The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
RE FeJfraHeMlM n MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW In this issue: U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics December 1985 A special section on com parable worth Pensions today The 1985 MLR Annual Index jan i% m https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR William E. Brock, Secretary Regional Commissioners for Bureau of Labor Statistics Janet L. Norwood, Commissioner Region I— Boston: Anthony J. Ferrara 1603 John F. Kennedy Federal Building. Government Center. Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone: (617) 223-6761 Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont The Monthly Labor Review is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. Communications on editorial matters should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. 20212. Phone: (202) 523-1327. Region II— New York: Samuel M. Ehrenhalt 1515 Broadway, Suite 3400, New York. N Y. 10036 Phone: (212) 944-3121 New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Virgin Islands BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Subscription price per year—$24 domestic: $30 foreign. Single copy $4, domestic; $5 foreign. Subscription prices and distribution policies for the Monthly Labor Review (ISSN 0098-1818) and other Government publications are set by the Government Printing Office, an agency of the U.S. Congress. Send correspondence on circulation and subscription matters (including address changes) to: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents. The Secretary of Labor has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of this Department. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget through April 30, 1987. Second-class postage paid at Washington, D.C. and at additional mailing addresses. Region III— Philadelphia: Alvin I Margulls 3535 Market Street P.O. Box 13309. Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Phone: (215) 596-1154 Delaware District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Region IV— Atlanta: Donald M. Cruse 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30367 Phone: (404) 881-4418 Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Region V—Chicago: Lois L. Orr 9th Floor, Federal Office Building, 230 S. Dearborn Street. Chicago, III. 60604 Phone: (312) 353-1880 Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Region VI— Dallas: Bryan Richey Federal Building, Room 221 525 Griffin Street, Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: (214) 767-6971 Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas December cover: “ Old St. Lazare Station, Paris,” a 1877 painting by Claude Monet, from THE NEW PAINTING: IMPRESSIONISM 1874-1886, an exhibition of 135 impressionist paintings to be displayed at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., from January 17 through April 6, 1986; photograph courtesy National Gallery. Cover design by Melvin Moxley. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regions VII and VIII— Kansas City: Elliott A. Browar 911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: (816) 374-2481 VII Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska VIII Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming Regions IX and X— San Francisco: Sam M. Hirabayashi 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36017, San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: (415) 556-4678 IX American Samoa Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands X Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW DECEMBER 1985 VOLUME 108, NUMBER 12 Henry Lowenstern, Editor-in-Chief Robert W. Fisher, Executive Editor A SPECIAL SECTION ON COMPARABLE WORTH Janet L. Norwood 3 Perspectives on comparable worth: an introduction to the data Reports presented to a national conference of statisticians point up the many facets of the comparable worth issue and suggest directions for conducting future research Carolyn Shaw Bell 5 Comparable worth: how do we know it will work? The debate over comparable worth obscures the lack of consensus on the definition and goals of such a policy, and of the data required for informed decisionmaking Karen Shallcross Koziara 13 Comparable worth: organizational dilemmas One analyst explores the political, economic, and social implications of comparable worth for public and private employers and labor groups Sandra E. Gleason 17 Comparable worth: some questions still unanswered We know the issues surrounding a national policy and the groups most likely to be affected by implementation but cannot quantify possible costs and benefits OTHER ARTICLES Donald G. Schmitt 19 Today’s pension plans: how much do they pay? Based on 1983 pay of $15,000, 30-year employees of medium and large firms retiring on January 1, 1984, at age 65 would have received monthly pensions averaging $385 S. L. King, H. B. Williams 26 Shift work pay differentials and practices in manufacturing Most of the late-shift workers receive premium pay for such schedules; however, shift differentials pay has not increased as rapidly as basic day-shift wage levels B. L. Friedman, A. S. Herman 34 Productivity growth low in the oilfield machinery industry Output per employee hour increased an average of only 1.2 percent annually in the oilfield machinery industry from 1967 to 1983, with output proving cyclical REPORTS Lawrence J. Fulco 39 The decline in productivity in the first half of 1985 Tadd Linsenmayer 43 ILO adopts new standards on health services, labor data https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis DEPARTMENTS 2 39 43 46 48 49 51 55 95 Labor month in review Productivity reports Foreign labor developments Research summaries Major agreements expiring next month Developments in industrial relations Book reviews Current labor statistics Index to volume 108 Labor M onth In Review JOB SAFETY. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported results of its annual survey of work-related injuries and ill nesses. Collected in 1985, the data show that occupational injuries and illnesses increased during 1984 among industries surveyed. Eight incidents of injury or ill ness were reported for every 100 full time workers, a rate of 8.0, compared with a 7.6 rate in 1983. The number of injuries and illnesses rose to 5.4 million in 1984 from 4.9 million in 1983. This over-the-year in crease of 11.7 percent was in contrast to the 6.6-percent increase in hours of ex posure which resulted from increased employment and hours during the sec ond year of the current economic recovery. In 1984, the number of incidences of injuries and illnesses serious enough to result in lost workdays was 3.7 per 100 workers, up from 3.4 in 1983. The number of workdays lost by such in cidents averaged 63.4 per 100 full-time workers in 1984 and 58.5 in 1983. Authorized by the Occupational Safe ty and Health Act, the survey represents all employers except the self-employed; farmers with fewer than 11 employees; private households; railroads; coal, metal, and nonmetal mining employers; government agencies; and employers with fewer than 11 employees in low-risk industries. F ata lities. In p riv a te i ndus t r y establishments with 11 employees or more, 3,740 job-related deaths were recorded. As in previous years, accidents on the road, with cars and trucks, ac counted for more than one-fourth of these deaths. The remainder resulted from various other causes, including heart attack, falls, accidents with in dustrial vehicles, and electrocutions. Occupational injuries. Work-related in juries occurred at a rate of 7.8 per 100 2 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis full-time workers in 1984. The injury rate, which had been in the double-digit range a decade ago, dropped to 8.8 in 1975 and then rose to 9.2 in 1978 and 1979. The rate dropped steadily each year after that to a low of 7.5 in 1983 and then rose 0.3 point in 1984. The number of workers employed and the hours they worked varied from year-toyear as did the mix of experienced and inexperienced workers and the propor tion of those employed in high-and lowhazard industries. In 1984, injury rates rose in all the in dustry divisions except for agriculture and for finance, insurance, and real estate. The rates ranged from a low of 1.9 in finance, insurance, and real estate to a high of 15.4 in construction. Goodsproducing industries (agriculture, min ing, construction, and manufacturing) had the highest rates, 11.0 per 100 full time workers for the sector. As might be expected, the services-producing sector (services, trade, transportation and public utilities, and finance, insurance, and real estate) had a lower rate, 6.0. The number of injuries was 5.3 million, compared with 4.7 million in 1983. About 60 percent of the rise in in jury cases was in the goods-producing sector. An increase in mining injuries was primarily in oil and gas extraction and an increase in construction injuries was mainly among general building and special trade contractors. Fabricated metal products, machinery, electrical and electronic equipment, and transpor tation equipment had most of the in crease in manufacturing cases. The number of injuries in the servicesproducing sector rose about 237,000 in 1984. About 60 percent of this increase came from seven industries—trucking and warehousing, air transportation, wholesale trade-durable goods, food stores, eating and drinking places, hotels and motels, and business services. As in the past, workplaces with 100 to 249 employees recorded the highest in cidence rates. The rate for this group was 11.1 per 100 full-time workers, com pared with 5.4 in establishments with 2,500 workers or more and 3.6 in establishments with fewer than 20 workers. Occupational illnesses. An occupational illness is defined as any abnormal condi tion or disorder, other than one resulting from an occupational injury, caused by exposure to environmental factors associated with employment. Acute and chronic illnesses or diseases which may be caused by inhalation, absorption, in gestion, or direct contact are included. Occupational illnesses measured in the survey cover the number of new illness cases recorded during the year. The survey does not measure continuing con ditions reported in previous years. About 124,800 occupational illnesses were recorded in 1984. The number of skin diseases and disorders associated with repeated trauma (noise-induced hearing loss and other conditions caused by repeated motion, pressure, or vibra tion) together accounted for 3 of 5 ill nesses. Occupational illnesses estimated in the survey provide a valid measure of recognized acute cases, but do not ade quately reflect that portion of occupa tional illnesses which are chronic and which develop over a long period. Background of survey. In 1985, approx imately 280,000 private sector employers were surveyed. Response is mandatory. To calculate estimates for the total private sector, bls uses data provided by the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration. □ Perspectives on comparable worth: an introduction to the numbers Reports presented before a national conference o f statisticians point up the many facets o f the comparable worth issue and suggest directions fo r future research Janet L. N orwood Comparable worth is a concept that has thrived on statistical evidence. Both reliable and unreliable statistics have been used by people on all sides— those for or against the con cept, and even those who want to prove that comparable worth is either a non-issue or the wrong issue to be ad dressed. Whatever position is taken, statistics are invariably an important component of any comparable worth discus sion. What do the latest data show? Trends in two of the most widely used data series on individual earnings reveal that the gap between men and women has been narrowing grad ually over the past few years. Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the Current Popu lation Survey show that women working full time in the first quarter of 1985 had median wage and salary earnings of $268 a week, 66 percent of the $404 earned by men. In 1979, when bls first began publishing weekly earnings data on a quarterly basis, women’s median earnings were 62 percent of men’s earnings. Over the last 6 years, the earnings ratio has fluctuated between 61 percent and 67 percent from quarter to quarter, but the trend generally has been up. A similar pattern is found in the older cps series on yearround, full-time earnings of all workers. Preliminary data Janet L. Norwood is Commissioner of Labor Statistics. This article is adapted from her introductory remarks on the comparable worth issue presented at the Annual Meetings o f the American Statistical Association, Las Vegas, n v , Aug. 6, 1985. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis for 1984 indicate women’s earnings of around $14,810, or 64 percent of the $23,225 earned by men. In 1980, the ratio was 60 percent; in 1970, it was 59 percent; and in 1960, it was 61 percent. Obviously, these ratios based on annual aggregate data at the national level fluctuate from year to year. But, like the newer quarterly earnings series, they illustrate that the overall male-female earnings gap has nar rowed somewhat during the last few years. Observations based on these aggregate national data are just the beginning, cps microdata permit us to dig beneath these aggregate levels and to show how female-male dif ferences vary by occupation, hours of work, education, race, family status, and a great many other characteristics. Very often, the statistical modeling based on microdata “ adjusts” for these variables, and the pay gap is reduced considerably. That the pay gap is indeed narrower than the aggregate measure indicates is confirmed by the bls occupational wage surveys of business establishments. Using wage data from one of these surveys (the survey of professional, adminis trative, technical, and clerical occupations), a bls study published last year demonstrated that the average pay of men in a selected group of narrowly defined white-collar occupations generally exceeded the pay of women in those occupations.1 But the differences nearly disappeared when each occupation was broken down into its component levels based on skill and experience. That is, men and women were paid about the same wages at each level of the specific job, but a much smaller proportion of women were senior 3 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Perspectives on Comparable Worth level employees. Consequently, the average pay figure for women in each occupation was pulled down by the large proportion of women in the lower level jobs. In many of the professions, the concentration of women in lower level jobs reflects, in part, the well-documented increase in the number and proportion of women who en tered the labor force during the 1970’s and early 1980’s, as well as the greatly increased number who have received professional degrees. In the field of accounting, for ex ample, 14 percent of entry-level workers were women in 1970, compared with 46 percent in 1981. Some people believe that, as women move up in their professions, pay differences with men are bound to decline. Others are convinced that supply and demand factors will keep women from advancing. And, despite the evidence of National Longitudinal Survey data on the cohort of mature women (ages 45-59), which show that over a recent 15year period (1967-82), women’s taste for the labor market was up and for housework was down, some observers be lieve that the currently high labor force participation rates of women are a temporary phenomenon. Women’s commitment to the job market is stronger today than at any time in the last 35 years, or in fact, at any time in this century. The civilian labor force includes about 51 million women, or about 44 percent of the total of 115 million workers. And most of today’s working women, just as in the past, either work full time, or are looking for full time jobs. An average of 20 to 25 percent are employed part-time. The problem is that, despite women’s increasing em ployment, they remain concentrated in relatively few, lowpaying job categories. About one-fourth of all women work 4 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ers today can be found in just three job categories out of hundreds-secretarial/typing, retail sales, and food prepa ration and service. This is not to say they are not entering some higher-paying occupations. Women are now 6 percent of all engineers, 16 percent of all physicians, and in the growing computer field, 30 percent of all systems analysts and 35 percent of all programmers. Corresponding estimates for 1974 were 1 percent, 10 percent, 13 percent, and 23 percent, respectively. As the following articles demonstrate, the comparable worth issue is a multidimensional one that continues to be hotly debated in both the public and private sectors. It is on the legislative agendas of many local and State govern ments, and at the Federal level, an advisory group on com parable worth has been proposed. The debate is even international in scope. For instance, many readers may already be familiar with the Australian and Canadian versions of comparable worth. Even within such global agencies as the Organization for Economic Co operation and Development and the United Nations, female employees— including statisticians— have been examining their own pay rates vis-à-vis those of male employees. A great deal of comparable worth activity now centers on the job classification area. But good statistical estimates and their analysis still form the basis for discussion and debate. The articles that follow describe the results of several such efforts undertaken in recent years by experts in the field of pay equity. □ ---------- FOOTNOTE---------'S ee Mark Sieling, “ Staffing patterns prominent in female-male earn ings gap,’’ Monthly Labor Review, June 1984, pp. 2 9 -3 3 . Comparable worth: how do we know it will work? The debate over comparable worth obscures the lack o f consensus on the definition and goals o f such a policy, and o f data fo r informed decisionmaking Carolyn S haw B ell The title of this article poses a question to which there is a very short answer. We don’t. We are completely unable to predict the outcomes of an effective comparable worth pol icy, whether mandated by law or adopted by private deci sionmakers. Our ignorance stems from the lack of data with which to build a viable economic model. The issue is, of course, too new for historical evidence or even case studies to provide much help. The dearth of useful data is due primarily to the fact that comparable worth itself comprises several different issues. Most of these issues have, in fact, emerged from analyzing statistics gathered for other purposes. But comparable worth has frequently been proposed as a solution without clearly defining the problem, partly because of insufficient data, and partly because of insufficient analysis of existing data. The following discussion will elaborate on these state ments. It concludes that efforts to design data collecting systems or even to tabulate and amass those data that already exist lag behind efforts to litigate and legislate comparable worth. It is highly likely, therefore, that comparable worth as a policy will be adopted or rejected on the basis of factors other than reasoned analysis. Defining comparable worth The term “ comparable worth” is difficult to define. Whatever it is, the concept emerged after the passage of the Carolyn Shaw Bell is Katharine Coman Professor o f Economics at W elles ley College. This article is adapted from a paper she presented at the Annual Meetings o f the American Statistical Association, Las Vegas, NV, Aug. 6, 1985. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the act makes it an unlawful employment practice for any employer to discrim inate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII specifically mentions hiring and discharge, compensation and conditions of employment, and the lim iting of opportunities for employment. Nowhere in the 1964 act, or in the legislative history preceding its passage, or in its predecessor, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, was the term comparable worth mentioned or its essence discussed in other ways. So the concept did not originate with Title VII, whether or not it can be justified by that legislation. Rather, the notion of comparable worth emerges from a specific interpretation of statistical esti mates. These estimates show a significant and continuing disparity between men’s wages and women’s wages, and between the wages of blacks and whites. The data describe an existing condition, which the use of comparable worth seeks to remedy. It must be noted at once that most dis cussions move from simple descriptive statistics to com parable worth as the remedy with little attempt at analyzing the data, assessing their applicability, or rigorously defining the problem. Examples of the difficulties in defining comparable worth and its aims abound in the press. When the issue arose during the 1984 Presidential campaign, one political writer identified the concept as “ a means of raising the income of working women.” 1 More recently, however, another com mentator defined comparable worth as a ‘ ‘practice . . . de signed to increase the pay of workers in female-dominated fields such as nursing to a level of men in a field requiring comparable labor.” 2 5 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Will Comparable Worth Work? These two quotations share one characteristic: they both report comparable worth as a solution to a problem. But they identify different problems. One view, widely held, sees comparable worth as a remedy for low incomes and growing poverty among women. Another suggests that com parable worth is the remedy for the earnings differential between male jobs and female jobs. Proponents of both rely on statistics to describe the problem. The case for comparable worth as a remedy for poverty among women is a very general or macroeconomic state ment referring to women in aggregate. Thus, those who seek to remedy such poverty quote data on earnings of women compared to men and, most frequently, the familiar figure that full-time year-round workers who are female earn about 60 percent as much as their male counterparts. They then explicitly or implicitly translate these earnings figures into income.3 The preponderance of low incomes among women can be found in many different sets of statistics. To advocate comparable worth as a means of raising these incomes, however, often rests on the premise that discrimination against women exists in the workplace. The same assertion is re quired in the other line of advocacy, which sees comparable worth as a remedy not so much for poverty as for differences in wages. This second notion of comparable worth has frequently been called “ pay equity” and proposes to do away with obvious and sometime noteworthy differentials in wages between occupations. Again, statistical evidence can be quoted at length. However, unlike the estimates cited in support of comparable worth as a general remedy for poverty among women, these data refer to one market and, hence, constitute the microeconomic approach. The use of data on interoccupational wage disparity can be illustrated by testimony before a 1984 Congressional hearing that contrasted monthly salaries for city or State government workers in various job classifications— for ex ample, a senior carpenter at $1,080 and a senior legal sec retary at $665, or a senior accounting clerk at $836 in pay and a streetsweeper at $758.4 Jobs paying higher wages were found to be held almost exclusively by men, with women dominating the lower-wage jobs. Again, the pro posed remedy (without any very careful delineation of the problem) was to implement comparable worth in determin ing wages. Is discrimination the culprit? The discrimination charge also rests on statistical evi dence. First, occupational data from the Bureau of the Cen sus, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other public and private sources have been tabulated to show the percentages of males and females in various jobs, which can then be classified as male-dominated (or male-intensive), femaledominated, or neutral. Exactly what percentage of jobholders in an occupation 6 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis must be of the same sex for it to be sex-typed is not often discussed, and yet this is a good example of the kind of analysis that needs to be undertaken. Because women make up about half the labor force, one could argue that the only “ neutral” occupations are those with between 45 percent and 55 percent female jobholders. But because women make up less than half the full-time labor force, this definition can be disputed. Other rules for sex-typing of jobs can easily be devised; the point is that insufficient research has been done to establish general agreement on this rather simple point. It is also true that substantial movement of women between men’s and women’s jobs occurs.5 Notwithstanding, comparable worth advocates and op ponents alike refer to “ men’s jobs” and women’s jobs.” Of course, these terms have also been used for years by anthropologists, historians, and other observers of various cultures and of the division of labor between the sexes. What is at issue is an attempt to use statistics to turn this condition into a problem and to advocate comparable worth measures as a solution. Following the sex-typing of jobs, the pay disparity ar gument turns to the data on wages and earnings in each occupation. Most arrays find women’s jobs at the low end of the pay scale with men’s jobs at the upper end, and some remarkably persuasive inverse correlations between the pro portion of jobholders who are female and the level of earn ings have been calculated. There are then two ways by which to conclude that dis crimination exists. One is to assume that women are being confined to the lower-wage jobs. The other is to hold that women tend to enter certain occupations, and that those jobs pay less because they are “ female jobs.” Both arguments can be found in the literature, although they have different implications with respect to the remedy of comparable worth, defined in this case as pay equity.6 If discrimination exists because women are crowded into low-paying jobs, then the immediate remedy would appear to be removal of the barriers to their employment in highpaying occupations; presumably, this remedy was made available by Title VII. The argument for the new remedy of comparable worth rests on the charge that Title VII has not worked, and that not enough progress in job integration has occurred since the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. Thus, something stronger than merely making discrimina tion illegal is needed, something like an adjustment of wages. If, on the other hand, the discrimination exists because all jobs held predominately by women (for whatever reason) are paid less than all jobs held predominately by men be cause women’s work is valued less, then removing obstacles to employment would not have any effect. Indeed, evidence exists that, as formerly male jobs (stenographers at the turn of the century and bank tellers during the postwar years) have become almost exclusively female, relative pay levels for those occupations have fallen. It follows, according to this line of reasoning, that it will do no good to admit women ¡ to men’s jobs, that what is needed is to raise the prevailing low levels of pay for female jobs. Hence, the need for comparable worth. The search for the “just price” This argument comes close to implying that work has an intrinsic or innate value, quite apart from the monetary wage it commands in the labor market. Such a notion is neither statistically demonstrable nor part of any economic theory, representing instead a philosophical and particularly ethical approach to the question of production and income. Some times it is made explicit: “ People who are in lifesaving, life-molding people jobs such as nursing and teaching are repeatedly told through their paychecks that their work is less important than occupations which deal with machines or dollars.” 7 A radical interpretation states, “ If the discus sion of what makes work worthy is extended to the grass roots, we may well determine that all jobs are equally wor thy. We may decide that workers in unskilled, routinized jobs may be doing the hardest work of all, for such work saps and denies their very humanity.” 8 As more than one critic has pointed out, such reasoning is reminiscent of the medieval notion of a “just price.” Once the term “ equity” is introduced, whether by ethicists deciding what is deserving, or by philosophers deter mining what basic, inherent value exists in work, or by legislators or lobbyists pushing for specific reform, the term “ fair” comes into wide use. It has respectable antecedents: the country has a Fair Labor Standards Act, public utilities are regulated to allow a fair return on their investors’ capital, and most tax reform proposals aim to make the system more fair. Nonetheless, the word “ fair” makes both statisticians and economists uneasy, because no one knows how to de fine it. For advocates of comparable worth who argue for pay equity, “ fairness” consists of the wages paid to men. That is, if women’s jobs are to be paid according to their true value, following the ethical argument, they should be paid as much as men’s jobs. If women’s wages are depressed because of occupational segregation, following the argu ment that finds discrimination responsible for sex-typed jobs, then they should be raised to the level of men’s wages. Such equalization of wage rates would itself promote more in tegration of jobs. Finally, following the argument that seeks to remedy feminine poverty, if women are poor because they can only work at low-paying jobs, then they will not be poor if they earn as much as men doing equivalent work. The three arguments for comparable worth so far examined do not anywhere urge a reduction of men’s wages, or even splitting the difference. It is this de facto definition of “ fair,” this equation be tween equity and raising wages for women, that leads some major actors in the arena to abandon the term comparable worth altogether. So, there is one more interpretation to consider. It is the phrase “ sex-based wage discrimination,” https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and constitutes the most narrow of all the comparisons be tween men and women in the workplace. The clearest ex ponent of this approach is probably Winn Newman, the attorney who has represented the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (afscme) in law suits and complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and testified before Congres sional committees and various State investigating boards. He explains: Basically, comparable worth is not the issue that should be in volved in any o f these discussions. Discrimination is the issue. The law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimi nation in compensation on the basis o f sex or race, and we know also that law does not refer to, discuss or even contain the words “ comparable worth.” Comparable work and pay equity have become popular but not legal terms and indeed (are) now being used as a red herring, if you will, to avoid the issue of sex-based wage discrimination.9 This argument is narrow because, first, it refers only to the decisions made by the individual employer. It does not compare the wages of beauticians and barbers via census occupational data, but rather the wages of all men employed by a given enterprise with those of all the women there employed. The issue is not one of determining the innate value or worth of any particular job, whether held by men or women, but of looking at the pattern of wages across all jobs. As often happens, reference is made to the 1981 Su preme Court decision in the case of County o f Washington v. Gunther, although, unfortunately, that decision was itself taken on extremely narrow grounds. Newman, however, argues that: The Supreme Court found that if a differential in pay results in whole or in part from sex discrimination, such wage differential is illegal if the skill, effort and responsibility of the different “ male” and “ female” jobs is equal or if the difference in skills, effort and responsibility does not support the amount o f the dif ferential. 10 The various legal actions brought under the heading of sex-based wage determination also rely heavily on statistical evidence. There may be a statistical analysis of wages show ing a pattern of women’s pay rates being consistently below men’s, or a statistically significant inverse correlation be tween salary and the percentage of employees in a given position who are women. Or there may be resort to job eval uation techniques, which also rely on statistical methods. Á look at the statistics There have now been distinguished four different mean ings of the term “ comparable worth,” each of which uses statistical data to describe the issue, and each of which proposes the same remedy, namely an increase in the wages of jobs held by women. These are the arguments that female poverty represents discrimination resulting in low earnings; that different occupations pay higher or lower wages ac7 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Will Comparable Worth Work? cording to whether they are male-dominated or female-dom inated, and that such sex segregation represents discrimination; that jobs dominated by women pay low wages because wom en’s work is not properly valued; or that a particular em ployer may set wages so as to discriminate against women in all jobs. Each of these issues can be clarified by using more specific statistics, but sufficient data to settle the ar gument one way or another do not exist. The first issue is that of female poverty. The number of poor in the United States began to decline in the early 1960’s, dropping about 11 million persons between 1959 and 1968. The decrease consisted almost entirely of men; the number of poor families headed by men declined from 6.4 million to 3.3 million.11 Over the same period, the number of married women in the labor force rose by 4.6 million, increasing their labor force participation rate from 30.9 percent to 38.3 percent.12 Clearly, the larger number of two-earner families meant a smaller number of poor families. The percentage of families at or below the poverty level supported by women rose during the 1960’s, and beginning in 1970, there was a sharp and continuing rise in the number of such families as well. The result is that, as of 1983, the number of poor families supported by women was roughly equal to the number of poor families headed by men, al though the poverty rate for the latter was only one-third of that of the former. In that year, 47 percent of all poor families were maintained by women and 62 percent of the needy without families were women.13 So there is no ar gument about the “ feminization of poverty” ; it clearly has taken place. The first useful clarification of this issue distinguishes income (poverty-level or otherwise) from earnings, and notes the existence of other types of income received, particularly transfer payments. First, families with two earners became more common between 1959 and 1983: During the 1960’s, when poverty declined by about one-third, the number of one-earner poor families headed by men was cut by more than one-half.14 By 1983, only 10 million families contained only one worker and 2.3 million of these were poor. Almost half (47 percent) were families maintained by women.15 Even in families supported by only one worker, income is often not equal to earnings, because property income and various types of pensions, income assistance, or other trans fer payments also exist.16 One type of transfer, means-tested government cash and noncash benefits, was received by 11 percent of all families that had one worker or more with no one unemployed in the first quarter of 1984; among families supported by working women in which no one was un employed, 44 percent received such aid in addition to thenwages.17 But, clearly, the absence of a spouse plays a pri mary role in determining poverty. For women who maintain families, the scantiness, both in frequency and amount, of child support payments has now been documented by pe riodic studies which show, among other things, that in about 8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 13 percent of such cases poor families would not be poor if absent fathers made the child support payments awarded or agreed to.18 Obviously, such support payments amount to only a fraction of what the family would receive were there another earner present. Quite aside from the prospect of having two earners, the presence of another adult (preferably a spouse) can enhance the earnings capacity of the sole support of the family. When child care can be shared, more job opportunities become available, and workers can spend more hours on the job. Earnings reflect not only wage rates but hours worked, and the poverty of single mothers arises partially from a scarcity of hours available for work.19 The time constraints affect not only employment potential but also availability for ed ucation or training that would allow advancement in the labor market. Finally, government income maintenance pro grams themselves impose constraints on the earnings of women supporting families, including criteria designating an earnings threshold when more than one type of public assistance is received, which add to the discrepancy between earnings and income. In short, the existing cross-sectional data suggest that it is the state of being single with a family to support that results in poverty as much as any other factor, such as earning low wages. This conclusion has been reinforced by longitudinal data showing that a marital breakup reduces income for the women and children involved by about 10 percent annually, with no similar impact on the men. In light of the highly complex reasons for poverty among women, those who advocate comparable worth as a means of improving the welfare of the poor offer a simplistic, and probably misguided, solution. It is not clear that raising wages would help either the working or nonworking poor, for whom the constraints on employment would be unaf fected. Perhaps more importantly, the advocates of com parable worth as a means of reducing poverty among women implicitly shift a parental responsibility away from men to women. The case for equity surely requires that both parents support children, rather than that children be lifted out of poverty by changing their mothers’ wage rates. A more equitable remedy for female poverty than comparable worth would be effective action in collecting financial support from absent fathers. The second argument in favor of comparable worth, that there is an occupation-based pay differential between men and women, can also be clarified by wider use of existing statistical data, particularly more specific details on both wages and occupations. The average earnings estimates commonly used to derive female-male earnings differences are very general statistics. They are influenced by, and yet tend to mask, the diverse micro level observations that make them up. Thus, because there has been a steady increase in the percentage of women in the labor force, the earnings average for all women is depressed by data for the high proportion of new workers earning entry-level wages. Sim- ilarly, the wages of older women clearly reflect their much more limited opportunities at the time they entered the labor market. The aggregated estimates can be refined for analysis in many ways: using weekly rather than annual earnings, using weekly earnings adjusted for hours worked per week, using people of the same age, adjusting for experience as well as age, and, finally, using data for different occupations rather than combining all the people who work for a living into one of two groups depending on their sex. Studies have shown that each of these refinements reduces the estimated gap between what men and women earn. Primarily, however, as Commissioner of Labor Statistics Janet L. Norwood has pointed out, “ Women in general earn less than men today and much of the difference is because the jobs that women hold are generally paid at lower rates than the jobs held by men. ’’20 That finding, of course, forms the basis for the two arguments for pay equity: one, that women are crowded into female occupations and hence re ceive lower pay, and the other, that what women do, what ever their occupation, is valued less than the work of men. Here again, however, the term “ occupation” can be de scribed in both broad and narrow terms. In the 1980 Standard Occupational Classification of the Census, 13 major occupational groups contain 503 cate gories. About 60 percent are male-intensive, that is, with 20 percent or fewer jobs held by women. Using this clas sification scheme, a decrease in segregation occurred be tween 1970 and 1980: more people were employed in “ neutral” occupations and fewer men and women were employed in occupations dominated by their sex.21 Each of these occupational categories, however, remains very broad. For example, more than half a million people are employed as assemblers, as manufacturing inspectors, as packers and wrappers, or as sewers and stitchers. Obviously, each of these categories includes jobs varying widely in skill re quirements, industry location, and rates of pay.22 Other data exist, however, to give an even finer break down of occupations, and the results show the earnings gap to be much smaller within narrowly defined categories than in the 2- or 3-digit groupings most commonly used. Thus, the female-male pay ratio for clerical and kindred workers, on the basis of average weekly earnings, was 68 percent in 1982. But the ratio of female to male pay on a monthly salary basis in 1981 ranged from 84 percent to 94 percent for four grades of accounting clerks.23 When data are gath ered from the same establishment, the averages calculated for each occupation turn out to be very widely dispersed. Furthermore, the gap between men and women does not always appear, and in some cases the female-male ratio exceeds 100.24 This kind of research also confirms the extent to which women work in fewer occupations, largely dominated by their own sex, than do men. As finer and finer occupational classifications are explored, subsets of male-dominated or female-dominated jobs appear. Thus, within the legal https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis profession a smaller percentage of women enter criminal law than civil practice, and in the economics profession women are underrepresented in the areas of macro theory and international economics. Other examples exist else where: psychiatry and pediatrics for women physicians, but urology and surgery for men; teaching rather than research for most female scientists of any specialty; and for female statisticians, applied statistics more than research or man agement.25 Finally, when jobholders are classified by rank within a narrowly defined occupation, the earnings gap narrows ap preciably, with the ratio rising to 100 frequently and with instances of women being paid more than men in the same occupation and rank. However, the percentage of women at high ranks generally is small, suggesting that if occu pational segregation disappears with more detailed defini tions of occupation, segregation by status or rank may remain. The phenomenon has been noted generally in business. Only one female chief executive officer currently is found among the Fortune 500 group of firms, and one researcher was forced to expand the universe for a study of women exec utives to the Fortune 1000 list after the smaller group of firms yielded too few cases. People in academia also know about this phenomenon: fewer than 100 women in the coun try hold the rank of professor of economics, although several thousand instructors, lecturers, and assistant professors of economics are female. This may be viewed as another type of discrimination, in which women have been excluded from positions of authority, or it may be regarded simply as the natural outcome of recent entry of women into hitherto exclusively male fields, where it takes time to rise to the top. Although this kind of statistical analysis has been widely available for some years, with various studies providing evidence about the extreme complexity in any description of the male-female earnings gap, no neat and persuasive summary has appeared that explains away, in toto, the pos sibility of discrimination against women through either oc cupational segregation or denial of opportunities or promotion. On the contrary, the outcome for serious students has been a search for more and better data. The advocates of com parable worth, on the other hand, rarely refer to any of these studies, and when they do, tend to dismiss them as partial or imperfect (which of course they are) and as having no relevance for the movement to raise women’s wages to the level of men’s pay. A case-by-case approach needed? Nonetheless, the argument for pay equity to remedy dis crimination clearly requires more data to clear up all the details. Why do the percentages of men and women in sextyped occupations vary by region? Waiters and bartenders, bus drivers, and real estate agents illustrate this question; data to answer it are not available. Presumably, comparable worth determinations would have to differ by region, and 9 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Will Comparable Worth Work? perhaps locality, if the “ maleness” or “ femaleness” of a given job varies across the country. The inevitable conclusion is that any remedy has to be applied on a case-by-case basis, and that the facts of each case may, and probably will, differ for all the reasons so far discussed and many not mentioned. It is for this reason that the last definition of comparable worth, which eschews the phrase altogether, insists that the issue is sex-based wage discrimination. The data clearly show that the male-female earnings gap differs widely across employers when jobs are defined as precisely as possible, and therefore the pattern of wages for each employer must be analyzed. Not sur prisingly, most of the action is taking place within city, county, and State governments, and through union-man agement negotiations. Sociologists and institutional economists have identified the various ways in which a workplace, or an employing enterprise, has a culture of its own which determines the internal operations of the firm to a considerable degree. Clearly, some companies have been more responsive than others to affirmative action, or to demands for greater safety both in the plant and in the community. So, the goal of eliminating sex-based wage discrimination will have more appeal to some than to others, and the action taken will reflect the internal socio-political environment. Should the study of a specific organization reveal a “ pat tern of disparities in wages between male and female jobs,” 26 the remedy called for is not a blanket raising of women’s wages to equal those of men, but rather an evaluation of the requirements for, and duties of, all positions in the organization. Just as the issue has narrowed progressively through this discussion from one of comparable worth to one of sex-based wage discrimination, so the remedy called for is also much narrower. In such cases, what can be said about the likelihood of success? In short, will the job eval uation and wage adjustment remedy work for a single em ployer bent on removing wage discrimination? The labor market is not perfect The final issue to be considered in this dissection of the meaning of comparable worth has to do with the argument offered by opponents. This states that, even if a job eval uation scheme finds two jobs identical in terms of skill, effort, responsibilities, and working conditions, so that equal wages should be paid, it may be impossible to recruit suf ficient labor in a particular local market without offering a pay premium for one job. (This implies, of course, that those searching for jobs would not regard the two jobs as equal even if they have been so designated by the evaluation scheme.) Opponents go on to argue that, if the market prevails over wages determined by job evaluations, the market also will prevail over any attempt to raise women’s wages to those of men. The various expositions nearly always refer to hy pothetical cases at the macro level: a rise in unemployment, 10 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis unemployment rates, and a decline of labor force partici pation among women are shown, by a familiar demand/ supply model, to result from “ interference” with market forces. Too, there have been some references to the rise in female unemployment in Australia after the 1972 decision to implement equal pay for females, although a more ex tensive investigation of foreign experience casts doubt on such simplistic reasoning.27 As all economists recognize, “ the market” as a wage setting device fairly bristles with imperfections. Information and mobility are limited, a single employer or a powerful union may successfully interfere with either demand or sup ply, and custom may or may not have a strong influence. Even so, critics of the job evaluation remedy see the external market as all-powerful, ignoring any peculiarities of ad ministrative wage-setting. This far-fetched notion disregards the existence of the internal labor market of any organization with two or more employees. The internal wage-setting mechanisms of firms, government agencies, not-for-profit institutions, or any other employer are so shrouded in mys tery that no appeal to “ market force” makes any sense. One of the first (and best) analysts of so-called internal labor markets is Francine Blau, whose empirical work built on the work of John Dunlop and others in the early 1970’s.28 Since her work appeared in 1978, other research has illu minated the idiosyncratic pay practices of a wide assortment of employers and industries. Nonetheless, all this work has not prevented continued invocation of “ the labor market” as an impersonal but overriding force which ultimately determines wages, despite the behavior of individual em ployers. Any argument relating market forces to wage-setting pol icies must also recognize situations in which interference with supply and demand has been not only permitted but widely supported by the public and by labor market partic ipants. Minimum prices exist in product markets, as do minimum wages in labor markets. Many labor markets allow higher wages to be paid for seniority without regard to supply and demand, and seniority rules also frequently gov ern layoffs and other conditions of employment. Veterans’ preference interferes with demand and supply, as when past military service is considered in determining eligibility for Government jobs. A somewhat different example exists in certain academic institutions, where faculty are paid on a scale that differs by rank but is equal across fields. In such a case, the assistant professor of chemistry draws the same salary as an assistant professor of medieval history with equivalent educational attainment and experience, although the outside market would reward these two workers quite differently. Similarly, stat isticians, economists, and computer scientists can generally earn more in private industry or government than on fa culties, but their academic salaries do not always reflect this differential. Such pay policies in academia can be included along with seniority, veterans’ preferences, and minimum wages as practices that flout the market forces to recognize a nonmarket determination of the value of work. What else do these examples of “ market distortion’’ have in common? First, their success relies heavily on strong political support, especially from employees themselves. Seniority may have originated so as to reward superior skill or experience, or to retain a critical core of workers in case of a business slowdown, but current data do not prove any strong correlation between such worker characteristics and seniority.29 Even so, seniority can be supported by all be cause new employees can look forward to the day when they, too, will enjoy its special privileges. Likewise, vet erans’ employment preference endures because the public at large appears to agree that wartime service merits special treatment in the labor market. The same type of value judg ment probably allows a common salary scale at institutions of higher learning, with at least the tendency to recognize different fields of scholarship as of equal worth or value. These exceptions to the determination of wages by supply and demand represent exactly the kind of appeal to a phi losophy of ethics proffered in the case of comparable worth. There, the argument is that a teacher’s contribution to so ciety is worth more than a school custodian’s work, just as the work of a soldier or of a senior employee is worth more than that of others, even if they do the same job. To dismiss cases of administrative wage-setting as mere market imperfections overlooks their lessons for those in volved in the debate over comparable worth. What such cases suggest is the need to investigate the conditions that generate social or political support for a nonmarket solution to labor supply and demand. If labor and management agree, in an individual bargaining area, that jobs should be eval uated and wages set accordingly, then the internal labor market or job classification scheme will clearly take pre cedence over any external market forces. In such cases, even if some wages must be adjusted to reflect local or temporary shortages, this influence of the market will not negate the internal equity which has been achieved. If a State government or other public agency revises its job classification scheme to set nondiscriminatory wages, and both employees and legislators are strong supporters, the likelihood of success is very high. Because hard data to oppose job evaluation are unavailable and analysis based on hypothetical markets is rarely persuasive, it is no wonder that comparable worth legislation is being considered in more than 30 of the 50 States. Laws requiring such job evaluation schemes and wage adjustments throughout the private sector have not yet gen erated such support. Most workers realize that wide vari ations in pay for the same occupation exist across employers. For this and other reasons, it is not clear that sex-based wage discrimination accounts for all wage differentials. However, it is important to note that there has been sup port expressed for comparable worth even within the private business community. For example, the editorial board of one of the Nation’s major business magazines this year warned readers that “ [c]omparable worth is an extension of women’s demands for equal pay for equal work, an idea that is both reasonable and fair as a way of correcting the undeniable, historic wage discrimination against working women . . . . Business companies should scrutinize their pay systems to weed out even the appearance of discrimi nation.” 30 And, in the same vein, the director of industrial relations for a prominent U.S. manufacturer recently indi cated his support for a Federal law mandating job evaluation. While admitting to some trepidation at the prospect of leg islation affecting private industry, he concluded that “ [t]he concerns [about implementing it] are valid but we can’t go on keeping an inequity alive.” 31 'Walter Goodman, “ Equal Pay for ‘Comparable Worth’ Growing as Job-Discrimination Issue,” The New York Times, Sept. 4, 1984, p. B9. 5Mary Corcoran, Greg J. Duncan, and Michael Panza, “ Work Expe rience, Job Segregation, and W ages,” in Greg J. Duncan and Janies N. Morgan, eds., Five Thousand American Families (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1983). 2Laurence Collins, “ Comparable-Worth Proposal Tangles Massachu setts Budget,” The Boston Globe, May 21, 1985, p. 36. 3Congresswomen Patsy Mink, Keynote address at the National Strategy Conference o f the National Institute for Women o f Color, Oct. 19, 1984, as quoted in National Committee on Pay Equity, Pay Equity News Notes, December 1984; and Florine Koole, in Federal Pay Equity Act of 1984, Part 1, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits o f the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, 98th Cong. (Washington, 1984), p. 106. 4Hay Associates, as quoted in Federal Pay Equity Act of 1984, p. 73. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis h a t t h e d e b a t e o v e r c o m p a r a b l e w o r t h in all its versions has done— with or without supporting statistical evidence— is dramatize existing differences between men and women in the labor market. Men’s wage rates are higher, the pay in male-dominated jobs exceeds that for female intensive jobs, women are more concentrated in women’s jobs than are men in men’s jobs, and earnings differ even after all possible corrections for ability, experience, time worked, age, education, and anything else that can be con trolled for. The proponents of comparable worth have suc ceeded in shifting all these issues out of the research journals and into the press. This being so, the overall public support for some remedial action will undoubtedly grow. [H W 6 Greg J. Duncan, Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty (Ann Arbor, Uni versity of Michigan Press, 1984). 7 Mary Hatwood Futrell, in Federal Pay Equity Act of 1984, p. 42. 8Teresa Amott and Julie Matthai, “ Comparable Worth, Incomparable Pay,” Radical America, vol. 18, no. 5, 1984, p. 26. 9 Winn Newman, in Federal Pay Equity Act of 1984, Hearings before the Manpower and Housing Subcommittee of the Committee on Govem- 11 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Will Comparable Worth Work? ment Operations, House of Representatives, 98th Cong. (Washington, 1984) , p. 23. 10Newman, Federal Pay Equity Act of 1984. 22Earl F. Mellor, “ Investigating the differences in weekly earnings of women and m en,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1984, pp. 17-28. 23Mellor, “ Investigating the differences.” 11Poverty in the United States 1959 to 1968, Current Population Re ports, Series P -6 0 , No. 68 (Bureau of the Census, 1969), p. 3. 12Employment and Training Report of the President, 1981 (U .S. D e partment o f Labor), p. 184. 13Characteristics of the Population Below the Poverty-Level, 1983, Cur rent Population Reports, Series P -6 0 , No. 147 (Bureau o f the Census, 1985) , pp. 1 -6 . 14Poverty in the United States, p. 3. 15Characteristics of the Population, pp. 1 -6 . 16Carolyn Shaw Bell, “ Should Every Job Support a Family?” The Public Interest, Summer 1975. 17Economic Characteristics of Households in the United States: First Quarter 1984, Current Population Reports, Series P -7 0 , No. 3 (Bureau o f the Census, 1985), p. 23. 18Child Support and Alimony: 1981, Current Population Reports, Series P -2 3 , No. 140 (Bureau o f the Census, 1985), p. 26. 19Clair Vickery, “ The Time-Poor: A New Look at Poverty,” Journal o f Human Resources, January 1977, pp. 2 7 -4 9 . 24Mark S. Sieling, “ Staffing patterns prominent in female-male earnings gap,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1984, p. 30. 25 National Science Foundation, The 1982 Postcensal Survey of Scientists and Engineers (Washington, U .S. Government Printing Office), tables B -1 5 , B -2 4 . 26Newman, Federal Pay Equity Act of 1984. 27 An excellent discussion of experience with equal pay provisions in 14 countries, including Australia, can be found in Janice Bellace, “ A Foreign Perspective” in E. Robert Livemash, ed., Comparable Worth: Issues and Alternatives (Washington, 1984). Professor Bellace points out that, first, experience with equal pay activity in most countries is not yet sufficient to draw many conclusions and, second, most countries other than the United States have job evaluation schemes already incorporated into many wage setting arenas. 28Francine Blau, Equal Pay in the Office (Lexington, Press, 1978). ma, Lexington 29James L. M edoff and Katherine G. Abrams, The Role of Seniority at U.S. Workplaces: A Report on Some New Evidence, Research Discussion Paper 809 (Cambridge, uary 1981). ma, Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Jan 20 Janet Norwood, The Female-Male Earnings Gap: A Review of Em ployment and Earnings Issues, Report 673 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). 30“ Don't Duck Comparable Worth,” Business Week, Jan. 28, 1985, p. 140. 21 Nancy F. Rytina and Suzanne M. Bianchi, “ Occupational reclassi fication and changes in distribution by gender,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1984, p. 14. 31 William Asher, quoted in Walter Goodman, “ Equal Pay for ‘Com parable Worth’ Growing as Job-Discrimination Issue,” The New York Times, Sept. 4, 1985, p. B9. A note on communications The Monthly Labor Review welcomes communications that supplement, challenge, or expand on research published in its pages. To be considered for publication, communications should be factual and analytical, not po lemical in tone. Communications should be addressed to the Editor-inChief, Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. 20212. 12 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Comparable worth: organizational dilemmas One analyst explores the political, economic, and social implications o f comparable worth fo r public and private employers and labor groups K a r e n S h a l l c r o s s K o z ia r a Comparable worth has emerged as a major equal employ ment opportunity issue of the eighties. This issue is ex tremely controversial because it challenges traditional wage setting practices. What should be the basis for wage setting in our society? Should wages reflect supply and demand forces, or should they reflect the contribution individuals make to their employers? To a certain extent, the answers to these questions are philosophical in that they reflect individual and cultural val ues. These questions also have important political and eco nomic dimensions. It is not surprising that some observers describe comparable worth as a policy that could have dire economic consequences. Nor is it surprising that advocates see the issue in moral and ethical terms, and as a funda mental and necessary part of equal employment opportunity. It is not yet clear how Federal courts will judge com parable worth claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Regardless of how the courts view comparable worth, public awareness of the issue is growing and has sparked the interest of women concentrated in pri marily female occupations. Comparable worth is also a col lective bargaining issue, and pay equity salary increases have been included in some settlements. In addition, a num ber of States and municipalities have either commissioned comparable worth studies or passed legislation requiring that public sector wages be based on comparable worth. Karen Shallcross Koziara is a professor in the Department of Human Resource Administration, Temple University, Philadelphia, p a . This article is adapted from her paper on comparable worth presented at the Annual Meetings o f the American Statistical Association, Las Vegas, n v , Aug. 6, 1985. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Comparable worth could have a major effect on many organizations. This article identifies organizations likely to be affected and analyzes the issues these organizations will face. Public and private employer organizations are included in the discussion, as well as labor unions. Background Although the 1963 Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law over two decades ago, women working full time continue to earn about one-third less than men working full time. This gap has been both consistent and persistent. Much empirical research indicates that the major reason for the gap is the concentration of women in low-paying occupations. The current labor force participation rate for women is approximately 53 percent, almost double what it was two decades ago. About 80 percent of the women in the labor force work in 25 of the 420 distinct occupations identified by the U.S. Department of Labor. Many of these jobs are generally filled by women. For example, about 99 percent of secretaries, 85 percent of registered nurses, 82 percent of librarians, and 86 percent of clerks are women.1 The wages for these and similar “ female jobs” are the focus of the comparable worth debate. Wage adjustments based on comparable worth could af fect the wages of a large proportion of women workers, as well as the wages of men working in female-dominated jobs. Thus, many employers view the possible economic con sequences of comparable worth with grave concern. Pre dictions include increased labor costs, with resulting price increases and unemployment, particularly within job cate13 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Comparable Worth: gories allocated comparable worth increases.2 In contrast, advocates of comparable worth see its potential to bolster both the economic and political power of working women. Some observers cite possible sociological implications as well, for increasing the pay for female jobs may raise the status of these jobs and of women’s work in general.3 Because comparable worth may result in significant eco nomic, political, and sociological change, it could affect the external environment in which many organizations func tion. Organizations affected by comparable worth also will face changes in the internal environment involving dilem mas, constraints, and opportunities. Employer organizations External environment. An employer’s task environment includes the economic, political, sociological, and tech nological trends outside the organization that affect its func tions. Currently, the majority of employers evaluating wages on the basis of job content and implementing comparable worth adjustments are in the public sector. There are several reasons for this. First, the highest positions in government employment are held by elected officials. Thus, public sec tor employers are more vulnerable to changes in the external political environment than are private sector employers. Second, many public sector employers are large organiza tions with diverse job titles, so there are enough different jobs to make wage comparisons between men and women possible. Third, there are enough women working for the government to make them an internal political force. The comparable worth issue provides elected officials with some complex factors to evaluate in the external po litical and economic environment. One reason comparable worth developed as a political issue is the activity of coa litions of organizations advocating comparable worth. These coalitions include commissions on the status of women, working women’s organizations, traditional labor unions, female legislators, and other interested groups. These co alitions attempt to increase public awareness and under standing of comparable worth and they also lobby for legislation. In some States, the filing of discrimination suits by such organizations was an effective pressure tactic. Nonetheless, comparable worth remains a complex issue often misunderstood by the general public. In contrast, the voting public is well aware of the relationship between tax ation and the increasing cost of providing government ser vices. Although' most public officials are reluctant to take a stand against comparable worth, even those who are sym pathetic to the comparable worth issue answer to an elec torate concerned about government budgetary responsibility. Government officials committed to avoiding tax increases while in office realize that comparable worth adjustments may require budgetary shifts from other programs. One response public employers often make to demands for comparable worth adjustments is to commission a study 14 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Organizational Dilemmas to determine whether their female and male employees are rewarded equitably. This can be an attractive short-run op tion because there is an inherent legitimacy in delaying action until a thorough study of the problem has been made. In the political arena, there is the added attractiveness that the results of the study may not have to be dealt with by one’s own administration. Although relatively inexpensive, such a solution has potential political and economic costs. To date, the majority of the comparable worth studies show that women’s jobs are undervalued in comparison to men’s jobs. Once the study results are available, political pressure groups have a firmer base on which to act. Another risk to government employers is not to take action once the study is completed. Employers who do not act may be in jeopardy of having discrimination suits filed against them on the grounds that they knew female jobs were compensated un fairly, but took no action. The cost of making comparable worth adjustments varies considerably by jurisdiction because of variations in num bers of employees, recommended adjustments, and methods of implementation. New Mexico was one of the first States to appropriate funds to implement comparable worth, al locating $3.3 million to increase salaries in its lowest paid jobs. Women held about 86 percent of these jobs, and the remaining 14 percent were held primarily by Hispanic and Native American men. In contrast, Minnesota made an in itial allocation of $21.7 million and is expected to make an additional amount available to implement the adjustments over a period of 4 years. Suffering from severe unemploy ment and budget problems, Washington State made an initial appropriation of about $100 a year for each person in af fected job categories. This appropriation was primarily sym bolic. Further adjustments are planned.4 A strategy used in the majority of jurisdictions implementing comparable worth adjustments is to phase them in over a period of several years. This approach offers several advantages to the employer. It allows gradual budget adjustments, provides sufficient time to review programs, when necessary, and per mits identification and correction of problems in the imple mentation process. Similar phased adjustments are used to increase the minimum wage. Experience with minimum wage increases indicates that phased adjustments reduce the labor displacement effect of higher wages. Elected officials who have an external environment which includes an informed and supportive electorate, strong com parable worth advocacy coalitions, and an expanding em ployment and tax base are the fortunate few. They can follow the example of Janet Gray Hayes, Mayor of San Jose, c a , who said following the comparable worth agree ment between the city and Local 101 of the American Fed eration of State, County and Municipal Employees ( a f s c m e ), “ l a m proud to be mayor of the city that took the first giant step toward fairness in the workplace for women. Today will go down in history as the day so-called women’s work was recognized for its inherent value to society.” 5 Private employers are not immune from changes in the political environment. Although pressure for comparable worth has focused on the public sector, many employers speculate about the possibility of legislation spreading from the public to the private sector. Thus, some employer or ganizations lobby actively to discourage comparable worth legislation in general. A second concern focuses on current wage-setting practices, which even when codified and for malized often reflect the values of their originators. There fore, as employee awareness of subjective elements in wage determination increases, so does the possibility of unioni zation efforts or Title VII suits. Employers concerned with these possibilities are reviewing their wage-setting practices, and a few are in the process of developing policies to initiate comparable worth adjustments. Internal environment. Unlike the external environment, the internal issues raised by comparable worth are similar for public and private employers. There are two major in ternal issues. One is the effect of comparable worth ad justments on the organization’s financial structure. Another is its impact on human resource administration. As indicated earlier, estimates of the cost of comparable worth adjustments vary widely. For example, Minnesota’s implementation costs were estimated to be approximately 1.25 percent of the personnel budget for the 1983-85 bien nium. In contrast, implementation costs were estimated at 0.5 percent of the Burlington, v t , payroll budget and at least 5 percent of the State payroll budget of Washington.6 The differences reflect how much was budgeted for equity increases, the speed of implementation, and the number and amount of equity adjustments. among employees in its highest pay classifications. Another issue is that employees in predominately male jobs may fear that comparable worth adjustments will result in their receiving smaller wage increases than they otherwise would, or perhaps taking a pay cut. Because of this fear, an issue in framing comparable worth legislation is whether there will be comparable worth “ adjustments” or “ in creases.” Adjustments imply that all jobs will be reviewed, with the possibility that some wages will be lowered. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that there have been some initial perceptions of comparable worth adjust ment as violating established wage parity norms. However, it is likely that the new parity relationships will themselves eventually become the norms for evaluating wage setting. In addition, there may be more attention to upgrading job content and to changing the design of jobs receiving equity adjustments because higher wages make jobs more costly for employers. It may also open promotional opportunities by making the salaries for both male- and female-dominated jobs more similar. Unions External environment. Factors in the external environment that affect employer organizations may also affect unions. However, because unions represent employees, environ mental changes have a different meaning for unions than for employers. Female labor force participation rose dra matically during the last two decades. An increase in the number of women joining unions accompanied this increase in employment. Until recently, men were much more likely to be union members than were women, with 1 of every 4 It is even more difficult to estim ate the p ossib le costs o f m ale workers b elon gin g to a union, com pared w ith about not making comparable worth adjustments. Discrimination suits entail litigation costs, and negative judgments can re sult in large backpay awards. Failure to make equity ad justment also may make an employer vulnerable to an expensive and unpredictable unionization campaign. As a compensation issue, comparable worth has impli cations for human resource administration. Because com parable worth has as an objective the narrowing of wage differentials, it may affect perceptions of equity, status, and the desirability of jobs. Equity adjustments narrow wage differentials between higher paid, predominately male jobs and predominately female jobs. In most organizations, wage differentials and wage increases follow predictable patterns. Thus, wages paid for a particular job title have an established relationship with wages paid for other job titles. Once these wage parity relationships are formed, wage increases that deviate from parity often seem unfair to adversely affected employees. The perceived status of male and female jobs also may change as the differentials between predominately male and predominately female jobs narrow. Finally, an employer following a long-run policy of giving wage increases that narrow wage differentials may face labor turnover problems 1 out of 7 female workers. Now, however, about half of all new union members are women. Currently, overall union membership is falling, and organized labor is looking for ways to attract new members in areas such as white-collar work where historically there was relatively little union ac tivity and where many women work. Given the increasing numbers of women in the labor force and the emergence of the comparable worth issue, it is not surprising that some unions are major comparable worth advocates. The a f l - c io passed a strong endorsement fa voring comparable worth and is calling on its member unions to work for pay equity studies and to negotiate to upgrade wages paid for undervalued female jobs. Among the unions actively working to promote comparable worth are the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Em ployees ( a f s c m e ); the Service Employees International Union ( s e i u ); the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma chine Workers ( i u e ); the Communications Workers of America ( c w a ); and the American Nurses Association ( a n a ). Tactics used include negotiating for comparable worth ad justments in collective bargaining contracts, lobbying for comparable worth laws, instituting litigation, and educating https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 15 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Comparable Worth: members and the public at large about pay equity issues. Comparable worth is potentially a powerful organizing issue. However, it faces some constraints in the external economic environment. For some unions, the possible trade off between higher wages and fewer jobs is a major factor affecting decisionmaking about how vigorously comparable worth should be pursued. Some unions, such as the Inter national Ladies’ Garment Workers Union ( i l g w u ) , operate in industries facing stiff competition from imported goods. In such industries, comparable worth adjustments could re sult in job losses, particularly because a large proportion of union members are women. The way in which a union handles the comparable worth issue may also raise legal questions. For example, is a union in violation of Federal law if it does not attempt to get equity adjustments for female members? Unions have a duty to represent members fairly. This means that unions must act with good faith and honesty of purpose towards all em ployees in a bargaining unit. It is the union’s responsibility to protect members against employer discrimination. If it does not do so, it may face a member’s suit.7 Internal issues. The unions most active in support of com parable worth share several characteristics. First, they rep resent workers employed in organizations with diverse job titles because comparable worth questions are employer spe cific and require that an employer have different job titles so that comparisons can be made. Second, they have a high enough proportion of female members for women to be a viable political force within the union. These characteristics are shared by the previously mentioned unions. With the exception of the American Nurses Association, they also have a significant proportion of male members. Comparable worth can create very real internal political issues for unions. Male members may oppose comparable worth adjustments if they have reason to believe that ad justments will be at their expense. Therefore, union leaders may face a balancing act between alienating female em ployees if comparable worth is not addressed, and alienating male employees by working for equity adjustments.,Unions endeavor to educate their members regarding the concept and likely impact of comparable worth. It is not an issue that can be imposed on members with the expectation that Organizational Dilemmas it will meet with wide acceptance.8 One approach unions can use is to consider low paying jobs generally, not just women’s jobs, for equity adjust ments. This broadens internal political support for compa rable worth by increasing the number of employees who are eligible for adjustments. It also increases its acceptability by changing it from a women’s issue to a fair treatment issue. Another approach is to negotiate for separate budget lines for equity adjustments and general wage increases. Separate budget lines communicate the idea that equity ad justments do not come at the expense of overall pay in creases. While some unions are working for comparable worth, others are not. Those less supportive are usually unions with predominately male memberships. In fact, some of these unions are avoiding comparable worth studies and adjust ments. In Minnesota, police and firefighter unions broke ranks with other unions and began lobbying against com parable worth when a librarian’s job was classified at the same level of pay as a firefighter’s job.9 Comparable worth raises another important internal po litical issue for unions. Comparable worth may be a poten tially potent organizing issue, if female workers perceive unionization as a way to achieve pay equity. However, if comparable worth occurs because of a legislated mandate or voluntary employer action, it may lessen the interest of unorganized female workers in unionization. Implementa tion of comparable worth might even reduce support of current members if they perceive that they will be adversely affected if union-supported wage adjustments result in nar rowing of wage differentials. The comparable worth issue is both controversial and multifaceted. One common question about comparable worth is whether it is possible to meaningfully compare different jobs. This is, however, not the question of concern to the organizations most directly involved in the comparable worth debate. The issue is not whether it is possible to meaning fully compare job content, but rather what effect comparable worth will have on the organization. Decisions to support or oppose comparable worth depend on perceptions of its organizational and political effect. This article outlines some of the questions that are considered by concerned organi zations in their decisionmaking process. 1 “ Foreword,” Subcommittee on Human Resources for the Joint Hear ings on Pay Equity: Equal Pay for Work of Comparable Value, Hearings held before the Subcommittees on Human Resources, Civil Service, Com pensation and Employee Benefits of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House o f Representatives, Sept. 16, 21, 30, and Dec. 2, 1982 (Washington, 1983). Management, Winter 1983, p. 392. 2Mark R. Killingsworth, “The Economics of Comparable Worth: Ana lytical, Empirical and Policy Questions,” in Heidi I. Hartmann, ed., Com parable Worth (Washington, National Academy Press, 1985), pp. 86-115. Employees, 1985. 3Heidi I. Hartmann and Donald J. Treiman, “ Notes on the n a s Study o f Equal Pay for Jobs o f Equal Value,” Public Personnel Management, Winter 1983, p. 415. 8 Barbara N. McLennan, “ Sex Discrimination in Employment and Pos sible Liabilities of Labor Unions: Implications o f County of Washington v. Gunther,” Labor Law Journal, January 1982, pp. 2 6 -3 5 . 4Helen Remick, “ An Update on Washington State,” Public Personnel 16 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5Robert L. Famquist, David R. Armstrong, and Russell P. Strausbaugh, “ Pandora’s Worth: The San Jose Experience,” Public Personnel Man agement, Winter 1983, p. 358. 6The National Council of Public Employers, 1984 Survey of Public 1The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 1985, p. 27. 9The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 1985, p. 27. Comparable worth: some questions still unanswered We know the issues surrounding and groups most likely to be affected by a national policy on comparable worth, but cannot quantify possible costs and benefits Sandra E. Gleason A careful analysis of comparable worth as a national policy ideally should proceed by first defining the problem for which the concept of equal pay for different jobs of equal value to the employer is a perceived remedy. The first step could serve as the basis for the second step— determining the important causal factors and evaluating the costs and benefits of a comparable worth policy relative to alternative policies. Once these steps are completed, a remedy can be chosen through the political process based on informed judg ments. Unfortunately, as noted in the accompanying articles by Carolyn Bell and Karen Koziara, a complete and balanced policy analysis of comparable worth has not been conducted. As a consequence, questions remain unanswered, including: What is the magnitude of the employment impact resulting from labor supply and demand responses to the wage in creases? What is the potential inflationary impact on the economy? What is the cost of comparable worth policy relative to alternative policies, such as occupational deseg regation? Economic theory can be used to predict the direction of labor market adjustments. We know the comparable worth wage increases required to remedy pay inequities for “ un derpaid” traditionally female-dominated jobs have averaged 20 percent; therefore, we can predict, other things being equal, that employers will hire fewer employees in these jobs. However, at the same time, the increase in the relative Sandra E. Gleason is assistant professor, School o f Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University. This article is adapted from her paper on comparable worth presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Las Vegas, n v , Aug. 6 , 1985. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis wage will make these jobs more attractive, thereby en couraging more people, particularly women, to seek posi tions in these already crowded occupations. In addition, this wage increase will deter some women from moving into nontraditional jobs, thereby slowing the pace of occupa tional desegregation. However, because we do not have an estimate of the labor supply functions in the traditional fe male occupations, we do not have an estimate of the size of the labor supply effect. In contrast, we do have some estimates of the elasticity of demand for broad categories of employees which can be used to make judgments, however crude, about the mag nitude of the employment impact. These estimates suggest a relatively small displacement effect. For example, in 1975, Orley Ashenfelter and Ronald Ehrenberg estimated that the wage elasticity of demand for noneducation employees in State and local government is quite inelastic.1 In 1984, Ronald Ehrenberg and Robert Smith estimated that a 20percent wage increase would result in a 2- to 3-percent decrease in female employment overall at the State and local level.2 However, if comparable worth continues to be im plemented slowly over a multiyear period, the job displace ment impact can be reduced. Current estimates by Sandra E. Gleason and Collette Moser suggest that the number of jobs eliminated each year would be less than the estimated annual attrition in the public sector if comparable worth is implemented over a 5-year period.3 The inelastic demand for labor in the public sector implies that aggregate earnings of those remaining employed will increase. However, even if the gainers as a group can com pensate the job losers and still be better off, there will be 17 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Comparable Worth: social losses. The type of loss will depend on which em ployers are covered by the national policy. If only public sector and large private sector employers are covered, then employment may not decline. Those displaced will seek jobs in the noncovered sectors, thereby reducing wages in those sectors. The social loss in this case is the reduced productivity of the employee. In contrast, the maximum decrease in employment will occur if all employers are covered and if there is strict enforcement of the pay policy. The social cost is both less employment and less production. However, there may be some offsetting social benefits as well. For example, if low income women receiving noncash public assistance no longer require such aid after the wage increase, taxpayers’ costs will be reduced as long as these women remain employed.4 Unfortunately, there is no anal ysis available of the dollar costs and benefits associated with the full coverage and partial coverage scenarios, even though the employers and unions which expect to gain or lose from a policy on comparable worth have been identified. (See the Koziara article on pp. 13-16.) In addition to the labor market effects, the potential for inflationary pressure generated by comparable worth wage increases must be evaluated realistically. The limited re search available suggests that the maximum pay-equalizing effect to be expected is a decrease of no more than 4 per cent.5 The small magnitude of the predicted impact seems unlikely to set off severe inflation in the economy, but inflationary pressure will vary by industry. However, no estimates of inflation have been made, nor has the potential for offsetting factors which would raise employee produc tivity been studied. For example, some employers may have enough “ organizational slack” to absorb the wage increases with little or no impact on consumer prices.6 Finally, little attention has been given to alternative pol icies. This may reflect the lack of consensus about what problem is to be remedied. As Carolyn Bell indicates, four problems have been discussed: female poverty, pre-labor market discrimination, occupational segregation, and sexbased wage discrimination. Comparable worth is not the best solution for all of these problems. However, contrary to the claims of some opponents, it is not necessarily the 18 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Questions Remain most expensive remedy either. For example, some oppo nents advocate reliance on the market signals of higher wages in nontraditional occupations to encourage women to acquire education and training for better paying jobs. This approach is not costless if employers or the Federal Government assist this process by providing training. Some preliminary estimates of job training costs suggest that these can be higher than the cost of implementing some compa rable worth wage adjustments.7 Furthermore, if only 20 percent of the women employed in clerical and service occupations in 1981 were provided with programs designed to aid occupational change, the cost of training, counseling, and job placement services would be about $14 billion.8 The research completed to date on the potential impact of a national pay policy based on the concept of comparable worth identifies the issues to be considered and predicts the directions of change in the labor market. However, we still have few estimates of the quantitative magnitude of these changes. As a consequence, we know who will gain and who will lose, but we do not know by how much. These missing pieces of information prevent a balanced evaluation of comparable worth as a national policy. □ ---------- FOOTNOTES---------1Orley Ashenfelter and Ronald Ehrenberg, “ The Demand for Labor in the Public Sector,” in Daniel Hamermesh, ed., Labor in the Public and Nonprofit Sectors (Princeton, n j , Princeton University Press, 1975). 2 Ronald Ehrenberg and Robert Smith, Comparable Worth in the Public m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, 1984), nber Working Paper, 1471. Sector (Cambridge, 3 Sandra E. Gleason and Collette Moser, “ Comparable Worth in the Public Sector: Why This Issue W on’t Fade A w ay,” mimeo, 1985. 4Sandra E. Gleason and Collette Moser, “ Some Neglected Policy Im plications of Comparable Worth,” Policy Studies Review, May 1985, pp. 5 9 5-600. 5 George Johnson and Gary Solon, Pay Differences Between Women’s and Men's Jobs: The Empirical Foundations of Comparable Worth Leg islation (Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, 1984), nber Working Paper, 1472. 6 Kalman Cohen and Richard Cyert, Theory of the Firm: Resource Al location in a Market Economy (Englewood Cliffs, n j , Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965). 7Gleason and Moser, “ Comparable Worth in the Public Sector.” 8Ibid. Today’s pension plans: how much do they pay? Benefitformulas in medium and large firms gave 30-year employees retiring on Jan. 1,1984, at age 65 average monthly pensions o f $385 fo r those who earned $15,000 during 1983 D onald G. S c h m it t Under pension plans of medium and large firms, employees retiring on January 1, 1984, at age 65 after 30 years of service would have received monthly pensions averaging from $385 for those earning $15,000 in 1983 to $886 for those earning $40,000. The corresponding range for em ployees retiring after 20 years of service was $263 to $623. Social Security benefits, however, would significantly raise these levels of retirement income. These data were calculated from benefit formulas of 832 pension plans in the 1984 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of employee benefit plans.1 The annual study covers the United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) and private industry establishments employing at least 50, 100, or 250 workers, depending on the industry. The 1984 survey sample consisted of 1,499 establishments, designed to statistically represent 21 million employees in 45,000 establishments.2 b l s field representatives obtained from survey respon dents the written descriptions of pension plans that, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( e r i s a ) , plan administrators are required to provide to covered employees. These descriptions include the formulas used in calculating employee benefits. Using the benefit formula for current service,3 b l s calculated pensions that would have been paid to employees retiring on January 1, 1984, under each plan Donald G. Schmitt is an economist in the Office of Wages and Industrial Relations, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis by making alternative assumptions regarding the retirees’ length of service and earnings history. (See appendix.) According to the 1984 survey, 82 percent of the active workers in medium and large firms were covered by private retirement pension plans financed wholly or in part by their employers. The plans include defined benefit plans, money purchase plans, and career contribution plans.4 The money purchase and career contribution plans, each accounting for only 2 percent of the total pension plan participants, were excluded from this analysis. Approximately 16.5 million workers participated in plans used in the calculation of the basic retirement benefits discussed here. Supplemental pen sion plans, available to a small number of workers in ad dition to their basic plan, also were excluded. Finally, capital accumulation plans are not represented in this analysis. The number of these plans— which include profit-sharing, savings and thrift, and various stock plans— has increased in recent years.5 Except for profit-sharing, these plans are relatively new, and it is difficult to determine their impact on retirement income. Moreover, many allow employees to obtain some portion of the benefits prior to retirement. Pension levels Table 1 shows averages of monthly private pension pay ments calculated from the benefit formulas of plans surveyed in 1984. Because the formulas take account of length of service and, commonly, preretirement earnings as well, an19 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Today’s Pension Plans Table 1. Average monthly private pension payments at normal retirement,1 by final year’s earnings and length of service, medium and large firms, 1984 Y e a r s of s e rv ic e F in a l y e a r ’s e a r n in g s 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 $201 240 295 355 416 479 $263 314 384 462 542 623 $325 386 472 565 661 760 $385 456 555 662 772 886 $438 516 625 743 863 988 $486 571 687 814 942 1,075 $194 246 316 393 473 554 $254 321 410 510 613 720 $312 393 501 621 747 875 $367 462 586 723 866 1,014 $416 520 657 807 963 1,126 $458 571 718 878 1,044 1,216 $192 247 319 398 480 564 $251 323 417 519 625 734 $308 396 510 634 762 892 $363 465 596 738 883 1,033 $410 523 668 822 982 1,147 $451 573 729 895 1,065 1,241 $209 233 270 311 353 394 $275 305 353 406 460 513 $341 377 436 499 563 629 $406 449 517 589 664 739 $464 511 586 666 747 831 $519 570 649 736 823 912 A ll p a r tic ip a n ts $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... $137 ............................... 165 ............................... 202 ............................... 242 ............................... 283 ............................... 326 P r o fe s s io n a l, a d m in is tr a tiv e p a rtic ip a n ts $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... $133 ............................... 170 ............................... 218 ............................... 269 ............................... 323 ............................... 378 T e c h n ic a l, c le r ic a l p a r tic ip a n ts $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... $131 ............................... 169 ............................... 218 ............................... 271 ............................... 325 ............................... 381 P r o d u c tio n p a r tic ip a n ts $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... $142 ............................... 160 ............................... 185 ............................... 212 ............................... 240 ............................... 269 1The maximum pension available, not reduced for early retirement or joint-and-survivor annuity, was calculated under each pension plan using the earnings and service as sumptions shown. Workers are assumed to have retired at age 65 with a total working career of 40 years. Computations exclude 4 percent of participants in money purchase plans or plans with benefits based on career contributions. nuities under each plan were determined for 42 combinations of service and earnings. In all cases, the data apply to workers retiring on January 1, 1984, at age 65. Average benefits varied widely among the age-service combinations. The range for all pension plan participants was from $137 monthly for retirees with 10 years of service and earning $15,000 in 1983 to $1,075 for retirees with 40 years of service and final earnings of $40,000.6 Nevertheless, patterns did appear in the findings. Average payments increased, for example, with each rise in service and earnings. The amount of increase, however, grew smaller as the length of service increased, particularly for service beyond 30 years. This decreasing return for extra years of service mainly reflects provisions that limit the number of years credited in the payment calculation. One-third of all pension plan participants were covered by such provisions.7 Also contributing to this result are formulas that provide a lower benefit rate after specified years of service, for ex ample, 1.5 percent of earnings per year of service up to 20 years, and 1 percent thereafter. At each service period examined, benefits increased with the assumptions of higher final earnings. Moreover, at the all-participant level, for a given increase in earnings, the 20 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis dollar amount of the pension rise was greater at higher earnings levels. Thus, for employees retiring after 30 years of service, the average pension increased by $71 a month when earnings rose from $15,000 to $20,000 and by $114 when earnings moved from $35,000 to $40,000. In relative terms, when worker earnings increased from $15,000 to $20,000 (33 percent), benefits went up by 18 percent; the considerably smaller percentage growth in earnings from $35,000 to $40,000 (14 percent) was accompanied by a 15percent increase in pensions. The relationship between benefit levels and earnings re flects the influence of a number of pension plan features. Benefits as a percent of preretirement earnings (replacement rates) are raised for retirees at the lower end of the earnings distribution when pension plans guarantee minimum benefit levels. Benefit replacement rates are also raised for lowwage earners when plans contain dollar-amount benefit for mulas that provide annuities independent of prior earnings. Conversely, provision for maximum benefit levels reduces the return to retirement plan participants with relatively high earnings.8 High-wage earners do have an advantage when so-called step-rate excess formulas are in effect; these for mulas calculate benefits as a percent of prior earnings and specify a higher percentage return on that part of earnings above a specified level than below that level.9 Levels of private pension benefits also varied by occu pational group. At equal levels of pay and years of service, white-collar groups (professional-administrative and tech nical-clerical) tended to receive higher benefits than bluecollar or production workers. This held true in all cases except at the lowest earnings level ($15,000), where pro duction workers had slightly larger benefits. As earnings increased from $15,000 to $40,000, however, the average gain in benefit amounts was much smaller for production workers. Half of the production workers had pension for mulas specifying dollar amounts of benefits, usually inde pendent of prior earnings. Conversely, most of the whitecollar workers had eamings-based pension formulas, which calculate annuities as percentages of preretirement earn ings.10 Assuming equal levels of earnings and service, technicalclerical workers commonly were eligible for greater benefits than professional-administrative workers. The latter em ployees, however, actually average higher salaries and thus tend to receive larger pension benefits at retirement. Pension benefits varied widely within, as well as among, service-earnings groupings. Table 2 shows the distribution of participants by amount of benefits at selected service and earnings levels. As can be seen, retirees with 30 years of service and $30,000 in final earnings could receive annuities ranging from less than $100 monthly to $1,200 or more. This spread in benefits reflects the wide variety of benefit formulas in private pension plans. The dispersion widens as earnings increase, because the benefits of workers with eamings-based formulas rise, while benefits remain constant Table 2. Percent of participants In private pension plans by expected annuity at normal retirement, selected combinations of final year’s earnings and length of service, medium and large firms, 1984______________________________________________ Monthly pension1 30 years of service 25 years of service 20 years of service $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (1.2) 2.7 3.7 4.5 4.3 1.2 2.6 4.7 9.2 11.9 15.9 .8 .8 2.2 7.5 4.0 7.7 .6 .6 1.4 4.8 3.4 4.6 — (.6) 1.5 3.9 2.8 4.5 Total................................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Less than $ 1 0 0 .................................... $100— $ 1 4 9 ......................................... $150— $ 1 9 9 ......................................... $200— $249 ......................................... $250— $299 ......................................... $300— $349 ......................................... 3.0 7.3 15.1 23.0 15.6 15.6 1.1 4.9 7.7 11.9 17.0 21.9 .8 3.1 4.8 9.1 4.9 13.0 .5 2.5 4.5 4.5 5.2 8.1 1.5 3.6 8.4 12.4 20.5 12.4 .8 1.8 4.6 7.4 9.8 12.7 .6 1.1 2.7 4.8 7.3 4.6 $350— $399 $400— $449 $450— $499 $500— $549 $550— $599 $600— $649 ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... 13.9 2.4 2.2 .6 (1.3) 21.1 6.1 3.5 1.4 1.2 1.5 22.3 15.6 11.2 5.4 3.7 1.8 10.1 11.3 9.5 16.9 7.6 6.5 16.8 5.4 12.9 2.1 1.0 1.2 14.2 15.6 20.2 4.3 2.1 2.7 8.2 12.1 16.4 14.4 10.2 6.5 6.1 4.2 11.9 8.6 7.1 11.9 13.3 7.7 13.4 8.0 6.6 1.5 11.5 12.8 11.8 14.8 14.3 4.3 6.2 3.6 11.1 8.3 15.8 10.9 3.7 2.5 6.7 5.8 11.1 2.9 $650— $699 $700— $749 $750— $799 $800— $849 $850— $899 $900— $949 ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... ......................................... .5 (2 ) 5.4 2.3 1.9 .6 .8 .6 .6 .3 .5 (.4) — — 1.3 .8 1.0 (.7) — — 3.9 1.6 2.1 1.4 .9 .3 8.4 6.5 6.5 4.7 2.9 1.2 .8 1.5 .5 (1.0) — — 1.2 2.4 1.7 .4 .4 .4 8.7 5.5 6.4 3.1 .8 1.2 8.2 3.6 16.2 4.9 5.4 2.4 .8 (.1) — — — — 1.2 .6 .8 .3 .5 .4 — — — — — .5 (.4) — — — .8 1.2 .3 .2 .5 .1 6.3 2.0 1.1 1.2 .6 2.1 $950— $999 ......................................... $1,000— $1,049 ................................. $1,050— $1,099 ................................. $1,100— $ 1 ,1 4 9 ................................. $1,150— $ 1 ,1 9 9 ................................. $1,200 or m ore .................................... _ — — — — — — 2.1 .3 1.1 (.8) — — _ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — — — .6 (.6) — — — — 1The maximum pension available, not reduced for early retirement or joint-and-survivor annuity, was calculated under each pension plan using the earnings and service assumptions shown. Workers are assumed to have retired at age 65 with a total working career of 40 years. Computations exclude 4 percent of participants in money purchase plans or plans with benefits based on career contributions. when formulas provide flat dollar annuities per year of ser vice independent of earnings. Dispersion also widens as service increases, but to a lesser extent. This is because nearly all pension plans incorporate length of service in the benefit formula. Replacement rates Pension benefits are frequently evaluated through the use of replacement rates, that is, expressing the annuities as percentages of preretirement earnings. This facilitates ex amination of the degree to which pensions permit mainte nance of preretirement standards of living. Because con sumption patterns, tax liabilities, and rates of personal sav ings change upon retirement, living standards are typically maintained at less than a 100-percent replacement rate. The final report of the President’s Commission on Pension Policy includes an estimate that, for single persons retiring in 1980, 79 percent of gross preretirement income was needed to maintain living standards at a $6,500 level of preretirement income; a 51-percent rate was needed at a $50,000 income level. The corresponding ratios for married couples were 86 and 55 percent.11 Estimates of replacement rates required to maintain living standards vary, depending in part on the precise definition given to the replacement rate concept. Are the annuities and preretirement earnings measured before or after taxes? Is the preretirement earnings base the final year’s earnings? Is it some average of earnings in years immediately preceding https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Note: To avoid showing small proportions scattered at or near the extremes of the distributions, the percentages of employees in these intervals have been accumulated and are shown in the interval above or below the extreme interval containing at least .5 percent. The percentages representing these employees are shown in parentheses. Because of rounding, sums of individual Items may not equal 100. retirement (such as the 3 years of highest earnings in the last 10)? Or is it an average of earnings over the entire working career?12 In this analysis, pension benefits are mea sured before taxes and preretirement earnings are defined as gross earnings in the final full year of employment. Con sequently, replacement rates reported here are lower than if other definitions of earnings were employed, because earnings typically peak in the final year of work.13 Table 3 presents the monthly pension payments shown in table 1 (annualized) as percentages of earnings in the final year of work. These replacement rates rise substantially as service increases from 10 to 40 years. At the $30,000 level of earnings, for example, the average replacement rate for all pension plan participants increases from 18.5 percent at 20 years of service to 26.5 percent at 30 years and 32.6 percent at 40 years. Replacement rates for the overall group, however, tend to decrease as earnings levels increase within each service category. This results primarily from plans for production workers. While white-collar workers experience slight in creases in average replacement rates as earnings rise above $20,000, production workers experience a marked decline. As indicated earlier, the explanation for this difference lies in the relatively greater incidence of eamings-based benefit formulas among white-collar workers.14 As shown in table 4, eamings-based formulas tend to yield higher replacement rates as final earnings rise. Dollaramount formulas (commonly providing benefits independent 21 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Today’s Pension Plans Table 3. Average replacement ratea1 of private penalona at normal retirement, by final year’a earnings and length of service, medium and large firms, 1984 Final year’s earnings Years of sendce 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 11.0 9.9 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 16.1 14.4 14.2 14.2 14.3 14.4 21.0 18.8 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7 26.0 23.2 22.7 22.6 22.7 22.8 30.8 27.4 26.6 26.5 26.5 26.6 35.0 31.0 30.0 29.7 29.6 29.6 38.9 34.3 33.0 32.6 32.3 32.3 10.6 10.2 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.3 15.5 14.8 15.2 15.7 16.2 16.6 20.3 19.3 19.7 20.4 21.0 21.6 25.0 23.6 24.0 24.8 25.6 26.3 29.4 27.7 28.1 28.9 29.7 30.4 33.3 31.2 31.5 32.3 33.0 33.8 36.6 34.3 34.5 35.1 35.8 36.5 10.5 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.4 15.4 14.8 15.3 15.9 16.5 16.9 20.1 19.4 20.0 20.8 21.4 22.0 24.6 23.8 24.5 25.4 26.1 26.8 29.0 27.9 28.6 29.5 30.3 31.0 32.8 31.4 32.1 32.9 33.7 34.4 36.1 34.4 35.0 35.8 36.5 37.2 11.4 9.6 8.9 8.5 8.2 8.1 16.7 14.0 13.0 12.4 12.1 11.8 22.0 18.3 16.9 16.2 15.8 15.4 27.3 22.6 21.0 20.0 19.3 18.9 32.5 26.9 24.8 23.6 22.8 22.2 37.1 30.7 28.1 26.6 25.6 24.9 41.5 34.2 31.2 29.4 28.2 27.4 All participants $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... Professional, administrativo participants $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... Technical, clerical participants $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... Production participants $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... Retirement annuity as a percent of earnings in the final year of work. The maximum pension available, not reduced for early retirement or joint-and-survivor annuity, was calculated under each pension plan using the earnings and service assumptions shown. This benefit level was then expressed as a percent of earnings in the last year of em ployment. Workers are assumed to have retired at age 65 with a total working career of 40 years. Computations exclude 4 percent of participants in money purchase plans or plans with benefits based on career contributions. Note: Data exclude Social Security payments, which are included in the replacement rates of tables 5 and 6. of earnings) produce the opposite result. In fact, dollaramount formulas produced the highest replacement rates for final earnings of $15,000— the lowest level used in this analysis. Eamings-based private pensions commonly are integrated with Social Security benefits. This explains the tendency for greater replacement rates at higher earnings levels under these private formulas. The Social Security benefit formula yields pensions that, as a percent of preretirement earnings, are greater for retirees with relatively low earnings histories, and it takes account only of earnings up to the Social Se curity taxable wage base— $37,800 in 1984. Integrated pri vate pension plans counter this by providing higher replace ment rates as earnings rise. Dollar-amount pension for mulas, however, are rarely integrated with Social Security benefits.15 Social Security as a component Private pension plans do not operate independently. They supply retirement income as part of a “ three-legged stool,” which also includes Social Security and individual savDigitized for 22 FRASER https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ings.16 Replacement rates, consequently, become more meaningful when Social Security benefits are added to the computation. The Office of the Actuary, Social Security Administra tion, determined the benefit amounts that would be appli cable for workers with the earnings histories used in this study. These Social Security benefits were added to the private pension benefits presented in table 1, and new re placement rates were determined using the combination of these two sources of retirement income. Table 5 shows average replacement rates of combined private pension and Social Security retirement income for a single worker (one who is not receiving spousal benefits under Social Security). The inclusion of Social Security retirement benefits raises the rates significantly from those in table 3. Except at the higher earnings and service levelsSocial Security benefits provide the major share of total retirement income. Inclusion of Social Security benefits also changes the relationship between the size of the replacement rate and the preretirement earnings level. Private pension plans, on average, yield slightly higher replacement rates for whitecollar workers, when earnings rise above $20,000 (table 3). After adding Social Security benefits to the replacement rate calculation, however, the highest replacement rates are at Table 4. Average replacement rates1 of private pensions at normal retirement, by type of benefit formula2 and final year’s earnings and length of service, medium and large firms, 1984 Final year’s earnings Years of service 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 8.9 9.3 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.4 13.4 14.1 15.2 16.0 16.7 17.3 18.0 19.0 20.4 21.4 22.3 23.0 22.6 23.7 25.3 26.7 27.7 28.4 26.9 28.1 30.0 31.5 32.6 33.5 30.5 31.8 33.8 35.4 36.5 37.4 33.5 34.9 36.9 38.5 39.6 40.6 9.7 10.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 12.2 12.6 13.0 13.3 13.6 14.0 14.1 14.5 15.0 15.4 15.8 16.2 15.4 16.0 16.6 17.2 17.6 18.0 16.8 17.3 18.0 18.6 19.1 19.5 17.8 18.3 19.1 19.7 20.2 20.7 18.5 19.0 19.8 20.4 21.0 21.5 11.6 8.9 7.4 6.5 5.8 5.2 17.4 13.3 11.1 9.7 8.6 7.8 23.2 17.8 14.9 12.9 11.5 10.4 29.0 22.2 18.5 16.1 14.3 13.0 34.7 26.6 22.3 19.3 17.2 15.5 39.8 30.5 25.5 22.1 19.7 17.8 44.8 34.3 28.7 24.9 22.2 20.0 Terminal earnings $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... Career earnings $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... Dollar amount $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... Retirement annuity as a percent of earnings in the final year of work. The maximum pension available, not reduced for early retirement or joint-and-survivor annuity, was calculated under each pension plan using the earnings and service assumptions shown. This benefit level was then expressed as a percent of earnings in the last year of em ployment. Workers are assumed to have retired at age 65 with a total working career of 40 years. Computations exclude 4 percent of participants in money purchase plans or plans with benefits based on career contributions. term inal earnings formulas calculate annuities as percents of earnings in the final years of work— for example, the 5 highest consecutive years of earnings in the last 10. Career earnings formulas are similar, but take account of earnings throughout an em ployee's career. Under dollar-amount formulas, workers' years of service are multiplied by a dollar amount to calculate benefit payments. / Table 5. Average replacement rates1 of private pensions and Social Security retirement income (without spousal benefit) combined, by final year’s earnings and length of service, medium and large firms, 1984_________________ Final year’s earnings Years of service 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 59.0 53.5 46.8 42.0 38.4 35.5 64.0 58.0 51.1 46.3 42.7 39.8 69.0 62.3 55.3 52.6 46.8 43.9 73.8 66.5 59.3 54.3 50.6 47.7 78.0 70.1 62.7 57.5 53.7 50.7 81.8 73.4 65.7 60.4 56.4 53.3 Table 6. Average replacement rates1 of private pensions and Social Security retirement Income (with spousal benefit) combined, by final year’s earnings and length of service, medium and large firms, 1984_________________ Final year’s earnings ............................... 53.9 ............................... 49.0 ............................... 42.4 ............................... 37.5 ............................... 33.8 ............................... 30.9 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... $15,000 $20.000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 53.6 49.3 43.2 38.6 35.2 32.4 58.5 53.9 47.9 43.5 40.3 37.7 63.3 58.4 52.4 48.2 45.1 42.7 67.9 62.7 56.7 52.6 49.7 47.3 72.3 66.8 60.8 56.7 53.8 51.5 76.2 70.3 64.2 60.1 57.1 54.9 79.6 73.4 67.2 62.9 59.9 57.6 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... 53.4 ............................... 49.3 ............................... 43.2 ............................... 38.6 ............................... 35.2 ............................... 32.5 58.3 54.0 48.0 43.7 40.6 38.0 63.0 58.5 52.7 48.6 45.5 43.1 67.6 63.0 57.2 53.2 50.2 47.8 72.0 67.0 61.3 57.3 54.4 52.1 75.8 70.5 64.8 60.7 57.8 55.5 79.0 73.5 67.7 63.6 60.6 58.3 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 59.7 53.1 45.6 40.2 36.2 32.9 65.0 57.4 49.6 44.0 39.9 36.5 70.2 61.7 53.6 47.8 43.4 40.0 75.4 66.1 57.5 51.4 46.9 43.3 80.1 69.8 60.8 54.4 49.7 46.0 84.5 73.3 63.8 57.2 52.3 48.4 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 30 35 40 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 75.4 68.6 58.7 51.4 45.8 41.4 80.4 73.1 63.1 55.9 50.4 46.0 85.4 77.5 67.4 60.2 54.3 50.3 90.3 81.8 71.6 64.3 58.4 54.4 95.1 86.0 75.6 68.2 62.6 58.2 99.4 89.6 79.0 71.4 65.7 61.3 103.2 92.9 81.9 74.2 68.4 63.9 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 75.0 68.9 59.4 52.4 47.2 43.0 79.8 73.4 64.1 57.4 52.4 48.2 84.6 77.9 68.6 62.1 57.2 53.2 89.3 82 3 73.0 66.5 61.7 57.9 93.7 86.4 77.0 70.6 62.0 97.6 89.9 80.5 74.0 69.2 65.4 101.0 92.9 83.4 76.8 71.9 68.1 74.8 68.8 59.4 52.5 47.3 43.1 79.7 73.5 64.3 57.6 52.6 48.6 84.4 78.1 69.0 62.4 57.6 53.6 89.0 82.4 73.4 67.0 62.3 58.4 93.4 86.6 77.6 71.2 66.4 62.6 97.1 90.1 81.0 74.6 69.8 66.0 100.4 93.1 84.0 77.5 72.7 68.9 75.7 68.3 57.8 50.2 44.4 39.7 81.0 72.7 61.9 54.1 48.2 43.4 86.3 77.0 65.9 57.9 51.9 47.0 91.6 81.3 69.9 61.6 55.4 50.5 96.8 85.6 73.8 65.2 58.9 53.8 101.4 89.3 77.1 68.3 61.7 56.5 105.8 92.9 80.1 71.1 64.4 59.0 65.8 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... Production participants Production participants $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 25 Technical, clerical participants Technical, clerical participants $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 20 Professional, administrative participants Professional, administrative participants $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 15 All participants All participants $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 Years of service 10 54.3 48.7 41.6 36.3 32.3 29.2 ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... ............................... 1Retirement annuity as a percent of earnings in the final year of work. The maximum pension available, not reduced for early retirement or joint-and-survivor annuity, was calculated under each pension plan using the earnings and service assumptions shown. This benefit level was then expressed as a percent of earnings in the last year of em ployment. Workers are assumed to have retired at age 65 with a total working career of 40 years. Computations exclude 4 percent of participants in money purchase plans or plans with benefits based on career contributions. ’ Retirement annuity as a percent of earnings in the final year of work. The maximum pension available, not reduced for early retirement or joint-and-survivor annuity, was calculated under each pension plan using the earnings and service assumptions shown. This benefit level was then expressed as a percent of earnings in the last year of em ployment. Workers are assumed to have retired at age 65 with a total working career of 40 years. Computations exclude 4 percent of participants in money purchase plans or plans with benefits based on career contributions. the lower earnings levels. As already noted, the Social Se curity benefit formula provides higher replacement rates to lower wage earners. If the retired worker has a husband or wife age 65 or over who is not eligible for a Social Security benefit on his or her own account, an additional benefit from Social Security equal to 50 percent of the worker’s benefit is payable to the spouse. Adding this benefit to the worker’s private pension and Social Security payments results in the average replace ment rates presented in table 6. Here, except in the high income and short service examples, the data typically show replacement rates of 60 percent or more. Indeed, workers with relatively low earnings and long service may have all or nearly all of their preretirement income replaced by com bined private pension and Social Security benefits when the latter includes an additional amount for the spouse. □ ■FOOTNOTES ’ Industrial coverage includes mining; construction; manufacturing; transportation, communications, electric, gas, and sanitary services; whole sale trade; retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and selected services. Major findings o f the 1984 survey are reported in Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1984, Bulletin 2237 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). For information on the background and conduct o f the survey, see Robert Frumkin and William Wiatrowski, “ Bureau of Labor Statistics takes a new look at employee benefits,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1982, pp. 4 1 -4 5 . 3When pension formulas are revised, the new formula may apply only to “ current” service, that is, service from the date of the revision. Prior service may still be covered under the previous benefit formula. 4 Defined benefit plans contain a formula for calculating retirement ben efits (for example, a specified percent o f earnings or flat dollar amount for each year o f service) and obligate the employer to contribute to a fund whatever amounts are necessary to provide die benefits so determined. Benefits under career contribution plans are directly related to contributions made by the employer or both the employer and employee. Money purchase 2 Excluded from the survey were executives (those whose decisions have plans do not specify benefit levels; instead, they obligate the employer to contribute money to a pension fund according to a formula (such as a direct and substantial effects on an organization’s policymaking), partspecified percent o f earnings). time, temporary, and seasonal workers, and operating employees in con 5 See “ The World o f Pensions Ten Years After erisa, ” ebri Issue Brief stant travel status, such as airline flight crews and long-distance truck(Employee Benefit Research Institute, September 1984), p. 9. drivers. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 23 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Today's Pension Plans 6As described in the technical appendix, based on year-to-year changes in national average wage levels, earnings histories were developed leading to the specified pay levels in 1983. 7 Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1984, p. 11. 8Fewer than 1 percent o f the participants had plans with floors providing a specified minimum monthly benefit. Twelve percent had ceilings limiting the maximum size o f the benefit. These maximums are independent of ceilings imposed by tax laws, which are substantially higher than those specified in the private pension plans examined. 9 Step-rate excess formulas provide a way o f integrating private and Social Security benefits. See Donald Bell and Diane H ill, “ How social security payments affect private pensions,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1984, pp. 15-2 0 . 10According to the Bureau’s 1984 employee benefits study, 92 percent o f professional-administrative participants, 86 percent of technical-clerical participants, and 46 percent o f production participants were covered by eamings-based pension formulas. See Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1984, table 39. related to earnings,” Monthly Labor Review, June 1972, p. 18; and Jane L. Ross, Maintenance of Preretirement Standards of Living After Retire ment, Technical Analysis Paper No. 10 (Office of the Assistant Secretary o f Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health, Education, and W el fare, 1976). 12These alternatives parallel the varying definitions of earnings found in eamings-based pension benefit formulas. See Employee Benefits in Me dium and Large Firms, 1984, tables 39 and 41. 13For recent discussions o f the replacement rate concept, see Michael J. Boskin and John B. Shoven, Concepts and Measures of Earnings Re placement During Retirement, Working Paper N o. 1360 (Cambridge, m a ., National Bureau o f Economic Research, 1984); and Congressional Re search Service, Designing a Retirement System for Federal Workers Cov ered by Social Security, 98th Cong., 2d sess., Committee Print 9 8 -1 7 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House o f Representatives, 1985), pp. 3 0 5 -1 5 . 14See footnote 10. 15 See Bell and Hill, “ How social security payments affect private pen 11 Coming of Age: Toward a National Retirement Income Policy (Pres sion s.” ident’s Commission on Pension Policy, February 26, 1981), pp. 4 2 -4 3 . Earlier estimates are in Peter Henle, “ Recent trends in retirement benefits 16 See Coming of Age, pp. 1 2-14. APPENDIX: Analyzing pension plans This study of pension benefit levels follows one of a number of alternative approaches to examining private pen sion plan provisions. A common approach is to review in dividual plan provisions, such as vesting requirements, early and normal retirement ages, benefit formulas, and pre- and post-retirement survivor options.1 This approach provides a wealth of detail about plan provisions but does not permit summarization on an overall plan basis. Such summarization is possible through examination of amounts employers spend on funding their pension liabili ties, either in terms of dollars per employee per year, cents per hour worked, or percent of total compensation outlays.2 Employer cost levels, however, are commonly influenced not only by plan provisions, but also by such characteristics of the covered work force as age, length of service, and earnings history and the actuarial assumptions used in fi nancing individual plans.3 The approach used here looks at the level of benefits available under plans in effect in 1984. It focuses on the pensions payable to workers retiring on January 1, 1984, under the latest (current service) benefit formulas of their pension plans at that time. Aside from the pension formula itself, retirement benefits may be affected by possible coordination of private benefits with Social Security payments, limits on years of credited service, and minimums and maximums on benefits. These were taken into account in calculating retirees’ pensions for this analysis. Also, many plans had more than one pension formula, and specified use of the formula providing the highest benefit for each worker’s circumstances. When mul tiple formulas were found, each alternative within a plan was examined and, for each combination of years of service and earnings considered for study, the formula selected was the one yielding the highest pension. 24 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Nevertheless, the study did not take account of all factors affecting a retiree’s pension. For example, it did not consider benefit reductions to finance continuation of payments to a surviving spouse (joint-and-survivor annuity). Similarly, the possibility of post-retirement pension increases— either on an ad hoc basis or through an automatic cost of living ad justment formula— was ignored. After determination of the pension benefits under indi vidual plans, overall averages were computed. In computing these averages, individual plans were weighted by the num ber of active workers participating in each plan.4 Benefits under a given pension plan are influenced by retirement age, length of service with the firm, and earnings history. It is, therefore, necessary to specify values for these variables to determine retirement benefits. One approach is to assume average conditions prevailing throughout the economy— average retirement age, average seniority, av erage earnings. This approach, however, ignores the fact that benefit formulas in individual pension plans are influ enced by the characteristics of the workers that they cover.5 Consequently, in the approach followed here, age 65 was chosen as the assumed retirement age because all workers are entitled to their fully accrued benefit at that age under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. (Sixty-three percent of the participants in the pension plans studied, however, were under plans which allowed for full retirement with an unreduced pension before age 65.) Instead of using a single assumption regarding the em ployee’s length of service and earnings history, the multiple assumptions shown on the tables were used. The earnings levels specified represent the employee’s gross earnings in the final year of work (1983). Earnings levels in each year from 1944 to 1983 were then developed from these final earnings using year-to-year changes in Social Security data on national average wage levels.6 The same final earnings levels and earnings histories were used for all three occupational groups studied— profes sional-administrative, technical-clerical, and production workers. Nevertheless, some of the final earnings levels presented would not have wide applicability in each occu pational group. For example, it is unlikely that many tech nical-clerical workers in medium and large firms had final earnings as high as $40,000, nor is it likely that many professional-administrative workers had final earnings as low as $15,000 in 1983. Because pension benefit formulas are often designed for a specific group of workers with a known range of earnings, some distortion in benefits at unlikely earnings levels is possible. Thus, when examining the results of this analysis, the focus should be on the ben efits provided at earnings levels applicable to a particular occupational group. Social Security benefits are important not only as a source of retirement income but also as a factor affecting benefits under many private pension plans. For example, a common approach to integrating private and public annuities is to reduce private pensions by a percentage of Social Security benefits.7 To estimate benefits under the Social Security system, it was assumed that an employee worked in covered employment for a total of 40 years.8 ■FOOTNOTES ‘ See, for example, Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Firms, 1984. 2Such data were developed in the Bureau’s survey of employer expen ditures for employee compensation, which has been discontinued. See, for example, Employee Compensation in the Private Nonfarm Economy, 1977, Summary 8 0 -5 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1980). 3Differences in labor force characteristics and actuarial assumptions may be accounted for by estimating what it would cost to provide surveyed pension plans to a standardized work force, using uniform actuarial as sumptions. For an illustration o f this approach, see Total Compensation Comparability: Background, Method, Preliminary Results (Compensation Group, United States Office o f Personnel Management, 1981). 4 Sample weights assigned to each surveyed establishment were also applied to provide representation of all establishments covered by the survey, not only those providing data. The resulting averages are measures o f benefits payable under assumptions discussed in the remainder of this appendix. They are not, however, measures of average benefits actually https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis being received by retirees. For such measures, see Linda Drazga Maxfield and Virginia P. Reno, “ Distribution o f Income Sources o f Recent Retirees: Findings From the New Beneficiary Survey,” Social Security Bulletin, January 1985, pp. 7 -1 3 . Also see Findings From the Survey of Private Pension Benefit Amounts ( O f f ic e o f Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs, U .S . Department o f Labor, 1985). 5 Furthermore, average earnings of all workers are considerably less than the average for full-time employees nearing the retirement age. See Alicia H. Munnell, The Economics of Private Pensions (Washington, Brookings Institution, 1982), pp. 2 5 -2 7 . 6See Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 1983, p. 28. 7 See Bell and Hill, “ How social security payments affect private pen sion s.” 8 Actually, for retirees in 1984, the measuring period used to determine Social Security benefits would be the same for individuals with 25 years of service or more. See Robert Myers, Social Security (Homewood, 111., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1981), pp. 5 4 -5 5 . 25 Shift work pay differentials and practices in manufacturing M ost o f the late-shift workers received premium pay fo r such schedules; however shift differential pay has not increased as rapidly as basic day-shift wage levels , Sandra L. K in g and Harry B. W il l ia m s About one-fourth of the production workers in metropolitan area factories worked on late shifts in the early 1980’s— a proportion that has remained fairly stable over the past two decades. The incidence of late-shift work, however, varies greatly among manufacturing industries, ranging from less than 5 percent of the production work force in such labor intensive industries as apparel and wood furniture to ap proximately one-half in more capital intensive industries such as cotton and manmade textiles, cigarettes, and glass containers. In 1984, at least nine-tenths of the late-shift workers in urban factories received premiums over the pay rates of their day-shift counterparts. Most commonly, the differen tial was a cents-per-hour addition to day-shift rates, aver aging 23.2 cents for work on the second shift and 29.9 cents for work on the third shift. For those cases in which there were percentage differentials, the average was 7.3 percent of day rates for the second shift and 10.0 percent for the third. Among individual industries surveyed between May 1978 and October 1984, types and amounts of differentials varied widely. For second shifts, cents-per-hour differentials commonly averaged between 10 and 20 cents; percentage premiums, usually between 5 and 10 percent. Similar ranges for third shifts were 15 to 25 cents per hour and 5 to 10 percent. Differentials expressed in cents-per-hour have been Sandra L. King is project director o f Industry Wage Surveys in the Division o f Occupational Pay and Employee Benefit Levels, Bureau o f Labor Sta tistics. Harry B. Williams is a labor economist in the same division. 26 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Glossary of shift terms Fixed shift: An arrangement whereby employees remain on the same daily work schedule for long periods o f time. First shift (day): A work period in which half or more of the hours fall between 8am and 4pm. Second shift (evening): A work period that is scheduled to end at or near midnight. Third shift (night, graveyard, lobster): A work period that is scheduled to start at or near midnight. Rotating shift: An arrangement whereby employees work successive weeks on day, evening, and night schedules. Oscillating shift: An arrangement whereby employees al ternate, usually weekly, between day and evening shifts, or between evening and night shifts, but do not make the full 24-hour cycle as under rotating shift arrangements. Split shift: A daily work schedule which is divided into two or more parts; for example, work 7am to 11am, off 11am to 2pm, and work 2pm to 6pm. Swing shift: A relief or fourth shift used at periodic in tervals in plants with rotating shifts, and operating 7 days a week. It may also be used to equalize day and night work among workers. increased periodically but, generally, not as rapidly as basic hourly pay rates. These observations are derived from data collected in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ area and industry wage survey programs. Both surveys report occupational wage rates and the incidence of selected employee benefits and establish ment practices, including late-shift provisions and practices. Area wage surveys are conducted annually in a sample of 70 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area ( s m s a ’ s ) . Al though the emphasis is on occupational pay and benefits found in individual areas, results of the 70 area surveys are combined, with appropriate weighting, to represent all s m s a ’ s in the United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).1 As of July 1984, factories within scope of the wage survey pro gram employed three-fifths of the Nation’s 13 million man ufacturing production workers.2 Twenty-five industry wage surveys are conducted in the manufacturing sector and 15 in nonmanufacturing, generally on a 3- or 5-year cycle.3 The most recent industry surveys used in this analysis— which is limited to the manufacturing sector— span the period between October 1979 and October 1984 which included both upswings and downturns in the economy. They covered industries employing about onefifth of all manufacturing production workers in 1984. Late-shift operations Late-shift operations in manufacturing are primarily a product of economic and technological developments as sociated with factory production.4 Increasing ratios of cap ital investment to labor costs provide an incentive for maximum use of plant and equipment. Furthermore, con tinuous process industries, like basic steel, require roundthe-clock operations to avoid high start-up and shut-down costs. Lower rates charged by electric utilities for night usage may provide another incentive for customers to add shift work. Still another factor may be the need for tem porary night workers to meet unanticipated or seasonal in creases in the demand for a factory’s output.5 Establishments operating at night may use either a second shift only or both second and third shifts to supplement their daytime hours. The second (evening) shift generally ends at or near midnight, while the third (night) shift begins at this time. Arrangement is thus commonly made for three 8-hour shifts in a 24-hour period.6 Individual employees may regularly work on the same shift or may alternate among shifts. The various possibilities are described in a glossary of shift terms. (See the box.) Incidence of late-shift work Workers on late shifts accounted for 24.9 percent of the 6 million production and related workers employed in met ropolitan area factories in 1984.7 (See table 1.) This com pares with 22.8 percent of 7 million workers in 1959-60, the earliest period for which such data are available.8 In 1984, 17.7 percent of the factory production workers were on second shifts and 7.2 percent were on third shifts. The incidence of late shifts among metropolitan areas varied, in part, because of differences in industry mix within individual localities. In the Miami area, for example, where https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Table 1. Percent of manufacturing production workers on late shifts and average shift differentials, metropolitan areas1 of the United States, 1959-84 ____ Average shift differential Percent with shift differential Percent Year of survey2 employed Uniform Uniform and shift on late cents- Uniform cents- Uniform schedule shifts Total per- percentage Other3 per- percentage hour hour 1959-60 Second sh ift. . . Third shift . . . . 16.4 6.4 15.5 6.1 10.5 4.6 4.0 .1 0.9 .5 8.8 11.1 7.8 9.9 1964-65 Second sh ift. . . Third shift . . . . 17.8 6.5 16.6 6.3 11.5 4.9 4.2 .9 .9 .5 9.5 12.0 7.6 9.9 1967-68 Second sh ift. . . Third shift . . . . 18.7 7.3 17.7 7.1 11.9 5.2 4.9 1.2 .8 .7 10.0 12.8 7.6 9.9 1971-72 Second sh ift. . . Third shift . . . . 19.6 6.7 18.6 6.5 12.3 4.9 5.8 1.1 .5 .5 12.3 16.1 7.3 9.9 1975 Second sh ift. . . Third shift . . . . 21.3 7.6 20.2 7.4 13.7 5.6 6.0 1.4 .5 .4 13.5 17.7 7.1 9.9 1977 Second sh ift. . . Third shift . . . . 19.2 7.7 18.0 7.4 11.5 5.3 6.0 1.7 .5 .4 16.8 21.6 6.8 9.7 1980 Second sh ift. . . Third shift . . . . 20.1 8.0 18.8 7.7 11.8 5.4 6.7 1.7 .4 .6 19.8 25.3 6.9 9.8 1984 Second sh ift. . . Third shift . . . . 17.7 7.2 16.6 6.9 10.8 5.1 5.3 1.2 .4 .6 23.2 29.9 7.3 10.0 1Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (excluding those In Alaska and Hawaii), as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2Data are based on bls wage surveys of 60 metropolitan areas in 1959-60; 80 areas in 1964-65; 85 metropolitan areas in 1967-68 and 1971-72; and 70 areas in 1975, 1977, 1980, and 1984. The results of these surveys were weighted to represent all Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, excluding those in Alaska and Hawaii, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in 1959, 1961, 1967, and 1974. includes pay at regular rates for more hours than worked, a paid lunch period not provided day-shift workers, a flat sum per shift, and other provisions, often provided in combination with a cents or percentage differential for hours actually worked. Note: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal total. A tabulation providing distributions of cents-per-hour and percentage differentials is available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. there is a high share of apparel industries, the relatively low proportions of late-shift workers— 7.9 percent on second shifts and 2.5 percent on third shifts in 1984— reflect the influence of the apparel industries, which do not typically operate late shifts. In Green Bay, however, where there is round-the-clock pulp and paper manufacturing, second shifts accounted for 25.3 percent of the manufacturing production workers and third shifts, for 15.3 percent.9 The incidence of late shifts is generally highest in in dustries that are capital intensive, including those having continuous process operations. (See examples from the Bu reau’s industry wage survey program shown in table 2.) The highest proportions of workers on late shifts are in cotton and manmade textile (51.5 percent), cigarette (51 percent), and glass container industries (50 percent) which are all capital intensive. Late shifts accounted for between 40 and 50 percent of the workers in a number of other industries, including those with continuous process operations (basic steel; pulp, paper, and paperboard; blended and prepared 27 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Shift Work in Manufacturing Tab,e 2- percent ° f production and related workera employed on late ahlfts and percent paid shift differentlala, selected manufacturing industries, 1973-84 Most recent BLS survey Industry Food and kindred products; Meatpacking................................. Prepared meat products............... Flour and other grain mill products.................................... Rice milling.................................... Blended and prepared flour.......... Wet corn milling............................ Survey date All production and related workers (thousands) Previous BLS survey1 Second shift Working Third shift Receiving Receiving Working differential differential Survey date All production and related workers (thousands) Second shift Working Third shift Receiving Receiving Working differential differential June/84 June/84 82,948 50,854 18.9 18.1 16.9 16.3 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.7 May/79 May/79 104,348 48,804 14.9 15.4 14 2 14.4 ? ? 3.1 3.1 Sept./82 Sept./82 Sept./82 Sept./82 8,115 3,246 5,588 6,312 19.7 17.3 31.1 23.0 18.7 6.2 25.0 20.9 12.2 14.6 15.5 20.5 11.8 6.2 12.0 18.4 Sept./77 Sept./77 Sept./77 Sept./77 10,550 2,642 5,187 6,337 17.1 22.2 26.5 23.1 16.3 47 24^3 22.8 11 5 98 14 0 20.3 111 2 0 .1 Tobacco manufactures: Cigarettes...................................... June/81 32,438 31.3 31.3 19.7 19.7 May/76 32,826 32.9 32.9 16.5 16.5 Textile mill products: Cotton and manmade textiles . . . Aug./80 Wool textiles................................. Aug./80 Women's hosiery......................... Aug./81 Other hosiery................................. Aug./80 Textile dyeing and finishing . . . . Aug./80 269,079 13,088 20,107 28,032 48,927 27.8 27.0 13.1 16.5 27.4 5.5 13.5 4.6 6.0 11.3 23.7 17.0 6.6 7.3 17.8 19.6 15.6 2.1 2.8 15.4 May/75 May/75 July/76 July/76 June/76 305,530 13,122 23,803 23,913 51,458 29.4 24.8 13.6 14.8 26.7 5.5 11.9 5.5 48 11.8 23 6 14 9 51 50 14.8 19 n ft 19 23 13.0 46,716 64,789 1.0 1.0 (2) (3) April/79 May/81 61,409 64,969 10 (3) (2) (3) 1.0 (3) (3) (3) I2) (3) f21 V-J (3) 85,442 1.0 1.0 (2) (2) June/74 71,066 1.0 1.0 (2) (2) 137,150 (3) (3) (3) (3) June/74 122,350 (3) (3) (3) (3) Apparel and other textile products: Men’s and boys’ suits and co a ts......................................... June/84 Men’s and boys' s h irts ............... May/84 Men’s and boys’ separate tro u se rs.................................... May/78 Furniture arid fixtures: Nonupholstered wood furniture . . June/79 Paper and allied products: Pulp, paper, and paperboard products.................................... July/82 Corrugated and solid fiber boxes ......................................... May/81 22 45 12 à 12 150,200 22.9 22.7 22.6 22.3 Sum./77 170,757 24.6 24.5 23.1 23.0 57,301 30.0 29.7 8.2 8.2 March/76 61,912 29.7 29.7 5.2 5.2 Lumber and wood products: M illwork......................................... Sept./84 50,419 13.1 10.1 1.4 1.2 June/79 43,914 12.9 10.0 1.7 1.4 Chemicals and allied products: Industrial chem icals..................... May/81 115,230 17.3 17.1 15.2 15.1 June/76 129,952 18.2 18.0 15.9 15.8 Petroleum and coal products: Petroleum re fin in g ....................... May/81 65,566 15.7 15.4 15.6 15.4 April/76 63,289 17.1 16.5 17.4 16.8 Stone, clay, and glass products: Glass containers............................ May/80 Other pressed or blown glass . . . May/80 Structural clay products*............. Sept./80 Brick and structural clay tile . . Sept./80 Clay refractories....................... Sept./80 54,518 28,394 26,290 11,691 6,340 25.3 25.2 10.0 6.6 17.9 24.6 24.3 9.1 4.6 17.9 24.5 18.9 4.6 2.5 7.8 24.0 18.7 4.2 1.7 7.8 May/75 May/75 Sept./75 Sept./75 Sept./75 62,591 28,328 32,954 15,375 7,585 25.4 23.2 10.7 7.6 18.0 25 4 23 2 90 48 18.0 24 1 1fi q 41 32 24 1 16 9 36 23 7.7 7 .7 Primary metal industries: Basic iron and s te e l.................... Aug./83 Iron and steel foundries............... Sept./79 184,078 177,371 26.1 26.2 24.7 26.0 20.0 11.4 18.6 11.4 Feb./78 Nov./73 345,163 185,394 25.3 25.8 25 1 25.6 20 1 19 8 10.5 1 0 .4 Fabricated metal products: Fabricated structural m etal.......... Nov./79 51,935 13.7 12.7 1.8 1.8 Nov./74 63,741 15.3 14.8 1.4 1 .4 Transportation equipment: Motor vehicle parts and accessories............................... May/83 Shipbuilding and repairing.......... Sept./81 170,825 109,410 23.4 23.7 22.6 23.7 5.7 9.0 5.6 9.0 April/74 Sept./76 242,148 104,027 27.9 21.7 27.6 21.4 80 8.4 7 9 Data are based on the most recent and the previous bls nationwide occupational wage surveys in selected manufacturing industries, conducted between October 1973 and October 1984. The industry studies nearly always have a minimum establishment size cutoff; es tablishments below the cutoff usually account for less than one-tenth of an industry’s total work force, and if included, would not substantially affect the percentages provided above. The cutoff was 20 workers for all except the following: cotton and manmade textiles (50), industrial chemicals (50), petroleum refining (100), basic steel (100), motor vehicle parts flour; and wet com milling), and those with relatively high ratios of capital investment to wages (other pressed or blown glass, and textile dyeing and finishing). Industrial chemi cals, petroleum refining, and shipbuilding each employed about a third of their workers on late shifts. The lowest 28 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 8.4 (50), and shipbuilding (250). Industry definitions are from the 1967 and 1972 editions of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, prepared by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2Less than 0.5 percent. 3Precise estimate not available; less than 2 percent, includes data for industries in addition to those shown separately. incidence— less than 3 percent of the workers— was found in the labor intensive apparel, footwear, and furniture in dustries. For most of the manufacturing industries having 30 per cent or more of their workers on late shifts, the ratio of Unless special circumstances dictate three shifts (such as increased product demand, favorable utility rates, contin uous processing), the economic advantages gained from adding a third shift are generally not as great as those pro vided by the addition of a second shift. For example, a second shift may reduce fixed overhead costs per unit of output by one-half, while second and third shifts combined second shift employment to third shift employment was less than 2 to 1. The ratio was generally much higher where relatively few workers were on late shifts. In the millwork and fabricated structural metal industries, for example, late shifts accounted for about 15 percent of the workers, and second shift workers outnumbered those on third shifts by at least 7 to 1. Table 3. Percent of production and related workers on late shifts at time of survey,1 selected manufacturing Industries and regions,2 1979-84_________________________________________ _________________ ________________________________ Industry New England Southwest Southeast Border States Middle Atlantic Second shift Third shift Second shift Third shift Second shift Third shift Second shift Third shift Second shift Third shift 14.4 — — — — 2.6 — — — — 12.9 16.7 — — — 2.5 12.3 — — — 16.8 — — — — 0.4 — — — — 18.6 26.8 — — — 8.7 11.9 — — — 11.1 16.0 19.7 29.3 — 1.2 9.9 16.6 9.9 23.9 26.9 12.3 11.6 21.8 — — 11.6 22.6 16.7 — — 7.0 3.2 — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 27.7 12.7 16.7 27.9 24.4 23.1 6.8 7.5 20.8 30.9 — — — — 15.0 — — — — Food and kindred products: Prepared meat products..................... Flour and other grain mill products. . . Rice m illin g ......................................... Blended and prepared flo u r............... Wet corn m illing................................. Textile mill products: Cotton and manmade textiles3 .......... Wool textiles3 ...................................... Women’s hosiery3 ............................... Other hosiery3 .................................... Textile dyeing and finishing3 ............. — — 28.9 — 12.8 Paper and allied products: Pulp, paper, and paperboard............. Corrugated and solid fiber boxes . . . 23.8 27.6 23.7 5.0 21.9 30.8 21.5 7.0 — 29.8 — 8.6 23.7 28.1 23.6 9.2 24.3 23.1 24.3 6.8 Chemicals and allied products: Industrial chemicals............................ 13.6 10.8 19.3 17.2 19.1 15.7 22.8 19.5 11.6 10.9 23.2 24.5 11.8 12.1 17.4 21.7 14.1 2.9 3.1 3.6 27.7 23.6 13.5 6.2 — 27.7 15.4 5.1 2.9 — 26.6 — 8.2 8.0 — 26.5 — 6.3 2.4 — 23.7 — 7.6 3.0 — 23.0 — 2.1 2.6 — 6.8 26.0 14.2 — 12.9 — Stone, clay, and glass products: Glass containers................................. Other pressed or blown glass............. Structural clay products^.................. Brick and structural c la y ............... Clay refractories............................... — — — — — — — Primary metal Industries: Iron and steel foundries.................... 16.3 5.5 22.7 11.0 31.2 20.0 23.5 Fabricated metal products: Fabricated structural metal.................. 10.9 — 12.3 4.5 19.1 .8 8.7 — — — .9 Pacific Mountain Middle West Great Lakes Second shift Third shift Second shift Third shift Second shift Third shift Second shift Third shift Food and kindred products: Prepared meat products.................... Flour and other grain mill products. . Rice m illin g ......................................... Blended and prepared flo u r............... Wet corn m illing................................. 24.7 21.1 — 30.3 22.3 4.9 13.8 — 20.9 19.6 14.6 17.9 — 36.6 26.4 2.8 12.6 — 12.8 24.9 16.1 20.1 — — — 2.2 10.7 — — — 18.7 19.7 — — — 4.9 11.3 — — — Paper and allied products: Pulp, paper, and paperboard............. Corrugated and solid fiber boxes . . . 22.4 32.5 21.3 7.5 — 27.5 — 3.9 — — — — 21.1 31.3 21.1 16.0 Chemicals and allied products: Industrial chemicals............................ 20.0 16.5 20.6 20.4 22.5 16.3 15.1 14.2 Stone, clay, and glass products: Glass containers................................. Other pressed or blown glass............. Structural clay products^................... Brick and structural c la y ............... Clay refractories............................... 26.1 26.0 6.8 5.0 10.7 25.2 25.2 3.3 3.2 5.2 — 20.8 — 24.7 — — 8.8 — 11.2 — — — — — — — — — — 26.5 — 4.9 — — 26.5 — 3.2 — — Primary metal industries: Iron and steel foundries.................... 28.5 12.5 20.4 6.3 31.1 7.3 21.0 8.0 Fabricated metal products: Fabricated structural metal.................. 18.1 4.5 15.1 — 16.2 .7 13.0 1.6 1S e e ta b le 2 , c o lu m n 2 fo r d a te o f s u rv e y . ^ h e re g io n s a re d e fin e d as fo llo w s : N e w E n g la n d — C o n n e c tic u t, M a in e , M a s s a c h u s e tts , N e w H a m p s h ire , R h o d e Is la n d , an d V e rm o n t; M id d le A tla n tic — N e w J e rs e y , N e w Y o rk , an d P e n n s y lv a n ia ; B o rd e r S ta te s — D e la w a re , D is tric t o f C o lu m b ia , K e n tu c k y , M a r y la n d , V irg in ia , a n d W e s t V irg in ia ; S o u th e a s t— A la b a m a , F lo rid a , G e o rg ia , M is s is s ip p i, N o rth C a ro lin a , S o u th C a ro lin a , an d T e n n e s s e e ; S o u th w e s t— A rk a n s a s , L o u is ia n a , O k la h o m a , an d T e x a s ; G re a t Lake s— Illin o is , In d ia n a , M ic h ig a n , M in n e s o ta , O h io , a n d W is c o n s in ; M id d le W e s t— Io w a , K a n s a s , M is s o u ri, N e b ra s k a , N o rth D a k o ta , an d S o u th D a k o ta ; M o u n - https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — ta in — A rizo n a , C o lo ra d o , Id a h o , M o n ta n a , N e w M e x ic o , U ta h , an d W y o m in g ; a n d P a c ific — C a lifo rn ia , N e v a d a , O re g o n , a n d W a s h in g to n . A la s k a an d H a w a ii w e re n o t in c lu d e d in th e s tu d y . 3 N o d a ta w e re re p o rte d o r d a ta did n o t m e e t p u b lic a tio n c rite ria fo r th e fo llo w in g re g io n s : G re a t L a k e s , M id d le W e s t, M o u n ta in , an d P a c ific , i n c l u d e s d a ta fo r in d u s trie s in a d d itio n to th o s e s h o w n s e p a ra te ly . Note: D a s h e s in d ic a te no d a ta o r d a ta th a t d o n o t m e e t p u b lic a tio n c rite ria . 29 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Shift Work in Manufacturing may reduce these costs by two-thirds. Thus, the addition of the third shift results in incremental savings in overhead costs of only one-sixth.10 Fourteen of the industries listed in table 2 increased the proportion of production workers on late shifts between the survey dates shown; 7 had declines; and 10 had virtually no change (that is, a change of less than 1 percentage point). The largest proportionate increases were in meatpacking (from 17.1 to 23.2 percent), prepared meat products (from 18.5 to 22.2 percent), and hosiery other than women’s (from 19.8 to 23.8 percent). Increases of at least 10 percent were also recorded for blended and prepared flour, flour and other grain mill products, wool textiles, and other pressed or blown glass. Shift work declines were most dramatic in motor vehicle parts (from 35.9 percent in 1973 to 29.1 percent in 1984) and in brick and structural clay (from 10.8 to 9.1 percent). Overall production worker employment also changed substantially in a number of these industries, but there was no consistent relationship between work force changes and changes in the proportions of shift workers. Regionally, the proportions of shift workers did not vary substantially for such industries as pulp, paper, and paperboard; chemicals; glass containers; and cotton and manmade textiles. (See table 3.) However, in a few of the industries analyzed, such as iron and steel foundries, the proportion of all late-shift workers in one region (Border States) of the country was more than double that in some of the other regions studied during the early 1980’s. Where comparisons were possible, the proportions of workers on late shifts were usually below industrywide levels in the New England, Mid dle Atlantic, and Southwest regions, while generally above those in the Border States, Southeast, and Great Lakes. Comparisons with industrywide proportions yielded no gen eral pattern in the Middle West, Mountain, and Pacific re gions. Late-shift work is not confined to the manufacturing sec tor. For the economy as a whole, the Current Population Survey (a household survey conducted for the bls by the T a b le 4 . P e r c e n t o f la te s h i f t p r o d u c t io n a n d r e la t e d w o r k e r s r e c e iv in g d if f e r e n t ia ls , a n d a v e r a g e d if f e r e n t ia ls , s e le c t e d m a n u f a c t u r i n g I n d u s t r ie s , 1 9 7 3 - 8 4 Industry Survey date Second shift Third shift Industry Cents-per-hour Percentage Cents-per-hour Percentage AII All average differential differential differential differential workers workers hourly earnings1 receivlng Percent Average Percent Average receiving Percent Average Percent Average différé ntlal2 receiving amount receiving amount differential2 receiving amount receiving amount Most recent survey3 Food and kindred products: Meatpacking.............................................. June/84 Prepared meat products............................ June/84 Flour and other grain mill products.......... Sept./82 Rice m illing................................................. Sept./82 Blended and prepared flo u r....................... Sept./82 Wet corn milling......................................... Sept./82 $ 7.80 7.61 8.59 6.25 8.01 10.72 100 100 100 100 100 100 79.2 74.2 98.9 100.0 93.6 100.0 13.7 16.8 17.8 10.7 16.5 18.1 — 2.0 — 0.1 0.1 — 42.8 59.4 99.9 100.0 95.0 100.0 18.1 18.3 25.0 14.7 22.4 31.2 _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 10.0 — 100 100 100 100 100 100 4.2 — 15.0 5.0 10.0 — — Tobacco manufactures: Cigarettes................................................... June/81 10.47 100 100.0 18.1 — — 100 100.0 31.2 — — Textile mill products: Cotton and manmade textiles.................... Wool textiles.............................................. Women's hosiery...................................... Other hosiery.............................................. Textile dyeing and finishing....................... Aug./80 Aug./80 Aug./81 Aug./81 Aug./80 5.09 4.91 4.70 4.56 5.23 100 100 100 100 100 94.6 96.3 69.6 60.0 98.2 9.4 7.8 21.6 10.9 7.6 1.8 3.7 30.4 38.3 0.9 7.5 6.8 4.2 6.1 5.0 100 100 100 100 100 98.5 99.4 52.4 57.2 99.4 7.4 9.0 17.3 19.4 8.0 0.5 0.6 47.6 39.3 6.7 10.0 9.2 10.4 Paper and allied products: Pulp, paper, and paperboard products. . . July/82 Corrugated and solid fiber boxes............. May/81 10.22 7.09 100 100 100.0 98.0 20.0 14.1 — — 8.3 100 100 100.0 99.7 27.6 20.9 _ 1.0 0.3 __ 5.0 Chemicals and allied products: Industrial chemicals.................................... May/81 9.88 100 91.2 29.5 2.9 6.0 100 86.0 50.1 4.5 3.2 Petroleum and coal products: Petroleum refining...................................... May/81 11.58 100 98.7 50.0 — — 100 96.8 98.3 2.0 10.0 Stone, clay and glass products: Glass containers......................................... May/80 Other pressed or blown g la s s .................. May/80 Structural clay products*.......................... Sept./80 Brick and structural clay tile.................. Sept./80 Clay refractories.................................... Sept./80 7.66 6.40 5.86 5.07 7.96 100 100 100 100 100 96.4 96.7 92.3 87.0 100.0 16.9 15.2 17.1 15.0 18.7 — 2.9 6.6 10.9 — — 10.0 5.8 6.4 — 100 100 100 100 100 96.3 96.3 95.2 82.4 100.0 20.9 19.3 18.5 19.1 23.8 __ 3.2 2.4 11.8 __ 10.0 7.5 8.8 Primary metal industries: Basic iron and steel.................................... Aug./83 Iron and steel foundries............................ Sept./79 11.87 7.16 100 100 99.6 72.3 28.4 18.2 — 5.2 100 100 100.0 67.5 41.8 21.6 _ _ 25.8 28.9 9.4 — Fabricated metal products: Fabricated structural m e ta l....................... NOV./79 6.35 100 89.0 20.7 7.1 7.8 100 94.4 28.8 0.6 5.0 Transportation equipment: Motor vehicle parts and accessories. . . . Shipbuilding and repairing....................... May/83 Sept./81 8.20 8.97 100 100 86.3 43.9 18.7 30.7 12.4 38.4 6.8 7.9 100 100 85.7 40.0 22.4 43.4 12.5 34.4 9.3 7.9 30 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Bureau of the Census) reports that 11 percent of all full time nonfarm wage and salary workers were on late shifts in May 1980.11 The proportion of workers on late shifts was higher in goods-producing (13 percent) than in service-pro ducing (10 percent) industries. By broad occupational group, the range was from 3 percent for salesworkers to 29 percent for service workers— a group that frequently works late shifts and includes police officers, firefighters, and health and cleaning personnel. Shift premiums Late-shift work, although often economically advanta geous to employers, may adversely affect workers— bio logically, psychologically, and socially. Evening or night work, according to some authorities, may lead to a variety of physical problems and may impair normal family and social life.12 As a consequence, extra pay is generally provided for late-shift work.13 Payment of premiums to workers on late shifts can be traced at least to World War I, when the National War Labor Board awarded a 5-percent shift bonus in several cases under its review. During the 1920’s, a survey by the National Industrial Conference Board indi cated that about 10 percent of the workers in 243 companies, largely in manufacturing, were on night shifts. The study found that premiums were rarely paid for rotating shift work, but were commonly found for fixed shifts. During the 1930’s Table 4. Continued— Percent of late shift production and related workers receiving differentials, and average differentials, selected manufacturing industries, 1973-84 Industry Survey date Second shift Third shift Industry Cents-per-hour Cents-per-hour Percentage Percentage All All average differential differential differential differential workers workers hourly Percent Average Percent Average receiving earnings1 receiving Percent Average Percent Average differential2 receiving amount receiving amount differential2 receiving amount receiving amount Previous survey3 Food and kindred products: Meatpacking.............................................. Prepared meat products............................ Flour and other grain mill products.......... Rice m illing................................................. Blended and prepared flo u r....................... Wet corn milling......................................... May/79 May/79 Sept./77 Sept./77 Sept./77 Sept./77 $6.97 6.52 5.52 3.85 6.14 6.87 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.3 99.3 100.0 100.0 95.9 100.0 16.3 17.7 12.4 13.3 12.1 15.0 Tobacco manufactures: Cigarettes................................................... May/76 5.71 100 61.1 Textile mill products: Cotton and manmade textiles.................... Wool te xtiles.............................................. Women's hosiery...................................... Other hosiery.............................................. Textile dyeing and finishing....................... May/75 May/75 July/76 July/76 June/76 3.08 3.17 3.00 3.05 3.82 100 100 100 100 100 Paper and allied products: Pulp, paper, and paperboard products. . . Sum./77 Corrugated and solid fiber boxes............. March/76 6.54 4.65 Chemicals and allied products: Industrial chemicals.................................... June/76 Petroleum and coal products: Petroleum refining...................................... 0.1 0.7 — 5.0 10.0 — — 3.2 — 10.0 — — 0.4 — 7.0 — 100 100 100 100 100 100 100.0 96.8 100.0 100.0 99.2 100.0 17.5 19.2 19.3 22.4 19.4 26.6 0.8 — 10.0 — 26.6 38.9 8.0 100 52.1 35.0 47.9 10.0 85.5 97.5 60.0 41.7 90.7 8.7 6.6 18.2 7.9 8.3 10.1 0.8 34.6 47.9 4.2 8.2 7.0 6.7 5.1 6.2 100 100 100 100 100 95.8 99.2 42.1 47.8 94.6 6.9 8.5 16.2 12.3 8.3 42.1 39.1 1.5 11.6 8.9 7.5 100 100 98.8 98.0 14.0 10.2 — 2.1 — 4.3 100 100 99.1 98.1 21.6 16.7 — — — — 6.28 100 88.9 18.4 5.6 7.1 100 88.6 31.0 5.7 7.1 April/76 7.38 100 100.0 21.2 — — 100 — 43.4 — — Stone, clay, and glass products: Glass containers......................................... May/75 Other pressed or blown g la s s .................. May/75 Structural clay products*.......................... Sept./75 Brick and structural clay tile.................. Sept./75 Clay refractories.................................... Sept./75 4.63 4.32 3.79 3.35 4.78 100 100 100 100 100 100.0 100.0 96.7 99.6 99.4 13.8 11.7 12.0 9.4 13.7 — — 2.2 0.4 0.6 — — 6.8 9.0 5.0 100 100 100 100 100 100.0 100.0 91.7 99.7 88.3 17.8 15.0 15.7 12.1 18.0 — — Primary metal industries: Basic iron and steel.................................... Iron and steel foundries............................ Feb./78 Nov./73 8.32 4.12 100 100 100.0 75.8 20.0 11.4 — 23.4 — 5.3 100 100 100.0 62.5 30.0 15.0 36.5 10.0 Fabricated metal products: Fabricated structural m e ta l....................... Nov./74 4.55 100 87.8 13.1 6.8 6.2 100 92.9 17.3 2.4 5.0 Transportation equipment: Motor vehicle parts and accessories . . . . Shipbuilding and repairing....................... April/74 Sept./76 4.45 5.66 100 100 75.0 52.8 13.4 22.8 24.6 35.1 5.5 7.3 100 100 79.8 70.2 14.2 19.3 16.5 17.9 8.0 7.5 — — — — 3.2 — — 1.1 0.3 1.3 — 6.8 — — 8.8 9.0 7.5 — 1D a ta re la te to s tra ig h t-tim e h o u rly e a rn in g s w h ic h e x c lu d e p re m iu m p a y fo r o v e r tim e an d fo r w o rk on w e e k e n d s , h o lid a y s , an d late s h ifts , i n c l u d e s w o rk e rs re c e iv in g o th e r th a n c e n ts -p e r -h o u r o r p e rc e n ta g e d iffe re n tia ls . 3S e e fo o tn o te 1 , ta b le 2 . i n c l u d e s d a ta fo r in d u s trie s in a d d itio n to th o s e s h o w n s e p a ra te ly . Note: D a s h e s in d ic a te no d a ta o r d a ta th a t d o n o t m e e t p u b lic a tio n c rite ria . A ta b u la tio n p ro v id in g d is trib u tio n s o f c e n ts -p e r-h o u r an d p e rc e n ta g e d iffe re n tia ls is a v a ila b le fr o m th e B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tis tic s . B e c a u s e o f ro u n d in g , s u m s o f in d iv id u a l ite m s m a y n o t eq u a l 1 0 0 . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 31 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Shift Work in Manufacturing and 1940’s, the practice of paying premiums for fixed nightshift work expanded, and since World War II, the payment of late-shift premiums has become a widespread practice in American industry.14 In 1984, more than 90 percent of the workers on second and third shifts in urban manufacturing plants received pre mium pay for such schedules. Uniform cents-per-hour dif ferentials, averaging 23.2 and 29.9 cents above day-shift rates, applied to two-thirds of the second-shift workers and to three-fourths of the third-shift workers, respectively. Sim ilarly, uniform percentage differentials, averaging 7.3 per cent and 10.0 percent of day rates, applied to one-third of the second-shift workers and nearly one-fifth of the thirdshift workers. Other types of differentials included pay at regular rates for more hours than worked (such as 8 hours’ pay for 7.5 hours’ work), paid lunch periods which were not provided to first-shift workers, or a flat sum per shift. These “ other differential” arrangements, available to fewer than 1 percent of the workers, were commonly provided in combination with a cents-per-hour or percentage differential for hours actually worked. More than 90 percent of the late-shift workers in the manufacturing industries surveyed separately by b l s during the October 1973-October 1984 period were paid shift dif ferentials. (See table 2.) Industries in which the proportions paid shift differentials were substantially below 90 percent for second shifts included rice milling (36 percent of the workers), cotton and manmade textiles (20 percent), wom en’s hosiery (35 percent), other hosiery (36 percent), and textile dyeing and finishing (41 percent). Industries in which the incidence of third-shift differentials fell substantially below 90 percent of the workers included rice milling (42 percent), women’s hosiery (32 percent), and other hosiery (38 percent). In part, these differences among the industries studied reflect the influence of collective bargaining. For 25 of the industries shown in table 2, it was possible to compare the percent of late-shift workers receiving shift premiums and the percent of the industry’s production workers employed in establishments with collective bargaining agreements covering a majority of these workers. A positive relation was found between an industry’s incidence of premium pay for shift work and its degree of unionization; the coefficient of correlation was 0.87. Shift differential pay has not increased as rapidly as basic day-shift wage levels.15 For example, straight-time average hourly earnings of unskilled plant workers in metropolitan areas rose 92 percent from July 1975 to July 1984, and skilled maintenance worker averages rose 97 percent. In contrast, the average cents-per-hour shift differential ad vanced 72 percent for second-shift and 69 percent for thirdshift work. Between 1975 and 1984, for workers receiving percent age differentials, the average premium rose 3 percentage points for second-shift and 1 percentage point for third-shift work. Percentage premiums automatically reflect increases in hourly pay rates, but cents-per-hour premiums (the prin cipal type used) require adjustment to keep pace. Shift differentials in the industries studied separately were usually paid as cents-per-hour additions to day-shift rates and typically averaged from 10 to 20 cents more for second shifts and from 15 to 25 cents more for third shifts. (See table 4.) When paid as a percentage of day-shift rates, dif ferentials for second and third shifts averaged 5 to 10 percent and were most frequently found in industries such as wom en’s hosiery, iron and steel foundries, brick and structural clay tile, shipbuilding, and motor vehicle parts. In most of the industries, the average cents-per-hour differential in creased between the survey periods studied. In a few in stances, growth in the average shift differential outpaced the rise in average hourly earnings. For example, between April 1976 and May 1981, the average cents-per-hour dif ferential in petroleum refining increased from 21.2 to 50.0 cents for second shifts and from 43.4 to 98.3 cents for third shifts.16 Over the same period, average hourly earnings in creased 57 percent, from $7.38 to $11.58. □ ‘ For summaries o f findings of surveys conducted in 1984, see Area Wage Surveys: Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1984, Bulletin 302 5 -7 2 (Bu reau o f Labor Statistics, 1985); and Occupational Earnings in All Met ropolitan Areas, July 1984, Summary 8 5 -4 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5Outside manufacturing, round-the-clock demand for medical, protec tion, and other services require night work. For a detailed analysis, see Marc Maurice, Shiftwork, Economic Advantages and Social Costs (Ge neva, International Labour Office, 1975). See also Murray F. Foss, “ Changing utilization of fixed capital: an element in long-term growth,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1985, pp. 3 -8 . 1985). 2The surveys are restricted to establishments employing 50 workers or more in the following industry divisions: manufacturing; transportation, communications, electric, gas, and sanitary services; wholesale trade; retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and selected services. (In the 13 largest areas studied, the minimum establishment size is 100 workers in manufacturing; transportation, communications, electric, gas, and sanitary services; and retail trade.) 6An alternative approach is described in Herbert R. Northrup, James T. Wilson, and Karen M. Rose, “ The Twelve Hour Shift in the Petroleum and Chemical Industries,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, April 1979, pp. 312 -2 6 . 3 For an example, see Industry Wage Survey: Meat Products, June 1984, Bulletin 2247 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1985). 7 Information on shift work typically is obtained in a given metropolitan area once every 3 years, with the information being collected annually in a third of the areas. Data for 1984 actually relate to information collected in 1982, 1983, and 1984. For ease of reference, the survey period is labeled 1984. 4See Janice Neipert Hedges and Edward S. Sekscenski, “ Workers on late shifts in a changing econom y,” Monthly Labor Review, September 1979, pp. 14-15. 8For an analysis o f late-shift employment during the 1960’s, see Charles M. O ’Connor, “ Late-shift employment in manufacturing industries,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1970, pp. '$1—42. 32 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 9 Summary data for individual areas surveyed in 1984 are in Area Wage Surveys: Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1984. 10This example is cited in F. P. Cook, Shift Work (London, Institute of Personnel Management, 1954), p. 8. 11 The latest date for which this information is available. See Workers on Late Shifts, Summary 8 1 -8 3 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1981). 12See Peter Finn, “ The effects of shift work on the lives o f em ployees,” Monthly Labor Review , October 1981, pp. 31-35; and Graham L. Staines and Joseph H. Pleck, The Impact of Work Schedules on the Family (Ann Arbor, mi, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1983). 13Unlike overtime premium provisions in union-management agree ments, which may be set high enough to deter long workweeks, collectively bargained shift premiums are essentially designed as compensation for work at disagreeable hours; unions rarely seek penalty payments as dé terrants to shift operations. See Sumner H. Slichter, James J. Healy, and E. Robert Livemash, The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management (Washington, Brookings Institution, 1960), pp. 2 2 8 -3 0 . Further discus sion o f collective bargaining issues and shift work is found in John Zalusky, “ Shiftwork— A Complex of Problems,” a f l - c io American Federationist, May 1978, pp. 1 -6 . https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Provisions for shift differentials appeared in 1,290 o f 1,550 collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more which were in effect on or after January 1, 1980. See Characteristics of Major Collective Bargaining Agreements, January 1, 1980, Bulletin 2095 (Bureau o f Labor Statistics, 1981), pp. 5 0 -5 2 . (Analysis o f collective bargaining agreements was discontinued in 1981.) 14For a brief history o f shift premiums, see Milton Derber, “ The History o f Basic Work Hours and Related Benefit Payments in the United States,” in Studies Relating to Collective Bargaining Agreements and Practices Outside the Railroad Industry, Appendix Volume IV to the Report o f the Presidential R ailroad Commission (W ashington, February 1962), pp. 2 8 8 -9 0 . 15 Shift differential pay accounted for less than 1 percent of total com pensation of production workers in manufacturing in 1977, the last year for which such data were published. See Employee Compensation in the Private Nonfarm Economy, 1977, Summary 8 0 -5 (Bureau of Labor Sta tistics, 1980), p. 8. 16During the 1976 union contract negotiations between petroleum refi ners and the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers’ Union, shift premium pay was doubled for both evening and night shifts. For further details, see Current Wage Developments (Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 1977). ERRATUM Because of a typographical error, a tabulation was duplicated in the Howard N Fullerton, Jr. article “ The 1995 labor force: bls ’ latest projections,’’ November issue, p. 22, first column. The paragraph containing the correct tabulation appears below: The labor force participation rates of a few age groups of women are projected to increase by more than 1 percent a year. The following tabulation shows the eight groups with the fastest participation growth pro:ted for 1984-95: Race Age group Projected growth per year 1.4 1.3 1.1 White wom en............... White w om en............... White wom en............... 25-34 35-44 45-54 Black w o m en............... Black w o m en ............... 35-44 45-54 1.0 Black w o m en ............... Black w o m en ............... White wom en............... 25-34 20-24 18-19 .9 .8 .8 .9 33 Productivity growth low in the oilfield machinery industry Output p er employee hour increased an average o f only 1.2 percent annually in the oilfield machinery industry between 1967 and 1983, with output going through several boom and bust cycles B rian L. Friedman and A rthur S. Herman Output per employee hour in the oilfield machinery industry1 grew at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent between 1967 and 1983, compared with a 2.4-percent rate for the entire manufacturing sector. During this period, output grew at an average annual rate of 8.1 percent, while average annual growth in employee hours was 6.8 percent. This industry has been strongly influenced by worldwide changes in the price of oil with resulting shifts in production of crude oil and natural gas. Increases in oil prices and expectations of future oil price increases have led to spurts in activity in the oilfield machinery industry, followed by periods of slower output growth or output declines as oil prices stabilized or dropped. Long-term gains in productivity have reflected some in novations in machining techniques, such as numerical con trol and improvements in handling and storing materials. However, this industry is rather labor intensive, making a variety of products with highly specific requirements for individual customers. Large increases in output have gen erally been offset by similar jumps in employment, leading to overall modest productivity growth. Sharp gains in capital expenditures, spurred by rapidly increasing oil prices, were more in the nature of duplicating facilities to meet growth in demand rather than expenditures for more advanced types of technology. Brian L. Friedman and Arthur S. Herman are economists in the Division o f Industry Productivity and Technology Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 34 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis The oilfield machinery industry produces equipment for the drilling of oil and gas wells and equipment to control the flow of oil and gas from producing wells. This includes surface and subsurface drilling equipment for both rotary and cable tool types of drilling operations. Waterwell and blasthole drilling equipment are made in this industry, as is portable drilling equipment. Equipment for offshore oil drilling is produced and sold to the shipbuilding industry, which manufactures the offshore platforms. Subsea wellhead equipment is also produced. Trends in productivity and output The productivity trend in this industry recorded a distinct change between the 1967-73 period and that of 1973-81. This change can be related to the impact of the Mideast oil embargo, which began in 1973. In 1982, a third period began, characterized by a sharp drop in demand. (See table 1.) During 1967-73, productivity grew at a rate of 3.5 per cent, with its greatest gains at the end of the period, in 1972 and 1973. The productivity trend reflected an average annual gain of 4.8 percent in output and 1.2 percent in employee hours. During this period, productivity declined in only one year— 1969. After 1973, there was a turnaround and productivity fell off. Despite a boom in output, productivity recorded a de cline over 1973-81. Spurred by oil shortages in 1973-74 and again in 1979, the price of crude oil quintupled during Table 1. Output per employee hour and related Indexea In the oilfield machinery and equipment Indu8try, 1967-83 [1977 = 100] Employee hours Output per employee hour NonNonProduction production All Production production Output All employees workers workers employees workers workers Year 1967 . . . 1968 . . . 1969 . . . 86.3 87.2 82.1 86.6 86.3 80.3 85.4 89.1 86.0 49.1 52.5 54.5 56.9 60.2 66.4 56.7 60.8 67.6 57.5 58.9 63.4 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.4 90.7 99.7 105.7 121.4 87.2 95.1 103.1 107.3 120.4 84.7 82.0 92.8 102.2 123.5 54.7 52.5 59.7 70.6 92.5 63.3 57.9 59.9 66.8 76.2 62.7 55.2 57.9 65.8 76.8 64.6 64.0 64.3 69.1 74.9 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107.9 100.7 100.0 109.3 105.6 105.0 100.9 100.0 107.2 104.6 115.0 100.6 100.0 114.8 107.6 98.4 94.5 100.0 124.1 128.8 91.2 93.8 100.0 113.5 122.0 93.7 93.7 100.0 115.8 123.1 85.6 93.9 100.0 108.1 119.4 1980 1981 1982 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.0 104.7 98.4 100.7 102.7 101.1 99.7 112.8 107.3 114.5 95.6 80.6 147.4 191.9 157.2 94.1 141.7 183.2 159.7 93.4 143.5 189.9 157.7 83.4 137.4 167.6 164.4 116.7 6.7 7.0 Average annual percent change1 1967 -8 3 1967 -7 3 1973 -81 1981 -8 3 .. 1.2 1.4 1.1 8.1 6.8 .. 3.5 4.2 2.1 4.8 1.2 0.5 2.7 .. -0 .8 -1 .1 0.1 10.9 11.8 12.1 10.8 .. -1 .9 5.6 -16.1 -3 0 .0 -2 8 .6 -3 3 .7 -1 6 .6 1 B ase d o n th e lin e a r le a s t s q u a re s tre n d o f th e lo g a r ith m s o f th e in d e x n u m b e rs . this period. Output in the oilfield machinery industry in creased at an average annual rate of 10.9 percent from 1973 to 1981. Average annual increases of 11.8 percent in em ployee hours, however, led to an overall average annual decline of 0.8 percent in productivity. There were very large output increases in 1974— 31.0 percent— and in 1978— 24.1 percent. Toward the end of the period, very rapidly increasing oil prices and expecta tions of continuing oil price increases beginning in 1979 led to another boom in demand for industry products. Output increased 14.4 percent in 1980 and 30.2 percent in 1981, when demand peaked. Many industry products, especially the oil drilling rigs themselves, are reused in the exploration for oil and there fore can be stockpiled. When drilling activity slows and the need for oilfield machinery is filled, industry demand slumps rapidly. Periods of strong output growth are usually fol lowed by periods of more modest growth or declines. There fore, during 1973-81, despite the overall high rate of growth, output posted only moderate gains in 1975, 1977, and 1979. In 1976, output declined 4.0 percent. However, employee hours had gains in every year and very large increases in 1974, 1975, 1978, 1980, and especially 1981 (23.9 per cent). Therefore, there were only three productivity in creases during this period: 14.9 percent in 1974, 9.3 percent in 1978, and a modest 0.7 percent in 1981. The remaining years had productivity declines with large drops in 1975 ( —11.1 percent) and 1976 ( - 6 .7 percent). https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis During the boom period, the industry’s major interest was satisfying burgeoning demand for oilfield equipment.2 New plant and equipment were added rapidly. In this period, the industry’s customers— drilling contractors and oil compa nies— were more concerned with their ability to search for and find oil than with the cost of equipment. Prices for oilfield machinery increased drastically. The price index for the industry more than tripled from 1973 to 1981. Despite the price gain, capital expenditures (in constant 1972 dol lars) by the crude petroleum and natural gas industry in creased by almost 500 percent between 1972 and 1981. The products made in this industry tend to be expensive relative to other industrial equipment: for example, a standard-sized carbide drill bit currently costs around $6,000 and a subsea well Christmas tree (complicated wellhead valve) could cost as much as $320,000.3 However, in relation to the overall costs of exploring for oil or the return on investment of a successful well, the equipment cost is low. This is also true for wellhead equipment, such as “ Christmas trees,” where a subsea blowout can cause serious environmental problems. Therefore, rapidly increasing equipment prices were less important to the oil exploration industry than the need to provide oil during this period. The boom in demand for industry products halted abruptly in 1981.4 Worldwide oversupply of oil began depressing oil prices. Uncertainty about continued increases in oil prices caused a sharp decline in drilling rig activities. In the United States alone, the number of rotary oil rigs in use fell from a high of more than 4,500 in 1981 to fewer than 2,400 in 1982.5 There was an oversupply of usable oil rigs. Industry output fell 18.1 percent in 1982 and plummeted 40.1 percent in 1983. A large reduction in employee hours in 1982 did not keep pace with output, and productivity fell 6.0 percent. However, in 1983, employee hours dropped more than out put, falling 41.5 percent, and productivity recorded a gain of 2.3 percent. Exports and employment boom The U.S. industry is the leader in worldwide oilfield machinery production. It supplies nearly all of domestic demand and much of the equipment used by foreign nations. Exports have been a large part of the industry’s shipments, and this segment grew substantially during the period meas ured. In 1967, 26 percent of oilfield machinery produced in the United States was exported. By 1972, this percentage had grown to 45.2 percent. Exports have remained at least 40 percent of shipments since 1972, and reached peaks of 65 percent in 1975 and 63 percent in 1976.6 The United States has few international competitors in oilfield equip ment. For example, while Japan and Korea produce offshore oil barges and platforms, the drilling equipment installed on these units tends to be supplied by the United States.7 Total employment in the oilfield machinery industry in creased from 39.9 thousand in 1967 to a high of 122.3 thousand in 1981 and then fell off sharply to 68.3 thousand 35 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Productivity in Oilfield Machinery in 1983. This growth is equivalent to the very high rate of 6.8 percent per year during 1967-83. In fact, this is the highest rate of employment gain among all the industries with published productivity measures, and can be contrasted with the low growth rate of 0.1 percent per year for the total manufacturing sector over the same period. The employment gain in this industry paralleled the changes in demand for equipment by the oil-producing industry. Employment remained fairly level between 1967 and 1972 and was not affected much by the recession of 1970. In 1973, however, employment started to expand rapidly. Em ployment was up 8.8 percent between 1972 and 1973, it grew 13.9 percent more by 1974, and was up 20.3 percent by 1975. These large gains were in contrast to the employ ment situation in the total manufacturing sector, which was negatively affected by the 1974-75 recession and recorded employment declines in both 1974 and 1975. Employment in the oilfield machinery industry continued to grow strongly from 1975 to 1978. The energy crisis in 1979 accelerated demand for oilfield equipment and employment expanded even more rapidly, growing 9.4 percent from 1978 to 1979, an additional 14.3 percent to 1980, and jumping 26.5 per cent to its peak in 1981. However, in 1982, the sharp falloff in drilling activity hit the industry drastically, and employ ment dropped 7.7 percent between 1981 and 1982 and an other 39.5 percent between 1982 and 1983. Employment of production workers grew at about the same high rate (6.7 percent per year) as total employment during 1967-83. Employment of nonproduction workers increased at the slightly higher rate of 7.0 percent over the period. Production workers accounted for about two-thirds of total employment in 1967. This proportion remained fairly stable over the study period. The growth in hours of all employees, production work ers, and nonproduction workers was quite similar to the employment growth in these categories from 1967 to 1983. Therefore, average annual hours did not change much over the period. Wages above average Average hourly earnings of production workers were somewhat higher for the oilfield machinery industry than for the average of all-manufacturing industries during the study period. In 1967, the earnings of production workers in the oilfield machinery industry were about 6 percent higher than the all-manufacturing average. This earnings advantage remained approximately the same until 1973 and then began to increase during the period of accelerating demand for oilfield equipment. So, by 1983, average hourly earnings of production workers at $10.41 were about 18 percent higher in this industry than in manufacturing as a whole. These higher earnings are one indicator that the skill levels of the workers in this industry are somewhat higher than in manufacturing as a whole. Data on occupations tend to substantiate this. Occupational data exactly matching this 36 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis industry are unavailable. However, data on occupations are available at a broader level of aggregation for the construc tion and related machinery and equipment group. In 1982, employment in the oilfield machinery industry accounted for the largest proportion of this group. Therefore, the ag gregate data should be indicative of the occupational dis tribution in the industry.8 Although the proportion of craft workers was slightly higher in all manufacturing than in this group, in key craft occupations the group including oilfield machinery accounted for a higher percentage than manu facturing as a whole in 1982. For example, metalworking craft workers were 5.2 percent of all workers, compared with 3.1 percent in manufacturing. Within the metalworking category, machinists and layout markers accounted for 2 percent of employment, compared with 0.9 percent for man ufacturing. For operatives, the proportions were quite similar, 41 percent for the group including oilfield machinery, com pared with 40 percent for manufacturing. However, met alworking operatives were significantly greater in this group at 23.3 percent, compared with only 6.8 percent for man ufacturing as a whole. Within metalworking, machine tool operators at 13.2 percent were much higher than all man ufacturing at 4.7 percent, while welders were also signifi cantly higher at 9.9 percent in this group versus 1.7 percent for manufacturing. Although the proportion of engineers was slightly higher for manufacturing as a whole, mechanical engineers in the industry group including oilfield machinery accounted for 1.5 percent, compared with 0.6 for manufacturing. In ad dition, drafters at 2.2 percent were significantly above the 0.6 percentage for manufacturing. The industry expands Rapid industry growth during the post-1973 output boom can be seen in the increase in the number of establishments. In 1967, there were 360 establishments in the industry and this number declined to 315 by 1972. In 1977, however, the number of establishments had grown to 478, and by 1982 there were 1,011. The size of establishments in this industry also increased rapidly during the post-1973 period. In 1967, there were 69 establishments with 100 employees or more. By 1972, the number of these establishments had risen to only 71 ; how ever, in 1977, there were 103 of these larger establishments and by 1982, 172. The industry is located for the most part in oil-producing States. In 1982, more than half of the establishments— 537— were in Texas. Oklahoma had the next highest num ber of establishments, 132; Louisiana had 83; and Califor nia, 75. Capital expenditures Capital expenditures per employee for this industry were below the average for all-manufacturing industries in 1967 and 1968 and roughly equal to all-manufacturing levels dur ing 1969-73. Industry expansion after 1973, however, caused a sharp increase in capital expenditures, which nearly tripled in terms of current dollars from 1973 to 1974. From 1974 forward, average capital expenditures per employee were well above all-manufacturing levels. For example, capital expenditures per employee were $9,116 in 1982, more than double the all-manufacturing average of $3,923. Although capital expenditures increased sharply during the post-1973 period, many of the plants and much of the equipment installed was duplicative rather than innovative. The industry’s major concern was rapidly increasing pro duction capacity in order to satisfy soaring demand. Effi ciency of operations was not emphasized as long as production could be maximized. Employment increased sharply and productivity was negative from 1973 to 1981. Technological change The products made in this industry include items such as drill bits, drawworks, mud pumps, wellhead valves (such as Christmas trees), derricks, as well as complete stationary and truck-mounted drilling rigs. The manufacture of these items generally involves some form of metalworking. Ma terials used usually are iron and steel castings and forgings and steel shapes. Most of the products made tend to be fairly unique and are not made in long runs. Therefore, manu facturing consists mainly of batch operations limiting the opportunities for efficiencies related to assembly line pro duction. Many of the manufacturing operations are very labor intensive. Much of the new technology in use was introduced for product changes and tighter tolerances rather than for labor savings.9 In most cases, production equipment tends to be situated in cell-type layouts in which machine tools of a similar type are grouped together, rather than in workflow layouts. This has occurred because of frequent product changes, resulting in workflow shifts, making it more economical to move the product to a specialized machine tool center than to dedicate specific machine tools to a rigid workflow pattern. In some cases, for example, the manufacture of tool joints, workflow layouts have been set up to increase efficiency. Numerical control of machine tools has been one of the most important innovations in this industry. Numerically controlled machining equipment is particularly suited to the batch type operations common to the industry, and such equipment is in widespread use. Computerized numerically controlled machine tools, a fairly recent innovation, are being used to some extent. Computerization increases the flexibility of the units being controlled and results in con tinuously produced shapes and tolerances not otherwise fea sible.10 However, manually operated machine tools continue to be used for many industry operations because of the lowvolume nature of the products made. Numerical control has also been applied to welding, which is an important manufacturing operation in this industry. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Computer-controlled electron beam welding also is in use, as is friction welding. Numerically controlled flame-cutting equipment has also been operating in this industry. Computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manu facturing (cad - cam ) is another important innovation that is beginning to be utilized in the industry. These techniques allow quick changes in the design of products to meet spe cific needs, cad - cam is particularly useful in making items such as specialized valves, Christmas trees, and other well head equipment that must be tailored to fit severe operating conditions, such as for subsea or arctic wells. Using cad , designs that might have taken months are now completed in weeks.11 cad is in more widespread use in the industry than cam . However, in some cases the computer system used produces tapes to run numerically controlled machine tools (cam ). For example, one drill bit manufacturer uses cad - cam to create new designs or modify existing designs three to twenty times faster than using conventional designdrafting techniques. The specifications for all their products are in their data base for immediate access, and tapes are produced to run numerically controlled machine tools mak ing parts for the final product.12 An important innovation is the use of computers for scheduling workflow and for inventory control. Comput erized high-rise warehouses have been installed by a number of firms in the industry. Also, computers are being used for testing, for example, in checking subsea and artic wellhead valves. Future productivity uncertain Lower levels of industry activity that began in 1982 are expected to continue through the mid-1980’s. Demand for industry output is likely to vary by product. For products such as drill bits and tool joints, which wear out with use, industry experts project some increases in demand as drilling activity resumes modest long-term trends. However, de mand for drill rigs, which can be stockpiled, will be affected by the oversupply of usable rigs, and output is expected to be low in the next few years. Much of limited demand for drill rigs should come from Third World nations and the People’s Republic of China.13 Output of oilfield machinery is greatly influenced by expectations of demand for oil and future oil prices. A large drilling project, requiring a number of drill rigs, may not produce oil for up to 2 years after the equipment is ordered. In the past, demand for oil could be gauged by projections of U.S. and worldwide economic growth. This relationship, however, has been upset by conser vation efforts. The effect of possible changes in the tax laws regarding oil depletion allowances has added to the financial uncertainty in oil well drilling. In addition, many smaller exploration companies were hard hit by the slump.14 Because of these factors, drilling activity in the near future will probably continue to remain well below the recent peak period and demand for industry products is expected 37 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Productivity in Oilfield Machinery to be low .15 This situation, however, could change rapidly if there is another oil crisis. During the current slowdown, many firms are emphasiz ing efficiency in an effort to cut costs. Inefficient capacity in operating plants has been shut down. Some plants have been completely closed, and firms have gone out of busi ness. Therefore, the industry’s inability to increase produc tivity has been enhanced. However, the continued low level of output growth that is expected will make substantial pro ductivity growth unlikely. □ ■FOOTNOTES 1The oilfield machinery and equipment industry is classified as Standard Industrial Classification (sic) 3533 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972 and its 1977 supplement, issued by the U .S. Office of Man agement and Budget. This industry includes establishments primarily en gaged in manufacturing machinery and equipment for use in oil and gas fields or for drilling waterwells. 6 U.S. Industrial Outlook 1985 (Washington, U .S. Department o f Com merce, International Trade Administration), pp. 2 3 -2 6 . 7Information obtained from industry representatives. 8bls Industry—Occupational Employment Matrix, 1982, 1995 Alter natives (Bureau of Labor Statistics), pp. 154-65, 385 -9 0 . 9Information obtained from industry representatives. 2 “ Equipment Supplies Tighten as U .S. Drilling R ises,” Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 17, 1980, p. 86. l0Oilfield Catalog, 1984 (Hughes Tool Division), p. 76. 11 Information obtained from industry representatives. l2Oilfield Catalog, 1984 (Hughes Tool Division), p. 71. 3Information obtained from industry representatives. 13Information obtained from industry representatives. 4Rick Hagar, Glenda E. Smith, and Roger Vielvoye, “ World Production o f Oil Sinks to Lowest Volume in a D ecade,” Oil and Gas Journal, Mar. 14, 1985, pp. 2 3 -2 6 . 14“ Significant Surge in U .S. Drilling Seen at Least One Year A w ay,” Oil and Gas Journal, July 11, 1983, pp. 2 5 -2 8 . 15 “ U .S. Drilling Outlay Down 36.3 Percent in 1983,” Oil and Gas 5Hughes Rig Count (Hughes Tool Company, 1983). APPENDIX: Journal, Dec. 17, 1984, pp. 4 8 -5 0 . Measurement techniques and limitations Indexes of output per employee hour measure changes in the relation between the output of an industry and employee hours expended on that output. An index of output per employee hour is derived by dividing an index of output by an index of industry employee hours. The preferred output index for manufacturing industries would be obtained from data on quantities of the various goods produced by the industry, each weighted (multiplied) by the employee hours required to produce one unit of each good in some specified base period. Thus, those goods which require more labor time to produce are given more impor tance in the index. Because data on physical quantities are not reported for the oilfield machinery industry, real output was estimated by a deflated value technique. Changes in price levels were removed from current-dollar values of production by means of appropriate price indexes at various levels of subaggre gation from the variety of products in the group. To combine segments of the output index into a total output measure, employee hour weights relating to the individual segments were used, resulting in a final output index that is concep 38 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis tually close to the preferred output measure. Employment and employee hour indexes were derived from data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Em ployees and employee hours are each considered homoge neous and additive, and thus do not reflect changes in the qualitative aspects of labor such as skill and experience. The indexes of output per employee hour relate total output to one input— labor. The indexes do not measure the specific contribution of labor or capital, or any other single factor. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of factors such as changes in technology, capital investment, ca pacity utilization, plant design and layout, skill and effort of the work force, managerial ability, and labor-manage ment relations. The average annual rates of change presented in the text are based on the linear least squares trend of the logarithms of the index numbers. Extensions of the indexes appear annually in the b l s Bulletin, Productivity Measures fo r Se lected Industries. A technical note describing the methods used to develop the indexes is available from the Division of Industry Productivity and Technology Studies. Productivity Reports The decline in productivity during the first half of 1985 L aw ren ce J. F u lc o Table 1. Changes In productivity and related measures 10 quarters after the trough of postwar recessions [P ercent change at com pound annual rate] Trough quarter Produc tivity Output Hours Employ ment Hourly compen sation Unit labor costs Business Labor productivity in the nonfarm business sector declined over the first two quarters of 1985 as payroll hours grew faster than output in the sector. The increase in hours re sulted entirely from employment gains because average weekly hours were unchanged. Increases in hourly compensation remained moderate, as they have during much of the period since the trough of the last recession, but unit labor costs advanced somewhat faster, reflecting the decline in pro ductivity. Output per hour of all persons engaged in the nonfarm business sector— labor productivity— declined at a 1.0-per cent annual rate between the fourth quarter of 1984 and the second quarter of 1985. The decline reflected a 1.5-percent annual rate of growth of output and a 2.5-percent gain in hours. Hourly compensation rose at a 4.2-percent annual rate over the period, and unit labor costs— compensation per unit of output— increased 5.2 percent. When the rise in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers ( c p i - u ) is taken into account, real hourly compensation edged upward at a 0.5-percent annual rate. The following tabulation shows the changes during the first half of this year in productivity and related measures relative to the fourth quarter of 1984. Additional information appears in tables 29 to 32 of the Current Labor Statistics section of this issue. Produc -tivity Output Hours Sector 2.6 1.3 Business................................... ........ -1 .2 2.5 1.5 Nonfarm business................. ........ -1 .0 1.4 -2.1 3.6 Manufacturing......................... ........ -2 .8 0.9 3.9 Durable................................ ........ -1 .0 2.2 3.1 Nondurable........................... ........ 2.7 1.3 Nonfinancial corporations........ ........ -1 .4 Lawrence J. Fulco is a supervisory economist in the Office of Productivity and Technology, Bureau o f Labor Statistics. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis IV. . . . II . . . . II1. . . . I .......... IV . . . . I .......... III1 . . . 5.1 3.0 2.7 4.5 3.6 3.7 2.7 7.3 5.1 5.7 5.4 6.7 7.0 4.5 2.1 2.1 2.9 0.9 3.0 3.2 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.6 0.9 3.1 3.2 1.9 8.3 4.7 4.6 4.4 6.9 7.9 9.3 3.1 1.7 1.8 -0 .1 3.3 4.1 6.4 Average cycle . . 4.0 6.3 2.3 2.3 6.5 2.4 1982 IV. . . . 2.2 6.5 4.2 3.7 3.9 1.7 1949 1954 1958 1961 1970 1975 1980 Nonfarm business IV . . . . II . . . . II1. . . . I .......... IV. . . . I .......... III1 . . . 4.0 2.3 2.3 4.0 3.7 3.4 2.0 7.8 5.3 6.0 5.7 7.0 7.1 3.8 3.6 2.9 3.6 1.6 3.2 3.5 1.8 3.4 2.7 3.2 1.5 3.2 3.5 2.0 7.6 5.0 4.3 3.6 6.9 7.7 9.5 3.4 2.7 1.9 -0 .3 3.1 4.1 7.4 Average cycle . . 3.5 6.6 3.0 2.9 6.2 2.6 3.8 4.3 Manufacturing 4.1 1.8 6.0 2.4 3.9 2.1 3.1 2.9 2.0 8.4 5.5 4.2 3.2 6.2 8.2 8.4 4.4 3.2 0.8 -2 .9 0.3 3.9 4.0 1949 1954 1958 1961 1970 1975 1980 1982 IV ____ 2.3 6.6 1949 1954 1958 1961 1970 1975 1980 3.8 2.2 3.4 6.3 5.9 4.1 4.2 11.1 5.5 8.5 9.6 10.2 8.3 6.6 IV ___ II . . . . II1. . . . I .......... IV . . . . I .......... III1 . . . 6.9 3.2 4.9 3.1 4.1 4.0 2.3 Average cycle . . 4.5 9.0 4.3 3.3 6.3 1.8 1982 IV. . . . 3.8 8.1 4.1 3.1 3.7 -0 .1 ’ Percent change, trough to peak, as designated by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Business sector Business productivity declined at a 1.2-percent annual rate over the first two quarters of 1985, reflecting slower output growth and faster increases in hours than in nonfarm business. (Although farming is a relatively small activity— it presently makes up less than 4 percent of output and hours— wide swings in farm productivity and related meas ures can have an impact on the more comprehensive business 39 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Productivity Report series.) During the first quarter, productivity declined at a 3.9-percent annual rate. Output was unchanged from the fourth quarter of 1984, so the increase in hours of all persons engaged in the sector was translated into lower productivity. In the second quarter, changes in output and hours were more nearly balanced, and productivity increased 1.5 per cent. Hourly compensation increased at a 4.8-percent annual rate during the first quarter of 1985, then slowed to 3.3 percent in the second quarter. When increases in consumer prices are considered, real hourly compensation rose 1.4 percent in the first quarter, but declined at a 0.9-percent annual rate during the second. This measure of the real return to labor for producing the goods and services which make up business output peaked in mid-1978 but subse quently declined as the c p i - u outstripped gains in hourly compensation. During the top quarter of the previous busi ness cycle (the third quarter of 1981) real hourly compen sation declines ended; since then slow but fairly steady increases have occurred. Although the increases amounted to a 3.5-percent gain by the second quarter of 1985 over the low of 4 years earlier, real hourly compensation re mained 2.7 percent below the 1978 peak. Unit labor costs (compensation per unit of output) rose at a 9.1-percent annual rate during the first quarter, the largest quarterly increase in almost 3 years. During the Chart 1. Productivity and related measures in four major sectors of the economy, 1st quarter 1973-2nd-quarter 1985 270 240 210 180 150 120 90 1973 40 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 second quarter, the rise was a more modest 1.7 percent, reflecting both moderation in the rate of increase in hourly compensation and a resumption of productivity gains. Business employment increased 1.1 million during the first half of 1985 (increasing at a 2.7-percent annual rate), bringing the increase in employment, since the recovery began in late 1982, to 7.5 million. Chart 2. Productivity and related measures 10 quarters after the trough of the business cycle in the nonfarm business sector (Index, trough quarter = 100) Nonfarm business Nonfarm business productivity declined in the first half of 1985, compared with a 4.2-percent annual rate of increase between January and June 1984. As in the more compre hensive business sector, the productivity decline in the first half of 1985 reflected more rapid gains in hours than in output. During the first quarter, productivity declined, reflecting little output growth, while hours increased more rapidly. In the second quarter the situation reversed: output increased faster and gains in hours slowed, so productivity moved upwards. Hourly compensation increases in the first and second quarters were smaller than during the same quarters last year, but unit labor costs grew much more during 1985 because of the relatively poorer record of productivity growth. Nonfarm business employment rose 1.1 million in the first 6 months of 1985, bringing the gain since the trough of the recession to 7.4 million nonfarm business jobs. Manufacturing Manufacturing productivity moved up strongly during the first half of 1985 as hours and employment were reduced, while output increased. The productivity gain in the first half of 1985 was roughly the same as during the same period a year earlier, but stemmed from different underlying move ments in output and hours. During 1984, output and hours posted strong gains between January and June, but in 1985, manufacturing output grew slowly, while hours were cut back. Productivity moved upward in the first and second quar ters, in contrast to the productivity declines which occurred in the first quarter in the business sectors. Output growth accelerated from a 0.9-percent annual rate in the first quarter to a 2.0-percent gain during the second, while hours of all persons engaged in the sector increased slightly in the first but declined in the second quarter. Hourly compensation increased in both quarters, but unit labor costs declined in the second quarter, partly reflecting the strong growth in productivity. Employment declined in the first half of 1985, but stood 1.5 million higher than during the trough of the business cycle. Nonfinancial corporations Productivity declined during the first 6 months of 1985 in the nonfinancial corporate sector, as hours increased more rapidly than output in the sector. Unlike the business sectors, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis T ro u g h I II III IV V VI V II V ili IX X 41 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Productivity Report however, productivity declined in the first and second quar ters, as output grew more slowly than employee hours during both periods. Hourly compensation increased 3.9 percent in the first quarter and 3.0 percent in the second, but after allowing for the rise in consumer prices, real hourly compensation grew 0.6 percent in the first quarter but declined 1.2 percent in the second. Both unit labor and nonlabor costs (indirect business taxes and capital consumption allowance) increased during the first two quarters, but unit profits fell. Employ ment in the sector increased by nearly a million jobs during the first half of 1985, and by 6.1 million since the trough of the business cycle. Chart 1 shows how productivity, hourly compensation, and unit labor costs have behaved since 1973. Recovery period The second quarter of 1985 marked the 10th quarter since the trough of the most recent business cycle. The trough occurred in November 1982, according to the National Bu reau of Economic Research. Since 1947, eight business cycle troughs have been identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research; six of these troughs have been fol lowed by at least 10 quarters of recovery and expansion. Although productivity growth generally accelerates during recoveries in the business cycle, the annual rate of growth during the 10-quarter period following the most recent trough (2.3 percent) was below the average (3.5 percent) of pre vious like recovery periods in nonfarm business and showed the least growth of any 10-quarter recovery. Other similar recovery periods had growth rates which ranged from 2.3 42 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to 4.0 percent. (See table 1.) However, comparing recovery periods ignores the slow down in productivity growth after 1973. Prior to 1973, nonfarm productivity grew at about half again the trend rate during the 10 quarters of recovery. In the current instance, productivity growth during recovery is better than double the underlying trend rate. Thus, the “ productivity divi dend” associated with this recovery period appears much stronger when the slower underlying trend is considered. In manufacturing, there is a smaller difference between the current recovery productivity increment and the average pre1973 acceleration, but the current recovery still represents a bigger improvement over trend than during the average manufacturing recovery prior to the slowdown. This recovery has also been marked by an unusually slow rate of increase in hourly compensation, so that despite the sluggish productivity recovery, unit labor cost increases have been very modest over the 10 quarters. In manufacturing, these costs have actually declined somewhat. Chart 2 shows how nonfarm business productivity and related measures have per formed since the trough of the business cycle. Compensation outlays account for the largest portion of value added by nonfarm business. Typically, the compen sation of labor makes up roughly two-thirds of output (in current dollars). The slow rate of increase in hourly com pensation and unit labor costs during the present expansion is reflected in the measure of labor share (compensation divided by output). Labor share has been below average in nearly every quarter of the current recovery, and in the second quarter of 1985 remained 3.0 percent below its fourthquarter 1982 level. □ Foreign Labor Developments adopts new standards on health services, labor data ilo T a d d L in s e n m a y e r The 71st International Labor Conference, meeting in Ge neva, Switzerland, largely kept disruptive political issues below the surface, and adopted new international labor stan dards on occupational health services and labor statistics, according to American delegates. The June 7 to 27 Conference also gave preliminary con sideration to standards concerning asbestos, adopted a res olution and conclusions on equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women in employment, and approved two technical resolutions concerning steps to alleviate Af rica’s food problems and to curtail the use of dangerous substances and processes in industry. U.S. Secretary of Labor William E. Brock, in his first appearance before the ilo ’s annual meeting, stressed the importance of ilo programs aimed at promoting labor/management cooperation, explaining to the Conference that “ new technologies often demand a more flexible approach to the organization of work, one guided by greater interaction, understanding and cooperation between labor and manage ment.” To help the ilo begin collecting and disseminating in formation on effective labor/management solutions to spe cific problems, Brock offered a special grant to study successful labor/management efforts to develop training and retraining programs in advance of the introduction of new technology. Of the Conference’s four technical agenda items, two— occupational health services and labor statistics— had been carried over from the 1984 Conference. The Conference adopted both a convention (which can be formally ratified by governments, giving it the same legal status as an international treaty) and a recommendation con cerning occupational health services. The convention sets out a general framework for national occupational health services. It emphasizes the preventive nature of such ser vices and defines the functions of health services to include Tadd L insenm ayer is director o f Office o f International O rganizations, Bureau o f International Labor Affairs, U .S . Department o f Labor. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis identification of workplace health risks, surveillance of the working environment, and workers’ health, training, and participation in workplace design and choice of equipment and substances used in work. The recommendation deals in more specific detail with the organization and functions of occupational health services. Two controversial issues arose during consideration of these standards. The first involved language requiring that workers and their representatives “ cooperate and partici pate” in implementing occupational health services. Amer ican and other employers argued that this inappropriately introduced labor relations issues into the standards. Employer delegates objected even more strongly to a provision in the recommendation requiring multinational enterprises to provide “ the highest standard of services, without discrimination, to the workers in all its establish ments, regardless of the place or country in which they are situated.” The employers argued that this provision raised serious issues of sovereignty and could lead to a multiplicity of levels and standards of services in countries in which many multinationals operate. The majority of delegates, including U.S. Government and worker delegates, believed there was sufficient flexi bility in the standards to allow implementation consistent with varying national laws and practices. The Conference also adopted a new convention and rec ommendation concerning labor statistics, which revised a set of standards which the ilo had originally adopted in 1938. The new standards identify nine areas for coverage in national labor statistics programs, including employment and unemployment, labor force, earnings and hours of work, labor costs, occupational injuries and illnesses, and indus trial disputes. Efforts by the U.S. Government to include productivity among statistical programs required under the convention were not successful. However, productivity was included in the recommendation and in a special resolution asking the ilo to give high priority to problems of productivity measurement. The first discussion of safety in the use of asbestos (this issue will also be on the agenda of the 1986 conference) proved every bit as controversial as expected. A number of delegates proposed an international ban on asbestos and its replacement with appropriate substitutes. This effort was 43 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Foreign Labor Developments defeated, and the decision to ban or restrict the use of as bestos was left to national authorities. Similarly, a provision urging national authorities to give special attention to the exposure of young workers to asbestos was adopted in place of an outright prohibition of youth under age 18 from work ing with asbestos. The Conference’s preliminary conclusions concerning as bestos call for national laws and regulations to control ex posure to asbestos by, among other means, encouraging alternative materials and technology, establishing and en forcing exposure limits, ensuring proper cleaning and con tainment of workers’ clothing to prevent carrying asbestos fibers outside the workplace, and through effective training and surveillance programs. Unlike the other technical agenda items, consideration of equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women in employment was not designed to lead to the adoption of standards. Rather, the Conference adopted a resolution and conclusions establishing certain fundamental principles. In its final conclusions, the Conference noted the “ un even” pace of progress in promoting equality and, in some cases, even a deterioration in the situation of women. The conclusions call for, among other things, new measures to promote the employment of women and provide equal em ployment opportunities, further development of education and training programs, intensified efforts to eliminate oc cupational segregation in labor markets, and promotion of the principle of “ equal remuneration for work of equal value,” that is, comparable worth. The work of the Conference committee considering the equal opportunity agenda item was complicated by efforts by some Eastern European countries to introduce extraneous political issues. According to the U.S. Government representative in the committee, East Germany and Czechoslovakia introduced a separate draft resolution which, while giving lip service to equality for men and women, in reality attempted to introduce such extraneous issues as disarmament, apartheid, colonialism, neo-colonialism, and creation of a new inter national economic order. While this resolution was never substantively considered, a related proposal to amend the committee’s conclusions to include a reference to disarmament provoked prolonged de bate. In the end, the Conference committee rejected the reference as inappropriate to the subject of equality of op portunity and treatment. The Conference also adopted a resolution concerning ac tion to assist African countries in achieving, in particular, food security. Against the backdrop of mounting concern for the African famine, the resolution calls for increased international assistance and i l o technical programs aimed at rural public works, skills training, and development of cooperatives. A second resolution concerning dangerous substances and processes in industry came, in part, as a result of the fatal 44 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis gas explosion in Mexico and the methyl isocyanate leak in Bhopal, India. As finally adopted by the Conference after extensive debate in committee and consideration of many amendments, the resolution calls on national authorities to “ ensure that the introduction of new hazardous substances and processes are effectively monitored and covered by ad equate health and safety measures,” urges employers to provide the safest possible operating and control systems, and asks the i l o to place more emphasis on controlling hazardous substances in its technical programs. Although political controversy was largely kept below the surface and did not dominate this year’s Conference as it has in some other years, politics was not absent. According to Robert W. Searby, chairman of the U.S. delegation, Nicaragua attempted to introduce, in the name of the Non-Aligned Movement (a loose association of de veloping countries), a strong condemnation of U.S. policies in Central America. The United States and other i l o mem bers insisted that such a political issue was not relevant to the i l o . In the end, only a much watered-down letter was sent to the President of the Conference which was neither officially distributed nor granted the status of a Conference document. Of somewhat more concern to members of the American delegation was the “ suspension” of discussion of Soviet violations of the i l o ’ s freedom of association standards. In 1977, the United States quit the i l o citing, in partic ular, the Conference’s “ selective concern for human rights,” that is, the i l o ’ s tendency to criticize human rights violations in developing countries while ignoring serious problems in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. More recently, and particularly since the United States rejoined the i l o in 1980, the organization has been far more vocal in its criticism of Soviet bloc violations, in particular, Poland’s efforts to crush the Solidarity trade union. Ac cording to Searby, this has prompted a strong Soviet attack on the i l o ’ s human rights machinery— including increased political and financial pressure to secure a “ selective im munity” from i l o monitoring. Although the Conference committee dealing with the implementation of standards by i l o members continued to carefully and objectively examine violations of the crucial freedom of association standards by many developing and Western countries, this year, the workers’ vice chairman in the committee— to the surprise of many— successfully instigated the suspension of sub stantive consideration of long-standing Soviet violations.1 This move prompted the U.S. Government representative to express “ concern” about the possible “ return to the moratorium” on discussion of Soviet violations which pre vailed throughout the 1960’s and into the 1970’s. Secretary of State George P. Shultz, in hearings before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee in September, ex pressed concerns about “ backsliding” in the i l o ’ s willing ness to look critically at Soviet violations in the face of increasing Soviet pressures. leading to new international standards) on the promotions of small- and medium-sized undertakings, and on the prob lems of young workers. Finally, the Conference continued its practice of review ing the policy of apartheid in South Africa, urging intensified efforts by governments, employers, and workers to pressure the South African government into eliminating it. The Con ference also adopted a $253 million budget to cover i l o activities for the 1986-87 period. In 1986, the i l o Conference will again consider proposed standards on asbestos and will hold general discussions (not https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ------------- FOOTNOTE------------- 1A lthough the C onference com m ittee did exam ine violations o f freedom o f association and discrim ination in em ploym ent standards by C zech oslo vakia, it was unable to review violations by Poland and R om ania because those governm ents refused to participate in the com m ittee. A different kind of cost-of-living study The [ b l s ] . . . participated in an innovative cost-of-living inquiry con ducted by the International Labor Office in 1930-31. The study originated with a request by the Ford Motor Company for information to help in setting wage rates of its employees in certain European cities to ensure the same general living standard as that of its employees in Detroit. The Bureau conducted the work in Detroit, covering a sample of 100 families. The Detroit budget was then used by the various European statistical agencies, with adjustment for differences in national consumption habits, government social insurance payments, and other factors, to determine the cost of living in those cities relative to Detroit. — Jo s e p h P. G oldberg a n d W il l ia m T. M o ye The First Hundred Years o f the Bureau o f Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2235 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). 45 Research Summaries Regional pay variations in millwork manufacturing Straight-time hourly earnings of production and related workers in the millwork industry averaged $7.37 in Sep tember 1984, according to a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 Regionally, earnings averaged between $5.40 and $5.70 in the Southeast, Southwest, and Border States. Elsewhere, the averages ranged from $6.51 in New England to $8.04 in the Great Lakes and $8.62 in the Pacific States. (See table 1.) Together, the last two regions accounted for 53 percent of the industry’s production workers. The 1,039 millworking establishments within scope of the survey (those having eight workers or more) employed an estimated 50,400 production workers in September 1984. These workers manufacture a variety of products, including interior and exterior doors, windows (frames or complete units), stairs, and interior and exterior ornamental wood work. Based on an establishment’s primary product, threetenths of the production workers were employed by man ufacturers of interior woodwork products and one-fourth by window manufacturers. Nearly one-fifth of the workers were in plants where interior doors (softwood) were the major product and one-eighth were in plants producing flush and molded exterior doors. The remainder of the production workers were involved principally in the manufacture of window and door sash, stairs, and exterior woodwork. Among the product categories studied separately, workers in plants primarily manufacturing windows had the highest average hourly pay ($8.18); softwood doors, the lowest ($6.13). Workers in establishments primarily producing flush and molded doors averaged $7.55 an hour; and those pro ducing interior woodwork, $7.46. These nationwide pay levels were influenced largely by the regional distribution of workers in each product category. For example, the Great Lakes, the second highest paying of the regions, accounted for three-fifths of the workers in plants primarily manufac turing windows, while the Southeast and the Southwest, the two lowest paying regions, accounted for none of the work ers in this category. Where comparisons could be made, regional pay differences for a product category frequently were substantial. Twenty-two occupations were selected to represent the industry’s wage structure, workers’ skills, and manufactur 46 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis a ing operations. Pay levels among these jobs, which ac counted for slightly more than half of the production workers, ranged from $5.24 an hour for hand sanders and $5.42 for janitors to $9.15 an hour for journeyman millworkers and $9.69 for millwrights. Assemblers of wood products (nearly one-fifth of the workers) averaged $7.47 an hour. Occupational pay levels were typically highest in the Pa cific States and lowest in the Southeast. Pay relationships, however, varied widely by occupation. For example, gen eral utility maintainers in the Pacific States averaged 21 percent more than the national average, while their coun terparts in the Great lakes averaged 2 percent less. Con versely, hand sanders in the latter region averaged 28 percent above the national average, while in the Pacific States they averaged 9 percent less. Occupational pay levels also were compared by size of community, size of establishment, and labor-management contract coverage. Nationwide, occupational averages were generally 20 to 30 percent more in plants with at least 250 workers than in plants with 8 to 99 workers; and 25 to 40 percent higher in plants with union contracts than in non union plants. Where regional comparisons were possible by size of community and size of establishment, these national patterns were often reversed. Virtually all production workers were in establishments providing paid holidays, paid vacations, and at least part of the cost of various health and insurance plans. Six to 11 holidays annually were typical, as were 1 to 3 weeks of vacation pay, depending on years of service. Retirement pension plans covered slightly more than half of the work force; retirement severance plans applied to nearly one-tenth. Employers typically paid the entire cost of these retirement plans. Slightly over three-tenths of the workers were employed in establishments having collective bargaining agreements covering a majority of the production workers. On a regional basis, collective bargaining agreement coverage ranged from slightly less than one-tenth of the workers in the Southeast and Southwest to nearly two-thirds in the Middle Atlantic region. Of the two major regions the proportions of workers in union establishments were nearly one-half in the Great Lakes and two-fifths in the Pacific. The predominant union in the industry is the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners ( a f l - c i o ) . A comprehensive bulletin on the study, Industry Wage Table 1. Average hourly earnings1 in mlllwork manufacturing by selected characteristics, United States and regions,2 Sep tember 1984 ______________________________________________ Characteristic United States New England Middle Atlantic Border States Southeast Southwest Great Lakes Middle West $7.37 7.46 $6.51 6.62 5.20 $7.61 7.70 5.53 $5.69 5.93 5.04 $5.41 5.52 4.79 $5.61 5.81 4.77 $8.04 8.20 — $7.73 All production workers ............................................................. Men ....................................................................................... Women .................................................................................. — — — Mountain Pacific $6.70 6.82 6.06 $8.62 8.81 — Size of community: Metropolitan areas3 ................................................................ Nonmetropolitan areas........................................................... 7.48 6.86 6.76 4.94 7.60 7.64 5.41 5.40 5.61 8.04 7.93 5.58 — — — 6.45 7.63 8.70 8.07 Size of establishment: 8-99 workers ........................................................................ 100-249 w orkers................................................................... 250 workers or more ........................................................... 7.21 6.63 7.97 6.68 — 7.81 7.34 — 5.76 5.99 — 5.51 5.13 — 6.22 5.14 5.22 6.98 7.28 8.63 7.46 — — 6.62 7.00 — 9.27 7.94 8.25 Labor-management contract coverage: Establishments with— Majority covered ................................................................... None or a minority covered ................................................. 8.52 6.83 7.68 6.26 8.07 6.72 — 5.58 — 5.40 6.25 5.55 7.70 8.35 8.35 7.62 9.47 6.18 10.51 7.46 Principal product: Flush and molded doors ...................................................... Softwood d o o rs ..................................................................... Windows ............................................................................... Interior woodwork ................................................................ 7.55 6.13 8.18 7.46 5.75 6.93 6.81 10.21 5.22 4.80 5.12 5.14 — — 6.26 7.21 6.02 6.66 7.89 6.36 10.37 — 7.43 6.72 8.68 7.13 _ 5.88 6.36 8.21 Selected production occupations: Assemblers............................................................................. Cut-off saw operators ........................................................... Janitors .................................................................................. Maintained, general u tility ................................................... Millworkers, journeyman ...................................................... Molding-machine operators ................................................. Off-bearers, machine............................................................. Power-truck operators........................................................... Sanders; h a n d ........................................................................ Tenoner operators ................................................................ 7.47 7.25 5.42 8.12 9.15 8.03 6.51 7.44 5.24 7.44 5.49 5.57 4.66 6.70 5.65 5.55 4.88 4.11 6.82 6.95 6.09 4.29 5.56 4.49 5.80 5.80 5.23 4.56 7.84 10.44 6.26 4.44 5.43 4.79 5.43 8.49 6.89 6.40 7.95 10.29 7.42 6.93 7.40 6.73 7.99 6.17 6.62 4.99 7.99 8.61 7.71 6.09 7.18 4.59 7.57 8.28 8.43 5.94 9.90 10.34 9.32 7.57 8.92 4.79 8.68 — 5.33 5.57 5.72 7.46 8.92 7.34 5.58 6.83 — 7.51 1Excludes premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Incentive payments such as those resulting from piecework or production bonus systems, and cost-of-living bonuses were included as part of the workers’ regular pay. Excluded are performance bonuses and lump-sum payments of the type negotiated in the auto and aerospace industries, as well as profit-sharing payments, attendance bonuses, Christmas or year-end bonuses, and other nonproduction bonuses. 'The regions used in this study include: New England— Connecticut, Maine, Massachu setts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Middle Atlantic— New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; Border States— Delaware, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Mary- Survey: Millwork, September 1984, may be purchased from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Publication, Sales Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chicago, i l 60690, or the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash ington, D.C. 20402. The bulletin provides additional in formation on occupational earnings, such as distributions, and on the incidence of employee benefits. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 7.68 5.83 5.65 8.03 9.55 6.12 5.95 6.87 8.49 6.73 _ _ — — — 5.19 6.17 — 5.71 8.38 — 7.51 7.59 7.61 5.69 8.05 8.77 8.10 6.83 7.52 — 8.25 r.w 8.95 7.94 land, Virginia, and West Virginia; Southeast— Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; Southwest— Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas; Great Lakes— Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin; Middle West— Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota; Moun tain— Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; and Pacific— California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Alaska and Hawaii were not included in the study. Metropolitan Statistical Areas, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget through June 1983. Note: Dashes indicate no data or data that do not meet publication criteria. ------------- FOOTNOTE ------------- •Earnings data exclude premium pay for overtime and for work on weekends, holidays, and late shifts. Incentive payments, such as those resulting from piecework or production bonus systems, and cost-of-living bonuses were included as part of the workers’ regular pay. Excluded are performance bonuses and lump-sum payments of the type negotiated in the auto and aerospace industries, as well as profit-sharing payments, attendance bonuses, Christmas, or yearend bonuses, and other nonpro duction bonuses. 47 M ajor Agreements Expiring Next M onth This list of selected collective bargaining agreements expiring in January is based on information from the Bureau’s Office of Wages and Industrial Relations. The list includes agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Private industry is arranged in order of Standard Industrial Classification. E m p lo y e r a n d lo c a tio n P riv a te in d u stry A s s o c ia te d G e n e ra l C o n tra c to rs o f A m e ric a , A riz o n a C h a p te r a n d A riz o n a B u ild in g C h a p te r, 4 a g re e m e n ts (A riz o n a ) S u g a r C o m p a n ie s N e g o tia tin g C o m m itte e (H a w a ii) ............................................... C o n s tru c tio n P h ilip M o rris U S A ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ........................................................................................... Tobacco ............................................ P . L o rilla rd C o . ( K e n t u c k y ) ................................................................................................. Tobacco ............................................ M a so n ite C o r p ., L a u re l d iv is io n (L a u re l, m s ) ........................................................... T im e , In c. (N e w Y o rk , n y ) ................................................................................................. A m erican C y an im id C o ., L ederle L ab o rato ries d iv isio n (Pearl R iv e r, n y ) . . . . L u m b e r ............................................... P rin tin g a n d p u b l i s h i n g ............... C h e m i c a l s ......................................... A tla n tic R ic h fie ld C o . a n d A rc o P ip e L in e C o . ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ................................ P e tro le u m ......................................... A m e ric a n O il C o . ( I n t e r s t a t e ) .............................................................................................. P e tro le u m ......................................... S ta n d a rd O il C o ., A m o c o T e x a s R e fin in g C o . (T e x a s C ity , t x ) ..................... P e tro le u m ......................................... G u lf O il C o rp . (P o rt A rth u r, t x ) ..................................................................................... P e tro le u m ......................................... M o b il O il C o rp . (B e a u m o n t, t x ) ..................................................................................... P e tro le u m ......................................... S h e ll O il C o . (H o u s to n , t x ) ................................................................................................. P e tro le u m ......................................... S h e ll O il C o ., W o o d R iv e r refin ery (W o o d R iv e r, il ) ......................................... S h e ll O il C o . (M a rtin e z , c a ) .............................................................................................. P e tro le u m P e tro le u m ......................................... ......................................... S ta n d a rd O il C o . o f In d ia n a , A m o c o O il C o . ( W h itin g , in ) P e tro le u m ......................................... . . P e tro le u m ......................................... U n io n O il C o . o f C a lifo rn ia (L o s A n g e le s, c a ) ........................................................ P e tro le u m ......................................... A tla n tic R ic h fie ld C o . (L o n g B e a c h , c a ) ....................................................................... P e tro le u m ......................................... .............................. S ta n d a rd O il C o . o f C a lifo rn ia , C h e v ro n U S A d iv is io n ( R ic h m o n d , c a ) F o o d p ro d u c ts ................................... ................................ C h a m p io n S p a rk P lu g C o . ( I n t e r s t a t e ) ............................................................................ B u lo v a W a tc h C o . (N e w Y o rk ) ........................................................................................ E le c tric a l p ro d u c ts ........................ In stru m e n ts ...................................... C P G P ro d u c ts C o r p ., K e n n e r P ro d u c ts d iv is io n ( C in c in n a ti, o h ) ..................... Q u e e n s T ra n sit a n d 3 o th e r c o m p a n ie s (N e w Y o rk , n y ) ...................................... U ta h P o w e r a n d L ig h t C o . (U ta h , W y o m in g , a n d Id a h o ) ................................... W o o d w a rd a n d L o th ro p , In c . ( W a s h in g to n , d c ) ..................................................... G re a te r S e a ttle R e ta il D ru g A s s o c ia tio n In c . ( W a s h i n g t o n ) ................................ M o n te fio re M e d ic a l C e n te r, n u rse s (N e w Y o rk , n y ) ............................................ M is c e lla n e o u s m a n u fa c tu rin g . . T ra n sit ............................................... U t i l i t i e s ............................................... R e ta il tra d e ...................................... R e ta il tra d e ...................................... H o s p i t a l s ............................................ G o v e r n m e n t a c tiv ity N e w Y o rk : O n e id a C o u n ty g e n e ra l u n it 'Affiliated with afl- cio .................................................................... except where noted as independent (Ind.). 48 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M u l t id e p a r tm e n ts .......................... L a b o r o r g a n i z a ti o n 1 C a rp e n te rs; L a b o rers; C e m e n t M a so n s; O p e ra tin g E n g in e ers L o n g s h o re m e n ’s a n d W a re h o u s e m e n ’s ( In d .) B a k e ry , C o n fe c tio n e ry a n d T o b a c c o W o rk e rs B a k e ry , C o n fe c tio n e ry a n d T o b a c c o W o rk e rs W o o d w o rk e rs ......................................... N e w s p a p e r G u i l d ................................... C h e m ic a l W o rk e rs ................................ O il, C h e m ic a l W o rk e rs O il, C h e m ic a l W o rk e rs O il, C h e m ic a l W o rk e rs O il, C h e m ic a l W o rk e rs O il, C h e m ic a l W o rk e rs N um ber of w o rk e rs 1 3 ,2 5 0 7 ,5 0 0 1 0 ,3 0 0 1 ,2 5 0 1,000 1 ,5 0 0 1 ,4 5 0 a n d A to m ic 3 ,3 0 0 a n d A to m ic 3 ,5 0 0 a n d A to m ic 1 ,3 5 0 a n d A to m ic 2 ,7 0 0 a n d A to m ic 1,200 O il, C h e m ic a l a n d A to m ic W o rk e rs V a rio u s u n i o n s ......................................... O il, C h e m ic a l a n d A to m ic W o rk e rs O il, C h e m ic a l a n d A to m ic W o rk e rs O il, C h e m ic a l a n d A to m ic W o rk e rs 2,000 O il, C h e m ic a l a n d A to m ic W o rk e rs O il, C h e m ic a l a n d A to m ic 2,000 W o rk e rs A u to W o rk e rs ......................................... In d e p e n d e n t P ro d u c tio n , M a in te n a n c e a n d S e rv ic e E m p lo y e e s ( In d .) In d u stria l W o rk e rs ................................ T ra n sp o rt W o r k e r s ................................ E le c tric a l W o rk e rs ( ib e w ) .................. F o o d a n d C o m m e rc ia l W o rk e rs . . . F o o d a n d C o m m e rc ia l W o rk e rs . . . N u rs e s ’ A s s o c ia tio n ( In d .) ............... L a b o r o r g a n i z a ti o n 1 S ta te , C o u n ty a n d M u n ic ip a l E m p lo y e e s 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,100 2 ,5 0 0 1,200 1 ,5 0 0 1,200 3 ,8 0 0 5 ,5 0 0 1 ,9 0 0 1 ,4 0 0 N um ber of w o rk e rs 1,000 Developments in Industrial Relations Chrysler’s wages and benefits match gm , Ford About 70,000 striking employees of Chrysler Corp. re sumed work after the company and the Auto Workers agreed on a 35-month contract. The breakthrough in the negotia tions came in late October, when the parties tentatively agreed on the terms, which were subsequently approved by the union’s 170-member Chrysler Council and by rank-andfile members. The union attained its goal of regaining parity with the wage and benefit provisions of its current contracts with General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. However, the possibility of future variations still exists because the Chrys ler agreement expires in September 1988, a year after the 3-year agreements at g m and Ford. The u a w had sought a September 1987 expiration date for the Chrysler contract. The company’s chief negotiator said that having a different expiration date reduces the “ tendency for one-upmanship” between branches of the union. He also maintained that negotiating separately will enable Chrysler— a considerably smaller company with a narrower product line— to tailor contracts to its own needs. Details of the Chrysler-UAW contract will appear in the January issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Master contract covers Sunshine Biscuits plants Other provisions included a $50 a month increase in the normal pension benefit, which is now available when a worker’s age plus years of service total 80 (previously, a worker had to have 25 years of service, regardless of age); a 2.5-cent-an-hour increase in the night shift premium; and increased health care benefits for retirees. Agreement ends shipyard strike A 99-day strike against Bath Iron Works Corp. ended when members of Local 6 of the Marine and Shipbuilding Workers ratified a 341/2-month contract. The drawn-out struggle resulted because the shipyard was seeking labor cost reductions it said were necessary to compete effectively against lower cost foreign yards, while the 4,500 workers were seeking economic gains they contended were war ranted by their performance and Bath’s profitability. The three Bath yards, located in Maine, and other U.S. shipyards are essentially limited to competing for construction of ships for the U.S. Navy because of the intense competition from the foreign yards. According to the Shipbuilders Council of America, only five large commercial vessels have been built in the U.S. since 1981, when the Federal Government stopped subsidizing production of commercial vessels. The Bath accord, which was a compromise, does not provide for any increases in hourly pay rates, which range up to $11.47, but the employees received immediate $1,000 lump-sum payments, to be followed by $500 payments in December of 1986 and 1987. They will also receive $200 payments for each 6 months of perfect attendance. A type of two-tier system was adopted, under which new employees will start at $3 an hour below the top rate for their job and move to the top rate in three steps at 1-year intervals. Previously, employees started at 50 cents below the top rate and moved to the top rate in a single step after 35 working days. Other terms included employee payment of part of the premium cost for medical insurance (previously, Bath had paid the entire amount) and 4 days paid annual sick leave (previously, 3 days). In the bakery industry, Sunshine Biscuits Inc. and the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers negotiated a second 2-year master contract for 1,700 workers at four plants. Prior to their first 2-year master contract, negotiated in 1983, the parties negotiated on a plant-by-plant basis. The new contract, which was effective on October 1, provides for a 50-cent-an-hour general wage increase on April 1, 1986. There is no provision for a second-year wage increase but a $1,000 lump-sum payment will be made on October 1, 1986, to all employees who received 13 paychecks during the preceding 12 months. In another wage provision, workers at the facilities in Sayreville, n j , Columbus, g a , and Sante Fe Springs, c a , will also receive two 5-cent-an-hour wage increases to bring their rates closer to those at Oakland, c a , where current rates are $10.90 for general helpers and $11.57 for mixers. Teachers’ settlements “ Developments in Industrial Relations” is prepared by George Ruben of the Division o f Developments in Labor-Management Relations, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is largely based on information from secondary sources. At the end of September, the number of teachers strikes had dropped to 12, involving about 60,000 students in Penn sylvania, Ohio, and Illinois. One of the settlements was in https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 49 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Developments in Industrial Relations Seattle, where 3,700 teachers and related employees ne gotiated a 1-year contract and ended their 25-day walkout. Terms included allocation of money to help reduce the size of classes; to add 3 working days (at more than $204 a day) to the teachers’ 182-day schedule; and to increase the nonteaching staff. Basic salaries for the teachers were not at issue because State law sets pay levels throughout the State. The Seattle teachers are represented by the National Education Asso ciation. In Pittsburgh, the school board and the local unit of the American Federation of Teachers acted to improve their bargaining relationships and facilitate educational reforms by settling a year in advance of the scheduled August 31, 1986, expiration date of their contract. The 2-year exten sion, running to August 31, 1988, gives the parties a 3-year period during which they can concentrate on educational issues. In the final year of the agreement, salaries will range from $20,000 a year for starting teachers to $40,000 for those with 9 years’ experience, up from the current $15,400 to $34,410 range. The accord, covering 3,500 teachers, also provides for expanding their duties and responsibilities. Airlines settle More than 12,000 mechanics and other ground service employees were covered by a settlement between American Airlines and the Transport Workers. Over the SV^-year con tract term, the workers will receive three lump-sum pay ments totaling $2,000, plus a 5-percent wage increase on March 5, 1988. Other provisions included continuation of company-paid health benefits for current employees (there were some cuts for new employees); revision of the pension plan to give employees credit for service they had accrued before age 25; and the addition of 1,400 members to the list of employees who cannot be required to relocate. Northwest Orient Airlines and the Railway and Airline Clerks negotiated a 42-month contract for 4,300 clerical, ticket, and reservation workers. The contract, which was effective July 1,1985, provides for 4-percent wage increases on January 1 of 1986 and 1987 and a 3.5-percent increase on January 1, 1988. This will bring the pay rate range to $1,622-$2,501 a month for ticket agents. In a change in the pay progression schedule, new employees will have to wait 10 years to attain the top rate for their job, compared with 7 years for current employees. Benefit changes in cluded a 9.4-percent increase in the pension rate and a 10day increase (to 130 days) in maximum sick leave accrual. 50 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Kroger Co. modifies current contract In West Virginia, midterm contract modifications nego tiated by the Kroger Co. and the United Food and Com mercial Workers included a one-time severance payment offer intended to eventually reduce employment costs. The $8,000 payment was limited to employees with hourly earn ings of at least $10.16 who agreed to quit their jobs within 60 days. A union official predicted that only 75 to 100 of the more than 2,000 eligible workers would accept the offer. The accord, covering a total of 3,600 workers at 57 stores (including a few in Ohio and Kentucky), also eliminated possible automatic cost-of-living pay adjustments in October of 1985 and 1986. Safeway, Lucky stores negotiate concessions In Northern California, 14 months of bitter negotiations between the Teamsters and Safeway Stores, Inc., and Lucky Stores, Inc., finally resulted in a 45-month contract for delivery and warehouse workers that was retroactive to the August 1, 1984, expiration date of the prior contract. Al though 64.4 percent of the votes cast were against the ac cord, it carried because the union’s bylaws require that twothirds of the votes be negative for a turndown. A union official said the requirement was appropriate because the union believes a strike cannot be effective without the sup port of at least two-thirds of the members. The concessions took several forms. One was adoption of a two-tier compensation structure under which employees hired after July 13, 1985, will take 3 years to progress to the maximum pay rate for their job, unlike current em ployees who started at the single rate. The same progression structure also applies to sick leave. There also were permanent changes in benefits, with new employees limited to 6 paid holidays, compared with 11 for current employees, and 1 week of paid vacation, compared with maximum of 6 weeks for current employees. During the first part of the contract, employees will re ceive semi-annual lump-sum payments calculated at 50 cents for each straight-time hour worked during the preceding 6 months. The first payment will be in March 1986 and the last in 1987. At that time, the 1,850 workers will begin receiving a 50-cent increase in hourly wage rates, which reportedly averaged $16.02 for drivers and $15.42 for ware house workers at the time of settlement. The contract also provided for increased use of casual and part-time workers and for changes in work schedules to permit weekend work to be performed at straight-time pay rates. □ Book Reviews Strategies for fighting stagflation The Politics o f Inflation and Economic Stagnation: Theo retical Approaches and International Case Studies. Ed ited by Leon N. Lindberg and Charles S. Maier. Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1985. 612 pp. $38.95, cloth; $18.95, paper. This volume is the outgrowth of a conference held by The Brookings Institution in 1978 to examine the elements making for the persistent inflation and economic stagnation among the major industrial countries from the mid-1960’s to the 1980’s. The composition of the authorship of this treatment is unusual, as is the orientation. The 15 contrib utors of individual chapters are political scientists, histori ans, sociologists, as well as economists. Their frame of reference was to analyze the interaction of national political and social forces with the market conditions making for inflation and the deterioration of economic conditions. The editors, Leon N. Lindberg of the University of Wisconsin and Charles S. Maier of Harvard University, have marshaled the several contributions and their own perceptive syntheses and conclusions into a logical whole. The need for an institutional approach to stagflation is explained by several of the authors. Albert O. Hirschman of Harvard observes that the elaborate economic theories of inflation dominate the field because they can be utilized for policy advice, while economists tend to treat the deeper political and social roots in vague notions such as “ rising expectations,” “ faltering social cohesion,” and “ govemability crisis.” Furthermore, conventional economic analy ses treated the events associated with inflation in the 1970’s as random influences, even as they became so continuous as to suggest systemic conditions. Maier points out that the major analysis by the Organization for Economic Co operation and Development in 1977 of inflation and reces sion, while recognizing that there had been basic changes in behavior patterns and power relationships internationally and within countries, attributed these to “ an unusual bunch ing of unfortunate disturbances unlikely to be repeated on the same scale, the impact of which was compounded by some avoidable errors in economic policy.” While some events may be random, and policy errors may be made, persistent economic conditions require more incisive examination of the underlying political and social https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis conditions. The authors have achieved this through a crosssectional treatment of individual national case studies of Japan, Italy, West Germany, and Sweden in contrast with experience in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Latin America, on which are also based theoretical discus sions regarding the roles of trade union wage restraint, pub lic expenditures, governmental policy, democracy, and central banks. The authors demonstrate that both economic ends and means are political acts. Nations decide on their prior ities, with the preferences and observed needs determined by cultural and historic traditions in setting the mix of growth, employment, price stability, and equity. The responses of the leading industrial countries to in flation between 1970 and 1982 are categorized by Lindberg into three configurations. “ Open and unstructured confron tation” characterized the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Italy, with policy actions utilized to attain power and income claims, and few means available for circumscribing conflict. “ Muted confrontation and structured bargaining” characterized West Germany, Aus tria, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries, with explicit bargaining among Scandinavian groups, including labor and business, and the State, to allocate real income losses. The third category, “ statist or controlled manage ment,” characterized France and Japan, with governing elites with power to channel investment, encourage industrial con centration, determine acceptance of altered monetary con stitution, and ability to guarantee income and employment security. In the first configuration, labor was relatively weak and in an adversarial position with management. In the second, labor was strong, unions and employers were cen trally organized for bargaining, and cooperative relations existed within the normal competitive roles of capitalism. In the statist mode, labor was weak and fragmented, busi ness was centralized and well organized. The authors comment on the heavy economic toll taken by the deliberately restrictive economic policies of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, in coping with inflation, with moderate improvement in the United States, but continued substantial unemployment in the United King dom. Up to the early 1980’s, restrictive policies apparently worked more efficiently in West Germany and Japan where economic decisions maintained a closer balance with long developed government guarantees and institutional arrange51 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Book Reviews ments. Some of the smaller countries, which had to accept higher unem ploym ent rates, eased the burdens with improved welfare and job training programs. Sweden, Norway, and Japan kept rates of unemployment low by encouraging wage and price restraint, or through manpower, investment, and industry policies directed at the supply side of the economy. Lindberg concludes that economic strate gies that strip away long established guarantees “ in the name of liberating market forces and subjecting economic and political transactions to the discipline of the market may produce a politics and economics of disinflation that is more destabilizing than the disturbances produced by the inflation of the 1970’s .” The experience described in the volume is cited as basis for the conclusion that modem, democratic, capitalist econ omies must adapt to technological and structural changes through large bureaucratic organizations and by recognizing a broad distribution of power. “ The approaches that Japan, West Germany, Sweden, and Austria have taken to eco nomic change seem to have important advantages. They counsel employment-oriented policies, active inclusion of workers in productivity and even in investment decisions at the plant level and in economic policymaking at the national level, and government participation in carrying out the strat egies of industrial adaptation.” The authors find that while neo-Keynesianism could not meet the test of price and wage stability in the 1970’s, neither is primary reliance on the market acceptable, in that it has resulted in high unemployment and regressive trans fers of income. New initiatives are needed and possible “ if there is to be an alternative to smashing unions, forcing concessionary wages as an anti-inflationary strategy, and eroding the welfare state.” With appropriate cautions, they suggest that corporatism, the policy of involving spokesmen for labor, business, and the state in tripartite consensual bargaining, as in Scandinavia, Austria, and the Netherlands, can provide the means for democratic coordination at the national level for consideration of economic policies. But they acknowledge that corporatist arrangements are not readily imported. In the countries where they are well established, they are grounded in historic indigenous conditions. In the United States, where close relations between labor, management, and government remain for development, the elected legislature could be the focus for considering alter native economic policies, including investment, with ad visory national commissions grouping labor and management representatives. The empirical evidence suggests that this would be a worthwhile effort in the face of the disruptive effects of continuing economic instability and industrial transformation. — Joseph P. Goldberg Special Assistant to the Commissioner Bureau o f Labor Statistics 52 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis An ILO study of social security Into the Twenty-First Century: The Development o f Social Security. By Pierre Laroque and others. Geneva, Switzerland, International Labour Office, 1984. 115 pp. $12.85 (U.S.), paper. The book is subtitled, “ A report to the Director-General of the International Labour Office on the response of the social security system in industrialized countries to eco nomic and social change.” It is the joint effort of 3 years of labor by 10 illustrious experts on social security drawn from as many nations and given the charge, “ to provide him [the Director-General of the ilo] with a report on the likely evolution of social security in industrialized countries as we approach the end of this century.” The volume is slim but rich in content. It is timely and important, both because of its thoughtful conclusions and recommendations—even though one may disagree with some of them (as the authors readily concede)— and even more so because of the forceful and courageous reaffirmation by the authors of the essential, lasting, and dynamic role that social security must play in modem society. The drafting of the report and the recommendations fell to Professor Brian Abel-Smith of the London School of Economics. He culled the descriptive part of the report from factual material and documentation contributed by members of the study group and by the Social Security Department of the International Labour Office. Chapter 1 covers social security’s achievements, the real or alleged drawbacks, notably economic and financial, as well as the shortfalls and failures, and identifies unsolved problems. Chapter 2 stakes out some goals for the foreseeable future. It examines the programs’ continued raison d ’etre, their character (comprehensive and universal or selective), and their place within a country’s socioeconomic fabric, for example, income distribution and poverty. Chapters 3 to 6 deal with developments in cash benefits; services; relations with the public; and financing. Chapter 7 projects the future for social security as a whole, as well as in terms of its component parts. Although of primary interest to specialists in the field, the book can be easily understood by laymen. It may be particularly useful as a supplemental text in college and university courses on social policy and as a study guide in training courses sponsored by labor and civic organizations. Futurists will also be interested in it, as will those persons concerned with enhancing the well-being of citizens as a whole. In fact, the authors repeatedly link a “ sense of com munity” with any kind of social security. They refer to it variously as a “ sense of shared responsibility” or a “ con sciousness of solidarity” — “ national solidarity” at present and “ perhaps— tomorrow— international solidarity.” The book offers many challenging propositions to pro gram planners and developers. For example, the redefinition of the aims of social security; the identification of new patterns of dependency; new conceptions of prevention and rehabilitation; the plea for “ a unified system of disability benefits;” innovative thoughts on the changing nature of some of the common contingencies, such as old age and unemployment, and corresponding changes in benefit struc ture in light thereof; the complementarity of private pro grams— statutory and other; and unconventional views on financing. Reiterating that “ above all else, social security is a compact between generations,” the authors regard the establishment of “ an effective minimum income for all res idents” as “ the major challenge for social security policy to be achieved before the year 2000.” Going beyond this practical target, the authors would hold both the individual and the community responsible “ for maintaining and preserving good physical and mental health,” and they advocate that ‘‘people should be coerced, or believe they may be coerced, into using social services by the threat of withdrawal of cash assistance.” No dearth here of issues for lively, even passionate, discussion! At a time when it is increasingly fashionable to highlight social security’s shortcomings and problem areas, notably inequities, and to plead for the drastic retrenchment or even the phasing out of social security as obsolete— sometimes from a rather narrow socioeconomic perspective— the af firmative, constructive, and imaginative treatment offered in this book is indeed gratifying. — George F. Rohrlich Professor emeritus o f Economics and Social Policy Temple University Citro, Constance F. and Michael L. Cohen, ed s., The B icen ten n ia l C en su s: N e w D ir e c tio n s f o r M e th o d o lo g y in 1 9 9 0 . Washing ton, National Academy Press, 1985, 388 pp. $23.95, U .S., Canada, and Mexico; $29, export (paper). Grossman, Gene M. and Carl Shapiro, O p tim a l D y n a m ic r &d P ro g ra m s. Cambridge, M A , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 33 pp. (N B E R Working Paper Series, 1658.) $2, paper. Levine, Daniel B ., Kenneth Hill, Robert Warren, eds., Im m ig ra tion S ta tis tic s: A S to ry o f N e g le c t. Washington, National Academy Press, 1985, 328 pp. $23.95, U .S ., Canada, and Mexico; $28.75, export (paper). Economic growth and development Green, Reginald H ., ed., “ Sub-Saharan Africa: Towards Oblivion or Reconstruction?” J o u rn a l o f D e v e lo p m e n t P la n n in g , No. 15, 1985, pp. 1-288. Schwarz, John E. and Thomas J. Volgy, “ The Myth of America’s Economic D ecline,” H a r v a r d B u sin e ss R e v ie w , SeptemberOctober 1985, pp. 98 -1 0 7 . Torr, Christopher, “ Expectations and the New Classical Econom ics,” A u stralian E con om ic P a p e rs, December 1985, pp. 197— 205. Health and safety Stellman, Jeanne M. and Susan Klitzman, “ The VDT: Hazardous to Your Health?” ILR R e p o rt, Fall 1985, pp. 2 7 -28. William M. Mercer-Meidinger, Inc., H e a lth c a re C o s t C o n ta in m en t in th e P u b lic S e c to r : A M e r c e r - M e id in g e r S u rv ey in C o o p e ra tio n w ith th e P u b lic R isk a n d In su ra n ce M a n a g em e n t A ss o c ia tio n . New York, 1985, 9 pp. Industrial relations Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., D ia g n o stic R e la te d G rou p s (D R G s): Im p a c t on E m p lo y e e R e la tio n s in the H ea lth C a re In d u stry. Washington, 1985, 31 pp. (Special Supplement, Pt. II.) $15, paper. ------- P o ly g ra p h s a n d E m p lo y m e n t. Washington, 1985, 81 pp. $30, paper. Available from b n a , Distribution and Customer Ser vice Center, Rockville, M D 20850. Publications received Agriculture and natural resources Edwards, Clark, “ Productivity and Structure in U .S. Agricul ture,” A g ric u ltu ra l E c o n o m ic s R e se a rc h , Summer 1985, pp. 1- 11. Kuba, Ferdinand, “ China’s Agricultural Revolution,” T he O b s e r v e r , May 1985, pp. 32-34. oecd LeBlanc, Michael and James Hrubovcak, “ The Effects of Interest Rates on Agricultural Machinery Investment,” A g ric u ltu ra l E c o n o m ic s R e se a rc h , Summer 1985, pp. 12-22. Bloom, David E. and Neil G. Bennett, M a r ria g e P a tte rn s in the U n ite d S ta te s . Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 27 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1701.) $2, paper. — O n th e N a tu r e a n d E stim a tio n o f A g e , P e r io d , a n d C o h o rt E ffects in D e m o g ra p h ic D a ta . Cambridge, m a , National Bu https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Dickens, William T ., Douglas R. Wholey, James C. Robinson, B a rg a in in g U n it, U n ion , In d u stry, a n d L o c a tio n a l C o rr e la te s o f U n ion S u p p o rt in C e rtific a tio n a n d D e ce rtific a tio n E le c tio n s. Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Re search, Inc., 1985, 34 pp. $2, paper. (N B E R Working Paper Series, 1671.) Freiberg, Beatrice J. and William T. Dickens, The Im p a c t o f the R u n a w a y O ffice on U n ion C e rtific a tio n E lec tio n s in C le r ic a l U n its. Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Re Economic and social statistics reau o f Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 15 ing Paper Series, 1700.) $2, paper. Chamber of Commerce of the United States, A n a ly sis o f W o rk ers C o m p en sa tio n L a w s, 1 9 8 5 . Washington, 1985, 46 pp. $12, paper. p p . (n ber Work search, Inc. 1985,26 pp. $2, paper. (n ber Working Paper Series, 1693.) Gould, William B. IV, S trik es, D isp u te P ro c e d u re s, a n d A r b itr a tion : E ss a y s on L a b o r L a w . Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1985, 313 pp. (Contributions in American Studies, 82.) $39.95. Japan Institute of Labour, T e c h n o lo g ic a l In n o va tio n a n d In d u stria l R e la tio n s. Tokyo, 1985, 28 pp. (Japanese Industrial Relations Series, 13.) 53 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Book Reviews “ Labor-Management Cooperation and Worker Participation: Ele ments o f Program Development” (Report of the American Arbitration Association Labor-Management Committee), The A rb itra tio n J o u rn a l, June 1985, pp. 6 7 -7 3 . Marmo, Michael, “ Public Employees: On-the-Job Discipline for Off-the-Job Behavior,” The A rb itra tio n J o u r n a l, June 1985, pp. 3 -2 3 . Scheinholtz, Leonard L. and Philip A. Miscimarra, “ The Arbi trator as Judge and Jury: Another Look at Statutory Law in Arbitration,” The A rb itra tio n J o u rn a l, June 1985, pp. 5 5 - 66 . Troy, Leo and Neil Sheflin, U n ion S o u rc eb o o k : M e m b ersh ip , S tru ctu re, F in a n ce, D ir e c to r y . West Orange, N J , Industrial Relations Data Information Services, 1985, 161 pp. $25. Wood, W. D. and Pradeep Kumar, eds., The C u rre n t In d u stria l R e la tio n s S cen e in C a n a d a , 1 9 8 5 . Kingston, Ontario, Can ada, Queen’s University, Industrial Relations Center, 1985, 569 pp. $50, paper. Miramon, Jacques de, “ Countertrade: An Illusory Solution,” The o e c d O b s e r v e r , May 1985, pp. 2 4 -2 9 . Moore, Geoffrey H. and Melita H. Moore, In te rn a tio n a l E co n o m ic In d ic a to rs: A S o u rc eb o o k . Westport, C T , Greenwood Press, 1985, 373 pp. $45. Rhomberg, Rudolph R ., “ Balance o f Payments Financing and Reserve Creation,” In te rn a tio n a l M o n eta ry F u n d S ta ff P a p e r s , March 1985, pp. 1-21. Wolf, Thomas A ., “ Economic Stabilization in Planned Econ omies: Toward an Analytical Framework,” In te rn a tio n a l M o n e ta ry F u n d S ta ff P a p e r s , March 1985, pp. 7 8-131. Labor and economic history Conniff, Michael L ., B la ck L a b o r on a W h ite C a n a l, P a n a m a , 1 9 0 4 - 1 9 8 1 . Pittsburgh, p a , University o f Pittsburgh Press, 1985, 221 pp., bibliography. $24.95. Davies, Margery W ., “ Women and the Office: A Historical Per spective,” ILR R e p o r t, Fall 1985, pp. 7 -1 0 . Industry and government organization Bartel, Ann P. and Lacy Glenn Thomas, D ir e c t a n d I n d ir e c t E ffects o f R e g u la tio n : A N e w L o o k a t OSHA’s Im p a c t. Reprinted from the J o u rn a l o f L a w a n d E c o n o m ic s, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 1 25. Cambridge, m a , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985. ( n b e r Reprint, 626.) $2, paper. Derthick, Martha and Paul J. Quirk, The P o litic s o f D e re g u la tio n . Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1985, 265 pp. $28.95, cloth; $10.95, paper. Dubarle, Patrick, “ Space: Beginnings of a New Competitive In dustry,” The OECD O b s e r v e r , May 1985, pp. 11-17. National Academy Press, N a tu r a l G a s D a ta N e e d s in a C h an gin g R e g u la to r y E n viro n m en t. Washington, 1985, 161 pp. Avail able from Committee on National Statistics, National Re search Council, Washington 20418. International economics Blundell-Wignall, A. and P. R. Masson, “ Exchange Rate Dy namics and Intervention Rules,” In tern ation al M o n eta ry F u n d S ta ff P a p e r s , March 1985, pp. 132-59. Butlin, M. W ., ‘ ‘Managed Exchange Rates and Exchange Control: A Theoretical Analysis,” A u stra lia n E c o n o m ic P a p e r s , D e cember 1985, pp. 167-78. Goode, Richard, E c o n o m ic A ss is ta n c e to D e v e lo p in g C o u n tries T hrou gh th e In te rn a tio n a l M o n eta ry F u n d (IMF). Washington, The Brookings Institution, 1985, 62 pp. $7.95, paper. Masson, Paul and Adrian Blundell-Wignall, “ Fiscal Policy and the Exchange Rate in the Big Seven: Transmission o f the U .S. Government Spending Shocks,” E u ro p ea n E c o n o m ic R e v ie w , June-July 1985, pp. 11-42. Matsuda, Yasuhiko, The D is m is s a l o f W o rk ers U n d er J a p a n e se L a w . Reprinted from the S ta n fo rd J o u rn a l o f In te rn a tio n a l L a w , Vol. 20, Issue 2, 1985, pp. 45 5 -7 1 . Matthews, Roy A. With Donald J. McCulla, S tru ctu ra l C h an ge a n d In d u stria l P o lic y : The R e d e p lo y m e n t o f C a n a d ia n M a n u factu rin g, 1 9 6 0 - 8 0 . Ottawa, Ontario, Economic Council of Canada, 1985, 70 pp., bibliography. $6.95, Canada; $8.35, other countries. 54 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Labor force Bulow, Jeremy I. and Lawrence H. Summers, A T h eo ry o f D u a l L a b o r M a r k e ts w ith A p p lic a tio n to In d u stria l P o lic y , D i s crim in a tio n a n d K e y n e s ia n U n em p lo ym en t. Cambridge, M A , National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1985, 49 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1666.) $2, paper. Cross, Michael, ed., M a n a g in g W o rkforce R e d u c tio n : A n In te r n a tio n a l S u rv ey . New York, Praeger Publishers, 1985, 207 pp. $26.95. Dickens, William T. and Kevin Lang, T estin g D u a l L a b o r M a r k e t T h eo ry: A R e c o n sid e r a tio n o f th e E v id e n c e . Cambridge, M A , National Bureau o f Economic Research, 1985, 33 pp. ( n b e r Working Paper Series, 1670.) $2, paper. Great Britain, Department o f Employment, P a y m e n t S tru ctu res a n d S m a lle r F irm s: W o m en ’s E m p lo y m en t in S e g m en te d L a b o r M a r k e ts. By Christine Craig, Elizabeth Gamsey, Jill Rub- ery. London, England, Department o f Employment, 1985, 109 pp., bibliography. (Research Paper, 48.) Sampson, A. A ., “ Unemployment and the Distribution of In c o m e ,” A u s t r a l ia n E c o n o m ic P a p e r s , D ecem ber 1984, pp. 24 9 -5 8 . U .S. Bureau o f Labor Statistics, D is p la c e d W o rk ers, 1 9 7 9 - 8 3 . Prepared by Paul O. Flaim and Ellen Sehgal. Washington, 1985, 29 pp. (Stock No. 0 2 9 -0 0 1 -0 2 8 5 5 -5 .) $1.50, Su perintendent of Documents, Washington 20402, or Bureau of Labor Statistics, Publications Center, P.O. Box 2145, Chi cago, i l 60690. Management and organization theory Harriman, Ann, W om en !M en !M an agem en t. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1985, 324 pp. $32.95, paper. Juravich, Tom, C h a o s on th e Sh op F lo o r: A W o rk er’s V iew o f Q u a lity, P ro d u c tiv ity , a n d M a n a g em e n t. Philadelphia, Tem ple University Press, 1985, 160 pp. $19.95. Sutton, Charlotte Decker and Kris K. Moore, “ Executive Women— 20 Years Later,” H a r v a r d B u sin e ss R e v ie w , SeptemberOctober 1985, beginning on p. 42. Current Labor Statistics Notes on Current Labor Statistics ...................................................................................................................................................... 56 Schedule of release dates for major BLS statistical series ........................................................................................... 56 Employment data from household survey. Definitions and notes ......................................................................... 57 57 58 59 60 61 62 62 62 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-84 ................................ Employment status o f the population, including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally a d ju sted ____ Employment status of the civilian population, by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted .................. Selected employment indicators, seasonally ad ju sted ...................................................................................................................... Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally ad ju sted ................................................................................................................. Unemployment rates, by sex and age, seasonally adjusted ........................................................................................................... Unemployed persons, by reason for unemployment, seasonally ad ju sted .................................................................................. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted............................................................................................................................... Employment, hours, and earnings data from establishment surveys. Definitions and notes ... Employment, by industry, selected years, 1950-84 ........................................................................................................................ Employment, by State ............................................................................................................................................................................ Employment, by industry, seasonally a d ju sted ................................................................................................................................. Average hours and earnings, by industry, 1968-84 ........................................................................................................................ Average weekly hours, by industry, seasonally a d ju sted ............................................................................................................... Average hourly earnings, by industry ................................................................................................................................................. Hourly Earnings Index, by industry..................................................................................................................................................... Average weekly earnings, by industry................................................................................................................................................. Indexes of diffusion: industries in which employment increased, seasonally ad ju sted ........................................................... 63 64 64 65 66 67 68 68 69 69 Unemployment insurance data. Definitions............................................................................................................................... 70 70 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations .................................................................................................... Price data. Definitions and notes ...................................................................................................... 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Consumer Price Index, 1967-84 .......................................................................................................................................................... Consumer Price Index, U .S. city average, general summary and selected it e m s .................................................................... Consumer Price Index, cross-classification of region and population size c l a s s ...................................................................... Consumer Price Index, selected areas ................................................................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing ............................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings .......................................................................................................................... Producer Price Indexes, by special commodity gro u p in g s............................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes, by durability o f product ............................................................................................................................. Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries ......................................................................... Productivity data. Definitions and notes 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. ...................................................................................................................................... Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years, 1950-84 ................................................. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs,and prices, selected years, 1950-84 ........................... Annual changes in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1974-84 ................................................... Quarterly indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted .............................. Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs,and p r ic e s................. Wage and compensation data. Definitions and notes 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. ...................................................................................................... Employment Cost Index, by occupation and industry group ........................................................................................................ Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group .................................................................. Employment Cost Index, private nonfarm workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size ....................................... Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1980 to d a te ....................................................... Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1980to date ...................... Work stoppage data. Definition .................................... 38. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date 71 72 72 78 79 80 81 83 84 84 85 86 86 87 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 93 94 94 55 NOTES ON CURRENT LABOR STATISTICS This section o f the R e v ie w presents the principal statistical series collected and calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A brief introduction to each group o f tables provides definitions, notes on the data, sources, and other material usually found in footnotes. Readers who need additional information are invited to consult the b l s regional offices listed on the inside front cover of this issue of the R e v ie w . Some general notes applicable to several series are given below. Seasonal adjustment. Certain monthly and quarterly data are adjusted to eliminate the effect o f such factors as climatic conditions, industry pro duction schedules, opening and closing of schools, holiday buying periods, and vacation practices, which might otherwise mask short-term movements o f the statistical series. Tables containing these data are identified as “ sea sonally adjusted.” Seasonal effects are estimated on the basis of past experience. When new seasonal factors are computed each year, revisions may affect seasonally adjusted data for several preceding years. Seasonally adjusted labor force data in tables 3 - 8 were revised in the February 1985 issue o f the Review, to reflect experience through 1984. Beginning in January 1980, the bls introduced two major modifications in the seasonal adjustment methodology for labor force data. First, the data are being seasonally adjusted with a new procedure called X —11/ a r im a , which was developed at Statistics Canada as an extension of the standard X—11 method. A detailed description of the procedure appears in The X - l 1 a r im a Seasonal Adjustment Method by Estela Bee Dagum (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 12-564E , January 1983). The second change is that seasonal factors are now being calculated for use during the first 6 months o f the year, rather than for the entire year, and then are calculated at mid-year for the July-Decem ber period. Revisions o f his torical data continue to be made only at the end of each calendar year. Annual revision o f the seasonally adjusted payroll data shown in tables 11, 13, 15, and 17 were made in July 1985 using the X - 11 a r im a seasonal adjustment methodology. New seasonal factors for productivity data in tables 29 and 30 are usually introduced in the September issue. Seasonally adjusted indexes and percent changes from month to month and from quarter to quarter are published for numerous Consumer and Producer Price Index series. However, seasonally adjusted indexes are not published for the U.S. average All Items c p i . Only seasonally adjusted percent changes are available for this series. Adjustments for price changes. Some data are adjusted to eliminate the effect of changes in price. These adjustments are made by dividing current dollar values by the Consumer Price Index or the appropriate component o f the index, then multiplying by 100. For example, given a current hourly wage rate of $3 and a current price index number of 150, where 1967 = 100, the hourly rate expressed in 1967 dollars is $2 ($3/150 x 100 = $2). The resulting values are described as “ real,” “ constant,” or “ 1967” dollars. Availability o f information. Data that supplement the tables in this section are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a variety o f sources. Press releases provide the latest statistical information published by the Bureau; the major recurring releases are published according to the schedule given below. More information from household and establishment surveys is provided in Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication o f the Bureau. Comparable household information is published in a two-volume data book— Labor Force Statistics Derived From the Current Population Survey, Bulletin 2096. Comparable establishment information appears in two data books — Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, and Employment, Hours, and Earnings, States and Areas, and their annual supplements. More detailed information on wages and other aspects o f collective bargaining appears in the monthly periodical, Current Wage Developments. More detailed price information is published each month in the periodicals, the CPI Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes. Symbols p = preliminary. To improve the timeliness of some series, pre liminary figures are issued based on representative but in complete returns. r = revised. Generally, this revision reflects the availability of later data but may also reflect other adjustments, n .e.c. = not elsewhere classified. Schedule of release dates for BLS statistical series S e rie s R e le a s e P erio d R e le a s e P erio d R e le a s e P erio d M L R ta b le d ate c overed d ate c overed d ate covered num ber December 2 3rd quarter February 27 4th quarter 29-32 1-11 Productivity and costs: Nonfinancial corporations................... Nonfarm business and manufacturing Employment situation ............................. December 6 November January 8 December February 7 January Producer Price Index ...................... December 13 November January 10 December February 14 January 23-27 Consumer Price Index............ December 20 November January 22 December February 25 January 19-22 Real earnings............................. December 20 November January 22 December February 25 January 12-16 Major collective bargaining settlements 1985 Employment Cost Index.......................... U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes . . . . 56 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 33-35 January 30 4th quarter EMPLOYMENT DATA FROM THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY E m p l o y m e n t d a t a in this section are obtained from the Current Population Survey, a program of personal interviews conducted monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The sample consists of about 59,500 households selected to represent the U.S population 16 years of age and older. House holds are interviewed on a rotating basis, so that three-fourths of the sample is the same for any 2 consecutive months. rate for all civilian workers represents the number unem ployed as a percent o f the civilian labor force. The labor force consists o f all em ployed or unem ployed civilians plus m embers o f the Armed Forces stationed in the U nited States. Persons in the labor force not are those not classified as em ployed or unem ployed; this group includes persons w ho are retired, those engaged in their ow n housew ork, those not working w hile attending sch ool, those unable to work because o f long-term illn ess, those discouraged from seeking work because o f personal or job market factors, and those w ho are voluntarily idle. The Definitions noninstitutional population com prises all persons 16 years o f age and older w ho are not inm ates o f penal or mental institutions, sani Employed persons include (1) all civilians w ho worked for pay any tim e during the w eek w hich includes the 12th day o f the month or w ho worked unpaid for 15 hours or more in a fam ily-operated enterprise and (2) those w ho were temporarily absent from their regular job s because o f illn ess, vacation, industrial dispute, or similar reasons. M em bers o f the tariums, or hom es for the aged, infirm, or needy, and m embers o f the Arm ed Forces stationed in the U nited States. The rate is labor force participation the proportion o f the noninstitutional population that is in the labor force. The employment-population ratio is total em ploym ent (including the resident Armed Forces) as a percent o f the noninstitutional population. Arm ed Forces stationed in the U nited States are also included in the em ployed total. A person working at more than one job is counted only in Notes on the data the job at w hich he or she worked the greatest number o f hours. Unemployed persons From tim e to tim e, and esp ecially after a decennial cen su s, adjustments are those w ho did not work during the survey are made in the Current Population Survey figures to correct for estimating w eek , but were available for work except for temporary illness and had errors during the preceding years. T hese adjustments affect the compara looked for jobs within the preceding 4 w eek s. Persons w ho did not look bility o f historical data presented in table 1. A description o f these ad for work because they were on layoff or w aiting to start new jobs within justments and their effect on the various data series appear in the Explanatory the next 30 days are also counted am ong the unem ployed. The overall unemployment rate represents the number unem ployed as a percent o f N otes o f E m p lo y m e n t a n d E a rn in g s . Data in tables 2 - 8 are seasonally adjusted, based on the seasonal e x the labor force, including the resident Armed Forces. The 1. unemployment perience through D ecem ber 1984. Employment status of the noninstitutional population, 16 years and over, selected years, 1950-84 [Numbers in thousands] L abor torce U n e m p lo ye d Em plo yed N o n in s ti Y e *r tu tio n al po p u la tio n Num ber p o p u la tio n N ot In C iv ilia n P erc en t ol T otal P erc en t of po p u la tio n P erc en t of R e ald o n t N o n a g ri- A rm ed F o rc a i T otal A g ric u ltu re Num ber c u ltu ral la b o r fo rc e lab o r force In d u stries 1950 ............ 1955 ............ 1960 ............ 106,164 111,747 119,106 63,377 67,087 71,489 59.7 60.0 60.0 60,087 64,234 67,639 56.6 57.5 56.8 1,169 2,064 1,861 58,918 62,170 65,778 7,160 6,450 5,458 51,758 55,722 60,318 3,288 2,852 3,852 5.2 4.3 5.4 42,787 44,660 46,617 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 128,459 130,180 132,092 134,281 136,573 76,401 77,892 79,565 80,990 82,972 59.5 59.8 60 2 60.3 60.8 73,034 75,017 76,590 78,173 80,140 56.9 57.6 58.0 58.2 58.7 1,946 2,122 2,218 2,253 2,238 71,088 72,895 74,372 75,920 77,902 4,361 3,979 3,844 3,817 3,606 66,726 68,915 70,527 72,103 74,296 3,366 2,875 2,975 2,817 2,832 4.4 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 52,058 52,288 52,527 53,291 53,602 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 139,203 142,189 145,939 148,870 151,841 84,889 86,355 88,847 91,203 93,670 61.0 60.7 60.9 61.3 61.7 80,796 81,340 83,966 86,838 88,515 58.0 57.2 57.5 58.3 58.3 2,118 1,973 1,813 1,774 1,721 78,678 79,367 82,153 85,064 86,794 3,463 3,394 3,484 3,470 3,515 75,215 75,972 78,669 81,594 83,279 4,093 5,016 4,882 4,355 5,156 4.8 5.8 5.5 4.8 5.5 54,315 55,834 57,091 57,667 58,171 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 154,831 157,818 160,689 163,541 166,460 95,453 97,826 100,665 103,882 106,559 61.6 62.0 62.6 63.5 64.0 87,524 90,420 93,673 97,679 100,421 56.5 57.3 58.3 59.7 60.3 1,678 1,668 1,656 1,631 1,597 85,845 88,752 92,017 96,048 98,824 3,408 3,331 3,283 3,387 3,347 82,438 85,421 88,734 92,661 95,477 7,929 7,406 6,991 6,202 6,137 8.3 7.6 6.9 6.0 5.8 59,377 59,991 60,025 59,659 59,900 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 169,349 171,775 173,939 175,891 178,080 108,544 110,315 111,872 113,226 115,241 64.1 64.2 64.3 64.4 64.7 100,907 102,042 101,194 102,510 106,702 59.6 59.4 58.2 58.3 59.9 1,604 1,645 1,668 1,676 1,697 99,303 100,397 99,526 100,834 105,005 3,364 3,368 3,401 3,383 3,321 95,938 97,030 96,125 97,450 101,685 7,637 8,273 c10,678 10,717 8,539 7.0 7.5 9.5 9.5 7.4 60,806 61,460 62,067 62,665 62,839 c = corrected. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 57 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 2. Household Data Employment status of the population, Including Armed Forces in the United States, by sex, seasonally adjusted [Numbers in thousands] A n n u a l a v e ra g e 1984 1985 E m p lo y m e n t s ta tus a nd sex 1983 1984 Oct. N ov. D e c. 175,891 113,226 64.4 102,510 58.3 1,676 100,834 3,383 97,450 10,717 9.5 62,665 178,080 115,241 64.7 106,702 59.9 1,697 105,005 3,321 101,685 8,539 7.4 62,839 178,661 115,721 64.8 107,354 60.1 1,705 105,649 3,169 102,480 8,367 7.2 62,940 178,834 115,773 64.7 107,631 60.2 1,699 105,932 3,334 102,598 8,142 7.0 63,061 179,004 116,162 64.9 107,971 60.3 1,698 106,273 3,385 102,888 8,191 7.1 62,842 179,081 116,572 65.1 108,088 60.4 1,697 106,391 3,320 103,071 8,484 7.3 62,509 179,219 116,787 65.2 108,388 60.5 1,703 106,685 3,340 103,345 8,399 7.2 62,432 179,368 117,215 65.3 108,820 60.7 1,701 107,119 3,362 103,757 8,396 7.2 62,153 84,064 64,580 76.8 58,320 69.4 1,533 56,787 6,260 9.7 85,156 65,386 76.8 60,642 71.2 1,551 59,091 4,744 7.3 85,439 65,558 76.7 61,018 71.4 1,557 59,461 4,540 6.9 85,523 65,657 76.8 61,155 71.5 1,552 59,603 4,502 6.9 85,607 65,814 76.9 61,252 71.6 1,550 59,702 4,562 6.9 85,629 65,822 76.9 61,213 71.5 1,549 59,664 4,609 7.0 85,692 65,818 76.8 61,226 71.4 1,554 59,672 4,592 7.0 91,827 48,646 53.0 44,190 48.1 143 44,047 4,457 9.2 92,924 49,855 53.7 46,061 49.6 146 45,915 3,794 7.6 93,222 50,163 53.8 46,336 49.7 148 46,188 3,827 7.6 93,311 50,116 53.7 46,476 49.8 147 46,329 3,640 7.3 93,397 50,348 53.9 46,719 50.0 148 46,571 3,629 7.2 93,452 50,750 54.3 46,875 50.2 148 46,727 3,875 7.6 93,527 50,970 54.5 47,162 50.4 149 47,013 3,807 7.5 J an . Feb. M a r. A pr. M ay June Ju ly 179,501 117,073 65.2 108,647 60.5 1,702 106,945 3,428 103,517 8,426 7.2 62,428 179,649 117,078 65.2 108,665 60.5 1,705 106,960 3,312 103,648 8,413 7.2 62,571 179,798 116,485 64.8 108,072 60.1 1,702 106,370 3,138 103,232 8,413 7.2 63,313 179,967 117,018 65.0 108,566 60.3 1,704 106,862 3,126 103,737 8,451 7.2 62,949 180,131 117,025 65.0 108,898 60.5 1,726 107,172 3,092 104,080 8,127 6.9 63,106 180,304 117,550 65.2 109,276 60.6 1,732 107,544 2,976 104,568 8,274 7.0 62,754 180,470 117,859 65.3 109,567 60.7 1,700 107,867 3,026 104,841 8,291 7.0 62,611 85,764 65,923 76.9 61,427 71.6 1,553 59,874 4,495 6.8 85,827 65,986 76.9 61,405 71.5 1,553 59,852 4,582 6.9 85,898 66,032 76.9 61,553 71.7 1,556 59,997 4,479 6.8 85,970 65,608 76.3 60,959 70.9 1,552 59,407 4,649 7.1 86,052 65,900 76.6 61,256 71.2 1,554 59,702 4,644 7.0 86,132 65,901 76.5 61,507 71.4 1,574 59,933 4,395 6.7 86,217 66,106 76.7 61,685 71.5 1,580 60,105 4,421 6.7 86,293 66,259 76.8 61,689 71.5 1,551 60,138 4,570 6.9 93,603 51,293 54.8 47,392 50.6 148 47,244 3,900 7.6 93,674 51,086 54.5 47,242 50.4 149 47,093 3,844 7.5 93,751 51,047 54.4 47,113 50.3 149 46,964 3,934 7.7 93,828 50,877 54.2 47,113 50.2 150 46,963 3,764 7.4 93,915 51,117 54.4 47,310 50.4 150 47,160 3,807 7.4 93,999 51,123 54.4 47,391 50.4 152 47,239 3,732 7.3 94,087 51,444 54.7 47,591 50.6 152 47,439 3,854 7.5 94,177 51,599 54.8 47,878 50.8 149 47,729 3,721 7.2 A ug. S ept. O ct. TO TAL Noninstitutional population1'2 ................... Labor force2 ...................................... Participation rate3 ...................... Total employed2 ............................... Employment-population rate4 . . . . Resident Armed Forces1 ................. Civilian employed.......................... Agriculture ............................... Nonagricultural industries............ Unemployed.................................... Unemployment rate5 ................... Not in labor force ............................... M a n , 1 8 y e a rs and ov er Noninstitutional population1'2 ................... Labor force2 ...................................... Participation rate3 ...................... Total employed2 ............................... Employment-population rate4 . . . . Resident Armed Forces1 ................. Civilian employed.......................... Unemployed.................................... Unemployment rate5 ................... W o m e n , 1 6 y e a rs a nd ov er Noninstitutional population1'2 ................... Labor force2 ...................................... Participation rate3 ..................... Total employed2 ............................... Employment-population rate4 . . . . Resident Armed Forces1 ................. Civilian employed.......................... Unemployed.................................... Unemployment rate5 ................... 1The population and Armed Forces figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation. 2Includes members of the Armed Forces stationed in the United States. 3Labor force as a percent of the noninstitutional population. 58 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 4Total employed as a percent of the noninstitutiona! population. Unemployment as a percent of the labor force (including the resident Armed Forces). 3. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin, seasonally adjusted [N um b ers in thousands] 1983 1984 1985 1984 A n nual a v e ra g e E m p lo y m e n t s ta tu t Oct. Nov. D e c. Jan. F eb. M a r. Apr. M ay June Ju ly A ug. S ep t. Oct. TO TAL Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............ Civilian labor force............................... Participation rate........................ Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Unemployed.................................... Unemployment rate ................... Not in labor force ............................... 174,215 111,550 64.0 100 834 57.9 10,717 9.6 62,665 176,383 113,544 64.4 105,005 59.5 8,539 7.5 62,839 176,956 114,016 64.4 105,649 59.7 8,367 7.3 62,940 177,135 114,074 64.4 105,932 59.8 8,142 7.1 63,061 177,306 114,464 64.6 106,273 59.9 8,191 7.2 62,842 177,384 114,875 64.8 106,391 60.0 8,484 7.4 62,509 177,516 115,084 64.8 106,685 60.1 8,399 7.3 62,432 177,667 115,514 65.0 107,119 60.3 8,396 7.3 62,153 177,799 115,371 64.9 106,945 60.1 8,426 7.3 62,428 177,944 115,373 64.8 106,960 60.1 8,413 7.3 62,571 178,096 114,783 64.5 106,370 59.7 8,413 7.3 63,313 178,263 115,314 64.7 106,862 59.9 8,451 7.3 62,949 178,405 115,299 64.6 107,172 60.1 8,127 7.0 63,106 178,572 115,818 64.9 107,544 60.2 8,274 7.1 62,754 178,770 116,159 65.0 107,867 60.3 8,291 7.1 62,611 74,872 58.744 78.5 53,487 71.4 2,429 51.058 5,257 8.9 76,219 59,701 78.3 55,769 73.2 2,418 53,351 3,932 6.6 76,565 59,913 78.3 56,182 73.4 2,334 53,848 3,731 6.2 76,663 59,994 78.3 56,269 73.4 2,434 53,835 3,725 6.2 76,753 60,131 78.3 56,372 73.4 2,494 53,878 3,759 6.3 76,760 60,033 78.2 56,234 73.3 2,417 53,817 3,798 6.3 76,829 60,061 78.2 56,287 73.3 2,362 53,926 3,774 6.3 76,904 60,152 78.2 56,421 73.4 2,326 54,095 3,731 6.2 76,988 60,177 78.2 56,370 73.2 2,390 53,980 3,807 6.3 77,068 60,214 78.1 56,563 73.4 2,370 54,193 3,651 6.1 77,135 60,100 77.9 56,209 72.9 2,266 53,944 3,891 6.5 77,243 60,143 77.9 56,376 73.0 2,231 54,145 3,767 6.3 77,306 60,227 77.9 56,628 73.3 2,232 54,396 3,600 6.0 77,389 60,438 78.1 56,802 73.4 2,148 54,654 3,637 6.0 77,498 60,564 78.1 56,901 73.4 2,153 54,748 3,663 6.0 84,069 44,636 53.1 41,004 48.8 620 40,384 3,632 8.1 85,429 45,900 53.7 42,793 50.1 595 42,198 3,107 6.8 85,793 46,264 53.9 43,091 50.2 569 42,522 3,173 6.9 85,897 46,279 53.9 43,252 50.4 580 42,672 3,027 6.5 85,995 46,463 54.0 43,511 50.6 595 42,916 2,952 6.4 86,015 46,771 54.4 43,610 50.7 592 43,018 3,161 6.8 86,086 46,894 54.5 43,768 50.8 614 43,153 3,126 6.7 86,181 47,193 54.8 44,014 51.1 659 43,355 3,179 6.7 86,274 47,155 54.7 43,958 51.0 651 43,307 3,197 6.8 86,380 47,077 54.5 43,846 50.8 597 43,249 3,231 6.9 86,477 47,180 54.6 44,032 50.9 558 43,474 3,148 6.7 86,575 47,184 54.5 44,059 50.9 596 43,463 3,125 6.6 86,652 47,344 54.6 44,152 51.0 571 43,580 3,192 6.7 86,727 47,568 54.8 44,324 51.1 540 43,784 3,244 6.8 86,810 47,675 54.9 44,636 51.4 626 44,010 3,038 6.4 15,274 8,171 53.5 6,342 41.5 334 6,008 1,829 22.4 14,735 7,943 53.9 6,444 43.7 309 6,135 1,499 18.9 14,598 7,839 53.7 6,376 43.7 266 6,110 1,463 18.7 14,575 7,801 53.5 6,411 44.0 320 6,091 1,390 17.8 14,557 7,870 54.1 6,390 43.9 296 6,094 1,480 18.8 14,610 8,072 55.2 6,547 44.8 311 6,236 1,525 18.9 14,600 8,129 55.7 6,630 45.4 364 6,266 1,499 18.4 14,582 8,169 56.0 6,684 45.8 377 6,307 1,485 18.2 14,538 8,039 55.3 6,617 45.5 387 6,230 1,422 17.7 14,496 8,082 55.8 6,551 45.2 345 6,206 1,531 18.9 14,483 7,502 51.8 6,128 42.3 313 5,815 1,374 18.3 14,445 7,986 55.3 6,427 44.5 298 6,129 1,559 19.5 14,448 7,728 53.5 6,393 44.2 289 6,104 1,335 17.3 14,456 7,812 54.0 6,418 44.4 288 6,130 1,394 17.8 14,463 7,920 54.8 6,330 43.8 246 6,084 1,590 20.1 150,805 97,021 64.3 88,893 58.9 8,128 8.4 152,347 98,492 64.6 92,120 60.5 6,372 6.5 152,605 98,631 64.6 92,407 60.6 6,224 6.3 152,659 98,630 64.6 92,587 60.6 6,043 6.1 152,734 99,005 64.8 92,884 60.8 6,121 6.2 153,103 99,496 65.0 93,124 60.8 6,372 6.4 153,191 99,711 65.1 93,552 61.1 6,159 6.2 153,296 100,035 65.3 93,785 61.2 6,250 6.2 153,388 99,805 65.1 93,544 61.0 6,262 6.3 153,489 99,768 65.0 93,539 60.9 6,230 6.2 153,597 99,441 64.7 92,990 60.5 6,451 6.5 153,717 99,735 64.9 93,374 60.7 6,362 6.4 153,819 99,735 64.8 93,599 60.8 6,136 6.2 153,938 100,165 65.1 94,071 61.1 6,094 6.1 154,082 100,598 65.3 94,452 61.3 6,146 6.1 18,925 11,647 61.5 9,375 49.5 2,272 19.5 19,348 12,033 62.2 10,119 52.3 1,914 15.9 19,449 12,208 62 8 10,340 53.2 1,868 15.3 19,481 12,276 63.0 10,426 53.5 1,850 15.1 19,513 12,306 63.1 10,462 53.6 1,844 15.0 19,518 12,315 63.1 10,475 53.7 1,840 14 9 19,542 12,309 63.0 10,301 52.7 2,008 16.3 19,569 12,280 62.8 10,412 53.2 1,869 15.2 19,594 12,403 63.3 10,508 53.6 1,894 15.3 19,620 12,370 63.0 10,438 53.2 1,932 15.6 19,646 12,269 62.5 10,551 53.7 1,718 14.0 19,675 12,347 62.8 10,493 53.3 1,854 15.0 19,700 12,267 62.3 10,548 53.5 1,718 14.0 19,728 12,359 62.6 10,468 53.1 1,892 15.3 19,761 12,419 62.8 10,556 53.4 1,863 15.0 10,795 6,884 63.8 5,943 55.1 940 13.7 11,164 7,247 64.9 6,469 57.9 778 10.7 11,270 7,384 65.5 6,574 58.3 810 11.0 11,301 7,394 65.4 6,636 58.7 758 10.3 11,332 7,472 65.9 6,698 59.1 774 10.4 11,363 7,255 63.8 6,487 57.1 768 10.6 11,394 7,330 64.3 6,621 58.1 709 9.7 11,425 7,365 64.5 6,615 57.9 750 10.2 11,457 7,336 64.0 6,577 57.4 759 10.3 11,485 7,330 63.8 6,546 57.0 784 10.7 11,514 7,416 64.4 6,629 57.6 787 10.6 11,544 7,470 64.7 6,634 57.5 836 11.2 11,573 7,547 65.2 6,771 58.5 776 10.3 11,601 7,607 65.6 6,817 58.8 790 10.4 11,630 7,616 65.5 6,758 58.1 858 11.3 M e n , 2 0 y e a rs and over Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............ Civilian labor force............................... Participation rate........................ Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Agriculture.................................... Nonagricultural industries .............. Unemployed.................................... Unemployment rate ................... W o m e n , 2 0 y e a rs and over Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............ Civilian labor force............................... Participation rate........................ Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Agriculture.................................... Nonagricultural industries .............. Unemployed.................................... Unemployment rate ................... Both s e x e s , 1 6 to 1 9 y ea rs Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............ Civilian labor force............................... Participation rate........................ Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Agriculture.................................... Nonagricultural industries .............. Unemployed,.................................... Unemployment rate ................... W h ite Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............ Civilian labor force............................... Participation rate........................ Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Unemployed.................................... Unemployment rate ................... B lack Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............ Civilian labor force............................... Participation rate........................ Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Unemployed.................................... Unemployment rate ................... H is p a n ic o rig in Civilian noninstitutional population1 ............ Civilian labor force............................... Participation rate........................ Employed ...................................... Employment-population ratio2 . . . . Unemployed.................................... Unemployment rate ................... 1The population figures are not seasonally adjusted. 2Civillan employment as a percent of the civilian noninstitutlonal population. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because data for the "other races" groups are not presented and Hispanics are Included in both the white and black population groups. 59 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Household Data 4 . Selected employment indicators, seasonally adjusted [In thousands] A n nual a v e ra g e 1984 1985 S e le c te d c a te g o rie s 1983 1984 Oct. Nov. 100,834 56,787 44,047 37,967 24,603 5,091 105,005 59,091 45,915 39,056 25,636 5,465 1,579 1,565 240 1,555 1,553 213 1,511 1,487 187 1,593 1,555 204 1,733 1,485 212 1,596 1,531 227 1,611 1,503 242 1,610 1,502 263 1,705 1,491 231 1,611 1,507 196 1,538 1,446 154 1,461 1,487 168 1,427 1,448 174 1,408 1,391 178 1,433 1,443 178 89,500 15,537 73,963 1,247 72,716 7,575 376 93,565 15,770 77,794 1,238 76,556 7,785 335 94,415 15,997 78,418 1,213 77,205 7,782 314 94,442 15,785 78,657 1,228 77,429 7,731 357 94,725 15,858 78,867 1,257 77,610 7,786 357 95,068 15,738 79,330 1,374 77,956 7,783 343 95,348 16,009 79,339 1,304 78,035 7,673 340 95,756 16,004 79,752 1,210 78,542 7,809 320 95,617 15,968 79,649 1,208 78,441 7,696 304 95,772 15,905 79,866 1,259 78,607 7,665 283 95,229 15,988 79,242 1,204 78,038 7,694 292 95,456 15,843 79,613 1,258 78,355 7,692 264 95,716 16,080 79,636 1,320 78,316 7,904 303 96,589 16,196 80,393 1,282 79,112 7,840 265 96,564 16,288 80,275 1,295 78,981 8,036 243 6,266 2,833 3,099 12,911 5,744 2,430 2,948 13,169 5,710 2,514 2,879 13,126 5,623 2,449 2,855 13,142 5,814 2,596 2,873 13,239 5,628 2,431 2,848 13,355 5,335 2,212 2,835 13,647 5,664 2,599 2,744 13,624 5,664 2,580 2,755 13,278 5,912 2,658 2,888 12,905 5,533 2,543 2,706 13,398 5,624 2,404 2,752 13,791 5,713 2,509 2,865 13,697 5,551 2,459 2,766 13,456 5,431 2,204 2,943 13,787 5,997 2,684 2,993 12,417 5,512 2,291 2,866 12,704 5,483 2,364 2,821 12,679 5,413 2,319 2,782 12,670 5,596 2,473 2,793 12,778 5,389 2,287 2,749 12,861 5,077 2,040 2,751 13,157 5,400 2,405 2,649 13,137 5,374 2,390 2,668 12,834 5,617 2,457 2,803 12,483 5,257 2,341 2,646 12,970 5,350 2,242 2,668 13,343 5,443 2,353 2,766 13,266 5,297 2,323 2,648 13,020 5,213 2,075 2,847 13,357 D e c. J an . F eb. M a r. A pr. M ay June Ju ly Aug. S ep t. Oct. C H A R A C TE R IS TIC Civilian employed, 16 years and over ................. Men....................................................... Women.................................................. Married men, spouse present...................... Married women, spouse present ................. Women who maintain families ................... 105,649 105,932 106,273 106,391 106,685 107,119 106,945 106,960 106,370 106,862 107,172 107,544 107,867 59,461 59,603 59,702 59,644 59,672 59,874 59,852 59,997 59,407 59,702 59,933 60,105 60,138 46,188 46,329 46,571 46,727 47,013 47,244 47,093 46,964 46,963 47,160 47,239 47,439 47,729 39,054 39,337 39,443 39,441 39,357 39,531 39,434 39,244 38,897 39,060 39,109 39,052 39,309 25,897 25,995 26,122 25,912 26,108 26,195 26,058 25,951 26,130 26,295 26,363 26,537 26,738 5,378 5,396 5,396 5,584 5,525 5,631 5,622 5,683 5,696 5,624 5,627 5,472 5,516 M A JO R IN D U S T R Y A ND CLASS O F W O RK ER Agriculture: Wage and salary workers.......................... Self-employed workers ............................. Unpaid family workers............................... Nonagricultural industries: Wage and salary workers.......................... Government...................................... Private industries............................... Private households ...................... Other ......................................... Self-employed workers ............................. Unpaid family workers............................... P ER SO N S A T W O R K P A R T T IM E 1 All industries: Part time for economic reasons...................... Slack work.............................................. Could only find part-time work................... Voluntary part time...................................... Nonagricultural industries: Part time for economic reasons...................... Slack work.............................................. Could only find part-time work................... Voluntary part time...................................... 1Excludes persons "with a job but not at work" during the survey period for such reasons as vacation, illness, or industrial disputes. 60 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted [Unemployment rates] 1984 A nnual a v e ra g e 1985 S e le c te d c a teg o rie s 1 98 3 1984 Oct. N ov. D ec. J an . Feb. M a r. A pr. May June July Aug. S ep t. Oct. Total, all civilian workers................................. Both sexes, 16 to 19 years........................ Men, 20 years and over............................. Women, 20 years and over........................ 9.6 22.4 8.9 8.1 7.5 18.9 6.6 6.8 7.3 18.7 6.2 6.9 7.1 17.8 6.2 6.5 7.2 18.8 6.3 6.4 7.4 18.9 6.3 6.8 7.3 18.4 6.3 6.7 7.3 18.2 6.2 6.7 7.3 17.7 6.3 6.8 7.3 18.9 6.1 6.9 7.3 18.3 6.5 6.7 7.3 19.5 6.3 6.6 7.0 17.3 6.0 6.7 7.1 17.8 6.0 6.8 7.1 20.1 6.0 6.4 White, total.............................................. Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ................. Men, 16 to 19 years ................... Women, 16 to 19 years .............. Men, 20 years and over...................... Women, 20 years and over ................. 8.4 19.3 20.2 18.3 7.9 6.9 6.5 16.0 16.8 15.2 5.7 5.8 6.3 15.9 16.6 15.2 5.4 5.8 6.1 15.1 16.2 13.9 5.4 5.5 6.2 15.9 16.2 15.5 5.4 5.5 6.4 15.8 15.9 15.8 5.5 5.9 6.2 15.2 17.0 13.4 5.4 5.6 6.2 15.1 15.2 14.9 5.4 5.9 6.3 14.9 15.3 14.3 5.5 5.8 6.2 16.1 16.8 15.3 5.2 5.9 6.5 15.9 16.7 15.1 5.8 5.8 6.4 16.3 17.5 15.0 5.6 5.7 6.2 15.3 17.6 12.7 5.3 5.7 6.1 15.1 15.9 14.2 5.2 5.8 6.1 17.2 18.8 15.5 5.1 5.5 Black, total.............................................. Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ................. Men, 16 to 19 years ................... Women, 16 to 19 years .............. Men, 20 years and over..................... Women, 20 years and over ................. 19.5 48.5 48.8 48.2 18.1 16.5 15.9 42.7 42.7 42.6 14.3 13.5 15.3 40.2 43.8 36.2 13.4 13.4 15.1 41.2 42.0 40.2 12.8 13.5 15.0 42.1 43.8 40.1 13.3 12.7 14.9 42.1 45.3 38.5 12.7 12.8 16.3 43.1 41.1 45.3 14.4 13.9 15.2 41.9 40.9 43.1 13.3 12.9 15.3 39.0 38.5 39.5 13.6 13.2 15.6 40.4 38.4 42.5 13.6 13.7 14.0 38.1 40.7 35.2 12.2 12.3 15.0 41.3 43.3 39.0 12.6 13.2 14.0 34.4 34.1 34.9 11.8 13.2 15.3 38.3 41.0 35.0 13.4 13.8 15.0 39.7 41.1 37.9 14.0 12,1 Hispanic origin, total................................. 13.7 10.7 10.3 10.4 10.6 9.7 9.7 10.2 10.3 10.7 10.6 11.2 10.3 10.4 11.3 Married men, spouse present...................... Married women, spouse present................. Women who maintain families ................... Full-time workers...................................... Part-time workers .................................... 6.5 7.0 12.2 9.5 10.4 4.6 5.7 10.3 7.2 9.3 4.5 5.7 10.4 7.1 9.1 4.4 5.4 10.8 6.9 8.6 4.4 5.4 9.6 6.9 8.8 4.6 5.7 10.0 7.1 9.3 4.4 5.4 11.0 7.1 8.7 4.2 5.9 10.2 6.9 9.6 4.3 5.9 10.8 6.9 9.7 4.0 5.8 10.9 6.8 10.3 4.6 5.9 9.8 6.8 9.9 4.4 5.7 10.2 7.0 9.5 4.1 5.4 11.1 6.7 9.0 4.3 5.7 11.6 6.8 9.2 4.1 5.3 10.5 6.7 9.7 Unemployed 15 weeks and over ................. Labor force time lost1 ............................... 3.8 10.9 2.4 8.6 2.2 8.4 2.1 8.2 2.1 8.3 2.0 8.2 2.1 8.2 2.1 8.2 2.1 8.2 1.9 8.3 2.0 8.2 2.0 8.3 2.0 8.1 2.0 8.1 2.0 7.9 9.9 17.0 18.4 11.2 12.1 10.0 7.4 10.0 7.2 5.3 16.0 7.4 10.0 14.3 7.5 7.2 7.8 5.5 8.0 5.9 4.5 13.5 7.2 10.5 13.7 7.3 6.9 7.8 5.3 7.9 5.7 4.4 13.7 7.2 11.7 14.2 7.2 7.0 7.4 5.2 7.6 5.8 4.3 11.2 7.2 10.7 13.7 7.2 7.1 7.2 5.0 7.5 5.9 4.4 12.2 7.3 10.1 13.4 7.6 7.2 8.1 4.9 7.7 5.9 4.1 15.5 7.3 10.9 13.4 7.5 7.1 8.2 5.5 7.7 5.7 3.9 13.6 7.2 11.0 13.3 7.7 7.4 8.1 4.6 7.5 5.7 3.9 12.2 7.3 10.9 13.3 8.0 7.8 8.3 5.4 7.3 5.7 3.7 13.1 7.2 7.3 10.2 7.8 7.8 7.7 5.2 7.9 6.2 3.9 11.5 7.4 11.1 13.7 7.7 8.0 7.4 5.3 7.7 5.8 3.8 12.1 7.3 9.8 13.4 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.8 7.5 5.6 4.1 14.3 7.1 8.3 13.1 7.8 7.9 7.7 4.3 7.7 5.5 4.0 14.3 7.3 9.3 13.9 7.8 7.8 7.9 5.4 7.9 5.5 3.8 14.0 7.1 7.4 13.8 7.5 7.2 8.0 5.1 7.9 5.3 3.9 13.2 C H A R A C TE R IS TIC IN D U S T R Y Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers . . Mining .................................................. Construction ........................................... Manufacturing ......................................... Durable goods .................................. Nondurable goods ............................. Transportation and public utilities................. Wholesale and retail trade.......................... Finance and service Industries ................... Government workers ...................................... Agricultural wage and salary workers ................. 1Aggregate hours lost by the unemployed and persons on part time for economic reasons as a percent of potentially available labor force hours. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 61 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 6. Household Data Unemployment rates by sex and age, seasonally adjusted [Civilian workers] 1984 A nnual a v e ra g e 1985 S ex and a g e 1983 1984 Oct. Nov. D e c. J an . Feb. M a r. A pr. M ay June Ju ly A ug. S ept. Oct. 9.6 17.2 22.4 24.5 21.1 14.5 7.5 8.0 5.3 7.5 13.9 18.9 21.2 17.4 11.5 5.8 6.1 4.5 7.3 13.5 18.7 20.2 17.8 11.0 5.7 5.9 4.7 7.1 13.2 17.8 20.0 16.8 10.9 5.5 5.8 4.4 7.2 13.5 18.8 21.0 17.7 10.9 5.5 5.8 4.1 7.4 13.6 18.9 21.2 17.4 10.9 5.8 6.1 4.2 7.3 13.7 18.4 20.0 17.4 11.2 5.6 5.9 3.9 7.3 13.5 18.2 20.9 16.5 11.1 5.6 5.9 4.0 7.3 13.3 17.7 20.7 15.8 11.0 5.7 6.1 4.0 7.3 14.2 18.9 21.1 17.3 11.8 5.5 5.8 4.3 7.3 13.5 18.3 21.2 16.2 11.2 5.8 6.0 4.2 7.3 14.0 19.5 22.0 17.6 11.2 5.6 5.9 4.5 7.0 12.9 17.3 18.6 16.4 10.7 5.5 5.8 4.1 7.1 13.3 17.8 19.8 16.5 11.0 5.6 5.9 4.2 7.1 14.0 20.1 23.3 17.9 10.9 5.4 5.7 3.9 Men, 16 years and over............................. 16 to 24 years...................................... 16 to 19 years .................................. 16 to 17 years............................... 18 to 19 years............................... 20 to 24 years ................................. 25 years and over ................................. 25 to 54 years ............................... 55 years and over .......................... 9.9 18.4 23.3 25.2 22.2 15.9 7.8 ■ 8.2 5.6 7.4 14.4 19.6 21.9 18.3 11.9 5.7 5.9 4.6 7.1 13.8 19.8 21.3 18.9 10.9 5.4 5.6 4.7 7.0 13.7 18.9 20.3 18.3 11.2 5.4 5.6 4.7 7.1 14.1 19.4 19.8 19.3 11.5 5.4 5.6 4.4 7.2 13.8 19.1 21.2 18.0 11.2 5.5 5.8 4.3 7.1 14.4 19.5 20.7 18.6 11.8 5.4 5.6 4.0 7.0 13.9 18.1 22.2 15.7 11.7 5.3 5.6 3.8 7.1 13.6 18.2 21.5 16.2 11.3 5.5 5.8 3.9 6.9 14.8 19.4 22.2 17.4 12.5 5.0 5.2 4.1 7.3 14.3 19.2 24.0 16.1 11.9 5.6 5.8 4.5 7.2 14.8 20.9 22.8 19.2 11.7 5.4 5.6 4.6 6.8 13.6 19.4 22.0 17.4 10.7 5.2 5.5 3.8 6.9 13.6 19.2 20.0 18.6 10.8 5.3 5.6 4.1 7.1 14.7 21.9 24.4 20.3 11.0 5.3 5.5 4.1 Women, 16 years and over........................ 16 to 24 years...................................... 16 to 19 years .................................. 16 to 17 years............................... 18 to 19 years............................... 20 to 24 years ................................. 25 years and o v e r .................................................. 9.2 15.8 21.3 23.7 19.9 12.9 7.2 7.7 4.7 7.6 13.3 18.0 20.4 16.6 10.9 6.0 6.3 4.2 7.7 13.2 17.4 19.0 16.5 11.1 6.0 6.2 4.8 7.3 12.6 16.6 19.7 15.1 10.7 5.7 6.1 3.9 7.2 12.8 18.1 22.3 16.0 10.2 5.6 6.0 3.7 7.7 13.3 18.6 21.2 16.7 10.5 6.1 6.4 4.2 7.5 12.9 17.3 19.4 16.2 10.6 5.9 63 3.8 7.6 13.2 18.2 19.5 17.4 10.5 6.0 64 4.2 7.5 12.9 17.1 19.8 15.5 10.7 6.0 63 4.2 7.7 13.5 18.4 19.9 17.3 10.9 6.1 65 4.6 7.4 12.7 17.4 18.0 16.3 10.4 6.1 63 3.9 7.5 13.1 18.0 21.2 15.8 10.6 5.9 6.2 4.4 7.3 12.1 14.9 14.8 15.2 10.7 5.9 6.2 4.7 7.5 12.9 16.4 19.5 14.3 11.2 6.0 6.3 4.3 7.2 13.2 18.1 22.1 15.4 10.8 5.6 59 3.6 Total, 16 years and over .................................. 16 to 24 years ........................................... 16 to 19 years......................................... 16 to 17 years...................................... 18 to 19 years...................................... 20 to 24 years......................................... 25 years and over ...................................... 25 to 54 years...................................... 55 years and over .................................. 55 years and over .......................... 7. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, seasonally adjusted [N um b ers in thousands] 1984 A n nual a v e ra g e 1985 R e as o n lo r u n e m p lo y m e n t Job losers ..................................................... On layoff ................................................ Other job losers ...................................... Job leavers..................................................... Reentrants..................................................... New entrants.................................................. 1983 1984 O ct. N ov. D e c. J an . F eb. M a r. A pr. M ay June July A ug. S ep t. O ct. 6,258 1,780 4,478 830 2,412 1,216 4,421 1,171 3,250 823 2,184 1,110 4,261 1,151 3,110 829 2,150 1,060 4,141 1,068 3,073 869 2,161 1,024 4,176 1,070 3,106 858 2,218 1,011 4,313 1,229 3,084 884 2,244 1,049 4,251 1,240 3,011 865 2,233 1,035 4,158 1,163 2,995 848 2,341 1,090 4,228 1,208 3,019 838 2,312 1,072 3,935 1,059 2,876 868 2,428 1,159 4,128 1,124 3,004 1,001 2,219 1,017 4,333 1,130 3,203 902 2,143 1,097 4,160 1,099 3,061 865 2,162 920 4,142 1,175 2,968 839 2,369 909 4,021 1,165 2,856 921 2,232 1,047 100.0 58.4 16.6 41.8 7.7 22.5 11.3 100.0 51.8 13.7 38.1 9.6 25.6 13.0 100.0 51.3 13.9 37.5 10.0 25.9 12.8 100.0 50.5 13.0 37.5 10.6 26.4 12.5 100.0 50.5 12.9 37.6 10.4 26.8 12.2 100.0 50.8 14.5 36.3 10.4 26.4 12.4 100.0 50.7 14.8 35.9 10.3 26.6 12.3 100.0 49.3 13.8 35.5 10.0 27.7 12.9 100.0 50.0 14.3 35.7 9.9 27.4 12.7 100.0 46.9 12.6 34.3 10.3 28.9 13.8 100.0 49.3 13.4 35.9 12.0 26.5 12.2 100.0 51.1 13.3 37.8 10.6 25.3 12.9 100.0 51.3 13.6 37.8 10.7 26.7 11.3 100.0 50.2 14.2 35.9 10.2 28.7 11.0 100.0 48.9 14.2 34.7 11.2 27.1 12.7 5.6 .7 2.2 1.1 3.9 .7 1.9 1.0 3.7 .7 1.9 .9 .3.6 .8 1.9 .9 3.6 .7 1.9 .9 3.8 .8 2.0 .9 3.7 .8 1.9 .9 3.6 .7 2.0 .9 3.7 .7 2.0 .9 3.4 .8 2.1 1.0 3.6 .9 1.9 .9 3.8 .8 1.9 1.0 3.6 .8 1.9 .8 3.6 .7 2.0 .8 3.5 .8 1.9 .9 PER C EN T D IS T R IB U T IO N Total unemployed........................................... Job losers ..................................................... On layoff ................................................ Other job losers ...................................... Job leavers..................................................... Reentrants..................................................... New entrants.................................................. P ER CEN T O F C IV IL IA N LABOR FORCE Job losers ..................................................... Job leavers..................................................... Reentrants..................................................... New entrants.................................................. 8. Duration of unemployment, seasonally adjusted [N um b ers in thousands] A nnual a v e ra g e 1984 1985 W e e k s of u n e m p lo y m e n t Less than 5 weeks ........................................... 5 to 14 weeks................................................ 15 weeks and over ......................................... 15 to 26 weeks......................................... 27 weeks and over.................................... Mean duration in weeks.................................... Median duration In weeks................................. 62 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1983 1984 Oct. N ov. D e c. J an . Feb. M a r. A pr. M ay June July A ug. S ep t. O ct. 3,570 2,937 4,210 1,652 2,559 20.0 10.1 3,350 2,451 2,737 1,104 1,634 18.2 7.9 3,395 2,406 2,527 1,092 1,435 16.7 7.3 3,352 2,324 2,428 990 1,438 17.4 7.3 3,282 2,516 2,374 972 1,402 17.3 7.4 3,662 2,552 2,243 941 1,302 15.3 6.7 3,524 2,469 2,416 1,076 1,340 15.9 7.2 3,590 2,478 2,400 1,065 1,335 15.9 7.1 3,558 2,525 2,377 1,022 1,354 16.1 6.7 3,659 2,635 2,247 1,040 1,207 14.9 6.2 3,458 2,547 2,317 1,011 1,306 15.4 6.6 3,578 2,508 2,348 1,094 1,254 15.4 7.2 3,372 2,497 2,264 1,050 1,214 15.6 7.5 3,502 2,503 2,328 1,034 1,294 15.5 6.9 3,420 2,551 2,284 1,075 1,209 15.3 7.1 EMPLOYMENT, HOURS, AND EARNINGS DATA FROM ESTABLISHMENT SURVEYS m p l o y m e n t , h o u r s , a n d e a r n in g s d a t a in this section are compiled from payroll records reported monthly on a voluntary basis to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its cooperating State agencies by over 200,000 establishments representing all industries except agriculture. In most industries, the sampling probabilities are based on the size of the establishment; most large establish ments are therefore in the sample. (An establishment is not nec essarily a firm; it may be a branch plant, for example, or warehouse.) Self-employed persons and others not on a regular civilian payroll are outside the scope of the survey because they are excluded from establishment records. This largely accounts for the difference in employment figures between the household and establishment surveys. E Definitions Employed persons are all persons who received pay (including holiday and sick pay) for any part of the payroll period including the 12th of the month. Persons holding more than one job (about 5 percent of all persons in the labor force) are counted in each establishment which reports them. Production workers in manufacturing include blue-collar worker su pervisors and all nonsupervisory workers closely associated with produc tion operations. Those workers mentioned in tables 12-16 include production workers in manufacturing and mining; construction workers in construc tion; and nonsupervisory workers in transportation and public utilities; in wholesale and retail trade; in finance, insurance, and real estate; and in services industries. These groups account for about four-fifths of the total employment on private nonagricultural payrolls. Earnings are the payments production or nonsupervisory workers re ceive during the survey period, including premium pay for overtime or late-shift work but excluding irregular bonuses and other special payments. Real earnings are earnings adjusted to reflect the effects of changes in consumer prices. The deflator for this series is derived from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (cpi- w ). The Hourly Earnings Index is calculated from average hourly earnings data adjusted to exclude the effects of two types o f changes that are unrelated https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to underlying wage-rate developments: fluctuations in overtime premiums in manufacturing (the only sector for which overtime data are available) and the effects of changes and seasonal factors in the proportion o f workers in high-wage and low-wage industries. Hours represent the average weekly hours of production or nonsuper visory workers for which pay was received and are different from standard or scheduled hours. Overtime hours represent the portion of gross average weekly hours which were in excess of regular hours and for which overtime premiums were paid. The Diffusion Index, introduced in table 17 of the May 1983 issue, represents the percent of 185 nonagricultural industries in which employ ment was rising over the indicated period. One-half of the industries with unchanged employment are counted as rising. In line with Bureau practice, data for the 3-, 6-, and 9-month spans are seasonally adjusted, while that for the 12-month span is unadjusted. The diffusion index is useful for measuring the dispersion of economic gains or losses and is also an eco nomic indicator. Notes on the data Establishment data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are pe riodically adjusted to com prehensive counts o f em ploym ent (called 4‘benchmarks” ). The latest complete adjustment was made with the release of May 1985 data, published in the July 1985 issue of the Review. Con sequently, data published in the Review prior to that issue are not necessarily comparable to current data. Unadjusted data have been revised back to April 1983; seasonally adjusted data have been revised back to January 1980. Unadjusted data from April 1984 forward, and seasonally adjusted data from January 1981 forward are subject to revision in future bench marks. Earlier comparable unadjusted and seasonally adjusted data are published in Employment, Hours, and Earnings, United States, 1909-84, bls Bulletin 1312-12. A comprehensive discussion of the differences between household and establishment data on employment appears in Gloria P. Green, ‘‘Com paring employment estimates from household and payroll surveys,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1969, pp. 9 -2 0 . See also bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134-1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982). 63 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 9. Establishment Data Employment, by Industry, selected years, 1950-84 [N onagricultural payroll data, In thousands] G oods-produclng S erv ice -p ro d u c in g T ra n sp o r Year P riv a te T o ta l sector T o ta l M in in g C onstruc M a n u fa c tion tu rin g T o ta l ta tio n W h o le and sale p ublic tra d e G o vern m en t F in a n ce , R e ta il In s u ra n c e, tra d e and re a l S ervices T o ta l F e d era l S tata Local e state u tilitie s 1950 .......................... 1955 .......................... I9602 ........................ 1964 .......................... 1965 .......................... 45,197 50,641 54,189 58,283 60,765 39,170 43,727 45,836 48,686 50,689 18,506 20,513 20,434 21,005 21,926 901 792 712 634 632 2,364 2,839 2,926 3,097 3,232 15,241 16,882 16,796 17,274 18,062 26,691 30,128 33,755 37,278 38,839 4,034 4,141 4,004 3,951 4,036 2,635 2,926 3,143 3,337 3,466 6,751 7,610 8,248 8,823 9,250 1,888 2,298 2,629 2,911 2,977 5,357 6,240 7,378 8,660 9,036 6,026 6,914 8,353 9,596 10,074 1,928 2,187 2,270 2,348 2,378 <1) 1,168 1,536 1,856 1,996 (1) 3,558 4,547 5,392 5,700 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 63,901 65,803 67,897 70,384 70,880 53,116 54,413 56,058 58,189 58,325 23,158 23,308 23,737 24,361 23,578 627 613 606 619 623 3,317 3,248 3,350 3,575 3,588 19,214 19,447 19,781 20,167 19,367 40,743 42,495 44,160 46,023 47,302 4,158 4,268 4,318 4,442 4,515 3,597 3,689 3,779 3,907 3,993 9,648 9,917 10,320 10,798 11,047 3,058 3,185 3,337 3,512 3,645 9,498 10,045 10,567 11,169 11,548 10,784 11,391 11,839 12,195 12,554 2,564 2,719 2,737 2,758 2,731 2,141 2,302 2,442 2,533 2,664 6,080 6,371 6,660 6,904 7,158 1971.......................... 1972 .......................... 1973 .......................... 1974 .......................... 1975 .......................... 71,214 73,675 76,790 78,265 76,945 58,331 60,341 63,058 64,095 62,259 22,935 23,668 24,893 24,794 22,600 609 628 642 697 752 3,704 3,889 4,097 4,020 3,525 18,623 19,151 20.154 20,077 18,323 48,278 50,007 51,897 53,471 54,345 4,476 4,541 4,656 4,725 4,542 4,001 4,113 4,277 4,433 4,415 11,351 11,836 12,329 12,554 12,645 3,772 3,908 4,046 4,148 4,165 11,797 12,276 12,857 13,441 13,892 12,881 13,334 13,732 14,170 14,686 2,696 2,684 2,663 2,724 2,748 2,747 2,859 2,923 3,039 3,179 7,437 7,790 8,146 8,407 8,758 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 79,382 82,471 86,697 89,823 90,406 64,511 67,344 71,026 73,876 74,166 23,352 24,346 25,585 26,461 25,658 779 813 851 958 1,027 3,576 3,851 4,229 4,463 4,346 18,997 19,682 20,505 21,040 20,285 56,030 58,125 61,113 63,363 64,748 4,582 4,713 4,923 5,136 5,146 4,546 4,708 4,969 5,204 5,275 13,209 13,808 14,573 14,989 15,035 4,271 4,467 4,724 4,975 5,160 14,551 15,303 16,252 17,112 17,890 14,871 15,127 15,672 15,947 16,241 2,733 2,727 2,753 2,773 2,866 3,273 3,377 3,474 3,541 3,610 8,865 9,023 9,446 9,633 9,765 1981.......................... 1982 .......................... 1983 .......................... 1984 .......................... 91,156 89,566 90,196 94,461 75,126 73,729 74,330 78,477 25,497 23,813 23,334 24,730 1,139 1,128 952 974 4,188 3,905 3,948 4,345 20,170 18,781 18,434 19,412 65,650 65,753 66,862 69,731 5,165 5,082 4,954 5,171 5,358 5,278 5,268 5,550 15,189 15,179 15,613 16,584 5,298 5,341 5,468 5,682 18,619 19,036 19,694 20,761 16,031 15,837 15,869 15,984 2,772 2,739 2,774 2,807 3,640 3,640 3,662 3,712 9,619 9,458 9,434 9,465 1Not available. 2Data Include Alaska and Hawaii beginning in 1959. 10. NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. E m p lo y m e n t, b y S ta te [Nonagricultural payroll data, in thousands] State September 1984 August 1985 September 1985P Alabama............................................. Alaska................................................ Arizona .............................................. Arkansas ........................................... California ........................................... 1,390.8 239.8 1,195.2 800.8 10,672.8 1,396.4 245.3 1,238.0 793.8 10,817.8 1,398.6 242.5 1,262.9 808.5 10,935.1 Colorado ........................................... Connecticut......................................... Delaware ........................................... District of Columbia ............................. Florida................................................ 1,395.7 1,548.2 287.3 609.0 4,227.3 1,412.5 1,561.5 292.3 641.3 4,395.1 Georgia.............................................. Hawaii................................................ Idaho ................................................ Illinois................................................ Indiana ........................................... 2,507.8 403.8 331.8 4,660.6 2,181.7 Iowa.................................................. Kansas ............................................. Kentucky ........................................... Louisiana ........................................... Maine................................................ Maryland ........................................... Massachusetts .................................... Michigan .................................... Minnesota........................................... Mississippi ......................................... Missouri.............................................. 64 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis September 1984 August 1985 September 1985P Montana.............................................. Nebraska ........................................... Nevada ............................................. New Hampshire.................................... New Jersey......................................... 286.5 637.7 437.4 455.8 3,384.5 279.9 641.8 448.6 485.2 3,503.8 280.8 648.4 451.7 484.7 3,481.7 1,421.0 1,576.4 294.5 621.9 4,411.3 New Mexico......................................... New York........................................... North Carolina .................................... North Dakota...................................... Ohio.................................................. 514.3 7,609.0 2,604.6 257.0 4,308.5 512.6 7,741.2 2,595.4 252.2 4,365.2 520.4 7,743.5 2,645.5 253.6 4,416.7 2,611.6 421.5 335.3 4,701.8 2,216.6 2,617.1 415.2 342.2 4,707.1 2,249.4 Oklahoma........................................... Oregon ............................................. Pennsylvania ...................................... Rhode Island...................................... South Carolina .................................... 1,189.6 1,024.9 4,694.3 418.2 1,293.7 1,175.4 1,028.9 4,737.4 417.8 1,330.2 1,185.8 1,038.5 4,756.0 420.5 1,347.0 1,072.2 972.5 1,221.9 1,609.3 457.3 1,052.1 972.8 1,244.6 1,578.5 469.9 1,063.6 989.5 1,251.2 1,593.0 464.5 South Dakota...................................... Tennessee ......................................... Texas ................................................ Utah.................................................. Vermont............................................. 247.0 1,833.5 6,475.4 613.8 219.3 247.2 1,876.8 6,581.5 624.2 222.8 245.1 1,891.3 6,594.9 632.8 225.9 1,812.8 2,892.0 3,390.9 1,868.1 836.4 2,040.7 1,893.5 2,991.8 3,442.5 1,891.2 834.5 2,031.3 1,896.2 3,009.9 3,483.0 1,907.0 852.2 2,049.8 Virginia ............................................. Washington......................................... West Virginia...................................... Wisconsin......................................... Wyoming ........................................... 2,362.2 1,671.8 603.8 1,988.0 202.8 2,415.1 1,697.9 587.3 1,997.4 205.5 2,443.7 1,713.4 587.8 2,014.3 204.0 Virgin Islands...................................... 35.0 36.1 34.7 11. Employment, by Industry, seasonally adjusted [N onagricultural payroll data, in thousands] 1984 A nnual a v e ra g e 1985 In d u s try d iv is io n and group 1983 1984 Oct. Nov. D ec. J an . F eb. ................................................................................ 90,196 94,461 95,573 95,882 P R IVA TE S E C T O R ................................................................ A pr. May 74,330 78,477 79,460 79,764 96,092 96,419 96,591 80,010 80,319 80,480 96,910 97,120 80,767 80,962 ................................................................ 23,334 24,730 24,918 24,955 25,045 25,112 25,062 25,056 ............................................................................................ 952 598 974 613 979 623 978 626 973 624 974 621 976 620 3,948 1,020 4,345 1,158 4,403 1,171 4,424 1,179 4,469 1,190 4,534 1,219 18,434 12,530 19,412 13,310 19,536 13,380 19,553 13,376 19,603 13,409 Production workers .................................. 10,732 7,117 11,522 7,749 11,652 7,835 11,666 7,832 Lumber and wood products ........................ Furniture and fixtures.................................. Stone, clay, and glass products ................... Primary metal industries ............................. Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . . Fabricated metal products............................. 657 448 570 832 341 1,370 707 487 595 858 334 1,464 708 491 597 851 320 1,483 Machinery, except electrical ........................ Electrical and electronic equipment................. Transportation equipment............................. Motor vehicles and equipment ................... Instruments and related products ................. Miscellaneous manufacturing........................ 2,033 2,013 1,747 754 692 371 2,197 2,208 1,906 860 714 384 Production workers .................................. 7,702 5,413 Food and kindred products.......................... Tobacco manufactures ............................... Textile mill products.................................... Apparel and other textile products................. Paper and allied products............................. Printing and publishing............................... Chemicals and allied products ...................... Petroleum and coal products........................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products . . Leather and leather products........................ TO TA L G 0 0 0 S -P R 0 D U C IN G M in in g Oil and gas extraction............................... C o n s truc tion ............................................................................... General building contractors........................ M a n u f a c t u r i n g ........................................................................... Production workers .................................. D u ra b le goods ........................................................................ N o n d u ra b le goods S E R V IC E -P R O D U C IN G T ra n s p o rta tio n a nd p u b lic u tilitie s Transportation........................................... Communication and public utilities................. W h o le s a le t r a d e ........................................................................ Durable goods........................................... Nondurable goods...................................... R e ta il tra d e ............................................................................... General merchandise stores ........................ Food stores .............................................. Automotive dealers and service stations......... Eating and drinking places .......................... F in a n c e , In s u ra n c e , a nd re a l e s t a t e ............................ Finance..................................................... Insurance ................................................ Real estate................................................ S e rv ic e s ........................................................................................ Business services...................................... Health services ......................................... G o v e rn m e n t ............................................................................... Federal..................................................... State ....................................................... Local....................................................... p = preliminary. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis M a r. June Ju ly A ug. 97,421 97,473 97,707 81,208 81,260 81,366 25,090 25,066 25,010 977 618 982 623 982 624 4,525 1,214 4,553 1,223 4,641 1,233 19,604 13,399 19,561 13,347 19,526 13,309 11,701 7,855 11,702 7,843 11,675 7,806 709 495 598 848 318 1,486 711 497 601 844 316 1,489 709 499 602 844 315 1,486 2,233 2,247 1,935 869 720 387 2,232 2,250 1,940 873 722 386 2,232 2,253 1,965 888 723 386 7,890 5,561 7,884 5,545 7,887 5,544 1,615 68 741 1,163 661 1,619 65 746 1,197 681 1,617 66 730 1,181 683 1,299 1,043 196 711 205 1,372 1,048 189 782 192 66,862 4,954 2,745 2,209 S ep t.P O ct.P 97,977 98,115 98,529 81,634 81,735 82,096 24,980 25,015 24,955 25,045 974 619 969 619 965 615 960 614 958 610 4,658 1,234 4,638 1,223 4,660 1,228 4,688 1,242 4,723 1,252 4,755 1,269 19,467 13,249 19,426 13,203 19,398 13,169 19,351 13,137 19,362 13,145 19,272 13,077 19,332 13,141 11,651 7,776 11,608 7,730 11,586 7,704 11,560 7,671 11,509 7,630 11,519 7,638 11,444 7,578 11,482 7,618 704 498 600 840 313 1,483 701 499 601 832 311 1,480 694 497 600 823 306 1,479 697 493 599 819 305 1,477 694 494 598 815 304 1,472 697 494 599 806 302 1,467 700 499 601 798 289 1,467 702 495 598 794 291 1,462 712 499 600 801 293 1,467 2,228 2,252 1,974 891 723 385 2,224 2,248 1,972 876 725 381 2,220 2,243 1,969 867 727 379 2,207 2,223 1,982 876 726 377 2,203 2,216 1,981 873 723 378 2,191 2,205 1,990 875 725 376 2,175 2,190 1,985 868 724 372 2,167 2,194 1,995 868 725 373 2,141 2,175 1,982 858 722 373 2,141 2,179 1,992 865 718 373 7,902 5,554 7,902 5,556 7,886 5,541 7,875 5,533 7,859 5,519 7,840 5,499 7,838 5,498 7,842 5,507 7,843 5,507 7,828 5,499 7,850 5,523 1,620 65 726 1,180 682 1,630 66 722 1,184 683 1,633 67 720 1,182 683 1,633 66 712 1,175 682 1,638 66 706 1,167 682 1,630 66 707 1,164 681 1,634 66 701 1,153 682 1,644 66 699 1,142 684 1,630 65 696 1,160 684 1,638 64 697 1,152 683 1,634 65 695 1,155 681 1,641 65 696 1,156 683 1,392 1,051 188 792 184 1,397 1,052 187 796 182 1,397 1,054 186 799 181 1,403 1,052 185 798 179 1,406 1,052 184 799 177 1,407 1,052 183 798 176 1,411 1,049 182 795 174 1,414 1,044 181 791 174 1,419 1,042 180 789 173 1,426 1,040 178 787 176 1,429 1,038 176 792 174 1,425 1,039 170 790 174 1,427 1,040 170 798 174 69,731 70,655 70,927 71,047 71,307 71,529 71,854 72,030 72,355 72,463 72,727 72,962 73,160 73,484 5,171 2,929 2,242 5,223 2,983 2,240 5,229 2,993 2,236 5,246 3,009 2,237 5,259 3,015 2,244 5,272 3,029 2,243 5,269 3,028 2,241 5,278 3,037 2,241 5,301 3,057 2,244 5,295 3,052 2,243 5,302 3,060 2,242 5,282 3,038 2,244 5,319 3,079 2,240 5,315 3,074 2,241 5,268 3,070 2,197 5,550 3,272 2,278 5,636 3,321 2,315 5,647 3,334 2,313 5,665 3,347 2,318 5,686 3,358 2,328 5,697 3,367 2,330 5,714 3,377 2,337 5,733 3,388 2,345 5,748 3,402 2,346 5,768 3,414 2,354 5,773 3,426 2,347 5,791 3,434 2,357 5,802 3,440 2,362 5,830 3,452 2,378 15,613 2,165 2,556 1,674 5,042 16,584 2,278 2,655 1,802 5,403 16,859 2,311 2,706 1,839 5,493 16,994 2,357 2,728 1,848 5,512 17,026 2,323 2,745 1,851 5,535 17,090 2,341 2,753 1,855 5,559 17,160 2,343 2,773 1,865 5,588 17,249 2,349 2,790 1,873 5,615 17,280 2,348 2,794 1,884 5,642 17,392 2,371 2,823 1,890 5,660 17,425 2,361 2,831 1,895 5,692 17,453 2,344 2,842 1,895 5,728 17,514 2,354 2,849 1,902 5,725 17,537 2,362 2,849 1,906 5,739 17,618 2,374 2,868 1,918 5,758 5,468 2,741 1,720 1,007 5,682 2,855 1,753 1,074 5,737 2,883 1,770 1,084 5,755 2,891 1,774 1,090 5,776 2,902 1,780 1,094 5,790 2,910 1,783 1,097 5,809 2,919 1,789 1,101 5,835 2,933 1,792 1,110 5,858 2,941 1,799 1,118 5,888 2,956 1,808 1,124 5,906 2,968 1,814 1,124 5,932 2,984 1,817 1,131 5,959 2,998 1,827 1,134 5,985 3,011 1,830 1,144 6,002 3,019 1,834 1,149 19,694 3,562 5,988 20,761 4,076 6,104 21,087 4,205 6,125 21,184 4,234 6,139 21,252 4,259 6,154 21,382 4,295 6,169 21,480 4,324 6,186 21,644 4,377 6,204 21,723 4,402 6,218 2V813 4,424 6,240 21,856 4,441 6,243 21,926 4,446 6,260 22,073 4,489 6,291 22,137 4,503 6,305 22,286 4,538 6,338 15,869 2,774 3,662 9,434 15,984 2,807 3,712 9,465 16,113 2,823 3,727 9,563 16,118 2,831 3,732 9,555 16,082 2,836 3,722 9,524 16,100 2,836 3,730 9,534 16,111 2,834 3,733 9,544 16,143 2,850 3,744 9,549 16,158 2,859 3,749 9,550 16,213 2,873 3,759 9,581 16,213 2,872 3,765 9,576 16,341 2,878 3,788 9,675 16,343 2,886 3,789 9,668 16,380 2,894 3,799 9,687 16,433 2,899 3,812 9,722 NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 65 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Establishment Data 12 . Average hours and earnings, by Industry, 1968-84 [P roduction or nonsupervisory w orkers on nonagricultural payrolls] Y ear A verage A v era g e A v era g e A v era g e A v era g e A v era g e A v era g e A v era g e w e e k ly hourly w e e k ly w e e k ly hourly w e e k ly w e e k ly hourly w e e k ly hours earn in g s e arn in g s hours earn in g s e arn in g s hours e arn in g s e a rn in g s C onstruction M in in g P riv a te sector A v era g e 1968 ....................................................... 1969 ....................................................... 1970 ....................................................... 37.8 37.7 37.1 $2.85 3.04 3.23 $107.73 114.61 119.83 42.6 43.0 42.7 $3.35 3.60 3.85 $142.71 154.80 164.40 37.3 37.9 37.3 $4.41 4.79 5.24 $164.49 181.54 195.45 1971....................................................... 1972 ....................................................... 1973 ....................................................... 1974 ....................................................... 1975 ....................................................... 36.9 37.0 36.9 36.5 36.1 3.45 3.70 3.94 4.24 4.53 127.31 136.90 145.39 154.76 163.53 42.4 42.6 42.4 41.9 41.9 4.06 4.44 4.75 5.23 5.95 172.14 189.14 201.40 219.14 249.31 37.2 36.5 36.8 36.6 36.4 5.69 6.06 6.41 6.81 7.31 211.67 221.19 235.89 249.25 266.08 ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... 36.1 36.0 35.8 35.7 35.3 4.86 5.25 5.69 6.16 6.66 175.45 189.00 203.70 219.91 235.10 42.4 43.4 43.4 43.0 43.3 6.46 6.94 7.67 8.49 9.17 273.90 301.20 332.88 365.07 397.06 36.8 36.5 36.8 37.0 37.0 7.71 8.10 8.66 9.27 9.94 283.73 295.65 318.69 342.99 367.78 1981....................................................... 1982 ....................................................... 1983 ....................................................... 1984 ....................................................... 35.2 34.8 35.0 35.3 7.25 7.68 8.02 8.33 255.20 267.26 280.70 294.05 43.7 42.7 42.5 43.3 10.04 10.77 11.28 11.63 438.75 459.88 479.40 503.58 36.9 36.7 37.1 37.7 10.82 11.63 11.94 12.12 399.26 426.82 442.97 456.92 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 T ra n sp o rtatio n and p u b lic u tilitie s M a n u fa c tu rin g W h o le s a le tra d e 1968 ....................................................... 1969 ....................................................... 1970 ....................................................... 40.7 40.6 39.8 $3.01 3.19 3.35 $122.51 129.51 133.33 40.6 40.7 40.5 $3.42 3.63 3.85 $138.85 147.74 155.93 40.1 40.2 39.9 $3.05 3.23 3.44 $122.31 129.85 137.26 1971....................................................... 1972 ....................................................... 1973 ....................................................... 1974 ....................................................... 1975 ....................................................... 39.9 40.5 40.7 40.0 39.5 3.57 3.82 4.09 4.42 4.83 142.44 154.71 166.46 176.80 190.79 40.1 40.4 40.5 40.2 39.7 4.21 4.65 5.02 5.41 5.88 168.82 187.86 203.31 217.48 233.44 39.5 39.4 39.3 38.8 38.7 3.65 3.85 4.08 4.39 4.73 129.85 144.18 151.69 160.34 183.05 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... 40.1 40.3 40.4 40.2 39.7 5.22 5.68 6.17 6.70 7.27 209.32 228.90 249.27 269.34 288.62 39.8 39.9 40.0 39.9 39.6 6.45 6.99 7.57 8.16 8.87 256.71 278.90 302.80 325.58 351.25 38.7 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.5 5.03 5.39 5.88 6.39 6.96 194.66 209.13 228.14 247.93 267.96 1981....................................................... 1982 ....................................................... 1983 ....................................................... 1984 ....................................................... 39.8 38.9 40.1 40.7 7.99 8.49 8.83 9.18 318.00 330.26 354.08 373.63 39.4 39.0 39.0 39.4 9.70 10.32 10.79 11.11 382.18 402.48 420.81 437.73 38.5 38.3 38.5 38.6 7.56 8.09 8.55 8.96 291.06 309.85 329.18 345.86 F in an ce R e te ll tra d e In s u ra n c e , and re e l e state S ervices 1968 ....................................................... 1969 ....................................................... 1970 ....................................................... 34.7 34.2 33.8 $2.16 2.30 2.44 $74.95 78.66 82.47 37.0 37.1 36.7 $2.75 2.93 3.07 $101.75 108.70 112.67 34.7 34.7 34.4 $2.42 2.61 2.81 $83.97 90.57 96.66 1971....................................................... 1972 ....................................................... 1973 ....................................................... 1974 ....................................................... 1975 ....................................................... 33.7 33.4 33.1 32.7 32.4 2.60 2.75 2.91 3.14 3.36 87.62 91.85 96.32 102.68 108.86 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.5 36.5 3.22 3.36 3.53 3.77 4.06 117.85 122.98 129.20 137.61 148.19 33.9 33.9 33.8 33.6 33.5 3.04 3.27 3.47 3.75 4.02 103.06 110.85 117.29 126.00 134.67 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... 32.1 31.6 31.0 30.6 30.2 3.57 3.85 4.20 4.53 4.88 114.60 121.66 130.20 138.62 147.38 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.2 36.2 4.27 4.54 4.89 5.27 5.79 155.43 165.26 178.00 190.77 209.60 33.3 33.0 32.8 32.7 32.6 4.31 4.65 4.99 5.36 5.85 143.52 153.45 163.67 175.27 190.71 1981....................................................... 1982 ....................................................... 1983 ....................................................... 1984 ....................................................... 30.1 29.9 29.8 30.0 5.25 5.48 5.74 5.88 158.03 163.85 171.05 176.40 36.3 36.2 36.2 36.5 6.31 6.78 7.29 7.62 229.05 245.44 263.90 278.13 32.6 32.6 32.7 32.8 6.41 6.92 7.31 7.64 208.97 225.59 239.04 250.59 NOTE: See “Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 66 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 13. Average weekly hours, by Industry, seasonally adjusted [P roduction or nonsupervisory w orkers on private nonagricultural payrolls] 1984 A nnual a v e ra g e Indus try 1 98 3 1984 O ct. Nov. 1985 D ec. J an . Feb. M a r. A pr. M ay June July A ug. S ep t.P Oct.P ............................................................ 35.0 35.3 35.2 35.2 35.2 35.1 35.1 35.2 35.0 35.1 35.1 35.0 35.1 35.1 35.0 C O N S T R U C T IO N ........................................................................... 37.1 37.7 37.7 38.0 37.8 37.7 37.8 38.1 38.0 37.6 37.2 37.6 37.5 37.9 37.8 M A N U F A C T U R IN G 40.1 3.0 40.7 3.4 40.5 3.3 40.5 3.4 40.6 3.4 40.6 3.4 40.1 3.3 40.4 3.2 40.2 3.4 40.4 3.1 40.4 3.2 40.3 3.2 40.6 3.3 40.7 3.3 40.7 3.4 Overtime hours.................................. 40.7 3.0 41.4 3.6 41.3 3.5 41.2 3.6 41.3 3.6 41.3 3.6 40.7 3.5 41.1 3.5 40.9 3.6 41.1 3.2 41.2 3.3 41.0 3.3 41.3 3.4 41.3 3.5 41.4 3.5 Lumber and wood products........................ Furniture and fixtures ............................... Stone, clay, and glass products ................. Primary metal industries............................. Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . . . Fabricated metal products.......................... 40.1 39.4 41.5 40.5 39.5 40.6 39.9 39.7 42.0 41.7 40.6 41.4 39.7 39.6 41.9 41.3 40.1 41.3 39.6 39.7 41.8 41.5 40.9 41.1 39.8 39.6 41.8 41.2 39.8 41.4 39.7 40.4 41.7 41.0 39.9 41.4 38.9 39.5 41.6 40.9 40.5 40.9 39.6 39.5 42.0 41.1 40.5 41.1 39.5 39.3 42.0 41.0 40.2 41.1 39.8 38.9 42.1 41.2 40.7 41.1 40.1 38.9 41.9 41.6 41.2 41.3 39.7 38.8 42.0 41.4 41.2 41.3 40.0 39.2 42.0 41.7 41.8 41.4 40.1 39.5 42.0 41.5 41.1 41.5 40.3 39.4 42.1 42.1 42.3 41.4 Machinery, except electrical........................ Electrical and electronic equipment.............. Transportation equipment.......................... Motor vehicles and equipment................... Instruments and related products................. Miscellaneous manufacturing...................... 40.5 40.5 42.1 43.3 40.4 39.1 41.9 41.0 42.7 43.8 41.3 39.4 41.9 40.9 42.6 43.5 41.3 39.3 41.8 40.9 42.4 43.5 41.4 39.3 41.7 41.0 42.8 44.0 41.8 39.3 41.7 40.8 43.1 44.3 41.2 39.2 41.1 40.2 41.9 42.4 40.7 39.0 41.6 40.7 42.5 43.2 41.0 39.1 41.2 40.2 42.3 43.3 40.7 39.0 41.4 40.4 42.6 43.5 40.9 39.3 41.6 40.6 42.3 42.7 41.1 39.4 41.3 40.3 42.5 43.3 40.7 39.0 41.6 40.7 42.9 43.8 40.7 39.3 41.6 40.5 43.0 43.7 40.9 39.8 41.5 40.7 42.9 44.1 40.7 40.0 Overtime hours.................................. 39.4 3.0 39.6 3.1 39.4 3.0 39.5 3.1 39.6 3.0 39.5 3.0 39.3 2.9 39.4 2.9 39.1 3.0 39.4 2.9 39.4 3.0 39.4 3.0 39.6 3.1 39.8 3.1 39.8 3.2 Food and kindred products ........................ Tobacco manufactures............................... Textile mill products.................................. Apparel and other textile products .............. Paper and allied products.......................... 39.5 37.4 40.4 36.2 42.6 39.8 38.9 39.9 36.4 43.1 39.7 38.7 38.8 36.0 43.0 39.7 39.0 39.1 36.1 43.1 40.1 38.8 39.2 36.3 43.1 39.8 38.3 39.2 36.2 43.0 39.7 39.2 38.8 35.9 42.9 39.8 38.9 39.1 36.1 42.9 39.6 35.4 38.8 35.6 43.0 40.1 37.0 38.9 36.2 43.0 39.6 36.6 39.4 36.3 42.9 40.0 34.6 39.1 36.3 42.7 39.9 36.8 40.0 36.4 43.0 40.2 36.7 40.6 36.6 43.1 40.1 38.0 40.5 36.4 43.2 Printing and publishing ............................. Chemicals and allied products...................... Petroleum and coal products...................... Leather and leather products ...................... 37.6 41.6 43.9 36.8 37.9 41.9 43.7 36.8 37.8 41.7 43.6 36.6 37.8 41.8 43.4 36.6 37.7 41.9 43.0 36.9 37.8 42.0 43.2 36.8 37.7 41.9 43.1 36.4 37.6 42.1 43.3 37.1 37.6 41.9 42.0 37.0 37.4 41.9 41.7 37.1 37.5 42.0 42.6 37.0 37.5 41.8 42.9 37.0 37.9 41.8 43.3 37.3 37.9 41.7 43.4 37.9 37.8 41.6 43.6 38.0 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D P U B LIC U T IL IT IE S 39.0 39.4 39.2 39.4 39.3 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.4 39.5 39.5 39.2 39.6 39.5 39.4 W H O LE S A LE TR A D E 38.5 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.6 38.7 38.8 38.6 38.6 38.7 38.5 P R IV A T E SEC TOR Overtime hours.................................. D u ra b le goods N o n d u ra b le goods ................................................................ RE TA IL TRAD E 29.8 30.0 29.8 29.9 29.9 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.7 29.9 29.9 29.7 29.6 29.5 29.6 SER VIC E S 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.9 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.7 32.8 32.8 32.8 p = preliminary. 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. 67 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 14 . Establishment Data Average hourly earnings, by Industry [Production or nonsupervisory w orkers on private nonagricultural payrolls] 1984 A n nual a ve rag e 1985 Indus try 1983 1984 Oct. N ov. D e c. J an . F eb. M a r. A pr. M ay June July A ug. S ep t. F O et.F Seasonally adjusted............................. $8.02 <1) $8.33 (1) $8.40 8.38 $8.43 8.42 $8.46 8.47 $8.50 8.44 $8.52 8.49 $8.52 8.52 $8.54 8.54 $8.53 8.55 $8.56 8.59 $8.54 8.57 $8.54 8.60 $8.67 8.64 $8.65 8.64 ........................................................................................... 11.28 11.63 11.58 11.63 11.70 11.86 11.90 11.91 11.93 11.86 11.99 11.88 11.95 12.00 11.98 C O N S T R U C T IO N ............................................................................ 11.94 12.12 12.23 12.10 12.26 12.30 12.33 12.22 12.21 12.19 12.12 12.16 12.22 12.39 12.38 8.83 9.18 9.24 9.31 9.40 9.43 9.43 9.45 9.48 9.48 9.50 9.53 9.48 9.54 9.54 Lumber and wood products................. Furniture and fixtures.......................... Stone, clay, and glass products............ Primary metal Industries...................... Blast furnaces and basic steel products . . Fabricated metal products................... 9.39 7.80 6.62 9.28 11.35 12.89 9.12 9.74 8.03 6.85 9.57 11.47 12.99 9.38 9.78 8.11 6.93 9.64 11.36 12.86 9.40 9.85 8.06 6.95 9.67 11.49 12.99 9.44 9.96 8.09 6.99 9.68 11.49 12.95 9.58 9.99 8.10 7.01 9.70 11.55 13.07 9.59 9.99 8.09 7.01 9.73 11.69 13.42 9.59 10.01 8.06 7.07 9.71 11.66 13.27 9.62 10.03 8.04 7.08 9.80 11.64 13.32 9.64 10.04 8.12 7.11 9.80 11.64 13.31 9.63 10.08 8.24 7.18 9.84 11.65 13.29 9.65 10.10 8.20 7.22 9.89 11.78 13.51 9.66 10.05 8.26 7.22 9.87 11.63 13.37 9.61 10.14 8.31 7.28 9.89 11.68 13.44 9.71 10.14 8.30 7.30 9.85 11.61 13.33 9.67 Machinery, except electrical................. Electrical and electronic equipment . . . . Transportation equipment ................... Motor vehicles and equipment............ Instruments and related products.......... Miscellaneous manufacturing .............. 9.55 8.67 11.67 12.14 8.48 6.81 9.96 9.04 12.22 12.74 8.85 7.04 10.02 9.15 12.32 12.86 8.93 7.05 10.07 9.20 12.45 13.02 8.95 7.06 10.16 9.32 12.62 13.27 9.03 7.16 10.13 9.33 12.67 13.41 9.00 7.23 10.14 9.33 12.63 13.35 9.11 7.19 10.15 9.39 12.59 13.29 9.10 7.20 10.17 9.40 12.63 13.40 9.11 7.22 10.22 9.39 12.63 13.38 9.13 7.28 10.28 9.46 12.66 13.39 9.15 7.28 10.31 9.47 12.65 13.38 9.20 7.30 10.27 9.50 12.65 13.34 9.22 7.26 10.37 9.56 12.76 13.47 9.28 7.29 10.38 9.56 12.83 13.56 9.27 7.34 N o n d u ra b le goods ........................................................... 8.08 8.19 10.38 6.18 5.38 9.93 8.37 8.38 11.27 6.46 5.55 10.41 8.44 8.31 10.60 6.49 5.61 10.52 8.52 8.43 11.93 6.55 5.61 10.64 8.55 8.45 11.17 6.57 5.68 10.66 8.59 8.48 11.39 6.59 5.73 10.63 8.60 8.51 11.80 6.60 5.70 10.64 8.61 8.53 12.00 6.64 5.73 10.64 8.67 8.59 12.16 6.70 5.74 10.72 8.64 8.58 12.65 6.68 5.69 10.75 8.65 8.55 12.83 6.69 5.70 10.79 8.72 8.54 12.91 6.69 5.70 10.91 8.67 8.47 12.44 6.72 5.68 10.86 8.70 8.50 11.58 6.75 5.75 10.89 8.69 8.48 11.18 6.75 5.74 10.89 9.11 10.58 13.28 9.40 11.08 13.43 9.50 11.29 13.51 9.56 11.31 13.66 9.57 11.34 13.62 9.58 11.39 13.96 9.60 11.39 13.99 9.61 11.37 14.06 9.60 11.48 14.18 9.60 11.46 14.00 9.61 11.52 13.97 9.67 11.60 14.03 9.73 11.62 13.99 9.79 11.66 14.10 9.77 11.72 13.87 8.00 5.54 8.29 5.70 8.32 5.72 8.40 5.76 8.44 5.80 8.49 5.72 8.48 5.79 8.46 5.82 8.48 5.84 8.45 5.83 8.50 5.83 8.54 5.83 8.51 5.80 8.55 5.82 8.55 5.80 10.79 11.11 11.18 11.25 11.28 11.26 11.27 11.24 11.27 11.24 11.32 11.35 11.40 11.50 11.45 8.55 8.96 9.00 9.08 9.19 9.16 9.22 9.19 9.24 9.24 9.28 9.27 9.25 9.33 9.25 PR IVA TE SEC TOR M IN IN G ........................................................... M A N U F A C T U R IN G D u ra b le g o o d s .................................................................... Food and kindred products ................. Tobacco manufactures........................ Textile mill products .......................... Apparel and other textile products.......... Paper and allied products ................... Printing and publishing........................ Chemicals and allied products.............. Petroleum and coal products .............. Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products............................. Leather and leather products .............. T R A N S P O R T A T IO N A N D PU B LIC U T IL IT IE S W H O LE S A LE TRAD E ................................................................ RE TA IL T R A D E ................................................................................ 5.74 5.88 5.88 5.93 5.89 5.97 5.99 5.97 5.96 5.97 5.94 5.93 5.91 6.00 5.97 FIN A N C E, IN S U R A N C E , A N D REAL ESTATE 7.29 7.62 7.67 7.71 7.78 7.77 7.87 7.87 7.85 7.83 7.95 7.87 7.90 8.02 7.98 S ER VIC E S 7.31 7.64 7.71 7.77 7.84 7.84 7.87 7.87 7.89 7.88 7.91 7.86 7.87 8.04 8.05 ........................................................................................ 1Not available. NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. p = preliminary. 15. The Hourly Earnings Index, by Industry [Production or nonsupervisory w orkers on private nonagricultural payrolls; 1 9 7 7 = 100] N ot s e a s o n a lly a d ju sted S e a s o n a lly ad ju sted P erc en t P erc e n t chang e Indus try ch a n g e Oct. A ug. S ept. Oct. from : Oct. June July Aug. S ep t. Oct. Iro m : 1984 1985 198 5P 1985» O ct. 1 9 8 4 1984 1985 1985 1985 1 985P 1 98 5P S ep t. 1 9 8 5 to to Oct. 1 9 8 5 O ct. 1 9 8 5 ................ 161.7 165.1 166.9 166.8 3.2 161.6 165.7 165.4 165.7 166.6 166.7 0.1 Mining................................................. Construction......................................... Manufacturing............................................................ Transportation and public utilities ................ Wholesale trade ........................................................ Retail trade.................................................................... Finance, insurance, and real estate.......... Services .............................................. 174.8 149.5 163.9 163.3 166.7 153.7 166.3 164.1 178.8 149.8 168.6 165.9 170.8 155.3 171.2 168.2 179.5 151.7 169.2 168.0 172.3 157.3 173.6 171.3 179.4 151.7 169.2 167.6 172.3 156.8 173.4 171.4 2.6 1.5 3.2 2.6 3.3 2.0 4.3 4.4 (1) 147.7 164.1 162.8 (1) 154.0 (1) 164.1 (1) 149.3 168.6 166.6 (1) 155.9 (1) 169.8 (1) 149.1 169.0 166.0 (1) 155.8 (1) 169.0 (1) 149.4 169.3 166.1 (1) 155.8 (1) 169.6 (1) 149.9 169.1 167.0 (1) 157.2 (1) 171.3 (1) 149.9 169.4 167.1 (1) 157.1 (1) 171.4 (1) .1 .2 .1 (1) -.1 (1) <2) P R IV A TE SEC TO R (In c o n stan t d o l l a r s ) ................ 94.0 93.8 94.5 <3) (3) 94.1 94.5 94.3 94.3 94.6 (3) (3) P R IV A TE SEC TO R (In c u rre n t d o lla rs ) 1This series is not seasonally adjusted because the seasonal component is small relative to the trendcycle, irregular components, or both, and consequently cannot be separated with sufficient precision. . ^Percent change is less than 0.05 percent. 3Not available. 68 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis p = preliminary, NOTE: See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. 16. Average weekly earnings, by Industry [Production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls] 1983 1984 $280.70 (1) 171.37 $294.05 (1) 173.48 479.40 503.58 P R IVA TE SEC TOR Current dollars......................................... Seasonally adjusted............................... Constant (1977) dollars............................. M IN IN G 1985 1984 A n nual a v e ra g e In dus try Oct. Nov. D ec. J an . M a r. Feb. A pr. May June Ju ly Aug. S ep t. F O c t.F $294.84 $295.89 $300.33 $294.95 $294.79 $298.20 $298.05 $298.55 $303.02 $301.46 $302.32 $305.18 $302.75 294.98 296.38 298.14 296.24 298.00 299.90 298.90 300.11 301.51 299.95 301.86 303.26 302.40 171.42 172.23 174.61 171.28 170.50 171.68 170.80 170.50 172.56 171.48 171.68 172.81 <1) 500.26 505 91 515.97 508.79 514.08 519.28 516.57 515.91 523.96 509.65 517.44 525.60 516.34 447.72 451.28 460.69 461.54 464.44 461.77 469.38 468.03 477.02 471.68 442.97 456.92 464.74 451.33 460.98 354.08 216.17 373.63 220.43 374.22 217.57 378.92 220.56 387.28 225.16 380.03 220.69 374.37 216.52 381.78 219.79 380.15 217.85 382.04 218.18 385.70 219.65 382.15 217.38 382.99 217.48 389.23 220.40 388.28 (1) Lumber and wood products ........................ Furniture and fixtures.................................. Stone, clay, and glass products ................... Primary metal industries ............................. Blast furnaces and basic steel products......... Fabricated metal products............................. 