of Flight Attendants. It provided for general wage increases of 13 percent on April 2, 1980 (employees with at least 14 years of service will get an additional 1.7 percent), and 10 percent a year later. The escalator clause provided for cost-of-living adjustments in October of 1980 and 1981 of 30 cents a month for each 0.3-point rise in the b l s - C P I - w (1967=100) with a maximum of $15 a month for each adjustment. As before, employees will not be paid for holidays not worked, but for the first time, they will be paid double time for working on any of the 10 designated holidays. Vacations were liberalized by providing 30 days of time off after 11 years of service (formerly 12 years) and after 10 years beginning in the second con tract year and by providing 37 days after 19 years of service (formerly 20 years) and after 17 years starting in the second year. Senior pay and buffet pay were in creased to $2 to $2.50 (from $1.75 to $2.25) and $1 to $1.25 (from 75 cents to $1), depending on the type of aircraft. The major medical expense maximum was in creased to $400,000 (from $250,000) and life insurance was doubled to $200,000. Employees’ past contributions to the pension fund were refunded, and the normal re tirement age was raised to age 65, from age 60. Insurance Workers, Steelworkers end merger talks The Insurance Workers ended a year of merger nego tiations with the Steelworkers when the union’s General Executive Board ruled that the two unions could not reach agreement on a dues structure. The Steelworkers had insisted that the Insurance Workers approach be similar to theirs, which calls for members to pay monthly dues equal to two hours’ pay. Insurance Work ers President Joseph Pollack said that his unions’ mem bers, who currently pay a flat $9.50 a month, would not accept that approach because they are paid on a com mission basis and their earnings vary considerably from year to year. Both unions offered compromise propos als, without success. After the amicable termination of talks, Pollack said that his 20,000-member organization would continue to seek a merger but to assure “maximum organizing and bargaining strength,” any proposed partner must have at least a million members. Panels on economic policy established The Carter Administration and the https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis A F L -C IO agreed to set up two joint panels on economic policy, one to draw up short-range antirecession plans and the other to suggest a long-range plan for the “re-industrial ization” of America. The meetings that led to the agreement were conduct ed in compliance with the September 1979 “national ac cord” between the Administration and organized labor. The new antirecession panel was expected to prepare specific proposals for alleviating conditions for the un employed, the poor, the elderly, and others particularly hard hit by the current economic slowdown. In the past few months, A F L -C IO President Lane Kirkland had be come increasingly critical of Administration efforts in this area, contending that the poor and the needy were bearing the brunt of anti-inflation measures in violation of the principles of the national accord. The other panel will examine and suggest remedies for long-term problems in certain industries, such as im port competition and obsolete plants and equipment. An Administration official said that eventually industry officials and representatives of unions outside the A F L CIO will be added to this panel. Three studies on pensions A number of recent developments reflects the Nation’s concern over the adequacy of workers retirement in come. At the Federal Government level, a presidential panel on pensions issued an interim report suggesting that private employers be required to provide a mini mum level of protection for their retirees and the De partment of Labor proposed a change in its regulations concerning the types of ventures in which plan trustees are permitted to invest. Elsewhere, the A F L -C IO issued a report encouraging unions to press for a larger role in deciding how plan assets should be invested. The 10-member President’s Commission on Pension Policy noted in its report that some companies have voluntarily increased pensions for their retirees to at least partly offset the rise in living costs. While agreeing that such adjustments should be “encouraged,” the commission stopped short of recommending that they be mandated, saying that “the greatest emphasis should be placed on expanding pension coverage rather than providing full inflation protection to some (retirees) at this time.” The commission suggested that the definition of re tirement may need to be changed. It affirmed the right of every American to normal retirement at a stipulated age, but encouraged work opportunities for older work ers. Explaining that people should expect retirement to constitute a constant proportion of their adult lives, the commission suggested that the normal retirement age be raised at some time in the future for people born after 1945. 51 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Developments in Industrial Relations The final report, expected in February 1981, may dif fer from the interim findings because of questions raised by some of the commission’s members and the outcome of staff studies on certain issues. Members from orga nized labor, business, banking, State legislatures, and academia were represented on the commission. In its study, the Department of Labor estimated that the value of private pension plans in the United States will reach $3,000 billion in 1995, compared with $211 billion in 1975 and more than $300 billion in 1980. Much of this growth will result from inflation— in terms of constant 1975 dollars, the value of pension as sets will total only about $900 billion in 1995. Never theless, the growth will have “an incredible impact” on investment markets, increasing the already complex problems of regulating pension funds, according to Ian D. Lanoff, administrator of pension and welfare benefit programs. Therefore, new decisions will have to be made on who will control the funds and how best to use them, including consideration of the social useful ness of pension investments. The proposed new regulation announced by the La bor Department will make it easier for private employee-benefit plans to invest in venture-capital firms, which are usually partnerships that invest in fledgling companies, giving them financial help and management advice. The new regulation will become official after a 60-day period, subject to possible changes based on comments the Department receives from interested parties. Last year, the Labor Department had proposed to treat benefit plan investments in venture capital firms as “plan assets,” which would have meant that trustees would be liable for the venture capital firms’ activities, including their unprofitable investments. This drew crit ical responses from venture capital firms, which claimed that the regulation would dry up their chief source of capital. The new regulation will treat investments in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis venture-capital firms in the same manner as investments in ordinary operating companies. However, venture-cap ital firms will still have to meet some special require ments—they will only be permitted to invest in companies in which they have a management role and they will have to provide pension fund trustees with an nual audited financial statements. In its benefit plan study, the a f l -C I O ’s Industrial Union Department found that workers’ pension funds are sometimes being used to create overseas jobs and to finance nonunion companies. Jacob Sheinkman, secre tary-treasurer of the Clothing and Textile Workers and head of the seven-member study committee, said, “La bor loses twice from current pension fund management. In the short run, benefits may be threatened by inade quate rate of return and in the long run, our own mon ey works to take away our jobs and diminish our overall economic well being.” According to project director Richard Prosten, the average pension fund had a 4.3-percent a year rate of return over the last 10 years, compared with 5.9 percent for Standard and Poor’s index of 500 stocks and, “in many instances, participants would have been better off if their funds had been invested in passbook savings ac counts, rather than in equity stock.” The committee urged unions to seek joint administra tion of benefit funds through the collective bargaining process or through a commitment from the employer that the union may participate in important decisions affecting the funding, including selection of trustees and investment managers. If these efforts prove unsuccessful, the final step would be to press for legislation guaran teeing workers a voice in fund operations. The report was based on an examination of the in vestment practices of 10 “representative large industrial companies” and 192 collectively bargained or public sector benefit plans. The committee obtained 545 plans and analyzed 35 investment portfolios. Book Reviews Divergent views on bargaining Collective Bargaining: New Dimensions in Labor Rela tions. Edited by Franklin J. Havelick. Boulder, Colo., Westview Press, 1979. 183 pp. $20. Long ago, I read an article describing personality types which create problems in collective bargaining. Now we have a book, edited by Franklin J. Havelick, in which are collected the views of labor relations leaders who help rather than hinder the resolution of labor problems by collective bargaining innovations. The book stems from 2 years of discussions at the In stitute of Collective Bargaining and Group Relations of New York City, a program supported by the Ford Foundation and sponsored by the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell Uni versity. It is divided into 10 chapters with the authors of each chapter discussing collective bargaining as it is related to particular issues: economics, politics, interna tional trade, productivity, inflation, employment policy, and the quality of working life. Havelick’s thesis is that social, political, and econom ic pressures affect the collective bargaining process re sulting in a new and constantly changing system of collective bargaining. The book is an examination of this system, one whose working varies with the different experts depending on their experiences and their posi tions in the labor-management community. Havelick presents the views of Wayne L. Horvitz (Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service) contrasted with the views of William W. Winpisinger (International Association of Machinists); Theodore W. Kheel (Insti tute of Collective Bargaining) and Glenn E. Watts (Communication Workers of America); Benjamin F. Bailar (former U.S. Postmaster General) and Albert Shanker (American Federation of Teachers); Sol C. Chaikin (International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union) and Malcolm L. Denise (former vice president for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Co.); and Ernest G. Green (Assistant U.S. Secretary of Labor) and Jerome M. Rosow (Work in America Institute). In these discus sions, the authors explain how collective bargaining is helping solve the problems they face and what they ex pect of it in the future. These experts are paired to provide contrasting views on particular issues. For example, Chaikin and Denise https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tell how circumstances have shaped their ideas about collective bargaining. Each sees it differently, of course, since one represents employees of thousands of small la bor-intensive employers who compete with employers of cheap labor in Mexico, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Ko rea, and Thailand. The other speaks for a major firm which operates plants in countries throughout the world as well as in the United States. It is instructive, for example, to see how sharply di vergent labor leaders can be in their attitudes toward the role of the Federal Government regarding inflation. According to Watts: If the government is to play a constructive economic role, it must pursue a demonstrably sound Keynesian program of tax reductions, economic subsidies, and deficit spending to achieve economic growth. . . . Labor will also seek public benefits that substitute for wage increases and can have significant anti-inflationary effects. . . . A growing emphasis on political remedies to economic problems is one of the larger, long-term effects of inflation on labor relations. He also proposes increased Federal expenditures on housing and health care. Shanker, however, notes that, although teachers will be encouraged to “assert themselves politically,” they “are increasingly conscious that collective bargaining gains can be lost by national politics that effect aid to education and other aid to the States, by inflationary policies that cheapen wage increases, and by health pol icies that limit disposable income.” Those who find new insights in this book may want to read Work in America: The Decade Ahead, edited by Clark Kerr and Jerome M. Rosow (1979). It has other prominent labor relations leaders look at similar issues in an approach somewhat broader in scope. However, neither of these books deals with collective bargaining techniques as does Reed C. Richardson in his excellent Collective Bargaining by Objectives: A Positive Approach (1977). Readers will ask themselves how the experts assem bled by Havelick can differ so radically on how they are affected by inflation, foreign competition, and other is sues. Havelick supplies the answers by having them de scribe their problems, experiences, and collective bargaining solutions. This should give pause to those who urge ready-made, definite, unambiguous solutions to work problems without considering those factors MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Book Reviews which call for a variety of experimental, creative approaches. The book is clearly written and should prove useful to both labor relations students and policymakers in the world of work. — I r v in g P a st e r Associate Professor Emeritus, Management and Organization Sciences Wayne State University Perils of overseas investment Foreign Investment and the Management of Political Risk. By Dan Haendel. Boulder, Colo., Westview Press, 1979. 206 pp. $18.50. In the conduct of international business, one must ex pect to encounter a political milieu very different from one’s domestic political environment. In the best of cir cumstances, this fact can cause the international inves tor some uncertainty, and in the extremely unstable political conditions that prevail in some regions, the risk of sustaining substantial loss on an investment as a result of political change can be significant. Dan Haendel has approached this important and very com plex issue in this admittedly “modest attempt to con tribute to the formulation of better corporate and public policy.” Unfortunately, he is only modestly suc cessful in achieving this limited goal. A major factor in the failure of Foreign Investment and the Management of Political Risk to develop its full potential is the author’s apparent indecision as to who his audience should be. From the academics’ viewpoint, this work could only be regarded as a somewhat overlong survey of literature, with scant original material, interpretation, or analytic synthesis. If Haendel was attempting to reach the technical specialist in country risk analysis, he has provided no depth of technical de tail in his summaries of method, even though he does cover a fairly wide range of earlier work of his own and of other authors. If he intended an audience of upperlevel executives, private or public, his book does not provide a really effective guide to a decisionmaker’s in terpretation of technical analyses of political risk. It did not seem that the author was actually unaware of these concerns, he simply did not focus his attention on any one of them and, as a result, did not adequately address anyone’s needs. On a more specific level, I would like to take issue with Haendel’s “Political System Stability Index” (PSSI). The PSSI is an extension of earlier work by Haendel and two coauthors, and is one of the few places where the reviewer can directly criticize a sub stantive contribution of the author’s. When reduced to 54FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis the shorthand of mathematical notation, the PSSI takes the form: n PS = j 2 a Z , > >j where PSj is the PSSI value for country j, is the Zscore ((Xij —X ;) / s;) of the ith indicator for country j, and aj is the weight assigned to the ith indicator. Despite the author’s insistence that this index is based on “hard” quantitative data rather than “soft” measures of opinion, it is obvious that the index is quite depen dent on the weighting structure; and the weighting structure in this case has been arbitrarily and somewhat carelessly imposed using extremely tenuous theoretical justifications. For instance, energy consumption per capita, which is assumed to be a proxy for economic de velopment, which is itself assumed to have a positive re lationship with political stability, is given 5 times the weight of such direct measures of political unrest as riots and government crises, and over 3 times the weight of such indicators as assassinations and coups d’état. As justification for a conclusion of this counterintuitive, the reader might reasonably expect more than the skimpy theoretical framework and nearly nonexistent empirical validations presented in this volume. Even with its flaws, this volume contains the seeds of a good deal of future work. The importance of such a research program in this field is underscored by a Wall Street Journal (Feb. 20, 1980, p. 25) quotation of the executive vice president of the Chase Manhattan Bank saying that, as a whole, the banking industry has been doing a “pretty miserable job of predicting political risk.” In a similar vein, Edward Frydl, writing in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Quarterly Review (Winter 1979-80, pp. 11-20), has identified miscalcula tion of political risk as one potential destabilizer of the Eurocurrency markets, and, through those markets, the international monetary system. If Haendel chooses to write off this book as a preliminary exercise, he should be expected to contribute much more to this vital field. — R ic h a r d M . D ev ens, Jr . Office of Current Employment Analysis Bureau of Labor Statistics Growth industry for neutrals Government Labor Relations: Trends and Information for the Future, Vol. I, 1975-1978. Edited by Hugh D. Jascourt. Oak Park, 111., Moore Publishing Co., Inc., 1979. 399 pp. $12. In recent years, interested persons have raised ques tions concerning the future of collective bargaining in the United States. Some have asked: “Is collective bargaining dead?” They point to figures published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics which clearly indicate that overall labor-union growth has declined in the pri vate sector, and that union membership as a proportion of labor force and/or nonagricultural employment has dropped significantly over the years. The only major area where growth in union member ship has occurred is in the public sector— Federal, State, and local governments. In fact, growth in these areas is the reason that organized labor has been able to main tain a steady rate in overall membership. It is useful to keep in mind that approximately 1 of 6 U.S. workers is employed by government, with about 1 of 5 public workers employed by State and local governments. Many writers point to President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10988, issued in 1962, as the stimulus for publicsector unionism. While several States and cities had al ready ventured into collective bargaining with represen tatives of their employees, Executive Order 10988 served to generate increased union activity in the Feder al Government and among the States and communities. What has emerged is a hodge-podge of laws, regula tions, administrative procedures, and attitudes which have given public-sector unionism an aura of instability, experimentation, volatility, and immaturity. Many books and articles have been written about specific laws, illegal job actions, administrative defi ciencies, and so forth, in the public sector. There are also dozens of courses and seminars held each year for practitioners, administrators, neutrals, or anyone else interested in public-sector unionism. The problem is of ten one of what to read or which seminars or confer ences to attend. In fact, however, it is difficult to find in one place, one book, or one meeting, enough about the field as a whole to serve the needs of those involved in public-sector labor relations. This book provides a blend of legal, conceptual, and operational material that offers the reader a solid foun dation concerning the history and current state of the art in public-sector labor relations. It is organized into three parts, as follows: Part I provides an evolutionary picture of State and local level labor relations by setting out briefly the ma jor issues and legal decisions that have shaped the col lective bargaining systems. It discusses questions of coverage, unit determination, recognition, elections, union security, scope of bargaining, grievance proce dures, other dispute resolution procedures, impasse res olution, problems of strikes, and other important areas that have made public-sector collective bargaining so dynamic and complicated. Part II provides coverage of some of the more signifi cant legal decisions in the public-sector area, such as the National League of Cities v. Usery constitutional is sue. Other landmark cases pertaining to authority of https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis courts, units, arbitration, fiscal crises, strikes and strik ers, union security, duty of fair representation, and so forth, provide a well-rounded legal framework for the reader. Part III is a series of articles by individuals knowl edgeable about public-sector labor-management rela tions. It covers various viewpoints and perspectives, such as political, economic, labor, management, and the public. One article, “Training Programs for Neutrals” is long overdue. This reviewer has often been asked by students to suggest ways to become a neutral in the field of col lective bargaining. The article describes a variety of training programs that have been tried or which are still underway. It is hard to know, however, which pro grams are really open to all interested parties and which have provided bona fide opportunities, particularly for young people interested in the field. Experience has shown that parties to a dispute want knowledgeable, ex perienced neutrals handling their cases. Young people need to get experience, but how does one get this expe rience? Internships and working with known, competent neutrals are suggested ways. Much more needs to be written about this area. This is a book well worth acquiring as a ready refer ence source, or as auxiliary text for a course in publicsector collective bargaining. — Ben Bu r d et sk y Professor of Personnel and Labor Relations George Washington University Managers as entrepreneurs Managing Change: Today's Challenge to Management. By John E. Flaherty. New York, Nellen Publishing Co., 1979. 171 pp., bibliography. $9.95. This book, by John E. Flaherty, encompasses subject matter that is broader than either its title or chapter ti tles would lead one to suspect. Five of the six chapter headings include the word entrepreneur. The book dis cusses private sector management and entrepreneur as used here means the preferred qualities of any manager. Hence, the book is broad-based; it is unblushingly a Pe ter Drucker-style book. Indeed, Flaherty gives Drucker credit for being both his inspiration and a source of en couragement. The strength of this volume is its freshness of per spective, the author’s ability to embrace a vast amount of managerial data (financial, anecdotal, and so forth), and to use it Drucker-like to illustrate a point. Al though Flaherty has a broad knowledge of successful and unsuccessful corporate managerial and marketing strategies, he does not come up to the richness, the vi55 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Book Reviews sion, and the readability of a Drucker. Some sections of the book are insightful and exciting, other sections seem trivial, and in some instances are highly questionable. Because such a broad range of facts, tactics, firms, and stories are covered, it is not surprising that the book is uneven. It would take a su perman to master this material; in fact, Flaherty has not done badly. Perhaps he deserves credit for even try ing. The first half of the book is a loosely-knit collection of suggestions, examples, and broad analyses. The au thor urges the firm to be opportunity-oriented rather than problem-focused; it should be ready to drop a fail ing product. Although Flaherty urges abandonment of an obsolete product or plant, he urges caution in one area: “. . . products should be treated ruthlessly; but, with people, loyalty and conscience should be factored into the decision.” Flaherty shows how the firm can be more efficient by concentrating on its “knowledge excellence,” and not trying to produce and market a broad range of unrelated products. He cites firms such as Sears, Roe buck and Co., Pepsi Cola, Music Corp. of America, KMart, and Anheuser-Busch, which did so successfully, and W. T. Grant, which failed in this. The latter half of the book is broader in scope. The author presents an excellent list of questions for manag ing capital resources, a strong criticism of the theories of contemporary managerial psychologists, useful hints for the manager on the use of time, and good sugges tions on making performance appraisal more positive. Flaherty correctly describes new business as flexible, willing to assume risks, and innovative. He also notes that a majority of the larger firms are unwilling to take risks, and, therefore, are not creative. Flaherty’s background in management was obtained through consulting and teaching; his lack of education in business disciplines is demonstrated in his treatment of various items. For example, the book is about entre preneurship among managers. The basic motive of en trepreneurs is achievement. Flaherty evaluates many psychologists who treat motivation, but fails to include David McClelland, who has done so much on the need to achieve. Flaherty calls the idea of profit “deceptively easy . . . In an engineering and physical science sense it is the ra tio between inputs on efforts and outputs or results . . . ” This reviewer has never heard profit described as a ratio and does not understand it. Flaherty fails to provide any additional explanation. Because Flaherty is a histo rian, one would have hoped to enjoy more historical and humanistic examples beyond the occasional refer ence to Pascal or St. Augustine. It is distracting that Flaherty consistently notes the university affiliation of Harvard academics, and not oth 56FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ers. The editor and publisher should have caught the se rious mix-up of text on pp. 99-100. There is some excellent material in this book. Al though it is uneven, it deserves our attention. — G erald Cavanagh School of Business and Administration University of Detroit Covering the safety and health spectrum Protecting People at Work: A Reader in Occupational Safety and Health. Edited by Judson MacLaury. Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, 1980. 361 pp. Stock No. 029-015-00055-4. $6.50, paper, Su perintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires an annual report to Congress on the status of worker onthe-job safety and health. It is part of the law frequent ly ignored, and always postponed. Now comes an offi cial U.S. Labor Department book—honoring Frances Perkins—which makes up for those lapses. The numerous authors of this book, edited by Judson MacLaury, include many of the new breed of environ mental specialists who have come to the forefront dur ing the Ray Marshall and Eula Bingham era at the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Their viewpoints and plain talk make for smooth and informative reading. For too long a time, occupational safety and health literature has been burdened with a remoteness which has driven the trade away. This book was meant to be read, not stacked away for reference. Workers who read this book and heed the information presented could possibly live longer and fuller lives. Government publications often run a long timespan between the author’s typewriter and final print. There are gaps in the book which suffer from time problems. For example, the excellent new series of Occupational Safety and Health booklets would have made a useful appendix (at least a few gutsy excerpts are worth adding). And, Bingham’s columns, which scored so well in many labor papers, ought to have found a place in this book. A reading list of some of the best news articles and books which have proliferated in recent years— and were a feature of o s h a ’s media seminar in Chicago in 1979— would have been a welcome addition. Still, it is hard for me to quarrel with the actual con tents. The book has a good range of material and the writers know their subject matter. They write felicitous ly and are not long-winded. There is hardly a nook in the nearly endless topic of health and safety which is not treated—chemicals, noise, dust, reproductive hazards, and the human body. Each is given a good introduction. And there is more— the regulatory controversy, OSHA and its mission, com parative foreign experiences, and the economics of health and safety. Plenty to ponder here. Yet, the Nation today is full of eager OSHA students — workers, unions, organizations, trade associations, members of Congress, think-tanks on all sides of the spectrum — who hunger for more information on the of ten baffling OSHA universe. If there is any flaw in this welcome book, and it is very minor, it is that readers who search for reference sources may not always know where to look. May this, then, be the first of a new se ries of updates as the OSHA mission is increasingly ful filled. — F r a n k l i n W a l l ic k Editor UAW Washington Report Publications received Economic and social statistics International Labor Organization, Y ea r B o o k o f L a b o u r S ta tistics, 1979. 39th ed. Geneva, 1979, 711 pp. $47.75. Distributed in the United States by Washington Branch of ILO. National Center for Health Statistics, T he M o d e l S ta te H ea lth S ta tis tic s A c t: A M o d e l S ta te L a w f o r th e C ollection , S h a r ing, a n d C o n fid e n tia lity o f H e a lth S ta tistics. Hyattsville, Md., U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel fare, Public Health Service, Office of Health Research, Statistics, and Technology, National Center for Health Statistics 1980, 53 pp. (Vital and Health Statistics: Series 4, Documents and Committee Reports, No. 21); ( d h e w Publication No. ( p h s ) 80-1458). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, D istrib u tio n o f O c cu p a tio n a l E m p lo y m e n t in S ta te s a n d A re a s b y R a c e a n d Sex, 1978. Washington, 1980, 31 pp. (Bulletin 2053). Stock No. 029-001-02461-4. $2, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. ------ S e le c te d P a p ers f r o m N o rth A m eric a n C o n feren ce on L a b o r S ta tis tic s h e ld in B oston, M ass., J u n e 1 8 - 2 1 , 1979. Washington, 1980, 101 pp. Economic growth and development Bosworth, Barry P., “Conflicts in Economic Policy,” E c o n o m ic O u tlo o k USA, Spring 1980, pp. 27-29. Committee for Economic Development, R e d e fin in g G overn m e n t's R o le in th e M a r k e t S y ste m . (A Statement on National Policy by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development.) Washing ton, 1979, 144 pp. $6.50, cloth; $5, paper. Levine, Solomon B. and Hisashi Kawada, H u m a n R eso u rces in J a p a n ese I n d u s tr ia l D evelo p m en t. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1980, 332 pp., bibliography. $ 20. Parachini, Lawrence F., Jr., A P o litic a l H is to r y o f th e S p e c ia l Im p a c t P ro g ra m . Cambridge, Mass., Center for Commu nity Economic Development, 1980, 217 pp., bibliography. $ 6. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Pechman, Joseph A., ed., S e ttin g N a tio n a l P riorities: A g e n d a f o r th e 1980s. Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1980, 563 pp. $18.95, cloth; $8.95, paper. Ridker, Ronald G., and William D. Watson, To C hoose a F u ture: R eso u rce a n d E n v iro n m e n ta l C on sequ en ces o f A lte r n a tive G row th P aths. Washington, Resources for the Future, 1980, 463 pp. $29.50, The Johns Hopkins Uni versity Press, Baltimore. Health and safety Barth, Peter S. with Allan Hunt, W o rk ers' C o m p en sa tio n a n d W o r k -R e la te d Illn esses a n d D iseases. Cambridge, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1980, 391 pp. $27.50, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Ferman, Louis A. and Jeanne P. Gordus, eds., M e n ta l H ea lth a n d th e E con om y. (Papers Presented at a Conference Co sponsored by The Institute of Labor and Industrial Rela tions, The University of Michigan-Wayne State Universi ty and The Center for Studies of Metropolitan Problems, National Institute of Mental Health.) Kalamazoo, Mich., The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1979, 423 pp. $8.50, cloth; $6.25, paper. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, A c c id e n ts In vo lv in g E y e In ju ries. Washington, 1980, 23 pp. (Report 597.) ------ O c cu p a tio n a l In ju ries a n d Illn esses in 1978: S u m m a r y . Washington, 1980, 25 pp. (Report 586.) Industrial relations Anderson, Bernard and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds., Y ou th E m p lo y m e n t a n d P u b lic Policy. New York, The American As sembly, Columbia University, 1980, 161 pp. $11.95, cloth; $5.95, paper, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Bulmer, Charles and John L. Carmichael, Jr., “Toil and Trou ble: The Reform of the Labor Law,” P o lic y S tu d ie s J o u r nal, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1979, pp. 400-06. Coleman, Charles J., “The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978: Its Meaning and Its Roots,” L a b o r L a w Jou rn al, April 1980, pp. 200-07. Cruz, Nestor, “Is Equal Employment Opportunity Cost Effec tive?” L a b o r L a w Jou rn al, May 1980, pp. 295-98. Dufty, N. F., I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s in th e P u b lic S ecto r: T he F irem en . St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, University of Queensland Press, 1979, 333 pp. $24.25. Available in the United States from the University of Queensland Press, Lawrence, Mass. Elkin, Randyl D. and Thomas L. Hewitt, S u cc e ssfu l A r b itr a tion: A n E x p e rie n tia l A pproach . Reston Va., Reston Pub lishing Co., Inc., 1980, 100 pp. $6.95. Gillespie, J. David and Michael L. Mitchell, “Bakke, Weber, and Race in Employment: Analysis of Informed Opin ion,” P o licy S tu d ie s Jou rn al, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1979, pp. 383 -91. Golodner, Jack, “Viewpoint: On Collective Bargaining,” I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R ep o rt, Spring 1980, pp. 2 1 24. Holley, William H., Jr., and Kenneth M. Jennings, T he L a b o r R e la tio n s Process. Hinsdale, 111., The Dryden Press, A di vision of Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Publishers, 1980, 656 pp. $19.95. 57 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Book Reviews Japan Institute of Labour, S o c ia l T en sions a n d I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s A risin g in th e In d u stria liza tio n P rocesses o f A sian C oun tries. (Proceedings of the 1979 Asian Regional Con ference on Industrial Relations.) Tokyo, Japan Institute of Labour, 1979, 341 pp. Kirschner, Kenneth, “Workers in a W h irlpool: Employees’ Statutory Rights to Refuse Hazardous Work,” L a b o r L a w Jou rn a l, May 1980, pp. 283-94. Kochan, Thomas A., C o llective B a rg a in in g a n d I n d u s tr ia l R e lation s: F rom T h eo ry to P o lic y a n d P ractice. Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1980, 523 pp. (The Irwin Se ries in Management and the Behavioral Sciences.) $18.95. Lamb, Charles M., “Equal Employment Opportunity and the Carter Administration: An Analysis of Reorganization Options,” P o licy S tu d ie s Jou rn al, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1979, pp. 377-83. Murrmann, Kent F., “The Scanlon Plan Joint Committee and Section 8(a)(2),” L a b o r L a w Jou rn al, May 1980, pp. 229304. Nash, Peter G. and George P. Blake, eds., A p p ro p ria te U n its f o r C o llective B arg ain in g. New York, Practising Law In stitute, 1979, 457 pp. $35. Schantz, Harvey L. and Richard H. Schmidt, “The Evolution of Humphrey-Hawkins,” P o licy S tu d ie s Jou rn al, Vol. 8, No. 3., 1979, pp. 368-77. Smith, Baker Armstrong, “Landrum-Griffin After TwentyOne Years: Mature Legislation or Childish Fantasy?” L a b o r L a w J o u rn al, May 1980, pp. 273-82. Sobel, Lester A., ed., Q u o ta s a n d A ffirm a tiv e A ction . New York, Facts on File, 1980, 193 pp. $15. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, C h a ra cte ristic s o f M a jo r C o l lective B a rg a in in g A greem en ts, J a n u a ry 1, 1978, Washing ton, 1980, 113 pp. (Bulletin 2065.) Stock No. 029-001-02468-1. $4.25, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. Whiting, Basil J., “OSHA’s Enforcement Policy,” L a b o r L a w Jou rn a l, May 1980, pp. 259-72. Wrubel, Barbara, “Liability Insurance for Insidious Disease: Who Picks Up the Tab,” F o rd h a m L a w R eview , April 1980, pp. 657-93. Industry and government organization Alexander, Herbert E„ F in an cin g P olitics: M on ey, E lectio n s a n d P o litic a l R efo rm . 2d ed. Washington, Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1980, 190 pp., bibliography. $6.95, paper. American Enterprise Institute for Public Research, R e g u la to r y R e fo rm f o r M o to r C arriers: A n A n a ly sis o f P en d in g L eg is lation. Washington, 1980, 44 pp. ( aei Legislative Analy sis, 15, 96th Cong., 2d sess.) ------ T elec o m m u n ica tio n s L a w R efo rm . Washington, 1980, 64 pp. ( aei Legislative Analysis, 12, 96th Cong., 2d sess.) Barksdale, Hiram C., and William D. Perreault, Jr., “Can Consumers Be Satisfied?” MSU B u sin ess Topics, Spring 1980, pp. 19-30. Bock, Robert H., “Modern Values and Corporate Social Re sponsibility,” MSU B u sin ess Topics, Spring 1980, pp. 5 17. Meyer, Henry I., T h e F ace o f Business. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associations, 1980, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 268 pp. $12.95. Pritchard, Robert E. and Thomas J. Hindelang, T he L e a s e / B u y D ecision. New York, a m a c o m , A division of Ameri can Management Associations, 1980, 276 pp. $24.95. Walgreen, John A. and others, “Government Regulation: Who Should Foot the Bill?” T he J o u r n a l/T h e Institute for Socioeconomic Studies, Summer 1980, pp. 46-62. Wilson, James Q., ed., T he P o litics o f R eg u la tio n . New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1980, 468 pp. $18.95. International economics Chouraqui, Jean-Claude and David King, “Monetary Targets and Inflation Control,” T he OECD O bserver, March 1980, pp. 16-18. Crabb, Cecil V., Jr., and Pat M. Holt, In vita tio n to S tru g g le: Congress, t/ie P re sid en t a n d F oreign Policy. Washington, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1980, 234 pp. $6.95, paper. Kennedy, Thomas, E u ro p ea n L a b o r R e la tio n s: T e x t a n d Cases. Lexington, Mass., D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington Books, 1980, 427 pp. $29.95. LefF, Nathaniel H. and Kazuo Sato, “Macroeconomic Adjust ment in Developing Countries: Instability, Short-run Growth, and External Dependency,” T he R e view o f E co n o m ics a n d S ta tistics, May 1980, pp. 170-79. Leiderman, Leonardo, “Output Supply in the Open Economy: Some International Evidence,” T h e R e v ie w o f E co n o m ics a n d S ta tistics, May 1980, pp. 180-89. “OECD Member Countries: 1980 Edition — 16th Year,” T he OECD O bserver, March 1980, pp. 19-26. Ostry, Sylvia, “The World Economy in the 1970s and 1980s,” The OECD O bserver, March 1980, pp. 13-15. Prybyla, Jan, “China in the 1980s,” C h allen ge, May-June 1980, pp. 4 -2 0 . “Steel in the 1980s: An OECD Symposium,” T h e OECD O b serv er, March 1980, beginning on p. 3. U.S. Bureau of International Labor Affairs, C o u n try L a b o r P ro file : B razil. By Martha R. Lowenstern. Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor AfF airs, 1980. 8 pp. 60 cents, Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402. ------ C o u n try L a b o r P rofile: G hana. By Donald S. Harris. Washington, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Inter national Labor Affairs, 1980, 6 pp. 60 cents, Superinten dent of Documents, Washington 20402. Labor force Keyserling, Leon H., “The Problem of High Unemployment: Result of Muddled National Economic Policies,” P o licy S tu d ie s Jou rn al, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1979, pp. 349-59. Levison, Andrew, T he F u ll E m p lo y m e n t A ltern a tive. New York, Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, Inc., 1980, 252 pp. $10.95. Sheppard, C. Stewart and Donald C. Carroll, eds., W o rk in g in th e T w en ty-F irst C en tu ry, New York, Philip Morris, Inc., 1980, 235 pp., bibliography. $18.95, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, E s tim a tin g S ta te a n d L o c a l A re a U n em p lo ym e n t: A G u id e f o r D a ta Users. Washing ton, 1980, 95 pp. (Bulletin 2058.) Stock No. 029-001-02467-3. $4, Superintendent of Documents, Washing ton 20402. Management and organization theory Bagozzi, Richard P., “Salespeople and Their Managers: An Exploratory Study of Some Similarities and Differences,” S lo a n M a n a g e m e n t R eview , Winter 1980, pp. 15-26. Blumberg, Melvin, “Job Switching in Autonomous Work Groups: An Exploratory Study in a Pennsylvania Coal Mine,” A c a d e m y o f M a n a g e m e n t Jou rn al, June 1980, pp. 287-306. Bock, Robert H., “Modern Values and Corporate Social Re sponsibility,” MSU B u sin ess Topics, Spring 1980, pp. 5 17. Christopher, William F., M a n a g e m e n t f o r th e 1980s. Rev. ed. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Manage ment Associations, 1980, 295 pp. Cohen, William A., P rin ciples o f T ech n ica l M a n a g em e n t. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associations, 1980, 222 pp. $19.95. Conlon, Edward J., “Feedback About Personal and Organiza tional Outcomes and Its Effect on Persistence of Planned Behavioral Changes,” A c a d e m y o f M a n a g e m e n t Journal, June 1980, pp. 267-86. Desatnick, Robert L., T he E x p a n d in g R o le o f th e H u m a n R e so u rces M a n a g er. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associations, 1979, 230 pp. $15.95. Doz, Yves L., “Strategic Management in Multinational Com panies,” S lo a n M a n a g e m e n t R eview , Winter 1980, pp. 2 7 46. Gandz, Jeffrey and Victor V. Murray, “The Experience of Workplace Politics,” A c a d e m y o f M a n a g e m e n t Jou rn al, June 1980, pp. 237-51. Hanan, Mack, L ife -S ty le d M a r k e tin g : H o w to P osition P ro d u c ts f o r P re m iu m Profits. Rev. ed. New York, a m a c o m , A di vision of American Management Associations, 1980, 169 pp. $16.95. Imundo, Louis V., T he E ffective S u p ervisor's H a n d b o o k . New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associations, 1980, 239 pp. $15.95. Krause, William H., H o w to G et S ta r te d a s a M a n u fa c tu re rs ' R ep resen ta tive. New York, a m a c o m , A division of Amer ican Management Associations, 1980, 207 pp. $14.95. Lott, Richard W., A u d itin g th e D a ta P rocessin g F unction. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associations, 1980, 214 pp. $16.95. McCafferty, Donald N., S u ccessfu l F ie ld S ervice M a n a g em e n t. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Manage ment Associations, 1980, 181 pp. $16.95. McLane, Helen J., Selectin g, D evelo p in g a n d R e ta in in g W om en E x ecu tives: A C orp o ra te S tra te g y f o r th e E ighties. New York, Litton Educational Publishing, Inc., 1980, 248 pp., bibliography. $14.95, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. Nygren, William V., B u sin ess F o rm s M a n a g em e n t. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associa tions, 1980, 182 pp. $22.95. Ozawa, Terutomo, “Japanese World of Work: An Interpretive https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Survey,” MSU B u sin ess Topics, Spring 1980, pp. 45-55. Sawyer, Lawrence B., T h e M a n a g e r a n d th e M o d e rn In te rn a l A u d ito r: A P ro b lem -S o lv in g P artn ersh ip. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associa tions, 1979, 466 pp. $24.95. Shulman, Joel J., H o w to G et P u b lis h e d in B u sin e ss/P ro fessio n a l Journals. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associations, 1980, 258 pp. $14.95. Stevens, George E. and Angelo S. DeNisi, “Women as Man agers: Attitudes and Attributions for Performance by Men and Women,” A c a d e m y o f M a n a g e m e n t Journal, June 1980, pp. 355-61. Sweeny, Allen, R O i B asics f o r N o n fin a n c ia l E xecu tives. New York, a m a c o m , A division of American Management Associations, 1979, 115 pp. $9.95. “What Will the Decade of the ’80s hold for Women in Man agement?” P erso n n el A d m in is tra to r, April 1980, pp. 2 2 81. Monetary and fiscal policy Bechter, Dan M. and Stephen H. Pollock, “Are Inventories Sensitive to Interest Rates?” E c o n o m ic R eview , Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, April 1980, pp. 18-27. Crum, Lawrence L., E lec tro n ic F u n d s T ran sferen ce in T exas: T he S ta te o f I ts D e v e lo p m e n t a n d th e O u tlo o k f o r th e 1980s. Austin, University of Texas, Bureau of Business Research, 1980, 48 pp. Minsky, Hyman P., “The Federal Reserve: Between a Rock and a Hard Place,” C h allen ge, May-June 1980, pp. JO36. Okun, Arthur, “The Balanced Budget Is a Placebo,” C h a l lenge, May-June 1980, p. 3. Pugh, Olin S., C o m m e rc ia l B a n k in g T rends, 1 9 5 0 - 1 9 7 9 : A S u rv e y o f U n ite d S ta te s a n d S o u th C a ro lin a D evelo p m en ts. Columbia, University of South Carolina, College of Busi ness Administration, Division of Research, 1980, 86 pp. (Occasional Studies, 13.) Rose, Sanford, “Dark Days Ahead for Banks,” F ortu ne, June 30, 1980, pp. 86-90. Winningham, Scott and Donald G. Hagan, "Regulation Q: An Historical Perspective,” E c o n o m ic R eview , Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, April 1980, pp. 3-17. Prices and living conditions Alperovitz, Gar and Jeff Faux, “Controls and the Basic Ne cessities,” C h allen ge, May-June 1980, pp. 21-29. Converse, Muriel, Richard T. Curtin, Maureen Kallick, “Cop ing with Inflation,” E c o n o m ic O u tlo o k USA, Spring 1980, pp. 35-38. Juster, F. Thomas, “Dealing with Inflation: Policy Alterna tives,” E c o n o m ic O u tlo o k USA, Spring 1980, pp. 30-31. Mullineaux, Donald J., “Unemployment, Industrial Produc tion, and Inflation Uncertainty in the United States,” The R e view o f E co n o m ics a n d S ta tistics, May 1980, pp. 163 — 69. “Special Report: Inflation and Wage Bargaining,” by Robert L. Raimon; “A Response from Labor,” by E. Howard Molisani; “A Response from Management,” by John M. Baitsell, I n d u s tr ia l a n d L a b o r R e la tio n s R eport, Spring 1980, pp. 7-20. 59 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Book Reviews Productivity and technological change Kendrick, John W. and Beatrice N. Vaccara, eds., N e w D e v e l o p m e n ts in P ro d u c tiv ity M e a su re m e n t a n d A n alysis. New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1980, 717 pp. (Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 44.) Available from the University of Chicago Press, Chicago. $52. National Academy of Sciences, M e a su re m e n t a n d In te rp r e ta tion o f P ro d u ctivity. Washington, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, 1979, 449 pp. $18. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, P ro d u c tiv ity : A s e le c te d A n n o ta te d B ib lio g ra p h y, 1 9 7 6 - 7 8 . Washington, 1980, 166 pp. (Bulletin 2051.) Stock No. 029-000-02457-6. $5.50, Super intendent of Documents, Washington 20402. Social institutions and social change Alexander, Chauncey A. and Sally J. Alexander, eds., C h in a View: F irst NASW S tu d y Tour. Washington, National As sociation of Social Workers, Inc., 1979, 357 pp. $6.95, paper. Cantarow, Ellen, with Susan Gushee O’Malley and Sharon Strom, M o v in g th e M o u n ta in : W om en W o rk in g f o r S o c ia l C han ge. Old Westbury, N.Y., The Feminist Press, 1980, 166 pp., bibliography. $4.75. Ferman, Louis A. and Jeanne P. Gordus, eds., M e n ta l H ea lth a n d th e E co n o m y. (P apers P re se n ted a t a C o n feren ce C o sp o n so red b y th e I n stitu te o f L a b o r a n d I n d u s tr ia l R e la tions, T he U n iversity o f M ic h ig a n -W a y n e S ta te U n iversity, a n d th e C e n ter f o r S tu d ie s o f M e tro p o lita n P roblem s, N a tio n a l I n stitu te o f M e n ta l H e a lth .) Kalamazoo, Mich., W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1979, 423 pp. $8.50, cloth; $6.25, paper. Graber, Doris A., M a ss M e d ia a n d A m eric a n Politics. Wash ington, Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1980, 304 pp. $6.95, paper. Johnson, Marilyn, “Women and Elective Office,” S ociety, May -June 1980, pp. 63-69. Perkins, Gail and Judith Rhoades, T he W om en 's F in a n cia l S u rv iv a l H a n d b o o k . New York, New American Library, Plume Books, 1980, 286 pp., bibliography. $5.95, paper. TofTler, Alvin, T he T h ird Wave. New York, William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1980, 544 pp., bibliography. $14.95. Urban affairs Sternlieb, George and others, A m e r ic a 's H ou sin g: P rospects a n d P roblem s. New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers— The State University of New Jersey, Center for Urban Policy Re search, 1980, 562 pp. $20. U.S. Department of Commerce, T he C ity -S u b u r b In c o m e Gap: Is It B ein g N a rro w e d b y a B a c k -to -th e -C ity M o v e m e n t? Washington, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980, 22 pp. (Special Demographic Analyses, CDS-80-1.) Stock No. 003-024-02378-4. $1.75, Superin tendent of Documents, Washington 20402. Wages and compensation Eidem, Rolf and Berndt Ohman, E c o n o m ic D e m o c r a c y Stockholm, Sweden, Swed ish Center for Working Life, 1979, 58 pp. T hrou gh W a g e-E a rn er F unds. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Millard, Cheedle W., Diane L. Lockwood, Fred Luthans, “The Impact of a Four-Day Workweek on Employees,” m s u B u sin ess Topics, Spring 1980, pp. 31-37. Öhman, Berndt, W a g e-E a rn er F un ds: B a ckgrou n d, P roblem s, a n d P ossibilities: A S u m m a r y o f sou (S w edish G o vern m en t O fficia l R e p o rts) 1979:8. Stockholm, Sweden, Swedish Commission on Wage-Earners and Capital Formation, 1979, 20 pp. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, A re a W age Su rveys: N ew O rleans, L o u isian a, M e tro p o lita n A rea, O c to b er 1 9 7 9 (Bul letin 2050-53, 38 pp., $2.25); In d ia n a p o lis, In d ia n a , M e t ro p o lita n A rea, O c to b er 1 9 7 9 (Bulletin 2050-54, 39 pp., $2.25); M ia m i, F lorida, M e tro p o lita n A rea, O c to b er 1979, (Bulletin 2050-55, 38 pp., $2.25); P h ila d elp h ia , P en n sy l v a n ia -N ew Jersey, M e tro p o lita n A rea, N o v e m b e r 1 9 7 9 (Bul letin 2050-57, 55 pp., $3); K a n s a s C ity, M issou ri-K an sa s, M e tro p o lita n A rea, S e p te m b e r 1 9 7 9 (Bulletin 2050-58, 51 pp., $2.75); L o s A n g e le s— L o n g B each, C a liforn ia, M e tr o p o lita n A rea, O c to b er 1 9 7 9 (Bulletin 2050-59, 43 pp., $2.25). Available from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington 20402, GPO bookstores, or BLS regional of fices. ------ Union W ages a n d B en efits: P rin tin g T rades, S e p te m b e r 1, 1978. Washington, 1980, 120 pp. (Bulletin 2049.) Stock No. 029-000-02443-6. $4.25, Superintendent of Docu ments, Washington 20402. Welfare programs and social programs Hiraishi, Nagahisa, J a p a n ese I n d u s tr ia l R e la tio n s Series: S o c ia l S ecu rity. Tokyo, The Japan Institute of Labour, 1980, 32 pp. (Series 5.) Labour Canada, J o in t P a rticip a tio n in P en sion Plans. Ottawa, Ontario, Labour Canada, Public Relations Branch, 1979, 14 pp. Robertson, A. Haeworth, “A Debate on Social Security: Part I,” A cross th e B oard, June 1980, pp. 32-48. Smith, Geoffrey, “Britain Cuts Indexing Government Bene fits,” The J o u r n a l/T h e Institute for Socioeconomic Stud ies, Summer 1980, pp. 63-87. Stein, Bruno, S o c ia l S e c u rity a n d P en sion s in U n d ersta n d in g th e A m e r ic a n T ran sition : R e tir e m e n t S y ste m . New York, The Free Press, 1980, 308 pp., bibliography. $14.95. Worker training and development Kahl, Anne, “Presenting Exploring Careers,” O c cu p a tio n a l O u tlo o k Q u a rterly, Spring 1980, pp.' 22-25. Kort, Carol, “Career Discovery: Career Education for Design Occupations,” O c cu p a tio n a l O u tlo o k Q u a rterly, Spring 1980, p. 29. Nardone, Thomas, “The Job Outlook in Brief,” O c c u p a tio n a l O u tlo o k Q u a rterly, Spring 1980, pp. 2-21. Pettman, Barrie O., ed., E u ropean In sigh ts: M an po w er. Bradford, West Yorkshire, England, MCB Publications Limited, 1979, 140 pp. (European Insights Series, 7.) $27. The National Urban Coalition, J o b T ra in in g a n d th e Schools: A C o m m u n ity G u id e to V o cation al E d u ca tio n . Washing ton, The National Urban Coalition, 1980, 32 pp. Free. Current Labor Statistics Notes on Current Labor Statistics ..................................... Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes ............................................. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Employment status of noninstitutional population, selected years,1950-79 .................................................................. Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................ Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................ Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted ..................................................................................................... Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................ Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted ..................................................................... Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted ................................................................................................................ Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Employment by industry, 1950-79 ........................................................................................................................................ Employment by State ............................................................................................................................................................... Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group ................................................................................ Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonallyadjusted ......................................... Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date ......................................................................................................... Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group ................................................................................... Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1949-79 .......................................................................................................... Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing g r o u p .............................................................................. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted ...................................... Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................ Hourly Earnings Index, by industry division, seasonally adjusted ............................................................................... Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group ........................................................................ Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 todate ....................................................... Unemployment insurance data. Definitions and notes 21. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations 63 63 64 65 66 67 67 67 68 59 ¿9 70 71 72 72 7} 74 75 76 76 77 78 79 ........................................................................................ 79 Price data. Definitions and notes 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Consumer Price Index, 1967-79 Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, general summary and selected items ........................................................... Consumer Price Index, cross classification of region and population size class .......................................................... Consumer Price Index, selected areas ..................................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing .................................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings ............................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings ................................................................................................ Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product ................................................................................................................ Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries ................................................................................. Productivity data. Definitions and notes ........................................................................................ 31. 32. 33. 34. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices,1950-79 ............................................ Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1969-79 ............................................. Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted ................... Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices . . Labor-management data. Definitions and notes 35. Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date ........................................................ 36. Effective wage rate adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date ..................... 37. Work stoppages, 1947 to date ............................................................................................................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 81 87 gg g9 90 92 92 92 95 95 96 96 97 98 98 98 99 61 NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS This section of the R e view presents the principal statistical se ries collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A brief introduction to each group of tables provides defi nitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually found in footnotes. Readers who need additional information are invited to consult the BLS regional offices listed on the inside front cov er of this issue of the R eview . Some general notes applicable to several series are given below. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect of such factors as climatic conditions, industry production schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short term movements of the statistical series. Tables containing these data are identified as “seasonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are com puted each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for sev eral preceding years. For a technical discussion of the method used to make seasonal adjustments, see “Appendix A. The BLS Seasonal Fac tor Method,” B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s f o r S u r v e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bul letin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1976), pp. 272-78, and X - l l V a ria n t o f th e C en su s M e th o d I I S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t P r o g ra m , Tech nical Paper No. 15 (Bureau of the Census, 1967). Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 2 - 7 were last revised in the February 1980 issue of the R e v ie w to reflect the preceding year’s experience. Begin ning in January 1980, the BLS introduced two major modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X - l l / ARIMA, which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard X -ll method. A detailed description of the procedure appears in T h e X - l l A R I M A S e a s o n a l A d ju s tm e n t M e th o d by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E, September 1979). The second change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated for use during the first 6 months of the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-December peri od. Revisions of historical data continue to be made only at the end of each calendar year. Annual revision of the seasonally adjusted payroll data in tables 11, 13, 16, and 18 begins with the August 1980 issue us ing the X -ll ARIMA seasonal adjustment methodology. New season S e a s o n a l a d ju s tm e n t. al factors for productivity data in tables 33 and 34 are usually intro duced in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S. average All Items CPI. Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are available for this series. Some data are adjusted to eliminate the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate component of the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of 150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is $2 ($3/150 X 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as “real,” “constant,” or “ 1967” dollars. A d ju s t m e n ts fo r p r ic e c h a n g e s . Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety of sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule given below. The H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s 1978, Bulletin 2000, provides more detailed data and greater his torical coverage for most of the statistical series presented in the M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w . More information from the household and es tablishment surveys is provided in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, a monthly publication of the Bureau, and in two comprehensive data books issued annually— E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n ite d S ta te s and E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, S ta te s a n d A rea s. More detailed informa tion on wages and other aspects of collective bargaining appears in the monthly periodical, C u r r e n t W a g e D e ve lo p m e n ts . More detailed price information is published each month in the periodicals, the C P I D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P ric e s a n d P r ic e In d e x es. A v a ila b ilit y o f in f o r m a tio n . Symbols p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series, preliminary figures are issued based on representative but incomplete returns. r = revised. Generally this revision reflects the availability of later data but may also reflect other adjustments, n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified. Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series Title and frequency (monthly except where indicated) Release date Period covered Release date Period covered MLR table number E m p lo y m e n t s it u a t io n ....................................................................... ................... A ugust 1 Ju ly S e p te m b e r 5 A u g u st 1 -1 1 P ro d u c e r P rice Index A u g u s t 15 Ju ly S e p te m b e r 5 A u g u st 2 6 -3 0 .......................................................................................... ........................................................................................ A u g u s t 22 Ju ly S e p te m b e r 23 A u g u st 2 2 -2 5 ........................................................................................................ A u g u s t 22 Ju ly S e p te m b e r 23 A u g u st 1 4 -2 0 ....................................................................... A u g u s t 27 2n d q u a rte r W o rk s to p p a g e s ..................................................................................................... A u g u s t 28 Ju ly S e p te m b e r 29 A u g u st 37 Ju ly S e p te m b e r 30 A u g u st 1 2 -1 3 C o n s u m e r P rice Index R eal e a rn in g s P ro d u ctiv ity a n d c o s ts (q u a rte rly ): N o n fin a n cia l c o rp o ra tio n s L a b o r tu rn o v e r in m a n u fa c tu rin g Digitized for62 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .................................................................... A u g u s t 29 31 - 3 4 EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY E m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are obtained from the Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 65,000 households beginning in January 1980, selected to represent the U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. those not classified as employed or unemployed; this group includes persons retired, those engaged in their own housework, those not working while attending school, those unable to work because of longterm illness, those discouraged from seeking work because of personal or job market factors, and those who are voluntarily idle. The n o n in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n comprises all persons 16 years of age and older who are not inmates of penal or mental institutions, sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or needy. are those employed at least 35 hours a week; are those who work fewer hours. Workers on parttime schedules for economic reasons (such as slack work, terminating or starting a job during the week, material shortages, or inability to find full-time work) are among those counted as being on full-time status, under the assumption that they would be working full time if conditions permitted. The survey classifies unemployed persons in full-time or part-time status by their reported preferences for full-time or part-time work. F u ll-t im e w o r k e r s Definitions p a r t-tim e w o r k e r s E m p lo y e d p e r so n s are (1 ) those who worked for pay any time during the week which includes the 1 2 th day of the month or who worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and ( 2 ) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. A person working at more than one job is counted only in the job at which he or she worked the greatest number of hours. Notes on the data U n e m p lo y e d p e r so n s are those who did not work during the survey week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and had looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new jobs within the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed. The u n e m p lo y m e n t r a te represents the number unemployed as a percent of the civilian labor force. The c iv ilia n la b o r fo r c e consists of all employed or unemployed persons in the civilian noninstitutional population; the to ta l la b o r fo r c e includes military personnel. Persons n o t in th e la b o r fo r c e are 1. From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjustments are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating errors during the preceding years. These adjustments affect the comparability of historical data presented in table 1. A description of these adjustments and their effect on the various data series appear in the Explanatory Notes of E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s. Data in tables 2 - 7 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal experience through December 1979. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-79 [Numbers in thousands] Total labor force Year Total non institutional population Civilian labor force Employed Number Percent of population Total 59.9 6 2 ,208 Total Unemployed Agriculture Nonagricultural industries 7,160 5 1 ,758 Number Percent of labor force 3,288 5,3 Not In labor force 1950 106,645 1955 112,732 6 8 ,072 60.4 6 5 ,023 6 2 ,1 7 0 6,4 5 0 5 5 ,722 2,852 4.4 4 4 ,660 1960 119,759 7 2 ,142 60.2 6 9 ,628 6 5 ,778 5,458 6 0 ,318 3,852 5.5 4 7 ,617 1964 127,224 7 5 ,830 59.6 73,091 6 9 ,305 4,523 6 4 ,782 3,786 5.2 5 1 ,394 6 3 ,858 58,918 4 2 ,787 1965 129,236 7 7 ,178 59.7 74,455 71,088 4,361 6 6 ,7 2 6 3,366 4.5 5 2 ,058 1966 131,180 7 8 ,893 60.1 7 5 ,7 7 0 7 2 ,895 3.979 6 8 ,915 2,875 3.8 52,288 7 7 ,347 7 4 ,372 3,844 7 0 ,527 2,975 1967 133,319 80,793 60.6 3.8 52,527 1968 1 35,562 8 2 ,272 60.7 78,737 7 5 ,920 3,817 7 2 ,103 2,817 3.6 53,291 1969 137,841 8 4 ,240 61.1 8 0 ,734 77,902 3,606 7 4 ,296 2,832 3.5 5 3 ,602 7 5 ,165 4,088 4.9 5 4 ,280 1970 140,182 85,903 61.3 8 2 ,715 78,627 3,462 1971 142,596 8 6 ,929 6 1.0 8 4 ,113 7 9 ,120 3,387 7 5 ,732 4,993 5.9 5 5 ,666 1972 145,775 88,991 61 0 86,542 8 1 ,702 3,472 7 8 ,230 4,840 5.6 5 6 ,785 1973 148,263 9 1 ,040 61 4 8 8 ,714 8 4 ,409 3,452 8 0 ,957 4,304 4,9 5 7 ,222 1974 150,827 9 3 ,240 61.8 91,011 8 3 ,935 3,492 8 2 ,443 5,076 5.6 5 7 ,587 1975 153,449 94,793 61.8 9 2 ,613 8 4 ,783 3,380 8 1 ,4 0 3 7,830 8.5 58,655 9 6 ,917 62.1 9 4 ,773 8 7 ,485 3,297 8 4 ,188 1976 156.048 7,288 7.7 59,130 1977 158,559 9 9 ,534 62.8 97,401 9 0 ,5 4 6 3,244 8 7 ,302 6,855 7.0 5 9 ,025 1978 161,058 102,537 63,7 100,420 9 4 ,373 3,342 91,031 6,047 6.0 58,521 1979 163,620 104,996 64.2 102,908 9 6 ,945 3,297 9 3 ,648 5,963 5.8 58,623 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 63 M O N T H L Y LABOR REV IEW August 1980 • C u r r e n t L a b o r S t a t is ti c s : H o u s e h o l d D a t a 2. Employment status by sex, age, and race, seasonally adjusted [N u m b e r s in th o u s a n d s ] 1980 1979 Annual Average Employment status 1978 1979 May June July ................................... 161,058 163.620 1 63,260 1 63,469 163,685 .................................................... 102,537 104.996 104.476 104.552 105,475 .............................. 158,941 161.532 161,182 161,393 161,604 ............................................ 100,420 102,908 102,398 102,476 103,093 .................................................... 9 4 ,373 9 6 ,945 9 6 ,495 9 6 ,652 97,184 Mar. Apr. May Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. 164,468 164,682 164,898 165,101 165,298 165,506 165,693 166,105 1 05,688 105,744 106,088 106,310 106,346 106,184 106,511 106,634 162,589 162,809 163,020 163,211 163,416 163,601 164,013 103,595 103,652 103,999 104,229 104,260 104,094 104,419 104,542 9 7 ,474 9 7 ,608 9 7 ,912 97,804 9 7 ,953 9 7 ,656 9 7 ,154 3,326 3,358 3,242 3,191 9 4 ,6 2 6 9 4 ,2 9 8 9 3 ,9 1 2 9 3 ,3 4 6 Oct. Aug. Sept. 163,891 164,106 105,218 105,586 161,801 162,013 162,375 103,128 103.494 9 7 ,004 9 7 ,504 TOTAL T o ta l n o n in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n ' T o t a l l a b o r fo r c e C ivilian nonin stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n ' C ivilian la b o r fo rc e E m p lo y e d A g ric u ltu re ......................................... 3,246 3.243 3,267 3,315 3,364 3,294 3,385 3,359 9 3 ,409 9 3 ,917 9 3 ,689 9 4 ,140 9 4 ,180 9 4 ,223 9 4 ,553 9 4 ,534 96,537 ........... 91,031 93,648 .............................................. 6,047 5,963 5,903 5,824 5,909 6,124 5,990 6,121 6,044 6,087 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.9 6.2 6.0 6.2 7.0 7.7 5 8 ,810 58,791 58,951 5 9 ,322 5 9 ,182 59,471 U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te N o t in la b o r fo rc e 3,297 9 3 ,2 4 9 N o n a g ric u ltu ra l in d u s trie s U n e m p lo y e d 3,342 3 ,2 7 0 ................................. .............................................. 58,521 58,623 58,784 58,917 58,511 5 8 ,673 5 8 ,519 5 8 ,780 5 8 ,937 6 ,4 2 5 6 ,3 0 7 6,438 7,265 8,006 Men, 20 years and over .............................. 6 7 ,006 6 8 ,293 6 8 ,123 6 8 ,227 6 8 ,319 68,417 68,522 6 8 ,697 6 8 ,804 6 8 ,940 6 9 ,047 6 9 ,1 4 0 6 9 ,238 6 9 ,329 6 9 ,532 .................................................... 53,464 5 4 ,486 54,288 5 4 ,370 5 4 ,579 5 4 ,597 5 4 ,735 5 4 ,760 5 4 ,709 54,781 5 4 ,855 5 5 ,038 5 4 ,996 55,114 5 5 ,220 ............................................................ 51,212 52,264 5 2 .158 52.201 5 2 ,325 52,311 5 2 ,453 5 2 ,443 5 2 ,374 52,478 52,279 52.531 5 2 ,3 0 0 51,868 5 1 ,510 2,361 2,350 2,301 2,305 2,327 2,375 2,377 2,371 2,438 2,427 2,387 2,435 2,394 2,3 2 0 2,270 50,051 4 9 ,892 5 0 ,096 4 9 ,906 4 9 ,548 4 9 ,240 2,303 2,577 2,507 2,696 3,246 3 ,7 1 0 C ivilian nonin stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n ' C ivilian la b o r fo rc e E m p lo y e d A g ric u ltu re ................................................. ...................... 4 8 ,852 4 9 ,913 4 9 ,857 4 9 ,8 9 6 4 9 ,9 9 8 4 9 ,9 3 6 5 0 ,076 50,072 4 9 ,936 ....................................................... 2,252 2,223 2 ,1 3 0 2,169 2,254 2,286 2,282 2,317 2,335 N o n a g ric u ltu ra l in dustries U n e m p lo y e d ......................................... 4.2 4.1 3.9 4,0 4.1 4.2 4,2 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.7 4.6 4.9 5.9 6.7 ....................................................... 13,541 13,807 13,835 13.857 13,740 13,820 13,787 13,937 14,095 14,159 14,192 14,102 14,242 14,215 14,312 75,489 7 6 ,8 6 0 7 7 ,542 7 7 ,6 5 6 7 7 ,7 6 6 7 7 ,8 7 6 U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te N o t in la b o r fo rc e Women, 20 years and over 7 7 ,308 7 7 ,4 2 6 77,981 78,211 .................................................... 3 7 ,416 3 8 ,910 3 8 ,619 3 8 ,653 3 9 ,033 39,304 3 9 ,239 3 9 ,362 39,445 39,659 39,878 39,857 39,751 4 0 ,137 4 0 ,125 ............................................................ 3 5 ,180 3 6 ,698 36,411 3 6 ,457 3 6 ,873 3 7 ,0 0 0 3 7 ,075 3 7 ,1 1 2 37,248 3 7 ,402 37,574 37,604 3 7 ,496 3 7 ,602 3 7 ,530 586 591 577 583 585 600 628 572 612 582 540 567 582 552 541 3 7 ,037 36,914 37,051 3 6 ,989 2,254 2,255 2,534 2,596 C ivilian n o n in stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n ’ C ivilian la b o r fo rc e E m p lo y e d A g ric u ltu re .............................. ................................................. N o n a g ric u ltu ra l in d u s trie s U n e m p lo y e d ...................... ...................................................... 2 ,2 3 6 76,784 7 6 ,897 7 7 ,006 77,124 36,107 35,834 35,874 3 6 ,288 3 6 ,400 36,447 3 6 ,540 3 6 ,6 3 6 3 6 ,8 2 0 37,034 2,213 2,208 2,196 2,160 2,304 2,164 2.250 2,197 2,257 2,304 ......................................... 6.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.9 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.7 6.3 6,5 ...................................................... 3 8 ,073 3 7 .949 38,051 38,131 3 7 ,864 37,702 37,885 3 7 ,946 37,981 3 7 ,883 3 7 ,778 3 7 ,909 3 8 ,125 37,844 3 8 ,086 16,271 U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te N o t in la b o r fo rc e 3 4 ,593 7 6 ,670 Both sexes, 16 19 years .............................. 16,447 16,379 16,389 16,381 16,387 16,377 16,367 16,370 16,360 16,326 16,317 16,305 16,302 16,291 .................................................... 9,540 9,512 9,491 9,453 9,481 9,227 9.5 2 0 9,473 9,498 9,559 9,497 9,365 9,346 9,168 9,197 ............................................................ 7,981 7,984 7,926 7,994 7,986 7,693 7,976 7,919 7,986 8,032 7,952 7,818 7,859 7,683 7,497 C ivilian nonin stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n ' C ivilian la b o r fo rc e E m p lo y e d A g ric u ltu re ................................................. N o n a g ric u ltu ra l in d u s trie s U n e m p lo y e d ...................... ...................................................... 356 368 355 355 340 359 351 335 350 344 325 381 37 0 380 7,628 7,558 7,639 7,631 7,353 7,617 7,568 7,651 7,682 7,608 7,493 7,478 7,313 7,117 1,459 1,495 1,534 1,544 1,554 1,512 1,527 1,545 1,547 1,487 1,485 1,700 1,559 1,528 1,565 ......................................... 16.3 16.1 16.5 15.4 15.8 16.6 16.2 16.4 15.9 16.0 16.3 16.5 15.9 16.2 18.5 ...................................................... 6,907 6,867 6,898 6,928 6,9 0 6 7,150 6,847 6,897 6,862 6,767 6,820 6,940 6,956 7,123 7,074 139,580 141,614 141,331 142,461 142,645 142,806 U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te N o t in la b o r fo rc e 395 7,586 White 141,492 141,661 141,822 141,981 1 42,296 142,951 1 43,115 1 43,254 143,565 .................................................... 8 8 ,456 9 0 ,602 9 0 ,120 9 0 ,215 9 0 ,659 9 0 ,759 9 1 ,082 9 1 ,147 9 1 ,242 9 1 ,579 9 1 .852 9 1 ,977 91,821 9 2 ,083 9 2 ,0 9 6 ............................................................ 8 3 ,836 8 6 ,025 8 5 ,632 8 5 ,775 8 6 ,120 8 5 ,976 8 6 ,425 86,454 86,571 8 6 ,894 8 6 ,895 87,081 8 6 ,822 8 6 ,385 8 5 ,792 ....................................................... 4,620 4,577 4,488 4,440 4,539 4,783 4,657 4,693 4,671 4,685 4,957 4,896 4,999 5,698 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.3 5.4 6.2 6.8 51,149 5 1 ,219 5 1 ,066 5 0 ,954 5 0 ,975 5 1 ,294 51,171 51,469 C ivilian n o n in stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n ' C ivilian la b o r fo rc e E m p lo y e d U n e m p lo y e d U n e m p lo y m e n t rate N o t in la b o r fo rc e .............................. ......................................... ....................................................... 5 1 ,124 51,011 5 1 ,313 51,213 51,107 51,161 5 0 ,900 6,303 Black and other .............................. 19,361 19,918 19,850 19,901 19,943 19,979 2 0 ,032 2 0 ,079 2 0 ,128 20,163 2 0 ,214 20,261 20,301 2 0 ,3 4 6 2 0 ,448 .................................................... 11,964 12,306 12,219 12,260 12,386 12,343 12,404 12,512 12,391 12,432 12,453 12,362 12,266 12,319 12,446 ............................................................ 10,537 10,920 10,816 10,887 11,023 10,982 11,063 11,076 11,044 11,024 10,979 10,937 10,823 10,771 10,751 1,695 C ivilian nonin stitu tio n a l p o p u la tio n ’ C ivilian la b o r fo rc e E m p lo y e d U n e m p lo y e d ....................................................... 1,386 1,403 1,373 1,363 1,361 1,341 1,436 1,347 1,408 1,474 1,424 1,443 10.9 11.3 11.8 11.5 11.8 12.6 13.6 7,737 7,731 7,761 7,899 8,035 8,027 8,002 ......................................... 11.9 11.3 11.5 11.2 11.0 11.0 10.8 11.5 ....................................................... 7,397 7,612 7,674 7,629 7,579 7,639 7,264 7,567 U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te N o t in la b o r fo rc e 1,427 1,549 'A s in ta b le 1, p o p u la tio n fig u re s a re n o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju ste d . N O T E : T h e m o n th ly d a ta in th is ta b le h a v e b een re vise d to re fle c t s e a s o n a l e x p e rie n c e th ro u g h 1979. Digitized for64 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ____ 3. Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted [ In th o u s a n d s ] Annual average 1979 1980 Selected categories 1978 1979 May June July Aug, Sept. Oct. 9 7 ,474 Nov. Dec, Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr, May CHARACTERISTIC T o ta l e m p lo y e d , 16 y e a rs an d o v e r .............................. 9 4 ,373 9 6 ,945 9 6 ,495 9 7 ,004 9 7 ,504 97,608 9 7 ,912 9 7 ,804 9 7 ,953 9 7 ,656 97,154 55,491 5 6 ,499 5 6 ,372 56,477 5 6 .570 5 6 ,408 56,714 56,629 5 6 ,580 5 6 ,734 5 6 ,486 5 6 ,732 56,601 55,998 W o m e n ......................................................... 3 8 ,882 4 0 ,446 4 0 ,123 4 0 ,175 40,614 4 0 ,5 9 6 4 0 ,790 4 0 ,845 4 1 ,028 4 1 ,178 4 1 ,318 41,221 41,051 4 1 ,1 5 6 4 1 ,079 M a rrie d m en, s p o u s e p re s e n t 3 8 ,688 3 9 ,090 39,045 3 9 ,079 3 9 ,176 3 9 ,180 39,198 39,124 38,845 38,924 3 8 ,749 3 8 ,955 3 8 ,745 3 8 ,342 38,193 21,881 2 2 ,724 2 2 ,547 22,664 2 2 ,908 2 2 ,869 2 2 ,937 2 2 ,919 2 2 ,9 4 0 2 3 ,027 23,111 2 3 ,178 2 3 ,202 2 3 ,080 2 3 ,144 4 7 ,205 4 9 ,342 4 9 ,136 49.192 4 9 ,536 4 9 ,663 4 9 ,8 1 6 4 9 ,738 49,912 49,911 5 0 ,313 5 0 ,448 5 0 ,302 5 0 ,405 50,861 14,245 15,050 15,100 15,010 15,057 15,068 15.141 15,057 15,131 15,272 15,337 15.444 15,397 15,542 15,712 10.105 10,516 10.427 10,534 10,612 10,698 10,659 10,639 10,617 10,535 10,608 10,971 10,755 10,745 M en ....................................................... ................................. M a rrie d w o m e n , s p o u s e p r e s e n t ................... 96.652 9 7 ,184 9 6 ,537 5 5 ,457 OCCUPATION W h ite -c o lla r w o r k e r s ....................................................... P ro fe s s io n a l an d te c h n ic a l ...................................... M a n a g e rs an d a d m in is tra to rs , e x c e p t fa rm .................................................................. S a le s w o r k e r s ...................... C le ric a l w o r k e r s .................................................... B lu e -c o lla r w o r k e r s ........................... C ra ft a n d k in d re d w o rk e rs ...................................... O p e ra tiv e s , e x c e p t t r a n s p o r t .............................. T ra n s p o rt e q u ip m e n t o p e ra tiv e s ........................... 10,911 5,951 6,163 6,101 6,103 6,163 6,145 6,181 6,261 6,362 6,346 6,452 6,185 6,113 5,988 5,981 16,904 17,613 17,508 17,545 17,704 17,752 17,835 17,781 17,802 17,758 17,915 17,848 18,037 18,129 18,256 31,531 3 2 ,066 31.904 3 1 .992 32,051 3 1 ,849 3 2 ,209 3 2 ,205 3 2 ,110 32,302 31,882 31,754 3 1 ,670 3 1 ,127 3 0 ,243 12,386 12,880 12,820 12,944 12,876 12,761 12,993 13,001 12,925 13,041 12,814 12,728 12,767 12,773 12,301 10,875 10,909 10,755 10,804 10,884 10,909 10,964 10,967 10,963 11,042 10,678 10,661 10,579 10,408 10,131 3,541 3,612 3,644 3,605 3,627 3,604 3,617 3,593 3,628 3,635 3,616 3,571 3,558 3,483 3,395 N o n fa rm la b o r e r s .............................................. 4,729 4,665 4,685 4,639 4,664 4,575 4,635 4,644 4,594 4,584 4,774 4,795 4,767 4,463 4,416 S e rv ic e w o r k e r s .......................................................... 12,839 12,834 12,772 12,805 12,766 12,621 12,859 12,937 12,899 12,970 12,979 13,080 12,981 13,034 12,930 2,798 2,703 2,628 2,679 2,678 2,707 2,722 2,695 2,718 2,694 2 ,6 6 0 2,764 2,733 2,658 2 ,6 0 6 F a rm w o rk e rs ................................. MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS OF WORKER A g ric u ltu re : W a g e a n d s a la ry w o r k e r s ......................................... 1.419 1,413 1,424 1,423 1,419 1,384 1,399 1,381 1,475 1,451 1,428 1,417 1,449 1,370 1,365 S e lf-e m p lo y e d w o r k e r s .............................................. 1,607 1,580 1,519 1,539 1,558 1,614 1,642 1,602 1,622 1,596 1,554 1,648 1,600 1,591 1,590 .............................................. 316 304 283 291 291 310 325 313 31 0 310 293 283 300 281 269 W a g e an d s a la ry w o r k e r s ......................................... 8 4 ,253 8 6 ,5 4 0 8 6 ,232 8 6 ,309 8 6 ,454 86,421 8 6 ,912 8 7 ,020 8 7 ,384 8 7 ,578 8 7 ,419 87,221 86,741 8 6 ,257 U n paid fa m ily w o rk e rs N o n a g ric u ltu ra l industries: G o v e rn m e n t 8 6 ,982 ......................................................... 15,289 15,369 15,616 15,318 15,393 15.279 15,407 15,423 15,358 15,397 15,414 15,540 15,622 15,668 15,891 P riva te in d u s tr ie s ................................................. 6 8 ,966 71,171 7 0 ,616 70,991 71,061 7 1 ,142 7 1 ,505 7 1 ,559 7 1 ,662 71,987 72,163 7 1 ,879 7 1 ,599 7 1 ,072 7 0 .365 .................................... 1,363 1,240 1,195 1,235 1,219 1,211 1,313 1,261 1,211 1,228 1,132 1,178 1,115 1,123 1,219 ......................................... 6 7 ,6 0 3 69,931 69,421 6 9 ,7 5 6 6 9 ,8 4 2 69,931 70,192 70,298 70,451 7 0 ,759 71,031 7 0 ,702 7 0 ,484 6 9 ,949 69,147 S e lf-e m p lo y e d w o r k e r s ............................................... 6,305 6,652 6,608 6,629 6,752 6,689 6.731 6,812 6,781 6,737 6,752 6,899 6 ,8 2 5 6,813 6,666 472 455 460 474 519 450 449 43 0 417 409 379 397 376 363 445 P riv a te h o u s e h o ld s O th e r in d u s trie s U npaid fa m ily w o rk e rs .............................................. PERSONS AT WORK' N o n a g ric u ltu ra l in d u s trie s ................................................. 8 5 ,693 8 8 ,133 8 7 ,785 8 7 ,749 8 8 ,769 8 8 ,855 8 8 ,723 8 8 ,638 8 8 ,617 8 9 ,1 8 0 8 9 ,454 8 8 ,985 8 8 ,585 8 7 ,660 8 7 ,910 7 0 ,543 7 2 ,647 7 2 ,4 9 6 7 2 ,243 7 2 ,915 73,053 7 3 ,159 7 3 ,204 7 2 ,997 73,137 7 3 ,223 7 3 ,110 7 2 ,749 71,807 7 1 ,206 P a rt tim e fo r e c o n o m ic r e a s o n s .............................. 3,216 3,281 3,283 3,284 3,274 3,298 3,167 3,315 3,392 3.519 3,513 3,406 3,418 3,816 U s u a lly w o rk fu ll t i m e ......................................... 1,249 1,325 1,273 1,322 1,334 1,401 1,273 1,354 1,413 1,491 1,549 1,380 1,463 1,709 1,781 U s u a lly w o rk p a rt t i m e ...................................... 1,967 1.956 2 ,0 1 0 1,962 1,940 1,897 1,894 1,961 1,979 2,028 1,964 2,0 2 6 1,955 2,107 2,217 P a rt tim e fo r n o n e c o n o m ic r e a s o n s ...................... 11,934 12,205 12,006 12,222 1 2 ,580 12,504 12,397 12,119 12,228 12,524 12,718 12,469 12,418 12,037 12,706 F u ll-tim e s c h e d u le s .................................... ' E x c lu d e s p e rs o n s w ith a jo b b u t n o t a t w o rk va c a tio n , illness, o r ind u stria l disputes. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis durin g th e s u rv e y p e rio d fo r such re a so n s a s 3,999 N O T E : T he m o n th ly d a ta in this ta b le ha ve b e e n re vise d to re fle c t s e a so n a l e x p e rie n c e th ro u g h 1979. 65 M O N T H L Y LA B O R REVIEW August 1980 • C u r r e n t L a b o r S t a t is ti c s : H o u s e h o l d D a t a 4. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted [U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s ] 1978 1979 1980 1979 Annual average Selected categories May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec, Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May CHARACTERISTIC T o ta l, 16 y e a rs a n d o v e r .................................................... 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.9 6.2 6.0 6.2 7.0 7.7 M en, 2 0 y e a rs a n d o v e r ............................................ 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.7 4.6 4.9 5.9 6.7 .................................... 6.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.9 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.7 6.3 6.5 ...................................... 16.3 16.1 16.5 15.4 15.8 16.6 16.2 16.4 15.9 16.0 16.3 16.5 15.9 16.2 18.5 W o m e n , 2 0 y e a rs and o v e r B oth s e xe s, 1 6 - 1 9 y e a rs 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.3 5,1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.3 5.4 6.2 6.8 ................................. 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.7 3,7 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.0 4.4 5.3 6.0 W o m e n , 2 0 y e a rs an d o v e r ........................... 5.2 5.0 5,0 4.9 4.8 5.2 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 4.9 5.5 5.8 .............................. 13.9 13.9 14.2 13.2 13.8 14.8 14.3 14.1 13.9 13.9 14.0 13.8 13.8 14.6 14.6 B la ck a n d oth e r, t o t a l ................................................. 11.9 11.3 11.5 11.2 110 11.0 10.8 11.5 10.9 11.3 11.8 11.5 11.8 12.6 13.6 ................................. 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.1 8.4 8.1 8.0 8.6 8.4 8.6 9.6 9.2 9.3 10.9 12.6 W hite, to ta l .................................................................... M en, 20 y e a rs a n d o v e r B oth s e xe s, 1 6 - 1 9 y e a rs M en, 2 0 y e a rs and o v e r W o m e n , 20 y e a rs an d o v e r ........................... 10.6 10.1 10.0 10.4 10.0 10.3 9.8 10.2 9.5 10.0 10.0 9.0 10.5 11.4 10,9 .............................. 36.3 33.5 36.1 33.5 31.5 32.6 32.3 35.1 32.8 34.3 34.6 37.9 33.0 29.8 36.3 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.4 4.1 4.9 Both s e x e s , 16 - 1 9 y e a rs M a rrie d m en, s p o u s e p r e s e n t ................................. 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.4 3.1 M a rrie d w o m e n , s p o u s e p r e s e n t ........................... 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.3 4.8 5.2 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.3 5.7 6.1 W o m e n w ho h ead f a m i l i e s ...................................... 8.5 8.3 8.6 9.0 8.1 7.9 7.7 8.4 8.4 8.4 9.2 8.5 8.7 9.3 8.4 F u ll-tim e w o r k e r s ......................................................... 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.7 5.6 5.8 6.6 7.4 P a rt-tim e w o rk e rs 9.0 8.7 9.3 8.6 8.3 8.8 8.4 8.9 8.3 8.5 8.7 8.9 8.3 8.9 8.8 1.7 8.3 ....................................................... U n e m p lo y e d 15 w e e k s and o v e r ........................... 1,4 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.6 L a b o r fo rc e tim e lo s t' 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.6 6.8 7.5 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.7 3.7 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 .............................................. OCCUPATION W h ite -c o lla r w o rk e rs ......................................................... P ro fe s s io n a l and te c h n ic a l ...................................... M a n a g e rs a n d a d m in is tra to rs , e x c e p t fa rm ............................................................................ S a le s w o rk e rs ............................................................... 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.0 1,9 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.4 3.9 4.0 4.4 3.5 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.8 4.4 4.5 4.0 4.7 4.4 4.4 ......................................................... 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.5 5.1 5.3 ............................................................ 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.6 6.8 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.5 7.2 8.0 7.7 8.0 9.7 11.5 ...................................... 4.6 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 5.4 6.7 8.0 ................................. 8.1 8.4 8.2 7.7 8.3 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.9 9.3 11,6 13.8 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.7 5.1 6.2 6.1 5.6 5,2 5.0 6.9 6.7 6.6 8.9 10.5 13.0 14.1 16.2 C le ric a l w o rk e rs B lu e -c o lla r w o rk e rs 2.1 4.1 C ra ft an d k in d re d w o rk e rs O p e ra tiv e s , e x c e p t tra n s p o rt T ra n s p o rt e q u ip m e n t o p e ra tiv e s ........................... 4.7 9.2 10.7 10.8 11.1 10.6 11.0 11.3 12.3 12.0 S e rv ic e w o r k e r s .................................................................... 7.4 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.9 6.9 7.1 8.0 8.1 F a r m w o r k e r s .......................................................................... 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.2 4.2 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.4 3.9 4.0 5.0 4.2 N o n fa rm la b o re rs ....................................................... 11.0 10.7 12.2 12.2 INDUSTRY N o n a g ricu ltu ra l p riv a te w a g e and s a la ry w o r k e r s 2 C o n stru c tio n ................................................................. M a n u fa c tu r in g ............................................................... D u ra b le g o o d s .................................................... 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.7 6.0 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.8 6.2 6.0 6.2 -7.1 8.3 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.0 10,1 9.6 9.9 10.2 10.3 10.8 10.5 13.0 15.1 16.5 5.4 5.7 5.9 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.9 6.7 6.4 6.5 7.9 9.9 4.9 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.5 6.7 6.3 6.4 8.3 11.2 5.5 5.5 5.4 4.9 5.0 4.4 6.3 64 6.9 6.3 6.2 6.8 7.1 6.8 6.3 6.4 6.8 6.7 6.7 7.4 8.0 ......................... 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.1 3.8 3.7 4.0 3.8 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.4 3.8 4.6 5.2 ...................................... 6.9 6.5 6.4 6.7 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.6 6.4 6.3 7.0 8.0 .............................. 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.9 5.2 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.9 5.1 ......................................................... 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.3 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 3.5 11.9 9.7 N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ............................................... T ra n s p o rta tio n and p u b lic u tilities W h o le s a le and re ta il tra d e F inance a n d s e rv ic e in d u s trie s G o ve rn m e n t w o rk e rs 5.9 10.6 A g ric u ltu ra l w a g e an d s a la ry w o rk e rs ......................... 8.8 9.1 9.3 7.8 9.7 1 A g g re g a te h o u rs lo s t b y th e u n e m p lo y e d and p e rs o n s on p a rt tim e fo r e c o n o m ic rea s o n s a s a p e rc e n t o f p o te n tia lly a va ila b le la b o r fo rc e hours. 2 In clu d e s m ining, n o t s h o w n se p a ra te ly . 66 FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 10.0 9.9 9.9 10.1 9.4 10.3 9.2 10.2 5.7 N O T E : T he m o n th ly d a ta in this ta b le ha ve been re vise d to re fle c t se a so n a l e x p e rie n c e th ro u g h 1979. 5. Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted Annual average Sex and age 1978 T o ta l, 16 y e a rs an d o v e r ...................................... 16 to 19 y e a rs ............................................ 1979 May June July Aug. 1980 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 6,0 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.9 6.2 6.0 6.2 7.0 7.7 16.3 16.1 16.5 15.4 15.8 16.6 16.2 16.4 15.9 160 16.3 16.5 15.9 16.2 18.5 16 to 17 y e a rs .................................................... 19.3 18.1 18.9 17.5 17.3 18.5 16.9 18 4 17.3 18.0 19.0 18.7 17.4 18.7 18 to 19 y e a rs .................................................... 14.2 14.6 15.0 14.4 14.5 15.4 15.6 15.0 147 14.5 14.0 15.1 14.7 14.4 18.0 ............................................................ 9.5 9.0 8.9 8.9 9.1 9.3 9.2 9.6 8.8 9.8 10.1 9.5 9.7 114 12.4 2 0 to 24 y e a rs 25 y e a rs an d o v e r ...................................... 19.8 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.8 4.2 4.1 4.4 5.0 5.5 .................................................... 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.7 5.4 6.0 55 y e a rs an d o v e r .............................................. 3.2 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.7 3.5 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.4 M en, 16 y e a rs a n d o v e r ............................................ 5.2 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.7 5.5 5.7 6.7 7.8 15.7 15.6 14.8 25 to 54 y e a rs 16 to 19 y e a rs .................................................... 15.8 16.1 16.1 15.7 16.1 19.5 16 to 17 y e a r s ............................................ 19.2 17.9 18.9 16.8 16.1 18.0 16.7 17.1 17.8 17.9 19.0 18.0 15.9 18.3 21.8 18 to 19 y e a r s ............................................ 13.2 14.2 14.0 14.0 14.8 15.1 15.3 14 4 14.0 13.6 13.9 14.1 14.0 14.2 19.3 9.1 8.6 8.2 8.3 8,8 8.8 8.8 9.5 8.4 9.4 10.4 9.9 104 12.3 13.8 3.7 3.6 3.9 4,7 2 0 to 24 y e a rs .................................................... 15.4 14.5 16.3 15.8 15.6 16.2 25 y e a rs an d o v e r ............................................... 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.2 25 to 54 y e a r s ............................................ 34 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.4 3.8 3.8 4.2 5.0 5.8 5 5 y e a rs a n d o v e r .................................... 3.1 2.9 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.1 2.8 28 2.6 2.6 3.5 2.6 2.7 3.4 3.8 W o m e n , 16 y e a rs an d o v e r .................................... 7.2 6.8 6.8 6,6 7.0 6.6 6.9 6.6 6.8 68 17.0 16.4 16.9 16.5 16.2 17.0 16.4 17.2 16.1 16.4 16.3 17.6 17.3 16.3 17.3 16 to 17 y e a r s ............................................ 19.5 18.3 18.8 18.3 18.6 19.0 17.2 19.8 16.7 18.0 19.1 19.5 19.2 19.1 17.6 15.3 15.0 16.0 18 to 19 y e a r s ............................................ 6.9 5.5 .................................................... 16 to 19 y e a rs 6.8 6.8 7.3 7.5 14.9 14.2 15.7 15.9 15.6 15.5 15.5 14.2 16.2 15.6 14.6 16.6 .................................................... 10.1 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.4 9.8 9.6 9.7 9.3 10.2 9.8 9.1 9.0 10.2 10.8 25 y e a rs an d o v e r ............................................... 5.1 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.5 5.6 25 to 54 y e a r s ............................................ 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.5 6.0 6.1 55 y e a rs an d o v e r 3.3 3.2 3.6 2.8 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.4 2.9 2.9 3.4 3.0 2.9 3.4 2.8 May 2 0 to 24 y e a rs 6. 1979 .................................... Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] 1979 Reason for unemployment 1980 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. 2,3 5 6 NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED L o s t la s : jo b ....................................................................................... O n la y o ff .................................................................................. O th e r ¡ob lo s e rs ............................................................................................. L e ft la s : j o b ............................................................................. R e e n te re d la b o r fo rc e ............................................................................................. S e e k in g firs t j o b ................................................. 2,449 2,526 2,680 2.632 2.731 2,729 2,728 2,988 2,907 3,047 3,611 4,625 725 816 797 915 855 929 987 944 1,019 1,031 1,129 1,424 2,117 1,631 1,633 1,729 1,765 1,784 1,969 1.918 2,188 2,508 1,777 1.802 1,742 1.876 940 857 84 6 875 825 835 845 800 779 813 788 92 6 898 1,767 1,753 1,762 1,788 1,760 1.762 1,698 1,771 1,797 1.784 1,803 1,967 1,822 824 781 726 745 801 804 736 858 811 82 7 805 743 863 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 40,0 41.9 43.1 44 .0 43.7 44,5 45.4 44.3 46.9 45.9 47.3 49.8 12.3 14.0 13.6 15.0 14.2 15.2 16.4 15.3 16.0 16.3 17.5 19.6 25.8 27.7 2 8.0 29.5 29.0 29.5 29.4 29.0 29.0 30.9 29.6 29.8 30.2 30.6 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION T o ta l u n e m p lo y e d .................................................................................. J o b l o s e r s ..................................................................................... O n la y o ff ....................................................................... O th e r jo b lo s e rs ............................................................................. 56.3 J o b le a v e rs ..................................................................................................... 16.0 14.7 14.4 14.4 13.7 13.6 14.1 13.0 12.2 128 12.2 128 10.9 R e e n tra n ts .................................................................................. 30.0 30.0 30.1 29.4 292 28.7 28.3 28.8 28.2 28.2 28.0 27.1 22.2 14.0 13.4 12.4 12.2 13.3 13.1 12.3 13.9 12.7 13.1 12.5 10.3 10.5 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.5 4.4 N e w e n t r a n t s ............................................................ UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE J o b l o s e r s ..................................................................................... J o b l e a v e r s .................................................................................................. R e e n tra n ts .................................................................................. N e w e n t r a n t s .................................................... 7. .9 .8 8 8 .8 .8 8 .8 .7 .8 .8 .9 .9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 .8 .8 .7 .7 .8 8 .7 .8 .8 .8 .8 .7 .8 May June July Aug. 2,823 2.880 2,820 Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] Weeks of unemployment Annual average 1978 Le s s th a n 5 w e e k s ......................................................... 2,793 1979 .2 ,8 6 9 1979 1980 Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 2,955 2,919 2,9 1 6 Feb. Mar. Apr, May 3,168 2,778 3,184 2,995 2,995 3,309 3,333 5 to 14 w e e k s ....................................................................... 1.875 1.892 1,919 1,808 1,934 1,738 2,035 1,963 1,869 1,966 1.907 2,081 2,169 2,391 2,922 15 w e e k s an d o v e r 1,379 1.202 1,212 1,152 1,067 1.185 1,152 1,195 1,191 1,230 1,334 1,286 1,363 1,629 1,766 746 684 705 65 6 615 658 644 678 660 711 795 790 776 953 1,027 ......................................... 15 to 2 6 w e e k s ............................................................ 27 w e e k s an d o v e r .............................................. A v e ra g e (m e a n ) du ra tio n , in w e e k s .............................. 633 518 507 49 6 452 527 508 517 531 519 539 496 587 676 739 119 10.8 10.9 10.5 10.1 10.7 10.7 10.5 10.6 10.5 10.5 10.7 11.0 11.3 11.7 N O T E : T he m o n th ly d a ta in th e s e ta b le s ha v e b e e n re vise d to re fle c t se a s o n a l e x p e rie n c e th ro u g h 1979 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 67 EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a t a in this section are compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a volun tary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperat ing State agencies by 166,000 establishments representing all industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most large establishments are therefore in the sample. (An estab lishment is not necessarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from establishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures between the household and establishment surveys. L a bo r t u r n o v e r d a t a in this section are compiled from per sonnel records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies. A sample of 40,000 establishments represents all industries in the manufacturing and mining sectors of the economy. Bureau of Labor Statistics computes spendable earnings from gross weekly earnings for only two illustrative cases: ( D a worker with no dependents and (2) a married worker with three dependents. H o u r s represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard or scheduled hours. O v e r tim e h o u rs represent the por tion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular hours and for which overtime premiums were paid. L a b o r tu r n o v e r is the movement of all wage and salary workers from one employment status to another. A c c e s s io n r a te s indicate the average number of persons added to a payroll in a given period per 100 employees; s e p a r a tio n r a te s indicate the average number dropped from a payroll per 100 employees. Although month-to-month changes in employment can be calculated from the labor turnover data, the re sults are not comparable with employment data from the employment and payroll survey. The labor turnover survey measures changes dur ing the calendar month while the employment and payroll survey measures changes from midmonth to midmonth. Notes on the data Definitions E m p lo y e d p e r so n s day and sick pay) 12th of the month. cent of all persons ment which reports are all persons who received pay (including holi for any part of the payroll period including the Persons holding more than one job (about 5 per in the labor force) are counted in each establish them. P r o d u c tio n w o r k e r s in manufacturing include blue-collar worker supervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with production operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 14-20 in clude production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construction; and nonsupervisory workers in transporta tion and public utilities, in wholesale and retail trade, in finance, in surance, and real estate, and in services industries. These groups account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. E a r n in g s are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special payments. R e a l e a r n in g s are earnings adjusted to eliminate the effects of price change. The H o u r ly E a r n in g s I n d e x is calculated from aver age hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate developments: fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries. S p e n d a b le e a r n in g s are earnings from which estimat ed social security and Federal income taxes have been deducted. The 68FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called “benchmarks"). The latest complete adjustment was made with the re lease of June 1980 data, published in the August 1980 issue of the R e view. Consequently, data published in the R e v ie w prior to that issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Complete comparable historical unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in a Supplement to Employment and Earnings (unadjusted data from April 1977 through March 1980 and seasonally adjusted data from January 1974 through March 1980) and in E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, U n ite d S ta tes, 1 9 0 9 - 7 8 , BLS Bulletin 1312-11 (for prior periods). Data on recalls were shown for the first time in tables 12 and 13 in the January 1978 issue of the R eview . For a detailed discussion of the recalls series, along with historical data, see “New Series on Recalls from the Labor Turnover Survey,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, Decem ber 1977, pp. 10-19. A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, “Comparing employment estimates from household and payroll sur veys,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , December 1969, pp. 9-2 0 . See also B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s f o r S u rv e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bu reau of Labor Statistics, 1976). The formulas used to construct the spendable average weekly earn ings series reflect the latest provisions of the Federal income tax and social security tax laws. For the spendable average weekly earnings formulas for the years 1978-80, see E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, March 1980, pp. 10-11. Real earnings data are adjusted using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). 8. Employment by industry, 1950 79 [Nonagricultural payroll data, In thousands] T o ta l C o n s tru e - M a n u fa c - tio n tu rin g M ining T ra n s - W h o le - F in an ce, p o rta tio n s ale insur- an d and a n ce, pu b lic retail a n d real utilities tra d e e s ta te G o v e rn m e n t S e rv ic e s S ta te T o ta l F e d e ra l 1950 ................................... 45,197 901 2,364 15,241 4,034 9,386 2,635 6,751 1,888 5,357 6,026 1,928 4,098 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 .................................... .................................... ................................... ............................... .................................... 47,819 48,793 50,202 48,990 50,641 929 898 866 791 792 2,637 2,668 2,659 2,646 2,839 16,393 16,632 17,549 16,314 16,882 4,226 4,248 4,290 4,084 4,141 9,742 10,004 10,247 10,235 10,535 2,727 2,812 2,854 2,867 2,926 7,015 7,192 7,393 7,368 7,610 1,956 2,035 2,111 2,200 2,298 5,547 5,699 5,835 5,969 6,240 6,389 6,609 6,645 6,751 6,914 2,302 2,420 2,305 2,188 2,187 4,087 4,188 4,340 4,563 4,727 1956 1957 1958 1959' 1960 .......................................... .............................................. .......................................... .................................... .......................................... 52,369 52,853 51,324 53,268 54,189 822 828 751 732 712 3,039 2,962 2,817 3,004 2,926 17,243 17,174 15,945 16,675 16,796 4,244 4,241 3,976 4,011 4,004 10,858 10,886 10,750 11,127 11,391 3,018 3,028 2,980 3,082 3,143 7,840 7,858 7,770 8,045 8,248 2,389 2,438 2,481 2,549 2,629 6,497 6,708 6,765 7,087 7,378 7,278 7,616 7,839 8,083 8,353 2,209 2,217 2,191 2,233 2,270 5,069 5,399 5,648 5,850 6,083 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 ................................................. ................................................. ................................... ................................... ............................................ 53,999 55,549 56,653 58,283 60,765 672 650 635 634 632 2,859 2,948 3,010 3,097 3,232 16,326 16,853 16,995 17,274 18,062 3,903 3,906 3,903 3,951 4,036 11,337 11,566 11,778 12,160 12,716 3,133 3,198 3,248 3,337 3,466 8,204 8,368 8,530 8,823 9,250 2,688 2,754 2,830 2,911 2,977 7,620 7,982 8,277 8,660 9,036 8,594 8,890 9,225 9,596 10,074 2,279 2,340 2,358 2,348 2,378 6,315 6,550 6,868 7,248 7,696 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 ............................................ ............................................... ................................................. ............................................... .............................................. 63,901 65,803 67,897 70,384 70,880 627 613 606 619 623 3,317 3,248 3,350 3,575 3,588 19,214 19,447 19,781 20,167 19,367 4,158 4,268 4,318 4,442 4,515 13,245 13,606 14,099 14,705 15,040 3,597 3,689 3,779 3,907 3,993 9,648 9,917 10,320 10,798 11,047 3,058 3,185 3,337 3,512 3,645 9,498 10,045 10,567 11,169 11,548 10,784 11,391 11,839 12,195 12,554 2,564 2,719 2,737 2,758 2,731 8,220 8,672 9,102 9,437 9,823 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 ............................................... ..................................................... ............................................... ......................... ................................... 71,214 73,675 76,790 78,265 76,945 609 628 642 697 752 3,704 3,889 4,097 4,020 3,525 18,623 19,151 20,154 20,077 18,323 4,476 4,541 4,656 4,725 4,542 15,352 15,949 16,607 16,987 17,060 4,001 4,113 4,277 4,433 4,415 11,351 11,836 12,329 12,554 12,645 3,772 3,908 4,046 4,148 4,165 11,797 12,276 12,857 13,441 13,892 12,881 13,334 13,732 14,170 14,686 2,696 2,684 2,663 2,724 2,748 10,185 10,649 11,068 11,446 11,937 1976 1977 1978' 1979 ................................... ...................................... ................................. .................................... 79,382 '82,471 86,697 89,886 779 813 851 960 3,576 3,851 4,229 4,483 18,997 19,682 20,505 21,062 4,582 4,713 4,923 5,141 17,755 18,516 19,542 20,269 4,546 4,708 4,969 5,204 13,209 13,808 14,573 15,066 4,271 4,467 4,724 4,974 14,551 15,303 16,252 17,078 14,871 '15,127 15,672 15,920 2,733 2,727 2,753 2,773 12,138 '12,399 12,919 13,147 ’ Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959. 9. Employment by State [N o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o ll d a ta , in t h o u s a n d s ] State A la b a m a ....................................................... A la s k a ..................................................................... A riz o n a ................................................. A rk a n s a s ..................................................................... C a lif o r n ia .................................................... C o lo ra d o ............................................................... C o n n e c tic u t ....................................................................... D e la w a r e ............................................................... D is tric t o f C o lu m b ia .................................................... F l o r i d a ............................................................... G e o rg ia ..................................................................... H a w a i i ....................................................... I d a h o ............................................................ I l l i n o i s '.................................................... In d ia n a ......................................................................... I o w a ...................................................................... K ansas ......................................................................... K e n t u c k y ............................................................................... L o u i s i a n a ..................................................................................... M a i n e ......................................................................... M a r y l a n d ......................................................................... M a s s a c h u s e tts ................................................. M i c h i g a r ....................................................... M i n n e s o t a ...................................................................... M is s i s s i p p i ..................................................................................... M is s o u ri ......................................................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis May 1979 Apr. 1980 May 1980 p 1,362.1 169.3 971.0 755.9 9,623.9 1,365.2 165.0 1,008.3 754.5 9,804.2 1,360.2 1,003.1 750.4 9,803.8 1,207.7 1,403.4 258.4 615.7 3,359.2 1,251.0 1,411.1 254.6 618.6 3,538.0 1,252.1 1,415.0 259.5 620.6 3,518.1 O h io 2,116.1 392.3 338.7 4,871.0 2,273.5 2,137.0 410.5 325.9 4,798.1 2,219.2 2,130.3 408.7 O re g o n 4,812.2 2,232.7 1,142.7 955.1 1,260.0 1,491.9 416.8 1,129.2 954.1 1,223.7 1,524.5 412.0 1,125.3 955.3 1,229.1 1,517.4 415.9 1,631.1 2,605.6 3,682.2 1,772.2 842.7 2,022.8 1,632.8 2,663.5 3,444.4 1,776.6 836.7 1,999.0 1,639.9 2,667.9 3,426.8 1,795.8 830.5 1,989.4 State M o n ta n a ..................................................................................... N e b r a s k a ............................................................... N e va d a ................................................................................ N e w H a m p sh ire N e w J e rs e y ................................................. ............................................ N ew M e x i c o ................................................. N e w Y o r k ..................................................................... N o rth C a ro lin a N orth D a k o ta ............................................... ......................................... .................................................................. O kla h o m a ..................................................................... .................................................................. P e n n sylva n ia ............................................................ R h o d e Island ............................................... S o u th C a ro lin a ....................................................................... S o u th D a k o t a ..................................................................... T e n n e sse e ................................................. T e xa s U tah ..................................................................... ............................................................................. V e r m o n t ............................................................ V ir g in ia .................................................................. W a sh in g to n W e st V irginia ......................................... ....................................................... W is c o n s in .......................................................... W yo m in g ................................................. V irg in Islands .................................................................. May 1979 Apr. 1980 May 1980 p 285.2 632.7 380.5 377.8 3,031.8 280.6 628.6 397.1 373.8 3,029.1 286.5 636.4 398.6 3,047.5 462.6 7,196.3 2,370.8 244.4 4,523.4 473.5 7,096.5 2,426.1 246.0 4,445.4 477.7 7,198.6 2,420.8 250.7 4,429.9 1,085.2 1,048.9 4,863.0 399.8 1,182.2 1,128.6 1,041.4 4,816.6 393.9 1,202.0 1,133.4 1,032.6 4,830.5 392.3 1,200.1 242.7 1,787.3 5,582.7 546.4 195.4 238.4 1,787.1 5,758.9 565.0 196.7 243.3 1,789.7 5,762.2 566.9 197.4 2,101.6 1,579.5 644.5 1,960.1 200.3 2,108.1 1,615.8 633.4 1,973.5 211.8 2,118.2 1,621.4 635.9 1,976.0 215,9 36.5 37.2 36.8 69 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data 10. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group [Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands] 1980 1979 A n n u al a v e ra g e In d u s try d iv is io n an d g ro u p A pr. M ayp Junep 90,316 90,761 90,988 91,090 1978 1979 June July A ug. S ep t. O c t. N ov. D ec. Jan. ............................................................................. 86,697 89,886 90,914 90,018 90,093 90,629 91,062 91,288 91,394 89,630 89,781 .................................................................................. 851 960 971 979 989 983 984 986 985 982 987 996 1,006 1,024 1,040 4,536 4,194 4,109 4,150 4,311 4,477 4,609 TO TAL M IN IN G M ar. Feb. 4,229 4,483 4,708 4,813 4,863 4,801 4,792 4,698 Production workers ................................... 20,505 14,734 21,062 15,085 21,331 15,328 21,054 15,026 21,096 15,048 21,295 15,265 21,193 15,170 21,055 15,034 20,987 14,964 20,777 14,738 20,730 14,678 20,793 14,727 20,533 14,466 20,251 14,170 20,156 14,087 Production workers ................................... 12,274 8,805 12,772 9,120 12,965 9,299 12,797 9,105 12,683 8,979 12,891 9,190 12,824 9,131 12,744 9,054 12,733 9,040 12,600 8,885 12,599 8,869 12,647 8,909 12,414 8,672 12,153 8,410 12,022 8,285 Instruments and related products ................ Miscellaneous manufacturing ...................... 754.7 494.1 698.2 1,214.9 1.672.6 2,325.5 2,006.1 2,002.8 653.1 451.5 766.1 499.3 709.7 1,250.2 1,723.7 2,481.6 2,124.3 2,082.8 688.9 445.6 791.3 496.1 732.0 1,281.1 1,746.8 2,511.4 2,144.4 2,114.2 696.5 451.6 785.4 486.5 726.0 1,267.4 1,711.8 2,504.9 2,127.6 2,063.0 691.2 433.2 788.2 497.1 726.5 1,250.6 1,711.7 2,489.7 2,105.7 1,965.5 693.7 454.5 785.0 499.6 721.6 1,250.6 1,731.4 2,513.8 2,152.8 2,087.4 691.6 457.1 780.0 502.5 718.6 1,231.4 1,733.8 2,465.1 2,162.0 2,076.5 694.6 459.7 757.2 503.1 7103 1,222.6 1,733.3 2,458.7 2,164.0 2,044.2 694.9 455.5 737.4 501.8 697.4 1,209.9 1,725.2 2,471.6 2,171.9 2,079.3 698.8 439.4 717.4 498.0 678.2 1,207.2 1,696.8 2,538.5 2,162.9 1,975.8 697.7 427.7 718.9 494.6 674.7 1,205.1 1,699.4 2,536.5 2,157.7 1,983.1 700.5 428.8 716.9 494.1 679.0 1,203.7 1,703.8 2,539.9 2,167.7 2.005.6 703.6 432.9 678.4 488.7 675.5 1,193.8 1,671.4 2,523.5 2,156.2 1,891.1 702.2 433.0 656.8 468.5 667.7 1,148.8 1,621.4 2,506.8 2,120.1 1,836.7 700.4 425.9 666.4 455.4 662.7 1,107.7 1,588.4 2,478.7 2,101.9 1,836.1 702.9 422.1 Production workers............................. 8,231 5,929 8,290 5,965 8,366 6,029 8,257 5,921 8,413 6,069 8,404 6,075 8,369 6,039 8,311 5,980 8,254 5,924 8,177 5,853 8,131 5,809 8,146 5,818 8,119 5,794 8,098 5,760 8,134 5,802 1,724.1 70.6 899.1 1,332.3 698.7 1,192.0 1,095.5 207.7 754.5 256.8 1,728.1 69.9 888.5 1,312.5 706.7 1,239.5 1,110.7 210.0 775.6 248,0 1,727.5 65.0 897.1 1,335.2 716.9 1,240.2 1,124.8 212.9 788.1 258.5 1,749.5 65.0 872.3 1,276.0 711.8 1,242.3 1,120.9 213.9 776.0 228.8 1,828.8 73.8 886.8 1,308.1 715.6 1,242.5 1,119.0 214.1 774.1 250.4 1,834.5 77.5 885.0 1,308.8 710.5 1,243.0 1,112.7 213.7 770.2 247.9 1,781.8 77.4 886.1 1,317.3 709.3 1,251.4 1,113.7 213.5 770.8 247.9 1,736.3 68.6 890.4 1,305.8 707.8 1,262.0 1,113.9 212.6 765.9 247.6 1,706.2 70.8 889.7 1,287.1 705.9 1,268.5 1,114.2 210.6 755.6 245.2 1,659.9 69.1 884.0 1,282.0 703.5 1,266.3 1,113.1 208.6 750.3 240.3 1,644.1 67.1 884.6 1,305.8 701.9 1,270.4 1,112.1 155.9 746.3 242.6 1,641.1 64.4 886.9 1,318.4 701.8 1,272.1 1,118.1 153.1 746.5 243.4 1,626.2 62.9 882.1 1,304.2 698.8 1,270.4 1,120.6 173.6 737.2 243.3 1,637.0 62.5 869.3 1,298.9 692.1 1,268.0 1,119.1 204.6 703.5 242.5 1,677.6 64.3 861.7 1,314.5 693.6 1,267.3 1,113.3 207.0 689.8 4,923 5,141 5,219 5,187 5,197 5,229 5,233 5,243 5,240 5,136 5,130 5,143 5,147 5,162 5,194 21,114 20,325 20,155 20,226 20,373 20,506 20,525 C O N S T R U C T IO N ............................................................... M A N U F A C T U R IN G ............................................................ Stone, clay, and glass products .................. Electric and electronic equipment................ Apparel and other textile products .............. Printing and publishing............................... Petroleum and coal products ...................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products Leather and leather products ...................... T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E W HO LESALE TRADE R E T A IL T R A D E F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E S E R V IC E S . ............................................................................. GOVERNMENT State and local ........................................ 19,542 20,269 20,321 20,254 20,296 20,425 20,474 20,756 4,969 5,204 5,245 5,243 5,243 5,239 5,266 5,282 5,264 5,241 5,250 5,269 5,265 5,263 5,283 15,474 15,850 15,084 14,905 14,957 15,108 15,243 15,242 14,573 15,066 15,076 15,011 15,053 15,186 15,208 4,724 4,974 5,019 5,048 5,068 5,015 5,025 5,039 5,047 5,052 5,061 5,085 5,104 5,139 5,205 17,284 17,271 17,135 17,317 17,478 17,636 17,756 17,812 16,227 2,760 13,467 16,214 2,770 13,444 16,029 2,763 13,266 16,292 2,803 13,489 16,445 2,869 13,576 16,651 3,103 13,548 16,673 3,097 13,576 16,549 3,121 13,428 16,252 17,078 17,265 17,324 17,315 17,238 17,297 15,672 2,753 12,919 15,920 2,773 13,147 16,080 2,824 13,256 15,359 2,838 12,521 15,269 2,844 12,425 15,643 2,751 12,892 16,064 2,756 13,308 NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment 70FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data in this table may differ from data published earlier. See technical note, page 68. 11. Employment by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted [ N o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o ll d a ta , In t h o u s a n d s ] 1979 1980 In d u s try d iv is io n a n d g ro u p Ju n e Ju ly A ug. S e p t. O ct. N o v. D ec. Jan. Feb . M ar. A p r. M ayp Junep 89,909 90,054 90,222 90,283 90,441 90,552 90,678 91,031 91,186 91,144 90,951 90,602 90,088 953 963 974 976 982 985 992 999 1,007 1,009 1,012 1,023 1,021 4,472 4,491 4,499 4,507 4,529 4,553 4,615 4,745 4,659 4,529 4,467 4,441 4,377 21,132 15,150 21,128 15,140 21,055 15,046 21,071 15,058 21,043 15,025 20,966 14,948 20,983 14,956 20,971 14,911 20,957 14,871 20,938 14,850 20,642 14,550 20,282 14,181 19,969 13,925 12,837 9,183 12,841 9,173 12,782 9,103 12,822 9,129 12,764 9,069 12,693 9,001 12,706 9,009 12,681 8,953 12,715 8,967 12,707 8,961 12,442 8,686 12,139 8,386 11,905 8,183 768 496 711 1,262 1,732 2,502 2,136 2,095 690 445 766 499 709 1,260 1,726 2,513 2,140 2,092 691 445 764 499 710 1,250 1,713 2,509 2,109 2,089 693 446 767 497 708 1,242 1,723 2,518 2,140 2,090 693 444 768 498 709 1,236 1,723 2,478 2,149 2,063 696 444 757 498 704 1,230 1,722 2,460 2,150 2,033 695 444 746 497 704 1,219 1,718 2,459 2,163 2,057 698 445 743 497 705 1,215 1,707 2,532 2,169 1,970 699 444 745 495 705 1,214 1,711 2,529 2,168 2,006 702 440 737 494 700 1,209 1,711 2,530 2,176 2,006 705 439 689 491 680 1,193 1,678 2,518 2,167 1,885 703 438 656 471 662 1,143 1,621 2,514 2,126 1,820 701 425 646 455 644 1,091 1,574 2,469 2,094 1,820 696 416 Production workers................................................... 8,295 5,967 8,287 5,967 8,273 5,943 8,249 5,929 8,279 5,956 8,273 5,947 8,277 5,947 8,290 5,958 8,242 5,904 8,231 5,889 8.200 5,864 8,143 5,795 8,064 5,742 Food and kindred products................................... Tobacco manufactures ............................................ Textile mill products.................................... Apparel and other textile products .................................... Paper and allied products .................................. Printing and publishing.......................................... Chemicals and allied products .................................... Petroleum and coal products .......................................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products .................... Leather and leather products ......................... 1,728 71 887 1,311 706 1,238 1,115 209 779 251 1,722 71 886 1,316 709 1,243 1,112 208 781 239 1,722 70 883 1,305 708 1,244 1,110 209 774 248 1,712 70 881 1,298 708 1,245 1,110 211 767 247 1,723 70 885 1,302 709 1,251 1,114 212 766 247 1,725 64 887 1,294 708 1,259 1,116 212 762 246 1,724 66 889 1,296 708 1,261 1,118 213 756 246 1,716 67 888 1,305 710 1,269 1,121 214 755 245 1,713 68 888 1,313 709 1,273 1,121 161 751 245 1,704 68 888 1,316 708 1,274 1,123 157 749 244 1,690 69 884 1,302 702 1,272 1,123 175 740 243 1,689 70 868 1,291 691 1,268 1,119 205 704 238 1,678 71 851 1,291 683 1,265 1,103 203 682 237 TOTAL M IN IN G C O N S T R U C T IO N M A N U F A C T U R IN G Production workers.............................................. D u ra b le g o o d s ......................................... Production workers.............................................. Lumber and wood products ................................. Furniture and fixtures.......................................... Stone, clay, and glass products ............................................. Primary metal industries.............................................. Fabricated metal products............................................... Machinery, except electrical............................................. Electric and electronic equipment .................................. Transportation equipment................................................... Instruments and related products ...................................... Miscellaneous manufacturing ............................................ N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ......................................... 5,168 5,156 5,182 5,185 5,203 5,216 5,212 5,202 5,198 5,202 5,178 5,162 5,143 20,217 20,254 20,301 20,352 20,414 20,479 20,448 20,529 20,637 20,610 20,531 20,496 20,422 5,205 5,214 5,222 5,228 5,246 5,269 5,251 5,278 5,302 5,301 5,286 5,268 5,241 15,012 15,040 15,079 15,124 15,168 15,210 15,197 15,251 15,335 15,309 15,245 15,228 15,181 4,970 4,989 5,019 5,017 5,033 5,049 5,064 5,091 5,101 5,115 5,119 5,139 5,153 S E R V IC E S 17,074 17,114 17,152 17,192 17,264 17,308 17,362 17,462 17,540 17,580 17,618 17,668 17,618 GOVERNMENT 15,923 2,783 13,140 15,959 2,784 13,175 16,040 2,811 13,229 15,983 2,762 13,221 15,973 2,769 13,204 15,996 2,773 13,223 16,002 2,773 13,229 16,032 2,791 13,241 16,087 2,826 13,261 16,161 2,886 13,275 16,384 3,115 13,269 16,391 3,094 13,297 16,385 3,077 13,308 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S ........... W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E W H O LE S A LE TRADE R E T A IL T R A D E F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S T A T E ................................. Federal................................................... State and local ...................................... - NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and update seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data in this table may differ from data published earlier. See technical note, page 68. 71 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data 12. Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, 1977 to date [Per 100 employees] Year A nnual Jan. a v e ra g e M ar. Feb. June M ay A pr. July A ug. S e p t. O ct. N o v. D ec. 4.3 4.4 4.3 5.3 5.4 5.0 4.6 4.9 4.5 3.9 4.3 4.1 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.2 3.0 3.3 3.1 4.0 4.2 3.7 3.5 3.9 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.1 2.2 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.7 1.5 .9 .8 .9 1.0 .9 .9 .8 .7 .8 ,6 .6 .7 .6 .5 .5 .6 .5 .5 4.3 4.1 4.3 5.1 5.3 5.7 4.9 4.9 4.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.5 1.9 2.1 2.0 3.1 3.5 3.3 2.8 3.1 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.1 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.0 .8 1.3 1.1 .8 1.1 1.1 .9 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.7 T o ta l a c c e s s io n s 1977 1978 1979 1980 .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.7 p3.3 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.2 3.4 3.3 N e w h ire s 3.7 3.9 3.8 1977 1978 1979 1980 .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.1 3.5 3.6 3.6 »2.1 1977 1978 1979 1980 .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .9 .7 .7 1.2 1.0 .9 1.1 1.3 .7 .7 .9 1.1 .8 .7 .9 .9 .8 .7 .8 .8 .8 .8 "1.0 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.7 4.7 3.5 3.7 3.8 p4.8 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.1 p1.5 R ecalls .8 ,7 .7 T o ta l s e p a ra tio n s 1977 1978 1979 1980 .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... 3.9 3.6 3.8 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.5 3.8 3.9 Q u its 1977 1978 1979 1980 .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.1 L a y o ffs 1977 1978 1979 1980 .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment 13. .8 .7 .9 .8 .7 .7 p2.5 ,9 .8 .9 2.3 1.0 .9 .8 1.3 1.4 .9 .8 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.1 .9 1.1 data in this table may differ from data published earlier. See technical note, page 68 Labor turnover rates in manufacturing, by major industry group [Per 100 employees] S e p a ra tio n ra te s A c c e s s io n ra te s M A N U F A C T U R IN G Seasonally adjusted D u ra b le g o o d s Lumber and wood products....... Furniture and fixtures .............. Stone, clay, and glass products .. Primary metal Industries ........... Fabricated metal products......... Machinery, except electrical....... Electric and electronic equipment Transportation equipment ......... Instruments and related products Miscellaneous manufacturing ... N o n d u ra b le g o o d s Food and kindred products . . . . Tobacco manufacturers........... Textile mill products .............. Apparel and other products . . . . Paper and allied products ....... Printing and publishing............. Chemicals and allied products .. Petroleum and coal products ... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products................ Leather and leather products . .. M ay A pr. M ay M ay A pr. M ay M ay A p r. M ay 1979 1980 1 980 p 1979 1980 1980 p 1979 1980 1980 P 1.0 3.8 4.0 4.7 5.3 4.8 5.7 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.7 1.0 2.3 2.9 2.5 3.5 .7 1.7 .4 1.6 .8 .9 .2 .4 1.1 .2 1.0 .9 3.1 .7 1.8 .9 1.1 .4 .4 3.4 5.6 6.0 3.5 2.2 4.0 2.6 3.1 3.3 2.6 5.2 4.7 10.2 5.0 4.5 3.8 5.9 3.4 3.5 6.2 2.6 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.6 5.6 6.3 5.6 3.7 4.3 1.8 3.9 3.7 2.1 1.0 2.2 1.5 1.7 1.2 1.6 2.9 1.2 2.5 2.2 1.3 .6 1.5 1.0 1.2 .8 1.2 1.9 1.2 2.1 2.2 1.3 .5 1.3 1.0 1.2 .6 .5 1.1 .5 .3 .8 .3 .4 1.1 .3 1.2 2.6 6.6 1.8 2.3 2.4 3.6 1.6 1.3 4.5 .6 2.0 2.9 3.4 2.4 3.3 5.0 3.5 1.9 2.2 .9 1.8 1.0 .5 1.4 .7 .3 .2 .8 1.1 2.3 4.6 6.0 2.8 4.8 5.9 2.9 3.1 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.3 .3 2.6 2.9 .9 1.8 .6 .7 2.4 2.9 .9 1.9 .7 .6 .9 1.6 1.5 .5 1.6 .4 .6 .3 .4 1.8 2.9 1.5 1.1 2.2 1.3 .7 .6 1.5 1.9 2.4 4.8 6.1 3.0 3.3 2.1 2.5 2.6 3.2 .9 3.5 3.4 1.4 2.1 .8 .9 1.9 2.3 .5 1.7 .8 .5 .3 .5 4.4 5.7 3.7 5.2 5.9 2.5 3.3 1.7 1.8 4.6 5.6 2.9 3.4 1.6 2.6 1.4 2.8 1.0 2.0 .9 .6 1.7 .6 4 .3 .4 2.0 5.0 .7 1.8 .8 1.4 1.0 1.4 4,9 7.4 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.2 3.0 4.8 1.9 3.8 1.8 3.4 .7 1.4 3.7 2.1 4.1 2.7 M ay A pr. M ay M ay A pr. M ay M ay A pr. M ay 1979 1980 1980 p 1979 1980 1980 p 1979 1980 1980 4.7 4.0 3.1 3.0 3.3 2.9 3.6 3.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.8 0.8 4.3 7.7 6.1 5.4 3.4 4.9 3.2 4.0 3.9 3.5 6.0 2.7 4.2 3.3 3.6 1.9 3.0 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.4 4.4 2.8 5.5 3.2 3.8 2.0 3.1 2.1 2.5 3.3 6.0 5.3 4.1 2.5 3.8 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.9 4.7 1.7 2.3 2.7 1.8 .9 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.1 2.0 3.1 1.6 2.3 2.3 1.8 .8 1.8 1.5 1.6 .7 1.5 .6 1.1 .6 .8 .2 .6 .8 .3 1.2 5.3 7.3 2.5 5.8 6.1 3.8 3.8 2.5 3.6 3.8 5.3 2.6 4.0 5.2 2.2 2,8 1.5 2.5 4.1 6.3 2.6 3.2 .8 3.2 3.6 1.3 2.4 1.2 1.7 2.8 3.8 3.8 5.4 2.6 3.2 2.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 1.0 4.7 4.2 3.0 3.3 2.0 2.9 6.2 8.5 3.2 7.0 3.3 6.6 5.0 6.2 2.2 5.1 2.8 4.0 2.3 2.6 NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment 72 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis L a y o ffs Q u its T o ta l R e c a lls N e w h ire s T o ta l M a jo r in d u s try g ro u p .3 1.2 p 3.3 5.9 1.4 1.9 data in this table may differ from data published earlier. See technical note, page 68. 1.2 3.0 1.3 2.4 1.5 .8 ,9 1.3 14. Hours and earnings, by industry division, 1949 79 [G r o s s a v e r a g e s , p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls ] Year A v e ra g e A v e ra g e A v e ra g e A v e ra g e A v e ra g e A v e ra g e A v e ra g e A v e ra g e w e e k ly w e e k ly h o u rly w e e k ly w e e k ly ho u rly w e e k ly w e e k ly h o u rly w e e k ly w e e k ly h o u rly e a rn in g s h o u rs ea rn in g s e a rn in g s h o u rs e a rn in g s e a rn in g s h o u rs e a rn in g s e a rn in g s h o u rs e a rn in g s A v e ra g e T o ta l p riv a te A v e ra g e M in in g A v e ra g e C o n s tru c tio n A v e ra g e M a n u fa c tu ré e 1949 1950 $50.24 53.13 39.4 39.8 $1,275 1.335 $62.33 67.16 36.3 37.9 $1,717 1.772 $67.56 69.68 37.7 37.4 $1,792 1.863 $53.88 58.32 39.1 40.5 $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 66.75 70.47 70.49 75.30 40.6 40.7 40.5 39.6 40.7 1.56 1.64 1.74 1.78 1.85 1956 1957 1958 1959' 1960 70.74 73.33 75.08 78.78 80.67 39.3 38.8 38.5 39.0 38.6 1.80 1.89 1.95 2.02 2.09 95.06 98.25 96.08 103.68 105.04 40.8 40.1 38.9 40.5 40.4 2.33 2.45 2.47 2.56 2.60 96.38 100.27 103.78 108.41 112.67 37.5 37.0 36.8 37.0 36.7 2.57 2.71 2.82 2.93 3.07 78.78 81.19 82.32 88.26 89.72 40.4 39.8 39.2 40.3 39.7 1.95 2.04 2.10 2.19 2.26 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 82.60 85.91 88.46 91.33 95.45 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.7 38.8 2.14 2.22 2.28 2.36 2.46 106.92 110.70 114.40 117.74 123.52 40.5 41.0 41.6 41.9 42.3 2.64 2.70 2.75 2.81 2.92 118.08 122.47 127.19 132.06 138.38 36.9 37.0 37.3 37.2 37.4 3.20 3.31 3.41 3.55 3.70 92.34 96.56 99.23 102.97 107.53 39.8 40.4 40.5 40,7 41.2 2.32 2.39 2.45 2.53 2.61 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 . 98.82 101.84 107.73 114.61 119.83 38.6 38.0 37.8 37.7 37.1 2.56 2.68 2.85 3.04 3.23 130.24 135.89 142.71 154.80 164.40 42.7 42.6 42.6 43.0 42.7 3.05 3.19 3.35 3.60 3.85 146.26 154.95 164.49 181.54 195.45 37.6 37.7 37.3 37.9 37.3 3.89 4.11 4.41 4.79 5.24 112.19 114.49 122.51 129.51 133.33 41.4 40.6 40.7 40.6 39.8 2.71 2.82 3.01 3.19 3.35 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 . , . . . 127.31 136.90 145.39 154.76 163.53 36.9 37.0 369 36.5 36.1 3.45 3.70 3.94 4.24 4.53 172.14 189.14 201.40 219.14 249.31 42,4 42.6 42.4 41.9 41.9 4.06 4.44 4.75 5.23 5.95 211.67 221.19 235.89 249.25 266.08 37.2 36.5 36.8 36.6 36.4 5.69 6,06 6.41 6.81 7.31 142.44 154.71 166.46 176.80 190.79 39.9 40.5 40.7 40.0 39.5 3.57 3.82 4.09 4.42 4.83 1976 . 1977 . 1978r 1979r 175.45 189.00 203.70 219.30 36.1 36.0 35.8 35.6 4.86 5.25 5.69 6.16 273.90 301.20 332.88 365.50 42.4 43.4 43.4 43.0 6.46 6.94 7.67 8.50 283.73 295.65 318.69 342.99 36.8 36.5 36.8 37.0 7.71 8.10 8.66 9.27 209.32 228.90 249.27 268.94 40.1 40.3 40.4 40.2 5.22 5.68 6.17 6.69 T ra n s p o rta tio n an d pub lic w n o ie s a ie a n a re ta il tra d e u tilities S e rv ic e s re a l e s ta te 1949 1950 $42.93 44.55 40.5 40.5 $1 060 1.100 $4763 50 52 37 8 37 7 . , . . . 47.79 49.20 51.35 53.33 55.16 40 5 40.0 39.5 39.5 39.4 1 18 1.23 1.30 1.35 1 40 54 67 57 08 59 57 62 04 63 92 37 8 37 7 37 6 37 6 1956 , 1957 . 1958 . 1959' 1960 . 57.48 59.60 61.76 64.41 66.01 39.1 38.7 38.6 38.8 38.6 1.47 1.54 1.60 1.66 1.71 65 68 67 53 70 12 72 74 75 14 36 9 36 7 37 1 37 3 37 2 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 . . . . . $118.78 125.14 41.1 41.3 $2.89 3.03 67.41 69.91 72.01 74.66 76.91 38.3 38.2 38.1 37.9 37.7 1.76 1.83 1.89 1.97 2.04 77 12 80 94 84 38 85.79 88.91 36 9 37 3 37 5 37.3 37.2 2.30 2.39 $70.03 73.60 36.1 35.9 $1.94 2.05 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 . . . . . 128.13 130.82 138.85 147.74 155.93 41.2 40.5 40.6 40.7 40.5 3.11 3.23 3.42 3.63 3.85 79.39 82.35 87.00 91.39 96.02 37.1 36.6 36.1 35.7 35.3 2.14 2.25 2.41 2.56 2.72 92.13 95.72 101.75 108.70 112.67 37.3 37.1 37.0 37.1 36.7 2.47 2.58 2.75 2.93 3.07 77.04 80.38 83.97 90.57 96.66 35.5 35.1 34.7 34.7 34.4 2.17 2.29 2.42 2.61 2.81 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 . . . . . 168.82 187.86 203.31 217.48 233.44 40.1 40.4 40.5 40.2 39.7 4.21 4.65 5.02 5.41 5.88 101.09 106.45 111.76 119.02 126.45 35.1 34.9 34.6 34.2 33.9 2.88 3.05 3.23 3.48 3.73 117.85 122.98 129.20 137.61 148.19 36.6 366 36.6 36.5 36.5 3.22 3.36 3.53 3.77 4.06 103.06 110.85 117.29 126.00 134.67 33.9 33.9 33.8 33.6 33.5 3.04 3.27 3.47 3.75 4.02 1976 . 1977 . 1978r 1979r 256.71 278,90 30280 325.98 39.8 39.9 40.0 39.9 6.45 6.99 7.57 8.17 133.79 142.52 153.64 164.96 33.7 33.3 32.9 32.6 3.97 4.28 4.67 5.06 155.43 165.26 178.00 190.77 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.2 4.27 4.54 4.89 5.27 143.52 153.45 163.67 175.27 33.3 33.0 32.8 32.7 4.31 4.65 4.99 5.36 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 73 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data 15. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group [Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] 1980 1979 A n n u al a v e ra g e In d u s try d iv is io n a n d g ro u p 1978 1979 Ju n e July A ug. S ep t. O ct. N ov. D ec. Jan. Feb . M ar. Apr. M ayp Junep 358 35.6 35.9 36.0 36.0 35.8 35.7 35.6 35.9 35.1 35.1 35.2 35.0 35.0 35.3 43.4 43.0 43.2 41.7 43.1 43.4 43.7 43.6 43.9 43.4 43.2 43.4 42.8 42.6 43.3 C O N S T R U C T IO N 36.8 37.0 38.0 37.8 38.1 38.0 37.7 36.6 37.2 35.3 35.7 36.2 36.7 36.9 37.8 M A N U F A C T U R IN G 40.4 3.6 40.2 3.3 40.4 3.4 39.9 3.2 40.0 3.3 40.3 3.6 40.2 3.4 40.3 3.4 40.9 3.4 39.8 3.0 39.8 2.9 39.8 3.0 39.4 2.7 39.3 2.5 39.4 2.4 Overtime hours................................... 41.1 3.8 40.8 3.5 41.0 3.6 40.4 3.4 40.4 3.4 40.8 3.6 40.8 3.5 40.8 3.4 41.6 3.5 40.3 3.1 40.3 3.0 40.3 3.1 399 2.7 39.6 2.4 39.7 2.4 Lumber and wood products ........................ Furniture and fixtures ................................. Stone, clay, and glass products.................... Primary metal industries............................. Fabricated metal products ......................... 39.8 39.3 41.6 41.8 41.0 39.4 38.7 41.5 41.4 40.7 40.2 38.8 42.1 41.6 41.0 39.4 38.1 41.5 41.3 40.3 39.9 38.8 41,8 40.8 40.5 40.1 39.0 41.7 41.3 40.8 39.8 39.3 41.7 40.9 40.9 38.8 39.3 41.7 40.7 41.0 39.2 39.9 41.8 40.9 41.9 381 38.4 40.1 40.7 40.6 38.5 38.4 40.1 40.7 40.4 38.3 385 40.7 40.7 40.6 37.1 37.9 40.4 40.6 40.2 37.6 37.3 40.6 39.3 39.9 38.1 37.4 41.0 39.4 40.1 Machinery except electrical......................... Electric and electronic equipment ................ Transportation equipment ........................... Instruments and related products ................ Miscellaneous manufacturing ...................... 42.1 40.3 42.2 40.9 38.8 41.8 40.3 41.1 40.8 38.8 41.9 40.5 41.2 40.7 38.9 41.2 39.6 40.9 40.3 38.5 41.2 39.7 40.5 40.4 38.8 41.8 40.5 40.7 40.7 39.2 41.5 40.3 41.3 40.8 39.1 41.8 40.8 40.8 41.4 39.4 42.7 41.3 42.7 41.7 39.5 41.5 40.2 40.0 41.0 38.8 41.5 40.2 40.4 40.8 38.6 41.5 40.0 40.4 40.6 38.8 41.1 39.6 39.8 40.4 38.4 40.8 39.3 39.8 40.3 38.2 40.8 39.3 39.9 40.7 38.1 Overtime hours................................... 39.4 3.2 39.3 3.1 39.4 3.0 39.2 3.0 39.4 3.2 39.6 3.5 39.4 3.2 39.6 3.3 39.9 3.2 39.0 2.9 38.9 2.8 38.9 2.9 38.7 2.7 38.8 2.6 38.8 2.5 Food and kindred products......................... Tobacco manufactures............................... Textile mill products.................................. Apparel and other textile products................ Paper and allied products........................... 39.7 38.1 40.4 35.6 42.9 39.9 38.0 40.4 35.3 42.6 39.8 39.0 40.7 35.6 42.8 40.1 36.1 39.9 35.5 42.5 40.3 37.6 40.3 35.6 42.6 40.6 39.2 40.8 35.3 42.7 40.0 38.9 40.8 35.5 42.7 40.2 38.8 41.3 35.6 42.9 40.4 39.4 41.5 35.9 43.5 39.5 37.3 40.9 35.2 42.7 39.1 36.9 40.8 35.4 42.4 39.0 37.7 40.9 35.4 42.4 38.9 38.2 39.9 35.3 42.2 39.7 38.3 39.8 35.3 41.6 39.5 39.2 39.6 35.6 41.9 Printing and publishing ............................... Chemicals and allied products...................... Petroleum and coal products ...................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products Leather and leather products ...................... 37.6 41.9 43.6 40.9 37.1 37.5 41.9 43.8 40.5 36.5 37.4 41.8 43.4 40.7 37.1 37.4 41.7 44.1 40.2 36.9 37.9 41.8 43.6 40.0 36.6 37.9 41.8 44.7 40.5 36.8 37.5 41.7 44.1 40.5 36.5 37.9 42.2 44.8 40.3 36.8 38.1 42.2 43.5 40.7 37.3 37.2 41.7 36.2 40.3 36.7 37.0 41.6 39.7 39.9 36.8 37.2 41.7 39.4 40.0 36.4 36.8 41.6 41.1 39.7 36.7 36.9 41.5 42.5 39.0 37.0 36.8 41.2 42.6 39.6 37.7 40.0 39.9 40.1 40.0 40.3 39.9 40.0 40.2 40.0 39.5 39.4 39.5 39.5 39.3 39.8 33.3 33.2 32.6 32.4 32.4 32.9 31.9 31.9 32.0 31.8 31.9 32.2 T O T A L P R IV A T E M I N I N G ..................................................................................... Overtime hours.................................. D u ra b le g o o d s N o n d u ra b le g o o d s T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S 32.9 W H O LE S A LE TR A D E 38.8 38.8 39.0 39.0 39.0 38.8 38.9 38.9 39.1 38.5 38.4 38.4 38.4 38.5 38.6 31.0 30.6 31.0 31.5 31.4 30.6 30.4 30.4 31.0 29.8 29.8 29.9 29.7 29.9 30.2 E S T A T E ............................................................................... 36.4 36.2 36.1 36.2 36.1 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.2 36.3 36.3 36.2 36.1 36.4 S E R V IC E S ............................................................................... 32.8 32.7 32.9 33.3 33.2 32.7 32.6 32.6 32.8 32.5 32.5 32.5 32.4 32.3 32.7 R E T A IL T R A D E 32.6 32.9 W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D REA L NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data in this table may differ from data published earlier. See technical note, page 68. 16. Weekly hours, by industry division and major manufacturing group, seasonally adjusted [G r o s s a v e r a g e s , p r o d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s o n p r iv a te n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y r o lls ] 1979 1980 In d u s try d iv is io n a n d g ro u p T O T A L P R IV A T E ............................................................ M IN IN G June July A ug. S ep t. 35.6 35.6 35.7 356 35.6 35.6 35.7 35.6 35.5 35.4 35.3 35.1 35.0 43.2 41.7 43.1 43.4 43.7 43.6 43.9 43.4 43.2 43.4 42.8 42.6 43.3 O ct. Nov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M ar. A pr. M ay" Junep C O N S T R U C T IO N 37.2 36.9 37.3 37.5 36.8 37.0 37.2 37.3 37.1 36.6 36.7 36.8 37.0 M A N U F A C T U R IN G 40.1 3.3 40.1 3.3 40.1 3.3 40.1 3.2 40.1 3.2 40.1 3.3 40.2 3.2 40.3 3.2 40.1 3.0 39.8 3.1 39.8 3.0 39.3 2.5 39.1 2.4 Overtime hours........................................ 40.6 3.5 40.7 3.5 40.7 3.4 40.7 3.3 40.7 3.3 40.6 3.3 40.7 3.2 40.8 3.3 40.6 3.1 40.3 3.2 40.3 3.0 39.7 2.4 39.5 2.4 Lumber and wood products ............................. Furniture and fixtures...................................... Stone, clay, and glass products ........................ Primary metal industries................................... Fabricated metal products ............................... 39.4 38.5 41.4 41.2 40.6 39.3 38.5 41.4 41.3 40.7 39.6 38.6 41.4 41.0 40.6 39.6 38.7 41.5 41.1 40.7 39.2 38.8 41.3 41.1 40.8 38.9 38.9 41.4 40.8 40.7 39.0 38.9 41.5 40.7 40.9 39.4 39.2 41.4 40.8 40.9 39.1 39.0 41.2 40.8 40.8 38.7 38.5 40.9 40.7 40.7 37.3 38.5 40.6 40.6 40.8 37.5 37.6 40.3 39.2 39.9 37.4 37.1 40.4 39.0 39.7 Machinery, except electrical............................. Electric and electronic equipment...................... Transportation equipment................................. Instruments and related products ...................... Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................... 41.8 40.2 40.7 40.6 38.8 41.8 40.2 41.0 40.8 39.0 41.6 39.9 41.5 40.6 38.9 41.7 40.3 40.6 40.7 39.0 41.5 40.3 41.0 40.7 38.9 41.5 40.4 40.5 41.0 38.9 41.5 40.5 40.9 41.0 39.0 41.6 40.5 40.9 41.4 39.2 41.5 40.3 40.8 40.9 39.1 41.3 40.0 40.4 40.4 38.6 41,5 399 40.5 40.7 38.5 41.0 39.5 39.6 40.3 38.3 40.7 39.1 39.5 40.6 38.0 N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ............................................................... Overtime hours........................................ 39.2 3.0 39.2 3.0 39.3 3.1 39.3 3.1 39.3 3.1 39.4 3.2 39.4 3.1 39.5 3.1 39.4 2.9 39.0 3.0 39.1 3.0 38.9 2.7 38.6 2.5 Food and kindred products............................... Tobacco manufactures ................................... Textile mill products........................................ Apparel and other textile products .................... Paper and allied products ............................... 39.8 38.0 40.2 35.2 42.5 39.8 38.1 40.3 35.3 42.5 39.8 38.1 40.3 35.3 42.6 40.0 38.4 40.7 35.2 42.5 39.9 38.3 40.8 35.4 42.6 39.9 37.8 41.0 35.3 42.7 39.9 38.5 41.0 35.6 42.8 39.8 38.5 41.5 36.0 43.0 39.7 37.9 41.1 35.9 42.9 39.3 37.7 40.8 35.3 42.6 39.6 38.2 40.3 35.8 42.5 39.9 37.8 39.7 35.3 41.7 39.5 38.2 39.1 35.2 41.6 Printing and publishing.................................... Chemicals and allied products ......................... Petroleum and coal products ........................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products....... Leather and leather products ........................... 37.5 41.7 43.4 40.6 36.4 37.5 41.8 43.6 40.6 36.6 37.8 41.9 43.6 40.2 36.5 37.5 41.8 44.0 40.3 36.8 37.4 41.7 43.5 40.2 36.5 37.5 42.0 44.4 40.0 36.6 37.4 41.8 43.4 40.0 37.0 37.8 42.0 36.9 40.7 37.2 37.4 41.9 40.7 40.0 37.2 37.2 41.8 39.7 39.9 36.9 37.2 41.5 41.1 40.1 37.3 37.1 41.5 42.7 39.3 36.7 36.9 41.1 42.6 39.5 37.0 39.8 Overtime hours........................................ D u ra b le g o o d s T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S 40.1 40.0 40.3 39.9 40.0 40.2 40.0 39.5 39.4 39.5 39.5 39.3 W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.4 32.3 32.0 32.1 31.9 W H O LE S A LE TRADE 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.9 38.9 38.9 38.8 38.5 38.5 38.6 38.4 R E T A IL T R A D E 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.4 30.3 30.0 30.1 29.8 ESTATE 36.1 36.2 36.1 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.2 36.3 36.3 36.2 36.1 36.4 S E R V IC E S 32.7 32.8 32.7 32.7 32.6 32.7 32.8 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.6 32.5 32.5 F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R EA L NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data in this table may differ from data published earlier. See technical note, page 68. 75 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data 17. Hourly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group [Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] 1979 A n n u al a v e ra g e 1980 In d u s try d iv is io n a n d g ro u p T O T A L P R IV A T E .................................................................... 1978 1979 June July Aug. S e p t. O ct. N ov. D ec. Jan. Feb. M ar. A pr. $5.69 $6.16 $6.11 $6.16 $6.18 $6.30 $6.31 $6.34 $6.38 $6.42 $6.46 $6.51 $6.53 M ayp Junep $6.56 $6.61 M I N I N G ................................................................................................ 7.67 8.50 8.50 8,54 8.50 8.59 8.59 8.73 8.75 8.88 8.90 8.95 9.10 9.07 9.07 C O N S T R U C T IO N ............................................................................. 8.66 9.27 9.14 9.26 9.34 9.52 9.50 9.52 9.58 9.49 9.61 9.68 9.69 9.76 9.79 M A N U F A C T U R IN G ....................................................................... 6.17 6.69 6.67 6.72 6.70 6.80 6.82 6.87 6.97 6.96 7.00 7.06 7.09 7.13 7.18 Lumber and wood products ......................... Furniture and fixtures................................... Stone, clay, and glass products .................... Primary metal industries............................... Fabricated metal products ........................... 6.58 5.60 4.68 6.33 8.20 6.35 7.13 6.08 5.06 6.85 8.97 6.84 7.12 6.15 5.06 6.86 8.91 6.83 7.15 6.22 5.04 6.90 9.04 6.83 7.13 6.22 5.09 6.90 9.10 6.85 7.24 6.30 5.18 6.99 9.16 6.95 7.25 6.23 5.19 7.01 9.11 6.98 7.29 6.22 5.21 7.08 9.26 7.01 7.42 6.24 5.26 7.11 9.28 7.14 7.39 6.21 5.27 7.06 9.30 7.09 7.46 6.33 5.32 7.14 9.44 7.14 7.54 6.35 5.37 7.27 9.45 7.24 7.56 6.28 5.39 7.34 9.53 7.27 7.60 6.39 5.42 7.44 9.61 7.32 7.67 6.55 5.46 7.52 9.63 7.38 Machinery, except electrical......................... Electric and electronic equipment.................. Transportation equipment............................. Instruments and related products .................. Miscellaneous manufacturing ........................ 6.78 5.82 7.91 5.71 4.69 7.32 6.32 8.54 6.17 5.03 7.34 6.26 8.53 6.12 4.99 7.34 6.28 8.56 6.17 5.01 7.35 6.37 8.45 6.15 5.02 748 6.47 8.59 6.21 5.06 7.44 6.49 8.70 6.32 5.10 7.50 6.52 8.72 6.39 5.13 7.63 6.64 8.93 6.50 5.20 7.66 6.67 8.81 6.57 5.28 7.69 6.71 8.86 6.59 5.30 7.76 6.78 9.04 6.63 5.34 7.81 6.79 9.04 6.63 5.37 7.90 6.78 9.05 6.72 5.39 7.94 6.85 9.24 6.71 5.44 Food and kindred products........................... Tobacco manufactures................................. T e x tile m ill products.................................... Apparel and other textile products ................ Paper and allied products............................. 5.53 5.80 6.13 4.30 3.94 6.52 6.00 6.27 6.65 4 66 4.23 7.13 5.94 6.21 6.81 4.54 4.21 7.07 6.03 6.28 6.83 4.65 4.23 7.18 6.04 6.28 6.51 4.77 4.21 7.24 6.11 6.32 643 4.82 4.27 7.33 6.14 6.35 6.33 4.83 4.31 7.36 6.21 6.50 6.97 4.86 4.32 7.43 6.26 6.55 6.98 4.87 4.38 7.50 6.28 6.61 7.08 4.90 4.44 7.49 6.27 6.64 7.36 4.90 4.45 7.52 6.30 6.68 7.57 4.92 4.49 7.55 6.36 6.75 7.79 4.91 4.46 7.63 6.42 6.82 7.68 4.90 4.45 7.64 6.46 6.83 8.04 4.93 4.49 7.74 Printing and publishing................................. Chemicals and allied products ...................... Petroleum and coal products ........................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products ... Leather and leather products ........................ 6.51 702 8.63 5.52 3.89 6.95 7.60 9.36 5.96 4.22 6.91 7.54 9.31 5.91 4.18 6.94 7.61 9.38 5.95 4.18 6.98 7.66 9.34 5.94 4.21 7.08 7.74 9.50 6.03 4.29 7.10 7.83 9.48 6.12 4.31 7.13 7.88 9.56 6.14 4.33 7.21 7.92 9.48 6.21 4.35 7.24 7.97 9.46 6.25 4.45 7.29 8.01 9.37 6.25 4.47 7.34 8.05 9.29 6.27 4.51 7.34 8.12 9.83 6.30 4.52 7.45 8.16 10.12 6.34 4.52 7.46 8.24 10.12 6.42 4.54 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S ................... 7.57 8.17 8.02 8.19 8.31 8.44 843 8.51 8.54 8.55 8.58 8.62 8.71 8.71 8.76 W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E D u ra b le g o o d s N o n d u ra b le g o o d s ...................................... 4.67 5.06 5.03 5.05 506 5.13 5.15 5.18 5.18 5.34 5.36 5.40 5.40 5.42 5.44 W H O L E S A L E T R A D E .................................................................... 588 6.39 6.35 6.40 6.42 6.52 6.52 6.58 6.69 6.72 6.77 6.83 6.87 6.89 6.95 R E T A IL T R A D E ............................................................................... 4.20 4.53 4.50 4.51 4.52 4.57 4.59 4.62 4.61 4.78 4.78 4.81 4.80 4.82 4.83 E S T A T E .......................................................................................... 4.89 5.27 5.21 5.28 5.28 5.37 5.35 5.41 5.48 5.53 5.60 5.68 5.68 5.69 5.79 S E R V IC E S .......................................................................................... 4.99 5.36 5.28 5.29 5.31 5.45 5.48 5.55 5.61 5.65 5.70 5.75 5.75 5.79 5.83 F IN A N C E , IN S U R A N C E , A N D R EA L NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment 18. data in this table may differ from data published earlier. See technical note, page 68. Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls, by industry division [Seasonally adjusted data: 1967=100] 1979 1980 M a y 1980 In d u s try 248.2 250.7 1.0 9.4 283.7 233.8 254.9 268.4 239.7 225.9 245.7 284.1 234.9 257.6 270.7 241.4 231.0 249.0 .1 .5 1.1 .9 .7 2.3 1.3 7.9 6.5 10.0 9.6 8.4 10.8 10.2 ( ') (’ ) (’ ) N ov. . 229.1 230.8 232.2 234.2 234.9 237.2 239.4 240.4 242.5 245.3 246.2 Mining...................................... Construction ............................. Manufacturing ........................... Transportation and public utilities ... Wholesale and retail trade ........... Finance, insurance, and real estate Services ................................... 263.4 220.5 234.1 247.0 222.6 208.4 226.0 265.0 222.2 235.7 249.9 223.8 210.2 227.4 2648 223.2 236.8 252.5 225.5 211.5 228,8 265.5 224.5 238.5 255.1 227.0 214.0 231.5 267.6 224.6 239.9 255.9 227.3 212.9 232.4 272.1 226.5 241.9 258.8 229.5 215.7 234.9 274.7 228.2 244.1 260.2 231.4 217.9 237.7 277.1 225.7 245.1 260.8 234.8 218.3 237.7 278.6 229.8 247.9 262.5 235.5 221.2 239.6 280.9 232.2 250.2 266.0 238.0 225.7 242.8 283.7 233.0 252.4 267.2 238.0 224.9 243.0 105.9 105.5 105.1 104.8 104.1 104.1 103.8 102.7 102.3 102.0 101.4 101.3 Digitized 76 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis J u n e 1979 to O ct. 1Not available. NOTE: In accordance with usual practice BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new A p r. J u n e 1980 S e p t. T O T A L P R IV A T E (in c o n s ta n t d o lla rs ) M ar. M a y 1980 Aug. T O T A L P R IV A T E (In c u rre n t d o lla rs ) Feb . to Ju ly D ec. Jan. Junep June M ayp benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment data in this table may differ from data published earlier. See technical note, page 68. 19. Weekly earnings, by industry division and major manufacturing group [Gross averages, production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] A n n u al a v e ra g e 1980 1979 In d u s try d iv is io n an d g ro u p 1978 1979 June July Aug. S e p t. O ct. N o v. $203.70 $219.30 $219.35 $221.76 $222.48 $225.54 $225.27 $225.70 T O T A L P R IV A T E 332.88 M IN IN G 365.50 367.20 356.12 366.35 372.81 D ec. $229.04 375.38 380.63 384.13 Jan. Feb . M ar. A pr. M aye Junep $225.34 $226.75 $229.15 $228.55 $229.60 $233.33 385.39 384.48 388.43 389.48 386.38 392.73 C O N S T R U C T IO N 318 69 342.99 347.32 350.03 355.85 361.76 358.15 348.43 356.38 335.00 343.08 350.42 355.62 360.14 370.06 M A N U F A C T U R IN G 24927 268.94 269.47 268.13 268.00 274.04 274.16 276.86 285.07 277.01 278.60 280.99 279.35 280.21 282.89 D u ra b le g o o d s Lumber and wood products........................ Furniture and fixtures ............................... Stone, clay, and glass products.................. Primary metal industries ........................... Fabricated metal products......................... 270.44 222.88 183.92 263.33 342.76 260.35 290.90 239.55 195.82 284.28 371.36 278.39 291.92 247.23 196.33 288.81 370.66 280.03 288.86 245.07 192.02 286.35 373.35 275.25 288.05 248.18 197.49 288.42 371.28 277.43 295.39 252.63 202.02 291.48 378.31 283.56 295.80 247.95 203.97 292.32 372.60 285.48 297.43 241.34 204.75 295.24 376.88 287.41 308.67 244.61 209.87 297.20 379.55 299.17 297.82 236.60 202.37 283.11 378.51 287.85 300.64 243.71 204.29 28631 38421 288.46 303.86 243.21 206.75 295.89 384.62 293.94 301.64 232.99 204.28 296.54 386.92 292.25 300.96 240.26 202.17 302.06 377.67 292.07 304.50 249.56 204.20 308.32 379.42 295.94 Machinery except electrical........................ Electric and electronic equipment................ Transportation equipment ......................... Instruments and related products................ Miscellaneous manufacturing...................... 285.44 234.55 333.80 233.54 181.97 305.98 254.70 350.99 251.74 195.16 307.55 253.53 351.44 249.08 194.11 302.41 248.69 350.10 248.65 192.89 302.82 252.89 342.23 248.46 194.78 312.66 262.04 349.61 252.75 198.35 308.76 261.55 359.31 257.86 199.41 313.50 266.02 355.78 264.55 202.12 325.80 274.23 381.31 271.05 205.40 317.89 268.13 352.40 269.37 204.86 319.14 269.74 357.94 268.87 204.58 322.04 271.20 365.22 269.18 207.19 320.21 268.88 359.79 267.85 206.21 322.32 266.45 360.19 270.82 205.90 323.95 269.21 368.68 273.10 207.26 217.88 230.26 233.55 173.72 140.26 279.71 235.80 250.17 252.70 188.26 149.32 303.74 234.04 247.16 265.59 184,78 149.88 302.60 236.38 251.83 246.56 185.54 150.17 305.15 237.98 253.08 244.78 192.23 149.88 308.42 241.96 256.59 252.06 196.66 150.73 312.99 241.92 254.00 246.24 197.06 153.01 314.27 245.92 261.30 270.44 200.72 153.79 318.75 249.77 264.62 275.01 202.11 157.24 326.25 244.92 261.10 264.08 200.41 156.29 319.82 243.90 259.62 271.58 199 92 157.53 318.85 245.07 260.52 285.39 201.23 158.95 320.12 246.13 262.58 297.58 195.91 157.44 321.99 249.10 270.75 294.14 195.02 157.09 317.82 250.65 269.79 315.17 195.23 159.84 324.31 244.78 294.14 376.27 260.63 318.44 409.97 258.43 315.17 404.05 259.56 317.34 413.66 264.54 320.19 407.22 268.33 323.53 424.65 266.25 326.51 418.07 270.23 332.54 428.29 274.70 334.22 412.38 269.33 332.35 342.45 269.73 333.22 371.99 273.05 335.69 366.03 270.11 337.79 404.01 274.91 338.64 430.10 274.53 339.49 431.11 225.77 144.32 241.38 154.03 240.54 155.08 239.19 154.24 237.60 154.09 244.22 157.87 247.86 157.32 247.44 159.34 252.75 162.26 251.88 163.32 249.38 164.50 250.80 164.16 250.11 165.88 247.26 167.24 254.23 171.16 N o n d u ra b le g o o d s Food and kindred products ........................ Tobacco manufactures ............................. Textile mill products ................................. Apparel and other textile products.............. Paper and allied products ......................... Printing and publishing............................... Chemicals and allied products.................... Petroleum and coal products...................... Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products................................... Leather and leather products...................... 302.80 325.98 321.60 327 60 334.89 336.76 337.20 342.10 341.60 337.73 338.05 340.49 344.05 342.30 348.65 W H O L E S A L E A N D R E T A IL T R A D E 153.64 164.96 165.49 168.17 167.99 167.24 166.86 167.83 170.42 170.35 170.98 172.80 171.72 172.90 175.17 W HO LESALE TRADE 228.14 247.93 247.65 249.60 250.38 252.98 253.63 255.96 261.58 258.72 259.97 262.27 263.81 265.27 268.27 R E T A IL T R A D E 130.20 138 62 139.50 142.07 141.93 139.84 139.54 140.45 142.91 142.44 142.44 143.82 142.56 144.12 145.87 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 178.00 190.77 188.08 191.14 190.60 193.86 193.67 196.38 199.47 200.19 203.28 206.18 205.62 205.41 210.76 S E R V IC E S 163.67 175.27 173.71 17616 176.29 178.22 178.65 180.93 184.01 183.63 185.25 186.88 186.30 187.02 190.64 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B L IC U T IL IT IE S . NOTE: In accordance with usual practice, BLS has revised establishment survey data to reflect a new benchmark and updated seasonal adjustment factors. Because of these revisions, establishment data in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis this table may differ from data published earlier. See technical note, page 68. 77 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data 20. Gross and spendable weekly earnings, in current and 1967 dollars, 1960 to date [Averages for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] P riv a te n o n a g ric u ltu ra l w o rk e rs M a n u fa c tu rin g w o rk e rs S p e n d a b le a v e ra g e w e e k ly ea rn in g s S p e n d a b le a v e ra g e w e e k ly e a rn in g s G ro s s a v e ra g e Y e a r a n d m o n th 1960 ...................................... w e e k ly e a rn in g s G ro s s a v e ra g e W o rk e r w ith n o M a rrie d w o rk e r w ith d e p e n d e n ts 3 d e p e n d e n ts w e e k ly e a rn in g s W o rk e r w ith no M a rrie d w o rk e r w ith d e p e n d e n ts 3 d e p e n d e n ts C u rre n t 1967 C u rre n t 1967 C u rre n t 1967 C u rre n t 1967 C u rre n t 1967 C u rre n t 1967 d o lla rs d o lla rs d o lla rs d o lla rs d o llars d o lla rs d o lla rs d o lla rs d o lla rs d o lla rs d o lla rs d o llars $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 95.45 92.19 94.82 96.47 98.31 101.01 67.08 69.56 71.05 75.04 79.32 74.87 76.78 77.48 80.78 83.94 74.48 76.99 78.56 82.57 86.63 83.13 84.98 85.67 88.88 91.67 92.34 96.56 99.23 102.97 107.53 103.06 106.58 108.21 110.84 113.79 74.60 77.86 79.51 84.40 89.08 83.26 85.94 86.71 90.85 94.26 82.18 85.53 87.25 92.18 96.78 91.72 94.40 95.15 99.22 102.41 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... 98.82 101.84 107.73 114.61 119.83 101.67 101.84 103.39 104.38 103.04 81.29 83.38 86.71 90.96 96.21 83.63 83.38 83.21 82.84 82.73 88 66 90.86 95.28 99.99 104.90 91.21 90.86 91.44 91.07 90.20 112.19 114.49 122.51 129.51 133.33 115.42 114.49 117.57 117.95 114.64 91.45 92.97 97.70 101.90 106.32 94.08 92.97 93.76 92.81 91.42 99.33 100.93 106.75 111.44 115.58 102.19 100.93 102.45 101.49 99.38 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... 127.31 136.90 145.39 154.76 163.53 104.95 109.26 109.23 104.78 101.45 103.80 112.19 117.51 124.37 132.49 85.57 89.54 88.29 84.20 82.19 112.43 121.68 127.38 134.61 145.65 92.69 97.11 95.70 91.14 90.35 142.44 154.71 166.46 176.80 190.79 117.43 123.47 125.06 119.70 118.36 114.97 125.34 132.57 140.19 151.61 94.78 100.03 99.60 94.92 94.05 124.24 135.57 143.50 151.56 166.29 102.42 108.20 107.81 102.61 103.16 1976 ...................................... 1977 ...................................... 1978r .................................... 1979' .................................... 175.45 189.00 203.70 219.30 102.90 104.13 104.30 100.73 143.30 155.19 165.39 177.55 84.05 85.50 84.69 81.56 155.87 169.93 180.71 194.35 91.42 93.63 92.53 89.27 209.32 228.90 249.27 268.94 122.77 126.12 127.63 123.54 167.83 183.80 197.40 212.43 98.43 101.27 101.08 97.58 181.32 200.06 214.87 232.07 . 106.35 110.23 110.02 106.60 1979June ............................. 219.35 101.13 177.59 81.88 194.39 89.62 269.47 124.24 219.79 98.11 232.48 107.18 July............................... August ......................... September .................... 221.76 222.48 225.54 101.08 100.44 100.82 179.35 179.87 182.10 81.75 81.21 81.40 196.26 196.83 199.15 89.45 88.86 89.03 268.13 268.00 274.04 122.21 120.99 122.50 211.88 211.79 215.89 96.57 95.62 96.51 231.46 231.36 235.94 105.50 104.45 105.47 October......................... November...................... December...................... 225.27 225.70 229.04 99.85 99.17 99.58 181.90 182.22 184.59 80.63 80.06 80.26 198.94 199.27 201.80 88.18 87.55 87.74 274.16 276.86 285.07 121.52 121.64 123.94 215.97 217.80 223.38 95.73 95.69 97.12 236.04 238.08 244.31 104.63 104.60 106.22 1980'January......................... February........................ March ........................... 225.34 226.75 229.15 96.59 95.88 95.52 181.96 182.98 184.67 77.99 77.37 76.98 199.00 200.07 201.89 85.30 84.60 84.16 277.01 278.60 280.99 118.74 117.80 117.13 217.91 218.99 220.61 93.40 92.60 91.96 238.20 239.40 241.22 102.10 101.23 100.55 April ............................. May0 ........................... June0 ........................... 228.55 229.60 233.33 94.21 93.68 (’ ) 184.25 184.98 187.59 75.95 75.47 ( 1) 201.43 202.23 205.06 83.03 82.51 (’ ) 279.35 280.21 282.89 115.15 114.32 ( 1) 219.49 220.08 221.90 90.47 89.79 (1) 239.97 240.63 242.66 98.92 98.18 (’ ) 'Not available. NOTE: The earnings expressed in 1967 dollars have been adjusted for changes in price level as measured by the Bureau’s Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. These series are described in "The Spendable Earnings Series: A Technical Note on its Cal- Digitized 78 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis culation,” E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s a n d M o n th ly R e p o rt 6-13. See also Spendable Earnings Formulas, 1978-80, o n th e L a b o r F o rc e , February 1969, pp. March 1980, E m p lo y m e n t a n d E arn in g s, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DATA n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled monthly by the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De partment of Labor from records of State and Federal unem ployment insurance claims filed and benefits paid. Railroad unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Rail road Retirement Board. ployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about onethird of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet earned benefit rights are excluded from the scope of the survey. Ini tial claims are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance programs to indicate they are out of work and wish to begin receiv ing compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The rate of insured unemployment expresses the number of insured unem ployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a 12-month period. U Definitions Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count of insured unemployment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act. An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the be ginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no ap plication is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Num ber of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods. The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all com pensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or set tlement of underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been adjusted. Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs for civilian employees, insured workers must report the completion of at least 1 week of unemployment before they are defined as unem 21. Unemployment Insurance and employment service operations [All Items except average benefits amounts are in thousands] 1 980 1979 Ite m M ay All programs: Insured unemployment.................... June A ug. July S e p t. N o v. O ct. D ec. Jan. Feb. A pr. M ar. 2,230 2,119 2,429 2,377 2,164 2,236 2,559 3,047 3,740 3,730 3,652 1,309 1,400 1,978 1,545 1,219 1,641 1,827 2,263 2,837 1,818 1,705 2,078 2.6 1,991 2.5 2,300 2.8 2,245 2.7 2,024 2.4 2,057 2.4 2,384 2.8 2,864 3.4 3,537 4.1 3,518 4.1 3,356 3.9 13,792 12,800 13,170 M ay 3,627 3,683 3,278 3.8 3,346 3.9 52 50 25 22 State unemployment insurance program:1 Insured unemployment (average weekly volume) ......................... Rate of insured unemployment ......... Weeks of unemployment 8,442 7,197 7,889 8,830 6,993 7,638 8,107 9,171 $88 37 $725,229 $87 25 $610,269 $86 40 $665,687 $88 56 $767,025 $89 07 $606,095 $90 59 $673,965 $92 39 $728,370 $94.54 $843,869 20 24 28 28 23 26 24 24 25 21 21 52 52 54 56 60 58 63 249 $24,928 A v e ra g e w e e k ly b e n e fit a m o u n t $96.41 $98.46 $99.15 $1,283,946 $1,229,877 $1,218,231 Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3 Insured unemployment (average weekly volume) ......................... Weeks of unemployment 45 45 51 52 214 $20,440 193 $18,623 216 $20,965 234 $23,861 211 $19,634 236 $23,325 232 $23,093 233 $23,093 299 $29,635 255 $25,414 12 13 16 13 13 18 15 15 19 11 12 24 23 2.5 25 25 28 29 31 34 32 30 150 $14,118 129 $12,387 123 $11,901 Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian employees:4 Insured unemployment (average weekly volume) ......................... Weeks of unemployment 106 $9,330 91 $8,341 96 $8,802 107 $9,829 91 $8,453 109 $10,093 118 $11,063 118 $11,047 3 9 15 8 13 11 10 11 22 7 5 10 29 8 19 11 20 12 26 21 32 18 51 20 36 19 41 40 80 39 71 30 68 $177.39 $5,681 $183.13 $3,314 $190.10 $3,699 $195.61 $3,767 $189.08 $5,747 $189.61 $8,003 $183.38 $6,462 $197.22 $8,085 $199.01 $14,967 $208.73 $14,573 $210.79 $13,884 10 452 2J516 11 907 3,051 13 186 3,482 14,479 3,935 15 525 4,349 1,855 458 Railroad unemployment insurance: Insured unemployment (average Average amount of benefit Employment service:5 Nonfarm placements ...................... ' Initial claims and State Insured unemployment Include data under the program for Puerto Rican sugarcane workers. 2Includes Interstate claims for the Virgin Islands. Excludes transition claims under State programs. 3Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4,378 1,044 8,553 1,816 4Includes the Virgin Islands. Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with State pro grams. 5Cumulative total for fiscal year (October 1- September 30). NOTE: Data for Puerto Rico included. Dashes indicate data not available. 79 PRICE DATA P rice d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100, u n less o th e r w is e noted). Definitions The C o n s u m e r P r ic e I n d e x is a monthly statistical measure of the average change in prices in a fixed market basket of goods and ser vices. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Sta tistics began publishing CPI’s for two groups of the population. One index, a new CPI for .11 Urban Consumers, covers 80 percent of the total noninstitutional population; and the other index, a revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covers about half the new index population. The All Urban Consumers index includes, in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, manageri al, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force. The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs, transportation fares, doctor’s and dentist’s fees, and other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quali ty of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revi sions so that only price changes will be measured. Prices are collected from over 18,000 tenants, 24,000 retail establishments, and 18,000 housing units for property taxes in 85 urban areas across the country. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index. Because the CPI’s are based on the expendi tures of two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with different buying habits. Though the CPI is often called the “Cost-of-Living Index,” it mea sures only price change, which is just one of several important factors affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the level of prices among cities. They only measure the average change in prices for each area since the base period. P r o d u c e r P r ic e I n d e x e s measure average changes in prices received in primary markets of the United States by producers of commodities in all stages of processing. The sample used for calculating these in dexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all com modities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial transactions in primary markets in the United States. Producer Price Indexes ean be organized by stage of processing or by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products by degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate or semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure organizes products by similarity of end-use or material composition. To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price In dexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the Unit ed States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. 80 FRASER Digitized for https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a vol untary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month. In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the vari ous commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights representing their importance in the total net selling value of all com modities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain in dexes for stage of processing groupings, commodity groupings, dura bility of product groupings, and a number of special composite groupings. P r ic e in d e x e s fo r th e o u tp u t o f s e le c t e d S I C in d u s tr ie s measure av erage price changes in commodities produced by particular industries, as defined in the S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la ssifica tio n M a n u a l 1 9 7 2 (Washington, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the economic activity of the specified industry and weighted by the value of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive in dustrial censuses conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Notes on the data Beginning with the May 1978 issue of the R eview , regional CPI's cross classified by population size, were introduced. These indexes will enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a better approximation of the CPI for their area by using the appropri ate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified indexes will be published bimonthly. (See table 24.) For further details about the new and the revised indexes and a comparison of various aspects of these indexes with the old unrevised CPI, see F a cts A b o u t th e R e v is e d C o n s u m e r P rice I n d e x , a pamphlet in the Consumer Price Index Revision 1978 series. See also T h e C o n s u m e r P ric e I n d e x : C o n c ep ts a n d C o n te n t O v e r th e Years. Report 517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978). For interarea comparisons of living costs at three hypothetical stan dards of living, see the family budget data published in the H a n d b o o k o f L a b o r S ta tistic s, 1977, Bulletin 1966 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1977), tables 122-133. Additional data and analysis on price changes are provided in the C P I D e ta ile d R e p o r t and P r o d u c e r P rices a n d P rice In d e x es, both monthly publications of the Bureau. As of January 1976, the Wholesale Price Index (as it was then called) incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 val ues of shipments. From January 1967 through December 1975, 1963 values of shipments were used as weights. For a discussion of the general method of computing consumer, producer, and industry price indexes, see B L S H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s f o r S u rv e y s a n d S tu d ie s, Bulletin 1910 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1976), chapters 13-15. See also John F. Early, “Improving the mea surement of producer price change,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , April 1978, pp. 7-1 5 . For industry prices, see also Bennett R. Moss, "In dustry and Sector Price Indexes,” M o n th ly L a b o r R eview , August 1965, pp. 974-82. 22. Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes, 1967-79 [1967 = 100] F o o d and A ll Ite m s A p p a re l an d H o u sin g b e v e ra g e s T ra n s p o rta tio n M e d ic a l c a re O th e r g o o d s E n te rta in m e n t upkeep a n d s e rv ic e s Year P e rc e n t In d ex change P e rc e n t In d ex change P e rc e n t In d e x change P e rc e n t In d e x change P e rc e n t In d e x change P e rc e n t P e rc e n t In d e x change In d e x change P e rc e n t In d e x change 1967 1968 1969 1970 ................ ................ ................ ................ 100.0 104.2 109.8 116.3 4.2 5.4 5.9 100.0 103.6 108.8 114.7 3.6 5.0 5.4 100.0 104.0 110.4 118.2 4.0 6.2 7.1 100.0 105.4 111.5 116.1 5.4 5.8 4.1 100.0 103.2 107.2 112.7 3.2 3.9 5.1 100.0 106.1 113.4 120.6 6.1 6.9 6.3 100.0 105.7 111.0 116.7 5.7 5.0 5.1 100.0 105.2 110.4 116.8 5.2 4.9 5.8 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 121.3 125.3 133.1 147.7 161.2 4.3 3.3 6.2 11.0 9.1 118.3 123.2 139.5 158.7 172.1 3.1 4.1 13.2 13.8 8.4 123.4 128.1 133.7 148.8 164.5 4.4 3.8 4.4 11.3 10.6 119.8 122.3 126.8 136.2 142.3 3.2 2.1 3.7 7.4 4.5 118.6 119.9 123.8 137.7 150.6 5.2 1.1 3.3 11.2 9.4 128.4 132.5 137.7 150.5 168.6 6.5 3.2 3.9 9.3 12.0 122.9 126.5 130.0 139.8 152.2 5.3 2.9 2.8 7.5 8.9 122.4 127.5 132.5 142.0 153.9 4.8 4.2 3.9 7.2 8.4 1976 1977 1978 1979 ................ ................ ................ ................ 170.5 181.5 195.3 217.7 5.8 6.5 7.6 11.5 177.4 188.0 206.2 2287 3.1 6.0 9.7 10.9 174.6 186.5 202.6 227.5 6.1 6.8 8.6 12.3 147.6 154.2 159.5 166.4 3.7 4.5 3.4 4.3 165.5 177.2 185.8 212.8 9.9 7.1 4.9 14.5 184.7 202.4 219.4 240.1 9.5 9.6 8.4 9.4 159.8 167.7 176.2 187.6 5.0 4.9 5.1 6.5 162.7 172.2 183.2 196.3 5.7 5.8 6.4 7.2 23. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, U.S. city average— general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items [1967=100 unless otherwise specified] A ll U rb an C o n s u m e rs G e n e ra l s u m m a ry 1979 U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs a n d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d ) 1980 1979 1980 M ay D ec. Jan. Feb. M ar. All i t e m s ...................................................................................................................... 214.1 229.9 233.2 236.4 239.8 242.5 244.9 214.3 230.0 233.3 Food and beverages .............................................................. Housing................................................................................ Apparel and upkeep................................................................ Transportation....................................................................... Vledical care ......................................................................... Entertainment ....................................................................... Other goods and services........................................................ 228.2 222.4 166.1 207.7 236.3 187.8 193.9 235.5 243.6 172.2 227.7 250.7 193.4 204.0 237.5 247.3 171.0 233.5 253.9 195.3 206.3 238.6 250.5 171.9 239.6 257.9 197.8 208.1 241.0 254.5 176.0 243.7 260.2 200.6 208.9 242.8 257.9 177.3 246.8 262.0 202.5 209.8 244.1 261.7 177.5 249.0 2634 204.0 211.2 228.2 222.3 165.7 208.6 236.3 187.1 193.8 235.7 243.6 171.4 228.3 251.7 192.3 203.0 237.8 247.3 169.8 234.1 254.9 193.9 206.0 Commodities......................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ................................. Nondurables less food and beverages............................... Durables ..................................................................... 205.8 192.9 195.7 189.2 219.4 208.8 219.0 199.8 222.4 212.0 224.6 201.3 225.2 215.5 231.8 202.1 228.0 218.4 237.5 203.0 229.9 220.4 239.5 204.9 231.4 222.0 240.3 207.1 206.1 193.1 196.6 188.9 219.4 208.7 220.5 198.2 222.3 212.0 226.3 199.6 Services ............................................................................ Rent, residential............................................................ Household services less rent .......................................... Transportation services................................................... Medical care services..................................................... Other services.............................................................. 229.5 173.8 260.2 209.8 254.4 197.6 249.3 182.9 289.2 224.2 270.7 207.1 253.1 184.1 295.1 226.8 274.4 209.0 256.8 185.6 300.2 229.6 279.0 211.1 261.3 186.6 307.3 233.4 281.5 212.9 265.3 187.0 313.4 238.1 283.4 214.5 269.2 188.9 319.6 241.5 284.7 215.9 229.7 173.7 261.1 210.5 254.0 198.0 249.6 182.7 291.1 224.0 271.8 207.4 Ail items less food .................................................................. All items less mortgage interest costs ........................................ Commodities less food............................................................ Nondurables less food ............................................................ Nondurables less food and apparel............................................ Nondurables ......................................................................... Services less rert .................................................................. Services less medical care...................................................... Domestically produced farm foods ............................................ Selected beef cuts.................................................................. Energy ................................................................................ All items less energy .............................................................. All items less food and energy ........................................ Commodities less food and energy................................. Energy commodities ................................................... Services less energy................................................... 208.9 208.7 191.6 193.2 210.2 212.8 2398 225.3 224.2 271.9 260.8 210.7 204.1 183.6 266.4 227.8 226.4 221.7 207.2 215.2 240.1 228.2 261.6 245.3 227.5 263.2 313.7 223.6 2181 192.6 340.0 247.6 229.9 224.3 210.4 220.5 248.6 232.0 266.1 249.2 229.2 265.7 327.9 225.9 220.6 193.7 361.5 251.6 233.5 227.1 213.8 227.3 258.2 236.3 270.2 252.7 229.1 267.2 344.6 228.0 222.8 194.9 385.0 255.2 237.1 229.8 216.7 232.6 264.1 240.3 275.4 257.4 231.2 270.2 355.0 230.8 225.7 196.5 398.5 259.6 239.9 231.8 218.6 234.6 266.5 242.2 280.0 261.5 232.7 268.0 358.8 233.4 228.5 198.2 402.3 263.5 242.6 233.7 220.2 235.5 267.9 243.2 284.4 265.7 233.6 265.6 363.2 235.7 231.0 199.9 403.0 267.0 209.1 209.1 191.8 194.0 211.0 213.2 240.1 225.6 223.9 273.1 262.2 210.8 204.0 183.3 267.3 228.0 Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 - $1 .................. $0,467 $0,435 $0,429 $0,423 $0,417 $0,412 $0,408 $0,467 A p r. M ay M ay D ec. Jan. Feb . M ar. A pr. M ay 236.5 239.9 242.6 245.1 239.0 250.5 171.5 240.2 258.7 196.2 207.7 241.2 254.4 175.1 244.3 260.9 199.5 208.3 243.2 257.8 176.1 247.7 263.1 201.3 209.2 244.7 261.7 176.8 249.9 264.9 202.4 210.6 225.3 215.7 234.1 200.3 228.1 218.7 239.8 201.2 230.1 220.6 241.7 203.3 231.7 222.3 242.6 205.4 253.6 183.9 297.2 226.6 275.6 209.3 257.3 185.5 302.4 229.3 279.8 211.4 261.7 186.4 309.6 232.7 282.2 213.5 265.8 186.9 315.8 238.0 284.5 214.6 269.9 188.7 322.2 241.5 286.3 216.5 2264 222.0 207.1 216.7 241.5 229.0 262.1 245.5 227.5 265.2 317.0 223.0 217.3 191.4 341.5 248.0 230.0 224.7 210.3 222.1 250.2 232.9 266.7 249.5 229.0 268.1 331.5 225.3 219.6 192.4 362.8 252.2 233.7 227.6 214.0 229.4 260.1 237.4 270.8 253.1 229.2 270.3 348.7 227.3 221.8 193.5 386.4 255.7 237.3 230.2 216.9 234.8 266.3 241.4 275.9 257.7 231.0 272.3 359.6 230.0 224.6 195.1 400.3 260.0 240.2 232.4 218.9 236.7 268.7 243.3 280.8 261.9 232.4 269.5 363.3 2327 227.5 196.9 404.0 264.2 242.9 234.2 220.5 237.7 270.0 244.6 285.4 266.3 233.4 267.5 367.3 235.1 230.0 198.6 404.7 267.8 $0,435 $0,429 $0,423 $0,417 $0,412 $0,408 S p e c ia l in d exes: w https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 81 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 23. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967=100 unless otherwise specified] U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs a n d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d ) All U rb a n C o n s u m e rs G e n e ra l su m m a ry FO O D A N D BEVE R A G E S ............................................................................................. M ar. M ay D ec. Jan. F eb. 228.2 235.5 237.5 238.6 241.0 244.9 247.3 1980 1979 1980 1979 M ay M ay D ec. 242.8 244.1 228.2 235.7 249.1 250.4 234.2 241.8 A pr. A pr. M ay Feb. M ar. 237.8 239.0 241.2 243.2 244.7 244.0 245.2 247.5 249.5 251.0 Jan. 234.3 241.7 243.8 Food at home .............................................................................. Cereals and bakery products..................................................... Cereals and cereal products (12/77 - 100)........................... Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 - 100).................. Cereal (12/77 - 100) ................................................. Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 - 100) ........................ Bakery products (12/77 - 100) .......................................... White bread................................................................ Other breads (12/77 - 100) ........................................ Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100)................ Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 - 100) ...................... Cookies (12/77 - 100) ............................................... Crackers and bread and cracker products (12/77 = 100) .. Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) ... Frozen and refrigerated bakery products and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 - 100) ......... 233.4 216.2 114.6 116.7 115.1 111.9 114.4 189.0 114.9 114.7 113.3 113.4 113.3 113.7 238.7 231.6 122.9 123.8 122.8 122.2 122.4 207.4 123.3 123.1 120.3 117.8 116.2 121.5 240.6 234.2 125.0 125.7 123.7 126.4 123.5 208.6 123.8 124.8 121.7 119.7 117.5 122.2 241.3 236.8 125.8 125.7 124.9 127.4 125.1 210.7 124.6 126.2 122.8 122.8 119.9 123.8 243.6 238.6 126.6 126.6 126.0 127.6 126.1 212.0 125.6 127.0 124.4 124.4 120.2 125.0 245.3 242.0 129.4 127.8 129.4 130.8 127.6 215.1 127.0 126.9 126.5 125.3 122.0 126.6 246.5 244.5 131.5 129.0 131.5 133.8 128.7 216.7 128.3 127.8 127.4 126.1 122.2 128.4 232.8 216.8 114.7 117.0 115.4 111.7 114.7 189.0 116.2 114.5 113.9 114.9 113.2 115.3 238.3 232.3 123.8 125.1 122.9 123.9 122.7 206.6 126.0 122.3 120.1 119.6 116.3 123.4 240.1 234.7 126.1 126.9 124.2 127.9 123.6 2074 126.9 123.1 120.8 121.5 118.4 124.1 241.1 237.4 127.2 127.3 125.5 129.2 125.1 209.7 127.5 124.3 122.2 124.0 121.0 125.4 243.1 239.3 127.7 127.5 126.6 129.4 126.2 212.1 129.3 124.9 123.2 125.6 121.8 126.2 245.0 242.2 130.1 128.9 129.7 131.9 127.5 215.1 129.3 125.3 125.4 126.3 122.2 128.0 246.1 244.4 132.4 129.9 132.0 135.2 128.3 216.0 130.6 126.4 126.5 126.8 123.0 129.2 116.6 124.8 125.7 127.2 127.9 129.7 131.0 114.1 121.4 122.5 123.8 124.0 125.3 126.0 Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs..................................................... Meats, poultry, and fish....................................................... Meats ....................................................................... Beef and veal.......................................................... Ground beef other than canned ............................... Chuck roast ........................................................ Round roast ........................................................ Round steak ........................................................ Sirloin steak ........................................................ Other beef and veal (12/77 - 100) ......................... Pork....................................................................... Bacon ................................................................. PorK choos .......................................................... Ham other than canned (12/77 - 100)...................... Sajsage .............................................................. Canned ham ........................................................ Other pork (12/77 - 100)...................................... Other meats............................................................ Frankfurters ........................................................ Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) ........... Other lunchmeats (12/77 - 100)............................. Lamb and organ meats (12/77 - 100)...................... Poultry ..................................................................... Fresh whole chicken ............................................. Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 - 100) ........... Other poultry (12/77 - 100) ................................... Fish and seafood ........................................................ Canned fish and seafood (12/77 - 100).................... Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 - 100)....... Eggs................................................................... 242.2 247.9 252.1 270.3 280.6 285.7 244.4 256.5 259.0 152.8 222.2 215.8 210.1 101.8 276.1 229.5 127.0 244.0 245.2 134.1 121.8 138.5 188.0 185.9 120.4 125.1 297.2 109.8 115.2 172.9 235.5 239.8 242.3 262.2 271.2 268.1 238.1 247.5 250.8 150.2 205.0 193.6 187.8 102.5 256.5 218.9 112.6 243.0 239.3 134.4 121.5 140.0 176.2 175.2 112.3 116.9 312.6 117.1 120.2 185.9 238.0 243.0 244.1 264.6 271.4 274.7 241.9 249.8 250.9 151.8 206.4 194.5 192.1 99.1 256.6 220.8 116.2 243.2 239.0 134.1 121.2 141.6 187.8 191.1 120.7 119.3 316.7 118.5 121.9 178.2 236.2 242.6 244.1 266.2 273.3 277.7 244.5 252.3 251.1 152.2 202.8 190.1 189.7 95.7 255.1 219.5 114.3 244.7 242.7 135.6 120.7 142.4 182.6 183.6 116.8 118.8 320.4 120.3 123.0 157.2 237.8 243.8 245.7 269.1 275.3 286.2 244.2 254.2 254.3 153.8 202.6 187.6 190.7 95.8 257.6 219.3 113.6 245.8 244.6 135.5 121.8 142.3 180.7 179.5 116.8 118.2 322.6 120.4 124.3 164.5 235.1 241.1 242.6 267.0 272.9 277.9 242.7 253.5 256.1 153.3 197.1 182.1 187.0 90.6 255.1 213.5 110.7 243.9 240.6 134.9 121.9 140.1 177.2 174.7 114.5 117.3 325.3 122.9 124.5 161.2 231.5 238.2 239.2 264.8 269.4 273.0 243.4 250.6 256.2 152.4 191.8 177.4 182.4 87.4 250.2 210.0 107.1 240.2 234.8 133.5 121.4 136.3 176.5 172.9 114.4 117.4 324.5 125.4 122.5 148.4 241.2 246.9 250.9 271.3 280.0 293.1 244.1 253.2 259.3 153.4 221.6 216.7 211.3 99.6 274.2 229.6 126.5 240.0 242.4 132.2 118.6 140.0 186.2 183.9 120.2 122.9 292.7 108.6 113.2 171.5 235.1 239.2 241.8 263.7 273.0 274.2 240.5 246.2 253.5 149.9 205.6 195.8 189.1 100.9 258.3 219.1 112.7 239.5 238.7 130.8 119.4 141.7 173.9 169.8 111.8 117.4 309.1 116.5 118.5 186.6 237.5 242.5 243.7 266.7 272.7 283.6 245.1 249.4 253.5 151.9 206.8 195.3 194.8 96.5 260.3 219.3 116.2 239.3 239.5 130.5 118.7 142.5 184.3 183.8 118.7 120.1 315.4 118.4 121.2 177.0 236.4 242.8 244.3 268.9 276.2 288.7 245.8 250.5 253.0 152.8 204.1 193.8 191.0 95.2 257.0 218.9 114.6 240.9 242.1 132.3 118.6 143.4 118.1 178.9 117.0 119.4 317.9 119.7 122.0 156.7 237.1 243.0 245.0 270.8 278.7 293.4 244.5 251.1 256.0 153.7 203.0 189.4 190.5 94.7 259.8 217.4 113.7 241.5 242.8 132.2 118.8 144.3 177.4 172.5 116.3 117.7 320.2 119.5 123.5 164.3 234.3 240.2 241.3 268.2 274.7 286.1 242.1 249.6 257.8 153.1 196.7 183.9 184.7 88.7 258.0 214.5 110.0 239.0 239.3 131.1 118.4 141.3 176.0 170.6 114.7 118.1 325.1 121.8 125.1 161.5 230.7 237.2 238.1 266.3 270.6 280.0 245.5 250.2 257.5 152.2 191.8 177.7 180.9 85.4 253.9 213.0 106.5 235.6 234.0 129.5 117.6 138.4 173.8 168.0 112.7 117.7 323.0 124.0 122.4 148.9 Dairy products .................................................................. Fresh milk and cream (12/77 - 100) ............................. Fresh whole milk....................................................... Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100) .................. Processed dairy products (12/77 - 100)......................... Bjtter..................................................................... Cheese (12/77 - 100)............................................. Ice cream and related products (12/77 - 100).............. Other dairy products (12/77 - 100) ........................... 203.8 114.7 188.1 114.3 115.8 199.4 116.3 115.2 112.7 216.9 122.7 201.2 122.0 122.5 214.0 122.6 122.6 117.9 218.4 123.2 202.3 122.1 123.8 216.9 123.5 124.0 119.8 219.5 123.7 203.2 122.7 124.5 218.3 124.2 124.6 120.9 220.3 124.1 204.0 122.7 125.1 218.3 124.9 125.1 121.6 222.4 124.7 204.9 123.5 127.0 219.9 126.2 128.6 124.0 226.2 127.0 208.5 125.9 129.1 222.2 127.8 131.9 126.1 204.3 115.2 188.7 114.9 116.0 201.5 116.1 115.7 112.6 217.4 122.6 200.9 122.2 123.3 216.6 122.7 124.3 118.3 218.9 123.2 201.8 122.8 124.5 219.8 123.6 125.6 120.4 219.8 123.6 202.7 123.0 125.1 220.9 124.4 125.6 121.3 221.1 124.2 203.8 123.1 126.2 220.9 125.5 127.2 121.9 223.1 124.9 204.8 124.1 128.0 222.7 126.8 130.4 123.6 226.9 127.2 208.4 126.8 129.9 225.3 128.5 132.9 125.7 Fruits and vegetables ........................................................ Fresh fruits and vegetables............................................ Fresh fruits.............................................................. Apples ................................................................ Bananas .............................................................. Oranges .............................................................. Other fresh fruits (12/77 - 100) ............................. Fresh vegetables ..................................................... Potatoes ................................................................ Lettuce................................................................ Tomatoes ............................................................ Other fresh vegetables (12/77 - 100) ...................... 226.8 231.0 249.6 229.9 212.6 267.1 135.4 213.6 203.9 194.1 219.7 122.9 230.2 230.1 234.9 221.8 225.2 256.7 121.1 225.7 207.0 227.5 227.9 128.0 229.8 227.2 233.6 230.4 221.9 236.2 122.5 221.2 203.8 197.6 216.7 132.0 228.3 223.1 235.8 239.6 238.5 231.1 121.4 211.2 203.3 198.7 184.9 125.1 232.4 229.9 245.4 250.2 243.9 238.1 127.4 215.5 203.3 208.3 201.4 125.4 240.9 245.2 257.0 265.5 242.8 240.6 136.5 234.2 201.7 271.9 201.2 134.6 246.6 255.1 264.7 276.3 249.7 243.9 140.8 246.2 210.1 279.9 230.8 140.1 224.9 228.7 245.7 224.2 209.1 259.7 134.7 213.4 203.5 195.1 217.9 123.0 228.3 228.5 233.3 220.2 222.0 249.5 121.6 224.2 199.6 231.3 224.8 128.1 227.2 224.9 232.7 230.1 219.5 231.3 122.7 217.9 200.9 193.2 213.2 130.5 225.9 220.6 234.7 237.6 234.6 228.4 121.3 207.9 199.8 191.7 184.3 123.9 230.1 227.4 245.4 249.0 240.8 240.9 126.9 211.3 200.3 203.8 197.2 123.0 239.8 244.8 255.6 264.4 243.5 234.3 135.7 235.2 198.2 281.9 197.7 135.3 245.5 254.4 263.8 277.3 244.5 237.6 140.9 246.0 205.6 288.6 2284 139.7 Processed fruits and vegetables .................................... Processed fruits (12/77 - 100)................................... Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 - 100) ................ Fruit juices and other than frozen (12/77 - 100)......... Canned and dried fruits (12/77 - 100)...................... Processed vegetables (12/77 - 100) ......................... Frozen vegetables (12/77 - 100) ........................... 224.2 116.8 112.6 115.6 121.8 108.5 107.2 232.3 121.8 116.8 123.6 124.2 111.7 110.6 234.7 122.9 117.2 125.1 125.3 113.0 111.9 236.2 123.4 117.6 126.0 125.5 114.0 113.0 237.2 123.9 117.7 127.2 125.5 114.6 112.6 238.4 125.0 119.3 128.3 126.3 114.5 113.3 239.4 125.4 118.1 129.3 127.5 115.2 114.7 222.5 116.8 113.3 115.7 120.8 107.4 107.2 230.0 121.3 115.9 123.4 123.5 110.5 110.8 231.8 122.4 116.5 124.5 124.8 111.2 111.4 233.9 123.6 117.8 126.3 125.3 112.2 111.7 235.0 123.9 116.5 127.4 125.9 113,0 111.9 236.2 124.9 118.4 128.4 126.4 113.2 113.0 237.6 125.7 117.5 129.8 127.8 113.9 114.6 Food ...................................................................................................................................... Digitized 82 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 23. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967=100 unless otherwise specified] U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs a n d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d ) All U rb a n C o n s u m e rs G e n e ra l s u m m a ry 1980 1 979 1980 1979 M ay D ec. Jan. Feb. M ar. A pr. M ay M ay D ec. Jan. Feb . M ar. A pr. Fruits and vegetables —Continued Cut corn and canned beans except lima (12/77=100) ... Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77=100)........... Other foods at home................................................................ Sugar and sweets................................................................... Candy and chewing gum (12/77-100) ................................. Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77=100).................... Other sweets (12/77=100) .......................................... Fats and oils (12/77-100) ................................................. Margarine .................................................................. Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77 -100) ......... Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77-100) ............. Nonalcoholic beverages ..................................................... Cola drinks, excluding diet cola...................................... Carbonated drinks, including diet col? (12/77-100)........... Roasted coffee .......................................................... Freeze dried and instant coffee...................................... Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77-100)........................ Other prepared foods ......................................................... Canned and packaged soup (12/77=100)........................ Frozen prepared foods (12/77-100)............................... Snacks (12/77=100)................................................... Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77-100)........... Other condiments (12/77-100) .................................... Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77=100) .................... Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77=100) .. 112.2 107.4 266.0 276.3 117.1 115.3 111.7 225.3 238.8 112.4 117.0 349.3 237.4 115.1 341.2 329.8 113.5 206.6 111.4 118.3 113.1 114.0 113.1 114.5 114.6 114.4 110.9 281.1 284.6 120.1 117.2 117.5 2330 247.7 115.7 121.1 375.4 247.2 118.7 440.7 374.3 116.3 217.4 115.9 125.6 121.3 120.1 119.5 118.9 118.6 114.5 112.9 283.5 289.8 121.3 122.2 118.7 233.9 248.3 115.3 121.9 378.5 249.5 119.9 443.2 378.2 116.8 218.8 116.5 126.0 121.8 121.4 120.8 119.6 119.4 115.2 113.9 288.0 297.5 122.4 131 5 119.5 235.9 247.9 116.4 123.6 384.5 255.9 122.3 439.6 382.2 118.3 221.8 118.1 126.6 123.4 123.6 123.7 120.7 121.2 116.0 114.8 292.0 313.5 123.8 153.0 120.4 236.8 248.8 117.9 123.7 387.1 259.3 123.5 437.6 381.7 118.6 224.1 118.0 128.2 124.1 124.9 126.0 122.2 122.2 115.6 114.7 295.1 319.5 126.3 156.9 121.3 238.3 247.9 119.8 124.8 390.3 261.7 125.6 434.0 380.2 120.7 226.6 120.5 130.4 124.8 125.2 127.1 124.4 123.1 116.0 115.1 298.1 326.8 128.9 161.4 123.6 239.5 246.1 121.4 125.8 393.0 265.4 126.2 433.5 381.9 120.7 229.1 122.0 131.3 126.1 125.4 127.9 127.6 124.6 111.0 105.7 265.3 275.6 116.9 115.4 110.4 225 1 236.9 112.1 117.4 348.4 235.6 112.9 340.3 328.6 112.3 206.5 111.6 117.3 113.6 113.6 113.9 114.2 114.2 113.0 109.1 279.9 284.1 119.9 117.6 116.6 233.7 247.8 115.8 121.5 372.3 243.4 116.4 435.3 372.9 115.5 217.2 116.3 123.9 122.2 119.0 120.2 118.7 118.6 112.7 110.4 282.6 289.6 121.2 122.7 117.5 234.9 248.8 116.1 122.3 375.6 246.5 116.4 440.1 376.8 116.2 219.1 116.8 125.1 122.8 121.1 121.4 119.7 119.5 113.4 111.9 287.3 297.1 122.2 131.6 118.5 236.5 247.9 117.2 123.8 383.0 253.6 120.2 436.8 380.4 117.5 221.7 117.9 125.5 124.7 123.1 124.6 120.5 120.3 115.4 112.3 290.9 314.1 123.9 153.8 119.3 236,8 248.3 118.5 123.4 384.4 255.4 121.1 432.3 380.3 118.1 224.0 117.6 127.1 125.3 124.0 126.6 122.2 122.0 114.3 112.7 294.6 320.8 126.5 158.6 120.0 238.3 248.3 120.0 124.4 389.2 260.1 123.4 430.4 379.2 119.6 2266 120.6 128.8 126.0 124.5 128.1 123.7 123.3 114.2 113.3 298.0 328.0 129.0 163.3 122.2 240.1 248.4 121.6 125.5 392.3 263.2 124.8 430.0 380.4 120.0 229.6 122.5 131.0 127.3 125.5 129.2 127.0 124.3 Food away from home................................................................... Lunch (12/77-100) ................................................................ Dinner (12/77-100) ................................................................ Other meals and snacks (12/77=100)........................................ 241.1 117.7 116.8 115.9 253.4 123.3 123.4 121.4 256.1 124.6 124.8 122.5 258.3 125.9 125.8 123.2 260.9 127.0 127.0 124.9 263.0 127.9 127.9 126.4 264.6 128.5 128.7 127.4 242.0 118.5 116.8 116.6 255.1 124.0 124.2 122.5 258.0 125.7 125.6 123.7 260.1 126.7 126.8 124.4 262.7 127.6 128.1 126.2 265.3 128.9 129.1 127.7 267.6 129.9 130.5 128.6 A lc o h o lic b e v e ra g e s 171.5 178.0 179.3 180.4 181.7 183.9 185.4 171.9 178.7 179.7 181.1 182.8 185.0 186.9 119.9 185.9 133.4 206.6 108.2 120.5 120.9 187.7 133.9 208.5 109.0 121.5 112.4 169.2 127.8 195.9 105.0 111.2 117.0 177.6 132.0 204.0 106.4 115.2 117.6 178.8 132.9 203.8 106.4 115.9 118.3 179.9 133.8 206.1 106.7 117.6 119.3 181.7 134.4 208.4 107.2 119.1 120.8 185.1 134.6 209.8 107.8 120.5 122.0 187.5 135.1 212.0 108.7 121.7 FO O D A N D BEVE R A G E S M ay C o n tin u e d F o o d — C o n tin u e d Food at home—Continued Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77-100)........................................ Beer and ale ........................................................................... Whiskey ................................................................................ Wine...................................................................................... Other alcoholic beverages (12/77-100)...................................... Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77=100)............................. 111.5 169.2 126.5 192.7 104.7 113.7 116.0 177.8 130.8 199.1 106.9 116.8 116.8 179.0 131.6 201.6 107.1 118.0 117.4 179.9 132.6 202.5 107.3 119.2 118.2 182.0 132.8 204.1 107.4 120.0 H O U S I N G .............................................................................................................................. 222.4 243.6 247.3 250.5 254.5 257.9 261.7 222.3 243.6 247.3 250.5 254.4 257.8 261.7 S h e l t e r ................................................................................................................................... 233.5 259.4 264.0 267.2 271.6 276.0 280.2 234.1 2604 265.1 268.3 272.7 277.2 281.6 185.6 186.6 187.0 188.9 173.7 182.7 183.9 185.5 186.4 186.9 188.7 Rent, residential............................................................................. 173.8 182.9 184.1 Other rental costs ......................................................................... Lodging while out of town.......................................................... Tenants' insurance (12/77=100) ............................................... 230.3 242.1 107.2 244.9 258.4 115.1 251.1 267.0 116.2 255.7 272.8 117.8 258.6 276.8 118.6 260.7 279.3 119.9 261.9 279.9 121.2 229.6 240.5 107.5 244.4 256.9 115.5 251.1 266.1 116.8 255.6 271.6 118.5 258.6 275.7 119.3 260.5 278.0 120.1 261.7 278.6 121.4 Homeownership............................................................................. Home purchase....................................................................... Financing, taxes, and insurance ................................................. Property insurance ............................................................ Property taxes .................................................................. Contracted mortgage interest cost........................................ Mortgage interest rates................................................. Maintenance and repairs .......................................................... Maintenance and repair services .......................................... Maintenance and repair commodities .................................... Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and equipment (12/77-100) ............................................ Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77=100)........... Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling supplies (12/77-100)............................................... Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77=100) ......... 254.9 217.6 297.2 307.1 181.2 358.4 162.0 252.4 273.2 203.8 286.9 239.9 348.3 323,1 186.0 435.3 178.3 268.3 290.4 216.6 292.5 242.1 359.8 327.7 186.7 452.8 183.7 270.6 293.2 217.6 296.3 243.0 367.7 333.7 188.2 464.0 187.5 273.7 297.1 218.9 302.0 244.0 379.9 335.7 188.2 483.0 194.4 278.8 303.2 221.4 307.7 246.5 390.6 338.9 188.4 499.4 199.4 282.9 307.9 224.3 312.9 249.7 399.7 344.9 187.6 513.6 202.4 284.9 310.1 225.8 255.9 217.6 299.2 306.9 182.7 358.9 162.2 253.4 275.5 204.0 288.7 240.2 351.6 324.5 187.4 436.1 178.4 268.9 292.8 215.8 294.6 242.3 363.4 328.8 188.2 453.7 183.8 271.9 295.9 218.4 298.4 243.0 371.6 335.2 189.9 465.0 1878 274.4 299.3 219.5 304.0 243.8 384.1 337.4 189.9 484.1 194.8 278.2 303.5 222.3 310.0 246.5 395.3 340.4 190.1 500.9 199.8 281.7 307.7 224.3 315.4 249.8 404.9 346.4 189.3 515.6 202.8 283.4 309.1 226.5 110.7 112.6 121.6 115.4 122.5 115.9 123.5 115.8 125.0 117.6 126.6 118.8 128.7 118.0 110.8 113.3 120.3 118.1 122.2 118.6 122.3 119.3 123.6 119,9 126.0 119.7 128.7 118.4 108.4 110.2 114.7 114.3 114.7 115.4 115.3 116.4 116.4 117.0 119.1 118.2 119.3 118.7 109.5 108,6 114.5 112.3 117.0 113.2 117.9 114.5 119.3 118.2 120.0 119.4 122.0 120.1 Fu el a n d o th e r u t i l i t i e s ................................................................................................... 232.2 255.1 258.6 263.8 268.0 270.5 275.9 232.5 255.7 259.2 264.4 268.7 271.0 276.4 Fuels ......................................................................................... Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas..................................................... Fuel o il............................................................................. Other fuels (6/78 = 100) ................................................... Gas (piped) and electricity ........................................................ Electricity......................................................................... Utility (piped) gas .............................................................. 274.6 364.3 375.3 100.1 251.6 214.3 296.8 311.8 488.0 507.3 126.0 270.8 224.7 332.6 318.0 514.0 534.4 132.7 273.0 226.6 335.1 327.1 539.1 561.9 136.6 278.8 233.8 336.8 333.9 553.4 577.9 138.3 284.0 237.9 343.9 337.8 556.4 580.7 139.6 288.0 241.5 347.9 346.4 556.0 580.4 139.4 298.2 248.1 364.6 274.6 364.8 375.7 100.2 251.4 214.7 295.4 311.8 489.0 508.1 126.6 270.7 224.9 331.1 318.1 515.1 534.9 133.7 273.0 226.8 333.8 327.0 540.3 562.5 137.9 278.5 233.9 335.4 333.9 554.1 577.9 139.5 283.9 238.1 342.6 337.6 557.1 580.7 140.8 287.6 241.5 346.4 346.0 557.1 580.5 141.3 297.5 248.0 362.3 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 83 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 23. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs an d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d ) All U rb a n C o n s u m e rs G e n e ra l s u m m a ry 1980 1979 1980 1979 M ay D ee. Jan. Feb . M ar. A p r. M ay M ay D ec. Jan. Feb . M ar. A p r. M ay Other utilities and public services ....................................................... Telephone services ................................................................... Local charges (12/77 - 100) ............................................... Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) .......................................... Intrastate toll calls (12/77 = 100) .......................................... Water and sewerage maintenance ............................................... 159.0 132.2 100.6 98.3 100.7 241.4 161.9 134.3 103.2 98.4 101.5 247.2 161.5 133.4 102.6 97.7 100.8 250.0 161.3 132.8 102.7 97.4 98.8 252.3 161.9 133.2 103.3 97.4 98.7 253.9 162.3 133.4 103.5 97.3 99.0 255.2 163.1 134.0 104.3 97.3 99.4 256.5 159.1 132.2 100.6 98.3 100.6 241.5 161.8 134.2 103.2 98.4 101.3 247.3 161.5 133.4 102.6 97.7 100.6 250.5 161.4 132.8 102.7 97.5 98.7 253.0 161.9 133.1 103.2 97.5 98.6 254.7 162.3 133.2 103.3 97.4 98.9 256.2 163.1 133.9 104.0 97.4 99.3 257.6 H o u s e h o ld fu rn is h in g s a n d o p e ra tio n s 189.2 195.8 196.9 199.0 201.3 203.0 204.2 188.1 193.9 194.9 196.8 199.2 200.7 201.9 Housefurnishings ............................................................................. Textile housefurnishings.............................................................. Household linens (12/77 - 100) ............................................ Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 = 100) . Furniture and bedding ................................................................ Bedroom furniture (12/77 - 100) .......................................... Sofas (12/77 - 100) .......................................................... Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 100) ........................... Other furniture (12/77 - 100)............................................... Appliances including TV and sound equipment................................. Television and sound equipment (12/77 = 100) ........................ Television ................................................................... Sound equipment (12/77 = 100) .................................... Household appliances.......................................................... Refrigerators and home freezer........................................ Laundry equipment (12/77 - 100) ................................... Other household appliances (12/77 = 100)........................ Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing machines (12/77 - 100) .......................................... Office machines, small electric appliances, and air conditioners (12/77 - 100)............................. Other household equipment (12/77 = 100).................................... Floor and window coverings, infants’ laundry cleaning and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 100) .................... Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 100) ........................ Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric kitchenware (12/77 - 100) ............................................... Lawn equipment, power tools, and other hardware (12/77 = 100) . 162.6 173.1 106.1 109.7 176.9 112.8 106.2 103.7 114.7 135.6 104.0 102.8 106.1 155.4 152.4 109.8 109.7 166.9 178.6 108.3 114.6 182.8 118.3 108.2 108.1 117.1 137.5 105.3 103.6 107.8 157.9 156.7 113.6 109.9 167.6 176.7 105.4 115.1 184.0 119.1 108.2 108.9 118.1 137.8 105.3 103.7 107.8 158.5 156.7 114.1 110.5 169.3 182.9 110.1 118.2 185.2 120.5 108.5 110.0 118.3 138.3 105.4 103.7 108.1 159.4 156.5 115.0 111.3 171.5 187.2 113.9 119.7 189.2 122.5 110.9 110.8 122.6 138.8 105.7 104.0 108.3 160.2 157.9 116.8 111.2 172.7 188.2 114.8 119.9 190.9 124.3 111.6 110.9 124.0 139.3 105.7 104.0 108.3 161.4 160.6 117.5 111.5 173.4 187.3 114.4 119.3 191.9 125.0 111.4 110.8 125.6 139.9 105.7 104.1 108.3 162.6 162.7 118.2 112.1 162.4 173.1 105.8 110.3 176.4 110.8 108.4 105.4 112.9 135.8 103.8 102.2 106.3 156.0 156.9 109.9 108.8 165.9 177.3 107.2 114.4 182.7 116.0 111.6 109.2 115.9 136.9 104.8 102.2 108.0 157.1 159.0 112.8 108.2 166.5 175.3 106.0 113.2 183.6 116.8 110.6 109.4 117.8 137.2 104.9 102.2 108.2 157.7 159.4 113.8 108.6 167.9 181.2 109.8 116.6 184.3 117.5 110.3 111.2 117.5 137.8 104.9 102.3 108.2 158.8 159.7 114.7 109.5 170.4 185.3 113.2 118.2 187.9 119.2 112.7 111.9 121.3 139.0 105.5 102.9 108.7 160.7 161.4 116.6 110.7 171.5 186.3 113.8 118.9 189.4 120.9 111.8 112.6 123.1 139.7 105.4 102.8 108.6 162.3 163.5 117.8 111.6 172.2 186.1 113.4 119.0 190.1 121.7 112.0 112.6 123.5 140.2 105.4 102.8 108.7 163.4 166.0 118.5 111.8 110.0 108.6 110.0 110.8 110.9 110.0 110.3 109.6 108.1 109.2 110.5 111.1 111.6 111.9 108.0 109.0 108.3 111.8 107.8 113.3 108.4 114.4 110.2 116.0 111.6 117.0 111.7 117.8 H O U S IN G C o n tin u e d Fu el an d o th e r u tilitie s C o n tin u e d 109.3 109.3 111.4 113.0 111.1 114.6 112.0 115.9 111.6 117.3 113.1 118.4 114.2 119.0 108.5 105.2 111.7 110.1 113.1 111.6 114.5 112.7 116.4 114.9 118.2 115.6 117.6 117.6 104.6 105.9 107.4 107.3 108.9 109.4 109.4 109.8 110.8 112.3 113.1 112.6 113.2 114.4 113.0 107.9 117.2 110.3 119.9 110.6 121.4 111.7 122.6 112.2 123.4 113.5 124.1 114.0 111.7 110.1 115.2 112.5 117.3 113.0 118.9 114.2 120.8 115.0 121.4 115.9 121.7 117.4 Housekeeping supplies..................................................................... Soaps and detergents ................................................................ Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 - 100) ........................ Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) .. Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 - 100) ............. Miscellaneous household products (12/77 - 100)........................... Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 - 100)...................................... 220.5 209.6 110.1 116.3 107.3 111.6 111.7 229.2 221.2 114.7 120.5 111.9 116.9 112.5 231.1 224.1 116.1 120.6 111.6 117.7 114.4 235.0 228.9 117.2 121.2 112.7 119.4 119.4 238.0 232.1 117,0 123.9 113.8 120.9 121.4 240.7 233.2 117.6 126.2 115.6 122.0 123.8 243.6 235.0 119.8 128.6 116.3 123.0 125.2 219.4 208.2 110.0 117.1 106.7 110.4 110.0 227.2 219.7 114.5 120.9 109.3 114.7 109.9 228.8 222.2 115.6 121.8 109.0 115.0 111.3 232.8 226.5 117.1 123.4 112.3 116.6 113.3 235.5 230.0 116.9 125.8 113.6 118.3 114.0 238.1 231.1 118.1 128.1 114.9 119.2 116.5 241.2 232.1 119.5 130.8 116.0 120.9 118.9 Housekeeping services..................................................................... Postage .................................................................................. Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and drycleaning services (12/77 = 100) .......................................... Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100) ................................. 246.2 257.3 258.1 257.3 260.0 257.3 261.6 257.3 263.6 257.3 266.0 257.3 267.6 257.3 244,9 257.2 257.5 257.2 259.2 257.2 261.1 257.2 262.7 257.2 264.3 257.3 265.6 257.3 113.8 108.5 121.2 113.4 122.9 114.0 124.2 114.7 125.4 115.8 128.3 116.5 129.4 117.2 114.1 107.6 122.3 113.4 123.3 114.4 124.6 115.5 126.1 116.0 127.8 116.2 128.5 116.7 A P P A R E L A N D U P K E E P .................................................................................................. 166.1 172.2 171.0 171.9 176.0 177.3 177.5 165.7 171.4 169.8 171.5 175.1 176.1 176.8 A p p a re l c o m m o d it ie s ........................................................................................................ 160.8 166.1 164.3 165.1 169.2 170.2 170.1 160.6 165.7 163.6 165.2 168.7 169.5 169.8 161.9 162.9 102.4 94.4 92.2 111.1 109.4 102.2 105.9 101.9 109.5 107.7 151.3 101.4 162.4 151.2 99.2 110.6 96.8 97.3 92.6 98.1 165.7 166.0 104.4 96.4 96.9 113.2 112.0 102.7 107.5 105.0 110.7 108.2 154.9 103.7 167.0 157.5 101.0 111.5 100.2 100.1 95.7 99.8 166.3 167.3 105.2 97.3 97.0 114.2 111.7 104.2 108.7 107.2 111.6 108.8 154.7 103.3 167.8 154.1 101.6 111.7 98.2 101.1 96.8 100.5 166.4 168.9 106.3 97.1 97.2 116.4 113.7 105.2 109.6 107.7 112.7 109.9 154.1 103.0 162.4 154.5 101.2 112.2 98.2 100.5 95.3 99.9 103.5 107.8 108 9 110.0 Apparel commodities less footwear............................................... Men's and boys’ ....................................................................... Men’s (12/77 - 100) .......................................................... Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 - 100) .................... Coats and jackets (12/77 = 100).................................... Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100) .................. Shirts (12/77 - 100)..................................................... Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) .................. Boys’ (12/77 - 100) .......................................................... Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 - 100) ............. Furnishings (12/77 - 100) ............................................. Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 - 100) ....... Women’s and girls’ ................................................................... Women’s (12/77 - 100)....................................................... Coats and jackets ........................................................ Dresses ....................................................................... Separates and sportswear (12/77 - 100)......................... Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 - 100).............. Suits (12/77 - 100)....................................................... Girls (12/77 - 100) ............................................................ Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 - 100)................ Separates and sportswear (12/77 - 100)......................... Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and accessories (12/77 - 100).......................................... Digitized for 84 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 158.4 160.1 101.1 98.5 94.8 107.4 103.9 100.0 102.8 99.3 107.1 103.8 153.2 102.4 164.3 170.4 99.7 105.4 93.5 99.1 98.1 96.3 163.0 165.4 104.3 100.9 98.0 112.3 110.5 100.4 106.6 102.4 111.9 107.8 154.6 102.8 170.0 165.3 98.6 108.2 95.8 102.8 100.3 102.6 161.1 162.8 102.6 98.8 95.5 112.2 108.6 98.2 105.6 99.3 111.5 108.2 151.5 100.8 166.4 161.3 96.1 108.6 91.0 100.5 97.5 99.9 161.8 162.7 102.3 98.2 93.6 112.7 109.3 97.7 106.3 99.9 110.9 109.5 151.1 100.8 163.1 160.6 97.1 110.2 88.2 98 9 95.7 98.2 166.2 165.6 104.3 99.9 96.9 115.0 111.9 98.7 107.5 102.5 112.0 109.8 155.5 103.8 167.6 169.3 99.8 111.0 91.6 101.8 98.9 100.8 167.2 166.9 105.0 101.1 96.5 116.6 111.5 99.4 108.9 104.4 113.3 110.7 155.9 103.9 168.3 167.8 101.1 111.5 90.4 102.6 99.8 101.4 166.9 168.0 105.7 101.2 97.3 117.9 112.2 100.2 109.7 105.2 114.3 111.3 154.1 102.4 162.0 163.9 100.3 111.8 88.0 102.7 99.4 101.8 158.1 160.8 101.8 97.2 97.9 106.1 105.0 102.1 101.9 98.1 106.1 103.2 152.0 102.2 173.0 162.0 98.7 106.1 95.6 96.3 95.8 92.2 162.6 165.0 104.2 96.8 99.1 109.9 111.5 103.4 105.8 103.1 110.2 106.2 153.5 102.3 167.9 155.7 99.5 109.3 98.1 101.4 97.7 102.9 160.2. 162.4 102.3 94.9 95.6 109.3 108.3 102.2 104.7 99.8 109.7 106.6 149.9 100.1 165.0 150.0 97.1 109.1 94.0 97.9 91.9 99.8 105.8 107.3 106.7 105.6 108.4 109.5 110.0 104.3 104.4 104.4 23. Continued — Consumer Price Index — U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs a n d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d ) All U rb a n C o n s u m e rs G e n e ra l s u m m a ry 1979 1980 1979 1980 M ay D ec. Jan. Feb . M ar. A p r. M ay M ay D ec. Jan. F eb. M ar. A pr. M ay Apparel commodities less footwear —Continued Infants’ and toddlers'................................................................ Other apparel commodities ....................................................... Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) ......................... Jewelry and luggage (12/77 - 100) .................................... 221.2 166.9 101.2 110.7 227.1 180.9 102.4 123.1 224.9 184.4 103.2 126.1 226.6 191.4 106.3 131.2 231.4 199.9 107.1 138.6 234.3 201.9 107.9 140.1 237.4 202.7 109.1 140.4 223.6 167.3 96.4 113.5 230.5 182.9 100.8 126.2 229.1 185.5 101.2 128.4 232.7 191.8 105.7 132.3 237.3 197.8 107.2 137.3 241.1 198.5 106.9 138.1 242,8 197.4 108.6 136.3 Footwear...................................................................................... Men’s (12/77 = 100) .............................................................. Boys' and girls' (12/77 = 100) ................................................. Womens' (12/77 = 100).......................................................... 175.0 111.8 109.3 108.3 184.3 117.3 115.8 113.8 183.7 117.8 117.3 111.6 184.6 118.3 117.9 112.1 187.0 119.0 119.5 114.2 188.3 119.7 119.5 115.6 189.3 120.0 121.3 115.8 175.2 112.2 109.8 107.7 183.8 119.4 114.7 111.8 183.3 119.3 116.9 109,4 183.9 119.4 118.0 109.5 186.3 120.9 119.5 110.9 188.1 122.4 119.5 112.6 189.3 122.7 121.5 112.9 A p p a re l s e rv ic e s 203.1 118.4 111.2 216.6 127.1 117.0 220.7 129.3 119.6 222.9 130.6 120.7 225.9 132.5 122.1 230.0 135.5 123.3 232.2 136.9 124.5 202.6 118.4 110.9 213.4 126.6 113.7 216.9 129.0 115.1 219.8 130.6 116.9 223.5 132.3 119.6 226.0 134.1 120.4 230.8 135.6 125.0 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N 207.7 227.7 233.5 239.6 243.7 246.8 249.0 208.6 228.3 234.1 240.2 244.3 247.7 249.9 P r i v a t e .................................................................................................................................... 208.1 227.5 233.5 239.8 244.0 247.0 249.2 208.8 228.2 234.1 240.4 244.6 248.0 250.1 New cars .................................................................................... Used cars.................................................................................... Gasoline ...................................................................................... Automobile maintenance and repair................................................... Body work (12/77 - 100)........................................................ Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous mechanical repair (12/77 - 100) ............................................ Maintenance and servicing (12/77 = 100) ................................... Power plant repair (12/77 = 100) .............................................. Other private transportation ............................................................ Other private transportation commodities .................................... Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 = 100) .............. Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 - 100)...................... Tires......................................................................... Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) ...................... Other private transportation services............................................ Automobile insurance ........................................................ Automobile finance charges (12/77 = 100) ........................... Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100) ... State registration ........................................................ Drivers' license (12/77 - 100) ...................................... Vehicle Inspection (12/77 = 100) ................................... Other vehicle related fees (12/77 = 100) ........................ 165.8 205.4 247.7 240.1 114.1 171.7 198.2 313.9 252.6 123.3 173.9 197.2 334.6 255.1 125.0 175.3 195.3 357.6 258.2 126.5 175.0 195.2 370.9 260.9 127.3 177.0 196.7 374.7 264.1 129.1 178.9 199.3 375.4 266.1 130.6 165.3 205.4 248.5 240.5 115.2 171.7 198.3 315.6 253.4 123.1 174.1 197.2 335.9 256.2 124.3 175.4 195.3 359.0 259.2 126.1 175.4 195.2 372.7 261.7 127.2 177.7 196.8 376.3 264.3 128.4 179.6 199.3 377.1 266.1 129.7 114.9 114.3 113.1 196.4 171.0 109.9 110.6 151.4 113.0 205.1 226.5 115.5 106.5 144.0 104.5 112.7 113.0 120.6 119.2 119.2 207.5 185.6 118.1 120.3 163.8 124.4 215.3 235.3 127.2 108.5 144.1 104.5 117.5 117.6 121.8 120.2 120.4 2098 188.4 120.9 121.9 165.8 126.6 217.6 237.1 129.9 109.1 144.2 104.7 117.5 118.8 123.2 121.3 122.5 212.6 191.2 123.9 123.5 168.5 127.3 220.4 240.2 132.1 109.8 145.2 104.8 119.0 119.6 124.1 123.1 123.5 216.5 192.7 126.4 124.3 170.1 127.2 225.0 244.0 137.4 110.8 145.3 104.7 119.7 122.0 126.1 124.7 124.4 221.3 194.1 129.8 124.8 171.2 127.1 230.6 245.2 148.6 111.5 146.4 104.7 119.7 122.7 126.6 125.9 125.1 224.5 195.3 132.2 125.4 172.6 126.5 234.5 247.1 155.0 112.1 146.4 104.7 120.4 124.0 115.8 113.8 113.3 196.9 172.1 108.6 111.6 153.8 112.4 205.4 226.4 114.8 106.8 143.9 104.3 113.5 115.8 121.8 119.3 119.6 208.4 186.4 119.3 120.6 165.7 122.4 216.3 235.2 126.5 109.2 144.0 104.2 118.3 122.2 123.6 120.4 120.9 210.6 188.0 122.4 121.4 166.3 124.0 218.7 236.8 129.4 109.8 144.1 104.5 118.3 123.8 124.8 121.3 123.1 213.6 191.7 124.0 123.9 170.6 125.0 221.5 239.7 131.3 110.9 145.3 104.5 119.7 125.4 126.1 122.8 124.0 217.1 193.2 126.1 124.7 172.5 124.4 225.7 243.8 135.2 111.6 145.5 104.4 120.2 127.0 127.4 124.2 124.6 223.1 195.8 129.1 126.2 174.9 125.1 232.6 244.9 147.8 112.2 146.5 104.4 120.3 127.8 127.8 125.4 125.4 226.7 196.7 131.5 126.5 175.6 125.0 236.8 2469 153.8 113.1 146.5 104.4 121.0 130.0 APPAREL AN D UPKEEP A p p a re l c o m m o d itie s C o n tin u e d C o n tin u e d Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100)........... Other apparel services (12/77 - 100) .............................................. P u b l i c ...................................................................................................................................... 193.3 223.0 226.8 229.5 232.1 235.9 239.5 194.2 219.1 221.9 223.9 226.1 229.7 232.9 Airline ‘are.................................................................................... Intercity bus fare ........................................................................... Intracity mass transit ..................................................................... Taxi fare ...................................................................................... Intercity train fare........................................................................... 193.7 250.1 187.9 216.2 205.2 245.5 282.2 196.4 238.5 236.3 251.1 284.7 198.5 243.1 237.2 255.4 288.5 199.7 244.0 237.2 259.9 290.7 200.8 245.6 237.2 264.3 291.5 203.0 256.4 237.3 270.0 2936 204.6 259.9 250.0 193.2 249.2 188.0 221.8 205.2 245.8 282.3 195.7 243.9 236.6 251.0 284.8 196.7 248.9 237.1 255.2 288.2 197.6 249.3 237.0 259.3 290.2 198.6 251.2 237.1 263.9 291.0 200.8 261.6 237.2 270.0 293.4 202.0 265.7 251.1 M E D IC A L C A R E 236.3 250.7 253.9 257.9 260.2 262.0 263.4 236.3 251.7 254.9 258.7 260.9 263.1 264.9 M e d ic a l c a re c o m m o d itie s 152.4 159.2 160.5 162.1 163.5 164 9 166.4 153.3 159.9 161.0 162.7 164.4 166.0 167.2 Prescription drugs ......................................................................... Anti-infective drugs (12/77 - 100)............................................. Tranquillizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100)................................... Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 100).................................... Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and prescription and supplies (12/77 = 100) ................................... Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 100) ........................... Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and respiratory agents (12/77 - 100)............................................ 140.6 110.7 113.3 107.9 146.4 114.6 118.4 111.4 147.9 115.8 119.9 112.4 149.8 117.2 121.3 113.4 150.9 117.9 122.2 113.3 152.2 118.5 122.9 114.2 153.5 118.7 124.1 114.6 141.5 111.7 113.7 108.5 147.4 116.8 118.3 112.3 148.8 118.2 119.7 113.0 150.7 119.8 121.0 114.2 152.0 120.1 122.2 114.7 153.5 120.4 122.7 115.9 154.6 120.7 123.5 116.8 117.5 111.8 123.8 117.8 126.0 118.8 128.7 119.7 130.0 120.5 131.3 121.4 133.2 122.9 117.5 112.9 123.1 118.2 124.8 119.0 127.8 120.1 129.6 121.3 131.3 122.6 132.4 124.2 109.2 112.1 112.6 113.7 115.5 117.1 118.2 110,1 113.7 114.2 115.2 116.5 118.5 119.5 Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 100) .................. Eyeglasses (12/77 = 100) ....................................................... Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs ............................. Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100)....... 109.4 106.7 169.3 108.1 114.6 110.9 177.9 113.1 115.3 111.5 179.1 113.8 116.3 112.9 180.4 114.6 117.3 114.1 182.2 115.1 118.4 115.0 184.4 115.3 119.5 116.5 186.0 116.5 110.3 107.0 170.6 109.3 115.1 110.5 178.5 114.2 115.6 111.4 179.0 115.0 116.6 112.6 180.8 115.6 118.0 114.5 183.0 116.1 119.2 115.3 185.4 116.3 120.1 116.3 186.9 117.1 M e d ic a l c a re s e rv ic e s ................................................................................................... 254.4 270.7 274.4 279.0 281.5 283.4 284.7 254.0 271.8 275.6 279.8 282.2 284.5 286.3 Professional services ..................................................................... Physicians' services.................................................................. Dental services....................................................................... Other professional services (12/77 = 100)................................... 224.3 240.7 212.4 110.2 235.9 252.5 224.5 115.1 238.9 256.0 227.4 116.6 242.9 260.2 231.5 118.1 245.3 262.3 234.1 119.5 248.2 264.8 237.2 121.7 250.3 267.5 238.8 122.2 225.3 241.4 214.6 109.4 238.3 256.5 226.1 114.8 241.7 260.3 229.5 115.9 245.5 264.1 233.4 117.4 247.8 266.2 235.7 119.3 251.2 269.7 238.9 121.1 253.5 272.3 241.2 121.6 Other medical care services............................................................ Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)........................ Hospita room................................................................... Other hospital and medical care services ............................... 290,9 115.6 363.9 114.7 312.8 123.8 389.4 122.9 317.4 125.6 395.3 124.7 322.7 127.8 403.4 126.5 325.3 128.8 405.8 127.8 325.8 129.7 408.0 128.8 326.3 130.4 410.1 129.5 289.0 114.7 361.3 113.7 313.0 123.2 388.7 122.1 317.3 124.9 393.9 123.8 322.1 126.8 3988 125.9 324.4 127.7 401.2 126,9 325.3 128.6 403.6 128.0 326.5 129.7 406.7 129.1 ................................................................................................................ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 85 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 23. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967=100 unless otherwise specified] A ll U rb a n C o n s u m e rs 1979 G e n e ra l s u m m a ry M ay U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs a n d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d ) 1980 D ec. Jan. Feb. 1979 M ar. A p r. M ay 1980 M ay D ec. Jan. F eb. M ar. A pr. M ay E N T E R T A IN M E N T ................................................................. 187.8 193.4 195.3 197.8 200.6 202.5 204.0 187.1 ' 192.3 193.9 196.2 199.5 201.3 202.4 E n te rta in m e n t c o m m o d it ie s ...................................... 188.1 195.2 197.6 200.4 203.4 205.7 207.0 186.8 192.4 194.2 196.9 200.3 202.8 203.4 Reading materials (12/77 = 100).............................................. Newspapers ............................................ Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100)......................... 109.4 212.2 111.2 115.1 223.5 116.8 116.7 226.8 118.1 117.4 227.7 119.2 119.4 232.4 120.8 120.1 234.8 120.8 121.5 237.2 122.4 109.1 211.7 111.0 114.8 223.3 116.6 116.2 226.4 117.8 117.0 227.3 118.9 119.1 232.0 120.7 119.7 234.3 120.6 121.1 236.4 122.3 Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)......................... Sport vehicles (12/77 = 100) ............................................. Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100).............. Bicycles ............................................... Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100) ...................... 109.2 110.6 105.9 158.7 106.8 112.2 112.9 107.5 167.1 111.0 113.8 115.9 117.4 108.3 174.5 112.4 117.2 118.7 109.5 177.2 112.9 118.7 120.6 111.3 178.6 113.1 118.5 119.9 112.0 179.7 113.7 106.4 107.0 102.9 158.1 104.7 107.7 105.8 106.3 167.0 111.3 108.6 107.6 170.5 111.8 106.4 170.5 111.9 110.8 109.1 107.8 174.9 112.6 112.4 110.8 109.3 177.8 113.4 114.1 113.0 110.5 179.8 114.0 114.0 112.5 110.3 180.9 114.6 Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100)......................... Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100) ...................... Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100)...................... Pet supplies and expense (12/77 = 100) ................................... 108.2 108.9 107.3 107.5 112.1 111.2 109.7 115.5 113.2 112.1 110.8 116.8 115.1 114.1 114.1 117.6 116.9 115.7 118.2 118.2 118.4 117.3 120.1 119.2 119.4 118.5 120.8 120.1 108.6 109.0 107.1 108.6 111.8 109.9 110.1 116.1 112.6 110.9 111.2 116.7 114.3 112.3 114.2 117.9 116.4 114.9 116.9 119.0 118.0 116.5 118.9 120.0 118.1 115.8 120.5 120.9 E n te rta in m e n t s e rv ic e s ...................................... 187.6 191.1 192.5 194.5 197.0 198.5 200.1 188.5 '193.0 194.4 196.0 199.1 199.9 201.8 Fees for participant sports (12/77 = 100).................................. Admissions (12/77 = 100)....................................................... Other entertainment services (12/77 = 100).................................... 111.6 113.2 108.1 113.8 116.6 108.6 114.6 117.9 109.1 116.0 118.3 111.4 117.5 119.1 113.2 119.0 118.7 114.8 120.2 118.8 116.4 111.6 113.9 108.8 '115.0 117.8 109.0 115.6 119.4 109.3 116.3 119.7 111.8 118.8 120.0 113.9 119.3 120.1 115.1 120.5 121.0 116.5 O T H E R G O O D S A N D S E R V IC E S 193.9 204.0 206.3 208.1 208.9 209.8 211.2 193.8 203.0 206.0 207.7 208.3 209.2 210.6 T o b a c c o p ro d u c ts 186.3 192.1 196.7 198.1 198.4 198.8 200.4 186.3 192.1 197.1 198.3 198.6 198.9 200.5 188.6 110.3 194.7 113.2 199.7 113.9 200.9 115.6 201.2 116.3 201.4 117.6 202.9 119.0 188.9 109.4 194.8 112.7 200.3 113.4 201.3 114.8 201.6 115.7 201.6 117.2 203.2 118.5 ..................................................................................... Cigarettes................................................................ Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)........... 193.9 203.0 204.2 206.5 208.1 209.7 211.6 193.7 202.3 204.4 206.6 207.7 209.5 210.9 Toilet goods and personal care appliances.......................................... Products for the hair, hairpieces and wigs (12/77 = 100)............. Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) ................................. Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure and eye makeup implements (12/77 = 100) ............................. Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100) 187.3 107.1 111.5 195.8 113.0 117.3 196.4 114.2 117.8 198.6 116.1 118.6 200.2 116.6 119.2 201.8 117.9 120.5 204.1 120.0 121.0 187.7 107.0 110.7 194.5 112.4 114.7 196.2 114.0 115.3 198.3 114.9 116.8 199.6 114.9 118.4 201.8 117.9 119.3 203.9 120.0 118.8 109.5 107.1 113.0 112.1 112.9 112.1 114.2 112.9 115.1 114.7 115.7 115.4 116.5 117.4 108.7 110.4 112.1 113.1 112.9 114.0 114.0 115.6 114.8 116.6 115.2 117.2 116.2 119.0 Personal care services.................................................................. Beauty parlor services for women............................................... Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . . 200.4 202.4 111.4 210.0 212.1 116.8 211.6 213.3 118.1 214.2 216.1 119.3 215.7 217.9 119.7 217.2 218.6 121.7 218.8 220.4 122.2 199.8 202.0 110.7 210.2 212.0 117.1 212.7 214.2 118.8 215.0 216.6 120.0 215.8 217.8 120.1 217.2 218.6 121.5 218.1 219.4 122.0 P e rs o n a l a n d e d u c a tio n a l e x p e n s e s .................................................................... 208.8 224.6 226.3 228.0 228.3 228.7 229.2 209.3 224.8 226.2 227.8 228.2 228.7 229.4 School books and supplies.............................................................. Personal and educational services..................................................... Tuition and other school fees ..................................................... College tuition (12/77 = 100) ............................................. Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) .................. Personal expenses (12/77 = 100)............................................. 191.6 213.2 108.7 108.9 107.5 112.3 202.5 229.9 118.1 117.3 120.9 117.3 206.0 231.4 118.3 117.6 120.9 120.1 206.5 233.3 118.5 117.8 120.9 124.4 206.9 233.6 118.6 117.9 120.9 125.0 207.1 234.0 118.6 117.9 120.9 126.1 207.1 234.7 118.6 117.9 120.9 127.8 194.2 213.4 108.6 108.9 107.4 112.3 206.0 229.7 118.2 117.3 120.7 116.3 209.8 230.6 118.4 117.6 120.7 117.7 210.4 232.5 118.6 117.8 120.7 121.4 210.7 232.9 118.7 117.9 120.7 122.1 210.9 233.4 118.7 117.9 120.7 123.3 210.9 234.2 118.7 117.9 120.7 125.1 245.1 264.5 208.8 267.1 309.7 302.1 223.5 282.2 329.9 310.5 225.0 284.7 352.5 316.7 227.9 287.6 365.5 326.3 230.9 292.0 369.3 335.2 233.4 295.7 370.1 342.6 238.9 297.6 245.8 264.4 209.3 267.8 311.4 301.6 223.0 283.4 331.3 310.0 224.4 286.0 353.8 316.2 227.2 288.7 367.2 325.6 230.2 292.0 370.8 335.2 232.6 295.1 371.6 342.8 237.9 296.5 P e rs o n a l c a re .................................................................................................. S p e c ia l in d e x e s : Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products............................. Insurance and finance ....................................................... Utilities and public transportation................................................. Housekeeping and home maintenance services ......................... Digitized 86 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis -y* 24. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure category and commodity and service group [December 1977 = 100] Size class A (1.25 million or more) Category and group 1979 Dec. Apr. Dec. 1979 1980 1979 1980 Feb. Feb. Size class D (75,000 or less) Size class C (75,000 385,000) Size class B (385,000 1.250 million) Apr. Dec. 1980 1979 1980 Feb. Apr. Dec. Feb. Apr. Northeast EXPENDITURE CATEGORY Food and beverages ............................................................................ Housing ............................................................................................. Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................ Transportation..................................................................................... Other goods and services ..................................................................... 119.0 120.6 1198 108.9 1237 117.3 111.5 112.7 122.1 122.1 122.9 109.5 129.9 120.6 114,4 114.4 125.0 124.5 126.1 112.5 133.8 122.4 116.7 114.7 122,2 121.9 123.7 109.0 127.6 120.0 113.5 114.3 125.6 124.3 126.7 107.1 135.0 121.6 115.7 116.5 129.0 127.1 130.0 111.1 140.8 122.4 117.9 117.5 125.7 123.2 132.1 1,8.5 127.0 118.9 109.8 116.3 129.1 126.0 135.5 107.3 133.1 121.3 112.2 119.2 132.7 128.8 140.2 112.7 136.2 122.5 115.7 119.6 121.8 121,2 123.2 109.8 127.3 119.0 115.1 113.1 124.2 123.4 124.8 106.8 133.5 121.4 118.9 114.8 127.4 125.2 127.9 113.0 138.1 122.7 121.5 116.0 120.5 120.4 117.2 124.1 125.3 119.5 126.5 1278 122.9 123.7 124.6 119.9 127.5 129.1 122.5 130.8 132.5 126.3 125.1 126.0 126.6 128.5 129.7 129.9 131.6 132.9 134.5 122.5 123.2 120.7 125.6 126.6 122.2 128.0 129.3 126.5 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP Commodities less food and beverages ..................................................... Services .................................................................................................. North Central EXPENDITURE CATEGORY All Items .................................................................................................. Food and beverages ............................................................................ Housing ............................................................................................. Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................ Transportation..................................................................................... Medical care....................................................................................... Entertainment ..................................................................................... Other goods and services ..................................................................... 126.3 123.2 133.1 105.6 127.9 119.6 113.9 113.6 129.6 124.9 136.7 105.2 133 5 123.2 116.9 115.4 133.2 126.8 141.1 109.2 138.1 125.3 118.9 116.2 124.6 120.2 129.3 110.9 127.5 119.3 111.0 117.7 127.2 122.6 131.5 107.1 133.4 122.2 111.5 119.4 130.9 124.9 135.8 111.2 137.6 125.0 114.0 121.5 123.7 123.4 125.9 109.0 129.1 119.7 114.4 114.0 126.4 1248 127.6 109.0 135.8 124.5 116.2 115.5 128.9 127.0 130.4 110.7 139.3 125.7 118.7 116.7 123.0 124.8 123.6 111.9 127.3 121.8 1-13.8 116.1 125.8 126.9 125.9 110.4 132.6 126.8 115.9 119.1 128.7 128.9 1291 113.6 137,4 127.4 116.1 119.8 125.4 126.4 127.7 128.1 129.6 131.8 130.9 132.8 1366 122,5 123 5 128.0 124.5 125.2 131.6 127.9 129.2 135.6 123.7 123.6 124.1 125.9 126.4 127.1 128.1 128.5 130.3 122.5 121.6 123.8 124.3 123.1 128.2 126.0 124.8 132.9 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP Commodities............................................................................................. Commodities less food and beverages ..................................................... Services .................................................................................................. South EXPENDITURE CATEGORY All items .................................................................................................. Food and beverages ............................................................................ Housing ............................................................................................. Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................ Transportation..................................................................................... Medical care....................................................................................... Entertainment ..................................................................................... Other goods and services ..................................................................... 123.1 123.5 125.0 112.2 127.6 117.7 109.5 115,8 127.1 125.0 129.1 112.5 135.7 119.7 114.5 118.5 130.7 126 4 133.9 116.4 139.7 121.9 115.7 119.3 124.6 122.9 128.4 110.3 127.8 118.3 113.9 115.1 128.0 124,4 131.9 109.6 134.7 121.6 115.4 117.7 131.7 127.0 136.7 112.9 138.4 123.3 119.8 118.1 14,3 123.9 128.4 105.7 126.4 120,7 113.8 115.5 127.9 126.0 131.8 105.5 133.7 124.8 115.9 117.5 131.3 127.8 136.6 108.2 137.2 126.4 118.3 118.8 122.5 122.5 123.9 104.8 126.3 124.9 119.4 118.3 125.9 124.0 127.7 100.9 133.1 129.0 121.6 121.5 128.3 126.2 129.7 104.7 136.5 131.2 1244 121.9 122.6 122.2 123.8 126.7 127.5 127.7 129.3 130.6 132.6 123.1 123.2 126 8 125.9 126.6 131.1 129.0 129 8 135.8 122.7 122.2 1267 126.4 126.5 130.2 128.7 129.1 135.3 121.9 121.6 123.5 124.7 125.0 127.7 127.2 127.7 129.8 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP Commodities ............................................................................................. Commodities less food and beverages ..................................................... Services .................................................................................................. West EXPENDITURE CATEGORY All items .................................................................................................. Food and beverages ............................................................................ Housing ............................................................................................. Apparel and upkeep ............................................................................ Transportation..................................................................................... Medical care....................................................................................... Entertainment ..................................................................................... Other goods and services ..................................................................... 124.8 123.4 127.0 110.0 129.9 121.9 111.1 115.5 129.6 124,2 132.9 113,6 137.4 125.6 113.5 119.2 132.8 126.5 136.3 115.7 141.2 128.8 117.8 121.2 126.6 125.8 130.2 111.5 128.8 121.3 115.9 116.5 130.6 126.9 134.6 112.4 135.8 124.8 118.6 120.3 134.1 128.8 139.1 115.8 139.2 126.9 123.1 121.5 124,5 122.9 127.8 104.4 129.0 119.9 114,9 113.6 128.1 123.8 131.0 104.2 137.1 124.6 117.8 116.3 131.4 125.7 134.8 107.7 141.2 126.7 121.0 117.7 124.3 123.7 125.4 114.9 128.2 122.7 119.2 116.4 127.1 125.7 127.1 114.7 134.8 126.2 123.6 119.7 130.4 128.0 129.7 121.8 139.6 128.9 127.5 122.5 123.1 123.0 126.9 127.0 128.1 133.2 129.5 130.8 137.2 125.3 125.1 1284 128.8 129.6 133.0 131.5 132.7 137.7 123 6 123.8 125.9 126.7 127.8 130.0 129.0 1304 1348 123.0 122.7 126.3 126.7 127.2 127.6 1298 130.6 131.2 COMMODITY AND SERVICE GROUP Commodities............................................................................................. Commodities less food and beverage...................................................... Services .................................................................................................. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 87 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 25. Consumer Price Index U.S. city average, and selected areas [1967=100 unless otherwise specified] A ll U rb a n C o n s u m e rs A re a ' U.S. city average2 ........................................................ Anchorage, Alaska (10/67= 100) .................................... Atlanta, Ga.................................................................... Baltimore, Md................................................................ Boston, Mass................................................................. Buffalo, N.Y................................................................... 1979 Jan. F eb. M ar. A pr. M ay M ay. D ec. Jan. Feb . M ar. A pr. M ay 214.1 229.9 233.2 236.4 239.8 242.5 244.9 214.3 230.0 233.3 236.5 239.9 242.6 245.1 226.5 202.5 249.1 236.9 216.0 208.7 243,1 251.6 209.6 223.1 258.0 233.2 248.4 214.1 249.1 212.4 129.7 250.3 113.8 219.5 234.5 232.5 210.3 209.6 203.5 218.2 223.3 215.3 209.5 213.9 228.4 211.0 112.5 217.1 N ew Y o rk , N .Y .-N o rth e a s te rn N .J .......................................................... 210.5 207.3 210.6 237.2 232.6 234.0 222.9 223.7 229.2 226.1 224.4 227.2 240.4 220.9 255.9 238.7 237.6 241.3 248.2 227.4 260.8 243.8 244.6 127.7 242.7 237.9 228.0 231.1 235.5 231.2 229.0 234.6 244.3 233.1 237.4 240.9 253.6 238.1 258.3 240.7 236.0 231.9 'The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard Consolidated Area Is used for New York and Chicago. 88 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 242.9 239.4 211.4 221.9 210.3 226.1 249.6 241.2 210.9 217.8 243.5 243.8 238.8 227.8 236.4 235.0 224.6 229.7 225.5 225.8 228.0 239.9 221.3 251.9 236.6 240.0 239.6 227.7 231.6 235.9 243.0 252.9 248.4 249.6 242.4 243.9 262.4 248.0 228.4 257.3 242.2 247.8 128.8 247.8 243.5 233.5 251.0 230.8 231.3 235.1 248.9 252.6 130.9 255.2 245.7 232.4 237.9 242.2 251.7 238.5 255.6 240.0 233.8 233.0 239.8 259.4 124.9 240.8 234.8 222.4 247.8 236.8 233.3 235.2 249.7 244.1 240.9 229.0 2Average of 85 cities. 232.5 250.9 232.2 215.5 246.0 232.4 229.9 223.1 239.3 243.9 234.2 227.9 229.9 241.0 233.2 233.3 257.3 241.8 269.7 220.2 233.5 234.5 226.9 220.7 247.3 251.4 255.2 244.6 232.7 254,0 230.2 240.1 215.9 227.0 233.7 235.5 247.8 243.5 241.7 123.3 236.4 220.7 211.1 228.3 212.4 216.0 232.7 247.3 233.2 214.8 248.7 233.7 228.0 235.3 245.0 234.2 227.9 230.3 239.5 232.5 234.1 231.1 Miami, Fla. (11/77=100) ............................................... Milwaukee, WIs.............................................................. Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn.-Wis......................................... 223.5 230.3 234.4 227.3 221.2 Detroit, Mich.................................................................. Honolulu, Hawaii .......................................................... Houston, Tex................................................................. Kansas City, Mo -Kansas ............................................... Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, Calif............................. San Francisco-Oakland, Calif............................................ Seattle-Everett, Wash...................................................... Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va................................................. 1980 D ec. 210,1 221.5 Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J........................................................ Pittsburgh, Pa................................................................ Portland, Oreg.-Wash...................................................... St. Louis, Mo.-lll.............................................................. San Diego, Calif............................................................. 1979 M ay Chicago, lll.-Northwestern Ind............................................ Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.................................................... Cleveland, Ohio............................................................ Dallas-Ft. Worth, Tex....................................................... Denver-Boulder, Colo...................................................... Northeast, Pa. (Scranton)............................................... U rb a n W a g e E a rn e rs a n d C le ric a l W o rk e rs (re v is e d ) 1980 234.1 235.8 239.9 255.9 242.6 2648 242.8 241.3 239.2 246.8 242.0 26. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing [1967 = 100] A nnual C o m m o d ity g ro u p in g 1980 1979 a v e ra g e 1978 Ju n e July A ug. S e p t. O c t. Nov. Dec. Jan. F e b .1 M ar. A p r. M ay June Finished goods.............................................................. 194.6 213.7 216.2 217.3 220.7 224.2 226.3 228.1 232.4 235.7 238.2 240.0 241.0 242.6 Finished consumer goods.......................................... Finished consumer foods ...................................... Cruoe ............................................................ Processec ....................................................... Nondurable goods less foods ................................. Durable goods..................................................... 192.6 206.7 215.5 204.1 195.4 165.8 212.7 223.6 227.1 221.3 221.7 180.4 215.6 224.9 224.9 222.8 227.1 181.6 217.5 223.5 231.7 220.7 233.4 181.6 221.7 228.1 214.0 227.0 '239.0 182.9 224.7 226.7 215.5 225.5 243.3 189.0 227.1 230.5 228.1 228.6 245.5 190.0 229.1 232.1 227.9 230.3 247.9 191.8 233.5 231.4 226.0 229.7 254.7 199.1 237.6 231.6 220.1 230.4 262.7 202.1 240.6 233.0 230.8 231.0 270.8 199.7 241.6 228.7 222.2 227.1 276.5 200.3 242.8 230.0 227.7 228.1 279.1 199.7 244.5 231.0 223.4 229.4 280.3 202.7 Capital equipment ................................................... 199.1 215.8 217.2 216.5 217.8 222.8 223.9 225.3 229.3 230.5 231.8 235.8 236.0 237.5 Intermediate materials, supplies, and components................ 215.5 240.3 244.6 247.5 251.0 255.0 256.3 258.7 265.9 271.6 273.2 274.5 275.8 277.7 Materials and components for manufacturing................ Materials for food manufacturing............................. Materials for nondurable manufacturing.................... Materials for durable manufacturing......................... Components for manufacturing ............................... 208.3 202.3 195.8 237.2 189.1 232.1 222.3 218.1 268.9 205.3 236.0 226.7 222.5 273.3 207.7 238.0 225.1 225.3 275.2 209.3 240.7 228.9 227.6 278.8 211.3 244.3 225.5 231.4 284.7 213.2 245.5 227.8 233.4 284.6 214.8 247.8 230.4 235.3 287.8 216.3 255.5 226.0 241.1 303.7 219.2 259.8 245.6 244.0 306.5 223.2 259.0 239.8 246.6 301.1 225.2 259.7 238.7 251.8 296.2 227.4 261.8 255.4 254.9 295.1 228.0 263.9 260.2 256.0 298.3 229.6 Materials and components for construction .................. 224.4 245.6 247.4 249.2 252.5 254.7 254.0 253.7 257.7 262.1 265.1 265.3 265.3 267.3 Processed fuels and lubricants................................... Manufacturing industries........................................ Nonmanufacturing industries................................... 296.4 270.4 320.0 349.5 293.8 404.9 364.8 304.0 425.5 384.6 311.2 458.8 r399.4 317.2 483.0 410.6 322.5 500.6 416.5 325.2 510.0 424.6 332.2 519.1 444.0 340.5 550.3 464.0 351.4 579.9 481.1 357.4 608.9 486.7 358.4 619.5 488.3 363.6 617.0 489.6 368.2 614.7 Containers ............................................................ 212.5 234.9 235.4 237.6 237.9 242.6 243.8 247.1 250.9 251.6 253.3 262.5 263.7 265.3 Supp ie s ................................................................ Manufacturing industries........................................ Nonmanufacturing industries................................... Feeds ............................................................ Other supplies ................................................. 196.9 183.6 204.0 200.2 201.9 216.1 202.7 223.2 226.2 219.2 219.6 204.2 227.8 241.3 221.5 219.6 208.6 225.4 220.8 223.1 221.2 209.4 227.5 224.0 224.9 224.9 212.2 231.7 228.9 228.9 226.4 213.7 233.3 226.9 231.2 229.2 216.3 236.1 230.4 233.9 232.5 220.9 238.7 224.4 238.3 239.0 222.5 247.8 223.3 249.6 239.9 223.3 248.7 219.1 251.6 240.7 226.8 248.1 207.1 253.5 240.8 228.4 247.5 210.6 251.9 242.3 230.2 248.8 208.1 254.1 Crude materials for further processing............................... 240.1 283.0 287.1 281.7 288.3 289.5 290.8 296.2 296.8 308.4 303.3 296.9 300.7 299.5 F IN IS H E D G O O D S IN T E R M E D IA T E M A T E R IA L S C R U D E M A T E R IA L S Foodstuffs and feedstuffs.......................................... 215.3 248.2 254.1 243.7 248.7 247.5 246.4 249.7 243.0 252.6 245.9 235.5 242.4 242.5 Nonfood materials................................................... 286.7 348.7 349.3 353.6 363.1 368.9 374.9 384.2 398.9 414.3 412.2 413.5 410.4 407.9 Nonfood materials except fuel................................. Manufacturing industries .................................... Construction..................................................... 235.4 240.8 185.7 286.6 295.9 205.4 285.2 294.0 207.2 286.1 294.9 208.6 293.3 302.8 209.9 298.1 307.8 212.6 304.6 314.9 214.8 311.6 322.5 216.6 330.1 342.1 226.0 341.7 354.9 228.7 339.4 352.1 229.7 336.9 349.0 232.4 393.8 340.2 232.9 389.8 334.6 234.2 Cruoe fuel.......................................................... Manufacturing industries .................................... Nonmanufacturing industries ............................... 463.7 481.9 459.6 563.1 601.3 544.3 570.7 610.4 550.7 586.2 629.2 563.6 604.0 651.8 577.8 612.9 662.5 585.5 617.4 667.8 589.3 634.5 688.3 603.9 636.3 690.3 605.7 664.8 725.7 628.8 663.3 723.5 627.9 677.4 740.8 639.8 690.4 756.7 650.6 695.5 762.6 655.1 Finished goods excluding foods........................................ Finished consumer goods excluding foods.................... 188.9 183.7 208.5 205.2 211.4 208.4 213.2 212.3 216.2 216.3 221.3 220.6 222.8 223.1 224.6 225.3 230.5 232.3 234.6 238.3 237.4 242.0 241.2 245.5 242.0 246.8 243.8 248.8 Intermediate materials less foods and feeds........................ 216.4 241.3 245.4 249.0 252.5 256.8 258.1 260.5 268.4 273.7 275.7 277.4 278.0 279.9 S P E C IA L G R O U P IN G S Intermediate foods and feeds .......................................... 201.0 223.0 231.0 223.1 226.6 226.0 226.9 229.8 224.8 237.5 232.3 227.5 239.7 242.1 Crude materials less agricultural products ......................... 316.6 389.5 391.7 396.9 408.6 417.0 424.1 435.0 452.9 469.3 468.4 469.4 464.6 463.7 ' Data for February 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 89 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices 27. Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings [1967=100 unless otherwise specified] A nnual Code C o m m o d ity g ro u p a n d s u b g ro u p All c o m m o d itie s All c o m m o d itie s (1 9 5 7 59 1 00) ............................................................ F arm p ro d u c ts a n d p ro c e s s e d fo o d s a n d fe e d s In d u strial c o m m o d itie s 1980 1979 a v e ra g e 1978 Ju n e July A ug. S ep t. O c t. N o v. D ec. Jan. F e b .1 M ar. A pr. M ay Ju n e 209.3 222.1 233.5 247.7 236.9 251.4 238.3 252.8 242.0 256.7 245.6 260.6 247.2 262.3 249.7 267.3 254.9 '270.2 260.2 275.6 261.5 277.5 262.3 278.3 263.7 279.7 265.2 282.5 206.6 209.4 229.0 234.0 232.2 237.5 227.5 240.6 231.8 244.2 230.6 249.0 232.3 250.6 234.6 253.1 231.9 260.6 237.0 265.9 234.9 268.2 229.2 270.7 233.9 271.2 234.2 273.0 FA R M P R O D U C T S A N D P R O C E S S E D F O O D S A N D F EED S 01 01-1 01-2 01-3 01 -4 01-5 01-6 01-7 01-8 01 -9 Farm products ..................................................................... Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables .................................... Grains.............................................................................. Livestock ......................................................................... Live poultry....................................................................... Plant and animal fibers........................................................ Fluid milk ......................................................................... Eggs................................................................................ Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ............................................... Other farm products .......................................................... 212.5 216.5 182.5 220.1 199.8 193.4 219.7 158.6 215.8 274.9 242.8 226.4 218.7 264.0 182.9 219.5 243.8 170.7 258.4 281.0 246.8 226.7 247.4 256.0 183.8 207.6 247.6 167.6 260.1 311.9 238.5 241.7 229.1 240.2 171.9 207.9 250.0 166.8 251.9 310.8 241.0 208.3 224.4 256.4 173.5 211.3 258.5 175.4 240.9 315.9 239.6 218.0 229.0 251.7 162.0 212.9 260.8 155.9 235.6 313.6 240.2 216.5 226.6 248.3 195.5 215.4 262.5 178.7 229.8 318.3 242.5 210.7 227.9 252.5 194.7 222.0 264.0 198.4 230.3 319.4 236.4 219.0 214.6 247.8 195.2 239.0 262.3 165.6 218.1 301.1 242.3 220.6 223.3 257.2 184.6 269.5 263.8 150.4 224.7 304.7 239.3 218.3 217.9 251.8 180.1 254.9 263.1 184.2 215.9 311.5 228.9 223.0 210.8 230.5 171.9 266.9 265.4 153.3 205.1 304.8 233.6 243.8 219.0 233.3 171.3 272.7 265.4 145.7 206.7 311.0 233.4 233.4 215.3 240.0 166.6 247.0 265.5 146.8 207.4 309.4 02 02-1 02-2 02-3 02-4 02-5 02-6 02-7 02-8 02-9 Processed foods and feeds..................................................... Cereal and bakery products................................................. Meats, poultry, and fish ....................................................... Dairy products................................................................... Processed fruits and vegetables............................................ Sugar and confectionery ..................................................... Beverages and beverage materials........................................ Fats and oils..................................................................... Miscellaneous processed foods ............................................ Manufactured animal feeds ................................................. 202.6 190.3 217.1 188.4 202.6 197.8 200.0 225.3 199.0 197.4 220.6 206.3 241.4 208.4 221.5 211.1 208.5 243.6 211.1 220.5 223.3 212.4 237.7 209.0 223.6 215.7 214.1 253.2 212.7 234.9 220.5 216.0 225.5 215.2 224.6 218.3 216.5 251.7 217.6 216.2 225.8 218.7 2399 218.3 225.1 217.2 217.9 253.3 219.0 219.2 224.8 219.8 234.2 218.1 223.4 218.9 218.9 246.0 220.8 224.0 227.1 222.5 239.3 219.3 222.4 222.9 221.2 241.9 222.2 222.4 229.3 223.6 242.8 219.9 222.6 234.4 221.6 235.6 223.1 224.9 228.5 225.4 239.6 221.0 222.9 235.0 224.0 225.1 225.4 219.7 233.1 229.9 239.6 220.8 223.3 287.5 224.8 226.4 223.5 219.8 231.5 228.5 231.3 . 231.5 239.2 226.0 223.3 227.8 223.6 224.5 263.6 274.8 226.0 227.9 222.4 214.7 224.7 225.1 216.8 205.4 233.1 233.5 224.8 228.9 225.2 327.4 231.4 212.1 223.2 207.3 233.8 233.1 226.6 229.9 227.3 324.7 233.6 213.0 223.0 205.4 03 03-1 03-2 03-3 03-4 03-81 03-82 Textile products and apparel ................................................... Synthetic fibers (12/75 - 100)............................................. Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) ......................... Gray fabrics (12/75 = 100)................................................. Finished fabrics (12/75 - 100) ............................................ Appare:............................................................................ Textile housefurnishings....................................................... 159.8 109.6 102.4 118.6 103.8 152.4 178.6 168.4 118.5 108.6 125.4 107.6 160.2 189.3 169.3 119.5 109.5 128.3 108.2 160.3 189.9 170.5 120.6 110.6 128.7 109.0 161.4 190.5 171.3 123.6 111.7 128.7 109.1 161.6 193.9 172.0 124.7 112.1 129.7 108.9 162.2 196.3 172.8 124.2 112.5 130.7 109.7 163.1 196.5 173.1 124.7 112.7 132.3 109.9 162.6 197.1 175.2 127.0 114.6 132.7 110.5 165.5 199.0 176.5 127.2 118.0 132.3 111.1 166.8 199.7 178.9 129.4 118.9 133.7 113,1 168.3 201.2 180.6 130.7 122.1 136.1 114.5 169.1 201.6 181.5 133.5 123.5 135.3 115.2 169.7 202.6 182.4 134.8 122.4 133.7 115.5 172.0 202.7 04 04-1 04-2 04-3 04-4 Hides, skins, leather, and related products ................................. Hides and skins.................................................................. Leather............................................................................. Footwear ......................................................................... Other leather and related products........................................ 200.0 360.5 238.6 183.0 177.0 268.0 611.0 414.6 221.1 212.3 261.9 566.5 385.2 221.8 212.1 257.9 511.9 365.9 225.4 210.9 251.1 465.3 330.0 226.9 210.1 253.9 478.8 343.6 227.5 209.7 248.9 447.6 319.8 227.9 208.4 249.2 443.9 324.8 227.9 208.0 255.7 468.8 347.6 229.1 213.1 250.9 404.8 340.3 228.0 214.8 246.8 348.7 311.0 231.8 217.9 243.6 328.6 297.6 231.9 216.3 240.7 289.7 290.4 231.9 217.5 241.0 315.7 284.4 232.1 216.0 05 05-1 05-2 05-3 05-4 05-61 05-7 Fuels and related products and power ...................................... Coal................................................................................ Coke .............................................................................. Gas fuels2 ....................................................................... Electric power................................................................... Crude petroleum3 .............................................................. Petroleum products, refined4 ............................................... 322.5 430.0 411.8 428.7 250.6 300.1 321.0 393.7 452.0 430.6 522.3 269.9 356.4 423.6 411.8 452.5 430.6 548.4 274.8 370.6 449.8 432.8 454.2 430.6 572.4 278.8 385.7 482.8 454.8 452.5 430.6 603.4 280.5 422.1 513.7 468.5 454.6 431.2 619.9 283.5 436.7 533.7 476.9 455.1 431.2 637.0 281.9 450.4 545.4 487.9 458.6 431.2 662.4 287.0 470.8 555.2 508.0 459.3 430.6 677.5 290.5 513.6 583.3 532.7 459.6 430.6 716.6 299.3 515.1 620.4 553.5 460.7 430.6 720.3 305.7 522.8 657.9 566.3 463.3 430.6 730.2 310.4 533.9 677.3 571.9 464.8 430.6 744.8 316.4 540.1 680.6 574.8 466.9 430.6 750.1 320.5 549.0 681.1 06 06-1 06-21 06-22 06-3 06-4 06-5 06-6 06-7 Chemicals and allied products................................................. Industrial chemicals5 .......................................................... Prepared paint................................................................... Paint materials .................................................................. Drugs and pharmaceuticals ................................................. Fats and oils, inedible ........................................................ Agricultural chemicals and chemical products ......................... Plastic resins and materials ................................................. Other chemicals and allied products...................................... 198.8 225.6 192.3 212.7 148.1 315.8 198.4 199.8 181.8 219.2 259.3 201.3 239.5 159.0 374.1 209.2 230.1 190.5 225.0 270.4 205.3 246.7 159.2 381.6 211.2 244.5 191.8 228.5 277.1 205.3 247.9 159.6 376.4 215.3 250.1 194.4 230.8 280.0 206.0 252.0 161.0 379.9 219.4 252,0 195.8 234.2 285.7 206.7 253.6 162.8 366.9 224.3 260.0 197.0 236.0 288.4 209.4 256.6 163.0 344.3 229.5 261.4 198.8 238.2 292.3 210.7 256.8 164.4 327.1 232.9 262.5 201.4 246.0 302.9 223.3 259.9 166.5 325.6 241.9 270.4 209.4 248.7 307.9 223.3 263.4 167.6 302.2 248.0 272.1 211.3 251.6 310.7 223.3 266.2 168.9 299.9 256.0 273.9 214.5 258.1 316.8 231.5 271.1 172.8 298.2 258.3 285.6 223.3 261.1 324.8 236.8 272.9 171.8 294.7 258.3 287.8 225.0 261.7 227.3 236.8 274.0 173.0 255.8 257.7 287.9 226.3 07 07-1 07-11 07-12 07-13 07-2 Rubber and plastic products ................................................... Rubber and rubber products................................................. Crude rubber ................................................................... Tires and tuoes................................................................. Miscellaneous rubber products.............................................. Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ............................................. 174.8 185.3 187.2 179.2 189.6 193.1 204.8 222.0 198.9 203.5 111.0 195.5 209.5 226.1 206.2 205.4 111.2 198.8 214.6 233.0 211.6 209.4 112.2 200.7 217.1 232.2 215.0 211.9 113.0 203.0 220.3 236.5 218.3 214.7 114.0 204.9 223.7 237.2 223.1 217.1 114.3 205.9 224.3 240.2 223.1 217.7 115.2 207.8 226.1 252.7 225.1 215.9 116.3 210.7 231.5 263.9 231.6 267.8 116.7 212.7 232.3 254.9 231.2 223.4 118.6 214.6 234.6 263.8 231.3 225.9 119.5 215.1 235.3 263.0 231.8 227.5 119.6 217.1 237.6 263.2 234.6 229.7 120.8 08 08-1 08-2 08-3 08-4 Lumber and wood products..................................................... Lumber............................................................................ Millwork ........................................................................... Plywood ........................................................................... Other wood products.......................................................... 276.0 322.4 235.4 235.6 211.8 299.8 354.8 258.9 238.6 238.5 300.1 355.0 252.5 249.7 237.6 304.7 365.3 2496 254.3 237.4 309.7 373.9 250.9 257.9 238.0 308.8 370.3 255.6 254.0 237.7 298.9 355.6 252.3 242.2 239.9 290.1 339.5 250.3 237.9 240.5 290.0 336.3 254.1 238.2 242.2 294.7 341.4 258.0 243.4 243.1 295.7 340.6 264.7 240.0 243.1 275.2 310.1 256.6 219.2 241.7 271.6 301.3 250.9 229.9 240.7 279.8 313.0 253.0 241.6 238.7 IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S See footnotes at end of table. Digitized 90 for FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 27. Continued— Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] A nnual Code C o m m o d ity g ro u p a n d su b g ro u p IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S 1979 1980 a v e ra g e 1978 June Ju ly Aug. S ep t. O ct. Nov. D ec. Jan. F e b .' M ar. A pr. M ay June C o n tin u e d 09 09-1 09-11 09-12 09-13 09-14 09-15 09-2 Pulp, paper, and allied products............................................... Pulp, paper, and products, excluding building paper and board ... Woodpulp......................................................................... Wastepaper ..................................................................... Paper .............................................................................. Paperboard ....................................................................... Converted paper and paperboard products ............................. Building paper and board..................................................... 195.6 195.6 266.5 191.2 206.1 179.6 185.6 187.4 216.6 217.8 308.3 207.2 227.5 199.8 207.6 180.8 218.3 219.6 320.3 207.9 228.2 201.7 209.0 178.0 222.2 223.6 320.6 206.6 229.5 206.4 214.4 179.1 223.0 224.3 320.6 206.7 230.3 209.6 214.6 182.6 227.5 229.0 337.5 206.7 238.7 211.3 217.3 183.5 229.5 231.1 338.0 220.0 241.8 212.8 219.0 183.6 231.7 233.4 338.0 221.2 242.7 215.4 221.9 184.6 237.4 239.2 356.6 222.9 245.5 221.8 227.7 186.2 239.2 240.8 356.4 223.4 247.2 223.7 229.5 191.7 241.6 243.1 359.0 224.9 2505 2259 231.3 198.7 246.5 248.0 386.8 242.5 253.6 230.2 234.6 201.3 248.9 250.3 388.0 226.1 256.5 239.2 236.1 206.8 251.3 252.7 388.0 206.6 258.3 242.7 239.3 208.9 10 10-1 10-13 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 Metals and metal products ..................................................... Iron and steel ................................................................... Steel mill products.............................................................. Nonferrous metals.............................................................. Metal containers ................................................................ Hardware ......................................................................... Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings........................................ Heating equipment.............................................................. Fabricated structural metal products...................................... Miscellaneous metal products............................................... 227.1 253.6 254.5 207.8 243.4 200.4 199.1 174.4 226.4 212.0 258.2 283.2 277.3 259.7 267.3 217.1 217.0 185.2 248.2 230.1 260.8 286.8 284.6 262.3 267.2 218.5 219.6 186.0 250.5 231.8 261.8 286.1 284.7 263.1 268.4 220.1 222.4 188.1 252.2 235.6 263.7 285.5 284.8 269.3 268.7 221.5 223.0 191.3 253.7 236.7 269.6 289.2 288.3 283.1 279.9 224.0 223.5 192.2 256.3 238.5 271.1 292.0 288.8 284.1 280.9 225.5 225.4 193.1 256.7 238.6 273.6 292.8 289.3 291.9 280.9 226.2 226.5 195.6 257.7 239.1 284.6 297.4 293.6 326.3 283.3 228.2 232.8 199.5 258.9 240.6 288.9 300.3 294.2 337.7 284.4 230.4 236.7 202.6 259.7 241.6 286.3 301.6 295.6 320.9 287.8 230.5 242.4 202.0 262.9 245.1 2846 307.0 304.1 298.9 301.1 236.9 243.7 204.2 268.2 247.1 281.9 304.7 305.5 2898 302.7 238.2 247.4 204.0 269.4 247.7 282.4 303.1 305.8 290.6 302.7 239.7 248.5 205.1 270.0 251.4 11 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-6 11-7 11-9 Machinery and equipment ....................................................... Agricultural machinery and equipment.................................... Construction machinery and equipment................................... Metalworking machinery and equipment ................................. General purpose machinery and equipment............................. Special industry machinery and equipment ............................. Electrical machinery and equipment ...................................... Miscellaneous machinery..................................................... 196.1 213.1 232.9 217.0 216.6 223.0 164.9 194.7 212.4 229.4 254.0 239.1 235.1 246.1 177.6 207.4 214.8 231.2 257.0 241.4 237.1 249.8 179.9 209.7 216.0 233.3 258.5 243.5 238.3 251.0 181.2 209.7 217.7 237.4 258.9 246.4 240.2 251.2 182.5 212.0 220.0 240.0 263.9 249.6 242.8 253.8 184.3 213.6 221.3 243.4 265.4 252.2 244.2 254.9 184.9 214.9 223.4 244.2 268.8 254.6 247.6 256.1 186.6 216.3 227.6 248.4 276.0 258.9 251.0 260.6 190.6 220.3 230.2 249.9 278.3 261.8 253.3 263.2 194.3 221.1 231.9 250.4 278.4 264.1 255.7 265.6 195.9 222.7 235.8 252.8 282.9 269.9 260.0 271.9 198.7 226.8 237.0 254.9 284.2 272.6 262.3 273.1 199.2 226.9 238.8 255.7 286.8 275.4 264.3 274.5 201.2 227.8 12 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 12-6 Furniture and household durables ............................................ Household furniture............................................................ Commercial furniture.......................................................... Floor coverings.................................................................. Household appliances ........................................................ Home electronic equipment ................................................. Other household durable goods ............................................ 160.4 173.5 201.5 141.6 153.0 90.2 203.1 170.2 185.3 221.8 146.5 160.0 92.8 220.6 170.7 185.8 222.7 149.1 161.1 90.2 223.7 171.5 186.2 222.7 150.0 162.2 90.2 226.6 172.7 188.5 222.7 150.4 162.7 90.3 231.0 175.1 190.1 223.3 152.1 163.2 90.3 245.6 176.4 193.0 223.3 152.8 164.5 90.3 248.2 177.9 194.8 225.1 152.9 165.3 90.5 254.4 183.4 197.4 226.9 159.0 166.5 91.0 287.4 185.6 198 5 231.4 158.5 168.9 91.2 295.3 184.6 196.9 232.8 160.7 169.7 88.8 287.6 183.1 198.9 233.5 161.7 170.2 88.9 266.8 184.1 200.3 233.8 163.6 172.1 89.1 265.2 185.3 202.0 235.5 162.2 174.7 89.3 266.1 13 13-11 13-2 13-3 13-4 13-5 13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 Nonmetallic mineral products................................................... Flat glass ......................................................................... Concrete ingredients .......................................................... Concrete products.............................................................. Structural clay products excluding refractories......................... Refractories ..................................................................... Asphalt roofing .................................................................. Gypsum products .............................................................. Glass containers ................................................................ Other nonmetallic minerals................................................... 222.8 172.8 217.7 214.0 197.2 216.5 292.0 229.1 244.4 275.6 246.9 184.0 243.3 243.7 216.5 232.6 323.0 251.3 265.2 302.0 249.5 184.1 245.1 245.2 220.3 240.8 328.4 251.8 265.2 310.5 249.9 184.1 245.9 246.3 222.3 241.7 325.9 252.3 265.2 309.9 254.6 184.5 246.7 248.7 223.7 242.4 333.0 254.9 265.2 336.0 256.2 184.7 248.3 250.1 221.1 244.6 337.5 255.3 265.2 341.2 257.4 185.4 249.6 250.6 221.8 247.4 347.4 256.2 265.2 342.2 259.6 1864 251.0 253.2 226.7 248.0 346.5 255.0 274.2 342.2 268.4 191.0 265.0 265.4 229.6 248.5 356.6 255.4 274.3 351.8 274.0 191.0 266.6 266.7 231.0 251.1 372.5 262.2 274.3 381.7 276.1 191.4 266.0 268.6 231.5 254.8 387.6 267.6 274.6 386.9 282.8 191.4 270.5 273.0 234.4 262.6 404.7 264.0 294.6 399.5 282.9 191.4 271.1 275.0 229.5 265.2 398.2 256.5 294.6 399.5 283.2 193.6 271.9 275.9 230.2 266.7 400.7 257.1 294.6 394.5 14 14-1 14-4 Transportation equipment (12/68 = 100)................................... Motor vehicles and equipment ............................................. Railroad equipment ............................................................ 173.5 176.0 252.8 187.5 190.1 274.7 188.4 190.8 280.6 185.9 187.8 280.9 186.6 188.6 281.6 194.2 197.1 286.3 194.8 197.4 288.2 195.6 198.2 289.0 198.7 200.7 297.5 198.2 200.1 299.3 198.8 200.8 301.3 202.6 204.9 303.9 201.1 203.1 304.6 202.2 204.4 306.2 15 15-1 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-51 15-9 Miscellaneous products.......................................................... Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition......................... Tobacco products .............................................................. Notions............................................................................. Photographic equipment and supplies .................................... Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)............................................... Other miscellaneous products ............................................. 184.3 163.2 198.5 182.0 145.7 126.4 210.6 205.2 174.7 214.4 190.6 151.6 137 9 255.8 207.0 176.9 214.8 192.0 152.0 138.2 261.4 208.9 177.6 221.3 191.9 152.2 139.5 261.4 213.1 179.8 221.9 191.9 154.3 140.7 272.5 218.9 181.1 222.1 195.7 157.4 142.9 288.3 221.4 181.2 222.2 195 8 161.2 144.0 293.3 227.4 183.0 226.6 196.8 164.3 144.1 308.8 2429 190.9 236.6 203.1 165.9 144.7 351.6 262.9 193.5 237.2 203.2 218.6 146.8 378.3 256.2 194.2 237.1 207.2 219.4 146.6 352.3 252.2 195.3 237.6 216.8 212.6 148.9 339.2 250.9 196.4 244.6 217.0 200.0 149.9 339.1 257.4 197.2 245.1 217.0 203.4 150.6 358.8 'Data for February 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. 2Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 3Includes only domestic production, 4Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month. 5Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month. 91 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices 28. Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings [1967 =100 unless otherwise specified] A nnual C o m m o d ity g ro u p in g All c o m m o d itie s — le s s fa rm p r o d u c t s ......................................... A ll fo o d s P r o c e s s e d fo o d s Industrial commodities less fuels ...................................... Selected textile mill products (Dec. 1975 = 100) ................ Hosiery ....................................................................... Underwear and nightwear............................................... Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber and manmade fibers and yarns .................................... Pharmaceutical preparations ............................................ Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork and other wood products ................................................... Special metals and metal products ................................... Fabricated metal products............................................... Copper and copper products............................................ Machinery and motive products........................................ Machinery and equipment, except electrical ........................ Agricultural machinery, including tractors ........................... Metalworking machinery ................................................. Numerically controlled machine tools (Dec. 1971 = 100) . . . . Total tractors ................................................................ Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts.................. Farm and garden tractors less parts ................................. Agricultural machinery excluding tractors less parts.............. Industrial valves ............................................................ Industrial fittings ............................................................ Abrasive grinding wheels................................................. Construction materials ................................................... 1980 1979 a v e ra g e M ay Ju n e 264.3 231.7 234.0 239.9 122.1 120.7 182.0 265.4 237.4 239.0 239.9 123.1 121.5 182.8 267.0 237.7 239.9 241.6 123.5 122.2 187.4 242.1 161.7 248.4 165.9 251.6 164.7 252.8 166.1 313.9 256.0 248.4 260.7 220.9 312.2 254.8 251.3 240.9 222.2 284.5 255.6 256.0 224.7 226.1 281.7 253.4 257.0 212.3 226.1 293.5 254.2 258.9 208.7 227.7 249.1 256.1 281.9 213.1 273.0 250.0 256.0 256.4 271.0 276.8 239.0 259.3 251.1 257.2 284.4 215.4 275.1 251.5 257.5 257.3 273.5 280.4 244.0 262.6 252.9 257.7 288.1 216.8 274.3 252.1 258.8 257.0 276.1 282.8 244.0 264.6 257.5 259.7 294.3 223.9 278.4 254.2 261.0 2590 283.5 289.9 258.4 262.1 259.0 261.7 296.8 227.0 280.0 256.1 262.0 261.7 286.6 291.5 261.3 261.4 260.8 262.5 299.9 228.7 281.8 256.8 262.7 262.6 288.6 295.9 261.3 264.1 F e b .1 M ar. A p r. M ay Ju n e 1978 June July Aug. S e p t. O c t. N o v. D ec. Jan. F e b .1 M ar. A pr. 208.4 206.4 206.7 197.2 108.8 106.3 158.9 232.0 223.8 224.7 217.0 113.5 112.7 168.3 235.4 225.4 226.4 219.0 114.0 114.1 168.5 237.5 224.7 224.8 220.3 115.1 113.0 170.8 241.4 228.5 230.8 222.0 115.8 112.7 170.8 245.3 226.9 228.9 225.9 116.4 113.3 171.2 247.0 230.0 231.8 226.9 117.0 114.6 171.6 249.5 232.2 234.2 228.5 117.2 115.3 172.9 255.7 231.2 233.3 234.7 118.9 119.2 175.3 260.9 235.8 238.6 238.0 119.3 119.4 177.4 262.6 234.7 236.8 2384 121.1 119.9 181.8 190.5 140.6 209.5 151.7 215.0 151.7 218.6 152.0 220.9 153.6 224.3 155.6 226.3 155.4 228.7 156.9 236.3 159.2 239.2 160.3 298.3 209.6 216.2 155.6 190.4 321.7 233.7 235.7 193.0 206.0 325.3 235.5 237.4 191.9 207.7 333.9 234.9 239.8 197.1 207.2 341.0 236.4 241.1 200.5 208.5 337.3 243.4 244.0 212.2 213.4 323.3 244.5 244.6 213.8 214.3 310.8 246.3 245.3 217.1 215.9 308.6 253.7 247.2 227.7 219.7 214.3 216.3 228.8 179.1 228.7 212.7 216.1 216.7 232.3 232.7 208.1 228.3 232.6 233.8 256.8 195.8 248.2 229.5 231.8 2357 255.8 260.4 222.8 250.3 235 1 235.8 260.1 202.2 251.2 231.4 233.9 237.6 257.0 260.8 222.8 252.3 236.2 238.4 261.7 204.2 253.8 233.7 237.6 239.2 258.2 262.3 224.6 254.3 238.2 243.6 265.6 206.5 256.0 238.4 244.1 243.5 260.1 264.3 224.6 256.6 240.8 246.3 269.5 208.5 261.2 241.0 247.6 245.4 261.8 272.6 239.0 258.5 242.5 250.8 272.7 208.8 262.5 244.9 250.5 251.3 263.1 276.8 239.0 256.7 244.8 251.5 276.0 211.2 266.2 245.8 251.1 252.0 266.1 276.8 239.0 255.4 1Data for February 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. 29. Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product [1967 = 100] A nnual C o m m o d ity g ro u p in g 1980 1979 a v e ra g e 1978 June July A ug. S e p t. O ct. N o v. D ec. Jan. Total durable goods ..................................................... Total nondurable goods................................................. 2049 211.9 225.8 238.8 227.6 243.7 228.0 245.8 230.1 251.1 234.6 253.7 235.3 256.2 237.0 259.3 243.8 263.2 247.1 270.2 246.6 273.1 247.2 274.0 246.4 277.3 248.3 278.4 Total manufactures....................................................... Durable................................................................ Nondurable .......................................................... 204.2 204.7 203.0 226.5 224.6 227.8 229.8 226.6 232.5 231.7 227.2 235.9 235.2 229.4 241.0 239.0 234.0 244.0 240.6 234.6 246.6 242.6 236.2 249.0 248.4 242.9 253.9 253.2 245.7 260.8 254.8 245.2 264.7 256.5 246.2 267.3 257.8 245.9 270.3 259.4 248.2 271.3 Total raw or slightly processed goods ............................. Durable................................................................ Nondurable .......................................................... 234.6 209.6 235.6 269.7 272.8 268.5 274.3 265.4 274.0 272.1 259.8 272.0 276.9 255.7 277.5 278.7 259.2 279.2 281.0 265.8 281.2 285.9 267.8 286.3 287.6 282.8 286.9 295.9 305.3 294.2 295.6 302.5 294.0 290.4 286.0 289.7 292.7 262.2 294.0 293.0 249.9 295.3 1Data for February 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. 30. Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] A n n u al 1972 SIC In d u s try d e s c rip tio n code 1980 1979 a v e ra g e 1978 June July A ug. S e p t. O ct. N ov. D ec. Jan . F e b .1 M ar. A pr. M ay Ju n e 121.9 126.6 430.2 358.2 194.6 111.8 136,0 277.0 452.5 444.1 217.0 125.5 136.0 270.8 453.1 457.5 219.3 125.5 138.8 245.8 454.8 476.0 220.1 125.5 138.1 252.1 452.9 508.4 221.0 125.5 140.2 275.0 455.1 522.1 224.0 126.7 140.2 252.1 455.5 533.9 224.7 124.2 142.0 300.0 458.9 551.3 225.6 129.3 142.0 308.3 459.2 582.7 238.8 136.6 147.3 335.4 459.6 598.0 243.2 136.6 147.3 330.0 460.7 600.6 243.6 123.4 152.6 337.5 462.9 612.3 248.4 136.6 152.6 337.5 464.4 620.2 249.4 136.6 152.6 332.9 463.3 631.3 250.1 136.6 216.7 215.2 192.5 205.2 249.1 217.1 177.8 225.3 2438 214.7 178.4 227.5 229.3 203.4 169.6 237.9 247.2 211.7 171.2 240.6 238.9 211.9 163.1 240.1 241.5 213.4 188.3 241.7 243.9 220.0 188.5 243.1 240.8 211.9 186.1 241.8 240.1 207,8 178.2 242.8 238.9 209.1 173.5 243.4 225.6 197.7 164.5 252.8 227.4 194.7 164.7 253.7 229.9 190.6 164.2 255.7 M IN IN G 1011 1092 1211 1311 1442 1455 Iron ores (12/75 - 100)............................................ Mercury ores (12/75 = 100)...................................... Bituminous coal and lignite ........................................ Crude petroleum and natural gas................................. Construction sand and gravel .................................... Kaolin and ball clay (6/76 - 100) ............................... 2011 2013 2016 2021 Meat packing plants ................................................. Sausages and other prepared meats........................... Poultry dressing plants .............................................. Creamery butter....................................................... M A N U F A C T U R IN G See footnotes at end of table. Digitized for 92FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 30. Continued — Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] 1972 A nnual 1979 In d u s try d e s c rip tio n SIC code M A N U F A C T U R IN G 1980 1978 Ju n e Ju ly Aug. S e p t. O c t. N ov. D ec. Jan. F e b .1 M ar. A pr. M ay Ju n e C o n tin u e d 2022 2024 2033 2034 2041 2044 2048 2061 2063 2067 Cheese natural and processed (12/72 = 100) .. Ice cream and frozen desserts (12/72 = 100) .. Canned fruits and vegetables.............. Dehydrated food products (12/73 = 100)............. Flour mills (12/71 = 100) .................. Rice milling................................. Prepared foods, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............. Raw cane sugar ........................ Beet sugar ................................... Chewing gum ................................. 169.6 154.8 193.2 131.3 147.0 207.6 107.3 190.7 188.5 218.0 185.6 171.5 207.5 181.0 174.6 206,8 118.9 207.0 199.7 242.2 186.3 171.5 209.9 182.0 190.9 206.8 128.1 209.0 202.0 242.9 195.4 175.0 210.5 180.7 176.9 218.7 119.4 216.8 199.4 242.9 200.8 176.1 212.0 170.0 183.5 223.5 120.9 216.7 200.0 242.9 196.8 177.5 212.9 158.2 184.2 227.3 123.6 224.3 204.7 242.9 193.6 179.9 212.2 156.2 184.4 231.8 124.3 223.3 210.6 262.3 193.9 180.1 212.2 157.3 184.1 218.1 125.0 248.4 223.2 262.3 195.4 180.9 213.4 157.6 181.7 217.5 122.0 260.5 224.6 262.3 192.9 181.5 213.6 159.0 183.6 233.0 122.6 374.9 293.2 262.3 197.4 185.0 214.8 156.4 182.6 258.0 121.8 276.0 303.1 281.9 203.6 191.4 216.3 157.5 175.9 260.4 116.8 320.2 295.4 281.9 203.6 192.1 217.4 156.4 183.3 254.5 117.2 456.1 338.0 2820 204.2 195.2 220.1 156.3 181.8 236.0 116.6 402.4 343.9 282.0 2074 2075 2077 2083 2085 2091 2092 2095 2098 2111 Cottonseed oil mills............................. Soybean oil mills................................... Animal and marine fats and oils ............. M alt......................... Distilled liquor, except brandy (12/75 = 100) ............ Canned and cured seafoods (12/73 = 100) ............. Fresh or frozen packaged fish ........................... Roasted coffee (12/72 = 100).............. Macaroni and spaghetti ........................... Cigarettes................................................... 183.1 225.6 287.9 181.5 106,7 136.4 303.8 262.3 176.9 204.6 210.4 251.1 335.3 201.4 113.6 142.1 397.6 244.2 188.6 221.4 224.5 262.8 352.0 201.4 113.6 148.5 403.7 271.0 203.5 221.5 214.1 250.0 321.4 201.4 115.7 148.2 391.5 279.2 210.4 228.9 217.9 248.6 333.8 214.9 117.1 154.0 389.2 279.2 210,4 229.1 214.9 244.7 333.7 214.9 117.1 154.3 400.1 280.0 210.4 229.2 204.7 242.4 315.2 228.2 118.1 155.6 391.4 287.5 221.5 229.2 205.6 241.9 300.7 228.2 118.1 159.8 388.4 287.5 227.7 234.3 182.4 235.1 298.1 244.1 118.6 160.9 389.7 281.3 227.7 245.8 184.4 230.4 292.6 244.1 118.7 164.0 385.5 273.9 227.7 245.9 170.4 219.3 297.3 244.1 118.7 165.7 392.6 274.0 227.7 245.9 154.8 212.6 274.0 244.1 118.7 170.2 371.5 273.9 230.5 246.1 150.5 212.5 263.0 244.1 118.9 173.2 361.6 273.9 230.5 254.2 155.1 209.1 238.3 244.1 118.9 175.3 362.8 283.1 230.5 254.3 2121 2131 2211 2221 2251 2254 2257 2261 2262 2271 Cigars .................................... Chewing and smoking tobacco........................... Weaving mills, cotton (12/72 = 100) .................. Weaving mills, synthetic (12/77 = 100) .................... Women's hosiery, except socks (12/75 = 100)............. Knit underwear mills ............................. Circular knit fabric mills (6/76 = 100).................... Finishing plants, cotton (6/76 = 100) .................. Finishing plants, synthetics, silk (6/76 = 100) .............. Woven carpets and rugs (12/75 = 100)......... 141.4 222.0 181.1 109.0 91.5 164.1 98.5 111.0 101.4 114.7 145.3 245.9 194.3 114.1 97.6 173.3 95.8 120.9 107.0 117.1 149.8 246.4 196.1 116.2 99.6 172.9 96.1 122.5 107.5 (2) 150.1 246.4 196.5 116.3 98.1 174.0 96.4 123.2 108.2 (2) 150.1 255.8 198.7 116.2 97.5 174.0 96.2 124.0 108.3 ■(*•) 149.8 260.4 201.1 116.8 98.2 174.3 96.9 126.1 109.3 (2) 150.4 260.8 201.6 117.3 100.3 174.6 98.4 126.3 109.7 (2) 150.4 260.8 201.9 117.2 100.2 178.3 98.6 126.6 109.8 (2) 151.2 260.9 204.4 118.1 103.3 182.5 99.3 128.7 110.3 (2) 154.2 265.1 206.9 118.3 103.3 184.1 100.4 129.6 109.4 (2) 151.8 267.3 209.1 119.6 103.7 186.2 103.1 131.7 110.3 (2) 152.7 274.3 210.9 122.4 104.4 186.4 103.6 131.9 111.3 (2) 152.7 274.6 211.6 121.8 105.4 187.1 104.1 133.2 112.1 (2) 157.1 274.7 211.9 120.4 105.4 190.5 104.7 133.7 111.5 (2) 2272 2281 2282 2284 2298 2311 2321 2322 2323 2327 Tufted carpets and rugs................................... Yarn mills, except wool (12/71 =100) ............. Throwing and winding mills (6/76 = 100) .............. Thread mills (6/76 = 100).................... Cordage and twine (12/77 = 100)............. Men’s and boys' suits and coats................................. Men’s and boys' shirts and nightwear.................... Men's and boys’ underwear............................. Men's and boys’ neckwear (12/75 = 100) ........... Men’s and boys’ separate trousers......................... 125.3 167.4 99.2 114.6 99.3 194.3 180.8 180.6 102.3 152.7 128.1 175.7 107.5 120.4 105.4 204.5 193.5 188.7 103.4 162.5 127.6 177.5 108.5 120.5 105.4 205.8 194.7 188.7 103.4 162.5 128.6 177.4 109.7 128.1 113.5 206.5 195.9 190.0 110.9 162.7 129.0 179.4 111.2 128.1 115.1 206.5 196.0 190.0 110.9 162.7 129.8 181.2 110.4 128.4 114.9 206.6 196.1 190.0 110.9 162.9 130.1 183.0 109.6 128.4 114.9 206.8 196.6 190.0 110.9 163.4 130.1 183.7 109.2 128.6 114.9 206.7 196.3 194.0 110.9 163.5 134.7 188.0 110.1 128.7 115.0 209.0 197.7 199.8 112.4 164.2 134.5 197.8 110.6 129.2 117.2 208.1 196.2 202.0 112.4 174.2 137.5 199.3 111.3 129.3 118.5 209.7 197.3 204.0 112.4 174.4 135.9 203.8 114.8 133.9 123.6 205.7 202.9 204.2 106.3 174.8 138.7 204.5 116.3 142.2 123.8 207.0 203.5 204.3 106,3 174.9 137.5 202.9 114.8 142.1 125.0 207.4 204.9 208.5 106.3 175.1 2328 2331 2335 2341 2342 2361 2381 2394 2396 2421 Men’s and boys’ work clothing ............................. Women’s and misses’ blouses and waists (6/78 = 100) . Women’s and misses' dresses (12/77 = 1 00). .. Women’s and children’s underwear (12/72 = 100) ....... Brassieres and allied garments (12/75 = 100) . . . . Children’s dresses and blouses (12/77 = 100)............. Fabric dress and work gloves.................. Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100) . Automotive and apparel trimmings (12/77 = 100) .. Sawmills and planing mills (12/71 =100) 195.2 (2) 100.7 132.1 111.7 <2) 214.4 99.6 106.3 228.9 209.0 100.5 105.9 143.3 117.5 102.1 243.9 106.9 114.3 250.9 2089 102.6 106.4 144.2 117.5 102.4 245.4 108.4 114.3 251.3 210.7 102.7 108.3 145.3 117.8 102.4 245.4 111.0 114.3 259.1 210.9 102.8 108.3 145.3 117,8 103.7 245.4 111.4 114.3 265.6 213.4 103.0 108.7 146.7 117.8 105.7 245.4 112.3 114.3 262.2 219.1 105.9 108.8 147.4 117.8 105.7 246.9 112.1 114.3 250.2 219.6 106.8 108.8 147.7 118.8 105.6 246.9 120.1 114.3 237.9 225.1 107.1 112.9 149.4 119.7 105.3 257.7 122.1 114.3 234.8 2336 106.6 113.8 150.0 122.9 105.3 261.7 122.8 114.3 239.3 235.4 107.2 113.9 152.4 124.9 106.0 264.8 123.4 122.3 239.1 240.9 107.6 113.9 152.4 125.4 106.0 267.5 123,4 122.3 215.7 241.7 107.7 113.9 153.2 125.4 106.0 271.1 123.4 122.3 2093 242.5 107.8 114.0 155.2 127.0 106.7 271.1 123.4 122.3 218.1 2436 2439 2448 2451 2492 2511 2512 2515 2521 2611 Softwood veneer and plywood (1?/75 = 100)... Structural wood members, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100) ......... Wood pallets and skids (12/75 = 100)......... Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)............. Particleboard (12/75 = 100) ......................... Wood household furniture (12/71 =100) .................. Upholstered household furniture (12/71 = 100)... Mattresses and bedsprings.................... Wood office furniture...................................... Pulp mills (12/73 = 100)................................... 150.1 136.2 149.4 126.5 159.7 152.4 143.1 156.3 194.4 178.5 140.7 150.0 167.0 138.0 137.4 164.0 149.4 164.1 214.2 196.6 148.1 150.0 166.9 138.2 134.3 164.5 150.0 164.5 216.8 205.4 153.4 149.9 166.8 139.6 134.7 164.6 150.2 165.8 216.8 205.7 156.0 150.8 167.9 140.7 138.5 168.0 151.6 165.8 216.8 205.8 153.1 158.2 167.9 143.0 139.5 169.3 151.8 168.9 217.6 213.5 142.9 158.2 171.0 144.0 136.8 172.3 153.8 172.3 217.6 213.9 138.9 158.2 170.5 144.1 134.5 174.5 155.7 172.3 221.9 2139 138.5 158.2 169.8 144.8 136.9 177.5 155.9 169.9 226.2 225.2 143.7 158.2 167.0 146.9 150.7 178.2 158.7 170.5 233.8 225.1 139.8 158.3 166.3 146.7 158.9 177.6 156.6 169.7 233.8 227.4 121.4 158.2 164.6 149.0 161.9 179.7 158.7 171.5 233.9 244.9 129.6 152.1 162.8 150.0 167.3 180.8 158.9 174.8 233.9 246.0 140.5 152.1 159.7 150.6 171.7 182.4 160.3 174.8 233.9 246.0 2621 2631 2647 2654 2655 2812 2821 2822 2824 2873 Paper mills, except building (12/74 = 100) . . . . Paperboard mills (12/74 = 100) .................. Sanitary paper products.................................... Sanitary food containers ........................... Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100) .. Alkalies and chlorine (12/73 = 100).............. Plastics materials and resins (6/76 = 1 0 0 )........... Synthetic rubber ...................................... Organic fiber, noncellulosic.................. Nitrogenous fertilizers (12/75 = 100) .................. 115.7 106.4 251.4 170.8 123.0 198.8 103.8 180.5 107.6 96.6 129.5 118.5 271.9 189.1 134.0 206.3 118.6 206.6 117.4 101.4 130.2 119.7 276.4 189.6 136.6 209.5 124.9 214.2 118.6 102.8 131.0 121.9 285.9 189.6 136.6 212.2 127.8 223.4 119.8 104.1 131.4 123.4 285.4 191.8 136.6 213.1 1289 223.8 123.5 106.1 135.1 125.4 286.3 195.8 138,5 214.1 132.9 225.7 123.6 108.0 136.5 126.3 288.4 198.2 138.5 216.7 133.8 228.0 123.2 111.7 136.8 127.6 290.9 199.9 142.3 217.3 134.1 230.4 122.6 113.5 139.0 131.3 295.8 202.6 143.2 220.4 138.5 240.9 124.1 114.3 139.8 132.3 303.9 204.8 143.2 226.5 139.7 244.2 124.7 119.8 142,7 134.1 311.6 207.3 143.3 227.1 140.6 243.8 127.1 122.2 145.1 137.0 312.2 212.9 145.7 234.0 145.4 255.7 128.8 123.9 146.1 141.5 318.1 216,7 147.8 238,6 147.0 258.2 131.9 124.4 146.6 143.1 321.1 218.3 150.6 245.3 147.1 258.5 133.0 123.4 2874 2875 2892 2911 2951 2952 3011 Phosphatic fertilizers ............................... Fertilizers, mixing only .................... Explosives .................................... Petroleum refining (6/76 = 100) .............. Paving mixtures and blocks (12/75 = 100)......... Asphalt felts and coatings (12/75) = 100) ................ Tires and inner tubes (12/73 = 100) .................. 166.0 181.9 217.3 119.6 117.1 128.2 154.0 184.2 197.8 239.3 155.1 131.2 141.6 170.6 188.9 198.1 240,1 165.5 134.4 143.6 176.8 199.4 2056 240.7 176.6 134.9 142.7 181.2 204.3 211.1 250.3 188.9 141.6 145.8 184.2 213.2 218.3 250.8 196.4 145.6 147.6 186 9 221.6 227.0 251.7 201.0 145.6 152.2 191.2 223,4 227.1 252.5 204.8 145.7 151.9 191.4 229.2 233.2 253.6 213.9 150.0 156.1 193.0 233.2 239.8 255.2 228.4 161.5 162.7 198.7 235.7 243.1 260.5 242.2 167.8 169.5 198.3 237.3 247.9 271.3 250.4 172.6 176.5 198.8 236,4 246.0 272.6 253.0 172.6 173.6 199.0 236.8 248.9 273.6 253.2 171.6 175.0 201 4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 93 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices 30. Continued— Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries [1967=100 unless otherwise specified] A n n u al 1972 In d u s try d e s c rip tio n S IC code 1980 1979 a v e ra g e 1 978 June July Aug. S ep t. O ct. Nov. D ec. Jan. F e b .1 M ar. A pr. M ay June 171.0 169.2 111.4 181.8 135.0 155.4 198.7 131.8 151.9 265.2 173.4 169.2 112.3 172.9 135.0 158.2 201.5 131.8 151.9 265.2 173.4 177.7 113.1 155.2 135.0 160.1 201.6 131.8 152.3 265.2 173.5 178.8 114.3 161.9 135.8 160.4 202.3 131.8 152.6 265.2 173.5 179.2 114.6 150.8 135.9 160.3 204.0 131.8 153.3 265.2 173.5 179.5 115.6 153.5 135.9 160.3 204.0 131.8 153.9 274.2 173.5 179.7 116.6 164.3 143.5 160.3 205.6 131.9 157.6 274.3 173.6 180.0 117.0 160.8 145.4 157.9 206.3 131.9 157.6 274.3 173.8 182.7 118,7 146.7 146.7 158.4 213.5 132.1 157.9 274.5 173.8 183.7 120.1 140.8 146.8 158.4 213.8 132.1 157.9 294.5 173.8 184.3 120.3 137.9 146.8 158.4 213.8 140.8 157.9 294.5 173.9 184.3 121.6 134.6 146.8 158.6 213.8 140.9 158.9 294.5 3021 3031 3079 3111 3142 3143 3144 3171 3211 3221 Rubber and plastic footwear (12/71 - 100) ................................. Reclaimed rubber (12/73 = 100) ............................................... Miscellaneous plastic products (6/78 - 100)................................. Leather tanning and finishing (12/77 - 100) ................................. House slippers (12/75 = 100) ................................................... Men's footwear, except athletic (12/75 - 100) ............................. Women’s footwear, except athletic .............................................. Women’s handbags and purses (12/75 - 100) ............................. Flat glass (12/71 - 100) .......................................................... Glass containers ..................................................................... 158.7 154.3 119.1 122.5 127.1 164.1 111.4 142.7 244.3 169.6 169.1 110.7 195.8 142.0 155.4 195.4 131.8 151.8 265.2 3241 3251 3253 3255 3259 3261 3262 3263 3269 3271 Cement, hydraulic ................................................................... Brick and structural clay tile ....................................................... Ceramic wall and floor tile (12/75 - 100) .................................... Clay refractories ..................................................................... Structural clay products, n.e.c...................................................... Vitreous plumbing fixtures.......................................................... Vitreous china food utensils........................................................ Fine earthenware food utensils ................................................... Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100) ........................................ Concrete block and brick .......................................................... 251.2 230.8 107.7 221.4 176.3 189.7 268.8 228.1 122.2 202.0 283.7 259.7 113.0 236.9 187.8 206.4 290.6 236.4 129.0 232.7 285.4 261.0 120.2 246.5 188.2 210.1 297.5 238.8 131.0 232.7 285.4 263.3 120.2 246.7 192.1 212.4 297.5 238.8 131.0 235.7 2854 265.9 120.2 247.1 192.1 213.1 298.0 246.0 133.3 237.8 285.4 261.3 120.2 251.0 192.8 214.5 298.0 246.0 133.3 240.0 285.5 261.3 120.2 252.9 192.3 215.7 305.4 248.4 135.5 240.0 286.2 262.7 130.3 254.0 196.5 217.3 308.2 294.3 150.1 240.2 305.7 268.3 130.4 255.1 196.3 219.2 308.2 294.3 150.1 249.5 305.9 270.4 130.4 259.4 198.1 224.6 308.2 294.3 150.1 250.6 303.2 271.9 130.4 265.3 196.7 226.7 308.2 294.0 150.0 252.3 309.8 276.4 130.4 275.4 200.6 227.6 313.4 294.8 151.3 259.3 310.7 278.5 117.6 277.1 201.6 236.1 313.4 293.6 151.4 259.4 310.8 278.5 117.6 277.5 204.9 235.8 318.6 294.4 152.6 259.4 3273 3274 3275 3291 3297 3312 3313 3316 3317 3321 Ready-mixed concrete .............................................................. Lime (12/75 - 100).................................................................. Gypsum products..................................................................... Abrasive products (12/71 = 100)............................................... Nonclay refractories (12/74 - 100) ............................................ Blast furnaces and steel mills ..................................................... Electrometallurgical products (12/75 - 100) ................................. Cold finishing of steel shapes ..................................................... Steel pipes and tubes................................................................ Gray iron foundries (12/68 = 100) .............................................. 217.6 129.5 229.5 172.3 133.6 262.3 94.8 241.0 255.2 233.5 247.5 140.1 251.9 185.8 143.9 285.8 112.3 261.3 264.5 254.5 249.6 141.8 252.3 187.7 148.1 292.8 116.5 270.6 271.9 253.9 250.5 142.9 252.8 188.6 149.1 293.0 116.5 270.8 271.3 253.8 252.4 144.2 255.4 190.4 149.7 293.2 116.0 270.9 271.3 254.8 254.0 144.6 255.9 195.1 150.1 296.4 116.2 271.7 272.7 267.1 254.6 144.3 256.8 195.3 152.3 297.1 117.5 273.4 273:1 269.6 257.0 144.6 255.6 196.5 152.3 297.7 117.6 273.9 273.2 269.7 270.8 149.5 255.9 199.4 152.6 302.4 117.8 274.1 280.5 273.7 272.6 153.5 262.8 203.3 153.3 302.9 117.8 277.1 281.0 276.9 274.9 155.5 268.1 203.9 154.2 304.1 118.0 277.2 283.6 275.7 278.9 156.7 264.6 210.1 157.4 311,9 118.7 285.9 286.9 278.4 281.6 156.9 257.0 211.9 159.7 313.2 118.5 288.1 286.9 279.0 282.5 157.4 257.5 213.5 161.2 313.4 118.7 288.2 290.5 279.9 3333 3334 3351 3353 3354 3355 3411 3425 3431 3465 Primary aluminum ................................................................... Copper rolling and drawing........................................................ Aluminum sheet plate and foil (12/75 - 100) ............................... Aluminum extruded products (12/75 - 100) ................................. Aluminum rolling, drawing, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)............................. Metal cans ............................................................................ Hand saws and saw blades (12/72 - 100)................................... Metal sanitary ware .................................................................. Automotive stampings (12/75 = 100) .......................................... 223.2 217.4 170.2 137.6 134.3 119.7 238.5 147.9 209.1 118.8 275.2 238.5 211.7 148.8 147.6 131.6 262.2 162.5 224.1 127.1 281.4 244.9 211.2 149.6 150.3 132.7 262.2 162.8 226.4 127.8 265.5 247.4 213.6 149.8 151.9 133.1 262.9 166.3 228.9 130.9 264.2 248.2 216.7 150.0 151.9 133.5 263.5 166.4 229.2 131.6 265.2 256.0 226.3 150.7 155.2 136.9 273.8 167.1 230.1 132.4 257.8 263.2 222.6 151.3 157.4 139.9 274.6 169.5 231.7 132.4 265.7 266.6 225.0 151.7 158.0 140.5 274.7 169.8 232.9 132.4 266.1 267.0 231.0 153.2 158.8 140.7 276.6 173.1 237.8 132.4 272.4 267.0 253.1 153.5 158.9 141.0 277.3 174.6 242.1 132.4 279.6 267.8 238.7 155.5 160.8 141.2 279.5 175.4 243.1 133.0 274.2 276.0 230.1 158.0 167.6 143.8 295.1 177.8 245.5 133.8 268.2 287.0 222.9 157.6 167.7 145.2 295.2 181.3 249.7 134.1 268.6 288.6 220.4 157.7 167.7 146.5 294.9 181.7 249.9 138.1 3482 3493 3494 3498 3519 3531 3532 3533 3534 3542 Small arms ammunition (12/75 - 100) ........................................ Steel springs, except wire.......................................................... Valves and pipe fittings (12/71 - 100) ........................................ Fabricated pipe and fittings........................................................ Internal combustion engines, n.e.c................................................. Construction machinery (12/76 - 100)........................................ Mining machinery (12/72 - 100) ............................................... Oilfield machinery and equipment ............................................... Elevators and moving stairways ................................................. Machine tools, metal forming types (12/71 - 100)......................... 119.5 204.6 185.5 265.5 220.1 114.0 209.5 246.2 204.2 213.6 131.4 220.5 204.2 290.7 239.2 124.0 226.4 290.0 214.2 240.6 134.0 221.6 205.3 294.8 242.3 125.6 231.2 292.0 215.4 244.6 134.0 222.1 206.2 294.8 245.7 126.3 231.5 293.3 214.6 245.1 134.0 222.8 207.5 294.9 251.8 126.5 232.7 296.8 219.1 247.9 133.2 2237 210.4 297.3 254.2 128.9 233.1 300.5 219.4 249.8 133.6 224.1 212.5 297.4 254.9 129.4 235.4 302.8 220.6 253.7 143.2 225.6 214.3 297.4 254.9 130.9 236.4 309.1 220.9 256.7 143.2 226.1 216.9 301.7 260.5 134.6 245.8 314.2 225.6 266.1 143.2 226.6 219.6 301.8 261.8 135.7 247.1 316.2 226.1 268.1 147.3 228.4 221.3 303.5 264.2 135.8 244.8 319.0 228.8 271.2 146.3 228.9 227.3 306.8 269.2 138.0 254.1 329.5 232.6 276.1 147.1 228.9 229.1 306.9 270.2 138.7 256.2 332.9 234.1 275.7 150.2 230.1 231.2 313.8 270.3 140.0 257.1 337.4 242.5 279.8 3546 3552 3553 3576 3592 3612 3623 3631 3632 3633 Power driven hand tools (12/76 - 100) ...................................... Textile machinery (12/69 - 100) ............................................... Woodworking machinery (12/72 - 100) ...................................... Scales and balances, excluding laboratory.................................... Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves (6/76 - 100) ........................... Transformers........................................................................... Welding apparatus, electric (12/72 - 100) ................................... Household cooking equipment (12/75 - 100) ............................... Household refrigerators, freezers (6/76 - 100)............................. Household laundry equipment (12/73 - 100) ............................... 111.1 179.9 168.1 179.7 128.2 158.3 178.1 114.8 109.6 141.0 118.7 192.6 184.5 193.7 138.7 168.5 191.9 120.9 112.6 147.2 119.2 195.0 185.9 194.8 139.2 167.9 193.5 122.0 113.6 148.8 120.2 197.5 187.7 195.4 139.6 167.6 194.1 123.4 114.3 149.9 120.4 198.2 190.0 195.4 140.7 168.4 195.1 124.3 115.1 150.6 122.0 199.3 192.6 195.7 142.8 171.2 196.9 124.4 115.1 150.9 122.8 200.6 192.7 199.5 145.1 170.4 198.6 125.9 115.7 152.3 124.4 200.6 192.9 201.0 145.3 171.6 200.3 126.3 116.3 153.5 126.3 202.6 201.2 204.2 147.5 172.9 201.3 128.7 117.0 154.0 126.6 205.2 201.6 205.8 147.8 176.6 203.3 129.3 118.5 156.6 127.3 207.0 205.5 204.1 148.5 177.4 205.3 129.3 118.2 158.2 128.6 212.5 212.7 205.1 152.5 180.0 207.3 129.6 119.0 159.0 130.4 213.0 212.5 208.2 152.8 181.7 209.8 132.5 119.0 159.7 130.6 217.0 214.0 208.6 153.2 183.2 211.0 133.4 121.5 162.8 3635 3636 3641 3644 3646 3648 3671 3674 3675 3676 Household vacuum cleaners....................................................... Sewing machines (12/75 = 100) ............................................... Eiectric lamps ........................................................................ Noncurrent-carrying wiring devices (12/72 - 100) ......................... Commercial lighting fixtures (12/75 - 100) ................................... Lighting equipment, n.e.c. (12/75 - 100)...................................... Electron tubes receiving type ..................................................... Semiconductors and related devices ............................................ Electronic capacitors (12/75 - 100) ............................................ Electronic resistors (12/75 - 100) ............................................. 135.5 111.2 214.7 185.8 112.7 114.6 200.9 85.3 111.5 118.3 141.5 121.1 229.7 203.0 127.4 124.6 2264 84.7 122.1 123.2 141.6 121.8 240.8 203.3 127.9 127.6 226.5 84.2 126.7 124.0 141.7 122.2 244.3 207.7 127.9 128.2 226.6 84.3 129.3 124.6 141.9 122.2 2427 209.1 130.5 128.5 227.2 847 134.1 125.2 144.5 122.6 244.8 210.5 131.4 129.6 227.2 85.1 133.9 126.6 144,7 122.6 238.7 211.9 131.6 129.8 227.4 85.6 135.8 126.7 145.8 122.6 240.8 215.0 131.9 130.5 227.7 86.4 138.0 127.3 146.1 122.6 248.5 212.9 133.4 133.0 229.1 86.8 147.7 127.4 149.7 129.2 252.4 215.2 134.3 133.2 229.4 88.5 149.1 128.8 149.9 128.6 251.8 217.5 136.6 134.5 229.5 88.9 149.0 131.8 150.2 128.6 252.4 219.7 138.4 138.6 253.9 89.7 155.6 131.9 149.2 128.6 252.3 220.3 138.9 139.4 254.3 90.7 156.4 132.8 149.6 128.6 260.0 222.5 139.6 140.4 254.8 91.0 156.2 135.0 3678 3692 3711 3942 3944 3955 3995 3996 Electronic connectors (12/75 = 100) .......................................... Primary batteries, dry and wet ................................................... Motor vehicles and car bodies (12/75 - 100) ............................... Dolls (12/75 —100) ................................................................ Games, toys, and children’s vehicles............................................ Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 - 100)............................. Burial caskets (6/76 = 100)....................................................... Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 - 100) ................................. 118.9 162.0 115.9 103.2 172.3 105.1 113.0 116.3 126.9 172.7 124.8 109.3 183.1 116.7 121.7 124.5 133.4 172.8 125.1 111.8 183.5 117.1 123,3 128.3 134.1 172.8 122.1 112.6 184.4 118.3 123.8 128.3 137.6 172.8 122.5 112.6 185.1 118.7 124.8 128.3 138 9 173.1 130.2 112.9 186.2 123.1 123.1 131.0 140.7 173.1 130.1 112.9 186.3 125.2 124.8 134.1 142.1 174.1 130.4 113.0 186.6 125.2 124.8 134.1 145,1 174.2 132.7 122.7 198,7 126.2 128.3 138.6 146.4 176.5 131.6 125.4 203.8 128.2 128.3 138.7 145.1 176.6 131.6 123.9 202.0 128.3 128.3 138.7 147.3 176.8 135.0 126.0 202.6 131.5 128.1 143.2 146.8 176.4 133.2 126.7 203.5 133.3 130.0 143.3 148.8 176.4 134.1 126.7 204.0 136.4 132.2 143.3 ’ Data for February 1980 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. 2Not available https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis PRODUCTIVITY DATA P r o d u c t i v i t y d a t a are compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from establishment data and from estimates of com pensation and output supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board. Definitions O u tp u t is the constant dollar gross domestic product produced in a given period. Indexes of o u tp u t p er h ou r o f la b o r in p u t, or labor pro ductivity, measure the value of goods and services produced per hour of labor. C o m p e n s a tio n per h o u r includes wages and salaries of em ployees plus employers' contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. R e a l c o m p e n s a tio n per h ou r is compensation per hour adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. U n it la b o r c o s t measures the labor compensation cost required to produce one unit of output and is derived by dividing compensation by output. U n it n o n la b o r p a y m e n ts include profits, depreciation, in terest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by subtracting compensation of all persons from the current dollar gross domestic product and dividing by output. In these tables, U n it n o n la b o r c o s t s contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments except unit profits. U n it p r o fits include corporate profits and invento ry valuation adjustments per unit of output. The im p lic it p r ic e d e fla to r is derived by dividing the current dollar estimate of gross product by the constant dollar estimate, making the deflator, in effect, a price index for gross product of the sector reported. 31. The use of the term “man-hours” to identify the labor component of productivity and costs, in tables 31 through 34, has been discontin ued. H o u r s o f a ll p e r so n s is now used to describe the labor input of payroll workers, self-employed persons, and unpaid family workers. O u tp u t per a ll- e m p lo y e e h o u r is now used to describe labor productiv ity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed. Notes on the data In the private business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the basis for the output measure employed in the computation of output per hour is Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National Product. Computation of hours includes estimates of nonfarm and farm proprietor hours. Output data are supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual estimates of output (gross product originating) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Compensation and hours data are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Beginning with the September 1976 issue of the R ev ie w , tables 3 1 34 were revised to reflect changeover to the new series — private busi ness sector and nonfarm business sector — which differ from the previously published total private economy and nonfarm sector in that output imputed for owner-occupied dwellings and the household and institutions sectors, as well as the statistical discrepancy, are omitted. For a detailed explanation, see J. R. Norsworthy and L. J. Fulco, “New sector definitions for productivity series,” M o n th ly L a b o r R ev ie w , October 1976, pages 40-42. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1950-79 [1967 = 100] Ite m Private business sector: Output per hour of all persons ...................... Compensation per hour ............................... Real compensation per hour......................... Unit labor cost............................................ Unit nonlabor payments ............................... Implicit price deflator .................................. Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons ...................... Compensation per hour ............................... Real compensation per hour......................... Unit labor cost............................................ Unit nonlabor payments ............................... Implicit price deflator .................................. Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees .................. Compensation per hour ............................... Real compensation per hour......................... Unit labor cost............................................ Unit nonlabor payments ............................. Implicit price deflator .................................. Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons ...................... Compensation per hour ............................... Real compensation per hour......................... Unit labor cost............................................ Unit nonlabor payments ............................... Implicit price deflator .................................. 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 61.2 42.6 59.2 69.6 73.1 70.8 70.6 56.1 69.9 79.4 80.4 79.8 79.0 72.2 81.4 91.4 85.4 89.3 95.1 88.7 93.9 93.3 95.9 942 1044 123.3 106.0 118.2 105.8 113.9 111.5 139.8 111.6 125.4 118.9 123.2 113.6 151.3 113.6 133.2 124.9 130.3 110.2 165.2 111.8 149.8 130.3 143.1 112.6 181.7 112.7 161.3 150.3 157.5 116.6 197.6 115.9 169.5 157.9 165.5 118.7 213.3 117.5 179.7 165.5 174.8 119.3 231.5 118.5 194.0 174.3 187.2 118.3 253.2 116.4 214.0 184.4 203.8 67.2 45.6 63.3 680 71.4 691 74.6 59.0 73.6 79.1 80.1 79.4 81.2 74.5 84.1 91.7 84.4 89.2 96.0 89.4 94.6 93.2 95.8 94.1 103.2 121.9 104.8 118.1 106.0 114.0 110.1 138.4 110.5 125.7 117.4 122.9 112.0 149.2 112.1 133.2 117.8 127.9 108.6 163.0 110.4 150.1 124.7 141.4 110.7 179.3 111.2 161.9 145.9 156.4 114,6 194.2 113.9 169.5 156.0 164.8 116.4 209.6 115.5 180.1 163.8 174.5 117,0 227.6 116.5 194.6 169.9 186.1 115.7 248.0 114.1 2144 178.6 202,1 80.6 76.0 85.7 94.3 90.8 93.1 96.9 90,1 95.3 93.0 100.1 95.5 103.7 121.8 1047 117.4 103,5 112.5 110.6 136.7 109.1 123.7 114.8 120.5 112.9 147.6 110.9 130.7 116.8 125.8 108.7 161.7 109.5 148.8 124.8 140.2 112.2 177.9 110.4 158.6 148.1 154.9 115.8 192.7 113.0 166.4 156.8 163.0 117.0 208.0 114.6 177.7 164.4 173.0 118.1 2252 115.3 190.6 170.6 183.5 117.7 245.2 112.8 208.4 179.5 198.1 79.8 78.0 88.0 97.7 92.3 96.1 98.4 91.1 96.4 92.6 103.3 95.9 105.0 122.3 105.1 116.5 96.2 110 3 115.7 136.6 109.0 118.1 107.4 114,8 1189 146.5 110.1 123.2 106.4 118.0 113.0 161.7 109.5 143.1 105.6 131.6 118.8 181.1 112.3 152.4 128 4 145.1 124.0 196.1 115.0 158.2 139.6 152.5 127.7 212.7 117.2 166.6 147.4 160.7 128.3 230.2 117.8 179.4 152.4 171.1 129.5 251.3 115.6 194.1 (’ ) ( 1) (’) ( 1) (’ ) ( 1) (’ ) ( ') 65.8 45.6 63.3 69.4 82.3 73.3 (’) n n (M n (’ ) 75.0 61.2 76.3 81.6 88.6 83.8 1979 1Not available https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 95 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW August 1980 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity 32. Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs and prices, 1969-79 A n n u al ra te Year o f change Item 1970 1969 Private business sector: Output per hour of all persons ......................... Compensation per hour .................................. Real compensation per hour............................. Unit labor cost............................................... Unit nonlabor payments................................... Implicit price deflator ...................................... Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons ......................... Compensation per hour .................................. Real compensation per hour............................. Unit nonlabor payments.................................. Implicit price deflator ...................................... Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees...................... Compensation per hour .................................. Real compensation per hour............................. Unit labor cost............................................... Unit nonlabor payments................................... Implicit price deflator ...................................... Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons ......................... Compensation per hour ................................... Real compensation per hour............................. Unit labor cost............................................... Unit nonlabor payments................................... Implicit price deflator ...................................... 1972 1971 1973 1974 1976 1975 1977 1979 1978 1950-79 1 9 6 0-79 0.2 6.9 1.4 6.6 1.0 4.7 0.7 7.2 1.2 6.4 1.2 4.7 3.3 6.7 2.3 3.3 6.8 4.4 3.4 6.2 2.8 2.8 5.3 3.6 1.9 8.2 1.9 6.2 5.0 5.8 -3.0 9.2 -1.6 12.5 4.4 9.8 2.1 10.0 .8 7.7 15.3 10.1 3.5 8.8 2.8 5.0 5.1 5.0 1.8 8,0 1.4 6.0 4.8 5.6 0.5 8.5 0.8 8.0 5.3 7.1 -0.9 9.3 -1.7 10.3 5.8 8.9 2.5 5.9 2.5 3.3 3.0 3.2 2.1 6.9 2.0 4.7 4.2 4.5 -.2 6.4 1.0 6.7 .4 4.5 .2 6.8 .8 6.5 1.6 4.9 3.0 6.7 2.3 3.5 6.7 4.5 3.6 6.4 3.0 2.7 3.8 3.1 1.7 7.8 1.5 6.0 .3 4.1 -3.1 9.2 -1.6 12.7 5.9 10.5 2.0 10.0 .8 7.9 17.0 10.6 3.5 8.3 2.4 4.7 6.9 5.4 1.5 7.9 1.4 6.3 5.0 5.9 .5 8.6 .9 8.0 3.7 6.6 -1.1 8.9 -2.1 10.2 5.1 8.6 2.1 5.5 2.2 3.4 2.9 3.3 1.9 6.7 1.7 4.7 4.0 4.5 .4 6.8 1.3 6.3 0 4.1 -.0 6.8 .8 6.8 .5 4.6 3.3 6.2 1.8 2.7 7.3 4.2 r3.1 5.7 2.4 2.5 3.3 2.8 2.1 7.9 1.6 5.7 1.8 4.4 -3.7 9.6 -1.3 13.8 6.8 11.5 3.2 10.0 .8 6.6 18.7 10.5 3.2 8.3 2.4 4.9 5.8 5.2 1.1 7.9 1.4 6.8 4.9 6.1 1.0 8.3 .6 7.3 3.8 6.1 -.4 8.9 -2.1 9.3 5.2 7.9 (’ ) 1.9 6.5 1.6 4.5 3.6 4.2 1.3 6.6 1.2 5.2 -4.4 2.3 -.1 7.1 1.1 7.2 -3.2 4.2 5.2 6.2 1.9 .9 9.2 3.1 4.8 5.2 1.8 .4 2.3 1.0 2.8 7.2 .9 4.3 -1.0 2.8 -5.0 10.4 -.5 16.1 -.7 11.5 5.1 12.0 2.6 6.6 21.6 10.2 4.4 8.3 2.4 3.8 8.8 5.1 3.0 8.5 1.9 5.3 5.5 5.4 .5 8.2 .5 7.7 3.4 6.5 0.9 9.2 -1.9 8.2 ( 1) r2.5 5.Ò 2.1 2.9 r2.5 2.6 III IV P) P) P) P) P) 2.5 6.5 1.6 ' 3.9 r2.5 r3.5 1Not available. 33. Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted [1967 = 100] Q u a rte rly in d e x e s A n n u al Item Private business sector: Output per hour of all persons .. Compensation per hour........... Real compensation per hour Unit labor cost........................ Unit nonlabor payments........... Implicit price deflator.............. Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons .. Compensation per hour ........... Real compensation per hour Unit labor cost........................ Unit nonlabor payments........... Implicit price deflator.............. Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees Compensation per hour........... Real compensation per hour Total unit costs ...................... Unit labor cost ................ Unit nonlabor costs........... Unit profits ........................... Implicit price deflator.............. Manufacturing: Output per hour for all persons . Compensation per hour ........... Real compensation per hour Unit labor cost...................... Digitized for96 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis a v e ra g e 1977 1980 1979 1978 III IV I II I I II 119.0 218.8 117.9 183.9 168.5 178.6 118.5 224.5 118.8 189.4 164.8 180.9 119.1 228.8 118.3 192.1 173.9 185.8 119.8 233.9 118.3 195.2 177.0 188.9 119.9 238.7 118.1 199.0 181.2 192.9 119.0 245.1 118.0 205.9 180.8 197.2 118.4 250.6 117.1 211.7 183.6 202.0 118.0 256.0 115.9 217.0 185.5 206.1 117.9 260.6 114.3 221.1 188.2 209.7 117.6 267.6 112.9 227.5 189.8 214.5 116.9 211.5 115.6 181.0 167.1 176.2 116.4 215.1 115.9 184.8 165.9 178.3 116.1 220.9 116.9 190.2 161.1 180.2 116.7 225.0 116.3 192.8 169.1 184.7 117.5 229.8 116.2 195.6 173.0 187.8 117.7 234.7 116.1 199.4 176.0 191.4 116.8 240.5 115.8 206.0 174.3 195.1 115.5 245.1 114.6 212.2 177.6 200.3 115.1 250.2 113.3 217.3 180.4 204.7 115.4 255.9 112.3 221.8 182.5 208.4 114.9 262.2 110.6 228.1 185.5 213.5 117.7 245.2 112.8 210.4 208.4 216.6 127.8 198.1 117.7 209.9 114.7 182.4 178.4 194.8 130.9 174.7 116.9 213.2 114.9 186.3 182.3 198.7 122.2 176.8 116.9 218.9 115.8 190.8 187.3 201.5 107.1 178.3 118.1 222.8 115.2 191.6 188.7 200.8 129.2 182.3 118.7 227.3 115.0 194.0 191.5 201.6 132.7 184.9 119.0 231.7 114.6 196.8 194.8 203.1 138.7 188.2 118.4 237.9 114.6 202.3 201.0 206.5 130.3 191.6 117.5 242.5 113.3 208.0 206.4 213.2 129.2 196.3 117.4 247.6 112.1 213.2 210.8 220.5 127.5 200.4 117.3 252.6 110.8 218.0 215.3 226.1 124.0 204.0 117.1 258.9 109.2 224.6 221.1 235.4 118.6 208.8 129.5 251.3 115.6 194.1 128.9 214.8 117.4 166.7 128.3 218.3 117.6 170.1 126.3 223.8 118.4 177.2 127.8 227.3 117.5 177.9 129.5 232.0 117.4 179.1 129.9 237.2 117.3 182.7 128.7 243.2 117.1 189.0 129.2 248.9 116.3 192.6 130.1 253.7 114.9 195.0 129.6 259.0 113.6 199.8 128.9 265.1 111.8 205.8 III 1978 1979 119.3 231.5 118.5 194.0 174.3 187.2 118.3 253.2 116.4 214.0 184.4 203.8 119.6 215.6 117.8 180.2 167.9 176.0 117.0 227.6 116.5 194,6 169.9 186.1 115.7 248.0 114.1 214.4 178.6 202.1 118.1 225.2 115.3 193.3 190.6 201.8 127.2 183.5 128.3 230.2 117.8 179.4 IV 34. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted at annual rate [1967 = 100] Q u a rte rly p e rc e n t c h a n g e a t ann u al ra te Ite m Private business sector: Output per hour of all persons .................. Compensation per hour ........................... Real compensation per hour...................... Unit labor cost........................................ Unit nonlabor payments ........................... Implicit price deflator ............................... Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons .................. Compensation per hour ........................... Real compensation per hour...................... Unit labor cost........................................ Unit nonlabor payments ........................... Implicit price deflator ............................... Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees .............. Compensation per hour ........................... Real compensation per hour...................... Total unit costs ...................................... Unit labor costs ................................... Unit nonlabor costs............................... Unit profits.............................................. Implicit price deflator ............................... Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons .................. Compensation per hour ........................... Real compensation per hour...................... Unit labor cost........................................ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis III 1978 IV 1978 1 1979 II 1979 III 1979 P e rc e n t c h a n g e fro m s a m e q u a rte r a y e a r a g o IV 1979 I 1978 II 1978 III 1978 IV 1978 to to to to to to to to to to to to IV 1978 I 1979 II 1979 III 1979 IV 1979 I 1980P IV 1978 1 1979 II 1979 III 1979 IV 1979 I 1980 p -3.0 11.1 -.1 14.6 -1.0 9.3 -2.2 9.3 -3.1 11.8 6.6 10.1 -1.4 8.8 -4.0 10.3 4.2 8.3 -0.3 7.4 -5.4 7.8 6.0 7.2 -0.7 11.2 -4.9 12.0 3.4 9.3 0.8 9.1 .1 8.3 7.5 8.0 0.4 9.2 -.6 8.7 9.7 9.0 -0.6 9.5 -1.0 10.2 5.6 8.7 -1.6 9.4 -2.0 11.2 4.8 9.1 -1.7 9.2 -3.2 11.1 3.9 8.7 -1.2 9.2 -4.4 10.5 5.0 8.7 8.0 7.3 7.8 -3.2 10.4 -.7 14,0 -3.9 8.1 -4.1 7.9 -4.4 12.5 7.8 11.0 -1.4 8.5 -4.3 10.1 6.6 9.0 .7 9.4 -3.7 8.6 4.6 7.4 -1.4 10.2 -5.8 11.8 6.8 10.3 1.1 9.1 .1 7.9 6.1 7.3 .5 8.9 -.9 8.3 8.2 8.3 -1.0 9.0 -1.5 10.1 5.0 8.5 -2.0 8.9 -2.5 11.1 4.3 9.0 -2.0 9.0 -3.3 11.3 3.7 8.9 -1.5 9.0 -4.5 10.7 6.5 9.4 1.1 8.1 -1.3 5.9 6.9 2.9 19.5 7.3 -2.1 11.0 -.1 11.7 13.4 6.8 -22.1 7.6 -2.9 8.0 -4.3 11.8 11.2 13.5 -3.4 10.2 -0.2 8.6 -4.3 10.2 8.8 14.6 -5.3 8.6 -0.5 8.3 -4.6 9.3 8.9 10.6 -10.4 7.3 0.7 10.4 -5.6 12.7 11.1 17.3 -16.3 9.8 1.8 8.7 -.2 5.6 6.8 2.2 13.6 6.4 1.3 8.7 -1.1 6.1 7.3 2.5 21.7 7.5 -.5 8.9 -1.6 8.6 9.4 6.2 0 7.7 -1.0 8.9 -2.5 9.9 10.1 9.4 -3.9 8.4 -1.4 9.0 -3.3 10.8 10.6 11.3 -10.6 8.4 -1.1 8.8 -4.7 11.0 10.0 14.0 -9.0 9.0 1.0 9.3 -.2 8.2 -3.6 10.4 -.7 14.5 1.8 9.8 -2.7 7.9 2.7 8.0 -4.8 5.2 -1.5 8.6 -4.4 10.3 -2.3 9.8 -6.1 12.4 1.2 8.7 -.3 7.4 1.9 8.6 -1.1 6.6 1.2 9.5 -1.1 8.2 0.4 9.3 -2.1 8.9 0.2 9.2 -3.2 9.4 0.1 9.0 -4.5 8.9 0.3 8.5 -.9 8.1 9.9 8.7 .8 8.8 -.6 IV 1977 I 1979 97 L A B O R -M A N A G E M E N T D A T A M a j o r c o l l e c t iv e b a r g a i n i n g d a t a are obtained from contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, direct contact with the parties, and from secondary sources. Addi tional detail is published in C u rre n t W age D evelo p m en ts, a monthly periodical of the Bureau. Data on work stoppages are based on confidential responses to questionnaires mailed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to parties involved in work stoppages. Stoppages initially come to the attention of the Bureau from reports of Federal and State mediation agencies, newspapers, and union and industry publications. the agreement. C h a n g e s o v e r th e lif e o f th e a g r e e m e n t refer to total agreed upon settlements (exclusive of potential cost-of-living escalator adjustments) expressed at an average annual rate. W a g e -r a te c h a n g e s are expressed as a percent of straight-time hourly earnings, while w a g e a n d b e n e fit c h a n g e s are expressed as a percent of total compensation. E f f e c t iv e w a g e -r a te a d j u s t m e n ts going into effect in major bargaining units measure changes actually placed into effect during the reference period, whether the result of a newly negotiated increase, a deferred increase negotiated in an earlier year, or as a result of a costof-living escalator adjustment. Average adjustments are affected by workers receiving no adjustment, as well as by those receiving in creases or decreases. Definitions Data on wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry agree ments covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on wage and benefit changes c o m b in e d apply only to those agreements covering 5,000 workers or more. F ir s t-y e a r w a g e s e t tle m e n ts refer to pay changes go ing into effect within the first 12 months after the effective date of 35. W o r k s to p p a g e s include all known strikes or lockouts involving six workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data cover all workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or service shortages. Wage and benefit settlements in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date Q u a rte rly a v e ra g e A nnual a v e ra g e S e c to r a n d m e a s u re 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Wage and benefit settlements, all Industries: First-year settlements ................................. Annual rate over life of contract.................... 11.4 8.1 8.5 6.6 9.6 6.2 8.3 6.3 9.0 6.6 7.2 5.9 6.1 2.8 5.2 5.3 Wage rate settlements, all industries: First-year settlements ................................. Annual rate over life of contract.................... 10.2 7.8 8.4 6.4 7.8 5.8 7.6 6.4 7.4 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.4 5.9 5.7 Manufacturing: First-year settlements............................. Annual rate over life of contract .............. 9.8 8.0 8.9 6.0 8.4 5.5 8.3 6.6 6.9 5.4 8.4 7.2 9.5 7.4 Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction): First-year settlements............................. Annual rate over life of contract .............. 11,9 8.0 8.6 7.2 8.0 5.9 8.0 6.5 7.6 6.2 7.4 5.9 Construction: First-year settlements............................. Annual rate over life of contract .............. 8.0 7.5 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.2 8.8 8.3 7.0 7.2 Digitized for 98 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 10.5 7.8 9.0 8.5 8.6 6.1 6.0 6.4 8.9 7.2 6.8 5.1 6.3 5.3 7.8 6.3 8.7 7.7 9.7 8.1 6.3 4.7 5.6 4.2 7.0 5.6 6.4 5.1 3.2 5.6 8.5 5.8 9.4 6.5 7.8 7.4 8.4 7.1 9.7 8.2 8.7 8.3 9.7 8.5 7.5 7.6 6.6 9.6 9.3 36. Effective wage adjustments going into effect in major collective bargaining units, 1975 to date [In percent] A v e ra g e an n u al c h a n g e s A v e ra g e q u a rte rly c h a n g e s S e c to r a n d m e a s u re 1975 Total effective wage rate adjustment, all industries............. Change resulting from — Current settlement .......................................... Prior settlement ............................................ Escalator provision .......................................... Manufacturing..................................................... Nonmanufacturing.............................................. 1976 1977 1978 1978 1979 1979 1980 1 II III IV I II III IV I 8.7 8.1 8.0 8.2 9.1 1.3 2.6 2.7 1.4 1.4 2.6 3.3 1.6 1.3 2.8 3.7 2.2 3.2 3.2 1.6 3.0 3.2 1.7 2.0 3.7 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.1 .5 .6 .3 .6 1.4 .6 ,5 1.2 1.0 .4 .5 .5 .2 .6 .6 1.1 1.0 .5 1.0 1.0 1.2 .5 .4 .7 .3 .5 .6 8.5 8.9 8.5 7.7 8.4 7.6 8.6 7.9 9.6 8.8 1.4 1.3 2.2 2.9 2.9 2.5 1.9 1.1 1.5 1.4 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.4 2.4 1.0 1.6 1.1 p NOTE: Because of rounding and compounding, the sums of individual items may not equal totals. 37. Work stoppages, 1947 to date N u m b e r o f s to p p a g e s M o n th a n d y e a r 1947 ......................... 1948 ......................... 1949 ......................... 1 950 ......................... 1951 .... 1952 ......................... 1953 ......................... 1954 ......................... 1 955 ........................... 1 956 ........................... 1 957 ........................... 1958 ........................... 1959 ........................... 1 9 6 0 ........................... 1961 ........................... 1962 ........................... 1963 ............................ 1964 .................... 1965 ........................... 1966 ............................ 1967 ............................ 1968 ........................... 1969 ........................... 1 970 ........................... 1971 ............................ 1972 ........................... 1 973 ........................... 1974 ........................... 1 975 ........................... 1 976 ........................... 1977 ........................... 1978 ........................... 1979: M a y ........... Ju n e J u l y ........... August . . . S e p te m b e r O c to b e r . . N ovem ber D ecem ber 1980: J a n u a ry p . F e b ru a ry p M a rc h p .. A p r i l ........... M a y ........... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis B eg in n in g in In e ffe c t m o n th o r y e a r d u rin g m o n th W o rk e rs in v o lv e d D a y s idle B e g in n in g in In e ffe c t m o n th o r y e a r d u rin g m o n th (th o u s a n d s ) (th o u s a n d s ) Num ber housands) P e rc e n t o f e s tim a te d w o rk in g tim e 3,693 3,419 3,606 4,843 2,170 1,960 3,030 2,410 34,600 34,100 50,500 38,800 ,30 .28 .44 .33 4,737 5,117 5,091 3,468 4,320 2,220 3,540 2,400 1,530 2,650 22,900 59,100 28,300 22,600 28,200 .18 .48 .22 .18 .22 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 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 5,138 5,010 5,353 6,074 5,031 3,280 1,714 2,251 2,778 1,746 47,589 27,066 27,948 47,991 31,237 .26 .15 .14 .24 .16 5,648 5,506 4,230 2,420 2,040 1,623 37,859 35,822 36,922 .19 .17 .17 556 536 132 137 3,682 2,989 .19 .16 471 463 464 168 119 135 3,001 3,152 2,319 .16 .15 .13 443 257 134 230 91 42 2,968 2,720 1,976 .15 .15 .11 3,142 3,025 2,705 2,786 2,464 .17 .14 .14 .13 352 354 396 425 505 441 590 631 663 752 207 114 123 116 139 292 332 310 231 214 16 99 How to order PERIODICALS O r d e r f r o m (a n d m a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to ) S u p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts , W ash in gton , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2 . F o r fo r e ig n su b scrip tio n s, a d d 2 5 p e rc e n t. BLSpublications BULLETINS AND HANDBOOKS A b o u t 1 4 0 b u lle tin s a n d h a n d b o o k s p u b lis h e d e a ch y e a r a r e f o r s a le b y r e g io n a l o ffices o f th e B u r e a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s (see in s id e f r o n t c o ver) a n d b y th e S u p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts. W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 4 0 2 . M a k e c h e c k s p a y a b le to th e S u p e r in te n d e n t o f D o c u m e n ts . A m o n g th e b u lle tin s a n d h a n d b o o k s c u r r e n tly in p r in t a r e th ese: Monthly Labor Review. The oldest and most authoritative government research journal in economics and the social sciences. Current statistics, analysis, developments in industrial relations, court decisions, book reviews. $18 a year, single copy, $2.50. Employment and Earnings. A comprehensive monthly report on employment, hours, earn ings, and labor turnover by industry, area, occupation, et cetera $22 a year, single copy $2.75. Occupational Outlook Quarterly. A popular periodical designed to help high school stu dents and guidance counselors assess career opportunities. $6 for four issues, single copy $1.75. Current Wage Developments. A monthly re port about collective bargaining settlements and unilateral management decisions about wages and benefits; statistical summaries. $12 a year, single copy $1.35. Producer Prices and Price Indexes. A com prehensive monthly report on price move ments of both farm and industrial commodi ties, by industry and stage of processing. $17 a year, single copy $2.25. CPI Detailed Report. A monthly periodical featuring detailed data and charts on the Consumer Price Index. $15 a year, single copy $2.25. PRESS RELEASES The Bureau’s statistical series are made avail able to news media through press releases is sued in Washington. Many of the releases also are available to the public upon request. Write: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washing ton, D.C. 20212. Regional. Each of the Bureau’s eight regional offices publishes reports and press releases dealing with regional data. Single copies available free from the issuing regional office. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1978-79 Edition. Bulletin 1955. A useful resource supplying valuable assistance to all persons seeking satis fying and productive employment. $8, paperback; $11 hard cover. BLS Handbook of Labor Statistics 1978. Bulletin 2000. A 604-page vol ume of historical data on the major BLS statistical series. $9.50. Handbook of Methods. Bulletin 1910. Brief technical account of each major statistical program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. $3.50. BLS Measures of Compensation. Bulletin 1941. An introduction to the various measures of employee compensation; describes each series, the manner in which it is developed, its uses and limitations. $2.75. Occupational Projections and Training Data. Bulletin 2020. Presents both general and detailed information on the relationship between occu pational requirements and training needs. (Updates Bulletin 1918 published in 1976.) $3.25. Technological Change and its Labor Impact in Five Energy Industries. Bulletin 2005. A 64-page study appraising major technological change and discussing the impact of these changes on productivity and occupa tions over the next 5 to 10 years. $2.40. BLS Publications, 1972-77. Bulletin 1990. A numerical listing and sub ject index of bulletins and reports issued by the Bureau from 1972 through 1977, supplementing Bulletin 1749, covering 1886-1971. $1.80. International Comparisons of Unemployment. Bulletin 1979. Brings to gether all of the Bureau’s work on international unemployment compari sons. Describes the methods of adjusting foreign unemployment rates in 8 countries to U.S. concepts. $3.50. Productivity Indexes for Selected Industries, 1979 Edition. Bulletin 2054. A 190-page report of indexes of output, employment, and employ ee hours in selected industries from 1954 to 1978. This edition contains measures for three industries previously not covered, as well as compo nents of previously published measures in 10 industries. $5.50. Profiles of Occupational Pay: A Chartbook. Bulletin 2037. A graphic il lustration of some of the factors that affect workers’ earnings. This threepart presentation looks at wage variations among and within occupations and portrays characteristics of high- and low-paying urban areas and manufacturing industries. $3.50. REPORTS AND PAMPHLETS S in g le co p ies a v a ila b le f r e e f r o m th e B L S r e g io n a l o ffices o r f r o m th e B u r e a u o f L a b o r S ta tistic s , U.S. D e p a r tm e n t o f L a b o r, W a sh in g to n , D .C . 2 0 2 1 2 . How the Government Measures Unemployment. Report 505. A concise report providing a background for appraising developments in the area of unemployment. Directory of BLS Studies in Industrial Relations 1960-78. Report 550. A listing of studies prepared by the Division of Industrial Relations as part of the Bureau’s regular program of data collection and analysis in the field of industrial relations. ☆ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 0 — 311-406/43 Fill out and mail this coupon to BLS Regional Office nearest you or Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents. Visa and Master Charge can be used when order is sent to the Superintendent of Documents. Include credit card number and expiration date. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Characteristics of Major Collective Bargaining Agreements For the labor relations practitioner and student— A handy statistical reference on 1520 of the largest collective bargaining agreements in the United States. More than 80 tables and 7 charts and graphs dealing with agreement characteristics: • Union security, management rights, and related provisions • Wages and wage-related clauses • Hours, overtime, and premium pay • Paid and unpaid leave • Seniority and seniority-related provisions • Job security arrangem ents • Dispute settlement procedures All data are derived from a broad review of agreements currently on file with the Bureau of Labor Statistics covering at least 1,000 workers and in effect on January 1, 1978, or later. Bulletin 2065 reports the results of negotiations involving some of the largest com panies and unions in the United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Department of Labor Please send copies of “Characteristics of Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, January 1, 1978,” Bulletin 2065, Stock No. 029-001-02468-1, price $4.25 (25 percent discount for orders of 100 copies or more sent to one address). □ Remittance is enclosed Name _________ Firm .or Organization Address ________ City, State, and Zip Code □ Charge to GPO deposit account No. _______ U.S. Department ot Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Washington D.C. 20212 Official Business Penalty for private use, $300 RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Postage and Fees Paid U.S, Department of Labor Lab-441 SECOND CLASS MAIL
@FedFRASER