View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

August 20d4

Bureau o f Labor Statistics

U.S. Department of


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

National
Compensation
Survey:
Overview
New benefits data
Incidence of benefits
Medical and retirement plans
Prescription drug coverage
Health insurance data

U.S. Department of Labor
Elaine L. Chao, Secretary
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Kathleen P. Utgoff, Commissioner
The Monthly Labor Review (usps 9 8 7 -8 0 0 ) is published
m onthly by the Bureau o f Labor Statistics o f the U .S.
Department o f Labor. The Review w elcom es articles on the
lab or fo r c e , la b o r-m a n a g em en t r e la tio n s , b u s in e ss
c o n d itio n s , in d u stry p r o d u c tiv ity , c o m p e n s a tio n ,
occupational safety and health, demographic trends, and
other econom ic developments. Papers should be factual
and analytical, not polem ical in tone. Potential articles, as
w ell as com m unications on editorial matters, should be
submitted to:
Editor-in-Chief

Monthly Labor Review
Bureau o f Labor Statistics
Washington, DC 20212
Telephone: (202) 691-5900
E-mail: mlr@bls.gov
Inquiries on subscriptions and circulation, including address
changes, should be sent to: Superintendent o f Documents
G overn m en t P rin tin g O ffice W ash in gton , dc 2 0 4 0 2
Telephone: (202) 512-1800
Subscription price per year— $49 domestic; $68.60 foreign.
S in gle cop y— $15 dom estic; $21 foreign. Make checks
payable to the Superintendent o f Documents.
Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly
Labor Review ( issn 0 0 9 8 -1 8 1 8 ) and other governm ent
publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an
agency o f the U.S. Congress.
The Secretary o f Labor has determined that the publication of
this periodical is necessary in the transaction o f the public
business required by law o f this Department. Periodicals
postage paid at Washington, dc, and at additional mailing
addresses.
U n le s s stated o th e r w is e , a rticles ap pearin g in th is
publication are in the public domain and may be reprinted
without express permission from the Editor-in-Chief. Please
cite the specific issue o f the Monthly Labor Review as the
source.

Information is available to sensory impaired individuals
upon request:
Voice phone: (202) 691-5200
Federal Relay Service: 1-80 0 -8 7 7 -8 3 3 9 .

Postmaster: Send address changes to Monthly Labor
Review, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, dc
2040 2 -0 0 0 1 .

Cover designed by Keith Tapscott


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MONTHLY LABOR

REVIEW____________________
Volume 127, Number 8
August 2004

National Compensation Survey
A wealth of benefits data

3

For the first time, information is available on the offfering of health insurance
and retirement plans and medical premiums paid by employers and employees

Allan P. Blostin

New benefits data

6

Private establishments of 100 or more workers are much more likely
than small establishments to offer medical insurance and retirement plans

Jordan Pfuntner

Incidence benefits measures

21

Comparisons can be made between establishments offering health and retirement
plans and the rates at which employees have access to and participate in such plans

Carl B. Barsky

Medical and retirement plan coverage

29

A variety of reasons may explain the decline in worker participation
in employer-provided medical care and retirement benefit plans over the past decade

William J. Wiatrowski

Prescription drug coverage

37

Employees share a greater portion of the cost of prescription drugs
and are being offered cost-saving incentives more than ever before

Elizabeth Dietz

New statistics for healthinsurance

46

Integrating compensation programs allows for the calculation of relationships
between employers offering and employees participating in health insurance plans

Michael Lettau

Departments
Labor month in review
Précis
Publications received
Current labor statistics

2
51
52
55

Editor-in-Chief: Deborah P. Klein • Executive Editor: Richard M. Devens • Managing Editor: Anna Huffman Hill • Editors: Brian
I. Baker, Kristy S. Christiansen, Richard Hamilton, Leslie Brown Joyner • Book Reviews: Richard Hamilton • Design and Layout:
Catherine D. Bowman, Edith W. Peters


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Labor Month in Review

The August Review
In the Septem ber 1996 issue of Com­
pensation and Working Conditions,
the Bureau o f Labor Statistics outlined
its long-term plan for consolidating
w hat had been several different data
collection program s into an integrated
N ational C om pensation Survey. The
ongoing success o f that strategy has
yielded vast am ounts o f inform ation
on occupational w ages, em ploym ent
costs, and, as will be seen in this is­
sue, em ployee benefits.
A llan P. B lo stin ’s overview paper
does a far better job of summarizing the
following articles than there is space to
do here. Thus, the following are the bare
bone acknowledgements of the authors
and their topics.
• Jordan Pfuntner reports on new
data available through the National
Compensation Survey on health and
retirement benefits.
• C arl B. B arsky com pares the
frequency at which establishments
o ffe r c e rta in b e n e fits w ith the
employee participation rate in such
programs.
• William J. W iatrowski explores
the possible reasons for the declin­
ing number of private sector work­
ers participating in m edical care
plans.
• E liz a b e th D ietz o u tlin e s the
cost-sharing and cost-saving p ro ­
visions on prescription drug ben­
efit plans.
• Michael Lettau explores the flex­
ibility o f the integrated N ational
Compensation databases as it per­
tains to calculating relationships

2

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

among benefits access rates, partici­
pation rates, cost per employee, and
cost per participant.

Veterans’
unemployment
Veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces were
less lik ely to be u n em p lo y ed than
nonveterans in August 2003. Veterans
had an unemployment rate of 4.5 per­
cent, com pared with 5.9 percent for
nonveterans.
The unemployment rates of male vet­
erans aged 25 to 34 (4.7 percent) and 35
to 44 (3.8 percent) were lower than the
rates of their nonveteran peers (6.3 per­
cent and 4.8 percent, respectively) in
August 2003. Among those 45 to 54
years old, how ever, veterans had a
higher jobless rate than non-veterans
(5.4 percent versus 3.6 percent).
Fem ale veterans aged 25 to 34 had
a re la tiv ely high unem p lo y m en t rate
o f 8.2 percent, but the rate was m uch
lo w er fo r th o se aged 35 to 44 (3.4
p e rc e n t). F em ale v eteran s aged 45
to 54 had a jo b le ss rate o f 5.4 p e r­
c e n t, l i t t l e d if f e r e n t fro m th e ir
n o n v eteran co n tem p o raries.
The rate of unemployment for black
veterans was much lower than for black
nonveterans— 4.8 percent com pared
with 11.3 percent in August 2003. For
whites, the unemployment rate for vet­
erans was only somewhat lower than the
rate for nonveterans— 4.5 percent ver­
sus 5.1 percent. Among Hispanics, vet­
erans and nonveterans both had unem ­
ployment rates around 7 percent. For
more inform ation, see “Em ploym ent
Situation of Veterans: August 2003,”
new s release u s d l 0 4 -1 3 7 8 on the
In te rn e t at h ttp ://w w w .b ls.gov/

news.release/vettoc.htm

Fatalities among
athletes
From 1992 to 2002, a total o f 219 fatal
work injuries involving professional
athletes were recorded by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, a figure represent­
ing less than 1 percent of all workplace
fatalities. However, over the same pe­
riod, the fatality rate for athletes was
22.0 fatal work injuries per 100,000
workers.
An examination of the narratives of
each workplace fatality provides insight
into the activities that athletes were per­
forming at the time of their fatal injury.
Just over a third (37.4 percent) of the
deceased were performing a task asso­
ciated with automobile or motorcycle
racing (such as driving or flagging)
when they were killed. Decedents who
were participating in w ater activities
(diving, swimming, and boating) ac­
counted for just less than one-quarter
(23.3 percent) of the fatalities. In addi­
tion, 16 percent of the athletes were
killed working with horses or bulls, and
about 6 percent were killed in some form
of pugilism such as boxing, kickboxing,
or wrestling. For additional information,
see “Fatal Occupational Injuries to A th­
letes, 1992-2002,” in Compensation and
Working Conditions Online on the
Internet at http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/

sh20040719ar01pl.htm

Communications regarding the

Monthly Labor Review m ay be
sent to the Editor-in-Chief at the
ad d re sse s on the in sid e fro n t
cover, or faxed to (202) 691-5899.
News releases discussed above
are available at http://stats.bls.gov/

newsrels.htm

□

The National Compensation Survey
a wealth of benefits data
The BLS National Compensation Survey provides
an array of benefits data; in 2003, for the first time,
information is available on the percentages of establishments
offering health insurance and retirement plans, and the percentage
o f medical premiums paid by employers and employees

Allan P. Blostin

Allan P. Blostin is an
economist in the
Division of Compen­
sation Data Analysis
and Planning, Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
E-mail:
Blostin.Allan@bls.gov


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

he creation o f the Bureau o f Labor
S ta tis tic s N a tio n a l C o m p e n sa tio n
Survey ( n c s ) has been a comprehensive
effort to provide data on wages, costs, and
benefits, all within one survey program, n c s
outputs include the Employment Cost Index
( e c i ) , which measures the change in employer
costs for wages, salaries, and benefits; and the
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
( e c e c ) , which measures the average employer
cost per em ployee hour worked for wages,
salaries, and benefits. Both e c i and e c e c are
published quarterly.1The n c s of Occupational
Wages in the United States provides earnings
data in a variety of occupations in different
m etropolitan areas nationw ide, a few non­
metropolitan counties, nine census divisions,
and for the Nation as a whole.2
The n c s also provides data on the incidence
and detailed provisions for medical, dental, and
vision care; private retirement plans; and other
benefits for employees in all sizes of establish­
ments.3 A m ajor goal of the n c s is to produce
data linking information on benefit plan details
to wages and employer benefit plan costs. The
forerunner of the n c s benefits portion was the
Employee Benefits Survey ( e b s ) . Before the
advent of the n c s , the e b s had provided data on
the incidence and detailed provisions of se­
lected benefits for different sectors of the

T

economy in alternating years. M edium and
large private establishments— those establish­
ments of 100 workers or more— were studied
in odd years; small private establishments—
those establishments of fewer than 100 work­
ers— and State and local governm ents were
studied in even years.4 Exhibit 1 shows the tran­
sition from the e b s to the n c s . The series of
articles appearing in this issue of the Monthly
Labor Review cover a broad spectrum of topics
highlighting the n c s benefits products.
The benefits portion of the current n c s pro­
vides a wealth of data, primarily on health plans
and retirement plans— defined benefits and de­
fined contribution plans.5 The 2003 survey also
provides some new data, published for the first
time. The major first-time outputs consist of
the percentage of establishm ents that offer
health insurance and retirem ent benefits; the
percentage of workers that are offered health
insurance, retirement benefits, life insurance,
short-term disability insurance, and long-term
disability insurance; and the percentage of total
medical premiums paid by employers and em­
ployees. These outputs are tabulated by vari­
ous types of worker and establishment charac­
teristics. The worker characteristics include
types of occupations, union status, full-time and
part-time status, and wage rates of less than $15
and of $15 or more. The establishment charac-

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

3

National Compensation Survey

Exhibit 1. Transition from the Employee Benefits Survey to the National Compensation Survey ( n c s )
Year

Coverage

1996-98

All employees
in private
establishments
and State and
local
governments

Publication and products
Employee Benefits in Small Private
Establishments, 1996
Employee Benefits in Medium and Large
Private Establishments, 1997
Employee Benefits in State and Local
Governments, 1998

New

ncs

outputs

Not applicable

Incidence and detailed provisions for health insurance;
retirement benefits; other insurance benefits; paid
leave; and incidence of coverage for emerging benefits
1999

All employees in
the private sector

Employee Benefits in Private Industry, 1999
Incidence of coverage for health insurance; retirement
benefits; other insurance benefits; paid leave and
emerging benefits; and employee contributions for
medical insurance

2000

All employees in
the private sector

National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in
Private Industry in the United States, 2000

Data are tabulated by various worker and establish­
ment characteristics such as occupations, union
status, full-time and part-time status, size of
establishment, geographic region, goods producing
and service producing industries, all within one table

The first ncs bulletin describing detailed provisions
on health and retirement benefits

Incidence and detailed provisions for health insurance
and retirement benefits; and incidence of coverage for
other insurance benefits, paid leave, and emerging
benefits
20031

All employees in
the private sector

National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in
Private Industry in the United States, 2003
Incidence and detailed provisions for health insurance;
retirement benefits; other insurance benefits; paid
leave; and incidence of coverage for emerging benefits

1 In cid en ce d ata w ere based on the M arch 2003 referen ce period.
T he d etailed p ro v isions portion o f the health and retirem ent benefits

teristics include size of establishment, geographic region, and
goods and service-producing industries.

Summary of the articles
The articles appearing in this issue of the Review use a vari­
ety of data obtained from the n c s as well as new data pub­
lished for the first time in the 2003 n c s survey.
A main objective of the n c s is to keep abreast of current
issues in the benefits area, and one o f the hottest health insur­
ance topics in recent years has been the cost and coverage of
prescription drugs. The topic of prescription drug coverage
for older Americans has moved into the forefront with the
recent passage of a new Medicare bill. Elizabeth Dietz (pages

4

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

The major first-time outputs consist of:
• the percentage of establishments offering health
insurance and retirement benefits;
• the percentage of workers that are offered health
insurance, retirement benefits, and other insurance
benefits;
• the percentage of total medical premiums paid by
employers and employees; and
• characteristics of cash balance plans (a new type
of defined benefits plan).

w as based on data co llected fo r calen d ar year 2002.

37-45) discusses trends in prescription drug coverage in em­
ployer-sponsored plans over the last decade, and dem on­
strates how prescription drug costs have risen in recent years
for both employees and insurers. She also explains some of
the increases in the percentage of workers covered by costcontainment measures in recent years; these measures have
been instituted by insurers to combat the rise in prices for
prescription drugs.
William Wiatrowski (pages 29-36) provides data on both
health insurance plans and retirement plans. During the last
decade, there has been a steady decline in the percentage of
workers in the private sector covered by health insurance
plans and a lesser decline in overall participation in retire­
ment plans. Under retirement coverage, there has been a shift

from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans.
Possible factors that may have caused these shifts include
changes in the industry mix and the cost of these benefits to
the workers. W iatrowski explores how some of these factors
have affected the declines in benefit coverage for health and
retirement plans.
Two articles address a number of new benefits outputs
tabulated for the first time under the n c s in the 2003 survey.
Carl Barsky (pages 21-28) looks at the percentage of both
establishments that offer and workers who are offered health
and retirem ent plans. The data highlight the relationship be­
tween the percentage of workers offered health and retire­
ment benefits, and those actually participating in the plans—
commonly known as the “take-up rate.” The comparison be­
tween workers offered and workers participating also is dis­
cussed for life insurance, long-term disability insurance, and
short-term disability insurance. All of these tabulations are
presented by various worker and establishment characteris­
tics such as union status, size of establishment, geographic
region, and so forth.
A broader view by Jordan Pfuntner (pages 6-20) covers
all of the major new benefits data produced for the 2003 sur­
vey. In addition to the data on access and participation de­
scribed by Barsky, this more comprehensive discussion pre­
sents information on the share of total medical premiums paid
by employers and employees. Pfuntner also includes data on
the characteristics of cash balance retirement plans.6 He not
only presents the major new survey outputs, but highlights
the results of the data, discusses improvements from previ­
ously published data, and explains the limitations of the new
outputs.
The ability to produce information linking benefit plan

details to wages and benefit costs was a major impetus for
launching the n c s . Michael Lettau (pages 46-50) presents
some trial estimates on health insurance, tying the provisions
of benefit plans to their cost and to the wage levels of w ork­
ers. These new estimates include employer cost by the type
of plan offered; employer and employee share for the cost of
the coverage; and participation rates by wage level of the
workers.
T he g o a l of the National Compensation Survey is to provide

a comprehensive set of data under one umbrella survey pro­
gram. By having wages, employer costs for benefits, and
details of benefit plans within one program, there is now the
ability to link those outputs to produce more extensive tabu­
lations than in the past. Producing tabulations linking these
different compensation measures has always been a great
source of interest to people working in the benefits area. The
first of the linked products on the share of employee and
employer medical premiums was tabulated in the 2003 sur­
vey. Other linked outputs are already in the n c s planning
stage. As mentioned earlier, Michael Lettau presents trial
estimates for health insurance, relating benefit plan charac­
teristics to employer costs and employee wages. Along the
same lines, linking employer costs and wage levels to vari­
ous types of retirement benefit features is a potential area of
research.
This issue of the Monthly Labor Review provides a broad
overview of the current benefits outputs under the National
Compensation Survey. Some topics are very specific, such
as trends in prescription drugs; some are very broad, such as
an overview of the new benefits data available for the first
time in the 2003 survey.
□

Notes__________________________________
1 Additional information about the eci and
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/home.htm

ecec

is on the Internet at

2 Additional information about the ncs of Occupational Wages in the
United States is on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/home.htm
3 When fully implemented, the ncs will include State and local
governments of all sizes. Additional information about the ncs benefits
survey is on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/home.htm
4For a more detailed description of the Employee Benefits Survey, see


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Allan Blostin, “An Overview of the ebs and
Working Conditions, spring 1999, pp. 2-5.

ncs ,”

Compensation and

5 Incidence data and medical premiums were based on the March 2003
reference period. Detailed provisions for health and retirement benefits
were based on data collected for calendar year 2002.
6 For a more detailed description of cash balance plans, see Kenneth R.
Elliott and James H. Moore, Jr., “Cash Balance Pension Plans: The New
Wave,” Compensation and Working Conditions, summer 2000, pp. 3-11.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

5

New Benefits Data

New benefits data from the National
Compensation Survey
Private establishments with 100 or more workers
were much more likely than small establishments
to offer medical insurance and retirement benefits in 2003;
this information comes from new National Compensation Survey
data on employee benefit plan coverage and plan details
Jordan Pfuntner

Jordan Pfuntner is an
economist in the
Office of
Compensation and
Working Conditions,
Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Email:
Pfuntner_J@bls.gov

ne of the greatest challenges a statistical
agency faces is keeping up to date with
developments in the economy and with the
evolving inform ation needs of the agency’s
custom ers. In addition to resum ing a regular
program of reports on the incidence and charac­
teristics of employee benefits plans, the 2003 National
Compensation Survey (NCS) employee benefits
publications introduced a variety of new data
tabulations. These new data items range from
information on the percentage of establishments
offering major types of benefits to their employees
and the percentage of total medical premiums paid
by employers and employees, to tabulations that
link benefit plan coverage to workers’ wages, to
new details on such topics as the types of bonuses
offered employees, employer contributions to cash
balance pension plans, and orthodontic coverage
for dependents of employees.
The new tabulations stem from several sources.
First, employee compensation programs have long
been a dynamic part of our economy. Wages and
salaries, on the one hand, and employee benefit
packages, on the other, evolve in response to a
variety of pressures and needs. Employers seek
competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining
employees, while at the same time trying to control
labor costs. Some compensation programs follow
trends in collective bargaining; others reflect
prevailing practices in an industry or among
associated employers. Employee benefit plans are
rewritten to meet legal or regulatory mandates.
Second, custom er requests have impelled the
Bureau of Labor Statistics to introduce many new

O

6 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

data tabulations. In some cases, these data focus
on new elements of the compensation package; in
other cases, the tabulations hig h lig h t fresh
perspectives on employee compensation. Third,
some of the new items result from a central goal of
the n c s : to combine in a single place all of the data
that were formerly collected and stored in several
separate survey programs.1 This integration of
separate programs into one makes possible, for the
first time, comparisons that look across the various
forms of employee compensation data.
This article (1) briefly describes each of the new
benefit data items, (2) reviews the 2003 survey
findings, and (3) provides additional information to
help place the new data in context. Included are
definitions and, in some cases, calculational
procedures. Finally, the article discusses limitations
that should be considered in using the new data.
An appendix at the end offers a glossary of tech­
nical terms.

New counts of benefits coverage
Most of the benefits data traditionally produced
by the NCS and its predecessor surveys have come
in three forms: a dollars-and-cents measure of the
cost to employers of providing benefit plans to their
employees (cost-level data), changes in employer
costs over time (cost-trend data), and a measure of
the num ber or proportion of em ployees who
receive benefit plans (counting data). In response
to requests from users, the NCS benefits program
offers new counting measures that afford addi­
tional perspectives on benefit plan coverage

beyond those published in earlier surveys. The NCS also
provides a new measure of employer cost, described later in
the article.

Establishment counts. Traditionally, the NCS has provided
counts of employees. In response to customer requests, the
2003 private-industry survey published direct measures of
the proportion o f establishments that offered major benefit
plans to their employees.2 The survey found, for example,
that 47 percent o f establishments offered retirement benefits
to their employees, but that offerings differed sharply by the
size of establishm ents.3 For example, 45 percent of small
establishments (those with fewer than 100 workers) offered
retirem ent benefits, com pared with 88 percent o f larger
establishm ents. The figures for health care benefits were
similar, with 56 percent of small workplaces offering health
insurance, compared with 95 percent of large establishments.4
The overall figures are dominated by small establishments,
because about 96 percent of private establishm ents have
fewer than 100 employees. The division by employees is more
even: sm all establishm ents em ploy about 54 percent of
private-sector workers.5

Access and offerings.

A second counting mechanism re­
quested by users is a measure of the percentage of employees
who are offered (or who have access to) retirement and insurance
benefits.6 Data on offerings and access show the proportion of
employees who are offered a benefit, in contrast to the traditional
count used in the survey, namely , participation, which indicates
the number or percentage of employees covered by a benefit
plan. The reason for collecting data on access is that some
users— for example, policymakers— are interested in knowing
not only how many employees actually have medical insurance,
but also how many employers offer, and how many employees
are offered, such insurance.7
The two counts (access and participation) can be combined
to yield a third measure, the takeup rate, which shows the
proportion of workers offered a benefit who participate in that
benefit. For example, the 2003 survey showed that 57 percent of
workers had access to (or were offered) retirement benefits, and
49 percent were participants in a retirement plan, for a takeup rate
of 86 percent (49 divided by 57). In contrast, medical care benefits
had a lower takeup rate of 75 percent, with 60 percent of workers
having access, but only 45 percent participating.8

New breakouts of benefits coverage data
The new NCS database on benefits features a standard set of
breakouts that provides additional information on coverage
by both worker and establishment characteristics. Over the
next 4 years, the sam ple devoted to publishing data on
benefits coverage will gradually increase from the 2003 figure


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

of 2,900 establishments to approximately 13,000. As the
sample increases, additional breakouts may be published.
E xhibit 1 show s the standard p resentation of benefits
coverage data. This article focuses on those breakouts which
are new to the survey.

Establishment characteristics.

The 2003 survey presents data
for the first time for both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas
and for the nine Census divisions. About 6 out of 7 employees
were located in metropolitan area workplaces,9 which were
somewhat more likely to provide the major types of employee
benefits than their nonmetropolitan area counterparts were, but
the differences were not pronounced.10
Using the Census B ureau’s classification scheme, n c s
analysts divided the country, State by State, into nine
divisions.11 The divisions varied widely in employment size.
The smallest divisions were the New England, East South
Central, and Mountain divisions, with about 5 percent or 6
percent apiece of the total employment covered by the survey.
The largest division, the East North Central division, had nearly
20 percent of the country’s employees. There were some notable
differences in benefit offerings and participation among
divisions. For example, 76 percent of workers in the Middle
Atlantic division participated in a short-term disability benefits
plan, double the percentage in any other division. This
difference is largely attributable to State laws in New York and
New Jersey that require most private employers to provide such
coverage to their employees.

Worker characteristics. In addition to classifying employers
by various characteristics, the survey classifies employees into
several categories, depending upon their occupation, work
schedule, and union status. The first category, occupation, is
changed in the 2003 survey.
For publication purposes, the survey grouped workers into
three broad occupations: white collar, blue collar, and service.
This new grouping allows for better comparisons with other n c s
survey outputs. Exhibit 2 shows how the new groups compare
against the three categories used in earlier private-industry
benefit surveys. From this exhibit, it can be seen that the new
w hite-collar group combines two form er categories: the
“professional, technical, executive, administrative, and manage­
ment” group and the “clerical and sales” group. In contrast, the
new blue-collar and service groups represent a split into two of
what was a single occupational group (“blue collar and service”)
in previous surveys.
In 2003, half of workers were in white-collar occupations,
one-third were in blue-collar jobs, and about one-fifth were
in service occupations. As regards the major types of benefits
studied, white-collar and blue-collar workers generally had
similar rates of offerings and incidence, but lower rates
applied to service workers. For example, 50 percent of whiteMonthly Labor Review

August 2004

7

New Benefits Data

Exhibit 1.

Standard breakouts for data on benefits coverage in the National Compensation Survey ( ncs), 2003

Worker characteristics

Establishment characteristics'

Geographic areas

White-collar occupations
Blue-collar occupations
Service occupations

Goods-producing industry
Service-producing industry

Metropolitan areas
Nonmetropolitan areas

Full time
Part time

1-99 workers
100 workers or more

New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific

Union
Nonunion
Average wage less than $15 per hour
Average wage $15 per hour or higher
Occupations. The 2003 ncs benefits survey was tabulated with fHe use ot an
occupational classification schem e based upon the 1990 Census. In the next few
years, data on the incidence o f benefits and provisions w ill be converted to the
2000 Standard Occupational C lassification (so c) system.
Industry.

The 2003 ncs benefits survey was tabulated with the use o f the 1987
Standard Industrial C lassification system . In the next few years, the tabulations

Geography. The 2003 ncs benefits survey was drawn from a sample o f geographic
areas based upon m etropolitan area d efin itio n s prescribed by the O ffice o f
Management and Budget (omb) in 1994. In the next few years, the ncs will draw a
new sample o f areas, based upon omb 2 0 0 4 definitions.

w ill be switched to the North American Industry C lassification System (naics).

collar workers and 51 percent of blue-collar workers participated
in medical care plans, whereas 22 percent of service workers had
such coverage.
These occupational groups, however, will be used only in
the near future. Just as the survey’s geographic classifications
will be changing, the survey’s publications will switch to a
new occupational system in the next few years. The 2003
survey results have been tallied according to a scheme
developed for the 1990 Census: the new system is the 2000
Standard Occupational Classification system. (The survey
will also switch from the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification
system to the N orth A m erican Industry C lassification
System .)12
The NCS also captures information on other worker charac­
teristics, including whether the worker’s wages are paid strictly
on the basis of time worked or whether the wages include an
incentive component that varies directly with the worker’s or
the worker’s group’s production. Primarily for wage publication
purposes, the survey also classifies workers into detailed
occupations, as well as by the level of their job duties and
responsibilities, including whether they have a supervisory role.
With the exception of a few tallies shown later in the article, the
2003 survey did not publish benefit coverage rates by these
characteristics, so they may be an area for research and exploration
in the future.

8 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

Coverage by wage levels
A data series introduced in the 2003 survey relates the
incidence of benefits to the average wage earned by workers.
This ability to relate wages to benefits is a consequence of
melding separate compensation surveys into a single, unified
n c s program. In the past, data on incidence and provisions
were stored in databases that were separate from the database
on wages and could not be combined.
In the NCS, data are collected for a sample of jobs in each
establishment surveyed. Individual wage rates are collected
for each worker in each job. (Jobs are classified into detailed
occupations and job levels.) In contrast, n c s benefits data
are collected and stored only for each selected job overall,
rather than for each of the individual workers separately.
Thus, information on wages and benefit plans cannot be
matched to individual workers.
The survey can, however, relate summary measures of each
selected jo b ’s wages and benefits coverage. For the 2003
survey, the average wage of all workers employed in the
selected job was chosen as the summary measure. The jobs
sampled in the survey were divided into two wage categories:
those paying an average of less than $15 an hour and those
paying an average of $ 15 an hour or more. The $ 15 figure was
chosen because it was the closest multiple of $5 to the national
median wage in private industry; in the 2003 benefits survey,

Occupational groups used for data on benefits coverage in the National Compensation Survey
( ncs ), 1990-2003

Occupational groups

Professional
and
technical

Manage­
ment

Sales

Clerical

Yes
No
No

Yes
No
No

Yes
No
No

Yes
No
No

No
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

Yes
No
No

Yes
No
No

No
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

No
No
Yes

No
No
Yes

Craft

Machine
Trans­
operatives portation

Laborer

Service

No
Yes
No

No
Yes
No

No
No
Yes

No
No
Yes

No
No
Yes

No
No
Yes

Used in 2003
White collar
Blue collar
Service
Used from 1990 to 2000
Professional, technical,
executive, administrative,
and managerial
Clerical and sales
Blue collar and service

three-fifths of workers were in the lower paid group and twofifths were in the higher paid category.13
The 2003 survey revealed that workers in higher paid
occupations were much more likely to be offered, and to
receive, employee benefits than were their lower paid counter­
parts. In the higher paid category, 70 percent of employees
had a retirem ent plan and 61 percent had medical coverage.
In contrast, 35 percent of workers in lower paid occupations
had a retirem ent plan and 35 percent had m edical coverage.
Several cautions apply to the use of the foregoing data.
Although data collection procedures generally dictate that a
homogeneous group of workers will be included in a job
selected for the survey,14 there can still be considerable
variability in the wages paid to workers in the selected jobs.
To help readers gauge how widely dispersed wage rates
within establishment jobs can be, table 1 looks at the jobs
selected for the survey in private-industry establishments in
2003. For each establishm ent job, the percent difference
between the highest paid worker and the lowest paid worker
was calculated. For example, if the company job of division
cost accountant was selected in the survey and hourly wages
for incumbents ranged from $14 to $30, the spread would be
calculated as 114 percent ($30 divided by $14 and then
translated into a percentage). It is important to note that the
table displays information only on the wage ranges found
within the establishments surveyed; unlike the other statistics
presented in this article, the data are not weighted to represent
private industry.15In addition, as noted earlier, differences in
the incidence of benefits by wage level could be affected by
other factors, such as the mix of industries, occupations,
unionization, and geographic locations.
Across all of the private-industry jobs selected in the NCS
in 2003, about 95 percent of workers were in jobs in which


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

wage rates varied. (The remaining workers were in jobs with
a single incumbent or in which the same wage was paid to all
incumbents.) The average difference between the highest
and lowest wage rates within establishm ent jobs was 42
percent. Among the major occupational groups with bluecollar and service jobs, the average differences were in the
30- to 35-percent range. M ajor occupational groups with
white-collar jobs exhibited more variation, ranging from a 40percent difference in technical occupations to a 96-percent
difference in sales occupations. The lower portion of the table
shows selected highly populated occupations.
The table also presents wage spreads arrayed by the aver­
age wage of incumbents in the establishment job. Higher paid
white-collar jobs generally had greater differences than did
lower paid jobs. Establishment jobs paying within a dollar
per hour of the survey tabulation point of $15 per hour (the
$14-to-$ 16 column of the table) averaged a 36-percent spread.
Thus, it is evident that, in many cases, workers paid $15 or
more an hour are in company jobs averaging less than $15,
and vice versa.
A nother lim itation to bear in m ind is that, as noted
earlier, the survey does not relate the wages of individual
workers to the profile of employee benefit plans that they are
offered or receive. (Collecting data that match individual wages
to individual benefit profiles would yield the richest database of
information, but earlier investigations by the Bureau revealed
that the burden on survey respondents would preclude the use
of this collection protocol.) Rather, the survey allows only for
matching the average wage (or some other summary measure) of
the workers in the selected job to the overall benefit profile of
the workers in that same job. Exhibit 3, which shows how average
employee medical contributions compare against wage rates,
illustrates this particular limitation of the survey data. The exhibit
Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

9

New Benefits Data

presupposes that a company offers two medical care plans to
employees in the two selected jobs: division cost accountant
and janitor. Medical Plan A costs employees a monthly premium
of $50 for single coverage, while Plan B costs $100. Also, 80
percent of the accountants (a job averaging more than $15 an
hour) participate in a medical insurance plan, and the average
contribution of the participants is $93.75 per month. The
janitor job (which averages less than $15 per hour) has a 60p e rc e n t p a rtic ip a tio n rate and an averag e p articip an t
contribution of $66.67 per month.
The averages appear to indicate that the higher paid
workers are more likely to participate in a medical insurance
plan and that they gravitate toward the more costly Plan B.
However, because the survey does not record the individual
choices of workers, it is unknown which workers chose Plan
A and which chose Plan B. For example, it is unknown whether
the highest-paid janitor (at $16 per hour) selected Plan A,
selected Plan B, or declined coverage. Similarly, it is unknown

Table 1

what the newly hired cost accountant (at $14 per hour) decided
with regard to medical coverage. Thus, in this example, it is
possible that some workers who were paid $ 15 or more per hour
selected the lower premium plan and that some who were paid
less than $15 per hour chose the higher plan.

New data elements
To stay up to date with developments in employee com pen­
sation, and to respond to customer requests, the 2003 survey
introduced several new data elements or additional details
about existing data elements. This new information included
more details on cash bonuses, deductibles and coinsurance
rates in m edical insurance plans, orthodontic care, cash
balance pension plans, savings-and-thrift plans, and money
purchase pension plans. In addition, the survey expanded
the breakouts published on benefit plan provisions to include
more establishment and employee characteristics.

Wage dispersion within establishment jobs, private industry, National Compensation Survey (ncs), 2003

Major occupational
group or selected
occupation

Percent
of workers
in jobs
with more
wage rate

All w orkers..................

Percent spread by which the highest-paid worker’s wage exceeded that of the lowest-paid worker
Mean
spread
for all
workers

Mean hourly wage of the occupation
Less than $7

$7 to $9

$9.01 to
$13.99

$14 to
$16

$16.01 to
$20

42

30

35

39

36

36

40

75

98
93
96

50
40
96

22
30
42

37
27
47

34
47
70

35
35
93

34
39
114

46
37
129

67
43
469

97

36

23

31

37

36

35

31

34

85

30

34

33

37

35

31

23

23

92

29

41

34

34

26

22

20

19

91

35

27

30

31

33

36

41

112

90
95

34
35

24
28

33
32

39
37

32
33

30
34

27
35

59
68

93
96
93

31
34
87

—
127
—

—
35
16

34
38
92

24
27
52

32
22
81

31
25
103

31
9
206

92
71
96

28
31
40

—
—

31

19
28
44

28
36
43

31
41
33

28
32
22

19
18
13

17

99

48

—

—

23

32

37

44

51

93

36

33

37

39

33

31

14

-

82
99

38
39

—

—

2
26

57
28

39
28

49
41

34
38

Selected occupations
Accountants and auditors....
Assemblers...........................
Automobile mechanics........
Bookkeepers, accounting,
and auditing clerks............
Carpenters............................
Cashiers...............................
Computer systems analysts
and scientists....................
Janitors, porters, and
cleaners..............................
Marketing, advertising, and
public relations managers..
Registered nurses...............

—

Dash indicates no employees in category or data did not meet publication standards.

10 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

More than
$30

95

Major occupational
group
Professional .........................
Technical..............................
Sales.....................................
Clerical and administrative
support...............................
Precision production, craft,
and rep a ir...........................
Machine operators,
assemblers, and inspectors
Transportation and material
moving................................
Handlers, equipment
cleaners, helpers, and
laborers..............................
Service.................................

$20.01 to
$30

August 2004

Hourly wages and average employee medical contributions, National Compensation Survey

Company job
and number
of employees

Division cost
accountant (10)

Janitor
(5)

Hourly wages

The average wage is
$23.40; 2 employees
are paid the highest
wage of $30, one
worker (a new hire) the
lowest wage of $14.
The average wage is
$11.20; 1 employee is
paid $16 at the top of
the range, the other
employees between
$8 and $12.

Plan A selections
($50 monthly
employee
contribution;

Plan B
selections
($100 monthly
employee
contribution)

Declined
coverage

Average
monthly
employee
contribution
for those
participating in
a medical plan

One
selects
Plan A.

Seven select
Plan B.

Two decline
coverage.

$93.75

Two
select Plan A.

One selects
Plan B.

Two decline
coverage.

$66.67

Cash bonuses. Previous surveys published inform ation
only on the overall incidence of cash bonuses. The 2003
survey expands the information by providing details on the
prevalence of bonuses by the type of bonus. This expanded
information is an outgrowth of research conducted over the last
few years into “variab le p a y ” and other types of pay
supplements. The goal of the research was to keep the NCS
measures up to date with developments in employee compen­
sation. One of the project’s findings was that data users needed
m ore details about the types o f cash paym ents made to
employees, in addition to information on the straight-time wages
and salaries that was traditionally published in the b l s
survey.16
As a first step in meeting the research goal, the 2003 survey
published information on the proportion of employees with
access to various types of nonproduction bonuses, defined
as cash payments that are not directly geared to individual or
group production.17 The survey findings showed that 49
percent of employees were offered bonuses— a percentage
similar to the 48 percent reported in the 2000 survey. About
half o f white- and blue-collar workers had bonus plans,
compared with a third of service workers. Similarly, full-time
workers and workers in jobs that averaged $15 or more an
hour were more likely to have plans than were part-time
workers or workers in jobs that averaged less than $15 an
hour.
The new data on types of bonuses revealed that the most
com m on bonuses were end-of-year and holiday bonuses,
offered to 12 percent and 10 percent of employees, respectively.
About 5 percent to 8 percent of employees were offered cash
profit-sharing, referral, and employee recognition bonuses; and


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

( ncs)

less than 5 percent of employees were offered other, separately
identified types of bonus plans. Differences, however, were
not so pronounced in offering rates among establishments
and employees. For example, end-of-year bonuses were
offered to 13 percent of white- and blue-collar workers and 8
percent of service workers.
Table 2 provides information on two bonus characteristics
tabulated for the first tim e in this article: w hether the
establishment was in business for profit or not for profit, and
whether employees were paid wages strictly on the basis of
hours worked (time-based pay) or had all or a portion of their
wages tied to individual or group production (incentivebased pay). About 1 in 10 em ployees were in nonprofit
establishments, and the overall incidence of bonuses was
essentially the same for profit (49 percent of workers) and
nonprofit (47 percent) employers. However, the types of
bonuses offered to employees differed by profit status. In
profit-seeking workplaces, end-of-year and holiday bonuses
were the most prevalent types. Among nonprofit employers,
employee recognition and referral bonuses occurred most
often.
About 5 percent of workers were paid on an incentive
basis. Here, too, there was essentially no difference in the
overall incidence of bonuses for incentive-paid (51 percent)
and time-paid (49 percent) workers. In addition, the incidence
of the various types of bonuses differed little between the
two types of wage payment plans.18
It is important to note that these data show the proportion
of employees with access to bonuses, which is not the actual
number of employees receiving such bonuses. For example,
if an employee in the selected job of chemist worked in an
Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

11

New Benefits Data

Table 2.

Percent of workers with access to nonproduction bonuses, by type of bonus and selected characteristics,
private industry, National Compensation Survey ( ncs), 2003

Type of bonus

All workers

Profit
establishments

Nonprofit
establishments

Time-based
pay

Incentivebased pay

49
3
5
12
9
4
1
1

51
4
1
12
12
6
4
6

2
2

2
2

8
1

8
01
C)

Overall a ccess................................
Attendance............................................
Employee recognition............................
End of year........................................
Holiday...................................................
Payment in lieu of other benefits........
Safety...................................................
Suggestion............................................

49
3
5
12
10
4
2
1

49
3
4
12
10
4
2
1

47
2
10
7
7

Hiring................................................
Longevity...............................................
Referral..................................................
Retention.............................................
Management incentive..........................
Cash profit sharing................................
Union related.........................................
Other bo n us..........................................

2
2
1
2
5

2
1
7
1
2
6

3
2
13
1

(')

2

(1)

(1)

(')

5
V)

3

5

8

5

5

1Less than half of 1 percent.
N ote : See appendix for definitions of terms. The overall incidence of
bonuses is less than the sum of the individual types of bonuses, because

establishm ent that granted a bonus to chemists with perfect
attendance for the year, the employee would be counted as
having access to an attendance bonus, regardless of whether
he or she achieved perfect attendance and received such a
bonus in the latest year.
Information on the amounts of the bonuses by type was not
published in the 2003 survey. However, data published in the
quarterly Employer Costs for Employee Compensation ( e c e c )
series show that nonproduction bonuses as a whole cost private
employers $0.33 per employee hour worked in March 2003,
accounting for 1.5 percent of total compensation. Costs were
higher for white-collar workers ($0.53 per employee hour) than
for blue-collar workers ($0.17) and service workers ($0.06). In
1986, the first year for which these data were published, bonuses
cost private employers $0.10 per employee hour worked,
accounting for 0.7 percent of compensation.

Stock options. With continuing public interest in stock
options, the Bureau added them back into the survey in 2003.
The form er Em ployee Benefits Survey had tracked the
incidence of stock options from 1985 to 1994, but the benefit
was dropped from the survey in 1995 because its incidence
was low: less than one-half of 1 percent of full-time privateindustry employees had a stock option plan in 1993-94. The
2003 results revealed that 11 percent of all employees (13
percent of full-time employees) had access to stock options.
W hite-collar workers (16 percent) were more likely to have a
12 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

8
(1)

5

7

some employees received more than one type of bonus. Dash indicates no
employees in this category or data did not meet publication standards. This
table does not show data separately for 0.2 percent of employees in
establishments for which the profit or nonprofit classification could not be
determined.

stock option plan than their blue-collar (7 percent) or service
(2 percent) w orker counterparts. As w ith benefit plans
generally, workers in occupations averaging $15 an hour or
more were more likely to have stock option plans (18 percent)
than were workers in jobs that paid less than $15 per hour (6
percent). Similarly, workers in establishments with 100 or more
employees were more apt to have a stock option plan (18
percent) than were their counterparts in smaller establish­
ments (6 percent).
The 2003 results cannot be compared with a special study
that the Bureau conducted of 1999 stock options. The study
found that 1.7 percent of employees received a grant that
year.19 The study was limited to instances in which a stock
option was granted during 1999; thus, if employees had a
stock option plan, but no grant was awarded in 1999, they
would not be counted as receiving a grant. In contrast, the
2003 survey asked whether employees had a stock option
plan, regardless of whether an option was granted that year.

Employer-provided, personal computers.

Since 1980, the
benefits survey has asked about the availability of a variety
of emerging or “other” benefits and has changed the list of
benefits from year to year to follow developments in the field.
In 1980, the survey published information on the availability
of em ployee discounts, relocation allow ances, in-house
infirm aries, subsidized m eals, and com pany-provided
automobiles, among other benefits. Twenty years later, the

roster of “other benefits” had changed dramatically, dropping
discounts, relocation allowances, infirm aries, subsidized
m eals, and com pany autom obiles and adding adoption
assistance, long-term care insurance, flexible workplaces, and
wellness programs. An item added in 2003 was employerprovided hom e personal com puters, to which the survey
showed that 2 percent of employees had access that year.

• Establishm ent size: few er than 100 workers, 100
workers or more
• Geographic areas: metropolitan or nonmetropolitan, nine
Census divisions.
The purpose of introducing these new breakouts is to pro­
vide more information on segments of the private economy
in response to customer requests.

New detailed data on plan provisions
Medical insurance
The ncs conducts a detailed analysis of plan provisions for
three m ajor em ployee benefits: health insurance, defined
benefit pensions, and defined contribution plans. Because
that analysis is voluminous and complex, the survey uses a
data collection technique different from the one it employs
for the other data elem ents studied. For the three major
employee benefits, b l s field economists collect documents,
such as summary plan descriptions, benefit plan brochures,
and employee handbooks, that describe plan provisions in
detail.20 Whereas the other data elements are updated as of a
common reference point— March 2003 in this instance— the
plan documents are collected only at the time the sample
establishm ent is first brought into the survey. For the 2003
survey, this data collection period was from December 2001
to April 2003, with an average reference date of 2002. This
difference in data collection methods is employed to con­
serve bls resources and to reduce the burden imposed on
respondents for participating in the survey. For the remainder
of this article, tabulations derived from these detailed plan
documents are referred to as “2002-03” survey tabulations
or estimates.

New data breakouts
The 2002-03 tabulations feature more data breakouts of detailed
plan provisions than were attempted in the past, when data were
shown only for three broad occupational groups. The new
breakouts vary by tabulation. Full details are provided for a few
tables that present a general picture of the benefit; limited details
are provided for the majority of tables, which present information
on a particular feature of a benefit. In the following list, the
limited breakouts are printed in italics:
• Occupational group: white collar, blue collar, and

service
• Work schedule: full time, part time
• Unionization: union, nonunion
• Average wage: Less than $15 per hour, $15 an hour or
more21
• Industry: goods producing, service producing


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Depicting how employer-sponsored plans pay for medical
services is complicated by broad-scale innovations in medical
plan design. Over the years, what were once reasonably clear
distinctions among medical plans have been blurred by the
creation of hybrid plans— plans which combine features that
formerly were mutually exclusive. For example, the survey
originally defined health maintenance organizations (HMO’s)
as plans that provided medical services in return for prepaid
fees and that required subscribers to seek services only from
health care professionals or institutions belonging to the plan.
However, in recent years, many h m o ’ s have offered a “pointof-service” option, which allows subscribers to seek services
outside of the plan. The 2002-03 tabulations show that onethird of h m o subscribers were in plans with a point-of-service
feature. In recognition of these new types of plans, the NCS
benefits survey now calls such plans “prepaid plans” rather
than h m o ’s . (See the appendix for definitions.)
Similarly, some preferred provider organizations ( p p o ’s ) , while
still paying for services outside the network, have required
subscribers to apply for services through a primary care
physician—a control feature formerly unique to h m o ’s . In 200203, about one-fifth of p p o participants were in such plans.
Acknowledging the evolution of these hybrid plans, the n c s
benefits survey now calls all forms of p p o ’s “indemnity in and
out of network” plans.
To accommodate these basic changes in medical plan design,
the n c s benefits survey introduced a new nomenclature with the
2002-03 tabulations. Exhibit 4 compares the 2000 survey
terminology with the new terms.

Incentives to use network providers.

To keep pace with
developments in medical insurance, the survey introduced
several new tabulations focusing on subscriber incentives. Over
the last 20 years, with the rise of “indemnity in and out of
network” plans, medical insurance plans have evolved to include
a variety of incentives to encourage health care subscribers to
seek care from designated providers.22Among these incentives
are various ways of requiring subscribers to pay more for medical
services sought from providers who are not designated as part
of the plan’s network of preferred providers. Because plan
payments may vary with whether a network or “out of network”
Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

13

New Benefits Data

New National Compensation Survey ( ncs) terms for major types of medical care plans
2000 survey terms

Types of plans included,
using 2000 survey terms

2003 survey terms

Non-health maintenance organizations:

Preferred provider organizations

Indemnity plans:

All plans except health maintenance organizations—
traditional fee-for-service plans, preferred
provider organizations, and exclusive provider
organizations:

Indemnity in and out of network,
without primary care physician

Preferred provider organizations that do not
require subscribers to seek services through a
primary care physician

Indemnity in and out of network,
with primary care physician

Preferred provider organizations with a primary
care physician

Traditional fee-for-service
plans

Traditional indemnity

Traditional fee-for-service plans

Exclusive provider organizations

Other indemnity

Exclusive provider organizations

Health maintenance organizations

Health maintenance organizations:

Prepaid plans:
Prepaid in network only
Prepaid in and out of network

provider is used, survey tabulations that look solely at
provisions applying only inside the network are presenting just
a part of the picture. Two new tabulations make it easier to discern
differences between inside- and outside-of-network payments.
One new table focuses on comparing how the various types
of indemnity plans assess deductibles, depending on whether
the participant seeks services inside or outside of the network.
The survey data showed that 4 in 10 participants in indemnity
in- and out-of-network plans had to pay higher deductibles for
out-of-network services. When such a condition was imposed,
a difference of $200-$399 applied to nearly six-tenths of the
participants, with one-third subject to deductibles that were $400
higher or more if they used out-of-network providers. The
average difference in deductibles was $375.
Sim ilarly, indem nity plans often im pose a different
coinsurance rate for services sought inside the network than
for those sought from providers outside the network. In earlier
years, the survey had published data showing the coinsurance
rates for inside and outside the network services— for example,
90 percent inside the network and 70 percent outside the
network, a difference of 20 percentage points. Because there
were numerous variations in rates, however, many medical
care plans ended up being tallied in an “other” category
wherein the difference in rates could not be ascertained by
data users. The new tables directly show the differences in
coinsurance amounts and provide information on all the plans
studied. For readers who wish to see the coinsurance rates
prevailing when services are sought inside the network, the
survey continues to publish a table of coinsurance rates.
The new survey tabulations indicate that different coin­
14 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

Without point-of-service features
With point-of-service features

surance rates were more common than different deductibles.
More than 8 in 10 participants in indemnity in-and-out-ofnetwork plans were reimbursed a lower coinsurance rate for
services sought outside the network. The m ost common
difference was 20 percentage points, applying to about 6 in 10
participants subject to different rates. Differences of greater than
20 percentage points applied to about one-quarter of partic­
ipants, while 10-percentage-point differences applied to about
one-sixth. The average difference was 22 percentage points.

Dental insurance.

New survey tabulations on orthodontic
care distinguish betw een coverage for em ployees and
coverage for dependents. (Previous surveys had not made
this distinction.) The reason for adding these details is that
dental plans sometimes “have lifetime dollar limits for employees
that are different from the comparable limits for employee
dependents.”23 The current survey revealed that a majority of
participants were in plans that covered only dependents. In
plans in which both employees and dependents were covered,
however, maximum payments were the same for dependents and
employees for about 9 out of 10 participants.

Retirement plans
Just as medical care plans have evolved, so have retirement
plans changed dramatically over the years examined by the b l s
benefits survey. Since the previous benefits survey was
established 25 years ago, new types of retirement plans have
been created and retirement plan provisions have changed
dramatically in response to changes in the law, to broad-based

economic and societal changes, and to employer efforts to
encourage workers to save toward their retirement. The 2002-03
tabulations bear the marks of many of these changes.

percent of participants in savings-and-thrift plans. Among these
plans, the average default contribution was 2 percent.

Employer contributions to money purchase plans.

Cash balance plans.

First studied by the survey in the late
1980s, cash balance plans have grown in prominence. In 1988,
these plans covered 1 percent of full-time workers with defined
benefit pension plans in private establishments with 100 or more
employees; by 2002-03, about 1 in 5 defined benefit pension
participants had a cash balance plan.24 In a cash balance plan,
the employer specifies a contribution and a rate of interest on
that contribution which together will provide a predetermined
amount at retirement; benefits are computed as a percentage of
each employee’s account balance.25With the rise of these plans,
it is now possible to publish, as a regular survey output,
information on the details of the employer’s contributions.
The survey found that the most common means of setting
employer contribution rates was on a sliding scale based upon
the employee’s age or length of service with the firm (or both);
plans such as these applied to slightly more than half of cash
balance plan participants.26About one-fifth of participants were
in plans that set the employer’s contribution as a flat percentage
of the employee’s earnings; another fifth were in plans in which
the percentage varied by the level of the employee’s earnings.
Among flat-percent plans, the average employer contribution
was 4 percent.
The survey also examined policies for setting interest rates
on account balances. Rates were tied to U.S. Government
securities for two-fifths of participants, and a flat percentage
was designated for one-third of participants. (Information on
interest rates was not available for just under one-quarter of
participants.)

Automatic enrollment in savings-and-thrift plans.

Savingsand-thrift plans are the most commonly found type of defined
contribution plan in private industry. In such plans, employees
contribute a predeterm ined portion o f their earnings to a
retirement account, and all or some of their contribution is
matched by the employer. A frequently observed provision
allows employees to contribute up to 15 percent of their earnings,
with the employer matching 50 percent of the employee’s
contribution on the first 6 percent of earnings. Under this kind of
provision, for example, an employee who contributes 10 percent
of his or her earnings would receive an employer contribution of
3 percent (half of 6 percent).
In recent years, there has been much discussion of the
importance of employees providing for their retirement by taking
full advantage of employer-provided savings-and-thrift plans.
One means advocated for encouraging employee participation
is the use of automatic enrollment provisions, wherein employees
have to opt out in order not to be covered.27A new survey table
shows that these enrollment features are included in plans for 5


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

In money
purchase pension plans, which covered 1 in 10 defined
contribution plan participants in 2002-03, the employer makes a
designated contribution, typically a percentage of the em­
ployee’s earnings, to an individual employee account. Because
these plans now cover about 3 million employees in private
industry, the n c s survey is able to publish information on how
much employers contribute to such plans. Half the participants
were in money purchase plans in which the employer contributed
a fixed percentage of the worker’s earnings. Among fixed-percent
plans, the most common employer contribution was in the range
from 3 percent to less than 6 percent of earnings.

New data on benefit plan costs and provisions
The survey consolidation that allowed the Bureau to tabulate
benefit plan coverage by average wages has also allowed new
data series that relate the costs employers incur for benefit plans
to plan features. The first of these new series examines the
premiums that employers and employees pay for medical care
coverage.

Employer-employee share o f medical premiums.

Researchers
and policymakers have expressed much interest in timely
information on how employers share medical care costs with
employees. In past surveys, however, the inform ation on
employer premiums was collected and stored separately from
the data on em ployee contributions.28 W ith unified data
collection and storage, the NCS benefits survey added a tabu­
lation that computes the employer and employee shares of
medical care plan premiums. The survey tabulations reveal that
employers bear about 80 percent or slightly more of the premiums
for single coverage and 70 percent for family coverage.29 In
general, little or no differences were noted among the worker
and establishm ent characteristics studied. For exam ple,
employers paid 81 percent of the single-coverage premiums for
white-collar workers and 83 percent for their blue-collar
counterparts; in terms of employment size, small establishments
paid 81 percent, and medium and large establishments 82
percent, for single coverage.
In interpreting these data, it is important to understand how
the proportions were calculated. First, all m edical plan
participants were included, so that the percentages reflect both
cases where employees do not have to pay anything toward
their coverage and cases where they are required to make a
contribution. (Other tabulations, described shortly, focus on
premiums in plans requiring employee contributions.) Second,
the data include all medical plan participants in calculations of
both single and family coverage. The calculations are not based

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

15

New Benefits Data

upon the actual selection made by employees toward their
medical coverage. For example, in an occupation in which there
are 5 single employees and 5 married employees participating in
a medical plan, the calculations use all 10 employees in both
single- and family-coverage computations.30Third, particularly
as regards calculations of the employer and employee premium
shares, about half of the data on premiums were not available
from the sampled establishments and were imputed. Although
the imputations had a small impact on most of the calculations
of occupational and establishment characteristics, the relative
paucity of directly collected premium data could impart a bias to
the tabulations if the premiums for establishments that failed to
provide data differed m arkedly from the prem ium s for
establishments supplying data.
An important conceptual limitation to bear in mind is that the
premiums do not translate directly into costs. Rather, the data
tabulated in the 2003 n c s benefits survey reflect the premiums
that are in effect at the time (during a quarter) that the data were
collected. There are many reasons that total annual employer
and employee costs differ from “point-in-time” premiums. For
one, total costs reflect whether the employee has selected a
single or a family option. Secondly, changes within the year also
affect total costs. For example, premiums could change during
the year, employees could select a different plan if “open season”
arrives before the year’s end, and employees could choose a
different option if their marital or parental status changed within
the year. Total employer costs also are affected by employee
turnover during the year.31 For all these reasons, data users
should be cautious in comparing the new ncs data with other,

Table 3.

aggregate measures of employer and employee costs.32 Note
that differences among aggregate measures can also stem from
differences in survey coverage, in definitions of what is included
in health insurance costs, and in the reference period of the data.
Because premiums do not necessarily equal costs, the NCS
premiums data described here cannot be directly related to other
NCS series that use employer cost data, such as the quarterly
Employment Cost Index (ec i ) or the ecec . For example, the
March 2003 release of the ecec revealed that private-industry
employers spent an average of $ 1.41 per employee hour worked
on health insurance. The cost per employee hour worked, as
calculated for the ECI and the ecec , reflects costs for all types of
health insurance—-medical, dental, vision, and others— whereas
the tabulations described in this article are limited to medical
insurance. Another difference is that the 2003 ECI and ecec
data are derived from a larger sample of establishments than was
used for the 2003 ncs benefits survey.33 In addition, as noted
earlier, the eci and the ecec use data on expenditures as well as
data on premiums, whereas the tabulations described in this
article are restricted to the latter.

Premiums per participant.

Another request from data users
is that the Bureau publish the cost of employee benefits per
participant. Since 1987, through its ecec series, the Bureau has
published information on employer costs per employee hour
worked for nearly two dozen major categories of benefits. The
information was published annually through 2001 and has come
out quarterly since 2002.34 However, it is published on a per
employee basis, because that is only way wage and benefit

Average employer monthly premiums for m edical care, by survey categories, private industry National
Compensation Survey ( ncs), 2003
Category

Highest average
premium per
participant

Dollar amount

Lowest average
premium per
participant

Dollar amount

Percent difference
between highest
and lowest
premium

Single coverage1
Occupation.............................
Work schedule.........................
Unionization.............................
Average wage..........................
Industry...............................
Establishment size ...................
Geographic area.......................
Census division.........................

White collar
Full time
Union
$15 or more
Service producing
1-99 employees
Nonmetropolitan
Pacific

$215.98
213.92
227.29
219.75
214.98
214.33
224.07
222.32

Blue collar
Part time
Nonunion
Less than $15
Goods producing
100 employees or more
Metropolitan
Mountain

Family coverage2
Occupation................................
Work schedule...........................
Unionization...............................
Average wage............................
Industry..............................
Establishment S iz e ................
Geographic area........................
Census division.........................

White Collar
Fulltime
Union
$15 or more
Goods producing
100 or more employees
Nonmetropolitan
East North Central

Average premium tor an participants = $212.31.
2 Average premium for all participants = $497.02.

16

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

506.84
501.22
507.44
513.46
520.17
525.25
510.23
522.46

Service
Part time
Nonunion
Less than $15
Service producing
1-99 employees
Metropolitan
Mountain

$206 70
179 91
210 30
204.07
205.90
210.78
210.44
194.40

4
19
8
8
4
2
6
14

446 76
413.03
495.63
478.75
487.35
459.96
494.91
461.52

13
21
2
7
7
14
3
13

N ote : This table includes workers in all medical insurance plans, both those
requiring employee contributions and those paid for entirely by the employer.

Employee medical care contributions and
employer premiums for plans requiring employee
contributions, private industry, National
Compensation Survey ( ncs), 2003
Average employee
monthly contribution

Percent of
participants

Average employer
monthly premium

100
72
24
19
14
15
28

$202
201
213
202
202
182
204

100
72
19
18
19
16
28

482
482
535
575
470
332
482

Single coverage
Total....................................
Flat contribution.........................
Less than $ 4 0 .........................
$40-$59.99..............................
$60-79.99 ...............................
$80 or m ore.............................
Other type of contribution.........

Family coverage
Total....................................
Flat contribution.........................
Less than $125.......................
$125-$199.99..........................
$200-$299.99..........................
$300 or m ore ...........................
Other type of contribution.........

costs can be summed across employees. For a particular benefit,
the e c e c calculations thus take into account employees without
the benefit as well as employees with the benefit.
Some data users have requested a new calculation that would
show employer costs per covered employee (or per participant),
thus excluding employees who do not have the benefit plan in
question. The melding of the formerly separate compensation
programs into the single NCS program is intended to make these
and similar survey estimates possible, and the Bureau is currently
conducting research toward that end.35 In advance of this
research, the 2003 NCS benefits survey combined information on
employer premiums for medical insurance with information on
employee participation rates to compute an estimate of employer
premiums per participant for medical insurance. For all medical
plan participants, monthly employer contributions averaged $212
for single coverage and $497 for family coverage. Employer
premiums were about 25 percent higher for plans in which no
employee contribution was required, compared with plans in

which employees were required to help pay for coverage. (Note
that these tabulations of premiums per participant have most of
the limitations described earlier regarding the data on employer
and employee shares of medical premiums.)
Average employer premiums for single and family coverage
did not vary markedly by the categories studied in the survey.
Table 3 shows the spread between the highest and lowest
average premiums for each of the eight establishm ent and
occupational characteristics published in the survey.
The survey also linked employer premiums to the con­
tributions that employees were required to make toward their
medical coverage. E m ployer prem ium s differed w idely
by the level of employee contribution. To help discern patterns
in the data, Table 4 summarizes the average employer premium
for selected employee contribution levels. For plans requiring
em ployee contributions, the table divides m edical care
participants who pay a flat monthly amount into four similarly
sized groups, depending upon the amount of the employee
contribution. Viewed from this perspective, employer premiums
for single coverage appear to differ little by the level of employee
contributions. For family coverage, however, employer premiums
tend to be lower in cases where employees are required to make
higher contributions toward their coverage. (Note that the data
in table 4 are limited to plans that require employees to contribute
to their coverage, whereas table 3 includes all medical plans,
regardless of employee contribution requirements.)
This article has review ed a broad array of new data
elem ents and tabulations introduced into the 2003 NCS
benefits survey. Planned increases in the survey sample and
research into new measures offer the prospect of continued
enhancements to NCS survey publications over the next few
years.
The Bureau also will bear in mind the im portance of
retooling the survey to keep up to date with developments in
the field of em ployee benefits and the broader field of
employee compensation. As former b l s Commissioner Janet
Norwood foresaw in 1988, “To keep pace, survey designers
will have to prospect for themselves as well as for data
users.”36
□

Notes__________________________________
1 The former programs were the Employment Cost Index, which
includes the series on Employer Costs for Employee Compensation;
the Employee Benefits Survey; and the Occupational Compensation
Survey Program. For a background on these programs, see William J.
W iatrowski, “The National Compensation Survey: Compensation
Statistics for the 21st Century,” Compensation and Working
Conditions, winter 2000, pp. 5-14.
2 Using data from 1992-93, the Bureau calculated experimental
estimates of health insurance offerings, including estimates of the
proportion of establishments making such offerings. (See Michael
Bucci and Robert Grant, “Employer-sponsored health insurance:
“w hat’s offered; w hat’s chosen,” Monthly Labor Review, October
1995, pp. 38-44.) This research into offerings was expanded in test
surveys of the construction industry in 1998-99, although


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

establishment counts were not published. (See Robert W. Van Giezen,
“Insurance and Retirement Benefits in the Salt Lake City-Ogden, ut,
and Toledo, oh , Construction Industries,” Compensation and Working
Conditions, fall 2000, pp. 23-35.)
3 Retirement plans include defined benefit pension plans and defined
contribution plans. (See the appendix for definitions thereof. ) Because
estimates of sample error are not available for the 2003 ncs benefits
survey, the comparative statements made in this article could not be
subjected to statistical significance testing. For that reason, the
comparisons drawn here are generally limited to differences of 10
percentage points or more.
4 The term “establishment” is not synonymous with “company”
or “firm.” In the ncs , an establishment is generally a single physical

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

17

New Benefits Data

location. A company or firm, by contrast, can be composed of many
establishments. In examining differences in the incidence of benefits
by size of establishment, it is important to note that such differences
may be due to factors other than size, such as the mix of occupations,
industries, unionization, and geographic locations. For example,
occupations with higher rates of benefit coverage may be more
prevalent in larger than in smaller establishments. This caution also
applies to all other comparisons of the incidence of benefits or
characteristics drawn in this article.
5 For information on establishment counts and employment by size of
establishment, see the bls Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages,
on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewsize.htm. The per­
centages cited in this article are derived from the 2003 ncs Benefits Survey.
6 In compiling data on access, workers are assumed to have access
to a plan even if they are ineligible because of age and service require­
ments or administrative lag time. This data collection protocol was
chosen to reduce respondent burden and increase the yield of reported
data. For more detailed information on the definitions of “access”
and participation, see Carl Barsky, “Incidence benefits measures in
the National Compensation Survey,” this issue, pp. 21-28. For a
discussion of the various ways of counting employees to measure
benefits coverage in view of data collection practicalities, see William
J. W iatrowski, “Counting the Incidence of Employee B enefits,”
Compensation and Working Conditions, June 1996, pp. 10-18.
7 For information on the needs of researchers and policymakers for
health insurance data, see William Wiatrowski, Holly Harvey, and
Katharine R. Levit, “Employment-Related Health Insurance: Federal
Agencies Roles in Meeting Data Needs,” Health Care Financing
Review, spring 2002, pp. 115-30.
8 For a discussion of the factors that may influence takeup rates,
see W illiam J. W iatrowski, “Declines in health insurance and
retirement plan coverage, 1992-2003,” this issue, pp. 29-36. For a
more detailed analysis of the data on establishment and employee
offerings presented in the current article, see Barsky, “Incidence
benefits measures.”
Employment figures estimated from the survey are not as precise
as those developed from other bls surveys with larger samples and
with designs geared toward generating employment estimates. The
employment estimates from the benefits survey are presented only to
indicate the approximate sizes of various classifications within the
entire private economy.
The classification of areas into metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
categories follows Office of Management and Budget (omb) metropolitan
areas designations as of 1994. In the next few years, the survey will be
converted to omb designations announced in 2003 and amended in 2004.
11 The nine divisions are as follows: New England—Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; Middle
Atlantic—New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania; East North Central—
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin; West North Central—Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South DakotaSouth Atlantic—Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia!
Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia; East
South Central—Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee; West South
Central Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas; Mountain—Arizona,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, WyomingPacific—Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington.
For information on the Standard Occupational Classification system,
see www.bls.gov/soc/; for information on the North American Industry
Classification System, see Vvww.bls.gov/bls/naics.htm.
13 According to the ncs , the median wage in private industry was
$13.00 in July 2002—the latest data available when the benefits survey
was planned. The median for 2003 was $13.39. (See Supplementary
Table 2.1, Supplementary Tables, July 2002, National Compensation
Survey; on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/home.htm.
14 Two procedures are used to ensure worker homogeneity. First, the
survey protocol calls for collecting data on workers in jobs recognized as
discrete by the employer. Second, data collection procedures require that
the jobs which are selected share three common characteristics: workers

18 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

employed in them must have a full-time or part-time work schedule,
must possess union or nonunion status, and must be paid on either a time
or an incentive basis.
15
Applying survey weights tended to show higher levels of wage
dispersion. For example, the average difference between the highestand lowest-paid workers within establishment jobs was 52 percent
with the use of weighted data, compared with 42 percent with
unweighted data.
For a summary of one phase of the research on variable pay, see
Jeffrey L. Schildkraut, “ncs Reviews the Effectiveness of Variable Pay
Collection,” Compensation and Working Conditions Online, Apr. 16,
2003. For a review of earlier studies conducted in 1989 and 1990, see
Elizabeth Dietz, “Measuring Employee Bonuses: A Review of Test
Surveys,” Compensation and Working Conditions, May 1994, pp. 13-19.
17 Nonproduction bonuses do not become part of the employee’s
regular wages or salary. For example, a salary increase granted to an
employee after 3 years of service would be classified by the ncs as part
of the worker’s salary or wage rate. In contrast, a one-time payment
in recognition of an employee’s having attained 10 years of service
would be classified as a bonus.
18 Because incentive workers compose only 5 percent of all workers,
survey estimates for incentive workers are likely to be subject to con­
siderable variability.
19 For results of the 1999 study, see Pilot Survey on the Incidence of
Stock Options in Private Industry in 1999 ( usdl : 00-290, Oct. 11,
2000); on the Internet at http://w w w .bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/
ncnr0001.txt. See also Beth Levin Crimmel and Jeffrey L.
Schildkraut, “Stock Option Plans Surveyed by ncs ,” Compensation
and Working Conditions, spring 2001, pp. 3-21.
20 For background information on summary plan descriptions, see
Allan P. Blostin, “Preventive care provisions, other benefits: are
they described in plan documents?” Monthly Labor Review, October
2002, pp. 13-19.
21 A few of the tables, such as those describing employer and em­
ployee premiums for medical care, contain the average wage breakout,
in addition to breakouts on the occupational group, unionization,
industry, and establishment size categories.
For background information on how the ncs benefits survey has
been revised to reflect this evolution of medical plan design, see Allan
P. Blostin and Iris S. Diaz, “Health Insurance Provisions Captured by
the EBS and the ncs , Compensation and Working Conditions, spring
1999, pp. 14-18. An earlier examination of how the bls survey has
evolved to keep pace with changes in medical plans is given in John J.
Kane, Allan P. Blostin, and Jordan N. Pfuntner, “Changing Survey
Strategies in the Evolution of Health Care Plans,” Compensation and
Working Conditions, September 1996, pp. 3-10.
23 See Blostin and Diaz, p. 16.
24 The 2003 figure is for all employees, full time and part time, in all
sizes of establishments. Comparable figures for 1988 are not available.
25 For a detailed exposition of cash balance plans, see Kenneth R.
Elliott and James H. Moore, Jr., “Cash Balance Pension Plans: The New
Wave,” Compensation and Working Conditions, summer 2000, pp. 3-11.
26 For examples of sliding scales, see L. Bernard Green, “Questions
and Answers on Cash Balance Pension Plans,” Compensation and
Working Conditions Online, Sept. 22, 2003.
For a study of the impact of automatic enrollment provisions at
three companies, see James J. Choi, David Laibson, Brigitte Madrian,
and Andrew Metrick, “For Better or Worse: Default Effects and
401 (k) Savings Behavior,” nber Working Paper Series, Working Paper
8651 (National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2001).
28 See Wiatrowski, Harvey, and Levit, “Employment-Related Health
Insurance.”
In cases where no premium was designated for family coverage, an
alternative premium was used. The preferred alternative was “single plus
two” coverage, followed by “single plus spouse,” “single plus child,” and
“single plus one.”

30 The approach described was taken to maximize the amount of
directly collected data used in the calculation. See Michael Lettau, “New
statistics for health insurance from the National Compensation Survey,”
this issue, pp. 46-50, for a discussion of alternative measures of employee
and employer premiums that do include the employee’s choice of a
single- or family-coverage option in the calculation.
31 These are only a few of the factors that could cause costs to differ
from premiums. Among others, employer costs in self-administered plans
are affected by administrative costs, and financing arrangements can
cause adjustments to employer costs based upon the claims experience of
the current or previous year. Finally, within the ncs publications, calculational differences arise that stem from the distinction between
premiums and costs. For example, the Employment Cost Index (eci) and
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ecec) series include data
on employer expenditures (aggregate payments rather than premium
rates) for health care, as well as employer premium payments, whereas
only data on premiums were used in the tabulations published in the 2003
NCS benefits survey.
32 For a description of Federal surveys providing aggregate measures

A ppendix:
Access.

of health insurance costs, see John Buckley and Robert VanGiezen,
Monthly Labor Review, forthcoming.
33 The 2003 data on the incidence and provisions of benefits were
generated from about 2,900 private-industry establishments that were
newly incorporated into the ncs survey. The eci and ecec samples, in
contrast, include establishments that are new, as well as establishments
that previously were in the sample. The March 2003 ecec sample, for
example, included nearly 6,900 private-industry establishments. As noted
earlier, the sample used for the ncs tabulations of the incidence and
provisions of benefits will gradually increase over the next few years,
eventually becoming the same sample that the eci and ecec use.
34 Data for 1986 were released by the Bureau in 1997. (See Employer
Costs fo r Employee Compensation: 1986-1999; on the Internet at
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecbl0013.pdf.)
35 See Lettau, “New statistics for health insurance,” for an account
of research into health insurance costs.)
36 Janet L. Norwood, “Measuring the cost and incidence of employee
benefits,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1988, p. 8.

Glossary of terms

A m e a s u r e o f th e p r o p o r tio n o r n u m b e r o f e m p lo y e e s

w h o a re o f f e r e d a b e n e f it p la n .

Attendance bonus.

A p a y m e n t to e m p l o y e e s w h o s e w o r k
a tte n d a n c e re c o r d m e e ts c e rta in sta n d a rd s .

Cash balance plan. A d e fin e d b e n e f it p e n s io n p la n in w h ic h an
a c c o u n t is m a in ta in e d fo r e a c h p a rtic ip a n t. E m p lo y e rs s p e c ify a
c o n tr ib u tio n a n d a r a te o f in te r e s t o n th e c o n tr ib u tio n th a t w ill
p r o v id e a p re d e te r m in e d a m o u n t a t re tire m e n t.
Cash profit-sharing plans.

C a s h p a y m e n ts m a d e to w o rk e rs
a n d o f te n d e te r m in e d b y a f o r m u la b a s e d o n c o m p a n y p ro fits . S u c h
p a y m e n ts a re n o t in te n d e d fo r re tir e m e n t, a n d in d iv id u a l a c c o u n ts
a re n o t e s ta b lis h e d .

Coinsurance.

In a h e a lth in s u ra n c e p la n , a fo rm o f m e d ic a l c o s t
s h a r in g t h a t r e q u ir e s th e in s u r e r to p a y a s ta te d p e r c e n ta g e o f
m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s a f te r th e d e d u c tib le a m o u n t, if any, h a s b e e n p a id
b y th e s u b s c rib e r.

Deductible.

A f ix e d d o lla r a m o u n t d u r in g th e b e n e f it p e r io d
(u s u a lly a y e a r) th a t a n in s u r e d p e r s o n p a y s b e f o re th e in s u re r
s ta rts to m a k e p a y m e n ts fo r c o v e r e d m e d ic a l e x p e n s e s .

Defined benefit pension.

A re tir e m e n t p la n th a t u se s a s p e c ific ,
p r e d e te r m in e d fo r m u la to c a lc u la te th e a m o u n t o f an e m p lo y e e ’s
f u tu r e b e n e fit.

Defined contribution plan.

A r e ti r e m e n t p l a n in w h ic h th e
e m p lo y e r m a k e s s p e c if ie d c o n tr ib u tio n s , b u t th e a m o u n t o f th e
r e tir e m e n t b e n e f it is n o t s p e c ifie d .

Employee recognition bonus. A p a y m e n t to e m p lo y e e s th a t
r e w a r d s th e ir p e r fo r m a n c e o r s ig n if ic a n t e v e n ts in th e ir w o rk life .
A n e x a m p le is a n “ e m p lo y e e o f th e m o n th ” a w a rd .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

End-of-year bonus. A p a y m e n t to e m p lo y e e s n e a r th e e n d o f
th e c a le n d a r o r fis c a l y e a r as a sig n o f a p p re c ia tio n f o r w o rk in g h a rd
th r o u g h o u t th e y e a r, o f te n in r e c o g n itio n o f th e c o r p o ra tio n o r
b u s in e s s u n it h a v in g a tta in e d c e rta in fin a n c ia l g o a ls .
Exclusive provider organization

( e p o ) . A ty p e o f p r e f e r r e d
p r o v id e r o rg a n iz a tio n u n d e r w h ic h e m p lo y e e s m u s t u s e p ro v id e rs
fro m a s p e c ifie d n e tw o rk o f p h y s ic ia n s a n d h o s p ita ls in o r d e r to
re c e iv e c o v e ra g e ; th e re is n o c o v e ra g e f o r c a re re c e iv e d fro m a
n o n n e tw o rk p ro v id e r, e x c e p t in an e m e rg e n c y .

For-profit establishment.

A n e s t a b l i s h m e n t in b u s i n e s s to

g e n e ra te p ro fits .

Full-time worker.
b e fu ll tim e . T h e

ncs

A w o r k e r w h o m th e e m p lo y e r c o n s id e rs to
d o e s n o t u s e a s ta n d a rd -h o u rs ru le , s u c h a s 35

o r 4 0 h o u rs p e r w e e k .

Health insurance.

A b ro a d te rm r e fe r r in g to a ll ty p e s o f h e a lth
c a re c o v e ra g e , in c lu d in g m e d ic a l, d e n ta l, v is io n , a n d p re s c rip tio n d ru g care.

Health maintenance organization

(h

m o

).

See

prepaid plans.

Hiring bonus.

A p a y m e n t m a d e b y a n e m p lo y e r to a n e m p lo y e e
to in d u c e a n in d iv id u a l to a c c e p t e m p lo y m e n t w ith th e e m p lo y e r.

Holiday bonus.

A p a y m e n t m a d e to e m p lo y e e s , o f te n n e a r th e
e n d o f th e c a le n d a r y e a r, in r e c o g n itio n o f th e h o lid a y s e a s o n o r a
s p e c ific p u b lic h o lid a y . M a y b e r e fe r r e d to a s a C h ris tm a s b o n u s .

In and out of network.

A m e d ic a l c a r e p la n p r o v i s i o n t h a t
d e s ig n a te s c e rta in p h y s ic ia n s a n d h o s p ita ls as n e tw o r k p ro v id e rs .
S e rv ic e s s o u g h t fro m h e a lth c a re p ro v id e rs w h o d o n o t b e lo n g to
th e n e tw o rk a re re im b u r s e d a t a lo w e r ra te th a n th a t a p p lic a b le to
n e tw o rk p ro v id e rs .

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

19

New Benefits Data

Incentive-based pay.

G e n e ra l te rm f o r a c o lle c tio n o f m e th o d s o f
w a g e p a y m e n t th a t r e la te e a rn in g s o f w o rk e rs to th e ir a c tu a l p r o ­
d u c tio n , in d iv id u a lly o r a s p a r t o f a g ro u p .

Indemnity plan. A ty p e o f m e d ic a l p la n th a t r e im b u r s e s th e
p a tie n t o r p r o v id e r (o r b o th ) as e x p e n s e s a re in c u rre d .

T h e e n ro lle e s a re p e r m itte d to g o o u ts id e th e n e tw o rk , b u t w o u ld
in c u r la r g e r c o s ts in th e fo rm o f h ig h e r d e d u c tib le s , h ig h e r c o in ­
s u ra n c e r a te s , o r n o n d is c o u n te d c h a rg e s fro m p ro v id e rs . In th e n c s ,
t h e s e p la n s a r e n o w c a l l e d “ i n d e m n i ty in s i d e a n d o u t s i d e o f
n e tw o r k ” p la n s .

Prepaid plans.

Longevity bonus.

A p a y m e n t m a d e to e m p lo y e e s o n th e b a s is o f
th e ir le n g th o f se rv ic e .

Management incentive bonus. A p a y m e n t t o m a n a g e r s
r e w a r d in g th e m fo r th e ir a b ility to d ir e c t th e p e r fo r m a n c e o f a
g r o u p o f s u b o rd in a te e m p lo y e e s in th e a tta in m e n t o f a s p e c ifie d
goal.
Medical insurance.

A ty p e o f h e a lth in s u r a n c e th a t p ro v id e s
s e rv ic e s o r p a y m e n ts f o r s e rv ic e s r e n d e r e d in th e h o s p ita l o r b y a
p h y s ic ia n . (T h e te rm d o e s n o t in c lu d e p la n s th a t p r o v id e o n ly
d e n ta l, v is io n , o r p r e s c r ip tio n - d r u g c o v e ra g e .)

Money purchase pension plan. A d e f in e d c o n tr ib u tio n p la n th a t
d e s i g n a t e s e m p l o y e r c o n tr i b u t io n s , t y p ic a ll y a p e r c e n ta g e o f
e m p l o y e e e a r n i n g s . C o n t r ib u t i o n s a r e a ll o c a t e d to in d iv id u a l
a c c o u n ts e s ta b lis h e d fo r e a c h e m p lo y e e .
Nonproduction bonus. A c a s h p a y m e n t t h a t is n o t d ire c tly r e la te d
to th e o u tp u t o f e ith e r th e e m p lo y e e o r a g ro u p o f e m p lo y e e s .
Nonprofit establishment.

A n e s ta b lis h m e n t th a t q u a lifie s a s a
n o n p r o f it o r g a n iz a tio n u n d e r In te rn a l R e v e n u e C o d e S e c tio n 5 0 1 .

Orthodontic care.

S e rv ic e s fo r th e c o rre c tio n o f m a lp o s itio n e d

te e th .

Other bonus. C a s h p a y m e n ts , a w a rd e d to e m p lo y e e s , th a t a re
d if f e r e n t fro m th e o th e r ty p e s o f n o n p ro d u c tio n b o n u s e s lis te d in
ta b le 2.
Part-time worker.

A w o r k e r w h o m th e e m p lo y e r c o n s id e rs to be

p a r t tim e . T h e n c s d o e s n o t u s e a s ta n d a rd -h o u rs ru le , s u c h as 3 5 o r
4 0 h o u rs p e r w e e k .

Participation.

T h e n u m b e r o r p r o p o r tio n o f e m p lo y e e s w h o a re
e n r o lle d in ( c o v e re d b y ) a b e n e fit p la n .

Payments in lieu of employee benefits.

P a y m e n t s to e m ­
p lo y e e s in lie u o f th e e m p l o y e r ’s p r o v id in g a b e n e f it ( s u c h as
m e d ic a l in su ra n c e ).

Point-of-service ( p o s ) option. A n h m o - p p o h y b rid ; s o m e tim e s
r e fe r r e d to as a n “ o p e n - e n d e d ” h m o w h e n o f f e r e d b y an h m o . p o s
p la n s r e s e m b le h m o ’s w ith re g a r d to in -n e tw o rk s e rv ic e s . S e rv ic e s
r e n d e r e d o u ts id e o f th e n e tw o rk a re u s u a lly r e im b u rs e d in a m a n n e r
s im ila r to th a t e m p lo y e d b y c o n v e n tio n a l in d e m n ity p la n s (fo r
e x a m p le , p r o v id e r re im b u rs e m e n t b a s e d o n a fe e sc h e d u le o r u su a l,
c u s to m a ry , a n d r e a s o n a b le c h a rg e s).
Preferred provider organization

A n in d e m n ity p la n
u n d e r w h ic h c o v e ra g e is p ro v id e d to p a rtic ip a n ts th ro u g h a n e tw o rk
o f s e le c te d h e a lth c a re p ro v id e rs (s u c h as h o s p ita ls a n d p h y s ic ia n s ).

20 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

( p p o ).

August 2004

H e a lth c a re p la n s th a t a s s u m e b o th th e fin a n c ia l
r is k s a s s o c ia te d w ith p ro v id in g c o m p r e h e n s iv e m e d ic a l s e rv ic e s
a n d th e r e s p o n s i b i li t y f o r h e a l t h c a r e d e li v e r y in a p a r ti c u l a r
g e o g ra p h ic a re a to m e m b e rs , u s u a lly in r e tu r n f o r a fix e d , p r e p a id
fe e. T h e te rm is a s y n o n y m fo r “ h e a lth m a in te n a n c e o r g a n iz a tio n s ”
(h m

o ’s ).

Referral bonus. A p a y m e n t to e m p lo y e e s f o r r e c o m m e n d in g a
q u a lifie d a p p lic a n t w h o is h ir e d b y th e e s ta b lis h m e n t.
Retention bonus.

A p a y m e n t m a d e b y a n e m p l o y e r to a n
in c u m b e n t e m p lo y e e to re ta in th at in d iv id u a l w ith th e estab lish m en t.

Retirement benefits.

B en efits a ccru in g u n d e r a p lan th at a ccu m u lates
sav in g s for, o r p ro v id es in co m e to, re tire d w o rk ers. R e tire m e n t p lan s
a re c la s s ifie d a s e ith e r d e fin e d b e n e fit p e n s io n p la n s o r d e fin e d
co n trib u tio n p lan s.

Safety bonus.

A p a y m e n t to e m p lo y e e s fo r m a in ta in in g a h ig h
le v e l o f s a fe ty in th e w o rk p la c e .

Savings-and-thrift plan. A r e t i r e m e n t p l a n u n d e r w h i c h
e m p lo y e e s m a y c o n tr ib u te a p r e d e te r m in e d p o r tio n o f (u s u a lly
p re ta x ) e a rn in g s to a n in d iv id u a l a c c o u n t, a ll o r p a r t o f w h ic h th e
e m p lo y e r m a tc h e s .
Short-term disability benefits. B e n e f i t s t h a t p r o v i d e f u l l,
p a rtia l, o r a c o m b in a tio n o f fu ll a n d p a r tia l p a y to e m p lo y e e s w h o
a re u n a b le to w o rk b e c a u s e o f a n o n -w o rk -re la te d a c c id e n t o r illn e ss.
B e n e fits a re u s u a lly p a id fo r a fix e d n u m b e r o f w e e k s , ty p ic a lly 2 6 .
T h e b e n e fit is u su a lly e ith e r a p e rc e n ta g e o f th e e m p lo y e e ’s e a rn in g s
o r a fix e d d o lla r a m o u n t p e r w e e k .
Suggestion bonus.

A p a y m e n t to e m p lo y e e s w h o s e in n o v a tiv e
s u g g e s tio n s fo r c r e a tin g b e tte r w o rk p r o c e s s e s a n d im p ro v in g th e
e s ta b lis h m e n t’s e ffic ie n c y h a v e b e e n c o n s id e r e d o r im p le m e n te d .

Takeup rate.

T h e p r o p o r tio n o f w o rk e rs o ffe re d a b e n e f it p la n
w h o p a r tic ip a te in th e p la n .

Time-based pay. P a y th a t is tie d to a n h o u rly r a te o r a s a la ry a n d
th a t is n o t tie d d ire c tly to p ro d u c tio n .
Traditional fee-for-service plans.

In d e m n ity m e d ic a l p la n s th a t
a llo w th e p a r tic ip a n t th e c h o ic e o f a n y p r o v id e r w ith o u t a n y e ffe c t
o n re im b u rs e m e n t. T h e s e p la n s re im b u r s e th e p a tie n t o r p r o v id e r
a s e x p e n s e s a re in c u rre d .

Union-related bonus.

A p a y m e n t m a d e to e m p lo y e e s c o v e re d
b y a c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g a g r e e m e n t u p o n s ig n in g a n e w la b o r
c o n tra c t o r in lie u o f a g e n e ra l w a g e in c re a s e .

Variable pay. P a y w h ic h in c lu d e s a v a r ie ty o f c a s h o r c a s h e q u iv a le n t p a y m e n ts th a t, u n lik e “ b a s e ” w a g e s a n d s a la rie s , v a ry
by fa c to rs o th e r th a n h o u rs w o rk e d o r th e a m o u n t o f tim e c o v e re d
b y th e p a y p e rio d .

Incidence Benefits Measures

Incidence benefits measures
in the National Compensation Survey
For the first time, data from the National Compensation Survey
allow comparisons between establishments offering
health and retirement benefits and the rates at which
employees have access to and participate in those benefits
Carl B. Barsky

Carl B. Barsky is an
economist in the
Office of
Compensation and
Working Conditions,
Bureau of Labor
Statistics. E-mail:
Barsky,Carl@bls.gov,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

bout 60 percent to 70 percent of private
industry employees had access to health
insurance and retirement benefits and
about half participated in them during 2003. Access
and participation rates varied widely by the type of
plan and by various employee and establishment
characteristics. The availability of and participation
in health insurance, retirement, and other benefits
were both much higher among employees who were
in full-time occupations, covered by union con­
tracts, and who worked in large establishments and
in metropolitan areas. New survey tabulations
showed that availability and participation were also
greater for higher-paid employees.
The percentage of employees with both access
to benefits and participation in these benefits varied
widely, from all employees in some instances to
fewer than half in others. The survey did not study
the reasons employees choose to participate or not
to participate in various benefits. However, it is likely
that the cost of the benefit to the employee is a
determinant.
This article compares the four measures of
incidence of employee benefits studied in the
National Compensation Survey (NCS) benefits
survey in private industry for 2003. The fact that
an establishment offered benefits to some em­
ployees did not necessarily mean that all em ­
ployees had access to such a benefit. Nevertheless,
the percent of establishments offering benefits was
often lower than the proportion of employees with
access. This seeming paradox was generally true
because large establishments are far more likely
to offer benefits than smaller ones.

A

Measuring employee benefits
One of the problem s in presenting data on
employee benefits is how best to report on those
benefits. This article largely addresses this issue
and the different findings.
For wage and salary inform ation, the NCS
program generally obtains data for individual
employees. This is done because there are often
significant variations among individual employees
in the rate of pay within the same occupation. How­
ever, employer-provided benefits do not vary, in
the same way.
For this discussion, em ployee benefits are
classified as wage-related and nonwage-related.
When benefits are wage-related, they are typically
a percent of the salary or a fixed amount for each
period (such as an hour) worked or paid. Wagerelated benefits are most typically paid vacations
and holidays and legally required benefits such as
Social Security. Nonwage-related benefits are those
for which the employer pays a fixed amount that is
not directly related to the employee’s salaiy. Typical
examples are health insurance plans and some
retirem ent plans and nonproduction bonuses.
However, in any given company, these general
situations may not apply. For example, some union
employees in the construction trades receive health
and retirement benefits from a fund to which
employers contribute a specific percentage of the
employee’s hourly earnings.
For wage-related benefits, the variation in cost
may be significant, certainly a lot more than for
benefits that are not wage-related. NCS does not

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

21

Incidence Benefits Measures

provide data on variations in benefit costs among individual
employees. However, for both types of plans, the variations in
incidence, and the provisions' of those plans, are not likely to
be as great as variations in costs. For example, it is typical for
vacation schedules to differ by length of service, but not by
salary or occupation. However, because of differences in wages
and lengths of service, vacation costs to the employer will vary
by employee.
The in c id e n c e and p ro v isio n s o f b e n e fits th a t are
nonw age related vary even less. For example, establishments
that pay part of the cost of medical insurance frequently offer
more than one plan to em ployees. In some com panies, only
one plan is offered and in others, typically larger employers,
the com pany m ay provide a choice o f plans. For all the
em ployees participating in apian, the provisions of the plan
are the same. The cost that the employer pays will rarely vary
among individual employees who choose the same cover­
age, or even am ong em ployees in different occupations. It
is m ost likely the em ployer w ill pay the same am ount for
every employee who elects the same coverage, and the em ­
ployer som etim es pays the same am ount across differing
plans.
Thus, it is reasonable to develop measures of employee
benefits that relate to relatively large groups of workers. It is also
of some value to determine what the policy of establishments is
regarding benefits, because benefits often are the same for all
employees within establishments.

Table 1.

For the 2003 employee benefits survey, we provide four
measures of the incidence of health and retirement benefits:
establishment offerings, employee access, employee partic­
ipation, and take-up rates. For health and retirement provisions,
we limit information to participants.
Establishment offerings refer to the policy of individual
establishments.2 The estimates shown in table 1 are of esta­
blishments that offered health insurance or retirement plans—
defined benefits or defined contribution3 to any of their
employees. For this reason, table 1 is presented by establish­
ment characteristics.
Employee access refers to establishment policy vis-à-vis
specific groups of workers. The group of employees— all of the
w orkers in a specific com pany occupation in the esta­
blishment— is considered to have access to a benefit if the
benefit is offered to at least one of those em ployees. In
determining access, provisions such as a 1-month service
requirement before employees are eligible for coverage are
ignored, as well as whether any employees within the occu­
pation actually participate in the plan.
Employee participation refers to whether or not individual
employees elect to be covered by a particular benefit. The respon­
dents in the survey are asked to report the number of employees
who elect to participate. For such benefits, then, the participation
numbers are almost always lower than access numbers.
Take-up rate refers to the percent of workers with access
who participate in the plan.

Percent of establishments offering health and retirement benefits, and retiree health benefits,
by establishment characteristics, private industry, National Compensation Survey, March 2003
Retirement
benefits'

Characteristic
All establishments........................

Defined
benefit

Defined
contribution

Health care
benefits2

Retiree health Retiree health
under age 65 over age 65

47

10

45

58

4

4

45
47
45
88

11
10
9
38

42
46
82

60
57
56
95

4
5
4
19

3
15

Metropolitan a re a s .......................
Nonmetropolitan are a s.......................

51
32

10
9

49
31

60
51

5
3

3

New England.................................
Middle Atlantic..................................
East North Central .....................
West North Central.....................
South A tlantic...................................
East South Central...............................
West South Central..........................
Mountain...................................
P acific........................................

48
49
62
38
54
52
39
25
45

11
17
13
5
5
5
13
7
12

48
44
61
36
53
51
39
23
43

54
63
84
36
55
58
58
42
58

1

Establishment characteristics
Goods-producing...............................
Service-producing................................
1-99 workers.........................
100 workers or m o re .......................

44

Geographic areas

11ncludes defined benefit pension plans and defined contribution retirement
plans. The total is less than the sum of the individual items because many
employees participated in both types of plans.
/

22

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

Q
2

2

11
7
2

7
2

3

3

2 Health care benefits may include a medical plan, or a separate dental,
vision, or prescription drug plan.

As employee benefits— particularly health insurance and
retirem ent plans— continue to be topics of interest, these
measures can help shed light on trends. We can, for example,
determine whether changes in health insurance coverage relate
to fewer establishments offering such plans or from employees
deciding not to participate.

Findings
Establishment offerings. In 2003,

bls provided data for
establishment offerings for the first time4in the employee benefits
program. Table 1 shows that 47 percent of establishments in the
study offered retirement plans to one or more active employees,
and 58 percent of establishments offered health benefits. About
4 percent of the establishments offered the option of continuing
health insurance into retirement to their active employees.
There are two major types of retirement plans: defined benefit
and defined contribution. Table 1 shows that it is more than four
times as likely (45 percent) for an establishment to offer a defined
contribution plan as a defined benefit plan (10 percent). Access
for defined contribution benefits were reported by 51 percent of
the establishments and defined benefits were reported by 20
percent. (See table 2.) At one time, defined benefit plans were the
norm for retirement. Changes in the economy and tax laws may
have been contributing factors to the decline of defined benefit
plans5 Though the survey did not collect inform ation on
establishment offerings until 2003, 15 years ago the survey

Table 2.

showed 42 percent of full-time private employees participated in
defined benefit pension plans and 40 percent in defined
contribution plans.6
Health care and retirement benefits for active employees varied
little among goods-producing and service-producing industries.
However, these benefits were more likely to be offered by esta­
blishm ents in m etropolitan areas than by those in non­
metropolitan areas and in establishments with at least 100
employees than those with fewer employees. Among regions,
establishments in the East North Central region were most likely
to offer health or retirement benefits and those in the West North
Central and Mountain States, least likely.
The information on retiree health benefits is unique to table 1.
Although NCS collects information on access to and parti­
cipation in benefit plans for current employees, there is no such
information for retirees. A small percentage of establishments
allows current employees to participate in health insurance plans
after retirement. Four percent of establishments provided this
access to employees who retire before they turn 65 and four
percent provided this access to employees 65 or older. For about
half of the establishments providing such benefits, the employer
contributed to retiree health insurance; for most of the remainder,
the retiree paid the entire cost. In rare instances, employers paid
the entire cost.
Retiree benefits did not vary much by various characteristics
except that they were far more common in larger establishments
than in smaller ones.