382.17 312.78 260.83 385.12 459.68 509.16 370.27 403.24 320.40 271.95 401.94 478.30 527.39 388.33 403.91 322.78 278.59 406.81 464.62 506.68 388.22 407.79 315.95 278.70 406.14 475.69 524.80 389.87 419.32 321.98 283.79 404.62 477.98 516.71 405.23 410.59 315.90 276.19 392.85 473.55 517.57 395.11 403.60 309.85 270.59 393 09 478.12 544.85 387.44 412.41 317.56 277.85 404.91 481.56 540.09 396.34 410.23 317.58 276.83 411.60 480.73 547.45 395.24 411.64 325.61 275.16 415.52 479.57 543.05 395.79 417.31 336.19 281.46 418.20 486.97 552.86 400.48 410.06 325.54 276.53 418.35 485.34 559.31 394.13 412.05 333.70 285.19 418.49 480.32 550.84 395.93 419.80 337.39 290.47 420.33 487.06 555.07 402.97 418.78 335.32 292.00 417.64 484.14 553.20 400.34 Machinery except electrical.......................... Electrical and electronic equipment................. Transportation equipment............................. Motor vehicles and equipment................... Instruments and related products ................. Miscellaneous manufacturing........................ 386.78 351.14 491.31 525.66 342.59 266.27 417.32 370.64 521.79 558.01 365.51 277.38 417.83 374.24 523.60 556.84 367.92 279.89 422.94 379.04 531.62 565.07 373.22 280.99 434.85 389.58 554.02 597.15 382.87 285.68 422.42 379.73 546.08 594.06 369.90 279.08 415.74 373.20 524.15 559.37 369.87 276.82 424.27 383.11 537.59 576.79 374.01 282.24 417.99 376.00 538.04 586.92 368.96 280.86 421.06 377.48 539.30 587.38 372.50 285.38 427.65 385.02 539.32 579.79 376.07 286.10 420.65 376.91 531.30 574.00 370.76 281.78 422.10 383.80 531.30 566.95 373.41 284.59 431.39 388.14 544.85 583.25 381.41 291.60 428.69 389.09 549.12 595.28 376.36 296.54 318.35 323.51 388.21 249.67 194.76 423.02 331.45 333.52 438.40 257.75 202.02 448.67 332.54 330.74 420.82 253.11 203.08 453.41 337.39 337.20 480.78 257.42 203.08 460.71 342.00 342.23 433.40 258.86 206.75 466.91 336.73 334.96 424.85 257.01 205.13 456.03 333.68 331.89 442.50 254.10 202.35 451.14 338.37 335.23 452.40 258.96 206.85 454.33 337.26 336.73 424.38 257.28 203.20 458.82 339.55 343.20 469.32 260.52 205.98 460.10 342.54 340.29 483.69 266.93 209.19 463.97 341.82 341.60 437.65 258.23 206.34 465.86 344.20 341.34 461.52 270.14 207.32 465.89 348.00 346.80 440.04 274.73 210.45 472.63 345.86 340.90 434.90 274.73 210.08 470.45 342.54 440.13 582.99 356.26 464.25 586.89 359.10 469.66 590.39 364.24 473.89 596.94 366.53 480.82 584.30 359.25 477.24 597.49 358.08 476.10 594.58 362.30 478.68 601.77 360.00 481.01 595.56 358.08 480.17 583.80 358.45 484 99 596.52 360.69 482.56 606.10 369.74 483.39 605.77 373.00 488.55 621.81 369.31 485.21 606.12 329.60 203.87 345.69 209.76 345.28 207.64 349.44 210.82 355.32 215.18 352.34 207.64 343.44 207.28 347.71 212.43 346.83 215.50 345.61 218.04 350.20 221.54 346.72 218.63 346.36 216.92 351.41 220.00 353.97 218.66 420.81 437.73 438.26 444.38 445.56 438.01 440.66 441.73 441.78 441.73 449.40 448.33 454.86 456.55 451.13 351.40 357.49 351.74 352.20 353.82 354.82 357.59 360.99 359.68 358.90 362.00 357.05 C O N S TR U C TIO N M A N U F A C T U R IN G Current dollars......................................... Constant (1977) dollars............................. D u ra b le goods ........................................................................ N o n d u ra b le goods ................................................................ Food and kindred products.......................... Tobacco manufactures ............................... Textile mill products.................................... Apparel and other textile products................. Paper and allied products............................. Printing and publishing............................... Chemicals and allied products ...................... Petroleum and coat products........................ Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products.................................... Leather and leather products........................ T R A N S P O R TA TIO N A N D P U B LIC U T IL IT IE S W H O LE S A LE TRAD E 329.18 345.86 348.30 R E TA IL TRAD E 171.05 176.40 174.64 176.12 179.65 173.73 174.31 175.52 175.22 177.91 179.39 180.27 179.07 177.60 176.12 285.53 282.83 286.47 286.47 285.74 284.23 291.77 285.68 286.77 292.73 288.08 257.94 254.80 256.56 256.56 257.21 257.68 261.03 260.17 260.50 263.71 263.24 FIN A N C E, IN S U R A N C E , A N D REAL ESTATE . . . . SER VIC E S 263.90 278.13 279.96 280.64 239.04 250.59 252.12 254.08 1Not available. NOTE: See “Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. p = preliminary. 17. Indexes of diffusion: ndustries In which employment Increased, seasonally adjusted [In percent] T im e Year J an . Feb. M a r. A pr. M ay June July Aug. S ep t. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1983 1984 . . . . 1985 . . . . 52.2 67.3 57.6 45.9 72.7 50.3 59.7 66.8 55.9 70.0 67.3 44.6 68.9 60.5 50.3 63.0 64.3 47.0 72.7 65.7 54.9 69.5 58.1 56.8 73.2 48.4 P43.5 74.1 66.5 P63.8 66.8 55.1 68.9 63.5 1983 . . . . 1984 . . . . 1985 . . . . 46.2 78.1 58.6 53.2 75.9 54.1 63.0 77.6 46.8 73.5 68.9 45.9 71.9 69.7 44.1 73.8 67.0 49.7 72.7 65.4 50.5 80.3 60.3 P48.9 80.8 60.0 P52.4 78.6 56.5 74.6 67.0 74.3 60.0 1983 . . . . 1984 . . 1985 . . . . 50.0 79.2 52.2 62.4 77.8 49.5 65.7 77.3 44.3 67.8 75.4 44.6 74.3 69.2 44.3 78.4 64.9 P41.4 79.7 63.2 P47.3 79.5 64.1 78.9 67.0 79.2 59.7 79.7 57.6 78.4 60.3 1983 . . . . 1984 . . . 1985 . . . . 48.6 81.9 50.8 55.1 78.4 48.4 61.4 76.8 P48.9 68.6 75.1 P46.8 72.4 72.7 75.1 73.0 77.0 70.0 79.7 65.7 78.4 63.5 80.8 60.5 81.6 56.2 81.1 51.9 span Over 1-month span Over 3-month span Over 6-month span Over 12-month span p = prelim nary. are counted as rising.) Data are centered within the spans. See the ‘'Definitions" in this section. See "Notes on the data" for a description of the most recent benchmark revision. NOTE: Figi res arethe peravnt of industnes withemployment rising. (Half of the unchanged components https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 69 U N E M P L O Y M E N T IN SU R A N C E D A TA N a t i o n a l u n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e d a t a are compiled monthly by the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. De partment of Labor from monthly reports of unemployment insur ance activity prepared by State agencies. Railroad unemployment insurance data are prepared by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. excluded from the scope o f the survey. Initial claims are notices filed by persons in unemployment insurance programs to indicate they are out o f work and wish to begin receiving compensation. A claimant who continued to be unemployed a full week is then counted in the insured unemployment figure. The rate of insured unemployment expresses the number o f in sured unemployed as a percent of the average insured employment in a 12-month period. Average weekly seasonally adjusted insured unemployment data are computed by b l s ’ Weekly Seasonal Adjustment program. This procedure incorporated the X - l l Variant of the Census Method II Seasonal Adjust ment program. Definitions Data for all programs represent an unduplicated count o f insured un employment under State programs, Unemployment Compensation for ExServicemen, and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees, and the Railroad Insurance Act. The total may include persons receiving Federal-State Extended Benefits. Under both State and Federal unemployment insurance programs for civilian em ployees, insured workers must report the completion of at least 1 week o f unemployment before they are defined as unemployed. Persons not covered by unemployment insurance (about 10 percent of the labor force) and those who have exhausted or not yet earned benefit rights are 18. An application for benefits is filed by a railroad worker at the beginning of his first period of unemployment in a benefit year; no application is required for subsequent periods in the same year. Number of payments are payments made in 14-day registration periods. The average amount of benefit payment is an average for all compensable periods, not adjusted for recovery of overpayments or settlement o f underpayments. However, total benefits paid have been adjusted. Unemployment insurance and employment service operations [All items except average benefits amounts are in thousands] 1984 1985 Ite m S ep t. Oct. N ov. D ec. J an . Feb. M a r. Apr. M ay June J u ly r A ug.P S e p t. All programs: Insured unemployment..................... State unemployment insurance program:1 Initial claims2 .................................. Insured unemployment (average weekly volume)............................. Rate of insured unemployment............ Weeks of unemployment compensated . . Average weekly benefit amount for total unemployment ................. Total benefits paid ........................ $122.49 $853,424 State unemployment Insurance program:1 (Seasonally adjusted data) Initial claims2 .................................. Insured unemployment (average weekly volume)............................. Rate of insured unemployment............ r1,696 r1 733 r1,745 r1 636 r1,746 r1 780 r1,726 r1,728 1,746 r1,724 1,695 1,703 r2 503 r2.9 r2,466 2.8 r2 546 2.9 r2,531 2.9 r2,541 2.8 r2,591 2.9 r2 600 2.9 r2,608 2.9 r2,570 2.8 r2,596 r2.9 2,598 2.8 2,578 2.8 Unemployment compensation for exservicemen:3 Initial claims1 .................................. Insured unemployment (average weekly volume).......................... Weeks of unemployment compensated . . Total benefits paid .......................... 13 15 13 12 14 12 12 11 10 10 12 13 20 72 $9,820 21 86 $11,766 22 87 $11,984 23 88 $11,930 24 102 $13,901 22 86 $11,720 21 82 $11,193 19 76 $10,437 17 74 $10,173 16 62 $8,644 17 68 $9,555 17 66 $9,414 Unemployment compensation for Federal civilian employees:4 Initial claims.......................... Insured unemployment (average weekly volume)............................. Weeks of unemployment compensated . . Total benefits paid ..................... 9 15 12 11 14 9 8 9 8 10 11 9 19 69 $8,198 21 85 $10,088 23 89 $10,830 24 94 $11,386 27 113 $14,017 26 101 $12,847 24 101 $12,786 20 86 $11,166 17 73 $9,310 17 63 $7,911 19 76 $9,478 18 75 $9,365 Railroad unemployment insurance: Applications........................ Insured unemployment (average weekly volume)............................. Number of payments..................... Average amount of benefit payment . . . Total benefits paid ........................ 6 9 10 11 13 4 3 3 3 12 31 8 18 34 $196.15 $6,349 21 46 $195.20 $8,596 26 52 $198.85 $9,578 29 61 $205.26 $12,241 31 94 $206.99 $19,108 34 74 $209.76 $15,361 34 75 $209.66 $15,037 23 64 $198.24 $12,710 16 43 $190.11 $8,060 17 35 $187.14 $6,000 21 39 $190.84 $6,680 21 44 $202.20 $8,317 Employment service:5 New applications and renewals............ Nonfarm placements ..................... inarrane workers ^ ^ 2,083 2,149 2,441 2,778 3,361 3,339 3,113 2,766 2,455 2,337 2,523 2,361 1,260 1,758 1,825 2,074 2,610 1,662 1,507 1,633 1,486 1,419 1,912 1,454 2,023 2.3 2,072 2.4 2,355 2.7 2,691 3.1 3,264 3.7 3,239 3.6 3,016 3.4 2,680 3.0 2,385 2.6 2,274 2.5 2,455 2.7 2,292 2.5 8,092 8,421 9,211 12,382 11,759 11,680 10,804 10,010 8,271 9,705 8,950 7,209 $123.19 $123.95 $125.36 $126.68 $127.28 $128.98 $127.55 $126.33 $125.73 $125.04 $126.13 $962,856 $1,005,727 $1,114,781 $1,505,278 $1,450,239 $1,423,315 $1,333,715 $1,223,008 $1,008,462 $1,171,167 $1,093,728 4,803 1,182 'nSUr8<i unemployment include data under the pr°8ram ,or p^rto Rican 2Excludes transition claims under State programs. 3Excludes data on claims and payments made jointly with other programs. 4Excludes data or claims and payments made jointly with State programs. 70 6,728 1,577 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 10,099 2,238 12,532 2,740 Simulative total for fiscal year (October 1-September 30). Data computed quarterly. r = revised, p = preliminary. NOTE: Data for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands included. Dashes indicate data not available. PRICE DATA P r i c e d a t a are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from retail and primary markets in the United States. Price indexes are given in relation to a base period (1967 = 100, unless otherwise noted). Definitions The Consumer Price Index is a monthly statistical measure of the average change in prices in a fixed market basket o f goods and services. Effective with the January 1978 index, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began pub lishing c p i ’ s for two groups o f the population. It introduced a c p i for All Urban Consumers, covering 80 percent of the total noninstitutional pop ulation, and revised the c p i for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, covering about half the new index population. The All Urban Consumers index covers in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, retirees, and others not in the labor force. The c p i is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, fuel, drugs, trans portation fares, doctors’ and dentists’ fees, and other goods and serv ices that people buy for day-to-day living. The quantity and quality of these items is kept essentially unchanged between major revisions so that only price changes will be measured. Data are collected from more than 24,000 retail establishments and 24,000 tenants in 85 urban areas across the country. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index. Because the c p i ’ s are based on the ex penditures o f two population groups in 1972-73, they may not accurately reflect the experience of individual families and single persons with dif ferent buying habits. Though the c p i is often called the “ Cost-of-Living Index,” it measures only price change, which is just one of several important factors affecting living costs. Area indexes do not measure differences in the level o f prices among cities. They only measure the average change in prices for each area since the base period. Producer Price Indexes measure average changes in prices received in primary markets o f the United States by producers of commodities in all stages o f processing. The sample used for calculating these indexes contains about 2,800 commodities and about 10,000 quotations per month selected to represent the movement of prices of all commodities produced in the manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, gas and electricity, and public utilities sectors. The universe includes all commodities produced or imported for sale in commercial transactions in primary markets in the United States. Producer Price Indexes can be organized by stage of processing or by commodity. The stage of processing structure organizes products by degree o f fabrication (that is. finished goods, intermediate or semifinished goods, and crude materials). The commodity structure organizes products by sim ilarity o f end-use or material composition. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis To the extent possible, prices used in calculating Producer Price Indexes apply to the first significant commercial transaction in the United States, from the production or central marketing point. Price data are generally collected monthly, primarily by mail questionnaire. Most prices are ob tained directly from producing companies on a voluntary and confidential basis. Prices generally are reported for the Tuesday of the week containing the 13th day of the month. In calculating Producer Price Indexes, price changes for the various commodities are averaged together with implicit quantity weights repre senting their importance in the total net selling value of all commodities as of 1972. The detailed data are aggregated to obtain indexes for stage o f processing groupings, commodity groupings, durability o f product groupings, and a number of special composite groupings. Price indexes for the output of selected sic industries measure average price changes in commodities produced by particular industries, as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1972 (Washington, U .S. Office of Management and Budget, 1972). These indexes are derived from several price series, combined to match the economic activity o f the spec ified industry and weighted by the value of shipments in the industry. They use data from comprehensive industrial censuses conducted by the U .S. Bureau of the Census and the U .S. Department of Agriculture. Notes on the data Regional c p i ’ s cross classified by population size were introduced in the May 1978 Review. These indexes enable users in local areas for which an index is not published to get a better approximation of the c p i for their area by using the appropriate population size class measure for their region. The cross-classified indexes are published bimonthly. (See table 21.) For details concerning the 1978 revision of the c p i , see The Consumer Price Index: Concepts and Content Over the Years, Report 517, revised edition (Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1978). As of January 1976, the Producer Price Index incorporated a revised weighting structure reflecting 1972 values of shipments. Additional data and analyses of price changes are provided in the c p i Detailed Report and Producer Prices and Price Indexes, both monthly publications of the Bureau. For a discussion of the general method of computing producer, and industry price indexes, see bls Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2134—1 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), chapter 7. For consumer prices, see bls Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies (1976), chapter 13. See also John F. Early, ‘‘Improving the measurement of producer price change,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1978. For industry prices, see also Bennett R. M oss, ‘‘Industry and Sector Price Indexes,” Monthly Labor Review, August 1965. 71 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 19. Consumer Prices Consu fner Price Inde x for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, annual averages and changes ,1 9 6 7 - 84 [1967 = 100] Foot and All t e m i Inde x 1967 1968 1969 1970 .............. .............. .............. .............. 100.0 104.2 109.8 116.3 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 P erc en t change Index 4.2 5.4 5.9 100.0 103.6 108.8 114.7 121.3 125.3 133.1 147.7 161.2 4.3 3.3 6.2 11.0 9.1 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 170.5 181.5 195.3 217.7 247.0 .............. .............. .............. .............. 272.3 288.6 297.4 307.6 A p p a rel and H o using have rag es Y ear P erc en t chang e Index 3.6 5.0 5.4 100.0 104.0 110.4 118.2 118.3 123.2 139.5 158.7 172.1 3.1 4.1 13.2 13.8 8.4 5.8 6.5 7.6 11.5 13.5 177.4 188.0 206.2 228.7 248.7 10.2 6.0 3.0 3.4 267.8 278.5 284.7 295.2 T ra n sp o rtatio n upkeep P erc en t chang e Index P erc en t Index c hang e M e d ic a l c are P erc en t c hang e Index P erc en t chang e O th e r goods E n te rtain m e n t Index and serv ice s P erc en t chang e In d e x P erc e n t ch an g e 4.0 6.2 7.1 100.0 105.4 111.5 116.1 5.4 5.8 4.1 100.0 103.2 107.2 112.7 3.2 3.9 5.1 100.0 106.1 113.4 120.6 6.1 6.9 6.3 100.0 105.7 111.0 116.7 5.7 5.0 5.1 100.0 105.2 110.4 115.8 5.2 4.9 5.8 123.4 128.1 133.7 148.8 164.5 4.4 3.8 4.4 11.3 10.6 119.8 122.3 126.8 136.2 142.3 3.3 2.1 3.7 7.4 4.5 118.6 119.9 123.8 137.7 150.6 5.2 1.1 3.3 11.2 9.4 128.4 132.5 137.7 150.5 168.6 6.5 3.2 3.9 9.3 12.0 122.9 126.5 130.0 139.8 152.2 5.3 2.9 2.8 7.5 8.9 122.4 127.5 132.5 142.0 153.9 4.8 4.2 3.9 7.2 8.4 3.1 8.0 9.7 10.9 8.7 174.6 186.5 202.6 227.5 263.2 6.1 6.8 8.6 12.3 15.7 147.6 154.2 159.5 166.4 177.4 3.7 4.5 3.4 4.3 6.6 165.5 177.2 185.8 212.8 250.5 9.9 7.1 4.9 14.5 17.7 184.7 202.4 219.4 240.1 267.2 9.5 9.6 8.4 9.4 11.3 159.8 167.7 176.2 187.6 203.7 5.0 4.9 5.1 6.5 8.5 162.7 172.2 183.2 196.3 213.6 5.7 5.8 6.4 7.2 8.8 7.7 4.0 2.2 3.7 293.2 314.7 322.0 329.2 11.4 7.3 2.3 2.2 186.6 190.9 195.6 199.1 5.2 2.3 2.5 1.8 281.3 293.1 300.0 313.9 12.3 4.2 2.4 4.6 295.1 326.9 355.1 377.7 10.4 10.8 8.6 6.4 219.0 232.4 242.4 251.2 7.5 6.1 4.3 3.6 233.3 257.0 286.3 304.9 9.2 10.2 11.4 6.5 20. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, U.S. city average—general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] A ll U rb an C onsum ers G e n e ra l s u m m ary 1984 U rb an W a g e E arn ers a n d C le ric a l W o it e r s 1985 1984 S ap t. A pr. May June July A ll I t e m s ............................................................ 314.5 320.1 321.3 322.3 322.8 Food and beverages ............................. Housing .......................... Apparel and upkeep.......................... Transportation............................. Medical care................. Entertainment ................... Other goods and services......... 296.4 341.4 204.2 313.7 383.1 257.3 314.6 301.6 345.9 205.9 320.0 398.0 263.3 321.8 301.0 348.5 205.3 321.4 399.5 263.6 322.3 301.4 350.4 204.6 321.8 401.7 264.8 323.0 301.6 351.6 202.8 321.8 404.0 265.7 325.0 Commodities........................ Commodities less food and beverages Nondurables less food and beverages............ Durables.......................... 282.3 271.0 277.2 268.7 286.8 275.1 281.5 272.6 287.0 275.6 283.1 271.6 286.9 275.4 283.5 270.4 286.5 274.6 282.9 269.3 Services ...................... Rent, residential ................... Household services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 100) Transportation services ................... Medical care services ......... Other services ................... 368.9 252.4 111.0 324.6 413.9 302.5 376.2 260.4 .109.8 334.1 429.4 309.9 378.9 262.6 110.9 334.5 403.9 310.7 381.3 263.6 112.7 335.3 433.0 312.0 383.3 265.0 113.2 337.0 435.8 313.0 A ug. 1985 S ep t. S ept. 323.5 324.5 312.1 316.7 317.8 318.7 319.1 319.6 320.5 301.8 352.9 205.3 320.7 406.6 265.7 326.0 302.1 353.8 209.6 319.7 408.3 266.8 333.3 296.3 336.8 203.3 316.0 381.2 253.4 310.9 301.2 339.5 204.9 322.0 396.1 258.6 318.3 300.8 342.1 204.2 323.3 397.7 258.8 318.8 301.2 344.0 203.7 323.6 399.8 260.1 319.5 301.4 345.0 201.8 323.5 402.0 260.9 321.8 301.6 346.2 204.3 322.3 404.5 260.8 322.9 301.8 347.2 208.7 321.1 406.3 261.6 328.7 286.5 274.4 283.1 268.6 287.1 275.3 284.6 268.7 282.5 271.8 279.0 264.4 286.7 275.5 283.2 267.3 286.8 276.0 284.9 266.3 286.8 275.8 285.4 265.1 286.4 275.0 285.0 263.8 286.5 274 8 285.1 263.1 286 8 275 5 286.5 263.1 384.9 266.6 113.2 337.4 438.6 313.9 386.5 267.7 113.5 337.1 440.5 319.7 366.8 251.7 372.2 259.6 101.2 329.6 427.1 306.2 374.9 261.8 102.2 329.9 428.7 307.2 377.4 262.7 104.2 330.6 430.7 308.4 379.2 264.1 104.5 332.2 433.3 309.3 380.7 265 7 104.6 332.4 436.1 310.1 382.0 266 8 104 8 331.4 438.1 315.0 320.7 411.5 299.0 Apr. M ay June July A ug. S ep t. S p e c ia l In d e xe s: All items less food............ All Items less homeowners' costs . . Commodities less food ............ Nondurables less food ......... Nondurables less food and apparel . . Nondurables................. Services less rent of shelter (12/82 = 100) Services less medical care . . . Domestically produced farm foods................. Selected beef cuts................. Energy commodities .............. All Items less energy . . . . All items less food and energy . . . . Commodities less food and energy . Services less energy................. Purchasing power of the consumer dollar, 1967 = $1 72 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 315.2 320.8 322.4 323.6 324.2 325.0 326.2 312.7 317.2 318.7 319.8 320.3 320.9 321 9 107.4 109.2 109.5 109.8 109.9 110.1 110.4 101.4 101.7 102.0 102.0 102.1 102.4 268.8 272.8 273.4 273.1 272.4 272.3 273.1 269.6 273.3 273.8 273.6 272.8 272.7 273 4 272.3 276.5 278.0 278.4 277.9 278.1 279.6 274.1 278.2 279.8 280.4 280.0 280.2 281 5 312.3 318.1 320.7 321.7 321.9 321.1 321.0 313.5 319.1 321.8 322.9 323.2 322.4 322.3 288.0 292.7 293.3 293.7 293.5 293.7 294.6 288.8 293.4 294.0 294.4 294.3 294 5 295 2 110.5 112.2 112.8 113.7 114.2 114.5 115.0 101.4 101.9 102.8 103.3 103.5 103.8 361.7 368.1 370.9 373.3 375.2 376.7 378.3 359.6 364.1 366.8 369.3 371.1 372.5 373 6 280.0 283.3 281.9 281.8 282.3 281.6 281.0 278.3 281.6 280.1 280.0 280.5 279.8 279.1 271.5 273.3 268.6 266.9 264.0 261.1 260.7 273.2 274.8 270.1 268.4 265.2 262.6 262.1 429.0 424.4 431.7 436.8 437.1 439.8 432.6 428.3 424.2 431.3 436.9 437.2 433.9 432.5 405.4 410.8 417.0 418.7 418.1 414.0 411.2 406.3 411.6 418.0 419.9 419.6 415.7 412.6 306.1 312.7 313.3 313.9 314.5 315.6 316.8 302.7 308.1 308.6 309.1 309.5 310.4 311.5 304.9 311.8 312.8 313.4 314.1 315.3 316.9 301.0 306.4 307.3 307.8 308.3 309.4 310.7 256.0 260.0 259.6 259.0 258.2 258.8 260.2 253.8 257.2 256.8 256.2 255.3 255.8 257.2 361.0 370.7 372.9 374.6 376.6 378.6 380.2 358.4 366.2 368.4 369.9 371.9 373.7 374.9 $0.318 $0.312 $0.311 $0.310 $0.310 $0.309 $0.308 $0.320 $0.316 $0.315 $0.314 $0.313 $0.313 $0.312 20. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and revised CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, U.S. city average—general summary and groups, subgroups, and selected items [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] A ll U rb an C onsum ers G en era l s u m m ary FOOD A N D BEVERAGES 1984 U rb an W a g e E arn e rs a n d C le ric a l W o rk e rs 1984 1985 1985 S ep t. Apr. M ay June July Aug. S ept. S ep t. A pr. M ay June July Aug. S e p t. 296.4 301.6 301.0 301.4 301.6 295.3 302.1 296.3 301.4 300.8 301.2 301.4 301.6 301.8 304.2 309.6 308.9 309.3 309.5 302.8 309.9 303.8 309.2 308.4 308.8 309.0 309.1 309.3 Food at home ............................................................................... Cereals and bakery products ..................................................... Cereals and cereal products (12/77 = 100) .......................... Flour and prepared flour mixes (12/77 = 100)................. Cereal (12/77 - 100) ................................................ Rice, pasta, and cornmeal (12/77 = 100) ...................... Bakery products (12/77 = 100)........................................... White bread.............................................................. Other breads (12/77 = 100)......................................... Fresh biscuits, rolls, and muffins (12/77 = 100) ............ Fresh cakes and cupcakes (12/77 = 100) ..................... Cookies (12/77 = 100) .............................................. Crackers, bread, and cracker products (12/77 = 100) . . . Fresh sweetrolls, coffeecake, and donuts (12/77 = 100) . . Frozen and refrigerated bakery products and fresh pies, tarts, and turnovers (12/77 = 1 00 )............ 293.4 307.9 164.5 146.3 186.1 150.4 162.4 263.2 155.8 159.7 165.9 167.3 161.7 162.9 297.7 314.8 168.2 147.5 193.9 150.7 166.0 266.2 160.2 161.4 169.9 172.2 170.3 165.0 296.2 315.9 169.4 150.7 194.6 150.7 166.4 265.2 159.9 162.1 171.2 173.2 172.0 165.4 296.0 317.3 169,8 151,8 194.7 151.1 167.3 267.7 160.4 163.5 170.4 174.3 172.9 166.5 296.2 317.3 170.2 152.2 144.6 152.2 167.1 267.5 159.8 162.4 170.6 175.0 173.2 165.4 295.9 318.5 170.8 153.1 195.4 152.3 167.7 268.0 160.4 164.0 170.6 176.6 173.4 165.0 295.6 319.2 170.7 151.8 195.7 152.7 168.3 269.0 160.8 163.3 171.3 177.4 174.2 167.7 291.9 306.3 165.1 146.6 188.3 151.5 161.1 258.8 158.0 155.6 163.6 168.3 163.0 165.9 296.1 313.1 168.8 147.8 196.2 151.9 164.7 261.9 162.7 157.3 168.0 173.2 171.9 167.9 294.6 314.1 169.9 150.9 197.0 151.8 165.0 260.8 162.3 157.8 169.0 174.2 173.6 168.3 294.5 315.7 170.5 152.2 197.1 152.2 165.9 263.6 162.8 159.2 168.4 175.2 174.7 169.5 299.6 315.7 170.9 152.5 197.1 153.4 165.8 263.2 162.2 158.0 168.5 176.1 175.1 168.3 294.3 316.8 171.5 153.4 197.9 153.4 166 4 263.9 162.8 159.6 168.5 177.6 175.1 168.2 294.0 317.6 171.4 152.1 198.1 153.9 167.0 264.8 163.2 159.3 169.3 178.5 176.1 170.6 169.3 174.8 175.7 176.0 176.4 178.1 176.4 162.0 167.2 168.3 168.5 169.1 170.7 168.9 Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs .................................................. Meats, poultry, and fish..................................................... Meats ...................................................................... Beef and veal.......................................................... Ground beef other than canned............................... Chuck roast ....................................................... Round roast....................................................... Round steak....................................................... Sirloin steak....................................................... Other beef and veal (12/77 = 100) ........................ Pork..................................................................... Bacon .............................................................. Chops .............................................................. Ham other than canned (12/77 = 1 00 )................... Sausage ............................................................ Canned ham....................................................... Other pork (12/77 = 100) .................................... Other meats ......................................................... Frankfurters ....................................................... Bologna, liverwurst, and salami (12/77 = 100) . . . . Other lunchmeats (12/77 = 100) .......................... Lamb and organ meats (12/77 = 100) ................... Poultry............................................................................. Fresh whole chicken.............................................. Fresh and frozen chicken parts (12/77 = 100).......... Other poultry (12/77 = 100).................................. Fish and seafood ....................................................... Canned fish and seafood ...................................... Fresh and frozen fish and seafood (12/77 = 100) . . . Eggs............................................................................... 264.5 271.6 268.0 271.9 252.9 271.8 234.3 252.4 286.1 169.0 257.5 270.3 242.3 116.8 321.2 251.4 142.5 268.7 267.6 155.6 138.8 137.3 217.2 220.2 144.7 132.7 390.6 133.7 157.7 178.6 263.6 271.2 266.4 273.7 256.1 275.1 238.8 255.4 273.5 170.2 249.0 277.8 226.1 108.2 316.2 250.2 135.9 269.1 267.8 158.2 136.4 140.1 216.7 215.0 140.3 141.6 402.8 133.0 165.5 169.9 259.8 267.8 263.4 269.0 249.1 266.2 232.9 251.4 272.8 169.0 247.8 274.8 223.1 109.5 318.4 252.8 133.2 268.3 264.9 157.5 136.9 139.6 213.6 209.2 139.7 140.5 393.8 134.0 160.7 159.9 259.8 268.0 263.0 267.4 246.7 261.1 226.8 248.1 284.1 168.6 248.6 271.6 227.0 111.1 316.3 249.9 134.4 269.6 264.8 157.0 137.9 141.9 216.0 213.7 140.1 141.5 397.2 133.6 161.8 158.3 260.4 268.0 262.7 264.7 244.6 257.9 226.7 242.2 280.0 166.9 253.1 281.0 233.5 112.0 317.4 248.2 137.2 268.2 261.5 157.6 137.0 141.3 214.7 211.8 140.1 140.3 402.7 133.2 165.4 168.4 259.7 267.0 261.2 267.8 244.1 253.0 222.8 237.8 272.0 165.5 253.8 280.6 232.4 114.3 319.1 249.5 137.1 267.1 261.4 156.0 137.0 140.2 213.9 212.8 138.6 139.2 406.1 132.1 168.1 171.0 260.6 266.8 260.4 261.1 245.5 250.0 220.4 238.7 267.3 165.3 252.1 272.5 233.9 116.5 316.7 248.6 134.1 267.3 263.2 156.8 136.5 139.6 215.9 214.3 139.2 141.8 408.6 132.7 169.2 185.7 264.1 271.0 267.7 272.8 254.4 280.6 237.8 251.4 278.7 167.8 257.0 274.2 240.6 113.6 322.7 256.0 141.7 268.2 266.1 155.4 137.0 140.1 214.7 217.5 142.4 131.8 389.1 133.2 157.5 179.7 262.9 270.3 265.7 274.4 257.4 283.6 242.5 252.1 274.5 169.1 248.2 281.8 224.5 105.5 315.9 254.3 135.2 268.2 266.0 158.2 134.4 142.4 214.4 212.7 138.3 140.8 401.9 132.8 165.6 170.6 259.2 267.1 262.9 269.8 250.4 274.2 236.4 249.0 276.0 167.9 246.9 278.7 221.0 106.7 318.1 257.3 132.5 267.6 263.1 157.5 135.0 142.6 211.1 207.0 137.6 139.3 394.9 133.7 160.7 160.5 259.3 267.3 262.5 268.1 247.9 270.0 230.6 245.7 286.2 167.5 248.0 275.3 225.3 108.4 316.3 254.7 133.8 268.8 263.6 156.9 135.8 144.8 219.7 211.5 138.0 140.5 396.4 139.2 161.9 158.9 259.7 266.9 262.0 265.1 245.8 266.8 230.0 238.8 282.5 165.5 252.1 284.6 231.5 109.1 317.4 252.7 136.4 267.2 259.5 157.5 135.0 144.0 212.1 209.1 137.8 139.4 400.9 132.8 165.0 169.1 259.0 266.1 260.7 262.4 245.4 261.1 226.9 235.5 274.6 164.3 252 8 284.2 230.2 111.4 319.0 254.3 136.1 266.2 259.3 156.0 135.0 143.0 211.6 210.5 136.6 138.3 404.6 131.6 169.0 171.9 259.9 265.9 259.9 261.8 246.7 258.1 223.8 237.3 269.5 164.1 251.1 276.3 231.6 113.1 317.3 253.0 133.0 266.5 261.6 156.7 134.5 142.3 213.7 211.8 137.3 141.3 407.3 132.2 169.3 186.6 Dairy products........................................................................ Fresh milk and cream (12/77 - 100).................................... Fresh whole milk ....................................................... Other fresh milk and cream (12/77 = 100)..................... Processed dairy products .................................................. Butter ...................................................................... Cheese (12/77 = 100)................................................ Ice cream and related products (12/77 = 100)................. Other dairy products (12/77 = 100) ............................. 254.9 137.7 224.7 138.7 153.1 266.0 149.1 160.9 149.9 258.3 140.2 229.1 140.8 154.2 259.2 149.9 162.4 154.7 258.4 139.8 228.7 140.1 154.9 262.6 150.7 162.9 155.0 257.8 139.8 228.7 139.9 154.2 262.8 150.0 161.9 154.2 257.8 139.1 227.4 139.5 155.1 262.6 151.3 162.5 155.2 257.4 138.2 227.8 139.2 154.5 262.2 150.9 161.6 152.6 258.0 139.0 227.5 139.2 155.5 263.3 151.6 162.9 155.7 253.8 136.9 223.5 138.0 153.4 268.6 149.4 159.9 150.4 257.2 139.4 227.9 140.1 154.4 262.0 150.3 161.4 155.0 257.3 139.1 227.4 139.4 155.2 265.1 151.1 161.9 155.4 256.7 139.0 227.4 139.1 154.4 265.5 150.2 160.8 154.4 256.6 138.3 226.1 138.7 155.4 268.4 151.6 161.4 155.5 256.3 138.4 226.5 138.4 154.7 264.8 151.3 160.6 153.8 256.8 138.3 226.2 138.4 155.7 266.1 151.9 161.8 155.9 Fruits and vegetables .............................................................. Fresh fruits and vegetables ................................................ Fresh fruits .............................................................. Apples .............................................................. Bananas ............................................................ Oranges ............................................................ Other fresh fruits (12/77 = 100)............................. Fresh vegetables ....................................................... Potatoes ............................................................ Lettuce.............................................................. Tomatoes ......................................................... Other fresh vegetables (12/77 = 100)..................... 319.7 332.5 364.8 337.9 249.9 553.6 170.4 302.3 354.1 337.8 252.9 152.1 333.2 353.5 367.2 328.8 301.2 444.3 191.7 340.8 342.9 263.5 410.0 191.5 330.3 346.9 381.9 333.9 277.0 484.8 201.9 314.3 369.4 295.5 232.9 175.U 329.0 343.9 380.8 342.7 285.7 473.1 199.8 309.5 399.4 243.0 218.9 174.9 328.9 343.1 370.0 347.9 249.1 474.7 191.6 317.9 384.9 297.5 232.4 174.9 326.3 337.4 375.9 343.2 257.2 481.1 196.8 301.4 331.8 334.3 219.3 163.6 319.9 326.6 368.5 324.9 260.0 462.9 196.4 286.7 283.3 340.3 214.0 156.8 313.6 323.0 349.6 339.6 248 4 507.1 163.6 299.2 344.5 338.0 256.2 150.2 328.1 346.1 353.7 329.7 300.1 407.4 184.8 339.5 335.8 266.9 413.5 190.5 324.8 338.7 367.1 336.4 276.0 442.6 194.6 313.2 362.3 301.6 234.7 174.1 323.5 335.7 365.9 346.5 283.9 430.0 192.1 308.6 393.8 246.0 220.1 174.7 323.9 336.0 356.7 351.0 247.6 436.3 184.6 317.5 380.3 301.8 235.1 174.3 320.6 329.1 361.7 346.2 255.4 439.9 184.6 299.8 324.6 338.7 221.7 162.3 313.6 316.6 352.2 326.9 257.4 413.1 189.4 284.6 277.5 350.2 217.1 155.1 Processed fruits and vegetables........................................... Processed fruits (12/77 - 100).................................... Frozen fruit and fruit juices (12/77 = 1 0 0 ).............. Fruit juices other than frozen (12/77 = 100) ............ Canned and dried fruits (12/77 = 100)................... 308.4 163.1 165.2 165.1 159.3 313.8 168 5 173.3 171.1 161.6 315.0 168.7 174.4 170.6 161.7 315.5 168.9 173.6 172.4 161.3 316.1 169.3 172.1 173.1 162.9 316.9 169.6 172.8 172.1 164.3 315.9 169.5 172.0 172.0 164.6 305.6 162.6 164.5 163.9 159.5 310.5 167.9 172.6 170.1 161.7 312.0 168.1 173.7 169.6 161.9 312.5 168.3 172.8 171.3 161.3 313.1 168.8 171.3 172.1 163.0 313.8 168.1 172.0 171.1 164.4 313.0 169.0 171.4 170.9 164.8 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 73 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 20. Consumer Prices Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] A ll U rb a n C onsum ers G e n e ra l su m m ery 1984 U rb a n W a g e E arn ers and C le ric a l W o rk e rs 1985 1984 1985 S ept. A pr. M ay June Ju ly A ug. S ep t. S ep t. A pr. May June July A ug. S ep t. Fruits and vegetables—Continued Processed vegetables (12/77 = 100)............................. Frozen vegetables (12/77 = 100) .......................... Cut com and canned beans except lima (12/77 = 100). . . Other canned and dried vegetables (12/77 = 100) . . . . 146.9 156.2 150.9 140.2 147.1 160.0 149.7 139.2 148.1 161.0 150.6 140.2 148.4 161.1 150.6 140.8 148.6 162.7 150.8 140.3 149.0 162.8 150.1 141.1 148.2 163.3 148.1 140.6 145 7 157.7 148.3 138.6 145.9 162.0 147.1 137.6 146.9 163.1 147.9 138.6 147.2 163.1 147.9 139.2 147.4 164.8 148.3 138.6 147.7 164.6 148.2 139.4 147.1 165.4 145.9 138.9 Other foods at home................................................................. Sugar and sweets ............................................................ Candy and chewing gum (12/77 = 1 00 )........................ Sugar and artificial sweeteners (12/77 = 100)................. Other sweets (12/77 = 100)......................................... Fats and oils (12/77 = 100) .............................................. Margarine................................................................. Nondairy substitutes and peanut butter (12/77 = 100) . . . Other fats, oils, and salad dressings (12/77 = 100) . . . . . Nonalcoholic beverages ..................................................... Cola drinks, excluding diet cola .................................... Carbonated drinks, including diet cola (12/77 = 100) . . . . Roasted coffee .......................................................... Freeze dried and instant coffee...................................... Other noncarbonated drinks (12/77 = 100) ................... Other prepared foods.......................................................... Canned and packaged soup (12/77 = 100)...................... Frozen prepared foods (12/77 = 100) .......................... Snacks (12/77 = 100)................................................ Seasonings, olives, pickles, and relish (12/77 = 100) . . . Other condiments (12/77 = 1 00).................................. Miscellaneous prepared foods (12/77 = 100) ................. Other canned and packaged prepared foods (12/77 = 100) . . 355.1 393.7 162.1 172.3 159.7 295.1 296.6 156.3 154.2 444.0 316.8 149.4 376.3 369.2 148.3 287.3 146.4 161.6 166.9 165.6 159.5 155.9 152.8 360.8 396.1 164.2 169.3 162.7 294.0 297.0 160.0 151.6 454.0 325.5 150.3 378.9 378.9 153.8 292.8 150.7 165.8 169.3 167.9 162.6 159.7 153.9 361.3 397.6 164.5 170.1 164.0 294.0 298.8 159.6 151.2 454.1 324.9 151.2 379.9 380.0 153.1 293.4 151.4 164.7 170.3 168.5 163.5 160.6 153.7 360.8 398.3 165.6 169.6 163.3 296.0 301.9 159.3 152.6 451.5 321.2 150.5 380.5 380.9 152.7 293.4 151.8 164.8 170.1 166.6 164.6 160.6 153.5 360.6 400.2 165.8 171.2 164.6 297.8 307.2 160.0 152.5 448.2 317.8 148.5 379.7 380.0 152.7 294.5 154.0 165.0 171.1 167.0 165.6 160.5 153.6 361.7 401.8 166.7 172.0 164.5 297.1 306.0 159.8 152.2 449.6 318.5 149.8 377.2 379.7 153.6 295.8 155.1 166.6 170.3 168.1 165.4 161.5 159.0 362.6 401.1 166.2 171.7 164.8 294.8 305.0 159.8 150.2 452.8 321.1 151.6 375.7 380.3 154.9 296.3 155.0 168.7 171.1 167.9 166.2 160.7 154.0 355.4 393.1 161.8 173.5 157.2 294.6 294.3 154.2 154.7 445.2 314.1 147.1 370.2 368.2 148.7 288.7 148.2 160.4 169.2 164.7 161.4 155.9 153.9 361.3 395.5 164.1 170.6 160.3 293.7 294.4 158.1 152.3 455.6 322.7 148.3 372.8 378.0 154.1 294.2 152.6 164.8 171.8 166.8 164.3 159.8 155.1 361.6 396.9 164.3 171.3 161.4 293.6 296.0 157.8 151.9 455.4 322.0 149.0 373.9 378.9 153.4 294.9 153.1 163.5 172.8 167.4 165.3 160.5 155.0 361.3 398.0 165.7 171.0 160.8 295.6 298.6 157.4 153.3 453.0 318.6 148.4 374.8 380.0 153.1 295.0 153.6 163.8 172.5 165.8 166.4 160.7 154.8 361.1 399.8 165.7 172.6 162.1 297.3 304.5 158.0 153.3 449.8 315.4 146.5 373.9 379.3 153.2 296.1 155.8 163.9 173.6 166.3 167.4 160.6 155.0 362.2 401.4 166.7 173.1 162.1 296.5 303.2 157.7 153.0 451.2 316.2 147.7 371.4 379.1 154.1 297.8 157.1 165.5 172.9 167.3 168.2 161.5 155.2 362.9 400.8 166.2 173.2 162.3 294.1 302.2 157.7 150.8 454.1 318.5 149.3 369.9 379.4 155.3 297.7 157.0 167.4 173.4 167.2 168.0 160.7 155.2 Food away from home ................................................................... Lunch (12/77 = 100).............................................................. Dinner (12/77 = 100).............................................................. Other meals and snacks (12/77 = 100)...................................... 335.8 162.4 161.8 165.7 343.9 165.9 166.1 169.7 345.1 166.4 166.6 170.4 346.9 167.0 167.8 171.3 347.3 167.1 168.0 171.3 348.4 167.7 168.6 171.7 349.9 168.8 169.1 172.2 339.0 163.9 163.6 166.3 347.1 167.4 168.0 170.1 348.4 168.0 168.5 170.8 350.1 168.5 169.6 171.7 350.4 168.7 169.9 171.7 351.5 169.2 170.5 172.0 353.0 170.4 170.9 172.5 Alcoholic beverages ........................................................ 223.1 226.7 227.7 227.8 227.8 228.9 229.3 226.4 229.9 230.8 231.0 231.0 232.2 232.6 Alcoholic beverages at home (12/77 = 100) ...................................... Beer and ale .......................................................................... Whiskey.................................................................................. Wine .................................................................................... Other alcoholic beverages (12/77 = 1 00 ).................................... Alcoholic beverages away from home (12/77 = 100) .......................... 142.8 231.5 153.8 231.8 123.4 157.2 144.7 235.4 154.7 234.9 124.7 161.5 145.2 235.7 155.6 236.5 125.1 162.8 145.3 236.3 155.3 235.2 125.5 162.9 145.2 236.5 155.0 235.1 125.4 163.3 145.9 237.6 155.5 235.8 126.1 164.5 145.8 236.8 156.0 236.3 126.5 165.6 145.1 230.5 154.1 239.5 123.2 158.6 146.9 234.2 154.6 242.6 124.4 162.7 147.4 234.5 155.5 244.4 124.8 163.8 147.4 234.9 155.3 243.5 125.2 164.0 147.4 235.2 154.8 242.9 125.1 164.3 148.1 236.4 155.4 243.5 126.0 165.2 148.0 235.6 155.8 244.2 126.5 167.0 336.8 339.5 342.1 344.0 345.0 346.2 347.2 H O U S IN G ............................................................................................................................................... 341.4 345.9 348.5 350.4 351.6 356.9 353.8 Shelter ( C P I - U ) ............................................................................................................................... 366.5 375.9 379.5 381.0 383.2 385.9 386.9 Renters' costs............................................................................... Rent, residential ...................................................................... Other renters' costs................................................................. Homeowners' costs........................................................................ Owners' equivalent rent............................................................ Household insurance................................................................. Maintenance and repairs ................................................................. Maintenance and repair services ................................................ Maintenance and repair commodities........................................... 110.2 252.4 384.3 108.7 108.7 108.6 362.7 414.3 264.8 113.5 260.4 390.9 111.3 111.3 111.4 368.0 418.2 270.4 119.5 267.6 396.5 112.4 112.5 112.0 366.2 416.0 264.2 115.1 263.6 401.6 112.8 112.8 112.7 367.6 423.2 265.7 115.8 265.0 405.1 113.5 113.5 112.7 367.8 421.1 267.8 116.6 266.6 409.9 114.3 114.3 113.0 370.6 425.1 269.2 117.0 267.6 410.7 114.6 114.6 113.7 368.7 421.9 268.6 S h e lte r ( C P I - W ) ............................................................................................................................... 359.3 364.7 368.1 369.5 371.5 374.0 375.0 Rent, residential............................................................................. 251.7 259.6 261.8 262.7 264.1 269.7 266.8 Other renters' costs ........................................................................ Lodging while out of town......................................................... Tenants’ insurance (12/77 = 100).............................................. Maintenance and repairs............................................................ Maintenance and repair services........................................... Maintenance and repair commodities........................................... Paint and wallpaper, supplies, tools, and equipment (12/77 - '00) . .................................. Lumber, awnings, glass, and masonry (12/77 = 100).......... Plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling supplies (12/77 = 100) ............................................. Miscellaneous supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100).......... 383.6 404.8 163.4 359.4 407.9 258.1 391.0 412.8 167.5 363.1 411.7 261.6 396.7 421.6 168.1 361.8 410.1 260.7 401.0 427.6 169.0 362.9 417.0 258.4 405.2 434.1 169.2 363.4 415.3 260.0 409 5 441.0 169.5 365.6 419.6 260.6 409.8 434.3 170.3 364.4 416.8 260.5 147.8 123.5 151.8 128.1 151.2 124.4 147.6 126.6 149.6 124.8 150.6 124.8 150.3 125.8 142.7 146.7 145.8 145.7 145.7 146.0 145.4 146.4 146.5 146.3 146.0 146.0 146.0 146.1 74 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] U rb a n W a g e E arn ers a nd C le ric a l W o rk e rs A ll U rb a n C o n iu m e re G en era l s u m m ery 1985 1984 1985 1984 S ep t. A pr. May June July A ug. S ep t. S ept. Apr. M ay June July A ug. S ep t. F u e l e nd o th e r u t i l i t i e s ........................................................................................... 397.0 388.7 393.0 399.4 399.9 398.9 400.5 398.4 389.7 393.8 400.9 401.2 400.1 401.9 Fuels........................................................................................... Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas..................................................... Fuel oil .......................................................................... Other fuels (6/78 - 100) .................................................. Gas (piped) and electricity.......................................................... Electricity........................................................................ Utility (piped) gas ............................................................ 500.1 622.1 628.4 193.1 466.4 374.9 598.4 483.0 623.5 630.1 193.7 445.9 355.7 578.2 490.0 620.8 627.0 192.9 454.7 358.4 598.9 497.7 612.0 616.9 192.2 465.6 377.6 590.3 497.3 601.9 604.9 192.2 467.1 378.5 592.8 494.4 594.6 596.6 191.6 465.1 380.0 583.8 496.8 601.7 604.9 191.8 466.5 380.4 587.0 499.8 624.5 630.8 193.6 465.5 375.5 593.2 482.3 625.9 632.5 193.7 444.6 354.6 575.0 488.9 623.2 629.5 193.4 453.0 357.4 594.1 497.7 614.3 619.3 192.8 465.1 378.2 586.2 497.0 604.2 607.3 192.8 466.3 379.1 588.0 494.0 596.9 599.0 192.1 464.2 380.6 578.5 496.7 604.2 607.6 192.5 465.9 381.1 582.5 Other utilities and public services ..................................................... Telephone services................................................................... Local charges (12/77 - 100).............................................. Interstate toll calls (12/77 = 100) ...................................... Intrastate toll calls (12/77 - 100) ...................................... Water and sewerage maintenance................................................ 232.7 189.8 165.3 116.1 124.8 380.2 236.4 191.1 167.5 116.2 124.2 393.2 236.8 191.4 167.7 116.8 123.9 394.2 241.1 195.7 175.4 113.5 124.4 398.5 242.8 197.2 177.9 111.6 125.9 400.3 244.2 198.3 179.2 111.9 126.3 402.9 244.6 198.6 179.6 111.9 126.3 403.9 233.7 190.4 166.0 116.5 124.6 384.5 237.3 191.7 168.0 116.6 124.2 396.8 237.7 192.0 168.2 117.2 123.8 397.9 242.0 196.2 175.8 113.9 124.3 402.5 243.7 197.7 178.4 112.0 125.9 404.5 245.1 198.9 179.7 112.3 126.2 406.8 245.6 199.1 180.1 112.2 126.3 407.9 H o u s e h o ld fu rn is h in g s a nd o p e ratio n s 244.1 247.9 247.6 247.1 246.5 247.0 247.1 240.6 244.1 244.0 249.3 242.6 243.1 243.2 Housefurnishings .......................................................................... Textile housefurnishings............................................................ Household linens (12/77 = 1 00 )......................................... Curtains, drapes, slipcovers, and sewing materials (12/77 - 100) ................................................ 200.6 245.6 146.8 201.7 239.5 140.5 201.2 243.2 143.8 200.0 240.6 140.9 198.8 236.2 137.1 199.1 238.4 138.6 199.0 243.1 143.6 198.3 249.9 148.1 199.2 243.0 141.7 198.9 247.2 144.8 197.6 244.2 141.9 196.2 239.5 138.2 196.6 242.1 140.0 196.5 247.3 145.6 159.8 158.7 159.9 159.7 158.0 159.2 160.0 164.8 163.0 165.1 164.5 162.4 163.7 164.3 Furniture and bedding...................................................................... Bedroom furniture (12/77 - 100) ...................................... Sofas (12/77 - 100) ....................................................... Living room chairs and tables (12/77 = 1 00)........................ Other furniture (12/77 - 100) ........................................... Appliances including TV and sound equipment ............................. Television and sound equipment ......................................... Television ................................................................. Sound equipment (12/77 = 1 0 0 )................................. Household appliances ....................................................... Refrigerators and home freezers.................................... Laundry equipment..................................................... Other household appliances (12/77 = 100) ................... Stoves, dishwashers, vacuums, and sewing machines (12/77 = 100)...................................... Office machines, small electric appliances, and air conditioners (12/77 - 100) ............................. Other household equipment (12/77 = 100).................................. Floor and window coverings, infants', laundry, cleaning, and outdoor equipment (12/77 = 100)................. Clocks, lamps, and decor items (12/77 = 100)..................... Tableware, serving pieces, and nonelectric kitchenware (12/77 - 100).............................................. Lawn equipment, power tools, and othor hardware (12/77 = 100) ................................................ 225.5 156.6 121.7 126.8 146.9 147.7 100.8 93.5 108.3 189.4 196.8 146.9 124.8 231.7 165.5 124.5 126.9 149.1 145.3 99.0 90.9 107.2 186.6 196.0 148.5 121.9 229.1 162.2 123.2 126.7 148.0 144.1 97.8 89.4 106.1 185.9 195.2 147.1 121.6 229.2 162.0 123.9 128.2 146.8 142.8 96.4 88.5 104.4 184.2 193.8 147.1 120.1 227.0 159.0 123.1 126.6 146.7 142.3 96.4 88.2 104.6 183.7 193.1 146.2 120.0 229.2 161.9 122.8 126.6 146.6 146.6 96.0 86.9 104.9 184.5 193.6 147.1 120.5 226.2 157.0 121.5 128.8 146.6 141.6 95.3 86.5 104.0 184.4 193.2 149.4 120.2 222.2 153.5 121.6 127.8 142.1 149.4 99.8 92.2 107.2 190.9 202.6 147.6 123.2 228.0 161.2 123.7 128.1 145.0 147.3 97.9 89.5 106.0 189.5 201.8 149.6 120.2 226.2 158.7 123.1 127.9 144.3 146.0 96.7 88.0 104.8 189.1 200.9 148.3 120.1 226.0 158.4 123.4 129.1 142.8 144.2 95.3 87.2 103.1 187.2 199.8 148.5 118.5 223.2 155.2 121.8 127.5 142.7 144.1 95.4 87.1 103.4 186.4 199.5 146.9 118.0 224.4 157.7 121.8 127.7 142.3 143.9 94.9 85.7 103.6 187.3 199.8 148.0 118.6 222.8 152.8 120.9 130.6 142.5 143.2 94.2 85.2 102.5 187.4 199.5 149.2 118.5 Housekeeping supplies ................................................................... Soaps and detergents.............................................................. Other laundry and cleaning products (12/77 = 100) ...................... Cleansing and toilet tissue, paper towels and napkins (12/77 = 100) . . Stationery, stationery supplies, and gift wrap (12/77 = 100) ......... Miscellaneous household products (12/77 = 100) ........................ Lawn and garden supplies (12/77 = 100).................................... 127.5 122.8 122.9 120.3 119.3 120.2 122.0 125.5 121.0 121.4 118.6 116.8 118.1 120.2 122.8 141.9 121.3 144.9 120.7 145.6 120.2 144.8 119.3 144.8 120.9 144.1 118.8 144.3 120.6 139.1 119.1 141.9 118.6 142.4 118.1 141.8 118.7 142.0 118.9 141.3 116.7 141.3 146.7 137.1 151.1 136.6 152.4 138.9 149.7 137.9 152.0 137.1 149.9 135.5 148.1 139.1 136.2 132.8 140.7 132.2 141.5 134.4 139.1 134.0 141.2 133.3 139.2 131.4 137.4 135.1 145.5 148.2 148.4 149.1 147.4 148.8 147.8 141.5 144.1 144.4 145.2 143.8 145.1 143.7 135.5 140.6 140.3 139.1 140.4 138.6 139.5 141.4 145.1 144.7 149.3 145.0 143.2 144.1 304.9 299.1 155.8 155.2 144.2 162.2 144.8 312.6 309.4 157.8 161.4 147.3 163.6 150.0 312.9 309.2 157.5 162.3 146.7 163.8 150.5 313.6 310.5 158.4 162.0 146 8 163.7 151.5 313.1 309.4 159.0 162.1 146.7 164.3 149.3 313.5 310.8 159.7 160.7 147.8 163.9 149.6 313.9 314.1 160.1 160.6 147.9 163.2 149.1 302.0 294.8 154.3 155.2 147.9 156.7 138.3 309.8 304.8 156.5 161.0 151.1 158.2 144.3 310.0 304.6 156.1 161.9 150.6 158.5 144.8 310.8 305.9 156.9 161.8 150.7 158.3 145.7 310.3 304.8 157.5 161.8 150.6 159.0 143.1 310.4 305.8 158.2 160.1 151.6 158.7 142.9 311.0 309.3 158.7 160.2 151.8 157.9 142.4 Housekeeping services ................................................................... Postage.................................................................................. Moving, storage, freight, household laundry, and drycleaning services (12/77 = 100)......................................... Appliance and furniture repair (12/77 = 100)............................... 329.4 337.5 337.9 371.9 338.0 371.9 338.3 371.9 339.8 371.9 340.7 371.9 341.5 371.9 330.0 337.5 339.0 372.7 339.2 372.7 339.5 372.7 341.0 372.7 342.2 372.7 342.9 372.7 175.9 153 4 182.1 156.7 182.4 156.6 182.9 156.9 185.0 158.2 186.5 158.6 187.3 159.1 176.4 151.0 182.6 154.4 182.9 154.5 183.3 154.8 185.2 155.9 187.0 156.3 187.8 156.7 A P P A R E L A N D UPKEEP 204.2 205.9 205.3 204.6 202.8 205.3 209.6 203.3 204.9 204.2 203.7 201.8 204.3 208.7 A p p a re l c o m m o d it ie s ................................................................................................................... 191.2 191.8 191.0 190.2 188.0 190.0 195.3 190.9 191.5 190.7 190.0 187.8 190.4 195.1 Apparel commodities less footwear.............................................. 187.8 188.2 187.3 186.3 184.1 187.3 192.6 187.3 187.7 186.8 185.8 183 7 186.9 192.3 Men's and boys'...................................................................... Men's (12/77 - 100) ....................................................... Suits, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100)................. Coats and jackets....................................................... Furnishings and special clothing (12/77 = 100).............. Shirts (12/77 = 100).................................................. Dungarees, jeans, and trousers (12/77 = 100) .............. Boys' (12/77 - 100) ....................................................... Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts (12/77 = 100)......... Furnishings (12/77 = 100) ......................................... Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets (12/77 = 100) . . 195.6 123.2 115.6 105.7 150.9 128.2 114.5 126.9 127.0 135.8 123.3 197.4 124.7 115.7 100.4 151.3 132.5 119.1 126.6 121.9 138.8 125.3 197.8 124.9 115.3 101.0 151.6 133.4 119.1 127.2 122.2 140.6 125.8 196.4 123.7 114.2 98.1 151.6 132.3 117.5 127.5 122.1 141.0 126.3 194.5 122.5 111.9 95.7 151.6 130.8 117.5 126.3 120.7 141.2 124.8 197.2 124.4 115.4 100.6 155.0 130.8 116.4 127.4 123.9 140.5 124.9 201.5 126.7 116.9 103.5 158.9 134.6 117.2 131.6 131.1 140.7 128.2 196.2 123.9 108.9 109.0 146.6 131.0 120.9 125.7 129.8 131.8 120.4 197.8 125.4 108.6 103.3 146.9 135.5 125.7 125.2 123.6 134.4 123.1 198.2 125.5 108.2 103.9 147.1 136.2 125.5 126.0 124.2 136.4 123.6 196.6 124.1 107.2 101.4 146.9 134.7 123.7 125.9 123.5 136.7 123.8 194.8 123.1 105.0 98.5 147.3 133.0 123.6 124.7 122.3 136.5 122.3 197.3 124.6 108.2 103.1 150.2 133.5 122.4 126.2 126.4 135.9 122.5 201.8 127.2 109.9 107.0 153.7 137.6 123.4 130.3 133.3 136.1 126.0 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 75 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 20. Consumer Prices Continued—Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] A ll U rb an C onsum ers G e n e ra l tu m m a ry 1984 U rb an W a g e E arn ers and C le ric a l W o it e r s 1985 1984 1985 S ep t. A pr. M ay June July A ug. S ep t. S ep t. A pr. M ay June July A ug. S e p t. Women's and girls’ ................................................................. Women's (12/77 = 100) .................................................. Coats and jackets....................................................... Dresses ................................................................... Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ..................... Underwear, nightwear, and hosiery (12/77 = 100) ......... Suits (12/77 = 1 00).................................................. Girls' (12/77 = 100).......................................................... Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits (12/77 = 1 00)............ Separates and sportswear (12/77 = 100) ..................... Underwear, nightwear, hosiery, and accessories (12/77 = 100) ...................................... Infants’ and toddlers' .............................................................. Other apparel commodities ....................................................... Sewing materials and notions (12/77 = 100) ........................ Jewelry and luggage (12/77 = 100) .................................... 170.5 114.4 181.1 178.3 102.5 139.4 93.5 108.6 98.6 106.7 170.0 113.6 168.2 178.7 103.2 141.1 89.1 110.7 102.0 106.8 168.0 111.9 159.5 179.1 102.1 141.4 82.6 110.7 101.8 107.0 166.5 110.8 156.1 176.4 101.0 140.3 83.1 110.6 101.8 106.8 163.4 108.7 150.7 168.1 98.8 139.6 85.1 108.8 100.7 104.0 167.7 111.6 161.0 168.2 102.8 139.6 94.5 111.1 105.1 104.6 176.1 117.8 183.4 179.9 111.0 140.9 97.0 113.6 107.3 108.5 172.1 115.8 185.2 165.5 102.9 138.9 112.1 108.6 98.3 107.5 172.0 115.2 172.7 166.9 103.6 140.5 108.9 111.0 102.4 107.5 169.7 113.3 163.5 167.3 102.6 140.9 100.6 110.8 102.0 107.3 168.4 112.3 159.5 164.5 101.9 139.8 101.9 110.8 102.1 107.5 165.0 110.2 153.5 157.7 99.5 139.2 102.6 109.5 102.2 104.4 169.9 113.4 168.5 158.0 103.0 139.1 111.0 111.4 105.4 104.4 178.2 119.7 188.5 167.9 111.7 140.4 117.4 113.3 106.8 108.3 128.3 291.3 216.5 122.8 147.3 132.1 295.3 215.8 121.4 147.3 132.2 298.3 215.1 123.0 145.9 132.0 300.7 216.3 125.3 146.0 131.2 294.5 216.7 123.7 147.0 132.9 300.6 217.5 123.2 148.0 133.5 302.0 215.2 124.1 145.5 127.0 303.2 205.0 121.5 137.6 131.1 306.4 203.3 119.8 136.8 131.2 310.6 202.7 121.4 135.5 130.7 313.5 204.0 123.4 135.8 130.1 306.4 204.5 121.9 137.0 132.2 311.2 105.2 121.3 137.9 132.6 314.9 202.5 122.2 135.0 Footwear....................................................................................... Men's (12/77 = 100).............................................................. Boys' and girls' (12/77 = 100).................................................. Women's (12/77 = 1 00 ).......................................................... 211.1 138.0 133.5 127.0 213.2 139.1 134.5 128.6 213.2 139.8 134.5 128.1 213.9 139.8 136.7 127.7 211.4 139.5 134.8 125.5 210.3 139.3 132.8 125.2 210.9 139.1 131.6 127.0 211.6 139.8 136.3 123.3 213.3 141.1 136.9 124.6 213.3 141.8 137.1 123.9 214.1 141.8 139.3 123.6 211.6 141.4 137.5 121.2 210.5 141.4 135.4 120.9 211.0 140.9 134.3 123.0 A p p a re l s e rv ic e s ........................................................................................................................... 307.6 318.4 319.4 319.9 321.4 322.9 324.1 305.6 316.1 317.0 317.6 319.0 320.5 321.6 Laundry and drycleaning other than coin operated (12/77 = 100) .......... Other apparel services (12/77 = 100)................................................ 184.3 159.7 190.8 165.2 191.4 165.7 191.6 166.0 192.1 167.6 192.5 169.2 193.5 169.3 182.6 161.0 188.8 166.5 189.4 167 0 189.6 167.4 190.1 168.8 190.5 170.2 191.5 170.4 ....................................................................................................................... 313.7 320.0 321.4 321.8 321.8 320.7 319.7 316.0 322.0 323.3 323.6 323.5 322.3 321.1 P r i v a t e ................................................................................................................................................... 308.4 314.6 316.0 316.3 316.1 314.9 313.6 312.1 318.0 319.4 319.6 319.3 318.0 316.6 New cars...................................................................................... Used cars .................................................................................... Gasoline ...................................................................................... Automobile maintenance and repair .................................................. Body work (12/77 = 100) ....................................................... Automobile drive train, brake, and miscellaneous mechanical repair (12/77 = 100) ........................................... Maintenance and servicing (12/77 = 100).................................... Power plant repair (12/77 = 100) .............................................. Other private transportation.............................................................. Other private transportation commodities .................................... Motor oil, coolant, and other products (12/77 = 100) ............ Automobile parts and equipment (12/77 = 100) ................... Tires........................................................................ Other parts and equipment (12/77 = 100)...................... Other private transportation services........................................... Automobile insurance ....................................................... Automobile finance charges (12/77 = 100) .......................... Automobile rental, registration, and other fees (12/77 = 100). . . . State registration ....................................................... Drivers' licenses (12/77 = 100).................................... Vehicle inspection (12/77 = 100).................................. Other vehicle-related fees (12/77 = 100)........................ 208.2 384.2 367.8 344.2 174.7 214.1 386.4 373.8 348.2 178.2 214.5 384.2 381.4 349.6 178.6 214.7 380.3 384.5 350.4 179.5 214.7 376.7 385.3 351.5 180.1 214.6 374.8 381.8 351.9 180.6 214.2 374.3 377.4 353.5 181.4 207.6 384.2 369.4 344.9 173.1 213.4 386.4 375.3 349.3 176.7 213.8 384.2 382.7 350.6 177.1 214.0 380.3 386.0 351.5 178.3 214.0 376.7 387.0 352.2 178.8 213.8 374.0 383.7 352.8 179.3 213.8 374.3 379.2 354.5 180.0 168.1 156.3 164.7 275.9 201.2 155.1 126.5 170.9 133.3 298.4 326.9 169.9 156.4 212.2 163.7 139.9 166.4 170.9 156.8 167.0 285.8 202.8 156.1 127.6 173.0 133.4 310.5 351.8 165.6 159.9 214.6 164.6 144.7 172.7 171.1 157.9 167.5 285.6 201.3 155.7 126.5 171.1 132.9 310.7 354.2 163.3 159.7 214.6 164.8 144.7 172.0 170.9 157.9 168.6 286.6 203.9 156.6 128.3 175.0 132.3 311.3 356.0 162.7 159.6 214.6 164.8 144.7 172.0 170.6 158.2 169.5 287.6 202.2 156.0 127.1 172.3 132.9 313.0 359.0 161.2 161.6 218.7 167.3 150.6 172.6 171.1 158.4 169.9 287.7 202.8 157.7 127.3 172.0 134.2 313.0 362.6 157.2 162.2 218.7 167.3 150.7 174.0 171.9 159.1 170.6 285.8 203.4 156.4 128.0 173.2 134.4 310.4 363.3 150.0 161.6 214.5 173.1 158.0 174.9 172.2 155.5 164.3 277.0 203.4 154.5 128.0 174.2 132.7 299.1 325.9 169.5 157.7 211.7 164.1 140.5 173.8 175.4 156.0 166.9 286.3 205.1 154.7 129.2 176.5 132.8 310.4 350.5 165.2 161.3 214.1 164.9 144.4 181.4 175.7 157.0 167.4 285.9 203.5 154.4 128.1 174.6 132.4 310.4 352.9 162.8 161.1 214.1 165.1 144.4 180.6 175.5 157.0 168.5 286.9 205.9 155.4 129.8 178.2 131.7 310.9 354.7 162.2 161.0 214.1 165.1 144.4 180.5 175.3 157.2 169.3 287.7 204.3 154.6 128.6 175.7 132.3 312.4 357.7 160.7 163.0 217.8 167.4 149.9 181.3 175.8 157.4 169.7 287.6 204.9 156.4 128.9 175.5 133.5 312.1 360.8 156.7 163.5 217.8 167.4 149.9 182.5 176.6 158.2 170.5 285.2 205.6 155.1 129.6 176.7 133.7 308.9 362.2 149.1 162.7 213.5 173.1 156 8 183.7 T R A N S P O R T A T IO N ................................................................................................................................................... 389.5 398.0 398.4 399.3 402.4 403.7 408.0 380.4 387.4 387.6 388.4 392.1 393.5 396.8 Airline fare.................................................................................... Intercity bus fare .......................................................................... Intracity mass transit...................................................................... Taxi fare ...................................................................................... Intercity train fare.......................................................................... 450.1 442.2 346.5 310.8 381.9 466.2 453.5 347.6 317.4 390.3 466.8 456.4 347.6 317.4 390.2 467.8 458.7 348.3 318.2 387.1 468.0 469.6 354.6 318.7 389.9 468.6 471.1 356.5 319.6 392.9 476.7 474.5 357.8 319.9 394.2 445.4 442.6 346.5 319.8 382.2 462.1 451.7 347.4 326.8 390.7 462.5 455.3 347.4 326.8 390.7 463.3 457.4 348.1 327.4 387.0 463.1 468.9 353.9 327.8 390.3 464.1 470.2 356.0 328.2 393.3 472.0 474.1 357.1 328.7 394.4 M E D IC A L C A R E ............................................................................................................................... 383.1 398.0 399.5 401.7 404.0 406.6 408.3 381.2 396.1 397.7 399.8 402.0 404.5 406.3 M e d ic a l c a re c o m m o d it ie s ....................................................................................................... 242.4 253.9 255.2 257.0 257.8 259.3 260.2 242.3 253.5 254.8 256.7 257.4 259.0 259.8 Prescription drugs.......................................................................... Anti-infective drugs (12/77 = 100)............................................. Tranquilizers and sedatives (12/77 = 100) .................................. Circulatories and diuretics (12/77 = 100).................................... Hormones, diabetic drugs, biologicals, and prescription medical supplies (12/77 = 100)............................. Pain and symptom control drugs (12/77 = 100).......................... Supplements, cough and cold preparations, and respiratory agents (12/77 = 100)........................................... 238.0 168.4 208.7 171.7 253.6 175.7 233.9 182.7 254.7 175.6 234.7 184.5 256.8 177.1 237.1 185.9 258.4 179.8 238.4 186.3 259.3 180.1 239.1 188.7 260.7 181.3 240.4 188.7 239.4 171.0 208.6 170.9 255.1 178.4 233.8 181.8 254.6 178.4 234.4 183.5 258.2 179.9 236.9 184.9 259.9 182.7 238.2 185.2 261.0 183.0 239.0 187.0 262.1 184.2 240.3 187.5 220.7 192.0 231.3 202.7 232.3 205.3 234.5 206.0 235.8 206.9 236.3 207.8 237.6 207.8 223.2 193.8 233.9 204.6 234.4 207.5 237.0 208.1 238.5 209.0 239.0 209.8 240.2 209.8 176.1 187.1 186.8 188.2 188.8 190.3 191.1 176.9 187.9 187.5 188.7 189.2 190.9 191.8 164.5 141.4 269.5 157.1 169.5 144.7 278.5 161.7 170.4 144.2 280.4 163.2 171.5 146.2 281.9 163.8 171.5 145.8 282.5 163.1 172.8 145.5 284.8 195.5 173.1 146.2 285.2 165.5 165.3 140.4 270.5 158.6 170.4 143.4 279.6 163.1 171.5 143.0 281.8 165.0 172.7 145.3 283.3 165.8 172.6 144.8 283.6 164.9 173.9 144.4 286.1 167.3 174.3 145.2 286.6 167.5 P u b lic Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies (12/77 = 100)................... Eyeglasses (12/77 - 100) ....................................................... Internal and respiratory over-the-counter drugs............................. Nonprescription medical equipment and supplies (12/77 = 100) . . . 76 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 20. Continued— Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] U rb an W a g e E arn e rs a n d C le ric a l W o rk e rs A ll U rban C onsum ers G en era l s u m m ary 1984 1985 1984 1985 S ep t. A pr. M ay June July A ug. S ept. S ep t. A pr. M ay June July A ug. S e p t. ............................................................................................................... 413.9 429.4 430.9 433.0 435.8 439.6 440.5 411.5 427.1 428.7 430.7 433.3 436.1 438.1 Professional services ...................................................................... Physicians' services................................................................. Dental services........................................................................ Other professional services (12/77 - 100) ................................. 349.8 380.8 331.9 160.0 363.0 393.9 344.5 168.5 364.5 395.6 345.8 169.0 366.4 397.8 347.3 170.4 368.1 400.2 348.5 170.8 370.0 402.1 380.5 171.3 371.7 403.8 352.1 172.3 350.1 384.8 329.5 156.2 363.6 398.5 342.0 164.8 365.0 400.3 343.2 165.3 366.8 402.3 344.5 166.4 368.5 404.7 345.7 166.8 370.4 406.7 347.7 167.3 372.1 408.4 349.2 168.6 Other medical care services............................................................... Hospital and other medical services (12/77 = 100)........................ Hospital room..................................................................... Other hospital and medical care services (12/77 = 100) ............ 491.5 213.0 679.5 209.1 509.6 222.0 704.2 219.0 511.2 222.4 705.7 219.3 513.6 222.9 707.4 219.7 517.6 224.2 710.6 221.3 521.6 225.6 715.1 222.5 523.9 225.8 715.8 222.8 488.4 210.9 670.8 207.4 506.6 219.2 692.9 216.8 508.2 219.6 694.4 217.1 510.5 220.1 695.8 217.6 514.4 221.3 698.6 219.0 518.4 222.6 703.0 220.3 520.7 222.9 703.8 220.7 E N T E R T A IN M E N T 257.3 263.3 263.6 264.8 265.7 265.7 266.8 257.3 253.4 258.9 260.1 260.9 260.8 261.6 254.8 259.5 259.5 260.1 260.8 260.5 262.5 249.2 253.2 253.1 253.9 254.5 254.3 256.0 174.6 328.2 185.3 175.9 326.4 188.4 174.8 328.5 185.6 174.9 329.9 184.9 M e d lc e l c a re s e rv ic e « E n te rta in m e n t c o m m o d itie s ................................................................................................... Reading materials (12/77 - 100) ..................................................... Newspapers .......................................................................... Magazines, periodicals, and books (12/77 = 100).......................... 166.3 315.4 173.0 173.7 325.8 182.2 173.3 327.5 181.0 175.5 327.8 185.3 176.9 328.1 188.2 175.7 328.2 185.6 175.7 329.4 185.0 165.6 315.6 172.8 172.9 326.1 182.7 172.6 327.9 180.8 Sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100).................................... Sport vehicles (12/77 - 100) .................................................. Indoor and warm weather sport equipment (12/77 = 100).............. Bicycles.................................................................................. Other sporting goods and equipment (12/77 = 100)...................... 138.7 144.4 117.3 198.9 135.5 140.4 147.3 118.0 201.4 132.6 139.9 146.9 116.8 202.9 130.3 139.4 145.6 117.0 204.0 131.1 139.9 146.6 117.5 203.4 131.3 140.0 146.9 116.9 203.1 130.7 142.4 150.7 116.9 203.5 131.5 132.3 134.0 115.5 200.3 135.0 133.8 136.5 116.1 202.9 131.9 133.2 136.0 115.1 204.2 129.8 133.1 135.4 115.2 205.7 130.7 133.8 136.6 115.8 204.9 130.9 133.7 136.8 115.1 204.4 130.0 135.3 139.0 115.4 205.0 131.1 Toys, hobbies, and other entertainment (12/77 = 100) ........................ Toys, hobbies, and music equipment (12/77 = 100)..................... Photographic supplies and equipment (12/77 = 100) ................... Pet supplies and expenses (12/77 - 100).................................... 142.0 138.3 135.2 153.7 142.6 138.4 135.8 155.2 143.1 138.7 136.4 155.9 143.1 139.1 136.4 155.1 142.8 138.4 136.2 155.4 143.1 138.2 136.3 156.9 144.1 140.2 136.2 156.8 141.1 135.1 136.4 154.8 141.6 135.0 136.9 156.3 142.1 135.2 137.6 157.0 142.1 135.6 137.6 156.3 141.8 135.0 137.4 156.6 142.1 134.8 137.4 158.0 143.1 136.6 137.3 158.1 E n te rta in m e n t s e r v i c e s ............................................................................................................... 261.3 269.2 269.9 272.0 273.3 273.6 273.3 262.0 269.2 270.0 272.0 273.2 273.3 272.6 173.3 163.1 140.7 170.2 162.9 140.6 Fees for participant sports (12/77 - 100)........................................... Admissions (12/77 - 100).............................................................. Other entertainment services (12/77 - 100) ...................................... 162.3 156.9 136.2 167.7 160.7 140.4 168.3 161.5 139.9 169.8 162.9 140.0 170.8 163.5 140.3 170.7 164.1 140.7 170.4 163.9 140.6 163.7 155.7 137.1 168.5 159.7 140.8 169.3 160.4 140.0 170.5 162.0 140.1 171.2 162.7 140.5 O THER G O OD S AN D SER VIC E S 314.6 321.8 322.3 323.0 325.0 326.0 333.3 310.9 318.3 318.8 319.5 321.8 322.9 328.7 T o ba c co products 314.1 324.0 324.1 324.8 330.0 331.5 332.8 313.7 323.6 323.6 324.4 329.7 331.1 332.4 Cigarettes .................................................................................... Other tobacco products and smoking accessories (12/77 = 100)............ 322.8 159.9 332.9 165.5 332.9 166.0 333.8 165.6 339.4 166.8 340.9 167.7 342.3 167.8 321.7 159.9 331.7 165.6 331.7 166.0 332.6 165.6 338.2 166.8 339.7 167.7 341.1 167.7 P e rs o n a l c a r e ................................................................................................................................... 273.6 279.8 280.9 281.7 282.3 283.3 284.1 271.6 277.5 278.6 279.2 279.9 280.9 281.8 Toilet goods and personal care appliances........................................... Products for the hair, hairpieces, and wigs (12/77 = 100) ............ Dental and shaving products (12/77 = 100) ............................... Cosmetics, bath and nail preparations, manicure and eye makeup implements (12/77 - 100).................................... Other toilet goods and small personal care appliances (12/77 = 100) . . . 