The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Ann McLaughlin, 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, DC 20212. Phone: (202) 523-1327.
Subscription price per year—$16 domestic; $20 foreign.
Single copy, $4.75 domestic; $5.94 foreign.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the
Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government
publications are set by the Government Printing Office,
an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence
on circulation and subscription matters (including
address changes) to:
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 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. Second-class postage
paid at Washington, DC, and at additional mailing addresses.
Regional Commissioners
for Bureau of Labor Statistics
Region I—Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara
Kennedy Federal Building, Suite 1603
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: (617) 565-2327
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Region II—New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt
201 Varlck Street, Room 808, New York, NY 10014
Phone (212) 337-2400
N ew Je rse y
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Region III—Philadelphia: Alvin I. Margulis
3535 Market Street
P.O. Box 13309, Philadelphia, PA 19101
Phone: (215) 596-1154
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
W e st V irg in ia
Region IV—Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse
1371 Peachtree Street. N.E., Atlanta, GA 30367
Phone: (404) 347-4416
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Region V—Chicago: Lois L. Orr
9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-1880
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI—Dallas: Bryan Richey
Federal Building, Room 221
525 Griffin Street, Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (214) 767-6970
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Regions VII and VIII—Kansas City: Gunnar Engen
911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 426-2481
VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
August Cover:
Detail from "Early Mail Service and Construction
of Railroads," a tempera-on-flberboard study
for a mural for the Commerce, Georgia Post Office;
Photograph courtesy National Museum of American Art,
Washington, DC
Cover design by Melvin B. Moxley
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Regions IX and X—San Francisco: Sam M. Hirabayashi
71 Stevenson Street, P.O. Box 3766
San Francisco, CA 94119
Phone: (415) 995-5605
IX
American Samoa
Arizona
California
Guam
Hawaii
Nevada
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
RESEARCH LIBRARY
Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
~SÉp TT Ì88
AUGUST 1988
VOLUME 111, NUMBER 8
Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief
Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor
Janet L. Norwood
3
Measuring the cost and incidence of employee benefits
Demographic, social, and economic changes and employer cost-cutting efforts
are combining to produce more flexible benefits, which are difficult to measure
Peter Cattan
9
The growing presence of Hispanics in the U.S. work force
From 1980 to 1987, the number of Hispanic workers increased dramatically,
accounting for almost a fifth of the Nation’s growth in employment
Richard M. Devens, Jr.
15
Employment in the first half of 1988
Unemployment declined to a 14-year low by midyear: job growth slowed
in the second quarter and was not as widespread as a year earlier
Avy D. Graham
20
How has pension vesting changed?
Under the 1974 Federal pension law, most workers have attained vesting sooner,
aiding employee mobility; the 1986 tax law also has key pension implications '
REPORTS
Paul D. Staudohar
26
The football strike of 1987: the question of free agency
Horst Brand
32
Productivity and employment: the 1988 international symposium
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
DEPARTMENTS
2
26
32
44
46
48
51
Labor month in review
Communications
Conference papers
Major agreements expiring next month
Developments in industrial relations
Book reviews
Current labor statistics
Labor Month
In Review
PENSION PORTABILITY. The Pension
and Welfare Benefits Administration of the
U.S.Department of Labor reported to
Congress on a study examining potential
losses of pension benefits when private
sector employees move from one pension
plan to another. The study identifies three
major causes of such portability losses: (1)
a worker’s failure to vest in a nonforfeitable
pension benefit; (2) certain pension plan
design characteristics; and (3) pre-retirement
consumption of plan distributions. Here are
highlights from testimony by David M.
Walker, assistant secretary for pension and
welfare benefits, describing the Hay/
Huggins Associates study to a House Ways
and Means subcommittee:
Types of losses. Portability losses are
incurred by 59 percent of workers,
principally shorter-service workers, who are
covered under defined benefit pension plans.
In defined benefit plans, benefits are often
tied to salaries or dollar amounts that
increase over time (for workers who remain
on the job); thus, workers can lose a
substantial portion of their prospective
benefits if they leave the plan before
retirement.
Among those covered w orkers
experiencing some portability loss, the
average loss was 23 percent of the single
career benefit. Of these workers, 8 percent
had losses of less than 10 percent of the
single career benefit, while 11 percent had
losses of 40 to 49 percent of the single career
benefit. Although portability losses above
50 percent are possible for unusual mobility
and coverage patterns, losses of such
magnitude are infrequent. Under most
defined benefit pension plans, as much as
50 percent of a worker’s benefit is earned
in the 10 years prior to reaching eligibility
for retirement. Thus, nearly half of a
Digitized for
2 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
worker’s retirement benefit is likely to be
provided by the last employer.
The remaining 41 percent of workers stay
with the same employer for 35 years or
more, or are covered by defined contribution
plans during their entire career. As a result,
they experience little or no portability losses.
Under a defined contribution plan, the
employer, and often the worker as well,
contributes to the pension plan each year an
amount based on a formula (for example,
based on salary or profits). Contributions are
held in an account in the worker’s name and
investment earnings on the account balance
are credited to the worker’s account. So long
as the account balance is vested, there should
be no portability loss from a defined
contribution plan. The entire account
balance and all past and future earnings
should accumulate to provide retirement
income for the worker even if the worker
changes jobs.
Reducing losses. The study indicates that
at least 75 percent of all portability losses
are the result of design characteristics of
defined benefit plans. Indexing vested
benefits to inflation could eliminate up to
two-thirds of total portability losses.
Indexing to general wage growth would not
only largely eliminate portability losses for
most workers, but in some cases would
produce portability windfalls. In other
words, it is possible that under certain
circumstances employees who changed jobs
frequently could earn greater total benefits
than a worker who stayed with a single
employer.
Similarly, a requirement that employers
credit all service under preceding plans
(offsetting the benefit received from those
plans) would effectively eliminate portability
losses. This approach, like others that
significantly reduce portability losses from
defined benefit plans, would be very costly
to employers. This could add a significant
barrier to hiring older workers.
Preserving benefits. The study also
estimates the impact of pre-retirement
involuntary cash-outs (in which a plan would
pay an employee a lump-sum benefit when
the value of his or her pension benefit is less
than a given amount) currently less than
$3,500, as well as the pre-retirement elective
cash-outs of amounts in excess of $3,500.
It found that involuntary cash-outs of
amounts less than $3,500 generally represent
a small portion of total career benefits.
Therefore, mandatory rollover of such
amounts into an IRA or another plan would
have only marginal effects on average
portability losses, on the order of a
1-percentage point decrease. We do not
know the precise proportion of workers
actually exercising their options to receive
benefits in the form of a lump sum , nor their
likelihood to consume rather than save such
cash-outs. Data from the Current Population
$urvey, now being collected, will soon
provide us with better information about
actual behavior. The results will also, for
the first time, provide us with data regarding
the degree to which cash-out behavior may
have begun to change in response to the Tax
Reform Act of 1986.
Currently, roughly 1 in 4 workers is
covered by a primary pension plan that
permits a full cash-out of benefits in excess
of $3,500 at separation prior to retirement
(an estimated 10 percent of defined benefit
plans and 81 percent of defined contribution
plans).
The study, “ The Effect of Job Mobility
on Pension Benefits,” is available from the
National Technical Information Service,
n t i s N o . PB88232194 at $19.95 plus $3.00
for handling, (202) 487-4600.
□
Measuring the cost and incidence
of employee benefits
Demographic, social, and economic changes
and employer cost-cutting efforts
are combining to produce new,
more flexible, more integrated benefits
— which are more difficult to measure
Ja n e t
L.
N
orw ood
Employee compensation has changed dramatically in
recent years. As inflation has decelerated and industry has
undergone restructuring, wage and salary increases have
moderated. Increases in the employer cost of benefits also
have slowed, but discussion about the range of benefits
offered to workers has picked up significantly.1
The generation of workers born after World War II
now accounts for a substantial proportion of the labor
force. Like their working parents, these workers are
concerned about rising health care costs, job security, and
future retirement income. In addition, more women than
ever before in our history have entered the labor force,
many of them mothers of small children. This develop
ment has focused national attention on the interaction of
work and the family. The combination of these demo
graphic, social, and economic changes has resulted in a
reexamination of employee compensation, which now
encompasses a number of emerging benefits.
As a result, the measurement of total compensation to
workers has become not only more important but also
more difficult. This article discusses some of the problems
Janet L. Norwood is Commissioner of Labor Statistics. This article is
drawn from a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Industrial
Relations Research Association, December 28, 1987, Chicago, i l .
Jordan Pfuntner of the Office of Compensation and Working
Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics, provided valuable assistance.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
in measuring the incidence and employer costs of benefits
which are becoming more flexible, increasingly more
integrated, and innovative at a time when employer cost
cutting initiatives are gaining momentum.
Two
b ls
surveys
The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures benefits by (1)
obtaining the cost to the employer of providing them and
(2) describing the details of the plans.2
b l s measures employer costs through the Employment
Cost Index, a quarterly survey of employers that tracks
the change in the cost to employers of compensation for
their employees. The Employment Cost Index is a baseweighted index which shows the change in the cost to the
employer of a market basket of occupations from a base
period to the present. In constructing the index, b l s asks
its data collectors to gather information on wages and
salaries and on about two dozen types of employee
benefits. In October 1987, b l s began publishing—in
addition to indexes and percent changes—the dollar cost
per hour worked of each of these elements of compensa
tion.3 b l s measures employee benefits provisions through
an annual Employee Benefits Survey, which provides
such details as the prevalence of various health insurance
deductibles, pension benefit formulas, and vacation ac
crual rates.
3
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Measuring Employee Benefits
Greater benefit plan flexibility
The needs of a changing work force have led to greater
interest in flexible benefits plans, which permit workers to
choose among different types of benefits and benefits
options, depending on their family situation. For exam
ple, in a two-earner family, both members may not need
health insurance, because one is covered by the other’s
policy. Instead, the worker may select employer-spon
sored child care, additional life insurance, or a taxdeferred savings plan.
While such options accommodate the worker, they
make benefit plans more complex for the employer to
administer and complicate data collection. Instead of
gathering information on a single health insurance plan
covering all workers, it may be necessary to collect data
for several plans, as well as for options within plans.
Surveys like the Employment Cost Index and the Em
ployee Benefits Survey, which measure employer cost or
plan details for all the plans that cover workers, require
more comprehensive information from the employer than
would otherwise be the case.
Employee choice in selecting different types or levels of
coverage sharpens the contrast between measures of
worker participation and eligibility. In a flexible benefits
plan, most employees will be eligible for all plans and
options, but no one employee will be able to participate in
all of them. Thus, when the plan provisions surveyed
differ, as they nearly always do, participant counts will
understate the proportion of employees offered a particu
lar benefit provision. If employee choice becomes more
prevalent, the gap between the number of eligible and
participating employees will widen. For certain needs,
such as gauging the number of workers with access to
employer-financed health insurance, a count of eligibles
may be more important than a count of participants.
However, counts of eligible workers will overstate avail
ability if participants cannot choose all benefits. To
present the full picture, therefore, surveys of benefit
provisions may require information on eligibility as well
as participation.
Even in the absence of flexible benefits plans, the rise of
alternatives to traditional fee-for-service health plans will
continue to increase the options available to employees.
As health maintenance organizations and preferred pro
vider organizations proliferate, employees in more and
more localities will be given a wider choice of health care
plans.
Leave banks are a related development. These plans
combine several forms of paid leave—for example, vaca
tions, sick leave, and personal leave—into one overall
leave category. By relaxing restrictions on the purposes
for which leave may be used, these plans give employees
more flexibility in arranging vacations, coping with
personal emergencies, and managing other planned or
4 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
unplanned needs. But this flexibility makes it difficult or
impossible to classify leave by type of plan. For example,
questions like how much sick leave is available to cover
disabilities due to childbirth are increasingly difficult to
answer. One solution is to establish a separate classifica
tion for leave banks, but then data users must be warned
that the prevalence and level of other types of paid leave
are understated.
A similar practice, found primarily in public school
districts, is the establishment of sick leave banks. These
plans typically call for employees to donate a day or two
of sick leave each year into a “bank.” The bank can then
be drawn upon by employees who have exhausted their
sick leave due to lengthy illnesses or incapacitation. For
employees under these plans, the regular sick leave
provision overstates the accrual rate (because employees
donate some leave) but understates the potential benefit.
This, of course, adds a degree of complexity to the
analysis and interpretation of sick leave data.
Integration of related benefits
Another trend that complicates measurement is the
move to integrate benefit plans or programs. For example,
to curb health care costs, plan sponsors are looking at
programs designed to encourage healthier life styles
(wellness programs) or to prevent personal problems from
developing into catastrophic emergencies (assistance pro
grams). Some employers are beginning to integrate these
programs with their health care plans by linking plan
provisions. An example of this is the practice of coordi
nating health insurance coverage of mental health care
with services provided through an employee assistance
program. Another example is that of physical examina
tions provided through an employee wellness program,
rather than through health insurance plans. A related
practice, for retirement plans, is found in “ad hoc” benefit
increases to those on pensions. The increases are, in effect,
benefits provided outside the plan.
These interrelationships have important consequences
for benefits measures. Health insurance tabulations, for
example, will understate both the coverage of physical
examinations and the costs for health insurance if
wellness programs are not accounted for.
The 1986 Employee Benefits Survey of medium and
large firms showed that only 3 percent of pension plan
participants were in plans with automatic cost-of-living
increases. But 35 percent were in plans that had granted
one or more “ad hoc” increases from 1981 to 1985. In this
case, examining only provisions for automatic increases
within the plan would have substantially underestimated
the prevalence of post-retirement increases. To gather this
information, however, we must ask our survey respon
dents additional questions, which increase data collection
time and expense.
Continuation of these trends suggests that surveys will
increasingly have to integrate data from related plans.
Counting procedures also will have to be adapted to these
new circumstances. The joint effect of this trend and the
movement towards greater flexibility may create very
complex data collection and compilation situations. For
example, if employees have a choice of several health
insurance plans coordinated with a wellness program and
an assistance program, a large number of permutations
could result. At the Bureau, we may have to rethink our
counting methods. A mixture of participation and eligibil
ity counts may be needed to illuminate these potentially
complex relationships in the Employee Benefits Survey.
In the Employment Cost Index, greater integration will
undoubtedly make it difficult to measure benefit costs
separately.
Less dramatic, but nonetheless important, issues have
been raised by the creativity shown in defined contribu
tion plan design. For a number of reasons, from cost
control to fostering employee commitment to corporate
goals, employers have mixed and matched savings, stock,
and profit-sharing features into a variety of hybrid plans.
How does one classify a plan that combines the character
istics of all three plan types with a pretax 401 (k)
provision? Is it one plan or three plans? If it is one plan,
which type is it? Classification issues are not simply a
problem for the surveyor of employee benefits; such issues
also complicate the user’s job in interpreting the data.
Cost control
The pressure on employers to curb rising benefit costs
has made the 1980’s a fertile period for innovative plan
design. Simply keeping up with developments has been
one of the greatest challenges in measuring employee
benefits. But some of the developments spurred by cost
control pose critical questions that will affect benefit
measurement over the next few years. These questions
range from how we analyze specific types of plans to what
is a benefit and what is a form of pay.
Differing rates o f reimbursement.
The increasing use of
cost containment techniques in health insurance plans has
significant consequences for the way benefit provisions
are analyzed. To encourage the use of certain medical
services, while discouraging the use of others, health plans
are increasingly applying different rates of reimbursement
for medical services. The traditional major medical
patterns (for example, 80 percent payment of covered
services after satisfaction of a $100 deductible) are being
replaced by finely tuned reimbursement programs. Hospi
tal room and board, physicians’ visits, inpatient surgical
fees, and outpatient surgical fees may all be reimbursed at
different levels. As plan design becomes more finely
tuned, so too must the analysis of plan provisions. Rather
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
than being examined in groups, each type of medical
service must be analyzed separately. This movement from
a paradigmatic to an atomized view of medical services
increases the time and cost of data compilation, as well as
the number and complexity of the tabulations required to
describe plan provisions.
Contingent pay systems
Employers also have sought to control increasing
compensation costs by altering the mix of variable to fixed
costs. Boosting the ratio of variable to fixed compensa
tion, in theory, will give employers more flexibility in
adapting to changing economic conditions. Contingent
pay systems, which make a portion of pay dependent
upon such variables as performance or profitability, have
decreased the importance of base salary or wages. This, in
turn, increases the complexity of the computations used
to cost out benefits. Computational procedures that were
automatic a few years ago in the Employment Cost Index
are no longer routine. As the role of hours worked and the
hourly wage has a smaller weight in determining gross
pay, an increasing number of customized calculations are
required for benefits. This, of course, has implications for
our current and future computer systems.
Lump-sum payments.
Specific types of contingent pay
and benefits raise other issues. Lump-sum payments
granted in lieu of wage increases are increasingly common
in collective bargaining settlements, while “at risk” pay
has received much attention in compensation programs
for salaried workers. These practices pose definitional
issues. Lump-sum payments, for example, share many of
the characteristics of both wages and benefits. In our
surveys, we have identified these payments as one of
several types to be collected with nonproduction bonuses,
which are classified as benefits. The line, too, between
profit-sharing plans and the new types of bonuses and pay
based on profitability is becoming harder and harder to
draw. These developments have caused the Bureau to
embark on a thorough review of the concepts of compen
sation, wages, and benefits.
Stock options.
Some forms of contingent compensation
pose special measurement problems. Stock options, for
example, are usually provided only to executives. While
the overall incidence may be low, making it difficult to
obtain reliable estimates, the benefit can be a substantial
part of compensation to those who receive it. Stock
options also pose measurement issues because it is
difficult to determine the value of the options before they
are exercised. Valuation methods for stock plans are
currently under study as part of a comprehensive review
of the Employment Cost Index.
5
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Measuring Employee Benefits
Contributory plans.
It is unclear whether the more
rapid growth of defined contribution plans compared to
defined benefit plans is a movement towards variable
rather than fixed payments. But some plan sponsors have
adopted defined contribution plans as a way of gaining
more control, or at least predictability, over costs.
Together with the development of salary reduction
provisions, the growth of defined contribution plans can
be viewed as involving more employee participation in
plan funding. This occurs either directly through em
ployee contributions or indirectly by linking employer
contributions to profitability.
Salary reduction plans present definitional questions
stemming from the employee involvement. Are amounts
deferred by employees in 401(k) plans best classified as
part of salary or as an employer-funded benefit? At the
Bureau, we have considered these amounts to be pay.
Flexible spending or reimbursement accounts, another
form of salary reduction plan, muddy the waters even
further. These accounts, which often accompany flexible
benefits plans, are usually funded by both employer
money and employee pretax contributions. In these
circumstances, it is not only difficult to separate pay from
benefits, but it is hard to tell whether money is coming
from the employer or from the employee. For example,
who pays for additional life insurance coverage if the
employee’s share of the premium is paid out of a jointly
funded reimbursement account?
Contingent employment.
There are signs, too, that the
employment relationship itself may be becoming more
contingent. Workers may be part time, temporary, leased,
or based at home.
Benefits data for temporary and leased workers are
obtainable from the temporary help service or leasing
firm, but many of those who work through temporary
help firms work sporadically, and their benefit programs
reflect this. Paid leave, for example, may vary by hours
worked, rather than by months or years of service. Other
benefits may be provided as a monetary allowance for
employees to allocate as they choose rather than as
employer-sponsored insurance or retirement plans. Also,
many workers are registered with more than one firm and
therefore may receive benefits from more than one
company.4
While these practices are not new, they are in sharp
contrast to the traditional programs geared to full-time,
permanent employees. Our measures of benefits provi
sions, especially, were designed for these traditional
programs. If the contingent work force grows, our
measures will have to be redesigned. What can be handled
by a judicious footnote or two today may require a
thorough overhaul in 1992.
6
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Work at home.
Work at home is another potentially
expanding employment practice that could require modi
fying our traditional methods of measuring benefits. This
practice is still relatively rare—a b l s survey found that in
1985 fewer than 770,000 wage and salary employees
worked exclusively at home.5 But continued advances in
communications technology suggest that telecommuting,
in which employees work out of their homes and
communicate electronically with a central site, could
increase in future years. If this were to occur, our current
concepts of paid leave and other benefits related to time
worked may become irrelevant. In the Employment Cost
Index, for example, cents per hour worked is the common
denominator to which benefit costs are reduced. For
telecommuters, however, it might be difficult to deter
mine hours worked in an establishment-based survey.
New collection methods or a new denominator for
expressing benefit costs may be needed for these employ
ees. Additionally, work at home includes auxiliary bene
fits, such as in-house family care, flexible work
scheduling, and savings in work-related expenses, that are
not usually measured in traditional benefits surveys.
New and emerging benefits
New benefits are emerging in response to changing
demographic and social patterns. The rise of two-worker
and single-parent families has increased the demand for
employer-provided or subsidized child care. It has also
focused interest on various kinds of parental and other
family leave options. Some experts predict that demand
for elder care benefits will intensify as the elderly
population grows, especially in a society characterized by
households where no one is at home to care for children
or elderly parents.
Child care.
The issues involved in measuring these
socially oriented benefits vary. Child care is a benefit that
commands much interest but its measured incidence so
far is very low.6 With the size of our Employee Benefits
Survey samples, our strategy is to publish only prevalence
data until the benefit is common enough to warrant
publication of details of plan provisions. Consequently,
the growth of child care benefits will actually make it
easier for us to publish reliable measures of plan provi
sions. The costing out of child care benefits is a different
matter when care is provided in the employer’s facilities
or by employees of the firm. These problems center on
valuing the labor, capital, and other inputs required to
provide the benefit.
Maternity leave. Maternity leave poses a unique issue of
its own—it is extraordinarily difficult to define. This is
because it is closely related to other forms of leave, such as
sick leave, sickness and accident insurance, vacations, and
personal leave. Maternity leave, per se, is only part of the
picture, because these other forms of leave are nearly
always available to (and in some cases legally mandated
for) pregnant employees. Thus, in addition to being hard
to separate from other types of leave, it involves many of
the issues posed by integrated benefits discussed earlier.
Elder care. Elder care is so new that no definite patterns
have emerged. If it grows and takes the form of paid or
unpaid leave for employees who must care for their
parents, it will involve many of the same issues as
maternity leave. If it develops to include day care benefits,
it will be similar to child care. And, if it evolves to provide
medical care, it may pose some of the issues associated
with retiree health insurance.
Retiree benefits.
Retiree health insurance is not a new
benefit, but the aging of the American population has
given it new prominence.7 Concern in recent years over
the long-term funding of the Medicare program and over
the unfunded liabilities of employers for promised benefits
has intensified this attention. Some experts assert that the
availability of health coverage after retirement can be
viewed, like a pension, as a potential benefit to active
workers. But retiree benefits pose serious questions,
particularly for measures of benefit costs. How should the
cost of retiree insurance be allocated to current employees
in the Employment Cost Index? Further, how should the
costs be determined—as accruals over the active service of
current employees, as expenses when paid, or some other
approach? Certainly, the deliberations of the Financial
Accounting Standards Board on these issues will be
important to us in exploring alternatives.
Differing measurement approaches
The key point here is that each of these emerging or
newly prominent benefits possesses unique characteristics
that pose different measurement issues. In isolation, no
one of these issues will significantly complicate survey
design. In combination, however, they are bound to
complicate a survey process already replete with special
situations.
One approach is to augment our traditional employer
surveys with other methods of data collection. For
example, household surveys are an appropriate source of
information on certain kinds of employee benefits. The
Bureau has on occasion used supplements to the Current
Population Survey—our monthly household survey that
measures employment and unemployment—to develop
some specific data on benefit coverage of household
members. A special survey of displaced workers obtained
information on whether workers had been covered by
health insurance on the job they lost and whether they
were currently covered either through a new job or
through the job of a family member.8 This sort of
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
information is best obtained through a household survey,
and we plan to use this approach when we can. This year,
we are using the household survey to inquire about health
insurance coverage for retirees.
Because it is often difficult to adjust ongoing surveys to
obtain new information on a timely basis, the Bureau has
conducted some quick-response employer surveys on new
or emerging issues. One that we recently conducted
obtained information specifically on the provision of child
care benefits. A combination of mail and computerassisted telephone interviewing assured a satisfactory
response rate, and the procedure was able to elicit more
detailed information than had been available to date from
the traditional benefit survey.
The challenge ahead
All the signs point towards more complex benefits
surveys. Survey designs and measurement methods will
have to be reevaluated continuously to ensure that they
are appropriate to a rapidly changing environment.
Interpreting and understanding the data will be a tougher
job for data users. More information, too, will be
requested from survey respondents.
The issue of respondent burden is a crucial one in
benefits survey design: One must continually balance the
need for complete, high-quality data against the time and
expertise required of survey respondents. Benefits data are
supplied to the Bureau on a strictly voluntary basis.
Particularly in larger companies, the same officials are
contacted several times a year for compensation data.
(Respondents are contacted each quarter for Employment
Cost Index information.) If survey response rates fall, the
quality of the data suffers. To face the demands of the
future, new methods such as probability subsampling of
particular types of benefits, benefit plans, occupations, or
workers, will have to be developed to ease the burden on
respondents.
Communicating the data clearly and accurately will
also be a challenge. The more interrelated programs
become and the more atomized plan design becomes, the
greater will be the responsibility of the surveying organi
zation to educate users on how to interpret the data. New
and better ways to present the data will have to be found.
As data collection, compilation, and publication be
come more complex, quality control in all phases of the
survey cycle will become even more important than it is
today. Quality management will have to be outwardly, as
well as inwardly, directed. When the specifications
themselves are in flux, it will not be enough to ensure that
the system is working according to specifications. More
and more resources will have to be devoted to monitoring
developments in the field. Survey measuring instruments
and computer systems will have to be frequently retooled
7
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Measuring Employee Benefits
to keep current. To keep pace, survey designers will have
to prospect for themselves as well as for data users.
□
Donald Schmitt, “Today’s pension plans: how much do they pay?”
M onthly Labor Review, December 1985, pp. 19-25.
3See Felicia Nathan, “Analyzing employers’ costs for wages, salaries,
and benefits,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1987, pp. 3-11.
--------- FOOTNOTES--------'See Bradley R. Braden, “Increases in employers’ benefit costs
dampened dramatically in the 1980’s,” Monthly Labor Review, July
1988, pp. 3-7.
2One can also look at benefits from another aspect, the value to the
worker, which does not always coincide with employer cost. This,
however, has proved to be extremely difficult because a number of
variables must be taken into account, many of them related to particular
circumstances of the employee. In the case of employer cost, definition is
easier, and accounting records to verify the data collected are at hand.
Thus far, the only experience that the Bureau has had with value to the
worker is limited to projections of pension replacement rates. See
Digitized 8
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4See “ b l s Reports on Its First Survey of Pay and Employee Benefits in
the Temporary Help Supply Industry,” u s d l n e w s , 88-260, May 24,
1988.
5See Francis W. Horvath, “Work at home: new findings from the
Current Population Survey,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1986,
p. 31.
6See “ b l s Reports on Employer Child Care Practices,”
88 -7 , Jan. 15, 1988.
usdl n e w s ,
7See “Employer-sponsored health insurance for retirees: the need and
the cost,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1987, p. 38.
8See Michael Podgursky and Paul Swaim, “Health insurance loss: the
case of the displaced worker,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1987,
pp. 30-33.
Waite and Herriot awarded Shiskin prize
Charles A. Waite and Roger A. Herriot, of the Bureau of the Census,
received the ninth annual Julius Shiskin Award for Economic Statistics.
Waite, Associate Director for Economic Programs, received the award
for “his original and important contributions” to the Bureau of
Economic Analysis and the Bureau of the Census. Herriot, Senior
Demographic and Housing Analyst, received the honor for “his
innovative work in improving income statistics.” The presentation was
made at the Washington Statistical Society’s annual dinner in June, along
with an honorarium of $250. The award is named in honor of the ninth
U.S. Commissioner of Labor Statistics.
The award program is designed to honor unusually original and
important contributions in the development of economic statistics or in
the use of economic statistics in interpreting the economy. Participating
organizations in the program are the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau
of the Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Office of Management and
Budget, National Bureau of Economic Research, National Association of
Business Economists, and the Washington Statistical Society. The late
Commissioner Shiskin was associated with all of these organizations in
his long career.
The growing presence of Hispanics
in the U.S. work force
Between 1980 and 1987, the number
o f Hispanic workers rose dramatically,
accounting for almost a fifth
o f the Nation’s employment growth;
the increase for Hispanic women was especially sharp
Peter Ca t t a n
One of the outstanding features of the employment
expansion during the 1980’s has been the rapid growth of
Hispanics in the U.S. labor market. This growth has been
fueled by a large inflow of Hispanics from Mexico,
Central and South America, and the Caribbean. Civil
wars, economic problems, and poverty in some of these
areas have induced large numbers of workers to migrate
to the United States in search of jobs and better
opportunities. Combined with the number of Hispanics
currently living here, the continuing large inflow has
made them the Nation’s fastest growing labor force
group. Thus, while the non-Hispanic work force rose by
10.4 percent between 1980 and 1987, the number of
Hispanic workers increased by 39 percent, reaching 8.5
million in 1987.
In recent years, procedures have been developed which
are designed to improve Hispanic population estimates
from the Current Population Survey ( c p s ), the main
source of the data in this report. This article is based on
these revised data.1
Although Hispanics made up slightly under 7 percent
of total employment, they accounted for almost a fifth of
the total increase in the Nation’s jobs between 1980 and
Peter Cattan is an economist in the Division of Labor Force Statistics,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1987. In all, Hispanic employment increased by 2.3
million during the period covered. (See table 1.) MexicanAmericans— by far the largest group of Hispanics— were
also the fastest-growing group; their employment total
rose by nearly 50 percent over the 1980-87 period, as
shown in the following tabulation. 2
Change, 1980-87
Number in thousands
1980
1987 Number Percent
Total, Hispanic origin ..
M exican........................
Puerto Rican ...............
Cuban ............................
Other H ispanics...........
5,457
3,175
600
409
1,273
7,790
4,690
744
518
1,838
2,333
1,515
144
109
565
43
48
24
27
44
The rate of Hispanic employment growth has been
particularly impressive following the onset of the current
expansion. Since 1983, Hispanic employment has in
creased by 28 percent, almost three times the rate for
other workers. This resulted from the surge in the
Hispanic population noted earlier. To a lesser extent, the
sharper pace of Hispanic employment growth also re
sulted from somewhat greater increases in the percentage
of this population that is employed— the employmentpopulation ratio. As shown in the following tabulation,
the ratio for Hispanics rose in spurts— by about 5|
percentage points between 1983 and 1987, compared with
3| points for non-Hispanics. Also, the ratio had declined
9
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Hispanics in the U.S. Work Force
more sharply for Hispanics than for non-Hispanics
between 1980 and 1982, a period punctuated by two
recessions.
Employment-population ratios
Year
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Difference
1980
1981
1982
1983
...........
...........
...........
...........
57.6
57.4
54.9
55.1
59.3
59.1
58.0
58.1
-1.7
-1 .7
-3.1
-3 .0
1984
1985
1986
1987
...........
...........
...........
...........
57.9
57.8
58.5
60.5
59.6
60.3
60.9
61.6
-1.7
-2.5
-2 .4
-1.1
employed continues to be below that for other workers.
The dramatic increase in Hispanic employment is
expected to continue for many years. According to b l s
projections, the Hispanic civilian labor force will grow by
74 percent between 1986 and the end of the century,
outdistancing other labor force subgroups. Projections
indicate that by the year 2000, Hispanics will make up 10
percent of the Nation’s labor force, up from 7 percent in
1986. This is expected to occur because of continued
sharp population growth as well as increases in the
percent of Hispanics in the work force.3
Employment growth by sex
For both groups, much of the post-recession increase in
employment-population ratios restored recession-induced
declines. However, despite the greater increase in the ratio
for Hispanics since 1983, the proportion of those who are
Women.
The continued sharp growth in employment
among all women in this country has been well docu
mented.4 Hispanic women have shown the most rapid
gains. Paced by sharp population growth, their employ
ment levels have shown an increase of almost 50 percent
since 1980, about 2\ times the rate for other women. (See
1980C 87 Civilian noninstitutional population and employment by Hispanic origin, age, and sex, annual averages and change,
( N u m b e r s in t h o u s a n d s )
Hispanic
Population, em ploym ent, age, and sex
Non-Hispanic
Change, 1 9 8 0 - 8 7
1980
1987
Change, 1 9 8 0 - 8 7
1980
Level
Percent
1987
Level
Percent
P o p u l a t io n
Total, 16 years and older........................
16 to 19............................
20 to 24 .........................
25 to 44 .....................
45 and older........................
9,598
1,281
1,564
4,083
2,670
12,867
1,332
1,910
6,178
3,448
3,269
51
346
2,095
778
34.1
4.0
22.1
51.3
29.1
158,148
15,262
19,072
58,052
65,763
169,885
13,274
17,061
69,873
69,678
11,739
-1,988
-2,011
11,821
3,915
7.4
-13.0
-10.5
20.4
6.0
Men, 16 years and older....................
16 to 19.....................
20 to 24........................
25 to 44.......................
45 and older ...........................
4,689
653
792
2,005
1,238
6,371
671
985
3,130
1,586
1,682
18
193
1,125
348
35.9
2.8
24.4
56.1
28.1
74,709
7,607
9,231
28,228
29,644
80,528
6,664
8,210
34,126
31,528
5,819
-943
-1,021
5,898
1,884
7.8
-12.4
-11.1
20.9
6.4
Women, 16 years and older...................
16 to 19...........................
20 to 24...............................
25 to 44...........................
45 and older..........................
4,909
628
771
2,078
1,432
6,496
661
925
3,048
1,862
1,587
33
154
970
430
32.3
5.3
20.0
46.7
30.0
83,439
7,655
9,841
29,824
36,119
89,357
6,610
8,851
35,747
38,150
5,918
-1,045
-990
5,923
2,031
7.1
-13.7
-10.1
19.9
5.6
5,527
500
998
2,749
1,280
7,790
474
1,273
4,444
1,599
2,263
-26
275
1,695
319
40.9
-5.2
27.6
61.7
24.9
93,776
7,211
13,089
43,976
29,500
104,651
6,167
12,251
55,839
30,393
10,874
-1,045
-838
11,863
893
11.6
-14.5
-6.4
27.0
3.0
Men, 16 years and older..........................
16 to 19..................................
20 to 24...........................
25 to 44...........................
45 and older............................
3,448
306
611
1,727
803
4,713
268
777
2,708
959
1,265
-38
166
981
156
36.7
-12.4
27.2
56.8
19.4
53,738
3,779
6,921
25,460
17,579
57,394
3,113
6,281
30,677
17,323
3,656
-666
-640
5,217
-256
6.8
-17.6
-9.2
20.5
-1.5
Women, 16 years and older........................
16 to 19...............................
20 to 24....................................
25 to 44...............................
45 and older..........................
2,079
193
387
1,022
478
3,077
206
496
1,736
640
998
13
109
714
162
48.0
6.7
28.2
69.9
33.9
40,038
3,432
6,168
18,516
11,921
47,257
3,054
5,970
25,162
13,070
7,219
-378
-198
6,646
1,149
18.0
-11.0
-3.2
35.9
9.6
E m p lo y m e n t
Total, 16 years and older.....................
16 to 19 ...............................
20 to 24 ..............................
25 to 44 ........................
45 and older.............................
Digitized10
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
table 2.) In addition, the proportion of Hispanic women
who were employed has increased faster than that of nonHispanic women since 1983. As indicated in the following
tabulation, employment-population ratios for Hispanic
women rebounded from a low of 41 percent in 1983, rising
to more than 47 percent in 1987. Hispanic women have
historically been less likely to be employed than other
women, and their employment-population ratio is still
relatively low.
Employment-population ratios of women
Hispanic
Year
Difference
Non-Hispanic
1980
1981
1982
1983
...........
..........
..........
..........
42.4
43.0
41.3
41.1
48.0
48.3
48.1
48.5
-5 .6
-5 .3
-6.8
-7 .4
1984
1985
1986
1987
..........
..........
..........
..........
44.2
43.8
44.7
47.4
49.8
50.9
51.9
52.9
-5 .6
-7.1
-7 .2
-5.5
Men. Although the rate of job growth for Hispanic men
during the 1980’s was somewhat less than that of
Hispanic women, it was sharply higher than that of nonHispanic men. Even during the 1981-83 period when the
employment of non-Hispanic men declined, employment
of Hispanic men rose moderately, solely on the strength of
population growth.
As the following tabulation shows, the trends in
employment-population ratios between 1980 and 1987
have been similar for both Hispanic and non-Hispanic
men. The percentages employed declined during the
recessionary period of the early 1980’s, but ratios for both
groups continued to rise during the subsequent 5 years, as
the upturn in the business cycle provided increased
employment opportunities. To a lesser extent, demo
graphics also may have been a factor behind the increase
in proportions working. For example, during the past 5
years, a portion of the baby boom generation entered age
categories with higher rates of labor force participation.
Employment-population ratios of men
Some analysts emphasize cultural differences in sexrole attitudes to explain why Hispanic women have
traditionally had lower likelihoods of employment.5 In an
empirical examination of this view, Vilma Ortiz and
Rosemary Santana Cooney find that differences in educa
tional attainments are more important determinants of
ethnic differences in labor force participation than tradi
tional attitudes toward women’s role in the labor force.6
Data from the March 1987 CPS confirm that ethnic
differences in educational attainment need to be taken
into account. As the following tabulation shows, Hispanic
women 25 years and older are much less likely than other
women to complete high school— a major determinant of
employability. Indeed, among women with similar levels
of schooling, Hispanics are more likely to work than their
counterparts.7
Percent of the population
T o ta l.............................
Less than 4 years of high
school .............................
4 years of high school —
1 year or more of college
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
100
100
50
30
20
23
42
35
Employment-population ratio
NonHispanic Hispanic Difference
Less than 4 years of high
school .............................
4 years of high school —
1 year or more of
college.............................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30.5
58.9
24.7
53.4
5.8
5.5
71.6
66.7
4.9
Year
Hispanic
NonHispanic
Difference
1980
1981
1982
1983
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
73.5
72.4
68.9
69.4
71.9
71.2
69.0
68.8
1.6
1.2
-.1
.6
1984
1985
1986
1987
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
72.1
72.1
72.5
74.0
70.6
70.8
70.9
71.3
1.5
1.3
1.6
2.7
The rise in the employment-population ratios of all
working-age men during the most recent expansionary
period occurred during a long-term decline. For more
than 30 years, their employment-population ratio has
been declining slowly but steadily, primarily because of
earlier retirement among older men. In 1987, the ratio
was 10 percentage points below those which prevailed in
the late 1940’s.8 Thus, the recent rise in the ratios for men
only represents a return to 1980 rates and not a reversal of
the secular trend.
The employment-population ratio for Hispanic men in
1987 was 74 percent, almost 3 points higher than for nonHispanic men. As shown below, this is due, in part, to the
fact that two-thirds of all working-age Hispanic men are
20 to 44 years old and are thus more concentrated than
non-Hispanics in the age categories where labor force
participation is at its highest.
The ratios for Hispanic men were higher than those of
non-Hispanic men for two age groups: 20- to 24-year-olds
and those age 45 and older. The ethnic differential for the
younger age group may be due to the higher likelihood of
enrollment of non-Hispanics in college, while the differen11
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Hispanics in the U.S. Work Force
Table 2. Change in civilian noninstitutional population and employment by Hispanic origin and sex, 16 years and over, annual
averages, 1980-87
Changein population
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Year
Level
(in
thousands)
Changeinemployment
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Percent
Level
(in
thousands)
Percent
Level
(in
thousands)
Percent
Level
(in
thousands)
Percent
522
460
449
449
437
429
523
34.1
5.4
4.5
4.2
4.1
3.8
3.6
4.2
11,739
1,863
1,681
1,495
1,719
1,386
1,952
1,643
7.4
1.2
1.1
.9
1.1
.8
1.2
1.0
2,263
286
-8
267
579
237
331
571
40.9
5.2
-.1
4.6
9.5
3.6
4.8
7.9
10,874
808
-863
1,041
3,592
1,908
2,116
2,272
11.6
9
-9
11
3.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
1,682
279
235
229
229
224
221
265
35.9
6.0
4.7
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
4.3
5,819
834
777
779
845
640
1,108
836
7.8
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
.8
1.4
1.0
1,265
149
-14
188
312
162
183
285
36.7
4.3
-.4
5.2
8.3
4.0
4.3
6.4
3,656
62
-1,112
328
1,992
638
818
930
6.8
1
-2.1
.6
3.8
1.2
1.5
1.6
1,587
242
226
220
219
213
209
258
32.3
4.9
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
4.1
5,918
1,028
904
716
875
745
844
806
7.1
1.2
1.1
.8
1.0
.9
1.0
.9
998
137
6
79
267
74
149
286
48.0
6.6
.3
3.6
11.6
2.9
5.6
10.2
7,219
746
250
712
1,601
1,270
1,298
1,342
18.0
1.9
6
1.7
3.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
Total
1980 to 1987 .....................
1980-1981 ..................
1981-1982 ................
1982-1983 .....................
1983-1984 ...................
1984-1985 ..........................
1985-1986 .......................
1986-1987 ............................
3,269
Men
1980 to 1987 .......................
1980-1981 .......................
1981-1982 .................
1982-1983 ......................
1983-1984 ..................
1984-1985 .................
1985-1986 ....................
1986-1987 .....................
Women
1980 to 1987 .......................
1980-1981 .....................
1981-1982 ...................
1982-1983 ..........................
1983-1984 ...................
1984-1985 .....................
1985-1986 ...................
1986-1987 ..........................
tial for older workers may result from the tendency of
non-Hispanics to retire younger.
Employment-population
ratio of men, 1987
Percent of the
population
Hispanic
NonHispanic
74.0
39.9
78.9
86.5
71.3
46.7
76.5
89.9
100.0
10.5
15.5
49.1
100.0
8.3
10.2
42.4
60.5
54.9
24.9
39.2
16 years and
old er..............
16 to 19 ......
20 to 2 4 ......
25 to 4 4 ......
45 and
older .........
Hispanic
NonHispanic
Unemployment
Because much of the sharp rise in Hispanic employ
ment since 1983 was accompanied by an increase in the
labor force, the decline in the level and rate of unemploy
Digitized 12
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment among Hispanics was in line with that of the rest of
the work force over the 1983-87 economic expansion.
(See table 3.) Thus, at 8.8 percent in 1987, the Hispanic
unemployment rate remained about \ \ times higher than
that of the remainder of the population, a ratio that has
been remarkably constant throughout the decade. How
ever, the Hispanic rate was below that of black workers,
who continue to have the highest jobless rate of any race
or ethnic group.9
Reasons for the high rates among Hispanics include
their relatively low levels of educational attainment; the
large numbers who have immigrated to the United States
in recent years, and thus their greater likelihood of being
labor market entrants;10 and their concentrations in job
categories which are especially vulnerable to business
cycle downturns.11 Among the individual Hispanic ethnic
groups, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans had the highest
jobless rates in 1987— about 10 percent— while the
Cuban rate was about 5 percent.
Employment patterns by occupation, 1983-87
Although Hispanic men and women have had some
degree of occupational upgrading during the decade, they
are still somewhat more likely than the overall work force
to be employed in lower skilled, lower paid occupations.12
As expected, most of the increase in the employment of
Hispanic women occurred in mid-level occupations where
Hispanic women are predominantly employed— techni
cal, sales, and administrative support— and the generally
lower paid service occupations, which together account
for three-fifths of the employment of Hispanic women.
Another 22 percent of the gain was in higher paid jobs—
as managers and professionals— who accounted for only
15 percent of Hispanic women’s employment. (See table
4.) In contrast, almost half of the increase in the
employment of non-Hispanic women was accounted for
by managerial and professional positions, where one
fourth of non-Hispanic women are employed. Jobs for
both groups of women continue to be concentrated in the
technical, sales, and administrative support category.
The occupational improvement among Hispanic men
was not as marked. Job growth for Hispanic men was
concentrated in occupations requiring intermediate
skills— operators, fabricators, and laborers— which ac
counted for nearly a third of their employment. In
contrast, job growth for non-Hispanic men— like that for
women— was concentrated in managerial and profes
sional positions, which accounted for more than one
fourth of their employment.
Reflecting their concentration in occupations requiring
lower levels of training and formal education, Hispanic
wage and salary workers employed full time typically
earned less than their non-Hispanic counterparts. Hispanic
workers averaged $284 a week in 1987, about three-fourths
the earnings of all full-time wage and salary workers.
Table 4.
Table 3. Unemployment levels and rates by Hispanic
origin and sex, 16 years and over, annual averages,
1980-87
H is p a n ic
W om en
M en
T o ta l
Y ear
N onH is p a n ic
H is p a n ic
NonH is p a n ic
H is p a n ic
NonH is p a n ic
U n e m p lo y m e n t le v e ls (in th o u s a n d s )
1980....
1981 ....
1982 ....
1983 ....
620
678
929
961
7,017
7,595
9,749
9,756
370
408
565
591
3,897
4,169
5,614
5,669
249
269
364
369
3,121
3,427
4,135
4,088
1984....
1985....
1986....
1987....
800
811
857
751
7,739
7,501
7,380
6,674
480
483
520
451
4,264
4,038
4,010
3,650
320
327
337
300
3,474
3,464
3,370
3,024
10.7
10.8
14.1
13.8
11.1
11.0
10.8
8.9
7.2
7.8
9.2
8.9
7.4
7.2
6.8
6.0
U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s
1980 ....
1981 ....
1982 ....
1983 ....
1984 ....
1985 ....
1986...
1987 ....
10.1
10.4
13.8
13.7
10.7
10.5
10.6
8.8
7.0
7.4
9.4
9.3
7.3
7.0
6.7
6.0
9.7
10.2
13.6
13.6
10.5
10.2
10.5
8.7
6.8
7.2
9.6
9.7
7.2
6.8
6.6
6.0
-FOOTNOTES
1Hispanics refers to all persons who identify themselves as of Mexican,
Puerto Rican (living on the mainland), Cuban, Central or South
American, or of other Hispanic origin or descent. Non-Hispanics is a
residual category referring to persons of all other origins or descents.
The Current Population Survey ( c p s ) is a monthly sample survey of
about 125,000 persons in some 60,000 households representing the U.S.
working-age population (16 years and over). (Beginning in April 1988,
the size of the c p s sample was cut back to 55,800 households.)
Conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Bureau of the
Census, the c p s provides information on the Nation’s labor force,
employment, and unemployment by economic and demographic charac
teristics. Beginning in January 1986, the Census Bureau introduced
major changes into the independent population estimates used in the
weighting procedure for the c p s . The new weights compensate for
Occupational employment by Hispanic origin and sex, annual averages, 1983- 87
Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Occupation
Percent
distribution,
1987
Share of
total growth,
1 9 8 3 -8 7
Percent
change,
1 9 8 3 -8 7
Percent
distribution,
1987
Share of
total growth,
1 9 8 3 -8 7
Percent
change,
1 9 8 3 -8 7
Men, 16 years and older....................................
100.0
100.0
25.0
100.0
100.0
8.3
Managerial and professional specialty........................
Technical, sales, and administrative support................
Service occupations............................................
Precision production, craft, and repair........................
Operators, fabricators, and laborers..........................
Farming, forestry, and fishing.................................
12.0
15.7
13.9
20.5
29.1
8.9
13.8
21.4
10.5
17.9
25.4
11.0
30.0
37.5
17.0
21.0
21.1
33.2
25.9
20.3
9.2
19.9
20.2
4.4
31.8
25.1
6.7
21.0
21.2
-5.9
10.3
10.4
5.9
8.7
8.7
-9.2
Women, 16 years and older................................
100.0
100.0
33.7
100.0
100.0
13.2
44.5
40.9
10.9
2.4
2.1
-.7
26.2
11.7
7.7
14.6
2.9
-7.1
Managerial and professional specialty........................
Technical, sales, and administrative support................
Service occupations............................................
Precision production, craft, and repair........................
Operators, fabricators, and laborers..........................
Farming, forestry, and fishing.................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14.7
39.9
23.3
3.7
16.9
1.5
22.2
34.0
26.4
2.7
14.4
.1
61.2
27.4
40.1
22.3
27.5
2.3
25.0
45.5
17.8
2.2
8.4
1.1
13
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Hispanics in the U.S. Work Force
underestimates of illegal immigrants and legal emigrants, and substan
tially raised the population and employment estimates of Hispanics.
Major series (for example, numbers in the population and labor force by
sex and age) were revised back to 1980, while more detailed data (for
example, employment by occupation) are available in revised form only
back to 1986.
For an overview of the recent changes and their effect on the c p s , see
Jeffrey Passel, “Changes in the Estimation Procedure in the Current
Population Survey Beginning in January 1986,” Employment and
Earnings, February 1986, pp. 7—10. For additional detail on procedures
and findings concerning estimates of legal and illegal immigration and
emigration, see Robert Warren and Jeffrey Passel, “A Count of the
Uncountable: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980
United States Census,” Demography, August 1987, pp. 375-94; and
Karen Woodrow, Jeffrey Passel, and Robert Warren, “Recent Immigra
tion to the United States— Legal and Undocumented: Analysis of Data
from the June 1986 Current Population Survey,” paper presented at the
1987 annual meetings of the Population Association of America,
Chicago, IL, Apr. 29-M ay 2. For an overview of earlier changes in the
c p s weights, see Philip Rones, “Revisions in Hispanic population and
labor force data,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1985, pp. 43-44.
2Data by country of origin for 1980 were derived from the 1980
census; 1987 figures are annual averages from the c p s .
3See Howard N Fullerton, Jr., “Labor force projections: 1986 to
2000,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w , September 1987, pp. 19 —29.
4See Susan E. Shank, “Women and the labor market: the link grows
stronger,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1988, pp. 3 -8 ; Daniel T.
Lichter and Janice A. Costanzo, “How do demographic changes affect
the labor force participation of women?” Monthly Labor Review,
November 1987, pp. 23-25; and Howard Hayghe, “Rise in mothers’
labor force activity includes those with young children,” Monthly Labor
Review, February 1986, pp. 43-45.
5For a critical overview of this perspective, see Vilma Ortiz and
Rosemary Santana Cooney, “Sex-Role Attitudes and Labor Force
Participation among Young Hispanic Females and Non-Hispanic White
Females,” Social Science Quarterly, June 1984, pp. 392-400.
bI b id .
For a similar finding using the 1976 Survey of Income and
Education, see George J. Borjas and Marta Tienda, Hispanics in the U.S.
Economy (Orlando, f l , Academic Press, 1985), p. 8. For additional
perspectives on the labor force participation of women, see Marta Tienda
and Jennifer Glass, “Household Structure and Labor Force Participa
14
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion of Black, Hispanic and White Mothers,” Demography, August
1985, pp. 381-94; Shelley A. Smith and Marta Tienda, “The Doubly
Disadvantaged: Women of Color in the U.S. Labor Force,” in Ann
Stromberg and Shirley Harkess, eds., Working Women, 2d ed. (Palo
Alto, c a , Mayfield Publishing Co., 1987); Edna Acosta-Belen, The
Puerto Rican Woman: Perspectives on Culture, History and Society (New
York, Praeger, 1986); and Borjas and Tienda, Hispanics in the U.S.
Economy, chs. 7 and 8.
T o r an overview of the employment status of married men (the vast
majority of all men in the labor force), see Howard Hayghe and Steven
Haugen, “A profile of husbands in today’s labor market,” Monthly
Labor Review, October 1987, pp. 12-17.
9c p s data on persons of Hispanic origin are tabulated separately
without regard to race, which means they are also included in the data
for white and black workers.
10 Research has shown that the extent of unemployment among recent
immigrants to the United States drops sharply over time, and about a
decade after their arrival their unemployment rates are very similar to
those of native-born workers. See Ellen Sehgal, “Foreign born in the
U.S. labor market: the results of a special survey,” M onthly Labor
Review, July 1985, pp. 18-24.
1'As occurred in the 1980’s, the Hispanic unemployment rate rose and
fell more sharply during the 1970’s than that of non-Hispanics. For an
analysis of trends in Hispanic unemployment between 1973 and 1984,
see Gregory DeFreitas, “A Time-Series Analysis of Hispanic Unemploy
ment,” Journal o f H um an Resources, Winter 1986, pp. 24-43.
12 This analysis of Hispanic occupational employment is limited to the
1983-87 period because of a major revision of the 1980 census
occupational classification system which was implemented in the 1983
CPS. See Gloria Peterson Green and others, “Revisions in the Current
Population Survey Beginning in January 1983,” Employment and
Earnings, February 1983, pp. 7-15.
Estimates of occupational employment before 1986 were not revised
to reflect the changes in weights introduced into the c p s . (See footnote
1 ) The analysis presented here uses the original 1983 percent distribu
tions of Hispanic men and women across the major occupational
categories. To obtain levels of occupational employment consistent with
the revised 1983 data on total employment of Hispanics by sex, the
percentages in each occupation were multiplied by the revised totals.
The underlying assumption was that if the revised estimation procedures
for Hispanic employment levels were to be applied to occupational
characteristics, the percentage distributions would not be significantly
affected.
Employment and unemployment
in the first half of 1988
Unemployment declined to a 14-year low
by midyear; job growth slowed
in the second quarter, and was not
as widespread as in the previous year
R ichard M. D evens , Jr .
During the first half of 1988, job growth began to
moderate from the rapid pace of 1987, but the civilian
unemployment rate, which averaged 5.5 percent in the
second quarter, was down considerably from 5.9 percent
at the end of last year. In this article, these developments
are viewed in the context of the wider economic back
ground and also are compared to conditions at a similar
period in recent business cycle history.
The economic context
As 1987 drew to an end, there were signs that the 5year expansion in employment may have been in some
danger of coming to a close. The collapse of stock prices
in October 1987 cast a shadow over expectations for
short-term economic developments as the new year
began. Paced by the decline in stock prices, the Com
merce Department’s index of leading indicators fell in the
last quarter of 1987— its first quarterly decline in more
than 3 years. The slippage stopped in the first quarter of
the new year, but the leading index was still lower than it
was two quarters earlier.
There was a rapid runup in inventories in the last
quarter of 1987, and, as firms began to correct that
imbalance, inventory investment declined in early 1988.
Richard M. Devens, Jr., is an economist in the Division of Labor Force
Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The Commerce Department’s index of coincident indica
tors, a measure of current economic activity, which had
posted strong increases in the last half of 1987, slowed
somewhat in the first quarter.
In contrast to these moderating factors, statistics on
foreign trade showed that the export push that had fueled
rapid gains in manufacturing employment in the last half
of 1987 was continuing, and estimates of consumer
spending rebounded quickly after dropping at the end of
1987. At the same time, however, imports were also
rising, so that there was only slow progress toward a more
balanced merchandise trade account.
Individual industries, of course, faced differing eco
nomic environments. Manufacturers, especially those
with interests in international markets, were helped by a
decline in the exchange rate for the dollar. Partly as a
result of the rise in exports that the falling dollar
encouraged, industrial production and capacity utiliza
tion figures remained fairly upbeat throughout the first
half of 1988.
As consumer spending paused in the last quarter of
1987, the distribution system, especially at the wholesale
level, saw inventory growing faster than sales, and the
inventory-to-sales ratio for wholesalers rising sharply.
The construction industry faced declining sales as interest
rates rose both late in 1987 and in the second quarter of
1988. As a result, housing starts dipped and residential
construction spending flattened.
15
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Employment in First-Half 1988
Employment gains slower in second quarter
None of the worst scenarios for the labor market that
had bee generated by the financial turbulence of late 1987
came true in the first half of 1988. Unemployment
continued to recede, and there was only a slight slowdown
in payroll job growth from the rapid rate of 1987.1 Gains in
nonfarm payroll employment were still strong in early
1988, totaling nearly 1 million jobs in the first quarter,
before slowing to an 875,000 increase in the second. (See
table 1.) Goods-producing employment continued to ex
pand, although at a slower pace than in late 1987,
increasing by 375,000 in the first half of 1988. While
construction gains were concentrated in the FebruaryApril period, they still totaled 170,000. There was, how
ever, no slowdown in factory employment growth; 205,000
jobs were gained in the first half, about the same growth
rate as in the previous year. Much of the rise was confined
to a few of the industries that have higher than average
ratios of exports to shipments, especially machinery and
chemicals. The following tabulation shows the growth rate
and percent distribution of job gains of selected industries
with high ratios of exports to shipments:
Industry
M anufacturing........
M achinery...............
Chemicals ...............
Electrical
equipm ent..............
Share of
Exports/ Job growth, job growth,
shipments
first-half
first-half
ratio, 1987
1988
1988
8.5
18.9
12.0
2.8
1.8
100.0
28.4
9.3
10.8
.8
7.8
1.1
A measure of the extent to which employment gains are
distributed across industries is the index of diffusion— the
percentage of 185 private nonagricultural industries in
which employment increased over a specified time (with
half of nonchanging components counted as rising).
During periods of economic growth and job gains, a rise
in the index indicates a more broadly based expansion in
employment, while a lower figure would indicate a more
concentrated pattern of growth.
The monthly index of diffusion averaged 62 percent in
the first half of 1988, down 5 percentage points from 67
percent during the fourth quarter of 1987. Thus, job
growth was not as widespread during the first half of 1988
as it had been the previous year. One weakness of the
diffusion index is its overrepresentation of manufacturing
industries at a time when service-sector jobs are dominat
ing the totals. Indeed, during the first half of 1988, the
service sector grew by 1.5 million, more than 80 percent
of net job gains. However, its rate of growth also started
to fall during the second quarter. While growth in
wholesale trade and health services continued to be
relatively strong, gains in retail trade and business
Digitized16
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
services, two mainstays of the current expansion, slowed
in the spring. And there were virtually no gains in the
finance industry, reflecting a year-old retrenchment in
banking and, by the second quarter, cutbacks among
securities brokers.
Overall civilian employment, as measured by the
Current Population Survey ( c p s ), rose 1.2 percent during
the first half of 1988. (See table 2.) While this was below
the pace of 1987, it was about equal to the growth rates of
1986 and the last half of 1985. While month-to-month
movements were quite erratic, growth still averaged out
to a 485,000 quarterly rise. As in the payroll survey, most
of the increase occurred in the first quarter. The civilian
employment-to-population ratio also rose fitfully during
the first half, but edged up to 62.2 percent by midyear, a
record level.
Declines in joblessness
The civilian unemployment rate averaged 5.5 percent in
the second quarter of 1988. The rate had been on a
downward trend since the previous fall and was lower
than at any time since the second quarter of 1974. During
the first half, declines in unemployment were most
evident among whites and teenagers. In contrast, the
unemployment rate for black workers did not improve at
all.
The number of unemployed persons, which had fallen
in absolute terms in every quarter since the second
quarter of 1986, stood at 6.6 million at midyear, down
465,000 from late 1987. This was the lowest absolute level
of unemployment since the fourth quarter of 1979.
Despite continuing growth in the labor force, both the
level and rate of unemployment had fallen below where
they had been at the start of the recessions of the early
1980’s.