Percent of establishments offering, percent of employees with access to and participating in health and
retirement benefits, March 2003

Retirement plans2

Health insurance1
Characteristic

Total
employees
(millions)

Establishments
offering

Employees
with
access

Employees
participating

Establishments
offering

Employees
with
access

Employees
participating
49

102.8

58

69

55

47

57

Goods-producing...........
Service-producing.........

24.0
78.9

60
57

82
66

72
50

45
47

70
53

63
45

1-99 workers.................
100 workers or m o re .....

55.3
47.6

56
95

58
83

43
69

45
88

42
75

35
65

Metropolitan a reas........
Nonmetropolitan areas...

88.4
14.5

60
51

70
65

56
50

51
32

58
52

50
42

New England.................
Middle Atlantic..............
East North Central........
West North Central.... .
South Atlantic...............
East South Central.......
West South Central.......
Mountain........................
Pacific............................

6.6
14.1
19.1
7.9
18.0
5.4
11.3
6.1
14.5

54
63
84
36
55
58
58
42
46

67
74
74
60
68
77
65
57
72

54
59
59
51
53
64
53
42
57

48
49
62
38
54
52
39
25
45

51
61
64
56
57
60
53
51
53

44
56
56
48
46
51
42
38
46

All employees

Establishment
characteristics

Geographic areas

See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

23

Incidence Benefits Measures

Table 2.

Continued— Percent of establishments offering, percent of employees with access to and participating in
health and retirement benefits, March 2003

Defined benefit plans
Characteristic

Total
Employees
(millions)

Defined contribution plans

Establishments
offering

Employees
with
access

Employees
participating

Establishments
offering

102.8

10

20

20

45

51

40

Goods-producing.......
Service-producing.....

24.0
78.9

11
10

31
17

31
16

42
46

60
48

49
37

1-99 workers.............
100 workers or more ..

55.3
47.6

9
38

9
34

8
33

44
82

38
65

31
51

Metropolitan a re a s....
Nonmetropolitan areas

88.4
14.5

10

21
15

21

49
31

51
47

41
36

New England.............. .
Middle Atlantic............
East North C entral.....
West North Central.....
South A tlantic............
East South Central.....
West South Central....
Mountain.....................
P acific.........................

6.6
14.1
19.1
7.9
18.0
5.4
11.3
6.1
14.5

17
13
5
5
5
13
7

16
30
24

15
30
23

22

21

17
14
18

16
14
18
10
20

48
44
61
36
53
51
39
23
43

44
49
56
47
53
59
49
47
46

37
43
46
37
40
46
35
34
37

All employees..........

Employees
with
access

Establishment
characteristics

Geographic areas
9
11

12

12
20

' Health insurance can be a medical, dental, prescription drug, or vision
plan. “Access” in this table means the percent of employees in an occupation
that has at least one health insurance plan.“ Employees participating" refers
to the health insurance type in any given occupation with the highest

Offerings versus access and participation. W hen one
compares establishment offerings with employee access and
participation measures, the findings are somewhat surprising.
The percent of establishments offering health insurance (58
percent) is alm ost identical to the percent o f employees
participating in health insurance (55 percent7). The percent of
employees with access to health insurance is much higher at 69
percent. For retirement plans, 47 percent of the establishments in
the survey offered them, 57 percent of the employees had access
to them, and 49 percent of employees participated in them.
One w ould expect, other things being equal, that the
percentage of employees with access would be no greater than
establishment offerings. By definition, if an employee has access
to a benefit, that establishment offers the benefit. In addition,
participation would be somewhat lower than access for health
and defined contribution benefits, because employees are often
required to contribute to these plans. In contrast, employees are
rarely required to contribute to defined benefit plans. Thus,
access and participation would be about equal.
The dichotomy of big and large establishments largely
explains this apparent paradox. Although almost half (46 percent)
of employees covered by the survey work in establishments that
have 100 workers or more, smaller establishments make up 96
percent o f all establishm ents. A bout 95 percent of large
24

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

14

Employees
participating

participation. See endnote 7 in the text for details.
2 Includes defined benefit pension plans and defined contribution retirement
plans. The total is less than the sum of the individual items because many
employees participated in both types of plans.

establishments offered health insurance. In these establish­
ments, 83 percent of employees had access to health benefits
and 69 percent participated. For smaller establishments, the
numbers are: 56 percent offered health insurance, 58 percent of
employees had access to it, and 43 percent of the employees
participated.
For retirement plans, the three measures follow expected
patterns within the two size groupings. For smaller establish­
ments, 45 percent of the establishments offer a plan, 42 percent
of the employees had access to it, and 35 percent of the
employees participated. For establishments with at least 100
employees the values are 88 percent for establishment offerings,
75 employee access, and 65 percent for employee participation.
Defined benefit plans were far more common in larger
establishments. In the 1-99 employees category, the values
for establishment offerings, employee access, and employee
participation were each ju st under 10 percent; for larger
establishments, the values were 38, 34, and 33, respectively.
Defined contribution plans were more common than defined
benefit plans in both small and large establishments. In small
establishm ents the percentages for offerings, access, and
participation were 44,38, and 31 ; for large establishments, the
percentages were 82,65, and 51.

Access versus participation.

The survey design permits more
detailed comparison of access and participation estimates. Unlike
the establishment offering estimates, access and participation
are both based on employment within an occupation. The only
difference between the two types of estimates is that access
estimates include all employees in an occupation, whereas
participation estim ates are lim ited to those who actually
participate in the plan. For this reason, comparisons are made by
employee as well as establishment characteristics. Participation
estimates will normally be lower than, and never higher than
access.
Table 3 presents access and participation rates for retirement
and health benefits. In addition, it shows take-up rates, defined
as the percent of employees with access who participate in the
plans.8
In general, access and participation rates follow similar
patterns. Access to and participation in benefits covered by the
2003 study tend to be higher for union employees, full-time
employees, in m etropolitan areas, and in goods producing
industries than their opposites. Among regions, there tend to be
slight variation. In general, the New England and Mountain
regions had the lowest access and incidence rates and the Middle
Atlantic, East North Central, and Pacific had the highest.

Table 3.

By contrast, take-up rates varied widely from access and
participation rates. (These are discussed in the following
sections.)

Retirement plans.

About three-fifths of employees had access
to one or more retirement plans. Defined contribution plans were
by far more common. The overall take-up rate for retirement plans
was 86 percent. For defined benefit plans, the take-up rate was
100 percent. In the private sector, almost all defined benefit plans
are paid for entirely by the employer. For defined contribution
plans, the overall take-up rate was still very high at 78 percent.
Access and participation rates were higher for full-time and
union employees, for those in occupations averaging at least
$15 per hour, and those in larger establishments, in goodsproducing industries, and in metropolitan areas. Take-up rates
are also higher for these categories of employees. Thus, in
addition to having more opportunity to participate in retirement
plans, these employees are more likely to participate when offered.
By definition, savings and thrift plans— the most common of
defined contribution plans— require employee contributions.
The overall take-up rate for defined contribution plans was 78
percent, and generally fell in the 70- to 85-percent range for
various categories of employees.

Percent of employees with access to and participating in retirement and health benefits and take-up rates,
March 2003
Retirement benefits'
All plans

Characteristic
Access

Participation Take-up3

Access

Defined benefit
Participation Take-up3

Defined contribution
Access

Participation

Take-up3

57

49

86

20

20

100

51

40

78

White-collar occupations...........
Blue-collar occupations.............
Service occupations..................

67
59
28

59
50
21

88
85
75

22
24
7

96
100
88

62
49
23

51
38
16

82
78
70

Full-time.......................................
Part-time.....................................

67
24

58
18

87
75

24
8

100
100

60
21

48
14

80
67

Union...........................................
Nonunion.....................................

86
54

83
45

97
83

23
24
8
24
8
74
15

72
15

97
100

45
51

39
40

87
78

45

35

78

12

11

92

40

29

73

76

70

92

34

33

97

67

57

85

Goods-produclng.........................
Service-producing........................

70
53

63
45

90
85

31
17

31
16

100
94

60
48

49
37

82
77

1-99 w orkers..............................
100 workers or m ore..................

42
75

35
65

83
87

9
34

8
33

89
97

38
65

31
51

82
78

Metropolitan areas.....................
Nonmetropolitan areas...............

58
52

50
42

86
81

21
15

21
14

100
93

51
47

41
36

80
77

New England...............................
Middle Atlantic............................
East North Central......................
West North Central.....................
South Atlantic.............................
East South Central.....................
West South C entral....................
Mountain.....................................
Pacific.........................................

51
61
64
56
57
60
53
51
53

44
56
56
48
46
51
42
38
46

86
92
88
86
81
85
79
75
87

16
30
24
22
17
14
18
12
20

15
30
23
21
16
14
18
10
20

94
100
96
95
94
100
100
83
100

44
49
56
47
53
59
49
47
46

37
43
46
37
40
46
35
34
37

84
88
82
79
75
78
71
72
80

All employees..............................

Worker characteristics

Average wage less than $15
per hour....................................
Average wage $15 per hour
or higher...................................

Establishment characteristics

Geographic areas


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

25

Incidence Benefits Measures

Table 3.

Continued—Percent of employees with access to and participating in retirement and health benefits and
take-up rates, March 2003
Health plans2
All plans

Characteristic

Medical

Access

Partici­
pation

Take
-up3

69

55

80

60

45

75

40

White-collar occupations.....
Blue-collar occupations.......
Service occupations............

76
76
42

62
63
27

82
83
64

65
64
38

50
51
22

77
80
58

Full-time.................................
Part-time...............................

84
22

68
13

81
59

73
17

56
9

Union.....................................
Nonunion...............................

91
67

85
52

93
78

67
59

58

42

72

87

76

Goods-producing..................
Service-producing..................

82
66

1-99 w orkers........................
100 workers or m ore.............

Access Partici­
pation

Vision

Dental
Takeup3

Access Partici­
pation

Takeup3

Access

32

80

25

19

76

47
40
22

37
33
15

79
83
68

28
25
15

21
20
9

75
80
60

77
53

49
9

40
6

82
67

30
7

23
5

77
71

60
44

90
75

57
38

51
30

89
79

43
23

37
17

86
74

51

35

69

30

22

73

18

12

67

87

74

61

82

55

47

85

35

28

80

72
50

88
76

68
57

57
42

84
74

48
37

42
29

88
78

30
23

25
17

83
74

58
83

43
69

74
83

49
72

36
55

73
76

27
55

21
44

78
80

15
35

11
27

73
77

Metropolitan areas...............
Nonmetropolitan areas.........

70
65

56
50

80
77

60
60

45
44

75
73

41
34

33
27

80
79

25
23

19
17

76
74

New England.........................
Middle Atlantic......................
East North Central...............
West North Central..............
South Atlantic.......................
East South Central..............
West South C entral.............
Mountain...............................
Pacific...................................

67
74
74
60
68
77
65
57
72

54
59
59
51
53
64
53
42
57

81
80
80
85
78
83
82
74
79

56
63
62
54
57
72
61
49
60

43
47
47
43
44
53
47
34
45

77
75
76
80
77
74
77
69
75

38
39
42
38
39
47
37
36
42

31
32
34
31
30
37
30
28
33

82
82
81
82
77
79
81
78
79

18
32
22
21
19
39
22
25
29

14
24
17
17
14
28
17
17
24

78
75
77
81
74
72
77
68
83

All employees........................

Partici­
pation

Takeup3

Worker characteristics

Average wage less than $15
per hour...............................
Average wage $15 per hour
or higher..............................

Establishment
characteristics

Geographic areas

1 Includes defined benefit pension plans and defined contribution
retirement plans. The total is less than the sum of the individual items
because many employees participated in both types of plans.
2 Health insurance can a medical, dental, prescription drug, or
vision plan. “Access” under “All plans” means the percent of employees
in an occupation that has at least one health insurance plan, and

“ Employees participating” refers to the health insurance type in any given occupation
with the highest participation. See footnote 4 in the article for details.
3The take-up rate is an estimate of the percentage of workers with access to a plan
who participate in the plan. It is the rounded participation percentage divided by the
rounded access percentage times 100.

Health insurance.9 Three-fifths of employees had access to
medical insurance, and 45 percent participated, resulting in a
take-up rate of 75 percent. As with retirement, access, partici­
pation, and take-up rates were generally higher for the types of
employees indicated earlier. Although less commonly offered,
vision had a take-up rate of 80 percent and dental insurance, 76
percent.
Take-up rates for health insurance were generally lower than
those for retirement plans. Part of this may be due to the fact that
employees sometimes are covered by plans provided by other
family members.
Although the survey did not specifically study the reasons
for participation in plans, it is reasonable to expect that one

26

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

determinant might be the cost to the employee, b l s survey data
show that for the last decade, employees have been increasingly
required to contribute toward their medical insurance; average
employee premiums for both single and family coverage have
risen about 75 percent during this same period. One would expect
that as the employee cost increases the likelihood of employees
participating would decrease.10

Other benefits. Table 4 provides access, participation, and takeup rates for other studied benefits. Life insurance was offered to
about one-half of employees in the survey, and almost all such
employees participated. Life insurance is almost always entirely
employer financed and is a relatively low cost to employers. In

Percent of employees with access to and participating in selected benefits and take-up rates, March 2003
Life insurance

Short-term disability

Long-term disability

Characteristic
Access

Participation Take-up

Access

Participation

Take-up

Access

Participation

Take-up

50

47

94

39

37

95

30

28

93

White-collar occupations.......
Blue-collar occupations.........
Service occupations..............

56
53
29

54
50
25

96
94
86

41
45
21

40
44
20

98
98
95

42
21
11

40
20
10

95
95
91

Full-time...................................
Part-time..................................

61
11

59
9

97
82

46
13

45
12

98
92

38
5

36
4

95
80

Union........................................
Nonunion.................................
Average wage less than
$15 per h o u r............................
Average wage $15 per hour
or higher................................

63
49

61
46

97
94

69
36

68
34

99
94

28
30

27
29

96
97

40

37

93

29

27

93

17

16

94

65

64

98

53

52

98

50

49

98

Goods-producing.....................
Service-producing..................

61
47

58
44

95
94

56
33

54
32

96
97

30
30

29
28

97
93

1-99 workers...........................
100 workers or m o re ..............

36
66

33
64

92
97

28
52

26
50

93
96

20
42

18
40

90
95

Metropolitan a re a s .................
Nonmetropolitan are a s...........

50
49

48
45

96
92

40
32

38
31

95
97

32
18

30
17

94
94

New England............................
Middle Atlantic.........................
East North Central .................
West North Central.................
South A tlantic.........................
East South Central.................
West South Central................
Mountain..................................
P acific.....................................

44
47
56
49
51
62
51
45
43

42
46
53
46
49
59
48
40
41

95
98
95
94
96
95
94
89
95

36
78
39
37
30
40
30
20
27

33
76
37
36
29
38
28
19
27

92
97
95
97
97
95
93
95
100

31
28
32
30
33
26
30
23
29

29
27
30
29
31
26
28
23
28

94
96
94
97
94
100
93
100
97

All employees..........................

Worker characteristics

Establishment characteristics

Geographic areas

the 2003 survey, 88 percent of life insurance participants were in
plans paid for entirely by their employer.11The cost per employee
of life insurance was $.04 per hour worked in March 2003, or 0.2
percent of total compensation.12Availability of life insurance by
establishment and occupational characteristics was similar to
those for health insurance and retirement.
About two-fifths of employees had access to short-term
disability insurance.13 These plans provide pay in the event of
an illness or injury not occurring on the job. Nearly all such
employees participated in these plans. Like life insurance, short­
term disability insurance is almost always employer financed.
Variation among establishment and occupational characteristics
was similar to other benefits, except that short-term disability
was more common for white- and blue-collar workers than it was
for service workers.
Long-term disability insurance, which provides payment to
employees who sustain an injury or illness that prevents them
from working for a long time or permanently, was available to
about three-tenths of employees. This benefit, also, tends to be
employer financed, and it experienced high take-up rates. For
long-term disability insurance, union and nonunion employees


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

had approximately equal access to benefits (28 percent for union
employees and 30 percent for nonunion employees), as did
employees in goods- and service-producing establishments (30
percent each). However, full-time workers were far more likely
than part-time workers to have access to benefits (38 percent
compared with 5 percent) and white-collar occupations had twice
the access of blue-collar and four-tim es that of service
occupations (42 percent for access, 21 percent for participation,
and 11 percent for take-up).
For both short-term and long-term disability, participation was
very high among those employees who were offered the plans.
Take-up rates were 90 percent or more in nearly all establishment
and occupational characteristic categories.
t h e f ir s t t im e , b ls has provided inform ation on
establishments offering benefits and more detailed information
on employee access and participation. When establishments
offer benefits, it appears likely that m ost em ployees are
automatically covered or will elect to participate. Although bls
did not study why employees choose to participate in benefits,
the decision to participate may be related to whether the

F or

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

27

Incidence Benefits Measures

employee contributes to the coverage, as evidenced by higher
take-up rates for life insurance and defined benefit retirement

than other plans, as well as the relationship between employee
premiums and participation rates.
□

Notes
1 Incidence in this article refers to the existence of a benefit paid for at
least partially by the employer. Provisions are the characteristics of the
benefit. For example, provisions for medical insurance include the amount
the plan pays for hospitalization or whether or not the insured can use
doctors outside the plan’s network.
2 An establishment in ncs is a single physical location where industrial
activity is performed. Companies may consist of one or more
establishments.
3 The survey covers two types of retirement: defined benefit and
defined contribution. Defined benefit plans provide employees with
guaranteed retirement benefits based on predetermined benefit formulas.
Defined contribution plans are retirement plans that specify the level of
employer contributions and place those contributions into individual
employee accounts. For more complete definitions see National
Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private Industry in the
United States, 2000, on the Internet at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/sp/
ebbl0019.pdf, pages 54-57.
4 Some experimental data on this topic were published in 1995. See
Michael Bucci and Robert Grant, “Em ployee-sponsored health
insurance: what’s offered; what’s chosen?” Monthly Labor Review,
October 1995, pages 38-44.
5 For more detailed information on declines in coverage for defined
benefit plans, see William W iatrowski’s companion article in this
issue, “Medical and retirement plan coverage: exploring the decline in
recent years.”
6 Glenn M. Grossman, “U.S. workers receive a wide range of
employee benefits,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1992, pp. 3639. These data are for 1989-90.
7 There is actually no precise number for health insurance
participation available from the survey. For establishment offerings,
the respondents were asked if the establishm ent offered “health
insurance”—defined as either medical, dental, vision, or prescription
drugs—to any employees. Participation information, however, was
collected for each different type of plan, including for 8 percent of
participants for whom the type of health insurance is unknown. In
order to calculate a comparable participation estimate for health
insurance, the follow ing methodology was used. W ithin each
occupation, the number of participants was summed for each type (for
example, medical and dental). From among the types, the type with
the largest sum was chosen. For example, if an occupation had three
medical plans with 75 percent total participation and two dental plans
with a total of 40 percent participation, the occupation was considered

28

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

to have 75 percent participation in health insurance. Standard errors
for these estimates have not been calculated. Consequently, none of
the statistical inferences made from these calculations has been verified
by a statistical test.
8 For the sake of clarity, take-up rates were calculated on the rounded
percentages shown in table 3. If the calculations had been made with
unrounded numbers, they would have differed somewhat. For example,
the 100 percent take-up rate for defined benefits overall does not
mean that all employees with access to these plans participated in
them. Instead, the take-up rate using unrounded numbers would likely
be close to 100, but not exactly 100 percent.
9 Health insurance analysis here is limited to three types of plans:
medical, dental, and vision. The survey does not have overall health
insurance access or participation data; instead data are available for
specific plans. As reported in earlier publications, 10 percent had access
and 8 percent participated in plans for which the type of health plan
was not available. In a companion article in this issue, “New Statistics
for health insurance from the National Compensation Survey” by
Michael Lettau, participation for medical coverage is 51 percent and
access is 69 percent. The higher numbers in the Lettau article from
the earlier publications and this article result from imputing the 10
percent and 8 percent where the type of health plan was not available;
that is, in the Lettau, article the category of “Health plan type not
available” was eliminated as a separate category.
10 A regression analysis on this topic indicated that the cost of
health insurance to the employee did tend to lower participation.
11 Seven percent of participants were in plans that required an
employee contribution. Five percent of participants were in plans for
which it was unknown whether or not employee contributions were
required.
12 See Employer Cost fo r Employee Compensation, March 2003,
table 5, page 9, http://w w w .bls.gov/new s.release/archives/
ecec_06112003.pdf. Cost per participant is not available, but based
on the 50-percent participation rate, cost would probably fall in the
range of $.08 per hour.
13 In the Middle Atlantic region, 78 percent of employees had
access to, and 76 percent participated in short-term disability insurance—
far more than any other region. In New Jersey and New York, em­
ployers are required to provide a certain level of short-term dis­
ability insurance.

Declines in Benefits

Medical and retirement plan coverage:
exploring the decline in recent years
The percent of workers with employer-provided medical care
and retirement benefits declined over the past decade;
a variety of potential explanations are explored

William J. Wiatrowski

William J. Wiatrowski
is an economist
in the Office of
Compensation and
Working Conditions,
Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
E-mail:
Wiatrowski. William@
bls.gov


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

etween 1992-93 and 2003, the percentage
of private sector workers participating in
em ployer-provided medical care plans
steadily declined. Medical care covered 63 per­
cent of workers in 1992-93, compared with 45 per­
cent in 2003.1 There were less dramatic declines
in retirement plan coverage; such plans covered
53 percent of workers in 1992-93, compared with
49 percent in 2003. These declines may be the
result of shifts in the composition of the labor
force, changes in employer decisions to offer cov­
erage or employee decisions to choose coverage,
or some combination of these and other factors.
Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
National Compensation Survey, this analysis be­
gins to quantify how some of these factors affect
the overall decline in benefits coverage. This is
just a first step, however; further analysis planned
by bls is identified at the end of this article. (See
exhibit 1 for a discussion of benefit measurement
issues.)
Medical care coverage declined for various
populations within private industry. Among full­
time workers, there was a 17-percentage point
decline in medical care coverage over the decade,
from 73 percent in 1993-94 to 56 percent in 2003.
Part-time workers rarely have medical care cover­
age, thus there was little change in the percent of
part-time workers covered. (See table 1.)
W hile overall retirement plan coverage de­
clined only slightly over the decade, there was a
continuation of the widely reported shift from
defined benefit to defined contribution plans.2
The percent of workers covered by defined ben­

B

efit plans show s a clear decline— coverage
among private industry workers declined by
more than one-third over the decade. While such
plans are more prevalent among larger em ploy­
ers, coverage has declined in both larger and
smaller establishments. At the same time, there
have been increases in defined contribution cov­
erage. The net result has been a slight decline in
the percent of workers with any retirement cov­
erage as well as a slight decline in those covered
by both a defined benefit and a defined contri­
bution plan. The introduction of 401 (k) plans in
the 1980s led to a period of dual defined benefit
and defined contribution plan coverage for many
employees.3 The decline in defined benefit cov­
erage is having the effect of slowly eliminating
the occurrence of dual coverage.
Much has been written on trends in employee
benefit coverage, and on the data sources that
are available to track these trends. Diane Herz,
Joseph Meisenheimer, and Harriet Weinstein dis­
cuss the two basic sources of data used to m ea­
sure benefits coverage— data from households
and data from employers.4 Data from households
have the advantage of providing good detail on
demographics, family income (beyond that from
a single employer), and alternative sources of
benefit coverage (such as spouse coverage for
medical care). Data from employers provide more
precise information on the type of plan and de­
tails on how the plan works. John Turner, Leslie
Muller, and Satyendra Verma look further into
definitions of plan participation for defined con­
tribution plans.5 This work considers a number

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

29

Declines In Benefits

Exhibit 1.

Measuring the incidence of medicai care and retirement benefits in the National Compensation
Survey (NCS)

The primary focus of NCS medical care and retirement benefits
incidence data is a count of employees. The survey publishes two
types of employee counts. One measure reports the proportion of
employees who are participating in (covered by) medical care or
retirement plans. The second measure reports the proportion of
employees who are offered (have access to) coverage.
Both employee counts, participation or coverage and offerings
or access, show the proportion of employees who receive or who
are offered the benefit sponsored or paid for at least in part by the
employer. These counts do not include employees who may have
medical care or retirement benefits through another employer, via
a second job, former job, or family member.
The NCS focuses secondarily on a count of establishments. This
measure shows the proportion of establishments that offer medical
care or retirement benefits to any employees in the establishment.

of variables in arriving at plan participation numbers, includ­
ing employer sponsorship, job coverage, eligibility, and cur­
rent contributions. The authors provide a comprehensive
analysis of the many alternative questions that need to be
considered in counting covered workers. Beth Levin Crimmel
analyzes data from the Medical Expenditure Panel SurveyInsurance Component on employer medical care offerings in
2001.6 Finally, the Employee Benefit Research Institute regu­
larly analyzes the latest benefits coverage data, and has con­
ducted several recent examinations of alternative sources of
benefits data.7 Each of these sources provides background
information on the many details involved in tracking benefits
coverage.

Thus, even if an establishment offered medical care to only a few
of its workers, it would be counted as offering the benefit.
Establishments are usually single physical locations, such as a
factory, retail store, warehouse, or doctor's office. Establishments
are not synonymous with companies or firms, because a firm can
have many establishments.
This article examines changes in both employee and establish­
ment counts of the incidence of medical care and retirement benefits
from the early 1990s to the early 2000s. BLS has changed some of
its measurement concepts over that time period, in an effort to
provide more useful data on benefit incidence. For a detailed expla­
nation of earlier counting methods, see William J. Wiatrowski, “Count­
ing the Incidence of Employee Benefits,” Compensation and Work­
ing Conditions, June 1996, pp. 10-18, on the Internet at http://
www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/archive/summerl996art2.pdf (visited
July 30, 2004).

have particular types of benefits. For example, b l s
employment data indicate a decline in the propor­
tion of workers in goods-producing industries over
the last decade.8 To the extent that employers in
these industries offer certain benefits more often
than do employers in other industries, the shift in
employment could affect overall benefit coverage.
• Employers may alter their benefit decisions due to
financial concerns or changing labor needs.
1 Percent of wo rkers participating in selected
employee ben efit plans, private industry
1992-2003
Employee benefit program

1992-93

Causes of declining benefits coverage

1993-94

2003

All workers

Changes in benefit coverage can be the result of many differ­
ent factors:
• Legal changes, such as the introduction of 401(k)
plans, can change the benefit packages available to
employees or change the advantages employees can
receive from those benefits. Changes in the law can
prompt employers to offer plans or discourage them
from doing so. Likewise, employees may change their
decision to participate in a plan based on legal
changes. For example, if a law or regulation change
made it more difficult for employees to get access to
funds in a defined contribution plan, they might be
less inclined to participate in the plan.
• Employment may shift toward industries, occupa­
tions, or other segments of the economy that tend to

30

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

Medical care..........................

63

59

45

All retirem ent.........................
Defined benefit pension....
Defined contribution..........

53
32
35

50
28
34

49
20
40

Medical care...........................

-

73

56

All retirement.........................
Defined benefit pension....
Defined contribution..........

_
-

58
33
40

58
24
48

Medical care...........................

-

12

9

All retirem ent.........................
Defined benefit pension....
Defined contribution..........

_

19
11
12

18
8
14

Full-time workers

-

Part-time workers

-

—

N ote : Dash indicates data were not collected or not tabulated in a
given year.

• Finally, employees may alter their decision to partici­
pate in certain benefit plans, for a variety of reasons,
such as the availability of benefit coverage from an­
other source or concern about the cost of a benefit
plan.
To pinpoint the exact cause of declining benefits coverage, a
survey would have to study the same set of employees and
employers throughout the period. BLS benefits data are from
a sample survey, the composition of which changes at least in
part each year.9 Thus, the data reflect a variety of possible
influences, including shifts in the composition of the labor
force, changes in employer offerings, and changes in employee
choices.10 This article considers how each of these factors
might influence benefits coverage.
This analysis looks at medical care, defined benefit pen­
sion, and defined contribution plans. These benefits have
different traits and thus may react differently to influences.
For example, employees often have to choose to participate in
a medical care plan, and frequently must also agree to contrib­
ute toward the cost o f the plan. Employees may decide not to
participate, perhaps due to the high cost or to the availability
of coverage from a spouse or another source. Defined contri­
bution plans are like medical care in that employees usually
must choose coverage and often must agree to contribute to
the plan. In contrast, private-sector employers that provide
defined benefit plans often make the plan available to all work­
ers within a specific group (such as full-time workers) at no
cost to the employee; there is no choice and typically no
method for opting out of coverage. Based on these traits, one
might expect that participation changes in medical care and
defined contribution plans are influenced by different factors
than are participation changes in defined benefit plans.

Labor force composition
Table 2 provides data on benefit coverage for selected popula­
tions in 2003. In general, these data indicate greater participa­
tion in medical care and retirement plans among full-time work­
ers, union workers, workers in goods-producing establish­
ments, and workers in larger establishments. Thus, shifts in
employment among these populations may influence overall
benefit coverage.
Changes in the composition of the N ation’s workers by
industry, union status, employment size, and full-time/parttime status during the last decade were analyzed to determine
whether there were structural changes to the U.S. economy
that may affect benefits coverage. Among the most prom i­
nent shift has been the employment decline in goods-produc­
ing industries— down from 24 percent to 20 percent of private
industry employment. Looking beyond these percentages,
the number of workers in goods-producing industries has
remained relatively stable at between 21 million and 25 million
over the last 10 years. At the same time, overall private-sector
employment has risen from 91 million to nearly 110 million.
This suggests that most employment growth has been in ser­
vice-producing industries, which often have less benefits
coverage.
Employment has also shifted from full-time to part-time work
and from union to nonunion work. In terms of the employment
size of establishments, larger employers (those with 100 work­
ers or more) have increased their share of total employment
slightly over the past 10 years. These employment shifts may
have contradictory effects on benefit participation. Employ­
ment is shifting away from full-time union workers, who are
more likely to have certain benefits, but also slightly toward
larger establishments, which offer benefits more often.

WM Percent of workers participating in selected employee benefit plans, by worker and establishment
Private sector
workers/establishments

Medical
care

All retirement
benefit

Defined benefit
pension

Defined
contribution

All w orkers..............................................................

45

49

20

40

White-collar workers...............................................
Blue-collar workers.................................................
Service workers......................................................

50
51
22

59
50
21

22
24
7

51
38
16

Full-time....................................................................
Part-time..................................................................

56
9

58
18

24
8

48
14

Union........................................................................
Nonunion..................................................................

60
44

83
45

72
15

39
40

Goods-producing industries...................................
Service-producing industries..................................

57
42

63
45

31
16

49
37

Establishments with fewer than 100 w orkers.......
Establishments with 100 workers or m o re ............

36
55

35
65

8
33

31
51


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

31

Declines in Benefits

But is there a way to quantify the effect of these broad
late benefit coverage rates.13 The following tabulation indi­
economic changes on the overall decline in benefits cover­
cates the percentage of employment for selected groups, as
age? One approach is through a sensitivity analysis. A sensi­
identified by the benefits survey:
tivity analysis compares two variables, and tracks how one
variable would change if the other variable did not change.
P erce n t
For example, if defined benefit plans were frequently found
1 9 9 2 -9 3
2003
among full-time workers and rarely found among part-time
workers— and the composition of the workforce over a given
F u l l - t i m e ..............................
80
77
period moved substantially from full-time to part-time work­
U n i o n ....................................
18
9
ers— a sensitivity analysis would indicate how the proportion
100 w o rk e rs o r m o r e .......
44
46
of all workers with defined benefit plans would have changed
over the same time period had the full-time/part-time ratio not
Table 3 indicates the results of this analysis. The results sug­
changed.
gest that there are small compositional effects from several
A detailed look at the sensitivity analysis approach may be
variables, most notable full-time/part-time and union/nonfound in the appendix. A quick way of ascertaining the impact
union. The shift away from full-time workers resulted in a 2.5of a single compositional effect is to multiply the composition
percentage-point decline in overall medical care participation,
change by the difference in participation rates in the base year.
while the shift from union to nonunion workers resulted in a
For example, the change in the part-time share of employment
1.6-percentage-point decline. The shift to larger establish­
between 1992/93 and 2003 was about 3.94 percentage points
ments actually resulted in a participation increase of less than
(part-time employment rose from 19.54 to 23.48 percent of all
1 percentage point. While each alone may not have a large
workers); the difference in 1992/93 medical care participation
influence on overall benefit coverage decline, taken together
rates between full-time and part-time workers was about 64
the employment shifts account for about one-third of the de­
percentage points (76 percent among full-time workers, and 12
cline in medical care coverage.14 The remainder is attributed to
percent among part-time workers). The simple calculation, 3.94
changes in actual participation within establishments, which
percent times 64 percent (.0394 * .64), yields an estimate of the
could be due to employer offerings or employee choices, as
compositional effect of increased part-time employment at
discussed below.
around 2.5 percentage points out of an overall decrease in
The sensitivity analysis showed a similar employment ef­
medical care participation of 18 percentage points. Thus, 2.5
fect for retirement plans. For example, the shift away from
percentage points— about one-sev­
enth of the total— can be attributed to
I Effect of employment shifts from 1992-93 to 2003 on the percent
or workers participating in selected benefits
the shift away from full-time work.12
This same approach, and the more
Benefit/characteristic
Participation in 2003
detailed version specified in the ap­
Medical care....................................................
45 percent participation
pendix, was used to identify employ­
Full-time.......................................................
Decrease 2-3 percentage points
ment composition effects on medical
Union...........................................................
Decrease 1-2 percentage points
care and retirement coverage between
100 workers or m o re ...................................
Increase less than 1 percentage point
1992-93 and 2003. Data are available
All retirem ent..................................................
49 percent participation
from these years to conduct an analy­
Full-time.......................................................
Decrease 1-2 percentage points
sis on the change employment among
Union...........................................................
Decrease 2-3 percentage points
full-time and part-time workers, union
100 workers or m o re ...................................
Increase less than 1 percentage point
and nonunion workers, and smaller and
Defined benefit...............................................
20 percent participation
larger establishm ent (establishments
Full-time.......................................................
Decrease 1-2 percentage points
with fewer than 100 workers and those
Union...........................................................
Decrease 4 -5 percentage points
100 workers or m o re ...................................
with 100 workers or more). This analy­
Increase less than 1 percentage point
sis uses employment from the b l s ben­
Defined contribution........................................
40 percent participation
efits survey, which differs somewhat
Full-time.......................................................
Decrease 1-2 percentage points
from the em ploym ent com position
Union...........................................................
Increase less than 1 percentage point
100 workers or m o re ...................................
Increase less than 1 percentage point
noted earlier from BLS employment sur­
veys. Nonetheless, use of these em ­
N ote : Sensitivity analysis identified the effect of shifts in employment between 1992-93 and 2003
ploym ent figures is appropriate be­
from one group to another. For example, the shift from full-time to part-time employment resulted in a 2 cause these data were used to calcu­
3 percentage point decline in participation in medical care plans.

32

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

union workers resulted in nearly a 5-percentage-point decline
in defined benefit coverage.

Employer offerings
Another possible reason for the decline in the incidence of
certain employee benefits throughout the past decade may be
that employers— even in the same industry or employment
size category— are not offering benefits as often as they once
were. While the BLS benefits survey was not originally de­
signed to capture the percent of establishments offering ben­
efits or the percent of workers offered benefits, collection
methods allow some estimates of plan offerings to be calcu­
lated. A study of BLS benefits data from 1 9 9 2 -9 3 15 and new
data from the b l s 2003 National Compensation Survey offer a
glimpse into changes that might have occurred in benefit of­
fering. (See table 4.)
While there are some methodological differences in the data
from the 2 years, the changes in establishment offerings over
the decade are striking.16 In all cases except defined benefit
pension plans, a greater percentage of employers offered ben­
efits in 2003 than in 1992-93. Interestingly, the benefits that
were offered more often in 2003— health insurance and de­
fined contribution plans— are those benefits that frequently
require an employee contribution. Thus, while employers
might be providing employees with the opportunity to be cov­
ered by a benefit, coverage is not automatic. In contrast, em­
ployer offerings of defined benefit plans, which are almost
always entirely paid for by the employer and provided auto­
matically to employees, declined over the 10-year period.

Employee decisions
Data are not collected on the decisions employees make when
selecting their benefits, but some data are available on factors
that may influence those decisions. Among medical care plans,

between 1993 and 2003, the percent of all private sector work­
ers with coverage who were required to contribute toward the
cost of single coverage rose from 54 percent to 78 percent; for
family coverage, the percent required to contribute also rose—
from 74 percent to 90 percent. Further, for those required to
contribute toward the cost of their medical care coverage, the
monthly employee premium rose about 75 percent over the 10year period, faster than the overall inflation rate.
Survey data indicate a difference between the percentage
of workers offered employer-sponsored medical care and the
percentage who actually participate in such plans. These data
are used to construct a “take-up rate,” which indicates the
percent of those offered a benefit who actually choose to par­
ticipate. Once again, recent survey data were designed to
measure this concept, while prior survey data can be used to
construct proxy estimates. In 1992-93, roughly 3 out of 4
private industry workers were offered medical care and 63 per­
cent participated; in 2003,60 percent were offered a plan and
45 percent participated. This amounts to a decline in the takeup rate from about 85 percent to 75 percent. Had the take-up
rate remained at the higher rate in 2003, the percent of employ­
ees participating would have exceeded 50 percent.17
Similar evidence can be examined for defined contribution
plans. In 1992-93, slightly more than half of participants in
defined contribution plans were in savings and thrift plans.
By definition, these plans require employees to contribute as a
condition of joining the plan. Only if the employee makes a
contribution is an employer contribution credited to the ac­
count. Most of the remaining participants were in plans that
generally did not require an employee contribution, such as
deferred profit-sharing and money-purchase plans.18 In 2000,
savings and thrift participants made up more than 70 percent
of all defined contribution plan participants.19
The concept of take-up rate also applies to defined contri­
bution plans, especially as more of these plans require an em ­
ployee contribution. In 1992-93, roughly 4 out of 10 private

1 Percent of establishments offering selected benefits, by employment size, 1992-93 and 2003
2003

1992-93
Benefit
All

Small

Large

All

Small

Health insurance!.......................

49

48

90

58

56

95

All retirem ent.............................
Defined benefit.......................
Defined contribution...............

28
13
20

24
10
19

80
45
64

47
10
45

45
9
44

88
38
82

1 Data for 1992-93 refer to medical care benefits—■plans designed to
cover physical and mental health conditions. Data for 2003 refer to all
health insurance benefits, including separate dental and vision plans not


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Large

included in the 1992-93 data.
N ote : Small establishments have fewer than 100 employees; large
establishments have 100 employees or more.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

33

Declines in Benefits

industry workers were offered defined contribution plans, and
35 percent actually chose to participate— a take-up rate of more
than 80 percent. The more precise data from 2003 indicate that
51 percent of private industry workers were offered a defined
contribution plan, and 40 percent participated— a take-up rate
of 80 percent.
Because defined benefit pension plans tend to be available
to private-sector workers at no cost, nearly all those offered a
plan were also participants. There was little change in this
relationship between 1992-93 and 2003.

A closer look
The evidence so far suggests one factor leading to the de­
cline in medical care coverage is that, even when offered,
employees are not choosing to participate in an employer
plan. There may be various reasons for such a choice, includ­
ing the availability o f coverage from other sources. In a 2002
study, David Cutler attributes declining medical care cover­
age to employee decisions not to accept coverage, and fur­
ther attributes those decisions directly to the increase in em­
ployee costs.20
New data from the b l s National Compensation Survey in­
clude medical care offerings, coverage, employee costs, and
wage levels. For the first time, all of these data are available for
the same occupations, which facilitate new analyses. Carl
Barsky looks at some of these issues on pages 21-28. He
notes, for example, that a greater proportion of higher-paid
than lower-paid workers have access to and choose to partici­
pate in medical care plans. The take-up rate for those with

average wages of $15 per hour and higher was 82 percent,
compared with a 69-percent take-up rate for those with lower
earnings. Additional regression analysis indicates a correla­
tion between employee contributions and participation. As
contributions rise, workers are less likely to participate.

More analysis to come
Evidence from the last decade shows that declining participa­
tion in medical care and retirement programs can be linked to a
shift in the composition of the work force and, specifically for
medical care, a rise in the proportion of employees who are
offered a plan but decline to participate. Future data from b l s
will allow these trends to be tracked over time and further
decomposed by industry, occupation, and other variables.
This analysis is a starting point for more in-depth studies
designed to provide further insights into changes in benefits
coverage over time. Specifically, this analysis by design only
looked at a single variable at a time. Plans are under way for
more sophisticated multiple variable regression analysis to
help discern what effects the combination of employment vari­
ables is having on benefits coverage.
New data that are now available from the b l s National
Compensation Survey allow even greater analysis of benefits
coverage in various sectors of the economy. These data can
also be used to explore the details of individual aspects of
benefits, such as the effect that changes in benefit plan features
have on plan participation. As several years of these data
become available, they will help to inform future trends in
employer-provided benefits.
□

Notes
1 The term “medical care” is used throughout this article to refer to
coverage for medical conditions, such as hospitalization, physician vis­
its, and substance abuse treatment. Separate coverage for dental or
vision care expenses was excluded from this analysis.
Due to changes in survey methodology, the percent of workers
participating in medical care in 2003 excludes 8 percent of workers who
had some type of coverage (medical, dental, vision, or some combina­
tion) that could not be identified in the survey data collection process.
This may serve to exaggerate the decline in medical care coverage. In
his article, “New statistics for health insurance from the National Com­
pensation Survey,” in this issue of the Review, Michael Lettau imputes a
coverage type for the 8 percent of workers with missing data. After
imputation, Lettau shows that 51 percent of workers have medical care
coverage in 2003, identical to the participation rate found in the prior
survey, conducted in 2000.
2 A defined benefit plan provides a periodic benefit at retirement,
which is derived from a fixed formula and is guaranteed by the employer.
A defined contribution plan specifies a formula for depositing funds into
an account for each employee, but does not guarantee a future benefit.
The trend over the last quarter century has been away from defined
benefit plans toward defined contribution plans. For more information
on this trend, see Employee Benefit Research Institute, EBRI Research
Highlights: Retirement Benefits, Issue Brief number 258, June 2003.

34

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

3 Section 401 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted as part of
the Revenue Act of 1978, allows employers to establish defined contri­
bution plans that permit employee contributions to be made on a taxdeferred basis. These plans, commonly referred to as 401 (k) plans,
became popular beginning in the early 1980s, once regulations address­
ing plan design issues were finalized.
4 Diane Herz, Joseph Meisenheimer, and Harriet Weinstein, “Health
and retirement benefits: data from two BLS surveys,” Monthly Labor
Review, March 2000, pp. 3-20.
5 John Turner, Leslie Muller, and Satyendra Verma, “Defining par­
ticipation in defined contribution pension plans,” Monthly Labor Re­
view, August 2003, pp. 36-43.
6 Beth Levin Crimmel, “Employee Choice in Employer-Sponsored
Health Insurance Plans: 2001,” Statistical Brief #29, Center for Financ­
ing, Access and Cost Trends, Agency for Healthcare Research and Qual­
ity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
7 See, for example, Craig Copeland, “Employment-Based Retire­
ment and Pension Plan Participation: Declining Levels and Geographic
Differences,” EBRI Issue Brief, October 2003.
8 In 1993, 24 percent of private sector employment was in goodsproducing industries, such as construction and manufacturing. In 2003,

20 percent of private sector employment was in goods-producing
industries.
9 In the BLS National Compensation Survey, approximately 20
percent of the employer locations (called establishments) in the sample
are replaced each year with new establishments. For the years covered
by this article, a similar, though less regular, sample replacement pat­
tern was used.
10 While there have been a number of new laws and court rulings
throughout the past 10 years that could affect medical care and retire­
ment benefit coverage, the timing of the BLS data do not correspond
with the timing of these changes. Thus, it is difficult to determine what
effect, if any, new laws and court rulings had on benefit coverage using
these data.
11 For more details on employment data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, go to www.bls.gov/ces.
12 The figures in the text may differ slightly from those in the
appendix due to the use of rounded numbers in the text and more precise
numbers in the appendix.
13 While the BLS benefits survey was not designed to estimate em­
ployment, the share of employment in various groups is similar to that
found in the Bureau’s Current Employment Statistics program. For
example, the Current Employment Statistics program shows that em­
ployment in goods-producing industries declined from 24 to 20 percent
of private industry employment from 1993 to 2003. Data from the
benefits survey show a similar decline—from 26 percent to 23 percent
of private industry employment over the same period.
14 The exact effect of all of the employment shifts taken together
cannot be determined from the data, because some of the shifts are over­
lapping. For example, some of the shift from union to nonunion employ­
ment may have included a shift from full-time to part-time workers.
15 William J. Wiatrowski, “Counting the Incidence of Employee
Benefits,” Compensation and Working Conditions, June 1996, pp. 1018.
16 The Bureau’s benefit surveys are designed to capture data on the
number and percent of workers with benefit coverage. Different meth­

A p p e n d ix :

ods were used to determine the percent of establishments offering ben­
efits in 1992/93 and in 2003. In 1992/93, an establishment was counted
as offering the benefit if at least one worker was found with the benefit.
Because the survey only covers a sample of workers in each establish­
ment, this method may serve to undercount the percentage of establish­
ments offering coverage. In 2003, all establishments were asked if they
offered coverage to any worker, regardless of whether any workers were
counted as covered. In addition, data on the percent of establishments
offering benefits in 1992/93 refer to medical care benefits, while 2003
data refer to the broader concept of health insurance (which may in­
clude separate dental or vision benefits).
17 Because the 1992-93 survey did not specifically ask questions
about the percent of employees offered benefits, several proxy esti­
mates were derived. These estimates vary based on assumptions. For
complete details, see William J. Wiatrowski, “Counting the Incidence
of Employee Benefits,” Compensation and Working Conditions, June
1996, pp. 10-18.
18 A deferred profit sharing plan provides participants with a share of
company profits, typically allocated to each participant equally or pro­
portionally to salary. A money purchase plan provides a fixed employer
contribution, typically a percent of salary, to each employee’s account.
These plans may allow optional employee contributions, but generally
do not require employee contributions as a condition of joining the
plan.
19 These data indicate the percent of full-time employees who are
covered by various types of defined contribution plans, not the percent
of plans offered. If anything, these data underestimate the prevalence
of savings and thrift plans offered among all defined contribution plans
because participation in savings and thrift plans (which require an em­
ployee contribution) is generally a lower percentage of employees than
is participation in other defined contribution plans (which typically do
not require an employee contribution). Data on plan type are not yet
available for 2003.
20 David M. Cutler, “Employee Costs and the Decline in Health
Insurance Coverage,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working
Paper 9036, July 2002.

Sensitivity analysis

A se n s itiv ity a n a ly s is c o m p a re s tw o v a ria b le s , a n d tra c k s h o w o n e
v a ria b le w o u ld c h a n g e if a n o th e r v a ria b le d id n o t c h an g e . T h e fo llo w ­
in g e x a m p le lo o k s a t th e c h a n g e in m e d ic a l c a re p a rtic ip a tio n a n d th e
c h a n g e in th e ra tio o f e m p lo y m e n t a m o n g fu ll-tim e a n d p a rt-tim e
w o rk e rs . T h e r e s u lts in d ic a te w h a t e ffe c t th e c h a n g e in e m p lo y m e n t
ra tio h a d o n th e o v e ra ll c h a n g e in m e d ic a l c a re p a rtic ip a tio n .
T erm s
E R = R a tio o f e m p lo y m e n t
E R P T = R a tio o f p a rt-tim e e m p lo y m e n t to to ta l e m p lo y m e n t
E R F T = R a tio o f fu ll-tim e e m p lo y m e n t to to ta l e m p lo y m e n t
P R = P a rtic ip a tio n ra te
P R P T = P a rtic ip a tio n ra te a m o n g p a rt-tim e w o rk e rs
P R F T = P a rtic ip a tio n ra te a m o n g fu ll-tim e w o rk e rs

A = C h a n g e fro m 1 9 9 2/93 to 20 0 3
B e c a u s e all w o rk e rs a re e ith e r p a rt tim e o r fu ll tim e ,
E R P T + E R F T = 1.
F o rm u la 1 sh o w s h o w th e p a rtic ip a tio n ra te f o r a g iv e n y e a r fo r all
e m p lo y e e s c a n b e e x p re s s e d as th e e m p lo y m e n t-w e ig h te d a v e ra g e o f
th e ra te s fo r p a rt- a n d fu ll-tim e e m p lo y e e s.
(1)

P R A L L = (E R P T * P R P T ) + (E R F T * P R F T )

F o r 2 0 0 3 , fo r e x a m p le , fo rm u la 1 y ie ld s th e fo llo w in g :
.45 = (.2 3 4 8 * .09) + (.7 6 5 2 * .56)
P a rtic ip a tio n ra te s a n d e m p lo y m e n t ra tio s fo r a g iv e n y e a r c a n b e
e x p re s s e d as th e ra te s a n d ra tio s fro m a n o th e r y e a r p lu s th e c h a n g e in
th o s e r a te s a n d r a tio s f ro m th e c h o s e n y e a r to th e g iv e n y e a r.
F o rm u la s 2 th ro u g h 5 e x p re ss 2 0 0 3 ra te s a s th e c o rre s p o n d in g 1992/
93 ra te p lu s th e c h a n g e th a t o c c u rre d b e tw e e n 1 9 9 2 /9 3 a n d 2 0 0 3 .

P R A L L = P a rtic ip a tio n ra te a m o n g a ll w o rk e rs, b o th p a rt tim e
a n d fu ll tim e


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(2)

ERPT2003= ERPT1992/93 + AERPT1992/93

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

35

Declines in Benefits

(3 )

P R P T 2 0 0 3 = P R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 + A P R P T 199 2 /9 3

(4 )

E R F T 2 0 0 3 = E R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 + A E R F T 199 2 /9 3

(5 )

P R F T 2 0 0 3 = P R F T 1 9 9 2/93 + A P R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3

F o rm u la 6 re c a s ts fo rm u la 1 fo r 20 0 3 b y e x p re ss in g all 2 0 0 3 v a ria b le s
as c h a n g e s fro m th e c o r re s p o n d in g 1 9 9 2/93 v a ria b le s.
(6 ) P R A L L 2 0 0 3 = [ ( E R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 + A E R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ) *
(P R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 + A P R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 )] + [ (E R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 +
A E R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ) * (P R F T 199 2 /9 3 + A P R F T 199 2 /9 3 )]

T h e su m o f te rm s 1 a n d 5 is .63, w h ic h is th e v a lu e o f P R A L L fo r
1992/93.
T h e te rm s o th e r th a n 1 a n d 5 sh o w th e e ffe c ts o f c h a n g e s fro m 1 9 9 2 /
93 to 2 0 0 3 .
T erm 2 (P R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A E R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ), w ith a v a lu e o f .0 0 4 7 2 8 ,
sh o w s th e im p a c t o f th e in c re a s e in th e p r o p o r tio n o f p a r t- tim e
w o rk e rs fro m 1 9 9 2 /9 3 to 2 0 0 3 , in d e p e n d e n t o f o th e r c h a n g e s.
T erm 3 (E R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A P R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ), w ith a v a lu e o f -.0 0 5 8 6 ,
sh o w s th e im p a c t o f th e d e c lin e in th e p a rtic ip a tio n ra te a m o n g p a rttim e w o rk e rs fro m 199 2 /9 3 to 2 0 0 3 , in d e p e n d e n t o f o th e r c h a n g e s.

M u ltip ly in g fo rm u la 6 o u t y ield s:
(7 )

PRA LL2003 =
(E R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * P R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ) +

T erm 4 (A E R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A P R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ), w ith a v a lu e o f -.0 0 1 1 8 ,
re fle c ts th e j o in t e ffe c t (c o v a ria n c e ) o f th e d e c lin e in p a rtic ip a tio n
ra te s a m o n g p a rt-tim e w o rk e rs a n d th e in c re a s e in th e p o rtio n o f
w o rk e rs w h o a re p a rt tim e .

( 1)
(P R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A E R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ) +

( 2)
(E R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A P R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ) +
(3)
(A E R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A P R P T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ) +
(4)
(E R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * P R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ) +
(5 )
(E R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A P R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ) +

(6)
(P R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A E R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ) +
(7)
(A E R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A P R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 )

( 8)
B e c a u s e th e su m o f te rm s 1 a n d 5 is id e n tic a l to fo rm u la 1 fo r 1992/
9 3 , w e w ill lo o k to th e o th e r te rm s fo r in sig h ts in to c h a n g e s fro m
1 9 9 2 /9 3 to 2 0 0 3 .
S u b s titu tin g v a lu e s fro m th e 1 9 9 2/93 a n d 2 0 0 3 su rv e y s y ield s:
.45 = ( .1 9 5 4 * .1 2 ) + (.1 2 * .0 3 9 4 ) + (.1 9 5 4 * -.0 3 ) + (.0 3 9 4 * -.0 3 )
+ (.8 0 4 6 * .7 6 ) + (.8 0 4 6 * -.2 ) + (.7 6 * -.0 3 9 4 ) + (-.0 3 9 4 * -.2 )
S im p lify in g th e s e d a ta y ield s:
.45 = (.0 2 3 4 4 8 ) + (.0 0 4 7 2 8 ) - (.0 0 5 8 6 ) - (.0 0 1 1 8 ) + (.6 1 1 4 9 6 ) (.1 6 0 9 2 ) - (.0 2 9 9 4 ) + (.0 0 7 8 8 )

36

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

T erm 6 (E R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A P R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ), w ith a v a lu e o f -.1 6 0 9 2 ,
sh o w s th e im p a c t o f th e d e c lin e in p a rtic ip a tio n ra te s a m o n g fu ll-tim e
w o rk e rs, in d e p e n d e n t o f o th e r c h a n g e s.
T erm 7 (P R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A E R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ), w ith a v a lu e o f -.0 2 9 9 4 ,
sh o w s th e im p a c t o f th e d e c lin e in th e p o rtio n o f fu ll-tim e w o rk e rs,
in d e p e n d e n t o f o th e r c h a n g e s.
T erm 8 (A E R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 * A P R F T 1 9 9 2 /9 3 ), w ith a v a lu e o f .0 0 7 8 8 ,
re fle c ts th e j o in t e ffe c t (c o v a ria n c e ) o f th e d e c lin e in p a rtic ip a tio n
r a te s a m o n g fu ll-tim e w o rk e rs a n d th e d e c lin e in th e p o r tio n o f
w o rk e rs w h o a re fu ll tim e .
C o m b in in g te rm s 2 a n d 7 y ie ld s a v a lu e o f -.0 2 5 2 2 a n d sh o w s th e
i m p a c t o f th e c h a n g e s in th e m ix o f p a r t - t i m e a n d f u l l - t i m e
e m p lo y m e n t, i n d e p e n d e n t o f o th e r c h a n g e s . T h is is c a lle d th e
“ b e tw e e n s e c to r e ffe c t.”
C o m b in in g te rm s 3 a n d 6 y ie ld s a v a lu e o f -.1 6 6 7 8 a n d sh o w s th e
im p a c t o f th e d e c lin in g p a rtic ip a tio n ra te s a m o n g fu ll- a n d p a rt-tim e
w o rk e rs, in d e p e n d e n t o f o th e r c h a n g e s . T h is is c a lle d th e “ w ith in
se c to r e ffe c t.” O f c o u rse , th e re c o u ld b e o th e r c o m p o s itio n a l e ffe c ts ,
su c h as a d e c lin e in th e p o rtio n o f u n io n iz e d w o rk e rs , w h ic h c o u ld
a c c o u n t fo r th is 1 7 -p e rc e n t c h a n g e .
T h u s, o f th e 18-p e rc e n ta g e -p o in t d e c lin e in o v e ra ll p a rtic ip a tio n ra te s
b e tw e e n 1 9 9 2/93 a n d 2 0 0 3 , 2.5 p e rc e n ta g e p o in ts c a n b e a ttrib u te d
to th e s h ift fro m fu ll-tim e to p a rt-tim e w o rk e rs. N e a rly a ll o f th e
re m a in in g d ro p w a s d u e to d e c lin in g p a rtic ip a tio n ra te s a m o n g fu ll­
tim e a n d p a rt-tim e w o rk e rs.
T erm s 4 a n d 8 h a v e n o a p p re c ia b le e ffe c t o n 1992/93 to 2 0 0 3 ch an g e s.
In g e n e ra l, u n le s s th e e m p lo y m e n t ra tio s a n d p a r tic ip a tio n ra te s
c h a n g e d ra m a tic a lly , th e s e te rm s w ill y ie ld v e ry sm a ll v a lu e s a n d c a n
b e ig n o re d . T h is is c a lle d th e “re s id u a l.”

Trends in em ployer-provided
prescription-drug coverage
Prescription-drug costs have been rising faster
than the rate of inflation; although coverage
remains an integral part o f employee health care plans,
covered employees share a greater portion o f the cost
of prescription drugs and are being offered
cost-saving incentives more than ever before

Elizabeth Dietz

Elizabeth Dietz is an
economist In the Division of
Compensation Data
Analysis and Planning,
Bureau of Labor Statistics,
E-mail: dietz.liz@bls.gov


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

rescription drugs are an integral part of
the high-quality health care those living
in the United States have come to know.
More than 60 percent of Americans fill at least
one prescription annually.1 U.S. expenditures
on prescription drugs reached $162.4 billion
i n 2002, m o r e t h a n 10 p e r c e n t of t h e t o t a l spent
on all health care.2 From 1993 to 2003, while
the general rate of inflation remained relatively
low, medical care costs continued to rise rap­
idly, with prescription-drug costs one of the
con trib u tin g facto rs.3 C hart 1 depicts the
Consumer Price Index ( c p i ) growth rates in the
prices of prescription drugs and medical sup­
plies, all medical care, and all items over the
1993-2003 period.
As one o f the m ain sources of health
coverage in the United States, private-sector
employers are striving to contain the cost of
employee medical plans and, along with them,
the cost of prescription-drug coverage. Em ­
ployers have implemented a variety of methods
to stem the rising costs of providing such cov­
erage. This article examines Bureau of Labor
Statistics ( b l s , the Bureau) data on employerp ro v id ed p rescrip tio n -d ru g coverage and
discu sses how co st-saving m ethods have
emerged over the past decade.

P

Data considerations
Since the late 1970s, the Bureau has produced
information on the incidence and detailed plan
provisions of em ployer-provided m edical
benefits. The most recent data are from the
benefits portion of the 2002-03 National Com­
pensation Survey ( n c s ) , a forerunner of which
was the Em ployee B enefits Survey ( e b s ) .
Among the differences between the n c s and the
e b s are that (1) the 1993, 1995, and 1997 e b s
data cited in this article represent full-time
workers in private establishments of 100 or
more workers, (2) the 2000 n c s data pertain to
full-time workers regardless of establishment
size, and (3) the 2002-03 n c s data represent
all private-industry w orkers regard less of
establishment size or part- or full-time status.4
Despite these differences, there is still enough
similarity in the surveys for a valid comparison
of prescription-drug coverage over the 10-year
period examined. Given the relatively small
portion of part-tim e workers that have pre­
scription-drug coverage,5 it is unlikely that
prescription-drug data for part-time workers
have much impact on estimates for all workers.
As for the difference between the surveys in
the scope of the establishment size, the pattern

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

37

Prescription-Drug Coverage

Chart 1.

Consumer Price Index, December-to-December 12-month percent change, selected
items, 1993-2003

Percent
change

Percent
change

7

7
Prescription drugs
and medical supplies

0 ------------------- 1-------------------1------------------- 1-------------------1-------------------1------------------- 1____________ I____________ I____________ I____________ Q

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

SOURCE: CPI D etailed Report: Data fo r D e ce m b e r20 03 (U.S. Department of Labor, February 2004), Historical Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers (CPl-U), Table 26, pp. 85-91.

of prescription-drug provisions tends to be similar in larger
and smaller establishments. For example, the 1996 ebs data on
full-tim e workers in establishm ents with fewer than 100
workers were similar to the 1997 data on full-time workers
in establishments with 100 or more workers.6Also, the 2002OS ncs benefits data show that the percentage of workers with
prescription-drug coverage is similar in larger and smaller
establishments. (See table 1.)

Prescription drugs in the economy
U.S. aggregate spending for prescription drugs more than
tripled over the 1993-2003 period.7 Two main factors drove
the increase in expenditures: rising prices and increasing
utilization of prescription drugs. As regards the first factor,
the average price of a prescription rose from $22.06 in 1990
to $45.79 in 2000.8
Although this price rise, m ost notably for newly marketed
drugs, accounted for 29 percent of the increase in spending,
growing consumption was responsible for the bulk of the
increase.9 From 1992 to 2002, the number of prescriptions
purchased increased 74 percent (from 1.9 billion to 3.3 billion),
while the U.S. population grew 12 percent; the average number
of prescriptions filled per person per year increased from 7.3 to

38

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

11.6.10With an aging society, a longer average lifespan, and the
increasing use of prescription drugs to treat chronic illnesses
and an expanding scope of maladies, expenditures are expected
to continue to rise rapidly, reaching $445.9 billion, or 17 percent
of all personal health care spending, by 2012.11
This scenario is of considerable concern to private em­
ployers, which are a primary provider of health insurance.
M ore than 160 m illion A m ericans— approxim ately 64
percent of the entire U.S. population— are covered by an
em ployer-based health p lan .12 M ore than 93 percent of
private health insurance coverage was obtained through the
workplace (from a current or former employer or union) in
2001,13Among people 18 to 64 years, 82.0 percent of workers
had health insurance that year, compared with 74.3 percent
of nonworkers.14 Health plans are a major benefit cost to
em ployers, having com m anded 6.5 percent of the total
compensation dollar in December 2003.15 Chart 2 illustrates
the volatility of health insurance costs in comparison to the
cost of benefits as a whole and the cost of wages and salaries.
Prescription drugs account for less than 20 percent of all
employer health costs, but they are among the most volatile.16
Although employer-provided medical insurance coverage17
has declined over time— from 63 percent18 of all privateindustry workers in 1992-93 to 45 percent19 in 2002-03—

prescription-drug coverage has remained a component of
almost all these plans. In 2002-03, 41 percent of workers
surveyed had prescription-drug coverage.

Cost containment measures
The most basic way for a health insurer to contain costs is to
limit the goods and services covered. For goods associated
with pharmacology, health plans typically exclude proprietary
medicines, medical appliances or devices, nonprescription
drugs, in-hospital drugs,20 blood and blood plasm a, and
immunization agents. Also, plans generally place limits on
the quantity dispensed in any one prescription. In addition,
some plans require precertification, or preauthorization, of
medications by a pharmacy review panel. One type of pre­
certification is “step therapy,” the practice of requiring the
patient to use a covered medication and to be evaluated for
whether the m edication is effective on him or her before a
similar, excluded m edication is prescribed.21 Some plans
encourage the use of recently approved over-the-counter drugs
by mailing coupons to purchase these drugs at a discount to
enrollees who have been taking similar prescription drugs.22
Other plans implement preventive measures such as health
education programs for employees,23 which tend to offset costs
in the long run. Still other plans offer prescription-drug cards,
which require a monthly fee and allow the card holder (and,
often, family members) discounts on prescription drugs.24
In addition to adopting these cost-saving techniques, pri­
vate employers have implemented methods designed to shift
a portion o f the price of prescription drugs to their health
plan participants, and they have structured plans to give
enrollees incentives to choose lower cost alternatives. The
Bureau tracks data on several such m ethods. In the next
section, selected methods are described, and data on their
prevalence in the 1993-2003 period are presented.

Trends revealed in the data
The Bureau tracks data on the percentage o f w orkers with

prescription-drug coverage; specific types of lim itations,
such as copayments per prescription for brand-name drugs;
annual deductibles; annual m axim um lim its on reim ­
bursement; and the percentages of workers in plans that offer
higher coverage for generic drugs, at selected (network)
pharmacies, and for mail-order drugs. With the 2002-03 sur­
vey, the Bureau published data for the first time on the per­
centage of workers participating in prescription card plans
and the percentage of those in plans that give higher reim ­
bursement for formulary drugs (that is, drugs on a list of
medications) than for drugs not on the formulary. (See table
1.) The survey data show that, among the methods listed,
higher reimbursement for generic drugs is the most widely
applied m ethod of cost containm ent for private-industry
workers, regardless of their occupational group, their bar­
gaining status, the size of the establishment they work in, or
the industry group to which they belong.

Copayments. M ost workers are in plans that require a
copayment for each prescription— a set amount, rather than
a proportion of the prescription’s cost. For example, under
this type of plan, the enrollee would pay $10 for each pre­
scription filled, regardless of whether the retail cost of the
same purchase would be $10 or $100. According to the
Kaiser Family Foundation, average copayments for generic
drugs increased from $7.42 in 2000 to $9.47 in 2003.25 b ls
data show that copayment amounts for brand-name drugs rose
dramatically from 1997 to 2003. ( b ls data on copayment
levels and averages traditionally have been published by fee
arrangement and are discussed later, under the subsection
title d “ P r e p a id a n d in d e m n ity p la n s c o m p a r e d .” )

Generic drugs and tiered plans. Generic drugs tend to be
priced lower than their brand-name counterparts. The average
retail price of a prescription for a brand-name drug in 2000
was $65.29, as opposed to $19.33 for a generic-drug prescrip­
tion.26 W hen enrollees choose a generic over a brand-name
drug to fill a prescription, the plan sponsor accrues substan­
tial savings; therefore, many plans offer more generous

I Prescription-drug benefits, summary of coverage, all private workers, National Compensation Survey, 2002-03
Bargaining status

Occupational group
Benefit

Higher reimbursement for generic drugs.....
Coverage for mail-order drugs.....................
Prescription card plan...................................
Higher reimbursement for formulary drugs ..
S ource :

All
workers

White
collar

83
70
9
27

84
73
8
30

Blue
collar
78
65
12
22

Service
90
75
6
22

Industry

Union

Nonunion

Goods
pro­
ducing

70
65
11
21

84
71
9
27

78
65
11
22

Establishment
size

100 or
Service Fewer
pro­ than 100 more
ducing workers workers
85
73
8
29

83
64
10
25

83
75
9
28

2002-03 National Compensation Survey benefits data.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

39

Prescription-Drug Coverage

Chart 2.

Employment Cost Index, 1993-2003

12-month
percent change

12-month
percent change

coverage for generic substitutes. According to b ls data, the
percentage of employees in plans that offer this type of cost­
saving incentive has increased markedly, from 25 percent in
1993 to 83 percent a decade later. (See chart 3.)
As part of the coverage of generic and brand-name drugs,
m any plans em ploy a cost structure known as a “tiered
system .” In such a system, a formulary includes drugs that
are covered at the highest level; medications not on the for­
mulary usually require a higher copayment by the enrollee.
For example, a three-tiered plan might require a $10 copay­
ment for a generic drug on the formulary, a $20 copayment for
a brand-name drug on the formulary, and a $30 copayment for
any drug not on the formulary (regardless of whether the
drug is generic or a brand-name drug). Although the Bureau
does not publish percentages of workers in two- or three­
tiered plans, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that 63
percent of covered workers were under three-tiered plans in
2003, up from 27 percent in 2000.27The rise in participation in
tiered plans and in plans with higher coverage for generic
drugs has provided enrollees with incentives to choose less
costly drugs; however, the level of participation in plans with
brand-name drug coverage has remained consistent, at 99
percent to 100 percent, over tim e.28

Mail-order drugs. Many plans cover mail-order drugs more
generously than those purchased in a local pharmacy, which

40

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

reduces costs through its large volume of sales. The plan
provider contracts with a pharmacy to purchase large quan­
tities of commonly prescribed drugs at discount prices. In
turn, patients are given the incentive of higher coverage for
purchasing through their m ail-order service. M ail-order
prescription refills also are used for longstanding conditions
such as diabetes. Patients who have prescriptions for chronic
conditions tend to receive larger refills (for example, a 90-day
supply) through mail-order pharmacies than do those who
refill through traditional pharmacies (which tend to limit
prescriptions to a 30-day supply).29 In 1993, mail-order drugs
were offered to only 25 percent of em ployees with pre­
scription-drug coverage. By 2003, the benefit was offered to
70 percent of employees with coverage. (See chart 3.)

Network pharmacies.

Some plans cover “in-netw ork”
pharmacy purchases more generously than those which are
out of network, because the plan has arranged for special
discounts through specific pharmacies or pharmacy chains.
Network pharmacies work in a similar manner as mail-order
pharmacies, in the sense of saving through volume. A plan
provider contracts with one or more pharmacy chains for
discount prices. In turn, the chains are guaranteed a large
volume of prescription-drug sales. The plan provider offers
an in-network and an out-of-network option, with higher
coverage given for in-network purchases. Network pharmacies

Chart 3.

Percentage of employees with employer-sponsored prescription-drug coverage subject
to specified cost-saving measures, private industry, 1993, 1997, 2000, and 2002-03

Higher reimbursement
for generics

Network pharmacies
(excludes 2002-03 data)

are a cost-saving measure that has not taken hold quite as
rapidly as incentives for using generic drugs and mail-order
coverage over the past decade. Still, the incidence of this benefit
among employees covered by health plans rose from 18 percent
in 1993 to 42 percent in 2000.30(See chart 3.)

Prepaid and indemnity plans compared.

The 1993 ebs and
the 2002-03 ncs published data on prescription-drug cover­
age in prepaid plans, previously classified as health main­
tenance organizations ( h m o ’ s) , and for indem nity plans,
previously classified as “non-HMo’s.” Prepaid plans intro­
duced many cost-saving methods to the health insurance
field, and the data show that indemnity plans have adopted
some of these methods in greater numbers over time. With
regard to prescription drugs, in 1993, 84 percent of employ­
ees covered under prepaid plans required a copayment on
brand-name prescriptions, while only 27 percent of employ­
ees covered under indemnity plans were charged copayments.
Over time, copayments became much more common in in­
demnity plans, rising to 57 percent of covered employees in
2000.31 (See chart 4.) Over the 1993-2003 period, copayment
amounts have increased greatly in both indemnity and pre­
paid plans. The percentage of workers covered by indemnity
plans with a $10 or greater copaym ent32 for brand-name
prescription drugs increased from 19 percent in 1993 to 79


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Mail order

percent in 2000, while the percentage covered by prepaid
plans increased from 10 percent in 1993 to 78 percent in
2000.33 (See chart 5.) In 2003, both the majority of workers
p a r tic ip a tin g in in d e m n ity p la n s a n d th e m a jo r ity p a r tic ­

ipating in prepaid plans were required to make a copayment
of $15 or more. The average copayment for a brand-name
prescription under indemnity plans increased from $8.70 in
1997, to $14.11 in 2000, to $16.75 in 2002-03; under pre­
paid plans, the copayments increased from $7.65, to $12.46,
to $17.00 during the same years.34
A related cost-savings incentive is for enrollees to choose
generic equivalents over brand-nam e prescription drugs
when such generics are available. In a typical plan that
includes this incentive, if no generic equivalent is available,
the plan will cover the brand-name drug at the most generous
level— for example, with the first-tier copayment per pre­
scription; however, if a generic equivalent is available, the
enrollee can choose between the generic drug, covered at
the first level, and the brand-name drug. If the enrollee
chooses the brand-name drug, he or she must pay the differ­
ence in cost between the generic and the brand-name drug in
addition to the copayment. For example, if the first-tier
copayment is $10 per prescription, the market price of a
brand-name drug costs $40, and its generic equivalent costs
$15, then the enrollee would pay $35: $10 for the copayment,

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

41

Prescription-Drug Coverage

Chart 4.

Percentage of employees covered by plans requiring a copayment per prescription for
brand-name drugs, by fee arrangement, private industry, 1993, 1997, and 2000
Percent

Percent
100 —

100
Indemnity

90 -

90
Prepaid

80 -

80

70 -

70

60 -

60

50 -

50

40 -

40

30 -

30

20 -

H 20

10 -

10

0

0

—

1997

1993

plus $25 for the difference between the generic and brandname drugs. The ebs did not track this feature in 1993; the
first year the Bureau collected such data was 1995. The data
show that this cost-saving incentive has grown from applying
to under 10 percent of covered employees in 1995 to applying
to 15 percent and 20 percent in 2000, for indemnity and
prepaid plans, respectively.35

Less-often-used methods o f cost containment.

Coinsurance
is a m ethod of cost sharing in which the enrollee must pay a
percentage of the cost of each prescription filled. For exam­
ple, one coinsurance arrangement is that the plan pays 80
percent of the cost and the enrollee pays 20 percent. Despite
its cost containment possibilities, relatively few plans require
coinsurance. Similarly, yearly deductibles and yearly maxi­
mum reimbursement limits for prescription drugs have re­
mained relatively uncommon among prepaid and indemnity
plans over the 1993-2003 period.

Coverage in the public sector
Private em ployers are not the only ones reacting to
increasing prices and demand for prescription drugs. With a
growing population of elderly, who are most likely to need
prescription drugs for ongoing, chronic conditions and to

42 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

2000

have multiple prescriptions per individual,36 there has been a
great amount of public pressure for the Federal Government
to help make prescription drugs more affordable. Prescrip­
tion-drug coverage was the major initiative behind the O cto­
ber 2003 passage of the Medicare Reform Act, which will
provide coverage for the elderly.37 In addition, many State
and m unicipal governments have looked into purchasing
drugs for their programs more cheaply.38 The ebs collected
data on w orkers’ benefits in State and local governm ent
establishments biannually from 1990 through 1998 (except
for 1996); the ncs has collected such data since 1999, but
only on private-industry establishments. N either program
surveyed workers in Federal establishments.39
A l o o k o v e r t h e past d e c a d e shows that prescription-drug
coverage rem ains an integral part of em ployer-provided
health plans. A lthough continuing to offer brand-nam e
coverage, these plans have moved toward greater cost con­
tainment measures for prescription drugs, including the use
of incentives to choose lower cost alternatives. With so many
individuals covered through employer-based health plans, the
effects of cost shifts from employer to employee are broad
reaching. The magnitude of the effects of these shifts is be­
yond the scope of this study, but the effects can be seen in the
aggregate data: while private health insurance spending for

Chart 5.

Percentage of workers in indemnity plans, and percentage of workers in prepaid plans, subject
to copayment per prescription, by amount of copayment, 1993, 1997, and 2000

Percent of
workers

Percent of
workers

$10 or more

Less than $10
Amount of copayment

Percent of
workers

Percent of
workers


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

$10 or more

Less than $10
Amount of copayment

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

43

Prescription-Drug Coverage

prescription drugs has been one o f the m ost rapidly in­
creasing health care costs, it slowed in 2002 as growth in outof-pocket spending increased. This slow dow n has been
attributed in part to the wider application o f tiered drug
formularies, which shift more of the cost to consumers.40Facing

the tandem pressures of rising costs and increasing utilization
of prescription drugs, employers will no doubt continue to use a
variety of cost containment measures. To capture the latest
trends, the ncs will continue to track developments in prescriptiondrug coverage among employer-sponsored medical plans.
□

Notes
1 Rachel Christensen Sethi, Employee Benefit Research Institute
Issue B rief No. 265, January 2004, p. 1.

Trends, Fact Sheet 3057-02, May 2003, on the Internet at
www.kff.org (visited Mar. 26, 2004).

2 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, on the Internet at both
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/t2.asp and http://
www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/chart.asp, Jan. 8, 2004
(visited Mar. 26, 2004).

11 “Health Spending Projections for 2002-2012,” in Health Affairs,
Feb. 7, 2003, on the Internet at http://www.healthaffairs.org, cited
in Kaiser Family Foundation, Prescription Drug Trends, Fact Sheet
3057-02.

3The All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers ( cpi-u ;
1982-84 = 100) went from 145.3 in December 1993 to 184.3 in December
2003, an increase of 26.8 percent; the Medical Care cpi- u (1982-84 =
100) moved from 205.2 in 1993 to 302.1 in 2003, an increase of 47.2
percent; and the Prescription Drugs and Medical Supplies cpi- u (1982-84
= 100) grew from 225.7 in 1993 to 329.1 in 2003, an increase of 45.8
percent. (See Consumer Price Index Detailed Report (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, December 2003), table 25, “Historical cpi for all urban
consumers, 1993-2003,” pp. 78-84.)

12Employee Benefit Research Institute, ebri Notes, March 2004, Figure
3, p. 10.

4 For more details on the differences between the ebs and the ncs, see
Allan P. Blostin, “National Compensation Survey: a wealth of benefits
data,” this issue, pp. 3-5. Additional information about the benefits portion
of the ncs can be obtained on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/
home.htm.
5 According to National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in
Private Industry in the United States, 2000, Bulletin 2555 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, January 2003), table 94 (p. 79) and table 96 (p. 81), only
13 percent of part-time workers had prescription-drug coverage, while 59
percent of full-time workers had such coverage. In 2003—to pick a
representative year—95 percent of the participants in medical insurance
plans were full-time workers.
6 Employee Benefits in Small Private Establishm ents, 1996,
Bulletin 2507 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 1999), pp. 39, 5657; and Em ployee B en efits in M edium and Large P rivate
Establishments, 1997, Bulletin 2517 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
September 1999), pp. 4, 42-43, 71-72.
7 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, on the Internet at http:
//www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/highlights.asp, Jan. 8,
2004 (visited Mar. 26, 2004).
8 Prescription Drug Trends: A Chartbook Update, Kaiser Family
Foundation, November 2001, Exhibit 13, p. 27.
9 Sethi, Brief No. 265, p. 1.

10ims health and expenditure data, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services, on the Internet at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/
default.asp, cited in Kaiser Family Foundation, Prescription Drug

44

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

13Health, United States, 2003, with Chartbook on Trends in the Health
o f Americans (Hyattsville, md , National Center for Health Statistics),
September 2003, table 127, pp. 326-28.
14 Prescription Drug Coverage, Spending, Utilization, and Prices:
Report to the President (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
April 2000), cited in Kaiser Family Foundation, Prescription Drug Trends,
Fact Sheet 3057-02.
15 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Historical Listing
(Quarterly) 2002-03 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Feb. 26, 2004), table 3,
P-1116 Strazewski, Len, “Prescription Drug Cost Containment: Attacking
rising health care costs one piece at a time can pay dividends,” Benefits
Business, February 2003; on the Internet at http://www.roughnotes.com/
rnmagazine/2003/february03/02p76.htm (visited Mar. 26, 2004).
17 The term “medical coverage” is used throughout the remainder of
this article to refer to coverage for medical conditions, such as
hospitalization, physician visits, and other goods and services typically
covered by medical plans. Included among such coverage is that for
prescription drugs. Separate coverage for dental or vision care was
excluded from the analysis.
18 Employee Benefits in the United States, 1992-93 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, March 1995), table titled “Percent of employees participating
in selected benefits, by private and public sectors and full-time and parttime status, United States, 1992-93,” inside front cover; and National
Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private Industry, 2003
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, forthcoming).
19 Due to changes in survey methodology, the percentage of workers
participating in medical care in 2003 excludes 8 percent of workers who had
some type of coverage (medical, dental, vision, or some combination) that
could not be identified in the survey data collection process. Omitting these
workers may serve to exaggerate the decline in medical care coverage. In his
article, “New statistics for health insurance from the National Compensation
Survey” (this issue, pp. 46-50), Michael Lettau imputes a coverage type

for the 8 percent of workers with missing data. He shows that, after
imputation, 51 percent of workers had medical care coverage in 2003.
20 In-hospital drugs are prescription drugs provided to hospital
patients and are usually covered under the patient’s medical plan as
part of hospital room and board.
21 Information on precertification and step therapy is available on
Aetna’s Internet site, http://www.aetnapharmacy.com,
22 Sethi, Brief No. 265, p. 8.

dc ,

23 Fundamentals o f Employee Benefit Programs, 5th ed. (Washington,
Employee Benefit Research Institute, 1997), pp. 228-29.

24 See, for example, Benefit News Advisor, Jan. 28, 2004, on the
Internet at http://www.benefitnews.com/detail.cfm?id=5554&terms=
|00||ar||96||95||cards||eb||d 2||01||99||prescription||nw||97||98| (visited
May 21, 2004).
25 Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational
Trust, Employer Health Benefits, 2000-03 annual surveys, as reported
in Sethi, Brief No. 265, p. 34.
26 Prescription Drug Trends—a Chartbook Update (Menlo Park,
c a , and Washington, d c , Kaiser Family Foundation, November 2001),
Exhibit 13, p. 27.
27 Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational
Trust, Employer Health Benefits, 2000-03 annual surveys, as reported
in Sethi, Brief No. 265, Figure 11, p. 32.
28 See Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Private Estab­
lishments, 1993, Bulletin 2456 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, November
1994), table 84, p. 77; Employee Benefits in Medium and Large
Private Establishments, 1997, table 83, p. 71; National Compensation
Survey: Employee Benefits in Private Industry in the United States,
2000, table 34, p. 34.

31 2002-03 ncs data on employee participation in indemnity and
prepaid plans with copayments for brand-name prescription-drug
coverage are not included in this article because the data did not meet
bls standards.
32 The 1993 ebs and 2002-03 ncs published data, not on the average
copayment per prescription, but rather, on the percentage of employees
whose plan requires a copayment at a particular level.
33 2002-03 ncs data on employee participation in indemnity and
prepaid plans by copayment level for brand-name prescriptions are not
included in this article because the data did not meet bls standards.
34 Averages exclude those workers who are not required to make a
copayment. The 1997 and 2000 figures are for full-time employees only,
and the 1997 figure includes only workers in establishments with 100 or
more employees. The 2000 and 2002-03 figures include workers in all
sizes of establishments.
35 2002-03 ncs data on employee participation in indemnity and
prepaid plans with this feature were not included in this article because
the data did not meet bls standards.
36 Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey
Household Component, 1997-2000, Figure 6, “Average Utilization
for Outpatient Prescription Drugs for Those with a Purchase by Age,
1997-2000,” on the Internet at http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/papers/
st21/stat21.htm (visited Mar. 26, 2004).
37 The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
of 2003, Public Law 108-173, was signed into law on December 8,2003. For
an analysis of this recently passed legislation, see “Prescription Drug Coverage
for Medicare Beneficiaries: An Overview of the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003” (Washington, dc, Health Policy
Alternatives, Inc., for the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Jan. 14, 2004).
38 Sethi, Brief No. 265, pp. 6-8.

29 For more information on mail-order prescription drugs, see
Cathy Baker and Natalie Kramer, “Employer-sponsored prescription
drug benefits,” Monthly Labor Review, February 1991, pp. 31—35.

39 When it is fully implemented, the ncs will include workers in State
and local government establishments of all sizes.

30 2002-03 ncs data on employee participation in plans with
network pharmacy incentives are not included in this article because
the data did not meet bls standards.

40 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Jan. 8, 2004; on the
Internet at h ttp://w w w .cm s.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/
highlights.asp (visited Mar. 26, 2004).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

45

Health insurance statistics

New statistics for health insurance from
the National Compensation Survey
Integrating compensation programs into the NCS
provides new opportunities for calculating the relationships
among the percentage o f employers offering health insurance,
the percentage of employees participating in health insurance plans ,
and the cost to employers for such plans

M ichael Lettau

Michael Lettau is a
senior research
economist in the
Office of Compensa­
tion and Working
Conditions. E-mail:
Lettau.Michael@bls.gov

46 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ver the last several years, the Bureau
o f Labor Statistics has consolidated
several o f its com pensation surveys
into the National Compensation Survey ( n c s ).
Combining the separate surveys into one inte­
grated program provides greater efficiency in
data collection and processing, and also pro­
vides greater flexibility in the calculation of
compensation measures. Several new statistics
are planned for publication from the n c s , which
should give data users a more complete un­
derstanding o f the com pensation package a
U.S. worker typically receives.
Data are available from the first collection
period of the n c s . It is now possible to calcu­
late trial estimates for the proposed statistics.
This article describes the integration of the
separate surveys into the ncs and presents trial
statistics for health insurance.1 The calculation
of the trial statistics is just the first step in the
development of the new measures. It will take
some time to incorporate their calculation into
the production process for regular release.
Nonetheless, the statistics in this article are
examples o f the types of measures b ls hopes to
publish in the future.

O

August 2004

Previous compensation surveys
The

combined the Employment Cost Index
Survey, the Employee Benefits Survey
( e bs ), and the Occupational Compensation Sur­
vey (ocs) Program. The e c i has been the most
prom inent of the com pensation surveys. It
shows em ployers’ costs for wage and non wage
compensation relative to a base period using a
Laspeyres formula.2 Nonwage compensation
covers an extensive list of employee benefits,
including health insurance, pensions, paid
leave, and legally-required benefits, b ls began
reporting the e c i for benefits in 1981. From that
time until 1995, growth in benefit compensa­
tion consistently outpaced growth in wage com­
pensation. Then, during the second half of the
1990s, the trend reversed and benefits grew at a
lower rate than wages. Since 2000, benefit costs
have accelerated, growing more quickly than
wages once again.3
As a measure of total compensation for U.S.
workers, the e c i is the chief indicator of com­
pensation inflation for the U.S. labor market.
However, it does not provide any detail on the
benefit packages workers receive. As a step to
( e c i)

ncs

providing such detail, b l s introduced the Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation ( e c e c ) in 1987.4 The e c e c is based
on the e c i data for the current period. It reports average com­
pensation for wages and salaries and for 19 categories of
benefits. In December 2003, the e c e c for total compensation
was $22.92 per hour worked for workers in private industry.
Wages and salaries made up 71.9 percent of compensation,
with an average of $16.49. Benefits made up the remaining
28.1 percent, with an average o f $6.43. O f particular interest
among the individual benefits, the cost per hour worked for
health insurance averaged $1.50 in December 2003, or 23
percent of total benefit costs.
Although the e c e c provides a good summary of the rela­
tive cost for the various pieces of the benefit package a
worker typically receives, it does not describe the character­
istics o f those benefits. Detailed characteristics of plans have
historically been the purview of the Employee Benefits Sur­
vey ( e b s ) . The e b s reported the proportion of employees who
participate in benefit plans with a particular provision or char­
acteristic. The provisions ranged from the very broad, such
as whether a health plan included dental coverage, to the very
specific, such as whether a medical plan’s limit to inpatient
alcohol detoxification coverage was measured in days rather
than dollars.
The e b s provided rich detail about benefit plans, but its
drawback was the lag time between data collection and the
published statistics. In contrast, the e c i is reported in the
month after its reference period, and the e c e c is reported
shortly thereafter, so their information is quite timely. M ore­
over, statistics from the e c i and the e b s programs did not con­
nect em ployers’ costs for the benefits with the provisions of
the benefit plans. The integrated n c s allows both the timelier
release of some of the data in plan provisions statistics and
the publication of these data that link the costs of plans to
their provisions.

The integrated ncs
Some integration of the e c i and e b s predates the introduction
of the National Compensation Survey. The e b s sample was
made up of establishments in the e c i sample as of the August
prior to the e b s reference year. Establishments also needed
to satisfy the size and ownership restrictions for the year, as
the e b s reported statistics for medium and large private es­
tablishments in odd-numbered years, and for small private
establishm ents and State and local government establish­
ments in even-numbered years.5 After the e c i determined the
composition of the e b s sample, however, their data collec­
tion was separate, which precluded combining the cost infor­
mation with the provision information from the surveys.
The n c s completes the integration of the e c i and e b s . Cost,
provision, and participation data will be collected by benefit


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

plan, which allows the costs of plans to be linked with their
provisions. The cost data will be updated every 3 months, as
required by the e c i , for the approximate 5 years the establish­
ment is scheduled to remain in the n c s survey. Participation
rates in the benefit plans, along with some broad provisions
of the plans, will be updated annually to keep the informa­
tion current. The more detailed characteristics of plans take
longer for b l s to collect, compile, and verify; they will be
collected exclusively when the establishment initially enters
the sample.

Trial statistics for health insurance
Trial statistics for health insurance were calculated based on
the integrated n c s data collection. The sample is restricted
to private establishments. The reference month for most of
the data is June 2003; almost all of the remaining data refer
to either May or July 2003. The sample of establishments
matches the sample used for the n c s statistics in “Employee
Benefits in Private Industry, 2003” News Release u s d l : 0 3 489.
There are four types of trial statistics: cost per employee,
access rates, participation rates, and cost per participant. The
e c e c has always measured the employer costs per employee,
so the cost-per-employee statistics follow the formula used
for the e c e c . 6 The e b s measured participation rates in benefit
plans with particular provisions, so the participation-rate sta­
tistics follow the formula used historically by the e b s .7 Costper-participant statistics are new under the n c s ; they equal
the sum of costs among benefit plans with a particular provi­
sion divided by the total number of participants in plans with
the provision.
Access-rate statistics are also new under the n c s . T o un­
derstand their calculation, it is important to become familiar
with the sampling scheme used by the n c s . Sampling pro­
ceeds as follows:
• Establishments are selected for the sample.
• Within each selected establishment, a small number of
individual employees are selected from an employee list.
• For each selected worker, the establishment is asked
to define the w orker’s job according to the establish­
m ent’s most detailed classification system.
• Data then are collected for all workers who hold the
job.
The n c s does not use individual workers as its unit of ob­
servation because the e c i needs the unit to remain intact if a
worker leaves the establishment or switches to another job.
In the calculation of the access-rate statistics, all workers
Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

47

Health insurance statistics

in the occupation are assumed to have access to a benefit
plan if the establishment offers a plan to at least one of the
workers in the occupation. The access rate then equals the
number of employees with access to a plan divided by the
total number of employees. (See box.)
Shown below is the first set of trial statistics on health
insurance for workers in private industries in 2003.8 The
bold type highlights statistics that are new under the ncs. The
statistics are calculated using estimation methods that some­
times differ from the methods used for statistics published
from the 2003 ncs. The units for the cost statistics are dol­
lars per hour worked by the employee.
E m p lo y e r
cost p e r
e m p lo y e e
H e a lth
in s u ra n c e
p la n s ........... ...
M e d i c a l ........... ...
S ta n d -a lo n e
d e n t a l ...........
S ta n d -a lo n e
v i s i o n ...........

A ccess
r a te

P a r tic i­
p a tio n
r a te

E m p lo y e r
cost p e r
p a r tic ip a n t

$ 1 .3 9
1 .2 5

__

_

.6 9

.51

$ 2 .4 4

.1 2

.2 8

.2 2

.5 2

.0 2

.0 8

.0 6

.3 2

—

As noted, the cost per employee for health insurance is

Example of

ncs

microdata by benefit plan

Suppose there are 10 workers in an occupation from
the ncs sample, each of whom works 2,000 hours per
year. Six o f the workers participate in medical plan A,
two of the workers participate in medical plan B, and
the remaining two workers decline medical coverage.
The participation rate for the occupation in medical
plans equals the sum o f 6 and 2 divided by 10, which
equals 0.8. Because at least one worker in the occupa­
tion participates in a medical plan, all workers in the
occupation are assumed to have access to a medical
plan, so the access rate equals 1.0.
Suppose the employer pays $5,000 per year for
each o f the six participants in plan A, and $3,000 for
each of the two participants in plan B. The employer
cost per employee for medical plans equals the sum of
6 x ($5,000/2,000) for plan A and 2 x ($3,000/2,000)
for plans B divided by the 10 total workers in the occu­
pation, which equals $1.80 per hour worked for the
occupation. The total participants in medical plans for
the job is eight, so the employer cost per participant for
medical plans equals the same numerator, 6 x ($5,000/
2,000) plus 2 x ($3,000/2,000), divided by 8 partici­
pants, which equals $2.25 per hour worked.