271.6 156.1 167.9 277.1 157.4 176.2 277.5 156.4 175.3 277.9 156.1 175.8 278.9 157.5 176.1 279.4 158.2 174.7 280.6 158.8 175.8 272.5 155.3 165.8 277.5 156.6 173.8 277.8 155.7 173.1 278.2 155.4 173.7 279.2 156.6 174.0 280.0 157.3 172.7 281.1 158.0 173.7 154.5 155.0 155.9 158.3 157.1 159.8 157.2 160.5 158.3 159.8 159.8 159.3 160.1 160.3 155.9 158.7 156.8 162.0 157.8 163.3 157.8 164.0 158.9 163.5 160.6 163.2 160.9 164.2 Personal care services ................................................................... Beauty parlor services for women ............................................. Haircuts and other barber shop services for men (12/77 = 100) . . . 276.4 279.2 153.6 283.3 286.2 157.2 285.0 288.2 157.2 286.1 289.5 158.4 286.3 289.0 159.3 287.7 290.9 159.5 288.2 291.6 159.6 271.1 272.0 152.4 278.0 279.2 156.0 279.7 281.1 156.8 280.7 282.0 157.3 280.9 281.6 158.2 282.2 283.4 158.3 282.8 284.3 158.4 P e rs o n a l a nd e d u c a tio n a l e x p a n s e s ................................................................................... 381.9 388.3 388.5 389.1 390.1 390.7 412.5 384.1 390.7 390.9 391.6 392.5 393.2 414.5 Schoolbooks and supplies .............................................................. Personal and educational services ..................................................... Tuition and other school fees..................................................... College tuition (12/77 - 100)............................................. Elementary and high school tuition (12/77 = 100) ................. Personal expenses (12/77 - 1 00 )............................................. 331.5 393.1 200.2 200.1 201.1 207.3 344.5 398.5 201.5 201.6 201.4 216.5 344.5 398.8 201.5 201.6 201.4 217.0 344.9 399.4 201.6 201.8 201.4 218.2 345.5 400.4 202.1 202.3 201.4 219.0 346.1 401.1 202.2 202.5 201 6 220.1 362.1 423.9 216.6 216.8 216.2 220.6 336.4 395.6 201.4 201.1 202.6 207.9 349.4 401.0 202.6 202.5 202.9 216.6 349.5 401.2 202.6 202.5 202.9 216.6 349.9 401.9 202.7 202.7 202.9 217.8 350.6 402.9 203.1 203.2 202.9 218.7 351.2 403.6 203.2 203.3 203.2 220.0 366.9 426.1 218.0 218.2 217.7 220.5 364.3 367.0 373.0 369.9 360.9 381.8 377.1 365.1 381.7 380.1 371.8 382.8 380.8 373.7 384.0 377.5 373.6 385.4 373.3 375.1 385 8 365.7 366.1 382.3 371.2 359.1 391.1 378.3 363.2 391.0 381.5 370.6 392.3 382.4 372.4 393.6 379.2 372.2 395.3 374.9 373.7 395.6 ........................................................................................... S p e c ia l In d e xe s: Gasoline, motor oil, coolant, and other products................................. Utilities and public transportation....................................................... Housekeeping and home maintenance services.................................... https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 77 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Consumer Prices 21. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Cross classification of region and population size class by expenditure category and commodity and service group [December 1977 = 100] S iz e cla s s A S iz e cla s s B S iz e c l a n C S iz e c la s s O (1 .2 5 m illio n o r m o re ) (3 8 5 ,0 0 0 - 1 ,2 5 0 m illio n ) ( 7 5 ,0 0 0 - 3 8 5 ,0 0 0 ) ( 7 5 ,0 0 0 o r les s ) C ateg o ry and group 1 98 5 A pr. \ June 1985 A ug. A pr. June 1985 A ug. A pr. 1905 June Aug. Apr. June A ug. N o rth ea st E XP E N D ITU R E CATEGORY All items ......................................................................................................... Food and beverages .................................................................................... Housing.................................................................................................... Apparel and upkeep .................................................................................... Transportation ........................................................................................... Medical care ............................................................................................. Entertainment............................................................................................. Other goods and services ............................................................................. 166.7 157.7 171.2 127.6 174.8 187.1 153.9 181.9 167.5 157.7 172.6 124.9 176.0 189.3 154.4 182.4 168.5 158.1 174.2 128.2 175.7 190.6 154.4 183.7 173.5 156.5 186.7 128.7 178.1 186.9 147.5 179.9 173.5 155.6 186.4 127.7 179.0 188.8 149.3 180.9 173.3 155.7 185.4 123.8 178.8 193.3 151.5 182.1 177.8 158.3 193.1 136.9 177.7 189.1 159.0 185.5 179.0 159.2 194.7 138.9 178.5 191.8 159.9 185.6 178.9 159.1 194.1 132.8 179.6 193.6 160.4 188.6 174.2 155.2 185.9 137.4 177.7 195.9 158.1 183.4 173.7 154.4 184.0 136.6 178.9 198.1 158.2 184.1 173.7 154.6 183.3 135.6 179.3 199.4 159.7 185.8 157.6 157.1 177.6 157.4 156.7 179.5 157.7 156.9 181.2 163.5 166.2 162.3 163.0 166.0 189.0 162.5 165.1 189.2 162.2 163.7 202.0 162.9 164.3 204.2 162.0 162.9 205.2 160.8 163.0 193.5 160.4 162.8 192.9 173.7 162.2 193.2 C O M M O D IT Y A N D S ER VIC E G R O U P Commodities.................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................ Services............................................................................................................ N orth C e n tra l R egion E XP E N D ITU R E CATEGORY All items ......................................................................................................... Food and beverages .................................................................................... Housing.................................................................................................... Apparel and upkeep .................................................................................... Transportation ........................................................................................... M edical care ............................................................................................................................................ Entertainment............................................................................................. Other goods and services ............................................................................ 175.9 152.4 194.6 123.9 176.2 186.6 150.8 176.0 177.6 152.5 199.3 122.4 177.1 187.9 150.4 176.7 178.3 152.3 200.6 123.8 176.9 190.0 150.7 178.3 171.7 151.1 180.6 135.6 177.4 189.4 142.5 188.6 172.6 150.6 182.5 134.8 178.2 191.6 143.6 187.9 171.5 150.2 180.3 132.5 177.1 193.6 144.2 188.9 168.6 151.9 175.5 135.7 179.0 180.1 156.0 169.9 169.6 151.9 177.7 132.5 180.7 180.7 155.7 169.9 169.1 151.0 178.0 128.3 179.2 182.5 155.3 172.2 169.1 158.9 171.7 129.4 178.1 191.1 144.1 186.1 170.4 158.8 174.2 130.1 179.0 193.3 144.2 186.1 170.7 158.7 174.8 129.7 177.9 195.8 145.4 188.9 161.7 166.0 196.6 161.7 166.1 200.6 161.9 166.5 202.0 160.4 164.2 189.7 159.9 163.8 192.4 157.2 162.2 191.4 157.9 160.6 185.5 158.5 161.5 187.1 157.0 159.7 187.9 158.0 157.6 186.6 158.3 158.2 189.1 157.8 157.3 190.7 C O M M O D IT Y A N D S ER VICE G RO UP Commodities.................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................ Services............................................................................................................ South E XP E N D ITU R E CATEGORY All items ......................................................................................................... Food and beverages .................................................................................... Housing.................................................................................................... Apparel and upkeep .................................................................................... Transportation ........................................................................................... Medical care ............................................................................................. Entertainment............................................................................................. Other goods and services ............................................................................. 172.4 159.9 178.1 138.7 178.5 188.1 154.4 179.2 174.1 159.7 181.5 138.5 179.8 189.6 155.8 179.7 174.8 159.8 182.5 138.3 180.2 192.2 156.9 181.4 173.7 158.9 178.0 132.7 183.3 189.3 163.5 184.7 175.3 159.3 181.3 132.2 184.0 190.7 164.9 186.3 176.0 159.6 182.3 132.5 183.7 193.3 165.7 187.5 172.2 155.7 177.3 130.2 181.6 197.1 157.5 181.5 172.8 155.0 178.2 132.0 182.3 197.9 157.9 182.4 173.5 156.0 179.2 134.3 181.5 201.1 157.4 184.0 171.6 159.9 177.9 113.0 176.9 201.0 154.7 175.6 172.2 159.2 178.9 118.3 177.1 202.9 154.8 178.5 172.8 160.7 180.2 116.8 176.2 203.3 155.6 180.7 163.0 164.1 185.2 162.9 164.1 188.9 162.6 163.6 190.9 164.5 166.7 187.3 164.9 167.1 190.4 164.7 166.6 192.1 161.7 164.4 188.2 161.9 165.2 189.3 162.2 165.1 190.8 161.5 161.6 187.0 161.5 162.3 188.2 161.7 161.8 189.4 C O M M O D IT Y A ND S ER VICE G RO UP Commodities..................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................ Services............................................................................................................ W est E XP E N D ITU R E CATEGORY All 'terns ......................................................................................................... Food and beverages .................................................................................... Housing.................................................................................................... Apparel and upkeep .................................................................................... Transportation ........................................................................................... Medical care ............................................................................................. Enterta nment............................................................................................. Other goods and services .......................................................................... 174.6 158.9 182.4 127.3 184.2 193.4 149.6 186.5 176.1 159.0 185.1 127.8 185.2 195.5 151.7 187.3 178.0 159.1 190.5 127.3 182.9 198.4 152.7 189.1 174.4 162.9 179.2 133.9 184.5 190.0 156.6 182.6 176.2 162.4 182.8 133.9 185.4 191.9 159.9 183.3 176.9 162.7 183.6 138.6 184.0 196.5 160.7 184.4 166.9 168.7 164.2 130.3 181.7 198.1 165.8 177.8 168.4 157.7 168.0 127.4 182.3 200.9 166.9 179.2 168.9 159.6 168.2 127.2 181.5 203.9 166.0 182.4 170.8 166.3 172.2 144.0 173.9 193.5 159.5 183.7 172.5 168.4 173.9 144.2 176.2 194.5 161.2 184.5 173.3 167.7 174.7 148.2 176.9 196.2 162.9 184.6 159.9 160.5 193.0 160.0 160.6 196.1 158.8 158.5 201.4 163.9 164.1 188.4 163.9 164.5 192.0 163.4 163.6 194.3 161.7 162.6 172.9 161.2 162.4 176.4 161.4 161.6 177.5 159.5 155.7 187.3 161.2 157.3 188.9 161.7 158.4 190.1 C O M M O D IT Y A N D S ER VIC E G RO UP Commodities.................................................................................................... Commodities less food and beverages ............................................................ Services............................................................................................................ 78 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 22. Consumer Price Index— U.S. city average, and selected areas [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] U rb an W a g e E arn ers and C le ric a l W o rk e rs A ll U rb an C o n s u m e r* A re a 1 1984 1985 1984 1985 S ep t. A pr. May June July A ug. S ept. S ep t. Apr. M ay June July A ug. S ep t. U.S. city average2 .......................................................................... 314.5 320.1 321.3 322.3 322.8 323.5 324.5 312.1 316.7 317.8 318.7 319.1 319.6 320.5 Anchorage, AK (10/67 - 100).......................................................... Atlanta, GA.................................................................................... Baltimore. M O ............................................................................... Boston. MA .................................................................................. Buffalo, NY.................................................................................... 316.4 307.4 294.5 Chicago, IL-Northwestern IN ............................................................ Cincinnati, OH—KY—IN ................................................................. Cleveland, O H ............................................................................... Dallas—Ft. Worth, T X ...................................................................... Oenver-Boulder, CO ...................................................................... 278.8 277.9 324.6 315.1 325.2 305.4 319.1 Miami, FL (11/77 - 100) .............................................................. Milwaukee, W l............................................................................... Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN—Wl ....................................................... New York, NY-Northeastern NJ ....................................................... Northeast, PA (Scranton)................................................................. 167.9 324.0 Philadelphia, PA—N J ...................................................................... Pittsburgh, PA............................................................................... Portland, OR—WA ........................................................................ St Louis, MO—IL ........................................................................ San Diego. CA............................................................................... 303.9 302.5 311.4 357.1 San Francisco—Oakland, CA.............................................................. Seattle—Everett. W A........................................................................ Washington, DC—MD—VA ............................................................ 316.5 313.0 310.2 306.9 298.2 315.8 292.7 335.3 319.8 315.9 316.7 319.1 312.4 324.3 312.6 314.2 318.0 321.3 318.0 294.2 338.2 321.1 323.9 171.4 331.1 341.4 313.2 306.0 314.2 325.9 270.9 316.4 305.3 288.6 326.3 329.8 304.3 320.9 313.5 306.6 315.5 338.8 315.7 315.8 325.9 312.9 319.9 372.8 358.0 346.1 320.5 301.3 323.8 304.2 173.5 332.4 169.7 347.9 316.9 306.8 299.9 297.7 316.5 308.5 314.9 321.6 377.3 293.7 308.0 330.7 321.8 323.6 305.3 317.9 276.0 326.0 291.9 306.2 293.7 306.9 324.0 310.9 306.6 314.1 315.3 306.8 305.8 305.2 317.2 307.4 300.4 335.0 310.5 314.1 317.2 308.3 308.3 315.8 306.5 305.7 318.6 312.1 322.8 353.3 308.3 301.3 335.3 311.2 318.0 310.3 317.7 174.5 351.4 334.4 308.5 318.5 308.0 309.3 306.3 319.1 305.4 318.5 340.3 303.2 316.6 336.9 328.7 308.4 323.0 326.3 315.7 292.9 327.0 337.0 172.7 350.4 332.3 306.3 301.2 313.0 336.5 326.1 312.1 355.9 172.2 350.2 329.2 305.1 292.9 311.1 323.2 325.3 333.5 351.9 306.3 300.1 332.8 309.7 311.2 277.3 329.3 323.4 315.7 322.3 313.2 321.8 329.6 335.8 322.0 323.3 271.9 322.3 348.1 343.4 333.2 321.0 319.8 1The areas listed include not only the central city but the entire portion of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined for the 1970 Census of Population, except that the Standard Consolidated Area is used for New York and Chicago. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 317.0 293.5 337.6 320.1 319.3 310.4 315.9 372.1 330.4 325.9 360.3 171.0 330.9 333.6 311.8 304.9 306.5 324.4 330.0 346.4 339.6 356.3 351.3 311.6 324.1 284.5 327.5 321.3 306.5 331.4 324.0 317.7 307.3 319.8 330.4 342.4 335.6 Detroit. M l.................................................................................... Honolulu, H I .................................................................................. Houston, T X .................................................................................. Kansas City, MO—KS...................................................................... Los Angeles-Long Beach, Anaheim, CA............................................. 283.1 328.0 323.1 315.2 330.8 309.1 325.9 308.9 327.4 2Average of 85 cities. 79 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 23. Producer Prices Producer Price Indexes, by stage of processing [1967 = 100] A nnual C o m m o d ity g rouping 1984 1 98 5 a ve rag e 1984 Oct. N ov. D ec. J an . Feb. M a r. A pr. May 291.1 291.5 292.3 292.0 292.3 292.6 292.1 293.1 294.1 290.3 273.3 281.6 270.3 337.3 236.8 239.0 294.0 290.3 271.1 269.5 269.1 337.8 238.3 240.6 295.9 291.2 272.0 257.6 271.0 338.9 239.0 241.1 296.5 290.9 273.6 263.0 272.3 336.7 239.2 240.7 295.6 290.6 273.7 255.4 273.1 334.9 240.2 242.8 298.5 290.7 275.6 279.4 273.1 332.7 240.9 243.9 299.2 290.1 273.7 275.5 271.3 333.4 240.4 244.4 299.3 291.2 272.2 279.9 269.3 337.4 240.7 245.0 299.9 320.0 320.1 320.4 319 9 319.6 318.7 318.6 319.3 J une1 July A ug. S ept. O ct. 294.0 294.8 293.5 290.2 294.8 292.4 269.5 254.2 268.7 342.4 241.4 245.2 300.3 r292.2 r268.7 r237.0 r269.3 r342.1 241.9 r245.6 r300.5 293.2 271.7 265.4 270.1 342.1 241.7 247.4 300.8 291.5 269.5 255.8 268.5 339.9 241.5 247.2 300.9 288.5 266.5 249.1 265.9 340.3 234.4 247.8 296.4 292.4 268.7 247.3 268.4 340.2 244.9 248.2 303.7 319.9 r319.3 318.6 317.8 317.9 317.8 F IN IS H E D GOODS Finished goods.............................................................. Finished consumer goods ......................................... Finished consumer foods ...................................... Crude ............................................................ Processed ....................................................... Nondurable goods less foods.................................. Durable goods ..................................................... Consumer nondurable goods less food and energy . . . Capital equipment..................................................... IN T E R M E D IA T E M A T ER IA L S Intermediate materials, supplies, and components................. Materials and components for manufacturing................. 301.8 301.4 301.7 301.1 300.6 300.5 300.0 300.6 300.5 r300.3 299.7 298.8 298.3 298.0 Materials for food manufacturing............................. Materials for nondurable manufacturing ................... Materials for durable manufacturing ........................ Components for manufacturing............................... 271.1 290.5 325.1 287.5 267.6 290.4 322.3 289.4 269.5 289.8 323.1 289.7 268.2 289.2 321.9 289.9 265.2 288.9 320.6 290.4 265.3 288.0 320.7 290.8 263.9 287.3 319.9 291.0 263.9 287.1 322.1 291.1 261.9 296.7 323.0 291.1 r261.0 r286.4 r322.3 r291.3 260.6 285.7 321.0 291.5 253.4 285.2 320.2 291.7 250.2 284.8 319.2 292.0 252.3 283.6 318.6 292.2 Materials and components for construction................... 310.3 311.8 311.8 312.4 313.4 313.3 313.5 314.0 315.9 317.3 317.0 316.4 315.5 315.4 Processed fuels and lubricants.................................... Manufacturing industries......................................... Nonmanufacturing industries ................................. 566.2 483.5 638.1 564.1 483.4 634.3 566.6 486.1 636.5 561.3 483.0 629.2 556.3 478.7 623.5 546.3 469.7 612.6 547.9 471.8 613.9 552.3 474.6 619.8 559.0 477.3 628.1 r549.1 r462.2 r625.4 544.1 459.7 618.2 541.2 458.5 613.9 546.3 460.2 621.9 544.9 461.1 618.7 Containers.............................................................. 302.3 308.8 310.1 310.4 311.1 311.8 313.1 312.4 311.7 r312.0 311.4 309.7 309.9 310.4 Supplies................................................................. Manufacturing industries......................................... Nonmanufacturing industries ................................. Feeds .............................................................. Other supplies.................................................. 283.4 279.0 285.9 215.8 300.6 283.2 281.5 284.4 195.4 302.7 282.9 281.7 283.8 192.4 302.6 283.1 282.2 283.8 191.1 302.8 283.9 283.5 284.5 190.1 303.8 283.8 283.7 284.1 185.6 304.2 283.8 284.4 283.7 180.7 304.7 283.7 284.7 283.4 176.9 305.1 283.4 285.0 282.8 172.4 305.2 r283.3 r285.3 r282.4 r170.9 r305.0 283.6 285.3 283.0 173.0 305.3 283.8 285.5 283.2 172.9 305.5 284.3 286.0 283.7 174.8 305.8 285.0 286.1 284.7 179.5 306.1 r305.6 303.7 295.5 292.4 298.0 CRU DE M A T ER IA L S Crude materials for further processing ............................... 330.8 319.6 323.2 322.4 318.9 318.1 312.3 311.0 309.1 Foodstuffs and feedstuffs........................................... 259.5 244.9 252.8 253.0 250.7 250.0 242.9 239.9 236.3 r233.7 231.9 221.4 215.9 224.5 Nonfood materials..................................................... 484.5 480.3 475.2 472.0 466.0 465.1 462.0 464.2 466.0 r460.5 458.1 454.5 456.4 455.8 Nonfood materials except fuel.................................. Manufacturing industries .................................... Construction..................................................... 380.5 390.1 278.7 374.7 383.9 276.3 369.2 377.6 276.3 366.4 374.4 276.4 361.9 368.9 279.7 358.2 364.0 283.9 358.4 364.2 284.7 360.2 365.9 287.0 357.7 363.0 287.1 r354.0 358.7 r288.1 353.6 358.3 287.6 351.3 355.7 287.2 352.5 357.2 286.1 353.3 357.9 287.9 Crude fuel............................................................ Manufacturing industries .................................... Nonmanufacturing industries............................... 931.3 1,092.2 818.1 935.9 1,097.6 822.1 934.0 1,095.1 820.7 929.8 1,089.7 817.3 916.6 1,072.2 807.5 930.5 1,090.4 818.2 910.8 1,064.5 803.2 915.0 1,070.2 806.3 938.8 r924.8 1,101.7 r1,083.3 824.0 r813.5 912.4 1,067.0 804.2 902.8 1,054.2 797.0 908.1 1,060.0 802.0 899.6 1,049.8 794.8 Finished goods excluding foods......................................... Finished consumer goods excluding foods ................... Finished consumer goods less energy.......................... 294.8 294.1 257.8 296.1 295.0 258.2 296.9 295.9 258.9 295.8 294.8 259.3 296.3 294.3 260.5 295.9 293.5 261.8 296.0 293.6 261.1 297.8 295.9 260.9 300.3 299.0 260.3 r300.2 r299.0 r260.3 300.3 299.0 262.0 299.3 297.6 261.0 296.0 294.7 257.9 301.4 299.4 262.2 Intermediate materials less foods and feeds ........................ Intermediate materials less energy............................... 325.0 303.8 325.8 304.1 326.1 304.3 325.6 304.1 325.4 304.2 324.5 304.2 324.7 304.0 325.5 304.3 326.4 304.5 r325.7 304.6 324.9 304.3 324.4 303.6 324.6 303.3 324.3 303.3 S PECIAL G R O U P IN G S Intermediate foods and feeds ............................... 253.1 244.0 244.3 243.0 240.7 239.2 236.7 235.4 232.6 r232.2 231.9 227.0 225.5 228.5 Crude materials less agricultural products .......................... Crude materials less energy ...................................... 547.0 255.5 542.4 242.6 535.9 248.0 532.3 247.8 525.4 246.2 525.1 245.9 521.2 240.4 523.5 238.6 526.3 234.8 r519.9 r231.7 516.8 230.4 514.4 222.1 515.5 218.3 514.8 224.8 1Data for June 1985 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. 80 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r = revised, 24. Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] 1984 A nnual A ll c o m m o d itie s ....................................................................................................... A ll c o m m o d itie s ( 1 9 5 7 - 5 9 = 1 0 0 ) ............................................................... Fa rm produc ts a nd p ro cessed food s and fe e d s 1985 a v e ra g e C o m m o d ity group end subgroup Code .................................... In d u s tria l c o m m o d itie s ........................................................................................... 1964 Oct. Nov. D oc. J an . Feb. M a r. A pr. M ay June1 Ju ly Aug. 310.3 329.2 309.4 328.3 310.3 329.2 309.8 328.7 309.7 328.6 309.1 328.0 308.6 327.4 309.3 328.2 309.8 328.7 r309.2 r328.1 309.0 327.8 307.2 325.9 305.8 324.5 308.0 326.8 262.4 322.6 255.3 323.4 258.1 323.8 258.6 323.0 257.6 323.1 258.0 322.2 254.6 322.5 253.1 323.8 250.2 325.3 249.1 r324.8 250.0 324.3 244.4 323.6 241.4 322.5 245.3 324.4 S ept. O ct. FA R M P R O D U C TS A N D P RO CESSED FOODS A N D FEEDS 01 01-1 01-2 01-3 01-4 01-5 01-6 01-7 01-8 01-9 Farm products................................................................... Fresh and dried fruits and vegetables.................................. Grains.......................................................................... Livestock...................................................................... Live poultry................................................................... Plant and animal fibers .................................................. Fluid milk...................................................................... Eggs............................................................................. Hay, hayseeds, and oilseeds ........................................... Other farm products....................................................... 255.8 278.1 239.7 251.8 240.6 228.4 278.3 210.8 256.3 285.6 240.2 267.3 219.0 233.9 219.2 202.8 286.7 179.9 219.1 294.0 245.7 251.2 219.7 247.7 247.1 201.4 287.6 176.0 227.3 297.9 245.7 252.0 212.5 252.3 231.7 203.0 287.5 187.5 227.4 293.8 243.2 259.0 217.5 247.4 232.7 204.5 284.6 141.9 226.2 289.4 245.3 289.6 217.2 249.7 222.4 200.6 281.0 161.5 214.6 285.6 238.8 278.1 216.1 236.6 215.5 200.4 278.4 167.6 212.0 285.8 236.8 278.1 220.6 231.3 202.3 211.3 271.1 175.1 213.8 283.9 230.4 251.2 214.1 227.7 214.6 202.8 264.9 150.2 213.4 283.5 229.4 r254.3 212.7 226.7 223.6 199.1 259.6 147.7 210.7 283.4 229.2 275.4 204.9 224.0 227.6 201.7 256.1 164.0 206.8 283.3 218.0 260.9 185.1 211.6 216.0 194.5 255.1 168.9 196.7 274.5 212.9 239.3 181.1 198.5 244.5 191.1 255.9 188.3 194.2 282.8 219.5 233.5 176.3 226.2 225.2 191.3 256.0 191.1 184.7 282.5 02 02-1 02-2 02-3 02-4 02-5 02-6 02-7 02-8 02-9 Processed foods and feeds.................................................. Cereal and bakery products.............................................. Meats, poultry, and fish.................................................. Dairy products............................................................... Processed fruits and vegetables......................................... Sugar and confectionery.................................................. Beverages and beverage materials .................................... Fats and oils ................................................................. Miscellaneous processed foods......................................... Prepared animal feeds..................................................... 265.0 270.5 254.4 251.7 294.3 301.2 273.1 301.3 278.0 220.5 262.6 272.7 245.5 256.4 295.8 299.8 276.1 301.6 281.2 202.4 263.8 273.7 250.4 257.3 292.3 297.0 276.0 311.9 280.9 199.7 264.5 273.6 255.9 255.8 293.5 295.7 275.6 297.6 281.0 198.8 264.4 276.6 256.6 255.3 296.6 293.5 275.9 280.5 281.5 198.0 263.9 277.7 255.6 254.0 296.6 291.1 277.5 285.2 281.4 193.6 262.3 277.8 249.8 253.3 300.0 292.5 277.1 290.5 281.4 189.5 260.9 278.9 244.8 251.5 298.6 293.4 276.9 303.0 282.0 186.2 260.6 278.0 244.0 250.0 298.2 294.4 276.9 296.1 283.5 182.4 258.8 r279.9 r238.6 249.4 r301.0 r294.4 275.5 r296.5 r283.6 r183.9 260.3 279.2 245.9 248.0 299.1 293.9 276.4 282.2 284.9 185.9 257.9 279.9 240.9 247.5 301.0 292.2 275.6 252.4 287.1 186.1 256.0 280.4 236.5 246.2 296.4 290.6 276.7 243.8 284.9 188.0 258.4 282.2 245.0 245.5 294.7 286.6 277.7 236.0 285.1 192.2 03 03-1 03-2 03-3 03-4 03-81 03-82 Textile products and apparel................................................ Synthetic fibers (12/75 = 100)......................................... Processed yarns and threads (12/75 = 100) ...................... Gray fabrics (12/75 = 100).............................................. Finished fabrics (12/75 = 100)......................................... Apparel........................................................................ Textile housefurnishings.................................................. 210.0 159.6 142.8 153.7 126.7 201.3 238.9 210.4 158.2 141.4 154.8 126.9 201.9 241.3 210.2 157.5 140.8 153.7 126.6 202.2 241.4 210.0 157.7 140.8 154.0 126.6 202.1 238.3 210.3 157.6 141.4 153.8 126.6 202.7 239.5 210.6 157.5 141.9 152.6 127.0 203.2 240.8 210.5 156.5 141.4 152.1 127.1 203.3 241.3 210.7 157.4 141.3 151.8 127.2 203.7 241.1 210.5 157.1 141.4 152.1 125.9 203.8 241.2 210.2 r156.3 r141.2 151.7 125.6 r203.9 r239.6 210.2 156.1 141.4 151.5 125.5 204.1 240.0 210.3 155.0 141.1 150.2 125.9 204.7 239.9 210.6 154.6 140.7 150.5 126.1 205.1 240.2 210.2 150.1 140.8 150.8 126.2 205.1 240.4 04 04-2 04-3 04-4 Hides, skins, leather, and related products............................. Leatnar ........................................................................ Footwear ...................................................................... Other leather and related products .................................... 286.3 372.3 251.7 263.6 287.7 369.3 252.1 268.1 283.8 359.8 252.4 267.9 283.6 354.5 252.6 266.9 283.7 358.1 252.8 270.0 283.7 352.5 255.9 270.3 282.4 348.5 255.2 272.3 284.7 350.3 255.1 272.6 284.2 350.5 253.8 272.8 r285.5 r349.2 r257.1 r273.3 284.5 347.5 257.2 273.0 286.0 348.3 258.5 272.8 287.0 349.7 259.3 273.1 289.4 356.5 259.6 274.8 05 05-1 05-2 05-3 05-4 05-61 05-7 Fuels and related products and power.................................... Coal............................................................................. Coke............................................................................. Gas fuels3 ................................................................... Electric power .............................................................. Crude petroleum4 .......................................................... Petroleum products, refined5 ........................................... 06 06-1 06-21 06-22 06-3 06-4 06-5 06-6 06-7 Chemicals and allied products.............................................. Industrial chemicals6 ....................................................... Prepared paint Paint materials.............................................................. Drugs and pharmaceuticals .............................................. Fats and oils, inedible..................................................... Agricultural chemicals and chemical products...................... Plastic resins and materials............................................. Other chemicals and allied products ................................. 300.8 341.3 272.5 329.7 240.0 371.4 284.8 308.6 277.5 301.3 335.9 277.8 332.5 244.7 365.1 285.5 309.4 279.7 301.6 334.7 277.1 334.3 246.9 380.1 282.5 309.0 281.3 300.7 334.8 277.8 334.7 245.0 376.7 282.5 306.2 280.1 301.6 336.8 278.2 332.6 247.4 346.2 282.7 305.2 282.0 302.2 336.7 274.7 333.4 250.3 347.1 281.7 306.9 282.8 302.6 336.7 275.1 334.5 252.2 346.3 281.8 306.3 283.0 303.3 336.0 276.0 335.5 254.1 348.9 282.8 306.1 284.6 303.2 336.5 276.2 337.2 255.7 331.1 283.1 305.4 283.4 r303.7 r339.5 r276.4 r338.0 r254.2 298.4 r281.7 r307.1 r284.7 303.7 336.9 278.5 335.5 259.2 280.2 281.5 308.0 284.5 303.7 340.7 277.1 337.5 258.6 257.9 281.3 305.2 283.5 303.3 339.5 276.8 334.8 258.9 243.9 281.3 305.4 294.1 302.8 337.9 277.6 334.3 259.7 249.5 280.3 300.6 285.0 07 07-1 07-11 07-12 07-13 07-2 Rubber plastic products ..................................................... Rubber and rubber products.............................................. Crude rubber................................................................. Tires and tubes.............................................................. Miscellaneous rubber products ......................................... Plastic products (6/78 = 100) ......................................... 246.8 266.1 276.8 242.1 290.6 139.5 246.6 264.8 271.2 239.2 292.9 140.1 246.1 263.9 270.4 238.3 291.8 140.0 245.9 263.7 272.1 237.1 292.5 139.8 246.7 264.3 275.5 238.4 291.1 140.4 246.4 265.4 273.3 239.5 293.2 139.4 246.5 265.0 270.5 238.9 294.0 139.7 246.6 264.8 269.5 238.7 294.1 140.1 246.4 265.0 268.0 239.1 294.7 139.7 r246.2 r264.4 r270.9 r237.2 r294.5 r139.8 246.3 265.3 270.9 238.4 295.4 139.4 244.6 263.8 269.8 236.7 294.0 138.2 244.5 263.8 270.8 236.6 293.8 138.2 245.3 264.1 270.9 236.2 295.2 138.9 08 08-1 08-2 08-3 08-4 Lumber and wood products ................................................ Lumber........................................................................ Millwork........................................................................ Plywood........................................................................ Other wood products....................................................... 307.4 349.8 307.8 241.6 234.5 300.3 334.3 307.0 240.1 236.6 301.0 336.6 309.5 234.9 236.5 303.0 339.5 311.6 234.2 237.9 304.4 343.0 312.6 234.2 237.9 303.4 343.0 311.6 226.5 237.7 303.1 343.9 310.2 223.6 238.6 301.5 339.8 309.5 222.8 239.1 306.8 349.5 310.5 232.2 236.5 r313.1 f363.1 r311.8 r237.2 r236.0 310.5 354.9 314.0 237.6 235.9 305.8 342.4 313.9 237.8 234.6 300.5 332.4 313.3 230.1 234.9 300.1 328.2 312.5 234.2 235.6 IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S 654.4 655.3 656.8 648.5 636.8 625.3 625.3 633.9 647.3 r640.6 634.5 628.2 631.2 629.2 547.7 548.0 549.6 548.8 547.7 548.3 r547.4 546.7 546.7 551.1 546.5 548.9 548.6 547.0 436.4 432.4 432.8 435.1 439.7 439.4 433.0 430.1 429.6 r429.1 428.6 428.6 428.6 427.1 1,109.0 1,112.5 1,113.4 1,103.1 1,073.0 1,067.2 1,043.6 1,049.3 1,078.7 r1,058.1 1,042.4 1,026.1 1,035.9 1,032.2 445.4 443.0 440.8 446.0 446.0 447.6 449.1 447.9 r460.1 462.5 463.7 462.4 455.9 439.9 669.8 655.8 649.4 631.2 615.1 615.5 617.6 620.9 r620.1 619.4 614.3 615.7 618.3 669.8 665.1 655.5 661.5 652.3 635.5 615.6 620.6 636.5 657.6 r641.5 630.7 621.8 626.2 627.5 See footnotes at end of table. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 81 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 24. Producer Prices Continued— Producer Price Indexes, by commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] A n nual Code C o m m o d ity group and tu b g ro u p 1984 1985 a v e ra g e 1984 Oct. Nov. D oc. J an . Fab. M a r. A pr. M ay June1 Ju ly Aug. S ep t. O ct. IN D U S T R IA L C O M M O D IT IE S — Contln uod 09 09-1 09-11 09-12 09-13 09-14 09-15 09-2 Pulp, paper, and allied products........................................... Pulp, paper,and products,excluding building paper and board. . Woodpulp...................................................................... Wastepaper................................................................... Paper .......................................................................... Paperboard ................................................................... Converted paper and paperboard products.......................... Building paper and board ................................................ 318.5 293.3 397.2 240.1 302.9 281.5 281.2 259.0 323.1 299.3 408.2 235.6 306.7 293.7 286.9 257.7 324.1 299.7 397.3 221.4 306.9 294.3 289.0 253.7 324.1 298.9 392.1 206.0 305.7 293.4 289.3 253.4 327.1 298.1 381.2 190.8 306.3 287.2 290.4 255.3 327.6 297.1 364.8 192.6 304.4 285.9 291.4 256.2 327.7 295.7 353.6 170.2 303.5 285.7 291.0 256.3 327.6 294.4 348.2 154.4 303.3 284.2 290.3 257.6 327.3 293.4 345.9 144.0 304.5 280.4 289.1 258.6 r327.1 r292.3 r348.0 141.6 r304.5 r273.7 r288.2 r259.8 327.2 291.9 345.5 141.6 304.0 273.2 288.3 263.3 326.5 289.8 338.4 141.4 303.7 266.3 286.7 261.0 326.9 289.2 337.0 129.5 303.3 266.6 286.2 262.8 327.4 288.8 337.7 126.8 301.4 265.9 286.5 256.2 10 10-1 10-17 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 Metals and metal products.................................................. Iron and steel................................................................. Steel mill products.......................................................... Nonferrous metals.......................................................... Metal containers ............................................................ Hardware...................................................................... Plumbing fixtures and brass fittings .................................. Heating equipment.......................................................... Fabricated structural metal products .................................. Miscellaneous metal products........................................... 316.1 356.9 366.0 277.1 350.0 296.9 302.7 252.9 310.7 295.3 316.0 358.4 368.6 266.8 357.4 299.9 306.2 256.1 313.8 301.5 316.4 357.7 368.0 269.4 357.4 299.9 309.2 256.0 312.7 301.6 315.5 357.1 367.9 266.0 357.2 300.9 309.3 256.4 313.2 301.8 315.0 357.1 367.3 263.3 357.4 302.6 306.4 256.3 313.5 301.8 315.6 357.4 367.3 264.9 357.9 303.2 306.8 257.3 313.5 302.2 315.4 357.8 366.9 262.7 357.9 304.8 307.8 257.6 314.5 302.0 316.8 357.4 367.0 268.4 357.9 305.7 311.3 257.9 314.6 302.1 316.4 356.0 367.0 268.1 358.0 305.7 312.5 259.5 314.7 302.2 r314.9 r354.5 r366 1 r263.7 r358.0 r305.7 r313.0 259.6 r314.5 r302.6 314.6 354.6 366.1 261.3 258.1 305.2 313.1 260.5 314.6 303.0 314.9 355.0 365.7 261.2 357.9 306.1 313.5 261.1 315.1 303.1 314.5 354.8 365.6 260.6 357.7 305.7 313.6 261.5 315.1 302.5 314.3 354.6 365.7 259.7 357.7 306.5 314.8 261.5 315.5 302.3 11 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-6 11-7 11-9 Machinery and equipment .................................................. Agricultural machinery and equipment ............................... Construction machinery and equipment............................... Metalworking machinery and equipment............................. General purpose machinery and equipment ........................ Special industry machinery and equipment.......................... Electrical machinery and equipment.................................... Miscellaneous machinery ................................................ 293.1 336.1 357.0 334.0 314.1 348.7 248.7 274.4 294.8 337.3 357.5 337.1 316.0 351.5 250.8 274.4 295.3 337.0 357.6 338.1 316.5 351.8 251.5 274.8 295.6 337.6 357.8 338.7 316.9 352.4 251.7 274.5 297.9 338.5 378.6 338.6 318.3 355.7 253.0 275.0 297.6 338.3 363.2 339.4 318.9 357.1 253.7 275.4 297.8 338.5 362.5 340.1 319.8 357.6 253.7 275.5 298.1 338.3 361.7 340.9 320.5 358.4 253.2 276.6 298.4 338.5 361.9 341.3 321.2 358.9 253.6 276.4 r298.9 r338.7 362.0 r341.7 r321.7 r359.9 r253.4 r277.9 299.1 339.0 362.3 342.4 322.2 360.6 253.3 277.9 299.4 338.4 362.5 343.6 322.4 361.2 253.5 277.9 299.9 337.4 362.8 343.8 322.5 361.7 253.9 279.6 299.8 337.4 363.1 343.6 322.5 362.5 253.9 278.9 12 12-1 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 12-6 Furniture and household durables......................................... Household furniture ....................................................... Commercial furniture....................................................... Floor coverings.............................................................. Household appliances ..................................................... Home electronic equipment.............................................. Other household durable goods......................................... 218.7 242.1 297.1 191.2 211.0 83.8 318.6 219.2 244.3 297.3 193.0 211.1 83.1 317.7 220.0 245.1 300.7 192.9 210.9 83.1 320.5 220.1 245.5 299.6 193.2 211.3 82.7 320.7 220.3 246.9 300.3 193.7 211.2 80.8 322.5 220.8 247.4 302.8 192.4 211.2 81.9 322.7 221.1 247.6 303.7 192.8 211.7 81.0 324.1 221.7 248.8 306.3 192.9 212.1 80.9 323.8 221.7 250.1 307.0 191.5 212.4 79.9 323.3 r221.6 r250.4 r307.7 r189.8 r212.7 79.4 r323.6 221.7 249.6 308.6 191.2 213.0 79.1 323.1 221.8 250.3 309.3 191.4 213.3 78.6 322.0 222.3 250.5 311.6 191.9 213.1 79.6 321.7 222.0 250.6 311.2 188.7 212.9 79.6 323.6 13 13-11 13-2 13-3 13-4 13-5 13-6 13-7 13-8 13-9 Nonmetallic mineral products .............................................. Flat glass...................................................................... Concrete ingredients....................................................... Concrete products .......................................................... Structural clay products, excluding refractories ................... Refractories................................................................... Asphalt roofing.............................................................. Gypsum products .......................................................... Glass containers ............................................................ Other nonmetallic minerals .............................................. 337.3 224.5 325.7 309.6 286.8 361.2 399.5 346.7 360.7 500.1 340.0 219.9 327.6 312.0 289.5 361.6 409.1 339.0 364.9 508.9 339.6 218.5 328.5 311.8 289.6 365.6 410.1 334.4 364.2 505.8 340.1 218.6 329.6 312.2 289.7 365.6 412.1 330.6 364.2 507.3 341.7 221.3 331.0 314.6 291.3 365.9 409.6 328.6 363.7 514.2 342.6 220.9 333.5 314.6 291.6 365.9 407.5 344.3 364.6 514.1 343.9 220.9 335.4 315.8 291.8 366.9 406.1 336.4 373.9 514.1 345.5 222.5 336.4 316.7 292.4 369.0 411.9 333.4 374.3 519.0 348.1 224.9 338.8 320.2 292.8 371.3 412.5 333.0 376.7 523.0 r349.3 r224.8 r338.8 r321.4 r297.0 r371.3 r410.5 r338.1 r381.8 r523.6 348.7 222.8 338.2 321.1 295.8 372.2 411.5 338.6 378.4 524.4 349.7 226.4 338.6 322.7 296.8 372.2 408.3 338.1 381.5 523.8 349.8 225.5 336.9 323.3 297.0 372.2 406.3 329.6 386.9 524.4 350.4 228.4 336.8 323.2 299.6 372.2 404.1 339.6 387.1 524.7 14 14-1 14-4 Transportation equipment (12/68 = 100)............................... Motor vehicles and equipment........................................... Railroad equipment.......................................................... 262.7 261.5 355.6 265.0 263.8 358.8 265.7 264.3 358.9 265.0 263.5 358.9 266.8 265.2 359.9 268.1 266.7 361.8 267.7 266.2 362.7 268.2 266.2 362.9 269.1 267.3 362.6 r269.3 r267.5 r363.9 270.0 267.6 362.7 270.1 267.7 364.6 260.1 254.7 364.6 275.5 273.5 364.3 15 15-1 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-5 15-9 Miscellaneous products....................................................... Toys, sporting goods, small arms, ammunition................... Tobacco products .......................................................... Notions........................................................................ Photographic equipment and supplies ............................... Mobile homes (12/74 = 100)........................................... Other miscellaneous products........................................... 295.9 227.1 398.4 283.2 214.6 163.3 350.5 296.5 227.4 402.3 283.5 215.6 163.6 348.5 296.5 227.6 402.7 283.5 212.9 164.4 349.6 296.7 227.7 402.9 283.6 213.2 164.3 350.1 299.2 228.0 420.1 283.6 213.6 164.3 347.2 300.7 231.0 420.6 284.1 213.7 164.4 350.7 300.6 231.3 420.7 284.1 215.8 164.2 348.5 301.6 231.2 420.7 285.6 215.8 164.3 352.4 301.4 231.1 420.7 285.6 215.8 164.3 351.6 r301.3 r231.0 r420.8 285.6 215.8 r164.7 r350.9 303.1 229.9 435.9 285.6 215.8 164.7 349.3 302.9 229.8 436.0 285.4 215.6 165.0 348.3 303.2 230.4 436.0 285.4 216.7 165.1 347.9 303.7 232.3 435.8 285.3 216.8 165.2 348.3 1Data for June 1985 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. 2Not available. 3Prices for natural gas are lagged 1 month, includes only domestic production. 82 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 5Most prices for refined petroleum products are lagged 1 month. 6Some prices for industrial chemicals are lagged 1 month. r= revised. 25. Producer Price Indexes, for special commodity groupings [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] 1984 Annual C o m m o d ity g rouping A ll c o m m o d itie s — l e i * fa rm products A ll foods P ro c e s s e d foods 1985 a ve rag e 1984 Oct. Nov. D ec. J an . Feb. M a r. Apr. M ay June1 Ju ly A ug. S ep t. O ct. 313.8 269.2 269.8 314.2 266.6 268.3 314.7 267.3 270.3 314.1 268.5 271.2 314.2 267.8 271.1 313.4 269.7 270.7 313.4 267.7 269.2 314.3 266.8 268.0 315.4 263.8 267.1 r314.7 r262.4 r265.5 314.6 265.5 267.0 313.6 262.2 264.2 312.4 258.8 261.5 314.4 260.6 263.7 287.6 142.2 147.6 230.0 288.7 142.9 148.1 230.6 289.1 142.8 148.1 230.5 288.9 142.3 148.0 230.3 290.2 142.3 148.1 232.5 290.6 142.6 148.4 232.7 290.7 142.7 148.7 233.3 291.2 142.8 148.9 234.7 291.5 141.9 148.8 234.1 291.6 M41.5 r148.8 r234.8 291.7 141.6 149.2 234.4 291.6 142.2 149.5 237.9 290.1 142.2 149.4 237.9 292.3 141.9 149.1 238.5 289.7 243.1 318.5 363.7 290.0 249.7 307.6 366.5 290.0 251.9 307.4 365.9 289.4 250.0 309.6 365.8 290.6 253.4 311.5 365.2 291.1 256.0 308.8 365.2 291.3 258.4 308.5 364.8 292.0 260.1 305.4 365.0 292.1 261.9 315.1 365.2 r292.9 r260.6 r326.1 r364.4 293.1 266.4 320.7 364.4 293.2 265.9 312.4 364.1 293.0 266.5 303.0 363.9 292.0 267.4 301.6 364.0 366.3 366.4 366.4 r365.5 365.7 365.3 365.2 365.2 Industrial commodities less fuels ...................................... Selected textile mill products (12/75 = 100)........................ Hosiery ........................................................................ Underwear and nightwear ................................................ Chemicals and allied products, including synthetic rubber and fibers and yarns..................................................... Pharmaceutical preparations.............................................. Lumber and wood products, excluding millwork................... Steel mill products, including fabricated wire products ......... Finished steel mill products, excluding fabricated wire products ................................................................... Finished steel mill products, including fabricated wire products ................................................................... 365.5 368.1 367.5 367.4 366.8 366.7 363.0 365.7 365.2 365.1 364.5 364.5 364.1 364.3 364.5 r363.7 363.8 363.4 363.3 363.4 Special metals and metal products .................................... Fabricated metal products................................................ Copper and copper products.............................................. Machinery and motive products......................................... Machinery and equipment, except electrical ........................ Agricultural machinery, including tractors .......................... Metalworking machinery.................................................. Total tractors................................................................. Agricultural machinery and equipment less parts................... Farm and garden tractors less parts .................................. Agricultural machinery, excluding tractors less parts ............ Construction materials..................................................... 300.0 304.1 186.0 286.3 319.3 353.6 364.9 381.5 341.0 360.4 348.5 306.4 301.0 308.7 178.1 288.4 320.9 354.8 368.8 381.0 342.0 359.9 350.8 307.2 301.3 308.5 183.0 289.0 321.3 354.0 370.4 379.5 341.5 357.6 351.3 307.0 300.5 308.9 180.1 288.8 321.6 354.8 371.4 379.7 342.3 358.0 352.5 307.7 300.9 309.1 179.3 291.0 324.5 355.9 370.3 385.2 343.3 360.4 352.4 308.5 301.9 309.4 184.8 291.4 323.7 355.5 371.6 384.4 343.0 359.0 352.9 308.3 301.6 309.8 182.1 291.3 324.0 355.7 373.3 382.8 343.3 359.6 352.7 308.4 302.4 310.1 188.6 291.7 324.6 355.5 374.2 382.6 342.9 359.2 352.7 308.7 302.7 310.3 189.0 292.3 325.0 355.8 374.5 382.8 343.4 359.5 353.0 310.8 r301.9 310.4 r183.8 r292.7 r325.8 r355.9 r375.2 r383.0 r343.5 r359.9 r352.9 r312.5 301.8 310.6 182.6 293.1 326.2 356.3 376.4 383.4 343.8 360.4 353.3 312.0 301.9 311.0 184.0 293.3 326.4 355.5 376.3 382.6 343.1 359.2 352.8 311.0 296.4 310.7 184.1 288.9 327.0 354.1 376.9 380.3 341.9 355.8 353.0 309.6 303.9 310.9 183.5 296.1 326.9 353.9 375.6 381.2 341.8 357.2 351.4 309.6 1Data for June 1985 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r = revised, 83 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Producer Prices 26. Producer Price Indexes, by durability of product [1967 = 100] 1984 A nnual C o m m odtty grouping 1985 a ve rag e 1984 Oct. Nov. D ec. J an . Feb. M a r. Apr. M ay Juna1 July A ug. S ep t. Oct. Total durable goods ....................................................... Total nondurable goods .................................................. 293.6 323.3 294.4 320.9 294.9 322.1 294.8 321.3 295.8 320.1 296.4 319.0 296.3 317.7 297.1 318.4 297.6 318.9 r297.8 r317.5 297.7 317.3 297.7 314.1 295.3 313.4 298.8 314.6 Total manufactures.......................................................... Durable ................................................................. Nondurable ............................................................ 302.9 293.9 312.3 303.2 295.1 311.6 303.9 295.6 312.5 303.5 295.5 311.7 303.9 296.5 311.4 303.4 297.0 309.9 303.3 296.9 309.9 304.2 297.6 310.8 305.2 298.4 312.1 r304.8 r298.7 r311.0 304.6 298.6 310.7 303.7 298.5 308.9 302.3 296.1 308.7 304.6 299.7 309.4 Total raw or slightly processed goods ............................... Durable ................................................................. Nondurable ............................................................ 346.6 266.7 351.4 339.1 255.9 344.2 341.0 254.2 346.3 339.8 252.2 345.1 336.7 256.0 341.5 336.8 259.2 341.4 332.2 261.2 336.4 332.1 262.1 336.2 329.8 255.4 334.3 r327.3 r247.3 r332.1 327.4 247.6 332.2 320.6 249.9 324.8 318.5 249.7 322.5 320.9 248.8 325.2 1Data for June 1985 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. 27. r= revised, Producer Price Indexes for the output of selected SIC industries [1967 = 100 unless otherwise specified] 1972 SIC 1984 A nnual In dus try d e sc rip tio n code 1985 a ve rag e 1984 Oct. Nov. D ec. J an . Feb. M a r. Apr. May June1 July A ug. S ept. Oct. 264.3 913.7 271.6 916.2 276.6 906.2 267.9 901.6 264.1 880.3 262.1 878.0 262.1 865.7 260.0 870.4 243.7 887.6 256.6 r878.1 264.6 869.1 270.8 859.5 270 8 862.5 270.8 859.9 M IN IN G 1092 1311 Mercury ores (12/75 = 100)............................... Crude petroleum and natural gas.......................... 2394 2655 Canvas and related products (12/77 = 100)............ Fiber cans, drums, and similar products (12/75 = 100)................................................ Clay refractories ................................................ Structural clay products, n.e.c............................... Fine earthenware food utensils ............................. Pottery products, n.e.c. (12/75 = 100)................. Lime (12/75 = 100)........................................... Nonclay refractories (12/74 = 100) ...................... Electron tubes, receiving type............................... Dolls (12/75 = 100) ......................................... Carbon paper and inked ribbons (12/75 = 100) . . . . Hard surface floor coverings (12/75 = 100)............ M A N U FA C TU R IN G 3255 3259 3263 3269 3274 3297 3671 3942 3955 3996 151.1 152.1 152.1 152.1 152.1 152.1 152.1 151.8 151.8 r151.8 152.5 152.5 152.0 152.0 193.7 371.9 232.6 377.5 192.1 183.0 219.2 497.2 134.4 145.7 167.5 194.8 371.4 232.4 375.9 195.2 180.5 219.9 492.0 133.6 139.7 169.7 197.8 378.8 232.4 378.2 195.3 182.1 220.2 527.2 133.6 139.7 169.7 197.8 378.8 232.5 379.4 195.3 183.0 220.2 527.2 133.6 139.7 169.7 199.1 379.4 237.1 382.3 198.8 187.4 220.5 546.9 134.6 139.7 172.1 200.0 379.4 237.0 383.9 199.0 185.1 220.3 547.1 134.7 139.4 172.1 200.0 381.3 236.9 385.2 199.3 185.1 220.4 547.0 134.9 129.5 172.1 200.0 385.3 237.1 371.4 198.6 182.1 220.3 546.9 134.9 128.6 172.1 199.9 389.7 237.1 374.0 197.3 182.4 220.4 546.9 134.9 126.3 172.1 200.0 r389.7 r237.2 r381.0 r197.5 r185.4 220.6 r546.9 r134.9 r119.2 173.5 199.9 391.5 238.1 380.9 199.0 186.3 220.6 546.9 134.5 116.0 175.2 199.9 391.5 237.7 368.5 198.5 186.8 220.7 547.1 134.5 114.9 175.2 199.9 391.6 237.7 369.5 196.9 184.5 220.6 547.1 134.6 114.9 175.6 199.9 391.6 237.8 379.3 197.1 187.6 220.7 547.1 134.6 109.7 175.6 1Data for June 1985 have been revised to reflect the availability of late reports and corrections by respondents. All data are subject to revision 4 months after original publication. 84 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis r = revised, PRODUCTIVITY DATA P r o d u c t i v i t y d a t a are compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from establishment data and from measures of compensation and output supplied by the U .S. Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board. Definitions Output is the constant dollar gross product produced by the particular sector. Output per hour of all persons (labor productivity) measures the value o f goods and services in constant prices produced per hour of labor. Output per unit of capital services (capital productivity) measures the value o f goods and services in constant dollars per unit of capital services hour describes labor productivity in nonfinancial corporations where there are no self-employed. The capital services input index used in the mul tifactor productivity computation is developed by b l s from measures of the net stock of physical assets— equipment, structures, land, and inven tories— weighted by rental prices for each type of asset. Combined units of labor and capital input are computed by combining changes in labor and capital inputs with weights which represent each component’s share of total output. The indexes for capital services and combined units of labor and capital are based on changing weights which are averages o f the shares in the current and preceding year (the Tomquist index-number formula). input. Multifactor productivity measures the output per unit of combined labor and capital input. The traditional measure of output per hour reflects changes in capital per hour and a combination of other factors— such as, changes in technology, shifts in the composition o f the labor force, changes in capacity utilization, research and development, skill and efforts of the work force, management, and so forth. The multifactor productivity meas ure differs from the familiar b l s measure of output per hour of all persons in that it excludes the effects of the substitution of capital for labor. Compensation per hour includes wages and salaries o f employees plus employers’ contributions for social insurance and private benefit plans. The data also include an estimate of wages, salaries, and supplementary payments for the self-employed, except for nonfinancial corporations, in which there are no self-employed. Real compensation per hour is com pensation per hour adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Unit labor costs measure the labor compensation costs required to produce a unit o f output and is derived by dividing compensation by output. Unit nonlabor payments include profits, depreciation, interest, and in direct taxes per unit of output. They are computed by subtracting com pensation o f all persons from current dollar gross product and dividing by output. Unit nonlabor costs contain all the components of unit nonlabor payments except unit profits. Unit profits include corporate profits and the value o f inventory adjustments per unit of output. The implicit price deflator is the price index for the gross product of the sector reported. It is derived by dividing the current dollar gross product by the constant dollar figures. Hours of all persons measures the labor input of payroll workers, selfemployed persons, and unpaid family workers. Output per all employee https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Notes on the data In the business sector and the nonfarm business sector, the output meas ure employed in the computation of output per hour is constructed from Gross Domestic Product rather than Gross National Product. Multifactor productivity measures (table 28) for the private business and private non farm business sectors differ from the business and nonfarm business sector measures used in the traditional labor productivity indexes (tables 2 9 -3 2 ) in that they exclude the activities of government enterprises. There is no difference in the sector definition for manufacturing. Output measures for the business sectors are derived from data supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U .S. Department of Commerce, and the Federal Reserve Board. Quarterly manufacturing output indexes are adjusted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to annual estimates o f output (gross product originating) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Com pensation and hours data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The productivity and associated cost measures in the tables describe the relationship between output in real terms and the labor time and capital services involved in its production. They show the changes from period to period in the amount of goods and services produced per unit o f input. Although these measures relate output to hours and capital services, they do not measure the contributions of labor, capital, or any other specific factor of production. Rather, they reflect the joint effect of many influences, including changes in technology; capital investment; level o f output; uti lization of capacity, energy, and materials; the organization o f production; managerial skill; and the characteristics and efforts of the work force. For a more complete description of the methodology underlying the multifactor productivity measures, see Trends in Multifactor Productivity, 1948-81, Bulletin 2178 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983). 85 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 28. Productivity Annual indexes of multifactor productivity and related measures, selected years, 1950-84 [1977 = 100] Ite m 1950 1960 1970 1973 1975 1976 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 49.7 98.6 63.6 39.5 64.8 98.5 75.4 53.3 86.1 98.5 90.2 78.3 94.8 103.0 97.5 91.8 94.5 92.0 93.6 88.0 97.6 96.1 97.1 93.7 100.5 101.8 101.0 105.5 99.3 100.3 99.7 107.9 98.7 95.6 97.6 106.4 100.6 94.1 98.3 109.2 100.8 89.6 96.8 106.3 103.7 92.3 99.6 111.1 107.1 97.4 103.7 121.0 79.4 40.1 62.1 50.4 82.2 54.1 70.7 65.8 90.8 79.4 86.7 87.4 96.8 89.1 94.1 92.0 93.1 95.7 94.0 102.8 95.9 97.5 96.5 101.6 105.0 103.6 104.5 98.7 108.6 107.5 108.2 98.9 107.8 111.4 109.0 103.3 108.5 116.0 111.0 106.9 105.4 118.7 109.8 112.6 107.2 120.4 111.6 112.3 113.0 124.3 116.8 109.9 55.6 98.2 68.1 38.3 68.0 98.4 77.6 52.3 86.8 98.6 90.7 77.8 95.3 103.2 97.9 91.7 94.8 91.7 93.6 87.6 97.8 96.1 97.2 93.6 100.6 101.9 101.0 105.7 99.0 100.1 99.4 108.0 98.2 95.2 97.2 106.4 99.6 93.2 97.4 108.7 99.9 88.7 95.9 105.9 103.5 91.9 99.4 111.3 106.3 96.6 102.9 121.0 69.0 39.0 56.2 56.6 77.0 53.2 67.4 69.1 89.7 78.9 85.9 88.0 96.2 88.8 93.6 92.4 92.4 95.6 93.5 103.4 95.7 97.4 96.3 101.8 105.1 103.7 104.6 98.7 109.1 107.9 108.7 98.9 108.4 111.7 109.5 103.1 109.1 116.6 111.6 106.8 106.0 119.4 110.4 112.6 107.6 121.1 112.0 112.6 113.8 125.2 117.5 110.1 49.4 94.5 59.9 38.6 60.0 88.0 67.0 50.7 79.2 91.8 82.3 77.0 93.0 108.2 96.8 95.9 93.4 89.4 92.2 85.4 97.6 96.1 97.1 93.6 100.9 101.5 101.1 105.3 101.6 99.5 101.0 108.2 101.7 90.7 98.8 103.5 104.9 89.9 100.8 106.1 107.1 82.9 100.3 99.3 111.6 87.6 104.9 104.4 115.6 96.0 110.4 115.3 78.2 40.9 64.5 52.3 84.4 57.5 75.6 68.2 97.3 83.9 93.5 86.2 103.1 88.6 99.0 85.9 91.4 95.5 92.6 104.5 95.9 97.4 96.3 101.6 104.4 103.8 104.2 99.4 106.5 108.8 107.1 102.1 101.7 114.1 104.8 112.2 101.1 118.0 105.2 116.7 92.7 119.8 99.0 129.2 93.5 119.2 99.5 127.5 99.8 120.2 104.5 120.4 P R IVA TE B U S IN E SS SECTOR Productivity: Output per hour of all persons..................... Output per unit of capital services................. Multifactor productivity............................... Output.......................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons.................................... Capital services ......................................... Combined units of labor and capital input . . . . Capital per hour of all persons ........................ P R IVA TE N O N F A R M B U S IN E S S SECTOR Productivity: Output per hour of all persons...................... Output per unit of capital services ................. Multifactor productivity............................... Output.......................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons.................................... Capital services ......................................... Combined units of labor and capital input . . . . Capital per hour of all persons ........................ M A N U FA C TU R IN G Productivity: Output per hour of all persons..................... Output per unit of capital services................. Multifactor productivity............................... Output.......................................................... Inputs: Hours of all persons.................................... Capital services ......................................... Combined units of labor and capital input . . . . Capital per hour of all persons ........................ 29. Annual indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, selected years, 1950-84 [1977 = 100] Ite m Business sector: Output per hour of all persons...................... Compensation per hour............................... Real compensation per hour ........................ Unit labor costs......................................... Unit nonlabor payments............................. Implicit price deflator.................................. Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons..................... Compensation per hour........................ Real compensation per hour ........................ Unit labor costs.......................... Unit nonlabor payments............................... Implicit price deflator................................. Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all persons..................... Compensation per hour............................... Real compensation per hour ........................ Unit labor costs...................................... Unit nonlabor payments............................... Implicit price deflator.................................. Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons..................... Compensation per hour........................ Real compensation per hour ........................ Unit labor costs............................. Unit nonlabor payments............................... Implicit price deflator................................. 1Not available. 86 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1980 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 50.4 20.0 50.5 39.8 43.4 41.0 58.3 26.4 59.7 45.2 47.6 46.0 65.2 33.9 69.5 52.1 50.6 51.6 78.3 41.7 80.1 53.3 57.6 54.7 86.2 58.2 90.8 67.5 63.2 66.0 94.6 85.6 96.4 90.5 90.4 90.4 100.5 108.5 100.8 108.0 106.7 107.5 99.3 118.7 99.1 119.5 112.8 117.2 98.8 131.1 96.4 132.6 119.3 128.1 100.7 143.4 95.5 142.4 136.7 140.4 100.9 155.0 97.3 153.6 136.8 147.9 103.7 161.7 98.4 156.0 145.5 152.4 107.0 168.6 98.4 157.6 157.0 157.4 56.3 21.9 55.1 38.8 42.7 40.1 62.8 28.3 64.0 45.1 47.8 46.0 68.3 35.7 73.1 52.3 50.4 51.6 80.5 42.8 82.3 53.2 58.0 54.8 86.8 58.7 91.5 67.6 63.8 66.3 94.8 86.1 96.9 90.8 88.5 90.0 100.6 108.6 100.8 108.0 105.3 107.1 99.0 118.4 98.8 119.5 110.4 116.5 98.3 130.6 96.0 132.8 118.6 128.1 99.8 143.1 95.3 143.5 135.0 140.6 100.0 154.5 97.0 154.5 136.9 148.6 103.4 162.0 98.6 156.6 147.0 153.4 106.2 168.7 98.4 158.8 156.9 158.2 C) (1) (1) (1) (1) 82.0 43.9 84.3 53.5 60.8 56.1 87.4 59.4 92.7 68.0 63.1 66.3 95.5 86.1 97.0 90.2 90.8 90.4 100.8 108.4 100.7 107.5 104.2 106.4 100.6 118.6 99.0 117.8 106.9 114.1 99.7 130.8 96.2 131.2 117.4 126.4 101.6 143.1 95.3 140.9 135.1 138.9 102.6 154.6 97.0 150.6 138.1 146.3 106.1 161.0 97.9 151.8 149.1 150.9 108.5 166.6 97.2 153.6 158.8 155.4 74.6 42.8 82.3 57.5 69.4 61.0 79.2 57.6 89.8 72.7 65.1 70.5 93.4 85.5 96.2 91.5 87.3 90.3 100.9 108.3 100.6 107.3 102.7 106.0 101.6 118.8 99.2 117.0 99.9 112.0 101.7 132.7 97.6 130.5 97.9 120.9 104.9 145.2 96.8 138.4 111.6 130.6 107.1 158.0 99.2 147.6 110.5 136.7 111.6 163.4 99.4 146.4 128.8 141.2 115.6 169.4 98.8 146.5 140.3 144.7 <1) (1) (1) (1) <1) <1) 68.0 37.0 75.8 54.4 54.6 54.5 49.4 21.5 54.0 43.4 54.3 46.6 56.4 28.8 65.1 51.0 58.6 53.2 60.0 36.7 75.1 61.1 61.1 61.1 C) 30. Annual changes In productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, 1974-84 A n nua l rata of c hang e Ite m Business sector: Output per hour of all persons . Compensation per hour.......... Real compensation per hour . . Unit labor costs ................... Unit nonlabor payments......... Implicit price deflator ............ Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons . Compensation per hour.......... Real compensation per hour . . Unit labor costs ................... Unit nonlabor payments.......... Implicit price deflator ............ Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees Compensation per hour.......... Real compensation per hour . . Unit labor costs ................... Unit nonlabor payments.......... Implicit price deflator ............ Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons . Compensation per hour......... Real compensation per hour . . Unit labor costs ................... Unit nonlabor payments......... Implicit price deflator ............ 1978 1977 1978 1975 1974 1979 1980 1981 -2.4 9.4 -1.4 12.1 4.4 9.5 2.2 9.6 0.5 7.3 15.1 9.8 3.3 8.5 2.6 5.1 4.0 4.7 2.4 7.7 1.2 5.1 6.4 5.6 0.5 8.5 0.8 8.0 6.7 7.5 -1.2 9.4 -1.7 10.7 5.8 9.0 -0.5 10.4 -2.7 11.0 5.7 9.3 1.9 9.4 -0.9 7.3 14.6 9.6 0.2 8.1 1.9 7.9 0.1 5.3 2.7 4.3 1.1 1.6 6.3 3.0 3.2 4.2 0.0 1.0 7.9 3.2 2.2 6.5 2.0 4.1 3.9 4.0 1.5 8.0 0.3 6.4 7.2 6.7 -2.5 9.4 -1.4 12.2 5.9 10.2 2.0 9.6 0.4 7.5 16.7 10.3 3.2 8.1 2.2 4.7 5.7 5.1 2.2 7.5 1.0 5.2 6.9 5.7 0.6 8.6 0.8 8.0 5.3 7.1 -1.5 9.0 -2.0 10.7 4.8 8.8 -0.7 10.3 -2.8 11.1 7.4 10.0 1.5 9.6 -0.7 8.0 13.8 9.8 0.2 8.0 1.7 7.7 1.4 5.7 3.5 4.9 1.6 1.4 7.4 3.2 2.7 4.1 -0.1 1.4 6.7 3.1 1.9 6.2 1.7 4.2 3.9 4.1 1.3 8.0 0.2 6.5 7.5 6.8 -3.7 9.4 -1.5 13.6 7.1 11.4 2.9 9.6 0.4 6.5 20.1 10.9 2.9 7.9 2.0 4.9 4.6 4.8 1.8 7.6 1.1 5.7 5.3 5.6 0.8 8.4 0.7 7.5 4.2 6.4 -0.2 9.4 -1.7 9.6 2.6 7.2 -0.9 10.3 -2.8 11.3 9.8 10.8 1.9 9.4 -0.9 7.4 15.1 9.8 1.0 8.0 1.8 6.9 2.3 5.3 3.3 4.2 0.9 0.8 7.9 3.1 2.3 3.5 -0.8 1.1 6.5 3.0 -2.4 10.6 -0.3 13.3 -1.8 9.0 2.9 11.9 2.5 8.8 25.9 13.1 4.5 8.0 2.1 3.4 7.5 4.6 2.5 8.3 1.8 5.7 6.5 6.0 0.9 8.3 0.6 7.3 2.7 6.0 0.7 9.7 -1.4 9.0 -2.6 5.7 0.2 11.7 -1.6 11.5 -2.1 7.9 3.1 9.4 -0.9 6.1 14.1 8.0 2.1 8.8 2.5 6.6 -1.0 4.7 4.3 3.4 0.2 -0.8 16.5 3.3 3.5 3.6 -0.6 r0.1 8.9 2.5 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 1.5 8.3 0.2 6.7 7.8 7.1 2.5 6.3 1.8 3.6 2.8 3.4 2.5 8.3 0.5 5.7 r7.3 6.1 <;> r= revised. 1Not available. 31. 1 9 7 4 -8 4 1 9 5 0 -8 4 1984 1983 1982 Quarterly Indexes of productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted [1977 = 100] Q u a rterly in d exes a ve rag e Ite m Business sector: Output per hour of all persons . Compensation per hour .......... Real compensation per hour . . . Unit labor costs..................... Unit nonlabor payments ......... Implicit price deflator.............. Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons Compensation per hour .......... Real compensation per hour . . . Unit labor costs..................... Unit nonlabor payments ......... Implicit price deflator.............. Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees Compensation per hour .......... Real compensation per hour . . . Total unit costs..................... Unit labor costs.............. Unit nonlabor costs......... Unit profits .......................... Implicit price deflator............ Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons Compensation per hour . . . . Real compensation per hour . . Unit labor costs................... 1Not available. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 1 II 1 98 5 1 98 4 1 98 3 III IV 1 II III IV 1 II III 1983 1984 103.7 161.7 98.4 156.0 145.5 152.4 107.0 168.6 98.4 157.6 157.0 157.4 102.2 160.2 99.0 156.8 139.8 151.0 103.6 161.0 98.5 155.4 144.6 151.7 104.3 161.8 97.9 155.1 147.9 152.7 104.7 164.2 98.4 156.8 149.1 154.2 105.7 166.7 98.6 157.7 151.6 155.6 107.0 167.5 98.2 156.5 157.2 156.7 107.2 169.3 98.3 158.0 158.5 158.1 108.0 171.1 98.5 158.4 160.2 159.0 106.9 173.1 98.9 161.9 159.1 160.9 107.3 174.5 98.6 r162.6 r159.9 161.7 P108.1 P176.9 P99.4 P163.6 P161.2 P162.8 103.4 162.0 98.6 156.6 147.0 153.4 106.2 168.7 98.4 158.8 156.9 158.2 101.6 160.1 99.0 157.6 140.6 151.9 103.6 161.5 98.8 155.9 146.4 152.7 104.1 162.4 98.3 155.9 149.4 153.8 104.4 164.0 98.3 157.1 151.4 155.2 105.2 166.5 98.4 158.3 152.2 156.3 106.6 168.0 98.4 157.6 156.8 157.3 106.3 169.5 98.4 159.5 158.0 159.0 106.9 171.0 98.5 160.0 160.3 160.1 106.0 173.1 98.9 163.3 160.3 162.3 106.3 r174.6 98.7 r164.1 r161.8 163.4 P106.7 P176.2 P99.0 P165.2 P163.7 P164.7 106.1 161.0 97.9 155.2 151.8 164.9 117.2 150.9 108.5 166.6 97.2 156.4 153.6 164.3 147.6 155.4 104.0 159.2 98.4 156.7 153.1 167.0 92.5 149.4 105.8 160.6 98.2 155.2 151.7 165.1 111.8 150.2 107.2 161.8 97.9 154.4 150.9 164.4 126.6 151.2 107.2 162.6 97.4 154.7 151.7 163.3 135.9 152.6 108.1 164.8 97.5 155.0 152.5 162.0 143.2 153.6 108.9 165.8 97.2 155.0 152.3 162.8 151.1 154.6 108.2 167.1 97.1 157.5 154.5 165.9 145.3 156.1 108.8 168.7 97.1 158.0 155.0 166.4 150.7 157.1 108.1 170.3 97.3 160.2 157.5 168.1 150.4 159.1 108.1 171.6 97.0 161.6 158.8 169.8 M48.9 160.2 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 111.6 163.4 99.4 146.4 115.6 169.4 98.8 146.5 110.0 162.7 100.6 147.9 110.9 163.0 99.6 147.0 113.0 163.5 98.9 144.7 112.7 164.6 98.6 146.1 114.2 167.1 98.8 146.3 114.8 168.3 98.6 146.6 116.7 169.9 98.7 145.5 116.5 172.1 99.1 147.7 116.7 174.4 99.6 149.5 r118.6 176.5 99.7 r148.8 P119.3 P177.8 P99.9 P149.0 P = preliminary. r = revised. 87 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: Productivity 32 . Percent change from preceding quarter and year in productivity, hourly compensation, unit costs, and prices, seasonally adjusted at annual rate Q u a rterly p e rce n t ch an g e a t an n u a l rate Ite m Business sector: Output per hour of ail persons......... Compensation per hour................... Real compensation per hour............ Unit labor costs............................. Unit nonlabor payments ................. Implicit price deflator...................... Nonfarm business sector: Output per hour of all persons......... Compensation per hour................... Real compensation per hour............ Unit labor costs............................. Unit nonlabor payments ................. Implicit price deflator...................... Nonfinancial corporations: Output per hour of all employees . . . Compensation per hour................... Real compensation per hour............ Total units costs .......................... Unit labor costs ........................ Unit nonlabor costs ................... Unit profits ................................. Implicit price deflator...................... Manufacturing: Output per hour of all persons......... Compensation per hour................... Real compensation per hour............ Unit labor costs............................. 1Not available. 88 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 11984 111 98 4 1111984 IV 1 9 8 4 P erc en t c h an g e tra m ta m e q u a rte r a y e a r ago 11985 I1 1985 I1 1983 III 1 9 8 3 IV 1 9 8 3 11984 I1 1984 III 1 9 8 4 to to to to to to to to to to to to I1 1984 III 1 9 8 4 IV 1 9 8 4 11985 II 1 98 5 III 1 9 8 5 I1 1984 III 1 9 8 4 IV 1 9 8 4 11985 1 1 1 98 5 III 1 9 8 5 4.9 1.9 -1.8 -2.9 15.4 2.9 0.6 4.4 0.7 3.7 3.4 3.6 3.1 4.4 0.8 1.2 4.3 2.2 -3.9 4.8 1.4 9.1 -2.6 5.0 M.5 3.3 -0.9 r1.7 r2.1 r1.8 P3.0 P5.6 P3.1 P2.6 P3.2 P2.8 3.3 4.0 -0.3 0.7 8.7 3.3 2.7 4.6 0.4 1.9 7.1 3.6 3.2 4.2 0.1 1.0 7.4 3.1 1.1 3.8 0.3 2.7 4.9 3.4 0.3 4.2 0.5 3.9 1.8 3.2 PO.9 P4.5 P1.1 P3.6 P1.7 P2.9 5.5 3.7 0.0 -1.7 12.5 2.8 -1.1 3.6 0.1 4.7 3.1 4.2 2.2 3.7 0.1 1.4 5.9 2.9 -3.1 5.0 1.7 8.4 0.1 5.5 r1.2 r3.4 -0.8 r2.1 r3.7 r2.7 P1.2 P3.9 P1.4 P2.7 P4.9 P3.4 2.9 4.0 -0.3 1.1 7.1 3.0 2.1 4.4 0.2 2.3 5.7 3.4 2.4 4.3 0.2 1.9 5.9 3.2 0.8 4.0 0.4 3.1 5.3 3.8 r-0.2 3.9 0.2 r4.1 3.2 3.8 PO.4 P4.0 PO.6 P3.6 P3.6 P3.6 2.8 2.4 -1.3 0.2 -0.4 2.0 23.8 2.6 -2.5 3.2 -0.4 6.5 5.9 8.0 -14.5 3.9 2.5 3.7 0.