The number of long-term unemployed— those jobless
27 weeks or more— fell by about 120,000 during the first
half of 1988, to 810,000. Also, by the second quarter, the
median duration of ongoing unemployment spells had
fallen to 5.8 weeks, compared with 6.1 weeks at the end of
the prior year. Workers who had lost their jobs accounted
for virtually the same share of the unemployed, 46
percent, while those who had voluntarily left their jobs to
search for new ones increased from 13 percent to 14
percent. A rise in the proportion of job leavers is often
taken as a sign of workers’ confidence in labor market
conditions.
Other measures of distress
Not all indicators of labor market difficulty improved
during the first half of the year. After declining through
out the expansion, the number of discouraged workers—
persons not in the labor force who report that they would
like a job but are not actively seeking one because they
Table 1.
Employees on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, seasonally adjusted quarterly averages, 1979-88
[Numbers in thousands]
III
II
1988
1987
1986
1979
Industry
IV
I
II
III
II
I
IV
Total..........................................................................
89,671
99,676
100,347
101,024
101,841
102,669
103,683
104,670
105,544
Total private................................................................
73,781
82,987
83,496
84,130
84,869
85,643
86,518
87,406
88,221
Goods-producing...................................................................
26,529
24,454
24,443
24,523
24,644
24,847
25,116
25,260
25,489
Oil and gas extraction........................................................
946
464
741
418
715
396
704
389
715
400
728
412
737
419
731
416
738
424
General building contractors...............................................
4,461
1,282
4,811
1,285
4,843
1,302
4,924
1,317
4,964
1,317
5,007
1,325
5,089
1,347
5,142
1,375
5,257
1,401
Manufacturing.....................................................................
21,122
18,902
18,885
18,895
18,965
19,112
19,290
19,388
19,494
Durable goods...................................................................
12,822
11,184
11,137
11,129
11,157
11,235
11,353
11,403
11,481
Lumber and wood products...............................................
Furniture and fixtures.......................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products.........................................
Primary metal industries...................................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products ........................
Fabricated metal products.........................................■■■■■■
772
498
712
1,264
574
1,727
710
500
584
737
265
1,413
723
501
581
729
255
1,404
731
504
583
730
256
1,397
736
513
581
744
269
1,398
741
525
580
756
274
1,407
749
531
585
768
279
1,428
755
535
584
770
280
1,437
757
53/
586
777
281
1,449
Machinery, except electrical.................... J
-— Electrical and electronic equipment.........
Transportation equipment.................................................
Motor vehicles and equipment......................................
Instruments and related products.....................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing.............. <1 ..........................
2,491
2,116
2,108
1,035
689
444
2,036
2,115
2,026
866
703
359
2,002
2,102
2,037
868
698
360
1,995
2,084
2,048
876
694
362
2,007
2,070
2,048
870
693
366
2,030
2,080
2,049
859
696
372
2,062
2,101
2,048
855
703
378
2,092
2,113
2,031
837
705
381
2,120
2,117
2,048
850
708
382
Nondurable goods.............................................................
8,300
7,719
7,748
7,766
7,808
7,877
7,937
7,985
8,014
Food and kindred products...............................................
Tobacco manufactures.....................................................
Textile mill products.........................................................
Apparel and other textile products....................................
Paper and allied products.................................................
1,734
71
887
1,314
707
1,605
57
704
1,095
672
1,616
57
709
1,094
676
1,614
55
715
1,091
676
1,620
55
721
1,095
677
1,627
54
729
1,106
680
1,635
53
732
1,107
683
1,648
54
731
1,105
686
1,647
53
727
1,099
688
Printinq and publishinq..........................
Chemical and allied products...... ■
Petroleum and coal products............................................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products....................
Leather and leather products ...........................................
1,231
1,109
209
788
249
1,463
1,020
168
789
145
1,475
1,017
165
797
143
1,487
1,016
165
806
142
1,501
1,017
165
815
142
1,514
1,029
165
827
146
1,527
1,041
167
845
145
1,543
1,049
165
857
147
1,559
1,060
165
869
146
Service-producing.......................... .......................................
Transportation and public utilities..........................................
Transportation...................................................................
Communication and public utilities......................................
63,142
5,097
2,989
2,109
75,222
5,250
3,064
2,186
75,904
5,285
3,093
2,192
76,500
5,317
3,115
2,202
77,196
5,358
3,146
2,212
77,822
5,398
3,174
2,224
78,567
5,465
3,230
2,235
79,410
5,514
3,273
2,241
80,054
5,561
3,313
2,248
Wholesale trade...................................................................
Durable goods...................................................................
Nondurable goods.............................................................
5,191
3,073
2,118
5,765
3,384
2,382
5,761
3,381
2,380
5,794
3,394
2,400
5,843
3,422
2,421
5,893
3,464
2,430
5,959
3,516
2,443
6,035
3,573
2,462
6,116
3,633
2,483
Retail trade..........................................................................
General merchandise stores...............................................
Food stores.......................................................................
Automotive dealers and service stations.............................
Eating and drinking places.................................................
14,972
2,282
2,283
1,835
4,488
18,025
2,377
2,930
1,950
5,951
18,157
2,379
2,945
1,967
6,007
18,272
2,373
2,931
1,983
6,063
18,431
2,411
2,958
1,995
6,092
18,572
2,448
2,960
2,011
6,141
18,750
2,493
2,979
2,028
6,213
19,007
2,543
3,029
2,047
6,290
19,139
2,544
3,060
2,060
6,340
Finance, insurance, and real estate......................................
Finance..............................................................................
Insurance..........................................................................
Real estate........................................................................
4,955
2,356
1,625
974
6,330
3,178
1,955
1,197
6,401
3,210
1,978
1,214
6,467
3,238
1,999
1,230
6,537
3,273
2,016
1,248
6,580
3,290
2,028
1,262
6,610
3,298
2,045
1,267
6,640
3,306
2,055
1,279
6,655
3,301
2,067
1,287
Services..............................................................................
Business services..............................................................
Health services..................................................................
17,038
2,870
4,964
23,162
4,841
6,571
23,448
4,926
6,632
23,756
5,039
6,703
24,056
5,146
6,778
24,352
5,208
6,868
24,618
5,292
6,962
24,949
5,370
7,054
25,262
5,445
7,158
Government.........................................................................
Federal..............................................................................
State.................................................................................
Local.................................................................................
15,890
2,768
3,519
9,604
16,689
2,887
3,891
9,911
16,851
2,899
3,925
10,026
16,894
2,915
3,941
10,037
16,972
2,935
3,952
10,085
17,027
2,949
3,970
10,108
17,165
2,973
3,991
10,200
17,264
2,972
4,017
10,275
17,322
2,956
4,040
10,327
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
17
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Table 2.
August 1988
•
Employment in First-Half 1988
Employment status by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, selected seasonally adjusted quarterly averages, 1979-88
[Numbers in thousands]
1979
1986
1987
Characteristic
1988
II
III
IV
1
II
III
IV
I
104,327
63.4
98,371
3,298
95,073
59.8
5,956
5.7
118,203
65.4
109,973
3,132
106,841
60.8
8,230
6.9
118,557
65.3
110,436
3,176
107,260
60.9
8,121
6.8
119,151
65.5
111,271
3,212
108,059
61.1
7,880
6.6
119,626
65.5
112,147
3,237
108,910
61.4
7,479
6.3
120,053
65.6
112,854
3,180
109,674
61.7
7,199
6.0
120,568
65.7
113,486
3,212
110,274
6.9
7,082
5.9
121,142
65.8
114,214
3,241
110,972
62.1
6,928
5.7
121,258
65.8
114,642
3,116
111,526
62.2
6,616
5.5
55,378
79.7
53,191
76.5
2,188
4.0
61,369
78.0
57,599
73.2
3,771
6.1
61,657
78.2
57,873
73.4
3,784
6.1
61,925
78.2
58,308
73.6
3,617
5.8
62,051
78.1
58,607
73.8
3,444
5.6
62,091
77.9
58,858
73.9
3,233
5.2
62,253
77.9
59,129
74.0
3,124
5.0
62,544
78.0
59,440
74.1
3,105
5.0
62,707
78.0
59,757
74.3
2,950
4.7
39,326
50.2
37,100
47.4
2,226
5.7
48,893
55.8
45,886
52.3
3,007
6.2
49,005
55.7
46,070
52.4
2,935
6.0
49,308
55.9
46,452
52.6
2,856
5.8
49,648
56.1
46,959
53.1
2,689
5.4
49,926
56.3
47,255
53.3
2,671
5.3
50,237
56.5
47,631
53.6
2,615
5.2
50,580
56.7
48,038
53.9
2,542
5.0
50,565
56.6
48,100
53.8
2,465
4.9
9,623
57.7
8,081
48.5
1,542
16.0
7,941
54.8
6,488
44.8
1,453
18.3
7,895
54.3
6,492
44.6
1,402
17.8
7,919
54.4
6,511
44.8
1,408
17.8
7,927
54.3
6,581
45.1
1,346
17.0
8,036
54.9
6,740
46.0
1,296
16.1
8,078
55.2
6,736
46.0
1,342
16.6
8,018
55.0
6,736
46.2
1,282
16.0
7,986
54.8
6,786
46.6
1,200
15.0
91,351
63.6
86,887
60.5
4,464
4.9
102,125
65.6
96,005
61.7
6,120
6.0
102,425
65.7
96,350
61.8
6,075
5.9
102,777
65.7
96,941
62.0
5,835
5.7
103,179
65.8
97,622
62.3
5,558
5.4
103,374
65.8
98,056
62.4
5,318
5.1
103,769
65.9
98,529
62.6
5,240
5.0
104,317
66.1
99,264
62.9
5,053
4.8
104,491
66.1
99,660
63.1
4,832
4.6
10,626
61.3
9,297
53.6
1,329
12.5
12,597
62.9
10,759
53.7
1,838
14.6
12,719
63.2
10,918
54.3
1,800
14.2
12,851
63.6
11,051
54.7
1,800
14.0
12,853
63.3
11,160
54.9
1,693
3.2
13,072
64.1
11,438
56.1
1,634
12.5
13,187
64.4
11,583
56.6
1,603
12.2
13,162
64.0
11,511
56.0
1,652
12.5
13,045
63.2
11,474
55.6
1,571
12.0
8,171
65.9
7,280
58.7
891
10.9
8,256
66.0
7,425
59.4
831
10.1
8,402
66.2
7,593
59.8
809
9.6
8,495
66.3
7,740
60.4
755
8.9
8,526
66.0
7,832
60.6
694
8.1
8,730
66.9
7,990
61.3
739
8.5
iß,900
67.7
8,195
62.3
705
7.9
8,905
67.1
8,096
61.0
809
9.1
II
T o ta l
Civilian labor force ..................
Percent of population...........
Employed..............................
Agriculture..........................
Nonagriculture....................
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed.........................
Unemployment rate.............
M en, 20 y ea rs and o v er
Civilian labor force..................
Percent of population...........
Employed..............................
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed.........................
Unemployment rate.............
Women, 20 years and over
Civilian labor force..................
Percent of population...........
Employed..............................
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed.........................
Unemployment rate.............
B o th s e x e s , 16 to 19 y e a r s
Civilian labor force ..................
Percent of population............
Employed..............................
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed.........................
Unemployment rate.............
W h ite
Civilian labor force ..................
Percent of population............
Employed...........................
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed.........................
Unemployment rate.............
B la c k
Civilian labor force..................
Percent of population...........
Employed..............................
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed.........................
Unemployment rate.............
H is p a n ic o rig in
Civilian labor force ..................
Percent of population...........
Employed..............................
Employment-population ratio
Unemployed.........................
Unemployment rate.............
(1)
0)
(1)
0)
(1)
(1)
population totals introduced in January 1986.
NOTE: Detail for race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum totals because
18
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
data for the "other races" group are not presented and Hispanlcs are Included i
both the white and black population groups.
think it would be impossible to find one— rose by 100,000
to about 1 million in the first quarter before returning to
its late-1987 level of 910,000.
The number of persons working part time even though
they would prefer a full-time job— those on part-time
schedules for economic reasons— continued to fluctuate
within the 5.2- to 5.8-million range of the previous 4
years. While a dip to 4.8 million in May left the second
quarter average below that of earlier quarters, the return
to 5.3 million in June indicates that the May estimate was
probably an outlier. Still, with the rapid growth of total
employment, persons working part time for economic
reasons made up a smaller proportion of American
workers.
Comparisons to an earlier era
There was considerable comment when the monthly
unemployment rate reached 5.4 percent in April 1988, the
lowest rate since June 1974. However, a comparison of
current labor conditions with the middle of 1974 is
probably not valid because, in 1974, the economy was
sliding into the second most severe recession since CPSbased unemployment statistics have been regularly pub
lished. A more useful comparison might be with the
second quarter of 1979. At that point, the business cycle
was well into a prolonged expansion, and the unemploy
ment rate was 5.7 percent— conditions not much differ
ent from those in the second quarter of this year.
One of the most striking changes since mid-1979 has
occurred in the relationship of the unemployment rates of
men and women. In 1988, the jobless rate for adult men
was 4.7 percent, well above the 4.0-percent rate posted in
mid-1979. In comparison, the rate for women, at 4.9
percent, was almost a full percentage point lower in 1988
than in 1979. In effect, the unemployment rates of men
and women have converged significantly since mid-1979.
Among the reasons for women’s relative improvement are
their greater employment concentration in many highgrowth service-sector industries, their increased tendency
to work full time and year round, the growth and pattern
of their labor force participation, and their dramatic
improvements in educational attainment.
While there has been a significant shift in the relative
incidence of joblessness between the sexes since 1979,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
there has been little progress toward more even unem
ployment rates across racial and ethnic divisions. The
ratio of black-to-white unemployment rates was 2.6-to-l
in mid-1988, the same ratio as in the second quarter of
1979. Unemployment among Hispanic workers averaged
9.1 percent in the second quarter of 1988, or 1.7 times the
overall rate. This actually reflects some deterioration
since 1979, when their jobless rate was 8.2 percent, or 1.4
times the national average.
On the employment side, the last 9 years have seen a
continuation of the secular trend toward service-produc
ing industries, while there has actually been a decline in
goods-producing employment. Mining employment has
fallen by 210,000, and manufacturing employment has
gone down 1.6 million. Although the other goodsproducing industry, construction, grew by about 800,000,
it still left employment for the entire sector roughly a
million less than it had been. Partly as a result of this
decline, but more fundamentally as a function of its own
new net gain of more than 17 million jobs, the serviceproducing share in payroll employment grew by about 5
percentage points to a bit over 75 percent.
T he first half of 1988 saw more moderate employ
ment growth, following robust gains in 1987. However,
the unemployment rate continued to fall, reaching a point
clearly below that prevailing at the start of the recessions
of the 1980’s. Some problems persisted, such as relatively
high numbers of involuntary part-time workers and
discouraged workers and the high jobless rates for
minority workers. But it is important to note that this was
the first time since the prolonged expansion of the 1960’s
that the jobless rate fell below the lowest point reached in
the previous business cycle.
--------- FO O TNO TES--------'The labor force and employment data used in this report are derived
from the Current Population Survey (a monthly survey of households
conducted by the Census Bureau on behalf of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics) or the Current Employment Statistics program (a monthly
survey of business establishment payrolls conducted by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics in cooperation with State Employment Security
Agencies). For additional information concerning these programs, see
Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988).
19
How has vesting changed since passage of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act?
Since the enactment o f e r i s a
in 1974, vesting status is attained
sooner for most workers
and is more easily obtained for mobile workers
A
vy
D.
G
raham
Provisions of employer-financed retirement plans have
been changed to reflect the statutory requirements of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( e r i s a ),
enacted in 1974, and several other laws passed since that
time. These plans will experience further revisions as
terms of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 become effective.
The laws largely affect a retirement plan’s vesting
schedule— the rate at which a participant’s future retire
ment benefits become guaranteed. Vesting provisions are
very important in an economy with a mobile labor force;
once specific requirements are met, these provisions
essentially guarantee a worker the right to future benefits.
These provisions allow a worker to terminate service
before he or she is eligible for retirement without losing
accrued benefits. In addition, vesting provisions can
guarantee benefits to the spouse of an employee who dies
before retiring. However, vesting increases the likelihood
of eventual pension payments, thereby raising the cost to
employers of providing employee benefits.
This article discusses the vesting provisions of two
types of plans— defined benefit pension plans and defined
contribution plans. A defined benefit pension plan con
tains a formula for determining retiree benefits (for
example, the formula may designate a dollar amount or a
Avy D. Graham is a social science research analyst in the Division of
Occupational Pay and Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Digitized for20
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
percentage of annual salary times years of service). A
defined contribution plan specifies the employer’s contri
bution to a retirement or savings fund (for example, a
percentage of annual salary), but not the eventual benefit
amount. Instead, benefits depend on amounts contributed
to the fund plus the fund’s investment earnings. The two
major forms of defined contribution plans discussed in
this article are savings and thrift plans (in which
employees typically contribute a portion of their earnings
to a fund, which is matched in whole or in part by the
employer) and deferred profit-sharing plans (in which
employers typically contribute a portion of profits to a
fund, regardless of the level of employee contribution).
Defined contribution plans often have more liberal
vesting schedules, compared with defined benefit plans.
Changes in vesting provisions in defined benefit pension
plans are traced in this article using results from two
Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys, one conducted in 1974
before enactment of e r i s a , and the other in early 1986,
just before passage of the Tax Reform Act. Essentially,
e r i s a made vesting a universal feature of the plans
studied here. For many plans which already had vesting
provisions, e r i s a called for revising the timing schedules
to guarantee benefits after fewer years of service with the
employer. The Tax Reform Act will likewise have a large
impact on pension plans; most of the plans studied in the
1986 Employee Benefits Survey will have to be revised to
conform to the vesting standards spelled out in that act.
Vesting provisions
Vesting schedules specify the rate at which employees
earn rights to the employer contributions to a plan.
Employees are always fully and immediately vested in
their own contributions to the plan.1 The four standard
types of vesting schedules are:
• Immediate full— participants have immediate rights to
all accrued benefits. This schedule may be found in
either defined benefit or defined contribution plans.
• Deferred full (also known as “cliff vesting”)— partici
pants are granted full (100-percent) rights to all
accumulated benefits only after completing the neces
sary service period (such as 10 years). However, if
employment is terminated before the required service is
completed, the benefits are forfeited. This schedule may
be found in either defined benefit or defined contribu
tion plans.
• Deferred graded— participants gradually become
vested, until 100-percent status is achieved. To illus
trate: A schedule may call for 50-percent vesting after 5
years of service and then 10 additional percentage
points in each of the next 5 years. An employee leaving
the company after 5 years of service would have a
guaranteed right to 50 percent of his or her accumu
lated benefits. This schedule may be found in either
defined benefit or defined contribution plans.
• Class year— employer contributions for a particular
year (or class) are vested after a certain time, say, 2 or 3
years. For example, if the class-year schedule calls for
vesting after 2 years, contributions made in 1986 may
become nonforfeitable in 1988. This schedule is found
only in defined contribution plans.
Determining vesting rights.
Also important is how
pension plans count years of service toward satisfying
vesting requirements, e r i s a required all service accrued
after age 22 to count for vesting purposes; the “vesting”
age was reduced to 18 by the 1984 Retirement Equity
Act.2
Regardless of how vesting rights are determined, they
apply solely to benefits accumulated at termination of
employment. If an employee leaves a job prior to
retirement, the eventual benefits are, of course, usually
much less than they would be if the employee had
continued working until retirement. Also, vested benefits
are not payable until a terminated employee has reached a
pension plan’s early retirement age, at the least. For
example, an employee who is vested in a plan permitting
retirement at age 55, and who leaves the employer at age
35 after meeting the necessary service requirement, will
have to wait 20 years for the benefits.
Other pension plan provisions may also affect how
vested benefits are received. These provisions, such as
rules governing breaks in service (when employees tempo
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 1. Earliest age and associated service requirement
for vesting in defined benefit pension plans, private
industry, early 1984.
Vesting provision
T o t a l p a r t i c i p a n t s ..............................................
Percent of
participants
100
Plans with vesting provisions......................................
87
.........................................................
69
Vesting at any age.....................................................
Service requirement:
Fewer than 10 years.............................................
10 years.................................................................
11-14 years..........................................................
15-19 years..........................................................
20 years or more...................................................
39
Vesting at age 40 or younger...................................
Service requirement:
5 -9 years..............................................................
10-14 years..........................................................
15-19 years..........................................................
20 years or more...................................................
16
Vesting at age 41 - 4 5 ...............................................
Service requirement:
5 -9 years..............................................................
10-14 years..........................................................
15-19 years..........................................................
20 years or more...................................................
8
C liff v e s tin g
Vesting at age 50 or older.........................................
Service requirement:
10-14 years..........................................................
15-19 years..........................................................
20 years or more...................................................
No specified service .............................................
2
24
O
9
4
(1)
5
10
O
(1)
2
5
O
6
2
2
2
O
Other cliff vesting schedule......................................
O
..............................................
18
Full vesting at any age..............................................
Service requirement:
5 -9 years..............................................................
10-14 years..........................................................
15-19 years..........................................................
20 years or more...................................................
12
Full vesting after specified age.................................
Service requirement:
No specified service .............................................
Fewer than 15 years.............................................
15-19 years..........................................................
20 years or more...................................................
5
G ra d u a te d v e s t in g
Age and service requirement not
determinable...........................................................
1
2
4
5
0
0
4
1
0
Full vesting not achieved..........................................
1
Immediate vesting.....................................................
1
Plans without vesting provisions.................................
13
'Less than 0.5 percent.
Note : Because of rounding and the existence of multiple vesting schedules
in a plan, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
rarily leave employment) and survivors’ right to annu
ities, are not examined in this article.
Vesting provisions in 1974
Before passage of e r i s a 14 years ago, there were no
statutory requirements for vesting.3 An employer who
21
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Changes in Pension Vesting
provided a pension plan determined if, when, and under
what conditions employees obtained vested rights to the
accrued benefits.
The 1974 survey of defined benefit pension plans with
100 or more active workers provides information on
vesting practices before the passage of e r i s a .4 This survey
covered plans with approximately 23 million private
sector plan participants.
According to the survey, 13 percent of participants were in
defined benefit plans without vesting provisions; 11 percent
were in plans requiring 20 years or more of service before
becoming eligible for full vesting; and 34 percent were in
plans requiring 15 to 19 years. (See table 1.) Age restrictions
also were common; for example, 1 of 5 participants under
cliff vesting schedules was required to be 41 or older.
Impact of legislation
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( e r i s a ).
Restrictive vesting provisions, such as those reported in the
1974 survey, were among the major concerns addressed in
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,5
which established comprehensive requirements for em
ployee benefit plans, including minimum standards for
vesting provisions. (See exhibit 1.) e r i s a prescribed several
minimum vesting schedules, including a 10-year cliff
vesting standard and two graduated vesting alternatives.
(See table 2.) In addition, a 5-year minimum class-year
schedule was established for defined contribution plans.
Nearly three-fourths of the workers in the 1974 defined
benefit pension survey were in plans that did not meet
e r i s a standards, either because the plans did not provide
vesting or the vesting schedules were more restrictive than
the e r i s a standards, as shown in the following
tabulation:
P ercent
All participants...................................................
100
Vesting provisions:
Meeting e r is a sta n d ard s.........................................
Cliff vesting.............................................................
Graduated v estin g .................................................
27
25
2
Not meeting e r is a sta n d ard s..................................
With vesting............................................................
Cliff vesting.........................................................
Graduated vesting .............................................
W ithout vesting......................................................
72
60
44
15
12
Not determinable whether vesting schedule met
e r is a stan d ard s.......................................................
1
Slightly more than one-fourth of the workers were in
plans that met e r i s a ’s vesting schedule requirements.
One of three workers under cliff vesting schedules was in
a plan that met or exceeded the standards, compared to 1
of 8 workers under graduated schedules.
Information from the Current Population Survey
( c p s ) 6 suggests that the proportion of retirement plan
participants who were fully or partly vested in their plan
increased after the passage of e r i s a . According to the
Exhibit 1. Minimum vesting requirements prescribed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (erisa) and the Tax
Reform Act
ERISA (1974)
Type of schedule
Tax Reform Act (1986)
Cliff vesting
100
Graduated
100
100 percent after 7 years.
20 percent after 3 years, 20 percent additional
in each of the next 4 years.
Alternative graded vesting :1
50 percent if age and service total 45 with
minimum 5 years’ service, or after 10 years’
service; 10 percent additional in each of the
next 5 years.
Eliminated alternative grading vesting.
Each class must vest after 5 years.
Eliminated class year vesting.
Class-year vesting ...........
Special vestin g .................
percent after 10 years.
percent after 15 years.
25 percent after 5 years,
5 percent additional in each of the next 5
years,
10 percent additional in each of the next 5
years.
(2)
This is known as the "rule of 45." The e r is a requirement that all service from
age 22 be included in meeting vesting requirements did notapply to this form of
graduated vesting.
2After the passage of e r is a , a specialvesting schedule was added by the
Internal RevenueService for plans in professional service corporations. This
"4 -4 0 " schedule requires full vestingafter 11 years (40 percent after 4 years, 5
22
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
100 percent after 5 years (10 years for multiem
ployer plans).
0
percent each in years 5 and 6, and 10 percent ineach of years 7 through 11). Later,
the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 added two additional
stringent rules for plans that primarily benefited highly paid employees. The first
was a 3-year cliff vesting schedule; the second was a 6-year graduated schedule
(calling for 20 percent after 2 years, and 20 percent in each of years 3 to 6). The
Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered the cliff vesting requirement from 3 years to 2
years.
Table 2. Full-time workers participating in defined benefit
pension plans in medium and large private sector firms, by
vesting schedules and selected occupations, 1986
[In percent]
All
Type of schedule
workers
Professional
Technical
and
and
Production
adm inistra
clerical
workers
tive workers
workers
medium and large firms had schedules which counted all
years of service toward vesting. The following tabulation
shows the percent of the participants in defined benefit
plans in medium and large firms providing cliff and
g rad ed vesting, an d years o f service in clu d ed to w ard
vesting req u irem en ts, 1986:
100
100
100
100
All participants............
Cliff vesting........................
erisa standards:
Full vesting after
10 years' service.........
Other standards:
Full vesting after less
than 10 years' service..............................
89
85
85
91
87
84
84
89
2
1
1
2
Graduated vesting.............
erisa standards:
Full vesting after 15
years' service..............
"Rule of 4 5 "1 ................
" 4 -4 0 " rule2.................
Other standards:
6 -9 years' service .....
10 years' service.........
1 1 -1 4 years' service
13
17
17
9
Years of service credited:
All y e a rs ................................
All years after age 1 8 ...........
All years after specified
age of 19 or o ld e r...............
Not applicable— immediate
v estin g ..................................
Vesting provision not
determ inable.......................
3
3
3
4
3
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
(3)
6
(3)
1
7
1
(3)
7
1
(3)
4
(3)
Immediate full vesting......
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
Not determinable..............
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
'Fifty percent if age and service total 45 with minimum 5 years service, or after
10 years service; 10 percent additional in each of the next 5 years.
2The "4-40" schedule requires full vesting after 11 years (40 percent after 4
years, 5 percent each in years 5 and 6, and 10 percent in each of the next 5
years).
3Less than 0.5 percent.
Note : Because of rounding and the existence of multiple vesting schedules
in a plan, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
cps, the proportion of retirement plan participants who
said they were vested rose from 32 percent in 1972 (before
erisa ) to 48 percent in 1979, and to 51 percent in 1983.7
More dramatic is the growth of vesting among covered
workers with 5 to 9 years of service with their current
employer. The 1972 cps reported that 25 percent of these
respondents said they had vested status; 59 percent were
not vested. In 1979, 42 percent said they were vested, and
41 percent were not. (Among workers with 5 to 9 years of
employment in both the 1972 and 1979 cps, approxi
mately one-sixth did not know if they were vested.)
Retirement Equity Act.
Vesting standards were tight
ened when erisa was revised 10 years later by the
Retirement Equity Act of 1984. Although best known for
provisions improving the accessibility of retirement bene
fits to spouses, this statute also lowered from 22 to 18 the
age after which employees must be given credit toward
vesting.
The bls 1986 Employee Benefits Survey, which cov
ered 21 million full-time workers, shows that 81 percent
of the participants in defined benefit pension plans in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
vesting
Graded
vesting
100
100
100
81
9
80
10
95
0
10
10
5
c u ff
...
T o ta l p a r tic ip a n ts
Total
*
_
*
*Less than 0.5 percent.
As shown, relatively few participants were in plans that
did not follow the new Retirement Equity Act rules. For
plans which stipulated an age requirement older than 18,
the Retirement Equity Act standards did not become
effective until after the date of the 1986 Employee
Benefits Survey.8
Vesting provisions in 1986
Defined benefit plans.
Data from the 1986 Employee
Benefits Survey show the influence of erisa on vesting
schedules. According to the survey, 76 percent of full
time employees in medium and large firms were covered
by a defined benefit pension plan in 1986. Nearly all of
them were in plans that used the minimum time for
vesting specified by erisa . (See table 2.) The vast
majority were in plans with cliff vesting schedules, nearly
all of which specified the maximum time allowed by
erisa for this type of vesting, 10 years of service. Only 13
percent had graduated schedules; about half of them were
in plans with vesting schedules more liberal than those
prescribed by erisa . Overall, 1 of 10 participants was in a
plan providing vesting time schedules more liberal than
those prescribed by erisa .
Defined contribution plans.
The 1986 Employee Bene
fits Survey also examined the characteristics of defined
contribution plans, including provisions affecting vesting
of employer contributions to savings and thrift and
deferred profit-sharing plans. The survey found that 28
percent of employees participated in savings and thrift
plans, and 21 percent in deferred profit-sharing plans.
The following tabulation compares vesting provisions
of defined benefit pension plans with the two types of
defined contribution plans studied. The data (in percent)
relate to medium and large firms in the first half of 1986:
23
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
Changes in Pension Vesting
Defined
contribution plans
Defined --------------------------benefit Savings Deferred
pension
and
profitplans
thrift
sharing
All participants....... ......
Vesting provision:
Im m ediate........................
Cliff....................................
G ra d u a te d ........................
Class-year..........................
100
100
100
*
26
20
25
29
29
2
66
4
89
13
0
*Less than 0.5 percent.
While the majority of the participants in defined benefit
pension plans had cliff vesting, only a minority of those in
savings and thrift and profit-sharing plans had such
provisions. When the defined contribution plans had cliff
vesting schedules, the provisions nearly always called for
participants to be vested within 5 years. (See table 3.)
Table 3. Full-time workers participating in defined
contribution plans in medium and large private sector
firms, by vesting requirements, 1986
[In percent]
Savings
Profit-
and thrift
sharing
plan
plan
T o t a l p a r t i c i p a n t s .........................
100
100
Immediate full vesting............................
26
29
Cliff vesting.............................................
1-2 years..........................................
3-4 years..........................................
5 years...............................................
6-9 years..........................................
20
5
1
2
1
0
(’)
1
Graduated vesting..................................
Full vesting after:
4 years or few er.................................
5 years...............................................
6 years...............................................
7 years...............................................
8 years...............................................
9 years...............................................
10 years..............................................
11 years..............................................
12-14 years......................................
15 years..............................................
O ther..................................................
25
66
2
15
2
1
1
0
3
5
Class vesting..........................................
Each class is fully vested after:
1y e a r.................................................
2 years...............................................
3years...............................................
4 years...............................................
5years...............................................
29
4
1
16
3
(1)
0
2
1
0
1
Not determinable...................................
(’)
0
Type of schedule and
service requirem ent
7
7
O
4
O
0
0
0
8
7
1
1
24
5
14
6
Future vesting revisions
The 1986 Tax Reform Act provides for changes in
vesting schedules created under e r i s a . The changes
become effective for plan years beginning after December
31, 1988, and apply to all accrued benefits earned before
and after the effective date. The effect of the Tax Reform
Act on both cliff and graduated schedules is to require
fewer years of service for vesting.
Based on the 1986 Employee Benefits Survey, the
vesting schedules of nearly all defined benefit plans in
medium and large firms will have to be revised to comply
with the Tax Reform Act. Many participants in defined
contribution plans also will be affected by the more rapid
vesting schedules required by the act. The following
tabulation shows the proportion of participants in plans
which do and do not meet the vesting requirements of the
1986 Tax Reform Act:
O
'Less than 0.5 percent.
Note: Because of rounding and the existence of multiple schedules in plans,
sums of individual items may not equal totals.
Digitized for 24
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Although rare in defined benefit plans, immediate
vesting accounted for slightly more than one-quarter of
the participants in savings and thrift and deferred profitsharing plans.
Graduated vesting schedules, ranging from 5 to 15
years, accounted for two-thirds of the workers in profitsharing plans. In savings and thrift plans, graduated
vesting schedules applied to one-fourth of the partici
pants, most of whom achieved full vesting after 5 years of
service.
Class-year vesting was a significant provision in savings
and thrift plans, with most participants granted full
vesting 2 or 3 years after the employers’ contributions
were made. This form of vesting schedule was rare in
deferred profit-sharing plans.
In summary, defined contribution plans required gener
ally shorter vesting periods than did defined benefit plans.
In defined contribution plans, vesting schedules varied
widely, but the large majority of participants in defined
benefit plans were subject to a 10-year cliff vesting
schedule. (As discussed later, many of the vesting
variations between the two plans will be reduced as
provisions of the 1986 Tax Reform Act become effective.)
Defined
contribution plans
Defined
benefit
pension
plans
Savings
and
thrift
Deferred
profitsharing
All participants...........
100
100
100
îsting provisions:
Meeting Tax Reform Act
sta n d ard s............................
Cliff vesting.....................
Graduated vesting...........
Immediate vesting...........
5
5
*
*
65
19
20
26
40
1
10
29
Not meeting Tax Reform
Act
sta n d ard s...........................
Cliff vesting.....................
Graduated vesting...........
Class-year vesting...........
95
82
13
0
35
1
5
29
60
1
55
4
*Less than 0.5 percent.
As shown, 95 percent of defined benefit pension
participants were in plans that will have to be revised.
This is primarily because of the predominance of 10-year
cliff vesting in 1986 plans, and also because of the number
of participants who needed 10 years or more of service
under graduated schedules.
Sixty percent of participants in deferred profit-sharing
plans were under more restrictive schedules than those
allowed by the Tax Reform Act. They were primarily
participants who had graduated vesting provisions calling
for more than 7 years of service before full vesting. In
contrast, one-third of the savings and thrift plan partici
pants had vesting requirements not meeting the Tax Act
standards; they were primarily under class-year vesting
schedules.
Vested status has become easier to obtain over the
last 15 years for a growing population of mobile workers.
erisa, in 1974, established years of service requirements
specifying the time by which employees were to be vested in
both defined benefit and defined contribution plans.
By 1986, nearly all plan participants studied in the bls
Employee Benefits Survey of medium and large private
sector firms were in either a defined benefit pension plan
or a defined contribution plan that met vesting standards
set by erisa and the Retirement Equity Act. Vesting
schedules required fewer years of service than those
schedules reported in the bls 1974 survey, conducted
before the enactment of erisa .
The 1986 Employee Benefits Survey suggests that tax
reform will have a substantial impact on vesting provi
sions. As with the earlier laws, the 1986 Tax Reform Act
was intended to ensure that employees with pension plans
vest sooner in their benefits.9 However, it is important to
note that the accumulated pension benefits may not be
large, particularly for workers who make many job
changes during their careers. Also, many workers are not,
and will never be, vested in private retirement plans
because their employers do not offer one.10
-FOOTNOTES
'Employee contributions were required of only 6 percent of defined
benefit pension plan participants in 1986, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics’ Employee Benefits Survey. See Employee Benefits in
M edium and Large Firms, 1986, Bulletin 2281 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1987). The survey studied approximately 1,500 private sector
establishments with at least 50, 100, or 250 workers, depending on the
industry, representing approximately 21 million full-time workers in the
United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii.
2 These requirements are related to legislative standards for plan
participation. Under e r i s a , employees generally were eligible to
participate when they reached age 25 and had 1 year of service. (Plans
granting immediate vesting could require 3 years of service.) The
Retirement Equity Act reduced the minimum age for participation to 21.
3See Harry E. Davis and Arnold Strasser, “Private pension plans
1960-1969: an overview,” Monthly Labor Review, July 1970, p. 48. For
a study of vesting provisions in the early and mid-1960’s, see Donald M.
Landay and Harry E. Davis, “Growth and vesting changes in private
pension plans,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1968, pp. 29-35.
4 The 1974 survey, a joint project of two agencies of the U.S.
Department of Labor— the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Labor
Management Services Administration— was designed to yield informa
tion on pension plan provisions prior to e r i s a . Survey findings on
benefit levels were used in James H. Schulz, Thomas D. Leavitt, and
Leslie Kelly, “Private pensions fall far short of preretirement income
levels,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1979, pp. 28-32; findings
concerning mandatory retirement provisions were published in Dorothy
R. Kittner, “Forced retirement: how common is it?” Monthly Labor
Review, December 1977, pp. 60-62.
5See, for example, Joint Committee on Finance, Digest o f Testimony
on Proposals fo r Private Pension Plan Reform (Washington, Government
Printing Office, 1973), pp. 7-14; and Recommendations fo r Pension
Reform: A Message from the President o f the United States (Washington,
Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 2 -3 .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
6 The Current Population Survey ( c p s ) is a program of personal
interviews conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census to collect
national statistics on employment and unemployment. The CPS data in
this article were collected from special supplements to the 1972, 1979,
and 1983 surveys.
7The 1972 study results are described in Walter W. Kolodrubetz and
Donald M. Landay, “Coverage and Vesting of Full-time Employees
Under Private Retirement Plans,” Social Security Bulletin, November
1973, pp. 20-36. The 1979 results are described in Gayle Thompson
Rogers, Pension Coverage and Vesting among Private Wage and Salary
Workers: Preliminary Estimates from the 1979 Survey o f Pension Plan
Coverage, Working Paper No. 16 (Social Security Administration, Office
of Research and Statistics, June 1980). The 1983 results are described in
New Survey Findings on Pension Coverage and Benefit Entitlement, Issue
Brief No. 33 (Washington, Employee Benefits Research Institute,
August 1984). Although coverage and definitions were not the same in
the 1972, 1979, and 1983 surveys, the differences are not sufficient to
obliterate the broad trend. Furthermore, the scope of these surveys
differs from the 1974 and 1986 b l s surveys analyzed in this article; the
c p s covers a broader range of workers and includes data for deferred
profit-sharing and other retirement plans along with data for defined
benefit plans.
8 The survey was conducted in the first half of 1986. Compliance with
Retirement Equity Act provisions was required of noncollectively
bargained plans by June 30, 1986, and of collectively bargained plans by
the earlier of the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement,
or January 1, 1987.
9See, for example, Joint Economic Committee, The Role o f Older
Women in the Work Force (Washington, Government Printing Office,
1984), pp. 1-5 .
10 For a discussion of the public policy implications of vesting and
related plan provisions, see Pension Portability and What It Can Do fo r
Retirement Income: A Similation Approach, e b r i Issue Brief No. 65
(Washington, Employee Benefits Research Institute, 1987).
25
Communications
The football strike of 1987:
the question of free agency
P a u l D . St a u d o h a r
The 24-day strike by National Football League players in
1987 was one of the most interesting in recent years. The
strike may have a significant impact on the future of not
only football but other professional team sports. What
caused the strike? Could it have been avoided? How did
the dynamics of the strike affect the positions of the
parties in their continuing negotiations? Can the players’
union bounce back from its defeat at the bargaining table?
Background
The 1987 strike was a product of the past. As early as
1956, when the National Football League Players’ Associ
ation was formed, the players were contemplating a strike
against the owners. Expenses incurred during training
camps were not compensated by owners, and players
decided to strike the last preseason game between the
Washington Redskins and Baltimore Colts. When the
Redskins’ owner, George Preston Marshall, said he would
go ahead with the game without the strikers, the players
capitulated and took the field. This scenario was to be
repeated, with some variation, over the next several years.
In the fall of 1968, the players struck training camps
over a variety of money and other issues. The n f l owners
countered with a lockout of the training camps, and the
dispute ended in compromise without much apparent
enmity. Essentially, the same situation occurred in 1970,
1974, and 1975. During each of these training camp
strikes the players’ initial optimism gave way to frustra
tion, as the owners held their ground or gave up little. The
42-day strike in 1974 was particularly discouraging for
the union because solidarity crumbled with one-fourth of
the veteran players crossing the picket lines. This strike
marked the debut of Edward Garvey as the union’s
executive director.
Paul Staudohar is a professor of business administration at California
State University, Hayward.
26
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Garvey, a lawyer who had formerly worked for the law
firm representing the union, expressed determination to
obtain concessions from the owners in 1982. A new
television agreement had increased each owner’s annual
share of television revenue from $5.8 million to $14.2
million, and the players wanted a bigger share as well.
Also, the United States Football League ( u s f l ) was going
to start play in the spring of 1983, which would create
new employment opportunities for n f l players. The
timing looked good for a generous settlement for the
players’ association, if it could maintain solidarity.
The 1982 strike, which lasted 57 days, produced
unexpectedly good player solidarity but few gains for the
players. Although average player salaries in the n f l rose
from $90,000 in 1982 to $230,000 in 1987, most of this
increase was due to opportunities for players to jump to
u s f l clubs for a higher salary or to be paid more by their
n f l clubs to stay. A number of issues— free agency,
pensions, severance pay, and artificial turf— remained in
dispute. In 1987, the new television agreement was paying
each owner $17 million annually, inspiring a new struggle
between players and owners over revenues.
The negotiators
The chief protagonists in the 1987 negotiations were
Jack Donlan, a former negotiator for National Airlines,
and Gene Upshaw, Football Hall of Fame guard for the
Oakland Raiders. Neither Donlan nor Upshaw was new
to football negotiations. Donlan, executive director of the
n f l Management Council, had represented the owners in
1982. Upshaw, who succeeded Garvey as executive
director in 1983, had been Garvey’s chief assistant in the
1982 talks. In the years prior to the 1987 negotiations,
Donlan and Upshaw became acquainted and were on
friendly terms. This was quite a contrast from the
apparent acrimony between Donlan and Garvey that
tainted the 1982 talks. So it looked like a fresh start was
possible.
But chief negotiators do not operate on their own. An
unusual and particularly troublesome aspect of collective
bargaining in sports is that negotiating within the
organization presents as many (or perhaps even more)
problems as negotiating with the adversary. This so-called
“ in tra o rg a n iza tio n a l b arg a in in g ” is cru cial in football
Exhibit 1.
National Football League Players’ Association and owners’ positions on various issues. 1987
Issue
Players’ association
Owners
Free agency1............................................
Unrestricted for players with 4 years in
the league
Modest liberalization of current system
of compensation for teams losing a
player
D rugs...................................................
Testing for probable cause of drug use
Random testing
Contracts ...........................................
Guaranteed for second-year players on up Guaranteed for fourth-year players on
up
Pensions.........................................
Annual $25 million
Minimum salaries............................
$90,000 for rookies up to $320,000 for 13- $60,000 for rookies to $ 180,000 for 13year players
year players
nfl
contribution
‘Summarized from Bob Oates and Rich Roberts, “With No Talk of Settlement,
Times, Sept. 22, 1987, Part III, p. 1.
because there are 28 teams joined together in negotia
tions, each with separate ownership.
The NFL Management Council, consisting of one
member from each of the 28 clubs, determines the
league’s labor policy. The Management Council is super
vised and coordinated by its Council Executive Commit
tee. The six-member committee consisted of Hugh
Culverhouse of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (chairman),
Tex Schramm of the Dallas Cowboys, Joe Robbie of the
Miami Dolphins, Michael Brown of the Cincinnati
Bengals, Charles Sullivan of the New England Patriots,
and Dan Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers. It is this
group that supervises Donlan.
On the union side, each of the 28 teams has a player
representative who handles union business with individ
ual players. As chief negotiator for the union, the
executive director, Upshaw, maintains close contact with
the player representatives to remain up-to-date on mem
ber views. He also deals with the policymaking board for
the players, a nine-member executive committee headed
in 1987 by Marvin Powell. Complicating the executive
director’s role further is that he deals with other union
executives, who have strong views. As is true of most
strikes, in a football strike a key to winning is how well
the owners and players are able to maintain solidarity.
The disputes
The disputes which the talks centered on were those
brought forth by the players’ association. To understand
these disputes, it is helpful to look at the conditions that
caused them. Football players have short and risky
careers that last an average of 3.2 years, the shortest in
professional team sports. Approximately half of the
veteran players wind up with some kind of permanent
disability, usually to the knee or back, that can cause
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Annual $12.5 million
nfl
nfl
contribution
Players Taking a Walk,” Los Angeles
considerable pain throughout their lives. The n f l veteran
is believed to have a life expectancy of about 55 years, far
less than the average of 70 years for all American males.1
While the average player salary in 1987 was $230,000,
the median salary was closer to $170,000.2 The average
salary is deceptive because a few very highly paid players
pulled it up.
It is therefore not surprising that players seek to
maximize their incomes during such short careers. Al
though the players’ association does not represent players
in individual salary negotiations, there are several money
issues— for example, minimum salaries and severance
pay— that concern the union. In addition, there are other
issues that can lead to higher salaries, such as free agency,
and health issues that can reduce injuries and lead to
longer careers, such as elimination of artificial turf.
Exhibit 1 shows the key issues in dispute and the parties’
positions at the time of the strike.
Negotiations
The old 5-year agreement expired on August 31, 1987.
Even before this, there were several reasons to expect
negotiations to falter and end in a strike. For one thing,
the union has always struck in formal negotiations with
the owners. Thus, a strike should have been considered
likely. Secondly, there had been a strike in baseball in
1985. Although this strike lasted only 2 days, there is a
certain imitative quality about the n f l players’ associa
tion in following its baseball brethren. The long football
strike of 1982 followed the long baseball strike of 1981. In
addition, strike incidence is far higher under new leaders,
and Upshaw was the new executive director of the
players’ association. Also, the u s f l had discontinued
operation the year before. Had the u s f l kept playing,
n f l owners probably would not have allowed a strike for
27
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Communications
fear of losing players and public support to the rival
league. Perhaps most important were the perceived
inequities by the players— that they were not paid what
they were worth, while the owners reaped large profits
from the game.
Despite these ominous portents, a strike seemed un
likely. While important issues were on the table, there just
didn’t appear to be anything worth striking over. There
had been too much suffering in 1982 and the level of
acrimony in 1987 was down. Moreover, instead of
bargaining in one place the negotiations moved around,
with sessions in Tampa, San Francisco, Washington, DC,
New York, and Philadelphia. The purpose of moving the
negotiations was to get more privacy. Also, an attempt
was made to avoid the glare of the media. The twice-daily
news conferences of the 1982 strike were not held.
Though perhaps entertaining for the public, they proved
counterproductive as the two parties resorted to insulting
each other. This caused attitudes to deteriorate and
polarized the negotiators. In 1987, no public announce
ments were made ahead of negotiating sessions, and news
stories emanating from the parties were kept to a
minimum. (This policy later broke down.)
What became disquieting to observers, despite all the
optimism about a strike-free settlement, was the lack of
progress in negotiations. It is customary for negotiations
to start well before the expiration of the agreement. The
parties in football had several negotiating sessions in the
early summer, but progress was negligible and it seemed
that the sides were not going to enter serious discussions
until late August. By this time, though, the contract had
almost expired and the regular season was ready to start.
By mid-September strike talk began to circulate. At this
point, the union may have been well advised to make
major concessions because it had never won a battle with
the owners outside of court and there was little reason to
expect it would do so in 1987 by striking.
Nevertheless, the players’ association went forward
with a vote to strike on September 22. Both Donlan and
Upshaw appeared before television viewers to plead their
case. At this time Donlan observed that Upshaw had not
been to the bargaining table in two weeks and was instead
out conferring with the players. The owners charged that
the players were not bargaining in good faith and filed a
complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. This
pointed out the dilemma Upshaw was in. He had to try to
maintain solidarity among the players by making personal
appearances around the country, but in so doing had to
sacrifice his duties as a negotiator with management. The
prolonged absence by Upshaw may have allowed the
owners to stiffen their negotiating position. When the
union refused to accept a request by the owners to extend
the strike deadline by 30 days, the strike became
inevitable.
28
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The owners’ revised strategy seemed simple: (1) stonewall
in negotiations, (2 ) use the n f l ’s public relations program to
persuade the fans of the rightness of their position, and (3)
divide and frustrate the players by proceeding with the
regular schedule using strikebreakers.
This strategy, a throwback to the early 20th century,
was calculated to wear down the union. The owners were
taking a long-term view. This approach was effective
because unlike 1982, the games went on. This, coupled
with the breakdown in player solidarity, probably won the
strike for the owners. But there was a bargaining issue
that also contributed to the union’s failure: free agency.
Free agency
Perhaps the most important labor-management dispute in
professional sports is free agency. This issue is crucial
because it gives players an opportunity to sell their services to
several teams rather than only one. Players in baseball and
basketball have reaped economic gains from free agency
(average salaries in the sports are $410,000 and $500,000,
respectively). Without significant free agency opportunities,
football players could not obtain their free market value
which they perceived to be higher than their current salaries
because of the profits made by owners and high salaries
earned by other professional athletes.
Prior to 1976, football exercised what was called the
“Rozelle Rule” on free agency. This rule allowed n f l
Commissioner Peter Rozelle to award compensation
(players, draft choices, money) to a player’s former team
when he signed a contract with a new team. From 1963 to
1975, only four n f l players played out their options and
signed as free agents with other clubs. Thus, the Rozelle
Rule effectively chilled the market for free agents. In
December 1975, however, the players’ association won
the Mackey case, filed on behalf of John Mackey of the
Baltimore Colts. In this case, the Federal courts ruled
that the Rozelle Rule was an unreasonable restraint of
trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, because it
acted as a deterrent to player movement in the n f l .
With the decision in Mackey, n f l players could
become free agents by playing out their option with the
barrier of a compensation penalty to their team no longer
in the way. However, in 1977, the union bargained away
the rights won in the courtroom and agreed to a new
method of determining compensation payments for sign
ing free agents. Under this provision, which was slightly
modified in the 1982 contract, only one free agent, Norm
Thompson of the St. Louis Cardinals, signed with another
club.3
The rationale for negotiating away the free agency won
in court is that free agency may not be as meaningful in
football as it is in other sports. The players gained
increased pension and other benefits for giving up free
agency, and felt it was a wise tradeoff. Why don’t football
players receive higher salaries under free agency? One
reason is that a single player doesn’t make that much
difference on a team. Football is played with 22 players—
11 on offense and 11 on defense. By contrast, one player
can have a big impact on a five-person basketball team,
but is far less important in football. Second, the nfl
owners already operate in stadiums that typically average
95 percent of capacity, so they would not be able to sell
many more tickets to justify acquiring a star free agent
player. Also, there are fewer games played in football than
in other team sports. More important, most teams fill
their stadiums regardless of their won-lost record. Third,
because football careers are much shorter, there are fewer
opportunities for players to become free agents. Finally,
the owners proved determined not to fundamentally
change the free agency system.
Supposing the players were able to achieve free agency,
there may not be much they could make of it because the
football owners would not likely fall victim to a bidding
game for reasons stated above. It is true that the baseball
owners from 1976 to 1984 spent millions on free agents.
When they stopped signing free agents in 1985 and 1986,
the Major League Baseball Players Association filed a
grievance charging the owners with collusion. Arbitrator
Tom Roberts agreed with the union.
Ironically, the Roberts’ decision came out on Septem
ber 22, the same day the players’ association announced
its intention to strike. The union indicated that the
baseball decision reinforced its position. The football
owners, however, had never signed free agents to any
significant degree, thus making guilt of collusion more
difficult to prove.
It is against this backdrop that the players’ association
pushed so hard for free agency. The owners agreed to
change the current system so that a team would owe a
first-round draft pick if it signed a player earning
$300,000 or more, up from $140,000. This would have
made it easier for some players to change teams. The
owners also offered to raise the salary level at which teams
could keep players by matching competitive bids under a
right of first refusal, which would also have helped player
mobility. The union dropped the demand for unlimited
free agency without compensation for all players to only
those players with 4 years’ experience. Despite these
concessions the parties remained far apart on free agency.
Meanwhile, doubts were expressed by some of the striking
players as to whether free agency was worth the sacrifices
the strike entailed.
While making small concessions on free agency, the
owners made an interesting offer to establish a bonus and
salary scale for first-year players. (It should be recalled
that it was the players’ association that sought a wage
scale for all players during the 1982 strike.) Salaries
would be determined by the players’ ranking in the nfl
draft. For instance, rookie salaries would be set at $60,000
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
plus uniform college draft bonuses of from $500,000 for
the first pick, $400,000 for the second pick, on down to
$5,000 for the last player drafted. This offer was a
response to veteran player complaints that rookies were
making more money than they were. Money saved by the
salary scale would be used to provide greater rewards for
veterans. Another purported attraction of this proposal is
that rookies would no longer need agents to represent
them, which would eliminate illegal payments by agents
to entice college students to sign with them. On the other
hand, a salary scale for rookies might provide owners with
an economic incentive to cut veteran players.
Strike impact
The owners were far better prepared for a strike than
the players. About two-thirds of the teams signed
replacement players who promised to continue the season
in the event of a strike. Just two weeks prior to the start of
the season there had been 100 players on each nfl team’s
training camp roster. Eager to play in the nfl , if only for
a short time, they gladly took the $1,000 proffered by the
owners for standing by as potential replacements.
Although the players should have realized from the
1982 experience that they needed to take steps to insulate
themselves from the impact of a strike, not much was
done. There was no union strike fund from which to draw
benefits. No line of credit was available for player loans.
As a member of the executive council of the afl -cio ,
Upshaw was able to get support from organized labor in
nfl cities. This support hurt the owners by reducing
attendance at games, and by the embarrassment of afl cio picketing, but did nothing to alleviate the players’
financial plight.
Approximately 60 percent of income in the nfl comes
from television and 40 percent from gate receipts.4 In the
first week of the strike games, television ratings were
down 3 to 4 rating points from the usual network average
of 15. Most observers were surprised that the ratings were
that high. Many viewers tuned in to the games out of
curiosity. Interest declined, however, and television rat
ings dropped further as the strike continued. Gate
receipts, on the other hand, went in the opposite direction.
An average of 17,000 fans, 28 percent of usual, attended
the first week of the strike games. Attendance climbed to
25,000 in the second week.5
What was the impact on players and owners? The
strikers lost an average of $15,000 per game, and
approximately $80 million altogether. All teams refunded
monies to fans who had purchased tickets but did not
attend strike games. Although gate receipts and television
ratings were down, the owners saved on salaries by paying
the replacement players comparatively little. The average
owner’s profit per game actually rose from $800,000
before the strike to $921,000 during the strike.6 This
29
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Communications
profit was temporary, however, because the league has to
refund $60 million to the networks over the next two
seasons for the one missed weekend of play, the reduced
ratings, and the decline in advertising revenues.
The strike also affected public opinion of the union. A
poll by espn , a cable television network, found that fans
favored the owners over the players by about 3 to 1.
Although the games were played mostly with unknown
players, they had the appearance of major league football.
nfl officials crossed the picket lines to referee games, and
the regular television announcers were on hand to provide
commentary. Although many of these announcers are
former players, their sentiments appeared to be on the
side of the owners.
Also harming the union position was the erosion of
player solidarity. In the first week of the strike several
veteran players crossed picket lines. The number of
defectors increased as the strike continued. Although
about 84 percent of the 1,585 regular players stayed out
for the duration, at the time the strike was called off it
looked like many players would be returning. The owners,
on the other hand, maintained their solidarity. The nfl
Management Council spoke with a unified voice and no
owners negotiated separately.
The strike ends
On the 20th day of the strike Upshaw appeared on
television during the Monday Night Football game to
propose an end to the strike. This was a desperate effort
by the union to settle because players on a majority of
teams were poised to return to work if the strike wasn’t
settled before the upcoming weekend of October 18. The
executive director’s proposal contained three parts: (1)
reinstatement of all strikers for the rest of the season,
including protection of all player representatives and
alternative player representatives, (2) the 1982 collective
bargaining agreement would remain in effect, and (3) all
current bargaining issues would be submitted to media
tion for 6 weeks, and after that, all remaining unsettled
issues would be submitted to arbitration.
The owners indicated a willingness to protect the player
representatives, submit to mediation, and continue the
1982 agreement, but guaranteed the strikers’ salaries for
only two games and rejected arbitration. Historically, the
owners have been wary of arbitration. Arbitration is
commonly used in football for grievances and injury
disputes, but the owners have never allowed arbitration of
provisions that go into a collective bargaining agreement.
This points up one of the reasons why arbitration of
interests disputes is rare throughout American industry.
In negotiations, one of the parties typically has a position
of strength. That party would rather go to the bargaining
table than allow an arbitrator to decide its fate.
30
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Faced with the owners’ rejection of its proposal, the
union decided to end the strike on October 15. It is
customary when a strike is over for management to
welcome back the strikers and get on with business as
usual. But the owners surprised the returnees. The owners
had established October 14 as the deadline for players to
return to be eligible for play in that weekend’s games.
Because the players ended the strike a day late the owners
refused to allow them to play on October 18 and 19. This
seemed a violation of trust to some players, and the union
protested the legality of the action with the nlrb .
However, the owners publicly reasoned that the players
were out of condition and would risk injury. Additional
motivation for the action may have been that the union
had again chosen to use a weapon that had proved
menacing to the owners in the past: an antitrust suit.
The lawsuit, filed the same day the strike ended,
challenges the college draft, restraints on free agency, and
other practices the union alleges are unfavorable to
competition in the football labor market. Also, the union
filed an unfair labor practice charge with the nlrb ,
contending that the owners failed to bargain in good faith.
The union’s lawsuit emulates one filed earlier in the
month by the players’ union in the National Basketball
Association on antitrust issues.8 For the players’ associa
tion, the suit represents an alternative to its frustrated
attempts at collective bargaining as well as a way of
saving face after the strike.
With the flurry of litigation, it will probably be a long
time before everything is resolved. In December 1987, the
nlrb ’s general counsel issued a complaint against the
nfl , finding that striking players were discriminated
against when they were not allowed to return for the
games on October 18 and 19. The owners appealed this
complaint with the nlrb , but if it is upheld it could cost
them as much as $25 million in backpay.
A priority with the union in the antitrust suit was to get
free agency for players whose individual contracts with
their clubs have expired. Judge David Doty, hearing the
case in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, refused the
union’s initial request for an injunction to release the
players, because he was waiting for an nlrb ruling on
good faith bargaining. Meanwhile, ruled Judge Doty, the
1982 agreement would remain in effect. When the nlrb
dismissed the owners’ charge that the union had failed to
bargain in good faith, Judge Doty found that an impasse
existed. This finding allowed for the chance that approxi
mately 280 players without contracts would be declared
free agents when the judge finally ruled on the union’s
injunction request in mid-July, just before the opening of
training camps for the 1988 season. However, Judge Doty
denied the injunctive relief, indicating that the potential
change of teams by so many players could have had a
devastating effect on the competitive balance of the n fl .
The judge urged the parties to return to the bargaining
table. Nevertheless, if the bargaining stalemate continues,
a decision on the antitrust dispute will eventually be
reached by Judge Doty.
In retrospect, there was no real question about who
would win the 1987 strike. The players struck reluctantly,
without a significant issue to rally behind. When the
union leaders were asked to identify their big issue they
named free agency, for which few players had much
enthusiasm. By striking when so many players preferred
not to, the union may have harmed itself. As a result of
the strike the players’ association lost its dues checkoff
privilege. So rather than having the clubs automatically
deduct the $2,400 in union dues, the union has the
difficult task of collecting the monies from disgruntled
players. But as incensed as some players may be with their
union, they are also bitter toward the owners, especially
for not letting them play after they had capitulated.
It seems unlikely that the union will die because the
owners do not want this to happen. They have expressed
preference for some kind of union, albeit a weak one, to no
union at all. Were the union to die, the courts and
Congress might take action against the owners, who need
a collective bargaining agreement to continue to use the
waiver system, the player draft, and other practices.
The bottom line on the strike may be that the owners
and players will have to put aside their past warfare and
try to reach agreement on issues like pensions, severance
pay, and artificial turf. These issues are not only impor
tant to the players but their costs can be estimated readily.
Unless the owners and players work out their problems
themselves, the government may intervene in a manner
that would be in neither party’s interests. Unless a
negotiated settlement is reached, the 1987 strike could
become just the first step of the longest yard in nfl labor
relations.
I I
-FOOTNOTES
'Ron Mix, “So Little Gain for the Pain,” Sports Illustrated, Oct. 19,
1987, p. 55. Although the life expectancy of 55 is claimed by the players’
association, this age is not based on scientific study of all deceased n f l
players.
2 The median salary is calculated by the players’ association and is
cited in Paul Zimmerman, “On the Outside Looking In,” Sports
Illustrated, Oct. 26, 1987, p. 56.
3In March 1988, Wilber Marshall of the Chicago Bears signed as a free
agent with the Washington Redskins for a reported $6 million over 5
years. Although the 1987 agreement had expired, the free agency
provisions continued in effect pending the outcome of antitrust
litigation. The Redskins gave up their first-round draft choice in 1988
and 1989 as compensation to the Bears. Thus, Marshall became the
second free agent in 11 years to change teams.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4Paul D. Staudohar, The Sports Industry and Collective Bargaining
(Ithaca, N Y , i l r Press, Cornell University, 1986), p. 58.
5“In Week Two, Average Attendance Increases From 16,987 to
25,042,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 12, 1987, Part III, p. 3.
6Robert Johnson, “Team Owners Discover the Strike Brings a Big
Benefit: An Improved Bottom Line,” The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 14,
1987, p. 35.
7Poll reported in Sports Illustrated, Oct. 5, 1987, p. 17. See also
Frederick C. Klein, “Joe Fan Sides With Owners,” The Wall Street
Journal, Aug. 8, 1987, p. 21.
8 The basketball players’ lawsuit was dropped when the union reached
an agreement with the NBA in April 1988.
31
Conference Papers
Productivity and employment:
the 1988 international symposium
H
orst
Brand
Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor on the
occasion of its 75th anniversary, an International Produc
tivity Symposium, the third in 5 years, was held in
Washington in April 1988.
The first of the three symposia had been sponsored by
the Japan Productivity Center. Held in Tokyo in the
spring of 1983, it had as its theme “Revitalizing the
World Economy Through Improved Productivity.” The
second symposium met in Munich in the fall of 1986
under the auspices of Rationalisierungs-Kuratorium der
Deutschen Wirtschaft, the German productivity organi
zation which is a member of the European Association of
National Productivity Centers. Here, the theme was
“Productivity and the Future of Work.”
The third International Productivity Symposium exam
ined “Productivity and Employment.” The symposium
was attended by 650 participants from 28 countries,
including 118 representatives from Japan alone. In
addition to opening and concluding plenary sessions, at
which the social and economic setting of productivity was
discussed, the symposium was organized around three
sets of panels, addressing (1) employment strategies; (2)
organizational strategies; and (3) industrial relations
strategies. “Strategies” were defined as ways of dealing
with rapid technological change amidst growing interna
tional competition.
The employment panels dealt with employment poli
cies, demographic effects, and educational and training
responses dictated by technological change. The panels on
organizational matters discussed changing forms of work
design and work organization, and changes in work
Horst Brand is an economist in the Office of Productivity and
Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
schedules. They also featured case studies. The panels on
industrial relations discussed changing roles of manage
ment and trade unions, changes in compensation and
reward systems, and related matters. This report presents
some of the highlights of the latest symposium.1
U.S. Secretary of Labor Ann McLaughlin set the tone
of the 1988 meetings by emphasizing the importance of
the quality of labor in productivity growth:
Since 1929, the majority of this country’s productivity improve
ments— and most of our growth in national income— have been
directly linked to increased labor quality through education, training,
and health care; and to the reallocation of labor through retraining.
By comparison, over the same period, machine capital has contributed
a disappointing 20 percent, or less, to productivity. Clearly, machin
ery and technology alone don’t improve productivity. People do.
The Secretary emphasized the need for labor force
participants to continue their education beyond high
school, and noted the probability of a “skills gap” in the
future, as a shortage of skilled workers results, at least in
part, from unfavorable demographics. She chided manag
ers who cite workers as the chief culprits in causing
quality problems. “Workers are not part of the problem.
They’re the source of the solution,” she said, noting a
number of examples of successful worker involvement in
quality improvement.
Preparing for change
An analytical foundation for the symposium was
provided by Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner of the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Norwood briefly reviewed
what she held to be the central issues of adjustment to the
changes in economic conditions now underway, stressing
that not only working people but employers as well are
being compelled to adjust. The issues she noted included
new technology, foreign competition, economic and
corporate restructuring, and a prospective rise in the rate
of productivity growth. In her talk, she focused upon the
recent and projected changes in the age and sex mix of the
U.S. labor force, and what these changes signify for the
Nation’s productivity trend.
Dramatic increases in the country’s labor force had
occurred during the 1970’s. Women, particularly married
women, entered the work force in large numbers, and the
teenage labor force rose at a nearly 5-percent annual rate.
At the same time, close to 19 million new jobs opened up.
The 1980’s witnessed a more steady labor force expan
sion. While two recessions marked the early part of the
decade, and the unemployment rate rose, the female labor
force participation rate continued to increase, especially
among women ages 25 to 34. Now, near the end of the
decade, both partners hold jobs in one-half of all husbandwife families. By the year 2000, Norwood believes, some
three-fifths of all women of working age are likely to be in
the labor force. And the average age of workers will keep
rising to the end of the century and beyond.
The effects of the changing age-sex structure of the
labor force on productivity are likely to be positive,
particularly if employers take account of child care and
other family needs which both female and male workers
must increasingly confront. Women will be better edu
cated and more experienced; a growing proportion of
them will hold technical and professional positions.
Workers generally will be more mature, more committed,
and may even wish to work more, rather than fewer,
hours (recent surveys confirm this development).
Family stress, however, seems likely to intensify as
more wives join their husbands in the labor force.
Absenteeism may well increase unless employers deal
with such stress issues. Many of them already recognize
this, Norwood said: 60 percent of all establishments with
10 employees or more offer flexible work schedules; onethird permit part-time work; and 15 percent permit job
sharing. In sum, companies of all sizes ought to recon
sider their scheduling practices in light of the changing
sex composition of the labor force, and the family (or
stress) issues this presents.
Some panelists struck a cautious note concerning future
productivity growth. Thus, John Martin of the Organiza
tion for Economic Development and Cooperation
( oecd ), broadly agreed with Norwood that favorable
labor force demographics would likely promote produc
tivity growth over the longer term, that broader employ
ment opportunities would facilitate worker adjustment to
economic change, and that rising spending for research
and development foreshadows an improved productivity
trend rate. He expressed concern, however, about the
continued weak growth in total-factor (labor, capital, and
other inputs) productivity, noting that while the trend for
all oecd countries for the years 1960-73 averaged 2.9
percent per year, it slowed to 0.7 percent for the years
1973-79, and to 0.6 percent for 1979-85. The persistence
of the slowdown, he thought, was all the more puzzling in
view of the large investments during the last two decades
in information-intensive technologies, especially in trade
and finance. Only a small part of the slowdown can be
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
explicitly accounted for, he said— it may be partially
attributable to a return to earlier trend patterns. At any
rate, if the record of the recent past can be taken as a
guide, then the outlook for strong gains in productivity is
not bright. Hence, economic growth will be retarded, and
living standards will improve much more slowly than in
earlier periods.
Sketching likely employment effects
Sharply divergent points of view emerged concerning
the employment effects of productivity growth, and the
strategies to deal with them. Before some pertinent details
are sketched, it should be noted that employment prob
lems were discussed in terms not only of the direct effects
of productivity and technological change but also of
“restructuring,” compelled by competition and the “glob
alization” of the U.S. economy. (Few panelists attempted
to separate technological change and the resultant pro
ductivity gains from other factors impinging upon em
ployment.)
Albert Rees, president of the Alfred P. Sloan Founda
tion, asserted that economic policy in the United States
has in some respects changed over the last two decades:
high unemployment rates have become politically more
tolerable, unemployment compensation laws have become
more restrictive, and the proportion of unemployed
workers receiving such compensation has shrunk. How
ever, the conventional business policy of laying off
workers when demand slackens or when cost reduction
becomes mandatory has not been modified, he said. In
fact, insecurity of employment, a fact of life for blue-collar
workers, has been rapidly extending to white-collar
workers as well. Shorter hours on part-time schedules are
unlikely to be widely accepted in industry, inasmuch as
they have not traditionally been part of industrial
relations in the United States.
Rees’ thoughts were, in a sense, corroborated by the
views offered by Frank Doyle, senior vice president of
General Electric Co., as well as by Nathaniel Semple, vice
president of the Committee for Economic Development
(ced ). Doyle in effect attributed the problem of slowed
productivity growth to companies having been burdened
by too many people, too many systems— and in so
defining the problem, he implicitly defined its solution, at
least within a company framework. The problem of
import competition, which intensified during the early to
mid-1980’s because of the overvalued dollar, has become
a fact of life in U.S. markets, particularly those for
consumer products. Companies such as his, Doyle said,
have thus been compelled to move production facilities
offshore, to take advantage of the lower labor costs and
organizational streamlining they need to remain costcompetitive in the U.S. and world markets.
33
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Conference Summaries
Semple similarly portrayed the rigors of competitive
pressures that business has confronted. To survive in
today’s volatile global markets, business must be able to
reallocate resources quickly, and have maximum freedom
to change technologies, plant location, and work condi
tions, including the rationalization of work organization,
Semple maintained. He acknowledged the “destabilizing”
effects such actions may have on workers— blue-, white-,
and pink-collar— but saw no alternative.
Trade union representatives were troubled by just these
human consequences of intensified competition, and the
structural changes it already has brought about. Thus,
Morton Bahr, president of the Communications Workers
of America, pointed to the downgrading of tens of
thousands of telecommunications workers after the
breakup of American Telephone & Telegraph Co. in
1984. Sheldon Friedman, research director of the United
Auto Workers, cited the recent bls study on dislocated
workers,2 and discussed what he considered the poor
corporate and government response to the problem. He
noted that, between 1981 and 1986, 2 million workers had
lost their jobs due to plant closings and mass layoffs, and
that half of these workers remained jobless for more than
6 months. Friedman also stressed the income losses
suffered by these workers when reemployed— losses that
averaged 16 percent, and for one-third of them, more than
25 percent. At the same time, he said, Federal expendi
tures for employment and training have declined by 68
percent (in constant dollars) since 1978, so that activities
under the Job Training Partnership Act (1982) have been
so underfunded that only 5 percent of dislocated workers
have been served.
Business generally has been likewise unresponsive to
the dislocated worker problem, Friedman suggested. He
cited a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office,3
according to which only about 1 in 10 blue-collar workers
gets 90 days advance notice of plant closings or of mass
layoffs; over the study period, the average for prenotifica
tion was 10 days. Severance pay was offered by only 44
percent of companies, and job search assistance by 30
percent. On the plus side, Friedman mentioned the
Tuition Assistance Plan negotiated by his union and
General Motors Corp., under which 12,000 laid-off
workers each receive $5,500 toward retraining for new
careers.
In sum, representatives of labor and management
agreed that productivity gains resulting from restructur
ing incident to sharpened competition in global and
domestic markets might well cause employment losses.
Productivity gains from new technologies, however,
were less likely to cause such losses. David Mowery, study
director of the Panel on Technology and Employment at
the National Academy on Engineering, argued that the
combination of advancing technology and rising produc
tivity has been associated historically with rising employ
Digitized for
34FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ment. “. . . [Reductions] in labor requirements per unit
of output resulting from new process technologies have
been and will continue to be outweighed by the beneficial
employment effects of the expansion in total output that
generally occurs.”4
However, the favorable employment effects of techno
logical advance have become conditioned upon the
rapidity with which U.S. firms adopt and adapt to them,
as well as the speed with which the innovations generate
new knowledge. Lack of flexibility in these respects is
likely to lead to employment losses, Mowery warned. He
also stressed that the rate of technology transfer across
international borders is accelerating, thus diminishing or
altogether eliminating technology gaps between countries.
Notwithstanding the pressures to adjust to these
relatively recent technological changes, the diffusion of
new technology is likely to be gradual, thus easing
adjustment of workers displaced by it. Moreover, retrain
ing requirements posed by new technologies are not
overly complex, Mowery stated. Job-related skill levels
are unlikely to change very much. What workers need are
strong basic skills— numerical reasoning, modest prob
lem-solving abilities, literacy, and ability to communicate.
Twenty to thirty percent of today’s work force lacks some
or all of these skills. Inasmuch as 75 percent of the current
labor force still will be employed in the year 2000,
intensive retraining efforts are a necessity.
Labor representatives took contradictory positions
regarding the job effects (as opposed to the employment
effects) of the new technologies. Bahr pointed to their
oppressive potential, as when workers in telecommunica
tions are closely monitored so as to ensure brevity in their
responses to customer requests. While acknowledging
that workers’ basic skills do need upgrading, Bahr also
held that, because the new technology extends brain
power rather than brawn power, computer information
systems tend to deskill rather than enhance job-related
abilities.
By contrast, Karl Tapiola, director of the Confedera
tion of Finnish Trade Unions, emphasized that the
dependence of many production processes upon informa
tion technology that workers must master often enables
employees to take a broader view of their work, and to
have greater command over it. He stressed, however, that
the required educational levels, the control over one’s
work, and the career opportunities that become available,
are limited to but a minority of employees, a possible elite
of workers— leaving a larger, second-class work force, the
victims of “flexibility.” To counteract such polarization,
Tapiola proposed reductions in wage differentials, and
called for resistance to discrimination against women,
who traditionally were relegated without recourse to
poorer-paying, low-status jobs.
Tapiola also dealt with issues of industrial relations that
bear upon the productivity-enhancing effects of employee
participation in decisions that affect organizational opera
tions. It is true, he said, that employees increasingly
influence decisions about their immediate work condi
tions, but it is not true that they are helping to make the
more fundamental strategic decisions that affect them.
Management usually does not air questions of financing,
research and development, and plant location and reloca
tion within or beyond national borders with employee
representatives. Tapiola urged consultative and exchangeof-information arrangements between trade unions and
central management, at domestic and international levels,
as well as continuous upgrading of labor standards and
careful monitoring to prevent their erosion.5
Here, areas of tension between labor and management
representatives once again could be perceived. Semple did
propose labor-management communications programs (at
a panel other than the one of which Tapiola was a
member), focusing on the improvement of firms’ market
positions. But his advocacy of employee involvement as a
means to productivity improvement was clearly confined
to issues directly related to the work itself. He also
advocated a shift away from fixed compensation in favor
of flexible compensation structures which would link pay
and benefits to profitability, and thus give employees a
greater stake in a firm’s performance. Such a practice
might, of course, clash with the wage and labor standards
policies which Tapiola urged.
There also were areas of agreement among symposium
participants. Like the trade union spokespersons, Semple
strongly favored notifying workers in advance concerning
decisions affecting jobs— such as plant closings, work
transfers, and automation. Also, he advocated that
affected workers be supported with orderly job-transfer
programs, whether inside or outside companies, as part of
private-sector adjustment policies.
The worker’s role
As indicated earlier, worker participation in decisions
about work processes and the restructuring of work
organization was one of the three themes of the sympo
sium. Here, again, the discussion ranged far beyond the
productivity effects. Advocacy of worker participation in
organizational decision making had its inception at a time
of profound changes in worker attitudes and the character
of the labor force— the social unrest and widespread
strikes that occurred in several industrialized nations
between 1968 and 1971 being viewed as the onset of those
changes. Thus, Roger Holtback, chief executive officer of
the Volvo Corp., traced the shift during the early 1970’s
from assembly lines to small-team organization in build
ing cars at his firm’s Kalmar (Sweden) plant to the
increasing difficulty of finding workers to staff assembly
lines, rather than to considerations of higher output per
hour (although this happened to be a result of the shift).
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
The Volvo assembly line— which itself had led to the
breakdown or fragmentation of the worker craft organiza
tions that had originally built the automobile— was
replaced by small teams of about 20 workers, each
charged with full responsibility for one of the systems
(currently numbering 21) that make up a car— electrical,
brake, instrument panel, and so forth. The work cycle has
been lengthened so that the repetitiveness of given
operations has been reduced to as little as one-tenth of
what it had been on the assembly line. Corrections to
finished work have been reduced by 40 percent.
The Volvo workers are trained in computer technology.
The apprentice-journeyman system having been reintro
duced, workers are regarded as being highly skilled, thus
enhancing their self-esteem. Absenteeism and turnover
are low, fewer health problems have arisen, and the agesex mix of workers has become more broadly representa
tive.
While Holtback’s report, like other case studies pres
ented at the symposium, summarized experience gained in
manufacturing industry, another presentation dealt with a
public service industry— here, the maintenance and
repair of the New York City Department of Sanitation’s
truck fleet, with Ronald Cantino, deputy commissioner of
the Department, reporting.
According to Cantino, one-half of the Department’s
5,100 vehicles were out of service on an average daily
basis as of late 1978, mostly because of ineffective
management practices and poor use of labor resources.
Large amounts of overtime had to be worked to ensure a
modicum of daily sanitation services. Cantino, whose
Bureau of Motor Equipment operates out of 73 locations
scattered throughout the city, perceived that poor labormanagement relations lay at the core of the problem. He
proceeded to involve his employees and their union
directly in all work-related decisions, focusing on raising
efficiency. His guiding idea was that a pool of skills and
knowledge existed among the work force of his bureau,
which workers did not (or would not) share with an
indifferent, often even callous, management.
The chief instrument devised by Cantino to gain the
confidence and cooperation of the work force was a Labor
Committee, consisting of the bureau’s top staff and trade
union and shop representatives. The committee was to
report weekly to Cantino. Committee members were free
to report all decisions to the trade union leadership.
The chief initial concern of the committee was not
productivity improvement so much as working condi
tions, and this orientation gradually led to employees’
perception that they were gaining control over their daily
work lives. Pride in workmanship revived, and sugges
tions to make the job more efficient multiplied. Eventu
ally, a system of 22 committees was set up to facilitate
productivity improvement, the evaluation of the feasibil35
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Conference Summaries
ity of their specific suggestions being left to a specialized
analyst.
Cantino also discussed the difficulties encountered with
managers. Although the organizational structure of the
motor equipment bureau was left in place, managers still
resisted implementing many of the suggestions made by
rank-and-file workers. Where managers proved unable to
adapt, they were transferred, and replaced by persons
trained in the worker participation system that Cantino
had installed.
In addition to institutionalizing worker involvement in
productivity change, a “profit center” concept was
actuated, under which the cost incurred in repairing or
replacing a given vehicular part (or in performing a given
service) was compared to the cost of contracting out or
purchasing from an outside company. The bureau’s shops
often were shown to outperform private contractors.
Moreover, productivity improvements were thus trans
formed into readily understood dollars-and-cents terms,
bolstering pride of workmanship and interest in the work.
The Japanese speak
Panelists representing Japanese business, labor, and
government differed in orientation and emphases from
their counterparts from other industrialized countries,
reflecting national differences in employment policies,
industrial relations, and work organization, as well as
different long-term prospects brought on by radical
changes in currency exchange values and their impact on
Japanese industry.
Some of the Japanese speakers noted the U.S. origins of
their economy’s productivity growth over the postwar
period. Thus, Masao Kamei, chairman of Sumitomo
Electric Industries, cited the British productivity mis
sion’s report on its experience in the United States in the
early 1950’s, entitled We Too Can Prosper;6 as having
greatly encouraged members of Japanese business circles
to proceed with their own industrial buildup. Between
1955 and 1961, Kamei reported, Japan sent 459 teams
with 4,403 members to the United States and Europe to
learn about management techniques, manufacturing tech
nology, workshop control, and labor-management rela
tions. The teams published their reports upon their
return, and these reports, being widely disseminated, very
much contributed to revitalizing Japanese industry.
The Japanese “productivity movement,” as described by
Kamei, arose in the 1950’s. It was based on the principles of
labor-management cooperation and the recognition of work
ers’ rights by management. Rising productivity was to
generate rising employment over the longer term, and it was
not to be left to the market alone to achieve this relationship.
(As other Japanese panelists made clear, it also meant that no
layoffs would occur because of technological advances.)
Methods for productivity improvement were to be studied
36FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
and introduced in consultation with labor, the policy of “zero
defects” and quality circles being among the results of such
consultation.
Nobuo Kudo, managing director of the Japan Indus
trial Journal; Jinnosuke Miyai, president of the Japan
Productivity Center; and Kannojo Kataiwa, acting presi
dent of the Federation of Electric Power Unions of Japan
all confirmed that labor markets in Japan have been
internal (to the firm) rather than open, that flexible
personnel policies have rested on intracorporate transfers,
and that management ordinarily has not felt free to lay off
or dismiss workers. The seniority principle in wage and
salary scales has been rather strictly adhered to, its
premise being that length of service indicates degree of
employee ability and vocational aptitude, reinforced by
in-house training and retraining. Thus, Japanese manage
ment makes an “invisible investment” in its employees;
employee experience and know-how in company-specific
skills become management’s “invisible assets,” as one of
the speakers pointed out. Much of the superior perfor
mance of Japanese business is attributable to this person
nel system, the panelists believed.
Professor Tadao Kagono of Kobe University discussed
additional features of this system— and he also outlined
its limits. What he called the “paradigms of Japanese
management” during the postwar period have been these:
• Motivate and commit your employees;
• Minimize status differences (Kagono stated that the
highest salaries in Japanese corporations averaged 7.5
times the lowest)7;
• Minimize the number of separate job classifications;
• Spur internal mobility in the interest of skill versatility;
• Share all information with other managers and with
employees and their representatives;
• Remember that implementing strategy is more difficult
than formulating it;
• Share the fruits of productivity.
Japanese management overwhelmingly believes that its
foremost obligation is to its employees rather than to
shareholders, Kagono said. He believes that U.S. execu
tives are too preoccupied with shareholder interests. It
has been shareholder interests that have made for the
recent waves of mergers and acquisitions; employees’
equity in their job and in company-specific training has
been almost entirely disregarded. If participative manage
ment is to be successful in the United States, shareholder
powers must be curbed.
Kagono then discussed some of the limits of the
Japanese management system; here, his thoughts were
shared by some of the other Japanese panelists. Participa
tive management works best in industries with assembly
line types of technology, where innovative production
processes and new products are key success factors— for
example, automobiles, machinery, and computers. These
are industries whose competitive positions have been
strongly and adversely affected by the rising exchange
rate of the yen. Intensive cost-cutting efforts have, to an
extent, offset that disadvantage— only to contribute
further to the Japanese trade surplus and hence the rising
value of the yen. Therefore, to optimize productivity in
these industries means to globalize them, most often by
moving production facilities to other countries. That, in
turn, spells a narrowing of the ambit of the participative
management characteristic of Japanese organization.
Certain other Japanese manufacturing industries—
steel and shipbuilding, in particular— are being com
pelled to “restructure” because of international competi
tion. Their work forces must be reduced, and this goes
against the grain of the Japanese tradition of no layoffs.
Many other industries— food, chemicals, aerospace, agri
culture— remain competitively weak but also cannot be
restructured without giving up or greatly modifying timehonored management practices. The service sector, Kagano said, represents a newly emerging paradigm; here,
greater priority is given to the hiring of younger workers,
job classifications are often more detailed than in manu
facturing, and compensation structures tend to reflect
merit rather than seniority.
Miyai, of the Japan Productivity Center, further
elaborated on the changes the industrial relations system
in Japan will undergo. Contract labor, part-time work,
and temporary hiring of professional and semiprofes
sional workers are becoming more prevalent. Retraining
and reemployment of workers within the same enterprise
is becoming more difficult. Thus, declining industries
employ large numbers of redundant workers. Unemploy
ment is not now a serious macroeconomic problem in
Japan, but mismatches of employment on a regional or
age basis are becoming more frequent. Job problems also
arise from the increasingly permanent attachment of
women to the labor force; the growing inability of
agriculture to absorb redundant labor as international
trade in agricultural products is liberalized; the steppedup rationalization of services and distribution; office and
plant automation; and the shift of economic activities to
overseas locations. It was evident from such presentations
as Kagono’s, Miyai’s, and Kamei’s that Japan confronts
profound changes in its employment and industrial
relations structures, and that there is great uncertainty as
to how these changes can be met without giving up
traditions and conventions that have underlain her social
stability and economic strength.
Summing up
In concluding the symposium, C. Jackson Grayson,
chairman of the American Productivity Center, discussed
the reasons why the growth of U.S. productivity has
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
slowed, and how the Nation’s management must respond
to reinvigorate it.
Macroeconomic policy solutions are no longer as
effective in promoting productivity growth as they were in
earlier postwar decades, he said. Nor will currency
manipulation spur such growth, except over a short
period.
Protectionism does not work, and so-called industrial
policies are not very effective. In general, the belief that
government can act as an engine of productivity advance
is not well founded.
There is a more fundamental difficulty, Grayson
asserted. The United States, like Great Britain and the
Netherlands in earlier periods, has been a productivity
growth leader. But leaders become complacent. Challeng
ers copy them, adopt and adapt their ideas, work harder,
pay more attention to education and training. Challengers
are protectionists rather than free traders. Over time,
economic leaders have trouble adjusting— their challeng
ers are flexible. True, the United States still leads in terms
of the level of productivity, but lags far behind in terms of
productivity growth.
U.S. management must recognize and respond to the
“economic techtonics” of global competition, Grayson
warned. It must realize that production has become
globalized, technological transfer has accelerated, and
comparative advantage for a host of products is shifting
rapidly among nations. It must adjust its practices to
account for the rising importance of human capital, the
growing emphasis on quality, and the rapid “commoditi
zation” of innovations and inventions. It must organize
for flexibility. Grayson listed 10 areas upon which
productivity improvement must focus:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Quality;
Design of operating systems;
Job design and organizational structures;
Accounting systems;
Employment security;
Compensation and reward systems;
Worker involvement;
Investment in employee training;
Elimination of status symbols;
Trade union involvement in organizational decision
making.
The globalization of the U.S. economy, Grayson said,
requires much more and much better international data,
tailored for ready international comparability, by levels as
well as by trend rates. He mentioned specifically the need
for estimates of gross domestic product per capita,
employment, and hours worked, each by nation, sector,
and industry. He also called for improvements in the
purchasing power parity method of converting exchange
rates.8
37
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Conference Summaries
Grayson’s greatest concern remained with productivity
growth. It determines a nation’s rank in the global
economy. It bridges macro- and micro-economic con
cerns. Notwithstanding his reservations about govern
ment intervention in matters economic, Grayson
advocated a Marshall Plan for the poor nations, to be
driven by productivity improvements. By the year 2100,
he said, the Third World will account for 90 percent of
the world’s population. A world with a handful of rich
nations and a vast majority of poor nations cannot survive
peacefully. Productivity is the way out— a way to
freedom.
The tension between productivity and employment,
openly acknowledged by few speakers but implicit in most
of the presentations, was thus more directly addressed by
Grayson in his call for a vast expansion of global markets.
And this recalled a note struck by Stephen Schlossberg,
director of the Washington office of the International
Labor Organization, at the beginning of the symposium:
the United States and other industrial countries cannot
prosper in the 21st century unless they open up new
markets in developing nations. Schlossberg offered the
International Labor Organization as a model for the
tripartite action by employers, workers, and government.
The statements by Grayson and Schlossberg essentially
shifted responsibility for the solution to the productivity
dilemma to the political arena, perhaps the most fitting
summation for the symposium.
--------- FOO TNO TE S--------'A summary of the symposium proceedings will be available at no cost
in the early fall of 1988 from the Office of Labor Management
Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.
2See Francis W. Horvath, “The pulse of economic change: displaced
workers of 1981-85,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1987, pp. 3-1 2 . See
also Paul O. Flaim and Ellen Sehgal, “Displaced workers of 1979-83:
how well have they fared?” Monthly Labor Review, June 1985, pp. 3-16;
Richard Devens, “Displaced workers: one year later,” Monthly Labor
Review, July 1986, pp. 40-43; and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology
Assessment, Technology and Structural Unemployment: Reemploying
Displaced Adults, o t a - i t e -250 (Washington, Government Printing
Office, February 1986).
3See “ g a o ’ s Preliminary Analysis of U.S. Business Closures and
Permanent Layoffs During 1983 and 1984, Apr. 30, 1986” (Washington,
U.S. General Accounting Office). See also Plant Closings: Information,
Advance Notice and Assistance to Dislocated Workers, g a o - h r d 8 7 -86
b r (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 17, 1987).
4Richard M. Cyert and David C. Mowery, eds., Technology and
Employment. Innovation and Growth in the U.S. Economy, Executive
Sum m ary (Washington, National Academy Press, 1987), p. 2. See also
Jerome A. Mark, “Technological change and employment: some results
from b l s research,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1987, pp. 26-29.
5See World Labour Report, vols. 1 and 2 (Geneva, International
Labour Office, 1984).
6Graham Hutton, We Too Can Prosper. The Promise o f Productivity
(London, George Allen & Unwin, 1953).
Digitized 38
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
According to calculations by Lester Thurow, the after-tax income of
the top 20 percent of income recipients in Japan averaged 5.2 times that
of the bottom 20 percent for the years 1960-77; in the United States, it
was 9.5 times. See Thurow, “Equity, Efficiency, Social Justice, and
Redistribution,” in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Devel
opment, The Welfare State in Crisis (Paris, 1981), p. 138.
8For a description at purchasing power parities, see John Dryden,
Katrina Reut, and Barbara Slater, “Comparison of purchasing power
parity between the United States and Canada,” Monthly Labor Review,
December 1987, pp. 7-24.
Consumer Expenditure Survey
conference paper summaries
Economists in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Division
of Consumer Expenditure Surveys and Division of Price
and Index Number Research analyze Consumer Expendi
ture data in a variety of ways. The following are
summaries of this research that were presented at various
professional conferences during 1987 and 1988. To
receive a full copy of one or more of the papers, write the
author, care of Bureau of Labor Statistics, 600 E Street,
N.W. (4th floor), Washington, DC 20212.
*
*
*
*
Thesia I. Garner, “Consumer Expenditure and Inequal
ity: A Budget Components Analysis Using the Gini
Coefficient,” presented at the Southern Economic
Association Meetings in Washington, DC, November
22-24, 1987.
In this paper, the material well-being of the population,
as defined by consumption expenditures, is evaluated in
terms of the inequality of consumption expenditures
across consumer units representative of the U.S. urban
population in 1982-83. The Gini coefficient is used as the
measure of inequality: the higher the Gini value, the
greater the inequality. Gini coefficients are produced for
all consumer units as a group and for socioeconomic and
demographic subgroups of the population. The Gini
coefficient is decomposed by budget components to
examine the effects by component on overall consumption
expenditures inequality. The Lerman and Yitzhaki covariance method is employed to calculate Gini estimates;
these estimates are more accurate than would have been
possible with other methods, because microlevel, and not
grouped, data are required.
An overall Gini value of .322 results from a population
estimate of inequality based on consumption expendi
tures. This is comparable to, although slightly lower than,
estimates based on income. Differences among subgroups
of the population are examined. The most inequality in
expenditures is experienced by one-person consumer
units, consumer units with reference persons age 65 or
over, and those in which the reference person is of a race
other than white or black. Consumers in the lowest
quintile of income exhibit the most inequality in total
expenditures.
The analysis by budget components reveals that certain
expenditures contribute more to total inequality than do
others. Results indicate that increases in expenditures for
food, shelter, fuel and utilities, and medical care and
services would lead to reductions in the overall inequality
of consumption expenditures. An increase in private
transportation expenditures would lead to the largest
positive change in overall inequality.
The Lerman and Yitzhaki method is a valid procedure
to use when evaluating the inequality of consumption
expenditures across consumer units. Plans for future
research include an expansion of this study to evaluate the
effects of changes in taxes and in prices on overall
inequality. In addition, a user-cost or flow-of-services
method for defining vehicle purchase expenditures and
homeowners’ payments for “implicit rent” will be
considered.
When evaluating the impact of changes in taxes and
government subsidies, policymakers and researchers must
keep in mind the differential impact on subgroups of the
population and differences that can result when expendi
tures for individual budget components change. Other
wise, the policies proposed and programs enacted could
lead to greater inequality in economic well-being across
consumer units in the population—not the desired result
for a society which is averse to inequality.
*
*
*
ethnicity, region and degree of urbanization of residence,
education of the reference person, and employment status
of the spouse. Data are from the quarterly Interview
component of the Consumer Expenditure Survey for 1984
and 1985. Only consumer units who report their expendi
tures for 12 consecutive months are included in the
sample.
The results suggest that gifts, when evaluated as a total
group, are luxuries for the household. The probability of
gift giving and expenditures for total gifts are affected by
socioeconomic and demographic variables including fam
ily size, stage in the family life cycle, ethnicity and
education of the reference person, and degree of urbaniza
tion. Increases in family size are associated with a lower
probability of gift giving outside the consumer unit.
Results indicate that consumer units with “mature” or
“older” reference persons are more likely to give gifts in
general, while younger and mature parent consumer units
are most likely to give gifts of infants’ clothing. Consumer
units of Anglo-Saxon ethnic origin are more likely to give
gifts in general while Afro-Americans are less likely to
have purchases for gifts of infants’ clothing. Higher
education is associated with a greater probability of gift
giving when considered for total gifts, while higher
education is negatively associated with the probability
that the consumer unit will purchase gifts of infants’
clothing. Consumer units living in cities or rural areas are
less likely than those living in suburban areas to have gift
expenditures. Information obtained from this research
can be used to extend previously developed models of gift
giving to include economic concepts.
*
*
Thesia I. Garner and Janet Wagner, “Gift-Giving Behav
ior: An Economic Perspective,” presented at the
Allied Social Science Associations Annual Meetings,
Society of Government Economists, Chicago, i l ,
December 28-30, 1987.
The giving of gifts is a way of conferring material
benefits on a recipient. Thus, whether a gift is given is in
part an economic decision. Previous research has focused
on various dimensions of gift giving: however, studies
dealing from an economic perspective have not been fully
developed.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the economic
dimensions of gift giving. Engel curve analysis is used to
study the socioeconomic and demographic determinants
of household (consumer unit) expenditures for gifts given
to individuals, households, and organizations outside the
consuming unit. Total expenditures for gifts and expendi
tures for a selected product category, infants’ clothing, are
analyzed. The factors hypothesized to influence gift
expenditures include the total expenditures or income of
the household, family size, stage in the family life cycle,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
*
*
*
Thesia I. Garner and Laura A. Blanciforti, “Reporting of
Household Income: Complete Versus Incomplete
Response,” published in Bureau o f the Census Third
Annual Research Conference, March 29-A pril 1,
1987 Proceedings (Washington, Bureau of the Cen
sus, 1987). Another version of this paper was
presented during the American Council on Consumer
Interests 33rd Annual Conference, held April 1-4,
1987, in Denver, co.
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship
between particular socioeconomic characteristics and the
probability that a consumer unit reports income informa
tion. This is in contrast to earlier income/earnings
reporting studies in which individual characteristics are
related to response probabilities. Income reporting is
defined in terms of the completeness of income informa
tion obtained from consumer units. The distinction
between a complete income reporter and an incomplete
income reporter is based on whether the respondent
provides values for various sources of income. Socioeco-
39
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Conference Summaries
nomic variables included in the model are the age, race,
sex, education, and occupation of the reference person,
and the housing tenure, degree of urbanization, and
region of residence of the household. Binomial logit
analysis is used to model the probability of income
response completeness. Data from the Interview portion
of the 1983 Consumer Expenditure Survey are analyzed.
If the reference person is self-employed or has a 4-year
college degree, the consumer unit is likely to be an
incomplete income respondent. Increases in the reference
person’s age, for the most part are related to decreases in
the probability of complete income response. Owning
one’s home is negatively related to being a complete
income reporter. Consumer units living in the Northeast
and those living in the North Central regions of the
country also are less likely than others to be complete
income reporters. These results are consistent with related
findings of previous researchers. For this analysis, no
attempt is made to test whether the socioeconomic
variables influence income completeness through their
effect or whether the variables independently influence
income completeness.
Results from the study have important implications for
research. Analysts interested in using income from the
Consumer Expenditure Survey need to be aware that
complete and incomplete reporters of income are differ
ent; these differences may lead to biased estimation results
if not accounted for in one’s analytical procedure.
Focusing on factors related to income report complete
ness is also important when the Bureau considers revising
data collection procedures to improve data quality.
*
*
*
*
Raymond Gieseman and Brent Moulton, “Income elas
ticities of expenditure for food,” published in 1987
Proceedings o f the American Statistical Association,
Business and Economics Section.
Based on data from the 1985 Consumer Expenditure
Survey, estimates of the income elasticities of expenditure
for the several food groups included in the study are
shown in the paper. These income elasticities of expendi
ture, evaluated at mean after-tax income levels, were
found to be inelastic without exception. For total food,
the expected change in consumer unit spending was .31
percent for each 1-percent change in income. Thus, a
consumer unit with an income 10 percent above the mean
could be expected to spend about 3 percent more per week
on food than a comparable consumer unit at the mean
after tax income.
This predicted incremental change in total spending for
food, although small, may conceal different expenditure
response patterns for food at home and away from home,
and for individual food-at-home groups. Expenditures for
Digitized 40
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
food away from home were considerably less inelastic
(.55) than those for food at home (.17). This finding is
consistent with the notion that consumer units with more
money to spend eat out more often. Given the greater
response to income change, food-away-from-home ex
penditures, which accounted for 36 percent on average of
the total spending for food per consumer unit in 1985 (up
from 33 percent in 1980-81), should continue to increase
over time if incomes increase.
Among the food-at-home groups, expenditures most
responsive to income change were those for fish and
seafood (.36), other dairy products (.29), fresh and
processed fruits (.23 and .29), and miscellaneous foods
(.23). Food-at-home groups least responsive to income
changes were pork (.10), other meats (.03), eggs (-.03),
fresh milk and cream (.05), sugar and other sweets (.06),
and fats and oils (.08).
The food requirements and eating habits of families
differ, depending upon the number of persons in the
family, the stage in the life cycle of family members, and
the economic well-being of the household. These differ
ences are reflected in the food expenditure patterns of
consumer units. For example, with the same amount of
income to spend, couples with one child are likely to
spend their food dollar differently than couples without
children. Older adults may eat out less often, and
therefore spend less on food away from home.
From this same study, it was also possible to describe
how expenditures for food and selected food groups vary
when another person at a given stage in the life cycle was
added to the consumer unit. For these calculations, the
average size of a family was 2.6 persons and its after-tax
income was approximately $25,000 ($480 weekly). Re
sults are shown for persons in eight different age
categories, and separately for girls and boys 10 through 19
years old.
According to the findings, adding a child under 5 years
old to the consumer unit increased weekly food expendi
tures by $2.61. However, expenditures for food at home
went up by $7.52 per week, and expenditures for food
away from home declined by $4.13.
Across age groups, expenditures for total food in
creased with the age of the consumer unit member,
reaching a peak of $20.98 for an adult 30 to 44 years old,
and then declined to $13.29 for an adult 65 years old or
over, a drop of nearly 37 percent. However, adding an
adult from any of the age groups 30 to 44 and over had
about the same effect on food-at-home expenditures, but
the effect on expenditures for food away from home
differed. For example, adding a 30- to 44-year-old person
to the unit increased food-at-home expenditures by $18.44
and food-away-from-home expenditures by $1.85. Adding
an adult 65 years old increased at-home expenditures by
$18.17, but decreased expenditures on food away from
home by $5.44.
Boys tend to affect food expenditures more than girls.
Adding a boy ages 10 to 14 years to the consumer unit
increased the weekly food bill by $7.75, compared to
$6.89 for girls in the same age category. Differences in the
effects of adding boys and girls on unit food expenditures
were even more pronounced for the 15- to 19-year-old
category.
*
*
*
*
Kirk Kaneer, “Housing Structure Attributes and Tenure
Status,” presented at the Allied Social Science Asso
ciations Annual Meetings, Society of Government
Economists, Chicago, i l , December 28-30, 1987.
Are structural attributes of dwellings major factors
related to whether a consumer owns or rents his or her
housing? This is an important question because shelter
costs form the largest budget item for most consumers
and, from an econometric viewpoint, failing to account
for structural attributes of dwellings found in the general
housing stock may result in specification bias when
estimating tenure model parameters. However, the pri
mary purpose of this study was to examine the contribu
tion of structural attributes as a group of explanatory
variables in housing tenure models. It was found that
housing tenure is significantly related to the structural
attributes of the dwelling. This result was unexpected
given that in standard economic models consumer char
acteristics alone explain housing tenure.
There are four major reasons why structural attributes
should be included in a descriptive tenure model. First,
the greater the housing density, the greater the need for
controlling occupant abuse and congestion externalities.
Given that renting provides means of controlling occu
pant behavior, a relationship exists between housing
density and tenure. For example, a landlord may be more
willing to rent out an adjoining duplex than to sell,
preferring to retain greater control over its occupants.
Second, maintenance cost may depend upon the tenure of
the dwelling. It could be argued that the size of this
maintenance cost would be a function of the kinds and
amounts of structural attributes present—for example,
the more rooms, the larger the maintenance cost differen
tial between owning and renting the unit. If differences in
maintenance costs between homeowners and renters are
greater in single-unit structures than in multi-unit struc
tures, one would expect the probability of ownership to be
higher in the single-unit structures. Third, maintenance
costs are tax deductions for landlords but not for
homeowners. If maintenance costs vary by structural
attributes, there is an added tax effect in the tenure
relationship. Fourth, legal restrictions, such as local
zoning laws limiting structure or tenure type, may
prohibit certain structures from being rented or subdi
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
vided and thereby affect the prevailing tenure status.
Given these reasons, a model of observed tenure should
include a vector of structural attributes describing the
building as well as a vector of socioeconomic characteris
tics describing the occupants.
For the empirical analysis, the dwelling is characterized
by a number of structural attributes, such as the number
of rooms, structure type, structure age, housing density,
and degree of urbanization. It was hypothesized that the
structural attributes of a dwelling, with a vector of
socioeconomic characteristics of its occupants serving as
control variables, would be significantly related to the
observed tenure of the dwelling. Three binomial logit
models were specified and tested using 1984-85 Con
sumer Expenditure Survey data. The first model included
both socioeconomic and structural attribute variables.
The socioeconomic variables included the log of income,
the log of income squared, age of the reference person, age
of referenced person squared, and a set of dummy
variables describing family type, log of a wealth variable,
a set of education variables, and dummy regressors based
upon new residences established within the past 3 months.
These last three regressors were included to proxy
consumer units’ mobility, based upon distance moved
from their previous locations. Race, observation quarter,
and unemployment income dummy variables also were
included as controls. The housing attribute variables were
chosen to reflect housing density, economies of scale,
congestion externalities, structural age, size, and degree of
urbanization. The second model included only socioeco
nomic variables, while the third model included only
structural attributes. The sample included only consumer
units having their final interview conducted during 1984
and 1985. This eliminated multiple occurrences of the
same consumer units brought about by rotating sample
design, while also including income and asset data which
were available only from the fifth interview questionnaire.
The sample was further limited to consumer units giving
valid income and wealth information, those not receiving
government housing support, those not receiving housing
on a noncash basis, and those giving valid structural
attribute and mobility responses. This left 4,518 observa
tions for analysis.
The null hypothesis that structural attributes do not
make a contribution was strongly rejected. Log likelihood
statistics indicated that the model that included both
structural attributes and consumer characteristics signifi
cantly outperformed the models with consumer charac
teristics or structural attributes alone. This suggests that
housing research, especially models utilizing occupant
tenure, should further examine structural attribute
influences.
*
*
*
*
41
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Conference Summaries
Julie A. Nelson, “Individual Consumption Within the
Household: A Study of Expenditures on Clothing,”
bls Working Paper No. 175, prepared in the Division
of Price and Index Number Research, November 18,
1987.
Most studies of consumption behavior, including most
studies of the consumption of clothing, investigate ex
penditures at the household level. The Interview portion
of the Consumer Expenditure Survey, however, collects
data on purchases of clothing according to the member
for whom the purchase is made. These data, available on
the Bureau’s internal data base, provide a rare opportu
nity for direct investigation of the distribution of con
sumption within the household.
This paper uses multiple regression analysis to study
the factors influencing the level of annual expenditure on
clothing for individuals and to generate predicted mean
values of expenditure based on these observable factors.
The individuals studied are members of households which
consist of two parents and their children under 17 years of
age, for whom data were gathered for some 12-month
period falling between January 1984 and December 1985.
The factors hypothesized to influence clothing expendi
ture include the age, sex, and race of the household
member, the total expenditures or income of the house
hold unit, the age/sex composition of the remainder of the
household, the educational levels and occupations of the
parents, and geographic location.
The results suggest that expenditure on clothing for
girls is generally higher than for boys, and expenditure on
clothing for mothers higher than that for fathers. Expen
diture elasticities with respect to permanent income are
estimated as being near unity for children, but greater
than unity for adults. Contrary to the usual assumption
that expenditures increase with age, expenditures on
children are estimated to be highest in infancy and in the
mid-teen years, and lowest at early preschool ages.
*
*
*
*
Jeffrey W. Smith and Mary F. Kokoski, “The Autocovar
iance of Expenditure Shares From Consumer Expen
diture Survey Data,” presented at the Allied Social
Science Association Annual Meetings, Society of
Government Economists, Chicago, il, December
28-30, 1988.
The continuing Consumer Expenditure Survey uses a
rotating panel sampling design. As a result of this design,
approximately 80 percent of the households sampled in
one (calendar) quarter will also be sampled in the
following quarter. To the extent that the expenditure
patterns of individual households are autocorrelated over
time, quarterly estimates of aggregate expenditure shares
will exhibit autocovariation. The presence of autocovaria-
42for FRASER
Digitized
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tion can be shown to create bias in the construction of
quarterly chained indexes, and the magnitude of this bias
is related to the magnitude of the covariance. The purpose
of this paper is to determine this magnitude. The issue is
addressed both analytically and empirically.
The analytical expression for the autocovariance is
derived in a framework of random sampling from a
superpopulation. The effects of sample size are consid
ered, and it is shown that the magnitude of the covariance
declines on the order of approximately 1/n. In addition,
two relevant features of expenditure share estimates are
considered: the fact that each share must lie between zero
and 1, and the fact that the shares must sum to unity. It is
shown that both of these features imply that the magni
tude of the covariance is very low.
The empirical part of the paper looks at the expenditure
shares of households that are surveyed in adjacent
quarters. For these households, the correlation between
expenditure shares for various expenditure categories is
calculated. It is found that shares for nondurables tend to
exhibit positive autocorrelation and those for durables
show negative autocorrelation. Typically, the magnitude
of the estimated correlations is found to be small.
Overall, both the analytical and empirical parts of the
paper show that, even though household expenditure
shares may be autocorrelated, the autocovariance of
estimates of aggregate expenditure shares is sufficiently
small that it can be safely ignored.
*
*
*
*
William D. Passero, “Goods vs. Services: From the
Perspective of Consumer Spending,” presented at the
American Council on Consumer Interests Annual
Meetings, Chicago, il, April 6 -9 , 1988.
In recent years, one of the major themes which has
emerged in tracing the course of the American economy
has been the basic shift from the production of goods to
the provision of services. This paper examines the
phenomenon of the shift towards a service economy from
the perspective of consumer spending. The first section
analyzes aggregate data from the Consumer Expenditure
Survey with other national sources of data for the period
1972—73 to 1984—85. The results show that purchase
decisions of consumers painted a different picture of the
economy— one much less services-oriented— than that
portrayed by employment or output measures. In the
aggregate, U.S. consumers have allocated an increasing
share of their consumption dollar to services. Nonethe
less, overall total consumption has been divided fairly
evenly between goods and services.
Several factors contribute to the disparity between
consumption estimates and the other data sources. The
range of services that consumers can directly purchase is
markedly smaller than the range of services that workers
produce. In fact, expenditures by consumers for goods
actually reflect the costs of many of these services, which
are incorporated into the prices of goods. In addition, the
consumption data sources account for the disposition of
savings differently than the employment and output data
sources.
While the consumption data from the Consumer
Expenditure Survey showed U.S. households in the
aggregate spending slightly more on goods than services,
various subgroups of the population may have exhibited
different spending patterns for goods vis-a-vis services.
The second section of the paper focuses on the allocation
of spending between goods and services for subgroups of
the population, defined by age and by income in 1985. It is
found that, with some important exceptions, these sub
groups have behaved much like the population as a whole.
Subgroups located at the “ends” of the distribution for
each characteristic— the youngest, the oldest, and the
poorest— displayed distributions of expenditures between
goods and services that deviated furthest from the
distribution for all households. The relative absence or
presence of purchases of “big ticket” items, such as cars,
trucks, and homes, in their consumption profiles, seemed
to account for these deviations.
*
*
*
*
Stephanie Shipp, “Spending Patterns of Men and
Women,” published in 1987 Proceedings o f the
American Statistical Association , Business and Eco
nomics Section.
Intuitively one expects men and women to spend their
money differently. But do they? Little work has been done
to date on this subject despite the growing significance of
women in the economy. The reason for this, in part, is due
to lack of data that includes observations of consumption
for men and women separately.
The ongoing Consumer Expenditure Survey is one
source of data that can be used to examine gender
differences. The survey does not collect data on which
member of the household purchased an item. Therefore,
to isolate expenditure differences between men and
women, data for single men and single women are used.
Because singles account for more than 1 consumer unit in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4, the survey provides a sufficient amount of data to
examine gender differences. It must be noted that gender
differences between single men and single women may be
different from those that exist between their counterparts
in other types of households, such as married couples.
Therefore, this analysis should be considered a first step
in analyzing gender differences. Data for 1984-85 are
used.
Demographics.
One of the most notable differences
when comparing single men and women in the expendi
ture survey is the difference in age. Over 50 percent of
single men are under age 35, whereas more than 50
percent of single women are age 55 or over. The age
difference between men and women narrows as income
increases. However, three-fourths of the women earn less
than $15,000, compared to about half the men. The gap in
average income is wide at all age groups.
Sources o f income.
Single men, on average, earn about
$7,000 more than single women. There are also large
differences in their sources of income. On average, single
women earn three-fifths of their income from wages and
salaries, while single men earn almost four-fifths from this
income source. Single women receive one-fourth of their
income from Social Security, pensions, and government
retirement. This is an important source of income because
there are more women in the older age group. They also
earn almost 10 percent from interest, dividends, and other
property income. These two sources of income account
for 35 percent of total income for single women but less
than 15 percent of total income for single men.
Expenditure patterns: 1984-85.
Single men spend an
average of $15,000 per year compared to about $11,000
spent by single women. Because of this income difference
and the large age difference, regression analysis is used to
examine expenditure differences between single men and
women after controlling for income, age, and race. The
regression results show that women spend more for health
care and life and other personal insurance while men
spend more for alcoholic beverages, shelter, used vehicles,
and gasoline and motor oil. The interaction of gender and
income, age, and race is also examined and is found to be
significant for several expenditures.
Q
43
Major Agreements
Expiring Next Month
This list of selected collective bargaining agreements expiring in September is based on information
collected by the Bureau’s Office of Compensation and Working Conditions. The list includes agreements covering
1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classification.
Labor organization1
Employer and location
Industry or activity
Number of
workers
Private
C o n s t r u c t i o n ..............................................
W e s t e r n F i e l d C o n s t r u c t i o n N e g o t i a t i n g C o m m i t t e e ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ............
B o i l e r m a k e r s ......................................................
N a t io n a l E le c tr ic a l C o n tr a c to r s A s s o c ia t io n , in s id e a g r e e m e n t ( M ia m i,
E le c tr ic a l W o r k e r s
( ibew )
......................
4,000
1,200
FL)
P a p e r ................................................................
E c u s t a P a p e r C o . ( N o r t h C a r o l i n a ) ..................................................................................
P a p e r w o r k e r s ....................................................
2,000
1,150
1,350
R u b b e r ............................................................
K e l l y S p r i n g f ie ld T ir e C o . ( T y l e r , tx )
............................................................
R u b b e r W o r k e r s ..............................................
1,050
L e a t h e r ..........................................................
B r o w n S h o e C o . ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ..................................................................................................
C lo t h in g a n d T e x t ile W o r k e r s; F o o d
7,000
T e x t i l e s ..........................................................
T e x t i l e d y e i n g , p r i n t i n g , a n d f i n i s h i n g c o s . ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ....................................
C l o t h i n g a n d T e x t i l e W o r k e r s ..............
A p p a r e l ..........................................................
D r e s s a n d S p o r t s w e a r M a n u f a c t u r e r s o f S t. L o u is ( M i s s o u r i ) ....................
L a d i e s ’ G a r m e n t W o r k e r s ......................
a n d C o m m e r c ia l W o r k e r s
I n t e r c o a n d F l o r s h e i m S h o e C o s . ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ..........................................................
V a r i o u s u n i o n s ..................................................
4,000
F a b r i c a t e d m e t a l p r o d u c t s ..............
C o m b u s t i o n E n g i n e e r i n g C o ., I n c . ( C h a t t a n o o g a , t n ) ......................................
B o i l e r m a k e r s ......................................................
1,050
M a c h i n e r y ....................................................
D e e r e & C o . ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ............................................................................................................
A u t o W o r k e r s ..................................................
12,000
P T C o m p o n e n t s , I n c . ( I n d i a n a p o l i s , in ) ........................................................................
S t e e l w o r k e r s ......................................................
1,100
C h r y s l e r C o r p ., h o u r l y ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ....................................................................................
A u t o W o r k e r s ..................................................
C h r y s l e r C o r p ., s a la r i e d ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ................................................................................
A u t o W o r k e r s ..................................................
A m e r i c a n M o t o r s C o r p . ( W i s c o n s i n ) ..............................................................................
A u t o W o r k e r s ..................................................
63,000
6,300
7,500
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n e q u i p m e n t ..............
I n s t r u m e n t s ................................................
S p e r r y R a n d C o r p . ( N e w Y o r k ) ..........................................................................................
E le c tr ic a l W o r k e r s
..........................
3,300
T r u c k i n g ........................................................
B o w m a n T r a n s p o r ta tio n , In c . ( A t la n t a ,
S t e e l w o r k e r s ......................................................
1,900
R e t a i l t r a d e ..................................................
F o o d E m p l o y e r s C o u n c i l , I n c ., w a r e h o u s e a n d d r i v e r s ( S o u t h e r n
T e a m s t e r s ............................................................
10,800
g a
) ..............................................................
( iue )
C a lifo r n ia )
B r u n o F o o d S t o r e s ( A l a b a m a ) ..............................................................................................
F o o d a n d C o m m e r c i a l W o r k e r s ..........
E a g l e F o o d S t o r e s ( I l l i n o i s ) ....................................................................................................
F o o d a n d C o m m e r c i a l W o r k e r s ..........
D o m i n i c k s F o o d S t o r e s ( I l l i n o i s ) ........................................................................................
F o o d a n d C o m m e r c i a l W o r k e r s ..........
4,600
2,500
8,300
R e a l e s t a t e ....................................................
A p a r t m e n t O w n e r s A d v is o r y C o u n c il ( W e s t c h e s te r , ny)
S e r v i c e E m p l o y e e s ........................................
2,400
S e r v i c e s ..........................................................
A m e r i c a n P r o t e c t i v e S e r v i c e s I n c .......................................................................................
I n te r n a tio n a l U n io n o f S e c u r ity
2,700
.......................
O f f i c e r s ( I n d .)
A m u s e m e n t s ..............................................
A llia n c e o f M o t io n P ic tu r e a n d T e le v is io n P r o d u c e r s ( L o s A n g e le s ,
O ff ic e a n d P r o f e s s io n a l E m p lo y e e s ..
1,900
N u r s e s A s s o c i a t i o n ( I n d . ) ........................
1,200
ca)
H o s p i t a l s ......................................................
S e e f o o t n o t e a t e n d o f t a b le .
Digitized for
44FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
W a s h i n g t o n H o s p it a l C e n t e r , n u r s e s ( W a s h i n g t o n ,
DC) ...........................
Continued— Major Agreements Expiring Next Month
Employer and location
Industry or activity
Labor organization1
Number of
workers
P u b lic
E d u c a t i o n ....................................................
C a lifo r n ia :
L o s A n g e l e s B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , c l e r i c a l ..............................
C a lifo r n ia S c h o o l E m p lo y e e s
4,500
A s s o c i a t i o n ( I n d .)
G e n e r a l g o v e r n m e n t ............................
L o s A n g e le s D e p a r t m e n t o f P o w e r a n d W a te r , c le r ic a l
E le c tr ic a l W o r k e r s
( ibew ) .................
1,750
L o s A n g e le s D e p a r tm e n t o f P o w e r a n d W a ter,
E le c tr ic a l W o r k e r s
( ibew ) .................
4,950
o p e r a to r s , m a in t e n a n c e , s e r v ic e
F lo r id a :
D a d e C o u n t y , g e n e r a l c l a s s i f i e d ......................................................
S ta te , C o u n ty a n d M u n ic ip a l
10,000
E m p lo y e e s
L a w e n f o r c e m e n t ....................................
D a d e C o u n t y p o l i c e , c o r r e c t i o n s o f f i c e r s ................................
P o l i c e B e n e v o l e n t A s s o c i a t i o n ............
2,950
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ..........................................
D a d e C o u n t y T r a n s i t A u t h o r i t y , o p e r a t o r s ............................
T r a n s p o r t W o r k e r s ........................................
1,150
G e n e r a l g o v e r n m e n t ............................
J a c k s o n v i l l e , m u n i c i p a l u n i t ..............................................................
S ta te , C o u n ty a n d M u n ic ip a l
2,000
E m p lo y e e s
S e r v i c e s ..........................................................
S t a t e h u m a n s e r v i c e s s u p p o r t ............................................................
S e r v i c e E m p l o y e e s ........................................
1,200
S t a t e c o r r e c t i o n a l e m p l o y e e s ............................................................
S e r v i c e E m p l o y e e s ........................................
4,500
T r i-C o u n ty M e tr o T r a n s it A u th o r ity , o p e r a tin g a n d
T r a n s i t U n i o n ....................................................
1,500
P e n n s y l v a n ia : T u r n p ik e e m p l o y e e s ................................................................................
T e a m s t e r s ............................................................
P i t t s b u r g h B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , t e a c h e r s ..................................
T e a c h e r s ................................................................
1,500
3,150
S a n A n t o n i o F i r e D e p a r t m e n t ..........................................................
F i r e F i g h t e r s ......................................................
1,150
M ic h i g a n :
L a w e n f o r c e m e n t ....................................
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ..........................................
O regon :
m a in t e n a n c e
E d u c a t i o n ....................................................
F ir e p r o t e c t i o n ..........................................
T exas:
' A f f i l i a t e d w i t h a fl - c io e x c e p t w h e r e n o t e d a s i n d e p e n d e n t ( I n d .) .
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
A note on communications
The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supple
ment, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be
considered for publication, communications should be factual and
analytical, not polemical in tone. Communications should be addressed
to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D C 20212.
45
Developments in
Industrial Relations
Pattern contracts in apparel manufacturing
More than 100,000 members of the Ladies Garment
Workers in the Northeast were covered by settlements
with 47 associations of apparel manufacturers and con
tractors. The round of bargaining led off with pattern
setting settlements by the New York Coat and Suit
Association and the Infants’, Children’s, and Girls’
Sportswear and Coat Association.
The 3-year contracts provide for a 4-percent wage
increase each year bringing average pay to $8.44 an hour,
according to the union.
A feature of the settlements was establishment of
provisions permitting male or female employees to take
up to 6 months’ unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a
child. At the end of the leave, the employee is entitled to
return to a comparable job with the same employer. A
union official called the provision “an important benefit
for this group of workers, which include many two-earner
families with children,” further noting that 1987 settle
ments for 25,000 garment workers had provided for
parental leave, presaging a possible trend toward wide
spread adoption of such provisions. About 85 percent of
the union’s members are women.
Other contract terms include an increase in employer
financing of health and welfare and pension benefits,
increased holiday pay, and a longer duration of paid
funeral leave.
The settlements with the 45 associations that followed
the lead of the pattern-setting cost accords were in the
women’s dress, sportswear, knit goods, children’s wear,
and rainwear industries.
Shipyard uses skills as basis for hiring, layoffs
In the shipbuilding industry, the initial contract be
tween West State, Inc. of Portland, OR, and the Metal
Trades Council sets skill and ability—rather than senior
ity—as the determinant in hiring and layoff actions. The
shipyard, which has been in operation for 18 months, said
“Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben of
the Division of Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary
sources.
Digitized for
46 FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
it signed a union contract because the pool of skilled labor
in the 10 crafts represented by the Metal Trades Council
enables it to quickly undertake and complete large
projects. Under the new approach, which applies to eight
of the crafts, West State will decide which employees to
hire. If the company’s list of preferred workers is
exhausted, further hiring will be on a seniority basis.
Similarly, when projects are completed, the company will
decide which employees to lay off. Exceptions are crafts
represented by the Machinists and Carpenters unions,
which will continue under traditional seniority rules. In
return, members of these two unions will be compensated
at $ 1 an hour less than the other crafts, whose wage rates
will move to $14 an hour plus $3.31 for benefits during
the 1-year contract term.
All of the crafts agreed to changes in work rules
intended to increase efficiency. According to a union
official, the crafts have about 3,000 members in the
Portland area, who now work an average 9 months a year,
compared with 5 or 6 months a few years ago. West State
employs 200 to 800 workers, depending on business levels.
More settlements at The New York Times
The latest in a series of settlements between The New
York Times and various unions covered 2,000 news,
advertising, circulation, and business employees repre
sented by the Newspaper Guild. Five unions had settled
earlier and eight are still negotiating. Contracts for all 14
unions expired March 30, 1987, but operations continued
under extensions while the parties concentrated on
resolving the major issue: how to protect the jobs of those
employees who might be affected by a $400 million
printing plant scheduled to be built in Edison, n j , in 1990,
contingent on the outcome of the various settlements.
All of the six settlements already attained were for 6year terms, and provided for similar economic terms. One
settlement, for mailers, provided for typical terms, includ
ing wage increases totaling $215 a week over the term and
a $18.35 weekly increase in the newspaper’s financing of
benefits. The mailers also gained a lifetime job guaranty
for current employees and new employees hired prior to
1990.
Another contract that provided for a job guaranty—of
10 years—covered press operators.
New York City janitors get new contract
In New York City, a settlement between the Realty
Advisory Board and the Service Employees covered
30.000 janitorial employees in 4,000 apartment buildings.
The union said that the terms would also serve as a
pattern in its bargaining with independent apartment
buildings in the area. Wage increases, paid in three annual
steps over the 3-year term, total $70 a week for superin
tendents, $68 for handy persons, and $62 for other
employees. All employees will be eligible for possible costof-living pay adjustments equal to 4 cents an hour for
each percentage-point rise above 8.5 percent in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in New
York City-Northeastern New Jersey between April of
1988 and 1989, and above 8 percent between April of
1989 and 1990. Each possible adjustment is limited to
20 cents.
The agreement, running to April 20, 1991, also
provides for:
• A new long-term disability plan paying employees up
to $250 a month until they recover, become eligible for
a pension, or reach age 65.
• A $50 increase, to $525 a month, in the maximum
pension for future retirees and a 5-percent increase for
current retirees.
• A $500,000 increase, to $1.5 million, in major medical
insurance.
• A $25 increase, to $125, in the reimbursement for
optical charges, available every other year.
• A new “well baby” provision covering various medical
costs from birth to age 3.
Hawaiian Telephone, Electrical Workers settle
A settlement between the Hawaiian Telephone Co. and
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
provides for an immediate lump-sum payment equal to
2.5 percent of each employee’s earnings during the
preceding 12 months. In the second and third years, the
3.000 workers will receive 2.5-percent specified wage
increases. Prior to the settlement, average pay was $12.63
an hour.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Other provisions of the 3-year contract include a $3
increase in the $22 a day payment for work outside the
employee’s normal base;, a 35-cent-an-hour night shift
differential, replacing 25- and 30-cent rates; new group
universal life insurance, with a cash accumulation provi
sion; and employee eligibility for the company’s savings
and investment plan, beginning in 1990.
Retroactive increases for port authority police
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
settled with four unions for 1,800 police who patrol the
New York City area’s principal airports, marine termi
nals, tunnels, and other facilities. About 1,500 of the
employees are represented by the Patrolmen’s Benevolent
Association; the remainder are represented by the Ser
geant’s Benevolent Association, the Detectives Endow
ment Association, and the Superior Officers Association,
which bargain as a unit.
The 4-year contracts were retroactive to the July 1985
termination date of the prior contracts. They provided for
4-percent wage increases effective in July 1985 and
in January and July of 1986, 3 percent in January 1987,
6 percent in July 1987, and 5.4 percent in July 1988.
The increases bring the salaries for patrol officers to the
$22,500-$42,050 range, up from $17,500-$32,500 prior
to July 1985. Salaries for sergeants and detectives were
increased to $52,676 (formerly $35,282), and for lieuten
ants, to $60,554 (formerly $42,692).
New contract for county police in Maryland
About 800 police officers were covered by a settlement
between Montgomery County, m d , and Lodge 35 of the
Fraternal Order of Police. The 3-year contract provides
for a 5.5-percent pay increase in July of 1988 and 4.6percent increases, varying with the movement of the
Consumer Price Index, in July of 1989 and 1990. The
agreement also provides for additional pay increases
based on experience and for accelerated promotions to aid
in competing for personnel with other jurisdictions in the
Washington, D C , area.
Prior to the settlement, salaries ranged from $22,895 to
$38,702.
□
47
Book Reviews
A concise reference for arbitrators
Arbitration for the Practitioner. By Walter E. Baer.
Jefferson, n c , McFarland Co., 1988. 152 pp. $24.95.
This excellent book’s target audience and its paramount
philosophy are succinctly stated in its Introduction. It is
aimed at “management and union participants . . . [who]
don’t deal with the intricacies of the arbitration process on a
day-to-day basis, but when an issue comes to arbitration, it
becomes their responsibility to present their organizations’s
position effectively and successfully.” They are cau
tioned: “There is no substitute for thorough, comprehen
sive, detailed preparation. There is no excuse for its lack.
The conscientious, dedicated, and determined advocate has
learned the importance—in fact, the absolute necessity—of
thorough pretrial preparation . . . . cases are seldom if
ever won in . . . a hearing room. They are won by the side
that has slaved to find all the facts in the case and all its
corporal parts, and is fully prepared before any [hearing]
begins.” To those sentiments every arbitrator will re
spond: “Amen.”
To assist the advocate achieve that goal, Walter E. Baer
devotes two chapters to methods and criteria for selecting
the arbitrator; one chapter to preparing the case, with
emphasis on interviews and preparation of witnesses; a
long chapter on “Arbitration and Advocacy,” consisting
mainly of the “do’s” and “don’ts” of direct- and crossexamination; a short chapter entitled “Principles and
Practices” covering a variety of questions having to do
mostly with procedure and evidence; another long chap
ter called “Concepts-Theories-Issues,” which discusses a
number of basic substantive and procedural issues; a short
chapter on arbitrability; and a page-and-a-half “Conclu
sion” in which, among other things, the author reiterates
his advice, “The sine qua non for success in the field is
unflagging industry, in advance and throughout the
trial . . . . ” Finally, a list of “Citations” by chapter is
included, along with a brief and inadequate index. There
is no bibliography. Also conspicuous by its absence is any
discussion of screening procedures, prior to arbitration,
designed to identify and eliminate (through negotiation or
withdrawal) cases which should not go to arbitration
because they are susceptible to settlement or because they
are unwinnable in arbitration. Many companies and
Digitized48
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
unions involve the same persons responsible for arbitra
tion in such screening processes.
There are, of course, other books that cover much the
same ground as this one. This book, however, is eminently
readable and admirably concise, resulting, with the help
of fine print, in a small volume that will travel well. It will
probably go along to hearings, while standard reference
works, such as Elkouri and Elkouri, remain home. This
does not mean the aspiring advocate will not need more
detailed reference sources, but if there is a better starting
place than Baer’s manual, I am not aware of it. It is an
impressive effort for which many arbitration participants
will be grateful.
------G eorge B. H eliker
Professor Emeritus, Economics
University of M ontana
Interdisciplinary approach to labor relations
Labor Relations: Process and Outcomes. By Marcus H.
Sandver. Boston, m a , Little, Brown and Co, 1987.
529 pp. $29.50.
Why a new addition to the already ample supply of
industrial relations textbooks (or books summarizing
original research used for instructional purposes)? Profes
sor Marcus H. Sandver tells us that his offering contrib
utes to an “ . . . interdisciplinary understanding . . . ”
derived from a “comprehensive review of the historical,
legal and institutional aspects of labor relations . . . ”
However, the uniqueness of this approach is difficult to
discern, since what we have is a text that, for the most
part, covers the standard topics in a fairly conventional
way. Regrettably, more often than not, it does not reach
the level of treatment found in a number of texts currently
in use.
For example, the discussion of the Taft-Hartley Act is
limited to a recital of the key features of the law; no
analysis or assessment of its effects is included. The same
criticism applies to the treatment of the Landrum-Griffin
Act, the emergency procedures of the Railway Labor Act,
and the right-to-work controversy. A single chapter of 26
pages tries to cover contract provisions ranging from
management rights to seniority, wages and fringe benefits,
doing justice to none of them.
In a generally well-rounded chapter on collective
bargaining in the public sector, the author states that
“Congress was not allowed to pass laws dealing with the
internal labor relations policies of the various State
governments.” One must assume that the author is
referring to the 1976 Supreme Court decision in National
League o f Cities v. Usery, which has been widely
interpreted as limiting the Federal Government’s role in
regulating State employees. However, this case was
overruled in 1985, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan
Transit Authority, thereby apparently leaving Congress
free to act in this area should it decide to do so.
The above observations notwithstanding, there are
several strong points in this volume, notably the chapters
on collective bargaining structure, bargaining theory, and
labor history. It is, on the whole, very readable, balanced,
and extensively documented. There are well-founded
expectations that future editions will increase the book’s
usefulness for instructional purposes and assure it wide
acceptance.
One final comment: The author may want to rethink
the heading of Chapter 12, “Outcomes of Bargaining:
Strikes and Industrial Conflict,” in light of the fact that
approximately 95 percent of all contract negotiations are
settled peacefully.
------H arry P. Cohany
Department of Management
Towson State University
Davis, Feather Ann, “Quality of Health Care Measurement: A
Research Priority,” Health Care Financing Review Annual
Supplement, 1987, pp. 1-3.
Jencks, Stephen F. and others, “Case-Mix Measurement and
Assessing Quality of Hospital Care: A Symposium,” Health
Care Financing Review Annual Supplement, 1987, pp.
39-48.
Odynocki, Boris, “The Unhealthy State of Employee Health
Care,” Business and Society Review, Summer 1987, pp.
16-21.
Riche, M artha Farnsworth, “Behind the Boom in Mental
Health Care,” American Demographics, November 1987,
beginning on p. 34.
Roberts, James S., “Reviewing the Quality of Care: Priorities
for Improvement,” Health Care Financing Review Annual
Supplement, 1987, pp. 69-74.
Industrial relations
Bezemek, Robert J., “ ‘No-Fault’ Absenteeism Policies: A
Critical View,” California Public Employee Relations,
M arch 1987, pp. 2-9.
Crockett, Geoff and Ken Hall, “Salaried Professionals and
Union Membership: An Australian Perspective,” The
Journal of Industrial Relations, March 1987, pp. 49-65.
D u a n e , M ic h a e l J ., R o ss E. A z e v e d o , Y in Sog
Rhee, “Location of Negotiations and Bargaining Behav
ior: My Place or Yours?” Journal of Collective Negotiations
in the Public Sector, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1987, pp. 377-83.
Contraction and Expansion: The Diver
gence of Private Sector and Public Sector Unionism in the
U.S. Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Re
Freeman, Richard B.,
search, Inc., 1987. (Working Paper Series, 2399.) $2, paper.
Hirsch, Barry T. and Robert A. Connolly, “Do Unions
Capture Monopoly Profits?” Industrial and Labor Rela
tions Review, October 1987, pp. 118-36.
“Job Loss and Job Change: Three Studies-. The Effect of
Publications received
Economic and social statistics
Economic Report of the President Transmitted to the Congress
February 1988, Together with the Annual Report of the
Council of Economic Advisers. Washington, 1988, 374 pp.
$10. Available from the Superintendent of Documents,
Washington 20402.
T au ch en , H elen, A nn D ry d en W itte, H a rrie t G riesinger, Deterrence, Work and Crime: Revisiting the Issues
with Birth Cohort Data. Cambridge, m a , National Bureau
of Economic Research, Inc., 1988, 46 pp. (Working Paper
Series, 2508.) $2, paper.
Health and safety
Babitsky, Steven, The Occupational Medical Digest. Falmouth,
m a , Seak, Inc., January 1988, 15 pp. $195 per year.
Cromwell, Jerry and others, “Comparative Trends in Hospital
Expenses, Finances, Utilization, and Inputs, 1970-81,”
Health Care Financing Review, Fall 1987, pp. 51-69.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Advance Notification of Plant Closings on Unemploy
ment,” by John T. Addison and Petro Portugal; “Job
Displacement and Earnings Loss: Evidence from the
Displaced Worker Survey,” by Michael Podgursky and
Paul Swaim; “The Economic Consequence of Labor
Mobility,” by Christopher J. Ruhm; “Discussion by the
authors,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, October
1987, pp. 3-49.
Taking on General Motors: A Case Study of The
Campaign to Keep g m Van Nuys Open. Los Angeles, c a ,
Mann, Eric,
University of California, Institute of Industrial Relations,
Center for Labor Research and Education, 1987, 408 pp.,
bibliography.
Mitchell, Richard, “The Preference Power and the Practice of
the Federal Industrial Tribunal, 1904-1970,” The Journal
of Industrial Relations, M arch 1987, pp. 3-24.
National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation &
W orkers’ Compensation, Highlights of State Unemploy
ment Compensation Laws, January 1988. Washington,
National Foundation for Unemployment Compensation &
Workers’ Compensation, 1988, 90 pp. $12.50, paper.
49
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Book Reviews
Nowlin, William A., “Employee Drug Testing: Issues for
Public Employers and Labor Organizations,” Journal of
Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, Vol. 16, No 4
1987, pp. 295-309.
Jones, Russell, Wages and Employment Policy, 1936-1985.
Winchester, m a , Allen & Unwin, Inc., 1987, 175 pp.
bibliography. $16.95, paper.
The German Worker: Working-Class Autobi
ographies from the Age of Industrialization. Los Angeles,
Kelly, Alfred,
Saze, Ira M., “Constructive Discharge Under the Age Dis
crimination in Employment Act ( a d e a ): An Argument for
the Intent Standard,” Fordham Law Review, May 1987,
pp. 963-1000.
Singer, Marc G., “Comprehension of Right-to-Work Laws
Among Residents of the Right-to-Work States,” Journal of
Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, Vol. 16, No. 4
1987, pp. 311-26.
Stackpool, J. E.,
“ Industrial Relations Legislation in 1986,”
University of California Press, 1987, 438 pp. $45, cloth;
$12.95, paper.
Nicholson, Marjorie, The t u c Overseas: The Roots of Policy.
Winchester, m a , Allen & Unwin, Inc., 1986, 329 pp. $45.
Piore, Michael J., “Historical Perspectives and the Interpreta
tion of Unemployment,” Journal of Economic Literature,
December 1987, pp. 1834-50.
The Journal of Industrial Relations, M arch 1987, pp.
Labor force
92-101.
Ballagh, James M., Eugenia B. Maxwell, Kenneth A. Perea,
Absenteeism in the Workplace. Chicago, i l , Commerce
Clearing House, Inc., 1987, 246 pp. $35.
International economics
Charnovitz, Steve, “The Influence of International Labour
Standards on the World Trading Regime: A Historical
O verview ,” International Labour Review, September-October 1987, pp. 565-84.
Hamermesh, Daniel S.,
Fair, Ray C., “ International Evidence on the Demand for
Money,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, August
1987, pp. 473-80.
Layard, Richard and Lars Calmfors, eds.,
H o d g e s - A e b e rh a rd , J a n e a n d A lb e r to O d e ro D e
Dios, “Principles of the Committee on Freedom of
Association Concerning Strikes,” International Labour
Review, September-October 1987, pp. 543-63.
“The 73rd Session of the International Labour Conference, June
1987,” International Labour Review, September-October
1987, pp. 501-23.
Labor and economic history
Labour Under the Marshall Plan: The
Politics of Productivity and the Marketing of Management
Science. Detroit, m i , Wayne State University Press, 1987,
Carew, Anthony,
293 pp., bibliography.
Glynn, Sean and Alan Booth, eds., The Road to Full Employ
ment. Winchester, m a , Allen & Unwin, Inc., 1987, 214 pp.,
bibliography. $14.95, paper.
50 FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
What Do We Know About Worker
Displacement in the U.S.l Cambridge, m a , National Bu
reau of Economic Research, Inc., 1987, 12 pp. (Working
Paper Series, 2402.) $2, paper.
The Fight Against
Unemployment: Macroeconomic Analysis from the Center
for European Policy Studies. Cambridge, m a , The m i t
Press, 1987, 204 pp. $25.
Ong, Paul M., “ Immigrant Wives’ Labor Force Participa
tion,” Industrial Relations, Fall 1987, pp. 296-303.
Podgursky, Michael and Paul Swaim, “Duration of Jobless
ness Following Displacement,” Industrial Relations, Fall
1987, pp. 213-26.
Working Parents-. “Work and Family: Juncture and Disjuncture,” by Alice H. Cook; “A Consumer’s Guide to DualCareer Marriages,” by Daryl J. Bern; “Work and Family:
Research Findings and Models for Change,” by Marsha
Love, Ellen Galinsky, and Diane Hughes; “The Coalmin
ers’ Fight for Parental Leave: Part I,” by Cosby Totten and
Betty Jean Hall; “The Coalminers’ Fight for Parental
Leave: Part II,” by Judith A. Scott; “The Family and
Medical Leave Act: A New Federal Labor Standard,” by
William L. Clay and Frederick L. Feinstein, i l r Report,
Fall 1987, pp. 5-33.
Current
Labor Statistics
Schedule of release dates for major
statistical series ....................................................................................................
52
Notes on Current Labor Statistics...............................................................................................................
53
b ls
Comparative indicators
1. Labor market indicators .....................
2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices,and productivity..................................................................................
3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes............................................................................................................................
63
64
64
Labor force data
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Employment status of the total population, data seasonally adjusted........................................
Employment status of the civilian population, data seasonally adjusted .................................................................................................
Selected employment indicators, data seasonally adjusted..................................................................................................
Selected unemployment indicators, data seasonally adjusted.....................................................................................................................
Unemployment rates by sex and age, data seasonally adjusted..................................................................................................................
Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, data seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................
65
66
67
68
69
69
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Duration of unemployment, data seasonally adjusted..................................................................................................................................
Unemployment rates of civilian workers, by S tate........................................................................................................................................
Employment of workers by State .................................
Employment of workers by industry, data seasonallyadjusted..................................................................................................................
Average weekly hours by industry, data seasonally adjusted.....................................................................................................
Average hourly earnings by industry.....................................................................................................
Average weekly earnings by industry...............................................................................................................................................................
Hourly Earnings Index by industry............................................................... .................................................................................................
Indexes of diffusion: proportion of industries in which employment increased, seasonally adjusted.................................................
Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population........................................................................................................
Annual data: Employment levels by industry ................................................................................................................................................
Annual data: Average hours and earnings levels by industry.....................................................................................................................
69
70
70
71
72
73
74
74
75
75
75
76
Labor compensation and collective bargaining data
22.
23.
24.
25.
Employment Cost Index, compensation, by occupation and industry group...........................................................................................
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group .................................................................................
Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status,region, and area size...........................................................
Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, situations
covering 1,000 workers or more........................................................................................................................................................................
26. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or m ore............................
27. Average effective wage adjustments, bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more...............................................................
28. Specified compensation and wage adjustments, State and local government bargaining situations covering 1,000
77
78
79
workers or more ...................................................................................................................................................................................................
29. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or m o re........................................................................................................................................
82
82
80
81
82
Price data
30. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditure category and commodity and service groups .........................................
31. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and local data, all item s............................................................................................................
32. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items and major groups..............................................................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
86
87
51
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics
Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing ..............................................................................................................................................
Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product..........................................................................................................................................
Annual data: Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing......................................................................................................................
U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification................................................................................................
U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification..............................................................................................
U.S. export price indexes by end-use category................................................................................................................................................
U.S. import price indexes by end-use category..............................................................................................................................................
88
89
89
90
91
92
92
40. U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification.................................................................................................................
41. U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification.................................................................................................................
92
93
Productivity data
42. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, data seasonally adjusted......................................................................
43. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity............................... , ...................................................................................................................
94
44. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, andprices ........................................................................................
95
93
International comparisons
45. Unemployment rates in nine countries, data seasonally adjusted ...................... ...................................................................................
96
46. Annual data: Employment status of civilian working-age population, ten countries.............................................................................
47. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures, twelve countries...................................................................................................
98
97
Injury and illness data
48. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness incidence rates................................................................. ................................. ............... .
99
Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series
Release
date
Period
covered
Nonfinancial corporations...............
Nonfarm business and
manufacturing ..............................
August 4
2nd quarter
Employment situation.........................
August 5
July
September 2
August
October 7
September
1; 4-21
Producer Price Index..........................
August 12
July
September 9
August
October 14
September
2; 33-35
Consumer Price Index.......................
August 23
July
September 21
August
October 21
September
2; 30-32
Real earnings.....................................
August 23
July
September 21
August
October 21
September
14-17
Employment Cost Index .....................
October 25
3rd quarter
1-3; 22-24
Major collective
bargaining settlements .....................
October 26
1st 9 months
U.S. Import and Export
Price Indexes....................................
October 27
3rd quarter
Occupational illnesses
and injuries.......................................
November 15
1987
Release
date
Period
covered
Release
date
Period
covered
MLR table
number
Productivity and costs:
Digitized for
52FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2; 42-44
September 1
2* 4 2
44
3; 25-28
36-41
48
NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS
This section of the Review presents the principal statistical series
collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: series on
labor force, employment, unemployment, collective bargaining settle
ments, consumer, producer, and international prices, productivity,
international comparisons, and injury and illness statistics. In the notes
that follow, the data in each group of tables are briefly described, key
definitions are given, notes on the data are set forth, and sources of
additional information are cited.
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 1977 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1977 dollars is $2 ($3/
150 X 100 = $2). The $2 (or any other resulting values) are described
as “real,” “constant,” or “ 1977” dollars.
Additional Information
General notes
The following notes apply to several tables in this section:
Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are
adjusted to eliminate the effect on the data of such factors as climatic
conditions, industry production schedules, opening and closing of
schools, holiday buying periods, and vacation practices, which might
prevent short-term evaluation of the statistical series. Tables containing
data that have been adjusted are identified as “seasonally adjusted.”
(All other data are not seasonally adjusted.) Seasonal effects are
estimated on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors
are computed each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data
for several preceding years. (Seasonally adjusted data appear in tables
1-3 , 4 -1 0 , 13, 14, 17, and 18.) Beginning in January 1980, the b l s
introduced two major modifications in the seasonal adjustment meth
odology for labor force data. First, the data are seasonally adjusted with
a procedure called x-11 a r i m a , which was developed at Statistics
Canada as an extension of the standard x - 1 1 method previously used by
b l s . A detailed description of the procedure appears in The x-11 a r i m a
Seasonal Adjustment Method by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada,
Catalogue No. 12-564E, February 1980). The second change is that
seasonal factors are calculated for use during the first 6 months of the
year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at midyear
for the July-December period. However, revisions of historical data
continue to be made only at the end of each calendar year.
Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 1 and 4 -1 0 were
revised in the February 1988 issue of the Review, to reflect experience
through 1987.
Annual revisions of the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in
tables 13, 14, and 18 were made in the July 1988 Review using the x-11
a r i m a seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for
productivity data in table 42 are usually introduced 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 c p i .
Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are available for this series.
Adjustments for price changes. Some data—such as the Hourly
Earnings Index in table 17—are adjusted to eliminate the effect of
Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the
Bureau in a variety of sources. News releases provide the latest
statistical information published by the Bureau; the major recurring
releases are published according to the schedule preceding these general
notes. More information about labor force, employment, and unem
ployment data and the household and establishment surveys underlying
the data are available in Employment and Earnings, a monthly
publication of the Bureau. More data from the household survey are
published in the data books—Revised Seasonally Adjusted Labor Force
Statistics, Bulletin 2306, and Labor Force Statistics Derived From the
Current Population Survey, Bulletin 2307. More data from the establish
ment survey appear in two data books—Employment, Hours, and
Earnings, United States, and Employment, Hours, and Earnings, States
and Areas, and the supplements to these data books. More detailed
information on employee compensation and collective bargaining
settlements is published in the monthly periodical, Current Wage
Developments. More detailed data on consumer and producer prices are
published in the monthly periodicals, The c p i Detailed Report, and
Producer Price Indexes. Detailed data on all of the series in this section
are provided in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, which is published
biennally by the Bureau, b l s bulletins are issued covering productivity,
injury and illness, and other data in this section. Finally, the Monthly
Labor Review carries analytical articles on annual and longer term
developments in labor force, employment, and unemployment; em
ployee compensation and collective bargaining; prices; productivity;
international comparisons; and injury and illness data.
Symbols
p = preliminary. To increase 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,
n.e.s. = not elsewhere specified.
COMPARATIVE INDICATORS
(Tables 1 -3 )
Comparative indicators tables provide an overview and comparison
of major b l s statistical series. Consequently, although many of the
included series are available monthly, all measures in these comparative
tables are presented quarterly and annually.
Labor market indicators include employment measures from two
major surveys and information on rates of change in compensation
provided by the Employment Cost Index ( e c i ) program. The labor
force participation rate, the employment-to-population ratio, and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
unemployment rates for major demographic groups based on the
Current Population (“household”) Survey are presented, while meas
ures of employment and average weekly hours by major industry sector
are given using nonagricultural payroll data. The Employment Cost
Index (compensation), by major sector and by bargaining status, is
chosen from a variety of b l s compensation and wage measures because
it provides a comprehensive measure of employer costs for hiring labor,
not just outlays for wages, and it is not affected by employment shifts
among occupations and industries.
53
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics
Data on changes in compensation, prices, and productivity are
presented in table 2. Measures of rates of change of compensation and
wages from the Employment Cost Index program are provided for all
civilian nonfarm workers (excluding Federal and household workers)
and for all private nonfarm workers. Measures of changes in: consumer
prices for all urban consumers; producer prices by stage of processing;
and the overall export and import price indexes are given. Measures of
productivity (output per hour of all persons) are provided for major
sectors.
Alternative measures of wage and compensation rates of change,
which reflect the overall trend in labor costs, are summarized in table 3.
Differences in concepts and scope, related to the specific purposes of the
series, contribute to the variation in changes among the individual
measures.
Notes on the data
Definitions of each series and notes on the data are contained in later
sections of these notes describing each set of data. For detailed
descriptions of each data series, see b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin
2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988), as well as the additional
bulletins, articles, and other publications noted in the separate sections
of the Review's “Current Labor Statistics Notes.” Users may also wish
to consult Major Programs, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Report 718
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985).
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT DATA
(Tables 1; 4 -2 1 )
Household survey data
population ratio is total employment (including the resident Armed
Forces) as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
Description of the series
Notes on the data
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 55,800 households selected to represent
the U.S. population 16 years of age and older. Households are
interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the
same for any 2 consecutive months.
From time to time, and especially after a decennial census, adjust
ments 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. A description of these adjustments
and their effect on the various data series appear in the Explanatory
Notes of Employment and Earnings.
Data in tables 4 -1 0 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal
experience through December 1987.
Definitions
Employed persons include (1) all civilians who worked for pay any
time during the week which includes the 12th day of the month or who
worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a family-operated enterprise and
(2) those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because
of illness, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. Members of
the Armed Forces stationed in the United States are also included in the
employed total. A person working at more than one job is counted only
in the job at which he or she worked the greatest number of hours.
Unemployed persons are those who did not work during the survey
week, but were available for work except for temporary illness and had
looked for jobs within the preceding 4 weeks. Persons who did not look
for work because they were on layoff or waiting to start new jobs within
the next 30 days are also counted among the unemployed. The overall
unemployment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of
the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The civilian
employment rate represents the number unemployed as a percent of the
civilian labor force.
The labor force consists of all employed or unemployed civilians plus
members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. Persons
not in the labor force are those not classified as employed or
unemployed; this group includes persons who are retired, those engaged
in their own housework, those not working while attending school,
those unable to work because of long-term illness, those discouraged
from seeking work because of personal or job-market factors, and those
who are voluntarily idle. The noninstitutional population comprises all
persons 16 years of age and older who are not inmates of penal or
mental institutions, sanitariums, or homes for the aged, infirm, or
needy, and members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United
States. The labor force participation rate is the proportion of the
noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The employment-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Additional sources of information
For detailed explanations of the data, see b l s Handbook o f Methods,
Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Historical unadjusted
data from 1948 to 1987 are available in Labor Force Statistics Derived
from the Current Population Survey, Bulletin 2307 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1988). Historical seasonally adjusted data appear in Labor
Force Statistics Derived from the Current Population Survey: A Data
book, Vol. II, Bulletin 2096 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), and
Revised Seasonally Adjusted Labor Force Statistics, 1978-87, Bulletin
2306 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988).
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,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-2 0 .
Establishment survey data
Description of the series
E m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n i n g s d a t a in this section are
compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by
more than 300,000 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 establishment 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.
Definitions
An establishment is an economic unit which produces goods or
services (such as a factory or store) at a single location and is engaged in
one type of economic activity.
Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including
holiday and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the
12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent
of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment
which reports them.
Production workers in manufacturing include working supervisors
and nonsupervisory workers closely associated with production opera
tions. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-17 include production
workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in con
struction; and nonsupervisory workers in the following industries:
transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance,
insurance, and real estate; and services. These groups account for about
four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls.
Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers
receive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime
or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special
payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of
changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from
the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers ( c p i -w ). The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from
average hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two
types of changes that are unrelated to underlying wage-rate develop
ments: fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only
sector for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes
and seasonal factors in the proportion of workers in high-wage and lowwage industries.
Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsu
pervisory workers for which pay was received, and are different from
standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion of
average weekly hours which was in excess of regular hours and for
which overtime premiums were paid.
The Diffusion Index, introduced in the May 1983 Review, represents
the percent of 185 nonagricultural industries in which employment was
rising over the indicated period. One-half of the industries with
unchanged employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau
practice, data for the 1-, 3-, and 6-month spans are seasonally adjusted,
while those for the 12-month span are unadjusted. The diffusion index
is useful for measuring the dispersion of economic gains or losses and is
also an economic indicator.
Notes on the data
Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
periodically adjusted to comprehensive counts of employment (called
“benchmarks”). The latest complete adjustment was made with the
release of May 1988 data, published in the July 1988 issue of the
Review. Consequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue
are not necessarily comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have
been revised back to April 1986; seasonally adjusted data have been
revised back to January 1983. These revisions were published in the
Supplement to Employment and Earnings (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1988). Unadjusted data from April 1987 forward, and seasonally
adjusted data from January 1984 forward are subject to revision in
future benchmarks.
In the establishment survey, estimates for the 2 most recent months
are based on incomplete returns and are published as preliminary in the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
tables (13 to 18 in the Review). When all returns have been received, the
estimates are revised and published as final in the third month of their
appearance. Thus, August data are published as preliminary in October
and November and as final in December. For the same reason,
quarterly establishment data (table 1) are preliminary for the first 2
months of publication and final in the third month. Thus, secondquarter data are published as preliminary in August and September and
as final in October.
Additional sources of information
Detailed national data from the establishment survey are published
monthly in the b l s periodical, Employment and Earnings. Earlier
comparable unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in
Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, 1909-84, Bulletin
1312-12 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 1985) and its annual supplement.
For a detailed discussion of the methodology of the survey, see b l s
Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988).
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,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9-20.
Unemployment data by State
Description of the series
Data presented in this section are obtained from two major sources—
the Current Population Survey ( c p s ) and the Local Area Unemploy
ment Statistics ( l a u s ) program, which is conducted in cooperation
with State employment security agencies.
Monthly estimates of the labor force, employment, and unemploy
ment for States and sub-State areas are a key indicator of local
economic conditions and form the basis for determining the eligibility
of an area for benefits under Federal economic assistance programs
such as the Job Training Partnership Act and the Public Works and
Economic Development Act. Insofar as possible, the concepts and
definitions underlying these data are those used in the national
estimates obtained from the c p s .
Notes on the data
Data refer to State of residence. Monthly data for 11 States—
California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas— are obtained
directly from the c p s , because the size of the sample is large enough to
meet b l s standards of reliability. Data for the remaining 39 States and
the District of Columbia are derived using standardized procedures
established by b l s . Once a year, estimates for the 11 States are revised
to new population controls. For the remaining States and the District of
Columbia, data are benchmarked to annual average c p s levels.
Additional sources of information
Information on the concepts, definitions, and technical procedures
used to develop labor force data for States and sub-State areas as well as
additional data on sub-States are provided in the monthly Bureau of
Labor Statistics periodical, Employment and Earnings, and the annual
report, Geographic Profile o f Employment and Unemployment (Bureau
of Labor Statistics). See also b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988).
55
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics
COMPENSATION AND WAGE DATA
(Tables 1-3; 22-29)
C o m p e n s a t i o n a n d w a g e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau from
business establishments, State and local governments, labor unions,
collective bargaining agreements on file with the Bureau, and secondary
sources.
Employment Cost Index
Description of the series
The Employment Cost Index ( e c i ) is a quarterly measure of the rate
of change in compensation per hour worked and includes wages,
salaries, and employer costs of employee benefits. It uses a fixed market
basket of labor—similar in concept to the Consumer Price Index’s fixed
market basket of goods and services—to measure change over time in
employer costs of employing labor. The index is not seasonally
adjusted.
Statistical series on total compensation costs, on wages and salaries,
and on benefit costs are available for private nonfarm workers
excluding proprietors, the self-employed, and household workers. The
total compensation costs and wages and salaries series are also available
for State and local government workers and for the civilian nonfarm
economy, which consists of private industry and State and local
government workers combined. Federal workers are excluded.
The Employment Cost Index probability sample consists of about
3,400 private nonfarm establishments providing about 18,000 occupa
tional observations and 700 State and local government establishments
providing 3,500 occupational observations selected to represent total
employment in each sector. On average, each reporting unit provides
wage and compensation information on five well-specified occupations.
Data are collected each quarter for the pay period including the 12th
day of March, June, September, and December.
Beginning with June 1986 data, fixed employment weights from the
1980 Census of Population are used each quarter to calculate the
indexes for civilian, private, and State and local governments. (Prior to
June 1986, the employment weights are from the 1970 Census of
Population.) These fixed weights, also used to derive all of the industry
and occupation series indexes, ensure that changes in these indexes
reflect only changes in compensation, not employment shifts among
industries or occupations with different levels of wages and compensa
tion. For the bargaining status, region, and metropolitan/nonmetropolitan area series, however, employment data by industry and occupation
are not available from the census. Instead, the 1980 employment
weights are reallocated within these series each quarter based on the
current sample. Therefore, these indexes are not strictly comparable to
those for the aggregate, industry, and occupation series.
Definitions
Total compensation costs include wages, salaries, and the employer’s
costs for employee benefits.
Wages and salaries consist of earnings before payroll deductions,
including production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions, and
cost-of-living adjustments.
Benefits include the cost to employers for paid leave, supplemental
pay (including nonproduction bonuses), insurance, retirement and
savings plans, and legally required benefits (such as Social Security,
workers’ compensation, and unemployment insurance).
Excluded from wages and salaries and employee benefits are such
items as payment-in-kind, free room and board, and tips.
Digitized for56
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Notes on the data
The Employment Cost Index for changes in wages and salaries in the
private nonfarm economy was published beginning in 1975. Changes in
total compensation cost—wages and salaries and benefits combined—
were published beginning in 1980. The series for changes in wages and
salaries and for total compensation in the State and local government
sector and in the civilian nonfarm economy (excluding Federal
employees) were published beginning in 1981. Historical indexes (June
1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates of change are presented in the March
issue of the b l s periodical, Current Wage Developments.
Additional sources of information
For a more detailed discussion of the Employment Cost Index, see
the Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1988), and the following Monthly Labor Review articles: “Employment
Cost Index: a measure of change in the ‘price of labor’,” July 1975;
“How benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost Index,”
January 1978; “Estimation procedures for the Employment Cost
Index,” May 1982; and “Introducing new weights for the Employment
Cost Index,” June 1985.
Data on the e c i are also available in b l s quarterly press releases
issued in the month following the reference months of March, June,
September, and December; and from the Handbook o f Labor Statistics,
Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985).
Collective bargaining settlements
Description of the series
Collective bargaining settlements data provide statistical measures of
negotiated adjustments (increases, decreases, and freezes) in compensa
tion (wage and benefit costs) and wages alone, quarterly for private
industry and semiannually for State and local government. Compensa
tion measures cover all collective bargaining situations involving 5,000
workers or more and wage measures cover all situations involving 1,000
workers or more. These data, covering private nonagricultural indus
tries and State and local governments, are calculated using information
obtained from bargaining agreements on file with the Bureau, parties to
the agreements, and secondary sources, such as newspaper accounts.
The data are not seasonally adjusted.
Settlement data are measured in terms of future specified adjust
ments: those that will occur within 12 months of the contract effective
date—first-year— and all adjustments that will occur over the life of the
contract expressed as an average annual rate. Adjustments are worker
weighted. Both first-year and over-the-life measures exclude wage
changes that may occur under cost-of-living clauses that are triggered
by future movements in the Consumer Price Index.
Effective wage adjustments measure all adjustments occurring in the
reference period, regardless of the settlement date. Included are changes
from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred from
contracts negotiated in earlier periods, and changes under cost-of-living
adjustment clauses. Each wage change is worker weighted. The changes
are prorated over all workers under agreements during the reference
period yielding the average adjustment.
Definitions
Wage rate changes are calculated by dividing newly negotiated wages
by the average straight-time hourly wage rate plus shift premium at the
time the agreement is reached. Compensation changes are calculated by
dividing the change in the value of the newly negotiated wage and
benefit package by existing average hourly compensation, which
includes the cost of previously negotiated benefits, legally required
social insurance programs, and average hourly earnings.
Compensation changes are calculated by placing a value on the benefit
portion of the settlements at the time they are reached. The cost estimates
are based on the assumption that conditions existing at the time of
settlement (for example, methods of financing pensions or composition of
labor force) will remain constant. The data, therefore, are measures of
negotiated changes and not of total changes of employer cost.
Contract duration runs from the effective date of the agreement to
the expiration date or first wage reopening date, if applicable. Average
annual percent changes over the contract term take account of the
compounding of successive changes.
Notes on the data
Comparisons of major collective bargaining settlements for State and
local government with those for private industry should note differences
in occupational mix, bargaining practices, and settlement characteris
tics. Professional and white-collar employees, for example, make up a
much larger proportion of the workers covered by government than by
private industry settlements. Lump-sum payments and cost-of-living
adjustment ( c o l a ) clauses, on the other hand, are rare in government
but common in private industry settlements. Also, State and local
government bargaining frequently excludes items such as pension
benefits and holidays, that are prescribed by law, while these items are
typical bargaining issues in private industry.
Additional sources of information
For a more detailed discussion on the series, see the b l s Handbook o f
Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Comprehen
sive data are published in press releases issued quarterly (in January,
April, July, and October) for private industry, and semiannually (in
February and August) for State and local government. Historical data
and additional detailed tabulations for the prior calendar year appear in
the April issue of the b l s periodical, Current Wage Developments.
Work stoppages
Description of the series
Data on work stoppages measure the number and duration of major
strikes or lockouts (involving 1,000 workers or more) occurring during
the month (or year), the number of workers involved, and the amount
of time lost because of stoppage.
Data are largely from newspaper accounts and cover only establish
ments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect
or secondary effect of stoppages on other establishments whose
employees are idle owing to material shortages or lack of service.
Definitions
Number of stoppages: The number of strikes and lockouts involving
1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer.
Workers involved: The number of workers directly involved in the
stoppage.
Number of days idle: The aggregate number of workdays lost by
workers involved in the stoppages.
Days of idleness as a percent of estimated working time: Aggregate
workdays lost as a percent of the aggregate number of standard
workdays in the period multiplied by total employment in the period.
Notes on the data
This series is not comparable with the one terminated in 1981 that
covered strikes involving six workers or more.
Additional sources of information
Data for each calendar year are reported in a b l s press release issued
in the first quarter of the following year. Monthly and historical data
appear in the b l s periodical, Current Wage Developments. Historical
data appear in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 1985).
Other compensation data
Other b l s data on pay and benefits, not included in the Current
Labor Statistics section of the Monthly Labor Review, appear in and
consist of the following:
Industry Wage Surveys provide data for specific occupations selected
to represent an industry’s wage structure and the types of activities
performed by its workers. The Bureau collects information on weekly
work schedules, shift operations and pay differentials, paid holiday and
vacation practices, and information on incidence of health, insurance,
and retirement plans. Reports are issued throughout the year as the
surveys are completed. Summaries of the data and special analyses also
appear in the Monthly Labor Review.
Area Wage Surveys annually provide data for selected office, clerical,
professional, technical, maintenance, toolroom, powerplant, material
movement, and custodial occupations common to a wide variety of
industries in the areas (labor markets) surveyed. Reports are issued
throughout the year as the surveys are completed. Summaries of the
data and special analyses also appear in the Review.
The National Survey o f Professional, Administrative, Technical, and
Clerical Pay provides detailed information annually on salary levels and
distributions for the types of jobs mentioned in the survey’s title in private
employment. Although the definitions of the jobs surveyed reflect the
duties and responsibilities in private industry, they are designed to match
specific pay grades of Federal white-collar employees under the General
Schedule pay system. Accordingly, this survey provides the legally
required information for comparing the pay of salaried employees in the
Federal civil service with pay in private industry. (See Federal Pay
Comparability Act of 1970, 5 u.s.c. 5305.) Data are published in a b l s
news release issued in the summer and in a bulletin each fall; summaries
and analytical articles also appear in the Review.
Employee Benefits Survey provides nationwide information on the
incidence and characteristics of employee benefit plans in medium and
large establishments in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii.
Data are published in an annual b l s news release and bulletin, as well
as in special articles appearing in the Review.
PRICE DATA
(Tables 2; 30-41)
P r ic e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from retail and
primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are given in relation to a
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
base period (1982 = 100 for many Producer Price Indexes or 1982-84 = 100
for many Consumer Price Indexes unless otherwise noted).
57
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics
Consumer P rice Indexes
Producer P rice Indexes
Description of the series
Description of the series
The Consumer Price Index ( c p i ) is a measure of the average change
in the prices paid by urban consumers for a fixed market basket of
goods and services. The CPI is calculated monthly for two population
groups, one consisting only of urban households whose primary source
of income is derived from the employment of wage earners and clerical
workers, and the other consisting of all urban households. The wage
earner index ( c p i - w ) is a continuation of the historic index that was
introduced well over a half-century ago for use in wage negotiations. As
new uses were developed for the c p i in recent years, the need for a
broader and more representative index became apparent. The all urban
consumer index ( c p i - u ), introduced in 1978, is representative of the
1982-84 buying habits of about 80 percent of the noninstitutional
population of the United States at that time, compared with 32 percent
represented in the C P l-w . In addition to wage earners and clerical
workers, the c p i -u covers professional, managerial, and technical
workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed,
retirees, and others not in the labor force.
The c p i is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs,
transportation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and
services that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality
of these items are kept essentially unchanged between major revisions
so that only price changes will be measured. All taxes directly
associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index.
Data collected from more than 21,000 retail establishments and
60,000 housing units in 91 urban areas across the country are used to
develop the “U.S. city average.” Separate estimates for 27 major urban
centers are presented in table 31. The areas listed are as indicated in
footnote 1 to the table. The area indexes measure only the average
change in prices for each area since the base period, and do not indicate
differences in the level of prices among cities.
Producer Price Indexes ( p p i ) measure average changes in prices
received by domestic producers of commodities in all stages of
processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes currently
contains about 3,100 commodities and about 75,000 quotations per
month selected to represent the movement of prices of all commodities
produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining,
gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The stage of processing
structure of Producer Price Indexes organizes products by class of
buyer and degree of fabrication (that is, finished goods, intermediate
goods, and crude materials). The traditional commodity structure of p p i
organizes products by similarity of end use or material composition.
To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price
Indexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the
United States from the production or central marketing point. Price
data are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire.
Most prices are obtained directly from producing companies on a
voluntary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the
Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month.
Since January 1987, price changes for the various commodities have
been averaged together with implicit quantity weights representing their
importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as of 1982.
The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage-ofprocessing groupings, commodity groupings, durability-of-product
groupings, and a number of special composite groups. All Producer
Price Index data are subject to revision 4 months after original
publication.
Notes on the data
In January 1983, the Bureau changed the way in which homeownership costs are measured for the c p i -u . A rental equivalence method
replaced the asset-price approach to homeownership costs for that
series. In January 1985, the same change was made in the c p i -w . The
central purpose of the change was to separate shelter costs from the
investment component of homeownership so that the index would
reflect only the cost of shelter services provided by owner-occupied
homes. An updated c p i - u and c p i -w were introduced with release of the
January 1987 data.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion of the general method for computing the c p i , see b l s
Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988).
The recent change in the measurement of homeownership costs is
discussed in Robert Gillingham and Walter Lane, “Changing the
treatment of shelter costs for homeowners in the c p i ,” Monthly Labor
Review, July 1982, pp. 9 -1 4 . An overview of the recently introduced
revised c p i , reflecting 1982-84 expenditure patterns, is contained in
The Consumer Price Index: 1987 Revision, Report 736 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1987).
Additional detailed CPI data and regular analyses of consumer price
changes are provided in the CPI Detailed Report, a monthly publication
of the Bureau. Historical data for the overall CPI and for selected
groupings may be found in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin
2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985).
58
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Notes on the data
Beginning with the January 1986 issue, the Review is no longer
presenting tables of Producer Price Indexes for commodity groupings,
special composite groups, or sic industries. However, these data will
continue to be presented in the Bureau’s monthly publication Producer
Price Indexes.
The Bureau has completed the first major stage of its comprehensive
overhaul of the theory, methods, and procedures used to construct the
Producer Price Indexes. Changes include the replacement of judgment
sampling with probability sampling techniques; expansion to systematic
coverage of the net output of virtually all industries in the mining and
manufacturing sectors; a shift from a commodity to an industry
orientation; the exclusion of imports from, and the inclusion of exports
in, the survey universe; and the respecification of commodities priced to
conform to Bureau of the Census definitions. These and other changes
have been phased in gradually since 1978. The result is a system of
indexes that is easier to use in conjunction with data on wages,
productivity, and employment and other series that are organized in
terms of the Standard Industrial Classification and the Census product
class designations.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion of the methodology for computing Producer Price
Indexes, see b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1988).
Additional detailed data and analyses of price changes are provided
monthly in Producer Price Indexes. Selected historical data may be
found in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1985).
International Price Indexes
Description of the series
The b l s International Price Program produces quarterly export and
import price indexes for nonmilitary goods traded between the United
States and the rest of the world. The export price index provides a
measure of price change for all products sold by U.S. residents to
foreign buyers. (“Residents” is defined as in the national income
accounts: it includes corporations, businesses, and individuals but does
not require the organizations to be U.S. owned nor the individuals to
have U.S. citizenship.) The import price index provides a measure of
price change for goods purchased from other countries by U.S.
residents. With publication of an all-import index in February 1983 and
an all-export index in February 1984, all U.S. merchandise imports and
exports now are represented in these indexes. The reference period for
the indexes is 1985 = 100, unless otherwise indicated.
The product universe for both the import and export indexes includes
raw materials, agricultural products, semifinished manufactures, and
finished manufactures, including both capital and consumer goods.
Price data for these items are collected quarterly by mail questionnaire.
In nearly all cases, the data are collected directly from the exporter or
importer, although in a few cases, prices are obtained from other
sources.
To the extent possible, the data gathered refer to prices at the U.S.
border for exports and at either the foreign border or the U.S. border
for imports. For nearly all products, the prices refer to transactions
completed during the first 2 weeks of the third month of each calendar
quarter—March, June, September, and December. Survey respondents
are asked to indicate all discounts, allowances, and rebates applicable to
the reported prices, so that the price used in the calculation of the
indexes is the actual price for which the product was bought or sold.
In addition to general indexes of prices for U.S. exports and imports,
indexes are also published for detailed product categories of exports and
imports. These categories are defined by the 4- and 5-digit level of detail
of the Standard Industrial Trade Classification System ( s it c ). The
calculation of indexes by s it c category facilitates the comparison of
U.S. price trends and sector production with similar data for other
countries. Detailed indexes are also computed and published on a
Standard Industrial Classification (sic-based) basis, as well as by enduse class.
Notes on the data
The export and import price indexes are weighted indexes of the
Laspeyres type. Price relatives are assigned equal importance within
each weight category and are then aggregated to the s it c level. The
values assigned to each weight category are based on trade value figures
compiled by the Bureau of the Census. The trade weights currently used
to compute both indexes relate to 1985.
Because a price index depends on the same items being priced from
period to period, it is necessary to recognize when a product’s
specifications or terms of transaction have been modified. For this
reason, the Bureau’s quarterly questionnaire requests detailed descrip
tions of the physical and functional characteristics of the products being
priced, as well as information on the number of units bought or sold,
discounts, credit terms, packaging, class of buyer or seller, and so forth.
When there are changes in either the specifications or terms of
transaction of a product, the dollar value of each change is deleted from
the total price change to obtain the “pure” change. Once this value is
determined, a linking procedure is employed which allows for the
continued repricing of the item.
For the export price indexes, the preferred pricing basis is f.a.s. (free
alongside ship) U.S. port of exportation. When firms report export
prices f.o.b. (free on board), production point information is collected
which enables the Bureau to calculate a shipment cost to the port of
exportation. An attempt is made to collect two prices for imports. The
first is the import price f.o.b. at the foreign port of exportation, which is
consistent with the basis for valuation of imports in the national
accounts. The second is the import price c.i.f. (cost, insurance, and
freight) at the U.S. port of importation, which also includes the other
costs associated with bringing the product to the U.S. border. It does
not, however, include duty charges. For a given product, only one price
basis series is used in the construction of an index.
Beginning in 1988, the Bureau has also been publishing a series of
indexes which represent the price of U.S. exports and imports in foreign
currency terms.
Additional sources of information
For a discussion of the general method of computing International
Price Indexes, see b l s Handbook o f Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1988).
Additional detailed data and analyses of international price develop
ments are presented in the Bureau’s quarterly publication U.S. Import
and Export Price Indexes and in occasional Monthly Labor Review
articles prepared by b l s analysts. Selected historical data may be found
in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1985). For further information on the foreign currency
indexes, see “ b l s publishes average exchange rate and foreign currency
price indexes,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1987, pp. 47-49.
PRODUCTIVITY DATA
(Tables 2; 42-44)
U.S. productivity and related data
Corresponding indexes of hourly compensation, unit labor costs, unit
nonlabor payments, and prices are also provided.
Description of the series
Definitions
The productivity measures relate real physical output to real input.
As such, they encompass a family of measures which include single
factor productivity measures, such as output per unit of labor input
(output per hour) or output per unit of capital input, as well as
measures of multifactor productivity (output per unit of combined labor
and capital inputs). The Bureau indexes show the change in output
relative to changes in the various inputs. The measures cover the
business, nonfarm business, manufacturing, and nonfinancial corporate
sectors.
Output per hour of all persons (labor productivity) is the value of
goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor input.
Output per unit of capital services (capital productivity) is the value of
goods and services in constant dollars produced per unit of capital
services input.
Multifactor productivity is output per unit of combined labor and
capital inputs. Changes in this measure reflect changes in a number of
factors which affect the production process such as changes in
technology, shifts in the composition of the labor force, changes in
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
59
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics
capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts of the
work force, management, and so forth. Changes in the output per hour
measures reflect the impact of these factors as well as the substitution of
capital for labor.
Compensation per hour is the wages and salaries of employees plus
employers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans,
and the wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the selfemployed (except for nonfinancial corporations in which there are no
self-employed)—the sum divided by hours paid for. Real compensation
per hour is compensation per hour deflated by the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers.
Unit labor costs are the labor compensation costs expended in the
production of a unit of output and are derived by dividing compensa
tion by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation,
interest, and indirect taxes per unit of output. They are computed by
subtracting compensation of all persons from current dollar value of
output and dividing by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the
components of unit nonlabor payments except unit profits.
Unit profits include corporate profits with inventory valuation and
capital consumption adjustments per unit of output.
Hours of all persons are the total hours paid of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers.
Capital services is the flow of services from the capital stock used in
production. It is developed from measures of the net stock of physical
assets— equipment, structures, land, and inventories— weighted by
rental prices for each type of asset.
Labor and capital inputs combined are derived by combining changes
in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each compo
nent’s share of total output. The indexes for capital services and
combined units of labor and capital are based on changing weights
which are averages of the shares in the current and preceding year (the
Tornquist index-number formula).
Notes on the data
Constant-dollar output for the business sector is equal to constantdollar gross national product but excludes the rental value of owneroccupied dwellings, the rest-of-world sector, the output of nonprofit
institutions, the output of paid employees of private households, general
government, and the statistical discrepancy. Output of the nonfarm
business sector is equal to business sector output less farming. The
measures are derived from data 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 measures of manufacturing output
(gross product originating) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Compensation and hours data are developed from data of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The productivity and associated cost measures in tables 4 2 -4 4
describe the relationship between output in real terms and the labor
time and capital services involved in its production. They show the
changes from period to period in the amount of goods and services
produced per unit of input. Although these measures relate output to
hours and capital services, they do not measure the contributions of
labor, capital, or any other specific factor of production. Rather, they
reflect the joint effect of many influences, including changes in
technology; capital investment; level of output; utilization of capacity,
energy, and materials; the organization of production; managerial skill;
and the characteristics and efforts of the work force.
Additional sources of information
Descriptions of methodology underlying the measurement of output
per hour and multifactor productivity are found in the b l s Handbook o f
Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988). Historical
data for selected industries are provided in the Handbook o f Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985).
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
(Tables 45-47)
Labor force and unemployment
Description of the series
Tables 45 and 46 present comparative measures of the labor force,
employment, and unemployment—approximating U.S. concepts—for
the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and six European
countries. The unemployment statistics (and, to a lesser extent,
employment statistics) published by other industrial countries are not,
in most cases, comparable to U.S. unemployment statistics. Therefore,
the Bureau adjusts the figures for selected countries, where necessary,
for all known major definitional differences. Although precise compara
bility may not be achieved, these adjusted figures provide a better basis
for international comparisons than the figures regularly published by
each country.
Definitions
For the principal U.S. definitions of the labor force, employment, and
unemployment, see the Notes section on EMPLOYMENT DATA:
Household Survey Data.
Notes on the data
The adjusted statistics have been adapted to the age at which
compulsory schooling ends in each country, rather than to the U.S.
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
standard of 16 years of age and over. Therefore, the adjusted statistics
relate to the population age 16 and over in France, Sweden, and from
1973 onward, the United Kingdom; 16 and over in Canada, Australia,
Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, and prior to 1973, the United
Kingdom; and 14 and over in Italy. The institutional population is
included in the denominator of the labor force participation rates and
employment-population ratios for Japan and Germany; it is excluded
for the United States and the other countries.
In the U.S. labor force survey, persons on layoff who are awaiting
recall to their job are classified as unemployed. European and Japanese
layoff practices are quite different in nature from those in the United
States; therefore, strict application of the U.S. definition has not been
made on this point. For further information, see Monthly Labor Review,
December 1981, pp. 8-11.
The figures for one or more recent years for France, Germany, Italy,
the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are calculated using
adjustment factors based on labor force surveys for earlier years and are
considered preliminary. The recent-year measures for these countries
are, therefore, subject to revision whenever data from more current
labor force surveys become available.
There are breaks in the date series for Germany (1983), Italy (1986),
the Netherlands (1983), and Sweden (1986). For both Germany and the
Netherlands, the breaks reflect the replacement of labor force survey
results tabulated by the national statistical offices with those tabulated
by the European Community Statistical Office ( e u r o s t a t ). The Dutch
figures for 1983 onward also reflect the replacement of man-year
employment data with data from the Dutch Survey of Employed
Persons. The impact of the changes was to lower the adjusted
unemployment rate by 0.3 percentage point for Germany and by about
2 percentage points for the Netherlands.
For Italy, the break in series reflects more accurate enumeration of
time of last job search. This resulted in a significant increase in the
number of people reported as seeking work in the past 30 days. The
impact was to increase the Italian unemployment rates approximating
U.S. concepts by about 1 percentage point.
Sweden introduced a new questionnaire. Questions regarding current
availability were added and the period of active workseeking was
reduced from 60 days to 4 weeks. These changes resulted in lowering
Sweden’s unemployment rate by 0.5 percentage point.
Additional sources of information
For further information, see International Comparisons o f Unemploy
ment, Bulletin 1979 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978), Appendix B,
and unpublished Supplements to Appendix B, available on request. The
statistics are also analyzed periodically in the Monthly Labor Review.
The latest article appears in the April 1988 Review. Additional
historical data, generally beginning with 1959, are published in the
Handbook o f Labor Statistics and are available in unpublished statistical
supplements to Bulletin 1979.
Manufacturing productivity and labor costs
Description of the series
Table 47 presents comparative measures of manufacturing labor
productivity, hourly compensation costs, and unit labor costs for the
United States, Canada, Japan, and nine European countries. These
measures are limited to trend comparisons— that is, intercountry series
of changes over time— rather than level comparisons because reliable
international comparisons of the levels of manufacturing output are
unavailable.
Definitions
Output is constant value output (value added), generally taken from
the national accounts of each country. While the national accounting
methods for measuring real output differ considerably among the 12
countries, the use of different procedures does not, in itself, connote
lack of comparability— rather, it reflects differences among countries in
the availability and reliability of underlying data series.
Hours refer to all employed persons including the self-employed in
the United States and Canada; to all wage and salary employees in the
other countries. The U.S. hours measure is hours paid; the hours
measures for the other countries are hours worked.
Compensation (labor cost) includes all payments in cash or kind
made directly to employees plus employer expenditures for legally
required insurance programs and contractual and private benefit plans.
In addition, for some countries, compensation is adjusted for other
significant taxes on payrolls or employment (or reduced to reflect
subsidies), even if they are not for the direct benefit of workers, because
such taxes are regarded as labor costs. However, compensation does not
include all items of labor cost. The costs of recruitment, employee
training, and plant facilities and services— such as cafeterias and
medical clinics—are not covered because data are not available for most
countries. Self-employed workers are included in the U.S. and Canadian
compensation figures by assuming that their hourly compensation is
equal to the average for wage and salary employees.
Notes on the data
For most of the countries, the measures refer to total manufacturing
as defined by the International Standard Industrial Classification.
However, the measures for France (beginning 1959), Italy (beginning
1970), and the United Kingdom (beginning 1971), refer to manufactur
ing and mining less energy-related products and the figures for the
Netherlands exclude petroleum refining from 1969 to 1976. For all
countries, manufacturing includes the activities of government
enterprises.
The figures for one or more recent years are generally based on
current indicators of manufacturing output, employment, hours, and
hourly compensation and are considered preliminary until the national
accounts and other statistics used for the long-term measures become
available.
Additional sources of information
For additional information, see the b l s Handbook o f Methods,
Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988), and periodic Monthly
Labor Review articles. Historical data are provided in the Handbook o f
Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). The
statistics are issued twice per year—in a news release (generally in May)
and in a Monthly Labor Review article.
OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND ILLNESS DATA
(Table 48)
Description of the series
The Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses is designed
to collect data on injuries and illnesses based on records which
employers in the following industries maintain under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970: agriculture, forestry, and fishing; oil and
gas extraction; construction; manufacturing; transportation and public
utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate;
and services. Excluded from the survey are self-employed individuals,
farmers with fewer than 11 employees, employers regulated by other
Federal safety and health laws, and Federal, State, and local govern
ment agencies.
Because the survey is a Federal-State cooperative program and the
data must meet the needs of participating State agencies, an indepen
dent sample is selected for each State. The sample is selected to
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
represent all private industries in the States and territories. The sample
size for the survey is dependent upon (1) the characteristics for which
estimates are needed; (2) the industries for which estimates are desired;
(3) the characteristics of the population being sampled; (4) the target
reliability of the estimates; and (5) the survey design employed.
While there are many characteristics upon which the sample design
could be based, the total recorded case incidence rate is used because it
is one of the most important characteristics and the least variable;
therefore, it requires the smallest sample size.
The survey is based on stratified random sampling with a Neyman
allocation and a ratio estimator. The characteristics used to stratify the
establishments are the Standard Industrial Classification (sic) code and
size of employment.
61
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics
Definitions
Recordable occupational injuries and illnesses are: (1) occupational
deaths, regardless of the time between injury and death, or the length of
the illness; or (2) nonfatal occupational illnesses; or (3) nonfatal
occupational injuries which involve one or more of the following: loss
of consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job,
or medical treatment (other than first aid).
Occupational injury is any injury such as a cut, fracture, sprain,
amputation, and so forth, which results from a work accident or from
exposure involving a single incident in the work environment.
Occupational illness is an abnormal condition or disorder, other than
one resulting from an occupational injury, caused by exposure to
environmental factors associated with employment. It includes acute
and chronic illnesses or disease which may be caused by inhalation,
absorption, ingestion, or direct contact.
Lost workday cases are cases which involve days away from work, or
days of restricted work activity, or both.
Lost workday cases involving restricted work activity are those cases
which result in restricted work activity only.
Lost workdays away from work are the number of workdays
(consecutive or not) on which the employee would have worked but
could not because of occupational injury or illness.
Lost workdays— restricted work activity are the number of workdays
(consecutive or not) on which, because of injury or illness: (1) the
employee was assigned to another job on a temporary basis; or (2) the
employee worked at a permanent job less than full time; or (3) the
employee worked at a permanently assigned job but could not perform
all duties normally connected with it.
The number of days away from work or days of restricted work
activity does not include the day of injury or onset of illness or any days
on which the employee would not have worked even though able to
work.
Incidence rates represent the number of injuries and/or illnesses or
lost workdays per 100 full-time workers.
Notes on the data
Estimates are made for industries and employment-size classes and
for severity classification: fatalities, lost workday cases, and nonfatal
cases without lost workdays. Lost workday cases are separated into
Digitized for 62
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
those where the employee would have worked but could not and those
in which work activity was restricted. Estimates of the number of cases
and the number of days lost are made for both categories.
Most of the estimates are in the form of incidence rates, defined as
the number of injuries and illnesses, or lost workdays, per 100 full-time
employees. For this purpose, 200,000 employee hours represent 100
employee years (2,000 hours per employee). Only a few of the available
measures are included in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics. Full detail is
presented in the annual bulletin, Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in
the United States, by Industry.
Comparable data for individual States are available from the b l s
Office of Safety, Health, and Working Conditions.
Mining and railroad data are furnished to b l s by the Mine Safety and
Health Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration,
respectively. Data from these organizations are included in b l s and
State publications. Federal employee experience is compiled and
published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Data
on State and local government employees are collected by about half of
the States and territories; these data are not compiled nationally.
Additional sources of information
The Supplementary Data System provides detailed information
describing various factors associated with work-related injuries and
illnesses. These data are obtained from information reported by
employers to State workers’ compensation agencies. The Work Injury
Report program examines selected types of accidents through an
employee survey which focuses on the circumstances surrounding the
injury. These data are not included in the Handbook o f Labor Statistics
but are available from the b l s Office of Safety, Health, and Working
Conditions.
The definitions of occupational injuries and illnesses and lost
workdays are from Recordkeeping Requirements under the Occupa
tional Safety and Health Act o f 1970. For additional data, see
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the United States, by Industry,
annual Bureau of Labor Statistics bulletin; b l s Handbook o f Methods,
Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988); Handbook o f Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 2217 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985), pp. 411-14;
annual reports in the Monthly Labor Review; and annual U.S.
Department of Labor press releases.
1.
Labor market indicators
1988
1987
1986
Selected indicators
1987
1986
II
I
IV
III
IV
III
II
I
Employment data
Employment status of the civilian noninstitutionalized population
(household survey)1
Labor force participation ra te ........................................................
Employment-population ra tio .........................................................
Unemployment rate .......................................................................
Men .............................................................................................
16 to 24 years ..........................................................................
25 years and o v e r....................................................................
Women ........................................................................................
16 to 24 years ..........................................................................
25 years and o v e r....................................................................
Unemployment rate, 15 weeks and o ver...................................
65.3
60.7
7.0
6.9
13.7
5.4
7.1
12.8
5.5
1.9
65.6
61.5
6.2
6.2
12.6
4.8
6.2
11.7
4.8
1.7
65.2
60.6
7.2
7.0
14.1
5.4
7.3
13.1
5.7
1.9
65.4
60.8
7.0
7.0
13.9
5.4
7.0
12.7
5.4
1.9
65.4
60.9
6.8
6.9
13.4
5.4
6.8
12.5
5.3
1.9
65.5
61.1
6.6
6.6
13.3
5.1
6.6
12.5
5.0
1.8
65.5
61.4
6.3
6.3
12.9
4.9
6.2
11.8
4.7
1.7
65.6
61.7
6.0
5.9
12.2
4.6
6.1
11.4
4.7
1.6
65.7
61.9
5.9
5.8
11.9
4.4
6.0
11.1
4.7
1.5
65.8
62.1
5.7
5.7
11.9
4.4
5.8
11.0
4.4
1.4
Total .................................................................................................
Private sector ................................................................................
Goods-producing............................................................................
Manufacturing .............................................................................
Service-producing ..........................................................................
99,525
82,832
24,558
18,965
74,967
102,310
85,295
24,784
19,065
77,525
99,189
82,559
24,588
18,993
74,601
99,676
82,987
24,454
18,902
75,222
100,347
83,496
24,443
18,885
75,904
101,024
84,130
24,523
18,895
76,500
101,841
84,869
24,644
18,965
77,196
102,669
85,643
24,847
19,112
77,782
103,683
86,518
25,116
19,290
78,567
104,670
87,406
25,260
19,388
79,410
Average hours:
Private sector ................................................................................
Manufacturing ...........................................................................
Overtime..................................................................................
34.8
40.7
3.4
34.8
41.0
3.7
34.8
40.7
3.4
34.7
40.7
3.5
34.7
40.8
3.5
34.8
41.0
3.6
34.7
40.9
3.7
34.7
40.9
3.8
34.8
41.1
3.9
34.7
41.0
3.8
Percent change in the ECI, compensation:
All workers (excluding farm, household, and Federal workers) ......
Private industry workers ...............................................................
Goods-producing2 .....................................................................
Service-producing2 ...................................................................
State and local government workers...........................................
3.6
3.2
3.1
3.2
5.2
3.6
3.3
3.1
3.7
4.4
.7
.8
.9
.6
.6
1.1
.7
.6
.8
2.8
.6
.6
.5
.6
.8
.9
1.0
.5
1.3
.8
.7
.7
.7
.7
.3
1.2
1.0
.8
1.0
2.3
.8
.7
1.0
.5
.9
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.3
1.3
Workers by bargaining status (private industry):
Union............................................................................................
Nonunion ......................................................................................
2.1
3.6
2.8
3.6
.2
.9
.5
.8
.3
.7
.5
1.1
.5
.7
.6
1.1
1.1
.6
1.6
1.5
Employment, nonagricultural (payroll data), in thousands:'
Employment Cost Index
1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted.
2 Goods-produclng industries include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service-
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
producing industries include all other private sector Industries.
63
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
2.
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics:
Comparative Indicators
Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity
1987
1986
Selected measures
1986
II
Compensation data
1988
1987
III
I
IV
II
III
IV
I
2
Employment Cost Index-compensation (wages, salaries,
benefits):
Civilian nonfarm ...................................................................
Private nonfarm ..................................................................
Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries
Civilian nonfarm ...................................................................
Private nonfarm ..................................................................
3.6
3.2
3.6
3.3
0.7
.8
1.1
.7
0.6
.6
0.9
1.0
0.7
.7
1.2
1.0
0.8
.7
1.4
1.5
3.5
3.1
3.5
3.3
.8
.9
1.1
.7
.6
.5
1.0
1.0
.5
.7
1.3
1.0
.7
.6
1.0
1.0
Price data1
Consumer Price Index (All urban consumers): All ite m s......
1.1
4.4
.6
.6
.3
1.4
1.2
1.3
.3
1.0
Producer Price Index:
Finished goods.....................................................................
Finished consumer goods...................................................
Capital equipment ...............................................................
Intermediate materials, supplies, components ....................
Crude materials....................................................................
-2.3
-3.5
2.1
-4.4
-8.9
2.2
2.6
1.3
5.4
8.9
.5
.4
.6
-.9
-1.5
-.7
-.7
-.8
-.2
-.6
1.1
.8
2.1
-.3
.6
.8
.9
.1
1.3
4.2
1.2
1.6
.3
1.9
5.3
.2
.3
-.2
1.2
.6
.1
-.2
1.1
.9
-1.4
.4
.3
.7
1.0
-.3
Productivity data3
Output per hour of all persons:
Business sector..................................................................
Nonfarm business sector ...................................................
Nonfinancial corporations 4 .................................................
1.9
1.6
1.6
.6
.1
-.2
.9
.8
.3
-.1
.0
2.1
.5
.4
-2.9
1.4
1.4
.7
4.7
4.2
3.3
-1.5
-1.0
-1.0
3.2
3.6
3.4
Quarterly percent changes reflect annual rates of change in quarterly in
dexes. The data are seasonally adjusted.
4 Output per hour of all employees.
- Data not available.
1 Annual changes are December-to-December change. Quarterly changes
are calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and price
data are not seasonally adjusted and the price data are not compounded.
2 Excludes Federal and private household workers.
3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages.
3.
-.3
-.6
.9
Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes
Four quarters ended-
Quarterly average
Components
1986
I
IV
Average hourly compensation:1
All persons, business sector..................................................................
All employees, nonfarm business se cto r..............................................
Employment Cost Index-compensation:
Civilian nonfarm 2 ..................................................................................
Private nonfarm ..................................................................................
Union ................................................................................................
Nonunion...........................................................................................
State and local governments..............................................................
Employment Cost Index-wages and salaries:
Civilian nonfarm2 ...................................................................................
Private nonfarm ..................................................................................
Union ................................................................................................
Nonunion...........................................................................................
State and local governments ...............................................................
Total effective wage adjustments3 ...............................................................
From current settlements......................................................................
From prior settlements ..........................................................................
From cost-of-living provision.................................................................
Negotiated wage adjustments from settlements:3
First-year adjustments ...........................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract ...........................................................
Negotiated wage and benefit adjustments from settlements:5
First-year adjustment .............................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract...........................................................
II
III
IV
1988
1986
I
IV
1987
II
I
1988
III
IV
I
3.6
4.0
1.4
1.1
3.3
3.0
3.8
3.6
3.2
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.4
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.7
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.5
3.4
.6
.6
.3
.7
.8
.9
1.0
.5
1.1
.8
.7
.7
.5
.7
.3
1.2
1.0
.6
1.1
2.3
.8
.7
1.1
.6
.9
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.3
3.6
3.2
2.1
3.6
5.2
3.4
3.1
1.6
3.6
5.0
3.3
3.0
1.9
3.4
4.7
3.4
3.3
2.0
3.7
4.2
3.6
3.3
2.8
3.6
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.9
.6
.5
.2
.7
.7
.5
.2
.2
.1
1.0
1.0
.4
1.2
.8
.4
(4)
.3
.1
.5
.7
.5
.8
.2
1.0
.2
.7
.2
1.3
1.0
.6
1.1
2.3
.9
.2
.6
.1
.7
.6
1.1
.5
.9
.8
.3
.3
.2
1.0
1.0
.4
1.0
.9
.4
.1
.3
.1
3.5
3.1
2.0
3.5
5.4
2.3
.5
1.7
.2
3.5
3.2
1.7
3.5
5.2
2.0
.3
1.5
.1
3.2
3.0
1.7
3.3
5.0
2.2
.3
1.6
.3
3.4
3.3
1.7
3.8
4.1
2.6
.4
1.7
.4
3.5
3.3
2.6
3.6
4.2
3.1
.7
1.8
.5
3.5
3.3
2.6
3.5
4.4
3.2
.8
1.8
.5
2.0
2.1
.8
1.6
2.6
2.9
2.1
2.0
2.4
1.8
2.1
2.3
1.2
1.8
1.2
1.8
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.7
2.4
1.1
2.1
4.1
3.9
2.5
2.1
3.4
2.4
1.7
1.8
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.7
2.6
3.0
2.6
3.1
2.5
1 Seasonally adjusted.
2 Excludes Federal and household workers.
3 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 1,000 workers or more. The
most recent data are preliminary.
64
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1987
4 Data round to zero.
5 Limited to major collective bargaining units of 5,000 workers or more. The
most recent data are preliminary,
4.
Employment status of the total population, by sex, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1988
1987
Annual average
Employment status
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
1986
1987
182,293
119,540
65.6
111,303
184,490
121,602
65.9
114,177
184,421
121,326
65.8
114,018
184,605
121,610
65.9
114,359
184,738
122,042
66.1
114,786
184,904
121,706
65.8
114,615
185,052
122,128
66.0
114,951
185,225
122,349
66.1
115,259
185,370
122,472
66.1
115,494
185,571
122,924
66.2
115,878
185,705
123,084
66.3
116,145
185,847
122,639
66.0
115,839
185,964
123,055
66.2
116,445
186,088
122,692
65.9
115,909
186,247
123,157
66.1
116,703
61.1
1,706
109,597
3,163
106,434
8,237
6.9
62,752
61.9
1,737
112,440
3,208
109,232
7,425
6.1
62,888
61.8
1,718
112,300
3,192
109,108
7,308
6.0
63,095
61.9
1,720
112,639
3,212
109,427
7,251
6.0
62,995
62.1
1,736
113,050
3,143
109,907
7,256
5.9
62,696
62.0
1,743
112,872
3,184
109,688
7,091
5.8
63,198
62.1
1,741
113,210
3,249
109,961
7,177
5.9
62,924
62.2
1,755
113,504
3,172
110,332
7,090
5.8
62,876
62.3
1,750
113,744
3,215
110,529
6,978
5.7
62,898
62.4
1,749
114,129
3,293
110,836
7,046
5.7
62,647
62.5
1,736
114,409
3,228
111,182
6,938
5.6
62,621
62.3
1,736
114,103
3,204
110,899
6,801
5.5
63,208
62.6
1,732
114,713
3,228
111,485
6,610
5.4
62,909
62.3
1,714
114,195
3,035
111,160
6,783
5.5
63,396
62.7
1,685
115,018
3,085
111,933
6,455
5.2
63,090
87,349
66,973
76.7
62,443
88,476
67,784
76.6
63,684
88,442
67,623
76.5
63,543
88,534
67,671
76.4
63,711
88,598
67,937
76.7
63,916
88,683
67,776
76.4
63,949
88,756
67,947
76.6
64,048
88,849
68,019
76.6
64,174
88,924
68,030
76.5
64,245
89,033
68,243
76.6
64,396
89,099
68,343
76.7
64,636
89,168
68,148
76.4
64,332
89,225
68,445
76.7
64,892
89,287
68,318
76.5
64,583
89,367
68,429
76.6
64,934
71.5
1,551
60,892
4,530
6.8
72.0
1,577
62,107
4,101
6.1
71.8
1,559
61,984
4,080
6.0
72.0
1,561
62,150
3,960
5.9
72.1
1,575
62,341
4,021
5.9
72.1
1,581
62,368
3,827
5.6
72.2
1,580
62,468
3,899
5.7
72.2
1,593
62,581
3,845
5.7
72.2
1,589
62,656
3,785
5.6
72.3
1,588
62,808
3,847
5.6
72.5
1,577
63,059
3,707
5.4
72.1
1,573
62,759
3,816
5.6
72.7
1,569
63,323
3,553
5.2
72.3
1,553
63,030
3,736
5.5
72.7
1,523
63,411
3,495
5.1
94,944
52,568
55.4
48,861
96,013
53,818
56.1
50,494
95,979
53,703
56.0
50,475
96,071
53,939
56.1
50,648
96,140
54,105
56.3
50,870
96,221
53,930
56.0
50,666
96,295
54,181
56.3
50,903
96,376
54,330
56.4
51,085
96,446
54,442
56.4
51,249
96,538
54,681
56.6
51,482
96,606
54,740
56.7
51,509
96,679
54,491
56.4
51,507
96,739
54,610
56.5
51,553
96,801
54,374
56.2
51,327
96,880
54,728
56.5
51,769
51.5
155
48,706
3,707
7.1
52.6
160
50,334
3,324
6.2
52.6
159
50,316
3,228
6.0
52.7
159
50,489
3,291
6.1
52.9
161
50,709
3,235
6.0
52.7
162
50,504
3,264
6.1
52.9
161
50,742
3,278
6.1
53.0
162
50,923
3,245
6.0
53.1
161
51,088
3,193
5.9
53.3
161
51,321
3,200
5.9
53.3
159
51,350
3,231
5.9
53.3
163
51,344
2,985
5.5
53.3
163
51,390
3,057
5.6
53.0
161
51,166
3,047
5.6
53.4
162
51,607
2,960
5.4
TOTAL
Noninstitutional population 2 .......
Labor force2 ..................................
Participation rate 3 ................
Total employed 2 ........................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ...................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 .......
Civilian employed ....................
Agriculture ............................
Nonagricultural industries.....
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment rate 5 ...........
Not in labor force ........................
Men, 16 years and over
Noninstitutional population 2 .......
Labor force2 ..................................
Participation rate 3 ................
Total employed 2 ........................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ...................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 .......
Civilian employed ....................
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment rate 5 ...........
Women, 16 years and over
Noninstitutional population ’ , 2 .......
Labor force2 ..................................
Participation rate 3 ................
Total employed2 ........................
Employment-population
ratio 4 ...................................
Resident Armed Forces 1 .......
Civilian employed ....................
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment rate 5 ...........
1 The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation.
2 Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States.
3 Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
4 Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutional population.
5 Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including
Forces).
the resident Armed
65
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
5. Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally
adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1987
Annual average
1988
Employment status
1986
1987
June
180,587
117,834
65.3
109,597
182,753
119,865
65.6
112,440
182,703
119,608
65.5
112,300
182,885
119,890
65.6
112,639
183,002
120,306
65.7
113,050
183,161
119,963
65.5
112,872
183,311
120,387
65.7
113,210
183,470
120,594
65.7
113,504
183,620
120,722
65.7
113,744
183,822
121,175
65.9
114,129
183,969
121,348
66.0
114,409
184,111
120,903
65.7
114,103
184,232
121,323
65.9
114,713
184,374
120,978
65.6
114,195
184,562
121,472
65.8
115,018
60.7
8,237
7.0
62,752
61.5
7,425
6.2
62,888
61.5
7,308
6.1
63,095
61.6
7,251
6.0
62,995
61.8
7,256
6.0
62,696
61.6
7,091
5.9
63,198
61.8
7,177
6.0
62,924
61.9
7,090
5.9
62,876
61.9
6,978
5.8
62,898
62.1
7,046
5.8
62,647
62.2
6,938
5.7
62,621
62.0
6,801
5.6
63,208
62.3
6,610
5.4
62,909
61.9
6,783
5.6
63,396
62.3
6,455
5.3
63,090
78,523
61,320
78.1
57,569
79,565
62,095
78.0
58,726
79,536
62,054
78.0
58,632
79,625
62,106
78.0
58,783
79,668
62,083
77.9
58,825
79,740
62,085
77.9
58,967
79,807
62,211
78.0
59,037
79,885
62,299
78.0
59,164
80,002
62,248
77.8
59,185
80,120
62,440
77.9
59,287
80,203
62,696
78.2
59,625
80,260
62,497
77.9
59,407
80,326
62,791
78.2
59,883
80,402
62,662
77.9
59,590
80,526
62,667
77.8
59,797
73.3
2,292
55,277
3,751
6.1
73.8
2,329
56,397
3,369
5.4
73.7
2,316
56,316
3,422
5.5
73.8
2,333
56,450
3,323
5.4
73.8
2,289
56,536
3,258
5.2
73.9
2,345
56,622
3,118
5.0
74.0
2,343
56,694
3,174
5.1
74.1
2,297
56,867
3,135
5.0
74.0
2,298
56,887
3,063
4.9
74.0
2,323
56,964
3,154
5.1
74.3
2,280
57,344
3,071
4.9
74.0
2,253
57,154
3,089
4.9
74.5
2,255
57,627
2,909
4.6
74.1
2,181
57,409
3,072
4.9
74.3
2,208
57,588
2,870
4.6
87,567
48,589
55.5
45,556
88,583
49,783
56.2
47,074
88,546
49,722
56.2
47,088
88,632
49,886
56.3
47,206
88,685
49,969
56.3
47,308
88,785
49,922
56.2
47,251
88,843
50,095
56.4
47,480
88,923
50,254
56.5
47,634
89,010
50,361
56.6
47,750
89,110
50,558
56.7
47,977
89,178
50,640
56.8
48,005
89,261
50,542
56.6
48,132
89,307
50,612
56.7
48,170
89,382
50,441
56.4
47,960
89,502
50,642
56.6
48,169
52.0
614
44,943
3,032
6.2
53.1
622
46,453
2,709
5.4
53.2
619
46,469
2,634
5.3
53.3
620
46,586
2,680
5.4
53.3
609
46,699
2,661
5.3
53.2
600
46,651
2,671
5.4
53.4
636
46,844
2,615
5.2
53.6
636
46,998
2,620
5.2
53.6
643
47,107
2,611
5.2
53.8
646
47,331
2,581
5.1
53.8
654
47,351
2,635
5.2
53.9
656
47,476
2,411
4.8
53.9
692
47,478
2,442
4.8
53.7
587
47,373
2,481
4.9
53.8
616
47,553
2,473
4.9
14,496
7,926
54.7
6,472
14,606
7,988
54.7
6,640
14,621
7,832
53.6
6,580
14,628
7,898
54.0
6,650
14,649
8,254
56.3
6,917
14,637
7,956
54.4
6,654
14,661
8,081
55.1
6,693
14,663
8,041
54.8
6,706
14,609
8,113
55.5
6,809
14,592
8,177
56.0
6,865
14,588
8,011
54.9
6,779
14,591
7,865
53.9
6,564
14,598
7,919
54.2
6,660
14,590
7,875
54.0
6,645
14,534
8,163
56.2
7,051
44.6
258
6,215
1,454
18.3
45.5
258
6,382
1,347
16.9
45.0
257
6,323
1,252
16.0
45.5
259
6,391
1,248
15.8
47.2
245
6,672
1,337
16.2
45.5
239
6,415
1,302
16.4
45.7
270
6,423
1,388
17.2
45.7
239
6,467
1,335
16.6
46.6
274
6,535
1,304
16.1
47.0
323
6,542
1,312
16.0
46.5
293
6,486
1,232
15.4
45.0
295
6,269
1,301
16.5
45.6
280
6,380
1,259
15.9
45.5
267
6,378
1,230
15.6
48.5
260
6,791
1,112
13.6
155,432
101,801
65.5
95,660
156,958
103,290
65.8
97,789
156,930
103,150
65.7
97,698
157,058
103,248
65.7
97,917
157,134
103,516
65.9
98,181
157,242
103,357
65.7
98,069
157,342
103,669
65.9
98,317
157,449
103,731
65.9
98,492
157,552
103,907
66.0
98,779
157,676
104,252
66.1
99,044
157,773
104,530
66.3
99,474
157,868
104,171
66.0
99,274
157,943
104,574
66.2
99,751
158,034
104,209
65.9
99,297
158,166
104,691
66.2
99,932
61.5
6,140
6.0
62.3
5,501
5.3
62.3
5,452
5.3
62.3
5,331
5.2
62.5
5,335
5.2
62.4
5,288
5.1
62.5
5,352
5.2
62.6
5,239
5.1
62.7
5,128
4.9
62.8
5,208
5.0
63.0
5,056
4.8
62.9
4,897
4.7
63.2
4,824
4.6
62.8
4,913
4.7
63.2
4,759
4.5
19,989
12,654
63.3
10,814
20,352
12,993
63.8
11,309
20,341
12,892
63.4
11,238
20,373
13,039
64.0
11,381
20,396
13,150
64.5
11,513
20,426
13,028
63.8
11,421
20,453
13,152
64.3
11,556
20,482
13,193
64.4
11,589
20,508
13,215
64.4
11,605
20,539
13,222
64.4
11,608
20,569
13,168
64.0
11,504
20,596
13,098
63.6
11,420
20,622
13,078
63.4
11,482
20,650
13,069
63.3
11,452
20,683
12,989
62.8
11,489
54.1
1,840
14.5
55.6
1,684
13.0
55.2
1,654
12.8
55.9
1,658
12.7
56.4
1,637
12.4
55.9
1,607
12.3
56.5
1,596
12.1
56.6
1,604
12.2
56.6
1,610
12.2
56.5
1,614
12.2
55.9
1,663
12.6
55.4
1,678
12.8
55.7
1,597
12.2
55.5
1,617
12.4
55.5
1,500
11.5
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
TOTAL
Civilian noninstitutional
population'....................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
Not in labor force ........................
Men, 20 years and over
Civilian noninstitutional
population'....................................
Civilian labor fo rce ........................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Agriculture...............................
Nonagricultural industries........
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
Women, 20 years ond over
Civilian noninstitutional
population’ ....................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Agriculture...............................
Nonagricultural industries.......
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years
Civilian noninstitutional
population'...................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ...................................
Agriculture ...............................
Nonagricultural industries.......
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
White
Civilian noninstitutional
population’ ....................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
Black
Civilian noninstitutional
population1....................................
Civilian labor fo rce .......................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ....................................
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment ra te ..............
See footnotes at end of table.
66FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
5. Continued— Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally
adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average
1987
1988
Employment status
1986
1987
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
12,344
8,076
65.4
7,219
12,867
8,541
66.4
7,790
12,848
8,468
65.9
7,738
12,887
8,447
65.5
7,762
12,925
8,549
66.1
7,856
12,965
8,581
66.2
7,877
13,003
8,654
66.6
7,935
13,043
8,763
67.2
7,978
13,082
8,772
67.1
8,058
13,115
8,879
67.7
8,238
13,153
9,017
68.6
8,268
13,192
8,803
66.7
8,079
13,230
8,828
66.7
8,010
13,268
8,859
66.8
8,058
13,306
9,027
67.8
8,219
58.5
857
10.6
60.5
751
8.8
60.2
730
8.6
60.2
685
8.1
60.8
693
8.1
60.8
704
8.2
61.0
719
8.3
61.2
785
9.0
61.6
714
8.1
62.8
642
7.2
62.9
749
8.3
61.2
724
8.2
60.5
818
9.3
60.7
801
9.0
61.8
809
9.0
Hispanic origin
Civilian noninstitutional
population'....................................
Civilian labor force........................
Participation rate ..................
Employed ...................................
Employment-population
ratio2 ...................................
Unemployed...............................
Unemployment rate..............
1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals
6.
because data for the “ other races” groups are not presented and Hispanics are included
in both the white and black population groups.
Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
Annual average
1987
1988
Selected categories
1986
1987
June
July
Aug.
109,597
60,892
48,706
39,658
112,440
62,107
50,334
40,265
112,300
61,984
50,316
40,120
112,639
62,150
50,489
40,262
113,050
62,341
50,709
40,308
27,144
5,837
28,107
6,060
28,282
6,011
28,283
6,033
1,547
1,447
169
1,632
1,423
153
1,622
1,403
162
98,299
16,342
81,957
1,235
80,722
7,881
255
100,771
16,800
83,970
1,208
82,762
8,201
260
5,588
2,456
2,800
13,935
5,345
2,305
2,719
13,502
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
112,872
62,368
50,504
40,404
113,210
62,468
50,742
40,556
113,504
62,581
50,923
40,645
113,744
62,656
51,088
40,711
28,189
6,107
28,069
6,151
28,099
6,178
28,175
6,237
1,625
1,424
153
1,591
1,393
155
1,624
1,415
139
1,705
1,430
140
100,510
16,920
83,590
1,163
82,427
8,293
274
100,825
16,876
83,949
1,212
82,737
8,216
266
101,241
16,794
84,447
1,175
83,272
8,214
248
101,282
16,928
84,354
1,100
83,254
8,204
297
5,401
2,385
2,672
14,395
5,254
2,345
2,623
14,836
5,428
2,429
2,683
14,437
5,283
2,468
2,526
14,573
5,122
2,201
2,587
13,928
4,979
2,176
2,530
14,334
5,154
2,261
2,599
13,953
5,016
2,265
2,463
14,099
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
114,129
62,808
51,321
40,404
114,409
63,059
51,350
40,475
114,103
62,759
51,344
40,481
114,713
63,323
51,390
40,459
114,195
63,030
51,166
40,267
115,018
63,411
51,607
40,485
28,249
6,227
28,441
6,168
28,707
6,157
28,805
6,160
28,859
6,055
28,567
5,957
28,713
6,085
1,595
1,407
155
1,599
1,450
156
1,666
1,454
138
1,677
1,414
114
1,648
1,423
142
1,678
1,385
155
1,526
1,346
159
1,562
1,359
167
101,522
17,033
84,489
1,222
83,267
8,274
242
101,943
17,118
84,825
1,286
83,539
8,222
235
101,997
17,064
84,933
1,200
83,733
8,280
248
102,507
17,197
85,310
1,147
84,163
8,150
237
102,683
16,948
85,735
1,170
84,565
8,312
228
102,279
16,908
85,371
1,175
84,196
8,366
248
102,538
17,015
85,523
1,092
84,431
8,637
281
101,927
16,887
85,040
1,156
83,884
8,917
307
103,000
17,064
85,935
1,150
84,786
8,577
301
5,261
2,213
2,683
14,415
5,353
2,377
2,655
14,488
5,534
2,408
2,696
14,523
5,262
2,284
2,638
14,711
5,367
2,396
2,640
14,571
5,566
2,478
2,598
14,572
5,343
2,520
2,535
14,603
5,194
2,236
2,502
15,016
4,844
2,227
2,315
14,790
5,317
2,364
2,637
14,507
4,986
2,034
2,603
13,987
5,067
2,196
2,557
14,011
5,241
2,209
2,597
14,064
5,004
2,111
2,552
14,222
5,145
2,260
2,566
14,096
5,254
2,327
2,457
14,123
5,106
2,325
2,475
14,141
4,924
2,121
2,397
14,592
4,623
2,120
2,236
14,338
5,076
2,199
2,566
14,083
CHARACTERISTIC
Civilian employed, 16 years and
o ver.............................................
M e n ..........................................
Women .....................................
Married men, spouse present ..
Married women, spouse
present....................................
Women who maintain families .
MAJOR INDUSTRY AND CLASS
OF WORKER
Agriculture:
Wage and salary workers.......
Self-employed workers............
Unpaid family workers.............
Nonagricultural industries:
Wage and salary workers .......
Government ..........................
Private industries...................
Private households.............
Other ...................................
Self-employed workers............
Unpaid family w orkers.............
PERSONS AT WORK
PART TIME1
All industries:
Part time for economic reasons .
Slack work ...............................
Could only find part-time work
Voluntary part time .....................
Nonagricultural industries:
Part time for economic reasons .
Slack work ...............................
Could only find part-time work
Voluntary part time .....................
1 Excludes persons “ with a job but not at work” during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
67
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
7.
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics.
Employment Data
Selected unemployment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Unemployment rates)
1988
1987
Annual average
Selected categories
1986
1987
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Total, all civilian workers.........................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years................................
Men, 20 years and over .....................................
Women, 20 years and over................................
7.0
18.3
6.1
6.2
6.2
16.9
5.4
5.4
6.1
16.0
5.5
5.3
6.0
15.8
5.4
5.4
6.0
16.2
5.2
5.3
5.9
16.4
5.0
5.4
6.0
17.2
5.1
5.2
5.9
16.6
5.0
5.2
5.8
16.1
4.9
5.2
5.8
16.0
5.1
5.1
5.7
15.4
4.9
5.2
5.6
16.5
4.9
4.8
5.4
15.9
4.6
4.8
5.6
15.6
4.9
4.9
5.3
13.6
4.6
4.9
White, total .........................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.............................
Men, 16 to 19 years ...................................
Women, 16 to 19 years..............................
Men, 20 years and over ..................................
Women, 20 years and over.............................
6.0
15.6
16.3
14.9
5.3
5.4
5.3
14.4
15.5
13.4
4.8
4.6
5.3
13.9
14.8
13.0
4.9
4.4
5.2
13.3
13.5
13.1
4.7
4.5
5.2
14.1
15.2
12.9
4.6
4.4
5.1
14.3
15.1
13.4
4.4
4.5
5.2
14.5
15.1
13.8
4.6
4.3
5.1
14.1
14.8
13.3
4.4
4.4
4.9
13.6
14.9
12.3
4.3
4.4
5.0
14.0
14.4
13.6
4.4
4.2
4.8
12.4
12.2
12.7
4.1
4.5
4.7
14.1
15.7
12.4
4.2
3.9
4.6
14.1
14.5
13.7
4.0
3.9
4.7
13.1
13.8
12.4
4.2
4.0
4.5
12.0
12.8
11.1
4.0
4.0
Black, total .........................................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years.............................
Men, 16 to 19 years ...................................
Women, 16 to 19 years..............................
Men, 20 years and over ..................................
Women, 20 years and o ver.............................
14.5
39.3
39.3
39.2
12.9
12.4
13.0
34.7
34.4
34.9
11.1
11.6
12.8
33.4
31.4
35.4
11.4
11.3
12.7
32.7
32.4
33.1
11.2
11.4
12.4
30.6
33.7
27.1
10.7
11.3
12.3
30.8
31.5
30.0
10.1
11.7
12.1
33.8
32.5
35.2
9.8
11.0
12.2
33.9
32.2
35.8
10.2
10.8
12.2
33.4
33.5
33.4
10.1
10.9
12.2
35.0
35.1
34.9
10.1
11.1
12.6
38.3
42.0
34.7
11.3
10.4
12.8
36.9
39.0
35.0
11.4
10.9
12.2
31.4
27.6
35.5
10.6
11.3
12.4
34.8
33.3
36.6
10.8
10.6
11.5
28.4
30.4
25.9
10.0
10.7
Hispanic origin, to ta l...........................................
10.6
8.8
8.6
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.3
9.0
8.1
7.2
8.3
8.2
9.3
9.0
9.0
Married men, spouse present............................
Married women, spouse present.......................
Women who maintain families...........................
Full-time workers ................................................
Part-time workers ...............................................
Unemployed 15 weeks and over.......................
Labor force time lost' ........................................
4.4
5.2
9.8
6.6
9.1
1.9
7.9
3.9
4.3
9.2
5.8
8.4
1.7
7.1
4.0
4.0
9.5
5.9
7.3
1.7
7.1
3.8
4.2
9.3
5.7
8.1
1.6
6.9
3.7
4.3
9.0
5.6
8.2
1.6
6.9
3.7
4.2
8.8
5.5
8.4
1.6
6.8
3.7
4.2
8.9
5.6
8.3
1.5
6.8
3.5
4.2
8.5
5.5
8.2
1.5
6.8
3.4
4.3
8.4
5.4
8.0
1.5
6.6
3.6
4.2
8.9
5.4
8.3
1.4
6.6
3.4
4.1
8.3
5.3
7.9
1.4
6.6
3.4
4.0
7.5
5.3
7.7
1.4
6.5
3.0
3.8
8.7
5.1
7.4
1.3
6.2
3.3
3.9
8.4
5.2
7.7
1.3
6.4
3.1
3.7
7.8
4.9
7.8
1.2
6.3
7.0
13.5
13.1
7.1
6.9
7.4
5.1
7.6
5.5
3.6
12.5
6.2
10.0
11.6
6.0
5.8
6.3
4.5
6.9
4.9
3.5
10.5
6.1
9.5
11.7
5.7
5.4
6.1
4.8
7.1
4.9
3.4
9.3
6.1
7.9
10.8
6.0
6.0
5.9
4.4
6.8
5.1
3.4
10.9
6.0
8.6
11.3
5.6
5.5
5.8
4.4
7.0
4.7
3.7
10.6
5.9
7.4
11.9
5.6
5.4
5.9
4.1
6.4
4.8
3.4
8.6
5.9
8.3
11.2
5.7
5.2
6.5
4.4
6.5
4.7
3.3
10.6
5.8
7.0
10.6
5.3
4.8
5.9
4.5
6.8
4.8
3.4
11.1
5.7
8.0
10.6
5.1
4.8
5.6
4.6
6.2
4.8
3.2
10.9
5.8
7.7
12.2
5.6
5.5
5.8
3.6
6.1
4.9
3.0
11.5
5.7
7.8
11.0
5.6
5.9
5.3
3.6
6.4
4.5
2.8
10.2
5.6
7.9
10.7
5.2
5.2
5.3
4.2
6.8
4.2
2.8
11.0
5.3
8.4
10.6
5.3
4.8
6.0
3.8
5.9
4.1
3.0
10.6
5.7
10.4
10.5
5.4
4.9
6.0
4.4
6.3
4.6
2.9
13.9
5.4
6.7
10.2
4.8
4.4
5.4
4.1
5.9
4.6
2.8
9.7
CHARACTERISTIC
INDUSTRY
Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers ....
Mining..................................................................
Construction .......................................................
Manufacturing ....................................................
Durable goods..................................................
Nondurable goods ...........................................
Transportation and public utilities .....................
Wholesale and retail tra d e .................................
Finance and service industries..........................
Government workers ...............................................
Agricultural wage and salary workers .....................
Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8.
Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Civilian workers)
Annual
average
Sex and age
1987
1986
1988
1987
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Nov.
Oct.
Jan.
Dec.
Mar.
Feb.
Apr.
June
May
Total, 16 years and over .................................................................
16 to 24 years...............................................................................
16 to 19 years .............................................................................
16 to 17 years ..........................................................................
18 to 19 years ..........................................................................
20 to 24 years .............................................................................
25 years and over..........................................................................
25 to 54 years ..........................................................................
55 years and o v e r....................................................................
7.0
13.3
18.3
20.2
17.0
10.7
5.4
5.7
3.9
6.2
12.2
16.9
19.1
15.2
9.7
4.8
5.0
3.3
6.1
12.1
16.0
18.8
14.5
10.0
4.7
4.9
3.2
6.0
11.8
15.8
17.5
13.9
9.7
4.7
5.0
3.1
6.0
11.8
16.2
18.3
14.7
9.4
4.7
4.9
3.2
5.9
11.8
16.4
18.3
15.2
9.4
4.6
4.8
3.3
6.0
11.8
17.2
20.4
14.7
8.8
4.6
4.8
3.1
5.9
11.6
16.6
19.2
14.8
8.9
4.5
4.7
3.4
5.8
11.2
16.1
17.8
14.7
8.5
4.5
4.8
3.2
5.8
11.6
16.0
18.7
14.5
9.1
4.5
4.7
3.5
5.7
11.1
15.4
17.4
13.9
8.7
4.5
4.7
3.3
5.6
11.7
16.5
17.6
15.8
9.1
4.2
4.5
2.9
5.4
11.2
15.9
17.8
14.2
8.7
4.1
4.3
2.9
Men, 16 years and o ve r..............................................................
16 to 24 years ..........................................................................
16 to 19 years........................................................................
16 to 17 years.....................................................................
18 to 19 years.....................................................................
20 to 24 years........................................................................
25 years and over ....................................................................
25 to 54 years.....................................................................
55 years and over................................................................
6.9
13.7
19.0
20.8
17.7
11.0
5.4
5.6
4.1
6.2
12.6
17.8
20.2
16.0
9.9
4.8
5.0
3.5
6.2
12.4
16.4
19.1
15.4
10.4
4.8
5.0
3.4
6.0
11.9
15.9
17.1
13.7
9.9
4.7
4.9
3.4
6.1
12.5
17.8
20.5
15.9
9.6
4.7
4.9
3.4
5.8
12.1
17.3
19.7
15.9
9.3
4.5
4.7
3.2
5.9
12.1
17.4
20.9
14.8
9.2
4.5
4.8
3.1
5.8
12.0
17.2
20.4
14.8
9.2
4.4
4.6
3.5
5.7
11.7
17.2
19.3
15.3
8.7
4.4
4.6
3.2
5.8
12.2
16.4
19.4
14.9
9.9
4.4
4.5
4.0
5.6
11.3
15.6
16.9
14.7
9.0
4.3
4.5
3.4
5.7
12.1
17.8
18.5
17.3
9.1
4.3
4.5
3.4
5.3
11.2
15.8
17.2
14.7
8.8
4.1
4.2
3.1
5.6
11.6
16.2
16.7
15.8
9.1
4.3
4.4
3.7
5.2
10.5
14.7
17.0
14.2
8.2
4.1
4.2
3.2
Women, 16 years and o ver.......................................................
16 to 24 years .........................................................................
16 to 19 years ......................................................................
16 to 17 years ...................................................................
18 to 19 years ...................................................................
20 to 24 years ......................................................................
25 years and over...................................................................
25 to 54 years ...................................................................
55 years and over ..............................................................
7.1
12.8
17.6
19.6
16.3
10.3
5.5
5.9
3.6
6.2
11.7
15.9
18.0
14.3
9.4
4.8
5.1
3.0
6.0
11.7
15.5
18.4
13.6
9.6
4.5
4.9
2.8
6.1
11.7
15.7
18.0
14.1
9.5
4.7
5.0
2.6
6.0
11.0
14.4
16.0
13.4
9.0
4.7
5.0
2.9
6.1
11.5
15.4
16.9
14.4
9.4
4.7
4.9
3.5
6.1
11.5
16.9
19.9
14.6
8.5
4.7
4.9
3.1
6.0
11.2
16.0
17.9
14.7
8.6
4.7
4.9
3.2
5.9
10.7
14.8
16.2
14.1
8.4
4.7
4.9
3.3
5.9
10.9
15.6
17.9
14.1
8.2
4.6
4.9
2.8
5.9
10.8
15.1
18.0
13.1
8.4
4.7
4.9
3.1
5.5
11.3
15.2
16.6
14.2
9.1
4.1
4.4
2.3
5.6
11.3
16.0
18.4
13.7
8.7
4.2
4.5
2.7
5.6
11.0
15.0
15.5
14.7
8.8
4.3
4.5
3.2
5.4
10.0
12.4
13.7
11.6
8.7
4.2
4.6
2.6
9.
5.6
11.3
15.6
16.1
15.3
8.9
4.3
4.5
3.5
5.3
10.3
13.6
15.4
12.9
8.4
4.1
4.4
2.9
Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
Annual average
1987
1988
Reason for unemployment
1986
Job losers ................................................................
On layoff................................................................
Other job losers....................................................
Job leavers ..............................................................
Reentrants ...............................................................
New entrants ...........................................................
1987
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
4,033
1,090
2,943
1,015
2,160
1,029
3,566
943
2,623
965
1,974
920
3,554
919
2,635
959
1,980
854
3,529
916
2,613
989
1,930
844
3,389
874
2,515
992
1,969
855
3,313
820
2,493
981
1,908
882
3,388
944
2,444
960
1,845
914
3,307
878
2,429
926
1,974
855
Dec.
3,200
856
2,344
946
1,945
909
3,209
888
2,320
1,082
1,917
885
3,207
884
2,323
961
1,951
864
3,139
899
2,240
1,075
1,756
887
2,916
821
2,095
993
1,784
915
3,236
793
2,443
926
1,789
807
June
3,059
863
2,196
944
1,723
777
48.9
13.2
35.7
12.3
26.2
12.5
48.0
12.7
35.3
13.0
26.6
12.4
48.4
12.5
35.9
13.1
26.9
11.6
48.4
12.6
35.8
13.6
26.5
11.6
47.0
12.1
34.9
13.8
27.3
11.9
46.8
11.6
35.2
13.8
26.9
12.5
47.7
13.3
34.4
13.5
26.0
12.9
46.8
12.4
34.4
13.1
28.0
12.1
45.7
12.2
33.5
13.5
27.8
13.0
45.2
12.5
32.7
15.3
27.0
12.5
45.9
12.7
33.3
13.8
27.9
12.4
45.8
13.1
32.7
15.7
25.6
12.9
44.1
12.4
31.7
15.0
27.0
13.8
47.9
11.7
36.2
13.7
26.5
11.9
47.0
13.3
33.8
14.5
26.5
11.9
3.4
.9
1.8
.9
3.0
.8
1.6
.8
3.0
.8
1.7
.7
2.9
.8
1.6
.7
2.8
.8
1.6
.7
2.8
.8
1.6
.7
2.8
.8
1.5
.8
2.7
.8
1.6
.7
2.7
.8
1.6
.8
2.6
.9
1.6
.7
2.6
.8
1.6
.7
2.6
.9
1.5
.7
2.4
.8
1.5
.8
2.7
.8
1.5
.7
2.5
.8
1.4
.6
PERCENT OF UNEMPLOYED
Job losers..............................................................
On layoff .............................................................
Other job losers.................................................
Job leavers............................................................
Reentrants.............................................................
New entrants ........................................................
PERCENT OF
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Job losers ................................................................
Job leavers ..............................................................
Reentrants ...............................................................
New entrants ...........................................................
10.
Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
1987
Annual average
1988
Weeks of unemployment
1986
1987
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Less than 5 weeks ...........................................
5 to 14 weeks ..................................................
15 weeks and o v e r...........................................
15 to 26 weeks ..............................................
27 weeks and o v e r........................................
3,448
2,557
2,232
1,045
1,187
3,246
2,196
1,983
943
1,040
3,138
2,151
2,029
973
1,056
3,186
2,144
1,920
945
975
3,203
2,142
1,896
834
1,062
3,220
1,949
1,904
917
987
3,223
2,093
1,801
844
957
3,218
2,029
1,834
899
935
3,229
1,968
1,791
892
899
3,089
2,263
1,733
839
894
3,084
2,145
1,740
841
899
3,009
2,101
1,722
887
835
3,125
1,956
1,540
725
816
3,075
2,110
1,609
784
825
3,066
1,890
1,512
727
785
Mean duration in weeks....................................
Median duration in weeks.................................
15.0
6.9
14.5
6.5
14.7
6.6
14.2
6.6
14.3
6.4
14.2
5.8
14.1
6.2
14.0
6.1
14.2
6.0
14.4
6.4
14.4
6.4
13.7
6.6
13.4
5.6
13.8
5.9
12.9
6.0
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
69
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
11. Unemployment rates of civilian workers by State, data not seasonally adjusted
State
Alabama.......................................
Alaska ...................................
Arizona.....................................
Arkansas ............................................
California...............................
May
1987
May
1988
7.5
11.5
6.2
7.8
5.6
6.8
9.4
5.8
7.8
5.8
New Jersey .......................
Colorado ...............................................
Connecticut ......................................
Delaware..........................................
District of Columbia..............................
Florida ..........................................
7.9
3.2
2.8
6.2
5.1
Georgia ..........................................
Hawaii...........................................................
Idaho ............................................................
Illinois ...........................................................
Indiana .........................................................
Iow a...........................................
Kansas ..........................................
Kentucky...........................................
Louisiana................................................
Maine............................................
Maryland ....................................................
Massachusetts .............................................
Michigan.......................................................
Minnesota....................................................
Mississippi....................................................
Missouri.......................................
6.4
2.4
2.9
4.9
4.7
5.6
4.0
7.8
8.2
6.3
6.1
3.0
6.2
6.9
4.5
5.2
4.7
86
12.5
4.3
3.9
4.0
78
10.5
3.8
4.1
3.4
8.2
5.2
9.9
6.2
4.1
2.7
6.5
3.2
7.1
4.6
May
1987
May
1988
2.5
2.1
4.2
3.8
4.6
3.7
Ohio ............................................
7.1
5.8
Oregon...........................................
Pennsylvania..........................
Rhode Island..............................
5.8
5.4
3.8
5.9
5.0
2.7
South Carolina.....................................
5.6
4.6
5.0
Vermont...............................
NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data
published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the
12.
State
Washington ...................................
West Virginia...........................
Wisconsin ..........................................
I
6.6
5.0
3.6
2.7
7.3
10.7
5.8
5.9
8.8
4.1
8.4
5.6
database,
Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by State, data not seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
State
May 1987
Apr. 1988
Alabama.................
Alaska ...................
Arizona...................
Arkansas................
California................
1,504.8
212.6
1,389.6
837.8
11,621.7
1,519.7
204.3
1,423.2
858.0
11,989.7
Colorado ................
Connecticut ...........
Delaware................
District of Columbia
Florida ....................
1,400.1
1,644.6
319.4
651.6
4,835.3
1,397.6
1,666.1
329.1
667.5
5,095.7
Georgia ..................
Hawaii.....................
Idaho ......................
Illinois .....................
Indiana ...................
2,764.5
458.6
332.9
4,895.1
2,315.3
2,787.9
467.7
337.8
4,980.1
2,377.9
Iow a........................
Kansas ....................
Kentucky.................
Louisiana.................
Maine......................
1,118.2
1,002.9
1,312.3
1,487.0
497.6
1,140.1
1,017.8
1,349.0
1,496.3
513.1
Maryland .................
Massachusetts.......
Michigan..................
Minnesota ...............
Mississippi...............
Missouri...................
Montana..................
2,025.5
3,056.1
3,726.7
1,967.5
865.5
2,198.4
277.5
2,028.8
3,099.7
3,734.5
1,993.1
885.7
2,217.4
272.3
May 1988p
1,527.1
208.7
1,421.3
860.1
12,052.2
New Jersey ......................................
New Mexico ............................
1,393.5 New York...........................
1,674.3 North Carolina .............................
332.3 North Dakota ...............................
669.5
5,094.5 Ohio .........................................
Oklahoma.......................................
2,792.8 Oregon.................................................
468.1 Pennsylvania.....................................
342.9 Rhode Island..........................................
5,005.8
2,403.1 South Carolina.........................................
South Dakota........................................
1,149.2 Tennessee ...........................
1,023.7 Texas ................................................
1,358.9 Utah ................................................
1,498.4
520.6 Vermont..................................
Virginia...............................................
2,038.4 Washington .......................................
3,124.4 West Virginia.......................................
3,770.8 Wisconsin ........................................
2,025.5
888.0 Wyoming...............................
2,229.9 Puerto Rico .................................
275.2 Virgin Islands ...................................
p = preliminary
NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere
Digitized 70
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
State
Nebraska....................................
Nevada ..........................................
New Hampshire.................................
May 1987
Apr. 1988
May 1988p
662.5
668.5
509.9
524.4
672.9
526.6
530.4
3,584.5
531.5
8,050.2
2,856.4
255.1
3,648.4
537.3
8,162.7
2,934.7
252.9
3,672.3
539.3
8,223.6
2.941.5
257.5
4,591.6
1,109.9
1,094.1
4,919.5
453.9
4,653.9
1,095.6
1,121.8
5,006.4
456.3
4.705.8
1.100.6
1.131.5
5.038.8
459.6
1,400.3
257.0
2,007.7
6,497.0
639.4
1,440.1
256.3
2,056.5
6,552.9
646.7
1.450.7
262.9
2,064.1
6.574.0
650.0
241.8
2,681.3
1,836.6
600.5
2,078.6
245.8
2,763.1
1,903.2
600.2
2,123.2
247.9
2.786.8
1.919.5
616.4
2.147.0
180.2
751.7
38.8
174.7
773.8
40.8
177.6
776.6
40.3
because of the continual updating of the database.
13.
Employment of workers on nonagricultural payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
(In thousands)
1988
1987
Annual average
Industry
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Mayp
Junep
1986
1987
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
TOTAL ......................................
PRIVATE SECTOR .....................
99,525
82,832
102,310
85,295
102,078
85,094
102,430
85,421
102,672
85,656
102,906
85,851
103,371
86,241
103,678
86,520
104,001
86,794
104,262
87,044
104,729
87,475
105,020
87,700
105,281
87,973
105,502
88,144
105,848
88,547
GOODS-PRODUCING ...................
Mining ...........................................
Oil and gas extraction ................
24,558
777
451
24,784
721
405
24,684
719
404
24,788
722
408
24,851
728
412
24,902
734
417
25,025
740
421
25,123
736
418
25,201
735
417
25,180
728
414
25,271
731
415
25,330
733
419
25,435
737
421
25,464
737
424
25,569
741
426
Construction ................................
General building contractors......
4,816
1,291
4,998
1,326
4,983
1,319
4,997
1,320
5,012
1,326
5,012
1,328
5,060
1,340
5,090
1,348
5,118
1,352
5,083
1,365
5,150
1,377
5,192
1,383
5,238
1,400
5,238
1,395
5,294
1,408
Manufacturing..............................
Production workers .....................
18,965
12,877
19,065
12,995
18,982
12,939
19,069
13,006
19,111
13,038
19,156
13,075
19,225
13,118
19,297
13,175
19,348
13,215
19,369
13,225
19,390
13,249
19,405
13,251
19,460
13,280
19,489
13,303
19,534
13,349
Durable goods............................
Production workers .....................
11,230
7,426
11,218
7,453
11,166
7,417
11,190
7,432
11,246
7,483
11,269
7,499
11,315
7,532
11,355
7,564
11,390
7,590
11,393
7,582
11,404
7,599
11,411
7,598
11,459
7,632
11,475
7,648
11,508
7,683
Lumber and wood products........
Furniture and fixtures...................
Stone, clay, and glass products ...
Primary metal industries ..............
Blast furnaces and basic steel
products......................................
Fabricated metal products...........
710
498
585
752
740
518
582
749
736
516
580
746
740
524
579
751
739
524
580
755
744
526
580
761
744
529
583
766
750
531
585
768
754
533
588
769
754
536
583
768
756
535
584
770
755
534
585
772
758
535
587
773
756
537
585
777
756
539
586
781
274
1,423
269
1,407
271
1,400
272
1,404
274
1,405
276
1,412
278
1,421
279
1,429
279
1,433
279
1,435
280
1,438
281
1,439
281
1,444
281
1,448
281
1,456
Machinery, except electrical........
Electrical and electronic
equipment....................................
Transportation equipment............
Motor vehicles and equipment ....
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing
industries .....................................
2,053
2,023
2,013
2,020
2,031
2,039
2,049
2,062
2,074
2,085
2,091
2,099
2,111
2,118
2,132
2,116
2,025
872
706
2,084
2,048
865
696
2,066
2,047
867
694
2,075
2,032
842
695
2,081
2,063
874
696
2,085
2,052
860
696
2,094
2,052
859
700
2,100
2,047
854
704
2,110
2,046
851
704
2,112
2,036
839
704
2,112
2,031
837
705
2,115
2,025
835
705
2,117
2,045
848
706
2,115
2,049
852
709
2,118
2,051
851
708
361
370
368
370
372
374
377
379
379
380
382
382
383
381
381
Nondurable goods......................
Production workers......................
7,734
5,450
7,847
5,543
7,816
5,522
7,879
5,574
7,865
5,555
7,887
5,576
7,910
5,586
7,942
5,611
7,958
5,625
7,976
5,643
7,986
5,650
7,994
5,653
8,001
5,648
8,014
5,655
8,026
5,666
Food and kindred products.........
Tobacco manufactures ................
Textile mill products.....................
Apparel and other textile
products......................................
Paper and allied products ...........
1,609
59
703
1,624
54
725
1,621
55
724
1,629
55
730
1,625
54
728
1,627
53
730
1,630
52
731
1,636
54
733
1,638
54
733
1,647
55
732
1,649
54
732
1,647
54
729
1,648
54
727
1,644
52
728
1,649
53
725
1,101
674
1,100
679
1,098
677
1,116
678
1,098
680
1,104
682
1,106
682
1,110
683
1,106
684
1,105
685
1,104
686
1,106
687
1,100
687
1,100
689
1,097
689
Printing and publishing.................
Chemicals and allied products.....
Petroleum and coal products.......
Rubber and misc. plastics
products......................................
Leather and leather products ......
1,459
1,022
169
1,507
1,026
165
1,505
1,014
165
1,510
1,025
165
1,514
1,029
165
1,518
1,032
166
1,522
1,036
167
1,528
1,041
167
1,532
1,047
167
1,538
1,047
166
1,544
1,049
165
1,548
1,052
164
1,554
1,056
165
1,558
1,061
166
1,564
1,064
165
790
149
823
144
815
142
824
147
827
145
830
145
839
145
845
145
851
146
854
147
856
147
860
147
864
146
870
146
873
147
SERVICE-PRODUCING .................
Transportation and public
utilities.........................................
Transportation..............................
Communication and public
utilities.........................................
74,967
77,525
77,394
77,642
77,821
78,004
78,346
78,555
78,800
79,082
79,458
79,690
79,846
80,038
80,279
5,255
3,058
5,385
3,166
5,363
3,153
5,373
3,151
5,394
3,171
5,427
3,201
5,448
3,214
5,466
3,231
5,481
3,244
5,499
3,261
5,513
3,272
5,530
3,285
5,543
3,298
5,558
3,311
5,581
3,330
2,197
2,218
2,210
2,222
2,223
2,226
2,234
2,235
2,237
2,238
2,241
2,245
2,245
2,247
2,251
Wholesale trade ..........................
Durable goods..............................
Nondurable goods.......................
5,753
3,383
2,370
5,872
3,449
2,423
5,860
3,434
2,426
5,874
3,450
2,424
5,892
3,463
2,429
5,914
3,478
2,436
5,935
3,498
2,437
5,958
3,514
2,444
5,984
3,536
2,448
6,010
3,555
2,455
6,035
3,573
2,462
6,061
3,591
2,470
6,089
3,610
2,479
6,116
3,635
2,481
6,142
3,654
2,488
Retail trad e ..................................
General merchandise stores.......
Food stores ..................................
Automotive dealers and service
stations .......................................
Eating and drinking places..........
17,930
2,366
2,899
18,509
2,432
2,957
18,481
2,418
2,962
18,543
2,437
2,962
18,569
2,449
2,961
18,605
2,457
2,958
18,705
2,489
2,971
18,761
2,495
2,979
18,784
2,494
2,988
18,927
2,526
3,014
19,045
2,561
3,029
19,050
2,543
3,044
19,093
2,546
3,049
19,124
2,541
3,054
19,200
2,546
3,076
1,944
5,916
2,004
6,127
2,001
6,109
2,007
6,128
2,010
6,143
2,015
6,152
2,026
6,191
2,026
6,216
2,033
6,232
2,038
6,260
2,047
6,291
2,055
6,319
2,064
6,326
2,068
6,336
2,076
6,357
Finance, insurance, and real
estate ...........................................
Finance ........................................
Insurance.....................................
Real e state...................................
6,283
3,149
1,939
1,195
6,549
3,275
2,022
1,252
6,553
3,280
2,019
1,254
6,570
3,288
2,024
1,258
6,581
3,289
2,029
1,263
6,588
3,292
2,032
1,264
6,604
3,295
2,043
1,266
6,608
3,299
2,042
1,267
6,619
3,301
2,049
1,269
6,633
3,308
2,052
1,273
6,636
3,305
2,053
1,278
6,651
3,306
2,060
1,285
6,650
3,302
2,065
1,283
6,650
3,299
2,066
1,285
6,665
3,302
2,069
1,294
Services........................................
Business services........................
Health services ............................
23,053
4,799
6,536
24,196
5,172
6,828
24,153
5,164
6,806
24,273
5,179
6,836
24,369
5,212
6,875
24,415
5,233
6,894
24,524
5,282
6,928
24,604
5,287
6,962
24,725
5,306
6,995
24,795
5,321
7,019
24,975
5,385
7,056
25,078
5,405
7,088
25,163
5,420
7,126
25,232
5,442
7,150
25,390
5,474
7,198
Government .................................
Federal.........................................
S tate.............................................
Local.............................................
16,693
2,899
3,893
9,901
17,015
2,943
3,963
10,109
16,984
2,939
3,946
10,099
17,009
2,941
3,965
10,103
17,016
2,943
3,971
10,102
17,055
2,962
3,973
10,120
17,130
2,966
3,985
10,179
17,158
2,974
3,988
10,196
17,207
2,980
4,001
10,226
17,218
2,973
4,006
10,239
17,254
2,972
4,014
10,268
17,320
2,970
4,031
10,319
17,308
2,963
4,041
10,304
17,358
2,960
4,041
10,357
17,301
2,944
4,037
10,320
p = preliminary
NOTE: See notes on the data for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
71
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
14. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry,
monthly data seasonally adjusted
Annual
average
1987
1988
Industry
1986
1987
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Mayp
Junep
PRIVATE SECTOR ...................................
34.8
34.8
34.7
34.8
34.8
34.6
34.9
34.8
34.6
34.7
34.8
34.6
34.9
34.7
34.8
MANUFACTURING................................................
Overtime hours...............................................
40.7
3.4
41.0
3.7
41.0
3.7
41.0
3.8
41.0
3.8
40.6
3.7
41.2
3.9
41.2
3.9
41.0
3.8
41.1
3.9
41.0
3.7
40.9
3.7
41.2
3.9
41.0
3.9
41.0
3.9
Durable goods...............................
Overtime hours...............................................
Lumber and wood products ................................
Furniture and fixtures..........................................
Stone, clay, and glass products.........................
Primary metal industries .....................................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products.........
Fabricated metal products ..................................
41.3
3.5
40.3
39.8
42.2
41.9
41.7
41.3
41.5
3.8
40.6
40.0
42.3
43.1
43.4
41.5
41.5
3.8
40.6
40.0
42.0
43.0
43.2
41.6
41.6
3.8
40.6
40.0
42.3
43.2
43.7
41.5
41.5
3.9
40.5
40.0
42.2
43.3
43.7
41.5
41.0
3.7
39.6
39.5
42.0
43.2
44.6
40.9
41.8
4.0
40.4
40.1
42.5
43.6
43.9
41.9
41.8
4.0
40.7
40.2
42.4
43.5
43.8
42.1
41.5
3.9
40.4
39.8
42.5
43.4
44.0
41.7
41.6
4.0
40.2
39.6
42.0
43.4
44.0
41.8
41.5
3.8
40.3
39.5
42.3
43.1
43.8
41.6
41.5
3.8
40.1
39.3
42.3
43.3
43.7
41.6
42.0
4.2
40.6
39.5
42.5
43.5
43.8
42.0
41.8
4.2
40.0
39.4
42.3
43.7
43.9
41.9
41.7
4.1
40.0
39.2
42.3
43.8
44.9
41.9
Machinery except electrical ................................
Electrical and electronic equipment....................
Transportation equipment....................................
Motor vehicles and equipment.........................
Instruments and related products ......................
Miscellaneous manufacturing..............................
41.6
41.0
42.3
42.6
41.0
39.6
42.2
40.9
42.0
42.2
41.4
39.4
42.3
40.9
41.9
42.0
41.4
39.4
42.5
40.9
41.8
41.8
41.5
39.5
42.3
40.9
41.8
41.9
41.6
39.7
41.7
40.4
41.4
41.5
41.0
38.9
42.6
41.0
42.4
42.8
41.9
39.5
42.7
41.0
42.3
42.9
41.4
39.2
42.6
40.9
41.5
41.4
41.2
39.2
42.7
41.1
42.0
42.1
41.8
39.1
42.6
40.9
42.0
42.3
41.3
39.3
42.5
40.9
42.1
42.3
41.4
39.2
42.8
41.2
43.0
44.1
41.8
39.4
42.6
41.0
43.1
44.0
41.4
39.2
42.4
41.0
42.8
44.0
41.3
39.2
Nondurable goods..............................................
Overtime hours...............................................
Food and kindred products.................................
Textile mill products............................................
Apparel and other textile products.....................
Paper and allied products ...................................
39.9
3.3
40.0
41.1
36.7
43.2
40.2
3.6
40.2
41.8
37.0
43.4
40.2
3.6
40.1
42.1
37.0
43.4
40.3
3.7
40.1
42.3
37.2
43.5
40.3
3.7
40.2
42.0
37.2
43.4
40.1
3.6
40.2
41.4
36.4
43.7
40.4
3.8
40.4
41.8
37.3
43.6
40.3
3.7
40.4
41.6
37.1
43.5
40.3
3.7
40.5
41.5
37.1
43.3
40.3
3.8
40.6
41.5
36.8
43.4
40.2
3.6
40.3
41.6
37.0
43.3
40.1
3.6
40.1
41.2
37.0
43.2
40.3
3.6
40.1
41.6
37.4
43.3
40.0
3.6
40.2
40.7
36.8
43.3
40.1
3.6
40.4
40.6
36.9
43.1
Printing and publishing........................................
Chemicals and allied products............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.....
Leather and leather products .............................
38.0
41.9
41.3
36.9
38.0
42.3
41.6
38.2
38.0
42.2
41.7
38.5
38.1
42.2
41.6
38.4
38.1
42.4
41.6
38.9
38.1
42.5
41.3
37.8
38.1
42.5
41.8
38.8
38.0
42.5
41.8
38.3
38.0
42.5
41.6
38.0
38.1
42.5
41.7
38.0
38.1
42.4
41.6
37.8
38.1
42.5
41.7
37.9
38.2
42.1
42.0
37.3
37.7
41.9
41.7
37.4
38.1
42.4
41.6
36.9
39.2
39.3
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
39.2
39.2
39.0
39.3
39.3
39.1
39.3
39.2
39.1
39.5
39.1
38.8
39.5
WHOLESALE TRADE..........................................
37.7
37.5
38.1
38.1
38.2
38.0
38.2
38.2
38.0
38.1
38.2
38.1
38.3
38.0
38.0
RETAIL TRADE ..................................................
29.2
29.2
29.2
29.3
29.4
29.5
29.2
29.2
28.8
29.0
29.1
29.0
29.2
29.0
29.2
SERVICES ............................................................
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.6
32.6
32.5
32.6
32.7
32.4
32.7
32.5
32.5
p — preliminary
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent
Digitized 72
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
benchmark adjustment.
15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by
industry
_________________ ____________________
Annual
average
1988
1987
Industry
1986
1987
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Mayp
Junep
PRIVATE SECTOR................................................ $8.76
Seasonally adjusted .........................................
-
$8.98
-
$8.91
8.95
$8.90
8.96
$8.94
9.01
$9.05
9.02
$9.08
9.07
$9.13
9.10
$9.13
9.11
$9.18
9.14
$9.17
9.13
$9.18
9.16
$9.23
9.23
$9.25
9.27
$9.23
9.27
MINING..................................................................
12.46
12.52
12.52
12.41
12.40
12.50
12.42
12.54
12.60
12.77
12.71
12.59
12.60
12.52
12.54
CONSTRUCTION..................................................
12.48
12.69
12.66
12.60
12.68
12.79
12.82
12.83
12.81
12.99
12.82
12.87
12.88
12.88
12.90
MANUFACTURING................................................
9.73
9.91
9.87
9.87
9.86
9.99
9.95
10.01
10.07
10.07
10.05
10.07
10.12
10.14
10.16
10.29
8.34
7.46
Stone, clay, and glass products......................... 10.04
Primary metal industries..................................... 11.86
Blast furnaces and basic steel products......... 13.73
Fabricated metal products .................................. 9.88
10.43
8.40
7.67
10.25
11.94
13.78
10.00
10.40
8.43
7.66
10.28
11.91
13.75
9.98
10.38
8.45
7.66
10.30
11.93
13.63
9.93
10.39
8.48
7.74
10.28
11.93
13.74
9.94
10.49
8.46
7.74
10.37
12.19
14.12
10.00
10.48
8.42
7.71
10.27
12.00
13.88
10.06
10.54
8.47
7.71
10.30
12.04
13.89
10.10
10.60
8.43
7.78
10.29
12.11
13.93
10.19
10.60
8.51
7.80
10.35
12.06
13.82
10.12
10.58
8.53
7.74
10.33
12.03
13.89
10.13
10.59
8.45
7.76
10.36
12.07
13.89
10.14
10.65
8.50
7.81
10.41
12.11
13.94
10.22
10.67
8.53
7.87
10.44
12.14
13.96
10.23
10.69
8.57
7.89
10.45
12.14
13.88
10.25
Machinery, except electrical ............................... 10.57
Electrical and electronic equipment.................... 9.65
Transportation equipment................................... 12.81
Motor vehicles and equipment......................... 13.45
9.47
Instruments and related products ......................
7.55
Miscellaneous manufacturing..............................
10.70
9.88
12.95
13.55
9.71
7.75
10.68
9.83
12.87
13.47
9.66
7.75
10.67
9.86
12.82
13.35
9.71
7.72
10.70
9.88
12.88
13.40
9.74
7.72
10.74
9.94
13.04
13.64
9.76
7.78
10.79
9.92
13.07
13.69
9.78
7.79
10.83
9.98
13.18
13.79
9.83
7.80
10.89
10.03
13.25
13.87
9.84
7.91
10.85
10.02
13.22
13.94
9.93
7.97
10.82
10.02
13.17
13.85
9.92
7.90
10.84
10.04
13.20
13.93
9.88
7.91
10.88
10.09
13.28
14.09
9.89
7.92
10.90
10.12
13.32
14.10
9.88
7.95
10.93
10.13
13.38
14.18
9.91
7.96
Nondurable goods ............................................... 8.95
Food and kindred products................................. 8.75
Tobacco manufactures....................................... 12.88
6.93
5.84
Apparel and other textile products.....................
Paper and allied products ................................... 11.18
9.18
8.94
14.03
7.17
5.93
11.43
9.13
8.92
15.85
7.13
5.89
11.42
9.18
8.88
15.17
7.13
5.87
11.49
9.14
8.82
14.55
7.16
5.88
11.41
9.30
8.95
13.34
7.23
5.99
11.66
9.20
8.88
13.18
7.24
5.97
11.46
9.26
8.98
13.75
7.29
5.98
11.49
9.32
9.07
13.69
7.31
6.00
11.53
9.32
9.06
13.79
7.34
6.02
11.54
9.31
9.06
14.01
7.30
6.02
11.50
9.33
9.07
14.42
7.31
6.03
11.52
9.37
9.14
14.98
7.35
6.04
11.60
9.37
9.15
15.26
7.31
6.04
11.63
9.40
9.15
15.97
7.32
6.08
11.60
9.99
Printing and publishing........................................
Chemicals and allied products............................ 11.98
Petroleum and coal products.............................. 14.19
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products..... 8.73
5.92
Leather and leather products .............................
10.28
12.37
14.59
8.91
6.08
10.19
12.28
14.44
8.89
6.09
10.24
12.37
14.51
8.96
5.99
10.32
12.33
14.54
8.93
6.04
10.48
12.56
14.74
9.01
6.13
10.41
12.50
14.66
8.93
6.12
10.39
12.55
14.77
8.98
6.15
10.43
12.61
14.73
9.04
6.16
10.38
12.55
14.89
9.00
6.16
10.40
12.55
14.96
9.00
6.19
10.45
12.53
14.98
9.00
6.23
10.40
12.57
15.00
9.04
6.29
10.43
12.57
14.90
9.05
6.26
10.43
12.62
15.07
9.09
6.27
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES.... 11.70
12.03
11.94
12.00
12.06
12.11
12.12
12.21
12.24
12.16
12.23
12.19
12.27
12.25
12.20
9.35
9.59
9.54
9.56
9.60
9.64
9.65
9.72
9.73
9.78
9.78
9.78
9.88
9.87
9.85
6.24
6.26
6.27
6.27
Lumber and wood products................................
WHOLESALE TRADE...........................................
RETAIL TRADE ....................................................
6.03
6.11
6.08
6.07
6.07
6.20
6.16
6.18
6.19
6.24
6.23
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE
8.36
8.73
8.63
8.63
8.74
8.73
8.76
8.89
8.81
8.96
9.02
8.97
9.03
9.09
8.95
8.81
8.80
8.82
8.84
8.78
SERVICES .............................................................
p
Data not available.
_ preliminary
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8.18
8.48
8.37
8.34
8.40
8.54
8.61
8.71
8.73
8.81
NOTE: See "Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent
benchmark revision.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
16.
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by industry
Annual average
Industry
1986
PRIVATE SECTOR
Current dollars..............
Seasonally adjusted ....
Constant (1977) dollars
1987
July
Aug.
Sept
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
Mayp
Junep
$304.85 $312.50 $311.85 $311.50 $314.69 $314.04 $316.89 $317.72 $317.72 $315.79 $316.37 $315.79
$320.28 $320.05 $323.05
310.57 311.81 313.55 312.09 316.54 316.68 315.21 317.16 317.72 316.94 322.13 321.67
322.60
171.07 169.28 169.02 168.47 169.28 168.12 169.19 169.45 169.54 167.97 168.01
167.08 168.57 167.74
-
MINING
525.81
530.85
CONSTRUCTION
529.60
521.22
529.48
528.75
482.35
532.82
534.20
497.42
543.06
537.62
531.28
527.52
539.28
527.09
530.44
481.66
466.34
462.80
481.34
488.15
493.30
499.23
MANUFACTURING
Current dollars..............
Constant (1977) dollars .
396.01
222.23
406.31
220.10
405.66
219.87
400.72
216.72
403.27
216.93
407.59
218.20
410.94
219.40
414.41
221.02
420.93
224.62
412.87
219.61
409.04
217.23
411.86
217.92
414.92
218.38
414.73
217.36
417.58
-
Durable goods ...........................................
Lumber and wood products.....................
Furniture and fixtures................................
Stone, clay, and glass products...............
Primary metal industries ...........................
Blast furnaces and basic steel products
Fabricated metal products .......................
424.98
336.10
296.91
423.69
496.93
572.54
408.04
432.85
341.04
306.80
433.58
514.61
598.05
415.00
433.68
348.16
306.40
436.90
513.32
596.75
416.17
425.58
341.38
301.04
438.78
510.60
595.63
405.14
429.11
345.98
311.92
437.93
511.80
594.94
410.52
431.14
337.55
309.60
440.73
526.61
631.16
410.00
438.06
341.85
314.57
441.61
520.80
603.78
422.52
442.68
342.19
313.03
436.72
526.15
608.38
428.24
449.44
341.42
319.76
435.27
534.05
618.49
435.11
440.96
336.15
303.42
423.32
524.61
606.70
423.02
436.95
339.49
301.09
426.63
519.70
609.77
418.37
440.54
337.16
302.64
435.12
523.84
606.99
421.82
444.11
345.10
305.37
442.43
526.79
613.36
426.17
444.94
344.61
306.93
446.83
529.30
612.84
426.59
447.91
348.80
309.29
446.22
532.95
625.99
430.50
439.71
395.65
541.86
572.97
388.27
298.98
451.54
404.09
543.90
571.81
401.99
305.35
452.83
403.03
539.25
565.74
400.89
305.35
446.01
397.36
525.62
546.02
396.17
299.54
448.33
402.12
528.08
545.38
402.26
304.94
447.86
401.58
535.94
560.60
400.16
304.20
458.58
406.72
551.55
583.19
407.83
311.60
465.69
413.17
560.15
591.59
410.89
309.66
475.89
421.26
565.78
593.64
415.25
316.40
464.38
413.83
560.53
592.45
415.07
310.03
459.85
406.81
553.14
587.24
408.70
307.31
462.87
410.64
561.00
598.99
411.01
310.07
463.49
411.67
569.71
621.37
410.44
309.67
462.16
411.88
574.09
624.63
407.06
310.05
464.53
415.33
572.66
623.92
410.27
312.03
357.11
350.00
481.71
284.82
214.33
482.98
369.04
359.39
547.17
299.71
219.41
496.06
367.94
357.69
653.02
302.31
219.70
494.49
367.20
355.20
565.84
296.61
216.60
496.37
369.26
358.09
549.99
302.15
219.32
492.91
374.79
365.16
534.93
301.49
217.44
514.21
372.60
360.53
545.65
304.08
223.88
500.80
375.96
365.49
562.38
306.18
223.65
503.26
381.19
372.78
554.45
307.75
225.60
509.63
374.66
366.93
540.57
303.14
220.33
501.99
370.54
358.78
540.79
301.49
220.93
494.50
373.20
359.17
566.71
299.71
223.11
494.21
373.86
361.03
576.73
301.35
222.27
498.80
373.86
367.83
601.24
296.79
222.27
501.25
376.94
369.66
632.41
299.39
226.18
498.80
395.20
529.20
Machinery, except electrical ...........
Electrical and electronic equipment
Transportation equipment................
Motor vehicles and equipment.....
Instruments and related products ....
Miscellaneous manufacturing..........
Nondurable goods .........................
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 ..
379.62
501.96
621.52
390.64
523.25
641.96
383.14
518.22
629.58
388.10
518.30
651.50
394.22
519.09
633.94
403.48
536.31
648.56
397.66
528.75
645.04
397.94
535.89
651.36
403.64
542.23
655.49
392.36
533.38
658.14
393.12
530.87
647.77
399.19
532.53
654.63
6 6 6 .0 0
391.13
526.68
652.62
393.21
535.09
667.60
360.55
218.45
370.66
232.26
371.60
240.56
367.36
231.81
369.70
235.56
372.11
231.71
374.17
237.46
377.16
236.16
383.30
237.78
376.20
231.62
372.60
227.79
375.30
233.00
377.87
232.73
376.48
236.00
379.05
237.63
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES......................................
458.64
471.58
468.05
475.20
478.78
474.71
477.53
479.85
479.81
474.24
475.75
470.53
480.98
477.75
481.90
WHOLESALE TRADE
358.11
365.38
365.38
365.19
367.68
366.32
369.60
371.30
371.69
370.66
370.66
370.66
377.42
375.06
376.27
RETAIL TRADE .........
176.08
178.41
179.97
182.10
183.31
182.90
179.26
179.22
181.37
176.59
177.56
178.46
180.91
181.20
184.97
FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL
ESTATE ................................
304.30
316.90
314.13
312.41
318.14
314.28
317.11
322.71
317.16
324.35
328.33
321.13
326.89
324.51
320.41
SERVICES
265.85
275.60
273.70
273.55
276.36
276.70
279.83
283.08
282.85
285.44
287.21
284.24
287.53
286.42
287.11
- Data not available.
p = preliminary
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark
revision.
17. The Hourly Earnings Index for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls by
industry
Not seasonally adjusted
Industry
PRIVATE SECTOR (In current dollars) ..........
Mining' ..................................
Construction....................................
Manufacturing .......................
Transportation and public utilities................
Wholesale trade1 ..............................
Retail trade ........................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate1 ..................
Services........................................
PRIVATE SECTOR jin constant (1977) dollars] .........
June
1987
Apr.
1988
172.6
June
1988p
178.1
178.6
178.1
181.9
154.8
174.5
174.7
176.3
160.4
185.4
179.3
184.6
157.4
178.2
180.2
182.3
165.2
194.8
188.5
184.1
157.7
178.5
180.0
182.3
165.7
196.0
189.4
185.0
157.9
178.7
179.2
181.6
165.7
193.6
188.3
93.5
93.8
93.6
-
93.7
This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small
relative to the trend-cycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot
be separated with sufficient precision.
- Data not available.
1
Digitized 74
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Seasonally adjusted
May
1988p
June
1987
Feb.
1988
Mar.
1988
Apr.
1988
172.9
176.7
177.0
155.4
174.5
175.6
156.8
177.0
179.1
160.6
180.2
_
May
1988p
June
1988p
178.0
178.6
178.5
157.5
177.3
179.4
157.8
177.9
180.6
157.7
178 3
181 1
180
163.4
163.8
164.8
165.4
165 9
186.3
186.9
188.3
189.8
189.2
93.7
93.5
93.6
93.5
-
158 3
1
p = preliminary,
NOTE: See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most recent benchmark
revision.
18.
Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, data seasonally adjusted
(In percent)
Time span and year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Over
1986
1987
1988
1-month span:
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
57.0
50.8
61.6
47.3
59.2
61.6
49.5
61.1
62.2
50.8
62.4
63.8
51.9
62.4
57.6
46.8
61.6
65.4
51.9
70.8
-
54.1
62.2
-
68.1
Over
1986
1987
1988
3-month span:
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
50.0
57.6
71.6
47.6
57.0
46.2
69.2
67.0
46.2
68.1
6 6 .8
45.7
65.1
67.0
46.2
71.9
-
48.1
73.8
-
51.9
76.8
-
Over 6 -month span:
1986 .......................................................................
1987 .......................................................................
1988 .......................................................................
48.1
64.6
73.5
47.3
64.3
70.0
43.8
63.0
68.4
42.7
70.3
-
43.2
72.4
47.0
77.3
-
46.5
78.4
“
42.2
63.8
41.6
67.3
-
43.8
69.5
-
44.9
73.5
“
45.7
76.8
“
48.6
76.8
46.8
78.9
Over
1986
1987
1988
12-month span:
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
- Data not available.
NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment rising. (Half of
the unchanged components are counted as rising.) Data are centered within the
19.
67.6
Oct.
Sept.
51.4
Nov.
53.0
67.3
58.9
67.8
“
58.9
68.4
“
50.5
74.1
-
55.9
76.5
-
59.7
78.1
"
59.2
73.0
"
50.0
79.7
-
55.9
82.7
-
53.2
77.8
"
55.9
77.0
“
58.4
76.5
-
48.6
78.9
51.6
79.7
53.8
78.4
“
56.5
78.1
57.8
80.8
-
_
_
spans. Data for the 2 most recent months shown in each span are preliminary.
See the “ Definitions” In this section. See “ Notes on the data” for a description of
the most recent benchmark revision.
Annual data: Employment status of the noninstitutional population
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment status
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Noninstitutional population....................................
166,460
169,349
171,775
173,939
175,891
178,080
179,912
182,293
184,490
Labor force:
Total (number)...................................................
Percent of population.......................................
106,559
64.0
108,544
64.1
110,315
64.2
111,872
64.3
113,226
64.4
115,241
64.7
117,167
65.1
119,540
65.6
121,602
65.9
100,421
60.3
1,597
100,907
59.6
1,604
102,042
59.4
1,645
101,194
58.2
1 ,6 6 8
102,510
58.3
1,676
106,702
59.9
1,697
108,856
60.5
1,706
111,303
61.1
1,706
114,177
61.9
1,737
98,824
3,347
95,477
99,303
3,364
95,938
100,397
3,368
97,030
99,526
3,401
96,125
100,834
3,383
97,450
105,005
3,321
101,685
107,150
3,179
103,971
109,597
3,163
106,434
112,440
3,208
109,232
Unemployed:
Total (number)............................................
Percent of labor fo rc e ................................
6,137
5.8
7,637
7.0
8,273
7.5
10,678
9.5
10,717
9.5
8,539
7.4
8,312
7.1
8,237
6.9
7,425
Not in labor force (number) ................................
59,900
60,806
61,460
62,067
62,665
62,839
62,744
62,752
62,888
Employed:
Total (number) .............................................
Percent of population ..................................
Resident Armed Forces............................
Civilian
Total .......................................................
Agriculture............................................
Nonagricultural industries....................
20.
6.1
Annual data: Employment levels by industry
(Numbers in thousands)
Industry
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Total employment....................................................................
Private sector.........................................................................
Goods-producing.................................................................
Mining.............................................................................
Construction ..................................................................
Manufacturing.................................................................
89,823
73,876
26,461
958
4,463
21,040
90,406
74,166
25,658
1,027
4,346
20,285
91,156
75,126
25,497
1,139
4,188
20,170
89,566
73,729
23,813
1,128
3,905
18,781
90,200
74,330
23,334
952
3,948
18,434
94,496
78,472
24,727
966
4,383
19,378
97,519
81,125
24,859
927
4,673
19,260
99,525
82,832
24,558
777
4,816
18,965
102,310
85,295
24,784
721
4,998
19,065
Service-producing................................................................
Transportation and public utilities ...................................
Wholesale trade ..............................................................
Retail trade .....................................................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate ...............................
Services...........................................................................
63,363
5,136
5,204
14,989
4,975
17,112
64,748
5,146
5,275
15,035
5,160
17,890
65,659
5,165
5,358
15,189
5,298
18,619
65,753
5,082
5,278
15,179
5,341
19,036
6 6 ,8 6 6
4,954
5,268
15,613
5,468
19,694
69,769
5,159
5,555
16,545
5,689
20,797
72,660
5,238
5,717
17,356
5,955
2 2 ,0 0 0
74,967
5,255
5,753
17,930
6,283
23,053
77,525
5,385
5,872
18,509
6,549
24,196
Government...................................................................
Federal......................................................................
State ..........................................................................
Local .........................................................................
15,947
2,773
3,541
9,633
16,241
16,031
2,772
3,640
9,619
15,837
2,739
3,640
9,458
15,869
2,774
3,662
9,434
16,024
2,807
3,734
9,482
16,394
2,875
3,832
9,687
16,693
2,899
3,893
9,901
17,015
2,943
3,963
10,109
NOTE:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
See “ Notes on the data” for a description of the most
Dec.
2 ,8 6 6
3,610
9,765
recent benchmark revision.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics:
Employment Data
21. Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonagricultural
payrolls, by industry
Industry
Private sector
Average weekly hours.....................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)...........
Average weekly earnings (in dollars) ..................
1979
1980
1981
1982
34.8
7.68
267.26
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
280.70
35.2
8.32
292.86
34.9
8.57
299.09
34.8
8.76
304.85
34 8
98
312.50
35.7
6.16
219.91
235.10
35.2
7.25
255.20
Mining
Average weekly hours ...................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ..................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)................
43.0
8.49
365.07
43.3
9.17
397.06
43.7
10.04
438.75
42.7
10.77
459.88
42.5
11.28
479.40
43.3
11.63
503.58
43.4
11.98
519.93
42.2
12.46
525.81
42 4
12.52
530.85
Construction
Average weekly hours ...................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..........
37.0
9.27
342.99
37.0
9.94
367.78
36.9
10.82
399.26
36.7
11.63
426.82
37.1
11.94
442.97
37.8
12.13
458.51
37.7
12.32
464.46
37.4
12.48
466.75
37 8
12.69
479.68
Manufacturing
Average weekly hours .....................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .......
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..........
40.2
6.70
269.34
39.7
7.27
288.62
39.8
7.99
318.00
38.9
8.49
330.26
40.1
8.83
354.08
40.7
9.19
374.03
40.5
9.54
386.37
40.7
9.73
396.01
41 0
9.91
406.31
Transportation and public utilities
Average weekly hours .....................
Average hourly earnings (In dollars) .........
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)..........
39.9
8.16
325.58
39.6
8.87
351.25
39.4
9.70
382.18
39.0
10.32
402.48
39.0
10.79
420.81
39.4
438.13
39.5
11.40
450.30
39.2
11.70
458.64
39 2
12.03
471.58
Wholesale trade
Average weekly hours .......................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)...................
38.8
6.39
247.93
38.5
6.96
267.96
38.5
7.56
291.06
38.3
8.09
309.85
38.5
8.55
329.18
38.5
8.89
342.27
38.4
9.16
351.74
38.3
9.35
358.11
38.1
9.59
365.38
Retail trade
Average weekly hours .....................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ...........
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).............
30.6
4.53
138.62
30.2
4.88
147.38
30.1
5.25
158.03
29.9
5.48
163.85
29.8
5.74
171.05
29.8
5.85
174.33
29.4
5.94
174.64
29.2
6.03
176.08
29 2
178.41
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Average weekly hours .....................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) ..................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).................
36.2
5.27
190.77
36.2
5.79
209.60
36.3
6.31
229.05
36.2
6.78
245.44
36.2
7.29
263.90
36.5
7.63
278.50
36.4
7.94
289.02
36.4
8.36
304.30
36 3
8.73
316.90
Services
Average weekly hours ....................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars) .................
Average weekly earnings (In dollars).............
32.7
5.36
175.27
32.6
5.85
190.71
32.6
6.41
208.97
32.6
6.92
225.59
32.7
7.31
239.04
32.6
7.59
247.43
32.5
7.90
256.75
32.5
8.18
265.85
32.5
8.48
275.60
Digitized 76
for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
35.3
6 .6 6
35.0
8 .0 2
1 1 .1 2
8
6 11
22. Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group
(June 1981 = 100)
Series
Mar.
June
1988
1987
1986
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
Mar. 1988
130.6
131.5
133.0
Workers, by occupational group:
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing..................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................
Service-producing .................................................................
133.8
135.9
137.5
138.6
140.6
1.4
4.1
144.2
134.7
142.9
1.4
1.7
1.5
4.1
4.3
3.6
1.7
1.3
1.5
1.3
4.3
4.7
4.0
5.2
4.3
5.1
4.3
3.9
133.1
126.2
133.1
134.2
126.8
133.7
136.0
127.8
135.4
136.9
128.4
136.6
138.5
129.1
138.0
139.3
130.1
138.5
141.2
131.3
139.9
142.2
132.5
140.8
126.9
127.7
132.9
138.8
128.1
128.7
133.7
139.4
130.2
130.7
138.1
145.2
144.1
136.9
131.1
131.5
138.9
145.8
144.7
137.8
133.5
134.1
141.7
150.6
-
-
-
136.8
131.9
129.5
130.1
136.5
143.6
141.6
135.4
132.2
132.7
140.8
149.2
-
_
138.0
132.8
128.8
129.3
135.6
142.4
_
_
140.6
134.6
146.4
139.6
148.1
140.5
135.8
136.8
143.6
152.8
150.3
142.3
128.9
129.9
130.8
131.6
132.9
133.8
135.1
136.0
138.1
1.5
3.9
131.3
132.5
_
133.5
_
134.3
_
136.1
_
137.0
-
138.5
139.3
141.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
1.5
.9
1.4
3.7
4.4
3.5
1.5
125.7
126.3
-
127.2
-
127.8
-
128.4
-
129.5
-
130.6
-
131.8
“
134.1
1.9
1.7
1.4
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
4.9
4.4
4.1
5.0
4.0
4.6
2.9
_
_
_
Workers, by occupational group:
Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations
135.0
Administrative support occupations, including
.
Precision production, craft, and repair occupation ........
2.1
132.3
133.5
134.7
135.2
135.9
136.7
138.6
126.7
127.8
128.6
129.2
129.9
130.8
131.9
133.2
135.6
1.8
127.7
128.7
129.3
130.1
130.7
131.5
132.7
134.1
136.8
2 .0
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
130.8
131.6
132.7
133.5
135.3
136.3
137.7
138.4
140.2
2.3
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.1
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
1.4
.7
1.3
.9
1.5
4.4
4.0
4.7
4.7
4.5
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.6
3.6
3.5
1.2
.6
_
-
-
-
-
1.5
-
-
-
-
1.2
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
5.2
4.2
5.1
137.1
138.9
1.3
3.6
-
129.7
130.6
131.7
132.4
134.1
135.1
136.4
138.9
139.7
143.6
144.7
145.9
146.3
149.7
151.1
153.1
1.3
4.9
140.0
134.7
140.5
136.3
145.0
138.5
146.0
139.5
147.2
140.8
147.5
141.3
151.2
143.3
152.7
144.3
154.8
145.9
1.4
5.2
3.6
140.4
136.8
140.8
137.9
145.5
139.4
146.6
141.1
147.3
142.5
147.6
143.3
151.8
145.1
153.1
146.3
155.2
150.3
1.4
2.7
_
_
-
-
-
-
1.1
141.5
143.0
136.8
141.7
143.2
138.0
147.6
149.4
140.6
148.4
150.3
141.6
148.9
150.5
144.1
149.1
150.7
144.7
154.1
156.5
146.4
155.5
157.8
148.1
156.8
158.9
150.3
.7
1.5
Workers, by occupational group:
Workers, by industry division:
1 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index
consists of wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits.
2 Consist of private Industry workers (excluding farm and household workers)
and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1.6
1.4
131.1
_
Wholesale and retail trade ...............................................
1.2
130.9
Workers, by industry division:
Service-producing ..............................................................
Transportation and public utilities....................................
1.3
1.5
2 .2
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers ....
Construction .....................................................................
Manufacturing...................................................................
2 .0
_
1.1
.8
5.4
5.5
5.0
5.3
5.6
4.3
3 Consist of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.
- Data not available.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations
23. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
(June 1981=100)
1 986
1987
1988
Series
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
Percent change
3
months
ended
12
months
ended
Mar. 1988
Civilian workers ' .......................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers ...............
Blue-collar workers..................
Service occupations................
Workers, by industry division
Goods-producing.................
Manufacturing ....................
Service-producing................
Services ...........................
Health services...............
Hospitals.........................
Public administration 2 .....
Nonmanufacturing..............
Private industry workers...........................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers................................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations
Executive, administrative, and managerial
occupations ..........................................................
Sales occupations.................................................
Administrative support occupations, including
clerical.....................................
Blue-collar workers..................................................
Precision production, craft, and repair
occupations........................................................
Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors ..
Transportation and material moving occupations .
Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and
laborers................................................................
Service occupations................................................
Workers, by Industry division:
Goods-producing.................................
Construction ......................................
Manufacturing....................................
Durables..........................................
Nondurables.....................................
Service-producing................................
Transportation and public utilities ....
Transportation................................
Public utilities..................................
Wholesale and retail trade..............
Wholesale trade ...........................
Retail trade....................................
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Services...........................................
Health services ..............................
Hospitals........................................
Nonmanufacturing .
State and local government workers .
Workers, by occupational group
White-collar workers.........................
Blue-collar workers...........................
Workers, by industry division
Services ............................................
Hospitals and other services 3 .......
Health services .............................
Schools...........................................
Elementary and secondary.........
Public administration 2 ......................
129.6
129.C
130.7
131.5
132.6
133.6
135.2
136.1
137.4
132.4
124.1
130.C
134.1
125.C
131.7
135.C
125.6
132.8
136.6
126.2
134.2
137.C
127.1
134.7
139,-i
128.C
136.C
140.2
129.4
136.6
141.5
130.4
138.0
3.6
3.3
2.8
125.6
126.5
131.5
137.0
126.3
127.2
133.4
139.9
127.0
127.9
134.2
141.1
127.8
128.7
135.8
142.7
128.5
129.5
136.5
143.4
129.8
130.8
138.5
146.8
131.0
132.2
139.2
148.2
132.2
133.3
140.5
149.5
134.6
130.4
137.5
132.2
138.1
133.0
140.5
134.5
141.0
135.2
142.6
137.1
143.8
137.8
145.5
139.0
3.4
3.6
3.5
4.8
4.0
4.8
3.6
3.3
126.8
127.9
128.8
129.5
130.8
131.7
133.0
133.8
135.1
3.3
129.6
132.7
131.1
134.0
132.0
135.4
132.7
136.4
134.6
138.4
135.4
139.1
137.0
141.2
137.6
142.6
139.0
144.0
3.3
4.0
130.5
122.4
132.1
124.3
132.4
125.2
133.5
124.9
135.6
126.7
136.4
127.1
138.6
127.0
139.2
126.1
139.9
127.5
3.2
.6
140.2
4.4
129.6
130.8
131.7
132.7
134.3
135.5
137.1
138.1
123.1
123.7
124.5
125.1
125.6
126.6
127.7
128.9
129.9
3.4
125.3
125.7
123.6
118.9
126.7
124.1
119.8
127.4
124.9
120.1
127.9
125.5
120.5
128.8
126.7
121.5
130.2
127.5
122.3
131.1
129.2
122.9
132.1
129.9
123.7
3.3
3.5
2.7
120.3
128.0
120.9
128.9
121.4
130.1
121.9
131.4
1 2 2 .6
128.0
131.9
123.7
132.6
125.0
133.2
126.7
134.5
3.9
2.4
124.2
118.3
125.3
124.8
126.1
129.0
126.3
125.4
119.8
126.5
125.8
127.9
129.9
126.6
126.1
120.5
127.2
126.4
128.5
130.9
127.3
126.8
127.9
127.2
129.3
131.6
127.5
127.5
121.7
128.7
127.7
130.5
133.4
128.1
128.3
122.7
129.5
128.7
131.0
134.3
129.3
129.6
123.8
130.8
129.7
132.8
135.7
130.0
130.8
124.7
132.2
131.1
134.1
136.2
130.2
132.0
125.9
133.3
132.1
135.6
137.5
131.3
124.5
129.7
122.5
126.6
136.2
125.8
131.2
123.7
128.0
136.9
126.5
131.8
124.4
129.0
138.2
126.9
133.1
124.5
130.0
139.5
127.9
134.8
125.2
133.5
141.8
129.9
137.2
127.1
131.5
142.8
130.6
137.8
127.8
131.8
145.9
130.7
138.5
127.7
131.6
147.1
131.9
139.0
129.2
132.9
148.6
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.9
3.1
2.5
2.3
2.7
3.1
3.1
3.2
-.4
4.8
3.9
4.9
127.7
128.7
129.7
130.4
131.9
132.8
134.2
134.8
136.0
1 2 2 .6
118.0
1 2 0 .0
3.1
135.5
136.0
140.4
141.4
142.5
142.8
146.1
147.4
148.7
136.6
130.4
137.0
131.9
141.8
134.5
142.8
135.1
143.9
136.3
144.1
136.9
147.7
139.0
149.3
139.6
150.5
141.1
4.6
3.5
136.8
132.4
137.1
133.3
142.1
135.8
143.3
137.3
143.9
138.6
144.2
139.4
148.2
141.2
149.5
142.2
150.7
144.5
138.0
139.4
133.8
138.2
139.4
134.6
144.1
145.7
137.5
145.1
146.4
138.1
145.5
146.5
140.5
145.6
146.6
141.0
150.3
152.0
142.6
151.8
153.4
143.8
152.6
154.0
145.5
4.7
4.3
4.3
4.9
5.1
3.6
^ , . 0 ,0 ,0 ui
muusuy wuiiwrs rexciuaing rarm ana nousenoid workers)
and State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.
2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.
Digitized
78for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1 2 0 .8
3 Includes, for example, library, social and health services.
- Data not available.
24. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size
(June 1981 =100)
Series
Mar.
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
June
Percent change
1988
1987
1986
Dec.
Sept.
3
months
ended
Mar.
12
months
ended
Mar. 1988
COMPENSATION
Workers, by bargaining status'
Goods-producing .................................................................
Service-producing................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ...............................................................
128.4
126.4
131.6
127.0
129.7
128.7
126.7
131.9
126.9
130.4
129.4
127.3
132.8
127.5
131.2
129.8
127.5
133.4
127.9
131.5
130.5
128.0
134.4
128.0
132.6
131.2
128.7
135.2
128.7
133.5
132.0
129.5
135.9
129.5
134.3
133.4
131.3
136.7
131.5
135.1
135.6
134.1
138.0
135.0
136.2
1.6
2.1
1.0
2.7
.8
1.5
3.9
4.8
2.7
5.5
2.7
4.0
4.1
3.8
4.2
3.8
129.0
126.7
130.4
128.1
129.5
130.2
128.2
131.4
129.7
130.4
131.2
129.1
132.5
130.4
131.6
132.1
130.0
133.4
131.4
132.5
133.6
130.8
135.3
132.2
134.3
134.6
131.8
136.4
133.2
135.3
136.1
133.1
137.9
134.6
136.8
136.9
134.1
138.6
135.6
137.5
138.9
136.2
140.5
137.8
139.4
Midwest (formerly North Central)..........................................
W est.......................................................................................
131.6
128.7
125.9
130.8
133.3
129.6
126.2
131.6
134.2
130.7
127.3
132.1
135.2
131.4
128.1
132.8
137.4
132.1
129.1
134.1
138.6
133.2
130.2
134.2
140.3
134.2
131.2
135.8
141.9
135.4
131.7
136.3
143.7
137.1
134.4
138.3
Workers, by area size 1
Metropolitan areas.................................................................
Other areas............................................................................
129.5
125.5
130.5
126.4
131.4
127.2
132.2
127.9
133.5
129.0
134.4
130.2
135.8
131.3
136.7
132.0
138.9
133.6
125.6
123.4
129.0
124.2
126.9
126.1
124.1
129.3
124.6
127.4
126.9
124.5
130.5
125.0
128.5
127.2
124.8
130.9
125.5
128.7
127.7
125.0
131.7
125.6
129.5
128.3
125.8
132.2
126.2
130.1
129.1
126.5
132.9
127.0
130.8
130.5
128.5
133.6
129.3
131.5
131.0
128.7
134.4
129.6
132.1
.4
Goods-producing .................................................................
Service-producing................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ...............................................................
.2
3.2
.5
2 .0
Nonunion................................................................................
Goods-producing ................................................................
Service-producing................................................................
Manufacturing .....................................................................
Nonmanufacturing....................................... .......................
127.3
124.5
128.9
126.1
127.8
128.5
126.1
129.9
127.7
128.9
129.4
127.0
130.8
128.5
129.8
130.3
127.8
131.7
129.5
130.6
131.8
128.8
133.6
130.6
132.4
132.8
129.6
134.6
131.5
133.4
134.3
131.1
136.2
133.0
134.9
135.0
132.1
136.7
133.9
135.4
136.4
133.6
138.0
135.5
136.8
1.0
3.5
3.7
3.3
3.8
3.3
South .....................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)..........................................
W est.......................................................................................
129.2
126.8
124.2
128.1
131.3
127.8
124.4
128.9
132.3
128.8
125.3
129.3
133.1
129.4
126.2
130.1
135.4
130.1
127.4
131.2
136.6
131.1
128.5
131.1
138.3
132.1
129.6
133.1
139.7
133.0
129.9
133.5
140.9
134.0
131.3
134.9
Workers, by area size'
Metropolitan areas.................................................................
Other areas............................................................................
127.4
123.6
128.5
124.5
129.4
125.0
130.2
125.6
131.6
126.6
132.4
127.8
133.7
129.1
134.6
129.8
135.8
130.9
Goods-producing .................................................................
Service-producing................................................................
Nonmanufacturing ...............................................................
Workers, by region 1
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
2.1
1.5
1.6
1.2
4.6
3.8
4.1
3.1
4.0
3.6
WAGES AND SALARIES
Workers, by bargaining status 1
Workers, by region '
1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and
industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Monthly Labor Review Technical
Employment Cost Index,” May 1982.
Note,
“ Estimation
2 .6
.2
3.0
.6
2.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
4.1
3.0
3.1
1.0
2 .8
.9
3.2
3.4
.9
.8
.8
procedures for
the
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations
25. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, private
industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)
Quarterly average
Annual average
1986
Specified adjustments:
Total compensation 1 adjustments,
covering 5,000 workers or more:
2
1987
IV
III
lp
II
III
IV
I
II
1.1
4.1
3.9
2.5
2.1
3.4
2.4
1 .8
2.1
settlements
First year of contract ...........................................
Annual rate over life of contract .........................
Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000
workers or more:
First year of contract ...........................................
Annual rate over life of contract.........................
Effective adjustments:
Total effective wage adjustment 3 .........................
From settlements reached in period ...................
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier
periods.................................................................
From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses.............
1.1
3.0
0.7
0.7
1.6
2 .6
1.6
1.2
2.7
2.4
1.2
2 .2
1.3
.8
2 .0
.8
2 .6
2.1
2.4
2 .2
1.8
2.1
2 .0
1.5
2.1
1.6
2.9
2 .0
1.8
2.3
2.3
.5
3.1
.7
.7
.5
.5
.9
.8
.4
.1
.2
.4
(4)
1.0
.2
.2
.2
.3
.1
1.7
1.8
.6
.3
.7
.6
.3
.3
.5
(4)
.5
(4)
.2
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
’ Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee
benefits when contract is negotiated.
2 Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in
Digitized for
80FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1988
1987
1986
Measure
compensation or wages.
3 Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
4 Between -0.05 and 0.05 percent.
p = preliminary.
1.8
26. Average specified compensation and wage adjustments, major collective bargaining settlements in private
industry situations covering 1,000 workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent)
Average for four quarters ending1987
1986
Measure
II
III
I
IV
II
1988
III
I»
IV
Specified total compensation adjustments, settlements covering 5,000
workers or more, all industries:
First year of contract............................................................................
Annual rate over life of contract..........................................................
1.4
0.9
1.4
2 .0
1.1
1.2
1.8
2.7
3.0
1.6
1.7
2.1
2 .6
2 .6
3.1
2.5
Specified wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or
more:
All Industries
First year of contract .........................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...................................................
Annual rate over life of contract .......................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...................................................
Manufacturing
First year of contract .........................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...................................................
Annual rate over life of contract .......................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...................................................
Nonmanufacturing
First year of contract .........................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...................................................
Annual rate over life of contract .......................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...................................................
Construction
First year of contract .........................................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...................................................
Annual rate over life of contract.......................................................
Contracts with COLA clauses.........................................................
Contracts without COLA clauses ...................................................
1
2
Data do not meet publication standards.
Between -0.05 and 0.05 percent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.5
2 .0
2 .2
2.4
1.8
2 .2
1.9
.9
2 .0
1.8
2.1
2.3
2 .2
.8
1.3
2 .0
2.1
2.5
2 .2
1.7
1.8
1.8
2 .0
2 .2
2.1
2 .2
2.5
1.5
2 .0
1.7
1.8
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.7
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.4
2.7
.1
- 1.0
-1.5
1.3
-3.5
(2)
1.1
2.1
1.3
-2.7
.3
2.1
- 2 .0
.3
- 1.2
1.3
- 2 .8
-.8
.7
-.4
1.4
2.4
1.3
1.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
1.5
.8
1.1
2 .0
1.1
.9
-.1
.2
.9
-.1
1.0
.8
.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
-.2
-.6
-.2
1.2
2.1
2.7
2.3
1.9
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.3
2 .6
2.1
2 .0
2 .2
2.3
2.4
3.4
2.4
2.1
2 .2
2.1
2.1
2 .0
2.1
2.3
2 .6
2.3
2.4
2 .6
2 .8
3.3
2.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.1
2 .2
2 .2
2 .6
2 .2
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.9
2.3
2.3
1.4
2.4
2 .2
2.4
1.6
2.7
3.7
2.7
2.9
3.8
2.9
2 .8
2.4
2.5
2 .6
1.4
2.3
2.5
1.2
1.6
1.6
2.4
2.5
1.4
2 .6
2 .6
2.5
2 .6
1.1
p
= preliminary.
3.0
(')
(’)
2.9
0
(1)
3.2
(')
0
1 .6
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.9
(’)
(’)
3.1
(1)
(1)
3.1
(1)
(’)
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
Current Labor Statistics: Compensation and Industrial Relations
27. Average effective wage adjustments, private industry collective bargaining situations covering 1,000
workers or more during 4-quarter periods (in percent)
Average for four quarters endingEffective wage adjustment
1986
1987
III
IV
I
II
For all workers:’
Tota l....................................
From settlements reached in period .......
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period ............
From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses...........
2.3
.5
2 .0
1 .6
2.3
.5
1.7
.3
1.5
1.6
.2
.2
.1
.3
For workers receiving changes:
Tota l...................................
From settlements reached in period ........
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period ................
From cost-of-living-adjustments clauses.......
3.1
1.7
3.8
2 .8
2.4
2 .8
1.6
1.1
3.9
3.7
.9
3.5
1.0
1.0
.6
1.8
' Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts.
1988
III
IV
lp
2 .2
2 .6
.4
1.7
.4
3.1
7
32
.3
1 8
3.2
1.8
3.3
2.3
.5
.5
3.6
2.9
33
38
29
33
2.7
2 .6
= preliminary.
p
28. Specified compensation and wage adjustments from contract settlements, and effective wage adjustments, State and
local government collective bargaining situations covering 1,000 workers or more (in percent)
Annual average
Measure
1986
Specified adjustments:
Total compensation 1 adjustments,
2
1987
First
6
months 1988
settlements covering 5,000 workers or more:
First year of contract .......................
Annual rate over life of contract ..............
Wage adjustments, settlements covering 1,000 workers or more:
First year of contract .....................
Annual rate over life of contract .
5.4
5.1
Effective adjustments:
Total effective wage adjustment 3 .......................
From settlements reached in period........
Deferred from settlements reached in earlier periods ......
From cost-of-livinq-adjustment clauses.......
4.9
2.7
3.0
2 .2
.4
.5
c)
H
Compensation includes wages, salaries, and employers’ cost of employee
benefits when contract is negotiated.
Adjustments are the net result of increases, decreases, and no changes in
compensation or wages.
29.
5.5
Because of rounding, total may not equal sum of parts
Less than 0.05 percent.
3
4
Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more
Annua totals
1986
Number of stoppages:
Beginning in period....
In effect during period .
Workers involved:
Beginning in period (in
thousands).....................
In effect during period (in
thousands).....................
Days idle:
Number (in thousands)..........
Percent of estimated working
time1 ...................................
69
72
1987
1987
46
51
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
3
Digitized
82for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.p
Feb.p
Mar.p
AprT
Mayp
Junep
8
6
6
0
14
3
5
1
0
3
3
11
7
15
1
12
12
11
5
6
8
6
6
8
10
17.5
6.7
533.0
174.4
16.1
14.1
18.4
45.9
1.3
1 1 .8
.0
7.2
.0
10.3
7.8
899.5
377.7
25.8
31.1
36.0
71.9
53.7
2 2 .2
8.9
1 0 .8
21.1
24.2
14.9
18.2
2 0 .0
11,861.0
4,455.6
278.1
457.8
361.4
1,143.1
353.3
222.9
159.4
36.6
337.0
203.6
207.9
271.4
264.5
.05
.0 2
.01
.02
.0 2
.05
.0 2
.01
.01
.01
.01
Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total
working time: private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An expla
nation of the measurement of idleness as a percentage of the total time worked is found
1
1988
.01
.01
.01
.01
in “ ‘Total economy’ measure of strike idleness,” Monthly Labor Review, October 1968,
pp. 54-56.
p = preliminary
30. Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Series
1988
1987
Annual
average
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
115.0
344.4
115.3
345.3
115.4
345.8
115.4
345.7
115.7
346.7
116.0
347.4
116.5
349.0
117.1
350.8
117.5
352.0
118.0
353.5
113.8
113.8
112.1
115.3
111.9
105.7
117.4
110.4
111.3
108.3
105.9
114.8
117.5
114.7
114.2
114.1
112.4
115.4
112.7
106.4
117.4
110.3
111.6
107.8
105.8
114.6
118.0
114.9
114.3
114.3
112.4
115.6
112.0
106.9
117.8
110.6
111.6
107.4
106.7
114.7
118.3
115.2
114.3
114.2
112.1
116.2
111.2
106.9
117.4
110.2
111.4
108.0
105.0
115.1
118.6
115.4
114.8
114.7
112.8
116.8
110.3
106.7
123.4
110.0
111.0
107.7
104.8
115.0
118.9
115.4
115.7
115.7
114.1
118.1
111.0
107.4
126.4
111.3
112.2
108.5
106.9
115.9
119.3
115.8
115.8
115.7
113.9
118.7
110.6
107.3
124.7
111.8
112.2
109.5
107.7
116.1
119.7
116.8
116.0
115.9
113.9
118.9
111.2
107.2
123.0
112.0
112.6
110.3
107.7
116.3
120.2
117.4
116.7
116.6
114.6
119.8
111.5
107.1
126.0
112.1
112.3
110.3
107.8
116.6
120.7
118.0
117.1
117.0
115.1
120.3
112.1
107.4
127.1
112.3
112.5
111.2
107.5
117.0
121.0
118.2
117.6
117.6
115.8
120.8
114.6
107.2
126.1
112.4
113.3
111.5
107.1
117.1
121.5
118.7
114.7
121.3
129.3
123.0
132.8
124.4
124.4
124.5
113.2
116.8
108.4
105.0
100.4
77.1
107.6
120.5
107.2
103.6
111.7
110.8
115.4
122.2
130.1
123.8
133.3
125.4
125.4
125.1
112.9
116.5
108.2
105.9
101.4
77.8
108.7
121.1
107.3
103.8
111.5
110.9
115.6
122.5
129.8
124.4
130.5
126.0
126.0
125.5
112.7
116.3
107.8
105.5
101.0
77.6
108.2
120.8
107.5
103.9
111.8
111.0
115.5
123.2
129.4
124.8
127.7
127.1
127.2
125.8
112.8
116.4
108.1
103.2
96.9
78.5
103.3
121.2
107.4
103.6
112.3
111.2
115.5
123.4
129.2
124.8
126.7
127.4
127.5
125.9
113.5
116.9
108.9
102.4
95.5
80.3
101.4
121.3
107.4
103.6
112.4
111.2
115.6
123.7
129.1
125.6
124.1
128.0
128.0
126.2
113.3
116.6
109.1
102.0
95.1
80.5
100.9
120.9
107.3
103.3
112.5
111.4
116.2
124.6
130.8
126.0
129.4
128.5
128.6
126.9
113.7
117.4
108.7
102.4
95.6
80.8
101.5
121.3
107.5
103.5
113.1
111.5
116.6
125.0
131.3
126.3
130.4
129.0
129.0
127.1
114.3
117.9
109.5
102.8
96.0
80.9
101.9
121.8
107.7
103.7
113.2
111.6
117.0
125.6
132.9
126.4
136.6
129.2
129.2
127.8
113.3
116.4
109.2
102.7
95.8
80.5
101.7
121.7
108.3
104.7
112.9
111.7
117.3
125.8
132.9
126.6
136.0
129.4
129.5
128.2
115.3
119.4
109.7
102.8
95.7
80.2
101.6
122.3
109.1
104.9
113.8
114.7
117.7
126.2
133.1
126.9
135.7
129.9
130.0
128.2
114.3
117.8
109.8
103.5
96.5
80.0
102.6
122.6
109.3
104.9
114.1
114.8
118.6
126.6
133.7
127.3
137.0
130.4
130.4
128.9
114.7
118.1
110.1
105.9
100.8
79.1
107.8
122.3
109.6
105.3
114.7
114.8
109.3
107.6
109.0
107.6
110.1
105.6
107.6
119.5
107.3
105.3
107.8
104.2
107.7
103.4
108.2
120.0
109.4
107.6
108.3
108.4
109.0
104.2
109.3
119.8
113.3
111.8
110.6
115.3
112.1
105.7
110.3
119.9
115.4
114.0
112.0
118.3
116.2
107.3
110.7
120.8
115.4
114.0
112.5
117.7
116.7
108.0
110.7
121.1
112.7
111.0
110.7
112.6
114.5
107.2
111.3
121.4
110.4
108.6
109.0
108.2
113.6
106.1
112.9
121.6
110.2
108.3
109.1
107.8
111.4
105.8
113.1
122.0
114.3
112.7
111.6
115.3
114.0
107.3
113.6
122.2
117.0
115.5
112.9
119.6
117.1
109.4
114.6
122.6
116.3
114.8
113.6
117.3
117.7
109.7
114.9
122.8
114.6
112.9
112.5
114.1
116.5
109.2
114.6
123.1
105.4
104.2
114.4
114.6
113.1
80.2
80.1
114.8
120.8
96.9
125.6
121.1
105.4
104.3
114.1
114.3
114.7
80.8
80.7
114.4
120.3
96.7
125.0
120.2
106.0
104.9
114.4
114.7
115.4
82.2
82.1
114.5
120.8
96.3
125.7
120.2
106.5
105.4
114.0
114.4
115.5
84.3
84.3
115.1
120.7
96.8
125.5
121.5
106.6
105.4
113.8
114.1
116.0
84.0
84.0
115.7
121.1
97.6
125.8
122.1
107.1
106.0
115.0
115.2
116.2
83.2
83.1
116.1
122.8
98.0
127.8
121.2
107.8
106.8
116.3
116.6
116.5
83.2
83.1
116.5
123.8
97.6
129.2
122.0
107.6
106.5
116.4
116.6
116.3
82.0
81.8
116.9
123.8
97.5
129.2
122.1
107.1
106.0
116.1
116.2
116.0
79.7
79.5
117.2
124.7
98.2
130.1
121.8
106.8
105.7
116.0
116.2
116.0
78.3
78.1
117.7
125.0
98.1
130.6
120.8
106.5
105.4
115.7
116.0
116.1
77.5
77.3
118.5
124.9
98.3
130.3
121.4
107.2
106.0
115.6
115.9
116.6
79.4
79.2
118.8
125.0
98.2
130.5
122.4
108.1
107.0
115.9
116.3
117.0
81.4
81.3
119.3
126.3
98.9
132.0
122.4
108.5
107.4
116.1
116.5
117.6
81.4
81.3
119.7
127.2
98.8
133.1
123.2
122.0
122.8
121.9
120.8
123.1
130.1
131.0
130.0
128.8
131.6
129.9
130.8
129.6
128.8
130.6
130.7
131.6
130.4
129.5
132.0
131.2
132.2
131.0
130.0
133.0
131.7
132.7
131.5
130.7
133.3
132.3
133.5
132.0
131.2
134.2
132.8
134.2
132.5
131.5
135.4
133.1
134.9
132.7
131.8
135.9
134.4
135.4
134.1
133.2
137.6
135.5
136.1
135.3
134.5
139.0
136.3
137.0
136.1
135.4
140.0
136.9
138.1
136.6
136.0
140.7
137.5
139.0
137.2
136.4
141.8
138.2
139.4
137.9
137.5
142.1
Entertainment ................................................................................
Entertainment commodities ........................................................
Entertainment services................................................................
111.6
107.9
116.8
115.3
110.5
122.0
114.9
110.3
121.4
115.4
110.7
122.0
115.6
110.6
122.5
116.1
110.7
123.5
116.9
111.2
124.5
117.3
112.2
124.3
117.4
112.6
124.3
118.1
112.9
125.4
118.3
112.9
125.7
119.0
113.4
126.5
119.6
114.2
127.0
119.7
114.5
126.9
120.1
114.8
127.3
Other goods and services ............................................................
Tobacco products ......................................................................
Personal care..............................................................................
Toilet goods and personal care appliances............................
Personal care services............................................................
Personal and educational expenses..........................................
School books and supplies.....................................................
Personal and educational services.........................................
121.4
124.7
111.9
111.3
112.5
128.6
128.1
128.7
128.5
133.6
115.1
113.9
116.2
138.5
138.1
138.7
127.2
132.4
114.9
113.7
116.1
136.7
136.5
136.8
128.0
135.0
115.3
114.3
116.2
136.9
136.5
137.2
128.5
135.3
115.6
114.3
116.8
137.7
136.7
137.9
131.1
135.9
116.0
114.7
117.2
142.1
141.3
142.3
131.6
136.3
116.2
114.9
117.4
142.8
142.3
143.1
131.8
136.5
116.3
115.0
117.5
143.1
142.3
143.4
132.1
137.0
116.5
115.0
117.9
143.4
142.4
143.6
133.4
140.8
117.3
116.1
118.4
143.9
144.6
144.0
134.2
142.2
117.8
116.4
119.1
144.7
146.3
144.8
134.6
142.8
118.1
116.8
119.2
145.0
146.2
145.1
134.8
142.9
118.5
117.4
119.5
145.2
146.3
145.3
135.1
143.2
118.7
117.2
120.1
145.5
146.4
145.6
135.5
143.6
119.0
117.5
120.4
146.0
146.5
146.2
June
July
Aug.
113.6
340.4
113.5
340.1
113.8
340.8
114.4
342.7
109.1
109.0
107.3
110.9
104.5
103.3
109.4
109.4
109.0
106.5
110.4
109.2
112.5
111.1
113.5
113.5
111.9
114.8
110.5
105.9
119.1
110.5
111.0
108.1
107.5
113.8
117.0
114.1
113.8
113.8
112.6
114.7
110.4
105.5
124.1
110.2
111.2
107.8
106.8
113.7
116.8
114.0
113.7
113.7
112.1
115.2
111.4
105.3
119.6
110.0
111.1
108.4
105.9
114.1
117.2
114.4
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ...............................................
Gas (piped) and electricity ....................................................
Other utilities and public services ............................................
Household furnishings and operations.......................................
Housefurnishings ......................................................................
Housekeeping supplies.............................................................
Housekeeping services.............................................................
110.9
115.8
121.9
118.3
118.6
119.4
119.4
119.2
107.9
111.2
103.7
104.1
99.2
77.6
105.7
117.9
105.2
102.2
108.2
108.5
114.2
121.3
128.1
123.1
127.4
124.8
124.8
124.0
111.8
114.8
107.8
103.0
97.3
77.9
103.8
120.1
107.1
103.6
111.5
110.6
114.3
120.8
127.9
122.3
129.1
124.2
124.2
123.6
111.1
113.7
107.8
104.9
100.8
77.2
108.1
119.4
107.1
103.5
111.9
110.5
Apparel and upkeep ......................................................................
Apparel commodities ..................................................................
Men’s and boys' apparel..........................................................
Women's and girls' apparel .....................................................
Infants' and toddlers' apparel..................................................
Footwear...................................................................................
Other apparel commodities......................................................
Apparel services..........................................................................
105.9
104.2
106.2
104.0
111.8
101.9
101.7
115.1
110.6
108.9
109.1
110.4
112.1
105.1
108.0
119.6
Transportation ...............................................................................
Private transportation..................................................................
New vehicles.............................................................................
New cars................................................................................
Used cars .................................................................................
Motor fuel .................................................................................
Gasoline.................................................................................
Maintenance and repair............................................................
Other private transportation.....................................................
Other private transportation commodities.............................
Other private transportation services....................................
Public transportation...................................................................
102.3
101.2
110.6
110.6
108.8
77.1
77.0
110.3
115.1
96.3
118.8
117.0
Medical ca re ..................................................................................
Medical care commodities..........................................................
Medical care services.................................................................
Professional services ................................................................
Hospital and related services..................................................
1986
1987
109.6
328.4
Sept.
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS:
All items (1967 = 100) ......................................................................
Food and beverages .....................................................................
Cereals and bakery products.................................................
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs................................................
Dairy products........................................................................
Fruits and vegetables.............................................................
Other foods at hom e..............................................................
Sugar and sweets................................................................
Nonalcoholic beverages......................................................
Other prepared foods..........................................................
Food away from home .............................................................
Alcoholic beverages....................................................................
Housing ..........................................................................................
Renters' costs (12/82 = 100)..................................................
Rent, residential.....................................................................
Other renters’ costs ...............................................................
Homeowners' costs (12/82 = 100)...........................................
Owners’ equivalent rent (12/82 = 1 00)..................................
Household insurance (12/82 = 100)......................................
Maintenance and repairs..........................................................
Maintenance and repair services ..........................................
Maintenance and repair commodities...................................
Fuel and other utilities................................................................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
83
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
30. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers- U S citv
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated)
Annual
1987
1988
Series
1986
All ite m s......................
Commodities................
Food and beverages ...........
Commodities less food and beverages
Nondurables less food and beverages
Apparel commodities...................
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel
Durables....................
104.109.1
101
97.e
104.2
95.2
106.6
Services....................
Rent of shelter (12/82 = 100).......
Household services less rent o f shelter (12/82-100)
Transportation services............
Medical care services...........
Other services .......................
115.4
120.2
112 8
116.3
121.9
119.4
Special indexes:
All items less food ........
All items less shelter ............
All items less homeowners’ costs (12/82=100)
All items less medical care............
Commodities less fo o d ..........
Nondurables less food ..........
Nondurables less food and apparel .
Nondurables........................
Services less rent o f shelter (12/82 = 100)
Services less medical c a re ..........
Energy................................
All items less energy ................
All items less food and energy ......
Commodities less food and energy
Energy commodities .................
Services less energy..............
109.8
108.0
111.2
108.8
101.7
98.5
96.9
103.5
118.7
114.6
88.2
112.6
113.5
108.6
77.2
116.5
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1982-84 = $1.00 .................
1967 = $1.00.....................
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR URBAN WAGE EARNERS
AND CLERICAL WORKERS:
All item s..............................
All items (1967 = 100) ...........
1987
113.5
104.C
101.1
108.E
99.5
June
103.!
100.
107.!
99.!
July
100.5
125.-:
114.6
121.C
129.6
113.6
111.6
115.1
112.6
104.3
101.8
100.3
107.5
123.1
119.1
113.5
115.1
112.5
104.1
101.4
100.3
101.1
123.2
119.0
123.7
119.4
117.2
118.2
111.8
80.2
122.0
116.9
117.7
111.4
80.6
121.4
88.0
323.4
335.0
108.9
113.3
Sept.
103.6
100.6
125.9
113.1
121.9
130.0
125.7
91.3
30.5
Aug.
101.5
115.1
115.3
112.7
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
115.
109.
114.
106.
104..
115.109.5
114.5
106.5
104.5
114.C
101.6
109.6
115.
109.
114.
105.
103.
111.!
101.5
109.5
115.
109.
115.'
105.
102.
108.6
101.5
109./
116,(
109.
115.!
105.
101.E
108.C
101 .c
109./
116.
109.
116.
105.c
103.*
112."
101.!
109.!
117.
110.
116."
106.E
105.C
115.!
102.C
109.'
117.
111.
117.
107.<
105.114.!
103.C
109.E
118.0
111.1
117.6
107.1
104.9
112.9
103.2
110.2
101.6
101.5
115.8
115.5
13^ C
1J1 .3
121.E
128.C
113.5
123./
132.C
122.C
128.1
112.6
124.5
132.5
128.8
122.5
128.5
112.5
124.6
132.7
129.C
122.E
129.4
112.7
125.1
134.1
129.6
123.4
129.E
113.1
125.5
135.,130.2
123.6
130./
113.C
125.4
136.1
130.7
124.1
130.6
113.7
125.6
136.6
131.0
124.6
131 .C
114.C
126.7
137.2
131.1
125.5
131.5
116.6
127.6
137.9
131.6
115.9
116.5
115.5
113.2
116.6
115.7
113.3
116.8
114.4
106.7
104.8
102.4
109.5
124.6
120.8
89.0
119.2
120.5
114.1
83.1
124.2
115.5
113.2
116.6
114.3
106.0
103.7
102.1
109.1
124.6
121.0
88.3
119.2
120.4
113.5
82.0
124.4
115.7
113.3
116.9
114.b
105.5
102.8
101.9
109.1
125.3
121.7
87.4
119.7
120.8
113.2
80.0
125.2
116.0
113.5
117.1
114.8
105.4
102.7
101.9
109.0
125.8
122.1
87.0
120.0
121.1
113.3
78.8
125.7
116.6
114.C
117.7
115.3
106.3
104.1
101.9
109.8
126.0
122.4
86.5
120.6
121.9
114.6
78.0
126.1
117.2
114.7
118.4
115.9
107.3
105.6
102.9
111.0
126.5
122.8
87.3
121.2
122.4
115.5
79.7
126.5
117.6
115.2
118.8
116.3
107.6
106.0
103.8
111.4
127.1
123.2
88.7
121.5
122.7
115.5
81.4
126.9
118.1
115.7
119.3
116.8
107.4
105.5
104.0
111.4
128.4
124.1
91.0
121.8
123.0
115.4
81.4
127.4
86.7
86.5
28.9
86.6
28.9
86.4
28.8
86.2
28.8
85.8
28.7
85.4
28.5
85.1
28.4
84.7
28.3
114.1
340.0
114.3
340.4
114.2
340.2
114.5
341.0
114.7
341.6
115.1
343.0
115.7
344.7
116.2
346.1
116.7
347.6
114.1
114.1
112.2
115.7
112.0
106.7
117.5
110.5
111.6
107.3
106.9
114.5
118.2
114.9
114.1
114.0
111.9
116.2
111.2
106.7
117.4
110.1
111.2
107.9
105.2
114.9
118.5
115.2
114.5
114.5
112.5
116.9
110.1
106.4
123.0
109.8
110.9
107.6
104.9
114.8
118.8
115.1
115.4
115.4
113.7
118.1
110.8
107.1
125.7
111.3
112.1
108.4
107.2
115.7
119.1
115.6
115.5
115.4
113.5
118.8
110.5
107.0
124.0
111.7
112.1
109.5
107.9
115.8
119.6
116.6
115.7
115.6
113.5
118.9
111.1
106.9
122.2
111.9
112.4
110.3
108.0
116.0
120.0
117.3
116.3
116.2
114.2
119.9
111.4
106.9
125.2
112.0
112.2
110.2
107.9
116.4
120.6
117.9
116.8
116.7
114.7
120.4
112.0
107.2
126.4
112.2
112.4
111.0
107.7
116.8
120.9
118.0
117.4
117.3
115.5
120.8
114.5
107.0
125.5
112.3
113.1
111.4
107.3
116.9
121.4
118.4
114.0
113.9 114.1
120.9 121.2
115.9 115.9
124.6 125.3
128.1 124.5
116.2 116.6
116.2 116.6
115.9 116.1
112.7 112.5
116.5 115.9
106.9 107.1
102.0 101.7
95.1
94.8
80.1
80.2
101.1 100.7
121.2 120.9
107.0 106.9
103.1 102.9
112.8 112.9
111.4 111.6
114.6 115.0
121.9 122.4
116.9 117.3
125.7 126.1
129.2 130.0
117.1 117.6
117.1 117.6
116.7 116.7
113.0 113.6
117.1 117.6
106.9 107.5
102.0 102.5
95.2
95.6
80.4
80.6
101.2 101.6
121.2 121.8
107.1 107.2
103.0 103.1
113.5 113.6
111.7 111.8
115.4
122.9
118.4
126.2
136.9
117.8
117.8
117.2
112.8
116.6
107.1
102.3
95.4
80.2
101.4
121.7
107.8
104.1
113.4
111.9
115.6
123.0
118.4
126.3
136.1
118.0
118.0
117.3
114.7
119.8
107.5
102.5
95.4
79.9
101.4
122.3
108.7
104.2
114.3
115.6
116.0
123.4
118.6
126.6
136.2
118.4
118.5
117.3
113.7
117.6
107.9
103.0
96.1
79.7
102.2
122.5
108.8
104.2
114.5
115.7
116.9
123.9
119.3
126.9
138.8
118.8
118.8
118.0
113.9
117.9
107.9
105.5
100.5
78.9
107.5
122.2
109.1
104.6
115.1
115.7
115.2
110.3
113.9
116.3
115.7
114.1
106.3
104.6
102.1
109.4
124.6
120.8
89.8
118.9
10" c
102.0
124.2
118.0
111.2
Oct.
111.8
Oo. J
122.7
orw!
82.9
123.9
Food and beverages ...........
Food..............................
Food at home ......................
Cereals and bakery products....
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs.......
Dairy products.......................
Fruits and vegetables.......
Other foods at home....................
Sugar and sweets............
Fats and o ils ...........................
Nonalcoholic beverages.......
Other prepared foods............
Food away from home ............
Alcoholic beverages..........
107.1
110.9
104.4
103.2
109.4
109.1
109.0
106.4
110.0
109.0
112.5
111.1
114.8
110.4
105.7
118.8
110.4
110.9
114.8
110.4
107.5
113.6
116.9
113.9
106.8
113.5
Housing .........................
Shelter .......................
Renters’ costs (12/84 = 100)....
Rent, residential.....................
Other renters’ costs ...............
Homeowners' costs (12/84 = 100)
Owners’ equivalent rent (12/84 = 100)
Household insurance (12/84 = 100)
Maintenance and repairs.............
Maintenance and repair services ..
Maintenance and repair commodities.......
Fuel and other utilities...................
Fuels .........................
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ......
Gas (piped) and electricity .................
Other utilities and public services.........
Household furnishings and operations
Housefurnishings ................
Housekeeping supplies.............
Housekeeping services.........
109.5
118.2
119.1
108.8
108.8
109.4
107.7
110.5
103.1
103.9
99.2
77.8
105.7
117.7
105.0
101.9
108.5
109.1
114.6
122.9
128.2
113.8
113.7
114.1
111.3
114.7
106.0
102.7
97.1
77.6
103.6
120.1
106.7
103.1
111.8
110.9
114.2
129.7
113.2
113.2
113.8
111.0
113.9
106.3
104.6
100.7
77.0
108.0
119.4
106.7
102.9
112.1
110.9
106.3
104.7
100.2
76.9
107.4
120.4
106.8
103.1
112.1
111.1
105.6
101.3
77.5
108.6
121.0
106.9
103.3
111.9
111.2
105.2
100.8
77.3
108.1
120.7
107.1
103.4
112.2
111.3
116.0
124.5
129.3
115.9
115.9
115.8
112.2
116.0
106.3
102.8
96.5
78.2
103.0
121.1
107.0
103.1
112.7
111.4
Apparel and upkeep .........................
105.8
110.4
109.1
107.1
109.1
112.9
115.2
See footnotes at end of table.
Digitized
84for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
113 *"
11d.O
'
1110
i i o.y
114.2
113.4
113.4
114.6
114.8
]
^
112.6
110.0
30. Continued— Consumer Price Indexes for All Urban Consumers and for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers: U.S. city
average, by expenditure category and commodity or service group
(1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Series
1988
1987
Annual
average
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
111.5
109.8
115.2
113.9
106.0
109.8
119.4
113.9
111.5
118.2
118.6
107.9
110.4
120.3
113.9
112.0
117.6
118.7
108.6
110.5
120.7
111.1
110.4
112.6
116.4
108.0
110.6
120.9
108.6
108.6
108.2
115.2
106.8
112.2
121.1
108.3
108.7
107.9
113.3
106.4
112.0
121.5
112.4
111.1
114.9
116.0
107.7
112.8
121.6
114.9
112.2
118.8
119.1
109.6
113.9
122.0
114.3
113.0
116.7
119.7
109.9
114.0
122.2
112.6
112.1
113.5
118.8
109.6
113.5
122.4
106.3
105.5
113.5
114.0
115.5
84.5
84.4
115.4
118.7
96.7
123.1
120.8
106.4
105.5
113.3
113.8
115.9
84.1
84.1
116.0
119.1
97.3
123.4
121.4
106.9
106.1
114.5
114.9
116.1
83.3
83.2
116.3
121.0
97.7
125.8
120.7
107.6
106.7
115.9
116.2
116.4
83.3
83.2
116.7
122.0
97.2
127.1
121.2
107.3
106.4
116.1
116.3
116.2
82.0
81.9
117.0
122.0
97.4
127.1
121.3
106.8
105.9
115.8
115.9
115.9
79.7
79.5
117.4
122.9
98.1
128.0
121.2
106.4
105.6
115.7
116.0
116.0
78.3
78.1
117.8
123.2
98.0
128.5
120.4
106.2
105.3
115.3
115.7
116.1
77.5
77.3
118.6
123.1
98.1
128.2
120.8
106.8
105.9
115.3
115.7
116.6
79.4
79.2
118.9
123.0
97.9
128.3
121.7
107.8
107.0
115.6
116.0
116.9
81.4
81.3
119.4
124.3
98.6
129.7
121.8
108.2
107.3
115.8
116.2
117.5
81.4
81.3
119.8
125.2
98.5
130.8
122.3
130.8
130.9
130.8
129.6
131.4
131.4
131.3
131.4
130.2
132.4
132.0
131.9
132.0
130.9
132.8
132.6
132.6
132.6
131.4
133.7
133.0
133.4
133.0
131.7
134.9
133.4
134.1
133.2
132.0
135.4
134.6
134.7
134.6
133.4
136.9
135.8
135.4
135.8
134.7
138.4
136.5
136.1
136.6
135.5
139.3
137.1
137.2
137.1
136.1
140.1
137.8
138.0
137.7
136.6
141.2
138.5
138.3
138.5
137.7
141.5
114.5
110.5
121.2
115.0
110.9
121.8
115.1
110.8
122.2
115.6
110.9
123.2
116.3
111.3
124.3
116.7
112.2
124.1
116.9
112.6
124.0
117.4
112.8
124.9
117.6
112.9
125.2
118.2
113.5
126.0
118.9
114.2
126.5
119.0
114.6
126.3
119.4
114.9
126.8
127.8
133.7
115.0
113.9
116.1
138.2
137.9
138.4
126.6
132.5
114.8
113.6
116.0
136.4
136.4
136.7
127.5
135.1
115.1
114.1
116.2
136.7
136.4
137.0
128.0
135.4
115.4
114.3
116.7
137.4
136.6
137.7
130.3
136.0
115.8
114.6
117.1
141.8
140.7
142.1
130.8
136.5
116.1
115.0
117.3
142.4
141.8
142.7
131.0
136.7
116.2
115.0
117.4
142.8
141.8
143.1
131.3
137.2
116.4
115.1
117.8
143.0
141.9
143.3
132.7
141.0
117.1
116.0
118.3
143.4
143.9
143.6
133.6
142.3
117.5
116.2
118.9
144.3
145.3
144.5
134.0
143.0
117.7
116.5
119.0
144.6
145.2
144.8
134.2
143.1
118.1
117.0
119.3
144.7
145.4
144.9
134.5
143.4
118.5
117.1
119.9
145.2
145.4
145.4
135.0
143.8
118.8
117.4
120.2
145.8
145.6
146.0
108.6
103.9
108.9
100.8
97.3
104.2
95.3
104.9
112.5
107.3
113.3
103.6
100.8
108.8
99.2
106.6
112.4
107.3
113.6
103.4
100.4
107.4
99.3
106.6
112.7
107.3
113.5
103.5
100.4
105.3
100.3
106.9
113.3
107.9
113.6
104.3
101.8
107.4
101.4
106.8
113.8
108.5
114.0
105.1
103.1
111.5
101.5
106.9
114.1
108.9
114.1
105.7
103.8
113.9
101.3
107.4
114.3
109.1
114.1
106.0
104.0
113.9
101.6
108.0
114.2
108.9
114.5
105.4
102.8
111.1
101.2
108.0
114.5
108.8
115.4
104.7
101.7
108.6
100.8
107.9
114.7
108.7
115.5
104.5
101.4
108.3
100.5
107.9
115.1
109.3
115.7
105.3
102.7
112.4
100.4
108.0
115.7
110.1
116.3
106.3
104.3
114.9
101.6
108.1
116.2
110.5
116.8
106.7
104.8
114.3
102.6
108.4
116.7
110.7
117.4
106.5
104.3
112.6
102.8
108.7
Services..........................................................................................
Rent of shelter (1 2 /8 4 -1 0 0 ).....................................................
Household services less rent of shelter (12/84 —100)..............
Transportation services...............................................................
Medical care services.................................................................
Other services .............................................................................
114.7
109.0
103.9
115.4
122.0
118.7
119.4
114.0
104.0
120.8
130.3
124.7
119.3
113.5
105.7
120.2
130.0
123.7
119.7
114.0
105.9
120.6
130.8
124.1
120.4
114.9
106.6
120.7
131.4
124.6
120.9
115.2
106.3
121.2
132.0
126.9
121.1
115.9
104.2
122.5
132.6
127.7
121.2
116.1
103.4
123.5
133.0
127.8
121.3
116.4
103.1
123.6
133.2
127.9
122.0
117.1
103.5
124.1
134.6
128.5
122.5
117.5
103.9
124.4
135.8
129.0
122.8
118.0
103.8
124.5
136.6
129.5
123.1
118.2
104.4
124.8
137.1
129.8
123.6
118.5
104.9
125.8
137.7
130.0
124.5
119.0
107.2
126.6
138.5
130.5
Special indexes:
All Items less food ......................................................................
All items less shelter ..................................................................
All items less homeowners’ costs (12/84 —100).......................
All items less medical ca re .........................................................
Commodities less fo o d ................................................................
Nondurables less food ................................................................
Nondurables less food and apparel ...........................................
Nondurables................................................................................
Services less rent of shelter (12/84 —1 00)................................
Services less medical ca re .........................................................
Energy..........................................................................................
All items less energy ...................................................................
All items loss food and energy ..................................................
Commodities less food and energy............................................
Energy commodities ...................................................................
Services less energy...................................................................
108.5
107.4
102.8
107.8
101.2
98.0
96.4
103.3
107.1
113.9
87.4
111.5
112.3
107.6
77.2
115.8
112.2
111.0
106.4
111.5
103.9
101.4
100.0
107.2
110.8
118.2
88.0
116.0
116.8
110.8
80.3
121.2
112.1
111.1
106.4
111.5
103.7
101.0
100.0
107.2
111.1
118.1
90.1
115.7
116.3
110.5
80.7
120.6
112.4
111.2
106.6
111.7
103.8
101.1
101.0
107.2
111.5
118.5
90.5
115.9
116.6
110.3
82.0
121.1
113.1
111.8
107.1
112.3
104.6
102.4
101.9
107.9
112.0
119.2
92.2
116.4
117.2
110.8
84.1
121.8
113.7
112.4
107.7
112.9
105.4
103.6
102.0
108.8
112.5
119.7
91.8
117.1
117.9
111.8
83.8
122.4
114.0
112.6
107.8
113.1
105.9
104.2
101.9
109.2
112.2
119.9
89.3
117.7
118.7
112.7
83.0
123.1
114.3
112.7
108.0
113.3
106.3
104.4
102.2
109.2
112.2
119.9
88.6
118.0
119.1
113.1
83.2
123.4
114.1
112.5
107.8
113.2
105.6
103.3
101.8
108.8
112.2
120.1
87.8
118.0
119.0
112.6
82.1
123.7
114.2
112.7
108.0
113.4
105.0
102.4
101.5
108.8
112.8
120.7
86.8
118.5
119.3
112.3
80.0
124.3
114.4
112.8
108.1
113.6
104.9
102.2
101.4
108.7
113.2
121.1
86.3
118.7
119.6
112.4
78.7
124.8
115.0
113.2
108.6
114.0
105.7
103.4
101.4
109.4
113.4
121.4
85.8
119.3
120.3
113.5
77.9
125.2
115.5
113.9
109.2
114.6
106.6
104.9
102.5
110.5
113.9
121.7
86.7
119.9
120.8
114.3
79.7
125.6
116.0
114.4
109.7
115.0
107.0
105.4
103.4
111.0
114.4
122.2
88.1
120.2
121.1
114.4
81.5
126.0
116.5
115.0
110.2
115.6
106.9
105.0
103.6
111.1
115.7
123.1
90.3
120.5
121.4
114.3
81.4
126.5
Purchasing power of the consumer dollar:
1982-84 $1.00...........................................................................
1967 - S1.00................................................................................
92.0
30.9
89.0
29.9
88.9
29.9
88.7
29.8
88.2
29.6
87.8
29.5
87.6
29.4
87.4
29.4
87.5
29.4
87.3
29.3
87.2
29.3
86.8
29.2
86.4
29.0
86.1
28.9
85.7
28.8
June
July
Aug.
108.8
108.5
110.3
114.0
105.5
107.4
119.2
107.4
108.2
107.7
111.7
105.8
107.0
119.1
105.3
106.9
104.4
109.7
103.9
107.3
119.5
107.4
107.7
108.2
110.6
104.7
108.2
119.3
Motor fuel ..................................................................................
Gasoline..................................................................................
Maintenance and repair............................................................
Other private transportation.....................................................
Other private transportation commodities.............................
Other private transportation services....................................
Public transportation...................................................................
101.7
100.9
110.4
110.4
108.8
77.1
76.9
110.6
113.8
96.3
117.1
116.8
105.1
104.1
114.0
114.3
113.1
80.3
80.2
115.1
119.0
96.7
123.4
120.4
105.1
104.3
113.7
114.0
114.7
80.9
80.8
114.7
118.5
96.6
122.8
119.7
105.8
104.9
113.9
114.4
115.4
82.3
82.2
114.9
118.9
96.3
123.4
119.7
Medical care commodities ..........................................................
Medical care services..................................................................
Professional services................................................................
Hospital and related services ..................................................
122.0
122.2
122.0
120.9
122.6
130.2
130.2
130.3
129.0
131.1
130.0
130.1
130.0
128.9
130.0
Entertainment ................................................................................
Entertainment commodities ........................................................
Entertainment services................................................................
111.0
107.8
116.5
114.8
110.6
121.8
Other goods and services .............................................................
Tobacco products .......................................................................
Personal care...............................................................................
Toilet goods and personal care appliances.............................
Persona1care services .............................................................
Personal and educational expenses...........................................
School books and supplies......................................................
Personal and educational services ..........................................
120.9
124.8
111.9
111.2
112.6
128.5
127.8
128.6
All items ............................................................................................
Commodities..................................................................................
Food and beverages ...................................................................
Commodities less food and beverages......................................
Nondurables less food and beverages ....................................
Apparel commodities..............................................................
Nondurables less food, beverages, and apparel ..................
Durables....................................................................................
Apparel commodities..................................................................
Men’s and boys’ apparel..........................................................
Women’s and girls’ apparel .....................................................
Infants’ and toddlers’ apparel..................................................
Other apparel commodities......................................................
Apparel services..........................................................................
Private transportation..................................................................
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1986
1987
104.2
105.9
103.8
113.5
102.1
101.6
115.0
Sept.
85
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
31.
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items
(1982-84=100, unless otherwise indicated)
All Urban Consumers
Area1
U.S. city average
Region and area size3
Northeast urban................
Size A - More than
1,200,000
.
Size B - 500,000 to
1, 200,000
................................
Size C - 50,000 to
500.000 ...........................
North Central urban ..........
Size A - More than
1 200.000
Size B - 360,000 to
1,200,000
Size C - 50,000 to
360.000 ...........................
Size D - Nonmetro
politan (less
than 50,0000 ...................
South urban.......................
Size A - More than
1 200.000
Size B - 450,000 to
1,200,000
Size C - 50,000 to
450.000 ............................
Size D - Nonmetro
politan (less
than 50,000) ....................
West urban.........................
Size A - More than
1.250.000 .........................
Size B - 330,000 to
1.250.000 .........................
Size C - 50,000 to
330.000 ...........................
Size classes:
A ...............
B ...............
C ..............
D ..............
..............
.
.
............
Selected local areas
Chicago, ILNorthwestern IN ..............
Los Angeles-Long
Beach, Anaheim, C A ......
New York, NYNortheastern N J ...............
Philadelphia, PA-NJ...........
San FranciscoOakland, C A .....................
Baltimore, MD ...............
Boston, MA ...................
Cleveland, O H ...............
Miami, F L ......................
St. Louis, MO-IL............
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Dallas-Ft. Worth, T X ......
Detroit, M l.....................
Houston, TX ..................
Pittsburgh, PA ...............
Pricing
sehedule2
Other
index
1987
1987
198R
June
July
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
June
July
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
M
113.5
113.6
116.C
116.'
117.1
117.'
118.C
112.4
112."
114.'
115.1
115.'
116.2
116.7
M
115.6
116.C
119.2
119.6
120.4
120.-
121.4
114.9
115.2
118.1
118.4
119.2
119.5
120.2
M
116.8
116.9
119.9
120.4
121.3
121.6
122.C
115.2
115.4
118.C
118.5
119.C
119.5
120.0
M
113.1
113.5
117.C
117.6
118.2
118.9
119.9
112.2
112.5
116.C
116.4
117.C
117.7
118.7
M
M
114.3
112.1
115.0
112.3
117.2
113.7
117.2
114.3
118.2
114.9
118.7
115.5
119.8
116.0
116.7
110.2
117.3
110.4
119.8
111.8
119.8
112.3
120.7
113.0
121.2
113.6
122.2
114.1
M
-
113.0
113.2
114.7
115.1
115.7
116.0
117.0
110.6
110.7
112.1
112.5
113.1
113.5
114.4
M
-
111.5
111.5
113.5
114.2
115.0
115.7
115.6
109.0
109.0
111.1
111.8
112.6
113.4
113.3
M
-
111.7
111.9
113.4
114.6
115.2
116.1
116.1
110.7
110.8
112.3
113.4
114.0
114.9
114.9
M
M
-
109.9
112.2
110.2
112.6
110.5
114.4
111.1
114.8
111.8
115.4
112.2
115,6
112.8
116.1
109.5
111.8
110.0
112.1
110.2
113.8
110.6
114.2
111.3
114.7
111.9
114.9
112.4
115.5
M
-
113.1
113.5
115.2
115.5
116.0
116.7
117.2
112.4
112.8
114.4
114.7
115.1
115.7
116.4
M
-
112.5
112.7
115.1
115.8
116.3
116.2
116.7
110.8
111.1
113.0
113.6
114.1
114.0
114.7
111.7
112.1
113.4
114.0
114.5
114.6
114.9
112.2
112.5
113.8
114.3
114.9
115.0
115.3
110.3
114.2
110.8
114.3
112.7
116.9
112.7
117.5
113.6
117.9
113.7
118.5
114.5
118.7
111.0
113.1
111.6
113.2
113.4
115.6
113.4
116.2
114.2
116.6
114.4
117.2
115.3
117.4
M
M
M
-
M
-
115.2
115.4
118.2
118.9
119.2
120.1
120.2
112.9
113.0
115.6
116.2
116.6
117.4
117.5
M
-
113.0
113.1
115.6
115.9
-
-
-
113.3
113.4
115.7
116.0
-
-
-
M
-
113.7
113.8
115.9
116.2
116.8
116.5
117.2
113.0
113.2
115.3
115.6
116.2
115.9
116.6
M
M
M
M
12/86
“
“
103.0
112.5
112.6
110.9
103.2
112.7
112.9
111.3
105.3
115.2
114.6
113.1
105.7
115.8
115.1
113.5
106.3
116.4
115.8
114.1
106.7
116.7
116.1
114.3
107.2
117.2
116.5
115.0
103.1
111.3
112.9
111.1
103.3
111.5
113.2
111.6
105.2
113.8
114.9
113.4
105.6
114.3
115.4
113.7
106.1
114.9
116.1
114.3
106.6
115.3
116.4
114.6
107.1
115.8
116.8
115.3
115.2
M
-
115.5
115.9
116.6
116.9
117.1
117.0
118.9
112.0
112.4
112.9
113.2
113.3
113.3
M
-
116.5
116.5
1.19.7
120.6
121.1
122.0
122.0
113.8
113.8
116.6
117.5
118.0
118.9
118.9
M
M
-
117.8
117.4
117.9
117.4
121.1
119.3
121.5
119.6
122.6
120.0
122.7
120.9
123.1
121.9
116.5
117.2
116.5
117.3
119.3
119.0
119.7
119.5
120.6
119.8
120.7
120.8
121 2
121.8
M
-
115.0
115.8
117.9
119.1
118.7
119.7
120.1
114.0
114.7
117.0
117.9
117.8
118.7
119.0
1
1
-
-
1
117.7
122.1
115.1
115.1
114.2
119.2
-
117.8
123.1
116.6
116.2
114.1
120.1
_
“
“
“
_
“
“
“
115.0
116.3
112.8
112.0
112.7
116.2
-
-
_
_
_
-
117.3
121.8
110.2
114.3
113.8
118.5
117.4
123.1
111.7
115.1
113.7
119.3
-
“
“
112.9
111.1
106.5
111.1
-
114.0
113.7
108.0
113.3
-
115.4
114.4
108.2
114.5
-
115.6
115.4
109.4
114.3
112.6
108.6
106.4
106.8
-
1154
112 7
109.4
110.0
2
2
2
2
1
u,o
ivicuu(juiuaii oiansncai Area (u m s a ), exclu
sive of farms and military. Area definitions are those established by the Of
fice of Management and Budget in 1983, except for Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH Area (excludes Monroe County); and Milwaukee, Wl Area (in
cludes only the Milwaukee MSA). Definitions do not include revisions made
since 1983.
2
Foods, fuels, and several other items priced every month in all areas;
most other goods and services priced as indicated:.
M - Every month.
1 - January, March, May, July, September, and November.
2 - February, April, June, August, October, and December.
86FRASER
Digitized for
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Urban Wage Earners
1988
.
114.7
116.4
108.1
111.3
112.5
115.3
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
113.8
110.9
108.1
108.9
_
_
-
114.8
111.9
108.1
110.1
3 Regions are defined as the four Census regions.
- Data not available.
NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI pro
gram. Because each local index is a small subset of the national index, it
has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substantially more
sampling and other measurement error than the national index. As a result,
local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although
their long-term trends are quite similar. Therefore, the Bureau of Labor Sta
tistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI
for use in escalator clauses.
32.
Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups
(1982-84 = 100)
Series
1979
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
All items:
1980
1981
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
72.6
11.3
82.4
13.5
90.9
10.3
96.5
6.2
99.6
3.2
103.9
4.3
107.6
3.6
109.6
1.9
113.6
3.6
79.9
10.7
86.7
8.5
93.5
7.8
97.3
4.1
99.5
2.3
103.2
3.7
105.6
2.3
109.1
3.3
113.5
4.0
70.1
12.3
81.1
15.7
90.4
11.5
96.9
7.2
99.5
2.7
103.6
4.1
107.7
4.0
110.9
3.0
114.2
3.0
84.9
4.3
90.9
7.1
95.3
4.8
97.8
2.6
100.2
2.5
102.1
1.9
105.0
2.8
105.9
.9
110.6
4.4
70.5
14.3
83.1
17.9
93.2
12.2
97.0
4.1
99.3
2.4
103.7
4.4
106.4
2.6
102.3
-3.9
105.4
3.0
67.5
9.2
74.9
11.0
82.9
10.7
92.5
11.6
100.6
8.8
106.8
6.2
113.5
6.3
122.0
7.5
130.1
6.6
76.7
6.7
83.6
9.0
90.1
7.8
96.0
6.5
100.1
4.3
103.8
3.7
107.9
3.9
111.6
3.4
115.3
3.3
68.9
7.2
75.2
9.1
82.6
9.8
91.1
10.3
101.1
11.0
107.9
6.7
114.5
6.1
121.4
6.0
128.5
5.8
73.1
11.4
82.9
13.4
91.4
10.3
96.9
6.0
99.8
3.0
103.3
3.5
106.9
3.5
108.6
1.6
112.5
3.6
Food and beverages:
Housing:
Apparel and upkeep:
Transportation:
Medical care:
Entertainment:
Other goods and services:
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers:
All items:
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1982
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
33.
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
(1982=100)
Annual average
1987
Grouping
Finished goods ...................................
Finished consumer goods ..................
Finished consumer foods.................
Finished consumer goods excluding
foods ...............................................
Nondurable goods less food ........
Durable goods ...............................
Capital equipment...............................
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components.............................................
Materials and components for
manufacturing ........................................
Materials for food manufacturing.........
Materials for nondurable manufacturing
Materials for durable manufacturing.....
Components for manufacturing............
Materials and components for
construction.............................................
Processed fuels and lubricants................
Containers................................................
Supplies....................................................
Crude materials for further processing
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs .....................
Crude nonfood materials.......................
Special groupings
Finished goods, excluding fo o d s.................
Finished energy goods ...............................
Finished goods less energy ........................
Finished consumer goods less energy.......
Finished goods less food and energy ........
Finished consumer goods less food and
energy.........................................................
Consumer nondurable goods less food and
energy.........................................................
1988
1986
1987
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
103.2
101.4
107.3
105.4
103.6
109.5
106.0
104.4
110.9
105.9
104.3
109.5
105.7
104.2
110.5
106.2
104.4
109.7
106.3
104.5
109.8
105.8
104.0
108.9
106.3
104.5
110.5
106.1
104.1
109.4
106.2
104.3
110.0
106.9
105.1
110.2
107.5
105.7
111.3
107 9
106 1
112.5
98.5
93.3
108.9
109.7
100.7
94.9
111.5
111.7
101.2
95.7
111.3
111.6
101.8
96.6
110.9
111.7
101.1
96.1
110.0
111.2
101.9
95.8
113.4
112.5
101.9
95.9
113.0
112.5
101.6
95.9
112.2
112.4
101.5
95.5
112.6
112.9
101.5
95.5
112.8
113.2
101.4
95.4
112.7
113.2
102.5
96.9
112.8
113.6
102.9
97.4
112.9
113.9
103 0
97 3
1133
114.2
99.1
101.5
102.1
102.5
102.7
103.1
103.4
103.6
104.2
104.3
104.6
105.5
106.2
107.4
102.2
98.4
98.1
101.2
107.5
105.3
100.8
102.2
106.2
108.8
105.5
102.7
102.6
106.2
108.7
105.8
101.5
102.9
107.1
108.8
106.3
102.8
103.4
108.1
109.0
107.2
101.9
104.5
110.2
109.3
107.5
100.6
104.9
111.1
109.5
108.1
99.9
105.5
112.9
109.8
109.5
101.9
107.5
114.5
110.5
109.9
102.0
108.5
113.9
110.8
110.4
101.7
109.5
114.5
111.1
111.5
102.8
110.9
116.6
111.4
112.2
104.2
111.6
117.5
111.7
113 0
107 0
112 2
118 4
112.3
108.1
72.7
110.3
105.6
109.8
73.3
114.5
107.7
109.8
76.0
114.2
107.8
110.2
77.3
114.4
107.8
110.7
75.9
115.4
108.2
111.2
74.6
116.1
108.8
111.9
74.4
116.5
109.5
112.4
72.9
116.1
109.9
113.6
70.7
116.6
110.5
113.8
70.2
116.9
110.6
114.2
69.7
117.5
111.1
115.0
70.5
118.2
111.7
115.2
71.5
119.3
112.3
115 9
73 3
119 9
114.0
87.7
93.2
81.6
93.7
96.2
87.9
96.0
98.4
90.3
96.5
97.1
91.8
95.7
96.6
90.8
95.3
96.1
90.5
94.7
95.3
90.1
94.4
95.9
89.2
93.7
97.2
87.3
94.7
99.7
87.4
94.1
99.7
86.4
95.7
101.2
88.0
97.1
104.5
88.2
98 2
108.4
87.5
101.9
63.0
109.7
109.7
110.6
104.0
61.8
112.3
112.5
113.3
104.3
63.4
112.7
113.1
113.3
104.7
64.9
112.3
112.6
113.4
104.2
63.4
112.4
112.8
113.1
105.1
62.4
113.1
113.4
114.5
105.1
62.5
113.2
113.4
114.5
104.9
61.4
112.9
113.1
114.5
104.9
59.2
113.9
114.3
115.2
105.0
58.5
113.8
114.0
115.5
105.0
58.1
114.0
114.3
115.6
105.8
60.9
114.3
114.5
115.9
106.2
61.5
114.9
115.2
116.2
106.4
60 8
115 5
115 9
116.5
111.1
114.2
114.2
114.3
.114.1
115.6
115.6
115.7
116.5
116.8
117.0
117.2
117.5
117.9
113.1
116.3
116.5
116.9
117.3
117.4
117.6
118.4
119.5
119.9
120.2
120.5
120.9
121.3
. June
Intermediate materials less foods and
fe e d s..................................................
Intermediate foods and feeds.............
Intermediate energy goods .................
Intermediate goods less energy.........
Intermediate materials less foods and
energy.................................................
99.3
96.2
72.6
104.5
101.7
99.2
73.0
107.3
102.2
100.7
75.7
107.4
102.7
99.6
77.0
107.7
102.8
101.0
75.6
108.3
103.2
100.6
74.4
109.1
103.6
101.4
74.1
109.5
103.7
102.0
72.7
110.1
104.2
102.9
70.5
111.2
104.4
101.9
70.0
111.4
104.8
102.0
69.4
111.8
105.7
103.5
70.2
112.8
106.3
104.9
71.2
113.5
107.1
112 0
73 0
114.5
104.9
107.8
107.9
108.2
108.7
109.6
110.1
110.6
111.8
112.2
112.8
113.7
114.3
114.9
Crude energy materials......................
Crude materials less energy ..............
Crude nonfood materials less energy .
71.8
95.4
103.1
75.0
100.9
115.7
77.8
102.4
115.7
78.9
102.3
118.7
76.7
103.0
122.9
75.4
103.6
126.4
74.7
103.1
127.1
73.6
103.7
127.3
70.8
105.1
129.2
70.4
107.6
131.6
68.8
107.9
132.8
70.5
109.2
133.6
71.4
110.9
131.1
70 7
113 8
131.0
Digitized for
88FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
34.
Producer Price indexes, by durability of product
(1982 = 100)
Annual average
1987
1988
Grouping
1986
1987
July
Aug.
Total durable goods ....................................
Total nondurable goods...............................
107.5
94.8
109.9
97.5
109.7
98.8
110.0
99.0
Total manufactures......................................
Durable......................................................
Nondurable ................................................
101.7
107.5
96.0
104.4
109.6
99.2
104.8
109.4
100.1
Total raw or slightly processed goods .......
Durable......................................................
Nondurable ................................................
92.3
107.8
91.5
94.2
122.6
92.9
96.2
121.8
95.0
35.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
110.2
98.8
111.4
98.5
111.7
98.6
112.0
98.3
112.8
98.5
113.0
98.6
113.2
98.7
113.8
99.8
114.0
100.8
114.5
101.9
105.1
109.7
100.5
105.1
109.7
100.4
105.8
110.9
100.7
106.0
111.1
100.9
106.0
111.4
100.6
106.6
112.2
101.1
106.8
112.4
101.3
107.0
112.5
101.6
107.8
113.1
102.6
108.5
113.4
103.7
109.1
113.9
104.4
96.2
125.7
94.7
95.9
130.9
94.3
94.9
137.3
92.9
94.7
138.0
92.6
94.5
138.3
92.4
94.0
139.9
91.9
94.1
144.6
91.8
93.8
145.7
91.4
94.9
146.6
92.5
95.6
142.9
93.4
97.7
144.0
95.5
Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing
(1982 = 100)
Index
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.6
101.3
102.8
103.7
103.3
105.2
104.7
103.8
107.5
103.2
101.4
109.7
105.4
103.6
111.7
Finished goods:
Total ....................................................................
Consumer goods .............................................
Capital equipment ...........................................
77.6
77.5
77.5
88.0
88.6
85.8
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components:
Total ....................................................................
Materials and components for
manufacturing.................................................
Materials and components for construction ....
Processed fuels and lubricants ......................
Containers .......................................................
Supplies...........................................................
78.4
90.3
98.6
100.0
100.6
103.1
102.7
99.1
101.5
80.9
84.2
61.6
79.4
80.2
91.7
91.3
85.0
89.1
89.9
98.7
97.9
100.6
96.7
96.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.2
102.8
95.4
100.4
101.8
104.1
105.6
95.7
105.9
104.1
103.3
107.3
92.8
109.0
104.4
102.2
108.1
72.7
110.3
105.6
105.3
109.8
73.3
114.5
107.7
Crude materials for further processing:
Total ....................................................................
Foodstuffs and feedstuffs ...............................
Nonfood materials except fuel .......................
Fuel .................................................................
85.9
100.0
69.6
57.3
95.3
104.6
84.6
69.4
103.0
103.9
101.8
84.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.3
101.8
100.7
105.1
103.5
104.7
102.2
105.1
95.8
94.8
96.9
102.7
87.7
93.2
81.6
92.2
93.7
96.2
87.9
84.1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
96.1
96.6
94.6
89
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
36.
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification
(June 1977=100, unless otherwise indicated)
Category
1974
SITO
ALL COMMODITIES (9 /8 3 =10 0 )......................
1985
Sept.
1986
Dec.
Mar.
1987
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
1988
June
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
99.6
99.7
99.4
99.1
97.9
99.0
99.9
102.2
102.8
104.9
106.5
Food (3/83 = 100)......................................
Meat (3 /8 3 =10 0 )..........................................
Fish (3/83 = 100) .......................................
Grain and grain preparations (3/80=100) ...............................................
Vegetables and fruit (3/83 = 100) ................................
Feedstuffs for animals (3/83 = 100).....................................
Misc. food products (3/83 —100)............................................
0
01
03
04
05
08
09
97.3
99.7
100.7
93.8
104.8
101.7
99.9
100.7
103.6
100.6
98.8
98.2
114.0
99.5
97.2
102.5
100.2
91.7
98.6
120.0
98.0
97.1
105.2
108.6
89.0
108.6
114.8
97.0
86.0
111.3
111.9
66.3
114.6
123.9
98.7
90.1
114.5
115.9
72.5
117.5
119.7
99.9
87.3
115.0
117.1
68.3
115.3
117.0
100.1
89.9
121.2
125.8
71.0
112.4
123.8
100.6
86.7
118.8
131.1
67.8
101.1
123.1
100.3
94.6
116.8
138.5
77.4
100.5
145.2
100.3
95.2
122.8
140.9
79.8
97.5
134.6
102.3
Beverages and tobacco (6/83 = 100)..............................................
Beverages (9/83 = 100)................................
Tobacco and tobacco products (6 /8 3 -1 0 0 )...........................................
1
11
12
100.2
100.2
99.4
99.5
96.6
96.3
97.4
97.1
97.3
_
97.0
102.6
_
102.6
102.6
_
102.6
105.0
_
105.0
105.5
_
105.5
107.0
_
107.0
109.6
_
109.8
Crude materials (6/83 = 100)....................................
Raw hides and skins (6/80 = 100) ...............................................
Oilseeds and oleaginous fruit (9/77 = 100)........................................
Crude rubber (including synthetic and reclaimed) (9/83 = 100)...............
W ood......................................................
Pulp and waste paper (6/83 = 100) ..................................................
Textile fibers............................................
Crude fertilizers and minerals..........................................................
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap ..........................................................
2
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
98.3
100.8
94.9
100.6
98.0
97.3
101.7
100.8
97.4
98.1
110.0
94.7
99.7
101.9
96.7
96.4
99.2
94.8
101.4
108.7
99.1
99.7
101.5
104.2
100.2
100.0
100.3
102.2
117.1
98.1
99.9
101.2
116.4
98.0
98.4
98.0
99.6
108.3
97.5
99.6
102.9
129.0
73.0
98.0
100.4
102.4
115.9
95.2
98.9
107.9
129.4
90.9
96.8
96.8
105.7
131.9
90.4
99.9
111.2
144.2
97.8
94.4
98.8
114.5
149.6
101.6
101.0
116.2
149.9
112.4
94.0
107.0
118.7
147.7
95.1
102.8
141.7
153.0
116.5
91.6
117.4
125.2
157.1
109.6
105.3
146.0
160.4
111.6
91.6
125.9
130.0
171.4
115.6
104.5
150.2
171.2
107.5
92.8
131.8
3
99.5
97.0
83.6
76.8
77.4
77.8
81.3
82.8
84.6
82.5
79.3
Animal and vegetables oils, fats, and waxes.........................................
Fixed vegetable oils and fats (6/83 = 1 00)......................................
4
42
91.2
93.3
82.5
80.3
74.3
71.3
67.7
70.6
62.1
60.2
71.8
64.6
73.9
67.3
78.8
71.9
78.5
71.2
81.6
75.4
92.7
85.7
Chemicals (3/83 = 1 00).....................................
Organic chemicals (12/83 = 100) .................................
Fertilizers, manufactured (3/83 = 100)..................................
5
51
56
100.2
101.0
99.9
99.6
99.2
100.5
99.8
98.5
98.9
98.0
93.1
93.0
95.7
91.6
85.1
95.2
92.4
77.4
99.6
101.9
85.6
106.7
118.4
91.6
107.7
116.1
100.9
112.9
123.5
106.5
117.9
135.1
110.6
Intermediate manufactured products (9/81 = 1 0 0 )................
Leather and furskins (9/79 = 100)..........................................
Rubber manufactures ................................................
Paper and paperboard products (6/78 = 100)......................................
Iron and steel (3/82 = 100) .....................
Nonferrous metals (9/81 = 100) ....................................
Metal manufactures, n.e.s. (3/82 = 100) ................
6
61
62
64
67
68
69
99.8
97.0
99.5
99.2
99.7
99.3
100.0
99.8
98.0
99.7
97.9
100.9
98.9
100.2
101.3
97.3
100.7
100.5
100.3
104.2
100.4
102.5
103.8
100.1
104.7
100.2
103.1
100.8
103.8
104.2
100.5
109.1
102.3
105.3
100.8
104.2
107.8
100.9
110.8
101.9
102.6
100.8
106.4
123.6
102.0
114.7
102.9
106.6
101.5
107.9
126.9
102.5
117.0
102.9
113.0
101.3
110.3
128.7
103.9
120.1
100.7
123.0
102.3
111.2
118.0
104.1
122.4
102.9
124.4
103.4
114.4
125.7
105.2
126.2
106.1
134.0
104.5
Machinery and transport equipment, excluding military
and commercial aircraft (12/78 ^ 100) ................
Power generating machinery and equipment (12/78 = 100) ....................
Machinery specialized for particular industries (9/78-100) ....................
Metalworking machinery (6/78=100) ...................
General industrial machines and parts n.e.s. 9/78 100)
Office machines and automatic data processing equipment ...................
Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equipment
Electrical machinery and equipment...................................
Road vehicles and parts (3/80 = 100)....................
Other transport equipment, excl. military and commercial aviation .......
7
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
100.1
100.1
100.2
100.4
100.4
99.7
99.9
100.0
100.1
100.8
100.2
101.3
100.4
101.3
100.4
99.1
100.1
98.9
100.9
101.1
100.7
102.3
100.6
101.9
100.9
99.9
99.2
99.5
101.0
102.1
100.8
102.4
100.3
102.0
101.6
99.0
98.9
99.2
101.7
103.1
101.0
102.5
100.4
103.0
102.5
98.8
99.7
99.7
101.9
102.8
101.6
103.7
100.6
104.2
103.3
98.2
101.3
100.3
103.3
103.5
101.7
104.6
100.0
105.8
104.2
96.0
101.9
101.7
103.1
104.5
101.8
103.7
100.1
106.7
104.5
96.1
101.4
102.1
103.5
105.5
102.1
104.8
100.5
107.8
104.6
95.7
101.4
102.5
103.8
105.8
102.4
105.2
100.9
108.2
105.4
95.5
101.9
101.8
104.6
106.6
103.2
107.0
102.1
109.3
106.7
95.8
102.8
103.1
104.5
107.4
8
84
87
100.1
_
100.5
100.3
100.6
102.3
_
102.0
103.5
_
103.1
103.4
_
103.0
103.8
_
103.5
104.6
_
104.4
105.2
105.4
_
106.3
105.6
_
106.9
105.5
107.1
110.0
88
99.2
100.1
101.9
102.6
102.4
102.1
102.7
102.5
99.0
97.9
97.6
89
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
971
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mineral fuels.........................................
Other manufactured articles ............................
Apparel (9/83 = 100) ...........................
Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and apparatus ...
Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches and
clocks (12/77=100)..........................................
Miscellaneous manufactured articles, n.e.s..............................
Gold, non-monetary (6/83=100).................
- Data not available.
Digitized for
90FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
_
_
37.
U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification
(June 1977 = 100, unless otherwise indicated)
Category
1974
SITC
Mar.
98.6
ALL COMMODITIES (9 /8 2 -1 0 0 )...............................................................
June
98.7
1988
1987
1986
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
101.1
102.3
Dec.
Mar.
June
Sept.
106.5
110.0
110.9
112.5
113.8
108.3
108.0
122.3
126.0
109.1
114.4
121.7
130.4
112.5
113.4
125.1
131.0
114.1
111.5
125.6
132.5
Food (9 /7 7 -1 0 0 )........................................................................................
Meat ...........................................................................................................
Dairy products and eggs (6/81 =100) ....................................................
0
01
02
03
113.7
98.7
108.0
107.0
107.3
96.0
108.7
110.5
112.0
104.3
111.3
114.1
109.1
109.2
113.8
119.1
105.2
105.0
119.3
121.8
Bakery goods, pasta products, grain and grain preparations
(9/77-100) ..............................................................................................
Fruits and vegetables ...............................................................................
Sugar, sugar preparations, and honey (3 /8 2 -1 0 0 ).................................
Coffee, tea, cocoa.....................................................................................
04
05
06
07
110.4
97.6
106.8
143.7
112.5
100.0
104.6
117.2
117.8
106.0
106.2
121.5
118.8
104.3
106.5
104.9
122.3
101.9
107.4
89.9
126.2
110.1
109.6
87.0
124.8
110.0
109.0
85.1
130.7
116.2
107.0
90.6
135.8
115.4
109.6
94.3
Beverages and tobacco ............................................................................
Beverages .................................................................................................
1
11
103.4
104.4
105.2
106.1
103.9
107.5
106.8
109.5
107.8
112.1
112.8
114.2
112.2
114.8
113.5
116.2
116.0
118.7
Crude materials ..........................................................................................
Crude rubber (inc. synthetic & reclaimed) (3/84 = 100)...........................
Wood (9/81-100) ....................................................................................
Pulp and waste paper (12/81 =100) ........................................................
Crude fertilizers and crude minerals (12/83-100) ..................................
Metalliferous ores and metal scrap (3/84 = 100).....................................
Crude vegetable and animal materials, n.e.s.............................................
2
23
24
25
27
28
29
103.2
104.8
101.8
94.1
99.5
112.1
111.4
106.4
99.5
104.3
100.3
99.0
121.6
111.3
109.5
97.7
107.6
108.0
98.4
124.8
112.4
109.1
98.4
104.8
116.9
98.6
118.3
111.9
115.1
98.4
113.5
127.0
98.2
122.8
113.0
116.2
103.7
110.2
132.0
99.6
124.5
109.0
120.3
110.7
117.4
133.4
99.2
128.7
107.6
122.1
120.1
108.8
141.0
99.9
137.9
118.3
129.2
121.7
112.4
151.0
100.4
151.2
135.8
Fuels and related products (6/82 = 100).................................................
Petroleum and petroleum products (6/82 —100) ......................................
3
33
60.8
58.4
51.5
49.0
52.2
50.0
55.9
55.0
67.4
67.4
74.1
74.4
74.3
75.2
67.2
67.8
60.6
60.4
Fats and oils (9/83-100) ..........................................................................
Vegetable oils (9/83 = 100).......................................................................
4
42
68.3
-
66.7
-
61.2
“
83.4
“
82.9
“
87.9
“
96.4
100.0
102.1
105.7
106.4
111.1
Chemicals (9/82 = 100) ...............................................................................
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products (3/84-100) ..............................
Manufactured fertilizers (3/84 = 100)........................................................
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s. (9 /8 4 -1 0 0 )..............................
5
54
56
59
100.3
109.5
91.4
108.8
99.7
111.2
93.0
110.1
99.8
115.9
89.8
111.3
99.0
113.6
89.9
112.7
102.6
120.1
92.9
115.1
104.8
123.4
94.6
117.7
105.6
124.3
109.3
120.6
110.1
126.3
133.6
124.8
114.2
135.3
133.7
138.7
Intermediate manufactured products (12/77-100) ..............................
Leather and furskins .................................................................................
Rubber manufactures, n.e.s.......................................................................
Cork and wood manufactures ..................................................................
Paper and paperboard products ...............................................................
Textiles.......................................................................................................
Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s...................................................
Iron and steel (9/78 = 100) .......................................................................
Nonferrous metals (12/81-100) ..............................................................
Metal manufactures, n.e.s..........................................................................
6
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
102.1
105.3
100.2
108.0
100.5
103.9
106.9
99.1
98.0
104.8
103.6
106.3
101.2
111.0
100.8
105.4
110.5
98.9
98.9
107.9
105.8
108.8
102.0
112.7
101.0
107.4
116.6
100.0
103.3
107.7
106.7
107.2
101.8
117.4
104.9
107.9
117.9
100.9
101.5
108.3
108.6
110.9
104.3
118.0
104.8
110.4
120.5
102.7
102.5
112.1
112.5
116.6
104.6
124.3
104.9
111.8
126.7
106.6
112.4
112.7
116.3
117.8
103.2
128.3
110.3
114.6
130.4
109.4
120.9
114.6
119.8
124.4
104.6
128.2
112.3
118.6
133.4
114.0
125.8
117.8
124.4
131.8
106.0
133.8
117.2
120.0
137.4
120.0
132.7
121.1
Machinery and transport equipment (6 /8 1 -1 0 0 ).................................
Machinery specialized for particular Industries (9/78-100) ....................
Metalworking machinery (3/80-100) ......................................................
General industrial machinery and parts, n.e.s. (6/81-100) ...................
Office machines and automatic data processing equipment
(3 /8 0 -1 0 0 ).............................................................................................
Telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing apparatus
(3 /8 0 -1 0 0 ).............................................................................................
Electrical machinery and equipment (12/81 = 100) ..................................
Road vehicles and parts (6/81 - 1 0 0 ) ......................................................
7
72
73
74
107.0
113.2
113.6
111.2
110.4
116.9
113.0
116.2
113.0
122.7
117.7
119.9
114.4
123.0
120.9
120.9
117.5
130.4
126.4
127.9
119.9
136.1
128.1
130.8
119.9
134.3
130.2
130.1
123.1
142.1
135.5
137.0
125.4
146.8
139.9
140.4
75
104.8
109.1
109.9
108.9
110.0
114.0
114.8
118.3
118.1
76
77
78
102.8
103.1
107.9
106.4
106.4
110.8
109.2
108.8
112.9
108.9
109.8
116.1
110.5
112.4
118.6
110.3
115.8
120.5
110.2
115.1
120.6
112.1
118.2
122.6
112.8
122.2
125.5
Mise, manufactured articles (3 /8 0 -1 0 0 ).................................................
Plumbing, heating, and lighting fixtures (6/80-100) ...............................
Furniture and parts (6/80 —100) ...............................................................
Clothing (9/77-100) ................................................................................
Footwear....................................................................................................
Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments and
apparatus (12/79 —100)...........................................................................
Photographic apparatus and supplies, optical goods, watches, and
clocks (3 /8 0 -1 0 0 )..................................................................................
Mise, manufactured articles, n.e.s. (6/82-100) ......................................
8
81
82
84
85
105.1
105.7
107.1
100.4
107.1
106.8
108.6
108.0
100.7
108.0
109.7
111.1
110.7
101.7
110.7
110.3
110.8
112.3
102.6
112.3
114.5
111.6
114.8
106.4
114.8
117.8
117.0
119.8
109.2
119.8
118.5
116.2
119.0
111.9
119.0
121.8
121.0
124.3
112.3
124.3
124.2
123.4
125.4
115.6
125.4
87
112.1
117.9
122.6
122.5
131.3
135.9
132.7
138.7
140.0
88
89
110.5
~
113.8
“
118.0
119.0
123.7
126.0
122.1
127.3
129.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
Gold, non-monetary (6 /8 2 -1 0 0 )..............................................................
Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
971
-
-
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
38.
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics: Price Data
U.S. export price indexes by end-use category
(September 1983 = 100 unless otherwise indicated)
Category
Foods, feeds, and beverages ..............................
Raw materials....................................
Capital goods (12/82 = 100)............................
Automotive vehicles, parts and engines (12/82 = 100) .
Consumer goods.....................
Durables .................................................
Nondurables...........................................
39.
Per
centage
of 1980
trade
value
16.294
30.696
30.186
7.483
7.467
3.965
3.501
1986
Mar.
June
96.7
97.7
100.6
101.2
102.2
101.1
103.7
1987
Sept.
96.2
96.0
100.6
101.9
103.3
102.8
103.7
87.2
95.1
100.7
102.3
103.6
102.9
103.8
Dec.
90.2
96.3
101.1
103.5
105.2
104.9
104.3
Mar.
June
87.4
100.8
101.4
103.4
105.9
105.5
105.4
1988
Sept.
91.5
106.1
101.6
103.6
106.3
106.6
104.3
88.0
109.1
101.8
104.0
106.9
107.3
104.6
Dec.
96.6
111.8
102.1
104.5
108.0
107.9
106.3
Mar.
98.5
114.2
103.3
104.3
110.1
110.4
107.4
U.S. import price indexes by end-use category
(December 1982 = 100)
Category
Foods, feeds, and beverages .......................................
Petroleum and petroleum products, excl. natural g a s ..................
Raw materials, excluding petroleum .................................
Raw materials, nondurable ..............................................
Raw materials, durable.........................................
Capital goods............................................
Automotive vehicles, parts and engines.......................................
Consumer goods...........................................
Durable ..............................................
Nondurable....................................................
Per
centage
of 1980
trade
value
7.477
31.108
19.205
9.391
9.814
13.164
11.750
14.250
5.507
8.743
1986
Mar.
June
111.0
Sept.
-
106.1
49.1
_
_
_
106.7
107.7
104.9
_
110.7
110.4
107.1
_
-
-
58.5
1987
_
_
Dec.
Mar.
June
1988
Sept.
Dec.
109.8
50.0
_
108.4
54.7
105.2
67.2
107.8
74.1
109.0
74.7
112.1
113.5
112.7
114.2
114.6
110.5
118.7
116.5
114.2
122.2
118.4
116.9
121.9
118.4
118.2
126.6
110.1
121.4
128.6
123.7
124.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
67.6
120.6
- Data not available.
40.
U.S. export price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification
1986
1987
Industry group
Mar.
Manufacturing:
Food and kindred products (6/83 = 100) ......................
Lumber and wood products, except furniture
(6/83 = 100) ....................................
Furniture and fixtures (9/83 = 100) ..............
Paper and allied products (3/81 = 1 0 0 )............
Chemicals and allied products (12/84 = 100) ...
Petroleum and coal products (12/83 = 100)......................
Primary metal products (3/82 = 100) .............
Machinery, except electrical (9/78 = 100) .....................
Electrical machinery (12/80 = 100) ..................
Transportation equipment (12/78 = 100)............
Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks
(6/77 = 100) .................................................
SIC - based classification.
92
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
June
Sept.
Mar.
Dec.
Mar.
June
1988
Sept.
Dec.
Mar.
98.0
97.2
97.4
100.2
102.0
107.4
107.1
116.3
120.8
103.6
103.0
91.8
99.2
75.4
102.6
100.5
99.6
103.8
103.4
103.7
97.9
98.0
61.8
102.6
100.1
99.5
104.7
104.8
104.0
102.3
95.8
65.1
109.3
100.1
99.9
104.8
108.8
104.1
104.9
95.8
67.6
106.9
100.1
100.8
106.0
112.8
108.0
109.3
100.5
73.5
110.6
99.6
101.9
106.2
116.2
108.6
112.3
107.6
80.5
117.2
99.4
102.1
106.7
138.9
108.7
115.5
108.7
81.4
122.3
99.4
102.5
106.9
142.5
111.2
119.3
113.8
78.8
126.6
99.7
102.2
107.8
146.1
112.5
124.6
118.4
73.0
126.9
100.6
102.9
108.0
103.4
104.5
104.7
105.3
105.8
106.8
106.6
107.1
109.2
113.7
60.3
41.
U.S. import price indexes by Standard Industrial Classification
1988
1987
1986
Industry group
Mar.
Manufacturing:
Food and kindred products (6/77 = 100) .................................
Textile mill products (9 /8 2 -1 0 0 ).............................................
Apparel and related products (6/77 = 100)..............................
Lumber and wood products, except furniture
(6/77-100) ............................................................................
Furniture and fixtures (6/80 100)...........................................
Paper and allied products (6 /7 7 -1 0 0 )...................................
Chemicals and allied products (9/82-100) ............................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products
(12/80 = 100) ..........................................................................
Leather and leather products ..................................................
Primary metal products (6/81 -100) .......................................
Fabricated metal products (1 2 /8 4 -1 0 0 ).................................
Machinery, except electrical (3/80—100) ................................
Electrical machinery (9/84 = 100).............................................
Transportation equipment (6/81 -1 00 ) ...................................
Scientific instruments; optical goods; clocks
(12/79-100) ..........................................................................
Miscellaneous manufactured commodities
(9/82-100) ............................................................................
Sept.
June
Dec.
June
Mar.
Sept.
Mar.
Dec.
98.0
104.6
100.5
97.3
106.8
101.2
99.7
109.2
102.4
103.0
110.6
103.0
103.8
114.1
107.0
106.3
116.1
109.4
108.4
119.4
112.3
110.6
124.3
113.4
114.0
127.4
116.6
103.7
107.2
96.4
100.6
106.3
109.4
97.3
103.3
109.0
111.4
98.6
104.3
109.0
111.6
103.3
102.6
114.8
116.1
105.1
105.7
115.0
117.0
105.9
106.2
120.3
118.3
110.9
107.2
115.4
118.9
113.6
112.2
119.5
122.2
119.1
116.8
103.6
102.4
96.5
107.2
111.1
100.9
109.8
105.3
103.2
97.1
110.5
114.9
104.3
112.8
106.6
105.3
102.3
111.1
118.2
106.9
114.7
107.9
106.4
101.3
111.7
118.9
107.0
117.3
110.6
109.3
102.7
116.7
123.4
109.4
119.9
113.6
113.3
110.4
117.5
127.4
110.7
122.1
112.3
113.3
115.2
119.8
127.8
110.2
122.5
115.7
118.4
120.0
123.2
133.9
112.5
124.6
117.2
120.8
122.6
127.3
135.9
114.7
127.3
112.6
117.8
122.6
122.4
128.8
132.5
128.8
134.0
135.8
102.4
104.7
110.7
112.2
115.1
118.1
121.4
123.8
127.7
SIC - based classification.
42.
Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted
(1977 = 100)
Quarterly Indexes
1985
Item
110.1
187.3
100.3
170.2
168.6
169.6
111.3
189.1
100.3
169.8
172.2
170.7
110.9
190.6
100.2
171.8
170.8
171.4
111.8
192.2
100.2
171.9
170.8
171.5
107.6
184.9
100.2
171.8
167.4
170.3
108.0
186.3
99.7
172.5
169.2
171.4
109.1
187.9
99.7
172.2
173.0
172.5
108.8
189.5
99.6
174.1
171.8
173.3
109.8
191.2
99.7
174.1
172.3
173.4
110.5
181.0
99.4
168.7
163.8
183.2
127.7
163.7
163.8
109.7
180.8
98.0
169.7
164.8
184.1
132.2
165.9
165.2
109.9
182.0
97.5
170.9
165.6
186.6
132.9
167.8
166.3
110.8
183.3
97.2
171.0
165.5
187.3
142.1
171.4
167.5
110.5
184.8
97.1
172.5
167.2
188.0
137.0
170.2
168.2
111.4
186.3
97.1
172.3
167.2
187.2
136.4
169.4
168.0
129.7
184.3
101.2
142.2
130.4
183.9
99.6
141.0
132.3
184.8
98.9
139.6
133.4
185.4
98.3
139.0
133.6
186.3
97.9
139.5
134.5
188.4
98.2
140.1
109.7
182.2
101.3
166.2
163.9
165.4
109.6
183.6
101.5
167.5
165.7
166.9
109.6
185.2
101.7
169.0
162.4
166.7
109.7
185.8
100.7
169.4
166.0
168.2
107.7
180.0
99.8
167.2
164.7
166.4
107.7
181.3
100.8
168.4
165.2
167.3
107.5
182.6
100.9
169.8
167.0
168.8
107.5
184.4
101.2
171.5
163.9
168.8
108.9
175.7
97.8
166.0
161.4
179.4
128.7
161.6
161.5
109.8
177.2
98.2
166.3
161.5
180.7
129.7
162.8
161.9
109.7
178.4
99.2
167.2
162.6
180.6
129.5
162.7
162.7
109.9
179.5
99.2
168.5
163.2
184.2
130.6
165.4
164.0
126.2
180.2
100.3
142.8
127.7
181.0
100.3
141.8
128.5
182.1
101.3
141.7
129.3
183.1
101.2
141.7
I
Business:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Compensation per hour........................................
Real compensation per hour ................................
Unit labor costs ....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments .......................................
Implicit price deflator ............................................
108.2
177.0
99.5
163.6
161.8
163.0
107.9
179.3
99.7
166.1
160.2
164.0
109.5
180.7
100.1
165.0
163.1
164.3
Nonfarm business:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Compensation per hour........................................
Real compensation per hour ................................
Unit labor costs ....................................................
Unit nonlabor payments .......................................
Implicit price deflator ............................................
106.4
176.2
99.0
165.7
163.4
164.9
105.9
178.3
99.2
168.3
160.8
165.7
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour........................................
Real compensation per h o u r................................
Total unit c o sts.....................................................
Unit labor costs ..................................................
Unit nonlabor co sts............................................
Unit profits.............................................................
Unit nonlabor payments .......................................
Implicit price deflator ............................................
109.2
173.8
97.6
163.7
159.1
177.5
142.5
165.2
161.2
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Compensation per h our........................................
Real compensation per hour ................................
Unit labor costs ....................................................
125.3
178.0
100.0
142.1
II
IV
IV
IV
I
II
1988
III
III
III
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1987
1986
I
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics:
Productivity Data
43. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years
(1977=100)
Item
1960
1970
1973
1976
1978
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Private business
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons ..........................
Output per unit of capital services.....................
Multifactor productivity..............................
O utput....................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons....................................
Capital services ................................
Combined units of labor and capital inp u t........
Capital per hour of all persons......................
67.3
102.1
78.1
55.3
88.4
101.9
92.9
80.2
95.9
105.3
99.1
93.0
98.4
97.2
98.0
94.5
100.8
102.0
101.2
105.8
99.2
94.2
97.4
106.6
100.6
92.4
97.7
108.9
100.3
86.7
95.3
105.4
103.1
88.4
97.7
109.9
105.7
92.8
101.0
119.2
107.6
92.8
102.2
124.0
109.7
92.8
103.4
128.1
82.2
54.2
70.8
65.9
90.8
78.7
86.3
86.7
96.9
88.3
93.8
91.1
96.1
97.2
96.5
101.2
105.0
103.8
104.5
98.8
107.5
113.1
109.4
105.3
108.2
117.8
111.5
108.8
105.2
121.7
110.7
115.7
106.7
124.4
112.6
116.6
112.8
128.5
118.1
113.9
115.2
133.6
121.3
116.0
116.8
138.0
123.8
118.2
70.7
103.6
80.9
54.4
89.2
102.8
93.7
79.9
96.4
106.0
99.6
92.9
98.5
97.3
98.1
94.4
100.8
101.9
101.2
106.0
98.7
93.4
96.9
106.6
99.6
91.1
96.7
108.4
99.1
85.1
94.1
104.8
102.5
87.3
97.0
110.1
104.7
91.3
99.9
119.3
105.9
90.8
100.5
123.7
107.6
90.5
101.4
127.6
77.0
52.5
67.3
68.2
89.6
77.8
85.3
86.8
96.3
87.6
93.3
91.0
95.8
97.0
96.2
101.3
105.1
104.0
104.7
98.9
108.0
114.1
110.0
105.6
108.8
119.0
112.2
109.4
105.7
123.2
111.4
116.5
107.4
126.1
113.5
117.4
114.0
130.6
119.4
114.6
116.8
136.3
123.1
116.7
118.5
141.0
125.8
119.0
62.2
102.5
71.9
52.5
80.8
98.6
85.2
78.6
93.4
111.4
97.9
96.3
97.1
96.2
96.8
93.1
101.5
102.1
101.7
106.0
101.4
91.2
98.7
103.2
103.6
89.2
99.8
104.8
105.9
81.8
99.2
98.4
112.0
86.9
105.1
104.7
118.1
95.7
112.2
117.5
124.2
97.8
117.0
122.5
128.8
99.3
120.6
125.9
84.4
51.2
73.0
60.7
97.3
79.7
92.2
82.0
103.1
86.4
98.4
83.8
95.9
96.7
96.1
100.9
104.4
103.7
104.2
99.4
101.7
113.1
104.5
111.2
101.1
117.5
105.0
116.2
92.9
120.3
99.2
129.4
93.5
120.6
99.7
129.0
99.5
122.8
104.7
123.5
98.7
125.3
104.8
127.0
97.8
126.8
104.4
129.7
Private nonfarm business
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons..........................
Output per unit of capital services.....................
Multifactor productivity............................
O utput......................................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons..................................
Capital services .....................................
Combined units of labor and capital inp u t........
Capital per hour of all persons..................
Manufacturing
Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons ..........................
Output per unit of capital services....................
Multifactor productivity.................................
O utput............................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons...........................................
Capital services ...................................
Combined units of labor and capital inputs ......
Capital per hour of all persons.............................
Digitized for94
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
44.
Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years
(1977=100)
Item
1960
1970
1973
1976
1978
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Business:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Compensation per h our...................................
Real compensation per h o u r................................
Unit labor costs .............................................
Unit nonlabor payments .......................................
Implicit price deflator ............................................
67.6
33.6
68.9
49.7
46.4
48.5
88.4
57.8
90.3
65.4
59.4
63.2
95.9
70.9
96.8
73.9
72.5
73.4
98.3
92.8
98.8
94.3
93.3
94.0
100.8
108.5
100.9
107.6
106.7
107.3
99.3
131.5
96.7
132.5
118.7
127.6
100.7
143.7
95.8
142.7
134.6
139.8
100.3
154.9
97.3
154.5
136.6
148.1
103.0
161.5
98.2
156.7
146.4
153.0
105.6
168.0
98.0
159.1
156.5
158.2
107.5
175.9
99.1
163.6
160.3
162.4
109.5
182.8
101.1
166.9
163.8
165.8
110.5
188.2
100.4
170.3
169.4
170.0
Nonfarm business:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Compensation per hour........................................
Real compensation per hour ................................
Unit labor costs .....................................
Unit nonlabor payments .......................................
Implicit price deflator ............................................
71.0
35.3
72.3
49.7
46.3
48.5
89.3
58.2
90.9
65.2
60.0
63.4
96.4
71.2
97.2
73.9
69.3
72.3
98.5
92.8
98.9
94.3
93.0
93.8
100.8
108.6
100.9
107.7
105.6
107.0
98.8
131.3
96.6
132.9
118.5
127.8
99.8
143.6
95.8
144.0
133.5
140.3
99.2
154.8
97.2
156.0
136.5
149.2
102.5
161.5
98.3
157.6
148.3
154.3
104.6
167.8
97.9
160.4
156.4
159.0
105.8
175.2
98.7
165.6
161.3
164.1
107.5
182.0
100.6
169.3
165.2
167.8
108.4
187.1
99.8
172.7
170.4
171.9
Nonfinancial corporations:
Output per hour of all employees........................
Compensation per hour........................................
Real compensation per h o u r................................
Total unit co sts.....................................................
Unit labor costs ..................................................
Unit nonlabor c o sts............................................
Unit profits..........................................................
Unit nonlabor payments .....................................
Implicit price deflator ..........................................
73.4
36.9
75.5
49.4
50.2
47.0
59.8
51.5
50.7
91.1
59.2
92.5
64.8
65.0
64.2
52.3
60.1
63.3
97.5
71.6
97.7
72.7
73.4
70.7
65.6
68.9
71.9
98.4
92.9
98.9
94.8
94.3
96.2
89.4
93.8
94.2
100.6
108.4
100.8
107.3
107.8
105.7
102.0
104.4
106.6
99.1
131.1
96.4
133.4
132.3
136.7
85.2
118.6
127.6
99.6
143.3
95.5
147.7
143.8
159.1
98.1
137.8
141.7
100.4
154.3
96.9
159.5
153.8
176.4
78.5
142.1
149.8
103.5
159.9
97.3
159.5
154.5
174.3
110.9
152.1
153.7
106.0
165.8
96.7
160.8
156.5
173.6
136.5
160.6
157.9
108.2
172.8
97.3
164.4
159.7
178.3
133.9
162.7
160.7
109.9
178.9
98.9
167.7
162.8
182.2
129.3
163.7
163.1
110.2
182.7
97.5
171.0
165.8
186.5
136.1
168.9
166.8
Manufacturing:
Output per hour of all persons.............................
Compensation per hour........................................
Real compensation per h o u r................................
Unit labor costs ...............................................
Unit nonlabor payments .................................
Implicit price deflator ...................................
62.2
36.5
74.8
58.7
60.0
59.1
80.8
57.4
89.6
71.0
64.1
69.0
93.4
68.8
93.9
73.7
70.7
72.8
97.1
92.1
98.1
94.9
93.5
94.5
101.5
108.2
100.6
106.6
101.9
105.2
101.4
132.4
97.4
130.6
97.8
121.0
103.6
145.2
96.8
140.1
111.8
131.8
105.9
157.5
98.9
148.7
114.0
138.6
112.0
162.4
98.8
145.0
128.5
140.2
118.1
168.0
98.0
142.2
138.6
141.2
124.2
176.9
99.6
142.4
134.7
140.2
128.8
182.7
101.0
141.8
137.9
140.7
132.4
185.1
98.7
139.7
Data not available.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
Digitized for96
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics:
International Comparisons Data
45. Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data
seasonally adjusted
1986
Annual average
1987
1988
Country
1986
1987
IV
III
I
II
III
IV
I
Total labor force basis
United States....................................
Canada ..............................................
Australia ............................................
Japan .................................................
6.9
9.5
8.0
2.8
6.1
8.8
8.1
2.9
6.9
9.6
8.2
2.9
6.8
9.4
8.3
2.9
6.5
9.6
8.3
3.0
6.2
9.0
8.1
3.1
5.9
8.8
8.0
2.8
5.8
8.2
7.9
2.7
5.6
7.8
France ...............................................
Germany............................................
Italy ', ..............................................
Sweden ............................................
United Kingdom.................................
10.4
6.8
7.4
2.6
11.2
10.8
6.8
7.7
1.9
10.2
10.6
6.8
7.3
2.6
11.2
10.6
6.7
7.7
2.6
11.1
10.9
6.7
7.4
2.0
10.9
11.0
6.8
7.6
1.9
10.5
10.8
6.8
7.9
1.9
10.0
10.6
6.8
7.9
1.7
9.4
10.6
6.8
7.8
1.7
9.0
United States....................................
Canada ..............................................
Australia ............................................
Japan .................................................
7.0
9.6
8.1
2.8
6.2
8.9
8.1
2.9
7.0
9.7
8.3
2.9
6.8
9.4
8.4
2.9
6.6
9.6
8.3
3.0
6.3
9.1
8.2
3.1
6.0
8.8
8.0
2.8
5.9
8.2
8.0
2.8
5.7
7.9
France ...............................................
Germany............................................
Italy1, ;>...............................................
Sweden1............................................
United Kingdom.................................
10.7
7.0
7.5
2.6
11.2
11.1
6.9
7.9
1.9
10.3
10.8
6.9
7.4
2.6
11.3
10.8
6.8
7.8
2.6
11.2
11.2
6.8
7.6
2.0
11.0
11.2
6.9
7.8
1.9
10.6
11.1
7.0
8.1
1.9
10.0
10.8
7.0
8.0
1.7
9.5
-
-
Civilian labor force basis
1 Quarterly rates are for the first month of the quarter.
? Many Italians reported as unemployed did not actively
seek work In the past 30 days, and they have been ex
cluded for comparability with U.S. concepts. Inclusion of
such persons would about double the Italian unemployment
rate in 1985 and earlier years and increase it to 11-12 per
cent for 1986 onward.
:l Break in series beginning in 1987. The 1986 rate based
-
10.8
6.9
8.0
1.7
9.0
on the new series was 2.2 percent.
- Data not available.
NOTE: Quarterly figures for France, Germany, and the
United Kingdom are calculated by applying annual adjust
ment factors to current published data and therefore should
be viewed as less precise indicators of unemployment under
U.S. concepts than the annual figures.
46. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts,
10 countries
(Numbers in thousands)
Employment status and country
1978
1979
1980
Labor force
United S tates................................
Canada ....................................................
Australia..................................................
Japan ...................................................................
France ..................................................................
Germany ...............................................................
Italy.......................................................................
Netherlands..........................................................
Sweden.......................................
United Kingdom..............................
102,251
10,895
6,443
54,610
22,460
26,000
20,570
5,010
4,203
26,260
104,962
11,231
6,519
55,210
22,670
26,250
20,850
5,100
4,262
26,350
106,940
11,573
6,693
55,740
22,800
26,520
21,120
5,310
4,312
26,520
Participation rate
United S tates................................................
Canada ...........................................
Australia........................................................
Japan ...................................................................
France...................................................................
Germany ................................................................
Italy ........................................................................
Netherlands...........................................................
Sweden .......................................
United Kingdom.............................
63.2
62.7
61.9
62.8
57.5
53.3
47.8
48.8
66.1
62.8
63.7
63.4
61.6
62.7
57.5
53.3
48.0
49.0
66.6
62.6
63.8
64.1
62.1
62.6
57.2
53.2
48.2
50.2
66.9
62.5
63.9
64.8
61.9
62.6
57.1
52.9
48.3
51.4
66.8
62.2
64.0
64.1
61.7
62.7
57.1
52.6
47.7
51.2
66.8
62.3
Employed
United States ...............................
Canada .................................................................
Australia................................................................
Japan ....................................................................
France...................................................................
Germany ................................................................
Italy.......................................
Netherlands...........................................................
Sweden........................
United Kingdom ....................................................
96,048
9,987
6,038
53,370
21,250
25,130
19,720
4,750
4,109
24,610
98,824
10,395
6,111
54,040
21,300
25,470
19,930
4,830
4,174
24,940
99,303
10,708
6,284
54,600
21,330
25,750
20,200
4,980
4,226
24,670
100,397
11,006
6,416
55,060
21,200
25,560
20,280
5,010
4,219
23,800
Employment-population ratio'
United States ........................................................
Canada ...................................
Australia....................................
Japan ....................................
France.........................................
Germany ................................................................
Italy..........................................
Netherlands...........................................................
Sweden...........................
United Kingdom ....................................................
59.3
57.5
58.0
61.3
54.4
51.5
45.9
46.3
64.6
58.8
59.9
58.7
57.8
61.4
54.0
51.7
45.9
46.4
65.3
59.2
59.2
59.3
58.3
61.3
53.5
51.7
46.1
47.0
65.6
58.1
Unemployed
United States ........................................................
Canada ................................
Australia............................
Japan ...................................
France ..............................
Germany................................................................
Italy..............................................
Netherlands...........................................................
Sweden..........................
United Kingdom .....................
6,202
908
405
1,240
1,210
870
850
260
94
1,650
6,137
836
408
1,170
1,370
780
920
270
88
1,420
Unemployment rate
United S tates............................
Canada .............................
Australia.................................................................
Japan ....................................................................
Franco ...................................................................
Germany ................................................................
Italy........................................................................
Netherlands..................
Sweden...........................
United Kingdom............
6.1
8.3
6.3
2.3
5.4
3.3
4.1
5.2
2.2
6.3
5.8
7.4
6.3
2.1
6.0
3.0
4.4
5.3
2.1
5.4
Labor force as a percent of the civilian working-age population.
Employment as a percent of the civilian working-age population.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
113,544
12,399
7,133
58,480
23.29C
26,760
21,670
5,620
4,385
27,180
115,461
12,639
7,272
58,820
23.34C
26,960
21,800
5,710
4,418
27,370
117,834
12.87C
7,562
59,410
23,480
27,100
22,280
5,760
4,443
27,540
119,865
13,121
7,736
60,050
23,610
27,260
22,340
5,780
4,480
27,760
64.0
64.4
61.4
63.1
56.6
52.3
47.5
50.9
66.7
62.1
64.4
64.8
61.5
62.7
56.6
52.4
47.3
50.5
66.6
62.6
64.8
65.2
61.8
62.3
56.2
52.6
47.2
50.7
66.9
62.7
65.3
65.7
63.0
62.1
56.2
52.8
48.2
50.8
67.1
62.7
65.6
66.2
63.0
61.9
56.0
53.1
48.2
50.5
67.4
63.0
99,526
10,644
6,415
55,620
21,240
25,140
20,250
4,980
4,213
23,710
100,834
10,734
6,300
56,550
21,170
24,750
20,320
4,890
4,218
23,600
105,005
11,000
6,490
56,870
20,980
24,790
20,390
4,930
4,249
24,000
107,150
11,311
6,670
57,260
20,900
24,950
20,490
5,110
4,293
24,310
109,597
11,634
6,952
57,740
20,970
25,210
20,610
5,200
4,326
24,450
112,440
11,955
7,107
58,320
20,970
25,370
20,590
5,240
4,396
24,910
59.0
59.9
58.4
61.2
52.8
50.8
45.9
46.6
65.1
55.7
57.8
57.0
57.3
61.2
52.3
49.6
45.2
45.8
64.7
55.3
57.9
56.7
55.3
61.4
51.8
48.6
44.7
44.5
64.4
54.7
59.5
57.4
56.0
61.0
51.0
48.5
44.5
44.3
64.5
55.3
60.1
58.4
56.6
60.6
50.4
48.7
44.4
45.4
65.0
55.7
60.7
59.4
57.9
60.4
50.2
49.1
44.6
45.8
65.4
55.7
61.5
60.3
57.9
60.1
49.7
49.4
44.4
45.8
66.2
56.6
7,637
865
409
1,140
1,470
770
920
330
86
1,850
8,273
898
394
1,260
1,730
1,090
1,040
510
108
2,790
10,678
1,314
495
1,360
1,920
1,560
1,160
590
137
3,030
10,717
1,448
697
1,560
1,960
1,900
1,270
710
151
3,190
8,539
1,399
642
1,610
2,310
1,970
1,280
690
136
3,180
8,312
1,328
602
1,560
2,440
2,010
1,310
600
125
3,060
8,237
1,236
610
1,670
2,510
1,890
1,680
560
117
3,090
7,425
1,167
629
1,730
2,620
1,890
1,760
540
84
2,850
7.1
7.5
6.1
2.0
6.4
2.9
4.4
6.2
2.0
7.0
7.6
7.5
5.8
2.2
7.5
4.1
4.9
9.2
2.5
10.5
9.7
11.0
7.2
2.4
8.3
5.8
5.4
10.6
3.1
11.3
9.6
11.9
10.0
2.7
8.5
7.1
5.9
12.7
3.5
11.9
7.5
11.3
9.0
2.8
9.9
7.4
5.9
12.3
3.1
11.7
7.2
10.5
8.3
2.6
10.4
7.5
6.0
10.5
2.8
11.2
7.0
9.6
8.1
2.8
10.7
7.0
7.5
9.7
2.6
11.2
6.2
8.9
8.1
2.9
11.1
6.9
79
9.3
1.9
10.3
108.67C 110,204 111.55C
11,904
11,958
12,183
6,81 C
6,91 C
6,997
56,320
56.98C
58,110
22.93C
23.16C
23,130
26.65C
26.70C
26,650
21,320
21,41C 21,590
5,520
5,570
5,600
4,327
4,350
4,369
26,590
26,740
26,790
NOTE: See notes for information on breaks in series for Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
47.
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics:
International Comparisons Data
Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries
(1977 = 100)
1960
1970
1973
1975
1976
1977
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Output per hour
United States ........................................................
Canada .................................................................
Japan ....................................................................
Belgium.................................................................
Denmark ................................................................
France...................................................................
Germany ................................................................
Italy........................................................................
Netherlands...........................................................
Norway..................................................................
Sweden.................................................................
United Kingdom....................................................
62.2
50.7
23.2
33.0
37.2
36.6
40.3
35.4
32.4
54.6
42.3
55.9
80.8
75.6
64.8
60.4
65.6
70.0
71.2
72.7
64.3
81.7
80.7
80.4
93.4
90.3
83.1
78.8
83.3
82.7
84.0
90.9
81.5
94.6
94.8
95.5
92.9
88.6
87.7
86.5
94.6
89.0
90.1
91.1
86.2
96.8
100.2
94.9
97.1
94.8
94.3
95.3
98.2
95.6
96.4
98.9
95.8
99.7
101.7
99.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
101.4
102.0
114.8
111.9
106.5
109.7
108.2
110.5
112.3
107.1
110.9
102.5
101.4
98.2
122.7
119.2
112.3
110.6
108.6
116.9
113.9
106.7
112.7
101.9
103.6
102.9
127.2
127.6
114.2
114.0
111.0
124.8
116.9
107.0
113.2
107.0
105.9
98.3
135.0
135.2
114.6
122.0
112.6
129.6
119.4
109.8
116.5
113.5
112.0
105.4
142.3
148.2
120.2
125.1
119.2
138.6
127.5
117.2
125.5
123.2
118.1
116.8
152.5
154.4
118.6
129.3
123.7
147.8
140.5
123.9
131.0
130.0
124.2
119.7
161.1
159.0
118.3
133.3
128.5
151.9
145.1
125.2
136.1
134.7
128.8
119.4
163.8
165.4
118.5
136.2
130.7
153.1
144.7
124.8
136.4
138.5
132.4
121.5
170.5
Output
United States ........................................................
Canada .................................................................
Japan ....................................................................
Belgium.................................................................
Denmark ................................................................
France...................................................................
Germany................................................................
Italy........................................................................
Netherlands...........................................................
Norway..................................................................
Sweden.................................................................
United Kingdom....................................................
52.5
41.3
19.2
41.9
49.2
35.4
50.0
36.4
44.8
55.1
52.6
71.2
78.6
73.5
69.9
78.6
82.0
73.3
86.6
78.0
84.4
86.9
92.5
95.0
96.3
93.5
91.9
96.4
95.9
88.6
96.1
90.5
95.8
99.5
100.3
104.8
84.9
89.9
86.2
92.7
95.0
90.0
91.0
86.9
92.7
101.0
106.1
96.3
93.1
96.5
94.8
99.7
99.6
96.1
98.0
97.9
99.0
101.4
106.1
98.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
108.1
108.5
113.9
104.1
105.4
105.3
106.6
108.6
106.1
100.3
103.6
100.5
103.2
103.6
124.1
106.8
110.1
104.6
106.6
115.4
106.6
98.8
104.0
91.7
104.8
107.4
129.8
105.7
106.6
102.9
104.9
115.1
106.7
97.7
100.6
86.2
98.4
93.6
137.3
110.1
108.3
104.0
102.4
113.4
105.0
97.4
100.1
86.4
104.7
99.6
148.2
114.8
115.6
103.8
103.6
114.3
107.0
97.2
105.2
88.9
117.5
114.9
165.4
117.5
119.7
104.0
106.4
119.0
113.3
102.6
111.5
92.6
122.5
121.2
177.0
119.9
123.4
103.3
110.1
121.8
116.0
105.2
115.3
95.2
125.9
123.9
178.0
122.0
126.7
103.0
112.8
125.8
117.3
107.0
115.2
95.5
130.7
129.9
184.1
Total hours
United States ........................................................
Canada .................................................................
Japan ....................................................................
Belgium..................................................................
Denmark ................................................................
France ...................................................................
Germany ................................................................
Italy........................................................................
Netherlands...........................................................
Norway..................................................................
Sweden.................................................................
United Kingdom....................................................
84.4
81.4
82.7
127.1
132.4
96.7
123.8
102.8
138.4
101.0
124.4
127.3
97.3
97.2
107.9
130.2
125.1
104.7
121.7
107.4
131.2
106.4
114.6
118.1
103.1
103.6
110.7
122.3
115.2
107.1
114.4
99.6
117.6
105.1
105.7
109.8
91.4
101.5
98.2
107.1
100.4
101.1
101.0
95.4
107.6
104.3
105.9
101.5
95.9
101.8
100.6
104.6
101.4
100.6
101.6
99.0
103.3
101.7
104.3
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
106.5
106.3
99.3
93.0
99.0
95.9
98.5
98.2
94.4
93.6
93.4
98.0
101.7
105.5
101.2
89.6
98.0
94.6
98.1
98.7
93.6
92.6
92.3
90.1
101.1
104.3
102.0
82.8
93.4
90.3
94.6
92.2
91.2
91.3
88.9
80.6
92.9
95.2
101.7
81.4
94.5
85.2
91.0
87.5
88.0
88.6
85.9
76.2
93.5
94.5
104.2
77.5
96.2
83.0
86.9
82.5
83.9
82.9
83.9
72.2
99.5
98.3
108.5
76.1
100.9
80.4
86.1
80.5
80.6
82.8
85.1
71.2
98.7
101.2
109.8
75.4
104.3
77.5
85.7
80.2
79.9
84.0
84.7
70.7
97.8
103.8
108.7
73.8
106.9
75.6
86.3
82.2
81.1
85.7
84.5
69.0
Compensation per hour
United S tates........................................................
Canada .................................................................
Japan ....................................................................
Belgium..................................................................
Denmark ................................................................
France...................................................................
Germany................................................................
Itaiy........................................................................
Netherlands...........................................................
Norway..................................................................
Sweden.................................................................
United Kingdom ....................................................
36.5
27.5
8.9
13.8
12.6
15.2
18.8
8.4
12.5
15.8
14.7
15.2
57.4
47.9
33.9
34.9
36.3
36.7
48.0
26.1
39.0
37.9
38.5
31.4
68.8
60.0
55.1
53.5
56.1
52.4
67.5
43.7
60.5
54.5
54.2
47.9
85.1
78.9
84.2
79.0
81.0
77.0
84.5
70.2
82.2
77.2
77.3
76.4
92.1
90.3
90.7
89.5
90.4
89.2
91.2
84.2
91.9
88.8
91.5
88.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
118.6
118.6
113.4
117.5
123.1
128.4
116.1
134.7
117.0
116.0
120.1
139.0
132.4
131.3
120.7
130.4
135.9
148.5
125.6
160.2
123.6
128.0
133.6
168.7
145.2
151.1
129.8
144.5
149.7
172.0
134.5
198.4
129.1
142.8
148.1
193.3
157.5
167.0
136.6
150.7
162.9
203.9
141.0
238.3
137.5
156.0
158.9
211.7
162.4
177.2
140.7
159.7
174.2
225.2
148.3
282.9
144.0
173.5
173.3
226.6
168.0
185.5
144.9
173.0
184.4
247.2
155.5
316.5
150.0
188.3
189.7
242.3
176.9
194.7
151.4
184.5
196.1
267.2
164.7
348.6
157.7
204.8
212.4
258.6
182.7
202.3
158.8
191.9
205.3
279.8
172.1
360.0
161.5
225.3
228.1
278.5
Unit labor costs: National currency basis
United States ........................................................
Canada ..................................................................
Japan ....................................................................
Belgium.................................................................
Denmark ................................................................
France ...................................................................
Germany................................................................
Italy........................................................................
Netherlands...........................................................
Norway...................................................................
Sweden.................................................................
United Kingdom ....................................................
58.7
54.2
38.4
41.7
33.8
41.5
46.6
23.7
38.5
29.0
34.8
27.2
71.0
63.4
52.3
57.8
55.4
52.5
67.4
36.0
60.7
46.4
47.7
39.1
73.7
66.5
66.4
67.9
67.4
63.4
80.3
48.1
74.3
57.6
57.2
50.2
91.7
89.1
96.0
91.2
85.6
86.5
93.8
77.1
95.4
79.7
77.1
80.5
94.9
95.3
96.2
93.9
92.1
93.3
94.6
85.1
96.0
89.1
90.0
89.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
117.0
116.2
98.8
105.0
115.7
117.0
107.3
121.9
104.1
108.2
108.3
135.6
130.6
133.7
98.4
109.4
121.0
134.3
115.7
137.0
108.5
120.0
118.6
165.6
140.1
146.7
102.0
113.2
131.1
151.0
121.2
158.9
110.4
133.4
130.9
180.6
148.7
170.0
101.2
1.11.4
142.2
167.2
125.2
184.0
115.2
142.1
136.3
186.6
145.0
168.1
98.9
107.8
144.9
179.9
124.4
204.1
113.0
148.0
138.1
183.9
142.2
158.8
95.0
112.1
155.4
191.2
125.8
214.1
106.8
152.0
144.8
186.4
142.4
162.6
94.0
116.0
165.7
200.4
128.2
229.5
108.7
163.5
156.1
192.0
141.8
169.4
97.0
116.0
173.2
205.4
131.7
235.1
111.6
180.5
167.3
201.1
Unit labor costs: U S. dollar basis
United States ........................................................
Canada .................................................................
Japan ....................................................................
Belgium.................................................................
Denmark ................................................................
France...................................................................
Germany................................................................
Italy........................................................................
Netherlands...........................................................
Norway..................................................................
Sweden.................................................................
United Kingdom ....................................................
58.7
59.4
28.5
30.0
29.5
41.6
25.9
33.7
25.1
21.7
30.1
43.7
71.0
64.5
39.1
41.7
44.4
46.7
42.9
50.6
41.2
34.5
41.1
53.7
73.7
70.6
65.6
62.7
67.2
70.2
70.4
73.1
65.6
53.4
58.7
70.5
91.7
93.1
86.7
89.1
89.6
99.3
88.7
104.3
92.8
81.4
83.2
102.5
94.9
102.7
86.9
87.2
91.5
96.1
87.3
90.5
89.1
86.9
92.3
92.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
117.0
105.4
121.3
128.3
132.0
135.2
135.9
129.5
127.4
113.8
112.9
165.0
130.6
121.5
116.8
134.3
129.0
156.4
147.9
141.4
134.1
129.3
125.3
220.7
140.1
130.0
123.8
109.6
110.3
136.4
124.9
123.2
108.9
123.6
115.4
209.5
148.7
146.3
108.8
87.2
102.3
124.9
119.7
119.9
105.8
117.1
96.9
186.9
145.0
144.9
111.5
75.5
95.1
116.1
113.1
118.6
97.1
107.9
80.4
159.8
142.2
130.3
107.2
69.5
90.1
107.6
102.6
107.6
81.6
99.1
78.2
142.8
142.4
126.5
105.6
70.1
93.9
109.7
101.1
106.1
80.4
101.3
81.1
142.7
141.8
129.5
154.2
93.1
128.5
145.8
140.8
139.2
111.9
129.8
104.9
169.2
Item and country
- Data not available.
Digitized for 98
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
-
121.0
141.2
132.4
158.9
134.4
139.9
148.1
-
124.3
104.1
113.5
131.2
-
108.9
118.8
100.7
98.7
106.9
108.0
-
102.7
73.7
85.7
82.6
-
81.0
84.9
68.0
185.1
211.4
161.1
-
225.9
289.3
179.1
383.2
-
263.1
243.8
301.3
139.7
174.0
94.5
-
186.6
204.9
135.2
241.2
-
195.7
174.3
203.4
139.7
139.4
175.0
-
163.6
167.5
174.5
164.2
-
154.5
122.7
191.2
48.
Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
PRIVATE SECTOR*
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
9.4
4.1
63.5
9.5
4.3
67.7
8.7
4.0
65.2
8.3
3.8
61.7
7.7
3.5
58.7
7.6
3.4
58.5
8.0
3.7
63.4
7.9
3.6
64.9
7.9
3.6
65.8
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing3
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
11.6
5.4
80.7
11.7
5.7
83.7
11.9
5.8
82.7
12.3
5.9
82.8
11.8
5.9
86.0
11.9
6.1
90.8
12.0
6.1
90.7
11.4
5.7
91.3
11.2
5.6
93.6
Mining
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
11.5
6.4
143.2
11.4
6.8
150.5
11.2
6.5
163.6
11.6
6.2
146.4
10.5
5.4
137.3
8.4
4.5
125.1
9.7
5.3
160.2
8.4
4.8
145.3
7.4
4.1
125.9
16.0
6.4
109.4
16.2
6.8
120.4
15.7
6.5
117.0
15.1
6.3
113.1
14.6
6.0
115.7
14.8
6.3
118.2
15.5
6.9
128.1
15.2
6.8
128.9
15.2
6.9
134.5
15.9
6.3
105.3
16.3
6.8
111.2
15.5
6.5
113.0
15.1
6.1
107.1
14.1
5.9
112.0
14.4
6.2
113.0
15.4
6.9
121.3
15.2
6.8
120.4
14.9
6.6
122.7
16.6
6.2
110.9
16.6
6.7
123.1
16.3
6.3
117.6
14.9
6.0
106.0
15.1
5.8
113.1
15.4
6.2
122.4
14.9
6.4
131.7
14.5
6.3
127.3
14.7
6.3
132.9
15.8
6.6
111.0
16.0
6.9
124.3
15.5
6.7
118.9
15.2
6.6
119.3
14.7
6.2
118.6
14.8
6.4
119.0
15.8
7.1
130.1
15.4
7.0
133.3
15.6
7.2
140.4
13.2
5.6
84.9
13.3
5.9
90.2
12.2
5.4
86.7
11.5
5.1
82.0
10.2
4.4
75.0
10.0
4.3
73.5
10.6
4.7
77.9
10.4
4.6
80.2
10.6
4.7
85.2
22.6
11.1
178.8
20.7
10.8
175.9
18.6
9.5
171.8
17.6
9.0
158.4
16.9
8.3
153.3
18.3
9.2
163.5
19.6
9.9
172.0
18.5
9.3
171.4
18.9
9.7
177.2
17.5
6.9
95.9
17.6
7.1
99.6
16.0
6.6
97.6
15.1
6.2
91.9
13.9
5.5
85.6
14.1
5.7
83.0
15.3
6.4
101.5
15.0
6.3
100.4
15.2
6.3
103.0
16.8
7.8
126.3
16.8
8.0
133.7
15.0
7.1
128.1
14.1
6.9
122.2
13.0
6.1
112.2
13.1
6.0
112.0
13.6
6.6
120.8
13.9
6.7
127.8
13.6
6.5
126.0
17.0
7.5
123.6
17.3
8.1
134.7
15.2
7.1
128.3
14.4
6.7
121.3
12.4
5.4
101.6
12.4
5.4
103.4
13.3
6.1
115.3
12.6
5.7
113.8
13.6
6.1
125.5
19.3
8.0
112.4
19.9
8.7
124.2
18.5
8.0
118.4
17.5
7.5
109.9
15.3
6.4
102.5
15.1
6.1
96.5
16.1
6.7
104.9
16.3
6.9
110.1
16.0
6.8
115.5
14.4
5.4
75.1
14.7
5.9
83.6
13.7
5.5
81.3
12.9
5.1
74.9
10.7
4.2
66.0
9.8
3.6
58.1
10.7
4.1
65.8
10.8
4.2
69.3
10.7
4.2
72.0
8.7
3.3
50.3
8.6
3.4
51.9
8.0
3.3
51.8
7.4
3.1
48.4
6.5
2.7
42.2
6.3
2.6
41.4
6.8
' 2.8
45.0
6.4
2.7
45.7
6.4
2.7
49.8
11.5
5.1
78.0
11.6
5.5
85.9
10.6
4.9
82.4
9.8
4.6
78.1
9.2
4.0
72.2
8.4
3.6
64.5
9.3
4.2
68.8
9.0
3.9
71.6
9.6
4.1
79.1
6.9
2.6
37.0
7.2
2.8
40.0
6.8
2.7
41.8
6.5
2.7
39.2
5.6
2.3
37.0
5.2
2.1
35.6
5.4
2.2
37.5
5.2
2.2
37.9
5.3
2.3
42.2
11.8
4.5
66.4
11.7
4.7
67.7
10.9
4.4
67.9
10.7
4.4
68.3
9.9
4.1
69.9
9.9
4.0
66.3
10.5
4.3
70.2
9.7
4.2
73.2
10.2
4.3
70.9
Construction
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
General building contractors:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Heavy construction contractors:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Special trade contractors:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Manufacturing
Total cases.................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Durable goods
Lumber and wood products:
Total cases..................................................................................
Lost workday cases ................................................................................
Lost workdays.......................................................................................
Furniture and fixtures:
Total cases............................................................................................
Lost workday cases ................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Stone, clay, and glass products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Primary metal Industries:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Fabricated metal products:
Total cases...............................................................................................
Lost workday cases ...............................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Machinery, except electrical:
Total cases...............................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays...................................................................................
Electric and electronic equipment:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday cases ..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Transportation equipment:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Instruments and related products:
Total cases................................................................................................
Lost workday ca ses..................................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................................
Miscellaneous manufacturing industries:
Total cases...............................................................................................
Lost workday cases ................................................................................
Lost workdays.............................................................................
See footnotes at end of table.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
August 1988
•
Current Labor Statistics:
Injury and Illness Data
48. Continued— Occupational injury and illness incidence rates by industry, United States
Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers2
Industry and type of case1
1978
Nondurable goods
Food and kindred products:
Total cases............................
Lost workday cases .........................
Lost workdays.....................
Tobacco manufacturing:
Total cases..................................
Lost workday cases ................................
Lost workdays.........................
Textile mill products:
Total cases....................................
Lost workday cases ...........................
Lost workdays....................................
Apparel and other textile products:
Total cases............................................
Lost workday cases ......................
Lost workdays............................
Paper and allied products:
Total cases.........................................
Lost workday cases ....................................
Lost workdays.................................
Printing and publishing:
Total cases.................................................
Lost workday cases ......................................
Lost workdays.............................
Chemicals and allied products:
Total cases.......................................
Lost workday cases ...............................
Lost workdays............................
Petroleum and coal products:
Total cases......................................
Lost workday cases ........................
Lost workdays........................
Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products:
Total cases...............................
Lost workday ca ses...........................
Lost workdays......................
Leather and leather products:
Total cases............................
Lost workday cases .............................
Lost workdays..........................
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
19.4
8.9
132.2
19.9
9.5
141.8
18.7
9.0
136.8
17.8
8.6
130.7
16.7
8.0
129.3
16.5
7.9
131.2
16.7
8.1
131.6
16.7
8.1
138.0
16.5
8.0
137.8
8.7
4.0
58.6
9.3
4.2
64.8
8.1
3.8
45.8
8.2
3.9
56.8
7.2
3.2
44.6
6.5
3.0
42.8
7.7
3.2
51.7
7.3
3.0
51.7
6.7
2.5
45.6
10.2
3.4
61.5
9.7
3.4
61.3
9.1
3.3
62.8
8.8
3.2
59.2
7.6
2.8
53.8
7.4
2.8
51.4
8.0
3.0
54.0
7.5
3.0
57.4
7.8
3.1
59.3
6.5
2.2
32.4
6.5
2.2
34.1
6.4
2.2
34.9
6.3
2.2
35.0
6.0
2.1
36.4
6.4
2.4
40.6
6.7
2.5
40.9
6.7
2.6
44.1
6.7
2.7
49.4
13.5
5.7
103.3
13.5
6.0
108.4
12.7
5.8
112.3
11.6
5.4
103.6
10.6
4.9
99.1
10.0
4.5
90.3
10.4
4.7
93.8
10.2
4.7
94.6
10.5
4.7
99.5
7.0
2.9
43.8
7.1
3.1
45.1
6.9
3.1
46.5
6.7
3.0
47.4
6.6
2.8
45.7
6.6
2.9
44.6
6.5
2.9
46.0
6.3
2.9
49.2
6.5
2.9
50.8
7.8
3.3
50.9
7.7
3.5
54.9
6.8
3.1
50.3
6.6
3.0
48.1
5.7
2.5
39.4
5.5
2.5
42.3
5.3
2.4
40.8
5.1
2.3
38.8
6.3
2.7
49.4
7.9
3.4
58.3
7.7
3.6
62.0
7.2
3.5
59.1
6.7
2.9
51.2
5.3
2.5
46.4
5.5
2.4
46.8
5.1
2.4
53.5
5.1
2.4
49.9
7.1
3.2
67.5
17.1
8.1
125.5
17.1
8.2
127.1
15.5
7.4
118.6
14.6
7.2
117.4
12.7
6.0
100.9
13.0
6.2
101.4
13.6
6.4
104.3
13.4
6.3
107.4
14.0
6.6
118.2
11.7
4.7
72.5
11.5
4.9
76.2
11.7
5.0
82.7
11.5
5.1
82.6
9.9
4.5
86.5
10.0
4.4
87.3
10.5
4.7
94.4
10.3
4.6
88.3
10.5
4.8
83.4
10.1
5.7
102.3
10.0
5.9
107.0
9.4
5.5
104.5
9.0
5.3
100.6
8.5
4.9
96.7
8.2
4.7
94.9
8.8
5.2
105.1
8.6
5.0
107.1
8.2
4.8
102.1
7.9
3.2
44.9
8.0
3.4
49.0
7.4
3.2
48.7
7.3
3.1
45.3
7.2
3.1
45.5
7.2
3.1
47.8
7.4
3.3
50.5
7.4
3.2
50.7
7.7
3.3
54.0
8.9
3.9
57.5
8.8
4.1
59.1
8.2
3.9
58.2
7.7
3.6
54.7
7.1
3.4
52.1
7.0
3.2
50.6
7.2
3.5
55.5
7.2
3.5
59.8
7.2
3.6
62.5
7.5
2.8
39.7
7.7
3.1
44.7
7.1
2.9
44.5
7.1
2.9
41.1
7.2
2.9
42.6
7.3
3.0
46.7
7.5
3.2
48.4
7.5
3.1
47.0
7.8
3.2
50.5
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Total cases...............................
Lost workday cases .......................
Lost workdays........................
2.1
.8
12.5
2.1
.9
13.3
2.0
.8
12.2
1.9
.8
11.6
2.0
.9
13.2
2.0
.9
12.8
1.9
.9
13.6
2.0
.9
15.4
2.0
.9
17.1
Services
Total cases................................
Lost workday cases ..........................
Lost workdays.................
5.5
2.4
36.2
5.5
2.5
38.1
5.2
2.3
35.8
5.0
2.3
35.9
4.9
2.3
35.8
5.1
2.4
37.0
5.2
2.5
41.1
5.4
2.6
45.4
5.3
2.5
43.0
Transportation and public utilities
Total cases...............................
Lost workday ca ses......................
Lost workdays ....................
Wholesale and retail trade
Total cases.................................
Lost workday cases ...................
Lost workdays.......................
Wholesale trade:
Total cases..................................
Lost workday cases ...............
Lost workdays.........................
Retail trade:
Total cases...............................
Lost workday cases .........
Lost workdays.......................
1 Total cases include fatalities.
2 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost
workdays per 100 full-time workers and were calculated as:
(N/EH) X 200,000, where:
N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays.
Digitized for 100
FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
EH = total hours worked by all employees during calendar year.
200,000 = base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per
week, 50 weeks per year.)
3 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976.
BLS Offers
Data
Diskettes
Data users can store
and manipulate BLS
data series on IBMcompatible microcomputers.
The following data diskettes
are formatted for use
with LOTUS 1-2-3:
Monthly
Consumer Price In d e x 104 items in the U.S. City
Average Index and 54 areas
in the All Items Index for the
current year to date and
the previous year. $288 (12).
Employment, Hours, and
Earnings: Nationalmonthly and annual average
employment, hours of work,
and earnings for 249
industrial series for the
current year to date and the
3 prior years. $288 (12).
Labor Force—monthly
and annual average
information on the
employment and
unemployment experience
of the Nation’s population
classified by age, sex, and
race for 282 series for the
current year to date and the
3 prior years. $288 (12).
Producer Price In d e x selected commodity
groupings of 225 series
by stage of processing for
the most recent 13
months. $288 (12).
Quarterly
Employment Cost Indexquarterly measures of
change in total
compensation (wages,
salaries, and employer
costs for employee benefits)
wages and salaries only, and
benefits only; 216 series
beginning ir 1980-81 and
138 series from 1975 to the
most recent quarter. $104
(4)
U.S. Export and Import
Price Index—quarterly
export and import price
indexes for 450 Standard
Industrial Trade
Classification categories
for the most recent eight
quarters. $104 (4).
Semiannual
Foreign Labor Force
Statistics—annual average
levels of total and civilian
labor force, employment,
unemployment, and three
related measured for the
United States and nine
foreign countries beginning
1959 through 1986. $58
2
( ).
Major Sector Labor and
Multifactor Productivity-
Foreign Productivity
Statistics—annual indexes
63 quarterly labor
productivity and cost
measures for business,
of manufacturing labor
productivity, unit labor
costs, and nine related
Order form:
Price
Single
copy
Consumer Expenditure:
Interview and Diary data, 1984
Interview and Diary data, 1985
Consumer Price Index
Economic Growth (projections)
Economic Growth (historical)
Employment Cost Index
Employment, Flours, and Earnings: National
Foreign Labor Force Statistics
Foreign Productivity Statistics
Industry and Federal Government Productivity
Labor Force
Major Sector Labor and Multifactor Productivity
Occupational Injury and Illness Incidence Rates
Producer Price Index
U.S. Export and Import Price Indexes
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
nonfarm business,
nonfinancial corporations,
and manufacturing from
1947 to the most recent
quarter. Also, 24 annual
multifactor productivity
measures (output per unit
of combined labor and
capital inputs) and related
measures for private
business, private nonfarm
business, and manufacturing
from 1948 to the most
recent year. $196 (8).
□$35
□ 35
D 35
□ 35
□ 35
□ 35
□ 35
□ 35
□ 35
□ 35
□ 35
□ 35
□ 35
□ 35
□ 35
Please send your order to:
Sub
scription
measures for the United
States and 12 foreign
countries beginning
1950 through 1986. $58
(
2 ).
Annual
Consumer Expenditure
Surveys—annual income
and expenditure data by
demographic characteristics
(income, age. region, etc.)
for 1984 and 1985 Interview
and Diary Surveys. One
survey year on a single
diskette. $35 (1).
Economic Growth
(projections)—average
annual output, total
employment, hours, and
wage and salary
employment for 1986
and selected years .to
2000 for 200 industries.
$35 (1).
Economic Growth
(historical data)—average
annual output, in current
and constant dollars (base
BLS Data Diskettes
Room 1077
441 G Street NW.
Washington, DC 20212
year—1982), for 220
industries. $35 (1).
Industry and Federal
Government Productivity
—annual indexes showing
change over time in output
of an industry, the employee
hours expended on the
output, and the output pgr
employee hour for about
150 industries; most start in
1958 and go to the most
recent year. Also,
annual Federal Government
productivity indexes showing
the change over time in
the output of 28 functions,
the employee years
expended on that output,
and output per employee
year from FY 1967 to the
most recent fiscal year.
$35 (1).
Occupational Injury and
Illness Incidence Rates—
annual number of workrelated injuries and
illnesses or lost workdays
per 100 full-time employees
from 1981 to 1986. $35 (1).
Orders must be
prepaid.
Make check or money
order payable to
Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
□$288 (12)
Please s e n d ___________diskette subscription(s) and/or_____________single diskette(s)
□ 104 (4)
□ 288 (12)
□ 58 (2)
□ 58 (2)
□ 288 (12)
□ 196 (8)
□ 288 (12)
□ 104 (4)
indicated for a total cost of $
Name
Company Name
Department
Address_______
City and State,
Zip code ____
____________________________________________
to:
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
( Washington D C. 20212
Second Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
ISSN 0098-1818
1 Official Business
I
Penalty for private use, $300
f,
R ETURN PO STAGE G U A R A N T E E D
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
MLR
L I B R A 4 4 2 L I SSDUEO 0 8R
LIBRARY
FED RESERVE BANK OF ST L O U I S
PO BOX 4 4 2
SAINT LOUIS
MO
63166
United
m g
75
Slates r
Department
of Labor a
I
Vears o/
Working for
A m e ric a s
k f uture
@FedFRASER