48 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

$1.39 per hour worked. This statistic corresponds conceptu­
ally to the ecec for health insurance, which is published ev­
ery 3 months.9 Health insurance plans are then divided into
three types: medical, stand-alone dental, and stand-alone
vision. Medical plans that also have dental or vision cover­
age are included with medical to eliminate overlap among
the categories. O f the em ployers’ average cost of $1.39 per
hour, about 14 cents are for nonmedical health plans.
Also shown are the access and participation rates for each
type of plan. The ebs always reported participation rates, but
under the ncs, the goal is for the data to be timelier, because
the participation rates will be kept up-to-date. In September
2003, bls reported participation rates in health insurance
plans for the March 2003 reference date.10 The reported rate
for medical plans was 45 percent for workers in private in­
dustry. Note that this is lower than the 51 percent in the trial
statistics shown above. However, in the news release, as well
as in the articles by Carl Barsky and William W iatrowski in
this issue, the health plan type was not imputed if it could not
be determined which type of coverage the plan included
(medical, dental, vision, drug, or some combination).11 The
8 percent of participants in a plan type that could not be de­
termined were kept in a separate category. If the plan-type
imputations are included, the participation rate in medical
plans is raised to 51 percent.
As mentioned earlier, statistics on access to benefit plans
are new under the ncs. For medical plans, 69 percent of
workers have access to a medical plan through their occupa­
tion, which is 18 percentage points higher than the propor­
tion of workers who participate in a medical plan.12 Twentyeight percent of workers have access to a stand-alone dental
plan, and 8 percent have access to a stand-alone vision plan.
However, dental and vision coverage are often included as
part of a comprehensive health plan. The access rate to den­
tal plans increases to 45 percent when comprehensive plans
that include dental coverage are added to the stand-alone
plans, and the access rate to vision plans increases to 28 per­
cent when comprehensive plans that include vision coverage
are added to the stand-alone plans.
The employer cost per participant for medical plans and
for stand-alone dental and vision plans are also new under
the ncs. Cost-per-employee statistics include both partici­
pants and nonparticipants, so they do not indicate whether
the cost for a benefit is high because it is pervasive among
workers or because it is very expensive for the few workers
who receive it. This situation is clarified somewhat by the
cost-per-participant statistics use of the ncs data collection
by plan, as the cost-per-participant formula is compatible
with describing em ployers’ costs conditional of a particular
plan provision.
Following are the June 2003 participation rates and em ­
ployers costs per participant by type of m edical plan for

workers in all private industries. Again, the statistics are
calculated using estim ation methods that sometimes differ
from the methods used for statistics published from the 2003
n c s . The statistics in bold are new under the n c s . The units
for the cost statistics are dollars per hour worked by the
employee.
P a r tic ip a tio n
r a te f o r a ll
e m p lo y e e s
M e d ic a l p l a n s ....... .... 0 .5 1
T ra d itio n a l
i n d e m n i t y ......... ........... 0 4
In d e m n ity in a n d
o u t o f n e tw o rk ........... 29
P r e p a id in a n d
o u t o f n e tw o rk ........... 08
P r e p a id in
n e tw o r k o n l y ... ........... 11

E m p lo y e r
P a r tic ip a tio n
co st p e r
r a te f o r m e d ic a l
p a r tic ip a n t
p a r tic ip a n ts
1.00

$ 2 .4 4

.08

2 .7 8

.5 6

2 .4 4

.15

2 .5 0

.21

2 .2 8

The above tabulation repeats the cost per participant for
medical plans of $2.44 in table 1. It then shows the cost per
participant for four types of medical plans. The estimate of
the employer cost per participant is the highest for traditional
indemnity plans, averaging $2.78 per hour worked. Tradi­
tional indemnity plans allow the participant the choice of any
provider without effect on reimbursement. A possible expla­
nation for this plan having the highest employer cost per par­
ticipant is that of the other three medical plan types, tradi­
tional indemnity plans impose the fewest cost containment
measures on health providers. They continue to be relatively
rare among the four types. Only 4 percent of workers par­
ticipate in a traditional indemnity medical plan, which repre­
sents 8 percent of all participants in medical plans. The esti­
mate of the employer cost per participant is the lowest for
prepaid-in-network-only plans— previously classified under
the e b s as a health maintenance organization ( h m o ) — at $2.28
on average. Under this type of plan, the enrollee is only pro­
vided coverage if he or she stays within the network of pro­
viders. The most common type of medical plan, indemnityin-and-out-of-network— previously classified under the e b s
as a preferred provider organization ( p p o ) — has an average
cost per participant of $2.44, which is the same as the overall
average. Under this plan, the enrollee may go outside the
network of providers, but at a greater cost.
A recent trend in the provision of health insurance by
employers has been toward employees explicitly helping to
pay the cost. The following shows employee monthly pre­
miums and employer monthly costs for workers in all private
industries for June 2003. The statistics are calculated using
estimation methods that sometimes differ from the methods
used for statistics published from the 2003 n c s . The statistics
in bold are new under n c s . The units for the cost statistics are
dollars per month.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

C o n d itio n a l
p a r tic ip a tio n
r a te
S in g le c o v e r a g e .... ..... 1.00
N o t r e q u i r e d ..... ........... 26
R e q u i r e d ............ ........... 74
F a m ily c o v e r a g e ... ....... 1.00
N o t r e q u ir e d ..... ............... 14
R e q u i r e d ............ ........... 86
1 .0 0
S e le c te d c o v e r a g e . ......

E m p lo y e e
m o n th ly
p re m iu m

$48
0
65
209
0
242
108

E m p lo y e r
m o n th ly c o s t
p e r p a r tic ip a n t
—
—
$381

Almost three-quarters of participants are now required to
contribute for single coverage, and 86 percent of participants
are required to contribute for family coverage. For the aver­
age monthly premium for em ployees, the n c s survey consid­
ers the premiums for single and family coverage as separate
provisions of a single health insurance plan, so both the single
and family premiums contribute to the respective averages,
regardless of which coverage the participants choose. The
premiums for employees are then combined based on their
choice between single and family coverage to show an aver­
age monthly premium for employees of $108.13 This com ­
pares to the average employer cost per month of $381 for
medical plans, which is also based on the choice of employ­
ees between single and family coverage. From the monthly
averages, employees pay about 22 percent of the costs, while
employers pay about 78 percent.14
Several years ago, b l s did a special tabulation of the share
of expenditures for health insurance.15 For 1992, employees
paid 14 percent, and employers paid 86 percent. The current
estimates therefore provide further evidence for the trend of
employees paying more of the premiums for their insurance.
The special tabulation for 1992 also showed almost no dif­
ference between small establishments and medium and large
establishments in the employee share for health insurance
expenditures. The June 2003 n c s data continue to show only
a modest difference in the share by establishment size. The
employee share for medical plans is just more than 23 per­
cent in small establishments, and just more than 21 percent
in medium and large establishments.
The e c i has always collected employer costs for an extensive
list of benefits. However, the published statistics have rarely
focused on the relationship among the various forms of com­
pensation, such as how the benefit package differs for workers
from different points of the wage distribution.16 Shown below
are the cost per employee, access rate, participation rate, and
cost per participant for medical plans by wage quartile for work­
ers in all private industries for June 2003. The dividing points
for the quartiles are $8.49, $12.47, and $19.90.17 The statistics
are calculated using estimation methods that sometimes differ
from the methods used for statistics published from the 2003
n c s . The statistics in bold are new under the n c s . The units for
the cost statistics are dollars per hour worked by the employee.
Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

49

Health insurance statistics

E m p lo y e r
cost p e r
e m p lo y e e
1 st q u a r t i l e ..... .... $0.29
2 n d q u a r tile ... ........... 93
3 rd q u a r tile .... ....
1.49
4 th q u a r tile .... ....
2.28

A ccess
r a te

P a r tic ip a tio n E m p lo y e r
r a te
cost p e r
e m p lo y e e

0.35
.70
.85
.88

0.19
.49
.65
.72

$1.54
1.91
2.28
3.18

As might be expected, both the access and participation
rates in medical plans increase with the wage level of the
worker. However, the difference between the access rate and
participation rate decreases with the wage level of the worker.
About 82 percent of workers from the highest quartile with
access to a medical plan participate— commonly called “takeup rate”— while only about 54 percent of workers from the
lowest quartile with access to a medical plan participate. Takeup rates are the participation rates divided by the access rates.
The lower cost per employee among workers with a lower
wage level is obviously due in part to their lower participa­
tion rate. Perhaps more surprising is the added role of a lower

average cost for the low-wage workers who do participate in
a medical plan. The estimate of the employer cost per par­
ticipant more than doubles from $1.54 for workers in the first
wage quartile to $3.18 for workers in the fourth wage quartile.
It is important to keep in mind that, for the classification
of the wage quartiles, wage levels of workers are ranked
among of all private workers, not just among workers from
the same firm. It is therefore not correct to interpret differ­
ences in the participation rates and average costs as neces­
sarily representing the discrepancy between high and lowwage workers who work for the same employer.
T h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n of the separate compensation surveys into
the National Compensation Survey gives b l s an opportunity
to expand the number and type of compensation measures it
reports. This paper uses n c s data collected on or around June
2003 to illustrate some of the new statistics planned for pub­
lication in the future. These statistics and others like them
should give data users a more complete picture of the com ­
pensation package a U.S. worker typically receives.
□

Notes
The statistics are described as trial estimates because, as mentioned
throughout the article, they use experimental calculation methods that
sometimes differ from the procedures used for the statistics published
from the 2003 National Compensation Survey.
2 See Appendix A of Employment Cost Indexes, 1975-99, Bulletin
2532 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2000).
3See the bls Compensation Cost Trends website, http://www.bls.gov/
ncs/ect/home.htm, for historical trends in the eci.
4 For a description of the calculation of the ecec, see Appendix A of
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, 1986-99, Bulletin 2526
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2000).
5 The ebs defined establishments with fewer than 100 employees as
small, and establishments with at least 100 employees as medium or large.
See Appendix A of Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,
1986-99, Bulletin 2526 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2000).
7 See Appendix A of National Compensation Survey: Employee Ben­
efits in Private Industry in the United States, 2000, Bulletin 2555 (Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics, January 2003).
8 Standard errors have not been calculated for the trial statistics. Con­
sequently, none of the statistical inferences made in this article have been
verified by a statistical test.
9The published ecec for health insurance among private industry work­
ers equals $1.45 for June 2003. The sample used for the statistics in this
paper is a subset of the ecec sample, consisting of the more recent en­
trants into the ncs survey. The restriction on the sample appears to cause
the slightly lower average cost. It does not appear to result from proce­
dural differences in the estimation, such as the changed procedure for
imputing missing cost information.
10 See Employee Benefits in Private Industry, 2003, usdl: 03-489 (Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics) Sept. 17, 2003.
11 See the articles by Carl B. Barsky, “Incidence benefits measures in the
National Compensation Survey” and by William J. Wiatrowski, “Medical and
retirement plan coverage: exploring the decline in recent years” in this issue.
Imputation refers to the process of filling in values when an establish­
ment provides only partial information about the compensation packages

50 Monthly Labor Review

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

their employees receive. The statistics in this article are calculated using
an experimental procedure for imputing a missing plan type and other
missing data elements.

12bls reported the access rate to medical plans as 60 percent for March
2003, but again the plans for which the type could not be determined were
kept as a separate category, which explains the lower rate. See National Com­
pensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private Industry in the United States,
March 2003, Summary 04-02 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 2004).
13The ncs collects data on employees’ selection of the coverage option
for some, but not all, health insurance plans. Ideally, bls field economists
collect the employer and employee premiums and the number of partici­
pants for each coverage option of a health insurance plan. However, if the
establishment is unable or unwilling to provide such detailed information,
the fallback is to collect the establishment’s expenditure on health insur­
ance for the relevant group of workers. When expenditure data are col­
lected, the split between single and family coverage will not be available.
Therefore, the available data are used to impute the single/family split.
The share from table 3 is based on the employer and employee costs
for medical insurance, rather than employer and employee premiums. The
article by Jordan Pfuntner, “New benefits data from the National Com­
pensation Survey” in this issue discusses the difference between costs and
premiums. See National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in
Private Industry in the United States, March 2003, Summary 04-02 (Bu­
reau of Labor Statistics, April 2004) for estimates of the employee and
employer shares based on single and family premiums.
15 See Expenditures for Health Care Plans by Employers and Employ­
ees, 1992, usdl: 93-560 (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Dec. 20, 1993.
16For the first time, the news releases for the 2003 National Compensation
Survey reported the provisions of benefit plans for workers from an occupa­
tion within an establishment with an average wage rate above and below $15.
17The dividing points between the wage quartiles are generally lower
than those reported in the supplemental tables to the July 2002 ncs bulle­
tin for national wage rates. This is due in part to the ncs statistics in the
supplemental tables being weighted by weekly hours, so the wage rates
for full-time workers receive more weight than the wage rates for parttime workers. The supplemental tables for July 2002 are on the Internet at
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0540.pdf

Precis
Temporary help in
Georgia
Many analyses of temporary workers are
co n d u c te d at a very h ig h le v e l o f
aggregation, perhaps focusing on the
potential of the employment series for
the temporary help industry to act as a
le a d in g in d ic a to r o f la b o r m a rk e t
conditions. Other reports focus on the
e x p e rie n c es o f in d iv id u al w orkers,
perhaps suggesting that being a “tem p”
fosters instability or, conversely, that
temping may allow individuals to try on
different occupations and em ployers
and find a better and more productive fit
in the labor force.
In a report in the Federal Reserve Bank
of A tlanta’s Econ South, Julie Hotchkiss
walks a very useful middle path. Using
unemployment insurance system wage
records from the Georgia Department of
Labor, she looks at tem porary work
through the experiences of a relatively
large number of individuals.
As many studies have pointed out,
aggregate employment in the temporary
help services industry is very volatile
compared with the rest of the economy.
H otchkiss confirm s this finding, “In
Georgia, only 64 percent of the workers
employed in temporary help services in
2000Q1 were employed in 2002Q4, after
the recession. In comparison, about 80
p e rc e n t o f G e o rg ia ’s w o rk e rs in
manufacturing and other services and
about 74 percent of workers in retail trade
were still employed after the recession.”
S im ilarly , w o rkers w ho w ere in
temporary services before the recession
sp en t an av erag e o f 2.3 q u arters
unem ployed during the downturn. In
contrast, manufacturing employees were
unemployed for an average of 1.1 month,
retail trade employees for 1.5 month, and
other service industry workers, 1.2 month.
E v e n am o n g th o se te m p o ra ry
workers who were employed as of the
fourth quarter o f 2002, three-quarters
were employed by a different firm than
the one they were employed in when the
recession began. This was a far higher


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

iSÉ

ra te o f em p lo y er chan g e th an w as
re c o rd e d fo r w o rk ers in the o th e r
industries. However, another unique
feature of temporary help employment
was that workers in that industry that did
change jobs actually made a bit more, on
average, in the fourth quarter of 2002 than
they had made at their old jobs and those
that stayed with the same employer, made
a bit less. Hotchkiss concluded, “For
many workers, temporary employment
provides an entrée into a more permanent
position, but, as seen here, that path may
prove to be quite rocky.”

Family in the fast track

percentage depends upon how career
is defined.)
Women in the fifth and most recent
cohort in G oldin’s study, graduated
co lleg e from ab o u t 1980 to 1990,
typically had the objective of combining
career and fam ily at the same time.
According to G oldin’s analysis, 21 to
28 percent actually realized that goal by
age 40. In contrast, 45 to 55 percent of
men college graduates in the same age
group were able to combine career and
family by age 40. Goldin notes, “But even
though men managed to achieve career
and family about two times as often as
women, this is probably the lowest that
figure has been in U.S. history.”

W hether women can have both careers
and children (either sequentially or Structural change in
simultaneously) is an issue that evolved New York
over the course of the last century. In
“ The Long R oad to the F ast Track: L ike the issue o f tem p o rary h elp ,
C areer and F am ily ” (NBER W orking structural change is perhaps most often
Paper No. 10331), Claudia G oldin of ad d re sse d at a v ery h ig h le v e l of
H a rv a rd U n iv e rs ity tra c e s th is aggregation— the Nation as a whole, for
evolution by considering five different example. The effects of restructuring—
cohorts of college graduate women.
e sp e c ia lly th e e m p lo y m e n t and
The first cohort graduated at the displacement effects, generally are felt
beginning of the 20th century and had a most acutely, however, at the State and
career or a family, but rarely both. The local level. Erica L. Groshen, Simon
next cohort graduated between the end Potter, and Rebecca J. Sela provide a
of World War I and the end of World War detailed analysis of how restructuring
II, and tended to have a job and then a has affected New York State in the June
family. Women who graduated college issue of Current Issues in Economic and
between 1946 and the mid-1960s are the Finance from the New York Fed.
Using a method Groshen and Potter
third cohort; they often had a family and
applied
to the national economy in a
th e n a jo b ; a c c o rd in g to G o ld in ’s
estimates, only 17 percent of this group 2003 report (see our September 2003
had no children by age 40, by far the précis), the authors find that the share
lowest percentage of all five cohorts. The industries that experience structural
fourth cohort— graduates from the late change during recent downturns is much
1960s to the late 1970s— often strived to higher than it was during the downturns
of the 1970s and 1980s. The authors
have career first and then family.
G o ld in says m o st about the tw o conclude that the New York economy
m ost recent cohorts, in part because experienced much greater degrees of
she can analyze N ational Longitudinal structural change in the national recessions
Survey data that include these groups of the mid-1970s, early 1990s, and, most
o f college graduate women. Using NLS recently, 2001. As a result, the downturns
data, she finds that that 13 to 18 percent in the New York economy that were
of the fourth cohort achieved “career associated with those recessions were of
then fam ily” by the tim e they reached significantly greater duration than were
□
40. (S he gives a range because the the recessions at the national level.
Monthly Labor Review August 2004 51

Publications Received

■

Agriculture and
natural resources

in g P a p e r 9 9 5 8 ) $ 1 0 p e r copy, p lu s $ 1 0
f o r p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e
U n ite d S ta te s.

O rg a n isa tio n fo r E co n o m ic C o -o p e ra tio n an d
D e v e lo p m e n t, F a rm H o u se h o ld In com e:
Issu es a n d P o lic y R espon ses. P aris, OECD
P u b lic a tio n s , 2 0 0 3 , 83 p p ., so ftc o v er.

H sieh, C hang-T ai a n d M ig u el U rq u io la, W hen
S ch o o ls C o m p ete, H o w D o T h ey C o m ­
p e te ? A n A s s e s sm e n t o f C h ile ’s N a tio n ­
w id e S c h o o l V ou ch er P ro g ra m . C a m ­
brid g e, MA, N a tio n a l B u re au o f E co n o m ic
R e s e a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 , 43 p p . (W o rk in g
P a p e r 1 0 0 0 8 ) $ 1 0 p e r copy, p lu s $ 1 0 fo r
p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d
S ta te s.

Economic and social statistics
C o o p e r, R u s s e ll a n d J o n a th a n W illis , The
C o s t o f L a b o r A d ju s tm e n t: In fe r e n c e s
f r o m th e G a p . C a m b rid g e , M A, N a tio n a l
B u re au o f E co n o m ic R e se arc h , Inc., 2 003,
2 2 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 100 0 6 ) $ 1 0 p e r
co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o sta g e an d h a n d lin g
o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s.
C u m m in s , J a s o n C ., A N e w A p p ro a c h to th e
V alu ation o f In ta n g ib le C a p ita l. C a m ­
b rid g e, MA, N a tio n a l B u re au o f E co n o m ic
R e s e a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 , 4 0 p p . (W o rk in g
P a p e r 9 9 2 4 ) $ 1 0 p e r copy, p lu s $ 1 0 fo r
p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d
S ta te s.
E k e la n d , Iv a r, J a m e s J. H e c k m a n , a n d L ars
P. N e sh e im , Id en tification a n d E stim ation
o f H ed o n ic M o d e ls. C a m b rid g e , MA, N a ­
tio n al B u re au o f E c o n o m ic R esearch , Inc.,
2 0 0 3 , 7 2 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 1 0 ) $ 1 0
p e r co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d h a n ­
d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s.

Economic growth
and development
A rc h ib u g i, D an ielle a n d B e n g t-A k e L undvall,
e d s., The G lo b a lizin g L earn in g E con om y.
N e w Y o rk , O x f o r d U n i v e r s i ty P r e s s ,
2 0 0 2 , 3 0 7 p p ., so ftc o v er.
K ru e g e r, D irk a n d K ris h n a K u m a r, U S-E ur o p e D ifferen ce s in T ec h n o lo g y -D riv en
G ro w th : Q u a n tifyin g th e R o le o f E d u c a ­
tio n . C a m b rid g e , M A, N a tio n a l B u re a u
o f E c o n o m ic R e se a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,3 1 pp.
(W o rk in g P a p e r 1 0 0 0 1 ) $ 1 0 p e r c o p y ,
p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g o u t­
sid e th e U n ite d S ta te s.

Education
O rg a n isa tio n fo r E co n o m ic C o -o p e ratio n an d
D e v e lo p m e n t, E d u ca tio n P o lic y A n a ly sis
2 0 0 2 . P a ris , OECD P u b lic a tio n s , 2 0 0 2 ,
133 p p ., so ftc o v er.
G o ld in , C la u d ia a n d L a w re n c e F. K a tz, The
“V irtu e s” o f th e P a st: E d u c a tio n in th e
F irst H u n d red Years o f th e N e w R epu blic.
C a m b rid g e , MA, N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o ­
n o m ic R e se arc h , Inc., 2 0 0 3 ,5 6 pp. (W ork­

52

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

P is c h k e , J o m -S te ffe n , The Im p a c t o f L en gth
o f the School Year on Student P erform an ce
a n d E a rn in g s: E v id e n c e fr o m th e G e r ­
m an S h ort S ch o o l Years. C a m b rid g e , MA,
N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e se a rc h ,
In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,6 0 pp . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 6 4 )
$ 1 0 p e r co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d
h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s.
T h u rs b y , J e r r y G. a n d M a rie C . T h u rs b y ,
A r e F a c u lty C ritic a l? T h eir R o le in U n i­
v ersity -In d u stry L icen sin g . C a m b rid g e ,
MA, N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e ­
se a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 , 3 2 p p . (W o rk in g P a ­
p e r 9 9 9 1 ) $ 1 0 p e r c o p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r
p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g o u tsid e th e U n ite d
S ta te s.

Industrial relations
B lan c h flo w er, D a v id a n d A le x B ry so n , W h at
E ffect D o U n ion s H a v e on W ages N o w
A n d W ou ld ‘W h at D o U n ion s D o ? ’ B e
S u rp r is e d ? C a m b rid g e , MA, N a tio n a l
B u re au o f E co n o m ic R e se arc h , Inc., 2003,
5 6 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 7 3 ) $ 1 0 p e r
co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e an d h a n d lin g
o u tsid e th e U n ite d S ta te s.
B ro c k , Jo n a th a n an d D a v id B . L ip sk y , e d s.,
G o in g P u b lic : The R o le o f L a b o r-M a n ­
a g e m e n t R e la tio n s in D e liv e r in g Q u a lity
G overn m en t S ervices. Ith aca, NY, C o rn ell
U n iv e rs ity P re ss , 2 0 0 3 , 3 2 0 p p ., $ 2 9 .9 5 /
p a p e rb a c k .
M a r t in , P h i l i p L ., P r o m is e U n fu lfille d :
U n io n s , I m m ig r a tio n , a n d th e F a r m
W orkers. Ith a c a , NY, C o rn e ll U n iv e r­
sity P re s s , 2 0 0 3 , 2 4 0 p p ., $ 4 9 .9 5 /c lo th ;
$ 2 1 .9 5 /p a p e r b a c k .

$ 1 0 p e r copy, p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d
h a n d lin g o u tsid e th e U n ite d S ta te s.

International economics
B ieseb ro e ck , Jo h a n n e s V an, E xportin g R a ises
P r o d u c t iv i ty in S u b -S a h a r a n A f r ic a n
M a n u fa ctu rin g P la n ts. C a m b rid g e , MA,
N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e s e a rc h ,
In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,4 2 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 10 0 2 0 )
$ 1 0 p e r c o p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d
h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s.
C a se lli, F ra n c e s c o a n d D a n ie l W ils o n , Im ­
p o r tin g T ech n o lo g y. C a m b r id g e , M A,
N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e s e a rc h ,
In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,4 0 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 2 8 )
$ 1 0 p e r c o p y , p lu s $ 1 0 f o r p o s ta g e a n d
h a n d lin g o u tsid e th e U n ite d S ta te s.
E llio tt, K im b e rly A n n a n d R ic h a rd B . F r e e ­
m a n , C a n L a b o r S ta n d a rd s Im p ro v e
U n d er G lo b a liz a tio n ? W a s h in g to n , DC,
I n s titu te fo r I n te r n a tio n a l E c o n o m ic s ,
2 0 0 3 , 179 p p ., $ 2 5 /p a p e rb a c k .
E r d e m , E r k a n a n d J a m e s T y b o u t, T ra d e
P o lic y a n d In d u stria l S e c to r R e sp o n ses:
U sin g E v o lu tio n a ry M o d e ls to I n te rp r e t
th e E vid en ce. C a m b rid g e , MA, N a tio n a l
B u re au o f E c o n o m ic R e se arc h , In c., 2 0 0 3 ,
35 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 4 7 ) $ 1 0 p e r
c o p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g
o u tsid e th e U n ite d S ta te s.
F re e m a n , R ic h a rd B ., T ra d e W ars: The E x ­
a g g e r a te d Im p a c t o f T ra d e in E c o n o m ic
D e b a te . C a m b rid g e , M A, N a tio n a l B u ­
re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e s e a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,
33 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 1 0 0 0 0 ) $ 1 0 p e r
co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o sta g e a n d h a n d lin g
o u tsid e th e U n ite d S ta te s.

Labor and economic history
A le x an d e r, R o b e rt J., A H is to r y o f O rg a n ize d
L a b o r in B ra zil. W e s tp o rt, CT, G r e e n ­
w o o d P u b lis h in g G ro u p , 2 0 0 3 , 231 p p .,
$ 6 3 .9 5 /h a rd co v e r.

Industry and
government organization

G a le n s o n , D a v id W ., The R e a p p e a r in g M a s ­
te r p ie c e : R an kin g A m e r ic a n A r tis ts a n d
A r t W orks o f th e L a te T w en tieth C entury.
C a m b rid g e , MA, N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o ­
n o m ic R e se arc h , Inc., 2 0 0 3 ,3 5 p p. (W o rk ­
in g P a p e r 9 9 3 5 ) $ 1 0 p e r co p y , p lu s $ 1 0
f o r p o s t a g e a n d h a n d li n g o u ts id e th e
U n ite d S ta te s.

A c e m o g lu , D a ro n a n d S im o n Jo h n s o n , U n ­
bu n d lin g In stitu tio n s. C a m b rid g e , M A,
N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e se a rc h ,
In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,6 3 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 3 4 )

L ic h te n s te in , N e ls o n , S ta te o f th e U n ion : A
C en tu ry o f A m e r ic a n L a b o r. P rin c e to n ,
NJ, P rin c e to n U n iv e rsity P re ss , 2 0 0 3 ,3 5 2
p p ., $ 1 8 .9 5 /p a p e rb a c k .

August 2004

Z a n ie llo , T o m , W orking Stiffs, U n ion M a id s,
R ed s, a n d R iffraff: A n E x p a n d ed G u id e to
F ilm s a b o u t L a b o r. Ith a c a , NY, C o rn e ll
U n iv e rs ity P re s s , 2 0 0 3 , 4 3 4 p p ., $ 5 2 .5 0 /
c lo th ; $ 2 4 .9 5 /p a p e rb a c k .
Z ie g e r, R o b e rt H . a n d G ilb e rt J. G a ll, A m e r i­
c a n W o r k e r s, A m e r ic a n U n io n s : T h e
T w en tieth C e n tu ry T hird E d itio n . B a lti­
m o re , MD, T h e Jo h n s H o p k in s U n iv e r­
sity P re s s , 2 0 0 2 , 2 9 2 p p ., $ 1 7 .9 5 /p a p e rb ack .

Labor force
B a u m o l, W illia m J., A la n S. B lin d e r, an d
E d w a r d N . W o l f f , D o w n s i z i n g in
A m e r ic a : R e a lity , C a u s e s , a n d C o n s e ­
q u en ces. N e w Y o rk , R u s s e ll S a g e F o u n ­
d a tio n , 2 0 0 3 , 2 6 4 p p ., $ 2 9 .9 5 /c lo th .
G o m ic k , J a n e t C . a n d M a rc ia M e y e rs , F a m i­
lie s T h a t W ork: P o lic ie s f o r R e co n cilin g
P a re n th o o d a n d E m p lo ym en t. N e w Y ork,
R u s s e ll S a g e F o u n d a tio n , 2 0 0 3 ,5 3 5 pp .,
$ 3 9 .9 5 /c lo th .
S t a p l e t o n , D a v i d C . a n d R i c h a r d V.
B u rk h a u se r, The D e clin e in E m ploym en t
o f P eo p le with D isabilities: A P olicy Puzzle.
K a lam az o o , M I, W .E . U p jo h n In stitu te fo r
E m p lo y m en t R esearch , 2 0 0 3 ,4 4 8 pp., $45/
cloth; $ 2 2 /p ap e rb ac k .

Managem ent and organization
theory
A d l e r , N i c l a s , A .B . ( R a m i ) S h a n i , a n d
A l e x a n d e r S ty h r e , C o l la b o r a ti v e R e ­
se a rc h in O rg a n iza tio n s: F oun dation s f o r
L ea rn in g , C h a n g e, a n d T h e o re tic a l D e ­
v elo p m en t. T h o u s a n d O a k s , CA, S a g e
P u b lic a tio n s , In c ., 2 0 0 4 ,3 8 3 p p ., $ 4 4 .9 5 /
so ftc o v er.
B a rte l, A n n , R ic h a rd F re e m a n , C a se y
Ic h n io w s k i, a n d M o rris M . K le in e r, C a n
A W ork O rg a n iza tio n H a v e a n A ttitu d e
P ro b le m ? The Im p a c t o f W o rkplaces on
E m p lo y e e A ttitu d e s a n d E c o n o m ic O u t­
co m e s. C a m b rid g e , M A, N a tio n a l B u ­
re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e s e a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,
43 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 8 7 ) $ 1 0 p e r
co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g
o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s.
E d w a r d s , J a c k E ., J o h n C . S c o t t , a n d
N a m b u ry S. R a ju , e d s., The H u m an R e ­
so u rc es P ro g ra m -E v a lu a tio n H an d b o o k .
T h o u s a n d O a k s, CA, S a g e P u b lic a tio n s ,
In c ., 2 0 0 3 , 571 p p ., $ 8 9 .9 5 /s o ftc o v e r.
F in e m a n , S te p h e n , U n d ersta n d in g E m o tio n
a t W ork. T h o u s a n d O a k s, CA, S a g e P u b ­


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

lic a tio n s , In c ., 2 0 0 3 , 2 0 3 p p ., $ 3 2 .9 5 /
so ftco v er.

Monetary and fiscal policy
B a rb e ris, N ic h o la s, M in g H u a n g , an d R ic h ­
a rd T h a le r, In d ivid u a l P referen ces, M o n ­
e ta r y G a m b les a n d th e E q u ity P rem iu m .
C a m b rid g e , MA, N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o ­
n o m ic R e search , Inc., 2 0 0 3 ,4 8 pp. (W ork­
in g P a p e r 9 9 9 7 ) $ 1 0 p e r copy, p lu s $ 1 0
f o r p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e
U n ite d S ta te s.
O rg a n isatio n fo r E c o n o m ic C o -o p e ratio n an d
D e v elo p m en t, Taxing W ages S p ecia l F e a ­
ture: Taxing F a m ilies 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 2 . P a ris,
OECD P u b l i c a t i o n s , 2 0 0 3 , 4 1 8 p p .,
so ftco v er.

Prices and living conditions
A b e l, J a iso n R ., E rn s t R . B e m d t, a n d A la n
G W h ite , P r ic e In dexes f o r M ic r o s o ft’s
P e r so n a l C o m p u ter S o ftw a re P ro d u c ts.
C a m b rid g e , M A, N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o ­
n o m ic R esearch , Inc., 2 0 0 3 ,2 9 pp. (W ork­
ing P a p e r 9 9 6 6 ) $ 1 0 p e r copy, p lu s $ 1 0
f o r p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e
U n ite d S ta te s.
B e n k a rd , C . L a n ie r a n d P a tric k B a ja ri, H e ­
d o n ic P r ic e In d e x e s w ith U n o b s e r v e d
P ro d u c t C h a ra cteristics, a n d A p p lic a tio n
to P C ’s. C a m b rid g e , MA, N a tio n a l B u ­
re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e s e a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,
4 4 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 8 0 ) $ 1 0 p e r
co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e an d h a n d lin g
o u tsid e th e U n ite d S ta te s.

Productivity and technological
change
A g ra w a l, A ja y K ., Ia in M . C o c k b u m , an d
Jo h n M c H a le , G o n e B u t N o t F o rg o tten :
L a b o r F lo w s, K n o w le d g e S p i l l o v e r s ,
a n d Enduring S ocial C apital. C a m b rid g e,
MA, N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e ­
se a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 , 3 4 p p . (W o rk in g P a ­
p e r 9 9 5 0 ) $ 1 0 p e r c o p y , p lu s $ 1 0 f o r
p o sta g e an d h a n d lin g o u tsid e th e U n ite d
S ta te s.
F o r m a n , C h ris , A vi G o ld f a rb , a n d S h a n e
G r e e n s te in , H o w D id L o c a tio n A ffe c t
A d o p tio n o f th e C o m m e rc ia l In te rn et?
G lo b a l V illage, U rb a n D en sity, a n d In ­
d u s tr y C o m p o sitio n . C a m b rid g e , M A,
N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e se a rc h ,
In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,4 6 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 7 9 )
$ 1 0 p e r co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o sta g e a n d
h a n d lin g o u tsid e th e U n ite d S ta te s.

P o p p , D a v id , L esso n s f r o m P a te n ts: U sin g
P aten ts to M easu re T echn ological C han ge
in E n viro n m en ta l M o d e ls. C a m b r i d g e ,
M A, N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e ­
s e a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 , 31 p p . (W o rk in g P a ­
p e r 9 9 7 8 ) $ 1 0 p e r c o p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r
p o sta g e a n d h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d
S ta te s.
R o h lfs , Je ffre y H ., B a n d w a g o n E ffe cts in
H igh -T ech n ology In du stries. C a m b rid g e ,
MA, T h e MIT P r e s s , 2 0 0 3 , 2 5 6 p p .,
$ 1 6 .9 5 /p a p e rb a c k .

Social institutions and
social change
A u s te n -S m ith , D a v id a n d R o la n d G F ry e r,
Jr., T he E c o n o m ic s o f ‘A c tin g W h ite .’
C a m b rid g e , MA, N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o ­
n o m ic R e se arc h , Inc., 2 0 0 3 ,3 8 p p . (W o rk ­
ing P a p e r 9 9 0 4 ) $ 1 0 p e r co p y , p lu s $ 1 0
f o r p o s ta g e a n d h a n d li n g o u t s i d e th e
U n ite d S ta te s.
B e rm a n , E li, H am as, T aliban a n d th e J e w ish
U n d erg ro u n d : A n E c o n o m is t’s V iew o f
R a d ic a l R e lig io u s M ilitia s. C a m b r i d g e ,
M A, N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e ­
se a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 , 38 p p . (W o rk in g P a ­
p e r 1 0 0 0 4 ) $ 1 0 p e r co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r
p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d
S ta te s.
F ry e r Jr., R o la n d G a n d S te v e n D . L e v itt,
The C a u ses a n d C o n seq u en ce s o f D i s ­
tin ctive ly B la ck N a m es. C a m b rid g e , MA,
N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e s e a rc h ,
In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,5 1 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 3 8 )
$ 1 0 p e r co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 f o r p o s ta g e a n d
h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s.
H e lb u rn , S u z a n n e W . a n d B a rb a ra R .
B e rg m a n n , A m e r ic a ’s C h ild C a re P r o b ­
lem : The W ay O u t. N e w Y ork, P a lg ra v e
M a c m illa n , 2 0 0 3 ,2 6 2 p p ., $ 1 9 .9 5 /p a p e rback.
K a p ste in , E th a n B . a n d B ra n k o M ila n o v ic ,
In com e a n d In flu en ce: S o c ia l P o lic y in
E m erging M arket E conom ics. K alam azo o ,
MI, W .E . U p jo h n In s titu te fo r E m p lo y ­
m e n t R e se arc h , 2 0 0 3 , 120 p p ., $ 4 0 /clo th ;
$ 1 4 /p ap e rb ac k .
W o lf e r s , J u s ti n , D i d U n ila te r a l D iv o r c e
L a w s R a ise D iv o r c e R a te s ? A R e c o n c ili­
a tio n a n d N e w R e su lts. C a m b rid g e , M A,
N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e s e a rc h ,
In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,2 6 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 1 0014)
$ 1 0 p e r co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d
h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

53

Publications Received

Wages and compensation
H a ll, R o b e r t E ., W age D e te r m in a tio n a n d
E m ploym en t Fluctuations. C am bridge, MA,
N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e se a rc h ,
In c ., 2 0 0 3 , 2 8 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 6 7 )
$ 1 0 p e r co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d
h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s.

Welfare programs
and social insurance
B u zzi, F ra n k J., Twenty-Second A ctu arial Valu­
a tio n o f th e A ssets a n d L ia b ilities U n d er
the R a ilr o a d R etirem en t A c ts a s o f D e c e m ­
b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 w ith T echnical S u pplem en t.
C h ica g o , U .S . R a ilro a d R e tire m e n t B oard,
B u re a u o f th e A ctuary, 2 0 0 3 , 92 pp.
C o r m a n , H o p e , N a n c y E . R e ic h m a n , a n d
K e lly N o o n a n , M o th e r s ’ a n d F a th e r s ’

54

M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

A u g u st 2004

L a b o r S u p p ly in F ra g ile F a m ilies: The
R o le o f C h ild H ea lth . C a m b rid g e , MA,
N a tio n a l B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic R e se a rc h ,
In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,4 6 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 1 8 )
$ 1 0 p e r copy, p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d
h a n d lin g o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s.
F rie d b e rg , L e o ra a n d A n th o n y W eb b , R e tire ­
m en t a n d th e E v o lu tio n o f P en sio n S tru c­
tu re. C a m b rid g e , MA, N a tio n a l B u re a u
o f E c o n o m ic R e se a rc h , In c ., 2 0 0 3 ,4 3 pp.
(W o rk in g P a p e r 9 9 9 9 ) $ 10 p e r copy, p lu s
$ 10 fo r p o s ta g e an d h a n d lin g o u tsid e th e
U n ite d S ta te s.
G u stm a n , A la n L . a n d T h o m a s L. S tein m eier,
R e tire m e n t E ffects o f P r o p o s a ls b y th e
P r e s id e n t’s C o m m issio n t o S t r e n g t h e n
S o cial Security. C a m b rid g e, MA, N atio n al
B u re au o f E co n o m ic R e se arc h , Inc., 2 0 0 3 ,
4 7 p p . (W o rk in g P a p e r 100 3 0 ) $ 1 0 p e r

co p y , p lu s $ 1 0 fo r p o s ta g e a n d h a n d lin g
o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s.

Worker training
and development
A h ls tra n d , A m a n d a L ., L a u rie J. B a s s i, a n d
D a n ie l P. M c M u rre r, W o rk p la ce E d u c a ­
tion f o r L o w -W a g e W orkers. K a la m a z o o ,
MI, W .E . U p jo h n In stitu te fo r E m p lo y ­
m e n t R e se a rc h , 2 0 0 3 , 184 p p ., $ 4 0 /c lo th ;
$ 1 8 /p a p e rb a c k .
M o o r e , R ic h a r d W ., D a n ie l R . B la k e , G
M ichael P hillips, an d D aniel M cC o n au g h y ,
T r a in in g T h a t W o r k s: L e s s o n s f r o m
C a lifo rn ia ’s E m p lo ym en t Training P a n e l
P ro g ra m . K a lam az o o , MI, W .E . U p jo h n
In stitu te fo r E m p lo y m e n t R e se arc h , 2 0 0 3 ,
2 1 9 p p ., so ftcover.

Current Labor Statistics

Notes on labor statistics ................

n
56

Comparative indicators
69

1. L a b o r m a rk e t i n d i c a t o r s ..................................................................
2 . A n n u a l a n d q u a rte rly p e rc e n t c h a n g e s in
c o m p e n s a tio n , p ric e s , a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y ............................

70

3. A lte rn a tiv e m e a s u re s o f w a g e s an d
c o m p e n s a tio n c h a n g e s ................................................................

70

Labor force data
71

5. S e le c te d e m p lo y m e n t in d ic a to rs ,
s e a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................

72

6. S e le c te d u n e m p lo y m e n t in d ic a to rs ,

8. U n e m p lo y e d p e rs o n s b y re a s o n fo r u n e m p lo y m e n t,
se a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................
9 . U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s b y se x an d ag e,

73
73
74

se a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................
10. U n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s b y S ta te s,

74

se a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................

75

11. E m p lo y m e n t o f w o rk e rs b y S ta te s,
s e a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................

75

12. E m p lo y m e n t o f w o rk e rs b y in d u stry ,
s e a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................
13. A v e ra g e w e e k ly h o u rs b y in d u stry ,

76

se a so n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................

79

14. A v e ra g e h o u rly e a rn in g s by in d u stry ,
s e a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .......................................................................
15. A v e ra g e h o u rly e a rn in g s b y i n d u s t r y ........................................
16. A v e ra g e w e e k ly e a rn in g s by i n d u s t r y .......................................
17. D iffu s io n in d e x e s o f e m p lo y m e n t c h a n g e ,
s e a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................

81
82
83

18. J o b o p e n in g s le v e ls a n d ra te s, b y in d u stry a n d re g io n s ,
se a s o n a lly a d ju s te d ........................................................................

84

19. H ire s le v e ls a n d ra te s b y in d u stry a n d re g io n ,
se a s o n a lly a d ju s te d .........................................................................

84

2 0 . S e p a ra tio n s le v e ls a n d ra te s by in d u stry a n d re g io n ,
se a so n a lly a d ju s te d .........................................................................

85

2 1 . Q u its le v e ls a n d ra te s b y in d u stry a n d re g io n ,
s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d .........................................................................
2 2 . Q u a rte rly C e n s u s o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d W ages,
10 la rg e s t c o u n ti e s ........................................................................
2 3 . Q u a rte rly C e n s u s o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d W ag e s, b y S ta te ..
2 4 . A n n u a l d a ta : Q u a rte rly C e n s u s o f E m p lo y m e n t
a n d W a g e s, b y o w n e r s h i p .........................................................
2 5 . A n n u a l d ata: Q u a rterly C e n su s o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d W ages,
e s ta b lis h m e n t s iz e a n d e m p lo y m e n t, by s u p e r s e c t o r ...
2 6 . A n n u a l d a ta : Q u a rte rly C e n s u s o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d
W ag e s, b y m e tro p o lita n a r e a ...................................................
2 7 . A n n u a l d a ta : E m p lo y m e n t sta tu s o f th e p o p u l a t i o n .........
2 8 . A n n u a l d ata: E m p lo y m e n t le v e ls b y i n d u s t r y ......................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Employment Cost Index, compensation.............................. 98
Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries................... 100
Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry....... 101
Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers,
by bargaining status, region, and area size................... 102
34. Participants in benefit plans, medium and large firms..... 103
35. Participants in benefits plans, small firms
and government............................................................ 104
36. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or m ore.......... 105

37. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average, by expenditure
category and commodity and service groups...............
38. Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and
local data, all items.......................................................
39. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, all items
and major groups..........................................................
40. Producer Price Indexes by stage of processing................
41. Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major
industry groups............................................................
42. Annual data: Producer Price Indexes
by stage of processing..................................................
43. U.S. export price indexes by Standard International
Trade Classification.....................................................
44. U.S. import price indexes by Standard International
Trade Classification.....................................................
45. U.S. export price indexes by end-use category................
46. U.S. import price indexes by end-use category...............
47. U.S. international price indexes for selected
categories of services....................................................

106
109
110
111
112
113
113
114
115
115
115

80

Productivity data
48. Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation,
and unit costs, data seasonally adjusted......................
49. Annual indexes of multifactor productivity.....................
50. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation,
unit costs, and prices...................................................
51. Annual indexes of output per hour for select
industries......................................................................

116
116
117
118

85

International comparisons data

86

52. Unemployment rates in nine countries,
data seasonally adjusted............................................... 121

88

89
90
91
96
96

2 9 . A n n u a l d a ta : A v e ra g e h o u rs a n d e a rn in g s lev e l,
b y in d u s tr y .........................................................................................

30.
31.
32.
33.

Price data

4. E m p lo y m e n t sta tu s o f th e p o p u la tio n ,
s e a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................

s e a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................
7 . D u ra tio n o f u n e m p lo y m e n t,
se a s o n a lly a d j u s t e d .....................................................................

Labor cpmpensation and collective
bargaining data

97

53. Annual data: Employment status of the civilian
working-age population, 10 countries........................... 122
54. Annual indexes of productivity and related measures,
12 countries.................................................................. 123

Injury and Illness data
55. Annual data: Occupational injury and illness
incidence rates................................................................ 124
56. Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure............. 126
Monthly Labor Review August 2004

55

Notes on Current Labor Statistics

T h is s e c tio n o f th e R e v ie w p re s e n ts th e p r in ­
c ip a l s ta tis tic a l se rie s c o lle c te d a n d c a lc u ­
la te d b y th e B u r e a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s :
s e rie s o n la b o r fo rc e ; e m p lo y m e n t; u n e m ­
p lo y m e n t; la b o r c o m p e n s a tio n ; c o n s u m e r,
p ro d u c e r, a n d in te r n a tio n a l p ric e s ; p r o d u c ­
tiv ity ; in te rn a tio n a l c o m p a ris o n s ; a n d in ju ry
a n d illn e s s s ta tis tic s . In th e n o te s th a t f o l­
lo w , th e d a ta in e a c h g r o u p o f ta b le s a re
b rie fly d e s c rib e d ; k e y d e f in itio n s a re g iv e n ;
n o te s o n th e d a ta a re s e t fo rth ; a n d s o u rc e s
o f a d d itio n a l in fo rm a tio n a re c ite d .

General notes
T h e fo llo w in g n o te s a p p ly to s e v e ra l ta b le s
in th is s e c tio n :

Seasonal adjustment. C e r ta in m o n th ly
a n d q u a r te r ly d a ta a re a d ju s te d to e lim in a te
th e e f fe c t o n th e d a ta o f s u c h fa c to rs as c li­
m a tic c o n d itio n s , in d u s try p ro d u c tio n
s c h e d u le s , o p e n in g a n d c lo s in g o f s c h o o ls ,
h o lid a y b u y in g p e rio d s , a n d v a c a tio n p r a c ­
tic e s , w h ic h m ig h t p re v e n t sh o rt-te rm e v a lu ­
a tio n o f th e sta tis tic a l se rie s . T a b le s c o n ta in ­
in g d a ta th a t h a v e b e e n a d ju s te d a re id e n ti­
fie d a s “ s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d .” (A ll o th e r
d a ta a re n o t s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d .) S e a s o n a l
e ffe c ts a re e s tim a te d o n th e b a s is o f c u r re n t
a n d p a s t e x p e rie n c e s . W h e n n e w se a s o n a l
fa c to rs a re c o m p u te d e a c h y e ar, re v is io n s
m a y a f fe c t s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d d a ta fo r s e v ­
e ra l p r e c e d in g y e a rs.
S e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d d a ta a p p e a r in ta b le s
1 - 1 4 , 1 7 - 2 1 , 4 8 , a n d 5 2 . S e a s o n a lly a d ­
j u s t e d la b o r fo rc e d a ta in ta b le s 1 a n d 4 - 9
w e re r e v is e d in th e F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 4 issu e o f
th e R e v ie w . S e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d e s ta b lis h ­
m e n t su rv e y d a ta sh o w n in ta b le s 1, 1 2 -1 4 ,
a n d 17 w e re re v is e d in th e M a rc h 2 0 0 4 R e ­
view . A b r i e f e x p la n a tio n o f th e se a s o n a l
a d ju s tm e n t m e th o d o lo g y a p p e a rs in “ N o te s
o n th e d a ta .”
R e v is io n s in th e p r o d u c ti v i ty d a ta in
ta b le 5 4 a re u s u a lly in tro d u c e d in th e S e p ­
te m b e r is s u e . S e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d in d e x e s
a n d p e r c e n t c h a n g e s fro m m o n th -to -m o n th
a n d q u a r te r - to - q u a r te r a re p u b lis h e d fo r n u ­
m e ro u s C o n s u m e r a n d P r o d u c e r P r ic e I n ­
d e x se rie s . H o w e v e r, se a so n a lly a d ju s te d in ­
d e x e s a re n o t p u b lis h e d fo r th e U .S . a v e r­
a g e A ll-Ite m s CPI. O n ly s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d
p e r c e n t c h a n g e s a re a v a ila b le fo r th is se ries.
Adjustments for price changes. S o m e
d a ta — s u c h a s th e “ r e a l” e a rn in g s sh o w n in
ta b le 1A— a re a d ju s te d to e lim in a te th e e f ­
f e c t o f c h a n g e s in p ric e . T h e s e a d ju s tm e n ts
a re m a d e b y d iv id in g c u r re n t- d o lla r v a lu e s
b y th e C o n s u m e r P ric e In d e x o r th e a p p r o ­
p r ia te c o m p o n e n t o f th e in d e x , th e n m u lti­
p ly in g b y 100. F o r e x a m p le , g iv e n a c u rre n t
h o u rly w a g e r a te o f $3 a n d a c u r re n t p ric e

56

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

July 2004

in d e x n u m b e r o f 150, w h e re 1982 = 100,
th e h o u rly r a te e x p re s s e d in 1982 d o lla rs is
$ 2 ( $ 3 /1 5 0 x 100 = $ 2 ). T h e $ 2 (o r a n y o th e r
r e s u ltin g v a lu e s ) a re d e s c rib e d a s “ r e a l ,”
“ c o n s ta n t,” o r “ 1 9 8 2 ” d o lla rs.

Sources of information
D a ta th a t s u p p le m e n t th e ta b le s in th is s e c ­
tio n a re p u b lis h e d b y th e B u re a u in a v a r i­
e ty o f so u rc es. D e fin itio n s o f e a c h se rie s a n d
n o te s o n th e d a ta a re c o n ta in e d in la te r s e c ­
tio n s o f th e s e N o te s d e s c rib in g e a c h s e t o f
d a ta . F o r d e ta ile d d e s c rip tio n s o f e a c h d a ta
se rie s , se e BLS H a n d b o o k o f M e th o d s, B u l­
le tin 2 4 9 0 . U s e rs a ls o m a y w is h to c o n s u lt
M a jo r P ro g ra m s o f th e B u reau o f L a b o r S ta ­
tis tic s , R e p o r t 9 1 9 . N e w s r e le a s e s p ro v id e
th e la te s t s ta tis tic a l in fo rm a tio n p u b lis h e d
b y th e B u re a u ; th e m a jo r re c u r r in g r e le a s e s
a re p u b lis h e d a c c o rd in g to th e s c h e d u le a p ­
p e a rin g o n th e b a c k c o v e r o f th is issu e .
M o re in fo rm a tio n a b o u t la b o r fo rc e , e m ­
p lo y m e n t, a n d u n e m p lo y m e n t d a ta a n d th e
h o u s e h o ld a n d e s ta b lis h m e n t su rv e y s u n d e r­
ly in g th e d a ta a re a v a ila b le in th e B u r e a u ’s
m o n t h l y p u b l i c a t i o n , E m p lo y m e n t a n d
E a rn in g s. H is to ric a l u n a d ju s te d a n d s e a s o n ­
a lly a d ju s te d d a ta fro m th e h o u s e h o ld su r­
v e y a re a v a ila b le o n th e In te rn e t:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/
H isto ric a lly c o m p a ra b le u n a d ju s te d a n d s e a ­
so n a lly a d ju s te d d a ta fro m th e e s ta b lis h m e n t
s u rv e y a ls o a re a v a ila b le o n th e In te rn e t:

http ://www.bls.gov/ces/
A d d itio n a l in fo rm a tio n o n la b o r fo rc e d a ta
fo r a re a s b e lo w th e n a tio n a l le v e l a re p r o ­
v id e d in th e BLS a n n u a l r e p o rt, G e o g r a p h ic
P ro file o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d U n em p lo ym e n t.
F o r a c o m p re h e n s iv e d is c u s s io n o f th e
E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x , see E m p lo y m en t
C o s t In d ex e s a n d L e v e ls, 1 9 7 5 - 9 5 , bls B u l­
le tin 2 4 6 6 . T h e m o s t re c e n t d a ta fro m th e
E m p lo y e e B e n e fits S u rv e y a p p e a r in th e fo l­
lo w in g B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s b u lle tin s :
E m p lo y e e B e n e fits in M e d iu m a n d L a rg e
F irm s; E m p lo y e e B e n e fits in S m a ll P r iv a te
E s ta b lis h m e n ts; a n d E m p lo y e e B e n e fits in
S ta te a n d L o c a l G o v ern m e n ts.
M o re d e ta ile d d a ta o n c o n s u m e r a n d p ro ­
d u c e r p ric e s a re p u b lis h e d in th e m o n th ly
p e r io d ic a ls , The CPI D e ta ile d R e p o r t a n d
P r o d u c e r P r ic e In d ex es. F o r a n o v e rv ie w o f
th e 1998 re v is io n o f th e CPI, se e th e D e c e m ­
b e r 199 6 is s u e o f th e M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­
v ie w . A d d itio n a l d a ta o n in te rn a tio n a l p ric e s
a p p e a r in m o n th ly n e w s re le a s e s .
L is tin g s o f in d u s trie s fo r w h ic h p r o d u c ­
tiv ity in d e x e s a re a v a ila b le m a y b e f o u n d
o n th e In te rn e t:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/
F o r a d d itio n a l in f o r m a tio n o n in te r n a ­

tio n a l c o m p a ris o n s d a ta , se e I n te rn a tio n a l
C o m p a r is o n s o f U n e m p lo y m e n t, B u l le t in
1979.
D e ta ile d d a ta o n th e o c c u p a tio n a l in ju ry
a n d illn e s s s e rie s a re p u b lis h e d in O c c u p a ­
tio n a l In ju rie s a n d Illn e s s e s in th e U n ite d
S ta tes, b y In d u stry, a bls a n n u a l b u lle tin .
F in a lly , th e M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w c a r ­
rie s a n a ly tic a l a rtic le s o n a n n u a l a n d lo n g e r
te rm d e v e lo p m e n ts in la b o r fo rc e , e m p lo y ­
m e n t, a n d u n e m p lo y m e n t; e m p lo y e e c o m ­
p e n s a tio n a n d c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g ; p ric e s ;
p r o d u c ti v i ty ; i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m p a r is o n s ;
a n d in ju ry a n d illn e s s d a ta .

Symbols
n .e .c . =
n .e .s . =
p =

r

=

n o t e ls e w h e re c la s s ifie d ,
n o t e ls e w h e r e s p e c ifie d .
p re lim in a ry . T o in c re a s e th e tim e ­
lin e s s o f s o m e s e rie s , p r e lim in a r y
f ig u re s a re is s u e d b a s e d o n r e p r e ­
s e n ta tiv e b u t in c o m p le te re tu rn s ,
r e v is e d . G e n e ra lly , th is r e v is io n
r e f le c ts th e a v a i l a b i li t y o f la t e r
d a ta , b u t a ls o m a y r e f l e c t o th e r
a d ju s tm e n ts .

Comparative Indicators
(T a b le s 1 -3 )
C o m p a r a tiv e in d ic a to r s ta b le s p r o v id e a n
o v e rv ie w a n d c o m p a r is o n o f m a jo r bls s ta ­
tis tic a l se ries. C o n s e q u e n tly , a lth o u g h m a n y
o f th e in c lu d e d se rie s a re a v a ila b le m o n th ly ,
a ll m e a s u re s in th e s e c o m p a ra tiv e ta b le s a re
p r e s e n te d q u a rte rly a n d a n n u a lly .
Labor market indicators in c lu d e e m ­
p lo y m e n t m e a s u re s fro m tw o m a jo r s u rv e y s
a n d in fo rm a tio n o n ra te s o f c h a n g e in c o m ­
p e n s a ti o n p r o v i d e d b y t h e E m p l o y m e n t
C o s t In d e x (ECi) p ro g ra m . T h e la b o r fo rc e
p a r tic ip a tio n ra te , th e e m p lo y m e n t- p o p u la ­
tio n ra tio , a n d u n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s fo r m a ­
j o r d e m o g ra p h ic g ro u p s b a s e d o n th e C u r ­
r e n t P o p u la tio n (“ h o u s e h o ld ” ) S u r v e y a re
p re s e n te d , w h ile m e a s u re s o f e m p lo y m e n t
a n d a v e ra g e w e e k ly h o u rs b y m a jo r in d u s ­
try s e c to r a re g iv e n u s in g n o n fa rm p a y ro ll
d a ta . T h e E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x ( c o m p e n ­
s a tio n ), b y m a jo r s e c to r a n d b y b a r g a in in g
s t a tu s , is c h o s e n f r o m a v a r i e t y o f bls
c o m p e n s a tio n a n d w a g e m e a s u r e s b e c a u s e
it p r o v i d e s a c o m p r e h e n s iv e m e a s u r e o f
e m p l o y e r c o s ts f o r h i r in g la b o r , n o t j u s t
o u tla y s f o r w a g e s , a n d it is n o t a f f e c te d
b y e m p l o y m e n t s h if ts a m o n g o c c u p a ti o n s
a n d i n d u s tr ie s .
D a t a o n changes in compensation,
prices, and productivity a re p r e s e n te d in

ta b le 2 . M e a s u re s o f ra te s o f c h a n g e o f c o m ­
p e n s a tio n a n d w a g e s f ro m th e E m p lo y m e n t
C o s t In d e x p r o g r a m a re p r o v id e d fo r a ll c i­
v ilia n n o n fa rm w o rk e rs ( e x c lu d in g F e d e ra l
a n d h o u s e h o ld w o rk e rs ) a n d f o r a ll p riv a te
n o n fa rm w o rk e rs . M e a s u r e s o f c h a n g e s in
c o n s u m e r p r ic e s f o r a ll u r b a n c o n s u m e rs ;
p r o d u c e r p ric e s b y sta g e o f p ro c e s s in g ; o v e r­
a ll p r ic e s b y s t a g e o f p r o c e s s i n g ; a n d o v e r ­
a ll e x p o r t a n d i m p o r t p r i c e i n d e x e s a r e
g iv e n . M e a s u r e s o f p r o d u c tiv ity ( o u tp u t p e r
h o u r o f a ll p e r s o n s ) a r e p r o v i d e d f o r m a jo r
s e c to r s .

Alternative measures of wage and
compensation rates of change, w h ic h r e ­
f le c t th e o v e ra ll tre n d in la b o r c o sts, a re s u m ­
m a riz e d in ta b le 3. D if f e r e n c e s in c o n c e p ts
a n d s c o p e , re la te d to th e s p e c ific p u rp o s e s
o f th e s e rie s , c o n tr ib u te to th e v a r ia tio n in
c h a n g e s a m o n g th e in d iv id u a l m e a s u re s .

Notes on the data
D e f in itio n s o f e a c h s e rie s a n d n o te s o n th e
d a ta a re c o n ta in e d in la te r s e c tio n s o f th e s e
n o te s d e s c rib in g e a c h s e t o f d a ta .

Employment and
Unemployment Data
(T a b le s 1; 4 - 2 9 )

Household survey data

n o t w o rk d u rin g th e su rv e y w e e k , b u t w e re
a v a ila b le fo r w o rk e x c e p t fo r te m p o ra ry ill­
n e s s a n d h a d lo o k e d f o r jo b s w ith in th e p r e ­
c e d in g 4 w e e k s . P e rs o n s w h o d id n o t lo o k
fo r w o rk b e c a u s e th ey w e re o n la y o f f a re a ls o
c o u n te d a m o n g th e u n e m p lo y e d . The unem­
ployment rate re p re s e n ts th e n u m b e r u n e m ­
p lo y e d as a p e rc e n t o f th e c iv ilia n la b o r fo rce .
T h e civilian labor force c o n s is ts o f a ll
e m p lo y e d o r u n e m p lo y e d p e rs o n s in th e c i­
v ilia n n o n in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n . P e rs o n s
not in the labor force a re th o s e n o t c la s s i­
fie d as e m p lo y e d o r u n e m p lo y e d . T h is g ro u p
in c lu d e s d is c o u r a g e d w o rk e rs , d e f in e d as
p e rs o n s w h o w a n t a n d a re a v a ila b le f o r a
j o b a n d w h o h a v e lo o k e d fo r w o rk s o m e ­
tim e in th e p a s t 12 m o n th s (o r sin c e th e e n d
o f th e ir la s t j o b i f th e y h e ld o n e w ith in th e
p a s t 12 m o n th s ), b u t a re n o t c u rre n tly lo o k ­
in g , b e c a u s e th e y b e lie v e th e re a re n o jo b s
a v a ila b le o r th e re a re n o n e fo r w h ic h th e y
w o u ld q u a lif y . T h e civilian noninstitu­
tional population c o m p ris e s a ll p e rs o n s 16
y e a rs o f a g e a n d o ld e r w h o a re n o t in m a te s
o f p e n a l o r m e n ta l in s titu tio n s , sa n ita riu m s ,
o r h o m e s fo r th e a g e d , in firm , o r n e e d y . T h e
civilian labor force participation ra te is
th e p r o p o r tio n o f th e c iv ilia n n o n in ­
s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n t h a t is in th e la b o r
fo rce . T h e employment-population ratio is
e m p lo y m e n t a s a p e r c e n t o f th e c iv i l ia n
n o n in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n .

Notes on the data

Description of the series
E m p l o y m e n t d a ta in th is s e c tio n a re o b ­
ta in e d fro m th e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u rv e y ,
a p r o g r a m o f p e r s o n a l in te rv ie w s c o n d u c te d
m o n th ly b y th e B u r e a u o f th e C e n s u s fo r th e
B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s . T h e s a m p le c o n ­
sis ts o f a b o u t 6 0 ,0 0 0 h o u s e h o ld s s e le c te d to
r e p r e s e n t th e U .S . p o p u la tio n 16 y e a rs o f
a g e a n d o ld e r. H o u s e h o ld s a re in te rv ie w e d
o n a r o ta tin g b a s is , so th a t th r e e - f o u r th s o f
th e s a m p le is th e sa m e f o r a n y 2 c o n s e c u ­
tiv e m o n th s .

Definitions
Employed persons

in c lu d e (1) a ll th o s e
w h o w o r k e d f o r p a y a n y tim e d u r in g th e
w e e k w h ic h in c lu d e s th e 1 2 th d a y o f th e
m o n th o r w h o w o rk e d u n p a id f o r 15 h o u rs
o r m o re in a f a m ily - o p e r a te d e n te rp ris e a n d
(2 ) th o s e w h o w e re te m p o ra rily a b s e n t fro m
th e ir r e g u la r jo b s b e c a u s e o f illn e s s , v a c a ­
tio n , in d u s tria l d is p u te , o r s im ila r re a s o n s .
A p e r s o n w o rk in g a t m o re th a n o n e j o b is
c o u n te d o n ly in th e j o b a t w h ic h h e o r sh e
w o rk e d th e g r e a te s t n u m b e r o f h o u rs.
Unemployed persons a re th o s e w h o d id


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

F ro m tim e to tim e , a n d e s p e c ia lly a fte r a d e ­
c e n n ia l c e n s u s , a d ju s tm e n ts a re m a d e in th e
C u rre n t P o p u la tio n S u rv e y f ig u re s to c o r­
r e c t f o r e s tim a tin g e r ro r s d u r in g th e
in te rc e n s a l y e a rs . T h e s e a d ju s tm e n ts a ffe c t
th e c o m p a ra b ility o f h is to ric a l d a ta . A d e ­
s c rip tio n o f th e s e a d ju s tm e n ts a n d th e ir e f ­
f e c t o n th e v a rio u s d a ta se rie s a p p e a rs in th e
E x p l a n a t o r y N o t e s o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d
E a rn in g s. F o r a d is c u s s io n o f c h a n g e s in ­
tro d u c e d in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3 , see “ R e v is io n s
to th e C u r r e n t P o p u la tio n S u rv e y E ffe c tiv e
in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3 ” in th e F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 3 is ­
su e o f E m p lo y m en t a n d E a rn in g s (a v a ila b le
o n th e bls W eb site at: http://www.bls.gov/

cps/rvcps03.pdf).
E ffe c tiv e in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3 , bls b e g a n u s ­
in g th e x-12 arima seaso n al a d ju stm e n t p ro ­
g ra m to seaso n ally a d ju st n a tio n a l lab o r fo rce
d ata. T h is p ro g ram re p la c e d th e x - ii arima
p ro g ra m w h ic h h a d b e en u se d sin ce Ja n u a ry
1980. S ee “R e v is io n o f S e a so n a lly A d ju ste d
L a b o r F o r c e S e r ie s in 2 0 0 3 ,” in th e F e b ­
r u a ry 2 0 0 3 is s u e o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d
E a r n in g s ( a v a i la b l e o n th e BLS W e b s ite
a t http:www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrs.pdf) fo r a
d is c u s s io n o f th e in tro d u c tio n o f th e u s e o f

X-12 arima for seasonal adjustment o f the
labor force data and the effects that it had
on the data.
A t th e b e g in n in g o f e a c h c a le n d a r y e ar,
h is to r ic a l s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d d a ta u s u a lly
a re re v is e d , a n d p r o je c te d s e a s o n a l a d ju s t­
m e n t fa c to rs a re c a lc u la te d fo r u s e d u rin g
th e J a n u a r y - J u n e p e rio d . T h e h is to r ic a l s e a ­
s o n a lly a d ju s te d d a ta u s u a lly a re re v is e d fo r
o n ly th e m o s t r e c e n t 5 y e a rs . In Ju ly , n e w
s e a s o n a l a d ju s tm e n t f a c to rs , w h ic h in c o rp o ­
r a te th e e x p e rie n c e th r o u g h J u n e , a re p r o ­
d u c e d fo r th e J u l y - D e c e m b e r p e r io d , b u t n o
r e v is io n s a re m a d e in th e h is to r ic a l d a ta .
F or additional information o n n a ­
tio n a l h o u s e h o ld s u rv e y d a ta , c o n ta c t th e
D iv is io n o f L a b o r F o r c e S ta tis tic s : (2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -6 3 7 8 .

Establishment survey data
Description of the series
E m p lo y m e n t, h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a ta in
th is s e c tio n a re c o m p ile d fro m p a y ro ll
re c o rd s re p o rte d m o n th ly o n a v o lu n ta ry b a ­
sis to th e B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s a n d its
c o o p e r a tin g S ta te a g e n c ie s b y a b o u t
1 6 0 .0 0 0 b u s in e s s e s a n d g o v e r n m e n t a g e n ­
c ie s , w h ic h r e p re s e n t a p p ro x im a te ly
4 0 0 .0 0 0 in d iv id u a l w o rk s ite s a n d r e p re s e n t
a ll in d u s trie s e x c e p t a g ric u ltu re . T h e a c tiv e
CES s a m p le c o v e rs a p p r o x im a te ly o n e - th ir d
o f a ll n o n fa rm p a y ro ll w o rk e rs . I n d u s trie s
a re c la s s ifie d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e 2 0 0 2
N o rth A m e ric a n In d u stry C la s s ific a tio n S y s ­
te m . In m o s t in d u s trie s , th e s a m p lin g p r o b ­
a b ilitie s a re b a s e d o n th e s iz e o f th e e s ta b ­
l is h m e n t ; m o s t l a r g e e s t a b l i s h m e n t s a r e
th e re fo re in th e s a m p le . (A n e s ta b lis h m e n t
is n o t n e c e s s a r ily a firm ; it m a y b e a b ra n c h
p la n t, fo r ex am p le, o r w a reh o u se.) S e lf-e m ­
p lo y e d p e rs o n s a n d o th e rs n o t o n a re g u la r
c iv ilia n p a y ro ll a re o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f th e
su rv e y b e c a u se th e y a re e x c lu d e d fro m e s ta b ­
lis h m e n t re c o rd s. T h is la rg e ly a c c o u n ts fo r
th e d iffere n ce in e m p lo y m e n t fig u re s b e tw e e n
th e h o u s e h o ld a n d e s ta b lis h m e n t su rv e y s.

Definitions
A n establishment is a n e c o n o m i c u n i t
w h ic h p r o d u c e s g o o d s o r s e rv ic e s (s u c h as
a fa c to ry o r s to re ) a t a s in g le lo c a tio n a n d is
e n g a g e d in o n e ty p e o f e c o n o m ic a c tiv ity .
Employed persons a re a ll p e rs o n s w h o
r e c e iv e d p a y ( in c lu d in g h o lid a y a n d s ic k
p a y ) fo r a n y p a r t o f th e p a y r o ll p e r io d in ­
c lu d in g th e 12 th d a y o f th e m o n th . P e r s o n s
h o ld in g m o re th a n o n e jo b (a b o u t 5 p e r c e n t
o f a ll p e rs o n s in th e la b o r fo rc e ) a re c o u n te d

Monthly Labor Review August 2004

57

Current Labor Statistics

in e a c h e s ta b lis h m e n t w h ic h re p o rts th e m .
Production workers in th e g o o d s -p ro d u c in g in d u s tr ie s c o v e r e m p lo y e e s , up
th r o u g h th e le v e l o f w o rk in g s u p e rv is o rs ,
w h o e n g a g e d ire c tly in th e m a n u fa c tu re o r
c o n s tru c tio n o f th e e s ta b lis h m e n t’s p ro d u c t.
In p riv a te s e r v ic e - p r o v id in g in d u s trie s , d a ta
a re c o lle c te d f o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o rk e rs ,
w h ic h in c lu d e m o s t e m p lo y e e s e x c e p t th o s e
in e x e c u tiv e , m a n a g e ria l, a n d s u p e rv is o ry
p o s i t io n s . T h o s e w o r k e r s m e n t i o n e d in
ta b le s 1 1 -1 6 in c lu d e p r o d u c tio n w o rk e rs in
m a n u f a c tu r in g a n d n a tu r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d
m in in g ; c o n s tr u c tio n w o rk e rs in c o n s tr u c ­
tio n ; a n d n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o rk e rs in a ll p r i ­
v a te s e r v ic e - p r o v id in g in d u s trie s . P r o d u c ­
tio n a n d n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o rk e rs a c c o u n t
fo r a b o u t fo u r-fifth s o f th e to ta l e m p lo y m e n t
o n p r iv a te n o n a g r ic u ltu r a l p a y ro lls .
Earnings a re th e p a y m e n ts p r o d u c tio n
o r n o n s u p e r v is o r y w o r k e r s r e c e iv e d u r in g
th e s u r v e y p e r io d , in c lu d in g p r e m iu m p a y
f o r o v e r tim e o r l a te - s h if t w o r k b u t e x c l u d ­
in g i r r e g u l a r b o n u s e s a n d o t h e r s p e c ia l
p a y m e n ts . Real earnings a re e a r n in g s a d ­
j u s t e d to r e f l e c t th e e ffe c ts o f c h a n g e s in
c o n s u m e r p r ic e s . T h e d e f la to r f o r th is s e ­
r ie s is d e r iv e d f ro m th e C o n s u m e r P r ic e I n ­
d e x f o r U r b a n W a g e E a r n e r s a n d C le r ic a l
W o r k e r s (CPI-W).
Hours r e p r e s e n t t h e a v e r a g e w e e k ly
h o u rs o f p ro d u c tio n o r n o n s u p e rv is o ry
w o rk e rs fo r w h ic h p a y w a s re c e iv e d , a n d are
d if f e r e n t fro m s ta n d a rd o r s c h e d u le d h o u rs.
Overtime hours re p re s e n t th e p o rtio n o f a v ­
e r a g e w e e k ly h o u rs w h ic h w a s in e x c e s s o f
r e g u la r h o u rs a n d fo r w h ic h o v e rtim e p r e ­
m iu m s w e re p a id .
T h e Diffusion Index r e p re s e n ts th e p e r ­
c e n t o f in d u s trie s in w h ic h e m p lo y m e n t w a s
r is in g o v e r th e in d ic a te d p e rio d , p lu s o n e h a lf o f th e in d u s trie s w ith u n c h a n g e d e m ­
p lo y m e n t; 5 0 p e r c e n t in d ic a te s an e q u a l b a l­
a n c e b e tw e e n in d u s trie s w ith in c re a s in g a n d
d e c re a s in g e m p lo y m e n t. In lin e w ith B u re a u
p r a c tic e , d a ta f o r th e 1-, 3 -, a n d 6 -m o n th
s p a n s a re s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d , w h ile th o s e
fo r th e 1 2 -m o n th sp a n a re u n a d ju s te d . T a b le
17 p r o v id e s a n in d e x o n p r iv a te n o n fa rm
e m p lo y m e n t b a s e d o n 2 7 8 in d u s trie s , a n d a
m a n u fa c tu rin g in d e x b a se d o n 8 4 in d u strie s.
T h e s e in d e x e s a re u s e fu l fo r m e a s u rin g th e
d is p e r s io n o f e c o n o m ic g a in s o r lo sse s a n d
a re a ls o e c o n o m ic in d ic a to rs .

Notes on the data
E s ta b lis h m e n t su rv e y d a ta a re a n n u a lly a d ­
j u s te d to c o m p r e h e n s iv e c o u n ts o f e m p lo y ­
m e n t ( c a l le d “ b e n c h m a r k s ” ). T h e M a r c h
2 0 0 3 b e n c h m a r k w a s in tro d u c e d in F e b r u ­
a ry 2 0 0 4 w ith th e re le a s e o f d a ta f o r J a n u ­
a ry 2 0 0 4 , p u b lis h e d in th e M a rc h 2 0 0 4 is ­

58

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

su e o f th e R e view . W ith th e re le a s e in J u n e
2 0 0 3 , CES c o m p le te d a c o n v e rs io n fro m th e
S ta n d a rd I n d u s tria l C la s s if ic a tio n (SIC) s y s ­
te m to th e N o r th A m e ric a n I n d u s try C la s s i­
fic a tio n S y s te m (NAICS) a n d c o m p le te d th e
tr a n s itio n fro m its o rig in a l q u o ta s a m p le d e ­
sig n to a p r o b a b ility - b a s e d s a m p le d e s ig n .
T h e in d u s try -c o d in g u p d a te in c lu d e d r e c o n ­
s tru c tio n o f h is to ric a l e s tim a te s in o r d e r to
p r e s e r v e tim e se rie s f o r d a ta u s e rs . N o r ­
m a lly 5 y e a rs o f se a so n a lly a d ju s te d d a ta are
re v is e d w ith e a c h b e n c h m a rk re v is io n .
H o w e v e r, w ith th is re le a s e , th e e n tire n e w
tim e s e rie s h is to r y f o r a ll ces d a ta s e rie s
w e re r e -s e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d d u e to th e naics
c o n v e rs io n , w h ic h r e s u lte d in th e re v is io n
o f a ll ces tim e se rie s .
A ls o in J u n e 2 0 0 3 , th e CES p ro g ra m in ­
tro d u c e d c o n c u rre n t se a so n a l a d ju s tm e n t fo r
th e n a tio n a l e s ta b lis h m e n t d a ta . U n d e r th is
m e th o d o lo g y , th e f irs t p re lim in a ry e stim a te s
f o r th e c u rre n t r e fe r e n c e m o n th a n d th e r e ­
v is e d e s tim a te s fo r th e 2 p r io r m o n th s w ill
b e u p d a te d w ith c o n c u r r e n t f a c to r s w ith
e a c h n e w r e le a s e o f d a ta . C o n c u r r e n t s e a ­
s o n a l a d ju s tm e n t in c o rp o ra te s a ll a v a ila b le
d a ta , in c lu d in g firs t p re lim in a ry e s tim a te s
f o r th e m o s t c u rre n t m o n th , in th e a d ju stm e n t
p ro cess. F o r a d d itio n al in fo rm a tio n o n all o f
th e c h an g e s in tro d u c ed in Ju n e 200 3 , see th e
Ju n e 200 3 issu e o f E m ploym en t a n d E arn in gs
an d “R e c e n t c h a n g e s in th e n a tio n a l C u rre n t
E m p lo y m e n t S tatistics survey,” M on th ly L a ­
b o r R eview , Ju n e 2 0 0 3 , p p . 3 -1 3 .
R e v is io n s in S ta te d a ta (ta b le 11) o c ­
c u r re d w ith th e p u b lic a tio n o f J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3
d a ta . F o r in fo rm a tio n o n th e re v is io n s fo r
th e S ta te d a ta , se e th e M a rc h a n d M a y 2 0 0 3
is s u e s o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s, a n d
“ R e c e n t c h a n g e s in th e S ta te a n d M e tr o p o li­
ta n A re a CES su rv e y ,” M o n th ly L a b o r R e ­
v ie w , J u n e 2 0 0 3 , p p . 1 4 -1 9 .
B e g in n in g in J u n e 1996, th e BLS u s e s th e
X-12-arima m e th o d o lo g y to s e a s o n a lly a d ­
j u s t e s ta b lis h m e n t s u rv e y d a ta . T h is p r o c e ­
d u re , d e v e lo p e d b y th e B u re a u o f th e C e n ­
su s, c o n tro ls fo r th e e ffe c t o f v a ry in g su r­
v e y in te rv a ls (a ls o k n o w n as th e 4- v e rs u s
5 -w e e k e ffe c t), th e re b y p r o v id in g im p ro v e d
m e a s u r e m e n t o f o v e r - th e - m o n th c h a n g e s
a n d u n d e rly in g e c o n o m ic tre n d s . R e v is io n s
o f d a ta , u s u a lly fo r th e m o s t r e c e n t 5 - y e a r
p e rio d , a re m a d e o n c e a y e a r c o in c id e n t w ith
th e b e n c h m a rk r e v is io n s .
In th e e s ta b lis h m e n t su rv ey , e stim a te s fo r
th e m o s t r e c e n t 2 m o n th s a re b a s e d o n in ­
c o m p le te re tu r n s a n d a re p u b lis h e d a s p r e ­
lim in a ry in th e ta b le s ( 1 2 - 1 7 in th e R e view ).
W h e n a ll re tu rn s h a v e b e e n r e c e iv e d , th e e s ­
tim a te s a re r e v is e d a n d p u b lis h e d a s “ f in a l”
(p rio r to a n y b e n c h m a r k r e v is io n s ) in th e

August 2004

th ird m o n th o f th e ir a p p e a ra n c e . T h u s , D e ­
c e m b e r d a ta a re p u b lis h e d a s p r e lim in a r y in
J a n u a ry a n d F e b ru a ry a n d a s fin a l in M a rc h .
F o r th e sa m e re a s o n s , q u a r te r ly e s ta b lis h ­
m e n t d a ta (ta b le 1) a re p r e lim in a r y f o r th e
f ir s t 2 m o n th s o f p u b lic a tio n a n d fin a l in th e
th ird m o n th . F o u r th - q u a r te r d a ta a re p u b ­
lis h e d as p re lim in a ry in J a n u a ry a n d F e b r u ­
a ry a n d a s fin a l in M a rc h .

For additional information o n e s ta b ­
lis h m e n t su rv e y d a ta , c o n ta c t th e D iv is io n
o f C u r r e n t E m p lo y m e n t S t a tis tic s : (2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -6 5 5 5 .

Unemployment data by
State
Description of the series
D a ta p r e s e n te d in th is s e c tio n a re o b ta in e d
fro m th e L o c a l A re a U n e m p lo y m e n t S ta tis ­
tic s (LAUS) p ro g ra m , w h ic h is c o n d u c te d in
c o o p e ra tio n w ith S ta te e m p lo y m e n t s e c u rity
a g e n c ie s.
M o n th ly e s tim a te s o f th e la b o r f o r c e ,
e m p lo y m e n t, a n d u n e m p lo y m e n t f o r S ta te s
a n d s u b -S ta te a re a s a re a k e y i n d ic a to r o f
lo c a l e c o n o m ic c o n d itio n s , a n d fo rm th e b a ­
sis f o r d e te r m in in g th e e lig ib ility o f a n a re a
f o r b e n e fits u n d e r F e d e ra l e c o n o m ic a s s is ­
ta n c e p r o g r a m s s u c h a s th e J o b T r a in in g
P a r tn e r s h ip A c t. S e a s o n a lly a d ju s te d u n e m ­
p lo y m e n t r a te s a re p r e s e n te d in ta b le 10.
I n s o f a r a s p o s s ib l e , th e c o n c e p ts a n d d e f i ­
n i t i o n s u n d e r ly i n g t h e s e d a t a a r e t h o s e
u s e d in th e n a ti o n a l e s t i m a t e s o b t a i n e d
f r o m th e cps .

Notes on the data
D a ta r e fe r to S ta te o f re s id e n c e . M o n th ly
d a ta f o r a ll S ta te s a n d th e D is tr ic t o f C o ­
lu m b ia a re d e riv e d u s in g s ta n d a r d iz e d p r o ­
c e d u r e s e s ta b lis h e d b y bls . O n c e a y e a r,
e s tim a te s a re r e v is e d to n e w p o p u la tio n c o n ­
tro ls , u s u a lly w ith p u b lic a tio n o f J a n u a ry
e s tim a te s , a n d b e n c h m a r k e d to a n n u a l a v e r­
a g e cps le v e ls.

For additional information on data in
this series, call (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 6 3 9 2 (table 10)
or (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 6 5 5 9 (table 11).

Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages
Description of the series
E m p lo y m e n t, w a g e , a n d e s ta b lis h m e n t d a ta
in th is s e c tio n a re d e r iv e d f r o m th e q u a r ­
t e r ly ta x r e p o r t s s u b m i tt e d to S ta te e m ­
p lo y m e n t s e c u r ity a g e n c ie s b y p r i v a t e a n d
S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y e rs su b -

j e c t to S ta te u n e m p l o y m e n t in s u r a n c e ( u i)
la w s a n d f r o m F e d e r a l , a g e n c ie s s u b je c t
to th e U n e m p lo y m e n t C o m p e n s a t i o n f o r
F e d e r a l E m p l o y e e s ( ucfe ) p r o g r a m . E a c h
q u a r te r , S ta te a g e n c ie s e d it a n d p r o c e s s th e
d a ta a n d s e n d th e in f o r m a tio n to th e B u ­
r e a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s .
T h e Q u a r te r ly C e n s u s o f E m p lo y m e n t
a n d W a g e s (QCEW) d a ta , a ls o r e fe r r e d as es 202 d a ta , a re th e m o s t c o m p le te e n u m e ra tio n
o f e m p lo y m e n t a n d w a g e in fo rm a tio n b y in ­
d u s tr y a t th e n a tio n a l, S ta te , m e tro p o lita n
a rea , a n d c o u n ty le v e ls. T h e y h a v e b ro a d e c o ­
n o m ic s ig n ific a n c e in e v a lu a tin g la b o r m a r­
k e t tre n d s a n d m a jo r in d u stry d e v e lo p m e n ts.

Definitions
In g e n e ra l, th e Q u a rte rly C e n su s o f E m p lo y ­
m e n t a n d W a g e s m o n th ly e m p lo y m e n t d a ta
r e p re s e n t th e n u m b e r o f covered workers
w h o w o rk e d d u rin g , o r r e c e iv e d p a y fo r, th e
p a y p e r io d th a t in c lu d e d th e 1 2 th d a y o f th e
m o n th . Covered private industry employ­
ment in c lu d e s m o s t c o r p o ra te o ffic ia ls , e x ­
e c u tiv e s , s u p e rv is o ry p e rs o n n e l, p r o f e s s io n ­
a ls , c le r ic a l w o r k e r s , w a g e e a r n e r s , p ie c e
w o rk e rs , a n d p a r t- tim e w o rk e rs . I t e x c lu d e s
p r o p r i e t o r s , th e u n i n c o r p o r a te d s e l f - e m ­
p lo y e d , u n p a id fa m ily m e m b e rs , a n d c e rta in
fa rm a n d d o m e s tic w o rk e rs . C e rta in ty p e s
o f n o n p ro fit e m p lo y e rs , s u c h a s r e lig io u s o r­
g a n iz a tio n s , a re g iv e n a c h o ic e o f c o v e ra g e
o r e x c lu s io n in a n u m b e r o f S ta te s . W o rk e rs
in t h e s e o r g a n iz a t i o n s a re , th e r e f o r e , r e ­
p o r te d to a lim ite d d e g re e .
P e r s o n s o n p a id s ic k le a v e , p a id h o lid a y ,
p a id v a c a tio n , a n d th e lik e, are in c lu d e d . P e r ­
s o n s o n th e p a y r o ll o f m o re th a n o n e firm
d u r in g th e p e r io d a re c o u n te d b y e a c h u is u b je c t e m p lo y e r if th e y m e e t th e e m p lo y ­
m e n t d e f in itio n n o te d e a rlie r. T h e e m p lo y ­
m e n t c o u n t e x c lu d e s w o rk e rs w h o e a rn e d n o
w a g e s d u r in g th e e n tire a p p lic a b le p a y p e ­
rio d b e c a u s e o f w o rk s to p p a g e s , te m p o ra ry
la y o ffs , illn e s s , o r u n p a id v a c a tio n s .
Federal employment data a re b a s e d o n
r e p o rts o f m o n th ly e m p lo y m e n t a n d q u a r­
te rly w a g e s s u b m itte d e a c h q u a r te r to S ta te
a g e n c ie s fo r a ll F e d e r a l in s ta lla tio n s w ith
e m p lo y e e s c o v e r e d b y th e U n e m p lo y m e n t
C o m p e n s a tio n fo r F e d e ra l E m p lo y e e s ( ucfe )
p r o g r a m , e x c e p t fo r c e rta in n a tio n a l s e c u ­
rity a g e n c ie s , w h ic h a re o m itte d f o r se c u rity
re a s o n s . E m p lo y m e n t fo r a ll F e d e ra l a g e n ­
c ie s fo r a n y g iv e n m o n th is b a s e d o n th e
n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s w h o w o rk e d d u rin g o r
re c e iv e d p a y f o r th e p a y p e rio d th a t in c lu d e d
th e 12 th o f th e m o n th .
A n establishment is a n e c o n o m ic u n it,
s u c h as a fa rm , m in e , fa c to ry , o r sto re , th a t
p r o d u c e s g o o d s o r p r o v id e s s e rv ic e s . I t is


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ty p ic a lly a t a sin g le p h y s ic a l lo c a tio n a n d
e n g a g e d in o n e , o r p re d o m in a n tly o n e , ty p e
o f e c o n o m ic a c tiv ity fo r w h ic h a sin g le in ­
d u s tria l c la s s ific a tio n m a y b e a p p lie d . O c ­
c a s io n a lly , a s in g le p h y s ic a l lo c a tio n e n c o m ­
p a s s e s tw o o r m o re d is tin c t a n d s ig n ific a n t
a c tiv itie s . E a c h a c tiv ity s h o u ld b e re p o rte d
as a s e p a ra te e s ta b lis h m e n t if s e p a ra te
r e c o r d s a r e k e p t a n d th e v a r io u s a c t i v i ­
t ie s a r e c l a s s i f i e d u n d e r d i f f e r e n t naics
in d u s trie s .
M o s t e m p lo y e rs h a v e o n ly o n e e s ta b lis h ­
m en t; th u s, th e e s ta b lis h m e n t is th e p re d o m i­
n a n t re p o rtin g u n it o r s ta tis tic a l e n tity fo r
r e p o rtin g e m p lo y m e n t a n d w a g e s d a ta . M o s t
e m p lo y e rs , in c lu d in g S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e rn ­
m e n ts w h o o p e ra te m o re th a n o n e e s ta b lis h ­
m e n t in a S ta te , file a M u ltip le W o rk site R e ­
p o r t e a c h q u a rte r, in a d d itio n to th e ir q u a r­
te rly u i r e p o rt. T h e M u ltip le W o rk site R e ­
p o r t is u s e d to c o lle c t s e p a ra te e m p lo y m e n t
a n d w a g e d a ta fo r e a c h o f th e e m p l o y e r ’s
e sta b lis h m e n ts , w h ic h are n o t d e ta ile d o n th e
u i re p o rt. S o m e v e ry sm a ll m u lti- e s ta b lis h ­
m e n t e m p l o y e r s d o n o t f i le a M u l t i p l e
W o rk s ite R e p o rt. W h e n th e to ta l e m p lo y ­
m e n t in an e m p lo y e r ’s s e c o n d a ry e s ta b lis h ­
m e n ts (a ll e s ta b lis h m e n ts o th e r th a n th e larg ­
e st) is 10 o r fe w er, th e e m p lo y e r g e n e ra lly
w ill file a c o n s o lid a te d r e p o rt f o r a ll e s ta b ­
lis h m e n ts. A lso , so m e e m p lo y e rs e ith e r c a n ­
n o t o r w ill n o t r e p o rt a t th e e s ta b lis h m e n t
le v e l a n d th u s a g g re g a te e s ta b lis h m e n ts in to
o n e c o n s o lid a te d u n it, o r p o s s ib ly s e v e ra l
u n its , th o u g h n o t a t th e e s ta b lis h m e n t lev e l.
F o r th e F e d e ra l G o v e rn m e n t, th e r e p o rt­
in g u n it is th e installation: a sin g le lo c a ­
tio n a t w h ic h a d e p a rtm e n t, a g e n c y , o r o th e r
g o v e r n m e n t b o d y h a s c iv ilia n e m p lo y e e s .
F e d e ra l a g e n c ie s fo llo w slig h tly d iffe re n t c ri­
te r ia th a n d o p riv a te e m p lo y e rs w h e n b r e a k ­
in g d o w n th e ir re p o rts b y in s ta lla tio n . T h e y
a re p e rm itte d to c o m b in e as a sin g le s ta te ­
w id e unit: 1) a ll in sta lla tio n s w ith 10 o r fe w e r
w o rk e rs , a n d 2) a ll in s ta lla tio n s th a t h a v e a
c o m b in e d to ta l in th e S ta te o f f e w e r th a n 5 0
w o rk e rs . A lso , w h e n th e re a re fe w e r th a n 25
w o rk e rs in all se c o n d a ry in s ta lla tio n s in a
S ta te , th e s e c o n d a r y i n s ta lla tio n s m a y b e
c o m b in e d a n d re p o rte d w ith th e m a jo r in ­
sta lla tio n . L ast, if a F e d e ra l a g e n c y h a s fe w e r
th a n fiv e e m p lo y e e s in a S ta te , th e a g e n c y
h e a d q u a rte rs o ffic e (re g io n a l o ffic e , d is tric t
o ffic e ) s e rv in g e a c h S ta te m a y c o n s o lid a te
th e e m p lo y m e n t an d w a g e s d a ta fo r th a t S tate
w ith th e d a ta re p o rte d to th e S ta te in w h ic h
th e h e a d q u a rte rs is lo c a te d . A s a r e s u lt o f
th e s e re p o rtin g ru le s , th e n u m b e r o f r e p o r t­
in g u n its is a lw a y s la rg e r th a n th e n u m b e r
o f e m p lo y e rs (o r g o v e rn m e n t a g e n c ie s ) b u t
s m a lle r th a n th e n u m b e r o f a c tu a l e s ta b lis h ­
m e n ts (o r in s ta lla tio n s ).

D a ta r e p o rte d f o r th e f i r s t q u a r te r a re
ta b u la te d in to size c a te g o r ie s r a n g in g fro m
w o rk s ite s o f v e ry sm a ll s iz e to th o s e w ith
1 ,0 0 0 e m p lo y e e s o r m o re . T h e siz e c a te g o ry
is d e te rm in e d b y th e e s ta b lis h m e n t’s M a r c h
e m p lo y m e n t lev e l. It is im p o rta n t to n o te th a t
e a c h e s ta b lis h m e n t o f a m u lti- e s ta b lis h m e n t
firm is ta b u la te d s e p a ra te ly in to th e a p p r o ­
p r ia te s iz e c a te g o ry . T h e to ta l e m p lo y m e n t
le v e l o f th e r e p o rtin g m u lti- e s ta b lis h m e n t
firm is n o t u se d in th e s iz e ta b u la tio n .
C o v e re d e m p lo y e rs in m o s t S ta te s r e p o rt
to ta l wages p a id d u rin g th e c a le n d a r q u a r ­
ter, re g a rd le s s o f w h e n th e s e rv ic e s w e re p e r­
fo rm e d . A fe w S ta te la w s, h o w e v e r, s p e c ify
th a t w a g e s b e r e p o rte d fo r, o r b a s e d o n th e
p e r io d d u rin g w h ic h s e rv ic e s a re p e rfo rm e d
r a th e r th a n th e p e r io d d u r in g w h ic h c o m ­
p e n s a tio n is p a id . U n d e r m o s t S ta te la w s o r
r e g u la tio n s , w a g e s in c lu d e b o n u s e s , sto c k
o p tio n s , th e c a s h v a lu e o f m e a ls a n d lo d g ­
in g , tip s a n d o th e r g ra tu itie s , a n d , in so m e
S ta te s, e m p lo y e r c o n trib u tio n s to c e rta in d e ­
fe rre d c o m p e n s a tio n p la n s s u c h as 4 0 1 (k )
p la n s .
C o v e re d e m p lo y e r c o n tr ib u tio n s fo r o ld a g e , s u rv iv o rs , a n d d is a b ility in s u ra n c e
( oasdi ), h e a lth in s u ra n c e , u n e m p lo y m e n t in ­
su ra n c e , w o r k e r s ’ c o m p e n s a tio n , a n d p riv a te
p e n s io n a n d w e lfa re fu n d s a re n o t r e p o rte d
as w a g e s . E m p lo y e e c o n tr ib u tio n s fo r th e
sa m e p u rp o s e s , h o w e v e r, a s w e ll a s m o n e y
w ith h e ld fo r in c o m e ta x e s , u n io n d u e s , a n d
so fo rth , a re re p o rte d e v e n th o u g h th e y a re
d e d u c te d fro m th e w o r k e r ’s g ro s s pay.
Wages of covered Federal workers r e p ­
r e s e n t th e g ro s s a m o u n t o f a ll p a y r o lls fo r
a ll p a y p e rio d s e n d in g w ith in th e q u a rte r.
T h is i n c lu d e s c a s h a ll o w a n c e s , th e c a s h
e q u iv a le n t o f a n y ty p e o f re m u n e ra tio n , s e v ­
e ra n c e pay , w ith h o ld in g ta x e s , a n d r e tir e ­
m e n t d e d u c tio n s . F e d e ra l e m p lo y e e r e m u ­
n e ra tio n g e n e ra lly c o v e rs th e sa m e ty p e s o f
s e rv ic e s as fo r w o rk e rs in p r iv a te in d u stry .
Average annual wage p e r e m p lo y e e fo r
a n y g iv e n in d u s try a re c o m p u te d b y d iv id ­
ing to ta l a n n u al w a g e s b y a n n u a l a v e ra g e e m ­
p lo y m e n t. A f u r th e r d iv is io n b y 5 2 y ie ld s
a v e ra g e w e e k ly w a g e s p e r e m p lo y e e . A n n u a l
p a y d a ta o n ly a p p ro x im a te a n n u a l e a rn in g s
b e c a u s e a n in d iv id u a l m a y n o t b e e m p lo y e d
b y th e sa m e e m p lo y e r a ll y e a r o r m a y w o rk
f o r m o re th a n o n e e m p lo y e r a t a tim e .
Average weekly or annual wage is a f­
f e c te d b y th e ra tio o f f u ll-tim e to p a rt-tim e
w o rk e rs a s w e ll as th e n u m b e r o f in d iv id u ­
a ls in h ig h -p a y in g a n d lo w -p a y in g o c c u p a ­
tio n s . W h e n a v e r a g e p a y le v e ls b e tw e e n
S ta te s a n d in d u s tr ie s a re c o m p a r e d , th e s e
fa c to rs s h o u ld b e ta k e n in to c o n s id e ra tio n .
F o r e x a m p le , in d u s tr ie s c h a r a c te r iz e d b y
h ig h p ro p o rtio n s o f p a r t- tim e w o rk e rs w ill

Monthly Labor Review August 2004

59

Current Labor Statistics

sh o w a v e ra g e w a g e le v e ls a p p re c ia b ly less
th a n th e w e e k ly p a y le v e ls o f r e g u la r f u ll­
tim e e m p lo y e e s in th e s e in d u s trie s . T h e o p ­
p o s ite e f fe c t c h a r a c te riz e s in d u s trie s w ith
lo w p ro p o rtio n s o f p a r t- tim e w o rk e rs , o r in ­
d u s trie s th a t ty p ic a lly s c h e d u le h e a v y w e e k ­
e n d a n d o v e rtim e w o rk . A v e ra g e w a g e d a ta
a ls o m a y b e in f lu e n c e d b y w o rk s to p p a g e s ,
la b o r tu r n o v e r r a te s , re tr o a c tiv e p a y m e n ts ,
s e a s o n a l fa c to rs, b o n u s p a y m e n ts , a n d so on .

Notes on the data
B e g in n in g w ith th e r e le a s e o f d a ta fo r 2 0 0 1 ,
p u b lic a tio n s p r e s e n tin g d a ta fro m th e C o v ­
e r e d E m p lo y m e n t a n d W a g e s p ro g ra m h a v e
s w itc h e d to th e 2 0 0 2 v e rs io n o f th e N o rth
A m e r ic a n I n d u s tr y C l a s s if ic a tio n S y s te m
(N A ic s) a s th e b a s is fo r th e a s s ig n m e n t a n d
t a b u l a ti o n o f e c o n o m ic d a ta b y in d u s try .
NAICS is th e p r o d u c t o f a c o o p e ra tiv e e ffo rt
o n th e p a r t o f th e s ta tis tic a l a g e n c ie s o f th e
U n ite d S ta te s , C a n a d a , a n d M e x ic o . D u e to
d iffe re n c e in naics a n d S ta n d a rd In d u s tria l
C la s s if ic a tio n (SIC) s tru c tu re s , in d u s try d a ta
f o r 2 0 0 1 is n o t c o m p a ra b le to th e s ic - b a s e d
d a ta fo r e a r lie r y e a rs.
E ffe c tiv e J a n u a ry 2 0 0 1 , th e p ro g ra m b e ­
g a n a s s ig n in g In d ia n T rib a l C o u n c ils a n d r e ­
la te d e s t a b lis h m e n ts to lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t
o w n e rs h ip . T h is BLS a c tio n w a s in r e s p o n s e
to a c h a n g e in F e d e ra l la w d e a lin g w ith th e
w a y I n d ia n T rib e s a re tre a te d u n d e r th e F e d ­
e ra l U n e m p lo y m e n t T ax A c t. T h is la w r e ­
q u ire s fe d e r a lly r e c o g n iz e d I n d ia n T rib e s to
b e tre a te d s im ila rly to S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v ­
e rn m e n ts . In th e p a s t, th e C o v e re d E m p lo y ­
m e n t a n d W ag e (CEW) p ro g ra m c o d e d In d ia n
T rib a l C o u n c ils a n d re la te d e s ta b lis h m e n ts
in th e p r iv a te se c to r. A s a r e s u lt o f th e n e w
law , cew d a ta re fle c ts s ig n ific a n t s h ifts in
e m p lo y m e n t a n d w a g e s b e tw e e n th e p riv a te
s e c to r a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t fro m 2 0 0 0 to
2 0 0 1 . D a ta a ls o r e f l e c t in d u s try c h a n g e s .
T h o s e a c c o u n ts p r e v io u s ly a s s ig n e d to c iv ic
a n d s o c ia l o rg a n iz a tio n s w e re a s s ig n e d to
trib a l g o v e rn m e n ts . T h e re w e re n o re q u ire d
in d u s try c h a n g e s fo r re la te d e s ta b lis h m e n ts
o w n e d b y th e s e T rib a l C o u n c ils. T h e s e trib a l
b u s i n e s s e s t a b l i s h m e n t s c o n ti n u e d to b e
c o d e d a c c o rd in g to th e e c o n o m ic a c tiv ity o f
th a t en tity .
T o in s u r e th e h i g h e s t p o s s ib le q u a lity
o f d a ta , S ta te e m p lo y m e n t s e c u rity a g e n ­
c ie s v e r if y w ith e m p lo y e rs a n d u p d a te , if
n e c e s s a r y , th e in d u s try , lo c a tio n , a n d o w n ­
e r s h ip c la s s if i c a t io n o f a ll e s ta b lis h m e n ts
o n a 3 - y e a r c y c le . C h a n g e s in e s t a b l i s h ­
m e n t c la s s if ic a tio n c o d e s r e s u ltin g fro m th e
v e r if ic a tio n p r o c e s s a re in tr o d u c e d w ith th e
d a ta r e p o rte d fo r th e firs t q u a r te r o f th e year.

60

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

C h a n g e s re s u ltin g fro m im p ro v e d e m p lo y e r
r e p o r t i n g a ls o a re i n tr o d u c e d in th e f i r s t
q u a rte r. F o r th e s e r e a s o n s , s o m e d a ta , e s ­
p e c ia lly a t m o re d e ta ile d g e o g r a p h ic l e v ­
e ls , m a y n o t b e s tr ic tly c o m p a r a b le w ith
e a r lie r y e a rs .
C o u n ty d e fin itio n s a re a s s ig n e d a c c o r d ­
in g to F e d e ra l In fo r m a tio n P ro c e s s in g S ta n ­
d a rd s P u b lic a tio n s a s is s u e d b y th e N a tio n a l
In s titu te o f S ta n d a rd s a n d T e c h n o lo g y . A r­
e a s sh o w n as c o u n tie s in c lu d e th o s e d e s ig ­
n a te d a s in d e p e n d e n t c itie s in s o m e j u r i s ­
d ic tio n s a n d , in A la s k a , th o s e a re a s d e s ig ­
n a te d b y th e C e n s u s B u re a u w h e re c o u n tie s
h a v e n o t b e e n c re a te d . C o u n ty d a ta a ls o a re
p r e s e n te d f o r th e N e w E n g la n d S ta te s fo r
c o m p a ra tiv e p u rp o s e s , e v e n th o u g h to w n ­
sh ip s a re th e m o re c o m m o n d e s ig n a tio n u se d
in N e w E n g la n d (a n d N e w Je rs e y ).
T h e O ffic e o f M a n a g e m e n t a n d B u d g e t
(omb) d e fin e s m e tro p o lita n a re a s fo r u s e in
F e d e r a l s t a ti s t i c a l a c t i v it i e s a n d u p d a te s
th e s e d e fin itio n s as n e e d e d . D a ta in th is ta b le
u se m e tro p o lita n a re a c r ite r ia e s ta b lis h e d by
omb in d e f in i t io n s i s s u e d J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 9 9
(omb B u lle tin N o . 9 9 -0 4 ). T h e s e d e fin itio n s
r e fle c t in f o r m a tio n o b ta in e d fro m th e 19 9 0
D e c e n n ia l C e n s u s a n d th e 1998 U .S . C e n ­
su s B u re a u p o p u la tio n e s tim a te . A c o m p le te
lis t o f m e tro p o lita n a re a d e fin itio n s is a v a il­
a b le fro m th e N a tio n a l T e c h n ic a l In f o r m a ­
tio n S e rv ic e (ntis), D o c u m e n t S a le s , 5 2 0 5
P o r t R o y a l R o a d , S p r in g f ie ld , Va. 2 2 1 6 1 ,
te le p h o n e 1 -8 0 0 -5 5 3 -6 8 4 7 .
omb d e fin e s m e tro p o lita n a re a s in te rm s
o f e n tir e c o u n tie s , e x c e p t in th e six N e w
E n g la n d S ta te s w h e re th e y a re d e f in e d in
te rm s o f c itie s a n d to w n s. N e w E n g la n d d a ta
in th is ta b le , h o w e v e r, a re b a s e d o n a c o u n ty
c o n c e p t d e f in e d by omb a s N e w E n g la n d
C o u n ty M e t r o p o li t a n A r e a s ( necma ) b e ­
c a u s e c o u n ty -le v e l d a ta a re th e m o s t d e ta ile d
a v a ila b le fro m th e Q u a rte rly C e n s u s o f E m ­
p lo y m e n t a n d W ages. T h e necma is a c o u n ty b a s e d a lte rn a tiv e to th e c ity - a n d to w n -b a s e d
m e tr o p o lita n a r e a s in N e w E n g la n d . T h e
necma fo r a M e tro p o lita n S ta tis tic a l A re a
(ms a ) in c lu d e : (1 ) th e c o u n ty c o n ta in in g th e
f irs t-n a m e d c ity in th a t msa title (th is c o u n ty
m a y in c lu d e th e firs t-n a m e d c itie s o f o th e r
msa , a n d (2) e a c h a d d itio n a l c o u n ty h a v in g
a t le a s t h a l f its p o p u la tio n in th e msa in
w h ic h firs t-n a m e d c itie s a re in th e c o u n ty
id e n tifie d in ste p 1. T h e necma is o ffic ia lly
d e fin e d a re a s th a t a re m e a n t to b e u s e d by
sta tis tic a l p ro g ra m s th a t c a n n o t u se th e r e g u ­
la r m e tr o p o l it a n a r e a d e f in i t io n s in N e w
E n g la n d .

F or additional information o n th e
c o v e re d e m p lo y m e n t a n d w a g e d a ta , c o n ta c t
th e D iv is io n o f A d m in is tra tiv e S ta tis tic s a n d
L a b o r T u r n o v e r a t (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 6 5 6 7 .

August 2004

Job Openings and Labor
Turnover Survey
Description of the series
D a ta fo r th e Job Openings and Labor Turn­
over Survey (jolts) a re c o lle c te d a n d c o m ­
p ile d fro m a s a m p le o f 1 6 ,0 0 0 b u s in e s s e s ­
ta b lish m e n ts. E a c h m o n th , d a ta a re c o lle c te d
fo r to ta l e m p lo y m e n t, j o b o p e n in g s , h ire s ,
q u its, lay o ffs a n d d is c h a rg e s , a n d o th e r s e p a ­
ra tio n s. T h e jolts p ro g ra m c o v e rs a ll p riv a te
n o n fa rm e s ta b lis h m e n ts s u c h a s f a c to r ie s ,
o ffic e s, a n d sto re s, as w e ll as F e d e ra l, S ta te ,
a n d lo ca l g o v e rn m e n t e n titie s in th e 5 0 S ta te s
a n d th e D i s tr ic t o f C o lu m b ia . T h e jolts
sam p le d e sig n is a ra n d o m sa m p le d ra w n fro m
a u n iv e rs e o f m o re th a n e ig h t m illio n e s ta b ­
lis h m e n ts c o m p ile d as p a rt o f th e o p e ra tio n s
o f th e Q u a rte rly C e n s u s o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d
W ag e s, o r qcew, p ro g ra m . T h is p ro g ra m in ­
c lu d e s all e m p lo y e rs s u b je c t to S ta te u n e m ­
p lo y m e n t in s u ra n c e ( u i) la w s a n d F e d e ra l
a g e n c ie s su b je c t to U n e m p lo y m e n t C o m p e n ­
sa tio n fo r F e d e ra l E m p lo y e e s ( ucfe).
T h e sa m p lin g fram e is stra tified b y o w n e r­
ship, re g io n , in d u stry sector, a n d size class.
L arg e firm s fall in to th e sa m p le w ith v irtu al
certainty, jolts total e m p lo y m en t estim ates are
c o n tro lle d to th e e m p lo y m e n t e stim a te s o f th e
C u rre n t E m p lo y m e n t S tatistics (CES) survey.
A ra tio o f ces to jolts e m p lo y m e n t is u se d to
a d ju st th e lev els fo r all o th e r jolts d a ta e le ­
m en ts. R a te s th en are c o m p u te d fro m th e a d ­
ju s te d levels.
T h e m o n th ly JOLTS d a ta series b e g in w ith
D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 0 . N o t s e a so n ally a d ju ste d d a ta
o n jo b o p e n in g s, h ires, to tal se p a ra tio n s, q u its,
lay o ffs a n d d isc h arg e s, an d o th e r sep a ra tio n s
lev els a n d rates are a v ailab le fo r th e to ta l n o n ­
fa rm sector, 16 p riv ate in d u stry d iv isio n s an d
2 g o v e rn m e n t d iv isio n s b a se d o n th e N o rth
A m e r ic a n I n d u s tr y C la s s if ic a tio n S y s te m
(naics), a n d fo u r g e o g rap h ic re g io n s. S e a so n ­
ally a d ju ste d d a ta o n jo b o p e n in g s, h ires, to tal
separations, and q u its levels an d rates are a v ail­
ab le fo r th e to tal n o n fa rm sector, se lec te d in ­
d u stry sectors, a n d fo u r g e o g ra p h ic re g io n s.

Definitions
E s ta b lis h m e n ts s u b m it job openings in fo r­
m a tio n f o r th e la s t b u s in e s s d a y o f th e r e fe r ­
e n c e m o n th . A jo b o p e n in g r e q u ir e s th a t (1 )
a sp e c ific p o s itio n e x is ts a n d th e re is w o rk
a v a ila b le f o r th a t p o s itio n ; a n d (2 ) w o r k
c o u ld s ta r t w ith in 3 0 d a y s r e g a r d l e s s o f
w h e th e r a s u ita b le c a n d id a te is fo u n d ; a n d
(3 ) th e e m p lo y e r is a c tiv e ly r e c r u itin g fro m
o u ts id e th e e s ta b lis h m e n t to fill th e p o s itio n .
In c lu d e d a re fu ll-tim e , p a rt-tim e , p e rm a n e n t,

s h o rt-te rm , a n d s e a s o n a l o p e n in g s . A c tiv e
r e c r u itin g m e a n s th a t th e e s ta b lis h m e n t is
ta k in g s te p s to fill a p o s itio n b y a d v e rtis in g
in n e w s p a p e r s o r o n th e In te r n e t, p o s tin g
h e lp - w a n te d sig n s , a c c e p tin g a p p lic a tio n s ,
o r u s in g o th e r s im ila r m e th o d s .
J o b s to b e f ille d o n ly b y in te rn a l tra n s fe rs,
p ro m o tio n s , d e m o tio n s , o r re c a ll fro m la y ­
o ffs are e x c lu d e d . A lso e x c lu d e d a re jo b s w ith
sta rt d a te s m o re th a n 3 0 d a y s in th e fu tu re,
jo b s fo r w h ic h e m p lo y e e s h a v e b e e n h ire d
b u t h a v e n o t y e t re p o rte d fo r w o rk , a n d jo b s
to b e fille d b y e m p lo y e e s o f te m p o ra ry h e lp
a g e n c ie s, e m p lo y e e le a sin g c o m p a n ie s , o u t­
s id e c o n tr a c t o r s , o r c o n s u lta n ts . T h e j o b
o p e n in g s r a te is c o m p u te d by d iv id in g th e
n u m b e r o f j o b o p e n in g s b y th e su m o f e m ­
p lo y m e n t a n d jo b o p e n in g s , a n d m u ltip ly in g
th a t q u o tie n t b y 100.
Hires a re th e to ta l n u m b e r o f a d d itio n s to
th e p a y ro ll o c c u rrin g a t a n y tim e d u rin g th e
r e fe re n c e m o n th , in c lu d in g b o th n e w a n d r e ­
h ire d e m p lo y e e s a n d f u ll-tim e a n d p a rt-tim e ,
p e rm a n e n t, s h o rt-te rm a n d s e a so n a l e m ­
p lo y e e s , e m p lo y e e s r e c a lle d to th e lo c a tio n
a fte r a la y o ff la s tin g m o re th a n 7 d a y s, o n c a ll o r in te rm itte n t e m p lo y e e s w h o re tu rn e d
to w o rk a fte r h a v in g b e en fo rm a lly se p a ra ted ,
a n d tra n s fe rs fro m o th e r lo c a tio n s . T h e h ire s
c o u n t d o e s n o t in c lu d e tra n s fe rs o r p ro m o ­
tio n s w ith in th e r e p o rtin g s ite , e m p lo y e e s
re tu rn in g fro m strik e , e m p lo y e e s o f te m p o ­
ra ry h e lp a g e n c ie s o r e m p lo y e e le a sin g c o m ­
p a n ie s , o u ts id e c o n tra c to rs , o r c o n su lta n ts.
T h e h ire s r a te is c o m p u te d b y d iv id in g th e
n u m b e r o f h ire s b y e m p lo y m e n t, a n d m u lti­
p ly in g th a t q u o tie n t b y 100.
Separations are th e to ta l n u m b e r o f te rm i­
n a tio n s o f e m p lo y m e n t o c cu rrin g a t an y tim e
d u rin g th e re fe re n c e m o n th , a n d are re p o rte d
b y ty p e o f s e p a ra tio n — q u its, lay o ffs an d d is­
c h arg es, an d o th e r se p a ra tio n s. Q u its are v o l­
u n tary se p a ra tio n s b y e m p lo y e e s (e x ce p t for
retirem en ts, w h ich are rep o rted as o th er sep ara­
tions). L ay o ffs an d d isch arges are in voluntary
sep a ra tio n s in itiated b y th e e m p lo y e r an d in­
c lu d e lay o ffs w ith n o in te n t to reh ire, fo rm al
lay o ffs lastin g o r e x p ec te d to last m o re th a n 7
d a y s , d i s c h a r g e s r e s u l ti n g f r o m m e r g e r s ,
d o w n siz in g , o r clo sin g s, firin g s o r o th e r dis­
c h arg es fo r c au se, te rm in atio n s o f p e rm a n e n t
o r sh o rt-term e m p lo y e es, an d term in atio n s o f
seaso n al e m p lo y ees. O th e r sep aratio n s inclu d e
retirem en ts, tran sfers to o th e r locations, deaths,
a n d se p a ra tio n s d u e to disability. S e p a ratio n s
d o n o t in clu d e tran sfers w ith in th e sa m e lo ca ­
tio n o r e m p lo y e e s o n strike.
T h e s e p a ra tio n s r a te is c o m p u te d b y d i­
v id in g th e n u m b e r o f se p a ra tio n s b y e m p lo y ­
m e n t, a n d m u ltip ly in g th a t q u o tie n t b y 100.
T h e q u its , la y o ffs a n d d is c h a rg e s , a n d o th e r
s e p a r a tio n s r a te s a re c o m p u te d s im ija rly ,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

a b le . W h e n th e s ta b le s e a s o n a l f ilte r is n o
lo n g e r n e e d e d , o th e r p ro g ra m fe a tu re s a ls o
m ay b e in tro d u c ed , su c h a s o u tlie r ad ju s tm e n t
an d e x te n d e d d ia g n o stic testin g . A d d itio n ally ,
Notes on the data
it is e x p e c te d th a t m o re se rie s , s u c h as la y ­
o ffs a n d d isc h a rg e s a n d a d d itio n a l in d u strie s,
m a y b e s e a so n a lly a d ju s te d w h e n m o re d a ta
T h e jolts d a ta se rie s o n jo b o p e n in g s , h ire s ,
a n d s e p a ra tio n s a re re la tiv e ly new . T h e fu ll
a re a v a ila b le .
s a m p le is d iv id e d in to p a n e ls, w ith o n e p a n e l
jolts h ire s a n d s e p a ra tio n s e s tim a te s c a n ­
n o t b e u se d to e x a c tly e x p la in n e t c h a n g e s in
e n ro lle d e a c h m o n th . A fu ll c o m p le m e n t o f
p a n e ls f o r th e o rig in a l d a ta se rie s b a s e d o n
p a y ro ll e m p lo y m e n t. S o m e re a s o n s w h y it is
th e 1987 S ta n d a rd I n d u s tria l C la s s ific a tio n
p ro b le m a tic to c o m p a re c h a n g e s in p a y ro ll
e m p lo y m e n t w ith jolts h ire s a n d se p a ra tio n s,
( s ic ) s y s te m w a s n o t c o m p le te ly e n ro lle d in
th e su rv e y u n til J a n u a ry 2 0 0 2 . T h e s u p p le ­
e sp e c ia lly o n a m o n th ly b a s is , are: (1 ) th e
m e n ta l p a n e ls o f e s ta b lis h m e n ts n e e d e d to
re fe re n c e p e rio d fo r p a y ro ll e m p lo y m e n t is
th e p a y p e r io d i n c lu d in g th e 1 2 th o f th e
c re a te naics e s tim a te s w e re n o t c o m p le te ly
m o n th , w h ile th e r e fe re n c e p e rio d fo r h ire s
e n ro lle d u n til M a y 2 0 0 3 . T h e d a ta c o lle c te d
a n d s e p a ra tio n s is th e c a le n d a r m o n th ; an d
u p u n til th o s e p o in ts a re fro m le s s th a n a
(2) p a y ro ll e m p lo y m e n t c a n v a ry fro m m o n th
fu ll sa m p le . T h e re fo re , e s tim a te s fro m e a r ­
to m o n th sim p ly b e c a u s e p a rt-tim e a n d o n lie r m o n th s s h o u ld b e u s e d w ith c a u tio n , as
c a ll w o rk e rs m ay n o t a lw a y s w o rk d u rin g th e
f e w e r sa m p le d u n its w e re re p o rtin g d a ta at
p a y p e r io d t h a t in c lu d e s th e 1 2 th o f th e
th a t tim e .
In M a r c h 2 0 0 2 , bls p ro c e d u re s f o r c o l­
m o n th . A d d itio n a lly , re s e a rc h h a s f o u n d th a t
s o m e r e p o r te r s s y s te m a tic a lly u n d e r r e p o r t
lectin g h ires an d sep aratio n s d a ta w e re re v ised
s e p a ra tio n s r e la tiv e to h ir e s d u e to a n u m ­
to a d d re s s p o s s ib le u n d e rre p o rtin g . A s a r e ­
su lt, jolts h ire s a n d se p a ra tio n s e stim a te s fo r
b e r o f f a c to r s , i n c lu d in g th e n a tu r e o f t h e ir
m o n th s p rio r to M a rc h 2 0 0 2 m a y n o t b e c o m ­
p a y r o ll s y s te m s a n d p r a c tic e s . T h e s h o rtfa ll
a p p e a r s to b e a b o u t 2 p e r c e n t o r le s s o v e r a
p a ra b le w ith e s tim a te s f o r M a rc h 2 0 0 2 a n d
1 2 -m o n th p e r io d .
later.
For additional information o n th e J o b
T h e F e d e ra l G o v e rn m e n t re o rg a n iz a tio n
O p e n in g s a n d L a b o r T u rn o v e r S u rv e y , c o n ­
t h a t in v o lv e d tr a n s f e r r i n g a p p r o x im a te ly
1 8 0 ,0 0 0 e m p lo y e e s to th e n e w D e p a rtm e n t ta c t th e D iv is io n o f A d m in is tra tiv e S ta tistic s
a n d L a b o r T u rn o v e r a t (2 0 2 ) 9 6 1 -5 8 7 0 .
o f H o m e la n d S e c u rity is n o t r e fle c te d in th e
jolts h ire s a n d s e p a ra tio n s e s tim a te s fo r th e
F e d e ra l G o v e rn m e n t. T h e O ffic e o f P e r s o n ­
n e l M a n a g e m e n t’s re c o rd sh o w s th e s e tr a n s ­
Com pensation and
fe rs w e re c o m p le te d in M a r c h 2 0 0 3 . T h e
in c lu sio n o f tra n s fe rs in th e JOLTS d e fin itio n s
W age Data
o f h ire s a n d s e p a ra tio n s is in te n d e d to c o v e r
(T a b le s 1 - 3 ; 3 0 - 3 6 )
o n g o in g m o v e m e n ts o f w o rk e rs b e tw e e n e s ­
ta b lis h m e n ts . T h e D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e la n d
C o m p e n s a tio n a n d w a g e d d a ta a re g a th e re d
S e c u rity r e o rg a n iz a tio n w a s a m a s s iv e o n e ­
b y th e B u re a u fro m b u s in e s s e sta b lis h m e n ts ,
tim e e v e n t, a n d th e in c lu s io n o f th e s e in te r­
S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n ts , la b o r u n io n s ,
g o v e r n m e n ta l tr a n s f e r s w o u ld d i s to r t th e
c o ll e c t iv e b a r g a i n in g a g r e e m e n ts o n f ile
F e d e ra l G o v e rn m e n t tim e se rie s .
w ith th e B u re a u , a n d s e c o n d a ry so u rc e s .
D a ta u se rs s h o u ld n o te th a t se a so n a l a d ­
ju s tm e n t o f th e jolts se ries is c o n d u c te d w ith
E m ploym ent Cost In d e x
fe w e r d a ta o b s e rv a tio n s th a n is c u sto m a ry .
T h e h isto ric a l d a ta , th e re fo re , m ay b e s u b ­
j e c t to la rg e r th an n o rm a l re v is io n s . B e c a u se
Description of the series
th e s e a so n a l p a tte rn s in e c o n o m ic d a ta se ries
T h e Employment Cost Index (ECI) is a
ty p ic a lly e m e rg e o v e r tim e , th e sta n d a rd u se
q u a r te r ly m e a s u re o f th e r a te o f c h a n g e in
o f m o v in g a v e ra g e s as se a so n a l filte rs to c a p ­
c o m p e n s a tio n p e r h o u r w o rk e d a n d in c lu d e s
tu re th e s e e ffe c ts re q u ire s lo n g e r se rie s th an
w a g e s , s a la rie s , a n d e m p lo y e r c o s ts o f e m ­
a re c u rre n tly a v a ila b le . A s a re su lt, th e sta b le
p
lo y e e b e n e fits . It u s e s a fix e d m a rk e t
s e a so n a l filte r o p tio n is u se d in th e se a so n a l
b a s k e t o f la b o r— s im ila r in c o n c e p t to th e
a d ju s tm e n t o f th e JOLTS d a ta . W h e n c a lc u la t­
C o n s u m e r P r ic e I n d e x ’s fix e d m a r k e t b a s ­
ing se a so n a l fa c to rs, th is filte r ta k e s a n a v e r­
k e t o f g o o d s a n d s e r v i c e s — to m e a s u r e
a g e fo r e a c h c a le n d a r m o n th a fte r d e tre n d in g
c h a n g e o v e r tim e in e m p lo y e r c o s ts o f e m ­
th e se ries. T h e s ta b le se a so n a l filte r a ssu m e s
p lo y in g lab o r.
th a t th e s e a so n a l fa c to rs are fix ed ; a n e c e s-

d iv id in g th e n u m b e r b y e m p lo y m e n t a n d
m u ltip ly in g b y 100.

sary a ssu m p tio n u n til su ffic ie n t d a ta are a v a il­

Statistical series on total compensation

Monthly Labor Review August 2004

61

Current Labor Statistics

c o s ts , o n w a g e s a n d s a la r ie s , a n d o n b e n ­
e f it c o s ts a re a v a ila b le f o r p r iv a te n o n f a rm
w o rk e rs e x c lu d in g p r o p r ie to r s , th e s e lf-e m ­
p lo y e d , a n d h o u s e h o ld w o rk e rs . T h e to ta l
c o m p e n s a tio n c o s ts a n d w a g e s a n d s a la rie s
se rie s a re a ls o a v a ila b le fo r S ta te a n d lo c a l
g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s a n d f o r th e c iv ilia n
n o n f a rm e c o n o m y , w h ic h c o n s is ts o f p r i ­
v a te in d u s try a n d S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e r n ­
m e n t w o rk e rs c o m b in e d . F e d e r a l w o rk e rs
a re e x c lu d e d .
T h e E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x p ro b a b ility
s a m p le c o n s is ts o f a b o u t 4 ,4 0 0 p riv a te n o n ­
fa rm e s ta b lis h m e n ts p r o v id in g a b o u t 2 3 ,0 0 0
o c c u p a tio n a l o b s e r v a tio n s a n d 1 ,0 0 0 S ta te
a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t e s ta b lis h m e n ts p r o ­
v id in g 6 ,0 0 0 o c c u p a tio n a l o b s e rv a tio n s s e ­
le c te d to r e p re s e n t to ta l e m p lo y m e n t in e a c h
se c to r. O n a v e ra g e , e a c h re p o rtin g u n it p r o ­
v id e s w a g e a n d c o m p e n s a tio n in fo rm a tio n
o n f iv e w e ll- s p e c if ie d o c c u p a tio n s . D a ta a re
c o lle c te d e a c h q u a r te r f o r th e p a y p e r io d in ­
c lu d in g th e 1 2 th d a y o f M a rc h , J u n e , S e p ­
te m b e r, a n d D e c e m b e r.
B e g in n in g w ith J u n e 1 9 8 6 d a ta , fix e d
e m p lo y m e n t w e ig h ts fro m th e 198 0 C e n s u s
o f P o p u l a t i o n a r e u s e d e a c h q u a r t e r to
c a lc u la te th e c iv ilia n a n d p r iv a te in d e x e s
a n d th e in d e x f o r S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e r n ­
m e n ts . (P r io r to J u n e 198 6 , th e e m p lo y m e n t
w e ig h ts a re fro m th e 1 9 7 0 C e n s u s o f P o p u ­
la tio n .) T h e s e f ix e d w e ig h ts , a ls o u s e d to
d e r iv e a ll o f th e in d u s tr y a n d o c c u p a tio n
s e rie s in d e x e s , e n s u r e th a t c h a n g e s in th e s e
in d e x e s r e f le c t o n ly c h a n g e s in c o m p e n s a ­
tio n , n o t e m p lo y m e n t sh ifts a m o n g in d u s ­
trie s o r o c c u p a tio n s w ith d if f e r e n t le v e ls o f
w a g e s a n d c o m p e n s a tio n . F o r th e b a r g a in ­
in g s ta tu s , r e g io n , a n d m e tr o p o lita n /n o n m e tr o p o lita n a re a s e rie s , h o w e v e r, e m p lo y ­
m e n t d a ta b y in d u s try a n d o c c u p a tio n a re
n o t a v a ila b le fro m th e c e n s u s . In s te a d , th e
1 9 8 0 e m p lo y m e n t w e ig h ts a re re a llo c a te d
w ith in th e s e se rie s e a c h q u a r te r b a s e d o n th e
c u r re n t s a m p le . T h e re fo re , th e s e in d e x e s are
n o t s tric tly c o m p a r a b le to th o s e fo r th e a g ­
g r e g a te , in d u stry , a n d o c c u p a tio n se rie s .

Definitions
Total compensation

c o s ts in c lu d e w a g e s ,
s a la rie s , a n d th e e m p l o y e r ’s c o s ts f o r e m ­
p lo y e e b e n e fits .
Wages and salaries c o n s is t o f e a rn in g s
b e f o re p a y r o ll d e d u c tio n s , in c lu d in g p r o ­
d u c tio n b o n u s e s , in c e n tiv e e a rn in g s , c o m ­
m is s io n s , a n d c o s t- o f -liv in g a d ju s tm e n ts .
Benefits in c lu d e th e c o s t to e m p lo y e rs
f o r p a id le a v e , s u p p le m e n ta l p a y (in c lu d ­
in g n o n p ro d u c tio n bo n u se s), in su ran ce, re tire ­
m e n t a n d sa v in g s p lan s, an d leg ally re q u ire d

62

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

b e n e fits (su c h as S o c ia l S ecu rity , w o r k e r s ’
co m p e n sa tio n , a n d u n e m p lo y m en t in surance).
E x c lu d e d fro m w a g e s a n d s a la rie s a n d
e m p lo y e e b e n e fits a re s u c h ite m s a s p a y ­
m e n t-in -k in d , fre e ro o m a n d b o a rd , a n d tip s.

Notes on the data
T h e E m p lo y m e n t C o s t I n d e x f o r c h a n g e s in
w a g e s a n d s a la rie s in th e p r iv a te n o n fa rm
e c o n o m y w a s p u b lis h e d b e g in n in g in 1975.
C h a n g e s in to ta l c o m p e n s a tio n c o st— w a g e s
a n d s a la rie s a n d b e n e fits c o m b in e d — w e re
p u b lis h e d b e g in n in g in 1980. T h e se rie s o f
c h a n g e s in w a g e s a n d s a la rie s a n d fo r to ta l
c o m p e n s a tio n in th e S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e r n ­
m e n t s e c to r a n d in th e c iv i l ia n n o n f a r m
e c o n o m y ( e x c lu d in g F e d e r a l e m p lo y e e s )
w e re p u b lis h e d b e g in n in g in 1981. H is to r i­
c a l in d e x e s (J u n e 1 9 8 1 = 1 0 0 ) a re a v a ila b le
o n th e In te rn e t:

http ://www.bls.gov/ect/
F or additional information o n th e
E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x , c o n ta c t th e O ffic e
o f C o m p e n s a tio n L e v e ls a n d T ren d s: (2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -6 1 9 9 .

Employee Benefits Survey
Description of the series
Employee benefits

d a ta a re o b ta in e d fro m
th e E m p lo y e e B e n e f its S u rv e y , a n a n n u a l
s u rv e y o f th e in c id e n c e a n d p ro v is io n s o f
s e le c te d b e n e fits p r o v id e d b y e m p lo y e rs .
T h e s u rv e y c o lle c ts d a ta fro m a s a m p le o f
a p p ro x im a te ly 9 ,0 0 0 p riv a te se c to r a n d S tate
a n d lo ca l g o v e rn m e n t e s ta b lis h m e n ts . T h e
d a ta a re p re s e n te d a s a p e r c e n ta g e o f e m ­
p lo y e e s w h o p a r tic ip a te in a c ertain ben efit,
o r as an a v e ra g e b e n e fit p ro v isio n (fo r e x ­
a m p le, th e a v era g e n u m b e r o f p a id h o lid a y s
p ro v id e d to e m p lo y e e s p e r y e a r). S e le c te d
d a ta fro m th e s u rv e y a re p re s e n te d in ta b le
3 4 fo r m ed iu m an d larg e p riv a te e s ta b lis h ­
m e n ts a n d in ta b le 35 fo r sm all p riv ate e s ta b ­
lis h m e n ts a n d S tate a n d lo cal g o v e rn m e n t.
T h e s u rv e y c o v e r s p a id le a v e b e n e f its
s u c h a s h o lid a y s a n d v a c a tio n s, a n d p e rso n a l,
fu n e ra l, ju r y d u ty , m ilita ry , fa m ily , a n d s ic k
le a v e ; s h o rt-te rm d is a b ility , lo n g -te rm d is ­
a b ility , a n d life in su ra n c e ; m e d ic a l, d e n ta l,
a n d v is io n c a re p la n s ; d e fin e d b e n e fit a n d
d e fin e d c o n tr ib u tio n p la n s ; f le x ib le b e n e fits
p la n s ; re im b u r s e m e n t a c c o u n ts ; a n d u n p a id
fa m ily le a v e .
A l s o , d a ta a r e t a b u l a t e d o n th e i n c i ­
d e n c e o f s e v e r a l o t h e r b e n e f i ts , s u c h a s
s e v e ra n c e pay , c h ild - c a r e a s s is ta n c e , w e ll­
n e ss p ro g ra m s , a n d e m p lo y e e a ss is ta n c e
p ro g ra m s .

August 2004

Definitions
Employer-provided benefits a re b e n e f its
th a t a re f in a n c e d e ith e r w h o lly o r p a r tly b y
th e e m p lo y e r. T h e y m a y b e s p o n s o r e d b y a
u n io n o r o th e r th ir d p a rty , a s lo n g a s th e re is
s o m e e m p lo y e r fin a n c in g . H o w e v e r, so m e
b e n e fits th a t a re fu lly p a id fo r b y th e e m ­
p lo y e e a ls o a re in c lu d e d . F o r e x a m p le , lo n g ­
te rm c a re in s u ra n c e a n d p o s tr e tir e m e n t life
in s u ra n c e p a id e n tir e ly b y th e e m p lo y e e a re
in c lu d e d b e c a u s e th e g u a ra n te e o f in s u r a b il­
ity a n d a v a ila b ility a t g ro u p p r e m iu m r a te s
a re c o n s id e r e d a b e n e fit.
Participants a re w o r k e r s w h o a re c o v ­
e r e d b y a b e n e f it, w h e th e r o r n o t th e y u s e
th a t b e n e f it. I f th e b e n e f it p la n is f in a n c e d
w h o lly b y e m p lo y e rs a n d r e q u ir e s e m p lo y ­
e e s to c o m p le te a m in im u m le n g th o f s e r ­
v ic e f o r e lig ib ility , th e w o r k e r s a r e c o n s i d ­
e r e d p a r tic ip a n ts w h e th e r o r n o t th e y h a v e
m e t th e r e q u ir e m e n t . I f w o r k e r s a r e r e ­
q u ir e d to c o n tr ib u te to w a r d s th e c o s t o f a
p la n , th e y a re c o n s id e r e d p a r ti c i p a n ts o n ly
i f th e y e le c t th e p la n a n d a g r e e to m a k e th e
r e q u ir e d c o n tr ib u tio n s .
Defined benefit pension plans u s e p r e ­
d e te r m in e d f o rm u la s to c a lc u la te a r e tir e ­
m e n t b e n e fit ( i f a n y ), a n d o b lig a te th e e m ­
p lo y e r to p ro v id e th o s e b e n e fits . B e n e f its
a re g e n e ra lly b a s e d o n sa la ry , y e a rs o f se r­
v ic e , o r b o th .
Defined contribution plans g e n e r a lly
s p e c ify th e le v e l o f e m p lo y e r a n d e m p lo y e e
c o n tr ib u tio n s to a p la n , b u t n o t th e fo r m u la
fo r d e te rm in in g e v e n tu a l b e n e fits . I n s te a d ,
in d iv id u a l a c c o u n ts a re s e t u p f o r p a r tic i­
p a n ts , a n d b e n e f its a re b a s e d o n a m o u n ts
c r e d ite d to th e s e a c c o u n ts .
Tax-deferred savings plans a re a ty p e
o f d e fin e d c o n tr ib u tio n p la n th a t a llo w p a r ­
tic ip a n ts to c o n trib u te a p o r tio n o f th e ir s a l­
a ry to an e m p lo y e r- s p o n s o r e d p la n a n d d e ­
fe r in c o m e ta x e s u n til w ith d ra w a l.
Flexible benefit plans a llo w e m p lo y e e s
to c h o o s e a m o n g s e v e ra l b e n e f its , s u c h as
life in s u ra n c e , m e d ic a l c a re , a n d v a c a tio n
d a y s , a n d a m o n g s e v e ra l le v e ls o f c o v e r a g e
w ith in a g iv e n b e n e fit.

Notes on the data
S u r v e y s o f e m p lo y e e s in m e d iu m a n d la rg e
e s t a b l i s h m e n t s c o n d u c t e d o v e r th e 1 9 7 9 8 6 p e r io d i n c lu d e d e s t a b lis h m e n ts t h a t e m ­
p lo y e d a t le a s t 5 0 , 100, o r 2 5 0 w o rk e rs,
d e p e n d i n g o n th e i n d u s tr y ( m o s t s e r v ic e
i n d u s tr ie s w e re e x c lu d e d ) . T h e s u r v e y c o n ­
d u c te d in 1 9 8 7 c o v e r e d o n ly S ta te a n d l o ­
c a l g o v e r n m e n ts w ith 5 0 o r m o r e e m p lo y -

e e s . T h e s u r v e y s c o n d u c t e d in 1 9 8 8 a n d
1 9 8 9 in c lu d e d m e d iu m a n d la r g e e s t a b l i s h ­
m e n ts w ith 1 0 0 w o r k e r s o r m o r e in p r i v a t e
i n d u s t r ie s . A ll s u r v e y s c o n d u c t e d o v e r th e
1 9 7 9 - 8 9 p e r io d e x c l u d e d e s t a b l i s h m e n t s
in A l a s k a a n d H a w a ii, a s w e ll a s p a r t- t i m e
e m p lo y e e s .
B e g in n in g in 1 9 9 0 , s u rv e y s o f S ta te a n d
lo c a l g o v e r n m e n ts a n d s m a ll p riv a te e s ta b ­
lis h m e n t s w e r e c o n d u c t e d in e v e n - n u m ­
b e r e d y e a r s , a n d s u r v e y s o f m e d iu m a n d
la rg e e s ta b lis h m e n ts w e re c o n d u c te d in o d d n u m b e r e d y e a rs . T h e s m a ll e s ta b lis h m e n t
s u rv e y in c lu d e s a ll p r iv a te n o n fa rm e s ta b ­
lis h m e n t s w i t h f e w e r t h a n 1 0 0 w o r k e r s ,
w h ile th e S ta te a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t su r­
v e y in c lu d e s a ll g o v e r n m e n ts , re g a rd le s s o f
th e n u m b e r o f w o rk e rs . A ll th re e su rv e y s in ­
c lu d e fu ll- a n d p a r t- tim e w o rk e rs , a n d
w o r k e r s in a ll 5 0 S ta te s a n d th e D is tr ic t o f
C o lu m b ia .
F or additional information o n th e
E m p lo y e e B e n e f its S u rv e y , c o n ta c t th e O f ­
f ic e o f C o m p e n s a tio n L e v e ls a n d T re n d s o n
th e In te rn e t:

http://www.bls.gov/ebs/

Notes on the data
T h is se rie s is n o t c o m p a ra b le w ith th e o n e
te rm in a te d in 1981 th a t c o v e re d s trik e s in ­
v o lv in g six w o rk e rs o r m o re .
F or additional information o n w o rk
s to p p a g e s d a ta , c o n ta c t th e O ffic e o f C o m ­
p e n s a tio n a n d W o rk in g C o n d itio n s : (2 0 2 )
6 9 1 - 6 2 8 2 , o r th e In te rn e t:

http :/www.bls.gov/cba/

Price Data
(T a b le s 2; 3 7 - 4 7 )
P ric e d a ta a re g a th e re d b y th e B u re a u
o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s fro m re ta il a n d p r i­
m ary m ark e ts in th e U n ited S tates. P ric e in ­
d e x e s are g iv en in re la tio n to a b a se p erio d —
D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3 = 100 fo r m a n y P ro d u c e r
P ric e In d e x es (u n less o th erw ise n o ted ), 1982—
8 4 = 100 fo r m an y C o n su m e r P ric e In d e x es
(u nless o th erw ise n o ted ), an d 1990 = 100 fo r
In tern a tio n a l P ric e In d ex es.

Consumer Price Indexes

Work stoppages

Description of the series

Description of the series

T h e Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a m e a ­
su re o f th e a v e ra g e c h a n g e in th e p ric e s p a id
b y u rb a n c o n s u m e rs f o r a fix e d m a rk e t b a s ­
k e t o f g o o d s a n d se rv ic e s. T h e CPI is c a lc u ­
la te d m o n th ly fo r tw o p o p u la tio n g ro u p s ,
o n e c o n s is tin g o n ly o f u r b a n h o u s e h o ld s
w h o s e p rim a ry s o u rc e o f in c o m e is d e riv e d
fro m th e e m p lo y m e n t o f w a g e e a rn e rs a n d
c le ric a l w o rk e rs , a n d th e o th e r c o n s is tin g o f
a ll u rb a n h o u s e h o ld s . T h e w a g e e a r n e r in ­
d e x (CPI-W) is a c o n tin u a tio n o f th e h is to ric
in d e x th a t w a s in tro d u c e d w e ll o v e r a h a lfc e n tu ry a g o fo r u s e in w a g e n e g o tia tio n s .
A s n e w u s e s w e re d e v e lo p e d f o r th e CPI in
re c e n t y e a rs, th e n e e d fo r a b ro a d e r a n d m o re
re p re s e n ta tiv e in d e x b e c a m e a p p a re n t. T h e
a ll-u rb a n c o n s u m e r in d ex (CPi-U), in tro d u c e d
in 197 8 , is r e p re s e n ta tiv e o f th e 1 9 9 3 -9 5
b u y in g h a b its o f a b o u t 8 7 p e rc e n t o f th e n o n in s titu tio n a l p o p u la tio n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s
a t th a t tim e , c o m p a r e d w ith 32 p e rc e n t r e p ­
re s e n te d in th e CPi-w. In a d d itio n to w a g e
e a rn e rs a n d c le ric a l w o rk e rs , th e CPI-U c o v ­
e rs p ro fe s s io n a l, m a n a g e ria l, a n d te c h n ic a l
w o r k e r s , th e s e l f - e m p l o y e d , s h o r t - t e r m
w o rk e rs , th e u n e m p lo y e d , re tire e s , a n d o th ­
e rs n o t in th e la b o r fo rc e .
T h e CPI is b a s e d o n p ric e s o f fo o d , c lo th ­
in g , sh e lte r, fu e l, d ru g s, tra n s p o rta tio n fa re s,
d o c to r s ’ a n d d e n tis ts ’ fe e s , a n d o th e r g o o d s
a n d s e rv ic e s th a t p e o p le b u y f o r d a y -to -d a y
liv in g . T h e q u a n tity a n d q u a lity o f th e s e
ite m s a re k e p t e s s e n tia lly u n c h a n g e d b e ­

D a ta o n w o rk s to p p a g e s m e a s u re th e n u m ­
b e r a n d d u r a tio n o f m a jo r s trik e s o r lo c k ­
o u ts (in v o lv in g 1 ,0 0 0 w o rk e rs o r m o re ) o c ­
c u rrin g d u rin g th e m o n th (o r y e a r), th e n u m ­
b e r o f w o rk e rs in v o lv e d , a n d th e a m o u n t o f
w o r k tim e lo s t b e c a u s e o f s to p p a g e . T h e s e
d a ta a re p re s e n te d in ta b le 36.
D a ta a re la rg e ly fro m a v a rie ty o f p u b ­
l is h e d s o u r c e s a n d c o v e r o n ly e s t a b l i s h ­
m e n ts d ire c tly in v o lv e d in a s to p p a g e . T h e y
d o n o t m e a s u r e th e in d ir e c t o r se c o n d a ry
e f fe c t o f s to p p a g e s o n o th e r e s ta b lis h m e n ts
w h o s e e m p lo y e e s a re id le o w in g to m a te ria l
s h o rta g e s o r la c k o f se rv ic e .

Definitions
Number of stoppages:

T he num ber of
s trik e s a n d lo c k o u ts in v o lv in g 1 ,0 0 0 w o r k ­
e rs o r m o re a n d la s tin g a fu ll s h ift o r lo n g er.
Workers involved: T h e n u m b e r o f
w o rk e rs d ire c tly in v o lv e d in th e s to p p a g e .
Number of days idle: T h e a g g re g a te
n u m b e r o f w o r k d a y s lo s t b y w o r k e r s in ­
v o lv e d in th e s to p p a g e s .

Days of idleness as a percent of estimated
working time: A g g re g a te w o rk d a y s lo st as a
p e rc e n t o f th e a g g reg a te n u m b e r o f stan d ard
w o rk d a y s in th e p e rio d m u ltip lie d b y to tal e m ­
p lo y m e n t in th e p erio d .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

tw e e n m a jo r r e v is io n s so t h a t o n ly p r ic e
c h a n g e s w ill b e m e a s u re d . A ll ta x e s d ire c tly
a s s o c i a t e d w ith t h e p u r c h a s e a n d u s e o f
ite m s a re in c lu d e d in th e in d e x .
D a ta c o lle c te d fro m m o re th a n 2 3 ,0 0 0 r e ­
ta il e s ta b lis h m e n ts a n d 5 ,8 0 0 h o u s in g u n its
in 87 u rb a n a re a s a c ro s s th e c o u n try a re u s e d
to d e v e lo p th e “ U .S . c ity a v e r a g e .” S e p a ra te
e s tim a te s fo r 14 m a jo r u rb a n c e n te rs a re p r e ­
s e n te d in ta b le 3 8 . T h e a re a s lis te d a re a s in ­
d ic a te d in f o o tn o te 1 to th e ta b le . T h e a re a
in d e x e s m e a s u re o n ly th e a v e ra g e c h a n g e in
p ric e s fo r e a c h a r e a s in c e th e b a s e p e rio d ,
a n d d o n o t in d ic a te d if f e r e n c e s in th e le v e l
o f p ric e s a m o n g c itie s .

Notes on the data
In J a n u a ry 1 9 8 3 , th e B u re a u c h a n g e d th e
w a y in w h i c h h o m e o w n e r s h i p c o s t s a r e
m e a u re d fo r th e CPI-U. A re n ta l e q u iv a le n c e
m e th o d r e p la c e d th e a s s e t-p ric e a p p ro a c h to
h o m e o w n e r s h i p c o s t s f o r t h a t s e r i e s . In
J a n u a ry 1985, th e sa m e c h a n g e w a s m a d e in
th e CPi-w. T h e c e n tra l p u rp o s e o f th e c h a n g e
w a s to se p a ra te sh e lte r c o s ts fro m th e in v e s t­
m e n t c o m p o n e n t o f h o m e o w n e r s h ip so th a t
th e in d e x w o u ld r e fle c t o n ly th e c o s t o f s h e l­
te r s e r v ic e s p r o v id e d b y o w n e r - o c c u p ie d
h o m e s . A n u p d a te d cpi-u a n d cpi-w w e re
in tro d u c e d w ith r e le a s e o f th e J a n u a ry 198 7
a n d J a n u a ry 1998 d a ta .
For additional information, c o n ta c t
th e D iv is io n o f P r ic e s a n d P r ic e In d e x e s :
(2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 7 0 0 0 .

Producer Price Indexes
Description of the series
Producer Price Indexes (PPi) m e a s u r e

av­
e ra g e c h a n g e s in p ric e s re c e iv e d b y d o m e s ­
tic p ro d u c e rs o f c o m m o d itie s in a ll sta g e s
o f p ro c e s s in g . T h e s a m p le u s e d f o r c a lc u ­
la tin g th e s e in d e x e s c u rre n tly c o n ta in s a b o u t
3 ,2 0 0 c o m m o d itie s a n d a b o u t 8 0 ,0 0 0 q u o ­
ta tio n s p e r m o n th , s e le c te d to r e p re s e n t th e
m o v e m e n t o f p ric e s o f a ll c o m m o d itie s p r o ­
d u c e d in th e m a n u fa c tu rin g ; a g ric u ltu re , fo r­
e stry , a n d fis h in g ; m in in g ; a n d g a s a n d e le c ­
tric ity a n d p u b lic u tilitie s se c to rs . T h e sta g e o f - p r o c e s s in g s t r u c tu r e o f PPI o r g a n iz e s
p ro d u c ts b y c la s s o f b u y e r a n d d e g re e o f f a b ­
ric a tio n (th a t is, fin is h e d g o o d s , in te r m e d i­
a te g o o d s , a n d c ru d e m a te ria ls ). T h e t r a d i­
tio n a l c o m m o d i ty s t r u c t u r e o f PPI o r g a ­
n iz e s p r o d u c ts b y s i m il a r it y o f e n d u s e o r
m a t e r i a l c o m p o s it i o n . T h e i n d u s t r y a n d
p r o d u c t stru c tu re o f PPI o rg a n iz e s d a ta in
a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e 2 0 0 2 N o rth A m e ric an In ­
d u s try C la s s if ic a tio n S y s te m a n d p r o d u c t
c o d es d e v e lo p e d by th e U .S . C e n su s B u reau .

Monthly Labor Review August 2004

63

Current Labor Statistics

T o th e e x te n t p o s s ib le , p ric e s u s e d in c a l­
c u la tin g P ro d u c e r P ric e In d e x e s a p p ly to th e
firs t s ig n if ic a n t c o m m e rc ia l tra n s a c tio n in
th e U n ite d S ta te s fro m th e p r o d u c tio n o r
c e n tr a l m a rk e tin g p o in t. P r ic e d a ta a re g e n ­
e ra lly c o lle c te d m o n th ly , p r im a r ily b y m a il
q u e s tio n n a ire . M o s t p ric e s a re o b ta in e d d i­
r e c tly fro m p r o d u c in g c o m p a n ie s o n a v o l­
u n ta ry a n d c o n f id e n tia l b a s is . P r ic e s g e n e r­
a lly a re re p o rte d f o r th e T u e s d a y o f th e w e e k
c o n ta in in g th e 1 3 th d a y o f th e m o n th .
S in c e J a n u a ry 19 9 2 , p r ic e c h a n g e s fo r
th e v a rio u s c o m m o d itie s h a v e b e en a v era g ed
to g e th e r w ith im p lic it q u a n tity w e ig h ts r e p ­
r e s e n tin g th e ir im p o r ta n c e in th e to ta l n e t
s e llin g v a lu e o f a ll c o m m o d itie s as o f 1987.
T h e d e ta ile d d a ta a re a g g re g a te d to o b ta in
in d e x e s fo r s ta g e - o f - p r o c e s s in g g ro u p in g s ,
c o m m o d ity g r o u p in g s , d u r a b ility - o f - p r o d u c t g ro u p in g s , a n d a n u m b e r o f s p e c ia l c o m ­
p o s ite g ro u p s . A ll P ro d u c e r P ric e In d e x d a ta
a re s u b je c t to re v is io n 4 m o n th s a f te r o r ig i­
n a l p u b lic a tio n .
For additional information, c o n ta c t
th e D iv is io n o f In d u s tria l P r ic e s a n d P ric e
In d e x e s : (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 7 7 0 5 .

International Price Indexes
Description of the series
T h e International Price Program p ro d u c e s
m o n th ly a n d q u a r te r ly e x p o r t a n d im p o r t
p r ic e in d e x e s fo r n o n m ilita ry g o o d s a n d se r­
v ic e s tr a d e d b e tw e e n th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d
th e r e s t o f th e w o r ld . T h e e x p o r t p r i c e i n ­
d e x p r o v i d e s a m e a s u r e o f p r ic e c h a n g e
f o r a ll p r o d u c ts s o ld b y U .S . r e s i d e n t s to
f o r e i g n b u y e r s . ( “ R e s i d e n t s ” is d e f in e d as
in t h e n a t i o n a l in c o m e a c c o u n t s ; it i n ­
c lu d e s c o r p o r a t io n s , b u s i n e s s e s , a n d in d i ­
v i d u a l s , b u t d o e s n o t r e q u ir e th e o r g a n i ­
z a tio n s to b e U .S . o w n e d n o r th e in d iv i d u ­
a ls to h a v e U .S . c it i z e n s h i p .) T h e im p o r t
p r i c e in d e x p r o v i d e s a m e a s u r e o f p r ic e
c h a n g e fo r g o o d s p u rc h a s e d fro m o th e r
c o u n tr i e s b y U .S . r e s i d e n t s .
T h e p r o d u c t u n iv e rs e f o r b o th th e im p o rt
a n d e x p o r t in d e x e s in c lu d e s ra w m a te ria ls ,
a g r ic u ltu r a l p r o d u c ts , s e m if in is h e d m a n u ­
f a c tu re s , a n d f in is h e d m a n u fa c tu re s , in c lu d ­
in g b o th c a p ita l a n d c o n s u m e r g o o d s . P ric e
d a ta f o r th e s e ite m s a re c o lle c te d p rim a rily
b y m a il q u e s tio n n a ir e . In n e a rly a ll c a s e s ,
th e d a ta a re c o lle c te d d ire c tly fro m th e e x ­
p o r te r o r im p o rte r, a lth o u g h in a fe w c a s e s,
p ric e s a re o b ta in e d fro m o th e r so u rc e s .
T o th e exjtent p o s s ib le , th e d a ta g a th e re d
r e f e r to p ric e s a t th e U .S . b o r d e r f o r e x p o rts
a n d a t e it h e r th e f o r e ig n b o r d e r o r th e U .S .
b o r d e r f o r im p o r t s . F o r n e a r ly a ll p r o d ­
u c ts , th e p r ic e s r e f e r to t r a n s a c ti o n s c o m ­

64

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

p l e t e d d u r in g th e f i r s t w e e k o f th e m o n th .
S u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s a re a s k e d to i n d ic a te
a ll d i s c o u n ts , a llo w a n c e s , a n d r e b a t e s a p ­
p l ic a b le to th e r e p o r t e d p r i c e s , so t h a t th e
p r ic e u s e d in th e c a lc u la tio n o f th e in d e x e s
is th e a c tu a l p r ic e f o r w h ic h th e p r o d u c t
w a s b o u g h t o r s o ld .
In ad d itio n to g e n era l in d ex e s o f p rice s fo r
U .S . e x p o rts a n d im p o rts, in d e x e s a re also
p u b lis h e d fo r d e ta ile d p ro d u c t c ateg o rie s o f
e x p o rts an d im p o rts. T h e s e c ateg o rie s are d e ­
fin ed acc o rd in g to th e fiv e-d ig it lev el o f detail
fo r th e B u re a u o f E co n o m ic A n a ly sis E n d -u se
C lassification, the th ree-digit level fo r the S tan­
d a rd In tern a tio n a l T rad e C lassific a tio n (SiTC),
an d th e fo u r-d ig it lev el o f detail fo r th e H ar­
m o n iz e d S ystem . A g g reg ate im p o rt indexes by
c o u n try o r re g io n o f o rig in are also availab le.

p u t to r e a l in p u t. A s su c h , th e y e n c o m p a s s a
fa m ily o f m e a s u re s w h ic h in c lu d e s in g le ­
f a c to r in p u t m e a s u re s , s u c h a s o u tp u t p e r
h o u r, o u tp u t p e r u n it o f la b o r in p u t, o r o u t­
p u t p e r u n it o f c a p ita l in p u t, a s w e ll a s m e a ­
su re s o f m u ltifa c to r p ro d u c tiv ity (o u tp u t p e r
u n it o f c o m b in e d la b o r a n d c a p ita l in p u ts ).
T h e B u re a u in d e x e s sh o w th e c h a n g e in o u t­
p u t r e la tiv e to c h a n g e s in th e v a rio u s in p u ts .
T h e m e a s u re s c o v e r th e b u s in e s s , n o n fa rm
b u s in e s s , m a n u f a c tu r in g , a n d n o n fin a n c ia l
c o rp o ra te se c to rs .
C o rre s p o n d in g in d e x e s o f h o u rly c o m ­
p e n s a ti o n , u n i t l a b o r c o s ts , u n i t n o n l a b o r
p a y m e n ts , a n d p r i c e s a r e a ls o p r o v id e d .

bls publishes indexes for selected cat­
egories o f internationally traded services,
calculated on an international basis and on
a balance-of-payments basis.

Output per hour of all persons ( la b o r p r o ­
d u c tiv ity ) is th e q u a n tity o f g o o d s a n d s e r ­
v ic e s p ro d u c e d p e r h o u r o f la b o r in p u t. Out­
put per unit of capital services (c a p ita l p r o ­
d u c tiv ity ) is th e q u a n tity o f g o o d s a n d se r­
v ic e s p r o d u c e d p e r u n it o f c a p ita l s e rv ic e s
in p u t. Multifactor productivity is th e q u a n ­
tity o f g o o d s a n d s e rv ic e s p ro d u c e d p e r c o m ­
b in e d in p u ts . F o r p riv a te b u s in e s s a n d p r i ­
v a te n o n fa rm b u s in e s s , in p u ts in c lu d e la b o r
a n d c a p ita l u n its . F o r m a n u fa c tu rin g , in p u ts
in c lu d e labor, c ap ital, e n erg y , n o n e n e rg y m a ­
te ria ls , a n d p u r c h a s e d b u s in e s s se rv ic e s .
Compensation per hour is to ta l c o m p e n ­
s a tio n d iv id e d b y h o u rs a t w o rk . T o ta l c o m ­
p e n s a tio n e q u a ls th e w a g e s a n d s a la rie s o f
e m p lo y e e s p lu s e m p lo y e rs ’ c o n trib u tio n s fo r
so c ia l in s u ra n c e a n d p r iv a te b e n e f it p la n s ,
p lu s an e s tim a te o f th e s e p a y m e n ts fo r th e
s e lf-e m p lo y e d (e x c e p t f o r n o n f in a n c ia l c o r ­
p o r a tio n s in w h ic h th e r e a re n o s e l f - e m ­
p lo y e d ). Real compensation per hour is
c o m p e n s a t i o n p e r h o u r d e f l a t e d b y th e
c h a n g e in th e C o n s u m e r P r ic e In d e x fo r A ll
U rb a n C o n s u m e rs .
Unit labor costs a re th e la b o r c o m p e n ­
s a t io n c o s ts e x p e n d e d in th e p r o d u c ti o n
o f a u n it o f o u tp u t a n d a re d e r iv e d b y d iv id ­
in g c o m p e n s a tio n b y o u tp u t. Unit nonlabor
payments i n c l u d e p r o f i t s , d e p r e c i a t i o n ,
in te re s t, a n d in d ir e c t ta x e s p e r u n i t o f o u t ­
p u t. T h e y a re c o m p u te d b y s u b tra c tin g
c o m p e n s a tio n o f a ll p e r s o n s f r o m c u r r e n t d o l la r v a lu e o f o u tp u t a n d d i v id i n g b y o u t ­
p u t.

Notes on the data
T h e e x p o r t a n d im p o r t p r ic e in d e x e s a re
w e ig h te d in d e x e s o f th e L a s p e y re s ty p e . T h e
tr a d e w e ig h ts c u r r e n tly u s e d to c o m p u te
b o th in d e x e s re la te to 2 0 0 0 .
B e c a u s e a p r ic e in d e x d e p e n d s o n th e
sa m e ite m s b e in g p r ic e d fro m p e r io d to p e ­
r io d , it is n e c e s s a r y to r e c o g n iz e w h e n a
p r o d u c t’s s p e c ific a tio n s o r te rm s o f tr a n s a c ­
tio n h a v e b e e n m o d ifie d . F o r th is re a s o n , th e
B u r e a u ’s q u e s tio n n a ire re q u e s ts d e ta ile d d e ­
s c r ip tio n s o f th e p h y s ic a l a n d f u n c tio n a l
c h a r a c te ris tic s o f th e p ro d u c ts b e in g p ric e d ,
a s w ell as in fo rm a tio n o n th e n u m b e r o f u n its
b o u g h t o r sold, d isc o u n ts, c red it term s, p a c k ­
ag in g , class o f b u y e r o r seller, an d so forth.
W h e n th ere are c h an g e s in e ith e r th e sp e c ifi­
c atio n s o r term s o f tran sac tio n o f a p ro d u ct,
th e do lla r v alu e o f e ac h c h a n g e is d e le ted fro m
th e to ta l p ric e c h a n g e to o b ta in th e “ p u re ”
ch an g e . O n c e th is v alu e is d eterm in ed , a lin k ­
ing p ro c ed u re is e m p lo y e d w h ic h allo w s fo r
th e co n tin u e d re p ric in g o f the item .
For additional information, c o n ta c t
th e D iv is io n o f In te r n a tio n a l P ric e s : (2 0 2 )
6 9 1 -7 1 5 5 .

Productivity Data
(T ab les 2; 4 8 - 5 1 )

Business and major sectors
Description of the series
T h e p ro d u c tiv ity m e a s u re s re la te re a l o u t­

August 2004

Definitions

Unit nonlabor costs c o n ta i n a ll th e
c o m p o n e n ts o f u n it n o n la b o r p a y m e n ts e x ­
c e p t u n it p ro fits .
Unit profits i n c lu d e c o r p o r a t e p r o f i ts
w ith i n v e n to r y v a lu a t io n a n d c a p i t a l c o n ­
s u m p tio n a d ju s tm e n ts p e r u n it o f o u tp u t.
Hours of all persons a re th e to ta l h o u rs
a t w o rk o f p a y ro ll w o rk e rs , s e lf-e m p lo y e d
p e rs o n s , a n d u n p a id fa m ily w o rk e rs .

Labor inputs a re h o u rs o f all p e rs o n s a d ­
j u s te d fo r th e e ffe c ts o f c h a n g e s in th e e d u ­
c a tio n a n d e x p e r ie n c e o f th e la b o r fo rc e .
Capital services a re th e flo w o f se rv ic e s
fro m th e c a p ita l s to c k u s e d in p ro d u c tio n . It
is d e v e lo p e d fro m m e a s u re s o f th e n e t s to c k
o f p h y s ic a l a s s e ts — e q u ip m e n t, s tru c tu re s ,
la n d , a n d in v e n to r ie s — w e ig h te d b y re n ta l
p ric e s f o r e a c h ty p e o f a sse t.

fo rc e ; c a p ita l in v e s tm e n t; le v e l o f o u tp u t;
c h a n g e s in th e u tiliz a tio n o f c a p a c ity , e n ­
e rg y , m a te ria l, a n d r e s e a r c h a n d d e v e lo p ­
m en t; th e o rg a n iz a tio n o f p ro d u c tio n ; m a n a ­
g e ria l sk ill; a n d c h a ra c te ris tic s a n d e ffo rts
o f th e w o rk fo rc e .
F or additional information o n th is
p ro d u c tiv ity se rie s , c o n ta c t th e D iv is io n o f
P ro d u c tiv ity R e se a rc h : (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 5 6 0 6 .

Combined units of labor and capital
inputs a re d e riv e d b y c o m b in in g c h a n g e s in
la b o r a n d c a p ita l in p u t w ith w e ig h ts w h ic h
r e p re s e n t e a c h c o m p o n e n t’s sh a re o f to ta l
c o st. C o m b in e d u n its o f labor, c ap ital, energy,
m ate ria ls, a n d p u rc h a se d b u sin e ss serv ices are
s im ila rly d e riv e d b y c o m b in in g c h a n g e s in

Industry productivity
measures
Description of the series

e a c h in p u t w ith w e ig h ts th a t re p re se n t e a c h
in p u t’s sh are o f to tal c o sts. T h e in d ex e s fo r

T h e BLS in d u s try p ro d u c tiv ity in d e x e s m e a ­
s u re th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n o u tp u t a n d

e a c h in p u t a n d fo r c o m b in e d u nits are b ased
o n c h an g in g w eig h ts w h ic h are a v erag es o f the

in p u ts f o r s e le c te d in d u s trie s a n d in d u s try
g ro u p s , a n d th u s r e fle c t tre n d s in in d u stry
e ffic ie n c y o v e r tim e . In d u s try m e a s u re s in ­
c lu d e la b o r p ro d u c tiv ity , m u ltif a c to r p r o ­
d u c ti v i ty , c o m p e n s a ti o n , a n d u n i t l a b o r
c o s ts .
T h e in d u s try m e a s u re s d if f e r in m e th ­
o d o lo g y a n d d a ta s o u rc e s fro m th e p r o d u c ­
tiv ity m e a s u r e s f o r th e m a jo r s e c to r s b e ­
c a u s e th e in d u s try m e a s u re s a re d e v e lo p e d
in d e p e n d e n tly o f th e N a tio n a l I n c o m e a n d
P r o d u c t A c c o u n ts f ra m e w o rk u s e d fo r th e
m a jo r s e c to r m e a s u re s .

sh a res in th e c u rre n t an d p re c e d in g y e a r (the
T o m q u ist in d e x -n u m b e r fo rm u la).

Notes on the data
B u s i n e s s s e c t o r o u t p u t is a n a n n u a l l y w e ig h te d in d e x c o n s tr u c te d b y e x c lu d in g
fro m r e a l g ro s s d o m e s tic p r o d u c t (GDP) th e
fo llo w in g o u tp u ts: g e n e ra l g o v e rn m e n t, n o n ­
p ro fit in s titu tio n s , p a id e m p lo y e e s o f p riv a te
h o u s e h o ld s , a n d th e r e n ta l v a lu e o f o w n e ro c c u p ie d d w e llin g s . N o n fa rm b u s in e s s a ls o
e x c lu d e s f a rm in g . P r iv a te b u s in e s s a n d p r i ­
v a te n o n fa rm b u s in e s s f u r th e r e x c lu d e g o v ­
e r n m e n t e n te rp ris e s . T h e m e a s u re s a re s u p ­
p lie d b y th e U .S . D e p a rtm e n t o f C o m m e rc e ’s
B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic A n a ly s is . A n n u a l e s ti­
m a te s o f m a n u f a c tu r in g s e c to ra l o u tp u t a re
p ro d u c e d b y th e B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tistic s .
Q u a r t e r l y m a n u f a c t u r i n g o u t p u t in d e x e s
fro m th e F e d e ra l R e s e rv e B o a rd a re a d ju s te d
to th e s e a n n u a l o u tp u t m e a s u re s b y th e BLS.
C o m p e n s a tio n d a ta a re d e v e lo p e d fro m d a ta
o f th e B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic A n a ly s is a n d th e
B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s . H o u rs d a ta a re
d e v e lo p e d fro m d a ta o f th e B u re a u o f L a b o r
S ta tis tic s .
T h e p r o d u c ti v i ty a n d a s s o c i a t e d c o s t
m e a s u r e s in ta b le s 4 8 - 5 1 d e s c rib e th e r e la ­
tio n s h ip b e tw e e n o u tp u t in re a l te rm s an d
th e la b o r a n d c a p ita l in p u ts in v o lv e d in its
p r o d u c tio n . T h e y sh o w th e c h a n g e s fro m p e ­
r io d to p e r io d in th e a m o u n t o f g o o d s a n d
s e rv ic e s p r o d u c e d p e r u n it o f in p u t.
A lth o u g h th e s e m e a s u re s r e la te o u tp u t to
h o u r s a n d c a p ita l s e rv ic e s , th e y d o n o t m e a ­
s u re th e c o n tr ib u tio n s o f lab o r, c a p ita l, o r
a n y o t h e r s p e c if i c f a c t o r o f p r o d u c ti o n .
R a th e r, th e y r e fle c t th e j o in t e f fe c t o f m a n y
in f lu e n c e s , in c lu d in g c h a n g e s in t e c h n o l­
o g y ; sh ifts in th e c o m p o s itio n o f th e la b o r


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

d u c in g th a t o u tp u t.

Combined inputs

in ­

c lu d e c a p ita l, la b o r, a n d in te r m e d ia te p u r ­
c h a s e s . T h e m e a s u r e o f capital input r e p ­
r e s e n ts th e flo w o f s e rv ic e s fro m th e c a p ita l
s to c k u s e d in p ro d u c tio n . I t is d e v e lo p e d
fro m m e a s u re s o f th e n e t s to c k o f p h y s ic a l
a s s e ts — e q u ip m e n t, s tru c tu re s , la n d , a n d in ­
v e n to r ie s . T h e m e a s u r e o f intermediate
purchases is a c o m b in a tio n o f p u rc h a s e d
m a te ria ls , s e rv ic e s , fu e ls , a n d e le c tric ity .

Notes on the data
T h e in d u s try m e a s u re s a re c o m p ile d fro m
d a ta p r o d u c e d b y th e B u r e a u o f L a b o r S ta ­
tis tic s a n d th e C e n s u s B u re a u , w ith a d d i­
tio n a l d a ta s u p p lie d b y o th e r g o v e r n m e n t
a g e n c ie s , tra d e a s s o c ia tio n s , a n d o th e r
so u rc e s .
FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION On th is s e ­
rie s , c o n ta c t th e D iv is io n o f I n d u s try P r o ­
d u c tiv ity S tu d ie s : (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 5 6 1 8 .

International Comparisons
(T a b le s 5 2 - 5 4 )

Labor force and
unemployment
Description of the series

Definitions

T a b le s 5 2 a n d 5 3 p r e s e n t c o m p a ra tiv e m e a s ­

Output per hour is

d e riv e d b y d iv id in g an
in d e x o f in d u s try o u tp u t by an in d e x o f la ­
b o r in p u t. F o r m o s t in d u s trie s , output in ­
d e x e s a re d e riv e d fro m d a ta o n th e v a lu e o f
in d u s try o u tp u t a d ju s te d fo r p ric e c h a n g e .
F o r th e re m a in in g in d u s trie s , o u tp u t in d e x e s
a re d e riv e d fro m d a ta o n th e p h y s ic a l q u a n ­
tity o f p r o d u c tio n .
T h e labor input s e rie s is b a s e d o n th e
h o u rs o f a ll w o rk e rs o r, in th e c a s e o f so m e
tr a n s p o r ta tio n in d u s trie s , o n th e n u m b e r o f
e m p lo y e e s . F o r m o s t in d u s trie s , th e s e rie s
c o n s is ts o f th e h o u rs o f a ll e m p lo y e e s . F o r
s o m e tra d e a n d s e rv ic e s in d u s trie s , th e s e ­
r ie s a ls o in c lu d e s th e h o u rs o f p a rtn e rs , p r o ­
p rie to rs , a n d u n p a id fa m ily w o rk e rs.
Unit labor costs r e p r e s e n t th e la b o r
c o m p e n s a tio n c o s ts p e r u n it o f o u tp u t p r o ­
d u c e d , a n d a re d e riv e d by d iv id in g an in d e x
o f la b o r c o m p e n s a tio n b y a n in d e x o f o u t­
p u t.

Labor compensation

in c lu d e s p a y ro ll

a s w e ll a s s u p p le m e n ta l p a y m e n ts , in c lu d ­
in g b o th le g a lly re q u ir e d e x p e n d itu re s a n d
p a y m e n ts fo r v o lu n ta ry p ro g ra m s .

Multifactor productivity is d e riv e d by
d iv id in g an in d e x o f in d u s try o u tp u t b y an
in d e x o f c o m b in e d in p u ts c o n s u m e d in p r o ­

u re s o f th e la b o r fo rc e , e m p lo y m e n t, a n d
u n e m p l o y m e n t a p p r o x im a t i n g U .S . c o n ­
c e p ts fo r th e U n ite d S ta te s , C a n a d a , A u s tr a ­
lia , J a p a n , a n d six E u ro p e a n c o u n trie s . T h e
la b o r fo rce statistics p u b lis h e d by o th e r in d u s­
trial c o u n tries are n o t, in m o s t cases, c o m p a ­
ra b le to U .S . co n ce p ts. T h e re fo re , th e B u re au
ad ju sts th e fig u res fo r se le c te d c o u n tries, fo r
all k n o w n m a jo r d efin itio n al differen ces, to th e
e x te n t th a t d a ta to p re p a re a d ju s tm e n ts are
available. A lth o u g h p re cise co m p a rab ility m ay
n o t b e ach iev e d , th ese a d ju s te d fig u res p ro ­
v id e a b e tte r b asis fo r in te rn atio n al c o m p a ri­
sons th an th e fig u res re g u la rly p u b lis h e d by
e a c h country. F o r fu rth e r in fo rm a tio n o n ad ­
j u s t m e n t s a n d c o m p a r a b i l it y is s u e s , s e e
C o n sta n c e S o rre n tin o , “ In te rn a tio n a l u n e m ­
p lo y m e n t rates: h o w c o m p a ra b le are th e y ? ”
M on th ly L a b o r R eview , Ju n e 2 0 0 0 , pp . 3 - 2 0
( a v a ila b le o n th e BLS W e b s ite a t http://

www.bls.gov/opub/m lr/2000/06/
artlfull.pdf).

Definitions
F o r th e p rin c ip a l U .S . d e f in itio n s o f th e la ­
b o r f o rc e , e m p lo y m e n t, a n d u n e m p lo y m e n t,
se e th e N o te s s e c tio n o n E m p lo y m e n t a n d

Monthly Labor Review August 2004

65

Current Labor Statistics

U n e m p lo y m e n t D a ta : H o u s e h o l d s u r v e y
d a ta .

Notes on the data
The f o r e ig n c o u n tr y d a ta a r e a d ju s te d as
c lo se ly as p o ss ib le to U .S . c o n ce p ts, w ith th e
e x ce p tio n o f lo w e r a g e lim its an d th e trea tm e n t
o f lay o ffs. T h e s e a d ju stm e n ts inclu d e, b u t a re
n o t lim ite d to: in clu d in g o ld e r p e rso n s in th e
lab o r fo rce b y im p o s in g n o u p p e r a g e lim it,
a d d i n g u n e m p l o y e d s t u d e n t s to th e
u n em p lo y ed , e x clu d in g th e m ilitary and fam ily
w o rk e rs w o rk in g fe w e r th an 15 h o u rs fro m the
e m p lo y e d , a n d e x c lu d in g p e rs o n s e n g a g e d in
p a s s iv e j o b s e a rc h fro m th e u n e m p lo y e d .
D a ta f o r th e U n ite d S ta te s r e la te to th e
p o p u la tio n 16 y e a rs o f ag e a n d older. T h e U .S .
c o n c e p t o f th e w o rk in g a g e p o p u la tio n h a s
n o u p p e r a g e lim it. T h e a d ju s te d to U .S .
c o n c e p ts sta tistic s h a v e b e en a d a p te d , in so fa r
as p o s s ib le , to th e a g e a t w h ic h c o m p u ls o ry
s c h o o l in g e n d s in e a c h c o u n tr y , a n d th e
S w e d i s h s t a ti s t i c s h a v e b e e n a d ju s te d to
in c lu d e p e rso n s o ld e r th an th e S w e d is h u p p e r
a g e lim it o f 6 4 y e a rs. T h e a d ju s te d sta tistic s
p r e s e n te d h e re r e la te to th e p o p u la tio n 16
y e a rs o f a g e a n d o ld e r in F ra n c e , S w e d e n ,
a n d th e U n ite d K in g d o m ; 15 y e a rs o f a g e a n d
o ld e r in A u s tra lia , J a p a n , G e rm a n y , Italy , a n d
th e N e th e rla n d s . A n e x c e p tio n to th is ru le is
th a t th e C a n a d ia n s ta tistic s a re a d ju s te d to
c o v e r th e p o p u la tio n 16 y e a rs o f a g e a n d
o ld er, w h e re a s th e a g e a t w h ic h c o m p u ls o ry
sc h o o lin g en d s rem ain s at 15 years. In the labor
f o r c e p a r tic ip a tio n ra te s a n d e m p lo y m e n tp o p u l a t i o n r a tio s , th e d e n o m in a to r is th e
c iv ilia n n o n in s t it u t io n a l iz e d w o r k in g a g e
p o p u la tio n , e x c e p t th a t th e in stitu tio n a liz e d
w o rk in g ag e p o p u la tio n is in clu d e d in Ja p a n
a n d G erm an y .
In th e U n i t e d S ta te s , th e u n e m p l o y e d
in c lu d e p e rs o n s w h o a re n o t e m p lo y e d a n d
w h o w e re a c tiv e ly s e e k in g w o rk d u rin g th e
re fe re n c e p e rio d , as w e ll as p e rso n s o n layoff.
P e rs o n s w a itin g to sta rt a n e w jo b w h o w e re
a c tiv e ly se e k in g w o rk d u rin g th e re fe re n c e
p e rio d a re c o u n te d as u n e m p lo y e d u n d e r U .S .
c o n c e p ts ; i f th e y w e re n o t a c tiv e ly se e k in g
w o rk , th e y a re n o t c o u n te d in th e la b o r fo rce .
In s o m e c o u n tr ie s , p e r s o n s o n l a y o f f a re
c la s s ifie d as e m p lo y e d d u e to th e ir stro n g jo b
a tta c h m e n t. N o a d ju s tm e n t is m a d e fo r th e
c o u n tr ie s t h a t c la s s if y th o s e o n l a y o f f as
e m p lo y e d . In th e U n ited S tates, as in A u stra lia
a n d J a p a n , p a s s iv e j o b s e e k e rs a re n o t in th e
la b o r fo rc e ; j o b s e a rc h m u s t b e a c tiv e , su c h
a s p l a c i n g o r a n s w e r in g a d v e r t is e m e n ts ,
c o n ta c tin g e m p lo y e rs d ire c tly ,o r re g is te rin g
w ith a n e m p lo y m e n t a g e n c y (sim p ly re a d in g
a d s is n o t e n o u g h to q u a lify as a c tiv e se a rc h ).
C a n a d a a n d th e E u ro p e a n c o u n trie s c la ss ify

66

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

p a s s iv e jo b s e e k e rs as u n e m p lo y e d . A n
ad ju stm e n t is m ad e to ex clu d e th em in C anada,
b u t n o t in the E u ro p ea n c o u n tries w h e re th e
p h e n o m e n o n is less prev alen t. P e rso n s w aitin g
to s ta rt a n e w j o b a re c o u n te d a m o n g th e
u n e m p lo y e d fo r all o th e r co u n tries, w h e th er
o r n o t th ey w e re activ ely se e k in g w ork.
T h e fig u re s fo r o n e o r m o re re c e n t y e a rs
fo r F ra n c e, G e rm an y , an d th e N e th e rla n d s are
c a lc u la te d u sin g a d ju s tm e n t fa c to rs b a s e d o n
la b o r fo rc e s u rv e y s fo r e a rlie r y e a rs a n d a re
c o n s i d e r e d p r e lim in a r y . T h e r e c e n t y e a r
m e a s u re s f o r th e s e c o u n trie s a re th e re fo re
s u b je c t to r e v is io n w h e n e v e r m o re c u rre n t
la b o r fo rc e su rv e y s b e c o m e a v a ila b le .
T h e re a re b re a k s in se rie s fo r th e U n ite d
S ta te s ( 1 9 9 4 ,1 9 9 7 ,1 9 9 8 ,1 9 9 9 ,2 0 0 0 ,2 0 0 3 ) ,
A u s tra lia (2 0 0 1 ), a n d G e rm a n y (1 9 9 9 ).
F o r th e U n ite d S ta te s, b e g in n in g in 1994,
d a ta are n o t strictly c o m p a rab le fo r p rio r y ears
b e c a u s e o f th e in tro d u c tio n o f a m a jo r
re d e s ig n o f th e la b o r fo rc e su rv e y q u e s tio n ­
n a ire a n d c o lle c tio n m e th o d o lo g y . T h e
re d e sig n e ffe c t h a s b e en e stim a te d to in cre ase
t h e o v e r a l l u n e m p l o y m e n t r a t e b y 0 .1
p e rc e n ta g e p o in t. O th e r b re a k s n o te d re la te
to c h a n g e s in p o p u la tio n c o n tro ls th a t h a d
v irtu a lly n o e ffe c t o n u n e m p lo y m e n t ra te s.
F o r a d e s c rip tio n o f a ll th e c h a n g e s in th e
U .S . la b o r fo rc e su rv e y o v e r tim e a n d th e ir
im p a c t, see H isto ric a l C o m p a ra b ility in th e
“ H o u s e h o ld D a ta ” se c tio n o f th e bls p u b li­
c a tio n E m p lo y m en t a n d E a rn in g s (a v a ila b le
o n th e bls W eb site a t http://www.bls.gov/

For additional information o n th is
s e rie s , c o n ta c t th e D iv is io n o f F o re ig n
L a b o r S ta tis tic s : (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 -5 6 5 4 o r
flshelp@bls.gov

Manufacturing productivity
and labor costs
Description of the series
T a b le 5 4 p re s e n ts c o m p a ra tiv e in d e x e s o f
m an u fa ctu rin g lab o r p ro d u c tiv ity (o u tp u t p e r
h o u r), o u tp u t, to ta l h o u rs, c o m p e n sa tio n p e r
hour, a n d u n it lab o r co sts fo r th e U n ited S tates,
C a n ad a , Ja p a n , an d n in e E u ro p e a n c o u n tries.
T h e s e m ea su re s are tren d c o m p a riso n s— th at
is, series th a t m e a su re c h an g e s o v e r tim e —
ra th e r th an level com parisons. T h ere are g reater
tec h n ica l p ro b lem s in c o m p a rin g th e lev els o f
m an u fa ctu rin g o u tp u t a m o n g co u n tries.
bls c o n s tru c ts th e c o m p a r a tiv e in d e x e s
fro m th re e b a s ic a g g re g a te m e a s u re s — o u t­
p u t, to ta l la b o r h o u rs , a n d to ta l c o m p e n s a ­
tio n . T h e h o u rs a n d c o m p e n s a tio n m e a s u re s
re fe r to a ll e m p lo y e d p e r s o n s (w a g e a n d s a l­
a ry e a rn e rs p lu s s e lf - e m p lo y e d p e r s o n s a n d
u n p a id fa m ily w o rk e rs ) in th e U n ite d S ta te s,
C a n a d a , J a p a n , F ra n c e , G e rm a n y , N o rw a y ,
a n d S w e d e n , a n d to a ll e m p lo y e e s (w a g e a n d
s a la ry e a rn e rs ) in th e o th e r c o u n trie s .

Definitions

cps/eetech_methods.pdf).
F o r A u s tra lia , th e 2001 b re a k re fle c ts th e
in tro d u c tio n in A p ril 2001 o f a re d e s ig n e d
la b o r fo rc e su rv e y th a t a llo w e d fo r a c lo s e r
a p p lic a tio n o f I n te r n a tio n a l L a b o r O f f ic e
g u id e lin e s f o r th e d e fin itio n s o f la b o r fo rc e
sta tistic s. T h e A u s tra lia n B u re a u o f S ta tistic s
re v is e d th e ir d a ta so th e re is n o b re a k in th e
e m p lo y m e n t se rie s . H o w e v e r, th e re c la s s i­
f ic a tio n o f p e r s o n s w h o h a d n o t a c tiv e ly
lo o k e d fo r w o rk be ca u se th ey w ere w a itin g to
b e g in a n e w jo b fro m “n o t in th e la b o r fo rc e ”
to “ u n e m p lo y e d ” c o u ld o n ly b e in co rp o ra te d
fo r A p ril 2001 forw ard . T h is re classific a tio n
d iv e r g e s f r o m th e U .S . d e f in i t io n w h e r e
p e rs o n s w a itin g to sta rt a n e w jo b b u t n o t
activ ely se e k in g w o rk are n o t c o u n te d in the
la b o r force. T h e im p a c t o f th e re classific a tio n
w a s an in cre ase in th e u n e m p lo y m e n t ra te by
0.1 p e rce n ta g e p o in t in 2001.
F o r G e rm a n y , th e 1999 b re a k re fle c ts th e
in c o rp o ra tio n o f a n im p ro v e d m e th o d o f d a ta
c a l c u l a ti o n a n d a c h a n g e in c o v e r a g e to
p e rso n s liv in g in p riv a te h o u s e h o ld s only.
F o r fu rth e r q u a lific a tio n s a n d h is to ric a l
d a ta , see C o m p a ra tiv e C ivilia n L a b o r F o rc e
S ta tistic s, Ten C o u n tries, o n th e BLS W eb site
a t http ://www.bls.gov/fls/flslforc.pdf

August 2004

Output, in g e n e ra l, r e fe r s to v a lu e a d d e d in
m a n u fa c tu rin g fro m th e n a tio n a l a c c o u n ts
o f e a c h c o u n try . H o w e v e r, th e o u tp u t s e ­
r ie s f o r J a p a n p r io r to 1 9 7 0 is a n in d e x o f
in d u s tria l p ro d u c tio n , a n d th e n a tio n a l a c ­
c o u n ts m e a s u re s fo r th e U n ite d K in g d o m
a re e s s e n tia lly id e n tic a l to th e ir in d e x e s o f
in d u s tria l p ro d u c tio n .
T h e 1 9 7 7 - 9 7 o u tp u t d a ta fo r th e U n ite d
S ta te s a r e th e g r o s s p r o d u c t o r i g in a t in g
( v a lu e a d d e d ) m e a s u r e s p r e p a r e d b y th e
B u re a u o f E c o n o m ic A n a ly s is o f th e U .S .
D e p a rtm e n t o f C o m m e rc e . C o m p a ra b le
m a n u fa c tu rin g o u tp u t d a ta c u rre n tly a re n o t
a v a ila b le p r io r to 1977.
U .S . g ro ss p ro d u c t o rig in a tin g is a c h a in ty p e a n n u a l- w e ig h te d s e rie s . (F o r m o r e in ­
f o rm a tio n o n th e U .S . m e a s u re , se e R o b e rt
E . Y u sk av a g e, “ Im p ro v e d E stim a te s o f G ro s s
P r o d u c t b y In d u s try , 1 9 5 9 - 9 4 ,” S u rv e y o f
C u rre n t B u s in e ss, A u g u s t 1 9 9 6 , p p . B B ­
SS.) T h e Ja p a n e s e v a lu e a d d e d se rie s is b a se d
u p o n o n e s e t o f f ix e d p ric e w e ig h ts fo r th e
y e a rs 19 7 0 th ro u g h 1997. O u tp u t se rie s fo r
th e o th e r f o r e ig n e c o n o m ie s a ls o e m p lo y
fix e d p ric e w e ig h ts , b u t th e w e ig h ts a re u p ­
d a te d p e rio d ica lly (fo r e x am p le, e v e ry 5 o r 10
y e a rs).

T o p re s e rv e th e c o m p a ra b ility o f th e U .S .
m e a s u re s w ith th o s e f o r o th e r e c o n o m ie s ,
BLS u s e s g ro s s p r o d u c t o rig in a tin g in m a n u ­
fa c tu rin g fo r th e U n ite d S ta te s fo r th e s e c o m ­
p a r a tiv e m e a s u re s . T h e g ro s s p r o d u c t o r ig i­
n a tin g s e rie s d iffe rs fro m th e m a n u f a c tu r ­
in g o u tp u t s e rie s th a t BLS p u b lis h e s in its
n e w s re le a s e s o n q u a r te r ly m e a s u re s o f U .S .
p ro d u c tiv ity a n d c o sts (a n d th a t u n d e rlie s th e
m e a s u r e s th a t a p p e a r in ta b le s 48 a n d 5 0 in
th is s e c tio n ). T h e q u a r te r ly m e a s u re s a re o n
a “ se c to ra l o u tp u t” b a sis, ra th e r th an a v a lu e a d d e d b a sis. S e c to ra l o u tp u t is g ro s s o u tp u t
le s s in tr a s e c to r tra n s a c tio n s .
Total labor hours re fe rs to h o u rs w o rk e d
in a ll c o u n trie s . T h e m e a s u re s a re d e v e l­
o p e d fro m s ta tis tic s o f m a n u fa c tu rin g e m ­
p lo y m e n t a n d a v e ra g e h o u rs. T h e se rie s u se d
fo r F ra n c e (fro m 1 9 7 0 fo rw a rd ), N o rw a y ,
a n d S w e d e n a re o ffic ia l series p u b lis h e d w ith
th e n a tio n a l a c c o u n ts . W h e re o ffic ia l to ta l
h o u rs se rie s a re n o t a v a ila b le , th e m e a s u re s
a re d e v e lo p e d b y BLS u sin g e m p lo y m e n t fig ­
u re s p u b lis h e d w ith th e n a tio n a l a c c o u n ts ,
o r o th e r c o m p r e h e n s iv e e m p lo y m e n t se rie s ,
a n d e s tim a te s o f a n n u a l h o u rs w o rk e d . F o r
G e r m a n y , bls u s e s e s t im a te s o f a v e r a g e
h o u rs w o rk e d d e v e lo p e d b y a r e s e a r c h in ­
s titu te c o n n e c te d to th e M in is try o f L a b o r
f o r u s e w ith th e n a tio n a l a c c o u n ts e m p lo y ­
m e n t f ig u re s . F o r th e o th e r c o u n trie s , bls
c o n s t r u c t s its o w n e s t im a te s o f a v e r a g e
h o u rs .
A n h o u r s s e rie s is n o t a v a ila b le f o r D e n ­
m a r k a f te r 1 9 9 3 ; th e r e f o r e , th e bls m e a ­
s u r e o f la b o r in p u t f o r D e n m a r k e n d s in
1993.
Total compensation (labor cost) i n ­
c lu d e s a ll p a y m e n ts in c a s h o r in -k in d m a d e
d ir e c tly to e m p lo y e e s p lu s e m p lo y e r e x p e n ­
d itu r e s fo r le g a lly r e q u ir e d in s u ra n c e p r o ­
g ra m s a n d c o n tr a c tu a l a n d p riv a te b e n e fit
p la n s . T h e m e a s u re s a re fro m th e n a tio n a l
a c c o u n ts o f e a c h c o u n try , e x c e p t th o s e f o r
B e lg iu m , w h ic h a re d e v e lo p e d b y bls u s in g
s ta tistic s o n e m p lo y m e n t, a v e ra g e h o u rs, an d
h o u rly c o m p e n s a tio n . F o r C a n a d a , F ra n c e ,
a n d S w e d e n , c o m p e n s a tio n is in c re a s e d to
a c c o u n t f o r o th e r s ig n if ic a n t ta x e s o n p a y ­
ro ll o r e m p lo y m e n t. F o r th e U n ite d K in g ­
d o m , c o m p e n s a tio n is re d u c e d b e tw e e n 1967
a n d 1991 to a c c o u n t f o r e m p lo y m e n t-re la te d
s u b s id ie s . S e lf - e m p lo y e d w o r k e r s a re in ­
c lu d e d in th e a ll-e m p lo y e d -p e rso n s m e a su re s
b y a s s u m in g th a t t h e ir h o u rly c o m p e n s a tio n
is e q u a l to th e a v e ra g e f o r w a g e a n d sa la ry
e m p lo y e e s .

Notes on the data
In g e n e ra l, th e m e a su re s r e la te to to ta l m a n u ­
f a c t u r in g a s d e f in e d b y th e I n te r n a tio n a l


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

S ta n d a rd In d u stria l C la ssific a tio n . H o w ev e r,
th e m e a s u re s fo r F ra n c e (fo r a ll y e a rs ) a n d
Ita ly (b e g in n in g in 1 970) re fe r to m in in g a n d
m a n u fa c tu rin g less e n e rg y -re la te d p ro d u c ts ,
a n d th e m e a s u re s fo r D e n m a rk in c lu d e m in ­
in g a n d e x c lu d e m a n u fa c tu rin g h a n d ic ra fts
fro m 196 0 to 1966.
T h e m e a s u re s fo r r e c e n t y e a rs m a y b e
b a s e d o n c u rre n t in d ic a to rs o f m a n u f a c tu r ­
in g o u tp u t (s u c h a s in d u s tria l p r o d u c tio n in ­
d e x e s ) , e m p lo y m e n t, a v e r a g e h o u r s , a n d
h o u rly c o m p e n s a tio n u n til n a tio n a l a c c o u n ts
a n d o th e r s ta tis tic s u s e d f o r th e lo n g -te rm
m e a s u re s b e c o m e a v a ila b le .
For additional information o n th is se ­
rie s , c o n ta c t th e D iv is io n o f F o re ig n L a b o r
S ta tistic s : (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 5 6 5 4 .

Occupational Injury
and Illness Data
(T a b le s 5 5 - 5 6 )

Survey of Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses

Occupational injury is a n y in ju ry s u c h
as a c u t, f r a c tu r e , s p ra in , o r a m p u ta tio n th a t
re s u lts fro m a w o rk -re la te d e v e n t o r a
s in g le , in s ta n ta n e o u s e x p o s u r e in th e w o rk
e n v ir o n m e n t.
Occupational illness is a n a b n o rm a l c o n ­
d itio n o r d iso rd e r, o th e r th a n o n e re su ltin g
fro m an o c c u p a tio n a l in ju ry , c a u s e d b y e x ­
p o s u re to fa c to rs a s s o c ia te d w ith e m p lo y ­
m en t. It in c lu d e s a cu te a n d c h ro n ic illn e sse s
o r d ise a s e w h ic h m ay b e c a u s e d b y in h a la ­
tio n , a b so rp tio n , in g e s tio n , o r d ire c t c o n ta c t.
Lost workday injuries and illnesses are
c a s e s th a t in v o lv e d a y s a w a y fro m w o rk , o r
d a y s o f r e s tr ic te d w o rk a c tiv ity , o r b o th .
Lost workdays in c lu d e th e n u m b e r o f
w o rk d a y s (c o n se c u tiv e o r n o t) o n w h ic h th e
e m p lo y e e w a s e ith e r a w a y fro m w o rk o r a t
w o rk in so m e re s tric te d c ap a city , o r b o th , b e ­
c au se o f an o c c u p a tio n a l in ju ry o r illn e ss, bls
m e a su re s o f th e n u m b e r a n d in c id e n c e ra te
o f lo st w o rk d a y s w e re d is c o n tin u e d b e g in ­
n in g w ith th e 1993 su rvey. T h e n u m b e r o f
d a y s a w a y fro m w o rk o r d a y s o f re s tric te d
w o rk a c tiv ity d o e s n o t in c lu d e th e d a y o f in ­
ju ry o r o n se t o f illn e ss o r a n y d a y s o n w h ic h
th e e m p lo y e e w o u ld n o t h a v e w o rk e d , s u c h
a s a F e d e ra l h o lid a y , e v e n th o u g h a b le to
w o rk .

Description of the series
T h e S u rv ey o f O c cu p a tio n a l In ju ries an d Ill­
n e sse s c o lle c ts d a ta fro m e m p lo y e rs a b o u t
th eir w o rk e rs’ jo b -relate d no n fatal injuries and
illnesses. T h e in fo rm a tio n th a t e m p lo y e rs p ro ­
v id e is ba se d o n re co rd s th at th ey m ain tain u n ­
d e r the O c cu p a tio n a l S a fe ty an d H e alth A c t o f
1970. S e lf-em p lo y ed in d iv id u als, fa rm s w ith
fe w er th an 11 e m p lo y ees, em p lo y e rs reg u lated
by o th e r F e d e ral safety an d h e alth law s, an d
F e d e ral, S tate, an d lo cal g o v e rn m e n t ag en c ie s
are e x clu d ed fro m th e survey.
T h e s u rv e y is a F e d e ra l-S ta te c o o p e r a ­
tiv e p ro g ra m w ith a n in d e p e n d e n t s a m p le
s e le c te d f o r e a c h p a rtic ip a tin g S tate. A stra ti­
fie d r a n d o m s a m p le w ith a N e y m a n a llo c a ­
tio n is s e le c te d to r e p re s e n t all p riv a te in ­
d u s trie s in th e S ta te . T h e s u rv e y is s tra tifie d
b y S ta n d a r d I n d u s tr ia l C la s s if ic a tio n a n d
s iz e o f e m p lo y m e n t.

Definitions
U n d e r th e O c c u p a tio n a l S a fe ty a n d H e a lth
A c t, e m p lo y e rs m a in ta in re c o rd s o f n o n f a ­
tal w o rk -re la te d in ju rie s a n d illn e s s e s th a t
in v o lv e o n e o r m o re o f th e fo llo w in g : lo ss
o f c o n s c io u s n e s s , re s tric tio n o f w o rk o r m o ­
tio n , t r a n s f e r to a n o th e r j o b , o r m e d ic a l
tre a tm e n t o th e r th a n firs t aid.

Incidence rates

a re c o m p u te d a s th e

n u m b e r o f in ju rie s a n d /o r illn e s s e s o r lo st
w o rk d a y s p e r 100 f u ll- tim e w o rk e rs .

Notes on the data
T h e d e fin itio n s o f o c c u p a tio n a l in ju rie s a n d
illn e s s e s a re f ro m R e c o r d k e e p in g G u id e ­
lin e s f o r O c c u p a tio n a l I n ju r ie s a n d I l l ­
n e ss e s (U .S . D e p a r tm e n t o f L a b o r, B u re a u
o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s , S e p te m b e r 19 8 6 ).
E stim a te s are m ad e fo r in d u strie s a n d e m ­
p lo y m e n t s iz e c la s s e s fo r to ta l r e c o r d a b le
c ases, lo st w o rk d a y c a s e s, d a y s a w ay fro m
w o rk c ases, a n d n o n fa ta l c ases w ith o u t lo st
w o rk d a y s. T h e s e d a ta also are sh o w n se p a ­
rately fo r injuries. Illn e ss d a ta are a v ailab le fo r
se v e n categ o ries: o c c u p a tio n a l sk in d ise ases
o r d iso rd ers, d u st d ise ases o f the lu n g s, re sp i­
ra to ry c o n d itio n s d u e to to x ic ag en ts, p o iso n ­
ing (sy stem ic effects o f to x ic a g en ts), d iso r­
d ers d u e to p h y sic a l a g en ts (o th er th an to x ic
m ate ria ls), d iso rd e rs a sso c ia te d w ith re p e a te d
trau m a, an d all oth er occupational illnesses.
T h e su rv ey c o n tin u e s to m e a su re th e n u m ­
b e r o f n e w w o rk -re la ted illn ess c ases w h ic h
are re co g n ize d , d iag n o sed , an d re p o rte d d u r­
ing th e year. S o m e c o n d itio n s, fo r ex am p le,
lo n g -te rm la te n t illn esses c a u s e d by e x p o su re
to c arc in o g e n s, o ften are d iffic u lt to re la te to
the w o rk p la ce a n d are n o t a d eq u a te ly re c o g ­
n ize d a n d re p o rte d . T h e s e lo n g -te rm la te n t ill-

Monthly Labor Review August 2004

67

Current Labor Statistics

n e sse s are b e lie v ed to b e u n d e rstated in th e
s u rv e y ’s illn ess m easu re. In c o n trast, th e o v e r­
w h e lm in g m ajo rity o f th e re p o rte d n e w ill­
n e sse s are th o se w h ic h are e a s ie r to d irectly
re la te to w o rk p la ce activ ity (fo r ex am p le, c o n ­
tac t d e rm a titis an d c arp a l tu n n el sy n d ro m e).
M o s t o f th e e s tim a te s are in th e fo rm o f
in c id e n c e ra te s, d e fin e d as th e n u m b e r o f in ­
ju r ie s a n d illn e sse s p e r 100 e q u iv a le n t fu ll­
tim e w o rk e rs. F o r th is p u rp o se , 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 e m ­
p lo y e e h o u rs r e p re s e n t 100 e m p lo y e e y e a rs
(2 ,0 0 0 h o u rs p e r e m p lo y e e ). F u ll d e ta il o n
th e a v a ila b le m e a su re s is p re s e n te d in th e a n ­
n u a l b u lle tin , O c c u p a tio n a l In ju ries a n d I ll­
n e sses: C o u n ts, R a tes, a n d C h a ra c te ristic s.
C o m p a ra b le d a ta fo r m o re th an 4 0 S tates

in d u strie s a n d fo r in d iv id u a l S tates a t m o re
ag g reg a te d in d u stry levels.

Definition

For additional information on o c c u p a ­
tio n a l in ju rie s a n d illn e s s e s , c o n ta c t th e O f­

A fatal work injury is a n y in te n tio n a l o r u n ­
in te n tio n a l w o u n d o r d a m a g e to th e b o d y re ­
su ltin g in d e a th fro m a cu te e x p o su re to energ y ,
su c h as h e a t o r e lectricity , o r k in etic e n erg y
fro m a c rash , o r fro m th e a b se n c e o f su c h e s­
sen tials as h e a t o r o x y g e n c a u s e d b y a sp ecific
e v e n t o r in c id e n t o r series o f e v en ts w ith in a
sin g le w o rk d a y o r shift. F a talitie s th a t o c c u r
d u rin g a p e rs o n ’s c o m m u te to o r fro m w o rk
are e x c lu d e d fro m th e c en su s, as w ell as w o rk r e l a t e d i ll n e s s e s , w h i c h c a n b e d i f f i c u l t
to id en tify d u e to lo n g late n cy p e rio d s .

f ic e o f O c c u p a t io n a l S a f e ty , H e a l t h a n d
W o rk in g C o n d itio n s a t (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 6 1 8 0 , o r
a c c e s s th e In te rn e t at:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/

Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries
T h e C e n s u s o f F a ta l O c c u p a tio n a l In ju rie s
c o m p ile s a c o m p le te r o s te r o f fa ta l jo b - r e ­

fic e o f S afety , H e a lth a n d W o rk in g C o n d i­

la te d in ju rie s , in c lu d in g d e ta ile d d a ta a b o u t
th e f a ta ll y in ju r e d w o r k e r s a n d th e f a ta l

tio n s . M a n y o f th ese S tates p u b lis h d a ta on

e v e n t s . T h e p r o g r a m c o ll e c t s a n d c r o s s

a n d territo rie s are a v ailab le fro m th e BLS O f­

S tate a n d lo cal g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo y e es in a d ­
d itio n to p riv ate in d u stry data.
M in in g an d ra ilro ad d a ta are fu rn ish e d to
bls b y th e M in e S a fe ty a n d H e alth A d m in is­

tratio n a n d th e F e d e ra l R a ilro a d A d m in istra ­
tio n . D a ta fro m th e s e o rg a n iz a tio n s a re in ­
c lu d e d in b o th th e n atio n al an d S tate d a ta p u b ­
lish ed an n u ally .
W ith th e 1992 survey, bls b e g a n p u b lis h ­
in g d e ta ils o n serio u s, n o n fa ta l in cid en ts re ­
su ltin g in d a y s a w ay fro m w o rk . In c lu d e d are

c h e c k s fa ta lity in f o r m a tio n fro m m u ltip le
s o u rc e s , in c lu d in g d e a th c e rtific a te s , S ta te
a n d F e d e ra l w o r k e r s ’ c o m p e n s a tio n re p o rts ,
O c c u p a tio n a l S a fe ty a n d H e a lth A d m in is tra ­
tio n a n d M in e S a fe ty a n d H e a lth A d m in is ­
tr a tio n re c o rd s , m e d ic a l e x a m in e r a n d a u ­
to p s y re p o rts , m e d ia a c c o u n ts , S ta te m o to r
v e h ic le fa ta lity re c o rd s , a n d f o llo w -u p q u e s ­
tio n n a ire s to e m p lo y e rs .
I n a d d i t i o n to p r i v a t e w a g e a n d s a l a r y
w o r k e r s , th e s e l f - e m p lo y e d , f a m ily m e m ­

so m e m a jo r c h ara cte ristics o f the in ju re d an d
ill w o rk e rs, su c h as o c c u p a tio n , age, gender,

b e r s , a n d F e d e r a l , S t a te , a n d l o c a l g o v ­
e r n m e n t w o r k e r s a r e c o v e r e d b y th e p r o ­
g r a m . T o b e i n c l u d e d in th e f a t a l i t y c e n ­

ra ce , a n d le n g th o f serv ice, as w ell as the cir­
c u m s ta n c e s o f th e ir in ju ries a n d illn esses (n a ­
tu re o f th e d isa b lin g co n d itio n , p a rt o f bod y
a ffe c te d , e v e n t a n d e x p o su re, an d th e so u rce

p l o y e d ( t h a t is w o r k i n g f o r p a y , c o m p e n ­
s a t io n , o r p r o f i t ) a t th e t im e o f th e e v e n t ,

d irec tly p ro d u c in g th e c o n d itio n ). In g en eral,
th ese d ata are av ailab le n atio n w id e fo r detailed

68

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

su s, th e d e c e d e n t m u st h a v e b e e n e m ­

e n g a g e d in a l e g a l w o r k a c t i v i t y , o r
p r e s e n t a t th e s ite o f th e i n c i d e n t a s a r e ­
q u i r e m e n t o f h is o r h e r j o b .

August 2004

Notes on the data
T w e n ty -e ig h t d a ta e le m e n ts a re c o lle c te d ,
c o d e d , a n d ta b u la te d in th e f a ta lity p ro g ra m ,
in c lu d in g in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e fa ta lly in ­
ju r e d w o rk e r, th e fa ta l in c id e n t, a n d th e m a ­
c h in e ry o r e q u ip m e n t in v o lv e d . S u m m a ry
w o rk e r d e m o g ra p h ic d a ta a n d e v e n t c h a r a c ­
te ris tic s a re in c lu d e d in a n a tio n a l n e w s r e ­
le a s e th a t is a v a ila b le a b o u t 8 m o n th s a fte r
th e e n d o f th e r e fe r e n c e y e ar. T h e C e n s u s o f
F a ta l O c c u p a tio n a l In ju r ie s w a s in itia te d in
1992 as a j o in t F e d e r a l- S ta te e ffo rt. M o s t
S ta te s is s u e s u m m a r y i n f o r m a t io n a t th e
tim e o f th e n a tio n a l n e w s re le a s e .
F or additional information o n th e
C e n su s o f F a ta l O c c u p a tio n a l In ju rie s c o n ­
ta c t th e bls O ffic e o f S a fe ty , H e a lth , a n d
W o rk in g C o n d itio n s a t (2 0 2 ) 6 9 1 - 6 1 7 5 , o r
th e In te rn e t at:

http ://www.bls.gov/ii f/

1. Labor market indicators
Selected indicators

2002

IV

III

II

I

IV

III

II

2004

2003

2002

2003

II

1

E m p lo y m e n t d a ta

Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional
population (household survey):1
Labor face participation rate....................................................
Employment-population ratio....................................................
Unemployment rate..................................................................
Men.......................................................................................
16 to 24 years......................................................................
25 years and older...............................................................
Women..................................................................................
16 to 24 years.......................................................................
25 years and older...............................................................

66.6
62.7
5.8
5.9
12.8
4.7
5.6
11.1
4.6

66.2
62.3
6.0
6.3
13.4
5.0
5.7
11.4
4.6

66.7
62.8
5.9
6.0
12.8
4.8
5.7
11.2
4.8

66.6
62.8
5.8
5.9
13.1
4.7
5.6
10.9
4.6

66.5
62.5
5.9
6.1
12.5
4.9
5.7
11.4
4.6

66.3
62.4
5.8
6.1
12.6
5.0
5.5
11.2
4.5

66.4
62.3
6.1
6.5
14.0
5.2
5.7
11.8
4.6

66.2
62.1
6.1
6.4
13.8
5.1
5.8
11.5
4.7

66.1
62.3
5.9
6.1
13.1
4.9
5.6
10.9
4.6

66.0
62.2
5.6
5.7
12.5
4.5
5.6
11.1
4.5

65.9
62.2
5.6
5.7
12.9
4.5
5.4
10.9
4.4

Employment, nonfarm (payroll data), in thousands:1
Total nonfarm...........................................................................

130,341
108,828

129,932
108,356

130,389
108,895

130,287
108,736

130,248
108,654

130,047
108,428

129,878
108,309

129,820
108,260

130,002
108,453

130,367
108,827

131,148
109,596

Goods-produang.................................................................

22,557
15,259

21,817
14,524

22,638
15,347

22,466
15,197

22,252
14,979

22,025
14,775

21,848
14,570

21,718
14,410

21,676
14,340

21,719
14,326

21,863
14,377

Service-providing.................................................................

107,789

108,115

107,751

107,821

107,995

108,022

108,030

108,102

108,326

108,648

109,285

Average hours:
33.9
40.5
4.2

33.7
40.4
4.2

33.9
40.6
4.3

33.9
40.4
4.3

33.8
40.4
4.2

33.8
40.4
4.2

33.7
40.2
4.1

33.6
40.2
4.1

33.7
40.6
4.4

33.8
41.0
4.6

33.7
40.9
4.6

Percent change in the ECI, compensation:
All workers (excluding farm, household and Federal workers)....
Private industry workers.........................................................

3.4
3.2

3.8
4.0

.9
1.1

.9
.6

.6
.4

1.4
1.7

.8
.8

1.1
1.0

.5
.4

1.4
1.5

.9
.9

Manufacturing......................................................................
Overtime...........................................................................
E m p lo y m e n t C o s t In d e x 2

Goods-produdng3..............................................................

3.7

4.0

.9

.6

.9

1.8

.9

.7

.5

2.3

.9

Service-providing3..............................................................
State and local government workers

3.1
4.1

4.0
3.3

1.2
.4

.6
2.2

.2
.9

1.5
.7

.8
.4

1.1
1.7

.5
.5

1.1
.7

1.0
.4

Workers by bargaining status (private industry):
Union.......................................................................................
Nonunion..................................................................................

4.2
3.2

4.6
3.9

1.0
1.1

1.2
.5

.9
.4

1.6
1.6

1.2
.8

1.0
1.0

.7
.4

2.8
1.3

1.5
.8

1 Quarterly data seasonally adjusted.

Note: Beginning in January 2003, household survey data reflect revised population

2 Annual changes are December-to-December changes. Quarterly changes are calculated

controls. Nonfarm data reflect the conversion to the 2002 version of the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS), replacing the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

using the last month of each quarter.
3 Goods-producing Industries Include mining, construction, and manufacturing. Service-

system. NAiCS-based data by Industry are not comparable with sic-based data.

providing industries Include all other private sector industries.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

69

Current Labor Statistics: Comparative Indicators

2. Annual and quarterly percent changes in compensation, prices, and productivity
Selected measures

2002

2003

2002

II

2003

III

IV

I

II

2004
III

IV

I

II

C o m p e n s a t io n d a t a 1,2

Employment Cost Index—compensation (wages,
benefits):
Civilian nonfarm..................................................................

sa la rie s,

3.4
3.2

3.8

0.9

0.9

4.0

1.1

.6

0.6
.4

1.7

0.8
.8

1.1
1.0

0.5
.4

1.5

0.9
.9

2.9
2.7

2.9
3.0

.8
1.0

.7
.4

.4
.3

1.0
1.1

.6
.7

.9
.8

.3
.4

.6
.7

.6
.7

Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers): All Items.....

2.3

2.3

.5

.6

-0.1

1.8

-.3

-.2

-.2

1.2

1.2

Producer Price Index:
Finished goods..............................................................
Finished consumer goods................................. ..............
Capital equipment.............................................................
Intermediate materials, supplies, and components.............
Crude materials....................................................................

3.2
4.2
.4
4.6
25.2

3.2
4.2
.4
4.6
25.2

.2
.4
-.3
1.1
37.1

.2
.0
-.7
1.1
1.9

-.1
-.3
.6
.1
6.5

3.7
2.4
.6
6.5
28.0

-.8
1.8
-.6
-2.1
-10.6

.3
.3
-.1
-.1
3.4

.0
.0
.0
.0
14.4

1.2
1.5
.6
2.5
6.0

1.2
1.4
.5
3.0
7.6

4.9
5.0
5.1

4.5
4.4
5.8

1.5
.7
6.0

4.9
4.5
4.9

2.0
2.3
4.9

3.5
3.4
2.4

7.2
6.2
9.7

8.7
9.5
9.5

1.8
2.5
4.3

4.6
3.8
2.3

Private nonfarm..............................................................
Employment Cost Index—wages and salaries:
Civilian nonfarm................................................................
Private nonfarm..........................................................

1.4

1.4

P r ic e d a t a 1

P r o d u c t iv it y d a t a 3

Output per hour of all persons:
Business sector....................................................................
Nonfarm business sector......................................................
Nonfinancial coroorations4................................................
1 Annual changes are December-to-December changes.

Quarterly changes are

Quarterly percent changes reflect annual rates of change in quarterly indexes.

seasonally adjusted, and the price data are not compounded.

The data are seasonally adjusted.

2 Excludes Federal and private household workers.

4 Output per hour of all employees.

3. Alternative measures of wage and compensation changes
Four quarters ending—

Quarterly change
2003
2004
II

Average hourly compensation:1
All persons, business sector.........................................................
All persons, nonfarm business sector..........................................

III

IV

I

2003
II

II

III

2004
IV

I

II

_

5.3
4.9

4.1
4.7

3.8
4.2

5.9
4.6

-

3.4
3.1

4.1
4.0

4.5
4.5

4.8
4.6

.8
.8
1.2
.8
.4

1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.7

.5
4
.7
.4
.5

1.4
1 fi
2.8
1.3
.7

.9

3.7
35

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.9

1.5
.8
.4

5.0
3.3
4.1

4.8
3.8
3.6

4.6
3.9
3.3

5.7
3.6
3.3

6.0
3.5
3.4

.6
.7
.7
.7
.3

.9
.8
.6
.9
1.0

.3
.4
.6
.2
.4

.6
.7
.6
.7
.4

.5
.7
1.0
.6
.2

2.7
2.6
3.0
2.5
3.1

2.9
3.0
2.6
3.1
2.3

2.9
3.0
2.4
3.1
2.1

2.5
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.1

2.5
2.6
2.9
2.5
1.9

Employment Cost Index—compensation:
Civilian nonfarm2........................................................................
Private nonfarm..........................................................................
Union........................................................................................
Nonunion..................................................................................
State and local governments.....................................................
Employment Cost Index—wages and salaries:
Civilian nonfarm2..........................................................................
Private nonfarm..........................................................................
Union.........................................................................................
Nonunion..................................................................................
State and local governments.....................................................

1 Seasonally adjusted. "Quarterly average" is percent change from a quarter ago, at an annual rate.
2 Excludes Federal and household workers.

70

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

-

3 Annual rates of change are computed by comparing annual averages.

calculated using the last month of each quarter. Compensation and price data are not

Components

_
_

4.

Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]

Employment status

Annual average
2002
2003

2004

2003
June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec,

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

221,168
146,510
66.2
137,736

221,014
146,917
66.5
137,673

221,252
146,652
66.3
137,604

221,507
146,622
66.2
137,693

221,779
146,610
66.1
137,644

222,039
146,892
66.2
138,095

222,279
147,187
66.2
138,533

222,509
146,878
66.0
138,479

222,161
146,863
66.1
138,566

222,357
146,471
65.9
138,301

222,550
146,650
65.9
138,298

222,757
146,741
65.9
138,576

222,967
146,974
65.9
138,772

223,196
147,279
66.0
139,031

62.3
8,774
6.0
74,658

62.3
9,245
6.3
74,097

62.2
9,048
6.2
74,600

62.2
8,929
6.1
74,884

62.1
8,966
6.1
75,168

62.2
8,797
6.0
75,147

62.3
8,653
5.9
75,093

62.2
8,398
5.7
75,631

62.4
8,297
5.6
75,298

62.2
8,170
5.6
75,886

62.1
8,352
5.7
75,900

62.2
8,164
5.6
76,016

62.2
8,203
5.6
75,993

62.3
8,248
5.6
75,916

96,439
73,630
76.3
69,734

98,272
74,623
75.9
70,415

98,196
74,675
76.0
70,190

98,304
74,660
75.9
70,269

98,434
74,682
75.9
70,324

98,568
74,905
76.0
70,596

98,696
74,942
75.9
70,726

98,814
75,188
76.1
70,964

98,927
75,044
75.9
71,099

98,866
75,171
76.0
71,329

98,966
74,797
75.6
70,969

99,065
75,018
75.7
71,128

99,170
74,871
75.5
71,118

99,279
75,048
75.6
71,162

99,396
75,372
75.8
71,570

72.3
3,896
5.3
22,809

71.7
4,209
5.6
23,649

71.5
4,485
6.0
23,521

71.5
4,391
5.9
23,644

71.4
4,358
5.8
23,751

71.6
4,309
5.8
23,663

71.7
4,216
5.6
23,754

71.8
4,224
5.6
23,620

71.9
3,945
5.3
23,882

72.1
3,842
5.1
23,694

71.7
3,828
5.1
24,168

71.8
3,890
5.2
24,047

71.7
3,753
5.0
24,299

71.7
3,886
5.2
24,231

72.0
3,802
5.0
24,023

105,136
63,648
60.5
60,420

106,800
64,716
60.6
61,402

106,724
64,989
60.9
61,610

106,839
64,835
60.7
61,479

106,957
64,836
60.6
61,467

107,080
64,608
60.3
61,191

107,197
64,899
60.5
61,524

107,303
64,917
60.5
61,597

107,404
64,846
60.4
61,521

107,131
64,515
60.2
61,260

107,216
64,629
60.3
61,456

107,299
64,687
60.3
61,373

107,389
64,785
60.3
61,571

107,483
64,813
60.3
61,721

107,586
64,893
60.3
61,629

57.5
3,228
5.1
41,488

57.5
3,314
5.1
42,083

57.7
3,379
5.2
41,735

57.5
3,356
5.2
42,004

57.5
3,369
5.2
42,121

57.1
3,417
5.3
42,472

57.4
3,375
5.2
42,299

57.4
3,320
5.1
42,387

57.3
3,326
5.1
42,558

57.2
3,255
5.0
42,617

57.3
3,172
4.9
42,587

57.2
3,314
5.1
42,613

57.3
3,215
5.0
42,604

57.4
3,092
4.8
42,670

57.3
3,264
5.0
42,693

15,994
7,585
47.4
6,332

16,096
7,170
44.5
5,919

16,095
7,254
45.1
5,873

16,109
7,157
44.4
5,856

16,116
7,104
44.1
5,902

16,131
7,097
44.0
5,857

16,145
7,051
43.7
5,846

16,162
7,082
43.8
5,972

16,178
6,987
43.2
5,859

16,164
7,177
44.4
5,977

16,175
7,045
43.6
5,875

16,186
6,945
42.9
5,797

16,198
7,085
43.7
5,888

16,205
7,113
43.9
5,888

16,214
7,014
43.3
5,832

39.6
1,253
16.5
8,409

36.8
1,251
17.5
8,926

36.5
1,381
19.0
8,841

36.4
1,301
18.2
8,952

36.6
1,202
16.9
9,012

36.3
1,240
17.5
9,034

36.2
1,205
17.1
9,094

37.0
1,109
15.7
9,080

36.2
1,128
16.1
9,191

37.0
1,200
16.7
8,987

36.3
1,170
16.6
9,130

35.8
1,148
16.5
9,240

36.3
1,197
16.9
9,113

36.3
1,225
17.2
9,092

36.0
1,181
16.8
9,200

population1....................... 179,783
Civilian labor force............ 120,150
66.8
Participation rate........
Employed..................... 114,013
Employment-pop63.4
ulation ratio2............
6,137
Unemployed.................
5.1
Unemployment rate...
59,633
Not in the labor force.......

181,292
120,546
66.5
114,235

181,184
120,816
66.7
114,222

181,341
120,645
66.5
114,086

181,512
120,658
66.5
114,156

181,696
120,411
66.3
114,015

181,871
120,736
66.4
114,535

182,032
121,041
66.5
114,783

182,185
120,751
66.3
114,678

181,879
120,723
66.4
114,765

182,001
120,540
66.2
114,602

182,001
120,542
66.2
114,433

182,252
120,675
66.2
114,712

182,384
120,984
66.3
114,976

182,531
121,180
66.4
115,152

63.0
6,311
5.2
60,746

63.0
6,594
5.5
60,368

62.9
6,559
5.4
60,696

62.9
6,502
5.4
60,854

62.8
6,397
5.3
61,285

63.0
6,200
5.1
61,135

63.1
6,258
5.2
60,991

62.9
6,073
5.0
61,434

63.1
5,958
4.9
61,156

63.0
5,938
4.9
61,460

62.8
6,109
5.1
61,579

62.9
5,963
4.9
61,577

63.0
6,008
5.0
61,400

63.1
6,028
5.0
61,351

25,578
16,565
64.8
14,872

25,686
16,526
64.3
14,739

25,664
16,655
64.9
14,729

25,702
16,563
64.4
14,727

25,742
16,585
64.4
14,771

25,784
166,677
64.7
14,826

25,825
16,589
64.2
14,696

25,860
16,524
63.9
14,812

25,894
16,365
63.2
14,679

25,867
16,602
64.2
14,886

25,900
16,404
63.3
14,804

25,932
16,595
64.0
14,909

25,967
16,485
63.5
14,878

26,002
16,442
63.2
14,818

26,040
16,506
63.4
14,833

58.1
1,693
10.2
9,013

57.4
1,787
10.8
9,161

57.4
1,926
11.6
9,009

57.3
1,836
11.1
9,139

57.4
1,813
10.9
9,127

57.5
1,851
11.1
9,107

56.9
1,893
11.4
9,236

57.3
1,712
10.4
9,336

56.7
1,686
10.3
9,529

57.5
1,736
10.5
9,265

57.2
1,600
9.8
9,495

57.2
1,686
10.2
9,337

57.3
1,607
9.7
9,482

57.0
1,624
9.9
9,560

57.0
1,673
10.1
9,534

TOTAL

Civilian noninstitutional
population1....................... 217,570
Civilian labor force............. 144,863
Participation rate........
66.6
Employed...................... 136,485
Employment-pop62.7
ulation ratio2............
8,378
Unemployed..................
Unemployment rate....
5.8
Not in the labor force....... 72,707
M en , 20 yea rs a n d o ver

Civilian noninstitutional
population1.......................
Civilian labor force.............
Participation rate........
Employed......................
Employment-population ratio2............
Unemployed..................
Unemployment rate....
Not in the labor force.......
W o m e n , 2 0 y ea rs a n d o v er

Civilian noninstitutional
population1.......................
Participation rate........
Employed.....................
Employment-population ratio2............
Unemployed..................
Unemployment rate....
Not in the labor force.......
B o th s e x e s , 1 6 to 1 9 y e a r s

Civilian noninstitutional
population1.......................
Civilian labor force............
Participation rate........
Employed.....................
Employment-population ratio2............
Unemployed..................
Unemployment rate...
Not in the labor force.......
W h it e 3

Civilian noninstitutional

B la c k o r A f ric a n A m e r ic a n 3

Civilian noninstitutional
population1.......................
Participation rate.......
Employed.....................
Employment-population ratio2...........
Unemployed.................
Unemployment rate...
Not in the labor force.......
See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

71

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

4. Continued—Employment status of the population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]

Employment status

Annual average
2002

2003

June

July

Aug.

2003
Sept.
Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

25,963
17,943
69.1
16,590

27,551
18,813
68.3
17,372

27,494
18,840
68.5
17,290

27,597
18,770
68.0
17,247

27,701
18,843
68.0
173 83

27,808
18,877
67.9
17,456

27,913
18,940
67.9
17,556

28,016
19,125
68.3
17,709

28,116
19,035
67.7
17,784

27,619
18,811
68.1
17,441

27,705
18,693
67.5
17,303

27,791
19,010
68.4
17,596

27,879
19,064
68.4
17,693

27,968
19,313
69.1
17,958

28,059
19,304
68.8
18,019

63.9
1,353
7.5
8,020

63.1
1,441
7.7
8,738

62.9
1,550
8.2
8,654

62.5
1,523
8.1
8,828

62.8
1,460
7.8
8,858

62.8
1,421
7.5
8,931

62.9
1,383
7.3
8,974

63.2
1,416
7.4
8,891

63.3
1,250
6.6
9,082

63.2
1,370
7.3
8,807

62.5
1,389
7.4
9,012

63.3
1,414
7.4
8,781

63.5
1,371
7.2
8,815

64.2
1,355
7.0
8,654

64.2
1,285
67
8,755

2004

Hispanic or Latino
ethnicity
Civilian noninstitutional
DODulation1.......................
Civilian labor force............
Participation rate........
Employed.....................
Employment-population ratio2............
Unemployed.................
Unemployment rate....
Not in the labor force.........

1 The population figures are not seasonally adjusted.
2 Civilian employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
3 Beginning in 2003, persons who selected this race group only; persons who selected
more than one race group are not included. Prior to 2003, persons who reported more
than one race were included in the group they identified as the main race.

NOTE: Estimates for the above race groups (white and black or African American) do not sum
to totals because data are not presented for all races. In addition, persons whose ethnicity is
identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race and, therefore, are classified by ethnicity as
well as by race. Beginning in January 2003, data reflect revised population controls used in the
household survey.

5. Selected employment indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]

Selected categories

Annual iverage
2002
2003

2003

2004

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

137,736
73,332
64,404

137,673
73,124
64,548

137,604
73,149
64,455

137,693
73,263
64,431

137,644
73,488
64,155

138,095
73,643
64,452

138,533
73,915
64,618

44,653

44,459

44,747

44,659

44,566

44,684

34,695

34,627

34,648

34,684

34,612

34,993

4,213

4,701

4,615

4,661

4,498

4,896

2,788

3,118

3,136

3,113

3,063

1,124

1,279

1,266

1,296

18,843

19,014

19,382

19,089

4,119

4,596

4,500

4,568

2,726

3,052

3,064

1,114

1,264

18,487

18,658

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

138,479
74,085
64,394

138,566
74,343
64,223

138,301
73,901
64,400

138,298
74,006
64,292

45,152

45,431

45,490

45,128

35,076

35,034

34,585

4,800

4,880

4,788

3,185

3,030

3,226

1,201

1,334

1,356

19,482

19,021

4,404

3,071

1,244
18,930

May

June

138,576
74,053
64,523

138,772
74,035
64,737

139,031
74,476
64,555

45,043

44,735

44,723

44,938

34,502

34,256

34,339

34,522

34,461

4,714

4,437

4,733

4,574

4,665

4,513

3,205

2,996

2,865

3,011

2,819

2,853

2,803

1,350

1,295

1,380

1,347

1,427

1,439

1,467

1,404

18,935

19,110

18,561

18,905

18,900

19,006

19,000

19,621

19,531

4,794

4,690

4,782

4,727

4,613

4,328

4,622

4,471

4,605

4,442

2,989

3,127

2,964

3,153

3,144

2,911

2,778

2,927

2,756

2,812

2,762

1,273

1,191

1,335

1,349

1,353

1,279

1,399

1,340

1,414

1,431

1,476

1,387

18,651

19,016

18,633

18,628

18,752

18,367

18,636

18,691

18,693

18,664

19,220

19,072

Characteristic
Employed, 16 years and over.. 136,845
Men................................... 72,903
Women.............................. 63,582
Married men, spouse
present............................
44,116
Married women, spouse
present............................
34,155

Personsat work part time1
All industries:
Part time for economic
reasons...........................
Slack work or business
conditions....................
Could only find part-time
work............................
Part time for noneconomic
reasons..........................
Nonagricultural industries:
Part time for economic
reasons...........................
Slack work or business
conditions.....................
Could only find part-time
work............................
Part time for noneconomic
reasons..........................

Excludes persons "with a job but not at work" during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes.
NOTE: Beginning in January 2003, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey.

72

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

6. Selected unemployment Indicators, monthly data seasonally adjusted

2002

2003

2004

2003

Annual average

Selected categories

June

July

Aug. Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

Characteristic
Total, 16 years and older..........................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years....................
Men, 20 years and older.......................
Women, 20 years and older..................

5.8
16.5
5.3
5.1

6.0
17.5
5.6
5.1

6.3
19.0
6.0
5.2

6.2
18.2
5.9
5.2

6.1
16.9
5.8
5.2

6.1
17.5
5.8
5.3

6.0
17.1
5.6
5.2

5.9
15.7
5.6
5.1

5.7
16.1
5.3
5.1

5.6
16.7
5.3
5.0

5.6
16.6
5.1
4.9

5.7
16.5
5.2
5.1

5.6
16.9
5.0
5.0

5.6
17.2
5.2
4.8

5.6
16.8
5.0
5.0

White, total1..........................................
Both sexes, 16 to 19 years..............
Men, 16 to 19 years......................
Women, 16 to 19 years.................
Men, 20 years and older..................
Women, 20 years and older.............

5.1
14.5
15.9
13.1
4.7
4.4

5.2
15.2
17.1
13.3
5.0
4.4

5.5
16.2
17.6
14.8
5.3
4.4

5.4
15.7
17.9
13.3
5.3
4.4

5.4
15.1
16.5
13.7
5.3
4.4

5.3
15.1
17.6
12.6
5.0
4.5

5.1
14.3
15.9
12.6
4.9
4.4

5.2
14.3
16.8
11.5
5.0
4.4

5.0
14.8
16.3
13.1
4.7
4.3

4.9
14.1
14.0
14.2
4.5
4.4

4.9
15.2
15.5
14.9
4.5
4.2

5.1
14.8
16.2
13.3
4.7
4.4

4.9
15.7
17.9
13.3
4.5
4.2

5.0
15.7
18.6
12.7
4.7
4.1

5.0
14.8
16.4
13.2
4.5
4.4

Black or African American, total1..........

10.2
29.8
31.3
28.3
9.5
8.8

10.8
33.0
36.0
30.3
10.3
9.2

11.6
38.5
36.5
40.3
11.0
9.6

11.1
35.1
37.1
33.4
10.3
9.6

10.9
29.8
27.8
31.5
10.5
9.7

11.1
32.7
34.2
31.4
11.0
9.2

11.4
37.3
40.9
33.2
10.5
9.8

10.4
28.9
32.5
25.7
10.1
9.1

10.3
27.3
28.4
26.5
9.3
9.7

10.5
32.5
42.1
25.8
9.6
9.1

9.8
25.1
29.6
21.9
9.4
8.8

10.2
29.4
36.6
22.8
9.2
9.3

9.7
28.3
30.9
26.1
9.3
8.7

9.9
32.5
30.3
34.1
9.3
8.4

10.1
32.6
33.9
31.4
9.3
8.9

7.5
3.6
3.7
5.9
5.2

7.7
3.8
3.7
6.1
5.5

8.2
4.3
3.9
6.4
5.9

8.1
3.9
3.9
6.3
5.5

7.8
3.9
3.9
6.2
5.3

7.5
3.8
3.9
6.2
5.7

7.3
3.8
3.8
6.1
5.5

7.4
3.7
3.8
6.1
5.1

6.6
3.3
3.9
5.8
5.3

7.3
3.3
3.7
5.7
5.4

7.4
3.4
3.6
5.6
5.2

7.4
3.2
3.7
5.8
5.4

7.2
3.1
3.7
5.6
5.3

7.0
3.1
3.3
577
5.2

6.7
3.2
3.7
5.6
5.5

8.4

8.8

9.4

8.8

9.3

8.7

8.8

8.5

8.1

8.8

8.5

8.8

8.7

8.8

5.4
4.8

5.5
4.8

5.4
4.8

5.5
4.5

4.9
4.5

5.0
4.4

5.3
4.7

5.2
4.1

5.0
4.0

5.1
4.2

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.7

Men, 16 to 19 years......................
Women, 16 to 19 years.................
Men, 20 years and older..................
Women, 20 years and older............
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity..................
Married men, spouse present..............
Married women, spouse present.........

Educational attainment2
Less than a high school diploma..............
High school graduates, no college3..........
Some college or associate degree...........

5.3
4.5

5.5
4.8

5.7
4.9

5.5
5.0

5.4
4.7

Bachelor's degree and higher4.................

2.9

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3 Includes high school diploma or equivalent.

1 Beginning in 2003, persons who selected this race group only; persons who
selected more than one race group are not included. Prior to 2003, persons who
reported more than one race were included in the group they identified as the

4 Includes persons with bachelor's, master's, professional, and doctoral degrees.

main race.

NOTE: Beginning in January 2003, data reflect revised population controls used in the

2 Data refer to persons 25 years and older.

household survey.

7. Duration of unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]

Weeks of
unemployment

2002

2003

2004

2003

Annual average
June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

5 to 14 weeks..................................
15 weeks and over.........................
15 to 26 weeks.............................
27 weeks and over......................

2,893
2,580
2,904
1,369
1,535

2,785
2,612
3,378
1,442
1,936

2,937
2,787
3,510
1,500
2,010

2,739
2,698
3,559
1,598
1,961

2,735
2,630
3,561
1,561
2,001

2,749
2,736
3,511
1,438
2,073

2,733
2,585
3,478
1,460
2,018

2,622
2,556
3,484
1,448
2,036

2,627
2,450
3,403
1,513
1,890

2,612
2,394
3,365
1,467
1,898

2,468
2,412
3,274
1,403
1,871

2,589
2,414
3,320
1,332
1,988

2,792
2,369
2,969
1,170
1,800

2,707
2,376
3,077
1,288
1,789

2,688
2,405
3,065
1,306
1,759

Mean duration, In weeks................
Median duration, in weeks.............

16.6
9.1

19.2
10.1

19.6
11.7

19.3
10.1

19.2
10.0

19.6
10.1

19.4
10.3

20.0
10.4

19.6
10.4

19.8
10.7

20.3
10.3

20.1
10.3

19.7
9.5

20.0
10.0

19.9
10.8

NOTE: Beginning in January 2003, data reflect revised population controls used In the household survey.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

73

Current Labor Statistics:

8.

Labor Force Data

Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]

Reason for
unemployment
Job lo se rs.......................
On temporary layoff.......
Not on temporary layoff..
Job leavers........................
Reentrants........................
New entrants.....................

Annual average
2002

2003

2003

2004

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

4,211
926
3,286
846
2,438
713

4,099
1,011
3,088
902
2,435
636

4,607
1,124
3,483
866
2,368
536

4,838
1,121
3,717
818
2,477
641

4,972
1,177
3,795
890
2,646
642

4,947
1,173
3,774
798
2,522
661

4,939
1,092
3,847
790
2,530
650

4,947
1,110
3,837
836
2,436
684

4,877
1,097
3,780
789
2,518
653

4,719
1,055
3,664
931
2,440
619

4,618
1,060
3,558
783
2,366
694

4,382
1,028
3,353
804
2,509
681

4,323
1,064
3,258
827
2,424
676

4,607
1,040
3,567
836
2,424
627

4,399
994
3,405
822
2,314
645

55.0
13.4
41.6
10.3
28.3
6.4

55.1
12.8
42.4
9.3
28.2
7.3

54.3
12.9
41.5
9.7
28.9
7.0

55.4
13.1
42.3
8.9
28.2
7.4

55.4
12.3
43.2
8.9
28.4
7.3

55.6
12.5
43.1
9.4
27.4
7.7

55.2
12.4
42.8
8.9
28.5
7.4

54.2
12.1
42.1
10.7
28.0
7.1

54.6
12.5
42.0
9.3
28.0
8.2

52.3
12.3
40.0
9.6
30.0
8.1

52.4
12.9
39.8
10.0
29.4
8.2

54.2
12.2
42.0
9.8
28.5
7.4

53.8
12.1
41.6
10.1
28.3
7.9

51.3
11.3
40.0
10.3
29.7
8.7

50.8
12.5
38.3
11.2
30.2
7.9

3.4
.6
1.8
.4

3.4
.5
1.7
.5

3.4
.5
1.7

3.4
.6
1.7
.5

3.3
.5
1.7
.4

3.2
.6
1.7
.4

3.1
.5
1.6
.5

3.0
.5
1.7
.5

3.0
.6
1.7
.5

3.1
.6
1.7
.4

3.0
.6
1.6
.4

2.9
.6
1.7
.5

2.8
.6
1.7
.4

P e r c e n t o f u n e m p lo y e d

Job losers1...............................
On temporary layoff..............
Not on temporary layoff........
Job leavers...............................
Reentrants................................
New entrants............................
P e r c e n t o f c iv ilia n
la b o r fo r c e
.1

Job losers
Job leavers....
Reentrants....
New entrants..

■4

’ Includes persons who completed temporary jobs.
NOTE: Beginning in January 2003, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey.

9.

Unemployment rates by sex and age, monthly data seasonally adjusted

[Civilian workers]

Sex and age
Total, 16 years and older................
16 to 24 years.............................
16 to 17 years.......................
18 to 19 years.......................
20 to 24 years..........................
25 years and older......................
55 years and older................
Men, 16 years and older...............
16 to 24 years...........................

20 to 24 years........................
25 years and older...................
25 to 54 years.....................
55 years and older..............
Women, 16 years and older..........
16 to 24 years...........................
16 to 19 years........................
16 to 17 years......................
20 to 24 years........................
25 years and older....................
55 years and oider1.............

Annual average
2002

2003

2003
June

July

Aug.

Sept.
6.1
12.8

2004
Oct.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

5.9
12.1
15.7
17.5
14.7
10.4
4.8
5.0
3.9

5.7
11.7
16.1
18.3
14.7
9.6
4.7
4.9
3.9

5.6
12.0
16.7
18.2
15.7
9.8
4.5
4.7
3.7

5.6
11.8
16.6
17.6
15.7
9.5
4.5
4.7
3.8

5.7
11.8
16.5
19.4
14.5
9.6
4.6
4.9
3.8

6.2
13.4
18.3
18.3
18.1
11.2
5.0
5.2
4.1

5.8
12.6
17.4
18.4
16.9
10.4
4.7
4.9
4.0

5.7
12.7
17.5
19.3
16.2
10.5
4.5
4.7
3.6

5.7
12.2
17.2
19.4
15.7
10.0
4.5
4.7
3.7

5.6
10.7
14.7
18.2
12.2
8.8
4.6
5.0

5.6
11.3
15.9
17.1
15.2
8.9
4.6
4.8

3.5

4.1

6.0
12.4
17.5
19.1
16.4
10.0
4.8
5.0
4.1

6.3
13.3
19.0
21.1
17.4
10.5
5.1
5.2
4.4

6.2
12.9
18.2
20.3
16.8
10.4
5.0
5.1
4.2

6.1
12.4
16.9
18.8
15.7
10.2
5.0
5.1
4.1

5.9
12.8
18.1
21.1
16.4
10.2
4.7
4.8
4.1

6.3
13.4
19.3
20.7
18.4
10.6
5.0
5.2
4.4

6.7
14.1
19.9
23.2
17.9
11.5
5.4
5.4
5.3

6.6
14.4
20.4
22.3
19.0
11.6
5.2
5.3
4.6

6.4
12.9
17.6
20.6
15.6
10.7
5.2
5.4
4.4

5.6
11.1
14.9
16.6
13.8
9.1
4.6
4.8

5.7
11.4
15.6
17.5
14.2
9.3
4.6
4.8

5.9
12.4
18.2
19.1
16.8
9.5
4.7
4.9

5.7
11.3
15.9
18.3
14.5
9.0
4.7
4.9

5.8
11.8
16.2
17.0
15.8
9.7
4.7
4.8

5.8
11.4
15.2
16.5
14.1
9.5
4.7
4.9

20.1
12.5
4.7
4.9

5.5
10.7
13.0
16.6
11.1
9.6
4.6
4.8

3.6

3.7

3.7

4.2

4.5

3.8

3.4

3.5

19.3
16.2
4.9
4.0
6.4

6.0
17.1
20.2
10.1
4.9
5.1
3.8

19.6
22.1
18.2

6.2
13.2
18.7
20.4
17.9

5.0

5.0

4.2

4.0

NOTE: Beginning in January 2003, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey.

Monthly Labor Review

Dec.

5.8
12.0
16.5
18.8
15.1
9.7
4.6
4.8
3.8

' Data are not seasonally adjusted.

74

Nov.

August 2004

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

5.6
11.6
16.9
20.2
14.7
9.2
4.5
4.6
3.8

5.6
12.1
17.2
21.6
14.7
9.7
4.4
4.5
3.9

5.6
12.0
16.8
20.6
14.3
9.8
4.5
4.5
3.9

5.8
12.6
18.3
22.3
15.8
10.1
4.6
4.8
3.8

5.7
12.8
19.1
23.4
16.5
10.0
4.4
4.5
3.9

5.8
13.0
19.1
23.3
16.6
10.3
4.6
4.7
4.1

5.6
12.8
18.1
22.8
15.8
10.4
4.4
4.4
4.3

5.5
11.2
16.0
15.9
15.6
8.9
4.4
4.5

5.6
10.8
14.7
16.9
13.0
8.9
4.6
4.9

5.4
10.3
14.5
17.3
12.6
8.3
4.6
4.7

5.3
11.1
15.3
20.1
12.7
9.0
4.2
4.4

5.6
11.2
15.6
18.7
12.6
9.0
4.5
4.7

3.9

3.5

3.3

3.3

3.8


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

10. Unemployment rates by State, seasonally adjusted
May
Apr.
May
State
2003 2004p 2004p
Alabama...................................................

May
2003

State

Apr.
2004p

May
2004p

5.8
7.9
5.9
62
6.8

5.8
7.1
5.4
5.6
6.2

5.9
7.3
5.1
5.8
6.3

Missouri
Montana....................................................
Nebraska..................................................
Nevada......................................................
New Hampshire.......................................

5.8
4.7
4.1
5.4
4.2

4.7
4.6
3.5
4.3
4.0

5.1
4.7
3.7
4.1
4.0

6.2
5.4
4.2
7.0
53

5.1
4.6
3.8
7.4
4.7

4.9
4.6
3.8
7.5
4.6

New Mexico.............................................
New York..................................................
North Carolina..........................................
North Dakota.............................................

5.9
6.3
6.3
6.5
4.0

5.3
5.6
6.2
5.3
2.7

4.9
5.4
5.8
5.3
3.2

4.9
4.3
5.5
6.6
51

3.8
3.6
4.3
6.1
4.9

3.9 Ohio.........................................................
3.0 Oklahoma.................................................
4.5 Oregon......................................................
6.4 Pennsylvania............................................
5.2

6.1
5.9
8.6
5.6
5.4

5.8
4.8
6.7
5.3
5.7

5.6
4.4
6.8
5.1
5.6

4.5
5.3
62
6.7
5.0

3.9
4.7
5.4
5.9
4.2

4.3
4.7
5.4
6.1
4.1

South Carolina.........................................
South Dakota...........................................
Tennessee...............................................
Texas.......................................................
Utah.........................................................

6.8
3.6
5.7
6.9
5.7

6.7
2.8
4.9
6.0
4.4

6.3
3.4
4.8
5.9
4.6

4.5
58
7.2
49
6.7

4.0
4.8
6.1
4.2
5.0

3.9 Vermont..................................................
5.2 Virginia.....................................................
6.6 Washington.............................................
4.3 West Virginia............................................
5.6 Wisconsin.................................................
Wyoming..................................................

4.5
4.1
7.7
6.2
5.7
4.4

3.5
3.4
6.3
5.2
4.6
3.4

3.5
3.5
6.1
5.2
5.1
3.7

p = preliminary

11. Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by State, seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]

State

May
2003

Apr.
2004p

2,143,538 2,164,637
343,783
330 377
2 fiQO 756 2 763 760
1 265 463 1 316 909
17 440 500 17 572 267

May
2004p

State

May
2003

Apr.

May

2004p

2004p

2,159,125
344,537
2,753,009
1,319,947
17,618,177

Missouri..........................................
Montana.........................................
Nebraska.......................................
Nevada...........................................
New Hampshire.............................

3,021,943
474,229
974,730
1,138,466
715,833

3,010,915
477,097
985,357
1,185,278
726,029

3,016,518
477,521
988,182
1,178,291
726,888

New Jersey....................................

4,421,065
903,579
929,948
4,205,839
348,789

4,403,622
905,492
926,782
4,196,496
349,577

5,869,026
1,699,967
1,897,510
6,252,548
569,847

5,843,839
1,694,391
1,883,098
6,253,802
568,863

2 476 644
1 803 002
416 602
303 461
8 148 252

2 504 555
1 782 042
426 632
303 791
8 345,360

2,516,192
1,797,651
425,210
299,786
8,340,806

New York.......................................
North Carolina...............................
North Dakota..................................

4,368,050
894,343
931,345
4,232,277
346,200

615 845
692 012
6 217 583
3 185 058

4 395,403
628,628
698 751
6,380,392
3 180,180

4,406,985
629,876
701,076
6,392,724
3,167,432

Ohio...............................................
Oklahoma.......................................
Oregon...........................................
Pennsylvania.................................
Rhode Island.................................

5,918,780
1,700,447
1,860,588
6,172,665
574,293

1,611,648
1 431 096
1 953 876
2 042 075
690 852

1,620,076
1 461,387
1 987 901
2 022 288
695 487

1,631,711
1,463,836
1,687,991
2,024,336
700,823

South Carolina............................... 1,999,025 2,050,029 2,051,057
424,204
422,624
424,350
South Dakota................................
Tennessee..................................... 2,907,095 2,929,129 2,930,548
Texas............................................. 10,906,609 10,969,010 10,956,081
Utah............................................... 1,181,178 1,199,722 1,206,350

2,902,837
3 422 214
5 043 199
2 919 722
1,315,215

2 944,444
3 393 357
5 032 115
2 945 777
1,311,658

2,954,376
3,408,539
5,065,925
2,951,369
1,317,118

Vermont.........................................
Washington...................................
West Virginia.................................
Wisconsin......................................
Wyoming........................................

352,777
3,838,695
3,217,995
796,329
3,100,331
277,614

350,443
3,768,345
3,131,425
788,076
3,076,363
277,403

352,306
3,846,260
3,204,437
795,509
3,115,602
278,186

p = preliminary.
NOTE: Some data in this table may differ from data published elsewhere because of the continual updating of the data base.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

75

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

12. Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]

Annual average
2002
2003

Industry

2003
June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

2004
Mar.
Apr.

May*

Junep

T O T A L N O N F A R M ..............

130,34

129,93

129,85«

129,8V

129,78

129,85

129,94-

T O T A L P R IV A T E .......................

130,027

130,03.

130,19-

130,27

■ 108.82!
.
22,55'

130,63

130,95-

108.356
21,81'

131,18«

108.292
21,806

131,301

108.25,
21,74c

108.20
21,712

108.31
21,69'

108.3821,67-

108.483
21,686

108.49
21,66!

108.66
21,69!

108.73!
21,68-

109.07
21,77!

109.382
21,822

109.64,
21,88!

109.762
21,878

Logging............................ .
Mining...................................
Oil and gas extraction.........

58!
70.512.2
121.2

571
68.6
502.C
122.6

576
69.'
503.2
123.7

57
68.2
502.'
123.5

566
67.Í
501.8
123.2

56!
67.500.8
123.6

56«
67.«
501.8
124.1

571
67.6
503.4
123.9

57C
65.«
504.C
124.6

57!
65.1
505.1
126.«

572
64.2
508.1
128.«

58
65.«
514.5
130.C

Minina, exceot oil and aas1..
Coal minina.......................
Support activities for mining.

210.6
74.179.6

58!
66.'
518.!
131.6

202.7
70.4
176.8

58!
65.!
522.'
132.2

589
64.3
524.4
131.4

203.C
70.6
176.2

204.C
71.8
174.6

203.8
70.7
175.C

201.6
69.2
175.6

202.1
69.6
175.C

202.4
69 5
177.1

202.C
69.6
177.7

200.C
69.6
178.2

200.6
70.2
178.6

202.6
70.6
182.1

205.2
71.8
182.3

207.2
72.7
183.2

208.2
73.7
184.8

G O O D S - P R O D U C IN G ...................
N a tu r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d
m in in g .............................................

C o n s tr u c tio n ..................................

6,716

6,722

6,718

6,721

6,736

6,754

6,754

6,771

6,774

Construction of buildinas......
Heavy and civil enaineerina..
Sædalitv trade contractors...

6,812

6,791

6,853

1.574.8
930.6
4.210.4
15,255

6,872

1.575.9
910.7
4.235.5
14,525

6,911

1.572.3
907.3
4.238.8
14,514

6,911

1.566.4
910.6
4.244.1
14,452

1.570.C
913.9
4.255.5
14,404

1.577.7
915.2
4.260.9
14,375

1.579.4
910.8
4.263.7
14,351

1.583.9
918.8
4.268.6
14,344

1,585.1
920.7
4.268.4
14,324

1.593.3
928.C
4.290.2
14,314

1.590.S
924.C
4.276.5
14,321

1,607.6
926.8
4.318.9
14,344

10.766
9,48c

1,609.8
924.7
4.337.3
14,365

10.200
8,970

1.620.2
924.5
4.366.2
14,389

10.181
8,958

1.620.5
922.1
4.368.5
14,378

10.136
8,908

10.104
8,886

10.077
8,867

10.058
8,854

10.048
8,874

10.044
8,868

10.035
8,869

10.038
8,882

6.529
554.5
516.0
509.4
1.548.5
1.229.5

10.058
8,889

10.085
8,924

6.157
536.1
492.6
476.7
1.478.4
1.153.5

6.142
533.3
494.8
475.8
1.474.4
1.149.9

10.110
8,946

6.104
532.4
760.8
472.1
1.468.4
1.145.5

10.103
8,949

6.099
528.9
490.2
470.6
1.465.6
1.140.8

6.077
531.8
488
466.3
1.461.1
1.139.4

6.066
533.4
486.6
463.4
1.461.3
1.137.0

6.089
536.3
489.7
464.1
1.468.1
1.142.5

6.079
536.6
487.5
464.6
1.471.2
1.140.4

6.081
536.3
492.7
432.2
1.471.8
1.138.7

6.088
538.4
490.5
462.2
1.476.6
1.141.2

6.101
539.7
493.2
462.0
1.478.5
1.145.1

6.126
540
497.8
462.5
1.486.7
1.152.0

6.148
544.2
501.6
1.494.7
1.153.2

6.151
544.3
503.2
465.8
1.495.2
1.156.8

1,507.2

1,360.9

1,359.3

1,348.7

1,343.8

1,339.2

1,332.8

1,334.4

1,332.2

1,333.2

1,333.9

1,338.0

1,339.7

1,344.0

1,343.8

250.0
185.8

225.7
157.0

227.3
156.3

224.0
155.8

222.5
155.0

221.9
154.1

219.3
1 53.9

219.1
154.4

217.8
153.0

219.4
154.8

219.0
154.8

218.6
155.0

218.1
155.1

218.0
155.6

216.4
156.9

524.5
450.0

461.8
429.3

461.5
426.9

457.9
424.7

456.2
425.2

453.3
425.5

449.4
425.1

451.2
425.2

451.3
425.3

450.2
423.7

451.4
423.3

452.1
426.8

453.4
427.5

455.8
429.7

457.0
430.0

496.5
1,828.9

459.9
1,775.4

459.7
1,775.0

457.7
1,759.8

453.8
1,766.5

452.1
1,765.6

450.8
1,765.5

450.9
1,766.5

451.2
1,762.7

449.8
1,760.6

448.6
1,766.5

446.8
1,769.1

446.5
1,768.8

446.4
1,767.8

446.7
1,765.0

604.1
688.3

573.5
662.8

571.1
664.3

572.6
660.2

568.1
657.9

568.0
655.9

568.2
655.2

568.9
652.7

569.3
651.9

571.3
652.0

571.2
653.0

573.4
653.0

576.5
653.0

5,775
4,239

576.2
653.5

5,555
4,043

5,556
4,039

575.1
652.6

5,544
4,032

5,518
4,005

5,508
4,000

5,497
3,992

5,470
3,959

5,456
3,965

5,445
3,954

5,439
3,950

5,445
3,957

1,525.7

5,441
3,959

1,518.7

5,443
3,962

1,517.8

5,249
3,952

1,522.1

1,523.8

1,526.0

1,528.2

1,508.3

1,506.3

1,500.7

1,502.4

1,504.5

1,502.7

1,503.8

1,501.3

207.4
290.9
194.6
359.7
50.2
546.6

200.6
260.3
179.8
312.7
45.2
519.0

2..04
262.9
181.6
313.2
44.2
519.2

200.7
256.9
178.7
307.5
44.9
516.3

201.0
251.8
170.7
304.0
44.3
515.1

200.2
250.2
173.7
299.8
44.2
513.8

201.0
247.0
172.6
299.7
43.7
513.3

198.3
245.1
175.2
297.7
44.1
511.7

198.3
241.0
174.3
297.7
44.3
510.3

197.7
239.2
176.9
296.1
44.6
509.8

195.9
237.3
176.6
297.1
44.8
508.0

197.2
237.1
179.7
294.3
44.8
508.8

197.8
235.8
180.1
292.7
44.6
507.0

197.7
236.0
181.7
290.1
44.5
506.9

198.7
234.7
179.9
287.4
44.1
504.1

680.0
114.6
7.9

682.2
114.8
907.9

681.1
114.6
908.2

678.8
113.8
905.4

673.1
112.0
897.6

670.1
112.4
895.9

667.6
114.3
893.7

665.0
112.9
894.7

664.4
113.1
894.9

663.6
112.6
896.4

815.9

811.8

813.1

806.3

806.5

805.8

804.8

803.9

806.3

807.5

665.8
113.3
894.2
809.4

664.6
114.0
892.8

808.8

676.2
112.9
902.7
808.4

673.3
112.6
899.1

Plastics and rubber products..

706.6
118.1
927.5
848.0

807.7

S E R V IC E -P R O V ID IN G .....................

107,784

108,114

108,054

108,070

108,077

108,159

108,270

108,341

108,367

108,498

108,593

108,852

109,132

109,301

109,423

86,271

86,538

86,487

86,509

82,497

86,620

86,710

86,797

86,823

86,971

87,054

87,299

87,560

87,757

87,884

25,497
5,652.3
3,007.9
2,015.0

25,275
5,605.0
2,949.2
2,002.1

25,266
5,608.6
2,948.4
2,005.1

25,225
5,596.8
2,942.5
2,001.6

25,225
5,589.0
2,936.2
1,997.9

25,252
5,585.1
2,932.1
1,995.9

25,272
5,581.6
2,932.0
1,992.4

25,261
5,592.7
2,943.9
1,989.2

25,211
5,598.4
2,945.8
1,991.8

25,312
5,611.4
2,954.9
1,993.7

25,331
5,612.2
2,953.8
1,994.5

25,415
5,623.5
2,963.4
1,995.3

25,448
5,632.5
2,967.5
1,996.3

25,485
5,636.1
2,968.4
1,996.9

25,509
5,633.8
2,970.9
1,991.3

M a n u fa c tu r in g .......................

Production workers.....
D u r a b le g o o d s .....................

Production workers.....
Wood products...............
Nonmetallic mineral products
Primarv metals....................
Fabricated metal products....
Machinery...........................
Computer and electronic
products1.........................
Computer and peripheral
equipment.......................
Communications equipment.
Semiconductors and
electronic components......
Electronic instruments........
Electrical equipment and
appliances..........................
Transportation equipment.....
Furniture and related
products.............................
Miscellaneous manufacturing
N o n d u ra b le g o o d s .....................

Production workers...........
Food manufacturing..............
Beverages and tobacco
products.............................
Textile mills..........................
Textile product mills..............
Apparel................................
Leather and allied products....
Paper and paper products.....
Printing and related support
activities..............................
Petroleum and coal products..
Chemicals.............................

464.1

P R IV A T E S E R V IC E ­
P R O V ID IN G ............................
T r a d e , tr a n s p o r ta tio n ,
a n d u t ilitie s ..............................
W h o le s a le tr a d e ....................

Durable goods.................
Nondurable goods............
Electronic markets and
agents and brokers........
R e ta il t r a d e ...............................

629.4
15.025.1

Motor vehicles and parts
dealers1....................... .
Automobile dealers.........
Furniture and home
furnishings stores...........
Electronics and appliance
stores.............................

654.3
655.1
652.7
651.9
6657.1
657.2
659.6
14.911.5 14.908.0 14.896.5 14.911.6 14.926.8 14.948.1 14.921.7

1,879.4
1,252.8

1,883.5
1,255.1

538.7

542.9

543.1

540.1

525.3

511.9

511.3

507.2

1,881.7
1,254.8

See notes at end of table.

76

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

1,883.7
1,256.9

1,883.5
1,257.0

660.8
662.8
663.9
664.8
668.7
670.8
671.6
4.876.0 14.944.8 14.963.0 15.013.0 15.037.1 15.054.7 15.061.4

1,889.8
1,259.7

1,889.7
1,259.6

1,892.9
1,258.9

1,893.7
1,259.5

1,895.4
1,261.3

1,900.9
1,262.9

1,906.9
1,263.9

1,910.9
1,264.7

1,912.0
1,263.6

1,909.1
1,262.4

538.0

539.7

540.2

544.8

547.2

546.4

544.5

544.8

544.5

545.0

544.6

507.4

506.7

506.5

512.8

511.9

509.3

508.2

511.7

514.1

513.1

512.6

12. Continued—Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]_______

Building material and garden
supply stores.....................
Food and beverage stores....
Health and personal care
stores...............................
Gasoline stations................
Clothing and clothing
accessories stores..............
Sporting goods, hobby,
book, and music stores.......
General merchandise storesl
Department stores..............
Miscellaneous store retailers..
Nonstore retailers.......

Air transportation........
Rail transportation......
Water transportation...
Truck transportation....
Transit and ground passenger
transportation....................
Pipeline transportation.........
Scenic and sightseeing
transportation....................
Support activities for
transportation....................
Couriers and messengers....
Warehousing and storage
U tilitie s ............................................
In fo r m a tio n ...................................

Publishing industries, except
Internet.............................
Motion picture and sound
recording industries...........
Internet publishing and
broadcasting.....................
Telecommunications........... .
ISPs, search portals, and
data processing................
Other Information services...
F in a n c ia l a c t iv itie s ......................

Finance and insurance......... .
Monetary authorities—
central bank......................

2003

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

1 176.5
2,881.6

1,191.1
2,840.9

1,187.4
2,847.3

1,188.3
2,835.6

1,194.7
2,833.6

1,203.4
2,829.4

1,204.0
2,838.7

1,210.0
2,821.4

1,209.5
2,813.9

1,221.4
2,826.3

1,231.4
2,831.3

1,243.5
2,838.9

1,247.3
2,839.9

1,250.3
2,845.9

1,248.2
2,843.2

938 8
895.9

943.1
879.9

943.2
882.6

941.4
877.9

941.0
881.4

943.1
877.9

948.3
873.8

951.6
875.2

952.6
871.1

954.1
875..1

954.9
871.8

958.2
873.0

957.9
872.4

958.4
872.5

961.7
871.4

1,312.5

1,296.7

1,293.1

1,294.0

1,294.8

1,295.6

1,302.6

1,297.1

1,301.0

1,304.3

1,311.3

1,321.8

1,328.0

1,333.5

1,341.6

661.3
2,812.0
1 684.0
959.5
443.7

645.0
2,815.2
1,618.8
934.1
427.5

644.8
2,811.2
1,612.2
934.7
427.6

644.1
2,820.4
1,613.7
934.0
429.8

642.5
2,834.9
1,622.3
931.9
427.9

642.8
2,839.9
1,623.7
931.7
426.8

642.0
2,842.9
1,623.5
933.5
425.9

641.6
2,826.4
1,612.6
930.9
417.3

633.2
2,793.4
1,601.3
924.4
424.1

635.9
2,822.7
1,603.4
929.6
424.3

636.8
2,822.5
1,602.7
924.6
424.8

636.5
2,824.4
1,604.9
926.9
427.4

635.8
2,831.0
16.7
927.9
429.8

636.7
2,830.2
1,606.5
927.3
431.7

636.0
2831.5
1,603.4
929.8
431.7

4,223.6
563.5
217.8
52 6
1,339.3

4,176.7
527.3
215.4
52.5
1,328.0

4,171.6
523.0
216.0
53.1
1,324.6

4,153.6
513.8
216.1
53.1
1,324.3

4,148.4
512.4
213.8
52.9
1,329.6

4,160.8
511.8
215.6
51.5
1,328.7

4,162.9
506.1
215.2
52.5
1,329.3

4,168.0
511.5
215.5
50.9
1,335.7

4,157.0
512.9
215.5
50.0
1,338.7

4,175.9
510.2
215.4
50.6
1,343.6

4,175.8
511.6
215.7
48.8
1,344.1

4,197.0
512.9
216.0
49.2
1,346.4

4,196.5
513.3
216.3
50.6
1,352.2

4,212.2
513.6
216.3
50.9
1,354.3

4231.4
513.1
217.2
51.9
1,360.1

380.8
41.7

380.3
40.0

378.3
40.4

372.8
40.1

371.2
39.5

380.7
39.3

389.2
39.0

385.7
38.7

385.0
38.8

382.3
38.3

380.1
38.2

380.5
38.1

372.3
38.1

382.8
38.3

385.9
38.4

25.6

28.0

29.1

29.1

28.9

28.9

29.0

28.7

29.4

28.7

29.7

31.4

31.1

31.1

30.8

..

524.7
560.9
516.7
596.2
3,395

516.3
566.6
522.3
580.8
3,198

517.1
569.4
520.6
577.8
3,194

513.4
569.5
521.4
578.1
3,188

512.2
566.7
521.2
578.8
3,174

515.4
566.5
522.4
578.9
3,175

514.3
565.0
522.6
579.2
3,166

512.4
564.7
524.2
578.9
3,172

511.6
559.0
516.1
579.3
3,175

514.1
566.9
525.8
580.2
3,163

515.5
567.7
524.4
580.0
3,169

518.5
572.1
531.9
581.2
3,169

519.1
570.9
532.6
582.1
3,173

519.8
574.3
530.8
582.1
3,177

964.1

926.4

926.4

922.7

922.0

919.3

918.0

918.4

917.4

914.0

915.1

915.3

916.3

915.4

916.8

387.9
334.1

376.1
327.0

374.2
326.3

376.6
326.5

369.9
325.5

375.4
327.6

373.4
326.0

382.7
327.0

385.2
329.5

379.7
329.7

382.7
331.8

381.2
333.0

385.7
333.3

390.1
335.4

389.4
335.8

33.7
1,186.5

30.0
1,082.6

29.5
1,082.0

30.1
1,075.3

30.0
1,071.3

30.1
1,069.4

29.9
1,065.2

30.4
1,062.2

30.4
1,061.2

30.8
1,061.3

31.9
1,058.2

31.9
1,055.0

32.5
1,051.9

33.0
1,047.7

33.5
1,046.0

441.0
47.3
7,847
5,817.3

407.5
48.1
7,974
5,920.5

408.0
47.5
7,988
5,933.8

409.5
47.3
7,995
5,936.8

407.6
47.8
7,996
5,936.8

405.4
48.0
8,004
5,945.6

404.8
48.3
7,990
5,930.2

402.6
48.2
7,985
5,922.7

402.6
48.2
7,981
5,916.5

400.1
47.8
7,981
5,917.1

401.1
48.0
7,989
5,924.7

403.7
48.6
8,003
5,933.0

404.0
49.6
8,015
5,947.7

405.5
49.6
8,032
5,950.8

407.0
49.8
8,038
5,955.8

23.4

22.7

22.7

22.7

22.6

22.6

22.5

22.5

22.5

22.4

22.4

22.3

22.3

21.8

21.9

2,686.0

2,785.6

2,797.6

2,802.6

2,806.0

2,808.1

2,801.0

2,790.3

2,783.3

2,785.3

2,787.2

2,793.8

2,802.1

2,805.3

2,808.9

1,733.0
1,278.1

1,752.1
1.281.1

1,752.2
1.281.5

1,755.1
1.283.2

1,756.0
1.283.9

1,757.9
1.283.6

1,760.1
1.284.4

1,758.1
1.280.5

1,757.1
1.278.9

1,758.7
1.280.4

1,762.6
1.283.5

1,762.8
1.284.1

1,765.0
1.285.0

1,765.8
1.284.7

1,767.9
1.285.4

789.4

764.4

760.7

760.4

758.7

761.7

762.0

769.1

771.9

773.8

778.2

780.8

781.0

784.0

787.0
2,260.3

2,233.2

2,266.1

2,271.3

2,269.7

2,268.7

2,271.9

2,264.7

2,261.2

2,258.1

2,255.8

2,257.4

2,257.1

2,259.8

2,261.6

85.4

81.7

81.5

81.4

80.6

81.2

80.C

79.6

80.7

79.6

79.8

79.C

78.«

78.1

77.7

2,029.6
1,352.9
649.1

2,053.6
1,384.-:
640.6

2,053.6
1,382.4
642.6

2,057.6
1.385.C
6543.5

2,058.6
1,386.6
643.4

2,057.9
1,388.6
639.6

2,060.5
1,390.6
639.5

2,062.7
1,394.6
639.C

2,064.6
1,395.'
638.:

2,063.8
1,397.7
636.C

2,064.8
1,400.2
634.2

2,069.8
1,405.«
634.1

2,071.«
1,409.2
633.:

2,081.2
1,417-C
635.1

2,082.1
1,418.0
634.9

27.6

28.-

28.6

28.6

28.6

29.C

29.'

29.5

30.6

29.'

30.1

29.«

29.:

29.1

29.2

..

15,976

15,99'

15,96'

16,02

16,05

16.07C

16,11-

16,15

16.17Î

16,19«

16,23'

16,36,

16,425

16,468

...

6,675.6
1,115.:

6,623.
1,136.

6,606..
1,137.-

6,585.
1,135.

6,578.
1,133.

6,606.,
1,136.

6,624.
1,140.-

6,647.
1,142.

6,669.
1,140.

6,657.'
1,138.

6,658.
1,139.,

6,679.«
1,138.-

6,701.1,141.

6,707.
1,143.-

6,730.2
1,147.5

815.

802.

800.

800.

802.

801.

815.

813.

812.

818.

807.

810.8

1,222.

1,230.

1,230. 9

1,240. D

1,246. 4

..

...
...

P r o fe s s io n a l a n d b u s in e s s
s e r v ic e s ........................................

Professional and technical
services..........
Legal services..

May**

520.7
579.9
533.4
582.0
3,178

Credit intermediation and
related activities1.............
DeDOsitorv credit
intermediation1...............
Commercial bankina......
Securities, commodity
contracts, investments......
Insurance carriers and
related activities...............
Funds, trusts, and other
financial vehicles..............
Real estate and rental
and leasing........................
Real estate........................
Rental and leasing services.
Lessors of nonfinandal
intangible assets..............

June13

2002

T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d
w a r e h o u s in g ..................

200I4
Apr.

2003

Annual average

Industry

g
837.

ng
...

1,246.

1,228. D

1,220.

1,224. 3

15,996

1,230. 9

810. 3

826. 3

1,233. 9

1,235. 2

1,254.

1,258. D

1,262.4

See notes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

77

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

12. Continued—Employment of workers on nonfarm payrolls by industry, monthly data seasonally adjusted
[In thousands]_______

Industry
Computer systems design
and related services.........
Management and technical
consulting services.........
Management of companies
and enterprises.................
Administrative and waste
services...........................
Administrative and suDDort
services'..................

Annual average

2003

2004

2002

2003

June

July

Aug

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May”

1 152

1,108.

1,112.

1,100. ?

1,094.

1,103. 3

1,107.

1,105.

1,105.

1,104.

1,099.

1,103.

1,103. 5

1 ,1 0 9 .;

1,115.5

755.(

760.f

764.(

765.'

767.

774.(

780.

785.:

790.0

7 3 4.Z

747..

741.8

1 705 4

1,675.8

1,374.'

7 595

7,698.8

7,276.8

73,764.8

7.364.8

7.426.8

Employment services'.......

3,246.8

3,336.2

3.314.8

TemDorarv heb services...
Business suDDort services...
Services to buildinas
and dwellinas...................
Waste management and
remediation services...........

2.193.7
756.6

2.243.2
747.4

1.606.1
318 3

744.2

749.

1,680..

1,671

1,671.'

1,669.

1,671.«

1,670.;

1,675.

1,675.«

1,676.6

1,679.

1,683.:

1,685.9

7,754.'

7,748.1

7,773.

7,776.;

7,794.f

7,819.2

7,838.6

7,862.'

7,880.1

7,982.;

8,038.'

8,052.2

7,451.6

7.456.C

7,473.7

7,496.;

7.517.6

7,539.6

7,556.6

7.657.C

3.369.8

7,713.6

3.366.2

3.389.1

7,725.5

3.402.C

3,427.6

3.461.C

3.473.6

3,493.6

3,492.;

3,553.7

3 ,5 9 1 .;

2.235.4
747.8

3,594.6

2.248.8
744.2

2.262.3
748.7

2.287.2
753.2

2.291.7
753.2

2.319.4
746.7

2.355.C
745.1

2.344.C
739.C

2.370.4
739.6

2.380.;
746.C

2.423.6
748.6

2.453.;
751.6

2.465.4
757.2

1.631.7

1.634.8

1.643.6

1.648.4

1.645.2

1.639.6

1.639.4

1.635.9

1.637.1

1.639.5

1.646.2

1.674.6

1.685.2

1.691.0

321.9

321.1

328.2

321.1

321.5

320.3

320.8

322.9

321

322.8

323.3

325.3

324.8

326.7

2,688.5

16,576
2,677.7

16,568
2,676.4

16,591
2,673.9

16,672
2,689.1

16,678
2,707.7

16,705
2,723.1

16,731
2,728.0

16,746
2,729.3

16,764
2,727.4

16,813
2,736.0

16,854
2,740.8

16,893
2,745.1

16,930
2,752.1

14,036.8 14,077.1

14,113.1

E d u c a tio n a l a n d h e a lth
s e r v ic e s ............................

Educational services...............
Health care and social
assistance.....................
Ambulatone health care
services'...........................
Offices of physicians...........
Outpatient care centers.......
Home health care services...
Hospitals...........................
Nursina and residential
r a r p fari liti a s 1
Nursina care facilities..........
Social assistance'.................
Child day care services........
L e is u re a n d h o s p ita lity ...............

16,199
2,642.8

13,555.7 13,888.0

13,891.3 13,916.8 13,933.3 13,970.0 13,981.5 14,003.2 14,017.1

4,633.2
1,967.8
413.0
679.8

4,776.0
2,003.8
423.1
727.1

4,777.3
2,001.0
425.0
729.7

4,159.6

4,252.5

4,259.8

2,743.3
1.573.2
2,019.7
744.1
11,986

2,784.3
1.582.8
2,075.2
760.5
12,128

2,786.7
1.586.1
2,074.6

Arts, entertainment,
and recreation.......................
1,782.6 1,801.0
Performing arts and
spectator sports...................
363.7
370.2
Museums, historical sites,
zoos, and parks...................
114.0
114.1
Amusements, gambling, and
recreation......................
1,305.0 1,316.6
Accommodations and
food services........................ 10,203.2 10,324.4
Accommodations.................
1,778.6 1,765.2
Food services and drinking
places...............................
8,424.6 8.559.2
O th e r s e r v ic e s ................................
5,372
5,393
Repair and maintenance........
1,246.9 1.236.2
Personal and laundry services 1,257.2 1.258.2
Membership associations and
organizations....................... 2,867.8 2,898.0
G o v e r n m e n t.....................................
21,513
21,575
Federal...............................
2,767
2,756
Federal, except U.S. Postal
Service.......................
1.923.8 1.947.0
U.S. Postal Service...............
842.4
809.1
State.............................
5,029
5,017
Education...................
2.242.8 2,266.4
Other State government....... 2.786.3 2,750.7
Local....................................
13,718
13,802
Education....................
7.654.4 7.699.1
Other local government........ 6,063.2 6,104.0

4,783.4
2,004.6
422.8
732.0
4,247.4

4,791.9
2,007.1
423.5
733.7

4,792.8
2,008.2
422.9
732.8

4,812.8
2,018.5
423.3
737.7

4,260.2

4,264.4

2,787.7
1.580.5
2,080.0

756.5
12,097

2.784.2
1.582.8
2.076.3
761.1
12,118

1,792.1
366.6

4,818.7
2,023.3
426.4
735.7

4,831.0
2,030.0
425.0
739.9

4,840.3
2,032.3
427.8
740.2

4,268.9

4,278.1

4,283.9

2,789.3
1.583.1
2,086.8

2.794.2
1.585.2
2,094.1

2.792.8
1.584.1
2.091.9

764.5
12,117

765.8
12,126

771.6
12,147

1,797.7

1,795.0

1,794.4

366.2

366.7

114.3
1,311.2

1,316.9

4,868.0
2,043.5
430.3
743.8

4,883.6
2,046.1
432.2
748.4

4,897.7
2,049.6
435.2
752.2

4,287.8

4,855.3
2,034.4
431.1
741.5
4,284.1

4,298.0

4,305.1

4,314.7

4,908.6
2,051.4
435.2
757.8
4,320.4

2,792.1
1.580.3
2,096.9
766.3
12,218

2,791.1
1.578.7
2,106.3
772.2
12,229

2,798.4
1.582.1
2,112.7
773.7
12,271

2,802.8
1.584.0
2,121.6
777.6
12,303

2.804.8
1.584.8
2,130.7

2,805.0
1.584.9
2,143.4

766.3
12,178

2,793.0
1.581.7
2,095.3
770
12,192

779.8
12,332

791.1
12,340

1,796.9

1,799.4

1,795.2

1,801.4

1,796.7

1,798.7

1,791.1

1,791.6

1,786.0

372.0

369.6

371.7

368.8

369.4

366.5

364.6

361.4

358.7

357.7

114.5

113.4

114.2

113.3

113.1

113.4

113.7

114.2

114.6

115.4

114.7

1,313.8

1,309.0

1,313.1

1,314.4

1,313.3

1,318.6

1,316.5

1,319.9

1,315.1

1,317.5

1,313.6

10,305.1 10,319.9 10,321.8 10,331.7 10,350.4 10,378.9 10,396.3 10,416.5
10,432.3 10,742.0 10,511.8 10,540.3 10,553.6
1,756.0 1,762.5 1,755.0 1,739.1
1,733.7 1,751.7 1,763.0 1,752.1
1,754.4 1,753.4 1,758.5 1,758.9 1,765.2

1,238.9
1,258.5

8,557.4
5,394
1.238.7
1.258.8

« « « r- «

2,902.0

813.0
2,247.9
2,748.0
7.707.1
6.101.1

8,566.8
5,396
1,242.4
1,257.3


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

8,616.7
5,387
1.237.6
1.254.6

8,627.2
5,382
1,234.4
1,254.1

8,633.3
5,374
1,228.5
1,250.2

8,664.4
5,379
1,233.5
1,251.2

8,677.9
5,376
1.230.5
1.247.6

8,718.6
5,391
1,239.4
1,255.9

8,753.3
5,404
1,238.2
1,260.5

8,781.4
5,409
1,238.3
1,267.5

8,788.4
5,421
1.269.4
2.194.5

2,896.5

2,895.2

21,544
2,720

2,898.3
21,539
2,716

2,904.8

21,560
2,736

2,894.5
21,527
2,715

2,895.2

21,539
2,747

2,893.9
21,544
2,723

2,895.7

21,580
2,750

21,553
2,710

21,572
2,727

2,903.1
21,544
2,706

2,914.5
21,539
2,706

1.947.8
810.2
4,990
2,249.0
2.740.8
13,813
7,721.2
6,091.5

1.942.2
808.0
4,997
2,258.7
2.738.2
13,833
7,742.4
6,090.1

1,942.1
804.8
5,019
2.278.8
2,740.4
13,773
7.673.9
6,099.3

1,932.9
803.3
5,031
2.290.4
2.740.4
13,793
7,687.0
6,105.91

1,924.9
798.1
5,023
2,282.5
2,740.0
13,798
7,684.5
6,113.1

1,928.9
791.4
5,027
2,285.7
2,740.9
13,797
7,687.1
6,109.7

1,921.5
793.1
5,007
2,268.0
2,738.9
13,805
7,692.2
6,112.7|

1,923.8
791.7
5,018
2,279.6
2,738.4
13,805
7,694.3
6,110.8

1,921.1
789.1
5,023
2,283.2
2,739.7
13,820
7.704.7
6.114.8

1,939.5
787.3
5,019
2,278.3
2,740.6
13,826
7,710.9
6,115.4|

1,920.6
785.1
5,011
2,267.9
2,742.7
13,827
7,710.6
6,116.0

1,922.6
783.4
5,013
2,270.0
2,742.9
13,820
7,711.0
6,108.8

1 Includes other Industries not shown separately.

Monthly Labor Review

8.592.6
5,390
1,240.4
1.252.7

21,561
2,758

NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision,
p = preliminary.

78

14,147.9 14,177.4

13. Average weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry, monthly
data seasonally adjusted___________
Industry

Annual average
2002
2003

TOTAL PRIVATE..................................
GOODS-PRODUCING...............................

33.9
39.9

33.7

2004

2003
June
33.7

July

Aug. Sept. Oct.

33.6

33.6

33.6

Nov.

33.7

33.8

Dec
33.6

Jan.
33.8

Feb.
33.8

Mar.

Apr.

33.8

33.7

Mayp Junep
33.8

33.6
40.0
44.4

39.8

39.8

39.6

39.7

39.8

39.9

40.1

39.9

40.2

40.3

40.2

40.0

40.2

43.3

43.6

43.6

43.7

43.9

43.6

44.5

44.1

44.2

44.3

44.2

38.3

38.5

38.4

38.4

38.5

38.1

38.5

38.5

38.6

38.2

38.3

38.1

40.4
4.2

40.5
4.3

40.8
4.5

40.6
4.5

41.0
4.5

41.0
4.6

40.9
4.6

40.7
4.5

41.1
4.6

40.8
4.6

Natural resources and m ining...............

43.2

43.6

43.6

C onstruction...........................................

38.4

38.4

38.4

M anufacturing........................................
Overtime hours.................................

40.5
4.2

40.4
4.2

40.3
4.1

40.1
4.1

40.2
4.1

Durable goods......................................
Overtime hours.................................
Wood products....................................
Nonmetallic mineral products.............
Primary metals....................................
Fabricated metal products.................
Machinery..........................................
Computer and electronic products.....
Electrical equipment and appliances..
Transportation equipment..................
Furniture and related products...........
Miscellaneous manufacturing............

40.8
4.2
39.9
42.0
42.4
40.6
40.5
39.7
40.1
42.5
39.2
38.6

40.8
4.3
40.4
42.2
42.3
40.7
40.8
40.4
40.6
41.9
38.9
38.4

40.7
4.1
40.3
42.1
42.0
40.6
40.9
40.4
40.8
41.4
38.9
38.4

40.5
4.1
40.7
41.8
41.7
40.5
40.4
40.5
40.5
41.3
38.9
38.3

40.5
4.2
40.4
42.1
41.9
40.5
40.7
41.0
40.6
40.7
39.1
38.1

40.8
4.3
40.4
41.9
42.2
40.7
41.0
40.6
40.6
42.0
39.1
38.3

40.9
4.4
40.6
42.1
42.3
40.8
40.9
40.7
40.9
41.9
39.1
38.3

41.3
4.7
41.2
42.4
42.7
40.9
41.1
40.7
40.8
42.7
39.9
38.9

41.2
4.7
41.0
42.3
42.7
40.8
41.1
40.4
40.7
42.7
39.7
38.5

41.5
4.7
40.9
42.5
43.1
41.2
41.8
40.8
41.1
42.8
39.7
39.0

41.5
4.8
41.1
42.5
43.0
41.2
41.8
41.2
40.7
42.9
39.4
38.7

41.4
4.8
41.0
42.9
43.2
41.1
41.7
40.7
40.8
42.8
39.6
38.7

41.2
4.7
41.0
42.3
43.1
41.0
41.6
40.5
40.8
42.4
39.5
38.3

41.5
4.8
41.4
41.6
43.5
41.3
42.2
40.7
41.6
42.7
39.9
38.8

41.2
4.7
41.0
42.0
43.3
40.9
42.0
40.4
40.8
42.3
39.5
38.2

Nondurable goods................................
Overtime hours.................................
Food manufacturing...........................
Beverage and tobacco products........
Textile mills.........................................
Textile product mills............................
Apparel...............................................
Leather and allied products...............
Paper and paper products.................
Printing and related support
activities............................................
Petroleum and coal products.............
Chemicals..........................................
Plastics and rubber products.............

40.1
4.2
39.6
39.4
40.6
39.2
36.7
37.5
41.8

39.8
4.1
39.3
39.1
39.1
39.6
35.6
39.3
42.1

39.7
3.9
39.3
38.8
38.8
39.0
35.1
38.8
41.4

39.4
4.0
39.1
38.4
37.7
39.8
34.6
39.7
41.2

39.6
3.6
39.2
38.8
38.7
40.0
34.8
38.9
41.2

39.8
4.1
39.3
39.1
39.0
40.7
35.1
38.4
41.2

39.9
4.1
39.3
38.8
39.1
40.4
35.8
38.9
41.5

40.1
4.3
39.2
39.9
40.0
40.0
36.2
39.3
41 ..9

39.9
4.2
39.1
39.1
39.7
39.8
35.8
40.3
41.8

40.2
4.3
39.5
39.6
40.0
39.4
35.7
39.8
41.9

40.3
4.3
39.4
40.3
40.0
39.9
36.2
39.5
42.0

40.1
4.3
39.3
39.4
40.2
38.8
36.3
39.4
41.8

40.0
4.3
39.1
39.6
39.5
38.3
35.9
39.1
41.9

40.3
4.4
39.7
39.2
40.1
38.6
36.1
38.5
42.5

40.1
4.4
39.6
38.6
40.1
38.7
35.7
38.8
42.0

38.4
43.0
42.3
40.6

38.2
44.5
42.4
40.4

38.2
44.2
42.2
40.1

38.0
44.0
42.0
40.1

38.0
44.4
42.3
40.3

38.2
44.2
42.2
40.5

38.5
44.9
42.0
40.6

38.4
45.6
42.7
40.7

38.2
44.2
42.5
40.4

38.6
43.8
42.9
40.8

38.6
44.1
43.2
40.9

38.4
43.7
43.0
40.9

38.4
43.9
43.0
40.7

38.6
45.1
42.9
40.9

38.6
44.3
42.5
40.8

32.5

32.4

32.3

32.2

32.3

32.3

32.3

32.4

32.2

32.4

32.4

32.4

32.3

32.4

32.2

33.6
38.0
30.9
36.8
40.9
36.5
35.6

33.5
37.8
30.9
36.9
41.1
36.2
35.5

33.5
37.8
30.8
36.6
41.0
36.3
35.5

33.4
37.8
30.7
36.9
41.0
36.3
35.5

33.5
37.9
30.9
36.9
41.0
36.2
35.5

33.5
37.8
30.9
36.9
40.4
36.1
35.4

33.6
38.0
30.9
37.1
41.0
36.1
35.5

33.6
38.0
30.9
37.0
41.4
36.3
35.5

33.5
37.8
30.8
36.7
40.8
36.2
35.3

33.6
37.9
31.0
36.9
40.8
36.2
35.7

33.7
38.0
30.9
37.2
41.0
36.3
35.5

33.6
38.0
30.8
36.9
41.2
36.3
35.5

33.5
38.0
30.7
36.9
41.2
36.3
35.6

33.6
37.8
30.8
37.2
41.4
36.4
35.8

33.3
37.5
30.5
36.8
41.2
36.4
35.5

34.2
32.4
25.8
32.0

34.1
32.3
25.6
31.4

34.1
32.3
25.5
31.4

34.1
32.3
25.4
31.3

33.9
32.4
25.5
31.3

33.9
32.3
25.5
31.2

34.0
32.3
25.6
31.3

34.1
32.4
25.7
31.2

33.8
32.4
25.6
31.0

34.1
32.4
25.7
31.1

34.2
32.4
25.8
31.1

34.1
32.4
25.7
31.2

34.1
32.4
25.7
31.1

34.2
32.4
25.7
31.1

33.9
32.4
25.6
30.9

PRIVATE SERVICE­
PROVIDING........................................
Trade, transportation, and
u tilities.................................................
Wholesale trade...................................
Retail trade..........................................
Transportation and warehousing.........
Utilities................................................
Information.............................................
Financial activities...............................
Professional and business
services................................................
Education and health services............
Leisure and hospitality........................
Other services.......................................

1Data relate to production workers in natural resources and mining and manu­
facturing, construction workers in construction, and nonsupervisory workers in the
service-providing industries.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark
revision.
p = preliminary.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

79

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

14. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers' on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry,
Annual average

Industry

2003

2004

2002

2003

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

$14.95
8.24

$15.35
8.27

$15.34
8.29

8.31

$15.41
8.28

$15.41
8.25

$15.43
8.28

$15.46
8.23

$15.45
8.30

$15.49
8.27

$15.52
8.27

$15.55
8.24

$15.59
8.25

16.86

16.91

16.90

16.94

16.97

17.00

17.06

17.08

14.61

14.68

17.66
19.05
15.84
15.06
16.57
14.70

17.72
19.06
15.83
15.03
16.54
14.72

17.79
19.06
15.89
15.06
16.58
14.79

17.91
19.04
15.93
15.09
16.64
14.81

17.95
19.11
15.94
15.11
16.63
14.85

18.01
19.18
15.99
15.14
16.68
14.89

18.10
19.17

14.96

17.62
19.01
15.79
15.02

15.02

15.01

15.03

15.06

15.05

15.08

14.40
17.43
11.95
16.33

17.39

14.38
17.44
11.94
16.31
24.96
21.21
17.27

14.41
17.47
11.95
16.32
25.17
21.21
17.29

14.44
17.47
11.97
16.35
25.36
21.10
17.30

14.41
17.46
11.95
16.33
25.13
20.99
17.30

17.19

17.25

17.29

15.70
8.78
13.81

15.73
8.78
13.80

15.77
8.82
13.81

May*5 Junep

T O T A L P R IV A T E

Current dollars............................
Constant (1982) dollars..............
G O O D S - P R O D U C IN G ............................
N a tu r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d m in in g ................
C o n s t r u c t io n ..............................................
M a n u f a c t u r in g ....................................

Excluding overtime......................
Durable goods....................
Nondurable goods.....................

16.33

16.80

17.19
18.52
15.29
14.54
16.02
14.15

17.58
18.95
15.74
14.96
16.46
14.63

17.52

17.57
1o .y /

$15.63
8.21

$15.65
8.21

17.13

17.13

171.17

16.01
15.16
16.69
14.93

18.08
19.20
16.08
15.24
16.75
15.00

18.10
19.20
16.08
15.23
16.75
15.02

18.24
19.21
16.12
15.26
16.79
15.06

15.10

15.13

15.17

15.22

15.24

14.45
17.53
11.95
16.46
25.32
21.15
17.35

14.49
17.54
11.98
16.52
25.35
21.24
17.32

14.50
17.54
11.99
16.53
25.38
21.25
17.41

14.57
17.60
12.01
16.71
25.67
21.29
17.46

14.60
17.63
12.04
16. 76
25.51
21.36
17.53

14.62
17.67
12.04
16.80
25.52
21.34
17.58

17.25

17.24

17.25

17.27

17.29

17.36

17.38

15.81
8.84
13.80

15.87
8.85
13.84

15.90
8.86
13.84

15.96
8.87
13.87

15.99
8.86
13.84

16.05
8.87
13.85

16.10
8.86
13.85

P R IV A T E S E R V IC E P R O V ID IN G .....................................

14.56

T r a d e , tr a n s p o r t a t io n , a n d
u t ilit ie s ..............................................

Wholesale trade.....................
Retail trade.......................
Transportation and warehousing.......
Utilities.............................
I n f o r m a t io n .................................................
F in a n c ia l a c t iv it ie s ...........................

14.02
16.98
11.67
15.76
23.96
20.20
16.17

17.36
11.90
16.25
24.76
21.01
17.13

16.81

17.20

17.20

15.21
8.58
13.72

15.64
8.76
13.84

A 1- /-N^

17.37
16.26

16.36

20.98

P r o fe s s io n a l a n d b u s in e s s
s e r v ic e s ............................................
E d u c a tio n a n d h e a lth
s e r v ic e s .....................................
L e is u r e a n d h o s p it a lit y ................................
O t h e r s e r v ic e s .....................................

8.76
13.82

13.82

turing, construction workers in construction, and nonsupervisory workers in the
service-providing industries.

80

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

13.82

NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision,
p = preliminary.

15. Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1 on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry
2004
2003
Annual average
Industry
Apr.
Mar.
-eb.
Jan.
Dec.
Nov.
Oct.
2002 2003 June July Aug Sept.
T O T A L P R IV A T E ................

$14.95

Seasonally adjusted.

15.18
16.33

G O O D S - P R O D U C I N G .......................

17.19

N a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d m in in g ..

May.p June.p

$15.35 $15.30 $15.29 $15.31
15.41
15.40
15.34
15.47

$15.44
15.41

$15.42
15.41

$15.52
15.43

$15.48
15.45

$15.56
15.49

15.60
15.52

$15.55
15.55

$15.59
15.59

$15.63
15.63

$15.56
15.65

16.85

16.92

17.01

16.95

16.98

17.03

16.94

16.95

17.00

17.09

17.10

17.15

17.44

17.53

17.52

17.69

17.69

17.15

17.97

18.00

18.05

18.17

18.14

18.06

18.18

19.08

19.19

19.13

19.08

19.19

19.01

19.07

19.07

19.15

19.14

19.13

16.8
17.58

16.78

C o n s t r u c t i o n .......................................

18.52

18.95

18.91

19.00

15.29

15.74

15.69

15.68

15.76

15.87

15.81

15.92

16.05

15.98

15.99

16.01

16.07

16.04

16.10

M a n u f a c t u r i n g ...................................

Durable goods.........................
Wood products.....................
Nonmetallic mineral products
Primary metals.....................
Fabricated metal products....
Machinery.............................
Computer and electronic products ..
Electrical equipment and appliances
Transportation equipment......
Furniture and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing.

16.02
12.33
15.40
17.68
14.68
15.92
16.20
13.98
20.64
12.61
12.91

16.46
12.71
15.77
18.13
15.01
16.30
16.68
14.35
21.25
12.98
13.30

16.41
12.70
15.70
18.05
14.92
16.30
16.78
14.29
21.21
12.95
13.14

16.32
12.81
15.83
18.26
15.00
16.36
16.79
14.31
20.76
12.97
13.26

16.48
12.77
15.81
18.13
15.04
16.32
16.81
14.45
21.29
13.04
13.27

16.62
12.83
15.84
18.30
15.09
16.40
16.77
14.49
21.56
13.10
13.42

16.55
12.82
15.95
18.25
15.03
16.35
16.77
14.37
21.35
13.01
13.47

16.64
12.95
15.99
18.32
15.06
16.49
16.78
14.54
21.48
13.08
13.53

16.78
12.93
15.98
18.39
15.23
16.62
16.85
14.68
21.74
13.03
13.60

16.66
12.90
16.03
18.39
15.20
16.53
16.81
14.50
21.38
12.95
13.68

16.68
12.91
16.00
18.36
15.18
16.50
16.92
14.58
21.37
12.92
13.75

16.69
12.93
16.02
18.33
15.25
16.49
16.93
14.68
21.34
12.96
13.78

16.72
13.00
16.19
18.52
15.21
16.53
17.01
14.80
21.36
13.09
13.70

16.70
13.02
16.15
18.42
15.19
16.53
17.11
14.82
21.27
13.05
13.76

16.77
12.98
16.19
18.49
15.24
16.54
17.28
14.94
21.37
13.13
13.97

Nondurable goods..........................
Food manufacturing....................
Beverages and tobacco products .

14.15
12.55
17.73

14.63
12.80
17.96

14.56
12.73
17.70

14.71
12.84
17.86

14.65
12.80
17.75

14.73
12.90
17.73

14.67
12.77
18.05

14.80
12.91
18.64

14.88
12.95
18.58

14.89
12.91
18.88

14.88
12.87
18.76

14.90
12.89
19.13

15.01
12.96
19.60

14.98
12.94
19.53

15.01
12.98
19.30

Textile m ills..................................
Textile product m ills....................
Apparel........................................
Leather and allied products.........
Paper and paper products..........

11.73
10.96
9.10
11.00
16.85
14.93
23.04
17.97
13.55

12.00
11.24
9.56
11.67
17.32
15.37
23.64
18.52
14.18

11.93
11.16
9.47
11.55
17.20
15.25
23.45
18.53
14.20

11.97
11.28
9.68
11.52
17.45
15.39
23.14
18.51
14.38

11.95
11.46
9.75
11.67
17.33
15.36
22.96
18.60
14.27

12.07
11.47
9.77
11.63
17.41
15.46
23.45
18.66
14.30

12.02
11.37
9.69
11.83
17.44
15.41
23.63
18.66
14.19

12.08
11.35
9.71
11.87
17.58
15.48
24.00
18.77
14.27

12.21
11.44
9.80
11.90
17.60
15.56
24.06
18.79
14.47

12.11
11.45
9.74
11.94
17.63
15.53
24.13
18.83
14.43

12.13
11.40
9.58
11.76
17.55
15.57
24.32
18.85
14.45

12.09
11.37
9.60
11.64
17.59
15.61
24.82
18.87
14.45

12.23
11.33
9.71
11.65
17.84
15.54
24.48
19.02
14.58

12.09
11.26
9.54
11.50
17.91
15.50
24.42
19.06
14.56

12.15
11.24
9.59
11.64
17.80
15.55
24.31
19.18
14.61

14.56

14.96

14.90

14.87

14.88

15.00

15.01

15.13

15.07

15.19

15.24

15.16

15.20

15.24

15.13

14.02
16.98
11.67
15.76
23.96
20.2C

14.34
17.36
11.90
16.25
24.76
21.01

14.33
17.36
11.90
16.25
24.63
20.92

14.32
17.33
11.89
16.35
24.64
21.01

14.32
17.35
11.89
16.33
24.81
21.11

14.42
17.41
11.99
16.31
25.15
21.35

14.38
17.42
11.91
16.31
25.23
21.25

14.44
17.56
11.92
16.40
25.50
21.28

14.31
17.46
11.87
16.33
25.26
21.1C

14.50
17.56
11.98
16.46
25.38
21.21

14.58
17.60
12.04
16.58
25.29
21.28

14.53
17.47
12.03
16.51
25.36
21.17

14.64
17.60
12.08
16.73
25.69
21.24

14.64
17.68
12.07
16.73
25.56
21.35

14.58
17.57
12.02
16.81
25.41
21.23

16.17

17.13

17.19

17.29

17.34

17.27

17.25

17.42

17.26

17.35

17.47

17.37

17.45

17.65

17.49

16.81

17.2C

17.2C

17.07

17.0C

17.11

17.1C

17.41

17.26

17.38

17.47

17.26

17.26

17.45

17.25

15.2

15.6^

15.54

15.62

15.66

15.71

15.7C

15.76

15.86

15.94

15.95

15.9¿

15.96

15.96

16.03

8.76

8.76

8.8C

8.9^

8.89

8.92

8.86

8.8^

8.86

8.80

13.82

13.76

13.86

13.86

13.89

13.9C

13.85

13.8'

13.9C

13.81

s
Petroleum and coal products .
Chemicals.............................
Plastics and rubber products .

.

P R IV A T E S E R V IC E ­
P R O V ID IN G ................................................

.

T ra d e , tr a n s p o r ta tio n , a n d
u t i l i t i e s .........................................................

Wholesale trade..........................
Retail trade..................................
Transportation and warehousing .

.
.

Utilities........................................

.

F i n a n c ia l a c t iv i t i e s ...................

..

P r o f e s s io n a l a n d b u s in e s s
s e r v i c e s ........................................
E d u c a t io n a n d h e a lth
s e r v i c e s .......................................
L e is u r e a n d h o s p i t a l i t y ........
O t h e r s e r v i c e s ........................... .

..

8.5Í

8.76

8.71

8.66

8.66

13.7!

1 3 .*

13.8C

13.72

13.76

1 Data relate to production workers in natural resources and mining and
manufacturing, construction workers in construction, and nonsupervisory workers in

Note :

See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision,

p = preliminary.

the service-providing industries.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

81

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

16. Average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers1on private nonfarm payrolls, by industry
Annual average
2003
2004
Industry
2002
2003 June
July
Aug. Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
T O T A L P R IV A T E .........................

$517.36

$521.73
516.96

669.23

766.83
727.11

Seasonally adjusted......
G O O D S -P R O D U C IN G .....................

. 651 61

M a/

517.44

vi>oi y.u i
517.78

$520.33
517.78

$519.65
519.99

$527.68
522.55

$520.13
519.12

$518.15
523.56

$527.28
524.58

$520.93
525.59

$522.27
525.38

$531.42
528.29

$524.37
525.84

672.88

000.1X5

678.49

685.50

681.39

684.29

682.90

674.21

674.61

681.70

678.47

690.84

691.15

772.59

757.30

772.63
753.66

780.13
752.25

778.36
744.16

784.55
730.76

781.70
714.34

784.80
712.88

786.98
711.31

797.66
732.29

794.53
721.96

798.25
740.72

819.92
738.42

633.55

647.50

643.47

655.90

662.87

650.39

652.39

653.21

652.44

659.24

660.10

651.17

669.09
519.74
675.09
754.21
609.12
660.96

684.74

680.21

692.22

703.08

688.06

688.88

690.97

526.03
676.37
777.75
617.18
672.40

525.62
679.47
771.98
616.23
667.08

537.43
681.17
785.93
621.98
682.69

531.42
669.56
799.97
635.09
696.38

517.29
663.64
796.29
626.24
689.30

521.56
664.00
787.64
623.90
691.35

524.96
680.85
790.02
625.25
690.93

687.19
530.40
684.84
800.06
620.27
987.65

694.72
544.24
681.53
801.71
627.35
700.87

695.96
539.97
691.31
804.32
626.36
699.64

N a tu ra l re s o u rc e s
a n d m in in g ........................

■ 741.97

C o n s tr u c tio n ..............................
M a n u fa c tu r in g ...............................

618 75

636.07

635.45

652.97
Wood products....................
4 9 2 nn
Nonmetallic mineral products..
646.91
Primary metals..................
749.32
Fabricated metal products...... . 596.38
Machinery.........................
645.55
Computer and electronic
products..........................
642.87
Electrical equipment and
appliances...........................
560.24
Transportation equipment....... 877.87
Furniture and related
products........................
494.01
Miscellaneous
manufacturing....................... 499.13

671.53

672.81

513.92
665.11
767.63
610.33
664.79

520.70
673.53
761.71
608.74
669.93

674.68

681.27

685.85

684.22

684.22

693.01

695.91

680.81

695.41

690.74

683.80

694.67

701.57

582.68
890.32

587.32
888.70

824.17

582.34
870.76

588.29
918.46

592.04
905.24

601.96
925.79

616.56
950.04

594.50
915.06

591.95
916.77

596.01
917.62

599.40
905.66

613.55
914.61

612.54
912.50

505.23

505.05

OUh.saJ

513.78

518.76

508.69

523.20

528.43

510.23

505.17

510.62

517.06

518.09

518.64

510.69

505.89

505.59

515.33

515.90

530.38

533.12

532.15

533.50

534.66

524.71

533.89

533.65

582.65
502.61

579.49
500.29

581.61
506.88

593.62

588.27

602.64

594.11

514.12

504.78

596.00
498.84

602.20

505.69

595.20
499.36

595.90

517.29

600.88
515.11

497.66

511.13

603.40
514.01

702.75
469.47
445.08
340.22
458.26
719.21

699.15
464.08
440.82
337.13
452.76
712.08

449.28
713.71

694.03
462.47
459.55
339.30
451.63
710.53

707.43
475.56
467.98
341.95
445.43
726.00

707.56
469.98
458.21
348.84
462.55
727.25

751.19
485.62
456.27
356.36
465.30
743.63

722.76
490.84
464.46
352.80
485.52
751.52

728.77
485.61
447.70
343.82
471.63
738.70

737.27
486.41
450.30
345.84
464.52
731.84

744.16
490.85
441.16
350.40
464.44
731.74

780.08
484.31
435.07
347.76
460.18
745.71

771.44
486.02
432.38
346.30
441.60
755.80

754.63
488.43
438.36
346.20
452 ftO
747.60

587.42

577.98

578.66

585.22

599.85

597.91

603.72

602.17

593.25

597.89

600.99

593.63

593.65

595.57

.

Durable goods...................

Nondurable goods...................

566.84
Food manufacturing................ 496.91
Beverages and tobacco
products........................
698.39
Textile mills........................
476.52
Textile product mills...............
429.01
Apparel..............................
333.66
Leather and allied products..... 412.99
Paper and paper products....... 705.62
Printing and related
573.05
support activities.................
Petroleum and coal
990.88
products.........................
759.53
Chemicals........................
Plastics and rubber
549.85
products.........................

666.44
598.50
UJ1. I o

499.48

446.69

1,052.97 1,043.53 1,022.79 1,007.94 1,045.87 1,068.08 1,099.20 1,061.05 1,068.96
1,074.94 1,079.67 1,062.43 1,091.57 1,084.23
784.56
785.67
771.87
784.92
793.05
785.59
806.09
804.04
816.21
811.41
814.06
815.77
818.99
572.23

573.68

484.00

487.23

566.57

572.23

583.44

578.95

OuOitX/

596.16

585.86

588.12

589.56

594.86

595.50

600.47

485.09

483.00

484.82

493.24

485.25

484.56

496.82

486.64

487.92

496.82

488.70

P R IV A T E S E R V IC E P R O V ID IN G ..........................................

472.88

T r a d e , tra n s p o rta tio n ,
a n d u tilitie s ..............................

471.27

481.10

487.22

485.45

485.95

483.17

Wholesale trade....................
Retail trade........................
Transportation and
warehousing........................
Utilities........................

486.63

480.82

477.05

488.43

482.40

644.38
360.81

486.05

657.12

493.37

664.89
373.66

653.34
373.35

488.43

659.30
373.35

658.10
371.69

661.96
366.83

676.06
365.94

659.99
367.97

656.74
361.80

670.56
368.42

658.62
365.71

665.28
367.23

675.38
372.96

658.88
370.22

579.75
979.09

597.79
1,016.94

601.25

603.32

604.21
1,017.21

In fo r m a tio n ..........................................

738.17

761.13

767.76

F in a n c ia l a c t iv itie s ...........................

575.51

608.87

622.28

610.34

574.66

586.68

596.84

580.38

h e a ltti s e r v ic e s ...............................

492.74

505.76

505.05

L e is u re a n d h o s p ita lity ..................

221.26

224.35

227.33

226.55

439.76

434.49

436.08

430.81

606.73
603.47
615.00
602.58
597.50
613.46
604.27
610.65
625.70
620.29
1,026.12 1,039.48 1,068.45 1,028.08 1,032.97 1,039.42 1,039.76 1,053.29 1,055.63
1,049.43
770.74

769.25

783.10

761.71

763.56

776.72

760.00

764.64

775.01

772.77

607.90

608.93

628.86

607.55

612.10

630.67

611.42

615.99

637.17

617.40

578.32

580.71

597.16

582.67

583.97

602.72

587.52

588.57

603.77

586.50

P ro fe s s io n a l a n d
b u s in e s s s e r v ic e s .........................

579.70

E d u c a tio n a n d

O th e r s e r v ic e s ....................................

82

JÜÜ.03

433.13

505.86

506.51

516.33

512.28

514.86

519.97

513.27

516.48

519.68

517.77

222.13

223.89

226.05

225.29

221.36

230.14

225.80

224.81

224.54

227.04

431.18

431.31

434.89

430.28

429.20

433.68

428.73

428.58

43507

4 2 R 73

1 Data relate to production workers in natural resources and mining and manufacturing,
construction workers in construction, and nonsupervisory workers in the service-

NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision,
Dash indicates data not available

providing industries.

p= prelimina^.

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

17. Diffusion indexes of employment change, seasonally adjusted
[In percent]

Timespan and year

Jan.

Feb. Mar.

Apr.

May June July Aug. Sept. I Oct. | Nov. I Dec.

Private nonfarm payrolls, 278 industries
Over 1-month span:
2000..............................................
2001..............................................
2002..............................................
2003..............................................
2004..............................................
Over 3-month span:
2000..............................................
2001..............................................
2002..............................................
2003..............................................
2004..............................................

61.9
52.2
40.1
41.2
52.3

62.9
47.8
35.1
35.1
56.1

63.3
50.4
41.0
38.1
68.7

59.5
34.4
41.5
41.4
67.6

46.9
41.4
41.7
42.8
63.8

61.7
39.2
47.8

63.1
37.1
44.1

52.5
38.8
44.1

40.1
60.1

40.5

39.7

69.2
52.7
34.0

66.2
50.4
37.4

67.8
50.4
35.1

68.3
43.5
36.2

60.1
38.8
36.7

58.1
34.9

61.5
37.9
40.8

36.5
54.0

32.6
55.2

36.3
62.8

35.1
70.0

40.5
74.5

39.4
42.6
69.1

56.3
36.2
39.9
37.4

35.4

67.3
51.8
29.5

69.1
50.0
30.0

75.2
51.8
31.1

72.5
47.3
31.1

67.4
43.5
31.7

67.8
41.5
37.1

66.7
38.1
37.2

60.8
35.4
39.0

33.6
48.9

31.1
54.1

31.7
59.6

31.7
64.7

33.5
67.8

37.8
68.9

36.2

36.5

70.9
59.5
33.6
34.5
37.8

69.2
59.5
31.7
31.5
43.2

73.2
53.4
30.2
32.9
47.3

71.0
49.3
30.4
33.5
50.7

69.8
48.6
30.2
36.2
54.9

71.0
45.0
29.1

70.0
43.3
32.0

70.3
43.9
31.3

34.4
60.1

34.7

33.1

51.5
38.3
42.8
49.3

53.4
32.4
39.0
46.0

56.8
36.7
38.7
51.1

53.8
34.9
34.5
49.1

56.5
34.7
38.7
40.1

53.2
35.3
37.1
45.5

52.9
30.8
34.4
50.5

56.8
32.0
34.7
51.1

59.0
32.2
34.7
40.5

55.0
33.1
36.5
39.4

59.7
31.5
35.3
42.6

54.0
31.1
33.3
41.7

70.3
39.9
30.0
37.6

65.6
37.8
29.5
37.4

63.8
37.1
32.9
33.1

62.1
34.9
34.7
35.4

Over 6-month span:
2000..............................................
2001..............................................
2002..............................................
2003..............................................
2004..............................................
Over 12-month span:
2000..............................................
2001..............................................
2002..............................................
2003..............................................
2004.............................................

Manufacturing payrolls, 84 industries
Over 1-month span:
2000..............................................
2001..............................................
2002..............................................
2003..............................................
2004..............................................
Over 3-month span:
2000............................................
2001.............................................
?no2
....................................
2003 ........................................
2004 .......................................
Over 6-month span:
2000............................................
2001
......................................
2002 .......................................
2003
2004

....................................
....................................

Over 12-month span:
2000 .........................................
2001
......................................
2002
.....................................
2003.............................................
2004............................................

48.2
22.6

58.3
22.0

50.0
21.4

50.0
16.1

41.1
15.5

57.1
23.2

60.7
13.7

28.6
14.3

25.0
19.0

35.1
17.9

39.9
14.9

41.1
10.1

21.4
26.2
42.9

18.5
15.5
55.4

23.8
22.6
60.1

35.1
13.7
66.1

29.8
26.2
64.9

32.7
25.0
51.2

40.5
28.0

28.0
26.2

31.0
27.4

11.9
28.6

15.5
51.2

17.9
45.8

53.6
35.7
9.5
13.7
48.8

53.6
21.4

54.8
14.3
17.9
10.1
66.1

44.0
13.1
17.3
13.1
71.4

44.0
13.7

51.2
11.9

47.6
8.9

10.1
13.1
51.8

56.0
16.1
11.3
16.7
59.5

19.0
14.9
65.5

28.0
16.1

22.0
16.1

32.7
8.3
23.8
16.1

25.0
13.1
15.5
24.4

23.2
8.9
6.5
27.4

38.7
10.1
4.8
41.7

44.0
22.0
6.5
11.3
28.6

52.4
23.8
8.9
9.5
36.9

55.4
22.0
7.7
6.0
46.4

57.7
20.8
8.3
7.1
56.5

47.6
14.3
7.7
8.9
61.3

51.8
13.7
14.3

56.0
14.3
14.9

45.2
10.1
10.7

13.1
61.9

8.9

13.1

39.3
10.7
12.5
13.1

34.5
5.4
10.1
16.7

32.1
7.1
8.9
19.0

27.4
4.8
8.9
19.6

41.7
29.6
7.1
10.7
9.E

39.3
32.1
6.C
6.C
19.C

47.C
20.6
6.C
6.6
16.7

50.C
19.C
6.5
5.4
26.5

46./
13.1
7.1
8.C
29.E

52.4
12.£
3.6

51 .£
10.7
4.E

49.4
11.9
6.C

9.£
38.'

9.£

9.£

46.4
11.9
4.E
10.7

40.S
10.1
7.1
11.9

35.1
8.C
4.E
9.E

33.3
6.0
8.3
11.3

NOTE: Figures are the percent of industries with employment
increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged
employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance
between industries with increasing and decreasing
employment.

See the "Definitions" in this section. See "Notes on the data" for
a description of the most recent benchmark revision.
Data for the two most recent months are preliminary.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

83

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

18. Job openings levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted
Levels (in thousands)1
Industry and region

2003
Dec.

Total2...........................................

Jan.

2C04
Mar. Apr.

Feb.

Rates
2004

2003
May

Junep Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

Junep

062

2 ,8 6 8

2,906

3,079

3,135

3,105

3,029

2 .3

2.2

2 .2

2 .3

2.3

2.3

2 .3

Total private2.................................

2,719

2,518

2,534

2,740

2,778

2,746

2,688

2.4

2.3

2 .3

2 .5

Construction.............................

2.5

2.4

2 .4

110

106

99

113

105

108

87

1.6

1.5

1 .4

1 .6

Manufacturing...................................

1.5

1.5

1 .2

234

233

226

232

251

244

256

1.6

1.6

1 .6

1 .6

1.7

1.7

Trade, transportation, and utilities.......

1 .7

520

430

458

524

531

521

500

2.0

1.7

1 .8

2.0

2.0

2.0

1 .9

In d u s try

Professional and business services....

594

501

491

502

518

530

515

3.5

3.0

2 .9

3.0

3.1

Education and health services............

3.1

3 .0

520

549

551

559

576

542

516

3.0

3.2

3 .2

3.2

Leisure and hospitality........................

3.3

3.1

3 .0

399

368

383

370

376

391

413

3.2

2.9

3 .0

2.9

3.0

3.1

3 .2

351

350

364

353

354

360

342

1.6

1.6

1 .7

1.6

1.6

1.6

1 .6

Government.........................................
R e g io n 3

Northeast...................................

541

476

500

569

560

526

543

2.1

1.9

2 .0

2.2

2.2

2.0

2 .1

1,204

1,132

1,112

1,176

1,191

1,164

1,135

2.6

2.4

2 .4

2.5

Midwest..................................

2.5

2.5

2.4

666

679

680

663

692

688

675

2.1

2.2

2 .2

2.1

West...................................

2.2

2.2

2.1

649

586

632

655

694

765

659

2.2

2.0

2 .2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.3

South..............................................

Detail will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal
adjustment of the various series.

West Virginia;

2 Includes natural resources and mining, information, financial activities, and other
services, not shown separately.

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah
Washington, Wyoming.

N o rth e a s t:

S o u th :

Illinois,

Indiana,

Iowa,

Kansas,

Michigan, Minnesota
W e s t:

Alaska, Arizona

NOTE: The job openings level is the number of job openings on the last business day o:

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont;

M id w e s t:

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin;

the month; the job openings rate is the number of job openings on the last business day

Alabama, Arkansas,

Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,

the month as a percent of total employment plus job openings.

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,

p = preliminary.

19. Hires levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted
Levels (in thousands)1
Industry and region

2003
Dec.

Total2..........................................................

Jan.

Feb.

2004
Mar.

2003
Apr.

May

Junep Dec.

4,216

4,106

4,103

4,603

4,398

4,206

4,329

3.2

Total private2.............................................

3,923

3,800

3,772

4,256

4,090

3,938

4,028

Construction........................................

404

358

382

437

421

406

403

Manufacturing......................................

340

349

355

361

354

336

364

Jan.

Feb.

Rates
2003
Mar. Apr.

3 .2

3 .2

3 .5

3.4

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.9

6.0

5.3

5.6

6.4

2.4

2.4

2.5

2.5

May

Junep

3.2

3.3

3.7

3.6

3.7

6.1

5.9

5.8

2.5

2.3

2.5

In d u s try

Trade, transportation, and utilities.......

913

957

945

1,009

1,032

938

917

3.6

3.8

3.7

4.0

4.1

3.7

3.6

Professional and business services....

650

708

529

713

609

631

677

4.0

4.4

3.3

4.4

3.7

3.8

4.1

Education and health services............

427

416

447

444

460

451

429

2.5

2.5

2.7

2.6

2.7

2.7

Leisure and hospitality........................

2.5

753

715

766

810

766

739

735

6.2

5.9

6.3

6.6

6.2

6.0

6.0

300

295

323

343

300

272

305

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.4

2.8

Government........................................
R e g io n 3

Northeast.............................................

792

722

689

744

810

708

693

3.2

2.9

2.8

3.0

3.2

2.8

South....................................................

1,517

1,585

1,608

1,781

1,582

1,606

1,666

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.9

3.4

3.5

Midwest........................................

3.6

897

921

953

1,040

991

956

971

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.4

3.2

3.1

3.1

West...........................................

992

883

876

1,029

1,093

951

1,016

3.5

3.1

3.1

3.6

3.8

3.3

3.5

1 Detail will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal
adjustment of the various series.

M id w e s t:

Illinois,

2 Includes natural resources and mining, information, financial activities, and other
services, not shown separately.

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, Wyoming.

N o rth e a s t:

Iowa,

Kansas,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
W e s t:

Alaska, Arizona,

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont;

84

Indiana,

Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin;

S o u th :

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware,

NOTE: The hires level is the number of hires during the entire month; the hires rate

District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,

is the number of hires during the entire month as a percent of total employment.

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia;

p = preliminary.

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

01

20. Total separations levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted
Rates
2004

Levels (in thousands)1
Industry and region

2003
Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

2004
Mar. Apr.

2003
May

May

Junep

3.1

3.1

3.5

3.4

3.4

5.7

5.3

5.3

2.5

2.6

2.5

3.8

4.0

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.4

3.5

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.2

2.1

5.8

5.9

5.8

5.5

5.6

5.7

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.1

1.2

1.3

3.2

3.0

3.1

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.5

5.8

6.4

5.9

5.7

362

2.4

2.3

2.5

2.6

917

914

3.8

3.7

3.5

606

556

576

3.6

3.5

382

386

379

357

2.0

715

679

696

700

5.9

284

245

269

272

4,022

3,968

4,073

4,134

4,088

4,040

4,052

3.1

3,723

3,716

3,807

3,868

3,843

3,761

3,766

391

436

400

392

391

367

365

343

323

355

377

353

377

Trade, transportation, and utilities......

968

936

899

978

1,013

Professional and business services....

575

572

590

597

Education and health services............

330

389

388

723

709

727

269

258

268

Total2..............................................................

Apr

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

Junep Dec.

3.1

In d u s try

Total private2.............................................

Government..............................................
R e g io n 3

687

712

688

666

716

648

970

2.8

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.9

2.6

2.7

1,518

1,505

1,499

1,612

1,524

1,504

1,534

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.5

3.3

3.2

3.3

901

903

929

938

877

833

820

2.9

2.9

3.0

3.0

2.8

2.7

2.6

898

896

941

1,003

959

1,008

977

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.5

3.4

3.5

3.4

West....................................................

1 Detail will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment
2

Includes natural resources and mining, information, financial activities, and other
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont;
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
W e s t:

Alaska, Arizona, California,

Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
Wyoming.

services, not shown separately.
3 N o rth e a s t:

M id w e s t:

North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin;

of the various series.

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware,

S o u th :

Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maryland, Mississippi,

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia;

NOTE: The total separations level is the number of total separations during the entire
month; the total separations rate is the number of total separations during the entire
month as a percent of total employment.
p = preliminary.

21. Quits levels and rates by Industry and region, seasonally adjusted
Rates
2004

Levels (in thousands)1
Industry and region

2003
Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

2004
Mar. Apr.

2003
May

Junep Dec.
1.6

2,131

2,118

2,178

2,271

2,278

2,173

2,238

Total private2.............................................

2,010

2,002

2,051

2,144

2,151

2,026

2,120

1.9

Construction.........................................

171

148

133

154

149

144

159

2.5

Total2..............................................................

Apr.

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

May

1.7

Junep

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.0

1.9

1.9

2.2

2.0

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.3

1.6

In d u s try

Manufacturing......................................

178

165

169

176

189

171

169

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.2

1.2

Trade, transportation, and utilities......

534

530

493

530

563

525

531

2.1

2.1

1.9

2.1

2.2

2.1

2.1

Professional and business services....

256

261

302

309

323

259

305

1.6

1.6

1.9

1.9

2.0

1.6

1.9

Education and health services............

212

237

234

252

245

223

223

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.3

462

428

447

465

429

455

461

3.8

3.5

3.7

3.8

3.5

3.7

3.7

119

116

126

129

129

129

118

.6

.5

.6

.6

.6

.6

.5

315

288

319

314

390

318

318

1.3

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.6

1.3

1.3

894

852

867

957

888

857

878

1.9

1.9

1.9

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.9

465

513

455

474

479

479

476

1.5

1.7

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

436

475

520

565

524

521

567

1.5

1.7

1.8

2.0

1.8

1.8

2.0

Government..............................................
R e g io n 3

South...................................................
West....................................................

1 Detail will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment

M id w e s t:

Illinois, Indiana,

Iowa,

Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

of the various series.

Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin;

2

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,

Includes natural resources and mining, information, financial activities, and other

N o rth e a s t:

Alaska, Arizona,

Washington, Wyoming.

services, not shown separately.
3

W e s t:

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont;
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,

S o u th :

Kentucky,

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware,

Louisiana,

Maryland,

Mississippi,

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia;


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

NOTE: The quits level is the number of quits during the entire month; the quits rate
is the number of quits during the entire month as a percent of total employment.
p = preliminary.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

85

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

22. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 10 largest counties, fourth quarter 2003.

C o u n t y b y N A IC S s u p e r s e c to r

E s ta b lis h m e n ts ,
fo u r t h q u a r te r

E m p lo y m e n t

A v e r a g e w e e k ly w a g e 1

2003
(th o u s a n d s )

D ecem ber
2003
(t h o u s a n d s )

United States3 ........................................
Private industry .................................
Natural resources and mining .......
Construction...................................
Manufacturing ......... ......................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ..
Information ....................................
Financial activities.........................
Professionai and business services
Education and health services......
Leisure and hospitality ..................
Other services............................... .
Government .......................................

8,314.1
8,048.7
123.7
804.9
376.8
1,853.6
145.2
767.0
1,329.4
732.2
669.9
1,080.6
265.3

129,341.5
108,215.1
1,557.8
6,689.5
14,307.8
25,957.3
3,165.9
7,874.7
16,113.2
15,974.0
12,042.8
4,274.1
21,126.3

0.0
.0
.1
1.2
-4.2
-.3
^.0
1.2
.6
2.1
1.7
-.1
-.2

$767
769
703
837
943
665
1,139
1,138
945
731
335
494
757

3.6
3.9
4.9
2.3
6.7
3.4
3.9
5.9
3.8
3.8
3.4
3.1
2.4

Los Angeles, CA ....................................
Private industry ..................................
Natural resources and mining ........
Construction...................................
Manufacturing ................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ...
Information .....................................
Financial activities..........................
Professional and business services
Education and health services .......
Leisure and hospitality ...................
Other services................................
Government ...... .................................

356.0
352.2
.6
12.9
17.8
53.9
9.2
23.0
40.1
26.6
25.6
142.1
3.8

4,075.3
3,486.3
11.0
133.9
485.2
794.6
194.9
237.9
575.0
456.5
375.9
220.7
589.0

-.5
-.2
.7
-1.1
-7.1
-1.2
-2.0
.9
1.6
1.9
5.6
3.5
-2.3

903
898
955
883
900
735
1,627
1,258
1,043
820
766
422
930

4.2
4.2
16.9
1.7
6.5
2.7
5.2
7.0
3.7
3.9
6.5
5.0
3.3

Cook, IL ...................................................
Private industry ..................................
Natural resources and mining ........
Construction ...................................
Manufacturing ................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ...
Information .....................................
Financial activities.......................... .
Professional and business services .
Education and health services ........
Leisure and hospitality ....................
Other services.................................
Government ........................................

126.7
125.5
.1
10.5
7.9
26.7
2.5
13.8
26.1
12.3
10.5
12.6
1.2

2,539.8
2,221.9
1.3
96.7
265.7
499.4
66.1
219.4
405.5
350.8
217.7
95.1
317.9

-1.2
-.9
-3.6
.0
-5.1
-.8
-4.1
-.8
-1.3
1.0
2.8
-2.0
-3.1

922
929
1,037
1,169
975
753
1,164
1,471
1,206
791
375
655
871

3.0
3.2
3.2
-.8
6.3
.4
.1
8.1
4.1
3.7
-.3
3.0
.9

New York, N Y ..........................................
Private industry ...................................
Natural resources and mining .........
Construction.....................................
Manufacturing .................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities ....
Information .......................................
Financial activities...........................
Professional and business services .
Education and health services ........
Leisure and hospitality ....................
Other services.................................
Government ........................................

111.9
111.7
.0
2.2
3.5
22.1
4.3
16.7
22.6
7.8
10.1
16.0
.2

2,253.6
1,800.4
.1
30.0
46.6
247.6
130.6
352.0
439.7
273.8
188.2
82.9
453.2

-1.0
-.6
.0
-4.5
-1.2
-5.1
-2.0
.5
2.4
.4
-1.1
-2.2

1,480
1,623
1,197
1,567
1,290
1,164
1,751
3,034
1,702
918
787
871
912

7.2
8.1
-6.5
3.4
6.4
5.5
7.9
16.1
2.6
7.6
6.1
6.1
.1

Harris, TX .................................................
Private industry ...................................
Natural resources and mining .........
Construction.....................................
Manufacturing ................................. .
Trade, transportation, and utilities....
Information .......................................
Financial activities............................
Professional and business services ..
Education and health services .........
Leisure and hospitality .....................
Other services..................................
Government .........................................

89.4
89.0
1.2
6.3
4.7
21.1
1.4
9.7
17.0
8.8
6.5
10.3
.4

1,841.5
1,595.2
62.5
135.5
164.0
403.2
33.8
113.1
279.0
188.3
155.2
56.3
246.3

-.9
-1.2
8.7
-5.0
-4.9
-2.1
-3.9
1.7
-1.7
1.5
.7
-3.1
1.1

906
929
2,185
919
1,106
821
1,098
1,181
1,073
812
335
539
759

2.1
2.1
-.9
2.6
2.3
1.0
.4
4.9
3.2
1.8
-.9
.4
3.1

Maricopa, A Z .............................................
Private industry ....................................
Natural resources and mining ..........
Construction.....................................
Manufacturing ..................................
Trade, transportation, and utilities....
Information ........................................
Financial activities............................
Professional and business services ..
Education and health services .........
Leisure and hospitality .....................
Other services...................................
Government .........................................

80.9
80.5
.5
8.4
3.3
18.6
1.6
9.5
18.1
7.6
5.6
5.7
.5

1,621.2
1,401.8
9.8
131.7
128.0
336.4
36.6
133.3
261.5
160.5
155.8
44.7
219.4

(4)
2.2
-2.6
5.9
-2.5
1.5
-4.1
1.5
4.2
5.6
.8
-2.6
1.6

757
755
545
779
1,050
712
872
933
776
842
364
500
766

4.0
3.9
4.4
2.1
8.2
3.2
.5
3.7
3.5
5.0
2.8
2.2
3.7

See footnotes at end of table.

86

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

P e rc e n t c h an g e ,
D ecem ber
2 0 0 2 -0 3 2

-4.9

F o u r th
q u a r te r
2003

P e rc e n t ch an g e ,
fo u r t h q u a r te r
2 0 0 2 -0 3 2

22. Continued—Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 10 largest counties, fourth quarter 2003.
A v e r a g e w e e k ly w a g e 1

E m p lo y m e n t
fo u r t h q u a r te r
C o u n t y b y N A IC S s u p e r s e c to r

F o u r th

P e rc e n t c h an g e ,

2003

P e rc e n t ch an g e ,
D ecem ber

q u a r te r

fo u rth q u a rte r

(th o u s a n d s )

2 0 0 2 -0 3 2

2003

2 0 0 2 -0 3 2

68.6
68.2
.5
4.5
3.5
15.8
1.9
8.6
14.0
6.3
5.2
6.7
.4

1,450.8
1,294.6
6.8
73.0
144.9
326.1
64.0
140.0
237.7
131.4
127.5
40.5
156.2

-1.4
-1.4
-20.5
-2.2
-3.1
-3.3
-5.1
1.2
.0
2.4
.0
-3.4
-1.8

$952
970
2,680
909
1,075
898
1,272
1,215
1,152
887
432
587
800

4.3
4.8
22.7
5.5
6.8
5.2
8.7
2.9
4.2
2.7
4.3
2.8
-.1

88.8
87.4
.3
6.4
6.1
17.3
1.5
9.7
17.4
9.1
6.6
12.9
1.4

1,436.6
1,305.5
6.1
85.5
179.9
278.8
33.8
127.8
261.0
126.6
159.9
46.0
131.1

1.3
2.1
8.3
4.4
-3.0
.6
-4.4
9.9
1.0
6.1
2.5
6.3
-5.7

874
875
579
969
1,036
802
1,152
1,354
942
849
358
518
859

5.3
5.2
.2
5.9
11.4
2.7
5.3
6.2
2.8
3.7
3.8
3.0
6.0

85.3
83.9
.9
6.4
3.6
14.2
1.4
8.8
14.9
7.6
6.5
19.5
1.3

1,278.2
1,060.2
11.0
81.1
105.4
220.4
36.7
81.6
208.1
122.6
141.5
51.6
218.0

1.3
1.5
-5.4
4.7
-4.2
2.2
-4.5
4.8
1.5
1.6
3.5
1.8
.1

815
809
491
869
1,129
655
1,582
1,058
989
778
346
449
843

2.6
2.5
1.0
.7
11.5
.9
-2.0
.4
2.8
5.7
2.4
2.7
2.9

81.6
81.0
.4
6.2
2.7
14.8
1.5
6.1
11.7
5.9
5.4
26.4
.6

1,100.6
945.5
2.8
53.4
101.9
225.5
69.2
77.5
158.3
108.3
100.5
48.1
155.1

.2
.1
-11.3
-.4
-8.2
1.1
.8
2.4
.7
1.5
2.9
1.2
1.0

935
944
1,109
921
1,176
804
1,829
1,114
1,160
746
390
463
882

.2
-.3
.8
1.4
-2.1
2.6
-15.7
3.5
8.4
4.8
3.7
.4
3.6

80.2
79.9
.5
4.9
2.8
23.2
1.7
8.2
15.9
7.8
5.3
7.5
.3

980.8
827.5
9.9
40.7
49.4
247.2
28.5
65.5
132.0
123.4
92.8
34.5
153.3

-.5
-.7
-1.8
.3
-9.8
-1.7
-3.2
.7
-.2
1.4
2.1
-1.8
.5

765
742
421
788
695
689
990
1,062
948
748
432
450
886

3.5
3.6
4.0
2.7
5.8
4.2
1.7
-1.1
5.2
2.3
9.9
3.0
2.8

2003
(t h o u s a n d s )

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
2 Percent changes were computed from quarterly employment and pay data
adjusted for noneconomic county reclassifications. See Notes on Current Labor
Statistics.
3 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico or the


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

D ecem ber

Virgin Islands.
4

Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards.

NOTE: Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (Ul) and
Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs. Data are
preliminary.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

87

Current Labor Statistics:

23.

Labor Force Data

Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: by State, fourth quarter 2003.
E m p lo y m e n t

E s t a b lis h m e n ts ,
S ta te

fo u r t h q u a r te r

D ecem ber

P e rc e n t ch an g e ,

2003

D ecem ber

F o u r th
q u a r te r

P e rc e n t c h an g e ,
fo u r th q u a r te r

(th o u s a n d s )

2 0 0 2 -0 3

2003

2 0 0 2 -0 3

2003
(th o u s a n d s )

A v e r a g e w e e k ly w a g e 1

United States2 ..................................

8,314.1

129,341.5

0.0

S767

3.6

Alabama............................................
Alaska ...............................................
Arizona..............................................
Arkansas..........................................
California..........................................
Colorado ..........................................
Connecticut......................................
Delaware..........................................
District of Columbia..........................
Florida..............................................

111.8
20.0
126.9
75.2
1,190.8
160.0
109.1
27.1
30.0
504.1

1,838.1
282.7
2,352.1
1,133.6
14,922.3
2,134.6
1,648.9
408.4
654.8
7,424.5

-.1
1.1
2.2
.5
.0
-1.1
-.7
.5
-.4
.8

657
746
710
587
869
784
992
825
1,238
685

4.0
1.1
3.8
4.1
3.8
2.0
3.8
5.0
3.9
3.8

G eorgia............................................
Hawaii ..............................................
Idaho.................................................
Illinois................................................
Indiana.............................................
Iowa .................................................
Kansas ..............................................
Kentucky..........................................
Louisiana..........................................
M aine................................................

245.6
37.4
48.5
325.7
152.1
90.6
82.2
105.7
114.0
47.4

3,845.6
583.0
577.5
5,738.7
2,852.2
1,418.5
1,298.3
1,740.6
1,870.9
595.8

.2
1.3
.6
-1.2
-.3
.0
-.9
.3
.5
.7

734
678
579
827
675
626
631
645
628
631

2.8
3.7
1.8
3.2
3.5
4.7
2.8
3.5
2.4
4.6

Maryland ..........................................
Massachusetts.................................
Michigan...........................................
Minnesota ........................................
Mississippi........................................
Missouri............................................
Montana...........................................
Nebraska..........................................
Nevada.............................................
New Hampshire ...............................

150.4
206.6
251.3
159.0
65.6
165.4
42.0
55.3
60.3
47.0

2,466.4
3,154.6
4,365.8
2,591.9
1,108.1
2,633.6
396.6
884.4
1,111.2
614.9

.7
-1.9
-1.1
-.5
.4
-.7
1.1
.6
4.4
.6

831
954
806
777
559
676
549
613
721
788

3.6
5.2
3.9
3.2
3.7
2.4
4.0
3.2
5.1
4.0

New Jersey ......................................
New Mexico .....................................
New York .........................................
North Carolina..................................
North Dakota.....................................
Ohio .................................................
Oklahoma.........................................
Oregon .............................................
Pennsylvania....................................
Rhode Island....................................

268.1
50.4
550.3
227.8
24.0
294.2
91.6
118.8
326.9
34.7

3,912.8
757.1
8,379.2
3,759.6
317.6
5,322.4
1,423.4
1,579.8
5,524.5
480.5

.1
1.4
-.4
-.1
.9
-.7
-1.3
.2
-.2
1.2

945
612
959
679
563
713
597
694
750
738

3.4
4.1
5.2
4.5
4.3
3.8
4.2
3.3
4.7
5.1

South Carolina .................................
South D akota...................................
Tennessee .......................................
Texas ................................................
Utah .................................................
Vermont ...........................................
Virginia..............................................
Washington......................................
West Virginia....................................
Wisconsin.........................................

108.4
28.1
128.4
505.3
73.9
24.1
202.6
222.7
47.2
157.6

1,781.0
365.4
2,648.0
9,300.1
1,066.2
300.7
3,477.5
2,654.7
685.2
2,715.4

.3
.3
.4
-.3
1.2
.3
1.2
1.0
.1
.0

623
559
689
754
630
661
786
759
587
683

3.1
4.1
4.2
3.1
2.3
5.1
5.2
1.3
2.1
4.1

W yoming...........................................

22.0

241.6

1.7

616

4.1

Puerto Rico ......................................
Virgin Islands ...................................

50.2
3.2

1,074.1
42.5

3.5
-.2

450
629

4.7
2.4

1 Average weekly wages were calculated using unrounded data.
2 Totals for the United States do not include data for Puerto Rico
or the Virgin Islands.

88

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

NOTE: Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (Ul)
and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)
programs. Data are preliminary,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

24.

Annual data: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, by ownership
Year

A v era g e
e s t a b lis h m e n ts

A v era g e
annual
e m p lo y m e n t

T o ta l a n n u a l w a g e s

A v e ra g e a n n u a l w a g e

(in t h o u s a n d s )

p e r e m p lo y e e

A v e ra g e
w e e k ly
w age

T o ta l c o v e r e d (U l a n d U C F E )

1993.................................................
1994.................................................
1995.................................................
1996 .................................................
1997 .................................................
1998.................................................
1999 .................................................
2000.................................................
2001 .................................................
2002 .................................................

6,679,934
6,826,677
7,040,677
7,189,168
7,369,473
7,634,018
7,820,860
7,879,116
7,984,529
8,101,872

109,422,571
112,611,287
115,487,841
117,963,132
121,044,432
124,183,549
127,042,282
129,877,063
129,635,800
128,233,919

$2,884,472,282
3,033,676,678
3,215,921,236
3,414,514,808
3,674,031,718
3,967,072,423
4,235,579,204
4,587,708,584
4,695,225,123
4,714,374,741

$26,361
26,939
27,846
28,946
30,353
31,945
33,340
35,323
36,219
36,764

$507
518
536
557
584
614
641
679
697
707

$26,055
26,633
27,567
28,658
30,058
31,676
33,094
35,077
35,943
36,428

$501
512
530
551
578
609
636
675
691
701

$25,934
26,496
27,441
28,582
30,064
31,762
33,244
35,337
36,157
36,539

$499
510
528
550
578
611
639
680
695
703

$28,643
29,518
30,497
31,397
32,521
33,605
34,681
36,296
37,814
39,212

$551
568
586
604
625
646
667
698
727
754

$26,095
26,717
27,552
28,320
29,134
30,251
31,234
32,387
33,521
34,605

$502
514
530
545
560
582
601
623
645
665

$36,940
38,038
38,523
40,414
42,732
43,688
44,287
46,228
48,940
52,050

$710
731
741
777
822
840
852
889
941
1,001

Ul c o v e re d

1993.................................................
1994.................................................
1995 .................................................
1996 .................................................
1997 .................................................
1998.................................................
1999 .................................................
2000 .................................................
2001 .................................................
2002 .................................................

6,632,221
6,778,300
6,990,594
7,137,644
7,317,363
7,586,767
7,771,198
7,828,861
7,933,536
8,051,117

106,351,431
109,588,189
112,539,795
115,081,246
118,233,942
121,400,660
124,255,714
127,005,574
126,883,182
125,475,293

$2,771,023,411
2,918,684,128
3,102,353,355
3,298,045,286
3,553,933,885
3,845,494,089
4,112,169,533
4,454,966,824
4,560,511,280
4,570,787,218

P r iv a te in d u s tr y c o v e r e d

1993.................................................
1994.................................................
1995.................................................
1996 .................................................
1997 .................................................
1998.................................................
1999 .................................................
2000.................................................
2001 .................................................
2002 .................................................

6,454,381
6,596,158
6,803,454
6,946,858
7,121,182
7,381,518
7,560,567
7,622,274
7,724,965
7,839,903

91,202,971
94,146,344
96,894,844
99,268,446
102,175,161
105,082,368
107,619,457
110,015,333
109,304,802
107,577,281

$2,365,301,493
2,494,458,555
2,658,927,216
2,837,334,217
3,071,807,287
3,337,621,699
3,577,738,557
3,887,626,769
3,952,152,155
3,930,767,025

S ta te g o v e r n m e n t c o v e r e d

1993.................................................
1994.................................................
1995.................................................
1996 .................................................
1997.................................................
1998.................................................
1999 .................................................
2000.................................................
2001 .................................................
2002 .................................................

59,185
60,686
60,763
62,146
65,352
67,347
70,538
65,096
64,583
64,447

4,088,075
4,162,944
4,201,836
4,191,726
4,214,451
4,240,779
4,296,673
4,370,160
4,452,237
4,485,071

$117,095,062
122,879,977
128,143,491
131,605,800
137,057,432
142,512,445
149,011,194
158,618,365
168,358,331
175,866,492

L o c al g o v e rn m e n t c o ve red

1993.................................................
1994.................................................
1995.................................................
1996 .................................................
1997 .................................................
1998.................................................
1999 .................................................
2000.................................................
2001 .................................................
2002 .................................................

118,626
121,425
126,342
128,640
130,829
137,902
140,093
141,491
143,989
146,767

11,059,500
11,278,080
11,442,238
11,621,074
11,844,330
12,077,513
12,339,584
12,620,081
13,126,143
13,412,941

$288,594,697
301,315,857
315,252,346
329,105,269
345,069,166
365,359,945
385,419,781
408,721,690
440,000,795
464,153,701

F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t c o v e r e d (U C F E )

1993.................................................
1994.................................................
1995.................................................
1996 .................................................
1997.................................................
1998................................................
1999................................................
2000 ................................................
2001 ................................................
2002................................................

47,714
48,377
50,083
51,524
52,110
47,252
49,661
50,256
50,993
50,755

3,071,140
3,023,098
2,948,046
2,881,887
2,810,489
2,782,888
2,786,567
2,871,489
2,752,619
2,758,627

$113,448,871
114,992,550
113,567,881
116,469,523
120,097,833
121,578,334
123,409,672
132,741,760
134,713,843
143,587,523

NOTE: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. Data reflect the movement of Indian Tribal Council establishments from private Industry to
the public sector. See Notes on Current Labor Statistics.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

89

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

25. Annual data: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, establishment size and employment, private ownership bv
supersector, first quarter 2003
7
S iz e o f e s t a b lis h m e n ts
In d u s t r y , e s t a b lis h m e n ts , a n d
e m p lo y m e n t

T o ta l

F e w e r th a n

5 to 9

1 0 to 19

20 to 49

5 0 to 99

100 to 2 49

2 5 0 to 4 9 9

5 0 0 to 9 9 9

5 w o rk e rs 1

w o rke rs

w o rk e rs

w o rk e rs

w o rk e rs

w o rk e rs

w o rk e rs

w o rk e rs

1 ,0 0 0 o r
m o re
w o rk e rs

T o t a l a ll In d u s t r i e s 2

Establishments, first quarter
Employment, March ...........

7,933,974
105,583,548

4,768,812
7,095,128

1,331,834
8,810,097

872,241
11,763,253

597,662
18,025,655

203,030
13,970,194

115,598
17,299,058

28,856
9,864,934

10,454
7,090,739

5,487
11,664,490

124,527
1,526,176

72,088
110,155

23,248
153,629

14,773
198,895

9,226
275,811

2,893
198,122

1,593
241,559

501
171,063

161
108,563

44
68,379

795,029
6,285,841

523,747
746,296

129,201
846,521

76,215
1,021,722

46,096
1,371,071

12,837
872,274

5,604
823,846

1,006
338,107

262
172,944

61
93,060

381,159
14,606,928

148,469
252,443

65,027
436,028

57,354
788,581

54,261
1,685,563

25,927
1,815,385

19,813
3,043,444

6,506
2,245,183

2,565
1,732,368

1,237
2,607,933

1,851,662
24,683,356

992,180
1,646,304

378,157
2,514,548

239,637
3,204,840

149,960
4,527,709

51,507
3,564,316

31,351
4,661,898

6,681
2,277,121

1,619
1,070,141

570
1,216,479

147,062
3,208,667

84,906
112,409

20,744
138,076

16,130
220,618

13,539
416,670

5,920
410,513

3,773
576,674

1,223
418,113

575
399,366

252
516,228

753,064
7,753,717

480,485
788,607

135,759
892,451

76,733
1,017,662

39,003
1,162,498

11,743
801,140

6,195
934,618

1,794
620,183

883
601,549

469
935,009

1,307,697
15,648,435

887,875
1,230,208

180,458
1,184,745

111,532
1,501,470

73,599
2,232,506

28,471
1,969,466

17,856
2,707,203

5,153
1,762,251

1,919
1,307,870

834
1,752,716

720,207
15,680,834

338,139
629,968

164,622
1,092,329

103,683
1,392,099

65,173
1,955,861

24,086
1,679,708

17,122
2,558,300

3,929
1,337,188

1,761
1,220,921

1,692
3,814,460

657,359
11,731,379

260,149
411,192

110,499
744,144

118,140
1,653,470

122,168
3,683,448

34,166
2,285,550

9,718
1,372,780

1,609
545,304

599
404,831

311
630,660

1,057,236
4,243,633

851,231
1,037,360

116,940
761,518

56,238
740,752

24,235
703,957

5,451
371,774

2,561
376,832

454
150,421

109
71,453

17
29,566

N a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d m in in g

Establishments, first quarter .
Employment, March .............
C o n s t r u c t io n

Establishments, first quarter
Employment, March ............
M a n u f a c t u r in g

Establishments, first quarter
Employment, March ...........
T r a d e , t r a n s p o r t a t io n , a n d u tilitie s

Establishments, first quarter ........
Employment, March .....................
In f o r m a t io n

Establishments, first quarter
Employment, March ...........
F in a n c ia l a c t iv it ie s

Establishments, first quarter
Employment, March ...........
P r o f e s s io n a l a n d b u s in e s s s e r v ic e s

Establishments, first quarter ..........
Employment, March .......................
E d u c a t io n a n d h e a lth s e r v ic e s

Establishments, first quarter ..
Employment, March ..............
L e is u r e a n d h o s p it a lit y

Establishments, first quarter
Employment, March ...........
O t h e r s e r v ic e s

Establishments, first quarter
Employment, March ...........

1 Includes establishments that reported no workers in March 2003.
2 Includes data for unclassified establishments, not shown separately.

90

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Data are only produced for
first quarter. Data are preliminary.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

26. Annual data: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, by
metropolitan area, 2001-02
A v e ra g e a n n u a l w a g e 2

M e tr o p o lita n a r e a '
P e rc e n t
change,
2 0 0 1 -0 2

2 00 1

2002

$37,908

$38,423

1.4

Abilene, T X ............................................................................
Akron, O H ........................................ ......................................
Albany, GA ............................................................................
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N Y ..............................................
Albuquerque, N M ...................................................................
Alexandria, L A .......................................................................
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, P A .........................................
Altoona, P A ............................................................................
Amarillo, T X ...........................................................................
Anchorage, AK ......................................................................

25,141
32,930
28,877
35,355
31,667
26,296
33,569
26,869
27,422
37,998

25,517
34,037
29,913
35,994
32,475
27,300
34,789
27,360
28,274
39,112

1.5
3.4
3.6
1.8
2.6
3.8
3.6
1.8
3.1
2.9

Ann Arbor, Ml ........................................................................
Anniston, AL ..........................................................................
Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah, W l.............................................
Asheville, N C .........................................................................
Athens, G A ............................................................................
Atlanta, G A ............................................................................
Atlantic-Cape May, N J ...........................................................
Auburn-Opelika, A L ...............................................................
Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC..........................................................
Austin-San Marcos, T X .................................................. ........

37,582
26,486
32,652
28,511
28,966
40,559
31,268
25, 753
30,626
40,831

39,220
27,547
33,020
28,771
29,942
41,123
32,201
26,405
31,743
39,540

4.4
4.0
1.1
.9
3.4
1.4
3.0
2.6
3.6
-3.2

Bakersfield, C A ......................................................................
Baltimore, M D ........................................................................
Bangor, M E ............................................................................
Barnstable-Yarmouth, M A .....................................................
Baton Rouge, L A ...................................................................
Beaumont-Port Arthur, T X .....................................................
Bellingham, W A .....................................................................
Benton Harbor, Ml .................................................................
Bergen-Passaic, N J ...............................................................
Billings, M T ............................................................................

30,106
37,495
27,850
31,025
30,321
31,798
27,724
31,140
44,701
27,889

31,192
38,718
28,446
32,028
31,366
32,577
28,284
32,627
45,185
28,553

3.6
3.3
2.1
3.2
3.4
2.4
2.0
4.8
1.1
2.4

Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, M S .............................................
Binghamton, NY ....................................................................
Birmingham, A L .....................................................................
Bismarck, N D .........................................................................
Bloomington, IN .....................................................................
Bloomington-Normal, IL .........................................................
Boise City, ID .........................................................................
Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH ........

28,515
31,832
35,940
27,993
28,855
36,133
31,95b
45,685
44,037
36,253

.6
2.1
4.1
3.2
3.0
2.9
1.0

Brazoria, T X ...........................................................................

28,351
31,187
34,519
27,116
28,013
35,111
31,624
45,766
44,310
35,655

Bremerton, W A ......................................................................
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX ..................................
Bryan-College Station, T X .....................................................
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, N Y ......................................................
Burlington, V T .................................................... ....................
Canton-Massillon, OH ...........................................................
Casper, W Y ...........................................................................
Cedar Rapids, I A ...................................................................
Champaign-Urbana, I L ..........................................................
Charleston-North Charleston, S C ..........................................

31,525
22,142
25,755
32,054
34,363
29,020
28,264
34,649
30,488
28,887

33,775
22,892
26,051
32,777
35,169
29,689
28,886
34,730
31,995
29,993

7.1
3.4
1.1
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
.2
4.9
3.8

Charleston, WV .....................................................................
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC....................................
Charlottesville, V A .................................................................
Chattanooga, TN-GA.............................................................
Cheyenne, W Y ......................................................................
Chicago, IL ............................................................................
Chico-Paradise, C A ...............................................................
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN.............................................................
Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN -KY.............................................
Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, O H ..................................................

31,530
37,267
32,427
29,981
27,579
42,685
26,499
36,050
25,567
35,514

32,136
38,413
33,328
30,631
28,827
43,239
27,190
37,168
26,940
36,102

1.9
3.1
2.8
2.2
4.5
1.3
2.6
3.1
5.4
1.7

Colorado Springs, CO ...........................................................
Columbia, M O ........................................................................
Columbia, SC ........................................................................
Columbus, GA-AL..................................................................
Columbus, O H .......................................................................
Corpus Christi, TX .................................................................
Corvallis, OR .........................................................................
Cumberland, MD-WV ...........................................................
Dallas, T X .............................................................................
Danville, V A ..........................................................................

34,391
28,490
29,904
28,412
35,028
29,361
35,525
25,504
42,706
25,465

34,681
29,135
30,721
29,207
36,144
30,168
36,766
26,704
43,000
26,116

.8
2.3
2.7
2.8
3.2
2.7
3.5
4.7
.7
2.6

Metropolitan areass.............................................................

-.2

-.6
1.7

See footnotes at end of table.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

91

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

26. Continued—Annual data: Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages, by metropolitan area, 2001-02
A v e ra g e a n n u a l w ages

M e t r o p o lita n a r e a 1

2001

2002

P e rc e n t
change,

2001-02

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL............
Dayton-Springfield, O H ................................ .
Daytona Beach, F L ...................................... .
Decatur, A L ...................................................
Decatur, I L ....................................................
Denver, C O ....................................................
Des Moines, I A ..............................................
Detroit, M l.....................................................
Dothan, A L ....................................................
Dover, D E .....................................................

$31,275
33,619
25,953
30,891
33,354
42,351
34,303
42,704
28,026
27.754

$32,118
34,327
26,898
30,370
33.215
42,133
35,641
43,224
29,270
29,818

3.6
-1.7
-.4
-.5
3.9

Dubuque, IA ..................................................
Duluth-Superior, MN-WI ...............................
Dutchess County, N Y ...................................
Eau Claire, Wl ..............................................
El Paso, T X ...................................................
Elkhart-Goshen, IN .......................................
Elmira, NY .....................................................
Enid, O K ........................................................
Erie, PA .........................................................
Eugene-Springfield, O R ................................

28,402
29,415
38,748
27,680
25,847
30,797
28,669
24,836
29,293
28,983

29,208
30,581
38,221
28,760
26,604
32.427
29.151
25.507
29,780
29.427

2.8
4.0
-1.4
3.9
2.9
5.3
1.7
2.7
1.7
1.5

Evansville-Henderson, IN -KY.......................
Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN.............................
Fayetteville, N C ............................................
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR .............
Flagstaff, A Z -U T .......... .................................
Flint, M l..........................................................
Florence, A L ..................................................
Florence, S C ..................................................
Fort Collins-Loveland, C O ............................
Fort Lauderdale, F L ......................................

31,042
27,899
26,981
29.940
25,890
35,995
25,639
28,800
33,248
33,966

31.977
29.053
28,298
31,090
26,846
36.507
26,591
29,563
34.215
34,475

3.0
4.1
4.9
3.8
3.7
1.4
3.7
2.6
2.9
1.5

Fort Myers-Cape Coral, F L ...........................
Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, F L .......................
Fort Smith, AR-OK........................................
Fort Walton Beach, F L ..................................
Fort Wayne, IN ..............................................
Fort Worth-Arlington, T X ...............................
Fresno, CA ....................................................
Gadsden, A L ..................................................
Gainesville, F L ...............................................
Galveston-Texas City, T X .............................

29,432
27,742
26.755
26,151
31,400
36,379
27,647
25,760
26,917
31,067

30,324
29.152
27,075
27,242
32.053
37,195
28,814
26.214
27,648
31,920

3.0
5.1

2.2
4.2
1.8
2.7
2.7

Gary, IN .........................................................
Glens Falls, N Y ..............................................
Goldsboro, N C ................................................
Grand Forks, ND-MN.................................... .
Grand Junction, C O .......................................
Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, Ml ...........
Great Falls, M T ..............................................
Greeley, C O ...................................................
Green Bay, W l...............................................
Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC

31,948
27,885
25,398
24,959
27,426
33,431
24,211
30,066
32,631
31,730

32,432
28,931
25,821
25,710
28,331
34.214
25,035
31,104
33,698
32,369

1.5
3.8
1.7
3.0
3.3
2.3
3.4
3.5
3.3
2.0

Greenville, NC ...............................................
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, S C ..........
Hagerstown, M D ............................................
Hamilton-Middletown, O H ..............................
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, P A ...................
Hartford, C T ....................................................
Hattiesburg, M S .............................................
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, N C ......................
Honolulu, H I........................ ...........................
Houma, L A ......................................................

28,289
30.940
29,020
32,325
33,408
43,880
25,145
27,305
32,531
30,343

29,055
31,726
30,034
32,985
34,497
44,387
26,051
27,996
33.978
30,758

2.7
2.5
3.5
2.0
3.3
3.6
2.5
4.4
1.4

Houston, T X ....................................................
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH...................
Huntsville, A L .................................................
Indianapolis, IN ..............................................
Iowa City, IA ..................................................
Jackson, Ml ....................................................
Jackson, M S ...................................................
Jackson, T N ....................................................
Jacksonville, F L .............................................
Jacksonville, N C ............................................

42,784
27,478
36,727
35,989
31,663
32,454
29,813
29,414
32,367
21,395

42,712
28,321
38,571
36,608
32,567
33,251
30,537
30,443
33,722
22,269

-.2
3.1
5.0
1.7
2.9
2.5
2.4
3.5
4.2
4.1

See footnotes at end of table.

92

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

2.7
2.1

1.2

4.4
7.4

1.2

4.2
2.1

1.2


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

26. Continued—Annual data: Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages, by metropolitan area, 2001-02
A v e ra g e a n n u a l w a g e 2

M e tr o p o lita n a r e a ’

New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-Waterbury-Danbury, CT ....

New York N Y ........................................................................

P e rc e n t
change,
2 0 0 1 -0 2

2001

2002

$25,913
31,482
47,638
28,543
25,569
25,337
26,011
32,905
29,104
35,794

$26,430
32,837
49,562
29,076
26,161
26,165
26,594
34,237
30,015
36,731

2.0
4.3
4.0
1.9
2.3
3.3
2.2
4.0
3.1
2.6

31,562
26,193
30,422
39,599
27,774
29,693
31,484
29,782
28,890
31,493

32,473
27,299
31,338
40,778
28,719
30,104
31,700
30,346
29,505
32,197

2.9
4.2
3.0
3.0
3.4
1.4
.7
1.9
2.1
2.2

34,724
24,128
24,310
32,239
25,923
24,812
27,092
31,593
29,644
29,352

35,785
24,739
25,256
33,280
26,621
25,392
28,435
32,776
30,379
30,614

3.1
2.5
3.9
3.2
2.7
2.3
5.0
3.7
2.5
4.3

30,858
28,029
40,891
33,058
26,577
28,859
30,595
34,097
28,808
22,313

31,634
28,172
41,709
33,901
27,625
29,444
31,884
35,410
30,104
23,179

2.5
.5
2.0
2.6
3.9
2.0
4.2
3.9
4.5
3.9

27,224
32,798
34,603
25,479
34,524
49,950
35,617
40,868
26,181
28,129

28,098
33,913
35,922
26,771
35,694
50,457
36,523
41,722
27,249
28,742

3.2
3.4
3.8
5.1
3.4
1.0
2.5
2.1
4.1
2.2

29,591
37,056
26,578
29,150
28,374
24,029
30,839
33,989
39,662
52,198

30,769
37,710
27,614
30,525
29,017
24,672
31,507
35,036
40,396
51,170

4.0
1.8
3.9
4.7
2.3
2.7
2.2
3.1
1.9
-2.0

38,505
31,089
59,097
47,715
29,827
29,875
45,920
26,012
31,278
28,915

38,650
32,407
57,708
48,781
30,920
30,823
46,877
26,628
31,295
29,850

.4
4.2
-2.4
2.2
3.7
3.2
2.1
2.4
.1
3.2

See footnotes at end of table.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

93

Current Labor Statistics:

Labor Force Data

26. Continued—Annual data: Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages, by metropolitan area, 2001-02
A v e ra g e an n u al w a g e 2

M e t r o p o lita n a r e a 1

2001

2002

P e rc e n t
change,

2001-02

Olympia, W A ....................................................
Omaha, N E -IA .................................................
Orange County, C A .........................................
Orlando, F L ......................................................
Owensboro, KY ..............................................
Panama City, F L .............................................
Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH .......................
Pensacola, F L ..................................................
Peoria-Pekin, I L ..............................................
Philadelphia, PA-NJ........................................

$32,772
31,856
40,252
31,276
27,306
26,433
27,920
28,059
33,293
40.231

$33,765
33,107
41.219
32,461
28,196
27,448
29,529
28,189
34,261
41,121

3.0
3.9
2.4
3.8
3.3
3.8
5.8
.5
2.9
2.2

Phoenix-Mesa, A Z ...........................................
Pine Bluff, AR .................................................
Pittsburgh, P A .................................................
Pittsfield, M A ....................................................
Pocatello, I D ....................................................
Portland, M E ....................................................
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA .........................
Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket, Rl ................
Provo-Orem, U T .............................................
Pueblo, C O ......................................................

35,514
27.561
35,024
31.561
24,621
32.327
37,285
33.403
28,266
27,097

36,045
28,698
35,625
32,707
25.219
33,309
37,650
34,610
28,416
27,763

1.5
4.1
1.7
3.6
2.4
3.0

Punta Gorda, F L ............................................. .
Racine, Wl .......................................................
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, N C .....................
Rapid City, S D .................................................
Reading, PA ....................................................
Redding, C A ....................................................
Reno, N V .........................................................
Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, W A .....................
Richmond-Petersburg, V A ...............................
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA ........................

25.404
33,319
38,691
25,508
32,807
28,129
34.231
33,370
35,879
30,510

26,119
34,368
39.056
26,434
33,912
28,961
34,744
35,174
36,751
31,591

Roanoke, V A ....................................................
Rochester, M N ..................................................
Rochester, N Y ..................................................
Rockford, I L ......................................................
Rocky Mount, NC .............................................
Sacramento, C A ..............................................
Saginaw-Bay City-Midland, Ml ........................
St. Cloud, MN ...................................................
St. Joseph, M O .................................................
St. Louis, MO-IL................................................

30,330
37,753
34.327
32,104
28,770
38,016
35,429
28,263
27.734
35,928

31,775
39.036
34.827
32.827
28,893
39,354
35,444
29,535
28,507
36,712

4.8
3.4
1.5
2.3
.4
3.5
.0
4.5

Salem, O R ........................................................
Salinas, C A .......................................................
Salt Lake City-Ogden, U T ................................
San Angelo, TX ................................................
San Antonio, TX ...............................................
San Diego, C A .................................................
San Francisco, C A ...........................................
San Jose, C A ....................................................
San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles, CA
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, C A ........

28,336
31.735
31,965
26,147
30,650
38,418
59,654
65,931
29,092
33,626

29,210
32,463
32,600
26,321
31.336
39,305
56,602
63.056
29,981
34,382

3.1
2.3
2.0
.7
2.2
2.3
-5.1
-4.4
3.1
2.2

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, C A ............................
Santa Fe, NM ...................................................
Santa Rosa, C A ................................................
Sarasota-Bradenton, F L ...................................
Savannah, G A ..................................................
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, P A ............ .
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, W A ...........................
Sharon, P A .......................................................
Sheboygan, W l.................................................
Sherman-Denison, T X ......................................

35,022
30,671
36,145
27,958
30,176
28,642
45,299
26,707
30,840
30,397

35,721
32,269
36,494
28,950
30,796
29.336
46,093
27,872
32,148
30,085

2.0
5.2

2.4
1.8
4.4
4.2
- 1.0

Shreveport-Bossier City, L A .............................
Sioux City, IA-NE..............................................
Sioux Falls, S D ..................................................
South Bend, IN ..................................................
Spokane, W A .....................................................
Springfield, IL .....................................................
Springfield, M O ..................................................
Springfield, M A ..................................................
State College, P A .............................................
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-W V..........................

27,856
26,755
28,962
30,769
29,310
36,061
27,338
32,801
29,939
28,483

28,769
27,543
29,975
31,821
30.037
37.336
27,987
33,972
30,910
29,129

3.3
2.9
3.5
3.4
2.5
3.5
2.4
3.6
3.2
2.3

See footnotes at end of table.

94

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

1.0

3.6
.5
2.5
2.8

3.1
.9
3.6
3.4
3.0
1.5
5.4
2.4
3.5

2.8

2.2

1.0

3.5
2.1


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

26. Continued—Annual data: Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages, by metropolitan area, 2001-02
A v e ra g e a n n u al w a g e :

M e tr o p o lita n a r e a ’
P e rc e n t
change,
2 0 0 1 -0 2

2 00 1

2002

Stockton-Lodi, C A ..................................................................
Sumter, S C ............................................................................
Syracuse, N Y .........................................................................
Tacoma, W A ..........................................................................
Tallahassee, F L .....................................................................
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL ..................................
Terre Haute, IN ......................................................................
Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, A R ..............................................
Toledo, OH ............................................................................
Topeka, K S ............................................................................

$30,818
24,450
32,254
31,261
29,708
31,678
27,334
26,492
32,299
30,513

$31,958
24,982
33,752
32,507
30,895
32,458
28,415
27,717
33,513
31,707

3.7
2.2
4.6
4.0
4.0
2.5
4.0
4.6
3.8
3.9

Trenton, N J ............................................................................
Tucson, A Z ............................................................................
Tulsa, O K ...............................................................................
Tuscaloosa, A L ......................................................................
Tyler, T X ................................................................................
Utica-Rome, N Y .....................................................................
Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, C A .....................................................
Ventura, C A ...........................................................................
Victoria, T X ............................................................................
Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, N J .............................................

46,831
30,690
31,904
29,972
30,551
27,777
33,903
37,783
29,068
32,571

47,969
31,673
32,241
30,745
31,050
28,500
34,543
38,195
29,168
33,625

2.4
3.2
1.1
2.6
1.6
2.6
1.9
1.1
.3
3.2

Visalia-Tulare-Porterville, CA ................................................
Waco, T X ...............................................................................
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV.................................................
Waterloo-Cedar Fails, I A .......................................................
Wausau, W l............................................................................
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, F L ........................................
Wheeling, WV-OH .................................................................
Wichita, K S ............................................................................
Wichita Falls, T X ....................................................................
Williamsport, P A ....................................................................

24,732
28,245
47,589
29,119
29,402
35,957
26,282
32,983
25,557
27,801

25,650
28,885
48,430
29,916
30,292
36,550
26,693
33,429
26,387
27,988

3.7
2.3
1.8
2.7
3.0
1.6
1.6
1.4
3.2
.7

Wilmington-Newark, DE-MD..................................................
Wilmington, N C ......................................................................
Yakima, W A ...........................................................................
Yolo, CA ................................................................................
York, PA ................................................................................
Youngstown-Warren, OH ......................................................
Yuba City, C A ........................................................................
Yuma, A Z ...............................................................................

42,177
29,287
24,204
35,352
31,936
28,789
27,781
22,415

43,401
29,157
24,934
35,591
32,609
29,799
28,967
23,429

2.9
-.4
3.0
.7
2.1
3.5
4.3
4.5

Aguadilla, P R .........................................................................
Arecibo, PR ...........................................................................
Caguas, PR ...........................................................................
Mayaguez, PR .......................................................................
Ponce, PR .............................................................................
San Juan-Bayamon, P R ........................................................

18,061
16,600
18,655
17,101
17,397
20,948

19,283
18,063
19,706
17,500
18,187
21,930

6.8
8.8
5.6
2.3
4.5
4.7

1 Includes data for Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(PMSA) as defined by OMB Bulletin No. 99-04. In the New England areas, the New England County
Metropolitan Area (NECMA) definitions were used.
2 Each year’s total is based on the MSA definition for the specific year.
differences resulting from changes in MSA definitions.

Annual changes include

3 Totals do not include the six MSAs within Puerto Rico.
NOTE: Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (Ul) and Unemployment Compensation
for Federal Employees (UCFE) programs.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

95

Current Labor Statistics:

27.

Labor Force Data

Annual data: Employment status of the population

[Numbers in thousands]

Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population..........
Civilian labor force................................
Labor force participation rate.............
Employed.......................................
Employment-population ratio........
Unemployed....................................
Unemployment rate.......................
Not in the labor force............................

1993

19941

1995

1996

19971

19981

19991

20001

2001

2002

2003

194,838
129,200
66.3
120,259
61.7
8,940
6.9
65,638

196,814
131,056
66.6
123,060
62.5
7,996
6.1
65,758

198,584
132,304
66.6
124,900
62.9
7,404
5.6
66,280

200,591
133,943
66.8
126,708
63.2
7,236
5.4
66,647

203,133
136,297
67.1
129,558
63.8
6,739
4.9
66,836

205,220
137,673
67.1
131,463
64.1
6,210
4.5
67,547

207,753
139,368
67.1
133,488
64.3
5,880
4.2
68,385

212,577
142,583
67.1
136,891
64.4
5,692
4.0
69,994

215,092
143,734
66.8
136,933
63.7
6,801
4.7
71,359

217,570
144,863
66.6
136,485
62.7
8,378
5.8
72,707

221,168
146,510
66.2
137,736
62.3
8,774
6.0
74,658

2003

1 Not strictly comparable with prior years.

28.

Annual data: Employment levels by industry

[In thousands]__________________

Industry

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Total private employment..........................

91,855

95,016

97,866

100,169

103,113

106,021

108,686

110,996

110,707

108,828

108,356

Total nonfarm employment.......................
Goods-producing....................................
Natural resources and mining.............
Construction.........................................
Manufacturing......................................

110,844
22,219
666
4,779
16,744

114,291
22,774
659
5,095
17,021

117,298
23,156
641
5,274
17,241

119,708
23,410
637
5,536
17,237

122,770
23,886
654
5,813
17,419

125,930
24,354
645
6,149
17,560

128,993
24,465
598
6,545
17,322

131,785
24,649
599
6,787
17,263

131,826
23,873
606
6,826
16,441

130,341
22,557
583
6,716
15,259

129,931
21,817
571
6,722
14,525

Private service-providing.......................
Trade, transportation, and utilities.......
Wholesale trade................................
Retail trade........................................
Transportation and warehousing......
Utilities...............................................
Information..........................................
Financial activities...............................
Professional and business services....
Education and health services...........
Leisure and hospitality........................
Other services....................................

69,636
22,378
5,093.2
13,020.5
3,553.8
710.7
2,668
6,709
11,495
12,303
9,732
4,350

72,242
23,128
5,247.3
13,490.8
3,701.0
689.3
2,738
6,867
12,174
12,807
10,100
4,428

74,710
23,834
5,433.1
13,896.7
3,837.8
666.2
2,843
6,827
12,844
13,289
10,501
4,572

76,759
24,239
5,522.0
14,142.5
3,935.3
639.6
2,940
6,969
13,462
13,683
10,777
4,690

79,227
24,700
5,663.9
14,388.9
4,026.5
620.9
3,084
7,178
14,335
14,087
11,018
4,825

81,667
25,186
5,795.2
14,609.3
4,168.0
613.4
3,218
7,462
15,147
14,446
11,232
4,976

84,221
25,771
5,892.5
14,970.1
4,300.3
608.5
3,419
7,648
15,957
14,798
11,543
5,087

86,346
26,225
5,933.2
15,279.8
4,410.3
601.3
3,631
7,687
16,666
15,109
11,862
5,168

86,834
25,983
5,772.7
15,238.6
4,372.0
599.4
3,629
7,807
16,476
15,645
12,036
5,258

86,271
25,497
5,652.3
15,025.1
4,223.6
596.2
3,395
7,847
15,976
16,199
11,986
5,372

86,538
25,275
5,605.6
14,911.5
4,176.7
580.8
3,198
7,974
15,997
16,577
12,125
5,393

Government...............................................
18,989
19,275
19,432
19,539
19,664
19,909
20,307
20,790
21,118
21,513
Note : Data reflect the conversion to the 2002 version of the North American Industry Classification System (N A IC S ), replacing the Standard Industrial Classification (S IC )
system. NAics-based data by industry are not comparable with sic-based data. See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision.

96

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

21,575

29.

Annual data: Average hours and earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on nonfarm
payrolls, by industry
2001
2000
1999
1997
1998
1996
1994
1995
1993
Industry

2002

2003

P r iv a t e s e c to r :

Average weekly hours..............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)........................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).......................

34.3
11.03
378.40

34.5
11.32
390.73

34.3
11.64
399.53

34.3
12.03
412.74

34.5
12.49
431.25

34.5
13.00
448.04

34.3
13.47
462.49

34.3
14.00
480.41

34.0
14.53
493.20

33.9
14.95
506.07

33.7
15.35
517.36

40.6
12.28
498.82

41.1
12.63
519.58

40.8
12.96
528.62

40.8
13.38
546.48

41.1
13.82
568.43

40.8
14.23
580.99

40.8
14.71
599.99

40.7
15.27
621.86

39.9
15.78
630.04

39.9
16.33
651.61

39.8
16.80
669.23

44.9
14.12
634.77

45.3
14.41
653.14

45.3
14.78
670.32

46.0
15.10
695.07

46.2
15.57
720.11

44.9
16.20
727.28

44.2
16.33
721.74

44.4
16.55
734.92

44.6
17.00
757.92

43.2
17.19
741.97

43.6
17.58
766.83

38.4
14.04
539.81

38.8
14.38
558.53

38.8
14.73
571.57

38.9
15.11
588.48

38.9
15.67
609.48

38.8
16.23
629.75

39.0
16.80
655.11

39.2
17.48
685.78

38.7
18.00
695.89

38.4
18.52
711.82

38.4
18.95
727.11

41.1
11.70
480.80

41.7
12.04
502.12

41.3
12.34
509.26

41.3
12.75
526.55

41.7
13.14
548.22

41.4
13.45
557.12

41.4
13.85
573.17

41.3
14.32
590.65

40.3
14.76
595.19

40.5
15.29
618.75

40.4
15.74
636.07

32.5
10.60
345.03

32.7
10.87
354.97

32.6
11.19
364.14

32.6
11.57
376.72

32.8
12.05
394.77

32.8
12.59
412.78

32.7
13.07
427.30

32.7
13.60
445.00

32.5
14.16
460.32

32.5
14.56
472.88

32.4
14.96
484.00

34.1
10.55
359.33

34.3
10.80
370.38

34.1
11.10
378.79

34.1
11.46
390.64

34.3
11.90
407.57

34.2
12.39
423.30

33.9
12.82
434.31

33.8
13.31
449.88

33.5
13.70
459.53

33.6
14.02
471.27

33.6
14.34
481.10

38.5
12.57
484.46

38.8
12.93
501.17

38.6
13.34
515.14

38.6
13.80
533.29

38.8
14.41
559.39

38.6
15.07
582.21

38.6
15.62
602.77

38.8
16.28
631.40

38.4
16.77
643.45

38.0
16.98
644.38

37.8
17.36
657.12

30.7
8.36
484.46

30.9
8.61
501.17

30.8
8.85
515.14

30.7
9.21
533.29

30.9
9.59
559.39

30.9
10.05
582.21

30.8
10.45
602.77

30.7
10.86
631.40

30.7
11.29
643.45

30.9
11.67
644.38

30.9
11.90
657.12

38.9
12.71
494.36

39.5
12.84
507.27

38.9
13.18
513.37

39.1
13.45
525.60

39.4
13.78
542.55

38.7
14.12
546.86

37.6
14.55
547.97

37.4
15.05
562.31

36.7
15.33
562.70

36.8
15.76
579.75

36.8
16.25
597.79

42.1
17.95
756.35

42.3
18.66
789.98

42.3
19.19
811.52

42.0
19.78
830.74

42.0
20.59
865.26

42.0
21.48
902.94

42.0
22.03
924.59

42.0
22.75
955.66

41.4
23.58
977.18

40.9
23.96
979.09

41.1
24.76
1,016.94

36.0
14.86
535.25

36.0
15.32
551.28

36.0
15.68
564.98

36.4
16.30
592.68

36.3
17.14
622.40

36.6
17.67
646.52

36.7
18.40
675.32

36.8
19.07
700.89

36.9
19.80
731.11

36.5
20.20
738.17

36.2
21.01
761.13

35.5
11.36
403.02

35.5
11.82
419.20

35.5
12.28
436.12

35.5
12.71
451.49

35.7
13.22
472.37

36.0
13.93
500.95

35.8
14.47
517.57

35.9
14.98
537.37

35.8
15.59
558.02

35.6
16.17
575.51

35.5
17.13
608.87

34.0
11.96
406.20

34.1
12.15
414.16

34.0
12.53
426.44

34.1
13.00
442.81

34.3
13.57
465.51

34.3
14.27
490.00

34.4
14.85
510.99

34.5
15.52
535.07

34.2
16.33
557.84

34.2
16.81
574.66

34.1
17.20
586.68

32.0
11.21
359.08

32.0
11.50
368.14

32.0
11.80
377.73

31.9
12.17
388.27

32.2
12.56
404.65

32.2
13.00
418.82

32.1
13.44
431.35

32.2
13.95
449.29

32.3
14.64
473.39

32.4
15.21
492.74

32.3
15.64
505.76

25.9
6.32
163.45

26.0
6.46
168.00

25.9
6.62
171.43

25.9
6.82
176.48

26.0
7.13
185.81

26.2
7.48
195.82

26.1
7.76
202.87

26.1
8.11
211.79

25.8
8.35
215.19

25.8
8.58
221.26

25.6
8.76
224.25

32.6
9.90
322.69

32.7
10.18
332.44

32.6
10.51
342.36

32.5
10.85
352.62

32.7
11.29
368.63

32.6
11.79
384.25

32.5
12.26
398.77

32.5
12.73
413.41

32.3
13.27
428.64

32.0
13.72
439.76

31.4
13.84
434.49

G o o d s -p r o d u c in g :

Average weekly hours............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).....................
N a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d m in in g

Average weekly hours...........................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).....................
Average weekly earnings (In dollars)....................
C o n s t r u c t io n :

Average weekly hours...........................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).....................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................
M a n u f a c t u r in g :

Average weekly hours...........................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).....................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)....................
P r iv a t e s e r v i c e - p r o v id in g :

Average weekly hours...........................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)......................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars).....................
T r a d e , t r a n s p o r t a t io n , a n d u tilitie s :

Average weekly hours............................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)......................
Average weekly earnings (In dollars).....................
W h o le s a l e tr a d e :

Average weekly hours........................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)..................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)................
R e ta il t r a d e :

Average weekly hours........................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)................
T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d w a r e h o u s in g :

Average weekly hours........................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).................
Average weekly earnings (In dollars)................
U t ilitie s :

Average weekly hours.......................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)................
In f o r m a t io n :

Average weekly hours........................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)................
F i n a n c ia l a c t iv itie s :

Average weekly hours......................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)................
P r o f e s s io n a l a n d b u s in e s s s e r v ic e s :

Average weekly hours.......................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)................
E d u c a t io n a n d h e a lth s e r v ic e s :

Average weekly hours......................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)................
L e is u r e a n d h o s p ita lity :

Average weekly hours......................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars).................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)...............
O t h e r s e r v ic e s :

Average weekly hours.......................................
Average hourly earnings (in dollars)................
Average weekly earnings (in dollars)...............
No t e :

Data reflect the conversion to the 2002 version of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), replacing the Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) system. NAiCS-based data by industry are not comparable with SIC-based data.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

97

Current Labor Statistics:

30.

Compensation & Industrial Relations

Employment Cost Index, compensation,' by occupation and industry group

[June 1989 = 100]

2002
Series

June

Sept.

2003
Dec.

Mar.

June

2004

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

Percent change

3 months 12 months
June
ended
ended
June 2004

Civilian workers2.............

159.9

161.3

162.2

164.5

165.8

167.6

168.4

170.7

172.2

0.9

3.9

162.1
159.3
165.6
163.3
155.1
159.4

163.5
161.4
166.3
164.9
156.4
161.3

164.3
162.4
166.7
166.1
157.5
162.2

166.7
164.1
171.1
168.3
159.8
164.1

167.9
165.0
172.0
170.0
161.4
165.0

169.9
167.0
174.0
171.7
162.9
166.8

170.7
168.0
174.9
172.5
163.7
167.9

172.7
170.2
175.8
175.3
166.9
169.7

174.0
171.2
177.1
177.2
168.8
170.9

.8
.6
.7
1.1
.7

36
38
30
42
4.6
3.6

Goods-producing...............................................
Manufacturing.......................................
Service-producing.........................................
Services............................................
Health services.....................................
Hospitals.......................................................
Educational services...........................

157.7
158.1
160.7
161.1
161.8
163.8
157.4

Public administration3.....................
Nonmanufacturing.......................................

157.5
160.2

158.7
159.1
162.2
163.2
163.1
165.7
161.6
160.2
161.7

169.2
160.5
162.8
163.9
164.5
167.6
162.8
161.7
162.4

163.1
164.0
165.0
165.3
166.4
169.9
163.6
163.4
164.5

164.6
165.4
166.2
166.3
167.6
170.8
164.2
164.3
165.8

165.8
166.5
168.2
168.5
169.3
173.1
166.9
167.3
167.8

166.8
167.1
169.1
169.5
170.7
174.8
167.6
168.1
168.6

170.4
171.7
170.8
171.2
173.0
176.8
168.5
170.1
170.4

171.9
173.2
172.3
172.3
174.4
178.2
168.9
171.4
171.8

.9
.9
.9
.6
.8
.8
.2
.8
.8

4.4
4.7
3.7
3.6
4.1
4.3
2.9
4.3
3.6

160.7
160.5

161.6
161.6

162.3
162.4

165.0
165.1

166.4
166.6

168.1
168.1

168.8
169.0

171.4
171.6

173.0
173.2

.9
.9

4.0
4.0

163.8
164.3
162.5
166.6
161.6
164.2
155.1
155.7
154.7
149.6
159.9

164.6
165.3
163.6
167.0
161.6
165.6
156.3
156.9
155.4
151.0
161.4

165.2
165.9
164.4
167.2
161.9
166.7
157.3
157.8
156.7
151.8
162.9

168.1
169.1
166.5
172.1
163.5
169.0
159.7
160.0
159.9
153.2
164.9

169.4
170.4
167.7
173.1
165.1
170.9
161.4
162.0
161.1
155.1
166.8

171.2
172.1
169.4
175.0
167.2
172.3
162.8
163.1
162.6
156.7
168.6

172.0
173.0
170.5
175.9
167.1
173.2
163.6
164.2
163.2
156.9
169.5

174.2
175.3
173.4
176.8
169.2
176.1
166.9
167.1
168.7
158.5
171.7

175.7
176.7
174.7
178.1
171.2
178.1
168.8
169.1
170.5
160.6
173.2

.9
.8
.7
.7
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
.9

3.7
3.7
42
2.9
3.7
42
4.6
4.4
5.8
3.5
3.8

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers.......................................
Professional specialty and technical........................
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial....................
Administrative support, including clerical......................
Blue-collar workers.........................................
Service occupations..............................................

1.1

Workers, by industry division:

Private industry workers...........................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................
Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers...................................
Excluding sales occupations......................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations..........
Executive, adminitrative, 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........................................................

157.4

159.0

159.8

161.7

162.6

163.8

164.3

166.9

168.2

.8

3.4

Production and nonsupervisory occupations4...........

158.7

159.7

160.5

162.6

164.1

165.7

166.6

169.3

171.0

1.0

4.2

Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing....................................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
White-collar occupations...................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Blue-collar occupations................................................
Construction................................................
Manufacturing.................................................
White-collar occupations.........................................
Excluding sales occupations..............................
Blue-collar occupations..............................................
Durables.......................................................
Nondurables.......................................

157.6
156.9
161.9
160.2
154.8
155.2
158.1
161.1
158.6
155.8
158.3
157.5

158.6
157.9
162.9
161.1
155.9
156.3
159.1
162.2
159.6
156.7
158.9
159.2

160.1
159.2
164.3
162.3
157.3
157.9
160.5
163.3
160.7
158.3
160.6
160.3

163.0
162.4
167.8
166.3
159.9
159.1
164.0
167.1
165.1
161.6
164.4
163.1

164.5
163.8
169.2
167.5
161.5
161.1
165.4
168.7
166.4
162.8
165.5
164.9

165.7
165.0
170.1
168.5
162.9
162.3
166.5
169.5
167.4
164.1
166.6
166.0

166.5
165.9
170.5
169.2
163.9
163.3
167.1
169.6
167.8
165.1
167.3
166.6

170.3
169.8
173.5
172.2
168.1
164.6
171.7
173.2
171.3
170.4
172.4
170.4

171.8
171.2
174.7
173.3
169.8
165.9
173.2
174.6
172.6
172.0
174.0
171.7

.9
.8
.7
.6
1.0
.8
.9
.8
.8
.9
.9
.8

4.4
4.5
3.3
3.5
5.1
3.0
4.7
3.5
3.7
5.7
5.1
4.1

Service-producing................................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
White-collar occupations.......................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Blue-collar occupations................................
Service occupations.......................................
Transportation and public utilities..................................
Transportation..............................................
Public utilities................................................
Communications.......................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services..........................
Wholesale and retail trade......................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Wholesale trade......................................
Excluding sales occupations....................................
Retail trade...................................................
General merchandise stores....................................
Food stores......................................................

161.8
162.4
164.0
165.6
155.2
157.0
158.9
153.9
165.5
166.1
164.8
159.5
160.0
166.3
164.4
155.6
154.2
154.5

162.7
163.5
164.7
166.5
156.6
158.5
160.8
155.4
168.2
169.0
167.2
159.6
160.3
165.9
166.1
156.0
156.1
156.3

163.1
164.0
165.1
167.0
156.9
159.3
161.7
156.1
169.2
170.1
168.1
159.7
160.4
166.7
167.2
155.8
155.1
156.3

165.6
166.6
167.9
169.9
158.7
161.1
163.2
157.8
170.5
171.3
169.5
161.3
161.8
169.5
168.4
156.6
156.4
157.5

167.0
168.0
169.2
171.3
160.8
162.0
165.4
158.9
174.2
175.5
172.6
162.5
162.7
171.3
169.9
157.4
159.2
158.6

168.8
169.7
171.2
173.1
162.2
163.2
166.5
159.4
176.4
178.4
173.8
164.3
165.0
172.0
171.2
159.9
161.2
159.3

169.7
170.6
172.0
174.2
162.6
164.3
167.0
159.6
177.0
179.0
174.6
165.0
165.9
172.0
171.3
161.0
165.6
160.3

171.6
172.5
174.1
176.2
164.1
166.1
169.8
162.0
180.4
182.2
178.2
166.3
167.4
173.8
173.7
162.1
165.8
162.1

173.3
174.2
175.7
177.8
166.4
167.4
172.5
164.7
183.1
183.6
182.4
168.1
168.6
175.9
174.0
163.7
166.2
163.5

1.0
1.0
.9
.9
1.4
.8
1.6
1.7
1.5
.8
2.4
1.1
.7
1.2
.2
1.0
.2
.9

38
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.3
4.3
3.7
5.1
4.6
5.7
3.4
3.6
2.7
2.4
4.0
4.4
3.1

See footnotes at end of table.

98

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

30. Continued— Employment Cost Index, compensation,1 by occupation and industry group
[June 1989 = 100]

Series

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Percent change

2004

2003

2002

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

12 months
ended

3 months
ended

June 2004
Finance, insurance, and real estate...............................

167.3

168.0

168.5

176.7

178.3

180.2

180.9

182.5

183.6

0.6

3.0

Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies.
Insurance......................................................................
Services..........................................................................
Business services........................................................
Health services.............................................................
Hospitals.....................................................................
Educational services.....................................................
Colleges and universities...........................................

171.3
184.2
166.1
163.7
166.6
162.0
164.5
169.0
168.4

172.1
184.6
167.1
164.9
167.2
163.2
166.2
173.5
172.0

173.1
185.3
167.9
165.4
167.5
164.4
168.1
175.2
173.7

182.0
204.3
172.1
167.1
168.5
166.5
170.8
176.3
174.5

184.0 1,853.0
207.6
206.3
175.1
173.9
170.4
168.4
169.2
171.9
169.4
167.9
173.9
171.9
180.2
177.1
178.4
175.4

186.1
209.0
176.2
171.4
172.6
170.8
175.9
181.3
179.4

186.6
207.2
177.8
173.5
174.8
173.3
178.1
183.1
181.2

188.7
208.9
180.5
175.1
176.9
174.8
179.7
184.2
182.5

1.1
.8
1.5
.9
1.2
.9
.9
.6
.7

2.6
1.3
3.8
4.0
4.6
4.1
4.5
4.0
4.0

Nonmanufacturing..........................................................

161.1
164.1
165.7
154.0
156.9

162.0
164.8
166.6
155.4
158.4

162.5

168.1

169.0

171.2
173.2
161.1
163.2

172.1
174.2
161.7
162.4

172.5
175.7
177.7
165.5
167.3

3.7

169.3
171.4
159.7
162.0

170.9
174.1
176.2
163.4
166.0

.9

165.3
167.1
155.9
159.2

164.9
168.0
170.0
157.5
161.1

166.4

White-collar workers.....................................................
Excluding sales occupations....................................
Blue-collar occupations................................................
Service occupations.....................................................

.9
.9
1.3
.8

3.8
3.7
3.6
3.3

S t a t e a n d lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s ..............................................

156.7

160.1

161.5

162.6

163.2

165.9

166.8

168.0

168.7

.4

3.4

155.7
154.1
159.6
158.0
154.7

159.3
158.1
162.3
161.0
158.4

160.7
159.4
163.8
162.4
159.8

161.7
160.2
165.3
163.8
161.3

162.2
160.8
165.7
164.4
161.7

164.9
163.4
168.0
167.9
163.6

165.7
164.1
169.1
168.5
165.2

166.8
165.1
170.1
170.4
166.7

167.5
165.6
171.0
171.8
167.5

.4
.3
.5
.8
.5

3.3
3.0
3.2
4.5
3.6

155.9
158.7
161.4
161.8
155.1
155.4
153.6
160.4
157.9

159.7
161.0
163.5
164.1
159.2
159.6
157.7
164.7
160.2

160.9
162.8
165.5
166.2
160.3
160.7
158.8
165.8
161.7

161.8
164.0
166.4
167.0
161.1
161.4
159.4
167.0
163.4

162.3
164.2
166.7
167.3
161.7
162.0
160.0
167.5
164.3

164.9
166.8
169.5
170.3
164.3
164.7
163.0
169.2
167.3

165.7
168.2
171.0
171.4
165.0
165.3
163.7
170.0
168.1

166.5
169.4
172.2
172.4
165.7
166.0
164.4
170.7
170.1

166.8
170.1
172.9
173.2
165.9
166.3
164.6
171.0
171.4

.2
.4
.4
.5
.1
.2
.1
.2
.8

2.8
3.6
3.7
3.5
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.1
4.3

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers...........................................................
Professional specialty and technical................................
Executive, administrative, and managerial......................

Workers, by industry division:
Services...........................................................................
Services excluding schools5...........................................
Health services.............................................................

Elementary and secondary.....................................
Colleges and universities........................................
Public administration3.......................................................

1 Cost (cents per hour worked) measured in the Employment Cost Index consists of
wages, salaries, and employer cost of employee benefits.
2 Consists 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

3 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities,
4 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly
Earnings index, which was discontinued in January 1989.
5 includes, for example, library, social, and health services.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

99

Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations

31.

Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group

[June 1989 = 100]

2002

2003

2004

Percent change

Series
June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

3 months
ended

12 months
ended

June 2004
Civilian workers1..............................

156.1

157.2

157.8

159.3

160.3

161.8

162.3

163.3

164.3

0.6

2.5

158.4
156.2
162.6
158.4
151.0
155.1

159.6
158.0
163.5
159.6
151.9
'56.2

160.1
158.6
163.8
160.6
152.6
156.9

161.9
159.3
167.9
161.8
153.8
158.0

162.9
160.1
169.0
163.1
154.8
158.7

164.5
161.8
170.5
164.3
155.8
159.8

165.1
162.5
171.2
164.9
156.3
160.6

166.1
163.8
171.4
166.3
157.3
161.2

167.1
164.4
172.4
167.5
158.4
161.9

.6
.4
.6
.7
.7
.4

2.6
2.7
2.0
2.7
2.3
2.0

153.1
154.5
157.2
158.8
158.5
158.6
155.6

153.9
155.4
156.4
160.7
159.6
160.3
159.3

155.1
156.5
158.8
161.1
160.9
162.2
160.1

156.3
158.0
160.5
161.9
162.0
163.5
160.4

157.5
159.0
161.4
162.8
163.2
164.4
160.7

158.3
159.7
163.0
164.7
164.7
166.3
162.7

160.6
160.1
163.6
165.4
165.9
167.7
163.2

159.9
161.3
164.6
166.5
167.7
169.0
163.6

161.0
162.4
165.5
167.4
168.6
169.9
163.8

.7
.7
.5
.5
.5
.5
.1

2.2
2.1
2.5
2.8
3.3
3.3
1.9

153.4
156.4

154.8
157.5

155.8
158.0

157.2
159.6

158.0
160.5

159.4
162.1

160.0
162.7

161.1
163.7

161.4
164.6

.2
.5

2.2
2.6

Private industry workers..........................
Excluding sales occupations.........................................

156.3
156.1

157.0
157.0

157.5
157.9

159.3
159.4

160.4
160.5

161.7
161.7

162.3
162.4

163.4
163.5

164.5
164.5

.7
.6

2.6
2.5

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers........................................
Excluding sales occupations........................................
Professional specialty and technical occupations..........
Executive, adminitrative, 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....

159.4
160.0
157.4
163.6
157.0
159.2
150.9
151.0
151.6
145.2
155.1

160.0
169.8
158.2
164.3
156.9
160.3
151.7
151.8
152.0
146.3
156.0

160.4
160.8
158.5
164.5
156.8
161.3
152.4
152.3
153.2
146.9
157.2

162.6
163.6
159.5
169.1
158.1
162.6
153.6
153.4
154.7
147.8
158.4

163.8
164.8
160.5
170.3
159.3
164.0
154.6
154.7
155.3
149.0
159.0

165.3
166.2
162.1
171.8
161.6
165.1
155.6
155.5
156.8
149.8
159.9

165.9
167.0
163.0
172.5
161.1
165.7
156.1
156.2
156.9
149.8
160.6

167.1
168.1
164.7
172.7
162.6
167.2
157.2
157.1
158.6
150.4
161.8

168.2
169.2
165.5
173.9
163.9
168.6
158.3
158.3
159.8
151.8
162.7

.7
.7
.5
.7
.8
.8
.7
.8
.8
.9
.6

2.7
2.7
3.1
2.1
2.9
2.8
2.4
2.3
2.9
1.9
2.3

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers........................................
Professional specialty and technical...............................
Executive, adminitrative, and managerial........................
Administrative support, including clerical...................
Blue-collar workers............................................
Service occupations.................................................
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing................................................
Manufacturing.............................................
Service-producing....................................................
Services...........................................................
Health services.........................................
Hospitals.............................................................
Educational services.......................................
Public administration2.......................................
Nonmanufacturing.............................................

Service occupations..................................................

152.8

153.9

154.4

155.5

156.1

157.1

157.8

158.4

159.3

.6

2.0

Production and nonsupervisory occupations3................

154.0

154.7

155.2

156.4

157.4

158.8

159.4

160.7

161.7

.6

2.7

Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing..................................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
White-collar occupations....................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Blue-collar occupations................................................
Construction...............................................
Manufacturing...............................................
White-collar occupations.......................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Blue-collar occupations..............................................
Durables..................................................
Nondurables.....................................................

153.1
152.2
156.6
154.5
150.7
148.2
154.4
156.6
153.9
152.8
155.3
153.1

153.9
153.0
157.9
155.4
151.5
149.0
155.4
157.7
155.0
153.5
156.0
154.4

155.0
154.0
158.6
156.3
152.6
150.2
156.5
158.6
155.9
154.7
157.3
155.2

156.3
155.4
160.0
158.0
153.8
150.6
158.0
160.1
157.7
156.3
158.8
156.6

157.4
156.5
161.4
159.2
154.8
152.4
159.0
161.6
158.9
156.9
159.7
157.8

158.3
157.4
161.9
159.9
155.9
153.6
159.7
162.0
159.5
157.9
160.6
158.3

158.7
158.0
162.1
160.4
156.4
154.0
160.1
162.1
160.0
158.5
160.9
158.7

159.9
159.2
163.2
161.5
157.7
155.1
161.3
163.3
161.2
159.8
161.9
160.4

160.9
160.2
164.5
162.7
158.6
155.9
162.4
164.7
162.5
160.6
162.9
161.6

.6
.6
.8
.7
.6
.5
.7
.9
.8
.5
.6
.7

2.2
2.4
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.0
2.4

157.7
158.5
159.9
161.6
151.1
152.4
152.1
148.6
156.4
157.1
155.5
155.7

158.4
159.3
160.5
162.5
151.8
153.5
153.4
149.6
158.2
159.6
156.5
155.5

158.6
159.6
160.7
162.8
152.0
154.1
154.1
150.1
159.3
160.7
157.4
155.5

160.6
161.7
163.0
165.3
153.2
155.1
154.8
150.5
160.4
161.9
158.6
156.7
_

161.7
162.8
164.1
166.5
154.3
155.6
155.6
150.6
162.1
163.4
160.4
157.5

163.3
164.2
166.0
168.2
155.1
156.6
156.0
150.4
163.4
165.4
161.0
159.2

163.9
165.0
166.6
169.0
155.4
157.4
156.5
150.8
164.1
165.9
161.8
159.5

165.0
166.0
167.8
170.2
156.2
158.0
157.6
151.7
165.3
167.0
163.3
160.3

166.1
167.1
168.9
171.2
157.8
158.8
159.1
153.4
166.4
167.5
165.1
161.6

.7
.7
.7
.6
1.0
.5
1.0
1.1
.7
.3
1.1
.8

2.7
2.6
2.9
2.8
2.3
2.1
2.2
1.9
2.7
2.5
2.9
2.6

163.4
163.9
153.1
149.8
151.0

164.7
165.2
153.8
152.0
151.6

164.8
165.7
156.3
153.1
152.2

165.3
166.3
156.5
153.6
152.8

166.2
167.8
157.3
154.1
153.8

167.8
167.6
158.4
154.9
154.3

1.0
-0.1
.7
.5
.3

1.9
1.5
3.0
1.9
1.8

Service-producing...........................................................
Excluding sales occupations....................................
White-collar occupations..............................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Blue-collar occupations................................................
Service occupations......................................................
Transportation and public utilities...................................
Transportation................................................
Public utilities....................................................
Communications........................................................
Electric, gas, and sanitary services..........................
Wholesale and retail trade.........................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Wholesale trade............................................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Retail trade..................................................
General merchandise stores.....................................
Food stores................................................................

-

161.3
161.2
152.7
148.9
148.9

See footnotes at end of table.

100

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

-

160.4
162.6
152.9
150.1
150.1

-

161.0
163.7
152.7
149.2
150.3

_

_

_

_

31. Continued—Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group
[June 1989 = 100]

Series

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Percent change

2004

2003

2002

Sept.

Dec.

June

Mar.

12 months
ended

3 months
ended

June 2004
Finance, insurance, and real estate...............................
Excluding sales occupations.....................................
Banking, savings and loan, and other credit agencies.
Insurance......................................................................
Services..........................................................................
Business services........................................................
Health services.............................................................
Hospitals.....................................................................
Educational services....................................................
Colleges and universities...........................................

162.0
165.7
182.8
158.6
160.3
164.0
158.4
158.6
161.2
159.9

162.4
166.1
182.7
159.6
161.5
164.6
159.9
160.2
165.2
163.1

162.6
167.3
183.9
159.1
161.7
164.8
160.7
162.1
166.5
164.3

171.1
176.7
206.4
161.6
162.8
165.6
161.9
163.6
167.1
164.4

172.4
178.5
208.7
163.0
164.0
166.4
163.2
164.6
167.5
165.1

174.1
179.2
209.1
163.9
165.9
169.1
164.6
166.5
170.3
167.6

174.5
210.2
164.5
164.5
166.7
169.8
135.8
167.9
171.0
168.4

175.2
179.2
206.7
165.1
168.1
171.0
167.8
169.4
171.9
169.5

175.3
180.5
207.6
167.2
169.3
172.7
168.8
170.5
172.6
170.0

0.1
.7
.4
1.3
.7
1.0
.6
.6
.4
.3

1.7
1.1
-.5
2.6
3.2
3.8
3.4
3.6
2.9
3.0

Nonmanufacturing..........................................................
White-collar workers.....................................................
Excluding sales occupations....................................
Blue-collar occupations................................................
Service occupations.....................................................

156.5
159.6
161.3
149.0
152.3

157.2
160.2
162.1
149.8
153.4

157.5
160.5
162.5
150.2
154.0

159.4
162.8
164.9
151.1
155.0

160.5
163.9
166.1
152.4
155.5

162.1
165.7
167.7
153.4
156.5

162.6
166.3
168.5
153.8
157.3

163.7
167.5
169.7
154.7
157.9

164.8
168.6
170.7
156.1
158.7

.7
.7
.6
.9
.5

2.7
2.9
2.8
2.4
2.1

S t a t e a n d l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s .............................................

156.7

160.1

161.5

162.6

163.2

165.9

166.8

168.0

168.7

.2

1.9

154.4
154.1
156.8
152.8
152.1

157.4
157.5
159.0
155.1
154.5

158.4
158.4
160.1
156.0
155.1

158.9
158.8
160.9
156.9
156.2

159.2
159.1
161.0
157.2
156.5

161.0
161.0
162.5
159.1
157.6

161.5
161.4
163.3
159.5
158.3

162.1
162.1
163.5
160.4
158.9

162.4
162.3
163.8
160.8
159.2

.2
.1
.2
.2
.2

2.0
2.0
1.7
2.3
1.7

155.0

158.4

159.2

159.5

159.8

161.6

162.1

162.6

162.7

.1

1.8

Elementary and secondary.....................................
Colleges and universities.......................................

157.3
158.6
158.8
154.5
154.6
153.6
157.3

159.1
160.5
160.6
158.1
158.3
157.4
160.7

160.3
162.2
162.5
158.9
159.0
158.1
161.6

161.4
162.9
163.1
159.1
159.2
158.2
162.1

161.8
163.5
163.8
159.3
159.5
158.5
162.1

163.2
165.1
165.5
161.2
161.4
160.6
163.5

164.5
166.7
166.7
161.6
161.8
160.9
164.0

165.1
167.4
167.4
162.0
162.1
161.3
164.3

165.6
167.8
167.9
162.1
162.3
161.5
164.4

.3
.2
.3
.1
.1
.1
.1

2.3
2.6
2.5
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.4

Public administration2.......................................................

153.4

154.8

155.8

157.2

158.0

159.4

160.0

161.1

161.4

.2

2.2

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers...........................................................
Professional specialty and technical................................
Executive, administrative, and managerial......................

Workers, by industry division:
Services...........................................................................
4

Services excluding schools...........................................
Health services.............................................................
Hospitals...................................................................

1 Consists of private industry workers (excluding farm and household workers) and
State and local government (excluding Federal Government) workers.
2 Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities.

32.

3 This series has the same industry and occupational coverage as the Hourly
Earnings index, which was discontinued in January 1989.
4 Includes, for example, library, social, and health services.

Employment Cost Index, benefits, private industry workers by occupation and industry group

[June 1989 = 100]

Series

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Percent change

2004

2003

2002

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

3 months
ended

12 months
ended

June 2004
P r iv a t e in d u s t r y w o r k e r s .......................................................................

Workers, by occupational group:
White-collar workers...........................................................
Workers, by industry division:
Goods-producing................................................................
Service-producing..............................................................
Manufacturing....................................................................
Nonmanufacturing.............................................................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

171.6

173.1

174.6

179.6

182.0

184.3

185.8

192.2

195.3

1.6

7.3

176.1
164.0

177.2
166.2

178.5
167.8

183.6
172.7

185.5
176.1

187.7
178.4

189.2
179.9

194.4
188.3

197.4
191.8

1.5
1.9

6.4
8.9

167.4
173.3
165.5
173.5

168.8
174.9
166.8
175.2

171.0
175.9
168.9
176.3

178.0
179.9
176.9
180.3

180.2
182.3
179.0
182.8

182.3
184.7
181.1
185.1

183.8
186.2
182.3
186.7

193.7
190.6
194.4
190.9

196.2
194.1
196.9
194.3

1.3
1.8
1.3
1.8

8.9
6.5
10.0
6.3

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

101

Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations

33. Employment Cost Index, private industry workers by bargaining status, region, and area size
[June 1989 = 100]___________________________

2002

2003

2004

Percent change

Series
June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

Sept.

Dec.

Mar.

June

3 months
ended

12 months
ended

June 2004
COMPENSATION
Workers, by bargaining status1
Union........................................................................
Goods-produclng.............................................................
Service-producing...............................................................
Manufacturing.....................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..............................................................

156.3
154.7
157.6
154.6
156.6

158.1
156.2
159.9
155.9
158.8

159.5
157.8
161.1
157.9
159.9

162.1
161.4
162.6
162.3
161.4

164.1
163.4
164.6
163.8
163.7

165.7
164.7
166.5
165.0
165.5

166.8
165.9
167.5
166.3
166.5

171.4
172.3
170.2
175.0
168.8

173.9
174.6
172.9
177.0
171.6

Nonunion................................................................................
Goods-produclng.................................................................
Service-producing................................................................
Manufacturing.....................................................................
Nonmanufacturing..............................................................

161.4
158.6
162.2
159.1
161.7

162.5
159.5
162.9
160.1
162.4

162.8
160.8
163.3
161.3
162.9

165.4
163.6
165.9
164.5
165.4

166.8
164.9
167.2
165.8
166.7

168.4
166.1
169.0
166.9
168.5

169.1
166.7
169.8
167.3
139.3

171.3
169.7
171.6
170.6
171.1

172.7
170.9
173.2
172.0
172.6

159.9
157.6
162.2
162.9

160.5
158.9
163.5
163.8

161.3
159.0
164.6
165.0

163.8
160.6
169.0
167.3

165.2
161.6
170.4
169.5

166.9
163.2
171.7
171.4

167.9
163.9
172.5
172.2

170.2
166.4
174.7
175.3

172.3
167.9
176.2
176.8

160.9
158.5

161.8
160.0

162.5
169.8

165.2
163.5

166.6
165.0

168.3
166.1

169.1
166.9

171.5
170.2

173.1
172.1

Union.......................................................................................
Goods-producing.................................................................
Service-producing...............................................................
Manufacturing......................................................................
Nonmanufacturing...............................................................

149.8
158.6
151.4
150.2
149.6

151.3
150.0
152.9
151.6
151.1

152.5
151.2
154.1
153.1
152.1

153.3
152.4
154.6
154.6
152.5

154.3
153.9
155.1
155.9
153.5

155.3
154.8
156.3
156.7
154.6

156.2
155.4
157.3
157.1
155.6

157.2
156.3
158.5
158.1
156.6

158.7
157.5
160.3
159.2
158.4

Nonunion.................................................................................
Goods-producing.................................................................
Service-producing...............................................................
Manufacturing......................................................................
Nonmanufacturing...............................................................

157.5
154.8
158.3
156.1
157.5

158.1
155.5
158.9
156.8
158.1

158.5
156.6
159.0
157.8
158.3

160.4
157.8
161.2
159.3
160.4

161.5
158.9
162.3
160.2
161.5

163.0
159.7
164.0
160.9
163.1

163.4
160.1
164.5
161.3
163.7

164.6
161.4
165.6
162.6
164.7

165.6
162.4
166.6
163.7
165.7

154.9
153.6
158.5
158.7

155.1
154.7
159.2
159.3

155.7
154.6
160.2
160.1

157.3
155.3
164.1
161.3

158.4
156.1
165.0
163.1

160.0
157.4
166.1
164.7

160.9
157.9
166.5
165.2

162.0
159.1
166.9
166.8

163.6
160.1
167.7
167.9

1.0
.6

156.7
152.6

157.4
153.8

157.9
154.8

159.6
156.8

160.7
158.0

162.2
158.9

162.7
159.5

163.8
160.8

164.9
162.1

.7

1.5
1.3

1.6
1.1

6.0
6.9
5.0

8.1

1.7

4.8

.8

3.5
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.5

.7
.9

.8
.9

Workers, by region1
Northeast................................................................................
South......................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)...........................................
West......................................................................................

1.2
.9
.9
.9

4.3
3.9
3.4
4.3

Workers, by area size1
Metropolitan areas..................................................................
Other areas............................................................................

.9

1.1

3.9
4.3

1.0
.8
1.1

2.9
2.3
3.4

WAGES AND SALARIES
Workers, by bargaining status1

.7

1.1
.6
.6
.6
.7

.6

2.1
3.2
2.5

2.2
2.6
2.2
2.6

Workers, by region1
Northeast................................................................................
South......................................................................................
Midwest (formerly North Central)...........................................
West........................................................................................

.5
.7

3.3

2.6
1.6
2.9

Workers, by area size1
Metropolitan areas..................................................................
Other areas.............................................................................

.8

1 The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and Industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see the M o n th ly L a b o r R e v ie w
Technical Note, "Estimation procedures for the Employment Cost Index," May 1982.

102

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

2.6
2.6

34. Percent of full-time employees participating in employer-provided benefit plans, and in selected features within plans,
Item

199 7

199 5

1993

1991

1989

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

21,352

21,043

21,013

21,303

31,059

32,428

31,163

28,728

33,374

38,409

20,711
20,498
17,936

20,412
20,201
17,676

20,383
20,172
17,231

20,238
20,451
16,190

27,953
28,574
19,567

29,834
30,482
20,430

25,865
29,293
18,386

23,519
26,175
16,015

25,546
29,078
17,417

29,340
33,495
19,202

10

9
25
76
25

9
26
73
26

11
29
72
26
85
3.2
96
9.4
24
3.3
98

10
26
71
26
84
3.3
97
9.2
22
3.1
97

8
30
67
28
80
3.3
92
10.2
21
3.3
96

9
29
68
26
83
3.0
91
9.4
21
3.1
97

80
3.3
89
9.1
22
3.3
96

81
3.7
89
9.3
20
3.5
95

69
33
16

68
37
18

67
37
26

65
60
53

58

56

84

93

Number of employees (in 000's):

Time-off plans

Participants with:

100

99
10.0
24
3.8
99

99
9.8
23
3.6
99

10
27
72
26
88
3.2
99
10.0
25
3.7
100

62

67

67

70

75

_
99
10.1
20

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

_
_

Insurance plans

97

97

97

95

90

92

83

82

77

76

58

62

46
62
8

66
70
18

76
79
28

75
80
28

81
80
30

86
82
42

78
73
56

85
78
63

26

27

46

51

36
$11.93
58
$35.93

43
$12.80
63
$41.40

44
$19.29
64
$60.07

47
$25.31
66
$72.10

51
$26.60
69
$96.97

61
$31.55
76
$107.42

67
$33.92
78
$118.33

69
$39.14
80
$130.07

96

96

96

96

92

94

94

91

87

87

69

72

74

78
8
49

71
7
42

71
6
44

76
5
41

77
7
37

74
6
33

42

43

53

55

Percent of participants with coverage for:

Percent of participants with employee
contribution required for:

_

Percent of participants with:
Accidental death and dismemberment

64

64

72
10
59

40

43

47

48

42

45

40

41

54

51

51

49

46

43

45

44

_

_

_

Participants in long-term disability
Participants in sickness and accident

_

Retirement plans

84

84

82

76

63

63

59

56

52

50

55
98

58
97

53
45

52
45

63
97
47
54
56

64
98
35
57
62

59
98
26
55
62

62
97
22
64
63

55
98
7
56
54

52
95
6
61
48

52
96
4
58
51

52
95
10
56
49

60

45

48

48

49

55

57

33

36

41

44

43

54

55

2
5

5
12

9
23

10
36

12
52

12
38
5

13
32
7

Percent of participants with:

Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings
Other benefits

Employees eligible for:

Premium conversion plans....................................
1 The definitions for paid sick leave and short-term disability (previously sickness and

fits at less than full pay.

accident insurance) were changed for the 1995 survey. Paid sick leave now includes only

2 Prior to 1995, reimbursement accounts included premium conversion plans, which

plans that specify either a maximum number of days per year or unlimited days. Short-

specifically allow medical plan participants to pay required plan premiums with pretax

terms disability now includes all insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans available

dollars. Also, reimbursement accounts that were part of flexible benefit plans were

on a per-disability basis, as well as the unfunded per-disability plans previously reported as

tabulated separately.

sick leave. Sickness and accident insurance, reported in years prior to this survey, included
only insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans providing per-disability bene­


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Note: Dash indicates data not available.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

103

Current Labor Statistics: Compensation & Industrial Relations

35. Percent of full-time employees participating in employer-provided benefit plans, and in selected features
within plans, small private establishments and State and local governments, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996
Small private establishments

Item
1990
Scope of survey (in 000's).........................
Number of employees (in 000's):
With medical care...................
With life insurance.........................
With defined benefit plan........................

1992

1994

State and local governments
1996

1987

1990

1992

1994

32,466

34,360

35,910

39,816

10,321

12,972

12,466

12,907

22,402
20,778
6,493

24,396
21,990
7,559

23,536
21,955
5,480

25,599
24,635
5,883

9,599
8,773
9,599

12,064
11,415
11,675

11,219
11,095
10,845

11,192
11 194
11,708

8
37
48
27
47
2.9
84

9
37
49
26
50
3.0
82

_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_

50
3.1
82

51
3.0
80

17
34
58
29
56
3.7
81

11
36
56
29
63
3.7
74

10
34
53
29
65
3.7
75

62
37
73

9.5
11
2.8
88
47

9.2
12
2.6
88
53

7.5
13
2.6
88

7.6
14
3.0
86
50

10.9
38
2.7
72
97

13 6
39
2.9
67

14 2
38
2.9
67

38
30
66

17
8
-

18
7
-

_
47

_

57
30

51
33

59
44

48

69

71

66

64

93

93

90

87

79
83
26

80
84
28

_
_

_
_

-

-

76
78
36

82
79
36

87
84
47

84
81
55

42
$25.13
67
$109.34

47
$36.51
73
$150.54

52
$40.97
76
$159.63

52
$42.63
75
$181.53

35
$15.74
71
$71.89

38
$25.53
65
$117.59

43
$28.97
72
$139.23

47
$30.20
71
$149.70

64

64

61

62

85

88

89

87

78
1
19

76
1
25

79
2
20

77
1
13

67
1
55

67

74

64

45

46

46

19

23

20

22

31

27

28

30

6

26

26

14

21

22

21

T i m e - o f f p la n s

Participants with:
Paid lunch time...................................
Average minutes per day.................
Paid rest time.................................
Average minutes per day................
Paid funeral leave.........................
Average days per occurrence..........................
Paid holidays....................................
Averaqe days per year1...............................
Paid personal leave.................................
Average days per year.............................
Paid vacations.....................................
Paid sick leave 2..................................
Unpaid leave.............................................
Unpaid paternity leave............................
Unpaid family leave........................

50

93

In s u r a n c e p la n s

Participants in medical care plans.............
Percent of participants with coverage for:
Home health care.............................
Extended care facilities..............................
Physical exam..........................................
Percent of participants with employee
contribution required for:
Self coverage.......................................
Average monthly contribution.............................
Family coverage.........................................
Average monthly contribution........................
Participants in life insurance plans..............
Percent of participants with:
Accidental death and dismemberment
insurance...............................................
Survivor income benefits..............................
Retiree protection available..............................
Participants in long-term disability
insurance plans..................................
Participants in sickness and accident
insurance plans....................................
Participants in short-term disability plans 2................

_

_

_

29

R e t ir e m e n t p la n s

Participants in defined benefit pension plans...........
Percent of participants with:
Normal retirement prior to age 65..................
Early retirement available............................
Ad hoc pension increase in last 5 years................
Terminal earnings formula...............................
Benefit coordinated with Social Security........
Participants in defined contribution plans..................
Participants in plans with tax-deferred savings
arrangements...................................

20

22

15

15

93

90

87

91

54
95
7
58
49

50
95
4
54
46

_
-

47
92
_
53
44

92
90
33
100
18

89
88
16
100
8

92
89
10
100
10

92
87
13
99
49

31

33

34

38

9

9

g

17

24

23

28

28

45

45

24

1
8

2
14

3
19

5
5

5
31

5
50

5
64

-

-

4
12
7

-

_
-

O t h e r b e n e f it s

Employees eligible for:
Flexible benefits plans......................
Reimbursement accounts 3............................
Premium conversion plans ...............................

1 Methods used to calculate the average number of paid holidays were revised
in 1994 to count partial days more precisely. Average holidays for 1994 are
not comparable with those reported in 1990 and 1992.
2 The definitions for paid sick leave and short-term disability (previously
sickness and accident insurance) were changed for the 1996 survey. Paid sick
leave now includes only plans that specify either a maximum number of days
per year or unlimited days. Short-term disability now includes all insured, selfinsured, and State-mandated plans available on a per-disability basis, as well
as the unfunded per-disability plans previously reported as sick leave.

104

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

_

Sickness and accident insurance, reported in years prior to this survey,
included only insured, self-insured, and State-mandated plans providing perdisability benefits at less than full pay.
3 Prior to 1996, reimbursement accounts included premium conversion plans,
which specifically allow medical plan participants to pay required plan
premiums with pretax dollars. Also, reimbursement accounts that were part of
flexible benefit plans were tabulated separately.
Note : Dash indicates data not available.

36. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more
Annual totals
Measure
2003 June July
2002

2004p
Mar. Apr.

2003
Sept.

Aug.

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.

Nov.

Oct.

June

May

Number of stoppages:
Beginning in period............................
In effect during period........................

19
20

14

1
1

0
1

3
3

0
2

5
5

0
3

0
2

0
1

1
2

1
1

0
1

2
2

3

15

Workers Involved:
Beginning In period (in thousands)....
In effect during period (In thousands).

46
47

129.2
130.5

4.0
4.0

.0
4.0

8.2
8.2

.0
3.2

82.2
82.2

8.0
76.7

.0
70.5

.0
61.3

6.5
66.5

2.2
2.2

.0
2.2

103.0
103.0

27.6
28.6

Days idle:
Number (in thousands)......................

6,596

4,091.2

16.0

12.0

35.9

51.3

1,168.5

1,219.0

1,473.4

1,203.9

1,146.5

44.0

26.4

204.0

94.0

(2)

.00

.04

.05

.05

.05

.05

(2)

(2)

.01

(2)

Percent of estimated working time1....

A

.01

(2)

(2)

1 Agricultural and government employees are included in the total employed and total

October 1968, pp. 54-56.

working time; private household, forestry, and fishery employees are excluded. An

2 Less than 0.005.

explanation of the measurement of Idleness as a percentage of the total time worked
Is found in "Total economy measures of strike Idleness," M on th ly L a b o r Review ,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

No t e :

Dash Indicates data not available, p = preliminary.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

105

Current Labor Statistics:

37.

Price Data

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]

Annua average
2002 2003 June

Series

July

Aug.

2003
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan

Feb.

2004
Mar. Apr.

May

June

C O N S U M E R P R IC E IN D E X
FOR A LL URBAN CO NSUM ERS

All items............................
All items (1967 = 100).....................
Food and beverages....................
Food............................................
Food at home.............................
Cereals and bakery products.....................
Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs................
Dairy and related products1.....
Fruits and vegetables......................
Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage
materials..............................
Other foods at home.........................
Sugar and sweets...............................
Fats and oils.....................................
Other foods...................................
Other miscellaneous foods1'2
Food away from home1..............
Other food away from home1,2......
Alcoholic beverages...................
Housing..................................
Shelter........................................
Rent of primary residence..........................
Lodging away from home..............................
Owners' equivalent rent of primary residence3..
Tenants' and household insurance1'2.........
Fuels and utilities...................................
Fuels....................................
Fuel oil and other fuels................................
Gas (piped) and electricity.............................
Household furnishings and operations...........
Apparel........................................
Men's and boys' apparel.......................
Women's and girls’ apparel......................
Infants’ and toddlers' apparel1....
Footwear.........................................
Transportation.....................................
Private transportation............................
New and used motor vehicles2
New vehicles........................
Used cars and trucks1........
Motor fuel..................................
Gasoline (all types).................................
Motor vehicle parts and equipment.................
Motor vehicle maintenance and repair.........
Public transportation.................................
Medical care.......................................
Medical care commodities.........................
Medical care services............................
Professional services........................
Hospital and related services.......................
Recreation2
Video and audio1,2
Education and communication2.. .
Education2.........................
Educational books and supplies.........
Tuition, other school fees, and child care..........
Communication1'2
Information and information processing1,2
Telephone services1'2...................
Information and information processing
other than telenhone services1,4
Personal computers and peripheral
equipment1,2..........................
Other goods and services........................
Tobacco and smoking products.......................
Personal care1.............
Personal care products1...............................
Personal care services1......

179.S
538.6
176.6
176.2
175.6
198.C
162.'
168.1
220.S

184.C
551.1
180.6
180.C
179.4
202.6
169.3
167.9
225.9

183.7
550.4
180.2
179.6
178.9
203.7
167.2
163.9
227.3

183.9
550.9
180.C
179.7
178.9
204.6
168.2
164.7
226.6

184.6
553.C
180.9
180.4
179.7
204.6
169.7
167.5
224.9

185.2
554.’
181.2
180.7
180.1
203.6
171.1
170.2
224.4

185.C
554.C
182.2
181.7
181.6
203.1
174.C
171.8
226.3

184.6
552.7
182.2
182.4
182.4
202.6
179.3
171.2
227.6

184.C
552.1
184.7
180.C
184.1
202.9
181.1
173.0
232.4

184.2
554.Î
184.6
183.6
184.C
203.9
179.9
172.4
232.4

186.5
557.9
184.8
184.1
184.0
204.4
179.7
172.1
229.7

187.4
561.8
184.5
184.4
184.C
204.8
179.8
171.9
230.1

188.C
563.2
185.C
184.8
184.1
205.8
179.2
174.0
228.3

189.1
566.4
186.8
186.1
186.6
206.1
181.1
185.9
231.7

189.7
568.2
186.8
186.3
186.8
206.8
182.3
188.8
226.7

139.2
160.6
159.C
155.4
177.1

139.8
162.6
162.0
157.4
178.8

139.7
163.2
162.5
157.7
179.4
109.9

137.9
162.0
161.7
157.3
177.9

139.3
163.0
161.0
157.7
179.6
109.8

296.3
262.1
305.2
261.3
391.8
107.6
103.7
108.5

140.8
165.1
163.3
166.2
180.4
111.7
185.8
124.1
190.8
187.9
217.8
209.2
128.1
223.3
115.1
155.2
137.6
152.5
143.5
125.7
123.5
119.8
117.6
121.9
120.1
160.5
156.6
94.2
137.9
131.2
150.5
149.8
107.8
198.5
209.9
307.5
267.3
318.4
269.7
413.8
108.8
104.3
111.1

110.5
186.2
124.7
191.8
188.4
218.4
209.7
129.1
223.9
115.7
155.6
138.0
149.6
144.2
125.6
124.3
120.3
118.7
120.5
121.0
161.8
157.9
94.1
137.6
131.3
155.9
155.3
107.9
198.6
211.5
308.3
268.5
319.2
270.6
413.6
109.0
104.7
110.9

110.8
186.7
124.8
191.7
188.9
218.7
210.2
128.2
224.3
116.1
158.1
140.4
150.4
146.8
125.4
123.4
120.3
116.9
118.1
120.3
165.2
161.5
94.0
137.4
131.8
170.5
169.8
107.9
199.0
210.7
309.0
269.1
319.8
270.9
414.6
108.8
104.6
110.6

139.8
165.8
162.8
171.3
180.5
110.9

94.6
137.5
132.0
131.2
130.6
107.9
197.2
207.9
300.8
264.0
310.6
263.0
405.6
107.8
103.8
110.8

141.4
163.7
163.9
162.3
178.9
109.5
185.5
124.0
189.9
187.0
216.0
208.8
120.0
222.9
115.0
156.9
139.5
155.1
145.5
125.7
118.6
117.1
110.3
119.3
117.0
158.8
154.9
94.4
138.3
131.0
143.1
142.5
108.0
198.2
208.1
306.0
266.7
316.6
268.0
412.5
108.4
104.1

169.9
165.4
163.5
169.4
180.1

96.5
137.7
145.7
130.6
130.0
107.6
196.0
216.7
297.6
263.6
306.4
260.9
394.7
107.7
103.7
108.9

140.7
162.8
163.0
160.7
178.0
109.1
184.9
123.9
189.4
186.3
215.2
208.3
117.2
222.6
114.8
156.3
139.2
149.9
145.5
125.3
115.8
115.5
105.7
117.7
115.9
157.0
153.2
94.3
138.0
130.8
136.7
136.1
108.0
198.2
206.3
303.6
265.5
313.8
262.5
409.7
107.9
103.6
111.1

139.7
165.0
162.6
166.2
180.4

126.0
317.6
362.1
92.3
90.8
99.7

110.3
182.1
121.3
187.2
184.8
213.1
205.5
119.3
219.9
114.8
154.5
138.2
139.5
145.0
126.1
120.9
118.0
113.1
122.1
119.6
157.6
153.6
96.5
137.9
142.9
135.8
135.1
107.8
195.6
209.3
297.1
262.8
306.0
261.2
394.8
107.5
103.6
109.8
134.4
335.4
362.1
89.7
87.8
98.3

138.4
167.7
162.7
156.3
179.0
111.3
182.2
121.3
187.2
185.9
213.8
205.6
124.8
219.6
115.6
159.4
143.6
130.5
151.6
126.1
116.2
113.8
106.1
117.9
117.5
156.8
152.4

139.2
163.1
162.3
157.6
179.4

109.2
178.3
117.7
183.6
180.3
208.1
199.7
118.3
214.7
108.7
143.6
127.2
115.5
134.4
128.3
124.0
121.7
115.8
126.4
121.4
152.9
148.8
99.2
140.0
152.0
116.6
116.0
106.9
190.2
207.4
285.6
256.4
292.9
253.9
367.8
106.2

140.3
163.4
162.8
156.5
180.0
111.5
181.9
121.2
187.1

132.0
334.3
379.4
89.2
87.2
97.5

18.3

16.1

22.2
293.2
461.5
174.7
154.7
188.41

17.6
298.7
469.0
178.0
153.5
193.2

102.6
107.9

See footnotes at end of table.

106

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

95.1
136.4
139.0
147.1
146.5
107.7
196.2
211.2
299.2
264.9
308.2
262.2
399.6
107.7
103.5
110.9

132.6
335.0
381.2
89.4
87.5
98.1

96.0
136.8
143.3
139.0
138.4
107.9
195.7
213.8
298.4
264.1
307.2
261.7
398.6
107.7
103.7
110.1
136.2
338.5
392.1
89.0
87.0
97.8

140.5
163.0
162.5
159.7
178.7
110.7
183.3
122.3
188.1
185.7
214.7
206.9
120.9
221.4
116.0
155.0
138.2
131.4
145.6
125.1
124.8
120.8
118.8
125.2
121.8
157.1
153.0
94.6
136.5
135.1
136.6
136.0
107.9
196.9
211.3
299.9
264.7
309.1
263.0
400.7
107.6
103.5
110.9

138.7
338.2
400.0
88.6
86.7
97.4

139.1
339.7
401.1
88.4
86.4
97.1

139.0
336.0
401.2
88.2
86.2
97.2

184.3
122.9
188.7
185.1
213.1
205.5
119.3
219.9
114.8
154.5
138.7
139.1
145.0
124.7
119.0
118.0
110.9
119.2
118.5
154.7
150.8
94.4
138.0
131.0
127.8
127.2
107.8
198.0
205.6
302.1
265.0
311.9
261.2
407.0
107.7
103.3
110.9
139.4
342.8
401.7
88.2
86.2
97.2

16.2

16.0

15.7

15.6

15.6

15.4

15.3

15.3

15.2

15.2

17.5
298.1
463.5
178.2
153.8
192.8

17.2
299.2
469.1
178.4
154.2
193.2

16.7
299.6
471.8
178.4
153.5
193.9

16.3
299.9
468.7
179.0
153.4
195.4

16.5
300.2
469.5
179.1
153.6
195.6

16.3
300.0
469.1
179.0
153.2
194.2

16.2
300.2
470.4
179.0
153.4
194.3

16.2
301.4
473.0
179.7
153.8
194.6

16.0
302.3
472.6
180.4
154.5
195.2

15.8
303.1
473.6
180.9
154.5
195.8

185.3
213.0
205.1
122.4
219.1
115.2
159.1
143.4
132.2
151.3
126.2
119.5
116.2
111.3
120.7
118.9
156.8
152.6
97.0
137.3
147.4
130.1
129.5
107.7
195.1
214.4

182.6
121.4
187.1
186.1
214.3
206.1
125.1
220.1
115.8
159.2
143.0
130.7
151.0
125.5
117.2
113.4
107.9
120.8
117.8
158.3
154.1

111.0
182.8
121.8
187.9
185.8
213.8
206.6
118.5
220.7
115.9
159.6
143.4
130.5
151.5
125.2
122.0
117.3
115.5
124.1
120.3
159.4
155.4

109.0
183.8
122.7
188.6
185.1
214.2
207.5
115.0
221.9
114.3
152.9
135.7
134.8
142.6
124.9
123.1
121.4
115.7
123.0
121.0
155.7
151.7

140.1
345.4
403.6
88.1
86.1
97.0

111.2
140.4
348.6
404.2
88.1
86.1
97.1

140.6
348.9
404.7
87.7
85.7
96.7

140.7
349.5
404.9
87.4
85.4
96.5

140.9
349.6
405.6
86.9
84.8
95.9

187.0
124 8
192.4
190.3
219.2
210.7
129.1
224.7
116.2
165.5
148.5
150.7
155.8
125.6
120.1
117.7
112.3
116.2
118.4
165.7
161.9
93.6
137.2
130.6
173.3
172.7
108.2
199.7
212.3
310.0
269.6
321.0
271.6
416.9
108.9
104.4
110.8
141 6
350.6
407.6
86.8
84.7
95.8

15.0

14.9

14.9

15.7
303.8
473.5
181.4
154.6
196.6

15.5
304.1
476.0
181.4
153.8
196.9

15.9
303.6
473.3
181.3
154.5
196.11

37. 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]

Annual average
2002
2003

Series

June

July

Aug.

2003
Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

2004
Mar. Apr.

May

June

274.4

283.5

283.8

284.1

284.3

285.3

285.8

287.0

287.1

288.8

290.4

291.6

292.7

293.1

293.6

149.7
176.8
134.2
145.1
124.0

151.2
180.5
134.5
149.7
120.9

150.4
180.2
133.6
147.4
119.5

150.0
180.3
132.9
146.6
116.2

150.9
180.9
133.9
149.2
117.2

152.0
181.3
135.4
153.1
122.0

151.4
182.2
134.1
151.2
124.8

150.9
182.9
132.9
149.0
123.1

150.4
184.1
131.7
146.7
119.0

151.1
184.3
132.6
148.4
115.8

152.3
184.5
134.2
151.4
118.6

153.7
184.9
136.0
155.3
123.5

154.3
185.0
136.9
157.2
124.3

156.0
186.5
138.6
160.9
123.4

155.8
186.8
138.2
160.5
120.1

162.2
121.4

171.5
117.5

168.6
118.0

169.2
117.4

173.0
116.7

176.4
115.7

171.6
115.2

169.1
115.1

167.7
115.0

172.3
115.1

175.6
115.3

179.1
115.1

181.7
115.0

188.2
114.8

189.5
114.5

209.8
216.7
209.1
246.4

216.5
221.9
216.3
254.4

216.8

217.6

218.0

218.1

218.4

217.9

217.9

219.1

219.9

221.0

221.5

221.9

223.3

221.7
217.1
253.0

222.6
218.0
253.7

223.1
217.2
255.5

222.6
216.8
257.0

223.5
218.9
257.2

223.0
218.6
257.3

222.9
217.7
257.4

224.1
218.7
258.4

224.9
219.3
259.2

226.8
219.7
259.5

227.4
220.0
259.7

227.7
220.0
259.6

228.3
220.5
260.2

180.5
170.8
174.3
136.0
147.4
163.3
161.1

184.5
174.3
177.9
135.5
151.1
169.4
163.9

184.6
174.2
178.0
134.9
149.0
170.0
163.5

185.6
175.5
179.1
136.1
153.3
172.2
166.8

184.9
174.9
178.5
135.0
151.3
170.0
166.1

228.7
210.5
136.9
191.7
194.3
140.4
137.0
225.8

228.2
209.9
133.1
191.6
193.9
139.9
132.1
225.6

229.7
211.0
137.4
191.9
194.0
138.5
138.2
226.6

188.0
177.6
181.3
138.0
157.5
179.4
170.3
230.7
212.7
143.1
193.7
196.1
140.3
151.3
228.9

189.6
179.6
182.9
140.6
162.8
187.7
174.1

229.2
210.3
144.6
191.0
193.6
140.2
146.9
224.9

186.6
176.7
180.1
136.3
153.7
176.1
168.1
230.6
211.7
140.6
192.7
194.9
139.3
144.6
227.5

188.6
178.2
181.8
138.9
159.3
181.7
171.4

228.0
209.8
136.8
190.5
193.2
139.9
131.3
224.3

184.4
174.7
178.2
133.8
149.2
168.8
165.4
228.4
209.9
131.8
191.5
193.6
139.0
129.0
225.5

185.5
175.6
179.1
134.7
150.8
173.0
166.4

227.2
209.1
136.5
190.3
193.0
140.8
130.9
223.5

185.3
175.0
178.7
135.9
151.5
173.4
165.2
228.4
210.3
140.6
190.8
193.5
139.7
139.2
224.9

186.0
176.0
179.2
137.3
155.2
176.6
167.4

217.5
202.5
121.7
187.7
190.5
143.7
117.1
217.5

184.7
174.6
178.1
136.5
151.9
172.1
165.3
226.4
208.7
136.5
190.6
193.2
140.9
136.7
223.8

231.1
213.2
145.9
194.1
196.5
140.5
156.3
229.4

231.7
213.6
154.1
194.3
196.5
140.2
170.1
229.6

190.3
180.2
183.5
140.3
162.4
189.0
174.0
234.2
215.0
159.7
194.4
196.6
139.4
172.8
230.2

175.9
523.9
176.1
176.5
175.1
198.0
162.0
167.2
222.9

179.8
535.6
179.9
179.4
178.5
202.8
169.2
167.6
224.3

179.6
534.3
179.5
178.9
177.9
203.7
167.0
163.5
225.7

179.6
535.0
179.6
179.1
178.0
204.4
168.2
164.4
225.3

180.6
537.1
180.2
179.7
178.8
204.5
169.5
167.0
223.8

181.0
539.2
180.7
180.2
179.4
203.5
170.9
170.2
223.4

180.7
538.2
181.7
181.2
180.7
203.2
173.8
171.7
224.9

180.2
536.7
182.4
181.9
181.6
202.4
179.2
171.0
225.3

179.9
536.0
183.6
183.1
183.3
202.4
181.0
172.7
229.7

180.9
538.7

181.9
541.7
184.0
183.5
183.2
204.4
179.7
171.7
227.5

183.5
546.5
184.5
183.9
183.3
205.5
179.1
173.6
225.5

184.7
550.2

183.8
183.3
183.2
203.8
179.9
172.2
229.7

182.9
544.8
184.4
183.8
183.5
204.9
179.6
171.3
227.8

186.0
185.6
185.8
206.0
181.1
186.1
228.9

138.6
160.4
158.8
155.3
177.6
109.7
178.2
118.1
183.3
175.7
201.9

139.1
162.2
161.6
157.4
179.2

139.6
163.0
162.4
156.5
180.5

137.5
162.3
162.3
156.2
179.4

138.9
162.6
162.1
157.7
179.7

138.5
162.8
162.1
157.6
180.0

139.8
162.5
162.1
159.6
179.0

137.3
161.6
161.4
157.3
178.3

138.6
162.5
160.5
157.7
180.0

140.0
162.3
162.4
160.7
178.4

140.8
163.3
163.2
162.2
179.4

140.1
164.7
162.6
166.0
180.8

139.1
164.6
161.9
166.1
180.8

139.3
165.1
162.9
169.4
180.5

139.3
165.5
162.2
171.4
180.8

110.8
182.0
121.5
187.1
180.4
206.9
204.7
119.8
199.7
114.7
153.9
137.0
138.7
144.1
121.9
120.0
117.5
112.1
124.1
119.1
156.3
153.5
96.C

112.1
181.7
121.3
186.8
180.9
206.5
204.4
122.6
199.0
115.0
158.6
142.2
131.6
150.3
121.9
118.7
116.2
110.4
122.9
118.5
155.7
152.8
96.91

111.6
182.1
121.4
187.0
181.4
207.2
204.8
125.0
199.4
115.4
158.9
142.4
129.6
150.6
121.9
115.2
113.4
105.0
120.3
116.9
155.5
152.5

110.0
182.4
121.6
186.9
181.6
207.7
205.3
125.2
199.9
115.7
158.7
141.9
129.6
150.1
121.4
116.1
112.9
106.9
122.9
117.2
157.1
154.2
95.7 |

111.3
182.7
122.0
187.7
181.6
207.6
205.8
119.8
200.4

111.2
183.3
122.5
188.1
181.3
208.3
206.1
121.7
201.0
116.0
154.3
137.0
130.7
144.6
120.9
123.9
120.0
118.2
127.7
121.1
155.4
152.5
93.51

109.5
183.7
122.9
188.8
180.9
208.2
206.6
116.2
201.4
114.4
152.3
134.7
134.4
141.9
120.7
122.6
121.1
115.3
125.0
120.4
153.6
150.6

110.3
184.2
123.1
188.9
181.0
208.2
207.0
113.4
201.7
114.4
153.0
135.4
136.2
142.5
120.4
118.7
117.8
110.5
121.4
117.8
152.5
149.7

111.0
186.1
124.3
192.1
183.6
211.5
208.9
129.8
203.1
116.0
155.1
137.0
148.9
143.5
121.3
123.8
120.6
118.4
123.4
119.6
159.9
157.1

92.8

110.1
185.3
123.8
190.0
182.6
209.8
208.0
121.1
202.3
115.1
156.2
138.3
154.5
144.7
121.4
118.3
117.4
109.8
122.2
116.4
156.8
154.C
92.8 |

112.2
185.6
123.8
191.2
183.2
211.0
208.4
128.8
202.7
115.2
154.7
136.6
152.0
142.9
121.4
122.9
120.0
117.4
125.2
118.6
158.5
155.7

93.1

109.6
184.8
123.6
189.5
182.1
209.2
207.4
118.5
202.1
114.9
155.6
138.0
149.6
144.7
121.0
115.7
115.6
105.5
120.1
115.6
154.S
152.5
92.71

92.6

92.6

111.2
186.6
124.6
192.0
184.1
211.8
209.4
128.2
203.6
116.4
157.4
139.3
149.6
146.1
121.1
122.8
120.3
116.7
120.9
119.0
163.6
160.9
92.6

111.4
186.8
124.7
192.7
185.6
212.2
209.9
128.8
203.9
116.5
165.0
147.4
149.8
155.1
121.3
119.6
117.8
112.2
118.8
117.0
164.0
161.3
92.1

Commodity and service group:

Nondurables less food, beverages,

Special Indexes:

C O N S U M E R P R IC E IN D E X F O R U R B A N
W A G E E A R N E R S A N D C L E R IC A L W O R K E R S

Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage

12

2
Owners' equivalent rent of primary residence3
12

New and used motor vehicles2.....................
See footnotes at end of table.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

199.0
118.4
195.1
108.7
142.9
126.1
115.0
133.4
124.4
123.1
121.7
114.6
128.6
121.2
151.8
149.C
99.4

96.3

115.8
159.1
142.3
129.4
150.6
121.0
121.0
116.5
114.5
126.5
119.6
158.1
155.3
94.4

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

185.3
551.9
186.4
185.9
186.1
206.7
182.4
189.0
224.3

107

Current Labor Statistics:

Price Data

37. 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 indicateci]

Annua average

Series

2002

2003

2003

2004

June

July

139.C

138.c

137.'

137.6

137.6

137.6

138.'

139.2

139.2

139.6

139.C

138.'

138.6

138.2

152.E

143.7

148.1

1464

144.C

139.6

135.6

132.6

131.7

131.6

131.7

132.C

132.1

132.6

131.4

117.C
116.4
106.1
191.7
202.6

136.1

130.4

136.5
136.4
107.5
198.6
208.7

131.5
130.6
107.5
198.6
205.6

128.1
127.6
107.3
199.8
203.6

136.6
107.6
199.6
204.6

150.6
150.6
107.4
200.C
208.C

155.6
107.6
200.4
209.4

171.1
170.4

Medical care..................................
Medical care commodities...........................
Medical care services..............................
Professional services...........................
Hospital and related services.................

143.6
143.6
107.6
200.1
206.2

156.6

138.6
107.C
197.3
210.5

147.5
147.C
107.2
197.9
208.4

137.1

129.6
107.1
196.6
210.8

130.6
1304
107.C
197.7
212.8

1394

135.6
107.3
197.3
206.0

107.6
200.6
208.6

173.8
173.2
107 8
201 5
210.0

284.6
251.'
292.5
256.C
363.«

296.3
257.4
305.9
263.4
391.2

295.5
256.7
305.1
263.5
388.1

296.7
258.2
306.3
264.1
390.9

297.4
258.6
307.0
263.9
394.2

298.3
259.4
307.9
264.4
395.8

299.1
259.2
309.1
265.2
397.5

300.1
258.5
310.6
265.2
402.4

301.4
259.4
311.9
266.5
403.4

307.7
262.5
319.4
273.2
409.8

308.4
263.3
320.C
273.5
410.7

309.4
263.8
321.2
274.1
413.0

104.6

105.5

105.5

105.6

105.7

105.5

105.4

105.6

105.5

305.4
260.9
316.8
270.6
408.7
10fi ?

306.9
261.5
318.6
272.3
409.9

Recreation2........

302.8
259.8
313.8
267.8
405.9
105 6

102.0

102.9

102.9

102.9

102.9

102.7

102.8

103.0

102.5

102.7

103.2

103.9

103.7

109.0

107.8

108.2

109.1

109.7

109.7

109.6

109.7

109 8

110 0

103.5
10Q ft

103.9

107.6
125.9
318.5

133.8
336.5

131.8
335.5

132.3
336.3

135.5
339.6

137.8
339.6

138.1
340.6

138.0
337.5

138.0
343.8

139.1
346.1

139.4
349.5

139.6
349.9

139.7
350.4

139.9
350.4

1406
351.5

354.8
93.7

377.3
91.2

371.1
90.7

372.6
90.9

382.1
90.5

389.2
90.2

390.1
89.9

390.7
89.7

392.8
89.6

393.8
89.3

394.1
89.0

394.6
88. .4

396.7
88.4

87.9

New vehicles...............................
Used cars and trucks1..........................
Motor fuel....................................
Gasoline (all types)..........................
Motor vehicle parts and equipment...............
Motor vehicle maintenance and repair..........
Public transportation...............................

Video and audio1,2......
Education and communication2......
Education2..........................
Educational books and supplies.................
Tuition, other school fees, and child care....

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

92.7

89.9

89.6

89.1

89.1

88.5

88.2

86.9

98.5

98.3

98.0

97.6

97.3

97.4

97.2

97.3

96.9

87.5
96.7

87.0

99.9

88.3
97.4

393.3
89.6
88.2

Telephone services1,2...................
Information and information processing

89.6
97.7

390.2
89.8
88.4

96.1

96.1

other than telenhone services14
Personal computers and peripheral

19.0

16.7

16.8

16.5

16.3

16.1

16.2

15.9

15.8

15.8

15.8

15.7

15.5

15.4

15.4

21.8
302.0
463.2

17.3
307.0
470.5

16.9
306.0

16.9
307.5

16.0
307.9

16.2
308.2

16.0
307.7

15.9
308.1

15.8
309.3

15.7
310.0

469.9

470.7

470.2

471.5

473.8

473.2

15.6
311.3
474.1

174.1

311.5
474.4

15.2
311.8

470.5

15.5
310.8
474.2

15.4

464.8

16.3
308.0
473.2

177.0

177.5

177.4

177.9

178.0

177.7

177.8

177.4

179.1

179.7

180.1

180.2

155.5

154.2

180.0

189.1
274.0

193.9
283.3

177.2
154.4
193.5
283.9

154.8
193.9
284.0

154.3
194.6
284.4

154.0
196.1
285.2

154.1
196.3
285.6

153.8
194.8
286.7

154.2
194.9
286.6

154.3
195.1
288.4

155.0
195.7
290.2

155.0
196.3
291.6

155.1
196.6
292.9

155.1
197.1
293.1

154.3
197.5
293.5

150.4
176.1
135.5
147.0
123.1

151.8
179.9
135.8
152.1
120.0

151.1
179.5
135.0
149.6
118.7

150.7
179.6
134.2
148.7
115.2

151.6
180.2
135.4
151.7
116.1

152.7
180.7
136.7
155.9
121.0

151.9
181.7
135.2
153.6
123.9

151.3
182.4
133.8
151.4
122.6

150.7
183.6
132.5
149.0
118.7

151.5
183.8
133.5
151.0
115.7

152.7
184.0
135.2
154.3
118.3

154.1
184.4
137.0
158.4
122.9

154.8
184.5
138.0
160.5
123.8

156.7
186.0
140.0
164.7
122.8

156.6
186.4
139.6
164.4
1196

165.3
121.8

175.6
117.4

172.3
118.3

173.0
117.6

177.4
116.9

181.2
115.5

175.7
114.7

172.9
114.2

171.6
114.0

176.5
114.0

180.2
1142.0

184.1

187.0
113.9

194.5
113.9

196.0
113.5

205.9

212.6

212.9

213.6

214.0

214.3

214.4

214.1

214.2

215.3

216.0

216.7

217.1

217.6

219.0

194.5
207.7
241.6

199.2
216.2
248.5

198.9
216.7
247.2

199.5
217.4
247.9

200.0
216.8
249.3

199.9
216.8
250.6

200.6
219.0
250.7

200.5
218.8
250.7

200.6
218.0
250.9

201.4
219.1
251.8

202.0
219.7
252.6

203.2
220.0
252.9

203.7
220.2
253.0

203.9
220.3
252.7

204.4
220.7
253.3

175.8
168.3
171.1
137.3
149.2
166.1
161.4

179.7
171.9
174.8
137.7
154.2
175.9
166.4

179.5
171.7
174.5
136.9
151.8
172.8
164.9

179.6
171.5
174.5
136.1
151.0
173.5
164.6

180.3
172.3
175.2
137.2
151.0
177.5
166.4

181.0
173.3
176.0
138.6
157.9
181.1
168.8

180.4
172.6
175.6
137.0
155.7
176.1
168.1

179.7
171.9
175.0
135.8
153.7
173.6
167.3

179.2
171.6
174.7
134.5
151.4
172.1
166.6

180.2
172.5
175.6
135.5
153.3
176.9
167.8

181.4
173.7
176.6
137.1
156.4
180.2
169.5

182.6
174.7
177.6
138.9
160.4
184.0
171.8

183.2
175.3
178.2
139.9
162.4
186.6
173.0

184.4
176.8
179.4
141.8
166.4
193.5
175.9

185.0
177.5
180.0
141.5
166.2
194.8
175.9

193.1
198.9
120.9
183.6
185.6
144.4
17.3
213.9

201.3
205.2
135.9
186.1
187.9
141.1
136.8
220.2

202.2
205.2
135.6
185.9
187.7
141.3
131.0
219.8

202.8
206.2
135.9
185.9
187.7
140.3
131.4
220.5

203.1
206.6
140.0
186.2
187.9
140.1
139.5
221.0

203.7
206.8
144.2
186.4
188.1
140.2
147.2
221.3

203.2
206.9
136.3
187.0
188.6
140.3
137.2
222.1

202.7
206.5
132.4
187.0
188.4
139.7
132.1
222.1

202.9
206.6
131.1
186.9
188.0
141.1
136.8
222.1

204.1
207.6
136.9
187.2
188.3
138.2
138.3
223.1

204.9
208.2
140.2
187.9
189.1
139.0
144.7
223.9

204.9
208.8
143.0
188.7
190.1
140.0
151.5
224.9

205.2
209.2
146.0
189.0
190.4
140.1
156.7
225.3

205.8
209.7
154.5
189.3
190.4
139.9
170.7
225.5

208.2
211.1
159.9
189.3
190.3
139.0
173.3
226.0

Communication1,2......
Information and information processing1,2....

equipment1,2...............................
Other goods and services.......................
Tobacco and smoking products.....................
Personal care1.........................
Personal care products1........................
Personal care services1.......................
Miscellaneous personal services..................
Commodity and service group:
Commodities......................................
Food and beverages..............................
Commodities less food and beverages............
Nondurables less food and beverages..........
Apparel............................................
Nondurables less food, beverages,
and apparel....................................
Durables.......................................
Services..................................
Rent of shelter3..........................
Transporatation services.............................
Other services................................
Special indexes:
All items less food..................................
All items less shelter.................................
All items less medical care..................
Commodities less food............................
Nondurables less food...............................
Nondurables less food and apparel.......
Nondurables...................................
Services less rent of shelter3..................
Services less medical care services................
Energy....................................
All items less energy....................................
All items less food and energy..................
Commodities less food and energy.............
Energy commodities.........................
Services less energy................................
Not seasonally adjusted.

Dash indicates data not available.
NOTE: Index applied to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.

3 Indexes on a December 1982 = 100 base.

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

114.0

476.9

4 Indexes on a December 1988 = 100 base.

2 Indexes on a December 1997 = 100 base.

108

Aug.

August 2004

38.

Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average and available local area data: all items

[1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]

schedule1
U.S. city average.........................................

Jan.

Mar.

Feb.

183.5

184.7

185.3

192.6

193.6

195.1

195.7

196.4

197.5

193.3

194.3

195.9

196.3

197.1

198.3

118.7

116.1

116.7

117.5

118.1

118.4

118.8

182.9

183.3

174.5

175.3

176.3

185.3

176.2

176.9

177.9

177.8
179.4

178.2

185.0

175.8
177.2

115.6

116.4

116.8

113.3

113.8

114.2

114.6

115.5

116.0

199.4

199.9

201.1

201.4

202.0

203.3

118.1

118.3

183.1

181.5
183.7

115.2

195.9

196.8

198.6

M

197.9

198.6

200.7

M

116.0

116.6

117.4

M

179.4

180.2

181.0

M

181.8

182.5

June

May

182.9

180.9

M

Apr.

181.9

189.7

186.2

Mar.

Feb.

Jan.

June

May

Apr.

189.1

187.4

185.2

M

Urban Wage Earners
2004

All Urban Consumers
2004

Pricing

188.0

R e g io n a n d a r e a s iz e 2

Northeast urban..................................................
Size A—More than 1,500,000.......................
Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003...................
Midwest urban4..................................................
Size A—More than 1,500,000........................
Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003...................
Size D— Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,000).
South urban......................................................
Size A—More than 1,500,000.......................
Size B/C—50,000 to 1.500.0003...................
Size D—Nonmetropolitan (less than 50,000)

179.4

M

114.1

114.7

M

171.8

173.0

174.1

173.9

176.0

176.9

169.4

170.6

171.4

171.2

173.2

174.1

M

178.2

179.1

180.9

178.2

M

177.1

180.9
179.7

M

113.8

112.3

112.7

180.1
178.9
113.4

179.7

184.3
117.0

179.1
178.0

178.9

180.8
114.3

182.0
183.4

182.9

179.8

180.1
181.8

180.8
114.8

181.9
115.3

M

175.3
189.4

176
185.7

176.9

177.8

179

180

187.1

188.6

114.9

182.5
115.6

116.4

176.8

177.7

178.7

179.4

180.5

174.6

190.8

192.2

193.4

193.3

114.0

191.7

193.2

194.5

192.3
194.6

195.9

195.9

184.3
185.0

186.5

187.9

187.3
188.2

189.6

188.6
189.7

M

116.0

117.0

117.9

117.8

118.2

117.9

115.4

116.4

117.2

117.2

117.8

117.6

M
M
M

169.4
114.6
176.9

170.4
115.2
177.9

171.5
115.9
178.9

172.0
116.3
179.3

172.9
117.0
180.9

173.4
117.3
181.8

167.6
113.6
174.8

168.6
114.2
175.8

169.6
114.9
176.7

170.0
115.3
177.2

171.2
116.0
178.8

171.7
116.4
179.7

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-W I.....................................
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA.......................

M
M

185.4
188.5

186.4
190.1

186.3
191.5

187.2
191.9

188.7
193.3

189.1
193.7

179.0
181.7

179.9
186.4

179.7
184.9

180.6
185.2

182.2
186.8

182.5
187.4

New York, NY-Northern NJ-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA..

M

199.9

203.4

204.0

204.4

206.0

200.4

Boston-Brockton-Nashua, MA-NH-ME-CT.......................

1

208.4

201.1
_

Cleveland-Akron, OH..........................................................

1

178.4

_

Dallas-Ft Worth, TX............................................................

1

175.7

_

Washinqton-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV7..........................

1

117.1

Atlanta, GA...........................................................................
Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, Ml.................................................

2

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX.......................................
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, FL....................................................
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD....
San Francisco-Oaktand-San Jose, CA..............................

West urban.......................................................
Size A—More than 1,500,000.......................
Size B/C—50,000 to 1,500,0003.

M
M

Size classes:

S e le c t e d lo c a l a r e a s 6

Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA........... ............................

194.9

196.3

198.2

198.5

199.1

181.3

-

206.8

-

207.4

-

207.9

-

179.1

-

-

172.6

-

118.9

-

-

171.0
177.6

-

-

169.8
175.7

-

179.5

-

-

118.9

116.5

-

117.6

-

178.7

180.0

208.7

-

180.0
177.7

-

118.1

118.4

-

182.3
184.7

185.7

2

180.8
183.4

179.3

2

168.5

169.7

169.3

178.1
165.7

184.0
180.4

166.8

167.6

2

183.6

185.2

185.6

180.8

182.6

2
2
2

191.4

194.8

198.0

191.2

194.0

1 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.

185.8

-

183.4
—

197.3

195.4
194.7
194.1
199.0
198.3
198.1
190.4
189.1
187.8
195.3
194.3
193.5
Report: Anchorage, AK; Cincinnatti, OH-KY-IN; Kansas City, MO-KS; Milwaukee-Racine,
Wl; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI; Pittsburgh, PA; Port-Iand-Salem, OR-WA; St Louis,
MO-IL; San Diego, CA; Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL.
7 Indexes on a November 1996 = 100 base.

2—February, April, June, August, October, and December.
2 Regions defined as the four Census regions.
3 Indexes on a December 1996 = 100 base.
4 The "North Central" region has been renamed the "Midwest" region by the
Census Bureau. It is composed of the same geographic entities.
5 Indexes on a December 1986 = 100 base.

NOTE: Local area CPI indexes are byproducts of the national CPI program. Each local
index has a smaller sample size and is, therefore, subject to substantially more sampling
and other measurement error. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than
the national index, although their long-term trends are similar. Therefore, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics strongly urges users to consider adopting the national average CPI for use
in their escalator clauses. Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date.

6 In addition, the following metropolitan areas are published semiannually and
appear in tables 34 and 39 of the January and July Issues of the CPI D e ta ile d


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Dash indicates data not available.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

109

Current Labor Statistics:

Price Data

39. Annual data: Consumer Price Index, U.S. city average, all items and major groups
[1982-84= 100]
Series

1993

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers:
All items:
Index...........................
Percent change..................
Food and beverages:
Index............................
Percent change.............
Housing:
Index..........................
Percent change.....................
Apparel:
Index............................
Percent change.....................
Transportation:
Index........................
Percent change.....................
Medical care:
Index............................
Percent change.................
Other goods and services:
Index...........................
Percent change......................
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners
and Clerical Workers:
All items:
Index....................................
Percent change...................

110

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1994

, .. .

.-.

1995

August 2004

2.5

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

152.4

156.9
3.0

160.5
2.3

163.0
1.6

166.6
2.2

172.2
3.4

177.1
2.8

179.9
1.6

184.0
2.3

148.9

153.7
3.2

157.7
2.6

161.1
2.2

164.6
2.2

168.4
2.3

173.6
3.1

176.8
1.8

180.5
2.1

152.8
2.9

156.8
2.6

160.4
2.3

163.9
2.2

169.6
3.5

176.4
4.0

180.3
2.2

184.8
2.5

131.7
-.2

132.9
.9

133.0
.1

131.3
-1.3

129.6
-1.3

127.3
-1.8

124.0
-2.6

120.9
-2.5

143.0
2.8

144.3
0.9

141.6
-1.9

144.4
2.0

153.3
6.2

154.3
0.7

152.9
-.9

157.6
3.1

228.2
3.5

234.6
2.8

242.1
3.2

250.6
3.5

260.8
4.1

272.8
4.6

285.6
4.7

297.1
4.0

215.4
4.1

224.8
4.4

237.7
5.7

258.3
8.7

271.1
5.0

282.6
4.2

293.2
3.8

298.7
1.9

154.1
2.9

157.6
2.3

159.7
1.31

163.2
2.2

168.9
3.51

173.5
2.71

175.9
1.4

179.8
2.2

132.0

3.1

2.8

1996

2.9

40.

Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

[1982-1001

Finshed consumer goods

2002

2003

20«34

2003

Annual average
Grouping

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Materials for nondurable manufacturing...
Materials for durable manufacturing........

143.0
145.0
145.2

143.0
145.1
144.9

143.7
145.9
146.3

144.0
146.4
148.0

145.5
147.7
151.0

144.5
146.5
150.1

144.5
146.7
150.3

145.4
147.8
148.1

145.3
147.6
148.0

146.2
148.7
150.3

147.3
150.2
152.5

149.1
152.6
155.3

148.7
152.0
154.5

138.8
139.8
133.0
139.1

144.7
148.4
133.1
139.5

144.6
148.9
131.8
138.9

144.8
149.2
131.7
138.9

145.4
150.0
131.8
139.2

145.5
150.4
131.1
138.9

146.2
149.4
135.6
140.8

144.8
147.6
135.0
140.5

145.0
148.2
134.3
140.2

147.4
151.7
134.3
140.5

147.1
151.3
134.3
140.8

147.7
152.0
134.8
141.1

148.9
154.0
134.3
141.0

151.1
157.0
134.8
141.1

150.7
156.3
135.0
141.3

127.8

133.7

133.5

133.7

134.1

134.1

134.1

134.1

134.5

136.2

137.1

137.9

139.8

141.9

142.7

126.1
123.2
129.2
124.7
126.1

129.7
134.4
137.2
127.9
125.9

129.6
134.2
137.4
126.8
126.0

129.2
133.3
136.3
127.1
125.8

129.8
135.5
137.5
127.5
125.8

129.8
137.4
136.4
128.6
125.8

130.5
141.8
137.5
129.5
125.8

130.7
141.6
137.2
130.5
125.8

130.9
140.7
137.9
131.2
125.8

131.9
138.4
140.2
132.9
125.9

133.2
138.9
141.1
137.0
126.2

134.1
141.1
141.7
170.0
126.2

135.9
146.1
143.2
143.5
127.0

137.3
151.6
144.5
146.2
127.4

138.0
151.9
145.7
147.9
127.6

151.3
96.3
152.1
138.9

153.6
112.6
153.7
141.5

153.0
112.1
154.1
141.5

153.6
113.7
153.8
141.5

153.7
114.5
153.6
141.2

155.0
113.7
153.5
141.7

155.2
111.5
153.2
141.9

155.6
110.3
153.4
142.6

155.6
111.7
153.5
142.8

156.2
116.8
153.9
143.2

158.3
116.3
153.8
143.8

160.7
116.3
154.1
144.8

163.6
118.1
154.3
146.4

166.2
122.1
156.8
147.2

167.3
123.7
158.0
147.3

108.1
99.5
111.4

135.3
113.5
148.2

136.5
110.4
152.8

132.6
107.6
148.2

131.3
111.5
142.7

134.7
119.0
142.8

138.3
128.1
141.1

137.0
125.7
141.4

141.1
124.7
149.5

147.8
117.1
167.3

148.3
121.0
164.9

149.7
130.8
159.8

154.1
135.1
164.1

159.6
142.1
168.3

162.3
137.4
176.6

138.3
88.8
147.3
150.8
150.2

142.4
102.0
149.0
153.1
150.5

142.2
103.1
148.3
152.4
149.8

142.2
103.4
148.2
152.3
149.8

142.7
104.7
148.7
152.8
149.9

142.7
105.2
149.0
153.3
149.7

143.8
103.2
151.4
156.1
152.0

142.8
100.4
151.0
155.5
151.7

142.8
101.0
150.9
155.5
151.4

144.5
106.0
150.6
154.9
151.8

144.4
105.7
150.6
154.7
151.7

144.9
107.0
151.3
155.7
152.0

145.7
109.3
152.0
156.7
152.2

147.2
113.7
152.9
158.1
152.5

147.0
112.8
152.7
1Ò/.8
152.5

157.6

157.9

157.1

157.1

157.2

157.0

159.5

159.2

159.0

159.4

159.1

159.3

159.7

160.1

160.1

177.5

177.9

177.7

177.8

178.0

177.8

178.6

178.5

178.9

179.7

179.1

179.0

180.2

180.6

180.3

128.5
115.5
95.9
134.5

134.2
125.9
111.9
137.7

134.0
125.1
111.3
137.6

134.2
124.4
113.0
137.4

134.6
125.0

134.5
128.4

134.4
131.9

1 1 4 .3

1 1 2 .8

1 1 0 .7

138.5

136.5
132.2
115.8
169.8

137.4
132.5
115.3
141.0

138.2
136.4
115.3
142.1

139.8
143.0
117.1
144.0

142.8
144.6
122.7

138.0

134.7
134.1
110.9
139.0

141.7
147.6
121.1

137.5

134.2
134.8
109.5
138.8

1 4 5 .5

146.1

135.8

138.5

138.4

138.3

138.4

138.7

139.0

139.2

139.5

140.4

141.6

142.6

144.2

145.5

146.4

102.0
108.7
135.7

147.2
123.4
152.5

156.2
119.4
146.3

148.7
118.0
148.8

139.7
121.7
151.8

138.2
128.2
155.5

134.3
135.9
159.5

132.5
135.5
164.8

141.8
136.2
170.1

163.5
133.3
179.3

156.7
138.2
187.2

147.1
146.6
192.2

156.3
147.8
185.3

165.3
151.0
178.3

178.0
147.1
176.7

C r u d e m a te r ia ls f o r f u r t h e r

S p e c ia l g r o u p in g s :

Finished consumer goods less food
Consumer nondurable goods less food

Intermediate materials less foods

Intermediate materials less foods


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Mar.p Apr.p Mayp Junep

143.3
145.3
145.9

Materials and components

Finished consumer goods less energy.....
Finished goods less food and energy.......

Jan.

138.9
139.4
140.1

In te r m e d ia te m a te r ia ls ,

Materials and components

Dec.

Feb.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

111

Current Labor Statistics:

Price Data

41. Producer Price Indexes for the net output of major industry groups
[December 2003 = 100, unless otherwise indicated]_______
N A IC S

2003

In d u s tr y

Dec.

211
212
213

311
312
313
315
316
321
322
323
324
325
326
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
339

2004
Jan.

T otal m in ing in d u s trie s (D e c e m b e r 198 4=100)

Feb.

139.5

Oil and gas extraction(December 1985=100)
Mining, except oil and qas..........
Mining support activities................
T o ta l m a n u fa c tu rin a in d u s trie s (D e c e m b e r 1984=1001

Food manufacturing (December 1984=100).
Beverage and tobacco manufacturing..........
Textile mills............................
Apparel manufacturing......................
Leather and allied product manufacturing (December 1984=100)
Wood products manufacturing...........
Paper manufacturing..................
Printing and related support activities...............
Petroleum and coal products manufacturing (December 1984=100)...
Chemical manufacturing (December 1984=100)
Plastics and rubber products manufacturing (December 1984=100)...
Primary metal manufacturing (December 1984=100)
Fabricated metal product manufacturina (December 19 8 4 = 1 dm
Machinery manufacturing.................
Computer and electronic products manufacturina.
Electrical equipment, appliance, and components manufacturing
Transportation equipment manufacturing........
Furniture and related product manufacturing(December 1984=100)....
Miscellaneous manufacturing...................

137.7

138.9

139.3

100.3

M a r .p

A p r.p

M ayp

Junep

133.9

138.5

145.0

153.8

161.3
105.0
100.9

168.6
107.1
99.9

180.1
107.5
100.5

195.3
107.8
102.2

140.2
142.1
100.4
100.3
99.9

141.8
145.8
101.7
100.5
100.0

143.4
148.9
101.2
100.8
100.0

148.3
101.3
101.4
99.8

143.4

143.3

143.2

143.8
105.7
99.4
100.6

143.5
108.1
100.0
101.1

143.6
110.2
100.9
100.9

117.5
165.3
128.8
121.4
133.7

131.5
167.0
128.9
124.0
134.6

130.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
147.6

99.8
100.2
100.2
147.4

134.3
168.6
129.7
131.7
136.6
101.0
99.8
101.6
100.3
148.5
100.8

141.5
169.2
130.1
136.9
138.6
101.3
100.1
102.7
100.1
149.1
101.1

152.3
170.1
130.6
141.3
140.7
101.6
99.9
103.5
100.4
150.9
100.9

143.1
108.4
102.1
101.0
143.9
171.7
131.1
145.1
142.0
101.7
99.3
103.6
100.6
152.9
101.0

101.4
100.2
103.4
99.1
55.1
119.1

101.7
100.6
94.1
98.7
52.6
108.6

103.3
101.1
95.8
98.3
50.3
106.3

104.3
102.8
98.9
97.5
59.0
106.8

155.0

162.8
98.9
155.0

162.1
99.7
155.0

162.2
100.3
155.0

163.1
100.3
155.0

102.0

101.1

102.0

103.3

106.7

114.0
99.9
119.6
139.7
101.8
99.9

114.3
100.0
119.7
140.3
101.6
99.9

114.2
99.8
119.7
140.7
101.6
100.6

114.4
100.2
119.7
140.8
101.3
99.9

101.2
100.0
99.8
100.1
101.5
99.0
100.3
101.6
106.7
131.8
101.1

101.5
100.8
100.2
100.2
101.8

101.3
103.6
100.0
99.3

101.8
100.9
101.6
105.4
131.9
101.2

101.4
102.4
99.9
100.7
102.3
102.3
100.9
102.0
104.4
131.8
101.3

101.5
100.9
97.6
105.2
131.8
101.1

126.7
99.8
112.5
100.5
100.6
100.8
125.2

126.6
99.9
114.0
98.6
100.5
101.9
124.0 I

126.3
100.1
113.4
98.3
100.5
101.9
125.0

126.4
100.1
114.1
96.9
101.1
101.8
124.0

129.9
135.3

100.8
147.8

Retail tra d e

441
442
443
446
447
454

Motor vehicle and parts dealers...............
Furniture and home furnishings stores.....
Electronics and appliance stores............
Health and personal care stores.............
Gasoline stations (June 2001=100).......
Nonstore retailers.....................

100.0
100.0
100.0
47.9

T ra n s p o rta tio n a n d w a re h o u s in a

481
483
491

Air transportation (December 1992=100)......
Water transportation...................
Postal service (June 1989=100)..........

162.7
155.0

U tilities

221

Utilities.................................
H e alth care a n d soc ial a s s is ta n c e

6211
6215
6216
622
6231
62321

Office of physicians (December 1996=100)..........
Medical and dlaqnostlc laboratories.....
Home health care services (December 1996=100)...
Hospitals (December 1992=100)......
Nursing care facilities.......................
Residential mental retardation facilities............

112.8
100.0
119.0
137.6

119.5
I O9.0

100.0

O th e r s e rv ic e s in d u s trie s

511
515
517
5182
523
53112
5312
5313
5321
5411
541211
5413
54181
5613
56151
56172
5621
721

Publishing Industries, except Internet .....
Broadcasting, except Internet...................
Telecommunications...................
Data processing and related services............
Security, commodity contracts, and like activity..
Lessors or nonresidental buildinqs (except miniwarehouse)
Offices of real estate agents and brokers......
Real estate support activities.................
Automotive equipment rental and leasing (June 2001=100)
Legal services (December 1996=100)............
Offices of certified public accountants..........
Architectural, engineering, and related services
(December 1996=100).............
Advertising aqencies..........
Employment services (December 1996=100).....
Travel agencies.............................
Janitorial services......................
Waste collection........................
Accommodation (December 1996=100).......

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.8
99.1

101.7

109.1
126.5
100.0

107.9

110.5

112.1

112.1

100.0
100.0

99.5

120.5

122.2

NOTE: Data reflect the conversion to the 2002 version of the North American Industry Classification System
(N A IC S ), replacing the Standard Industrial Classification (S ic ) system.

112

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

Vn-

121.5

42.

Annual data: Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing

n 9 8 2 - 1001

Finished goods

125.5
126.8
77.0
137.1

127.9
129.0
78.1
140.0

131.3
133.6
83.2
142.0

131.8
134.5
83.4
142.4

130.7
134.3
75.1
143.7

133.0
135.1
78.8
146.1

138.0
137.2
94.1
148.0

140.7
141.3
96.8
150.0

138.9
140.1

143.3
146.0

88.8

102.0

150.2

150.5

116.2
115.6
84.6
123.8

118.5
118.5
83.0
127.1

124.9
119.5
84.1
135.2

125.7
125.3
89.8
134.0

125.6
123.2
89.0
134.2

123.0
123.2
80.8
133.5

123.2

129.2
119.2
101.7
136.6

129.7
124.3
104.1
136.4

127.8
123.3
95.9
135.8

133.7
134.4
111.9
138.5

102.4
108.4
76.7
94.1

101.8

102.7
105.8
69.4
105.8

113.8
121.5
85.0
105.7

111.1
112.2

96.8
103.9

120.6
100.2
122.1

121.3
106.2

108.1
99.5

87.3
103.5

84.5

98.2
98.7
78.5
91.1

122.8
101.8

102.0
101.0

135.3
113.5
147.5
116.8

Crude materials for further processing

43.

2003

2002

2001

124.7
125.7
78.0
135.8
Intermediate materials, supplies, and
components

Other...........................................................................

2000

199 9

1998

1 99 7

199 6

199 5

199 4

19 9 3

In d e x

106.5
72.1
97.0

120.8
84.3
133.1

68.6

118.0

U.S. export price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification

12000 -

1001

2004

2003

SITC

Industry

Rev. 3

0
01
04
05

2
22
24
25
26
28

Food and live animals.........................................................

Meat and meat preparations.........................................
Cereals and cereal preparations...................................
Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or dry..........

Oilseeds and oleaginous fruits......................................
Cork and wood.............................................................
Pulp and waste paper...................................................
Textile fibers and their waste........................................Metalliferous ores and metal scrap...............................

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s............................
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products........................
54
Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations........
55
Plastics in primary forms.............................................
57
Plastics in nonprimary forms........................................
58
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s........................
59

62
64

Manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials....

Rubber manufactures, n.e.s.........................................
Pacer. Daoerboard. and articles of Daoer. duId.

66
68
7 Machinery and transport equipment...............................
72
74
75
76
77

Machinery specialized for particular Industries.............
General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s.,
Computer equipment and office machines...................
Telecommunications and sound recording and
reproducing apparatus and equipment......................
Electrical machinery and equipment............................
.

87 Professional, scientific, and controlling


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

July

107.5
102.9
118.5
99.6

107.1
104.6
115.4

101.2

Aug.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

107.6
108.9
115.7
99.7

112.1

112.2
123.5
119.4
103.2

115.2
125.6
125.6

116.5
123.0
130.8
103.2

117.0

117.2
124.2
101.4

119.9
125.0
135.2
108.4

122.7
127.1
139.6

110.1

126.0
126.3
147.7
109.5

126.6
126.3
146.0
113.2

123.8
126.3
141.4
110.7

116.9
152.5
93.7
91.7

122.3
160.9
95.6
92.5

132.8
197.1
97.6
98.8
115.9
176.2

100.2

125.0
168.5
97.9
99.8

156.8

129.0
181.6
96.5
94.2
121.9
171.4

132.7
199.0
98.1

121.1

116.3
150.9
92.5
91.9
128.5
129.6

120.2

115.1
171.8

164.5

110.7
112.9
106.2

120.5

119.3

123.0

123.1

134.8

130.1

116.8

114.7

120.1

119.8

135.0

127.6

104.0
105.3
104.2
100.9
97.2
105.2

104.0
105.5
104.3

105.6
105.8
104.2

102.1

102.2

97.4
104.8

96.9
105.1

105.8
105.8
104.2
103.1
96.7
105.3

106.1
106.0
104.0
103.6
96.2
105.2

106.2

111.2

121.1

136.7
92.0
90.8
121.4

102.8

122.8
131.6
103.1

103.9
124.8
90.6
85.5
106.2
112.3

102.3
109.2
90.9
85.3
107.0
117.8

107.6

109.8

114.9

108.7

108.2

106.3

112.1

111.2

111.2

111.6

111.6

102.7

105.9

113.0

104.2

104.1

111.6
101.2

100.8

99.6
105.8
97.5
95.1
98.4

100.0

104.8
97.3
96.6
98.8

102.0

100.3
105.4
98.2
95.4
98.2
101.9

100.7
105.9
98.9
95.5
98.3
102.4

100.9
106.5
99.4
95.8
97.1
102.5

101.4
105.8

101.6

105.5
97.6
94.8
98.4
101.9

102.6

102.9
105.4
104.3
98.3
96.8
105.0

100.0
110.1

99.9

100.0

100.2

100.3

100.7

100.8

101.7

103.0

104.1

105.7

106.5

106.6

110.1

109.5

109.2

109.2

109.5

109.9

110.4

110.9

110.4

110.9

110.8

111.4

98.3
100.4
80.3

98.5
100.4
79.8

98.3

100.2
80.9

98.3
99.5
81.6

97.4
99.5
81.9

97.9
99.7
83.4

97.6
99.8
84.5

97.9
99.7
85.9

97.8
99.6
90.9

97.9
99.7
94.1

98.8
99.7
98.1

99.1
99.4
97.6

99.5
99.9
95.0

97.8
107.2

97.9
107.4
103.2

97.9
107.5
103.1

97.7

97.7

98.4

109.3
103.9

98.3
109.4
104.2

98.4

108.5
103.3

98.1
109.4
104.0

98.4

107.9
103.1

97.8
108.7
103.4

97.9

102.6

98.0
107.4
103.2

108.6
105.1

108.6
105.5

108.7
105.4

102.4

102.5

102.5

102.6

102.6

88.2

88.0

87.8

87.9

102.8
88.0

102.8
88.6

103.3
87.7

103.5

88.1

104.0
88.4

104.5
88.5

104.7
88.5

104.8
88.5

93.8
89.7
101.1

93.4
89.8
101.3

93.4
89.8
101.3

93.3
89.4
101.4

92.8

92.2

92.0

92.6

88.1

88.0

101.5

88.2
101.6

101.5

101.7

92.5
88.3
101.9

92.4

88.6

101.9

92.3
88.5
102.3

92.3
88.5
102.4

92.3
88.3
102.4

102.2

102.4

102.3

102.2

102.1

102.3

102.3

102.2

102.3

102.3

102.2

102.1

102.0

103.9
122.7
90.4
90.1
103.2
109.0

Crude materials, inedible, except fuels...........................

3 Mineral fuels, lubricants, and related products.............
Coal, coke, and briquettes........................................... .
32
Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials...
33

6

June

Sept.

91.6

88.8
109.6
119.9

121.2
136.6

100.1
96.5
97.2

157.2
94.5
91.7
123.7
148.9

122.2

88.2

88.6

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

110.0

113

Current Labor Statistics:

44.

Price Data

U.S. import price indexes by Standard International Trade Classification

[2000 = 100]
SITC

2003

Industry

Rev. 3

June

Aug.

Sept.

2004
Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

Food and live animals.........................................................

99.4

100.2

100.3
115.2

102.2

104.7

105.4

106.4

105.9

105.5

106.6

100.0
112.8

101.0

102.9

99.5
108.2

100.0

Meat and meat preparations.........................................
Fish and crustaceans, mollusks, and other
aquatic invertebrates..................................................
Vegetables, fruit, and nuts, prepared fresh or dry..........
Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices, and manufactures
thereof.......................................................................

117.2

120.4

117.7

118.0

120.4

121.7

125.1

126.5

81.3
108.9

83.5
106.9

82.3
105.5

82.2
105.0

79.8
106.4

79.3
108.9

79.2
109.4

78.2
112.3

80.0
115.7

83.3
111.3

85.0
109.5

83.5
105.5

101.8

94.8

95.3

96.6

98.6

95.5

93.1

96.0

100.1

101.9

101.7

103.3

102.5

108.0

1 Beverages and tobacco.....................................................
11 Beverages...................................................................
2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels...........................

103.9
103.7

104.1

104.0

104.0

104.4

104.4

104.7

105.3

105.4

105.2

103.9

103.9

104.2

104.3

104.9

105.0
105.2

105.3

104.0

104.3
104.2

105.5

105.5

105.7

105.6

99.5

100.7

100.5

106.1

104.2

104.5

107.9

109.5

114.1

120.0

122.9

127.2

125.4

24
25
28
29

94.4
95.3
99.7
104.9

100.1

113.0
90.4
103.7
95.7

106.2
90.8
104.3
95.1

103.2
91.9
108.7
94.8

108.0
92.8
115.3
99.6

108.9
93.3
124.2
98.9

115.7
91.9
134.6
99.5

123.3
95.4
148.0
99.7

127.8

93.6
100.3
99.4

99.3
91.9
102.9
96.8

148.2
99.3

139.0
103.4
143.5

101.7
97.6
130.1

106.0
103.4
121.5

106.5
105.6
108.8

101.5
99.4
114.4

101.3

103.3
102.3
106.6

108.2
106.9
113.9

117.3
114.0
138.0

117.7
114.5
137.1

120.8
120.0

120.8
120.0

122.9

100.1

100.0

99.2
105.4
97.7
101.9
91.6
102.7
101.4
91.8

100.8

101.1

108.8
98.1
102.3
91.2
105.6
101.7
92.3

111.9
99.0
103.4
91.6
105.6
101.7
93.1

114.0
99.6
103.4
91.6
105.5

103.0
119.3
99.9
107.2
92.7
104.4

103.4

105.4
98.0
103.1
99.0
104.3
101.3
93.3

99.2
106.0
98.3
102.5
91.8
103.1
101.4
91.9

100.2

106.4
98.0
102.5
99.4
106.1

101.8

102.1

93.3

94.3

99.7
107.7
93.3
105.2
102.4
94.9

103.8
120.5
99.5
108.1
93.7
106.9
102.9
95.8

0
01
03
05
07

3
33
34

Cork and wood.............................................................

Crude animal and vegetable materials, n.e.s................

Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials...

5 Chemicals and related products, n.e.s............................
52
Inorganic chemicals.....................................................
53
Dying, tanning, and coloring materials..........................
54
Medicinal and pharmaceutical products........................
Essential oils; polishing and cleaning preparations.......
55
57
Plastics in primary forms..............................................
Plastics in nonprimary forms.........................................
58
Chemical materials and products, n.e.s........................
59

100.8
92.3

100.1
106.2

120.6

83.9

102.1

136.0
106.0
140.3
98.0

123.3

131.3
131.2
129.5

130.8
129.8
135.1

103.5
115.9

103.4
117.1

103.8
119.2

100.6

100.6

100.6

107.7
93.5
105.5
102.9
95.5

107.3
93.4
106.0
102.7
95.2

107.0
93.4
105.1

103.6
99.7

105.5
99.9

106.9

105.8

100.0

100.1

95.0
99.0

94.8
99.3
105.8
102.3

95.5
99.4
107.3
102.3

95.4
99.6
102.5

102.2

95.2

95.3
106.5

100.8

102.8
95.3

6

Manufactured goods classified chiefly by materials....

94.4

95.7

96.5

97.4

97.8

98.9

101.4

Rubber manufactures, n.e.s.........................................
Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper, pulp,

99.2

94.9
98.6

95.4

62
64

98.5

98.5

98.5

98.6

98.8

99.0

99.2

66
68

Nonmetallic mineral manufactures, n.e.s......................
Nonferrous metals........................................................
Manufactures of metals, n.e.s.......................................

93.5
97.9
78.1
98.3

93.2
97.9
78.0
98.2

94.9
97.8
79.1
98.4

94.5
97.8
80.7
98.5

94.7
97.9
82.0
98.7

94.2
98.1
85.1
99.1

93.7
98.1
87.7
99.5

94.1
98.5
92.3
99.7

94.5
98.9
97.0
100.3

102.6
101.1

95.8
101.4

95.7

95.6

95.5

95.3

95.4

95.3

95.4

102.6

102.5

102.2

102.4

103.3

103.6

104.9

95.5
106.4

95.5
106.7

106.5

95.2
106.7

100.8

100.8

100.4
78.6

100.9
78.5

101.2

101.8

80.6

100.4
80.6

100.2

81.8

78.2

78.0

102.5
78.0

103.3
77.7

103.4
76.5

103.4
76.4

103.1
76.3

89.3
95.4
100.7

88.7
96.1
100.7

88.8

88.6

96.0
100.7

96.0

87.5
96.0
101.4

86.7
95.3

86.4
95.4
101.9

85.4
95.7
101.9

85.1
95.6

84.9
94.9

84.9
94.8

84.8
94.7
102.5

69

7 Machinery and transport equipment................................
Machinery specialized for particular industries..............
72
74
General industrial machines and parts, n.e.s.,
75
76

Computer equipment and office machines...................
Telecommunications and sound recording and

80.5

100.6

87.7
95.9
101.3

85

Footwear......................................................................

100.0

99.9

99.8

99.9

100.0

100.1

101.6
100.1

100.5

100.5

102.0
100.6

102.2
100.6

102.2
100.6

88

Photographic apparatus, equipment, and supplies,
and optical qoods, n.e.s.............................................

100.0

100.1

99.6

99.2

99.3

99.8

99.9

99.9

100.3

100.0

99.4

99.3

77
78

114

July

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

100.6
99.0

45.

U.S. export price indexes by end-use category

12000 -

1001

2004

2003
Category

Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food products.....

July

99.5

99.4

99.4

111.3

111.2

110.8
111.0

113.1

109.3

109.4
109.5
109.5

100.0

100.1
104.4

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

99.8

100.0

100.5

100.8

101.5

102.2

103.0

103.7

104.1

103.5

115.3
116.3
106.5

117.2
118.4
105.6

121.4

123.1
124.6
109.5

125.6
127.2
110.7

130.5
132.4

107.5

122.4
123.8
108.5

135.1
137.3
113.8

136.0
138.4
113.4

129.7
131.5
112.3

100.2

101.0

101.7

102.5

105.1

106.4

108.1

109.2

110.3

109.5

107.3

113.3

119.0

117.5

118.6

116.6

117.2

114.9

113.9

105.5

111.2

99.0

106.1

106.5

108.9

110.2

118.3

115.0

102.8

122.8

112.1

97.0

97.0

100.4

97.6

97.5

100.7
96.3

100.0

100.1
98.0

100.5
98.4

101.1

97.5

98.8

101.7
99.1

102.5
99.5

104.7
98.7

106.4
100.9

108.1
102.3

109.4
103.2

109.9
103.5

97.3
101.7
93.9

97.3
101.7
93.9

97.5
101.7
94.1

97.5

97.8
101.9
94.3

98.0

102.0

102.0

98.1
101.5
94.6

98.1
101.3
94.7

101.8

101.9

99.9
99.2
100.3

102.0 101.9 102.2 102.3 102.3
100.2 100.1 100.2 100.4 100.4 100.4
100.1 100.1 99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
100.1 100.0 100.1 100.5 100.6 100.6

122.7
99.1

125.3
123.5
99.8 I 100.4

97.7

97.7

101.6

101.8

101.6

94.5

94.6

94.5

97.5
101.7
94.3

101.6

101.8

101.8

101.8

101.9

101.9

99.6
98.8

99.6
98.8

99.4
98.5

100.2

100.1

99.8
99.0
100.3

100.0

100.1
110.0

99.4
98.7
99.9

109.9
98.6

108.8
98.7

114.7
98.6

117.5
98.7

122.2

97.6

46.

104.7

Nov.

96.4

Nonagricultural supplies and materials,

Nonagricultural commodities.....................................

99.6

Oct.

Sept.

Aug.

June

98.7

99.4
100.3
98.8

93.9

94.5

133.3
101.4

129.7
100.9

109.5
98.1

101.6
94.6

134.0
101.7

127.8

101.6

U.S. import price indexes by end-use ca
o
o

II
o
o
o
C\l

2004

2004

—

Category

June
96.2

Agricultural foods, feeds, and b e ve ra g es............
Nonagricultural (fish, beverages) food products.....

July
96.7

100.7
107.1

101.5
107.7

86.6

88.0
100.2

98.2

Sept.

Aug.

Nonmanufactured consumer goods......................

47.

96.3

Nov.
96.8

Apr.

May

June

99.0

99.4

100.2

100.4

101.8

101.6

105.9
112.9
90.1

107.2
114.2
91.6

106.8
114.1
90.3

106.3
113.6
89.9

Feb.

Jan.

Dec.
97.5

Mar.

96.7

96.2

101.3
107.6
87.4

101.8

101.9
109.0
86.3

102.4
109.7

103.2
110.9

103.7

108.3
87.6

86.0

86.0

85.1

105.3
113.4
87.2

100.5

98.9

99.5

100.7

103.6

108.5

110.0

112.7

113.8

119.5

118.8

120.3
119.6

130.7
130.8

130.2
129.5

112.0

100.3
96.4

103.9
101.4

104.2
103.2

99.4
97.2

100.1

102.0

98.8

100.9

107.2
106.0

116.5
113.7

117.0
114.3

120.2
120.1

94.1

93.6

94.7

94.0

94.0

93.9

93.9

94.1

94.2

95.6

96.8

98.2

98.8

103.0
96.7
92.2
98.2

102.9

102.5
110.3
93.4
97.5

103.4
109.5
94.4
97.7

104.2
108.1
96.4
98.1

104.4
108.0
99.2
98.2

104.7
106.8
104.5
98.5

104.8
113.7
109.5
99.2

105.4
118.4
114.9
99.3

105.1
121.4
99.2

105.2
123.6
126.0
99.0

105.8

92.2
97.9

102.3
102.7
92.9
97.3

93.8
96.6
92.3

93.8
96.8
92.3

93.6
96.6
92.1

93.5
95.8
92.1

93.0
96.2
91.4

93.3
96.5
91.6

92.9
96.8
91.1

93.1
97.4
91.2

93.1
97.9
91.2

93.1
97.8
91.2

92.6
97.2
90.5

92.6
97.1
90.5

92.5
97.0
90.4

100.6

100.6

100.6

100.5

101.2

101.2

101.4

101.6

101.7

101.8

102.0

102.0

102.2

97.9
99.8
96.1
95.8

98.1

98.1

98.6

98.7

98.7
101.3
96.3
96.4

98.6

98.5
100.9
93.0
97.3

98.5
100.9
96.2
96.8

Materials associated with nondurable

Unfinished metals associated with durable goods..

Oct.

98.1
99.8
96.5
95.2

101.8

98.1
99.9
96.3
95.7

97.9
99.8
96.2
95.6

97.9
99.7
96.2
95.7

100.0

100.1

101.1

101.2

96.2
95.8

96.2
96.2

96.3
95.9

96.3
96.2

120.2

101.0
96.3
96.4

120.2
123.8
99.0

U.S. international price Indexes for selected categories of services

ronnn - m n . unless indicated otherwise!

95.1
97.8

Mar.
93.9
95.9

2002
Sept.
100.3
97.3

_
Outbound air passenger fares (Dec. 2003 = 100)).......
Ocean liner freight (inbound)........................................

92.8

91.7

90.3

Mar.

Dec.

June

98.3
98.4

20
Sept.
June
o

2001
Dec.

CO

Category

93.5

105.9
95.4

_
93.3

108.8
97.2
-

94.0

109.4
95.4
-

116.1

Dec.

112.5
95.5
-

116.2

2004
Mar.

112.9
94.9

116.2
96.2

100.0
100.0

105.1
99.3
118.9

117.7

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

115

Current Labor Statistics:

48.

Productivity Data

Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, and unit costs, quarterly data seasonally adjusted

[1992 = 100]
item

2()01
1

II

116.8
138.2
112.5
118.2
107.1
114.1

117.7
139.1
112.4

2002
III

IV

2003

2004

I

ii

III

IV

1

II

III

122.8
121.8
114.1
115.5
115.0
115.3

123.3
142.6
113.7
115.7
115.8
115.7

124.7
143.1
113.5
114.7
117.9
115.9

125.4
143.8
113.5
114.7
119.3
116.5

126.4
145.5
113.8
115.1
120.0
116.9

128.6
147.4
115.1
114.6
121.5
117.2

131.3
148.9
115.6
113.4
124.6
117.6

131.9
150.3
116.4
113.9
124.8
118.0

133.5
152.4
117.1
114.2
125.9
118.6

141.1
113.5
115.1
116.9
115.8

122.8
141.9
113.2
115.6
117.6
116.3

124.2
142.4
112.9
114.6
119.9
116.6

124.9
143.2
113.0
114.6
121.3
117.1

126.0
144.6
113.1
114.8
122.2
117.5

127.9
146.3
114.2
114.4
123.4
117.7

130.8
148.0
114.9
112.8
126.5
118.1

131.6
149.5
115.9
113.6
126.1
118.2

132.8
151.2
116.1
113.9
127.4
118.9

128.3
139.6
111.3
109.6
108.8
111.5
112.3
111.7
109.8

129.8
140.6
111.6
109.2
108.3
111.5
111.8
111.6
109.4

131.4
142.0
112.1
109.0
108.1
111.3
116.2
112.6
109.6

132.2
143.3
112.1
109.0
108.4
110.7
114.0
111.6
109.5

135.3
145.3
113.5
107.6
107.4
108.0
130.7
114.1
109.6

138.4
147.1
114.1
106.6
106.3
107.4
143.4
117.0
109.9

139.8
148.5
115.0
106.5
106.2
107.5
147.4
118.2
110.2

140.6
150.3
115.4
107.1
106.9
107.8
147.1
118.3
110.7

146.3
143.3
114.3
97.9

148.5
144.6
114.7
97.4

149.5
146.5
115.7
98.0

151.4
149.0
116.5
98.4

152.6
151.2
118.0
99.0

156.4
153.2
118.8
98.0

158.2
155.8
119.6
98.5

159.3
158.1
121.4
99.2

IV

I

Business

Output per hour of all persons.............
Compensation per hour................
Real compensation per hour...............
Unit labor costs....................
Unit nonlabor payments......................
Implicit price deflator....................

I Uv7.0

Nonfarm business

Output per hour of all persons...........
Compensation per hour..............
Real compensation per hour.....................
Unit labor costs.............................
Unit nonlabor payments.....................
Implicit price deflator......................

116.4
137.5
111.9
118.1
108.6
114.6

117.3
I oy.o
111.7

110.0

111.2

Nonfinancial corporations

Output per hour of all employees.................
Compensation per hour.....................
Real compensation per hour.................
Total unit costs........................
Unit labor costs......................
Unit nonlabor costs...................
Unit profits.............................
Unit nonlabor payments....................
Implicit price deflator..........................

121.3
135.0
109.9
110.5
111.3
108.2

121.9
136.2
110.1

103.6
108.7

104.8
109.5

135.0
138.6
112.9
102.7

136.0
137.4
111.0
101.0

122.7

111.3

138.1
111.1
111.0
109.3
111.9
105.3

Manufacturing

Output per hour of all persons..................
Compensation per hour.......................
Real compensation per hour..................
Unit labor costs.......................

49.

144.0

100.1

99.4

98.0

Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years

[1996= 100]________
Item

19 8 0

19 9 0

1991

199 2

19 9 3

19 9 4

199 5

1997

19 9 8

199 9

2000

2001

Private business

Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons................
Output per unit of capital services...............
Multifactor productivity......................
Output......................................
Inputs:
Labor input........................
Capital services........................
Combined units of labor and capital input..........
Capital per hour of all persons...................

75.8
103.3
88.8

90.2
99.7
95.5

95.4
98.7
97.1
88.5

96.5

96.6
100.4
98.2
92.8

97.3
99.8
98.4
95.8

102.2
100.3
101.2
105.2

105.0
99.3
102.5
110.5

107.7
98.2
103.4
115.7

111.0
96.6
105.0
120.4

112.4
92.8
103.9
120.2

95.6
92.5
94.6
96.2

98.0
96.0
97.3
97.5

103.5
104.9
104.0
101.9

106.1
111.3
107.9
105.8

109.0
117.9
110.9
109.7

110.1
124.5
114.7
114.8

109.5
129.6
115.7
121.1

95.3
99.0
97.2
88.4

96.5
100.4
98.2
92.6

97.5
100.0
98.6
95.8

102.0
100.0
101.0
105.1

104.7
99.0
102.2
110.5

107.1
97.6
102.9
115.7

110.3
95.9
104.4
120.2

111.6
92.0
103.3
120.1

95.4
92.2
94.3
96.1

97.8
95.8
97.2
97.6

103.6
106.1
104.1
101.9

106.4
111.7
108.1
105.8

109.5
118.5
112.4
109.7

110.6
125.4
115.2
115.0

110.1
130.5
116.3
121.3

93.0
99.7
97.3
92.9

96.5
100.6
99.2
96.9

103.8
101.4
103.1
105.6

108.9
101.7
105.7
110.5

114.0
101.7
108.7
114.7

118.3
101.0
111.3
117.4

119.7
95.1
110.3
112.1

99.9
93.2
99.9
90.3
96.0
95.5

100.4
96.4
102.3
93.1
100.4
97.7

101.7
104.1
97.5
101.9
103.9
102.4

101.5
108.7
100.6
107.5
103.1
104.6

100.7
112.8
102.9
107.9
105.4
105.5

99.2
116.2
104.3
106.9
106.5
105.5

99.6
117.9
98.9
105.5
97.7
101.6

«/■N «

71.9
57.6
67.0
73.4

87.5
90.4

87.4
94.6

77.3
107.6
91.0

90.3
100.4
95.8

91.4
97.0

70.7
55.4
65.5
71.8

87.2
89.9

87.0

88.4

91.8
89.4
91.0

62.0
97.2
81.2

82.2
97.5
93.3

84.1
93.6

yo.y

96.9

103.7
66.1

101.1

88.7

Private nonfarm business

Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.................
Output per unit of capital services......................
Multifactor productivity...................
Output....................................
Inputs:
Labor input.................................
Capital services............................
Combined units of labor and capital input..........
Capital per hour of all persons..........
Manufacturing

Productivity:
Output per hour of all persons.......................
Output per unit of capital services................
Multifactor productivity...........................
Output............................................
Inputs:
Hours of all persons..............................
Capital services............................
Energy..................................
Nonenergy materials.....................
Purchased business services......................
Combined units of all factor inputs.............

116

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

63.9
65.8
79.2

August 2004

91.1
96.6
86.5
84.7
89.1

84.6
88.3

90.9

92.8

50.

Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years

n 992 - 1001
Ite m

196 0

19 7 0

1 98 0

1 99 0

19 9 5

199 6

1 99 7

19 9 8

19 9 9

2000

2001

2003

2002

B u s in e s s
4 8 .7

6 6 .0

7 9 .0

9 4 .4

1 0 1 .7

1 0 4 .5

1 0 6 .5

1 0 9 .3

1 1 2 .4

1 1 5 .7

1 1 8 .3

1 2 4 .0

1 2 9 .6

1 3 .8

2 3 .5

5 4 .0

9 0 .5

1 0 6 .0

1 0 9 .5

1 1 3 .0

1 1 9 .7

1 2 5 .4

1 3 4 .2

1 3 9 .7

1 4 7 .8

1 4 7 .9

6 0 .5

7 8 .4

8 8 .9

96.1

9 8 .9

9 9 .5

1 0 0 .5

1 0 5 .0

1 0 7 .8

1 1 1 .6

1 1 3 .0

1 1 3 .7

1 1 5 .1

2 8 .4

3 5 .6

6 8 .4

9 5 .9

1 0 4 .3

1 0 4 .8

1 06.1

1 0 9 .5

1 1 1 .6

1 1 6 .0

1 18 .1

1 1 5 .2

1 14 .1

2 4 .9

3 1 .5

6 1 .3

9 3 .9

1 0 8 .2

1 1 1 .9

1 1 3 .9

1 0 9 .9

1 0 9 .2

1 0 7 .2

1 0 9 .5

1 1 7 .0

1 2 3 .0

2 7 .1

3 4.1

6 5 .8

95.1

1 0 5 .7

1 0 7 .4

1 0 9 .0

1 0 9 .7

1 1 0 .7

1 1 2 .7

1 1 4 .9

1 1 5 .8

1 1 7 .4

5 1 .6

6 7 .7

8 0 .3

9 4 .4

1 02.1

1 0 4 .7

1 0 6 .4

1 0 9 .2

1 1 2 .2

1 1 5 .3

1 1 7 .8

1 2 3 .6

1 2 9 .1

1 4 .4

2 3 .6

5 4 .2

9 0 .3

1 0 6 .0

1 0 9 .4

1 1 2 .8

1 1 9 .4

1 2 4 .9

1 3 3 .7

1 3 8 .9

1 42 .1

1 4 7 .0

6 3 .0

7 8 .8

8 9 .2

9 5 .9

9 8 .9

9 9 .4

1 0 0 .3

1 0 4 .7

1 0 7 .3

1 1 1 .2

1 1 2 .4

1 1 3 .2

1 1 4 .4

2 7 .9

3 4 .9

6 7 .5

9 5 .6

1 0 3 .8

1 0 4 .5

1 0 6 .0

1 0 9 .3

1 1 1 .3

1 1 6 .0

1 1 8 .0

1 1 5 .0

1 1 3 .9

2 4 .3

31.1

6 0 .4

9 3 .6

1 0 9 .2

1 12.1

1 1 4 .6

1 1 0 .9

1 1 0 .8

1 0 8 .8

1 11 .1

1 1 9 .0

1 2 4 .8

2 6 .6

3 3 .5

6 4 .9

9 4 .9

1 0 5 .8

1 0 7 .3

1 09 .1

1 0 9 .9

1 11 .1

1 1 3 .3

1 1 5 .4

1 1 6 .4

1 1 7 .9

1 3 6 .3

N o n f a r m b u s in e s s

N o n f in a n c ia l c o r p o r a t io n s
5 6 .6

7 0 .4

8 1 .0

9 5 .5

1 0 3 .4

107 .1

1 0 9 .8

1 1 2 .8

1 1 6 .4

1 2 0 .6

1 2 2 .7

1 2 8 .9

16.1

2 5 .6

5 7 .0

9 1 .0

1 0 5 .4

1 0 8 .4

1 1 1 .7

1 1 7 .9

1 2 3 .3

1 3 1 .7

1 3 7 .0

1 4 0 .1

1 4 5 .9

7 0 .3

8 5 .3

9 3 .8

9 6 .7

9 8 .3

9 8 .5

9 9 .3

1 0 3 .4

1 0 5 .9

1 0 9 .5

1 1 0 .8

1 1 1 .5

1 1 3 .5

2 6 .9

35.1

6 8 .8

9 5 .4

1 0 1 .8

1 0 0 .9

1 0 1 .2

1 0 3 .2

1 0 4 .6

1 0 8 .0

1 1 1 .2

1 0 9 .4

1 0 7 .4

2 8 .4

3 6 .3

7 0 .4

9 5 .3

1 0 2 .0

1 0 1 .2

1 0 1 .7

1 0 4 .5

1 0 6 .0

1 0 9 .2

1 1 1 .6

1 0 8 .6

1 0 7 .0

2 3 .0

3 1 .7

6 4 .5

97.1

1 0 1 .3

9 9 .9

9 9 .8

9 9 .9

1 0 1 .0

1 0 4 .8

1 1 0 .2

1 1 1 .5

1 0 8 .4

4 9 .5

4 3 .7

6 6 .5

9 6 .7

1 3 6 .9

1 4 9 .9

1 5 4 .4

1 3 7 .5

1 2 9 .8

1 0 9 .3

9 1 .4

1 1 1 .4

1 3 4 .2

3 0.1

3 4 .9

65.1

9 7 .0

1 1 0 .8

1 1 3 .3

1 1 4 .4

1 0 9 .9

1 0 8 .7

1 06 .1

1 0 5 .2

1 1 1 .5

1 1 5 .3

2 8 .9

3 5 .9

6 8 .6

9 5 .9

1 0 4 .9

1 0 5 .3

1 0 5 .9

1 0 6 .3

1 0 6 .9

1 08 .1

1 0 9 .5

1 0 9 .6

1 0 9 .8

M a n u f a c tu r in g

Implicit price deflator....................................................

4 1 .8

5 4 .2

70.1

9 2 .9

1 10.1

1 1 3 .9

1 1 7 .9

1 2 3 .5

1 2 8 .2

1 3 4 .2

1 37 .1

1 4 7 .1

1 5 4 .6

1 4 .9

2 3 .7

5 5 .6

90.1

1 0 7 .7

1 0 9 .9

1 1 2 .0

1 1 8 .8

1 2 3 .8

1 3 5 .0

1 3 8 .3

1 4 3 .8

1 5 1 .9

6 5 .0

7 9 .2

9 1 .4

9 5 .7

1 0 0 .5

9 9 .8

9 9 .7

1 0 4 .2

1 0 6 .3

1 1 2 .3

1 1 1 .8

1 1 4 .5

1 1 8 .2

3 5 .6

4 3 .8

7 9 .3

9 7 .0

9 7 .8

9 6 .5

9 5 .0

9 6 .2

9 6 .6

1 0 0 .6

1 0 0 .8

9 7 .8

9 8 .2

2 6 .8

2 9 .3

8 0 .2

101 .1

1 0 7 .6

1 1 0 .4

1 1 0 .5

1 04.1

1 0 5 .0

1 0 7 .0

1 0 5 .8

3 0 .2

3 5 .0

7 9 .9

9 9 .5

1 0 3 .9

1 0 5 .2

1 0 4 .6

1 01.1

1 0 1 .8

1 0 4 .6

1 0 3 .9

-

August

2004

“

Dash indicates data not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

117

Current Labor Statistics:

Productivity Data

51. Annual indexes of output per hour for selected naics industries, 1990-2002
[1997=100]

Industry

NAICS

1990

1991

199 2

1993

1994

1995

1996

1 99 7

199 8

1999

2000

2001

2002

Mining
21
211
212
2121
2122
2123

Mining.......................
Oil and gas extraction.................
Mining, except oil and gas..............
Coal mining.......................
Metal ore mining.....................
Nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying

92 3

78.8
80.0
v)v/>0
82.7
89.5

99.6
90.3
83.9
104.1
96.9

101.8
95.5
94.0
88.2
98.5
97.3

101.7
98.9
96.0
94.9
95.3
97.1

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

103.4
101.6
104.6
106.5
109.5
101.3

111.1
107.S
105.S
110.3
112.7
101.2

109.5
115.2
106.8
115.8
124.4
96.2

107.7
117.4
109.0
114.4
131.8
99.3

112.3
119.3
111.7
112.2
143.9
103.8

82.1

88.6
89.0

95.5
96.1

100.0
100.0

103.8
99.1

104.1
103.1

107.0
113.1

106.4
110.0

102.4
114.9

94.0
99.1
94.3
97.1
98.7

87.5
91.3
98.2
98.2
98.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

109.4
107.5
104.0
106.8
99.1

109.5
114.2
107.1
108.4
94.5

109.7
112.5
111.9
109.8
96.0

127.2
117.3
109.9
117.0
96.2

-

-

98.5
108.4
99.7
101.3
99.6

94.3
116.2
97.7
103.0
101.1

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

99.9
117.0
103.8
106.9
98.5

100.3
130.2
105.4
108.8
92.4

101.9
137.6
105.3
110.2
90.6

102.7
147.3
106.3
103.2
91.7

-

97.5
92.0
95.8
84.5
92.5

99.4
98.7
98.0
85.0
93.3

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

98.1
102.2
103.9
100.6
99.9

92.1
104.6
109.8
101.7
101.2

98.0
102.6
110.2
104.0
106.8

100.0
110.5
109.1
109.7
106.9

75.9

95.9
109.5
85.5
112.4
78.6

96.3
121.9
90.5
112.6
91.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

97.0
96.6
104.0
110.8
98.0

110.4
102.0
118.8
103.3
101.6

110.4
110.2
127.7
104.9
110.0

105.0
108.4
131.7
114.8
109.7

-

105.8
99.3

95.6
73.2
91.0
101.8
100.4

103.4
79.7
96.2
101.2
100.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.9
109.2
100.8
105.6
101.5

116.8
100.4
105.4
99.9
105.4

124.1
107.6
106.5
100.5
104.0

142.7
114.1
109.0
105.0
104.6

-

102.0
97.2
98.8
90.1
92.3

97.6
98.3
99.6
94.8
90.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

103.1
102.7
100.5
102.1
102.5

111.4
101.5
103.5
107.8
114.7

115.7
101.9
104.9
113.2
118.4

117.5
101.0
105.6
112.2
111.0

-

95.9
90.7
96.3
92.7
93.9

93.3
92.1
99.9
98.3
95.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

105.5
98.8
92.9
99.1
96.6

108.8
87.6
94.6
98.8
91.1

108.1
91.4
93.4
98.5
99.2

103.8
91.1
97.4
102.1
102.7

94.4
94.5
92.8
97.4
88.8

94.2
97.0
94.4
102.6
96.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

99.4
103.5
100.5
101.3
102.7

109.2
109.3
101.4
103.5
108.6

120.0
111.2
103.9
103.6
109.7

111.3
113.3
104.2
97.6
105.2

-

98.2
88.8
91.7
89.7
100.5

100.6
92.4
96.5
94.1
100.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

103.5
113.1
98.8
101.7
100.3

104.1
102.7
95.5
106.5
94.2

100.4
97.0
95.6
108.5
96.4

97.1
100.1
96.8
106.7
97.1

_
-

96.8
102.9
93.1
94.2
97.8

95.9
105.7
96.2
97.6
104.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.1
111.2
101.6
103.7
100.0

104.3
108.9
104.9
110.9
107.8

97.8
103.1
104.0
121.3
105.8

96.9
100.5
109.3
121.8
110.2

-

93.9
97.8
97.3
99.5
98.7

94.2
100.7
102.6
102.8
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.1
101.3
101.0
111.6
99.3

101.8
98.9
106.5
112.9
103.9

101.0
97.7
115.8
114.6
107.2

100.7
98.2
114.6
110.6
107.2

_

86.8

96.1

93.6

Utilities
2211
2212

Power generation and supply.......
Natural gas distribution................

73.8
72.7

74.2

39 n
91 0
86.4
90.8

91.2
93.8
89.7

91.1
90.5
90.7

92.5
93.8

94 5
117.5
92.6
91.9
86.5

96.8
112.0
92.3
93.5

101.5
115.3
95.6

100.9
113.9
96.0

81.4
73.9
75.0
81.7
88.2

77.3
74.7

79.6
80.1

80.4
88.6

83.7
93.0

86.0

90.3

Manufacturing
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115

Animal food.....................
Grain and oilseed milling..................
Sugar and confectionery products........
Fruit and vegetable preserving and specialty
Dairy products..............................

3116
3117
3118
3119
3121

Animal slaughtering and processing.............
Seafood product preparation and packaging.....
Bakeries and tortilla manufacturing........
Other food products.......................
Beverages.................................

3122
3131
3132
3133
3141

Tobacco and tobacco products.......
Fiber, yarn, and thread mills...............
Fabric mills.........................
Textile and fabric finishing mills.................
Textile furnishings mills...............

3149
3151
3152
3159
3161

Other textile product millsv
Apparel knitting mills........................
Cut and sew apparel..................
Accessories and other apparel........
Leather and hide tanning and finishing...........

91.1
85.6
70.1
100.9
60.8

90.0
88.7
72.0
97.3
56.6

92.0
93.2
73.1
98.7
76.7

99.0
83.1

3162
3169
3211
3212
3219

Footwear..............................
Other leather products..................
Sawmills and wood preservation.
Plywood and engineered wood products.......
Other wood products..........

77.1
102.5
79.2
102.3
105.4

100.2
81.6
107.4
104.7

97.0
86.1
114.7

82.6
108.9

3221
3222
3231
3241
3251

Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills...................
Converted paper products.................
Printing and related support activities..................
Petroleum and coal products............
Basic chemicals.....................

88.5
90.5
96.6
76.7
91.4

88.1
93.5
95.4
75.8
90.1

92.3
93.7
101.3
78.9

3252
3253
3254
3255
3256

Resin, rubber, and artificial fibers..............
Agricultural chemicals.......................
Pharmaceuticals and medicines.............
Paints, coatings, and adhesives..............
Soap, cleaning compounds, and toiletries...

75.8
84.6
91 4
85.1
83.2

74.7
81.0
92.6
85.9
84.2

3259
3261
3262
3271
3272

Other chemical products and preparations.
Plastics products........................
Rubber products.......................
Clay products and refractories.............
Glass and glass products..................

76.6
84.7
83.0
89.2
80.0

78.0
86.3
83.8
87.5
79.1

91.5
84.3

3273
3274
3279
3311
3312

Cement and concrete products...........
Lime and gypsum products...............
Other nonmetallic mineral products.
Iron and steel mills and ferroalloy production..
Steel products from purchased steel......

94.8
84.1
79.8
69.6
83.8

93.7
82.7
81.4
67.2
86.4

94.8
88.5
90.2
74.1
89.9

3313
3314
3315
3321
3322

Alumina and aluminum production........
Other nonferrous metal production..
Foundries........................
Forging and stamping.........................
Cutlery and hand tools....................

91.9
95.6
85.3
88.6
85.1

93.3
95.8

96.0
101.8

86.5
85.4

96.8
98.8
Uv7.U
91.7
87.2

3323
3324
3325
3326
3327

Architectural and structural metals........
3oilers, tanks, and shipping containers...
Hardware...........................
Spring and wire products...............
Machine shops and threaded products.....

87.8
90 4
84.4
85.2
78.8

89.1
92.6
83.8
88.4
79.8

92.5
95.3
86.9
90.9
87.2 |

93.4
94.8
89.6
vO.v
86.9

118

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

94.7
94.9

114.1

97.7

87.2
91.9
90.1
94.5

92.9
100.1

98.3

80.6

83.8

93.5

88.2
87.6
83.4

88.1
90.9
86.9

88.6

84.7

90.6

92.6
90.3
87.5

96.5
89.3
81.7
95.9

95.0
87.8
87.2

100.3

94.4
95.1
95.7
91.5
91.6

_

-

_

-

-

-

51.

Continued—Annual indexes of output per hour for selected NAICS industries, 1990-2002

[1997=100]

Industry

NAICS
3328
3329
3331
3332
3333

Coating, engraving, and heat treating metals.......

3334
3335
3336
3339

HVAC and commercial refrigeration equipment

Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery
Commercial and service industry machinery.........

3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3351
3352
3353
3359
3361

Semiconductors and electronic components........
Magnetic media manufacturing and reproduction

Other electrical equipment and components........

1990

1991

199 2

1993

1994

1995

1996

19 9 7

199 8

1999

2000

2001

2002

101.5
100.2
95.0
105.2
111.2

105.9
100.8
101.0
129.7
101.4

105.1
98.2
99.5
104.6
94.4

-

110.4
100.5
113.3
105.6

108.3
106.4
117.1
113.0

110.8
102.0
130.2
109.4

"
-

81.6
86.7
82.8
80.6
91.4

78.1
85.9
77.2
81.1
89.6

86.9
90.6
79.6
79.5
96.5

91.9
92.1
84.1
84.9
101.7

96.5
95.0
91.0
90.0
101.2

102.8
97.1
95.6
97.9
103.0

102.9
98.9
95.9
98.8
106.3

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
102.3
104.2
94.4
107.5

88.8
85.3
85.1
85.9

88.2
82.3
84.6
85.2

90.8
89.3
81.2
85.1

93.8
89.3
84.8
89.8

97.3
94.0
93.3
91.5

96.6
99.1
92.1
94.6

97.8
98.1
97.9
95.1

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

106.6
99.1
106.4
103.2

14.3

15.8

20.6

27.9

35.9

51.3

72.6

100.0

138.6

190.3

225.4

237.0

-

134.0
116.2
174.5
105.1
106.8

165.5
123.3
233.3
114.3
104.0

155.2
126.3
231.6
116.1
98.6

-

"

_

47.3
75.5
21.4
76.0
86.6

49.3
82.8
24.5
80.5
91.2

59.3
92.1
29.6
83.1
93.0

62.1
98.8
34.1
85.8
96.8

70.1
108.5
43.1
88.8
106.1

74.6
140.0
63.4
96.8
106.7

84.3
104.7
81.8
97.7
103.8

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.7
103.1
125.2
101.3
105.4

87.3
76.4
73.6
75.3
86.0

88.5
76.4
72.7
74.2
82.4

93.6
82.4
78.9
81.6
91.2

90.8
88.9
85.8
86.8
89.8

94.5
95.0
89.0
89.4
90.3

92.2
92.7
98.1
92.0
88.6

95.6
93.1
100.2
96.0
91.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

103.8
105.1
99.8
105.5
113.3

102.5
104.3
98.9
114.8
123.3

101.9
117.5
100.6
120.5
110.4

105.4
122.6
101.0
113.5
108.7

-

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

102.7
104.8
118.5
102.9
100.3

103.1
110.4
118.0
116.0
112.2

98.4
112.7
101.0
117.7
120.1

99.4
114.8
114.7
124.7
119.8

-

“

3362
3363
3364
3365
3366

75.8
75.7
87.7
77.2
99.6

71.8
74.5
92.1
80.0
92.6

88.3
82.4
94.1
81.1
98.5

96.3
88.5
98.2
82.3
101.3

97.7
91.8
93.8
83.1
99.0

97.3
92.3
93.7
82.0
93.1

98.4
93.1
98.1
80.9
94.1

3369
3371
3372
3379
3391
3399

62.6
87.6
80.8
88.1
81.2
90.1

62.0
88.2
78.8
88.6
83.1
90.6

88.4
92.9
86.2
88.4
88.1
90.0

99.8
93.8
87.9
90.5
91.1
92.3

93.4
94.1
83.4
93.6
90.8
93.0

93.1
97.1
84.3
94.5
95.0
96.0

99.8
99.5
85.6
96.7
100.0
99.6

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

110.8
102.7
100.1
107.2
108.9
101.9

113.3
103.7
98.5
102.5
109.6
105.2

130.9
102.5
100.2
100.1
114.2
112.9

146.9
106.1
97.1
105.3
119.0
110.9

-

42
423
4231
4232
4233

77.8
65.7
76.6
82.4
115.0

79.1
66.1
73.3
87.2
113.2

86.2
75.0
82.2
92.0
119.6

89.5
80.5
88.0
95.8
113.9

91.3
84.5
94.1
93.3
111.9

93.3
88.9
93.6
96.8
103.6

96.2
94.0
94.9
97.0
103.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

104.4
105.6
104.7
97.5
102.9

110.9
115.3
119.8
100.8
104.8

114.1
119.6
114.0
105.5
101.7

117.1
120.3
114.1
105.4
108.6

123.6
127.7
121.7
101.8
119.2

4234
4235
4236
4237
4238

33.8
101.6
46.8
88.8
78.9

37.3
102.6
47.6
86.5
74.2

48.2
109.1
51.4
95.6
79.7

56.2
111.7
59.1
94.3
84.3

60.5
110.1
68.2
101.3
85.4

74.7
101.2
79.3
98.0
89.7

88.4
102.7
87.8
99.1
93.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

118.2
102.4
105.9
103.5
104.2

141.1
96.0
126.2
107.8
101.4

148.9
99.2
151.7
111.1
104.1

164.9
102.2
148.1
102.6
102.7

189.4
102.2
161.2
107.9
100.2

4239
424
4241
4242
4243

89.5
98.4
81.0
81.8
103.9

96.6
99.8
85.5
86.6
103.3

112.1
103.2
96.5
91.8
100.1

113.2
103.0
97.2
89.3
97.7

106.1
101.8
101.5
92.8
103.8

99.2
99.7
99.0
95.4
92.2

101.0
99.2
96.5
98.3
99.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.8
102.8
100.4
99.6
104.1

112.6
104.1
105.5
101.7
103.5

116.7
103.5
105.5
96.8
102.7

116.1
106.9
109.0
101.2
102.4

125.5
112.6
120.2
116.0
111.5

4244
4245
4246
4247
4248

96.4
80.6
107.3
97.3
109.4

98.2
85.9
106.6
107.0
111.2

103.6
85.9
112.5
118.3
107.4

105.1
84.0
110.0
119.1
105.6

103.3
80.4
110.5
115.8
105.9

103.0
87.7
102.1
108.7
102.5

99.8
90.6
100.0
105.9
104.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.9
100.4
99.3
115.0
109.7

103.6
114.2
98.0
112.0
110.1

105.2
119.0
95.8
112.5
111.0

109.4
120.0
93.6
116.5
111.6

111.8
135.4
96.9
126.0
117.3

4249
425
42511
42512

107.3
70.7
70.4
70.8

98.2
73.6
72.6
74.0

93.9
81.5
80.3
82.3

97.5
85.9
84.8
86.8

94.8
88.0
88.3
88.4

96.2
91.1
90.5
91.8

98.7
95.7
95.3
96.1

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
104.6
103.5
104.8

99.6
114.4
121.7
110.5

106.2
124.1
141.3
115.7

104.2
131.3
169.4
114.2

97.0
132.6
205.0
109.3

44-45
441
4411
4412
4413

83.2
89.7
92.1
69.0
85.0

83.3
88.3
90.8
71.7
84.0

86.8
92.6
94.8
78.3
89.1

89.4
94.0
96.0
84.1
90.6

92.8
96.9
98.0
90.2
95.4

94.7
97.0
97.2
91.0
97.9

97.7
98.8
98.9
97.7
98.3

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

104.3
102.7
102.7
105.9
105.7

110.3
106.4
106.4
113.0
110.0

114.2
107.2
106.6
108.6
112.0

117.4
110.0
109.1
112.6
109.3

122.7
109.7
106.0
116.4
115.8

442
4421
4422
443
444

80.7
82.1
78.5
46.0
81.8

81.1
83.5
77.6
49.2
80.2

88.1
89.0
86.8
56.9
84.0

88.3
89.0
87.2
65.5
88.0

90.4
88.9
92.1
77.6
93.7

94.1
92.5
95.9
89.2
93.7

99.4
97.8
101.3
95.0
97.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

101.7
102.1
101.3
122.9
106.7

109.6
108.2
111.4
152.2
112.3

115.7
114.8
116.8
177.7
113.1

118.5
121.1
115.6
199.1
115.8

125.1
128.6
121.4
240.0
119.9

W h o le s a le tr a d e

R e ta il tr a d e

Building material and garden supply stores........ |


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August

2004

-

119

Current Labor Statistics:

Productivity Data

51. Continued - Annual indexes of output per hour for selected NAICS industries, 1990-2002
[1997=100]
NAICS

In d u s try

1990

4441
4442
445
4451
4452

Building material and supplies dealers........
Lawn and garden equipment and supplies stores
Food and beverage stores............
G ro c e ry stores...............................
Specialty food stores...............................

4453

Beer, wine and liquor stores..................

446
447
448

Health and personal care stores..................
Gasoline stations..............................
Clothing and clothing accessories stores............

1991

199 2

83.2
74.5
107.1

80.7
77.5
106.6
106.6
115.0

84.7
80.2
106.9
106.7
111.4

100.1

100.2

101.0

92 0
84.8
69.5

91 fi
85.7
70.5

88.5
75.3

92.8
78.9

1993

199 4

1995

1996

1 99 7

89.1
81.5
105.4
105.9
107.6

94.8
86.9
104.3
104.9
104.5

94.8
87.0
102.5
103.0
101.1

97.6
97.1
100.3
100.8
95.5

100 0
100 0
100.0
100.0
100.0

94.4

92.9

96.2

103.1

96.8
83.3

99.7
91.2

95.7
99.4
97.9

199 8

107.6

1999

99.9
100.3
95.0

113.7
103.5
103.7
104.3
99.6

100.0

105.8

100.0
100.0
100.0

104.1
105.6
105.4

101.2

2000

2001

2002

113.8
108.2
105.1
104.9
105.6

115.3
119.4
107.6
107.5
110.8

99.8

111.1

110.4

111.8

106.9
110.6
112.8

111.4
106.5
120.3

112.7
109.8
123.5

118.8
117.5
129.0

119.8
121.2
110.3
110.3
114.2

4481

Clothing stores................................

68.9

71.4

77.1

79.2

81.9

90.1

97.1

100.0

106.7

113.3

120.9

125.2

132.7

4482
4483
451
4511
4512

Shoe stores...........................
Jewelry, luggage, and leather goods stores........
Sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores...
Sporting goods and musical instrument stores....
Book, periodical, and music stores..............

73.7
68.6
80.8
77.1
89.0

73.1
64 fi
85.6
82.8
91.8

78.2

79.2

88.3

83.8
79.8
92.5

87.2
83.9
94.5

102.4
97.3
94.7
92.5
99.3

100.0
100.0
100.0
100 0
100.0

97.8
107.0
108.7
112.9

121.1

101.0

104.9
118.3
114.9
120.4
104.7

109.6
128.0

84.0
80.6
91.6

93.7
94.1
93.0
92.3
94.5

128.3
108.0

115.8
122.5
125.4
130.4
116.0

120.0
121.5
132.9
137.9
123.8

452
4521
4529
453
4531

General merchandise stores.................
Department stores.......................
Other general merchandise stores............
Miscellaneous store retailers.....................
Florists.....................................

75.3
84.0
61.4
70.6
75.1

79.0
88.3
64.8
68.0
75.9

83.0
91.6
69.7
74.2
85.1

88.5
95.0
77.8
79.1
91.4

90.6
95.1
82.6
87.0
85.4

92.2
94.7
87.6
89.5
83.5

96.9
98.4
94.3
95.0
96.1

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

105.0
100.6
113.4
108.3
101.2

113.1
104.5
129.8
109.8
117.3

119.9
106.3
145.9
111.3
116.0

124.2
104.0
162.1
108.4
108.6

130.5
104.7
177.5
115.6
120.7

4532
4533
4539
454
4541
4542
4543

Office supplies, stationery and gift stores.............
Used merchandise stores.....................
Other miscellaneous store retailers...............
Nonstore retailers...............................
Electronic shopping and mail-order houses......
Vending machine operators................
Direct selling establishments............................

64.6
84.9
79.6
54.4
43.5
97.1
70.0

66.3
83.1
69.2
55.0
46.7
95.4
67.6

71.5
89.7
74.7
63.4
50.6
95.1
82.1

75.8
88.9
80.5
66.7
58.3
92.8
79.7

87.5
87.3
89.7
73.8
62.9
94.1
89.2

90.9
90.2
90.5
80.9
71.9
89.3
94.7

91.8
97.4
98.0
91.6
84.4
96.9
102.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

113.0
113.5
105.0
111.3
118.2
114.1
96.2

118.0
109.8
101.6
125.4
141.5
118.1
96.3

124.1
115.7
99.6
142.8
159.8
127.1
104.3

125.1
115.0
93.2
146.9
177.5
110.4
98.7

140.3
121.4
92.8
169.6
209.8
113.3
110.2

77.5
69.8
88.5
96.1

78.2
75.3
92.4
95.8

81.4
82.3
97.5
96.5

84.7
85.7
95.6
99.0

90.8
88.6
98.1
98.5

95.3
92.0
95.4
98.3

98.8
98.4
95.7
96.7

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

97.6

98.2
105.5

99.1
101.4

102.0

98.2
114.3
105.5
104.9

91.9
121.9
104.2
106.1

103.2
131.9
109.4
107.0

97.4
28.6
109.4
96.1
98.8
64.8
76.3
99.1

96.1
30.6
108.9
97.8
94.3
68.4
73.8
94.3

95.8
42.7
104.1
102.8
96.0
74.5
85.6
95.9

95.3
51.7
104.6
101.4
93.6
79.7
94.8
93.5

93.0
64.6
103.4
106.0
92.0
85.1
97.1
91.9

93.5
73.0
99.9
106.1
94.4
90.6
98.3
94.2

92.7
88.0
100.0
104.1
93.7
97.5
103.0
93.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

104.5
115.9
99.9
99.1
129.3
105.5
114.2
95.7

108.5
113.0
102.0
99.4
133.2
112.7
134.3
94.5

110.1

103.9
106.5
98.4
135.7
119.9
139.0
90.4

106.4
101.9
104.7
94.3
125.3
121.0
172.7
87.6

108.1
106.7
104.4
100.4
131.4
130.6
192.0
93.5

80.5

83.2

83.3

90.3

92.9

96.0

99.3

100.0

101.5

104.2

101.6

103.8

89.8
70.7

97.8
71.7

104.4
69.5

106.1
75.8

107.9
82.0

101.1
90.3

108.9
96.7

100.0
100.0

101.2

113.1
97.8

112.0
95.9

112.1

93.7

93.6

113.3
91.4

92.4
105.0

84.7
99.7

99.5
111.9

119.1
111.3

119.9
106.8

96.2
101.4

92.1
102.1

100 0
100.0

105.1
95.8

99.2
110.1

91.8
116.6

78.2
116.7

92.1
123.9

82.9
102.9
99.1
103.3
107.2
125.7

85.4
102.3
98.3
103.3
106.9
121.2

92.9
101.7
97.5
102.7
106.4
121.5

93.0
102.3
97.7
105.6
103.8
112.7

97.0
100.8
97.8
103.6
101.1
102.6

99.2
100.6
96.6
104.7
99.3
104.4

100.1
99.2
96.3
102.2
97.6
102.4

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0

103.6

101.2
100.0

101.1

92.8
81.6
96.1
95.6
117.3

86.5
79.8
94.3
93.2
115.6

90.0
85.6
104.7
94.9
116.2

91.2
84.3
100.4
93.8
123.6

96.7
88.7
103.6
95.9
124.9

102.9
92.4
100.4
98.8
114.7

98.9
97.1
97.9
101.6
103.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Transportation and warehousing

481
482111
48412
491

Air transportation...........................
Line-haul railroads..............................
General freight trucking, long-distance..........
U.S. Postal service................................

102.1

102.4

Information

5111
5112
51213
5151
5152
5171
5172
5175

Newspaper, book, and directory publishers.......
Software publishers...........................
Motion picture and video exhibition.............
Radio and television broadcasting............
Cable and other subscription programming.......
Wired telecommunications carriers..............
Wireless telecommunications carriers........
Cable and other program distribution...............

52211

Commercial banking...........................

Finance and insurance
Real estate and rental and leasing

532111
53212

Passenger car rental..........................
Truck, trailer and rv rental and leasing...........

541213
54181

Tax preparation services..................
Advertising agencies............................

Professional, scientific, and technical services

Accomodation and food services

7211
722
7221
7222
7223
7224

Traveler accommodations.....................
Food services and drinking places....................
Full-service restaurants.................
Limited-service eating places.....................
Special food services................................
Drinking places, alcoholic beverages............

107.7
103.5

102.0
103.7

104.1
104.9

100.8

100.8

102.0

102.1
100.0

99.2
102.5
106.0
99.4

105.1
111.7
100.4

106.6
108.4
98.2

107.1
108.1
107.2

105.0
102.7
103.8
105.0
99.4

106.9
103.6
100.4
109.5
106.9

108.6
103.0
94.5
113.7
107.6

109.3
109.5
93.9

103.7
104.2
90.9

102.4

Other services (except public administration)

8111
81211
81221
8123
81292

Automotive repair and maintenance.....................
Hair, nail and skin care services..........
-uneral homes and funeral services...........
Drycleaning and laundry services.......................
3hotofinishing...................................

Note : Dash indicates data are not available.

120

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

121.1

120.2

115.0

133.6


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

52.

Unemployment rates, approximating U.S. concepts, in nine countries, quarterly data
seasonally adjusted
Annual average
2003
2002

Country
United States
Canada
Australia
Japan
France

5.8
7.0
6.4
5.4
8.7

6.0
6.9
6.1
5.3
9.3

2002
III

II
5.8
6.9
6.4
5.4
8.6

5.7
7.0
6.3
5.5
8.7

2004
1

2003
5.8
6.7
6.2
5.4
9.0

5.9
6.9
6.2
5.4
8.9

IV

III

II

1

IV

6.1
6.9
6.2
5.4
9.2

6.1
7.2
6.1
5.2
9.4

5.9
6.8
5.8
5.1
9.4

5.6
6.7
5.7
5.0
9.4

Germany

8.6

9.3

8.5

8.7

8.9

9.2

9.4

9.4

9.3

9.2

Italy'

9.1
5.1
5.2

8.8
5.8
5.0

9.2
5.0
5.2

9.1
5.1
5.2

9.0
5.2
5.1

9.0
5.2
5.1

8.8
5.6
5.0

8.7
5.8
5.0

8.6
6.2
4.9

8.6
6.6
4.8

Sweden2
United Kingdom
1

Preliminary data tor 2003.

figures. See "Notes on the data" for information on breaks in

2
Preliminary data for 2003. Quarterly rates are for the first
series. For further qualifications and historical data, see
month of the quarter.
C o m p a ra tiv e C iv ilia n L a b o r F o rc e S ta tistics, T e n C o u n trie s, 1959NOTE:

Quarterly figures for France and Germany are

calculated by applying annual adjustment factors to current

2 0 0 3 (Bureau

of Labor Statistics, Feb. 11,2004), on the Internet at

h ttp ://w w w .b ls .g o v /fls /h o m e .h tm

published data, and therefore should be viewed as less precise

Monthly and quarterly unemployment rates, updated monthly, are

indicators of unemployment under U.S. concepts than the annual

also on this site.

Monthly Labor Review

August

2004

121

Current Labor Statistics:

53.

International Comparison

Annual data: employment status of the working-age population, approximating U.S. concepts, 10 countries

[Numbers in thousands]

Employment status and country
Civilian labor force

— m i

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

128,105
14,177
8,557
65,040
24,440
39,010
22,910
6,920
4,520
28,336

129,200
14,308
8,613
65,470
24,480
39,102
22,570
7,010
4,444
28,165

131,056
14,400
8,770
65,780
24,760
39,074
22,450
7,150
4,418
28,149

132,304
14,517
8,995
65,990
24,750
38,980
22,460
7,210
4,460
28,157

133,943
14,669
9,115
66,450
25,010
39,142
22,570
7,300
4,459
28,260

136,297
14,958
9,204
67,200
25,130
39,415
22,680
7,540
4,418
28,417

137,673
15,237
9,339
67,240
25,460
39,754
22,960
7,620
4,402
28,479

139,368
15,536
9,414
67,090
25,790
39,375
23,130
7,850
4,430
28,769

142,583
15,789
9,590
66,990
26,070
39,302
23,340
8,150
4,489
28,930

143,734
16,027
9,752
66,870
26,350
39,459
23,540
8,340
4,530
29,053

144,863
16,475
9,907
66,240
26,590
39,413
23,750
8,300
4,544
29,288

66.4
65.9
63.9
63.4
55.6
58.2
47.5
57.5
65.7
63.1

66.3
65.5
63.5
63.3
55.4
57.8
47.9
57.9
64.5
62.7

66.6
65.2
63.9
63.1
55.5
57.4
47.3
58.6
63.7
62.6

66.6
64.9
64.5
62.9
55.4
57.1
47.1
58.8
64.1
62.4

66.8
64.7
64.6
63.0
55.6
57.1
47.1
59.2
64.0
62.4

67.1
65.0
64.3
63.2
55.5
57.3
47.2
60.8
63.3
62.6

67.1
65.4
64.3
62.8
55.9
57.7
47.6
61.1
62.8
62.5

67.1
65.8
64.0
62.4
56.3
56.8
47.8
62.6
62.8
62.8

67.1
65.9
64.4
62.0
56.6
56.6
48.1
64.5
63.8
62.9

66.8
66.0
64.4
61.6
56.8
56.6
48.3
65.8
63.7
62.7

66.6
66.8
64.4
60.8
57.0
56.3
48.6
65.0
64.0
62.9

118,492
12,672
7,660
63,620
22,000
36,390
21,230
6,550
4,265
25,570

120,259
12,770
7,699
63,810
21,710
35,989
20,270
6,570
4,028
25,242

123,060
13,027
7,942
63,860
21,750
35,756
19,940
6,660
3,992
25,429

124,900
13,271
8,256
63,890
21,960
35,780
19,820
6,730
4,056
25,718

126,708
13,380
8,364
64,200
22,040
35,637
19,920
6,860
4,019
25,964

129,558
13,705
8,444
64,900
22,170
35,508
19,990
7,160
3,973
26,433

131,463
14,068
8,618
64,450
22,600
36,061
20,210
7,320
4,034
26,696

133,488
14,456
8,762
63,920
23,050
36,042
20,460
7,600
4,117
27,048

136,891
14,827
8,989
63,790
23,690
36,236
20,840
7,910
4,229
27,350

136,933
14,997
9,091
63,470
24,140
36,350
21,270
8,130
4,303
27,570

136,485
15,325
9,271
62,650
24,280
36,018
21,580
8,070
4,310
27,768

61.5
58.9
57.2
62.0
50.1
54.2
44.0
54.5
62.0
57.0

61.7
58.5
56.8
61.7
49.1
53.2
43.0
54.2
58.5
56.2

62.5
59.0
57.8
61.3
49.0
52.6
42.0
54.6
57.6
56.5

62.9
59.4
59.2
60.9
49.1
52.4
41.5
54.9
58.3
57.0

63.2
59.1
59.3
60.9
49.0
52.0
41.6
55.7
57.7
57.4

63.8
59.7
59.0
61.0
49.0
51.6
41.6
57.8
56.9
58.2

64.1
60.4
59.3
60.2
49.7
52.3
41.9
58.7
57.6
58.6

64.3
61.3
59.6
59.4
50.3
52.0
42.3
59.9
58.4
59.1

64.4
62.1
60.3
59.0
51.4
52.2
42.9
62.6
60.1
59.4

63.7
61.9
60.1
58.4
52.0
52.2
43.6
64.2
60.5
59.5

62.7
62.4
60.3
57.5
52.0
51.5
44.1
63.2
60.7
59.6

9,613
1,505
897
1,420
2,430
2,620
1,680
370
255
2,762

8,940
1,539
914
1,660
2,770
3,113
2,300
440
416
2,916

7,996
1,373
829
1,920
2,920
3,318
2,510
490
426
2,716

7,404
1,246
739
2,100
2,800
3,200
2,640
480
404
2,439

7,236
1,289
751
2,250
2,970
3,505
2,650
440
440
2,297

6,739
1,252
759
2,300
2,960
3,907
2,690
370
445
1,985

6,210
1,169
721
2,790
2,870
3,693
2,750
300
368
1,783

5,880
1,080
652
3,170
2,740
3,333
2,670
250
313
1,721

5,692
962
602
3,200
2,380
3,065
2,500
240
260
1,580

6,801
1,031
661
3,400
2,210
3,110
2,270
210
227
1,483

8,378
1,150
636
3,590
2,310
3,396
2,160
230
234
1,520

6.9
10.8
10.6
2.5
11.3
8.0
10.2
6.3
9.4
10.4

6.1
9.5
9.4
2.9
11.8
8.5
11.2
6.9
9.6
9.6

5.6
8.6
8.2
3.2
11.3
8.2
11.8
6.7
9.1
8.7

5.4
8.8
8.2
3.4
11.9
9.0
11.7
6.0
9.9
8.1

4.9
8.4
8.3
3.4
11.8
9.9
11.9
4.9
10.1
7.0

4.5
7.7
7.7
4.1
11.3
9.3
12.0
3.9
8.4
6.3

4.2
7.0
6.9
4.7
10.6
8.5
11.5
3.2
7.1
6.0

4.0
6.1
6.3
4.8
9.1
7.8
10.7
2.9
5.8
5.5

4.7
6.4
6.8
5.1
8.4
7.9
9.6
2.5
5.0
5.1

5.8
7.0
6.3
5.4
8.7
8.6
9.1
2.7
5.1
5.2

United States.........................................
Canada.................................................
Australia.........................................
Japan.....................................................
France.....................................................
Germany.....................................................
Italy...........................................................
Netherlands.......................................
Sweden..................................................
United Kingdom.........................................

Participation rate1
United States...............................................
Canada.................................................
Australia....................................................
Japan....................................................
France................................................
Germany..............................................
Italy........................................................
Netherlands..........................................
Sweden.........................................
United Kingdom.............................................

Employed
United States................................................
Canada...............................................................
Australia.....................................................
Japan...................................................
France..........................................................
Germany......................................................
Italy.........................................................
Netherlands.....................................
Sweden............................................................
United Kingdom...................................................

Employment-population ratio2
United States..........................................................
Canada..............................................................
Australia..............................................................
Japan..............................................................
France...................................................
Germany.............................................
Italy..............................................................
Netherlands.................................................
Sweden........................................................
United Kingdom.............................................

Unemployed
United States.................................................
Canada........................................................
Australia..........................................................
Japan............................................................
France........................................................
Germany.............................................
Netherlands...........................................
Sweden..............................................
United Kingdom..............................................

Unemployment rate
United States.........................................
Canada............................................................
Australia............................................................
Japan.....................................................................
France.................................................
Germany......................................................
Netherlands................................................
Sweden..................................................
United Kingdom......................................................

7.5
10.6
10.5
2.2
9.9
6.7
7.3
5.3
5.6
9.71

1

1 Labor force as a percent of the working-age population.

For further qualifications and historical data, see C o m p a ra tiv e C iv ilia n L a b o r F o rc e

2' Employment as a percent of the working-age population.
NOTE: See notes on the data for information on breaks in series.

S ta tistics, Ten C o u n trie s, 1 9 5 9-2003

122

Monthly Labor Review


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

August 2004

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1959-2002 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, June 23, 2004), on the Internet at h tt p ://w w w .b ls .g o v /t ls /h o m e .h t m

54.

Annual indexes of manufacturing productivity and related measures, 12 countries

[1992 = 100]

Item and country

1960

1970

1980

1990

1991

1993

1994

1997

1996

1995

1999

1998

2002

2001

2000

Output per hour
117.0
109.7
116.1
116.3

121.3
113.5
121.0
125.5

126.5
115.5
121.2
126.9

133.7
122.1
126.7
125.5

142.1
129.3
135.9
130.8

142.7
127.0
135.9
132.6

155.9
130.5
139.5
141.7

37.8
13.8
18.0
28.1
19.9
29.2
24.6
18.8
37.6
27.3
30.0

54.9
37.5
32.9
49.4
39.0
52.0
46.2
38.5
59.1
52.2
43.2

70.5
72.9
63.2
65.4
86.2
61.6
77.2
78.6
69.1
77.9
73.1
54.4

96.9
93.4
94.4
96.8
99.1
93.9
99.0
96.6
98.7
98.1
94.6
89.2

97.9
95.3
99.0
99.1
99.5
97.0
98.3
96.1
99.0
98.2
95.5
93.8

102.1
105.8
101.7
102.5
99.3
101.0
101.8
101.2
102.0
99.6
107.3
103.9

107.3
110.8
103.3
108.4

113.8
112.4
111.0
113.2
_

_

_

108.9
109.6
104.8
113.1
99.6
117.8
108.5

114.4
112.3
107.9
117.3
100.7
124.5
106.5

114.7
114.7
108.3
119.3
102.5
129.5
105.8

121.7
120.4
110.3
121.4
102.0
141.0
107.7

127.9
122.0
110.8
124.1
99.9
149.5
109.2

133.0
121.4
110.6
127.0
103.6
162.7
114.4

143.2
127.0
113.6
132.7
106.6
175.5
121.9

148.0
127.8
115.9
132.3
108.9
170.3
126.4

152.1
131.0
114.3
133.1
110.9
184.3
127.6

33.4
10.7
30.7
44.4
30.0
41.5
23.0
31.9
57.7
45.9
67.5

58.9
39.2
57.6
73.9
57.7
70.9
48.1
59.8
91.0
80.7
90.2

75.8
83.6
60.4
78.2
94.4
81.6
85.3
84.4
76.9
104.9
90.7
87.2

101.6
106.0
97.1
101.0
102.8
99.1
99.1
99.4
99.0
101.4
110.1
105.4

98.3
99.0
102.0
100.7
101.5
99.8
102.3
99.3
99.8
99.0
104.1
100.1

103.5
105.9
96.3
97.0
95.6
95.7
92.4
96.5
97.7
101.7
101.9
101.5

111.1
114.1
94.9
101.4
105.6
100.3
95.1
102.4
104.5
104.6
117.0
106.2

118.4
119.6
98.9
104.2
111.6
104.9
95.2
107.2
108.2
107.3
131.9
107.8

121.3
119.6
103.0
105.9
106.7
104.6
92.5
105.4
108.9
110.3
136.4
108.7

127.9
127.7
106.5
112.7
115.2
109.7
95.7
108.8
111.6
114.2
146.5
110.7

133.1
133.9
100.2
114.4
115.7
115.0
97.7
110.7
114.9
113.7
158.3
111.4

139.5
144.9
101.9
114.4
117.7
118.7
95.8
110.3
117.6
113.6
172.5
112.2

146.1
159.2
109.2
119.9
122.1
124.3
100.1
113.7
122.8
112.8
188.3
114.9

137.3
153.6
105.5
120.4
127.5
128.0
99.9
114.6
121.7
113.4
183.1
1134.0

139.8
158.0
103.4
121.6
127.8
128.1
99.6
113.8
119.7
112.6
189.3
109.4

92.1
88.3
77.8
170.7
157.8
140.3
142.3
93.5
169.8
153.6
168.3
224.6

104.4
107.1
104.4
174.7
149.5
147.8
136.3
104.0
155.5
153.9
154.7
208.8

107.5
114.6
95.6
119.7
109.6
132.5
110.5
107.4
111.2
134.7
124.0
160.5

104.8
113.5
102.9
104.3
103.7
105.6
100.1
102.9
100.3
103.4
116.4
118.1

100.4
103.9
103.1
101.5
102.1
102.9
104.1
103.3
100.8
100.8
109.0
106.6

101.4
100.1
94.7
94.7
96.2
94.7
90.8
95.4
95.8
102.1
94.9
92.7

103.6
103.0
91.9
93.6

104.0
106.4
89.1
92.0

103.6
109.0
88.7
91.0

105.4
112.4
88.0
89.8

105.2
115.9
82.7
90.2

104.4
118.7
80.4
91.2

102.8
123.1
80.3
91.7

96.3
120.9
77.7
90.8

89.7
121.1
74.2
85.8

_

_

_

92.1
86.8
97.7
92.4
105.0
99.4
97.9

91.7
84.8
99.4
92.3
106.6
105.9
101.2

91.2
80.6
97.3
91.2
107.6
105.3
102.8

90.2
79.5
98.6
91.9
112.0
103.9
102.8

89.9
80.1
99.9
92.6
113.7
105.9
101.9

89.2
78.9
99.8
92.6
109.6
106.0
98.1

86.8
78.8
100.1
92.5
105.9
107.3
94.3

86.5
78.2
98.9
91.9
104.1
107.5
89.8

84.2
76.1
99.5
89.9
101.6
102.7
85.7

14.9
10.0
4.3
5.4
3.8
4.3
8.1
1.8
6.2
4.7
4.1
2.9

23.7
17.1
16.4
13.7
11.1
10.5
20.7
5.3
19.4
11.8
10.7
6.1

55.6
47.5
58.5
52.5
45.0
41.2
53.6
30.4
60.5
39.0
37.3
32.1

90.8
88.3
90.6
90.1
92.7
90.9
89.4
87.6
89.8
92.3
87.8
82.9

95.6
95.0
96.5
97.3
96.0
96.4
91.5
94.2
94.8
97.5
95.5
93.8

102.7
102.0
102.7
104.8
103.0
103.1
106.4
105.7
104.5
101.5
97.4
105.1

105.6
103.7
104.7
106.1

107.9
106.0
108.3
109.2

109.4
107.0
109.1
111.1

111.5
109.3
112.6
115.2

117.4
111.7
115.4
117.0

122.1
115.8
114.8
118.5

131.1
119.6
113.7
120.6

134.3
123.8
114.5
127.2

140.6
126.8
122.8
136.5

_

_

_

106.5
111.8
106.8
109.0
104.4
99.8
108.0

110.4
117.6
111.3
112.1
109.2
106.8
109.5

112.2
123.3
119.0
114.4
113.6
115.2
111.3

111.8
125.7
123.0
117.2
118.7
121.0
116.1

112.7
127.6
122.2
122.0
125.7
125.6
123.1

116.6
130.6
124.2
126.0
133.0
130.3
130.4

123.4
137.4
127.8
132.0
140.5
136.8
137.7

128.2
142.0
132.4
138.9
148.2
143.8
144.2

132.4
145.5
135.6
146.0
157.2
149.2
149.2

26.4
31.3
30.1
13.6
21.7
27.8
7.5
32.9
12.6
15.0
9.8

31.1
43.8
41.7
22.4
26.8
39.8
11.9
50.4
20.0
20.6
14.1

78.8
65.2
92.6
80.3
52.2
67.0
69.4
38.7
87.6
50.0
51.0
59.0

93.7
94.6
95.9
93.0
93.5
96.8
90.3
90.7
91.1
94.2
92.9
92.9

97.6
99.6
97.5
98.1
96.5
99.3
93.1
98.0
95.7
99.2
100.0
99.9

100.6
96.4
101.0
102.3
103.7
102.0
104.5
104.5
102.4
101.9
90.8
100.6

98.5
93.6
101.4
97.9
96.2
97.8
102.0
101.9
96.4
104.8
84.7
99.6

94.8
94.3
97.5
96.4
96.4
96.5
104.7
103.2
95.6
108.4
85.8
102.8

93.5
97.5
94.0
95.5
103.2
97.8
107.5
109.8
95.9
110.8
89.0
105.2

91.9
96.2
93.0
91.8
99.4
91.9
104.5
111.4
96.5
116.4
85.8
107.8

92.8
96.7
95.2
92.2
102.8
88.1
104.6
110.3
98.3
125.7
84.0
112.7

91.3
94.9
90.6
94.4
103.7
87.6
107.6
112.3
99.1
128.4
80.1
114.0

92.3
92.5
83.6
92.2
101.8
86.2
108.1
112.5
99.5
131.9
77.9
113.0

94.1
97.4
84.4
95.9
101.3
86.6
111.2
114.2
105.0
136.1
84.4
114.2

90.2
97.1
88.0
96.4
102.1
87.1
111.1
118.7
109.7
141.8
80.9
116.9

32.9
11.0
19.4
12.0
23.4
10.4
14.3
15.3
11.0
16.9
15.6

36.0
15.5
27.0
18.0
25.7
17.1
22.3
24.5
17.4
23.1
19.1

78.8
67.4
51.8
88.3
55.9
83.9
59.6
55.7
77.5
62.9
70.2
77.7

93.7
98.0
83.9
89.5
91.2
94.1
87.3
93.3
87.9
93.6
91.3
93.8

97.6
105.1
91.8
92.3
91.0
93.1
87.5
97.3
90.0
95.0
96.3
100.0

100.6
90.3
115.3
95.1
96.5
95.3
98.7
81.8
96.9
89.2
67.8
85.6

98.5
82.8
125.8
94.2
91.4
93.4
98.2
77.9
93.2
92.3
64.0
86.3

94.8
83.0
131.6
105.2
104.0
102.5
114.2
78.0
104.8
106.4
70.0
91.8

93.5
86.4
109.5
99.1
107.5
101.2
111.6
87.7
100.0
106.6
77.3
93.0

91.9
84.0
97.4
82.4
90.8
83.3
94.0
80.6
87.0
102.1
65.4
99.9

92.8
78.8
92.2
81.6
92.6
79.1
92.9
78.2
87.2
103.5
61.5
105.7

91.3
77.2
101.0
80.2
89.5
75.3
91.5
76.2
84.3
102.2
56.4
104.4

92.3
75.3
98.4
67.8
76.0
64.2
79.7
66.1
73.3
93.0
49.5
96.9

94.1
76.0
88.0
68.4
73.4
62.6
79.5
65.1
75.0
94.0
47.6
93.0

90.2
74.8
89.1
72.6
78.2
66.4
83.9
71.4
82.8
110.3
48.5
99.4

_

-

-

-

-

-

Output

Total hours

_

-

-

-

-

-

Compensation per hour

-

-

-

-

-

-

Unit labor costs: National currency basis

Unit labor costs: U.S. dollar basis

United Kingdom.................................................

NOTE: Data for Germany for years before 1991 are for the former West Germany. Data for 1991 onward are for unified Germany. Dash indicates data not available.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

123

Current Labor Statistics:

Injury and Illness

55. Occupational injury and illness rates by industry,' United States
Industry and type of case2

1989 1 1990

1991

Incidence rates per 100 full-time workers3
1992 1993 4 1994 4 1995 4 1996 4 1997 4 1998 4 1999 4 2000 4 2001 4

P R IV A T E S E C T O R 5

Total cases....................................
Lost workday cases...............................
Lost workdays..................................

4.0
78.7

8.8
4.1
84.0

5.7
100.9

11.6
5.9
112.2

5.4
108.3

8.5
4.8
137.2

8.3
5.0
119.5

4.5
129.6

14.3
6.8
143.3

14.2
6.7
147.9

13.0
6.1
148.1

General building contractors:
Total cases.............................................
Lost workday cases...........................
Lost workdays..................................

13.9
6.5
137.3

13.4
6.4
137.6

5.5
132.0

Heaw construction, except buildina:
Total cases..................................................
Lost workday cases..........................
Lost workdays.....................................

13.8
6.5
147.1

13.8
6.3
144.6

12.8
6.0
160.1

SDecial trades contractors:
Total cases..........................................
Lost workday cases.....................................
Lost workdays..................................

14.6
6.9
144.9

14.7
6.9
153.1

13.5
6.3
151.3

13.8
6.1
168.3

13.1
5.8
113.0

13.2
5.8
120.7

12.7
5.6
121.5

12.5
5.4
124.6

5.3

14.1
6.0
116.5

14.2
6.0
123.3

13.6
5.7
122.9

13.4
5.5
126.7

5.4

18.4
9.4
177.5

18.1
8.8
172.5

16.8
8.3
172.0

16.3
7.6
165.8

7.6

16.1
7.2

16.9
7.8

15.9
7.2

Stone, clav. and alass products:
Total cases............................................
Lost workday cases.....................................
Lost workdays...................................

15.5
7.4
149.8

15.4
7.3
160.5

14.8
6.8
156.0

13.6
6.1

Primary metal industries:
Total cases...........................................
Lost workday cases.................................
Lost workdays.........................................

18.7
8.1
168.3

19.0
8.1
180.2

17.7
7.4
169.1

17.5
7.1
175.5

7.3

Fabricated metal products:
Total cases...............................................
Lost workday cases.............................................
Lost workdays........................................

18.5
7.9
147.6

18.7
7.9
155.7

17.4
7.1
146.6

16.8
6.6
144.0

6.7

Industrial machinery and equipment:
Total cases..........................................
Lost workday cases...........................................
Lost workdays..........................................

12.1
4.8
86.8

12.0
4.7
88.9

11.2
4.4
86.6

4.2
87.7

Electronic and other electrical eauioment:
Total cases......................................................
Lost workday cases...................................
Lost workdays..........................................

9.1
3.9
77.5

9.1
3.8
79.4

8.6
3.7
83.0

3.6
81.2

Transportation eauioment:
Total cases......................................................
Lost workday cases.......................................
Lost workdays.......................................

17.7
6.8
138.6

17.8
6.9
153.7

18.3
7.0
166.1

18.7
7.1
186.6

Instruments and related products:
Total cases...........................................................
Lost workday cases........................................
Lost workdays.........................................

5.6
2.5
55.4

5.9
2.7
57.8

6.0
2.7
64.4

5.9
2.7
65.3

Miscellaneous manufacturina industries:
Total cases..............................................
Lost workday cases............................................
Lost workdays.............................................

11.1
5.1
97.6

11.3
5.1
113.1

11.3
5.1
104.01

10.7
5.0
108.21

8.1

7.4
3.4

7.1
3.3

6.7
3.1

6.3
3.0

6.1
3.0

5.7
2.8

8.7
3.9

8.4
4.1

7.9
3.9

7.3
3.4

7.1
3.6

73
3.6

5.4
3.2

5.9
3.7

4.9
2.9

4.4
2.7

4.7
3.0

40
2.4

9.9
4.5

9.5
4.4

8.8
4.0

8.6
4.2
"

83
4.1
”

79
4.0
“

9.0
4.0

8.5
3.7

8.4
3.9

8.0
3.7

7.8
3.9

69
3.5
~

9.0

8.7
4.3

8.2
4.1

7.8
3.8

7.6
3.7

7.8
4.0
“

10.0
A “7

9.1
4.1

8.9
4.4

8.6
4.3

8.2
4.1

10.3
4.8

9.7
4.7

9.2
4.6

9.0
4.5

81
4.1

11.3

10.7
5.0

10.1
4.8

13.5
6.5

13.2
6.8

13.0
6.7

12.1
6.1

10.6
5.5

12.0
5.8

11.4
5.7

11.5
5.9

11.2
5.9

11.0
5.7

11.8
5.7

11.8
6.0

10.7
5.4

10.4
5.5

10.1
5.1

7.2

14.0
7.0

12.9
6.3

12.6
6.3

10.7
5.3
ii. i

13.9
6.5

12.6
6.0

11.9
5.5

11.1
5.3

10.0
4.1

9.5
4.0

8.5
3.7

8.2
3.6

11.0
6.0

3.1

5.9
2.8

5.7
2.8

5.7
2.9

5.0
2.5

6.6

14.6
6.6

13.7
6.4

13.7
6.3

12.6
6.0

4.8
2.3

4.0
1.9

4.0
1.8

4.5
2.2

4.0
2.0

8.9
4.2

8.1
3.9

8.4
4.0

7.2
3.6

6.4
3.2
”

3.9

A g r ic u lt u re , fo r e s tr y , a n d fis h in g 5

Total cases.................................
Lost workday cases................................
Lost workdays.................................

5.4

M in in g

Total cases......................................
Lost workday cases...........................
Lost workdays......................................
C o n s tru c tio n

Total cases............................................
Lost workday cases.....................................
Lost workdays.................................

AA

/-»/-v

"
AA

.A ,

M a n u fa c tu rin g

Total cases.........................................
Lost workday cases..................................
Lost workdays.......................................
Durable goods:
Total cases............................................
Lost workday cases..............................................
Lost workdays...........................................
Lumber and wood products:
Total cases..............................................
Lost workday cases.................................................
Lost workdays...........................................
Furniture and fixtures:
Total cases...............................................
Lost workday cases..................................
Lost workdays.........................................

See footnotes at end of table.

124

Monthly Labor Review August 2004


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

0.0

I o.O

1r t

_

6.6
128.4

^ r, «

.__

'

't 't

.c A

-14 4

A

AA

4.0

._ .

88
4.3

"
2.5

a

r

_

55.

Continued—Occupational injury and illness rates by industry,1 United States
Industry and type of case2

1989 1 1990

1991

Incidence rates per 100 workers3
1992 1993 4 1994 4 1995 4 1996 4 1997 4

1998 4

1999 4

2000 4 2001 4

Nondurable goods:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases....................................................................
Lost workdays.............................................................................

11.6
5.5
107.8

11.7
5.6
116.9

11.5
5.5
119.7

11.3
5.3
121.8

10.7
5.0
-

10.5
5.1
-

9.9
4.9
-

9.2
4.6
-

8.8
4.4
-

8.2
4.3

7.8
4.2

7.8
4.2

6.8
3.8
“

Food and kindred products:
Total cases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases.................................................................
Lost workdays..........................................................................

18.5
9.3
174.7

20.0
9.9
202.6

19.5
9.9
207.2

18.8
9.5
211.9

17.6
8.9

17.1
9.2
-

16.3
8.7
-

15.0
8.0
-

14.5
8.0

12.7
7.3

-

13.6
7.5
"

12.4
7.3
“

10.9
6.3
“

Tobacco Droducts:
Total cases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases.................................................................
Lost workdays..........................................................................

8.7
3.4
64.2

7.7
3.2
62.3

6.4
2.8
52.0

6.0
2.4
42.9

5.8
2.3
-

5.3
2.4
-

5.6
2.6
-

6.7
2.8
-

5.9
2.7
-

6.4
3.4
"

5.5
2.2
-

6.2
3.1

6.7
4.2

Textile mill oroducts:
Total cases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases.................................................................
Lost workdays..........................................................................

10.3
4.2
81.4

9.6
4.0
85.1

10.1
4.4
88.3

9.9
4.2
87.1

9.7
4.1
-

8.7
4.0
-

8.2
4.1
-

7.8
3.6
-

6.7
3.1
-

7.4
3.4
-

6.4
3.2

6.0
3.2
“

5.2
2.7
“

ADDarel and other textile Droducts:
Total cases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases.................................................................
Lost workdays..........................................................................

8.6
3.8
80.5

8.8
3.9
92.1

9.2
4.2
99.9

9.5
4.0
104.6

9.0
3.8
-

8.9
3.9
-

8.2
3.6
-

7.4
3.3
-

7.0
3.1
-

6.2
2.6

5.8
2.8
-

6.1
3.0
-

5.0
2.4
-

PaDer and allied Droducts:
Total cases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases.................................................................
Lost workdays.........................................................................

12.7
5.8
132.9

12.1
5.5
124.8

11.2
5.0
122.7

11.0
5.0
125.9

9.9
4.6
-

9.6
4.5
-

8.5
4.2
-

7.9
3.8
-

7.3
3.7
-

7.1
3.7

7.0
3.7
-

6.5
3.4
-

6.0
3.2

Printina and Dublishina:
Total cases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases.................................................................
Lost workdays.........................................................................

6.9
3.3
63.8

6.9
3.3
69.8

6.7
3.2
74.5

7.3
3.2
74.8

6.9
3.1
-

6.7
3.0
-

6.4
3.0
-

6.0
2.8
-

5.7
2.7

5.4
2.8
-

5.0
2.6

5.1
2.6
“

4.6
2.4
“

Chemicals and allied oroducts:
Total cases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases.................................................................
Lost workdays..........................................................................

7.0
3.2
63.4

6.5
3.1
61.6

6.4
3.1
62.4

6.0
2.8
64.2

5.9
2.7
-

5.7
2.8
-

5.5
2.7

4.8
2.4

4.8
2.3
-

4.2
2.1

4.4
2.3

4.2
2.2
“

4.0
2.1

Petroleum and coal Droducts:
Total cases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases.................................................................
Lost workdays.........................................................................

6.6
3.3
68.1

6.6
3.1
77.3

6.2
2.9
68.2

5.9
2.8
71.2

5.2
2.5
-

4.7
2.3
"

4.8
2.4
-

4.6
2.5
-

4.3
2.2
-

3.9
1.8
-

4.1
1.8

3.7
1.9
“

2.9
1.4
“

Rubber and miscellaneous Dlastics oroducts:
Total cases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases.................................................................
Lost workdays.........................................................................

16.2
8.0
147.2

16.2
7.8
151.3

15.1
7.2
150.9

14.5
6.8
153.3

13.9
6.5
-

14.0
6.7
-

12.9
6.5

12.3
6.3

11.9
5.8

11.2
5.8
-

10.1
5.5
-

10.7
5.8

8.7
4.8
“

Leather and leather Droducts:
Total cases.............................................................................
Lost workday cases................................................................
Lost workdays.........................................................................

13.6
6.5
130.4

12.1
5.9
152.3

12.5
5.9
140.8

12.1
5.4
128.5

12.1
5.5
-

12.0
5.3
-

11.4
4.8
-

10.7
4.5
-

10.6
4.3
-

9.8
4.5
-

10.3
5.0
-

9.0
4.3

8.7
4.4
“

9.2
5.3
121.5

9.6
5.5
134.1

9.3
5.4
140.0

9.1
5.1
144.0

9.5
5.4
-

9.3
5.5
-

9.1
5.2

8.7
5.1

8.2
4.8
-

7.3
4.3

7.3
4.4

6.9
4.3

6.9
4.3
“

8.0
3.6
63.5

7.9
3.5
65.6

7.6
3.4
72.0

8.4
3.5
80.1

8.1
3.4

7.9
3.4
-

7.5
3.2

6.8
2.9

6.7
3.0
-

6.5
2.8

6.1
2.7

5.9
2.7

6.6
2.5

7.7
4.0
71.9

7.4
3.7
71.5

7.2
3.7
79.2

7.6
3.6
82.4

7.8
3.7

7.7
3.8
-

7.5
3.6
-

6.6
3.4
-

6.5
3.2

6.5
3.3

6.3
3.3

5.8
3.1

5.3
2.8
“

8.1
3.4
60.0

8.1
3.4
63.2

7.7
3.3
69.1

8.7
3.4
79.2

8.2
3.3

7.9
3.3

7.5
3.0

6.9
2.8

6.8
2.9
-

6.5
2.7
-

6.1
2.5
-

5.9
2.5
-

5.7
2.4
-

2.0
.9
17.6

2.4
1.1
27.3

2.4
1.1
24.1

2.9
1.2
32.9

2.9
1.2

2.7
1.1
-

2.6
1.0

2.4
.9

2.2
.9

.7
.5

1.8
.8

1.9
.8

1.8
.7

5.5
2.7
51.2

6.0
2.8
56.4

6.2
2.8
60.0

7.1
3.0
68.6

6.7
2.8

6.5
2.8
-

6.4
2.8
-

6.0
2.6
-

5.6
2.5
-

5.2
2.4

4.9
2.2

4.9
2.2

4.6
2.2

-

-

T r a n s p o r t a t io n a n d p u b lic u tilitie s

Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases...................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
W h o le s a le a n d re ta il tra d e

Lost workday cases...................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................

Lost workday cases...................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
Retail trade:
Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
F in a n c e , in s u ra n c e , a n d re a l e s ta te

Lost workday cases...................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................
S e r v ic e s

Total cases...............................................................................
Lost workday cases...................................................................
Lost workdays............................................................................

1 Data for 1989 and subsequent years are based on the S ta n d a rd Industrial C la s s ­
1987 Edition. For this reason, they are not strictly comparable with data
for the years 1985-88, which were based on the S ta n d a rd Industrial C lassification
M a n u a l, 1972 Edition, 1977 Supplement.

N = number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays;
EH - total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year; and
200,000 - base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks
per year).

2 Beginning with the 1992 survey, the annual survey measures only nonfatal injuries and
illnesses, while past surveys covered both fatal and nonfatal incidents. To better address
fatalities, a basic element of workplace safety, BLS implemented the Census of Fatal
Occupational Injuries.

4 Beginning with the 1993 survey, lost workday estimates will not be generated. As of 1992,
BLS began generating percent distributions and the median number of days away from work
by industry and for groups of workers sustaining similar work disabilities.

ification M a n u a l,

3 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses or lost workdays per
100 full-time workers and were calculated as ÍN/EH1 X 200.000. where:


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

5 Excludes farms with fewer than 11 employees since 1976.
Note: Dash indicates data not available.

Monthly Labor Review

August 2004

125

Current Labor Statistics:

Injury and Illness

56. Fatal occupational injuries by event or exposure, 1997-2002
Fatalities
Event or exposure1

1997-2001
average

Total.......................................................

20012
Number

2002
Number

Percent

fi 0 3 8

? 593
1,421
697
126
254
148
300

T r a n s p o r t a t io n in c i d e n t s ................................................................

Highway in cid e n t ........................................................
Collision between vehicles, mobile equipment.......................
Moving in same direction......................................................
Moving in opposite directions, oncoming................................
Moving in intersection..........................................
Vehicle struck stationary object or equipment...........................
Noncollision incident....................................................
Jackknifed or overturned—no collision...................................
Nonhighway (farm, industrial premises) incident.........................
Overturned.........................................................
Aircraft..............................................................
Worker struck by a vehicle..............................................
Water vehicle.........................................................
Rail vehicle..............................................................

1,409

1,372

25

155
202
145

3
4
3

7P7

142
257
138
P97

369
300
368

3P6

202

158

164

3

99
68

90
62

71
64

6
1
1

964

Q 08

840

567
64
78
221

509
58
76
230

469
58
82
199

8
1
1
4

995
562
352
58
290
156
126

962
553
343
60
266
144
122

873
506
303
38
231
110
116

16
9
5
1
4
2
2

737
654
111
155
91
61

810
700
123
159
91
84

714
634
126
143
87
63

13
11
2
3
2
1

Contact with electric current..........................................................
Contact with overhead power lines..........................................
Contact with temperature extremes..............................................
Exposure to caustic, noxious, or allergenic substances...............
Inhalation of substances............................................................
Oxygen deficiency..........................................................
Drowning, submersion........................................................

529
291
134
41
106
52
89
71

499
285
124
35
96
49
83
59

538
289
122
60
98
49
90
60

10
5
2
1
2
1
2
1

F ir e s a n d e x p l o s i o n s ..........................................................................................

197

188

165

3

O t h e r e v e n t s o r e x p o s u r e s 3.............................................................................

21

24

13

-

P 48
3 8P

A s s a u l t s a n d v io l e n t a c t s .....................................................

Homicides............................................................
Shooting.........................................................
Stabbing.................................................................
Other, including bombing...............................................
Self-inflicted injuries...................................................................

70Q

C o n t a c t w it h o b j e c t s a n d e q u ip m e n t ...........................................

Struck by object..........................................................
Struck by falling object.......................................................
Struck by flying object............................................................
Caught in or compressed by equipment or objects......................
Caught in running equipment or machinery...............................
Caught in or crushed in collapsing materials................................
F a ll s .........................................................................................................

Fall to lower level...........................................................
Fall from ladder.........................................................................
Fall from roof........................................................................
Fall from scaffold, staging........................................................
Fall on same level......................................................................
E x p o s u r e t o h a r m f u l s u b s t a n c e s o r e n v ir o n m e n t s ....................

1 Based on the 1992

bls

Occupational Injury and Illness

Classification Structures.
The

bls

news release issued Sept. 25, 2002, reported a

total of 5,900 fatal work injuries for calendar year 2001. Since

3 Totals for 2001 exclude fatalities from the September 11
terrorist attacks.
3 Includes the category "Bodily reaction and exertion."
Note :

Totals for major categories may include sub-

then, an additional 15 job-related fatalities were identified,

categories not shown separately. Percentages may not add

bringing the total job-related fatality count for 2001 to 5,915.

to totals because of rounding. Dash indicates less than 0.5
percent.

126

Monthly Labor Review August 2004


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Where are you publishing
your research?
The

M o nth ly La b o r R eview

welcomes articles on the

labor force, labor-management relations, business
conditions, industry productivity, compensation,
occupational safety and health, demographic trends
and other economic developments. Papers should be
factual, and analytical, not polemical in tone.
Potential articles, as well as comments on
Q
ML

material published in the R eview , should be

m

submitted to:
Editor-in-Chief
M onthly Labor Review
Bureau of Labor Statistics
W ashington, DC 20212
Telephone: (202) 691-5900
E-mail: m lr@ bls.aov

Need more research, facts, and analysis?
Subscribe to Monthly Labor Review today!
United States Government

INFORMATION
Credit card orders are welcome!

Order Processing Code:

Fax your orders (202) 512-2250

*5551

Phone your orders (202)512-1800

□ YES, please send

.subscriptions to:

Monthly Labor Review (MLR) at $49 each ($68.60 foreign) per year.
The total cost of my order is $ __________ .

For privacy protection, check the box below:

Price includes regular shipping & handling and is subject to change.

□

Do not make my name available to other m ailers

Check method of payment:
Name or title

(Please type or print )

Company name

Room, floor, suite

□

Check payable to:

Superintendent of Documents

□ GPO Deposit Account

YD

Street address
City

State

Zip code +4

Daytime phone including area code

□ VISA

□ MasterCard

(expiration date)

Thank you for your order!

Purchase order number (optional)

Mail to:

Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954,
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

Important: Please include this completed order form with your
remittance.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

□ Discover

Authorizing signature

12/99

B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tistics
U .S . D e p a rtm e n t o f L a bor

The Editor’s Desk

M O S T H L V

LABOR

REVIEW
%

r

e d it o r s r D ? iih

Do you know TED1
“What’s TED T
We’re glad you asked. TED is The Editor's Desk, part of the
BLS Website. TED is a daily source of fascinating facts and
interesting information from BLS.
Each business day, The Editor's Desk:
• brings you fresh information from all over BLS
• highlights intriguing BLS data that you might otherwise miss
• focuses on one or two specific points, rather than presenting a
general summary
• provides links to further analysis
• gives you a way to send us your feedback
We think that if you give The Editor's Desk a few minutes a
day, within a week you’ll sound pretty clever about economics,
within a month you will be extremely well-informed about the
economy, and within a year you will be broadly educated in
economic statistics and labor economics.
If you’d like to know TED, visit The Editor's D esk webpage:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/
or c lick on The Editor's Desk link, under “P ublications & R esearch P apers,”
on the B L S hom epage: h ttp ://w w w .b ls.g o v /


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Obtaining information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office or topic
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Information services

Internet address

E-mail

http://www.bls.gov
http://www.bls.gov/opub/

blsdata_staff@ bis .gov

http://www.bls.gov/ces/
http://www.bls.gov/sae/

cesinfo@ bls.gov
data_sa@ bls.gov

http://www.bls.gov/cps/
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
http://www.bls.gov/oes/
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
http://www.bls.gov/nls/
http://www.bls.gov/jlt/

cpsinfo@ bls.gov
lausinfo@bls.gov
cewinfo@bls.gov
oesinfo@ bls.gov
mlsinfo@bls.gov
nls_info@ bls.gov
Joltsinfo@bls.gov

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/
http://www.bls.gov/ppi/
http://www.bls.gov/mxp/
http://www.bls.gov/cex/

cpi_info@bls.gov
ppi-info@bls.gov
mxpinfo@bls.gov
cexinfo@bls.gov

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/
http://ww' /.bls.gov/ebs/
http://www.bls.gov/ect/
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/
http://www.bls.gov/iif/
http://stats.bls.gov/iif/
http://www.bls.gov/cba/

ocltinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
ocltinfo@bls.gov
oshstaff@ bls.gov
cfoistaff@bls.gov
cbainfo@bls.gov

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/
http://www.bls.gov/lpc/
http://www.bls.gov/mfp/

dprweb@bls.gov
dipsweb@ bls.gov
dprweb@bls.gov

http://www.bls.gov/emp/
http://www.bls.gov/oco/

oohinfo@bls.gov
oohinfo@bls.gov

http://www.bls.gov/fls/

flshelp@bls.gov

http://www.bls.gov/ro4/
http://www.bls.gov/rol/
http://www.bls.gov/ro5/
http://www.bls.gov/ro6/
http://www.bls.gov/ro7/
http://www.bls.gov/ro2/
http://www.bls.gov/ro3/
http://www.bls.gov/ro9/

BLSinfoAtlanta@bls.gov
BLSinfoBoston@bls.gov
BLSinfoChicago@bls.gov
BLSinfoDallas@bls.gov
BLS infoKansasCity@ bis .gov
BLSinfoNY@bls.gov
BLSinfoPhiladelphia@bls.gov
BLSinfoSF@bls.gov

Employment and unemployment
Employment, hours, and earnings:
National
State and local
Labor force statistics:
National
Local
Ul-covered employment, wages
Occupational employment
Mass layoffs
Longitudinal data
Job openings and labor turnover

Prices and living conditions
Consumer price indexes
Producer price indexes)
Import and export price indexes
Consumer expenditures

Compensation and working conditions
National Compensation Survey:
Employee benefits
Employment cost trends
Occupational compensation
Occupational illnesses, injuries
Fatal occupational injuries
Collective bargaining

Productivity
Labor
Industry
Multifactor

Projections
Employment
Occupation

International
Regional centers
Atlanta
Boston
Chicago
Dallas
Kansas City
New York
Philadelphia
San Francisco

Other Federal statistical agencies


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

http://www.fedstats.gov/

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Postal Square Building, Rm. 2850
2 Massachusetts Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20212-0001

Periodicals
Postage and Fees Paid
U.S. Department of Labor
USPS 987-800

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Address Service Requested

Schedule of release dates for B L S statistical series
Series

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

Release
date

Period
covered

Employment situation

August 6

Ju ly

S e p te m b e r 3

A u g u st

O c to b e r 8

S e p te m b e r

Productivity and costs

A u g u s t 10

2 n d q u a rte r

S e p te m b e r 2

2 n d q u a rte r

U.S. Import and Export
Price Indexes

A u g u s t 12

Ju ly

S e p te m b e r 9

A u g u st

O c to b e r 14

S e p te m b e r

4 3 -4 7

Producer Price Indexes

A u g u s t 13

J u ly

S e p te m b e r 10

A u g u st

O c to b e r 15

S e p te m b e r

2; 4 0 -4 2

Consumer Price indexes

A u g u s t 17

Ju ly

S e p te m b e r 16

A u g u st

O c to b e r 19

S e p te m b e r

2; 3 7 -3 9

Real earnings

A u g u s t 17

Ju ly

S e p te m b e r 16

A u g u st

O c to b e r 19

S e p te m b e r

1 4 -1 6 , 29

O c to b e r 29

3rd q u a rte r

13; 3 0 -3 3

Employment Cost Indexes


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MLR table
number
1; 4 - 2 9
2; 4 8 -5 1