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 16.0 2.7 -2.5 3.9 0.6 5.9 6.6 4.0 -1.0 5.1 -0.3 r3.0 -1.2 3.5 r3.3 r4.3 r3.9 r2.7 <1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 2.9 3.3 -1.0 -0.1 0.4 -1.4 35.2 2.9 0.9 3.3 -0.9 2.0 2.4 0.9 14.7 3.2 1.6 3.8 -0.3 2.1 2.2 1.9 10.9 3.0 0.0 3.3 r-0.2 3.4 3.3 3.8 5.0 3.6 -0.7 3.5 -0.2 r4.3 4.2 4.3 r-1.5 3.6 (1) (1) (1) (1) <1) (1) (1) (1) 2.2 2.9 -0.8 -0.7 6.8 3.7 0.1 -2.8 -0.6 5.2 1.6 5.9 0.4 5.6 2.2 5.1 r6.8 4.8 0.6 r-1.9 P2.4 P2.9 P0.5 P0.5 3.6 3.3 -1.0 -0.3 3.3 3.9 -0.3 0.6 3.4 4.5 0.4 1.0 2.1 4.4 0.8 2.2 r3.3 4.8 1.1 r1.5 r = revised. p = preliminary P2.2 P4.6 P1.2 P2.4 WAGE AND COMPENSATION DATA D a t a f o r t h e e m p l o y m e n t c o s t i n d e x are reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics by a sample of 2,000 private nonfarm estab lishments and 750 State and local government units selected to represent total employment in those sectors. On average, each reporting unit provides wage and compensation information on five well-specified occupations. Data on negotiated wage and benefit changes are obtained from contracts on file at the Bureau, direct contact with the parties, and secondary sources. Definitions The Employment Cost Index (eci) is a quarterly measure of the average change in the cost o f employing labor. The rate of total compensation, which comprises wages, salaries, and employer costs for employee ben efits, is collected for workers performing specified tasks. Employment in each occupation is held constant over time for all series produced in the eci , except those by region, bargaining status, and area. As a consequence, only changes in compensation are measured. Industry and occupational employment data from the 1970 Census of Population are used in deriving constant weights for the eci . While holding total industry and occupational employment fixed, in the estimation of indexes by region, bargaining status, and area, the employment in those measures is allowed to vary over time in accord with changes in the sample. The rate of change (in percent) is available for wages and salaries, as well as for total compensation. Data are collected for the pay period including the 12th day of the survey months o f March, June, September, and December. The statistics are neither an nualized nor adjusted for seasonal influence. Wages and salaries consist o f earnings before payroll deductions, ex cluding premium pay for overtime, work on weekends and holidays, and shift differentials. Production bonuses, incentive earnings, commissions, and cost-of-living adjustments are included; nonproduction bonuses are included with other supplemental pay items in the benefits category; and payments-in-kind, free room and board, and tips are excluded. Benefits include supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings plans, and hours-related and legally required benefits. Data on negotiated wage changes apply to private nonfarm industry collective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. Data on compensation changes apply only to those agreements covering 5,000 workers or more. First-year wage or compensation changes refer to average negotiated changes for workers covered by settlements reached in the period https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and implemented within the first 12 months after the effective date o f the agreement. Changes over the life of the agreement refer to all adjustments specified in the contract, expressed as an average annual rate. These meas ures exclude wage changes that may occur under cost-of-living adjustment clauses, that are triggered by movements in the Consumer Price Index. Wage-rate changes are expressed as a percent o f straight-time hourly earn ings; compensation changes are expressed as a percent o f total wages and benefits. Effective wage adjustments reflect all negotiated changes implemented in the reference period, regardless of the settlement date. They include changes from settlements reached during the period, changes deferred from contracts negotiated in an earlier period, and cost-of-living adjustments. The data also reflect contracts providing for no wage adjustment in the period. Effective adjustments and each of their components are prorated over all workers in bargaining units with at least 1,000 workers. Notes on the data The Employment Cost Index data series began in the fourth quarter of 1975, with the quarterly percent change in wages and salaries in the private nonfarm sector. Data on employer costs for employee benefits were in cluded in 1980, to produce a measure of the percent change in employers’ cost for em ployees’ total compensation. State and local government units were added to the eci coverage in 1981, providing a measure o f total compensation change in the civilian nonfarm economy. Data for the broad white-collar, blue-collar, and service worker groups, and the manufacturing, nonmanufacturing, and service industry groups are presented in the ec i . Additional occupation and industry detail are provided for the wages and salaries component of total compensation in the private nonfarm sector. For State and local government units, additional industry detail is shown for both total compensation and its wages and salaries component. Historical indexes (June 1981 = 100) of the quarterly rates o f changes presented in the eci are also available. For a more detailed discussion of the eci , see chapter 11, “ The Em ployment Cost Index,” of the bls Handbook of Methods (Bulletin 2134— 1), and the Monthly Labor Review articles: “ Employment Cost Index: a measure of change in the ‘price of labor,’ ” July 1975; “ How benefits will be incorporated into the Employment Cost Index,” January 1978; and “ The Employment Cost Index: recent trends and expansion,” May 1982. Additional data for the eci and other measures o f wage and compensation changes appear in Current Wage Developments, a monthly publication of the Bureau. 89 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 33. Wage and Compensation Data Employment Cost Index, by occupation and Industry group [June 1981 = 100] P erc en t chang e C iv ilia n w o rk e rs 1 ................................................................................................................... 1984 1983 S e rie s 1985 3 m onths 1 2 m o n th s en d ed en d ed S ept. D ec. M a rch June S ep t. D ec. M a rch June S ept. S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 5 116.5 117.8 119.8 120.8 122.4 123.9 125.5 126.4 128.4 1.6 4.9 Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers............................................................ Blue-collar workers ............................................................ Service workers ................................................................. Workers, by industry division Manufacturing ................................................................... Nonmanufacturing............................................................... Services........................................................................ Public administration2 ..................................................... 117.6 114.8 116.7 118.9 115.8 119.1 120.9 117.7 122.0 122.1 118.6 122.1 124.0 119.6 124.6 125.5 120.9 126.8 127.3 122.2 127.8 128.3 123.1 128.0 130.7 124.4 130.9 1.9 1.1 2.3 5.4 4.0 5.1 115.0 117.2 121.1 119.8 116.0 118.6 122.6 121.4 117.9 120.7 125.0 122.9 119.1 121.6 125.5 123.7 120.4 123.3 128.8 126.9 122.0 124.8 130.9 128.6 123.9 126.2 131.9 130.1 124.6 127.2 132.6 130.3 125.5 129.7 136.4 134.2 0.7 2.0 2.9 3.0 4.2 5.2 5.9 5.8 P riv a te In dus try w o r k e r s ............................................................................................... 115.6 117.0 119.0 120.1 121.1 122.7 124.2 125.2 126.8 1.3 4.7 Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ....................................................... Blue-collar workers.......................................................... Service workers.............................................................. Workers, by industry division Manufacturing................................................................. Nonmanufacturing............................................................ 116.5 114.6 115.1 117.9 115.7 117.9 119.9 117.5 121.5 121.4 118.4 121.2 122.4 119.3 123.2 123.9 120.6 125.7 125.8 121.9 126.3 127.1 122.8 126.5 128.8 124.0 128.8 1.3 1.0 1.8 5.2 3.9 4.5 115.0 116.0 116.0 117.5 117.9 119.6 119.1 120.7 120.4 121.6 122.0 123.1 123.9 124.4 124.6 125.6 125.5 127.6 .7 1.6 4.2 4.9 S ta te a nd lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t w o r k e r s ................................................................... 120.8 122.0 123.9 124.4 128.8 130.1 131.7 132.0 136.5 3.4 6.0 121.5 118.0 122.6 119.2 124.5 121.9 125.0 122.3 129.7 125.0 131.1 125.9 132.5 128.1 132.9 128.5 137.6 131.9 3.5 2.6 6.1 5.5 121.7 121.9 123.3 121.1 119.8 122.6 122.6 123.9 122.6 121.4 124.5 124.5 125.4 124.4 122.9 125.0 124.7 125.7 125.7 123.7 129.9 130.6 132.1 127.9 126.9 131.3 132.0 133.5 129.2 128.6 132.8 133.4 134.4 131.1 130.1 133.2 133.7 134.6 131.5 130.3 137.9 139.1 140.9 134.1 134.2 3.5 4.0 4.7 2.0 3.0 6.2 6.5 6.7 4.8 5.8 Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ....................................................... Blue-collar workers.......................................................... Workers, by industry division Services ........................................................................ Schools...................................................................... Elementary and secondary ......................................... Hospitals and other services3 ......................................... Public administration2 ..................................................... 1Excludes farm, household, and Federal workers. ^Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. 90 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ^Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. 34. Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries, by occupation and industry group [June 1981 = 100] P e rc e n t ch an g e 1984 1983 S erie s 1985 3 m onths 1 2 m onths en d ed ended S ept. D ec. M arch June S ep t. D e c. M a rch June S ep t. C iv ilia n w o rtte rs 1 ................................................................................................................... 115.3 116.5 117.9 118.8 120.3 121.7 123.1 124.2 126.3 1.7 5.0 Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers............................................................ Blue-collar workers ............................................................ Service workers ................................................................. 116.7 113.1 115.1 117.9 114.0 117.4 119.3 115.3 120.0 120.4 116.1 119.8 122.2 117.0 122.3 123.5 118.2 124.3 125.2 119.3 124.8 126.4 120.5 125.3 128.8 122.0 128.0 1.9 1.2 2.2 5.4 4.3 4.7 Workers, by industry division Manufacturing ................................................................... Nonmanufacturing.............................................................. Services ........................................................................ Public administration2 ..................................................... 113.3 116.1 120.1 118.2 114.5 117.4 121.3 119.4 115.7 118.9 123.3 120.4 116.8 119.7 123.8 121.3 118.0 121.3 127.2 124.4 119.5 122.6 128.9 125.7 121.0 123.9 129.7 127.0 122.3 125.0 130.5 127.2 123.2 127.6 134.2 131.4 0.7 2.1 2.8 3.3 4.4 5.2 5.5 5.6 P riv a te In dus try w o rk e rs 114.5 115.8 117.2 118.2 119.2 120.6 122.0 123.3 124.9 1.3 4.8 115.9 119.9 114.8 108.4 116.7 112.9 114.3 112.3 110.7 110.8 113.7 117.2 120.4 115.7 111.2 118.3 113.9 115.4 113.6 110.2 112.1 116.5 118.5 122.2 118.0 110.2 119.8 115.1 116.5 114.9 111.7 112.9 119.8 119.9 123.8 119.2 111.9 120.7 115.9 117.3 115.8 112.7 114.1 119.3 120.9 125.2 121.0 110.5 122.0 116.7 118.0 116.6 113.4 114.7 121.2 122.3 127.3 122.2 111.6 122.9 118.0 119.4 117.9 114.0 115.9 123.7 124.0 127.7 123.8 116.3 124.7 119.1 120.8 118.9 114.5 116.7 123.8 125.5 128.7 126.5 117.4 125.6 120.3 122.0 120.1 115.7 118.5 124.4 127.3 131.2 127.7 119.3 127.1 121.7 123.7 121.1 117.7 118.6 126.3 1.4 1.9 .9 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.4 .8 1.7 .1 1,5 5.3 4.8 5.5 8.0 4.2 4.3 4.8 3.9 3.8 3.4 4.2 113.3 112.9 113.9 115.2 112.2 115.7 111.5 115.7 109.9 113.5 120.4 114.5 114.4 114.6 116.5 112.9 116.8 112.3 116.5 110.6 116.9 121.9 115.7 115.7 115.8 118.0 113.3 118.5 114.3 118.2 112.8 116.1 124.2 116.8 116.6 117.1 119.0 114.0 119.3 116.0 120.0 114.4 116.9 124.7 118.0 117.7 118.6 119.9 114.3 119.9 116.5 120.7 114.9 115.3 127.1 119.5 119.1 120.2 121.2 114.4 120.7 118.1 122.9 116.2 115.8 129.5 121.0 120.6 121.6 122.6 115.5 121.7 118.8 123.7 116.9 122.0 129.9 122.3 122.0 122.6 123.9 116.6 122.8 121.1 126.8 118.9 121.7 131.0 123.2 122.7 124.0 125.9 117.3 124.8 122.7 127.7 120.8 124.1 133.9 .7 .6 1.1 1.6 .6 1.6 1.3 .7 1.6 2.0 2.2 4.4 4.2 4.6 5.0 2.6 4.1 5.3 5.8 5.1 7.6 5.4 119.2 120.0 121.6 122.0 126.1 127.1 128.4 128.7 133.2 3.5 5.6 119.8 116.4 120.6 116.9 122.2 119.1 122.5 119.6 127.1 121.9 128.0 122.5 129.3 124.2 129.6 124.5 134.3 127.9 3.6 2.7 5.7 4.9 119.8 119.9 121.1 119.7 118.2 120.6 120.6 121.7 120.6 119.4 122.2 122.2 122.9 121.9 120.4 Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ....................................................... Professional and technical workers.................................. Managers and administrators ......................................... Salesworkers.............................................................. Clerical workers............................................................ Blue-collar workers.......................................................... Craft and kindred workers.............................................. Operatives, except transport........................................... Transport equipment operatives...................................... Nonfarm laborers.......................................................... Service workers.............................................................. Workers, by Industry division Manufacturing................................................................. Durables...................................................................... Nondurables .............................................................. Nonmanufacturing............................................................ Construction .............................................................. Transportation and public utilities.................................... Wholesale and retail trade.............................................. Wholesale trade ....................................................... Retail trade.............................................................. Finance, insurance, and real estate.................................. Services...................................................................... S ta te a nd lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t w o r k e r s ................................................................... Workers, by occupational group White-collar workers ....................................................... Blue-collar workers.......................................................... Workers, by industry division Serv ces ........................................................................ Schools...................................................................... Elementary and secondary ......................................... Hospitals and other services3 ......................................... Public administration2 ..................................................... 1Excludes farm, household, and Federal workers. S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 5 122.5 127.2 128.1 129.4 129.7 134.5 3.7 5.7 1 2 2 .3 1 2 7 .8 1 2 8 .7 1 2 9 .9 1 3 0 .2 1 3 5 .8 4 .3 6 .3 123.0 123.1 121.3 129.3 125.1 124.4 130.2 125.9 125.7 130.8 127.7 127.0 131.1 128.0 127.2 137.5 130.2 131.4 4.9 1.7 3.3 6.3 4.1 5.6 ^Includes, for example, library, social, and health services. ^Consists of legislative, judicial, administrative, and regulatory activities. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 91 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Current Labor Statistics: 35. Wage and Compensation Data Employment Cost Index, private Industry workers, by bargaining status, region, and area size [June 1981 = 100] P e rc e n t ch an g e 1 98 3 S e rie s 1984 1985 3 m onths 1 2 m o n th s en d ed ended S ep t. D e c. M arch June S ep t. D e c. M a rch June S ept. S e p te m b e r 1 9 8 5 Workers, by bargaining status1 Union .................................................................................. Manufacturing ................................................................... Nonmanufacturing.............................................................. 117.8 116.3 119.2 118.8 117.2 120.4 120.6 119.3 121.9 121.7 120.5 122.8 122.6 121.6 123.6 123.9 123.2 124.5 124.8 124.2 125.3 125.5 124.2 126.6 126.5 125.0 127.8 0.8 .6 .9 3.2 2.8 3.4 Nonunion ............................................................................. Manufacturing ................................................................... Nonmanufacturing.............................................................. 114.4 113.8 114.7 115.9 114.9 116.4 118.0 116.6 118.6 119.2 117.9 119.8 120.3 119.3 120.7 121.9 120.8 122.4 123.8 123.6 123.9 125.0 124.8 125.1 126.8 125.7 127.3 1.4 .7 1.8 5.4 5.4 5.5 Workers, by region1 Northeast ............................................................................. South .................................................................................. North Central ........................................................................ West.................................................................................... 116.0 115.6 113.9 118.0 117.5 117.1 114.7 120.0 118.9 119.7 117.2 121.0 120.7 120.7 117.9 122.2 122.4 120.7 119.7 122.5 123.8 122.2 120.8 124.9 125.1 124.2 122.0 126.8 126.4 125.2 122.7 127.9 128.8 126.5 124.2 129.1 1.9 1.0 1.2 .9 5.2 4.8 3.8 5.4 Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan areas ................................................................. Other areas .......................................................................... 116.0 113.4 117.4 114.5 119.4 116.7 120.6 117.4 121.5 119.0 123.2 119.8 124.7 121.4 125.7 122.5 123.7 123.9 1.3 1.1 4.8 4.1 Workers, by bargaining status1 Union .................................................................................. Manufacturing ................................................................... Nonmanufacturing.............................................................. 116.0 113.7 118.3 116.9 114.8 118.9 118.1 116.1 120.1 119.0 117.1 120.7 119.8 118.1 121.3 120.9 119.5 122.1 121.7 120.4 122.8 123.0 121.7 124.1 124.1 122.8 125.3 .9 .9 1.0 3.6 4.0 3.3 Nonunion ............................................................................. Manufacturing ................................................................... Nonmanufacturing.............................................................. 113.7 113.0 114.0 115.2 114.2 115.6 116.7 115.4 117.2 117.8 116.5 118.3 118.8 117.9 119.2 120.4 119.5 120.7 122.1 121.5 122.3 123.4 122.8 123.6 125.2 123.7 125.9 1.5 .7 1.9 5.4 4.9 5.6 Workers, by region1 Northeast ............................................................................. South .................................................................................. Midwest (formerly North Central) .............................................. West.................................................................................... 115.3 114.3 112.8 116.5 116.6 115.7 113.6 118.5 117.4 117.9 115.5 118.8 118.9 119.0 116.0 119.6 120.5 119.0 117.8 120.0 121.9 120.2 118.7 122.5 123.0 122.3 119.6 124.0 124.6 123.4 121.1 125.1 126.8 124.8 122.5 126.6 1.8 1.1 1.2 1.2 5.2 4.9 4.0 5.5 Workers, by area size1 Metropolitan areas ................................................................. Other areas .......................................................................... 114.9 112.3 116.2 113.4 117.6 115.1 118.6 116.0 119.5 117.5 121.0 118.3 122.4 119.6 123.8 120.6 125.5 121.9 1.4 1.1 5.0 3.7 C O M P E N S A TIO N W A G ES A N D S A LARIES 1The indexes are calculated differently from those for the occupation and industry groups. For a detailed description of the index calculation, see BLS Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 1910. 92 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 36. Wage and compensation change, major collective bargaining settlements, 1980 to date [In percent] Q u a rterly a ve rag e 1984 1983 M e a s u re 1980 1984 1 98 3 1982 1981 19859 III IV 1 II III IV 1 II III Total compensation changes, covering 5,000 workers or more, all industries: First year of contract ................. Annual rate over life of contract. . . 10.4 7.1 10.2 8.3 3.2 2.8 3.4 3.0 3.6 2.8 5.0 4.3 4.9 3.1 5.1 4.7 3.5 3.2 2.7 3.1 3.7 2.0 4.4 4.0 3.5 3.5 1.7 2.9 Wage rate changes covering at least 1,000 workers, all industries: First year of contract ................. Annual rate over life of contract. . . 9.5 7.1 9.8 7.9 3.8 3.6 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.4 3.7 3.6 4.2 2.8 2.8 3.3 2.6 2.7 2.1 2.6 2.3 1.5 3.4 3.2 2.5 2.9 1.7 2.9 Manufacturing: First year of contract ................. Annual rate over life of contract. . . 7.4 5.4 7.2 6.1 2.8 2.6 0.4 2.1 2.3 1.5 3.4 3.5 2.9 3.1 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.0 0.7 1.5 1.4 2.4 0.5 2.3 Nonmanufacturing (excluding construction): First year of contract ................. Annual rate over life of contract. . . 9.5 6.6 9.8 7.3 4.3 4.1 5.0 3.7 3.4 3.8 5.8 4.3 4.8 2.7 4.2 4.8 4.3 4.2 2.0 2.8 3.9 3.8 3.7 4.4 2.9 3.4 1.7 4.2 Construction: First year of contract ................. Annual rate over life of contract. . . 13.6 11.5 13.5 11.3 6.5 6.3 1.5 2.4 .5 1.0 1.5 2.9 1.1 2.6 -3.6 -2.8 1.1 1.4 2.0 2.1 -2.8 -.8 -1.0 .6 1.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 p = preliminary. 37. Effective wage adjustments in collective bargaining units covering 1,000 workers or more, 1980 to date Y e a r a nd q u a rte r Y ear 1984 1983 M e a s u re 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 IV III I II 1985P III IV I II III Average percent adjustment (including no change): All industries.......................................................... Manufacturing .................................................. Nonmanufacturing .............................................. 9.9 10.2 9.7 9.5 9.4 9.5 6.8 5.2 7.9 4.0 2.7 4.8 3.7 4.3 3.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 .9 1.2 0.9 1.2 .7 0.9 1.0 .9 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.7 1.1 .4 0.7 .9 .7 0.8 .6 1.0 1.2 .7 1.5 From settlements reached in period.......................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period . . . . From cost-of-living clauses...................................... 3.6 3.5 2.8 2.5 3.8 3.2 1.7 3.6 1.4 .8 2.5 .6 .8 2.0 .9 .2 .8 .2 .6 .3 .2 .1 .4 .3 .1 .7 .2 .2 .7 .3 .3 .2 .2 .1 .6 .1 .2 .5 .1 .2 .6 .4 Total number of workers receiving wage change (in thousands)1 .................................................. — 8,648 7,852 6,530 6,195 3,025 2,887 2,694 2,482 2,386 1,850 2,017 2,325 2,769 — — 2,270 6,267 4,593 1,907 4,846 3,830 2,327 3,260 2,327 1,851 3,668 2,518 599 1,317 1,218 996 669 1,290 295 984 1,459 355 1,148 1,151 406 1,581 1,215 911 443 1,070 177 967 990 517 860 987 388 1,482 1,689 — 145 483 1,187 1,123 4,693 4,830 4,624 4,835 4,932 5,467 4,962 4,654 4,210 From settlements reached in period .......................... Deferred from settlements reached in earlier period . . . From cost-of-living clauses...................................... Number of workers receiving no adjustments (in thousands) .................................................. _ 1The total number of workers who received adjustments does not equal the sumof workers that received each type of adjustment, because some workers received more than one type of adjustment during the period. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis P = preliminary. 93 WORK STOPPAGE DATA o r k s t o p p a g e s include all known strikes or lockouts involving 1,000 workers or more and lasting a full shift or longer. Data are based largely on newspaper accounts and cover all workers idle one shift or more in establishments directly involved in a stoppage. They do not measure the indirect or secondary effect on other establishments whose employees are idle owing to material or service shortages. W 38. Estimates o f days idle as a percent o f estimated working time measure only the impact of larger strikes (1,000 workers or more). Formerly, these estimates measured the impact of strikes involving 6 workers or more; that is, the impact of virtually a ll strikes. Due to budget stringencies, collection of data on strikes involving fewer than 1,000 workers was discontinued with the December 1981 data. Work stoppages involving 1,000 workers or more, 1947 to date N u m b e r of sto p p ag es M on th a nd y e a r 1947 1948 1949 1950 W o rk e rs In vo lved B eg in n in g In In effect m onth o r y e a r d uring m onth B e g in n in g in D ays Id le In a le c t m onth o r y e a r durin g m onth (In th o u sa n d s ) (In tho u san d s) Num ber (in th o u sa n d s ) P e rc e n t of e s tim a te d w o rk in g Urne ............................................................................... ............................................................................... ............................................................................... .......................................................................... 270 245 262 424 1,629 1,435 2 537 1 698 25 720 26 127 43 420 30 390 22 38 26 1951............................................................................... 1952 ............................................................................... 1953 ............................................................................... 1954 ............................................................................... 1955 ............................................................................... 1956 ............................................................................... 1957 ............................................................................... 1958 ............................................................................... 1959 ............................................................................... 1960 ............................................................................... 415 470 437 265 363 287 279 332 245 222 1,462 2,746 1,623 1,075 2,055 1,370 887 1,587 1,381 896 15 070 48 820 18 130 16 630 21 180 26 840 10 340 17 900 60 850 13 260 12 38 14 13 16 20 07 13 43 09 1961............................................................................... 1962 ............................................................................... 1963 ............................................................................... 1964 ............................................................................... 1965 ............................................................................... 1966 ............................................................................... 1967 ............................................................................... 1968 ............................................................................... 1969 ............................................................................... 1970 ............................................................................... 195 211 181 246 268 321 381 392 412 381 1,031 793 512 1,183 999 1,300 2,192 1 855 1,576 2,468 10 140 11 760 10 020 16 220 15 140 16 000 31 320 35 567 29 397 52 761 07 08 07 11 10 10 18 20 16 29 1971............................................................................... 1972 ............................................................................... 1973 ............................................................................... 1974 ............................................................................... 1975 ............................................................................... 1976 ............................................................................... 1977 ............................................................................... 1978 ............................................................................... 1979 ............................................................................... 1980 ............................................................................... 298 250 317 424 235 231 298 219 235 187 2,516 975 1 400 1 796 965 1 519 1 212 1 006 1,021 795 35 538 16 764 16 260 31 809 17 563 23 962 21 258 23 774 20 409 20 844 19 09 08 16 09 12 10 11 09 09 1981............................................................................... 1982 ............................................................................... 1983 ............................................................................... 1984 ............................................................................... 145 96 81 62 729 656 909 376 16 908 9 061 17 461 8 499 07 04 08 04 1984 January ............................................................. February ............................................................. March................................................................ April.................................................................. May .................................................................. June.................................................................. July .................................................................. August................................................................ September........................................................... October ............................................................. November........................................................... December........................................................... 6 3 2 7 5 5 8 5 10 4 4 3 12 13 10 13 15 14 20 19 18 16 15 13 28.0 9.4 3.0 28.5 8.1 23.7 70.8 24.2 107.9 18.0 12.0 42.5 42.9 42.4 16.5 38.4 39.2 45.9 106.4 103.9 122.9 39.6 32.3 59.0 505.3 379.5 296.3 657.3 587.6 761.1 1,228.0 1,634.5 731.0 562.1 500.1 655.8 .03 .02 .01 .03 .03 .04 .06 .07 .04 .03 .03 .04 1985P January ............................................................. February ............................................................. March................................................................ April.................................................................. May..................................................................... June.................................................................. July..................................................................... August................................................................ September........................................................... October................................................................ 2 4 4 3 2 2 9 6 11 4 9 13 12 8 8 8 13 18 20 18 4.7 29.3 15.2 6.2 6.9 15.7 52.3 15.3 69.5 74.6 16.0 43.9 48.2 14.1 14.8 28.5 60.2 66.8 93.9 117.3 278.3 259.3 698.5 229.5 203.3 454.3 500.2 869.7 r931.4 1,433.0 .01 .01 .03 .01 .01 .02 .02 .03 .04 .06 p = preliminary. r= revised. 94 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Index o f Volume 108 January 1985 through December 1985 95 INDEX OF VOLUME 108 JANUARY 1985 THROUGH DECEMBER 1985 ACCIDENTS (See Work injuries.) AGRICULTURE How U.S. exports are faring in the world wheat market. 1985 Oct. 1024. APPRENTICESHIP (See Education and training.) Future of wage indexation in collective bargaining contracts, The. 1985 May. 29-32. Major agreements in 1984 provide record low wage increases. 1985 Apr. 39-45. Modest labor-management bargains continue in 1984 despite the recovery. 1985 Jan. 3-12. State employee bargaining: policy and organization. 1985 Apr. 51-55. ARMED FORCES Factors in the productivity of military personnel. 1985 May. 33-35. COMPARABLE WORTH Modeling Army enlistment supply for the All-Volunteer Force. 1985 Aug. 35-39. Comparable worth: how do we know it will work? 1985 Dec. 5-12. AUSTRALIA Com parable worth in the job m arket: estim ating its effect. 1985 July 39-41. Comparable worth: organizational dilemmas. 1985 Dec. 13-16. Comparable worth in the job market: estimating its effect. 1985 July. 3941. Comparable worth: some questions still unanswered. 1985 Dec. 17-18. Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. Perspectives on comparable worth: an introduction to the numbers. 1985 Dec. 3 -4 AUTOMATION (See Technological change.) CONFERENCES AND CONVENTIONS AUTO WORKERS (uaw) Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research As sociation, December 1984, Papers from. 1985 May. 27-35; June. 3339; and July. 30-45. Innovative approach to plant closings: the UAW-Ford experience at San Jose. 1985 June. 34-37. CONSUMER EXPENDITURES BARGAINING (See Collective bargaining.) Consumer expenditures. 1985 Jan. 2. BENEFITS (See Supplemental benefits.) Trip expenditure comparisons from 1972-73 to 1980-81. 1985 July. 46-48. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS One hundred years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1985 July. 3-6. CANADA Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. Should works councils be used as industrial relations policy? 1985 July. 25-29. Status of women in Canada’s labor force, The. 1985 Aug. 44-45. CHILD CARE Child-care assistance as a benefit of employment. 1985 May. 41. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX Effect of rental equivalence on the Consumer Price Index, 1967-82, The. 1985 Feb. 53-55. Inflation remained low during 1984. 1985 Apr. 3-9. Revision of Consumer Price Index is now under way. 1985 Apr. 27-38. COST OF LIVING Cost-of-living escalators became prevalent in the 1950’s. 1985 May. 32-33. Future of wage indexation in collective bargaining contracts, The. 1985 May. 29-32. CIVIL SERVANTS (See Public employees.) CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Airline union concessions in the wake of deregulation. 1985 June. 37-39. New household survey and the Sept. 3-12. Bargaining activity light in private industry in 1985. 1985 Jan. 13-26. Revisions in Hispanic population and labor force data. 1985 Mar. 43-44. expands collective bargaining series for State and local government. 1985 May. 36-38. bls 96 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Using the 49. cps cps: a look at labor force differences. 1985 to track retirement trends among older men. 1985 Feb. 4 6- DISCHARGES Employee discharge in the 20th century: a review of the literature. 1985 Sept. 35-41. DISPLACED WORKERS Displaced workers of 1979-83: how well have they fared? 1985 June. 3-16. Four nations’ policies toward displaced steel workers. 1985 July. 35-39. Innovative approach to plant closings: the UAW-Ford experience at San Jose. 1985 June. 34-37. New Federal-State program to train dislocated workers, The. 1985 July. 32-35. EARNINGS AND WAGES General Comparable worth: how do we know it will work? 1985 Dec. 5-12. Comparable worth in the job market: estimating its effect. 1985 July. 39-41. Comparable worth: organizational dilemmas. 1985 Dec. 13-16. Comparable worth: some questions still unanswered. 1985 Dec. 17-18. Earnings of 1975 Vietnam refugees surpass U.S. average in 4 years. 1985 Aug. 45. Employment problems and their effect on family income, 1979-83. 1985 Aug. 42-43. Future of wage indexation in collective bargaining contracts. 1985 May. 29-32. Gaps in monitoring wages and industrial relations. 1985 June. 33-34. ilo labor yearbook: some international comparisons. 1985 Feb. 51-52. Major agreements in 1984 provide record low wage increases. 1985 Apr. 39-45. Occupational salary levels for white-collar workers, 1985. 1985 Oct. 44-46. Perspectives on comparable worth: an introduction to the numbers. 1985 Dec. 3-4. Employment rose in the first half of 1985 as the recovery entered its third year. 1985 Aug. 3-8. EDUCATION AND TRAINING New Federal-State program to train dislocated workers, The. 1985 July. 32-35. New monthly data series on school age youth. 1985 July. 49-50. EMPLOYMENT (See also Labor force.) A second look at industry output and employment trends through 1995. 1985 Nov. 26-41. Author replies: we still need to demonstrate program effectiveness, The. 1985 Apr. 49-50. Changes in regional unemployment over the last decade. 1985 Mar. 17-23. Changing employment patterns of organized workers. 1985 Feb. 25-31. Cyclical behavior of high tech industries. 1985 May. 9-15. Employment and unemployment in 1984: a second year of strong growth in jobs. 1985 Feb. 3-15. Employment in recession and recovery: a demographic flow analysis. 1985 Mar. 35-42. Employment rose in the first half of 1985 as the recovery entered its third year. 1985 Aug. 3-8. Establishment survey incorporates March 1984 employment benchmarks. 1985 Aug. 39-41. Implementing the Levitan Commission’s recommendations to improve la bor data. 1985 Feb. 16-24. Labor force: bls ’ latest projections, The 1995. 1985 Nov. 17-25. Mexican peso devaluation and border area employment, The 1982. 1985 Oct. 25-32. New employment benchmark. 1985 June. 2. New monthly data series on school age youth. 1985 July. 49-50. Occupational employment projections: the 1984-95 outlook. 1985 Nov. 4 2 - 57. Proportion of higher income families declines during the 1969-82 period. 1985 Apr. 55-56. One-fourth of the adult labor force are college graduates. 1985 Feb. 4 3 - 46. Shift work pay differentials and practices in manufacturing. 1985 Dec. 26-33. Programs to aid ex-offenders: we don’t know ‘nothing works.’ 1985 Apr. 46-48. Shrinking middle class: myth or reality, The? 1985 Mar. 3-10. Women and minorities: their proportions grow in the professional work force. 1985 Feb. 49-50. Wage differences among workers in the same job and establishment. 1985 Mar. 11-16. Weekly earnings in 1983: a look at more than 200 occupations. 1985 Jan. 54-59. Work interruptions and the female-male earnings gap. 1985 Feb. 50-51. Specified industries and occupations Earnings of employees of certificated air carriers. 1985 Nov. 60-61. EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX Gaps in monitoring wages and industrial relations. 1985 June. 33-34. Introducing new weights for the Employment Cost Index. 1985 June. 22-27. EXPORTS (See Foreign trade.) FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE Occupational earnings and benefits in making nonelectrical machinery. 1985 June. 46-47. The Pay levels in meat products reflect trimmed rates. 1985 Aug. 43-44. FOREIGN TRADE Tips: the mainstay of many hotel workers’ pay. 1985 July. 50-51. How U.S. exports are faring in the world wheat market. 1985 Oct. 10-24. Wages at motor vehicle plants outpaced those at parts factories. 1985 May. 38-40. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH fmcs contribution to nonlabor dispute resolution. 1985 Aug. 31-34. Mexican peso devaluation and border area employment, The 1982. 1985 Oct. 25-32. Prices of U.S. imports and exports declined in 1984. 1985 Apr. 10-26. Changing utilization of fixed capital: an element in long-term growth. 1985 May. 3-8. FRANCE Cyclical behavior of high tech industries. 1985 May. 9-15. Four nations’ policies toward displaced steel workers. 1985 July. 35-39. Economic outlook to 1995: new assumptions and projections, The. 1985 Nov. 3-16. Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 97 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Index to Volume 108 FRINGE BENEFITS (See Supplemental benefits.) GERMANY Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. Four nations’ policies toward displaced steel workers. 1985 July. 35-39. Technological changes in printing: union response in three countries. 1985 July. 41-43. Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION Technological changes in printing: union response in three countries. 1985 July. 41-43. adopts new standards on health services, labor data, 1985 Dec. 4 345. ilo examines impact of technology on worker safety and health. 1985 Aug. 46-47. ilo GREAT BRITAIN Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. ilo labor yearbook: some international comparisions. 1985 Feb. 51-52. ITALY HEALTH AND INSURANCE PLANS Age-related reductions in workers’ life insurance. 1985 Sept. 29-34. Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. Employee income protection against short-term disabilities. 1985 Feb. 32-38. JAPAN HEALTH AND SAFETY Impact of microelectronics on employment: Japan’s experience, The. 1985 Sept. 45-48. A report on the status of the health care labor force. 1985 May. 41-42. adopts new standards on health services, labor data. 1985 Dec. 4 3 45. ilo examines impact of technology on worker safety and health. 1985 Aug. 46-47. ilo Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. JOB SATISFACTION Job satisfaction high in America, says Conference Board study. 1985 Feb. 52. HOURS OF WORK Changing utilization of fixed capital: an element in long-term growth. 1985 May. 3-8. Hours of work increase relative to hours paid. 1985 June. 44-46. Shift work pay differentials and practices in manufacturing. 1985 Dec. 26-33. IMPORTS (See Foreign trade.) IMMIGRATION Foreign bom in the U.S. labor market: the results of a special survey. 1985 July. 18-24. LABOR FORCE A report on the status of the health care labor force. 1985 May. 41-42. Author replies: we still need to demonstrate program effectiveness, The. 1985 Apr. 49-50. Displaced workers of 1979-83: how well have they fared? 1985 June. 3-16. Employment and unemployment in 1984: a second year of strong growth in jobs. 1985 Feb. 3-15. Employment in recession and recovery: a demographic flow analysis. 1985 Mar. 35-42. Immigration statistics. 1985 Sept. 2. Employment rose in the first half of 1985 as the recovery entered its third year. 1985 Aug. 3-8. INCOME (See Earnings and wages.) Foreign bom in the U.S. labor market: the results of a special survey. 1985 July. 18-24. INDEXES Labor force: Commodity price volatility: trends during 1975-84. 1985 June. 17-21. Measuring labor force flows: a special conference examines the problems. 1985 July. 7-17. Introducing new weights for the Employment Cost Index. 1985 June. 22-27. Measuring substitution bias in price indexes. 1985 Jan. 60. bls’ latest projections, The 1995. 1985 Nov. 17-25. Needed: an interdisciplinary approach to labor markets and wage deter mination. 1985 July. 30-32. New data series on involuntary part-time work. 1985 Mar. 42-43. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (See Labor-management relations.) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION New monthly data series on school age youth. 1985 July. 49-50. One-fourth of the adult labor force are college graduates. 1985 Feb. 43-46. Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research As sociation. Papers from. 1985 May. 27-35; June. 33-39; and July. 30-45. Programs to aid ex-offenders: we don’t know ‘nothing works.’ 1985 Apr. 46-48. INFLATION (See also Prices.) Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. Inflation remained low during 1984. 1985 Apr. 3-9. Revised worklife tables reflect 1979-80 experience. 1985 Aug. 23-30. Input prices and cost inflation in three manufacturing industries. 1985 May. 16-21. Revisions in Hispanic population and labor force data. 1985 Mar. 43-44. Shrinking middle class: myth or reality, The? 1985 Mar. 3-10. INJURIES (See Work injuries.) Status of women in Canada’s labor force, The. 1985 Aug. 44-45. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS Using the 46-49. Four nations’ policies toward displaced steel workers. 1985 July. 35-39. ilo 98 labor yearbook: some international comparisons. 1985 Feb. 51-52. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis cps to track retirement trends among older men. 1985 Feb. Women and minorities: their proportions grow in the professional work force. 1985 Feb. 49-50. Work interruptions and the female-male earnings gap. 1985 Feb. 50-51. Revisions in Hispanic population and labor force data. 1985 Mar. 43-44. LABOR HISTORY Women and minorities: their proportions grow in the professional work f orce. 1985 Feb. 49-50. One hundred years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1985 July. 3-6 . Unemployment insurance system marks its 50th anniversary. 1985 Sept. 21-28. NETHERLANDS, THE Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. LABOR LAW Changes in unemployment insurance legislation during 1984. 1985 Jan. 43-48. NORWAY State labor legislation enacted in 1984. 1985 Jan. 27-42. OCCUPATIONS Unemployment insurance system marks its 50th anniversary. 1985 Sept. 21-28. Occupational employment projections: the 1984-95 outlook. 1985 Nov. 42-57. LABOR MANAGEMENT-RELATIONS Occupational salary levels for white-collar workers, 1985. 1985 Oct. 44-46. Airline union concessions in the wake of deregulation. 1985 June. 37-39. Flexible and partial retirement in Norway and Sweden. 1985 Oct. 33-43. Gaps in monitoring wages and industrial relations. 1985 June. 33-34. Shrinking middle class: myth or reality, The? 1985 Mar. 3-10. Modest labor-management bargains continue in 1984 despite the recovery. 1985 Jan. 3-12. Wage differences among workers in the same job and establishment. 1985 Mar. 11-16. Should works councils be used as industrial relations policy? 1985 July. 25-29. OLDER WORKERS LABOR MARKET Foreign bom in the U.S. labor market: the results of a special survey. 1985 July. 18-24. Report on the elderly. 1985 Mar. 2. PART-TIME WORK Employment problems and their effect on family income, 1979-83. 1985 Aug. 42-43. Job outlook. 1985 July. 2. New data series on involuntary part-time work. 1985 Mar. 42-43. Needed: an interdisciplinary approach to labor markets and wage deter mination. 1985 July. 30-32. PENSIONS (See Supplemental benefits.) Programs to aid ex-offenders: we don’t know nothing works.’ 1985 Apr. 46-48. The author replies: we still need to demonstrate program effectiveness. 1985 Apr. 49-50. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS Airline union concessions in the wake of deregulation. 1985 June. 37-39. PLANT SHUTDOWN Innovative approach to plant closings: the UAW-Ford experience at San Jose. 1985 June. 34-37. POVERTY Employment problems and their effect or family income, 1979-83. 1985 Aug. 42-43. Area wage surveys shed light on declines in unionization. 1985 Sept. 1320. PRICES Changing employment patterns of organized workers. 1985 Feb. 25-31. Commodity price volatility: trends during 1975-84. 198 5 June. 17-21. Should works councils be used as industrial relations policy? 1985 July 25-29. How U.S. exports are faring in the world wheat market. 1985 Oct. 10-24. State employee bargaining: policy and organization. 1985 Apr. 51-55. Inflation remained low during 1984. 1985 Apr. 3-9. Union productivity effects. 1985 Jan. 60. Input prices and cost inflation in three manufacturing industries. 1985 May. 16-21. LABOR RELATIONS U.S. industrial relations in transition. 1985 May. 28-29. MANUFACTURING Productivity growth below average in the internal combustion engine in dustry. 1985 May. 22-26. Productivity trends in kitchen cabinet manufacturing. 1985 Mar. 24-30. Productivity trends in the machine tool accessories industry. 1985 June. 28-32. Measuring substitution bias in price indexes. 1985 Jan. 60. Prices of U.S. imports and exports declined in 1984. 1985 Apr. 10-26. Trip expenditure comparisons from 1972-73 to 1980-81. 1985 July. 46-48. PRODUCTIVITY A second look at industry output and employment trends through 1995. 1985 Nov. 26-41. MEDIATION Changing utilization of fixed capital: an element in long-term growth. 1985 May. 3-8. The Decline in productivity in the first half of 1984, The. 1985 Dec. 39-42. fmcs contribution to nonlabor dispute resolution. 1985 Aug. 31-34. Factors in the productivity of military personnel. 1985 May. 33-35. MEXICO The 1982 Mexican peso devaluation and border area employment. 1985 Oct. 25-32. Hours at work increase relative to hours paid. 1985 June. 44-46. Productivity and costs in 1984. 1985 June. 40-43. MINORITIES Productivity growth below average in the internal combustion engine in dustry. 1985 May. 22-26. Earnings of 1975 Vietnam refugees surpass U.S. average in 4 years. 1985 Aug. 45. Productivity growth low in the oilfield machinery industry. 1985 Dec. 3438. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 99 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Index to Volume 108 Productivity increased in many industries in 1983. 1985 Mar. 31-34. Data needs. 1985 Apr. 2. Productivity trends in the Federal Government. 1985 Oct. 3-9. Productivity trends in kitchen cabinet manufacturing. 1985 Mar. 24-30. Implementing the Levitan Commission’s recommendations to improve la bor data. 1985 Feb. 16-24. Productivity trends in the machine tool accessories industry. 1985 June. 28-32. New household survey and the Sept. 3-12. Union productivity effects. 1985 Jan. 60. Measuring labor force flows: a special conference examines the problems. 1985 July. 7-17. cps: a look at labor force differences. 1985 PROJECTIONS A second look at industry output and employment trends through 1995. 1985 Nov. 26-41. bls projections procedures. 1985 Nov. 58-59. SURVEY OF INCOME AND PROGRAM PARTICIPATION New household survey and the Sept. 3-12. cps: a look at labor force differences. 1985 Economic outlook to 1995: new assumptions and projections, The. 1985 Nov. 3-16. SWEDEN Labor force: bls’ latest projections, The 1995. 1985 Nov. 17-25. Modeling Army enlistment supply for the All-Volunteer Force. 1985 Aug. 35-39. Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. Occupational employment projections: the 1984-95 outlook. 1985 Nov. 4 2 - 57. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES Productivity trends in the Federal Government. 1985 Oct. 3-9. Flexible and partial retirement in Norway and Sweden. 1985 Oct. 33-43. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE Cyclical behavior of high tech industries. 1985 May. 9-15. examines impact of technology on worker safety and health. 1985 Aug. 46-47. ilo RETIREM ENT Impact of microelectronics on employment: Japan’s experience, The. 1985 Sept. 45-48. Estimating the effects of changing Social Security benefit formulas. 1985 July. 44-45. Technological changes in printing: union response in three countries. 1985 July. 41-43. Flexible and partial retirement in Norway and Sweden. 1985 Oct. 33-43. TRADE UNIONS (See Labor organizations.) Today’s pension plans: how much do they pay? 1985 Dec. 19-25. Using the 46-49. cps to track retirement trends among older men. 1985 Feb. TRAINING (See Education and training.) UNEMPLOYMENT (See also Employment; Labor force.) SALARIES (See Earnings and wages.) Changes in regional unemployment over the last decade. 1985 Mar. 17-23. SOCIAL SECURITY Displaced workers of 1979-83: how well have they fared? 1985 June. 3-16. Estimating the effects of changing Social Security benefit formulas. 1985 July. 44-45. STATE GOVERNMENT expands collective bargaining series for State and local government. 1985 May. 36-38. bls Changes in unemployment insurance legislation during 1984. 1985 Jan. 4 3 - 48. State labor legislation enacted in 1984. 1985 Jan. 27-42. State employee bargaining: policy and organization. 1985 Apr. 51-55. Workers’ compensation: 1984 State enactments. 1985 Jan. 49-53. Employment and unemployment in 1984: a second year of strong growth in jobs. 1985 Feb. 3-15. Employment in recession and recovery: a demographic flow analysis. 1985 Mar. 35-42. Employment problems and their effect on family income, 1979-83. 1985 Aug. 42-43. Implementing the Levitan Commission’s recommendations to improve la bor data. 1985 Feb. 16-24. Labor force: bls’ latest projections, The 1995. 1985 Nov. 17-25. STATISTICAL PROGRAMS AND METHODS Mexican peso devaluation and border area employment, The 1982. 1985 Oct. 25-32. Implementing the Levitan Commission’s recommendations to improve la bor data. 1985 Feb. 16-24. New Federal-State program to train dislocated workers, The. 1985 July. 32-35. Improving statistics. 1985 Feb. 2. Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. Measuring labor force flows: a special conference examines the problems. 1985 July. 7-17. SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS Age-related reductions in workers’ life insurance. 1985 Sept. 29-34. Child-care assistance as a benefit of employment. 1985 May. 41. Employee income protection against short-term disabilities. 1985 Feb. 32-38. Today’s pension plans: how much do they pay? 1985 Dec. 19-25. SURVEY METHODS expands collective bargaining series for State and local government. 1985 May. 36-38. bls 100 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE Changes in unemployment insurance legislation during 1984. 1985 Jan. 43-48. Unemployment insurance program solvency in the 1980’s. 1985 May. 27-28. Unemployment insurance system marks its 50th anniversary. 1985 Sept. 27-28. UNION MEMBERSHIP Area wage surveys shed light on declines in unionization. 1985 Sept. 13-20. Four nations’ policies toward displaced steel workers. 1985 July. 35-39. Gould, William B . Japan’s Reshaping o f American Labor Law. 1985 Apr. 62-63. Technological changes in printing: union response in three countries. 1985 July. 41-43. Gladstone, Alan and John P. Windmuller. Employers Associations and Industrial Relations: A Comparative Study. 1985 July. 58. WAGES (See Earnings and wages.) Gray, Susan H., Dean W. Morse, and Anna B. Dutka. Life After Early Retirement: The Experience o f Lower-Level Workers. 1985 Mar. 5 354. UNITED KINGDOM WHITE-COLLAR WORKERS Occupational salary levels for white-collar workers, 1985. 1985 Oct. 44-46. WOMEN Comparable worth in the job market: estimating its effect. 1985 July. 39-41. Status of women in Canada’s labor force, The. 1985 Aug. 44-45. International Labor Office. World Labour Report, Volumes 1 and 2. 1985 Nov. 65— 68. Jerdee, Thomas H. and Benson Rosen. Older Employees: New Roles for Valued Resources. 1985 Sept. 53-54. Katz, Harry C., Thomas A. Kochan, and Nancy R. Mower. Worker Par ticipation and American Unions: Threat or Opportunity? 1985 Mar. 50-53. Women and minorities: their proportions grow in the professional work force. 1985 Feb. 49-50. Kochan, Thomas A., Harry C. Katz, and Nancy R. Mower. Worker Par ticipation and American Unions: Threat or Opportunity? 1985 Mar. 50-53. WORK INJURIES AND ILLNESSES Laroque, Pierre and others. Into the Twenty-First Century: The Devel opment o f Social Security. 1985 Dec. 52-53. ilo labor yearbook: some international comparisons. 1985 Feb. 51-52. Work-related deaths dropped sharply during 1983, Sept. 41-44. bls survey finds. 1985 WORKLIFE Estimating lost future earnings using the new worklife tables. 1985 Feb. 39-42. Estimating lost future earnings using the new worklife tables: a comment. 1985 Feb. 42. Revised worklife tables reflect 1979-80 experience. 1985 Aug. 23-30. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Workers’ compensation: 1984 State enactments. 1985 Jan. 49-53. WORK STOPPAGES ilo labor yearbook: some international comparisons. 1985 Feb. 51-52. YOUTH (See Labor force.) DEPARTMENTS Anatomy of Price Change. July issue. Book Reviews. Each issue. Communications. February and April issues. Conference Papers. May, June, and July issues. Current Labor Statistics. Each issue. Developments in Industrial Relations. Each issue except January. Foreign Labor Developments. August, September, and December issues. Labor Month in Review. Each issue except August. Major Agreements Expiring Next Month. Each issue. Productivity Reports. March, June, and December issues. Research Notes. January issue. Research Summaries. Each issue except March. Technical Notes. February, March, and August issues. BOOK REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTES (Listed by author of book.) Bernstein, Irving. A History o f the American Worker, 1933-1941: A Car ing Society— The New Deal, the Worker, and the Great Depression. 1985 Aug. 52-53. Briggs, Vernon M ., Jr. Immigration Policy and the American Labor Force. 1985 May. 49-50. Churchill, Helene, Carol Sheets, Kezia V. Sproat. The National Longi tudinal Surveys o f Labor Market Experience: An Annotated Bibliography o f Research. 1985 Aug. 53. Dutka, Anna B., Susan H. Gray, Dean W. Morse. Life After Early Re tirement: The Experience o f Lower-Level Workers. 1985 Mar. 53-54. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Lawrence, Robert Z. Can America Compete? 1985 Jan. 62. Lindberg, Leon N. and Charles S. Maier. The Politics o f Inflation and Economic Stagnation: Theoretical Approaches and International Case Studies. 1985 Dec. 51-52. Maier, Charles S. and Leon N. Lindberg. The Politics o f Inflation and Economic Stagnation: Theoretical Approaches and International Case Studies. 1985 Dec. 51-52. Miller, Mark J. and Demetrios G. Papademetriou. The Unavoidable Issues: U.S. Immigration Policy in the 1980’s. 1985 May. 49. Mower, Nancy R., Thomas A. Kochan, and Harry C. Katz. Worker Par ticipation and American Unions: Threat or Opportunity? 1985 Mar. 50-53. Morse, Dean W ., Anna B. Dutka, and Susan H. Gray. Life After Early Retirem ent: The Experience o f Lower-Lev el Workers. 1985 Mar. 53-54. Papademetriou, Demetrios G. and Mark J. Miller. The Unavoidable Issue: Immigration Policy in the 1980’s. 1985 May. 49. Rodden, Robert G. The Fighting Machinist: A Century o f Struggle. 1985 July. 59. Rosen, Benson and Thomas H. Jerdee. Older Employees: New Roles fo r Valued Resources. 1985 Sept. 53-54. Rosenbloom, Jerry S. The Handbook o f Employee Benefits: Design, Fund ing and Administration. 1985 July. 59-60. Schatz, Ronald W. The Electrical Workers: A History o f Labor at General Electric and Westinghouse, 1923-1960. 1985 June. 53-54. Schuster, Michael H. Union-Management Cooperation: Structure, Pro cess, and Impact. 1985 Sept. 54-55. Sheets, Carol, Kezia V. Sproat, and Helene Churchill. The National Lon gitudinal Surveys o f Labor Market Experience: An Annotated Bibliog raphy o f Research. 1985 Aug. 53. Sproat, Kezia V., Helene Churchill, and Carol Sheets. The National Lon gitudinal Surveys o f Labor Market Experience: An Annotated Bibliog raphy o f Research. 1985 Aug. 53. Willenz, June A., Women Veterans. 1985 Feb. 61-62. Windmuller, John P. and Alan Gladstone. Employers Associations and Industrial Relations: A Comparative Study. 1985 July. 58-59. Zack, Arnold M., Public Sector Mediation. 1985 Oct. 54. AUTHORS Adams, Larry T. Changing employment patterns of organized workers. 1985 Feb. 25-31. 101 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Index to Volume 108 Adams, Roy J. Should works councils be used as industrial relations policy? 1985 July. 25-29. Farrell, John B. Establishment survey incorporates March 1984 employ ment benchmarks. 1985 Aug. 39-41. Alter, George C. and William E. Becker. Estimating lost future earnings using new worklife tables. 1985 Feb. 39-42. Fields, Gary S. and Olivia S. Mitchell. Estimating the effects of changing Social Security benefit formulas. 1985 July. 44-45. Barbash, Jack. Book review. 1985 July. 58. Fischer, Dale and Louis Harrell. The 1982 Mexican peso devaluation and border area employment. 1985 Oct. 25-32. Barrett, Jerome T. The 1985 Aug. 31-34. fmcs contribution to nonlabor dispute resolution. Becker, William E. and George C. Alter. Estimating lost future earnings using new worklife tables. 1985 Feb. 39-42. Bednarzik, Robert W. The impact of microelectronics on employment: Japan’s experience. 1985 Sept. 45-48. Bell, Carolyn Shaw. Comparable worth: how do we know it will work? 1985 Dec. 5-12. Bennett, Norman and Horst Brand. Productivity trends in kitchen cabinet manufacturing. 1985 Mar. 24-30. Fisk, Donald M. Productivity trends in the Federal Government. 1985 Oct. 3-9. Flaim, Paul O. and Carma R. Hogue. Measuring labor force flows: a special conference examines the problems. 1985 July. 7-17. — and Ellen Sehgal. Displaced workers of 1979-83: how well have they fared? 1985 June. 3-16. Foss, Murray F. Changing utilization of fixed capital: an element in long term growth. 1985 May. 3-8. Boatman, Robin Misner. Research note. 1985 Jan. 60. Friedman, Brian L. and Arthur S. Herman. Productivity growth low in the oilfield machinery industry. 1985 Dec. 34-38. Borum, Joan D. and David Schlein. Bargaining activity light in private industry in 1985. 1985 Jan. 13-26. Fulco, Lawrence J. The decline in productivity in the first half of 1984. 1985 Dec. 39-42. Burgan. John U. Cyclical behavior of high tech industries. 1985 May. 9-15. Burtless, Gary and Wayne Vroman. Unemployment insurance program solvency in the 1980’s. 1985 May. 27-28. — .Productivity and costs in 1984. 1985 June. 40-43. Fullerton, Howard N, Jr. The 1995 labor force: 1985 Nov. 17— 25 bls’ latest projections. Brand, Horst. Book review. 1985 Nov. 65-68. Ginzburg, Helen. Flexible and partial retirement in Norway and Sweden. 1985 Oct. 33-43. — and Norman Bennett. Productivity trends in kitchen cabinet manufac turing. 1985 Mar. 24-30. Gleason, Sandra E. Comparable worth: Some questions still unanswered. 1985 Dec. 17-18. Bregger, John E. and Paul M. Ryscavage. New household survey and the cps: a look at labor force differences. 1985 Sept. 3-12. Goldberg, Joseph P. Book review. 1985 Dec. 51-52. Gribbons, Gerry and Todd Darr. How U.S. exports are faring in the world wheat market. 1985 Oct. 10-24. Buckley, John E. Wage differences among workers in the same job and establishment. 1985 Mar. 11-16. Guzda, Henry P. Book review. 1985 July. 59. Cappelli, Peter and Timothy H. Harris. Airline union concessions in the wake of deregulation. 1985 June. 37-39. Hamel, Harvey R. New data series on involuntary part-time work. 1985 Mar. 42-43. Clem, Andrew. Commodity price volatility: trends during 1975-84. 1985 June. 17-21. — and John T. Tucker. Implementing the Levitan Commission’s recom mendations to improve labor data. 1985 Feb. 16-24. — and James E. Duggan. Input prices and cost inflation in three manu facturing industries. 1985 May. 16-21. Hansen, Gary B. Innovative approach to plant closings: the UAW-Ford experience at San Jose. 1985 June. 34-37. Conley, James R. and John J. Lacombe II. Major agreements in 1984 provide record low wage increases. 1985 Apr. 39-45. Harrell, Louis and Dale Fischer. The 1982 Mexican peso devaluation and border area employment. 1985 Oct. 25-32. Cook, Robert F. and Wayne M. Tumage. The new Federal-State program to train dislocated workers. 1985 July. 32-35. Hams, Timothy H. and Peter Cappelli. Airline union concessions in the wake of deregulation. 1985 June. 37-39. Costello, Brian and Patricia Szarek. Prices of U.S. imports and exports declined in 1984. 1985 Apr. 10-26. Henneberger, J. Edwin and Arthur S. Herman. Productivity growth below average in the internal combustion engine industry. 1985 May. 22-26. Cotter, Diane M. Work-related deaths dropped sharply during 1983, survey finds. 1985 Sept. 41-44. bls Hendricks, Wallace E. and Lawrence M. Kahn. The future of wage in dexation in collective bargaining contracts. 1985 May. 29-32. Darr, Todd and Gerry Gribbons. How U.S. exports are faring in the world wheat market. 1985 Oct. 10-24. Herman, Arthur S. and Brian L. Friedman. Productivity growth low in oilfield machinery industry. 1985 Dec. 34-38. Devens, Richard M. Jr. Book review. 1985 Jan. 62. — .Productivity increased in many industries in 1983. 1985 Mar. 31-34. — Carol Boyd Leon, and Debbie L. Sprinkle. Employment and unem ployment in 1984: a second year of strong growth in jobs. 1985 Feb. 3-15. Douty, H. M. Book review. 1985 Aug. 52-53. Doyle, Philip M. Area wage surveys shed light on declines in unionization. 1985 Sept. 13-20. Duggan, James E. and Andrew G. Clem. Input prices and cost inflation in three manufacturing industries. 1985 May. 16-21. Dunlop, John T. Needed: an interdisciplinary approach to labor markets and wage determination. 1985 July. 30-32. Englander, Frederick. The author replies: we still need to demonstrate program effectiveness. 1985 Apr. 49-50. Evans, Robert, Jr. Book review. 1985 Apr. 62-63. 102 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis — and J. Edwin Henneberger. Productivity growth below average in the internal combustion engine industry. 1985 May. 22-26. Hogue, Carma R. and Paul O. Flaim. Measuring labor force flows: a special conference examines the problems. 1985 July. 7-17. Home, David K. Modeling Army enlistment supply for the All-Volunteer Force. 1985 Aug. 35-39. Howell, Craig and William Thomas. Inflation remained low during 1984. 1985 Apr. 3-9. Inaba, Gail F. and Helene S. Tanimoto. State employee bargaining: policy and organization. 1985 Apr. 51-55. Jacoby, Sanford M. Cost-of-living escalators became prevalent in the 1950’s. 1985 May. 32-33. Kahn, Lawrence M. and Wallace E. Hendricks. The future of wage in dexation in collective bargaining contracts. 1985 May. 29-32. Kassalow, Everett M. Four nations’ policies toward displaced steel work ers. 1985 July. 35-39. Quester, Aline O. and Alan J. Marcus. Factors in the productivity of military personnel. 1985 May. 33-35. Katz, Harry C., Thomas A. Kochan, and Robert B. McKersie. U.S. industrial relations in transition. 1985 May. 28-29. Rodgers, Robert C. and Jack Stieber. Employee discharge in the 20th century: a review of the literature. 1985 Sept. 35-41. Killingsworth, Mark R. Comparable worth in the job market: estimating its effects. 1985 July. 39-41. Rohrlich, George F. Book review. 1985 Dec. 52-53. King, Sandra L. and Harry B. Williams. Shift work differentials and practices in manufacturing. 1985 Dec. 26-33. — . Revisions in Hispanic population and labor force data. 1985 Mar. 43-44. Kochan, Thomas A., Robert B. McKersie, and Harry C. Katz. U.S. industrial relations in transition. 1985 May. 28-29. — . Using the 46-49. Koziara, Karen S. Comparable worth: organizational dilemmas. 1985 Dec. 13-16. Rosbrow, James M. Unemployment insurance system marks its 50th an niversary. 1985 Sept. 21-28. Krislov, Joseph. Book review. 1985 Oct. 54. Rosenthal, Neal H. The shrinking middle class: myth or reality? 1985 Mar. 3-10. Kunze, Kent. Hours at work increase relative to hours paid. 1985 June. 44-46. Lacombe, John J. II and James R. Conley. Major agreements in 1984 provide record low wage increases. 1985 Apr. 39-45. Lattimore, Pamela K. and Ann D. Witte. Programs to aid ex-offenders: we don’t know ‘nothing works.’ 1985 Apr. 46-48. Leon, Carol Boyd, Debbie L. Sprinkle, and Richard M. Devens, Jr. Em ployment and unemployment in 1984: a second year of strong growth in jobs. 1985 Feb. 3-15. Rones, Philip L. Book review. 1985 Sept. 53-54. cps to track retirement trends among older men. 1985 Feb. Ruben, George. Modest labor-management bargains continue in 1984 de spite the recovery. 1985 Jan. 3-12. Runner, Diana. Changes in unemployment insurance legislation during 1984. 1985 Jan. 43-48. Ryscavage, Paul M. and John E. Bregger. New household survey and the cps: a look at labor force differences. 1985 Sept. 3-12. Schlein, David and Joan D. Borum. Bargaining activity light in private industry in 1985. 1985 Jan. 13-26. Linsenmayer, Tadd. ilo adopts new standards on health services, labor data. 1985 Dec. 43-45. Schmitt, Donald G. Tips: the mainstay of many hotel workers’ pay. 1985 July. 50-51. — .ilo examines impact of technology on worker safety and health. 1985 Aug. 46-47. — . Today’s pension plans: how much do they pay? 1985 Dec. 19-25. Lippert, Alice A. Trip expenditure comparisons from 1972-73 to 198081. 1985 July. 46-48. Lukasiewicz, John M. and George T. Silvestri. Occupational employment projections: the 1984-95 outlook. 1985 Nov. 42-57. Manser, Marilyn E. Research note. 1985 Jan. 60. Marcoot, John L. Revision of Consumer Price Index is now under way. 1985 Apr. 27-38. Marcus, Alan J. and Aline O. Quester. Factors in the productivity of military personnel. 1985 May. 33-35. McCollum, James K. Book review. 1985 June. 53-54. Schwenk, Albert E. Introducing new weights for the Employment Cost Index. 1985 June. 22-27. Sehgal, Ellen. Employment problems and their effect on family income, 1979-83. 1985 Aug. 42-43. — . Book review. 1985 May. 49-50. — . Book review. 1985 Aug. 53. — . Foreign bom in the U.S. labor market: the result of a special survey. 1985 July. 18-24. — and Paul O. Flaim. Displaced workers of 1979-83: how well have they fared? 1985 June. 3-16. McDonald, Richard J. Research note. 1985 Jan. 60. Shank, Susan Elizabeth. Changes in regional unemployment over the last decade. 1985 Mar. 17-23. McKersie, Robert B., Harry C. Katz, and Thomas A. Kochan. U.S. industrial relations in transition. 1985 May. 28-29. — . Employment rose in the first half of 1985 as the recovery entered its third year. 1985 Aug. 3-8. Mellor, Earl F. Weekly earnings in 1983: a look at more than 200 occu pations. 1985 Jan. 54-59. Sheifer, Victor J. Book review. 1985 July. 59-60. Miller, Michael A. Age-related reductions in workers’ life insurance. 1985 Sept. 29-34. Silvestri, George T. and John M. Lukasiewicz. Occupational employment projections: the 1984-95 outlook. 1985 Nov. 42-57. Mitchell, Daniel J. B. Gaps in monitoring wages and industrial relations. 1985 June. 33-34. Su, Betty W. The economic outlook to 1995: new assumptions and pro jections. 1985 Nov. 3-16. Mitchell, Olivia S. and Gary S. Fields. Estimating the effects of changing Social Security benefit formulas. 1985 July. 44-45. Smith, Shirley J. Estimating lost future earnings using the new worklife tables: a comment. 1985 Feb. 42. Moy, Joyanna. Recent trends in unemployment and the labor force, 10 countries. 1985 Aug. 9-22. — . Revised worklife tables reflect 1979-80 experience. 1985 Aug. 2330. Nelson, Richard R. State labor legislation enacted in 1984. 1985 Jan. 27-43. Sprinkle, Debbie L., Richard M. Devens, Jr., and Carol Boyd Leon. Employment and unemployment in 1984: a second year of strong growth in jobs. 1985 Feb. 3-15. Norwood, Janet L. One hundred years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1985 July. 3-6. Shore, Richard P. Book review. 1985 Mar. 50-53. Stepp, John R. Book review. 1985 Sept. 54-55. — .Perspectives on comparable worth: an introduction to the numbers. 1985 Dec. 3-4. Stieber, Jack and Robert C. Rodgers. Employee discharge in the 20th century: a review of the literature. 1985 Sept. 35-41. Personick, Valerie A. A second look at industry output and employment trends through 1995. 1985 Nov. 26-41. Szarek, Patricia and Brian Costello. Prices of U.S. imports and exports declined in 1984. 1985 Apr. 10-26. Prieser, Carl. Occupational salary levels for white-collar workers, 1985 Oct. 44-46. Tanimoto, Helene S. and Gail F. Inaba. State employee bargaining: policy and organization. 1985 Apr. 51-55. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 103 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1985 • Index to Volume 108 Thomas, William and Craig Howell. Inflation remained low during 1984 Apr. 3-9 . Williams, Donald R. Employment in recession and recovery: a demo graphic flow analysis. 1985 Mar. 35-42. Tinsley, LaVeme C. Workers’ compensation: 1984 State enactments. 1985 Jan. 49-53. Williams, Harry B. Earnings of employees of certified air carriers. 1985 Nov. 60-61. Tucker, John T. and Harvey R. Hamel. Implementing the Levitan Com mission’s recommendations to improve labor data. 1985 Feb. 16-24. — .Shift work pay differentials and practices in manufacturing. 1985 Dec. 26-33. Tumage, Wayne M. and Robert F. Cook. The New Federal-State program to train dislocated workers. 1985 July. 32-35. — .Wages at motor vehicle plants outpaced those at parts factories. 1985 May. 38-40. Vroman, Wayne and Gary Burtless. Unemployment insurance program solvency in the 1980’s. 1985 May. 27-28. Witte, Ann D. and Pamela K. Lattimore. Programs to aid ex-offenders: we don’t know ‘nothing works.’ 1985 Apr. 46-48. Wool, Harold. Book review. 1985 May. 49. Waldman, Elizabeth. Book review. 1985 Feb. 61-62. Wright, Audrey J. Book review. 1985 Mar. 53-54. Wallace, Michael, Technological changes in printing: union response in three countries. 1985 July. 41-43. York, James D. Productivity trends in the machine tool accessories in dustry. 1985 June. 28-32. Wasilewski, Edward, bls expands collective bargaining series for State and local government. 1985 May. 36-38. Young, Anne McDougall. New monthly data series on school age youth. 1985 July. 49-50. Wiatrowski, William J. Employee income protection against short-term disabilities. 1985 Feb. 32-38. — . One fourth of all adult labor force are college graduates. 1985 Feb. 43-46. A smoother ride for auto workers When a strike threatened in the auto industry in November 1934, Leon Henderson, Chief Economist of the National Recovery Administration, asked [b l s Commissioner Isador] Lubin’s help in an investigation. The Bureau conducted a study of wages in the industry, including analyses of annual earnings, employment patterns, and seasonal fluctuations in pro duction. Henderson and Lubin personally interviewed industry represen tatives. Among their recommendations was one accepted by the auto manufacturers, that new models be brought out in November, rather than in December, to achieve greater regularization of employment. — Jo seph P. G oldberg and W il l ia m T. M oye The First Hundred Years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2235 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985). 104 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Contents The First Hundred Years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics T he First H undred Clears of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Professor Richard B. Morris, Columbia University, says: “...my congratulations to Messrs. Goldberg and Moye for their very perceptive account of activities so central to the economic life of the country and so little understood.” I. Origins II. Carroll Wright: Setting the Course III. Charles Neill: Studies for Economic and Social Reform IV. Royal Meeker: Statistics in Recession and Wartime V. Ethelbert Stewart: Holding the Fort Joseph P Goldberg and W illiam T Moye VI. Isador Lubin: Meeting Emergency Demands VII. Ewan Clague: An Expanding Role for Economic Indicators Professor Irving Bernstein, University of California, Los Angeles, noted that Goldberg and Moye VIII. Four Commissioners (Ross, Moore, Shiskin, Norwood): An Economy Going by the Numbers IX. History as Prologue: The Continuing Mission “...are to be commended for a first-class work of historical scholarship. It is solidly based on primary sources, is logically organized, and is lucidly written.” Appendix: BLS Publications Source Notes Index Photo Section Mail order form to: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 r ------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------^ Order Form Edition Paper Cloth Price $10.50 GPO Stock No. 029-001-02580-4 15.00 029-001-02851-2 No. of Copies ISBN 0-935043-01-2 0-935043-00-4 Total cost: or Bureau of Labor Statistics Publication Sales Center P.O. Box 2145 Chicago, IL 60690 https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Please send me the publications I have indicated. Name. Street Address. City, State, and Zip. 0 Enclosed is a check or money order payable to Superintendent of Documents. □ Charge to GPO Account No. . ____________________________________ □ Charge* to p g p M Account No------------------------------------------Expiration date 0 Charge* to| im Sm b I • J Account No._____________________ __ ‘ Acceptable only on orders sent to the Superintendent of Documents. GPO prices are subject to change without notice. Cost $ $ Expiration date. $ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER